Author Topic: 109 Flaps (Read 9307 times)

gripen · « **Reply #135 on:** January 30, 2006, 11:11:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Thanks for the opinion, Gripen.

Well, there is theoretical proof as well as large experimental proof (flight testing and wind tunnel testing) for relatively low drag rise at higher mach numbers in the case of the Spitfire. Exact mach values are not so important.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #136 on:** January 30, 2006, 11:15:53 AM »

Where and under what conditions??

None of the drag polars I have on the Spit reflect anything but a typical shape of a WWII fighter.

Again, refer to the POH limits set. IF the Spitfire in reality had magical diving abilities, it would be reflected in the operating limits.

It is not. Not for the ANY wartime version.

I suspect that once again we find data being cherry picked and misrepresented as absolute performance of a wartime aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

gripen · « **Reply #137 on:** January 30, 2006, 11:25:42 AM »

I have given exact references in earlier threads but there is some, just dug up the reports. Just go to PRO and search for dive testing, there is tons of them.

And there is no any kind of magic in the Spitfire.

gripen

Kev367th · « **Reply #138 on:** January 30, 2006, 11:39:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruno
Then why post anything at all?

You are talking about 1 guy, Kurfürst, who doesn't even post here any more.

Well you're carrying his cross, ask for him a signature.

Seriously post a quote of anyone saying that...

Sure your off the mark. You over exaggerate and go into hysterics rather easily. From HT 'hating Spitfires' to the grand conspiracy to 'deny RAF fans a 25lb boost Spitfire'. All those threads are there do I need to quote from them?

The 109s in AH have changed in the way they handle, especially at higher AoA. It's been shown in Kweassa's turn time tests and confirmed by others who aren't necessarily LW aircraft fans. What hasn't changed is things like speed climb etc...

This is a thread about the 109 flaps that was hijacked into super diving Spitfires. Now, apparently, it's a thread about your self-created 'conspiracy'.

Your cry of 'conspiracy' and 'bias' followed the challenging of 'super diving' Spitfires. Had it been about 'super diving P-38s' you wouldn't have posted anything. So take your bias, your 'conspiracy' and lay them down next to that cross and relax a bit.

Like it or not according to HT's own words -
THE 109/190 FM's HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE AH2 WAS INTRODUCED.

So get over YOUR paranoid, conspiracy theories.
Unless your suggesting HT is being less than truthfull?

I only picked the K4 examples because its two that jumped to mind, and the flettners WASN'T Kurfurst.

As for hi-jacking I'll think you'll find it wasn't me.

My general comment was how there is two different standards required for proof of a claimed statement.

Did find one paper that said the RAE re-calculated the dive test and came up with 0.9mach instead of 0.92mach.

Of course they are probably wrong again.

Bruno · « **Reply #139 on:** January 30, 2006, 12:08:58 PM »

Quote

THE 109/190 FM's HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE AH2 WAS INTRODUCED.

Read what I wrote, The speed and climbs are the same... Handling has changed regardless of what HT said.

Widewing commenting on the G-14:

Quote

the G-14 would destablize in the yaw axis, meaning that the nose would wander excessively and didn't respond to rudder well. I didn't care for that as it took time to gather it up and resulted in a lost opportunity for a good planform shot because I couldn't get the plane to yaw left. I don't think that's related to the high AoA wiggle, but it seems like an unusual behavior to me.

The same thing he described happens in the G-6 as well. It can happen in the K-4 but only if you get slower like at the top of a loop. This didn't happen before the last patch.

That's not 'conspiracy'. Besides, I don't pop into every aircraft thread crying about the 109 like you do about the poor 'ole Spitfire.

Quote

I only picked the K4 examples because its two that jumped to mind, and the flettners WASN'T Kurfurst.

For the most part it was. Anyway, how many 'flettner' threads do you see? Now compare those to the many threads you pop into crying about the anti-Spitfire conspiracy.

Quote

As for hi-jacking I'll think you'll find it wasn't me.

My general comment was how there is two different standards required for proof of a claimed statement.

Sure it was:

Quote

Bruno - if you had read my ORIGINAL post correctly I wasn't specifically referring to this thread.

That's the defintion of a thread hijack in your own words...

Quote

Did find one paper that said the RAE re-calculated the dive test and came up with 0.9mach instead of 0.92mach.

Of course they are probably wrong again.

I will repost:

Pushing the envelope with test pilot Herb Fisher

Quote

Despite having a propeller that was designed to be more efficient at these speeds, the fact remained that the drag rise across the prop was so great that it functioned like a giant disk shaped air brake. Fisher had proved beyond any doubt that all previous claims of exceeding the speed of sound while diving a prop driven aircraft were untrue. There is little doubt that the pilots who reported speeds in excess of Mach 1 were honestly and accurately reporting what they has seen on their air speed indicator. However, due to the extreme rate of descent, the pressure differential in the static pressure airspeed indicator lags far behind the actual altitude of the aircraft. Air speed indicators of the era were not designed to cope with descents that could exceed 40,000 feet per minute. This difference between outside pressure and that within the system would indicate wildly ambitious speeds. These pilots had simply been fooled. When we stop and consider that the ultra-sleek P-80A Shooting Star jet fighter was never able to exceed Mach .94, how can anyone believe that a prop driven fighter could even come close?

But I am sure Fisher is just part of the AH Axis conspiracy to keep the Spitfire down, aint he?

Kev367th · « **Reply #140 on:** January 30, 2006, 01:51:03 PM »

Actaully I have no complaints about the spit FM.

I will restate -
No matter what you may think
According to HT, and he has stated numerous times -
The FMs haven't changed since AH2 was released.
Only a change in the FM would change handling.

So I guess by "regardless of what of HT has said" basically means you think he is being less than truthfull?

The G-14 being a 'new' model its a new FM, so it may need tweaking.
Everything else is what it was when AH2 was released.

But continue in your belief that every patch they get worse, maybe you'll convince the people that know (HT etc), but don't hold your breath.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #141 on:** January 30, 2006, 02:54:43 PM »

I really wish these threads didn't always delve into "conspiracies" or how one side thinks the other is trying to "take away" their ride.

I think at the core of this we all want the same thing - that AH represents the combat environment we all read about. So that the Spit v. 109 and P47 v. 190 match-ups play-out as they're supposed to. And so that none of the players are at a "human factors" disadvantage due to overly or underly restricted views, or unstable flight models.

As for "did things change?" ... if HT says they didn't touch the FM code I believe him. But Sargent's Rule says "Different Things Vary" ... so if any code was touched you never know what it may affect. Any developer knows that the simplest little change can yield the most horrific side effects for the dumbest possible reasons (compiler glitch, typo, memory leak, etc. etc.).

HT has been around long enough to know that if all the veteran players are noticing a change, then it's at least looking into.

wrag · « **Reply #142 on:** January 30, 2006, 04:00:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I really wish these threads didn't always delve into "conspiracies" or how one side thinks the other is trying to "take away" their ride.

I think at the core of this we all want the same thing - that AH represents the combat environment we all read about. So that the Spit v. 109 and P47 v. 190 match-ups play-out as they're supposed to. And so that none of the players are at a "human factors" disadvantage due to overly or underly restricted views, or unstable flight models.

As for "did things change?" ... if HT says they didn't touch the FM code I believe him. But Sargent's Rule says "Different Things Vary" ... so if any code was touched you never know what it may affect. Any developer knows that the simplest little change can yield the most horrific side effects for the dumbest possible reasons (compiler glitch, typo, memory leak, etc. etc.).

HT has been around long enough to know that if all the veteran players are noticing a change, then it's at least looking into.

HERE HERE!!!!!

My thoughts exactly! Tried to say so earlier.

niklas · « **Reply #143 on:** January 30, 2006, 04:49:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by gripen
Hm... RAE dive tests continued several years (also after war), several different instrumentations were used and the values were recorded with automatic devices.

gripen

Why did they change instrumentation when it was so precise in case of the dive tests we talk about??

niklas

gripen · « **Reply #144 on:** January 30, 2006, 05:26:25 PM »

Niklas,
The tests were part of long term high speed research project and instrumentation improved (as well as corrections and methods overall) a lot during testing, the first tests were done some time late 1942 and testing continued still after war (at least until 1946). It was not just speed testing but comprenhensive high speed research (like pressure distribution measurements with rakes etc.).

Generally there is plenty of data available on RAE high speed research project if some one is actually interested about it instead claiming the results doubtfull. There might be some error in results but overall I see the tests quite reliable.

gripen

Bruno · « **Reply #145 on:** January 30, 2006, 05:30:09 PM »

Quote

he G-14 being a 'new' model its a new FM, so it may need tweaking.

The model has nothing to do with the fm, HT could make a B-17 fly like a Zeke if wanted. The old G-6 is basically the same model as the current G-14.

Anyone can do a search of your replies and read your ramblings about how HT 'hates Spitfires' and how all those rampaging anti-Spit / pro-109 folks are out to keep the Spitfire fan down.

The complaints about the 109 are relatively tame compared to your rhetoric, in regards to the lower boosted Seafire and no 25lb boosted Spitfire, even though those complaints are much more wide spread, even among the 'old hares'.

HT may not have physical changed something to make the 109s handling different but clearly 'something has changed'. It's not just the G-14 either. If you read those early threads about the 109s post patch you will see as a '109 guy' I was defending HT. I confirmed through testing that all the 109s speed, climb etc... were basically the same and that the G-14 was off. After having flown them in the DA and main the changes became readily apparent and I was forced to accept what the others were saying. If you want to take these observations and conclude 'HT's a liar' go ahead, no skin off my nose. That's not the worse thing you have accused him of.

Quote

But continue in your belief that every patch they get worse, maybe you'll convince the people that know (HT etc), but don't hold your breath.

I never said 'with every patch things get worse' ever. Why build such a straw man? I will chalk it up to more of your 'hysterics' and leave it at that.

Crumpp · « **Reply #146 on:** January 30, 2006, 05:42:53 PM »

Must have been extremely meaningful testing if they did not change the POH limits.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kev367th · « **Reply #147 on:** January 30, 2006, 05:49:12 PM »

By new model I meant it's a new aircraft model in the game, so a new FM was needed for it. (wouldn't expect him to put an already ingame FM on it)
But of course you knew that, and just decided to go off burbling instead.

Same goes for the being less than truthfull - your the one that said "regardless of what HT has said" NOT me.
The obvious conclusion being that you don't think HT is being totally forthcoming or honest.
But nice try on twisting what I said - 9 outta 10.

Maybe you should try calling HT HQ and talking to them about how they go about doing models, FMs etc.
I can recommend it, and it's a very educational experience.

You might find some of your answers then.

Crumpp · « **Reply #148 on:** January 30, 2006, 06:16:16 PM »

Quote

(wouldn't expect him to put an already ingame FM on it)

That is EXACTLY what they did with the FW-190's.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kev367th · « **Reply #149 on:** January 30, 2006, 07:04:46 PM »

I would assume (eeek) its changed/tweaked for each model? Or they'd all fly the same.