Why Porking the LW does NOT make HTC $$

[hogenbor]

Originally posted by jaxxo
Proof:

190D9 vs P51D k/d 1.34
190D9 vs P47N k/d 2.0
190D9 vs La7 k/d 1.06
190D9 vs Spit 16 k/d 1.53

109K vs P51D k/d 2.0
109K vs P47N k/d 1.37
109K vs La7 k/d 1.44
109K vs Spit 16 k/d 1.57

From current tour...stats mean nada from a players perspective..take those SAME 109 drivers and put them in p51's and watch those numbers jump way up..they fly 109 for a more challenging ride..although i dont believe the 109 is porked at all (minus the flap argument) i can see both sides of the argument. Want some changes? have all the uber pilots drive la7's only for one tour and than check the bbs..u will see some serious whining

Htc has its hands full for sure trying to maintain equilibrium..a simple explanation for why the 109 flaps are not modeled would be nice, but i think the response from the players wouldnt be...

Jaxxo, I was approx. 2 to 1 in the currrent AvA in the Hurri I against the 109E. I am average at best. So if I turn your theory around I would do even better in the 109? My hit % was pretty good, so maybe I could have made use of those FF's Seriously, I used the Hurri for shameless furballing and hardly ever watched my back. When I heard hits I just turned sharper until they ceased hitting me or shot me down. Liberating.

Good 109 fliers survive because the HAVE to be good. With a Spit you can jump in any fight, yank & bank score kills and even get away. In a 109 this is suicide. Your SA must be way better to keep an escape window open and those thick bars certainly don't help. You can rely on climb (and speed if you have a K4). But armament is weak and hard to aim. Stability is not nice but I'm not really a low-E fighter anyway so it doesn't bother me that much. Many times I was in a position where a Spit of P-51 would have given me a kill, but in a 109 I just could hit the guy I was fighting. And average as I may be, my gunnery isn't. But still, it all is historically correct.

So HTC, would you please look into the 109 stability issue and make the bars a bit thinner? I do love the Malcolm hood on my P-51B but I'd trade it for a normal view out of the 109.

[Charge]

" Leading edge separation of the 23-series section airfoils
Only 2° twist
Lack of sufficient torsional rigidity of the wing
The twist was only out to about 80% semi span, which also contributed to the tip stalling tendencies. "

Those reasons actualy explain why the changes were made in J22 -not why the wing of 190 was "bad". I'll explain it a bit.

Only 2deg twist ->Why more? It would start to have adverse effects on drag if it were more. That is enough to ensure even some warning of stall. Similar amount used in P51 and Spit, BTW)

Lack of torsional rigidity ->AFAIK the 190 had one of the stiffest wings of WW2 fighters. Small, with lots of metal resulting a rigid structure thus resulting in good rolling performance. I wonder how stiff wing the J22 has...

Twist only 80% semi span which contributed to tip stalling tendencies -> Hmmm. Due to sudden stall characteristics of 2300 NACA series the behaviour of the wing would not have been much better if the wing was twisted evenly to the tip as in Spitfire. Probably a feature to speed up the production with as little effect to flying characteristics and speed as possible.

FW's wing does twist in high speed turns (as any wing does!) which causes the wing to lose some of the advantages of its twist and this brings the stall characteristics of the 2300 series more pronouncedly evident in high speed turns/stalls.

As Mr Somebody pointed out in numerous threads before, the adjustment of FW's ailerons is critical to get a warning of imminent stall especially in high speed turns where the wing does warp and thus will not warn of the stall so readily with buffeting. If the ailerons are adjusted correctly the ailerons will give sharp nudges to controls as indication of imminent stall. In slower speeds the stall is gentle as the wing is not warping and the twist fully works as it should. The 190 is not exceptional in this sense. I'd say that the high speed stall characteristics of the 190 are more pronounced in those articles because the wing IS small so it needs to be pulled into more AoA to get the desired effect and because its thickness and profile it can be pulled, BUT the stall characteristics of that NAC profile are quite harsh as they are for P51's laminar profile too. But that is a trade off for less drag in level flight.

***

"The P-38 stall and spin model does NOT match the test pilot reports by ANY of the Lockheed test pilots. In fact, it isn't even close."

I find it impossible that a code used in this kind of games could simulate the behaviour of the actual wing in such incalculable situation as a stall (especially accelerated stall). It should be "made" into model and that would require first hand knowledge of how the actual a/c behaves in the type of stall in question. Rather impossible requirement if the description of a stall is not very accurately documented. And that would have to be made for every a/c in the  game. I bet that that what we have now is just what the code makes out of it after calculating the force vectors and considering the effects of wing geometry upon entering and exiting the stall.

***

On flaps: It would be nice to know if I'm correct in suspecting that using flaps will increase the profile lift but in turn in maneuvers might actually reduce the max allowable AoA of the wing profile?

It probabaly also makes a big difference what kind of flaps the a/c has. Eg. the split flap in FW or Spit  would not assist turn very well, whereas the 109's or P51's flaps are better in this sense and the fowlers of P38 are even better because they increase the wing area upon extending and the resulting wing profile has smoother transitions that those of 109 and P51. The structure and mechanical endurance of these flaps is different too, of course, probably the other way around.

-C+

[Skuzzy]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
5. The effects of compression are modeled well below 20,000 feet, while no pilot ever interviewed says it was a problem. Most P-38 pilots say you could dive a pre J-25-Lo model from 20,000 feet with impunity, and a post J-25-Lo model from over 25,000 feet easily.

Just an FYI.  We had a WWII P-38 pilot in the game.  I got to talk to him in great length one day and he told me a story about how he and his wingman got into a serious scuffle and due to overwhelming numbers decided it was best to run.  They did a 1G dive to the deck (he said the best he could remember was the speed was around 600, but was not every really sure due to the severe shaking of the cockpit making it difficult to read the gauges) and the wingman could not make the pull-out, crash and died.  He said if there had been a cow in the field, in his flight path, he would have hit it.

[Suave]

This is growing stale. Summon Mandoble!

[Simaril]

Stale or not, it keeps coming up....



Charge: take a look at the PDF DoKGonzo linked. Its written by an aerodynamicist at a firm that uses sophisticated computer modelling to analyse airflow over airframes. In short, thsi company makes its living by providing predictive services to modern aircraft designers.

He used the systems to analyze airflow over the SPit, the D-pony, and the Dora. He has no vested interest in outcomes -- it was jsut a cool historical application of waht he does every day.

And he showed that the Dora would have suuden sharo stall tendencies at high Gs.

This impressed me, for a couple reasons. One, it passes the "smell test" of jsut making sense, and coming up with an answer that fits reports derived from entirely different methodology (like field testing by fighter pilots). Two, it does something important but not often encountered -- it explains apparetnly conflicting observations that previously have been mysterious, like a unified theory might do. Specifically, it explains why the US field tests which included "combat" at high G's) woudl report different stability characterisitics than the gently low spped handling described in British reports.

Interesting anyway....

[Mustaine]

i made a sarcastic comment earlier, part in jest, part in please let this all die, why keep ruffling feathers, whatever...

here is my serious take on the whole thing. seeing as the man who got me into the game, and generally started my flight sim carrer posted comments that are somewhat critical.

HiTech and Pyro have been modeling flight soms for how long? 10, 15 years? my guess is they have researched more than we can imagine in that time. i also assume they have poured alot of hours and money into obtaining and analizing data. have they seen or had translated every piece out there on every plane? i don't think it is possible.

HTC is a smaller company, and does not have the resources available to them that say the US air force has, so there will always be a percieved "lack" of data to support everything they create.

whatever they program, they would be foolish to just post or make available in some way ALL their findings, and data that supports it. why give out those years of work for free? just because i say bah i don't believe you, prove it, they should not have to bow to my wishes. if HTC were to make available free their entire archive, what is to stop someone from "borrowing" it for their own uses, without permission, and without cost.

i would hazard a guess they have data none of us have seen here. data on every plane they have modeled. i have this image of a file room at the HTC office, full wall to wall with bookshelves filled with reports, filght manuals, and other data. heck even at their houses i bet there's stuff. 15 years of researching a topic lends to having alot of things to sift through. add to that new data posted here, that they have to find. what i mean is, sure a page from a book may be scanned then posted. HTC can't very well base assumptions on just they. they must find the book, and get rights to the data to use and archive it i am guessing.

now take all that, and make a performance chart. when you have 2 documents that contradict each other, what do you do? believe just the "good" one? no you end up looking for another thing that backs up one or the other original finding. then you find another, and another, so on.

i could be wrong here, but imagine there is a spectrum from uber to sucky for each plane. there is something HTC actually owns that proves each point. where do you make the performance line go? personally i would take all the data, then use the average of all of it, good and bad.

in reality i think that is the best anyone could do. cold hard facts are rare in the world.

think of it this way. the only way to get accurate flight model data is to travel back in time, and run exacting tests of just what you need on the actual planes piloted by the best pilots of that plane. even if you did that, i bet you could get 3 different results from 3 "exact" planes. look at skuzzy's anecdote. 2 pilots, same plane. 1 crashes, 1 makes it. yes pilot skill comes into play, but also, maybe that plane that crashed just didn't hold together as well as the other.


so what have i concluded about all of this? i think HTC has taken the information they have available, and done the best they can with it. you have the right to not agree, but not the right to claim they are lying about something. yes people lie, but unless HTC as a company are just compulsive voss like liars, what would they have to gain?

well take it for what it's worth. thats just my thoughts on this. oh and 42, bro, i see your side, i also see the other, and just thought i'd say what i thought after all these years.

[Krusty]

The file DokGonzo posted shows the problem with AH's 190. In real life, the 190 only had these problems at high speed, and no problems at low speed. It is exactly the opposite in AH. You can do whatever you want as long as you're above 300mph, but drop below 250 and watch out!

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Simaril
This is stunning to me. It really explains why there are divergent reports, and reinforces the idea that the 190 had sudden stall tendencies (esp under G loads).

It also supports the current flight model for the 190s.

With the exception that in AH2 the snap-stall happens even at low speeds and low load conditions. Where the wing deformation can't possibly be setting in (i.e. pulling over the top of a loop).

[Charge]

"Charge: take a look at the PDF DoKGonzo linked. Its written by an aerodynamicist at a firm that uses sophisticated computer modelling to analyse airflow over airframes."

I know D. Lednichers article very well. Not exactly the first time I see it...

-C+

[wetrat]

So... real 190's would flop under high G's at high speeds, but were nice and gentle at low speeds. Our 190's are nice and gentle anywhere above 300mph, but flop like a beached flounder at low speeds. Did we get the bizarro world 190 FM or something?

In conclusion, fix my 109's flaps

[Krusty]

Originally posted by wetrat
So... real 190's would flop under high G's at high speeds, but were nice and gentle at low speeds. Our 190's are nice and gentle anywhere above 300mph, but flop like a beached flounder at low speeds. Did we get the bizarro world 190 FM or something?

In conclusion, fix my 109's flaps

LMAO wetrat, you fail to understand that 109s won't NEED flaps if they fix the instability issue!

[wetrat]

Originally posted by Krusty
LMAO wetrat, you fail to understand that 109s won't NEED flaps if they fix the instability issue!

109's don't have a stability issue. IMO, they're modeled correctly. 190's are fubar.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by wetrat
So... real 190's would flop under high G's at high speeds, but were nice and gentle at low speeds. Our 190's are nice and gentle anywhere above 300mph, but flop like a beached flounder at low speeds. Did we get the bizarro world 190 FM or something?

In conclusion, fix my 109's flaps

Well the 190 does snap-stall at high speeds like it's supposed to. If you've ever been de-acking a field in a 190 and seen a last second upper, and tried to crank it over fast to get him, you know that the next thing you see is you becoming an upside-down lawn dart.

I'm pretty sure the 109 flaps will be fixed in the next update. Pyro said it should have been in the latest one but was accidentally omitted (due to payoffs from the Supermarine rep' ... d'oh!).

[Krusty]

wetrat, how can you say that? The 109s in this game are completely unstable at all speeds, flight positions, orientations, engine settings, and all alignments of the planets!

None of this is reported ANYwhere in ANY document historically. It's BS. Get rid of the BS instability, and the need for flaps is gone.

[parin]

Without combat trim the G-14 and K-4 can be flown fairly slow and stable, it is more work to fly trimming manually. I believe combat trim does not do a good job of trimimg these planes out for slow speed flight.