Well's Somthings not right in mudsville.

[-lazs-]

niklas... The A5 should turn much better than the pig of an A8.   In the tests the Corsair gained 1 turn in three on it and turned slightly better than the 51B.   That would give the P51 a huge edge against the 190 still and that matches all the anecdotal stuff out there.   Corsair and P51 pilots knew that the Hog would turn inside a 51b,c or d.   Hellcat pilots knew they could squeak by a Hog in the turn.

The A5 is coming soon... Do you say that it should turn 30% worse than both the Hog and the current A8?   Do you see the problem?   As new planes are added the problem is compounded.  
lazs

[bashwolf]

Doh Beaver No he said that her bobs are big!

Sorry guys I was having a hard time understand this one hehe but finally Butthead explain it to me.


Bash

[wells]

Lazs,

Nothing is known about the conditions in which the F4u could gain 1 in 3 turns on the 190.  Was the 190 cruising along while the F4u *bounced* him at greater speed?  There is no other explanation other than a cautious 190 pilot.  Sure, an F4u could turn inside a 190, but gain 1 in 3 turns?  Not from co-E states!!!  You must have that report that says the 190 can out-turn a 38F above 140 mph???  These fly-offs make me laugh, even more so, now that I've seen the results from the Fighter Conference!

[funked]

"That would give the P51 a huge edge against the 190 still and that matches all the anecdotal stuff out there."

Nope, sorry.

[Voss]

 

Originally posted by funked:
"That would give the P51 a huge edge against the 190 still and that matches all the anecdotal stuff out there."

Nope, sorry.

LOL

I don't turn. I set my controls up so I CAN'T turn. I fly the Mustang like it's a Mustang. It kills 190's dead.  You stick to your Luftwaffe stuff.  

 

[BBGunn]

I have been wondering if some of the modeled  AC over-accelerate in a dive at lower altitude (thicker air) compared to the real AC figures which I don't know.  There is supposed to be lot of technical stuff on WW2 plane performance in the national archives if somebody can figure out how to access the data.

[-lazs-]

wells... that data was from a test with a captured 190A5 against both a Hellcat and a Corsair and done by the TAIS.

"the hellcat and Corsair were far superior to the FW 190 in turning circles and characteristics.  The Corsair and Hellcat could follow the 190 in turns with ease at any speed, but the 190 could not follow either of the other two airplanes(8690lb/197sq ft/44.1; Hellcat 12406 lb/334 sqft/37.1 lbs/sqft; Corsair 11988 lb/314 sqft/38.1 lb/sqft)"  " From a head on meeting with the FW 190 both the Corsair and Hellcat could come directly behind it in one turn.  From a position directly behind it it was possible to turn inside the FW 190 and be  directly behind it again in about 3 turns."

These test were with an A5 and .   Other comparitive tests with a P51B are revealing as to Corsair and Hellcat turn ability.  Hey. they may not have climbed that great but at least give em their turn ability.   Bet they would be used more.... And not for the cannon.
lazs

[juzz]

USN test says F4U-1A out-turns P-51B.

AFDU test says Mustang Mk III "had no difficulty in out-turning" Me 109G-6.

Therefore the F4U-1A should have no trouble out-turning Me 109G-6.  

Something that may be important is the spoiler they put on the F4U to stop it dropping a wing at stall - what effect did it have on turn performance? Did those trial planes have it fitted or not?

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 06-11-2000).]

[Mr.ED]

I'm a sim pilot Jim, not a areospace engineer!

Well the way I read it, the corrected data is tighter that the not corrected data.

So when is this new Pony coming out?

Mr.ED
327th A.C.G.

[This message has been edited by Mr.ED (edited 06-11-2000).]

[funked]

AFDU said turn fighting the 190 in the P-51A was "not altogether recommended".  P-51B/C/D are much heavier than the A.  You think they turned better?

[MANDOBLE]

Probably the US pilot driving the 190A5 on that test had 0 hours experience with that plane, probably that pilot was not taking the best from that A5. Anyway, as far as I know, F4U was anything but an agile aircraft.

[juzz]

From the original document:
 

Prior to the comparitive tests the Fw 190 was stripped and painted with standard smooth finish camoflage finish, and the pilots were familiarised with the airplane.

[-lazs-]

U.S. pilots new that a Corsair could turn inside a 51 or 47 with ease.   Even in the "soccer" war of '69 those pilots all knew a Corsair could outturn a 51 and the 51 was no match for a Corsair under about 18K..... This is a carrier plane guys with a low wingloading and boosted ailerons and manouver flaps.... It don't climb spectacular but at least give it it's rightfull turn and acceleration performance.   Wouldn't it be nice to have another useful plane that was also realistic?  

Again... If our A (LOL) 8 turns this well... How will they model the more nimble A4.... You know, the one that a Corsair so easily outurned?
lazs

[Jochen]

 

It don't climb spectacular but at least give it it's rightfull turn and acceleration performance.

You know, acceleration and climb are very dependent on eachothers? Poor climb = Poor acceleration (in level flight)

 

Again... If our A (LOL) 8 turns this well... How will they model the more nimble A4.... You know, the one that a Corsair so easily outurned?

Our A-8? Does this mean that you somehow feel like being part of AH community already?

I bet I can arrange test here in AH where A-8 will gain 1 turn during 3 turns against F4U-1... Just don't ask me accurate details how I did it since you don't provide them either about real life test with opposite result.

On more serious note, I don't think that USN test is very conclusive... As test document says, pilots were familiarized with A-5 and off they went to the blue yonder. I bet they didn't have skil to fly A-5 to it's limits like they did have with F6F and F4U. That will skew the results against A-5.

How about looking scientific data? I think F4U does not have 33% lighter wingloading or 33% better lift...

------------------
jochen Jagdflieger JG 2 'Richthofen' Aces High
jochen Geschwaderkommodore (on leave) Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen'  Warbirds

Thanks for the Fw 190A-5 HTC!

Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief
Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight
Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free
But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

[This message has been edited by Jochen (edited 06-12-2000).]

[F4UDOA]

Jochen,

I don't really think the issue is how well the A-8 performes in the game currently. Remember this is a game based on real A/C. The A-5 does not currently exist in AH yet so we don't know how it will perform. What we do know however is that in 1944 the Navy Tested these A/C against one another in preperation for the invation of Europe and a possible encounter between these A/C. All pilots involved were veteren combat test pilots doing a tactical evaluation. Thier findings are very conclusive based on the fact that the Max speeds for the Fw-190 as well as rated horsepower and boost as well as the weighted condition were all in accordance to the captured manual they were using. In fact the F4U had engine problems during the test which may have slowed it down. For anyone on this message board to second guess their report would be a bit silly don't you think?
As far as the physics of the situation it is relatively simple. The wingloading of the Fw-190A-5 is simply to high to perform tight turns or loops. It is also stated in the report that the F4U accellerates better than A-5 up until higher altitudes. The F4U was known to have excellent accelleration during wartime and carrier waveoffs and I can quote several sources on this. The reason for this is also very simple and it relates to the climb of the Fw-190 as well. The propeller of the FW190 is a paddle blade propeller meaning that it is extremely efficient at low speed improving climb performance dramatically. This is also the case in the P-47D-25. When the Prop was changed to a paddle blade the climb improved almost 1,000fpm(using combat power) with no increase in engine horsepower. The F4U has a similer benifit because it used the largest prop on any WW2 fighter the 13'4" Hamilton standard. A larger prop generates more thrust IE greater acceration and climb. The AH FM while it is mostly accurate does not account for prop efficiency. In fact most people on this message board calculating the numbers do not account for it either . It is easier to rate them all at 80% efficiency at all speeds when in fact this is far from the truth. That is why actual flight test data is the one truth in flight testing. It is why you play the Super Bowl instead of reading the stats and calculating a score. Just because some very bright people have written a compute simulation does not make it so. My one true facination is with WW2 fighter A/C. Simulators just make it possible to express that feeling. If you modify the truth to fit your hobby then you are just "Gaming the Game" You can't change history.

F4UDOA