190A5 vs 190A8

[hitech]

Conclusion III combined with Conclusion IV says to me (let me bounce this off you - I'm hoping for further elaboration) that, as altitude increases, stall speed increases (no surprise) and that corner speed also increases (since typically occurring at stall). You indicate it increases beyond top - but is this just another way of saying that, with decreased rho and a given ClMax, V required to produce sufficent lift to maintain a sustained turn increases to the point that power required ((T-D)*V)exceeds power available? I note that the air-breathing piston engine, even with forced induction, will have diminishing power with altitude.

Otherwise, I think you've just obliterated the "corner speed at top speed" assertion that Gaston made as an unconditional assertion. You've properly conditioned it - and thus revealed a large error in conclusion on his part.

Both stall and corner remain the same in IAS wit ALT. Both speeds are normally given in IAS not TAS because of this.  Power curves are very much different between turbo & super charged engines. Remember temp is going down causing an increase in power, with a turbo outlet pressure is also dropping creating an increase in efficiency in the turbo. (my memory on this is a bit vague but I seem to remember brake HP went up with ALT on some turbo charged planes until RPM limit was reached of the turbo).

HiTech

[Glasses]

Ancient news. Been brought up years back.

He flies warbirds in present times. These planes are limited in what they can do (for insurance and airshow safety reasons), how much power they can draw, and overall he's talking vague comparisons that don't have any merit or basis in fact.

You're right the performance of each aircraft is kept under safe levels , but so is the combat weight.  Still the 109 outperforms the Mustang, from not

only one but two guys that regularly fly those aircraft in modern times.  Any who I'm enjoying the whole back and forth, learning some new stuff
here,carry on.

[hitech]

Glasses, no ducking out, I expect an answer to my question.

HiTech

[FLS]

I have no fancy  smancy Charts but I do have an interesting video of an interview two guys did  who apparently played WW2OL. Asking specifically about comparatively aircraft performance. I particularly enjoyed the slight interview they had with a fellow named Skip Holm at 3:20.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94 what does he know?  

Everything definitive in that video is modeled in Aces High. The Bf109 out turns and out climbs the P-51,  so what's your point? WW2OL had a questionable flight model 4 years ago? And Skip Holm is speculating on why that is based on comments made by a WW2OL player 4 years ago. Do you even know which Spitfire was compared to which Bf109 in WW2OL? Did Skip Holm know? What is the point of posting that in a thread about the current AH flight modeling?  How is that video interesting?

 

[Stoney]

 How is that video interesting?

Because Glasses is part of the great Luftwhine conspiracy--Kurfurst, et al, that cannot be shaken in their belief that western flight sims/games purposefully nerf 109 and 190 performance. 

[Badboy]

Conclusion III combined with Conclusion IV says to me (let me bounce this off you - I'm hoping for further elaboration) that, as altitude increases, stall speed increases (no surprise) and that corner speed also increases (since typically occurring at stall). You indicate it increases beyond top - but is this just another way of saying that, with decreased rho and a given ClMax, V required to produce sufficent lift to maintain a sustained turn increases to the point that power required ((T-D)*V)exceeds power available? I note that the air-breathing piston engine, even with forced induction, will have diminishing power with altitude.

You have to be carefull here, because when we are discussing corner velocity, it isn't related to sustained turning theory as described by the equation for excess power cited above. Maximum rate turns at corner velocity are not sustainable, and you can see that more clearly by looking at the diagram below. It shows you where in the envelope sustained turns are possible, and everywhere else, only instantaneous turns can be achieved. Infact, if you are at the peak of that diagram, and therefore performing a maximum rate turn at corner velocity, you will also be bleeding energy at the maximum rate, that is you will have the maximum negative excess power as described by the equation you posted.   




If you want to visualise the effect of altitude on corner velocity and top speed, take a look at the following two diagrams. I've included two speed scales, one showing miles per hour in true airspeed, because those are the values you normally see quoted, and the other showing knots indicated airspeed, because those are the values shown in the report, and are the values that pilots need to know, as HiTech pointed out.

Notice that these diagrams confirm what HiTech said about the corner velocity and the stall speed... They occur at the same indicated airspeed (KIAS) in both diagrams. 





However, you will notice that at the higher altitude, the corner velocity gets closer to top speed, and that trend continues and is more pronounced for aircraft that don't have such a high critical altitude as the P-51 to the extent that some aircraft in that situation can not generate enough lift at their top speed to reach 6G. In that case, their envelope is defined by their top speed and the lift limit. Then they have a corner velocity defined by the point where those two lines intersect.

However, I should point out that EM diagrams produced by the military often use a placard limit and not the top speed to define the right hand side of the envelope, after all fighters often go much faster than their top speed.

Hope that helps...

Badboy

[Glasses]

Glasses, no ducking out, I expect an answer to my question.

HiTech

Compared to the Early Models of AH's Flight Model I think so. Where aircraft would swing out of the runway violently  if you slammed on the throttle wide open and you had to use a considerable amount of  opposite rudder to keep the aircraft aligned.

A plane like the P-38, which was in Europe particularly, cannon fodder and  many  Luftwaffe pilots salivated when they saw it,  blasting it to pieces. Get a really benign flight characteristic being able to easily out turn smaller lighter planes with larger power outputs in relation to their weight.  Then again as numbers began to rise and the odds began to turn . Stacks of P-38s P-51s and P-47s met the Luftwaffe on "one to one engagements"  that left them trapped. Yet in AH the P-38 and P47 historically not the most maneuverable aircraft below 10k ft here with a few degrees of flaps you can turn tighter  than any "nimbler" lighter  plane of the LW . So I have my questions.  Still I fly them ,make kills enjoy the whines when I do shoot down someone who thinks the 109s should be neutered even worse. The fact that the Ta 152 has the flight characteristics of a pigeon with mercury poisoning heck you never know.  oh and BTW The wing tanks on the Ta 152 were not used unless it was for long haul flights they were not self sealing . The primary tanks were the Front and AFT tanks just like the 190A and D and should be filled first  before the wing tanks. That might certainly contribute to the instability and low speed handling. Either the German pilots were superhuman (which I don't believe contrary to what most try to make assumptions that I've said or implied this) or the planes were that good and the pilots well trained enough that they could make and deliver the victories under near equal terms not 5:1 in the West and 8:1  in the East.

IN b4 Ban.  

P.S. oh and Ht F-86 and MiG 15 plox.

[Baumer]

Compared to the Early Models of AH's Flight Model I think so. Where aircraft would swing out of the runway violently  if you slammed on the throttle wide open and you had to use a considerable amount of  opposite rudder to keep the aircraft aligned.

Well I can tell you that's exactly what happens (IRL) in a T-6 if you apply power without your feet on the rudder.

[mtnman]

Wasn't it Adolf Galland that said "I should like an outfit of spitfires for my Gruppe, Herr Reichsmarchall!"?  I thought that was in reference to the BoB?  When the German's outnumbered the Brits, but still suffered heavier casualties?

I'd have thought that at that stage of the war the German pilots would be benefiting from superior skill/experience as well as superior numbers.  And  the German pilots were able to freely engage the spits and hurris, which they were distracted with the bombers as their primary target.

Why would he want spits if his 109's were nimbler?  All those advantages, yet higher casualties and a wish to swap planes?

[Glasses]

Because Glasses is part of the great Luftwhine conspiracy--Kurfurst, et al, that cannot be shaken in their belief that western flight sims/games purposefully nerf 109 and 190 performance. 

BTW each time you use  the Luftwhine(r) remark I get 5 cents xD. Oh and it's not just western games that did it Il2/Forgotten battles when their first incarnations came out the Laggs and Yaks were simply overly generous in their performance and the American planes were laughable when they first came in as-well. They later rectified the performance of  many of them, it still has issues like any commercial combat flight sim will have for the foreseeable future . Maybe if the  combat flight sim has a future as an entertainment medium  then they will refine and be able to better simulate accurately the performance they had.

[Glasses]

Wasn't it Adolf Galland that said "I should like an outfit of spitfires for my Gruppe, Herr Reichsmarchall!"?  I thought that was in reference to the BoB?  When the German's outnumbered the Brits, but still suffered heavier casualties?

I'd have thought that at that stage of the war the German pilots would be benefiting from superior skill/experience as well as superior numbers.  And  the German pilots were able to freely engage the spits and hurris, which they were distracted with the bombers as their primary target.

Why would he want spits if his 109's were nimbler?  All those advantages, yet higher casualties and a wish to swap planes?

 and if you take the quote out of context it will support the argument you're trying to make. Why he said he wanted spits is because Goering wanted the 109s to fly low and slow over the bombers completely negating their speed advantage  and ceiling they had on the Spits. It was a way to irk Goering and put him in his place.

[Glasses]

Well I can tell you that's exactly what happens (IRL) in a T-6 if you apply power without your feet on the rudder.

and it did Happen in AH way back when. The nastier aircraft were the The 109 the 190, P-51 which even modern pilots state they cannot  go full throttle on take off or the plane will simply veer off the runway and of course the Corsair. Which I remember back in the day the  Torque,P factor,spiraling slipstream was so nasty  I used that to my advantage  out maneuvering 6 of them causing all to lawn dart while they tried to keep up with my 190 in a rolling scissor. Ending that sortie with 8 kills. ( this was back in the day where   all the kills  came up one by one,instead of at the end of the sortie.)

[Lusche]

I'd have thought that at that stage of the war the German pilots would be benefiting from superior skill/experience as well as superior numbers.  And  the German pilots were able to freely engage the spits and hurris, which they were distracted with the bombers as their primary target.

They weren't able to freely engage Spits & Hurris for the most part. As the bombers took unexpected high losses, the fighters were ordered to fly close escort, robbing them much if the initiative. And this lead to increasing frustration which led to that famous comment, because Galland (and others) felt they were not using their weapon to it's best capabilities

[FLS]

Glasses the P-51 has been toned down? That hardly supports your premise and says nothing about whether the aircraft are more accurate than they were or less or the same.  Anecdotal arguments are hardly useful. People still veer off the runways. The lack of success of the P-38 in Europe had several reasons none of which were it's flight performance compared to the Bf109 and FW190. You've posted  unsupported opinion and assertions that are easily shown to be incorrect just by actually comparing the AH aircraft in question. 

[mtnman]

and if you take the quote out of context it will support the argument you're trying to make. Why he said he wanted spits is because Goering wanted the 109s to fly low and slow over the bombers completely negating their speed advantage  and ceiling they had on the Spits. It was a way to irk Goering and put him in his place.

From what I've read, the German fighter pilots often flew at least 4-5000 ft above their bombers, regardless of Goering's wishes/orders.  They did that because they knew it to be a more effective means to protect the bombers.

Sure, Goering was being foolish, but did he really have that much control over his pilots?  That they wouldn't try to be above their bombers?

Even so, it looks like you're arguing that "even terms" puts the German fighter pilots at a disadvantage?  Even with superior numbers?  I guess I'm envisioning the Brits trying to climb up to the bombers, since they didn't really have loads of time to climb well above them, did they?  As it was, didn't they generally arrive too late anyway, AFTER the bombers had dropped their bombs?

And regardless, trying to irk Goering or not, why would he (Galland) ask for spitfires?  Because he felt they were "inferior" to the German planes?  Would it really irk Goering that his pilots wanted "inferior" planes?  Did Galland really think his pilots would do better in Spitfires?  If he was arguing about the tactics Goering demanded, why didn't he say something sarcastic like "Maybe we should escort our bombers from below, so we're between them and the British airfields"?  Why make his quote in reference to a machine, when the problem was (supposedly) the tactical use of their own machines?

When it comes to "and if you take the quote out of context it will support the argument you're trying to make"...  isn't dismissing the quote as you've done count as a way to "support the argument you're trying to make"?