PDA

View Full Version : 109 G6 VS P39 and L5F over 3K



HQ1
03-13-2007, 10:52 PM
Hi all,
recently I fly 109g6 to vs L5F and P39D in a dogfight server. What makes me suprise that even fighting the L5f at 4000m U still can not out circle climb it. In term of the vertical maneuver, the poor G6 again can not match the L5f and P39D. It seems that they can easyily out maneuver u after just having several vertical loop with u. I have not played this sim for a long time after V4.03m released. In this new version 4.08 I feel that G6 is totaly a dog. do not know how could fight the enemy in this AC. hope some online luftwaffe aces can give some comment.

crazyivan1970
03-13-2007, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
G6 is a dog and was a dog comparing to F4, G2, G4 or MW50 powered 109s (G6/AS. G10 and up). I would suggest to maintain altitude advantage, otherwise...trouble.

La7_brook
03-14-2007, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
G6 is a dog and was a dog comparing to F4, G2, G4 or MW50 powered 109s (G6/AS. G10 and up). I would suggest to maintain altitude advantage, otherwise...trouble. The use of the dog word is political incorrect , please take note http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif OR u mite end up with 100 pages + http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif lol,

tigertalon
03-14-2007, 02:35 AM
G6 is by far the worst of them all (109s that is) compared to it's opposition. For La5/La5F 4k is the limit. For FN, u might have trouble at all altitudes. Still, the higher you are, easier it is to outdive him in case of trouble.

When flying a 109, enjoy every moment in E4/7, F4 and G2, these are the days of fun. Afterwards, it becomes a struggle.

JG52Uther
03-14-2007, 03:01 AM
People do pretty well in the G6 in online wars.But then,tactics are more important.

HQ1
03-14-2007, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
People do pretty well in the G6 in online wars.But then,tactics are more important.
So would you mind to share your precious tactics on G6 with us?

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
G6 is a dog and was a dog comparing to F4, G2, G4 or MW50 powered 109s (G6/AS. G10 and up). I would suggest to maintain altitude advantage, otherwise...trouble.
G6 was a dog? Then why was it the most widelly used version by the Luftwaffe? Surelly they would revert back to the G2 or move up to the G10 if that was the case. In fact the G6 characteristics weren't very different from the G2.

Of course that in Olegland, that is another matter entirelly... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tigertalon
03-14-2007, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Then why was it the most widelly used version by the Luftwaffe? Surelly they would revert back to the G2 or move up to the G10 if that was the case. In fact the G6 characteristics weren't very different from the G2.


Simply because a G6 was ment to be a "unification" or "universal" version that could be fitted with all kinds of additional equipement for all kinds of all different missions possible - something that was not able with G2. In order to achieve that plane suffered a bit in comparison with G2 in terms of pure performance due to additional weight and was a good match for spitV, but fairly outclassed by later british, US and russian fighters.

Gondolas (20mm, 30mm), bomber destroyer rockets 210mm), nose cannon, bombs, fuel tanks...

JG53Frankyboy
03-14-2007, 06:55 AM
in genearöa the question is why the difference between a ingame 109G-2 and G-6 is so great ??
espacially in climb and turn.
weight difference in clean condition should be not much - bigger tires, MG131 instead of MG17 (2x17kg instead 2x12,6kg for the guns, http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html, ammo 700rounds of 13mm instead of 1000 rounds of 7,92mm....... ), other radio.

SL ingamespeed is not so different, speeddifference at 7000m is around 30km/ ! - still wondering why the difference at height is so much bigger than at SL ?!?!

unfortunatly was not answered here http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2581098625/p/1

alert_1
03-14-2007, 06:56 AM
In RL Me109G6 was only little more draggy then Me109G2/4 due to not retractable tailgear and Mg131/13 buges...but its weihgt (with MG151/20) was only about 50kg more then Me109G2, thus climb rate and turning ability should be practically the same...

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
In RL Me109G6 was only little more draggy then Me109G2/4 due to not retractable tailgear and Mg131/13 buges...but its weihgt (with MG151/20) was only about 50kg more then Me109G2, thus climb rate and turning ability should be practically the same...
Preciselly. Good post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG52Uther
03-14-2007, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by HQ1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
People do pretty well in the G6 in online wars.But then,tactics are more important.
So would you mind to share your precious tactics on G6 with us? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing precious about it.In general squads on comms fly in online wars,and that makes a big difference to the way you fly (usually).The G6 ingame is not a great aircraft,but it is possible to do well in it.

JG52Karaya-X
03-14-2007, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
In RL Me109G6 was only little more draggy then Me109G2/4 due to not retractable tailgear and Mg131/13 buges...but its weihgt (with MG151/20) was only about 50kg more then Me109G2, thus climb rate and turning ability should be practically the same...
Preciselly. Good post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly!

Our G2 has a best turntime of around 20.5 secs which is spot on with Russian test data of a captured plane, whereas both G6s need about 23secs at best, in real life they shouldnt take more than 20,5-21secs!

Kurfurst__
03-14-2007, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Simply because a G6 was ment to be a "unification" or "universal" version that could be fitted with all kinds of additional equipement for all kinds of all different missions possible - something that was not able with G2. In order to achieve that plane suffered a bit in comparison with G2 in terms of pure performance due to additional weight and was a good match for spitV, but fairly outclassed by later british, US and russian fighters.

Gondolas (20mm, 30mm), bomber destroyer rockets 210mm), nose cannon, bombs, fuel tanks...

That`s not quite true, the G-2 all for the matter, all 109Gs could mount the same optional extra equipment.

In reality, all that the G-6 differed from the early G-2 was

a, New radio set
b, Larger, non-retractable tailwheel*
c, 13mm HMGs and their belt covers, or 'bulges'

* In fact, late G-2s had the same arger, non-retractable tailwheel as well, so in practice the only difference between was a quite insignificant 50 kg weight increase, and -9 km/h loss of top speed due to the cowling bulges. Larger differences in performance would exist between individual production G-2s..

As told, the differences in performance were quite marginal and unnoticable, unlike in the sim - our G-6 turns massively worser than even later 109s.. Whereas the real-life tested G-2 turned 20 secs clean and ca 22 secs with gunpods (+215 kg), our G-6 turns worse than the real life gondie G-2 : it needs some 23 secs.

PFflyer
03-14-2007, 07:51 AM
Hartmann said the non-boosted G6 was not competitive with LATER allied aircraft like Mustangs and such that he encountered late in the war in 1945.

Fact is, this sim IS allied biased. It is produced by a Russian, so the Russian and allied flight models and weaponry are optimistic, and all the servers are based in former allied countries so the plane sets are skewed in their favor.

The P-39 is a ridiculous joke. It is far more capable and competitive than any real-life reports. In WWII it was a non-entity and they flew right over them on the eastern front.

In this sim though it is super fast, and the armament is among the best in the game, with it's spray and pray overly effective machine guns, and the nose cannon that shoots twenty foot wide projectiles.

Your consolation is going to be that if you can get any results at all with the german aircraft in this sim, it simply means you are that much more skilled and intelligent than the asian hoardes and allied delusionals that you are flying against.

JG53Frankyboy
03-14-2007, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by PFflyer:
................
Fact is, this sim IS allied biased. It is produced by a Russian, so the Russian and allied flight models and weaponry are optimistic, and all the servers are based in former allied countries so the plane sets are skewed in their favor.

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

Your consolation is going to be that if you can get any results at all with the german aircraft in this sim, it simply means you are that much more skilled and intelligent than the asian hoardes and allied delusionals that you are flying against.

autsch !
i would recommend you to deinstall the game...............................

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by PFflyer:
Hartmann said the non-boosted G6 was not competitive with LATER allied aircraft like Mustangs and such that he encountered late in the war in 1945.

Fact is, this sim IS allied biased. It is produced by a Russian, so the Russian and allied flight models and weaponry are optimistic, and all the servers are based in former allied countries so the plane sets are skewed in their favor.

The P-39 is a ridiculous joke. It is far more capable and competitive than any real-life reports. In WWII it was a non-entity and they flew right over them on the eastern front.

In this sim though it is super fast, and the armament is among the best in the game, with it's spray and pray overly effective machine guns, and the nose cannon that shoots twenty foot wide projectiles.

Your consolation is going to be that if you can get any results at all with the german aircraft in this sim, it simply means you are that much more skilled and intelligent than the asian hoardes and allied delusionals that you are flying against.
An understandable vent of emotion, but true nevertheless...

JG53Frankyboy
03-14-2007, 09:30 AM
sorry, but flying this game now for over 5 years online , for both sides and in all timeperiods - my experince is that both sides have their flaws and exploits !

calling the developers one sided biased is way off !

and calling all online servers allied biased - well............... even that all servers are based in former allied nations is wrong by far !!
that admins of an online events will alwasy be called "biased" , from some, from one side or the other, also depending on what time period is played (!) - is unfortunatly a rule in this community. speaking out of experience as the former leading mission admin of the VOW2 COOP online war.

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
sorry, but flying this game now for over 5 years online , for both sides and in all timeperiods - my experince is that both sides have their flaws and exploits !
Of course they have. But this does not mean a lot of the planes in-game aren't just plain wrong in regard to it's historical characteristics. The P-39 is just one of them.


Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
calling the developers one sided biased is way off !
Huuuu... Not really.


Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
and calling all online servers allied biased - well............... even that all servers are based in former allied nations is wrong by far !!
No idea. I only play offline. BTW, the AI is crappy for offline play.

JG53Frankyboy
03-14-2007, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
.................... BTW, the AI is crappy for offline play.

that is a true word http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
guess why i only play online.............. and even than its annoying to meet the AIs in COOP missions - but there is no other way to see a lot of planes in game that are only for AI , espacially BOmberformations.

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
.................... BTW, the AI is crappy for offline play.

that is a true word http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
guess why i only play online.............. and even than its annoying to meet the AIs in COOP missions - but there is no other way to see a lot of planes in game that are only for AI , espacially BOmberformations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess so. Seems even online folks have to deal with those strange AI behaviours...

joeap
03-14-2007, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
calling the developers one sided biased is way off !
Huuuu... Not really.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes really.

tigertalon
03-14-2007, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by PFflyer:
Hartmann said the non-boosted G6 was not competitive with LATER allied aircraft like Mustangs and such that he encountered late in the war in 1945.

Fact is, this sim IS allied biased. It is produced by a Russian, so the Russian and allied flight models and weaponry are optimistic, and all the servers are based in former allied countries so the plane sets are skewed in their favor.

The P-39 is a ridiculous joke. It is far more capable and competitive than any real-life reports. In WWII it was a non-entity and they flew right over them on the eastern front.

In this sim though it is super fast, and the armament is among the best in the game, with it's spray and pray overly effective machine guns, and the nose cannon that shoots twenty foot wide projectiles.

Your consolation is going to be that if you can get any results at all with the german aircraft in this sim, it simply means you are that much more skilled and intelligent than the asian hoardes and allied delusionals that you are flying against.

Wow wow wow, PFlyer, hard words.

While I do tend to agree with a P39 (it outeverythings Ki-100 with ease for example - something it really shouldn't be), I simply cannot agree about the weapon and FM bias to allied side. Ever tried shvak cannons? They're like firing heavy MGs compared to hispano/151. American birds still wobble like mad compared to 109/Ki84/La5-7 for example...

Take 8 Antons and confront them with 8 contemporary fighters... then switch the pilots... result? Antons are going to pwn biiiig time.

Flying and engaging enemy considerably lower than in WW2 (so no room to dive away),

never flying that organised (so nobody is watchin your 6 - largest organised groups I have seen online were 4 ship big),

and not staking your real human life in a dogfight and consequently not running like hell towards home base at first sight of danger/disadvantatge or bailing at minor damage (when IRL many pilots bailed when they only saw a bogey on their 6 before he even started firing)

makes comparing this sim to RL laughable.

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
calling the developers one sided biased is way off !
Huuuu... Not really.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes really. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure. Whatever rocks your boat...

joeap
03-14-2007, 10:14 AM
Why would 1C deliberatly anger a large part of its customer base?

Cajun76
03-14-2007, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by PFflyer:
Hartmann said the non-boosted G6 was not competitive with LATER allied aircraft like Mustangs and such that he encountered late in the war in 1945.

Fact is, this sim IS allied biased. It is produced by a Russian, so the Russian and allied flight models and weaponry are optimistic, and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">all the servers are based in former allied countries so the plane sets are skewed in their favor.</span>

So make your own server.


The P-39 is a ridiculous joke. It is far more capable and competitive than any real-life reports. In WWII it was a non-entity and they flew right over them on the eastern front.

DIRTY-MAC posted some British and Russian experiances with the P-39.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7291036045/p/2

Or the whole thing. http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm


In this sim though it is super fast, and the armament is among the best in the game, with it's spray and pray overly effective machine guns, and the nose cannon that shoots twenty foot wide projectiles.

Your first mistake is getting into a position in which your being fired on, n00b. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Machine guns have an advantage that allows you to walk your fire into the enemy a/c your trying to hit.

The 30mm on the German planes is effective enough to take out most fighters with one hit. So, by your definition, more than one round fired at a time is "spray and pray"?

And apparently you've never fired the P-39's nose cannon.




Your consolation is going to be that if you can get any results at all with the german aircraft in this sim, it simply means you are that much more skilled and intelligent than the asian hoardes and allied delusionals that you are flying against.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Others have thought that they were much more skilled and intelligent than the "asian hordes"


Some quotes:

...the surging nomads of the East will be driven back to their steppes.

...animal hordes...

"It [Communism] required the primitive and bestial dullness of the peoples forming the Soviet Union" vs "we will meet its stolid power with an offensive resistance that draws its strength from the intelligence of the leadership and the vitality of Europe's young races."

Our people would be subjected to the stolid brutality of a primitive race and would lose its most valuable aspects.

Still, we are as always persuaded that here too the higher race will triumph over the lower one



http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb11.htm

Seems you and Goebbels share some similar views...

Xiolablu3
03-14-2007, 10:54 AM
Geez, the forum is really getting filled up with noobs these days who **** off the sim and Oleg because of their own shortcomings and lack of knowledge. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

The primary Allied complaint about the P39 was that it was not competetive at altitude where the SPits/Bf109's were duking it out.

In RUssian the fighting was generally much lower.

In Il2 the fights are more at RUssian alts or lower, especially on arcade servers where the noobs hang out. THey fly a FW190 vs a P39 in a turn and burn fight at 1000m and complain that they get shot down, and this makes the P39 'uber'. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Forum sems to be full of these fools at the moment.

No wonder Oleg doesnt post here anymore. These people just dont deserve his time and explanation. Answering them would just be a waste of his time.

My opinion - If you are a decent pilot, the FW190 is the best prop plane in the sim.

If you have problems in it, its not the fault of the plane, it you.

In the years that there is not a FW190, the ME109F4 is the best plane in the game. If you cannot get results with this plane on 1941 maps, then its your lack of skill, not the game being biased.

Until the Dora appears, the La5FN can be the best plane in the game at low alts, between Jan 1944 and Sept 1944. So the Russians have the best plane for 8 months of the war - great. (1943 label is wrong for the La5FN IMO, its performance is the 1944 version)

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Geez, the forum is really getting filled up with noobs these days who **** off the sim and Oleg because of their own shortcomings and lack of knowledge. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

The primary Allied complaint about the P39 was that it was not competetive at altitude where the SPits/Bf109's were duking it out.

In RUssian the fighting was generally much lower.

In Il2 the fights are more at RUssian alts or lower, especially on arcade servers where the noobs hang out. THey fly a FW190 vs a P39 in a turn and burn fight at 1000m and complain that they get shot down, and this makes the P39 'uber'. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Forum sems to be full of these fools at the moment.
QMB:

4xP39Q10 vs 4xBf109G10 (Automatic pilot + AI) >>> Check final results...

BTW, I play IL2 since February 2003 and only offline. My job does not allow me the time to play online.

Xiolablu3
03-14-2007, 11:00 AM
SO the AI programming means that the 109G6 is worse than P39?

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

WHat a scientific test. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ElAurens
03-14-2007, 11:02 AM
If you only fly offline, then you don't know how to fly competitively in this sim.

Be sure.

JG53Frankyboy
03-14-2007, 11:06 AM
in fights AI vs AI, the better turning planes win (if the weapons & damage modells are not too different) - it is so since original IL2 release............
so no surprise the Airacobra will win agaisnt the 109s

anytime tried to escape from a Zero in a F6F in a dive ?!?!
surprise, the AI knows no divelimits !
the AI cheats, otherway it would have no chance at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

as we both "confirmed" , AI sucks - but i belive programming a descent AI is one of the most difficult things in making a flightcombat sim. as the decission of the developer which of the ducuments he will use to programm a specific planes FM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
SO the AI programming means that the 109G6 is worse than P39?

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

WHat a scientific test. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Well, I replied in good manner just for you to check the obvious easily. But seems you don't realize (or don't want to realize like many here) that the QMB is a fast non-scientific test that can start to tell you the whole story.

AI behaviour is the exact same for both planes so only the plane performance will count. The P-39Q10 trounces the Bf109G10 in the QMB.

Make a test yourself in that QMB. See how many Bfs you shoot down with the P-39 and then see how many P-39s you shoot down with the Bf109G10.

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
If you only fly offline, then you don't know how to fly competitively in this sim.

Be sure.
And what does this have to do with what I was talking about?

Xiolablu3
03-14-2007, 11:08 AM
OK sorry for the harsh words, but I see a lot of negativity on the forum at the moment and its annoying me.


If you are going to fly luftwaffe planes, at least use luftwaffe tactics. That means flying with wingmen, and attacking with an alt advantage. As soon as you start to lose the advantage and energy, dive and run for home. The Luftwaffe planes are exceptional at these tactics. Its possible to be quite untouchable as you have the fastest planes in a dive and top speed up to around early 1944, therefore you should never be caught.

YOu cannot fly 'turn and burn' vs SPitfires, Yaks and LA5's at low altitudes and then complain that the German planes are rubbish.

JG53Frankyboy
03-14-2007, 11:09 AM
do usy a favor:
make a F6F-5 vs A6M5a one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

im looking forward to the outcome.

Xiolablu3
03-14-2007, 11:09 AM
You MUST get online and fly historical servers to get an idea of how good a plane is.

Flying versus drones is simply not a good representation of what a human will do.

MAny People here can shoot down 20-30 AI planes in a a FW190, but online would only manage 4-5. Humans are much tougher and know their planes.

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
in fights AI vs AI, the better turning planes win (if the weapons & damage modells are not too different) - it is so since original IL2 release............
so no surprise the Airacobra will win agaisnt the 109s
And so the game is modelled correctly, right?


Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
anytime tried to escape from a Zero in a F6F in a dive ?!?!
surprise, the AI knows no divelimits !
the AI cheats, otherway it would have no chance at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Well, the tests I talke about are performed with only the AI controling the planes, so what does that mean? We're not talking about dive limits here.

JtD
03-14-2007, 11:15 AM
I hate the P-39 for being overmodeled. It's actually the only plane where the in game flight performance annoys me considerably.

However, it has to be said that the P-39's best alt is about 4000m. Fight it higher, and you stand a good chance of winning.

The La series is pretty poor around 4000, as long as you don't turn. Especially downward turns hurt.

The G-6 can hold it's own in a fight against any of the two, just make sure you fight them at there worst altitudes. However if the P-39 and the La-5F show up together, it means trouble.

Xiolablu3
03-14-2007, 11:15 AM
Your 'tests' relate completely to the AI not knowing the strengths of its plane but flying a 'generic' way.

A human in a 109G6 would not get into a slow turning fight with a P39, but the AI will.

The AI will not dive away knowing he is losing the advanatage - A Human will.

The AI will not use energy tactics properly - A human will.

Your test really means nothing at all with relation to the capabilities of the planes.

If turning was the way we work out how good planes are then why are the armies not full of biplanes?

Yet 9/10 times the better turning plane will win in an AI contest. imply because the AI is stupid.

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
OK sorry for the harsh words, but I see a lot of negativity on the forum at the moment and its annoying me.
No problem. I'm used to it whenever I have the patiente to visit this forum.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If you are going to fly luftwaffe planes, at least use luftwaffe tactics. That means flying with wingmen, and attacking with an alt advantage.
Well, sorry but we're talking about sheer airplane performance, not tactics. And other airforces used wingman other than the Luftwaffe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
As soon as you start to lose the advantage and energy, dive and run for home. The Luftwaffe planes are exceptional at these tactics. Its possible to be quite untouchable as you have the fastest planes in a dive and top speed up to around early 1944, therefore you should never be caught.
Well, ressurecting an old topic, energy retention for heavy planes is not well modelled. Same with dive and roll.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
You cannot fly 'turn and burn' vs SPitfires, Yaks and LA5's at low altitudes and then complain that the German planes are rubbish.
Please, give me some credit. In these tests I flew exclusivelly BnZ for both planes. The P-39Q10 is a better BnZ and a better TnB than the Bf109G10 in-game. Tell that to a German WW2 veteran pilot.

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
You MUST get online and fly historical servers to get an idea of how good a plane is.

Flying versus drones is simply not a good representation of what a human will do.

MAny People here can shoot down 20-30 AI planes in a a FW190, but online would only manage 4-5. Humans are much tougher and know their planes.

Originally posted by JtD:
I hate the P-39 for being overmodeled. It's actually the only plane where the in game flight performance annoys me considerably.

However, it has to be said that the P-39's best alt is about 4000m. Fight it higher, and you stand a good chance of winning.

The La series is pretty poor around 4000, as long as you don't turn. Especially downward turns hurt.

The G-6 can hold it's own in a fight against any of the two, just make sure you fight them at there worst altitudes. However if the P-39 and the La-5F show up together, it means trouble.
You guys are missing the point. I'm not pissed at the historical innacuracy because I can't shoot the P39s and Las in offline play. I kill them in drooves.

I'm pissed because I cannot make a reenactement of Pokrishkin and Khozedub's carrers because the fun is all lost with unrealistic aircraft performance inacuracies for those particular planes.

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Your 'tests' relate completely to the AI not knowing the strengths of its plane but flying a 'generic' way.

A human in a 109G6 would not get into a slow turning fight with a P39, but the AI will.

The AI will not dive away knowing he is losing the advanatage - A Human will.

The AI will not use energy tactics properly - A human will.

Your test really means nothing at all with relation to the capabilities of the planes.

If turning was the way we work out how good planes are then why are the armies not full of biplanes?

Yet 9/10 times the better turning plane will win in an AI contest. imply because the AI is stupid. Ok, in regard to the AI then. But:


Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Please, give me some credit. In these tests I flew exclusivelly BnZ for both planes. The P-39Q10 is a better BnZ and a better TnB than the Bf109G10 in-game. Tell that to a German WW2 veteran pilot.

JtD
03-14-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
You guys are missing the point. I'm not pissed at the historical innacuracy because I can't shoot the P39s and Las in offline play. I kill them in drooves.

Only thing I missed is that you started the topic.

HQ1
03-14-2007, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
.................... BTW, the AI is crappy for offline play.

that is a true word http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
guess why i only play online.............. and even than its annoying to meet the AIs in COOP missions - but there is no other way to see a lot of planes in game that are only for AI , espacially BOmberformations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes 200% agree!!
that recalls me a frustrating memory. I am end up my virtal life by being shot down by an AI plane in the cloud just few hours later after receiving my knightkross http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif .

HQ1
03-14-2007, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Geez, the forum is really getting filled up with noobs these days who **** off the sim and Oleg because of their own shortcomings and lack of knowledge. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

The primary Allied complaint about the P39 was that it was not competetive at altitude where the SPits/Bf109's were duking it out.

In RUssian the fighting was generally much lower.

In Il2 the fights are more at RUssian alts or lower, especially on arcade servers where the noobs hang out. THey fly a FW190 vs a P39 in a turn and burn fight at 1000m and complain that they get shot down, and this makes the P39 'uber'. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Forum sems to be full of these fools at the moment.

No wonder Oleg doesnt post here anymore. These people just dont deserve his time and explanation. Answering them would just be a waste of his time.

My opinion - If you are a decent pilot, the FW190 is the best prop plane in the sim.

If you have problems in it, its not the fault of the plane, it you.

In the years that there is not a FW190, the ME109F4 is the best plane in the game. If you cannot get results with this plane on 1941 maps, then its your lack of skill, not the game being biased.

Until the Dora appears, the La5FN can be the best plane in the game at low alts, between Jan 1944 and Sept 1944. So the Russians have the best plane for 8 months of the war - great. (1943 label is wrong for the La5FN IMO, its performance is the 1944 version)
Xiolablu3,
I think few people here expected the G6 can have the advantage facing the aircobra at low altitude. though base on what I experienced online I think even at over 4000m the P39D still can easily out-maneuver the G6. I have played this game for about 4 years. so I do not think my fly skill is too bad. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG53Frankyboy
03-14-2007, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Please, give me some credit. In these tests I flew exclusivelly BnZ for both planes. The P-39Q10 is a better BnZ ...............than the Bf109G10 in-game. ............ [/QUOTE]

NOT online with only human flown planes !

its the AI behaviour wich is pissing you !
the AI does not use its planes to its best tactical use, except the planetype is a superiour turn fighter versus its foe..........

JtD
03-14-2007, 12:38 PM
Actually I tested the G-10 vs. the P-39Q10 and the only 109's lost were lost to collisions.

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Actually I tested the G-10 vs. the P-39Q10 and the only 109's lost were lost to collisions.
My AI results were (Bf109 losses/P-39 losses):

1- 10/6
2- 11/4
3- 9/6
4- 10/8

JtD
03-14-2007, 01:56 PM
Might not have been collisions but the head on against a 37mm cannon.

Total losses:
G-10: 7 (35%)
Q-10: 18 (90%)

waffen-79
03-14-2007, 02:59 PM
Ok please help me out with this.

Assuming, playing online, flying solo, no team tactics

1. the G-6 and G-6_Late are the 109 variants to stay away of?

2. they are only good, ACTUALLY flying them in coop, using/reenacting LW tactics?

Sillius_Sodus
03-14-2007, 03:25 PM
Hi,

One of Hartmann's personal rules was to attack only when he had a clear advantage. And from what I've read, he also didn't try to max out his kills on every mission. He returned from many missions with only one victory. On the other hand he somtimes flew several missions in one day.

I only fly offline (gotta love those user-made campaigns!) and yes, the AI does some unresonable things, but if you don't do anything stupid, you can do pretty well in pretty much any of the planes in this sim. Because of the complexity of the sim, it can take a long time to learn this. Good thing there is a refly button.

Good hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

VW-IceFire
03-14-2007, 03:35 PM
Alright folks...start producing numbers of planes that are not performing right or lets stop with the silliness.

Turn rates for the 109G-6 are so far the only thing I've seen and it seems pretty obvious that the turn on the G-6 and maybe the G-6Late is a bit of a problem in the game. How about the G-6A/S...that thing seems to have lots of power and a extremely good chance against most Allied fighters in 1944 in all respects.

What annoys me is some of the more baseless arguments about bias in the game...but it seems to me that more bias is here in this thread than with the developers of the game. Pretty much every plane has a problem or two...one way or another. I can think of dozens of problems but they seem evenly divided amongst the planes and really the German planes statistically have fewer problems in terms of raw numbers but higher impact because the modeling generally affects everything from the 1940 to the 1945 model of the plane in question given that the 109 and 190 series extend from start to end of the war and that only a few other types fit that category.

PBNA-Boosher
03-14-2007, 04:03 PM
Aymar_Mauri, why not give online COOP flight a spin? It's a perfectly convenient way to test out the tactics that Frankyboy and the others are telling you about.

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
Aymar_Mauri, why not give online COOP flight a spin? It's a perfectly convenient way to test out the tactics that Frankyboy and the others are telling you about.
Gah!! My problem is not tactics. It's relative airplane performance. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Only that matters to me.

And I have no time or disposition for online play.

JG53Frankyboy
03-14-2007, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Gah!! My problem is not tactics. It's relative airplane performance. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Only that matters to me.

..........

but relative airplane performances dictated the used tactics ?!?!?!?!

as example, the Spitfire V pilots over France 1941 or in the MTO 1942 used most propably other tactics against the Bf109s than 1943 over Darwin against Zeros and Oscars...........

Aymar_Mauri
03-14-2007, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Gah!! My problem is not tactics. It's relative airplane performance. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Only that matters to me.

..........

but relative airplane performances dictated the used tactics ?!?!?!?!

as example, the Spitfire V pilots over France 1941 or in the MTO 1942 used most propably other tactics against the Bf109s than 1943 over Darwin against Zeros and Oscars........... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I give up. No point in continuing a fruitless talk.

JG53Frankyboy
03-14-2007, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Gah!! My problem is not tactics. It's relative airplane performance. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Only that matters to me.

..........

but relative airplane performances dictated the used tactics ?!?!?!?!

as example, the Spitfire V pilots over France 1941 or in the MTO 1942 used most propably other tactics against the Bf109s than 1943 over Darwin against Zeros and Oscars........... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I give up. No point in continuing a fruitless talk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed.

JtD
03-15-2007, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
1. the G-6 and G-6_Late are the 109 variants to stay away of?

2. they are only good, ACTUALLY flying them in coop, using/reenacting LW tactics?

1. On the Western front I wouldn't use the G-6 or G-6late if given a choice. Spit IX, P-38, P-47 or P-51 are all better than what you got. On the Eastern Front it is an ok plane, as long as you travel at 4000m+. La-5FN is the only pain around.

2. No, on a dogfight server the are still lovely.

JtD
03-15-2007, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

How about the G-6A/S...that thing seems to have lots of power and a extremely good chance against most Allied fighters in 1944 in all respects.

This thing has 1800PS. It should be an awesome dogfighter in any maneuvre. Yet it gets outturned by underpowered & overweight planes like the P-39(!) or MiG-3(!!!).

anarchy52
03-15-2007, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
This thing has 1800PS. It should be an awesome dogfighter in any maneuvre. Yet it gets outturned by underpowered & overweight planes like the P-39(!) or MiG-3(!!!).

I hope it's just engine limitation/lack of developer's interest. IMHO, German planes are not so much off the mark, as their in-game opponents (by that I mean Russian planes mostly).

DIRTY-MAC
03-15-2007, 12:06 PM
@ Aymar_Mauri

please tell us more in detail what you think is wrong with 109 G6 VS P39 and L5F over 3K
and in what type of situation you experience this?


What model of the P-39 do you mean the D, N or Q series?

and do you mean the early or late G6?


The P-39s should be faster than the G6 Late between ca 2000m to 4000m

The P-400 that is the worst turning of all P-39s has a turn time of ca 19.94 sec

the Late G6
has a turn time of ca 22.85 sec

You should get IL compare and look for yourself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The P-39 wasnt a Crappy plane, it was just missused and wrongly exploited by USA early in the war.
USAF had a hard time against Japan in the early days, and it wasnt because they had crappy planes, it was because they had almost no battle experience and really bad tactics.

And they met experienced fighter pilots that had been fighting since 1937.

The P-39 was infact a really good performer down low.
Very respected by the Germans, (especially if it had a red nose).

anarchy52
03-15-2007, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
The P-400 that is the worst turning of all P-39s has a turn time of ca 19.94 sec

the Late G6
has a turn time of ca 22.85 sec

You should get IL compare and look for yourself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Keep in mind that il2c reflects in game performance, not the actual historical performance of the planes.

JtD
03-15-2007, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
The P-39 was in fact a really good performer down low.

Yeah, almost as good as a 109.

JG52Karaya-X
03-15-2007, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
and do you mean the early or late G6?


There is no significant performance difference between the G6early and late, the late being maybe 2-3km/h faster (but that might just be error of measurement)

I'm okay with all 109s except the 2 G6s which are just way undermodelled in their turning performance; at least 2 secs too high turn time for a full circle, constant speed & alt thats about 10% error. Imagine the whining if the P51 was missing 70km/h from its topspeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
03-15-2007, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
The P-39 was in fact a really good performer down low.

Yeah, almost as good as a 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Russian pilots say it was better than the 109 down low. Who or what are we supposed to believe?

Aymar_Mauri
03-15-2007, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
@ Aymar_Mauri

please tell us more in detail what you think is wrong with 109 G6 VS P39 and L5F over 3K
and in what type of situation you experience this?

What model of the P-39 do you mean the D, N or Q series?
The fact is that all the in-game P-39s but specially the N1, Q1 and even more the Q10 are better BnZ than their equivalent year 109s. Q10 trounces a G10 using TnB (expected) and BnZ (not expected) tactics.

Tell me what is the logic of having the famed "one of the best climbing planes of ww2" being caught by a subpar P-39 fighter? I can catch any G6/AS or G10 with a P-39Q10 and this against the cheating perfect energy management AI!!!


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:and do you mean the early or late G6?
I mean Bf109 G10 against P-39 Q10 or vice versa. I have lots more kills with the Cobra and it's much easier and less risky to get them, even using BnZ tactics exclusivelly.


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
The P-39s should be faster than the G6 Late between ca 2000m to 4000m
Bf109 G10 against P-39 Q10. But the most serious problem is climb rate.


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
The P-400 that is the worst turning of all P-39s has a turn time of ca 19.94 sec
Should be the same as the P-39 D1.


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
the Late G6
has a turn time of ca 22.85 sec
Which is wrong. It had only 50Kg more than the G2. Half a second slower worst case scenario = 21s...


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
You should get IL compare and look for yourself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Done it many times for a few years now and that only makes the modelling errors more obvious.


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
The P-39 wasnt a Crappy plane, it was just missused and wrongly exploited by USA early in the war.
USAF had a hard time against Japan in the early days, and it wasnt because they had crappy planes, it was because they had almost no battle experience and really bad tactics.

And they met experienced fighter pilots that had been fighting since 1937.
Not really. Overweight and subpar medium to high altitude performance were the main reasons for being sidelined in the USAAF.


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
The P-39 was infact a really good performer down low.
The P-39 was infact a passable performer down low.


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Very respected by the Germans, (especially if it had a red nose).
I would also greatly respect any plane with a black tulip pattern on the nose or a yellow 14 on it's side, even if it was an unarmed Cessna...

Aymar_Mauri
03-15-2007, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
The P-39 was in fact a really good performer down low.

Yeah, almost as good as a 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Russian pilots say it was better than the 109 down low. Who or what are we supposed to believe? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I will never trust propaganda from a regime that lied daily to their soldiers about the quality and capability of their equipement and material and used them as simple cannon fodder.

ImpStarDuece
03-15-2007, 06:55 PM
Instead, you could trust propaganda from a regieme that lied daily about its reasons for going to war, considered itself racially, morally and technically superior to its opponents and actively practiced eugenics.

Be careful where you tread with this one...

joeap
03-16-2007, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:

I will never trust propaganda from a regime that lied daily to their soldiers about the quality and capability of their equipement and material and used them as simple cannon fodder.

Ok, you've lost all credibility with that remark, your bias is just as bad as that you accuse others including 1C of. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Read some Glantz or this site to see how "incompetent" Stavka was:

Red Army Studies (http://www.redarmystudies.net/)

JtD
03-16-2007, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Russian pilots say it was better than the 109 down low. Who or what are we supposed to believe?

The Russian pilots also said the 109 was better than the P-39. I'd recommend you look at the numbers, make up your own mind and don't believe anybody.

Aymar_Mauri
03-16-2007, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Instead, you could trust propaganda from a regieme that lied daily about its reasons for going to war, considered itself racially, morally and technically superior to its opponents and actively practiced eugenics.

Be careful where you tread with this one...
Not really. The Nazis based their propaganda in racial superiority. Technical superiority was a unspoken consequence of that and not a main focus. While in the Soviet Union only 2 things mattered: Stalin and the social/technical achievements of the proletariate/communism. This last one is very much a reason for unsubstantiated claims when under the pressure of German attacks.

Germanics and Anglo-Saxons are usually too tigh-*** technically to make fraudulant technical reports. While the Soviets, in tactical and technological disadvantage in the 1941-1943 period fell in to those compensation speaches. After that the false claiming "culture" is installed.

Aymar_Mauri
03-16-2007, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:

I will never trust propaganda from a regime that lied daily to their soldiers about the quality and capability of their equipement and material and used them as simple cannon fodder.
Ok, you've lost all credibility with that remark, your bias is just as bad as that you accuse others including 1C of. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. Read the reply to ImpStarDuece.


Originally posted by joeap:
Read some Glantz or this site to see how "incompetent" Stavka was:

Red Army Studies (http://www.redarmystudies.net/)
I've read most of that site. Fail to see any relevance. Care to explain?

Aymar_Mauri
03-16-2007, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Russian pilots say it was better than the 109 down low. Who or what are we supposed to believe?
The Russian pilots also said the 109 was better than the P-39. I'd recommend you look at the numbers, make up your own mind and don't believe anybody. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very good tip. Nice to see that someone has good sense.

joeap
03-16-2007, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:

I will never trust propaganda from a regime that lied daily to their soldiers about the quality and capability of their equipement and material and used them as simple cannon fodder.
Ok, you've lost all credibility with that remark, your bias is just as bad as that you accuse others including 1C of. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. Read the reply to ImpStarDuece.


Originally posted by joeap:
Read some Glantz or this site to see how "incompetent" Stavka was:

Red Army Studies (http://www.redarmystudies.net/)
I've read most of that site. Fail to see any relevance. Care to explain? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well they were not simple cannon fodder but the Soviets learned the art of operational warfare and maskirovka to a degree not acknowledged in western literature until recently.

Barbarosa (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48190)


Soviet tank design in the T-34 was better in 41-42, an advantage nullified by German tactics for example.

BillyTheKid_22
03-16-2007, 01:29 PM
http://www.nnavirex.com/newshotP39/22.jpg



I love P-39!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

VW-IceFire
03-16-2007, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
The P-39 was in fact a really good performer down low.

Yeah, almost as good as a 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Russian pilots say it was better than the 109 down low. Who or what are we supposed to believe? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I will never trust propaganda from a regime that lied daily to their soldiers about the quality and capability of their equipement and material and used them as simple cannon fodder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is coming from Russian pilots in private interviews 60 years after the fact. Granted that time has taken a toll on their memory but I hardly think propaganda factors into this in any significant way. If anything...it works against it. The Soviets were quick to squelch Russian pilots who talked about how great the American fighters were.

All governments lie...all governments create propaganda for the masses. These are things that I'm very aware of and I think those kinds of considerations are moot or even contradictory given the contexts in question.

VW-IceFire
03-16-2007, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Russian pilots say it was better than the 109 down low. Who or what are we supposed to believe?

The Russian pilots also said the 109 was better than the P-39. I'd recommend you look at the numbers, make up your own mind and don't believe anybody. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have looked at the numbers...sadly the numbers seem to be quite lacking for the P-39N and Q models from what I've seen. Maybe someone else can pull up some numbers. But granted weight, engine power, the extremely low drag, and so forth. Competitive at the least...very good or possible better in some respects.

My problem is not with you JtD, I know we've talked about this before, and I think we both acknowledge the P-39 being a bit squirrelly in the game in some respects and I know we disagree by how much that really is but my problem is with some of the other smart arse remarks coming from people in this thread who discount the P-39 from the start because they've read what I have (and used to believe till I read more) about how aweful the P-39 was in USAAF service. I believed that when I was a kid because thats what the books said about that plane...but when looking into the situation in a far more indepth way...even looking past the numbers and just to operational realities. It becomes clear that there is a much more complicated story here.

Without writing an essay here people always seem to assume that "it was **** with the USAAF so it must just be a **** plane". Or vice versa because we have waaay too much of that going on in this forum too. Turns out its more complex than that....pilot skill level, skill of the support personnel, the realities of the air combat in the theater, the quality of fuel, oil, the roles assigned, etc. A variable cornucopia of different impacts on an aircrafts performance and more importantly the opinions of the pilots that wrote about it.

I've already mentioned how the P-39, for the Russians, seemed like a good deal. They seemed to think it was as good as or better than what they were flying against. So it gave them a strong fighting chance when some Russian planes weren't up to spec. They only flew at low level typically so the one reason the USAAF hated them is off the list. Turn rate is reported to be better than the 109...which is of course somewhat dependent on the models involved...but hardly surprising given how competitive the P-39 is with the P-40 in most literature and the P-40, in some models, could out turn the 109 as well (again at low altitude and of course at given speed ranges).

So it seems more complex than most of the folks here assume. Numbers sure...fine...whatever...pilot opinions are valid too and I'll make my mind up using whatever sources are available to me. But most of you are WAAAY too quick to judge, come to a conclusion, without trying to tease out the truth. And if you'd like to say that about me then I challenge you to because I'm right now...in the process of challenging the established opinions in this thread. Someones going to get ticked off and give us some good information that I didn't know about before.

JtD
03-16-2007, 04:14 PM
The Russians tested a Q and it turned 360? in 20-21 seconds. That's the same number the Russians got for the Bf 109G. In real life they were about the same. The engineering numbers also suggest they should be pretty close.

In game, the Q-10 model outturns the G-6late by a margin of 4 seconds - the G6late being about a second to slow, the -39 about 3 seconds too fast.

All in all, while in real life the advantage in a low level dogfight was with the better pilot, in game it is with the P-39. That's about the margin that annoys me.

The P-39 certainly was not as bad as some popular history books want to make it.

VW-IceFire
03-16-2007, 06:23 PM
And we both know that the G-6 and G-6 Late as tested here is turning too slowly. G-6A/S or G-2 turns far better and I believe gets the advertised turn times for those models if I'm not mistaken.

ImpStarDuece
03-17-2007, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:

Germanics and Anglo-Saxons are usually too tigh-*** technically to make fraudulant technical reports.

Can you point out a single FRADULENT technical test made by the VVS? Because, that is your implication.

During WW2 it was results that mattered most for the USSR, not propoganda.

Technical comparsions are fundamentally different to perfomance comparisons by combat participants/veterans.

JtD
03-17-2007, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
And we both know that the G-6 and G-6 Late as tested here is turning too slowly. G-6A/S or G-2 turns far better and I believe gets the advertised turn times for those models if I'm not mistaken.

Afaik, the G-6AS doesn't turn much better than the G-6/G-6late.

The G-2 is a completely different matter, but the G-2 is just one model and wasn't around much in 44. Turnwise the G-2 is pretty much comparable with the N and Q-1 in game, even though the best turn time still favours the P-39. The G-2 only needs all the better indicators like better wing loading, better power loading, better span loading or less parasitic drag to, well, just to get close.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-17-2007, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:

Germanics and Anglo-Saxons are usually too tigh-*** technically to make fraudulant technical reports.

Can you point out a single FRADULENT technical test made by the VVS? Because, that is your implication.

During WW2 it was results that mattered most for the USSR, not propoganda.

Technical comparsions are fundamentally different to perfomance comparisons by combat participants/veterans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here it is, kiss :*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayREUJe65w

joeap
03-17-2007, 04:40 AM
What is fraudulent about it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JtD
03-17-2007, 04:46 AM
It makes it appear that the FW has just shades of black and white. Everyone knows that this is not true.

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:

I will never trust propaganda from a regime that lied daily to their soldiers about the quality and capability of their equipement and material and used them as simple cannon fodder.
Ok, you've lost all credibility with that remark, your bias is just as bad as that you accuse others including 1C of. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. Read the reply to ImpStarDuece.


Originally posted by joeap:
Read some Glantz or this site to see how "incompetent" Stavka was:

Red Army Studies (http://www.redarmystudies.net/)
I've read most of that site. Fail to see any relevance. Care to explain? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well they were not simple cannon fodder but the Soviets learned the art of operational warfare and maskirovka to a degree not acknowledged in western literature until recently.

Barbarosa (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48190)


Soviet tank design in the T-34 was better in 41-42, an advantage nullified by German tactics for example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And, once again, please explain what does that have to do with propaganda?

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
The P-39 was in fact a really good performer down low.

Yeah, almost as good as a 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Russian pilots say it was better than the 109 down low. Who or what are we supposed to believe? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I will never trust propaganda from a regime that lied daily to their soldiers about the quality and capability of their equipement and material and used them as simple cannon fodder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is coming from Russian pilots in private interviews 60 years after the fact. Granted that time has taken a toll on their memory but I hardly think propaganda factors into this in any significant way. If anything...it works against it. The Soviets were quick to squelch Russian pilots who talked about how great the American fighters were.

All governments lie...all governments create propaganda for the masses. These are things that I'm very aware of and I think those kinds of considerations are moot or even contradictory given the contexts in question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, they wouldn't badmouth the american planes while they needed for their pilots to use them. After the war sure.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-17-2007, 06:31 AM
Why that test was wrong? Maybe because that FW190 ditched, propeller wasnt original, but came from another AC, and because of that all speeds, and overall performance were reduced. But Russians didnt worry, they told their pilots that all FW190 are like that, and brave russian pilot wont have any problem with poor FW190. The most funny thing is, that Oleg made FW190 as fast as in german description, but energy retention is far behind even those russian tests. 23s for turn at 1000m in the russian test, however in game values are around 25s.

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The Russians tested a Q and it turned 360? in 20-21 seconds. That's the same number the Russians got for the Bf 109G. In real life they were about the same. The engineering numbers also suggest they should be pretty close.

In game, the Q-10 model outturns the G-6late by a margin of 4 seconds - the G6late being about a second to slow, the -39 about 3 seconds too fast.

All in all, while in real life the advantage in a low level dogfight was with the better pilot, in game it is with the P-39. That's about the margin that annoys me.

The P-39 certainly was not as bad as some popular history books want to make it.
And it wasn't as good as Oleg has made it. That is my problem with it.

And you've just confirmed it with in-game data.

Kurfurst__
03-17-2007, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Instead, you could trust propaganda from a regieme that lied daily about its reasons for going to war, considered itself racially, morally and technically superior to its opponents and actively practiced eugenics.

Be careful where you tread with this one...

I wonder who you are talking about? The Germans? The Americans? The British? Others? Can you clarify?

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:

Germanics and Anglo-Saxons are usually too tigh-*** technically to make fraudulant technical reports.

Can you point out a single FRADULENT technical test made by the VVS? Because, that is your implication.

During WW2 it was results that mattered most for the USSR, not propoganda.

Technical comparsions are fundamentally different to perfomance comparisons by combat participants/veterans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then tell me why did the russians swore by their test of the FW190A4 with a malfunctioning engine using inadequate fuel and a bent and twisted propeller?

Or their Bf109Gs tests with gondolas being representative of the clean version?

They do really seem very minucious and accurate tests...

Kurfurst__
03-17-2007, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
and do you mean the early or late G6?


There is no significant performance difference between the G6early and late, the late being maybe 2-3km/h faster (but that might just be error of measurement)

I'm okay with all 109s except the 2 G6s which are just way undermodelled in their turning performance; at least 2 secs too high turn time for a full circle, constant speed & alt thats about 10% error. Imagine the whining if the P51 was missing 70km/h from its topspeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. It's just absurd how much worser the i n-game G-6 gets in turning (20->22.8) from the addition of just 50 kg, and a bit of drag (in any case, drag should be far less a concern at low turning speeds where induced drag (=weight) dominates).

It's just absurd that a G-2 with gunpods can still outturn a clean G-6.

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
And we both know that the G-6 and G-6 Late as tested here is turning too slowly. G-6A/S or G-2 turns far better and I believe gets the advertised turn times for those models if I'm not mistaken.

Afaik, the G-6AS doesn't turn much better than the G-6/G-6late.

The G-2 is a completely different matter, but the G-2 is just one model and wasn't around much in 44. Turnwise the G-2 is pretty much comparable with the N and Q-1 in game, even though the best turn time still favours the P-39. The G-2 only needs all the better indicators like better wing loading, better power loading, better span loading or less parasitic drag to, well, just to get close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
P-39 late versions off by -3 sec and G6 family off by +2.8 sec. This means a disparity of 5.8 sec for a complete 360º turn in regard to real world data.

How am I supposed not to think about bias?

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Why that test was wrong? Maybe because that FW190 ditched, propeller wasnt original, but came from another AC, and because of that all speeds, and overall performance were reduced. But Russians didnt worry, they told their pilots that all FW190 are like that, and brave russian pilot wont have any problem with poor FW190. The most funny thing is, that Oleg made FW190 as fast as in german description, but energy retention is far behind even those russian tests. 23s for turn at 1000m in the russian test, however in game values are around 25s.
This together with the abysmal kommandogerat we have in game that is far worse than manual engine control, when it was clearly much more efficient. And the fact that in a different flight atitude, other than a straight line, Oleg's kommandogerat makes the engine loose RPM and drastically reduces power. Or even more, the fact that the FW190 was known for it's "tremendous initial aceleration" while in-game it's an anemic hog suffering from engine tuberculosis.

Once again how can one not think about bias?

Brain32
03-17-2007, 06:55 AM
Or even more, the fact that the FW190 was known for it's "tremendous initial aceleration" while in-game it's an anemic hog suffering from engine tuberculosis.
Did you also notice, on take off if you slam the throtthle instantly to say 60-80%, I compared P47 and FW190A, they both produce approx same torque, however while P47 rockets itself forward to the point that it get's dangerous if you are not on the runway, in the same time FW190 barely moved half an inch with speed of like 10kmh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

tigertalon
03-17-2007, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Or even more, the fact that the FW190 was known for it's "tremendous initial aceleration" while in-game it's an anemic hog suffering from engine tuberculosis.
Did you also notice, on take off if you slam the throtthle instantly to say 60-80%, I compared P47 and FW190A, they both produce approx same torque, however while P47 rockets itself forward to the point that it get's dangerous if you are not on the runway, in the same time FW190 barely moved half an inch with speed of like 10kmh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, 190A reaches optimal rpm as late as at speeds of around 370kph. Below this it behaves similar to planes with fixed pitch. Never heard any explanation for this.

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Or even more, the fact that the FW190 was known for it's "tremendous initial aceleration" while in-game it's an anemic hog suffering from engine tuberculosis.
Did you also notice, on take off if you slam the throtthle instantly to say 60-80%, I compared P47 and FW190A, they both produce approx same torque, however while P47 rockets itself forward to the point that it get's dangerous if you are not on the runway, in the same time FW190 barely moved half an inch with speed of like 10kmh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah. I'm sure the biggest problem besides the kommandogerat settings is the engine power distribution. Something like this is what is at hand:

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5926/fw190powerdistributionslr0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

JG4_Helofly
03-17-2007, 10:17 AM
Imagine an il2 game in which the 190 would have an accurate Kommandogerät and the 2 sec better turn performance it had in RL. It would be banned from all servers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Imagine an il2 game in which the 190 would have an accurate Kommandogerät and the 2 sec better turn performance it had in RL. It would be banned from all servers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Yeap. The developpers and the guys who hate anything german really don't want that to happen. Another evidence of the balancing of the game to online play and to benefit TnB planes.

joeap
03-17-2007, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Imagine an il2 game in which the 190 would have an accurate Kommandogerät and the 2 sec better turn performance it had in RL. It would be banned from all servers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Yeap. The developpers and the guys who hate anything german really don't want that to happen. Another evidence of the balancing of the game to online play and to benefit TnB planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cripes your bias is getting worse. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

If that is true, why make a game where you can fly both sides at all? Make stupid Axis AI you can shoot down easily. Anyway, if the German planes are as bad as you guys say, and people still do well in them, no reason it could not be the same the other way. Plus nothing will change what happened in history if you think the makers are so anti-German.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-17-2007, 01:21 PM
If Germany would win the war, ur La5FN would have max speed 530km/h, u wouldnt be able to keep energy during the turns, it's dive would be poor, and it's propeller pitch wouldnt be able to keep the RPMs at all. Even more funny would be Spitfire, which after sharp turn from 500km/h would hang at 300km/h.

joeap
03-17-2007, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
If Germany would win the war, ur La5FN would have max speed 530km/h, u wouldnt be able to keep energy during the turns, it's dive would be poor, and it's propeller pitch wouldnt be able to keep the RPMs at all. Even more funny would be Spitfire, which after sharp turn from 500km/h would hang at 300km/h.

http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/sign70.gif

http://forum.allsiemens.com/images/smiles/icon_blahblah.gif

They're not "my" La5FN or "my" Spitfire, for one thing I fly both red and blue, for another both sides have planes with problems and that has been proven.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-17-2007, 01:37 PM
Yes, the planes with problems are heavy planes. Only germany and USA had them + british tempest. But guess what, none of soviet planes is undermodelled.

Btw, i fly both red and blue toohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FluffyDucks2
03-17-2007, 02:28 PM
Guys,guys,guys, Oleg said himself on these very same boards(or might have been SimHQ) that he HAD to pork the 190s FM for GAME BALANCE, otherwise it would slaughter EVERYTHING allied, surely some of you remember that?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

He said it as far as I recall prior to the launch of the original IL2.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Imagine an il2 game in which the 190 would have an accurate Kommandogerät and the 2 sec better turn performance it had in RL. It would be banned from all servers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Yeap. The developpers and the guys who hate anything german really don't want that to happen. Another evidence of the balancing of the game to online play and to benefit TnB planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cripes your bias is getting worse. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

If that is true, why make a game where you can fly both sides at all? Make stupid Axis AI you can shoot down easily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then they would be criticized because they were making a Rusky biased sim. They would get worse sales...

And, contrary to what you claim, my problem is not related to german planes. It's related to flight model innacuracies for all planes that have them. This includes P-51 (worse than it was in RL - lacks climb and speed and late high boost versions), P-38 (worse than it was in RL - lacks climb and has excessive high speed dive problems) P-39 (better than it was in RL - climbs and turns better than it did), La-7 (better than it was in RL, climbs much better and has much better behaviour at high altitudes), Bf109 G6 series (worse than it was in RL - excess weight), FW190A (much worse than it was in RL - lack of power at low and medium RPM, lack of acceleration, kommandogerat incorrect functioning, etc...), N1K1 and N1K2 (worse than it was in RL - lacks speed at all altitudes like the Zero) and I could had a couple more...


Originally posted by joeap:
Anyway, if the German planes are as bad as you guys say, and people still do well in them, no reason it could not be the same the other way. Plus nothing will change what happened in history if you think the makers are so anti-German.
See? All you talk is about online gameplay balance. I couldn't care less about online playing. I do care though, with accurate historical representation of airplane performance.

What it really matters, and as one can clearly see by what you and many others say, is that what is important for the developers is not a accurate representation of airplane performance, but the representation of their perception of what airplane performance should be in their imaginated WW2 world...

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
If Germany would win the war, ur La5FN would have max speed 530km/h, u wouldnt be able to keep energy during the turns, it's dive would be poor, and it's propeller pitch wouldnt be able to keep the RPMs at all. Even more funny would be Spitfire, which after sharp turn from 500km/h would hang at 300km/h.
They're not "my" La5FN or "my" Spitfire, for one thing I fly both red and blue, for another both sides have planes with problems and that has been proven. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then read my posts carefully before making comments...

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Yes, the planes with problems are heavy planes. Only germany and USA had them + british tempest. But guess what, none of soviet planes is undermodelled.
Preciselly. None of the soviet ones are. And the most obvious overmodelling is precisely in soviet planes or soviet used land-lease planes.

I wonder why?


Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Btw, i fly both red and blue toohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And me too. And what is the problem with flying with all of them?

I'm stunned at the stupid blue vs red siding in the forums. People behaving like little children and without having the excuse of being little children...

JG14_Josf
03-17-2007, 05:03 PM
Yes, the planes with problems are heavy planes. Only germany and USA had them + british tempest. But guess what, none of soviet planes is undermodelled.

He he,

One of my favorite off-line practice sessions in multi-player is to fight 4 IL2s with one Fw190A-8. The IL2s are almost equal in dive acceleration and zoom climb deceleration. It makes for a good vertical maneuvering session. How much does the IL2 weigh?

Note too in the latest patch that the A-20 is showing itself as a capable energy fighter.

How much does the A-20 weigh?

Don't go telling me I need to learn how to change my tactics. I didn't say that the A-20s are wining energy fights with me.

I have track files and that A-20 will continue to be flown in this patch by players as a dog-fighter. It does a respectable brake turn half scissors to follow you up on a zoom to spray and pray so make sure that you attack with plenty of extra energy.

I can beat the A.I. IL2s every time so far; my point is to show that the heavy planes are not necessarily the only factor determining which planes are not good at energy fighting.

How much is the IL2 and A-20 power loading?

How much is the IL2 and A-20 wing-loading?

The P-47D (latest model) is now modeled as an energy fighter according to track files showing how it can gain more acceleration in a vertical dive and then pull out from the dive into a zoom climb to gain more range in a zoom climb (decelerate slower) when the opponent is a 109K (or two) following on WEP at 9,000 meters.

I "Got Tracks"

I really, really like seeing the new version of the game finally modeling a P-47 that resembles the P-47 in history – think big smile.

What is the power-loading on the new P-47?

What is the wing-loading on the new P-47?

How much does the P-47 weigh compared to the 109K?

How much does the IL2 weigh compared to the Fw190A-8 (fighter version)

How much does the A-20 weigh compared to the (what were we flying on that server?), ahhhh, I can check the track files – it was the 109E-4.

How much does the A-20 weigh compared to the 109E-4?

No, I didn't say that A-20s are better hit and run fighters than the 109E-4, I didn't say that so don't tell me I have to learn how to use the correct tactics with 109E-4s when flying with an on-line schwarm hooked up with teamspeak.

So...perhaps high wing-loading coupled with high weight is not good for vertical dive acceleration and vertical zoom deceleration; except for the TA which had big wings.

Relative to what I ask?

What is the wing-loading for the TA?

How about a chart?

------------W-L--------P/W-------W------best dive acel--------best climb decel.
A-20
IL2
FWA8
P-47D
TA

W-L = wing loading (most wing for least weight 1 through 5)
P/W = Power loading (most power for least weight 1 through 5)
W = weight (least weight 1 through 5)
Best dive acel = 1 through 5 which plane goes from zero to 600 km/h soonest straight down
Best climb decal = 1 through 5 which plane goes from 400 km/h to 0 km/h latest straight up

Best energy fighter has lowest score being able to gain speed fastest and retain speed longest.

Note: Wing-loading is a non-factor in unloaded dive and climb acceleration on the gravity vector – big wings ONLY slow planes down in vertical (unloaded) dives and zoom climbs.

The turn at the bottom part is called corner speed so that part can be ignored on this forum when discussing aircraft fighter combat performance (superfluous non-issues).

For the topic (over 3k):

------------W-L--------P/W-------W------best dive acel--------best climb decel.
109G6
P39
L5F

joeap
03-17-2007, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
If Germany would win the war, ur La5FN would have max speed 530km/h, u wouldnt be able to keep energy during the turns, it's dive would be poor, and it's propeller pitch wouldnt be able to keep the RPMs at all. Even more funny would be Spitfire, which after sharp turn from 500km/h would hang at 300km/h.
They're not "my" La5FN or "my" Spitfire, for one thing I fly both red and blue, for another both sides have planes with problems and that has been proven. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then read my posts carefully before making comments... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read MY posts carefully, I meant if it was the other way people would complain as well. I am interested in historical accuracy too but you have concentrated on plane performance as the only factor while forgetting other points, tactics (including teamwork, targeting etc.).

joeap
03-17-2007, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
Guys,guys,guys, Oleg said himself on these very same boards(or might have been SimHQ) that he HAD to pork the 190s FM for GAME BALANCE, otherwise it would slaughter EVERYTHING allied, surely some of you remember that?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

He said it as far as I recall prior to the launch of the original IL2.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

More BS rumour mongering, can you find a link to an archive, unless you're making a stupid joke of some sort.

JG4_Helofly
03-17-2007, 05:36 PM
Personaly I don't belive in any bias conspiration, but imo heavy planes are disadvantaged in il2 due to engine limitation like compressibility effect or things like that. That would explaine why russian planes seems to perform better than they did in RL. Yak and La are not heavy weight fighters, keep this in mind.

JG14_Josf
03-17-2007, 05:53 PM
Personaly I don't belive in any bias conspiration, but imo heavy planes are disadvantaged in il2 due to engine limitation like compressibility effect or things like that. That would explaine why russian planes seems to perform better than they did in RL. Yak and La are not heavy weight fighters, keep this in mind.

Here is a "better" test to test your weight theory:

Fly a Spitfire VB (1941) an Fw190A-4 and a Yak side by side at the slowest planes top speed and then see which plane can slow down the fastest.

The plane that can slow down the fastest will be the 'better' plane at slowing down the fastest.

How does weight affect the ability of an airplane to slow down while using air to slow the air plane down; not slowing down by ramming into the earth?

Air resistance is the only thing that can slow the airplanes down besides gravity.

Which plane should slow down faster if all three planes pulled the power, set the prop to full fine pitch (or high rpm), and pitched up into a maximum g spiral climb (without flaps since the Spitfire doesn't have combat flaps).

Which plane should slow down faster?

Which plane is the better decelerating energy fighter (fast transient from fast to slow)?

Which plane can force overshoots better?

Which plane is the better plane in this test in the game?

Which plane was the better plane at fast transients during decelerations in actual reality – history?

If I may suggest that the Spitfire should be the fastest since it has big wings and low mass and therefore the air will force the Spitfire to slow down much quicker, then, I may – if not – then not.

Aymar_Mauri
03-17-2007, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
L0Lz central...nerd nazis at it again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif
Look. Another troll at it again... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

GR142-Pipper
03-17-2007, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Why that test was wrong? Maybe because that FW190 ditched, propeller wasnt original, but came from another AC, and because of that all speeds, and overall performance were reduced. But Russians didnt worry, they told their pilots that all FW190 are like that, and brave russian pilot wont have any problem with poor FW190. The most funny thing is, that Oleg made FW190 as fast as in german description, but energy retention is far behind even those russian tests. 23s for turn at 1000m in the russian test, however in game values are around 25s.
This together with the abysmal kommandogerat we have in game that is far worse than manual engine control, when it was clearly much more efficient. And the fact that in a different flight atitude, other than a straight line, Oleg's kommandogerat makes the engine loose RPM and drastically reduces power. Or even more, the fact that the FW190 was known for it's "tremendous initial aceleration" while in-game it's an anemic hog suffering from engine tuberculosis.

Once again how can one not think about bias? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>One need only look at how the mid/late war U.S. aircraft and components (R2800, 50 cals, etc.) have been so pi$$-poorly modeled (and allowed to remain so) to realize that this game is replete with bias.

GR142-Pipper

Xiolablu3
03-18-2007, 12:02 AM
This thread is absolutely hilarious.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Whiners United... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Hopefully they will all go and find a different game to play rather than hang around here along with this 'biased' sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

WHo wants to bet they wont, they will just hang around here moaning some more about how heavy planes are 'too heavy'...

Its all a conspiracy you know... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

In reality the P51's laminar flow wings and heavy weight allowed it to turn on a dime and the La5' s really light weight and slats made it a dog of a fighter....

Kurfurst__
03-18-2007, 05:14 AM
I find it extremely ironic that ubi board's software lacks a built-in POPCORN emoticon.
Though the lack of it is probably justified by it's possible bandwith-requirements.

Blutarski2004
03-18-2007, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
How does weight affect the ability of an airplane to slow down while using air to slow the air plane down; not slowing down by ramming into the earth?

Air resistance is the only thing that can slow the airplanes down besides gravity.


..... Other things being more or less equal, larger aircraft will retain their velocity better than smaller aircraft. The comparative frontal area of the larger a/c vs the smaller a/c relates as the square (2nd power) of linear dimension (its wingspan, for example); but its weight relates as the cube (3rd power). Therefore, the larger aircraft will possess a better ballistic performance through the air. The relationship is similar to that of a larger bullet versus a smaller bullet.

Greater weight also implies greater inertia.

This is why US fighters, which were typically large and heavy, had good zoom climb performance.

The trade-offs in such designs tended to be lower relative climb rate, lower level flight acceleration, and a greater turn radius.

>all other things being more or less equal<

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-18-2007, 07:22 AM
Ok, so what about large baloons, they are very large aircrafts, but no way they can dive or zoom well... Large AC, means, much drag, yes it might be compensated by big engine and heavy weight, but those are completly different things.
"larger aircraft will retain their velocity better than smaller aircraft" - thats BS.

Aymar_Mauri
03-18-2007, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Ok, so what about large baloons, they are very large aircrafts, but no way they can dive or zoom well... Large AC, means, much drag, yes it might be compensated by big engine and heavy weight, but those are completly different things.
"larger aircraft will retain their velocity better than smaller aircraft" - thats BS.
I can't hardly believe you posted this.

A baloon is a "lighter than air" aircraft. It does not obey to the same principles as an airplane ("heavier than air").

Why? Because it uses a gas (air, helium, hydrogen) to remove the weight factor out of the equation. Gravity does not affect it the same way because the real weight is compensated by the gas' apparent weight it contains.

Try to weight a ballon when it floats 30cm above the ground...

The ignorance of certain remarks is outstanding... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Aymar_Mauri
03-18-2007, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
This thread is absolutely hilarious.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Whiners United... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Hopefully they will all go and find a different game to play rather than hang around here along with this 'biased' sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

WHo wants to bet they wont, they will just hang around here moaning some more about how heavy planes are 'too heavy'...

Its all a conspiracy you know... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

In reality the P51's laminar flow wings and heavy weight allowed it to turn on a dime and the La5' s really light weight and slats made it a dog of a fighter....
Seems you don't read proper. You are the one claiming:

"In reality the P51's laminar flow wings and heavy weight allowed it to turn on a dime and the La5' s really light weight and slats made it a dog of a fighter..."

Nobody else is claiming that...

Aymar_Mauri
03-18-2007, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
How does weight affect the ability of an airplane to slow down while using air to slow the air plane down; not slowing down by ramming into the earth?

Air resistance is the only thing that can slow the airplanes down besides gravity.
..... Other things being more or less equal, larger aircraft will retain their velocity better than smaller aircraft. The comparative frontal area of the larger a/c vs the smaller a/c relates as the square (2nd power) of linear dimension (its wingspan, for example); but its weight relates as the cube (3rd power). Therefore, the larger aircraft will possess a better ballistic performance through the air. The relationship is similar to that of a larger bullet versus a smaller bullet.

Greater weight also implies greater inertia.

This is why US fighters, which were typically large and heavy, had good zoom climb performance.

The trade-offs in such designs tended to be lower relative climb rate, lower level flight acceleration, and a greater turn radius.

>all other things being more or less equal< </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct except that "size" should be changed to "weight" and "larger" to "heavier".

EDIT : Sorry. I read "heavier" and not "larger" when making my previous comment on his post.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-18-2007, 07:49 AM
But u are talking about lift, and im talking about trust and drag. Completly different things. Aerodynamics is the same for all objects, there arent different physic law's for baloons, trees or aircrafts. More trust, less drag(smaller AC, smaller wings etc), more weight = will keep energy better. Less trust, more drag(bigger AC, bigger wings), less weight = will keep energy worse. Kick(give a trust) a ball and kick a baloon, same dimensions, different weight.

JG4_Helofly
03-18-2007, 07:57 AM
I realy don't understand why a larger aircraft should be better in energie retention. An aircraft with more surface has more drag.
So you mean that a 300g 20mm bullet should have a lower range than a 300g 30mm bullet? Hard to belive if you ask me, but maybe there are some documents to support your theorie.

I have never heared about a 30mm bullet having better balistic caracteristics than a 20mm bullet.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-18-2007, 07:59 AM
Hehe, if this 30mm bullet would be 500g, then why nothttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG14_Josf
03-18-2007, 09:35 AM
..... Other things being more or less equal, larger aircraft will retain their velocity better than smaller aircraft. The comparative frontal area of the larger a/c vs the smaller a/c relates as the square (2nd power) of linear dimension (its wingspan, for example); but its weight relates as the cube (3rd power). Therefore, the larger aircraft will possess a better ballistic performance through the air. The relationship is similar to that of a larger bullet versus a smaller bullet.

Greater weight also implies greater inertia.

This is why US fighters, which were typically large and heavy, had good zoom climb performance.

The trade-offs in such designs tended to be lower relative climb rate, lower level flight acceleration, and a greater turn radius.

>all other things being more or less equal<

Blutarski2004,

PRETTY PLEASE with SUGAR ON TOP: elaborate upon your perspective more accurately??

Two questions marks for me.

In ballistics there is a term called ˜sectional density' where an arrow can have a lot of sectional density while a cannon ball can be very low in sectional density. A race between a small DENSE arrow and a low sectional density cannon ball going up in a zoom climb to reach the theoretical ENERGY HEIGHT will be a drag race against a small frontal area with a lot of mass behind it AGAINST a large frontal area with a lot of mass behind it.

Sectional Density (http://www.fortliberty.org/military-library/sectional-density.shtml)


Sectional Density is calculated by dividing a bullets weight by it's diameter.

Sectional Density is important because, all other variables being equal, a bullet with a higher Sectional Density will:

Lose less energy and speed in flight
Drop less on the way to the target
Penetrate more effectively into a target
The M855 5.56mm bullet has a Sectional Density of 0.178. The 147gr 7.62mm NATO bullet has a sectional density of 0.221.

The bullet with the worst sectional density would be a round ball.

The heavier and more narrow the bullet is, the higher its sectional density will be.

If the 7.62mm bullet above weighed 150 grains, it would have a sectonal density of .226. If it weighed 165 grains, it would have a sectional density of .248.

Bullets of the same diameter and weight may have different sectional densities if they are made of different materials, such as depleted Uranium.

Not all bullets with the same weight, diameter, and sectional density perform the same. Bullet shape can significantly effect performance.

Sectional Density is abbreviated SD.



..... Other things being more or less equal, larger aircraft will retain their velocity better than smaller aircraft.

Therefore, the larger aircraft will possess a better ballistic performance through the air.

The relationship is similar to that of a larger bullet versus a smaller bullet.

>all other things being more or less equal<

˜All else being equal' implies EQUAL DENSITY.

˜All else being equal' implies EQUAL WEIGHT.

"All else being equal" implies EQUAL VOLUME.

"All else being equal" implies EQUAL SHAPE.

The only variable implied is size.


Sectional Density is calculated by dividing a bullets weight by it's diameter.

Sectional Density is important because, all other variables being equal, a bullet with a higher Sectional Density will:

Lose less energy and speed in flight
Drop less on the way to the target
Penetrate more effectively into a target

The bullet with the worst sectional density would be a round ball.

The heavier and more narrow the bullet is, the higher its sectional density will be.

If the 7.62mm bullet above weighed 150 grains, it would have a sectonal density of .226. If it weighed 165 grains, it would have a sectional density of .248.

Bullets of the same diameter and weight may have different sectional densities if they are made of different materials, such as depleted Uranium.

Not all bullets with the same weight, diameter, and sectional density perform the same. Bullet shape can significantly effect performance.

Sectional Density is abbreviated SD.


How about looking at two bullets?

45 ACP 300 grain
45/70 500 grain

Both bullets are .45 (diameter)

One bullet looks more like a ball.

The other bullet looks more like an arrow.

If both bullets are shot straight up at the same speed, then, which bullet will go higher?

First look at the problem if the two bullets were shot straight up at the same speed in a vacuum.

It is important to understand that the 500 grain bullet requires more force (Muzzle energy) to get that heavy bullet out of the barrel at the same speed (Muzzle velocity).

It takes less muzzle energy to accelerate the lighter bullet out of the barrel at the same muzzle velocity as the heavy bullet – both bullets are the same diameter – the 500 grain bullet is measured with a higher sectional density.

In a vacuum the race to the higher altitude (theoretical energy height) is equal. Both bullets starting out at the same speed will slow down at the same rate by gravity and both bullets in a vacuum (slowed down by gravity and slowed down ONLY by gravity and slowed down by nothing BUT gravity) both bullets reach the same ENERGY HEIGHT.

Both bullets in a vacuum will reach the theoretical energy height at zero velocity despite one bullet starting out with more muzzle energy.

Both bullets reach the same energy height because both bullets start out at the same speed and both bullets slow down at the same rate and both bullets run out of energy at the same time, at the same height, at zero speed and both bullets reach back to the gun at the same time.

That is a vacuum.

Air slows both bullets down going up and going down.

Which bullet wins the race going up in air?

Which bullet wins the race going down in air (if it doesn't tumble)?

If an arrow were shot up at the same speed with the same density as the 500 grain bullet and the arrow was .25 diameter, then, will the arrow win the drag race up to try to reach the theoretical energy height?

ElAurens
03-18-2007, 09:45 AM
Actual diameters.

.45 Automatic Colt Pistol = .451 inch.

.45/70 Government = .458 inch.

Just to be nit picky about it.

VW-IceFire
03-18-2007, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
This thread is absolutely hilarious.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Whiners United... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Hopefully they will all go and find a different game to play rather than hang around here along with this 'biased' sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

WHo wants to bet they wont, they will just hang around here moaning some more about how heavy planes are 'too heavy'...

Its all a conspiracy you know... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

In reality the P51's laminar flow wings and heavy weight allowed it to turn on a dime and the La5' s really light weight and slats made it a dog of a fighter....
Seems you don't read proper. You are the one claiming:

"In reality the P51's laminar flow wings and heavy weight allowed it to turn on a dime and the La5' s really light weight and slats made it a dog of a fighter..."

Nobody else is claiming that... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pretty close I'd say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Some of the comments here are hilarious. I've tried to reason...but few of you would ever listen. Xiola's method might be the better one...it certainly gets more of a response http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aymar_Mauri
03-18-2007, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
But u are talking about lift, and im talking about trust and drag. Completly different things. Aerodynamics is the same for all objects, there arent different physic law's for baloons, trees or aircrafts. More trust, less drag(smaller AC, smaller wings etc), more weight = will keep energy better. Less trust, more drag(bigger AC, bigger wings), less weight = will keep energy worse. Kick(give a trust) a ball and kick a baloon, same dimensions, different weight.
Same laws but without the gravity factor involved. Also the aerodynamical problem is totally different. Please take in to consideration that a baloon conpensates the force of gravity by having a gas less dense than the air to create a counter force to the gravity that allows it to hover. This makes it a totally different case from airplanes that use a wing and speed (pure high speed aeroynamics) to create the lift that allows them to take off and fly. Baloon aerodynamics only can be taken in to considerations when moving not hovering and the lack of the effect of gravity totally changes the calculations. In baloons moving and hovering are totally different factors. Not in a plane. Moving is necessary to make it lift off.

In regard to what you have wrote:

"More trust, less drag(smaller AC, smaller wings etc), more weight = will keep energy better. Less trust, more drag(bigger AC, bigger wings), less weight = will keep energy worse."

Although your reasoning is mostly correct, this is not so simple. As was previously mentioned all factors and their importance in the equation must be taken in to consideration, namely the ratio between drag and weight. A bigger object is not necessarily dragier.

Since we are talking about planes, let's take a Boeing 757 and a Avro Lancaster. The 757 is way bigger (greater mass) but also more aerodynamic so it produces less overall drag force. If we make them both dive from the same starting speed and altitude, with their engines in idle, the 757 will distance itself from the Lancaster because it has a better aerodynamic and more weight. If they had the same relative aerodynamic ratio in regard to their weight ratio, both planes would dive at the same rate of acceleration. But not having different aerodynamic drag. If overall drag is the same the heavier plane will fall faster. If the weight is the same the less draggy plane will fall faster. In our comparation the 757 is both more aerodynamic and heavier so it has a double factor of superiority in a dive. The same happens in a zoom climb due to the greater inertia (resistance to change it's energy state) of the heavier plane and it's better aerodynamic (less overall drag). If we make them pull up in a zoom climb the 757 will also stall later and higher because it also has a double advantage factor.

If we move our scenario to WW2 and IL2 and change the planes in the test for a Spitfire and a P-51 we can see that the Spit is lighter and smaller but produces more drag overall. The P-51 is bigger and heavier but has less overall drag. In this case, and transfering our 757/Lancaster analysis we can see where our previous results will leads us in this specific test. The P-51 has a double factor of superiory in the dive and in the zoom climb. Therefore it accelerates better than the Spit in the dive (less drag + more weight) and mantains it's speed better in the zoom clim (more inertia + less drag), reaching higher altitude and stalling later.

There is only a doubt when the drag and weight factors are very close together or when each plane has superiority in one of the factors, as in the case when the heavier plane produces more drag. For the heavier plane to achieve superiority in the dive and zoom climb the plane's difference in overall drag must not be as big as the difference in weight. Inverselly, for the lighter plane to achieve superiority in the dive, their overall weight difference must not as big as the drag difference. Then the lighter plane will have superiority in the dive and zoom climb.

Compare this aerodynamic and aerospace fact with what we have in game...

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-18-2007, 10:23 AM
I agree, but still dimensions have nothing with it. Its ratio between drag, weight and power, nothing more. It doesnt matter if a plane is 100m long or 10m long or wide, if ratios will be the same. Oh, and i dont think that P51 is much bigger than Spitfire, maybe longer by 1m, thats all.

Aymar_Mauri
03-18-2007, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
I realy don't understand why a larger aircraft should be better in energie retention. An aircraft with more surface has more drag.
Yes, but the drag difference might not compensate the difference in inertia.


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
So you mean that a 300g 20mm bullet should have a lower range than a 300g 30mm bullet? Hard to belive if you ask me, but maybe there are some documents to support your theorie.
No. He is not saying that. He is saying that a 500g 30mm bullet might have a greater range than a 200g 20mm bullet provided that their overall drag is close => drag difference smaller than weight difference.

If you want to know more about balistic comparation tests just check any site or magazine where they compare rifle or pistols ammo in target practice or ballistic gel penetration tests.

Let's say for example a 9mm pistol loaded with 115gr and the same gun loaded with 147gr (both full metal jacket ball bullets). They have the same basic shape (the 147gr is a bit longer) and therefore same overall drag (115gr only slightly less) but quite a bit of difference in weight. Which one do you think travels further?

Guess what? The 147gr travels further provided initial escape velocity is the same. In fact, even if the 147gr velocity is somewhat slower it still travels further. Same can be seen in any ballistic gel penetration tests. The one that has more penetration is the heavier bullet, even when it has a slightly smaller initial escape velocity.

And this is RL physics just like the 757/Lancaster test.

Aymar_Mauri
03-18-2007, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... Other things being more or less equal, larger aircraft will retain their velocity better than smaller aircraft. The comparative frontal area of the larger a/c vs the smaller a/c relates as the square (2nd power) of linear dimension (its wingspan, for example); but its weight relates as the cube (3rd power). Therefore, the larger aircraft will possess a better ballistic performance through the air. The relationship is similar to that of a larger bullet versus a smaller bullet.

Greater weight also implies greater inertia.

This is why US fighters, which were typically large and heavy, had good zoom climb performance.

The trade-offs in such designs tended to be lower relative climb rate, lower level flight acceleration, and a greater turn radius.

>all other things being more or less equal<

Blutarski2004,

PRETTY PLEASE with SUGAR ON TOP: elaborate upon your perspective more accurately??

Two questions marks for me.

In ballistics there is a term called ˜sectional density' where an arrow can have a lot of sectional density while a cannon ball can be very low in sectional density. A race between a small DENSE arrow and a low sectional density cannon ball going up in a zoom climb to reach the theoretical ENERGY HEIGHT will be a drag race against a small frontal area with a lot of mass behind it AGAINST a large frontal area with a lot of mass behind it.

Sectional Density (http://www.fortliberty.org/military-library/sectional-density.shtml)


Sectional Density is calculated by dividing a bullets weight by it's diameter.

Sectional Density is important because, all other variables being equal, a bullet with a higher Sectional Density will:

Lose less energy and speed in flight
Drop less on the way to the target
Penetrate more effectively into a target
The M855 5.56mm bullet has a Sectional Density of 0.178. The 147gr 7.62mm NATO bullet has a sectional density of 0.221.

The bullet with the worst sectional density would be a round ball.

The heavier and more narrow the bullet is, the higher its sectional density will be.

If the 7.62mm bullet above weighed 150 grains, it would have a sectonal density of .226. If it weighed 165 grains, it would have a sectional density of .248.

Bullets of the same diameter and weight may have different sectional densities if they are made of different materials, such as depleted Uranium.

Not all bullets with the same weight, diameter, and sectional density perform the same. Bullet shape can significantly effect performance.

Sectional Density is abbreviated SD.



..... Other things being more or less equal, larger aircraft will retain their velocity better than smaller aircraft.

Therefore, the larger aircraft will possess a better ballistic performance through the air.

The relationship is similar to that of a larger bullet versus a smaller bullet.

>all other things being more or less equal<

˜All else being equal' implies EQUAL DENSITY.

˜All else being equal' implies EQUAL WEIGHT.

"All else being equal" implies EQUAL VOLUME.

"All else being equal" implies EQUAL SHAPE.

The only variable implied is size.


Sectional Density is calculated by dividing a bullets weight by it's diameter.

Sectional Density is important because, all other variables being equal, a bullet with a higher Sectional Density will:

Lose less energy and speed in flight
Drop less on the way to the target
Penetrate more effectively into a target

The bullet with the worst sectional density would be a round ball.

The heavier and more narrow the bullet is, the higher its sectional density will be.

If the 7.62mm bullet above weighed 150 grains, it would have a sectonal density of .226. If it weighed 165 grains, it would have a sectional density of .248.

Bullets of the same diameter and weight may have different sectional densities if they are made of different materials, such as depleted Uranium.

Not all bullets with the same weight, diameter, and sectional density perform the same. Bullet shape can significantly effect performance.

Sectional Density is abbreviated SD.


How about looking at two bullets?

45 ACP 300 grain
45/70 500 grain

Both bullets are .45 (diameter)

One bullet looks more like a ball.

The other bullet looks more like an arrow.

If both bullets are shot straight up at the same speed, then, which bullet will go higher?

First look at the problem if the two bullets were shot straight up at the same speed in a vacuum.

It is important to understand that the 500 grain bullet requires more force (Muzzle energy) to get that heavy bullet out of the barrel at the same speed (Muzzle velocity).

It takes less muzzle energy to accelerate the lighter bullet out of the barrel at the same muzzle velocity as the heavy bullet – both bullets are the same diameter – the 500 grain bullet is measured with a higher sectional density.

In a vacuum the race to the higher altitude (theoretical energy height) is equal. Both bullets starting out at the same speed will slow down at the same rate by gravity and both bullets in a vacuum (slowed down by gravity and slowed down ONLY by gravity and slowed down by nothing BUT gravity) both bullets reach the same ENERGY HEIGHT.

Both bullets in a vacuum will reach the theoretical energy height at zero velocity despite one bullet starting out with more muzzle energy.

Both bullets reach the same energy height because both bullets start out at the same speed and both bullets slow down at the same rate and both bullets run out of energy at the same time, at the same height, at zero speed and both bullets reach back to the gun at the same time.

That is a vacuum.

Air slows both bullets down going up and going down.

Which bullet wins the race going up in air?

Which bullet wins the race going down in air (if it doesn't tumble)?

If an arrow were shot up at the same speed with the same density as the 500 grain bullet and the arrow was .25 diameter, then, will the arrow win the drag race up to try to reach the theoretical energy height? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Great post. You are correct. He incorrectly mentions "size" when it should be "weight" in to consideration.

Aymar_Mauri
03-18-2007, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
I agree, but still dimensions have nothing with it. Its ratio between drag, weight and power, nothing more. It doesnt matter if a plane is 100m long or 10m long or wide, if ratios will be the same. Oh, and i dont think that P51 is much bigger than Spitfire, maybe longer by 1m, thats all.
Correct. I've edited my reply to Blutarski2004 on the top of this page. I've misunderstood what he wrote. I read "weight" when he wrote "size" and "heavier" when he wrote "larger".

Brain32
03-18-2007, 10:47 AM
About those talking about NO bias, etc.
FW190 BarTM - discussed years ago while FB was deep in development and there was still years of time to fix it, proven and beaten to he11.
Developers answer was - NO! You will NEVER get it

FW190 Ground handling, level and dive acceleration - discussed to he11 and back
Developers answer - We don't give a sh1t(no response at all)

FW190 Turn times - they are not even close to the captured, crash landed all together fecked up FW's Russians tested during the war.
Developers answer - We don't give a sh1t(no response at all)

109 elevator - beaten to death, we know it all.
All this and more, and what happens is that in the same time Allied planes constantly get improvements(last example being Tempest overheat tweaking), it seems that Oleg somehow always manages to squize some time to fix an Allied plane, because hey who gives a feck about Axis planes, those guys are meant to loose anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I mean OK, there might be no bias, but in that case it sure as he11 is one mighty coincedence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

JG52Karaya-X
03-18-2007, 10:59 AM
I personally dont believe in any of these bias conspiracy theories and actually think that Oleg is very objective about his modelling, its just that the older planes (Bf109, FW190, Yaks,...) dont get the kind of attention anymore they once got, thats why so many old bugs have been dragged from one version to the other and onwards...

simple as that

Brain32
03-18-2007, 11:00 AM
Well OK, that sounds resonable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
03-18-2007, 11:27 AM
Brain32, thats all well and good. Lots of problems there and all ones that I'd love to see fixed (self professed love for the FW190 right here, its like a German Tempest...or maybe the Tempest is a British FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

Same with some of the other types. The Tempest is the slowest one that they could find, the Yak's have incredible torque and will not fly even despite the best elevator and rudder trim methods, most of the Yak's have no fuel gauge modeled, the P-51's have no rocket attachments, the P-38 lacks redundant control cables, the P-47's bomb armament is wrong, the Yak-9U's gunsight is so dark that its hard to pick out targets, the A6M5b is missing a 7.7mm machine gun, the Ki-100 generally under performs in all aspects, and the Hellcat performs at substandard performance levels for top speed. I could go on and on and on but I hope its obvious by now that problems aren't simply related to German aircraft.

Sorry if I'm jumping in there...just felt I needed to once again get that off my chest. I'm not sure what you fly and how often but I find that if you just fly one or two planes the problems of those planes really start to get on your nerves. If you fly all of them you start to see that every plane has problems that get on your nerves and when you get back to your favourite you go "Thank god I don't have problem X...".

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-18-2007, 11:44 AM
U know no fuel gauge in yaks, compared to totally wrong energy characteristics of FW190 is... not muchhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brain32
03-18-2007, 12:05 PM
I'm not sure what you fly and how often but I find that if you just fly one or two planes the problems of those planes really start to get on your nerves.
I fly everything ETO related WF and EF(no Pacific at all though), but I did fly often, very often, for a long time I flew Red almost exclusively(403 time when we finally got the Tempest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ). However lately I noticed that with addition of better correctly modelled Allied planes it become a freakin' nightmare to fly anything but the Dora in late war scenarios, even when such situation has NO historical background. I think this is what some people had been speaking about for a long time now, smaller amount of correctly modelled bug free planes is much better than hundreds of planes with ton of bugs and stuff. I think I finally "see the light" now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FluffyDucks2
03-18-2007, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
Guys,guys,guys, Oleg said himself on these very same boards(or might have been SimHQ) that he HAD to pork the 190s FM for GAME BALANCE, otherwise it would slaughter EVERYTHING allied, surely some of you remember that?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

He said it as far as I recall prior to the launch of the original IL2.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

More BS rumour mongering, can you find a link to an archive, unless you're making a stupid joke of some sort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It isn't BS and it isn't a rumour, its a FACT. Something which is distinctly lacking in many of the self-appointed "expert" BS posts here.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

joeap
03-18-2007, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
Guys,guys,guys, Oleg said himself on these very same boards(or might have been SimHQ) that he HAD to pork the 190s FM for GAME BALANCE, otherwise it would slaughter EVERYTHING allied, surely some of you remember that?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

He said it as far as I recall prior to the launch of the original IL2.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

More BS rumour mongering, can you find a link to an archive, unless you're making a stupid joke of some sort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It isn't BS and it isn't a rumour, its a FACT. Something which is distinctly lacking in many of the self-appointed "expert" BS posts here.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source please, btw I may not be a specialist in aeronautics, but I have studied history, and corresponded with some specialists in WWII and Cold War history as well.

Aymar_Mauri
03-18-2007, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
U know no fuel gauge in yaks, compared to totally wrong energy characteristics of FW190 is... not muchhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Hehehe. Yes, indeed.

VW-IceFire
03-18-2007, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
Guys,guys,guys, Oleg said himself on these very same boards(or might have been SimHQ) that he HAD to pork the 190s FM for GAME BALANCE, otherwise it would slaughter EVERYTHING allied, surely some of you remember that?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

He said it as far as I recall prior to the launch of the original IL2.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

More BS rumour mongering, can you find a link to an archive, unless you're making a stupid joke of some sort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It isn't BS and it isn't a rumour, its a FACT. Something which is distinctly lacking in many of the self-appointed "expert" BS posts here.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Facts can be supported with evidence. I don't believe ever reading that Oleg said this...first I've ever heard of it. Produce the quote please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FluffyDucks2
03-18-2007, 02:47 PM
The source is myself, I distinctly remember Oleg in either an interview which was posted on these or SimHQ forums, or directly in these forums, stating he had to "adjust" the FM of the 190 for the sake of "game balance".

This was just prior to the launch of the original IL2 maybe some of you "experts" weren't around then? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ElAurens
03-18-2007, 03:23 PM
You folks all need to get a freaking life.

Sheesh. I can't think of one aircraft in this sim that is 100% correctly modeled. Not one. It's simply impossible given the state of PCs and the scope of the plane set.

If you are flying a late war 109 and are getting your behind handed to you by AI P-39s then you suck as a virtual pilot.

End of story.

I'm outta here, enjoy your **** fest children.

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

BillyTheKid_22
03-18-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
You folks all need to get a freaking life.

Sheesh. I can't think of one aircraft in this sim that is 100% correctly modeled. Not one. It's simply impossible given the state of PCs and the scope of the plane set.

If you are flying a late war 109 and are getting your behind handed to you by AI P-39s then you suck as a virtual pilot.

End of story.

I'm outta here, enjoy your **** fest children.

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



http://www.farscapeweekly.com/weblog/no_freaking_out.bmp



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

Nubarus
03-18-2007, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
The source is myself, I distinctly remember Oleg in either an interview which was posted on these or SimHQ forums, or directly in these forums, stating he had to "adjust" the FM of the 190 for the sake of "game balance".

This was just prior to the launch of the original IL2 maybe some of you "experts" weren't around then? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I have been around from the first beta periode and never have I seen anything being said what you suggest.

So either beef up the link instead of posting none supported smart arse remarks.

How is that for a fact.......... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Blutarski2004
03-18-2007, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Blutarski2004,

PRETTY PLEASE with SUGAR ON TOP: elaborate upon your perspective more accurately??

Two questions marks for me.

In ballistics there is a term called ˜sectional density' where an arrow can have a lot of sectional density while a cannon ball can be very low in sectional density. A race between a small DENSE arrow and a low sectional density cannon ball going up in a zoom climb to reach the theoretical ENERGY HEIGHT will be a drag race against a small frontal area with a lot of mass behind it AGAINST a large frontal area with a lot of mass behind it.

Sectional Density (http://www.fortliberty.org/military-library/sectional-density.shtml)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sectional Density is calculated by dividing a bullets weight by it's diameter.

Sectional Density is important because, all other variables being equal, a bullet with a higher Sectional Density will:

Lose less energy and speed in flight
Drop less on the way to the target
Penetrate more effectively into a target
The M855 5.56mm bullet has a Sectional Density of 0.178. The 147gr 7.62mm NATO bullet has a sectional density of 0.221.

The bullet with the worst sectional density would be a round ball.

The heavier and more narrow the bullet is, the higher its sectional density will be.

If the 7.62mm bullet above weighed 150 grains, it would have a sectonal density of .226. If it weighed 165 grains, it would have a sectional density of .248.

Bullets of the same diameter and weight may have different sectional densities if they are made of different materials, such as depleted Uranium.

Not all bullets with the same weight, diameter, and sectional density perform the same. Bullet shape can significantly effect performance.

Sectional Density is abbreviated SD.



..... Other things being more or less equal, larger aircraft will retain their velocity better than smaller aircraft.

Therefore, the larger aircraft will possess a better ballistic performance through the air.

The relationship is similar to that of a larger bullet versus a smaller bullet.

>all other things being more or less equal<

˜All else being equal' implies EQUAL DENSITY.

˜All else being equal' implies EQUAL WEIGHT.

"All else being equal" implies EQUAL VOLUME.

"All else being equal" implies EQUAL SHAPE.

The only variable implied is size.


Sectional Density is calculated by dividing a bullets weight by it's diameter.

Sectional Density is important because, all other variables being equal, a bullet with a higher Sectional Density will:

Lose less energy and speed in flight
Drop less on the way to the target
Penetrate more effectively into a target

The bullet with the worst sectional density would be a round ball.

The heavier and more narrow the bullet is, the higher its sectional density will be.

If the 7.62mm bullet above weighed 150 grains, it would have a sectonal density of .226. If it weighed 165 grains, it would have a sectional density of .248.

Bullets of the same diameter and weight may have different sectional densities if they are made of different materials, such as depleted Uranium.

Not all bullets with the same weight, diameter, and sectional density perform the same. Bullet shape can significantly effect performance.

Sectional Density is abbreviated SD.


How about looking at two bullets?

45 ACP 300 grain
45/70 500 grain

Both bullets are .45 (diameter)

One bullet looks more like a ball.

The other bullet looks more like an arrow.

If both bullets are shot straight up at the same speed, then, which bullet will go higher?

First look at the problem if the two bullets were shot straight up at the same speed in a vacuum.

It is important to understand that the 500 grain bullet requires more force (Muzzle energy) to get that heavy bullet out of the barrel at the same speed (Muzzle velocity).

It takes less muzzle energy to accelerate the lighter bullet out of the barrel at the same muzzle velocity as the heavy bullet – both bullets are the same diameter – the 500 grain bullet is measured with a higher sectional density.

In a vacuum the race to the higher altitude (theoretical energy height) is equal. Both bullets starting out at the same speed will slow down at the same rate by gravity and both bullets in a vacuum (slowed down by gravity and slowed down ONLY by gravity and slowed down by nothing BUT gravity) both bullets reach the same ENERGY HEIGHT.

Both bullets in a vacuum will reach the theoretical energy height at zero velocity despite one bullet starting out with more muzzle energy.

Both bullets reach the same energy height because both bullets start out at the same speed and both bullets slow down at the same rate and both bullets run out of energy at the same time, at the same height, at zero speed and both bullets reach back to the gun at the same time.

That is a vacuum.

Air slows both bullets down going up and going down.

Which bullet wins the race going up in air?

Which bullet wins the race going down in air (if it doesn't tumble)?

If an arrow were shot up at the same speed with the same density as the 500 grain bullet and the arrow was .25 diameter, then, will the arrow win the drag race up to try to reach the theoretical energy height? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Let me explain it this way -

Assume two artillery projectiles of exactly similar form, differing only in dimensions. It is assumed that both projectiles are similar in surface finish as well.

> Projectile A is 11-inches in diameter and weighs 666 lbs.

> Projectile B is 12-inches in diameter and weights 893 lbs.

The above are real-world weights and dimensions for German WW1-era 28cm and 30.5cm armor piercing naval projectiles.


When calculating ******ation (i.e. - loss of velocity per over time due to passage through the atmosphere) a dimensionless value called the "Ballistic Co-efficient) is used. The basic formula for the "Ballistic Co-Efficient C is -

C = w/cd^2

where -

W = weight of projectile
d = diameter of projectile
c = coefficient of form (sometimes also expressed as "i")

Since we have already postulated that the two projectiles are exactly similar in shape, and therefore possess the same value of "c", it can be dropped from our comparison.

Calculating the Ballistic Co-efficients for the two projectiles, we obtain -

for the 11-inch projectile: 666/11^2 = 5.504

for the 12-inch projectile: 893/12^2 = 6.201

and are then able to state that the 12-inch projectile is 6.201/5.504 = 1.127 more efficient in passing through the atmosphere.

The reason behind this is that, as dimension increases linearly, cross-sectional area increases by the 2nd power and weight increases by the 3rd power. As projectiles grow in caliber, their cross-sectional density (which is what C basically reflects) grows at a greater than lineal pace.

An aircraft in a zoom climb can actually be viewed as a projectile, inasmuch as its gain in altitude is due to its velocity rather than lift. An aircraft travelling at a speed greater than its thrust can normally propel it, will decelerate due to ******ation.

The same logic can be BROADLY applied to SIMILAR types of aircraft. Take, for example, two low wing monoplane fighters, both powered by in-line engines. They will more or less resemble one another in general shape, altough there will be differences in the "C" values of the respective aircraft (sometimes considerable) due to differences in detail design, weight variation versus cross sectional area, etc. But VERY BROADLY SPEAKING, the same basic principle as the ballistic calculation above holds true for aircraft in the above-mentioned conditions.

Note: C is not STRICTLY governed by projectile caliber. If projectile forms or densities are permitted to vary considerably, a projectile of small cross-sectional area but great weight can easily display a superior C value. For example, if the 11-inch projectile weighted 893 lbs, its C value would be 893/11^2 = 7.38. A good example of this is the long rod projectile of an APFSDS
projectile, which is of quite narrow diameter and composed of very dense depleted uranium.


Hope this helps .....

Blutarski2004
03-18-2007, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
But u are talking about lift, and im talking about trust and drag. Completly different things. Aerodynamics is the same for all objects, there arent different physic law's for baloons, trees or aircrafts. More trust, less drag(smaller AC, smaller wings etc), more weight = will keep energy better. Less trust, more drag(bigger AC, bigger wings), less weight = will keep energy worse. Kick(give a trust) a ball and kick a baloon, same dimensions, different weight.


..... But keep in mind that when an a/c is travelling at a speed greater than its thrust can generate, it takes on certain aspects of a projectile or ballistic object - most notably in a zoom climb.

Blutarski2004
03-18-2007, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
I realy don't understand why a larger aircraft should be better in energie retention. An aircraft with more surface has more drag.
So you mean that a 300g 20mm bullet should have a lower range than a 300g 30mm bullet? Hard to belive if you ask me, but maybe there are some documents to support your theorie.

I have never heared about a 30mm bullet having better balistic caracteristics than a 20mm bullet.


..... Assuming equal initial velocity and angle of gun elevation, a 20mm projectile of 300 grams weight will travel further than a 30mm projectile of 200 grams weight, because the 20mm projectile will have a superior ballistic co-efficient (essentially cross-sectional density).

GR142-Pipper
03-18-2007, 11:17 PM
What I find the most interesting is the FACT that dispite pretty conclusive evidence supporting a number of aircraft (both blue and red), seemingly nothing whatsoever gets done or if something does get implemented it's so insignificant as to be pretty much meaningless.

Furthermore Maddox won't even provide a list of what specific changes were introduced from revision to revision. This very telling practice runs counter to virtualy every other reputable software developer. Most companies are anxious to tell their customers what specifically has been improved upon. Not Maddox.

So, at the end of the day it's just a game, fellas. We keep expecting the developer to take a serious interest in providing the most accurate flight/damage/weapons models possible. I think it's time we revise our thinking in a different direction. The word "playability" immediately comes to mind.

....just my take.

GR142-Pipper

Vipez-
03-19-2007, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
About those talking about NO bias, etc.
FW190 BarTM - discussed years ago while FB was deep in development and there was still years of time to fix it, proven and beaten to he11.
Developers answer was - NO! You will NEVER get it

FW190 Ground handling, level and dive acceleration - discussed to he11 and back
Developers answer - We don't give a sh1t(no response at all)

FW190 Turn times - they are not even close to the captured, crash landed all together fecked up FW's Russians tested during the war.
Developers answer - We don't give a sh1t(no response at all)

109 elevator - beaten to death, we know it all.
All this and more, and what happens is that in the same time Allied planes constantly get improvements(last example being Tempest overheat tweaking), it seems that Oleg somehow always manages to squize some time to fix an Allied plane, because hey who gives a feck about Axis planes, those guys are meant to loose anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I mean OK, there might be no bias, but in that case it sure as he11 is one mighty coincedence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I don't know if you have played this sim as long as I have, but talking about FW190's career in FB/PF. It's FM has come a long way and seen many changes.. basicly FW190 was total **** in first IL-2/FB, I say again it was totally useless as a fighter and was shotdown in waves during VEF1 for example. AEP with couple of patches made it competitive fighter for the first time, so it took almost two years for Oleg to understand it's true attributes. I'm just saying I allways disliked the forward view (well I think everyone has), but still I very much like the way FW190 is modelled currently. It has come a long way. Tempest is not perfect either, looks like FW190's bar has got copied into Tempest's 6'clock view http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif .

Don't worry, be happy.

-HH-Quazi
03-19-2007, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
You folks all need to get a freaking life.

Sheesh. I can't think of one aircraft in this sim that is 100% correctly modeled. Not one. It's simply impossible given the state of PCs and the scope of the plane set.

If you are flying a late war 109 and are getting your behind handed to you by AI P-39s then you suck as a virtual pilot.

End of story.

I'm outta here, enjoy your **** fest children.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

JG4_Helofly
03-19-2007, 05:39 AM
Maybe there is also a gameplay part in this modeling. I mean, look at the fw 190 like it is now. It's one of the best fighters in game because it's fast and manoeuvrable at high speed. Now imagine the 190 could also out dive and out zoom it's lighter ennemies like in RL and things like revi view (bar), 2 sec better turn time,... would be corrected. It would be a slaughter.
Planes which are faster has always the advantage over the ennemie at least when a pilot know how to hit and run.
t&b planes like the spitfire would have a very very hard time.

Klemm.co
03-19-2007, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Maybe there is also a gameplay part in this modeling. I mean, look at the fw 190 like it is now. It's one of the best fighters in game because it's fast and manoeuvrable at high speed. Now imagine the 190 could also out dive and out zoom it's lighter ennemies like in RL and things like revi view (bar), 2 sec better turn time,... would be corrected. It would be a slaughter.
Planes which are faster has always the advantage over the ennemie at least when a pilot know how to hit and run.
t&b planes like the spitfire would have a very very hard time.
I think that's the whole point some try to make... The 190 was such a really good plane IRL and most got shot down doing no true free hunt work, but attacking bombers, groundpounding and bomber escort (though that would not have been a major task for the 190's i mean in numbers of sorties flown).
Now if these deficiencies in modeling would be corrected, it WOULD be a slaughter, because online the pilots are not bound to very specific tasks and most fighting is more like free hunt. And since the FW-190 excelled in that role, i'm sure that there would be many allied whiners *****ing about the overmodelling of the 190.
But if the 190 was corrected, many people would complain that the 190 is now über and all the others are still flawed, rightfully so. So I can see why Oleg is doing what he does. It's either get it close to right at the very start or always change the FM and always have people complain that this is not right and that is not right. Sure some complaints would have reason, while others would be pure trolling or voicing their overly grown feeling of national pride.
Hm... it just somehow occured to me that this is the way it is now. I don't think that there will ever be major changes in IL-2 again, maybe one or two last patches. Maybe Oleg learned from this FM-mess and will do better in the future. I really hope so.

HayateAce
03-19-2007, 06:35 AM
Brain32, did your little sister hide your GI Joes when you were a kid? Would explain your "not fair!" tantrums.

This is my sig. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

JtD
03-19-2007, 09:46 AM
If the Fw was "fixed" I'd expect more blue than red whiners. Blues are notoriously louder anyway.

Brain32
03-19-2007, 09:51 AM
@Vipez I remember what kind of ridiculous POS was FW190 before, it was incorrect, and yes I agree it's better now but it is still incorrect and comparing it with other planes in the game it's still a POS.

@HayateAce, speaking of childhood I guess you always asked the big boys to do your fights(wander what you did for them in exchange http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif), you see here also a big boy called Oleg won your war, because you were obviously utterly incompetent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG4_Helofly
03-19-2007, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
If the Fw was "fixed" I'd expect more blue than red whiners. Blues are notoriously louder anyway.

Could you explaine what you mean please?

JtD
03-19-2007, 10:32 AM
A corrected Fw would mostly be different, not plain better.

I don't think all folks can take that.

JG4_Helofly
03-19-2007, 10:47 AM
Yes maybe it would be different but overall It would be better imo. At low speed especialy it would become worse and better at high speed. For exemple roll rate is too high at low speed but too low at high speed. Best turn time is also at a too low speed if I remember correctly.

So staying fast would be more important than in the current il2, but performance would better imo.

joeap
03-19-2007, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Maybe there is also a gameplay part in this modeling. I mean, look at the fw 190 like it is now. It's one of the best fighters in game because it's fast and manoeuvrable at high speed. Now imagine the 190 could also out dive and out zoom it's lighter ennemies like in RL and things like revi view (bar), 2 sec better turn time,... would be corrected. It would be a slaughter.
Planes which are faster has always the advantage over the ennemie at least when a pilot know how to hit and run.
t&b planes like the spitfire would have a very very hard time.

Yet, good Allied, even Soviet pilots IRL 60+ years ago managed to shoot down a fair number of FW-190s.

Betcha if a historical server had "fixed" FW-190s loaded down with rockets and 30mm cannon to knock donw B-17s and 24s, escorted by some 109s all with at least a third noobs, taking on P-51s, with 50% less fuel...well it would not be a walkover.

Xiolablu3
03-19-2007, 10:55 AM
Lmao,

'in game FW190 is a POS...'

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

You guys crack me up....

I have a VERY hard time believing that the FW190 was intentionally 'nerfed' because it would be 'too good'. The only thing that it really has which is amazing is the armament. Climb rate, turn etc are very average ont eh real plane. Dive speed, and roll are outstanding, but thats it.

The plane in the game is outstanding and in my opinon the best prop fighter between 1942-1944.

So what exactly is nerfed about it? Its the Jabo version which was common on the russian front (go figure) The turn is not so good, but even if it was correct, it would still be the one of the worst turning fighters in WW2.

I bet most of the people moaning about the bar have never even sat in a FW190....The pictures I saw look correct with the game.

I have been reading this forum since 2002, and I have never seen Oleg say anything about nerfing the FW190 because it was 'too good'.

JG4_Helofly
03-19-2007, 11:38 AM
Xiolablu, you think that the fw 190 was an average performer with only very good gun power?

Maybe you miss some important points. First, it's true that the 190 was never one of the best turner in WWII but a turnrate decrease of 2 sec in game compared with RL is a lot. Imagine the bf 109 flying only with gun pods that makes about 2 sec too.
Then there is the very high manoeuvrability. That's something gamers tend to ignore because they don't seem to see how important it is in a dogfight.
Next point is the dive and zoom. Have you ever tried to dive and than zoom away from, let's say a spit? Well if the answer is yes you have noticed that the spitfire can hold it's position and the only option you have is runing away at low level. Is that correct in your opinion?

Then there is the high cruising speed of the focke which enables it to performe sustained manoeuvres at high speed which can not be followed by planes with low cruising speed like the spit. (Cruising speed is an indicator for this ability.)

But it's understandable people think that the 190 was an average fighter which was good as a bomber killer and that's it. Especialy when you play this game.

As I said it before. There are simply things which makes this plane performe worse than in RL and there are facts to support this.
At medium and high speed it was a superb fighter also in climb and manoeuvering.

(That's only my point of view of the problem)

faustnik
03-19-2007, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

The plane in the game is outstanding and in my opinon the best prop fighter between 1942-1944.


Hmmm...not sure about that.

In 1942, definately, no debate possible. La5 is competitive, but, still unlimately inferior.

In 1943, the La5F is very good and the Spit IX and VIII are excellent. These a/c certainly have advantages over the Fw190 and are equal to it, if flown to their strengths.

In 1944, the La5FN is a fantastic fighter, equal or superior to any version of Anton. The Spits have trouble with the speed of the Antons from A8 up. The P-47D and P-51D really show their strengths in speed and dive too.

***********

As for intentional nerfing, no way.

Brain32
03-19-2007, 12:07 PM
The turn is not so good, but even if it was correct, it would still be the one of the worst turning fighters in WW2.
Comparing to what? Spitfire? Zero? Sure thing but not so against Allied heavies like P51,P47,Tempest, etc. in game all of them can outturn the FW190A EASILY. Basically in game you can use somwhat superiour dive and zoom capatibilities aginst it, and then if you screw up, nevermind, just use the IRL non existent vast turn advantage.

I bet most of the people moaning about the bar have never even sat in a FW190....The pictures I saw look correct with the game.
And I NEVER saw even one that would even remotely be close to the one we have in game. Real FW190 was put into same category as bubble top P51,P47 and Tempest in regards to visibility. In game we are light years away from it.

The plane in the game is outstanding and in my opinon the best prop fighter between 1942-1944.
Only because it's flown by the guys that are used to flying a brick with cannons because they had to put up with it for years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DKoor
03-19-2007, 12:18 PM
I have my PoV about matter, and we have already discussed it over at CWoS.
I'll just point out one undeniable thing:
-statistic. number of harmful serious bugs per operator (plane) thru history of this game

Compute.

Brain32
03-19-2007, 12:22 PM
P-51D is gotta be ultimate PoS when turnfight is concerned, even FW-190A can outturn it...
Wanna' try? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I regulary turn with D9's as IMO they have indentical turn performance. You do not take more than 50% of fuel right?

DKoor
03-19-2007, 12:31 PM
This has to be some new thing, or perhaps I was taking more fuel or something... but still we should check this out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Let's quickly try it out at HL?

Brain32
03-19-2007, 12:41 PM
rgr I need 20mins http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG14_Josf
03-19-2007, 12:45 PM
To whom it may concern:

The volume of an object increases at a faster rate (exponentially?) compared to the surface area of the object. That does not account for density or shape.

A very low volume, small SIZE, long in shape, small in diameter, a rod, a spear, a pencil or an arrow shaped projectile made of depleted uranium will have a much greater density compared to a huge 10 foot diameter hollow Nerf Ball or Balloon.

The Nerf Ball (or very thin walled titanium sphere) is large in size.

The Nerf Ball is large in volume.

The Nerf Ball will have a terminal velocity in a dive where the force of drag will actually stop the Nerf Ball from accelerating any faster than the terminal velocity and that terminal velocity depends upon the density of the Nerf Ball. The terminal velocity can be negative.

If the Nerf Ball is as dense as the air mass per unit volume (the same volume of air mass equals the weight of the same volume of Nerf Ball) then the terminal velocity is zero since the Nerf Ball is not heavier than air and not lighter than air PER UNIT VOLUME.

If the density of the object is much higher than the same density (weight per unit of volume) of air, then, the object will accelerate down since air mass can't support the objects weight.

14 pounds per square inch of air pressure at sea level is not a volume measurement. 14 pounds per square inch of pressure at sea level is 14 pounds of FORCE on all 6 sides of a one inch cube shaped balloon at sea level (almost equally 12 pounds of force on all 6 sides) and if a one inch cubed shaped balloon has a weight per unit volume equal to the same weight per unit volume of air, then, the 14 pounds of FORCE on all 6 sides of that cube will hold that cube up against the FORCE of gravity. The 14 pounds per square inch FORCE of air pressure will equal the FORCE required to accelerate that 1 inch cube at a rate of 9.8m/s^2. The 1 inch cube of balloon with the same density of the same volume of air mass will hover as if an engine produced enough thrust to accelerate that object mass at a rate of 9.8m/s^2.

If that 1 inch cube stayed the same weight but doubled in volume and became a 2 square inch cube (less dense), then, the force applied on all 6 sides would still be 14 pounds of force per square inch. HOWEVER there is a slight difference in the 14 pounds of force on each of two square inches of surface area on the bottom of the larger (less dense) cube compared to the 14 pounds of force on the top of the cube. The Force on the bottom may be 28.1 pounds of force and the force on the top surface of the cube may be 27.9 pounds of force.

The increase in volume of the cube while the weight of the cube remains the same changes the density of the cube from a density that is equal to the same density of the air around it to a larger size volume (less dense) cube that is lighter than air; meaning that the cube became less dense compared to the same density of air at sea level.

Therefore an increase in SIZE increases the FORCE of drag when weight and shape remain the same.

Shaw:

The Thunderbolt's only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in a dive (because of the P-47s heavier weight and higher density), and better roll performance.)
higher density

The much smaller in size and much smaller in volume and much denser rod, spear, pencil or arrow shaped projectile (depleted uranium?) will accelerate almost as if falling in a vacuum compared to the Nerf Ball (Nerf ball low density balloon).

In other words a large volume low density object having a large shape in cross-section (sectional density in ballistic terms) will be forced by air mass because air mass forces large objects as air pressure per square inch of surface area is forced upon that surface area.

Even if the same volume and same density of the 2 square inch cube is shaped like a long rod, then, that lighter than air SHAPE will float or hover when that shape is pointed horizontally. When that shape (long rod) is pointed down, then, what happens?

The air pressure on the small diameter BOTTOM of the rod is very low PER SQUARE INCH. The air pressure on the top of the small diameter rod TOP is even less PER SQUARE INCH (it is higher). The air pressure on the sides of the rod is relatively HIGH PRESSURE when adding up all the surface area. The side force will not be enough FRICTION to hold the rod up against the accelerating force of gravity.

You don't think so? Place a straw in water horizontally. Place the same straw in water vertically. Measure the altitude of the straw in both examples.


This is why US fighters, which were typically large and heavy, had good zoom climb performance.

That is not worded very well in my opinion. The P-47 being large does not make the P-47 good in zoom climb performance. Any increase in surface area is a net increase in drag force per square inch. The same weight P-47 at half the volume would make for a much slower rate of deceleration during a straight up zoom climb because air mass would have fewer surfaces per square inch of area to force the P-47 to slow down.

By comparison the US fighter named the Mustang was smaller and therefore more able to avoid larger volumes of air mass that would slow down the Mustang. If the Mustang volume were increased to the same volume of the P-47 while the Mustang maintained the same combat weight, then, the Mustang would increase the surfaces contacting air mass and would decelerate faster in a zoom climb.

The P-47 lowering its volume (outer dimension) and maintaining the same weight will increase the P-47 density.

The Mustang increasing its volume and maintaining the same weight will decrease the Mustang density.

The P-47 lowering its volume and maintaining the same shape AND maintaining the same weight will increase sectional density.

The Mustang increasing its volume and maintaining the same shape AND maintaining the same weight will decrease sectional density.

Sectional Density (http://www.fortliberty.org/military-library/sectional-density.shtml)


Sectional Density is calculated by dividing a bullets weight by it's diameter.

Sectional Density is important because, all other variables being equal, a bullet with a higher Sectional Density will:

Lose less energy and speed in flight
Drop less on the way to the target
Penetrate more effectively into a target
The M855 5.56mm bullet has a Sectional Density of 0.178. The 147gr 7.62mm NATO bullet has a sectional density of 0.221.

The bullet with the worst sectional density would be a round ball.

The heavier and more narrow the bullet is, the higher its sectional density will be.

If the 7.62mm bullet above weighed 150 grains, it would have a sectional density of .226. If it weighed 165 grains, it would have a sectional density of .248.

Bullets of the same diameter and weight may have different sectional densities if they are made of different materials, such as depleted Uranium.

Not all bullets with the same weight, diameter, and sectional density perform the same. Bullet shape can significantly effect performance.

Sectional Density is abbreviated SD.

The Fw190A has the smallest Wetted Area which measures the surface area that contacts the air mass. The Fw190A is the smallest volume. Which plane is denser?

Smallest size/greatest density? (http://us.share.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf)

Wing area adds to wetted area. Wing area adds to volume. Wing area (unless the wing is dense) lowers density.

The addition of wing area (to lower stall speed) subtracts from sectional density.


Sectional Density is calculated by dividing a bullets weight by it's diameter.

Sectional Density is important because, all other variables being equal, a bullet with a higher Sectional Density will:

Lose less energy and speed in flight

The bullet with the worst sectional density would be a round ball.

The heavier and more narrow the bullet is, the higher its sectional density will be.


Narrow means: less surface area in contact with air mass and more surface area not in contact with air mass.

A flat steel plate will be forced by air mass with much grater force if the angle of attack is towards the largest surface area; ˜edge on' the steel plane will be forced by air mass less.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Square%20Pressure.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Wind%20Tunnel%20%20Dive.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/WT%20Plates.jpg

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

The P-39 (if it has long wings) will add to volume and subtract from density (lowering stall speed and increasing 'sustained' turn performance) at the expense of sectional density which helps in retaining energy because less surface area contacts air mass.

The P-39 is heavy and small which adds to density making it less able to be slowed down by air mass.

The P-39 is well shaped to decrease surface area in contact with air mass.

The P-39, according to what I've read, was a good compromise between vertical acceleration/deceleration performance and horizontal ˜sustained' big wing turn performance.

The P-39 was underpowered with the Alison engine and the long drive shaft – especially at higher altitudes. The P-39 was also unstable which equates to fast pitch performance or agility.

The 109G-6 should perform almost identically to the 109G-2; the differences being noticeable to only the best pilots who are actually capable of feeling or being aware of the differences.

The Spitfire should be the king of fast transients during decelerations, overshoots, nose to nose geometry scissors type deceleration maneuvers at any attitude up, down, horizontal, or rolling (except at higher speeds when control forces deteriorate acceleration on the roll axis).

The Spitfire being relatively light, relatively large, relatively less dense, and having relatively large wings, is the fighter having the most surface area to contact air mass relative to weight (sectional density) especially when pitching up to expose those huge wide wings. The rate of deceleration capability (fast transient) of the Spitfire I should be unequaled by any other WWII fighter including the later model Spitfires since weight increases and therefore Density increases and therefore Sectional Density increases (since the cross-section, size, and shape, of the Spitfire does not change much).

If the game does not model a Spitfire VB having the capability of decelerating (fast transient) quickly compared to the higher density 109, Mustang, Fw190, and P-47, then, the game under-models the Spitfire VB relative to the higher density and higher Sectional Density planes. Where the Early Spitfire should be the king of deceleration it may be porked by the game engine.

A clear example of this Superiority would be a rolling scissors fight where the two fighter pilots are trying to decelerate from high speed to slow speed faster to force the opponent to overshoot using nose to nose geometry and a decelerating turn rate advantage. The higher density and higher sectional density plane (the one with the smaller wings, lower wing loading, and higher mass) should not be able to decelerate as fast – no way – no how – not without air brakes such as flaps, landing gear, a drag chute, dive brakes, etc.

However; the same physical properties of low sectional density, low mass, low wing-loading, and large wings, impedes acceleration because more air mass must be pushed out of the way and despite a relatively good engine horse power to weight ratio the increase in surface area that must pass through air mass is an increase in power required; therefore – the fast transient deceleration capabilities impede fast transient acceleration capabilities requiring higher thrust force to push more air mass.

For the same reason why the earlier, lower powered, lighter, Spitfires could stall fight (fast transient from high speed to slow speed and sustained slow speed flight while maintaining altitude) compared to the opposition, for those same reasons, the early Spitfires were poor at pushing air mass and therefore poor at acceleration and therefore poor at energy addition in dives and therefore poor at energy retention in zoom climbs compared to the smaller wing, smaller volume, higher thrust, cleaner shape, lower wetted area, higher power, greater density, greater sectional density, higher weight, opposition – particularly – the Fw190A.

Not until the Spitfire gained density and thrust did the Spitfire evolve from a pure angles/stall fighter to a compromise angles/energy fighter equal or better than the Fw190A at staying and fighting in fighter combat – at any speed.

The best energy fighting Spitfire with high sectional density, high engine thrust, vertical maneuvering capability (Spitfire XIV) can hardly compete in angles or stall fighting, nose to nose, decelerating fast transients and sustaining higher g while maintaining altitude against the Spitfire I. The same Spitfire I fighting the Spitfire XIV would be left standing in a vertical dive and left to try everything in the book to keep the Spitfire XIV in the horizontal plane while the Spitfire XIV utilizes the advantage of pushing air mass out of the way to gain energy faster in dives and lose energy slower in vertical zoom climbs.

The notion that a poor engine power to aircraft weight ratio automatically destroys the fighter planes capability to stay and fight in fighter combat, such as the game model is propagating, is patently ridiculous. The lighter fighters in WWII were lighter, less dense, lower powered, larger winged, and designed with stall fighting in mind. The heavy fighters were designed with pushing air mass out of the way in mind and to do that chore the engines were made with larger thrust output to push/pull more air mass. Engines gained mass and weight.

The P-47 has both higher density and greater thrust.

The P-47 was also very large. Large is not good in fighter combat. Small is better because less surface area is exposed to the force of air mass. The wing must be large enough to generate sufficient acceleration on the lift vector at a reasonable stall speed. If the wing is very large, then, more surface area is exposed to air mass (duh) and the stall speed goes down. If the wing is very small, then, less surface area is exposed to air mass and the stall speed goes up. Once the fighter plane is above the stall speed, then, the fighter plane is above the stall speed (duh) so the fighter plane turns and does not stall, does not sink, does not wallow, does not mush, does not simply slow down, it TURNS when flying above the stall speed.

Once above the stall speed the fighter plane TURNS.

The amount of time spent turning inertia into TURNING is ENERGY BLEED and the light weight fighters DECELERATE quicker or BURN INERTIA quicker.

That shows up as an ability to minimize turn radius quicker in a nose to nose scissors fight against any plane not able to BLEED ENERGY as fast.

F-16s can do both. F-16s can BLEED ENERGY quick and gain Energy Quick – up, down, or sideways.

WWII planes didn't have the thrust to transition from fast to slow and from slow to fast – it was a compromise situation in WWII. A stall fighter could BLEED ENERGY fast at the expense of acceleration. An energy fighter could RETAIN ENERGY (poor stall fighting capabilities) due to higher sectional density and higher thrust (the chief reason for higher weight in WWII airplanes was bigger, stronger, and more powerful engines).

During WWII the nature of Fighter Combat evolved from slow speed stall fighting in horizontal turns while maintaining altitude into vertical fighting employing dives and zooms at high speed. The stall fighters could bleed energy quickly converting inertia into fast transitions from large radius turns into small radius turns, angles, for killing shots. The energy fighters could retain energy longer converting inertia into fast turn rates in high speed turns after fast transitions from equal speed to higher speed in dives and retaining energy longer in zoom climbs stalling later and using gravity assisted turns to defeat any horizontal turning, stall fighting, advantages.

Nose to nose geometry taking advantage of turn radius performance was replaced by nose to tail geometry taking advantage of turn rate performance.

The early Spitfire should be the KING of angles fighting except compared to a Tiger Moth.

The late P-47 should be the KING of energy fighting except compared to the Me-262.

Did you try the plastic straw experiment?

luftluuver
03-19-2007, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I bet most of the people moaning about the bar have never even sat in a FW190....The pictures I saw look correct with the game. Have you sat in a real 190 Xio?

joeap
03-19-2007, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Only because it's flown by the guys that are used to flying a brick with cannons because they had to put up with it for years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You also think it was intentionally nerfed?

luftluuver
03-19-2007, 01:38 PM
If that 1 inch cube stayed the same weight but doubled in volume and became a 2 square inch cube A doubling of volume does not give sides of 2". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif A 2" sided cube has a volume of 8 cuin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif To double the volume of that 1" cube, the sides would be each 1.26". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

JG4_Helofly
03-19-2007, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I bet most of the people moaning about the bar have never even sat in a FW190....The pictures I saw look correct with the game. Have you sat in a real 190 Xio? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The bar is not visible from the cockpit. Look here:http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugzeuge/FW190/Index.htm
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayREUJe65w

Do you see any bar Xio? And just for information, I was myself sitting in the fw 190 A8 which you can see in the first video. This plane is in a museum near Hannover in Germany. And guess what I saw? No bar!

luftluuver
03-19-2007, 02:03 PM
The air pressure on the small diameter BOTTOM of the rod is very low PER SQUARE INCH. The air pressure on the top of the small diameter rod TOP is even less PER SQUARE INCH (it is higher). The air pressure on the sides of the rod is relatively HIGH PRESSURE when adding up all the surface area.

You don't think so? Place a straw in water horizontally. Place the same straw in water vertically. Measure the altitude of the straw in both examples. Do you really understand what you are blathering about? Air pressure is air pressure > 14.7"/sqin.(nominal) The force applied to the rod will be different.

Tell me how will the straw float in the air when horizontal? The straw will displace the same amount of water whether in a horizontal or vertical attitude due to the forces asserted by the pressure of the air and water.

The more long winded when a person writes, like you do, the more that person is clueless about what they are blathering about.

JG14_Josf
03-19-2007, 02:39 PM
A doubling of volume does not give sides of 2".

Luftwhatever,

Thanks for the correction. If you keep doing that with your hammer you could go blind.

JG14_Josf
03-19-2007, 02:41 PM
The more long winded when a person writes, like you do, the more that person is clueless about what they are blathering about.

Lufthammer,

Did you try the experiment?

luftluuver
03-19-2007, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A doubling of volume does not give sides of 2".

Luftwhatever,

Thanks for the correction. If you keep doing that with your hammer you could go blind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You make such basic mistakes Joke, so how can anyone take your blathering bs seriously? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

horseback
03-19-2007, 04:16 PM
Personally, I'm just glad that Josf doesn't teach at a school anywhere near my children.

cheers

horseback

Davinci..
03-19-2007, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Personally, I'm just glad that Josf doesn't teach at a school anywhere near my children.


Hes starting to remind me of that guy who wanted to argue(at length) that a aircraft couldnt take off from a conveyor. Same style http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-19-2007, 05:05 PM
Im too dumb to understand physics, but Josf has right in one most important thing :
In WWII there were slow stall planes, which didnt keep energy well, and fast heavy planes with small wings, which instantenous turn rate wasnt good, but sustained turn performance would be good(energy bleed) with high corner. So plane could be good at stall fighting, or good at energy tactics, not both of those in one plane. While in game good fighters are both good in angle fighting and in energy fight (la7, La5FN, all spits). The only classic energy fighter here would be Dora imho. Dora is flying like it was described, i have nothing against its FM.

DKoor
03-19-2007, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I bet most of the people moaning about the bar have never even sat in a FW190....The pictures I saw look correct with the game. Have you sat in a real 190 Xio? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The bar is not visible from the cockpit. Look here:http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugzeuge/FW190/Index.htm
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayREUJe65w

Do you see any bar Xio? And just for information, I was myself sitting in the fw 190 A8 which you can see in the first video. This plane is in a museum near Hannover in Germany. And guess what I saw? No bar! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Some time ago after watching that vid I created this pic:
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/oleg190a4-vs-rl190a4.gif
...although they aren't aligned perfectly, even a half-blind man can spot the difference.
Now some folks tried to troll about camera position this and that... but thing is pic is saying more than 1000 words, so for those who are willing to spot the difference - reference exists.

Also I'm very very sad that to this day no one from this forum ever took a picture of a real FW-190A cockpit view - yes Helo that concerns you too, you lucky sob http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG4_Helofly
03-19-2007, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I bet most of the people moaning about the bar have never even sat in a FW190....The pictures I saw look correct with the game. Have you sat in a real 190 Xio? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The bar is not visible from the cockpit. Look here:http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugzeuge/FW190/Index.htm
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayREUJe65w

Do you see any bar Xio? And just for information, I was myself sitting in the fw 190 A8 which you can see in the first video. This plane is in a museum near Hannover in Germany. And guess what I saw? No bar! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Some time ago after watching that vid I created this pic:
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/oleg190a4-vs-rl190a4.gif
...although they aren't aligned perfectly, even a half-blind man can spot the difference.
Now some folks tried to troll about camera position this and that... but thing is pic is saying more than 1000 words, so for those who are willing to spot the difference - reference exists.

Also I'm very very sad that to this day no one from this forum ever took a picture of a real FW-190A cockpit view - yes Helo that concerns you too, you lucky sob http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the picture comparaison.
Pictures of the cockpit are in the plane section on our JG4 web page.
http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugzeuge/FW190/Fotos-Fw190-Hannover/Index.htm

And you know what? I could also climb in the 109 G2 which stand next to the 190A8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
By the way, Adolf Galland was sitting in that same 109 when he visited the museum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG14_Josf
03-19-2007, 05:53 PM
You make such basic mistakes Joke, so how can anyone take your blathering bs seriously?

Luftbrain,

You are perfect.

Did you try the experiment or do you simply assume that the straw will maitain the same altitude horizontal or vertical?

No need to overwork here fella's.

P.S. The gunsight is not blocked by the bar.

stathem
03-20-2007, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Im too dumb to understand physics, but Josf has right in one most important thing :
In WWII there were slow stall planes, which didnt keep energy well, and fast heavy planes with small wings, which instantenous turn rate wasnt good, but sustained turn performance would be good(energy bleed) with high corner. So plane could be good at stall fighting, or good at energy tactics, not both of those in one plane. While in game good fighters are both good in angle fighting and in energy fight (la7, La5FN, all spits). The only classic energy fighter here would be Dora imho. Dora is flying like it was described, i have nothing against its FM.

No. There is a continuum of planes right from Gladiator to Me262 that can only be 'the energy fighter' or not relative to its performance wrt to its current opponent.

If a Gladiator fights a Ki-43-I which is the energy fighter?

If a Ki-43-I fights a Spit V which is the energy fighter?

etc for every possible combination of planes.

Any and every plane is an energy fighter - from Eindekker to the point in jet development where T/W is so high that energy can be regained faster that it can be burned.

If I beat a Bf109E whilst flying a Gladiator by using energy tactics - carefully managing mine whilst encouraging my opponent to burn his - which is the energy fighter? In fact carefully managing your energy is just about the only way to win in a Gladiator (unless you are lucky enough to meet a really stupid Emil pilot).

All fights are energy fights.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-20-2007, 08:16 AM
Thats true, but look at ur comparisons. Always one plane is stall fighter and second is energy fighter. In game its usually double inferior vs double superior. See the difference? Compare planes like P47, P51, FW190, Tempest to Spitfire, La5FN, La7, Yak3 and some others. Thats double inferior vs double superior not energy fighter vs angle fighter, or something like that.

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Thats true, but look at ur comparisons. Always one plane is stall fighter and second is energy fighter. In game its usually double inferior vs double superior. See the difference? Compare planes like P47, P51, FW190, Tempest to Spitfire, La5FN, La7, Yak3 and some others. Thats double inferior vs double superior not energy fighter vs angle fighter, or something like that.

Hurricane vs Bf 109?

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-20-2007, 09:53 AM
Yes thats example stall fighter vs energy fighter. But FW190 against Spitfire was the same thing. Why we can often hear about high stall speed on FW190? AFAIK because of this high stall speed FW190 could keep energy very well on high speeds, spitfire couldnt.

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Yes thats example stall fighter vs energy fighter. But FW190 against Spitfire was the same thing. Why we can often hear about high stall speed on FW190? AFAIK because of this high stall speed FW190 could keep energy very well on high speeds, spitfire couldnt.

Fw 190 has always had the ability to turn faster at higher speeds than the Spitfire. All you need to do is view IL2 compare.

FYI the Tempest also has the ability to out turn the Spitfire IX at high speeds. Both the Tempest and the Fw 190 are the energy fighter in this regard.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-20-2007, 10:35 AM
It seems that u dont understand difference between instantenous turn rate(actually how much u can pull ur stick) which isnt shown in IL2 compare afaik, and sustained turn rate (this isnt how much u can turn, but what speed u can keep on what turn rate, its more like, how much energy do u loose with the turn). Also, dont suggest so much with IL2 compare, cause most values are for 100% power without wep, so difference is very often huge.

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
It seems that u dont understand difference between instantenous turn (actually how much u can pull ur stick) which isnt shown in IL2 compare afaik, and sustained turn rate (this isnt how much u can turn, but what speed u can keep on what turn rate, its more like, how much energy do u loose with the turn). Also, dont suggest so much with IL2 compare, cause most values are for 100% power without wep, so difference is very often huge.

When you say most values does that include speed, and climb >? No it doesnt.

I never mentioned instantaneous turn at all, I am talking about high speed turn - Fw 190 out turns Spitfire at high speed. If speed was sustained at high speed the Fw 190 continues to out turn the Spitfire until the speed drops sufficiently.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-20-2007, 10:42 AM
Thats complete BS. Both Spitfire and FW190 can get 6G at high speeds(lets say above 500km/h). And no, FW190 wont keep outturning Spitfire, do u know how geometry works? If u want to know which plane will outturn which do what Josf told me to do. Find lowest speed on which AC can attain maximum G, thats 6G. I will just say that FW190 can do that around 400km/h, while spitfire around 320km/h. Also turn rate on 320km/h is much higher than at 400km/hm, with the same amount of G. The thing is that FW190 rl corner speed was about 450km/h, thats much! Here in game Dora got corner about 420 km/h. I guess that instantenous turn rate is too high for FW190 in game, but energy loss is a lot too big and corner is much too low. I cannot really stall FW190 on high speeds, without blackout, often even with blackout i cant.

Pinker15
03-20-2007, 10:43 AM
Problem is that most of Fw 190 lowers think that this plane could booming instantly Spit IX in some 109 way. Sorry it was not working like that. In most situations Spits was going on first merge fast and just beneath 190's and next turn after. If Focke-Wulfs turned back than bloodbath started and it wasn't spits going down in flames. FW 190 was doing ONE high speed attack and next run. One can said that FW-190 had great zoom climb. Sure was but one. Just after first next one was regular and third not good.

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Thats complete BS. Both Spitfire and FW190 can get 6G at high speeds(lets say above 500km/h). And no, FW190 wont keep outturning Spitfire, do u know how geometry works?

Lol the only thing BS is your understanding of the matter.

Until speed drops sufficiently the Fw 190 can out turn the Spitfire. Its not my problem if you cannot fathom that. I know why not now respond by calling me a name and trying to fudge the question ?

JG4_Helofly
03-20-2007, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Pinker15:
Problem is that most of Fw 190 lowers think that this plane could booming instantly Spit IX in some 109 way. Sorry it was not working like that. In most situations Spits was going on first merge fast and just beneath 190's and next turn after. If Focke-Wulfs turned back than bloodbath started and it wasn't spits going down in flames. FW 190 was doing ONE high speed attack and next run. One can said that FW-190 had great zoom climb. Sure was but one. Just after first next one was regular and third not good.

That's strange because you just described the tactic which was used by the bf 109 against Britain.

Pinker15
03-20-2007, 10:51 AM
Sure 109 could but it was not FW 190 style. Sorry for my English and any misunderstandigs.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-20-2007, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Thats complete BS. Both Spitfire and FW190 can get 6G at high speeds(lets say above 500km/h). And no, FW190 wont keep outturning Spitfire, do u know how geometry works?

Lol the only thing BS is your understanding of the matter.

Until speed drops sufficiently the Fw 190 can out turn the Spitfire. Its not my problem if you cannot fathom that. I know why not now respond by calling me a name and trying to fudge the question ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh really, how come? FW190 can get more G's than Spitfire pilot in this game? Cut the ****, u are really sick man.

Pinker15: that wasnt completly true, i guess that uve been reading russian combat tests against FW190, ive readed that propaganda too, complete BShttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Imagine situation: both FW190 and Spitfire come on head on, without shooting, both planes turn, FW190 will turn a bit later, to get enough separation, and guess what, FW190 will be now on higher energy state. FW190 would need more space to turn, but keep energy much better, than Spitfire would - even if both planes would pull the same amount of G's. So with every maneuver FW190 would gain more and more energy, unless FW190 follow spiral climb.

Pinker15
03-20-2007, 11:00 AM
Sorry but spitfire was more capable plane for turning E retention. At high speed higher loaded plane like FW 190 to turn at same G as spit need higher AOA what leads to much higher drag during this manover. If we consider this that both planes had similar powerloading than there's no way that FW could keep more E. Besides that spitfire wing shape was better for keeping energy during turns than FW-190 classic trapezoid wings.

ElAurens
03-20-2007, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
with every maneuver FW190 would gain more and more energy, unless FW190 follow spiral climb.

Wrong. No WW2 aircraft can gain energy by maneuvering.

Your lack of understanding of Newtonian physics is mind boggling.

WW2 aircraft lose energy when turning, all of them.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-20-2007, 11:07 AM
Pinker: As Crumpp told me, that was completly opposite. In his oppinion, that made FW190 so great fighter. Check CWoSF forum for more infohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
with every maneuver FW190 would gain more and more energy, unless FW190 follow spiral climb.

Wrong. No WW2 aircraft can gain energy by maneuvering.

Your lack of understanding of Newtonian physics is mind boggling.

WW2 aircraft lose energy when turning, all of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

U didnt understand me. FW190 would gain energy when compared to Spitfire. That means, it would lower his e state slower.

JG14_Josf
03-20-2007, 11:07 AM
Fw 190 has always had the ability to turn faster at higher speeds than the Spitfire. All you need to do is view IL2 compare.

FYI the Tempest also has the ability to out turn the Spitfire IX at high speeds. Both the Tempest and the Fw 190 are the energy fighter in this regard.

IL2 Compare measures level 'sustained' turn performance. There is no advantage in a high speed level 'sustained' turn rate or radius.

If a high speed turn performance advantage exists it will show up as an energy burning advnatage - a declerating turn advantage such as a pull out from a dive or a pull up into a climb from high speed and such as a split S and dive or a spiral down turn at corner speed.

The level, altitude maintaining, turn can be cut off with geometry.

This is the same situation as the ˜high speed' climb advantage. There is no advantage in going faster to climb at a poorer rate and there is no advantage in going faster to turn at a poorer rate. The best climb rate arrives at the highest altitude sooner. The best turn rate completes the turn sooner. The best climb rate and the best turn rate are arrived at specific speeds and those speeds will be the slowest speed possible at the highest g possible – climb is simply a turn going up.

A high speed turn advantage is a rate of deceleration advantage i.e. ENERGY BLEED.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Wing%20Loading.jpg

The red area above is the slow speed sustained turn advantage held by the Angles fighter.

The sustained turn advantage held by the F-86 on that sustained turn performance stall line on that EM chart is not a turn performance advantage because the Mig can simply fly a smaller radius turn at a slower speed and cut any turn made by the F-86 unless the advantage imagined is a running away advantage where the F-86 can turn a high speed left turn followed by a high speed right turn and continue to gain distance on the Mig, even so, the Mig can just fly straight and cut those turns off too.

The high speed turn advantage for the Energy Fighter is an advantage in the rate of deceleration in a decelerating or ENERGY BURNING turn.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

Above is clearly an Energy Fighters turn performance advantage during an Energy Burning (not an energy sustaining) turn.

The F-86 was heavier, higher in wing-loading, denser, and lower in power-loading compared to the Mig-15.
Like this:


Page 141

One-versus-one Maneuvering, Dissimilar Aircraft
-----------------------------------------
Energy performance reflects a fighter's Ps under specified flight conditions. Ps at a given airspeed is a function of the ratio of excess thrust to aircraft weight...and is a measure of the aircraft's ability to climb or accelerate under those conditions. A fighter's T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy performance. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and a representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading", is used rather than T/W. Both these measures may be misleading, however, since operating conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways. For example, a fighter with a relatively powerful normally aspirated piston engine may have lower power loading and better performance than a turbocharged fighter at low altitudes; but the turbocharged fighter would retain its power better at altitude and could have superior energy performance at higher levels. Likewise with jet engines, performance can vary greatly with inlet design; therefore a fighter may have higher T/W and better performance at slow speed but be inferior at faster speeds.
A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent.
Obviously fighter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story. Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilots with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information.

Drag force or Power required reduces T/W (even more so at high speed) due to the relationship of D/W where lower density increases the Power required.

The P-47C is heavier, higher in wing-loading, denser, and lower in power-loading compared to the Spitfire IX.

Like this:


Back to Fighter Combat

page 184
Double inferior conditions
------------------------------------------
Climbing extension/pitch-back tactics cannot be expected to work for the inferior fighter in this scenario, since the opponent has a Ps advantage. The other energy tactics discussed, which are intended to bleed the bogey's energy with a nose-to-tail turn...can still be effective against an inexperienced or careless opponent.
The following episode, found in Thunderbolt! by the World War II USAAF ace Robert S. Johnson, is one of the best examples available of the use of energy tactics (diving extension/pitch back) to defeat a double-superior opponent. The encounter described is a mock combat engagement over England between Johnson (P-47C) and an unidentified RAF pilot in a new Spitfire IX. The Spitfire had about a 25 percent better power loading and nearly a 25 percent lower wing loading. The Thunderbolt's only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in a dive (because of the P-47s heavier weight and higher density), and better roll performance.) Johnson, undoubtedly one of the greatest natural fighter pilots of all time, used his roll performance defensively to allow himself the chance to build an energy advantage in a diving extension.

'We flew together in formation, and then I decided to see just what this airplane had to its credit.
I opened the throttle full and the Thunderbolt forged ahead. A moment later exhaust smoke poured from the Spit as the pilot came after me. He couldn't make it; the Jug had a definite speed advantage. I grinned happily; I'd heard so much about this airplane that I really wanted to show off the Thunderbolt to her pilot. The Jug kept pulling away form the Spitfire; suddenly I hauled back on the stick and lifted the nose. The Thunderbolt zoomed upward; soaring into the cloud-flecked sky. I looked out and back: the Spit was straining to match me, and barely able to hold his position.
But my advantage was only the zoom-once in steady climb, he had me. I gaped as smoke poured from the exhausts and the Spitfire shot past me as if I were standing still. Could that plane climb! He tore upward in a climb I couldn't match in the Jug. Now it was his turn; the broad elliptical wings rolled, swung around, and the Spit screamed in, hell-bent on chewing me up.
This was going to be fun. I knew he could turn inside the heavy Thunderbolt; if I attempted to hold a tight turn the Spitfire would slip right inside me. First rule in this kind of fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best. No sharp turns; don't climb: keep him at your own level.
We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning: he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks, too.
The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The jug could out roll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could whirl. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right, around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I just refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our two planes.
Then I played the trump. The Spitfire was clawing wildly through the air, trying to follow me in a roll, when I dropped the nose. The Thunderbolt howled and ran for the earth. Barely had the Spitfire started to follow-and I was a long way ahead of him by now - when I jerked back on the stick and threw the Jug into a zoom climb. In a straight or turning climb, the British ship had the advantage. But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or a German fighter that can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. Before the Spit pilot knew what had happened, I was high above him, the Thunderbolt hammering around. And that was it - for in the next few moments the Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less maneuverable, slower-climbing Thunderbolt rushing straight at him, eight guns pointed ominously at his cockpit.
-------------------------------------------


The Fw 190A-3 was heavier, higher in wing-loading, denser, and lower in power-loading compared to the Spitfire VB (June 1942)

Like this:


'The AFDE trials confirmed what the RAF already knew - that the Fw190 was a truly outstanding combat aircraft. They also produced vitally important information which went some way toward restoring the situation in so far as the RAF was concerned and in eradicating something of the awe in which the Focke-Wulf had come to be held by Allied pilots. It was concluded that the Fw190 trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out- turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on the Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up an down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "Sinking"
Arnim Faber's Fw190A-3 was thoroughly wring out and dispelled the mystique with which Focke-Wulf had been surrounded during the first year of its operational career; the fortuitous acquisition of this one warplane probably saving the lives of countless RAF pilots. But familiarity certainly did not breed contempt, for although conversant with both attributes and shortcomings of the fighter, we were equally conversant with the fact that it had to be treated with the utmost respect as an antagonist, despite its awesome reputation by now having been placed in perspective:

The Fw 190A-3 was heavier, higher in wing-loading, denser, and lower in power-loading compared to the Spitfire VB (June 1942)

Like this:


The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights
The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful in combat.

If EM charts were drawn up (rather than only sustained level turn performance curves), then, enough turn performance data could be compared to see which planes were double superior and which planes were double inferior as easy as white is not red and red is not white.

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 11:10 AM
The length of your posts detracts from your point.

I never ever said that the Fw 190 could out SUSTAIN turn a Spitfire. Only someone with an agenda putting words in my mouth has led you to believe that.

The Fw 190 CAN out turn a Spitfire so long as it has enough speed/energy to burn. Once Speed drops enough Spitfire out turns Fw 190 by a large margin.

Blutarski2004
03-20-2007, 11:16 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The length of your posts detracts from your point. [QUOTE]


..... That has never discouraged Josf before.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-20-2007, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The length of your posts detracts from your point.

I never ever said that the Fw 190 could out SUSTAIN turn a Spitfire. Only someone with an agenda putting words in my mouth has led you to believe that.

The Fw 190 CAN out turn a Spitfire so long as it has enough speed/energy to burn. Once Speed drops enough Spitfire out turns Fw 190 by a large margin.

Yes, i understand very well what are u saying, but its complete BS. Explain me HOW FW190 can outturn Spitfire on high speed, if they both have the same turn rate, because of G limitation? No wonder why ur tactic isnt working...

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The length of your posts detracts from your point.

I never ever said that the Fw 190 could out SUSTAIN turn a Spitfire. Only someone with an agenda putting words in my mouth has led you to believe that.

The Fw 190 CAN out turn a Spitfire so long as it has enough speed/energy to burn. Once Speed drops enough Spitfire out turns Fw 190 by a large margin.

Yes, i understand very well what are u saying, but its complete BS. Explain me HOW FW190 can outturn Spitfire on high speed, if they both have the same turn rate, because of G limitation? No wonder why ur tactic isnt working... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They dont both have the same Turn rate. Pilot G restriction affects all aircraft. You are comparing sustained turn to instantaneous again and getting confused.

Why did real pilots like Clostermann state things like 'The Tempest can out turn the Bf 109 at speeds above 300mph' ? It isnt my fault that you cannot understand the concept of turn rates for different planes varying at different speeds.

In your world a Gloster Gladiator can out turn a Spitfire at 400mph the I suppose.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-20-2007, 11:33 AM
My world might be funny, but answer is YES.

P.S. My world version is PF 4.08 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG14_Josf
03-20-2007, 12:00 PM
Sorry but spitfire was more capable plane for turning E retention. At high speed higher loaded plane like FW 190 to turn at same G as spit need higher AOA what leads to much higher drag during this manover. If we consider this that both planes had similar powerloading than there's no way that FW could keep more E. Besides that spitfire wing shape was better for keeping energy during turns than FW-190 classic trapezoid wings.

To whom it may concern:

In fact: a study was done on WWII Fighter Aerodynamics and the evidence shows how the Spitfire wing was not capable of elliptical function despite the elliptical shape and the Fw190 (higher/lower?) aspect ratio or ˜trapezod' wing did perform as an elliptical (full span lift producing wing) wing under g load (which can only occur at high speed).

Study (http://us.share.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf)

Simply repeating the old ˜laminar flow' and ˜elliptical shape' arguments only perpetuate MYTHS.

If one plane can convert forward vector velocity into lift vector acceleration faster (Energy Bleed rate), then, that plane generates higher g force sooner. That will be the more maneuverable plane (fast transients). That plane will have a tighter decreasing radius turn (Natural Hook (http://www.d-n-i.net/boyd/pdf/fast_transients.pdf)).

If a plane is so poorly designed as to have huge parasite drag force requirements such as a steep windshield producing drag, wing twist, large drag producing radiators under the wings spoiling lift production, open wheel wells, low aspect ratio, etc., then, much of the forward vector velocity will be BURNED without the advantage of converting that forward vector velocity into lift vector acceleration. In other words the aircraft does not convert all the energy into lift vector acceleration since much of the energy us spent pushing non-lift producing protrusions during accelerations on the lift vector.

If the angle of attack on the Fw190 produces the lift force required to accelerate the aircraft weight 6 times the rate of gravitational acceleration, then, the aircraft turns at 6 g. If the speed at 6 g is the same as the speed at 6 g of any other plane at 6 g and the same speed, then, the turn rate and turn radius will be the same no matter what is the angle of attack of the wing. If the limit of g force is the pilot at 6 g, then, the plane can't utilize any greater lift production even if it could pitch to a higher angle of attack.

If the limit of g production is the wing stalling at that speed, then, the angle of attack is beyond CLmax and therefore ˜sinking' or ˜mushing' or ˜creating turbulence' or ˜creating drag that does not turn the plane' or ˜not at the maximum lift producing angle of attack' and therefore not the best speed for generating the most g force and therefore not at the best speed for turning the maximum turn rate and therefore not at the speed for turning the smallest turn rate and therefore not at corner speed.
If the limit for lift production is the wing suffering elastic deformation where the shape of the wing bend into a less efficient shape, then, the limit is a structural limit and therefore the speed at that g load is not corner speed.


Sorry but spitfire was more capable plane for turning E retention. At high speed higher loaded plane like FW 190 to turn at same G as spit need higher AOA what leads to much higher drag during this manover. If we consider this that both planes had similar powerloading than there's no way that FW could keep more E. Besides that spitfire wing shape was better for keeping energy during turns than FW-190 classic trapezoid wings.

If the Fw190A-3 is at the same altitude and going the same speed as the Spitfire VB (June 1942) it will be at a higher energy state due to its higher mass, AND, due to higher density the Fw190A-3 will be accelerated less by an equal amount of drag force measurable as pound-force or Newtons or Joule/meters.

Since the Fw190A-3 is smaller in wetted area (not even adding the radiator dimensions) and more massive, greater density, the Fw190A-3 not only generates less drag force it is also accelerated or forced by that drag force less due to the higher density.

To say that the Fw190A-3 will BLEED more of the energy it has in a decelerating turn is to say that the Fw190A-3 will slow down quicker in that turn which equates to a faster rate of turn and a smaller radius of turn unless the Fw190A-3 is slowed down by something other than q.

What is q (http://www.flightlab.net/pdf/8_Maneuvering.pdf)?


The maximum lift line, or CLmax boundary, takes its parabolic shape from the fact that lift is a function of velocity squared (because lift is proportional to dynamic pressure, q, which is itself proportional to V^2). You can draw the lift line based purely on an aircraft's 1-g stall speed at a given weight. At least you can for speeds to about Mach 0.3. Above that, compressibility effects take over, CLmax declines, and the slope of
the curve decreases.

Dynamic pressure is q.

Lift is proportional to dynamic pressure where the rate of lift force increases square with velocity; therefore – the wing uses forward vector velocity to accelerate the plane on the lift vector because q increases square with velocity, UNLESS, something other than q slows the plane down.

Such as: Windshield glass being too steep, radiator ducts creating drag and disrupting wing function at the root, wing twist that removes lift production from a portion of the wing span, open wheel wells causing turbulence, tail wheels causing turbulence and drag that is not q and not dynamic pressure and not lift force.

Add to those increases in power requirements that are not q, not lift, not dynamic pressure, add to that the fact that the FW190A-3 adds more power in the form of more thrust and the T/W (Power available), in a decelerating turn, removes more drag force as the Prop pulls the aircraft into the turn to decrease the rate of deceleration and the ENERGY BLEED rate DECREASES making the natural hook turn performance DECREASE, again, if the plane BURNS more energy as TURNING and DECELERATES at a faster rate, faster transition from high speed to slow speed, then, the plane will turn a tighter turn as it slows down faster.

Pulling the engine power (throttle at idle)increases turn rate and decreases turn radius until the plane stalls.

If the Spitfire can ˜sustain' a slower speed while ˜sustaining' altitude that does not equate automatically as an Energy Retention advantage and that does not equate automatically as an Energy Addition rate advantage (certainly not in a dive).

Myths are propagated by players playing games.

JG14_Josf
03-20-2007, 12:16 PM
I never ever said that the Fw 190 could out SUSTAIN turn a Spitfire. Only someone with an agenda putting words in my mouth has led you to believe that.

mynameisrolland,

Are you talkin' to me?

If so then please benefit from some doubt.

I responded to a reference to IL2 compare.

If you can explain how IL2 compare works, then, please do so.


Fw 190 has always had the ability to turn faster at higher speeds than the Spitfire. All you need to do is view IL2 compare.

FYI the Tempest also has the ability to out turn the Spitfire IX at high speeds. Both the Tempest and the Fw 190 are the energy fighter in this regard.

I don't need to find out who wrote the above words. The above words are the words written that my post responded to and I did not mean to or succeed in putting words or anything else in anyone's mouth. If something is in your mouth then spit it out if you don't like it.

If you are not talking to me, then, please excuse my repsonse as it was not meant for you. My response is meant for you only if you are talkin' to me.

Manu-6S
03-20-2007, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
They dont both have the same Turn rate. Pilot G restriction affects all aircraft. You are comparing sustained turn to instantaneous again and getting confused.

Why did real pilots like Clostermann state things like 'The Tempest can out turn the Bf 109 at speeds above 300mph' ? It isnt my fault that you cannot understand the concept of turn rates for different planes varying at different speeds.

In your world a Gloster Gladiator can out turn a Spitfire at 400mph the I suppose.

Turning at high speed is more connected to elevator response than pure "turning ability".

You must combine elevator authority with high speed roll rate to have the difference between two planes in that manouvre.

This is because Tempest could outturn bf109...

JG4_Helofly
03-20-2007, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Pinker: As Crumpp told me, that was completly opposite. In his oppinion, that made FW190 so great fighter. Check CWoSF forum for more infohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
with every maneuver FW190 would gain more and more energy, unless FW190 follow spiral climb.

Wrong. No WW2 aircraft can gain energy by maneuvering.

Your lack of understanding of Newtonian physics is mind boggling.

WW2 aircraft lose energy when turning, all of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

U didnt understand me. FW190 would gain energy when compared to Spitfire. That means, it would lower his e state slower. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an important point. Crumpp said that the 190 was able to sustain turns at high speed which a plane like the spitfire could not. An indicator for this is the cruising speed. The high the cruising speed, the better the sustained turn ability at high speed. Look at the energy charts posted by Josf. At mach o.7 the f86 has an advantage over the mig, so if the f86 would turn at this speed and at this g loading, the mig would not be able to hold it's position behind the f86. The mig would be over it's sustained envelope and therefore loose energy while the f86 would hold it's energy.
That's very important.

Now look at il2c and compare a fw 190 with a spit. There is nearly no advantage for the 190 in sustained turn at high speed. Only the spitVb has some problems at these speeds.

Last thing about energy.I talked with a fighter pilot and asked him if a heavier plane could have a better turn rate than a lighter plane when both planes are equal but different in weight. Answer: The ligher plane would have the better turnrate.
Maybe the f86 had a better turnrate due to it's straight wings compared to the mig.

JG14_Josf
03-20-2007, 01:13 PM
Last thing about energy.I talked with a fighter pilot and asked him if a heavier plane could have a better turn rate than a lighter plane when both planes are equal but different in weight. Answer: The ligher plane would have the better turnrate.
Maybe the f86 had a better turnrate due to it's straight wings compared to the mig.

JG4_Helofly or anyone interested:

The fighter pilot may (or may not) have been referring to a level turn that sustains altitude and if you asked (or ask again) if the heavier plane can turn a faster rate in a diving turn at corner speed, then, you may find the fighter pilot responding with a reference to G-LOC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC)

If you do end up discussing things with the fighter pilot again, then, he may point out that the F-86 and the Mig-15 both had the same wing sweep at 35 degrees.

Perhaps the fighter pilot can explain to you how corner speed is plotted on an EM chart with Wind up Turns or Loaded Decelerations since my references to those facts don't interest you enough to realize them.