Plane vs Plane Tactics (Matchups)

[Sol75]

I need to change one thing on my previous post, gravity is a constant, thus, if DRAG ratio, and WEIGHT ratios are the same, the airframes would accelrate at exactly the same rate, reference the experiment done by NASA on the moon, a feather, and a hammer, were both dropped. (In a vacuum with no drag). They both hit the ground at the exact same moment.  On earth, the rate of acceleration in descent is goverend by drag, not weight.

Sol

[WMLute]

Thorism.

It has become increasingly obvious you have little to no understanding about the subject matter.

Crack a book.

Take a class.

Take the time to better yourself on the subject.

In a few weeks (months/years) when you finally have a basic grasp on it all please post on this subject again.

We will happily accept your apology at that time.

[thorsim]

I need to change one thing on my previous post, gravity is a constant, thus, if DRAG ratio, and WEIGHT ratios are the same, the airframes would accelrate at exactly the same rate, reference the experiment done by NASA on the moon, a feather, and a hammer, were both dropped. (In a vacuum with no drag). They both hit the ground at the exact same moment.  On earth, the rate of acceleration in descent is goverend by drag, not weight.

Sol

ok but we have not included drag ratio as a constant, or i haven't in this discussion ...

Thorism.

It has become increasingly obvious you have little to no understanding about the subject matter.

Crack a book.

Take a class.

Take the time to better yourself on the subject.

In a few weeks (months/years) when you finally have a basic grasp on it all please post on this subject again.

We will happily accept your apology at that time.

you are once again projecting as i am not anywhere discounting factors brought up by others. 

ok so let me see if i can make the bridge here ...

since by the math the planes would perform the same, but also since the engineering problems make the path of least resistance the smaller lighter one, that is why the tendency is to smaller lighter when maneuverability is the key design desire.  

the lack of good examples are self explanatory, after some more thought, as why would anyone design a fighter or aerobatic plane larger than it needs to be.  so if the fighter is larger there is most likely some other design priority requiring it to be larger, and in that case all the loadings will not match up anyway.  

now i take your point about isolating factors.

in-fact i think that is what drags me into these round and round discussions as in the case of this discussion after review as the turn radius caused one to post the preference for the f4u in the "turn fight" however as i and many others expressed when maneuverability is taken in as more than turn radius terms the other factors may make that not the best course of action, and in this case i thought that in most instances the hog had a greater advantage set in a boom and zoom fight vs. the 109.  

BnZ mistook my post and the round and round discussion started.

i still have my scaling concerns but i will concede that there are no practical examples, and probably shouldn't be, and that weight and size are well enough represented with the loadings for all but the most theoretical of discussions that as stated have no real world examples for us to examine.

i think that is where i will leave this, if you guys don't mind.

+S+

t

[Sol75]

Drag is as vital to this discussion as any of the other factors indicated.

[thorsim]

Drag is as vital to this discussion as any of the other factors indicated.

yes sir, i agree. 

but i did not concede that the drag to power would be the same.

i think it would be very different in a significantly larger heavier plane with the same weight/wing/power ratios as a smaller lighter one, and posted drag and momentum as two problems not accounted for in the weight/wing/power matching ratios.   

[hitech]

yes sir, i agree. 

but i did not concede that the drag to power would be the same.

i think it would be very different in a significantly larger heavier plane with the same weight/wing/power ratios as a smaller lighter one, and posted drag and momentum as two problems not accounted for in the weight/wing/power matching ratios.   

Thor again, simply  read the 2 equations I wrote before about how lift and drag are related to wing area. Momentum is a linear function with respect to weight/mass
so again the ratio's will not change hence the 2 planes will preform the same.

The reason most of did not post about momentum and drag is that it is so obvious to us that we do not even consider the fact you may think they are different. I am not flaming you but to me and others it is almost like us having to prove to you 2 + 2 = 4.

HiTech

[Karnak]

Thorsim,

It gets a bit messy in here when things jump back and forth between hypotheticals and reality.

1) If you have two aircraft that have identical ratios, but one is twice the mass of the other their performance will be the same.

2) If you have two identical aircraft and then reduce the mass of one of them, the ratios are no longer the same and the lighter aircraft will perform better.  Reducing weight is the easiest thing to do to a given aircraft, hence Japanese pilots taking out their crappy radios or a Spitfire V pilot who took out his IFF, all armor and the machine guns.  They were improving the ratios of their aircraft in the only way they could.

[thorsim]

i believe i posted that on my attempt to withdraw ...

dealing with the difficulty between the hypotheticals and reality ...

if you could build both you guys say they would fly the same,

but could you build both is a big part of my part of my reservations.

as far as the comparisons pertinent to the game and the history there are always loading differences to find i guess ...

as far as math vs. reality my understanding is that designs often do not live up to their mathematic projections, even now, but i guess you will say those results can be explained in hindsight ...

Thorsim,

It gets a bit messy in here when things jump back and forth between hypotheticals and reality.

1) If you have two aircraft that have identical ratios, but one is twice the mass of the other their performance will be the same.

2) If you have two identical aircraft and then reduce the mass of one of them, the ratios are no longer the same and the lighter aircraft will perform better.  Reducing weight is the easiest thing to do to a given aircraft, hence Japanese pilots taking out their crappy radios or a Spitfire V pilot who took out his IFF, all armor and the machine guns.  They were improving the ratios of their aircraft in the only way they could.

[WMLute]

as far as math vs. reality my understanding is that designs often do not live up to their mathematic projections, even now, but i guess you will say those results can be explained in hindsight ...

Give one instance where that is true.

[saantana]

Thorism.

Introducing proper punctuation into your posts would go a long way in encouraging people to read them.

You automatically deflate the value of whatever you have to say by not following this simple rule.

[Karnak]

if you could build both you guys say they would fly the same,

but could you build both is a big part of my part of my reservations.

Yes, but you'd have to set out to do so from the start and be very precise about things.

It doesn't really matter though, because what it tells us can be applied even when things aren't exact.  The F4U-1A does not have double the power loading of a Spitfire Mk XIV, yet it has more mass and turns a tighter radius than the Spitfire and out rolls the Spitfire.  There is nothing wrong with that though as the F4U's wing loading is less than the Spitfire Mk XIV's, at least with flaps deployed.  The Spitfire Mk XIV out accelerates the F4U-1A and has a higher turn rate, just as the numbers predict.

[CAP1]

What was it about the 190 that he notice that should have killed the P-51 or made him worried if he flew it before the war?

if i'm remembering correctly, he liked its handling a LOT. it rolled like a sunofasqueak. it climbed incredibly. it turned better than most think. its guns package was nice.
 i think he said he felt it was at least equal to his mustang, and that with equal pilot skills, the loser would be the one to make the first mistake.

don't take this as a shot against the mustangs....and don't take this as he feared nothing when he flew, as he did.

 i wish this guy was still with us, as he was a cool ole guy. it was amazing when he started talking, as there'd be about 20 of us gathered around him, including young kids.
 

[CAP1]

yes, there are larger cockpits out there and ones with fewer bars, even for the 109s ...

i am not sure where that is relevant to this discussion, but i did watch.

to be honest, i didn't read every single post. too many pages and too little time.

 i think on the first page when you asked the question, bosco posted this:

Here's what I think:

P38 wins with E, F4U wins with turning ability
P40 wins.
F4u Wins.
109 wins E, F4U turn
F4U
Ki84
F4U

your reply was to highlight the 109 vs f4u, and reply with this:   

 that lead me to believe that it was impossible for the corsair to out turn the 109, and you seem to be claiming the planes ingame are mis modeled due to this.

 thus, my point in showing you that video, was a partial explanation of exactly why a corsair could out turn a 109, as you will have noticed that the pilot talking about that aircraft was describing the cockpit fairly accurately. i think he said "squeamishly claustrophobic" people would have trouble in it. he also noted that the stick couldn't be moved to its full deflection, as it would hit the pilots knees, thus decreasing from its handling ability.

[CAP1]

Not yet, I just acquired the aircraft last summer, I feel I need another good years worth of practice before I am ready to begin performing.  I am planning to attend Sean Tucker's school this coming summer, which generally leads to a few performances with him and his team, we shall see.  The plan is to begin peforming at some of the smaller shows in the summer of 2011, followed by "movin on up" to the larger shows as I gain experience and reputation.

Sol

i don;t know where you're based, but the flying w(N14) in south jersey has its own little airshow every year. 

[CAP1]

i just got it. i understand now.

thor is right.

hitech took the raw data, massaged it all to suit his purposes, and then ran his computer model.

 unfortunately, we can never prove this, as he threw out the original data.