Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests

[hitech]

Thorism wrote.

please do not infer that someone needs to have all the resources of the NOAA in order to accurately state that it is raining in a discussion that is taking place outside where everyone is getting wet.

You in no way can be sure it is raining because again you make 1 conclusion with out any research, just because you are getting wet does not imply it is raining.

1. You could be under a tree and a monkey could be peeing on everyone.
2. Everyone could be standing under a sprinkler.
3. Kids could be shooting you with squirt guns.

So again you fail completely to simply show if it is raining or not. Because you want to ignore all other information and only choose the information you wish to consider. I.E. you are getting wet, there you want to say it is raining.

As stoney also states, you use hyperbole because only you are getting wet, and everyone else is nice and dry, yet you want to insist it is raining with out 1 other observation .

[Raptor]

right, so if what the historic reference says is true in the game why would the 38 pilot enter that fight in AH unless in the game his is experiencing more success than the historic reference states that he should.

also the historic reference states ...

"For greatest maneuverability we have found that the maneuvering flaps should be extended only long enough to complete the particular maneuver and then be retracted immediately"

that is far less than your apparent understanding according to this statement here.

"You gain maneuverability in flight with the flaps extended"

as maneuvering flaps as your source stated only helps in some maneuvers.  

i am not sure what flaps might have to do with over-stressing your airframe, as i believe you can do that whatever your flap state.  

btw Thomas McGuire died doing those things we regularly get away with in the game because it has been made more survivable ...

WHICH HAS RESULTED IN AN ARTIFICIAL EXTENSION OF THE BIG PLANES ENVELOPE RELATIVE TO THE REST OF THE SET  

not surprised, we just want different things from the video game, it is disappointing that that results in contempt from some of you though.  

Why do you comment on the few things in what I posted (which I further elaborated on because I had a hunch you would twist them) yet ignore the other statements? What about Murdrs' description of Thomas McGuire's squadron getting into dogfights at 90mph on a regular basis (yes he did die during his final flight, but he managed to get many kills prior to that incident in that fashion. Not to mention he was doing it with Drop tanks on, which we have excluded to mention thus far)

So don't take only tidbits that only support your opinion, take all of the facts into consideration. For when you start ignoring facts is when you move from ignorance into the irrational.

[thorsim]

right all those things could be happening, but it also could be raining couldn't it ...

the thing is we could kill the pissing monkey, turn off the sprinkler, and beat the kids ...

thunderstorms being what they are, in that case we are pretty much screwed and gonna get wet.

until either we go away or it stops raining anyway.  

i am sure we both understands each others points on the matter.

t

Thorism wrote.

You in no way can be sure it is raining because again you make 1 conclusion with out any research, just because you are getting wet does not imply it is raining.

1. You could be under a tree and a monkey could be peeing on everyone.
2. Everyone could be standing under a sprinkler.
3. Kids could be shooting you with squirt guns.

So again you fail completely to simply show if it is raining or not. Because you want to ignore all other information and only choose the information you wish to consider. I.E. you are getting wet, there you want to say it is raining.

As stoney also states, you use hyperbole because only you are getting wet, and everyone else is nice and dry, yet you want to insist it is raining with out 1 other observation .

[thorsim]

because you are trying to use specific anomalies to counter general statements.  i can find specific rarely experienced exceptions to every general rule of air combat.  the thing is in the real world those are exceptions, when they are given too much prominence in a FM decision process they tend to become the rule rather than the exception.   

Why do you comment on the few things in what I posted (which I further elaborated on because I had a hunch you would twist them) yet ignore the other statements? What about Murdrs' description of Thomas McGuire's squadron getting into dogfights at 90mph on a regular basis (yes he did die during his final flight, but he managed to get many kills prior to that incident in that fashion. Not to mention he was doing it with Drop tanks on, which we have excluded to mention thus far)

So don't take only tidbits that only support your opinion, take all of the facts into consideration. For when you start ignoring facts is when you move from ignorance into the irrational.

[hitech]

right all those things could be happening, but it also could be raining couldn't it ...

the thing is we could kill the pissing monkey, turn off the sprinkler, and beat the kids ...

thunderstorms being what they are, in that case we are pretty much screwed and gonna get wet.

until either we go away or it stops raining anyway.  

i am sure we both understands each others points on the matter.

t

Your only point is you are all wet.

HiTech

[Raptor]

because you are trying to use specific anomalies to counter general statements.  i can find specific rarely experienced exceptions to every general rule of air combat.  the thing is in the real world those are exceptions, when they are given too much prominence in a FM decision process they tend to become the rule rather than the exception.   

You may consider them anomalies, but they were still possible. The physics did not change for one day, then go back to normal. In AH we have unlimited hours and lives to learn the ins and outs of how to fly the planes to their true limits, that we wouldn't dare try to reach if our lives were at stake.

If they were anomalies, why then, did so many P38 pilots encounter these rarely experienced exceptions on the 38's maneuverability?

[thorsim]

are you sure? do you have any data to prove that?

oh wait, never mind.

t

Your only point is you are all wet.

HiTech

[thorsim]

yes you have all the time and lives you need to find out exactly what the "true" VIDEO GAME limits are.

the real world pilots did not enjoy the time, multiple lives, and were operating under different limits. 
that is why things tended to be different historically.  were the virtual consequences more realistic, the results and game play would follow. IMO

You may consider them anomalies, but they were still possible. The physics did not change for one day, then go back to normal. In AH we have unlimited hours and lives to learn the ins and outs of how to fly the planes to their true limits, that we wouldn't dare try to reach if our lives were at stake.

If they were anomalies, why then, did so many P38 pilots encounter these rarely experienced exceptions on the 38's maneuverability?

[Boxboy]

  gets a picture of Thor peeing in the wind 

[thorsim]

more like trying to end rent control ...

the results can look very similar ...

until next time guys ...

t

gets a picture of Thor peeing in the wind 

[hammer]

...were the virtual consequences more realistic, the results and game play would follow. IMO

You have finally hit on what, in essence, many people have tried to tell you. Ask murdr how many times he crashed while learning the limits of the 38. Or any other experienced player the same question about their plane of choice. We have limitless opportunities to learn the absolute limit of our plane(s) of choice in limitless situations.

All but the newest pilots in Aces High have more victories than the leading ace of the war. Many people get that many victories each month. We get away with things that wouldn't be tried IRL because this isn't real life and, if at first we don't succeed, we can try again. Real pilots didn't have that opportunity because one mistake often ended their learning opportunities.

If your main complaint is a plane that is traditionally a BnZ plane saddles up on you and kills you, I would suggest a little reading on energy. Most of those planes might be able to get slow and turn that tight circle, but that usually leaves them vulnerable to a good TnB plane's normal advantage in gaining E. Not always, but you get multiple lives to figure it out!

Regards,

Hammer

[Chalenge]

Your only point is you are all wet.

HiTech

Too funny!

[thorsim]

You have finally hit on what, in essence, many people have tried to tell you. Ask murdr how many times he crashed while learning the limits of the 38. Or any other experienced player the same question about their plane of choice. We have limitless opportunities to learn the absolute limit of our plane(s) of choice in limitless situations.

i understand that opportunity to explore is a factor, it is not the only factor and it is limited to the FM limits, another factor is that the "absolute limits" are different FMs to reality, as has also been noted by many of you in other threads and those are the limits i think should be addressed.

All but the newest pilots in Aces High have more victories than the leading ace of the war. Many people get that many victories each month. We get away with things that wouldn't be tried IRL because this isn't real life and, if at first we don't succeed, we can try again. Real pilots didn't have that opportunity because one mistake often ended their learning opportunities.

 

i don't believe i have not said that that was a factor, it is the people arguing with me that are not accounting for other factors like the difference between the limits themselves.  

If your main complaint is a plane that is traditionally a BnZ plane saddles up on you and kills you, I would suggest a little reading on energy.

i fly the a8 mostly because as i have pointed out i enjoy more of a challenge than most seem to want in here.
doing that my k/d is some 5x better than the average a8 pilot in here.  point being that compared to most i could write the book on energy in these games.  at least compared to the B&Z pilot who likes to "saddle up" i suggest you read a little on energy and see how truly unlikely that would be in TRW.

Most of those planes might be able to get slow and turn that tight circle, but that usually leaves them vulnerable to a good TnB plane's normal advantage in gaining E. Not always, but you get multiple lives to figure it out!

problems in bold, lets try this on for size ...

Most of those planes might be able to get slow and turn that tight circle, but that will always leave them at a disadvantage to a better TnB plane.  negating their advantage in gaining E. always "."
you get multiple lives to figure that out, so even the "slowest" learn that given the choice, you do not want to fight in the other guys area of advantage, ever.

when you can say the above, then you will be getting closer to reality and the game gains back a dimension it has lost from it's origin games.

respectfully returned

+S+

t

[Karnak]

thorsim,

It sounds like you want a more binary game.  Something like X-Wing vs TIE Fighter where you know that the TIE Fighter will always out turn the X-Wing and there is no question about what to do with each unit.


Reality is a lot messier than that though, and AH does a good job of showing that compared to older flight models that were more like X-Wing vs TIE Fighter.  WWII aircraft designers were still learning a lot about aerodynamics and what works and does not work.  Consequently almost all WWII fighters had performance that varied wildly depending on the speed, altitude and other factors.

Sometimes the Fw190 did out turn the Spitfire.

[thorsim]

i realize that, however each plane had its advantages and disadvantages over every other plane as well.

once again my point is these features did not change that so the planes tended to not have very much success vs. other planes in the other planes fights.  there really is not much picking away to be done with that argument.

look at the mig 15 vs. the f-86, you will not likely find a more closely matched pair of opponents, even so each had its fights and with comparable pilots the one who stuck to his advantages better almost always won the "fights" (one must exclude non fight examples like surprise bounces and poor pilots of course)

where the differences are wide i fail to see how there could be much of a argument against my point as i would not give much of a chance for the p-51 or the jugg vs say a spitfire in a low and slow turn fight no matter how much flap was used or who was piloting each aircraft.  the american planes are not designed or suited for that kind of fight vs. a spitfire that excelled in it.  i requested a different opinion from an expert before, and none was offered, i suspect because one could not be found.  

+S+

t

thorsim,

It sounds like you want a more binary game.  Something like X-Wing vs TIE Fighter where you know that the TIE Fighter will always out turn the X-Wing and there is no question about what to do with each unit.


Reality is a lot messier than that though, and AH does a good job of showing that compared to older flight models that were more like X-Wing vs TIE Fighter.  WWII aircraft designers were still learning a lot about aerodynamics and what works and does not work.  Consequently almost all WWII fighters had performance that varied wildly depending on the speed, altitude and other factors.

Sometimes the Fw190 did out turn the Spitfire.