Plane vs Plane Tactics (Matchups)

[dedalos]

If HT even thinks about locking this thread, I will demand for this months subscription money back    

This thread is teh funny  

[thorsim]

once again only partly accurate, my point is that the dive flap slows down the airframe, your point was that the deployment of the dive flap allows the 38 to achieve a higher mach number before it looses controllability.  

both are true

in the real world as i assure you if you deploy the flap in level flight in the real world you will increase drag and slow down.

when you deploy it in a power on dive it will change the way the plane reacts tot he airflow and allow it to dive faster.

 

This is the one where you had no clue as to how the dive flaps worked in the P-38 and showed a general lack of understanding how flaps worked in general.  I also think this was the thread the AAR was posted in when you wanted someone to post something that showed a P-38 pilot using flaps in a fight.  

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,275682.0.html

ack-ack

[Baumer]

What exactly limits the F-104 from being used as a reference point for your argument. Of course it was designed with a different intent, as a high speed point interceptor, but your position has been that a smaller lighter plane should out maneuver a larger heavier plane.

This is a clear example of contemporary fighters, in which one clearly out maneuvers another, and it's contrary to your position.

The hart of the matter (if you read my earlier post) is that maneuvering (turning) for any aircraft, comes down to two primary factors, Maximum Lift Coefficient and Load Factor, at the stall/buffet point. Weight plays a part in the load factor but it is not the sole determining element (or even the primary component) in determining a aircraft's turning performance. Any of the real aeronautical engineers please step in and correct any mistakes I might have made.
   

[mtnman]

thank you for the offer when are you in the DA/TA?

I don't keep "regular" hours, since I have a very busy RL schedule.  About the best I can do is give you some times I plan to be available, and see if they mesh with you at all.  I plan to be online tonight, from about 10pm -2am Central.  Again on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights, at about the same time (unless my family schedule interferes, which I don't expect).

However, anytime you notice I'm online, just toss me a message and I'll drop what I'm doing to swing over to the TA.  

We can work in the DA too, but I don't do that as often.  No damage in the TA is nice, since we're working on learning not on shooting each other down.

[thorsim]

yes sir i exploit that regularly.  i am however of the opinion that the liabilities are underrepresented in several ways.  real world testing has been elusive to prove it one way or the other and i am left with just several warnings in the POHs of some aircraft to support my POV.

 

Extreme flap deflections aren't the best option here in AH either.  It's a "known" but not necessarily "followed" fact.  Anything beyond 20 degrees in the F4U, for example, begins to hurt you...

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271266.0.html

[WMLute]

yes sir i exploit that regularly.  i am however of the opinion that the liabilities are underrepresented in several ways.  real world testing has been elusive to prove it one way or the other and i am left with just several warnings in the POHs of some aircraft to support my POV.

Didn't you just post that POH's were biased?

[CAP1]

i would like to test with someone here.

but since i think this is an ego thing for you, and since and per the rules of dueling, i now have the choice of weapons i will be happy to meet you in WB P/D  
in the FW-190a8 full gas tanks dropped at = speed head to head merge at 20k.
no guns till after good merge is agreed and the tanks are dropped.

say 1:45 eastern us?

not that that would prove much other than how well you can take a beating.  although possibly the same relevance as your proposal in regards to this discussion.

actually, i'll fight ya in 38 vs 38 at 20k. those are some fun fights. it has to be in ah though, as this is the only sim i fly.

i think it'll be fun for both.....and i have no ego to be bruised. my p38's only cost me 50 cents a day.

[Spikes]

once again only partly accurate, my point is that the dive flap slows down the airframe, your point was that the deployment of the dive flap allows the 38 to achieve a higher mach number before it looses controllability. 

both are true

in the real world as i assure you if you deploy the flap in level flight in the real world you will increase drag and slow down.

when you deploy it in a power on dive it will change the way the plane reacts tot he airflow and allow it to dive faster.

 

Yet this is not real life, in the GAME when in level flight it does not slow you down at all, but as ack ack said it does give you a little more time in a dive.

[CAP1]

once again only partly accurate, my point is that the dive flap slows down the airframe, your point was that the deployment of the dive flap allows the 38 to achieve a higher mach number before it looses controllability.  

both are true

in the real world as i assure you if you deploy the flap in level flight in the real world you will increase drag and slow down.

when you deploy it in a power on dive it will change the way the plane reacts tot he airflow and allow it to dive faster.

 

the dive recovery flap changes the lift of the wing......and accordingly causes it to pitch nose up.

and they DO NOT allow you to dive faster. you can still enter compression with them deployed.

[thorsim]

sir my premise RE to size and weight is that they are factors along with the loadings, i never suggested they were more important than the loadings.  in the case of the f-104 the sacrifice of so much wing size in the quest for pure speed makes it a poor comparison aircraft for a discussion that is basically ...

"if all the loadings are similar imo the lighter smaller aircraft should have the edge in maneuverability"

i never suggested that other advantages would not come into play in my tendency to favor smaller lighter in the maneuver fight.  

per the beginning of this thread i feel that the 109 should have the maneuver advantage over the f4u not in the least part because of their relative size.

on page 15 of this thread under the realization that the real world proof i was asking for was so elusive, i expressed my desire to discontinue participation in this discussion for a while, many found that unacceptable so i am since have been addressing specific points and counter points.

    

What exactly limits the F-104 from being used as a reference point for your argument. Of course it was designed with a different intent, as a high speed point interceptor, but your position has been that a smaller lighter plane should out maneuver a larger heavier plane.

This is a clear example of contemporary fighters, in which one clearly out maneuvers another, and it's contrary to your position.

The hart of the matter (if you read my earlier post) is that maneuvering (turning) for any aircraft, comes down to two primary factors, Maximum Lift Coefficient and Load Factor, at the stall/buffet point. Weight plays a part in the load factor but it is not the sole determining element (or even the primary component) in determining a aircraft's turning performance. Any of the real aeronautical engineers please step in and correct any mistakes I might have made.
  

[thorsim]

yes i did, however all the things in the POHs are clearly not represented in the game at the same strict level.

are they.

Didn't you just post that POH's were biased?

[thorsim]

i am all up for fun, i got a different impression from the previous offer, and to my credit i did offer to test with him.

actually, i'll fight ya in 38 vs 38 at 20k. those are some fun fights. it has to be in ah though, as this is the only sim i fly.

i think it'll be fun for both.....and i have no ego to be bruised. my p38's only cost me 50 cents a day.

[thorsim]

well imo it should do both in the game as well. 

i did not disagree that it allowed a higher mach number after i looked into the structure more closely, but that did not change my observation that the structure would slow you down if used the way i proposed when i first brought it up in that thread.

Yet this is not real life, in the GAME when in level flight it does not slow you down at all, but as ack ack said it does give you a little more time in a dive.

[thorsim]

i got a different impression when i looked into it, and of course it will still enter "compression" at some point. 

the dive recovery flap changes the lift of the wing......and accordingly causes it to pitch nose up.

and they DO NOT allow you to dive faster. you can still enter compression with them deployed.

[Ack-Ack]

once again only partly accurate, my point is that the dive flap slows down the airframe, your point was that the deployment of the dive flap allows the 38 to achieve a higher mach number before it looses controllability.  

both are true

in the real world as i assure you if you deploy the flap in level flight in the real world you will increase drag and slow down.

when you deploy it in a power on dive it will change the way the plane reacts tot he airflow and allow it to dive faster.

 

The P-38's dive flaps didn't change the airflow to allow it to dive faster, nor did it act as an 'air brake' like you think it did.  Any drag that was associated with the dive flaps was minimul and did not slow the plane down in any appreciable fashion just by having them deployed.  As was explained to you, any speed loss from the dive flaps being deployed was a result of the nose pitching up from the change of the airflow and not the drag associated with the dive flaps.


ack-ack