Author Topic: Will 190 rollrate be fixed in new revision ? (Read 1382 times)

Hristo · « **Reply #45 on:** July 19, 2001, 05:05:00 AM »

Seems 190 is 20% off at 350 mph.

Interestingly enough, two more planes are off at 350 IAS:

Spit IX - AH: 81 deg/sec, NACA: 59 deg/sec (27% off)

P47D-11 - AH:98 deg/sec, NACA: 74 (P-47C-1-RE) (24% off)

P-51 does 92vs96, could be error in test, only 4%

niklas · « **Reply #46 on:** July 19, 2001, 06:11:00 AM »

it is very quesionable that a real fighter version of the 190 had such hard aillerons. I mean, every pilot was fascinated by the very light aillerons of the 190 even in a fast flight, and according to the naca document you need 50lb stickforce already at 250mph - this is imo a contradiction.
Also german pilots reported that you can do a 180° roll in less than a second.

niklas

Hristo · « **Reply #47 on:** July 19, 2001, 06:15:00 AM »

check out these puppies

I tested few AH planes and compared it to NACA table.

190 rolls too slow by some 5-10 deg/sec until its peak. At 350 it is 20 deg/sec too fast.

Spit is too fast by 20 deg/sec most of the time. Only at 200 mph it is 5 deg/sec too slow.

P51B is off by modest 10 deg/sec all the time.

P47D-11 (if that is the same version) is off by 25-30 deg/sec

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]

Hristo · « **Reply #48 on:** July 19, 2001, 06:21:00 AM »

In case the pic doesn't show, you can download it here:

Jekyll · « **Reply #49 on:** July 19, 2001, 06:26:00 AM »

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Jekyll ]

Staga · « **Reply #50 on:** July 19, 2001, 06:28:00 AM »

HTC fixed Typhoons rollrate already and I'm sure they fix others too if numbers are off from "Real numbers".

Nashwan · « **Reply #51 on:** July 19, 2001, 07:22:00 AM »

Hristo, I make the Spit rolling far too slowly at all speeds.
You are comparing it to the clipped wing Spit aren't you? It was after all far more common than the F IX we have now.

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]

Hristo · « **Reply #52 on:** July 19, 2001, 07:28:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan:
Hristo, I make the Spit rolling far too slowly at all speeds.
You are comparing it to the clipped wing Spit aren't you? It was after all far more common than the F IX we have now.

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]

LOL, the lengths some people go.

109 is too slow, it should be as fast as that other Messerschmitt

. Yeah, 262 was the number !

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #53 on:** July 19, 2001, 08:10:00 AM »

Hristo, he's saying you can't compare a clipped wing Spitfire's roll rate with a regular wing Spitfire IX F.

The results will be totally different.
-SW

Hristo · « **Reply #54 on:** July 19, 2001, 09:15:00 AM »

No, he is saying that I should stay away from Spit IXF because they don't have clipped wing Spit in AH yet.

I was comparing normal wing Spit to our Spit IX, and you can see the results.

Nashwan · « **Reply #55 on:** July 19, 2001, 09:25:00 AM »

Hristo, you were whinging that the Spit rolls too fast, when in reality the AH Spit is the worst possible model. It is 20mph too slow below 20k, climbs about 1000ft/min too poorly, and rolls far too slowly. It should be compared to a real 1943 Spitfire, not a never-produced fantasy model we have in AH.
The Spit is also a lot slower than the Meteor, but bringing jets into an argument about mainstream prop planes is stupid.
There were only 350 Spit F IXs with Merlin 61s produced. None had the E armament, and as far as I can tell none remained in service with that underpowered engine past early 43. So no, you can't compare the AH figure to the Naca chart because the AH Spitfire didn't exist.
Hristo, you started a thread to whine about the percieved injustices to the 190, and have found your assumption wrong. Why not complain that the RAF has no post 1942 fighter? Frightened you might not get so many easy kills?
Actually Hristo, 109 is too fast, the 109G10 is about 25mph faster than all the figures I have seen for it, but again you don't whine about that.

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]

Hooligan · « **Reply #56 on:** July 19, 2001, 09:30:00 AM »

Am I the only one who noticed this? In the 3 charts above which each show the AH 190 roll rate. None of these AH 190 roll rates match any of the other AH 190 roll rates.

Fix the AH 190 roll rate so that it matches the AH 190 roll rate!!!!

Hooligan

Hristo · « **Reply #57 on:** July 19, 2001, 09:35:00 AM »

All I did was to compare Spit roll rate in AH to the real thing. And test showed great discrepancy. Why so sensitive about it ?

190 seems to be spot on, except at high speeds. Other planes are too good. It should be corrected, don't you think so ?

As for the rest of your comments, they are at wrong address. I did not make the AH planeset.

I can't help but to notice RAF had the most dangerous plane in AH, the Tempest. Still, Germans were flying 262s at the time, so we need a 262 to balance the Tempest menace

.

P.S.
Cheap shot, Nashwan. I wasn't whining, but you are now.

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]

Nashwan · « **Reply #58 on:** July 19, 2001, 10:06:00 AM »

I take cheap shots on here, you take them in the game

As regards the 190 rollrate, it is too slow at low speed, too high at high speed. The fantasy AH Spit is too low at low speed, too high at high speed, and far to low at any speed for a more typical Spitfire IX.

I take it you will be campaigning to bring the Spit IX LF to AH next, now that your fears over the 190 rollrate have been eased? After all, the RAF is still the only country without an unperked 1943 plane. Or perhaps campaigning for the Dora to be perked, because it is a contemporary of the Tempest.
Or do you only fly a 1942 plane, like the 109G2? It surely can't be much of a test for someone of your skills to fly a Dora against a Spit F IX, can it?

Westy MOL · « **Reply #59 on:** July 19, 2001, 12:23:00 PM »

"Westy, im sorry to drag you into this but could you please maybe explain what I meant"

The same happens to me, but with some different folks

Basically it boils down to ALL folks here have to stop looking for a hidden agenda in what someone is pursuing to get changed or added in AH even if the poster (not saying you Grunherz nor SeaWulf) has a history of it.

I wish all the knee jerk reactions could be put away on a closet shelf but being the internet that will more than likely never happen. I'm guilty of if myself quite often and I don't set out to do it. Some folks don;t even try though and that is a shame.
It would be nice if we could ALL start discussing the merit of any issue for the issue itself, regardless of what any other aircraft has or what it can or cannot do. Nor whether any other aircraft/vehicle has a bug or error in modelling.

Pyro has more or less put this one to rest, for the time being.

I personally trust HTC to make things the best that they can and I also have absolute faith they are objective and that they do not allow favoritism to effect thier work. That's not professional and these folks are top notch professionals (imo of course).

Case closed!

Judge Woppner

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]