Author Topic: Pyro The Dora-9 WTF did you do this plane? (Read 1414 times)

Westy · « **Reply #30 on:** March 09, 2001, 12:13:00 PM »

JAB

It's not about the figures or specs or what he percieves is wrong. It's his infantile way of coming out with it here and his not so endearing lack of personality.

-Westy

juzz · « **Reply #31 on:** March 09, 2001, 12:13:00 PM »

And you have some data for the correct climbrate for a D-9 loaded with 25% fuel?

Vermillion · « **Reply #32 on:** March 09, 2001, 12:16:00 PM »

Oh Sturm, you mean a performance chart like this?
http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-1.jpg

or like this
http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-3.jpg

Or a armament option loadout chart like this?
http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-5.jpg

Please notice they are all original Focke Wulf factory documents.

And if you think ANY Fw190 should turn good, please go back and examine the wing design, and wingloading of any of the Fw190 series. They are all heavily loaded and prone to accelerated stalls due to the airfoil used in the 190 Series.

And answer me this Sturm if your a Ta152 expert. How could you have very many field varients for the different guns packages for the Ta152-H1's, when there was only 3 Ta152-H1's ever made ?? Think about it for a few seconds before you answer.

Show us some solid data both historical and from within the game to compare, and then we'll talk. Otherwise your just flaming away, and showing your own ignorance in the process.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Wisk-=VF-101=- · « **Reply #33 on:** March 09, 2001, 12:18:00 PM »

Pyro spends quite a bit of time on collecting info from very many sources. As this game is HTC's creation it's up to the developers to decide how to use all the data they have. If you want something to fly differently - write your own game.

And BTW there are a lot of different sets of data out there and not all of them show the same thing. Your personal opinion of which one of them is right is not going to change HTC's opinion.

You are being too emotional.

Wisk-=VF-101=- · « **Reply #34 on:** March 09, 2001, 12:21:00 PM »

Verm did you get my email all right ? Were you able to see the attachment?

Fishu · « **Reply #35 on:** March 09, 2001, 12:28:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
Pyro spends quite a bit of time on collecting info from very many sources. As this game is HTC's creation it's up to the developers to decide how to use all the data they have. If you want something to fly differently - write your own game.

And BTW there are a lot of different sets of data out there and not all of them show the same thing. Your personal opinion of which one of them is right is not going to change HTC's opinion.

You are being too emotional.

..and Pyro can also do mistakes.
That was done in the past with 109G10's top speed and corrected.
C.205 was also porked at one stage totally.

So, how about you, Wisk, also begin to think that it might be human error when converting diagrams to the game.

Ice · « **Reply #36 on:** March 09, 2001, 12:38:00 PM »

This is a classic case of a perfectly capable aircraft in the hands of an incapable pilot...that simple.

The D9 is very very dangerous...it also requires a high degree of skill and finesse for it to perform up to its capabilities. For anyone to come into this sim and make statements about the validity of aircraft performance without having walked the walk here for at least 60 days is kidding himself.

------------------
Ice
13thTAS

It's not the Big that kill the Small, but the Fast that kill the Slow!

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #37 on:** March 09, 2001, 12:53:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ice:
The D9 is very very dangerous...it also requires a high degree of skill and finesse for it to perform up to its capabilities.

I agree 100% with you here, Ice. Someone who thinks the D9 is undermodelled or incapable clearly hasn't seen it flown to its strengths. This is one dangerous plane, and it's a helluva fun ride.

-- Todd/DMF

Fishu · « **Reply #38 on:** March 09, 2001, 01:17:00 PM »

In off-line tests, D9 has been pretty nice..
Though, I should do more testings.. (it did some things far better than wuergers)

Zigrat · « **Reply #39 on:** March 09, 2001, 01:22:00 PM »

vermillion the fw-190 uses the exact same airfoil as the corsair and hellcat afaik. see selig's uiuc airfoil database.

Zigrat · « **Reply #40 on:** March 09, 2001, 01:24:00 PM »

oh but i think wing twist is different mabye, which accounts for little stall warning

and why it doesnt have high divergance, enabling the high roll rate. always tradeoffs in aerospace engineering

Kratzer · « **Reply #41 on:** March 09, 2001, 01:24:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ice:
it also requires a high degree of skill and finesse for it to perform up to its capabilities

Awwwwwwwww.... Crap.

I'm out.

Kieran · « **Reply #42 on:** March 09, 2001, 01:49:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu:
I think it would be easier for you to just stop reading the AH UBB

I think you are right!

Beegerite · « **Reply #43 on:** March 09, 2001, 01:50:00 PM »

Just a quick additional point that came to my mind. Whenever we utilize statistics as posted below, we also need to remember that there is one additional variable that some are ignoring, temperature and other meteorological factors. Anyone who knows how to fly a real airplane will tell you that without that numbers are useless. On a hot humid day the airplane below is not going to get the quoted climb rate. It isn't specified but I would bet that the figures below are for what is referred to as a standard day of 59F at sea level. Instead of setting us up for these B.S. threads it would really be nice if HT would post the performance specifics which they have to hard code into their program for each altitude then we would at least have something concrete to either agree or disagree with. Also, I've got my own version of the book below except it's fat and called "Fighting Aircraft of WWII" I'm at work and don't know if my book agrees with flakbait's but what I would really like to see is a photocopy of the actual flight manual of this airplane in the original Deutsh. That and only that would be the most unimpeacheable evidence of how this airplane should perform.
Beeg

Quote

Originally posted by flakbait:
Here's some numbers I got from a skinny little book titled Aircraft of WW2. ISBN # 1-875671-35-8

Ta-152 H1
Performance:

Max speed 350 mph sea level, 465 mph at 29,860 ft w/ MW-50. Cruising speed 311 mph; initial climb 3445 ft/min. Service ceiling 48,556 ft; normal range 755 miles; max range w/drop tanks 1250 miles.

Fishu · « **Reply #44 on:** March 09, 2001, 02:01:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Beegerite:
Just a quick additional point that came to my mind. Whenever we utilize statistics as posted below, we also need to remember that there is one additional variable that some are ignoring, temperature and other meteorological factors. Anyone who knows how to fly a real airplane will tell you that without that numbers are useless. On a hot humid day the airplane below is not going to get the quoted climb rate. It isn't specified but I would bet that the figures below are for what is referred to as a standard day of 59F at sea level. Instead of setting us up for these B.S. threads it would really be nice if HT would post the performance specifics which they have to hard code into their program for each altitude then we would at least have something concrete to either agree or disagree with. Also, I've got my own version of the book below except it's fat and called "Fighting Aircraft of WWII" I'm at work and don't know if my book agrees with flakbait's but what I would really like to see is a photocopy of the actual flight manual of this airplane in the original Deutsh. That and only that would be the most unimpeacheable evidence of how this airplane should perform.
Beeg

You could give a chance for human error.
It has happend with C.202, C.205, 109G10... do I need to say more?
Maybe its just human error this time too?