Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Krusty

HoHun: I don't know about the Nickels, but Pennies were minted in Silver or some alloy, because the copper was needed for shell casings.

Pennies were minted using zinc plated steel during 1943.

My regards,

Widewing

[Toad]

According to THIS  site, nickels were :

Nickels - Propaganda leafets dropped by air

I've heard them referred to as nickels in the past, somewhere sometime I think.



I think that's it as I found another site that says the same thing:

Between January and September 1944 the 801st / 492nd Bomb Group undertook 2263 separate missions of which, due to various circumstances, 1577 (ie 69%) were completed satisfactorily. The successful missions delivered to Occupied Europe: 662 "Joes" (agents); 18,535 containers of supplies; 8050 "Nickles" (bundles of 4,000 propaganda leaflets); 10,725 packages of supplies; 26 pigeons (for messages, not eating); and carried 437 passengers

[Knegel]

Originally posted by straffo
Explain me how a glider can fly with your conception of physic ?

(miracle is a not the correct answer)

A glider is slow, very slow, it need smooth turning otherwise it bleed energy like hell.
I talk about energy bleed while highspeed manouvers(around and above Vmax).
Take a stone, acceleate it and let it move upward, do the same with a feather, then you will understand why the real 109 and 190, P47, P38, P51 had a better vertical behaviour than the hurri, Zero and early SpitV.
The stone will move up higher and will be faster on the earth. The well known and often only respected drawback is a less good glide and turn radius and sustained turn(depending much to the power).

While all manouvers at speeds where the turnradius get depermined by the blackout, big wings are only a handycap.  Specialy at this speeds, the more zero drag will waight much, and i think thats not so regarding the 190A8 and D9.  If two planes, one with 3000kg and one with 4500kg, meet up with same speed in same alt, the 4500kg plane have a much higher stage of energy. 1500kg more weight/inertia at maybe 550km/h, i guess thats more worth than 1000HP.  thats why i would expect, if a SpitV or A6M5 in on the tail of a 190A8 or P47,  and all planes just leveled out after a dive with maybe 400mph, that the 190A8/P47 should 1. have a much advanced upzoom  and 2. should keep the high speed MUCH better than the more light 'big winged' planes. In AH the  SpitV and A6M5, almost dive and easy upzoom with a P47 and FW190A.
In AH(same like in many other sims) it looks like a smal wingload get overestimated much, as result planes like the P51, FW190, P38 and P47, often only can run(in AH the US planes got super flaps to make them playable lol). As result the performence relation between similar wing(drag)loaded planes fit rather good, while more heavy wingloaded planes most have a big disadvantage.
The inertia while calculating the dragload simply get forgotten.
Additionally the wing aspect ratio also most get forgotten. As result the Ta152H is a hopeless plane in low/med alt, where it only got used in the war and where the real pilots did talk very good about it.

btw, you know why aerobatic gliders get smaler wings?? Cause they keep more energy while the needed highspeed to make their manouvers!!

Big wings specialy with high aspectratio are good for gliding and slowspeed turning(measured in IAS),  as faster the plane get as more this wings are a handycap!!

Greetings, Knegel

[Charge]

"* We don't want our 109s to outturn Spits."

At least I don't, I want them to have correct performance -what ever that is...

This is something that troubles me:

"However the 109 had a distinct advantage in manoeuvrability and turning circle at low speeds. The design of the 109, with it's leading edge slats gave a lower stalling speed. The 109 was very forgiving if stalled, with no tendency for a stall to develop into an uncontrollable spin, something that the Spitfire was prone to. Thus a Messerschmitt pilot was more at home at low speeds than his British counterpart."

http://www.jazzitoria.dial.pipex.com/aspit-2.htm

You notice that this is claimed by a Spitfire society!? (Not that I trust every stray website on the http://WWW...)
Where could they come up with such claim because all the RAE test data seems to claim the contrary? I wonder if they have first hand anecdotal evidence of this which is not documented elsewhere.

In a way that supports my understanding of the strengths and weaknesses between 109(E) and Spit I. I have had the impression that using its slats the 109 could momentarily turn inside the Spit but could not match the turn rate of the latter. AFAIK the 109 F could not turn as tightly as E but had better rate of turn which may well take it to region where it could not match Spitfire either in minimum circle nor in turn rate, yet not being totally inferior but still somewhat inferior. The difference probabaly became more marked in G as it was again heavier.

I have seen the calculations based on simple formulas of wingarea, but near stall speed performance probabaly relies more heavily on wing profile and AoA capability where the calculations are more complex.

Note:I am not claiming anything here! Just wondering the contradicting data.


-C+

[straffo]

Well you would better read this : http://www.aerodyn.org/Frames/1wings.html

I've unfortunatly not the time and the correct vocabulary to make you a detailled
explaination.

btw, you know why aerobatic gliders get smaler wings?? Cause they keep more energy while the needed highspeed to make their manouvers!!

Don't you thing it's more because of the instabilty of this formula ?

[bozon]

Originally posted by Charge
Note:I am not claiming anything here! Just wondering the contradicting data.

The data is not so much contradicting as much as people concepts of what "manuverability" and "handeling" is.

A plane can be very "manuverable" and yet have an extremely nasty stall behaviour and terrible instability. This just means that one needs to be a very good pilot to actually use this "manuverability" potential to it's full.

AH 109 are very "manuverable" they CAN handily out turn P51s and P47s. 109F is very close to spit IX in turning. However, their "handeling" is much worse. This is why so many good players claim that the 109 out performs the P51 and P47 while so many less skilled players can't see it or do it.

P47 is the exact opposite. Under 200 mph it is a dog. The rate of turn is among worst in the game (exact ranking depend a lot on fuel load) and turn radius is largest - even with the "magical" flaps extended. But the handeling is superb since it is a big heavy plane with wings that develop the stall gradualy and excelent ailron/elevator/rudder authority. In high speeds the E dumping ability makes it "cheat" as if it can actually turn but slowing down very fast. In the first circle it gains the angles by reduce the radius faster thus not only turning inside the other's circle but also displacing the center of its turning circle aft of the center of the other plane - meaning, it needs to turn less angles in order to pull lead. This is not high rate of turn or good "manuverability".

"Manuverability" can be measured with numbers - rate of turn, radius, rate of climb, roll, stall speed. You can find documented performance of the planes. "Handeling" is completly subjective and exteremly hard to quantify. It's more a feeling than anything else. Note the comments about buffeting before the stall. It is a welcomed feature of handeling, but it doesn't do anything for the max possible turn ability. It does however give the pilot a feeling confidence that he's not about to suddenly loose control and encourage him to extract every little of potential performance. The experts can do it anyway.

conclusion - 109s "handeling" and "feeling" is weird. You can't really prove it with any pilot stories nor use these stories to model a flight sim. The claim "109 should handily outturn a P51/47" is worthless - it already can. BUT since so many agree that the instability seem to be out of place it does merit some investigation to the reasons only the 109 shows it by HTC.

Bozon

[Knegel]

Originally posted by straffo
Well you would better read this : http://www.aerodyn.org/Frames/1wings.html

I've unfortunatly not the time and the correct vocabulary to make you a detailled
explaination.
 

Don't you thing it's more because of the instabilty of this formula ?

Hi,
nothing special on this page. The only related theme i found(while a fast look), is the article regarding "Low Aspect-Ratio Wings", here you can read exact why the aerobatic glider(same like the hangglider) have a more short wing than the real glider. Simply cause it need to fly at higher speeds to be able to do loopings etc. A real glider with its big wings simply have to much zero drag, what is not that important while the very slow gliding, but increase in square with the speed, as result it bleed speed like mad in relation to the smal winged aerobatic glider(a hangglider would fly backward).   Of course at slowspeed(bigger AoA while levelflight) the longer aspectratio provide a smaler induced drag, therfor a smaler minimum drag(induced + zero drag) at a slower speed, therfor a better glideangle.  
Exactly what i say, the Ta152H with its high aspect ratio wings should have a very high max lift coefficient(max AoA) and so a relative good slowspeed behaviour, while such a wing tend to have a relative smal critical mach.

Greetinms, Knegel

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by bozon

"Manuverability" can be measured with numbers - rate of turn, radius, rate of climb, roll, stall speed. You can find documented performance of the planes. "Handeling" is completly subjective and exteremly hard to quantify. It's more a feeling than anything else. Note the comments about buffeting before the stall. It is a welcomed feature of handeling, but it doesn't do anything for the max possible turn ability. It does however give the pilot a feeling confidence that he's not about to suddenly loose control and encourage him to extract every little of potential performance. The experts can do it anyway.

conclusion - 109s "handeling" and "feeling" is weird. You can't really prove it with any pilot stories nor use these stories to model a flight sim. The claim "109 should handily outturn a P51/47" is worthless - it already can. BUT since so many agree that the instability seem to be out of place it does merit some investigation to the reasons only the 109 shows it by HTC.

Bozon

Finally someone hits it on the head.

If I say a car has a top speed of 140mph, and 0-60 in 10 secs, it tells you NOTHING about how it feels or handles.

Plus as he said handling is subjective, what one pilot would like, another might hate.
What a more experienced pilot could do, would be more than what a rookie could do.
Thats why HT doesn't use anecdotal evidence to model FM's.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Finally someone hits it on the head.

If I say a car has a top speed of 140mph, and 0-60 in 10 secs, it tells you NOTHING about how it feels or handles.

Plus as he said handling is subjective, what one pilot would like, another might hate.
What a more experienced pilot could do, would be more than what a rookie could do.
Thats why HT doesn't use anecdotal evidence to model FM's.

Also feel is different for each expert. Take race car drivers for instance . Put multiple drivers in the same car and have them make hot laps around the track.  Each driver would want different changes made in the handling to fit his style of driving.
One mans car that feels like its on rails is another's that cant do anything in it. I am betting it's the same with aircraft.



Bronk

[Angus]

The real quirks of slats in general are AFAIK not modelled in AH.
In AH slats work as in perfect condition.

[Apar]

Also feel is different for each expert. Take race car drivers for instance . Put multiple drivers in the same car and have them make hot laps around the track. Each driver would want different changes made in the handling to fit his style of driving.
One mans car that feels like its on rails is another's that cant do anything in it. I am betting it's the same with aircraft..

Funny thing is that the way the car "feels" according to the driver is exactly what they tune the car to in racing  (formula 1).

Now that doesn't mean that i would like to see all airplane FM's being tuned to all kinds of different wishes in AH. But that's not the case here, there are numerous complains about the SAME thing....instability. Instability that was not there in real 109's by accounts ("feel") of real pilots (AFAIK its more then a wish to at least take a serious look into and to see if its possible to correct.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Apar
Funny thing is that the way the car "feels" according to the driver is exactly what they tune the car to in racing  (formula 1).

Now that doesn't mean that i would like to see all airplane FM's being tuned to all kinds of different wishes in AH. But that's not the case here, there are numerous complains about the SAME thing....instability. Instability that was not there in real 109's by accounts ("feel") of real pilots (AFAIK its more then a wish to at least take a serious look into and to see if its possible to correct.

Apar you missed my point a car that is loose (read as rear breaks loose in turn) is what some drivers want and some do not.  What was getting at is a car that is undriveable to one is another's dream ride. I am betting is the same with aircraft.

Bronk

[Kweassa]

Plus as he said handling is subjective, what one pilot would like, another might hate.
What a more experienced pilot could do, would be more than what a rookie could do.
Thats why HT doesn't use anecdotal evidence to model FM's.

 So what you're saying is, if we make a reveresed what-if situation;

... somebody upping a Spitfire in a certain game may actually feel it is very hard to outturn a Fw190.

... and, many, numerous Spitfire fans, in one time or other, are expressing their feelings the same opinion about it.

... and yet, since handling is all so subjective, and the hard coded fact that the Spitfire does outturn the Fw190 is solid, that would means the many complaints of many Spitfire fans that for some reason the Spitfire keeps destabilizing before the Fw190 does, is nothing but placebo. There's no guarantee a Spifire should easily outturn a Fw190, and all of the problem is totally concerned with the individual pilots skill.

... so in effect, the Spitfire pilots in that game are nincompoops, and obviously some other person who flew it for two test sorties have a more precise and correct interpretation and sense of comparability between the real plane and the game plane, and how the game plane handles, than the people loyally dedicated to the Spitfire who flew the plane exclusively for years, as their favorite in the game.

 So, there's nothing to complain when a horde of Spitfire fans are complaining Spitfires keep stalling out when trying to follow a 190 in a simple flat turn, and they have 190s outmaneuvering them time after time in a low and slow fight.

 Right?

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Kweassa
So what you're saying is, if we make a reveresed what-if situation;

... somebody upping a Spitfire in a certain game may actually feel it is very hard to outturn a Fw190.

... and, many, numerous Spitfire fans, in one time or other, are expressing their feelings the same opinion about it.

... and yet, since handling is all so subjective, and the hard coded fact that the Spitfire does outturn the Fw190 is solid, that would means the many complaints of many Spitfire fans that for some reason the Spitfire keeps destabilizing before the Fw190 does, is nothing but placebo. There's no guarantee a Spifire should easily outturn a Fw190, and all of the problem is totally concerned with the individual pilots skill.

... so in effect, the Spitfire pilots in that game are nincompoops, and obviously some other person who flew it for two test sorties have a more precise and correct interpretation and sense of comparability between the real plane and the game plane, and how the game plane handles, than the people loyally dedicated to the Spitfire who flew the plane exclusively for years, as their favorite in the game.

 So, there's nothing to complain when a horde of Spitfire fans are complaining Spitfires keep stalling out when trying to follow a 190 in a simple flat turn, and they have 190s outmaneuvering them time after time in a low and slow fight.

 Right?

Almost makes sense apart from  -
a) We're not talking about another game.
b) Turn rates are part of the FM, so has nothing to do with 'feel'.
c) Yet to see a 'flight test' that shows a 190 v its historical Spit opponent can hang with a Spit in a turn. (some got close).

So if in another game a Spit was consistenly being outurned by its historically opposite 190, it would be an FM problem, NOT A FEEL problem.

Tell me how your going to code 'feel' into an FM? All they can use is hard coded data.

Or as I have also said, there's only so much you can do for a game designed to be played on home PC's, or Boeing, Airbus etc would all be running there simulators on Dells and Gateways .

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by Kweassa







* In other words, we want the plane to handle much more easily, that even a relative n00b won't have much trouble just plain outturning P-51s, P-47s, Typhoons and such - so much easier that they can just pull the stick back and it will come behind them, just like a Spitfire won't have any trouble doing that to a 109. By all means 109s should be able to do that - they are supposed to be easy to handle, and already has a smaller turning radius than any Mustang or Jug.


[/b]

So you want a spit flight model........just want it attached to the 109 pixels?