Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: StSanta on July 28, 2001, 11:42:00 AM
-
I've got a feeling that the razorback p47 is a tad bit too maneuverable - or said in other words, either retains e too well or just gets around too fast.
From what I've read, it's approximately the same weight as other jugs. It's heavier than 190's.
Is it just my "feeling" that it's too light or does someone else have it too?
Not a whine, just an inquiry
-
IIRC Pyro said it's underweight <300 lbs?> and will be fixed in 1.08.
-
Quote from Pyro's "Flight model stuff"-post.
Originally posted by Pyro:
[QB]P-47D-11 is underweight and that will be changed. A prop change is not planned at this point as I really don't want to do 8 variants of the P-47.[QB]
-------------------
1Wmaker1
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/~paulusk/Lelv34.jpg)
-
Heh, some razorback shot you down eh? ;)
(File this under "Luftwhines".)
-
Oh no brother bluto!.. Those P47 guys are just too mean. It cannot be true that their ugly green plane is superior to our manly Messerschmidts...!!!!
ammo
CO 63rd FS, 56th FG "Zemke's Wolfpack"
-
p47 has spitfire wings
-
P-47 is heavier than 190, but it also has about 50% more wing area than the Focke Wulf...
-
I think the P47D11's a real sweetheart. I'm beginning to get attached to this Jug.
-
P47D11 is a spitbolt.
No, none or very few ever even get a shot at me, but from the flying ive done in the P47D11 its simply too manuverable and turns far too well for a P47.
I stand on my statement that a P47D11 can turn with spitfires and seafires at low level. Ive done it quite a bit against pretty good spitfire pilots in the MA. They were certainly surprised, I was shocked, and we both agreed something wasnt right.
If any of you dedicated 47 pilots say a D11 cant do this you either plain suck at flying the P47 or are lying in an attempt to not draw further attention and scrutiny to this planes unusual turning ability.
Face it guys you have your turnin fun in D11 for now because soon it will all over and it will be fixed.
Sorry if I offend you but thios plane is not accuratly modeled, even HTC agrees on this its 390lbs too light and this does have an impact.
-
Just to throw it in, i just finished the book JG301/302 from Willi Reschke, there is one very nice passage about combat between him and 2 Jugs:
"I planed to leave the airbattle and find a strip to land: than it came to another dogfight. In a right turn i meet 2 P47 Thunderbolts - this type i had not seen in the fights further above, but their attack intentions were clearly visible. At about 2000 meters my FW190 turned clearly better, and so it came that i quickly sat on the 6 of the 2nd Thunderbolt and she had to take the 1st burst."
It is notable that Fw. Reschke flew a FW190A8 in this fight with the hvy 2x13mm,2x20mm + 2x30mm cannons. And he still was capable of easily outturning the Jugs.
Same counts for the well know story about FW Reschke turnfighting at low alt a Tempest with a TA152.
In both cases a plane with a higher wingloading clearly outturned planes with lower wing loading. this leads me to the assumption that wingloading is not the overall most important factor for turning speed and circle.
Same can be find in mock combats between the Bf 109 and the HE112 in which the 109er inspite of its higher wingloading clearly outturned the HE112.
-
Geeeshus fediddleing CHRIST ammo.
I thought that during my time in this community, you guys would be able to to distinguish between me and a luftwhiner.
Look at my posting history for the last 3-4 months.
This is disappointing. Some of you are calling "wolf" every time someone that flies LW brings ANYTHING up. So, you're pissed at some LW guys. So, you put every LW guy under that category.
I thought you had more brains than that. It's akin to saying "a human killed another human, therefore all humans kill other humans and all humans are killed by other humans".
It was an inquiry, and it seems it was both a valid one and that it had merit.
Thanks for the info from everyone else; it is appreciated.
Absent the use of smilies, I parse things as meant semi-seriously when in doubt.
[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: StSanta ]
-
I am coming back from a long needed break of 3 weeks and it seems to be same ole same ole here. I must be bad stick because I cannot retain E and turn worth a crap in any JUG (ask my squaddies) If they nuter the D11 then it may be a permanent ADIOS for me. I salute any dedicated luftwafer because then us dedicated ETO guys can get authentic match ups. What made me go on a sabbatical was the heavy concentration of NIKs. I wonder if they still are a problem.
-
I think the razorback is definitely overmodeled as well. I too turn with spits, and the occasional N1k (and you know that is impossible). Dont worry though, it will be fixed!
All those who deny its overmodelage are simply hoping to hide it so as to keep it turnin' and burnin' :D
Larry
-
load of crap
-
The D11 will be fixed but the differences are not going to be that big. 300 lbs on a 14000 lb aircraft isn't that big a deal. The thing carries about 2200 lbs of fuel and ammo. 300 lbs is about 1/7th the performance difference you would experience between a fully fueled and armed D11 and one on very low fuel/ammo.
Hooligan
-
I've never noticed the D11's performance to be anything outstanding (relative to the other 2 models). That said- the P47 IS an outstanding aircraft, in my opinion.
This is just a brief synopsis of how I think the Jug stacks up Vs. the German planes.
109F4- Jugs have speed advantage, firepower.
109 has turning, climbing.
109G2- Jugs have diving advantage, firepower. 109 has turning, climbing (sustained- not zoom. same with 109F4). Speed is fairly similar, Jug may have a slight advantage.
190G6- Got me. Don't fly it. I expect the Jugs would be able to turn with it, and have the speed advantage as well. The 109 would have an edge in sustained climb, and the 30mm would be nice for snapshots.
109G10- Jug has advantage in diving, firepower. 109 is faster, can outclimb. Turning ability is similar, I've both outturned and BEEN outturned fighting 109G10 vs. Jug. Jug will handle better at high speeds, but it bleeds E very quickly in a turn (more quickly than the 109). 109 has edge in low speed handling, IMO.
190A5- Jug has a slight speed advantage, 190 has a slight turning advantage (sustained- break turn is similar). Diving is similar, 190 climbs slightly better. 190 also has a much quicker roll, especially at 250-350 mph.
Firepower is similar, 190 has slight edge in snapshot ability due to the 4 20mm.
190A8- Jug has slight speed advantage, turning is similar. Climbing is similar as well. 190 rolls faster and has greater firepower with the 2x30mm cannon. I DO NOT enjoy fighting P47s in 190A8's.. especially when Frenchy is in the P47 hehe.
190D9- D9 is faster, climbs better. I'd guess the P47 turns better, if not, it turns about as well. Don't fly the D9 much, honestly don't know.
Also, about the P47D11 being a "jugspit"- I doubt it. I *think* what you may be seeing is the Jug turning inside of a spit at HIGH speeds, because the Jug will bleed off speed a LOT faster, thus bringing it down to the cornering speed quicker. I really doubt if the P47 can turn circles with the spits and nikis on the deck.
-
First of all santa, dont get your feelings hurt..
The D11 will be adjusted as Pyro has stated and this discussion has been brought up several times...propelling this topic into to the whine category when it comes from you or other notoble LW flyers. We know it will be fixed. Dont throw your feined distress at me you knothead.
And as a sidenote, in my opinion the dora is just a little to better than what i expect a FW to be. But I dont know, never flew one. Only my perception.
Lastly, in any post you direct to me.. Never use Jesus Christ's Name in vain. I would appreciate it immensely.
<S>
ammo
[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: -ammo- ]
-
I'm just wondering if any of you guys who feel that the -11 is overmodelled have done any testing. If you think something is messed up, lets see the numbers. I'm not trying to prevent further attention or scrutiny to this plane's alleged unusual turning ability, in fact I invite it.
If what you're saying is true the -11 should have better sustained turning rate than the spit. (That I'd like to see.) In fact, I think you'll find that the -11 will have marginally better turning performance than the -25 (my wager is 3% better) and the spit will be significantly better.
-
S!
Man the Luftwhiners never quit do they.
The USAAF did a comparison of a P-47D-5, (essentially the same plane as the D11 in AH) versus a captured 190A5. (190 was Jabo model with no outboard FF 20mm so lighter than standard 4 cannon model)
The comparison showed the P-47D-5 easily outturned the 190 in high speed turns at 250mph or over. Only at low speed (160mph minus) did the 190 have a turning advantage mainly due to its superior acceleration and power loading.
Another point to consider:
The suggestion is that the AH P-47D11 is underweight by 300lbs. That may be the case, although I don't know what figures AH are using as a basis for the aircraft's weight. (Would be nice to see all of the stats on all the aircraft so we know what the parameters of the FM are)
What is not considered in the above arguments is that all the 8th AAF Squadrons equipped with P-47's had the aircraft's 'toothpick' props replaced with the much superior paddle blade props in the first week of January 1944. This resulted in a considerably improved climb, zoom climb and acceleration and would more than compensate for the extra 300lbs.
The D11 we have here DOES NOT have the paddle blade prop.
Perhaps the P-47D11 should have another 300lbs added, but it should also have a paddle blade prop as an option.
The Luftwhiners always seem to get the latest and greatest version of their particular aircraft, (couldn't help but notice they got the MW-50 equipped FW190D, even though the FW190D came out in August 1944 and wasn't equipped with MW-50 until January 1945) so the USAAF should also get the aircraft which was the best performing P-47 until the P-47M.
Cheers Buzzbait :p
-
Against a decent Jug pilot 109 actually has less chance than 190.
If Jug stays fast, it can use high speed maneuvering and control authority to turn harder than 109 and gain position. Only when Jug pilot makes a mistake and fight drops to 200 IAS speeds 109 can do something.
190 is, IMO, better for fighting Jugs. It has the needed control authotrity and much needed firepower to bring the beast down. As for snapshots, I think Jug enjoys an advantage due to far greater effective guns range. OTOH, 4 Mausers are good for snapshots too (personally, I can't hit anything with .50 cals and Hispanos - too little lead ;)).
All in all, 190 vs Jug is a decent matchup. Beauty vs Beast.
On some occassions in H2H I have been able to turnfight Spits down low in D-11. However, I don't think I was slower than 250 mph IAS at any time. And .50 cals really hut Spits. I think my best was 4 kills with all spits coming down at me.
From those fights I learned that Jug retains E very very well, much better than 190A series. Dora is another story.
[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]
-
I disagree, I think the 109 is better for killing Jugs, but then again it is what I personally am more comfortable in. I honestly don't think the 300 lbs. will make much difference one way or another. Of course, since people know it is 300 lbs. underweight now, they attribute things to that (like it retains all E, turns on a dime, etc, etc.)- and once the 300lbs. is added the Jug pilots will begin to say that it is so much less manueverable than it should be, etc. etc.
The Jug CAN and WILL turn inside of a LOT of planes above 300 mph. That is for ONE turn, as it bleeds off all the speed it had. Once that turn is over (or if the Jug misses his shot that pulling lead gave him), the Jug will be slow (the Jug doesn't accelerate all that well either), and if he continues to turn he is easy meat for anything that turns better than a 190A5.
I, personally, fought Frenchy in the DA. (He whipped me pretty good BTW, felt like a red-headed stepchild for a WEEK after that). I think everyone would agree that Frenchy is a GREAT P47 pilot. If you don't, go to the DA... you'll be coverted quick. He owned me pretty well in his P47 while I tried different 109s and 190s- and I outturned him in a SLOW flat turn on the deck, in the 190a5. By slow I mean I was at or below 200mph throughout the entire turn, start to finish. He pulled lead on me for 2 or 3 snapshots, but he missed and when he kept turning I pulled right around on his 6 in maybe another 2 revolutions (he started dead on my 6). The P47 may be a nice plane, but it CANNOT hold a sustained circle with a 190A5, much less a spitfire.
-
yup frenchy is good, we are glad to have him :)
There are some other really good P-47 pilots in the 56th FG, that have different styles but are good inn their own right.
No way I have ever outturned a spitfire in a low alt furball. I avoid that like the plague. I try to fly the planes strengths..and that is not its turning ability. I think that maybe if the d11 doesnt behave like a small bomber and provide other pilots with an easy kill, they will whine. Some hot jug pilot pulls a spectaculer display of ACM and whips a LW flyer and burst their ego..and it begins on the BBS.
edited for spelling
[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: -ammo- ]
-
Timely topic because Frenchy handed my tailplane to me the other day. I saw a P-47 head-on and I was in a P-51B and thought we were about co-E and the little voice in my head said 'the 51 can't turn all that well but it should be able to keep or regain E quicker than the 47' and so I decided to go a couple circles with it. We were only about 10K maybe a little lower and I was quite surprised when I could not get any gain on him and ended up getting shot down. It ended up being Frenchy and I was so surprised things played out this way.
The other surprise of that same day was earlier when against you, Ammo. I was in a P51B and you were in an LA7 and we were about 10-12K and I thought, 'Aha! I heard that the LA7 doesn't accelerate all that well up here' and so too decided to go round and round with you and I could not gain. The really embarassing thing though is that you chased me to low level and I ended up crashing in the water and I don't think you ever fired a shot.
Anyway, I gotta find me some more P-47s and figure out just how to handle them (and so many others) in a 51B.
-Puke
332nd Flying Mongrels
-
Originally posted by Urchin:
The P47 may be a nice plane, but it CANNOT hold a sustained circle with a 190A5,
Ooo where'd that idea come from? Drop a notch or two of flaps and that 190A5 will fall before it's guns.
Same with most 109 models, the exception being the 109F4.
I've flown all of them (109/190/P47D-25) extensively and can tell you that the P47D-25 is definitely a good turner down on the deck and WILL give a LuftWobble a nightmare if the guy flying the Jug is good in it.
-SW
-
Picking on the P-47??
Come on...
-
You guys amaze me: The D-11 is not right....Pyro pointed that out. What effect the added 300# will make has yet to be seen. Maybe it turns better than you have become accustomed to.........maybe you got complacent and some Jug pilot filled yer butt with lead? Regardless, add the 300# and what will we have? Likely, a D-11 Jug that performs like the books say it will....that means top speed near or at 420+, fuel hog, slow climb, etc.....but a German plane, performing 26 mph faster than ANYTHING I have been able to find for it's model is "okay"? Give me a break! The weight will be added, no doubt; will the G10 be slowed down to the 426 mph top speed (only speed I have EVER seen for the G10, BTW)? Oh? What's that? "Certain" models of the G10 had the K model's engine installed? Hhmm.......what is wrong with this picture? German planes modeled to whatever gives them the highest #'s performance-wise, but the Jug has to be stock, right down to the "published" numbers. Seems someone on the inside has a hidden love for LW iron, and wants them to have all the edges......... :(
-
SW- if you'd care to try that out in the DA or something lemme know, I'm pretty sure that the 190a5 can outturn the P47 in a sustained, low speed circle (which it will be because both planes lose speed so damn fast). I fly the F4 and G2 some, I actually prefer the G2 because it is much faster than the F4, and turns almost as well. I know you have been around for a while, and probably have much more experience flying the planes than me, so I want to ask you a quick question. Of the 109F4 through G10, and the 190A5 and A8, what is the order in turning performance.. Say high speed and low speed seperately. High speed I consider 300+, low speed 200-.
As far as I know, I'd give this order, please let me know if you agree or disagree.
High speed- 190a5, 190a8, 109F4, 109G2, 109G6, 109G10.
Low speed- 109F4, 109G2, 109G6, 190a5, 109G10, 190a8.
I realize that at 350+ the 190 will be more manueverable than the 109 because of the control difficulties the 109 has. Thats why I put them at the top for the high speed, because I figure that the high speed will be a break turn, which would rapidly become a "slow" sustained turn. The 190s also bleed speed a lot faster than the 109, which lets them cut inside of a break turn to get off a snapshot.
I ask this because if you put the American planes (at least the USAAF planes in, I'm not so certain about the USN), I'd order the list like this.
High speed- 190a5,P47D11, P47D25, P47D30, P38, 190a8, P51B, P51D, 109F4, 109G2, 109G6, 109G10.
Low speed- P38, 109F4, 109G2, 109G6, 190A5, P47D11, P47D25, P47D30, P51B, 109G10, P51D, 190A8.
Again, this is purely personal experience, so it may or may not jive with the experiences you have had. All I can really say is that when I am in a 190A8 and a P47 or P51 comes hunting me, I don't like the feeling to much. I honestly HATE P38s, because they turn so much better than the other USAAF planes, and they are damn fast to boot. Only consolation is that they are easy to shoot down if you manage to get behind em.
Also EddieK... let me bounce this off you. A lot of spitfire "fans" want their Spit9 "fixed". They say the engine mounted on it (which I assume they found out by matching the speed in AH vs. the historical planes speed) doesn't match the guns that are on it. So they want the rest of the plane made better, so that it will match the "better" guns that are on it. Do you think they should just remove the .50s and put on the .303s that were in place on Spitfires that had that engine, and wing shape?
Honestly, I don't really care if you do or not, I was just making the case that in many situations the AH plane does not match up with the historical plane that it claims to be. Our 190G10 apparently has an engine that was mounted in the K4 varients. It doesnt have the little "Flettner" tabs that the K4 had to assist with high speed rolling. It doesn't have the armament options that I've seen for the 109K4 (which include 3x30mm, bet you'd be THRILLED to have that one as an option, huh?). I agree with you that the only data I've ever seen in books or webpages lists the 109G10s top speed as 426 mph. So why don't we take our 109G10, make it a K4, and give us the faster rolling and bigger guns? Isn't that a viable option to?
Anyways, I did not mean to turn this post into a "typical Luftwhiner" thread, so I'll leave it at that. Anyone that would care to perform "tests" of the P47s vs. any German plane, I'd be happy to assist. Hell, I enjoy the DA more than the MA nowadays anyway.
-
That was very refreshing post EddieK.
I haven't seen those ones in a long time :)
-
Hhhhmm.....what was the question again? ;)
I personally think they need to pick the correct engine/wing/gun combo and stick with it. I don't know much about the Spits, especially the fine details like the "LF", "XXX", or "Rated R" wings....so the differences are lost on me. But that doesn't mean that they are not important to the Spitfire fans in AH......if it is not correct, IMHO, Pyro needs to get on the stick and fix it sometime. What effect will it have on the performance of the Spit9? I don't know...like I said, I am not up to date on the particulars of the Spitfire.
I think I am correct in saying that many of the Ah birds, the LW iron in particular, had so many damn variations for a particular plane that Pyro has to pick some of them to model in and leave others off. Hell of a decision to have to make, IMO, 'cause inevitable, someone is gonna say "I read where they had (insert whatever option you want, there are a lot), and I think we need it on the AH plane too." From what I personally have read the Germans came up with "field packs" to suit different roles for the 109/190, and it was a simple matter of installing them in the field. If people are asking for these options because they were available, and getting them, how come others aren't allowed anything but what came out of the factory?
As far as the G10 being relabeled a K4, if it has K4 performance, it ought to be called the K4 and not a G10. The increased armament doen't bother me in the least....just makes it more of a challenge, plus the added weight of the cannon should make her handling suffer some, giving me a better chance of getting a kill.
There are others that I think need addressed, like the vicious stall of the F6F (anyone found anything to support this behavior in the RL plane?) and the A6M's ability to continue flying with damage that is fatal to other more rugged planes. AH is the best on the market, hands down, but it ain't perfect. It will take time, and Pyro is just one person. I am sure all these items will be fixed in the future, and until then, we will just have to live with them.
BTW, I think you have the right idea.....the DA might be the place for me..........I love a 1v1 historical fight over the MA stuff anyday. The last REALLY Jug vs 109 fight I had was against Glasses before he left, and I was having a ball........until a Spit came in and interrupted what was, to me, a classic battle. :(
PS: Staga, what do you mean? Refreshing in what way? :)
[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: eddiek ]
-
Just to get the Spit straight.
The AH Spit IX has the speed of the F IX model with a Merlin 61. There were approx 350 such planes made. In early 43 they switched to the Merlin 63, 666 or 70, all with more power than the Merlin 61. The AH Spit climbs worse than any Spit IX, whatever the engine.
The reason Spit fans are calling for the change in engine model is twofold. First, around 5000 Spits were made with the more powerfull engines, against 300 or so with the earliest Merlin 61. It seems wrong to model one of the worst 300, and not one of the more representitive 5000. Sort of like modeling the only 190 as the 190A1.
Second, the only other candidates for a late war RAF fighter are the Spit XIV and the Tempest. The tempest is already a ver expensive perk, the Spit XIV will be if it ever gets here. That leaves the Spit IX as the best an RAF fan will get unperked, and so it should at least be a typical 43 model, not a typical 42 model. The RAF thought the basic 42 model Spit IX wasn't good enough in 43, and replaced them with better Spit IXs.
-
Urchin, see it all becomes a matter of pilot skill (not really sure skill.. maybe more knowing what he's going to do before he does it), plane type and fuel load in those engagements.
A P47D-25 with only 50% in his main tank while 0% gas in his aft tank will without a doubt be able to get onto a 109G2's tail and stay there if the 109G2 has 75% in his main tank. Those are about equal fuel load weights between the two, what it comes down to is wing area at low speeds. Something the D-25 has more of than the G2. The 109F4 though is no contest it will undoubtedly turn inside any American plane currently modelled regardless of fuel loads.
I believe that the 190D9 and 190A8 also turn about the same, maybe the D9 is a little heavier on the controls.. BUT the 190D9 has the engine power and ability to regain energy quicker than the 190A8 which in turn means more chances to make mistakes and still regain his energy to continue the fight. The 190D9 will lose a turning fight against any currently modelled American plane though, but it has the speed to escape.
For the 109G6 it's really a sluggish turner at low speeds. It's also a toss up on fuel load and pilot ability. In a pure sustained turn, a Jug or P51 with light fuel and a notch or two of flaps can get inside the G6, especially at low speeds. But the higher the speed, the better the chance the G6 has of getting inside. Here's the kicker though, you CAN use a spiral climb sustained turn in the 109G6 and the P51/P47/P38 will not be able to get inside because the G6 will simply climb away while those planes are sitting back there struggling to get enough air over their elevators to maintain their turn.
One thing I am certain of though, is that the 190A5 vs D-25/F4U-1D(or C)/P51D(orB)/P38L it all comes down to pilot ability and fuel loads. Typically if you are up against an average pilot in one of those american planes, sustained turn the 190A5 will easily win out. For example, several tours back, I was dogfighting a P51D and F4U-1C. I managed to keep inside of the F4U-1C and still be able to turn away from the P51D(he kept making long drawn out passes). I managed to hang on the F4U-1C's tail long enough to shoot off his entire tail section using just the 7.92mm nose MGs. (400 odd rounds) The P51D I managed to get to commit to the fight (by now I had about 60% in my main tank, 0% in my aft) and when the P51D got slow I simply stayed on his tail no trouble and emptied about 20 cannon rounds into his wing and he crashed. The P51D pilot failed to drop one or two notches of flaps though, so this could of easily been the reason for me to stay on his tail so easily.
Here's what I suggest you do, if you want better research than simply going to the DA.. I find this method helps to understand all aircraft better: Go offline (yes I know it's boring ;-) and test the various aircraft you think might be a close turner with your plane.
Get a stop watch and a pad of paper and pen. Take off and allow your plane to get to a set speed (250MPH to start with) and have your compass stay with the heading "North", bank left or right (try both ways, depending on engine torque you might be able to get a faster turn in one direction) and begin turning as hard as you can without stalling (be sure to start the stopwatch right when you begin turning), when you are facing north again, stop the stopwatch and record the time, speed, fuel and flap settings.
Repeat for each plane trying different combinations. I was amazed at what the American planes can do with a notch of flaps (something the 190 can't do because they don't deply until around 160MPH).
-SW
-
Eddiek, I to get all confused when they talk about the different varients. I pretty much make a face like this :confused: :eek: .
Nashwan- you know waaaaay to much about spitfires ;) I do think you may have a point though, and if the Spitfire IX you guys get is a 1942 one, you should at least get a 1943 one.
And lastly, SW, thanks for all the information :D. I HATE going to the offline mode, and I don't even have a stopwatch. But what you said is a big help anyways. Thanks again.
-
No problem, I like to discuss the pros and cons of various aircraft per the in game modelling. It's interesting what things you can do in the 190A5 versus the Spitfire or some other "more popular" plane.
I would take you up on the DA offer, but unfortunately my flight time is very very limited.. and what time I do have for flying I like to spend learning a new plane in the MA or going to the SEA (when I have have time) and enjoying some historical recreated battles.
S! Urchin.
-SW
-
damn strange !!!!
USAAF test prove all the time the superiority of usaaf planes vs LW
RAF test prove all the time superiority of RAF planes vs LW
LW test are proved some superiority vs ALIED planes ?
vho is objective and who was propaganda potato ?
-
It's all about fuel loads, E states, and pilot ability.
I've been asked how I "out turned" a Spit IX quite a few times while flying the D-25 Jug. Not the D11... the D-25. The reason every time was that I had less than 50% main tank fuel and more E to start. I can use vertical moves and sound E fighting tactics to get quite a few shots at a Spit IX before I have to give up and extend. Versus a pilot who has a bunch of fuel on board or who doesn't quite know how to fight against my Jug, I'll often win. If I misjudge the other guy or he is light fuel, I often have to turn tail and bug out after only a couple of passes. This doesn't change whether I'm flying the D11 or the D25 to be honest.
If you think there really is something not right, take the suggestion above and do some simple tests. A complaint with no data to base it on is the definition of a "whine" in my book.
Lephturn
-
I was able to easily stay with and out turn a spit in a d-30 at about 1000 ft. the other day. Why? I was down to 1/4 fuel, half my ammo load and used some flap here and there and kept the WEP on. I have to say that I was a bit suprised during all of this. Every time I committed to a new turn I said to myself "one more time and that's it - I'm buggin out" but the Jug was keeping up. I couldn't believe it. The Spit would try a few turns and then try to extend, which I wouldn't let him do, and then he would try some more turns. He finally ended up stalling and spinning in at about 500 ft. Of course I forgot to film it, as usual.
I think the fact that he never made more than 3 circles before trying to extend helped me alot.
StuB
-
Hey Urchin.. I just had a memory spazm...
Wasn't it you who I was dogfighting P47D-25 vs La5FN?
I think it was you, I could be mistaken though.
-SW
-
If pyro is going to add 300lbs on to the plane to "make it right" then I would like to see the paddle prop, P47 Advocates (http://www.p47advocates.com/)
-
Originally posted by DmdStuB:
I was able to easily stay with and out turn a spit in a d-30 at about 1000 ft. the other day. Why? I was down to 1/4 fuel, half my ammo load and used some flap here and there and kept the WEP on. I have to say that I was a bit suprised during all of this. Every time I committed to a new turn I said to myself "one more time and that's it - I'm buggin out" but the Jug was keeping up. I couldn't believe it. The Spit would try a few turns and then try to extend, which I wouldn't let him do, and then he would try some more turns. He finally ended up stalling and spinning in at about 500 ft. Of course I forgot to film it, as usual.
I think the fact that he never made more than 3 circles before trying to extend helped me alot.
StuB
Stub, i am JUG fanatic, but I have yet to outurn a well flown spitfire..ever. I welcome you to show me. I'll be the spit, you take the D25, or whichever. And we can switch up. Let me know if you would like to do this.
ammo
-
Personally, I have never been able to outturn a Spit in any of the Jug models...admittedly, I am not the hottest Jug pilot around, but I have been flying it from it's inclusion into the AH planeset.
AirScrew, give it up, my friend. Pyro already stated he did not want to model 8 Jugs, and I guess that is what he sees himself having to do to make paddle-props available. This is his and HT's game, they write the code, and what they say goes.
The original point of this thread was to point out that the Jug D-11 does turn better than most expect..........is it a Jugfire? That all depends on the perspective of the individual.
As to what the added weight will do to the overall performance of the D-11, I don't know. I rarely fly it anyway, as I feel more comfortable in the D-30 and D-25(D-27, really? ;) ).
I think minus tried to make a point.....what I got out of it was not what I think he intended, but it is this: Both sides, Allies and Axis, tested captured aircraft against their own. Both came up with favorable results, both said their planes could beat the other. I see no propaganda involved, other than making their pilots feel comfortable about engaging the enemy in battle.
-
Originally posted by eddiek:
German plane, performing 26 mph faster than ANYTHING I have been able to find for it's model is "okay"? Give me a break! The weight will be added, no doubt; will the G10 be slowed down to the 426 mph top speed (only speed I have EVER seen for the G10, BTW)? Oh? What's that? "Certain" models of the G10 had the K model's engine installed? Hhmm.......what is wrong with this picture? German planes modeled to whatever gives them the highest #'s performance-wise, but the Jug has to be stock, right down to the "published" numbers. Seems someone on the inside has a hidden love for LW iron, and wants them to have all the edges......... :(
There wasn't a G-10 or K-4 with one engine and one engine only. So it's funny when you are talking about "G-10" being too fast. With this you mean what G-10? One with DB605D engine or DB605ASCM or DB605DCM? All totally different engines or tuned differently for use of different grades of fuel. All these engines have different performance figures like the planes equipped with them. If you are interested in the performance figures of the G-10 we have in AH I suggest you do a little research...
Just a few pointers to get you started...
-Our G-10 doesn't have "K-4s engine". DB605D-series of engines were installed in both variants (K-4 and G-10) of the Bf-109.
-German wartime performance sheet lists highest power output for the DB605D as 2200hp with MW-50. AH G-10 has DB605DCM engine which used MW-50 and higher octane (96/100 "C3 fuel") fuel than normal DB605D
which uses 87 octane (B4) fuel...
-Highest top speed for the K-4 with DB605DCM engine is around 450 mph (452 mph in many sources). Considering that K-4 has recractable tail wheel our G-10s speed (around 440mph) is very close to the truth. G-10 being a tad lighter doesn't affect the top speed much.
EDIT[Source for the wartime performance sheet: Keski-Suomen Ilmailumuseon julkaisuja 8 MESSERSCMITT BF 109 JA SAKSAN SOTATALOUS, ISBN 951-95688-7-5, author Hannu Valtonen]EDIT
Originally posted by eddiek:
As far as the G10 being relabeled a K4, if it has K4 performance, it ought to be called the K4 and not a G10. The increased armament doen't bother me in the least....just makes it more of a challenge, plus the added weight of the cannon should make her handling suffer some, giving me a better chance of getting a kill.
What I stated above about AH's G-10. And BTW LOL...hehe...what's that added armament in K-4 compared to G-10? :p
Eddiek, if variants confuse you don't start ranting without knowing better that they should fix something which ain't broke ...
---------------
1Wmaker1
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/~paulusk/Lelv34.jpg)
P.S From where did you guys get this figure of 300 lbs associated with D-11's lightness? I haven't seen Pyro or anyone at HTC stating the exact weight. :confused:
[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Wmaker ]
-
Pyro said it was some 390 lbs too lighht. IIRC it was in a thread pyro started called "Flight Model Stuff".
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=002216 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=002216)
THat's the thread, but I can not find any reference to the actual weight that is missing from the 47D-11.
-SW
-
Hehehe... OMG StSanta lookie what ya did!!!!
I agree w/what Leph said...fuel/E/Pilot decide many things. A jug turning at 300 is a nasty beast... a jug turning a 150 can could be a nasty beast but most likely its just gonna be a pig. The D11 doesnt have the fuel load of the 25 or 30 P-47 varients. THAT alone makes a diff. The 47 has an excellant wing which is why such a beast can move at all. HT and Co will add the wieght..but when that d11 is down to 25 percent fuel and burned some ammo and you come in w/a fat spit at 300+...beware cause some hotshot jug pilot might ruin your day, as is the case for all planes in this game.
xBAT
-
Yes SW, I do believe that was you in the P47.. I think hehe. I believe I was flying bish that day, and i had upped the La5 for base defense. You split-S'd towards the water, I made a flat turn and we ended up going HO. Can't remember if you shot me down or just damaged me though, I do remember you brought that sucker around faster than I expected though ;p You jugfire pilot you ;)
-
Yup that was it. On the HO we collided, and shot each other up. I lost half my left wing and was forced to ditch. You then made a strafing run on my plane, and then fought another guy (I forget who) and shot him down then came back to strafe me again so I exited my plane. ;)
I was in a 47D-25 though, not the D-11! ;)
That was a fun fight, I think I had gotten two before you came in.
S!
-SW
-
I stand corrected WMaker. So there was more than one engine available in the G10. I guess MY point was that as you said there were "totally different engines or tuned differently for different grades of fuel"....read around some and see what different states of "tune" the P47's were in when they entered combat.
And, FWIW, go read the AH chart on top speed.......the red line, WEP, passes the 450 mph mark......looks like about 452 if I was guessing? :D
All in all, you just supported my earlier remark that the LW gets whatever higher performance numbers were available......the others get what the factory put out, nothing more. :eek:
As far as "research", I have been buying all the books on 109s and 190 I can find....still ain't found one that lists a top speed of 452, and that is why I said what I did.
-
Yea, I do remember that now, hehe. Prolly wasnt nice of me to strafe your downed plane, I was wondering why you were still there. The La5 is a pretty nice ride, I like flying it for a change of pace.
Actually- that brings up something I wanted to mention anyways... the Jug LOOKS well, like a jug. It is big and fat. But it also has godawfully big wings, so it can turn surprisingly well for all its size. However.. anyone that can hold a circle against a spit is going up against the least competent spitfire pilot the world has ever seen- or maybe one that lost both elevators and has to turn using the rudder :rolleyes: .
Someone else said (I'm to lazy to look it up)- that a competent Jug pilot may just turn around and bite your bellybutton (ok, I'm paraphrasing)- if you underestimate its abilities. And that is exactly right, but don't go giving it magical qualities because it is underweight by 400 pounds, well you can, but I'm not going to buy it.
-
One thing should be clarified, the ONLY P47 model that is underweight by some odd number of pounds is the P47D-11. The NEWEST Jug, the Razorback.
The other two models, P47D-25 and P47D-30 are correct.
-SW
-
Ok ammo, I guess I just woke up on the wrong side :).
I'll do my best to accomodate your request re: use of reserved words in the future; dinnae think much of it. Sorry 'bout that.
All: thanks for an interesting discussion. I've enjoyed it, even though i've only been lurking (won't talk since I don't know :D)
[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: StSanta ]
-
S!
Here's a perfect example:
"-Our G-10 doesn't have "K-4s engine". DB605D-series of engines were installed in both variants (K-4 and G-10) of the Bf-109.
-German wartime performance sheet lists highest power output for the DB605D as 2200hp with MW-50. AH G-10 has DB605DCM engine which used MW-50 and higher octane (96/100 "C3 fuel") fuel than normal DB605D
which uses 87 octane (B4) fuel..."
So the Luftwobbles get the best possible version of the G-10....
Why then doesn't the P-47D11 come in the best possible version, ie. with the Paddle blade prop?
-
Thanks, Buzzbait! My point exactly! :D
-
The anti-USA conspiracy of-course. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by eddiek:
All in all, you just supported my earlier remark that the LW gets whatever higher performance numbers were available......
So you say we have MW 50 and GM-1 for 190A series in AH ?
-
Originally posted by eddiek:
All in all, you just supported my earlier remark that the LW gets whatever higher performance numbers were available......
pure and utter BS.
The Fw190D9 does not reach the 440mph at level flight it achieved with the external rack. AH's D9's top speed is around 430mph. There are 10mph missing somewhere. :rolleyes:.
Or, as you say that they always use the best numbers, we should have the Fw190D9 with C3 fuel, yes, that one wich made almost 400mph at sea level, right?...oh, but we dont...where is it?...
The Ta152H is clearly too slow at high altitudes, to the point that there was debate wether the GM1 was modelled or not. It is modelled but the plane is 20mph too slow at its best altitude.
The 109G10, you say, is 26mph too fast. Fine. Get it down to 426mph. But remember to bring the REAL 109K4 with 378mph at SL and 452mph at altitude.
The 109G6 in AH is the earliest possible mark of the G6s. if they use the best numbers ,then where does it has the ASM engine, the MW50 and the GM1?. Or the GM1 for the Fw190A8?....or the MW50 for the Fw190A and F?...
Your affirmation is pure roadkill.
Note: apart of the problem with the D9 and Ta152 being too slow, I dont say that the rest things I've mentioned should be introduced in AH. I simply used them to illustrate how false is eddiek's affirmation.
[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
When the G10 has a 2000hp engine, then someone must explain me why it climbs only with 4600ft/min near sealvel.
Over 500hp more compared to a G6 or G2 should make more difference, even with 500lb more weight.
Or: 35% more power and 10% more weight, but only 10% more climbrate
There exit climb performance claims of over 5000ft/min for spit14 with same amount of power and 800lb more weight compared to the G10...
niklas
-
Just as a side note, I feel tempted to bring up the 1.03 all-day-long whines about the Fw190A5 being too light, because it was modelled using a captured G3's stats (and thus lacking the cowl MGs).
I think that the total weight it was saved by the MGs and ammo was around 300-400lbs (dunno exactly). But the rants about it were heard even on the moon.
Now we have a Jug 350lbs lighter than what it should, but, of course is nothing to be too much worried about, true?.
LOL...
-
Originally posted by R4M:
Just as a side note, I feel tempted to bring up the 1.03 all-day-long whines about the Fw190A5 being too light, because it was modelled using a captured G3's stats (and thus lacking the cowl MGs).
I think that the total weight it was saved by the MGs and ammo was around 300-400lbs (dunno exactly). But the rants about it were heard even on the moon.
Now we have a Jug 350lbs lighter than what it should, but, of course is nothing to be too much worried about, true?.
LOL...
try to think in %
-
Originally posted by eddiek:
I guess MY point was that as you said there were "totally different engines or tuned differently for different grades of fuel"
The tuning itself didn't raise the engine's power output but allowed the use of higher octane fuel which of course gave more power.
This was all done in the factory and it has nothing to do with field mods.
Originally posted by eddiek:
And, FWIW, go read the AH chart on top speed.......the red line, WEP, passes the 450 mph mark......looks like about 452 if I was guessing? :D
FWIW, go offline and take G-10 with 100% fuel load to 22500ft (altitude for the highest speed for G-10 in the HTC's speed chart) and see how fast you can go in level flight. I tested it and it's pretty damn close to 440mph within 2-3 mph. Please, post a film here where you maintain continious 452 mph with G-10 in level flight.
Originally posted by eddiek:
All in all, you just supported my earlier remark that the LW gets whatever higher performance numbers were available......the others get what the factory put out, nothing more. :eek:
AH's G-10 is what factory put out, nothing more. It's a stock G-10 straight from the factory without any field modifications what so ever.
---------------
1Wmaker1
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/~paulusk/Lelv34.jpg)
-
While you argue about the very best modifications to your 1944 planes, I'm still waiting for a basic 1943 Spitfire. :(
-
Well now....I never said that it was a well flown spitfire :) However I am sure that it wasn't a drone I was flying against either. I do not claim to be a good Jug pilot (or of any plane type for that matter) and I fully acknowlege the fact that the guy in the spit could have turned the tables on me if he had been really good, but he was average, and I was able to hang with him, to my great suprise.
As far as a duel, I think that you should do it against someone who is a good Jug pilot, rather than me, who just happens to luck out every once and a while :)
Originally posted by -ammo-:
Stub, i am JUG fanatic, but I have yet to outurn a well flown spitfire..ever. I welcome you to show me. I'll be the spit, you take the D25, or whichever. And we can switch up. Let me know if you would like to do this.
ammo
-
Originally posted by DmdStuB:
Well now....I never said that it was a well flown spitfire :) However I am sure that it wasn't a drone I was flying against either. I do not claim to be a good Jug pilot (or of any plane type for that matter) and I fully acknowlege the fact that the guy in the spit could have turned the tables on me if he had been really good, but he was average, and I was able to hang with him, to my great suprise.
As far as a duel, I think that you should do it against someone who is a good Jug pilot, rather than me, who just happens to luck out every once and a while :)
Stub NP, I didnt mean a duel, I meant more of a test type thing. I figure I could prove my point and maybe learn something at the same time. Wasnt a battle of best thing :)
And I am just an average jug pilot myself. I make mistakes, and get a few kills ever so often.
ammo
-
NP santa. And the truth is my origional post, this topic, was just a light-hearted jab.
CYA in the virtual skies!
ammo
-
gonna take my thing out and let the troll suck on it.
No serouisly..im gonna let it do it...
I'll leave me girlfreind outta this sry.
Here's a question: are glad your not smart enough to develop this kind of software, because if you did would you play with own product.
sometimes it good to be the consumer.
Back to the Dock - ALL HAIL LaVA's Vacation!
Have a good one! get drunk
-
Hehe, I didn't take it like that......I guess I should have used a term other than duel. I lack consistancy, which is really needed to run that type of test. (Not having a working throttle is certainly not helping my flying either) I flew a little bit last night with 1/4 fuel again. I really do notice a difference in performance once the aux tank gets depleted. It seemed to me that as long as I didn't let my speed get below ~200 I could hang with anything. Looking back, I think that in the example I gave, the spit driver was trying to extend and was keeping his speed high enough that it was to my benefit....(again, I wish I had recorded it)if we had started to get into the roundy round/bleed all of your E/I'm gonna git you sucka kind of stuff, I firmly believe that I would have been dead meat.
StuB
I get all slobbery when I start thinking about how the Jug would perform with some paddles. With 1/4 fuel I was getting 3500 fpm with wep. I bet the paddles would be good for at least another 500 fpm.
HTC, PLEASE........Give us at least one Jug with paddles!!!
Originally posted by -ammo-:
Stub NP, I didnt mean a duel, I meant more of a test type thing. I figure I could prove my point and maybe learn something at the same time. Wasnt a battle of best thing :)
And I am just an average jug pilot myself. I make mistakes, and get a few kills ever so often.
ammo
null
[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: DmdStuB ]
-
If pyro is going to add 300lbs on to the plane to "make it right" then I would like to see the paddle prop
The first P-47 with paddle blade props from the factories were D-22-RE and D-23-RA.
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
The first P-47 with paddle blade props from the factories were D-22-RE and D-23-RA.
P-47s in the field were upgraded to paddle blade props at the beginning of January 1944, at least a month or two before the -22 or -23 were available in the field. The -11 we have should get the paddleblade.
[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Sancho ]
-
At the rate that HTC is adding planes the paddle-bladed d11 is coming. But from what Pyro said earlier, I doubt it will be soon.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S!
Here's a perfect example:
"-Our G-10 doesn't have "K-4s engine". DB605D-series of engines were installed in both variants (K-4 and G-10) of the Bf-109.
-German wartime performance sheet lists highest power output for the DB605D as 2200hp with MW-50. AH G-10 has DB605DCM engine which used MW-50 and higher octane (96/100 "C3 fuel") fuel than normal DB605D
which uses 87 octane (B4) fuel..."
So the Luftwobbles get the best possible version of the G-10....
Why then doesn't the P-47D11 come in the best possible version, ie. with the Paddle blade prop?
Paddle blade prop was retrofitted to D-11. AH's G-10 came that way straight from the factory. Allthough I have nothing against D-11 getting a paddle blade prop you can't make a point using this as an example.
BTW, eddiek sure seems awfully quiet. ;) :D
--------------------
1Wmaker1
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/~paulusk/Lelv34.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Wmaker:
Paddle blade prop was retrofitted to D-11. AH's G-10 came that way straight from the factory. Allthough I have nothing against D-11 getting a paddle blade prop you can't make a point using this as an example.
BTW, eddiek sure seems awfully quiet. ;) :D
--------------------
1Wmaker1
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/~paulusk/Lelv34.jpg)
This is flawed. Although the D11 wasnt fitted with the prop in the factory in the States, the props were immediatedly shipped in to the UK and fitted in mass in Jan '44. The LW had no such delay as they were fighting right where their Manufacturer's were, and their supply lines were unhindered. I do not believe that the Messerschmitt and Focke Wolf engineers and porduction people sat idle while they produced upgrades to the AC they created. They got the upgrades installed of course. The D11 we have here was used prior to the installation date of Jan '44.
ammo
-
Nope Ammo...it isn't flawed. I agree with your points but it doesn't change the fact that those props were fitted to planes that were allready long off the production lines. At least to me a new greatly improved prop like that when installed makes D-11 early '44 fighter. Nothing bad about that. It's just that when the real G-10 which AH is modelling came out the factory it had the performance it had from right there.
As I said I agree with you why things were the way they were but "why" doesn't change the fact that things happened/were that way.
I'll give you an example. Personally I can't see why AH should have aircraft like P-51H or F8F since they didn't fight in the war itself. They were deployed but if they didn't see action I can't count them as being World War 2 aircraft. So therefore they shouldn't be in the game IMO. But there have been arguments that since Allies didn't have any need for them in the end of the war they didn't see action and that's no reason to exclude them from the game. History is history and if AH is a flight sim featuring various WW2 aircraft I think it really doesn't matter why certain aircraft didn't see action as long as they didn't they shouldn't be in a combat sim featuring WW2 aircraft.
A little long and probably too hot topic for an example but it was the best I could come up with. Now I hope that everyone would be smart enough and not start arguing about the above since it's not the topic of this thread...I really don't want to be a thread hijacker. It's just an example, that's all.
...do you see my point ammo?
----------------
1Wmaker1
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/~paulusk/Lelv34.jpg)
-
So Wmaker you want to see thousand of 162 / 262 and FW parked in forest ... without being able to fly with one ?
If you want history in the MA jump allways to the gangbanged country to fly your lw Iron ;) it would be more realistic :D
MA is not and won't be any time history ... it's the gaming part of the MMOP scenario can give the "taste" of history but won't be historic anytime just because of balance reason.
I hope I'm clear cause writing after a typical french meal is quite hard ... especially after the wonderfull Chassagne Montrachet we got this time ;)
PS there was a cognac at the end too ;)
-
Im cool with non-historic planes in the MA.
Yep!
F86 and Mig15 to AH!!!!
-
Just a point on the Bearcat. It was deployed aboard a carrier that was enroute to the war zone when the Japanese surrendered.
At that time, the carrier was at Pearl Harbor, making its last preparations and loading supplies prior to entering the war zone.
The aircraft and the squadron were combat ready. The only thing missing was an enemy directly overhead, which is what allows some pretty experimental German aircraft to slip into games under the "saw combat" rule.
Not exactly an even standard to decide by, is it?
What would happen if we were to invent and use a "fully combat ready aircraft and deployed as at least one trained squadron complete with maintenance troops and spare parts" rule? ;)
-
Which pretty german experimental plane are you talking about? The only thing even remotely close to that in AH is the Ta152, but even it wasnt exactly rushed madly into service in the last week of the war like you seem to insinuate. The first Ta152 being used in January 1945.
Even the Me262 started combat in summer of 1944..
So no Toad you dont have a clever point here unless somebody here was asking for something entirely innapropriate like a Do335.
Anyway I dont care if they put in USA fantasy Korean war planes, theyll be perked and be more expensive than Tempests and will just be able to run away from my 109G6 or 190A5 even faster than they do today in their P51s and P47s. :)
-
So, WMaker, you are implying that you do not want the American built planes to get field modification kits...
Does this mean that you do not want the German built planes to get any field modification kits? I mean, then we mine as well deny you the opportunity to add gondolas, that's a field modification kit. You can get the base 109s and 190s, that's it.
Sound good?
-SW
-
My little furry nuts itch...any volunters?
xBAT
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Which pretty german experimental plane are you talking about?... So no Toad you dont have a clever point here unless somebody here was asking for something entirely innapropriate like a Do335.
I'm sure you noticed that I did not specifically mention any particular aircraft, nor did I mention any particular game. So put your aggressive/defensive mode back on the shelf. :)
It is a statement about the Bearcat being combat ready and deployed, with commentary that those conditions are deemed "not qualifying" by some folks. While OTOH, the instance of a few undeployed non-combat ready aircraft that encountered enemy aircraft are deemed "qualifying" for inclusion.
As for your examples:
The 262 was deployed in squadron strength, with mechanics and spares, was it not?
The TA-152 was deployed also, was it not? JG 301 with 70-odd aircraft? One would assume mechanics and spares?
So, while I didn't mention ANY particular aircraft, these two would qualify under either standard, now wouldn't they?
People asking for the Do335? I refer you to Karnak's (I think it was Karnak) thread on "which German aircraft do you want to see in the game." The Do335 is indeed mentioned several times, as well as others of a similar ilk.
-
How could they justify Do335?????
-
Wasnt the P-47M and N deployed in the Pac...?
xBAT
-
Justification is the question, is it not? What "standard" should be used? Sort of like noses, I suspect... everyone has a different one.
I don't know. You'd have to ask them. :)
Here's the topic:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=002107 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=002107)
-
the ta-152 was a prototype in 1943/44.In 1945 was a production aircraft. With few planes produced, true, but a PRODUCTION aircraft wich saw REAL combat.
The only german plane wich was really rushed into production was the He162 (in fact a quite good plane for the short time it took to be designed&enter service), all the rest had lengthy prototype phases with extensive testing before entering production. Had the Ta been "rushed" into action it would've been flying in combat since the latter part of 1944.
The F8f was a production plane. It was in route to the action. It saw none. A shame, but the fact remains. Same goes for the P51H. Same goes for the F7F. Same goes for the P80...etc etc etc.
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
BTW, eddiek sure seems awfully quiet.
Yep, I have been sitting back and letting this one go.....was hoping others would do the same. StSanta posted an inquiry in good faith, and it seems to have gone way off course, and I apologize for my part in that StSanta. :(
What we have here is a difference in opinions. To some, their is a real passion for a particular plane. Mine is the P-47. Others we have seen here include various models of the 109 and 190, and the Spitfire.
In my opinion, and I speak only for myself, to get the most accurate representation of WWII air combat in the virtual world, you have to look at what the planes were like when they entered combat. Nothing more, nothing less.
From your statements, WMaker, it would appear that the 109/190 series had a multitude of engine/performance enhancements within the same model.....what I read from that is Pyro is correct if he models them with OR without GM-1, MW-50, etc. In another post, a respected AH pilot asked about MW-50 in the 109G6, commenting that he had read that it was available on some of them. I do not doubt for an instant that it was there for some of them. The reasoning for adding the MW-50 to the AH plane was regarding a perceived performance gap in the LW planes for the time period he sees the 109G6 as representing. Point made.
This is all a gray area....both sides have valid points. But I think Ammo stated it better than I ever could when he brought up the fact that as soon as a method to improve performance was discovered, it was applied to planes already in the field.....they did not wait til the new planes arrived, they applied them to the aircraft already in theater. They had to. I READ that the Jugs were worked over to make them more survivable in combat as soon as they were assigned to a unit/squadron. Why? Because as one person put it, "without them, you wouldn't last 10 minutes in combat." Sound anything like AH? It does to me.
Situation" You enter a combat area in the arena, you are at 25K, see lots of dots ahead, the dar tells you that a good percentage of them are enemy. After closing to within icon range, you see a P47, a Spit, a P51, and a 190. They are all at or near co-alt with you and you have E to spare. Oh, you are in a 109. ;) You have plenty of friendlies in the area, so you are not outnumbered. Which one are you going to go after first?
From what I have seen and experienced, most will go after the P-47 first....this tends to make me believe that pilots see the P-47 as an easy kill, less respected than the others. Why? Because in it's current state, it is not nearly as lethal as the others. It cannot survive for long in a sustained fight. It's most common "escape" route, the dive advantage, is negated in AH....109's and 190's, Spits, etc, can and will close on a Jug in a dive. Why? Got no idea. Reading pilot accounts, a 109 or 190 pilot, excepting the Dora, would be committing suicide to dive after a Jug, or to attempt to dive away from one. The Jug in RL was reported to be much faster, and would leave them in the dust when chased, or gobble them up when doing the chasing. Can't count how many times I have watched a 109/190 extend away from me in a dive when I was chasing them. I've been flying the Jug since it hit the arena, and I know about and use the "zero G" dive technique. They still leave ya in the dust. Reports of wartime tests of a Jug vs a 190 showed that the 190 pulled away initially, but the Jug not only caught it, but also had a much better pullout alt.
Anyway, back to our little discussion.....to restate myself, based on what you have said, technically, all the 109's and 190's are modeled correctly, as any of several configurations were available and in service. So why add MW-50 or GM-1? To give you a performance boost? Why ask for it if the plane is already correct as Pyro and company have it?
I realize Pyro's situation....he is keeping to "what the factory offered" only. To do different would open a whole can of worms. I am not positive what area the gondolas and such occupy in this topic. My original beliefs were that the LW dealt with many varying situations by offering "field kits" to arm planes for differing roles.....if so, technically, that falls under the category of a field mod and not a factory installation, even if it was designed by factory engineers to be applied to planes in the field.
It's really all kinda weird.......I've been reading/studying WW2 aviation since I was 9 years old, and I am now 35, and I STILL have not learned all there is to know. But does anyone? You can find reference books galore out there, but you have to ask yourself "Is this person being objective, or does he have a thing for a particular plane?" Of more value, IMO, are the biographies and testimonies from the pilots, on both sides. True, you WILL see differing perspectives, as USAAF pilots believed their birds were more than a match for the LW, and LW pilots felt the same about their planes in regards to their opponents. Robert Johnson, in his interview with Widewing, talks about what he saw in combat, and how his plane performed compared to his opponents. I have read accounts from Galland........both were supremely confident in their mounts, both were extremely successful. Opposing opinions are the norm, and will always be there. Just as in AH.
Oh.........FWIW, StSanta, I was able to turn inside a Spit the other nite in a D-11......the Spit pilot was inexperienced you could tell, and I was down to less than 1/4 on my main tank, and it did take some throttle jockeying to get my cornering speed right, but I did get inside and shoot him down.......Sancho and I talked it over right after it happened.......I think occurences like that are the exception rather than the norm........
To summarize everything I have said in this long, rambling post, let me say this:
Aces High is not perfect, it never will be, but the crew at HTC have given us a wonderful game to play. From where I stand, to make it better, and more "realistic" (man, I hate using that word talking about an online game), they will have to enter the gray area and look at what the planes were like when they were taken into combat, not just what the factory sent out the doors. IMO, to do less takes away from their attempt to recreate what took place in the skies during the Second World War. Some planes admittedly were deficient in areas as delivered, and they were not sent into battle in that condition, they were made more competitive, and therefore, more survivable, and that is what I would like to see in this game.
PS--Again, my apologies to all for this long post, and above all, my apologies to StSanta. You asked a question, you have an answer. :D
Ask yourselves this also: Which would make you feel better after scoring a kill....knowing that the plane you killed "flew" like it saw action during WW2, or knowing that it was less than what what the RL plane was, combat-wise? ;)
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: eddiek ]
-
Ah ha, I'm not the only one :)
I have been experimenting a little bit (in the d-30) and it seems like the jug is a completely different plane when you get to 1/4 fuel. I did 2 sorties with 1/4 fuel (and drop tanks for the climb/ingress) and did great. The plane was very manouverable. Then I took 1/2 fuel (no drop tanks) and when I acted dumb and tried to fight the same way, it was impossible. I eventually ended up spinning in. I will experiment some more to figure out if it was due to the extra weight or different cg (or probably both).
So, I say yes, Jugfire is appropriate monniker when it is at 1/4 fuel :)
Hehe, can't wait till it gets the paddle prop :)
StuB
Originally posted by eddiek:
Oh.........FWIW, StSanta, I was able to turn inside a Spit the other nite in a D-11......the Spit pilot was inexperienced you could tell, and I was down to less than 1/4 on my main tank, and it did take some throttle jockeying to get my cornering speed right, but I did get inside and shoot him down.......Sancho and I talked it over right after it happened.......I think occurences like that are the exception rather than the norm........
-
Originally posted by Wmaker:
A little long and probably too hot topic for an example but it was the best I could come up with. Now I hope that everyone would be smart enough and not start arguing about the above since it's not the topic of this thread...I really don't want to be a thread hijacker. It's just an example, that's all.
Some of you people really amaze me!! :eek: :(
What part of the above you didn't understand?? I'm not afraid to discuss about this but there should be another thread for this. Start one if you have much to say.
Originally posted by straffo:
So Wmaker you want to see thousand of 162 / 262 and FW parked in forest ... without being able to fly with one ?
If you want history in the MA jump allways to the gangbanged country to fly your lw Iron ;) it would be more realistic :D
Obviously too much of that cognac...
Where did I say I want 162 / 262 parked in the forest? Where was I saying that I want history in the MA? I said AH is a combat sim featuring WW2 aircraft. What does that got to do with what you replied here?
Originally posted by Toad:
Just a point on the Bearcat. It was deployed aboard a carrier that was enroute to the war zone when the Japanese surrendered.
At that time, the carrier was at Pearl Harbor, making its last preparations and loading supplies prior to entering the war zone.
The aircraft and the squadron were combat ready. The only thing missing was an enemy directly overhead, which is what allows some pretty experimental German aircraft to slip into games under the "saw combat" rule.
Not exactly an even standard to decide by, is it?
What would happen if we were to invent and use a "fully combat ready aircraft and deployed as at least one trained squadron complete with maintenance troops and spare parts" rule? ;)
F8F didn't see combat in WW2 therefore it's not a WW2 combat plane. Therefore it has no place in the combat sim featuring WW2 aircraft. As long as AH is a combat sim featuring WW2 aircraft that is. If a P-51H for example is introduced (it was in the Pyro's variant poll) AH stops being combat sim featuring WW2 aircraft. That's HTC's decision to make. But then I want a MIG-21Bis with Finnish Air Force markings. And yes you can start talking about pretty experimental german aircraft when we have one in the game.
Originally posted by SWulfe:
So, WMaker, you are implying that you do not want the American built planes to get field modification kits...
LOL...so now I'm picking on american planes! :rolleyes: Where on earth did you get this idea?!? I'll quote myself from earlier reply in this thread:
Originally posted by Wmaker:
Allthough I have nothing against D-11 getting a paddle blade prop you can't make a point using this as an example.
--------------------
1Wmaker1
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/~paulusk/Lelv34.jpg)
-
For the guy in one of the above posts...the p-47d25 and d30 have paddle props. The d11 doesnt... yet perhaps.
XBAT
-
Guess I misread it Wmaker.
-SW
-
"For the guy in one of the above posts...the p-47d25 and d30 have paddle props. The d11 doesnt... yet perhaps.
XBAT "
And from what Pyro said in another post.......it won't. :eek:
-
You mean you don't want to use this rule?
"What would happen if we were to invent and use a "fully combat ready aircraft and deployed as at least one trained squadron complete with maintenance troops and spare parts" rule?"
:D
I am not suprised!
-
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that Toad. If you are referring to Ta-152 it saw combat. It shot down enemy planes and got shot down by them. Neither happened to F8F for example during the WW2. I really couldn't care less about training and spare parts...
---------------
1Wmaker1
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/~paulusk/Lelv34.jpg)
-
The Ta-152 saw combat because the Germans were losing and badly. If the US had been in the desperate straits of Germany, then undoubtedly the P-51H, F8F and others would have seen combat also.
Since anybody can arbitrarily choose criteria to allow or disallow late-war production aircraft, why beat around the bush with “saw combat”, “fully equipped squadrons” etc… Just be honest and say: The XYZ plane should/should not be added to AH because I like/dislike it.
Hooligan
-
W,
Check my reply to GRUNHERZ up-thread. I know the Ta-152 was deployed in squadron strength with mechanics and spares.
In short, it was in fact an OPERATIONAL airplane.
I would suggest to you that an undeployed aircraft, without a squadron of trained pilots, mechanics and a supply of spare parts was NOT an OPERATIONAL airplane.
I am not surprised that those who are looking for an edge would NOT want to use those conditions as qualification for inclusion.
Better to use the "well, it was engaged one time" rule if you're looking for an advantage for the losing side, isn't it? :)
Hope that clears it up.
(..and before you start accusing me of bias or whatever, please review some old posts and realize that I'm on record for introducing the D-9, the 262 and the -152 as unperked aircraft.)
I don't care what anyone flies, don't care if they perk anything or nothing. Don't really care what they choose to add or not add to the game in terms of aircraft either.
I just play.
-
Originally posted by Wmaker:
Nope Ammo...it isn't flawed. I agree with your points but it doesn't change the fact that those props were fitted to planes that were allready long off the production lines. At least to me a new greatly improved prop like that when installed makes D-11 early '44 fighter. Nothing bad about that. It's just that when the real G-10 which AH is modelling came out the factory it had the performance it had from right there.
As I said I agree with you why things were the way they were but "why" doesn't change the fact that things happened/were that way.
I'll give you an example. Personally I can't see why AH should have aircraft like P-51H or F8F since they didn't fight in the war itself. They were deployed but if they didn't see action I can't count them as being World War 2 aircraft. So therefore they shouldn't be in the game IMO. But there have been arguments that since Allies didn't have any need for them in the end of the war they didn't see action and that's no reason to exclude them from the game. History is history and if AH is a flight sim featuring various WW2 aircraft I think it really doesn't matter why certain aircraft didn't see action as long as they didn't they shouldn't be in a combat sim featuring WW2 aircraft.
A little long and probably too hot topic for an example but it was the best I could come up with. Now I hope that everyone would be smart enough and not start arguing about the above since it's not the topic of this thread...I really don't want to be a thread hijacker. It's just an example, that's all.
...do you see my point ammo?
----------------
1Wmaker1
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/~paulusk/Lelv34.jpg)
<S> Yes I see your point and respectfully disagree. You have an opinion and how and why certain AC should be included/excluded from the planeset and in what form they should appear. As a matter of fact you argue your point pretty good. I just dont see it that way. First, I dont believe that the 109G6 came straight from the factory with a Mk 108 cannon, however I do believe that armouror's could and did equip them so. I also know that some 109G6's were equiped with the Mk108 at the factory. This is only an example. By the same token a very small percentage of the FG's equiped with P-47's ( all of them practically prior to the P-51 showing up) actually were equiped with the 6 gun package, however crews may have removed a few at the request of their pilots or to add a camera or whatever. As the war progressed innovations abounded. All sides strived to make their weapons and weapon platforms more deadly and efficient. I think it is silly to suggest that their is any difference between the examples I have stated adn the inclusion of the paddle blade prop. I also know that HTC has their own way of determining what gets in the game and what does not how they come to the decision. I think its simply because they wanted it in the game :). Personally I think since D11's flew in combat with paddle blade props than that is what should be modeled and I cant see how you can argue it down given that it is true. But you have your opinion and that is OK by me. However let the record state that I think my opinion is much better and based on more facts than yours ;)
<S>!!
-
<S> Ammo.............ya always have a way of stating things much more eloquently than me! :D
I tend to take the "sledge hammer and beat it into their skulls" approach, while you tactfully disagree. I like your method better! ;)
Like I said, if it ain't modeled like what took to the air in combat, it ain't accurate.
-
BTW, when do we get that excellent contemporary of the later FW's, deployed in strength, operational units abounding, saw LOTS of combat....
...called the Spitfire Mk XIV or something like that?
Unperked, of course. ;)
-
The MK108 engine cannon in the 109G6 was not a field mod!
Only came from the factory as the weapon mounting, weapon orientation, installatian, ammo feed, ammo storage area, spent case ejection, are 100% different in every way from the MG151/20.
Once again, you guys dont have a point! :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
The MK108 engine cannon in the 109G6 was not a field mod!
Only came from the factory as the weapon mounting, weapon orientation, installatian, ammo feed, ammo storage area, spent case ejection, are 100% different in every way from the MG151/20.
Once again, you guys dont have a point! :)
Ill have to do some research grun, I don't believe that yet. But nevertheless my point still is valid whether the G6 had the cannon from the getgo or not. The P-47 loadout option was a field mod. The rocket assist pods on the Arado was a field mounted thing when they had the fuel..and only when the discovered a fuel that wasnt so volatile it blew up in their face. I imagine if we were to sit down and research, we would find alot of things that were retrofitted in the field.
And this is only if that truly was the guideline HTC uses to determine the the model and options of their AC. Thats my point.
-
S!
The argument that the P-47D-11 shouldn't have a paddle blade prop is completely spurious.
The fact is, the 'Factory' equipped aircraft with paddle blade props did not begin until the D-24 series. Those planes were not generally delivered until June and July of '44.
In the meantime, all the earlier model 47D's were retro-fitted with the paddle blade, just like all the earlier 47D's without Water injection were also retro-fitted with it in the Fall of '43.
During the most crucial period of the airwar over Germany, that being January to May '44, when the Germans suffered their largest proportionate losses and had the cream of their fighter pilots killed, the Razorback Jugs with retro-fitted paddle blade bore the load. They made up approx. 40% of the USAAF fighter force, the remainder being approx. 25% P-51B and 35% P-38J Lightnings.
Unlike the later model P-47D25 and later, these paddle blade Razorbacks were designed to fight the German Interceptors, not to function in a ground attack role. They were the best performing P-47D's.
To use a chickenshit argument that they were not 'Factory Equipped' has zero merit considering the aircraft's role. 3,000 Razorback P-47D's got the Paddle blade. To suggest that isn't enough is nonsense.
All the FW190D's manufactured prior to Janurary '45 DID NOT HAVE MW-50!! So I guess that means we immediatly must demand that the FW190D have its performance reduced to that of the non-MW50 equipped model then, right?
Of course not.
And for the same reason the P-47D11 should come with the Paddle Blade prop. Any other response is simple nitpicking and not worthy of any serious consideration.
-
Easy Buzzbait! Easy big fella..........whew! ;)
Remember, it's Pyro's call whether or not a paddle blade prop is modeled on the D-11, not the pilots in here.
I guess I can chalk you up for one vote in the "we want what saw combat, not factory stock" category? :D
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: eddiek ]
-
There's already two P-47s with paddle-prop and you want it to that third one too ?
-
AFAIK most of the FW-190Ds manufactured before January 1945 had a system called Oldenburg which was a water injection system too.
Gripen
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S!
The argument that the P-47D-11 shouldn't have a paddle blade prop is completely spurious.
The fact is, the 'Factory' equipped aircraft with paddle blade props did not begin until the D-24 series. Those planes were not generally delivered until June and July of '44.
In the meantime, all the earlier model 47D's were retro-fitted with the paddle blade, just like all the earlier 47D's without Water injection were also retro-fitted with it in the Fall of '43.
During the most crucial period of the airwar over Germany, that being January to May '44, when the Germans suffered their largest proportionate losses and had the cream of their fighter pilots killed, the Razorback Jugs with retro-fitted paddle blade bore the load. They made up approx. 40% of the USAAF fighter force, the remainder being approx. 25% P-51B and 35% P-38J Lightnings.
Unlike the later model P-47D25 and later, these paddle blade Razorbacks were designed to fight the German Interceptors, not to function in a ground attack role. They were the best performing P-47D's.
To use a chickenshit argument that they were not 'Factory Equipped' has zero merit considering the aircraft's role. 3,000 Razorback P-47D's got the Paddle blade. To suggest that isn't enough is nonsense.
All the FW190D's manufactured prior to Janurary '45 DID NOT HAVE MW-50!! So I guess that means we immediatly must demand that the FW190D have its performance reduced to that of the non-MW50 equipped model then, right?
Of course not.
And for the same reason the P-47D11 should come with the Paddle Blade prop. Any other response is simple nitpicking and not worthy of any serious consideration.
fine, yes. Agree, yah. At all.
Now, where is the MW50 and GM1 for the Me109G6?. I'm already missing them.
I also miss the ASM engine wich so many of them carried. AH's 109G6 carries a DB605A...Where is the DB605ASM?
ANd the underwing gondolas with MK108s. I also do miss them.
You got a P47D11 wich is great for 1943 scenarios. The argument for the 109G6 to be a so early model was just that: to make it usable in 1943 scenarios. So either you let both as they are, or you put both with their respective retrofitted gadgets.
IMO :)
Oh, and BTW, you have to take a second look at that thing you say about the Fw190D9 not being fitted with MW50 until january of 1945. And in any case the performance in altitude of the AH's Fw190D9 is a mix between the MW50 fitted one and the non-MW50 fitted one. At SL it does 375mph (wich shows it carries MW50). At 18k it does 430mph only. THe real plane with MW50 was able to make up to 445mph without external rack and 440 with it. The real plane without MW50 did around 426mph.
as you see a very curious ad-hoc MW50 we have in the D9 ;)
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
BTW a thorough revision of the fantasy Jabo load of the P47D30 wont hurt either. :)
-
Guess the WW2OL "Promised Land" didn't turn out to be all full of milk and honey.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Guess the WW2OL "Promised Land" didn't turn out to be all full of milk and honey.
huh? dont get it
-
To clear a few things up on GE factory equitment or not.
For GE production there were 3 stages, factory, front yards and squad yards (hope those terms hit it right).
The factory delivered planes to the front yard, were it was checked and weapons etc. were installed, together with some special equitment (MW50/GM-1). Than it was flown to the squads, there in the squads yards each idividual pilot could (if he was a "mechanics" friend) configure his personal machine. Including different boost systems, weapon load outs, extremly poolished surfaces etc.
In january 1945 i.e. GE noticed that it was more efficient to install MW-50 in the factory and not in the front yards for the D9, this is why no D9 had factory installed MW50 in 1944, but from the books i read it got to the front with it.
Also little addition to D9 boosting systems:
there a atleast 3 know typed of boosting for the D9:
1) take-off & emergeny power
Emergency power (i.e. take off or emergency) On aircraft without the "Ladedruckssteigerungs-Ruestatz"this power setting would yeild 1750ps, sustainable for something between 10 to 3 minutes. With the "Ladedruckssteigerungs-Ruestatz" this becomes 1900ps, sustainable for 30 minutes on the deck.
-->this is the "normal emergency power"
with the topspeed of 421mph at 21K (@1750hp)
2)Sonder - Notleistung - Special Emergency
The Special Emergency power is the same principle as in the Fw190A. That is, bleeding of the airline of the blower to induce a petrol surge and use it as a charge cooler. The setting was the same as in the A8. There was a button, or lever, on the control panel to open the valve. To summarize, it was a petrol injection in the eye of the blower. It had the effect of increasing the boost by its charge-cooling effect. It could only be used at full speed and 3,250 rpm. It was usable for 10 minutes, This power curve is listed with C3 fuel and would produce 2130ps or 2100 hp.
After the use of this Special Emergency power, no form of Emergency power could be used for at least five minutes
--> this is without MW50 but with C3 fuel (widely used in DORA equitment squades i.e. JG26)
with the following top speeds
382 mph/sea
438 mph/18K
3)Sonder - Notleistung mit Laderdruckerhoehung mit MW50 u. 1.8 ata. Special Emergency Power (with MW50) 2100PS at 3,250rpm, MW-50 at 150 l/h and B4 at 800 l/h.
Maximum power with MW50 was 2,100 hp at 3,250 rpm and was not to be used above 16,500ft. (around 5000 meters). In any case, the RAE tested the Jumo 213 A-1 with MW50, and at 21,000ft the engine
produced 1680 hp instead of the 1600 hp. At that altitude the output is the same whether you are using Takeoff & Emergency or Special Emergency power
--> this is with MW50 but also with only low octance B4 fuel (there is also a combination of C3+MW50, but yet no data was found on the exact specifications, but as in some squads there were "race horse" D9 which pilots never feared the speed of any allied fighter, it is to 95% sure that this setting was also used, estiminated power output 2240hp)
Topspeeds for MW50+B4 fuel:
377 mph/sea
430 mph/17,7K
as u can see the AH D9 closely matches this last data
but the prob is such a Dora would have 2 types of emergency power:
MW50 for 4x10 minutes boost
normal emergency setting that could be held for 30 mins due to the ladedrucksteigerungsrüstsatz (this would also be faster than setting 1) cause ladedrucksteigerungsrüstsatz increases emergency output without boost additive from 1750 to 1900hp)
and last but not least the combat and climb setting could be held indefinitivly with the ladedrucksteigerungsrüstsatz
NOTE: all speeds with ETC 504 rack, add 5mph below critical altittude and 7.5mph above it
I have not prob if we get a P47-D11 with paddleprob, but than i also want all the options for the D9 (maybe also the lader-A rüstsatz that gives a SEA level speed of 398mph with ETC 504 rack)
Btw if u say the plane must be "factory new" for the D9 in AH we would need the data from point 2)
which means it is to slow at all altittudes atm.
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Naudet ]
-
Originally posted by Staga:
There's already two P-47s with paddle-prop and you want it to that third one too ?
Yes sir, that is the configuration in which it flew in WW2, its not a matter of concession really, or shouldnt be.
Asts- Who said the inclusion of the D11 and the 109G6 was for 1943 scenarios? Pyro say that? Or was that an arguement created in this BBS?
Whos argueing about the Dora? The dora is configured with MW50. Whether you agree with how the folks at HTC modeled it's performance is not in question here. That is a personal problem between you and them and whoever else has the same problem.
TY Naudet. will everyone agree that Germany performed modifications in the field just as the other warring nations? Asts himself agrees that they installed gondolas on their AC in the field. Aircrews for the USAAF in England had at their disposal fuel tanks that we dont have in AH but I am not arguing that point.
I dont really understand why you jump in here ram hollering injustice and the LW doesnt get this and that, it is not a LW vs USAAF thing...or it shouldnt be. But I dont expect anything different :)
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: -ammo- ]
-
Ammo, before the P47D11 was here, and even before ANY P47 was here, when some people asked the 109G6 to have MW50, they were answered that without MW50 they would make better scenario aircraft, and that was it. To an extent I agree (ask supongo, as I have told him many times that the G6 is better without MW50 so we can have a 1943 109G6 for the scenarios).
I recall reading in this same board that the P47D11 (answering a "yet another jug" wich someone said when the D11 eas announced), would, finally, add a 1943 USA plane actually usable in scenarios...
I guess that a middle line could be reached: model a 109K4 with the 2000hp engine, model the 109G10 with an 1800hp engine, then model the P47D11 with paddle props and a P47D5 without them.
You say this is not an USAAF vs LW thing, and I agree. I am simply saying that if your reason to lobby for paddle props in the D11 is that they were retrofitted with them, then I say that I can freely lobby for a G6 with MW50, because lots of them were retrofitted with it.
-
Originally posted by R4M:
Ammo, before the P47D11 was here, and even before ANY P47 was here, when some people asked the 109G6 to have MW50, they were answered that without MW50 they would make better scenario aircraft, and that was it. To an extent I agree (ask supongo, as I have told him many times that the G6 is better without MW50 so we can have a 1943 109G6 for the scenarios).
I recall reading in this same board that the P47D11 (answering a "yet another jug" wich someone said when the D11 eas announced), would, finally, add a 1943 USA plane actually usable in scenarios...
I guess that a middle line could be reached: model a 109K4 with the 2000hp engine, model the 109G10 with an 1800hp engine, then model the P47D11 with paddle props and a P47D5 without them.
You say this is not an USAAF vs LW thing, and I agree. I am simply saying that if your reason to lobby for paddle props in the D11 is that they were retrofitted with them, then I say that I can freely lobby for a G6 with MW50, because lots of them were retrofitted with it.
"retrofitted" ahhhh TY.
The earliest mention I have of a D11 flying in combat is January 1944, the same month that the paddle blade props were retrofitted to P-47's in the ETO. So without the prop then the D11 is flying in a configuration that maybe a test pilot or a WASP or ferry pilot flew it in..not a combat pilot in operations over France. So which configuration do you guys think the AH D11 would be more representative?
Reference Osprey's book "56th Fighter Group"
note-- the exact same AC that HTC modeled, Gabreski's D11, sn 275510 is noted in this reference as seeing service in January 1944. Pg 71. So I guess the 1943 arguement that someone was making is shot down. It also affirms that the very same AC we have modeled here had the paddle blade prop.
-
HTC adds the aircraft they want to. I believe a fairly important criterion is that additional aircraft add variety to the game (which is why we have the 190a5, Dora and Ta-152 instead of the 190a3, 190a4 and 190a5). Maybe in their view the D-11/paddle variant just isn't that different from the D-25?
OTOH if it is the case that the D11/paddle prop/engine tweaked variant was really the common P-47 for the first half of 1944 I hope that we do end up with that variant in AH in the not too distant future.
For the guys who want this jug, coming up with as much hard data to support your case (including sources so HTC can verify it) is probably the best plan.
Hooligan
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Hooligan ]
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
<S> Yes I see your point and respectfully disagree. You have an opinion and how and why certain AC should be included/excluded from the planeset and in what form they should appear. As a matter of fact you argue your point pretty good. I just dont see it that way. First, I dont believe that the 109G6 came straight from the factory with a Mk 108 cannon, however I do believe that armouror's could and did equip them so. I also know that some 109G6's were equiped with the Mk108 at the factory. This is only an example. By the same token a very small percentage of the FG's equiped with P-47's ( all of them practically prior to the P-51 showing up) actually were equiped with the 6 gun package, however crews may have removed a few at the request of their pilots or to add a camera or whatever. As the war progressed innovations abounded. All sides strived to make their weapons and weapon platforms more deadly and efficient. I think it is silly to suggest that their is any difference between the examples I have stated adn the inclusion of the paddle blade prop. I also know that HTC has their own way of determining what gets in the game and what does not how they come to the decision. I think its simply because they wanted it in the game :). Personally I think since D11's flew in combat with paddle blade props than that is what should be modeled and I cant see how you can argue it down given that it is true. But you have your opinion and that is OK by me. However let the record state that I think my opinion is much better and based on more facts than yours ;)
<S>!!
<S!> -ammo-
I never ever said that I'm against the paddle blade prop here. I said: "I have nothing against it". Originally I was saying to Buzzbait that you can't compare G-10 and D-11 when talking about getting the best possible version of the latter. And I still think that way.
And as Grunherz said G-6 with MK-108 was designated G-6/U4 and these plane came from the factory and this cannon wasn't retrofitted. If you find a source that says differently I sure would like to see it since it would be the first one for my eyes...
Originally posted by Hooligan:
The Ta-152 saw combat because the Germans were losing and badly. If the US had been in the desperate straits of Germany, then undoubtedly the P-51H, F8F and others would have seen combat also.
IF the US had been in the desperate straits...IF. But it never happened in the real world war 2 and as long as AH is air combat sim featuring REAL WW2's aircraft my point remains.
Originally posted by Hooligan:
Since anybody can arbitrarily choose criteria to allow or disallow late-war production aircraft, why beat around the bush with “saw combat”, “fully equipped squadrons” etc… Just be honest and say: The XYZ plane should/should not be added to AH because I like/dislike it.
I just can't see how a plane is "a WW2 aircraft" if it didn't fight in the war itself! And don't tell me what I like or dislike. I love aviation and everything with wings in general. Boy what would I do to get my hands on a real Bearcat for example. :eek:
But once again it doesn't belong in a sim featuring WW2 aircraft.
Originally posted by Toad:
W,
Check my reply to GRUNHERZ up-thread. I know the Ta-152 was deployed in squadron strength with mechanics and spares.
In short, it was in fact an OPERATIONAL airplane.
I would suggest to you that an undeployed aircraft, without a squadron of trained pilots, mechanics and a supply of spare parts was NOT an OPERATIONAL airplane.
I am not surprised that those who are looking for an edge would NOT want to use those conditions as qualification for inclusion.
Better to use the "well, it was engaged one time" rule if you're looking for an advantage for the losing side, isn't it?
I would suggest that an operational plane is a plane that saw operational use in the conflict in question.
Toad check my stats and you'll see that I'm not looking for an edge when it comes to the plane types I fly. Currently I spend most of my flying time in 109G2, 109G6 and KI-61. Personally I try my best to remain as objective as possibile when it comes to plane sets of different nations.
Originally posted by R4M:
ANd the underwing gondolas with MK108s. I also do miss them.
Dear Ram, for the 1001st time. This setup NEVER saw operational use.
(Edited because I posted this on from my GF's house which has dial up modem so I can't be connected to the internet all the time I type...I was repeating what about stuff that came up in the couple of the last replies...finnish phone companies don't know about flat rate billing :( )
----------------
1Wmaker1
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/~paulusk/Lelv34.jpg)
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Wmaker ]
-
LW or US? I say lets have a 1944 Spit IX and Yak-3 .... no more arguing plz :)
-
I think you'd have to find a generally accepted definition of "operational use" then.
In my own more recent experience, no weapons system was deemed "operational" until it had finished testing and was deployed to actual combat units.
For example, the B-1 was not "operational" until there was a unit equipped with them that had finished its training, been rated as "combat ready" and been assigned targets in the war plan.
I think that's a pretty good standard. If it was deployed to line combat unit with trained crews and support... it was operational.
I'm sure your opinion will differ. :)
-
For the record wmaker, I understand your position and thats cool.
Every one keeps referencing the D11 as a 1943 AC. It was definately built then but it saw action in 1944, there may have been cases of the D11 seeing action in Late December '43, but I dont know of them. The d11 variant served is the first half of '44 and was equiped with the good prop. This is a fact. Why shouldn't the D11 in AH not have it?
As far as the 109G6, I will look through my references, but I know that you LW guys know much more than I do in that concern, so I digress and take your word for it.
As Hooligan stated, HTC has free reign to add AC on their basis, which is the ones they want to add and what configuration they want to add. All I can do is provide some references and maybe they will see it for what it is and give us the P-47 that is most representative of the air war over France.
-
Heheh Ammo, Your sig-text is bigger than your posts :D
-
Widowmaker if you haven't noticed the MA is not at all about what really happened in WWII. That is what scenarios are for. Clearly no F8Fs are going to show up in historically based scenarios. Of course since 12 or less Ta-152's of the AH configuration ever flew combat sorties, I would expect that not many of them are going to show up in any scenarios either.
Consider 2 planes that were in approximately identical stages of development: One of them got strafed on the runway because the factory happened to be close to the front lines. One of them never got engaged because the owners were liesurely about introducing new aircraft at the end of the conflict they were winning. For the purposes of introducing aircraft into the MA, I personally don't think that desperation is a valid criteria. Nor do I think you choice of critera is at all objective. It seems patently self-serving to me.
You can define a WWII aircraft as one that "saw combat" (giving preference to desperate circumstances), and I can define a WWII aircraft as having a total production of not less than 555 (coincidentally the number of P-51Hs produced) commencing before the end of hostilities (giving preference to more heavily industrialized countries and those which didn't get kicked out of the war before the game was fully over). Nonetheless the point remains: Anybody can pick any criteria they want to favor preferred aircraft, exactly as you do. But it is a pretty transparent ploy and terribly unlikely to persuade anybody.
Even if your argument is logically consistent (which IMO it is), and not motivated primarily by self-interest the P-51H/Bearcat fans have equally logical criteria.
The ironic thing is that if AH survives long enough eventually the pressure to add F7Fs, Me-262s, etc... etc... will become overwhelming and all of these planes will make it into the plane set. Availability will somehow have to be limited and there is little doubt that the special circumstances that allow Ta-152s to be flown will be little different from those that allow P-51Hs to be flown.
Hooligan
-
Hi everyone,
maybe it's just because I'm not familiar with AH, only having flown the offline version, but I think it should be perfectly possible to include all of the engine and propeller options mentioned in this thread. The key is to treat them just as what they were - as options.
All we're talking about is weight and power. Both are subject to changes in flight anyhow - it should be perfectly possible to set them to different defaults before take-off, depending on the load-out options selected by the pilot.
The benefits would be far greater than just having one more aircraft type available - you could re-create the entire lifespan of each type with every powerplant modification.
It's 1943? Great, the Razorback Jug just arrived. Early 1944? Hey, look what these paddle props are doing for our Jugs!
It's 1940? Our Me 109E-3 is doing just fine. 1941? Herr Reichsmarschall, I'd like a squadron of Me 109E-7 with the improved DB601N engines. (I'd also appreciate a squadron of Spitfires!) Need even more power? The E-7/Z gets GM-1 boosting, too.
It's 1941? We just got the Spitfire V with +12 lbs manifold pressure. 1942? We can keep it competetive by clearing it for +16 lbs. 1943? +18 lbs boost is hardly enough - we'll call +25 lbs "Basta"!
I don't need to tell you that it's highly unlikely that you'll ever get all these versions if each one has to be modelled as separate aircraft.
However, the weapons loadout options have shown the way to go: We could get all the variants we desire if only AH would include engine options in a similar manner as weapons loadouts are included today.
In spite of the superficial disagreement over which variant of which aircraft should be modelled, I'd say all who have posted in this thread are sharing the same concern: For each fighter variant in use by one side, there should be the proper contemporary available on the other side.
During WW2, the fighter employed on each side were subject to continous development, and though usually one or the other side would lead the technological race, it was a very close race from the start to the finish.
To accurately portray this race, any arbitrary selection of aircraft subvariants won't be enough. Instead of campaigning against the inclusion of each other's pet plane, I think you should join forces and campaign for flexible engine options.
The goal may be farther in the future, but it seems to me that the ultimate reward will be much greater than the inclusion of any specific aircraft type ever could be!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Excellent reply Mr. Henning. I really like that idea and it has been mentioned at least once before. Wonder how many "bribes" it would take to implement it :D.
(http://home.att.net/~lmluper/markatsig.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
LOL, back on the flame-board from my AH holidays and what I find? That cheerleaders dance and sing their "All Is Perfect" song even if HTC itself admits that something must be tweaked and fine-tuned about the D-11. Something absolutely normal in every online sims. And something very honest by a developer. For me would be enuff just knowing that they'll look into it.
Girls, how ahead are you going? Do you sing that song even for M16s killing Pzr MkIVs or M13s having a k/d=2? Well, no wonder if you'll dance and sing even when/if the NIKI will (maybe) be fixed ... ;) ;) :D
There are three or four guys jumping into *every* thread and flaming people, no matter how good are their posts. You are the worst part of this beautiful board, the best tech board of every online sim.
Take it easy and enjoy this sim.
[ 08-05-2001: Message edited by: gatt ]
-
S!
First of all this is not a discussion about the FW190D9. In any case there were EXHAUSTIVE discussions regarding which performance it should be given PRIOR to it being introduced. I am sure HTC had many opportunities to examine the facts presented and make their decision.
It seems likely AH made the decision re. the 190D9 configuration on the basis of a STANDARDIZED installation. Which MW-50 was. (In January '45, not August '44. MW-50 was not installed earlier despite space provision being made in the D-9 for just this type of installation due to the fact that the kits were in very short supply)
The occasional use, temporary field modification of the higher octane injection which has been spoken of, giving the top speed at S.L. of 398mph was likely not chosen for the reason that it wasn't a STANDARDIZED installation. It was a one-off thing, dependent on Squadrons or even individual mechanics.
On the other hand, the Paddle Blade Props were absolutely a STANDARDIZED addition, equipping, yes, EVERY SINGLE '47D after early January '44. During the period that these aircraft saw the most combat and were most active. So obviously it should be a part of their equipment.
By the way, if you check the postings, you will see in the past I am on record, not 1, but two times as suggesting the 109G6 with the DB605ASM, (Ie MW-50 and the larger capacity supercharger) be incorporated into the plane set.
I do not display bias against German aircraft so PLEASE, don't bring your biases into this discussion.
-
Guess what you got a P47 without this prop, thats what HTC made and just like every plane they model they had their reasons and logic to do it this way.
Stop being such "Alliedwhiners" :)
Just calm down and practice turning with those spits....
-
S!
HTC made their decision on the D11 before they were made aware that the Paddle Blade Props were retro-fitted to all the Razorbacks in the first week of January '44. The issue was first raised in a previous posting and it was clear then that they did not know this was the case.
I would expect in the light of the new information they will adjust their D11 model.
-
So we have a P-47D-11 modeled as they were before the change in propellors.
What's the big deal?
Many aircraft in AH are not modeled at their best. Just because the P-47D-11 is not the best it ever was doesn't mean it isn't fair.
The USAAF already has plenty of 1944 aircraft. I think its good that the P-47D-11 is modeled as a 1943 aircraft.
-
edited because I have beat this horse to death. Sorry bout that.
[ 08-05-2001: Message edited by: -ammo- ]
-
Ammo,
Didn't read your post before you edited it, but I think I can guess what it said.
I have to admit that I posted what I did after only reading the top of the thread and the last few messages.
If, and I have no reason not to belive you, the P-47D-11 first went into service with the paddle propellor and is a 1944 aircraft, then that is how I think it should be modeled.
I should also note that I don't think it should have been modeled. A true 1943 P-47 should have been modeled instead.
-
S! Karnak
You don't like the ridiculous hybrid of a Spit IX which AH has now, you want a real Spit IX or a Spit VIII. (I do too) Well, the current modelling of the D11 is the same thing.
-
Buzzbait,
I see it as similar, but not quite the same.
The P-47D-11 we have now did exist, but was modified before it ever saw combat. I agree that it should be modeled as the combat version.
The Spitfire MkIX we have never existed. There was never a Spitfire with a Merlin 61 engine that was armed with 2 20mm cannon and 2 50 calibre machine guns, carrying a German 300 litre drop tank and two 60lb rockets.
As we have the P-47D-11 I agree that it should be modeled with the paddle propellor. That requires some flight model work.
The Spitfire MkIX we have can be easily fixed by removing the 50 cal option, removing the rocket ordinance option, giving it a British drop tank and relabeling it "Spitfire F.Mk IX".
Nashwan's tests indicate it matches the performance of the F.IX as closely as any AH aircraft matches its real counterpart's test data.
I say, fix 'em both.
-
I have a counter-point about the D-11.
When it's fixed (300lbs added), if you want it back the old way, take 50% fuel with you and drop tanks.
Karnak, changing the prop will only effect linear acceleration. Since the D-11 has the aerodynamics of a milk jug ~ linear acceleration is not a true factor in combat for this aircraft. I say NO to the prop modelling. Not needed.
As for the Spit IX hybrid, don't fly with 50 cals. Personally, I'd rather see more work on more aircraft than changing existing ones that work fine (except for the poor-ole P-38).
Vruth, First Lieutenant, F3D1S1L, AirCom, MS
-------------------------------------------
412 Braunco Mustang Fighter Squadron
(http://www.telusplanet.net/public/brandor/images/412.gif)
-
I took this form the book "JG26- Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" Page 202-203. The author starts out stating that in early 1944, the Schlageter pilots found themselves opposing five Allied fighter types..the Spitfire, P-51B (one FG), typhoon, P-38, and the P-47. The athor goes on to say that the P-51 was an unknown quantity to this point in the war, the P-38 unimpressed them (no offence lightening fans, just what the author says), and then he went on to state this-
"when flown by an experienced pilot, the "jug" had proved able to hold its own at high altitude against any German fighter. New models had engines equiped with water injection, which boosted combat performance at all operational altitudes. Another modification, the paddle blade propeller, markedly improved low altitude climbrate. the new props were retrofitted to all P-47's in the United Kingdom as rapidly as possible. In the P-47D, the Americans had an airplane capable of driving the Luftwaffe from the skies. Thunderbolt pilots could chase their targets from the vicinityof the bomber stream all the way to the deck, confident in their mount's ability to return them, if necessary, to the security of high altitude. the only barrier to more aggresive tactics by the American fighter pilots was the Eighth Air Force's policy on close escort- and that was now about to change."
OK Im done :)