Author Topic: 190A vs SpitVB  (Read 7500 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #45 on: July 24, 2003, 08:57:24 PM »
Ecke -109-,

I think you missed my point.

It was MANDOBLE making the post and it mentioned both German aircraft and Spitfires in the same post.  Therefore it was a whine.  MANDOBLE's record on this subject is too strong for apparently innocent phrases (and those were loaded phrases anyways) to make a thread valid.

Any thread of MANDOBLE's that includes the word "Spitfire", or some other term for that aircraft, is automatically doomed.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #46 on: July 24, 2003, 11:51:16 PM »
I will start questioning wether the Spitfire is modelled correctly the minute the endless whines cease about it, untill then...I know God is in his heavan, and all is well in AH. :)

Spitties forever.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Lazerus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #47 on: July 25, 2003, 12:23:02 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding
And there was me thinking the chip-on-my-shoulder luftwhiners had heard enough of their own arguments. Still good to see the deceased horse is worth flogging.

Keep it coming!


Ever hear of Billy Mims?

Offline Lazerus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #48 on: July 25, 2003, 12:33:50 AM »
I didn't read the entire thread, but I do fly 190's almost exclusively, and I can tell you from experience in the MA that every spit in the MA can, givin equal energy, outclimb any Fw. I don't know what the charts say, I don't look at them. I don't care what the charts say, bacause the only thing that matters is how the planes perform in the virtual airspace that we occupy.



Now if the 190 is suposed to outclimb the lighter and less powered spits, then maybe we should have it like that. Many many sorties have ended with a co-alt spit out diving with me and catching my 190a8, even with energy states pretty equal.

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #49 on: July 25, 2003, 02:16:44 AM »
Some months ago I tried a Spitfire IX for a whole TOD. Well, I'm not a FM guru, but, hell, looks like that MkIX handles to well at very high speeds. Moreover, while I can live with the higher sustained ROC of the Spitfire I find her E retention after a zoom climb .... well, too much "P51ish".

I remember WB2, when during a dogfight bettween a 190 and a Spit their respective strenghts/weaknesses looked more close to what a I've read on the books/manuals/trials.

That said, I was wondering why those Spitfire have instruments in their cockpits. After driving a 109/190/205 you can dogfight in a Spitfire without checking your speed/ROC/alt at all .... :p ;)
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #50 on: July 25, 2003, 09:53:17 AM »
It's the longe range gunnery aspect.

 Outzooming Spits with a 300~400 yards margin is easy.

 Problem is, in every given situation the 190s must prepare excessive Energy that will alow it too zoom with a margin wider than at least 600 yards. Anything under that, and any body can snipe everything out of the sky, as long as he is willing to pull the trigger down long enough.

 Another problem is the way Spits or N1K2s stall out, while compared to how the other planes stall out. Even with manual trim, a straight vertical to 0mph will often cause a inverted flat spin. In the case of the Spit or N1K2, almost no such problem. Since there is no fear of it, their aim remains rock solid during the vertical.

 Another interesting thing is how the torque forces work in the Spit9 or the N1K. I'm mentioning this because, the other planes show very different flight characteristics between combat trim and manual trim. However, when I fly Spits, N1K2s or such, I keep get confused whether I'm flying with MT, or CT - can't tell the difference. The only indicator to me, is the nose pitch-up movement when speeds increase, in MT.

 Ofcourse, all empirical feelings, nothing more.

 But I think there are valid reasons that the Spit9 or Spit5, maybe inevitably, are better than they should be. Of course, that don't necessarily mean the reasons are exactly as Mandoble gave.

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #51 on: July 25, 2003, 11:21:25 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by gatt
Well, I'm not a FM guru, but, hell, looks like that MkIX handles to well at very high speeds.


Can you elaborate on that?

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2003, 11:24:20 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Furball
hi funked, just out of interest how did the f4u compare to the 190? if you have seen the test reports of course.

And, all you spit whiners are just jealous ;)



Off the top of my head... The Fw climbed a little better at low speeds.  F6F and F4U were faster at high altitudes.  F4U and F6F could turn easily inside the Fw.  Fw could out roll F6F but F4U had about the same roll rate as the Fw.  I'll put the report back on the web this weekend so you can read it.

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15780
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #53 on: July 25, 2003, 11:26:48 AM »
Thx funked!
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #54 on: July 25, 2003, 12:15:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by funkedup
Off the top of my head... The Fw climbed a little better at low speeds.  F6F and F4U were faster at high altitudes.  F4U and F6F could turn easily inside the Fw.  Fw could out roll F6F but F4U had about the same roll rate as the Fw.  I'll put the report back on the web this weekend so you can read it.


I wonder what F-4U was that? The report mentions boosted ailerons, which might be the case why the pilots felt it similiar to the FW190 (to my knowledge no serial F4U had boosted ailerons) in the test:



BTW, here`s the complete Hellcat vs. 190 vs. F4u evalutation:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/page1.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/page2.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/page3.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/page4.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/page5.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/page6.jpg

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #55 on: July 25, 2003, 12:36:59 PM »
All Corsairs had balance tabs on the ailerons and elevator, which made controls very light at high speeds.  These are sometimes called "boost tabs" also.
Here's a good explanation of balance tab function:  http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/control/TH28G6.htm

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2003, 03:32:20 PM »
Quick notes on that F4U-1D used during the test.

1. It was not a paddle blade used for the test mentioned in the report.

2. It was overheating at high power because of mixture problems.

3. That FW190 was actually a G model. I think someone already mentioned that but the AAF also tested with that aircraft.

4. The boost tabs were added somewhere in the early F4U-1 production series. They also re-enforced the elavators to prevent shredding them somewhere in the F4U-1 series.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2003, 03:34:26 PM by F4UDOA »

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #57 on: July 26, 2003, 01:01:01 AM »
It became clear quite some time ago that AH is not an accurate simulation, and we really cannot expect it to be considering it's a simulation of 60 year old aircraft. It still annoys me from time to time that AH sometimes fails to capture the "feel" of the difference in performance and that is most noticeable with the Fw/Ta series (although the A8 does feel like the brick it was). We got an A5 that dosn't feel like the flying engine it was (acceleration), we got a D9 that can't dive with a fully laden 51D with bombs and rockets, we got a Ta-152 that can't turn or climb and snaps wingtips off at relatively low G-loads. This was perhaps the single biggest disapointment for me since the 190 is my favorite LW plane. I stick to 109's in this game.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #58 on: July 26, 2003, 01:06:55 AM »
Oh and the Spitfire seems to accelerate to quickly in a dive, and retain E too well in tight turns compared to other low wingloading planes.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
190A vs SpitVB
« Reply #59 on: July 26, 2003, 02:57:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by funkedup
All Corsairs had balance tabs on the ailerons and elevator, which made controls very light at high speeds.  These are sometimes called "boost tabs" also.
Here's a good explanation of balance tab function:  http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/control/TH28G6.htm


That`s a Flettner tab I see at your link. So the Corsair had Flettners? Interesting, I didnt know that (I amnot much into F4U development). Since I am going today to an air race where they have a F4U4 displayed, I will definietely check it. ;) Still, the British measuerements give very much better roll figures to the 190 vs. the corsair - unless we concentrate only on 350mph IAS.