PDA

View Full Version : P-39 Cobra ... Oleg please fix it !!!



XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 04:42 PM
Everybody wanna real flightsim. Real as is possible.
But since FB release Cobra does not fly like in real....

Here is some data for interest..

***** Climbrate *****
-In version 1.11 after takeoff i can climbing with P-39 N1 around 20 m/sec with extra ammo and 100% fuel.
-In real is it 13 - 14 m/sec only...

-links
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/bellp39.html
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p39_airacobra.html


***** Spin *****
-In version 1.11 it is not possible to gain flat spin. If you gain something like spin you need one or two rotary to recover it. It makes no sence to talk about inverted spin...
-In real every pilots talk about wery dificult flying with P39 and about unrecoverable flat spin. Where is old flight model from first version of IL2 ? It was real there.

-links
"Overall handling had degraded to a point where some claimed (without a grain of truth) that if the pilot simply sneezed, the plane would spin. Some Brits flat out refused to fly the plane, one pilot saying it was more dangerous to RAF pilots than the Luftwaffe."
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/XP-39.html

"The P-39 was very demanding; its high wing loading made it less maneuverable than the P-40. With the engine behind the pilot, it could easily spin flat or inverted."
http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/bldefendingportmoresby1.htm

"The plane was too small, too heavy, too slow, too low ( about an 18000 foot ceiling, and easily and quickly slipped into a flat spin from which there was no recovery. It also badly overheated during taxiing."
http://www.aafo.com/library/history/B-17/b17part6.htm


***** And here is some page from russian white papers *****
look at second para in left column
http://193.179.236.40/kyza/16.jpg



S!

CSL_Kyza

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 04:42 PM
Everybody wanna real flightsim. Real as is possible.
But since FB release Cobra does not fly like in real....

Here is some data for interest..

***** Climbrate *****
-In version 1.11 after takeoff i can climbing with P-39 N1 around 20 m/sec with extra ammo and 100% fuel.
-In real is it 13 - 14 m/sec only...

-links
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/bellp39.html
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p39_airacobra.html


***** Spin *****
-In version 1.11 it is not possible to gain flat spin. If you gain something like spin you need one or two rotary to recover it. It makes no sence to talk about inverted spin...
-In real every pilots talk about wery dificult flying with P39 and about unrecoverable flat spin. Where is old flight model from first version of IL2 ? It was real there.

-links
"Overall handling had degraded to a point where some claimed (without a grain of truth) that if the pilot simply sneezed, the plane would spin. Some Brits flat out refused to fly the plane, one pilot saying it was more dangerous to RAF pilots than the Luftwaffe."
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/XP-39.html

"The P-39 was very demanding; its high wing loading made it less maneuverable than the P-40. With the engine behind the pilot, it could easily spin flat or inverted."
http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/bldefendingportmoresby1.htm

"The plane was too small, too heavy, too slow, too low ( about an 18000 foot ceiling, and easily and quickly slipped into a flat spin from which there was no recovery. It also badly overheated during taxiing."
http://www.aafo.com/library/history/B-17/b17part6.htm


***** And here is some page from russian white papers *****
look at second para in left column
http://193.179.236.40/kyza/16.jpg



S!

CSL_Kyza

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 05:03 PM
When you quote sources, try not to mix up P-39D's with the ones we have.
It may be wrong in 1.11 but how wrong the wrong sources don't say.

Yak 1 is different from Yak 3? So is P-39D from P-39N.

Unless British pilots refused to fly N models?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 05:12 PM
Every type of Cobra have problems with spin !!!

S!

CSL_Kyza

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 05:19 PM
The Cobra as it's modelled with the new patch now goes into flat spins, whereas in FB 1.1b this was not so easy. You just have to push it quite hard and at quite extreme angles of attack.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 05:32 PM
By the way, American pilot who compared P-39 and P-40 said that after Cobra flying P-40 was like driving a track. Quote was posted on this forum, can't find now.
But I also had problem forcing Cobra into flat spin in v1.1b. That was a disappointment.
Didn't test it in v1.11 yet.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 05:36 PM
Chuck Yeager loved the P-39:


http://www.edwards.af.mil/gallery/yeager/docs_html/P-39.html


These are Airacobras from Yeager's squadron at Tonopah, Nev.; the skull-and-scythe marking on the door was an unofficial emblem of the 363rd Fighter Squadron With an official pilot rating, Flight Officer Yeager and 30 other pilots were sent to Tonopah, Nev., the first of several western bases where they would spend six months of intensive training in the P-39 Airacobra. This training transformed them into a combat unit - the 363rd Fighter Squadron By 1943 the skittish P-39 was being withdrawn from most front-line combat use, but was an excellent airplane in which to learn advanced flying and fighting skills. Lively and agile at low-to-medium altitudes,the P-39 always flew at the very edge of stability, and it could be deadly to hamfisted or unattentive fliers. Yeager loved the airplane:
"Once you had a feel for the ship and understood it, the P-39 was a fun airplane to fly."

I don't know what "model version" of the P39 Yeager flew, but:
1. It was when he was a TRAINING pilot and he liked it.
2. It likely was the D model, which we believe was more difficult than the N and Q models to fly.

That link also has Yeager's view of many plane types as well..

" The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down ": General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262 - - -
" Aggressiveness was a fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting ": Captain David McCampbell, USN, leading U.S. Navy ace in W.W.II.



Message Edited on 09/09/0309:37AM by TBS_TWIGTOTO

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 05:39 PM
Kyza that Russian text clearly refers to the Airacobra I (D model).

_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 05:59 PM
See the real secret to the cobra in the USSR is that when the allies shiped them over,uncle Joe Stalin sprinkled them all with a little fairy dust turning them into ultra fighter planes.

Its true! Its documented Oleg says so.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 06:18 PM
I didn`t noticed anything extraordinary with Cobras... just another plane. Maybe i should fly it and see what is so special about it

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 07:03 PM
I managed to put a Q1 model into an honest to god flat spin last night with version 1.1 (hadn't patched it yet and was just screwing around in QMB).

It was a left spin, with the nose going no more than 10-15 degrees above or below the horizon during the turns. Airspeed never read higher than 80, and was usually closer to 40 for most of the descent.

As I was at a reasonable altitude at the time I spent roughly 15 seconds attempting to recover the aircraft, but nothing I did would modify the spin in the least. It was well and truly stuck in the spin and nothing short of an impact was going to bring it out.

I finally gave up on it and bailed, and was killed as the rotating aircraft came around again after I exited the plane. The resulting impact tore off part of the P39's wing, and it spun one last time, went nose down and then went straight in.

I've experienced many spins in the '39 before, but never a true flat spin until last night. I think the stopped engine may have had something to do with it, because before when I've gotten into a nearly flat spin I've been able to drop the flaps and go to full power and break out of it. This usually results in a more normal spin, which can then be recovered from using standard methods.

Bit of a shame too, because it ruined an otherwise perfect Taran attack. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I was able to come in slow enough on the Zwilling that the only damage to my plane was the stoppage of the engine.

A later attempt in a P47 went even better, as I killed all 4 of the target Zwillings - 3 with guns and one with a Taran, after which I was able to glide the plane to a landing in the field with no additional damage.

Fun stuff. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ZG77_Nagual
09-09-2003, 07:08 PM
I encounter p39s in flat spins almost every time I fly online - much more than other aircraft(no - it's not me spinning!). I haven't flat spun it myself much - though I think I did manage it twice offline in 1.1b - the cobra has rarely spun for me since I got used to it in the original il2

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 07:33 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- the cobra has rarely spun for me since I
- got used to it in the original il2


Agreed. It's rare that I ever put it into a spin myself these days, although I do see it quite a bit online.

Far more often I'll push it just a little too hard and it'll start to roll over on me, but I almost always have it stopped and back on track again before it can get beyond about 45 degrees. Spins, however, are something I generally don't have a problem with anymore.

That's part of what surprised me so much with the flat spin last night. Up until that point, I'd never encountered a spin I couldn't recover from. Sure, there have been times in the past where I've run out of altitude on pull out, or spun so close to the ground that I didn't have time to react, or I recovered and then immediately spun it in the opposite direction, but I'd never been in a spin where there was nothing I could do to save myself short of bailing out.

The Cobra will definitely bite you if you don't know how to handle it, but once you learn its limits and respect them, it's almost hard to spin the thing. You simply learn what not to do and then you don't even have to think about it anymore.

Honestly, I suspect a lot of the "Uber P-39" whining that's been going on lately is misplaced. It seems to me that once the 109s got scaled back to about where they should be, people started to get eaten regularly by the P39s because the only people flying the P39s were the ones who knew and learned how to fly them.

This of course comes as a shock to all the people who'd overlooked the '39 as too difficult to fly or learn, or viewed it as a crap plane, so of course they go back and take a closer look.

They then quickly discover that contrary to their misplaced beliefs, it is a very nice aircraft, and always has been, once you learn how to fly it.

Then the whining begins, not necessarily because the P39 is now "uber" (to be honest, it was more "uber" in FB 1.0, but you never heard complaints back then), but because the 109s got scaled back a bit and the performance gap closed and people started to realize that it's a damn fine plane, just as it's always been.

So, whining or not, I'm sticking with my N1. It's been my favorite since the original IL-2, and I see no reason to stop flying it now just because some people have finally started to see it for the plane that it is.

It can be a dangerous aircraft, but it's the pilot's skill and experience that determines who it is most dangerous to.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 07:50 PM
The sustained climb of the P-39 is too good relative to the 109. That, and it's stall seems to be delayed like the FB 1.0 Hurricane.

But, on the other hand, its elevator gets very heavy at high speeds compared to any of the German a/c.

Message Edited on 09/09/0311:01AM by faustnik

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 08:07 PM
BinaryFalcon wrote:



-
- Honestly, I suspect a lot of the "Uber P-39" whining
- that's been going on lately is misplaced. It seems
- to me that once the 109s got scaled back to about
- where they should be, people started to get eaten
- regularly by the P39s because the only people flying
- the P39s were the ones who knew and learned
- how to fly them.
-
- This of course comes as a shock to all the people
- who'd overlooked the '39 as too difficult to fly or
- learn, or viewed it as a crap plane, so of course
- they go back and take a closer look.
-
- They then quickly discover that contrary to their
- misplaced beliefs, it is a very nice
- aircraft, and always has been, once you learn how to
- fly it.
-
- Then the whining begins, not necessarily because the
- P39 is now "uber" (to be honest, it was more "uber"
- in FB 1.0, but you never heard complaints back
- then), but because the 109s got scaled back a bit
- and the performance gap closed and people started to
- realize that it's a damn fine plane, just as it's
- always been.

I agree that when IL2 first arived the P-39 had quite a learning curve to fly. And to those who flew LW were very aware of the P-39 limitations and stall characteristics.
LW fanboys did'nt fear the P-39's so much in the beginning,and many were'nt to scared to get into BnT fights with there P-39 opponents. There was allways that possibility that your P-39 opponent would end up in a flat spin and game over.

But oh my how things have changed eh? I avoid yhe P-39 at all cost. After a BnZ run on them I dont stick around for tea and crumpits,Its see ya latter pal catch you later. This is the one plane that does everything good,turn,rollrate,dive,good weaponry,speed,did I miss anything?

So the line of horse crap I keep hearing from P-39 fanboys about it still being a plane with a hard learning curve is the most patronizing dribble that has ever been said on this forum.
I have tried the P-39 when IL2 first came out and I have tried it to date for curriosity sake. And believe me its a piece of cake now.

Anyone who has never tried IL2,can hop in todays P-39 and have no probs.

ZG77_Nagual
09-09-2003, 08:19 PM
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 08:43 PM
If anybody wants to get into an unrecoverable spin (flat or whatever) then take the P47, do a quarter loop and cut the throttle just as the nose of your plane points straight up. Then, just before you loose all airspeed, gently pull on the stick to make the nose come around and point down again. If you do it while having practically no airspeed left anymore at the top, you will invariably enter an unrecoverable (flat) spin in the P47.

Do the same in a P39 and you will never enter an unrecoverable spin.

Now, with the placement of the engine in the P39 and the *much* heavier nose of the P47 I find these very different results rather er.. striking. And this is no political post since I don't normally fly any of these machines, but I must say I was rather surprised.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 09:03 PM
Curiouser and curiouser.

Aaron, any thoughts? When does it stop being sheer coincidence?

ZG77_Nagual
09-09-2003, 09:09 PM
I like flying the cobra - I'm sick of people screaming flight model every time I shoot them down. Happens when I fly the 190 too. One day I shot down an la7 in the 190 - I'd been defensive for like 10 minutes and managed to get the drop on him - he screams flight model and leaves the game. I shoot down 39s all the time in the 190, one day I shot down a 190 in a 39 - guys screamed flight model and left the game.

Whatever - I'm going to fly what I feel like flyin. Maybe the 109 - haven't heard much complaining about that being overmodeled..

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 09:15 PM
Airborn_ wrote:
- If anybody wants to get into an unrecoverable spin
- (flat or whatever) then take the P47, do a quarter
- loop and cut the throttle just as the nose of your
- plane points straight up. Then, just before you
- loose all airspeed, gently pull on the stick to make
- the nose come around and point down again. If you do
- it while having practically no airspeed left anymore
- at the top, you will invariably enter an
- unrecoverable (flat) spin in the P47.
-
- Do the same in a P39 and you will never enter an
- unrecoverable spin.
-
- Now, with the placement of the engine in the P39 and
- the *much* heavier nose of the P47 I find these very
- different results rather er.. striking. And this is
- no political post since I don't normally fly any of
- these machines, but I must say I was rather
- surprised.
-
-I fly the P-47 only and have never ever entered a unrecoverable spin.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 09:44 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- I like flying the cobra - I'm sick of people
- screaming flight model every time I shoot them down.
- Happens when I fly the 190 too. One day I shot down
- an la7 in the 190 - I'd been defensive for like 10
- minutes and managed to get the drop on him - he
- screams flight model and leaves the game. I shoot
- down 39s all the time in the 190, one day I shot
- down a 190 in a 39 - guys screamed flight model and
- left the game.
-
- Whatever - I'm going to fly what I feel like flyin.


Exactly.

I've been known to jump into a P11 from time to time just to screw around, and I was getting regular kills on La's, I-16s, 109s... you name it.

As for people saying newbies can jump into the FB P39 and have no problems, I haven't seen it.

Lately I've been flying with and against a large number of people who are just starting out with this sim, and the vast majority of them are having more trouble with the P39 than anything else.

They'll try it, spin it in a few times, and then jump to something else. After a while of watching me zoom around in the N1 sometimes they'll jump back into the P39 and try it again, or try to follow me in a fight or even fight me, and they'll often stall/spin it again.

The real difference between us is that I've had a couple hundred hours in the IL2/FB P39, and I know just how far I can push it and for how long, and how to make it perform without getting into trouble.

The FB 1.1 Cobra seems a little more forgiving than the IL2 Cobra, but it's not as easy or forgiving as the FB 1.0 Cobra (and we never heard complaints about it then).

There are many aircraft in FB that are more "newbie" friendly than the P39.

Yes, the P39 turns, dives, and climbs pretty well, it also has a pretty good punch and decent top speed. It's a well rounded aircraft.

However, it's not the best at any of those things. There are plenty of aircraft out there with more punch, better climb, better dive, faster speed, better protection.

The Cobra doesn't excel at anything, but it's respectable at just about everything. Most of the aircraft that are undeniably tops in one area are weak in others, they trade wide functionality for specialization.

Think of it as a multi-tool vs. a selection of dedicated tools. The multi-tool has pliers, screwdrivers, knives, files, bottle openers etc, and it works fairly well for any situation you encounter. The real, dedicated versions of pliers, files, screwdrivers and the like work better than the multi-tool at their specific job, but try cutting something with a screwdriver, it doesn't work so well.

With a good pilot, there's little that the P39 can't deal with. It doesn't specialize in anything, save for maybe low altitude operations. If you hate it that much, stay high and make them come to you, they don't perform nearly so well above about 4,000m.

Dropping down to fight them on their own turf in the weeds is likely just going to get you into trouble.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 09:51 PM
Don´t forget that all Russian Airacobras were modified,
and should performe better than the same american standard model,

<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/789408.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 11:02 PM
Posted by HaVoK:

"I fly the P-47 only and have never ever entered a unrecoverable spin."

Oh, I believe you. Maybe because you made sure you never lost all E, in which case it might never happen. But anyone would be able to do it pretty easily while doing the manouver I described I reckon. I was doing a test to determine something completely different in the P47 and noticed this somewhat odd behaviour. Now, without saying that the P39 is completely off under these circumstances it did seem odd to me that it was the heavy-nosed plane that just wouldn't simply follow it's prop down towards the ground, but instead the P39 with it's much lighter nose and engine placed behind the cockpit, that's all.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 11:25 PM
Howdy

-Bogun wrote:
- By the way, American pilot who compared P-39 and
- P-40 said that after Cobra flying P-40 was like
- driving a track. Quote was posted on this forum,
- can't find now.
- But I also had problem forcing Cobra into flat spin
- in v1.1b. That was a disappointment.
- Didn't test it in v1.11 yet.
-
-
-
- AKA_Bogun
-
----------------
- The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction
- has to make sense.
-
-- Tom Clancy


Hmmm I'd like to see that.

P-39 and P40 were both contemporaries.
Lt. Col Boyd Wagner one the the USAAF first Aces flew both
the P-40E and the P-39D had this to say.
" Comparatively speaking, in performance the P-39 is
believed to be about 10 percent better in every respect
than the P-40, except in manoeverability, in which case the
P-40 is slightly bettter."

Driving a track,, you mean truck right.
Here a truck comment for you from a 39FS pilot (P-39D and
P400's) when asked about his first engagement with Zeros.

"A truck would have made a better interceptor, because it
could climb faster and was more manoeverable than the Bell
Fighter"

S!
Weasel

ZG77_Nagual
09-10-2003, 12:09 AM
Bah - rumors and bungery. Doofi who flew it for practice a couple a times. You know americans - allways lookin for something to blame when they lose. Boy the vvs aces sure make guys who said stuff like that look silly - don't then.(NOT a question)

By the way - I've flat spun a p40 and a 109 and a 190 before - never a p47 (takes some talent with that nose-heavy beast/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ) - engine torque'll do it though if you get slow enough.



http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:12 AM
The Jug spins quite easily here. Bubble top model at least. Pull a hard turn, it's snap sooner than you think and spin a few times. Recovery is easy though, but it does spin more than the P-39 (in my experience at least).

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:13 AM
Posted by ZG77_Nagual:

"- engine torque'll do it though if you get slow enough."

Ah okay, that could be a viable explanation I guess, since I still had the engine running at 0%, so the prop was spinning.

And to BP_DDT: I flew the D10, that is the bubble-top? I didn't check the others.



Message Edited on 09/10/0302:15AM by Airborn_

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:15 AM
I don't know whether or not the FM of the P-39 is overmodelled but I know that I have little trouble downing them online or off. Then again I fly the 190. I don't try to turn with them, or go into the vertical with them (unless I have altitude advantage at beginning of attack), I just out-run them and bounce them. They are relatively slow when compared to 190's of the same year. 109 guys may have a more difficult time if the climb rates of the two planes are off, but I'll let others discuss this.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:56 PM
Stalls aint bad in P-39, just a bit rudder and there u go again. have stalled many times but not a once a flat spin on ground. so, stall handlin is really easy with P-39. only a noobs gets emselfs on flat spin. learn to fly.
P-39 should be tail heavy when stall starts, it really should be feeld in somehow, now its bit like with othr planes.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 12:19 AM
feels that Stalls in 109 is way more violently than in P39, same with 190

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 12:37 AM
I love the P-39AC. All the bad comments were made on very heavy D models with more guns and extra armor. Most of those truly bad stalls were fixed in the Q version. If you read Soviet accounts of how the P-39 flew, they were vastly differant from the US/British because it was nearly a new aircraft with all the re-designs. Think of all the changes since the D version! I mean Q is pritty far down the alphabet! The Soviets loved ths US aircraft, and that says a lot since Stalin decreed everyone must hate US aircraft http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My BIG complaint on the P-39 is how heavy the rudder is now at high speeds as apposed to high LIGHT it is on the 109's! In IL2, a common tactic was to dive away from a 109. You could do this, and it was used many times with Soviet pilots. IF the 109 dove with you, he could not catch you. Now, he can. If the 109 pilot still was on your tail, pull up just before the ground meets you and the 109 could not pull up. Thus creating a lawn dart from a foolish 109 pilot. There have been many SOVIET reports of this. P-39 was VERY easy to pull out of a dive and had no bad compresability problems. Now, the 109 will CATCH you in a dive, and then be able to pull up a LOT faster WITHOUT BLACKING OUT!!! I was on a 109's tail in a dive at nearly 800KPH, and he pulled out of it like he was doing 300KPH with no problem. It took me a LOT to pull out, and I blacked out doing it. This is complete bull. Everyone knows the 109's elivator had problems locking at high speeds!

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:18 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- This is complete bull. Everyone knows
- the 109's elivator had problems locking at high
- speeds!

So it does in FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . Your enemy just used trim to help him a bit, which can be done in every plane, except the I16s /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif .

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:45 AM
I thought trim on a slider was fixed? Whats the new way of cheating? Also, does this trim thing prevent you from blacking out?

Gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:49 AM
Gib..if you were on TX server they have externals enabled so he may have been able to pull out and black-out but be able to see hwere he was. Also, if he had trimmed to max with a macro, he would continue to loop and not hit the ground.

But there is no way in a 109 that you don't blackout if you are pulling hard out of an 800kph dive.

But I agree that the sensitive elevtor of the 39 should return, but in exchange, pilots should need to be more cautious about yanking and banking in them. Right now, they are impossible to stall, at least no worse than any other plane.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 04:09 AM
I agree, the P-39 has gotten a LOT more forgiving in the stall department. Also, fatle stalls are nill. In IL2, I would just punch out the moment a stall started no matter the alt, now I hang in, and recover in 2 rotations! The problem is, I dont know if Oleg found pilot accounts that said the Soviet versions were like this. Also, yes, they were "Soviet Versions". Stripped of armor and a lot of weight removed. This alone could of helped the aircraft's COG and made spints more forgiving. I dont know enough to state if the way it is now is false, but I do know about the pulling up thing.

The problem is, when I black out, my controles become damn near un-responsive. Even externally if im blacked out, I still have little to NO controle till I clear up. Watching the 109 from external complete his amazing loop, and then pull in behind me is wile I am still blacked out is ovious he is not suffering from the same disabilities that I am.

And yes, the P-39 should be a LOT easier to pull out of a dive. I felt like i was pulling a P-38 out not a P-39.

Gib

Chadburn wrote:
- Gib..if you were on TX server they have externals
- enabled so he may have been able to pull out and
- black-out but be able to see hwere he was. Also, if
- he had trimmed to max with a macro, he would
- continue to loop and not hit the ground.
-
- But there is no way in a 109 that you don't blackout
- if you are pulling hard out of an 800kph dive.
-
- But I agree that the sensitive elevtor of the 39
- should return, but in exchange, pilots should need
- to be more cautious about yanking and banking in
- them. Right now, they are impossible to stall, at
- least no worse than any other plane.
-
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

ZG77_Nagual
09-11-2003, 04:29 AM
Agreed- from what I've seen the elevator is a tad heavy - but not heavier than most of the 109s (F4 excluded - this is a great handling plane at all speeds) to me the 39 seems a little better than most of the 109s in terms of elevator - I could be wrong though as I've not really tested it. I just all round like the way it handles.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 04:43 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- I agree, the P-39 has gotten a LOT more forgiving in
- the stall department. Also, fatle stalls are nill.
- In IL2, I would just punch out the moment a stall
- started no matter the alt, now I hang in, and
- recover in 2 rotations! The problem is, I dont know
- if Oleg found pilot accounts that said the Soviet
- versions were like this. Also, yes, they were
- "Soviet Versions". Stripped of armor and a lot of
- weight removed. This alone could of helped the
- aircraft's COG and made spints more forgiving. I
- dont know enough to state if the way it is now is
- false, but I do know about the pulling up thing.
-
- The problem is, when I black out, my controles
- become damn near un-responsive. Even externally if
- im blacked out, I still have little to NO controle
- till I clear up. Watching the 109 from external
- complete his amazing loop, and then pull in behind
- me is wile I am still blacked out is ovious he is
- not suffering from the same disabilities that I am.
-
-
-
- And yes, the P-39 should be a LOT easier to pull out
- of a dive. I felt like i was pulling a P-38 out not
- a P-39.
-
- Gib

From here http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm :

"A. S. In the literature the Cobra is said to have the following deficiencies: 1. Unreliable engine. 2. Weak tail. 3. A pilot bailing out of a Cobra would be struck by the vertical stabilizer. 4. Because of the rearward center of gravity, it was easy to enter an inverted spin and difficult to recover. The engine problems you have already mentioned, and what else can you say?

N. G. I can't say anything about the weak tail. We never experienced that problem.

As for the pilot being struck by the vertical stabilizer, one had to observe specific instructions. In the first place, never open both doors, but only one. If you opened one door, then you had only to stick your head out and the air stream would pull you out. If you opened both doors, you could only crawl out of the cockpit like an old man. Secondly, pull up your legs.

The center of gravity of the Cobra was exceptionally rearward. We even had 10 kilos of lead weight mounted in the forward portion to unload the tail. Sometimes this center of gravity created problems with the wing and in inverted flight. Once again, during non-combat flights, don't place any load in the empty rear portion of the fuselage. Somebody didn't do it and couldn't make it back. The airplane flew as if balanced on a tip of an awl. Later we gained experience and loaded everything in the forward compartment."

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:09 AM
In IL2 (original), The P39 had the coolest snap-roll that I have ever seen. I really miss that. It was difficult to fly, and deadly when you got the hang of it. Well, it's still deadly, but not as much of a challenge. I used to love pulling that snap-roll, and then (providing I was able to recover soon enough) blasting whatever was on my six because it was now at my 12.

http://www.uploadit.org/files/010903-nedChristie.jpg

Tsalagi Asgaya Equa!

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:25 AM
Is everyone here flying the P-39 in the latest patch? IMHO it's now less forgiving than it was before - still good, but not some sort of wonderplane like it was before. Proof of this change is that people using it on-line still fly it like it was it's previous version, and thus are getting themselves into flat spins when they try to throw it around too hard.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 11:36 AM
Airborn_ wrote:
- If anybody wants to get into an unrecoverable spin
- (flat or whatever) then take the P47, do a quarter
- loop and cut the throttle just as the nose of your
- plane points straight up. Then, just before you
- loose all airspeed, gently pull on the stick to make
- the nose come around and point down again. If you do
- it while having practically no airspeed left anymore
- at the top, you will invariably enter an
- unrecoverable (flat) spin in the P47.
-
- Do the same in a P39 and you will never enter an
- unrecoverable spin.
-
- Now, with the placement of the engine in the P39 and
- the *much* heavier nose of the P47 I find these very
- different results rather er.. striking. And this is
- no political post since I don't normally fly any of
- these machines, but I must say I was rather
- surprised.

I ain't saying that the P-39 is right as modelled.

You expect the mid-engine P39 to enter a spin the same way a front engine plane does? Funny but if they acted the same then I'd take that as sign of a bug.

Try running a hard turn flatter than you should maybe. At least a good part of the P-39's rep for spins was because most pilots were too used to front engine planes. I'm sure that another major part was the touchy controls and I really wonder if that's where IL2/FB is most different from RL. It does seem just too easy to control based on anecdotes, it should take a special feel and skill -- not be like front engine planes in maneuvers. I didn't see Yeager calling it dangerous to fly except for "ham-fisted pilots" and the like, and that's to me a matter of controls more than inbred deeprooted just plain bad characteristics.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 12:23 PM
Please state which patched version you're flying - people here seem to be talking about different patched versions!!

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 12:51 PM
Ya, true. A little more touchy, but still easy to get out of a spin. One thing I remember both Soviet pilots and US pilots saying about the P-39 (ALL models) is that once you get INTO a spin, its near impossible to get OUT of it. The mid engine was great for manuverability since the elivator did not need to LIFT the engine in the knose. But the heavy knose helps you pull out of spins. With the weight in the P-39, there is little differance between the tail and the nose, and that makes the spin hard to exit.

Functio wrote:
- Is everyone here flying the P-39 in the latest
- patch? IMHO it's now less forgiving than it was
- before - still good, but not some sort of
- wonderplane like it was before. Proof of this change
- is that people using it on-line still fly it like it
- was it's previous version, and thus are getting
- themselves into flat spins when they try to throw it
- around too hard.
-
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:58 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- I thought trim on a slider was fixed? Whats the new
- way of cheating?

Nope, simply you know wrong: all 109s had adjustable elevator trim. They lacked adjustable trim on ailerons and rudder, on which they only had fixed trim.

-
- Also, does this trim thing prevent
- you from blacking out?
-
- Gib


Nope, but it helps you to pull out. What prevents 109s pilots from blacking out is the way they sit in the plane, ie. legs high, back tilted back. Much better to sustain G load... P-39 drivers sat straight upright, like in an amrchair. Comfortable, but bad for withstanding G-loads.

As for the P-39 was being able to outdive 109s... yeah, sure. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 06:15 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Ya, true. A little more touchy, but still easy to
- get out of a spin. One thing I remember both Soviet
- pilots and US pilots saying about the P-39 (ALL
- models) is that once you get INTO a spin, its near
- impossible to get OUT of it. The mid engine was
- great for manuverability since the elivator did not
- need to LIFT the engine in the knose. But the heavy
- knose helps you pull out of spins. With the weight
- in the P-39, there is little differance between the
- tail and the nose, and that makes the spin hard to
- exit.

Gibbage - slight correction - it was said about flat or inverted spin. If all done right and there was enough altitude - pilot could get out of normal spin following the correct recovery procedure.

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 07:08 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- The Soviets loved ths US aircraft, and
- that says a lot since Stalin decreed everyone must
- hate US aircraft /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sure they did. Actual quality control used in it's production, full and high quality insturmentation, radios (not only that, but quality radios), no cabin environment problems (excessive heat/fumes, etc).

Compared to what they had to deal with, it's no wonder they liked it.

Doesn't say a damn thing about it's performance though.



- My BIG complaint on the P-39 is how heavy the rudder
- is now at high speeds as apposed to high LIGHT it is
- on the 109's! In IL2, a common tactic was to dive
- away from a 109. You could do this, and it was used
- many times with Soviet pilots. IF the 109 dove with
- you, he could not catch you. Now, he can.

All planes dive basically the same. Look at how many planes stay with the Jug in a dive.

Hell, I remember in IL2 all the damned little I-16s staying with my A5s in dives. No matter what the dive entry or dive profile were like.


- I was on a 109's tail in a dive at nearly 800KPH, and he
- pulled out of it like he was doing 300KPH with no
- problem. It took me a LOT to pull out, and I blacked out
- doing it.

It's you. Poor recollection of the events, poor understanding of them, poor piloting, something. I watched a 109 break apart in my rearview trying to follow my Jug in a dive as I crossed over the 800kph mark. Too bad FB doesn't award maneuver kills.


- This is complete bull. Everyone knows
- the 109's elivator had problems locking at high
- speeds!

It's good that you prefaced you BS with a statement that it would be BS. lol

Seriously though, to your locking problems comment I have to say....ummm, like http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/bs.gif and stuff..

There has been more than enough evidence presented on these fora to show that statements like the one you made are based on the negative comments of one, very small Brit pilot flying the Emil. And that from the F on this problem was no worse (or different) in the 109 than in any other plane, even the Mustang.

"Everyone knows" huh? Everyone "knows" BS apparently. Then again, that's pretty obvious as I look at society. lol

This is the myth that just refuses to die. Too many people hatin' on the LW, wanting to hang on to any negative thing they can possibly find. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 12:56 AM
Don't forget that most countries besides the Soviets were trying to use the 39 in the mid altitude range and that's where it get's into trouble. Lots of the test data is for the higher altitudes.
Also, I am still waiting to see data posted for the N versions and later.. everything I have seen to date has been for the D's and those were very problematic.
Also the P-39 Aces book by Squadron has the pilot reports from both the Russian and Americans who flew the plane.
Compared to the performance of most of the Soviet aircraft when the P-39's came into the war, they were better, by quite a bit, below 10k feet.
Hell, the plane would markedly accelerate away from the Zero at low altitudes and out climb it, up to about 12k ft., then the Zero was superior. Thats from the AAF test of the Aluetian Zero captured and then tested against the current fighters of the time.
It isn't an uber plane, but down low she was one of the best planes.
The 1.11 patch does add the Break point's a little better and if you hamfist it you will get some interesting results...
Of course, we have all been flying the plane for a couple of years now, so perhaps some of what we see as being easier to fly is because we are used to not trying to Turn and Burn with it like we got used to in other games.... In essence, we have learned like the real pilots to fly the plane like it needs to be flown..... Just a thought.
Mirthain=FC=

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 01:15 AM
Mirthain wrote:
- Of course, we have all been flying the plane for a
- couple of years now, so perhaps some of what we see
- as being easier to fly is because we are used to not
- trying to Turn and Burn with it like we got used to
- in other games.... In essence, we have learned like
- the real pilots to fly the plane like it needs to be
- flown..... Just a thought.


We have a winner!

Most of the people I've seen who have flown IL2 and FB for a while before jumping into the P39 don't seem to have too much trouble with it. They'll spin and stall it a few times, but overall they won't mishandle it badly. Making it perform really well is something else, but the basics of turns and not killing themselves are picked up quickly when they have experience with the sim as a whole.

Lately I've seen a lot of complete newbies try to jump into the plane. Many of these people haven't messed with PC flight sims in nearly 10 years, if ever, and have maybe 2-5 hours of experience with IL2/FB before jumping into the Cobra and going into combat.

Almost without exception, these guys are spinning it in all over the place, fighting it through turns, and honestly having more trouble just surviving combat manuevers, to say nothing of actually getting in shots or ditching someone on their 6.

The P39 seems just about perfect now. It'll still get you if you're stupid and try to horse it around, and its performance drops off noticably above 3,500-4,000m, but down low it does quite well.

It's not the best at anything, but it's not the worst either.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 03:10 AM
There's something else wrong with some P-39 models in IL2/FB and probably other Soviet panes as well. The Constant Speed Props were not in all of them like the game has.

From the Golodnikov Interview:
(relevant excerpts below)
================================================== ============

A. S. Wasnâ?Tt this somewhat of a surprise, a deficiency in power output when one would think power should be increasing as the war progressed?

N. G. The crux of the matter was that from modification to modification the Cobra was somehow improved in construction, but this came at the price of constant increases in weight, which was not compensated for even by the growing power output of the engine. The P-63 KingCobra was a â?oleapâ?. I had a chance to fly it after the war (thank God!). The strongest [P-39] in power output were the types from Q-2 to the early Q-10s, and then the power output began to fall. Again, beginning with the -10, the propellers came with a unified system of throttle/pitch, and this also did not increase survivability in combat. Iâ?Tve already addressed that.

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, did you have the impression that they initially delivered the Cobra with an overstressed engine, that is under normal circumstances that Allison engine would have developed 100â?"150 less horsepower?

N. G. Thatâ?Ts entirely possible. But in the course of the war, the Allison lived up to its specifications. You have to give the Americans their due.

A. S. You said that various propellers were mounted?

N. G. Yes. At first they had three-bladed props, later four blades. I did not detect any appreciable difference between them. These propellers were mechanical, they were controlled by hand, with a system of levers and rods. On later Cobras they installed combined throttle/pitch control. This was the case on some Q-10s, on all of the Q-25s and Q-30s. We preferred the de-linked control, where the throttle and the pitch were separate. This was on the Q-5 up to the Q-10.

================================================== =========

Here that is again:

N. G. --- "Again, beginning with the -10, the propellers came with a unified system of throttle/pitch, and this also did not increase survivability in combat."

N. G. Yes. At first they had three-bladed props, later four blades. I did not detect any appreciable difference between them. These propellers were mechanical, they were controlled by hand, with a system of levers and rods. On later Cobras they installed combined throttle/pitch control. This was the case on some Q-10s, on all of the Q-25s and Q-30s. We preferred the de-linked control, where the throttle and the pitch were separate. This was on the Q-5 up to the Q-10.

================================================== ==========

So until the Q-10, the P-39's should have manual pitch the same as the 109's. Anyone want to bet that there are other Soviet planes that were the same in history but in the game do have the perfect CSP's? And how about fixed-pitch props?

That interview has a few things to say about the P-39's used in Russia that isn't like the game.

Perhaps pilot strength on the stick has been toned down for easier handling? A small adjustment with large consequences and still able to claim the plane is modelled as true. Does anyone see how carefully that would make approaches to claims need to be? It can be like trick questions on a final exam. Find the problem and then state exactly how it is wrong or be checked off as wrong yourself.

Why do I get the feeling that the performance is the same as P39's stripped of the wing guns while the planes have the wing guns?

Shadow areas, where things are supposed to be unknown. The pitch controls is one to be sure.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:50 AM
For sure climb rate is inaccurate. I checked the weight for the FB P-39, and its the same as the American version.

At 1500m, the P-39N-1 is supposed to have a 13m/s climb rate. In FB, it is a little over 19m/s at that altitude.

Also, the P-39N1 doesn't conform to it service ceiling. The ceiling is supposed to be 9,784m, but at that altitude in FB, you can still sustain a climb rate of 210/min.

Not bad for a 1200hp engine and no supercharger /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I am now accepting donations to buy the smilies a new home.
http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb24962.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72600.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72327.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb10373.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb70750.gif

Message Edited on 09/11/0309:51PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:21 AM
My test on P-39 climb rate:

Test conditions:

Moscow map, Clear, 12:00

P-39N-1:

100% fuel

rad closed, ignore overheat.

Start as close to ground as possible.

Climb at 150mph. (don't even know if this is best climb speed.)

110% power.

In trim.


Times: Aircraft data provided in object viewer. climb to 6100m 8.5 mins.

My times (averages of two seperate test):

climb to

2000m 1:55

4000m 3:40

5000m 4:40

6000m 6:00

6100m 6:10

which is 2:20 quicker than stated in the object viewer.



Result 2:

tested at 100% power only results

1000m: 1:09

2000m: 2:08

3000m: 3:11

4000m: 4:10

5000m: 5:24

6000m: 6:58

6100m: 7:10

still 1:20 quicker than object viewer.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:35 AM
I generally don't like to cross-post, but given the parallel discussions between here and the General board, I figured I might as well put this here too since it is related.
-------------

The object viewer claims that the wing mounted guns in the Q1 model are .30 cal, which isn't the case. I also seem to remember that there have been many other errors in the object viewer data that have been reported in the past.

While I'm not discounting what you say as far as climb rates go, at this point I'm not inclined to believe data based on what's found in the IL2/FB object viewer, since it seems to have enough errors in it to make it at least somewhat suspect.

It may report the empty weight as identical to the American version, but that doesn't mean that it actually is in the sim (as evidenced by the guns in the Q1).

Is there any way to get a direct read on the weight numbers the sim actually uses for its calculations, or are we stuck with the object viewer as our only source? If we are, it seems likely that the best we can ever do is just guess, since we can never be sure if the data we're using is truly accurate.

As for service ceiling, once again, I'm not discounting the possibility that it's off, but to make a meaningful comparison we need to know the simulated conditions, and the conditions upon which the chart data is based.

Presumably the chart data is based on standard atmosphere, and the ceiling is density altitude (DA). However, what kind of atmosphere is IL2/FB modeling? Is it standard? Above standard? Below for the winter maps?

The altimeter in the sim isn't reading DA, so it's possible (and even likely) that it won't fall in line with the charts or data you have, unless the modeled atmosphere in FB is standard.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong here (and it's late, and I'm tired and just throwing this out there), but without knowing for sure where we're starting from, it's difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions based on some random testing in the sim.

Even in the real world the best you could really hope for are ballpark figures, there's going to be some variation depending on the conditions, pilot and aircraft. Probably not 360'/min variation, but it's probably not going to exactly match your charts either.

I've said this before and I very much believe it: Flying is a lot like cooking. There's a whole lot of science involved, but when it comes down to it it's as much art as science.

Sure, you can figure everything down to gigahertz and nanoseconds, but when it comes to really doing it, the nature of the real world means that "good enough" is usually just as accurate when it comes to getting the final results, and it's a lot easier. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Or, as the saying goes, "Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an axe."

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:57 AM
Salute Fennec

While I haven't tested the P-39 in the game, and am not sure what the performance figures it achieves are, I do know what the USAAF test figures for these aircraft are. And those do not correspond with the figures you are posting.

The book "America's Hundred Thousand" has climb figures for the P-39D, P-39N and P-39Q. This book has been accurate to original tests whenever I have had the opportunity to compare its charts to original ones.

The P-39's are listed as having the following initial climbrates at sea level in "A.H.T":

P-39D-1,2, F and K: 2400 ft/min at MILITARY power at Sea Level. (Military power is roughly equivalent to 100% power rating) This increases to a maximum of 2550 ft/min between 3,000 and 8,000 ft. That translates to a maximum of 12.95 meters per second.

P-39N, Q: 3250 ft/min at COMBAT power between Sea level and 3,000 ft, dropping off to 3100 ft/min between 3,000 and 12,000 ft. (COMBAT power is equivalent to 110% WEP) That translates to a maximum climbrate of 16.51 meters per second.

This second climbrate is clearly more than the figure you mention of 13.2 meters per second. So I think you are mistaken in pointing to the 13.2 figure.

Further:

It is important to remember that the Soviets removed equipment from these aircraft. For example, the standard P-39Q as tested by the USAAF had two wing mounted .50 calibre MG's plus ammunition. The Soviets removed that equipment in most of their Q models, and had the Bell Company remove it in the later models supplied to the Soviets. The weight of those guns and ammunition is approximately 300 pounds.

The Soviets also removed some armour and sometimes fuel cells from the wings.

Taking that into account, it is pretty clear that the P-39Q as flown by the Soviets, would have a better climbrate than 3250 ft/min. Just how good a climbrate is a question. I don't know. A rough guess would be around 3500-3600 ft/min, which would translate to between 17.78 and 18.28 meters per second. That is not 19.5 meters per second, but I don't have the info Oleg has.

I do have Soviet charts which show top speed of the P-39Q-15 but unfortunately I don't have charts for the climb of the aircraft. So I can't be sure.

I haven't tested the P-39's yet so who knows where they fall in FB.

My suggestion is that a series of people do tests, using the beta testers criteria. Ie.

1) Start at sea level, right on wavetops.

2) Initial speed 300 kph.

3) Climb in whatever means allows for the best rate, and check climb times at 5,000 ft, 10,000 ft, (3,000 meters) 15,000 ft, (4520 meters) 20,000 ft (6100 meters)

Then come back and check the figures versus the known facts.

RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 06:58 AM
My numbers are basically what DGC767 got. 6,100m in 6 minutes with WEP, 7 minutes wthout.

Whatever the instantanous climb rates (the 13m/s value specifically refers to climb rate at 1500m), 6 minutes to 6100 is just too fast.

Heres the specs I am going from.

2600 ft/min at an altitude of 5000 ft,
Climb to 15,000 ft in 6 min 6 sec

http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/bellp39.html


as well as object viewer numbers.

Simply, the rate you can get in the game exceeds all of these numbers. In 6 minutes, you should be able to get 5000m at most, not 6000m.

As well, the empty weight of the FB P-39N1 is identical to figures from basic USA P-39 on those websites, as is the range, so nothing has been removed from it. It is not some Russian version that has mysteriously lost 500 kilos, its just vanilla P-39.

You should also keep in mind that in late versions of IL-2, the P-39N climb rate was correct. It corresponded perfectly to the object viewer numbers, just like it should.

It is just one of the many planes in FB that inexplicably have strange performance figures when compared to IL-2. Just like the I-153 that could do 1300m/min in FB1.0, the Hurri doing 12 second turns, and the FW-190 (still) doing 20G turns at 800km/h. I just bring up the point in hopes that one of these threads might actually be noticed by the dev team and actually fixed eventually, before they stop supporting FB.

BTW, what is the climb to 6100m figure in "Americas Hundred Thousand"?

I am now accepting donations to buy the smilies a new home.
http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb24962.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72600.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72327.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb10373.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb70750.gif

Message Edited on 09/12/0312:02AM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 08:17 AM
Salute Fennec

The online site you are posting the URL for is not a reliable source.

The figures there could have come from anywhere.

Using online sources which are not showing JPG's of original documents is basically a waste of time.

On the other had, the figures and climbrates in "America's Hundred Thousand" are all from original documents, which are listed as sources in the books appendix. The publisher is very reputable as is the author. So I tend to believe what is there.

Another thing you should bear in mind:

When looking at the climb charts in "America's Hundred Thousand", you can see very clearly that the climbrate of the P-39 tanks at 12,000 ft. It goes south at an alarming rate. For example for the P-39N and P-39Q, the climbrate begins at 3250 ft/min and is over 3100 ft/min till 12,000 ft. At 15,000 ft it is 2500 ft/min. So you can see the precipitous dropoff.

The point I am making, is that the P-39 should have a decent climbrate till 12,000, and then suddenly dropoff.

In answer to your question:

The climb time to 20,000 ft or 6100 meters in the "A.H.T." chart is 7 minutes for both the P-39N and Q.

However, as mentioned, since it didn't have the wing .50's, the Soviet Q model should have quite a bit better time to that altitude. So I don't think it is nessesarily incorrect for the Q-10 to have a 6 minute time to 6100 meters.

If you are saying the N model takes 6 minutes to 6100 meters, then you are probably correct in saying it is overmodelled, although it may have a slightly better time than the American version.

RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 08:25 AM
Salute

Couple further comments:

Some of the Luftwaffe posters who complain about USAAF aircraft climbrates are not examining the facts closely enough.

For example there were a series of posts prior to the 1.1 patch regarding the P-40's climbrate, with some people suggesting it should top out at 2050 ft/min.

The fact is, those climbrates were achieved at either NORMAL or MILITARY power, not at COMBAT power, which is maximum boost and equivalent to 110% or WEP.

It is important that people examine in detail exactly what power setting a given climb was tested with, so we don't have misconceptions put forward which could lead to improper modelling.

It is pretty clear to me that the climbrate Fennec is getting from the online site he quotes, is achieved at either MILITARY or NORMAL power settings and is not representative of what could be achieved at COMBAT power.


Thanks RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 10:16 AM
Don't the IL2 P-39's all have wing guns?
Last time I looked, I thought they did.

It kinda gets me that a sim so detailed that the engines have beaucoup parts all individually modelled also has so many errors.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 10:45 AM
i think tail is made weak in consruction to avoid more weight there, to get plane bit in balance. and if there were armor removed, how can we see it in DM modelling?

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:08 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- Don't the IL2 P-39's all have wing guns?
- Last time I looked, I thought they did.

They do not.

The N1 has 4 .30s
The Q1 has 2 .50s
The Q10 has none.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:25 PM
Then there really is no use quoting NACA numbers unless those tests were on as used in Russia planes.

After reading from Golodnikov, I would like to see the Q-5 in the game.


Neal