How does the F4U-1A beat the Spit 16

[Ack-Ack]

my argument is that spit should win the maneuver fight, that is all ...

And it will in most cases unless the pilot in the Spitfire is extremely clueless.  I don't think anyone in this thread and denied that but you also fail to realize that there are some parts in the flight envelope where some of these 'bigger' aircraft have an advantage over the Spitfire in a maneuver fight, these areas you seem to ignore since it goes against your beliefs on how a plane should fly.


ack-ack

[BnZs]

since the hog is @ 2x the weight yet not nearly 2x the size of the spit it can not hope to get enough air resistance to change the direction of it's velocity vector as quickly as the spitfire 16.

The "size" of the aircraft is not a factor. For the umpteenth time, the primary factor under consideration as regards turn radius is the lift of the wing in relation to to the weight of the aircraft. Which for the SpitXVI and F4U-1A, is actually fairly similar in flaps down configuration, or as Hitech said, "Just look at the stall speeds"

[BnZs]

What is strange is that the numbers can be tested very quickly in game, yet you guys sit here arguing which is best with out spending 20 mins running some tests in game.

HiTech

Oh, we all already know the numbers for the SpitXVI and F4U-1A in-game. F4Us have a slightly smaller turn radius with full flaps, SpitXVI has a decided edge in sustained rate with flaps and without.

We have moved past the fun ACM-chess discussion and are now going merrily round with someone straight-facedly espousing the theory that in reality the lighter airplane should always out-turn heavier one, and by implication claiming that you pulled in-game F4U performance straight from thin air with no basis in real aerodynamics.

[thorsim]

the only one making stuff up is you when you project into my posts ...

please address what i post, not what your imagination leads you to think i posted ...

t

Oh, we all already know the numbers for the SpitXVI and F4U-1A in-game. F4Us have a slightly smaller turn radius with full flaps, SpitXVI has a decided edge in sustained rate with flaps and without.

We have moved past the fun ACM-chess discussion and are now going merrily round with someone straight-facedly espousing the theory that in reality the lighter airplane should always out-turn heavier one, and by implication claiming that you pulled in-game F4U performance straight from thin air with no basis in real aerodynamics.

[Waffle]

your picture is cute but you have left out quite a few aircraft many of which out turned the spit 16 ...
spits 1-5, 109s E&Fs, yak 3?, laggs?, prolly the maccis, the hurris, some others as well ...

Not sure of the particulars, but the wasn't hurricane larger and heavier than the spitfire?

[thorsim]

Not sure of the particulars, but the wasn't hurricane larger and heavier than the spitfire?

the spit 16? don't think so but i was referring to the earlier hurris not sure about the later hurris but still think 16 heavier ...

[BnZs]

Not sure of the particulars, but the wasn't hurricane larger and heavier than the spitfire?

Yep.

For that matter, the Hurri MkI is also larger than the 109E. Guess all that scuttlebutt from the BoB about the Hurri being the tighter turner was wrong, aye Thorsim?

[BnZs]

the only one making stuff up is you when you project into my posts ...

please address what i post, not what your imagination leads you to think i posted ...

t

You have been demonstrated to be either almost unbelievably ignorant on a particular point of aerodynamics or deliberately misleading. You have more than once in this particular thread stated that you believe that absolute weight rather than lift-loading is some sort of factor in an aircraft's maneuverability. This goes in the hall of fame with other outlandish nonsense about aerodynamics you have pulled out of thin air,like some of your "ideas" about flaps. Don't try to obfuscate or wriggle out of it.

This whole thread into your general pattern of kvitching because you are unhappy with the relative turn performance of 190s and obliquely accusing the designer of the game of being absolutely clueless about flight physics, which is really ironic coming from someone with your notions. Well, if you find turn-fighting difficult in the 190s, blame Kurt Tank for designing the thing with such a high-loading, don't blame Hitech for modeling the physics of the thing correctly.

[thorsim]

heavier than the 16 the hurri 1 ... you sure ?

Not sure of the particulars, but the wasn't hurricane larger and heavier than the spitfire?

Yep.

For that matter, the Hurri MkI is also larger than the 109E. Guess all that scuttlebutt from the BoB about the Hurri being the tighter turner was wrong, aye Thorsim?

[thorsim]

Yep.

For that matter, the Hurri MkI is also larger than the 109E. Guess all that scuttlebutt from the BoB about the Hurri being the tighter turner was wrong, aye Thorsim?

3 tons heavier like what we are talking about b and z ???

any other pointless points you wanna make?

[thorsim]

not the wing loading of the 190 i expressed my doubts about BandZ but go ahead and continue with your fairie tales ...

suspension of disbelief is easy for you as your arguments clearly show ...

pretty comical you suggesting that any a8 hitech ever modeled has been correct, shows how much you pay attention.

do tell me which a8 do we have? i mean relative to a real a8 that is.

enough of you  ...

can't wait to see your 6000bhp 15,000lb aerobatic plane with the 300 foot wingspan ...

obviously flying circles around the extras ...

let me know when you sort that out ok  

t

You have been demonstrated to be either almost unbelievably ignorant on a particular point of aerodynamics or deliberately misleading. You have more than once in this particular thread stated that you believe that absolute weight rather than lift-loading is some sort of factor in an aircraft's maneuverability. This goes in the hall of fame with other outlandish nonsense about aerodynamics you have pulled out of thin air,like some of your "ideas" about flaps. Don't try to obfuscate or wriggle out of it.

This whole thread into your general pattern of kvitching because you are unhappy with the relative turn performance of 190s and obliquely accusing the designer of the game of being absolutely clueless about flight physics, which is really ironic coming from someone with your notions. Well, if you find turn-fighting difficult in the 190s, blame Kurt Tank for designing the thing with such a high-loading, don't blame Hitech for modeling the physics of the thing correctly.

[RTHolmes]

fairy tales? thats pretty rich coming from someone who posts vague nonsense like:

since the hog is @ 2x the weight yet not nearly 2x the size of the spit it can not hope to get enough air resistance to change the direction of it's velocity vector as quickly as the spitfire 16.

so .. the 16 has better (instantanious/sustained?) turn (radius/rate?) than F4U because it has higher total drag? wth?

I'm more inclined to listen to BnZs at this point ...

[Angus]

*cough*
The Hurricane is slightly bigger than the Spit, and slightly heavier AFAIK. Wing loading is in the same ballpark with the Spitfire in favour AFAIK.
It's slower, it dives slower, it's lighter on the roll at some speeds, it's more stable, and it can almost land on a tuppence. It is recorded to out turn the Spitfire. Now, I am talking about two aircraft with exactly the same engine.
Tell me Thorsim, why do you think this is the case? Surely an aircraft with higher wingloading would dive better, zoom better, and have similar top speed, as well as according to physics it should turn worse???
Please enlighten

[BnZs]

not the wing loading of the 190 i expressed my doubts about BandZ but go ahead and continue with your fairie tales ...

suspension of disbelief is easy for you as your arguments clearly show ...

pretty comical you suggesting that any a8 hitech ever modeled has been correct, shows how much you pay attention.

do tell me which a8 do we have? i mean relative to a real a8 that is.

enough of you  ...

Demonstrate what is wrong the with the A8 if you can, instead of spouting nonsense about flight physics and you might get results.

can't wait to see your 6000bhp 15,000lb aerobatic plane with the 300 foot wingspan ...

obviously flying circles around the extras ...

let me know when you sort that out ok  

If you built with a 15,000 lbs aircraft with a lower lift loading  and higher power loading than the Extras, then indeed it would fly circles around them. Not all that hard to comprehend. Just like the larger F4U or Hellcat will fly circles around any 190 in turning combat. It would take all of five minutes for you to crack any aerodynamic text and learn that is the ratio of power and lift to weight that defines performance, not absolute weight, yet you refuse to admit your error.

[BnZs]

Don't forget that the Hurri has a fatter, higher lift airfoil. That is why it is important to speak of lift loading and not just basic wing loading. The latter will give you a ball park estimate only.

Easiest way to compare the ratio of lift/weight for two craft in a given configuration is to compare stall speeds in that configuration.

*cough*
The Hurricane is slightly bigger than the Spit, and slightly heavier AFAIK. Wing loading is in the same ballpark with the Spitfire in favour AFAIK.
It's slower, it dives slower, it's lighter on the roll at some speeds, it's more stable, and it can almost land on a tuppence. It is recorded to out turn the Spitfire. Now, I am talking about two aircraft with exactly the same engine.
Tell me Thorsim, why do you think this is the case? Surely an aircraft with higher wingloading would dive better, zoom better, and have similar top speed, as well as according to physics it should turn worse???
Please enlighten