PDA

View Full Version : Higher boost versions of Spitfire IX, P51 for late 1944?



Pages : [1] 2

Aaron_GT
12-13-2004, 09:39 AM
At the moment there is no single engined commonwealth fighter running with late war boosts and the P51B is also limited to early 1944 bosts. An easy option for adding late 1944/early 1945 plane support to the game would be to allow +25 boost for both these aircraft. No 3D modelling would be required and only probably relatively small changes to the flight model to elicit the additional performance.

Aaron_GT
12-13-2004, 09:39 AM
At the moment there is no single engined commonwealth fighter running with late war boosts and the P51B is also limited to early 1944 bosts. An easy option for adding late 1944/early 1945 plane support to the game would be to allow +25 boost for both these aircraft. No 3D modelling would be required and only probably relatively small changes to the flight model to elicit the additional performance.

JG53Frankyboy
12-13-2004, 11:17 AM
just out of interest:
what would be the performance differnce ?

nevertheless:
Making the P-51D-20NA making a Late44 plane with higher boost (good differnece than to P-51D-5NT with lower boost)
& Spitfire Mk.IXe in total also (leaving the SpitIXc at lower boost)
would be a great idea

also adding some performance differences in all that Corsairs and the two Hellcats would be nice ( if there where any http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

lrrp22
12-13-2004, 12:09 PM
Boosting the Mustang III/P-51B from +18 lbs to +25 lbs boost would raise its sea level speed to ~395 mph/636 kph with wing racks, and 403 mph/649 kph without. Climb and acceleration would also increase fairly dramatically, especially at 25-50% fuel.

It bears saying that by early 1945, 18 or so RAF squadrons were so equipped. By the late summer/early fall of '44 200-250 squadron-service Mustang III's were flying at these boost levels with that number increasing to 300-350 examples flying by late winter '45.

Spitfire LF IXC/E's would reach ~360 mph/580 kph at sea level at the same boost levels. The LF IX's already excellent climb rates become truly phenomenal at these boost levels. By the end of '44 ADGB/2nd TAF had 30+ squadrons flying at +25 lbs boost.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
just out of interest:
what would be the performance differnce ?

nevertheless:
Making the P-51D-20NA making a Late44 plane with higher boost (good differnece than to P-51D-5NT with lower boost)
& Spitfire Mk.IXe in total also (leaving the SpitIXc at lower boost)
would be a great idea

also adding some performance differences in all that Corsairs and the two Hellcats would be nice ( if there where any http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG53Frankyboy
12-13-2004, 12:55 PM
wow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

so , ading/changing boosted planes like:

Spitfire LF.MkIXc 1943 (18 boost )
Spitfire LF.MkIXc CW 1943 (18 boost )
Spitfire LF.MkIXe late1944 (25 boost )
Spitfire LF.MkIXe CW late1944 (25 boost )

P-51B 1943 (18 boost)
P-51C late1944 (25 boost)
P-51D-5-NT 1944 (18 boost)
P-51D-20-NA late1944 (25 boost)


would be a very nice Merlin60 series planefamilie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
and would ad more differences betwenn the planes.

AlmightyTallest
12-13-2004, 01:46 PM
I'm all for it, good luck gentlemen on getting this incorporated into the sim. Seems very reasonable and would add more realism to the various models of aircraft.

VW-IceFire
12-13-2004, 01:54 PM
That'd be really nice for sure. That'd give us a little more to work with on online scenarios.

I noticed last night on a UK-Dedicated map where you had the Bf-109K-4 and FW190A-9 and D-9 against Spitfire IXe, P-51D-20, and P-47/P-38/etc that the Spitfir IXe was simply not upto the task of defeating the opponents. Obviously it has advantages and well flown it can beat the opponent (the pilot counts!) but if it got into a fight it was simply unable to disengage like a P-47 or P-51 could because it was simply too slow in comparison to the very fast 109K-4 and 190D-9. Which is why you can see the IX/XVI during late 1944/1945 invasion of Germany period being relegated to the 2nd TAF for bombing runs while the XIV and Tempest V were pushed to the frontline.

Adding an extra boost on the IXe would certainly help redress the situation...but not completely. Obviously the addition of the Tempest V or a Spitfire XIV would help.

Aaron_GT
12-13-2004, 02:11 PM
I'm sure SkyChimp could probably add details of possible higher boost P47D versions. I am not sure what boost the P47Ds are currently running at in the sim (or if the gauges are showing the right levels). This may go some way to having the power of the P47M without requiring a new 3D model.

Higher boost for the P51 for US forces would also be appropriate.

It's a relatively low cost change to make (no 3D modelling) so I think this is a realistic target with regards to asking Oleg if it could be included.

MEGILE
12-13-2004, 02:38 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

lrrp22
12-13-2004, 02:44 PM
Without doubt the +25 lbs Spitfires should be added and almost certainly the +25 lbs Mustangs, as well.

The +25 lbs/80" hg Mustangs, while common, were in the minority when compared to the +20 lbs/72" USAAF Mustangs standard after June '44. Basically, after mid-summer of '44, there were somewhere between 3 and 4 +20 lbs USAAF Mustangs for every +25 lbs RAF Mustang. For PF, +25 lbs P-51D's also appear to appropriate from early April 1945 'til end of war.

Currently, it appears that the AEP/PF P-51D's sea level speed is modeled either on the upper end of the +18 lbs range or the lower end of the +20 lbs, while the P-51C is simply too slow at all altitudes. The Object Viewer claims that the P-51C features the V-1650-7 engine which should make it 2-3 mph faster than the P-51D at all altitudes and that simply is not the case.

The challenge, primarily online, would be to balance out the number of +25 lbs Mustangs vs. the more common +18/+20 lbs versions. Having said that, the plethora of Ta-152's, F4U-1C's and super Ki-84's online doesn't seem to bother anyone, so I think +25 lbs Mustangs would certainly be appropriate!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
wow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

so , ading/changing boosted planes like:

Spitfire LF.MkIXc 1943 (18 boost )
Spitfire LF.MkIXc CW 1943 (18 boost )
Spitfire LF.MkIXe late1944 (25 boost )
Spitfire LF.MkIXe CW late1944 (25 boost )

P-51B 1943 (18 boost)
P-51C late1944 (25 boost)
P-51D-5-NT 1944 (18 boost)
P-51D-20-NA late1944 (25 boost)


would be a very nice Merlin60 series planefamilie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
and would ad more differences betwenn the planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron_GT
12-13-2004, 02:59 PM
Like anything it would be up to the people running the server to set the options. It might be nice in campaigns, though, to get a 'new' plane in the sense of higher boost aircraft.

lrrp22
12-13-2004, 03:29 PM
Agreed.

I will work on putting the complete RAE +25 lbs test report into electronic form and submit it to Oleg shortly.

The Spitfire +25 lbs numbers are readily available at Mike Williams's site ,but I'm sure any additional documentation couldn't hurt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Like anything it would be up to the people running the server to set the options. It might be nice in campaigns, though, to get a 'new' plane in the sense of higher boost aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Willey
12-13-2004, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
wow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

so , ading/changing boosted planes like:

Spitfire LF.MkIXc 1943 (18 boost )
Spitfire LF.MkIXc CW 1943 (18 boost )
Spitfire LF.MkIXe late1944 (25 boost )
Spitfire LF.MkIXe CW late1944 (25 boost )

P-51B 1943 (18 boost)
P-51C late1944 (25 boost)
P-51D-5-NT 1944 (18 boost)
P-51D-20-NA late1944 (25 boost)


would be a very nice Merlin60 series planefamilie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
and would ad more differences betwenn the planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good suggest. Then also do:

Bf-109G-6/AS: DB-605AS (1475 hi)
Bf-109G-14: DB-605AM (1800 lo)
Bf-109G-10: DB-605DB (1800 hi)
Bf-109K-4: DB-605DC (2000 hi)

That would grant them all different performance at different alts. Especially the AS, 10 and 4 are almost identical now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif . hi means the rated altitude which is higher for AS and D engines while the AM still has the lower RA.

A late 44 A-Lader Dora would also rock - it could compete with those 25lb planes reaching 640kph (the 25lb 51 is still somewhat faster...) on the deck and 695 at 3500m.

lrrp22
12-13-2004, 03:44 PM
I might be mistaken, but don't we already have all those 109 variants?

Since no proof seems to exist that the a-lader configuration was ever deployed operationally, it seems like kind of a stretch.

The point to the +25 lbs Spit/Mustang push is that these were extremely common, even standard, operational configurations for nearly the entire last year of the European war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:

Good suggest. Then also do:

Bf-109G-6/AS: DB-605AS (1475 hi)
Bf-109G-14: DB-605AM (1800 lo)
Bf-109G-10: DB-605DB (1800 hi)
Bf-109K-4: DB-605DC (2000 hi)

That would grant them all different performance at different alts. Especially the AS, 10 and 4 are almost identical now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif . hi means the rated altitude which is higher for AS and D engines while the AM still has the lower RA.

A late 44 A-Lader Dora would also rock - it could compete with those 25lb planes reaching 640kph (the 25lb 51 is still somewhat faster...) on the deck and 695 at 3500m. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire
12-13-2004, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
wow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

so , ading/changing boosted planes like:

Spitfire LF.MkIXc 1943 (18 boost )
Spitfire LF.MkIXc CW 1943 (18 boost )
Spitfire LF.MkIXe late1944 (25 boost )
Spitfire LF.MkIXe CW late1944 (25 boost )

P-51B 1943 (18 boost)
P-51C late1944 (25 boost)
P-51D-5-NT 1944 (18 boost)
P-51D-20-NA late1944 (25 boost)


would be a very nice Merlin60 series planefamilie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
and would ad more differences betwenn the planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good suggest. Then also do:

Bf-109G-6/AS: DB-605AS (1475 hi)
Bf-109G-14: DB-605AM (1800 lo)
Bf-109G-10: DB-605DB (1800 hi)
Bf-109K-4: DB-605DC (2000 hi)

That would grant them all different performance at different alts. Especially the AS, 10 and 4 are almost identical now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif . hi means the rated altitude which is higher for AS and D engines while the AM still has the lower RA.

A late 44 A-Lader Dora would also rock - it could compete with those 25lb planes reaching 640kph (the 25lb 51 is still somewhat faster...) on the deck and 695 at 3500m. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd be in favor of adding additional options to the Luftwaffe side too. Just as long as they were fairly common additions. In equal abundance proportionally to the Allied equivalents. That'd be great too!

FA_Whisky
12-13-2004, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> At the moment there is no single engined commonwealth fighter running with late war boosts and the P51B is also limited to early 1944 bosts. An easy option for adding late 1944/early 1945 plane support to the game would be to allow +25 boost for both these aircraft. No 3D modelling would be required and only probably relatively small changes to the flight model to elicit the additional performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would be really nice. Isn't the Ki84 modeled with 150octane already?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Currently, it appears that the AEP/PF P-51D's sea level speed is modeled either on the upper end of the +18 lbs range or the lower end of the +20 lbs, while the P-51C is simply too slow at all altitudes. The Object Viewer claims that the P-51C features the V-1650-7 engine which should make it 2-3 mph faster than the P-51D at all altitudes and that simply is not the case.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Already posted this a long time ago. Also mailed it to oleg, but no reply. The objectviewer or the P51c model is wrong. Ask Oleg again....

Col.Kurtz
12-13-2004, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I might be mistaken, but don't we already have all those 109 variants?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No Willey is right.
The performance of the existing Latewar 109s isnt much diffrent.

All late 109 have MW50 engines and very high full trottle height.

needed is:
Bf-109G-6/AS: DB-605AS (1475 hi)&lt;--NO MW50 only DB605Dcharger
Bf-109G-14: DB-605AM (1800 lo)&lt;---charger of db605A so only high performance at low alt to 5000m! At high alt worser that normal G6
Bf-109G-10: DB-605DB (1800 hi)&lt;---should stay as is.
Bf-109K-4: DB-605DC (2000 hi)&lt;----- Faster speed at Low alt ingame,and little bit decreased climb

But i think it would be bad idea to make the P51D20 to a 25LB version! Better Copy existing and rename it!
Overflooding of servers with *** Superplanes is allready enough http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

IIJG69_Kartofe
12-13-2004, 05:06 PM
OOOOOOOOHHHHHH GOOOOOODDDDD http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Always the same whining ...

WAAAAAAA !! I want a new (improved) late warplaaaaaannneeeee !!!


Why NOBODY here ask for EARLY WWII PLANES?????

Hey guys ... The WWII Begin in 1939, not in 1944!
Yet we have No early spits to make realistics BoB campaigns, we have only Hurricanes... No Spit MKI or MKII ...
I'm tired to down hepless Hurries in so called BoB campaigns vithout realistic and serious opposition to the 109E.

lrrp22
12-13-2004, 05:19 PM
I hate to say it, but the FM of the P-51B/C fulfilled a prediction I made before AEP was released- i.e., the high altitude performance of the -7 P-51D coupled with the sea level performance of the early -3 engined B- all at +18 lbs/67" hg power settings.

Currently, the B/C models offer absolutely no advantages over the D. They're slower, more weakly armed with a poorer all around view and no more agility than the D model. Either the -7 B/C-model should be faster and slightly more agile than the P-51D at all altitudes, or, if it represents a -3 engine, it should reach between 436 and 440 mph at higher altitudes with wing racks, and 450-453 mph without.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Whisky:

Already posted this a long time ago. Also mailed it to oleg, but no reply. The objectviewer or the P51c model is wrong. Ask Oleg again.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
12-13-2004, 05:23 PM
Start your own thread, then.

Luftwaffe/VVS/IJAAF fliers already have their late-war super planes, and then some. Why not the same for the more common and more numerous UK/US birds? It always seems to be someone with a Luftwaffe sig lamenting the fact that someone wants a late-war Western Allies fighter in the game...if they're not requesting some rare late-war Luftwaffe variant themselves, that is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
OOOOOOOOHHHHHH GOOOOOODDDDD http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Always the same whining ...

WAAAAAAA !! I want a new (improved) late warplaaaaaannneeeee !!!


Why _NOBODY_ here ask for _EARLY WWII PLANES_?????

Hey guys ... The WWII Begin in 1939, _not in 1944!_
Yet we have _No_ early spits to make realistics BoB campaigns, we have only Hurricanes... No Spit MKI or MKII ...
I'm tired to down hepless Hurries in so called BoB campaigns vithout realistic and serious opposition to the 109E. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

_Neveraine_
12-13-2004, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Start your own thread, then.

Luftwaffe/VVS/IJAAF fliers already have their late-war super planes, and then some. Why not the same for the more common and more numerous UK/US birds? It always seems to be someone with a Luftwaffe sig lamenting the fact that someone wants a late-war Western Allies fighter in the game...if they're not requesting some rare late-war Luftwaffe variant themselves, that is.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just Remember that luft 45' planes (a.k.a jets) are usually banned on most servers, up-rated german props wouldn't hurt anyone especially since they're historical. A 44' Spitfire (14?) is sorely needed though.

Bull_dog_
12-13-2004, 06:32 PM
As long as we're talking boost and speed...how about adding the boost to the L model Lightnings and paddle blade prop to D-22 and 27 Jugs. Add a fillet and get a D-30 or 40 w/ HVAR's and more boost too along with a K-14 which was actually added to the D-25.

Plenty of opportunity to go around as far as late war allied aircraft go. I think some of these aircraft have been neglected due to the developers developing things like AEP, PF and BoB...but I feel like we need to fix a few imbalances yet.

USAflyer
12-13-2004, 06:39 PM
Fix the damage models and guns before adding new planes please.

Gwalker70
12-13-2004, 07:34 PM
fix both the P47 zoom climb(the one thing that kept the P47 drivers alive).. and P38 L overall performance(P38 L had awesome performance in real life)...tune down the P51 top speed at lower Alt.. GIVE THE DORAS THIER REAL TOP SPEED WHICH IS LIKE 30 KPH TOO SLOW IN GAME RIGHT NOW AT ALT

Sig.Hirsch
12-13-2004, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by _Neveraine_:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lrrp22:
Start your own thread, then.

Luftwaffe/VVS/IJAAF fliers already have their late-war super planes, and then some. Why not the same for the more common and more numerous UK/US birds? It always seems to be someone with a Luftwaffe sig lamenting the fact that someone wants a late-war Western Allies fighter in the game...if they're not requesting some rare late-war Luftwaffe variant themselves, that is.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The planes you are asking for fought in 1945 , and when you say "superplanes" , tell me what proppeller plane you are talking about as even from Oleg's mouth , the P-51 is the best propeller plane you can find in this sim .

Actually whining for more late war planes is not really clever as Oleg has planned to include several planes made by free modellers in future add-ons , that would include the Spit XIV , the Tempest etc...
What we "need" if we can say so :
(man , this is the best sim ever made , and i'm getting sick of all the whinings by some people on this forum who don't represent the community and who just cry to get "the better plane than the other" )

1- If we are lucky to get some new planes , we need some British planes (early spits would be for BoB ) like the Mosquito , Wellington , sea hurricane as an example, some Italian planes flyable like the Macchi folgore as an example some German planes like the Do-217 , Me-410 as an example , some Russian planes like
Pe-2 , Pe-8 flyable as an example .

THOSE PLANES MADE HISTORY and were massively used, it would be a tremendous addition for the online and offline community for the Campaigns and Historical immersion , if ever any plane is going to be added (cause we have to appreciate what we already have, and it's up to the free modellers after all , they are doing the job for you , mostly for free ! )

2- New maps : i heard the a Mourmansk map is going to be released (it's great !) , I'm optimistic about some others released (like western front maps , or larger desert maps , or sicily or whatsoever new map that we can exploit for new Campaigns and atmosphere .

3- Less whining in this forum , cause this truly ruin the relationships between Oleg and the community , and i would understand him if he would just ignore that place , because of all the junks , false assertions , and unhonest critics about the best game you can find , and that he's constantly taking care of and improving , i don't remember seeing on the box on IL-2 FB that you'll get more than what's in the box , you should be happy that we did actually get some new aircraft , and will get others , or you should feel guilty , if Oleg just doesn't listen to the community and all the yankwhining on this forum .

lrrp22
12-13-2004, 10:20 PM
Again, it seems a tad disengenuous to fall back on the 'we already have enough late war uber planes' argument when you know that none of those 1945 planes come from the US/UK plane set. It's painfully obvious that many here don't want the 1945 versions of British and American aircraft for reasons that have very little to do with historical accuracy or incomplete early-war plane sets.

Take a look at Hyperlobby, as well as the majority of the posts on this forum- the late war fighters are the most popular feature of this sim. As such, those late war fighters need to be represented in all the various air arms' plane sets, not just those which reside East of the Rhine.

BTW, your gratuitous 'yankwhining' comment speaks volumes about your own biases.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:

The planes you are asking for fought in 1945 , and when you say "superplanes" , tell me what proppeller plane you are talking about as even from Oleg's mouth , the P-51 is the best propeller plane you can find in this sim .

Actually whining for more late war planes is not really clever as Oleg has planned to include several planes made by free modellers in future add-ons , that would include the Spit XIV , the Tempest etc...
What we "need" if we can say so :
(man , this is the best sim ever made , and i'm getting sick of all the whinings by some people on this forum who don't represent the community and who just cry to get "the better plane than the other" )

1- If we are lucky to get some new planes , we need some British planes (early spits would be for BoB ) like the Mosquito , Wellington , sea hurricane as an example, some Italian planes flyable like the Macchi folgore as an example some German planes like the Do-217 , Me-410 as an example , some Russian planes like
Pe-2 , Pe-8 flyable as an example .

THOSE PLANES MADE HISTORY and were massively used, it would be a tremendous addition for the online and offline community for the Campaigns and Historical immersion , if ever any plane is going to be added (cause we have to appreciate what we already have, and it's up to the free modellers after all , they are doing the job for you , mostly for free ! )

2- New maps : i heard the a Mourmansk map is going to be released (it's great !) , I'm optimistic about some others released (like western front maps , or larger desert maps , or sicily or whatsoever new map that we can exploit for new Campaigns and atmosphere .

3- Less whining in this forum , cause this truly ruin the relationships between Oleg and the community , and i would understand him if he would just ignore that place , because of all the junks , false assertions , and unhonest critics about the best game you can find , and that he's constantly taking care of and improving , i don't remember seeing on the box on IL-2 FB that you'll get more than what's in the box , you should be happy that we did actually get some new aircraft , and will get others , or you should feel guilty , if Oleg just doesn't listen to the community and all the yankwhining on this forum . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
12-13-2004, 10:25 PM
I agree that the P-47 and P-38 need looking at, but tune down the P-51's low altitude speed? Why?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gwalker70:
fix both the P47 zoom climb(the one thing that kept the P47 drivers alive).. and P38 L overall performance(P38 L had awesome performance in real life)...tune down the P51 top speed at lower Alt.. GIVE THE DORAS THIER REAL TOP SPEED WHICH IS LIKE 30 KPH TOO SLOW IN GAME RIGHT NOW AT ALT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
12-14-2004, 01:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I agree that the P-47 and P-38 need looking at, but tune down the P-51's low altitude speed? Why?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't get that either? The P-51 is not too fast down low in PF.

Aaron_GT
12-14-2004, 01:24 AM
"Why NOBODY here ask for EARLY WWII PLANES????? "

Ultimately I'd like to see those too, but I am working on the principle that we'll be getting almost exclusively early war planes in BoB so we'd be on a bit of a highway to nowhere asking for new 1940/41 planes.

"Fix the damage models and guns before adding new planes please."

This would be good too, but my point is that these modifications don't require any new 3D modelling and hopefully not too great a change to the FMs so are low impact ways to get what some allied flyers are calling for - better late war planes - without the extra effort on Oleg's teams's part in adding entirely new aircraft. In other words something that tries to please as many people as possible without distracting Oleg and his team too much from addressing the issues that you mention.

Sig.Hirsch
12-14-2004, 01:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Again, it seems a tad disengenuous to fall back on the 'we already have enough late war uber planes' argument when you know that none of those 1945 planes come from the US/UK plane set. It's painfully obvious that many here don't want the 1945 versions of British and American aircraft for reasons that have very little to do with historical accuracy or incomplete early-war plane sets.

Take a look at Hyperlobby, as well as the majority of the posts on this forum- the late war fighters are the most popular feature of this sim. As such, those late war fighters need to be represented in all the various air arms' plane sets, not just those which reside East of the Rhine.

BTW, your gratuitous 'yankwhining' comment speaks volumes about your own biases.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:

The planes you are asking for fought in 1945 , and when you say "superplanes" , tell me what proppeller plane you are talking about as even from Oleg's mouth , the P-51 is the best propeller plane you can find in this sim .

Actually whining for more late war planes is not really clever as Oleg has planned to include several planes made by free modellers in future add-ons , that would include the Spit XIV , the Tempest etc...
What we "need" if we can say so :
(man , this is the best sim ever made , and i'm getting sick of all the whinings by some people on this forum who don't represent the community and who just cry to get "the better plane than the other" )

1- If we are lucky to get some new planes , we need some British planes (early spits would be for BoB ) like the Mosquito , Wellington , sea hurricane as an example, some Italian planes flyable like the Macchi folgore as an example some German planes like the Do-217 , Me-410 as an example , some Russian planes like
Pe-2 , Pe-8 flyable as an example .

THOSE PLANES MADE HISTORY and were massively used, it would be a tremendous addition for the online and offline community for the Campaigns and Historical immersion , if ever any plane is going to be added (cause we have to appreciate what we already have, and it's up to the free modellers after all , they are doing the job for you , mostly for free ! )

2- New maps : i heard the a Mourmansk map is going to be released (it's great !) , I'm optimistic about some others released (like western front maps , or larger desert maps , or sicily or whatsoever new map that we can exploit for new Campaigns and atmosphere .

3- Less whining in this forum , cause this truly ruin the relationships between Oleg and the community , and i would understand him if he would just ignore that place , because of all the junks , false assertions , and unhonest critics about the best game you can find , and that he's constantly taking care of and improving , i don't remember seeing on the box on IL-2 FB that you'll get more than what's in the box , you should be happy that we did actually get some new aircraft , and will get others , or you should feel guilty , if Oleg just doesn't listen to the community and all the yankwhining on this forum . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really , it wasn't gratuitous , it expresses what you can read all the time on this forum , and it's annoying , really .
For Hypperlobby , i don't think late war planes are more "popular" , if you look at the majority of the coops , you have some variety , if you look at the online campaigns like VEF , BW etc.. you have variety of planes , if you look at the public coops , there is variety too (dogfight is not reprensentative as people who play there want the best planes when they are available , because other players might take a better plane , which is often the case ie warclouds , go on greatergreen , virtualpilots where the late war planes are not systematically available , and you have loads of pilots there .

Like i said in my post , the planes which would benefit the most to the community are the planes that actually fought , to enrich the game , the campaigns , and the general atmosphere and accuracy of the Sim .
Of course i would like to see a Fw-190 D12 with Jumo 213F-1 ,like cruising at 750 Km/h at 8000m and blowing planes with MK-108 in the nose or a monster like a P-47 M with tremendous speed etc.., but the fact is , if you want to make it an even better WWII simulation than it is ,in term of realism and historical accuracy the first planes to add are "common" planes that fought from both sides , Lancasters, Ju-88 , Pe-2's , etc...
All the LW propeller planes that we have in FB are 1944 , except the Dora with MW50 who is worse in speed at all alts , besides , in each patch since a year now you have a US planes which is excellent , but now that PF is released and that we have almost all the USAAF planes in various models (P-39,P-38 , P-40 , P-400 , P-47 , P-51 , P-63 , A-20 etc.. etc...) why not adding japanese planes for PF that exntensively fought and made history to complete this fantastic sim , why not enriching the european front whith basic planes like Do-217 or Typhoon , why not implementing some other popular twin-engines like the Mossie in different models or the Me-410 or some flyable bombers , like a B-17 flyable for example ?
Why should it be a fighter automatically ?
Why should it be an ubbermonster that never fought or did it a couple of weeks and that will be almost surely banned (like Me-262 , Ki-84C) and will benefit nobody for the Campaigns offline and online , and would be useless for coops as they would have no opposition ?
Why not a Curtiss P-36 or I-16 type 5 or a FW-190 A2 or A3 that were widely used ?
Make a poll , you'll see that your point of view
is not a majority , and more than that , it brings nothing to the Sim , nor to the mature online community .

Von_Rat
12-14-2004, 01:57 AM
anybody who calls the ta152 a uber plane, doesn't fly it much. i'm all for late war allied uber planes, if the lw gets boosted doras, boosted 09k or jets on the server. but if your using the ta152 as the reason you want them, i gotta laugh. its a pig.

its a improved pig, but still a pig.

FA_Whisky
12-14-2004, 03:34 AM
This topic is going nowhere. If you want a late US plane(P51d P47 P38) with 150octane fuel post the proof that they had it. What squad, what mission, what location. And if you want this to be heard by Oleg, stop the talk about other planes that are not modeled ok. We got enough threads about that stuff. So, who has got the proof? The official test report with speed and climbrates and that sort of things.

Hetzer_II
12-14-2004, 03:34 AM
Dont feed the trolls Rat...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Aaron_GT
12-14-2004, 03:54 AM
"Like i said in my post , the planes which would benefit the most to the community are the planes that actually fought "

I think the Spitfire IX and Mustang III and IV fit into the category of planes that actually fought!

FA_Whisky wrote:
"This topic is going nowhere. If you want a late US plane(P51d P47 P38) with 150octane fuel post the proof that they had it. What squad, what mission, what location. "

That information (for RAF planes) has been posted here a number of times. The information is fairly well available.

Aaron_GT
12-14-2004, 03:55 AM
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

Aaron_GT
12-14-2004, 03:56 AM
(Info on Spit IX with 25lbs boost is about half way down that page)

FA_Whisky
12-14-2004, 04:03 AM
Did you already aksed Oleg about it? And if so, what was his reaction http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

JG53Frankyboy
12-14-2004, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
Did you already aksed Oleg about it? And if so, what was his reaction http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

good qestion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

changing the LF.MkIXe (& CW) and the P-51D-20NA to a higher boost setting - just a dream http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
12-14-2004, 05:52 AM
I thought the polite thing would be first to ask people if there is any support for this sort of idea. Then ask Oleg.

p1ngu666
12-14-2004, 07:38 AM
well, british planes are uber planes...
spit is probably the best intorceptor, in rough semi results base, 109 second (it failed to stop the bombing)

then theres the lanc, which is the best heavy bomber until b29 is fixed in 45 or so (even after that, its close)

mossie, is well, superlative http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p51, ordered by the british, designed for them etc...

typhoon, a real beast of a plane

tempest, lw scaring low alt dora matching plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

beaufighter, tough workhorse

simply make the 25lb boost p51's mark III and IV, no americanfanboy would relize there better, thinkin there just same/earlier than bcd

iirec p47 d10/22 have 2300hp 27 2500hp
the M was semi british related too, and all american planes gained from raf tellin americans about the airwar, usaaf may have gone to war in planes with no armour and self sealing fuel tanks and less guns without raf...

atm, the side that was in the war the longest or near enuff, fought in every theatre (limited in some) was pivitol to the war has the most limited planeset, with the possible exeption of the japanease.

in fp, the british stopped making new planes in 43 (44 spit same as 43, just a different wing) bea is equal to a 42 raf bea i think.

in year-plane terms, raf is equal to 109g6 late... u couldnt really add mw50 109s cos theres no griffon spits.. and its limited to a6 or so 190s...

americans, well, p47 and p38 and maybe a p51b/c...

russians... la5 maybe f/fn not sure, no yak3,la7 (lw scream yay!) yak9u,m + others

usn no cannon corsair http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif (heck that sounds good, if u fed up of cannon envy corsair fliers fillin servers to the BRIM) + other corsairs/hellcats?

btw i dont think raf aircraft won the war, but they where pivitol. if u want 1 aircraft that won the war, then look to the 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif.

a not obvious choice, only war it won was the spanish, if i remmber correctly... now teh 109 is a decent fighter, tobe fair, now ppl like kurfy think its great etc, and ya in some ways it is, but, however good it was, it was never good enuff to take air supority and keep it, to stop enemy bombers in large numbers to stop the bombing (yes, i know it got lots, but cruicaly, not enuff)

now brave lw/usaaf/ussr fliers imagine fighting off the uber planes in ur g6's p38j's and yakd's, i leave out IJN/IJA fliers cos they already do that unless they fly ki84 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ps fly the 5b zero, its the best one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FA_Whisky
12-14-2004, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I thought the polite thing would be first to ask people if there is any support for this sort of idea. Then ask Oleg. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will support you all the way!!!!! And i think there will be a lot of P51d jockeys here with me(I hope)

Aaron_GT
12-14-2004, 10:49 AM
"irec p47 d10/22 have 2300hp 27 2500hp the M was semi british related too, "

It was in development from 1943 so although it was offered as a V1 interceptor it wasn't introduced for this.

As I said before, the USAAF planes should also have the relevant boosts at various points. I don't know so much about the maximum boosts the P47D achieved in late 44/45, though. I am hoping someone has the information.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-14-2004, 10:59 AM
i'd go for that for the 44/45 servers ok.

it would be nice to see some late war 109's too (K4 with 2000hp for example) and maybe a GM1 or A-Lader Boosted Dora.

don't know about GM1 in service but the JV44 flew one of the A-Lader Doras.

lrrp22
12-14-2004, 11:19 AM
I've seen this posted before, but I think this theory is based on a single comment by one the JV44 pilots that 'Red 13' was a little faster than the three or four other aircraft in the flight. It's far more likely that 'Red 13', an early production D-9, had a fresh engine or was just in better condition than it is that it had a prototype, or experimental engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH-BlackSheep:

don't know about GM1 in service but the JV44 flew one of the A-Lader Doras. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
12-14-2004, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I've seen this posted before, but I think this theory is based on a single comment by one the JV44 pilots that 'Red 13' was a little faster than the three or four other aircraft in the flight. It's far more likely that 'Red 13', an early production D-9, had a fresh engine or was just in better condition than it is that it had a prototype, or experimental engine.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From "Doras of the Galland Circus" by Jerry Crandall.

"Faber considered "Red 13" as his personal mount. However other pilots also liked it, as it was exceptionally fast-a real "hot rod".

It doesn't sound like it was a little faster than the other Doras, I'd reckon if it was some 30-40km/h faster it would justify the above quote. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

It's all speculation of course. But it sure is possible, don't you think?

robban75
12-14-2004, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I agree that the P-47 and P-38 need looking at, but tune down the P-51's low altitude speed? Why?


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find the Mustang topspeeds to be rather strange. They should be faster, shouldn't they?

Sealevel topspeed in PF for the different Mustang versions.

P-51B - 578km/h
P-51C - 573km/h
P-51D - 597km/h

How can the P-51D be almost 20km/h faster than the B? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Even a P-51(D?) captured by the Luftwaffe managed 600km/h at SL.

HayateAce
12-14-2004, 12:03 PM
This idea has my full support.

Oleg 1C to look at P51 top speed.

Give late-war boosted versions for allies to be competitive.

&lt;S&gt; Great thread!

lrrp22
12-14-2004, 01:21 PM
I think its possible, but not very likely. Pretty much every unit had particular aircraft that they considered to be 'Hot Rods', but invariably they were just newer or better maintained examples of standard production airframes. Maybe the other Sachsenberg Schwarm Doras were just clapped-out? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Seriously though, I don't think anyone knows enough about the circumstance surrounding a-lader to have any idea if it ever saw service.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:


From "Doras of the Galland Circus" by Jerry Crandall.

"Faber considered "Red 13" as his personal mount. However other pilots also liked it, as it was exceptionally fast-a real "hot rod".

It doesn't sound like it was a little faster than the other Doras, I'd reckon if it was some 30-40km/h faster it would justify the above quote. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

It's all speculation of course. But it sure is possible, don't you think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
12-14-2004, 01:59 PM
Actually, for the 67" combat power setting modeled in AEP/PF, the P-51D seems to be right where it should be- even towards the high end for that power setting. Granted, 67" WEP is the most conservative WEP boost pressure, but that's what Oleg modeled.

If the Luftwaffe did get 600 kph out of a captured example, it is possible that it was either in excellent condition, or, if they had access to 150 octane fuel, it may have been flown at the more common 72" WEP.

The B and C seem to both be modeled with the higher-rated V-1650-3's inferior low altitude performance, but not its superior high altitude speeds. 573-578 kph@SL is right on for that engine configuration. According to the Object Viewer, the P-51C is modeled with the -7 engine, but if that's the case it's way too slow. It should be 3-5 kph faster than the D at all altitudes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I agree that the P-47 and P-38 need looking at, but tune down the P-51's low altitude speed? Why?


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find the Mustang topspeeds to be rather strange. They should be faster, shouldn't they?

Sealevel topspeed in PF for the different Mustang versions.

P-51B - 578km/h
P-51C - 573km/h
P-51D - 597km/h

How can the P-51D be almost 20km/h faster than the B? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Even a P-51(D?) captured by the Luftwaffe managed 600km/h at SL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
12-14-2004, 02:16 PM
i dont think anyone has explained what alader is..
iirec, it wasnt extra boost or more fuel

if someone knows what it IS, please enlighten me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. and yeah, ive seen teh graphs, and im not after those http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and i think we have correct boosts for p47 (atleast offical ones, they did hotrod a few http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

p38 maybe wrong, depending on whos data u belive

robban75
12-14-2004, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i dont think anyone has explained what alader is..
iirec, it wasnt extra boost or more fuel

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The boden A-lader was a compressor optimised for low altitude. From the curve on the graph(if you have avaliable)you can see that the A-bodenlader has the caracteristic shape of a single gear single stage supercharger and the normal D has the single stage two gear shape. Additional boosting was provided by the use of MW50.

(Text taken from the LEMB forum)

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-14-2004, 02:39 PM
the A-Lader was basicly the same as the low-level-optimized turbocharger for the SpitL(F)

it traded a wide power spectrum (from down low to up high) as we have in the 44Dora (overall nice performance).

so it is comparable to the performance of the MK5LF spit.
verry fast at lower altitude but dropping engine-power up high.
It used the same Fuel-injection-boost as the 44D9.

and once and for all:
MW50 was only a "help" to provide comparable (but still worse) engine-performance in 45 (when C3 reserves where verry low).

the Real-life D9 was faster with C3 than with MW50 (in IL-2 it's the other way around...)

p1ngu666
12-14-2004, 02:41 PM
ah http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
so similer to the LF merlins in effect then, but just single stage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
12-14-2004, 02:55 PM
ah, posted at similer times sheep http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

lrrp22
12-14-2004, 03:36 PM
The Merlin 66 used in the Spit LF IX (and V-1650-7 in P-51) had a critical altitude of ~20,000 ft so it in no way approximates the a-lader configuration. The Merlin 66/V-1650-7 was not really a 'low altitude' engine in any meaningful way, it simply offered more power at 20k and below than the earlier Merlin 60-series motors.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH-BlackSheep:
the A-Lader was basicly the same as the low-level-optimized turbocharger for the SpitL(F)

it traded a wide power spectrum (from down low to up high) as we have in the 44Dora (overall nice performance).

so it is comparable to the performance of the MK5LF spit.
verry fast at lower altitude but dropping engine-power up high.
It used the same Fuel-injection-boost as the 44D9.

and once and for all:
MW50 was only a "help" to provide comparable (but still worse) engine-performance in 45 (when C3 reserves where verry low).

the Real-life D9 was faster with C3 than with MW50 (in IL-2 it's the other way around...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
12-14-2004, 07:48 PM
mark V's motor was single stage tho i think...

Kurfurst__
12-16-2004, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I find the Mustang topspeeds to be rather strange. They should be faster, shouldn't they?

Sealevel topspeed in PF for the different Mustang versions.

P-51B - 578km/h
P-51C - 573km/h
P-51D - 597km/h

How can the P-51D be almost 20km/h faster than the B?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think the reason is simple, the P-51D is already modelled with high boost/150 grade fuel, ie. in the typical/most common 8th AAF configuration (wing racks, 72" boost).

A British test of such P-51D/Mustang IV, the plane being in good, clean condition (but wingracks mounted) did 354 mph/570 kph at low boost (67"/100 octane), and 377mph/607kph at max.boost (81"/150 grade).

Considering the USAAF used only 72", 597 km/h seems reasonable. The other two Mustangs (B and C) were probably modded with 100 grade fuel, which was typical type when they appeared.

So IMHO no change should be needed with the Mustang models - expect getting their overboasted low speed turn rate to the historical one.

One thing that is definietely needed is a Spit IXLFe for 1944, with +25lbs boost. And while they at it, they should cut back on it`s mismodelled high alt performance as well... such planes were rather common by late 1944, and should make a great counterpart for the LW`s 109G-14s. I doubt the higher boost would change much how they fare against the latest LW birds like the D-9/G-10/K-4, as their strenght lays in their altitude performance (all of them capable of ~700 kph max speeds at 6-7000m). The highly boosted Spitfire IX`s altitude performance remained the same (at around 650 km/h at 6000m, some 50kph slower), as the boost only effected the performance below the engine`s rated altitude, as the supercharger remained the same old one on these Spitfires, and was not up to the task for keeping up boost pressures for medium or high altitudes. Kinda like the Mk VLF`s : when boosted up they were quite competitive at low alts, but when the fight was above 3-4000m, they become hopelessly outclassed by the newer hardware.

Willey
12-16-2004, 01:22 PM
Here are the D-9 speeds again that show the "low alt" A-Lader speeds.

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/d9speeds.jpg

It would be a perfect match for a realistically modelled La-7 which could do 650 at 2000m.
It would also be a very good JaBo if it had bombracks in FB...

robban75
12-16-2004, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I think the reason is simple, the P-51D is already modelled with high boost/150 grade fuel, ie. in the typical/most common 8th AAF configuration (wing racks, 72" boost).

A British test of such P-51D/Mustang IV, the plane being in good, clean condition (but wingracks mounted) did 354 mph/570 kph at low boost (67"/100 octane), and 377mph/607kph at max.boost (81"/150 grade).

Considering the USAAF used only 72", 597 km/h seems reasonable. The other two Mustangs (B and C) were probably modded with 100 grade fuel, which was typical type when they appeared. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the info Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So IMHO no change should be needed with the Mustang models - expect getting their overboasted low speed turn rate to the historical one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since the 3.02 patch the Mustang has been brought down to more realistic levels. I wont outturn a Mustang in a D-9, and I don't expect to either, but the Mustang no longer "outclasses" the D-9 in a turn like it used to. It makes for some really good online dogfights! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

lrrp22
12-16-2004, 03:11 PM
While I don't agree that the tested Mustang IV is representative of a factory fresh P-51D* (you knew that was coming, didn't you Isegrim? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ), I do agree that AEP/PF's D seems to be modeled at either the very top end of 67" WEP range, or the bottom edge of the 72" WEP scale.

The B/C, on the other hand, is certainly modeled with the V-1650-3's low altitude performance. A V-1650-7 B/C should be right in the 590-600 kph range.

*The Mustang IV Kurfurst is referring to was one of the very first D's delivered to England in March '44. The test Kurfurst is quoting from was conducted in August of '44 , so this was a well-used airframe by that time. Also, the report mentions that it was having a problem with cooling and the radiator flap had to be opened a little bit during testing.

Further, FB377, a Mustang III pulled from anti-V1 service (316 Sq) and tested in July '44 reached 388 mph/624 kph @ SL running +25 lbs boost, as receieved from the squadron. 'As recieved' condition included several coats of very heavily chipped paint, described as 'very poor condition', and full combat configuration (with wingracks). With the paintwork cleaned up, but still in full combat configuration, FB377 was capable of 395 mph/638 kph @ SL.

So basically, FB377 was 11 mph faster than Kurfurst's Mustang IV, with a 'very poor' surface finish, and 21 mph faster with a restored surface finish, with the same engine running at the same boost level. In fact, all things being equal, a -7-engined Mustang III should be only 2-3 mph faster than a Mustang IV at the same boosts.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I find the Mustang topspeeds to be rather strange. They should be faster, shouldn't they?

Sealevel topspeed in PF for the different Mustang versions.

P-51B - 578km/h
P-51C - 573km/h
P-51D - 597km/h

How can the P-51D be almost 20km/h faster than the B?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think the reason is simple, the P-51D is already modelled with high boost/150 grade fuel, ie. in the typical/most common 8th AAF configuration (wing racks, 72" boost).

A British test of such P-51D/Mustang IV, the plane being in good, clean condition (but wingracks mounted) did 354 mph/570 kph at low boost (67"/100 octane), and 377mph/607kph at max.boost (81"/150 grade).

Considering the USAAF used only 72", 597 km/h seems reasonable. The other two Mustangs (B and C) were probably modded with 100 grade fuel, which was typical type when they appeared.

So IMHO no change should be needed with the Mustang models - expect getting their overboasted low speed turn rate to the historical one.

One thing that is definietely needed is a Spit IXLFe for 1944, with +25lbs boost. And while they at it, they should cut back on it`s mismodelled high alt performance as well... such planes were rather common by late 1944, and should make a great counterpart for the LW`s 109G-14s. I doubt the higher boost would change much how they fare against the latest LW birds like the D-9/G-10/K-4, as their strenght lays in their altitude performance (all of them capable of ~700 kph max speeds at 6-7000m). The highly boosted Spitfire IX`s altitude performance remained the same (at around 650 km/h at 6000m, some 50kph slower), as the boost only effected the performance below the engine`s rated altitude, as the supercharger remained the same old one on these Spitfires, and was not up to the task for keeping up boost pressures for medium or high altitudes. Kinda like the Mk VLF`s : when boosted up they were quite competitive at low alts, but when the fight was above 3-4000m, they become hopelessly outclassed by the newer hardware. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
12-16-2004, 03:21 PM
Are you implying that the La-7 is modeled at less-than-realistic levels? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:

It would be a perfect match for a realistically modelled La-7 which could do 650 at 2000m.
It would also be a very good JaBo if it had bombracks in FB... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
12-16-2004, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
It would be a perfect match for a realistically modelled La-7 which could do 650 at 2000m.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I reckon the La-7 is fast enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/La-7speed.jpg

lrrp22
12-16-2004, 03:58 PM
I reckon you done reckoned right! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
It would be a perfect match for a realistically modelled La-7 which could do 650 at 2000m.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I reckon the La-7 is fast enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/La-7speed.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Willey
12-16-2004, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I reckon you done reckoned right! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
It would be a perfect match for a realistically modelled La-7 which could do 650 at 2000m.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I reckon the La-7 is fast enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/La-7speed.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I reckon they fixed it in PF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It did 630 max at 2k in AEP 204, but 690 at 6k or so which is way too much (660-665 was top)

FA_Whisky
12-17-2004, 05:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> think the reason is simple, the P-51D is already modelled with high boost/150 grade fuel, ie. in the typical/most common 8th AAF configuration (wing racks, 72" boost).

A British test of such P-51D/Mustang IV, the plane being in good, clean condition (but wingracks mounted) did 354 mph/570 kph at low boost (67"/100 octane), and 377mph/607kph at max.boost (81"/150 grade).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it seems it is modeled at the low end 68" boost. and these speeds are with wingracks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Further, FB377, a Mustang III pulled from anti-V1 service (316 Sq) and tested in July '44 reached 388 mph/624 kph @ SL running +25 lbs boost, as receieved from the squadron. 'As recieved' condition included several coats of very heavily chipped paint, described as 'very poor condition', and full combat configuration (with wingracks). With the paintwork cleaned up, but still in full combat configuration, FB377 was capable of 395 mph/638 kph @ SL.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats more like it. Was that test without overheating? I think so....
P51 series was faster than it is modeled in PF at full power

Vipez-
12-17-2004, 06:58 AM
im all in for adding the boosted later war allied planes (plus tempest V + Spit 14, P-47N).. however, if these are implemented, LW aircraft are deffinately in need of Bf-109K-4 with DB-605DC, Bf-109G-14 with DB 605ASM, and most important, late FW-190s without the bombracks (add speed +20kmh), and A-9 with BMW 801TS (currently we have A-9 with BMW 801F, atleast A-9 certainly does not feel like its 2200 hp with 801TS...) .. this would make the late 1944 fighting very interesting .. most important here is imo removing bomb racks from 190-series, i allways hated those things slowing you down.. plus option to remove outer MG151/20 (for better agility)..

Though if you ask me, im much more interested in early warware on the eastern front, adding more eastern front planes, adding F-4 boosted 1942 version, boosted G-2 1943 version, MIG-1, I-16 type 15, PE-2s, Ju88s, ... in short: to keep the fight Forgotten http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

p1ngu666
12-17-2004, 08:48 AM
lol @ boosted g2, how much extra power? it could turn into a helicopter with more power http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

faustnik
12-17-2004, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
late FW-190s without the bombracks (add speed +20kmh), and A-9 with BMW 801TS (currently we have A-9 with BMW 801F, atleast A-9 certainly does not feel like its 2200 hp with 801TS...) .. this would make the late 1944 fighting very interesting .. most important here is imo removing bomb racks from 190-series, i allways hated those things slowing you down.. plus option to remove outer MG151/20 (for better agility)..

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get me going on this one. We've only asked for that since the same day the 190 was released in IL-2.

So, we already have two P-51Ds, the -5 and the -20. Why not just give the -20 the higher boost and label it '45? The K-14 was late war anyway. Also give the -20 the G-suit.

lrrp22
12-17-2004, 03:04 PM
I'd like to see a boosted Mustang III and/or IV offered with maybe a different default skin, instead of simply boosting an existing model. When you consider that for every ETO-based RAF Mustang III/IV boosted to +25 lbs, there were 2 or 3 +20 lbs/72" hg USAAF Mustangs, I think it would be nice to fly a K-14A equipped -20 in the USAAF configuration.

In fact, since the RAF was still flying predominantly B/C models right up 'til VE Day, only boosting the P-51C's FM might be a fair compromise. Although, it does appear that there were at least 12 squadrons of +25 lbs boosted P-51D's flying over Japan from Apr to Aug '45... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:

Don't get me going on this one. We've only asked for that since the same day the 190 was released in IL-2.

So, we already have two P-51Ds, the -5 and the -20. Why not just give the -20 the higher boost and label it '45? The K-14 was late war anyway. Also give the -20 the G-suit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sig.Hirsch
12-17-2004, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
lol @ boosted g2, how much extra power? it could turn into a helicopter with more power http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like your comments Pingu666 (and specially your ftp site !! lol) but please , you say nothing to those who wanted a boosted version of the Best plane of the game ( Dixit Oleg ) , The North american Mustang P-51 , and you ignore that the Messserscmitt we have in the game are modelled upon the lowest boost version (which were more common so it's normal ,'im not complaining ) ?
Well .. freedom of speech anyway .

If we had to get any boosted version IMO , it would be the Spitfire , before we get the XIV , but the Mustang 20na (who fought the last two months of 44 and in 1945 ) is already turning with a 19G2 at low speed combat flaps 25%fuel and outrunning any prop plane in the game except at low alt ,i don't get why you want to "ubberize" an already ubberplane

Me-262 is 1944 and banned from servers , He-162 is banned from servers , and you guys want a plane that fought after May 1945 ? hmmm interesting ...
on The PTO , i thought the unbalance between USAAF and IJN/JAA was enough to please allied pilots , anyway if some get shot too often in the current P-51 and want a boosted one, even with 30mph bonus , they will still get shot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
12-17-2004, 04:00 PM
It's not about game balance.

lrrp22
12-17-2004, 04:12 PM
While the P-51D-20-NA production block was technically a late '44 block, it offers identical performance to a mid '44 D-5 or D-10-NA. In-game the only difference is the K-14 sight which was introduced into squadron service long before the -20 block arrived in squadrons. The P-51D-20-NA modeled in AEP is really nothing more than a July/Aug '44 P-51D-5-NA or -10-NA.

And frankly, at 25% fuel and using flaps, the P-51 should be in the same ball park as any 109G.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
but the Mustang 20na (who fought the last two months of 44 and in 1945 )
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sig.Hirsch
12-17-2004, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
It's not about game balance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why KI-84 C , Me-262 , He-162 , are banned from servers then while the Schwalbe first flew in 43 for example and fought in 1944.

I thought the main argument for boosting the already almighty Pony , was game balancing , it was told by some posters in the thread .

But anyway , i have nothing against it if the Axis side at least get his regular planes unbanned from US servers , or ( a miracle) get a plane to fight against like a FW-190 D13 , 'im sure you'd love it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And frankly, at 25% fuel and using flaps, the P-51 should be in the same ball park as any 109G.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not what even US veterans accounts tell , the Mustang weight is 2 tons more , with laminar flow wings ! ( designed by a german http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)
Note that Bf-109 have slats that increase by 25% the efficiency of his turn at slow speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
It shoudln't be , even close mate .

p1ngu666
12-17-2004, 04:37 PM
my helicopter remarks is something the g2 can do, surprisingly well....
in very steep climbs, or near verticle or vertical, its well, surprisingly good to say the least. try it, then try g6 and any other plane...

im not against high boost 109s or 190s, i know very little about them.

i only know a little about 25lb boost allied aircraft, but it would be very nice to have proper 44-45 raf aircraft.

btw, i tend to allow 262 2a and 50mm on some of the maps i make, due to jabo and skill/luck needed. i ban ki84c cos its got silly firepower also yak3p, i may consider bannin 1c corsair, cos there as uber as the ki84c tbh

and yeah the p51 turn is probably too good, ironicaly havent flown it for a long long time, despite the sig

faustnik
12-17-2004, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
or ( a miracle) get a plane to fight against like a FW-190 D13 , 'im sure you'd love it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

lrrp22
12-17-2004, 05:15 PM
No doubt the Mustang weighed much more than the 109, but it also had a much larger wing. At 25% fuel, the Mustang's wingloading is superior to the K's at similar fuel loads, and very similar to a G-6's. A laminar profile does not automatically incur horrible lower speed turning, either- especially with flaps employed.

That's not to say that I don't think a 109 should handle better near stall speeds, it should, but most of you want the Mustang to be totally outclassed in this regime. The fact that FB's 109G has a completely a-historical turn advantage over the Spit IX at low speeds is a far more egregious oversight than a 25% fuel Mustang turning with a 109G.

I don't know which veterans' accounts you read, but in the thousands of accounts I've read you simply don't find that Mustang pilots were afraid to turn with 109's, period.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And frankly, at 25% fuel and using flaps, the P-51 should be in the same ball park as any 109G.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not what even US veterans accounts tell , the Mustang weight is 2 tons more , with laminar flow wings ! ( designed by a german http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)
Note that Bf-109 have slats that increase by 25% the efficiency of his turn at slow speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
It shoudln't be , even close mate . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
12-17-2004, 05:22 PM
if we carry on like this, itll turn into a 8page thread about turnin ability http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

lrrp22
12-17-2004, 05:38 PM
Agreed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
if we carry on like this, itll turn into a 8page thread about turnin ability http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron_GT
12-17-2004, 05:47 PM
So rather than talk about relative turn, let's get back to perhaps marshalling information on boost performance of the Spit IX and Mustang III and IV, and relevant dates. The fourth fighter group site has got a lot of scans of original documents which helps with the Spit IX at least.

I'm not sure what the legal position would be in terms of changes to the P51 and P47 at the moment, as those are both 'sensitive' planes so it probably makes sense to concentrate on the Spit IX initially.

HayateAce
12-17-2004, 05:51 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lrrp22:
No doubt the Mustang weighed much more than the 109, but it also had a much larger wing. At 25% fuel, the Mustang's wingloading is superior to the K's at similar fuel loads, and very similar to a G-6's. A laminar profile does not automatically incur horrible lower speed turning, either- especially with flaps employed.

That's not to say that I don't think a 109 should handle better near stall speeds, it should, but most of you want the Mustang to be totally outclassed in this regime. The fact that FB's 109G has a completely a egregious oversight than a 25% fuel Mustang turning with a 109G.

I don't know which veterans' accounts you read, but in the thousands of accounts I've read you simply don't find that Mustang pilots were afraid to turn with 109's, period.
[/QUOTE

Wow, amen to this statement. This non-turning laminar wing has become some kind of LW chant.

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

Sig.Hirsch
12-17-2004, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No doubt the Mustang weighed much more than the 109, but it also had a much larger wing. At 25% fuel, the Mustang's wingloading is superior to the K's at similar fuel loads [/QUOTE]

i was talking about the G -2 (Gee two ), also the wingloading is not the only factor for turn ability

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> A laminar profile does not automatically incur horrible lower speed turning, either- especially with flaps employed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

who said horrible ? squared Laminar profile wings are made for high alt , high speed turns and reduce drag by 60% , they were not meant to be competitive in slow speed turns , Bf109 G have Slats that improve by at Least 25% slow speed handling , i have archives about that that i had already posted in the past.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That's not to say that I don't think a 109 should handle better near stall speeds, it should, but most of you want the Mustang to be totally outclassed in this regime <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BS : It's the best proppeler plane in the Sim , how can it be outclassed ? don't be paranoid , nobody wants to pork your toy , we're just telling that it's already in the ubberplane category , no need to have a boosted one , for the Spit it's different , we lack the XIV , and some boosted versions that fought in 1944 would be welcome .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fact that FB's 109G has a completely a-historical turn advantage over the Spit IX at low speeds <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that is a lie , i won't answer it anymore . send datas to Oleg , he modelled the Spit IX with RAF datas and a lot of care , and this plane is marvellous i love it , if you go in very low speed turns with a 109 , then you don't know how to fly the Spitfire , sorry
The Spit overtturns almost anything over 290 - 300Km/h , it's one of my favorite plane and i'm eager to have the XIV in FB , it climbs better than the 109, it's an excellent boom and zomm fighter ,and is one of the three best high altitude plane of the sim .
I will search for US veterans testimony about Mustang P-51 turn ability at slow speed versus Bf Messerschmitt ,i have to refind the weblinks .

http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flow.html



cheers ,

SkyChimp
12-17-2004, 07:45 PM
Neil Sterling posted a chart at Butch's site that shows the P-51B with V1650-3 engine at 18lbs boost did 355mph at SL. At 25lbs boost it did 382mph. The P-51B with V1650-7 engine at 25lbs boost did 398mph at seal level.

I don't think the P-51B with the V1650-3 was ever operated at 25lbs (80" hg) boost.

I agree with Kurfurst (a furst http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), the P-51s seems to modelled correctly and I don't think any increase would be that accurate.

lrrp22
12-17-2004, 09:56 PM
Laminar profile has nothing to do with square wings or high altitude. The Mustang was originally designed as a low-medium altitude replacement for the P-40 in RAF service.

I don't have to send data to Oleg to know that a Spitfire IX with its elliptical wing and much lower wingloading should outturn a 109G at all speeds, slats or no slats. The RAF and Luftwaffe knew it to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No doubt the Mustang weighed much more than the 109, but it also had a much larger wing. At 25% fuel, the Mustang's wingloading is superior to the K's at similar fuel loads <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i was talking about the G -2 (Gee two ), also the wingloading is not the only factor for turn ability

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> A laminar profile does not automatically incur horrible lower speed turning, either- especially with flaps employed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

who said horrible ? squared Laminar profile wings are made for high alt , high speed turns and reduce drag by 60% , they were not meant to be competitive in slow speed turns , Bf109 G have Slats that improve by at Least 25% slow speed handling , i have archives about that that i had already posted in the past.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That's not to say that I don't think a 109 should handle better near stall speeds, it should, but most of you want the Mustang to be totally outclassed in this regime <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BS : It's the best proppeler plane in the Sim , how can it be outclassed ? don't be paranoid , nobody wants to pork your toy , we're just telling that it's already in the ubberplane category , no need to have a boosted one , for the Spit it's different , we lack the XIV , and some boosted versions that fought in 1944 would be welcome .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fact that FB's 109G has a completely a-historical turn advantage over the Spit IX at low speeds <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that is a lie , i won't answer it anymore . send datas to Oleg , he modelled the Spit IX with RAF datas and a lot of care , and this plane is marvellous i love it , if you go in very low speed turns with a 109 , then you don't know how to fly the Spitfire , sorry
The Spit overtturns almost anything over 290 - 300Km/h , it's one of my favorite plane and i'm eager to have the XIV in FB , it climbs better than the 109, it's an excellent boom and zomm fighter ,and is one of the three best high altitude plane of the sim .
I will search for US veterans testimony about Mustang P-51 turn ability at slow speed versus Bf Messerschmitt ,i have to refind the weblinks .

http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flow.html



cheers ,[/QUOTE]

lrrp22
12-17-2004, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

I agree with Kurfurst (a furst http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), the P-51s seems to modelled correctly and I don't think any increase would be that accurate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That depends on whether or not you think an RAF-boosted Mustang merits representation in AEP/PF. With 250 examples in UK-based squadron service by October of '44 and 320 by VE-Day, I believe it does.

Sig.Hirsch
12-18-2004, 03:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Laminar profile has nothing to do with square wings or high altitude. The Mustang was originally designed as a low-medium altitude replacement for the P-40 in RAF service. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't have to send data to Oleg to know that a Spitfire IX with its elliptical wing and much lower wingloading should outturn a 109G at all speeds, slats or no slats. The RAF and Luftwaffe knew it to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Squared wings are bad for slow speed turns. i didn't say that laminar profile had to do with squared wings , you invent it , i said the addition of these two parameters make the Pony an excellent turner athigh speed especially at high alt , but poor at low alt low speed , and you know it i presume.
Luftwaffe knew the Spitfire is a better turner than 109 at high speed and medium speed , but definetly not at low speed , it was about the same for the G2 (G6 and later are different , heavier) , because the plane used to bleed a lot of energy in turns and thus had a tighter radius + the slats giving 25 % atleast more handling at slow speed , but the spit always win by being faster in the turns and when pulling up later the 109 can't follow , having lost too many energy .
anyway, in combat they were never performing flat slow speed turns at 6000m + over the channel and france

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Me-109 German fighter had these. I'm not aware of any other plane
that has them.

These devices made sense on a fighter, since they would automatically
deploy during a high-G combat turn, say. The last thing the pilot
wants to worry about at that time is manually deploying high-lift
devices! These things clearly gave a CLmax advantage to the Me-109.
It had a much higher wing loading than the slat-less Spitfire, but
still had a comparable turn radius.

I don't think the automatic aero-deployed slat makes a lot of sense on
a civil aircraft. The pilot is not under combat pressure, and there is
the risk of the mechanism jamming due to ice or whatever. This would
be disasterous on landing.

Mark Drela First Law of Aviation:
MIT Aero & Astro "Takeoff is optional, landing is compulsory" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

try to appreciate the sim as it is , Oleg made a fantastic work , and used RAF datas to model this plane , if you choose to ignore evrything that is not pleasing your biased views , then there is no room for discussion .

p1ngu666
12-18-2004, 05:53 AM
http://www.tekforums.co.uk:81/style_emoticons/default/slap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

ill flick thru my mustang book, it has key dates and stuff, but doesnt mention boost apart from a explanation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Nubarus
12-18-2004, 09:44 AM
Let's all thank Sig.Hirsch for turning a thread about late war boost pressure into a flame war about turn rate between the Spitfire and his precious little Bf109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Sig.Hirsch
12-18-2004, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Let's all thank Sig.Hirsch for turning a thread about late war boost pressure into a flame war about turn rate between the Spitfire and his precious little Bf109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

flame war ? precious ?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Sorry to disagree to your view , that wasn't what you wanted to hear maybe ?
so defending the current Bf109 FM that Oleg has probably worked the most is flaming , rgr that

interesting to see that wanting to see more japanese planes , british planes , italian planes etc.. in future patches instead of 1945 ubberfighters that would be no use for campaigns and the offline community is not "politically correct" here , i see .

I'm sure most of us are grateful to you and your non-personal post of the uttmost importance.


cheers ,

lrrp22
12-18-2004, 11:11 AM
Mid '44 Spitfires and Mustangs would be of no use offline or in campaigns?

There's always room for one more Luftwaffe protoype or one-off though, isn't there?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:

flame war ? precious ?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Sorry to disagree to your view , that wasn't what you wanted to hear maybe ?
so defending the current Bf109 FM that Oleg has probably worked the most is flaming , rgr that

interesting to see that wanting to see more japanese planes , british planes , italian planes etc.. in future patches instead of 1945 ubberfighters that would be no use for campaigns and the offline community is not "politically correct" here , i see .

I'm sure most of us are grateful to you and your non-personal post of the uttmost importance.


cheers , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sig.Hirsch
12-18-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mid '44 Spitfires and Mustangs would be of no use offline or in campaigns? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said in my previous post that i do want a boosted Spitfire because they fought in 1944 , and because we are still waiting for the XIV , and one more RAF plane would be welcome .

Boosted Mustangs fought in 1945 , and even the 20-NA we have in the game fought only at the very end of 1944 in large numbers , my opinion was that if we have to get a new plane and that it has to be an US aircraft again , i'd gladly welcome an Avenger flyable or B-24 flyable for instance instead of a new single engine ubberplane , sorry to disagree .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There's always room for one more Luftwaffe protoype or one-off though, isn't there? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i never supported the idea of having a Go-229 or any prototype we have in the game , nobody ever fly them , they are useless . if we 've had some early to mid war planes instead , or massively produced a/c , i would have been really more happy.
Still i don't understand why you ask for more late war P-51 boosted fighter as a new plane , as we lack basic things like Torpedo planes , bombers , loads of japanese planes in PF !!
why ?
You know if you go to netwings forum , you'll see evrybody posting for late ubbermonsters like
P-47N etc.. and almost nobody for the PBY-Catalyna or Boomerang , and i find it sad .

My point is that we have Mustangs in 4 versions , i'd rather have a new plane , and preferably an early to mid war plane instead, nevermind his performances or his nationality , that's my point , nothing more nothing less .

cheers,

HayateAce
12-18-2004, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:

so defending the current Bf109 FM that Oleg has probably worked the most is flaming , rgr that
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you are going to defend it. Rgrt Oleg has "worked" it. Worked into one of the more questionable FMs in the entire sim. Its anti-gravity traits coupled with its 0kph vector jet thrust control and false high speed aileron control, topped off by its reverse thrust power chop drag chute make it one of the most poorly done in the sim. They just finally patched the 109 too far, all in the name of gameplay.

Agree with Nubarus, you really have no place in this thread about late war boost for allied aircraft. Please locate the exit.

Sig.Hirsch
12-18-2004, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:

so defending the current Bf109 FM that Oleg has probably worked the most is flaming , rgr that
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you are going to defend it. Rgrt Oleg has "worked" it. Worked into one of the more questionable FMs in the entire sim. Its anti-gravity traits coupled with its 0kph vector jet thrust control and false high speed aileron control, topped off by its reverse thrust power chop drag chute make it one of the most poorly done in the sim. They just finally patched the 109 too far, all in the name of gameplay.

Agree with Nubarus, you really have no place in this thread about late war boost for allied aircraft. Please locate the exit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I wouldn't have expected much from you , all your posts are either lies , personal attacks , or anti-german, japanese statements .
Who's next Luftluver ? Copperhead ?

p1ngu666
12-18-2004, 12:54 PM
welll
most dogfight servers span all years, so u end up with late war stuff, mid war isnt competitive..
cmon, how often do u take g6 plain against the compertion?
boosted spits require new engine fm, not a entirely new model. pby is being worked on by gibbage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

be nice to have a proper raf mustang, seeing as it is a RAF plane, the americans just yoinked it once they saw it was good.

25lb boost is similer time to mw50 109's it seems from thread in GD

personaly, im lookin forward to italian planes, even more so as im friends with some of club med, and they top blokes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nubarus
12-18-2004, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Let's all thank Sig.Hirsch for turning a thread about late war boost pressure into a flame war about turn rate between the Spitfire and his precious little Bf109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

flame war ? precious ?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Sorry to disagree to your view , that wasn't what you wanted to hear maybe ?
so defending the current Bf109 FM that Oleg has probably worked the most is flaming , rgr that

interesting to see that wanting to see more japanese planes , british planes , italian planes etc.. in future patches instead of 1945 ubberfighters that would be no use for campaigns and the offline community is not "politically correct" here , i see .

I'm sure most of us are grateful to you and your non-personal post of the uttmost importance.


cheers , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So just because you see no use in late war boosted planes everybody else must feel the same way and that is why you stir up cr@p in this thread.

You Axis players already have your late war boosted planes so why should the Allied players have any right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I already fit you in the same catagory as the "Your &lt;Insert topic here&gt; is not important enough to me so it doesn't have to be discussed in this forum and that's why I cr@p up your thread" people that I see very often around here.

What a joke. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

p1ngu666
12-18-2004, 01:23 PM
Bf 109G-14 - 07.1944
II./JG11 &gt; 16
II./JG2 &gt; 2
Stab/JG53 &gt; 3

Bf 109G-10 - 10.1944
I./JG3 &gt; 1
II./JG77 &gt; 1
II./JG4 &gt; 10
Stab/JG77 &gt; 6

Bf 109K-4 - 10.1944
Stab/JG27 &gt; 1
I./JG27 &gt; 1
II./JG27 &gt; 2
III./JG27 &gt; 75
IV./JG27 &gt; 4
III./JG4 &gt; 15
III./JG77 &gt; 75

G6/AS the 6.44 (maybe)

hmm lw types close date to the 25lb boost. i think same logic applies, no need for mw50 109s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. also good cos u fly the g6 then... most produced 109 i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
also on russian front, ive heard mw50 in very short supply, so u still basicaly flying the g6.

the likelyhood of early spits is slim at best, cos of BOB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
12-18-2004, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Let's all thank Sig.Hirsch for turning a thread about late war boost pressure into a flame war about turn rate between the Spitfire and his precious little Bf109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

flame war ? precious ?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Sorry to disagree to your view , that wasn't what you wanted to hear maybe ?
so defending the current Bf109 FM that Oleg has probably worked the most is flaming , rgr that

interesting to see that wanting to see more japanese planes , british planes , italian planes etc.. in future patches instead of 1945 ubberfighters that would be no use for campaigns and the offline community is not "politically correct" here , i see .

I'm sure most of us are grateful to you and your non-personal post of the uttmost importance.


cheers , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So just because _you_ see no use in late war boosted planes everybody else must feel the same way and that is why you stir up cr@p in this thread.

You Axis players already have your late war boosted planes so why should the Allied players have any right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I already fit you in the same catagory as the "Your &lt;Insert topic here&gt; is not important enough to me so it doesn't have to be discussed in this forum and that's why I cr@p up your thread" people that I see very often around here.

What a joke. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that is rampant on these boards. Someone doesn't see a "use" for a Bearcat (pre-current fecked up situation), or the Go-229, or the 109Z and there are RIOTS against their inclusion, or cries to REMOVE them.

Oddly enough, only a *small* handful of people ever say anything about the MiG3U, I-185, or Bi-1. There's even been a general feeling of resentment over our lack of the planes the Russians got, like the Yak15 and mixed propulison planes. Go figure.

ALL planes are cool. The late war monsters and prototypes (and even un-built prototypes) are just more fun.

The masses always try to make it like the other side is out like those wanting the fun toys are the only ones with self interest in mind. It's really pathetic.

Sig.Hirsch
12-18-2004, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So just because you see no use in late war boosted planes everybody else must feel the same way and that is why you stir up cr@p in this thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not the only one to hope for something else than a late fighter , but ok , i know your intentions .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You Axis players already have your late war boosted planes so why should the Allied players have any right? Roll Eyes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fly both sides .
There is no boosted axis late war planes , we have the more common limited boost versions in FB .
I don't care about this Axis/Allies rivalry , i and a large part of the community as well want Basic planes to add for PTO and ETO WWII campaigns nevermind their nationality or performances , before adding late war fighters again .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I already fit you in the same catagory as the "Your &lt;Insert topic here&gt; is not important enough to me so it doesn't have to be discussed in this forum and that's why I cr@p up your thread" people that I see very often around here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I won't bother telling you in which category i fit you , read again your last 2 posts , and see from who came the cr@p .
i've never said it doesn't have to be discussed , i gave my opinion as a member of the community about my desires if we have to get future planes .

p1ngu666
12-18-2004, 02:09 PM
well, 109s have there mw50, think other engines change where the power is, maybe give abit more

still, 4 late 44 109s vs 0 spits http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

lrrp22
12-18-2004, 02:55 PM
+25 lbs boost Mustangs were introduced at the same time as +25 lbs Spitifires- June/July of '44.

And I already explained to you that the D-20-NA doesn't represent anything that wasn't common in July of '44.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mid '44 Spitfires and Mustangs would be of no use offline or in campaigns? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said in my previous post that i do want a boosted Spitfire because they fought in 1944 , and because we are still waiting for the XIV , and one more RAF plane would be welcome .

Boosted Mustangs fought in 1945 , and even the 20-NA we have in the game fought only at the very end of 1944 in large numbers , my opinion was that if we have to get a new plane and that it has to be an US aircraft again , i'd gladly welcome an Avenger flyable or B-24 flyable for instance instead of a new single engine ubberplane , sorry to disagree .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There's always room for one more Luftwaffe protoype or one-off though, isn't there? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i never supported the idea of having a Go-229 or any prototype we have in the game , nobody ever fly them , they are useless . if we 've had some early to mid war planes instead , or massively produced a/c , i would have been really more happy.
Still i don't understand why you ask for more late war P-51 boosted fighter as a new plane , as we lack basic things like Torpedo planes , bombers , loads of japanese planes in PF !!
why ?
You know if you go to netwings forum , you'll see evrybody posting for late ubbermonsters like
P-47N etc.. and almost nobody for the PBY-Catalyna or Boomerang , and i find it sad .

My point is that we have Mustangs in 4 versions , i'd rather have a new plane , and preferably an early to mid war plane instead, nevermind his performances or his nationality , that's my point , nothing more nothing less .

cheers, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
12-18-2004, 03:06 PM
The Luftwaffe in AEP/PF has an Mw-50 G-14, G-6A/S, and G-10 all operating at maximum allowed operational boost. You have a 1.8 ata K-4 that climbs *better* than a 1.98 ata example, of which there were only a handful in the last few weeks of the war.

If the Luftwaffe was limited to the same dates that the RAF/USAAF are, you would have no G-10, K-4, D-9, A-9, or Ta-152H.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:

I fly both sides .
There is no boosted axis late war planes , we have the more common limited boost versions in FB .

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nubarus
12-18-2004, 04:55 PM
No Axis boosted planes Sig.Hirsch?

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

You are getting pretty sad.

Your intentions are clear as creek water and all you do is cover them up by blaming the ones that just flat out say it as they see it.

Willey
12-18-2004, 05:33 PM
http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif

Aaron_GT
12-18-2004, 06:09 PM
Sig. Hirsh wrote:
"try to appreciate the sim as it is , Oleg made a fantastic work , and used RAF datas to model this plane , if you choose to ignore evrything that is not pleasing your biased views , then there is no room for discussion ."

He did, but there is additional RAF data that we have on the performance of 1944 planes (+25lb boost testing in the Spit IX started in 1943) regarding +25lb performance appropriate for later portions of the war for the versions of the Spitfire and Mustang we already have.

So we haven't ignored the +18 boost versions - that's all fine - we'd just like to suggest the valid inclusion of 1944 +25 boost versions. Not terribly outrageous I would have thought. It doesnt' require new 3D modelling or modelling centres of gravity in the physics ending so should be one of the easiest enhancements possible to give allied players additional late war (1944 onwards) planes.

I'm going to refrain from emailing Oleg with information at the moment though, as I suspect he's under a fair bit of stress at the moment.

Sig.Hirsch
12-19-2004, 02:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No Axis boosted planes Sig.Hirsch?

Bwahahaha. Roll Eyes
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look , boosted plane would be 109K4 with C3 1.98 ata , Fw-190 D13 or Ta-152 C , and i'm not asking about them , those would be boosted planes .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the Luftwaffe was limited to the same dates that the RAF/USAAF are, you would have no G-10, K-4, D-9, A-9, or Ta-152H.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In September 1944 you had D9 , G-10 , A9 , and K4 was in October , the P-51 20-NA came after if
i remember well , but you are right basically , the Luftwaffe has more late war planes

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So we haven't ignored the +18 boost versions - that's all fine - we'd just like to suggest the valid inclusion of 1944 +25 boost versions. Not terribly outrageous I would have thought. It doesnt' require new 3D modelling or modelling centres of gravity in the physics ending so should be one of the easiest enhancements possible to give allied players additional late war (1944 onwards) planes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right , no additional 3d Modelling like said Pingu666 , that's a good argument , ok , it's fair .

Aaron_GT
12-19-2004, 03:15 AM
oops I mean physics ENGINE (it was late!)

p1ngu666
12-19-2004, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Look , boosted plane would be 109K4 with C3 1.98 ata , Fw-190 D13 or Ta-152 C , and i'm not asking about them , those would be boosted planes
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, if u mean boosted from whats in game currently.

we after 25lb boosted planes, this would give us a year/performance parlarity with the lw...

from what i know, k4 with 1.98ata was pretty rare, d13 the same and ta152c didnt see combat/not many produced...

harti made ta152c awhile ago, so i dont mind that being included http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, i wouldnt mind the d13 either. k4 we have may well perform like 1.98k4 at some alts atleast..

with manual prop pitch a k4 can do many things, and perform a fair bit better than a auto one...
in every aspect...
i keep coming across guys who are doing it, if your wondering http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Col.Kurtz
12-19-2004, 08:33 AM
While i agree that a 25LB Spit is really needed i think the D20 at 25LB Mustang wouldnt be smart.
Not that i am againts but it should be a new version and not a edited P51D20,so maybe a new 25LB Mustang from RAF would be better (Mustang III)
Where there really 25LB P51 in use from the USAAF for Escort missions?

So i think it would be good this way:
SpitIXe with 25LB
P51B with 67HG V1650-3
P51D5 with 67HG V1650-7
P52D20 with 72HG (21LB)
P51C with 25LB(81HG) V1650-7 (RAF MustangIII)

p1ngu666
12-19-2004, 08:58 AM
p51D american got 25lb boost in pacific at the end, i think

910 (b/c) models supplied to raf

876 D models supplied to raf

raf ordered 620 p51 mark1 (early allison) and fifty mark 2 (later alison). theres prolly more diffs between these 2, but we dont have these :\

think some of the b/c models got sunk on route to britain, i dont know if those are included in that...

lrrp22
12-19-2004, 10:11 AM
Like pingu said, it does appear that at least four groups based on Iwo Jima ran +25 lbs/80" boost beginning in Apr '45.

However, I agree that a good choice would be to leave the P-51B/D-5/D-20 as is, and boost the P-51C to +25 lbs boost.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Col.Kurtz:
While i agree that a 25LB Spit is really needed i think the D20 at 25LB Mustang wouldnt be smart.
Not that i am againts but it should be a new version and not a edited P51D20,so maybe a new 25LB Mustang from RAF would be better (Mustang III)
Where there really 25LB P51 in use from the USAAF for Escort missions?

So i think it would be good this way:
SpitIXe with 25LB
P51B with 67HG V1650-3
P51D5 with 67HG V1650-7
P52D20 with 72HG (21LB)
P51C with 25LB(81HG) V1650-7 (RAF MustangIII) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
12-20-2004, 02:55 PM
lets not forget the mossie too

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

lrrp22
12-20-2004, 04:02 PM
Wow! That pic is heavy with atmosphere...

I second the motion for a +25 lbs Mossie! Okay, +18 would be cool, too!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
lets not forget the mossie too

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
12-20-2004, 04:09 PM
its a daylight photo i edited http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

DarthBane_
12-21-2004, 05:37 AM
They should stay as they are.

lrrp22
12-21-2004, 08:26 AM
Why?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
They should stay as they are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron_GT
12-21-2004, 01:17 PM
Any Mossie would be nice :-)

p1ngu666
12-21-2004, 05:56 PM
http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mags/mossie/ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
12-21-2004, 09:04 PM
ive gotten off my ****, and emailed 1c/oleg on this, and other bits and bobs

hopefully ill get a reply http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
12-25-2004, 11:53 AM
http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mags/spit/SIMG6623.JPG

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

Bremspropeller
12-25-2004, 12:25 PM
What a nice finger http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


But it's kinda...über http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

p1ngu666
12-25-2004, 12:49 PM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/finger.jpg is uber but...

itll put it about the same performance as mw50 109s and 190a8 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and with that remark, ive probably started the battle of teh graphs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

lrrp22
12-30-2004, 12:57 PM
Bump, you say? Don't mind if I do...

faustnik
12-30-2004, 01:24 PM
How about the gyro sight. Make sure that is on the late UK list.

lrrp22
12-30-2004, 03:08 PM
Good point...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
How about the gyro sight. Make sure that is on the late UK list. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
12-30-2004, 03:31 PM
thanks faustnik http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
12-30-2004, 08:27 PM
Does ANYONE have information on the Gyro Gunsight used on the Spitfire XIV (or later marks). Its the GGS Mark II...and I think its Mark IIC. I can't find anything at all.

I'm trying to find some or any details on it.

hotspace
12-30-2004, 08:48 PM
Is this any help, m8?

http://www.429sqn.ca/acmgs.htm

Hot Space

Aaron_GT
12-31-2004, 09:53 AM
There's someone over on the GD board (texas hunter?) who has worked on some Spitfire IXs and says he doesn't think the GGS was a standard fitment for the IX and doubts that it (he might have meant the IID or both IID and IIC sights?) would fit in the cockpit of the IX. He'd be a good person to talk to about that. I've certainly seen references to the GGS being reterofitted in late Spit IXs, but maybe it was an unofficial field mod? If it's an unofficial field mod it would muddy the waters to ask Oleg for non-standard things whilst also asking for a pretty standard higher boost.

There's also an argument for higher boosts in the P38, but I suppose if we limit this discussion to the Spitfire and P51 it limits it to Merlins only.

VW-IceFire
12-31-2004, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
There's someone over on the GD board (texas hunter?) who has worked on some Spitfire IXs and says he doesn't think the GGS was a standard fitment for the IX and doubts that it (he might have meant the IID or both IID and IIC sights?) would fit in the cockpit of the IX. He'd be a good person to talk to about that. I've certainly seen references to the GGS being reterofitted in late Spit IXs, but maybe it was an unofficial field mod? If it's an unofficial field mod it would muddy the waters to ask Oleg for non-standard things whilst also asking for a pretty standard higher boost.

There's also an argument for higher boosts in the P38, but I suppose if we limit this discussion to the Spitfire and P51 it limits it to Merlins only. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh it fits the IX cockpit....there isn't much different between the IX, the VIII, and the XIV. The XIV had the GGS Mark II standard.

From what I've read...the gyro gunsight on IX's became standard in 1944. Some veteran pilots specifically requested that their new planes not be equipped with the gunsight but aside from that it was supposedly standard by that period.

XVIs were apparently fitted...being IXs with a Packard Merlin engine and little else different it once again stands to reason that its at least possible for the gunsight to be in a IX airframe.

Aaron_GT
01-02-2005, 06:38 PM
bump

VW-IceFire
01-02-2005, 07:01 PM
Did a bit of reading...they say that the XVI's were all standard fitted with the Gyro sights but IX's were unevenly fitted.

Still not enough information on the sight yet...tough to find.

NeilStirling
01-03-2005, 03:24 AM
Details of Mk II GGS gyro sight production. From British Aircraft Armament Vol 2.
R. Wallace Clarke.

GGS specification received from A.M to Ferranti Ltd Edinburgh, Feb 43.
Site for new factory purchased December 42.
Building commenced February 43.
Factory opened June 43.
Quantity production commenced February 44.
Output by March 45 1000.

Output.

1944.
Feb. 8
March. 110
April. 200
May. 250
June. 370
July. 380
Aug. 420
Sept. 540
Oct. 700
Nov. 720.
Dec. 600

1945.
Jan ?
Feb. 400
March. 1,000
April. 1,100

This from Spitfire at War 3. A. Price.

During 1944 an analysis of 130 combats by Spitfire IX's fitted with the old fixed-graticule sights revealed 34 kills-26% of the total. During the same period, one squadron operating the same version of the Spitfire fitted with the new gunsight was involved in 38 combats during which it secured 19 kills-50% of the total.

Aaron_GT
01-03-2005, 04:33 AM
We have good links at work with Rolls Royce Engines so I may ask them if they have some original documents on +25 boost. In the meantime I am hoping to collate other documentation to send to Oleg, so if you have any good links on +25 boost Merlin engined planes then PM me with them and I'll try to get together a coherent package of stuff to send to Oleg.

Aaron_GT
01-03-2005, 04:38 AM
We have good links with Rolls Royce engines at work so I am going to see if I can get some documents from them on +25 boost. If anyone has any good sources of original documents for performance of planes with +25 boost then PM me and I'll collate them into a coherent package of stuff to send to Oleg.

Perhaps we should split the GGS stuff into a separate thread as it just affects Spitfires (of those planes already in the game).

NeilStirling
01-03-2005, 04:24 PM
Rolls-Royce report.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165rr.html

Boscombe Down.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html

Service approval.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/25lbs_approval.jpg

First squadrons convert.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/no1_25lbs.jpg

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/no165_25lbs.jpg

2nd TAF numbers.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/2taf150_112044.gif

More LF IX speed info.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66_18_25.jpg.

Neil.

p1ngu666
01-03-2005, 05:45 PM
389 mph = 626.034816 kph

dora ingame does 603kph or so

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

MEGILE
01-03-2005, 05:59 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Oh my.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

I always said the Spit XIV was faster than a mother Focke.

lrrp22
01-03-2005, 06:32 PM
pingu,

The 389 mph@SL for the Spit XIV required +25 lbs boost, which wasn't cleared for the XIV's Griffon 65.

There is no question that the Mustang III at +25 and the Tempest V at +11 lbs would leave everything else in PF in their collective dust! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
389 mph = 626.034816 kph

dora ingame does 603kph or so

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
01-03-2005, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
pingu,

The 389 mph@SL for the Spit XIV required +25 lbs boost, which wasn't cleared for the XIV's Griffon 65.

There is no question that the Mustang III at +25 and the Tempest V at +11 lbs would leave everything else in PF in their collective dust! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
389 mph = 626.034816 kph

dora ingame does 603kph or so

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i heard it was used on the v1 chasers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

handly we have the v1 ingame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

NeilStirling
01-04-2005, 01:52 AM
So far no proof found that +25lbs boost was used operationally by the war time Griffon 65, I know its claimed in various books, however I have looked long and hard at the PRO and found nothing. +21lbs was available and used from July 44 ono.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/no610orb.jpg

This gave a speed at sl of around 370mph, RR figures gave 366mph.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14at21.jpg

Power at differing boosts, note the figures are rammed power and can not be compared to static figures that are generally available.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/griffonhp_b.jpg

Neil.

Aaron_GT
01-04-2005, 02:22 AM
Neil,

I'll download those documents tonight and start assembling things and send them off to Oleg.

The specific contacts with RR will take longer to organise, it being the first day back after Christmas, so I'll send off some stuff now rather than waiting for more RR documents. Any RR further documents will be nice to back things up if needed, though.

NeilStirling
01-04-2005, 02:05 PM
O.K Aron.

Neil

FA_Whisky
01-13-2005, 01:58 AM
bumb, any news on this?

p1ngu666
01-13-2005, 02:11 AM
i put alittle data into excel and poked hop22, but otherwise nope.

need rolls royce/supermarine data, the stuff ive looked at is abit incomplete, or its a test hack so it doesnt perform as good as it should http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

FA_Whisky
01-13-2005, 05:01 AM
so, that means.....
No data no 150 octane.............. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Aaron_GT
01-13-2005, 06:13 AM
We have plenty of data, it is just a case of getting every last bit of data we can and organising it into something coherent and cohesive to send to Oleg. If we present it well hopefully it will get accepted. If we send it in dribs and drabs we may fail. I've been waylaid by other things so haven't been able to do my part in the past week. I might get chance to look at some of the stuff over the weekend, though. (I won't know until the weekend is upon me, though).

NeilStirling
01-13-2005, 07:45 AM
Storage and use.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/150fuel+a.rtf

British production.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/British+100a.rtf

Neil.

Bull_dog_
01-13-2005, 06:32 PM
I also think you have to give Oleg a compelling reason to change in addition to the data.

He is resource thin, no doubt and I'm sure he spends his programmer's time on some sort of priority basis....in business we like to think about it like "threat analysis"....that is what will kill you fastest gets worked on first!

The sim is good, but it is also fraught with opportunity...a veritable target rich environment and Oleg will not fix them all even in the face of convincing evidence...

So when you submit data...don't forget to submit a compelling case for change too

p1ngu666
01-13-2005, 08:01 PM
neil, any idea if supermarine or rolls royce data is avalible to public?

NeilStirling
01-14-2005, 01:43 AM
All of the information posted apart from the RR stuff is available here, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
The RR stuff is more diffiucult to get, Mike Williams had to contact RR in order to get the report on jl 165.

Neil.

NeilStirling
01-14-2005, 01:46 AM
Oleg already has most of this including the climb temp chart at +25lbs boost. At the end of the day its his game, if he doesn't want it, so be it.

Neil.

Von_Rat
01-15-2005, 11:31 PM
hmmm i hope oleg is planning to give us the low alt boost fw190d9 also.

HayateAce
01-16-2005, 05:20 AM
hmm, i hope you read the title of this thread.

lrrp22
01-16-2005, 10:00 AM
Von_Rat

There are mountains of evidence proving that dozens of Spitfire and Mustang squadrons used the boosted settings. There is no evidence that any a-lader D-9's saw service.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
hmmm i hope oleg is planning to give us the low alt boost fw190d9 also. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
01-16-2005, 10:29 AM
well, 1 was maybe used by jv44
maybe.

Von_Rat
01-16-2005, 11:45 PM
no 109z or go229 saw service either.

none of this matters anyway.

it'll probaly be sevral months before any of these planes get in game, if at all. except for the spit14 and tempest maybe.

by the end of the year BOB Will probaly be out. as much as i like this sim, i think it will die a pretty quick death, online at least, once BOB replaces it.

the game engine will be so much more advanced of this one, including 6 dimension head movement and track ir vector expansion support, i just can't see myself ever playing this game again, after BOB.

imagine, once fws get modeled in BOB ,you'll be able to see around the %$#%%# bar. who in ther right mind would ever fly a fw or for that matter any lw plane with the limited view thats in this game, if somthing better was available.

Hetzer_II
01-17-2005, 01:05 AM
If you ask me: Give those whiners their boosted planes!!!!
I dont want to see more and more of these threads...
Problem: Even with the new boosted planes LW will continue to shoot
them down and they will cry for more boost...

Ok, now more seriously:
What mostly is needed for realistic missions is the ability to
say which aircraft is avaiable in which numbers. If you want
boosted planes... no problem but if you make them selectable everyone will
choose them... i dont call that realitic because even in summer45 most
of the allied planes flown with 18`... And with this addition to the fmb
also the german jets could get into the game again. Sry i´m flying il2
since years now almost every day, on serious fr server i have only flown
262 for about 5 times...


oh my lord, what will happen after one of this guys get shot down in his boosted p51... crying for f18?

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 03:22 AM
hetzer, most RAF planes used 25lbs boost if in europe or v1 hunting...

anyways 25lb is wep, normal boost at 100% would be 18lbs.

lw planes would find it much harder, yes allied planes would still get shot down, but lw fighters wouldnt be able to extend away however they wanted.

i dont have a problem with 262 on onwhine servers, and i really like 262 for fast jabbo.

every german flyer flys k4/g6as or a9/d9

all those came after 25lb and XIV....

please fly your g6 or g6 late against everything, like real hero's of luftwaffe, and how raf pilots haveto fly old planes against the best the lw produced http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Nubarus
01-17-2005, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
If you ask me: Give those whiners their boosted planes!!!!
I dont want to see more and more of these threads...
Problem: Even with the new boosted planes LW will continue to shoot
them down and they will cry for more boost...

Ok, now more seriously:
What mostly is needed for realistic missions is the ability to
say which aircraft is avaiable in which numbers. If you want
boosted planes... no problem but if you make them selectable everyone will
choose them... i dont call that realitic because even in summer45 most
of the allied planes flown with 18`... And with this addition to the fmb
also the german jets could get into the game again. Sry i´m flying il2
since years now almost every day, on serious fr server i have only flown
262 for about 5 times...


oh my lord, what will happen after one of this guys get shot down in his boosted p51... crying for f18? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

FA_Whisky
01-17-2005, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If you ask me: Give those whiners their boosted planes!!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Pls pls pls!!!! Gimme Gimme Gimme!!!!

-=FA=-Whisky&lt;----official P51d Whiner

Hetzer_II
01-17-2005, 10:06 AM
Please show me evidence(im realy not shure) that Spit XIV flown with 25 boost in combat.. not against v1... I only can find XIV at 21 boost...

Greets

WOLFMondo
01-17-2005, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
Please show me evidence(im realy not shure) that Spit XIV flown with 25 boost in combat.. not against v1... I only can find XIV at 21 boost...

Greets <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think anyone has any proof of the XIV but the IX certainly used it (still wasn't quick enough in a straight line to catch a V1). The 25lbs boost makes little difference to the XIV anyway as they all flew up high, the boost only really affects things down low and thats why the RAF used the Tempest with a 12lbs or 12.5lbs and I think 13 lbs boost. The standard production V didn't need the 25lbs boost to be faster than LW planes.

Hetzer_II
01-17-2005, 10:39 AM
yes buit please show me facts that 25 boost spits were used in frontservice and not for v1 hunting...

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 02:59 PM
v1 hunting IS frontline service
raf it was top proity, (best planes used against v1's) to put it in perspective, mossies opperated with really low losses, very fast at certain alts. v1 was faster than mossie (ok fly straight...) but they shot down lots of them.

raf and aa guns shot down lots... saved london from being "rocket blitzed"

21lb boost was deffo used on XIV tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and on teh merlins 25lbs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

dunno why lw fliers dont think shooting v1's matters, alot of german airmen and soldiers, and slaves died to launch them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

once v1 threat over, they went over to france anyways http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

NeilStirling
01-17-2005, 03:32 PM
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/no1_25lbs.jpg

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/no165_25lbs.jpg

No V1's in Cornwall no V1's in May either.

2nd Taf use.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/2taf150_112044.gif

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/knob.jpg

Neil.

Kurfurst__
01-18-2005, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
yes buit please show me facts that 25 boost spits were used in frontservice and not for v1 hunting... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK some 20-30 Spitfire squadrons in Britain used +25lbs from mid-1944, roughly the same time when the MW50 was introduced to 109s. That would make some 4-500 plane in total. A handful of XIVs were also converted to +21 lbs, from about July, and used it for about 2 months until they were transferred to the 2nd TAF which didnt have the fuel neccesary so they again had to run at +18.
Quite likely few if any XIVs used +21lbs agaisnt fighters in 1944, as they were credited w. some 300 V-1 kills in that 2month period they used 150 grade fuel. The consumption figures of 150 grade fuel, and its quick decline after the V-1 raids stopped strongly indicates such high boosted planes were primarly engaged vs. the *buzzbombs*.
Then again from 1945 onwards the XIVs and IXs (another 30 squadrons of 4-500planes) used high boost again when 150 grade was available to the 2nd TAF on the continents as well.

No other RAF units such as the ones in the Med etc. used 150 grade fuel or high boost to my knowladge. In the end, it would make ca30 MkIXs squads operating on high boost from mid 1944 onwards, 2-3 MkXIVs squads for a short two month period in the summer of 1944. From 1945 onwards, a total of about 60-70 squadrons on the continent and in britiain, but not the ones in the med or other brances.

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 08:39 AM
thanks kurfy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

could u take a look at this thread

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=2801079462

if there was a man i know who would know, it would be u http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
01-18-2005, 09:02 AM
yeah i have seen it and asked a related question on butchs board, unfortunately i dont have all the 109k manuals which could yield some stall information in this regard. and there are a lot of factors.. but i am quite certain a K should have higher idle stall speed than an F, now how Il-2 modells power on/off stalls is another matter.. il2 is wrong in dozens of things, both in graphics and fm..

VOL_Hans
01-18-2005, 05:49 PM
Higher boost allied planes? Maybe...

How about a 20mm option for the 109F-2?
And F-4's and G-2's with uprated boost?
And 109G-14/10/K4 with the 605DC instead of DB engine?

WUAF_Darkangel
01-19-2005, 01:40 AM
I think 25lb boost was only avaiable for planes with 150 octane fuel. It wouldn't be fair for japanes fighters and some german fighters since they seem to be modeled with crapy fuel.

WOLFMondo
01-19-2005, 02:02 AM
War isn't fair though. As I understand some LW planes have boosts and some of those were seen in very few numbers very late on in the war. The Spitfire 25lbs boost was common after 1944 so it should be modelled in there.

Hetzer_II
01-19-2005, 03:18 AM
Kurfurst, please check your pm´s..

thx

p1ngu666
01-19-2005, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Darkangel:
I think 25lb boost was only avaiable for planes with 150 octane fuel. It wouldn't be fair for japanes fighters and some german fighters since they seem to be modeled with crapy fuel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

allies didnt have mw50, remove from late war 109's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FA_Whisky
01-23-2005, 03:17 AM
Isn't the Ki84 moddeled with high grade 150 octane fuel?

p1ngu666
01-23-2005, 05:35 AM
maybe, but if u dont adust engine, it doesnt really do much. allies made 150 octane fuel because they could, germans and japanease used mw50 because they couldnt make 150 or equivilent in decent quantities.

the higher octane allows more boost, like mw50, so the end result is the same, more boost and power http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WUAF_Darkangel
01-23-2005, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
maybe, but if u dont adust engine, it doesnt really do much. allies made 150 octane fuel because they could, germans and japanease used mw50 because they couldnt make 150 or equivilent in decent quantities.

the higher octane allows more boost, like mw50, so the end result is the same, more boost and power http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooooooh i get it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif so u could say it IS fair if allied planes r modeled with uber 150 octane rocket fuel and the japanese and some of the german planes fly with noob cooking oil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Nubarus
01-23-2005, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Darkangel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
maybe, but if u dont adust engine, it doesnt really do much. allies made 150 octane fuel because they could, germans and japanease used mw50 because they couldnt make 150 or equivilent in decent quantities.

the higher octane allows more boost, like mw50, so the end result is the same, more boost and power http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooooooh i get it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif so u could say it IS fair if allied planes r modeled with uber 150 octane rocket fuel and the japanese and some of the german planes fly with noob cooking oil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's pretty obvious you have no idea on this matter.

Never have I seen any sign that the Japanese and German planes are modelled with "noob cooking oil" fuel.

If that was the case they would not be able to out speed so many Allied planes.
As far as I see it you just want to deny the "other side" their high speed planes (that did operate in large enough numbers to be present in a WWII simulator) and be happy that you have your GM-1 and MW-50 boosters on your Axis planes.

It may have escaped you but the +25 boost was only obtained when the WEP was engaged so it will only be available for short periods of time and not all the time, just like your MW-50 booster.

OldMan____
01-23-2005, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Darkangel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
maybe, but if u dont adust engine, it doesnt really do much. allies made 150 octane fuel because they could, germans and japanease used mw50 because they couldnt make 150 or equivilent in decent quantities.

the higher octane allows more boost, like mw50, so the end result is the same, more boost and power http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooooooh i get it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif so u could say it IS fair if allied planes r modeled with uber 150 octane rocket fuel and the japanese and some of the german planes fly with noob cooking oil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's pretty obvious you have no idea on this matter.

Never have I seen any sign that the Japanese and German planes are modelled with "noob cooking oil" fuel.

If that was the case they would not be able to out speed so many Allied planes.
As far as I see it you just want to deny the "other side" their high speed planes (that did operate in large enough numbers to be present in a WWII _simulator_) and be happy that you have your GM-1 and MW-50 boosters on your Axis planes.

It may have escaped you but the +25 boost was only obtained when the WEP was engaged so it will only be available for short periods of time and not all the time, just like your MW-50 booster. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see no reason why not have a high boost plane. But it should be a NEW variant.. not change the current one.. so we may have both choices.

WUAF_Darkangel
01-23-2005, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Darkangel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
maybe, but if u dont adust engine, it doesnt really do much. allies made 150 octane fuel because they could, germans and japanease used mw50 because they couldnt make 150 or equivilent in decent quantities.

the higher octane allows more boost, like mw50, so the end result is the same, more boost and power http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooooooh i get it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif so u could say it IS fair if allied planes r modeled with uber 150 octane rocket fuel and the japanese and some of the german planes fly with noob cooking oil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's pretty obvious you have no idea on this matter.

Never have I seen any sign that the Japanese and German planes are modelled with "noob cooking oil" fuel.

If that was the case they would not be able to out speed so many Allied planes.
As far as I see it you just want to deny the "other side" their high speed planes (that did operate in large enough numbers to be present in a WWII _simulator_) and be happy that you have your GM-1 and MW-50 boosters on your Axis planes.

It may have escaped you but the +25 boost was only obtained when the WEP was engaged so it will only be available for short periods of time and not all the time, just like your MW-50 booster. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errrrrr i wasn't being sarcastic when i said it would be fair and i was just exaggerating when i said "rocket fuel" and "noob cooking oil"...u didn't get it?

According to p1ngu:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

maybe, but if u dont adust engine, it doesnt really do much. allies made 150 octane fuel because they could, germans and japanease used mw50 because they couldnt make 150 or equivilent in decent quantities.

the higher octane allows more boost, like mw50, so the end result is the same, more boost and power <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So...the alllies use 150 octane with 25 lb boost and germans use B4+MW50 at 1.8ata (or something similar) which is fair ...right?...or r the "luftwhiners" gonna start crticising me and start saying it's not fair now?

I wouldn't mind if late war allied planes were given 25lb boost WEP, and of courese i know 25lb boost is like having mw50 because they roughly have the same time limit for use or in ur words: "available for short periods of time and not all the time, just like your MW-50".

Maybe i should get rid of my avatar and signature because it seems it makes me look like a "luftwhiner"

p1ngu666
01-24-2005, 04:26 AM
yep u got it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the planes are modeled with whatever fuel they normaly had, which just effects the power. thats why planes perform pretty close to what they did.

25lb boost will be effectivly like current wep on spitfire and p51, just 100% will be 18lb boost rather than whatever it is now. they will overheat faster cos of more heat.

mw50, that should have 10mins on, 10mins rest. ingame u can run for 8mins solid and engine goes dodgy. BUT flick the throttle below 100% for a split second, and it resets the damage clock, so in practise, u can run both for a long time. tbh doesnt REALLY matter how its done to us, press W and more power, or 100+ throttle and waahey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

all we are asking for is 44mid onwards spec spits and stangs, that the raf used in considerable numbers, and historicly important. luftwaffe have theres, so do russians, there are some missing, but im not sure they really add much extra over whats already ingame

RAF flies the equivenlent of 109g6 g6late, yak9d or t?.

p1ngu666
01-24-2005, 04:27 AM
oh, have whatever sig and avatar u want, its what they are there for http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

lrrp22
01-24-2005, 09:52 AM
Because those power settings were *extremely* rare for the K-4, and almost certainly didn't exist for the G-14/G-10.

You're equating the need for very exotic and short-lived power settings for your 109's, with Spitfire and Mustang power settings that were introduced almost a year prior to VE-Day, and were eventually used by well over a thousand aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
Higher boost allied planes? Maybe...

And 109G-14/10/K4 with the 605DC instead of DB engine? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
01-24-2005, 11:11 AM
Hmm, G-10 had the same engine as K-4 with the same boost. As for being rare, little - well, nothing - factuality behind that. Problem is, using the same arguements for the 2nd TAF/RAF would prove +25/+21lbs was *extremely rare*. Well 150 grade was rare. There`s no document showing the actual conversion of fighter of the 2nd TAF. No sign of operational record for each squadron. No sign of actual fuel deliveries. Should I go on? I`d willing to bet there were more G-10s/K-4s around at 1.98ata in 1945 than MkXIVs, still, why shouldn`t the RAF-boys get their spiced up ultimate spits... the greater the glory to shoot them into the ground! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
01-24-2005, 11:57 AM
Kurfurst,

Your standard of proof for accepting increased Luftwaffe performance is shockingly lower than your standard for Allied aircraft.

Why do you continue to dispute the implementation of 150 octane/+25 lbs boost for Merlin Mustang and Spitfires and +21 for Spit XIV's? You know beyond any reasonable doubt that by 1 Jan 45 every fighter unit in 2nd TAF was using 100/150 grade fuel and increased boost. This very thread includes links to documents that show the testing, authorization and implementation of 150/+25 lbs in both ADGB and 2nd TAF. Can you show the equivelent for 1.98 ata?

You have been shown repeatedly that 1.98 ata was authorized very late and, at best, to a very limited degree- the fact that you refuse to accept the various proofs has nothing to do with the datas' validity.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Hmm, G-10 had the same engine as K-4 with the same boost. As for being rare, little - well, nothing - factuality behind that. Problem is, using the same arguements for the 2nd TAF/RAF would prove +25/+21lbs was *extremely rare*. Well 150 grade was rare. There`s no document showing the actual conversion of fighter of the 2nd TAF. No sign of operational record for each squadron. No sign of actual fuel deliveries. Should I go on? I`d willing to bet there were more G-10s/K-4s around at 1.98ata in 1945 than MkXIVs, still, why shouldn`t the RAF-boys get their spiced up ultimate spits... the greater the glory to shoot them into the ground! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
01-24-2005, 12:26 PM
doubt the luftwaffe was doing much flying in feb onwards, i remmber reading squadrons being disbanned before end of war..

faustnik
01-24-2005, 12:32 PM
I changed my mind. I don't want to see the Spit IX with higher boost. 1C should concentrate on getting the MkXIV and Tempest in the sim.

Higher boost P-51D-20 as a '45 plane would be still be good though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

lrrp22
01-24-2005, 12:42 PM
faustnik,

If I had to choose either/or, then I'd agree that a Tempest\Spit XIV would preferable.

As regards the Mustang, I think a +25 lbs P-51C would be a more representative example of an ETO +25 lbs Mustang. Besides, with the K-14 and its excellent visibility a +25 lbs D-model would be almost unfair! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I changed my mind. I don't want to see the Spit IX with higher boost. 1C should concentrate on getting the MkXIV and Tempest in the sim.

Higher boost P-51D-20 as a '45 plane would be still be good though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
01-24-2005, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Besides, with the K-14 and its excellent visibility a +25 lbs D-model would be almost unfair! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


OK, I agree. So, Oleg can drop a Fw190D-11 or D-13 in also to balance it out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Von_Rat
01-24-2005, 01:06 PM
since when does numbers of planes acttually in service mean anything in this sim. if the lw had only a few examples of higher boosted planes, we should still get them to balance the hi boosted allied planes you want. if you haven't noticed, there is such a thing as balance in this sim.

they modeled the 109z, p80, etc etc etc. all saw either no, or very limited service.

why should things change now.

this is a sim of ww2 aircraft, not a recreation of ww2, so you never going to see lw vastly outnumbered flying inferior aircraft.

Nubarus
01-24-2005, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
since when does numbers of planes acttually in service mean anything in this sim. if the lw had only a few examples of higher boosted planes, we should still get them to balance the hi boosted allied planes you want. if you haven't noticed, there is such a thing as balance in this sim.

they modeled the 109z, p80, etc etc etc. all saw either no, or very limited service.

why should things change now.

this is a sim of ww2 aircraft, not a recreation of ww2, so you never going to see lw vastly outnumbered flying inferior aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys already have a number of planes that can out speed the majority of the Allied planes easy, so if you really care about balance.....

Von_Rat
01-24-2005, 01:36 PM
most players, and more importantly the designers, think the game is balanced.

isn't the p63 faster than almost any lw.

the ta152 is the fastest prop plane in game, it isn't exactly tearing up the enemy is it.

contary to real life, in this sim speed isnt everything.

all it seems allies want is planes that can run down and then outurn any lw plane.

it aint gonna happen.

lrrp22
01-24-2005, 01:45 PM
I guess it's a matter of perspective. I would prefer a 'historical' balance emphasis as oppossed to a focus on 'gameplay' balance. I don't think my perspective is any more correct than the other, it's just my preferance. After all, the online environment can hardly be called 'historical' as it exists now.

While I think that a boosted RAF Mustang belongs in PF, I have the same fear that if it were introduced, especially a bubbletop, we would see nothing but +25 lbs Mustangs online- I'll definitely be flying one! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
since when does numbers of planes acttually in service mean anything in this sim. if the lw had only a few examples of higher boosted planes, we should still get them to balance the hi boosted allied planes you want. if you haven't noticed, there is such a thing as balance in this sim.

they modeled the 109z, p80, etc etc etc. all saw either no, or very limited service.

why should things change now.

this is a sim of ww2 aircraft, not a recreation of ww2, so you never going to see lw vastly outnumbered flying inferior aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
01-24-2005, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
since when does numbers of planes acttually in service mean anything in this sim. if the lw had only a few examples of higher boosted planes, we should still get them to balance the hi boosted allied planes you want. if you haven't noticed, there is such a thing as balance in this sim.

they modeled the 109z, p80, etc etc etc. all saw either no, or very limited service.

why should things change now.

this is a sim of ww2 aircraft, not a recreation of ww2, so you never going to see lw vastly outnumbered flying inferior aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys already have a number of planes that can out speed the majority of the Allied planes easy, so if you really care about balance..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guys, I was joking with lrrp22, game balance is irrelevent.

Nubarus
01-24-2005, 01:54 PM
I never fly the Ta-152 or P-63 so I have no idea how they perform, nor do I care really. (German & US planes don't interest me in any way)

Besides, I don't care about turn fighting either.
All I want is a fast plane so I can B&Z without having to fly a German or US plane.

Tempest V and Spitfire XIV will do just fine in that regard.

At the moment I can cope with the Spitfire IX but on some levels it just drops the ball in the B&Z department.

Von_Rat
01-24-2005, 01:58 PM
don't take me wrong, i want to see the spit14 and tempest in game, and balance be dammed. but i think after them oleg should concentrate on bob.

the faster bob is finished, the faster we will see our late war favorites, on the new engine.

at least if i understand olegs last post on the subject.

it might take a couple of years , before we see late war spits and fws on the new game engine however.

robban75
01-24-2005, 02:01 PM
Hey, I'm all for +25lbs Mustangs, sure they'll be a tough cookie to defeat. But the D-9 can still take on the Mustang on pretty much even terms in a dogfight! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Here's hoping for a C3 fueled D-9 with a correct speed modelling! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
01-24-2005, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
(German & US planes don't interest me in any way)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Expand your universe Nubarus! All the WW2 aircraft are interesting, regardless of who made them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
01-24-2005, 02:33 PM
Hear, Hear! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
(German & US planes don't interest me in any way)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Expand your universe Nubarus! All the WW2 aircraft are interesting, regardless of who made them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nubarus
01-24-2005, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
(German & US planes don't interest me in any way)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Expand your universe Nubarus! All the WW2 aircraft are interesting, regardless of who made them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's personal taste I guess.

I only fly a select set of planes and I have tried em all out over the years and none of the German or US planes cought my attention to such an extend that it made me add em to the list.

For ground pounding I will always grab my trusty old Sturmovik, no FW190, Stuka, P-47, P-38 or Corsair can make up for that in any way.

biggs222
01-24-2005, 02:53 PM
yeah i dont really need the +25lb bost mkIX or mkVIII

just gimmie the mkXIV that does 357mph @ SL and has 4600ft/min climb rate thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

lrrp22
01-24-2005, 03:43 PM
And BTW, has anyone else noticed that the P-51D *lost* 10-15 kph at sea level somewhere in the last couple of patches?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif I think the already way-too-slow P-51C is down 10 or so kph, too.

Perhaps a patented Robban speed test is in order to confirm? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

p1ngu666
01-24-2005, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
since when does numbers of planes acttually in service mean anything in this sim. if the lw had only a few examples of higher boosted planes, we should still get them to balance the hi boosted allied planes you want. if you haven't noticed, there is such a thing as balance in this sim.

they modeled the 109z, p80, etc etc etc. all saw either no, or very limited service.

why should things change now.

this is a sim of ww2 aircraft, not a recreation of ww2, so you never going to see lw vastly outnumbered flying inferior aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys already have a number of planes that can out speed the majority of the Allied planes easy, so if you really care about balance..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guys, I was joking with lrrp22, game balance is irrelevent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

partly true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, onwhine i dont wanna be repeatidly blasted by 109z and ki84c, but i like having them ingame, for single player and coop missions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

but i dont see why raf cant have the planes they had in mainstream service, for a year, same year as lw late war planes, and russian stuff, and some of the usa stuff. in FBPF its like the raf didnt do much, when infact they did ALOT. i dont think anyone else was at war for so long as the british (by a few months ok..)

we just asking for planes the raf had in mainstream service, so we have our historic planes. so they are really good planes, deal with it like real luftwaffe did. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

u could argue that raf planes are competitive or good enuff, handly the g6 is also good enuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. remove those later 109s, so 109 fliers haveto fly like the real hero's of the luftwaffe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

i can understand why lw fliers dont want the planes the raf had, cos they will make life very very hard, or short http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif just like real life http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif. so i guess lw fliers are like there real life counterparts, they dont want those nasty spitfires or p51's. maybe they want there mummy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

so we want planes that are maybe better than there lw counterparts, they wherent rare, saw lots of service, historicaly important, not really uber..

main thing u see is disbelif, like the allies HAD good planes and there not american!, and better or equal to lw stuff, nooo it cant be true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

its not the lw place tobe worse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif, we ALWAYS had the better planes, reality can step in and wave, and go, hi from mid 43 to late 44, the allies actully had compairable, and in some cases better planes than the lw, which is why luftwaffe lost air supority in many places. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ok allies had more planes, but we cant blame them for that, we can blame short sighted policy in high command, and ineffective bombing by the luftwaffee, and ineffective bombers too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (stagicaly)

so do lw fliers want to live in there elistest (in some cases) fantasy land, where they have best planes, simply by excluding anything that comes close to theres in performance or do they want to face historical oppents?

and yes robban, d13 and dora with the 4 cannons in wings, no nose mg too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif, and fixed speed bug http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. ps the XIV should have a gryo gunsite http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

p1ngu666
01-24-2005, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
(German & US planes don't interest me in any way)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Expand your universe Nubarus! All the WW2 aircraft are interesting, regardless of who made them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's personal taste I guess.

I only fly a select set of planes and I have tried em all out over the years and none of the German or US planes cought my attention to such an extend that it made me add em to the list.

For ground pounding I will always grab my trusty old Sturmovik, no FW190, Stuka, P-47, P-38 or Corsair can make up for that in any way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

all planes are worth a flight or two http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif of a 190 flier in a ki43 is not tobe missed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

faustnik
01-24-2005, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

all planes are worth a flight or two http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif of a 190 flier in a ki43 is not tobe missed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey I got a P-40 and a P-400 the last time I flew that little POS! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
01-24-2005, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

all planes are worth a flight or two http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif of a 190 flier in a ki43 is not tobe missed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey I got a P-40 and a P-400 the last time I flew that little POS! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ya, i can embariss 190's in it, even dora's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

piece of superbness http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

but its omg take off at 120kph, omg the turn, omg the climb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Von_Rat
01-24-2005, 06:36 PM
THis is not a recreation of ww2. its a ww2 aircraft sim.

in game the lw is not going to fight vastly outnumbered with inferior planes, just because the real lw did.

repeat, this is not a ww2 recreation.

as for facing historical opponets, remind me how many servers allow axis jets. the real raf and usaaf had to deal with german jets, but allies in game refuse to.

p1ngu666
01-24-2005, 07:22 PM
i dont refuse too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
perhaps not 1a version, for same reason as u dont allow ki84c http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

im not asking lw to fly vastly outnumbered, just fly in the situation that real lw pilots faced, if its grim, well... thats what russian and allied faced early on, infiurior planes they battled away. infact the polish shot down more lw, than the lw shot down them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif, most of there p11's had TWO 7.7mm guns i belive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

you are basicaly saying that the lw fliers wont fly unless they have the best planes? i suppose there is some historical accuracy, having failed to stop the bombers (american mostly) from damaging the oil and infristructure, there wasnt fuel about much, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif, well by then the planes wherent so bad, just lacking trim and some view issues...

so its ok for everyone but the lw to face a performance disadvantage?
personaly, ive shot down better planes in worse planes, flying mig3, zero,lagg,yak,spitV,p38,IL2 (heck, ive been ace in a day a few times in a IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif) etc, and im not a good pilot at all tbh.

these 25lb planes mean we might seeing more mid war servers too, something that would be good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

many like the historic aspects of the sim btw, it IS a important part.

and its a recreation of ww2 air combat, the best one around, not perfect, but its the best we got http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

when did 262 become opperational? dec 44 is in my mind, but im probably wrong. also remmber the allies had better planes that arent ingame around 262 time, p47m for example. also imagaine your enuthasim in a server, u in your g6, vs a 262 or a p80 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Von_Rat
01-24-2005, 10:35 PM
according to you lw should face a higher performing allied craft, because its historical.

but me262s were operational in june, july 44. over a thousand were made, hundreds flew, not all at one time of course. but they are not allowed. so its ok for lw to face hi performance allied aircraft, but allies won't face jets, i guess its just to grim for them.

the me262 was a historical aspect of the war too, but its banned.

once again ill say im looking forward to spit14 tempest, but if allies get other hi boosted planes, lw should to, even if only a few were made.

p1ngu666
01-25-2005, 12:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
according to you lw should face a higher performing allied craft, because its historical.

but me262s were operational in june, july 44. over a thousand were made, hundreds flew, not all at one time of course. but they are not allowed. so its ok for lw to face hi performance allied aircraft, but allies won't face jets, i guess its just to grim for them.

the me262 was a historical aspect of the war too, but its banned.

once again ill say im looking forward to spit14 tempest, but if allies get other hi boosted planes, lw should to, even if only a few were made. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

allies face high performance lw aircraft for all years http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

im not worried about jets tbh, remmber in .50cal spray era they would light up pretty easily http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

anyways i dont ban 262, personaly id love 2a for fast jabo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

we are asking for contemporaies to g6as,g10,14,k4,dora,a9 from a historical time perspective, we would be pretty much even http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

if u have the very rare 1.98 ata k4, and dora alader, we can have 25lb boost XIV, and a higher boost tempest, ive seen a graph or two for 28lb boost on merlin too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Von_Rat
01-25-2005, 01:38 AM
the k4 we have is not 1.98. at least not in performence. also its a unmanverable at any hi speed.

if allies get hi boost planes lw should get. C ENGINED MODELS, as stated in other thread.

rarity doesn't mean anything, look at p80 109z etc etc etc.

we'd only be even from historical time perspective if jets were allowed.

im repeating myself, so thats all i have to say on subject, nice debate, S ping666

WUAF_Darkangel
01-25-2005, 02:07 AM
If oleg ever decides to leave out 25lbboost and 1.98ata then i think he should include 21lb boost. IMO the 21lb boost is similar to the 1.8ata on the k4 currently in 3.04m (mustangs and spits r currently modeled with 18lb boost right?). This should keep the game more balanced imo. Any1 agree/disagree? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
01-25-2005, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
but me262s were operational in june, july 44. over a thousand were made, hundreds flew, not all at one time of course. but they are not allowed. so its ok for lw to face hi performance allied aircraft, but allies won't face jets, i guess its just to grim for them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd happily take a P47 or Tempest out jet huntinghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Unless DF servers can limit numbers planes available then allowing the 262 would be a mistake. Can you imagine warclouds right now with a 262 available. Half the blue guys would be flying them.

As for high performance allied planes, we don't have RAF ones yet. The Spitfire IX or VIII is hardly a high performance late war plane is it.

OldMan____
01-25-2005, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
but me262s were operational in june, july 44. over a thousand were made, hundreds flew, not all at one time of course. but they are not allowed. so its ok for lw to face hi performance allied aircraft, but allies won't face jets, i guess its just to grim for them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd happily take a P47 or Tempest out jet huntinghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Unless DF servers can limit numbers planes available then allowing the 262 would be a mistake. Can you imagine warclouds right now with a 262 available. Half the blue guys would be flying them.

As for high performance allied planes, we don't have RAF ones yet. The Spitfire IX or VIII is hardly a high performance late war plane is it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and what is the problem with that? Just keep flying at safe altitude. And perform mission objectives. No Me262 will get close to your base since a single piece of ink from a bulelt will make it catch fire. Also making them available at airports near the front will make their operation quite harder, specilly if your spawn point is at a taxi point far from runway (me262 is not a safe grass runner).. so thet you have plenety of time to kill him.

The only difference is that it would rule up very high. But not many people go there. Last few server I flew where 262 was available had 1 or 2 of them flying.. no one else took it.

robban75
01-25-2005, 06:12 AM
Hey, if it's realistic, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be added, if it's possible of course. However I don't see how the LW planes like the D-9 can be refered to as a high performance aircraft if the P-51 (as it is currently modelled)is not? The difference in speed and especially climb between the two is really minimal.
What I'm trying to say is that the allied planes, such as the P-51, P-47 and P-63 and so on can fight the best LW planes on pretty much even terms as it is now.

Kurfurst__
01-25-2005, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Kurfurst,
Your standard of proof for accepting increased Luftwaffe performance is shockingly lower than your standard for Allied aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Why do you continue to dispute the implementation of 150 octane/+25 lbs boost for Merlin Mustang and Spitfires and +21 for Spit XIV's? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t dispute that, there`s fair evidence that this boost was cleared. How much it was used is another question. I guess ca. 30-60% of Spitfires used it depending on the timeframe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You know beyond any reasonable doubt that by 1 Jan 45 every fighter unit in 2nd TAF was using 100/150 grade fuel and increased boost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, where`s the evidence to that? Especially in regards *every*. Never seen evidence of Tempests, Mustangs, Typhoons using it there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> This very thread includes links to documents that show the testing, authorization and implementation of 150/+25 lbs in both ADGB and 2nd TAF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In regards of the ADGB it`s a fairly clear case, and well documented. In regards of the 2nd TAF, what I have seen up to now is a authorization in november - and absolutely nothing in regards to the actual use. Orders are issued, and withdrawn in the military for various reasons. Not that I rule out the possibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Can you show the equivelent for 1.98 ata? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well DB/DC manual notes the use 1.98ata in Dec5 1944, a Mtt paper refers to DB authorization dated Dec 1944, too, discussions in January 1945 also tell about Daimler-Benz having issued 1.98ata to troops,and delivered engines at that setting, there are literally dozens of pictures of G-10s and K-4s with 'C-3' fuel triangles, records of meetings that tell italian airforce should only receive C-3 and no B-4 for it`s G-10/G-14/K-4 aircraft, their fuel usage docs showing relying primary on c-3, no less authority than the Fischer-Tropsch archives stating 2/3s of the avgas produced in Germany was C-3 against the 'scarce' theories...

One can choose to ignore this staggering amount of evidence, of course.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You have been shown repeatedly that 1.98 ata was authorized very late and, at best, to a very limited degree- the fact that you refuse to accept the various proofs has nothing to do with the datas' validity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well even according to butch2k, the 1.98ata setting was cleared in February 1945 already. Against him stands the DB/DC manual (3rd edition!)notes the use 1.98ata in Dec5 1944, a Mtt paper refers to DB authorization dated Dec 1944, too, discussions in January 1945 also tell about Daimler-Benz having issued 1.98ata to troops, and delivered engines at that setting, there are literally dozens of pictures of G-10s and K-4s with 'C-3' fuel triangles, records of meetings that tell italian airforce should only receive C-3 and no B-4 for it`s G-10/G-14/K-4 aircraft, their fuel usage docs showing relying primary on c-3, no less authority than the Fischer-Tropsch archives stating 2/3s of the avgas produced in Germany was C-3 against the 'scarce' theories...

Appearantly the 1.98ata boost was well in use in 1944, and it was temporarily disabled until furhter testing, that took a few weeks in Jan/February, and even then it was noted that individual aircraft could use this power.

Now the problems is that by that time, about every second Bf109 had the 605D engine... that means well over 700 aircraft. I tend to guess that out of 700, a lot more would run on 1.98ata than out of 60-80 XIVs in the entire RAF would run on +21, even if all were running on it..

WOLFMondo
01-25-2005, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
but me262s were operational in june, july 44. over a thousand were made, hundreds flew, not all at one time of course. but they are not allowed. so its ok for lw to face hi performance allied aircraft, but allies won't face jets, i guess its just to grim for them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd happily take a P47 or Tempest out jet huntinghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Unless DF servers can limit numbers planes available then allowing the 262 would be a mistake. Can you imagine warclouds right now with a 262 available. Half the blue guys would be flying them.

As for high performance allied planes, we don't have RAF ones yet. The Spitfire IX or VIII is hardly a high performance late war plane is it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and what is the problem with that? Just keep flying at safe altitude. And perform mission objectives. No Me262 will get close to your base since a single piece of ink from a bulelt will make it catch fire. Also making them available at airports near the front will make their operation quite harder, specilly if your spawn point is at a taxi point far from runway (me262 is not a safe grass runner).. so thet you have plenety of time to kill him.

The only difference is that it would rule up very high. But not many people go there. Last few server I flew where 262 was available had 1 or 2 of them flying.. no one else took it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I say, I don't mind the 262 but 20+ guys flying them? Thats a little unrealistic for an engagement don't you think? Given only a couple of hundred ever took to the skies, spread over 2 fronts. On any given day in the same sector how many flew at the same time, not including anti high altitude bomber sorties?

Maybe we should just ask sparx to make a map for the ToH server with 262's available so we can put are argument to rest?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
01-25-2005, 07:48 AM
Dont want to ruin your fun, but if you want to limit 262s, bear in mind that SpitXIVs, Tempests and P-47Ms didn`t see service in any greater numbers than the jets...

lrrp22
01-25-2005, 10:28 AM
Good point.

However, operationally I think the Allied fighters had many times the servicability rates of the 262's. It seems that the ability to launch 30 262's on any given day was considered quite a feat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Dont want to ruin your fun, but if you want to limit 262s, bear in mind that SpitXIVs, Tempests and P-47Ms didn`t see service in any greater numbers than the jets... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
01-25-2005, 11:26 AM
Kurfurst,

Thanks for the response.

I don't want to rehash the entire 100/150 grade fuel issue so I will just say that while specific orders requiring each 2nd TAF squadron to convert haven't been provided (as of yet), a large body of evidence indicates that the conversion began in earnest in November '44. The authorization you referred to, the prevalence of 150 grade produced and delivered, and the documents describing the required steps to convert (or un-convert in the case of the Spit XVI) specific aircraft types, all indicate 150 grade fuel€s near-universal implementation in 2nd TAF.

Also, there were no Merlin Mustang units assigned to 2nd TAF on the Continent after September '44. All squadrons had redeployed to the UK to take up Bomber and Coastal Command escort duties.

As regards 1.98 ata, I highly doubt that manufacturers got to dictate operational procedures of their own volition, at least not in any military organization I have been involved with or studied. I cannot imagine a situation in which Daimler-Benz could have directly "authorized" the use of any power setting for any Luftwaffe unit without being authorized by the military chain of comman. Both Allison and Rolls-Royce 'authorized' higher boost settings for their engines than any USAAF/RAF unit likely ever used. As butch has pointed out- Rechlin, and even DB's own chief engineer recommended against the use of 1.98 ata boost.

Obviously, 1.98 ata was tested operationally in a limited manner, but as butch2k has repeatedly stated (and supported), the weight of evidence indicates that any general operational implementation came very late and to a very limited degree.

jagdmailer
01-25-2005, 11:31 AM
"general operational implementation came very late and to a very limited degree"

That is perfectly fine. Does not negate the fact that they were cleared and have been in use even in limited numbers, so let's have them.

Jagd

lrrp22
01-25-2005, 12:42 PM
We can assume that you also support the +25 lbs Mustang and Spitfire IX, then?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
"general operational implementation came very late and to a very limited degree"

That is perfectly fine. Does not negate the fact that they were cleared and have been in use even in limited numbers, so let's have them.

Jagd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

jagdmailer
01-25-2005, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
We can assume that you also support the +25 lbs Mustang and Spitfire IX, then?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
"general operational implementation came very late and to a very limited degree"

That is perfectly fine. Does not negate the fact that they were cleared and have been in use even in limited numbers, so let's have them.

Jagd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I do not care at all whatsoever as I fly exclusively Axis and offline.

If they were indeed available (I have no clue nor do I care) & if you want them, then by all means be my guest & post away!

Jagd

DarthBane_
01-26-2005, 02:24 PM
But those planes are allready extraterestrial,
why make tham even more ufo? I seriously think that allied funboys will soon ask for Axis planes to go empty, or every second plane can shoot, but first cannot. Or shoot with color instead of bulets. Oh i forgot, they already do, who would call mg151/20 cannon, its more like paint gun.

FA_Whisky
01-26-2005, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oh i forgot, they already do, who would call mg151/20 cannon, its more like paint gun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its the pilot that makes the gun/cannon effective http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

pourshot
01-26-2005, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
But those planes are allready extraterestrial,
why make tham even more ufo? I seriously think that allied funboys will soon ask for Axis planes to go empty, or every second plane can shoot, but first cannot. Or shoot with color instead of bulets. Oh i forgot, they already do, who would call mg151/20 cannon, its more like paint gun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You need to relax.

This Mortal Coil
01-26-2005, 05:44 PM
Allies can bring their +25lbs mustangs and spitfires. I can't get upset, if you suck in a Pony or Spit at +18lbs, you will still suck at +25lbs, and I will still shoot you down in my 109G6.

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

lrrp22
01-26-2005, 06:01 PM
True, too true... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by This Mortal Coil:
Allies can bring their +25lbs mustangs and spitfires. I can't get upset, if you suck in a Pony or Spit at +18lbs, you will still suck at +25lbs, and I will still shoot you down in my 109G6.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
01-27-2005, 03:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
True, too true... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by This Mortal Coil:
Allies can bring their +25lbs mustangs and spitfires. I can't get upset, if you suck in a Pony or Spit at +18lbs, you will still suck at +25lbs, and I will still shoot you down in my 109G6.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif @ g6 flier too

Nubarus
01-27-2005, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
But those planes are allready extraterestrial,
why make tham even more ufo? I seriously think that allied funboys will soon ask for Axis planes to go empty, or every second plane can shoot, but first cannot. Or shoot with color instead of bulets. Oh i forgot, they already do, who would call mg151/20 cannon, its more like paint gun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it's time you downloaded and study that track of the DF between the Spit IXHF and the FW190D9, you might learn something other then complain and accuse others of wanting to lower the quality of the planes you like to fly.

Nobody here said anything about wanting to downgrade the LW planes, you just made that up to try and add more strength to your weak attempt to try and add any value to this thread.

Von_Rat
01-27-2005, 02:07 PM
just because locust can shoot down some noob in a spitfire, doesn't make the spits fm any more correct.

sargazam shoots spits down with a 110 regularly, it just means that hes alot better pilot. it doesn't say jack about fms.

Nubarus
01-27-2005, 02:51 PM
Blurting out here that the FM is completely extraterestrial without any backup doesn't prove anything either.

The good Axis players here say that a FW190D9 can take that so called "uber noob extraterestrial UFO" Spit any day.

It's the ones that lack that skill that cry about it here added with stupid assumptions and the "more holy then thou" comments.

faustnik
01-27-2005, 03:19 PM
Any 190 version A8 and later will own any version of the Spit in PF in a team fight.

- Be sure! -

anarchy52
01-27-2005, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Any 190 version A8 and later will own any version of the Spit in PF in a team fight.

- _Be sure!_ - <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Spit team is inexperienced, sure but if Spit pilots can find their *** with both hands it's a slaughter not fight.
Focke has 2 advantages: mk108 and level speed.

I can not imagine even better spit or pony. Perhaps we should be playing WWIII scenario Spit vs La-7 like Godzilla vs King Kong.

MEGILE
01-27-2005, 03:31 PM
Spitfire IXe is outclassed by latewar German planes.

Be sure.

anarchy52
01-27-2005, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Spitfire IXe is outclassed by latewar German planes.

Be sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're talking FB not historical or technical context.

MEGILE
01-27-2005, 03:37 PM
So am I, be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nubarus
01-27-2005, 03:38 PM
We are talking FB too.

But I guess you missed that.....

faustnik
01-27-2005, 03:43 PM
Anarchy,

We run that fight almost every week with pilots of similar skill. Scripted DF FR with PL/SB/LI.

Our 190s stay fast and stay safe. Spit get extended out past the speed at which they can maneuver well, 190s tear 'em up. This is experienced 190 drivers against experienced Spit drivers. This holds true for Fw190A4 vs. Spit V also.

Just the facts from about a year of this fight on a regular basis.

If the minengeschoss rounds are adjusted for the Mg151 the pain will just get worse. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Late Spits and Tempests should mean that the party is over however. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

MEGILE
01-27-2005, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Late Spits and Tempests should mean that the party is over however. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe nah, even with the Spitfire XIV, I think the FW-190D9 and BF-109K4 are still faster down low? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
But it will make it much more competitive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
01-27-2005, 03:49 PM
Mustangs are already a different story. They can dominate the "A"s and hang with the "D"s.

anarchy52
01-27-2005, 04:35 PM
I can remember that we used to be pretty good vs inexperienced spits in FW-190 if we got them low. vs good spit pilots which kept b'n'z ing no way. pony was the real focke-killer. VWF was fun.

When I flew spit...well I killed anything I saw. I gave up pretty soon. Felt like...
Maybe I flew vs wrong pilots. when do those matches occur GMT? I'd like to join and learn.

WOLFMondo
01-27-2005, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Spitfire IXe is outclassed by latewar German planes.

Be sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're talking FB not historical or technical context. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just like IRL you can out run a spitfire IX even in an A6. Why do guys insist on turn fighting with one of the most famous turn fighters!!? This I will never understand.

MEGILE
01-27-2005, 04:53 PM
I once tried to out run a FW-190 in a SpitfireIXe... and WolfMondo shot me down.

It was a good lesson.

Still make that mistake everyday http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

BaldieJr
01-27-2005, 04:56 PM
I didn't read the pages between first/last, so forgive me if this has already been said:

The extra boost will give you no advantage. 99.998% of the fliers will whine like babies at the number of engines they blow.

I say bring it on, I like to watch grow-ups fly.

PS- Page one rant about early war planes is dead on. This online uber-jock stuff is getting old.

faustnik
01-27-2005, 05:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
when do those matches occur GMT? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anarchy,

Our matches are team events. The teams are 7Jg77, 4th FG and RAF 74. We all have websites you can visit if you are intrested. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

anarchy52
01-27-2005, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I didn't read the pages between first/last, so forgive me if this has already been said:

The extra boost will give you no advantage. 99.998% of the fliers will whine like babies at the number of engines they blow.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm...kinda like breaking the wire and firewalling the throttle on MkIX for 30 minutes would lead to engine failure?

I remember http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
01-27-2005, 05:46 PM
Extra boost will give no advantage? How do you figure? You don't think an extra 25-30 mph below 20k ft and an extra 700 fpm climb wouldn't help? Don't Luftwaffe planes benefit from MW-50 boost? Why would anyone be blowing more engines? You'll blow just as many engines endlessly running WEP at +18 lbs boost as you will +25 lbs.

Pilots that suck will continue to get shot down with extra boost. Those that don't suck, won't.

More importantly, at least to me, is that late '44 and '45 air combat will be represented more accurately. If you don't like late war, be it 'online uber jock stuff' or offliners that want to fly late war missions, then I guess you won't be interested.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I didn't read the pages between first/last, so forgive me if this has already been said:

The extra boost will give you no advantage. 99.998% of the fliers will whine like babies at the number of engines they blow.

I say bring it on, I like to watch grow-ups fly.

PS- Page one rant about early war planes is dead on. This online uber-jock stuff is getting old. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FA_Whisky
01-27-2005, 06:01 PM
cool your engine before you use it. I do the same now. 100% power without WEP untill i need it, than i go to 101% - 110% with wep.

+25 boost will be the same

p1ngu666
01-27-2005, 06:42 PM
when they changed to 25lb boost, 18lb became the maxium non wep http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

lrrp22
01-27-2005, 10:29 PM
.

FA_Whisky
01-28-2005, 01:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> when they changed to 25lb boost, 18lb became the maxium non wep <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so you set throttle at 90% to keep it cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif