Author Topic: 109 Flaps (Read 8961 times)

Kweassa · « **Reply #60 on:** January 18, 2006, 12:57:43 PM »

Quote

Does this really stand up? I hear this particular argument all the time from lufwaffe fliers, but it doesnt make sense to me.

It's just a vent of frustration.

People discuss about certain things, and a certain 'consensus' is formed. However, things don't change, for a long time. Naturally, they start to think that their just calls fall on deaf ears, and are being mistreated.

However, not all the people feel that way.

HT needs data to change things. The problem is, things like "handling characteristics"... we cannot provide any objective, quantitive data to prove it. How do you prove something you "feel" is wrong?

Basically this whole thread, or at least, my posts in this whole thread, is an attempt to provide some sort of objective foundation to the claims that the 109s are incorrectly unstable. That the "feel" doesn't end with just a "feeling", but has some objective basis, and can be found out by comparing some of the traits and characteristics of the planes in a scientificial manner.

If HTC finds this makes sense, they will change something. If they don't feel that way, then nothing will change. However, I must confess that what more the players can prove with what little information on how the game engine works, I do not know. It may be practically impossible to prove a certain plane "handles" wrong - and that leads to the conclusion that even if a certain plane is indeed handling wrong, it still would never be fixed, because the players don't have a way to prove it.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #61 on:** January 18, 2006, 01:00:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril
...

I really think HTC just does their level, honest best to model the planes. I also think the stallfighting so common in MA was just incredibly rare, so its very hard to use real life recollected stories (of unverifiable accuracy, lets be honest -- do we want the models based on what Eric Brown said? Wont that just be a different kind of bias?...but I digress).

...

This is a good point.

With the exception of the IJA planes, the rest of the major combatants didn't use low-speed turning as a primary tactic. And the IJA started moving away from this early in 1942. What we see in the MA is far from representative of typical WW2 dogfights. The most glaring difference is visibility - I don't think planes had them giant neon letters under 'em in WW2 - most shoot-downs happened where the victim never saw his attacker.

So ... this starts to look kind of like the "LW cockpits" thread in a way. Either all the planes should be as vicious at low speed as the LW planes, or the LW planes are modelled too harshly. If all the planes got "porked" to the level of the 109/190, there'd be buckets of whine. Me personally, I'd love to see low speed manouevers be as tricky as they should be for ALL planes. "Riding the edge of the envelope" has hardly any meaning for many of the planes (the ones that ain't LW, mainly).

But that ain't gonna happen for the reason I just stated. Which only leaves the option of tuning the LW rides so they are as manageable as the other planes. CT (ToD) will end up in stallfights - regardless of the mission-based set-up. And the folks who choose to drive LW planes will quickly find that they are falling from the sky in large numbers - either from gun fire or the FM.

Crumpp · « **Reply #62 on:** January 18, 2006, 05:52:24 PM »

Quote

HTC may have gotten it right.

Sure. The Bf-110 was the best performing fighter the Luftwaffe had in service. That is why it was universally adopted in 1941.

The “Bie-plan” for fighter replacement called for the gradual phasing out of the Bf-109 series and the FW-190's.

Combined with the work of the ES-Section researching “pilots with silly walks” as planned would have been lethal.

Had the war continued just 2 more years the plan would have come to fruition. This Bie-ES would have spread throughout and the Luftwaffe would have been able to field the Bf-110, flown by pilots with silly walks, in sufficient numbers to dominate the skies of Europe.

The RAF had a similar problem producing the sorely needed Hurricane IIc's to replace the Spitfires, Tempest, and Mustangs in service.

HTC has it spot on.

Just like the Engineers at Northrop and McDonnell Douglas. The F-18 and F-16 were close right? Almost dead even with little to choose between their relative performance, that is what the numbers say, Right?

Of course it does help to use the right numbers.

All the best,

Crumpp

Stang · « **Reply #63 on:** January 18, 2006, 07:12:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Sure. The Bf-110 was the best performing fighter the Luftwaffe had in service. That is why it was universally adopted in 1941.

The “Bie-plan” for fighter replacement called for the gradual phasing out of the Bf-109 series and the FW-190's.

Combined with the work of the ES-Section researching “pilots with silly walks” as planned would have been lethal.

Had the war continued just 2 more years the plan would have come to fruition. This Bie-ES would have spread throughout and the Luftwaffe would have been able to field the Bf-110, flown by pilots with silly walks, in sufficient numbers to dominate the skies of Europe.

The RAF had a similar problem producing the sorely needed Hurricane IIc's to replace the Spitfires, Tempest, and Mustangs in service.

HTC has it spot on.

Just like the Engineers at Northrop and McDonnell Douglas. The F-18 and F-16 were close right? Almost dead even with little to choose between their relative performance, that is what the numbers say, Right?

Of course it does help to use the right numbers.

All the best,

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #64 on:** January 19, 2006, 05:13:56 AM »

Hehe, Crumpp, glad to see you're alive. Haven't seen any posts from you recently. You OK or is it me not reading well enough?
Anyway, the 110 is off. I promised somewhere to post about it, but it took me a while to find my papers. It is a referrence that probably none of you have, - from Victor Mölders, Werner's brother.
It's in German, so I will have to translate it to English.
The main point about the 110 was that firstly, it was prone to unrecovarable spins, and secondly, flying a 110 in the BoB was the next thing to suicide. Well, stats may tell you another story, but this was the pilot's point of view.
In AH, the 110 is off IMHO. Why would a 1940 110 roll a lot better than a 1940 109 for instance?

But the Hurricane, - well....
In AH, the Mk IIC is slow, has great firepower, is rugged, and turns on a penny.
In real life, the Hurricane out-turned the Spitfire (by a margin though), or "turned on it's tail" like one pilot said, was a good gun platform, had well balanced controls, was rugged, was told to roll easier than a Spit, Had better view over the wing, but locked up at high speeds in a dive (elevator), and once pushed over the stall limit, had a naughty departure.
If anything, that's the only thing HTC have off.
Oh, and the elevator controls lock up at a very high speed, - just about when the airfoil is hitting the sound barrier. Didn't try that one in AH

Krusty · « **Reply #65 on:** January 19, 2006, 10:34:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
If anything, that's the only thing HTC have off.
Oh, and the elevator controls lock up at a very high speed, - just about when the airfoil is hitting the sound barrier.

Okay lemme reply to the sound barrier comment: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Okay, now let me put some tact over that, .... a bit more... okay now we get this:

Sorry, but the Hurricane isn't getting anywhere NEAR the sound barrier, not even in a terminal velocity dive from 50,000 feet. The physics just doesn't support it.

As for "the only thing wrong" -- I disagree. Ever since AH2 came out every plane has had super dive and super zoom capabilities. The HurricaneIIc dives with the best and can zoom climb like there's no tomorrow. It can outclimb a good deal of aircraft while giving chase to them (in AH2, I mean) and the general drag issues (there is none) exist on many a plane.

Angus · « **Reply #66 on:** January 19, 2006, 10:56:18 AM »

You misunderstood a little.
In a powerdive from 30.000 feet, many WW2's AIRFOILS go close to the speed of sound. It is not the actual speed of the object from A to B compared to the speed of sound at that alt (or rather temperature), - it is the speed of the air over the wing so to speak. That could be somewhere between Mach 0.8 to mach 0.9 I belive.
You do realize that air travels faster over a normal wing than under it yes?

As for the "only thing wrong" I referred only to the 110 and Hurricane.

And a quiz. What WW2 prop fighter achieved the highest Machnumber in a prolonged dive, where and when?

1K3 · « **Reply #67 on:** January 19, 2006, 01:27:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus

And a quiz. What WW2 prop fighter achieved the highest Machnumber in a prolonged dive, where and when?

Fw-190A and P-47N

Angus · « **Reply #68 on:** January 19, 2006, 05:27:49 PM »

No......

1K3 · « **Reply #69 on:** January 19, 2006, 05:38:40 PM »

lol, how about...

P-38 with dive flaps

Kev367th · « **Reply #70 on:** January 19, 2006, 06:20:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
As for the "only thing wrong" I referred only to the 110 and Hurricane.

And a quiz. What WW2 prop fighter achieved the highest Machnumber in a prolonged dive, where and when?

Spit XI?
Read about one that hit mach 0.94 (ish). 606mph in a 45 degree dive.
Airframe was OK but it broke the prop, had to glide in to a landing.
Farnborough 1944.

Oldman731 · « **Reply #71 on:** January 19, 2006, 07:37:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
And a quiz. What WW2 prop fighter achieved the highest Machnumber in a prolonged dive, where and when?

Fairey Swordfish, the fighter version (no torpedo, Lewis gun on top wing).

...um....Taranto....

.....1940?...

- oldman

Angus · « **Reply #72 on:** January 19, 2006, 07:41:12 PM »

Kev had it

hubsonfire · « **Reply #73 on:** January 19, 2006, 07:49:41 PM »

"They've gone plaid!"

bozon · « **Reply #74 on:** January 19, 2006, 08:04:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
As for "the only thing wrong" -- I disagree. Ever since AH2 came out every plane has had super dive and super zoom capabilities. The HurricaneIIc dives with the best and can zoom climb like there's no tomorrow.

Generally I'd say you have some point but in the specific case of the Hurricane you are wrong. It's perhaps the only plane I can drag into a dive and then zoom much higher of in a P47 - which has a poor zoom contrary to all the myths. This was not created in AHII, it was always like that.

Perhaps there are some things off in the modeling but I attribute most of it to the typical very low alts in AH. Down low, typical TAS speeds are low and drag is high, making zoom ability much more dependent on power to weight then on ballistics - heavy planes will suffer. In high altitudes, TAS speeds are much higher but IAS tend to be similar or lower than in low alts. Ballistics depends on TAS, turn and sustained climb depend on IAS so up high planes can barely keep to their corner or stall speeds (IAS) but have plenty of TAS for ballistic zoom - which explains why all high alt fighters are E fighters. Power also tends to drop with alt making prop pull less important in the zoom, making heavy planes zoom better.

This doesn't say AH modeling is right or wrong, it just say why some of the myths about plane performance do not hold for sea level. I'd like to try some zoom test at 25k.

Bozon