HiTech no likes ponys?

[Chalenge]

I've demonstrated in this very thread that in AHII the P-51 out-turned by an aircraft that 1. Has a decidedly higher wing-loading and and less horsepower 2. Was historically considered to be the less agile bird. Widewing has demonstrated repeatedly that there is something funny with the flaps. What more do you want?

1) Give us the scientific data.
2) Give Bustr whatever meds he missed because unless he is just trying to be funny there is something seriously wrong. 

[BnZ]

1) Give us the scientific data.

Chalenge, Just what the f*** do you think those numbers I figured for wing-loading and power-loading were?

Do you understand the implications of a nearly 3 lbs/foot difference in wing-loading?

And do a search for some of Widewing's posts on the subject. He thoroughly dissects the problems with the AHII Pony's flaps.

DokGonzo's test website shows that in-game, our lightest Jug, the P-47D-11 can sustain a tighter radius than the P-51D both with no flaps and with full flaps. This is not in concurrence with the experiences of test and combat pilots during the war. Let us take a closer look at both airplanes.

In AHII, a six-gun P-51D carrying 50% fuel weighs 9,365 lbs. A P-47D-11 with the lighter 8-gun package carrying 50% fuel weighs 12,676 lbs. (Note: The P-51 of course can carry a larger fraction of its gross weight in the form of fuel, the P-51D will fly slightly longer on Mil with 50% fuel than the P-47D-11 will with 75% fuel.)

The P-51D has a wing area of 235 square feet. The P-47D has a wing area of 300 square feet.

9,365/235=~39.9

12,676/300=~42.7

So the P-51D is clearly superior in wing-loading.

What about power-loading?

Assuming the figures for WEP horsepower in AHII agree with the ones I was able to find for WEP horsepower of the P-51D and early P-47Ds, we get this result..

9,365 lbs/1,720hp=5.44 lbs/hp

12,676 lbs/2,300hp=5.51 lbs/hp.

So the P-51D is also slightly superior in power-loading.

In AHII the P-51 is out-turned by an aircraft that is decidedly inferior in wing-loading and also inferior in horsepower, in both no-flaps and full-flaps configuration.

[Chalenge]

Chalenge, Just what the f*** do you think those numbers I figured for wing-loading and power-loading were?

Do you understand the implications of a nearly 3 lbs/foot difference in wing-loading?

And do a search for some of Widewing's posts on the subject. He thoroughly dissects the problems with the AHII Pony's flaps.

Yes you gave the scientific data and then you rambled on and on and showed your potty mouth. Well done! 

[dtango]

Wow, this thread has gone on forever .  I thought HT already addressed this all by pointing out the confidence level they have in the data they've obtained.

BnZ it's much more complicated than that regarding sustained performance of the P-51 vs. other aircraft than just looking at power-loading.

Assuming small thrust angle approximation and velocity=best sustained turn velocity:

Sustained Turn Rate Equation:


Sustained Turn Radius Equation:


Simply taking power-loading to gauge sustained turn performance is extremely inaccurate because it does not factor in 1) thrust variation with velocity due to changing prop efficiency and 2) the variation of power required due to changes in cl/cd with configuration and under g-load.

That's where having data becomes paramount.  HT has confidence that the data they've derived the cl/cd, thrust, etc. and their variation over an aircraft's flight envelope is solid.  I have yet to see anyone come up with cl/cd drag polar or thrust data to show how the P-51 is underperforming in AH.  Understand that this statement comes from an absolute fan of the Mustang .

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[BnZ]

So I am to believe that the P-51's airfoil is so inefficient compared to the P-47D-11s that the latter's substantial disadvantage in wing-loading is more than negated?

I am quite sure they were confident that the performance data in AHI was solid. "Air Warrior" had solid data too, right? After all, all this data had been around since the 40's. I am quite sure that the team at "Il2" and "CFS" would tell you their data is solid too. Everyone's data is "solid", no matter how different their results, aye? 

Except the "data" that I consider the most telling, the experiences of people who actually flew and fought in these planes in WWII...that is merely anecdotal and carries no weight compared to calculations of a video game can be run on a $500 PC from Wal-Mart. 

Wow, this thread has gone on forever .  I thought HT already addressed this all by pointing out the confidence level they have in the data they've obtained.

BnZ it's much more complicated than that regarding sustained performance of the P-51 vs. other aircraft than just looking at power-loading.

Assuming small thrust angle approximation and velocity=best sustained turn velocity:

Sustained Turn Rate Equation:
(Image removed from quote.)

Sustained Turn Radius Equation:
(Image removed from quote.)

Simply taking power-loading to gauge sustained turn performance is extremely inaccurate because it does not factor in 1) thrust variation with velocity due to changing prop efficiency and 2) the variation of power required due to changes in cl/cd with configuration and under g-load.

That's where having data becomes paramount.  HT has confidence that the data they've derived the cl/cd, thrust, etc. and their variation over an aircraft's flight envelope is solid.  I have yet to see anyone come up with cl/cd drag polar or thrust data to show how the P-51 is underperforming in AH.  Understand that this statement comes from an absolute fan of the Mustang .

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[dedalos]

So I am to believe that the P-51's airfoil is so inefficient compared to the P-47D-11s that the latter's substantial disadvantage in wing-loading is more than negated?

I am quite sure they were confident that the performance data in AHI was solid. "Air Warrior" had solid data too, right? After all, all this data had been around since the 40's. I am quite sure that the team at "Il2" and "CFS" would tell you their data is solid too. Everyone's data is "solid", no matter how different their results, aye? 

Except the "data" that I consider the most telling, the experiences of people who actually flew and fought in these planes in WWII...that is merely anecdotal and carries no weight compared to calculations of a video game can be run on a $500 PC from Wal-Mart. 

Well, BnZ does have a point here.  The data on the 109s was solid until they were changed to solid data spitfires.  The US needed a spitfire also the solid data on the F4Us became more solid around the same time.

No matter how "solid" once data is, there are many variables on how they are used, processed, interpreted etc

[dtango]

So I am to believe that the P-51's airfoil is so inefficient compared to the P-47D-11s that the latter's substantial disadvantage in wing-loading is more than negated?

Well it's irrelevant.  Wing-loading tells us something about instantaneous turn performance, but it doesn't tell us anything useful about sustained turn performance.  The discussions in the past have centered around sustained turn performance.

I am quite sure they were confident that the performance data in AHI was solid. "Air Warrior" had solid data too, right? After all, all this data had been around since the 40's. I am quite sure that the team at "Il2" and "CFS" would tell you their data is solid too. Everyone's data is "solid", no matter how different their results, aye? 

Well, BnZ does have a point here.  The data on the 109s was solid until they were changed to solid data spitfires.  The US needed a spitfire also the solid data on the F4Us became more solid around the same time.

No matter how "solid" once data is, there are many variables on how they are used, processed, interpreted etc

Don't confuse solid data with differences in flight models including differences between AH1 and AH2.

Except the "data" that I consider the most telling, the experiences of people who actually flew and fought in these planes in WWII...that is merely anecdotal and carries no weight compared to calculations of a video game can be run on a $500 PC from Wal-Mart. 

There's the rub.  The problem is that it's extremely difficult to create something that can be construed as obeying the laws of physics from anecdotes for a variety of reasons including: 1) typically we don't have enough data in the anecdote to pin it for apples to apples aero analysis, 2) we as humans are fallible and horrible at getting the details right for past events (heck you can see this in AH from any number of post-dogfight whines about how it "really" happened ).

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Steve]

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

Hey Tango, where have you been?     

[BnZ]

Well it's irrelevant.  Wing-loading tells us something about instantaneous turn performance, but it doesn't tell us anything useful about sustained turn performance. 

Really? Wing-loading has nothing at all to do with it? I was under the impression one could sustain a turn with a smaller radius flying the Val than with the Fw-190 D9, despite the fact that the former is sadly under-powered in comparison.

Don't confuse solid data with differences in flight models including differences between AH1 and AH2.

What is your point here sir? If you are admitting that relative performance shifts between different versions, then in-game performance is not as an infallible a representation of real world performance as some have claimed. IOW, the program CAN have glitches that produce odd results, such as our P-51D's turn performance relative other aircraft in-game. I'm not demanding this be fixed this afternoon, tomorrow, next week, or next month, but I damn well resent being told the modeling is infallible and that I have been brainwashed by the History Channel when I bring up such discrepancies.

[dtango]

Really? Wing-loading has nothing at all to do with it? I was under the impression one could sustain a turn with a smaller radius flying the Val than with the Fw-190 D9, despite the fact that the former is sadly under-powered in comparison.

It's incorrect to assume that lower wing-loading ALWAYS results in better sustained turn radius.  Yes wing-loading is a rough measure of the lift limit of an aircraft.  Let's go back to the sustained turn radius equation:



The lift limit of the aircraft impacts what the best sustained turn velocity will be.  Lower wing-loading means lower best sustained turn velocity.  In your Val and 190D-9 example the difference in velocity for best sustained turn radius is a deciding factor in favor of the Val's sustained turn radius.

However that's not the only thing that governs sustained turn radius.    There are other variables you have to consider besides wing-loading.  For example here's an E-M diagram put together by Badboy comparing a Yak-9 and P-51D.



This is an example where an aircraft with a better (lower) wing-loading (Yak9U) yet has worse a sustained turn rate performance.  The sustained turn radius is about equal in this example but you can easily see that if the Ps=0 curve was lower for the Yak or if it was higher for the Mustang than the lower wing-loaded aircraft would have a larger sustained turn radius.  You can't ignore all the other parts that influence sustained turn performance such cl, cd and thrust and look only at wing-loading.

What is your point here sir? If you are admitting that relative performance shifts between different versions, then in-game performance is not as an infallible a representation of real world performance as some have claimed. IOW, the program CAN have glitches that produce odd results, such as our P-51D's turn performance relative other aircraft in-game. I'm not demanding this be fixed this afternoon, tomorrow, next week, or next month, but I damn well resent being told the modeling is infallible and that I have been brainwashed by the History Channel when I bring up such discrepancies.

The point is bring appropriate data to the table.  HTC can have glitches.  They also are willing to change their flight data as well.  Anecdotes aren't enough however.

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[dtango]

Hey Tango, where have you been?     

Not flying online obviously - partially because I'm distracted by threads like these!!   Hopefully I'll be airborne again soon when things settle down a bit with work and home!  Of course I'm not sure I have a good excuse for not being online relative to your army you take care of at home ! 

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[uptown]

Dang Tango! I had no idea you was that smart. Looking forward to your return sir 

[Vulcan]

We proved tiffies outturn ponies eh uptown

[bongaroo]

I like the chart but I want to ask about the fuel levels.  Why would we compare the yak with 100% to a p51 with 10%?

Typo?

[dtango]

I like the chart but I want to ask about the fuel levels.  Why would we compare the yak with 100% to a p51 with 10%?

Typo?

No typo.  It comes from a thread that Badboy posted regarding corner speed.  Here's his complete post for reference and why he compared what he did:

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,233157.msg2837335.html#msg2837335

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs