Author Topic: place your vote... fix the turn rates in AH? (Read 4015 times)

wells · « **Reply #105 on:** June 03, 2000, 03:28:00 PM »

Citabria,

I only used those numbers to figure out a turn radius in which to compare to some data. I'm not telling anyone they should turn like that in combat!

Funked,

The numbers in the fighter conference are all over the map and I'm not sure that using the average value even represents accuracy. As far as I can tell, nothing is corrected to any kind of standard, just numbers scribbled on a piece of paper on a given day. They aren't all that consistent within themselves, nevermind any other potential sources of data. Nonetheless, I thought I'd see how things compared.

funked · « **Reply #106 on:** June 03, 2000, 04:58:00 PM »

Roger Wells, I hear you.

Citabria · « **Reply #107 on:** June 03, 2000, 05:15:00 PM »

ok wells

I just don't see why HTC would change the turn rate between WB and AH making Aces High slower in the full 360 department unless they had logical reasons to interpret their performance that way.

[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 06-03-2000).]

funked · « **Reply #108 on:** June 03, 2000, 05:45:00 PM »

Citabria, I don't think Wells is arguing any particular position here. He was just adding to our comparison of AH with historical sources.

I think any implication that HTC has some kind of preference for certain aircraft is ludicrous.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-03-2000).]

hitech · « **Reply #109 on:** June 03, 2000, 05:59:00 PM »

Well's I think your trying to compair 2 different things. The 3g stall is basicly messureing max lco. Sustatained turn rate is also a function of power and drag where 3g stall is not.

Unless Im confused on your numbers compairison.

HiTech

F4UDOA · « **Reply #110 on:** June 03, 2000, 06:19:00 PM »

Hitech,

I have been asking for the maximum lift coefficient being used in AH for the various A/C for a while. If it is not to much trouble for HTC to post them in the aircraft and vehicle section I would appreciate it. I think it would stop allot of the guessing taking place in this post. Here is a link to a NACA doc. discussing just that subject. http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/naca-report-829.pdf

Thanks F4UDOA

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 06-03-2000).]

wells · « **Reply #111 on:** June 03, 2000, 06:32:00 PM »

I know what ur thinking Hitech. I know that most of the planes can't sustain a 3g turn, but any kind of turn using CLmax can be used to determine a radius, no? I only used sustained turn in the sim because then everything is constant in order to figure the radius. In any case, Funked is right, I'm not saying AH is really bad or anything. Personally, I would think it to be very difficult to measure the 3g stall speed of an airplane. You have to watch 2 instruments at the same time while flying on the edge of stall. I dunno what method they used to do that? Maybe each pilot did it his own way...There's 2 methods that I can think of.

1. Try and hold a constant 3G's. This is probably the hardest one cause as speed falls, you have to pull more and more to maintain that 3g's.

2. Pull to impending stall and watch the acclerometer drop to 3 and then note the speed.

For a simulation, I would think using the poweroff/poweron level stall speeds would be more reliable and then everything else relates to that. What do you think HT?

niklas · « **Reply #112 on:** June 03, 2000, 07:04:00 PM »

wasn´t a finnish pilot able to fly a sustained(!!) 3G turn in a 109G2 @ ~320kmh/ 200mph??

Is it possible that the wing-factor K (from induced drag K*cl*cl) is very high for each plane here? A 109 glides with -2000ft/min, imo that´s a lot!

So or so, with these turnrates of AH no plane can fly a 180° "break turn", coming out with same speed 400yards behind you and shooting you down with spray and pray. Turnrates are ok imo

hitech · « **Reply #113 on:** June 03, 2000, 07:59:00 PM »

Wells.

Method 2 would be much easyer.

I Agree CLMax can be used to get an instantainious turn radius. The other forces are minor under normal cg/cl conditions unless below a 2g stall speed where motor forces start becoming a factor helping the turn.

Am still wondering what numbers your trying to validate wells?

BTW From you post a few weeks back,I did discover somthing I had never considered before. Any interesting number on a plane is whats the max speed at which a plane can maintain max AOA at full power.

HiTech

wells · « **Reply #114 on:** June 03, 2000, 09:11:00 PM »

We're talking about turn radius. I think most would just like to know why there's a discrepency between Warbirds and Aces High in this particular area of performance and then which one might be more 'realistic'? Was it intentional (ie, more complex physics modelling?) or is there some kind of bug (ie, the P-39 bug from 1.xx WB?)

Quote

BTW From you post a few weeks back,I did discover somthing I had never
considered before. Any interesting number on a plane is whats the max speed
at which a plane can maintain max AOA at full power.

That would be the sustained maximum turning speed, eh?

Anyways, WTG lazs on another lengthy controversial thread...hehehe

hitech · « **Reply #115 on:** June 03, 2000, 09:36:00 PM »

RGR well's i.e. max sustained turn rate is just as much a function of drag/hp as lift. Thats why im wondering why your aproching it from purly a lift stand point.

I had just never thought about the turn rate in purly drag/hp max aoa terms before.

HiTech

wells · « **Reply #116 on:** June 03, 2000, 10:47:00 PM »

Quote

RGR well's i.e. max sustained turn rate is just as much a function of drag/hp as
lift. Thats why im wondering why your aproching it from purly a lift stand point.

Because, I'm talking about radius, not rate.

-lazs- · « **Reply #117 on:** June 04, 2000, 08:31:00 AM »

Ok.. ram, I don't have problems with turning with 190's. I have no problem against any LW plane or jg2 in general if "score" is your criteria. I am only going by what I get for turn times in sec. offline. Perhaps offline is different than online? Oh... The roll rate on a corsair should be equal to a 190 BTW. It's ailerons were mechanicaly boosted. As for the turn performance....

funked... do you really feel that the 109's should turn better than the Soviet planes? Should the 190A8 turn very close or better than the Hog, 51, and typhoon and come kissing close to the 38L? Oh, BYW, A comparisson test of a 51B and a -1 Hog showed the -1 to be "superior" in the turn. So... How will they model the 190A5? They can't make it turn worse than an A8 and if they make it just 20% better then it will be in the 109 and Soviet range and far outclass 51's and Hogs. Very odd for a plane that in "real" tests lost one turn in three to a Hog and allmost as much to a 51B.

On the Zeke.... That "initial" climb must be very initial cause according to the T.A.I.U. the Zeke was outclimbed by the Hog at all altitudes. They list 2800 fpm for the zeke and they tested dozens of em. Course I never seen "initial" rates for a Hog before.
lazs

Oops, forgot.. Wells, were u testing the 1d or C. oddly the C seems to turn better than the D. There was something odd about the Hog at the joint conference no?

[This message has been edited by -lazs- (edited 06-04-2000).]

Beegerite · « **Reply #118 on:** June 04, 2000, 10:42:00 AM »

Reading thread and getting a little confused since I'm not an aeronautical engineer and can't quite understand all the rocket science in some of the posts. I'm just wondering if HTC actually uses specific formulas taken from some commonly available public source e.g. Library of Congress or published test data why can't they post that data to eliminate or at least reduce these no-win ping pong contests? I'm not asking that they post the program that puts all this data together into AH, just the basic elements e.g. P-51 turn data at 5K, 10K, 15K etc., standard atmospheric conditions, turn rate at 10, 20, 30, 40, 60 degrees of bank, resulting in 2,4,6,8 G's whatever = 10/20/30 degrees per sec. therefore it would take 19/20/21 secs to complete turn taken from Official Rockwell Publication No. 12345 dated XX/XX/4?. Just the facts Ma'am!
Beeg

[This message has been edited by Beegerite (edited 06-04-2000).]

RAM · « **Reply #119 on:** June 04, 2000, 01:32:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -lazs-:
Ok.. ram, I don't have problems with turning with 190's. I have no problem against any LW plane or jg2 in general if "score" is your criteria. I am only going by what I get for turn times in sec. offline. Perhaps offline is different than online? Oh... The roll rate on a corsair should be equal to a 190 BTW. It's ailerons were mechanicaly boosted. As for the turn performance....

Who said anything about F4U's rollrate?...who said it was wrong?. I didnt.And F4U's rollrate equals Fw190's. NO problems here.

Quote

funked... do you really feel that the 109's should turn better than the Soviet planes? Should the 190A8 turn very close or better than the Hog, 51, and typhoon and come kissing close to the 38L?

Here we go again. 190 TURNS WORSE THAN p51 and F4U without flaps!!!!! and with flaps they eat the wuerger alive.
Damnit I've flown 3 types a lot and I KNOW how do they work!!! and 190 isnt NEAR f4U nor P51!!!!...and compare it with a P38...well is other universe.

190 turns like a 16-wheeled-truck. f4U and P51 much better ,but still not very well (they never went turners). P38 turns VERY well for its size...but if you are looking of a turning rate/radius of a spitfire you are going to be very annoyed.

Wich fuel loadouts do you use?...wich weapons? 4x20mm on 190 or 2x20mm?. 4mgs on P51 or 6?...D hawg or C hawg?...

Remember that a 50% fuel load in P51 is way more weight than 50% fuel loaded fw190 weight. And that weight MAKES a difference.And a BIG one. You asky why D hawgt turns worse than C. And it is easy. D hawg is HEAVIER than C, as was a ground attack adaptation from F4U1-A. What I dont understand is why the F4U1-C, being a development from A version, has the same ground attack ordnance than D version.

Weird isnt it?

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-04-2000).]