Proof P47 is handy capped

[Hodo]

wow kids easy.   Its a game..   Nothing is going to be exact.  its not a 1%er.

1%er is for those of you who dont know.  A flightsim that is within 1% of reality.    

This is a good game but not exactly real.  

Sure the P47 here doest do like the history channel says.  But let look at the history channel.   Its about 40-60% right about most of the subjects.  They cant be perfect as there isnt many working P47s that can be tested now is there?    

I like the P47, I like the Bf110, I like the P38..... I like WWII planes.  But I am not here for realism.  If I wanted that all the time I would fly Target Tobruk or any of Targetwares other WWII flightsims.   There I have to worry about cowl flaps RPM, prop pitch, actual trim.   Its enough work to get a F4U off the ground there.  Let alone land that torque monster.    This is why I will stick to my jets in Korea... at least there I only have to trim the elevator.  

keep the peace in the forums  save the flaming for the arena.

[Motherland]

For all of you who keep downtalking the 109, I ask you this: have you ever read  book about fighter aces of Germany, World War II, or in general? If you have, you would find as much BS in this P47 pwns 109 crap as I do.
IF the 109 is such an inferior aircraft, then how would you explain the simple fact that the top aces of any war, ever, flew them? Erich Hartmann, 352 kills, and Gerhard Bekhorn, 301 kills, both flew 109's. Furthermore, there are 30 more pilots just from JG52 that didnt just earn the rank of ace, but had more than 100 kills, 4 of those with more than 200! Just from JG52! And this was against the best Allied pilots of the war, the Russians! Now, I dont have a book with a list of all the German 109 aces, but, if every ace were listed, down to 5 kills, I am quite sure that it would take up several good sized pages.

I wouldnt be surpised to find that all the kills made by 109 pilots from JG 52, or JG 54, and definately the two put together, would amount to more than claimed by all American fighter pilots in both Theaters.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Motherland
For all of you who keep downtalking the 109, I ask you this: have you ever read  book about fighter aces of Germany, World War II, or in general? If you have, you would find as much BS in this P47 pwns 109 crap as I do.
IF the 109 is such an inferior aircraft, then how would you explain the simple fact that the top aces of any war, ever, flew them? Erich Hartmann, 352 kills, and Gerhard Bekhorn, 301 kills, both flew 109's. Furthermore, there are 30 more pilots just from JG52 that didnt just earn the rank of ace, but had more than 100 kills, 4 of those with more than 200! Just from JG52! And this was against the best Allied pilots of the war, the Russians! Now, I dont have a book with a list of all the German 109 aces, but, if every ace were listed, down to 5 kills, I am quite sure that it would take up several good sized pages.

I wouldnt be surpised to find that all the kills made by 109 pilots from JG 52, or JG 54, and definately the two put together, would amount to more than claimed by all American fighter pilots in both Theaters.

You, my friend, have just bit off more than you can chew

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Motherland
For all of you who keep downtalking the 109, I ask you this: have you ever read  book about fighter aces of Germany, World War II, or in general? If you have, you would find as much BS in this P47 pwns 109 crap as I do.
IF the 109 is such an inferior aircraft, then how would you explain the simple fact that the top aces of any war, ever, flew them? Erich Hartmann, 352 kills, and Gerhard Bekhorn, 301 kills, both flew 109's. Furthermore, there are 30 more pilots just from JG52 that didnt just earn the rank of ace, but had more than 100 kills, 4 of those with more than 200! Just from JG52! And this was against the best Allied pilots of the war, the Russians! Now, I dont have a book with a list of all the German 109 aces, but, if every ace were listed, down to 5 kills, I am quite sure that it would take up several good sized pages.

I wouldnt be surpised to find that all the kills made by 109 pilots from JG 52, or JG 54, and definately the two put together, would amount to more than claimed by all American fighter pilots in both Theaters.

NOMEX UNDERWEAR!!!! QUICK!!!!!  

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Hodo
1%er is for those of you who dont know.  A flightsim that is within 1% of reality.

No flight simulator is within 1% of reality, or even 25%.

Originally posted by Hodo
I am not here for realism.  If I wanted that all the time I would fly Target Tobruk or any of Targetwares other WWII flightsims.   There I have to worry about cowl flaps RPM, prop pitch, actual trim.   Its enough work to get a F4U off the ground there.  Let alone land that torque monster.

Targetware is very unrealistic.  The engine management is a bit better yes, but still hugely lacking.  The trim system is actually less realistic than Aces High II's.  And in Targetware, every aspect of the flight is grossly exaggerated; torque, P-factor, propwash, gyroscopic effect, and adverse yaw are all assigned wildly inflated values, perhaps three or four times what they should be.  Lastly, Targetware doesn't use the complex, realistic multi-vector lift and drag model Aces High II uses.  Thus, Targetware's stalls stink.  The P-38 always spins in Targetware, it can't stall straight forward like the real P-38 (and the P-38 in Aces High II).

It's ironic that the game (namely Aces High II) which doesn't claim to be the "most realistic simulator ever" has by far the most realistic flight model, while "simulators" which claim to be "hyper-realistic" and "ultra-high fidelity" (such as the travesties of IL-2, Targetware, Falcon, and Microsoft Combat Simulator) have terribly unrealistic flight models.  True, they have slightly better engine management and avionics, but it's still more simple than flying even a real Cessna (let alone a warbird).

Originally posted by Motherland
And this was against the best Allied pilots of the war, the Russians!

Hee hee!  You're funny.  I like Russians, they have a good sense of humor.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
No flight simulator is within 1% of reality, or even 25%.



Targetware is very unrealistic.  The engine management is a bit better yes, but still hugely lacking.  The trim system is actually less realistic than Aces High II's.  And in Targetware, every aspect of the flight is grossly exaggerated; torque, P-factor, propwash, gyroscopic effect, and adverse yaw are all assigned wildly inflated values, perhaps three or four times what they should be.  Lastly, Targetware doesn't use the complex, realistic multi-vector lift and drag model Aces High II uses.  Thus, Targetware's stalls stink.  The P-38 always spins in Targetware, it can't stall straight forward like the real P-38 (and the P-38 in Aces High II).

It's ironic that the game (namely Aces High II) which doesn't claim to be the "most realistic simulator ever" has by far the most realistic flight model, while "simulators" which claim to be "hyper-realistic" and "ultra-high fidelity" (such as the travesties of IL-2, Targetware, Falcon, and Microsoft Combat Simulator) have terribly unrealistic flight models.  True, they have slightly better engine management and avionics, but it's still more simple than flying even a real Cessna (let alone a warbird).

 

Hee hee!  You're funny.  I like Russians, they have a good sense of humor.

Like anyone here could make any claim's either way, Benny.

Unless, you have personally in real life, climbed in and actually flown any of the warbird's that any of the sim's that you've listed, simulate-we're stuck drawing the same conclusions' that any of those game writers' could have made.

[Benny Moore]

Don't be ridiculous.  We have solid proof that, for example, some U.S. ships would stall straight forward under some or most conditions.  We know what those conditions are.  For instance, we know that a P-38 with weight correctly distributed, no drop tanks, and gear retracted will stall straight forward power on and power off, accelerated and slow, flaps up and flaps down, and even in a turn, as long as it is coordinated (there is no slip) throughout the stall.  We also know the approximate stalling characteristics of other U.S. fighters because of the documentation (including video footage of them being stalled under various conditions while the narrator, a test pilot, even describes it).

I also know that Hitech's general flight model is very close to reality, having flown real airplanes.  He himself owns an Rv-8, as you surely know, and compares the flight model to the real thing by doing aerobatics in both the real and virtual plane.  We also know that the mechanics of Aces High II's flight model are very exact, having dozens of lift and drag vectors, and more for thrust and weight.  The other "simulators" use only a handful (which is why their stalls stink).

I suggest you do more research, perhaps fly a real plane for a few hours, do some stalls and stuff, and then come back and restate your opinion.

[Motherland]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
Hee hee!  You're funny.  I like Russians, they have a good sense of humor.

Well, looking at pure data...
The highest scoring Allied ace of the war was Ivan Kozhedub, with 62 air-to-air kill's. The highest scoring, non-Russian Allied ace was British Marmaduke Pattle, with 51 kills. There are 5 VVS pilots, including Kozhedub, with more kills than that. The highest scoring American ace was Richard Bong, with 40 air-to-air kills. Including the 5 afore mentioned, that's 9 VVS pilots that scored higher than the highest scoring American ace. Also take into account, pilots like Aleksandr Pokryshkin (by the end of the war, 59 kills, including 53 personal kills and 6 'shared'), who were able to score kills in the first day's of Operation: Barbarossa, in their heavily outclassed I-16's, I-153's, MiG-3's and LaGG-3's, whilst the Luftwaffe was in its prime, not on it's last leg.
The Russian front is overlooked, probably because of Cold-War propaganda in Western countries, but in reality, it saw the feircest air combat of the war.

Originally posted by Vudak
You, my friend, have just bit off more than you can chew

Probably. Lets see how this goes. First time, as of yet, Ive made an objectionable statement on this BBS. I wonder how Ill fair in the arguement which will undoubtedly come up...

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Motherland
The Russian front is overlooked, probably because of Cold-War propaganda in Western countries, but in reality, it saw the feircest air combat of the war.
 

You mean ground combat, don't you?

Some stats to ponder,

[Motherland]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
You mean ground combat, don't you?

Some stats to ponder,

Chart

Could you explain how the chart work's? How can a country have 368 planes and lose 969 of them?

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Motherland
Could you explain how the chart work's? How can a country have 368 planes and lose 969 of them?

They build more.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
Don't be ridiculous.  We have solid proof that, for example, some U.S. ships would stall straight forward under some or most conditions.  We know what those conditions are.  For instance, we know that a P-38 with weight correctly distributed, no drop tanks, and gear retracted will stall straight forward power on and power off, accelerated and slow, flaps up and flaps down, and even in a turn, as long as it is coordinated (there is no slip) throughout the stall.  We also know the approximate stalling characteristics of other U.S. fighters because of the documentation (including video footage of them being stalled under various conditions while the narrator, a test pilot, even describes it).

I also know that Hitech's general flight model is very close to reality, having flown real airplanes.  He himself owns an Rv-8, as you surely know, and compares the flight model to the real thing by doing aerobatics in both the real and virtual plane.  We also know that the mechanics of Aces High II's flight model are very exact, having dozens of lift and drag vectors, and more for thrust and weight.  The other "simulators" use only a handful (which is why their stalls stink).

I suggest you do more research, perhaps fly a real plane for a few hours, do some stalls and stuff, and then come back and restate your opinion.

Allright, I'll put it this way: HTC has a personal RV-8. He can fly it whenever he needs a comparison to the RV-8 in the game.

But, does he have an F6F? an FW-190D9? A Spit IX? For this, he has to use what archived and published data. Pilot reports. Hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of data. I've taken the stick on a Beech bonanza. That doesn't make me an expert on what the proper FM should be on any game. It gives me an idea, but not the ability to make an absolute statement on whether or not the game has the proper power settings for the P-38L. Or the proper turn rate for the Spit XIV. Or the true sea-level speed for an LA-7.

It does not give anyone the absolute last-word on wether or not AH, or Targetware, Or IL-2, or warbirds, or airwarrior, have the correct FM's.

At the best, it's merely your opinion. And should be kept as such.

If you have a perfect, flyable P-38 at your disposal, then please, bring it to the con. Give Dale a ride, show him any flaws. If not, I've stated what should be done.

THAT'S what I was alluding to in my previous post.

[BiGBMAW]

Has the Uriel guy ever looked at a 109 an da P47 in real life?


The 109s are so FRIKN SMALL!!! compared to pretty much ALL ALLIED planes......SMALLLL 109s'!!!!



And Tank guy...lord have mercy.....You sound Like like a Chuck Norris Action Figure..

"I have passed the test for real..have you?"

Save that talk for the bar..Not the Aces High Computer Game..Do you really believe this helps your points in your posts?

[Nimrod45]

I have no dout that there are better performers than the P-47, but why does the P-47D-40 have a superior climb rate than the P-47N.  I thought the 47N had more horses and I know it is faster?

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Nimrod45
I have no dout that there are better performers than the P-47, but why does the P-47D-40 have a superior climb rate than the P-47N.  I thought the 47N had more horses and I know it is faster?

Only under wep .


Bronk