Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Citabria on September 28, 2000, 12:39:00 AM
-
was it similar to a 109 vs spit5?
or could the real one turn and maneuver with it.
this is important for scenarios otw in the med arena.
if the 202s lack of turn ability even when stripped down to two guns and no fuel dosnt come near the spit5 then scenario numbers would need to be adjusted to account for the handicap the 202s are flying with.
the 202 has no snapshot.
its guns demand either a pilot kill or a tracking shot and both are unlikely vs a spit5.
as modelled the 202 is actually much slower in level flight than the spit5.
so is it accurate?
by the way why were the spit squadrons in the pacific forced to B&Z if the real spitfires were this maneuverable?
-
"by the way why were the spit squadrons in the pacific forced to B&Z if the real spitfires were this maneuverable?"
Because the Brits weren't always flying Mk. V and the Japanese weren't always flying the A6M5.
-
Citabria,
the real C.202 had a maximum speed of 370mph TAS at about 18,000ft. This was her strenght. The debate about her climbing performance is old and I'm tired.
Fact is that C.202 performed well against P40, Hurricane, Spitfire MkII and then MkV.
Obviously our "Folgore" lacks something in her FM.
Thats why you wont see me in the incoming Africa scenario. Cannon fodder? No thanks.
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 09-28-2000).]
-
I can tell you that in AH, C.202s will be seeing Spit V sprinting past it..
-
No wonder they are called "Speedfires"
-
Thats why you wont see me in the incoming Africa scenario. Cannon fodder? No thanks
There are plenty of other aircraft types to fly. Both Axis or Allies. Fly one of the 190's, both are quite capable against the Spits.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
What was the big difference between a Spitfire Mk V in the ETO and one in the MTO/Nth Africa.....? Hint: AH has a mint condition ETO Spitfire Mk V.
-
In the new Med terrain my most succesful plane has been......the 202 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Ltn. Snefens
RO, Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
-
Folgore is like a 109E
-
Juzz, my guess would be fuel quality.
Particularly if its from midwar on, after the Americans started shipping in huge quanities of high quality avgas.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
In real life:
1. Speed (not in this game)
2. Climb/turn (not in this game, wing area alone does not equal lift, wing profile and area do. Then add in all forms of drag. I feel the M.C.202/205 are not quite right. Hell, check out the climb and speed of the 850hp M.C.200)
3. Damn strong airframe, better than a P-40.
4. In real life the controls were light and ballanced at all speeds and the airframe gave good "feel" or feedback. None of this will show up in a computer game, but in real life lets you get 100% from your aircraft.
5. The Brit birds had mucking big sand filters to slow things down.
MC202
Dino in Reno
-
I leave AH cause HTC have no ear.
I always told that the 202 need more work to reach a close hystorical FM, and i have always told that the MG are completely WRONG modelled.
We hare in contact whit people that flew these birds against spits, p38, p40, hurrycane, we know what these planes are capable to do in real life but HTC will not consider that, they have theyr idea and in AH world they are GOD and GOD never do mistake.
Why u expect that HTC will reconsider that argument??? Is only a stupid italian airplane put in the game to gain italian market not to represent an hystorical model.
To italian friends:
Per coloro interessati a ww2 online mi mandino un e-mail: morelli@cybernet.ch
stiamo cercando di unire tutti gli italiani
vi forniro' tutti i dettagli. senza impegno (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Numbers ?
HTC can't do anything on feel.
Speed (sea level, max)
climb (intial, best)
wingloading
powerloading
hp of engine
-
Hi
YEP giant sand filters for the spits! Little bitty ones for the 109s. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by VISCONTI:
I leave AH cause HTC have no ear.
I always told that the 202 need more work to reach a close hystorical FM, and i have always told that the MG are completely WRONG modelled.
Why u expect that HTC will reconsider that argument??? Is only a stupid italian airplane put in the game to gain italian market not to represent an hystorical model.
I hope they'll fix the C.202, it is nice plane, specially when it is early/mid war.
Hopefully they will do the same for German planes as well..
-
I don't know what game you guys are playing. In the one I play, the 202 climbs as well as the Spit V and is a little faster below 25,000 feet.
-
5. The Brit birds had mucking big sand filters to slow things down.
YEP giant sand filters for the spits! Little bitty ones for the 109s.
WOOP! WOOP! WOOP! WOOP! WOOP! WOOP!
They have it! IIRC, a "clean" Mk VB weighed about 6500lb loaded. A Mk VC(T) with that huge Vokes filter and desert survival gear weighed over 7000lb loaded.
All that extra weight and drag degraded the performance down to about that of a Mk I. The only difference is that a Mk VC(T) has 2-4 cannon and can carry 2x250lb/1x500lb bombs.
If you want to have "realistic" MTO and PTO scenarios with the Spitfire Mk V you will need a Mk VC(T) or similar.
-
jmccaul said:
> Numbers ? HTC can't do anything on feel.
That's what I said, one of the best features of the plane can not be modeled with any ease.
> In real life the controls were light and
> ballanced at all speeds and the airframe
> gave good "feel" or feedback. None of this
> will show up in a computer game, but in real
> life lets you get 100% from your aircraft.
The problem with the "numbers game" is that of five sets of test data, HTC will use only one, the worst one. That is of a standard production bird, and is up to 10% + off the other tests, including another production aircraft. Any production aircraft can vary by that amount from one plane to the next one built."Not enough wing area" "not enough power". Total lift to drag is not based on just wing area. Differing airfoils give different lift to drag, and work best at different speeds. Same for speed.
I'll drag out some of these numbers over the weekend.
MC202
Dino in Reno
-
MC202, its not just the C.202 that suffers this fate.
Look at the La-5FN and the Yak-9U.
Both of them use the worst of the two data sets maintained by the Soviets during the war.
For instance, imagine if the Yak-9U used the 437mph data set, instead of the 418mph data set that Pyro used in AH.
I feel your pain, but don't think that Pyro is just picking on Italian birds.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Survival gear and an air filter weighed 500 lb.
Uh-huh.
-
Well, I did say iirc... I'll have to go dig up the exact numbers. It is a big difference though.
-
I figured that, just couldn't resist easy prey! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Love to see the clipped wing spit V with the sand filter and desert camo
HT rework the gfx and FM of the current Spit V please +)
I don't think any other sim has bothered with the Afika spit
SKurj
-
the problem is the Frekin super Hispano what kill to easy with the laser snapshot
-
Originally posted by minus:
the problem is the Frekin super Hispano what kill to easy with the laser snapshot
Got to love those Hispanos.. quick burst *blows* up the bombers, while with other cannons they still keep flying.
Not to talk about Spitfries killing tanks with less than 40 rounds (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
WELL SAID VISCONTI.
-
And what did he say well ??
sounded more like a little kid stomping his feet because it's not getting a lolly (immediately)
I'm pretty sure HTC WILL fix the 202 .. maybe not right NOW as there might be some other priorities ..
But posts like that are NOT going to make it a top issue for them
HA saying that HTC has no ears to customer complainst that's just big BS.
DW6
-
From Wells:
Folgore is like a 109E
Uhmmmm, check what said an instructor of the Luftwaffe:
As to its flying qualities the Macchi C.202 was rather better than our Bf109E concerning manoeuverability and also speed. It had more sensitive controls. It floated much longer during landings. AFAIK also my comrades were as enthusiastic as I about the Macchi C.202
Konrad Augner
JG106 and JG100
Jagdlehrschule
Orange - France 1944
From: "The rich booty, italian a/c in Luftwaffe service" by Hans Werner Neulen.
-
Originally posted by gatt:
As to its flying qualities the Macchi C.202 was rather better than our Bf109E concerning manoeuverability and also speed. It had more sensitive controls. It floated much longer during landings. AFAIK also my comrades were as enthusiastic as I about the Macchi C.202
Konrad Augner
JG106 and JG100
Jagdlehrschule
Orange - France 1944
From: "The rich booty, italian a/c in Luftwaffe service" by Hans Werner Neulen.
Written in 1944 ? About 3 years after 109E finished its service in the front ?
If it was faster and more manouverable then 109E why not say 109F ?
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Originally posted by Duckwing6:
And what did he say well ??
sounded more like a little kid stomping his feet because it's not getting a lolly (immediately)
I'm pretty sure HTC WILL fix the 202 .. maybe not right NOW as there might be some other priorities ..
But posts like that are NOT going to make it a top issue for them
HA saying that HTC has no ears to customer complainst that's just big BS.
DW6
This is getting old already...
Somehow usually it is LW or Italian planes that needs to be fixed, because they've been performing poorly due to some error.
While allies almost never have this problem.
lol.. imho, most good errors have gone to allied planes and bad errors of modelling for LW / Italian planes.
Remember when C.205 was like a brick to fly and lost E like on a wall?
How about C.202 or BF109F4 in 1.03?
Those were like bricks and couldn't turn well.
C.202 was *hard* to pull up even if there was over 200mph speed and nose pointing down.
I've had a 'duel' with Spitfire and I tried yo-yos over the spit because flat turn would be too futile with its below 200mph problem.
Pulling up from hi yo-yo was real hard.
I don't know of C.202 after 1.04 becase I've only tried 109F4 so far.. (and they fixed 109F4! at least it pulling the stick doesnt cause fear to spin immediatly below 180mph)
I could dig up *many* examples..
Probably most known positive error in modelling of LW planes must been Fw190A5s FM.. but I won't comment it because I've so far flown it only couple times.
So I really don't know whether it had error in FM or not.
and I really think that Visconti had enough of this.
Currently I am wondering why P-47 is such a pig.. (compare it to typhoon with heavy and light loadouts)
I've always liked P-47, thats why i am wondering (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Currently I am wondering why P-47 is such a pig.. (compare it to typhoon with heavy and light loadouts) I've always liked P-47, thats why i am wondering
This from the guy, that was complaining about the P-47 performance in 1.03 just days prior to the 1.04 release???
And Pyro and Gatt had a very long discussion concerning the performance of the C.202, versus some historic data that the Italian players provided, shortly after that aircraft was released.
It ended when Pyro offered to consider changing the C.202 if anyone could show (mathematically and aerodynamically) how it could possibly perform to that level given its physical characteristics. No one came forward with more information.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 10-03-2000).]
-
Fd,
it was not written in 1944. It comes from a letter to the author of some time ago. They used the 109E and the C.202 during fighter pilot training. He compared the C.202 with the 109E becouse both mounted the same DB601 engine.
Verm,
the discussion with PYRO ended when we agreed that official data about climb performance were somehow wrong. Max speed is still wrong, IMHO. Moreover, I'm not an engineer nor a flight model wizard. I'm simply a player.
Look, I dont whine cuz I like to do it. Actually, *now* I like the C.205 FM. But I remember well when the "Veltro" was a real brick. *Now* she can do what WWII italian fighter pilots and many books say she was able to in the right hands. The C.202 is still very far from that, IMHO, but lets wait for Hurricanes and P40's.
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 10-03-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
This from the guy, that was complaining about the P-47 performance in 1.03 just days prior to the 1.04 release???
Other planes have improved since then also (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I don't give mercy for flight models even if its one of my favorite planes *G*
-
Gatt, you may very well be correct on the performance, I honestly don't know myself. My point was that there has been open and intelligent discussion on that aircraft's performance. And Pyro was open to suggestions on the aircraft if it could be backed up with hard data. Not some kind of super secret "anti-Axis" conspiracy as Fishu suggested.
I do have to say that I have flown the C.202 in the Med arena against Spit Vs, in multi-plane versus multi-plane encounters, and I thought it was competitive. IMO, its greatest weakness was its lack of cannons, and overall anemic firepower, which is quite historic from my understanding.
And Fishu, "I don't give mercy for flight models even if its one of my favorite planes *G*" And I do? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Am I supporting the "anti-allied" conspiracy all of a sudden? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
My point was that in 1.03 you were proposing that it was too good and its performance trimmed back. Now in 1.04 all the other aircraft got better, and the P47 stayed the same. Isn't that the same net effect?
A-1=B (reduce P47 performance to equal planeset)
is equal to
A=B+1 (improve planeset, to equal P47 performance)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 10-03-2000).]
-
See this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000846.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000846.html)
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
(http://tuweb.ucis.dal.ca/~dconrad/ahf/lepht.gif)
"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
- Steve Earl