place your vote... fix the turn rates in AH?

[wells]

I just got my hands on the 'Report of Joint Fighter Conference' and I've had a little time to study some of the results, especially the 3g turn data that was compiled.  Firstly, I guess the most important thing that I notice is the wide range of data that the different pilots recorded on the same aircraft.  For example, the F4u-1C/D had power on stall speeds in the range of 60-83 knts.  That's a HUGE range!  The average value being 76 knts.  The 3G stall speeds were flight tested (and not calculated) with accelerometers installed in the aircraft.  Again, the F4u had a range of 130-190 knts, with the average being 150.  

Now, one could take the power on stall or the 3G stall and reverse calculate the other figure to see how close to 'theoretical' the test results were.  For the F4u example (just for lazs), I'd get the following:

Using the average power on stall speed of 76 knts, the 3G stall works out to 132 knts (much less than the average tested value).  One could take the 3G stall of 150 knts and get a power on stall of about 87 knts.  

Another interesting point is the FG-1 (with clipped wingtips, although the area that is clipped looks very insignificant to me) got these results...

Power on stall of 82 knts (80-83 range), 3G speed of 130 (average values).  Using the power on speed of 82 knts, the 3G speed works out to 142 and using the 3G speed of 130, the power on level stall works out to 75 knts.

I would consider this to be a very good source of data (what else is there, really?) along with AHT and pilot's manuals and any computational fluid dynamics analysis of airfoils that one can dig up.  It becomes pretty clear that multiple sources of equally valuable data are required to get an accurate picture.

The turn radius for the F4u based on the report could be anywhere from 160-350m with an average of 200m.  This is a prime example of why flight test data is not necessarily gospel.  The flight sim designer must make a choice as to what is a reasonable stall speed or max lift coefficient to use in the model, based on all the information available.  It may end up that the model matches none of the flight tests, but is rather more of an average.  

Overall, I think the AH models have rather large turn radii that are at the high end of flight tested ranges.  I would tend to think that even average values would be too high, I mean, if someone gets a lower stall speed than you do in a flight test, you'd wanna try it again to make sure you really got it as slow as you possibly could, wouldn't you?

But in the case of the F4u, someone recorded a 60 knts clean stall speed where the lowest recorded in the landing configuration was 63,  so something ain't right there either....

[funked]

P.S.  If anybody wants to meet me in training, I can crank out 22 second G-2 turns on demand.  You can ride as observer and run the stopwatch.

If you trim the plane right it's easy.  I'm like Ron Jeremy with wings.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-01-2000).]

[bloom25]

I'm wondering if the inclusion of propdrag will change turn stats in AH at all?  (You can bet if you chop the engine at high speeds it will.  )

I have nothing new that hasn't already been said, so I'll end my post here.  



------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

[RAM]

woooops double post

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-02-2000).]

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by F4UDOA:

banana your tired of hearing someone complain about the F4U FM being porked? Have you noticed how many threads there are complaining about obscure details of FW-190 paint schemes and MW-50 boost weather it had it or not and Blah, blah, blah.

F4UDOA...this is the (excuse me this is going to restart the flame,but I'll do it anyway) Stupidest thing said in this thread. If you dont know about what you write, then stop your fingers. Because:

1-MW50 could have been a real possibility in Fw190A in WWII

2-People are interested in MW50 Fw190's performance boost (Myself only to know it).

3-PEople DID WANT TO KNOW how many Fw190As were fitted with MW50. And Funked brought us some unvaluable data on Fw190A performance, that said clearly that MW50 never existed as a standard in A series.

4-As MW50 wasnt fitted,then People isnt asking for it anymore. (GM1 is other thing    ).

5-You have an aircraft that outperforms Fw190A in ALL aspects...except on level acceleration. You have turbolasers. You have combat flaps. If you thing that your FM is porked come and fly 190 for a couple of nights. I assure you that when you come back to F4U, then you'll think it is a Spitfire.

6-For the record, i never said "Fw190A8 FM is porked". I said "Fw190A8 is a bomber killer, not good at close fighting". Quite a difference.

7-The farthest we have gone between LW nuts in asking a booster is to put it as an option in hangar. And if I am given the choice between a GM1 for Fw190A, or the AUX fuel tank, then I go with the AUX, as I never climb over 18K in 190.

8-You have a plane that even the dweebest dweeb can take off, fly, kill 4 enemas, and land with no problem. I was one of the dweebest dweebs 4 months ago,and I used to do that. It is supposed that the F4U was the ensign eliminator...well the ensings must have been 8 year old.

9-we,fw190 nuts,can complain about paint schemes (and I dare you to give a link with me complaining about that)because Fw190A had a lot of them. Maybe you are pissed because your beloved F4U was only painted in blue?...what's up then,do you miss complaining about this matter, too?.

10-....well I could follow for years better for me to stop here.

Sorry for the flames...but I cant let some things like that pass without an adequate answer.


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-02-2000).]

[Pongo]

i vote no

------------------
"Stupids are like flies. they are everywere, but are easy to kill"
RAM

[Jekyll]

Wells makes an interesting point about the variation in aircraft performance due to pilot proficiency.

Just because Pilot 'A' says an aircraft has a 3g stall speed of x mph don't necessarily make it so.

Anyone who has read the book 'Yeager' may remember his mention of the XF-92 delta-wing prototype.  The aircraft had already been test flown by Convair, and the lowest landing speed ever attained had been 170mph.

So C.E. Yeager comes along, jumps in the XF-92 and promptly lands it at 67 mph.

Different pilot - different skill level - different aircraft performance.

Go up one time with a squaddie in identical aircraft and enter a turning fight.  You'll never get identical aircraft performance because both pilots have different skill levels.

[SnakeEyes]

THE HEDGEHOG!!!!  

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[Wanker]

 

If you trim the plane right it's easy. I'm like Ron Jeremy with wings.

ROFL! Ron Jeremy rules! Hehe, funniest thing I've seen all week, Funked.  

[Ripsnort]

Things never to bring into a conversation with those you don't personally know:
Religion
Politics
And now...Flight models.

 

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by funked:

If you trim the plane right it's easy.  I'm like Ron Jeremy with wings.

Ummm...I may appear as a dweeb...but Who the hell is Ron Jeremy?

[SnakeEyes]

 http://www.ronjeremy.com

 

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[Soup Nazi]

LAZS, NO SOUP FOR YOU!


------------------
Soup Nazi
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
 

[This message has been edited by Soup Nazi (edited 06-02-2000).]

[F4UDOA]

RAM,

First thanks for taking a post personally that was addressed to banana. If I'm so stupid why can't you read? My email was pointing out to banana that there are only a limited amount of people that are interested in the FM of the F4U and other Naval A/C. There is only one USN A/C in the game albeit two versions. You see RAM you have over 750 post on this message board which means you run your mouth non-stop about the Luftwaffe and how great it would be to start the third reich again right here in AH. Well my friend not everybody has a picture of Herman Goreing hanging in their living room. So why don't back off about what other people post.
This thread is about turn radius comparisions. Until you and your buddy banana decided that wasn't a good enough topic to post anyway. I know the Nazi's painted pretty airplanes, I just don't give a rat's ass. I know the MW-50 probably existed in some 190 versions. I just don't want to talk about it again. There are 4 versions of the 109 and the second 190 coming out soon. I don't think 2 versions of the F4U will kill you althought you LW boys have been crying in you laderhosen since the 1C came out. If you want it gone so bad do some offline testing and prove it's porked. There is plenty of data in this thread about turn radius comparisons but I know your not interested. By the way, the FW-190A8 is porked because the Nazies porked it. It was too heavy to turn or climb. The A-5 is better but not by much. It still has one of the highest wing loadings in the game. I guess you can cry about that too. Who knows. Maybe you can make a thousand post by the end of this thread?

WAAAAAHWAAAAAWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

F4UDOA  

[-lazs-]

funked... don't get so westy er, testy.  Perhaps the Emperor is wearing flesh colored clothes?  
Ok... some of the slower turning planes may only be off 20% or so in the best pilots hands.  guess that would make the worst ac off by 40% or so.   Something is wrong.  My guess is that whatever it is that is off....  Affects different planes differently and that is why they also perform badly on a comparisson basis.   What speed were you using in your test?  I know you have studied WB a great deal... What is the difference in WB turn times as oppossed to AH in %/average and which sim do you now feel is correct turn rate wise?   If you have the time, I would be interested in what you get for turn times for all the AH ac.  Please start at the bottom as I (and others) believe that these ones are off the worst.
lazs

[This message has been edited by -lazs- (edited 06-02-2000).]