Aircraft Performance in HT's sims, then and now:

[Anaxogoras]

Would have expected the Spit V to be a lot different.

We went from the late LF Vc with Rolls Royce 55M & 120rnds to the earlier F Vb with Rolls Royce 45/46 & 60rnds

Unless it was the Vb in WB (never played it)?

Yes, it was the Vb back then, but without the drum fed Hispanos, i.e. it had 120 rounds per gun.  Hoof even lists it as having a RR 45.

[BnZs]

Krusty, for God's sake, the Hog is an airplane that could land on the carrier at 75mph.

75mph is a pretty darn slow stalling speed by WWII standards. It SHOULD have a tiny turn radius with flaps.

It's not going from WB to AH.

Even as recently as pre 2.15, the corsair in this game was a dog. NOBODY used it. NOBODY turned with it. It was worse than a P-47 in every aspect. All of a sudden it gets HALF the turn radius it used to get so whoopdedoo everybody's out-turning spitties in 'em now.

More to do with the airflow recode than with the plane specs per se.

Same issue with the LW planes and the airflow recode. 190As couldn't turn (even gently) under 200mph without nasty tip stalling. Not even steady turns. 109s had this wierd flop-drop-wingtipgobyebye issues sometimes, and it was odd as well. That got fixed with the airflow fix, as well as their flaps now being usable closer to 200mph (instead of the slower speeds before this).

A lot of little things changed in 2.15/2.16/whatever it was.

[mechanic]

Not really BnZ, I don't think you can relate stall speed directly to turn radius as a general rule. Maybe I'm wrong but if we used that rule the C47 should have a tiny turn radius with flaps out. I Think krusty was more concerned with stability and CoG than turn radius?

[Stoney]

What factors were changed that impacted the Hog family so much? Why did it only enhance that aircraft design?

This is the key question.  We've even had some threads discussing potential issues, but as of yet, I've not seen an explanation from HTC from an aerodynamic perspective. 

[BnZs]

Not really BnZ, I don't think you can relate stall speed directly to turn radius as a general rule. Maybe I'm wrong but if we used that rule the C47 should have a tiny turn radius with flaps out. I Think krusty was more concerned with stability and CoG than turn radius?

In point of fact, "how slow can it fly" is the primary factor that goes into turn radius. Not rate, but radius, yes.

On one episode of "Dogfights" there was the case of a Corsair pilot who got into a flat scissors with a Val. Did not spin, did not end up out in front, throttled down, dropped flaps, got behind and shot the thing down.

The F4U had a nasty spin that was hard to recover from. I've seen pilots in AH put one in a spin and fall spinning all the way to deck. However, most pilots simply don't spin the thing, or anything else they are flying, very often in AH. Blame the stall-horn and the "buffet". Carrier landing in this game are super-easy as long as you remember to lower the hook, if they were not, THEN we might have real occasion to see why this thing was called "ensign eliminator". Ironically, in-game landing on a runway is where you are more liable to run into the plane's "bad side".

[mechanic]

In point of fact, "how slow can it fly" is the primary factor that goes into turn radius. Not rate, but radius, yes.

ah indeed, that is my error, i was thinking of turn rate not radius. Thanks for the correction. 

SO the radius can be very small but a bigger plane would probably be flying at a much slower speed round the circle?

[Stoney]

ah indeed, that is my error, i was thinking of turn rate not radius. Thanks for the correction. 

SO the radius can be very small but a bigger plane would probably be flying at a much slower speed round the circle?

Absolutely.

[Urchin]

This is the key question.  We've even had some threads discussing potential issues, but as of yet, I've not seen an explanation from HTC from an aerodynamic perspective. 

Actually I believe Hitech and Pyro both said that absolutely nothing changed with the flight modelling of any planes.  I'd have to do some digging to find the exact quotes though.

[Stoney]

Actually I believe Hitech and Pyro both said that absolutely nothing changed with the flight modelling of any planes.  I'd have to do some digging to find the exact quotes though.

This thread, and it speaks generally of some fairly important aerodynamic updates:  http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,173569.0.html

I've never heard a more voluminous explanation than what is listed in that thread, nor do I have any idea how much these changes impacted the whole plane set, from a relative perspective.  We all know that the F4U saw a benefit (with flaps) and that the Pony saw some performance loss (without flaps).  Given that both of these apparent changes involved low-speed performance, I assume it wasn't merely from flaps.

[Vulcan]

Even as recently as pre 2.15, the corsair in this game was a dog. NOBODY used it. NOBODY turned with it. It was worse than a P-47 in every aspect. All of a sudden it gets HALF the turn radius it used to get so whoopdedoo everybody's out-turning spitties in 'em now.

Sorry krusty but that's not true - sometimes I wonder if you're playing the same game as the rest of us. There have been plenty of good hog drivers across the years (torque was nasty) and the CV's always encouraged hog use. I wonder what HT rates your post on the 'krusty scale'

[Masherbrum]

You forgot about the Ki-61. 

[BnZs]

You forgot about the Ki-61. 

It's turn went down with the Pony's didn't it?

[Stoney]

Yes, I forgot that one, but same thing on clean turning as the Pony.

[Masherbrum]

It's turn went down with the Pony's didn't it?

Ki-61 pretty much turned with the FM-2 in WWII testing.   Not in here though and I can get it turning tight, but could only imagine if the numbers were "closer" to the FM-2.   

[texastc316]

The F4's zoom is less than AH1. You could get all your alt back from a 6-8k dive IIRC