I love my 190 a5!

[-lazs-]

juzz i got 26 for the A5 and 29-31 for the Corsairs and P51 (depending).   The turn should be at the very least..... reversed.  I got allmost the exact same same 26 sec for the P38 and 109G2.

This is offline.   I have no interest in flying an A5 or a Corsair online that match up so strangely.  
lazs

[Zigrat]

these fuel loads are retarded, show fuel loads that represent real world. who flies stang 75%, it has aux tank!

should be 75% each for the 190 and f4u then 50% for the p51 since thats what pilots use. Whoever fights in a 100% loaded p51 is an idiot. 50% gas in pony does not = 50% gas in f4u or 190.

[RAM]

I have as a rule not to answer lazs' posts...but in this matter Zigrat is quite right.

In WWII P51 pilots were told to burn the AUX tank fuel first, BEFORE the drop tanks. That fuel off the CG shifted it a lot making the plane terribly unstable.

In 75% fuel P51 still has 25% fuel in AUX tank.

So make the tests on 50% please...and remember that the weight of a 50% fuel load weights MUCH more than the weight of a 50% fuel load in 190. So still 190 will seem to turn more that it does.

[Udie]

 I have to disagree with EVERYBODY here!  Who in the heck can get the 190a5 to out turn ANYTHING?!?!?!  I have yet to out turn a 51 or an f4u.  I have OUT MANUVERED many of them. There's a big difference in turning ability and manuverability.   I can out manuver n1k's in my a8, does that mean it turns better than the n1k?

   Since this thread popped up I have been trying turnfighting in the a5, every time I get killed in like 2 or 3 turns.
Maybe I'm not flying the a5 right, but after 6 months of flying the a8 I think I do it well.

 If anybody is getting out turned in a 51 or f4 by a 190a5  I submit that it's the pilot and not the bird. And I'm not trying to be a smart arse (that comes naturaly ) or hurt any fealings.

Udie

[-lazs-]

oodee, I am telling you how many seconds it takes to turn offline not how well anything does online.   A Corsair should easily outturn an A5 at any speed.   it should accelerate, and roll, by everyones admission, as well as an A5.   It will not climb as well (and doesn't).   The AH corsair is not even close....

The main point of this is that there is something very wrong that affects different FM's differently in the turn.  If they "adjust" the Corsair to reflect "real life" tests against P51's and A5's then it will be a very good arena plane and a fun match for a lot of ac instead of an allmost unused POS that can only be useful if given a 4 cannon option that real pilots couldn't have cared less about.  

The problem is.... If they adjust the corsair to act right in comparrison to the A5 then it will be better than the P51, P38, etc.    If the A5 is correct then all the other planes need adjusting... Some more than others.   "Adjust" the A5 to compare with the current Hog performance and it wil perform worse than the current A8 plus...the LW howls will be heard clear into the next sim they abandon this one for.

I believe that they have really painted themselves into a corner here.   One other solution that would work is to just drop the corsair from the set and bump up the acceleration and turn of the P51 and P38 a little.
lazs

[Kieren]

To all who keep making references to the US flight comparisons with the F4U vs. everything else...

Would it not be fair to consider similar tests conducted by competing countries (assuming it can be found)? A Corsair ace is going to get far more out of a Corsair than a 190A5, etc.

I'm not defending or attacking anyone's data, but it seems that the US test results people are holding those papers up like some kind of bible, when in actuality it is only one piece of the picture.

[Kieren]

 

A Corsair should easily outturn an A5 at any speed. it should accelerate, and roll, by everyones admission, as well as an A5.

I think the jury is still out on that one. When it comes to people posting this data on this BBS, the person I personally respect the most is Wells; he seems to crunch the numbers better than anyone else here, and does so without attaching hyperbolic emotion to it. If he (or Pyro for that matter) can show me mathematically the heavier, higher wingloaded corsair can outdo the 190A5 in every way you describe, I'll believe it. Until then my common sense tells me the lighter, higher power-to-weight ratio, lighter wingloaded plane should outacclerate, outclimb, and outturn the heavier one at the altitude of best performance for the engine.  

[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 06-29-2000).]

[Kieren]

 double post deleted

[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 06-29-2000).]

[-lazs-]

no.... I said the A5 and the simular Hog lb/hp should accelerate the SAME, just as the test showed.  The Corsair with it's boosted ailerons should roll the SAME, as the test showed.   The Corsair should not climb as well as the A5, also, as the test showed.  The better wingloading of the Corsair should allow it to easily outturn the A5, as the test showed.

Seriously.... Is there anyone here who thinks that an A5 SHOULD outturn any model Corsair?
lazs

[Kieren]

...and you're missing the point; what do German test results say about that comparison? I'm sure some must have been conducted somewhere (assuming they can be found).

[F4UDOA]

Kerien,

I'm willing to bet that there never was a F4U that would have come into possesion during WW2 considering it's very limited use in the European Theater. I know that Adolf Galland did not think to highly of the P-47C when a captured example was tested. But I have never seen any detailed flight test data on any captured allied A/C. I seriously doubt these test could have been run with any validity considering the managment style of the Nazi regime. I do know that they thought highly enough of a license built Pratt and Whitney R-1700 to model the early FW190 engines after.

Later
F4UDOA

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by F4UDOA:
I do know that they thought highly enough of a license built Pratt and Whitney R-1700 to model the early FW190 engines after.

You surely are talking about BMW132 engine based on P&W Wasp engine. Yes, the start point of the BMW801 was a P&W engine that was the start point of the R2800 too (but note that BMW801 and P6W engines haven't many things in common...humans and elephants come from the same origin, the prehistoric mammals...but you see too much simmilarities between them?  ). But I dont see the point here, The P&W was an awesome engine, we all know that...but what? I dont see what is that important for. If you put a powerful engine in a heavy airframe you're gonna get the same powerloading that if you put a less powerful one on a much lighter airframe.

And engine means nothing in wingloading, except that they weight a lot. And PW R2800 weighted "a bit" more tham BMW801  

[-lazs-]

R2800 weighed between 2,000 and 2400 lbs and produced between 2000 and 2600 hp.  I don't know what the BMW engine weighed but one source says "a little over 900kilos" but the BMW had a more complete engine package even including some ducting.   In any case, with fuel injection, 14 instead of 18 cyls. and half the oil of the Manly Pratt.... The BMW should be more fragile and more suceptible to fire and oil loss damage.   Also, the Pratt was a much smoother engine.   The Counter rotating balancers weren't on the 1700 for BMW to copy.

Like DOA, I have read all those comparisson tests and the main point is that they all pretty much agree even though they were done independently.   I don't believe that the Germans ever tested a Corsair.   One of our squaddies is a renown Historian and Author whose last few books were on the pacific war (Fire in the Sky) and he has interviewed a hundred or so WWII pilots who all echo the comparisson tests when it comes to the 51, Hellcat and Corsair.  

What we got in AH is a Corsair that is grosly out accelerated, and outrolled and (LOL) out turned by an A5 of all things.   HT and crew admit there there MAY be a thing or two odd about the turn of AH FM's.... An A5 out turns a Corsair in AH.... Yeah, something may be wrong here.   I have no idea what the excuse for the roll rate or acceleration is.

Take away the cannon option and you will see less Corsairs than any other plane in AH.  fix the AH Corsair turn, acceleration and roll and you will have a very competitive AH ac with unique strengths and weaknesses.   Fixing the Corsair is a win/win situation IMO.  
lazs

[Vermillion]

 

these fuel loads are retarded, show fuel loads that represent real world. who flies stang 75%, it has aux tank!

Zigrat, the reason these guys always use 100% fuel in our flight testing, is because that is the procedure that was used in the real life flight tests of the period. So too maintain consistency, and to reflect the "published" numbers for the aircraft that are most commonly seen, tests should be done at 100% fuel.

Otherwise you are going to start seeing numbers that don't match what people think they should, and people are going to start crying "the FM's of <insert favorite fighter here> is PORKED!!!"

Game Testing and real life flight testing, and combat in the arena are totally different things.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by -lazs-:
HT and crew admit there there MAY be a thing or two odd about the turn of AH FM's.... An A5 out turns a Corsair in AH.... Yeah, something may be wrong here.   I have no idea what the excuse for the roll rate or acceleration is.

HT admited that he SUSPECT there is something weird in the turn in AH...in the turn of ALL PLANES of AH...so both the A5 and F4U.

Anyway I am with Udie in this one, if you are in a F4U and you are outturned by a 190 then sorry sir but you need to train a lot.