Tempest V turn radius in Aces High

[J.A.W.]

Nice graphic as it shows the Tempest wasn't that great at speeds combat typically took place at.

Nevermind the 'nice graphic'.. ..didn't you read post #18?

If you had you'd understand..
 The test figures show that the Tempest had a roll rate of over 80 deg/sec from 180mph through 400mph..

Another one you got wrong there m.m...

[J.A.W.]

Yeah yeah but what's it's roll/distance?

Depends.. barrel roll.. all +G, or a -G stunt flick (naughty)..

[J.A.W.]

From a USAAF captured LW pilot interrogation report dated 18 March 1945..

"He believed the Me 109 could out-curve (sic) the Tempest, but that the latter had superior speed
& climbing ability which made it extremely formidable.

The apparently excellent field of vision afforded the Tempest pilot made it very hard to surprise."

[MiloMorai]

Tempest couldn't out turn a Ta152H

[Wmaker]

As a general comment, it is not very analytical to determine that the plane-x is 'wrong' because it performs better/worse than plane-y. That line of thought doesn't take into account the fact that maybe the plane-y/both planes are 'wrong'.


Regarding the Typhoon/Tempest...

In a memorandum report on Typhoon, Americans reported the Typhoon's turn radius as "short". Well, is it "short" in AH? Well, that is pretty hard to say isn't it.

In Mosq's turn radius testing Typhoon came 67th out of 103 AH fighters with a turn radius of 714,5ft. Mosq performed the turns as left hand turns. At right hand turns Typhoon would have most likely been more controllable due to its counter-clockwise turning prop and turning that way might have given a shorter radius.


Another general comment...

I'd like to see pyro doing a global review on some aspects of the flight model. Last major across-the-board flight model change was done in spring 2006 (version 2.07). A thing I'd like to see looked at is the lift/drag that the flaps cause in general. I really can't pin-point any particular planes, all I'm saying is that a fresh look is many times a good thing. I have no doubt that it would be a lot of work but I consider flight model to be the bread and butter of AH.

I remember pyro himself saying that he should 'weed out some inconsistencies' regarding the flight model after that 2006 2.07 update. No changes came after the 2.07 update, though.

[BnZs]

Turn *radius* should be easy to say right/wrong. The airplane with a significantly lower stall speed in a given configuration should have the smaller turn radius.

Turn rate is above my paygrade.

As a general comment, it is not very analytical to determine that the plane-x is 'wrong' because it performs better/worse than plane-y. That line of thought doesn't take into account the fact that maybe the plane-y/both planes are 'wrong'.


Regarding the Typhoon/Tempest...

In a memorandum report on Typhoon, Americans reported the Typhoon's turn radius as "short". Well, is it "short" in AH? Well, that is pretty hard to say isn't it.

In Mosq's turn radius testing Typhoon came 67th out of 103 AH fighters with a turn radius of 714,5ft. Mosq performed the turns as left hand turns. At right hand turns Typhoon would have most likely been more controllable due to its counter-clockwise turning prop and turning that way might have given a shorter radius.


Another general comment...

I'd like to see pyro doing a global review on some aspects of the flight model. Last major across-the-board flight model change was done in spring 2006 (version 2.07). A thing I'd like to see looked at is the lift/drag that the flaps cause in general. I really can't pin-point any particular planes, all I'm saying is that a fresh look is many times a good thing. I have no doubt that it would be a lot of work but I consider flight model to be the bread and butter of AH.

I remember pyro himself saying that he should 'weed out some inconsistencies' regarding the flight model after that 2006 2.07 update. No changes came after the 2.07 update, though.

[BnZs]

. A thing I'd like to see looked at is the lift/drag that the flaps cause in general. I really can't pin-point any particular planes, all I'm saying is that a fresh look is many times a good thing.

A small amount of flaps in AH (theoretically a relatively large increase in lift for a relatively small increase in drag) increases turn rate in many planes. For instance, one notch in the P-51D or two notches in the Corsairs. A larger amount of flaps seems to reduce turn rate but does allow a plane to fly slower, which is in accordance with the principle that large flap deflections greatly increase drag for diminishing returns on lift. This does not prove anything right or wrong, but flaps do seem to be working like one would expect them to work.

[Wmaker]

Turn *radius* should be easy to say right/wrong. The airplane with a significantly lower stall speed in a given configuration should have the smaller turn radius.

Turn rate is above my paygrade.

My point was that you can't base an argument on comparing the target aircraft with another modeled aircraft and that defining "what is short" is hard without doing the math.


Also, defining exactly what lift coefficient of an aircraft should be isn't necessarily easy without wind tunnel data and stall speeds many times leave parameters like weight unmentioned and are given as speeds what the ASI shows which can have an error.

A small amount of flaps in AH (theoretically a relatively large increase in lift for a relatively small increase in drag) increases turn rate in many planes. For instance, one notch in the P-51D or two notches in the Corsairs. A larger amount of flaps seems to reduce turn rate but does allow a plane to fly slower, which is in accordance with the principle that large flap deflections greatly increase drag for diminishing returns on lift. This does not prove anything right or wrong, but flaps do seem to be working like one would expect them to work.

You don't say?


Lift/drag in relation to the angle and area of the flaps is what I was talking about...in other words, are the values in the ballpark per plane basis. Pyro himself was clearly wondering it back then.

[hlbly]

I think you should ignore him.  

BE sorry for the distraction. Just get tired of people who want to blame everything but what is at fault for problems. JAW I can't help it if you assumed I was referring to you with gashat comment.

[J.A.W.]

BE sorry for the distraction. Just get tired of people who want to blame everything but what is at fault for problems. JAW I can't help it if you assumed I was referring to you with gashat comment.

Duly noted, & your point, (once clarified)  - has merit..

[J.A.W.]

Tempest couldn't out turn a Ta152H

Sez who?, As usual m.m., puts his weird slant on..

One-one was the score in that encounter, & the Tempest pilot who crashed - was a noob..

[Squire]

The props on the Tempest and Typhoon rotate <<< left (from the pilots pov) while most other fighters, including the P-51 and Spitfire turn >>> right. That's a lot of torque (2000 h.p.+) with a massive prop. As with a lot of flying tests the details seem to be very sparsely written. Im not an expert on aerodynamics and im not pretending to be but its an interesting bit of info.

[J.A.W.]

Griffon Spits had opposite prop rotation to the Merlin, & was the predictable cause of numerous crashes..

[MiloMorai]

Sez who?, As usual m.m., puts his weird slant on..

One-one was the score in that encounter, & the Tempest pilot who crashed - was a noob..

The weird slant is by jaw because Mitchell and Reschke (14 April he flew the new Focke-Wulf Ta 152 for the first time) were in a turning fight. Yup, a noob with at least 300hrs of flight time.

[J.A.W.]

Not on Tempests though..

 & by the way, how does the Ta 152 compare on weight/wing area ratio to the Tempest m.m.?

Not favourably..