PDA

View Full Version : p-63 king cobra performance.



nixon-fiend.
02-11-2004, 06:22 AM
As I'm sure you're all aware, we shall be getting the P63 in the march addon..

As a current p39 jock, this A/C should provide a lovely little bird for me to progress onto..

But how is better in terms of performance to the aircobra? I know the armament is the same as the Q10 and obviously.. the plane is pretty similar - so what areas of enhancement will it have over the'39? Just speed or what?

Gonna be sooo torn between the spitfire mk.V and this bird (i love spits but the V is my least favourite variant.. just hope nyme reels out a mk.VIII !)

Thanks.

nixon-fiend.
02-11-2004, 06:22 AM
As I'm sure you're all aware, we shall be getting the P63 in the march addon..

As a current p39 jock, this A/C should provide a lovely little bird for me to progress onto..

But how is better in terms of performance to the aircobra? I know the armament is the same as the Q10 and obviously.. the plane is pretty similar - so what areas of enhancement will it have over the'39? Just speed or what?

Gonna be sooo torn between the spitfire mk.V and this bird (i love spits but the V is my least favourite variant.. just hope nyme reels out a mk.VIII !)

Thanks.

Red_Storm
02-11-2004, 07:00 AM
I think its performance will be similar to the P-39's performance now and they'll downgrade the P-39 more or less to what it used to be. Right now I think the P-39 is more like a P-63, it hardly stalls and when it doesn, you can just rudder out of it instantly, has amazing speed, and turns on a dime. Sounds more like a P-63 to me. The P-63 will rock for sure though. It'll be way up there with the Yak-3, La-7, P-51 and eventually the Ta-152H and C (depending on how their FM will turn out to be)

LeadSpitter_
02-11-2004, 07:18 AM
it was able to climb 10,000feet higher then the p39, it has a great power to weight ratio and more manuverable, its roll rate is almost double that of the p39. I dunno whats going to happen will oleg shytcan the p39s model so the p63 really shows an improvement over the 39, or will he have them rolling like the 190s and fish flopping around. We all have to wait and see.

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

JG53Frankyboy
02-11-2004, 07:36 AM
it has 58 (!) rounds for its 37mm gun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rajvosa
02-11-2004, 07:40 AM
Hmmm... If P-63 was such a good fighter indeed, how come it never saw any wide-spread service with the USAAF? Because the P-51 was already there?

http://stu.wccnet.org/~ecrnovrs/inp150/finalp/sarajevo1/images/sarajevo.jpg

robban75
02-11-2004, 07:47 AM
I think that apart from the topspeed the pre-patch P-39 was all the P-63 will be.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

LeadSpitter_
02-11-2004, 07:54 AM
basically because the US needed long range fighters, anything that wasnt long range was considered obsolete. I read it was a better fighter then the p51d Bell aircraft were some of the best designs the b24 for example was better then the b17 range payload speed. But more b17s were used.

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

BpGemini
02-11-2004, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Storm:
I think its performance will be similar to the P-39's performance now and they'll downgrade the P-39 more or less to what it used to be. Right now I think the P-39 is more like a P-63, it hardly stalls and when it doesn, you can just rudder out of it instantly, has amazing speed, and turns on a dime. Sounds more like a P-63 to me. The P-63 will rock for sure though. It'll be way up there with the Yak-3, La-7, P-51 and eventually the Ta-152H and C (depending on how their FM will turn out to be)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Please donâ't exaggerate the current P-39s performance. Unless youâ've been a mainstay in each and every version then it would be tough to judge and if you were a mainstay then I disagree. The original P-39 model was such a hard plane to master it was scary and even required someone with â"ballsâ" to fly her. I really enjoyed that about the original model but since I wasnâ't a real WWII P-39 pilot I canâ't tell you whether the original model was accurate. I donâ't think I have to tell you about the impact of first impressions either. If everyone assumed the original P-39 was accurate then I can see why he or she has become opinionated it being over-modeled. Pilot accounts should be taken for what they were. American pilots in general didnâ't like the version they first tasted while the Russian pilots in general did. One thing that irks me a tad is the â"doesnâ't stall anymoreâ" experts. The Q1 and Q10 had major improvements over the N1 in stall stability. Every â"expertâ" jumps online in a Q1 or Q10 with 25% fuel and says it doesnâ't stall like it used to. Personally Iâ'm not sure if the current P-39 is more accurate to reality or not, what I do know is the few models in-between the original and the one now were a little more â"over-modeledâ" than the current one. The bottom line for gaming purposes: the P-39 whether anyone likes it or not or thinks it's over-modeled or not, is still less â˜Uberâ' than most or nearly all the fighters in this game.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif
IL-2 original P-39 vet soon to be P-63 vet.

nixon-fiend.
02-11-2004, 09:19 AM
Red Storm.. The p39 certainly doesnt have 'amazing speed' It's engine heats up after a very short while, and it struggles to outrun 1942 planes (even the q models - 1944) but i realise it's rollrate may be a little fantastical..

And the current 39 stalls a hellova lot more than most planes .. and much more easily than the pre-atched version..

Aaron_GT
02-11-2004, 09:22 AM
It's still possible to get into a flat spin in
the P39, but it is very much harder than in the
original IL2.

The roll rate currently seen in the P39 seems
excessive, and more like that we should expect
from the P63, unless the changes made by Bell
and the VVS really did improve things dramatically
over roll rates quoted for the P39D.

Zyzbot
02-11-2004, 09:32 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rajvosa:
Hmmm... If P-63 was such a good fighter indeed, how come it never saw any wide-spread service with the USAAF? Because the P-51 was already there?

In order to make the decision to adopt yet another aircraft with its accompanying supply and maintenance system costs...the P-63 would have had to offer substantially better performance than planes already on hand. Check the specifications posted below and you will see that the P-63, while it had certain attributes, did not offer the USAAC a substantial increase in performance and it did not have long range:

SPECIFICATIONS (P-63E)

Span: 38 ft. 4 in.
Length: 32 ft. 8 in.
Height: 12 ft. 7 in.
Weight: 9,350 lbs. max.
Armament: One 37mm cannon and four .50 cal. machine guns
Engine: One Allison V-1710 of 1,325 hp.
Cost: $48,000
Crew: One

PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 408 mph.
Cruising speed: 280 mph.
Range: 450 miles
Service Ceiling: 43,000 ft.

________________________________________________
SPECIFICATIONS P-51D

Span: 37 ft. 0 in.
Length: 32 ft. 3 in.
Height: 13 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 12,100 lbs. max.
Armament: Six .50-cal. machine guns and ten 5 in. rockets or 2,000 lbs. of bombs.
Engine: Packard built Rolls-Royce "Merlin" V-1650 of 1,695 hp.
Cost: $54,000

PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 437 mph.
Cruising speed: 275 mph.
Range: 1,000 miles
Service Ceiling: 41,900 ft.

faustnik
02-11-2004, 09:57 AM
The P-63 was faster and had better climb than any U.S. aircraft below 10,000 feet. It was also the best turning U.S. aircraft next to the Brewster.

Nothing will be able to touch it in a dogfight at low altitude.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Magister__Ludi
02-11-2004, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
The P-63 was faster and had better climb than any U.S. aircraft below 10,000 feet. It was also the best turning U.S. aircraft next to the Brewster.

Nothing will be able to touch it in a dogfight at low altitude.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good looking plane, no doubt about that. But could it turn like a Brewster? Does anybody have the turn rate for this plane from a ww2 test (no comparisons, just the number please)?

A.K.Davis
02-11-2004, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
basically because the US needed long range fighters, anything that wasnt long range was considered obsolete. I read it was a better fighter then the p51d Bell aircraft were some of the best designs the b24 for example was better then the b17 range payload speed. But more b17s were used.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leadspitter, the B-24 was made by Consolidated. It was also produced in greater numbers than any other American aircraft (there were more B-24s used than B-17s).

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

lrrp22
02-11-2004, 10:57 AM
Are we getting the P-63A or C?

crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 11:02 AM
According to Pokrishkin P-63 was not that impressive as Q models of P-39, it was heavier and nowhere near as good as P-39 (He especially mentioned Q5? model). It was faster but not as good in acceleration, it was a better diver but hard to control at high speeds.

Before you start flaming me P-63 lovers, read first part "According to Pokrishkin" &lt;- this one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

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

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

LeadSpitter_
02-11-2004, 11:09 AM
Go to the discovery wings website AKD and tell them they are wrong then, since your all knowing and your information and sources are better then thiers.

Bell Aircraft Corporation worked with Consolidated Associates on the consolidated b-24 liberator but im sure you knew that all knowing google search AKdavis. I have seen many websites too saying the b24 was produced in larger numbers, some say the liberator was stronger then the b17 others say it was weaker and would breakup and landing when damage. who know i wasnt there to count them


http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Wed February 11 2004 at 10:20 AM.]

ZG77_Nagual
02-11-2004, 11:14 AM
according to americas 100k the p63 was second only to the best turning american fighter (fm2 wildcat) in turn, second to none in roll. Golodnikov said it was a "quantum leap" beyond the p39 - and he flew the q series. There are accounts of it's service on the EF including one of a dora pilot who said it ran away from him in a climb. Odds are it was often mistaken for a p39. If I'm not mistaken it was also very fast on the deck and did not have the p39's altitude weakness. It's problem was range - and that the '51 and '47 were allready filling the niche. The vvs got quite a few of them however - several thousand I believe.

The P39 is a very efficient aircraft aerodynamically - much of it's good performance can be attributed to this in the game - as it was in real life. Again Golodnikov describes running away from a group of 109s in a shallow dive. I've seen no good roll data on the versions we have in the game - but there it is likely this aspect of the planes performance was improved by bell for the vvs.

The P63 was also fitted with modifications to improve stability and so forth - one - a ventral fillet I believe, was introduced early on and retrofitted to models in the field. Reviews vary, as they do with all aircraft - even the p51 - but there is every reason to believe this plane is one of, if not the best american built dogfighter of the war.

kyrule2
02-11-2004, 11:16 AM
My only real problem with the P-39 is energy bleed, or lack-thereof. They certainly aren't "uber." I think the P-63 will be a damn good plane but I still don't think it will be that big of an improvement over P-39Q-10. In some ways better, in some ways worse. It can't turn much better than the P-39 does now, and the P-39's roll is already too high. But it will be faster and climb better, I just hope it actually bleeds energy.

Will the Kingcobra be a '43 or '44 plane?

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

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

ZG77_Nagual
02-11-2004, 11:20 AM
One of the complaints the brits had with the p39 was that it took a long time to slow down. Greasy aerodynamics were one of it's strengths/weakness. From everything I've read (and it ain't easy to find - most of the stuff on the web just talks about how the usaf used em for target practice after the war!) the P63 will likely be better than the p39 in every single aspect. My sources say '43 - probably late. My guess is we'll get it '44 in the game.

crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 11:21 AM
I truly respect Golodnikov as a human and pilot, but when it comes to P-39 i think Pokrishkins word over his means something, at least to me. 80% of his victories he acheived in P-39, so i kinda trust him on that.

Not trying to argument with you Nag http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , just making a point. I am afraid that people expect from P-63 too much...and disapointment might hurt their feelings. It`s a great plane indeed, but i wont be suprized is Q10 is just as good or maybe even better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

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

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

ZG77_Nagual
02-11-2004, 11:39 AM
Pokryshkin thought the p39 was better than everything! He was like harmann in his 109.

I've been looking for to the P63 since the IL2 demo - when I first talked with Oleg about it and he'd discovered proof it was on the EF.

It does seem it was a pretty extraordinary performer and, part of it's appeal for me, one of the 'passed over' planes.

Not to worry - I don't get weird when people disagree with me or prove me wrong http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zyzbot
02-11-2004, 12:24 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
basically because the US needed long range fighters, anything that wasnt long range was considered obsolete. I read it was a better fighter then the p51d Bell aircraft were some of the best designs the b24 for example was better then the b17 range payload speed. But more b17s were used.

Have not found anything about Bell making the B-24 but I did find that the following companies had factories that DID made B-24 models:

Consolidated
Douglas
North American
Ford

Gibbage1
02-11-2004, 01:12 PM
Well lets look at the facts according to the game.

Fact. The P-39 fly's like Oleg thinks it should

Fact. The P-63 was better in every way to the P-39 and Oleg knows and agrees with this.

Fact. Im sick and tired of people calling the P-39 a P-63. Its NOT uber, and trust me. The P-63 will be much better then the P-39. Much faster, more ammo, more nimble, more everything. The only problem it will have is no stall warning due too the laminar flow wings. Making the P-63 more risky to fly if you DONT know its limits.

P.S. According to Oleg in an E-mail to me, he is modeling the P-63 C5 with water injection with a max HP of 1800HP. It will run down Luftwhiners easly. The only flaw the P-39 had in my eyes is not being able to catch Run-o-9's and Run-90's.

p1ngu666
02-11-2004, 01:29 PM
well i know the b24 didnt handle that well. was overloaded according to article i read :\

http://www.pingu666.etglobalsolution.co.uk/sig/mysig3.jpg

BpGemini
02-11-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Well lets look at the facts according to the game.

Fact. The P-39 fly's like Oleg thinks it should

Fact. The P-63 was better in every way to the P-39 and Oleg knows and agrees with this.

Fact. Im sick and tired of people calling the P-39 a P-63. Its NOT uber, and trust me. The P-63 will be much better then the P-39. Much faster, more ammo, more nimble, more everything. The only problem it will have is no stall warning due too the laminar flow wings. Making the P-63 more risky to fly if you DONT know its limits.

P.S. According to Oleg in an E-mail to me, he is modeling the P-63 C5 with water injection with a max HP of 1800HP. It will run down Luftwhiners easly. The only flaw the P-39 had in my eyes is not being able to catch Run-o-9's and Run-90's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.goobage.com/pics/smilies/agree.gif

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif
IL-2 original P-39 vet soon to be P-63 vet.

ZG77_Nagual
02-11-2004, 01:51 PM
Oh YEAH! Gibbage! We DOWN wid dat P-63 c5!! Most excellent!!

I agree on the p39 - current performance jibes with vvs pilots, and some very few americans who actually worked it out.

BfHeFwMe
02-11-2004, 01:56 PM
Well, if Golodnikov flew it, and Pokrishkin just talked about it, I know who's opinion I'll take. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No way is this think going to fly the same as a P-39, completely redesigned airframe and power plant. To compare flight characteristics with a P-39, you may as well compare P-51, both are different aircraft.

Wonder if some of the P-39 whine crowd could actually hack it in one on line. I find the original one far more uber than the current, was a snap tackeling three on one back than, even in a dogfight server. Haven't done that lately.

crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Well, if Golodnikov flew it, and Pokrishkin just talked about it, I know who's opinion I'll take. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No way is this think going to fly the same as a P-39, completely redesigned airframe and power plant. To compare flight characteristics with a P-39, you may as well compare P-51, both are different aircraft.

Wonder if some of the P-39 whine crowd could actually hack it in one on line. I find the original one far more uber than the current, was a snap tackeling three on one back than, even in a dogfight server. Haven't done that lately.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t think you carefully read what i said, Golodnikov had a chance to fly it.. Pokrishkin did for few weeks and then went back to La7.. he was division commander at that time..but anyways... don`t get any wrong ideas, i`m not slamming P-63 by all means, any new plane is great and exciting.

V!
Regards,

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

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

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

VW-IceFire
02-11-2004, 02:11 PM
Agreed with Gibbage up there!

I think there is quite a bit of a problem with the aircrafts perception (and likely by the USAAF in WWII as well) in that it looks like a P-39...and for better or worse that means it takes along with it the impressions of its predecessor.

I'm planning to take the P-63 out for a spin and assume that its a completely differnet aircraft. Kind of like my oft talked about Typhoon/Tempest affliction (by next year I'll need a support group http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). The two aircraft are similar in design, they have the same roots, in this case they share the same engine...but in other respects they are totally new beasts with different strenghts and weaknesses (although almost entirely slanted to the Tempest V).

So assume its a new plane. I look forward to it...a big role in the Eastern front and a capable aircraft for its role.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

ZG77_Nagual
02-11-2004, 02:16 PM
Golodnikov pt3 and 4 (http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm)

Much posted but some good insights on both these pages. I really like these vvs guys. Certainly scramble some of our ideas about our own planes!

A.K.Davis
02-11-2004, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Go to the discovery wings website AKD and tell them they are wrong then, since your all knowing and your information and sources are better then thiers.

Bell Aircraft Corporation worked with Consolidated Associates on the consolidated b-24 liberator but im sure you knew that all knowing google search AKdavis. I have seen many websites too saying the b24 was produced in larger numbers, some say the liberator was stronger then the b17 others say it was weaker and would breakup and landing when damage. who know i wasnt there to count them<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no such thing as Consolidated Associates. It was Consolidated Aircraft Corporation until the 1943 merger with Vultee Aircraft, Inc., when it became Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation (known as Convair). My dad's stepfather ran security for the company for many years. The B-24 was their aircraft.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

[This message was edited by A.K.Davis on Wed February 11 2004 at 04:05 PM.]

faustnik
02-11-2004, 02:33 PM
The P-63 should be awesome, a Cobra with twice the ammo and MORE POWER! It's up against a tough crowd in mid '45 however. Appropriate a/c would be 190D's, Ta152, Me262, Ki-84 and maybe even the He162.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Zyzbot
02-11-2004, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Go to the discovery wings website AKD and tell them they are wrong then, since your all knowing and your information and sources are better then thiers.

Bell Aircraft Corporation worked with Consolidated Associates on the consolidated b-24 liberator but im sure you knew that all knowing google search AKdavis. I have seen many websites too saying the b24 was produced in larger numbers, some say the liberator was stronger then the b17 others say it was weaker and would breakup and landing when damage. who know i wasnt there to count them<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no such thing as Consolidated Associates. It was Consolidated Aircraft Corporation until the 1943 merger with Vultee Aircraft, Inc., when it became Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation (known as Convair). My dad's stepfather ran security for company for many years. The B-24 their aircraft.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Perhaps this is the source of some of the confusion:

"Laurence Bell worked for both the Glenn L. Martin and Consolidated Aircraft companies before forming his own aircraft company in 1935 when Consolidated relocated to San Diego. "

Gibbage1
02-11-2004, 02:47 PM
Who said its a 1945 aircraft? USSR was taking delivery of the P-63 a lot sooner then 1945, and thats what counts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
The P-63 should be awesome, a Cobra with twice the ammo and MORE POWER! It's up against a tough crowd in mid '45 however. Appropriate a/c would be 190D's, Ta152, Me262, Ki-84 and maybe even the He162.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
02-11-2004, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Who said its a 1945 aircraft? USSR was taking delivery of the P-63 a lot sooner then 1945, and thats what counts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif It didn't see action until mid '45. To put it in a mission earlier than that would be cheese.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Willey
02-11-2004, 02:59 PM
The P-63C-5... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Empty weight is 2892kg. Max somewhere around 4700kg, but this is with bombs and such. The K-4 is 2675kg empty BTW. You can roughly add 500-600kg to get TO weight. That's not bad. ~2400kg, good aerodynamics and 1800hp. This bird will kick some @$$. It will play in the top league next to K-4, D-9, La-7, Yak-3, Ki-84 and even Ta-152H. It should not climb as well as the K-4, but indeed better then the Yaks/Las. 25m/s could be right on the deck. The russians are 23-24m/s, the K-4 27-28m/s. But all in all, the 63C can outclimb the K-4 in a zoom easily thanks to aerodynamics. FYI it's engine is rated 1325hp, 1500hp max and 1800hp max with water injection (which the 63A did not have).
It should have loadouts like 1/2/3x 500lb, 2 drop tanks with/without 1x 500lb and 6 5" HVAR with/without 1x 500lb.

As for the P-39s. In some aspects they are uber, in others they are undermodelled. One point is the sustained climb rate. It's OK on the deck. Instead of decreasing with altitude it first increases a bit up to 3000m. That's one issue. But it's not soo much uber. IMHO it's still quite OK. The second point is it's stall characteristics. It's stalling as it should at low speeds, but it lacks b1tchyness at high speeds as well as it lacks elevator response at high speeds. In this term, it's comparable to the FWs pre-FB 1.1.

BTW the 63C is '44. 63A would be '43.

ucanfly
02-11-2004, 03:15 PM
Let me see if I got this right... According to Russians the P-39 and P-63 were right up there with the best planes in WWII, while the P-51 and P-47 were rather mediocre in 1944, 1945.

Now from the most famous American pilot accounts (famous flyers like Yeager, Anderson, Hoover, Gabreski) the P-51s and P-47s were among the best whereas the P-39s were clearly inferior.

Hmmmm...

Besides the range issue the P-39s were eschewed greatly by American flyers for other performance parameters (handling and climb). Is this just American bias, bad Russian gas, miracle Russian mods, or what?

faustnik
02-11-2004, 03:26 PM
Soviet fights &lt; 10,000ft.
U.S. fights &gt; 20,000ft.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

robban75
02-11-2004, 03:34 PM
Well, seeing how the P-39Q-10 even after having its performance reduced in the latest patches it can climb to 5000m in 4.5 minutes instead of 5.9 minutes like in RL, its rollrate is 180deg/sec instead of 60deg/sec. It will be quite interesting to see how the P-63 will handle.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

VW-IceFire
02-11-2004, 03:38 PM
People keep forgetting that battle on the Western front was totally different than that on the Eastern front in terms of air battles. A squadron of La-7's on the Eastern front was a deadly thing...the same squadron with the same pilots in a theoretical Western front situation would be a mediocre fighter. The same essentially goes for the P-39 which wasn't great at altitude (and thus not considered suitable for the USAAF or the RAF) but it was great at low altitudes where the VVS was in support of tactical operations and thus extremely useful.

Take the same plane...put it into a different front with different requirements and you end up with a great aircraft becoming mediocre. Its sort of like taking a athelete who has been training for sprinting and putting him into a boxing match. Is the boxer going to win or the sprinter? Reverse the rolls again and ask yourself the same question.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

faustnik
02-11-2004, 03:46 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by robban75:
Well, seeing how the P-39Q-10 even after having its performance reduced in the latest patches it can climb to 5000m in 4.5 minutes instead of 5.9 minutes like in RL, its rollrate is 180deg/sec instead of 60deg/sec. It will be quite interesting to see how the P-63 will handle.
QUOTE]

Robban,

Didn't you find that most of the a/c in FB are overmodeled in climb?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

ucanfly
02-11-2004, 03:48 PM
Some people keep talking about American fighters only being good above 20000ft which is pure nonsense if your talking about a P-51. The P-51 had great performance down low before getting a new engine and had even better performance after getting the Merlin at low/high alts. Remember the Dolittle doctrine (you can leave your bombers to pursue enemy), and all of the gun camera footage of P-51s shooting up 109s and 190s at the deck?

I was rereading the history of J26 and I forgot how many encounters they had with low flying mustangs and thunderbolts. At the end of the war the Eastern and Western fronts merged and they found themselves fighting Western planes as well as Russian using there latest 190D9s. They seemed to have a tougher time with ponies and thunderbolts at all altitudes than with the Yak3s they encountered at 8000 ft.

02-11-2004, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Well lets look at the facts according to the game.

Fact. The P-39 fly's like Oleg thinks it should

Fact. The P-63 was better in every way to the P-39 and Oleg knows and agrees with this.

Fact. Im sick and tired of people calling the P-39 a P-63. Its NOT uber, and trust me. The P-63 will be much better then the P-39. Much faster, more ammo, more nimble, more everything. The only problem it will have is no stall warning due too the laminar flow wings. Making the P-63 more risky to fly if you DONT know its limits.

P.S. According to Oleg in an E-mail to me, he is modeling the P-63 C5 with water injection with a max HP of 1800HP. It will run down Luftwhiners easly. The only flaw the P-39 had in my eyes is not being able to catch Run-o-9's and Run-90's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


agree!!!http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif cant wait!!!!!!!

robban75
02-11-2004, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Robban,

Didn't you find that most of the a/c in FB are overmodeled in climb?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the ones I have tested are overmodelled in the climb. Except for the Fw 190A's, especially the A-9 it's the opposite, it's way undermodelled.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

ZG77_Nagual
02-11-2004, 04:01 PM
Yeager liked the P39.
This issue has been rung to death but the p39 suffered from being the only thing onhand vs much superior trained and experienced japanese pilots - moreover the 39s were early models let out the chute too soon and had to be hand assembled by crews onsight. Add to this early US combat doctrine was obsolete - plus enemies positioned to dictate the engagement - voila. The 'Iron-dog' argument has been shot so full of holes on this site and elsewhere that It's just plane silly anymore.

The P-63 never even got a chance - and it could not compete with the 51 for range - but it was a better dogfighter and will rule the mustang in the simm. I've got Sep '44 entering combat with the vvs - however this may be wrong - as in later than in reality because there are a few other errors in the source. I've also seen it reported as shipped to the russians in '43. I'm sure Oleg has better sources.

Bottom line - the Russians used it for air to air combat - it was far and away their favorite lend lease aircraft - and one of their favorite period - they requested it in great numbers and could have had others - they also burned out alot of engines because they flew it out of spec.

faustnik
02-11-2004, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Robban,

Didn't you find that most of the a/c in FB are overmodeled in climb?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the ones I have tested are overmodelled in the climb. Except for the Fw 190A's, especially the A-9 it's the opposite, it's way undermodelled.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sucks, at least for us 190A guys, but it's hard to label the Cobra as overmodeled in climb if most of the other a/c are too.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 05:20 PM
You are correct Nag, fall of 1944, fist P-63`s arrived directly into 100th guards. If memory serves me well, it was 2 of them.

V!
Regards,

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

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

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

p1ngu666
02-11-2004, 05:32 PM
p39 arnarnent isnt what id want for jap dogfighting. lots of 50cals or 303, for flameing fun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.etglobalsolution.co.uk/sig/mysig3.jpg

Copperhead310th
02-11-2004, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Soviet fights &lt; 10,000ft.
U.S. fights &gt; 20,000ft.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Faustnik
20,ooo feet = 6,300 M in FB. (roughly) & the P-63 won't be any more "UBER" than the Ta-152.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage:
The only flaw the P-39 had in my eyes is not being able to catch Run-o-9's and Run-90's.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifRun-o-9's and Run-90's lol you said it Gib! lol

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

crazyivan1970
02-11-2004, 05:47 PM
Pfftt, all your Cobras belong to us http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/eagle.jpg

V!
Regards,

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

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

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

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Wed February 11 2004 at 05:00 PM.]

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Wed February 11 2004 at 05:01 PM.]

Gibbage1
02-11-2004, 06:42 PM
The P-63 I modeled had an option for .50 cal gunpods. Plus the two nose .50 cal and the 37MM. 4 .50 cal's were plenty to down a Zero on a single birst for F4F pilots. The F4F-3 had 4 .50 cals and the -4 had 6. Then they went BACK to only 4 guns in the later -8 (Called the FM2 and produced by GE)since 4 was plenty.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
p39 arnarnent isnt what id want for jap dogfighting. lots of 50cals or 303, for flameing fun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.etglobalsolution.co.uk/sig/mysig3.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
02-11-2004, 07:03 PM
hmm true
the cannon could be uneeded weight

http://www.pingu666.etglobalsolution.co.uk/sig/mysig3.jpg

kyrule2
02-11-2004, 07:32 PM
So it is agreed then, we should boost the 190A's climb significantly to match other overmodelled planes? The 190A's are one of the very few planes that underperform in climb so we need to not only boost their climb to historic levels, but past that to match other overmodelled planes.

This is great news, who wants to e-mail Oleg?

And run-09's and run-90's are for intelligent people that know turn n' burn is silly. Eventually you will get caught by someone faster with an advantage. B&z, hit & run allow you to dictate the fight, it must be annoying as hell to the yank n' bank guys and that is half the fun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

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

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

ZG77_Nagual
02-11-2004, 07:44 PM
As a person who's flown primarily the 190a series online since IL2 - and with good success - STill - climb or slowclimb, I reserve the right to fly anything I want without feeling like a dork. While victory in the 190 is especially sweet because it is a difficult plane - nothing beats the satisfaction of connecting with the 39s 37mm cannon - or taking out a mustang or k4 with a brewster.

faustnik
02-11-2004, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

Faustnik
20,ooo feet = 6,300 M in FB. (roughly) & the P-63 won't be any more "UBER" than the Ta-152.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, what are you trying to say???

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

DangerForward
02-11-2004, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I've got Sep '44 entering combat with the vvs - however this may be wrong - as in later than in reality because there are a few other errors in the source. I've also seen it reported as shipped to the russians in '43. I'm sure Oleg has better sources.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

America's Hundred Thousand has the first deliveries of the P-63C to the Soviets in December of '44 after 1725 A models had been produced and mainly sent to Russia.

I wonder if the rearward vision is better in the P63, that's my main complaint the with P-39Qs(other than the rollrate). Even without that armored seat in the P-39N I rarely get pilot killled in it.

DangerForward

WUAF_Badsight
02-11-2004, 09:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I think that apart from the topspeed the pre-patch P-39 was all the P-63 will be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AGREED !

the P-63 was the best turn fighter the US of A made in WW2

well out of its big fighters that is

WUAF_Badsight
02-11-2004, 11:05 PM
just under 3000 P-63's made

all but 100 went to russia , USA didnt need them & the russians loved it

in FB the P-39 was the most overmoddeled in climb in v1.1f

it was updated IRL a LOT by BELL for the better

its nassty traits that it had (p-39) in RL are not apparent in FB

to me the P-39s FM in FB is what the P-63 should be like

thats been my opinion ever since FB v1.0

& still is

faustnik
02-11-2004, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
As a person who's flown primarily the 190a series online since IL2 - and with good success - STill - climb or slowclimb, I reserve the right to fly anything I want without feeling like a dork. While victory in the 190 is especially sweet because it is a difficult plane -<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WRONG!!!

Copperhead says 190s are n00b planes because they always shoot him down. So you still might have to feel like a dork, at least when you're flying against Copperhead. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Fehler
02-12-2004, 12:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
and all of the gun camera footage of P-51s shooting up 109s and 190s at the deck?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FUnny you should say that...

Just today I watch an interview with Gunter Rall where he mentioned the P51. He felt, all around it was a very good plane. He did mention that the USAAF's main tactic was to circle around after a fight until 109's and 190's went into a landing pattern, then dive in and shoot them like ducks.

So, next time some of you want to whine about vulching.. just remember it was a viable WWII tactic.

Perhaps most of the 109 and 190 "On the deck" footage you see is from tactics like this.

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

Fehler
02-12-2004, 12:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:

WRONG!!!

Copperhead says 190s are n00b planes because they always shoot him down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sharpshootin' AI gunners on planes that the FM's arent meant for humans to fly, on kiddie settings with red and blue arrows flying around on the screen.

Hmm, I have a hard time listening seriously to people like that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage:
The only flaw the P-39 had in my eyes is not being able to catch Run-o-9's and Run-90's.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Crank and yank, spray and pray
this is how we fly today.

Crank and yank, spray and pray
'bout luft planes we whine away...

Crank and yank, spray and pray
near the ground we'll hide all day.

Crank and yank, spray and pray
Tee and Bee craft are so ghey!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

Gibbage1
02-12-2004, 01:15 AM
Isent the lack of fuel and range very much a FLAW of the 109 and 190? If the aircraft cant out-last the enemy over his own airfield then thats one HELL of a flaw. Think of it this way. P-51's flew for 6 hours. 109's for 30 mins. Having an aircraft that can hold 6 hours of fuel and still be able to fight something that only has 30 mins of fuel is quite impressive! Its eather impressive for the P-51's design, or un-impressive for the 109's design. You pick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
and all of the gun camera footage of P-51s shooting up 109s and 190s at the deck?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FUnny you should say that...

Just today I watch an interview with Gunter Rall where he mentioned the P51. He felt, all around it was a very good plane. He did mention that the USAAF's main tactic was to circle around after a fight until 109's and 190's went into a landing pattern, then dive in and shoot them like ducks.

So, next time some of you want to whine about vulching.. just remember it was a viable WWII tactic.

Perhaps most of the 109 and 190 "On the deck" footage you see is from tactics like this.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fehler
02-12-2004, 01:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Isent the lack of fuel and range very much a FLAW of the 109 and 190? If the aircraft cant out-last the enemy over his own airfield then thats one HELL of a flaw. Think of it this way. P-51's flew for 6 hours. 109's for 30 mins. Having an aircraft that can hold 6 hours of fuel and still be able to fight something that only has 30 mins of fuel is quite impressive! Its eather impressive for the P-51's design, or un-impressive for the 109's design. You pick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree. I am not sure it was a design flaw persay.. at times they merely lacked the necessary fuel. Other times (As Gunther Rall said) inexperienced pilots (Mainly) would try to land while P-51's were still in the area. They would become easy targets.

Either way, I think P51 pilots, the USAAF and RAF in general, took what steps they needed to sucure a victory in the war. It was war, afterall.. not a game of checkers. Someone had to win, someone had to lose... The losers usually die in the process. Too bad they had to ruin so many of those cool looking planes in the process... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

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

lbhskier37
02-12-2004, 01:32 AM
S! Fehler, great job with the bucket of cold water, this thread was starting to erupt. P-63 should be descently fun plane, but I think it would be way better if they got rid of that stupid 37mm cannon and put a MG151 in it, or since it is allied they should steal a hispano from the brits. We should save the whining and screaming until its actually out though(or even not bring it out at all)

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

WUAF_Badsight
02-12-2004, 02:29 AM
a P-63 with the P-400 Hispano 20mm would instantly become my main FB ride

Copperhead310th
02-12-2004, 03:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
As a person who's flown primarily the 190a series online since IL2 - and with good success - STill - climb or slowclimb, I reserve the right to fly anything I want without feeling like a dork. While victory in the 190 is especially sweet because it is a difficult plane -<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WRONG!!!

Copperhead says 190s are n00b planes because they always shoot him down. So you still might have to feel like a dork, at least when you're flying against Copperhead. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif you so full of it Faustnik.
& i said that the 190 is a noob plane cause thier so damn easy to fly it's just plain silly.
109 aint that much of a challange either. anyone that says they are is either lying or an idiot. 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.members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron)

Copperhead310th
02-12-2004, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by faustnik:

WRONG!!!

Copperhead says 190s are n00b planes because they always shoot him down.


Sharpshootin' AI gunners on planes that the FM's arent meant for humans to fly, on kiddie settings with red and blue arrows flying around on the screen.

Hmm, I have a hard time listening seriously to people like that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah what ever jerk. fix your leaderhosen kraught boy yer jackboots are showing.

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

robban75
02-12-2004, 03:12 AM
Yes the 190 is easy to fly, just like it was in real life, but using its performance to an advantage is hard.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Ankanor
02-12-2004, 03:13 AM
I dont mind having the P-63C-5, must be a really tough opponent, even for the very late LW planes. I do not fear them in a 45 scenario, for I will have my Ta152(hopes are it is modelled correctly- outclimbing SpitXIX till the ceiling) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

All your super-uber-hyper Cobras are belong to us http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

http://server4.uploadit.org/files2/101203-delphinche.jpg
Some things are worth fighting for.
And most of them wear miniskirts...

Magister__Ludi
02-12-2004, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Isent the lack of fuel and range very much a FLAW of the 109 and 190? If the aircraft cant out-last the enemy over his own airfield then thats one HELL of a flaw. Think of it this way. P-51's flew for 6 hours. 109's for 30 mins. Having an aircraft that can hold 6 hours of fuel and still be able to fight something that only has 30 mins of fuel is quite impressive! Its eather impressive for the P-51's design, or un-impressive for the 109's design. You pick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage you seem very angry on those "run 09s" as you call them. Don't let online life get you, lighten up dude http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Me-109 had 1 hour and a half endurance at maximum cruise speed (this was not the best cruise endurance). Mustang had almost 3 hours endurance at the same settings (both planes on internal fuel only). Me-109 carried half the internal fuel load of a Mustang, but other great dogfighters like Spitfires and Yaks carried even less. Me-109 was a dogfighter not an escort fighter, small fuel load was part of the design.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu February 12 2004 at 03:28 AM.]

WOLFMondo
02-12-2004, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Either way, I think P51 pilots, the USAAF and RAF in general, took what steps they needed to sucure a victory in the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems from general information that due to the increasing amount of raids into germany the Allies were forced to make planes have bigger fuel loads or in the Tempests case the refined the aerodynamics of the plane (reducing the wing thickness at the roots from the Typhoon by 5 inches), making the wings much thinner and more aerodynamic by enclosing the cannons. They even removed the wing fuel tanks and still increased the Tempests ranged to 850 miles over the Typhoons 610. Compare the Spitfires fuel loads/range from the beginning of the war to the end and this is evident. I think also the Allies were driven to make planes more efficient/aerodynamic in the Pacific due to the massive distanced they would need to travel.

Im not sure and its only a thought but do you think because of the close air support nature of Blitzkrieg (when most of these planes were designed) that german planes were not required to have massive fuel loads because they would flying from behind the front lines, attacking then returning? I may be wrong but it would make some sense.

Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

DeerHunterUK
02-12-2004, 05:06 AM
I used to like flying my P-63 in CFS2, running down poor unsuspecting Mustang drivers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif
But 1 thing that did surprise me was just how many people didn't know it even existed.

No1_Moggy
-----
In memory of 'The Few'
http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

Koan___
02-12-2004, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here is what Golodnikov says about Kingcobra (in English translation)
The P-63 KingCobra was a ?leap?. I had a chance to fly it after the war (thank God!).

Don't know what "Leap" means apart of what dictionary says.

I read that in Russian and here is how it sounds to me.
The P-63 KingCobra was an ?iron? (meaning something heavy and sluggish). I had a chance to fly it _only_ after the war (thank God!).

Anyway, i'd rather see P63 as faustnik sees it "The P-63 should be awesome, a Cobra with twice the ammo and MORE POWER!"
Cobra family posesses a certain trait. I like to fly it although P39 looses to many late war planes.
Regards

Cardinal25
02-12-2004, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
The P-63 was faster and had better climb than any U.S. aircraft below 10,000 feet. It was also the best turning U.S. aircraft next to the Brewster.

Nothing will be able to touch it in a dogfight at low altitude.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sure that the Yak and LA series will be boosted to maintain better performance than the P-63.

-----------------------------
Asshat = Don't do it. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

faustnik
02-12-2004, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif you so full of it Faustnik.
& i said that the 190 is a noob plane cause thier so damn easy to fly it's just plain silly.
109 aint that much of a challange either. anyone that says they are is either lying or an idiot. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just a continuation of your pattern Copperhead. You can't beat the 190s and 109s so you insult the people who fly them by calling them n00b planes. It shows a total lack of respect for the ability of the pilots who have taken the time to master these planes. When you spew forth accusations without an basis for them, you become as bad a troll as others who have recently been kicked off this board. It's beneath you.

Being of German descent, I am starting to get a little offended at your constant ethnic insults. It's not funny anymore.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Cardinal25
02-12-2004, 10:00 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 faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
As a person who's flown primarily the 190a series online since IL2 - and with good success - STill - climb or slowclimb, I reserve the right to fly anything I want without feeling like a dork. While victory in the 190 is especially sweet because it is a difficult plane -<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WRONG!!!

Copperhead says 190s are n00b planes because they always shoot him down. So you still might have to feel like a dork, at least when you're flying against Copperhead. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif you so full of it Faustnik.
& i said that the 190 is a noob plane cause thier so damn easy to fly it's just plain silly.
109 aint that much of a challange either. anyone that says they are is either lying or an idiot. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

I think you mouth is over modeled Copperhead.

-----------------------------
Asshat = Don't do it. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

crazyivan1970
02-12-2004, 10:06 AM
Hmm, i`v been flying 109 series for over two years... i guess that makes me a super n00b, doesn`t it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Is there russian version of interviews with Golodnikov? I wanna know what "leap" means too

V!
Regards,

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

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

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

faustnik
02-12-2004, 10:30 AM
Yes Ivan, you have definately earned the title of uber109n00b. I hope to someday be able to write uber190n00b into my sig.

Someday...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

SKULLS_LZ
02-12-2004, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
and all of the gun camera footage of P-51s shooting up 109s and 190s at the deck?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FUnny you should say that...

Just today I watch an interview with Gunter Rall where he mentioned the P51. He felt, all around it was a very good plane. He did mention that the USAAF's main tactic was to circle around after a fight until 109's and 190's went into a landing pattern, then dive in and shoot them like ducks.

So, next time some of you want to whine about vulching.. just remember it was a viable WWII tactic.

Perhaps most of the 109 and 190 "On the deck" footage you see is from tactics like this.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Fehler not trying to flame you but I would like to set the record straight in regards to the word "vulching", which IMO gets misused in this forum. Shooting a plane on landing approach is not vulching. Vulching is shooting a plane at the spawn point (and I'm not saying that's wrong either). You are correct that shooting at AC on final is a 100% valid tactic and no one should whine about it.

S!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jwilliamsmusic.it/belushi.jpg
Yeah I vulched ya. Now put a cork in it and pick another base before I bust a c@p in your sorry @ss.

BpGemini
02-12-2004, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SKULLS_LZ:
Fehler not trying to flame you but I would like to set the record straight in regards to the word "vulching", which IMO gets misused in this forum. Shooting a plane on landing approach is not vulching. Vulching is shooting a plane at the spawn point (and I'm not saying that's wrong either). You are correct that shooting at AC on final is a 100% valid tactic and no one should whine about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In my opinion nowhere should be safe. As soon as you hit the fly button be ready for action. You and your team mates should protect each other and themselves from vulchers.

Just my 2c

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif
IL-2 original P-39 vet soon to be P-63 vet.

Magister__Ludi
02-12-2004, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SKULLS_LZ:

Fehler not trying to flame you but I would like to set the record straight in regards to the word "vulching", which IMO gets misused in this forum. Shooting a plane on landing approach is not vulching. Vulching is shooting a plane at the spawn point (and I'm not saying that's wrong either). You are correct that shooting at AC on final is a 100% valid tactic and no one should whine about it.

S!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah vulching..
It may have been a legit tactic during the war, but the opposition they had in such airfield attacks was much more serious than what we have now on our virtual airfields. In ww2 escorted Sturmoviks did a lot of such attacks and suffered horrendous losses all the time: the AAA and whole enemy squads ready to defend the airfield made such missions almost suicidal. There are no such things in our petty virtual war. All we see online are questionable quality pilots trying to get easy points by attacking planes on the ground. IMO pilots attacking planes on the ground should be booted.

ucanfly
02-12-2004, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
and all of the gun camera footage of P-51s shooting up 109s and 190s at the deck?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FUnny you should say that...

Just today I watch an interview with Gunter Rall where he mentioned the P51. He felt, all around it was a very good plane. He did mention that the USAAF's main tactic was to circle around after a fight until 109's and 190's went into a landing pattern, then dive in and shoot them like ducks.

So, next time some of you want to whine about vulching.. just remember it was a viable WWII tactic.

Perhaps most of the 109 and 190 "On the deck" footage you see is from tactics like this.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a great assumption on your part. Perhaps... not.

The Mustangs were known to be able to chase 109s and 190s in a dive. I've seen plenty of camera footage where the 190 getting blasted by a P-51 is going much faster than approach speed. If you want to believe that the P-51s are worthless at low altitude that is up to you - it doesn't mean that it's true.

Gunther Rall said something else about the P-51. He said it was the most efficient plane the allies had.

VW-IceFire
02-12-2004, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SKULLS_LZ:

Fehler not trying to flame you but I would like to set the record straight in regards to the word "vulching", which IMO gets misused in this forum. Shooting a plane on landing approach is not vulching. Vulching is shooting a plane at the spawn point (and I'm not saying that's wrong either). You are correct that shooting at AC on final is a 100% valid tactic and no one should whine about it.

S!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah vulching..
It may have been a legit tactic during the war, but the opposition they had in such airfield attacks was much more serious than what we have now on our virtual airfields. In ww2 escorted Sturmoviks did a lot of such attacks and suffered horrendous losses all the time: the AAA and whole enemy squads ready to defend the airfield made such missions almost suicidal. There are no such things in our petty virtual war. All we see online are questionable quality pilots trying to get easy points by attacking planes on the ground. IMO pilots attacking planes on the ground should be booted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True most of the time except for a couple of co-ops I played the other night. A group of FW190's and myself (also 190 at the time) had just eliminated an entire squadron of enemy bombers and we had ammo to spare. Knowing that the P-51's and P-47's had pulled out from damage with the 109's we chased them down to their airfield...looking for some ground targets to shoot and to scare the crap out of the two badly damaged player P-47's (which I did not intend to shoot BTW - although I very well could have) I ran into a litteral wall of flak, 20mm cannon fire, and I think a grouping of US M16 trucks. Needless to say that instead of grilling down on the airfield unapposed I broke off and ran straight for home. Now that was effective anti-vulching material. Throw it up at some airbases in a dogfight server in an effective manner and nobody will try without being shot down moments later.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

Gibbage1
02-12-2004, 01:17 PM
When did this thread become a debate on 109, P-51, and vulching? Please stay on topic.

Gib

resev
02-12-2004, 01:49 PM
Wow, i spent the last three hours reading carefully the interview to Nikolay Gerasimovich.

I was not aware that he had given this interview, and i was very impressed on how he conducted it.


On part four, i enjoyed these paragraphs a lot:


(...)
"A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, how would you evaluate the German fighters Bf-109E, Bf-109F, Bf-109G, and FW-190?

N.G. The Germans had good fighters. Power, fast, maneuverable, and able to withstand damage.
Regarding the Bf-109E I can say that in its tactical and technical characteristics, he corresponded to the type-28 and type-29 I-16, surpassed all earlier types of the I-16 and Hurricane, and was inferior to the Yak-1, P-40, and P-39. According to the pilots of the 20th IAP, the Yak-1 was superior to the E in all parameters. This fighter was beginning to show its age by 1942, although in the North they employed it almost to the beginning of 1943. Later they withdrew all of them in a matter of a week or two. Apparently they had begun to suffer very serious losses. Later we encountered only the Bf-109F, Bf-109G, and FW-190.
The Bf-109F was superior to the E across the board; it was more modern. It was an unbelievably dynamic aircraft, with good speed and vertical maneuverability. In the horizontal it was not as good. Its armaments were normalâ"”a 20mm cannon and two machine guns. Overall, of course, it was superior to all types of the I-16 and the Hurricane. It was equal to the Yak-1 and P-40, and slightly inferior to the P-39.
The Bf-109G was a powerful aircraft, fast and very good in vertical maneuver. It was not bad in horizontal maneuver but it appeared late, only in 1943, when all of our regiments had already been reequipped with modern aircraft. Overall in its tactical and technical characteristics it was on a par with the Yak-1B (7B, 9), La-5, and P-39 Airacobra, and a bit better than the P-40.
The Fokker [FW-190] also was a powerful and fast aircraft, but as a fighter it was inferior to the Bf-109G. It did not accelerate as quickly (large frontal area) and was not as capable in the vertical plane. The Fokker was extremely powerful and therefore was often employed as an attack aircraft. It carried external stores [bombs].
It must be said that the Bf-109G and FW-190 carried very powerful armaments, with five and six firing points respectively, for the most part cannons. This was a very strong aspect of German aircraft.

A.S. From the literature we know the strong suits of the Bf-109G: 1. Powerful engine that was altitude-capable. 2. Powerful cannon armament. 3. Good dive characteristics. 4. Simple in control. 5. High speed and exceptional acceleration.
Its weaknesses: 1. Poor vision from cockpit. 2. Narrow chassis, which created serious difficulties during landing, especially with a crosswind.
Does this cover it?

N.G. Regarding high altitude performance I canâ't say anything. I flew the Airacobra up to 8,000 meters [26,000 feet] and didnâ't have any particular problem with the Messer. Neither we nor the Germans flew any higher than that. I heard that the Yak had problems at altitude but we rarely fought high altitude battles. The Messer engine had a supercharger. It had exceptional acceleration; if the pilot â"firewalled it,â" as they say. But I couldnâ't describe its speed as outstanding. It was fast, but our aircraft had just as much speed.
The armaments were indeed powerfulâ"”five firing points, of which three were 20mm cannon. But again, my Airacobra had a 37mm cannon and therefore I had no inferiority complex regarding weak armaments.
The G model was heavy and dived very well.
I canâ't say anything regarding simplicity of control, the narrow chassis, and poor cockpit visibility. Youâ'll have to address these issues to German pilots. I will say that we shot down many Messers by attacking from the rear, but you can never tell precisely if it was because of poor visibility or the pilot simply didnâ't look to the rear.

A.S. Now about the FW-190. The strong points of the FW-190: 1. Powerful and high-altitude capable engine. 2. Powerful cannon armament. 3. Good dive characteristics. 4. Light on the controls. 5. Good visibility from the cockpit.
The weak points: Average acceleration.

N.G. As far as the power and high-altitude performance of the FW-190 engine, again I am unable to make any specific comments, but I know it was powerful.
I can say that the Fokker engine was significantly more reliable and resistant to damage than the Messer engine. If the Fokker lost two cylinders it could still fly. Though increased reliability and resistance to damage are characteristic for all radial engines in comparison to in-line engines. German engines were not quite at the level of our own in this regard. Our I-16 and La-5 could lose four cylinders and just the same make it home. The Fokker could not lose more than two and still fly.
Because of the radial engine the German Fokker pilots loved to employ the head-on attack, especially early on. They were protected by the engine and it had powerful armamentsâ"”four 20mm cannons and two machine guns. One burst was sufficient to down any aircraft.
The Fokker was also very good in a dive; this was a common strength of German aircraft.
It was very good in the horizontal plane and not quite as good in the vertical.
As far as ease of control and visibility from the cockpit, again youâ'll have to address those issues to the Germans.
Regarding acceleration, the Fokker was indeed weak. In this aspect it was inferior to almost all of our aircraft except perhaps the P-40. The P-40 was its equal to in this regard.

A.S. In spite of all this, Nikolay Gerasimovich, in your view why did the FW-190 not â"ruleâ" on the Eastern Front? By all accounts from Soviet pilots, it was a good fighter, but no more than that. On the Western Front, the Fokker caused an uproar.

N.G. You are correct. It was a powerful fighter, equal to any other. But in its combat qualities it was not unique in any way.
Overall I got the impression that the Germans expected a lot from this aircraft, but clearly overestimated its impact and exaggerated its capabilities.
For example, who ever gave them the notion that the Airacobra was inferior to the Fokker in speed? They believed it. At first the Germans were very confident in its superiority in speed, and it happened frequently that, after an attack, a Fokker would attempt to break away from us at full throttle. We caught up to him and â"poured it to himâ" from above. He â"huffedâ" and â"puffedâ" but could not break contact. We quickly broke the Germans of the habit of using full power. Later, it became a rule with Fokkersâ"”to break off from an attack or pull away from under fire only by a steep dive, and by no other method.
The Fokker also was not equal to the Airacobra in the vertical, although they initially attempted to fight with us in the vertical plane. We also quickly broke them of this habit. I still donâ't understand why they decided that the Fokker could outperform the Airacobra in the vertical.
The acceleration dynamic of the Fokker was a weakness, perhaps its weakest characteristic. Later they attempted to maneuver the Fokker so that they would not lose speed. In a protracted maneuver battle of a Fokker against a Yak, Lavochkin, or Airacobraâ"”the Fokker lost from the start. He lost his speed and then it was over. Until he acquired new speed, we had more than one opportunity to shoot him down. Our aircraft were very dynamic.
The Fokker was powerful in head-on combat and the Germans often took advantage of this. They knew that their aircraft could withstand two or three hits but could shoot down the enemy with a single burst. This gave them great confidence in frontal attack. However, the Germans quickly began to regard frontal attacks on Airacobras with great caution. We had a 37mm cannon, a round from which no engine could withstand. One hit and it was over. Knowing this, it took nerves of steel to conduct a frontal attack. The engine could not save him. We had stronger nerves than the Germans.
I experienced this myself one time. We were engaged frontally by four Fokkers. Four against four. It turned out that during a turn my wingman got in front of me. I told him, â"Go ahead, youâ're in front; I will cover you!â" He hit the lead Fokker in the nose with his cannon. He hit the German with one, perhaps even two cannon rounds. The Fokker disintegrated. The three that were left immediately dispersed and we lost sight of them. The whole engagement lasted several seconds."
(...)



This is less than 1% of the full interview.
Very impressive indeed.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

Fehler
02-12-2004, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

Yeah what ever jerk. fix your leaderhosen kraught boy yer jackboots are showing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hense; you prove my point with concrete evidence that you are truly an idiot of the first degree. Do the forum a favor.. go beat your head in with a stick.

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

The Mustangs were known to be able to chase 109s and 190s in a dive. I've seen plenty of camera footage where the 190 getting blasted by a P-51 is going much faster than approach speed. If you want to believe that the P-51s are worthless at low altitude that is up to you - it doesn't mean that it's true.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, if you can quote my statement that I say the P51 is worthless at low altitude, I will paypal you $100.00 US dollars...

I think it was a fine plane and in the correct circumstance was equal to or better than it's opponant.

I merely stated that USAAF tactics included (As stated by Rall) destroying luftwaffe planes as they were landing. I have seen a lot of footage on the deck and often wondered what exactly I was watching. After all, the B-17's were at 15000 ft. Why was a 190 on the deck? With Rall's interview, I can understand why.

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

ucanfly
02-12-2004, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
the P51 is worthless at low altitude.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please PM about the $100,000. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW the P-51s used all kinds of tactics to down the enemy not just waiting for someone to run outta gas, or bouncing from 30,000 ft which is what your previous posts seem to IMPLY.

Take a chill pill.

Fehler
02-12-2004, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
the P51 is worthless at low altitude.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please PM about the $100,000. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLMAO! When I wrote it I was thinking.. he will make a quote, I know it.. LOL

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

Copperhead310th
02-12-2004, 03:50 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gifUcanfly please use your 100.00 to buy CEM for the US planes set. we desperatly need it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

& faustnk insulting a plane is hardly insutling the pilot. As for being offended i have 2 great uncles who died fighting the Nazi's in france.
I'm extreamly offended by the Hackencross (since a lot of the FB German fliers paint them on thier planes you can't help but notice them) but i don't raise a stink about it either.

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

faustnik
02-12-2004, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

& faustnk insulting a plane is hardly insutling the pilot. As for being offended i have 2 great uncles who died fighting the Nazi's in france.
I'm extreamly offended by the Hackencross (since a lot of the FB German fliers paint them on thier planes you can't help but notice them) but i don't raise a stink about it either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I appreciate your uncle's sacrifice and respect them for it. My great uncles, five of them, died fighting the Soviets in defense of their country. Please show a little respect for them.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

resev
02-12-2004, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
I'm extreamly offended by the Hackencross (since a lot of the FB German fliers paint them on thier planes you can't help but notice them) but i don't raise a stink about it either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well i do.
I have no tolerance for that kind of thing, i respect the German airforce, and abide by its markings, because they mean nothing more than to identify a country airforce, the same way my avatar is a customised simbol of my country airforce that i made myself.
However, if someone sports a swastika in a skin, i imediatly loose all and any respect i might have for the pilot, regardless of whom it may be, because i consider it the ultimate lack of respect.
They is no historical reason that may make it any less respectable wearing one.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

ZG77_Nagual
02-12-2004, 04:15 PM
This thread was interesting when it was about the P-63.

The russians, I believe, recieved around 2400 p-63s - not 100 as said elsewhere. As a fighter it is more comparable to the p51h or the bearcat (yes, I agreed - the bearcat is superior) but unlike them, it saw action in ww2.

The P39 is now very well modeled - based on vvs accounts and the logic that it is a very aerodynamic fighter with relatively low power.

The P63 will have all the virtues of the p-39 combined with better acceleration, climb, turn and high speed performance and maneuver. More on a par with the la7, perhaps with a bit less climb but better roll.

I also agree that I must feel like a dork when I fly the 190 as well.

Fehler
02-12-2004, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

Yeah what ever jerk. fix your leaderhosen kraught boy yer jackboots are showing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What plane are you talking about in this sentence? Hmmmm??????

Hey Copperhead how about this... STFU. You are a scumbag. I have counted no less than 10 separate times you have called people nazis either in implication or directly on this board.

Let me clue you in on something little man. I served my country for over a decade. I still serve my local community today. Guess what country? The USA.

So while you are sitting there thinking of nazi comments to type at me, remember that your fine constitutional right to be free to say whatever your misguided little brain thinks is granted to you be ME.. It's protected for you by ME.. And it's because of the sacrifices of people like ME that you are allowed to say anything at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm extreamly offended by the Hackencross (since a lot of the FB German fliers paint them on thier planes you can't help but notice them) but i don't raise a stink about it either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I hope pictures dont offend you.. Ill get right over to remove the Swastika from my historically painted aircraft right away.

Again, STFU. You remind me of people caught committing crimes. Well "So-in-so does this..." Thinking that relinquishes you from the responsibility of your deeds. Grow up.

Your uncles may have died in WWII, but I am sure Faustik didnt kill them. Nor did any of the German people that frequent this board. In fact, YOU are not your uncles. You are YOU.

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

resev
02-12-2004, 04:23 PM
I apologize, Nag, i just had to make a prentesis on the situation above.

Indeed we should keep this discussion to the P-63, and that alone.

Do you have any good documentation on the craft?
I'm trying to find Russian documentation, because unfortunatly, the US didn't use neither the 39 on the 63 the way (tactics) and height the Russians did, therefore, i can't rely on US biased opinions on they're own aircraft.

Any further info i'd apreciate it, as i'm not having much luck with my quest, and you know how much i love the 39 and the 63.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

Fehler
02-12-2004, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by resev:
Well i do.
I have no tolerance for that kind of thing, i respect the German airforce, and abide by its markings, because they mean nothing more than to identify a country airforce, the same way my avatar is a customised simbol of my country airforce that i made myself.
However, if someone sports a swastika in a skin, i imediatly loose all and any respect i might have for the pilot, regardless of whom it may be, because i consider it the ultimate lack of respect.
They is no historical reason that may make it any less respectable wearing one.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so what exactly is the difference between having a swastika or an iron cross on a plane skin?

Let's all understand something first. This game (For 99.9% of us) is not a way to make a political statement. It's a way to recreate the most intense battles in that air that the world has ever seen. That's why it is important to have the correct FM's of a P63. It's equally important to have the planes look like 109's, P39's, Yak's, Lagg's, etc. Why not just fly a cube on the screen? It would raise FPS much higher for sure!

Skinners go through painstaking procedures to make sure the color of the paints are historically correct. Weathering, shading, rivets, and panel lines. They attempt to recreate a pixelated copy of an original aircraft. To exclude the swastika on the rudder would be rediculas. Just as rediculas as omitting the red star for it stood for evil as well...

But again, these symbols are not meant to make a political statement. They are there for replication only. I hope everyone has the intelligence to understand that.

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

faustnik
02-12-2004, 04:32 PM
Resev,

Even the U.S. figures on the P-63 look very good. At low altitude it bests all contemporary U.S. a/c for performance and maneuverability. This is from AHT.


Also, didn't the French get some P-63s? Maybe there is so French info on it.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Fehler
02-12-2004, 04:37 PM
Unfortunately, I dont have any information to add about the Bell aircraft line in this game.

From everything I have read here and in books, the P63 will be a tough bird to fly against, especially at low to medium altitudes. It should turn and roll like a champ. I only wish that pilot fatigue was a factor in this game, because the more and more I read about aircraft, the more I realize that a lot of planes could outperform their pilots.

I know that we all know the Russians took the P39 and reworked it somewhat to get some better performance out of it. But exactly what did they remove and or change? How did they make that 37mm gun stop jamming? How did they limit the nasty flat stalls? What did they do exactly?

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

VW-IceFire
02-12-2004, 05:02 PM
I think the 37mm cannon was improved on the production lines based on what the Russians were doing in the field modifications. Thats the impression I got from a few things I've read. I still don't think the US 37mm was ever quite as good as the Russian one in terms of reliability but no cannon is perfect http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As for the stability...I think it was partly based on factory upgrades to the aircraft but also field stuff like removing uncessary armor, using the fuel tanks in such a way...and I think they even did silly things like put the toolkits in optimal storage locations to make sure the balance was there. Lots of practical, no-nonsense kind of things that seemed too simple to matter but did.

I should read more on it...but its a fascinating thing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

MandMs
02-12-2004, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The P-63 I modeled had an option for .50 cal gunpods. Plus the two nose .50 cal and the 37MM. 4 .50 cal's were plenty to down a Zero on a single birst for F4F pilots. The F4F-3 had 4 .50 cals and the -4 had 6. Then they went BACK to only 4 guns in the later -8 (Called the FM2 and produced by GE)since 4 was plenty.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah Gibbage, the FM1 and 2 were not produced by GE(General Electric) but by Eastern Aircraft, a division of GM(General Motors).

MandMs
02-12-2004, 05:12 PM
Of the 3303 P-63s built, 2397 were delivered to the Soviet under Lend Lease. All of these were delivered between 1942 and 1945, and 21 were lost during ferrying.

The means of transfer was for US pilots to fly the Soviet-bound machines from Niagra Falls to Selfridge Field, Michigan, stop for refuelling, and then to continue on to Truax Field in Madison, Wisconsin. The planes were picked up at Truax by female Soviet pilots, who flew them to Edmonton Field in Anchorage, Alaska and then over to the Soviet Union.

more info at http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p63.html

noshens
02-12-2004, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
The planes were picked up at Truax by female Soviet pilots, who flew them to Edmonton Field in Anchorage, Alaska and then over to the Soviet Union. _
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, Soviets definately proved that females can have the job done: female pilots, snipers, etc.

MandMs
02-12-2004, 05:23 PM
Was not just the Soviets who had female pilots. It is very likely that American females flew the planes to Alaska. American and British females delivered planes from the Auster and J-3 to the 4 engines heavy bombers.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

resev
02-12-2004, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
From everything I have read here and in books, the P63 will be a tough bird to fly against, especially at low to medium altitudes. It should turn and roll like a champ. I only wish that pilot fatigue was a factor in this game, because the more and more I read about aircraft, the more I realize that a lot of planes could outperform their pilots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats exactly the point, but its also a point i don't bother in discussing in this forum, and relegate only to truly serious forums where only the hard facts matter, no such thing here.

All and any aircraft, even in the early years of aviation, can outperform its pilot.
The phisical body has not evolved to withstand flight like a bird, therefore, the limits must be avoided at all costs, wich is something that we'l never see in a game.
The pilots in a game will do whtever nessesary to avoid beeing killed, and go to extremes to kill an adversary, even if it kills him in the process, no such things were done IRL.
In an enemy had an edge over you, then the inteligent thing to do was to flee, wich was what happen all the time IRL.
There is no such thing as fighting to the last man, why loose lives when they can be spared to fight in another day, at a better time, this is simply not done in a sim, its a white knuckle ride to the end, even if it kills you virtualy.

In the case of the P-63, the real edge will be on the combat speed, not in the maximum speed, that is a suberbely wrong concept, that again i don't bother discussing here.

In the 63, all that was taken from the 39 was the concept, nothing else.
There are very few parts that are interchangeable beetween the two fighters, but again, very few people see that, and only look at the 63 as an improved version of the 39, wich again, is a very wrong concept.
The 63 took the overall design of the 39, because regardless of how the US may have felt about this aircraft, it is without a doubth, the most advanced design ever created, either by aerodinamical or combat prowess points of view.
The weak link on the 39, is its Alison engine without a turbocharger regime, wich to be effective, has to be used at sensible heights.
However, and using the recently aquired quotation of Nikolay Gerasimovich:

(...)"It seems that everything depends on what you wanted out of it. Either you flew it in such a manner as to shoot down Messers and Fokkers, or you flew it in a way that guaranteed 120 hours of engine life."(...)

In Russian hands, the Alisons rarely lasted more than 50 hours, and some engine (early) may have reached Russian hands allready overstessed, that much should give you a glimpse of how hard the Russian pilots pushed this aircraft, wish in turn relates to the fabulous performance they had in they'r hands, opposite to how American pilots described it.
They flew for the kill, not for the show, and pushing the 39 hard, would show how good it could actualy perform.

Another short quotation:

(...)"Now regarding power settings. In principle the RPMs were regulated by a conventional throttle. In the Cobras there were two regimes of throttle operation, â"normalâ" and â"war emergencyâ", which was characterized by increased manifold pressure. The throttle quadrant was mounted in the [left side of the] cockpit and the pilot controlled it. The â"war emergencyâ" regime had a lever position that we called â"51 inches and 57 inches of boostâ". If we were flying on Soviet B-95 fuel, then â"war emergency powerâ" was set at 51 inches. If we were using American B-100 fuel, then â"war emergency powerâ" was set at 57inches. Although it was mounted in the cockpit, on the throttle quadrant, the pilot did not adjust this setting. The position of the â"war emergency powerâ" selector was controlled by a piece of wire that could be broken easily with greater forward pressure on the throttle quadrant.

One time I sensed a lack of power (I needed to get ahead of a German) and I thought, â"The hell with itâ"! I broke the wire and selected â"57â". Then I experienced what â"57â" meant! My airplane leapt forward! The Germans spotted me from above and dove immediately, which was what we wanted."(...)


Going back to the 63.
The increased wingspan will give it a higher stability and lift factor, and at the same time, the laminar flow wing design will allow a very fast transition beetween the drag quoficient vs effective wing surface.

The 63 also has a longer tail section, this is no surprise because of the increased wingspan, and again, will also be a source of stability.

On the "C" variant (the one we will get) the 63 also had introduced a ventral fin, so, the "shake, rattle and roll", so to speak, at high speeds, should cease to exist.

On the "C", the engine output was increased to 1500hp (compared to 1200 on the 39, and 1350 on early 63s), and the WEP was increased to 1800hp, and it now features a two stage turbocharger.

The armament consists of 4x 12.5mm (.50cal) Browning machine guns, two on the cowling and two on wing gondolas, and a 37mm cannon trough the proppeler hub.
Since the 63-A9 variant, the cannon has a provision of 58rds, and the model of the cannon is the improved M10 (all 39s and early 63s had the M4 cannon).


I repeat again, the P-63 ins't simply an improved P-39, its a completely new aircraft, that uses the P-39 as the base design.
The only thing that makes it relate to the P-39 is the fact that it aso comes from the Bell factory.

The incresed engine power and two stage turbocharger, doens't mean that it will be able to go much higher, only that it will be able to go as high as the 39, but much faster and much more stable and reliable at that heigth.

The laminar flow wing design, with all its strongs point, also brings a nasty side effect.
Unanounced stalls can occur, alltough easy to get out from.
Nevertheless, for an experienced and dedicated P-39 pilot, this will not even be important, as we have long learned how to handle this sort of occurence, and how to avoid it alltogheter.

On the hands of an experienced P-39 pilot, you can expect the P-63 to be very....very.....very deadly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I know that we all know the Russians took the P39 and reworked it somewhat to get some better performance out of it. But exactly what did they remove and or change? How did they make that 37mm gun stop jamming? How did they limit the nasty flat stalls? What did they do exactly?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too many changes to mention them all in detail, but i guess i can mention a few.

The wing weapons gondolas were removed, as it promoted greater speed and stability, and because the other two weapons on the cowling and the cannon were sufecient.
Keep in mind that in the game, the pilots do not rest until the enemy is either blown to bits or engulfed in flames, no such measures were required IRL, making the enemy flee smoking is all it takes to win the battle.

Part of the armour was removed (up to 100kilos), this made the aircraft much lighter, faster and maneuverable, without loosing too much protection.

For the heavy rearward center of gravity, pilots would put some personal equipment, and up to an extra 20kilos of lead in the forward part of the aircraft, this made the center of gravity pull more to the center, therefore, more stable and less prone to stalls.

As for the weapons jamming, much of those ocurrences were due to mistakes of the armoreers, or more commonly the dust and dirt all over the airfields that would clutter the barrels.
After each sortie, all aircrafts were cosely inspected and prepared, and then they had a coat of percale applied to the "mouth" of the weapons.
This material was "impermeable" enough to avoid dust and dirt into the barrels, but it was soft enough for the weapons to be able to break away when the first rounds were shot.

Flat spins were never completely eliminated, only controlled.
As long as speed is kept high in a climb, and you don't attempt to exit when low on airspeed, it ins't much of a problem.
This is true both IRL and in the game.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

crazyivan1970
02-12-2004, 06:41 PM
Interesting info here. Can`t wait to face those in the air..

V!
Regards,

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

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

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

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

ZG77_Nagual
02-12-2004, 07:14 PM
FYI - last name of the pilot resev is quoting is golodnikov.

Agreed - important to not the 63 is a completely new aircraft - similar to the p51h in relation to the p51d - but with even greater changes.

resev
02-12-2004, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
FYI - last name of the pilot resev is quoting is golodnikov.

Agreed - important to not the 63 is a completely new aircraft - similar to the p51h in relation to the p51d - but with even greater changes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thx Nag, the software doesn't let me edit a post that large, so i couldn't use the name properly, and i messed up on first try.
I assumed most people would know that it was Golodnikov i was talking about, from the first two names.


The initial P-63 project was intended to be equiped with the P&W R800 DW, but because of the awkward rear position of the engine and high altitude inability of the overall glider (i suspect these were the real reasons), the engine was never authorized to be used on the 63, and were all relegated to the Mustangs, Corsairs and the like.

I can only start to imagine how the 63 would behave if it had that badass engine in it!
If the Alison is good enough, imagine it with a P&W!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

Magister__Ludi
02-12-2004, 09:18 PM
Stop it people, get real! The soviets got only 50 King Cobras before the defeat of Germany and they were kept in USSR in PVO units. Some were rushed against Japan and had an overall score of 1 (one) victory. King Cobras were decomissioned even before the Airacobras, so there are very little facts pointing to the enthusiasm of the soviet airmen towards the type. P-63A (1500HP) was only 10 km/h or less faster than P-39Q up to 5000m and climb was worse. P-63C was slightly better but came too late for the soviets (after the war finished on all fronts), and it was still less good than a top dogfighter from '44. I think the lack of interest with all airforces is very much understandable. When P-63C finally appeared it was still lagging behing older dogfighters at a time when airforces were looking for jets.

This thing with the lack of turbosupercharger as the main defect for Airacobra is one common error. King Cobra did not have a turbosupercharger either, it had just one more supercharger stage.

Some of you were making remarks about how aerodynamic were the Airacobras or the King Cobras. I'm sorry but that's not supported by the specs. An Yak1b was slightly faster than Airacobra though it had much less power (1180HP compared to 1420HP). Guess who was more aerodynamic then. And I never heard about Yaks (and especially early ones) as having cutting edge aerodynamics.

lbhskier37
02-12-2004, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by resev:

The initial P-63 project was intended to be equiped with the P&W R800 DW, but because of the awkward rear position of the engine and high altitude inability of the overall glider (i suspect these were the real reasons), the engine was never authorized to be used on the 63, and were all relegated to the Mustangs, Corsairs and the like.

I can only start to imagine how the 63 would behave if it had that badass engine in it!
If the Alison is good enough, imagine it with a P&W!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P&W, wasnt that a radial? How would they put that in a P63? Or when you say initial project do you mean when the specification was first drawn up? Also, Mustangs didnt have P&Ws, unless you lost me somewhere Im guessing thats a typo

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

resev
02-12-2004, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
P&W, wasnt that a radial? How would they put that in a P63? Or when you say initial project do you mean when the specification was first drawn up? Also, Mustangs didnt have P&Ws, unless you lost me somewhere Im guessing thats a typo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL, not just a typo, more of a regretable mistake that makes me blush! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I was researching the Corsair on a web page while i was typing that, and got radials and inlines all mixed togheter in my head in the process! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Thx for pointing that out, i wouldn't have noticed the mistake.

I meant the British Packard Merlin V-1650-7, wich were to be requested for trials on the P-63, alltough the deal never got trough.

All things considered, and realising the effed up mistake i made, i feel it was left better in charge in the hands of the Alison.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928

Koan___
02-12-2004, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Is there russian version of interviews with Golodnikov? I wanna know what "leap" means too
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Russian version:
http://www.airforce.ru/history/ww2/golodnikov/part3.htm

lbhskier37
02-12-2004, 11:52 PM
Thought a radial engined P-63 would be pretty tough to do lol. I bet a Griffon would be really cool in onehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Or one of them crazy engines out of the tempest, dont know where you would hang that huge radiator though

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

Magister__Ludi
02-13-2004, 12:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Thought a radial engined P-63 would be pretty tough to do lol. I bet a Griffon would be really cool in onehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Or one of them crazy engines out of the tempest, dont know where you would hang that huge radiator though

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lbhskier, if you want to listen a 24 cyl Napier Sabre from a Typhoon/Tempest check this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=822103012

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

lbhskier37
02-13-2004, 12:35 AM
Wow, I think that Napier Sabre sound will be my new startup sound! That is the coolest sounding engine.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

MosDef_99th
02-13-2004, 02:04 AM
question resev, where did you find that interview? souds really interesting. u have a url?

resev
02-13-2004, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by phife-dawg:
question resev, where did you find that interview? souds really interesting. u have a url?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sure, here you go:Conversations with N.G. Golodnikov (http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm)

Its a very large interview, divided into four sections.
It took me over three hours to read everything, but i finished the reading quite satisfied.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/2-picture2.gif?0.3524929147671928