Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Pooface on July 02, 2005, 01:18:18 PM
-
i think that HTC have chosen a great plane to add, because it is one that is a big heavy bastage, and not easy to fly. keeping this in mind, im wondering about the perks. the whole point in pricing is too keep the numbers down, but i think that after the first week, the 47's will only be used a little bit more than usual. considering the weight and handling of a big bus lke these things, does it really need perking??? i was wondering whether we could possibly try it as a non perked plane for a bit, and if that doesnt work, we can just perk it. we will definitely see a lot of 47's in the first week, but im willing to put a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money that the usuage will return to a rather low level, and that after everyones had a go, people will move back to lala's and spits.
this is what i think might happen, and i would like to see the n free for a little bit, and just give it a trail. if that doesnt work, possibly a low perk price, because it certainly isnt a dogfighter. anyones thoughts on this?
-
You obviously havent flown the AH version of the P47. That "big bus" out turns everything but a spitfire down on the deck. I hope they perk it like a 262 lol.
-
out turns everything but a spitfire down on the deck
you must be joking...
-
While an obvious exaggeration, it does turn remarkably good for such a heavy, large plane killnU. The stability increase of just a few notches of flaps is absolutely incredible.
I'll dig up and repost the testings I've done some time ago.
-
Tests and Conclusions about 109 turns
Did the tests again under new settings.
In the previous thread, Hitech explained that the stall limiter doesn't take into account factors such as slats. Thus, he has recommended that the stall limiter(hereafter SL) setting be altered on some planes that cannot handle full stick defelction on minimal settings.
Thus, the new test criteria is as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------
* Tested planes: Bf109G-6, P-47D-11, P-51D
* All planes have maximum internal fuel load.
* Fuel burn set to minimum
* Test altitude at 200ft ASL
* P-51D and P-47D uses SL setting of 0.05
* Bf109G-6 uses SL setting of 1.0
* All planes were turned to its left
* All planes use full military power, no WEP
* The turns were stabilized with alt loss/gain of less than 50ft for 360 degrees full circle
* Speed and G loading was measured
-------------------------------------------------------------
Test Results[/size]
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1102127740_emdiagram.jpg)
The standard E-M Diragram was used for measuring turn rate for given speed and G loading.
P-47D-11, no flaps
- 145mph TAS(212ft/s), 1.9G
- 14.3 degrees per second turn rate
- 25.1 seconds for full 360 turn
- turning circle: 1773.1 yards
P-47D-11, full flaps
- 110mph TAS(161.3ft/s), 1.6G
- 17.3 degrees per second turn rate
- 20.8 seconds for full 360 turn
- turning circle: 1118.3 yards
P-51D, no flaps
- 157mph TAS(230.2ft/s), 2G
- 14 degrees per second turn rate
- 25.7 seconds for full 360 turn
- turning circle: 1972yd circle
P-51D, full flaps
- 120mph(176ft/s), 1.9G
- 17.2 degrees per second turn rate
- 20.9 seconds for full 360 turn
- turning circle: 1226.1 yards
Bf109G-6, no flaps
- 152mph(222.9ft/s), 2.3G
- 16.9 degrees per second turn rate
- 21.3 seconds for full 360 turn
- turning circle: 1582.5 yards
Bf109G-6, full flaps
- 130mph(190.6ft/s), 2G
- 16.6 degrees per second turn rate
- 21.6 seconds for full 360 turn
- turning circle: 1372.3 yards
...
Planes in order of best turn rate under normal(no flap use) circumstances
1. Bf109G-6 (16.9d/s)
2. P-47D-11 (14.3d/s)
3. P-51D (14d/s)
Planes in order of smallest turning circle under normal(no flap use) circumstances
1. Bf109G-6 (1582.5yds)
2. P-47D-11 (1773.1yds)
3. P-51D (1972yds)
Planes in order of best turn rate under full flap usage
1. P-47D-11 (17.3d/s)
2. P-51D (17.2d/s)
3. Bf109G-6 (16.6d/s)
Planes in order of smallest turning circle under full flap usage
1. P-47D-11, (1118.3 yards)
2. P-51D, (1226.1 yards)
3. Bf109G-6, (1372.3 yards)
Conclusion and Analogy
This test does not represent the optimum turning rates of any of the planes given. It compares the turn rates, turning circle, and turning speed of the planes when it enters a contest of the tightest turn possible.
1. SL settings and Slats
The difference in SL settings needs some explanation. The P-47 and the P-51 can both handle a SL setting of 0.05, which means these planes can fly at 0.05 degrees before reaching critical AoA.
The Bf109G-6, in the very first tests used the same 0.05 setting. However, Hitech's comments confirm that this is not an accurate representation of critical AoA in certain settings.
The Bf109G-6 used 1.0 setting. Above approximately 0.3 setting, the Bf109G-6 still encountered noticeable destabilization in the roll and yax axis, but the effect could be controlled, and the plane continued turning in an oscillation of flight path.
At SL setting of 1.0, the turning path did not oscillate, and the Bf109G-6 could maintain a stable turn throughout the whole 360degrees. Thus, in a technical sense, it could be set that at SL settings between 0.3 and 1.0, the Bf109G-6 was flying in a controlled stall status.
Therefore, my initial suspicions that the Bf109 was stalling before its critical AoA, is proven to be false. The 109 was not stalling before critical AoA when it wobbled around. It actually exceeded its critical AoA which it could maintain a stable turn, and was turning in a wobbly, unstable flight path.
This means the critical AoA of the Bf109G-6 is in reality, 1 degrees before the AoA set by the stall limiter to be "critical".
While the Bf109 does stall, the neutralizing effects of the slats enable them to continue maneuvering in a stalled status - therefore, the Bf109G-6 can "mush through" the turn about 0.7 degrees over its critical AoA. Over 0.7 degrees critical AoA, and even the slats cannot prevent any more serious destabiliztion, thus, the turn is interrupted.
2. Comparisons in turning abilities
Under normal circumstances, it is confirmed that theoretically, the Bf109G-6 will outturn the P-47 and the P-51.
However, once the contest reaches an extreme point where flaps are to be used, the P-47 and the P-51 will outturn the Bf109G-6.
It is true, that the above explained effect of slats will enable a Bf109 to turn "tighter" by "mushing" through stalls. Therefore, in actual practice there is a possibility that the Bf109G-6 will overcome the stated figures and numbers above, utilize the "mushing", and outturn the P-47 or the P-51.
However, for that theory to be valid it needs a premise that the P-47 and P-51 will be interrupted in their turns immediately when it too, reaches critical AoA. The beneficial effects of the slats will enable the Bf109G-6 to maneuver over its critical AoA. However, there are no guarantees that the same may not hold true for the P-51 and the P-47.
While it is questionable and/or presumable that the P-47 or the P-51 may not be able to tolerate a stalling status for such a long time as the Bf109G, it remains that the P-47 and P-51 can also continue maneuvering under stalled status for a certain period of time - which is ofcourse, up to the pilot. The "tricks" in turn fighting which a Bf109 may use, can be also used for the P-51D or the P-47D.
Thus, in a prolonged battle of such harsh maneuvering, the contestants will be forced into a fight to turn tightest as possible - which flaps will take serios part in.
Once such maneuvering contest begins, the P-51D and the P-47D is superior over the Bf109G-6 in overall ease of such maneuvering(due to its very large advantage stability), and actual/absolute numbers. The P-47D and the P-51D, will outturn the Bf109G-6 for sure, and it will do so with much less effort than the Bf109G-6 pilot has to muster, to simply try to keep with those planes.
It is interesting to note that while the differences are very small, the P-47D-11 will outmaneuver the P-51D, which is generally thought to hold a certain advantage over its predecessor workhorse in the European theater. If we take into account a certain margin of errors, it could be said that the P-47D-11, at least turns as good as a P-51D.
Since a close-combat includes much more factors than turning, in a tactical sense the P-51D can be considered superior to the P-47D thanks to its other traits such as climb or speed. However, in pure maneuvering the P-47 and the P-51D does not show any large differences.
Also, another thing to note is that the stall limiter will generally make it easier for a pilot to reach the extreme limits of the plane's envelope - as he needs not worry about going over it.
The implications are clear.
The test conditions are more or less purely theoretic, and will be a valid comparison when we expect all of the pilots to push the plane to its limits to the extreme. In a more general, conceivable case, usually an average pilot in the P-47, P-51, or the Bf109G-6, will not be able to achieve such results.
However, the relative ease of flight characteristics makes it presumable that the P-51 or the P-47, will be able to push further near the limits on a more regular basis, than compared to the Bf109.
Therefore, in overall conclusion, about half of my initial claims need to be dropped, and half of them still remain.
There is nothing wrong with how the slats are working, and the slats will help a pilot push over the limits of the 109(albeit with a certain risk).
However, in slow-speed maneuvering contests, the P-47 and/or the P-51 is still superior to the Bf109G upto an uncomfortable level. Only under normal conditions will the Bf109 really outturn any of them.
Considering the fact that both adversaries of the Bf109 can start deployment of its flaps at least 200mph IAS before the Bf109, it is highly likely that the Bf109 will never gain any kind of real 'edge' when it comes to low speed fights with these planes.
The only arsenal left for the Bf109, other than the wits of the pilot, is its ability in climb and acceleration. In a loose sense, there is nothing about the Bf109 to be considered "superior" to the P-51 or the P-47, when it comes to pure maneuvering performance.
...
-
And here's Badboy's analysis:
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/P-47D11vMe109G6SLTurnRadius.jpg)
The 109 barely outturns the Jug. Barely. Frankly, the P-47, at least in AH, is not a bad turner at all.
(either that, or the AH 109 just absolutely sucks in turning)
-
Damn he went too Kinko's on ya'll.
-
It will need perks, especially if it can carry the bombload the D40 does.
A plane that can carry a lot of ordnance that nothing can catch except for another perk plane.
I'd perk it just a little bit higher than the F4u1c. Not high enough so that no one uses it. But not low enough to make the person over confident at bombing something for no risk.
-
The P-47 doesn't turn all that well in max-turn-rate, stallfight conditions. Here is data from testing in Aces High II, where all planes are flown at 500 ft. altitude, 50% fuel, max ammo load, max. normal power. The times listed are seconds for 3 revolutions, steady state, at stall speed (stall horn blaring). This is performance under steady-state, stall-fight conditions. "1n" means "1 notch of flaps"; "50" means "50% of max ammo load".
SpitV, 47
Bf 109E-4, 55
Bf 109G-6, 58
P-51D, 63
P-51D (1n), 60
P-47D-25, 72
P-47D-25 (50), 70
P-47D-40, 73
P-47D-40 (1n), 72
The P-51 turns better than the P-47, both of which turn worse than the others and are totally outclassed in such turn performance by the SpitV. The Bf 109G-6 turns better than the P-47 and P-51 by a significant amount, but that is without gondolas. Add gondolas, and the extra weight and drag are going to make it turn worse.
Note also that dropping a notch of flaps, while it does decrease turn radius, doesn't always increase turn rate that much.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
You obviously havent flown the AH version of the P47. That "big bus" out turns everything but a spitfire down on the deck. I hope they perk it like a 262 lol.
Put down the crack pipe and let go of the ewe and step away from the keyboard.
ack-ack
-
I don't remember which model it was, but I remember in "Gabby's" autobiography he commented on how much better the Jug climbed/ zoomed with the installation of the larger bladed prop. He called it a "paddle-bladed prop". Any comments on the prop used in AH? Or do they not get that detailed in the modelling?
-
kwe, i know it can turn well, especially for a large bird...just pointing out an obvious bait, well i hope it was a bait...because that is just absurd. ;)
-
perk the new jug , perk the la-7 its only fair. (im really getting tired of chasing lala's,,, nobody turn fights in them hardly at all thses days)
-
I kinda suspected as much killnu :)
The problem is that maximum turn rate is a pure, theoretical state where turning aircraft can make the fastest time in doing a 360 turn.
However, as we all know, in vast majority of cases during combat tightening up the turning radius becomes what's really important. It is because that a combat is combat, not a contest of theoretical performance. In combat people fire guns, and to avoid guns, they are forced to turn tighter.
In short, in combat, the term "outturning" does not mean "achieve better turn rate", but rather, more often means "achieve a tighter turn radius for as long as possible".
What happens is.
You approach a P-47 in a 109 from his six at about 800 yards. He starts turning to his left.
You decide to follow him, chop throttle, kick rudder, and turn. The P-47 drops a notch of flaps and starts entering the super-tight turn zone.
By the time you finally slow up enough to use your own flaps, the 109 is no longer at the P-47's six O'c. It becomes a pure turn contest where both contestants start out at a non-advantaged state.
You can try to maintain the "best turn rate", but the P-47 will still turn as tight as possible, What's gonna happen?
Well, the P-47 will gain on your six, since he is turning so tightly, and get a shooting solution. If both planes were not armed at all, and they would just turn all day, eventually the 109 sticking to its 'maximum turn rate' will gain the upperhand after many turns. But during combat, with armed planes, just sticking to a max turn rate speed is not gonna work.
-
If it's not perked I'll be surprised.
Reasons -
1) Its speed at alt, I don't believe we have anything unperked currently that could catch it.
2) Without perking it all we'll see is P47N's.
3) Range combined with ord carrying capability
The top two reasons alone warrant a perk, co-incidently probably the two main reasons for the Spit 14 perk.
So I would expect around the same as a Spit 14, maybe a little lower. If not there is something fishy going on in HT land.
-
But that's just sad Kev.. perked at F4U-4 or Spit14 prices.
IMO the P-47N should be perked at 20. And with its introduction the Spit14 and F4U-4 should subsequentially brought down to 20, the Ta152H price halved to 10, and the Tempest price at 50.
-
I should be perked, cheap though, bout 20. Ta152 perk price removed, spit 14 and F4u down to 15-20.
Tempest same. 262 same.
Jugs have an exelent turn performance in AH if you use it right (flaps), sure it can't compete with a spit but only an idiot would compare a Jug and a Spit in sustained turning performance, two totally different type of planes and also, in AH, very different time for the models (1942 spit vs 1944 Jug).
The P47 will outturn most E fighters if flown the right way, as will the Pony all thanks to their combat flaps.
I could agree on seeing it unperked the first week or so, np, it may be heavy but most people will fly it with 50% fuel, even I will fly it with 50% or 75% and I usually take 100% and DT in all planes. It has just got too much fuel, no need for it most of the time.
Problem is probarly not its performance but rather that if it remains unperked, no other Jug would be flown (or atleast they'd be flown very very little).
-
Hmm..
How about not perked for two months?
IMO, the first month of introduction is always sees boost in usage until the merit of being a new plane wears off.
So, I think the stats of the second month after introduction should give us some idea how it fares inside MA conditions.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
What happens is.
You approach a P-47 in a 109 from his six at about 800 yards. He starts turning to his left.
You decide to follow him, chop throttle, kick rudder, and turn. The P-47 drops a notch of flaps and starts entering the super-tight turn zone.
By the time you finally slow up enough to use your own flaps, the 109 is no longer at the P-47's six O'c. It becomes a pure turn contest where both contestants start out at a non-advantaged state.
You can try to maintain the "best turn rate", but the P-47 will still turn as tight as possible, What's gonna happen?
Well, the P-47 will gain on your six, since he is turning so tightly, and get a shooting solution. If both planes were not armed at all, and they would just turn all day, eventually the 109 sticking to its 'maximum turn rate' will gain the upperhand after many turns. But during combat, with armed planes, just sticking to a max turn rate speed is not gonna work.
Wow.. don't you think that is a little over simplified? Maybe a total newb would just continue this tail chasing scenario, but any pilot who knows something about these two planes would use the 109s climbing ability and go UP rather than trying to hang on a flat turn. A P47 that goes into this type of turn with flaps extended is going to run out of options quickly, giving the 109 plenty of oppurtunity to come back around for a different attack.
I don't see how a P47 should be perked in the MA. It may have some turning ability, which might help some in a 1-v-1 fight, but how often does that happen in the MA? The 47s are just too heavy, climb too slow and accelerate too slowly to be considered a big enough threat to perk.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
But that's just sad Kev.. perked at F4U-4 or Spit14 prices.
IMO the P-47N should be perked at 20. And with its introduction the Spit14 and F4U-4 should subsequentially brought down to 20, the Ta152H price halved to 10, and the Tempest price at 50.
Sad or not, thats the truth of it Kweassa.
-
Well. I admit it is simplified Midnight. :)
I'm not saying there aren't any methods the 109 can use. Ofcourse, it has its own set of advantages which can be utilized to the fullest.
I'm just saying what happens in a pure flat-turn contest. There are many resources or portrayals of the P-47 as being cumbersome, immobile, and brick of a turner.. and clearly, this is not the case in Aces High.
I'm not saying its right or wrong. Frankly I have no idea. (Well, maybe some idea, but just a personal thing)
I'm just mentioning that the Aces High portrayal of the P-47, is not what one would expect :) It is not a bad turner at all, but a rather good turner in fact!
-
I think that the P-47D has the worst turning performance of any prop-driven fighter. Maybe the P-47N is better -- we'll see.
-
It's an allied therefore in this game it will perform brilliantly, what else is new?
-
Originally posted by storch
It's an allied therefore in this game it will perform brilliantly, what else is new?
You don't think the FW 190's, 109G-10's, N1K2's, and Ki-84's perform brilliantly?
I suspect HTC models every aircraft as accurately as it can, fitting the best data it can get a hold of, which probably is actual flight-test data. I very much doubt they have an agenda to bias the performance of allied vs. axis aircraft.
-
I totally agree, week 1 we will see alot of P47s.
BUT we will see even more remade ponies.
Still though jug numbers will be up.
But they will drop.
The N wount be a main stream plane. Why? While the jugs do turn better then one would expect it takes alot of skill and alot of patience to fly one well.
You have to use your flaps correctly (sorry dont mean to be arrogant but 50% of the pilots have no clue on flaps) and use your rudder alot. You have to use your ACMs to their full potential more then in any other plane due to its bus like abilities.
The spit, lala and nikki crowed will never break away from their rides to fly a jug over an extended period of time.
Jugs, in avg Joes hands, are jabo planes.
Tex
-
I agree with ALL of you. youve each made great points. but firstly, kweassa, you tested the d11, which we all know is slightly better in combat. second, the n, in all the reports i read is slower on the deck then lalas and 109g10's, and a number of others, aswell as having fuel tanks in the wings. all the reports i read say that this made it unstable in low speed turns (u know what its like turning a d40 with the big eggs on the wings). well just imagine that but with MORE weight. now dont get me wrong, ure right, the n is gonna get lots more use than any other 47, so it will need a perk price, but i suggest a very light one. possibly 10, and bring some of the perk prices down a little bit (spit14 and 152 because we all know they suck on the deck) agreed perk is needed, but i hope it will be less than the c-hog, coz its heavier, and doesnt have the same turn ability, and hasnt got a heavy cannon loadout.
all for your suggestions. what does anyone think of the perk price of 10???
-
Interesting thought I get from this:"we HAVE to perk the P-47N or no one fly the rest of the P-47s"? You are kidding, right? Now we perk planes to FORCE people to fly lesser versions?:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Interesting thought I get from this:"we HAVE to perk the P-47N or no one fly the rest of the P-47s"? You are kidding, right? Now we perk planes to FORCE people to fly lesser versions?:rolleyes:
I only fly the Spit V because they perked the Spit XIV. :(
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Interesting thought I get from this:"we HAVE to perk the P-47N or no one fly the rest of the P-47s"? You are kidding, right? Now we perk planes to FORCE people to fly lesser versions?:rolleyes:
Can't seem to find whoever wrote your quote Savage but this is the way it's been more or less all along, combined with other factors. The P47-N will most likely need to be perked, one reason may be to force people to fly lesser planes, like it or not it's up to you.
-
Perk a jug? :lol
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Can't seem to find whoever wrote your quote Savage but this is the way it's been more or less all along, combined with other factors. The P47-N will most likely need to be perked, one reason may be to force people to fly lesser planes, like it or not it's up to you.
It wasn't a direct quote.
If I want to fly it, I'll fly it, perked or not.
It simply doesn't appear that it has enough performance to rate perking. We have several rides that are better in any number of categories that are not perked. The fact that it is a 1944-45 plane by itself does not mean it needs to be perked.
The idea that no one will fly other P-47's unless it gets perked is not a valid reason either, otherwise we have to perk the 109G-10, the 190D-9, the P-51D, the LA-7, or any other number of planes, simply because a lesser model exists. We have the P-47D-40, but I see the 25 and the 11, so the arguement simply isn't valid.
I find it hilarious that the plane has not yet been introduced and we already have people insisting or demanding it be perked.:rofl
-
this is what i thought too, that it would be silly to perk a plane that many wont fly simply because of the skill needed, but it will be the sole 47 we see if we dont perk it just a little, but anything over 10 is silly
-
Originally posted by Pooface
this is what i thought too, that it would be silly to perk a plane that many wont fly simply because of the skill needed, but it will be the sole 47 we see if we dont perk it just a little, but anything over 10 is silly
While we don't see tons of D-11 or D-25 P-47s, they are seen, and not terribly less often than the D-40.
There will likely never be enough P-47s of any variety flying to seriously affect MA balance, the plane requires too much patience, too much skill, and a different flying style. The N won't be so fast on the deck that nothing will catch it. I doubt it will carry more ordnance than the D-40. Remember that the big advantages of the P-47N will be seen above 10K.
The P-47N will probably be more of a threat to high altitude bombers and possibly the 262 more than anything else.
Given the current convoluted Bravo Sierra system we have now, where the LA7 is not perked but the TA-152 and the C Hog are, I'm sure those crying out for the P-47N to be perked have a good chance to get their wish.
-
I find it hilarious that the plane has not yet been introduced and we already have people insisting or demanding it be perked.
This is the way AH works. I'm not insisting on anything, would love to see it unperked, wouldn't upset arena balance but it will never happen. I am quite certain HTC has already made up their mind on this and this discussion will lead to nothing but just that, a discussion.
Given the current convoluted Bravo Sierra system we have now, where the LA7 is not perked but the TA-152 and the C Hog are, I'm sure those crying out for the P-47N to be perked have a good chance to get their wish.
And once again there is the reason I think it will be perked. The Ta152 holds no advantage over an LA7, G10, P51. The Dora turns slightly worse but it's better in all other ways. You can even go down from the "top 5" speed planes and find the Yak and La5 easily outperforming the Ta152.
The P47-N will not be a worse plane then the Ta152, it will be better in pretty much every aspect, it will most likely be perked.
Not that I care that much, perks not an issue to me, but I know it is to many others.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
It simply doesn't appear that it has enough performance to rate perking. We have several rides that are better in any number of categories that are not perked. The fact that it is a 1944-45 plane by itself does not mean it needs to be perked.
Really?
From the figures I've seen it may be about the fastest high alt (32k) plane in the game.
OK granted the majority of fights in the MA take place well below that, BUT one of the reasons for the Spit 14 and TA-152 perk is their high alt performance.
Add to that the P47N endurance (better than Spit 14 and TA-152), and ord carrying (better again), I can see it perked.
As has been pointed out in previous threads, if you unperk the Spit 14 and TA-152, watch the usage grow!!!! So yes planes are already perked to reduce usage. F4U1C is a prime example.
Mild perk should be enough, nothing drastic.
-
Can someone show me the post where Hitech or Pyro said the new P47N was going to be perked.
-
I'm hoping that HTC takes a "wait and see" approach - introduce the new model, allow it to be used at will unperked, see what the results are, apply a perk value if/at what price the results seem to indicate its needed.
My rationale is that its hard to anticipate what players will actually do en masse. Taking this approach will define that, thus both assessing needs and allowing the subscriber base to understand why any actions taken (or not) are apprporiate.
culero
-
perk schmerk! I would imagine that perking any "jug" would be like perking a P-38. Silly, I tell you, silly! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Can someone show me the post where Hitech or Pyro said the new P47N was going to be perked.
I think what's driving this is the fact that many are insisting or demanding it be perked, and others are disagreeing. To my knowledge, no one from HTC has said it WILL be perked.
-
LOL like little mini paparazzi.
lol...
And I bet they think they are going to make a difference.
-
It sits a bit close to the Ta 152.
So, if no perk, then why on the Ta 152?
It's faster at alt than a Spit XIV.
Although now Hizookas are in the wings, 8x.050 make a lot
Ordnance is formidable.
Range is impressive.
Perk like the TA152, or F4U-4?
But as many have pointed out, most of the perk planes are too expensive. Maybe divide perks with 2 ?
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
You obviously havent flown the AH version of the P47. That "big bus" out turns everything but a spitfire down on the deck. I hope they perk it like a 262 lol.
Hehe, sorry. I just assumed this was an obvious enough exaggeration that folks would get a chuckle out of it and move on. I had no idea whether or not a Jug gets perked would get people this worked up. Jeeze. Apologies if I pushed anyone's heart rate up into danger levels.
Personally, as far as I'm concerned, we should either perk ALL the planes to various degrees (except the early war stuff) and make trading up cost something, or remove the entire perk point system and make everything open to use. Actually, my thought would be to limit bases the current perk rides are available from. We have 3 different size fields, and there is no real difference whats available at them, just how many buildings it takes to knock them out. Make 262s and F4U-4s and Ta-152s and such only available at large airfields, and spread out the large ones. I really dont like the perk system myself. Not that HTC ever asked me, or will.
-
OK ok,
with all this "perk this" "perk that" it seems funny that any planes besides the 163 & 262 are "perked"
I know there are tons of guys with a million "perk" points, yet don't fly around in Temp's, 262's and 152's all day.
Seems weather their "perked" or not the same planes get flown everyday for the most part.
I realize I'm prob one of the worst {if not the worst} pilots in the game, I don't know ALL the facts and figures on every WW2 plane that rolled off the production line and I'm sure there are a few A/C that have a couple of advantages over another but lets get real. When's the last time anyone has seen a base attacked by a swarm of F4F's, B5N's or one of the slow 109's or Yak's for that matter?? Just doesn't happen, now YES people do fly these planes and quite well I might add, but go park your butt in a tower for 15 mins at any base that is getting attacked and you'll see the same exact planes show up time & time again.
You get the P51's, Spits, LA'7, P38's, Typh's, N1ki's, 190's, 109G10's, 110's and the normal bomber load-outs.
Can't prove me wrong can ya, so why do so many people worry bout "perk" planes? Why does anyone with 1/2 a brain in their head care if the LA7 is "perked" I see LA7's attacking our fields all the time, funny thing is 90% of the time they don't make it home. As if it's some untouchable plane or has mystical powers.
Kind of strange how all these people love to inform me on how much of a "Flight Sim" this GAME is and how it's based on WW2 "air combat"
Of course I have to pick myself up off the floor after I fall out of my chair from laughing so hard.
I guess I just don't fully understand the whole whining thing about what plane is "perked" or not, or why it should be. Looking at all the numbers and planes avail it is just plain foolish IMO.
Now before someone jumps on me or gives me the right act lemme throw a few things out on the table so I don't get this thread turned into a "you wan't people to play YOUR way" and your mad about it thread.
Myself, I don't care what plane someone flies! nor do I care how good they are or how "perks" they have. I do not care what rank they are or how long they've been playing "flight sims" or that they could destroy me in the DA. blah,blah,blah........
Because when it comes down to it, the same people are going to up the same planes over and over.
When's the last time you saw AKAK in an KI67 or a C202???? What about Shawk in his 190, or was that a Yak, hhmmmmm can't quite remember.
The "perked" plane does not change a damn thing, weather the LA7 or any other get's "perked" will not make a hill of beans differance. People will just do what people do naturally, go find another plane like the Typh or whatever and start using it. Then of course the the MA will {you guessed it} start complaining about the Typh and why it should be "perked"
I would love to see all planes "unperked" except for the 163 & 262 {for obvious reasons} and let everyone go at it. I honestly don't believe it will effect anything in the MA. For every action there's a counter-action.
This of course is just all observation, not saying any or all is right or wrong play how you want, fly want you want.
Fact still remains, in WW2 more A/C were shot down by AA fire than another A/C !!!
Have a safe and Happy 4th:aok
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Can't seem to find whoever wrote your quote Savage but this is the way it's been more or less all along, combined with other factors. The P47-N will most likely need to be perked, one reason may be to force people to fly lesser planes, like it or not it's up to you.
I really don't see why it would be perked. According to HT, the only reason why planes are perked is that those planes unperked could possibly cause an unbalance in the game play. I really don't see the P-47N meeting that criteria other than a few vocal whines to the contrary from certain players.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by MOIL
OK ok,
with all this "perk this" "perk that" it seems funny that any planes besides the 163 & 262 are "perked"
I know there are tons of guys with a million "perk" points, yet don't fly around in Temp's, 262's and 152's all day.
Seems weather their "perked" or not the same planes get flown everyday for the most part.
I realize I'm prob one of the worst {if not the worst} pilots in the game, I don't know ALL the facts and figures on every WW2 plane that rolled off the production line and I'm sure there are a few A/C that have a couple of advantages over another but lets get real. When's the last time anyone has seen a base attacked by a swarm of F4F's, B5N's or one of the slow 109's or Yak's for that matter?? Just doesn't happen, now YES people do fly these planes and quite well I might add, but go park your butt in a tower for 15 mins at any base that is getting attacked and you'll see the same exact planes show up time & time again.
You get the P51's, Spits, LA'7, P38's, Typh's, N1ki's, 190's, 109G10's, 110's and the normal bomber load-outs.
Can't prove me wrong can ya, so why do so many people worry bout "perk" planes? Why does anyone with 1/2 a brain in their head care if the LA7 is "perked" I see LA7's attacking our fields all the time, funny thing is 90% of the time they don't make it home. As if it's some untouchable plane or has mystical powers.
Kind of strange how all these people love to inform me on how much of a "Flight Sim" this GAME is and how it's based on WW2 "air combat"
Of course I have to pick myself up off the floor after I fall out of my chair from laughing so hard.
I guess I just don't fully understand the whole whining thing about what plane is "perked" or not, or why it should be. Looking at all the numbers and planes avail it is just plain foolish IMO.
Now before someone jumps on me or gives me the right act lemme throw a few things out on the table so I don't get this thread turned into a "you wan't people to play YOUR way" and your mad about it thread.
Myself, I don't care what plane someone flies! nor do I care how good they are or how "perks" they have. I do not care what rank they are or how long they've been playing "flight sims" or that they could destroy me in the DA. blah,blah,blah........
Because when it comes down to it, the same people are going to up the same planes over and over.
When's the last time you saw AKAK in an KI67 or a C202???? What about Shawk in his 190, or was that a Yak, hhmmmmm can't quite remember.
The "perked" plane does not change a damn thing, weather the LA7 or any other get's "perked" will not make a hill of beans differance. People will just do what people do naturally, go find another plane like the Typh or whatever and start using it. Then of course the the MA will {you guessed it} start complaining about the Typh and why it should be "perked"
I would love to see all planes "unperked" except for the 163 & 262 {for obvious reasons} and let everyone go at it. I honestly don't believe it will effect anything in the MA. For every action there's a counter-action.
This of course is just all observation, not saying any or all is right or wrong play how you want, fly want you want.
Fact still remains, in WW2 more A/C were shot down by AA fire than another A/C !!!
Have a safe and Happy 4th:aok
matey, u obviously havent read much have you. the 47 n is very quick, and has stats of a good perk ride, but we are trying to make sure that it ISNT perked. i personally dont want it to be, and dont think that it needs it. read the thread again. i started this post kind of for everyone to tell htc NOT to perk it. of course other people do want it perked, so its a discussion on what is suitable, not a damn whine, so until you understand whats going on, dont go making assumptions. this isnt like a 'i want the lala perked' its a i DONT want the 47 perked. it may have great stats, but its a hard plane to fly, and i dont think that many will fly it. they will as you say, go back to the 51's, nikis and spits, so i feel that perking it would be silly
-
Perk the P47N so not everyother P47 is a N, perk the La7 too so those LA5s get dusted off again.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Perk the P47N so not everyother P47 is a N, perk the La7 too so those LA5s get dusted off again.
the n will be more of a high alt plane. the d's will still get used for combat, and the d40 will still remain the jabo plane of choice. i see no reason at all to perk it. oh, and btw, ive started seeing loads of la5's. most people consider an la automatically to be a 7, but recently ive seen more 5's!!:eek:
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I really don't see why it would be perked. According to HT, the only reason why planes are perked is that those planes unperked could possibly cause an unbalance in the game play. I really don't see the P-47N meeting that criteria other than a few vocal whines to the contrary from certain players.
ack-ack
I agree with you I see no real reason to see it perked but the criteria you wrote can't be right in any way, I've heard HT say that aswell but take that into account and explain to me why the Ta152 is perked? The P47N may very well be a perk considering the much inferior (well probarly inferior) Ta152 is.
I would like to see both those planes as non perks but afraid that will never happen.
I will not start a whine if the N is not perked and the Ta152 is but I would consider it strange. (I would be happy though)
-
Poo:
"matey, u obviously havent read much have you. the 47 n is very quick, and has stats of a good perk ride, but we are trying to make sure that it ISNT perked. i personally dont want it to be, and dont think that it needs it. read the thread again. i started this post kind of for everyone to tell htc NOT to perk it. of course other people do want it perked, so its a discussion on what is suitable, not a damn whine, so until you understand whats going on, dont go making assumptions. this isnt like a 'i want the lala perked' its a i DONT want the 47 perked. it may have great stats, but its a hard plane to fly, and i dont think that many will fly it. they will as you say, go back to the 51's, nikis and spits, so i feel that perking it would be silly"
Whoa! hold up bub. First off I DO fully understand, I was not "whining" about anything or wanted this to become a "whine"
You state: "I personally don't want it perked" and others feel otherwise. This is fine, I stated I DON"T CARE and don't see what differance it makes. So until I fully understand? understand what? As if I can't grasp the concept of another "perk" plane or no "perk" plane. Furthermore, I'm not making assumptions on anything. I stated I feel it won't make any differance IMO.
You are always going to have the "Don't perk this ride" crowd and the "please HT for the love of God perk this plane" crowd.
"I started this post kind of for everyone to tell htc NOT to perk it. I added to the post stating I feel it won't make a diff.
"of course other people do want it perked" Imagine that!
"and i dont think that many will fly it. they will as you say, go back to the 51's, nikis and spits, so i feel that perking it would be silly" AND I'm making assumptions?
:rolleyes:
-
lol what does it really mater?
You guys screaming bloody murder about perking this plane are forgetting that we dont even have the plane yet. You don't know how its going to effect the MA.
You can make predictions all you want (and that's all they'll ever be), but based on what? And in the end that's all they'll be... Just a guess, nothing more.
Until we actually have this plane we wont be able to determine if its in need of being perked.
Lastly, you guys should really worry more about playing the game and enjoying it for what it is rather than trying to change the face of Aces High or make decisions that are really only up to HT and Pyro.
Just my opinion of course.
-
I'm all for perking jugs - but only by means of squeezing the nipples. :aok
-
Morph:
"Lastly, you guys should really worry more about playing the game and enjoying it for what it is rather than trying to change the face of Aces High or make decisions that are really only up to HT and Pyro"
Look out, you'll make sense, then we'll all be confused:lol
-
Look out, you'll make sense, then we'll all be confused
Wurd!:aok
-
It should be perked. Afterall its the best prop plane ever made :aok
-
maybe morph is right. HTC have made some great decisions over the years and its their choice anyway. they'll do the right thing:aok
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Until we actually have this plane we wont be able to determine if its in need of being perked.
Exactly. Before we actually got the Ki84 there were all kinds of "its gonna have to be perked" talk, and look at it now, its hardly ever flown despite the fact thats its one of the best planes in the game if flown to its strengths.
Lets all just relax until we all get to try it out and then start the Perk Jihad.
-
"Perk Jihad"
:lol :rofl :lol :rofl :eek: :lol
-
Ta152H-1: 470mph
P-47N: 467mph
Spitfire Mk XIV: 447mph.
F4U-4: 445mph
I bet it'll be perked. Many things will out run a Ta152H-1 or Spitfire Mk XIV at low alt, yet they are perked.
-
It should be perked even if its just cause its the prettyest plane ever made!
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Ta152H-1: 470mph
P-47N: 467mph
Spitfire Mk XIV: 447mph.
F4U-4: 445mph
I bet it'll be perked. Many things will out run a Ta152H-1 or Spitfire Mk XIV at low alt, yet they are perked.
Thats what I was looking for, thanks.
My exact reason why it will be perked, I knew it was 450+mph.
-
Personally, I like perky jugs. :D
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Thats what I was looking for, thanks.
My exact reason why it will be perked, I knew it was 450+mph.
Well, this alone is not enough reason IMO.
The 109 G10 reaches speeds up to 460mph at about 24k, and it's got 10 minutes of WEP yet it is not perked nor should it ever be perked IMO. It's a plane that will most likely never upset the arena balance due to its difficulties to fly and get kills in.
Speed, specially high alt speed alone is nothing a plane should be perked for (even though several perk planes are perked for just that reason).
Really, who is flying around at 35-40k in a Ta152 unless trying to stop an HQ raid, and even then the Me163 will do a far better and quicker job.
If the P47N got nothing more to it then a good high alt speed it shouldn't be perked, can't exactly perk it for its long range capabilities, noone uses it anyway.
-
True Wilbus, but that is the main reason for perking the Spit 14 and TA152, after all their performance down low is nothing special.
Couple with the fact without the perk you'd a lot more of both of them (14 and 152), I think it would be safe to say that unperked all you'd just about see is the P47N instead of the other two Jugs.
G10 at 24k yep its fast, but this is just where the others mentioned really start to perform, try taking it to best alts for the Spit 14, 152, P47N, see how it stacks up.
-
Main reason yes Kev but IMO that is a bad reason to perk a plane in AH as it is quite clear that the vast majority of the fights take place bellow 10k, and when a fight actually starts at 20k+ it usually ends up at the deck for obvious reasons.
Spit 14 has got its best speed at 26k with WEP, 450mph.
Rechecked the G10, best speed at about 22k, 455mph.
Ta152 has got it's best speed (in AH) at about 35k with WEP although the charts we have now no longer show 30k+.
Unperking the Ta152 and you'd see more of them for a short time, few days or a week at the most, not enough people have the skill or patience required for that plane. Same thing goes for the Spit 14 although this is a far superior performer to the Ta152 down low thanks to its turn rate and superior climb rate and I'd say the 14 needs to remain perked, although cheap, 10 maybe?
P47N, we just don't know yet, hopefully it will be unperked in the beginning but I won't get my hopes up. I just don't understand the reason to perk a plane that is fast up high, such a plane will not upset the arena balance.
-
I don't think the 152 should be unperked.
I do agree that looking at what it can do, and its kills/deaths last tour, that its overpriced by half at least.
You could bring it down to a base of 10 or 20, make it a lot more available, and still not have it be unbalancing the arena.
-
Don't agree with ya bro, it would never upset the arena balance, the plane is too difficult to fly for the vast majority of players and it requires too much patience. Dora, La7, G10, Pony will all give better results.
And the reason it may have fairly good kill/death is that people fly it more carefull because it's a perk.
Just my opinion of course.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Main reason yes Kev but IMO that is a bad reason to perk a plane in AH as it is quite clear that the vast majority of the fights take place bellow 10k, and when a fight actually starts at 20k+ it usually ends up at the deck for obvious reasons.
The light dawns!!!!
The majority of fights allowing for a little leeway are under 15k.
Therefore why should ANY plane be perked for its altitude performance? Unfortuneately its just the way things are.
-
Yup, that's the way it is. And that is bad...
Not much to do about it. I'd still be surprised if the N is not perked though and the Ta152 remains perked.
-
I say unperk it all except 262 and temp. Well, perk the goon/m3 too because taking bases in l33t & uber.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
I say unperk it all except 262 and temp. Well, perk the goon/m3 too because taking bases in l33t & uber.
Be interesting if everything apart from the 262, 163 and Tempest were unperked (sorry can't have a free Tempy).
Don't think it would affect a lot of people.
I'd change from Tiffy to Spit 14.
-
P47N will prolly STILL climb like a stone, and its performance probably wont be realized untill it reaches 20k+,-- P47 guys will prolly drive it, but after the initial intro, will prolly fade out a bit
-
Originally posted by bj229r
P47N will prolly STILL climb like a stone, and its performance probably wont be realized untill it reaches 20k+,-- P47 guys will prolly drive it, but after the initial intro, will prolly fade out a bit
I hope you are in for a suprise ;)
-
I'd agree. Perk the jets and the Temp, everything else is meat.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Be interesting if everything apart from the 262, 163 and Tempest were unperked (sorry can't have a free Tempy).
Don't think it would affect a lot of people.
I'd change from Tiffy to Spit 14.
"Interesting ??? - The Game would be a complete blast to play !!! " .....
CHECKERS
-
The 152 is used alot to hunt buffs. That makes its kill to death a bit weird I think.
People list the speed at alt. What is the speed at 15k 10k and 5k?
The spit XIV is not just fast up high its slow on the deck. Otherwise it would be uber. But if the Jug N can hang on to 400 at 5k it would rock the joint.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
lol what does it really mater?
You guys screaming bloody murder about perking this plane are forgetting that we dont even have the plane yet. You don't know how its going to effect the MA.
You can make predictions all you want (and that's all they'll ever be), but based on what? And in the end that's all they'll be... Just a guess, nothing more.
Until we actually have this plane we wont be able to determine if its in need of being perked.
Lastly, you guys should really worry more about playing the game and enjoying it for what it is rather than trying to change the face of Aces High or make decisions that are really only up to HT and Pyro.
Just my opinion of course.
Its my opinion that you have a lame bellybutton opinion. lol
WTF is the board for if not to discuss up coming planes? Why are you even here if you dont think that the game itself should be discussed?
-
Quite a few planes do 400 at 5k. Actually, I think every one of the fastest 5 planes on the deck will do 400 at 5k.
I honestly don't think any prop planes need to be perked. With the La-7, the "performance bar" has been set to the level of the Tempest. Ok, maybe the Tempest would need to stay perked, since it performs almost as well as an La-7, but is a tad faster and has Hizookas. That'd be a pain in the bellybutton if the arena was full of timid Tempests.
The Spit 14 really shouldn't be perked in my opinion. It is roughly on par with the 109G-10, except with better guns and slightly worse performance (kinda like Tempest vs La-7). The Spit 14 is no Spit 5... it doesn't turn anywhere near that well. If the Spit 14 was unperked, I bet you'd see bazillions of them for a month or so, until people started fighting in it and got raped by those who stayed with the Spit 5 and Niki. Then it would drop down to around G-10 levels.
The Ta-152 would still see almost no use if it was unperked, it is inferior to the 109G-10 from the deck all the way up to 30k or so, and it is slower than the D-9 (although marginally more manueverable once you empty the wing tanks) up to ~25k.
The F4U-4 would see some use if it was unperked, it is a pretty nice little ride. I don't think it performs quite as well as the G-10 (or La-7), but it is markedly better than the F4U-1D. I imagine the Chog would see more use than the F4U-4 if both were unperked.
I'm not really certain about the P-47N, but I suspect it will fall in the Ta-152 category (i.e. nobody is going to fly it even if it isn't perked).
Damn, I actually just looked it up and I was completely wrong. The only unperked plane we have that does 400 at 5k is the La-7 (at ~410). The G-10 comes pretty close, not sure if it actually gets it or not. The D-9 makes about 390 or so. So yea... 400 at 5k would be pretty nice, although probably not enough to save it from the pack, depending on how the acceleration is.
-
Say we do unperk all of these rides. What then, would be the point of earning perks? Please don't give me the "I have 5 million perks, it doesnt matter to me, perks don't matter to me...I just want to fly these planes without fear of loss".
Seriously, what are we gonna spend our perks on then? I hope P47N is perked at about 25-40 simply so I am encouraged to fly well in the lesser models in order to keep the perk bank in the positive.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
But if the Jug N can hang on to 400 at 5k it would rock the joint.
It won't. If I remember correctly it will make a few mph short of 400 at 10k (396mph ?). on the deck it will be in the 350-360 mph range which will make it same or slightly faster than F4U.
That said, I agree with Sancho. A light perk is in order if only to keep the D models flying. I wish that was true for all the other model lines:
fly 190s - pay perks for D9/152
fly 109s - pay perks for G10
fly La5 - pay perks for La7
fly P51B - pay perks for P51D
fly P38 - pay perks for L
It is already installed for the following plane lines:
Spit, F4U, Typhoon.
The perking pay be symbolic - as low as 2 to 5 perks so anyone can afford it and will be willing to risk them. With such a low cost you can almost make enough perks flying perked planes to keep up with their own cost. It will however encourage an occasional use of the "lesser" models.
So yes, perk the N and perk it light (under 20 imo).
Bozon
-
If XIV would be free it would be all I'd fly. It's really uber when used as an energy fighter.
-
Goooood.... I see more and more AH folk are seeing the true power of the dark side....
Follow my teachings.. my apprentices... I have set things in motion that cannot be undone..
Sooooon.... all high-end performance planes will be lightly perked... and once more the midwar planes will ruuuuule the Ah skies.....
muahahahahahaha!
:D
-
I think anythin with hizookas oughta be perked--try doin snapshots with tiffie, THEN try it with D9 or A8---inCREDIbly easier with the higher muzzle velocity of hizookas...so..perk the spits:D
-
perked or not i don't care, but should be disabled for YUCCA:)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Its my opinion that you have a lame bellybutton opinion. lol
WTF is the board for if not to discuss up coming planes? Why are you even here if you dont think that the game itself should be discussed?
Wierdness.....I actually agree with The Pongomeister on something. Wonders never cease. :D
-
I've always been a RPS fan myself. One of the only things I really liked in WB.
-
heh, seems perk life would be much easier if they just perked every late war plane and called it a day:)
p.s real men fly jugs:p
-
Yeah I loved the D30 back on my active days. Got a 10:1 k/d on it back when rooks were in the bucket. Nowadays it seems that even rooks get to vulch sometimes instead of being the vulched.
Back in 2002 in my timezone it wasn't uncommon to have a 120-100-50 split with rooks at 50. In fact, it was the standard and much the reason I quit playing.
Got bored to fighting for the last 2 fields every day. Now things are way more fun and I'm enjoying the game again.
IMO perking all late war monsters isn't a good solution either because it would force all newbies to fly lesser planes and experience would be double rewarded with performance planes.
A skill based personal rps would be interesting concept - the higher your rank goes the lesser planes you can fly. In essence it would be the display of true skill to fly early war planes and the best of the best would be limited to them (unless paid for perks which they'd have plenty anyway).
This way noobs would goof off in late war planes and oldtimers would waste them in thier uber 202's for heavy points adding insult to injury. The jets would need to be heavily perked always, though.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Its my opinion that you have a lame bellybutton opinion. lol
WTF is the board for if not to discuss up coming planes? Why are you even here if you dont think that the game itself should be discussed?
Hmmmm, ok well maybe you're right then.
It seems a little early to start debating how a plane we dont even have is effecting the MA though. And how we must perk this plane we don't even have because it will so drasticly change the face of the MA as we know it.
-
You got it all backwards Morph.
If you read the posts again carefully, you'll notice that most people are worried that the P-47N might be perked as heavy as the Spit14 or the F4U-4.. the majority of us are commited to this discussion for hopes of seeing in unperked.. rather than asking it for a perk.
-
No I dont have it backwards.
You're assuming that I am speaking to everyone.
The ones yelling perk the new 47 are the only ones who need to take note.
But thanks anyways.
-
If the P47n has anywhere the proformance that has been documented. Then it will be dominating..
great engine.. great endurance, p47 incredible hulk airframe, 8 50's with abundant ammo. bubble canopy..
perk all latewar aircraft , reset perks every month..
that way you would see more perk rides at the end of the tour simulating the war..
if you want to fly inferior aircraft to get perks quickly in tour thats your choice for a dominating early tour f4u4 or tempest , spit14 etc...
resetting perks would balance the arena pretty well not giving favor to those who are in the game longer but rewarding actual skill over "time in grade"
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
If the P47n has anywhere the proformance that has been documented. Then it will be dominating..
great engine.. great endurance, p47 incredible hulk airframe, 8 50's with abundant ammo. bubble canopy..
perk all latewar aircraft , reset perks every month..
that way you would see more perk rides at the end of the tour simulating the war..
if you want to fly inferior aircraft to get perks quickly in tour thats your choice for a dominating early tour f4u4 or tempest , spit14 etc...
resetting perks would balance the arena pretty well not giving favor to those who are in the game longer but rewarding actual skill over "time in grade"
DoctorYo
Resetting perks every month would suck. Think about the new guys
"WOHOW! 50 more perks then I've got a 262!"
"HOST: Congratulations your perks have been reset, please try again."
As for the P47, endurance means jack S*** in AH for most of the time, even LA7's similair planes are being flown with less then 100% fuel as it is now by many pilots, almost noone will grab a P47 N with 100%.
Second, AH has become all about speed at the deck, once you get low, you better have a plane with superior acceleration and speed to get out alive. Granted many people don't fly to live long but it's still a matter of speed and accel to be able to chase the runners.
The P47 N will never rule the arena, perked or not.
-
What he ^ said ^.
-
By far the vast majority of "combat" in AH 2 in the MA happens well below 15K feet.
By far the vast majority do not fly more than 2-3 sectors to a fight.
The negates about 90% of the advantages of the P-47N, mostly range and high altitude performance.
From what I've read, the speed and acceleration of the P-47N will not be greater than the LA7 or the Tiffie on the deck, and the 8 50 BMG in the wings are not going to hit much if any harder than some of the cannon planes, especially those equipped with "hizookas".
The truth is, neither the TA152, nor the Spit XIV nor the C Hog would be any more disruptive than the LA7 or other speed demons are now, so there still is no valid reason to perk the P-47N, since it doesn't meet the criteria for a perk ride any better than the others.
If you argue that the best models of a particular plane MUST be perked, then you'd have to perk the G-10 and BOTH the J and L P-38's, since the performance difference between the J and L is negligible at best.
Perking all the late war planes is simply a tactic to force people to fly the planes YOU want them to, and as such is not a valid arguement. The AH 2 MA is for EVERYONE, and not just for a particular group or type of people, or to suit only their personal tastes.
It probably WOULD be a good idea to rename the MA, or add to it a descriptive term like "melee" or "free for all" since it really has no historical basis or rules. Attempting to force the MA to be something else at this point is an exercise in futility at best anyway.
-
Unperk em all, let the AH gods sort em out.
Dan/CorkyJr
Who still is sticking to the 38G regardless of what else is out there.....unless we get a Spit LFIXe at some point :)
-
Our thread has morphed (sorry Morpheus) partially into a general perk debate. That's OK since we don't really know what we're going to get regarding the N.
Remember the Ki84?
That said, it's each person's prerogative to engage in mental mastubation regarding the N. HT isn't going to allow anyone to force their opinions upon the masses - That right belongs to him exclusively;)
Regarding any proposed perk system let's remember that HT likely isn't going to perk the P51-D. His first concern is his business and it's bad business to perk the most famous plane in the U.S. , thus keeping new customers from flying it freely. Ya I know that we have the B version but that isn't the plane that the casual enthusiast thinks of when he thinks he'll join Aces High and jump into a Pee 51 and kill Huns.
The 51-B is a better knife fighter tho (and my favorite ride at the moment) :D
Magoo
-
Wilbus, your really wrong on strength of endurance on the battlefield..(i could give you a two page write up on it and even how it pertains to ah battlefield as well not just RL) your point on the noobs etc is noted but tweaking the perk system could alleviate that with ease..
Virgil all this talk of me trying force anyone to do anything is all rubbish in your head..
your entitled your opinion im entitled mine.. so pipe down on my evil ma take over.. (all im saying the ma would be better either with a attrition model or limiting device so all we dont see is latewar aircraft..)(tweaking the perk system is one way to achieve this..)
Look aside from the perk debate here is some info for you in regards to the p47n
http://www.majorleesaerodrome.net/P47tech.html
granted the above has not been checked out (not yet at least) but i know for shure from the books i have that the P47n horsepower is accurate.. (plus his page has all models nice and neat..)
heres some math..
our d11 does about 345 wepped on deck with about 2300hp (note im using our figures for AH not his page..)
He has (and i agree from my sources) that the p47n has about 2800hp a increase of about 500hp or a percentage increase of roughly 22% increase in power.. now granted it has greater wing area, and greater fuel load.. to offset that hp increase to actual proformance increase.. But imo i cant see that offset to be greater than a 10% reduction of overall proformance given that 500hp advantage..
now the math..
if our current p47 can do about 345 on deck.. then at least the p47n would have a proformance increase factor of say 1.1 (10%)
so taking that figure the p47n should be able (this is a rough/scaled down figure to boot so no arguments arise..) to achieve at least :
1.1 x 345 = 379.5 mph on deck...
just using raw data with 22% increase is as follows:
1.22 x 345 = 420.9 mph
Ill let you choose what figure to use or inbetween.. either one of them is freaking beast material in the ma .. dont take my word for it.. use this..
p47d11 stats most recent tour..
1655 Kills to 1167 deaths.. 1.42 k/d
thats pretty good.. considering the chaos of the main.. (one of the main reasons is durability why these p47's get the high K/D i fly the thing i know this for fact..)
the reason i use the d11 is that its a more accurate discription of the aircrafts stats given it only has 1 500lb and is a poor choice for the jabo heavyweights; as the d40 and d25 are often suicided into whatever the target is..
now your telling me a incredible hulk aircraft with 21,000 lbs of ord 8 50's who knows what type of climb (im saying well above 3k/min) 380mph+ on deck is non perk material. "and act now for only 19.95 throw in eternal fuel load and canopy for free.. thats right free"
Like i said earlier you have you opinion i have mine..
I can see the whines now as you get on p47n's six only to watch it take massive hits and outrun you to safety..
all whines now about doras doing just that are rampant.. now imagine a p47 doing it but doing it better...
pleasantville indeed.. (and this is comming from a d11 pilot, me.....)
If HTC wants to give superbirds (unbalancing) away for free hey its his company do whatever he wants to do..(doing it with la7 handicap bird already so what else is new) I understand he's not a charitable institution..
:cool:
DoctorYo
-
Doctor Yo, the rubbish is in your post.
If you propose perking late war rides and resetting perks, then yes, whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, you are FORCING others to fly planes you prefer them to fly. There is no other possible outcome. You WILL force others to fly early war rides (to EARN:rolleyes: the right to fly late war rides) every month, period. Explain how ANYTHING else can happen given the system you envision.
First of the month those who would normally fly post 1943 planes as their regular ride would not have perk points. YOU want them reset. YOU would have the post 1943 planes perked. As such, there would be no post 1943 planes available. Thereby you FORCE others to do as you wish.
You envision converting the Main Arena to a rolling plane set by means of some sort of system of attrition and perk point reset system, and perking all late war post 1943 planes.
Exactly how does your system not only not FORCE others to fly planes you feel they should, but also not force a wholesale change to the arena to make it work as you feel it should?
Dispute the above. You cannot. Your "dream" system will force people to fly the planes you think they should, creating the rolling planeset effect you desire. To say otherwise is anything but honest. You want the Main Arena to work your way, and to have the planes you want to fly flown. It is as simple as that. Period.
-
just reset perk totals every tour reset, and give everyone 200 perks per catagory to start the tour.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
If you propose perking late war rides and resetting perks, then yes, whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, you are FORCING others to fly planes you prefer them to fly. There is no other possible outcome. You WILL force others to fly early war rides (to EARN:rolleyes: the right to fly late war rides) every month, period. Explain how ANYTHING else can happen given the system you envision.
First of the month those who would normally fly post 1943 planes as their regular ride would not have perk points. YOU want them reset. YOU would have the post 1943 planes perked. As such, there would be no post 1943 planes available. Thereby you FORCE others to do as you wish.
You envision converting the Main Arena to a rolling plane set by means of some sort of system of attrition and perk point reset system, and perking all late war post 1943 planes.
Exactly how does your system not only not FORCE others to fly planes you feel they should, but also not force a wholesale change to the arena to make it work as you feel it should?
-
I have in the past given the same exact scenario whels just described on earlier debates on the threads sub topic the perk system (whels not stealing your imput im pretty shure this has been discussed.. if not great idea.. ;) )
Virgil, (heh) yeah virgil.. look your crying a river, read what i said.. then look at your post.. whole lot of what if's and heresay..
read what i said.. take it for what it is.. dont add to it.. take a deep breath, breath.. breath... then comment..
Dispute the above. You cannot. Your "dream" system will force people to fly the planes you think they should, creating the rolling planeset effect you desire. To say otherwise is anything but honest. You want the Main Arena to work your way, and to have the planes you want to fly flown. It is as simple as that. Period.
your right i cant dispute your heresay becuase it not what i dicussed.. its what you "Dreamed" (heh) up...
all you need to do is check the score/stats page and see the percentage of kills.. its not rocket science that la7, p51, g10, dora, niki rule AH main arena.. Im not saying eliminate them just give some incentive to fly them in the frequency that they are flown now with impunity..
since you claim im forcing people to do this or that..using that philosophy the current system is forcing me and many others (check the boards on the big 5 threads for your evidence) to endure quakebirds..
Now look i like quake (actually i play counter strike planetside etc..) and i like air warfare; HTC's is the best on the web as of current. But the two dont mix well... (actually planetside reaver combat is pretty fun..)
Hopefully TOD will remedy alot of what I have discussed, but imo the biggest problem to main is no attrition model.. how to implement that is HTC's best guess.. I imo think perk system tweaked to keep everyone happy (and it would be dynamic not static as the enviroment changes) would be a good solution to the main arena's monotony.
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
I have in the past given the same exact scenario whels just described on earlier debates on the threads sub topic the perk system (whels not stealing your imput im pretty shure this has been discussed.. if not great idea.. ;) )
Virgil, (heh) yeah virgil.. look your crying a river, read what i said.. then look at your post.. whole lot of what if's and heresay..
read what i said.. take it for what it is.. dont add to it.. take a deep breath, breath.. breath... then comment..
your right i cant dispute your heresay becuase it not what i dicussed.. its what you "Dreamed" (heh) up...
all you need to do is check the score/stats page and see the percentage of kills.. its not rocket science that la7, p51, g10, dora, niki rule AH main arena.. Im not saying eliminate them just give some incentive to fly them in the frequency that they are flown now with impunity..
since you claim im forcing people to do this or that..using that philosophy the current system is forcing me and many others (check the boards on the big 5 threads for your evidence) to endure quakebirds..
Now look i like quake (actually i play counter strike planetside etc..) and i like air warfare; HTC's is the best on the web as of current. But the two dont mix well... (actually planetside reaver combat is pretty fun..)
Hopefully TOD will remedy alot of what I have discussed, but imo the biggest problem to main is no attrition model.. how to implement that is HTC's best guess.. I imo think perk system tweaked to keep everyone happy (and it would be dynamic not static as the enviroment changes) would be a good solution to the main arena's monotony.
DoctorYo
I'm not crying about anything. That might be some fantasy of yours but it does not wash. It wouldn't hurt me that much anyway, the late war planes I fly are the P-38J and the P-47D-40, along with the P-38L on attack flights.
Oh, and I never disputed that late war planes and speed demons were dominant. I said that was not a valid reason to take them from the masses that enjoy them.
You view the Main Arena as being monotonous and needing repair, and you wish to change the main arena so that others are forced to fly different planes they do not want to.
There is no "heresay":rolleyes: to it. Here it is, in your own words:
perk all latewar aircraft , reset perks every month..
that way you would see more perk rides at the end of the tour simulating the war..
[/B]
Do you DENY you said exactly that?
Do you DENY that by doing that you would FORCE people to fly early war planes at the beginning of every month?
Even if you reset the perks to some token number instead of zero, those who prefer the late war low ENY planes will still be handicapped, since they will not earn perk points nearly so fast as they burn them, UNLESS they fly with survival is the absolute objective. Should they do that, you'll only increase the number of timid hit and run late war rides, making a bad problem worse. Some solution.:rolleyes:
No one is FORCING you to endure "quakebirds". You make that choice by flying the Main Arena, it has been setup that way since before I came here several years ago. You simply want to change it to suit your specific tastes. You could fly any number of snapshots, squad ops, combat arena events or tours. But you want to take the Main Arena and remake it in the image you desire, regardless of whether you wish to admit it or not.
And since the Main Arena has no real penalty for death, changing it the way you propose will not change the "quakebirds" situation. It will merely change the planes it is played in. What does it REALLY matter what plane it is played in anyway? It doesn't. People who are not driven off by your changes will merely select the best of the pre 1944 planes and play quakebirds with them.:rolleyes: Same game, different planes. Just different "unhappy" people.
The Main Arena is simply that, the Main Arena. It has little if any historical basis. It is a free for all arena. There are other arenas if you don't like the Main Arena. There will be TOD as well, if you do not like the Main Arena. The Main Arena is not now, nor has it ever been, historical, and since the Main Arena is designed and intended to be a free for all, and HTC gave us ALL the planes, and only perked a few, I doubt it will be any different in the future.
-
What if we can persuade HT to do this:
Put in TWO Melee arenas, identical in all respects except that one arena has the current perk system and the other arena has (insert the most popular proposed perk system here - attrition model, RPS based, perk the late war stuff, etc...). Let the masses vote with their mouse :D
Do I need to tell you where everyone will be after just a few weeks?
Magoo
-
Originally posted by Magoo
What if we can persuade HT to do this:
Put in TWO Melee arenas, identical in all respects except that one arena has the current perk system and the other arena has (insert the most popular proposed perk system here - attrition model, RPS based, perk the late war stuff, etc...). Let the masses vote with their mouse :D
Do I need to tell you where everyone will be after just a few weeks?
Magoo
I think HiTech has already said (or maybe it was Skuzzy or Pyro) that they WILL NOT create two Main Arenas. The reason being that they do not want to divide the player base (I disagree, but it is their playground).
Myself, I'm not at all opposed to the idea. I think it would give the rolling planeset fans a place to go as well as the early plane fans. I really think it is a better idea.
I might actually fly in both, if both existed. But I'd say the current setup would be by far the most popular. That is not to say fans of the second setup shouldn't have a place to go. However, by most all accounts, they are the minority, and as such they should not expect the majority to fly in an arena designed to suit the minority.
But rather than have a second arena, I'd much rather have any resources directed towards TOD instead.
As a business, HTC is unlikely to intentionally piss of the majority of their customer base. That would be foolish. That being said, the Main Arena is pretty much as it should be. Oh, and that does not mean I like it all that much better than anyone else.
TOD is (hopefully) the cure for what some think is wrong with the Main Arena. It will be the home of those who don't like "quake plane". I'll likely be there the majority of the time myself. I have enough sense to know the Main Arena is setup the way the majority likes it, and the way it best suits HTC for the majority of their customer base. I'll continue to fly there until something better comes along. I'll fly squad ops as well, and maybe snapshots as well.
-
think HiTech has already said (or maybe it was Skuzzy or Pyro) that they WILL NOT create two Main Arenas. The reason being that they do not want to divide the player base (I disagree, but it is their playground).
I thought that might be the case. I was only half serious anyway since I figured if HTC was inclined to do that it would already been done.
I'm with you Cap'n, let's see what TOD is like and accept the Melee arena for what it is. It has it's good points, the most important being it's a target rich environment. All this talk of perk rides makes me want to go grab a SpitXIV and die like a dweeb in it:D
Magoo
-
DoctorYo, when it comes to what I said about endurance in AH, I am right.
-
Originally posted by ghi
perked or not i don't care, but should be disabled for YUCCA:)
Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck :lol
-
All this hype on the new Jug reminds me a lot of the kee-rap that was going on before the KI84 was introduced.
The KI84 didn't dominate the arena, and I doubt if the new jug will either.
The high top end speed with the awesome 8 guns package may help it will see more use than a KI84.
More Jugs in the arena would give more diversity.
-
Honestly speaking and no I am not reading through all the P-47 turns better or just as good crud.........THIS IS ONE PLANE THAT COULD HAVE WAITED!!!!
We need....yes we need other planes aside from more US rides....I would say that we need planes from the Soviets, Japanese, Germans and British before we need another US based ride.
Please HT and crew I know its too late to change at this stage but at least tell us that several new rides for the lesser countries are at least in the works/thought process.
-
Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
More Jugs in the arena would give more diversity.
Nope it equals more US aircraft that aren't needed. Just what exactly does the 47N bring to the table that the other P-47s don't have? I know it was fast but in the grand scheme of the game is speed really going to do anything other than get you to the fight faster so you can die and hop back in the same plane again that much quicker. Hell for that reason lets push for the Do-335 for Germany.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
snip
get you to the fight faster so you can die and hop back in the same plane again that much quicker.
You been spying on me?
culero ;)
-
Honestly speaking and no I am not reading through all the P-47 turns better or just as good crud.........THIS IS ONE PLANE THAT COULD HAVE WAITED!!!!
Reschke, the reason we got a new Jug variant (and not new models altogether) is because it was an easy add. They were already redoing the P47/P51 line to the AH2 standards. I'll be surprised if we don't also get something else from that line when the new load comes out. When they re-did the 38s we got 2 new variants. This P47-N is simply some candy they're throwing to the masses because it's cheap (so to speak). I'm damn glad to see it personally, but then I fly the american stuff most of the time.
Didn't they say the Spits/109s are next up for getting done to AH2 standards? I bet we get a few new variants then too, just because it's an easy add. I'll take what they can do in that scenario even though I don't fly spits or 109s much.
Magoo
-
Never mind, found it in another thread.
I am damn glad for any new plane we get.
-
Isn't it obvious that HT added the new P47N just to spite the LW fans?
It works very well :)
Bozon
-
Heck, I wouldn't care if they added another La7:rolleyes:
Magoo
-
Why would the LW crowd ever get spite when already every USAAF plane outmaneuvers every LW plane(the E-4 and F-4 being exception) with those combat flaps creaking up and down?
It's not like there was ever a chance to outmaneuver 4~5 ton US planes that turn better than planes that weigh less than half that, in the first place, regardless of AH1 or AH2.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Why would the LW crowd ever get spite when already every USAAF plane outmaneuvers every LW plane(the E-4 and F-4 being exception) with those combat flaps creaking up and down?
It's not like there was ever a chance to outmaneuver 4~5 ton US planes that turn better than planes that weigh less than half that, in the first place, regardless of AH1 or AH2.
First, to me, it seems roll rate is important in outmaneuvering. The FW 190 is peerless in this regard.
Second, in steady-state, stall-fight turning, the FW 190A-8 (and probably the rest of the 190 series) outturns the P-47D; the Bf 109G-6 outturns the P-47D, the P-51D, and the P-38J with no flaps, and is about even with the P-38J when it has 1 notch of flaps deployed; the Bf 109E-4 outturns the P-47D, P-51D, and P-38J with or without 1 notch of flaps.
As for turn performance of heavy vs. light planes, it's not just a matter of weight. Take a small plane, give it high wing loading, and it isn't going to do well in steady-state, stall-turn conditions. It's the whole package that counts, including wing loading, lift/drag, and so on. The B5N2 turns as well as the A6M2 Zero, which is to say much better than any American or German fighter. The C-47 turns much better than P-38's, P-51's, P-47's, FW 190's, and a little better than Bf 109's, La-7's, and almost as well as Spit I's, and N1K2's.
There seems to be the opinion that HTC biases performance in favor of US aircraft or that turn performance of US aircraft is unrealistically good. I just go and test the steady-state turn performance. The real stats don't back up that opinion.
Also, I would bet money that HTC models these aircraft based on flight-test data and mathematical aerodynamic models that are pretty accurate -- not based on someone's opinion without any data to back it up or based on someone's feeling that one aircraft should be better because he likes that aircraft.
-
First, to me, it seems roll rate is important in outmaneuvering. The FW 190 is peerless in this regard.
Second, in steady-state, stall-fight turning, the FW 190A-8 (and probably the rest of the 190 series) outturns the P-47D;
Whatever you are smoking stop with it!
190 A8 doesn't stand a chance in a turnfight against any US fighter, or even any other plane in the game for that matter. The A8 is THE worst turning fighter in the game.
As for roll rate, although it is important it is not as important as turn rate as in AH.
-
Here's the straight "skinny" gents, take it as gospel.
There will be no perk price on the P-47N. Why, because while it will dominate above 25k, it will not do so down low. Climb is not better than the D-11. Deck speed will be in the 363 to 367 mph range, not fast enough to out-distance the faster low-level types.
If flown with low fuel and 6 guns, maneuverability will be better than the D-40 (turning and roll rate), but not substantially so.
Gentlemen, if the P-51D, 190D-9, 109G-10 and La-7 are not perked, there's no justification whatsoever to perk the N model Jug. All we will have is a faster bomb truck for the suicide shed bombers.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Whatever you are smoking stop with it!
190 A8 doesn't stand a chance in a turnfight against any US fighter, or even any other plane in the game for that matter. The A8 is THE worst turning fighter in the game.
As for roll rate, although it is important it is not as important as turn rate as in AH.
Here's the data for 3 revolutions, steady state, stall horn on, 50% max fuel load, full power, 500 ft. altitude. The data below is repeatable to within about a second or two.
P-47D-40: 73 seconds
P-47D-40, 1 notch of flaps: 72 seconds
P-47D-25: 72 seconds
FW 190A-8: 68 seconds
The FW 190A-8 turns better than the P-47D under these conditions, as proven by the data, although clearly not by a large amount. Still, if you don't believe my numbers, try it yourself and post your data. It's always possible that I made an error in my data, but I doubt it -- I was careful in gathering it.
As for roll rate, yes, turn rate is often more important in the main arena. But I didn't say that roll was more important or as important. I said (1) that roll is a non-zero part of what counts for maneuvering (which, by your statement, you agree with) and (2) that the FW has better roll rate than US aircraft (which I assume you agree with). My implication is that, because 1 and 2 are true, it follows incontrovertibly that the FW is not inferior in all respects of maneuvering compared to US aircraft.
Now, if you do want to disucss the importance of roll rate (which was not my point above), while what you say is true in the main arena, I would say that roll rate sometimes is more important than stall-fighting turn rate in scenarios. In Rangoon, '42, the much superior roll rate of P-40's at speed compared to Zeros (even though the Zero has far superior low-speed turn rate) had a large effect on the outcome of engagements. In other scenarios I've flown in, the much superior roll rate of FW 190A-4's and FW 190A-8's compared to P-38's (even though the P-38 has far superior low-speed turn rate) had a large effect on the outcome of engagements. A lot of these involve the faster-rolling aircraft attacking bombers defended by the slower-rolling aircraft. The slower-rolling aircraft had enormous difficulty stopping the faster-rolling aircraft because of that. Thus, in those situations, I would very much rather have a fast-rolling aircraft as the bomber defender, even if it turned worse than the bomber attacker at low speed. Such situations are common in scenarios.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
Here's the data for 3 revolutions, steady state, stall horn on, 50% max fuel load, full power, 500 ft. altitude. The data below is repeatable to within about a second or two.
P-47D-40: 73 seconds
P-47D-40, 1 notch of flaps: 72 seconds
P-47D-25: 72 seconds
FW 190A-8: 68 seconds
The FW 190A-8 turns better than the P-47D under these conditions, as proven by the data, although clearly not by a large amount. Still, if you don't believe my numbers, try it yourself and post your data. It's always possible that I made an error in my data, but I doubt it -- I was careful in gathering it.
Careful? Too careful, I think.
50% fuel, full ammo, max power (WEP), no flaps whatsoever. Altitude between 300 and 400 feet. Three complete turns (turning left). I flew each type to the edge of the limit where each would snap-spin.
Fw 190A-5: 56 seconds
Fw 190A-8: 58 seconds
P-47D-40: 56 seconds
P-51D: 54 seconds
P-38J: 52 seconds
If it's taking you more than 70 seconds to turn 3 revolutions, you are nowhere near the limits of either aircraft. For that matter, I'm sure I could have reduced the times by a second or two if I ran a few practice runs prior.
Both the P-47 and P-51 can deploy one notch of flaps at 400 mph, meaning that the Fws will find themselves even further behind the 8-ball.
By the way, the P-38L rolls faster than the Fw 190 above 350 mph, with the difference becoming larger as speed goes up.
Wilbus is correct, the 190A-8 will not out-turn any P-47 (especially the D-11) even without the P-47 using flaps. However, using flaps in the Jug allows it to gain a significant edge.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I gotta ask, who in their right mind turn fights in a 190 any way? A 109, maybe, but not a 190.
-
I do Savage, I am not in my right mind though.
Thanks for doing the test Widewing and proving what I said.
What I said I based upon flying the 190 almost exlusivly in the AH MA for months and months, I know how the plane behaves. I also know how pretty much every other plane in AH behaves as I've had time to go through them all and once again, the 190 A8 stands no chance against any US fighter in a turn fight.
What Widewing said, P47 and P51 can deploy first notch of flaps at 400mph making them increadibly good turners. And as the speed drops they can deploy further. P38 first notch 250mph and 190's first notch at 170mph (or so, within the vicinty of 170 atleast).
Brooke, I respect your tests but I have to say I don't trust them. If a Jug and Pony gets outturned by a 190 A8 they are just too inexperienced to know how to turn anywhere near the edge of the planes performance.
P38L rolls better at 350mph and above untill it locks up.
-
A lot depends on the pilots familiarity with the aircraft. I believe stick forces are modeled in this game (correct me if I’m wrong). Anyway, I can’t remember the term for it (muscle memory?), but muscles get trained to remember certain repetitive motions, such as flying a certain type of plane. Basiclly developing your “feel” for the aircraft. So if you’re flying a p51 all the time – your muscles get accustomed to flying the 51, then if you switch to another plane, your muscles are doing what feels “right” for the predominant plane (p51), but that may not be “right” for the current plane you are in. Anyway, just a thought, if the planes interpret stick data differently.
One thing to do would be to get several pilots in the DA or TA and do a test. You might find that some players can outturn you in a plane that you think should never be able to outturn the plane you’re in. A lot depends on pilot skill - and so far in the MA, I have rarely seen 2 planes get into a sustained turn on a single axis. So turn rates are great for debate and such, but for practical use it’s almost a moot point. It’s all in how the pilot is familiar with his craft and knows it’s advantages / weakness as compared to the opponents aircraft, and how to use those against the opponent.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Careful? Too careful, I think.
50% fuel, full ammo, max power (WEP) . . .
It's good that you did the test, but I was using full power, not war-emergency power. Under my stated conditions, I'd be interested to know what numbers you get. I did a test with WEP turned on. What I get is below. Are you sure you are getting to steady state before starting the timing of your three turns? In other words, are you doing 5 or more stall turns before you start timing your 3? If so, can you send me a film of one of your runs? -- I'd be very curious why you and I, supposedly doing the same test, are getting different numbers (brooke at electraforge.com). My numbers below are repeatable to within a second or two, and I am flying to edge of the snap-spin/stall.
FW 190A-8, 64 sec
P-47D-25, 67 sec
P-47D-25 (1notch), 65 sec
Originally posted by Widewing
Both the P-47 and P-51 can deploy one notch of flaps at 400 mph, meaning that the Fws will find themselves even further behind the 8-ball.
Beyond the speed at which you are pulling max g's (which limits the g's you can pull to a constant), turn rate is just a function of airspeed -- nothing else. Dropping a notch of flaps there is just acting like air brakes, scrubbing off speed. You can dump energy and tighten the turn until you run out of airspeed through any number of techniques: a notch of flaps, speed brakes, chopping throttle, or possibly standing on rudder. This is just a transient effect.
Originally posted by Widewing
By the way, the P-38L rolls faster than the Fw 190 above 350 mph, with the difference becoming larger as speed goes up.
I just tested the P-38L vs. the FW 190A-8 at 10k altitude at about 375-400 mph indicated, holding a shallow dive to hold the speed in that range. The P-38L does 3 rolls in 10.5 seconds. The FW 190A-8 does 3 rolls in 10.5 seconds. Above about 400 mph at 10k and higher, the P-38L starts to hit compressibility. Much inside compressibility, it's roll rate goes to crap. The FW 190A-8 hits compressiblity there at about 500 mph indicated. So, in roll rate, the P-38L gets trounced by the FW 190A-8 all the way up to moderate speeds, the P-38L draws to parity (but not superiority) at a narrow range of high speeds, then gets trounced again above that range. So, I'd still say the FW 190A-8 is much better at roll.
Originally posted by Widewing
Wilbus is correct, the 190A-8 will not out-turn any P-47 (especially the D-11) even without the P-47 using flaps. However, using flaps in the Jug allows it to gain a significant edge.
I disagree that the P-47D has a significant advantage over the FW 190A-8 in stall-turn performance. I believe that the FW 190A-8 is in fact better (although not by a huge amount). I'd be willing to go on-line in the dueling area together to check it out.
Getting back to what points I am trying to make:
1. The US planes are not uniformly better at maneuvering than the German ones.
2. The P-47D is not a great-turning plane and does not handily outturn a FW 190.
3. I doubt HTC biases the modelling in favor of US planes.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
I just tested the P-38L vs. the FW 190A-8 at 10k altitude at about 375-400 mph indicated, holding a shallow dive to hold the speed in that range. The P-38L does 3 rolls in 10.5 seconds. The FW 190A-8 does 3 rolls in 10.5 seconds. Above about 400 mph at 10k and higher, the P-38L starts to hit compressibility. Much inside compressibility, it's roll rate goes to crap. The FW 190A-8 hits compressiblity there at about 500 mph indicated. So, in roll rate, the P-38L gets trounced by the FW 190A-8 all the way up to moderate speeds, the P-38L draws to parity (but not superiority) at a narrow range of high speeds, then gets trounced again above that range. So, I'd still say the FW 190A-8 is much better at roll.
We have guests visiting us this week from France. Today we're off to NYC for the day. Later this evening I will answer your reply in full and post films.
In the meantime, here's a chart showing the roll rate comparison between a 190 and P-38s, with both boosted and non-boosted ailerons. Data is from NACA, USAAF and Lockheed.
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38rollchart.JPG)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Well, as someone who "flew" the 190 as HT modelled it for 3+ years, I'll tell you that Wilbus is correct. The 190A8 doesn't even come very close to out-turning the P-47. You can just about hang with one until the speed drops down below 200 mph, but after that the A8 just isn't going to stay with one.
You can knife-fight in a 190, I did it for years with some success. It isn't a 100-mph flapfest like a good spit 5 fight, mainly you try to get into a good position fast then kill your opponent. If you fail to gain a good position quickly, you have to disengage and set up another merge. I would typically run until I got about 1000 yards seperation, then turn gently back into my opponent to set up a rolling scissors.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Well, as someone who "flew" the 190 as HT modelled it for 3+ years, I'll tell you that Wilbus is correct. The 190A8 doesn't even come very close to out-turning the P-47. You can just about hang with one until the speed drops down below 200 mph, but after that the A8 just isn't going to stay with one.
You can knife-fight in a 190, I did it for years with some success. It isn't a 100-mph flapfest like a good spit 5 fight, mainly you try to get into a good position fast then kill your opponent. If you fail to gain a good position quickly, you have to disengage and set up another merge. I would typically run until I got about 1000 yards seperation, then turn gently back into my opponent to set up a rolling scissors.
I thought that was what you were supposed to do with a 190. Seems to me that is flying the plane to its strengths.
-
A major strength of the P47D is low speed stability. Low speed stability is also one of the 190's weaknesses. Since both planes are going to be turning as hard as they can, and both planes burn E like mad when turning, low speeds will be achieved fast. The P47 can tear up a 190 below 200mph as the p47 has some reasonably powerful flaps.
That is not to say the 190 is without options. It's roll rate is still respectable, and in a defensive flat scissors it can evade for a long time, usually long enough to call for help if the 190 pilot is competent. But because the jug flys so much slower getting a successful overshoot from a low speed scissors can be impossible.
You can't judge a plane's performance in a turnfight just by how fast it does a sustained flat turn. Success is more to do with the match up between ALL advantages and disadvantages and whether the pilot can control the fight toward his advantages.
-
last time I checked P47D had lower empty wingloading than 190A8. Add to that the high AoA stability from elliptical wings and from being a fat pig and no wonder it handle better at near stall speeds, even without flaps.
No suprise there.
190s have better powerloading, which will help maintaining corner velocity, but not much good for crawling at 200 mph.
Bozon
-
Damnit, were is Twist when you need him?
Would be great to get him out of retirement and have him update his Twist files for AH.
ack-ack
-
Widewing, your graph is not how the planes perform in Aces High, which is what we're talking about. If you test the planes at 10k in Aces High, I think you will find that the P-38L and FW 190A-8 are about the same in roll at high speed until the P-38L hits compressibility, at which point the FW is much better again.
-
So, who wants to go up with me in the dueling area and test FW 190A-8 stall turns vs. a P-47D-25?
In my testing, the FW has a higher turn rate than the P-47, but not by much. For me, my testing is very repeatable, but it is at odds with Widewing's testing. I'd be very interested to find out whether or not my testing is correct as I think it is.
Keep in mind I am not arguing that stall-turn performance is the most important thing in dogfighting. In fact, my argument was the opposite. All of this is stemming from the attitude that US fighters unfairly outclass all German fighters in maneuvering and that the P-47 turns well at low speed. My points were:
1. Roll counts as part of maneuvering, and the FW is great there.
2. The P-47 has poor turn rate at low speed. Most of the Bf 109's handily beat it there, but even the FW's are a little better in turn rate according to my testing.
3. I doubt HTC fudges the flight modelling to favor US planes.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I thought that was what you were supposed to do with a 190. Seems to me that is flying the plane to its strengths.
Most people won't even do that... for about 95% of people, the 190 is strictly a one pass, haul bellybutton airplane.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Well, as someone who "flew" the 190 as HT modelled it for 3+ years,
Oops. First wrong answer.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
So, who wants to go up with me in the dueling area and test FW 190A-8 stall turns vs. a P-47D-25?
In my testing, the FW has a higher turn rate than the P-47, but not by much. For me, my testing is very repeatable, but it is at odds with Widewing's testing. I'd be very interested to find out whether or not my testing is correct as I think it is.
Keep in mind I am not arguing that stall-turn performance is the most important thing in dogfighting. In fact, my argument was the opposite. All of this is stemming from the attitude that US fighters unfairly outclass all German fighters in maneuvering and that the P-47 turns well at low speed. My points were:
1. Roll counts as part of maneuvering, and the FW is great there.
2. The P-47 has poor turn rate at low speed. Most of the Bf 109's handily beat it there, but even the FW's are a little better in turn rate according to my testing.
3. I doubt HTC fudges the flight modelling to favor US planes.
Also, tryload 190A-8 and P-47D-25 with the heaviest gun armament and lite gun armament.
-
Do we really need another late war plane that will be faster than most and will have somewhat decent range?
Doing a little research on the P47N and it didnt enter the war until 1945 according to a few sites I have researched on. This late in the war the F-80s and at least the gloster meteor which I feel is a much better plane should be put in before another jug which most people would probably end up flying.
When the 38s came out, dont know about the rest of AH but seeing more 38s around then before and most dont know what they are doing but at least the 38 is a plane that is pretty much on the same level as other planes because it can be caught and can be outturned if not flown well.
If the P47N is modeled as is being said, not many planes will be able to catch it and it will have guns that people can hit with unlike the 262s 30mms which are hard to hit with let alone try to hit turning planes.
Found most information at http://p47tbolt.tripod.com/History.htm#P47N (http://p47tbolt.tripod.com/History.htm#P47N).
-
This is making my brain hurt.
perk a high alt performance jug???Whens the last time you were at high alt fighting anything but buffs?
-
Originally posted by Hoarach
Do we really need another late war plane that will be faster than most and will have somewhat decent range?
Doing a little research on the P47N and it didnt enter the war until 1945 according to a few sites I have researched on. This late in the war the F-80s and at least the gloster meteor which I feel is a much better plane should be put in before another jug which most people would probably end up flying.
When the 38s came out, dont know about the rest of AH but seeing more 38s around then before and most dont know what they are doing but at least the 38 is a plane that is pretty much on the same level as other planes because it can be caught and can be outturned if not flown well.
If the P47N is modeled as is being said, not many planes will be able to catch it and it will have guns that people can hit with unlike the 262s 30mms which are hard to hit with let alone try to hit turning planes.
Found most information at http://p47tbolt.tripod.com/History.htm#P47N (http://p47tbolt.tripod.com/History.htm#P47N).
That website is loaded with errors. There is far better info on the web and some of it has been posted here. I suggest cracking a quality book on the subject, something with a bibliography that can be verified.
Do yourself a favor and read what I posted just yesterday. The P-47N is not especially wonderful at lower altitudes, and that's where it will do the vast majority of its fighting.
Furthermore, no P-80s were ready for combat before VJ day. Moreover, the Meteor of 1944 was slower than most late-war piston-engined fighters.
I'll say it again, there is absolutely no justification for perking the P-47N.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Brooke
So, who wants to go up with me in the dueling area and test FW 190A-8 stall turns vs. a P-47D-25?
In my testing, the FW has a higher turn rate than the P-47, but not by much. For me, my testing is very repeatable, but it is at odds with Widewing's testing. I'd be very interested to find out whether or not my testing is correct as I think it is.
Keep in mind I am not arguing that stall-turn performance is the most important thing in dogfighting. In fact, my argument was the opposite. All of this is stemming from the attitude that US fighters unfairly outclass all German fighters in maneuvering and that the P-47 turns well at low speed. My points were:
1. Roll counts as part of maneuvering, and the FW is great there.
2. The P-47 has poor turn rate at low speed. Most of the Bf 109's handily beat it there, but even the FW's are a little better in turn rate according to my testing.
3. I doubt HTC fudges the flight modelling to favor US planes.
I'll be in the TA later in the week. So, drop in and I'll grab a Jug. Just be advised, I have already shaved more time off those numbers I previously posted. A P-47D-40 with one notch of flaps does 3 full left turns in about 50 seconds flat. So does a Typhoon and the F4U-1C (no flaps for both). A Spit V does it in 37 seconds.
I suggest a lot more practice flying those aircraft at the ragged edge. I spend a good 40 hours a month in the TA, and most of it flying on the edge, doing exactly what you are trying to test.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I'll be in the TA later in the week. So, drop in and I'll grab a Jug.
OK. What day and time?
-
Oops. First wrong answer.
And what was wrong with that answer?
Brooke, if you see me in the MA some day let me know and we'll head into the DA.
Just like Urchin I spent several years flying nothing but 190's and I'm telling you, even the best flown 190 won't stand a chance against a P47 in a turnfight.
And yes, I've spent countless hours in Jugs aswell and I've outturned average/good pilots in their spits with the Jug. The P47 is a terrific turner while the 190 A8 and D9 or the two worst turners in the game. There is no doubt, I am talking from experience.
-
Just like Urchin I spent several years flying nothing but 190's and I'm telling you, even the best flown 190 won't stand a chance against a P47 in a turnfight.
Even a pretty well flown Bf109G-6 or G-2 doesn't stand a chance against a P-47 in a turn fight.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
OK. What day and time?
Usually Thursday and Friday evenings from 8 PM eastern for about 3-4 hours. I try to get some time in on Saturday mornings too.
My regards,
Widewing
-
True Kweassa.
-
I'll say it again, there is absolutely no justification for perking the P-47N.
The stats I have seen so far Widewing makes me agree with you. But consider this aswell, say what you said but change it in this way... "I'll say it again, there is absolutely no justification for perking the Ta152."
There is no justification to for having the Ta152 perked so I fear the N will be perked aswell.
We can only wait and see of course.
-
Yea Wilbus, your right.
Of course WideWing did say there is no justification for perking the N, he didn't say they wouldn't (or would), nor could he of course.
The whole perk thing seems arbitrary from my perspective, but I'm certain that HT sees it otherwise. I also think that once HT sets the perks on a plane (or doesn't), he's reluctant to change them for fear of causing more problems than he fixes, which is understandable. Who knows, maybe we'll kill two birds with one stone and when HT reads the posts he'll un-perk the Ta152 and add the P47N unperked. Even a low perk price like the F4U1-C would be groovy :rolleyes:
Magoo
-
Rgr Magoo!
-
I disagree, Wilbus. I think a well-flown A8 has almost no chance against a well-flown P-47, but an A5 has a pretty decent shot.
Granted, this is just from first hand DA experience against Frenchy et al a few years back. Actually, the 110 put in a credible performance against the P-47 and the A8.
-
A8 couldnt out turn a deathstar.
-
Well yea, but you don't really "turn" per se when you are "knife-fighting" in a 190. It is more along the lines of rolling scissors and vertical movement combined with rolling to a get inside your opponents turn.. quickly. And you have to hit the shot when you get it, cause unless your opponent is really awful, you'll only get one opportunity.
-
True,but if you manage to get that opp your gonna shred anything flying.Nice guns,fleeting opps to get hits
-
- Assuming the LW pilot knows what he is doing, FW A5 will outturn a D25, as a F4, G2, G6.
- The A8 is toasty.
- The G10/D9 won't but they can use the vertical or run away against a jug piloted by an average gunner. (a guy used to 50s has a 700y "cone of death" ahead of the jug's nose).
When the jug gets below 30% of total fuel load, whatcha ... otherwise, you ok Jerry.
-
About the 110 Urchin, it actually turns on a dime and in a close combat turnfight it easily beats 190's and quite easily P47 in my experience.
-
Widewing and Wilbus, thanks for the offers. I will try to meet Widewing this week. If I can't find Widewing, I will look around for Wilbus.
I have also created a small utility for checking computer's various timers, just to make sure nothing whacky is going on. You can get it here:
TimerChecker.exe download (http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/TimerChecker.exe)
Widewing, as our times on the turning test are so different, could you try it on your computer, timing 30 or 60 seconds vs. your stopwatch? Your stopwatch should show the same time as the two computer timers to within about half a second.
Thanks, guys -- I'm looking forward to checking all of this out.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
Widewing, as our times on the turning test are so different, could you try it on your computer, timing 30 or 60 seconds vs. your stopwatch? Your stopwatch should show the same time as the two computer timers to within about half a second.
Thanks, guys -- I'm looking forward to checking all of this out.
Stop watch: 30.07
TimeChecker: 30.01
Close enough for government work. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
OK, I just got done with some testing with Wilbus, and here some more info on all of this.
First, Wilbus is a much better pilot than I am. I just have to get that out of the way right up front! :)
Wilbus did the test, with me as observer, in a P-47D-25 (1 notch flaps, 50% fuel, normal max power, not wep, 500 ft. altitude, steady state max-rate turn). He did 3 revolutions in 72 seconds. I just did it offline, same test. 72 seconds. This is the same as the data that I posted above, but it differs greatly from Widewing's results, so I still want to get together with Widewing, which I'll try to do this week.
We then took two planes, Wilbus in a P-47D-25 with 50% fuel and 1 notch of flaps, me in a FW 190A-8 with 50% fuel. Wilbus followed me into a continuous stall turn. After many revolutions (10-20) The P-47D-25 did not do more revolutions than the FW 190A-8 and did not pass and then pull ahead of the FW 190A-8.
The P-47D does have a smaller turning radius than the FW 190. I do not and did not dispute that, as the stall-turn speed of the P-47D is about 150 mph or less and that of the FW 190A-8 is about 200 mph. But the P-47D does not have a higher turn rate.
After all of this, Wilbus and I then did some dueling. This doesn't signify much, as pilot skill is not equal (see point 1 above), but here's how it went. I took up a FW 190A-8 (my very first combat in a FW 190) and he a P-47D-11, and he very quickly shot me down. We didn't bother to try it again. We then went up with him in a P-47D-25 and me in a Spit V. He shot me down again during the first quick maneuver after the merge. We went up again, and I shot him down this time -- but he had made his point.
So, what's my conclusion about all of this?
1. Everyone is right that the P-47D turns surprisingly well initiating a stall fight.
2. Item 1 coupled with the P-47D's very low speed in a stall fight means that it probably can beat a FW 190A-8 in a stallfight.
3. However, once the P-47D is at low speed in a stall fight, its turn rate (which is what I was specifically talking about) is poor, as poor or worse than the FW 190A-8.
Thus, while I was correct about turn rates (unless in testing with Widewing I find Wilbus and I are incorrect in our turn rates), I was wrong to undervalue the instantaneous turn-rate and turn-radius advantages of the P-47D vs. the FW 190A-8.
-
may turn well with flaps out , but takes a bit o time to deploy and retract, and once your in the slow tight turn with the p47 most anything will climb over you. and gain angle by roll turning.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
Wilbus did the test, with me as observer, in a P-47D-25 (1 notch flaps, 50% fuel, normal max power, not wep, 500 ft. altitude, steady state max-rate turn). He did 3 revolutions in 72 seconds. I just did it offline, same test. 72 seconds. This is the same as the data that I posted above, but it differs greatly from Widewing's results, so I still want to get together with Widewing, which I'll try to do this week.
I was in the TA Thursday (day and evening) for 7 hours. Friday, I logged two hours in the evening. Saturday evening I was there for 1.5 hours. I kept an eye on the roster for you.
As to your testing, please post a film showing your method because using my method, I beat your times by a considerable amount.
I flew both aircraft with 50% fuel, max ammo. I take off, fly downwind, turn base and align with the runway. Altitude is about 300 feet. I gradually add power until max (no WEP). Speeds were around 257 mph (190) and 271 mph (P-47) as I pass the Radar tower, where I start the watch and roll into a left-hand turn. I then turn 3 revolutions at the absolute limit of the aircraft (fighting that tugboat of a Focke Wulf every inch of the way ;)).
Be sure to watch the G meter on each aircraft.
Upon aligning with the runway at the end of the 3rd turn, I stop the watch.
I do not use rudder to counteract wing drop in either type. I did not use flaps for either aircraft
Times were 58 seconds for the P-47D-25 and 64 seconds for the Fw 190A-8.
You will note that I was able to sustain 2g at 145-150 mph in the P-47 and 2g at 165-170 mph in the 190. Turn radius favored the P-47 by a significant margin. The times indicate that the Jug also wins in terms of turn rate.
Here's two short films (so short I didn't bother to zip them).
P-47D-25 (http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Jug-3Turns.ahf)
Fw190A-8 (http://home.att.net/~historyzone/190A8-3Turns.ahf)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Brooke, well, the first spit vs P47 duel was also in a D25 ;) Not D11 :)
Originally posted by Widewing
I flew both aircraft with 50% fuel, max ammo. I take off, fly downwind, turn base and align with the runway. Altitude is about 300 feet. I gradually add power until max (no WEP). Speeds were around 257 mph (190) and 271 mph (P-47) as I pass the Radar tower, where I start the watch and roll into a left-hand turn. I then turn 3 revolutions at the absolute limit of the aircraft (fighting that tugboat of a Focke Wulf every inch of the way ;)).
Heya Widewing! There we have to "problem" if that is what we can call it.
In the test Brooke did, and the one he made me do, we didn't time the revolutions untill the planes had settled for a steady speed and a more or less steady altitude.
Before Brooke started timing me in the P47 first time (and the 190 later) I did about 20 full revolutions, after 5-6 the (1 notch flaps) the speed was steady at about 130 and I then did a few more then Brooke timed 3. And yes, my arm was aching after this due to the stick forces of the Cougar I JUST WANTED IT TO END!
Windewing, if you've got time, try the same test. Don't time untill you know the planes are steady at a certain speed.
I still hold on to the fact that a 190 A8 stands no chance what so ever in a turnfight vs a P47 of any kind. And while most planes can climb away from a P47 once it is slow, a 190 A8 can't.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
I still hold on to the fact that a 190 A8 stands no chance what so ever in a turnfight vs a P47 of any kind. And while most planes can climb away from a P47 once it is slow, a 190 A8 can't.
Yup.
The only chance an A8 has is if he's fighting a noob in the Jug that overshoots. But even then, if the a8 misses the deflection shot, the noob will still get him.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Heya Widewing! There we have to "problem" if that is what we can call it.
In the test Brooke did, and the one he made me do, we didn't time the revolutions untill the planes had settled for a steady speed and a more or less steady altitude.
Before Brooke started timing me in the P47 first time (and the 190 later) I did about 20 full revolutions, after 5-6 the (1 notch flaps) the speed was steady at about 130 and I then did a few more then Brooke timed 3. And yes, my arm was aching after this due to the stick forces of the Cougar I JUST WANTED IT TO END!
Hi Wilbus,
Well, I ran the same test (film (http://home.att.net/~historyzone/20then3TurnsP-47.ahf)) and timed it at 65 seconds first try, 64 for the second try (this one filmed) with one notch of flaps. Prior to starting the film and the clock, I turned 20 full turns left. Speeds generally stayed in the mid 130s.
Brooke,
Honestly, I find this test virtually useless in the context of combat. Who the heck flies 20 circles? No one starts a fight at 130 mph. Seriously, 3 turns into this type of fight and the 190 driver will be back in the tower. This is not the way you fight, or hope to survive in any 190. This plane is about angles and lift vectors, flying around at 150 mph is decidedly unproductive.
The use of flaps for either aircraft distorts the data. Why not dump more flaps? Why not use flaps on the A-8? There are many variables that could be introduced. Indeed, air combat is nothing BUT uncontrolled variables. Why use 50% fuel? 50% in a Jug is a heck of a lot more weight of fuel than in a 190. Of course, ammo load is a factor. Some guys take the max load (usually a mistake as 95% of the guys flying P-47s won't live long enough to use even half of it, so why drag the extra weight?), and a few take the basic load. Even fewer take 6 guns at max load or 6 guns at basic load. It was not unusual for a P-47 pilot in WWII to have two guns removed to save weight. Weight is the most critical, controllable factor to maximizing performance (and range). One point should be made that will make some difference. I never load 425 rounds per gun. This represents the maximum magazine capacity, not the basic load-out used for all performance testing. Full ammo load was not used by the 8th AF for escort missions, they loaded the basic load-out (498 lbs), represented in AH2 at 267 rounds per gun (based upon .23 pounds per round). If you gents flew your test with max ammo, do it again with the basic load.
Essentially, we have a test with a specific load-out, done in a specific manner, neither of which will ever be precisely encountered in actual combat. Then, we test with one plane using flaps, the other not. This test really establishes nothing. Moreover, the testing is subjective as the pilot can certainly alter the outcome.
Max speed tests are simple. Max climb rate can be tested using the constant referred to as auto-climb. This test is like testing a Ferrari and Porsche to see which corners best at 30 mph around a 60 foot circle. If they ever hold a race around a 60 foot circle, the test might have some meaning. However, within the context of the real world, the test is meaningless.
I believe that my test is bit more representative of actual combat circumstances, and within THAT context, the 190A-8 is hopelessly over-matched should it try to out-turn any P-47.
The best test is always a fly-off with the pilots switching aircraft. You cannot separate pilot skills from the equation, but you can minimize the test error by making sure the pilots have similar skill levels.
Well, that's my thoughts, your's may be different.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I believe that my test is bit more representative of actual combat circumstances, and within THAT context, the 190A-8 is hopelessly over-matched should it try to out-turn any P-47.
Totally agree.
Btw, we did the tests with full ammo load which also explains that you were faster again.
And no, I don't think the test shows all that much, the one thing important in a turnfight is turn radius. Not turn rate.
-
The one thing important in a turnfight is turn radius. Not turn rate.
I agree with this. A theoretical corner speed/max turn-rate is almost totally useless in combat.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I was in the TA Thursday (day and evening) for 7 hours. Friday, I logged two hours in the evening. Saturday evening I was there for 1.5 hours. I kept an eye on the roster for you.
[/b]
Yes -- sorry about that. I couldn't make it on Thursday. On Friday, I showed up in the Training Area at 9 pm or so Eastern and didn't see you. I asked around on the open channel if anyone had seen you, but no one there gave me any reply. I waited around a few minutes but figured you were there earlier and had left for the day. On Saturday, as you said maybe Saturday mornings, I didn't check in the evening. I will try to hook up with you this week. My apologies for missing you.
The only reason I got together with Wilbus is that I happened to by flying in the MA about 3 am my time, and he was up -- serendipity.
As to your testing, please post a film showing your method because using my method, I beat your times by a considerable amount.
[/b]
It is here:
p-47d-25-3revs.zip (http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/p-47d-25-3revs.zip)
In this film, I am doing many revolutions to get to steady state, then starting my timing. My voice announcement of doing a revolution happens slightly after my nose passes the buildings due to the lag of me hitting the mic key and talking, but I am timing based on my nose cowl intersecting the white buildings at the runway.
Here's two short films (so short I didn't bother to zip them).
[/b]
I am pretty sure I know what is going on. You are not in a steady-state turn when you start your timing. You are starting it at over 200 mph, where your turn rate is going to be better than it is at steady state. In your film, the first turn takes about 17 seconds, the second about 21 s, and the third about 23 s. If you do that again, but do about 5-10 turns then start your timing, I think you'll get the same results as Wilbus and I did (a revolution taking about 24 s). The only other thing that I was careful of is making sure that I started the test and ended the test at the same altitude (+/- maybe 50-100 ft), which I think you are doing, too, but wanted to mention.
Widewing, thanks for taking the time on all of this.
-
Wilbuz and Brooke.
If you are interested, here's a method to test the turn time of a plane while it's pulling the tightest turn radius possible(which I believe represents combat situation), that minimizes pilot skill factor.
It's a test that measures the limits of the plane without pilot skill factor involved, that has been approved as an accurate method by HT himself.
(I suggested this method to HT once, and he, agreed that it would be an accurate method)
.......
Simply, enable the stall limiter.
When you set X amount of stall limiter, you will be able to pull the stick X degrees before the critical stalling AoA.
Test the planes out, and find out a minimum stall limiter setting that will allow you to pull the stick maximum and enter a turn, which the plane will not 'wobble' and smoothly continue into. **
Then simply, pull the stick back, and measure the turn time.
This minimizes the involvement of pilot skill and altitude changes during the turn, and will allow you measure to the pure physical turn capabilty of the plane itself, while it is pulling the tightest turn radius possible.
....
Footnote:
** There is a reason why you can't just set the minum stall limiter setting.
Most planes, can use the minimum setting, but some planes have other factors that is involved when turning.
Because the SL is a very simple method of just limiting the plane to stop pulling at X amount of degrees before the critical stall AoA, these factors cannot be accurately counted for, for those planes.
For example, the Las and Bf109s have leading edge slats. If you set minimum stall limiter setting and pull the stick back, you will experience a "stop-and-go", wobbly turn.
This is because when the plane is about to stall out, the slats pop out and stabilize it... but it only delays that stall, and the plane cannot keep up that rate of turn indefinately. Thus, it will stall out. After it stalls out, the stall limiter kicks in again, and then the plane starts turning again... this stall-stabilize-stall sequence is repeated in these planes.
Therefore, in testing the Las and 109s, you must first find out a stall limiter setting which allows you to turn smoothly, while the stick is deflected maximum. This, is the setting that must be used when measuring turn time during tightest turn radius.
An example of how this method was applied:
Tests and Conclusions about 109 turns (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=137009)
The previous incarnation of the "Tests and Conclusions..." thread, where I got HT's approval:
Overly aggressive destabilization in 109s while turning (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136793)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Hi Wilbus,
Well, I ran the same test (film (http://home.att.net/~historyzone/20then3TurnsP-47.ahf)) and timed it at 65 seconds first try, 64 for the second try (this one filmed) with one notch of flaps. Prior to starting the film and the clock, I turned 20 full turns left. Speeds generally stayed in the mid 130s.
[/b]
I timed your 3 revolutions at 70 seconds. Faster than Wilbus and me by 2 seconds, but also you lose 200-300 ft altitude during the segment I'm timing. I am timing based on when your nose crosses a far-off landmark (a mountain peak, in this case). That is the most-accurate way of visually knowing when you have done a revolution. It can't be timed on a close-in landmark (like 400 yards away or less, say) because the center of revolution is going to move more than a few percent of the distance to such a landmark in a test like this. It is much more accurate to use a farther-out landmark.
Brooke,
Honestly, I find this test virtually useless in the context of combat. [and lots of explanation of air combat]
[/b]
Widewing and others:
Look, I'm not arguing that steady-state turn rate is the only thing in combat or even that it is the most important thing. In fact, I made the opposite argument many times.
This all started when someone (1) complained that all US planes "outmaneuver" all German planes, (2) complained that the P-47 turns "too well," and (3) insinuated that HTC cheats on its plane performance to make the US planes perform unrealistically well.
It always bothers me when people insinuate that game designers (whether back in the Air Warrior days or today in Aces High) are doing a shoddy job on modelling when most people (1) have no idea what is involved in modelling flight dynamics and (2) don't even bother to put some hard numbers on the things they are insinuating.
But, instead of just saying "hey, that's bunk" without backing it up by anything except personal subjective opinion, I did two things. First, I said there's more to maneuvering than turn rate and that German planes are great in some of those areas. Second, I went off-line and did a real, repeatable, scientific test of steady-state turn rate and posted the results. (Why steady-state turn rate? Because it is *one* aspect of turn performance and because it is easily and repeatably measured.)
Then:
1. I got grief about how my test numbers were wrong.
2. And I got grief about how turn rate isn't the only thing that matters in maneuvering.
3. And I got a grief on how my test doesn't measure transient, instantaneous aspects of turning.
Well:
1. I believe my numbers are right, and I think Widewing will agree to that shortly if I can manage to go up with him this week.
2. *I* have been saying that there is more to maneuvering than turn rate.
3. My test is designed to measure steady-state turn rate -- nothing else. Steady-state turn rate *is* at least *one* significant metric in the collection of metrics that go into "how well a plane turns." Why did I pick that one? I can test that. I did test that. But the test covers only steady-state turn rate -- it doesn't measure ability to decelerate, speed at which flaps can be deployed, turn radius, top speed, roll rate, energy retention, acceleration in a dive, ammo load, ammo lethality, plane sturdiness, max speed before compression, max altitude, "feel", climb rate, range of gunnery, firing rate, flight range, aircraft size, and perhaps many other aspects to how well a plane does in real combat.
One thing I do appreciate, though, is that both Wilbus and Widewing are willing to discuss this and to test things.
-
On a different topic -- turn rate vs. turn radius in stallfighting -- it would be interesting to go up with a FW 190A-8 and a Lanc (50% fuel, no bombs), go into a turning stallfight, and see what it's like. The FW 190A-8 has a better turn rate but a much worse turn radius than the Lanc.
-
Also, with regard to the usefulness of steady-state turn rate in combat, I have a recent story. The other day when the main arena was out for a bit, a bunch of people were in the combat theater. I went over there to fight. It was a lot of fun! -- I wish the CT had more people in it generally. P-38G's, F4F's, P-40's, Hurri I's vs. Bf 109E and F's, Me 110's, and C.202's in this case.
At one point, I took up an F4F and got into a fight with a C.202. The C.202 was bouncing and zooming me repeatedly, and I couldn't disengage. I was able to evade each pass, but eventually the fight degenerated into both of us in a turnfight at sea level. Around and around we went, each trying to get guns to bear on the other. The planes are close in stall-turn rate, but the C.202 is a little better, and after a lot of revolutions (probably 5-10 or more), the C.202 crept around the circle enough to shoot me down as opposed to vice versa.
Again, this is not to say that low-speed, steady-state turn is the most important thing in combat. This is just to illustrate that it sometimes is important and that it can be one aspect of a plane out turning another.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
At one point, I took up an F4F and got into a fight with a C.202. The C.202 was bouncing and zooming me repeatedly, and I couldn't disengage. I was able to evade each pass, but eventually the fight degenerated into both of us in a turnfight at sea level. Around and around we went, each trying to get guns to bear on the other. The planes are close in stall-turn rate, but the C.202 is a little better, and after a lot of revolutions (probably 5-10 or more), the C.202 crept around the circle enough to shoot me down as opposed to vice versa.
Again, this is not to say that low-speed, steady-state turn is the most important thing in combat. This is just to illustrate that it sometimes is important and that it can be one aspect of a plane out turning another.
Typically, the F4F-4 has a turn radius about 20% tighter than the MC.202. Turn rate is similar, but the edge goes to the F4F-4. Now, if the MC.202 pilot uses flaps and you don't, he can come close to equalizing things.
Where the MC.202 has the real edge is that he can pull the nose high and the F4F-4 cannot follow. That's all about horsepower. Depending upon fuel state, the MC.202's wing loading is between 34 and 37 pounds per sq/ft.
Let's compare the F4F-4's wing loading at 26 to 28 pound per sq/ft.
That is a significant difference. These aircraft can meet in combat at similar gross weights, but the Wildcat has 80 sq/ft more wing area.
So, if you lost a turn fight to an MC.202 while flying the F4F-4, several mitigating factors had to be in play. The most obvious one would be that you had nearly full tanks and the 202 was almost dry. It could be that the other guy was simply better at flying his plane to its limits.
Whatever the reason, the fact remains that the Wildcat should have chewed up and spit out the MC.202 in a level turning fight, pilot skill being equal.
Frankly, I'm surprised that the other guy simply didn't pull high and drop right in on your six rather than get into a long term Lufberry... All he had to do was ease off the turn, accelerate a bit and pull nose high.
With regard to that specific plane set, the monster of the group is the P-38G. Now pay attention to this, it's the Gospel. With full flaps, the P-38G has a tighter turn radius than the F4F-4 AND a better turn rate. Moreover, it is utterly stable and can convert straight into the vertical, hang on the props and reverse practically within its own wing span. Just remember to trim manually. Remember, the plane can do that, but 99.5% of the AH2 players cannot hope to achieve anything even close to that without a lot of experience in the P-38. The P-38 (any model) is not easy to master, but in the hands of an expert, it has few peers as an all around fighter.
Meet me in the TA sometime (Thursday and Friday evenings) and we can work on winning those stall fights.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing, I will definitely show up as soon as possible for me -- I will try to get out of work early enough on Thursday or Friday. We'll measure steady-state turn rate of the P-47D-25, and we can fight in an F4F vs. C.202 or whatever you'd like.
For the F4F vs. C.202, the C.202 has a better turning rate in steady-state turns (tested same as the P-47 vs. FW stuff). That is what I observed in the fight, and that is what the winning element was in this particular fight. I can fly the edge well -- that wasn't the problem.
For the P-38 vs. 109's, yep, I was using full flaps when in great trouble, and that helped me survive at times (the very small turning radius).
My point is that there are times when stall turning rate can be important -- that's all.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
With regard to that specific plane set, the monster of the group is the P-38G. Moreover, it is utterly stable and can convert straight into the vertical, hang on the props and reverse practically within its own wing span. Just remember to trim manually.
Ok, I can't do that. But every P-38 ace in this game says manual trim is so important. I have trim mapped to my stick, but frankly only to aid compression recovery in the Bf-109.
Well, would someone care to explain HOW and WHY manual trim is so important in the P-38?
The P-38 is easy to fly, good in the vertical, a good allrounder. But I'm pretty curious where the 'magic' is hidden. Yesterday I fought a P-38L in a P-51B. Co-alt (20k) and Co-E, fight was mainly in the vertical. I finally shot him down at 10K when he stalled at the top of a loop and couldn't recover in time. Guess he wasn't using manual trim :D
-
Typically, the F4F-4 has a turn radius about 20% tighter than the MC.202. Turn rate is similar, but the edge goes to the F4F-4.
8% tighter at normal flight
11% tighter when both planes use one notch of flaps
16% tighter when at full flaps
Check it out at the The AH2 Compendium of Fighter Turn Performance (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155592)
:)
-
OK, I met up with Widewing in the training area yesterday.
We did the steady-state turning test in a P-47D-25 (50% fuel, 1 notch flaps, full power but not wep, at 100 ft instead of 500 ft., but that alt difference doesn't matter -- it was done just to make sure the ending alt wasn't several hundred feet below starting alt). Widewing got 71 sec for 3 revolutions vs. my and Wilbus's 72 seconds -- basically the same. That settles all the debating about my measurement of steady-state turning rate, I hope.
We did some turning and fighting in a C.202 vs. a F4F. The F4F has a smaller turning radius, but the C.202 has a higher turning rate (by just a little bit, though). In turning tests and fights involving steady-state turns, the C.202 is able to creep away from the F4F or creep up on it (depending on whether the C.202 is ahead or behind the F4F around the circle, respectively). The F4F was not able to get guns on the C.202 nearly as often as the C.202 was able to get guns on the F4F as a result. There were many times in the fight where I was able to creep around the circle on the F4F and get guns to bear; to creep away from the F4F in a continuous circle; creep up on the F4F then relax my turn, trading in turning rate for energy that I could use in other ways later; etc.
The point here is that some folks were saying that only turn radius matters in a stall fight, not turn rate. I disagree with that. To be specific, my opinion is that turn rate and turn radius are both important and that which is more important depends. If turn radius is much, much smaller for plane 1 yet plane 2 has a very, very slight advantage in turn rate, then turn radius will probably be the deciding factor -- as in the P-47D vs. the FW 190A-8, where I do concede the point that the FW will lose the stallfight vs. the P-47D. However, if turn radius of plane 1 is not drastically smaller than plane 2 and if plane 2 has a turn-rate advantage, plane 2 will win, I believe (as in the F4F vs. C.202).
Again, I am saying this and not more than this: steady-state turn rate is *one* significant factor of stallfighting performance, and it can be more important than turn radius under some conditions that are not rare. I am not saying it is the only factor or the most important factor in all circumstances.
I very much thank Wilbus and Widewing for taking the time with me in the training area to test various things out. They were very kind to do so.
-
Good Info Brooke :)
Maybe the turn rate does matter after all.
-
I've always taken another plane's turn rate in account when I'm in a turn/stall fight. With some planes I fight against, even though I know I have the better turning radius, their better turn rate sometimes prevents me from getting a proper angle. Thatis why I use a lot of vertical maneuvers in these types of situations so that I can use my better turning radius to my advantage and get an angle on their plane with the better turn rate.
But then I did read How to fly and fight in Air Warrior many moons ago :P
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
But then I did read How to fly and fight in Air Warrior many moons ago :P
ack-ack
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once.
-
Ok, I can't do that. But every P-38 ace in this game says manual trim is so important. I have trim mapped to my stick, but frankly only to aid compression recovery in the Bf-109.
Its not that important i never use manual trim.
but ct probly screws my shot.
ct is not giving me problems with stall fighting hammerheads and what ever manouvres.
But i don't know flying it since 1.03.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
OK, I met up with Widewing in the training area yesterday.
We did the steady-state turning test in a P-47D-25 (50% fuel, 1 notch flaps, full power but not wep, at 100 ft instead of 500 ft., but that alt difference doesn't matter -- it was done just to make sure the ending alt wasn't several hundred feet below starting alt). Widewing got 71 sec for 3 revolutions vs. my and Wilbus's 72 seconds -- basically the same. That settles all the debating about my measurement of steady-state turning rate, I hope.
We did some turning and fighting in a C.202 vs. a F4F. The F4F has a smaller turning radius, but the C.202 has a higher turning rate (by just a little bit, though). In turning tests and fights involving steady-state turns, the C.202 is able to creep away from the F4F or creep up on it (depending on whether the C.202 is ahead or behind the F4F around the circle, respectively). The F4F was not able to get guns on the C.202 nearly as often as the C.202 was able to get guns on the F4F as a result. There were many times in the fight where I was able to creep around the circle on the F4F and get guns to bear; to creep away from the F4F in a continuous circle; creep up on the F4F then relax my turn, trading in turning rate for energy that I could use in other ways later; etc.
The point here is that some folks were saying that only turn radius matters in a stall fight, not turn rate. I disagree with that. To be specific, my opinion is that turn rate and turn radius are both important and that which is more important depends. If turn radius is much, much smaller for plane 1 yet plane 2 has a very, very slight advantage in turn rate, then turn radius will probably be the deciding factor -- as in the P-47D vs. the FW 190A-8, where I do concede the point that the FW will lose the stallfight vs. the P-47D. However, if turn radius of plane 1 is not drastically smaller than plane 2 and if plane 2 has a turn-rate advantage, plane 2 will win, I believe (as in the F4F vs. C.202).
Again, I am saying this and not more than this: steady-state turn rate is *one* significant factor of stallfighting performance, and it can be more important than turn radius under some conditions that are not rare. I am not saying it is the only factor or the most important factor in all circumstances.
I very much thank Wilbus and Widewing for taking the time with me in the training area to test various things out. They were very kind to do so.
Well, I got 70 seconds on MY stopwatch, remember? ;)
When we did the turn rate/turn radius test with the F4F and C.202, we began with my Wildcat about D.600 behind. When you tightened your turn, I simply cut across your turn and pulled 4-5 plane lengths of lead pursuit. I was able to maintain that for several revolutions, until the power difference between the F4F and 202 became evident. Had we been guns hot, the 202 would have died 5 seconds into the Lufberry.
As to the duel, we bagan by flying in opposite directions until we had adequate distance between us (well beyond dot range). Upon turning for the merge, you carried much greater speed to the merge. As we passed, I reversed as quickly as was possible, expecting to catch you half way around. But, you didn't reverse, you extended to 2.7k where you did a high loop and came back down (I turned on the film here). As you dived by again, I rolled left and fired, scoring hits from nose to tail. Had this been the DA, that duel would probably have ended there. After the initial merge, it's guns hot (I don't know if your were aware of that, I assumed at the time that you were).
From this point, you continued to extend, climb and go to BnZ mode. I thought that a bit odd as our previous BBS discussion was about showing you how to defeat the 202 in the F4F during a turn-fight. I kept following you waiting for a turn fight to develop, but one never did. Oh well, what the heck, might as well make the most of it. :) I followed you up and pinged you as you came over, you pinged me with a few 7.7 mm rounds on the way by. Once I was sure the fight was going to be only BnZ, I simply avoided your attacks. Since the fight was going to continue this way until we ran out of gas or ammo (and I was getting there on fuel), I called an end to it and landed. It was an interesting and fun exercise.
Here's the film. (http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/F4F-C.202.zip)
After that we flew several duels in P-47 vs 190A-8 (this was completly lopsided) and 190A-5 vs 190A-5. Those A-5 fights only reinforced my belief that the 190s have no business turn fighting anything to the flying side of a Peterbilt.
I understand what you are trying to say; that at some point in a stall fight, the plane with the better turn rate will gain an advantage. This is true. However, that assumes that the plane with the turn rate advantage will survive long enough to get to that point. In a situation where its pilot elects to turn with a fighter having a significantly tighter turn radius, 99 times out of 100, it will not survive that long.
I think you noticed that when I had a shooting opportunity, I rarely missed. In reviewing the film of the F4F-202 duel I noticed that you fired from way too far out. In one case as far as D1.2 distant. That's 2 to 3 times the effective range of the guns on the 202 (I suggest getting within 200 yards to kill anything quickly with the 202). That is why I waited until the range dropped to 600 yards before I changed the lift vector, leaving you shooting at empty air.
Meet me in the TA again next week, around the same time and we'll work on your gunnery. Do as I suggested and turn off the tracers. This will force you into learning how to estimate lead by eye, not by fall of shot.
I also have film of the P-47/190 duel and the 190/190 duels. I'll e-mail you a copy if you didn't film them yourself.
Hey, how about that strange blackout spin bug in the P-47s! That happened several times prior. Get into a rudder induced spin the jug and you blackout totally, and you can't recover without a visual reference. I tried the same thing with both Mustangs, no blackout and recovery was generally instantaneous. I reported this on the bug forum and will send film if need be. Since the film DOES NOT show any blackouts, I was able to observe this behavior from inside and outside the aircraft. When reviewing the film, the spin is slow and quite mild. Yet, the G meter is pegged, but without any dynamic to cause that loading. Well, I went offline and managed to duplicate the spin. I also found a solution...hit auto-level and the plane recovers by itself.. Odd, right?
Brooke, you were an absolute gentleman and a game pilot. I enjoyed our exercise. Two things you need to work on that will raise you to damned lethal are better handling of the merge and gunnery. I believe that we can improve both quite easily.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Brooke
Here's the data for 3 revolutions, steady state, stall horn on, 50% max fuel load, full power, 500 ft. altitude. The data below is repeatable to within about a second or two.
P-47D-40: 73 seconds
P-47D-40, 1 notch of flaps: 72 seconds
P-47D-25: 72 seconds
FW 190A-8: 68 seconds
Whether the measurement is 70 seconds (because you measured it at 70.3 seconds) or 71 seconds (because I measured it at 70.6 seconds) or 73 seconds, it's all 72 +/- a couple of seconds. We (you, me, Wilbus) all agree to within 2-3 percent -- that's the only accuracy I'm claiming for the test. If anyone wants more accuracy than a second or two, I'm going to have to go in and do about 3-5 times more work.
So, can we close the case on steady state turn rate of the P-47D-25 is under these conditions?
As for the C.202 vs. F4F, OK, you still don't agree with me. I will come back up in the training area when I can, and we'll turn fight in F4F vs. C.202 until we agree or until one us passes out due to exhaustion! :)
By the way, I got some registered mail from The United C.202 Council's lawyers, and I find myself compelled to state: "The C.202 is a fine airplane. It's performance criteria are not fairly judged by the poor gunnery skills of Mr. Brooke 'Brooke' Anderson, formerly of Air Warrior, now of Aces High. Moreover, Mr. Anderson hereby does not purport, disavows previously purporting, and agrees not to purport in the future that combat performance or lethality of gunnery of the C.202 aircraft, in fact or in simulation, can or should be judged in any way related to or in conjunction with results of use of said aircraft at any point during which Mr. Anderson is the pilot or able to exert control over the aircraft's direction or any manner of its function."
-
Originally posted by Brooke
Whether the measurement is 70 seconds (because you measured it at 70.3 seconds) or 71 seconds (because I measured it at 70.6 seconds) or 73 seconds, it's all 72 +/- a couple of seconds. We (you, me, Wilbus) all agree to within 2-3 percent -- that's the only accuracy I'm claiming for the test. If anyone wants more accuracy than a second or two, I'm going to have to go in and do about 3-5 times more work.
So, can we close the case on steady state turn rate of the P-47D-25 is under these conditions?
As for the C.202 vs. F4F, OK, you still don't agree with me. I will come back up in the training area when I can, and we'll turn fight in F4F vs. C.202 until we agree or until one us passes out due to exhaustion! :)
I suppose my point is that these are meaningless numbers because the test itself does not reflect a situation that would be encountered in combat (at least when I'm flying). I will not fly continuous flat circles. For that matter, neither would you. There will always be some vertical component that will impact the result.
In an engagement between the P-47D-25 and a 190A-8, the 190's better turn RATE is purely a function of the speed required to avoid stalling. However, the P-47 can quickly maneuver to gain angles and kill the 190 long before turn rate ever becomes a factor. This you experienced first hand as I was easily able to gain position and clobber your A-8 time and time again. In that fight, turn rate was a total non-factor. Why? Because, the 190 won't survive long enough.
As to the F4F vs the 202: Had you reversed off the initial merge, you would have died half-way through your reverse. This is due to the F4F's excellent instantaneous turn and your much higher speed which limited your initial turn radius due to G load. I was carrying 295 mph, you had at least 360 mph on the clock. Off the merge, this is inevitable; the F4F will get behind the C.202. Whether or not the C.202 is clobbered depends on whether or not its pilot decides to maneuver or simply extend. The smart C.202 drivers will extend. The dumb ones will try to out-turn the F4F while the Wildcat's turn radius is still the dominating factor and they will die. I think your instincts took over and you extended off the merge. That makes you one of the smart ones. ;)
You should also note that the C.202 had no advantage until the F4F had slowed below 115 mph. Prior to that, I held lead pursuit, for several revolutions. I dutifully held the turn throughout the execise. That's not what would have happened in combat. In fact, nothing about that exercise reflected combat.
I think that you are placing too much emphasis on a dynamic that is rarely a factor in combat. The better 190 pilots would never consider flying circles with a P-47 in the expectation that they might gain an edge in turn rate. They know that this is suicide and flying to the 190's greatest weakness. Instead, they will maintain their E and attempt to utilize this and their superior roll rate to their advantage
Anyway, we can meet again and fly the same aircraft. We can turn fight this time. But be advised, this doesn't mean a "stall fight".
A couple of pointers on duels: There is no such thing as a "fair" duel. Experienced duelists will look for any weight advantage they can get such as the following...
1) Takeoff using WEP to burn down more fuel weight.
2) Shoot out all unneccesary ammo to reduce weight and/or take the smaller load-out if available.
3) Take the least amount of guns possible.
By the way, I got some registered mail from The United C.202 Council's lawyers, and I find myself compelled to state: "The C.202 is a fine airplane. It's performance criteria are not fairly judged by the poor gunnery skills of Mr. Brooke 'Brooke' Anderson, formerly of Air Warrior, now of Aces High. Moreover, Mr. Anderson hereby does not purport, disavows previously purporting, and agrees not to purport in the future that combat performance or lethality of gunnery of the C.202 aircraft, in fact or in simulation, can or should be judged in any way related to or in conjunction with results of use of said aircraft at any point during which Mr. Anderson is the pilot or able to exert control over the aircraft's direction or any manner of its function."
LOLOL... You're a good pilot, gunnery is something you can improve with practice. Flying aircraft with weak guns will help as will turning off the tracers.
I suggest going offline and practice high angle deflection shooting on the drones. Record the flights and watch them from the "chase" view. Believe me, you can make big strides with practice. Once you get your gunnery down, you will be a very dangerous opponent in the MA, as you already have good flying skills.
I will be happy to provide you with a target in the TA anytime you want to practice.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Stop watch: 30.07
TimeChecker: 30.01
Close enough for government work. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
normal timer: 30secs
hi-pref timer: 30.0000027936476
close enough for rocket science?
:p
-
Originally posted by Widewing
1) Takeoff using WEP to burn down more fuel weight.
2) Shoot out all unneccesary ammo to reduce weight and/or take the smaller load-out if available.
3) Take the least amount of guns possible.
hehe I can honestly say that I've never done any of that. Just seems like such a waste of time when I could go grab another beer instead.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Shane
normal timer: 30secs
hi-pref timer: 30.0000027936476
close enough for rocket science?
:p
The times you are talking about have nothing to do with the time of or variability in the 3-revolutions test. That was just a program to check the system time (through two different Windows API timers) on Widewing's computer because he was saying he was able to do the 3 rev test in the 50-60 second range. The variability in your time to press a button when a dialog box comes up on a computer screen is going to be 0.5 seconds or less. The variability in your 3-rev time will be a second or two -- lower if you are very consistent in your flying, higher if you are less so.
Since that time, now that we are all doing the test as stated, our results all agree to within the accuracy of the test. Having results agree to within the accuracy of a test is close enough for any science, rocket or otherwise.
-
this is only my opinion from experiences in the D40 which I probably have more sorties in then any craft in the AH Stable.
All are in Combat. In the last two days have out turned a G6 and
G2 in a 250mph to 300 mph fight. both 109s I easily grabbed their 6 with initial speed, dropped flaps and as speed decreased I could easily turn inside and got two lead deflection shots which put them down. I have also in the past in a very slow stall fight on the deck gotten 3 ftrs including 1 N1K to auger. I did this in a D40.
My thoughts on the N Model. Hasn't the handling ability of the other D models low. Has a greater Zoom capability but seems to drop E faster then the other D Models. At 25K or thereabouts the D Models seem to perform better except for roll rates. Also turning radius of the D Models seems to be tighter. Only differnce I can ascertain at this point is that it does well high. IMHO we have another TA 152 in the stable with the N Model.
Again....just my conclusion.
(warning: these thoughts don't necessarily agree with our sponsors)
-
I can't see the N being a problem in the MA the way the game is played. If the major focus of the game changes to over to long-distance strike sorties (about as likely as pigs flying IMO) then maybe. It's fairly fast (once you get it suborbital), carries a heavy load a long way and has a good gun package, and it doesn't have a radiator for someone to put a hole in. As a low alt furballer it's a, well it's a jug. On the whole, I'd rather be in a D25 or D40.
Once the shiney wears off I don't see it monopolizing the game in any way.
Just my $0.02
asw
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
hehe I can honestly say that I've never done any of that. Just seems like such a waste of time when I could go grab another beer instead.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Neither have I. Never felt the need to do so *shrug*
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Hajo
My thoughts on the N Model. Hasn't the handling ability of the other D models low. Has a greater Zoom capability but seems to drop E faster then the other D Models. At 25K or thereabouts the D Models seem to perform better except for roll rates. Also turning radius of the D Models seems to be tighter. Only differnce I can ascertain at this point is that it does well high. IMHO we have another TA 152 in the stable with the N Model.
Again....just my conclusion.
Well, I spent 14 hours in the TA since the new patch. I spent 90% of that time flying and testing the P-47N. During that period, I flew at least two dozen duels against MA regulars flying everything from Spits to La-7s, to Mustangs and against all the Jugs. Then I went to the MA for the first time since the patch to see how the P-47N did in there.
Speed: The N is faster at all altitudes than the other P-47s (I can certify via film 476 mph at 30k, with 25% fuel and the 6 gun load-out).
Acceleration: The N accelerates faster than the other P-47s (a lot faster). Typically, on the deck, the P-47N will accelerate faster than the Yak-9U, P-51D, Ki-84, 109G-2, Typhoon and all the P-38s.
Climb: With WEP, climb is on par with the D-11 and slightly inferior to the D-25 (based upon weight of fuel for equal range). The D-40 climbs markedly better below 20k. At 30k, few if any fighters can climb with the N.
Roll: I finally tested roll rates and the N rolls about 12 degree/second faster than the other Jugs (at 300 mph).
Maneuverability: The N is more stable at the limit than the other P-47s, largely due (I suspect) to the increased span and wing area. This allows you to push it a bit harder than the others. But, in general terms, turn radius and rate are almost identical the D-25.
You must remember that unlike the other P-47s, you NEVER need more than 50% internal fuel for a typical MA sortie. For more range simply load a belly tank. For base defense, 25% is plenty. I also recommend the 267 round load-out instead of the 425 round load. Why? Because 2,136 rounds is more than enough.
Ok, in the MA tonight I took the N, with two 1k bombs to defend against Bish GVs and fighters. Killed a Panzer and then defended against air attack. In the course of this fight, I chased down and killed two P-51Ds and then forced a fleeing Typhoon to fight. He lasted all of 5 seconds...
My impressions remain unchanged. The P-47N is fast enough to change the entire dynamic. On the deck, only two or three fighters can escape from it by running. From 10k on up, nothing can escape, save the 262.
My conclusion is that the P-47N is easily the best P-47 of the bunch. I believe it is a better fighter than the P-51D. Be smart about how you load it and it's one of the best fighters in the plane set.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
hehe I can honestly say that I've never done any of that. Just seems like such a waste of time when I could go grab another beer instead.
-- Todd/Leviathn
I have... if I take a Spit 5 with 4 20mm rounds left, 25% gas on take-off, and burn off all the MGs I can almost hang with Levi in a duel to.
It really works!
-
Widewing
Took the N up this morning again. then took the D40 up to compare. remember this is the MA where the planes will be 20K or lower.....more then likely 15K and lower.
First sortie in the N. Took off autoclimb....best it could do with 50 fuel and dt was 1.8ftK/min at 180 mph. Good thing it has wing tanks takes forever to get to 15K. In D40 at could climb at 75 fuel and DT at rate of 2.2K/min at 180mph. In N model climbed to 20K and leveled. Marginal speed difference between D40 and N at that alt. I realize the higher they go the faster both get but in the DA why bother unless shooting down and tracking Rook Space Shuttles?
N Model........landed two kills both fighters one a SpitV but naturally with BnZ. Pulling up in the N under 12K and climbing leaves you a sitting duck. The D40 climbs much faster and with 50 fuel in the D40 I can climb 3K/min. N can't touch that below 12K. Again......for MA purposes D models seem superior. I can extend and maneuver better in the 40. True....the N model is faster if it comes nose down then climbs....but under 15K it bleeds E faster then the D40 and becomes a nice fat target.
D40 Sortie. Took off auto climb rate of climb in autoclimb 75 fuel DT 2.2K/min. during this sortie engaged in a multiplane equal numbers fight. Largest was a 2 vs 2 with two spitVs against D40 and G10. Took out a spitV at 8K went up....rolled over flaps two notches and got another 109G2. Let flaps retract automatically and built enough E to yoyo a spit from it's low 8 O'Clock. I couldn't have done that in the N Model at 7K imho because of the Bleed doing same maneuver I did in the D40 and considering alt and performance at that level.
Again...numbers say one thing and actual combat in the MA differ.
At 27K or above the N screams. Like it a lot. But for MA purposes and time constraints....climb rate means a lot below 15K. I have the patience for the D40 to climb.....the N takes longer. If you're running from a fight I guess the N is what you want. If you want to stall or turnfight 12K or below it's not. You actually might get stuck in one sometime in the N model and imho I'll take the D models at that alt.
One thing....if you shoot down a P47N in a D40 I've found it's worth 5.5 perkies. :)
-
Here's some anecdotal evidence. The roll rate on the N alone makes a major difference in it's fighting ability (IMHO). The speed helps survivability. If I take the N with 8x 50 cals full load, the roll rate seems better than the D40 with 6x50 cals light load. All these factors contribute to a different "personality" for the N model. I know you fellows are discussing measurables, but that isn't all there is to a good plane. BTW, 50% gas in the N makes it less manueverable than 50% in a D40 for obvious reasons. just take 25% or burn some off before you do any serious turn fighting.
Just my opinion WideWing but I still prefer the 51B for 1 vs 1 dogfighting (pizz poor hitting power be damned), whereas I prefer the P47N for general MA use - B&Z, snapshots, buff killer, ground support, etc...
Magoo
-
Originally posted by Hajo
Widewing
Took the N up this morning again. then took the D40 up to compare. remember this is the MA where the planes will be 20K or lower.....more then likely 15K and lower.
First sortie in the N. Took off autoclimb....best it could do with 50 fuel and dt was 1.8ftK/min at 180 mph. Good thing it has wing tanks takes forever to get to 15K. In D40 at could climb at 75 fuel and DT at rate of 2.2K/min at 180mph. In N model climbed to 20K and leveled. Marginal speed difference between D40 and N at that alt. I realize the higher they go the faster both get but in the DA why bother unless shooting down and tracking Rook Space Shuttles?
N Model........landed two kills both fighters one a SpitV but naturally with BnZ. Pulling up in the N under 12K and climbing leaves you a sitting duck. The D40 climbs much faster and with 50 fuel in the D40 I can climb 3K/min. N can't touch that below 12K. Again......for MA purposes D models seem superior. I can extend and maneuver better in the 40. True....the N model is faster if it comes nose down then climbs....but under 15K it bleeds E faster then the D40 and becomes a nice fat target.
D40 Sortie. Took off auto climb rate of climb in autoclimb 75 fuel DT 2.2K/min. during this sortie engaged in a multiplane equal numbers fight. Largest was a 2 vs 2 with two spitVs against D40 and G10. Took out a spitV at 8K went up....rolled over flaps two notches and got another 109G2. Let flaps retract automatically and built enough E to yoyo a spit from it's low 8 O'Clock. I couldn't have done that in the N Model at 7K imho because of the Bleed doing same maneuver I did in the D40 and considering alt and performance at that level.
I can find no evidence that the N bleeds E faster than any other P-47. On the contrary, some simple tests indicate that it bleeds less E for a given maneuver.
Test 1, level 360 degree turn at highest rate beginning at 300 mph TAS. Both aircraft at 25% gas.
At 300 mph, I engaged WEP and rolled into a left bank and turned as hard as possible for a full 360 degrees. Speed measured via E6B at 360 degree mark. Took average of 3 tests.
Speed at end of maneuver-
P-47D-40: 183 mph
P-47N: 187 mph
Level acceleration from 200 mph TAS to 300 mph TAS, using WEP. Altitude: 50 feet.
P47D-40: 44.94 seconds
P-47N: 33.65 seconds
Reference aircraft- Ki-84: 35.96 seconds.
Zoom climb: I stablized both aircraft at 300 mph TAS at 100 feet. I then engaged WEP and pulled them into a vertical climb, making note of the max altitude when speed went to zero. Did 3 tests of each plane.
My results show that there is very little difference, but if any had a minicule edge, it was the P-47N. Yeah, the D-40 wins in steady rate climb, but in a pure vertical zoom there's no real difference. A vertical zoom is a better indicator of combat performance than steady rate climb.
As to speed at 20k, the N has about a 17 mph advantage. Roughly the same as between a 190D-9 and the 190A-5. Likewise on the deck, the N is about 24 mph faster than the D-40.
Now, we all understand that many players prefer the P-47D-11 to the other models, despite having less acceleration and substantially lower steady climb rate. Not to mention horrible outward visibility. They prefer it because they are comfortable in it and have had success. The same can be said for any fighter. If you prefer the D-40, there's no argument to the contrary to be made.
anyway, actual testing shows that the P47N retains E a bit better than the other Jugs, simply because it has so much more power. It offers much faster acceleration, faster roll rate and higher speeds at all altitudes. Where the D-40 beats it is in steady state climb. That's certainly important if you want to have more altitude when arriving at a fight.
This can be largely mitigated by how the P-47N is loaded. With 50% internal gas, it will fly as far as a D-40 with 75%. That's because the N has a 556 gallon internal capacity, while the D-40 can only carry 370 gallons. Indeed, 50% in the N is virtually the same number of gallons as 75% in the D-40 (278). So, careful loading of fuel and ammo can offset much of the difference between the two in terms of steady rate climb.
Ultimately, the choice is that of the user. Whether or not one agrees with the choice or the reasoning, if a pilot is more comfortable in his preferred ride, then he will ultimately have greater success. So, fly what you like and have fun.
Besides, if a lot of people still prefer the other Jugs, we won't have to sweat the N being perked for over-use. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing:
Exactly on the perk point (no pun intended)
For some reason to me the D40 just feels right. The N feels a bit sluggish. Whatever reason I just feel more comfortable in the D40. Maybe using N more would change my mind. But in 3 sorties I haven't found a reason yet. The rate of climb is important to me in the MA altitude range of combat. Bad enough it climbs slowly, the N is just to sluggish in that regard for my comfort level.
Thanks for doing the tests! Combat is the final exam though :)
-
ManeTMP is a freak in that thing, getting an A6M to overshoot is a feat ;)
ManeTMP I thank you for the chance to see what that pig can do HUGE sir!!
Most of the fight was on the deck at 130mph or less (when i could look inside the AC) ;)
-
The P-47N is still no match for the P-51D or the La-7. It might be able to turn, but still, she's a PIG when it comes to acceleration and agility.
No perking the P-47N please.
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
The P-47N is still no match for the P-51D or the La-7. It might be able to turn, but still, she's a PIG when it comes to acceleration and agility.
No perking the P-47N please.
Why do I feel you haven't been paying attention?
BETTER acceleration than the P-51D.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
I certainly haven't done any imperical measurements of the performance of the P47N.
In the few times I have flown it on line, I am still not sure if I like it or not as a MA ride.
My first fight in N was a disaster. I was at about 12K and ran into a LA7. I had almost 100% fuel as I dropped my DT when I saw him. And I forgot to jettision my 10 rockets. All in all not good.
It has a lot going for it, but in the MA a lot of subjective things count. Such as being able to outmaneuver what you can't out run. Cannons rate big in the style of fighting we mainly see in the MA. 1 on 1s are rare for most of us.
I consider myself to be a fairly average pilot. And I am not sure we are going to see droves of pilots of my caliber jumping on the N model Jug like we see them in LA7's or Doras' or Pony D's.
I may try out the Jug N with a 6 gun package and less ammooo, however, you then lose the real benifit of flying Jugs, and that is the 8 gun package.
All in all a real nice ride, but no LA7 fly a long shot at the altitudes of most MA fights.
But again this is only the opinion of an average pilot :)
-
Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
I certainly haven't done any imperical measurements of the performance of the P47N.
In the few times I have flown it on line, I am still not sure if I like it or not as a MA ride.
My first fight in N was a disaster. I was at about 12K and ran into a LA7. I had almost 100% fuel as I dropped my DT when I saw him. And I forgot to jettision my 10 rockets. All in all not good.
It has a lot going for it, but in the MA a lot of subjective things count. Such as being able to outmaneuver what you can't out run. Cannons rate big in the style of fighting we mainly see in the MA. 1 on 1s are rare for most of us.
I consider myself to be a fairly average pilot. And I am not sure we are going to see droves of pilots of my caliber jumping on the N model Jug like we see them in LA7's or Doras' or Pony D's.
I may try out the Jug N with a 6 gun package and less ammooo, however, you then lose the real benifit of flying Jugs, and that is the 8 gun package.
All in all a real nice ride, but no LA7 fly a long shot at the altitudes of most MA fights.
But again this is only the opinion of an average pilot :)
Here's my advice, for what it's worth.
You will never need 100% fuel in the P-47N, unless you want to fly back and forth across the entire map.
50% in the N is the same number of gallons as 75% in the D-25 or D-40. If you intend to fly primarily Jabo missions, you may be better off with the D-40 due to its better climb when loaded. 50% internal and a belly tank will take you anywhere you want to go. I usually take 25% and a belly tank, and that will give me almost 25 minutes at MIL power.
I would reserve the P-47N for strictly fighter missions/sorties where its speed and good acceleration can be fully used.
My regards,
Widewing