Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: HellFire on December 08, 2009, 08:39:29 PM
-
Greetings :)
The purpose of this query is specific to individual planes fighting AGAINST the F4U-1A, not talking about furballs, just how each plane listed below fares against the hog, man to man, individually:
F4U vs P38: found this to be a very iffy situation, the win could go either way, a difficult proposition, pilot skill a determining factor.
F4U vs P40?
F4U vs spit9 or spit16?
F4U vs BF109s?
F4U vs FW 190D?
F4U vs Ki84
F4U vs P51
Corsair experts are invited to add their opinions, experiences & skills,
your treatises PLUS FILMS are requested, in fact, encouraged. Thx .
-
Here's what I think:
P38 wins with E, F4U wins with turning ability
P40 wins.
F4u Wins.
109 wins E, F4U turn
F4U
Ki84
F4U
-
1) As you said could go either way.
2)F4U
3)F4U
4)F4U
5)F4U
6)F4U
7) Close fight but I'm swinging towards the F4U
8)F4U
-
I'll add one the la-7, flying in this plane I have hard times with the f4u.
-
Depends on who is piloting But I'd lean towards the F4 in each one of those matchups
(edit) although. Given equal skill levels in each of the panes. there are several which would end up in a non fight or a draw if each flew strictly to the planes best abilities and didnt play the other ones game.
-
Here's what I think:
P38 wins with E, F4U wins with turning ability
P40 wins.
F4u Wins.
109 wins E, F4U turn
F4U
Ki84
F4U
:O :huh
-
:O :huh
Corsairs have light effective lift loadings. The things are known to have out-turned Yaks in combat, so what is ridiculous about them out-turning 109s? Deal with it.
Although in point of fact the 109s will sustain a superior rate of turn. Failure to know the implications of rate vrs. radius, sustained vs. instantaneous, and nose-to-tail vs. nose-to-nose are how the Corsairs have gained a reputation for being able to out-turn "everything".
-
Yeah what he said ^. I would take the F4U1A almost every fight, however I believe if you are well versed in what they can do, you can get even the best pilots to make a mistake. I flew this hog for a while and loved its style, however, Joker may attest(or not) the 109 k4 did have an edge that I thought was surprising, of course the fact that the kill shot is 1 30mm rather than several other round types is a considerable advantage, maybe some of it was luck. But if you can get a guy to throw out his flaps too early you maybe able to slide over the top and come down with some success. :salute
-
Of that list the only opponent I really find to be of much concern is the Ki-84. The P-38 matches well, but more often than not the F4U should win. I'd LOVE to here Bosco's reasoning for picking the P-40 over the F4U, tho.
You should really be more specific about the 109s, though. While you can fight an F4U-1A much the same as you would any of the 1-series Hogs, fighting a 109K is nothing like fighting the F.
-
Corsairs have light effective lift loadings. The things are known to have out-turned Yaks in combat, so what is ridiculous about them out-turning 109s? Deal with it.
Although in point of fact the 109s will sustain a superior rate of turn. Failure to know the implications of rate vrs. radius, sustained vs. instantaneous, and nose-to-tail vs. nose-to-nose are how the Corsairs have gained a reputation for being able to out-turn "everything".
yea another example of how great a plane performs near its stall speed when it doesn't need to worry about stalling anymore ...
some day the excuses will stop and the questions will start around here ...
-
yea another example of how great a plane performs near its stall speed when it doesn't need to worry about stalling anymore ...
some day the excuses will stop and the questions will start around here ...
Prove it. Oh wait, you still only make asinine comments and have no substantiated proof/facts to back them up.
-
Greetings :)
The purpose of this query is specific to individual planes fighting AGAINST the F4U-1A, not talking about furballs, just how each plane listed below fares against the hog, man to man, individually:
F4U vs P38: found this to be a very iffy situation, the win could go either way, a difficult proposition, pilot skill a determining factor.
F4U vs P40?
F4U vs spit9 or spit16?
F4U vs BF109s?
F4U vs FW 190D?
F4U vs Ki84
F4U vs P51
Corsair experts are invited to add their opinions, experiences & skills,
your treatises PLUS FILMS are requested, in fact, encouraged. Thx .
How can you tell? I can kill F4Us in any of those planes with ease (cept the D9, thats for picking only :lol) and have killed all these planes in an F4U. Unless you could fight yourself you could not tell. Even then, your style may skew the results since it maybe better fitting for one of the planes.
Pilot is the determining factor
-
Prove it. Oh wait, you still only make asinine comments and have no substantiated proof/facts to back them up.
why don't you prove it ...
outside of the video game i mean ...
after all i've been waiting on one real world account for this general argument for what 3 or 4 tours now?
posted threads on other BBS where you guys get squashed with these "arguments" ...
posted videos of pilots who have flown multiple types that completely contradict your "facts" ...
i just want to see one or two pilots of these planes saying that the turn favors the hog or
even that the hog would be close vs. a 109.
there is a reason things seem counterintuitive, usually they are highly unlikely ...
like a hog out turning a 109 ...
in the real world
-
Bearing in mind that the pilots have a huge effect on outcome, here is my thoughts assuming all things equal:
F4U vs P40?
F4U vs spit9 or spit16?
F4U vs BF109s?
F4U vs FW 190D?
F4U vs Ki84
F4U vs P51
-
why don't you prove it ...
outside of the video game i mean ...
after all i've been waiting on one real world account for this general argument for what 3 or 4 tours now?
posted threads on other BBS where you guys getting squashed with these "arguments" ...
posted videos of pilots who have flown multiple types that completely contradict your "facts" ...
i just want to see one or two pilots of these planes saying that the turn favors the hog or
even that the hog would be close vs. a 109.
there is a reason things seem counterintuitive, usually they are highly unlikely ...
like a hog out turning a 109 ...
in the real world
Get you information on whatever plane your looking at and send it in to HiTech. If the info is from a good source they will adjust the plane accordingly in one of the patches.
I know folks have told you this before... I have myself in earlier posts. As far as I know at this point your posts regarding this have all been wishful thinking on your part.
No one has to post any info here... the planes aqre all based on information attained by HiTech through differing sources. From time to time they do make adjustments if better info is aquired. I'm sure you have info to back your posts otherwise you'd not be saying what you are saying. I mean only an idiot would do that. Send that info, hilighting what you are talking about, to HiTech. They may contact you for clarification or to find where that info came from. They do take it seriously.
-
Guys, don't take his bait. Remember the 19-page hijack he started when someone was just asking how to beat a Spit 16?
-
Get you information on whatever plane your looking at and send it in to HiTech. If the info is from a good source they will adjust the plane accordingly in one of the patches.
I know folks have told you this before... I have myself in earlier posts. As far as I know at this point your posts regarding this have all been wishful thinking on your part.
No one has to post any info here... the planes aqre all based on information attained by HiTech through differing sources. From time to time they do make adjustments if better info is aquired. I'm sure you have info to back your posts otherwise you'd not be saying what you are saying. I mean only an idiot would do that. Send that info, hilighting what you are talking about, to HiTech. They may contact you for clarification or to find where that info came from. They do take it seriously.
Guys, don't take his bait. Remember the 19-page hijack he started when someone was just asking how to beat a Spit 16?
oh sorry i guess i should have just posted the ...
:aok
-
.
there is a reason things seem counterintuitive, usually they are highly unlikely ...
Yes, counter-intuitive ideas are always false. A heavier object *so obviously* falls faster than a lighter one that it is not even debatable.
like a hog out turning a 109 ...
in the real world
If you want to go by anecdotes instead of physics...
P-51s were known to be competitive with 109Gs in turning combat. You cannot debate this, oh lover of pilot anecdotes, since there are far too many pilot reports of P-51s winning Luftberrys with 109s. (You are not allowed to question the context of these results, since you have made it abundantly clear that you believe that flight physics as the rest of the world knows them have no bearing on flight performance.) And that the F4U owned P-51s in mock turning dogfight is also known...so what does this tell us?
-
Yes, counter-intuitive ideas are always false. A heavier object *so obviously* falls faster than a lighter one that it is not even debatable.
If you want to go by anecdotes instead of physics...
P-51s were known to be competitive with 109Gs in turning combat. You cannot debate this, oh lover of pilot anecdotes, since there are far too many pilot reports of P-51s winning Luftberrys with 109s. (You are not allowed to question the context of these results, since you have made it abundantly clear that you do not believe that flight physics as the rest of the world knows them have no bearing on flight performance.) And that the F4U owned P-51s in mock turning dogfight is also known...so what does this tell us?
ummm no ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
-
ummm no ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
Anecdote vs. Anecdote...LOL.
-
Anecdote vs. Anecdote...LOL.
no skip holm has time in both types and has the chance to compare them in flight together with the pilots in radio communication ...
that is experience not "Anecdote"
real world testing that only a blinder wearing fanboy would dismiss ...
-
Aaaaaaand the thread has now jumped its tracks.
-
G-14 with 75% and the Mg151 weighs ~7000 lbs. Take the wing area of 175 square feet, divide, and you get a basic wing-loading of 40 lbs/foot.
F4U-1A at 75% weighs 12,389 lbs and has a wing area of 314 square feet. Resulting in a basic wing-loading of 39.5 lbs.
So things are looking good for a Corsair to be competitive with the 109s in a turn radius, without even considering the effects of the uber-flappen. One would expect that with such similar wing-loadings and the 109s power-loading advantage that it would have an advantage in turn RATE in game...oh wait, it DOES.
Better luck next time Thorsim, thanks for playing.
-
And hundreds of WWII pilots did NOT have a chance compare performance? Under *slightly* more realistic conditions than two guys jacking around in a restorations in a mock dogfight? :rofl
no skip holm has time in both types and has the chance to compare them in flight together with the pilots in radio communication ...
that is experience not "Anecdote"
real world testing that only a blinder wearing fanboy would dismiss ...
Hardly fly the Corsairs. Don't like them. I like fatuous morons even less is the thing. Will tell you, If you're having alot of trouble dealing with most Hogs in 109s, that's a personal problem, not a modeling problem.
-
Aaaaaaand the thread has now jumped its tracks.
always seems to happen when the status quo is questioned in cartoon land huh ...
G-14 with 75% and the Mg151 weighs ~7000 lbs. Take the wing area of 175 square feet, divide, and you get a basic wing-loading of 40 lbs/foot.
F4U-1A at 75% weighs 12,389 lbs and has a wing area of 314 square feet. Resulting in a basic wing-loading of 39.5 lbs.
So things are looking good for a Corsair to be competitive with the 109s in a turn radius, without even considering the effects of the uber-flappen. One would expect that with such similar wing-loadings and the 109s power-loading advantage that it would have an advantage in turn RATE in game...oh wait, it DOES.
Better luck next time Thorsim, thanks for playing.
in the real world 109 has flaps and slats so lets see a real world pilot of these aircraft answer the question the way skip did ...
oh i forgot this is where you guys always fail ...
never mind
And hundreds of WWII pilots did NOT have a chance compare performance? Under *slightly* more realistic conditions than two guys jacking around in a restorations in a mock dogfight? :rofl
Hardly fly the Corsairs. Don't like them. I like fatuous morons even less is the thing. Will tell you, If you're having alot of trouble dealing with most Hogs in 109s, that's a personal problem, not a modeling problem.
yep they have no idea what was going on with the other pilot/plane so it is an AAR, not a comparison, as skip has done ...
sorry you still can't see the difference ...
BWFB :aok
-
always seems to happen when the status quo is questioned in cartoon land huh ...
in the real world 109 has flaps and slats so lets see a real world pilot of these aircraft answer the question the way skip did ...
Enough to decrease the power-off 1G stall speed of the 109 G-14 in question to 75mph IAS? Because that is the number that ultimately tells you the effective lift loading of the aircraft.
The F4U's turning capabilities in-game are backed up by the physics. For reasons unknown, take offense to this, you are abysmally ignorant of the physics involved, so you want to make innuendos and talk about everything else.
If you really want to question something in AHII, you ought to question why an airplane that in the real world stalled at 100mph IAS clean in AHII produces a larger turn radius than one that stalled at 105mph IAS clean...but that wouldn't follow in with the "agenda" now would it?
-
Heresay, anecdotal evidence, opinions, etc, etc.. anything but hard proof (i.e. "acceptable" documentation)
I am going to go out on a limb here about Thorism and his "issues" with Aces High.
I have watched Thorism fly and fight in AcesHigh.
He's not very good; a "meh" on a good day.
I think the basis for most of his arguments/issues with the AH FM stems from his lack of flying skill. It is the FM's fault he got shot down when, according to all the books he read and youtube clips he has watched, he should have won that fight.
I will (have) beat most of the pilots in this game while flying an inferior aircraft time and again.
It ain't the planes Thorism, it's the pilot.
Some day when you have logged the hours/days/weeks/months/years of practice you will 'get' that the flight model in AcesHigh is pretty durn accurate.
Sure I feel several planes can be tweaked. No I don't think the AH FM is perfect. BUT it is pretty durn good and if you take the time to practice you will be amazed at what one can do.
Just because YOU get killed in a plane you "heard" was superior doesn't mean it is the planes, or the AH FM's fault that you died..
And FYI Thorism, I have yet to see you NOT end up looking like a fool when trying to debate AcesHigh's flight model in the various threads I have read. It has been shown time and again that you lack even basic understanding of how FM's work and the physics involved.
I have seen players who have forgotten more about the subject than you (or I) will probably ever know, walk away from your threads in frustration because it is like arguing with a child. You THINK you understand the subject matter but in reality only have the most basic of grasp on it, and are flat out wrong about much of it.
-
Yah Thor...things aren't that bad..."You can do eeet!" :D
(http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs071.snc3/13838_1150062204180_1606353641_1726255_5541531_n.jpg)
-
By circumstance I had some fun fights with a good hog driver over the weekend. All in all the spitXVI vs hog is a fun matchup with the hog having the initial advantage (IMO) and the spitty gaining parity as the fight goes on. The spits climb and acceleration eat into the hogs E advantage over time. In the end I think gunnery makes the difference between good pilots. Most fights I lost either because I missed a shot or he hit what I considered to be a low % one...I'd say the reverse was also true. I don't ever fear another plane, its the guy flying it that bothers me....
-
Yah Thor...things aren't that bad..."You can do eeet!" :D
(http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs071.snc3/13838_1150062204180_1606353641_1726255_5541531_n.jpg)
hey i never said they were that bad ...
just still waiting for you guys to find either a real world current (in this case) f4u or 109 pilot to offer an opinion that is not completely the opposite of the situation in the game and or you paper excuses for the situation in the game ...
4 months now, still waiting ...
-
why don't you prove it ...
outside of the video game i mean ...
after all i've been waiting on one real world account for this general argument for what 3 or 4 tours now?
posted threads on other BBS where you guys get squashed with these "arguments" ...
posted videos of pilots who have flown multiple types that completely contradict your "facts" ...
i just want to see one or two pilots of these planes saying that the turn favors the hog or
even that the hog would be close vs. a 109.
there is a reason things seem counterintuitive, usually they are highly unlikely ...
like a hog out turning a 109 ...
in the real world
You have not posted one thing that shows how the flight model in game is incorrect. You have also dismissed any data that has been presented showing you're incorrect in your claims. Others, myself included, have posted real world accounts that support what we've said, only to have you dismiss them because they don't mesh with your reality.
ack-ack
-
hey i never said they were that bad ...
just still waiting for you guys to find either a real world current (in this case) f4u or 109 pilot to offer an opinion that is not completely the opposite of the situation in the game and or you paper excuses for the situation in the game ...
4 months now, still waiting ...
Most all of the AH FM's come very close to "matching up" with most real world opinions on how the planes should fly.
Just because YOU can't make 'em fly that way........
-
hey i never said they were that bad ...
just still waiting for you guys to find either a real world current (in this case) f4u or 109 pilot to offer an opinion that is not completely the opposite of the situation in the game and or you paper excuses for the situation in the game ...
4 months now, still waiting ...
Its funny how you like to go by a plane's "rep" when it suits your purpose...I.E, the Corsair is obviously a "bad turner"...even though that "rep" comes from fighting against freakin' Zeros, which of course skews the situation...but ignore the "rep" when it does not...I.E. the fact that if pilots reports are to be believed, P-51s succeeded in down and dirty turn-fights against 109s many, many times under actual combat conditions.
So nothing can be "known" in your opinion 'till two guys fire up a 109 and F4U and try flying a few Luftberries in them? :rofl Really Thorsim, would you accept a well-reasoned, scientific argument for *NOT* sticking your johnson in a sausage grinder, or would you just have to try the experiment? I begin to suspect the latter.
Oh, BTW, F4U vs. Yak. F4U wins...with ordnance on the racks.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CBYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.navy.mil%2Fa-korea%2Fcaug51-26.pdf&rct=j&q=F4U+vs.+Yak&ei=EuwfS4PyIMyIkAXT7vHnCg&usg=AFQjCNGQkcn6hPgsQB0t9m_I0YCqIZf_XQ (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CBYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.navy.mil%2Fa-korea%2Fcaug51-26.pdf&rct=j&q=F4U+vs.+Yak&ei=EuwfS4PyIMyIkAXT7vHnCg&usg=AFQjCNGQkcn6hPgsQB0t9m_I0YCqIZf_XQ)
-
You have not posted one thing that shows how the flight model in game is incorrect. You have also dismissed any data that has been presented showing you're incorrect in your claims. Others, myself included, have posted real world accounts that support what we've said, only to have you dismiss them because they don't mesh with your reality.
ack-ack
Most all of the AH FM's come very close to "matching up" with most real world opinions on how the planes should fly.
Just because YOU can't make 'em fly that way........
musta missed those remind me ...
just one current pilot expert opinion that says a spit or 109 is disadvantaged in a turn fight vs an f4u or pony or 38 or jugg or hellcat ...
just one ...
EDIT add the yak just for B and Z
-
musta missed those remind me ...
just one current pilot expert opinion that says a spit or 109 is disadvantaged in a turn fight vs an f4u or pony or 38 or jugg or hellcat ...
So reports from wartime pilots actually flying in combat OR test flights do not count? :rofl
The fundamental problem with with two guys jerking around in restorations is that the weights compared to actual combat conditions may be off, the altitudes may be off, and I will guarantee you they are not pushing the aircraft in the same way combat pilots did.
-
So reports from wartime pilots actually flying in combat OR test flights do not count? :rofl
The fundamental problem with with two guys jerking around in restorations is that the weights compared to actual combat conditions are unknown, the altitudes may be off, and I will guarantee you they are not pushing the aircraft in the same way combat pilots did.
NOPE they can only tell 1/2 of one side ...
i.e. the winners point of view from one aircraft type, because the dead guys can't dispute their claims about aircraft superiority ...
as far as maneuverability math guys go the usual suspects here like to isolate a single issue and claim that it determines the maneuverability of an aircraft when we all know it is a combination of several factors that can only really be sorted out in real world testing ...
-
NOPE they can only tell 1/2 of one side ...
i.e. the winners point of view from one aircraft type, because the dead guys can't dispute their claims about aircraft superiority ...
So the Information in this Book from Japan is "wrong"? 95% of it is translated into English.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/Aces%20High/HienBook.jpg)
I'm pretty confident the information is the one of the most comprehensive on the Ki-61. Just give it up with your "statements and failure to back them up with anything substantiated".
-
Someone use smaller words... thor can't seem to come through with the factual information to supply HiTech with.... I'm thinking he just is not comprehending. Obviously he has this info before posting. Someone see if they can get him to push it through to the powers that be.
-
Someone use smaller words... thor can't seem to come through with the factual information to supply HiTech with.... I'm thinking he just is not comprehending. Obviously he has this info before posting. Someone see if they can get him to push it through to the powers that be.
“They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.” Terry Pratchett
-
just 1 ...
4 months and counting ...
WHAT CAN'T YOU GUYS FIND A SOURCE TOP BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS ? ? ?
-
just 1 ...
4 months and counting ...
WHAT CAN'T YOU GUYS FIND A SOURCE TOP BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS ? ? ?
Contact HiTech he has the sources and info.
-
just 1 ...
4 months and counting ...
WHAT CAN'T YOU GUYS FIND A SOURCE TOP BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS ? ? ?
What would you like to know about the Ki-61 that you "think" is currently incorrect? Besides the Turn Data, that is incorrect.
-
Contact HiTech he has the sources and info.
having a discussion with you guys not hitech ...
What would you like to know about the Ki-61 that you "think" is currently incorrect? Besides the Turn Data, that is incorrect.
ki-61 ? ? ?
WTF? where did i ever mention the ki61? ever ? ? ?
-
as far as maneuverability math guys go the usual suspects here like to isolate a single issue and claim that it determines the maneuverability of an aircraft
These are not claims. These are facts. You can look up the formulas for turn rate and turn radius yourself, if you care to. The fact that you do not understand the physics involved does not invalidate it, anymore than heavy objects fall faster just because most people believe they do.
when we all know it is a combination of several factors that can only really be sorted out in real world testing ...
Actual side by side testing is mostly unavailable for most aircraft in-game, and when available, frequently contradictory.
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/38848cc6f343c5c391e46465300c73286g.jpg)
Further more, if you actually believe there are "way more factors" in maneuverability than are known to physics, then you can't apply ANY test across the board in a blanket way. Since you apparently believe that happy thoughts or whatever $#Q%@^%@$% it is this week can contravene the physics of lift, thrust, and drag, there is no way one could expect the results for a G-14 with an Mg 151 onboard to be applicable to the same G-14 with a Mk. 108 onboard. No sir, you can't just figure for the extra weight and go from there...'cause you don't believe in physics. You have to get out your tape measure and check the turn radius of a real G-14 with one, then re-arm and try it again...'cause you got to account for all the mysterious and magical factors, don't ya know. And of course, this will only be Thorsim's turn radius for the G-14 in game, surely another pilot's size and weight would throw all kinds of un-calculable factors into it.
Hmmm...physical laws are mutable nothing can be known except by word of the "learned authorities"? Just who is an "authority" is a matter of debate of course...of course, if you're Thorsim its whoever supports your original idea most neatly...My God, we have a valuable example of the Medieval mindset in our midst that I have never appreciated up until now.
-
ki-61 ? ? ?
WTF? where did i ever mention the ki61? ever ? ? ?
You lose.
-
You lose.
post it
-
you calling skip holm a liar?
These are not claims. These are facts. You can look up the formulas for turn rate and turn radius yourself, if you care to. The fact that you do not understand the physics involved does not invalidate it, anymore than heavy objects fall faster just because most people believe they do.
Actual side by side testing is mostly unavailable for most aircraft in-game, and when available, frequently contradictory.
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/38848cc6f343c5c391e46465300c73286g.jpg)
Further more, if you actually believe there are "way more factors" in maneuverability than are known to physics, then you can't apply ANY test across the board in a blanket way. Since you apparently believe that happy thoughts or whatever $#Q%@^%@$% it is this week can contravene the physics of lift, thrust, and drag, there is no way one could expect the results for a G-14 with an Mg 151 onboard to be applicable to the same G-14 with a Mk. 108 onboard. No sir, you can't just figure for the extra weight and go from there...'cause you don't believe in physics. You have to get out your tape measure and check the turn radius of a real G-14 with one, then re-arm and try it again...'cause you got to account for all the mysterious and magical factors, don't ya know. And of course, this will only be Thorsim's turn radius for the G-14 in game, surely another pilot's size and weight would throw all kinds of un-calculable factors into it.
Hmmm...physical laws are mutable nothing can be known except by word of the "learned authorities"? Just who is an "authority" is a matter of debate of course...of course, if you're Thorsim its whoever supports your original idea most neatly...My God, we have a valuable example of the Medieval mindset in our midst that I have never appreciated up until now.
-
you calling skip holm a liar?
You calling Bud Anderson a liar?
See how this works?
Though case in point, what you have been doing on this forum for weeks is EXACTLY like calling the whole lot of scientists who have worked out the principles of aerodynamics over the years liars, or at least woefully misguided. I'd be surprised if you travel on commercial airlines, since according to you the people who designed the things have no idea what makes an airplane fly.
-
just face it it has been 4 months of these types of discussions and if you experts could find one current real world opinion to back up your claims you would have posted it by now ...
there is not one modern pilot expert with a real world reputation willing to get all fan boy about any of these planes in public, on the record, that supports the statements i have taken issue with here ...
when you filter out the cheerleading, morale driven, export surplus plane sales slanted "tests", of woefully overburdened, poorly maintained, derelict or crash recovered aircraft, and check with a modern unbiased source there is not one statement or test out there that supports things and opinions here ...
if there were it would be posted ...
wouldn't it ...
-
Corsairs have light effective lift loadings. The things are known to have out-turned Yaks in combat, so what is ridiculous about them out-turning 109s? Deal with it.
Although in point of fact the 109s will sustain a superior rate of turn. Failure to know the implications of rate vrs. radius, sustained vs. instantaneous, and nose-to-tail vs. nose-to-nose are how the Corsairs have gained a reputation for being able to out-turn "everything".
Yes, because only the guys flying the F4U understand these things lol. Had you been around in AH1? F4Us and 109s used to be bricks until the fix that made every plane a spitfire.
-
just face it it has been 4 months of these types of discussions and if you experts could find one current real world opinion to back up your claims you would have posted it by now ...
(http://phlyingpucks.com/files/2009/11/facepalm2.jpg)
-
no i would call him a considerably less qualified source on the 109 and therefore less able to make an informed comparison on the two airframes. i would also have reason to think he had a soft spot for the p-51, as he should.
but certainly a less than neutral contributor to the discussion.
i am not calling any scientists liars i just think somethings do not translate so neatly to the real world ...
that is why even now we have TEST PILOTS and not just engineers scientists and computers ...
You calling Bud Anderson a liar?
See how this works?
Though case in point, what you have been doing on this forum for weeks is EXACTLY like calling the whole lot of scientists who have worked out the principles of aerodynamics over the years liars, or at least woefully misguided. I'd be surprised if you travel on commercial airlines, since according to you the people who designed the things have no idea what makes an airplane fly.
-
By circumstance I had some fun fights with a good hog driver over the weekend. All in all the spitXVI vs hog is a fun matchup with the hog having the initial advantage (IMO) and the spitty gaining parity as the fight goes on. The spits climb and acceleration eat into the hogs E advantage over time. In the end I think gunnery makes the difference between good pilots. Most fights I lost either because I missed a shot or he hit what I considered to be a low % one...I'd say the reverse was also true. I don't ever fear another plane, its the guy flying it that bothers me....
absolutely without a doubt the truest response thus far :aok
:salute
-
always seems to happen when the status quo is questioned in cartoon land huh ...
Yeah, especially when QUESTIONING THE STATUS QUO IS WHAT'S OFF TOPIC.
You want to question the status quote start a new frelling thread and don't cut in to someone else's when they're looking for recommendations on how to fight so-and-so opponent, or insight on what plane has what advantage over another aircraft within the game. It's NOT the place to bring out your same tired and ground into the dirt arguments.
-
Greetings :)
The purpose of this query is specific to individual planes fighting AGAINST the F4U-1A, not talking about furballs, just how each plane listed below fares against the hog, man to man, individually:
F4U vs P38: found this to be a very iffy situation, the win could go either way, a difficult proposition, pilot skill a determining factor.
F4U vs P40?
F4U vs spit9 or spit16?
F4U vs BF109s?
F4U vs FW 190D?
F4U vs Ki84
F4U vs P51
Corsair experts are invited to add their opinions, experiences & skills,
your treatises PLUS FILMS are requested, in fact, encouraged. Thx .
In the end, it really comes down to the pilot vs pilot equation. I basically fly the F4U's on any day that ends in "y", and have beaten all of those planes, and been beaten by all those planes.
The planes on that list that threaten me the most (with a skilled pilot) are the KI-84, P51, 190D9, and 109 (G or K). The Spit 16 can be a handful too. I have to screw up to be worried about the Spit9 or P40.
In the game I'm seldom worried about any of those, until I run into a pilot who knows how to use his planes advantages over mine. I kill 109's almost every time I run into them, for example. But then again, if the 109 flies to his advantages, all I can do is dodge his shots and hope he screws up. Same for the P51...
I just took a 109G pilot into the DA a week or so ago, whom I've had the fortune to kill many times in the MA. I taught him how to kill me in his 109G vs my F4U-1A, with a tactic I can't do much to defeat. All he needs to do is use his speed, climb, and acceleration advantages, coupled with rolling in the vertical. He also needs to avoid stepping into the traps I'll lay for him. Overall, it was pretty simple. He caught on quick (20 minutes?) and he'll now be a major threat to me in the MA. He'll still be in the same plane; but where he wasn't a huge threat before, now he probably will be...
-
Yeah, especially when QUESTIONING THE STATUS QUO IS WHAT'S OFF TOPIC.
You want to question the status quote start a new frelling thread and don't cut in to someone else's when they're looking for recommendations on how to fight so-and-so opponent, or insight on what plane has what advantage over another aircraft within the game. It's NOT the place to bring out your same tired and ground into the dirt arguments.
i wasn't the one to take this thread off topic ...
somebody stated that in the game the advantage between the hog and the 109 in a turn-fight should go to the hog and the "E" fight should go to the 109s, i questioned that ...
BnZ then came in with his "numbers" trying to make the case for TRW where i pointed out that as others have noted this is not the TRW ...
BnZ brought this discussion out of the game context not me ...
then the other usual suspects started with their usual arguments.
pay attention please ...
-
Yes, because only the guys flying the F4U understand these things lol. Had you been around in AH1? F4Us and 109s used to be bricks until the fix that made every plane a spitfire.
If a plane that stalls at 75mph IAS could *not* sustain a relatively tiny turn radius, then the modeling was wrong. Simple as that
-
I just took a 109G pilot into the DA a week or so ago, whom I've had the fortune to kill many times in the MA. I taught him how to kill me in his 109G vs my F4U-1A, with a tactic I can't do much to defeat. All he needs to do is use his speed, climb, and acceleration advantages, coupled with rolling in the vertical. He also needs to avoid stepping into the traps I'll lay for him. Overall, it was pretty simple. He caught on quick (20 minutes?) and he'll now be a major threat to me in the MA. He'll still be in the same plane; but where he wasn't a huge threat before, now he probably will be...
It wasn't me, I swear. :)
Thanks mtnman for showing me, it was very helpful.
and yes, in most cases, a late war 109 can beat a f4u-1a, all it has to do is get on top and force the f4u down. late war 109s have a climb rate that everything but the 4 hog could only dream of.
-
I pointed out the fact that an airplane which stalls at 75mph IAS will have a competitive turn *radius* vrs. many other WWII a/c types. This is not debatable, turn radius correlating directly with 1g stall speed. Therefore the F4U's turning performance in game is perfectly consistent with real-world aerodynamics.
I also pointed out that every variant of 109 will sustain a better *rate* of turn than the F4U-1s in-game, which you ignore, apparently being innocent of the difference between rate and radius of turn and the implications for ACM therein. (Hint, it is not in fact true that "the turning fight goes to the F4U" in every case) Which along with an ignorance of basic aerodynamics leads whiners into believing the the F4U is a UFO Hitech put in the game to torment them.
i wasn't the one to take this thread off topic ...
somebody stated that in the game the advantage between the hog and the 109 in a turn-fight should go to the hog and the "E" fight should go to the 109s, i questioned that ...
BnZ then came in with his "numbers" trying to make the case for TRW where i pointed out that as others have noted this is not the TRW ...
BnZ brought this discussion out of the game context not me ...
then the other usual suspects started with their usual arguments.
pay attention please ...
-
I pointed out the fact that an airplane which stalls at 75mph IAS will have a competitive turn *radius* vrs. many other WWII a/c types. This is not debatable, turn radius correlating directly with 1g stall speed. Therefore the F4U's turning performance in game is perfectly consistent with real-world aerodynamics.
I also pointed out that every variant of 109 will sustain a better *rate* of turn than the F4U-1s in-game, which you ignore, apparently being innocent of the difference between rate and radius of turn and the implications for ACM therein. (Hint, it is not in fact true that "the turning fight goes to the F4U" in every case) Which along with an ignorance of basic aerodynamics leads whiners into believing the the F4U is a UFO Hitech put in the game to torment them.
BnZs this has nothing to do with the quote of mine you quoted ...
per the OP's question i would B and Z the 109s with the hog as speed and speed retention are usually in the hogs favor and i think a 109-f4 would be more of a problem turning than a k4/g14 would be booming and zooming ...
to the OP if you are caught E- i would extend as preferable to fighting, conversely if i were E+ i would play the energy game and avoid the temptation to turn as i think that is where your advantage should be most all of the time vs. the 109s when in the f4us ...
IMHO
+S+
t
-
I've made it as far as the You tube video.... Is that Skip Holmes? His first lines are yadda yadda - I fly 108's, storchs ect....then he says "Skip Holmes flys that now"....If that's not Skip Holmes being interviewed, then who is it? or does Skip Holmes talk about himself as a 3rd person?
-
skip is the second guy ...
-
I knew there was something wrong with waffle and I just figured it out..............he is an AGGIE, WHOLEY KOW, you know that is how they speel it at AGGIE LAND, he he he he he
-
lol! - watched about 1/2 of it - kept wondering about it :)
-
F4U after some training is extremely easy mode, It cant be beat in any scissors if flown right the only thing I would suggest with maybe the 38,Ki84, and 109s would be go for a really low speed rope which takes some set up skillz. :salute
-
ummm no ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
Loved the line.
"and you know why? I dont know who your boss is But im sure he's told the program writers that the allies won the war. And if I ever find an enemy airplane that out flies an allied airplane. you guys are fired."
-
God I love putting in my 2 cents. Hey guess what wing load does play a factor along with weight. One thing everyone seems to forget it is not just these two items or single advantages one might have over the other but it is the design of the plane as a whole. The fuselage, wings, tail assembly and everything else that makes the plane and hangs from it effects it performance. Lets just say if it worked on the real one then put it in the Flight Model. If it has a real nasty slow speed stall characteristic then put it in the flight model. And by the way a good pilot in a toejamty plane can beat a toejamty pilot in a good plane. There are so many variables that I am beginning to feel like its beat your head against the wall day.
It would be nice to hear a civilized conversation with out all the sarcasm and animosity that plays into these threads. But then it would not be entertaining and no one would read them.
-
having a discussion with you guys not hitech ...
ki-61 ? ? ?
WTF? where did i ever mention the ki61? ever ? ? ?
Ahh so your just stirring the pot and have no info. Ok.
-
God I love putting in my 2 cents. Hey guess what wing load does play a factor along with weight. One thing everyone seems to forget it is not just these two items or single advantages one might have over the other but it is the design of the plane as a whole. The fuselage, wings, tail assembly and everything else that makes the plane and hangs from it effects it performance. Lets just say if it worked on the real one then put it in the Flight Model. If it has a real nasty slow speed stall characteristic then put it in the flight model. And by the way a good pilot in a soupty plane can beat a soupty pilot in a good plane. There are so many variables that I am beginning to feel like its beat your head against the wall day.
It would be nice to hear a civilized conversation with out all the sarcasm and animosity that plays into these threads. But then it would not be entertaining and no one would read them.
Another thing that has a huge impact on the performance is the shape of the wings airfoil. This is what made the p52 'special'. Just comparing wing loading assumes that all the planes had the shape wing with the same airfoil, which is far from the truth.
-
F4U after some training is extremely easy mode, It cant be beat in any scissors if flown right the only thing I would suggest with maybe the 38,Ki84, and 109s would be go for a really low speed rope which takes some set up skillz. :salute
I'd never consider a hog easy mode. It's an extremely busy plane to fly correctly, with E management having to always be on your mind in a fight. Being poor at climbing and accellerating means E is hard to get back once spent(-4 is the exception).
:salute
BigRat
-
I've noticed that everyone is in agreement that the KI can do better than the F4U. I'm puzzled. I've flown the KI a lot lately and still have a hard time getting the kill on a 1A. I know my pilot skills suck, but, really, I have a hard time getting any kills in a KI. I do better in a JUG. Maybe it's just me and the 50 cal laser beams.
-
I've seen what the P40 can do, and I can see the P40 winnning many of the fights. Suprised it's not flown more in the MAs. I'll fly it tonight and show it's ability.
-
I've noticed that everyone is in agreement that the KI can do better than the F4U. I'm puzzled. I've flown the KI a lot lately and still have a hard time getting the kill on a 1A. I know my pilot skills suck, but, really, I have a hard time getting any kills in a KI. I do better in a JUG. Maybe it's just me and the 50 cal laser beams.
I don't know that I'm in agreement here. Now the 84 is a good matchup in it's use of verticle to counter the hogs flaps and turning ability. The longer the fight the more it goes in the 84's favor, but I normally find I can start getting angles on the 84 early in the fight. 2nd merge normally, I'll start pushing an advantage, especially if the 84 was silly enough to go nose down at all. The thing to remember when trying to kill hogs is make them fight up, and don't let them get their nose down. As everyone mentioned before, it comes down to the pilot more then the plane, a poor plane with good tactics will normally beat a good plane with bad tactics.
:salute
BigRat
-
yea umm re read the thread ...
i posted expert opinions ...
i have other places i can talk to hitech ...
i never mentioned the ki61 here ...
as i showed earlier BnZ started the pot stirring about TRW ...
but thanks for keeping up as usual ...
Ahh so your just stirring the pot and have no info. Ok.
-
I've seen what the P40 can do, and I can see the P40 winnning many of the fights. Suprised it's not flown more in the MAs. I'll fly it tonight and show it's ability.
You do that. Go find a non nweeb in a f4u or 109. She dives and turns well, but so do they. Or fly er into a horde of spitfires on the deck. I can get 1 sometimes 2 spits. Then I click my rubi slippers 3 times and I'm in the tower. Why are we comparing p40s to f4us ? F4u faster on deck better climb probably turns better full flaps. :confused:
-
yea umm re read the thread ...
i posted expert opinions ...
i have other places i can talk to hitech ...
i never mentioned the ki61 here ...
as i showed earlier BnZ started the pot stirring about TRW ...
but thanks for keeping up as usual ...
Opinion are a dime a dozen..... you still lack fact.
-
yea umm re read the thread ...
i posted expert opinions ...
i have other places i can talk to hitech ...
i never mentioned the ki61 here ...
as i showed earlier BnZ started the pot stirring about TRW ...
but thanks for keeping up as usual ...
I never said you did. I merely asked you to "Debunk" anything about the Ki-61, including an excellent Japanese source, except the Turn Radius. You couldn't, so you took the back pedal approach.
-
And by the way a good pilot in a soupty plane can beat a soupty pilot in a good plane.
Put 2 pilots who are a close fight into a 1v1, one in any hog, one in a 109.....the Hog will win if the 109 cant get an E advantage
....my 2 cents
-
Opinion are a dime a dozen..... you still lack fact.
at least i have a qualified unbiased expert opinion to refer to ...
you guys just have each other here in cartoon land ...
4 months now ...
and counting ...
-
I've seen what the P40 can do, and I can see the P40 winnning many of the fights. Suprised it's not flown more in the MAs. I'll fly it tonight and show it's ability.
Its not because when the bad guy looks at it, the flaps get damaged lol. Also, once the bad guy realizes he lost advantage all he has to do is fly away and the p40 will never see him again until it engages someone else lol
-
Overall the hog is probably the single most versatile WW2 plane ever built outside of F7F, however fundamental principles of ACM show that unless a plane is double superior the plane with the inherently greater E state will control the fight unless initiating combat from an inferior position. The 38 is tricky since while it has clear advantages in rate of climb it is inferior in raw speed under about 25,000 ft. So in the end a well flown fight involves the hog constantly sniping at the 38 while the 38 tries to take the fight higher and higher. The flip side here is the 109k which is a clearly superior plane to the hog in a 1 on 1 fight. If you lose a fight to a hog in a 109K you either can't fly or can't shoot...end of story. Same goes for the pony, in the end the pony has to lose the fight...
-
at least i have a qualified unbiased expert opinion to refer to ...
you guys just have each other here in cartoon land ...
4 months now ...
and counting ...
I am still waiting for this "qualified unbiased expert" to fly AcesHigh and give their opinion on the Flight Model here. I don't recall any of them ever chiming in on any thread you have posted in. So please show me where they said anything even remotely close to "thorism is correct in his assessment of the AcesHigh flight model".
4 months now...
and counting...
still waiting...
Might I add we have several players here in AcesHigh cartoon land that could probably teach most so called "experts" a thing or three. Players such as WideWing have forgotten more than most anybody will ever learn about WW2 aircraft.
Aerospace engineers? (or similar) yup they have chimed in an said you are wrong.
Real world pilots? many have stated how totally wrong your assement of the AH FM is.
(I could go on an on here)
Not sure what you are expecting Thorism.
Your argument failed many threads ago when all the flaws in your reasoning were pointed out to you. (HiTech himself has told you how off base you are)
Ok, you got a youtube video that says what again?
Do remind me how anything in that video has to do with the AcesHigh flight model and how it is incorrect?
Show me where your "expert" backs your argument up.
(just to add, it was allready proven in a prior thread that it didn't and Thorism is just not willing to let it go)
If I remember right, after watching that clip, I thought to myself "yup, pretty much how it is in AH".
-
Ahh lute forget it. Thor can't produce so he constantly bickers about the modling in here. Even though he has no hard information. Reminds me of the carny looking in the crystal ball.
HiTech only uses the factual information available.
-
finally took a look at the clip....
the 1st thing that strikes you in the lack of conceptual awareness of air combat. When you listen to actual WW2 pilots (on both sides) they make entirely different points and have a much better factual understanding of relative strengths and weaknesses specific to real world applications of the weapons platform. Taken in the context of actual conversations from "real" fighter pilots the overall fight between a 109E and a spitfire I is very in character, so is the 109F vs the spitfire V and F4F/P-40/P-39 vs A6M2/5 etc.
In fact the only real weakness I can see id the relatively uber performance of the late war 109's in comparison to the P51 where the real world climb performance of the pony seems significantly better then what is modeled here.
-
Pilot is the determining factor
:aok
-
OK ladies, in my opinion, every one is wrong. Every time people complain about the models the fun club comes out to explain how perfect they are. Then HT makes changes to the models and they are perfect again. Then more changes and they are perfect again. Really??? Who cares? They are just models and no matter how accurate the numbers are, there is some code behind them that interprets them. There is only so mach that can be modeled accurately by software.
My point is, these are not real WWII planes. They are software emulated aircraft based on the accuracy of the numbers, the quality of the modeling, and the bias of the creator. I am sure an attempt to make them as accurate as possible was made but at the end, no one in here can claim that these things fly like the real thing. I do things every day in them that just feel like physics was not invented yet lol. We do things in these planes that real WWII pilots would not even consider. However we worry about how accurate the models are?
Why is it a problem anyway? It is a game and as long as the planes are different and exhibit most of the traits of the original stuff, its all good. I would love to have the models be 100% to what a real WWII plane was but that is just impossible.
Claiming the models are perfect and then changing them while we attack everyone complaining about them is funny lol. Every improvement is welcomed and going around telling things are perfect gives no one a reason to improve things. How would you know anyway? Because they told you they are or because you flew every single one of these planes in WWII and you remember how they handle?
-
funny since the first guy interviewed interviewed in that clip was the very same expert they interviewed about the 109 on showdown air combat ...
apparently they i.e. the military channel thought his input was as valuable as Bud Anderson's ...
but of course you "experts" feel different ...
BTW did anybody see the red bull barcelona?
there was an interesting clip about the importance on weight and it's effects on similar aircraft during high-g maneuvers, it did not look to good for heavier aircraft and energy retention under high-g maneuvers ...
you guys had better sort out your excuses for that discussion as well,
of course what do the red bull guys know about flying, right ...
I am still waiting for this "qualified unbiased expert" to fly AcesHigh and give their opinion on the Flight Model here. I don't recall any of them ever chiming in on any thread you have posted in. So please show me where they said anything even remotely close to "thorism is correct in his assessment of the AcesHigh flight model".
4 months now...
and counting...
still waiting...
Might I add we have several players here in AcesHigh cartoon land that could probably teach most so called "experts" a thing or three. Players such as WideWing have forgotten more than most anybody will ever learn about WW2 aircraft.
Aerospace engineers? (or similar) yup they have chimed in an said you are wrong.
Real world pilots? many have stated how totally wrong your assement of the AH FM is.
(I could go on an on here)
Not sure what you are expecting Thorism.
Your argument failed many threads ago when all the flaws in your reasoning were pointed out to you. (HiTech himself has told you how off base you are)
Ok, you got a youtube video that says what again?
Do remind me how anything in that video has to do with the AcesHigh flight model and how it is incorrect?
Show me where your "expert" backs your argument up.
(just to add, it was allready proven in a prior thread that it didn't and Thorism is just not willing to let it go)
If I remember right, after watching that clip, I thought to myself "yup, pretty much how it is in AH".
well you also seem to be having trouble following the threads, i posted the video when BnZ posted this ...
P-51s were known to be competitive with 109Gs in turning combat. You cannot debate this, oh lover of pilot anecdotes, since there are far too many pilot reports of P-51s winning Luftberrys with 109s. (You are not allowed to question the context of these results, since you have made it abundantly clear that you believe that flight physics as the rest of the world knows them have no bearing on flight performance.) And that the F4U owned P-51s in mock turning dogfight is also known...so what does this tell us?
if you watch to the whole clip video games are addressed ...
finally took a look at the clip....
the 1st thing that strikes you in the lack of conceptual awareness of air combat. When you listen to actual WW2 pilots (on both sides) they make entirely different points and have a much better factual understanding of relative strengths and weaknesses specific to real world applications of the weapons platform. Taken in the context of actual conversations from "real" fighter pilots the overall fight between a 109E and a spitfire I is very in character, so is the 109F vs the spitfire V and F4F/P-40/P-39 vs A6M2/5 etc.
In fact the only real weakness I can see id the relatively uber performance of the late war 109's in comparison to the P51 where the real world climb performance of the pony seems significantly better then what is modeled here.
i am pretty sure those guys do a lot of chatting with combat pilots of all types considering what they do with airplanes ...
as far as what they are comparing once again i point out that i was responding to BnZ who is the one who started all this in this thread as i was originally commenting on what advantages should be exploited by the f4u pilot vs. the 109s in the game.
it is amusing though how you cartoon guys disrespect and dismiss pilots who are so respected by other real pilots because their real world experience differed than the situation in your cartoon game.
pretty telling actually.
-
OK ladies, in my opinion, every one is wrong.
:aok
-
One problem in saying what a "109" should do relative any other aircraft is that the thing was in service long enough to go from being a relatively lightly wing-loaded craft to a heavily loaded rocket-sled.
I am not actually surprised by a 109 sustaining a higher rate of turn than the P-51D, given the physics of the thing. (This is EXACTLY what happens in AHII, btw) However, YOU wish to dismiss physics (because it disagrees with you) and go purely by pilot anecdote. Thus you have absolutely no right to question the numerous war-time pilot accounts of winning turning fights P-51 vs. 109. One anecdote trumps another. In actuality, this makes us come full circle, the only way to determine who is "right" being the hard science which eludes you.
I do not claim perfection for the flight model BTW. Speaking from a physics perspective, the oddest duck I know in the game is the P-51. The P-51, an aircraft whose stall speed is usually listed at 100mph clean, cannot sustain as tight a turn radius in clean configuration as the P-47D-11, whose stall speed is usually listed at 105mph clean. This simply makes no sense. This incidentally, is also in direct disagreement with every pilot who flew both types and numerous German impressions of the strength and weaknesses of both types. So if you wish to kvitch about something, make it that.
funny since the first guy interviewed interviewed in that clip was the very same expert they interviewed about the 109 on showdown air combat ...
apparently they i.e. the military channel thought his input was as valuable as Bud Anderson's ...
What the military channel does or does not think is irrelevant. The point remains, since you have dismissed the notion of using physics to determine which aircraft is more maneuverable and wish to go with pilot "experience", then EVERY pilot's experience counts, Not just the ones who agree with you.
Including the experiences of combat and test pilots in WWII who, for whatever reason, felt like the 109 was clearly less nimble than the P-51. BTW, this is something you cannot dismiss as "lies and propaganda" either, because knowingly disseminating false information about enemy a/c capabilities could have been *lethal* to your fellow pilots, and thus was a no-no.
Also one wonders why they would readily admit that Zeros out turn our craft, but lie about German aircraft capacities, with potentially lethal results...
BTW did anybody see the red bull barcelona?
there was an interesting clip about the importance on weight and it's effects on similar aircraft during high-g maneuvers, it did not look to good for heavier aircraft and energy retention under high-g maneuvers ...
Energy loss in maneuvering comes from the massive increase in drag caused by the wing being at higher angles of attack. All other factors being equal, a more heavily wing-loaded aircraft must use a higher AoA to achieve the same G as a more lightly loaded one, and thus induce more drag. This has absolutely nothing to do with the absolute mass of the aircraft in and of itself! Until you bother to learn some very basic principles of aerodynamics like this, you attempting to criticize *anyone's* flight model will remain a laughable proposition. You might try cracking a book instead of watching Youtube clips all day.
-
OK ladies, in my opinion, every one is wrong. Every time people complain about the models the fun club comes out to explain how perfect they are. Then HT makes changes to the models and they are perfect again. Then more changes and they are perfect again. Really??? Who cares? They are just models and no matter how accurate the numbers are, there is some code behind them that interprets them. There is only so mach that can be modeled accurately by software.
My point is, these are not real WWII planes. They are software emulated aircraft based on the accuracy of the numbers, the quality of the modeling, and the bias of the creator. I am sure an attempt to make them as accurate as possible was made but at the end, no one in here can claim that these things fly like the real thing. I do things every day in them that just feel like physics was not invented yet lol. We do things in these planes that real WWII pilots would not even consider. However we worry about how accurate the models are?
Why is it a problem anyway? It is a game and as long as the planes are different and exhibit most of the traits of the original stuff, its all good. I would love to have the models be 100% to what a real WWII plane was but that is just impossible.
Claiming the models are perfect and then changing them while we attack everyone complaining about them is funny lol. Every improvement is welcomed and going around telling things are perfect gives no one a reason to improve things. How would you know anyway? Because they told you they are or because you flew every single one of these planes in WWII and you remember how they handle?
Dedalos, I think for many including myself this is more than a game it's a chance to step back in time and see what it was like. The history is a big attraction, which is why there are so many historical accounts that make their way to the boards. I think it's OK that people discuss how acurate it is for the purpose of understanding how close this is to actual history. "Will the things I've heard play out." The answer isn't 0% and it isn't 100% but where it is in between seems like a good topic for discussion and improvement is something to strive for.
So how does one know. I think there are two ways.
1) Plot all the model data from AH in comparison with the actual test data from real planes from the era.
2) In the absense of 1. You examine historical accounts and tweak the models until similar results to real world are observed. This is a statistical process corrupted by many factors, but it's all you have so you do the best you can.
In Thorism defense, I think he keeps asking for #1. but no one seems to have it, or if they do, they are not publishing it, and in respose he gets a lot of #2 types answers.
True one could flight test the AH planes in the sim and produce the test data for AH, but where does one get the test data for the real world plane to compare it to? So #1 is the best answer to the question but un-availible.
#2 is the next best thing, but of course all the aguments about the other factors being a bigger influence than the plane's pure performance are true. Did the 109 pilot that 'Bud' Andersen shot down fly to the perfect edge of his plane's flight envelope? Or did he panic and pull too hard slowing his plane to a crawl where a cool and experience American ace shot him down? happens in the arena all the time. New pilots in good planes get waxed by experienced pilots in crap planes (for rem tards on free dinners). But these victories and defeats and thier similarities to 'stories' from real life are not the final answer on flight model acuracy. They just be the best way we have to make the estimates, in the absense of the flight test envelopes.
-
Ded: I'm not going to tell you that every aspect of the flight model is right. However, this thing of people constantly claiming the F4Us shouldn't turn well because "they are big and heavy" is irritating and gets old. It is EXACTLY like claiming that heavier objects should fall faster than light ones, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth, because you know it is just so darn intuitively "right".
OK ladies, in my opinion, every one is wrong. Every time people complain about the models the fun club comes out to explain how perfect they are. Then HT makes changes to the models and they are perfect again. Then more changes and they are perfect again. Really??? Who cares? They are just models and no matter how accurate the numbers are, there is some code behind them that interprets them. There is only so mach that can be modeled accurately by software.
My point is, these are not real WWII planes. They are software emulated aircraft based on the accuracy of the numbers, the quality of the modeling, and the bias of the creator. I am sure an attempt to make them as accurate as possible was made but at the end, no one in here can claim that these things fly like the real thing. I do things every day in them that just feel like physics was not invented yet lol. We do things in these planes that real WWII pilots would not even consider. However we worry about how accurate the models are?
Why is it a problem anyway? It is a game and as long as the planes are different and exhibit most of the traits of the original stuff, its all good. I would love to have the models be 100% to what a real WWII plane was but that is just impossible.
Claiming the models are perfect and then changing them while we attack everyone complaining about them is funny lol. Every improvement is welcomed and going around telling things are perfect gives no one a reason to improve things. How would you know anyway? Because they told you they are or because you flew every single one of these planes in WWII and you remember how they handle?
-
walks away
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience"
-
I am still waiting for this "qualified unbiased expert" to fly AcesHigh and give their opinion on the Flight Model here. I don't recall any of them ever chiming in on any thread you have posted in. So please show me where they said anything even remotely close to "thorism is correct in his assessment of the AcesHigh flight model".
His 'qualified unbiased expert' was some F-16 driver that plays WB that thorsim quoted in another thread to show how the flight model in AH was way off. Unfortunately for thorsim it kind of blew up in his face when someone else posted the link to the entire thread with the qualified unbiased expert's comments. Turns out the 'qualified unbiased expert' was talking about WB and not AH and even made the comment in his post that WB's flight model went into the crapper after HiTech, Pyro, Killer and others left for greener pastures.
ack-ack
-
Ded: I'm not going to tell you that every aspect of the flight model is right. However, this thing of people constantly claiming the F4Us shouldn't turn well because "they are big and heavy" is irritating and gets old. It is EXACTLY like claiming that heavier objects should fall faster than light ones, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth, because you know it is just so darn intuitively "right".
I don't know about turning ability, but I have read many accounts of it having a wicked stall. So much so they called it the Ensign Eliminator.
-
I don't know about turning ability, but I have read many accounts of it having a wicked stall. So much so they called it the Ensign Eliminator.
The issue I've read about with F4Us is their being difficult to recover from a spin (per Kershner's account) and showing a strong tendency to groundloop. The F4U evinces both tendencies in AHII.
-
I will tell you this: Thorsim has brought pure comical entertainment back to the AH boards. DO NoT Chase him away :cheers:
-
I don't know about turning ability, but I have read many accounts of it having a wicked stall. So much so they called it the Ensign Eliminator.
Yeah. Because inexperienced pilots on landing approach began to stall and firewalled the throttle to compensate. The sudden addition of torque flipped the plane on its back and, at the low altitudes of a carrier landing, with generally fatal results.
-
I don't know about turning ability, but I have read many accounts of it having a wicked stall. So much so they called it the Ensign Eliminator.
Have you seen the training video for the F4U, where they show video footage of the stall?
Here's a link to it- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-PwTTQz6Zw&feature=PlayList&p=3686025276C385A2&index=16
This is a shorter "2nd half" of the original full-length film. The stalls are shown just a few minutes in...
-
Have you seen the training video for the F4U, where they show video footage of the stall?
no I haven't, do you have a link?
-
Yeah. Because inexperienced pilots on landing approach began to stall and firewalled the throttle to compensate. The sudden addition of torque flipped the plane on its back and, at the low altitudes of a carrier landing, with generally fatal results.
What I have read seamed to suggest that right around the stall speed, the left wing would drop without warning, very quickly. This, was one of the reasons they initially were relegated to land fields and not carriers.
-
no I haven't, do you have a link?
I added the link in my original post.
-
I added the link in my original post.
Very cool, yeah the stall with the sudden wing drop was described.
-
Been a while since I watch it, but IIRC, there was no instant flipping onto the back that people seem to THINK the Corsair should do. The wing dips and she starts to crab to the left, but can be very quickly recovered before rolling over.
Which incidentally, is exactly what happens with stalls in the game....
-
Greetings :)
The purpose of this query is specific to individual planes fighting AGAINST the F4U-1A, not talking about furballs, just how each plane listed below fares against the hog, man to man, individually:
F4U vs P38: found this to be a very iffy situation, the win could go either way, a difficult proposition, pilot skill a determining factor.
F4U vs P40?
F4U vs spit9 or spit16?
F4U vs BF109s?
F4U vs FW 190D?
F4U vs Ki84
F4U vs P51
Corsair experts are invited to add their opinions, experiences & skills,
your treatises PLUS FILMS are requested, in fact, encouraged. Thx .
MY TIFF O DOOM OWNS ALL!! WOOT WOOT!!! :D
-
I have seen F4Us perform incredible manoevers in game that I have never seen any other plane perform in game. I do not question it. It is a game and some people in this game have more hours on a gamers joystick in ten years than any career air force pilot can get flight hours in an entire 30 year career, Not to mention combat hours. Its crazy insania to even try to compare the game to any version of reality.
-
I have seen F4Us do incredible manoevers in game that no other plane can follow. I do not question it. It is a game and some people in this game have more hours on a gamers joystick in ten years than any career air force pilot can get flight hours in an entire 30 year career, Not to mention combat hours. Its crazy insania to even try to compare the game to any version of reality.
don't forget that in the game we have the liberty of dieing and learning from our deaths. In real life, pilots could not afford to take the risks we do, nor did they have the ability to learn from many of the mistakes we make.
-
Dedalos, I think for many including myself this is more than a game it's a chance to step back in time and see what it was like.
I was nothing like this game.
-
To answer the original question about the F4u vs Spit9, equal pilots, I think it depends on E states. If the Spit was going a bit slower than the hog, I think the spit would have a much easier task, as that small E difference isn't enough for a hog to E fight the spit, and also makes it harder for the hog to kill the E for a quick snapshot. If the Spit was going faster then it would have the ability to completely E fight the hog, without giving the hog a breath of air. I think that there is a small window where the E's states are very close to the same, where the hog has the ability to kill it's E and turn tighter than the spit, allowing for a snapshot. The fact that it's almost more difficult to lose E in a Spit than it is to gain it, is a disadvantage that a hog pilot should look to exploit for a killshot. :salute
-
Ded: I'm not going to tell you that every aspect of the flight model is right. However, this thing of people constantly claiming the F4Us shouldn't turn well because "they are big and heavy" is irritating and gets old. It is EXACTLY like claiming that heavier objects should fall faster than light ones, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth, because you know it is just so darn intuitively "right".
I agree, that is why I think everyone is wrong. 6 years ago, F4Us and 109s could not turn. Few years ago, they learned how to do it. Both were based on the most accurate data, best ever modeling, etc etc. So which model was right? I could not tell you but you can see why people may question the models.
Last night I was turning a G6 inside a 38J 10 feed off the ground with the stall buzzer on. After what seemed to be 10 turns i gained enough for a shot. Can a G6 do that? I don't know. Would anyone consider it in real life? I know I wouldn't. Its a game. Nothing is realistic. Not the war, the engagements, the silly buildings, the way a field is captured, even the flames are not modeled right. Why would you think that the planes are and how could anyone imagine how the real stuff was like?
-
I agree, that is why I think everyone is wrong. 6 years ago, F4Us and 109s could not turn. Few years ago, they learned how to do it. Both were based on the most accurate data, best ever modeling, etc etc. So which model was right? I could not tell you but you can see why people may question the models.
Last night I was turning a G6 inside a 38J 10 feed off the ground with the stall buzzer on. After what seemed to be 10 turns i gained enough for a shot. Can a G6 do that? I don't know. Would anyone consider it in real life? I know I wouldn't. Its a game. Nothing is realistic. Not the war, the engagements, the silly buildings, the way a field is captured, even the flames are not modeled right. Why would you think that the planes are and how could anyone imagine how the real stuff was like?
I've heard different opinions on this "F4Us and 109s couldn't turn in AHI" issue.
-
well here is the crux of the red bull thing (as i understood it) ...
wing size does not change with g forces, but effective weight does. so at 1 g flight a plane with identical wing-loading that is 100lbs heaver you say shows no disadvantage to it's lighter opponent (we disagree there) ...
however under 5 g's the effective weight difference is now 500lbs and the wing sizes have not changed so the heavier plane now under 5g's has a significant wing-loading disadvantage, does it not?
so would not the lighter plane with the same wing-loading tend to have an advantage in a maneuver fight as it's relative effective weight and loadings under G-loads becomes less and less as the Gs increase during maneuvers?
could not the same be said for lift-loading under g-forces
could something similar be said for power-loading relative to weight/mass and prop efficiency lag giving the lighter plane with similar power loading an acceleration advantage as the throttle settings and speeds vary in a fight?
is not that why planes that need to maneuver well to accomplish their design intent tend to be as small and light as possible.
are not all these planes, propeller driven fighter planes of WW-2, as small as possible while meeting their design intent. are not the hog and jug as small as possible to be able to carry the engine and ordinance their intended missions required over the distances the missions demanded?
therefore does not the maneuver fight advantage usually favor the smaller lighter aircraft with a few extreme exceptions?
? ? ?
-
Hey if you type "luftwhiner" in your ignore list you can no longer see thorism's posts. Who knew?
-
Hey if you type "luftwhiner" in your ignore list you can no longer see thorism's posts. Who knew?
almost 20 mins and that is the best you guys can do ...
you all are slipping ;)
-
Hey we need to keep at least one of you luftwhiners around. We need someone to point and laugh at. :neener:
-
i thought you were ignoring me ...
disinformation ? :noid
-
almost 20 mins and that is the best you guys can do ...
you all are slipping ;)
You assume you're entertaining enough that we're all riveted to our seats waiting for you to post again?
If both planes are pulling 5G's, with identical wing loading, they're both pulling 5G's with identical wing-loading. You think one would turn tighter?
-
Isn't weight of the aircraft factored into determining wing loading? If you have two aircraft with identical wing loading but one is heavier then the other variable in the equation must also be different.
If X+Y=Z and you change X and Z remains constant then Y must also change, Thor's last post doesn't make any sense to this layman.
-
i thought you were ignoring me ...
disinformation ? :noid
I see sarcasm is lost on you. I wouldn't ignore you, the luftwhine is far to entertaining to ignore.
-
Hey we need to keep at least one of you luftwhiners around. We need someone to point and laugh at. :neener:
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a29/r988/repost/luftwhiners.jpg)
ack-ack
-
well both at 5g indicates the same rate of turn (fixing all other parameters, of course), but i would intuitively think that the lighter plane would do it in a smaller area and or bleed less energy in the process of that turn as the forces it is dealing with are less by factors.
but mostly i am relaying what the pilot was explaining about weight advantages re the air races. strictly speaking these factors would not be as relevant in TRW because high G dogfights were very much the exception and not the rule. that is why in TRW often times further higher faster were often the primary design goals.
however in the games high G dogfighting is much more common and in those situations the dynamic flight consequences should show up more than in the real world.
You assume you're entertaining enough that we're all riveted to our seats waiting for you to post again?
If both planes are pulling 5G's, with identical wing loading, they're both pulling 5G's with identical wing-loading. You think one would turn tighter?
-
Isn't weight of the aircraft factored into determining wing loading? If you have two aircraft with identical wing loading but one is heavier then the other variable in the equation must also be different.
If X+Y=Z and you change X and Z remains constant then Y must also change, Thor's last post doesn't make any sense to this layman.
wing size does not change but the effective weight of the aircraft does. so 100lbs at 2G is 200lbs on the same wing ...
-
poor guy..........
-
weight matters ...
http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/Satellite/en_air/Video/Weight-Matters-021238615428953?p=1238611393596
-
Weight does matter... for the structural integrity of the airframe. Ever wondered why the larger birds had larger wings? Imagine a P51 with the wings of a spit, those things would rip off in a second. Tomas McGuire was known to bend the wings of his P38 by pulling heavy G's.
-
Weight does matter... for the structural integrity of the airframe. Ever wondered why the larger birds had larger wings? Imagine a P51 with the wings of a spit, those things would rip off in a second. Tomas McGuire was known to bend the wings of his P38 by pulling heavy G's.
:headscratch:
not sure where you get that from what i posted ...
but at least you replied in agreement, the rest of the "weight in and of itself is insignificant fairie dust and combat flaps fix everything" usual suspects seem to have made their typical silent egress ...
poor guyS..........
it must hurt having nothing to say in response ...
-
:headscratch:
not sure where you get that from what i posted ...
but at least you replied in agreement, the rest of the "weight in and of itself is insignificant fairie dust and combat flaps fix everything" usual suspects seem to have made their typical silent egress ...
it must hurt having nothing to say in response ...
Let me speak for almost everyone, it is not that we have nothing to say, we are just become very tired of having to respond to posts like this.
Insert Quote
well both at 5g indicates the same rate of turn (fixing all other parameters, of course), but i would intuitively think that the lighter plane would do it in a smaller area and or bleed less energy in the process of that turn as the forces it is dealing with are less by factors.
but mostly i am relaying what the pilot was explaining about weight advantages re the air races. strictly speaking these factors would not be as relevant in TRW because high G dogfights were very much the exception and not the rule. that is why in TRW often times further higher faster were often the primary design goals.
however in the games high G dogfighting is much more common and in those situations the dynamic flight consequences should show up more than in the real world.
We become very tired of discussing the above post with someone who,
1 Has and agenda
2 Lacks the knowledge to discuss the above statement.
3 Has no desire to acquire the knowledge to discuss the above statement.
4 Uses terms like "but i would intuitively".
5 Has been proven wrong so many times, most people with any real knowledge no longer wish to get involved in the conversation.
6 When cornered starts name calling with stupid statements like "but at least you replied in agreement, the rest of the "fairie dust and combat flaps fix everything"
7 Actually believes that if he repeat the same BS over and over and over, that maybe someone would believe him.
8 Actually will make a statement that "He is right because no one is saying he is wrong any longer"
9 Shows all the traits of a classic Luftwhiner in the best tradition of other players such as Crump.
10 Has for more than a month continued to whine about flaps in almost every post he makes.
HiTech
-
Let me speak for almost everyone, it is not that we have nothing to say, we are just become very tired of having to respond to posts like this.
We become very tired of discussing the above post with someone who,
1 Has and agenda
2 Lacks the knowledge to discuss the above statement.
3 Has no desire to acquire the knowledge to discuss the above statement.
4 Uses terms like "but i would intuitively".
5 Has been proven wrong so many times, most people with any real knowledge no longer wish to get involved in the conversation.
6 When cornered starts name calling with stupid statements like "but at least you replied in agreement, the rest of the "fairie dust and combat flaps fix everything"
7 Actually believes that if he repeat the same BS over and over and over, that maybe someone would believe him.
8 Actually will make a statement that "He is right because no one is saying he is wrong any longer"
9 Shows all the traits of a classic Luftwhiner in the best tradition of other players such as Crump.
10 Has for more than a month continued to whine about flaps in almost every post he makes.
HiTech
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/owned-1.jpg)
-
yes once again when cornered attack the poster and once again ignore the information ...
seems there were several willing to talk yesterday ...
what is different today ...
besides yet another expert opinion that does not have a vested interest in the status quo contradicting the experts and situation here ...
it's your game and your board hitech you do what you want here, if you want to take this up on even terms you know where to find me ...
Let me speak for almost everyone, it is not that we have nothing to say, we are just become very tired of having to respond to posts like this.
We become very tired of discussing the above post with someone who,
1 Has and agenda
2 Lacks the knowledge to discuss the above statement.
3 Has no desire to acquire the knowledge to discuss the above statement.
4 Uses terms like "but i would intuitively".
5 Has been proven wrong so many times, most people with any real knowledge no longer wish to get involved in the conversation.
6 When cornered starts name calling with stupid statements like "but at least you replied in agreement, the rest of the "fairie dust and combat flaps fix everything"
7 Actually believes that if he repeat the same BS over and over and over, that maybe someone would believe him.
8 Actually will make a statement that "He is right because no one is saying he is wrong any longer"
9 Shows all the traits of a classic Luftwhiner in the best tradition of other players such as Crump.
10 Has for more than a month continued to whine about flaps in almost every post he makes.
HiTech
-
Shield blocked and parried!
I didnt read through all 9 pages, but Ive found in a well flown f4u vs a P40 the engine and flaps give the f4u a slight edge. Same as most opponents the p40 fights, spit9,109f for instance, the planes are so close that the edge goes to who can hold his nose up longest.
-
but at least you replied in agreement, the rest of the "weight in and of itself is insignificant fairie dust and combat flaps fix everything" usual suspects seem to have made their typical silent egress ...
I don't recall anyone that disagrees with you saying that at all.
ack-ack
-
really ?
so what do you think people have been disagreeing with me about?
I don't recall anyone that disagrees with you saying that at all.
ack-ack
-
Plane A weighs 5000lbs and has 200 square feet of wing to carry that weight. Wingloading=25lbs foot. Abit on the light side for a WWII fighter, but let's roll with it for simplicity.
Plane B weighs 10,000lbs and has 400 square feet of wing. Again, wingloading=25 lbs/foot.
Plane A is in a 5g turn...we could say that it effectively "weighs" 25,000 lbs. now. 25,000/200=125lbs that every foot of wing must support.
Plane B is in that same 5g turn. 50,000/400=125.
I said you needed to acquaint yourself with some basic aerodynamics. Apparently you need an introduction to grade-school level math as well.
well here is the crux of the red bull thing (as i understood it) ...
wing size does not change with g forces, but effective weight does. so at 1 g flight a plane with identical wing-loading that is 100lbs heaver you say shows no disadvantage to it's lighter opponent (we disagree there) ...
however under 5 g's the effective weight difference is now 500lbs and the wing sizes have not changed so the heavier plane now under 5g's has a significant wing-loading disadvantage, does it not?
so would not the lighter plane with the same wing-loading tend to have an advantage in a maneuver fight as it's relative effective weight and loadings under G-loads becomes less and less as the Gs increase during maneuvers?
-
Thor you again post that a lighter plane should slow down less and turn better.
We gave you all the numbers to show that weight alone means nothing in flight performance. I will give you all the math again if you wish, but we have before and it still will not make any difference. You refuse to believe basic physics.
And hence why the debate about performance is completely over, because it is YOU who no longer has any valid argument that people agree with.
With you is like I make the statement If x = y and y = z, then x = z. You state clearly that you believe x does not = z.
Hence why try discuss anything with you.
So again what do you believe is wrong with any model? But be precise please and only make 1 claim at a time. If you try simply state that plane X should preform better because it is lighter, sorry it will not be worth answering.
HiTech
-
really ?
so what do you think people have been disagreeing with me about?
People have been disagreeing with you because you've shown to be rather clueless and has yet provide any data to back up your claims.
ack-ack
-
I was nothing like this game.
And a fencing match is nothing like actually stepping out on a cool morning to put cold steel in someone while they try to do the same to you...still, I'd rather epees continue to be made out of steel and not be replaced by foam "nerf" swords, make sense? ;)
From a technical standpoint...you see a bandit, you approach unseen, and blow him out the sky. 80% of the real "dogfights" you read about went that way. Similar things happen everyday in the MA.
Anyway, the tactics used in this game are as like or unlike R/L as the players choose to make it. The designer can only give us accurate tools. He can't force accurate tactics on us.
-
Hmmmm....
The basic premise that you don't argue with a moron still holds true...so why do you bother to argue HT? It's not like you have magic moron begone pixie dust...or do you:)?
-
Hmmmm....
The basic premise that you don't argue with a moron still holds true...so why do you bother to argue HT? It's not like you have magic moron begone pixie dust...or do you:)?
Simply because it is some what true that if you repeat a false hood enough times with out being contradicted, some people will believe the false hood is true.
So in time the rep of the moron is shown, the next step is they normally they keep digging the hole deep enough where the pixie begone dust works it's magic. It needs the heat of the earth core (around 1,000,000 :) ) to work.
HiTech
-
Thor you again post that a lighter plane should slow down less and turn better.
We gave you all the numbers to show that weight alone means nothing in flight performance. I will give you all the math again if you wish, but we have before and it still will not make any difference. You refuse to believe basic physics.
And hence why the debate about performance is completely over, because it is YOU who no longer has any valid argument that people agree with.
With you is like I make the statement If x = y and y = z, then x = z. You state clearly that you believe x does not = z.
Hence why try discuss anything with you.
So again what do you believe is wrong with any model? But be precise please and only make 1 claim at a time. If you try simply state that plane X should preform better because it is lighter, sorry it will not be worth answering.
HiTech
gentlemen where have i said that weight is the only factor?
my argument all along on the weight issue has been that weight is a factor in itself.
your arguments are valid, however i am not the ones questioning the validity of peoples arguments.
my point has been that weight is a factor in and of itself and i suspect that you can find no pertinent real world examples to support your math that you say proves weight is not a factor by itself because of the real world engineering scaling problems.
that is why you will never find a real world pilot/expert that will side with the original arguments i find fault with in this case the preference for a maneuver fight for the f4u over a 109 ...
your isolated math arguments although effective for these discussions just do not translate to the real world.
that is why weight is so important to the racers, and that is why you can not post an expert real world opinion that differs from mine or the experts in the videos i have posted even after 4 months.
hitech these are general discussions, i have not addressed a flight model here. i have on a side bar disagreed with those who feel that extreme size and weight disadvantages can be effectively be compensated for within the limits of WW2 aircraft.
as far as what i feel is wrong with any particular FMs i disagree with the efficiency of your flaps in the game and the consequences of that. as you well know the documented testing of these things are not easy to find for all the planes or even enough of them to make comparisons ...
i did also point out that your criteria for who can use their flaps when was IMO flawed because they are not purely engineering sources. you have been shown some data and accounts that support using force loads is a better way to determine those limits for the game.
in the process of these discussions i have been repeatedly insulted and censored here, so as i posted before if you really want to have a discussion about this start a discussion in AGW where we can express ourselves on even terms.
you all can think whatever you want about me but what i am is a MMOL WW2 ACM Game fan, new here but a 12 year veteran of the genere. well respected by many other well respected members of the Genre. one who expresses his opinions and known to be well informed and if stubborn in perception also known for recognizing his own mistakes openly and publicly. on the current issues ...
nobody has produced a convincing enough case for WW2 planes twice as heavy or more having the advantage in maneuver fights as so many claim here for me to retract my public suspicions about these things.
nobody has shown any real reason for the flap speed situation other than what IMO are obvious policy decisions by the respective operating air-forces and IMO should be able to be ignored by us players the same way they were ignored by the pilots historically.
if and when those things come to light i will amaze you with the grace that i make my retractions,
however until then i will defend my points with the same ferocity that others attack them with,
without the personal attacks and limited sarcasm as they are not tolerated here from me.
thank you for indulging my review ...
+S+
t
Plane A weighs 5000lbs and has 200 square feet of wing to carry that weight. Wingloading=25lbs foot. Abit on the light side for a WWII fighter, but let's roll with it for simplicity.
Plane B weighs 10,000lbs and has 400 square feet of wing. Again, wingloading=25 lbs/foot.
Plane A is in a 5g turn...we could say that it effectively "weighs" 25,000 lbs. now. 25,000/200=125lbs that every foot of wing must support.
Plane B is in that same 5g turn. 50,000/400=125.
I said you needed to acquaint yourself with some basic aerodynamics. Apparently you need an introduction to grade-school level math as well.
-
People have been disagreeing with you because you've shown to be rather clueless and has yet provide any data to back up your claims.
ack-ack
i asked what, not why sir
-
Ok thor I will try one last time, but I will only debate one at a time. So I will start with.
my point has been that weight is a factor in and of itself and i suspect that you can find no pertinent real world examples to support your math that you say proves weight is not a factor by itself because of the real world engineering scaling problems.
Now quite frankly your statement is very ambiguous, so please indulge me by not debating but simply asking you to clarify/ specifies your terms. If evade the questions I ask or if you try change a definition after the fact you will have proved the point that debating with you is useless.
So to begin with.
The term "In and By its self", Most people would take this to mean a heaver planes always have a performance difference.
Is this is your definition?
HiTech
-
From a technical standpoint...you see a bandit, you approach unseen, and blow him out the sky. 80% of the real "dogfights" you read about went that way. Similar things happen everyday in the MA.
Not really true. You see that comment bandied about a lot, but the original statement doesn't really say what you just claimed. People on this forum use it to claim that 80%, or whatever number they choose to use, of fighters that got shot down were flying straight and level, probably on cruise settings, when they were shot down without warning. After all, the guy never saw the one that got him, so that is what it must mean, no? Well, actually, no. If you have a 12 Spitfires in a melee with 12 Bf109s And Franz is focused on Thomas, trying to get the lead he needs to put some 20mm rounds in Thomas' Spitfire, when Robert rolls in and puts a burst of 20mm rounds into Franz's Bf109 that criteria was just met as Franz never saw Robert's Spitfire. Franz was most definitely not flying straight and level, nor on cruise settings.
Thorsim,
In terms of turn radius mass does not matter in and of itself, and as that is what you constantly discuss you constantly get told mass does not matter in and of itself. If you broaden the discussion to include acceleration/climb in as much as there are limits to the power offered by engines, then mass does play a role. You are referencing the Redbull Air Races as a source in this thread, but you are taking generic comments and trying to apply them to the specific issue of turn radius and you simply cannot do that. If this were a court trial the hostile lawyer would rip you apart on the stand for that kind of sloppiness.
-
Ok thor I will try one last time, but I will only debate one at a time. So I will start with.
Now quite frankly your statement is very ambiguous, so please indulge me by not debating but simply asking you to clarify/ specifies your terms. If evade the questions I ask or if you try change a definition after the fact you will have proved the point that debating with you is useless.
So to begin with.
The term "In and By its self", Most people would take this to mean a heaver planes always have a performance difference.
Is this is your definition?
HiTech
no ...
in this case i expressed my doubts that weight was inconsequential in and of itself and was presented with the premise that a plane with the same loadings with 2x the size weight and power would maneuver just as well as a plane that shared those loadings with 1/2 the values.
i once again expressed my doubts and the discussion deteriorated because we could not find any real world pertinent examples. you pointed out the b17 i assume jokingly and as i recall BnZ tried to use the f-104 and F-15 as examples neither of which are very pertinent to the discussions for obvious reasons.
essentially my stand is that size and weight are stand alone factors in maneuverability and that even if you could find an exact match on the loadings the maneuver advantage would still go to the smaller lighter aircraft.
as i stated before a good example without extreme advantages in one of the loadings or another was unable to be found.
i remain rather doubtful about the ability for the heavier fighters to have hight rates of success vs. their lighter opponents in maneuver fights as some argue should be the case. the lack of any real world expert opinions supporting the heavy fighters case in those situations reinforces my doubts in this matter.
i hope my answer helped to clarify my points and did not do harm to your intent to discuss things in parts.
-
sir terms such as rate and radius are interjected by others. i very much stick to the term maneuver as imo in real world ACM very few pure turns are made, in the sense that some roll and climb/dive all combine to result in a maneuver. i am sorry if i just or ever have expressed that poorly. i expect that absolute limits and neat turns are a rarity in ACM so that also tends to skew results. still hoping not to be unclear and feeling i have not been successful, apologies.
Not really true. You see that comment bandied about a lot, but the original statement doesn't really say what you just claimed. People on this forum use it to claim that 80%, or whatever number they choose to use, of fighters that got shot down were flying straight and level, probably on cruise settings, when they were shot down without warning. After all, the guy never saw the one that got him, so that is what it must mean, no? Well, actually, no. If you have a 12 Spitfires in a melee with 12 Bf109s And Franz is focused on Thomas, trying to get the lead he needs to put some 20mm rounds in Thomas' Spitfire, when Robert rolls in and puts a burst of 20mm rounds into Franz's Bf109 that criteria was just met as Franz never saw Robert's Spitfire. Franz was most definitely not flying straight and level, nor on cruise settings.
Thorsim,
In terms of turn radius mass does not matter in and of itself, and as that is what you constantly discuss you constantly get told mass does not matter in and of itself. If you broaden the discussion to include acceleration/climb in as much as there are limits to the power offered by engines, then mass does play a role. You are referencing the Redbull Air Races as a source in this thread, but you are taking generic comments and trying to apply them to the specific issue of turn radius and you simply cannot do that. If this were a court trial the hostile lawyer would rip you apart on the stand for that kind of sloppiness.
-
thor, do you like to make yourself look like a complete idiot?
-
no ...
in this case i expressed my doubts that weight was inconsequential in and of itself and was presented with the premise that a plane with the same loadings with 2x the size weight and power would maneuver just as well as a plane that shared those loadings with 1/2 the values.
i once again expressed my doubts and the discussion deteriorated because we could not find any real world pertinent examples. you pointed out the b17 i assume jokingly and as i recall BnZ tried to use the f-104 and F-15 as examples neither of which are very pertinent to the discussions for obvious reasons.
essentially my stand is that size and weight are stand alone factors in maneuverability and that even if you could find an exact match on the loadings the maneuver advantage would still go to the smaller lighter aircraft.
as i stated before a good example without extreme advantages in one of the loadings or another was unable to be found.
i remain rather doubtful about the ability for the heavier fighters to have hight rates of success vs. their lighter opponents in maneuver fights as some argue should be the case. the lack of any real world expert opinions supporting the heavy fighters case in those situations reinforces my doubts in this matter.
i hope my answer helped to clarify my points and did not do harm to your intent to discuss things in parts.
I have read this 3 times, no where did you answer my question other than statement, No.
But forget the past I really do not care what happened before , we are talking your statement in this thread.
I Asked one simple question
PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self", with out you doing that I can not begin to debate, you now are using the term stand alone. Please do not bring all other bogus stuff like F15's into this example.
Maneuverability as defined by Shaw is the ability to change the direction of your Velocity vector.
The force that changes the direction of your VEL vector is LIFT, yes Slip can do a little for you but we are not talking about minutia here.
So the simple math.
What you are trying to calculate to determine rate of tern is acceleration in the direction of the lift vector, (or perpendicular to the Vel vector);
Given the same an air foil with twice the area Lift will double at a give speed.
To be specific Lift = Ro/2 * V*V * LCO * Area.
LCO = LIft coef.
Ro = Air Density.
V = Speed.
Now simply the air foil shape and Angle of attack determine the LCO. Since we are looking at max here we in all cases we are dealing with MaxLCO which will remain the same with all airfoils.
Per the test V is not changing and we are not changing alt so Ro is not changing.
Hence since we doubled the Area.
Lift = Area in 1 case.
and Lift = Area * 2 in the 2nd case.
Hence with 2 times wing area we have 2 times the Lift.
next Acceration (I.E the turning force) is given by the simple equation.
F = M * A.
F = Force
M = Mass
A = Acceleration.
In this example the Force is our lift. So in this example and yours 1 plane has 2 times the Mass.
So Substituing for the above.
Plane 1 Lift1 = Mass1 * A or A = Lift1 / Mass1
Plane 2 Lift1 * 2 = (Mass1 * 2) * A or A = (Lift1 * 2) / (Mass1 * 2) or Can-cling the 2s A = Lift1 / Mass1.
Plane 1 A = Plane 2 A I.E. The both turn 100% the same rate.
I.E. x = y and y = z hence x = z.
So now which definition do you wish to change to fit your statement? Or do you wish to argue simple physics and math.
HiTech
For the purpose of expediency, I will assume you Mean that "In and By its self" is that adding weight will always make a plane less maneuverable.
-
The only time weight comes into being a factor in "maneuver" is if you reference thrust to weight ratio, or inertia. A lighter airframe, all other things being equal (t/w ratio, wing loading etc) WILL change direction faster, due to inertia. This is well modeled in AH, reference a spit changing it's flight path, vs a hog or even more so, a 38. However, after that initial change of flight path, the weight of the aircraft has no bearing on it's turn rate/radius, outside of it's thrust/weight ratio.
If I fly my Edge at 1700lbs, 24 foot wing, 98 sq ft wing area, 340hp engine... and I fly a double sized edge, (48 foot wing, 3400 lbs, 116 sq foot qing area, with 680 hp, if you discount prop efficiencies, airspeed differences etc, the planes will perform IDENTICALLY in terms of maneuverability etc, the only difference would be the larger edge would have more momentum, thus would lag behind the smaller in ability to change directions.
One way to think of this is to consider RC aircraft sizes. 2 planes of given model, (such as a 40 size extra, vs a 33% extra) if weight scales directly with airframe size, will perform near IDENTICAL at the same airspeeds. the only difference is the smaller plane is more able to change it's flightpath more quickly. Again, after that INITIAL change of direction, they will be identical.
-
sir terms such as rate and radius are interjected by others. i very much stick to the term maneuver as imo in real world ACM very few pure turns are made, in the sense that some roll and climb/dive all combine to result in a maneuver. i am sorry if i just or ever have expressed that poorly. i expect that absolute limits and neat turns are a rarity in ACM so that also tends to skew results. still hoping not to be unclear and feeling i have not been successful, apologies.
You can't do that though. It is completely useless to talk in such vague terms. It is the equivalent of the businesspeak crap like "We are utilizing our core proficiencies to synergize our business plan." It is a lot of meaningless words unless we refer to specifics. There is no such thing as a generic "maneuver" term to which anything can be applied or tested. You are essentially using your own term, which you won't define, and declaring yourself the winner.
Different maneuvers have different physic equations, and different performance aspects involved in them. If you aren't specific, you aren't saying anything at all.
-
Who needs links from the RedBull Air Races website when we have a player that flys the same planes as they do (the Edge540) and is trained as an acrobatic pilot.
(I meant to point you to this thread earlier today Sol. I thought you'd get a chuckle out of it)
-
The only time weight comes into being a factor in "maneuver" is if you reference thrust to weight ratio, or inertia. A lighter airframe, all other things being equal (t/w ratio, wing loading etc) WILL change direction faster, due to inertia. This is well modeled in AH, reference a spit changing it's flight path, vs a hog or even more so, a 38. However, after that initial change of flight path, the weight of the aircraft has no bearing on it's turn rate/radius, outside of it's thrust/weight ratio.
If I fly my Edge at 1700lbs, 24 foot wing, 98 sq ft wing area, 340hp engine... and I fly a double sized edge, (48 foot wing, 3400 lbs, 116 sq foot qing area, with 680 hp, if you discount prop efficiencies, airspeed differences etc, the planes will perform IDENTICALLY in terms of maneuverability etc, the only difference would be the larger edge would have more momentum, thus would lag behind the smaller in ability to change directions.
One way to think of this is to consider RC aircraft sizes. 2 planes of given model, (such as a 40 size extra, vs a 33% extra) if weight scales directly with airframe size, will perform near IDENTICAL at the same airspeeds. the only difference is the smaller plane is more able to change it's flightpath more quickly. Again, after that INITIAL change of direction, they will be identical.
can i assume this advantage in the process of maneuvering would show up every time one executed a maneuver? so in a maneuver contest that was continuous series of one maneuver after another, could i conclude that this advantage should have some real effect on the outcome of the contest?
-
For the purpose of expediency, I will assume you Mean that "In and By its self" is that adding weight will always make a plane less maneuverable.
that depends on what the weight is from. adding a engine modification that weighs 100lbs but doubles your horsepower may not make a plane less maneuverable it may make it more maneuverable.
however adding a fuel tank with 2000lbs more fuel likely will make it less maneuverable.
however this is not exactly what i am talking about as you made no allowances for adjusting the wing size lift and power in proportion.
sol is on the same track as i am i think.
I have read this 3 times, no where did you answer my question other than statement, No.
But forget the past I really do not care what happened before , we are talking your statement in this thread.
I Asked one simple question
PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self", with out you doing that I can not begin to debate, you now are using the term stand alone. Please do not bring all other bogus stuff like F15's into this example.
Maneuverability as defined by Shaw is the ability to change the direction of your Velocity vector.
The force that changes the direction of your VEL vector is LIFT, yes Slip can do a little for you but we are not talking about minutia here.
So the simple math.
What you are trying to calculate to determine rate of tern is acceleration in the direction of the lift vector, (or perpendicular to the Vel vector);
Given the same an air foil with twice the area Lift will double at a give speed.
To be specific Lift = Ro/2 * V*V * LCO * Area.
LCO = LIft coef.
Ro = Air Density.
V = Speed.
Now simply the air foil shape and Angle of attack determine the LCO. Since we are looking at max here we in all cases we are dealing with MaxLCO which will remain the same with all airfoils.
Per the test V is not changing and we are not changing alt so Ro is not changing.
Hence since we doubled the Area.
Lift = Area in 1 case.
and Lift = Area * 2 in the 2nd case.
Hence with 2 times wing area we have 2 times the Lift.
next Acceration (I.E the turning force) is given by the simple equation.
F = M * A.
F = Force
M = Mass
A = Acceleration.
In this example the Force is our lift. So in this example and yours 1 plane has 2 times the Mass.
So Substituing for the above.
Plane 1 Lift1 = Mass1 * A or A = Lift1 / Mass1
Plane 2 Lift1 * 2 = (Mass1 * 2) * A or A = (Lift1 * 2) / (Mass1 * 2) or Can-cling the 2s A = Lift1 / Mass1.
Plane 1 A = Plane 2 A I.E. The both turn 100% the same rate.
I.E. x = y and y = z hence x = z.
So now which definition do you wish to change to fit your statement? Or do you wish to argue simple physics and math.
HiTech
For the purpose of expediency, I will assume you Mean that "In and By its self" is that adding weight will always make a plane less maneuverable.
your proposal above reduces the maneuver fight to a single sustained maneuver. part of maneuverability evaluation should include the efficiency that an aircraft has in the process of changing its velocity vector shouldn't it? mass and the energy required to over come it's inertia must be taken into account each time the process of changing ones velocity vector is done, and often maneuver fights are a constant series of changes from one maneuver to another. that is where i believe the size and weight advantages come into play for the smaller lighter aircraft.
an advantage that is not taken into account when just discussing the maximums of rate and radius etc. as tends to happen in these discussions.
-
i once again expressed my doubts and the discussion deteriorated because we could not find any real world pertinent examples. you pointed out the b17 i assume jokingly and as i recall BnZ tried to use the f-104 and F-15 as examples neither of which are very pertinent to the discussions for obvious reasons.
They are perfectly pertinent. The F-104 is half the weight of the F-15 but has nearly double the wing-loading and not near as much thrust...so naturally it is far less maneuverable. The only thing "wrong" with using this as an example is that it blows your idiocy out of the water.
If you want a WWII example, the F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat are both significantly larger the Fw-190A and yet could turn much better (per actual side-by-side tests) because of a decidedly lower wing-loading.
-
can i assume this advantage in the process of maneuvering would show up every time one executed a maneuver? so in a maneuver contest that was continuous series of one maneuver after another, could i conclude that this advantage should have some real effect on the outcome of the contest?
Not really. The difference would be quite small, unless the weight differential was dramatic, and I mean DRAMATIC, 10s of thousands of pounds. Again, we are only speaking of intertia, which in the aircraft we are speaking of (ww2) the differences are quite small. Now, if you wanted to compare... say..a fully loaded P-51D, and a (theroetical) fully loaded modern combat aircraft, (likely a MUCH heavier airframe) with the same wing loading and T/W ratio etc, (this is a stretch I know) Then the modern aircraft, being 4-5 times heavier MIGHT have a bit of a disadvantage.
Thor, I think your use of terms is messing up your opinion. What I am referring to (the inertia) might be best described as how "nimble" an aircraft is, not "maneuverability", and has little to no impact on air combat, as I said, unless the differences are HUGE.
Sol
-
however adding a fuel tank with 2000lbs more fuel likely will make it less maneuverable.
This would increase the wing loading, and the thrust:weight ratio, and yes, would decrease "maneuverability".
If you increased the wing and engine power to compensate for the additional weight, the extra weight would have no impact.
-
Check your thinking here Sol...
All aircraft fight with inertia every time they turn. The force that fights inertia and forces a change of direction in a turn is lift.
An aircraft that weighs twice flying at the same speed will have twice as much inertia. But if it has twice as much lift available, then that again results in a null difference.
And the same principle applies to other aspects of maneuver like roll rate. A roll is induced by the lift the ailerons bring to bear against aerodynamic and inertia forces that will resist the roll. So once again, it is a ratio.
Thus it is possible for a larger and heavier craft to be more "nimble" in every area of maneuver.
The first limit (besides cost and common sense) you would run into building a enormous-scale aerobatic airplane would be the strength of the pilot to deflect control surfaces on extremely large aircraft, assuming un-powered control surfaces. However, on the scale of WWII fighter aircraft, from smallest to largest, this apparently never became a factor, because the largest single engine fighter of the war, the P-47, enjoyed a brisk roll rate and relatively light controls at high airspeeds, better than that of some contemporaries that were literally half its size, like the 109s.
Not really. The difference would be quite small, unless the weight differential was dramatic, and I mean DRAMATIC, 10s of thousands of pounds. Again, we are only speaking of intertia, which in the aircraft we are speaking of (ww2) the differences are quite small. Now, if you wanted to compare... say..a fully loaded P-51D, and a (theroetical) fully loaded modern combat aircraft, (likely a MUCH heavier airframe) with the same wing loading and T/W ratio etc, (this is a stretch I know) Then the modern aircraft, being 4-5 times heavier MIGHT have a bit of a disadvantage.
Thor, I think your use of terms is messing up your opinion. What I am referring to (the inertia) might be best described as how "nimble" an aircraft is, not "maneuverability", and has little to no impact on air combat, as I said, unless the differences are HUGE.
Sol
-
sol in many of these discussions the differences are over 100%, yet the air race guys seem to be very concerned with 10% or less ...
given the choice, per the beginning of this discussion, do you want the 109 or the f4u to run the red bull course or it's proportional equivalent?
why?
-
Actually BnZ, I think we are in agreement lol. I am strictly speaking of the MOMENT of the directional change, IE the instant the ctrl surface is deflected. The heavier aircraft will take a split second longer to react, as I said above, not really enough to even be noticed by the pilot, but there, nontheless.
As for the oversizing thing, notice I said discarding ALL other factors, I am quite aware that you could not just "upsize" an aircraft and expect the same performance ability.
In case my posts were not clear, I am opposing thorsom's theories, not supporting them, and I am also on massive doses of percocet for my giant kidney stone, so I may not be translating what I am thinking into written word as well as I may think i am LOL
Sol
-
sol in many of these discussions the differences are over 100%, yet the air race guys seem to be very concerned with 10% or less ...
given the choice, per the beginning of this discussion, do you want the 109 or the f4u to run the red bull course or it's proportional equivalent?
why?
In the Red Bull air races, most pilots are flying 1 of 2 aircraft, (though modified) the Edge 540, or the Extra-300, with the Edge being dominant by a large margin.
When they reduce the weight of thier aircraft, they are NOT reducing the wing area by an equal amount, thus the WING LOADING goes down by the amount of the weight removed. Thus, YES "maneuverability" is improved.
If they chopped a chunk of wing off proportional to the weight removed, thier maneuverability would remain the same (aside fromt he slight increase in T/W ratio)
Sol
as to which aircraft i would prefer in an air race? Probably the 109, for the simple reason it's thrust to weight ratio is better, thus its acceleration out of maneuver would be better.
-
once again i never discounted in any of these discussions other factors roll rate stick forces etc. ...
i just think size and weight tell in maneuverability ...
i need to leave right now, see you guys for the FSO ...
sol i hope your discomfort ends as quickly and painlessly as possible ...
++S++
t
-
sol in many of these discussions the differences are over 100%, yet the air race guys seem to be very concerned with 10% or less ...
given the choice, per the beginning of this discussion, do you want the 109 or the f4u to run the red bull course or it's proportional equivalent?
why?
One thing you apparently fail to understand is that when the weight of an airframe is changed, the airframe itself usually is not. 109s and Spitfires did *not* receive increased wing areas when larger and heavier engines were installed, so their maneuverability fell. It would have been self-defeating to do so, since the primary quest was for speed, i.e, an increase in thrust/drag. Installing a larger engine AND more wing would have tended to nullify this effect...you'd end up with an aircraft that performed the same but burned more gas, what would be the point? These fighter aircraft were usually designed around a given engine, not the other way around. When you already know you are going to be using a given engine, there is nothing you can do to increase performance *except* attach as little airplane as the mission requires to it. And a 1,500 horsepower engine is a little less costly to build, maintain, and feed than a 2,500 hp one, all other factors being equal.
By the same token, if a guy is looking to improve the performance of his competition aerobatic plane, weight shaving is alot more practical than new wings and/or bigger powerplants.
Oh, and sense you ask the question...neither a scaled down 109 or F4U would be ideal (And you would WANT them both to be scaled down, because of issues of fitting through the gates or not scraping the water with a wingtip in extremely low-alt knife-edge flight) because in both cases their wingloadings would be too high and their power/weight and top speeds excessive to the requirements, compared to the aerobatic planes this competition was actually designed to use. But if I had to choose one, I would choose the F4U because of superior aileron design making it more competitive in the all important roll rate department. Just from watching the races, I don't think the 109's advantage in climb or sustained turn rate stemming from its superior power-loading would play much of a factor. As I say, both airplanes have way too much speed and power and not enough turning ability for this event.
-
100% agreed BnZ, no way would a scaled down 109/hog be good for the redbull air races. As for the roll rate on the hog vs 109, I didn;t think of that, sicne I dont fly 109's in the game, but that is quite true, roll rate is VITAL in a red bull style air race, and likely would be more important than the acceleration of the 109.
Sol
-
How come I just KNEW Thorism would read sol's post and think he was agreeing with him?
(sigh)
Just got off the phone w/ Sol and he is gonna edit his posts. (or just add a new one)
Bear in mind the guy is drugged to the gils so his communication skills are a bit addled.
He was trying to describe a "feeling" when flying a larger plane and changing vectors and how inertia would affect it. I.E. how a P38 is slower to react than say a zeke when you change vectors. (loose example)
I kinda understand his point, but he was comparing different planes as opposed to the same plane scaled 2x, so what he was saying got a bit confused. (percocet)
-
I am actually going to experiment with this using X-plane...After thinking about this a while, i am not sure even intertia would have any effect. On the larger airframe, the control surfaces owuld also be larger, thus the cotrol forces to overcome inertia also larger... I dont htink I took that into account in my previous posts. I will be curious what the results will be in xplane, which is known to have a very high-fi flight model.
Sol
-
thorsim,
stop trying
thank you
-
I now have a headache :huh
-
why don't you prove it ...
outside of the video game i mean ...
after all i've been waiting on one real world account for this general argument for what 3 or 4 tours now?
posted threads on other BBS where you guys get squashed with these "arguments" ...
posted videos of pilots who have flown multiple types that completely contradict your "facts" ...
i just want to see one or two pilots of these planes saying that the turn favors the hog or
even that the hog would be close vs. a 109.
there is a reason things seem counterintuitive, usually they are highly unlikely ...
like a hog out turning a 109 ...
in the real world
explain why it couldn/t.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01UuVc3rGP0
this is cool.....
squeemishly claustrophobic./.....
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
once again i never discounted in any of these discussions other factors roll rate stick forces etc. ...
i just think size and weight tell in maneuverability ...
i need to leave right now, see you guys for the FSO ...
sol i hope your discomfort ends as quickly and painlessly as possible ...
++S++
t
you'll find this interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVei2Yb_k&feature=PlayList&p=C412124DFAA3F05C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=41
-
THorism:
your proposal above reduces the maneuver fight to a single sustained maneuver.
It does nothing of the sort, to change your direction in any plane, I.E. loop turn, spit s.
Lift & gravity are the only forces that do this, and mass is the only thing that apposes it.
So I ask again, please define your terms you have yet to define.
PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self",
Because in one of your post you argued against yourself, you said very clearly
adding a engine modification that weighs 100lbs but doubles your horsepower may not make a plane less maneuverable it may make it more maneuverable.
So in the case adding weight did not make the plane less maneuverable PER YOUR STATEMENT.
Am I missing something or is the statement.
Any thing that adds weight makes a plane less maneuverable i.e. ""In and By its self",
VS
adding a engine modification that weighs 100lbs but doubles your horsepower may not make a plane less maneuverable it may make it more maneuverable.
A complete contradiction.
My guess is you will now try to define what is is.
Also will you please define your term maneuverability, or at least say we are using Shaw's definition.
HiTech
-
Sol where do you live?
Care to exchange some stick time for an RV? :airplane:
HiTEch
-
Sol where do you live?
Care to exchange some stick time for an RV? :airplane:
HiTEch
Sure! anytime man, I live in Cincinnati area, but I am coming through texas this spring to visit some family in El Paso... I could always make a stopover @ your home airfield for a few hours.
Sol
-
52F is my field.
This was in front of my hangar.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1968195/Plane-lands-on-top-of-another-in-Texas-crash.html
HiTech
-
I think their collision model is all messed up! I didn;t see ANY messages on the screen... get to fixin it Hitech! hehe :x
(note this is sarcasm, the collision model in AH is as good as it can be with net lag and whatnot)
I am looking at probably the 1st week of June for my trip to Texas. We can firm things up as the time approaches. Could do a bit of flying, then grab dinner or something at one of those infamous Texas steakhouses :)
Sol
-
52F is my field.
This was in front of my hangar.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1968195/Plane-lands-on-top-of-another-in-Texas-crash.html
HiTech
they both thought the other would give way??? what a pair of amazinhunks!! hopefully they both lost their tickets for somethign that stupid.
i NEVER pull out on the runway if there's anything anywhere on final.......ever. and if something pulls out while i am on final(it's happened 2x so far) i power up, and go around.
friggin schmucks.
-
THorism:
It does nothing of the sort, to change your direction in any plane, I.E. loop turn, spit s.
Lift & gravity are the only forces that do this, and mass is the only thing that apposes it.
So I ask again, please define your terms you have yet to define.
PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self",
Because in one of your post you argued against yourself, you said very clearly
So in the case adding weight did not make the plane less maneuverable PER YOUR STATEMENT.
Am I missing something or is the statement.
Any thing that adds weight makes a plane less maneuverable i.e. ""In and By its self",
VS
A complete contradiction.
My guess is you will now try to define what is is.
Also will you please define your term maneuverability, or at least say we are using Shaw's definition.
HiTech
i dont think he understands 1/2 of what he thinks he does. especially the use of vertical.
-
they both thought the other would give way??? what a pair of amazinhunks!! hopefully they both lost their tickets for somethign that stupid.
i NEVER pull out on the runway if there's anything anywhere on final.......ever. and if something pulls out while i am on final(it's happened 2x so far) i power up, and go around.
friggin schmucks.
:lol
Nice insight Capt. Sullenberger :aok
-
:lol
Nice insight Capt. Sullenberger :aok
sorry....i know i sounded like an arse......but crap like that is what makes people that don't fly, think that flying small aircraft is dangerous.
there's a lot of guys at our local airports, that will see another on long final, and they'll pull out, and roll. to me that's stupid, and an unnecessary risk, as it'll only take the guy on final about 30 seconds to be on the ground.
of course, what i hate to see even more is guys that will "take position and hold" while another is just wheels up. :airplane:
maybe i'm just gettin :old: :noid
-
What you do not know is that from the hold short line on runway 35 at 52F, it WAS completely impossible to see someone on short final. After that accident, they have cut the trees down so you can see people on final.
I used to always take a little extra time to make sure some one wasn't on final after I started looking. You could see downwind and base with no problem.
HiTech
-
52F is my field.
This was in front of my hangar.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1968195/Plane-lands-on-top-of-another-in-Texas-crash.html
HiTech
When I was taking flying lessons way back when, I was getting some solo time in and was coming in to land on 32R. There was another plane coming in on 32L at the same time. The problem is he was actually coming down on 32R. The controller's voice got higher and louder the closer this guy came to me. I ended up having to pull off and away from under him and go around as the guy in the other plane just didn't get that he was going to land on the wrong runway. I was counting rivits on his belly at the time they told me to go around.
Scary stuff.
-
What you do not know is that from the hold short line on runway 35 at 52F, it WAS completely impossible to see someone on short final. After that accident, they have cut the trees down so you can see people on final.
I used to always take a little extra time to make sure some one wasn't on final after I started looking. You could see downwind and base with no problem.
HiTech
dam..i jumped on that one too quick..........
<in my best maxwell smart voice> sorry 'bout that chief.
seriously, they were both very lucky.
i'm an incredibly paranoid person when i'm pullin out on the runway........
-
When I was taking flying lessons way back when, I was getting some solo time in and was coming in to land on 32R. There was another plane coming in on 32L at the same time. The problem is he was actually coming down on 32R. The controller's voice got higher and louder the closer this guy came to me. I ended up having to pull off and away from under him and go around as the guy in the other plane just didn't get that he was going to land on the wrong runway. I was counting rivits on his belly at the time they told me to go around.
Scary stuff.
i think the closest i've ever been to another aircraft with both in the air was about 200 feet.
the moving vietnam wall was in medford township. the mayor asked us if we could take some airborn pics during a ceremony. we agreed of course.
there were 3 of us in the cessna. gary was flying, i was riding right seat, and stan was the photog. all garys job was, was to take us over the target(the wall) at decent alt(we were at 1,500 ft) and angle for stan to get pics.
my job was to scan for traffic, obstructions(there's a pair of radio towers that are 1,500 ft tall about 2 miles from where we were), and work the radios,,,,,,basically let gary concentrate on just flying.
on our 3rd pass over target, i saw another cessna, about a mile off our left wing, co-alt, flying parallel to us. i called him out to gary, he noted it, and went back to flying. by the time i finished scanning and looked back, the other cessna was now about 3/4 of a mile, coming right for us, still co-alt.
i told gary, he looked, chopped throttle to idle, and gently pushed hte nose over, as i called to the other cessna alerting him we were there. never got a reply from the other cessna, but stan watched him fly right over us.......WAY too close. we leveled at 800 ft, looked for this guy, but couldn't find him.
did a steep turn, and as the nose was swinging south, we saw him at treetop level about 3 miles out, heading away. we climbed back up to 1500, finished our runs, and headed back to the airport.
i spotted the dude again, and he flew directly across short final at the airport, at treetop. we reported it on unicom, so the airport personal would meet the guy if he landed. never got his tail number.
-
I was under the impression the plane they are talking about is a Buchon not a ww2 109g check out skip's page, http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm (http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm)??
"Twenty-five G airframes were designated for shipment to Spain, along with engines, spares, and tooling to begin manufacture. Eventually, due to shipment problems getting through the 8th and 9th US Army Air Forces, the airframes arrived, but the Daimler-Benz engines did not arrive. " This may be why they refer to it as a G?
As for 51s and f4us out manoeuvring 109s in game, they don't and if they are you need more practice :rofl
-
As for 51s and f4us out manoeuvring 109s in game, they don't and if they are you need more practice :rofl
On that score, even the P-47D-11 can sustain a tighter turn radius than the P-51 even in clean configuration, and this goes directly against everything I've ever read from pilots who flew/fought both types have to say about it, as well as differing from the result you would expect from comparing their wing-loadings and clean stall speeds.
Fighting a 109 in a P-47D-11 is potentially more like what fighting a 109 in a P-51 was actually like.
-
According to Wiki, the Buchons were license-built versions of the 109 G-2. As well all know, the G-2 is a very different animal in loading and turning when compared to later Gs and the K. The listed maximum weight for the Buchon is 7,341 lbs, which makes me think that at typical combat loadings, i.e, with some fuel burned off, it probably would have a distinct wing-loading advantage over the P-51. Once again, this is distinct from the G-14 or K-4, which actually work out similar or slightly heavier than the P-51 in wing-loading, depending on relative fuel states, and thus probably enjoyed a far less pronounced turning advantage.
I was under the impression the plane they are talking about is a Buchon not a ww2 109g check out skip's page, http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm (http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm)??
"Twenty-five G airframes were designated for shipment to Spain, along with engines, spares, and tooling to begin manufacture. Eventually, due to shipment problems getting through the 8th and 9th US Army Air Forces, the airframes arrived, but the Daimler-Benz engines did not arrive. " This may be why they refer to it as a G?
-
According to Wiki, the Buchons were license-built versions of the 109 G-2. As well all know, the G-2 is a very different animal in loading and turning when compared to later Gs and the K. The listed maximum weight for the Buchon is 7,341 lbs, which makes me think that at typical combat loadings, i.e, with some fuel burned off, it probably would have a distinct wing-loading advantage over the P-51. Once again, this is distinct from the G-14 or K-4, which actually work out similar or slightly heavier than the P-51 in wing-loading, depending on relative fuel states, and thus probably enjoyed a far less pronounced turning advantage.
Spainish Buchons had Merlin engines. Different beast then a wartime 109
-
Spainish Buchons had Merlin engines. Different beast then a wartime 109
The weight would seem to be similar though.
-
Greetings :)
The purpose of this query is specific to individual planes fighting AGAINST the F4U-1A, not talking about furballs, just how each plane listed below fares against the hog, man to man, individually:
F4U vs P38: found this to be a very iffy situation, the win could go either way, a difficult proposition, pilot skill a determining factor.
F4U vs P40?
F4U vs spit9 or spit16?
F4U vs BF109s?
F4U vs FW 190D?
F4U vs Ki84
F4U vs P51
Corsair experts are invited to add their opinions, experiences & skills,
your treatises PLUS FILMS are requested, in fact, encouraged. Thx .
:rofl Corsairs are ---> EASYMODE <--- :aok :bolt:
-
The weight would seem to be similar though.
Handling was/is different from everything I've read.
-
actually i proposed scaling up the course, sorry if that was unclear ...
and a scaled up course that is still tight for the planes in this discussion i don't think the 109 would have the roll rate problems you state because the speeds would be slower than where the problems present themselves i.e. like in a dog fight you are not near your max speed or at least not for long usually and certainly not flying a course so maneuver intensive as the red bull course. the 109 was very maneuverable in all but the highest end of it's speed envelope.
One thing you apparently fail to understand is that when the weight of an airframe is changed, the airframe itself usually is not. 109s and Spitfires did *not* receive increased wing areas when larger and heavier engines were installed, so their maneuverability fell. It would have been self-defeating to do so, since the primary quest was for speed, i.e, an increase in thrust/drag. Installing a larger engine AND more wing would have tended to nullify this effect...you'd end up with an aircraft that performed the same but burned more gas, what would be the point? These fighter aircraft were usually designed around a given engine, not the other way around. When you already know you are going to be using a given engine, there is nothing you can do to increase performance *except* attach as little airplane as the mission requires to it. And a 1,500 horsepower engine is a little less costly to build, maintain, and feed than a 2,500 hp one, all other factors being equal.
By the same token, if a guy is looking to improve the performance of his competition aerobatic plane, weight shaving is alot more practical than new wings and/or bigger powerplants.
Oh, and sense you ask the question...neither a scaled down 109 or F4U would be ideal (And you would WANT them both to be scaled down, because of issues of fitting through the gates or not scraping the water with a wingtip in extremely low-alt knife-edge flight) because in both cases their wingloadings would be too high and their power/weight and top speeds excessive to the requirements, compared to the aerobatic planes this competition was actually designed to use. But if I had to choose one, I would choose the F4U because of superior aileron design making it more competitive in the all important roll rate department. Just from watching the races, I don't think the 109's advantage in climb or sustained turn rate stemming from its superior power-loading would play much of a factor. As I say, both airplanes have way too much speed and power and not enough turning ability for this event.
-
explain why it couldn/t.
that is what we are discussing, but please,
feel free to post somebody with real world experience in the types that says it will.
-
i think you all think i am discounting the loadings, i am not.
i just think weight and size also matter separate from the loadings ...
i.e. if we could find planes of different size and weight but with the same wing loading, power/weight, lift/weight,
etc., i believe the smaller lighter aircraft would still have some advantage in maneuverability.
maneuverability for my purposes would be the ability to change your state of motion, direction and velocity, so the ability to accelerate and decelerate also comes into play for my purposes.
THorism:
It does nothing of the sort, to change your direction in any plane, I.E. loop turn, spit s.
Lift & gravity are the only forces that do this, and mass is the only thing that apposes it.
So I ask again, please define your terms you have yet to define.
PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self",
Because in one of your post you argued against yourself, you said very clearly
So in the case adding weight did not make the plane less maneuverable PER YOUR STATEMENT.
Am I missing something or is the statement.
Any thing that adds weight makes a plane less maneuverable i.e. ""In and By its self",
VS
A complete contradiction.
My guess is you will now try to define what is is.
Also will you please define your term maneuverability, or at least say we are using Shaw's definition.
HiTech
-
your proposal above reduces the maneuver fight to a single sustained maneuver. part of maneuverability evaluation should include the efficiency that an aircraft has in the process of changing its velocity vector shouldn't it? mass and the energy required to over come it's inertia must be taken into account each time the process of changing ones velocity vector is done, and often maneuver fights are a constant series of changes from one maneuver to another. that is where i believe the size and weight advantages come into play for the smaller lighter aircraft.
Thor,
The definition of curved motion is accelerating the object off its motion vector. Acceleration by definition is a change of motion. In a "sustained manuever" the acceleration (change in motion) is of a fixed direction and magnitude and will produce a circle. The same acceleration with varying direction can produce a variety of curved shapes, but these do not result in a new or additional term in the equation that saps engergy or reduces manueverability because the mass of object is "changing direction". The object is changing direction in a sustained manuever as well.
Note: energy sapping will occur differently for different maneuvers due to Aero drag, but not because of weight or mass. But we should not confuse efficiency or energy sapping with the effect mass has on manueverablity. These are very different principles and should not be used as though they are related.
Scaling and heavier planes:
Here is a thought experiment that is probably trapping your intuitive sense into your belief about heavier planes. Take a Cube 1ft by 1ft by 1ft and lets say it weighs 100lbs. The volume of the cube is 1 cubic ft and the area of any side of the cube is 1 sq ft. If I set the cube on the ground, the loading on the side touching the ground is 100lbs/sq ft.
Now double all the dimensions of the cube. The cube is now 2x2x2 ft. The area of a side is now 4sq ft. How much does the cube weigh? The cube weighs 800lbs because the mass is going up with the third power of the demension change. Now note that the area only went up with the square of the dimention change. so the loading on the new cube 200lb/sq ft.
So if you took a 109 or Corsair and doubled all the dimentions you would not have a plane that is just as manueverable as the original because the wing area would be 4 times larger but the plane would weight 8 times as much.
Your "intuition" about scaling up the plane is correct, but you can see now why it is correct, because the mass to wing area would greater on scaled up plane and it would be less manueverable.
I hope you might also see that is possible to design a bigger plane with the same mass/wing/power ratios as a smaller plane, and that if you did it would perform the same.
I hope that helps.
-
I was under the impression the plane they are talking about is a Buchon not a ww2 109g check out skip's page, http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm (http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm)??
As for 51s and f4us out manoeuvring 109s in game, they don't and if they are you need more practice :rofl
that is why i made my original post. i don't think the maneuver fight is your best approach if you are the f4u vs a 109.
BnZ took the real world approach to the contrary, hence this discussion.
-
I hope you might also see that is possible to design a bigger plane with the same mass/wing/power ratios as a smaller plane, and that if you did it would perform the same.
i still think that if you could get the mass/wing/power the same that there would be drag and momentum issues to overcome in a significantly larger plane ...
i understand that they could turn the same circles and climb at the same rate but performing the same across the board would imo be a very difficult design hurdle ...
i wish we had a good example, what about the other aerobatic planes that are not used in the red bull races i assume because they for whatever reason do not perform as well ...
actually i am getting a headache as well ...
please post more information i am gonna think about this again for a while ...
not gonna bust balls over this anymore until the new year, btw tks for some of you extending your patience with this discussion.
however please continue i will be watching and thinking ...
+S+
t
-
that is what we are discussing, but please,
feel free to post somebody with real world experience in the types that says it will.
any chance you watched that video i linked? it was fairly informative.
-
They are perfectly pertinent. The F-104 is half the weight of the F-15 but has nearly double the wing-loading and not near as much thrust...so naturally it is far less maneuverable. The only thing "wrong" with using this as an example is that it blows your idiocy out of the water.
If you want a WWII example, the F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat are both significantly larger the Fw-190A and yet could turn much better (per actual side-by-side tests) because of a decidedly lower wing-loading.
one of our r/c club members flew p-51's. he died last summer.
he used to tell us of things he did. one thing that stuck in my mind, was that he had gotten to fly a couple different me-109's and a couple different fw-190's.
he loved the 190. he liked everything about it. i think i remember him saying somethign like.......if i had flown one of these before the war, i'd have worried a lot more about running into them in my p-51.
he hated the 109. tight. hard to see out of.....he didn't like it at all.
-
one of our r/c club members flew p-51's. he died last summer.
he used to tell us of things he did. one thing that stuck in my mind, was that he had gotten to fly a couple different me-109's and a couple different fw-190's.
he loved the 190. he liked everything about it. i think i remember him saying somethign like.......if i had flown one of these before the war, i'd have worried a lot more about running into them in my p-51.
he hated the 109. tight. hard to see out of.....he didn't like it at all.
What was it about the 190 that he notice that should have killed the P-51 or made him worried if he flew it before the war?
-
yes, there are larger cockpits out there and ones with fewer bars, even for the 109s ...
i am not sure where that is relevant to this discussion, but i did watch.
any chance you watched that video i linked? it was fairly informative.
-
Hmm... I'm wondering why thor just can't answer HT simple questions.
THorism:
So I ask again, please define your terms you have yet to define.
PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self",
Also will you please define your term maneuverability, or at least say we are using Shaw's definition.
HiTech
From what I'm seeing is thor dancing around the questions so he can keep the vagueness of his arguments.
Shame... at least Crump and Kurfy used data , cherrypicked but still data. Yup the quality of luftwhiner has been reduced to hyperbole and semantics.
-
I have read this 3 times, no where did you answer my question other than statement, No.
But forget the past I really do not care what happened before , we are talking your statement in this thread.
I Asked one simple question
PLEASE DEFINE ""In and By its self", with out you doing that I can not begin to debate, you now are using the term stand alone. Please do not bring all other bogus stuff like F15's into this example.
Maneuverability as defined by Shaw is the ability to change the direction of your Velocity vector.
The force that changes the direction of your VEL vector is LIFT, yes Slip can do a little for you but we are not talking about minutia here.
So the simple math.
What you are trying to calculate to determine rate of tern is acceleration in the direction of the lift vector, (or perpendicular to the Vel vector);
Given the same an air foil with twice the area Lift will double at a give speed.
To be specific Lift = Ro/2 * V*V * LCO * Area.
LCO = LIft coef.
Ro = Air Density.
V = Speed.
Now simply the air foil shape and Angle of attack determine the LCO. Since we are looking at max here we in all cases we are dealing with MaxLCO which will remain the same with all airfoils.
Per the test V is not changing and we are not changing alt so Ro is not changing.
Hence since we doubled the Area.
Lift = Area in 1 case.
and Lift = Area * 2 in the 2nd case.
Hence with 2 times wing area we have 2 times the Lift.
next Acceration (I.E the turning force) is given by the simple equation.
F = M * A.
F = Force
M = Mass
A = Acceleration.
In this example the Force is our lift. So in this example and yours 1 plane has 2 times the Mass.
So Substituing for the above.
Plane 1 Lift1 = Mass1 * A or A = Lift1 / Mass1
Plane 2 Lift1 * 2 = (Mass1 * 2) * A or A = (Lift1 * 2) / (Mass1 * 2) or Can-cling the 2s A = Lift1 / Mass1.
Plane 1 A = Plane 2 A I.E. The both turn 100% the same rate.
I.E. x = y and y = z hence x = z.
So now which definition do you wish to change to fit your statement? Or do you wish to argue simple physics and math.
HiTech
For the purpose of expediency, I will assume you Mean that "In and By its self" is that adding weight will always make a plane less maneuverable.
holy cow hitech! i got sooooooooo lost trying to read this!!! lol...
-
that is why i made my original post. i don't think the maneuver fight is your best approach if you are the f4u vs a 109.
BnZ took the real world approach to the contrary, hence this discussion.
You've left a bit in from my quote "I was under the impression the plane they are talking about is a Buchon not a ww2 109g check out skip's page" but have not answered if your ok with the fact that the plane Skip is flying is not a German combat 109? I'm no expert in flight modeling but well theres a different engine in that + a different cowling and more than likely all sorts of things changed.
Here is a flight report on a real 109 g10 black 2 the description of how the plane handles pretty much stacks up with the 109 we have in game I doubt any flight sim will ever be absolutely perfect in its flight model. Here is an extract from it...
"First, let me say that all my comments are based on operations below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding 40 inches and 2,600rpm. I like the airplane, and with familiarity, I think it will give most of the Allied fighters I have flown a hard time particularly in a close, hard-turning, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-manoeuvre a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteristics are much better. The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel its is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that. The aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor."
The link to the pdf of the full report...
http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf (http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf)
here is the page with the pics of this beautiful plane...
http://www.adlertag.de/bilder/g-10_schw_2/die_me_109_g10_schwarze_2.htm (http://www.adlertag.de/bilder/g-10_schw_2/die_me_109_g10_schwarze_2.htm)
-
Hmm... I'm wondering why thor just can't answer HT simple questions.
From what I'm seeing is thor dancing around the questions so he can keep the vagueness of his arguments.
Shame... at least Crump and Kurfy used data , cherrypicked but still data. Yup the quality of luftwhiner has been reduced to hyperbole and semantics.
from 8 hours before, you just "bla bla bla" and don't read anyone else's posts do you ?
maneuverability for my purposes would be the ability to change your state of motion
speaking of waiting it has still been over 4 months now but even so a few more days, find that expert yet?
thought not ...
-
Per thor.
maneuverability for my purposes would be the ability to change your state of motion, direction and velocity, so the ability to accelerate and decelerate also comes into play for my purposes.
Per this definition.
If weight,wing area and power all remain in the same ratio's the planes will maneuver 100% exactly the same.
Your belief other wise is meaning less.
All you have to do is substitute Thrust for lift in my above proof and you again come out with the same accelerations. ( Acceleration by definition is rate of change in amplitude or direction of motion)
This is not debatable. If you wish to try debate it, you best bring out the math.
And hence it is the ratio's and not "In and by itself".
Thor if you believe my prof is in error please point out exatly why, I have in a very detailed way pointed out where your statement is flawed using YOUR definition.
Or do you again wish to change your definitions? Because you have been proven wrong with Shaw's definition, and now Your definition.
HiTech
-
holy cow hitech! i got sooooooooo lost trying to read this!!! lol...
Fly Tiffies! No need to know all that crap--just pile in at 400 Hizookas blazing :D
<aside, It's cool as heck having the guy who owns and writes this game participating in discussions such as these :aok)
-
you see i state that the math is missing something and you come out with the same math. you refuse to address this issue in the real world but claim the math is absolutely true there.
where is your example, this argument is used by some to say that 38s and f4us and juggs and ponies all should out maneuver spits yaks 109s FWs when the vast majority of real world testing says the exact opposite.
so please a real world expert without a vested interest in supporting one stand or the other to support the arguments like the one i have posted above. i have posted a couple that seem to support my stand, please counter with one or lets look respectfully at the discussion and try to find what is missing. because sir your math does not support the statements that people try to make it support in the real world ...
like this one for example ...
Corsairs have light effective lift loadings. The things are known to have out-turned Yaks in combat, so what is ridiculous about them out-turning 109s? Deal with it.
----------------
math wise, here is a question ...
where is drag addressed in your equations? do you disagree that a significantly larger plane would have tend to have significantly more drag, and would not that drag effect maneuverability as i have defined it?
and ...
what about gravity sir would not the lighter plane tend to accelerate against gravity better?
conversely would not the heavier plane tend to accelerate with gravity better?
Per thor.
Per this definition.
If weight,wing area and power all remain in the same ratio's the planes will maneuver 100% exactly the same.
Your belief other wise is meaning less.
All you have to do is substitute Thrust for lift in my above proof and you again come out with the same accelerations. ( Acceleration by definition is rate of change in amplitude or direction of motion)
This is not debatable. If you wish to try debate it, you best bring out the math.
And hence it is the ratio's and not "In and by itself".
Thor if you believe my prof is in error please point out exatly why, I have in a very detailed way pointed out where your statement is flawed using YOUR definition.
Or do you again wish to change your definitions? Because you have been proven wrong with Shaw's definition, and now Your definition.
HiTech
-
----------------
where is drag addressed in your equations? do you disagree that a significantly larger plane would have tend to have significantly more drag, and would not that drag effect maneuverability as i have defined it?
Yes, BUT if the power loading were the same, then the larger plane would be equally able to overcome the drag. Also, the corsair in game DOES suffer from increased drag vs. say the spit in a turn, this is demonstrated in the drop off in turn RATE of the hog, not radius. A spit (with time) will turn FASTER than the hog.
what about gravity sir would not the lighter plane tend to accelerate against gravity better?
Again reference power loading
conversely would not the heavier plane tend to accelerate with gravity better?
Yes, and they do in game. Corsair, Jug, etc will outdive a spit all day long.
-
sol a question
re the red bull, we have all seen the video where the gentleman is expressing concerns over 40 kg ...
that can't be very much of a wing mod wing loading wise, now i have seen wing mods and they do not even all fly the same aircraft. why all the worry? why not just adjust the airframe if weight were not a factor in itself ...
what are the teams limited by in the rules? j/c
-
As for the rules in red bull air racing, I honestly do not know. My goals are airshow performing, not racing, so I have not studied the rules or anything.
As for the 40g, again, removing weight while leaving wing loading the same, DOES improve performance. As for the "Wing Mods" I believe (not 110% sure, but based on looking at the modded wings vs the wing on my airplane) those mods are done to improve the aircraft's overall drag. (lower it), not for "maneuverability" purposes. I am also sure that as with nascar racing, every redbull team has thier airframe modified to the nth degree within the limits of the rules, and as such, removing weight is the only way to improve performance. a 40g weight removal does not sound like much, but it can make a difference, especially if both pilots fly the "perfect" race, theoretically the aircraft that is 40g lighter will outperform the heavier one.
AGAIN I WILL STATE
The above performance difference is predicated on the fact that WING AREA remains the same, thus lowering the WING LOADING by the amount of weight, spread out over the wing area.
Sol
-
do you perform sir, if so do you have a schedule posted someplace?
-
Not yet, I just acquired the aircraft last summer, I feel I need another good years worth of practice before I am ready to begin performing. I am planning to attend Sean Tucker's school this coming summer, which generally leads to a few performances with him and his team, we shall see. The plan is to begin peforming at some of the smaller shows in the summer of 2011, followed by "movin on up" to the larger shows as I gain experience and reputation.
Sol
-
re the red bull, we have all seen the video where the gentleman is expressing concerns over 40 kg ...
Simple it is a lot easier removing weight then adding power and changing the air frame. This is an engineering design decision , not a question of physics.
Thor you must understand, no one here is saying weight means nothing in design, It DOES.
What we are trying to point out is your "Gut Feeling" Is what is totally flawed.
You continue to want to make the argument looking at only 1 variable. "Weight". And then want to try prove things by only looking at Weight, just like your statement about concern of 40 Kg.
No one here will argue that a given plane that changes in no respect other than to remove weight will maneuver better.
But what you continue to fail to see, is that in the statement I just made there were many assumptions. 1 Wing area did not change, I.E. You change the wing loading. Power did not change I.E. you changed the Power Loading.
It is these loading ratio's that are the important thing,not the weight.
________
you see i state that the math is missing something and you come out with the same math. you refuse to address this issue in the real world but claim the math is absolutely true there.
where is your example, this argument is used by some to say that 38s and f4us and juggs and ponies all should out maneuver spits yaks 109s FWs when the vast majority of real world testing says the exact opposite.
so please a real world expert without a vested interest in supporting one stand or the other to support the arguments like the one i have posted above. i have posted a couple that seem to support my stand, please counter with one or lets look respectfully at the discussion and try to find what is missing. because sir your math does not support the statements that people try to make it support in the real world ...
like this one for example ...
Thor because of you lack of understand of the math, you do not see that drag just as all other forces fall out to be the same. Does the plane have more drag, yes, but the ratio of that drag to the power will be exactly the same. So hence using the simple equation F = M * A, again the ration of Force (Drag) to Wieght remains the same and the plane will climb and accelerate exatly the same.
The reason the drag will remain the same ratio is because both lift and drag are given by the same equation form.
Lift = V * V * Ro/2 * CLMax * Area
Drag = V * V * Ro/2 * (Total Drag Coef) * Area
Now note that changing the wing area in the same ratio as weight and power, increases the Lift And Drag in the same ratios.
So now that we have proven the drag will not change the maneuverability, what is next that you wish to learn?
You seem to think the Math and the Real world do not match. They do.
HiTech
-
I need to change one thing on my previous post, gravity is a constant, thus, if DRAG ratio, and WEIGHT ratios are the same, the airframes would accelrate at exactly the same rate, reference the experiment done by NASA on the moon, a feather, and a hammer, were both dropped. (In a vacuum with no drag). They both hit the ground at the exact same moment. On earth, the rate of acceleration in descent is goverend by drag, not weight.
Sol
-
Thorism.
It has become increasingly obvious you have little to no understanding about the subject matter.
Crack a book.
Take a class.
Take the time to better yourself on the subject.
In a few weeks (months/years) when you finally have a basic grasp on it all please post on this subject again.
We will happily accept your apology at that time.
-
I need to change one thing on my previous post, gravity is a constant, thus, if DRAG ratio, and WEIGHT ratios are the same, the airframes would accelrate at exactly the same rate, reference the experiment done by NASA on the moon, a feather, and a hammer, were both dropped. (In a vacuum with no drag). They both hit the ground at the exact same moment. On earth, the rate of acceleration in descent is goverend by drag, not weight.
Sol
ok but we have not included drag ratio as a constant, or i haven't in this discussion ...
Thorism.
It has become increasingly obvious you have little to no understanding about the subject matter.
Crack a book.
Take a class.
Take the time to better yourself on the subject.
In a few weeks (months/years) when you finally have a basic grasp on it all please post on this subject again.
We will happily accept your apology at that time.
you are once again projecting as i am not anywhere discounting factors brought up by others.
ok so let me see if i can make the bridge here ...
since by the math the planes would perform the same, but also since the engineering problems make the path of least resistance the smaller lighter one, that is why the tendency is to smaller lighter when maneuverability is the key design desire.
the lack of good examples are self explanatory, after some more thought, as why would anyone design a fighter or aerobatic plane larger than it needs to be. so if the fighter is larger there is most likely some other design priority requiring it to be larger, and in that case all the loadings will not match up anyway.
now i take your point about isolating factors.
in-fact i think that is what drags me into these round and round discussions as in the case of this discussion after review as the turn radius caused one to post the preference for the f4u in the "turn fight" however as i and many others expressed when maneuverability is taken in as more than turn radius terms the other factors may make that not the best course of action, and in this case i thought that in most instances the hog had a greater advantage set in a boom and zoom fight vs. the 109.
BnZ mistook my post and the round and round discussion started.
i still have my scaling concerns but i will concede that there are no practical examples, and probably shouldn't be, and that weight and size are well enough represented with the loadings for all but the most theoretical of discussions that as stated have no real world examples for us to examine.
i think that is where i will leave this, if you guys don't mind.
+S+
t
-
Drag is as vital to this discussion as any of the other factors indicated.
-
Drag is as vital to this discussion as any of the other factors indicated.
yes sir, i agree.
but i did not concede that the drag to power would be the same.
i think it would be very different in a significantly larger heavier plane with the same weight/wing/power ratios as a smaller lighter one, and posted drag and momentum as two problems not accounted for in the weight/wing/power matching ratios.
-
yes sir, i agree.
but i did not concede that the drag to power would be the same.
i think it would be very different in a significantly larger heavier plane with the same weight/wing/power ratios as a smaller lighter one, and posted drag and momentum as two problems not accounted for in the weight/wing/power matching ratios.
Thor again, simply read the 2 equations I wrote before about how lift and drag are related to wing area. Momentum is a linear function with respect to weight/mass
so again the ratio's will not change hence the 2 planes will preform the same.
The reason most of did not post about momentum and drag is that it is so obvious to us that we do not even consider the fact you may think they are different. I am not flaming you but to me and others it is almost like us having to prove to you 2 + 2 = 4.
HiTech
-
Thorsim,
It gets a bit messy in here when things jump back and forth between hypotheticals and reality.
1) If you have two aircraft that have identical ratios, but one is twice the mass of the other their performance will be the same.
2) If you have two identical aircraft and then reduce the mass of one of them, the ratios are no longer the same and the lighter aircraft will perform better. Reducing weight is the easiest thing to do to a given aircraft, hence Japanese pilots taking out their crappy radios or a Spitfire V pilot who took out his IFF, all armor and the machine guns. They were improving the ratios of their aircraft in the only way they could.
-
i believe i posted that on my attempt to withdraw ...
dealing with the difficulty between the hypotheticals and reality ...
if you could build both you guys say they would fly the same,
but could you build both is a big part of my part of my reservations.
as far as the comparisons pertinent to the game and the history there are always loading differences to find i guess ...
as far as math vs. reality my understanding is that designs often do not live up to their mathematic projections, even now, but i guess you will say those results can be explained in hindsight ...
Thorsim,
It gets a bit messy in here when things jump back and forth between hypotheticals and reality.
1) If you have two aircraft that have identical ratios, but one is twice the mass of the other their performance will be the same.
2) If you have two identical aircraft and then reduce the mass of one of them, the ratios are no longer the same and the lighter aircraft will perform better. Reducing weight is the easiest thing to do to a given aircraft, hence Japanese pilots taking out their crappy radios or a Spitfire V pilot who took out his IFF, all armor and the machine guns. They were improving the ratios of their aircraft in the only way they could.
-
as far as math vs. reality my understanding is that designs often do not live up to their mathematic projections, even now, but i guess you will say those results can be explained in hindsight ...
Give one instance where that is true.
-
Thorism.
Introducing proper punctuation into your posts would go a long way in encouraging people to read them.
You automatically deflate the value of whatever you have to say by not following this simple rule.
-
if you could build both you guys say they would fly the same,
but could you build both is a big part of my part of my reservations.
Yes, but you'd have to set out to do so from the start and be very precise about things.
It doesn't really matter though, because what it tells us can be applied even when things aren't exact. The F4U-1A does not have double the power loading of a Spitfire Mk XIV, yet it has more mass and turns a tighter radius than the Spitfire and out rolls the Spitfire. There is nothing wrong with that though as the F4U's wing loading is less than the Spitfire Mk XIV's, at least with flaps deployed. The Spitfire Mk XIV out accelerates the F4U-1A and has a higher turn rate, just as the numbers predict.
-
What was it about the 190 that he notice that should have killed the P-51 or made him worried if he flew it before the war?
if i'm remembering correctly, he liked its handling a LOT. it rolled like a sunofasqueak. it climbed incredibly. it turned better than most think. its guns package was nice.
i think he said he felt it was at least equal to his mustang, and that with equal pilot skills, the loser would be the one to make the first mistake.
don't take this as a shot against the mustangs....and don't take this as he feared nothing when he flew, as he did.
i wish this guy was still with us, as he was a cool ole guy. it was amazing when he started talking, as there'd be about 20 of us gathered around him, including young kids.
:aok
-
yes, there are larger cockpits out there and ones with fewer bars, even for the 109s ...
i am not sure where that is relevant to this discussion, but i did watch.
to be honest, i didn't read every single post. too many pages and too little time.
i think on the first page when you asked the question, bosco posted this:
Here's what I think:
P38 wins with E, F4U wins with turning ability
P40 wins.
F4u Wins.
109 wins E, F4U turn
F4U
Ki84
F4U
your reply was to highlight the 109 vs f4u, and reply with this: :O :huh
that lead me to believe that it was impossible for the corsair to out turn the 109, and you seem to be claiming the planes ingame are mis modeled due to this.
thus, my point in showing you that video, was a partial explanation of exactly why a corsair could out turn a 109, as you will have noticed that the pilot talking about that aircraft was describing the cockpit fairly accurately. i think he said "squeamishly claustrophobic" people would have trouble in it. he also noted that the stick couldn't be moved to its full deflection, as it would hit the pilots knees, thus decreasing from its handling ability.
-
Not yet, I just acquired the aircraft last summer, I feel I need another good years worth of practice before I am ready to begin performing. I am planning to attend Sean Tucker's school this coming summer, which generally leads to a few performances with him and his team, we shall see. The plan is to begin peforming at some of the smaller shows in the summer of 2011, followed by "movin on up" to the larger shows as I gain experience and reputation.
Sol
i don;t know where you're based, but the flying w(N14) in south jersey has its own little airshow every year. :aok
-
i just got it. i understand now.
thor is right.
hitech took the raw data, massaged it all to suit his purposes, and then ran his computer model.
unfortunately, we can never prove this, as he threw out the original data.
:noid :neener:
-
i just got it. i understand now.
thor is right.
hitech took the raw data, massaged it all to suit his purposes, and then ran his computer model.
unfortunately, we can never prove this, as he threw out the original data.
:noid :neener:
Flight model gate?
-
Flight model gate?
yep.
any moment now, it's all going to spiral out of control. :rofl
-
Quick Thorism, send HTC a FOIA request for flight model data before he destroys it.
:bolt:
-
yea ok here come the comics feeling the cartoon world status quo is threatened ...
<F> it
you guys say the big planes out fly the small planes in TRW ...
fine, post your f4u/38/jugg or pony pilot saying he has got it all over the 109/spit/yak/or FW in a maneuver fight like your compatriots have argued here ...
http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/Satellite/en_air/Video/Weight-Matters-021238615428953?p=1238611393596
until then i will take his opinion about weight and how important it is and consider you all misguided ...
sorry guys trying to have a real discussion here but it is impossible ...
BTW if any of you venture off the AH boards with these opinions do let me know i very much would like to see your public education as it has been very amusing in the past ...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-fighter-iii-614-71.html
and i am sure it will be even better with some personal experience to reflect on as you are set straight ...
done here ...
i just got it. i understand now.
thor is right.
hitech took the raw data, massaged it all to suit his purposes, and then ran his computer model.
unfortunately, we can never prove this, as he threw out the original data.
:noid :neener:
Flight model gate?
yep.
any moment now, it's all going to spiral out of control. :rofl
Quick Thorism, send HTC a FOIA request for flight model data before he destroys it.
:bolt:
-
yea ok here come the comics feeling the cartoon world status quo is threatened ...
<F> it
you guys say the big planes out fly the small planes in TRW ...
fine, post your f4u/38/jugg or pony pilot saying he has got it all over the 109/spit/yak/or FW in a maneuver fight like your compatriots have argued here ...
http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/Satellite/en_air/Video/Weight-Matters-021238615428953?p=1238611393596
until then i will take his opinion about weight and how important it is and consider you all misguided ...
sorry guys trying to have a real discussion here but it is impossible ...
BTW if any of you venture off the AH boards with these opinions do let me know i very much would like to see your public education as it has been very amusing in the past ...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-fighter-iii-614-71.html
and i am sure it will be even better with some personal experience to reflect on as you are set straight ...
done here ...
wow, do you need a sense of humor. :rofl
i'll try one more time to explain, using the ingame planes(since i've obviously never flown them in rl)
take a p38 vs a hurri2.
if i'm in the hurri2, i'm gonna try my damnedest to get the 38 pile-it into a flat fight. no alt or speed to work with. none. now, he's dog meat, unless he's smart enough to extend and reset.
now his size and weight will work against him.
if i'm in the 38, i'm gonna do my damnedest to keep the ability to use vertical maneuvers. i'll tyr to NOT get into a flat fight with him. i'll keep it in such a way, that i can crop my nose a couple of degrees, and shortcut his flat circle.
maybe i'm going too fast entering the turn.....so i'll raise my nose a couple of degrees, bleeding speed, but when i come back down, i'm once again short cutting his circle.
maybe i won't even enter into a horizontial circle with him, but rather i'll drag him into a looping fight.
see what i'm getting at here?
you have to think of things besides flat circles in turning fights.
all of the math you want to throw at these aircraft is null. it only matters if 2 pile-its of the exact same skill are flying in the exact same way.
take two different skill level pile-its, and let them fly to the particular advantages of their aircraft, and....well........i hope you get the picture.
r
-
yea ok here come the comics feeling the cartoon world status quo is threatened ...
<F> it
you guys say the big planes out fly the small planes in TRW ...
fine, post your f4u/38/jugg or pony pilot saying he has got it all over the 109/spit/yak/or FW in a maneuver fight like your compatriots have argued here ...
http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/Satellite/en_air/Video/Weight-Matters-021238615428953?p=1238611393596
until then i will take his opinion about weight and how important it is and consider you all misguided ...
sorry guys trying to have a real discussion here but it is impossible ...
BTW if any of you venture off the AH boards with these opinions do let me know i very much would like to see your public education as it has been very amusing in the past ...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-fighter-iii-614-71.html
and i am sure it will be even better with some personal experience to reflect on as you are set straight ...
done here ...
Ah Crumpp, I think he's been banned from every BBS. He's not always right, but he was never wrong. Relation maybe?
-
yea ok here come the comics feeling the cartoon world status quo is threatened ...
<F> it
you guys say the big planes out fly the small planes in TRW ...
fine, post your f4u/38/jugg or pony pilot saying he has got it all over the 109/spit/yak/or FW in a maneuver fight like your compatriots have argued here ...
http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/Satellite/en_air/Video/Weight-Matters-021238615428953?p=1238611393596
until then i will take his opinion about weight and how important it is and consider you all misguided ...
sorry guys trying to have a real discussion here but it is impossible ...
BTW if any of you venture off the AH boards with these opinions do let me know i very much would like to see your public education as it has been very amusing in the past ...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-fighter-iii-614-71.html
and i am sure it will be even better with some personal experience to reflect on as you are set straight ...
done here ...
You have just proven the point only I must add a few.
We become very tired of discussing the above post with someone who,
1 Has and agenda
2 Lacks the knowledge to discuss the above statement.
3 Has no desire to acquire the knowledge to discuss the above statement.
4 Uses terms like "but i would intuitively".
5 Has been proven wrong so many times, most people with any real knowledge no longer wish to get involved in the conversation.
6 When cornered starts name calling with stupid statements like "but at least you replied in agreement, the rest of the "fairie dust and combat flaps fix everything"
7 Actually believes that if he repeat the same BS over and over and over, that maybe someone would believe him.
8 Actually will make a statement that "He is right because no one is saying he is wrong any longer"
9 Shows all the traits of a classic Luftwhiner in the best tradition of other players such as Crump.
10 Has for more than a month continued to whine about flaps in almost every post he makes.
HiTech
11 When finally proven wants to still believe he is correct, but takes his ball and goes home.
12 Is so full of himself that he believes people who have degrees in the topic at hand, have been studying and using said degree for 15 years ,misguided.
All I can say is wow,some people are really stuck on stupid.
HiTech
-
fine, post your f4u/38/jugg or pony pilot saying he has got it all over the 109/spit/yak/or FW in a maneuver fight like your compatriots have argued here ...
You know what, I've been reading this train wreck of a thread and the most ridiculous thing in it is the above challenge. You know why you aren't going to find what you are asking them to produce?
Because the real life WW2 pilots didn't fly like we do in AH... Plain and simple. We don't die if we make a mistake. It's very possible, that the airframes could very well have done some of the things that we do in AH... But the 20 something kids that were scared out of their minds, all pumped up on adrenalin, did everything they could not to get into the high G low speed knife fights. One pass and haul buttocks was the order of the day.
So asking these guys to produce such anecdotal accounts is just silly. Real pilots in WW2 would never have even attempted, on a regular basis, to push their aircraft like we do.
-
:rofl Corsairs are ---> EASYMODE <--- :aok :bolt:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, (take a Corsair pilot who knows when NOT to drop flaps and a Corsair pilot who doesn't do anything BUT, and guaranteed the former will win about 90% of head-to-head matchups) but one major advantage the F4Us have over a significant part of the plane set is that she has multiple options against almost any opponent you run across.
-
i just get the feeling hitech that if i replied with reciprocal courtesy to the last few posts there would be a rule number whatever here instead of what ever i posted and a board banning so i am not gonna play ...
i will leave it the way i did, and if you want real satisfaction on the so called retreat of mine like you allude to in your post below, just provide the real world current unbiased pilot/expert opinions supporting the statements made in here and elsewhere that i take exception to and really make you case.
until then you really haven't sir ...
You have just proven the point only I must add a few.11 When finally proven wants to still believe he is correct, but takes his ball and goes home.
12 Is so full of himself that he believes people who have degrees in the topic at hand, have been studying and using said degree for 15 years ,misguided.
All I can say is wow,some people are really stuck on stupid.
HiTech
i posted examples of expert opinions, if i can do it they could. provided a current qualified opinion that is in support of these claims can be found if it exists. it not being here speaks volumes.
You know what, I've been reading this train wreck of a thread and the most ridiculous thing in it is the above challenge. You know why you aren't going to find what you are asking them to produce?
Because the real life WW2 pilots didn't fly like we do in AH... Plain and simple. We don't die if we make a mistake. It's very possible, that the airframes could very well have done some of the things that we do in AH... But the 20 something kids that were scared out of their minds, all pumped up on adrenalin, did everything they could not to get into the high G low speed knife fights. One pass and haul buttocks was the order of the day.
So asking these guys to produce such anecdotal accounts is just silly. Real pilots in WW2 would never have even attempted, on a regular basis, to push their aircraft like we do.
-
You know what, I've been reading this train wreck of a thread and the most ridiculous thing in it is the above challenge. You know why you aren't going to find what you are asking them to produce?
Because the real life WW2 pilots didn't fly like we do in AH... Plain and simple. We don't die if we make a mistake. It's very possible, that the airframes could very well have done some of the things that we do in AH... But the 20 something kids that were scared out of their minds, all pumped up on adrenalin, did everything they could not to get into the high G low speed knife fights. One pass and haul buttocks was the order of the day.
So asking these guys to produce such anecdotal accounts is just silly. Real pilots in WW2 would never have even attempted, on a regular basis, to push their aircraft like we do.
It's not as easy as that, even when represented with historical data in which larger aircraft could and did out turn larger aircraft, Thorsim will not believe it.
-
i posted examples of expert opinions
Hope you weren't referring to Crump.
If you were ... Bwahahahahahah
-
Thor what you really do fail to realize, is that you are not quoting experts. And as I said, I posted all the details to back up any claim I made, I have done it multiple times, you have done nothing of the sort, your one link said simply with out changing any thing else but cutting weight makes a plane perform better Well Duhhh, you have just completed you have just made it to kindergarten level of this discusion.
You do realize that there are more experts in this very thread then you have cited so far. Do you listen to yourself, I do this stuff for a living day in and day out, and you are trying to say your knowledge on the topic of physics and aerodynamics is above mine when you have not read 1 book, took one class, produce been able to produce one equation. You are not even a pilot. You have no frame of reference of TRW of airplanes to even claim you do.
You have not preformed one real life hammer head, you have never pushed 3 neg g's, you have never rode the edge of black outs in real planes. You have never felt accelerated stalls and had dog fights in real war birds. All of the above I have done many many times.
As far as my response to you, I have cut you an extream amount of slack in the past. You continue to prove how you really are following in crumps foot steps. You continue to state completely false statements after multiple people PROV YOU WRONG, not disagree, but factually by mathematical logic and accepted physics prove you wrong. But yet you still keep claiming the same thing after you have been cornered.
You have dug yourself a huge hole, I am now curious if you will keep digging.
HiTech
HiTech
-
Hope you weren't referring to Crump.
If you were ... Bwahahahahahah
Oh you gota check out the link Thorism is posting.
Crump got banned from THAT forum as well.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Oh you gota check out the link Thorism is posting.
Crump got banned from THAT forum as well.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
who is crump? i never heard of him till this thread?
-
Thor what you really do fail to realize, is that you are not quoting experts. And as I said, I posted all the details to back up any claim I made, I have done it multiple times, you have done nothing of the sort, your one link said simply with out changing any thing else but cutting weight makes a plane perform better Well Duhhh, you have just completed you have just made it to kindergarten level of this discusion.
You do realize that there are more experts in this very thread then you have cited so far. Do you listen to yourself, I do this stuff for a living day in and day out, and you are trying to say your knowledge on the topic of physics and aerodynamics is above mine when you have not read 1 book, took one class, produce been able to produce one equation. You are not even a pilot. You have no frame of reference of TRW of airplanes to even claim you do.
You have not preformed one real life hammer head, you have never pushed 3 neg g's, you have never rode the edge of black outs in real planes. You have never felt accelerated stalls and had dog fights in real war birds. All of the above I have done many many times.
As far as my response to you, I have cut you an extream amount of slack in the past. You continue to prove how you really are following in crumps foot steps. You continue to state completely false statements after multiple people PROV YOU WRONG, not disagree, but factually by mathematical logic and accepted physics prove you wrong. But yet you still keep claiming the same thing after you have been cornered.
You have dug yourself a huge hole, I am now curious if you will keep digging.
HiTech
HiTech
You sir just went up 1MILLOIN cool points for posting this....
MrMeaty
-
You have dug yourself a huge hole, I am now curious if you will keep digging.
(http://yecheadquarters.org/images/digging%20to%20China.jpg)
-
Oh you gota check out the link Thorism is posting.
Crump got banned from THAT forum as well.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
AFAIK Crumpp has never been banned from any other forum than this one.
bwahahahahaha
-
you see i state that the math is missing something and you come out with the same math. you refuse to address this issue in the real world but claim the math is absolutely true there.
where is your example, this argument is used by some to say that 38s and f4us and juggs and ponies all should out maneuver spits yaks 109s FWs when the vast majority of real world testing says the exact opposite.
Who said the P-38 should be able to out turn Spitfires, Yaks or Bf 109s? Those of us that fly the P-38 have stated that using its strengths can allow one to gain an angle on an otherwise better turning plane. Using vertical turns, I'm going to cut inside of the plane that is turning in the horizontal most of the time. Pilot factor also plays a large part.
ack-ack
-
who is crump? i never heard of him till this thread?
Crump was a luftwhiner extraordinaire. He would post multiple graphs, charts and tons of data to back up his claims.
IIRC
What he didn't tell you was it was he cherry picked the best data from multiple sources to back up said claim. Example climb rate from one source, top speed from another... ect... ect...ect.
-
fine, post your f4u/38/jugg or pony pilot saying he has got it all over the 109/spit/yak/or FW in a maneuver fight like your compatriots have argued here ...
GuppyJr had posted in the thread about flaps an AAR report from a flight of low altitude P-38s that were jumped by Bf 109s while on a ground attack sortie. The AAR clearly describes what you just asked to see.
ack-ack
-
sgt pappy as educated by HTC and the cartoon experts here, getting squashed outside of cartoon land for echoing the same stuff i questioned when i entered this thread ...
i agree that thread was very amusing ...
Who said the P-38 should be able to out turn Spitfires, Yaks or Bf 109s? Those of us that fly the P-38 have stated that using its strengths can allow one to gain an angle on an otherwise better turning plane. Using vertical turns, I'm going to cut inside of the plane that is turning in the horizontal most of the time. Pilot factor also plays a large part.
ack-ack
it was bosco and a f4u this time, much like st pappy on the other board ...
Here's what I think:
P38 wins with E, F4U wins with turning ability
P40 wins.
F4u Wins.
109 wins E, F4U turn
F4U
Ki84
F4U
-
Ah Crumpp, I think he's been banned from every BBS. He's not always right, but he was never wrong. Relation maybe?
He's not banned in the IL2 forums, but I think that's due to the location of his head on Oleg's lap.
ack-ack
-
thorsim. Shut the diddly up.
IN.
-
GuppyJr had posted in the thread about flaps an AAR report from a flight of low altitude P-38s that were jumped by Bf 109s while on a ground attack sortie. The AAR clearly describes what you just asked to see.
ack-ack
umm no and no
-
sgt pappy as educated by HTC and the cartoon experts here, getting squashed outside of cartoon land for echoing the same stuff i questioned when i entered this thread ...
i agree that thread was very amusing ...
it was bosco and a f4u this time, much like st pappy on the other board ...
In a low/stall speed turn fight, allowing the Corsair to use its flaps and far better low/stall speed performance and maneuverbility, yes the Corsair would have the edge. Especially if the Corsair pilot is able to sucker the Bf 109 into right hand turns and low/stall speeds or better yet a rolling right handed scissors fight. If the Corsair is fighting against a Bf 109f and initiates a rolling right handed scissors fight, the Bf 109 is going to be dead as its going to have a very tough time rolling to the right at low/stall speeds due to torque. Corsair, while also fighting torque, isn't going to be as disadvantage as the Bf 109f in that maneuver.
If the Bf 109 keeps the angle fight at medium to high speeds, then it will have the edge against the Corsair. More so in the later model Bf 109s. Again, pilot skill is a major factor.
ack-ack
-
if i'm remembering correctly, he liked its handling a LOT. it rolled like a sunofasqueak. it climbed incredibly. it turned better than most think. its guns package was nice.
i think he said he felt it was at least equal to his mustang, and that with equal pilot skills, the loser would be the one to make the first mistake.
don't take this as a shot against the mustangs....and don't take this as he feared nothing when he flew, as he did.
i wish this guy was still with us, as he was a cool ole guy. it was amazing when he started talking, as there'd be about 20 of us gathered around him, including young kids.
:aok
Wow, that is great that you personally talked to him and he openly talked about is service in the P-51, epically on flying 190.
Most people do not know this. By 1944, German had at most 110 flying hours in training before going into combat. By the time U.S. pilot was put into combat, he got up to 400 hours of training. So i can imagine that most of the 190s he fought against had pilots that had vary little training and most likely still new. It is hard to say what the out come would have been if German pilots had over 300 hours of training before put into combat.
-
umm no and no
You wanted to see a P-38 pilot's own words of out maneuvering Bf 109s. The AAR that was posted by GuppyJr clearly described how a flight of low flying P-38s were jumped by a higher group of Bf 109s. A maneuvering angles (turn) fight ensued, where the P-38s used their flaps to out maneuver the Bf 109s and come out the victors in that engagement. One a side note, one of the P-38 pilots after the flight realized that he still had his 500 pound bombs, apparently the pylon shackles got jammed and the bombs never pickled. Pretty fancy flying for a pilot, carrying two 500 pound bombs and able to out maneuver your attackers. It's also worth noting that this particular P-38 unit had transitioned to the P-38 just a couple of months prior to this fight. Again, it goes without saying, pilot skill was probably the over riding factor.
ack-ack
-
nope sorry re-read both threads to review what i said, and asked for ...
You wanted to see a P-38 pilot's own words of out maneuvering Bf 109s. The AAR that was posted by GuppyJr clearly described how a flight of low flying P-38s were jumped by a higher group of Bf 109s. A maneuvering angles (turn) fight ensued, where the P-38s used their flaps to out maneuver the Bf 109s and come out the victors in that engagement. One a side note, one of the P-38 pilots after the flight realized that he still had his 500 pound bombs, apparently the pylon shackles got jammed and the bombs never pickled. Pretty fancy flying for a pilot, carrying two 500 pound bombs and able to out maneuver your attackers. It's also worth noting that this particular P-38 unit had transitioned to the P-38 just a couple of months prior to this fight. Again, it goes without saying, pilot skill was probably the over riding factor.
ack-ack
-
Being loud doesn't make an bellybutton seem any smarter.
As before; IN
-
sgt pappy as educated by HTC and the cartoon experts here, getting squashed outside of cartoon land for echoing the same stuff i questioned when i entered this thread ...
i agree that thread was very amusing ...
it was bosco and a f4u this time, much like st pappy on the other board ...
and THAT is why i posted that link to the 109 cockpit vid.........
-
maybe because it is a game where flap engineering is not determined by nationality ...
He's not banned in the IL2 forums, but I think that's due to the location of his head on Oleg's lap.
ack-ack
-
and THAT is why i posted that link to the 109 cockpit vid.........
and the connection is?
-
maybe because it is a game where flap engineering is not determined by nationality ...
Other than the lame auto-retracting feature, what is wrong with the flaps? You have yet to show any evidence that any of the flaps for any plane is modeled incorrectly.
Do you need a new shovel? I'm sure the one you've been using has grown dull by now.
ack-ack
-
Yes, we must keep in mind that the lack of turning ability that was really the only major flaw of the 190 airframe was not as big a deal to them as it is to us with our tendency to want to "pwn" people in all-out-1-v-1s.
if i'm remembering correctly, he liked its handling a LOT. it rolled like a sunofasqueak. it climbed incredibly. it turned better than most think. its guns package was nice.
i think he said he felt it was at least equal to his mustang, and that with equal pilot skills, the loser would be the one to make the first mistake.
don't take this as a shot against the mustangs....and don't take this as he feared nothing when he flew, as he did.
i wish this guy was still with us, as he was a cool ole guy. it was amazing when he started talking, as there'd be about 20 of us gathered around him, including young kids.
:aok
-
Other than the lame auto-retracting feature, what is wrong with the flaps? You have yet to show any evidence that any of the flaps for any plane is modeled incorrectly.
Do you need a new shovel? I'm sure the one you've been using has grown dull by now.
ack-ack
He is saying that the flaps are wrong in AcesHigh because Crump said so on (yet another) a forum he got banned from.
(edit: and btw you can find almost the same discussion here on the AH BBS about flap types and usage. Thread was @ a year ago and prob. could be found with a simple search. Good stuff in that thread. YOU won't understand it, but good stuff none the less)
-
there modeled correctly if nationality is your criteria ...
you find my actual requests yet ?
Other than the lame auto-retracting feature, what is wrong with the flaps? You have yet to show any evidence that any of the flaps for any plane is modeled incorrectly.
Do you need a new shovel? I'm sure the one you've been using has grown dull by now.
ack-ack
-
I hope you haven't bred yet.
-
if i read this thread correct somone (thorism)is asking for a fight between a 109 and 51 , you keep talking about wieght and turning,
not sure what else?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuBiMM7VGh8
Theroism this is for you but you have yet to prove anything at all
except
(http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/head_up_your_ass2.jpg)
-
Wow, that is great that you personally talked to him and he openly talked about is service in the P-51, epically on flying 190.
Most people do not know this. By 1944, German had at most 110 flying hours in training before going into combat. By the time U.S. pilot was put into combat, he got up to 400 hours of training. So i can imagine that most of the 190s he fought against had pilots that had vary little training and most likely still new. It is hard to say what the out come would have been if German pilots had over 300 hours of training before put into combat.
that, i think was one of his points.
i never told him about the fw pilots i met in florida when i went there for my neices birthday......but they said the exact same things about the fw's that he did.
he was a good man, and we all miss him at the club.
we've lost him, and we lost joe the year before. joe was a top turret gunner on a b17. we still have tom, who was also a pony driver. he's hard to get started talking. once we get him going though, it's awsome to listen.
:aok
-
Thorsim,
I hope that you take this in the spirit it is intended, I just spent the better part of an hour scanning a text book in for you that explains (in detail) calculating turn performance. If these equations are good enough for companies like Boeing and Airbus to predict new aircraft performance within 1% they should be good enough for you.
This is from "Aircraft Perfomance" by W. Austyn Mair and David L. Birdsall, Cambridge University Press.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg214.jpg)
Page 215 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg215.jpg)
Page 216 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg216.jpg)
Page 217 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg217.jpg)
Page 218 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg218.jpg)
Page 219 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg219.jpg)
Page 220 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg220.jpg)
Page 221 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg221.jpg)
Page 222 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg222.jpg)
Page 223 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg223.jpg)
Page 224 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg224.jpg)
Page 225 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg225.jpg)
Page 226 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg226.jpg)
Page 227 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg227.jpg)
Page 228 (http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg228.jpg)
To sum it up look at the equations on page 224
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/TurnPerf/pg224clip.jpg)
So please stop the grammatical gymnastics, and clearly state your positions and respond directly when someone asks you for clarification of your statements.
-
and the connection is?
if you cannot move your stick to its full deflection, you cannot iniate a rapid roll. you need to roll before you can turn. if you cannot get to the correct bank angle as fast as the opponent, then he will out turn you. even if only for a couple of turns, but he will.
and so ya know, i don't say any of this because i don't like the axis aircraft. infact, i think they're beautiful, and i think they were far ahead of their time in a lot of areas.
but...i say it like i see it.
-
correct me if i am wrong but that was the first time that guy was in the cockpit of a 109 correct?
he never flew it in the video or before correct?
would you let me post something similar as proof of anything if it were a 38?
proves nothing but that the 109 was a small aircraft with a small cockpit?
i am curious where i ever suggested it was not small?
lots of guys had more success than any other guys ever in the history of air combat, hard to believe it was too cramped to be able to fly effectively don't you think.
if you cannot move your stick to its full deflection, you cannot iniate a rapid roll. you need to roll before you can turn. if you cannot get to the correct bank angle as fast as the opponent, then he will out turn you. even if only for a couple of turns, but he will.
and so ya know, i don't say any of this because i don't like the axis aircraft. infact, i think they're beautiful, and i think they were far ahead of their time in a lot of areas.
but...i say it like i see it.
-
correct me if i am wrong but that was the first time that guy was in the cockpit of a 109 correct?
he never flew it in the video or before correct?
would you let me post something similar as proof of anything if it were a 38?
proves nothing but that the 109 was a small aircraft with a small cockpit?
i am curious where i ever suggested it was not small?
lots of guys had more success than any other guys ever in the history of air combat, hard to believe it was too cramped to be able to fly effectively don't you think.
not only would i look at it, but i'd welcome it.
it;'s not that it's small. you're either changing the argument again, or mis-understanding.
you were saying that the 109 should out turn the corsair, right?
re-read my post about the stick deflection. THAT by itself would give the corsair driver the advantage. even if only for a moment.
also remember...as i and others have stated in other threads. we aren't fighting for our lives. a lot of us experiment with things that the real aircraft more than likely was capable of, but could put it in jeapordy of getting home.
the real pilots only did what was necessary to do their jobs to the best of their abilities, and get home to see their friends and families that day.
-
no, my original point here is that the best most advantageous way for a f4u to fight a 109 is by using it's speed and speed retention advantage ...
i do think the 109s best fight advantage is the maneuver fight over the f4u ...
in both the game and TRW ...
i think the 109 maneuvers better than the hog through the vast majority of their respective envelopes and would expect the 109 to be the clearly superior maneuver fighter.
hence my initial reaction to the premise that the reverse were true.
as far as the video goes you are assuming a lot from a guys first five minutes in a cockpit of a plane he has never flown, quite frankly so was he. would you consider him expert enough to offer a definitive evaluation of the me109?
not only would i look at it, but i'd welcome it.
it;'s not that it's small. you're either changing the argument again, or mis-understanding.
you were saying that the 109 should out turn the corsair, right?
re-read my post about the stick deflection. THAT by itself would give the corsair driver the advantage. even if only for a moment.
also remember...as i and others have stated in other threads. we aren't fighting for our lives. a lot of us experiment with things that the real aircraft more than likely was capable of, but could put it in jeapordy of getting home.
the real pilots only did what was necessary to do their jobs to the best of their abilities, and get home to see their friends and families that day.
-
hehe well after seeing the video that you posted i see you are an expert in the condition illustrated below ...
were you the model?
if i read this thread correct somone (thorism)is asking for a fight between a 109 and 51 , you keep talking about wieght and turning,
not sure what else?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuBiMM7VGh8
Theroism this is for you but you have yet to prove anything at all
except
(http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/head_up_your_ass2.jpg)
-
no, my original point here is that the best most advantageous way for a f4u to fight a 109 is by using it's speed and speed retention advantage ...
i do think the 109s best fight advantage is the maneuver fight over the f4u ...
in both the game and TRW ...
i think the 109 maneuvers better than the hog through the vast majority of their respective envelopes and would expect the 109 to be the clearly superior maneuver fighter.
hence my initial reaction to the premise that the reverse were true.
as far as the video goes you are assuming a lot from a guys first five minutes in a cockpit of a plane he has never flown, quite frankly so was he. would you consider him expert enough to offer a definitive evaluation of the me109?
i consider him more knowledgable then either you or i, as he flies spitfires, is fmaliar with them, and pointed out honestly what he likes about the cockpit in the 109, along with it's disadvantages.
as far as him being an expert? i don't know if he is or isn't, but as you could see from the video, he ws skinny...and couldn;t move the stick all the way.
-
One of the signs that you are losing a debate is when you start personal attacks. Ever since HiTech's most recent post you have done just that. Read Baumer's post, or does that contain too much information for you? Will someone make him an outline before he gets banned?
-
One of the signs that you are losing a debate is when you start personal attacks. Ever since HiTech's most recent post you have done just that. Read Baumer's post, or does that contain too much information for you? Will someone make him an outline before he gets banned?
i think htc's gettin a laugh outta this.
-
hes gonna keep arguing for the point of it, thats the reason why i posted what i did ( really shouldn't of but did anyway ).
i be surprised if this thread dosn't get locked
-
i believe i may have responded to a personal attack
One of the signs that you are losing a debate is when you start personal attacks. Ever since HiTech's most recent post you have done just that. Read Baumer's post, or does that contain too much information for you? Will someone make him an outline before he gets banned?
-
Think about this, if you take two identical versions of the spitfire. However the only difference between the two are the wing types. One has a standard wing and one has a clipped wing. Now, both versions have the same fuselage, engine, etc. The clipped wing version will lose some weight by removing several pounds of wing area. So now the clipped wing spitfire is lighter and in turn smaller than the standard spitfire. However the standard spitfire will turn a sharper circle than the clipped wing spitfire. This is a real world, to comprehend example of a larger, heavier airframe turning sharper than a smaller, larger airframe.
On the other hand the clipped wing spitfire reduces the amount of drag and increases its speed and roll rate.
-
which one maneuvers better ?
Think about this, if you take two identical versions of the spitfire. However the only difference between the two are the wing types. One has a standard wing and one has a clipped wing. Now, both versions have the same fuselage, engine, etc. The clipped wing version will lose some weight by removing several pounds of wing area. So now the clipped wing spitfire is lighter and in turn smaller than the standard spitfire. However the standard spitfire will turn a sharper circle than the clipped wing spitfire. This is a real world, to comprehend example of a larger, heavier airframe turning sharper than a smaller, larger airframe.
On the other hand the clipped wing spitfire reduces the amount of drag and increases its speed and roll rate.
-
that, i think was one of his points.
i never told him about the fw pilots i met in florida when i went there for my neices birthday......but they said the exact same things about the fw's that he did.
he was a good man, and we all miss him at the club.
we've lost him, and we lost joe the year before. joe was a top turret gunner on a b17. we still have tom, who was also a pony driver. he's hard to get started talking. once we get him going though, it's awsome to listen.
:aok
WOW. I think these guys want the young ppl to listen to their stories. Your lucky to meet ppl like that and i hope that they happy to share their stories. :salute
-
which one maneuvers better ?
Maneuverability:
1 a : to perform a movement in military or naval strategy in order to secure an advantage
b : to make a series of changes in direction and position for a specific purpose
2 : to use stratagems
That would depend on the pilot skill... The standard spitfire would have better turning maneuverability and the clipped wing spit would have better rolling maneuverability. Both have an advantage in one mean of changing direction (standard spit has advantage in turn rate and clipped wing spit has advantage in roll rate).
In a fight based on maneuverability i would give the edge to the standard spitfire. It can turn sharper and has a lower stall speed. In a fight based on tactics however, I would give the edge to the clipped wing spit (Maneuvering vs Energy Fighting).
In aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing. The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading. Correspondingly, the landing and take-off speeds will be higher. The high wing loading also decreases maneuverability.
When discussing turn rate, that is why wing loading (which others have discussed before) is so important. The P38 may be a very large aircraft, but in turn it has very large wings. Not to mention its flap design further increases its wing size at no additional cost of weight. This allows a larger P38 to out maneuver a smaller P51.
Change for thought:
The wing loading of a spit v is roughly 120
The wing loading of a C47 is roughly 123
The wing loading of a B-17 is roughly 190
The wing loading of a 109 is roughly 210
-
.Hijack Thread
What ever hapened to the original question?
-
which one maneuvers better ?
You must have no life. Spending all this time, camping this thread. Winter must really have you holed up. Don't you have a driveway to shovel? Or perhaps that would lead to "which shovel performs better?" Gahh... :huh :huh :huh
EDIT: I just answered my own question. The one with LESS <<CRAP>> on it.
-
there modeled correctly if nationality is your criteria ...
Yawn! what a load of bull the 109k4 is arguably the best fighter in the game! You think HTC has an anti German agenda here when they also give it huge wep time as well? What a load of clap trap if they were doing this for gain as Skip said about CRS in the video then their 'cash cow' to fiddle with would be the P-51D 'a plane that Hitech has actually flew btw' it would outturn everything in sight and generally be uber in every way in game thats NOT the case.
In a equal turning fight with f4 g2 g6 g14 k4 it will lose that fight where is the nationality bias here?? F4U is a lot closer but again it can easily be done in a 109. My guess is you've just been running into players who are better pilots than yourself, to delude yourself into thinking you are only losing because HTC are scupcakeing around a PC with their anti-luftwaffe agenda is sad. If you would spend more time with a trainer 'if your ego will allow that' and less time typing conspiracy theory on the bbs you might figure out how to beat these 'rigged' aircraft.
-
So, what about Thrust Vectoring? Did you guys include that in your calculations? :D
-
WOW. I think these guys want the young ppl to listen to their stories. Your lucky to meet ppl like that and i hope that they happy to share their stories. :salute
I wish we could all get to talk to these guys more.
doing a training class at trenton/mercer airport, the collings foundation flew in their b-25, b-17, and b-24.
when we took our lunch break, we all headed down to the bombers. met a guy there that'd flown 14 missions on a 24 over europe.
this cool old dude had one of his bail-out kits, pictures of some of his drops, etc. none of us ate lunch that day, as we were all late getting back to our class. there were about 20 of us(Civil Air Patrol) gathered around him, listening, and we all shook his hand, and thanked him before we left.
-
where did i say bias ...
? ? ?
here is a homework assignment, list all the commonalities of the flaps on the german fighters,
every possible one you can think of then post them ...
Yawn! what a load of bull the 109k4 is arguably the best fighter in the game! You think HTC has an anti German agenda here when they also give it huge wep time as well? What a load of clap trap if they were doing this for gain as Skip said about CRS in the video then their 'cash cow' to fiddle with would be the P-51D 'a plane that Hitech has actually flew btw' it would outturn everything in sight and generally be uber in every way in game thats NOT the case.
In a equal turning fight with f4 g2 g6 g14 k4 it will lose that fight where is the nationality bias here?? F4U is a lot closer but again it can easily be done in a 109. My guess is you've just been running into players who are better pilots than yourself, to delude yourself into thinking you are only losing because HTC are scupcakeing around a PC with their anti-luftwaffe agenda is sad. If you would spend more time with a trainer 'if your ego will allow that' and less time typing conspiracy theory on the bbs you might figure out how to beat these 'rigged' aircraft.
-
are there a lot of real world guys who think the 38 outmaneuvers the p51?
i would like to hear from them, please post.
btw what is the wing loading on the 38 as your numbers seem different than how i have seen them expressed before ...
Maneuverability:
1 a : to perform a movement in military or naval strategy in order to secure an advantage
b : to make a series of changes in direction and position for a specific purpose
2 : to use stratagems
That would depend on the pilot skill... The standard spitfire would have better turning maneuverability and the clipped wing spit would have better rolling maneuverability. Both have an advantage in one mean of changing direction (standard spit has advantage in turn rate and clipped wing spit has advantage in roll rate).
In a fight based on maneuverability i would give the edge to the standard spitfire. It can turn sharper and has a lower stall speed. In a fight based on tactics however, I would give the edge to the clipped wing spit (Maneuvering vs Energy Fighting).
In aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing. The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading. Correspondingly, the landing and take-off speeds will be higher. The high wing loading also decreases maneuverability.
When discussing turn rate, that is why wing loading (which others have discussed before) is so important. The P38 may be a very large aircraft, but in turn it has very large wings. Not to mention its flap design further increases its wing size at no additional cost of weight. This allows a larger P38 to out maneuver a smaller P51.
Change for thought:
The wing loading of a spit v is roughly 120
The wing loading of a C47 is roughly 123
The wing loading of a B-17 is roughly 190
The wing loading of a 109 is roughly 210
-
Yawn! what a load of bull the 109k4 is arguably the best fighter in the game! You think HTC has an anti German agenda here when they also give it huge wep time as well? What a load of clap trap if they were doing this for gain as Skip said about CRS in the video then their 'cash cow' to fiddle with would be the P-51D 'a plane that Hitech has actually flew btw' it would outturn everything in sight and generally be uber in every way in game thats NOT the case.
In a equal turning fight with f4 g2 g6 g14 k4 it will lose that fight where is the nationality bias here?? F4U is a lot closer but again it can easily be done in a 109. My guess is you've just been running into players who are better pilots than yourself, to delude yourself into thinking you are only losing because HTC are scupcakeing around a PC with their anti-luftwaffe agenda is sad. If you would spend more time with a trainer 'if your ego will allow that' and less time typing conspiracy theory on the bbs you might figure out how to beat these 'rigged' aircraft.
I agree that the 109k is arguably in the top 2-3 planes in the game.
I allready have stated that the main problem that Thorism has with flying and fighting the planes in AcesHigh is he isn't very good at it. He wants to blame the plane modeling instead of his own lack of ability.
(edit: and who in the "real world" DOESN'T think that the P38 could out maneuver a Pony? Anybody that will tell you the P51 is the more "over all" maneuverable bird is clueless on the subject)
-
I agree that the 109k is arguably in the top 2-3 planes in the game.
I allready have stated that the main problem that Thorism has with flying and fighting the planes in AcesHigh is he isn't very good at it. He wants to blame the plane modeling instead of his own lack of ability.
(edit: and who in the "real world" DOESN'T think that the P38 could out maneuver a Pony? Anybody that will tell you the P51 is the more "over all" maneuverable bird is clueless on the subject)
DOES THIS mean that the p-38's modeling is why i suck so badly in it? :D :neener:
-
Re: Plane vs Plane Tactics (Matchups)
« Reply #285 on: Today at 08:56:21 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
where did i say bias ...
maybe because it is a game where flap engineering is not determined by nationality ...
Thor, Isn't this an example of bias?
-
no, it is not. the criteria used in AH and until recently in WB is the POH for flap operation.
these documents are not purely based on the manufacturers projected physical and aerodynamic limits of the the airframe, they are subject to editing by the Nations air forces and their operational preferences.
it is the easiest documentation to find but as you well know in many cases, such as the flap deployment speeds in the german planes, the engine operation procedures of the p-38, and the prohibited maneuvers in the p-51, often ignored to no ill effect for one reason or another. they often do not reflect the historic reality in the air.
so since hitech has used the POH for all the flap deployment speeds it can not be called bias.
however since we know that in this case the POH is more reflective of the air-force's official procedures than it is of the physical limits of the structure, and we know that pilots used the flaps in combat and that testers like the NACA tested the combat flaps of the types, we also know that although not bias the choice of the POH in this case is also not reflective of the historic reality either. all the other games of this type are taking other sources into consideration as they are uncomfortable with the results when the POH is the single source in this matter.
so no the below it is not a bias statement, or a statement about bias.
Thor, Isn't this an example of bias?
-
are there a lot of real world guys who think the 38 outmaneuvers the p51?
i would like to hear from them, please post.
btw what is the wing loading on the 38 as your numbers seem different than how i have seen them expressed before ...
EVERYBODY who flew both types and compared them in r/l considered the 38 the superior "dogfighter".
The 38 has a high-aspect ratio wing, large fowler flaps, and a superior power-loading as compared the P-51. All of this still does not give it a turn *radius* superiority over the Mustang, but it does give it a healthy advantage in sustained turn rate. Furthermore, its torqueless design will always be far easier to fly right to the ragged edge than any single-engine prop job. All of which is in turn unimportant in a P-51 vs P-38 fight compared to what the 38's advantage in the vertical gives it.
Basic wingloading will often give you a guess, but its not always accurate. Comparing power-off stall speeds in various configurations is the easiest sure way to find the true ratio of lift/weight. Despite its decidedly heavier wing-loading, the P-38s clean stall speed is usually given at 105, compared to the P-51's 100. And when you bring flaps and the ability to much more easily control the airplane at low-speed and full power...
EDIT: I think full-flaps stall for the 38 is around 80. But not sure.
-
EVERYBODY who flew both types and compared them in r/l considered the 38 the superior "dogfighter".
The 38 has a high-aspect ratio wing, large fowler flaps, and a superior power-loading as compared the P-51. All of this still does not give it a turn *radius* superiority over the Mustang, but it does give it a healthy advantage in sustained turn rate. Furthermore, its torqueless design will always be far easier to fly right to the ragged edge than any single-engine prop job. All of which is in turn unimportant in a P-51 vs P-38 fight compared to what the 38's advantage in the vertical gives it.
Basic wingloading will often give you a guess, but its not always accurate. Comparing power-off stall speeds in various configurations is the easiest sure way to find the true ratio of lift/weight. Despite its decidedly heavier wing-loading, the P-38s clean stall speed is usually given at 105, compared to the P-51's 100. And when you bring flaps and the ability to much more easily control the airplane at low-speed and full power...
EDIT: I think full-flaps stall for the 38 is around 80. But not sure.
the 38 as far as I have ever read, was considered the "best" of ww2 by the American's, but it was not because it was the best "dog fighter" it could bring you home safely, and that is what mattered to them.
personally I think its a "one trick pony"
INK
-
the 38 as far as I have ever read, was considered the "best" of ww2 by the American's, but it was not because it was the best "dog fighter" it could bring you home safely, and that is what mattered to them.
personally I think its a "one trick pony"
INK
Yet it was considered the best dogfighter of the "big 3" in the USAAF.
Yes, they liked two engines over the Pacific, but they also liked its maneuver and energy-building properties.
-
i am pretty inclusive of maneuvers when i think of a maneuverable, pretty much anything that can be considered a maneuver across the entire envelope of the aircraft. i include up, down, right, left, speed up, slow down, roll this way, that way, and back, all considered at all sorts of speeds.
flat turn, yo yo, lag roll, 1/2 cuban, split-s, etc.
so i tend to consider much more than how tight a plane can turn near it's stall speed when i evaluate a planes maneuverability. this approach to evaluation of a planes maneuverability comes from talking to fighter pilots about how they evaluate a plane.
i think we differ in this regard, and it is at the root of some of our disagreements.
not a bash, just noting that i think we have a different outlook.
EVERYBODY who flew both types and compared them in r/l considered the 38 the superior "dogfighter".
The 38 has a high-aspect ratio wing, large fowler flaps, and a superior power-loading as compared the P-51. All of this still does not give it a turn *radius* superiority over the Mustang, but it does give it a healthy advantage in sustained turn rate. Furthermore, its torqueless design will always be far easier to fly right to the ragged edge than any single-engine prop job. All of which is in turn unimportant in a P-51 vs P-38 fight compared to what the 38's advantage in the vertical gives it.
Basic wingloading will often give you a guess, but its not always accurate. Comparing power-off stall speeds in various configurations is the easiest sure way to find the true ratio of lift/weight.
-
Bollocks. You've been vainly trying to "prove" that the AH turn performance is wrong all this time, and now, having been firmly skewered by your own ignorance. Now you are wriggling, trying to bring all sorts of other "topics" into the mix.
There are 3, count them 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, but 3 axis of maneuver for an airplane. Pitch, roll, and yaw. All of them are defined by the same physical forces. There is no evidence that any of your "theories" are anymore true applied to issues of elevator authority, roll or yaw effectiveness than they are applied to turn rate and radius.
i am pretty inclusive of maneuvers when i think of a maneuverable, pretty much anything that can be considered a maneuver across the entire envelope of the aircraft. i include up, down, right, left, speed up, slow down, roll this way, that way, and back, all considered at all sorts of speeds.
flat turn, yo yo, lag roll, 1/2 cuban, split-s, etc.
so i tend to consider much more than how tight a plane can turn near it's stall speed when i evaluate a planes maneuverability. this approach to evaluation of a planes maneuverability comes from talking to fighter pilots about how they evaluate a plane.
i think we differ in this regard, and it is at the root of some of our disagreements.
not a bash, just noting that i think we have a different outlook.
-
Yet it was considered the best dogfighter of the "big 3" in the USAAF.
Yes, they liked two engines over the Pacific, but they also liked its maneuver and energy-building properties.
I know you are not saying they "out maneuvered" the nme in the pacific, cuz that would be a fallacy, the climb rate and guns are what made the 38 so great, NOT it's maneuverability.
but you know that already.
INK
-
so i tend to consider much more than how tight a plane can turn near it's stall speed when i evaluate a planes maneuverability.
And here you burst out with willful ignorance again. Read this slowly and understand: An airplane's power-off 1G stall speed in a given configuration is important is *directly* proportional to both its sustained turn radius and most especially its best turn rate&radius at corner velocity in that configuration. It is possible for a plane with more power and/or a wing with more efficient lift/drag ratio to sustain a higher turn *rate* than the aircraft with the lower power off stall speed, but it will NOT be superior in instantaneous turn rate or radius, or sustained radius.
Accelerated stall speed is equal to the stall speed of an aircraft in a given configuration, multiplied by the square root of the G loading. An airplane that stalls at 100mph at 1G in a given configuration will stall at ~265mph at a nominal 7Gs "blackout" limit. An airplane that stalls at 127mph at 1G will enter an accelerated stall at those same 7Gs at approximately 336mph. The extra speed needed to achieve the same G-loading means increased turn radius and decreased turn rate. This is not even the slightest bit debatable.
And last time I checked, r/l pilots were *very* concerned with their plane's corner velocity.
-
I know you are not saying they "out maneuvered" the nme in the pacific, cuz that would be a fallacy, the climb rate and guns are what made the 38 so great, NOT it's maneuverability.
but you know that already.
INK
Just because the Japanese fighters were much more maneuverable than the American fighters, does not mean maneuverability was not a concern. A Spitfire and a Fw190A8 are both turn worse than a Zero. Yet somehow it is easier to get guns on a Zero in a fight with one than the other...put an other way, you could bnz Zeros in a Jug, you could bnz them in a Hellcat or 38, I'm going to say the Hellcat or 38 was probably the better plane for the job because it had "plenty" speed advantage over the Zekes and more climb and maneuver to work with. Whereas over in the ETO, among other problems, at high alts the Germans were essentially disengaging from the 38s at will by diving, they couldn't do that against a Jug...
-
the 38 as far as I have ever read, was considered the "best" of ww2 by the American's, but it was not because it was the best "dog fighter" it could bring you home safely, and that is what mattered to them.
personally I think its a "one trick pony"
INK
i would think that they liked it, because while it wasn't exceptional at any single thing, it was pretty good at just about everything.....making it more well balanced than most.
also, although not widely know, the p-38 was also capable of going all the way into germany with the b-17's before the p-51.
-
I have to say, i never seen a topic that HiTech, or any one from HT HQ, respond so many times
-
mostly, (with a few exceptions) i hear about roll rate and power/weight as the major concerns from the guys i've talked to, as there are a number of commonly used maneuvers to achieve a solution on a aircraft turning harder.
i've not heard of many tricks that increases a planes roll rate or one that give you more power that you don't have.
And here you burst out with willful ignorance again. Read this slowly and understand: An airplane's power-off 1G stall speed in a given configuration is important is *directly* proportional to both its sustained turn radius and most especially its best turn rate&radius at corner velocity in that configuration. It is possible for a plane with more power and/or a wing with more efficient lift/drag ratio to sustain a higher turn *rate* than the aircraft with the lower power off stall speed, but it will NOT be superior in instantaneous turn rate or radius, or sustained radius.
Accelerated stall speed is equal to the stall speed of an aircraft in a given configuration, multiplied by the square root of the G loading. An airplane that stalls at 100mph at 1G in a given configuration will stall at ~265mph at a nominal 7Gs "blackout" limit. An airplane that stalls at 127mph at 1G will enter an accelerated stall at those same 7Gs at approximately 336mph. The extra speed needed to achieve the same G-loading means increased turn radius and decreased turn rate. This is not even the slightest bit debatable.
And last time I checked, r/l pilots were *very* concerned with their plane's corner velocity.
-
mostly, (with a few exceptions) i hear about roll rate and power/weight as the major concerns from the guys i've talked to, as there are a number of commonly used maneuvers to achieve a solution on a aircraft turning harder.
i've not heard of many tricks that increases a planes roll rate or one that give you more power that you don't have.
Wanna duel? You could even bring along "your guys" to watch. I'll test your gripes for HT. I'm open until 2:30pm EST today.
-
Just because the Japanese fighters were much more maneuverable than the American fighters, does not mean maneuverability was not a concern. A Spitfire and a Fw190A8 are both turn worse than a Zero. Yet somehow it is easier to get guns on a Zero in a fight with one than the other...put an other way, you could bnz Zeros in a Jug, you could bnz them in a Hellcat or 38, I'm going to say the Hellcat or 38 was probably the better plane for the job because it had "plenty" speed advantage over the Zekes and more climb and maneuver to work with. Whereas over in the ETO, among other problems, at high alts the Germans were essentially disengaging from the 38s at will by diving, they couldn't do that against a Jug...
you mention "bnz'ing" the zeros. a lot do this.
but, as i'm sure you already know, a lot don't so much bnz em, but they do turn in the vertical, where they have a distinct advantage over the zeek.
-
Wanna duel? You could even bring along "your guys" to watch. I'll test your gripes for HT. I'm open until 2:30pm EST today.
i would like to test with someone here.
but since i think this is an ego thing for you, and since and per the rules of dueling, i now have the choice of weapons i will be happy to meet you in WB P/D
in the FW-190a8 full gas tanks dropped at = speed head to head merge at 20k.
no guns till after good merge is agreed and the tanks are dropped.
say 1:45 eastern us?
not that that would prove much other than how well you can take a beating. although possibly the same relevance as your proposal in regards to this discussion.
-
i would like to test with someone here.
but since i think this is an ego thing for you, and since and per the rules of dueling, i now have the choice of weapons i will be happy to meet you in WB P/D
in the FW-190a8 full gas tanks dropped at = speed head to head merge at 20k.
no guns till after good merge is agreed and the tanks are dropped.
say 1:45 eastern us?
not that that would prove much other than how well you can take a beating. although possibly the same relevance as your proposal in regards to this discussion.
A 20k duel? I'll roll off of a 2k base. If you need that much feel free to blow it all on an 18k egress. I will not waste 10 minutes ending up on the deck, chasing you around. I have no ego and you won't "give me a beating".
I have to go pick my son up at 2:30pm. 1:45 is cutting it too close, sorry. I'll be on tonight as well.
Also, if we duel. If at anytime either one of us is more than 2k apart, the "runner" loses the fight (I won't). Even if I could manage a HO Shot on you after the cold merge, I won't take it.
But I use the DFC Rules of Engagement, when it comes to Duels. Again, feel free to dive from 20k, as long as the speeds are close on the Cold Merge pass.
-
my conditions or no duel, sorry but you are the one beating your chest here not me.
so what time do you want to meet me in the Warbirds P&D arena exactly?
BTW there are air-starts in that arena so you will die quickly over and over as often as you wish.
A 20k duel? I'll roll off of a 2k base. If you need that much feel free to blow it all on an 18k egress. I will not waste 10 minutes ending up on the deck, chasing you around. I have no ego and you won't "give me a beating".
I have to go pick my son up at 2:30pm. 1:45 is cutting it too close, sorry. I'll be on tonight as well.
Also, if we duel. If at anytime either one of us is more than 2k apart, the "runner" loses the fight (I won't). Even if I could manage a HO Shot on you after the cold merge, I won't take it.
But I use the DFC Rules of Engagement, when it comes to Duels. Again, feel free to dive from 20k, as long as the speeds are close on the Cold Merge pass.
-
i would like to test with someone here.
but since i think this is an ego thing for you, and since and per the rules of dueling, i now have the choice of weapons i will be happy to meet you in WB P/D
in the FW-190a8 full gas tanks dropped at = speed head to head merge at 20k.
no guns till after good merge is agreed and the tanks are dropped.
say 1:45 eastern us?
not that that would prove much other than how well you can take a beating. although possibly the same relevance as your proposal in regards to this discussion.
WB = War Birds? People still play that? Amazing.
-
my conditions or no duel, sorry but you are the one beating your chest here not me.
so what time do you want to meet me in the Warbirds P&D arena exactly?
Warbirds? I've never played it and never will. Since you're stuck at 20k in the Kiddie pool, come talk to me when you want good, clean fights in the DA with NO EGO.
But, I WILL NOT chase you down to the deck. I'd rather have that wasted time, brought forth into explaining things afterwards, or put towards additional duels.
"Beating my chest"? I haven't even raised a hand yet, let alone an arm.
-
Thorsim,
I know this was mentioned earlier in the thread but here is a comparison that you asked for;
F8U-2NE (F-8E) vs. F-104G
- First Flight- F8U-1 25 March 1955 F-104 4 March 1954. So they are contemporary single engine single seat fighters
- Empty Weight- F8U-2NE(F-8E) 17,541 lbs. F-104 14,000 lbs. So the F8U is heavier empty
- Loaded Weight- F8U-2NE(F-8E) 29,000 lbs. F-104 20,640 lbs. So the F8U is 8,360 lbs heavier loaded or 40% heavier than the F-204
- Thrust (non afterburing)- F8U-2NE(F-8E) 10,700 lbs. F-104 10,000 lbs. So the F8U has 700 lbs more thrust (7%)
- Length- F8U-2NE(F-8E) 54 feet 3 inches F-104 54 feet 8 inches. So the F-104 is 5 inches longer
- Wingspan- F8U-2NE(F-8E) 35 feet 8 inches F-104 21 feet 9 inches. So the F8U is 13 feet 11 inches wider
- Wing Loading- F8U-2NE(F-8E) 77.3 pounds per square foot F-104 105 ponds per square foot. So the F8U has the lower wing loading
So in conclusion the two fighters are contemporary, the F8U is 40% heavier, has 7% more thrust, basically the same length and is significantly wider than the F-104.
Thorsim would you care to guess which plane was known as "The Last Gunfighter" and which was known as "The Missile with a man in it"?
Or just please answer your own question,
which one maneuvers better ?
My own opinion is that the bigger heavier plane will outmaneuver the smaller lighter plane. And btw the text I posted previously will back my position up.
<S> Baumer
-
i've only been here a few months, you proposal is no less pointless than mine.
running around challenging people to duels over disagreements on message boards is very much "beating your chest."
Warbirds? I've never played it and never will. Since you're stuck at 20k in the Kiddie pool, come talk to me when you want good, clean fights in the DA with NO EGO.
But, I WILL NOT chase you down to the deck. I'd rather have that wasted time, brought forth into explaining things afterwards, or put towards additional duels.
"Beating my chest"? I haven't even raised a hand yet, let alone an arm.
-
sorry again
-
i've only been here a few months, you proposal is no less pointless than mine.
running around challenging people to duels over disagreements on message boards is very much "beating your chest."
anyway you proposed a duel i laid out the conditions, am i to understand that you are now backing out?
Warbirds? I've never played it and never will. Since you're stuck at 20k in the Kiddie pool, come talk to me when you want good, clean fights in the DA with NO EGO.
But, I WILL NOT chase you down to the deck. I'd rather have that wasted time, brought forth into explaining things afterwards, or put towards additional duels.
"Beating my chest"? I haven't even raised a hand yet, let alone an arm.
Warbirds? I've never played it and never will. Since you're stuck at 20k in the Kiddie pool, come talk to me when you want good, clean fights in the DA with NO EGO.
But, I WILL NOT chase you down to the deck. I'd rather have that wasted time, brought forth into explaining things afterwards, or put towards additional duels.
"Beating my chest"? I haven't even raised a hand yet, let alone an arm.
-
not that that would prove much other than how well you can take a beating. although possibly the same relevance as your proposal in regards to this discussion.
BBS messing up again. FIGHT THE BBS LAG!
ack-ack
-
Sorry
-
i've only been here a few months, you proposal is no less pointless than mine.
running around challenging people to duels over disagreements on message boards is very much "beating your chest."
anyway you proposed a duel i laid out the conditions, am i to understand that you are now backing out?
Warbirds? I've never played it and never will. Since you're stuck at 20k in the Kiddie pool, come talk to me when you want good, clean fights in the DA with NO EGO.
But, I WILL NOT chase you down to the deck. I'd rather have that wasted time, brought forth into explaining things afterwards, or put towards additional duels.
"Beating my chest"? I haven't even raised a hand yet, let alone an arm.
Warbirds? I've never played it and never will. Since you're stuck at 20k in the Kiddie pool, come talk to me when you want good, clean fights in the DA with NO EGO.
But, I WILL NOT chase you down to the deck. I'd rather have that wasted time, brought forth into explaining things afterwards, or put towards additional duels.
"Beating my chest"? I haven't even raised a hand yet, let alone an arm.
-
FIGHT BBS LAG!
ack-ack
-
Anybody remember the AcesHigh vs. Warbirds duel they did 1/2 dozen years ish ago?
Some top sticks on both sides fought over both platforms.
AH guys went/fought at WB and WB players came and fough here @ AH.
Didn't the AH guys win on both sims?
What Thorism fails to "get" is the diff. between a playerbase in the 100's vs. a playerbase in the 1,000's.
You can be the best stick in WarBirds and only be "ok" here in AcesHigh.
Set me up w/ a free 2 week account over at WarBirds Thorism. I will take two weeks to get used to the game and happily spank you at any alt in any ride.
-
i would like to test with someone here.
but since i think this is an ego thing for you, and since and per the rules of dueling, i now have the choice of weapons i will be happy to meet you in WB P/D
in the FW-190a8 full gas tanks dropped at = speed head to head merge at 20k.
no guns till after good merge is agreed and the tanks are dropped.
say 1:45 eastern us?
not that that would prove much other than how well you can take a beating. although possibly the same relevance as your proposal in regards to this discussion.
Kind of sad accepting his challenge if only it took place in WB, a game he nor anyone else hardly plays but then, I'm not surprised you'd take a chicken watermelon way out.
ack-ack
-
Anybody remember the AcesHigh vs. Warbirds duel they did 1/2 dozen years ish ago?
Some top sticks on both sides fought over both platforms.
AH guys went/fought at WB and WB players came and fough here @ AH.
Didn't the AH guys win on both sims?
What Thorism fails to "get" is the diff. between a playerbase in the 100's vs. a playerbase in the 1,000's.
You can be the best stick in WarBirds and only be "ok" here in AcesHigh.
Set me up w/ a free 2 week account over at WarBirds Thorism. I will take two weeks to get used to the game and happily spank you at any alt in any ride.
-
Sorry multi-post
-
Sorry multi-post
forums lagged again.
ack-ack
-
But I use the DFC Rules of Engagement, when it comes to Duels.
:O Spoke the name in public :O I demand action now!!!!! :lol
-
:O Spoke the name in public :O I demand action now!!!!! :lol
:rofl :rofl
-
Set me up w/ a free 2 week account over at WarBirds Thorism. I will take two weeks to get used to the game and happily spank you at any alt in any ride.
go ahead lute, you don't need me ...
just let me know when you think you are ready ...
-
:rofl :rofl
:devil
-
and the difference in his challenge to me would be what?
Kind of sad accepting his challenge if only it took place in WB, a game he nor anyone else hardly plays but then, I'm not surprised you'd take a chicken watermelon way out.
ack-ack
don't you have some quotes for me yet Ack Ack ...
? ? ?
-
and the difference in his challenge to me would be what?
Well, all I know is he didn't offer the challenge to duel in another game. You accepting the challenge on the condition that it take place in another game is sad to say the least. Though, having seen you fly in the MW arena, I understand why you would try and stack things in your favor.
ack-ack
-
and the difference in his challenge to me would be what?
Why not just fight in AH, since this is the venue where the discussion is taking place?
Thorsim, this smacks plainly of your fear of losing here. It's an alien thought to me, surrendering without putting up any fight.
Your words clearly translate to: I can't win here. I'm not going to try.
-
and the difference in his challenge to me would be what?
don't you have some quotes for me yet Ack Ack ...
? ? ?
Quotes for what? About P-38 pilots out maneuvering Bf 109s in combat? I think I already pointed you in the direction of another thread you were whining about the flap in that had an AAR from a P-38 flight that out maneuvered and defeated a numerically superior group of Bf 109s in a low level encounter. But since that AAR doesn't support your argument, you've dismissed it like anything else that has been shown contrary to what you argue.
Care to post any data that backs up anything you've argued?
ack-ack
-
note: if you shoot a so called ace down he will beach n yap, he will say the town or field ack got him, not your bullets. or he will accuse you of cheating or say it is lag. and he will put you down in the BBS. get other guys to gangbang you on the forums. and some more accusations, when it is your internet connection and there is nothing you can do about it. And you like to play the game too just like they do too, yet when you shoot a enemy down and it turns out to be the guy who despises you, be prepared to be accused some more and put down like you are cheating when you are not. <S> to all fellow aces highers who understands
-
i am recent to this game, why are you not bothered by his stacking things in his favor?
where are the discussions that you once again wrongly attributed to me BTW?
Well, all I know is he didn't offer the challenge to duel in another game. You accepting the challenge on the condition that it take place in another game is sad to say the least. Though, having seen you fly in the MW arena, I understand why you would try and stack things in your favor.
ack-ack
-
well theres 20 mins Ill never get back :rolleyes:
And to Thor I think you need to put this in and try it out anybody got a Tylenol
(http://thenetworkgarden.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/braininjar.jpg) (http://smartcanucks.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tylenol.jpg)
-
no sir i asked for an example of extreme flap deployment in that thread, which that quoted encounter is not.
in this thread i asked for a current unbiased expert/pilot opinion which it is not either.
Quotes for what? About P-38 pilots out maneuvering Bf 109s in combat? I think I already pointed you in the direction of another thread you were whining about the flap in that had an AAR from a P-38 flight that out maneuvered and defeated a numerically superior group of Bf 109s in a low level encounter. But since that AAR doesn't support your argument, you've dismissed it like anything else that has been shown contrary to what you argue.
Care to post any data that backs up anything you've argued?
ack-ack
-
Rule #4
-
ahh well i tried to stop this on page 15 ...
don't worry about the TOS in regards to arguing with people swimming upstream here, they rarely are applied.
-
Thorsim does that mean your not going to respond to my posts?
-
i saw it just now i must have missed it with the lag give me a min ...
Thorsim does that mean your not going to respond to my posts?
-
i am recent to this game, why are you not bothered by his stacking things in his favor?
where are the discussions that you once again wrongly attributed to me BTW?
This is the one where you had no clue as to how the dive flaps worked in the P-38 and showed a general lack of understanding how flaps worked in general. I also think this was the thread the AAR was posted in when you wanted someone to post something that showed a P-38 pilot using flaps in a fight.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,275682.0.html
ack-ack
-
no sir i asked for an example of extreme flap deployment in that thread, which that quoted encounter is not.
in this thread i asked for a current unbiased expert/pilot opinion which it is not either.
The AAR is as unbiased and from an expert view as you can get. Again, it's a common thing with you. You ignore the data that is contrary to your argument and then try and change what the argument is when you've shown to be wrong.
Are you related to Crump?
ack-ack
-
sir the f104 was compromised in its maneuverability to improve it's hight speed interceptor role, the crusader was much more intended to establish air superiority it was presented previously and i pointed out that this plane was an exception. respectfully i have not tried to use the U2 as an example to prove my point.
Thorsim does that mean your not going to respond to my posts?
-
in this thread i asked for a current unbiased expert/pilot opinion
Is there such a thing? For any of the planes in question? How do we know they're not biased? Having an opinion is basically having a bias. How do we know how "expert" they really are, in the questions we're asking?
Can you supply what you ask for, to support your take on the subject at hand- the F4U vs 109?
Forget the duels/ego/whatever... Seriously, if you ever want to work with someone in the TA, let me know. It would even follow the current subject, since you seem to favor the 109's, and I favor the F4U.
I'm not looking to beat you; I'd be looking to help you improve. PM's are fine. I'm not in the business of gloating over who I work with/beat/whatever. Sessions would be private, with no "leak" of subject matter/skill/whatever to the "public". Just an honest offer...
-
no sir i never questioned flap usage in the 38, i questioned extreme deflection flap usage in combat. that account does not suggest flap deflections in the extreme as you and others suggested that it did.
AARs are always biased as there is only information from one pilots point of view, very much unlike the video i posted where the pilots in the respective aircraft are working together to evaluate the respective performance of the two aircraft.
This is the one where you had no clue as to how the dive flaps worked in the P-38 and showed a general lack of understanding how flaps worked in general. I also think this was the thread the AAR was posted in when you wanted someone to post something that showed a P-38 pilot using flaps in a fight.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,275682.0.html
ack-ack
-
thank you for the offer when are you in the DA/TA?
well the account i posted the pilots were pilots of several airframes the accounts in disagreement were from pilots with no experience in regards to 1/2 the equation. both are published, well regarded, and referred to by media sources.
+S+
t
Is there such a thing? For any of the planes in question? How do we know they're not biased? Having an opinion is basically having a bias. How do we know how "expert" they really are, in the questions we're asking?
Can you supply what you ask for, to support your take on the subject at hand- the F4U vs 109?
Forget the duels/ego/whatever... Seriously, if you ever want to work with someone in the TA, let me know. It would even follow the current subject, since you seem to favor the 109's, and I favor the F4U.
I'm not looking to beat you; I'd be looking to help you improve. PM's are fine. I'm not in the business of gloating over who I work with/beat/whatever. Sessions would be private, with no "leak" of subject matter/skill/whatever to the "public". Just an honest offer...
-
i questioned extreme deflection flap usage in combat.
Extreme flap deflections aren't the best option here in AH either. It's a "known" but not necessarily "followed" fact. Anything beyond 20 degrees in the F4U, for example, begins to hurt you...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271266.0.html
-
If HT even thinks about locking this thread, I will demand for this months subscription money back :lol
This thread is teh funny :lol
-
once again only partly accurate, my point is that the dive flap slows down the airframe, your point was that the deployment of the dive flap allows the 38 to achieve a higher mach number before it looses controllability.
both are true
in the real world as i assure you if you deploy the flap in level flight in the real world you will increase drag and slow down.
when you deploy it in a power on dive it will change the way the plane reacts tot he airflow and allow it to dive faster.
This is the one where you had no clue as to how the dive flaps worked in the P-38 and showed a general lack of understanding how flaps worked in general. I also think this was the thread the AAR was posted in when you wanted someone to post something that showed a P-38 pilot using flaps in a fight.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,275682.0.html
ack-ack
-
What exactly limits the F-104 from being used as a reference point for your argument. Of course it was designed with a different intent, as a high speed point interceptor, but your position has been that a smaller lighter plane should out maneuver a larger heavier plane.
This is a clear example of contemporary fighters, in which one clearly out maneuvers another, and it's contrary to your position.
The hart of the matter (if you read my earlier post) is that maneuvering (turning) for any aircraft, comes down to two primary factors, Maximum Lift Coefficient and Load Factor, at the stall/buffet point. Weight plays a part in the load factor but it is not the sole determining element (or even the primary component) in determining a aircraft's turning performance. Any of the real aeronautical engineers please step in and correct any mistakes I might have made.
-
thank you for the offer when are you in the DA/TA?
I don't keep "regular" hours, since I have a very busy RL schedule. About the best I can do is give you some times I plan to be available, and see if they mesh with you at all. I plan to be online tonight, from about 10pm -2am Central. Again on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights, at about the same time (unless my family schedule interferes, which I don't expect).
However, anytime you notice I'm online, just toss me a message and I'll drop what I'm doing to swing over to the TA.
We can work in the DA too, but I don't do that as often. No damage in the TA is nice, since we're working on learning not on shooting each other down.
-
yes sir i exploit that regularly. i am however of the opinion that the liabilities are underrepresented in several ways. real world testing has been elusive to prove it one way or the other and i am left with just several warnings in the POHs of some aircraft to support my POV.
Extreme flap deflections aren't the best option here in AH either. It's a "known" but not necessarily "followed" fact. Anything beyond 20 degrees in the F4U, for example, begins to hurt you...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271266.0.html
-
yes sir i exploit that regularly. i am however of the opinion that the liabilities are underrepresented in several ways. real world testing has been elusive to prove it one way or the other and i am left with just several warnings in the POHs of some aircraft to support my POV.
Didn't you just post that POH's were biased?
-
i would like to test with someone here.
but since i think this is an ego thing for you, and since and per the rules of dueling, i now have the choice of weapons i will be happy to meet you in WB P/D
in the FW-190a8 full gas tanks dropped at = speed head to head merge at 20k.
no guns till after good merge is agreed and the tanks are dropped.
say 1:45 eastern us?
not that that would prove much other than how well you can take a beating. although possibly the same relevance as your proposal in regards to this discussion.
actually, i'll fight ya in 38 vs 38 at 20k. those are some fun fights. it has to be in ah though, as this is the only sim i fly.
i think it'll be fun for both.....and i have no ego to be bruised. my p38's only cost me 50 cents a day.
-
once again only partly accurate, my point is that the dive flap slows down the airframe, your point was that the deployment of the dive flap allows the 38 to achieve a higher mach number before it looses controllability.
both are true
in the real world as i assure you if you deploy the flap in level flight in the real world you will increase drag and slow down.
when you deploy it in a power on dive it will change the way the plane reacts tot he airflow and allow it to dive faster.
Yet this is not real life, in the GAME when in level flight it does not slow you down at all, but as ack ack said it does give you a little more time in a dive.
-
once again only partly accurate, my point is that the dive flap slows down the airframe, your point was that the deployment of the dive flap allows the 38 to achieve a higher mach number before it looses controllability.
both are true
in the real world as i assure you if you deploy the flap in level flight in the real world you will increase drag and slow down.
when you deploy it in a power on dive it will change the way the plane reacts tot he airflow and allow it to dive faster.
the dive recovery flap changes the lift of the wing......and accordingly causes it to pitch nose up.
and they DO NOT allow you to dive faster. you can still enter compression with them deployed.
-
sir my premise RE to size and weight is that they are factors along with the loadings, i never suggested they were more important than the loadings. in the case of the f-104 the sacrifice of so much wing size in the quest for pure speed makes it a poor comparison aircraft for a discussion that is basically ...
"if all the loadings are similar imo the lighter smaller aircraft should have the edge in maneuverability"
i never suggested that other advantages would not come into play in my tendency to favor smaller lighter in the maneuver fight.
per the beginning of this thread i feel that the 109 should have the maneuver advantage over the f4u not in the least part because of their relative size.
on page 15 of this thread under the realization that the real world proof i was asking for was so elusive, i expressed my desire to discontinue participation in this discussion for a while, many found that unacceptable so i am since have been addressing specific points and counter points.
What exactly limits the F-104 from being used as a reference point for your argument. Of course it was designed with a different intent, as a high speed point interceptor, but your position has been that a smaller lighter plane should out maneuver a larger heavier plane.
This is a clear example of contemporary fighters, in which one clearly out maneuvers another, and it's contrary to your position.
The hart of the matter (if you read my earlier post) is that maneuvering (turning) for any aircraft, comes down to two primary factors, Maximum Lift Coefficient and Load Factor, at the stall/buffet point. Weight plays a part in the load factor but it is not the sole determining element (or even the primary component) in determining a aircraft's turning performance. Any of the real aeronautical engineers please step in and correct any mistakes I might have made.
-
yes i did, however all the things in the POHs are clearly not represented in the game at the same strict level.
are they.
Didn't you just post that POH's were biased?
-
i am all up for fun, i got a different impression from the previous offer, and to my credit i did offer to test with him.
actually, i'll fight ya in 38 vs 38 at 20k. those are some fun fights. it has to be in ah though, as this is the only sim i fly.
i think it'll be fun for both.....and i have no ego to be bruised. my p38's only cost me 50 cents a day.
-
well imo it should do both in the game as well.
i did not disagree that it allowed a higher mach number after i looked into the structure more closely, but that did not change my observation that the structure would slow you down if used the way i proposed when i first brought it up in that thread.
Yet this is not real life, in the GAME when in level flight it does not slow you down at all, but as ack ack said it does give you a little more time in a dive.
-
i got a different impression when i looked into it, and of course it will still enter "compression" at some point.
the dive recovery flap changes the lift of the wing......and accordingly causes it to pitch nose up.
and they DO NOT allow you to dive faster. you can still enter compression with them deployed.
-
once again only partly accurate, my point is that the dive flap slows down the airframe, your point was that the deployment of the dive flap allows the 38 to achieve a higher mach number before it looses controllability.
both are true
in the real world as i assure you if you deploy the flap in level flight in the real world you will increase drag and slow down.
when you deploy it in a power on dive it will change the way the plane reacts tot he airflow and allow it to dive faster.
The P-38's dive flaps didn't change the airflow to allow it to dive faster, nor did it act as an 'air brake' like you think it did. Any drag that was associated with the dive flaps was minimul and did not slow the plane down in any appreciable fashion just by having them deployed. As was explained to you, any speed loss from the dive flaps being deployed was a result of the nose pitching up from the change of the airflow and not the drag associated with the dive flaps.
ack-ack
-
i am all up for fun, i got a different impression from the previous offer, and to my credit i did offer to test with him.
i think you'd find the fight with masher to be fun too. he's a good guy. he won't let his ego get in the way, although i've heard rumors he has a trailer custom made to transport it. :noid :noid
seriously....most of the guys in here talking to you will gladly fight with you, win or lose....and they'll also be glad to teach you. :aok
-
i got a different impression when i looked into it, and of course it will still enter "compression" at some point.
It all depends what the mach threshold is for the altitude the P-38 is diving at. Below 20,000ft where the air is thicker, the P-38 will not enter into compressability because the mach threshold is too high. One of the reasons why in real life that P-38 pilots (before the dive flaps were introduced) were told not to initiate high speed dives above 20,000ft. At high speed dives below 20,000ft, the P-38 would experiencing stiffening of controls due to the high speed aerodynamic forces but would not enter into a 'nose tuck' that signaled a compressability state.
On a side note, there were P-38 pilots like Robin Olds and Lowell that used to use their rudders to slow them down in dives (before dive flaps) to keep compressability at bay. It's a trick that works like a charm in here too.
ack-ack
-
i had always heard it described as a dive break, i looked into it and understand it better now, as to how much it slows the aircraft down, well i never offered an opinion on that that i recall.
it looks like a fair amount of surface area to me though, i think if you wanted it to it would probably help you slow down quite a bit in TRW.
The P-38's dive flaps didn't change the airflow to allow it to dive faster, nor did it act as an 'air brake' like you think it did. Any drag that was associated with the dive flaps was minimul and did not slow the plane down in any appreciable fashion just by having them deployed. As was explained to you, any speed loss from the dive flaps being deployed was a result of the nose pitching up from the change of the airflow and not the drag associated with the dive flaps.
ack-ack
-
yes i agree cross control is quite useful ...
speaking of slowing down i think i like the coffin corner stories the best of the "fight fun" accounts from my pilot friends.
those playing with the "toys" the government lends you stories ...
i sometimes wonder at the shenanigans enemy pilots would have gotten to if there had not been a war just close deployments ...
It all depends what the mach threshold is for the altitude the P-38 is diving at. Below 20,000ft where the air is thicker, the P-38 will not enter into compressability because the mach threshold is too high. One of the reasons why in real life that P-38 pilots (before the dive flaps were introduced) were told not to initiate high speed dives above 20,000ft. At high speed dives below 20,000ft, the P-38 would experiencing stiffening of controls due to the high speed aerodynamic forces but would not enter into a 'nose tuck' that signaled a compressability state.
On a side note, there were P-38 pilots like Robin Olds and Lowell that used to use their rudders to slow them down in dives (before dive flaps) to keep compressability at bay. It's a trick that works like a charm in here too.
ack-ack
-
i had always heard it described as a dive break, i looked into it and understand it better now, as to how much it slows the aircraft down, well i never offered an opinion on that that i recall.
it looks like a fair amount of surface area to me though, i think if you wanted it to it would probably help you slow down quite a bit in TRW.
Illustration of the P-38 dive flaps
(http://kazoku.org/xp-38n/articles/p38diveflaps.gif)
Frontal view of dive flaps deployed
(http://kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/dsc00727.jpg)
Rear view
(http://kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/dsc00730.jpg)
Another view just for the Hell of it.
(http://history.nasa.gov/SP-440/p28a.jpg)
As you can see, the surface area isn't as large as one might think but then considering it's intended purpose, it didn't need to be. It just had to change the airflow. It wouldn't slow you don't quite a bit if deployed in level flight, it's not what it was designed to do nor was it used as such by those that flew the P-38 with the dive flaps.
ack-ack
-
......and this is about the 5th thread Thorsim has brought up those "Evil P-38 Fowler Flaps". :x
-
pretty sure ack ack brought them up
......and this is about the 5th thread Thorsim has brought up those "Evil P-38 Fowler Flaps". :x
-
note: if you shoot a so called ace down he will beach n yap, he will say the town or field ack got him, not your bullets. or he will accuse you of cheating or say it is lag. and he will put you down in the BBS. get other guys to gangbang you on the forums. and some more accusations, when it is your internet connection and there is nothing you can do about it. And you like to play the game too just like they do too, yet when you shoot a enemy down and it turns out to be the guy who despises you, be prepared to be accused some more and put down like you are cheating when you are not. <S> to all fellow aces highers who understands
:huh
-
:huh
:lol
-
:huh
:confused:
-
You are incorrect, and your "feeling" means nothing. It has been demonstrated to you time and time again, that according to proven physics, identical loadings will in fact result in identical performance. You have shown nothing to the contrary. You can show no physics to prove the contrary. You can show no examples to the contrary. On top of that, you have been shown copious examples where the larger aircraft clearly turns (or climbs, or accelerates) as well or better, due to identical/superior loadings. And do not try to wriggle out of this by bringing up roll rate or the like, because there are numerous cases where the larger aircraft rolls better as well. The 190 and the P-47 were larger than many stablemates/enemies and yet were the best rollers in the ETO. And the relatively massive F4U Corsair enjoyed a roll rate approximately as brisk as its R-2800 cousin the Jug.
"if all the loadings are similar imo the lighter smaller aircraft should have the edge in maneuverability"
i never suggested that other advantages would not come into play in my tendency to favor smaller lighter in the maneuver fight.
per the beginning of this thread i feel that the 109 should have the maneuver advantage over the f4u not in the least part because of their relative size.
on page 15 of this thread under the realization that the real world proof i was asking for was so elusive, i expressed my desire to discontinue participation in this discussion for a while, many found that unacceptable so i am since have been addressing specific points and counter points.
-
actually no one has produced an example of a loadings very similar, yet size and weight very different pair of aircraft for comparison.
i am more than happy to re-think my instinct if a good example is provided.
on the other points i am also waiting for the real world opinions that share the ones like that of the f4u/109 match-up that started this whole 25 page mess in the first place.
or ...
you can just let me look deeper on my own and continue this discussion or not without me as i suggested 10 pages ago, i.e. do not address me anymore here.
as this is just as tedious for me as it is for any of you ...
You are incorrect, and your "feeling" means nothing. It has been demonstrated to you time and time again, that according to proven physics, identical loadings will in fact result in identical performance. You have shown nothing to the contrary. You can show no physics to prove the contrary. You can show no examples to the contrary. On top of that, you have been shown copious examples where the larger aircraft clearly turns (or climbs, or accelerates) as well or better, due to identical/superior loadings. And do not try to wriggle out of this by bringing up roll rate or the like, because there are numerous cases where the larger aircraft rolls better as well. The 190 and the P-47 were larger than many stablemates/enemies and yet were the best rollers in the ETO. And the relatively massive F4U Corsair enjoyed a roll rate approximately as brisk as its R-2800 cousin the Jug.
-
BnZs
As much as I cant stand your constant complaints about the Mk XVI. You sir are doing one hell of a job in this thread. :aok
-
actually no one has produced an example of a loadings very similar, yet size and weight very different pair of aircraft for comparison.
Ahem, have you noticed all the examples where an aircraft is larger, sometimes *literally* double the weight of another aircraft yet has *superior* maneuver performance through superior loading? That should tell you something.
-
BnZs
As much as I cant stand your constant complaints about the Mk XVI. You sir are doing one hell of a job in this thread. :aok
:D The XVI is ridiculously superior to 90% of what it faces, outside of other Merlin Spits, because of the same physical principles I am outlining. In a war, I myself would have squeezed Goerrings fat-head until he gave me *multiple* squadrons of Spitfires. In a game, if you think it is healthy for gameplay for one tool to be ridiculously superior to another tool, then we must agree to disagree.
-
once again, i have nowhere in this or any other thread discounted the loadings.
please stop misrepresenting my point so you will be able to disagree with it.
it is tiresome
Ahem, have you noticed all the examples where an aircraft is larger, sometimes *literally* double the weight of another aircraft yet has *superior* maneuver performance through superior loading? That should tell you something.
-
i had always heard it described as a dive break,
It's a common mistake. The Grandaddy of online flight sims got it wrong too, AW had incorrectly modeled air brakes on the P-38J-25-L0 instead of dive flaps. It was the king of overshoots, using the air brakes was like slamming on the brakes in a car but then AW wasn't about the flight modeling.
ack-ack
-
once again, i have nowhere in this or any other thread discounted the loadings.
please stop misrepresenting my point so you will be able to disagree with it.
it is tiresome
Point? Do you have one? The physical mechanism is by altering its flight path by bringing lift to bear against its inertia. How well it does this is defined by the ratio of how much lift vs. how much inertia. That is it. You can not demonstrate one valid physical reason why the weight alone should change anything, principally because it in reality, does not. You can not even clearly define *any* effect you think weight should have on aircraft performance, other than saying you feel it should "worsen" it in some way, much less define a mechanism by which this is accomplished. You have stated that you think a weightier airplane should loose energy (read: airspeed) in turns faster than a lighter one. Thus demonstrating that you are ignorant of the fact that airspeed loss in turning has nothing to do with weight, and everything to do with increase in drag caused by increased AoA. In point of fact, a heavier object has more inertia and will tend to slow down *less*, all other things being equal. They are of course not equal because a heavier object will need more lift to alter its trajectory, which will in turn require inducing more drag, thus nullifying any advantage inertia would otherwise bring.
Do three things for me.
1. Clearly define what effect you *think* weight should have independent of loading factors.
2. Show the physics by which this effect works.
3. Explain just how you discovered that all aeronautical engineers have been wrong for years. :rofl
-
once again, i have nowhere in this or any other thread discounted the loadings.
please stop misrepresenting my point so you will be able to disagree with it.
it is tiresome
15 Has no grasp of simple debating logic.
"Wight In and By it's self effects maneuverability."
That statement by simple logic implies that with the same loadings but different weights , maneuverability MUST changes, I.E. you have completely discounted loadings.
Or are you now saying loadings are what changes the maneuverability in which case you now say that weight in and by itself does not effect maneuverability?
HiTech
-
no sirs someone at some point back said that a plane 2x as big and heavy but with the same loadings would maneuver exactly the same as its smaller lighter counterpart.
i do not agree.
you can reduce that to an appreciable amount, say greater than 15% ...
i.e. the same loadings or similar within say 2-5%, but 15-25% bigger and heavier and i think that the smaller lighter advantage would reveal itself in the real world even if it does not do so in the math or computer modeling, and invite real world proof of my premise one way or another.
Point? Do you have one? The physical mechanism is by altering its flight path by bringing lift to bear against its inertia. How well it does this is defined by the ratio of how much lift vs. how much inertia. That is it. You can not demonstrate one valid physical reason why the weight alone should change anything, principally because it in reality, does not. You can not even clearly define *any* effect you think weight should have on aircraft performance, other than saying you feel it should "worsen" it in some way, much less define a mechanism by which this is accomplished. You have stated that you think a weightier airplane should loose energy (read: airspeed) in turns faster than a lighter one. Thus demonstrating that you are ignorant of the fact that airspeed loss in turning has nothing to do with weight, and everything to do with increase in drag caused by increased AoA. In point of fact, a heavier object has more inertia and will tend to slow down *less*, all other things being equal. They are of course not equal because a heavier object will need more lift to alter its trajectory, which will in turn require inducing more drag, thus nullifying any advantage inertia would otherwise bring.
Do three things for me.
1. Clearly define what effect you *think* weight should have independent of loading factors.
2. Show the physics by which this effect works.
3. Explain just how you discovered that all aeronautical engineers have been wrong for years. :rofl
15 Has no grasp of simple debating logic.
"Wight In and By it's self effects maneuverability."
That statement by simple logic implies that with the same loadings but different weights , maneuverability MUST changes, I.E. you have completely discounted loadings.
Or are you now saying loadings are what changes the maneuverability in which case you now say that weight in and by itself does not effect maneuverability?
HiTech
-
BNZ: 2 + 2 = 4.
Thor: No it is not its 5 , and here is why I think so
I believe that addition does not work when dealing with 2's so 2 + 2 = 5
BNZ: Please prove that.
Thor: Ok my proof is because I believe so.
HiTech
-
i'm know i'm just a begginer but I have 2 a.v.a. kills in a f4u. like people are saying it depends on pilots skill. but another thing it also depends on how well the pilots play to their advantages and disadvantages.now here's a tip on f4u attacks.its a senario, you in a f4u vs. an a6m: play to your supirier speed and and your supirier armament and your opponent will most likely play to his supirier agility but he's almost out of ammo and you haven't fired a shot since your last dogfight 2 sorties ago! so just make him over shoot his turn and lead him heavily with your 6 .50 mgs :airplane:
but people don't fight in here ok?
-
once again misquoted and having that misquote argued with ...
are you the reason this happens here so much hitech?
BNZ: 2 + 2 = 4.
Thor: No it is not its 5 , and here is why I think so
I believe that addition does not work when dealing with 2's so 2 + 2 = 5
BNZ: Please prove that.
Thor: Ok my proof is because I believe so.
HiTech
-
:D The XVI is ridiculously superior to 90% of what it faces, outside of other Merlin Spits, because of the same physical principles I am outlining. In a war, I myself would have squeezed Goerrings fat-head until he gave me *multiple* squadrons of Spitfires. In a game, if you think it is healthy for gameplay for one tool to be ridiculously superior to another tool, then we must agree to disagree.
Well said.
:rofl :neener: :salute
-
i'm know i'm just a begginer but I have 2 a.v.a. kills in a f4u. like people are saying it depends on pilots skill. but another thing it also depends on how well the pilots play to their advantages and disadvantages.now here's a tip on f4u attacks.its a senario, you in a f4u vs. an a6m: play to your supirier speed and and your supirier armament and your opponent will most likely play to his supirier agility but he's almost out of ammo and you haven't fired a shot since your last dogfight 2 sorties ago! so just make him over shoot his turn and lead him heavily with your 6 .50 mgs :airplane:
but people don't fight in here ok?
What you described is all part of 'pilot skill'.
ack-ack
-
What effect do you think heavier weight should have on aircraft performance, independent of loading factors, and where is the physics demonstrating that this would be the case?
-
i think it would cause the plane to lag behind in comparison when moving against it's own momentum
What effect do you think heavier weight should have on aircraft performance, independent of loading factors, and where is the physics demonstrating that this would be the case?
-
i think it would cause the plane to lag behind in comparison when moving against it's own momentum
And this means what exactly? Do you predict a reduction turn rate, roll rate, an increase in turn radius, what? And do please show the math for the physics involved.
-
What you described is all part of 'pilot skill'.
ack-ack
that is what it was suppost demonstrate
-
maybe i should use the word inertia rather than momentum but what i am getting at is these ...
when you move the controls the forces on the control surfaces move the aircraft this is not an instant thing i.e. full stick left does not result in full roll left instantly, there is a lag as the mass of the aircraft gains momentum. reverse the input instantly and there is more lag as there is more opposing inertia to overcome by the forces on the control surfaces. the more inertia the more time is lost.
planes skid, throttle changes do not result instantly in increased speed, roll are not reversed instantly even in good rolling aircraft, i think the smaller lighter planes have an easier time with all these things simply because they have less inertia to be moved around by the fluid air and the force it can apply.
control surfaces, props, and airframes are not 100% efficient, extreme input changes do not result in extreme direction changes instantly and the more inertia or momentum to over come, the more delay there will be while these things over come the inertia of the aircraft. i think smaller lighter aircraft are "quicker" or more nimble because they are dealing with less inertia, and that has real word consequences for over all maneuverability.
why would i show the math when it is the math relative to the real world that i am questioning ?
And this means what exactly? Do you predict a reduction turn rate, roll rate, an increase in turn radius, what? And do please show the math for the physics involved.
-
Voss's F-15 or 16 (cant remember) and Adonai's FA/18 :noid
Throw a scorpion in the mix and you have the best plane vs plane EVER
-
maybe i should use the word inertia rather than momentum but what i am getting at is these ...
when you move the controls the forces on the control surfaces move the aircraft this is not an instant thing i.e. full stick left does not result in full roll left instantly, there is a lag as the mass of the aircraft gains momentum. reverse the input instantly and there is more lag as there is more opposing inertia to overcome by the forces on the control surfaces. the more inertia the more time is lost.
planes skid, throttle changes do not result instantly in increased speed, roll are not reversed instantly even in good rolling aircraft, i think the smaller lighter planes have an easier time with all these things simply because they have less inertia to be moved around by the fluid air and the force it can apply.
control surfaces, props, and airframes are not 100% efficient, extreme input changes do not result in extreme direction changes instantly and the more inertia or momentum to over come, the more delay there will be while these things over come the inertia of the aircraft. i think smaller lighter aircraft are "quicker" or more nimble because they are dealing with less inertia, and that has real word consequences for over all maneuverability.
why would i show the math when it is the math relative to the real world that i am questioning ?
get a life!!!!
-
maybe i should use the word inertia rather than momentum but what i am getting at is these ...
when you move the controls the forces on the control surfaces move the aircraft this is not an instant thing i.e. full stick left does not result in full roll left instantly, there is a lag as the mass of the aircraft gains momentum. reverse the input instantly and there is more lag as there is more opposing inertia to overcome by the forces on the control surfaces. the more inertia the more time is lost.
planes skid, throttle changes do not result instantly in increased speed, roll are not reversed instantly even in good rolling aircraft, i think the smaller lighter planes have an easier time with all these things simply because they have less inertia to be moved around by the fluid air and the force it can apply.
control surfaces, props, and airframes are not 100% efficient, extreme input changes do not result in extreme direction changes instantly and the more inertia or momentum to over come, the more delay there will be while these things over come the inertia of the aircraft. i think smaller lighter aircraft are "quicker" or more nimble because they are dealing with less inertia, and that has real word consequences for over all maneuverability.
why would i show the math when it is the math relative to the real world that i am questioning ?
i think i understand where you're trying to go.
you think that because(i'm using these as examples, because i've flown both in here) the p38 is in the ballpark of 11,000 pounds, with a 54' wingspan, that it cannot possibly turn even momentarily with a hurri2c, weighing about 7,000 pounds with a wingspan of about 35'?
the hurri rolls much more crisply than the 38. it can pull a tigher flat turn.....with ease. but suppose that 38 is 600 on your 6, you're both doing around 300 mph flat and level. you roll 90 degrees right, and pull hard, into blackout. the 38 driver sees your aielrons deflect, sees your hurri start to roll. he knows without a doubt, that should he try to follow, he will lose.
so what is he to do? he pulls back slightly on the yoke, as he applies some right aileron, climbing, bleeding speed, keeping you in sight. since he's now tilted the lift vector of his 38 some 30 degrees off of the vertical, he's turning along with you. now, you lighten up your turn, to avoid bleeding too much "E", and the 38 driver kicks a little right rudder, dragging his nose down. now he's accelerating hard, and closing right onto your 6 again.
now, naturally, since he only gained a few hundred feet, it wasn't very obvious to you, so you think he MUST be doing something gamy. you try it in the other direction, and get the same result.
this is part of what a lot of people are trying to tell you. you cannot take any single piece, and proclaim something is wrong. we all use all we have to try to win the fight in our cartoon airplanes.
i've had guys in fw's try a forward slip to force me to overshoot em. it's worked a few times, as it's hard to recognize(to me anyway) before you've already blown by him.
try thinking in 3 dimensions, not 2. it is much harder than it sounds.
-
Roll rate, like everything else, will be defined by the ratio of aerodynamic forces the ailerons can bring to bear vrs. the inertia forces resisting roll. The same can be said of of pitch or yaw authority. (In the case of pitch authority, *any* fighter with its elevators operating in design speed range will be able to put on Gs faster than the pilot can stand. Or stall the aircraft, depending on how far above/below corner the a/c is.) And again, it is proportional...larger airplanes have larger control surfaces and thus bring more force to bear. Again, across the size range of WWII airplanes there is no indication whatsoever of any phenomenon like you describe. The massive P-47 was a quick roller (could reverse rolls back and forth quick enough to confound a Spit9 with a full-length wing, per Bob Johnson's mock dogfight) and was light in stick forces per G. The 190 was also notably larger than Spitfires, Laggs, etc, and was possibly the fastest roller of WWII.
Acceleration will be defined by thrust-loading...period. Skidding and slipping both refer to uncoordinated turns and has not a thing to do with aircraft size, weight, inertia, or anything of that nature.
Again you see "I think" without the slightest shred of evidence, or reference to aerodynamics/physics, which you show not the slightest sign of ever having studied even slightly. This means absolutely nothing. You could "think" heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones and it would not make it true.
maybe i should use the word inertia rather than momentum but what i am getting at is these ...
when you move the controls the forces on the control surfaces move the aircraft this is not an instant thing i.e. full stick left does not result in full roll left instantly, there is a lag as the mass of the aircraft gains momentum. reverse the input instantly and there is more lag as there is more opposing inertia to overcome by the forces on the control surfaces. the more inertia the more time is lost.
planes skid, throttle changes do not result instantly in increased speed, roll are not reversed instantly even in good rolling aircraft, i think the smaller lighter planes have an easier time with all these things simply because they have less inertia to be moved around by the fluid air and the force it can apply.
control surfaces, props, and airframes are not 100% efficient, extreme input changes do not result in extreme direction changes instantly and the more inertia or momentum to over come, the more delay there will be while these things over come the inertia of the aircraft. i think smaller lighter aircraft are "quicker" or more nimble because they are dealing with less inertia, and that has real word consequences for over all maneuverability.
why would i show the math when it is the math relative to the real world that i am questioning ?
Because if you are describing any physical phenomenon that actually exists it can be defined mathematically, and in the case of aerodynamics, HAS been defined mathematically over the last 100 years or so. You do realize you have been disagreeing with students of aerodynamic science, pilots, and in a few cases aeronautical engineers in this thread?
-
Roll rate, like everything else, will be defined by the ratio of aerodynamic forces the ailerons can bring to bear vrs. the inertia forces resisting roll. The same can be said of of pitch or yaw authority. (In the case of pitch authority, *any* fighter with its elevators operating in design speed range will be able to put on Gs faster than the pilot can stand. Or stall the aircraft, depending on how far above/below corner the a/c is.) And again, it is proportional...larger airplanes have larger control surfaces and thus bring more force to bear. Again, across the size range of WWII airplanes there is no indication whatsoever of any phenomenon like you describe. The massive P-47 was a quick roller (could reverse rolls back and forth quick enough to confound a Spit9 with a full-length wing, per Bob Johnson's mock dogfight) and was light in stick forces per G. The 190 was also notably larger than Spitfires, Laggs, etc, and was possibly the fastest roller of WWII.
Acceleration will be defined by thrust-loading...period. Skidding and slipping both refer to uncoordinated turns and has not a thing to do with aircraft size, weight, inertia, or anything of that nature.
Again you see "I think" without the slightest shred of evidence, or reference to aerodynamics/physics, which you show not the slightest sign of ever having studied even slightly. This means absolutely nothing. You could "think" heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones and it would not make it true.
Because if you are describing any physical phenomenon that actually exists it can be defined mathematically, and in the case of aerodynamics, HAS been defined mathematically over the last 100 years or so. You do realize you have been disagreeing with students of aerodynamic science, pilots, and in a few cases aeronautical engineers in this thread?
you mentioned the elevator pulling the aircraft into a stall. this is for thor.......do you know what AoA the wing will stall at? and what causes it to stall?
this is for the rest of you guys.....i know the AoA for the wing of the average GA aircraft to stall. are our ww2 fighters the same?
-
why would i show the math when it is the math relative to the real world that i am questioning ?
:huh Really? :confused:
If only the smaller, lighter ship (with less momentum / inertia / whatever's next) was more maneuverable this could have been avoided.
(http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/11/18/633626267691843190-thefailboat.jpg)
-
you say 2x size weight same loadings same flight character, fine.
i would like to see it.
Roll rate, like everything else, will be defined by the ratio of aerodynamic forces the ailerons can bring to bear vrs. the inertia forces resisting roll. The same can be said of of pitch or yaw authority. (In the case of pitch authority, *any* fighter with its elevators operating in design speed range will be able to put on Gs faster than the pilot can stand. Or stall the aircraft, depending on how far above/below corner the a/c is.) And again, it is proportional...larger airplanes have larger control surfaces and thus bring more force to bear. Again, across the size range of WWII airplanes there is no indication whatsoever of any phenomenon like you describe. The massive P-47 was a quick roller (could reverse rolls back and forth quick enough to confound a Spit9 with a full-length wing, per Bob Johnson's mock dogfight) and was light in stick forces per G. The 190 was also notably larger than Spitfires, Laggs, etc, and was possibly the fastest roller of WWII.
Acceleration will be defined by thrust-loading...period. Skidding and slipping both refer to uncoordinated turns and has not a thing to do with aircraft size, weight, inertia, or anything of that nature.
Again you see "I think" without the slightest shred of evidence, or reference to aerodynamics/physics, which you show not the slightest sign of ever having studied even slightly. This means absolutely nothing. You could "think" heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones and it would not make it true.
Because if you are describing any physical phenomenon that actually exists it can be defined mathematically, and in the case of aerodynamics, HAS been defined mathematically over the last 100 years or so. You do realize you have been disagreeing with students of aerodynamic science, pilots, and in a few cases aeronautical engineers in this thread?
cap no offense i don't think you get it at all, what we are discussing that is, or i can't see the connection to the discussion and your last post. BTW i understand lag pursuits, and or high yoyos whichever you are trying to describe, but thanks for trying ...
i think i understand where you're trying to go.
you think that because(i'm using these as examples, because i've flown both in here) the p38 is in the ballpark of 11,000 pounds, with a 54' wingspan, that it cannot possibly turn even momentarily with a hurri2c, weighing about 7,000 pounds with a wingspan of about 35'?
the hurri rolls much more crisply than the 38. it can pull a tigher flat turn.....with ease. but suppose that 38 is 600 on your 6, you're both doing around 300 mph flat and level. you roll 90 degrees right, and pull hard, into blackout. the 38 driver sees your aielrons deflect, sees your hurri start to roll. he knows without a doubt, that should he try to follow, he will lose.
so what is he to do? he pulls back slightly on the yoke, as he applies some right aileron, climbing, bleeding speed, keeping you in sight. since he's now tilted the lift vector of his 38 some 30 degrees off of the vertical, he's turning along with you. now, you lighten up your turn, to avoid bleeding too much "E", and the 38 driver kicks a little right rudder, dragging his nose down. now he's accelerating hard, and closing right onto your 6 again.
now, naturally, since he only gained a few hundred feet, it wasn't very obvious to you, so you think he MUST be doing something gamy. you try it in the other direction, and get the same result.
this is part of what a lot of people are trying to tell you. you cannot take any single piece, and proclaim something is wrong. we all use all we have to try to win the fight in our cartoon airplanes.
i've had guys in fw's try a forward slip to force me to overshoot em. it's worked a few times, as it's hard to recognize(to me anyway) before you've already blown by him.
try thinking in 3 dimensions, not 2. it is much harder than it sounds.
to the rest of you, i am sorry i just don't think you can scale a plane 2x and get the same performance.
i am tired of this conversation ...
+S+
t
p.s. nice boats baumer, and in the turn fight my money is still on the smaller one,
nice t-bone though i get spitties like that in my a8 all the time.
-
you say 2x size weight same loadings same flight character, fine.
i would like to see it.
We know there are planes which turn better than massively lighter planes. IOW, turn rate and radius does not track with size.
We know that roll rates don't track with size.
We know that control forces (on the scale of WWII fighters) don't track with size.
We know acceleration does not track with size.
So again, I wonder what effect you are looking for?
-
We know there are planes which turn better than massively lighter planes. IOW, turn rate and radius does not track with size.
We know that roll rates don't track with size.
We know that control forces (on the scale of WWII fighters) don't track with size.
We know acceleration does not track with size.
So again, I wonder what effect you are looking for?
hes looking for attention didn't get enough when he was little :D
-
you say 2x size weight same loadings same flight character, fine.
i would like to see it.
cap no offense i don't think you get it at all, what we are discussing that is, or i can't see the connection to the discussion and your last post. BTW i understand lag pursuits, and or high yoyos whichever you are trying to describe, but thanks for trying ...
to the rest of you, i am sorry i just don't think you can scale a plane 2x and get the same performance.
i am tired of this conversation ...
+S+
t
p.s. nice boats baumer, and in the turn fight my money is still on the smaller one,
nice t-bone though i get spitties like that in my a8 all the time.
i got the impression that you believe it to be virtually impossible for a larger heavier aircraft to turn with a smaller lighter aircraft.
what i described allowed the larger aircraft to turn with the smaller one, with ease.
-
Hey, I have a question too.
F4U-1D vs NIKI
F4U-1D vs Zero
On the deck going in circles but not full flaps yet. At what speed do the two planes need to be in order for the F4U to be able to get guns on them? Lets say the planes are on opposite sides of a circle. Only flat turns allowed.
-
you say 2x size weight same loadings same flight character, fine.
i would like to see it.
to the rest of you, i am sorry i just don't think you can scale a plane 2x and get the same performance.
Thor, Do you accept from expert opinion and everything you've heard that the Fw-190 has the highest roll rate of any warbird by a large margin? If so, note that an Fw-190-A8 weighs in at 7060 lbs empty and an A6m zero weighs 3704 lbs. The 190 is nearly twice the weight, but has a higher roll rate?
The answer is that the 190 as much larger Aelerons which result in Force-to -nertia ratio (about the roll axis) that is higher than the Zero's. There is no 'lag' or other phantom physical property that is not accounted for that changes the result.
Everyone is running out of ways to teach you about physics, which by the way was invented to describe events in the real world. If it didn't work, they wouldn't call them the LAWs of physics. So what I'm going to do is copy your posts and send them to the guy in the video that you posted about the effects of weight on his race plane and see if he agrees with any of what you state. If he disagrees with you, will you accept his answer?
-
F4U-1D vs NIKI= f4u takes the punishment award for being heavilly armored and also takes dive speed and armament award but niki takes agiltity award and climb rate award=either way
F4U-1D vs Zero=same as last
-
F4U-1D vs NIKI= f4u takes the punishment award for being heavilly armored and also takes dive speed and armament award but niki takes agiltity award and climb rate award=either way
F4U-1D vs Zero=same as last
mmmmmk, how about my question though
-
Hey, I have a question too.
F4U-1D vs NIKI
F4U-1D vs Zero
On the deck going in circles but not full flaps yet. At what speed do the two planes need to be in order for the F4U to be able to get guns on them? Lets say the planes are on opposite sides of a circle. Only flat turns allowed.
The Corsair could get as slow as it wants but it's never going to be able to gain an angle on a Zeke in a luftberry turn fight at low speeds. If the fight was a two circle high speed fight (above 300mph IAS) the Corsair might get a fleeting angle on the Zeke but as the speeds decrease, the pendulum swings in the Zekes favor the slower the luftberry turn fight gets. I would imagine the same for the N1K2 in a flat luftberry turn fight, at medium to low speeds the odds favor the N1K2 with the odds swinging in the Corsair's favor at higher speeds.
I don't know where warphoenix gets the F4U-1D has the edge over the N1K2 in the guns area, the gun package on the N1K2 is better than the .50 cal package of the F4U-1D.
ack-ack
-
Sigh.....
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q96/Shuff_photos/thor.jpg)
-
The Corsair could get as slow as it wants but it's never going to be able to gain an angle on a Zeke in a luftberry turn fight at low speeds. If the fight was a two circle high speed fight (above 300mph IAS) the Corsair might get a fleeting angle on the Zeke but as the speeds decrease, the pendulum swings in the Zekes favor the slower the luftberry turn fight gets. I would imagine the same for the N1K2 in a flat luftberry turn fight, at medium to low speeds the odds favor the N1K2 with the odds swinging in the Corsair's favor at higher speeds.
I don't know where warphoenix gets the F4U-1D has the edge over the N1K2 in the guns area, the gun package on the N1K2 is better than the .50 cal package of the F4U-1D.
ack-ack
Yep, agreed and probably I should not have included the Zero in the question. Kind of hard to put it in words. What I am looking for is not equal speeds. For example something like if the NIKI is at 200 to 250mph and the F4U at 250 to 300 then it will be able to get guns (even if it is for second) on the NIKI in a luftbery.
The reason for the question is that I was able to do it all night in the AvA the other night and I did not expect it. I was doing nothing special but pull on the stick while dropping flaps
-
Yep, agreed and probably I should not have included the Zero in the question. Kind of hard to put it in words. What I am looking for is not equal speeds. For example something like if the NIKI is at 200 to 250mph and the F4U at 250 to 300 then it will be able to get guns (even if it is for second) on the NIKI in a luftbery.
The reason for the question is that I was able to do it all night in the AvA the other night and I did not expect it. I was doing nothing special but pull on the stick while dropping flaps
You would had to be at 240 or less in the F4U to get the flaps out.
-
You would had to be at 240 or less in the F4U to get the flaps out.
Cool, so how fast or slow would a NIKI need to be with me doing 240 (and slowing as I pull and drop flaps) in order to get guns on it? In theory of course. I don't know what the other guy was doing.
-
Cool, so how fast or slow would a NIKI need to be with me doing 240 (and slowing as I pull and drop flaps) in order to get guns on it? In theory of course. I don't know what the other guy was doing.
I saw the other guy..... he must have been looking into the sun... he was squinting.
-
I saw the other guy..... he must have been looking into the sun... he was squinting.
Don't you have to go calibrate a bombsite or something?
-
Cool, so how fast or slow would a NIKI need to be with me doing 240 (and slowing as I pull and drop flaps) in order to get guns on it? In theory of course. I don't know what the other guy was doing.
Bear in mind I'm still on my learner's permit in the F4U...but my experience it's possible if the Corsair is within X* degrees of the Niki when the Lufbery starts and the fight is under 240. The F4U can get the flaps out quickly and its smaller circle is able to generate lead and a shot on the Niki. You better make that shot though as the flaps are now killing the F4U's turn rate. The shot window will close - you're probably only going to get one shot - and then the Niki is going to come around the circle and kill you.
X* in this case being definitely less than 90 degrees, maybe even less than 45 degrees. Hard to say. If I'm the F4U I know it when it's possible, and if I get it wrong I'm in deep trouble.
-
Calibration is automatic on the B-38. All is handled with duct tape tensioning.
Here's a little tidbit for those interested.....
Do you know what Duct Tape and Dynomite have in common?
When you double them up they square in power.
1 stick of dynomite equivalent of 1 stick of dynomite
2 sticks equivalent of 4
1 strip of duct tape = 60 mph
2 strips = 240 mph
-
Calibration is automatic on the B-38. All is handled with duct tape tensioning.
Here's a little tidbit for those interested.....
Do you know what Duct Tape and Dynomite have in common?
When you double them up they square in power.
1 stick of dynomite equivalent of 1 stick of dynomite
2 sticks equivalent of 4
1 strip of duct tape = 60 mph
2 strips = 240 mph
Ahhh, Krusty is a math teacher in Texas?
-
Bear in mind I'm still on my learner's permit in the F4U...but my experience it's possible if the Corsair is within X* degrees of the Niki when the Lufbery starts and the fight is under 240. The F4U can get the flaps out quickly and its smaller circle is able to generate lead and a shot on the Niki. You better make that shot though as the flaps are now killing the F4U's turn rate. The shot window will close - you're probably only going to get one shot - and then the Niki is going to come around the circle and kill you.
X* in this case being definitely less than 90 degrees, maybe even less than 45 degrees. Hard to say. If I'm the F4U I know it when it's possible, and if I get it wrong I'm in deep trouble.
Sounds like I was just closing the distance because of speed and then pulling lead for a few seconds because of the flaps then?
-
Bear in mind the niki can drop flaps @ 220kias so that "window" is indeed small.
-
Bear in mind the niki can drop flaps @ 220kias so that "window" is indeed small.
I think my advantage there is that once I commit to turning, i keep hitting the flaps button until I hear them deploy, so chances are I will drop them first
-
I think my advantage there is that once I commit to turning, i keep hitting the flaps button until I hear them deploy, so chances are I will drop them first
I find myself in similiar situations against the better turning planes, though usually I can only stick with them for 2-3 turns max, anything after that and it's just a matter of time before they get around on my tail if the fight stays in a flat luftberry turn fight.
ack-ack
-
Cool, so how fast or slow would a NIKI need to be with me doing 240 (and slowing as I pull and drop flaps) in order to get guns on it? In theory of course. I don't know what the other guy was doing.
I find this is easiest to do if you convince the N1K to stay fast. Make him think you want to get away, so he's in "gotta keep up" mode. Then set him up for an overshoot. You'll be slower than him, and easily turn inside him. You'll be near your best turn rate, and he'll probably be above his...
Once you get behind him, kill him quick, or things will get nasty, and quick. Pressure him enough to get him to squirm, and let him make a mistake or two. As soon as you realize things are no longer going in your favor, you need to be ready to exit and reset. Don't wait until you're obviously losing; that'll be too late. As soon as you're no longer gaining, think "exit!" I like to do that at a point in the fight where I'm nose down, and he's nose up. That let's me get a bit of a head start to build speed. It probably won't matter at that point though, he'll still probably catch you; which is exactly what you want. Once again, you want him to think he needs to chase you down quickly before you get away. Pull your overshoot move, and try to shoot him again... Wash, rinse, repeat.
Here's a clip I posted in another thread-
http://www.4shared.com/file/173259319/6212f19a/DREDLOCK_190D9_BRD_and_RatCH_N.html
-
Calibration is automatic on the B-38. All is handled with duct tape tensioning.
Here's a little tidbit for those interested.....
Do you know what Duct Tape and Dynomite have in common?
When you double them up they square in power.
1 stick of dynomite equivalent of 1 stick of dynomite
2 sticks equivalent of 4
1 strip of duct tape = 60 mph
2 strips = 240 mph
Hey? Are you making fun of me? ;)
-
i'm guessing thor doesn't even want to fight a noname such as myself in here?
-
I find this is easiest to do if you convince the N1K to stay fast. Make him think you want to get away, so he's in "gotta keep up" mode. Then set him up for an overshoot. You'll be slower than him, and easily turn inside him. You'll be near your best turn rate, and he'll probably be above his...
Once you get behind him, kill him quick, or things will get nasty, and quick. Pressure him enough to get him to squirm, and let him make a mistake or two. As soon as you realize things are no longer going in your favor, you need to be ready to exit and reset. Don't wait until you're obviously losing; that'll be too late. As soon as you're no longer gaining, think "exit!" I like to do that at a point in the fight where I'm nose down, and he's nose up. That let's me get a bit of a head start to build speed. It probably won't matter at that point though, he'll still probably catch you; which is exactly what you want. Once again, you want him to think he needs to chase you down quickly before you get away. Pull your overshoot move, and try to shoot him again... Wash, rinse, repeat.
Here's a clip I posted in another thread-
http://www.4shared.com/file/173259319/6212f19a/DREDLOCK_190D9_BRD_and_RatCH_N.html
Good advice, but not what I was looking for. I just did not expect the F4U to do that and was wondering what the numbers behind it were. It seemed that it was the plane doing the work and not me. You know, like jumping in a Zero pulling the stick and claiming you out turned the other guy lol
-
Ahhh, Krusty is a math teacher in Texas?
5 krustys
-
Good advice, but not what I was looking for. I just did not expect the F4U to do that and was wondering what the numbers behind it were. It seemed that it was the plane doing the work and not me. You know, like jumping in a Zero pulling the stick and claiming you out turned the other guy lol
? Are you in there flapping your arms or something?
-
? Are you in there flapping your arms or something?
Does it help?
-
Does it help?
Can't hurt. Good for the old circulation, what.
-
Does it help?
But if a fly is in your plane, does the planes weight change if the fly is sitting or flying?
HiTech
-
But if a fly is in your plane, does the planes weight change if the fly is sitting or flying?
HiTech
What's the last thing to go through a bugs mind as he hits the canopy.......
His Arse!
-
But if a fly is in your plane, does the planes weight change if the fly is sitting or flying?
HiTech
Ohh crap, I had an argument with my physics professor for days over the fly in the elevator. :rofl
-
Ohh crap, I had an argument with my physics professor for days over the fly in the elevator. :rofl
If there are no cameras you can zip it up while in the elevator and no one will know you forgot.
-
:rolleyes: Whenever you ask a question like this, you will always get opinions, but that is what you are asking for. So, if anybody gets bent...let them. I've only played the game for about a year and it ALL seems to be pilot skill. I've seen a guy fly an A20 and kill every aircraft you just mentioned. I've seen a guy fly a Lanc like a fighter and the fighter couldn't kill him. Experience, knowledge, skill, etc.. Why argue or feel insulted? :cry
-
But if a fly is in your plane, does the planes weight change if the fly is sitting or flying?
HiTech
Ohh well, I am up for a good argument . .. . err discussion.
No, but the weight measuring device could be effected by the wing movement, the frequency of the movement, the air going in motion etc, and show variations (if we could take measurements so small and in short time intervals.)
-
:rolleyes: Whenever you ask a question like this, you will always get opinions, but that is what you are asking for. So, if anybody gets bent...let them. I've only played the game for about a year and it ALL seems to be pilot skill. I've seen a guy fly an A20 and kill every aircraft you just mentioned. I've seen a guy fly a Lanc like a fighter and the fighter couldn't kill him. Experience, knowledge, skill, etc.. Why argue or feel insulted? :cry
Hey please do not backtrack to the OP. This thread is flowing... :D
-
But if a fly is in your plane, does the planes weight change if the fly is sitting or flying?
HiTech
when i was taking my primary training, there was a bee in the cockpit one day. i didn't see him, till we had just lifted off. i have issues with bees.....found a nest the hard way when i was a kid.....and it stuck so to speak.
anyway, my cfi saw it was bothering me. he said don't worry, that they can't take altitude. as we passed through abbout 1100 feet, i noticed the bee was barley able to fly...and in fact died on the glare shield, as steve squished him.
-
If there are no cameras you can zip it up while in the elevator and no one will know you forgot.
I am not the one flying around with his bomb bay doors open all day long
-
I am not the one flying around with his bomb bay doors open all day long
Hey that aint fair. I've only been flying the B-38 for a short while.
-
I liked to slow down fights and turn, so read these with that in mind. Not the best way to approach these fights but was how i had fun doing it, but would leave me for dead if more red guys showed up sometimes.
F4U vs P40?
Only time this fight was ever a beoch was when the P40 had a bunch of E and wouldn't fall for the take my six so i can reverse trick.
F4U vs spit9 or spit16?
Would always turn fight the Spit9 without even thinking twice. Spit16 i tried to slow them to the point where i was max flaps and he was flopping around like a fish.
F4U vs BF109s?
Had to sucker these guys into slow turn fights, hard to win an E game with a 109 if i was at the disadvantage.
F4U vs FW 190D?
See above 109.
F4U vs Ki84
This was my favorite fight every time and a victory unless i got to cocky. Always got in a rolling scissor and flapped them to death.
F4U vs P51
was the same as the 109, if he had E i would do what ever i could to preserve the slash attacks and sucker him into a rolling scissor.
-
Some guy in MW tried to tell me last night that P-38J vs. Val, the Val comes out on top in every situation.
ack-ack
-
I'm still waitin to hear back from thor. he sems to have fallen silent.
-
Thought this was interesting - here's a big plane doing some turning :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6dWtDk_rOI
there's also a second video as well.
-
Thought this was interesting - here's a big plane doing some turning :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6dWtDk_rOI
there's also a second video as well.
that is a fairly large aircraft
-
Thought this was interesting - here's a big plane doing some turning :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6dWtDk_rOI
there's also a second video as well.
I bet he flew f-18E's for teh CIA wish I had dem skills in the DA! :rock
-
Wow..... lucky his wings stayed on. Great for tri-motor sales and Ford.
-
i wonder if the loadings are better than the extra 540 ...
Thought this was interesting - here's a big plane doing some turning :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6dWtDk_rOI
there's also a second video as well.
-
Great aeroplane, Ford's 'Tin Goose'.
:cool:
-
i think we could use that tri motor in the arena with some 20 mms :D
-
i wonder if the loadings are better than the extra 540 ...
I see it flying around all the time in the summer. It just floats! It "looks" to be very low in the wing-loading department, at least without a bunch of passengers...
-
OK...I've read this topic to this point.
I'm going to take a couple Advil and go to bed.
-
OK...I've read this topic to this point.
I'm going to take a couple Advil and go to bed.
aleve works better :aok
-
no matter what plane im in vs a bleepity bleepity p-38 40% of the time i die :cry
-
no matter what plane im in vs a bleepity bleepity p-38 40% of the time i die :cry
You have to attack them from an angle that the gunners cant get to you or when they are calibrating their bomb sites :D
-
they haven't issued me any rear firing guns on mine yet. shuffler said i'm not allowed to have em.......thinks i might hurt my cartoon self. :noid :airplane:
-
they haven't issued me any rear firing guns on mine yet. shuffler said i'm not allowed to have em.......thinks i might hurt my cartoon self. :noid :airplane:
You'll shoot an eye out kid
-
You'll shoot an eye out kid
yea!! that's what he said!!
yeaaaaa...dats my story, and i'm stickin to it@!!@
-
Was there no end to the conspiracy of irrational prejudice against Red Ryder and his peacemaker?
For now stick with your Ovaltine and Orphan Annie decoder pin.
-
A crummy commercial...?
-
A crummy commercial...?
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl