P47N Perk Debate

[Brooke]

Originally posted by Widewing
Hi Wilbus,

Well, I ran the same test (film) and timed it at 65 seconds first try, 64 for the second try (this one filmed) with one notch of flaps. Prior to starting the film and the clock, I turned 20 full turns left. Speeds generally stayed in the mid 130s.

[/b]

I timed your 3 revolutions at 70 seconds.  Faster than Wilbus and me by 2 seconds, but also you lose 200-300 ft altitude during the segment I'm timing.  I am timing based on when your nose crosses a far-off landmark (a mountain peak, in this case).  That is the most-accurate way of visually knowing when you have done a revolution.  It can't be timed on a close-in landmark (like 400 yards away or less, say) because the center of revolution is going to move more than a few percent of the distance to such a landmark in a test like this.  It is much more accurate to use a farther-out landmark.

Brooke,

Honestly, I find this test virtually useless in the context of combat. [and lots of explanation of air combat]

[/b]

Widewing and others:

Look, I'm not arguing that steady-state turn rate is the only thing in combat or even that it is the most important thing.  In fact, I made the opposite argument many times.

This all started when someone (1) complained that all US planes "outmaneuver" all German planes, (2) complained that the P-47 turns "too well," and (3) insinuated that HTC cheats on its plane performance to make the US planes perform unrealistically well.

It always bothers me when people insinuate that game designers (whether back in the Air Warrior days or today in Aces High) are doing a shoddy job on modelling when most people (1)  have no idea what is involved in modelling flight dynamics and (2) don't even bother to put some hard numbers on the things they are insinuating.

But, instead of just saying "hey, that's bunk" without backing it up by anything except personal subjective opinion, I did two things.  First, I said there's more to maneuvering than turn rate and that German planes are great in some of those areas.  Second, I went off-line and did a real, repeatable, scientific test of steady-state turn rate and posted the results.  (Why steady-state turn rate?  Because it is *one* aspect of turn performance and because it is easily and repeatably measured.)

Then:

1.  I got grief about how my test numbers were wrong.
2.  And I got grief about how turn rate isn't the only thing that matters in maneuvering.
3.  And I got a grief on how my test doesn't measure transient, instantaneous aspects of turning.

Well:

1.  I believe my numbers are right, and I think Widewing will agree to that shortly if I can manage to go up with him this week.
2.  *I* have been saying that there is more to maneuvering than turn rate.
3.  My test is designed to measure steady-state turn rate -- nothing else.  Steady-state turn rate *is* at least *one* significant metric in the collection of metrics that go into "how well a plane turns."  Why did I pick that one?  I can test that.  I did test that.  But the test covers only steady-state turn rate -- it doesn't measure ability to decelerate, speed at which flaps can be deployed, turn radius, top speed, roll rate, energy retention, acceleration in a dive, ammo load, ammo lethality, plane sturdiness, max speed before compression, max altitude, "feel", climb rate, range of gunnery, firing rate, flight range, aircraft size, and perhaps many other aspects to how well a plane does in real combat.

One thing I do appreciate, though, is that both Wilbus and Widewing are willing to discuss this and to test things.

[Brooke]

On a different topic -- turn rate vs. turn radius in stallfighting -- it would be interesting to go up with a FW 190A-8 and a Lanc (50% fuel, no bombs), go into a turning stallfight, and see what it's like.  The FW 190A-8 has a better turn rate but a much worse turn radius than the Lanc.

[Brooke]

Also, with regard to the usefulness of steady-state turn rate in combat, I have a recent story.  The other day when the main arena was out for a bit, a bunch of people were in the combat theater.  I went over there to fight.  It was a lot of fun! -- I wish the CT had more people in it generally.  P-38G's, F4F's, P-40's, Hurri I's vs. Bf 109E and F's, Me 110's, and C.202's in this case.

At one point, I took up an F4F and got into a fight with a C.202.  The C.202 was bouncing and zooming me repeatedly, and I couldn't disengage.  I was able to evade each pass, but eventually the fight degenerated into both of us in a turnfight at sea level.  Around and around we went, each trying to get guns to bear on the other.  The planes are close in stall-turn rate, but the C.202 is a little better, and after a lot of revolutions (probably 5-10 or more), the C.202 crept around the circle enough to shoot me down as opposed to vice versa.

Again, this is not to say that low-speed, steady-state turn is the most important thing in combat.  This is just to illustrate that it sometimes is important and that it can be one aspect of a plane out turning another.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Brooke

At one point, I took up an F4F and got into a fight with a C.202.  The C.202 was bouncing and zooming me repeatedly, and I couldn't disengage.  I was able to evade each pass, but eventually the fight degenerated into both of us in a turnfight at sea level.  Around and around we went, each trying to get guns to bear on the other.  The planes are close in stall-turn rate, but the C.202 is a little better, and after a lot of revolutions (probably 5-10 or more), the C.202 crept around the circle enough to shoot me down as opposed to vice versa.

Again, this is not to say that low-speed, steady-state turn is the most important thing in combat.  This is just to illustrate that it sometimes is important and that it can be one aspect of a plane out turning another.

Typically, the F4F-4 has a turn radius about 20% tighter than the MC.202. Turn rate is similar, but the edge goes to the F4F-4. Now, if the MC.202 pilot uses flaps and you don't, he can come close to equalizing things.

Where the MC.202 has the real edge is that he can pull the nose high and the F4F-4 cannot follow. That's all about horsepower. Depending upon fuel state, the MC.202's wing loading is between 34 and 37 pounds per sq/ft.

Let's compare the F4F-4's wing loading at 26 to 28 pound per sq/ft.

That is a significant difference. These aircraft can meet in combat at similar gross weights, but the Wildcat has 80 sq/ft more wing area.

So, if you lost a turn fight to an MC.202 while flying the F4F-4, several mitigating factors had to be in play. The most obvious one would be that you had nearly full tanks and the 202 was almost dry. It could be that the other guy was simply better at flying his plane to its limits.

Whatever the reason, the fact remains that the Wildcat should have chewed up and spit out the MC.202 in a level turning fight, pilot skill being equal.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the other guy simply didn't pull high and drop right in on your six rather than get into a long term Lufberry... All he had to do was ease off the turn, accelerate a bit and pull nose high.

With regard to that specific plane set, the monster of the group is the P-38G. Now pay attention to this, it's the Gospel. With full flaps, the P-38G has a tighter turn radius than the F4F-4 AND a better turn rate. Moreover, it is utterly stable and can convert straight into the vertical, hang on the props and reverse practically within its own wing span. Just remember to trim manually. Remember, the plane can do that, but 99.5% of the AH2 players cannot hope to achieve anything even close to that without a lot of experience in the P-38. The P-38 (any model) is not easy to master, but in the hands of an expert, it has few peers as an all around fighter.

Meet me in the TA sometime (Thursday and Friday evenings) and we can work on winning those stall fights.

My regards,

Widewing

[Brooke]

Widewing, I will definitely show up as soon as possible for me -- I will try to get out of work early enough on Thursday or Friday.  We'll measure steady-state turn rate of the P-47D-25, and we can fight in an F4F vs. C.202 or whatever you'd like.

For the F4F vs. C.202, the C.202 has a better turning rate in steady-state turns (tested same as the P-47 vs. FW stuff).  That is what I observed in the fight, and that is what the winning element was in this particular fight.  I can fly the edge well -- that wasn't the problem.

For the P-38 vs. 109's, yep, I was using full flaps when in great trouble, and that helped me survive at times (the very small turning radius).

My point is that there are times when stall turning rate can be important -- that's all.

[hogenbor]

Originally posted by Widewing
With regard to that specific plane set, the monster of the group is the P-38G. Moreover, it is utterly stable and can convert straight into the vertical, hang on the props and reverse practically within its own wing span. Just remember to trim manually.

Ok, I can't do that. But every P-38 ace in this game says manual trim is so important. I have trim mapped to my stick, but frankly only to aid compression recovery in the Bf-109.

Well, would someone care to explain HOW and WHY manual trim is so important in the P-38?

The P-38 is easy to fly, good in the vertical, a good allrounder. But I'm pretty curious where the 'magic' is hidden. Yesterday I fought a P-38L in a P-51B. Co-alt (20k) and Co-E, fight was mainly in the vertical. I finally shot him down at 10K when he stalled at the top of a loop and couldn't recover in time. Guess he wasn't using manual trim

[Kweassa]

Typically, the F4F-4 has a turn radius about 20% tighter than the MC.202. Turn rate is similar, but the edge goes to the F4F-4.

 8% tighter at normal flight
 11% tighter when both planes use one notch of flaps
 16% tighter when at full flaps


 Check it out at the  The AH2 Compendium of Fighter Turn Performance

 

[Brooke]

OK, I met up with Widewing in the training area yesterday.

We did the steady-state turning test in a P-47D-25 (50% fuel, 1 notch flaps, full power but not wep, at 100 ft instead of 500 ft., but that alt difference doesn't matter -- it was done just to make sure the ending alt wasn't several hundred feet below starting alt).  Widewing got 71 sec for 3 revolutions vs. my and Wilbus's 72 seconds -- basically the same.  That settles all the debating about my measurement of steady-state turning rate, I hope.

We did some turning and fighting in a C.202 vs. a F4F.  The F4F has a smaller turning radius, but the C.202 has a higher turning rate (by just a little bit, though).  In turning tests and fights involving steady-state turns, the C.202 is able to creep away from the F4F or creep up on it (depending on whether the C.202 is ahead or behind the F4F around the circle, respectively).  The F4F was not able to get guns on the C.202 nearly as often as the C.202 was able to get guns on the F4F as a result.  There were many times in the fight where I was able to creep around the circle on the F4F and get guns to bear; to creep away from the F4F in a continuous circle; creep up on the F4F then relax my turn, trading in turning rate for energy that I could use in other ways later; etc.

The point here is that some folks were saying that only turn radius matters in a stall fight, not turn rate.  I disagree with that.  To be specific, my opinion is that turn rate and turn radius are both important and that which is more important depends.  If turn radius is much, much smaller for plane 1 yet plane 2 has a very, very slight advantage in turn rate, then turn radius will probably be the deciding factor -- as in the P-47D vs. the FW 190A-8, where I do concede the point that the FW will lose the stallfight vs. the P-47D.  However, if turn radius of plane 1 is not drastically smaller than plane 2 and if plane 2 has a turn-rate advantage, plane 2 will win, I believe (as in the F4F vs. C.202).

Again, I am saying this and not more than this:  steady-state turn rate is *one* significant factor of stallfighting performance, and it can be more important than turn radius under some conditions that are not rare.  I am not saying it is the only factor or the most important factor in all circumstances.

I very much thank Wilbus and Widewing for taking the time with me in the training area to test various things out.  They were very kind to do so.

[Wilbus]

Good Info Brooke

Maybe the turn rate does matter after all.

[Ack-Ack]

I've always taken another plane's turn rate in account when I'm in a turn/stall fight.  With some planes I fight against, even though I know I have the better turning radius, their better turn rate sometimes prevents me from getting a proper angle.  Thatis why I use a lot of vertical maneuvers in these types of situations so that I can use my better turning radius to my advantage and get an angle on their plane with the better turn rate.  

But then I did read How to fly and fight in Air Warrior many moons ago



ack-ack

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack

But then I did read How to fly and fight in Air Warrior many moons ago



ack-ack

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once.

[BUG_EAF322]

Ok, I can't do that. But every P-38 ace in this game says manual trim is so important. I have trim mapped to my stick, but frankly only to aid compression recovery in the Bf-109.

Its not that important  i never use manual trim.
but ct probly screws my shot.

ct is not giving me problems with stall fighting hammerheads and what ever manouvres.

But i don't know flying it since 1.03.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Brooke
OK, I met up with Widewing in the training area yesterday.

We did the steady-state turning test in a P-47D-25 (50% fuel, 1 notch flaps, full power but not wep, at 100 ft instead of 500 ft., but that alt difference doesn't matter -- it was done just to make sure the ending alt wasn't several hundred feet below starting alt).  Widewing got 71 sec for 3 revolutions vs. my and Wilbus's 72 seconds -- basically the same.  That settles all the debating about my measurement of steady-state turning rate, I hope.

We did some turning and fighting in a C.202 vs. a F4F.  The F4F has a smaller turning radius, but the C.202 has a higher turning rate (by just a little bit, though).  In turning tests and fights involving steady-state turns, the C.202 is able to creep away from the F4F or creep up on it (depending on whether the C.202 is ahead or behind the F4F around the circle, respectively).  The F4F was not able to get guns on the C.202 nearly as often as the C.202 was able to get guns on the F4F as a result.  There were many times in the fight where I was able to creep around the circle on the F4F and get guns to bear; to creep away from the F4F in a continuous circle; creep up on the F4F then relax my turn, trading in turning rate for energy that I could use in other ways later; etc.

The point here is that some folks were saying that only turn radius matters in a stall fight, not turn rate.  I disagree with that.  To be specific, my opinion is that turn rate and turn radius are both important and that which is more important depends.  If turn radius is much, much smaller for plane 1 yet plane 2 has a very, very slight advantage in turn rate, then turn radius will probably be the deciding factor -- as in the P-47D vs. the FW 190A-8, where I do concede the point that the FW will lose the stallfight vs. the P-47D.  However, if turn radius of plane 1 is not drastically smaller than plane 2 and if plane 2 has a turn-rate advantage, plane 2 will win, I believe (as in the F4F vs. C.202).

Again, I am saying this and not more than this:  steady-state turn rate is *one* significant factor of stallfighting performance, and it can be more important than turn radius under some conditions that are not rare.  I am not saying it is the only factor or the most important factor in all circumstances.

I very much thank Wilbus and Widewing for taking the time with me in the training area to test various things out.  They were very kind to do so.

Well, I got 70 seconds on MY stopwatch, remember?

When we did the turn rate/turn radius test with the F4F and C.202, we began with my Wildcat about D.600 behind. When you tightened your turn, I simply cut across your turn and pulled 4-5 plane lengths of lead pursuit. I was able to maintain that for several revolutions, until the power difference between the F4F and 202 became evident. Had we been guns hot, the 202 would have died 5 seconds into the Lufberry.

As to the duel, we bagan by flying in opposite directions until we had adequate distance between us (well beyond dot range). Upon turning for the merge, you carried much greater speed to the merge. As we passed, I reversed as quickly as was possible, expecting to catch you half way around. But, you didn't reverse, you extended to 2.7k where you did a high loop and came back down (I turned on the film here). As you dived by again, I rolled left and fired, scoring hits from nose to tail. Had this been the DA, that duel would probably have ended there. After the initial merge, it's guns hot (I don't know if your were aware of that, I assumed at the time that you were).

From this point, you continued to extend, climb and go to BnZ mode. I thought that a bit odd as our previous BBS discussion was about showing you how to defeat the 202 in the F4F during a turn-fight. I kept following you waiting for a turn fight to develop, but one never did. Oh well, what the heck, might as well make the most of it. I followed you up and pinged you as you came over, you pinged me with a few 7.7 mm rounds on the way by. Once I was sure the fight was going to be only BnZ, I simply avoided your attacks. Since the fight was going to continue this way until we ran out of gas or ammo (and I was getting there on fuel), I called an end to it and landed. It was an interesting and fun exercise.

Here's the film.

After that we flew several duels in P-47 vs 190A-8 (this was completly lopsided) and 190A-5 vs 190A-5. Those A-5 fights only reinforced my belief that the 190s have no business turn fighting anything to the flying side of a Peterbilt.

I understand what you are trying to say; that at some point in a stall fight, the plane with the better turn rate will gain an advantage. This is true. However, that assumes that the plane with the turn rate advantage will survive long enough to get to that point. In a situation where its pilot elects to turn with a fighter having a significantly tighter turn radius, 99 times out of 100, it will not survive that long.

I think you noticed that when I had a shooting opportunity, I rarely missed. In reviewing the film of the F4F-202 duel I noticed that you fired from way too far out. In one case as far as D1.2 distant. That's 2 to 3 times the effective range of the guns on the 202 (I suggest getting within 200 yards to kill anything quickly with the 202). That is why I waited until the range dropped to 600 yards before I changed the lift vector, leaving you shooting at empty air.

Meet me in the TA again next week, around the same time and we'll work on your gunnery. Do as I suggested and turn off the tracers. This will force you into learning how to estimate lead by eye, not by fall of shot.

I also have film of the P-47/190 duel and the 190/190 duels. I'll e-mail you a copy if you didn't film them yourself.

Hey, how about that strange blackout spin bug in the P-47s! That happened several times prior. Get into a rudder induced spin the jug and you blackout totally, and you can't recover without a visual reference. I tried the same thing with both Mustangs, no blackout and recovery was generally instantaneous. I reported this on the bug forum and will send film if need be. Since the film DOES NOT show any blackouts, I was able to observe this behavior from inside and outside the aircraft. When reviewing the film, the spin is slow and quite mild. Yet, the G meter is pegged, but without any dynamic to cause that loading. Well, I went offline and managed to duplicate the spin. I also found a solution...hit auto-level and the plane recovers by itself.. Odd, right?

Brooke, you were an absolute gentleman and a game pilot. I enjoyed our exercise. Two things you need to work on that will raise you to damned lethal are better handling of the merge and gunnery. I believe that we can improve both quite easily.

My regards,

Widewing

[Brooke]

Originally posted by Brooke
Here's the data for 3 revolutions, steady state, stall horn on, 50% max fuel load, full power, 500 ft. altitude.  The data below is repeatable to within about a second or two.

P-47D-40:  73 seconds
P-47D-40, 1 notch of flaps:  72 seconds
P-47D-25:  72 seconds
FW 190A-8:  68 seconds

Whether the measurement is 70 seconds (because you measured it at 70.3 seconds) or 71 seconds (because I measured it at 70.6 seconds) or 73 seconds, it's all 72 +/- a couple of seconds.  We (you, me, Wilbus) all agree to within 2-3 percent -- that's the only accuracy I'm claiming for the test.  If anyone wants more accuracy than a second or two, I'm going to have to go in and do about 3-5 times more work.

So, can we close the case on steady state turn rate of the P-47D-25 is under these conditions?

As for the C.202 vs. F4F, OK, you still don't agree with me.  I will come back up in the training area when I can, and we'll turn fight in F4F vs. C.202 until we agree or until one us passes out due to exhaustion!

By the way, I got some registered mail from The United C.202 Council's lawyers, and I find myself compelled to state:  "The C.202 is a fine airplane.  It's performance criteria are not fairly judged by the poor gunnery skills of Mr. Brooke 'Brooke' Anderson, formerly of Air Warrior, now of Aces High.  Moreover, Mr. Anderson hereby does not purport, disavows previously purporting, and agrees not to purport in the future that combat performance or lethality of gunnery of the C.202 aircraft, in fact or in simulation, can or should be judged in any way related to or in conjunction with results of use of said aircraft at any point during which Mr. Anderson is the pilot or able to exert control over the aircraft's direction or any manner of its function."

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Brooke
Whether the measurement is 70 seconds (because you measured it at 70.3 seconds) or 71 seconds (because I measured it at 70.6 seconds) or 73 seconds, it's all 72 +/- a couple of seconds.  We (you, me, Wilbus) all agree to within 2-3 percent -- that's the only accuracy I'm claiming for the test.  If anyone wants more accuracy than a second or two, I'm going to have to go in and do about 3-5 times more work.

So, can we close the case on steady state turn rate of the P-47D-25 is under these conditions?

As for the C.202 vs. F4F, OK, you still don't agree with me.  I will come back up in the training area when I can, and we'll turn fight in F4F vs. C.202 until we agree or until one us passes out due to exhaustion!

I suppose my point is that these are meaningless numbers because the test itself does not reflect a situation that would be encountered in combat (at least when I'm flying). I will not fly continuous flat circles. For that matter, neither would you. There will always be some vertical component that will impact the result.

In an engagement between the P-47D-25 and a 190A-8, the 190's better turn RATE is purely a function of the speed required to avoid stalling. However, the P-47 can quickly maneuver to gain angles and kill the 190 long before turn rate ever becomes a factor. This you experienced first hand as I was easily able to gain position and clobber your A-8 time and time again. In that fight, turn rate was a total non-factor. Why? Because, the 190 won't survive long enough.

As to the F4F vs the 202: Had you reversed off the initial merge, you would have died half-way through your reverse. This is due to the F4F's excellent instantaneous turn and your much higher speed which limited your initial turn radius due to G load. I was carrying 295 mph, you had at least 360 mph on the clock. Off the merge, this is inevitable; the F4F will get behind the C.202. Whether or not the C.202 is clobbered depends on whether or not its pilot decides to maneuver or simply extend. The smart C.202 drivers will extend. The dumb ones will try to out-turn the F4F while the Wildcat's turn radius is still the dominating factor and they will die. I think your instincts took over and you extended off the merge. That makes you one of the smart ones.  

You should also note that the C.202 had no advantage until the F4F had slowed below 115 mph. Prior to that, I held lead pursuit, for several revolutions. I dutifully held the turn throughout the execise. That's not what would have happened in combat. In fact, nothing about that exercise reflected combat.

I think that you are placing too much emphasis on a dynamic that is rarely a factor in combat. The better 190 pilots would never consider flying circles with a P-47 in the expectation that they might gain an edge in turn rate. They know that this is suicide and flying to the 190's greatest weakness. Instead, they will maintain their E and attempt to utilize this and their superior roll rate to their advantage

Anyway, we can meet again and fly the same aircraft. We can turn fight this time. But be advised, this doesn't mean a "stall fight".

A couple of pointers on duels: There is no such thing as a "fair" duel. Experienced duelists will look for any weight advantage they can get such as the following...

1) Takeoff using WEP to burn down more fuel weight.
2) Shoot out all unneccesary ammo to reduce weight and/or take the smaller load-out if available.
3) Take the least amount of guns possible.

By the way, I got some registered mail from The United C.202 Council's lawyers, and I find myself compelled to state: "The C.202 is a fine airplane. It's performance criteria are not fairly judged by the poor gunnery skills of Mr. Brooke 'Brooke' Anderson, formerly of Air Warrior, now of Aces High. Moreover, Mr. Anderson hereby does not purport, disavows previously purporting, and agrees not to purport in the future that combat performance or lethality of gunnery of the C.202 aircraft, in fact or in simulation, can or should be judged in any way related to or in conjunction with results of use of said aircraft at any point during which Mr. Anderson is the pilot or able to exert control over the aircraft's direction or any manner of its function."

LOLOL... You're a good pilot, gunnery is something you can improve with practice. Flying aircraft with weak guns will help as will turning off the tracers.

I suggest going offline and practice high angle deflection shooting on the drones. Record the flights and watch them from the "chase" view. Believe me, you can make big strides with practice. Once you get your gunnery down, you will be a very dangerous opponent in the MA, as you already have good flying skills.

I will be happy to provide you with a target in the TA anytime you want to practice.

My regards,

Widewing