PDA

View Full Version : Leave the new P-38 alone.



darkhorizon11
07-23-2005, 01:26 AM
Theres always been whining for the LW side about the ability of allied aircraft. Lately it seems to have gotten a lot worse with the new 70" P-38. Does it ever end? I've been playing this series for a little more than 3 years now and on this forum since Nov 2003 and all I've seen in the allied aircraft shredded to pieces by the Axis-byassed. I mean so many planes have gone on the chopping block including the La-7, P-51, Spitfire, and now the new 38. Can't it be accepted that these were good capable aircraft?

They screamed about the Spitfire, "its magical, nothing retains energy like that", not accepting the possibility that IRL a Spit could keep up with a 109 of a contemporary model. Ever wonder why it they gave it a superstreamlined shape? or why it has a supersmooth eliptical wing? It was used in FRONT LINE SERVICE until 1950 by the British.

We allied pilots have mostly kept our mouth shuts (except for when the Ki-84 could climb better than the F-16) and watched as our beloved aircraft get slower and weaker per each patch. Slowly but surely the bf-109s and Fw-190s became super planes and easier to fly, yet we've said nothing. We watched at you got the Me-262, He-162, Go-229, and the 109Z, and again we remained silent.

Well I'm just asking that you give us/let us keep something. Theres been a huge thread running around basically whining that the the P-38 is too much, its not fair, to much power, and the classic had no real effect on the outcome of the war. Some one gets sarcastic and asks...well how many Japanese or German planes did it shoot down? Ugh.

Heres my retort to everything. All we've seen is LW xplane after LW xplane. And by xplane I also mean the Me 262, yes the 262. Sure it saw combat starting June 1944, but how much was it flown? Most accounts of American and the British running into them are random at best, not even close to the frequency of conventional fighters. Nevermind that of the 1800 or so built less than 15% ever even made it into the sky or saw operational use. And thats the most widely used German jet!!! I don't think I need to go further. And to think awhile ago I was snapped at in ORR forum when I said I'd love to see a Gloster Meteor, because (according to the snapper) it only saw combat for the last few months.

Then they rip at the records, that theres no proof that very many with this performance were built, that it probably never made it into service, that its all just a farce. The poster of the P-38 thread actually attempted to claim that no P-38s with 70" were ever built. They always want unbelievable amount of proof for every bit of info on our aircraft... I wonder if the people who want this ever consider the credibility of their side. I mean HELLO you lost the war! Germany and Japan were both torn to shreds! Not to mention that their respective governments threw out propaganda lies like it was a national pastime (which it was). I mean how many documents did Goebbels burn, destroy, and falsify to "prove" that Germany was winning the war in 1945 to the German people? For crying out loud in April he annouced to some of his soldiers that deathrays had been invented. I mean honestly, thats fine I'm not going to sit here and say the 109 didn't shoot down 10,000 enemy planes during the war or whatever, but don't come breathing down my neck about our sources, most of yours were found in filing cabinets in burned out buildings.

Oh well, thats my vent, all I can say is enjoy it now guys, the P-38 will be yet another victim cut down by the insessant tears of those who can't realize theres a reason we won the war.

Goodnight.

TAGERT.
07-23-2005, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Theres always been whining for the LW side about the ability of allied aircraft. Lately it seems to have gotten a lot worse with the new 70" P-38. Does it ever end? I've been playing this series for a little more than 3 years now and on this forum since Nov 2003 and all I've seen in the allied aircraft shredded to pieces by the Axis-byassed. I mean so many planes have gone on the chopping block including the La-7, P-51, Spitfire, and now the new 38. Can't it be accepted that these were good capable aircraft?

They screamed about the Spitfire, "its magical, nothing retains energy like that", not accepting the possibility that IRL a Spit could keep up with a 109 of a contemporary model. Ever wonder why it they gave it a superstreamlined shape? or why it has a supersmooth eliptical wing? It was used in FRONT LINE SERVICE until 1950 by the British.

We allied pilots have mostly kept our mouth shuts (except for when the Ki-84 could climb better than the F-16) and watched as our beloved aircraft get slower and weaker per each patch. Slowly but surely the bf-109s and Fw-190s became super planes and easier to fly, yet we've said nothing. We watched at you got the Me-262, He-162, Go-229, and the 109Z, and again we remained silent.

Well I'm just asking that you give us/let us keep something. Theres been a huge thread running around basically whining that the the P-38 is too much, its not fair, to much power, and the classic had no real effect on the outcome of the war. Some one gets sarcastic and asks...well how many Japanese or German planes did it shoot down? Ugh.

Heres my retort to everything. All we've seen is LW xplane after LW xplane. And by xplane I also mean the Me 262, yes the 262. Sure it saw combat starting June 1944, but how much was it flown? Most accounts of American and the British running into them are random at best, not even close to the frequency of conventional fighters. Nevermind that of the 1800 or so built less than 15% ever even made it into the sky or saw operational use. And thats the most widely used German jet!!! I don't think I need to go further. And to think awhile ago I was snapped at in ORR forum when I said I'd love to see a Gloster Meteor, because (according to the snapper) it only saw combat for the last few months.

Then they rip at the records, that theres no proof that very many with this performance were built, that it probably never made it into service, that its all just a farce. The poster of the P-38 thread actually attempted to claim that no P-38s with 70" were ever built. They always want unbelievable amount of proof for every bit of info on our aircraft... I wonder if the people who want this ever consider the credibility of their side. I mean HELLO you lost the war! Germany and Japan were both torn to shreds! Not to mention that their respective governments threw out propaganda lies like it was a national pastime (which it was). I mean how many documents did Goebbels burn, destroy, and falsify to "prove" that Germany was winning the war in 1945 to the German people? For crying out loud in April he annouced to some of his soldiers that deathrays had been invented. I mean honestly, thats fine I'm not going to sit here and say the 109 didn't shoot down 10,000 enemy planes during the war or whatever, but don't come breathing down my neck about our sources, most of yours were found in filing cabinets in burned out buildings.

Oh well, thats my vent, all I can say is enjoy it now guys, the P-38 will be yet another victim cut down by the insessant tears of those who can't realize theres a reason we won the war.

Goodnight.
Dissagree 100%

In that the new P38L LATE should not be left alone.. it is currently preforming far below it's rated values at 66" MP. The proof is here

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5731071933

As you can see the P38L LATE is not even preforming at the 60" MP rating let alone the 66" MP 1725hp rating!

In summary the P38J and P38L should be climbing better than the current P38L LATE and the P38L LATE should be climbing even better than it does now.

arcadeace
07-23-2005, 01:36 AM
Goodnight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Osirisx9
07-23-2005, 01:46 AM
I'm so glad that I spend most of my time flying the B-25. It looks like a bomber, handles like a bomber. I only get scared when someone complains that the B-25 is too hard to kill http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Besires, everyone knows that it was the bombers that won the war.

RAF238thOsiris
http://www.warbirdsofprey.org

Fehler
07-23-2005, 02:09 AM
*Sniffles*


We allied pilots have mostly kept our mouth shuts (except for when the Ki-84 could climb better than the F-16) and watched as our beloved aircraft get slower and weaker per each patch. Slowly but surely the bf-109s and Fw-190s became super planes and easier to fly, yet we've said nothing. We watched at you got the Me-262, He-162, Go-229, and the 109Z, and again we remained silent.

Hmm, let's ponder this for a minute.. 262, 3rd party mod. 162, 3rd party mod, Go-229, 3rd party mod.

Hey, here is a thought... Go get a copy of the 3d program used to model these and make one of your own *Fantasy* planes! Yeah, that's a good idea! Then, when you are done, and you make a very nice looking model, everyone else can sit here and tear your work to shreds! Great idea!


Then they rip at the records, that theres no proof that very many with this performance were built, that it probably never made it into service, that its all just a farce. The poster of the P-38 thread actually attempted to claim that no P-38s with 70" were ever built. They always want unbelievable amount of proof for every bit of info on our aircraft... I wonder if the people who want this ever consider the credibility of their side.


I mean how many documents did Goebbels burn, destroy, and falsify to "prove" that Germany was winning the war in 1945 to the German people?


I wonder if the people who want this ever consider the credibility of their side. I mean HELLO you lost the war!

You keep talking about "Their side" and "My side." What is that? The "Side" you should be on is that of historical accuracy of the aircraft represented in this simulation. This isnt Quake or CFS. It is a WWII air combat simulator. Every piece of information pertaining to a given aircraft should be looked at and scrutinized for accuracy and contradiction.


But the truth is, most of the major whiners here dont care about that. They care about points, or sides, or your planes is X so mine should by Y. Or hey, I want a blah blah blah plane since you have a yada yada yada one.

Here is a novel idea.. enjoy the game as it is. Allow it to open your mind for researching more about these wonderful, yet terrible weapons of war. Leave politics and "Sides" out of it, and enjoy one of the greatest computer simulations ever created.

I do have to get a little rude here, sorry...


theres a reason we won the war.

Umm, did you fight in it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Then you didnt win anything. I really wish people here would stop saying stuff like that, unless they actually participated in the war. It just leaves a foul taste in my mouth; no offense intended toward you directly.

HoneySeeker
07-23-2005, 02:48 AM
Theres always been whining for the LW side about the ability of allied aircraft
Or, to be less disingenuous, there has always - and will always be - whining from one side about the abilities of the other side's aircraft.

Ultimately, industrial might, numeric advantage, and intelligent recycling of experienced personnel made a far greater contribution to winning the war than did any particular planeset.



We watched at you got the Me-262, He-162, Go-229, and the 109Z, and again we remained silent.

And if you had spent less time watching, and more time researching and modelling, you too could have had all the planes your little heart desired.

Ah well. Either you're trolling, or you really need to get out under the Daystar a little more.

F19_Ob
07-23-2005, 03:18 AM
Hello Darkhorizon

Critisism isn't all bad although it could be presented in a more constructive manner sometimes.

Don't take it too seriously in general discussion though.
I dont think u have to worry about anyone going to take away the performance in the latest P-38 because it's closer to the specs now.

I dont think 109 drivers are too impressed with the p38's performance because it turns a bit better now and I'm sure they have a harder time with spits. the 109 also still outperform the p38 in several fields and clearly outguns it aswell.
The fw190 ofcourse have trouble turning with the p38 but it wont turn with spits or many other planes either and still do fine with it's best tactic BnZ.

So The p38 isn't that big of a threat as u seem to belive. So No worries.

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

VF-29_Sandman
07-23-2005, 04:15 AM
u forgot to mention the corsair bro. word is, the zero can practically outdive the charger. ummmm, wasnt that how corsair pilots were able to extend with ease from the zekes? the blue charger has basically become pathetic from what i've been hearing as of late.

add: the inability for the jug's to put it into a power dive and either a: outrun the LW, or b: catch a LW in a hurry. current synopsis: barely to not at all.

Badsight.
07-23-2005, 04:28 AM
while theres a lot of one-sidedness to your thread-starting post , these 2 points bear looking at

first we have :

Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
They screamed about the Spitfire, "its magical, nothing retains energy like that",..
then we get told

Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
We allied pilots have mostly kept our mouth shuts (except for when the Ki-84 could climb better than the F-16) so it's ok for an Allied plane to have far too good E-Retention , because its apparently accurate , but at the same time if its Axis , its BS ?

far & away the most crying over plane performance has been since we got WTO allied planes introduced

Slater_51st
07-23-2005, 04:55 AM
[QUOTE]
Oh well, thats my vent, all I can say is enjoy it now guys, the P-38 will be yet another victim cut down by the insessant tears of those who can't realize theres a reason we won the war.
QUOTE]

Hi Darkhorizon, now don't take this the wrong way, but as you say "we won" the war for a few reasons. Namely, the millions of twenty-something and younger men and women from who knows how many countries who stood up to fight for what they believed was right. It saddens me that, today, the P-51 is remembered by many as the tool that "won the war." No. It was the Russian, British, American, you-name-it grunt stuck in a foxhole with a rifle, or sitting in the back of a B-17 before all-the-way escorts, it was the tin-can sailor escorting convoys in the Atlantic, it was the mechanics onboard the carriers in the Pacific who kept planes flying. The list is never ending, but no machine can claim credit where the men held the line. The allied machines nicely filled the requirements given to them, and enough were made that the Axis could not produce enough, and quality control was poor. No matter the actual performance a great example could put out, it was rare that late war axis planes reached this mark.

If you don't like the way a plane is modeled in the GAME, I'm sorry. If you don't want there to be a patch that attempts to correct the problems(often as perceived by the game developer, sometimes as a result of information relayed to Oleg through these forums), there are plenty of other games you can buy that provide none of these ghastly patches that pork your beloved aircraft.

Trust me, this is not to say that I feel that FB flight models are perfect. Far from it. I fly mainly LW aircraft. The 109s now are quite uber, at the least in the turn(have not flown them enough to know for sure), the Fw-190 DM bug bothers me to no end. I feel a 25lb boost Spitfire would be AWESOME, as would the Tempest, the Spit Mk XIV, the list goes on and on. I think that proof of its wartime service has been established by Oleg, the plane(P-38L Late)is in the game right? Would Oleg "pork" it just because, according to some, not many flew in the war(please, this is not me attempting to say the -38L Late did not fly in WWII). What about the Mig-3 varient that had 6 flying? Or the I-185, or the La-7 3xB20? These have been done because Oleg has enough information and resources to include them in the game. Awesome! I've rarely if ever flown them, but it is the only game that has ever represented them. Don't forget the name of the game is FORGOTTEN Battles, it's based off of Il-2, the German and Russian planes have been in this game far longer than the other planes, and have thus had longer to "get it right"(although they still aren't there by a long shot). But, from what I have seen, there is a good number of people who have done the research to support the P-38L Late, and I doubt that Oleg will take the time away from BoB just to "pork" it. If anything it seems he should vamp it up(as with the Jugs).

All in all, I think that Bearcat99 says it best:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/4591089933

Now, can't we all just stop this pointless bickering and try to get along boys and girls? I swear, next time I hear someone call someone else a "luftie" I'm going to go get my Mom and she's going to talk to your Mom, and she's going to make you play nice!

No offense meant here, it's just this gets very silly day after day after day, lol. A'right later guys,

S! Slater

P.S. I have never seen servers that permit the Go, 262, 162, 163, or 109Z, well, I've seen ONE 109Z server a few months ago. Yet, every server has the K-4, 190 D-9, Mustang Mk III, and P-38L Late.

BigganD
07-23-2005, 04:57 AM
And for does that whine about 50cal, just stop playing at servers like warclouds (special european) I tried the p51 on wc, I couldnt damage nothing! even if I was so close and shoot at a g14 on the right wing 3 sec burst he turned left and then down, result NO DAMAGE!
I recored some tracks, almost no damage on the planes i shoot so much and on the tracks it shows that I didnt hit him I missed!!! but i did hit !!
Same thing with the p51 it can take up to 6mk 108s on a full server with lots of laggy people.
Last night I took a p51 again but on a server up to 16 players, one short burst 109 smoookes! short burst on a FW D9 allways destroys the controls or pilot kill!
The cal 50 are ok!
I take p51 to take down does D9 wannabes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

SeaFireLIV
07-23-2005, 07:06 AM
@darkhorizon11

It`s nice when an aircraft seems just right, it feels historically correct and accurate within reason, isn`t it?

It`s also nice to know that Oleg listens to suggestions to make improve the sim.

But it`s a 2-edge sword, isn`t it? It`s right, but then others think it`s wrong. The whining begins, blah, blah, blaaah and 3 months later everything`s alterd all over again - sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

I know whines do help sometimes improve things, but other times it`s a REAL PAIN!

Atomic_Marten
07-23-2005, 08:05 AM
Hey guys anyone knows what is exactly the designation of the in-game P-38L_LATE? (you know P-38L-1, P-38L-5 etc.)

I have saw a zillion posts about it, and yet nowhere the name (designation) of the plane.

tsisqua
07-23-2005, 08:26 AM
Hey, here is a thought... Go get a copy of the 3d program used to model these and make one of your own *Fantasy* planes! Yeah, that's a good idea! Then, when you are done, and you make a very nice looking model, everyone else can sit here and tear your work to shreds! Great idea!

Good Day, Fehlerhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A 3D model is simply an image and doesn't have a flight model . . . Now the pit can actually influence your ability to score kills, no doubt about that (i.e. the infamous bar in the view of the 190), but has nothing to do with the way a plane performs. The flight models are added by 1C. I really think that this statement was out of context, and detremental to your point http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

1C can never please everyone. However, after reading so much about the performance of the planes from so many different sources (in these particular forums, sometimes with good quoting from reliable sources, sometimes without any at all) . . . well, just who do you believe?

About a year and a half ago, Skidro and I were discussing the differences in the perfomance of the P-38 after the high octane avfuel was made available. He said, and I quote: "They'll never have the sim anywhere close until they make allowances for the particular boost in performance that the Lightning pilots I have spoken to noticed after the new fuel was available". Well, that quote was a paraphrase, but that's it in a nutshell. Notice that this is a late model, and can be added to the server's planeset or not. If you don't want to fly late war you don't have to.

On the other side, Oleg has said the the allied pilots (in the game) have done way more whinging to him than the axis pilots. It just seems that its the other way around because axis pilots tend to come here to whine while allied pilots seem to be more direct about their whinging, and appeal to Oleg directly.

I enjoy the game almost as much as I love reading the soap operas that are these boards.

Cry On!!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gifWelcome To The Madnesshttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
Tsisqua

NorrisMcWhirter
07-23-2005, 10:02 AM
Yep..leave it be if it's historical. I hope the same thinking is levelled at the 151/20s (and the DMs they are used against) for any patches, too.

Ta,
Norris

TAGERT.
07-23-2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Hey guys anyone knows what is exactly the designation of the in-game P-38L_LATE? (you know P-38L-1, P-38L-5 etc.)

I have saw a zillion posts about it, and yet nowhere the name (designation) of the plane. Basically in R.L. there is no LATE version. The LATE attributed added by Oleg is to note that point at which the military opened up the limts on manifold pressure from 60"MP at 1600hp to 66"MP at 1725hp. That is the point where the military MADE IT OFFICIAL by sending out a note that it was ok to do.. As if the pilot's needed that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Im sure that in a pinch they were doing that way before they got the memo that it was ok to do! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The sad part is that the in-game P38L LATE at 66"MP 1725hp can not even hit the time-to-clmib marks that a 60"MP 1600hp P38L could do.. close.. but still below. Which in turn means the normal P38J and P38L at 60"MP 1600hp both fall below that!

In short the LATE 1725hp 38 allmost does what a NORMAL 1600hp 38 could do! A real 1725hp P38 could climb much better than the in-game one does now.

Aaron_GT
07-23-2005, 11:29 AM
That is the point where the military MADE IT OFFICIAL by sending out a note that it was ok to do.. As if the pilot's needed that!

It's legitimate to have a model that represents the official values, though. If we ran everything at unofficial versions that some squadrons may have been running at before boosts were made official we'd have higher boosts for some LW planes too, as all must be fair in love and war.

Now the possible performance issues are another matter. The planes should match the historical figures, and that goes for any under or over modelling be the plane USN, USAAF, British, Russian, LW, Japanese. There are planes from all the nations which seem to have some deviance from reported specs in each direction. Hopefully things will get closer, although PF is near the end of its life, so they may never be perfect.

Hristo_
07-23-2005, 11:57 AM
http://free-kc.t-com.hr/nino/airshow.jpg

p1ngu666
07-23-2005, 12:08 PM
shouldnt that be a 190 histo?

mind u, the 109 was THE best fighter, in pretty much every way, ever http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
07-23-2005, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Theres always been whining for the LW side about the ability of allied aircraft. Lately it seems to have gotten a lot worse with the new 70" P-38. Does it ever end? I've been playing this series for a little more than 3 years now and on this forum since Nov 2003 and all I've seen in the allied aircraft shredded to pieces by the Axis-byassed. I mean so many planes have gone on the chopping block including the La-7, P-51, Spitfire, and now the new 38. Can't it be accepted that these were good capable aircraft?

They screamed about the Spitfire, "its magical, nothing retains energy like that", not accepting the possibility that IRL a Spit could keep up with a 109 of a contemporary model. Ever wonder why it they gave it a superstreamlined shape? or why it has a supersmooth eliptical wing? It was used in FRONT LINE SERVICE until 1950 by the British.

We allied pilots have mostly kept our mouth shuts (except for when the Ki-84 could climb better than the F-16) and watched as our beloved aircraft get slower and weaker per each patch. Slowly but surely the bf-109s and Fw-190s became super planes and easier to fly, yet we've said nothing. We watched at you got the Me-262, He-162, Go-229, and the 109Z, and again we remained silent.

Well I'm just asking that you give us/let us keep something. Theres been a huge thread running around basically whining that the the P-38 is too much, its not fair, to much power, and the classic had no real effect on the outcome of the war. Some one gets sarcastic and asks...well how many Japanese or German planes did it shoot down? Ugh.

Heres my retort to everything. All we've seen is LW xplane after LW xplane. And by xplane I also mean the Me 262, yes the 262. Sure it saw combat starting June 1944, but how much was it flown? Most accounts of American and the British running into them are random at best, not even close to the frequency of conventional fighters. Nevermind that of the 1800 or so built less than 15% ever even made it into the sky or saw operational use. And thats the most widely used German jet!!! I don't think I need to go further. And to think awhile ago I was snapped at in ORR forum when I said I'd love to see a Gloster Meteor, because (according to the snapper) it only saw combat for the last few months.

Then they rip at the records, that theres no proof that very many with this performance were built, that it probably never made it into service, that its all just a farce. The poster of the P-38 thread actually attempted to claim that no P-38s with 70" were ever built. They always want unbelievable amount of proof for every bit of info on our aircraft... I wonder if the people who want this ever consider the credibility of their side. I mean HELLO you lost the war! Germany and Japan were both torn to shreds! Not to mention that their respective governments threw out propaganda lies like it was a national pastime (which it was). I mean how many documents did Goebbels burn, destroy, and falsify to "prove" that Germany was winning the war in 1945 to the German people? For crying out loud in April he annouced to some of his soldiers that deathrays had been invented. I mean honestly, thats fine I'm not going to sit here and say the 109 didn't shoot down 10,000 enemy planes during the war or whatever, but don't come breathing down my neck about our sources, most of yours were found in filing cabinets in burned out buildings.

Oh well, thats my vent, all I can say is enjoy it now guys, the P-38 will be yet another victim cut down by the insessant tears of those who can't realize theres a reason we won the war.

Goodnight.

I'm confused, is this whining or fishing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

L-star will be jealous, for sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
07-23-2005, 12:33 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif@ Hristo

Fritz

darkhorizon11
07-23-2005, 12:45 PM
For one the the new P-38 isn't that good. It climbs and dives, thats about it. I can't roll, can't maneuver and its top speed isn't that much faster. At least from what I've noticed.

And yes theres always whiners on both sides, I think this is probably my first true "whine" thread. In the Ki-84 overmodeling comment I meant that was the only plane where more than a few people came forward and stood up and said this was wrong, and they fixed it, just one airplane. The issue is that it seems like for almost every Allied aircraft, theres a thread debunking it and its abilities, and yes I did forget the Corsair, sorry.

I still enjoy the game of course, it seems like some people on here post more than they play. Its just that Oleg doesn't seem to give into fact as much as if more people whine against the Mustang than for it, then they neuter it.

Fehler, where are there politics? I say your side our side whatever, I never accused anyone of being a Nazi for flying their 109 I don't care. And yes, we as in America, Great Britain, Canada, Austrailia, NZ, France, USSR, and the other Allies won the war. How else should I phrase it? Of course I didn't fight in it, but my country America was one of the victors... I mean what about Iraq, if not we then who won that?

Anyways I dont' want to tread down that road so I'll stop there. Call and label me a whiner, fine. I'm just standing up for the Allied planes so no one else does lately.

Xiolablu3
07-23-2005, 12:46 PM
Hmmm the 262 was NOT a fantasy plane, thousands were built and encountered in the war. It was a front line LW plane!

Yes its not often on servers because it was so good, but the number of ALLied planes was just overwhelming. THATS the primary reason the allies won the war.

As for the P38, I dont know a lot about it, I KNOW that it cant be as manouverable as single engine fighters, otherwise why bother using single engine fighters?

Me110, Battlle Of Britain - Thats all I've really got to say on that.

But please, FLY ALL 'sides'. Its more fun and you get to see things from both points of view.

darkhorizon11
07-23-2005, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hmmm the 262 was NOT a fantasy plane, thousands were built and encountered in the war. It was a front line LW plane!

Yes its not often on servers because it was so good, but the number of ALLied planes was just overwhelming.

As for the P38, I dont know a lot about it.

No it wasn't! They only built 1400! less than 300 or so EVER made it to front line service.

http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/profile.asp?cat_id=10&ple_id=97

Most NEVER made it off the ground.


And for the record I love the 262. Its one of my favorite planes anyone whos been around here and seen some of my posts knows that. Its just that everyone exaggerates numbers about it and blows it way out of proportion.

horseback
07-23-2005, 01:03 PM
Sometimes I think it would be very nice if Oleg or 1c would simply publish the order in which the aircraft in the game are slotted, you know, Ki-43 or C.R. 42 tightest constant speed turn, Bf 109K/G-6 Late best climb, etc.

Simply ranking all the aircraft in-game according to their virtues and vices; climb, dive, level turn, accelleration, top speed, firepower (with sub-rankings for best effective ranges and firing time), stall tendencies, ease of handling (The Lightning should suck in that regard-with subrankings for takeoff and landing charactoristics-I can't help but believe that the 109 is LOTs easier in-game than the real thing), elevator effectiveness, roll rates, damage model (with specific weakpoints listed and why-I'm dying to see how come the R-2800 is so easy to take out), and then doing it for Low, Medium, and High altitudes.

Maybe someone should organize a community effort in this regard for those things that we can reliably measure. Set up a thread for each category, have the best pilots of each type fly a prescribed standard profile for that category, and measure the results.

Maybe then we can clearly point to gross misconceptions and document the injustices for (hopefully) correction.

In any case, we will have documented the best that each flyable aircraft is capable of and how it really compares to the others...

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
07-23-2005, 01:10 PM
If u read accounts of Allied flyers there are hundreds of accounts of encounters with 262's, it can hsardly be called a fantasy plane.

Pirschjaeger
07-23-2005, 01:11 PM
C'mon Dark-H, it was there, it flew, it saw combat, it got knocked down, it knocked down other planes. Far from fantasy IMHO.

There are other planes modelled that did not see combat, did not get knocked down, didn't knock down anything, and some never even flew.

The 262 does not fit into the "fantasy" or "Luft46" categories.

As for the P-38, don't take it so seriously or personal when someone posts opinions contrary to yours. Also, if I am right, not so many complained about the P-38 or even put it down, rather the ones that did complain or put it down did so repeatedly. It just seemed like many complaints.

Since I've been playing the IL-2 series and visiting GD(about 4 years now)there have always been complaints about every plane and about every FM, from patch to patch. Nothing will ever change. I just enjoy flying whatever Oleg gives us, with acception to the "fantasy" planes.

You guyz take this too seriously and in doing so take the fun out of it for yourselves. I've never seen a debate over planes or FMs in GD where in the end everyone agrees. That should tell you guyz something. You can argue, debate, post quotes and stats til the cows come home. But you know what? The cows will never come home.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
07-23-2005, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
The issue is that it seems like for almost every Allied aircraft, theres a thread debunking it and its abilities

Dark-H, you are 100% correct but that doesn't mean you are right. Look at it in another way.

Let's say there were 10 different Allied fighter models in the game and that 90% suffer debunking threads. That's pretty realistic from what I've seen.

Now, let's say there were 2 different Axis fighter models in the game and that 90% debunking threads.

You're a smart guy, you can figure it out.

I'm sure that if there were equal amounts of fighter models on both sides, you'd probably end up with equal amounts of debunking threads.

You can only whine so much about 2 planes but you can whine 5 times more about 10 planes. If you took the time to count the planes on both sides, and count the negative posts on both sides, and figured out a ratio such as plane/whine, you'd probably find the 109 has suffered more than anyother plane, speaking in percentages.

Of course there are more Allied fighter debunking threads because there are many more Allied fighter models.

Just another view point. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
07-23-2005, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Fehler, where are there politics? I say your side our side whatever, I never accused anyone of being a Nazi for flying their 109 I don't care. And yes, we as in America, Great Britain, Canada, Austrailia, NZ, France, USSR, and the other Allies won the war. How else should I phrase it? Of course I didn't fight in it, but my country America was one of the victors... I mean what about Iraq, if not we then who won that?


Right, where are the politics? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Dark-H, you are losing it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif As I posted above you are taking all this too seriously and personally.

And yes, I'd agree with you that this is your first whining post.

Everyone has a bad day. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

faustnik
07-23-2005, 01:56 PM
The "us against them" attitude is common from both sides here not just blue. There are plenty of "us for history" guys here too, they are just not quite as loud.

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

VF-29_Sandman
07-23-2005, 02:06 PM
the corsair has been reverted to the 38 of 3.04 now..be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

AerialTarget
07-23-2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
ease of handling (The Lightning should suck in that regard-with subrankings for takeoff and landing charactoristics-I can't help but believe that the 109 is LOTs easier in-game than the real thing)

Do you mean that the P-38 should handle badly in real life? I hope you mean that you think it does in the game, because in real life, the P-38 was very easy to fly, except for the engine management.

HayateAce
07-23-2005, 02:32 PM
Nothing new here.

The frail egos of onwhine luftenheinie players has left us with this fantasy arcade game we have now.


http://www.americansupersports.com/Product%20Images/b%20dragons%20lair.jpg

Tachyon1000
07-23-2005, 05:02 PM
2 points to the original poster:

1. All those fantasy LW planes you mention are never to be found on any online server I have ever played on, so they to me are essentially not in the game. Sure I can fly them offline. So what? Meanwhile the P-38 Late which I believe never saw service in European theater is in every Warclouds (the server I am usually on) mission I can think of.

2. LW planes easier and easier to fly?? Have you tried 4.01 patch. Try flying a 109 or 190 with no rudder pedals, no rudder trim, with a friggin twisty stick or heaven forbid mapped keys for rudder input, while I can smoothy sail along in any allied aircraft, rudder trim set. Hell, I don't even need the third axis on my joystick when I fly allied. Similarly, I can tell you from personal experience I have way more kills in allied ACs than in LW ACs, eventhougn I flew LW ACs for a year exclusively. Simply put allied planes are much easier to fly and always have been. You're off your rocker, mate.

BSS_CUDA
07-23-2005, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Nothing new here.

The frail egos of onwhine luftenheinie players has left us with this fantasy arcade game we have now.


http://www.americansupersports.com/Product%20Images/b%20dragons%20lair.jpg

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

horseback
07-23-2005, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
ease of handling (The Lightning should suck in that regard-with subrankings for takeoff and landing charactoristics-I can't help but believe that the 109 is LOTs easier in-game than the real thing)

Do you mean that the P-38 should handle badly in real life? I hope you mean that you think it does in the game, because in real life, the P-38 was very easy to fly, except for the engine management. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I mean that the cockpit layout was very poor, and made the P-38's potential hard to exploit. Remember all those posts quoting a number of ETO and Med P-38 pilots who stated that it took twice as long for a new pilot to master the P-38 as the Mustang? That's what I mean.

Manipulation of the P-38's controls should be sufficiently unorthodox or complicated that it should take a while for the average pilot to completely master it. It would be nice if it were allowed to perform up to its actual recorded abilities (when properly massaged) though...

Conversely, the 109 should become the treachorous b-i-double-itch it actually was to get it off and on the ground (like that'll ever happen), while retaining its current forgiving nature in the air, as per current and wartime descriptions. Every takeoff and landing should be much more dicey in the 109, even for the self-styled 'experten.'

cheers

horseback

Badsight.
07-23-2005, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Do you mean that the P-38 should handle badly in real life? I hope you mean that you think it does in the game, because in real life, the P-38 was very easy to fly, except for the engine management. well only the engines keep you going AT

the P-38 was deadly on takeoff or landing , it was not a newbie freindly AC

carguy_
07-23-2005, 07:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Friggin nazis,they all want the same!Make all our glorious red white and blue planes go cr#p!

Grey_Mouser67
07-23-2005, 07:14 PM
I think the Lightning was very easy to land and take off as long as both engines were working the same...the issues the Lighting had on take off and landing revolved around losing power to one engine...typically meant death to the pilot due to torque.

Unfortunately, all the aircraft in this game with the exception of the latest few added were developed under a different FM. With the introduction of the new flightmodel, the aircraft all responded differently and now there are tremendous inaccuracies in the more qualitative (handling) aspects of the game as well as the quantitative ones...Bf109 is now perhaps the easiest to fly, the Fw's and Jugs roll much slower at low speeds, the spits stangs jugs and corsairs shake and shimmy with a slight rudder input while others seem dampened and there were always issues with the lightning.

I like what the FM has to offer in a general sense, but I think I'd rather have the old flight model back if it meant getting most of the aircraft to perform how they did relative to each other. I would have rather had Oleg save his flight model for BoB where all the aircraft could be developed under that umbrella...now I'm left wondering what will BoB be like?

The Lightning still needs tweaking...all three models and not for the worse. The speeds on most aircraft are off so I'm not so worried about that, but rate of climbs, stall speeds and elevator authority still need to be improved.

darkhorizon11
07-23-2005, 08:06 PM
Haha, maybe I am off my rocker, but then again who else would spend all this time debating a videogame about a war that ended over 60 years ago?

For one thing theres only two different main types of German piston engine fighters, but about 20 variants between both types. And thats the German planes, nevermind the Japanese aircraft, then theres the G.50, Cr.42 and it looks like we'll probably get two or three more Italian fighters in the next patch. There were as many sub variants of the 47 51 and 38, its just that the allies were more apprehesive about what to throw into combat. Theres gotta be at least 6 or 7 Spitfires now, I say the plane sets are pretty equal.

As for the 262, hundreds of SEPERATE encounters? Hardly, by the time the 262 entered service encounters with the luftwaffe were few and far between, the only real exceptions being the Battle of the Bulge, the attack of the bridge at Remagen, and on March 18, 1945 were they were launched in decent numbers (still never more than about 50 at a time though). I'll rephrase the comments I made about the 262, the aircraft itself wasn't a fanstasy, it was very real. However, the gas that Goering and the other LW chiefs needed for it definitely was.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-24-2005, 04:14 AM
People talk of the 109 being a killer on take off and landing yet conveniently forget about the 'ensign killer' which is equally 'simplified'.

Both sides' planes have their (sometimes quite serious) faults, both sides have planes they, perhaps, shouldn't have and both sides don't have weapons and planes they, perhaps, should have.

Ta,
Norris

JG5_UnKle
07-24-2005, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
For one the the new P-38 isn't that good. It climbs and dives, thats about it. I can't roll, can't maneuver and its top speed isn't that much faster. At least from what I've noticed.



Are we flying the same sim? The P-38 is lethal everytime I have flown it vs contemporary LW aircraft it's a slaughter.

Maybe I'm just an ace though? LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Otherwise this is just whining, and whining about an aircraft that is kick-*** too LOL

At least Tagert posts data http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

OD_79
07-24-2005, 04:53 AM
I've got to be honest I see no point in going on about any of the planes. I see nothing likely to change about it therefore I take whatever comes at me and shoot it down whether it is 'uber' or not! I personally don't see what is so good about the P-38, never had a problem with it, or the 109 or 190 for that matter. I just respect the people that can 'fly' them properly. It's the pilot that counts in most of these situations, I struggle with flying a 190, it doesn't suit me at all. I can fly the P-38 but I don't really enjoy it. I would be a bit worried though if it started out turning aircraft like the Spitfire though! Might raise some question marks for such a big heavy plane... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Whether whining or not you always get the same arguments with these threads. The fact is the game is not as realistic as its made out to be, and it is more of a game than a sim, but it is very good game. I'd love it to be more reflective of reality but until we get a proper combat flight sim I'm happy enough to knock down Axis aircraft until they stop coming! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

OD.

Skalgrim
07-24-2005, 05:07 AM
oh ha, and you beginn too whining over whiners

i have again and again trouble at begin with new plane but i learning her weakness,

but i like too more servers with limits plane, because when all pane are allow,

i have trouble with right tatic, is easyier with limits plane too find good tatic, like real ww2


at the channel, it was most spits and later p47 against and 190 and perhaps some 109

109 had sure rare meets f4u

To find the weakness of a plane you most fly them,

p38 right fly is very good, but a good fly 109 can too defeat good fly p38




Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Theres always been whining for the LW side about the ability of allied aircraft. Lately it seems to have gotten a lot worse with the new 70" P-38. Does it ever end? I've been playing this series for a little more than 3 years now and on this forum since Nov 2003 and all I've seen in the allied aircraft shredded to pieces by the Axis-byassed. I mean so many planes have gone on the chopping block including the La-7, P-51, Spitfire, and now the new 38. Can't it be accepted that these were good capable aircraft?

They screamed about the Spitfire, "its magical, nothing retains energy like that", not accepting the possibility that IRL a Spit could keep up with a 109 of a contemporary model. Ever wonder why it they gave it a superstreamlined shape? or why it has a supersmooth eliptical wing? It was used in FRONT LINE SERVICE until 1950 by the British.

We allied pilots have mostly kept our mouth shuts (except for when the Ki-84 could climb better than the F-16) and watched as our beloved aircraft get slower and weaker per each patch. Slowly but surely the bf-109s and Fw-190s became super planes and easier to fly, yet we've said nothing. We watched at you got the Me-262, He-162, Go-229, and the 109Z, and again we remained silent.

Well I'm just asking that you give us/let us keep something. Theres been a huge thread running around basically whining that the the P-38 is too much, its not fair, to much power, and the classic had no real effect on the outcome of the war. Some one gets sarcastic and asks...well how many Japanese or German planes did it shoot down? Ugh.

Heres my retort to everything. All we've seen is LW xplane after LW xplane. And by xplane I also mean the Me 262, yes the 262. Sure it saw combat starting June 1944, but how much was it flown? Most accounts of American and the British running into them are random at best, not even close to the frequency of conventional fighters. Nevermind that of the 1800 or so built less than 15% ever even made it into the sky or saw operational use. And thats the most widely used German jet!!! I don't think I need to go further. And to think awhile ago I was snapped at in ORR forum when I said I'd love to see a Gloster Meteor, because (according to the snapper) it only saw combat for the last few months.

Then they rip at the records, that theres no proof that very many with this performance were built, that it probably never made it into service, that its all just a farce. The poster of the P-38 thread actually attempted to claim that no P-38s with 70" were ever built. They always want unbelievable amount of proof for every bit of info on our aircraft... I wonder if the people who want this ever consider the credibility of their side. I mean HELLO you lost the war! Germany and Japan were both torn to shreds! Not to mention that their respective governments threw out propaganda lies like it was a national pastime (which it was). I mean how many documents did Goebbels burn, destroy, and falsify to "prove" that Germany was winning the war in 1945 to the German people? For crying out loud in April he annouced to some of his soldiers that deathrays had been invented. I mean honestly, thats fine I'm not going to sit here and say the 109 didn't shoot down 10,000 enemy planes during the war or whatever, but don't come breathing down my neck about our sources, most of yours were found in filing cabinets in burned out buildings.

Oh well, thats my vent, all I can say is enjoy it now guys, the P-38 will be yet another victim cut down by the insessant tears of those who can't realize theres a reason we won the war.

Goodnight.

joeap
07-24-2005, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
People talk of the 109 being a killer on take off and landing yet conveniently forget about the 'ensign killer' which is equally 'simplified'.

Both sides' planes have their (sometimes quite serious) faults, both sides have planes they, perhaps, shouldn't have and both sides don't have weapons and planes they, perhaps, should have.

Ta,
Norris

My goodness Norris, the only post I bother to read in detail on this thread and I think it makes sense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Cheers.

BaronUnderpants
07-24-2005, 06:40 AM
We all keep talking about historicly correct FM and DM. First of all...i can safely say that NO one here knows how all the planes in IL2 preformed in real life especially againts another ac in combat.

2 similar planes of the same model doesnt preform the same due to a number of reasons, same as if u would compare 2 brand new cars of the same make and model to eachother.

All we can do is compare real numbers and trying to get all thoose numbers includid in the FM...what u make of it when u fly is entirely up to u.

Sure, there are allways things in a server that defies belife.....a 109 grinding to a halt in mid air and then picks up speed as u pass him like nothing was more natural for ex....but hey, its a game and i think its more important to keep the difficoulty of flying to a reasonble level....if a new gamer needs a 6 month traning period before he can even join online gaming it would surely kill of the game in the long run

If we keep comparing real life ( or what we THINK was real )to the game i fear we all gonna keep on being wery wery dissapointed as long as the game is arround, instead we should see it for what it is, the best sim ever to hit the market....seriously, this was a unbelivble dream when i was a kid, pacman was a real treat in thoose days http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I for one think we are closer to the real thing than we think....in one situation a P-38 is a killer and in a nother u might as well bail right of the bat...just like in real life, it all depends on a 100 different varibles that keeps changing from situation to situation.

P.S. as for DM i think we can blame the sometimes wierd DM on the imperfect internet connections we all have, thats where i think the next big revolution will be and then this game will become awsome ( u only have to compare what it takes to bring down any given AC in singelplayer....no wonder one gets dissepointed when u more or les have to ram the bugger online )

BSS_CUDA
07-24-2005, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
For one the the new P-38 isn't that good. It climbs and dives, thats about it. I can't roll, can't maneuver and its top speed isn't that much faster. At least from what I've noticed.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif the 38 will outfly and is faster than ANY 190.it totaly outclasses them in every aspect of flight except roll and guns. they are truly the breakfast of champions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
the 38 will turn inside the K at all speeds, it will smoke a G2 in acceleration and top speed, and it will turn with all other 109 variants if flow correct. as for the roll if you use your rudder she'll roll just fine, its only when you get slow does she suffer stay above 300 and it will roll with almost any plane in the game, the 38 is one of the top allied planes in this game, most ppl just dont know how to fly it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

AnaK774
07-24-2005, 07:26 AM
Yes Cuda, its truly is a sweet ride
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pirschjaeger
07-24-2005, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Friggin nazis,they all want the same!Make all our glorious red white and blue planes go cr#p!

Fritz

Kurfurst__
07-24-2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Theres always been whining for the LW side about the ability of allied aircraft. Lately it seems to have gotten a lot worse with the new 70" P-38. Does it ever end?

Yes we ask the same. Does it never end that allied whineboys like Gibbage make up new fantasy planes for the Allies when they can`t succeed against axis planes in the game? they want more and more and more, even if from beyond the borders of historical reality.




Well I'm just asking that you give us/let us keep something. Theres been a huge thread running around basically whining that the the P-38 is too much, its not fair, to much power, and the classic had no real effect on the outcome of the war. Some one gets sarcastic and asks...well how many Japanese or German planes did it shoot down? Ugh.



The P-38L 'late' with 1725HP? Apperantly NONE, ZERO for the P-38Llate never existed.
There`s no whining that the P-38 is too much. It was merely proven that the newest 'variant' simply never existed in service. Of course a non existant plane had no impact on the war.



Heres my retort to everything. All we've seen is LW xplane after LW xplane. And by xplane I also mean the Me 262, yes the 262. Sure it saw combat starting June 1944, but how much was it flown? Most accounts of American and the British running into them are random at best, not even close to the frequency of conventional fighters. Nevermind that of the 1800 or so built less than 15% ever even made it into the sky or saw operational use. And thats the most widely used German jet!!! I don't think I need to go further. And to think awhile ago I was snapped at in ORR forum when I said I'd love to see a Gloster Meteor, because (according to the snapper) it only saw combat for the last few months.

Well there were more Me 262s in service then either SpitXIVs or Tempests, so you are cutting the tree under your own planes with this arguement. Besides



Then they rip at the records, that theres no proof that very many with this performance were built, that it probably never made it into service, that its all just a farce. The poster of the P-38 thread actually attempted to claim that no P-38s with 70" were ever built. They always want unbelievable amount of proof for every bit of info on our aircraft....

Correct. Evidence was asked for the existance of P-38L/70" in operational service.
Gibbage and his buddies utterly failed to produced JUST ONE.

Facts are facts. It never existed. Allied whineboys made it up because they want the Allied side to be uber in everything, and if it did not exists... they will make it up. Now the same allied fanboys cry that this was exposed.

Gustavflyer
07-24-2005, 10:13 AM
Well there is no reason to dispute the 38, after all it is still a 38 and that equals ONE BIG TARGET.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-24-2005, 10:45 AM
It is, indeed, a big target. Maybe we could have it 'ghosted out' a little (transparency set to 60%) so we can all remember that it didn't actually exist in reality. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

Pirschjaeger
07-24-2005, 10:52 AM
I don't see the fuss about the P-38 late. It goes in the same category as the G0229, 109z, Yp-80, and Me-rocket. It's there, it was free, and no one has to fly it.

The YP-80 is questionable simply because it did fly in WW2 although never saw combat. I'd still rather have the Stork though.

If the P-38Late didn't see combat then so be it. In the game it's nothing to write home about. I use it for a target when I fly the 109 G2 or the 190A4. It's easy to catch as long as it doesn't fly straight, it doesn't turn well, and it takes many hits before going down. What better plane for target practice.

Then these silly arguments go towards "the Allied won the war" as some sort of example of why the Allied planes should be so much better than the LW planes. It was numbers, not models that won the war.

Last and desparate attempt goes to name-calling(see my quote for details).

If you really wanna settle the arguments it should be logical.

Show evidence the P-38late flew combat.

Show evidence, real evidence, not opinions and circumstancial evidence, that a plane is porked or unber.

All the whining I have seen, with exception to 1 or 2, have been based on nothing valid.

Once again, this is a game, no more, trying to similate(impossible) a reality 60+ years gone.

And yes, I am whining, no, rather b1tching about the cry-babies whining about their vitual toys. And I don't know if you guyz have noticed but there are not so many whiners out there. It's just that they whine often.

Take a look at a whining thread, they are not hard to find. It's common to see 20 posts while the count shows 600+ have read it. Really, the whining crowd is a minority.

If you don't like a virtual LW plane or a virtual Allied plane, go virtually shoot it down. Maybe you'll sleep easier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

MEGILE
07-24-2005, 10:56 AM
+1

Pirschjaeger
07-24-2005, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
+1
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.giffighting fire with fire. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

MEGILE
07-24-2005, 11:00 AM
oh I don't care about the argument.. I just like to feed my ego by increasing the size of my post count.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-24-2005, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I don't see the fuss about the P-38 late. It goes in the same category as the G0229, 109z, Yp-80, and Me-rocket. It's there, it was free, and no one has to fly it.

This is entirely true. Except for one small detail.

You will not find those planes listed on servers because excuses are made to exclude them. I've no objection to not seeing the Go229, 109Z, YP80 etc because they are, indeed, fantasy planes from an operational viewpoint. However, the 262 is often excluded and we've not settled upon it being out because there weren't many about rather than the laughable but previously usual "..but the smoke trails cause lag.." whines.

So, now we have an aircraft which, from the recent threads, cannot be proved to have been used extensively but it shows up in servers as opposed to the 262, which was not used extensively, either...still banned.

It comes down to whatever makes these people feel better about when to apply history or not, I suppose.

Ta,
Norris

horseback
07-24-2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
People talk of the 109 being a killer on take off and landing yet conveniently forget about the 'ensign killer' which is equally 'simplified'.

Both sides' planes have their (sometimes quite serious) faults, both sides have planes they, perhaps, shouldn't have and both sides don't have weapons and planes they, perhaps, should have.

Ta,
Norris

My goodness Norris, the only post I bother to read in detail on this thread and I think it makes sense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Cheers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No it doesn't. It's the typical invalid apples to oranges non sequiter we've all come to know and love. As Oleg might say, "What book tells you that a landing on an airfield is comparable to a landing on a carrier? Throw that book away and never read it again!"

There is a huge difference between landing a narrow tracked overpowered hotrod on a stable 1200m long grass or cement field and landing a heavy long nosed beast at the bleeding edge of a stall on a 250m long aircraft carrier moving away at 20-25 kts (40-50kph), not to mention bobbing up and down in the ocean...

The fact is that the Corsair was a very forgiving aircraft compared to anything in the LW inventory, including most of the basic trainers. Landing on a carrier requires a much tighter set of demands on the pilot and aircraft, and just by being different from what had preceded it, the Corsair created a mythos of being a killer, because carrier landings were somewhat harder in it than in its contemporaries, the Hellcat and Wildcat.

It did, however, take a disproportionate toll of ensigns during their first few carrier landing attempts in it (as does every carrier fighter). An ensign is usually an officer in his first year of service, and it took a year or so to make it to active squadron service, by which time an officer would be promoted to Lieutenent(junior grade). Hence, 'ensign eliminator', not simply 'pilot killer.'

The 109, on the other hand, killed nachwuchs and experten alike with its landing and groundhandling. It was hideously hard to handle in a crosswind landing by all accounts. I've read a number of sources that suggest that a full one third of the 109's production was lost in landing and takeoffs.

That's a lot, even for a high performance fighter of that era, and quite a bit more than the Corsair's carrier landing statistics.

Are we clear now? Landing on a stable, wide and long field versus a postage stamp less than one third the size (never mind that you had to land within less than half of that space) moving in three dimensions. Apples and oranges!

cheers

horseback

Kurfurst__
07-24-2005, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
The fact is that the Corsair was a very forgiving aircraft compared to anything in the LW inventory, including most of the basic trainers.

That is not a fact, but an opion. A very questionable opinion in fact.



The 109, on the other hand, killed nachwuchs and experten alike with its landing and groundhandling. It was hideously hard to handle in a crosswind landing by all accounts. I've read a number of sources that suggest that a full one third of the 109's production was lost in landing and takeoffs.

I have read similiar sources about 1/3 being lost on landings... problem is, there never anything behind those source... problem is, the Luftwaffes own records dont support that claim, the 109`s lost due to combat/non-combat ratio is not any different from other Luftwaffe or non Luftwaffe type. Problem is, it`s generalised statement and I`d like to know which 'Experten' were killed by the 109 in landings.. In FACT, other souces show 5% being lost in landing accidents, a value not at all different from other fighters of the time. Problem is, crosswind landing are problem faced TODAY, but not in WW2, given that ww2 airfields were largely circular, large fields where you could land in any direction - in Russia, no airfield practically, just landing on the steppe. Problem is, even WW2 allied evaluations of the Bf 109 do not note any 'deadly, killer' behavior of the aircraft, they go like this : there`s strong swing tendency, which can be easily held by the rudder; taxying and takeoff straighforward. Accidents happen all the time with any aircraft, the USAAF itself also lost 20-40% of it`s losses due to accidents. Granted it was more of a challange; sure it wasn`t any proportionally deadlier than landing other high powered craft.


That's a lot, even for a high performance fighter of that era, and quite a bit more than the Corsair's carrier landing statistics.

That`s basically a claim that X is higher than Y, but without telling what X and Y is. In brief, that`s an assumption on very weak legs, more like a fiction.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-24-2005, 12:53 PM
I do find bold statements such as 'the Corsair was 'a forgiving aircraft compared to anything in the LW inventory' when it is known that allied pilots who tried the 190 found it 'a pleasure....very easy to fly...with great visibility'; it's not the 190 that has reputation for killing unwary pilots...carriers or otherwise. But, are we really comparing the Corsair to the 109 or are we, veiledly, saying that all LW planes were treacherous, including the trainers (like the Harvard wasn't, I suppose, too?)

Anyway, back to the point. The bottom line is, without any training, should I be able to land an aircraft that is known to be tricky to those who don't know it on a moving carrier deck on my first go? The answer, logically, should be no but that's not what happened with the Corsair for me even with the new FM. So, it's fair to conclude that, as neither the 109 or the Corsair are hard to land in this game, they must both be wrong.

Now, in keeping with your post, I must switch to condescending mode...Perhaps, Oleg would rather be saying, "It's good that you get your portion of fruit for the day but do try to keep some sense of perspective."

Norris

Cajun76
07-24-2005, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Well there were more Me 262s in service then either SpitXIVs or Tempests, so you are cutting the tree under your own planes with this arguement. Besides



Another one of Kurfurst's planted data, quite nicely done. He knows these a/c might be included and he's already trying to set the stage for his trolling/whining to be listened to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Poor poor Kurfurst.

Best estimates show about 300 262's saw service.

About 950 Spitty XIV's were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (625) would probably shortchanging it.

About 1400 Tempests were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (924) would probably shortchanging it.

This is one of Kurfurst's favorite tactics, cover an apple with an orange peel and then compare "oranges". He's a lawyer by trade I hear, I suppose it comes natural. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

x__CRASH__x
07-24-2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Gustavflyer:
Well there is no reason to dispute the 38, after all it is still a 38 and that equals ONE BIG TARGET.
Almost two targets! It has two engines! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

horseback
07-24-2005, 01:16 PM
My point holds...

Landing on an aircraft carrier in real life is an extremely dangerous enterprise, and cannot legitimately be compared to landing on grass fields in any aircraft. Most of the Corsair's 'killer' rep is due to its long nose and, in the very earliest versions, the lack of a stall warning which was absolutely critical for a pilot who had his eyes glued to his Landing Signals Officer and could not spare a glance at his airspeed indicator.

Landing on regular strips is much easier, and no one has accused the Corsair of being anything like as hazardous to operate from a land base as the 109, regardless of its actual losses in ground handling and landing. Of course, one might suggest that US Naval Aviators enjoyed a higher level of training throughout the war than the LW, but that might be inflammatory.

The more valid comparison would be to the P-40, which actually did have a reputation for being hard to handle on the ground, especially (as with the 109) from paved runways.

cheers

horseback

JG52_wunsch
07-24-2005, 01:17 PM
LOL!

DaBallz
07-24-2005, 01:26 PM
I figured o'l Knockwurst__ could not stay out of this thread.


Lots of fun!

Da...

AerialTarget
07-24-2005, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
The bottom line is, without any training, should I be able to land an aircraft that is known to be tricky to those who don't know it on a moving carrier deck on my first go? The answer, logically, should be no but that's not what happened with the Corsair for me even with the new FM. So, it's fair to conclude that, as neither the 109 or the Corsair are hard to land in this game, they must both be wrong.

You know, I don't think I quite believe you. It took me somewhere around sixty tries to land that thing on a stationary carrier post patch. The Thirty Eight only took me twelve tries (if I remember correctly), and it doesn't have a tailhook! To date, I have only managed to land the Corsair on a stationary carrier three or four times out of over a hundred. Now, perhaps it is my lack of carrier landing skill that is at fault. But don't go saying that the Corsair isn't hard to land! I've played this game since the original IL-2, and have never had problems landing until the last patch. The Corsair is not easy to land.

http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/Bouncing%20...%20the%20Hellcat.trk (http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/Bouncing%20Over%20the%20Hellcat.trk)

http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/Horrible%20Carrier%20Landing.ntrk

Aaron_GT
07-24-2005, 03:24 PM
There is a huge difference between landing a narrow tracked overpowered hotrod on a stable 1200m long grass or cement field and landing a heavy long nosed beast at the bleeding edge of a stall on a 250m long aircraft carrier moving away at 20-25 kts (40-50kph), not to mention bobbing up and down in the ocean...

Not all strips that ground-based aircraft operated on were that great, though. E.g. Corsairs taking off from metal planking on hastily cleared land, or 109s landing on potholed fields, or on snow.

The 109 seemed (by most accounts) had a relatively high rate of failure on landing, as did the Corsair, but for different reasons. For the 109 it was a narrow landing track and relative gear weakness that perhaps didn't keep up with the weight of the plane, and with the Corsair it was operational considerations, the torque, and the change in design pushing the cockpit further back leading to poor visibility.

About 1/3 of Corsair losses in WW2 were due to non-combat causes. I am not sure what the figure was for the 109, but I expect it was similar. It was a pretty common figure for WW2 fighters in general.

Aaron_GT
07-24-2005, 03:27 PM
About 1400 Tempests were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (924) would probably shortchanging it.

Two versions (II and VI) were post VE-day. The WW2 version was the V, of which 900 were built, so assuming that 2/3 of these saw service before VE day, that would mean a maximum of 600.

horseback
07-24-2005, 05:55 PM
Good Lord, must we go on and on with this LIE?

In REAL LIFE, landing on a carrier at sea is orders of magnitude more demanding of the pilot and aircraft than landing on a strip of land that is even marginally prepared for use as a landing ground. Any weather complications at all further magnify the differences.

Ships at sea are tiny, tiny things from the air at almost any distance. I've been a passenger on helicopters taking off and landing on destroyers, and that's a complicated job in itself-the pilots stated flatly that landing a fixed wing aircraft on a carrier was much harder. A couple of them had flown fixed wing trainers on & off of carriers during training, so I tend to believe them.

Much emphasis is made about the Corsair's carrier landing problems because it was critical to the aircraft's mission.

However, it is very similar to the talk of the P-40 being deficient in maneuverability. The P-40 couldn't turn or climb with the A6M Zero, the Ki-43 Oscar, or the Ki-27 Nate, its primary opponents in the Pacific. Neither could any Mark of the Spitfire. Oddly enough, no one makes a big deal of the Spitfire's deficiency in this regard, particularly when the P-40 was a very close match in a turning fight, and preferred by some for medium and low level air combat.

So it was with the Corsair. It was a carrier fighter that was second best for the Carrier role compared to the Hellcat, and so was initially relegated to the land based job with the Marines or foisted off on the Fleet Air Arm, which made a big deal out of being able to operate it at sea when the USN "couldn't."

Bull. The USN was just being stingy with its Hellcats. VF-17 had successfully completed carrier quals in the early birdcage F4U-1, but was pulled from its carrier deployment because, according to its CO, Tommy Blackburn, Grumman already had a ready supply of spare parts in the supply chain, and Chance Vought did not.

One of the reasons the Corsair was considered so radical was because it was capable of performance at least as good as land-based fighters of the time and still land on a carrier (and let's remember that a big carrier then was about 2/3 to 3/4 the size of the modern US carriers today). The requirements for landing on a carrier are very tight: excellent low-speed handling right up to the stall, a lower than usual stall speed, and a gentle and predictable stall (dropping one wing 10 or 15 feet above the deck or just short of the fantail can kill you quite permanently).

Naval fighters by their nature MUST be forgiving; it's hard enough to replace combat losses without adding three or four for every squadron op due to landing losses at the end of a five thousand mile supply chain.

I would expect that a carrier equipped 109 unit operating at sea (something the 109T never did)would have an even tougher time than the Seafire units did, and their operational losses were appalling.

As for the P-38L (Late), I would re-iterate what Tagert has definitively proven using DeviceLink and the results of several other test pilots' tracks: The P-38L (Late) does not perform up to the recorded and verifiable climb and accelleration of the standard P-38J with 1600 HP engines.

The bottom line is that, if anything, all of the P-38s we have in FB/AEP/PF are undermodelled.

cheers

horseback

darkhorizon11
07-24-2005, 05:58 PM
Either way, ALL variants of the 262 mounted to no more than 1400 or so with less than 300 (or exactly 300 if you want to argue it) see combat.

Cutting my argument? Not even close, like I said ALL variants of the 262. The Spit XIV is one variant of a series of what? over 20 I think?

Same goes for the Tempest.

x__CRASH__x
07-24-2005, 06:01 PM
So your point is what, exactly?

Allies won the war due to attrition. Not superior aircraft. Be sure

TAGERT.
07-24-2005, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
So your point is what, exactly?

Allies won the war due to attrition. Not superior aircraft. Be sure Out of all the A-BOMBS build durring WWII who had the best one?

x__CRASH__x
07-24-2005, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
So your point is what, exactly?

Allies won the war due to attrition. Not superior aircraft. Be sure Out of all the A-BOMBS build durring WWII who had the best one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you can't win through conventional means and you have to pull a nuke? Thats the equivilent of bringing your high school brother to a kindergarten school fight.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

TAGERT.
07-24-2005, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
So you can't win through conventional means and you have to pull a nuke? Thats the equivilent of bringing your high school brother to a kindergarten school fight.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ROTFL! The A-BOMB bait worked! I caught one! Must be that glow-in-the-dark aspect the fish love so much? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

x__CRASH__x
07-24-2005, 08:45 PM
Wait a minute! You caught my bait! Essentially we tangled lines while trying to fish!

Well that sucks! Go find your own part of the pond you leecher!!

TAGERT.
07-24-2005, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Wait a minute! You caught my bait! Essentially we tangled lines while trying to fish!

Well that sucks! Go find your own part of the pond you leecher!! ROTFL! Time to cut the line and let that hook go! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

x__CRASH__x
07-24-2005, 08:48 PM
I wanted to get people spooled up! You ruined it.

Go fly or soemthing. Are you scared? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
07-24-2005, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
I wanted to get people spooled up! You ruined it.

Go fly or soemthing. Are you scared? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Dont b a scaaaaaard.. more will come! Look at all that shinnie shinnie still floating in the water.. AFTER THAT ABOMB sparked off! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pirschjaeger
07-24-2005, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
oh I don't care about the argument.. I just like to feed my ego by increasing the size of my post count.

almost 3500 posts, how starved is your ego. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

BigKahuna_GS
07-24-2005, 10:37 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
NorrisMcWhirter Posted Sun July 24 2005 03:14
People talk of the 109 being a killer on take off and landing yet conveniently forget about the 'ensign killer' which is equally 'simplified'.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________



I hope you can see the differenace between landing on a pitching and rolling Aircraft Carrier at sea VS. landing on a groundbased airstrip. Also take note that the Corsair as a landbased fighter had an excellent operational record with minimal take off and landing accidents as compared to the 109 that was known for take off and landing accidents and a weak undercarriage.

Also remember that the Corsair replaced the Hellcat as the Navy's front line fighter for the carrier fleet. Whatever problems the early Corsair had on the flightdeck were corrected.

For most pilots the stall warning was more than adequate, Boyington thought the Corsair to be a very honest aircraft. In fact Boyington on his first mission with 214 shot 5 Zekes down from various positions. One of the last kills he got on this mission was at low altitude trying to help a smoking Corsair, Boyington pulled the Corsair so hard trying to pull lead on the Zeke he stalled and spun the Corsair at low altitude. Not only did Boyington flame the Zeke while stalling out (not an easy thing to do), he also then corrected a spinning aircraft before crashing into the sea. Boyington was flying F4U-1 Birdcage model the same plane that gave some rookie pilots problems.

Later Corsair models had spoiler a spoiler strip added to equalize the wing stall.

Navy/Marine Corps carrier aircraft were known for gentle stall qualities.


Now back to topic, reguardless of what anyone says the P38L had Allison V1710F-30 engines with 1725BHP each. Over 3000 P38L's were produced with this engine. This aircraft served worlwide in every major theater of the war.

All P38's need to have their climb rates increased/corrected.

Thank you Tagert for the nice devicelink work !


__

darkhorizon11
07-24-2005, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
So your point is what, exactly?

Allies won the war due to attrition. Not superior aircraft. Be sure

Sorry Crash, not totally. In the end attrition sealed the deal for the Axis because they ran out of fuel. But there were many points in the earlier stages of the war where the Germans and Japanese could have seized the moment and defeated the allies. In the months leading up to Stalingrad the Germans could have gotten their objectives straight, occupying the Chechnyan oilfields which were crucial. Meanwhile in the Pacific, the Japanese were tricked into attacking Midway, had they called the Americans on this move (the way they figured out the Japanese would attack Midway was ingenious) and succesfully defended their carriers America would most certainly have ceded the island. Theres a good discussion I had in another thread about Germany's failure to identify its main objectives on the Eastern front.

Russia? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8621094933/p/4)

Those two battles had nothing to do with attrition. It was a mix of luck and better tactics on the part of the Allies. By losing those battles the war turned into one of attrition too which niether Germany, Japan, or Italy had any hope of winning in the long run.

Hristo_
07-24-2005, 11:38 PM
FYI, Me 262 uses low grade fuel, which was plenty left in stock even in 1945.

Just another aspect of Messerschmitt genius.

x__CRASH__x
07-24-2005, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Sorry Crash, not totally. In the end attrition sealed the deal for the Axis because they ran out of fuel. But there were many points in the earlier stages of the war where the Germans and Japanese could have seized the moment and defeated the allies...
That was leadership. German technology walked all over the allies. German pilots were superior in every way, but the Allies were able to throw enough pilot fodder at them to hack down thier numbers.

It was attrition.

Cajun76
07-24-2005, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
FYI, Me 262 uses low grade fuel, which was plenty left in stock even in 1945.

Just another aspect of Messerschmitt genius.

I had no idea Willy specified, designed and built the 262 engines. And added to fact that turbines are so hard to run on different types of fuel it's simply amazing.


Wait, before I forget....


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

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Cajun76
07-25-2005, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Sorry Crash, not totally. In the end attrition sealed the deal for the Axis because they ran out of fuel. But there were many points in the earlier stages of the war where the Germans and Japanese could have seized the moment and defeated the allies...
That was leadership. German technology walked all over the allies. German pilots were superior in every way, but the Allies were able to throw enough pilot fodder at them to hack down thier numbers.

It was attrition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Absolutely. If I may use an analogy, it was like great unwashed hordes of pitchfork armed dark headed peasants swarming around a gallant golden haired knight, finally pulling him down after heroically defending himself from the mindless, ignorant mob. Didn't they know he was there to usher in a new order and lift them out of the mud for a thousand year reign of enlightenment?


*spit*

I know your fishing, but people actually believe that ****. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

BigKahuna_GS
07-25-2005, 01:10 AM
S!



crash--That was leadership. German technology walked all over the allies. German pilots were superior in every way, but the Allies were able to throw enough pilot fodder at them to hack down thier numbers.
It was attrition



Tell that garbage to Bud Anderson--he would just shake his head and laugh at you.

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/verticalfight.jpg

"Vertical Duel at Angles 33"

May 27, 1944, Capt. C. E. "Bud" Anderson's flight was attacked by Me 109s while protecting B-17s en route to Ludwigshaven, Germany. After breaking up their attack, Anderson ends up in a dramatic one on one dogfight at high altitude. The Me 109 makes a hard left climbing turn. Anderson cannot follow and counters by overshooting, climbing steeply trading airspeed for altitude. The Messerschmitt reverses his turn and tries to follow, but can't bring his 20mm cannon to bear on the steeply climbing P-51. The Me 109 shudders, stalls and falls away. Anderson reverses and follows. The German dives away, but seeing the Mustang now on his tail he again makes a hard left climbing turn. This time Anderson attempts to stay inside the turn of his opponent. The German reverses his turn and pulls up steeply in a bid to out climb the Mustang. Anderson follows, closes and fires the four .50 caliber machine guns getting good hits at 300 yards. The Messerschmitt bursts into smoke and flames. As it hangs on its propeller, Old Crow pulls along side for a closer look. The stricken Me 109 slowly turns and falls at high speed straight down from 33,000 feet, making a tremendous explosion as it impacts the ground. This marked Capt. Anderson's 7th victory.


http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson4.jpg

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/anderson/anderson.htm


Subject: Outnumbered P51 during Bomber Escort Duty


The Germans liked to roar through the bombers head-on, firing long bursts, and then roll and go down. They would circle around to get ahead of the bomber stream, groping for altitude, avoiding the escorts if possible, then reassemble and come through head-on again. When their fuel or ammunition was exhausted, they would land and refuel and take off again, flying mission after mission, for as long as there were bombers to shoot at. They seldom came after us. Normally, they would skirmish the escorts only out of necessity. We were an inconvenience, best avoided. It was the bombers they wanted, and the German pilots threw themselves at them smartly and bravely. It was our job to stop them.

It seemed we were always outnumbered. We had more fighters than they did, but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area. They would concentrate in huge numbers, by the hundreds at times. They would assemble way up ahead, pick a section of the bomber formation, and then come in head-on, their guns blazing, sometimes biting the bombers below us before we knew what was happening.

In the distance, a red and black smear marked the spot where a B-17 and its 10 men had been. Planes still bearing their bomb loads erupted and fell, trailing flame, streaking the sky, leaving gaps in the bomber formation that were quickly closed up.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg
"Bud" Anderson on wing of his "Old Crow" - the signed photo from collection of Martin Welsh (thanks!).

Through our headsets we could hear the war, working its way back toward us, coming straight at us at hundreds of miles per hour. The adrenaline began gushing, and I scanned the sky frantically, trying to pick out the fly-speck against the horizon that might have been somebody coming to kill us, trying to see him before be saw me, looking, squinting, breathless . . .

Over the radio: "Here they come!"

They'd worked over the bombers up ahead and now it was our turn.

Things happen quickly. We get rid of our drop tanks, slam the power up, and make a sweeping left turn to engage. My flight of four Mustangs is on the outside of the turn, a wingman close behind to my left, my element leader and his wingman behind to my right, all in finger formation. Open your right hand, tuck the thumb under, put the fingers together, and check the fingernails. That's how we flew, and fought. Two shooters, and two men to cover their tails. The Luftwaffe flew that way, too. German ace Werner Molders is generally credited with inventing the tactic during the Spanish Civil War.

Being on the outside of the turn, we are vulnerable to attack from the rear. I look over my right shoulder and, sure enough, I see four dots above us, way back, no threat at the moment, but coming hard down the chute. I start to call out, but . . .

"Four bogeys, five o'clock high!" My element leader, Eddie Simpson, has already seen them. Bogeys are unknowns and bandits are hostile. Quickly, the dots close and take shape. They're hostile, all right. They're Messerschmitts.

We turn hard to the right, pulling up into a tight string formation, spoiling their angle, and we try to come around and go at them head on. The Me 109s change course, charge past, and continue on down, and we wheel and give chase. There are four of them, single-seat fighters, and they pull up, turn hard, and we begin turning with them. We are circling now, tighter and tighter, chasing each other's tails, and I'm sitting there wondering what the hell's happening. These guys want to hang around. Curious. I'm wondering why they aren't after the bombers, why they're messing with us, whether they're simply creating some kind of a diversion or what. I would fly 116 combat missions, engage the enemy perhaps 40 times, shoot down 16 fighters, share in the destruction of a bomber, destroy another fighter on the ground, have a couple of aerial probables, and over that span it would be us bouncing them far more often than not. This was a switch.

We're flying tighter circles, gaining a little each turn, our throttles wide open, 30,000 feet up. The Mustang is a wonderful airplane, 37 feet wingtip to wingtip, just a little faster than the smaller German fighters, and also just a little more nimble. Suddenly the 109s, sensing things are not going well, roll out and run, turning east, flying level. Then one lifts up his nose and climbs away from the rest.

We roll out and go after them. They're flying full power, the black smoke pouring out their exhaust stacks. I'm looking at the one who is climbing, wondering what he is up to, and I'm thinking that if we stay with the other three, this guy will wind up above us. I send Simpson up after him. He and his wingman break off. My wingman, John Skara, and I chase the other three fighters, throttles all the way forward, and I can see that we're gaining.

I close to within 250 yards of the nearest Messerschmitt--dead astern, 6 o'clock, no maneuvering, no nothing--and squeeze the trigger on the control stick between my knees gently. Bambambambambam! The sound is loud in the cockpit in spite of the wind shriek and engine roar. And the vibration of the Mustang's four. 50-caliber machine guns, two in each wing, weighing 60-odd pounds apiece, is pronounced. In fact, you had to be careful in dogfights when you were turning hard, flying on the brink of a stall, because the buck of the guns was enough to peel off a few critical miles per hour and make the Mustang simply stop flying. That could prove downright embarrassing.

But I'm going like hell now, and I can see the bullets tearing at the Messerschmitt's wing root and fuselage. The armor-piercing ammunition we used was also incendiary, and hits were easily visible, making a bright flash and puff. Now the 109's trailing smoke thickens, and it's something more than exhaust smoke. He slows, and then suddenly rolls over. But the plane doesn't fall. It continues on, upside down, straight and level! What the hell . . . ?

The pilot can't be dead. It takes considerable effort to fly one of these fighter planes upside down. You have to push hard on the controls. Flying upside down isn't easy. It isn't something that happens all by itself, or that you do accidentally. So what in the world is be doing?

Well. It's an academic question, because I haven't the time to wait and find out. I pour another burst into him, pieces start flying off, I see flame, and the 109 plummets and falls into a spin, belching smoke. My sixth kill.

The other two Messerschmitt pilots have pulled away now, and they're nervous. Their airplanes are twitching, the fliers obviously straining to look over their shoulders and see what is happening. As we take up the chase again, two against two now, the trailing 109 peels away and dives for home, and the leader pulls up into a sharp climbing turn to the left. This one can fly, and he obviously has no thought of running. I'm thinking this one could be trouble.

We turn inside him, my wingman and I, still at long range, and he pulls around harder, passing in front of us right-to-left at an impossible angle. I want to swing in behind him, but I'm going too fast, and figure I would only go skidding on past. A Mustang at speed simply can't make a square corner. And in a dogfight you don't want to surrender your airspeed. I decide to overshoot him and climb.

He reverses his turn, trying to fall in behind us. My wingman is vulnerable now. I tell Skara, "Break off!" and be peels away. The German goes after him, and I go after the German, closing on his tail before he can close on my wingman. He sees me coming and dives away with me after him, then makes a climbing left turn. I go screaming by, pull up, and he's reversing his turn--man, be can fly!--and be comes crawling right up behind me, close enough that I can see him distinctly. He's bringing his nose up for a shot, and I haul back on the stick and climb even harder. I keep going up, because I'm out of alternatives.

This is what I see all these years later. If I were the sort to be troubled with nightmares, this is what would shock me awake. I am in this steep climb, pulling the stick into my navel, making it steeper, steeper . . . and I am looking back down, over my shoulder, at this classic gray Me 109 with black crosses that is pulling up, too, steeper, steeper, the pilot trying to get his nose up just a little bit more and bring me into his sights.

There is nothing distinctive about the aircraft, no fancy markings, nothing to identify it as the plane of an ace, as one of the "dreaded yellow-noses" like you see in the movies. Some of them did that, I know, but I never saw one. And in any event, all of their aces weren't flamboyant types who splashed paint on their airplanes to show who they were. I suppose I could go look it up in the archives. There's the chance I could find him in some gruppe's log book, having flown on this particular day, in this particular place, a few miles northwest of the French town of Strasbourg that sits on the Rhine. There are fellows who've done that, gone back and looked up their opponents. I never have. I never saw any point.

He was someone who was trying to kill me, is all.

So I'm looking back, almost straight down now, and I can see this 20-millimeter cannon sticking through the middle of the fighter's propeller hub. In the theater of my memory, it is enormous. An elephant gun. And that isn't far wrong. It is a gun designed to bring down a bomber, one that fires shells as long as your hand, shells that explode and tear big holes in metal. It is the single most frightening thing I have seen in my life, then and now.

But I'm too busy to be frightened. Later on, you might sit back and perspire about it, maybe 40-50 years later, say, sitting on your porch 7,000 miles away, but while it is happening you are just too **** busy. And I am extremely busy up here, hanging by my propeller, going almost straight up, full emergency power, which a Mustang could do for only so long before losing speed, shuddering, stalling, and falling back down; and I am thinking that if the Mustang stalls before the Messerschmitt stalls, I have had it.

I look back, and I can see that he's shuddering, on the verge of a stall. He hasn't been able to get his nose up enough, hasn't been able to bring that big gun to bear. Almost, but not quite. I'm a fallen-down-dead man almost, but not quite. His nose begins dropping just as my airplane, too, begins shuddering. He stalls a second or two before I stall, drops away before I do.

Good old Mustang.

He is falling away now, and I flop the nose over and go after him hard. We are very high by this time, six miles and then some, and falling very, very fast. The Messerschmitt had a head start, plummeting out of my range, but I'm closing up quickly. Then he flattens out and comes around hard to the left and starts climbing again, as if he wants to come at me head on. Suddenly we're right back where we started.

A lot of this is just instinct now. Things are happening too fast to think everything out. You steer with your right hand and feet. The right hand also triggers the guns. With your left, you work the throttle, and keep the airplane in trim, which is easier to do than describe.

Any airplane with a single propeller produces torque. The more horsepower you have, the more the prop will pull you off to one side. The Mustangs I flew used a 12-cylinder Packard Merlin engine that displaced 1,649 cubic inches. That is 10 times the size of the engine that powers an Indy car. It developed power enough that you never applied full power sitting still on the ground because it would pull the plane's tail up off the runway and the propeller would chew up the concrete. With so much power, you were continually making minor adjustments on the controls to keep the Mustang and its wing-mounted guns pointed straight.

There were three little palm-sized wheels you had to keep fiddling with. They trimmed you up for hands-off level flight. One was for the little trim tab on the tail's rudder, the vertical slab which moves the plane left or right. Another adjusted the tab on the tail's horizontal elevators that raise or lower the nose and help reduce the force you had to apply for hard turning. The third was for aileron trim, to keep your wings level, although you didn't have to fuss much with that one. Your left hand was down there a lot if you were changing speeds, as in combat . . . while at the same time you were making minor adjustments with your feet on the rudder pedals and your hand on the stick. At first it was awkward. But, with experience, it was something you did without thinking, like driving a car and twirling the radio dial.

It's a little unnerving to think about how many things you have to deal with all at once to fly combat.

So the Messerschmitt is coming around again, climbing hard to his left, and I've had about enough of this. My angle is a little bit better this time. So I roll the dice. Instead of cobbing it like before and sailing on by him, I decide to turn hard left inside him, knowing that if I lose speed and don't make it I probably won't get home. I pull back on the throttle slightly, put down 10 degrees of flaps, and haul back on the stick just as hard as I can. And the nose begins coming up and around, slowly, slowly. . .

Hot ****! I'm going to make it! I'm inside him, pulling my sights up to him. And the German pilot can see this. This time, it's the Messerschmitt that breaks away and goes zooming straight up, engine at maximum power, without much alternative. I come in with full power and follow him up, and the gap narrows swiftly. He is hanging by his prop, not quite vertically, and I am right there behind him, and it is terribly clear, having tested the theory less than a minute ago, that he is going to stall and fall away before I do.

I have him. He must know that I have him.

I bring my nose up, he comes into my sights, and from less than 300 yards I trigger a long, merciless burst from my Brownings. Every fifth bullet or so is a tracer, leaving a thin trail of smoke, marking the path of the bullet stream. The tracers race upward and find him. The bullets chew at the wing root, the cockpit, the engine, making bright little flashes. I hose the Messerschmitt down the way you'd hose down a campfire, methodically, from one end to the other, not wanting to make a mistake here. The 109 shakes like a retriever coming out of the water, throwing off pieces. He slows, almost stops, as if parked in the sky, his propeller just windmilling, and he begins smoking heavily.

My momentum carries me to him. I throttle back to ease my plane alongside, just off his right wing. Have I killed him? I do not particularly want to fight this man again. I am coming up even with the cockpit, and although I figure the less I know about him the better, I find myself looking in spite of myself. There is smoke in the cockpit. I can see that, nothing more. Another few feet. . . .

And then he falls away suddenly, left wing down, right wing rising up, obscuring my view. I am looking at the 109's sky blue belly, the wheel wells, twin radiators, grease marks, streaks from the guns, the black crosses. I am close enough to make out the rivets. The Messerschmitt is right there and then it is gone, just like that, rolling away and dropping its nose and falling (flying?) almost straight down, leaking coolant and trailing flame and smoke so black and thick that it has to be oil smoke. It simply plunges, heading straight for the deck. No spin, not even a wobble, no parachute, and now I am wondering. His ship seems a death ship--but is it?

Undecided, I peel off and begin chasing him down. Did I squander a chance here? Have I let him escape? He is diving hard enough to be shedding his wings, harder than anyone designed those airplanes to dive, 500 miles an hour and more, and if 109s will stall sooner than Mustangs going straight up, now I am worrying that maybe their wings stay on longer. At 25,000 feet I begin to grow nervous. I pull back on the throttle, ease out of the dive, and watch him go down. I have no more stomach for this kind of thing, not right now, not with this guy. Enough. Let him go and to hell with him.

Straight down be plunges, from as high as 35,000 feet, through this beautiful, crystal clear May morning toward the green-on-green checkerboard fields, leaving a wake of black smoke. From four miles straight up I watch as the Messerschmitt and the shadow it makes on the ground rush toward one another . . .

. . . and then, finally, silently, merge.

Eddie Simpson joins up with me. Both wingmen, too. Simpson, my old wingman and friend, had gotten the one who'd climbed out. We'd bagged three of the four. We were very excited. It had been a good day.

I had lived and my opponent had died. But it was a near thing. It could have been the other way around just as easily, and what probably made the difference was the airplane I flew. Made in America. I would live to see the day when people would try to tell me the United States can't make cars like some other folks do. What a laugh. ..."

Note: The above article is excerpted from the book To Fly and Fight: Memoirs of a Triple Ace by Col C. E. "Bud" Anderson with Joseph P. Hamelin.

For more details about "Bud" Anderson and his book, check here: http://www.cebudanderson.com/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GR142_Astro
07-25-2005, 01:18 AM
"German pilots were superior in every way, but the Allies were able to throw enough pilot fodder at them to hack down thier numbers."

Wow, even if this is a fish-hook it is mind boggling that someone would actually think this way. Even surviving German aces know better.

Poor show.

http://www.edwards.af.mil/gallery/images/yeager-planes/p51-4_072.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
07-25-2005, 01:39 AM
S!


GR142_Astro
Posted Mon July 25 2005 00:18
"German pilots were superior in every way, but the Allies were able to throw enough pilot fodder at them to hack down thier numbers."

Wow, even if this is a fish-hook it is mind boggling that someone would actually think this way. Even surviving German aces know better.

Poor show.


Quite right Astro

Well just take a gander at the 109G-14 thread. Basically the 109 is the best prop plane on the planet and is superior in every flight performance catagory to any allied plane----ahem according to blue pilots.

I have seen enough of this drivel posted on the forums for the last 2 years that even if Crash is kidding, there is a majority of blue pilots that actually whole heartedly believe this B.S.


__

Hristo_
07-25-2005, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
FYI, Me 262 uses low grade fuel, which was plenty left in stock even in 1945.

Just another aspect of Messerschmitt genius.

I had no idea Willy specified, designed and built the 262 engines. And added to fact that turbines are so hard to run on different types of fuel it's simply amazing.


Wait, before I forget....


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

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is Willi, not Willy. Don't americanize every name you hear.

He invented the first 109, the first jet engine and also the first M-Geschoss.


P.S.
And it is Herr Willi for you ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

P.P.S.
Just as in real life, Red pilots in this sim cannot hold a candle to Blue pilots. Blue pilots are simply better in every way. Stats only prove this old truth.

Fehler
07-25-2005, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

Over the radio: "Here they come!"

They'd worked over the bombers up ahead and now it was our turn.

I just had an amazing revelation!

Perhaps the reason the P-51 was so sucessful was simply because the German planes used up all their cannon rounds shooting down bombers, and only had MG rounds left ot engage the Mustangs...

Those sneaky P-51 pilots!

Fehler
07-25-2005, 02:14 AM
Quite right Astro

Well just take a gander at the 109G-14 thread. Basically the 109 is the best prop plane on the planet and is superior in every flight performance catagory to any allied plane----ahem according to blue pilots.

N E G A T I V E ! ! !

The 190 is a far superior plane to the 109 my fine feathered friend.

Hristo_
07-25-2005, 03:18 AM
109 is the best on the planet

190 is the best in the universe

Aaron_GT
07-25-2005, 04:10 AM
He invented the first 109, the first jet engine and also the first M-Geschoss.

Whittle is credited with the first jet engine, not Messerschmit.

Hristo_
07-25-2005, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He invented the first 109, the first jet engine and also the first M-Geschoss.

Whittle is credited with the first jet engine, not Messerschmit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whittle is just a British name for Messerschmitt.

MEGILE
07-25-2005, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He invented the first 109, the first jet engine and also the first M-Geschoss.

Whittle is credited with the first jet engine, not Messerschmit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Hastatus
07-25-2005, 08:46 AM
About 100 Me262s were flown in combat in WW2 (Gunston). Doesn't matter how many were built. Most never even flew. It was amongst the rarest combat types flown by the LW, followed by the Ta-152 (@60 delivered to combat units). In addition to that KG51 and JG7 had to have their strengths divided between the East and West fronts.

During "Bodenplatte" there was a grand total of 24 Me 262s available for operations, and that was the "big push" of the LW Jan.1st 1945 (Shores).

The Allies had a pilot training program geared for a long war, the LW had one for a short war. Thats why allied fighter pilots did 50 missions and were rotated out while the LW had to keep their veterans in untill they were killed or captured. The LWs strategy was fatally flawed, and no technical advances in a/c was going to stave off defeat. Instead of spending resources on V-1s and V-2s and Jets, they should have concentrated on training pilots to fly...same with Japan, lots of planes, not many pilots by 1945.

As for the rest of the bizzare ravings by the resident neo-nazis, why bother. They will never get over losing the BoB, Malta (oops, Spits again, darnit), the 8th AF offensive against Germany, or the war.

Hoarmurath
07-25-2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Hastatus:
About 100 Me262s were flown in combat in WW2 (Gunston). Doesn't matter how many were built. Most never even flew. It was amongst the rarest combat types flown by the LW, followed by the Ta-152 (@60 delivered to combat units). In addition to that KG51 and JG7 had to have their strengths divided between the East and West fronts.

During "Bodenplatte" there was a grand total of 24 Me 262s available for operations, and that was the "big push" of the LW Jan.1st 1945 (Shores).

The Allies had a pilot training program geared for a long war, the LW had one for a short war. Thats why allied fighter pilots did 50 missions and were rotated out while the LW had to keep their veterans in untill they were killed or captured. The LWs strategy was fatally flawed, and no technical advances in a/c was going to stave off defeat. Instead of spending resources on V-1s and V-2s and Jets, they should have concentrated on training pilots to fly...

As for the rest of the bizzare ravings by the resident neo-nazis, why bother. They will never get over losing the BoB, Malta (oops, Spits again, darnit), the 8th AF offensive against Germany, or the war.

godwin's law strike again...

Pirschjaeger
07-25-2005, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hastatus:
About 100 Me262s were flown in combat in WW2 (Gunston). Doesn't matter how many were built. Most never even flew. It was amongst the rarest combat types flown by the LW, followed by the Ta-152 (@60 delivered to combat units). In addition to that KG51 and JG7 had to have their strengths divided between the East and West fronts.

During "Bodenplatte" there was a grand total of 24 Me 262s available for operations, and that was the "big push" of the LW Jan.1st 1945 (Shores).

The Allies had a pilot training program geared for a long war, the LW had one for a short war. Thats why allied fighter pilots did 50 missions and were rotated out while the LW had to keep their veterans in untill they were killed or captured. The LWs strategy was fatally flawed, and no technical advances in a/c was going to stave off defeat. Instead of spending resources on V-1s and V-2s and Jets, they should have concentrated on training pilots to fly...

As for the rest of the bizzare ravings by the resident neo-nazis, why bother. They will never get over losing the BoB, Malta (oops, Spits again, darnit), the 8th AF offensive against Germany, or the war.

godwin's law strike again... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha ha ha, you beat me to it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

JG5_UnKle
07-25-2005, 10:44 AM
Anyone for Luftwaffles?

<cough>JG26</cough> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://www.zen32721.zen.co.uk/luftwaffles.jpg

Hastatus
07-25-2005, 11:21 AM
"German pilots were superior in every way,."

...when you can't beat em, talk like Goebbels at a Nuremberg rally. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
07-25-2005, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
The bottom line is, without any training, should I be able to land an aircraft that is known to be tricky to those who don't know it on a moving carrier deck on my first go? The answer, logically, should be no but that's not what happened with the Corsair for me even with the new FM. So, it's fair to conclude that, as neither the 109 or the Corsair are hard to land in this game, they must both be wrong.

You know, I don't think I quite believe you. It took me somewhere around sixty tries to land that thing on a stationary carrier post patch. The Thirty Eight only took me twelve tries (if I remember correctly), and it doesn't have a tailhook! To date, I have only managed to land the Corsair on a stationary carrier three or four times out of over a hundred. Now, perhaps it is my lack of carrier landing skill that is at fault. But don't go saying that the Corsair isn't hard to land! I've played this game since the original IL-2, and have never had problems landing until the last patch. The Corsair is not easy to land.

http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/Bouncing%20...%20the%20Hellcat.trk (http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/Bouncing%20Over%20the%20Hellcat.trk)

http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/Horrible%20Carrier%20Landing.ntrk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whether you choose to believe what I can do, based on your own performance, is your own choice and you are entitled to that choice. I've also landed Me262s on carriers without the arrestor hook so make your own mind up. Admittedly, that was pre-4.01 and I've not been bothered to try it since. Just about the hardest plane I've landed on a carrier is the Zero because, even with a 3 pointer, I often mess up getting the hook to catch. Easiest plane to land? Seafire.

With respect to carrier landings, Horseback's point is entirely valid if considering reality exclusively but we are not; we are factoring ina comparison in a computer game. In that respect, my argument holds in that I can land both aircraft seemingly without suffering the effects that were subject to their real life counterparts. So, maybe I've passed the skill level of an ensign so I'm not subject to being eliminated but I've also got enough flying hours and kills to most likely equate to a real life ace but I don't get caught out by the 109, either.

Ta,
Norris

NorrisMcWhirter
07-25-2005, 11:26 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
NorrisMcWhirter Posted Sun July 24 2005 03:14
People talk of the 109 being a killer on take off and landing yet conveniently forget about the 'ensign killer' which is equally 'simplified'.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________



I hope you can see the differenace between landing on a pitching and rolling Aircraft Carrier at sea VS. landing on a groundbased airstrip. Also take note that the Corsair as a landbased fighter had an excellent operational record with minimal take off and landing accidents as compared to the 109 that was known for take off and landing accidents and a weak undercarriage.

Also remember that the Corsair replaced the Hellcat as the Navy's front line fighter for the carrier fleet. Whatever problems the early Corsair had on the flightdeck were corrected.

For most pilots the stall warning was more than adequate, Boyington thought the Corsair to be a very honest aircraft. In fact Boyington on his first mission with 214 shot 5 Zekes down from various positions. One of the last kills he got on this mission was at low altitude trying to help a smoking Corsair, Boyington pulled the Corsair so hard trying to pull lead on the Zeke he stalled and spun the Corsair at low altitude. Not only did Boyington flame the Zeke while stalling out (not an easy thing to do), he also then corrected a spinning aircraft before crashing into the sea. Boyington was flying F4U-1 Birdcage model the same plane that gave some rookie pilots problems.

Later Corsair models had spoiler a spoiler strip added to equalize the wing stall.

Navy/Marine Corps carrier aircraft were known for gentle stall qualities.


Now back to topic, reguardless of what anyone says the P38L had Allison V1710F-30 engines with 1725BHP each. Over 3000 P38L's were produced with this engine. This aircraft served worlwide in every major theater of the war.

All P38's need to have their climb rates increased/corrected.

Thank you Tagert for the nice devicelink work !



/QUOTE]

As I've said elsewhere, my comparison is based upon my experience in having little trouble landing the 109 or the Corsair on a carrier IN THIS GAME and that both planes have been described, in history (not by me) as being tricky in these departments. As I've also said before, that means that both aircraft must be wrong. Or I'm simply a dab hand at landing. Your choice.

DaBallz
07-25-2005, 04:07 PM
I have always laughed at the war of attrition argument.

First, YES, WWII was a war of attrition, but one that
the Axis could not have of won. Time could
have been bought pushing the European war into
August of 1945.
But we all know what would have happened in August 1945.

As to the air war. In both the east and west the
Luftwaffe had parity in fighters till Feb, 1945.
Although pilot skill had fallen off the fuel was
the big crisis. Can't fly without fuel eh?

The US had hit the high gear in production in mid 1944.
Most of those planes, tanks, etc never got to Europe.

Had the war lasted into 1946 the sky would have been
black with Allied fighters.

Yes, Germany would have been overwhelmed with massive
numbers of fighters and bombers if major German
cities did not get nuked first.

In the area of bombers, Germany was overwhelmed in a big way.
Although Germany had parity in light and meduim bombers
they NEVER got off the ground with an effective
heavy bomber force.

A combination of Germany loosing the qualitative edge
in fighter performance, the loss of experianced pilots and
the lack of fuel did the Luftwaffe in before the
number of fighters did them in by numbers alone.

The ground war followed a slightly different scenario
but the outcome was never in doubt. (easy to say now).
Sheer numbers doomed Germany, but fortunately Germany
lost before it got the A-Bomb via air mail.

da...

Atomic_Marten
07-25-2005, 04:26 PM
http://hsgalleries.com/images/bf109k4wallpapertd_small.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Atomic_Marten/stuff/allyourcookie.jpg

HayateAce
07-25-2005, 05:48 PM
Dunno the big deal.

The LuftExcusen got their butts handed to them in EVERY air conflict of WW2. Sounds like they are perrenial losers to me.

Today everyone is glad about that except blue fanbois, and they don't amount to much now do they?

HORRIDO! is the cry

http://tejszinhebbel.freeblog.hu/Files/cry2.jpg

NorrisMcWhirter
07-25-2005, 05:55 PM
Self portrait? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There, there..don't cry just cos this game ain't like your movies where the 'inferior' enemy folds right away.

Talking of losing, no one has won all the wars they've been in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Ta,
Norris

PS: Is it my imagination or has this forum become even more polarised over the last few weeks for red vs blue? The level of allied whining needs to be plotted on an axis with a logarithmic scale, that's for sure...I wonder if that is part of the reason.

darkhorizon11
07-25-2005, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Sorry Crash, not totally. In the end attrition sealed the deal for the Axis because they ran out of fuel. But there were many points in the earlier stages of the war where the Germans and Japanese could have seized the moment and defeated the allies...
That was leadership. German technology walked all over the allies. German pilots were superior in every way, but the Allies were able to throw enough pilot fodder at them to hack down thier numbers.

It was attrition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What German technology walked all over the Allies? Definitely not jet technology, the 262 was a formitable foe in combat in the hands of a capable pilot. The problem for the Germans was the lack of capable pilots, most were green like grass. Overall its believed about 150 enemy aircraft were destroyed by the 262 with a loss of 100. Thats a decent figure but not nearly what the LW was hoping for. The only real "successful" day for the 262 was March 18, 1945 when about 22 were launched. I believe they brought down a total of about 30 bombers with losses to themselves. I'm pretty sure the JV44 was involved in that encounter. Other than that, the numbers aren't that impressive.
And before you say, "but dh it was the first jet in combat?", remember the British had the Meteor up by July of 1944 and the Americans probably could have pushed the P-80 into combat by wars end if they felt it necessary. In fact German jet technology didn't really even influence Allied technology since they were developed totally independently. The Germans just had a bit of a head start. In fact the British were hesistant to even use the Meteor in combat because they were afraid if one were lost the Germans would learn the secrets of "their" technology. Adolf Gallnd who flew Meteors after the war for Argentina admitted that the Meteors engines were much superior the 262s in Germany because of weaker metals but a more rushed design.
Thats it for jets.

The next lead the Germans took was submarines. In the later years of the war submarine missions were almost on par with the Japanese kamakazes. The Germans countered with the type XXI Elektro boat. Definitely a great sub it was truly meant to prowl the deep, she influenced many hull designs for years after the war ended, included nuclear subs. Fortunatley for us, she was in the water probably "2 years to late" (uboat.net). Still considered in general ineffectiveness of uboats at this point in the war and countermeasures the Allies had against them, hardly walking all over us. More like vice versa.

Next, the only realll technological advance that totally caught the Allies was for sure, rockets. The Allies were years behind in this category and with no way to counter this threat (it wasn't until the 70s and the patriot missle could we really drop enemy rockets in flight) but to seize land the A-4 was truly unmatched. But it still had no effect on the outcome of the war, with no real accurate way to guide it within hitting a 10 mile radius it basically just managed kill civilians.

The Allies however, counted with the effective use of radar, which pretty pretty much saved England. Also, once again anti-submarine tactics and subscreens the Allies used were far more advanced than anything the Kreigsmarine could counter both, under and on the water. Last but not least, the A-bomb. Allied scientists were believed to have been at least two full years ahead of von Manstein and the Germans even with the daring raid by commandos on the heavy water plant in Norway. In fact, some of U-235 the Germans had compiled trying to use their bomb was actually used in the American bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No Crash, German technology hardly walked all over the Allies, more like startled us. And thanks for agreeing with me, it was leadership that screwed the Axis from the beginning, and attrition sealed the deal. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Atomic_Marten
07-25-2005, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
The level of allied whining needs to be plotted on an axis with a logarithmic scale, that's for sure...I wonder if that is part of the reason.

And all that somehow - seems related to new P-38 lately.

ROTFLMAO.

I'm sick of the

-MG151/20 threads
-MK108 threads
-P-38 threads
-over-biased threads
-how porked 4.01 is threads
-various "porked DM/FM" threads

and all other similar [insert more senseless whine without arguments here].
BTW horizon, sorry for hijacking your thread a bit with my off topic whine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Pirschjaeger
07-25-2005, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Dunno the big deal.

The LuftExcusen got their butts handed to them in EVERY air conflict of WW2. Sounds like they are perrenial losers to me.

Today everyone is glad about that except blue fanbois, and they don't amount to much now do they?

HORRIDO! is the cry



Fishing with dynamite is environmentally unfriendly. A real sportsman uses fresh bait. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

TAGERT.
07-25-2005, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
http://hsgalleries.com/images/bf109k4wallpapertd_small.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Atomic_Marten/stuff/allyourcookie.jpg hey another picture of a 109K without flettner tabs! Who Knew! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pirschjaeger
07-25-2005, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
http://hsgalleries.com/images/bf109k4wallpapertd_small.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Atomic_Marten/stuff/allyourcookie.jpg hey another picture of a 109K without flettner tabs! Who Knew! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See Hayata, this is better fishing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

x__CRASH__x
07-26-2005, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hastatus:
As for the rest of the bizzare ravings by the resident neo-nazis, why bother. They will never get over losing the BoB, Malta (oops, Spits again, darnit), the 8th AF offensive against Germany, or the war.

godwin's law strike again... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMFG!! When you posted that to me I didn't really believe it! Please forgive me Hastatus, because it's now been proven!!


And Hoarmurath... you can suck my crank with the Nazi name calling. Really.

x__CRASH__x
07-26-2005, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
The longest answer to a fishing statement even written
AAAAHHH!! GET A STICK!! It's huge! It just jumped right in the boat! Watch out! It's floppin'! It don't even know it's in the boat yet!!

HIT IT WIT SOMETHIN'!!!

http://www.klutinacharters.com/images/klutinacharters-huge-alaska-king-salmon.jpg

Hristo_
07-26-2005, 02:17 AM
http://tx7533.pekori.to/reideen2.jpg

Hoarmurath
07-26-2005, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hastatus:
As for the rest of the bizzare ravings by the resident neo-nazis, why bother. They will never get over losing the BoB, Malta (oops, Spits again, darnit), the 8th AF offensive against Germany, or the war.

godwin's law strike again... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMFG!! When you posted that to me I didn't really believe it! Please forgive me Hastatus, because it's now been proven!!


And Hoarmurath... you can suck my crank with the Nazi name calling. Really. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

J'ai rien compris... En francais ca donne quoi?

AerialTarget
07-26-2005, 02:35 AM
Wow, Hristo has not only posted pictures of males who wish to be women, but now Japanese cartoons of qedeshim engaging in their acts?

Thrice cursed is this miserable being! Hater of the P-38 Lighnting, quedesh, and Japanophile is he. I would not be in your shoes for anything, not even all the warbirds in the world!

Hristo_
07-26-2005, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Wow, Hristo has not only posted pictures of males who wish to be women, but now Japanese cartoons of qedeshim engaging in their acts?

Thrice cursed is this miserable being! Hater of the P-38 Lighnting, quedesh, and Japanophile is he. I would not be in your shoes for anything, not even all the warbirds in the world!

Actually, you should read who it is all about !

http://www.interq.or.jp/tokyo/antique/reideen.html

Yes, our one and only... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AerialTarget
07-26-2005, 04:12 AM
I'd rather not. On that note, just how exactly did you come across such a discovery?

Hristo_
07-26-2005, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I'd rather not. On that note, just how exactly did you come across such a discovery?

google is my friend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BigKahuna_GS
07-26-2005, 08:44 AM
S!




x__CRASH__x
"I put the 'M' in stupid"

Posted Tue July 26 2005 00:10
quote:
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
The longest answer to a fishing statement even written

AAAAHHH!! GET A STICK!! It's huge! It just jumped right in the boat! Watch out! It's floppin'! It don't even know it's in the boat yet!!



Oh OK, this time they are just kidding. What about all the posts over the last 2 years that actually supported what you posted ?

You see it is actually very hard to distinguish between a feint like this, when probably 50% of blue flyers actually believe this flawed theory.

For everytime you say you are just kiddding---many are not and have posted so.

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Crash-That was leadership. German technology walked all over the allies. German pilots were superior in every way, but the Allies were able to throw enough pilot fodder at them to hack down thier numbers.
__________________________________________________ ________________________


__

darkhorizon11
07-26-2005, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
The longest answer to a fishing statement even written
AAAAHHH!! GET A STICK!! It's huge! It just jumped right in the boat! Watch out! It's floppin'! It don't even know it's in the boat yet!!

HIT IT WIT SOMETHIN'!!!

http://www.klutinacharters.com/images/klutinacharters-huge-alaska-king-salmon.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its okay being wrong crash. Have a tissue.

Kurfurst__
07-26-2005, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
Another one of Kurfurst's planted data, quite nicely done. He knows these a/c might be included and he's already trying to set the stage for his trolling/whining to be listened to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Poor poor Kurfurst.

Poor, pathetic Cajun, LOL. He can`t put up with facts...


Best estimates show about 300 262's saw service.

About 950 Spitty XIV's were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (625) would probably shortchanging it.

Now lets see no estimates, but the historical facts :
Only a mere 7 Sqns (five of that being fighters) converted to Spit XIV during the war.
Fact #2 : Maximum number of Spitfires in service (including sqn reserves : ONLY 120...
Number of Me 262s in service, 160+, in March 1945... 1400+ were produced.



About 1400 Tempests were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (924) would probably shortchanging it

all versions, huh? That means : including post war versions. For cajun, ANYTHING goes, right? Only 800 Tempest Vs were produced till the end of the war... equipping only 7 sqaudrons again.

Fact is the Tempest and XIV were around in only small numbers, the RAF having to do with the old IXs and Typhoons for most of the time which grossly outnumbered the newer types in service till the end of the war.

Kurfurst__
07-26-2005, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Whittle is credited with the first jet engine, not Messerschmit.

Neither Messerschmitt nor Whittle : Hans von Ohain developed the first working jet unit, though there was a rumanian guy well before them in early 1900s.

Pirschjaeger
07-26-2005, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
Another one of Kurfurst's planted data, quite nicely done. He knows these a/c might be included and he's already trying to set the stage for his trolling/whining to be listened to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Poor poor Kurfurst.

Poor, pathetic Cajun, LOL. He can`t put up with facts...


Best estimates show about 300 262's saw service.

About 950 Spitty XIV's were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (625) would probably shortchanging it.

Now lets see no estimates, but the historical facts :
Only a mere 7 Sqns (five of that being fighters) converted to Spit XIV during the war.
Fact #2 : Maximum number of Spitfires in service (including sqn reserves : ONLY 120...
Number of Me 262s in service, 160+, in March 1945... 1400+ were produced.



About 1400 Tempests were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (924) would probably shortchanging it

all versions, huh? That means : including post war versions. For cajun, ANYTHING goes, right? Only 800 Tempest Vs were produced till the end of the war... equipping only 7 sqaudrons again.

Fact is the Tempest and XIV were around in only small numbers, the RAF having to do with the old IXs and Typhoons for most of the time which grossly outnumbered the newer types in service till the end of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so Tempests, Spits, and 262's flew combat. Did I understand correctly? Seems you guys agree.

Now, what was the argument? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

NorrisMcWhirter
07-26-2005, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
Another one of Kurfurst's planted data, quite nicely done. He knows these a/c might be included and he's already trying to set the stage for his trolling/whining to be listened to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Poor poor Kurfurst.

Poor, pathetic Cajun, LOL. He can`t put up with facts...


Best estimates show about 300 262's saw service.

About 950 Spitty XIV's were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (625) would probably shortchanging it.

Now lets see no estimates, but the historical facts :
Only a mere 7 Sqns (five of that being fighters) converted to Spit XIV during the war.
Fact #2 : Maximum number of Spitfires in service (including sqn reserves : ONLY 120...
Number of Me 262s in service, 160+, in March 1945... 1400+ were produced.



About 1400 Tempests were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (924) would probably shortchanging it

all versions, huh? That means : including post war versions. For cajun, ANYTHING goes, right? Only 800 Tempest Vs were produced till the end of the war... equipping only 7 sqaudrons again.

Fact is the Tempest and XIV were around in only small numbers, the RAF having to do with the old IXs and Typhoons for most of the time which grossly outnumbered the newer types in service till the end of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so Tempests, Spits, and 262's flew combat. Did I understand correctly? Seems you guys agree.

Now, what was the argument? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds to me like 262s are back on the menu when the Tempest appears http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Or do the leading edge slats cause lag?

Ta,
Norris

darkhorizon11
07-26-2005, 03:26 PM
(yawn) I'm pretty much done with this thread my points have been made. I'll leave the scraps to you guys... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gibbage1
07-26-2005, 03:39 PM
P-38. The best twin engine fighter of the war, and the only twin engine fighter to give single engine fighters a run for there money. 3000+ P-38L's were made with the 1725HP F-30 engines. Thats more then Ta-152's, Go-229's, YP-80's and the rest of the uber **** in the game. Nuff said. Can we end this debate now? Im getting rather bored of the entire forum debating 1 man's ignorance on US aircraft.

The same man said the B-35 never flew and did not even get into the prototype stage. He also said the V1 was invulnerable to HMG gunfire even though P-51's shot down almost 300 of them, and the same man doubts the existance of VT fuses in WWII and claims the Germans had VT fuses but never showed proof when questioned about it. That puts his education of American WWII history into perspective.

Hristo_
07-26-2005, 03:59 PM
wrong !

Me 262 was the best twin engined fighter. It gave and still gives any other WW2 fighter a run for its money. If the other fighter survives long enough, that is.

HellToupee
07-26-2005, 05:54 PM
the whirlwind !

Hoarmurath
07-26-2005, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Go-229's, YP-80's and the rest of the uber **** in the game.

Yes!!! you're right gibbage... let find the moron that had these planes included in the sim and let him have what he desserve...

Probably just another Luft(insert any offensive adjective), an anti american, for sure...

We are with you, without such jerks, our beloved flight sim would have stayed clean and we should be winning the war, as it should be!!!

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

Gibbage1
07-26-2005, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
wrong !

Me 262 was the best twin engined fighter. It gave and still gives any other WW2 fighter a run for its money. If the other fighter survives long enough, that is.

Its range removed any and all posability of it being the best twin engine fighter. Not to mention its engines with 10-14 hour lifespan. By the time the 262 got to the fight, it was already turning home. Thats not much help. Also, just like another German twin engine "fighter" it had to have other single engine fighters protect it. It was an uber flop.

Gibbage1
07-26-2005, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Yes!!! you're right gibbage... let find the moron that had these planes included in the sim and let him have what he desserve...

Probably just another Luft(insert any offensive adjective), an anti american, for sure...

We are with you, without such jerks, our beloved flight sim would have stayed clean and we should be winning the war, as it should be!!!

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

Your French, so I understand you dont read english very well. I was not complaining about the inclusion of those aircraft. I was saying that hay, we have all of those, why are people complaining about an aircraft that had 3000+ made and flew in combat?

thx1158
07-26-2005, 07:27 PM
How many of you ever talked to and actual P-38 ace????? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Not many I would guess.
I was lucky enough to have a conversation with triple ace General Robin Olds. Being a Lightning nut most my life I had ask him his impressions of the P-38 and Mustang. He said that the 38 will always be his first love but the Mustang was superior for the ETO. But if he had to pick a plane for the PTO it would be the Lightning.
I also asked (as we were on the subject of his recent flight in an F-16) was it difficult to transition to the P-51. The answer being obvious...or so I thought...surprised me. He told me the 38 was a very easy plane to fly, low stall, great veiw with tricycle landing gear, and the cockpit lay out was intuitive with the exception of the fuel selector valve.
Most of us have read or heard the Blakeslee quote about "Your new Mustangs...." General OLds was the first to take one of those new Mustangs up. He remembered that his only instuction was to "Watch out for the torque!"
This is important because if is one of the 38's best attributes...it has no torque. Late J and L's rolled great in ALL directions. Something that cannot be used to your advantage in the game. No asysmetrical turning ability either...something many pilots used to their advantage in a climbing turning fight.
As to the lightning be difficult to land or take off...ARE YOU NUTS!! the only time there was any problem happened with engine failure or runaway prop. An early problem that was easy to correct with training.
My personal frustrations with PF are some of the seemingly impossible things that happen online.
Example: while flying flat out 500km @ 540kph I encounter a Spit and Zero head on with alt seperation of 50-100km. With out me slowing down I get jumped by both and they GAIN on me with in seconds!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Where have the laws of physics gone! The certainly din't have enough alt advatage to make up for lost inertia and neither one can accel that fast.
There are many examples like this......but what the hell it's still the only game in town EH!

Hoarmurath
07-26-2005, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:


Your French, so I understand you dont read english very well. I was not complaining about the inclusion of those aircraft. I was saying that hay, we have all of those, why are people complaining about an aircraft that had 3000+ made and flew in combat?

what, you didn't said they were :
uber **** ?

But you're right, let ban from all dogfight servers those fantasy planes, and let fly our beloved 1725hp P-38L that saw combat!!!! Those 2200 model 522-87-23 pursuit planes serials 44-25059 to 44-27258, contract AC-40040-1, and those 320 522-87-23 pursuit planes, serials 44-53008 to 44-53327, contract AC-40040-2, and those those 113 build by consolidated-vultee, serials 43-50226 to 43-50338, from contract AC-760!!!

Well, i don't remember very well... can you remind me the serial of those who effectively did fight with 1725hp instead of the regular 1600hp cleared by the USAAF?

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

Gibbage1
07-26-2005, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Well, i don't remember very well... can you remind me the serial of those who effectively did fight with 1725hp instead of the regular 1600hp cleared by the USAAF?

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

Any proof they did not? The USAF did some very stupid things in reguards to the P-38 and not listing the true HP of the engine is one of them. The F-30 was a 1725HP engine. Even the J's were cleared for higher boost then whats in the manual. The manual is wrong and we have proven it by Allisons manual.

Hristo_
07-26-2005, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
wrong !

Me 262 was the best twin engined fighter. It gave and still gives any other WW2 fighter a run for its money. If the other fighter survives long enough, that is.

Its range removed any and all posability of it being the best twin engine fighter. Not to mention its engines with 10-14 hour lifespan. By the time the 262 got to the fight, it was already turning home. Thats not much help. Also, just like another German twin engine "fighter" it had to have other single engine fighters protect it. It was an uber flop. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

talking out of your @ss again ?

AFAIK, the range was on par with Fw 190.

Interestingly enough, nobody ever mentioned Me 262 range as a drawback. You just made that up, didn't you ?

I only wish I knew why this "uber flop" is banned from most servers. Hmmm

P-38 better than me 262 ? Should I use an uber-LOL now ?

One can always find quotes on Me 262.

Galland "...it was like angels were pushing..."
Rall "...much better plane than both Me 109 and Fw 190..."
Krupinski"...we were kings in the air once again..."

Hristo_
07-26-2005, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Well, i don't remember very well... can you remind me the serial of those who effectively did fight with 1725hp instead of the regular 1600hp cleared by the USAAF?

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

Any proof they did not? The USAF did some very stupid things in reguards to the P-38 and not listing the true HP of the engine is one of them. The F-30 was a 1725HP engine. Even the J's were cleared for higher boost then whats in the manual. The manual is wrong and we have proven it by Allisons manual. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now now, you proved diddly.

Engine may have been capable for something, but it never flew with 1725 hp operationally.

P-38L Late is a fantasy plane.

Pirschjaeger
07-26-2005, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
Another one of Kurfurst's planted data, quite nicely done. He knows these a/c might be included and he's already trying to set the stage for his trolling/whining to be listened to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Poor poor Kurfurst.

Poor, pathetic Cajun, LOL. He can`t put up with facts...


Best estimates show about 300 262's saw service.

About 950 Spitty XIV's were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (625) would probably shortchanging it.

Now lets see no estimates, but the historical facts :
Only a mere 7 Sqns (five of that being fighters) converted to Spit XIV during the war.
Fact #2 : Maximum number of Spitfires in service (including sqn reserves : ONLY 120...
Number of Me 262s in service, 160+, in March 1945... 1400+ were produced.



About 1400 Tempests were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (924) would probably shortchanging it

all versions, huh? That means : including post war versions. For cajun, ANYTHING goes, right? Only 800 Tempest Vs were produced till the end of the war... equipping only 7 sqaudrons again.

Fact is the Tempest and XIV were around in only small numbers, the RAF having to do with the old IXs and Typhoons for most of the time which grossly outnumbered the newer types in service till the end of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so Tempests, Spits, and 262's flew combat. Did I understand correctly? Seems you guys agree.

Now, what was the argument? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds to me like 262s are back on the menu when the Tempest appears http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Or do the leading edge slats cause lag?

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reading Gibbage's posts causes lag. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz

JG5_UnKle
07-27-2005, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Dunno the big deal.

The LuftExcusen got their butts handed to them in EVERY air conflict of WW2. Sounds like they are perrenial losers to me.

Today everyone is glad about that except blue fanbois, and they don't amount to much now do they?

HORRIDO! is the cry

http://tejszinhebbel.freeblog.hu/Files/cry2.jpg

LOL tell that to JG26 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
07-27-2005, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
Another one of Kurfurst's planted data, quite nicely done. He knows these a/c might be included and he's already trying to set the stage for his trolling/whining to be listened to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Poor poor Kurfurst.

Poor, pathetic Cajun, LOL. He can`t put up with facts...


Best estimates show about 300 262's saw service.

About 950 Spitty XIV's were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (625) would probably shortchanging it.

Now lets see no estimates, but the historical facts :
Only a mere 7 Sqns (five of that being fighters) converted to Spit XIV during the war.
Fact #2 : Maximum number of Spitfires in service (including sqn reserves : ONLY 120...
Number of Me 262s in service, 160+, in March 1945... 1400+ were produced.



About 1400 Tempests were produced, all versions. Since GB didn't have fuel, engine or pilot shortages, a significant number of these most likely saw service. 2/3 (924) would probably shortchanging it

all versions, huh? That means : including post war versions. For cajun, ANYTHING goes, right? Only 800 Tempest Vs were produced till the end of the war... equipping only 7 sqaudrons again.

Fact is the Tempest and XIV were around in only small numbers, the RAF having to do with the old IXs and Typhoons for most of the time which grossly outnumbered the newer types in service till the end of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so Tempests, Spits, and 262's flew combat. Did I understand correctly? Seems you guys agree.

Now, what was the argument? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds to me like 262s are back on the menu when the Tempest appears http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Or do the leading edge slats cause lag?

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reading Gibbage's posts causes lag. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe...Admittedly, I'm biased but I've not seen any concrete evidence that this P38 Late actually existed in large numbers...because the only people who have discussed are so "polarised" (for want of a better word http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) that I wouldn't believe much that they said.

I'll wager that one thing happens for sure, though; this P38 Late will steadily creep 'back' into mid-war servers because people will say that the existing P38J/L are undermodelled so they have a right to include it as 'Oleg hates US planes' or similar.

So, it appears that we've now seen both the .50 cal improvement whined into the game...and now an actual aircraft to boot. What next?

Ta,
Norris

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
...because the only people who have discussed are so "polarised"


You mean they are Inuit or penguins? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Now the argument finally makes sense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Fritz

NorrisMcWhirter
07-27-2005, 12:51 PM
It's brass monkeys up around them poles http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What we need are some bi-polar (no, they divvna live at both poles at once) or, if you prefer, "schizo-whiners"...These are whiners who switch from posting 50,000 threads on weak .50s to 50,000 threads on 109 elevators in very short spaces of time!

Now that WOULD be confusing! Oleg would blow a gasket.

Ta,
Norris

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 12:59 PM
"Bi-polar"? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I'm not going any further with this one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Besides, Steve's on the prowl. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Fritz

BSS_Goat
07-27-2005, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
What next?


Well, I'm asking for a nuke.......

Atomic_Marten
07-27-2005, 02:05 PM
Hey guys anyone knows what is exactly the designation of the in-game P-38L_LATE? (you know P-38L-1, P-38L-5 etc.)

Is there anyone on this forum that can answer this question?

Hoarmurath
07-27-2005, 02:09 PM
No problem, tell me the serial of a P-38L late and i will give you its model!!!

Hoarmurath
07-27-2005, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
What next?


Well, I'm asking for a nuke....... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah yes, that would be nice... with a TU4 to carry it!!!

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey guys anyone knows what is exactly the designation of the in-game P-38L_LATE? (you know P-38L-1, P-38L-5 etc.)

Is there anyone on this forum that can answer this question? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both the L-1 and L-5 had the F-30 engine. There is not P-38 L Late. All L's had the same engine. It may not be listed in the pilots manual as having more power, but its listed in Allison, and pilots talking about the L compaired the the J said "it has more HP" many times. The manual is in error. Its not the first time a pilots manual does not list the full power of an engine. Does the 109 K4 engine list the 1.98ATA setting? It was certified for 1.98ATA just like the F-30 engine was certified for 1725HP.

Cajun76
07-27-2005, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey guys anyone knows what is exactly the designation of the in-game P-38L_LATE? (you know P-38L-1, P-38L-5 etc.)

Is there anyone on this forum that can answer this question? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Besides checking your paint schemes folder, it's P_38LLate.

I think this is the latest list.

(FLYABLE RED PLANES )
A_20G
B_25J1
BI_1
F2A2
F2A_B339
F4F3
F4F4
F4F_FM2
F4U1A
F4U1C
F4U1D
F4UCORSAIR1
F4UCORSAIR2
F4UCORSAIR4
F6F3
F6F5
HurricaneMkIIb
HurricaneMkIIc
HurricaneMkIIbMod
I_153_M62
I_153P
I_16TYPE18
I_16TYPE24
I_16TYPE24DRONE
I_185M71
I_185M82A
IL_2_1940Early
IL_2_1940Late
IL_2_1941Early
IL_2_1941Late
IL_2I
IL_2MEarly
IL_2MLate
IL_2Type3
IL_2Type3M
IL_2T
LA_5
LA_5F
LA_5FN
LA_7
LA_7B20
LAGG_3SERIES4
LAGG_3SERIES29
LAGG_3SERIES35
LAGG_3SERIES66
LAGG_3IT
MIG_3EARLY
MIG_3SHVAK
MIG_3AM38
MIG_3U
MIG_3UB
MIG_3UD
P_38J
P_38L
P_38LLate
P_39D1
P_39D2
P_39N
P_39Q1
P_39Q10
P_400
P_40E
P_40EM105
P_40M
P_40SUKAISVOLOCHHAWKA2 ( Hawk-81A2 )
P_40SUKAISVOLOCHB ( P-40B )
P_40SUKAISVOLOCHC ( P-40C )
P_40SUKAISVOLOCH2A ( Kittyhawk Mk. IIa )
P_40SUKAISVOLOCH2B ( Kittyhawk Mk. IIb )
P_47D10
P_47D22
P_47D27
P_51B
P_51C
P_51CM
P_51D5NT
P_51D20NA
P_63C
P_80A
SBD3
SBD5
SEAFIRE3
SEAFIRE3F
SPITFIRE5B
SPITFIRE5C2
SPITFIRE5C4
SPITFIRE5BCLP
SPITFIRE5BLF
SPITFIRE5BLFCLP
SPITFIRE8
SPITFIRE8CLP
SPITFIRE9C
SPITFIRE9CCLP
SPITFIRE9E
SPITFIRE9ECLP
SPITFIRE9EHF
TB_3_4M_17
TB_3_4M_34R
TB_3_4M_34R_SPB
YAK_1
YAK_1B
YAK_3
YAK_3P
YAK_7A
YAK_7B
YAK_9
YAK_9B
YAK_9D
YAK_9K
YAK_9M
YAK_9T
YAK_9U
YAK_9UT

(AI ONLY RED PLANES)
B_17D
B_17E
B_17F
B_17G
B_25C25
B_25G1
B_25H1
B_25J1
B_29
C_47
G_11
IL_4_DB3B
IL_4_DB3M
IL_4_DB3T
IL_4_DB3F
IL_4_IL4
LI_2
MBR_2AM34
PBN1
PE_2SERIES1
PE_2SERIES84
PE_2SERIES110
PE_2SERIES359
PE_3SERIES1
PE_3BIS
PE_8
R_10
SB_2M100A
SB_2M103
SU_2
TBF1
TBF1C
TBM3
TBM3AVENGER3
TEMPEST5
TU_2S
U_2VS

(FLYABLE BLUE PLANES )
A6M2
A6M2_21
A6M2_N
A6M3
A6M5
A6M5A
A6M5B
A6M5C
A6M7_62
A6M7_63
BF_109E4
BF_109E4B
BF_109E7
BF_109E7NZ
BF_109F2
BF_109F4
BF_109G2
BF_109G6
BF_109G6Late
BF_109G6AS
BF_109G10
BF_109G14
BF_109K4
BF_109Z
BF_110G2
CR_42
D3A1
F2A_B239
FW_190A4
FW_190A5
FW_190A6
FW_190A8
FW_190A8MSTL
FW_190A9
FW_190D9
FW_190D9LATE
FW_190F8
TA_152H1
G50
GLADIATOR1J8A
G4M1_11
GO_229A1
HE_111H2
HE_111H6
HE_162A2
HurricaneMkIa
IAR_80
IAR_81A
IAR_80C
JU_87B2
JU_87D3
JU_87D5
JU_87G1
KI_43_IA
KI_43_IB
KI_43_IC
KI_61_IKO
KI_61_IHEI
KI_61_IOTSU
KI_84_IA
KI_84_IB
KI_84_IC
KI_100_IKO
ME_163B1A
ME_262A1A
ME_262A1AU4
ME_262A2A
P_11C

(AI ONLY BLUE PLANES )
AR_196A3
B5N2
BF_110C4
BF_110C4B
BLENHEIM1
BLENHEIM4
FI_156
FW_189A2
FW_200C3U4
GLADIATOR1
GLADIATOR2
G4M2E
H8K1
HE_111Z
HS_129B2
HS_129B3Wa
J2M3
JU_52_3MG4E
JU_52_3MG5E
JU_88A4
JU_88MSTL
KI_43_II
KI_43_IIKAI
KI_46_OTSU
KI_46_RECCE
KI_46_OTSUHEI
L2D
ME_210CA1
ME_210CA1ZSTR
ME_321
ME_323
MC_202
MS406
MS410
MSMORKO
MXY_7
N1K1J
N1K1JA
P_36A3
P_36A4

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

So, it appears that we've now seen both the .50 cal improvement whined into the game...and now an actual aircraft to boot. What next?

Ta,
Norris

Please find the thread were we "whined" about getting a P-38 L Late with 1725HP into IL2? I dont remember a single one. The P-38 L Late was as much of a suprise to ME as anyone on this forum when 4.0 was released.

And yes, there was quite a bit of whining about the .50 cal, but we had plenty of proof to support our claim that #1, the M2 had much much more spread then any other HMG in the game, and #2, it did not have more spread then any other HMG's in WWII. Not one single user ever proved that the M2 had 10x more spread then other HMG's in WWII. Not even Oleg.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-27-2005, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

So, it appears that we've now seen both the .50 cal improvement whined into the game...and now an actual aircraft to boot. What next?

Ta,
Norris

Please find the thread were we "whined" about getting a P-38 L Late with 1725HP into IL2? I dont remember a single one. The P-38 L Late was as much of a suprise to ME as anyone on this forum when 4.0 was released.

And yes, there was quite a bit of whining about the .50 cal, but we had plenty of proof to support our claim that #1, the M2 had much much more spread then any other HMG in the game, and #2, it did not have more spread then any other HMG's in WWII. Not one single user ever proved that the M2 had 10x more spread then other HMG's in WWII. Not even Oleg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, overstatement. The P38 Late hasn't been included through whining but through some information which doesn't appear to be conclusive.

Couple that with Oleg still disputing "your" "evidence" on the .50s (and has said as much) and a worrying picture begins to emerge for both 'sides' in general. And yes, I do acknowledge that Oleg is far from perfect as we saw from the initial denial of the 151/20 issue.

Ta,
Norris

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 03:16 PM
Couple that with Oleg still disputing "your" "evidence" on the .50s (and has said as much) and a worrying picture begins to emerge for both 'sides' in general. And yes, I do acknowledge that Oleg is far from perfect as we saw from the initial denial of the 151/20 issue.

Ta,
Norris

I dont know what was presented to Oleg as proof that the P-38L had 1725HP, but it MUST of been convincing. I was part of the beta team during Aces and let me tell you, if you wanted something changed you had to present a **** good case to him with multiple forms of proof. I would like to see or know who convinced Oleg to give us the L LAte, and what they used. Im guessing it was both Bodies book and Allisons own datasheet on the F-30 engines. Both support the 1725HP number.

Think of it. Whats the differance between the J -25 and the L? Placement of the guncam, placement of the landing light, and the engine. The engine had a lot of significant changes too improve RPM capability. Why change the engine IF ITS GIVING YOU THE SAME OUTPUT? Also, PILOTS are quoted to say the L "had more HP". I honestly believe that the 1725HP rating was an omishion from the manual or a printing error that was never corrected in the manual but in the field. Its clear that the F-30 engine was RATED BY THE MILITARY for 1725HP, and we ALL know that in battle you use every bit of your engine to keep you alive and your enemy dead. To even consider the pilots would NOT use this new 1725HP engine is rather ignorant of the situation. YOUR BEING SHOT AT!!! The manual wont save you from being it. An extra 250HP may.

Hoarmurath
07-27-2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

I dont know what was presented to Oleg as proof that the P-38L had 1725HP, but it MUST of been convincing. I was part of the beta team during Aces and let me tell you, if you wanted something changed you had to present a **** good case to him with multiple forms of proof. I would like to see or know who convinced Oleg to give us the L LAte, and what they used. Im guessing it was both Bodies book and Allisons own datasheet on the F-30 engines. Both support the 1725HP number.

Think of it. Whats the differance between the J -25 and the L? Placement of the guncam, placement of the landing light, and the engine. The engine had a lot of significant changes too improve RPM capability. Why change the engine IF ITS GIVING YOU THE SAME OUTPUT? Also, PILOTS are quoted to say the L "had more HP". I honestly believe that the 1725HP rating was an omishion from the manual or a printing error that was never corrected in the manual but in the field. Its clear that the F-30 engine was RATED BY THE MILITARY for 1725HP, and we ALL know that in battle you use every bit of your engine to keep you alive and your enemy dead. To even consider the pilots would NOT use this new 1725HP engine is rather ignorant of the situation. YOUR BEING SHOT AT!!! The manual wont save you from being it. An extra 250HP may.

Yes gibbage, don't let them trick you!!! Oleg would have never allowed something as a fantasy plane that never flew... Never!!!!

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Yes gibbage, don't let them trick you!!! Oleg would have never allowed something as a fantasy plane that never flew... Never!!!!

Big differance between getting the correct HP for an aircraft, and an aircraft that never flew like the 109z.

All 3000+ P-38's were built with the improved Allison F-30 engines rated at 1725HP. Thats not a fantisy, thats a fact troll boy.

Atomic_Marten
07-27-2005, 03:41 PM
@cajun thanks for help but that isn't what I had in mind with that question.

Hoarmurath
07-27-2005, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Big differance between getting the correct HP for an aircraft, and an aircraft that never flew like the 109z.

All 3000+ P-38's were built with the improved Allison F-30 engines rated at 1725HP. Thats not a fantisy, thats a fact troll boy.

Yes, gibbage is ever right... Don't listen at those trolls, like skychimp, who dared suggest the fuel needed for the new power rating was never available to P-38L units.. All Luftsomething lies... I'm with you gibbage!!!

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

Kurfurst__
07-27-2005, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
All 3000+ P-38's were built with the improved Allison F-30 engines rated at 1725HP. Thats not a fantisy, thats a fact troll boy.

It looks more like desperate whining to me after utterly failing to provide ANY evidence to operational use 1725 HP, goebbels style 'convincing' has begun : repeat the same lie until they start to believe it...

darkhorizon11
07-27-2005, 04:57 PM
Alright I couldn't stay away.

I don't see why the new P-38 wouldn't have seen combat? It seems like the engine was the same just a better supercharger maybe?? I'm not an expert but this seems like something that would be done outside the factory. Maybe thats while theres no accurate record because they were just switched out and boosted. Obviously the new superchargers would have been flight tested and cleared for combat and since the regs. weren't as stringent then as they are today about modifications and such they would have been just sent out. Such a change wouldn't justify a new letter designation. I mean it seems to me that the records are just as scratchy as LW records from late in the war about their aircraft. Someone not to long ago was whining for a FW190D13 when theres no solid numbers of those seeing combat since many D9s were upgraded to 13s on the field.

Same goes for the 38.

Zyzbot
07-27-2005, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
All 3000+ P-38's were built with the improved Allison F-30 engines rated at 1725HP. Thats not a fantisy, thats a fact troll boy.

It looks more like desperate whining to me after utterly failing to provide ANY evidence to operational use 1725 HP, goebbels style 'convincing' has begun : repeat the same lie until they start to believe it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Godwin's Law strikes again!

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Yes, gibbage is ever right... Don't listen at those trolls, like skychimp, who dared suggest the fuel needed for the new power rating was never available to P-38L units.. All Luftsomething lies... I'm with you gibbage!!!

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

But the 1725HP rating was with 100/130 octane. He is correct that the P-38 may not of gotten 100/150 fuel. But the F-30 did not need the 100/150 fuel.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-27-2005, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Couple that with Oleg still disputing "your" "evidence" on the .50s (and has said as much) and a worrying picture begins to emerge for both 'sides' in general. And yes, I do acknowledge that Oleg is far from perfect as we saw from the initial denial of the 151/20 issue.

Ta,
Norris

I dont know what was presented to Oleg as proof that the P-38L had 1725HP, but it MUST of been convincing. I was part of the beta team during Aces and let me tell you, if you wanted something changed you had to present a **** good case to him with multiple forms of proof. I would like to see or know who convinced Oleg to give us the L LAte, and what they used. Im guessing it was both Bodies book and Allisons own datasheet on the F-30 engines. Both support the 1725HP number.

Think of it. Whats the differance between the J -25 and the L? Placement of the guncam, placement of the landing light, and the engine. The engine had a lot of significant changes too improve RPM capability. Why change the engine IF ITS GIVING YOU THE SAME OUTPUT? Also, PILOTS are quoted to say the L "had more HP". I honestly believe that the 1725HP rating was an omishion from the manual or a printing error that was never corrected in the manual but in the field. Its clear that the F-30 engine was RATED BY THE MILITARY for 1725HP, and we ALL know that in battle you use every bit of your engine to keep you alive and your enemy dead. To even consider the pilots would NOT use this new 1725HP engine is rather ignorant of the situation. YOUR BEING SHOT AT!!! The manual wont save you from being it. An extra 250HP may. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa, hang on a sec - you're actually saying that you don't know what evidence was presented for the P38L Late (and that, presumably, you don't have any evidence that you could have presented otherwise you would) but you're well prepared to vouch for it existing and being correct on the basis that Oleg sometimes 'needs a lot of convincing'. I'm sorry but that's not entirely convincing to me especially when there ARE planes like the 109Z in the game....who spent a lot of time convincing Oleg about that and/or where did the proof of that FM come from? I-185 too? That's really not a sound example to give me to make me feel like this aircraft existed.

Now, I do agree that IF the current P38's climb isn't correct then it should be looked on it's own because I certainly don't want incorrect aircraft in the game (even though it is a game) but I don't think that should be achieved by adding planes that may well not have existed because they never had the fuel available.

I'm not trolling now..that's just the way I see it.

Ta,
Norris

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Whoa, hang on a sec - you're actually saying that you don't know what evidence was presented for the P38L Late (and that, presumably, you don't have any evidence that you could have presented otherwise you would) but you're well prepared to vouch for it existing and being correct on the basis that Oleg sometimes 'needs a lot of convincing'.

Do you know Olegs refferances for any of IL2's modeling? Do you know Oleg's referances for that BF-110 in your sig? But your willing to trust that its correct?

Yes, I dont know what convinced him, but I know what convinced me. Allisons manual and Bodies book. Plus pilot account that the L had more HP, and the fact that the P-38L was built with the F-30 engine. All that leads me to think that the manual has an error and needed an adendum. Again, does the 109 K4, G-10 or G-14 manual list 2000HP? Thats the same exact situation. The manual may not list 2000HP at 1.98ATA, but its documented that the engine was cleared for that boost, JUST LIKE THE F-30 was cleared for 1725HP.

MEGILE
07-27-2005, 05:36 PM
K4 at 1.98 ATA anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Moot point really as P-38L isn't meeting its historic figures, and K4 is with quite a margin. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Still 2000HP K4.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

faustnik
07-27-2005, 05:41 PM
Yeah, it's kind of the same arguement as letting all Fw190A5/A6s run at 1.65 ata because some did run at that in the field and the engine was capable of it. Where does it end?

Personally, I like the P-38L Late and would appreciate it if all you Luftwaffles just left it alone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Hoarmurath
07-27-2005, 05:45 PM
Guys, you should stop this luftwhatever nonsense... Gibbage possess all the datas available on P-38, and have even spoken to real P-38 pilots... So he know what he is speaking about, OK?

so when he say :


Originally posted by Gibbage1:

But the 1725HP rating was with 100/130 octane. He is correct that the P-38 may not of gotten 100/150 fuel. But the F-30 did not need the 100/150 fuel.

he is right... no doubts... OK?

and when he had said :



Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Every P-38 L has a 1725HP engine. Alison's docs clearly shows that the -111 and -113 engines are made spacificly for this power output and differ from the -89 amd -91 engines in the J models. The reason why this added HP is not stated in the manual is a mistery and I think it was just an oversight. Maybe the pilots manual was printed before the L was final? Like how PF box was printed before the game was final and it said flyable Betty? Ever think of that?

There are odd things that the military does. Stupid things. Like the freakin mast ballance on the tail elivator of the P-38. Its simply not needed!!! You know why? The P-38 already had one installed inside the booms in front of the rudder! Clean and aerodynamic. Cleaver hay? Kelly Johnson nearly had a FIT when the air force REQUIRED the external ones because THEY think its what fixed the flutter problems. Those are just cosmetic! Serv no function, but the military required them. Ask any current military pilot, and they will tell you that TODAY they still do stupid SH just like that. The exclusion of the 1725HP rating from the manual may be something similar.

But the fact is, the F30 could produce 1725HP stated from Allison.

Also. The P-38 manual on page 36A states the HP using Grade 91 fuel as
3000RPM at 1325HP max.
100/130 grade
3000RPM at 1600HP max.

So yes, fuel grade does effect HP. Manual DOES NOT SPECIFY 100/150 grade. Thats why it only list's 1600HP for the F30 engines in the L! Not because it was not an option, its because the manual does not have the engine running 100/150 fuel.

P-38 L Late is NO DIFFERANT from the P-38 L, other then the use of 100/150 fuel THAT WAS AVAILABLE in 1944 in Europ. Maybe not many L's were flying with it, but its more L's then Ta-152's flying in 1944, since the prototype flew on Dec 11 1944.


hu.. well... he was not saying the same... Oh whatever, forget the quotes, all you have to remember is that he know what he is speaking about!!!!

Come Gibbage, show them who's the boss!! I'm right with you!!!

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

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 05:46 PM
My point is that the SAME PEOPLE arguing AGAINST the P-38 L using its RATED HP of 1725HP are arguing FOR the inclusion of the K4 running at its RATED 2000HP at 1.98ATA. All they have is the P-38 manual stating the L has 1600HP, when its been proven wrong by Allisons manual for the F-30 engine using 100/130 fuel, and pilots accounts of the L having more HP then the J, and the 8th AF even OKing the J for 1725HP using 100/130 fuel even though the engine was not rated for it. So if the J could use 1725HP at 3200RPM 66" MAP, then the L with its engine SPACIFICALLY designed to handle higher RPM's sure as hell could.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-27-2005, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Whoa, hang on a sec - you're actually saying that you don't know what evidence was presented for the P38L Late (and that, presumably, you don't have any evidence that you could have presented otherwise you would) but you're well prepared to vouch for it existing and being correct on the basis that Oleg sometimes 'needs a lot of convincing'.

Do you know Olegs refferances for any of IL2's modeling? Do you know Oleg's referances for that BF-110 in your sig? But your willing to trust that its correct?

Yes, I dont know what convinced him, but I know what convinced me. Allisons manual and Bodies book. Plus pilot account that the L had more HP, and the fact that the P-38L was built with the F-30 engine. All that leads me to think that the manual has an error and needed an adendum. Again, does the 109 K4, G-10 or G-14 manual list 2000HP? Thats the same exact situation. The manual may not list 2000HP at 1.98ATA, but its documented that the engine was cleared for that boost, JUST LIKE THE F-30 was cleared for 1725HP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that's all very well and good but I never said that I vouched for or believed the 110's performance whether it's in my sig or otherwise.

The distinction here, I think, is that no one can, without doubt, prove that these aircraft flew with this boost/the fuel. I've not seen anything convincing, anyway and I wouldn't particularly believe anything that I read from a very limited number of sources, either.

Also, if the K4, G-10 or G-14 (or any other aircraft) are uber/wrong then I think they should be corrected rather than "uberising" something to combat them.

From my perspective, they are two seperate issues and, I hate to use a school dinnerlady cliche but, 'two wrongs don't make a right'

Ta,
Norris

PS: I've never lobbied for a boosted K-4 but, having said that, if we had to adopt the logic that planes should be uberised rather than corrected then I would certainly consider it.

Some people may not see the difference between maintaining relative performance by having planes corrected or uberised but I'd certainly dislike for the latter to become the norm. That's just not right historically.

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

hu.. well... he was not saying the same... Oh whatever, forget the quotes, all you have to remember is that he know what he is speaking about!!!!

Come Gibbage, show them who's the boss!! I'm right with you!!!

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

Typical troll. Selective quoting. You forgot to quote were I said I was wrong about the F-30 needed the 100/150 when it was proven that Allison never rated there engines using that fuel, but only used 100/130.

Hoarmurath
07-27-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You forgot to quote were I said I was wrong.

Oooooooh you anti american luftwhatever troll, how could you dare tell Gibbage was wrong!!! Wait until he answer you!!! He will rip you, for sure!!! He will uncover all the needed proofs and evidences, and send you back in some black corner crying!!!

God can't be wrong!!!!

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

Kurfurst__
07-27-2005, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
My point is that the SAME PEOPLE arguing AGAINST the P-38 L using its RATED HP of 1725HP are arguing FOR the inclusion of the K4 running at its RATED 2000HP at 1.98ATA. All they have is the P-38 manual stating the L has 1600HP, when its been proven wrong by Allisons manual for the F-30 engine using 100/130 fuel, and pilots accounts of the L having more HP then the J, and the 8th AF even OKing the J for 1725HP using 100/130 fuel even though the engine was not rated for it. So if the J could use 1725HP at 3200RPM 66" MAP, then the L with its engine SPACIFICALLY designed to handle higher RPM's sure as hell could.

Nope, that`s the problem. Absolutely nothing of the above was ever supported by anything presented here, it`s just being parroted by a handful of guys like you, who want to 'uberize' the P-38 with brand new ratings they pulled out of their @rse.

And I did not see anyone argue here for a 2000 HP K-4. But, unlike in the case of the of the fantasy 1725, there are tons of references to that rating, it`s clearance, and it`s use. There`s no such for the Allision engine.

It`s quite obvious to everyone what was happening here. Some ubernationalists couldn`t put up with official ratings, and whined out a fantasy rating to make their favourite plane fullfill their dreams about it. If this trend continoues, if 'uberizings' are accepted without any evidence just under the weight of whiing, we might as well flush down PF in the toilet as a arcade game with fantasy planes...

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

Yes, that's all very well and good but I never said that I vouched for or believed the 110's performance whether it's in my sig or otherwise.


But there are no "BF-110's are over/under modeled" with you posting in them. So the conclusion is that you are content with how its modeled, even though you dont know Oleg's sources of referance. Correct? Thats my point.



The distinction here, I think, is that no one can, without doubt, prove that these aircraft flew with this boost/the fuel. I've not seen anything convincing, anyway and I wouldn't particularly believe anything that I read from a very limited number of sources, either.


If there was not HP differance, why use the F-30 engines? Why did pilots who flew the aircraft say it has more HP? Why would Allison list the F-30 as 1725HP using 100/130 fuel?



Also, if the K4, G-10 or G-14 (or any other aircraft) are uber/wrong then I think they should be corrected rather than "uberising" something to combat them.


Im not saying at all if they are wrong. Im simply stating that some people are requesting 1.98ATA in K4's. Is that boost listed in the manual? I dont know. If its not, then its EXACTLY like the P-38 L Late debate. The manual says 1 thing, they say another. Thats my point.



From my perspective, they are two seperate issues and, I hate to use a school dinnerlady cliche but, 'two wrongs don't make a right'


Two seperate topics, but linked. Im not saying the K4 at 1.98 is wrong. But to lobby for a boost on the K4 and lobby AGAIST a boost on the P-38 IS wrong if its not listed in the K4 manual as a 2000HP engine. Thats there foundation for the fight against the P-38 is the fact that its listed in the manual at 1600HP on the L. What does the K4 manual list its engine as?

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

And I did not see anyone argue here for a 2000 HP K-4. But, unlike in the case of the of the fantasy 1725, there are tons of references to that rating, it`s clearance, and it`s use. There`s no such for the Allision engine.


Your arguing on the OR for the K4 "Late" with 2000HP at 1.98ATA. Is that in the pilots manual? Because thats the only proof you have against the P-38 L even though the engine was cleared for 1725HP, just like your DB605 was cleared for 1.98ATA.

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Oooooooh you anti american luftwhatever troll, how could you dare tell Gibbage was wrong!!! Wait until he answer you!!! He will rip you, for sure!!! He will uncover all the needed proofs and evidences, and send you back in some black corner crying!!!

God can't be wrong!!!!

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

Your so childish, debating with you is useless.

Kurfurst__
07-27-2005, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Your arguing on the OR for the K4 "Late" with 2000HP at 1.98ATA. Is that in the pilots manual?

It`s in the engine`s manual, plus there`s an order available in March 1945 for III and IV of JG 27 and JG 53 to operate on 1.98ata/2000HP. Not really the topic here, but your evasion.


Because thats the only proof you have against the P-38 L even though the engine was cleared for 1725HP,

So, the logic is the following : you say there`s no evidence against 1725 HP, neither for use of 1725.. so it`s must be implemented. Silly, really.

Let`s see :

ALL evidence shows no higher than 1600 HP for P-38J/L.
NO evidence show 1725 HP for P-38J/L...

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1121184060_resizeof503_1102467228_p38lsetup.jp g
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1121183759_p-38l_datasheet.jpg


Show the evidence that it was cleared. If you can`t, considering you repeat this claim in various and ever changing forms the 100th time and failing every time to back it up when asked, I say you are lying.

Hoarmurath
07-27-2005, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Your so childish, debating with you is useless.

Nice to see i'm accepted in the band!!! I'm so proud to have come to your standards!!! I knew i could do it!!!

Aaron_GT
07-28-2005, 02:53 AM
It`s in the engine`s manual, plus there`s an order available in March 1945 for III and IV of JG 27 and JG 53 to operate on 1.98ata/2000HP.

Do you have documentary proof of this? If so, then show us, and send it to Oleg. If those supporting the P38L at 1725hp object, it would be unreasonable of them to do so if the K4 (late) is supported by suitable documentation. But if you do not have documentary proof of the K4 with a 2000hp engine, then tough.

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

ALL evidence shows no higher than 1600 HP for P-38J/L.
NO evidence show 1725 HP for P-38J/L...



Skychimp
It's known that Allison rated their production F series V-1710 with 100/130 grade fuel. The V-1710-111/113 was an F series engine. Allison rated it to 1,725hp at 3,200 rpm. I feel comfortable asserting that rating is on 100/130 grade fuel. Only late experimental E/F engines and G engines were rated on 115/145 grade fuel, and these engines didn't see service during the war. (See Vees..., page 375.)

And hell, maybe the some USAAF groups did use the high rating. And it doesn't appear to me any longer that 100/150 would have been required to do it. Maybe I'm wrong, which means Kurfurst is wrong (which sort to takes the sting out of it. )

See "Vees For Victory," chapter 12, The V-1710-F: The "Bread & Butter" Allison, page 265, which states, "Within the first six months of the war Allison responded to needs from the War Theaters by demonstrating and authorizing use of War Emergency Ratings for the E/F engines. Though the official Army Air Forces channels were slow to approve their use, these ratings were soon widely used within combat groups.""


Warren M. Bodie's book, the Lockheet P-38 Lightning. Page 250 Comprehensive Table of Lockheed P-38 Production.

P-38-1-LO 1290 deliverd, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-23769-24058 June 1944-Nov 1944 (so YES, it is a 1944 aircraft)
P-38-5-LO 2200 deliverd, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-25059-27258 Oct 44-June 45.
P-38-5-LO 320 delivered, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-53008-53327 May 45-Aug 45.

Even 113 deliverd of P-38L-5-VN (?) also using the F-30 engines. VN is from the Nashvill Tenn production line.

780+ L's were converted to F-5's photo recon, all still having the F-30 engine.

On page 215 of the same book.

"One interesting point that has never been taken into account is that a P-38L-5-LO, enjoying up to 1725 bhp per engine at War Emergency Power settings, must have been coming very close to its critical Mach Number of .68 in level flight at its critical altitude. WEP speed at 20,000-23,500 feet was probably as high as 443 MPH (TAS)"

At that altitude, the critical speed was 460MPH TAS for the P-38.

So no proof hay? BTW, this proof has been posted about 10 times so far. You just go into the next thread and repeat your lie of "no proof".

P.S. If anyone wants to learn more about the Allison, here is an Amazon link to the book "Vees for Victory"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/076430561...nce&s=books&n=507846 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764305611/qid=1122541416/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-9349566-0954332?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Here is an interesting review from Amazon.

"lots of data, December 28, 2002
Reviewer: "mfeeman" (Jonestown, Pennsylvania United States) - See all my reviews
just another excellent book from the schiffer military history publisher. this book contains performance figures for the P-38 that are higher than the 414mph climb to 20,000ft in 7.8 min figures. it lists wep power figures. as well as the 1,725 hp @ 3,200 rpm F-30 engines of the P-38L. this book has so many numbers for all the aircraft that used allisions. its richer in infromation than any other book I have seen on aircraft. if you favorite fighter had an allision in it, then buy this book to complement your library. bolillo_loco"

Kurfurst__
07-28-2005, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

ALL evidence shows no higher than 1600 HP for P-38J/L.
NO evidence show 1725 HP for P-38J/L...



Skychimp
It's known that Allison rated their production F series V-1710 with 100/130 grade fuel. The V-1710-111/113 was an F series engine. Allison rated it to 1,725hp at 3,200 rpm. I feel comfortable asserting that rating is on 100/130 grade fuel. Only late experimental E/F engines and G engines were rated on 115/145 grade fuel, and these engines didn't see service during the war. (See Vees..., page 375.)

And hell, maybe the some USAAF groups did use the high rating. And it doesn't appear to me any longer that 100/150 would have been required to do it. Maybe I'm wrong, which means Kurfurst is wrong (which sort to takes the sting out of it. )

See "Vees For Victory," chapter 12, The V-1710-F: The "Bread & Butter" Allison, page 265, which states, "Within the first six months of the war Allison responded to needs from the War Theaters by demonstrating and authorizing use of War Emergency Ratings for the E/F engines. Though the official Army Air Forces channels were slow to approve their use, these ratings were soon widely used within combat groups.""


Warren M. Bodie's book, the Lockheet P-38 Lightning. Page 250 Comprehensive Table of Lockheed P-38 Production.

P-38-1-LO 1290 deliverd, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-23769-24058 June 1944-Nov 1944 (so YES, it is a 1944 aircraft)
P-38-5-LO 2200 deliverd, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-25059-27258 Oct 44-June 45.
P-38-5-LO 320 delivered, V-1710F-30 engines. Serial numbers 44-53008-53327 May 45-Aug 45.

Even 113 deliverd of P-38L-5-VN (?) also using the F-30 engines. VN is from the Nashvill Tenn production line.

780+ L's were converted to F-5's photo recon, all still having the F-30 engine.

On page 215 of the same book.

"One interesting point that has never been taken into account is that a P-38L-5-LO, enjoying up to 1725 bhp per engine at War Emergency Power settings, must have been coming very close to its critical Mach Number of .68 in level flight at its critical altitude. WEP speed at 20,000-23,500 feet was probably as high as 443 MPH (TAS)"

At that altitude, the critical speed was 460MPH TAS for the P-38.

So no proof hay? BTW, this proof has been posted about 10 times so far. You just go into the next thread and repeat your lie of "no proof". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



So the "proof" is :

- 'Skychimp'`s assertion that the Allision could run up at 1725 HP with 3200 rpm (no evidence that this rpm was cleared) at 100/130 grade fuel (no evidence again, it`s pure speculation)

2nd "proof" :
*...."is that a P-38L-5-LO, enjoying up to 1725 bhp per engine at War Emergency Power settings"

Well as far as I know 'a' means ONE. Which means a proto and not an operational example if the source is right. The date (postwar test?) isn`t mentioned, the aircraft itself, wheter it was operationally cleared or not isn`t mentioned.. absolutely no evidence of operational clearance but the contrary...

So basically, you say the P-38Llate is a reasistic planeset with widespread service like the P-51D, MkXIV Spit etc, because a guy from the forum came up with a new version which even he admits an assertion, and that a secondary source mentions a single experimental plane, appearantly postwar, having done trials on the rating, while of course all primary documentation is completely lacking....

Utterly 'convincing'. Well is that all? Based on this, I put the P-38Llate along the fantasy/what if planeset, ie. Bf 109Z, Gotha, Russian protos, all of which saw no real service, and generally are based on projected/hypothetical perforfmanca claims and largely assumptions.

Kurfurst__
07-28-2005, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It`s in the engine`s manual, plus there`s an order available in March 1945 for III and IV of JG 27 and JG 53 to operate on 1.98ata/2000HP.

Do you have documentary proof of this? If so, then show us, and send it to Oleg. If those supporting the P38L at 1725hp object, it would be unreasonable of them to do so if the K4 (late) is supported by suitable documentation. But if you do not have documentary proof of the K4 with a 2000hp engine, then tough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, based on what was seemed to enough to include the P-38Llate, the documentation of what I have for 1.98ata 605D (G-10/K-4) should be ten times enough already.. The March order (OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos.(op) 20.03.45) :is noted in two secondary sources already, one that qoutes it in detail but I`d like to have the original one. I also have fuel deliveries as proof etc. But I`d like to gather more evidence, and I am in contact with several researchers who can help.

BTW I am surprised it isn`t yet implemented. Butch2k has all the stuff and he probalbly sent to Oleg; hardly is there a lot knowning more on the 109/605 then he is.. but the 1C idea at that time was to include only basic, lowest boost in service..

darkhorizon11
07-28-2005, 10:14 AM
9 pages of nothing but bickering. Which I started...

The real way to get to the bottom of this isn't info on the engine since it probably was cleared to be boosted to 70 inches, thats not the big deal. The big deal is the supercharger itself, the USAAF obviously threw bigger more efficient superchargers in there. That and the octane fuel really has a big affect on power output. If someone (Gibbage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) can post some info on that, it should put the debate to rest.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-28-2005, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

Yes, that's all very well and good but I never said that I vouched for or believed the 110's performance whether it's in my sig or otherwise.


But there are no "BF-110's are over/under modeled" with you posting in them. So the conclusion is that you are content with how its modeled, even though you dont know Oleg's sources of referance. Correct? Thats my point.



The distinction here, I think, is that no one can, without doubt, prove that these aircraft flew with this boost/the fuel. I've not seen anything convincing, anyway and I wouldn't particularly believe anything that I read from a very limited number of sources, either.


If there was not HP differance, why use the F-30 engines? Why did pilots who flew the aircraft say it has more HP? Why would Allison list the F-30 as 1725HP using 100/130 fuel?



Also, if the K4, G-10 or G-14 (or any other aircraft) are uber/wrong then I think they should be corrected rather than "uberising" something to combat them.


Im not saying at all if they are wrong. Im simply stating that some people are requesting 1.98ATA in K4's. Is that boost listed in the manual? I dont know. If its not, then its EXACTLY like the P-38 L Late debate. The manual says 1 thing, they say another. Thats my point.



From my perspective, they are two seperate issues and, I hate to use a school dinnerlady cliche but, 'two wrongs don't make a right'


Two seperate topics, but linked. Im not saying the K4 at 1.98 is wrong. But to lobby for a boost on the K4 and lobby AGAIST a boost on the P-38 IS wrong if its not listed in the K4 manual as a 2000HP engine. Thats there foundation for the fight against the P-38 is the fact that its listed in the manual at 1600HP on the L. What does the K4 manual list its engine as? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

The 110 isn't the issue here but if there were threads regarding it being over/undermodelled I'd be interested in them. No, I'm not content with the flight performance of the 110 but that's not because I object to it; it's mostly because I've never flown a real one. The point is that there have been very few (if any) debates on the performance of the 110 whereas there are plenty on the P38. This, IMO, suggests that there is a point of contention regarding this particular aircraft.

No use asking me - I don't have any information on the P38 but K's chart showing the P38 engine power appears to show something other than what we now have in the game. Now, I'm not sure why you are asking me to believe another chart over those.

Lastly, *I* wouldn't ask for the P38 to be detuned and the K4 to be boosted just for the sake of it/some nationalistic reason unless, in fact, the P38 WAS overmodelled and the K4 WAS undermodelled in those areas.

Ta.
Norris

darkhorizon11
07-28-2005, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Your arguing on the OR for the K4 "Late" with 2000HP at 1.98ATA. Is that in the pilots manual?

It`s in the engine`s manual, plus there`s an order available in March 1945 for III and IV of JG 27 and JG 53 to operate on 1.98ata/2000HP. Not really the topic here, but your evasion.


Because thats the only proof you have against the P-38 L even though the engine was cleared for 1725HP,

So, the logic is the following : you say there`s no evidence against 1725 HP, neither for use of 1725.. so it`s must be implemented. Silly, really.

Let`s see :

ALL evidence shows no higher than 1600 HP for P-38J/L.
NO evidence show 1725 HP for P-38J/L...

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1121184060_resizeof503_1102467228_p38lsetup.jp g
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1121183759_p-38l_datasheet.jpg


Show the evidence that it was cleared. If you can`t, considering you repeat this claim in various and ever changing forms the 100th time and failing every time to back it up when asked, I say you are lying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like that bottom graph it really goes into detail about the performance and specs. But that performance is only relative to the V-1710 model 89/91 model engines. There could easily have been another sub variant of the L with a bigger or modified engine.

Gibbage1
07-28-2005, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:

I like that bottom graph it really goes into detail about the performance and specs. But that performance is only relative to the V-1710 model 89/91 model engines. There could easily have been another sub variant of the L with a bigger or modified engine.

The only variants of the L is the -1 and -5, both had the same Allison F-30 engine.