Author Topic: An interesting resource... (Read 662 times)

humble · « **on:** November 13, 2006, 11:07:26 AM »

In looking for some online 411 specific to "flying to the elbow" I came across this ....

http://web.comhem.se/~u85627360/inpursuit.pdf

It's apparently a 2005 document written for WW2OL of all things. It is however a pretty good guide from a guy who comes from WB's (and might be well known to some of you??). He does have a diagram of a lag displacement roll but not the more aggresive type favored by Johnson....this shows a true lag pursuit where johnsons diagram shows a transition to lead pursuit starting from the P-47 on the high 6 and using the lag roll to counter a break turn by then transitioning it to a lead pursuit angle (something someone lableled a "vector roll attack"....

Anyway its not bad reading (from what I glanced thru) and seems fundementally correct with regard to what it covers....

aqhawasi · « **Reply #1 on:** November 13, 2006, 06:07:26 PM »

On chapter five, talking about the "platform" it seems interesting how it would appear some of their fighters are modeled differently than in AHII. It indicates the 109 as having a "good" roll rate, and the spitfire having a "bad" roll rate. Definitely not the case in AHII (at least not in my experience).

Before anyone blasts me, I think AHII does have the best FM out there... I am merely pointing out some interesting discrepancies.

Donzo · « **Reply #2 on:** November 13, 2006, 11:33:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by aqhawasi
On chapter five, talking about the "platform" it seems interesting how it would appear some of their fighters are modeled differently than in AHII. It indicates the 109 as having a "good" roll rate, and the spitfire having a "bad" roll rate. Definitely not the case in AHII (at least not in my experience).

Before anyone blasts me, I think AHII does have the best FM out there... I am merely pointing out some interesting discrepancies.

The 109 does have a "good" roll rate in AHII and compared to the 109, the spit has a "bad" roll rate. You may be thinking of turn rate, not roll rate.

aqhawasi · « **Reply #3 on:** November 13, 2006, 11:38:55 PM »

Actually, I was thinking of roll rate. I just havent really noticed much of a difference; perhaps I am expecting a bit of an exaggerated difference where in reality its a bit more subtle. Or maybe it is just because they keep on shooting me down

nevertheless, the pdf is an interesting read.

peru

calan · « **Reply #4 on:** November 13, 2006, 11:42:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Donzo
The 109 does have a "good" roll rate in AHII and compared to the 109, the spit has a "bad" roll rate. You may be thinking of turn rate, not roll rate.

In AH, it depends on which spit you're talking about. The 1 and the 8 are worse than the 109's, but the 16 actually has the second best RoR in the game, next to the 190's.

According to my tests anyway... FWIW ... YMMV

http://www.jcsautomation.com/AH_View_Planes.asp

Donzo · « **Reply #5 on:** November 14, 2006, 12:08:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by calan
In AH, it depends on which spit you're talking about. The 1 and the 8 are worse than the 109's, but the 16 actually has the second best RoR in the game, next to the 190's.

According to my tests anyway... FWIW ... YMMV

http://www.jcsautomation.com/AH_View_Planes.asp

True.

I guess being more specific with the model would be more accurate.