PDA

View Full Version : Pictures of I185 from new patch



noshens
04-08-2004, 12:39 PM
You have to scroll down:

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344902#post344902

noshens
04-08-2004, 12:39 PM
You have to scroll down:

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344902#post344902

faustnik
04-08-2004, 12:43 PM
Wow! Beautiful! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Cossack_UA
04-08-2004, 12:52 PM
they also reference www.il2db.com (http://www.il2db.com)
Check it out, it's got some interesting stuff

georgeo76
04-08-2004, 01:38 PM
very nice, I'm looking forward to flying this bird. The cockpit is awesome!

______________________
Fiend (http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend)

WUAF_Boxer
04-08-2004, 01:45 PM
What year was this plane brought into combat in?

WUAF_MS_Boxer

WUAF_Badsight
04-08-2004, 02:05 PM
640 kmh in 1941 : ((( http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Cossack_UA
04-08-2004, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BOXER1X:
What year was this plane brought into combat in?

WUAF_MS_Boxer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I-185 was competely finished and ready for mass production, but it never was mass produced. It served as a testing platform for idias for Lavochkin series of aircraft.

faustnik
04-08-2004, 03:02 PM
I think one unit was equipped with the I-185 for combat trails in 1942. It's in the "Soviet Combat Aircraft of World War Two" book. I'll check for the quote later if it is not already up by then.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Stalker58
04-09-2004, 12:41 AM
I 185 had very high wing loading (higher then Fw190A8) and M71 engine overheated very quickly, gliding not recommended http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

Korolov
04-09-2004, 12:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalker58:
I 185 had very high wing loading (higher then Fw190A8) and M71 engine overheated very quickly, gliding not recommended http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will be a VVS Fw-190 - BnZ plane! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Electric.Wizard
04-09-2004, 04:17 AM
If I'm not mistaken, combat trials for the I-185 took place in early 1943.

SeaFireLIV
04-09-2004, 04:19 AM
The patch MUST be soooo close!

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg

MornJW
04-09-2004, 04:52 AM
Polikarpov was a genius... you know they were developing a fast Inline powered aircraft in mid-30's, was stupidly cancelled because it was figured the I-16 was already state of the art. But imagine, a 1941 with countless aircraft on par with the 109 instead of those countless I-16's.

609IAP_Recon
04-09-2004, 05:27 AM
so, this is another mig3u type that never really flew beyond prototype?

Salute!

JG50_Recon

----
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com

Cossack_UA
04-09-2004, 06:54 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG50_Recon:
so, this is another mig3u type that never really flew beyond prototype?

Salute!

JG50_Recon

----

I-185 was not a prototipe but competely ready for mass production. That means all tests including combat trials were done.

hotspace
04-09-2004, 08:32 AM
Looks good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Can't wait for it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hot Space

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/Hot_Space/HSshot3_copy.jpg

Nervous? Yes! First time? No, I've been nervous lots of times!!!

jung0l
04-09-2004, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG50_Recon:
so, this is another mig3u type that never really flew beyond prototype?

Salute!

JG50_Recon

----
yep....just like the BF109Z.......
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DDad
04-09-2004, 11:30 AM
Will have to double check my sources, but about 25 of the 185s were operationally tested in 2 test squadrons during 1942

XyZspineZyX
04-09-2004, 11:48 AM
Operationally tested.... what mealy mouthed bullsh**.

THE question is: did it see real, operational combat? Was it actually assigned to squadrons, regiments, etc.? Where? When?

Until we see otherwise, it's just another MiG-3U boondoggle; another VVS plane to artificially tilt the deck 'a certain way'.

Meanwhile, we still can't seem to get a Pe-2, which would be both useful AND representative.

More like Crimson Skies with every release.

VW-IceFire
04-09-2004, 12:02 PM
*shakes head*

Ok...the Pe-2 is right here: http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/862.html

Its coming along very nicely and the modeler and whoever else is helping him are doing some fantastic things for the Pe-2. They MAY even do the Pe-3 if they have enough source materials.

In terms of combat with the I-185 all I could find was a very short quote: "A small series was built that saw action on 728 IAP on Kalininsky Front with succes." (http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?MAQ-3107)

No idea on validity of that statement seeing as thats all I could find with regards to deployment and units that used it. Perhaps someone else can use that to find some further information.

Nonetheless, both Mig-3U and the I-185 saw combat from what I understand. It was limited to be sure and not the widescale deployment that the Yak's and La's saw but, if its modeled then why not....

I'm particularly looking forward to the rumored FW190A-6 which is apparently in the patch (and I wonder if thats the A-6 in one of those screen shots!). That'll be fun to have another FW type as well! The more the merrier!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

XyZspineZyX
04-09-2004, 12:19 PM
Real nice, IceFire. But you chopped your quote on the I(llusion)-185 short by one sentence:

From the selfsame source:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In spite of beautiful perfomance the fighter was not put in series production.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say "not put in series production" is the #1 reason for a plane's EXCLUSION. It may have "done well in combat" and showed "beautiful performance" in a limited test, but because it killed half the pilots that got those kills, or blew up spontaneously in flight, or was impossible to service, or some other reason, it was not produced. Why wouldn't a "beautifully performing" plane not get produced? We wonder.

Meanwhile, if it's put into the game, it immediately gets over-represented. Instead of Yak1s, LaGG-3s and Yak 9s, which pulled the weight, every arcadist and three of his brothers will fly the I-185.

As for the Pe-2/3, isn't it about friggin' TIME??? If you took all the wasted manhours of the mistel, 109z, Bi-1, I-185, Go-229, and other drawing board babies and put that towards a plane that by all rights should be in the set, we'd have had Pe-2s flyable for a long time now. It's just that nobody in this community seems to care about which planes really mattered in the conflict.

Stalker58
04-09-2004, 12:31 PM
Ok, I185 was fully combat capable, operational fighter, successful in real combat....any gun camera footage available? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
For ex. swooping down on poor Fw 190 and tearing it up beyond recognition http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
No ONE?

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

LEXX_Luthor
04-09-2004, 12:36 PM
Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if it's put into the game, it immediately gets over-represented. Instead of Yak1s, LaGG-3s and Yak 9s, which pulled the weight, every arcadist and three of his brothers will fly the I-185.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, the internet dogfighters. We know about them.

Some are interested in simming I~185 for reasons other than internet dogfighting, but that goes into offwhine single player discussion--something Stiglr as amatuer internet dogfighter (and amatuer developer??) is ~very~ afraid to talk about--TargetWare is internet dogfight only.

Stiglr stop wasting time with TargetWare and mod a Pe~3. That would be Awsum to see. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

maxim26
04-09-2004, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
As for the Pe-2/3, isn't it about friggin' TIME??? If you took all the wasted manhours of the mistel, 109z, Bi-1, I-185, Go-229, and other drawing board babies and put that towards a plane that by all rights should be in the set, we'd have had Pe-2s flyable for a long time now. It's just that nobody in this community seems to care about which planes really mattered in the conflict.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree! Now we have bunch of aircrufts thet never saw a combat, or their role was insignificant and we do not have, for example, flyable VVS bomber.

VW-IceFire
04-09-2004, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Real nice, IceFire. But you chopped your quote on the I(llusion)-185 short by one sentence:

From the selfsame source:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In spite of beautiful perfomance the fighter was not put in series production.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say "not put in series production" is the #1 reason for a plane's EXCLUSION. It may have "done well in combat" and showed "beautiful performance" in a limited test, but because it killed half the pilots that got those kills, or blew up spontaneously in flight, or was impossible to service, or some other reason, it was not produced. Why wouldn't a "beautifully performing" plane not get produced? We wonder.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I did chop it short although the point of posting the link was so that anyone can go and read the rest...simply you asked if it was in combat or if it was in any regiments and I answered that only. Hopefully someone has more detailed information on that particular group and how long they used the fighter, in what numbers, and so on...

The history surrounding the plane is difficult to find yes but everything that can be found suggests that Polikaprov had fallen into disfavor with Stalin and therefore the I-185 was not mass produced. Its politics...not hard to guess why that happened.

Pe-2 was reserved by several groups of people who never finished the project. Its been in the works since the initial 3rd party system was setup. Fortunately the current guy seems set on making it happen and quite capable of doing it.

I'm with Lexx on this too...offline is about 50% of my experience with this game.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Cossack_UA
04-09-2004, 02:21 PM
Chkalov, the Russian aviation idol and Stalin's favorite, died in the test flight of the I-185. This is the only reason the project didn't make it. BUT almost all the engeneering ideas were translated onto Lavochkins fighters. In other words, Policarpov had to give away his brilliant work to Lavochkin and Lavochkin got all the fame for building one of the best fighters of WWII.

Cossack13
04-09-2004, 02:35 PM
Speaking only for myself, the "what-if" planes kinda make me scratch my head. I won't be using them in any of my historical missions, after all.

Then I remember that Oleg's an engineer. Working on these planes probably borders on a labor-of-love for him.

What I don't see is the "either-or" situation that some see. The Pe-2 has not been sacrificied for any of the "what-if" planes since they all came from different modelers.

http://www.tolwyn.com/~cossack/Coss110Sig.gif

LilHorse
04-09-2004, 02:50 PM
A few thoughts.
First, I just want to say that it's a beautiful airplane.
Second, I realize that when it's included (and I'm guessing it will be) that you don't have to fly on servers that feature it. Fair enough.
But here's my final thought(s). I am starting to lean a little more in Stiglr's direction on all this stuff. Yes, I understand it's a marketing decision to now include the Western planes. Hey, I love the American and British planes. And I realize further that the more "fantasy"-type planes have their appeal. But I think it would really have been better to concentrate on those a/c which actually played a significant role in the Eastern Front. Like really refining their FM (Stalls that always result in spins? Could it have really been that hard to work them into two distinct phenomena?), or DM, or ballistics.

I realize that this is the best combat flight sim out there. I just can't help thinking it could have been technically and historically that much better had there been an emphasis on a smaller more relevent number of a/c.

LEXX_Luthor
04-09-2004, 03:48 PM
Well said Cossack13:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I won't be using them in any of my historical missions, after all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I won't either. But I will use them in historical "what if" missions and campaigns. For example a campaign that has Germany/Italy totally win the WAR or get totally defeated as early as 1943.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Pe-2 has not been sacrificed for any of the "what-if" planes since they all came from different modelers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said. However, it would be interesting to see if Oleg makes enough Profit to hire and PAY the modders enough so they mod what they are told to mod. That's what I would do, like this...

Lois_Lane:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Gibbage, you will make I~152 Biplane, and if you have to have Jets, you can mod the I~152 ramjets for a Bonus Paycheck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LilHorse, the goal is to make ~all~ of WW2 available. When you see onwhine dogfighter Stiglr Whining about the new Italian planes, you will quickly back away from his/her position. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I will concede, Oleg is an internet dogfighter too, and he flies NOOB planes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
04-09-2004, 03:54 PM
Why would I complain about Italian planes?

Last I checked, CR42s, G.50s, Macchis and the like, actually fought in the war.

In fact, I've come full circle on Italian planes, and they'll figure prominently in Target:Tobruk...opposite the Gloster Gladiator I modelled.
====================

But getting back to the subject at hand:

I think LilHorse and others are beginning to see my point here.

It'd be nice if the average FB/AEP fan had the historical knowledge and even the will power to want to relegate the "wonder-weapons" and "blueprint babies" to the occasional offline foray or the *occasional* what-f online DF or co-op; sure, that'd be great for a change of pace.

But it doesn't take much to see that, principally, most are self-serving in their aircraft selection, or just guided by their very limited knowledge on the subject (just going by their "favorite", never mind if it actually belongs where they want to fly it). and they can't see past their selfishness to see what effect this has on the entire community, and the sim/game as a whole, either.

I just don't feel that historical accuracy is worth sacrificing to the concept of "just having a bunch o' planes we can all fly and have fun in." Who's really going to miss a I-185, or a Bi-1 or a Gotha-229 anyway? Does it diminish the sim not to have them? Not a bit.

Was the sim badly missing a Me-110 for over *two years*? Did the Pe-2 suffer because developers (who could easily have whipped it into shape) were modeling 'never-flews'? YES.

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Fri April 09 2004 at 03:02 PM.]

Agamemnon22
04-09-2004, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

As for the Pe-2/3, isn't it about friggin' TIME??? If you took all the wasted manhours of the mistel, 109z, Bi-1, I-185, Go-229, and other drawing board babies and put that towards a plane that by all rights should be in the set, we'd have had Pe-2s flyable for a long time now. It's just that nobody in this community seems to care about which planes really mattered in the conflict.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stig, perhaps I should apologize for taking so long with the Pe-2. Or perhaps you should sit down and stfu before complaining about things people volunteer to do for your pleasure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
04-09-2004, 04:34 PM
22, Stiglr is Developer for a competing internet-only dogfight sim.

Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> to the occasional offline foray or the *occasional* what-if online DF or co-op; sure, that'd be great for a change of pace.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said, and for that we need all the planes available to offwhine players. Thanks.

XyZspineZyX
04-09-2004, 04:51 PM
Agamemnon, I have no idea what challenges you've gone through with the Petlyakov. I do know what a challenge it is to model *anything*, and especially to the level of detail IL-2 planes demand.

For what it's worth, I thought the "excuse" of the dev team was not that YOU were taking so long with it, but that the sources for it were unavailable, so they elected to not have it developed in the first place.

My point was, the Pe-2 was the type of plane that should have been in the original set or one of the first added. It was not a comment on your pace in modeling it at the current time.

Capt_Haddock
04-09-2004, 05:04 PM
You miss the point Stiglr.

There are no obscure conspiracies. Some guy just wanted to fly the I-185 and he decided to model it in Max. That's all. Same with the Pe-2. Nobody wanted to model it until now. That's why it's not there...

And besides... I wish FB had every single prototype flown by the Soviets in WWII. I don't care if they saw action or not. I'd simply love to fly them all in the IL2 engine. Just for fun.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19banner.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
04-09-2004, 05:07 PM
Well said Capn Haddock.

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

Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My point was, the Pe-2 was the type of plane that should have been in the original set or one of the first added.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stiglr, did you just figure this out? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Stiglr, if you really want to help (this) game, we are having a Debate on rearm and refuel in another thread, and we could use your Realism support, although it is mostly an offwhine AI mission play issue.

GK.
04-09-2004, 05:13 PM
im glad we have the 109z.

XyZspineZyX
04-09-2004, 05:57 PM
Offline is irrelevant to me. Thus, my opinion is irrelevant, too.

Haddock wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Nobody wanted to model it until now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, m'lad.

There were requests for the Pe-2 long ago. The explanation was that there were no sources to do the cockpit to minute detail, thus it would not be put into the sim.

I argued that it made little difference if they had to make educated guesses about the location of the odd dial and switch, and that they should use whatever the best source they had.

It's the *flight* modeling that's more important than 100% accuracy of some device that you don't even use in the sim.

Thankfully, there now appear to be enough data to do it justice. But it's not like there wasn't any interest. Far from it.

Aflak
04-09-2004, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Operationally tested.... what mealy mouthed bullsh**.

THE question is: did it see real, operational combat? Was it actually assigned to squadrons, regiments, etc.? Where? When?

Until we see otherwise, it's just another MiG-3U boondoggle; another VVS plane to artificially tilt the deck 'a certain way'.

Meanwhile, we still can't seem to get a Pe-2, which would be both useful AND representative.

More like Crimson Skies with every release.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can understand that you feel we should get more historically important planes instead of all these dreamboats. I don't share your view, but at least I can understand it.

But please, try a little accuracy. Tilt the deck in a certain way? &lt;cough&gt;bf109z Ta-152H &lt;/cough&gt; I almost forgot the Horten flying wing!

There is no "deck tilting" going on. Both sides are getting fancy not-widely-used-or-even-flown fantasy craft. I can see you whining about those. But don't whine about the allied craft and ignore the german fantasy fliers.

MornJW
04-09-2004, 06:15 PM
As I understand it the main reason the I185 was cancelled was that the M-71 engine was cancelled, Polikarpov had selected it even though he could have picked and did test the M-82 the M-71 was the highest HP engine in developement, 2000HP, so basically his design failed because Polikarpov was too much of a perfectionist. The M-82 had lower horse power, LA-5 was based around that engine and they decided to use it instead.

[This message was edited by MornJW on Fri April 09 2004 at 05:30 PM.]

clint-ruin
04-09-2004, 06:26 PM
From the list someone posted in the German forum it looks like we're getting M72, M82 and M9x [90?] engined variants.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

heywooood
04-09-2004, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:



More like Crimson Skies with every release.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Your most delightful quote so far...why do you bother.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MornJW
04-09-2004, 06:33 PM
Yes it was tested with those engines, but Polikarpov decided he prefered the M-71. When that engine was cancelled, they opped for the La-5, for which Lavochkin had decided to use the M-82.
And too bad, the M-71 was a 2000 to 2200HP engine compared ot the 1500-1800HP of the M-82.

Agamemnon22
04-09-2004, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

Wrong, m'lad.

There were requests for the Pe-2 long ago. The explanation was that there were no sources to do the cockpit to minute detail, thus it would not be put into the sim.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the Pe-2 has been started 4 times since FB's release. 3 times the modellers then vanished, and personally I only ever saw 1 WIP picture. I don't know what was said by whom and when regarding the references, because I wasn't around then.

Also, I'd like to apologize for my earlier post Stiglr, I took what you said the wrong way http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On to the discussion at hand:
Sure historical accuracy would be great. But I don't think anyone here is pretending that this is a community of historians, and while there are knowledgeable people, there are also servers for such people with accurate plane sets and full real settings, such as they are. For those who don't care so much about historical accuracy and play more for the feel of the era than anything else, there are more liberal difficulty settings and a large selection of planes.

It's all about opportunity. With this game you can make a fairly accurate mission, or you can make an off-the-wall deathmatch. There is no reason one is better than the other and if someone out there likes the 109z, then so what? Doesn't change my experience of the game any, as long as I don't go on a server that has 109z (if I happen to dislike the plane or think it unfit to be in the sim due to lack of information).

MornJW
04-09-2004, 06:43 PM
You know the M-71 was a 18 piston job, the M-82 only 14! I believe they had some problems getting it to work reliably though.

LEXX_Luthor
04-09-2004, 07:02 PM
Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Offline is irrelevant to me. Thus, my opinion is irrelevant, too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have no opinion on the FB planeset for offwhine use?

More likely, TargetWare feels threatened by the newer planes for onwhine use in FB.

SeaFireLIV
04-09-2004, 07:08 PM
The I-185 never flew in battle? Is this true? Well, it can be used in `what if` Campaigns I guess. But I would prefer that we dealt with the real stuff that actually fought in combat first.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
04-09-2004, 07:10 PM
From La-5/7 in action.

"By January of 1943 the NKAP decided that further development of the I-185 should be postponed since it was clear that the La-5FN was better suited for the Soviet Air Force. Combat evaluations using a number of I-185 prototypes assigned to the 18th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment on the Kalinin Front clearly demonstrated that the ASh-71 was mechanically unreliable. The I-185 also used large quantities of duralumin in its airframe, an alloy in short supply."

Regarding testing the ASh-71 in the La-5:

"The aircraft still failed to prove itself, however, due to the unreliable engine. It soon became clear that the ASh-71F would never enter full scale production because its shortcomings would never be completely solved by the Shvetsov Design Bureau. Further development of the La-5 ASh-71F was terminated. Only a limited number of ASh-71 engines were built and these were used experimentally in in Polikarpov and Lavochkin fighters."

Speeds obtained in testing:

612km/h at sea-level
685km/h at 5,500m

Projected top speed when poor engine cowling fitting was resolved:

720km/ (447mph)

A wicked engine that just couldn't be made reliable.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

XyZspineZyX
04-09-2004, 07:31 PM
Yep, and what do you bet they operate like a finely tuned fuel injection engine in the sim??

clint-ruin
04-09-2004, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
The I-185 never flew in battle? Is this true? Well, it can be used in `what if` Campaigns I guess. But I would prefer that we dealt with the real stuff that actually fought in combat first.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I heard the I-185 is being done as a "gift" for a relative of someone who worked on the original 185 project in WW2. Anyone know any more about that?

Yes it would be nice to get some of the aircraft that saw heavier action, but it requires sources and someone to make and model them. As far as I know the P-51 was the last thing Maddox Games were directly involved with in terms of making the model from scratch?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

crazyivan1970
04-09-2004, 07:41 PM
It was a gift to a very close friend of Olegs, who runs sukhoi.ru for his dedication and support of IL-2/FB/AEP. His Grandfather flew this plane.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

LEXX_Luthor
04-09-2004, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It was a gift to a very close friend of Olegs, who runs sukhoi.ru for his dedication and support of IL-2/FB/AEP. His Grandfather flew this plane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is Awsum! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif A gift shared with many others too. Thanks clint~n~crazy.



This is one of my fave "gifts" we have received over the FB, civil P11 skin by "smith"...

here ---&gt; http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=3498

Its the most spectacular skin on this forgotten plane, and "smith" made only this one skin. I often wonder what happened to this skinner. The name chosen, "smith," may not be mere coincidence.

Capt_Haddock
04-10-2004, 03:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

Wrong, m'lad.

There were requests for the Pe-2 long ago. The explanation was that there were no sources to do the cockpit to minute detail, thus it would not be put into the sim<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh dear... Here we go again http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oleg has never rejected a model with the required quality. Never. It's as simple as that.

If our beloved Pe-2 is not in the game it's simply because regardless of how many people wanted it, no modeller had untill now the time or the will to finish the 3D Max model and the required textures.

Of course Oleg's team could have done it, but then who knows. They are already busy with BoB and I bet they were just under UBI's pressure to deliver more US planes like the Mustang to make the Ace Expansion Pack more appelaing in the US market... That's my own conspiracy theory http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And by the way. The Po-2 should come first http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19banner.jpg

ELEM
04-10-2004, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:
Chkalov, the Russian aviation idol and Stalin's favorite, died in the test flight of the I-185. This is the only reason the project didn't make it. BUT almost all the engeneering ideas were translated onto Lavochkins fighters. In other words, Policarpov had to give away his brilliant work to Lavochkin and Lavochkin got all the fame for building one of the best fighters of WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's amazing how many people keep asking wether the I-185 was used in combat operationally even after many posters have given clear and accurate affirmative answers. This the post that should have sealed this thread. Well done Cossack_UA! Shame nobody is reading it.

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

http://img35.photobucket.com/albums/v107/Elem_Klimov/I-16_desktop.jpg

Lazy312
04-10-2004, 05:07 AM
I'm looking forward I-185 in spite of some negative posts here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

wooden planes, iron men

clint-ruin
04-10-2004, 05:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:
Chkalov, the Russian aviation idol and Stalin's favorite, died in the test flight of the I-185. This is the only reason the project didn't make it. BUT almost all the engeneering ideas were translated onto Lavochkins fighters. In other words, Policarpov had to give away his brilliant work to Lavochkin and Lavochkin got all the fame for building one of the best fighters of WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very far from the only Soviet design that failed to be produced due to purely political reasons.

Worth bearing in mind that even the Tu-2 and Katyushka almost never made it into widespread use due to political reasons or being unappreciated by command, and I don't think anyone could argue that they were bad designs.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

DDad
04-10-2004, 12:51 PM
Just a Couple of points:

Chkalov was NOT killed flying the I-185- he was killed flying the prototype of the the i-180 (The "Super I-16"). Some confusion over the cause of the crash- but appears to be linked to a problem with the cooling shutters- they were wired open for the flight,with the flight limited to one circuit of the field. Chkalov made 3- and the engine literally froze up on the last.
Almost everyone involved with that project was tossed in the gulag, except Polikarpov, who hadn't signed off on that flight.

However, by this time, Polikarpov had made enemys at TSAGI (Central Aerdynamics and Hydrodynamics Institute) due to concerns over instability, and this incident helped ruin his reputation as far as the Russian aviation community.
Add to the fact that by the time the I-185 project was being tested, Yakoklev was in charge of Aircraft production, its rather easy to understand why the I-185 was not produced.

SeaFireLIV
04-10-2004, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
It was a gift to a very close friend of Olegs, who runs sukhoi.ru for his dedication and support of IL-2/FB/AEP. His Grandfather flew this plane.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I see.
OK, np, at least I know why. I`m sure Oleg would keep this kind of thing to a minimum and not let it get out of control. (Well, I hope not. Don`t want to see dozens of planes that didn`t fly).



SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg

XyZspineZyX
04-10-2004, 02:02 PM
Actually, nobody's making the case that the plane "didn't fly".

But, there is still a huge difference between a plane that soldiered on throughout the war, and another plane that was "combat tested" a few times by an operational squadron and then STILL not produced. That implies that it was somehow unfit. It doesn't take much more than a logical look at it to reach such a conclusion...provided one has no ulterior motive.

Just due to the fact that every plane included in the set can be (and usually is) used as if it were one of the "representative" models, without any regard to its numbers or true impact (and this due to the lack of any controls in the sim), this is precisely why planes like this should NOT be in the set. They'll be instantly abused, especially if they happen to be 3-cannon monsters with nice maneuverability. Why use a Yak 9 with a couple of MGs when you can have 3 cannons? (Rhetorical question, of course; the answer is, because there were THOUSANDS of Yak 9s with a couple of MGs and a handful of the 3-cannon wonders, and those had serious mechanical defects).

C'mon folks, fess up, you know this is true and correct. Let's not be so self-serving. this would go for the 109Z, too, the Gotha-229, etc., just so you don't think I'm merely "Luftwhining".

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Sat April 10 2004 at 02:53 PM.]

biggs222
04-10-2004, 04:29 PM
Hey any of u clowns notice that spitfire mkIX cockpit shot? its not much to look at but its spitfire non the less http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?s=81157d767c7bb3dff412d743739401ac&postid=344178