PDA

View Full Version : YP80 vs He162



GerritJ9
04-30-2004, 04:48 PM
I have tried flying both aircraft against each other and the He162 wins every time. The YP80 has extremely poor acceleration and struggles to maintain speed. The He162 on the other hand is a delight to fly, accelerates much better. Has any of you tried the YP80 and are your observations similar as regards acceleration or am I doing something wrong?

GerritJ9
04-30-2004, 04:48 PM
I have tried flying both aircraft against each other and the He162 wins every time. The YP80 has extremely poor acceleration and struggles to maintain speed. The He162 on the other hand is a delight to fly, accelerates much better. Has any of you tried the YP80 and are your observations similar as regards acceleration or am I doing something wrong?

hotspace
04-30-2004, 04:51 PM
I've tried the YP-80 Online many times and if you keep the speed up you should win against the He-162 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hot Space

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/Hot_Space/222_1081552716_hs1sig.jpg

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

ElektroFredrik
04-30-2004, 05:11 PM
I've tried several times in QMB with me in a He-162 against three YP-80
(AI to average) and every time I have a hard time taking them down.
I admit my tactics are probably not the best and my gunnery could
be improved. But still, the 162 is rather weak in guns (I've heard
guns would be improved in the patch) and bleeds a lot of energy in turns,
and the ammo counter don't seem to work...
Come to think of it, the He-162 is something of a jet cr*p-plane .
Btw, now that we have ejection seats anyone tried to replicate
the dogfight ejection-scene from the beginning of "Tomorrow never dies"?

http://www.scarysquirrel.org/ksk/tuftycard3.jpg
"What I study is sex and squirrels" - Jane Waterman, Ph.D.
Flying online as Furvert_Elektro

BlitzPig_DDT
04-30-2004, 05:14 PM
The YP-80 is the superior fighter of the 2 you mention in AEP, as it stands. As mentioned, get and keep your speed and you will have no problems. You can turn with him, and have lots more ammo and guns that are far easier to hit with. (And the 162 positively hates having it's wings damaged)

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

VW-IceFire
04-30-2004, 05:19 PM
When I read the topic I automatically assumed that you would conclude the YP-80 was the superior fighter.

I sure think it is...and thats probably a good thing. If we're slit down the middle then kudos do you for making the He 162 work...I'm not very good with that jet.

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

Foo.bar
04-30-2004, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The YP-80 is the superior fighter of the 2 you mention in AEP(...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

LOOOL

http://www.autobahnpolizei.de/il2skin/sig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=foo.bar&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1078515573)
http://www.mysmilie.de/smilies/figuren/img/006.gif Lieber reich und gesund als arm und krank!

BlitzPig_DDT
04-30-2004, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Foo.bar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The YP-80 is the superior fighter of the 2 you mention in AEP(...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

LOOOL

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, first off, if you are a fan of LW planes, then you want people to think they are ****, or else they will be turned into **** in an upcoming patch, be sure.

Aside from that, the He-162 is quick and a good handler, but, that only lets it stay alive. Taking something down with it is another matter entirely.

Regardless, a good E fighter in the YP-80 with a starting advantage is very hard to beat.

Been there, done that (from both sides). (and I fly all the jets. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

WUAF_Badsight
04-30-2004, 08:26 PM
i like the He-162s speed & guns

but the P-80 is the better dogfighter

mortoma
04-30-2004, 09:22 PM
I am flying a 162 in a camapign and have done very well against AI Yaks and P-39s and have taken out both LA-5FN and LA-7. My best sortie was 4 planes killed, all fighters and I landed with ammo. I also took out 2 IL2s easily during one sortie. So it's not quite the krap plane some of you guys are saying. Some of you must be lousy shots or fliers or both. You must only do quick bursts and don't shoot unless you are sure to hit. Also, it's armament is not weak, it's the small ammo load that is the problem. You only have about 11 one-second bursts before you run out of ammo. Practice you gunnery before you says it's a krap plane.

ajafoofoo
04-30-2004, 10:51 PM
Maybe now p80 is better, but don't you think the roll rate will be reduced at high speed after the patch?

WUAF_Badsight
04-30-2004, 11:17 PM
the P80 has superior handeling

TAGERT.
04-30-2004, 11:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GerritJ9:
I have tried flying both aircraft against each other and the He162 wins every time. The YP80 has extremely poor acceleration and struggles to maintain speed. The He162 on the other hand is a delight to fly, accelerates much better. Has any of you tried the YP80 and are your observations similar as regards acceleration or am I doing something wrong?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes... but not with the P80... It is the man not the machine

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

NorrisMcWhirter
05-01-2004, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well, first off, if you are a fan of LW planes, then you want people to think they are ****, or else they _will_ be turned into **** in an upcoming patch, be sure.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you actually saying that LW planes are about to be porked in the upcoming patch yet again?

I have most success killing P-80s in the Ho229. The cannon just tears them apart!

He129 is a fine ride but the guns are, well, LW guns. The P-80, on the other hand, has the Barnes-Wallis .50s...

Cheers,
Norris

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

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

BlitzPig_DDT
05-01-2004, 08:59 AM
I don't have the patch, but, it is the way of things unfortunately. I wish it wasn't. But any time a LW ride is found to be good, it's "toned down" in the next patch to appeast the anti-LW set. Been that way all along with VERY few and isolated exceptions where the Finns helped the 109s, but it didn't last very long.

I do dread the next patch really. Right now, things are great. There are no "über planes" in the set, every plane has strengths and weaknesses to exploit in combat. I just fear that is a situation that won't last long, given the track record.

This is one case where I do hope to be proven wrong however.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

NorrisMcWhirter
05-01-2004, 10:37 AM
Hi,

"LW planes toned down..."

Don't I know it!

Well, actually, it's the guns this time and not the planes although losing your gunsight every ten microseconds is not amusing.

What always puzzles me is why there is a need to keep re-juggling the qualities of aircraft and weaponry - isn't it as simple as taking "an average" (OK, not too scientific but if it applies to all aircraft in the game then it balances out) of their published flight specs and implementing that ?

It certainly shouldn't be the case where whoever whines the loudest gets certain aircraft toned down (or up) - that is non-historical and is certainly not in the spirit of this sim. Not only that, it would be an insult to it's loyal fanbase.

Take the .50s and the LW 20mm/Mk108 at the moment: OK, so there is apparently a bug which means that the LW cannons are not as powerful as they are supposed to be but how did that happen? Someone tweaking the parameters of the guns? If so, why? Why wasn't it picked up in the play testing that the Mk108s are less effective than a burst of .50? Was it a direct result of allied-whining or bias amongst the playtesters?

I really do hope that this fine sim is not spoiled by "marketing"/"give the mob what they want" decisions that try to distort modelling in favour of increased sales into certain markets.
Appealing to the mob may well be lucrative but, in this case, it's selling out.

Anyway, fingers crossed for the patch.

Cheers,
Norris

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

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

glottis77
05-01-2004, 10:51 AM
come on, just by looking at these 2 planes the P80 has a serious advantage ;-)

FI-Aflak
05-01-2004, 11:38 AM
P-80 is better.

Roll rate is amazing, I love the gunsight. 6x50's beat 2x20's any day, especially when they are all grouped into the nose.

It doesn't climb or accelerate as well, but seeing as you can hit the terminal velocity in either plane in a shallow dive in about a half-second, and the terminal velocities are very close to each other, its pretty easy to undo an E-advantage. P-80 turns very very well, also. you gotta be careful about blacking out.

One thing I don't like about the P-80 is the touchy fuel system.

CooperF4E
05-01-2004, 12:12 PM
If the YP-80 is modelled correctly is should be about 20 mph faster than the Me-262, with the 262's big advantage being in firepower.

I think two well-flown aircraft (one being the YP-80 and the other the Me-262) would make a good dogfight.

Prof.Wizard
05-01-2004, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CooperF4E:
I think two well-flown aircraft (one being the YP-80 and the other the Me-262) would make a good dogfight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep, seen this online and it's always a pleasure! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-----------------------------
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/WizardSig.gif
Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

Gibbage1
05-01-2004, 02:10 PM
Have you ever sean the spread of M2 .50 cal guns? Also, have you ever noticed the P-39 M4 37MM (at 661g) gun is LESS powerful then the 30MM Mk-108 (at 301g)? No. Your only concerned about your LW stuff. Nobody at 1C is picking on LW, and its not some bies. Also, when you say the Mk-108 is less powerful then a birst of 50 cal, thats a joke, correct? That sentance alone shows your off tour rocker http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Why wasn't it picked up in the play testing that the Mk108s are less effective than a burst of .50? Was it a direct result of allied-whining or bias amongst the playtesters?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
05-01-2004, 02:12 PM
Real the pilots manual http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It was like that in real life, and its a nice touch Oleg did. He even has the engine restart sequance just like its in the book. 33% or lower throttle, dive to get the turbine up, and start.

But whats NOT in the game is you cant invert the P-80 for more then 5 seconds without it flaming out. So be thankful its not THAT tempermental.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
One thing I don't like about the P-80 is the touchy fuel system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Prof.Wizard
05-01-2004, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
But whats NOT in the game is you cant invert the P-80 for more then 5 seconds without it flaming out. So be thankful its not THAT tempermental.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG that's awful. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

-----------------------------
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/WizardSig.gif
Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

Copperhead310th
05-01-2004, 04:43 PM
with out being trollish.....

i challenge ANYONE to a one on one DF who thinks the P80 is not the better of the He162.
sorry guys it juts the plain truth. was the same in real life.

In FB the 162 has the edge in speed & guns.

but the P80 has the edge in mobility & in a df that is the deciding factor. if you fly the p-80 right there is not a LW jet in the sim that can touch you. this is something i noticed right off the bat the 1st 5 or 6 times i flew the p-80 against the 262 & 162.

not to mention that i (being the worst shots in the world) can hit that bug jet engine on the 162 from 1.00 meters out & flame the up every time. it's a big target & even a poor shot like myself can cripple a 162 in a pass or two.
Just ask this guy what a p-80 will do to a 262. :-) (http://www.310thvfs.com/userExpandAKill.php?grab=5)

in the match up with a p-80 pilot skills will only get you so far. true it's the pilot & not the plane but if a pilot has a better aircraft his chances of success are GREATLYimproved. & the YP-80 in FB is just a better aircraft. the same can be said for any 1943 Bf-109's vs the P-47. ( a fact that i'm sure is not compleatly right) so in the end the P-80 wins vs ANY LW jets.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

WUAF_Badsight
05-01-2004, 05:48 PM
the Go-229 is a better handeling plane than the P-80 CopperHead

Kurfurst__
05-01-2004, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Have you ever sean the spread of M2 .50 cal guns? Also, have you ever noticed the P-39 M4 37MM (at 661g) gun is LESS powerful then the 30MM Mk-108 (at 301g)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm, cannons work by the method of stuffing explosives into the target and blowing the up, Gib, not by stuffing weight in the plane and then pump it with lead until it becomes so heavy it cant fly.

And the MK108 shells packed more explosives of a more powerful type than the M4`s 37mm shell.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

BlitzPig_DDT
05-01-2004, 06:07 PM
My P-47D-10 with the Miss Behave skin and one other skin that I can't recall right now, is my Jet Killer. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Going against jets is the one place that the absolutely criminal, horribly and inexcuseably incorrect (yes, that is read - "bias on the part of the devs") spread on the .50s actually becomes an asset since all it takes is 1 stray round to light up a Jumo or BMW. Even the YP-80 goes down kinda quick. heh heh http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Gibbage1
05-01-2004, 06:11 PM
So your saying that the Germans could "stuff" more explosives in a 330 gram shell then the US in a 680 gram shell? Wow. Those inventive Germans!!!

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

Uhm, cannons work by the method of stuffing explosives into the target and blowing the up, Gib, not by stuffing weight in the plane and then pump it with lead until it becomes so heavy it cant fly.

And the MK108 shells packed more explosives of a more powerful type than the M4`s 37mm shell.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
05-01-2004, 06:24 PM
a Go229 at speed is the best jet in the game
the Yp-80 is nothing compared
and IMO the yp-80 is just another tank
as it eats Mk108s without some structural damage ,but hey same goes for the king tiger P-63 and stang and spit and..........

oh yes its a DM bug http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif do beta testers test their stuff before they approve it ?
i cant wait for that patch so im finaly able to down a P63 with one good Mg151/20 or Mk108 burst

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sig97th.jpg

Copperhead310th
05-01-2004, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Go-229 is a better handeling plane than the P-80 CopperHead<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3 words.

Fictitious Flight Model

same with the bf-109Z.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

Copperhead310th
05-01-2004, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
a Go229 at speed is the best jet in the game
the Yp-80 is nothing compared
and IMO the yp-80 is just another tank
as it eats Mk108s without some structural damage ,but hey same goes for the king tiger P-63 and stang and spit and..........

oh yes its a DM bug http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif do beta testers test their stuff before they approve it ?
i cant wait for that patch so im finaly able to down a P63 with one good Mg151/20 or Mk108 burst

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sig97th.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sunburst anytime you wanna test those therories just let me know. i'll be more than happy to show you how wrong you truly are. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

KGr.HH-Sunburst
05-01-2004, 06:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Sunburst anytime you wanna test those therories just let me know. i'll be more than happy to show you how wrong you truly are. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what makes you think im not able to shoot you down in a Go229 and you in a Yp-80 ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

maybe you shot down alot of Go229s in a P-80 ,
and i alot of P-80s in a Go229
conclusion would be pilot skill right?

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sig97th.jpg

BlitzPig_DDT
05-01-2004, 06:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Go-229 is a better handeling plane than the P-80 CopperHead<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3 words.

_Fictitious Flight Model_

same with the bf-109Z.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another 3 words -

You lack knowledge.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

SkyChimp
05-01-2004, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

And the MK108 shells packed more explosives of a more powerful type than the M4`s 37mm shell.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet it was less destructive because of its low velocity and comparitively poor penetrative capabilities.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

Magister__Ludi
05-01-2004, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

And the MK108 shells packed more explosives of a more powerful type than the M4`s 37mm shell.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet it was less destructive because of its low velocity and comparitively poor penetrative capabilities.

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Poor penetration capabilities??? against what Chimp, concrete pillboxes? because I'm sure you're not talking about planes.

The problem with large caliber ammo was that it penetrated too easily the planes, doing much less damage this way (just a hole slightly larger than the diameter of the shell).

---

About the subject of the thread: indeed YP-80 is the better dogfighter right now, but this is caused only by the completely erroneous initial climb rate: 6000fpm instead of 4000fpm. Also important to mention is how overmodelled is the high speed maneuvrability of YP-80, at high speed (high alt) the pilot could pull 2G only, whereas in FB you can blackout at will at high speed.

Another weakness of P-80 not modelled in FB was that with little fuel load the CG was very much aft and the plane very easy to stall.

BlitzPig_DDT
05-01-2004, 09:18 PM
The 108 was an overgrown grenade launcher by all accounts I've seen. Incredibly low muzzle velocity. This would cause it to have weak penetration. I would imagine that was the reason for the Mk103. Afterall, why make a bigger heavier version if it wasn't more destructive?

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Bastables
05-01-2004, 10:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So your saying that the Germans could "stuff" more explosives in a 330 gram shell then the US in a 680 gram shell? Wow. Those inventive Germans!!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>\
Lowest HE content for MK108 3cm shell was the ausf C type at 75g of explosives.

M4 37mm had around 45g of HE content

Bastables
05-01-2004, 11:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The 108 was an overgrown grenade launcher by all accounts I've seen. Incredibly low muzzle velocity. This would cause it to have weak penetration. I would imagine that was the reason for the Mk103. Afterall, why make a bigger heavier version if it wasn't more destructive?

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.blitzpigs.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)
The MK 108 was designed in order to correct the faults of the 103: High installed weight, poor rate of fire, expensive and time consuming construction. The MK103 and 101 were failuers in their original intended role of bomber destroyers because of low ROF, one of the main reasons why they were never mounted in production Fighters.

The High velocity 3cm guns were instead mounted in anti-tank aircraft with APCR shot, even here the weapon was not a brillient performer.

It's also intresting that the Soviets followed the same path when fitting the NS-37 to the Mig 15: giving up velocity in favour of lower gun weight and higher rate of fire.

[This message was edited by Bastables on Sat May 01 2004 at 10:22 PM.]

NorrisMcWhirter
05-02-2004, 02:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Have you ever sean the spread of M2 .50 cal guns? Also, have you ever noticed the P-39 M4 37MM (at 661g) gun is LESS powerful then the 30MM Mk-108 (at 301g)? No. Your only concerned about your LW stuff. Nobody at 1C is picking on LW, and its not some bies. Also, when you say the Mk-108 is less powerful then a birst of 50 cal, thats a joke, correct? That sentance alone shows your off tour rocker http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am interested in the LW a/c mostly, yes - that's what I fly. You are thinking that I am biased? Not really - I just want to see a correct historical representation of the past and, when gun effectiveness changes with a patch, you have to question the value of the tweaking.

*Let's face the simple fact - if they weren't too ineffective at present, they wouldn't be in the process of being fixed* - or so we are told.

And no, I haven't noticed:

a. Whether the 37mm cannon is porked, either - I don't fly the asbestos bird that often.

b. If the spread of the Barnes Wallis .50s is too great. I find them to be the perfect spray and pray weapon. Deadly through inaccuracy.

But, if these are historically incorrect, then 1C should correct the problems - it's really that simple. But, let's not have it where if the .50s disperse correcty next time around BUT, people actually find that they preferred it when they dispersed incorrectly, that they are not 'changed back again' just because a sufficiently large 'mob' of people moaned about it.

Cheers,
Norris

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

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

CaptainGelo
05-02-2004, 02:59 AM
this is funnny how YP80 vs He 162 trea changed to German VS US guns..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/oleg86.jpg
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3) | Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

kubanloewe
05-02-2004, 03:36 AM
Eric Brown flew the 162 after war in England and was surprised over its very good handling and the best rollrate he ever seen since hydraulic powered.

On the other Hand the P80 was a bad Plane in 45 and inferior to 262 and 162 !

The secret Tests between 262 and P80 1946 :
..."resistance to the advantage of 900kg (for the P80) is the ME262 superior in acceleration and vmax against the average P80; in climbing they are nearly equal. The ME262 has; what belong to the airresistance; obviously a higher critical machnumber as any Fighter of the USAAF today."

15 accidents and 6 dead pilots (Milo Burcham,Richard Bong) were enough and Hap Arnold have to promise that no accident will happen anymore. otherwise the P80 Programm is dead..

It took a long time to make the P80 to a good Fighter and it´s best role I think was in Training new Pilots for flying with Jet´s.
Don´t know if Rall,Hartmann or Krupinski who practice JEtflying in the 50´s in the US fly sometimes with the P80 or settle on the sabre ?
But Krupinski flew the 262 in WW2 at last and said it was the Queen of Air.

In FB the 162 had a so bad rollrate I´m just wondering about the FM on the Jets especially at highaltitudes were a 109K4 can outrun some of themhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

CaptainGelo
05-02-2004, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So your saying that the Germans could "stuff" more explosives in a 330 gram shell then the US in a 680 gram shell? Wow. Those inventive Germans!!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>\
Lowest HE content for MK108 3cm shell was the ausf C type at 75g of explosives.

M4 37mm had around 45g of HE content<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MK108 had 84 gram of HE.....http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/mk-108.html

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/oleg86.jpg
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3) | Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-luwi-
05-02-2004, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:
Eric Brown flew the 162 after war in England and ...
The secret Tests between 262 and P80 1946 :
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"after war" "1946" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Me-163 and He-162 weren't possible to use in normal airforce service in time of world war 2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

There was more a status of prototypes. Me-262 was difficult with unreliable engines, but Me-163/He-162 were impossible to use in normal service. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

Kurfurst__
05-02-2004, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So your saying that the Germans could "stuff" more explosives in a 330 gram shell then the US in a 680 gram shell? Wow. Those inventive Germans!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed that`s the case, the CSOI gives the Shell, High-Explosive, M54 for the 37mm M4 gun as filled with .10lbs (=45gram) Tetryl.

German documents give various explosive content for the 3cm Minengeschoss, as there were many types developed, ie. Ausf. E1 mit Zerl. is with a mix of 72 gram of HTA41 and 3gram of Nitropenta, a different type is given with a total of 85 gram of HA 41 and Nitropenta filling.
In addition, Nitropenta and the Hexogene (AKA C-4 in US) were considerably more powerful explosive types than Tetryl.
Incendinary 3cm shells were stuffed with only incendinary material, but with an overdose of it, no less than 140 grams - equivalent in inc. material weight to 155 Browning .50 incendinary rounds.

Ie. the 3cm Mine shell of the MK 108 contains double the amount of explosives, despite the whole shell weighting half as much. This was achieved by using special manufacturing methods (copied by the Allies after the war), and high quality steel for the shell, which enabled that thinner walls would stand up for the stress just as well and allowed more space for explosives inside the shell.

As for muzzle velocity, there was not much difference, the 37mm M54 is given as 2000 fps (=609m/sec), whereas the 3cm M-Geschoss is has an MV of 500 m/sec. Neither is really impressive, its not easy to hit with them, but the ROF of the MK 108 is about 4 times as high, ie. 600/min vs. 140/min... you effectively have a Pancor Jackhammer full-auto shotgun at your hands, you dont have to aim much with it, the number of shells in the air is high enough to get a hit for you.

So, basically, taking ROF and explosive weight into consideration, you effectively have 8 times the destruction leaving the MK 108 compared to the M4 in a given amount of time. It all depends how much you can hit with it..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Posted by kubanlowe:

The secret Tests between 262 and P80 1946 :
..."resistance to the advantage of 900kg (for the P80) is the ME262 superior in acceleration and vmax against the average P80; in climbing they are nearly equal. The ME262 has; what belong to the airresistance; obviously a higher critical machnumber as any Fighter of the USAAF today."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


KL, could you please direct me to these tests? I only have seen Yeager`s opinion on them, who basically seen them as equals, giving the 262 the edge in firepower.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

kubanloewe
05-02-2004, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RED__LuWi:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kubanloewe:
Eric Brown flew the 162 after war in England and ...
The secret Tests between 262 and P80 1946 :
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"after war" "1946"

Me-163 and He-162 weren't possible to use in normal airforce service in time of world war 2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

There was more a status of prototypes. Me-262 was difficult with unreliable engines, but Me-163/He-162 were impossible to use in normal service. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif[/QUOTE


HE162 had one airkill in 1945 !

But P80 was Prototyp http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and what about the great russian airforce´s jet´s ?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

CaptainGelo
05-02-2004, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:
and what about the great russian airforce´s jet´s ?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.airwar.ru/photo/mig15/mig15.jpg

http://www.airwar.ru/photo/mig15/mig-15.jpg

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/oleg86.jpg
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3) | Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Willey
05-02-2004, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So your saying that the Germans could "stuff" more explosives in a 330 gram shell then the US in a 680 gram shell? Wow. Those inventive Germans!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yor M4 37x145R shell has 45g of explosives according to this site:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Don't forget there are alse AP shells in that cannon that have no chemical charge at all.
The MK-108's 30x90RB shell has 72-85g of PETN which is 2,21 times as powerful as TNT. Dunno what's in the M4 shell, but probably the same stuff. Minengeschoß shells for the 20mm gun had 18,6g and later 25g of PETN BTW. 2-3 of them and you've got the same chemical energy like the 37mm has. Those numbers show how much these guns should rock - the M4 was quite a killer already, against a fighter one HE hit should be a kill.

Willey
05-02-2004, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Go-229 is a better handeling plane than the P-80 CopperHead<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3 words.

_Fictitious Flight Model_

same with the bf-109Z.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, for the P-80 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif. At TO weight it's 287kg/m² while the Go has ~145kg/m³. THe Go was a glider equipped with jet engines, except on the yaw axis it should have quite a stable handling. The P-80 turns pretty well for that wingload. Some planes with 2/3 of that can't do so...

As for the 109Z: who knows anyway??

Kurfurst__
05-02-2004, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
Yeah, for the P-80 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif. At TO weight it's 287kg/m² while the Go has ~145kg/m³. THe Go was a glider equipped with jet engines, except on the yaw axis it should have quite a stable handling. The P-80 turns pretty well for that wingload. Some planes with 2/3 of that can't do so...

As for the 109Z: who knows anyway??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Indeed, the YP-80`s FM is really funny. Laminar flow wings with high wingloading, yet it turns like mad, looses no E, and very hard to stall. Roll rate is also off quite a bit at low levels, some 1/3 better than it should. I hope it will see some re-work in the future.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Willey
05-02-2004, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RED__LuWi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:
Eric Brown flew the 162 after war in England and ...
The secret Tests between 262 and P80 1946 :
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"after war" "1946" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Me-163 and He-162 weren't possible to use in normal airforce service in time of world war 2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

There was more a status of prototypes. Me-262 was difficult with unreliable engines, but Me-163/He-162 were impossible to use in normal service. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the YP-80??? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

CaptainGelo
05-02-2004, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So your saying that the Germans could "stuff" more explosives in a 330 gram shell then the US in a 680 gram shell? Wow. Those inventive Germans!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yor M4 37x145R shell has 45g of explosives according to this site:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Don't forget there are alse AP shells in that cannon that have no chemical charge at all.
The MK-108's 30x90RB shell has 72-85g of PETN which is 2,21 times as powerful as TNT. Dunno what's in the M4 shell, but probably the same stuff. Minengeschoß shells for the 20mm gun had 18,6g and later 25g of PETN BTW. 2-3 of them and you've got the same chemical energy like the 37mm has. Those numbers show how much these guns should rock - the M4 was quite a killer already, against a fighter one HE hit should be a kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russians didnt used AP shels in p39 or 63....

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/oleg86.jpg
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3) | Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Willey
05-02-2004, 06:07 AM
How did they bust tanks with it then??
We had this issue already back in Il-2 times. It's claimed the sovjets just got HE shells, but actually they also had APs. Probably they didn't load APs for fighter sweeps. Thats the error in FB then, you just have got a default belting. The Germans often had belts of M-Geschoß only for their 20 and 30mm, that's the same thing. I also would like to choose it myself.

SkyChimp
05-02-2004, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:

On the other Hand the P80 was a bad Plane in 45 and inferior to 262 and 162 !

The secret Tests between 262 and P80 1946 :
..."resistance to the advantage of 900kg (for the P80) is the ME262 superior in acceleration and vmax against the average P80; in climbing they are nearly equal. The ME262 has; what belong to the airresistance; obviously a higher critical machnumber as any Fighter of the USAAF today."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is an EXTREMELY loose paraphrase of the test result against the XP-80 protoype aircraft. Not too many people that are German-plane-fans can remember to put the "X" where it belongs.

That conclusion was drawn from tests against a plane that was dimmensionsally disimilar to the production P-80, and with an engine with more than 1,000 lbs less thrust than the production plane.

The test is summarized in the 4th volume of "Me-262."

But this was only 1 of at least 5 tests conducted. Other tests concluded the superiority of the P-80. And performance numbers further prove the point.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

Foo.bar
05-02-2004, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Well, first off, if you are a fan of LW planes, then you want people to think they are ****, or else they _will_ be turned into **** in an upcoming patch, be sure.(...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, probably the eurofighters, tornadoes, F-16 and tomcats are ALL better planes as any 39-45 luftwaffe planes. the only thing is: they all saw combat AFTER 45. as your great P-80 did. that plane never fought against any enemy during WW2. so PLEASE stop speculate what if...


http://www.mysmilie.de/smilies/figuren/img/006.gif Lieber reich und gesund als arm und krank!

Bremspropeller
05-02-2004, 07:10 AM
You all forgot one aspect...


MY ***** IS LARGER THAN YOURS !!


Now think about it...

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

CaptainGelo
05-02-2004, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
How did they bust tanks with it then??
myself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

they didnt.....not with this 2 planes.......why do u thing they got IL-2? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/oleg86.jpg
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3) | Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

purzel08
05-02-2004, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Go-229 is a better handeling plane than the P-80 CopperHead<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3 words.

_Fictitious Flight Model_



same with the bf-109Z.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
_http://www.310thVFS.com
_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes ...and I think that the p80 is the best modelled plane in FB. Come on ...the p80 is the LAme7 of the jets http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

greetings...

BlitzPig_DDT
05-02-2004, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Go-229 is a better handeling plane than the P-80 CopperHead<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3 words.

_Fictitious Flight Model_

same with the bf-109Z.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, for the P-80 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif. At TO weight it's 287kg/m² while the Go has ~145kg/m³. THe Go was a glider equipped with jet engines, except on the yaw axis it should have quite a stable handling. The P-80 turns pretty well for that wingload. Some planes with 2/3 of that can't do so...

As for the 109Z: who knows anyway??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

109Z? Aerodynamicisrs know. Oleg is reputed to be one. Concept was old as dirt before the 109Z was planned. 60 some odd years later, we know a thing or two more. Not hard to know how it would fly. Even Oleg said so himself.

Just wanted to point out that Reimar chose a Bell Curve lift distribution with non-laminar flow wings intentionally. The latter because laminar flow wings are bad for sailplanes, and an experiment with them killed the test pilot. And the former because it, combined with the swept leading edge, produces stability that increases as lift increases. Lift also increases as speed increases.

It also had the added benefit of preventing control force reversal. (something Northrop only overcame with the use of hydraulics)

The down side was more drag, but, that's minor given how little drag is going to be present just on the bases of what the design is.

It is reflected in AEP as well. Fly slow and the nose swings all over the place. Especially if you roll. Fly fast however, and it's much more stable.

You can even recreate the death of Lt. Ziller in the last flight of the HoIX. He had 1 engine out, and flaps dropped down to full from hydraulic loss, he extended the gear and found that he was gonna land short, so he throttled up and found that, to his horror, the yaw force was much too great for the spoiler system to overcome, so he throttled back (hit soft soil, flipped over into a tree and died). We can't do the soft soil bit, but, get slow with flaps and gear down and 1 engine throttled up a bit and watch that thing yaw uncontrollably.

It really is modeled very well, in all respects. People who think otherwise just don't have any real knowledge of the plane, or of the design type.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

BlitzPig_DDT
05-02-2004, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RED__LuWi:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kubanloewe:
Eric Brown flew the 162 after war in England and ...
The secret Tests between 262 and P80 1946 :
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"after war" "1946"

Me-163 and He-162 weren't possible to use in normal airforce service in time of world war 2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

There was more a status of prototypes. Me-262 was difficult with unreliable engines, but Me-163/He-162 were impossible to use in normal service. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif[/QUOTE


HE162 had one airkill in 1945 !

But P80 was Prototyp http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and what about the great russian airforce´s jet´s ?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The He-162 had 13 kills in the war, actually. 2 squadrons were equipped with it. 1 was something of a test sqaudron IIRC.

The Komet was used quite a bit during the war as well.

And soviet jets didn't exist until they had captured German turbine and airframes to learn from and didn't really get anywhere until they had a Rolls Royce Nene to copy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Copperhead310th
05-02-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:
Eric Brown flew the 162 after war in England and was surprised over its very good handling and the best rollrate he ever seen since hydraulic powered.

On the other Hand the P80 was a bad Plane in 45 and inferior to 262 and 162 !

The secret Tests between 262 and P80 1946 :
..."resistance to the advantage of 900kg (for the P80) is the ME262 superior in acceleration and vmax against the average P80; in climbing they are nearly equal. The ME262 has; what belong to the airresistance; obviously a higher critical machnumber as any Fighter of the USAAF today."

15 accidents and 6 dead pilots (Milo Burcham,Richard Bong) were enough and Hap Arnold have to promise that no accident will happen anymore. otherwise the P80 Programm is dead..

It took a long time to make the P80 to a good Fighter and it´s best role I think was in Training new Pilots for flying with Jet´s.
Don´t know if Rall,Hartmann or Krupinski who practice JEtflying in the 50´s in the US fly sometimes with the P80 or settle on the sabre ?
But Krupinski flew the 262 in WW2 at last and said it was the Queen of Air.

In FB the 162 had a so bad rollrate I´m just wondering about the FM on the Jets especially at highaltitudes were a 109K4 can outrun some of themhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol hahahaha 262 & 162 better than the P-80! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

you are so full of $H*t you eyes are brown. lol

& DDT prove it. post some numbers. don't just say i lack knowlage. back it up with facts.

Neither plane barely got off the drawing board.
& iun the case of the 109Z the only working proto type was lost to Allied bombardment.

so how in the hell can we have a flight modle for a plane that never flew?!

Sunburst name the time, day & server for that P-80 VS He-162 1 on 1.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

BlitzPig_DDT
05-02-2004, 12:55 PM
You're hopeless Copper. I think you subconciously forget any post I write where I explicitly explain exactly how an FM can be made for it, simply because you don't want to accept it.

And, I did provide data above, but you ignored that too.

Besides which, you proved yourself just now that you lack knowledge. Both in your question of how an FM could be made for the 109Z, but also in the statement that the 229 "barely made it off the drawing board". (just to head it off at the pass, I'm speaking of the "design", not the 229s sitting on the production line at Gotha when the US over ran it)

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Matz0r
05-02-2004, 01:10 PM
I've just flown the He-162 and YP-80 single missions. When you got a speed andvantage in the He-162 you can do what you want to the YP-80 as long as you keep the speed up. The YP-80 strength seems to be tight turns and powerful acceleration - the 80 seems to be the fastest to gain speed of all the jets.

kubanloewe
05-02-2004, 02:12 PM
@ Kupferkopp http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, ehm copperhead

do you know that Hap Arnold himself stopped Howard Hughes (Hughes Aircraft) to take part in the Bendix-and-Thompson-Jet-Trophy with his ME262 against P80 ? And nobody at that time doubt that the 262 had won that race.

By the way, P80 in 44/45 was only in Prototyp status and so normally it has no rights to be ingame so as GO229,109Z and some others too. But for babyplaying OK every side needs a Pussyhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

TAGERT.
05-02-2004, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:
But P80 was Prototyp http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The XP-80 was, but the P80 wasnt... Only 4 were sent to the ETO and about 30 were sent to the PTO... I think some of the 4.. if not all that went to the ETO were XP-80s.. but the 30 that were sent to the PTO were P-80s.. In light of them sending more to the PTO than ETO is most likly due to the JAPAN being a bigger threat than the GERMANS. Not 100% sure of the shipping date of the 30 P-80s to the PTO.. It might have been after the Germans surendered?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
05-02-2004, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:
do you know that Hap Arnold himself stopped Howard Hughes (Hughes Aircraft) to take part in the Bendix-and-Thompson-Jet-Trophy with his ME262 against P80?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Me262 that H.H. had was modified... I know for a fact they clean up the body.. Not sure what they did to the engines... If necessary I could find out next week, the H.H. Me262 was out at CHINO for years.. I actually jumped up on the wing once and look into the cockpit! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Sadly they sold it a few years back, but not before un-doing alot of the H.H. mods, and putting a war time paint job on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:
And nobody at that time doubt that the 262 had won that race.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm I dont know all the details of that... But one thing for sure, the air force dosnt typically sell off state of the art aircraft to the public... At that time the P80 was... Was this an air force event or an reno type of civilian race?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-02-2004, 03:07 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

TAGERT.
05-02-2004, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToP_BlackSheep:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/yawnme.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

BlitzPig_DDT
05-02-2004, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:
But P80 was Prototyp http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The XP-80 was, but the P80 wasnt... Only 4 were sent to the ETO and about 30 were sent to the PTO... I think some of the 4.. if not all that went to the ETO were XP-80s.. but the 30 that were sent to the PTO were P-80s.. In light of them sending more to the PTO than ETO is most likly due to the JAPAN being a bigger threat than the GERMANS. Not 100% sure of the shipping date of the 30 P-80s to the PTO.. It might have been after the Germans surendered?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'cept we don't have the P-80. We have the YP-80. Still a prototype, as it was not yet a production aircraft.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

WUAF_Badsight
05-02-2004, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:
@By the way, P80 in 44/45 was only in Prototyp status and so normally it has no rights to be ingame
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why do you say that ?

1946 planes are ALLOWED in ........ so the 1945 P-80 meets the requirments

besides the fact that it is a WW2 fighter

WUAF_Badsight
05-02-2004, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:


3 words.

_Fictitious Flight Model_

same with the bf-109Z.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no

your wrong ...... totally

the Go-229 in FB is based on test data

but anyway i was meaning how they play in FB

dont let americanisim get in the way of objectivity

(same to LW fans)

ingame the GO is a better slow speed turn-fighter

BTW CopperHead ...... the Bf 109-Z is based on ACTUAL Bf 109-G6 flight data

TAGERT.
05-02-2004, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
cept we don't have the P-80. We have the YP-80.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said we didnt, my point was the P-80 was NOT a prototype like kubanloewe implied

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Still a prototype, as it was not yet a production aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. I never said it was.. so not too sure what you point is? All I pointed out was that 30 P-80s were sent to the PTO before the end of the war.. ie production 80s not prototypes...

Had the Germans held out a little longer... there might have been a chance that a He162 and and P80 would have mixxed it up... But had they there would have also been a chance of us dropping an A-bomb on Germany too! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
05-02-2004, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
no

your wrong ...... totally<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Totally?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Go-229 in FB is based on test data<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. I have not seen much mentioned the flight data of the Go229... Be it from Lw or post war US testing... Which is not to imply it does not exist.. Only havnt seen anything on it... But, I guess they could use the NM9 northrop flying wing data from 1940.. They tested that aircraft alot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
BTW CopperHead ...... the Bf 109-Z is based on ACTUAL Bf 109-G6 flight data<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Well than.. if that is all it takes then the Fw190 could be BASED ON a B52! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I dont care what they say or how they try to sell it.. there is just not enough info to justify the Bf109Z FM.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

BlitzPig_DDT
05-02-2004, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Go-229 in FB is based on test data<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. I have not seen much mentioned the flight data of the Go229... Be it from Lw or post war US testing... Which is not to imply it does not exist.. Only havnt seen anything on it... But, I guess they could use the NM9 northrop flying wing data from 1940.. They tested that aircraft alot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Combination of Ho-IX, and hardcore aerodynamic knowledge.

What I have been telling Copper and others - quite simply, if you understood the principles of nürflügels, you'd realize (not jumping on your case, just making a point) that the 229 is modeled quite accurately. It just takes understanding of the principles, and an open mind that doesn't loath the idea of WWII German technical prowess. (something I think many people here are guilty/victims of)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
BTW CopperHead ...... the Bf 109-Z is based on ACTUAL Bf 109-G6 flight data<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Well than.. if that is all it takes then the Fw190 could be BASED ON a B52! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I dont care what they say or how they try to sell it.. there is just not enough info to justify the Bf109Z FM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/quote]

That's non-sense. Do you honestly beleive that, or are you just being a smartass? (I ask that honestly)

The trailing comment indicates, however, that you simply despise the very idea that something could be both German (of WWII vintage) and good.

I really do wonder why all along Oleg's interpretation of everything has been acceptable, until something LW, with out facts to shut the haters up, comes out that is competitive. Suddenly it's bogus.

The worst part is, that everything it's capable of makes perfect sense. Again though, you need some basic understanding and an open mind. Which explains a lot of people around here I think.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Copperhead310th
05-02-2004, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
You're hopeless Copper. I think you subconciously forget any post I write where I explicitly explain exactly how an FM can be made for it, simply because you don't want to accept it.

And, I did provide data above, but you ignored that too.

Besides which, you proved yourself just now that you lack knowledge. Both in your question of how an FM could be made for the 109Z, but also in the statement that the 229 "barely made it off the drawing board". (just to head it off at the pass, I'm speaking of the "design", not the 229s sitting on the production line at Gotha when the US over ran it)

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

didn't see that post. till just now.
still...i find it hard to belive that the 109Z is out performing the P-38. the P-47 & 38 have seriuos fm isues. & i fail to see how the snap rolls on these planes contue to get worse with each patch. yet the german planes are all Uber.

the few planes the USAAF have in the game that ARE close to right are the P-80, P-51, P-63. Even the P-40, whitch was dead on correct for FM before the last patch has lost it's edge. the only thing that needed to change on the 40 was top speed. it was as others besides my self around 20 kph too slow on top end.

my point is with the exception of maybe the p-39....all the US planes of the war were not DOGS. and any idiot who sugests such is either stupid or bias. I'm not asking for the us planes to be ubber just competative. as they we're in real life.

as for the above (109Z) yes Oleg is every thing you said & IMO then some. but i cannot buy that it's better than the p-38. put up some matching numbers & i'll shut up.

As for the P-80 i think it's pretty well done in FB. with the exception of the engine flame out bug. to my understanding the p-80 didn't have this flaw. no the XP-YP may have but not the P-80. so if some one has any info there i'd like to see it.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

Copperhead310th
05-02-2004, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:


3 words.

_Fictitious Flight Model_

same with the bf-109Z.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no

your wrong ...... totally

the Go-229 in FB is based on test data

but anyway i was meaning how they play in FB

dont let americanisim get in the way of objectivity

(same to LW fans)

ingame the GO is a better slow speed turn-fighter

BTW CopperHead ...... the Bf 109-Z is based on ACTUAL Bf 109-G6 flight data<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

just because it's 2 bf-109G-6's stuck together dosent mean it should be twice as good. lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I agree with Tagert's last statement 100%.
he just put it into better words than i did. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

WUAF_Badsight
05-02-2004, 09:44 PM
no CopperHead your right

the P-80 Flame-out is bugged

it was way more tricky to handel IRL than it is in FB

WUAF_Badsight
05-02-2004, 09:53 PM
ok CopperhHead lets look at the Bf-109Z

unlike 2 Bf109 G6s it only has 2 leading edge wigtips to create drag

unlike 2 G6s it has one cockpit that is smooth

it has twice the power than a G6 but unlike one G6 with double HP .... the Z has double the HP AND double the props doing the thrust

it has the advantages that 2 G6s give but not all the disadvantages that 2 g6s would have

TAGERT.
05-02-2004, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Combination of Ho-IX, and hardcore aerodynamic knowledge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of flight data did you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
What I have been telling Copper and others - quite simply, if you understood the principles of nürflügels, you'd realize (not jumping on your case, just making a point) that the 229 is modeled quite accurately. It just takes understanding of the principles, and an open mind<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Flight Modeling is not what we are talking about here... Flight Modeling Verification is what we are talking about here

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
that doesn't loath the idea of WWII German technical prowess. (something I think many people here are guilty/victims of)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
That's non-sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hardly

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Do you honestly beleive that, or are you just being a smartass? (I ask that honestly)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes I honestly belive that using Flight Data Results from a single 109 to verify a twin 109 is to laugh

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The trailing comment indicates, however, that you simply despise the very idea that something could be both German (of WWII vintage) and good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hardly... But your trailing comment indicates, however, that you are paranoid... In that my reply said nothing GOOD or BAD about anything German.. I only said that trying to validate a 109Z with 109G flight data is in error.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
I really do wonder why all along Oleg's interpretation of everything has been acceptable, until something LW, with out facts to shut the haters up, comes out that is competitive. Suddenly it's bogus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Well if that isnt a perfect example of the coffie calling the kettle black!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The worst part is, that everything it's capable of makes perfect sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Everything... you state that like you actully could list just want it was they used... I didnt realise you were on Oleg's progaming staff

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Again though, you need some basic understanding and an open mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have both... what is really needed is some medication to get past your paranoid state

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Which explains a lot of people around here I think.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100% there are alot of parnoid people around here

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
05-02-2004, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
just because it's 2 bf-109G-6's stuck together dosent mean it should be twice as good. lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
05-02-2004, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
ok CopperhHead lets look at the Bf-109Z

unlike 2 Bf109 G6s it only has 2 leading edge wigtips to create drag

unlike 2 G6s it has one cockpit that is smooth

it has twice the power than a G6 but unlike one G6 with double HP .... the Z has double the HP _AND_ double the props doing the thrust

it has the advantages that 2 G6s give but not all the disadvantages that 2 g6s would have<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! Sounds so simple when you say it.. Makes you wonder why we get patches that tweak the FM... I mean if it was that simple there would be no errors... ever... Truth is, it aint that simple

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WUAF_Badsight
05-02-2004, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:

WOW! Sounds so simple when you say it.. Truth is, it aint that simple

__TAGERT__
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes it is easy to be flippant when your trying to disprove or mock

what i typed wasnt ever going to be in-depth ...... i got too little time to debate with ppl who dont know any better

it was a few examples of why the Bf-Z should actually be capable of good performance

especially up high is where having two props doing the pulling be more benefical

as for being simple ..... well not even the worlds most powerfull super-computer can totally simulate the enviroment

but that doesnt mean .....

now listen .......

that the aircraft companies less powerfull computers get plane design calculations totally wrong

its a science ..... a WELL UNDERSTOOD science

to say that the Bf-Z could NOT have a FM projected for it is total ignorance on the part of the poster

it goes beyond ignorance

aero design is not simple .... your correct

but its well tested & understood

LEXX_Luthor
05-02-2004, 10:38 PM
HOT DOG, hijacked into another Fb109Z thread, one of my faves ~sweet~



__________________
New Zealand's Cleopatra2525 Sunday mornings USA SciFi Channel (5-6 AM EST lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )
http://www.xenite.org/exchange/standard/cleorenpictures.jpg (http://www.sf-fandom.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=19)

TAGERT.
05-02-2004, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
yes it is easy to be flippant when your trying to disprove or mock<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What can I say.. It's a gift!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
what i typed wasnt ever going to be in-depth......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>SOP for you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
i got too little time to debate with ppl who dont know any better<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But you are debating me, not yourself

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
it was a few examples of why the Bf-Z should actually be capable of good performance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Based on....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
especially up high is where having two props doing the pulling be more benefical<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Geee... then why not 3 109s stringed togther... or 4 or 5?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
as for being simple ..... well not even the worlds most powerfull super-computer can totally simulate the enviroment<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Depends on your definition of enviroment

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
but that doesnt mean .....

now listen .......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All ears

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
that the aircraft companies less powerfull computers get plane design calculations totally wrong

its a science ..... a WELL UNDERSTOOD science<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
to say that the Bf-Z could NOT have a FM projected for it is total ignorance on the part of the poster<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well good thing I didnt say that than.. DID I! What I did say was using 109G data to validate the 109Z is comical to say the least

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
it goes beyond ignorance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont be so hard on yourself... many here made the same mistake

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
aero design is not simple .... your correct<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As an engineer that works in Aerospace I will have to agree with you 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
but its well tested & understood<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%... Now that your done with your... how did you say it? flippant rant... Answer me this.. If it is so well tested and understood... WHY O WHY do we have patches that change the FM? Tested.. Yes.. Understood.. Yes... Simple.. No... Flawless... No.. And that is for aircraft that ACTUALLY EXISTED and have flight DATA... UNLIKE the 109Z

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Bastables
05-02-2004, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by oleg86:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So your saying that the Germans could "stuff" more explosives in a 330 gram shell then the US in a 680 gram shell? Wow. Those inventive Germans!!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>\
Lowest HE content for MK108 3cm shell was the ausf C type at 75g of explosives.

M4 37mm had around 45g of HE content<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MK108 had 84 gram of HE.....http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/mk-108.html

')<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Ausf A MG had 84g of High explosive content, the ausf C MG shell had 75g.....
The point was even the lower HE content of the ausf C has almost double the HE content of the much larger M4 37mm round

WUAF_Badsight
05-02-2004, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
What I did say was using 109G data to validate the 109Z is comical to say the least
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok aside from your pathetic way of replying to ppl this has to be commented on

the Bf 109-Z is basically two G6's put together

how you can say that basing the FM on the plane it itself is based on as being "comical" is puzzeling

i mean to say that your being overly sarcastic simply to try & put down the Bf-Z

flight data for the G6 exists-a-plenty

it will give the entire basis for the limits this prototype should be able to accomplish

your reply is childish

TAGERT.
05-02-2004, 11:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
ok aside from your pathetic way of replying to ppl this has to be commented on<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Bf 109-Z is basically two G6's put together

how you can say that basing the FM on the plane it itself is based on as being "comical" is puzzeling<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your kidding right? Hmmmmm looks like you need an example here.. Ok here goes.. So, tell me, sense you seem to know, and it is so easy, by stringing two 109s togther side by side should the roll rate be double or half or what? Support your statment with either 109 flight test data.. or the math of the FM... After you give it a moments though you will begin to realise what a WAG it is and how LITTLE it has to do with 109G FM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
i mean to say that your being overly sarcastic simply to try & put down the Bf-Z<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neither

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
flight data for the G6 exists-a-plenty<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So does flight data on the B52.. But only a fool would try and say a multi engine FM is equal to a single engine FM.. or try to extrapolte on to the other.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
it will give the entire basis for the limits this prototype should be able to accomplish<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Ok, it is clear that you are just pulling my leg here..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
your reply is childish<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Fehler
05-03-2004, 05:19 AM
109Z whiners are a funny sort. They cry about "It never flew" but are more than willing to jump into a Mig3U. The thing here is I never see the 109Z online unless it is in kiddie servers. I flew it once for about 2 minutes to check it out and shoot a few bombers in QMB. It was neat, but that was about it for me. The only time I saw it online I was in a FW190 A-5 and ripped 3 of them apart without a blink of an eye, so it's all but Uber in my book. I just dont understand why some people say, "It isnt real!" then fly with externals, pilot names at 10k, and no cockpit bars with triangles dancing around on open plane set of any type vs. any type servers. Gimme a break!

The fact is, any plane can beat any other in this game if the pilot is crafty and patient.

I do also agree that when they fix the dispursion of the 50 cals, you will see that a lot of crappy shooting folks will miss more and be even more discouraged. I hope they made them into lasers, because I will laugh when some of you cant score a single hit anylonger, and wish the shotgun effect was back!

The 37mm round was a pig compared to the German 30mm, especially for air to air combat. The German round packed more potential energy in explosive power, although not as much penetration power because of design necessity. The P39 was a low alt ground support aircraft and needed the 37mm for light armor and anti vehicle destruction. The German 30mm was designed for use against thin skinned relatively fragile aircraft. Apples and oranges. If the 37 was the "All that" round, you would have seen continued use of it after the war. It was abandoned for better thin walled technology for air-to-air combat.

This thread was started about the He162 v P80. The 162 was made as a cheap, fast, bomber interceptor. It was designed to be able to be flown by inexperienced pilots with relative ease. It was not designed for dogfighting like the P80 was. Different needs dictated different aircraft types. The Germans didnt need a high alt jet fighter, they needed a high alt jet bomber-interceptor. It was originally designed to utilitze twin 30mm guns, but there were so many problems that the 20mm was used instead.

Truthfully, the last German pure-dogfighter was probably the Bf109F. Everything else was designed with added intentions.

But my suggestion for those that wish to "Wish away" the 109Z is this, pure and simple. Go fly a better server. If the server you fly on now allows it, and you dont change servers, then you get what you deserve... Lots of 30mm's up the kazoo...

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

TAGERT.
05-03-2004, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
This thread was started about the He162 v P80. The 162 was made as a cheap, fast, bomber interceptor. It was designed to be able to be flown by inexperienced pilots with relative ease. It was not designed for dogfighting like the P80 was.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Different needs dictated different aircraft types. The Germans didnt need a high alt jet fighter, they needed a high alt jet bomber-interceptor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%... And that need was not limited to JETs... It was that need that took the early war mindset of nible fighter to bomber chaser... You can see that transition in the 109.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Truthfully, the last German pure-dogfighter was probably the Bf109F. Everything else was designed with added intentions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
But my suggestion for those that wish to "Wish away" the 109Z is this, pure and simple. Go fly a better server. If the server you fly on now allows it, and you dont change servers, then you get what you deserve... Lots of 30mm's up the kazoo...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%.. As for the 109Z.. I dont have a problem with it, as a mater of fact when Im hosting I have a few maps with it and the Go229.. I just get a good laugh at people who think you can validate the 109Z with 109G flight data

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

FatBoyHK
05-03-2004, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
This thread was started about the He162 v P80. The 162 was made as a cheap, fast, bomber interceptor. It was designed to be able to be flown by inexperienced pilots with relative ease. It was not designed for dogfighting like the P80 was.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is the original design goal but it turned out to be a very difficult plane to master. But if flown by experience pilot it was deadly.... provided that the engine (and all other parts) runs as expected... You know, it was still a prototype, or at most a rushed serial production....

Kurfurst__
05-03-2004, 11:05 AM
I dont know what this crying about the 109Z. I flown against it, my K-4 makes short work of them. Just don`t get in front, manouver them out, it`s not hard, and their stall characteristics literally SUC K compared to normal 109s.

Flown the 109Z once or twice, and didn`t like it, apart from the fact it`s another silly `46 UFO for me. Just gimme the good old 2000 PS Daimler with the 3cm cannon, and I light up the skies. Who needs a Zwilling for that... Last time I flew, it was a good while ago, I roamed through 3-4 US escorts, P-47s, P-38s, P-51 TRYING to protect that lone B-17. You know what I did? I did it plain stupid, approaching from just flew straight toward the bomber, fired a few shots at the P-38 that got in the way, then approached the bomber from dead six straight, not slowing down for a moment for anything, certainly not for the jokers in those Preycrafts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.. it was a race between a 30-ton plane with a twin fifty, and a 3-ton plane with the single dreicentimeter. No gunpods or such... And David won over Goliath once again... Hit me oil cooler, that`s all. and those little jokers? The noticed me around when the bomber fell apart... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Eat my exhaust, Indianer, LOL!, head back the base, no trouble at all to leave them behind. 109Z, FOR WHAT, god`s sake, there`s 109K for those who like playing God doing dumbflying with zombie-tactics, and it STILL gets you out of trouble at will... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Aaron_GT
05-03-2004, 11:09 AM
"The P39 was a low alt ground support aircraft and needed the 37mm for light armor and anti vehicle destruction. "

The P38, 39, and 40 were all designed to meet
the same specification for a high altitude
interceptor with decent loiter time for bomber
interception over the continental USA and
USA interest such as the Philipines.

The P39 was designed around the 37mm gun,
the P38 originally around a 23mm cannon, with
the 37mm cannon being adopted later before
being replaced with a 20mm gun.

The P39 was not, at any time, designed for
a ground attack role (this being assigned
to the A designation aircraft in the 1930s).

Kurfurst__
05-03-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The P39 was not, at any time, designed for
a ground attack role (this being assigned
to the A designation aircraft in the 1930s).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to mention the fact that the AP shot of the M4 gun could penetrate only 1 inch of Homogenous armor at 500 yards distance with 20 degree side angle... Rather induquate vs. serious armored targets.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Aaron_GT
05-03-2004, 12:26 PM
"Not to mention the fact that the AP shot of the M4 gun could penetrate only 1 inch of Homogenous armor at 500 yards distance with 20 degree side angle... Rather induquate vs. serious armored targets."

Actually at the time it was designed this
would have been a decent anti-armour performance,
but even so, it is not what it was designed for
in way whatsoever.

LEXX_Luthor
05-03-2004, 12:28 PM
Since this is Fb109Z thread now, the Z makes the ultimate high speed long range jabo, and escort fighter which had long eluded Germany. Great for campaigns but it needs He~177 to escort and protect from MiG~3U....and bigger maps to exploit long range. I know the amatuer Ace or Master dogfighters don't think about jabo~ing or escorting on the cute little internet maplets, but that's "ok" too, we don't mind.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

KarayaEine
05-03-2004, 01:29 PM
The P-80 is better but the He-162 is more fun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Johann

Horrido!
"We need more ammo!"
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid106/p5f881fba318d7f0779ac1d9df0ace079/f96e6284.jpg

"Achtung Kommandant, sind Sie Fl¤che auf Feuer"