P51 & FWa5 comparitive tests

[Toad]

Pounds per Horsepower isn't the sole determining factor, now is it?

If you put a 2000 HP motor on a 4,000 LB square chunk of concrete you'd have 2 lb/hp right? So it would then be a better accelerating machine than Ram's beloved FW's right?

Like most things in aviation, it just isn't that simple.

Have a nice day!  

[Hangtime]

Some further obsevations..

The Pony has some real problems with accel, even when the nose is dropped; she 'gathers way' rather poorly. (sucks might be a better decriptive) Now; it's entirely possible that the pony was crippled with this in real life (tm) tho I've found no hard refrences to this being a handicap of the type.

Since I spend very little time in other a/c it's entirely possible that this condition is present in the other types; but my impressions last night of the A5 during the tests was that the a5 was "out-ponying a pony" so to speak. The accel IN the turns for the a5 was smooth and fast; and the a5 was easily turning better at all speed ranges, from flapped near stall at about 105mph (no snap present) right on up to 250mph.. and she did it like the 'old un-gelded' pony did back in beta. To keep the 190 turning slow you have to FORCE it to do so with significant throttle chop. The same turn in the pony has you hanging onto the wep to keep it moving at all.. and any throttle chop hands you a snap/stall when hanging on tight in the turn.

To clairify, the pony's sustainted turn is best when flapped 40 degrees; flat out wepped, and she can only just hang on. Bring the throttle back any and you'll have to let the nose down to keep from stalling out.

The 190a5 does the same turn at 70% throttle with one flap set and if held at full throttle accellerates into a larger diameter turn with a better rate than the pony. Gent's don't even think of turning the pony against this FW on the deck.. it'll eat yah fer breakfast.

NOW; DAMMIT: DON'T OVEREACT!! It may supposed to BE that way.. I dunno; and I'll bet only a few others have noted it yet. I know Zigrat is aware.. he used that 190's smooth flat turn and accel to run right around a larger circle and saddle up.. This shocked the hell outta me as it has always been my impression that there was NO FW model that could turn with a pony on the deck.

Further.. the A5 exibits the same ability to loop over at near stall airspeeds as the P38 does.. and be aware that the FW's best escape in a furball is to run up and over on you... had DMF demonstrate this trick to me on release night, and there was no doubt we were both 'outta e' at the time... the diffrence was; he could reach deeper into the 'e' well on the verts than the pony could, and climbed right up and over, pulling consecutive loops at airspeeds that we routinely achieve in rush hour on the freeways. I kicked out on the verts to the side; and went for him at the bottoms of the loops; dodgin like hell his dives on me 5 seconds later.  Surviving in a low furball against this new A5 is gonna be tuff indeedy.

IF there IS a problem, I suspect it to be in the E states.. it's hard to pin down what's going on. The A5 was by all accounts a competent fighter, and so far thats what we are seeing here. Surely, I'd like the turn/e retention charterestics looked at again; but they may be what they are supposed to be.. I dunno.

More testing needed!

Hang

[Ripsnort]

Hang, I think after reading all  this we can safely make a summary of both A/C similiarity as such:

"With an experienced hand at  the controls, both can be extremely deadly..."

I've seen guys who never  flew  the FW up until the A5 came out, and they sucked, shot down multiple times....the same can be  said  for the 51.

[Pyro]

Fieseler Storch would be the acceleration king by those standards.  I'm sure it can hit its top speed way ahead of those two.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

Most plans are just inaccurate predictions.

[Baddawg]

In acceleration  tests  have you guys ever watched drag racing?
A car with a lower E.T. in the 1/4 mile  might even have a slower speed than a car with a higher E.T.
e.g.  car A 1/4 mile time 14.2 at 124mph
 car B 1/4 mile 14.8 at 130mph
*note these are arbitrary times  used only for example.
Seems to me it would be hard to judge unless
 you you could have an efficient way of judging time to distance.

[Toad]

Does anyone actually HAVE any documented, verified acceleration tests on the P-51? The A-5?

If so, please post. If not........

[F4UDOA]

Toad,

I have test reports on F4U-1 vrs P51B(faster than D model) and F4U-1D versus FW-190A5. The A5 data in the report corresponds to actual flight data in the game. In fact the A5 tested by the Navy was faster than the AH A5. But you can see the sharp contrast in the turning abilties compared to the FM we have here. The pilots state in the report that the A5 is clearly at a disadvantage with A/C built for the purpose of "infighting" and that it cannot fllow the F4U or F6F in tight turns or loops. The report is very specific. Also I do have a report of a FW-190A-3 vrs a P-51A with 4 cannon and an allison engine. It states that the FW-190 isless manueverable in turning circles and is slightly better in accelleration than the early model mustang. It could out climb the Mustang but was equal in a dive. To my knowledge the A-3 was lighter and faster than the A5. In speed the 190 was 2mph faster on deck but 5 MpH slower at 5K. It did not become faster again until 20k where the difference was again 5mph. At 10K it was 10mph slower than the allison mustang 1A. And just incase you missed it here is the F4UvrsFw190A5. You tell me if this is an accurate representation.
 http://members.home.net/markw4/index.html
There is no reason not to believe this report as the weights and engine ratings are accurate. In fact the 190 appears to be faster at 25k than in AH, and the F4U slower.
But accelleration and turning ability are clearly not represented in the AH flight model. Even the pilots comments on the wingloading of the 190 are enough to make you question the current flight model.

F4UDOA

[-lazs-]

ram.... i asked you before... is the offline performance different than the online?   The planes perform for me as i have stated, offline.  Not interested in flying good turning LW planes against live players.   Starting to feel the same about poor turning American planes and live players.  

toad, there is more to acceleration than lbs/hp... The side by side comparisson test that the LW guys keep glossing over shows the Corsair to accelerate equally with the A5 and "easily" outturn it at any speed.   Other side by sid tests put the acceleration above the P51 at low alt.  The corsair had a ver efficient wing root to fuselage juncture (90 degree) compared to the FW and a different prop.  It also had a superior supercharger for higher alts.  

If you want a game that makes LW planes useful in an arena type setting then keep defending the turn rates and acceleration in AH.  Just don't tell me the real planes were wrong and the AH model is right.
lazs

[Toad]

F4UDOA,

I read that report you posted a while ago. I think it's pretty good data overall.

It doesn't specifically address the acceleration issues that Hang raised, however, and that's what this topic is about. Before this topic degenerates into strident, unsupported claims for the respective "favorite" planes yet again, I thought I'd put in a plea for fact rather than opinion.    

I'm sure you've discussed the F4 with Pyro and I hope, if there is validity to this report and perhaps some other supporting documentation, that any appropriate changes will eventually be made.

Bottom line though, this is a GAME, not a SIMULATOR. No one has to take a checkride in the actual airplane based on their experience here. So, it doesn't have to be 100% absolutely historically accurate and fully realistic in order to be a great, fun game.

If the FW is a bit too fast, adjust your tactics to the enemy's capabilities.

If the F4 guns were a bit too strong, adjust your tactics to the enemy's capabilities.

If the P38 doesn't...adjust!

If the Spit is too...adjust!

It's great to have realism and historical accuracy as the ultimate goal. But it's foolish to expect it right away in a relatively young program.

It may never happen but that won't change the fact that this is a good game.

[Pyro]

In the P-51B/F4U comparison, that was not a late model B as it had the V-1650-3 instead of the V-1650-7 of the late model B's and the D that we have.  Max HP for a -3 is 1600 compared to 1720 for a -7.




------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

Most plans are just inaccurate predictions.

[Torque]

LOL you mean my F4U is unda modelled.
Guess one can't be ledge edge in a field or product without such debates.Kewl stuff.
The Fw 190A-5 has 5 kills and has been killed 19 times against Torque in the F4U-1C.


 

[Hangtime]

ROFLMAO!!

Ok.. ran some more tests.. dunno why; just tryin to chip away at the problem (if there is a problem) and get a feel for whats going on and I found 2 more little tidbits.

1.. The AH pony and the a5 can run a dead heat race to about 290 mph from 150.. both dead equal. The 190a5 then pulls ahead slightly up to it's top speed of about 340 (3 plane lengths) then the pony catches up. It takes a full minute more for the pony to get from 340 to 370 mph.. and at that time it is still in guns range of the FW. Scary, hunh? I'm wondering how that beautifly clean low drag design managed to justify itself with these kinds of dismal performance numbers. Again; I wonder if the AH FWa5 ain't right and the pony is the one with the problem??

2. The AH published climb characteristics of the two planes has the FWa5 with a 200ft per minute edge up to about 5k. Above that the Pony is supposed to have the edge thru 20k..

.........0-5k    5-10   10-15   15-20
P51D  3100    3200    2800     2500
FWa5  3300    2300    2500     2500

Note the significant edge the pony is supposed to have at 5-10k.

Gents.. I have a hard time equating these numbers to the FW's amazing vertical dance ability.. a 200 foot per MINUTE edge at 0-5k means I should be able to hold him in guns range and follow him up a heluva lot better than I seem to be able to in the sim as it is now, and to make it worse; I sure as hell can't reverse the tables at 10k and loop over him with impunity as he does to me at 3k.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... am I missing something?

Hang




[This message has been edited by Hangtime (edited 06-23-2000).]

[wells]

 

But accelleration and turning ability are clearly not represented in
                  the AH flight model

Acceleration is directly related to climb rate, so unless you can disprove the climb rate of the plane, you have no case for acceleration.

A = (Thrust - Drag) / mass

Climb = Velocity * (Thrust - Drag) / weight

For example:  A plane climbs at 3600 fpm (60 fps) @ 150 mph (220 fps)

To convert climb rate to instantaneous accleration, divide the climb rate by the velocity and multiply by gravity constant (32 .2 ft/sec^2)

A climb rate of 60 fps converts to accleration of 8.7 ft/sec^2 or 5.9 mph/s at 150 mph.

A good way to measure acceleration is to measure the climb rate at various speeds, say 125, 150, 175, 200 etc... and then convert them.  That way you can see where one plane might start to outclimb or out-accelerate another.  A P-51 *will* outclimb a 190a5, but at higher speeds.

For turning, it depends on the maximum lift coefficient (stall speed) and drag (mostly induced).  If you can disprove the stall speed, you have a good case for turning ability.  The best, most common source for stall speed data is from the pilot manual, which was issued to every pilot (I think).  So, if you were to ask a pilot of one of these planes what the stall speed was, he'd probably quote the manual having memorized most of it.  I'll do some more test flying this weekend using the above method and see what happens.  If someone else wanted to measure the time it took to go from say 150 mph to 300 mph, I could compare my results using the different method.

[jmccaul]

The 190 A5 should have pretty hot acceleration in level flight according to the RAE the (A3) should outaccelerate the spit 9 merlin 61 in level flight under 5000 ft and between 15 and 20 k ft (situation is reversed at other altitudes).

Early 190's accelerate like spits not like most BnZ planes. I thimk most people think of the 190 as a pure BnZer as such it should accellerate like other BnZers.

[jmccaul]

Hey RAM i'm not one to gloat but i will make a special exception for you.

Quote me :
===================================
i believe climb rate is very closley linked to acceleration. I reserve the right to be wrong though  
===================================

Quote RAM
===================================
So the Fw190 should climb great! lol...
nope climbrate and acceleration are liked but not closely
===================================

Quote Wells (the man with the knowledge):
===================================
Acceleration is directly related to climb rate, so unless you can disprove the climb rate of the plane, you have no case for acceleration.
===================================

Obviously i am a childish person who remebers every conversation only to bring people's comments back to haunt them.

So finally i would like to say ner ner ner ner neeer