Some 1.04 issues

[StSanta]

Before everyone gets their panties in a knot and call me a whiner, what follows are questions and my opinion. You don't like it, say so, but stop the whoopeeed "yer whining" post - I am sick and tired of this attitude that every issue brought up that might be negative about some aspects of the gmae being a "whine". So, with that in mind, for my sake, please just type "That's your opinions Mr StSanta" and I'll understand what you're saying without having to read the "waaah waaah" posts made by the usual suspects.

Was the F4U an angles fighter?

If not, why is it largely flown as one now? It seems to outturn an A8, which has about the same wingloading, and do it quite easily. It also keeps in e in turns a fair bit better. It should have something to do with wingloading and acceleration, IIRC. The discrepancy between the differences between A8 and F4U is too big for this to be the only explanation. Maybe someone can enlighten me?

109G10 fm - high speed handling much better? At 450IAS, it sure can turn without those nasty hi speed handling issues from 1.03.

Rudder induced slip drag - seems to me this is largely nonexistant. It was m impression that when you put a large fighter into a slide, you exposed more of the airframe to wind resistance, with a consequent drop of speed. Try a 109G10, 230IAS, @ 1k. Apply full rudder right. Watch speedometer.

Stalls - they seem to be much mucho mycket meget viel easier to get out of, and harder to get into. Is this realistic?

Lancaster climbrate - 1k/m, and going up with altitude?

Ostwind top panzer - seems there's a bug - not vulnerable from the top. One of those 20 bombs on the JU88 should destroy it if it hits right on top of it. (JU88 could be ultimate fekpantsie killer, dive bombing with 20 of those babies)

Panzer obsolete? With the Oswind carrying 1000 rounds, and a hangar taking only 100, this thing can destroy 10 hangars if you do not waste any ammo. It can also defend itself, and down those hangars a LOT faster than a pnz.

Icons disappearing when obstructed by bars - not sure this is so correct, as pilots in many cases could move their head a bit and keep the fighter in view. Doing so manually in AH takes too long/is too hard compared to real life, assuming moderate g-load.

Was almost outturned by Swager. I was flying a 109F4 with gondies - he a light G10. Doesn't seem like the 109F4's fm has changed that much.

I'll find some more minor issues, I am sure, but these are the things that have puzzled me this far.

For some reason, I think that there actually are a few people who aren't all that happy with the changes, but won't voice their concerns because of the whine police. This attitude ain't too good, I think.  Especially as HTC stated in the readme that there will be some glitches/idiosyncracies. Basically I'm urging you to have a little more patience when issues are brought up. Up to you of course, with free countries and all.

Lastly, it is very apparent that HTC has listened to us players. Big bellybutton kudos to HTC for this <S!>

------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime

[juzz]

F4U - read this.

Lancaster - Mk III had paddle blade propellors and 1640hp engines.

[leonid]

StSanta,

Of the big BnZ US fighters the Corsair was probably the most maneuverable.  It had good wing loading, and a great roll rate.  The P-47 was at the other end of the spectrum, whereas the P-51 was in the middle.

Help any?

[J_A_B]

In every sim I have played the F4U could outturn the FW-190 by a considerable, and could even outturn the P-51 by a hair.

I have never flown a plane, but I am guessing that if every flight sim is the same, then they're probably right--or at least as close ot being right as technology allows.

COmpared to the FW, the F4U has a distinctly lower wingloading, and a wing which generates less drag.  It weighs more, but it also has more power and a bigger propeller.  I see no reason why a F4U shouldn't be able to outturn a 190, in normal situations.

J_A_B

[funked]

Yep F4U has a significantly better wingloading than any 190.  Should be a little better at the roundy-round stuff.

Santa, gondolas with ammo are heavy.  I don't think you should be surprised that an Me 109F-4 with gondolas would turn about the same as a G-10.

As for the airframe drag, I think this is part of the problem with pre-1.04 AH versions - too much drag when you weren't flying straight.  I have no way to tell what amount of drag you should get from slipping, but the drag in turns seems to be much closer to flight test data, so I have a feeling it is right.  I need to do more testing though.

[wells]

 

Was the F4U an angles fighter?

Most definitely not!  Against japanese aircraft, it used it's speed to primary advantage.  Pilots were told to NEVER drop below 250 mph when the enemy was nearby.  Against a 190, sure, it can be an angles fighter!  It should have close to the worst e-retention of any other fighter though.  It's wing made alot of induced drag with having a low aspect ratio and not as much taper as most others.

 

Rudder induced slip drag - seems to me this is largely nonexistant. It was m
          impression that when you put a large fighter into a slide, you exposed more
          of the airframe to wind resistance, with a consequent drop of speed.

True!  But not nearly the drop in speed you would get by exposing the airframe AND the wing!  In the previous version, the speed was dropping even more than in a sustained turn, where the whole wing is also exposed.  That was not right.  Gee, your 109 ONLY does 230 mph with the rudder deflected?  That's alot of drag, think about it!

 

Stalls - they seem to be much mucho mycket meget viel easier to get out of,
          and harder to get into. Is this realistic?

It depends, generally speaking, yes, probably.  You really should have to be pretty ham fisted to stall it intentionally and centering the controls should give almost instant recovery.  Spins only became a problem after about 2 turns, then you had to actually apply corrective measures, in which the plane would recover within 1-2 turns.  I'm talking generally here...there were some exceptions (P-51 with full rear fuse tank and stuff).

Dunno about any of the rest...

[aircat]

 I am not an expert. but do say that the scale when a little to the far side on this. went from no E retention to not only retaining but gaining in mists of a dogfight.

 It is nice to nail a spit in a turn fight with a F4u. from my understanding the F4u's had great hi speed bank turns but wollowed once slow. now things feel like we have low top end jet planes.

 My big question is are the accel lines and turn, climb rates still accurate?

[StSanta]

Ok, thanks a lot for replies guys, it is appreciated.

One thing I didn't communicate well enough was what I meant with rudder slip.

When I am doing 230kts, on landing approach, what I usually did was hit rudder hard left or right. This exposed more of the ac to the wind, and the speed dropped.

When I do it now, I see a negligent speed loss. This doesn't really compute well to what I know about wind resistance and effects on speed. I might be wrong, but could someone explain the physics of why a moving object does not slow down when it suddenly increases  the area facing the wind, assuming no extra power is added?

Ok, gondies are heavy, and add drag, I'll buy that. I had no ammo left, so that weight can be reduced. Even so, I find it curious that a F4 cannot flat outturn a light g10. In 1.03. I was routinely outturned by Camo's G2 with gondolas, and the f4 is said to be more maneuverable.

If anyone could provide me with wingloading numbers for 190A5 and F4UC, I'd be happy  .


A question; the report mentioned that the test pilots were "familiarized" with the 190. How many hours would this mean, and how many hours did they have in the two other planes? Aye, I am suggesting that mayhap they failed to get maximum turning performance from the 190 due to inexperience.

Trying to load pag 3, but that site is slooow this night  .



------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime

[funked]

"This doesn't really compute well to what I know about wind resistance and effects on speed. I might be wrong, but could someone explain the physics of why a moving object does not slow down when it suddenly increases the area facing the wind, assuming no extra power is added?"

Because your rate of descent is decreasing at the same time?

F4U-1D ~12,000 lb, 313 ft^2 -> 38 lb/ft^2
Fw 190A-5 ~8700 lb, 197 ft^2 -> 44 lb/ft^2
Fw 190A-8 ~9500 lb, 197 ft^2 -> 48 lb/ft^2

At arena weights (some fuel burned off), the advantage for the Hog is even bigger, because it carries a greater amount of fuel as a fraction of total weight.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 09-09-2000).]

[StSanta]

No, funked, that's the thing. I am going almost straight.

Just made a film, but recorder seems to be bugged and it dinnae work.

Speed loss from gravity just keeping straight was the same or virtually the same on the approaches I made, one with full rudders, one without, 220 airspeed, 1k above ground.

Hope the recorder is fixed, so I can support this with a film.

Thanks for wingloading numbers. If it ain't too much to ask, could you post some for a true T&B, like the Spit IX?
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime

[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 09-10-2000).]

[funked]

Spit V ~6,500 lb, 242 ft^2 -> 27 lb/ft^2
Spit IX ~7,500 lb, 242 ft^2 -> 31 lb/ft^2

The plane should definitely have increased drag in a big slip, which would show up as a loss of speed or altitude if you have the engine at idle.  A guy posted something in the general forum about using full rudder and 90 bank with the P-51D and actually climbing.  That seems weird, and is worth checking out.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 09-10-2000).]

[juzz]

Gladiator: 15lb/sq ft!  

[jmccaul]

Sure we can have the Gladiator but only after the D9, 262, Ta 152, He 162(?), Do 335 , Me 163 and we have given the FW every concievable armament option it could concievably have had and include some it didn't have.

Oh and when the Gladiator does come, PERK IT


         

[funked]

Santa you are looking 100% correct on the rudder thing.  I finally did some flying, and I think they're going to have to patch that.  

Sorry I doubted you.  I didn't fly much the first 2 days, was too busy with the Ostwind GOD OF FIRE!!!  

[StSanta]

Hey np funkedup  .

That Ostwind sure is sweet. Takes out pnz's too, while taking as much damage as one.

That one needs to be fixed, too; with an open roof, it should be susceptible even to the German 20 and 30's if an attack is done at a good angle.



------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime