Seafire Vs SpitV (2011)

[BaldEagl]

All I know is after years of being a Spit dweeb the Spit V feels lighter and more agile than the Seafire even though on paper they're supposed to be similar.

[Guppy35]

All I know is after years of being a Spit dweeb the Spit V feels lighter and more agile than the Seafire even though on paper they're supposed to be similar.

The Spit Vb would be lighter without the weight of the arrester hook and gear, and less ammo carried among other things that were on the Seafire

[Pyro]

Here’s the correct logic:
1)the same airplane with the same weight will have the same ROC
2)the SpitV/Seafire are essentially the same airplane
3)the HTC ROC chart for the SpitV/Seafire are calculated using the same weight
4)the ROC charts are the same for the SpitV/Seafire; therefore, hitech isn’t as dumb as some of you think he is  .

Cheers,

You got it.  A pound of lead is not heavier than a pound of feathers.  6622 lbs of Seafire II is not heavier than 6622 lbs of Spitfire V.  Performance charts are based on a specific weight which is listed on the chart and does not necessarily represent any particular loadout configuration.  The charts don't state that the Seafire and Spit V will climb at the same rate with the same fuel load, they state they'll climb at the same rate at the same weight.

[moot]

The Spit Vb would be lighter without the weight of the arrester hook and gear, and less ammo carried among other things that were on the Seafire

That's what I remember hearing from the spitdweebs back when the V and the Seafire were still running high boost.  That otherwise they were as good as identical in all respects.

[RTHolmes]

2)the SpitV/Seafire are essentially the same airplane

... and this is where you logic breaks down.

the seafire is heavier (strengthening plates and carrier gear) and draggier (sling points and arrestor hook assembly), and its CoG is further back than the V. even at the same weights the seafire should be a little slower. with the same fuel loadout the seafire should be noticeably slower and have a lower RoC. it should handle a little more tail heavy too (although probably not enough to notice.)


The charts would be a lot more useful if they were based on some standard for fuel across planes. how about 20mins at MP at 10k? then put whatever the fuel % that equates to on the charts.

[dtango]

... and this is where you logic breaks down.

the seafire is heavier (strengthening plates and carrier gear) and draggier (sling points and arrestor hook assembly), and its CoG is further back than the V. even at the same weights the seafire should be a little slower. with the same fuel loadout the seafire should be noticeably slower and have a lower RoC. it should handle a little more tail heavy too (although probably not enough to notice.)


The charts would be a lot more useful if they were based on some standard for fuel across planes. how about 20mins at MP at 10k? then put whatever the fuel % that equates to on the charts.

Dear Lord...

[RTHolmes]

if that was a criticism, you're gonna have to be a bit more specific if you want a reply ...

[Kazaa]

I miss our old Spitfire Mk. Vc

Hopefully when the Spitfires get overhauled when can have one that is also clipped.

[RTHolmes]

Performance charts are based on a specific weight which is listed on the chart

 

[dtango]

if that was a criticism, you're gonna have to be a bit more specific if you want a reply ...

Oh no that was no criticism.  It was a response of exasperation because I can see the various rabbit holes it will go and I'm wondering to myself if it's worth the pain. 

As for the AH charts, they've kindly annotated the weights for you if you look at the charts in game by right clicking the airplane in the hangar. 

[Wmaker]

From here: http://www.hitechcreations.com/Flight-Sim/World-War-Two-Planes/planes-of-aces-high.html






Btw, thanks for the laughs Tango.

[RTHolmes]

ahhh ok ty

[VAMPIRE 2?]

What’s the difference between healthy skepticism vs. a conspiracy theory?  Answer: the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

What is the Dunning-Kruger Effect?   “It is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.”

Krusty, I’m afraid your mental mythology of flight model injustices keeps you from seeing the flaw in your arguments.  In this specific case for AH climb rate charts (Spit5/Seafire or FW190A-8/F-8) you jump to the conclusion that the FM is wrong.  Instead you should first ask yourself “Why would the AH rate of climb charts be the same?”.

dtango's description here fits my personality more often than I would like to admit. Heck I don't think I'm smart enough to realize it...

[Krusty]

Well I'm going to have to eat some crow here and state you're right... I DID take into account many different factors, and I wasn't just saying it without considering it. I was going off an understanding that HTCs charts had been verified with in-game testing. However, I'll explain where I went wrong for my own defense.


2 things. First, HTC has misleading charts. Their new charts CLEARLY use 100% internal fuel (otherwise P-47N climb rates would look different compared to other P-47s). Second, I used Gonzo's charts assuming they were independently verified/tested in-game. There are certain quirks/bugs/kinks in Gonzo's charts where they do not exist on HTCs. I took this as recording errors when taking notes. So, turns out they're just copied from HTC apparently.

9682lbs is exactly the weight of a 190a8 with 4 20mm guns and full internal ammo.

However, HTC just copied and pasted the chart and weight for the F8, assuming (justified or not) that at that same loadout the F8 would be identical. However this is not a valid comparison nor is it accurate. It's just presenting bad info. There is no configuration for the F8 that I know of that gives it 9682 lbs. If you drain the AUX tank down but leave FWD and AFT full you get 9667 lbs. However there is no fuel setting for this -- it would be about 80%-85%(?) internal fuel (between 75%-100%). [EDIT: If you shoot off all your MG ammo you get 9678, shaving 171 lbs off the 100% "stock" configuration]

I had really thought HTC updated that info when they redid the charts, and the Gonzo charts page to me confirmed their validity. Shows me that I can't trust the basic info that HTC puts out about their own planes. I really wish the would update these wrong charts. Use a similar setting, whatever that is (50% internal fuel baseline, standard weapons, clean configuration, whatever -- just be CONSISTENT). It would be infinitely more helpful to have real numbers instead of "Use those numbers, just keep the weight the same".

It would also prevent major blunders like mine, here. Might be worth the time and effort updating the charts to avoid that kind of headache on all parties involved.

[dtango]

Bravo Krusty.  It’s commendable you owned up to your error.  +1 to you for doing so!

Blaming it on HTC having misleading charts?  Hmm, I’m afraid we have to go a step further.  The problem wasn’t that the charts were misleading, the problem was how the charts were interpreted.  A better understanding of the physics would have lead to the realization that there are other ways to interpret the charts with a correct result.  Specifically a) if the weights were equal then we would expect to the see the results that we see, & b) aircraft performance is dynamic with many variables changing in flight- weight being one of them as fuel is consumed.  The reason it seemed misleading is because you didn’t see a different way to interpret the data.