Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: TweetyBird on December 10, 2003, 06:05:59 PM
-
If this stays as is, the P51 is going to be a much more attractive plane. Online, it seemed the p51 I was fighting was zooming incredibly. I tested one off line. I took 75% fuel and nothing else.I leveled off at 15k and let it get to full speed at full throttle - no wep. Went into a 45 degree dive to the point of compression ( shaking and - supposedly losing E) which was about 5k. I then went into a 2g 45 degree climb and got back to 15k with no problem. The plane lost no e, exept instead or 350knts (or whatever its top level speed is at 15k), it was 120knts at the top of the zoom. That is incredibly e efficient. I don't think a hog could do that.
It also seems it climbs at 175knts, about 2.8, which is DARN close to a spit.
Granted, I haven't tested it a lot, but at first glance it seems the climb aspect of the p51 has been supercharged. I always knew it dove like a brick, but it used to climb like a brick as well and not very e- efficient. I thought the nickname runstang came from the fact is they were more capable of "extending" than zooming.
I'm new, and going back to old fm of WWII planes and their characteristics. But I didn't see much difference here as most p51's were "extending" and not zooming, so I assumed the characteristics of the plane is not that much different from what I know.
Well in AHII, zooming is a definite option of the p51.
-
The P51 definately feels more pleasant at low speeds in AH2.
In RL th climbing was ok, P51's even chased and caught 190's "uphill"
-
Originally said by Some WWII Vet on TV
What a Spit could do for 45 minutes, the P51 could do for hours more
-
I've been playing with the p51D model of AH offline, and it ( even though the climb rate is slightly less than the AHII model), is very e efficient. I just remember the old AW model. It dove great but wasn't very e efficient. I do a simple test - climb to 15k dive 45 degrees to compression and do a 2g climb back to the top. If I get all the way back, I figure its pretty e efficient. The test I remember from the AW days was you'd be about 2k short at the top. In AH you get back to 15k with no sweat. Obviously its true, no two sims will be the same. I'm not ready to comit to it, but I think I'll spend a lot more time offline playing with it.
-
Yes, but the Spit did it 2 years earlier...:)
-
Just fooled around with the G10 for about 3 minutes; all the time I have right now.
From takeoff roll up into a few loops and rolls (then I had to auger) it "felt" much better than AH1.
I think this is going to be really good.
It's still a bit too squirrley right at the beginning of t/o roll; I think the wing rocking is a bit over pronounced. However, after getting up in the 40-50 mph range, it's the closest I've felt to taking off in a taildragger in any game so far.
Just my initial off the cuff impression. I'm interested in fooling with all the planes in 2 a lot more now. The rolls and pulls "felt" better too.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Yes, but the Spit did it 2 years earlier...:)
Yeah, but weren't new spit models still coming out when the P-51d first showed itself? And they still weren't a match for the Mustang.
-
Originally posted by Reaper5
Yeah, but weren't new spit models still coming out when the P-51d first showed itself? And they still weren't a match for the Mustang.
Maybe in things like range. In a 1v1 fight, SpitXIV beats P51D easily.
-
Depends on pilot
-
Naturally it depends on the pilots, it always does... Equal decent pilots, I say XIV wins easily.
-
Remember that the p51 excelled in RANGE more than dogfighting.
Without that plane the war would probably have been prolonged to 1946.
spitfire compared was a pointdefense fighter - and a good one.
-
Originally posted by Reaper5
Yeah, but weren't new spit models still coming out when the P-51d first showed itself? And they still weren't a match for the Mustang.
idiot, Spit 14 can outperform P51 in virtually every respect except range. And it entered service before P-51D.
Spitfire Mk XIV ... 1-44!; The Spitfire entered service with 610 Squadron on January 3rd, 1944. 3-44 is the date of the first kill (a Ju88), but it was operational and on patrols prior to that.
P51D ... 5-44?; The P-51D entered production in 2-44, so it clearly did not enter service in 1-44. I have looked and looked for a service entry date or a theatre arrival date for the P-51D, but have not (shockingly so given the aircraft's fame), been able to find even a hind. I am guestimating a 3 month lag between entering production and entering service.
P-51 IS DA PLANE DAT WON DA WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BEST PLANE EVA!!!!11 :rolleyes:
from http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100989&highlight=date+into+service
-
Also take note that they did not push their planes as hard as we do, they of course had more to risk.
-
Originally posted by Furball
P-51 IS DA PLANE DAT WON DA WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BEST PLANE EVA!!!!11 :rolleyes:
Dont you think that role belongs to the B-29 with big man and little boy;)
-
The war was already over by the time the big bombs were dropped. Japan was ready to surrender.
I don't think any of the bomber operations were significant in strategic value, except maybe the continuous pounding after March, 1945.
-
It was estimated it would take a million soldiers to invade japan. Those 2 bombs took as many japanese lives as it saved american lives, but in a shorter amount of time.
-
Japan was ready to surrender.
They were ready to fight to the bitter end, so the US gave them a bitter end.
-
idiot, Spit 14 can outperform P51 in virtually every respect except range. And it entered service before P-51D.
sorry
-
IIRC the Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that basically, they hit the wrong targets.
The most impact they had on the war was late when they went after transportation targets. IIRC, they decided that they should have been doing that all along, instead of going after factories that could be moved underground and such.
Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, so who knows for sure.
-
New P51 flight model is like easy mode.
It's almost like you have to force it into a spin and then.. if you can manage to spin it, it comes out of the spin without half a try.
The new model needs some work still, so don't get used to the P-51 flying like this for long.
-
It does sound like the flight model is a touch easy at the moment. I read recently about a, I think Jug squadron that converted to the P51. On one of their first fully tanked up battle formation practically half the squadron lost control and spun. So the P51 didn't exactly have care free handling.
-
Are we supposed to look at Fm yet ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Are we supposed to look at Fm yet ?
Being that the beta is now playable online, I would say yes, we should be looking at the flight model.
Guessing by current (AH Classic) P-51 performance and the new "stall resistant" model in AH-II, I would say UFO aircraft like the N1K will be totally unbelievable.
-
I know this probably isn't the case but... does everyone have the stall limiter turned off? (Not that it would have anything to do with Zoom climbing)
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Raptor01
Dont you think that role belongs to the B-29 with big man and little boy;)
wasn't that Fat Man and Little Boy.
-
my problem with the 51 is that the vicious accelerated stall caused by the peculiar wing design of the 51 in hard pulls is non existant ( also when is the last time you saw one in a flat spin? as veteran pilots consistantly say was a very real danger when fully fueled, more so than most other aircraft. hell they had special orders not to fully fuel them for gods sake) but the thing is neutral as can be you can litteraly get almost sidways in one for a snap shot and it will occilate back to flight path with little or no e lost. ah1 and now 2 coupled with favorible decisions in every aspect of its modeling (compair to any lw plane) make it a beast it wasen't :(
compair to il2s 51 for to see what i mean. or air wars full reality.
but then again how many times has that one plane been redesigned? how many new cockpits? they never said they are fair. or correct and this aint a sim. :( this GAMES name should really be "p51 and the rest time allows". i.e. look at the glaring model errors posts on this board.
its a game and im thinking 51 is superman in their comic.( hispanos being kriptonite)
-
Originally posted by Griego
wasn't that Fat Man and Little Boy.
Shhh....he's on a roll
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Griego
wasn't that Fat Man and Little Boy.
My mistake.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
Guessing by current (AH Classic) P-51 performance and the new "stall resistant" model in AH-II, I would say UFO aircraft like the N1K will be totally unbelievable.
all things being equal..
as a footnote, the 51D in the OP was yours truly.
-
The feel of flight seems nice, especially the sensation of inertia and resistance to control inputs during dives.
But I don't think the FM is finished in anyway yet.
Try this - I'm sure many of us already know about it:
Deliberately yank the stick back and hold it there - the feeling of impending stall, and the way planes enter it seems nice.. but the problem is, stalls don't develop any further than that. Planes refuse to start to spin, and you will see that in some planes like the P-51D, it just sort of "shakes" around with the nose pitch facing towards the earth. No spin at all.
Let go of the stick, and control is immediately restored.
...
On the other hand, in some other planes, I've felt the effect of AH1 style stalls - the dreaded, inverted flat spin(well, not exactly a spin.. since it doesn't spin at all.. just fall flat on its back).
I've pushed a Spit9 up 90 degrees vertical - yes, the torque is there, and it's definately not so easy to hover upwards straight with guns blazing. But after reaching the stall point, the nose of the plane falls downwards, but, it doesn't do it completely!
Like the exact same phenomenon as seen in AH1, the nose, the heaviest part of a WW2 plane where the engine is mounted, at the point of vertical stall where speed is lost and lift is diminishing, drops down about half way towards the earth, and it then suddenly stops there.
The plane, without spinning in any axis, just rocks back and forth, and falls straight down on its back.
I'm no expert in flight nor an experienced pilot, but I seem to recall that this phenomenon seen in AH1, has been discussed over and over again, with many self described pilots pointing out that this phenomenon is strange, and unrealistic.
Well, a part of me felt a grin, seeing a Spit9 facing the same kind of dangers what all other planes had to face before, but a part of me hoped that this wierd, inverted stall that made ideal hammer heads and immelmann maneuvers almost impossible in AH1, was gone in AH2 - unless the pilot somehowe deliberately forces his plane into weirdest of stalls.
....
The Bf109G-10 is also weird - the increase in torque forces are interesting, and seeing that it rolls faster towards one side, and slower the other, was good. But the torque seems to be incredibly large - at speeds from 200mph and under, right roll input is almost negated by the torque force. Hence, even the control authority of auto trim, cannot compensate for it during take off. When going vertical, it is not just 'difficult' to keep the nose point upwards - it's impossible. It's not impossible because the plane is reaching stall speed, and the nose is dropping down - it's impossible because the plane rolls itself out of the vertical and the pilot cannot stop it even with maximum stick defelction. I can understand that happening when the plane reaches near stall speed, but at 150~200mph??
...
Some stalls in AH1 were very good. I've stalled the P-51D and F4U-1, didn't recover from it fast enough, and let it develop into a spin. The resulting spin was incredible - the plane noses down spinning to oneside like crazy, and if you try to stop the spin, it stopped turning one way, and started to turn the other way - it was just like what I've read about fatal stalls that develop into spins, and some planes which are typically prone, to falling in those sort of spins.
I hope they finish with the FM of planes - at least, the ones made available for beta testing - soon. We all hope to get a glimpse of what it might be like.
-
I just find it strange that at best climb speed the 109G10 is almost uncontrolable you can't even use the auto climb feasture to keep the aircraft climbing it struggles to keep it wings level until it stalls and spins in.
-
Rudder.
-
Not sure what you mean with "rudder" toad, however, if you mean we should use rudder to counter torque that's wrong. Torque is countered by ailerons. Sideslip caused by prop wash pushing on the vert stab is countered with rudder.
-
The direct torque effect should not be so pronounced at flying speeds. The moment arm of the prop is much smaller than that of the wing.
The P-factor (or whatever it's called that is caused by the spiral slipstream) is a yaw thing. Sure the yaw induces some roll, but not much.
-
YOu need to apply full right rudder and aileron to keep the G10 in a climb attitude and then you lose all your aairspeed and fall as if you have a twin engine aircraft on VMC
-
I'll have to try it again, but climbing out in the G10 a version or two ago was no problem for me when handflown using rudder to counter the yaw.
Just like you do in an airplane.
I don't know ANYONE that uses aileron trim in a full power climb in a prop airplane to counter yaw. You use rudder.
-
Just tried it again.
I can do a manual takeoff by just holding a touch of right rudder, going full power and keeping the tail down until about 50 mph. Ease the stick forward at 50, add a touch more rudder as tail unsticks. Lift off about 120, add a bit more rudder. Around 150, add a touch more rudder, engage WEP.
Trim a bit nose down, let speed build to about 180 and climb out.
I find I can fly it "hands" off the stick at 180-200 after pitch trimming for climb and just using right rudder to stop the yaw. (And not all of the rudder by any means.)
Didn't touch the aileron trim and took my hand off the joystick after pitch trimming.
YMMV.
-
As far as I understand it 270kmh that is th e109 climb speed is around 160mph in AHII you do need to use fulll right aileron and quite a bit of rudder to maintain climb attitude or you will just force and inverted attitude. I know the 109G10 had quite a bit of torque compared to it's earlier variants but it's getting rediculous
-
Your talking about the G10 here? Full aileron? I didn't use ANY; took my hand off the stick.
-
Well yeah I'd try to film it for you so you can see what I'm saying . almost full right aileron deflection and quite a bit of rudder which is normal to maintain a climb attitude and not go inverted in the AHII G10
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Well yeah I'd try to film it for you so you can see what I'm saying . almost full right aileron deflection and quite a bit of rudder which is normal to maintain a climb attitude and not go inverted in the AHII G10
True. How come only the g10 needs full aileron deflection to keep it flying? :confused: The way it is now G10 is pretty much useless. Looks like they found a way to use it's power against it.
:confused:
-
It's not useless, it's just incredibly cumbersome, and confusing sometimes.
The Griffon engined Spit14, in many ways comparable with the G-10 in engine power and performance, actually feels more gentle in torque than the Spit9.. so what gives?
Also, what bothers me is that I really can't force a vertical in a G-10 now.. maybe its my lack of skill, but when going vertical, once the speed drops under 200mph, there's no way to keep the nose up pointing towards the sky... It's not because I'm stalling, it's because I can't stop the plane from rolling - even a full right deflection cannot stop the G-10 from rolling out of a vertial under 200 mph.. and that just seems weird.
But since I don't know anything about how planes really work, maybe there's some explanation to it.. (but then again, how come the other planes don't suffer so much from it? and how is it that a take-off in a 109, is more easier than in a Spit9 - in the fact that the torque is so strong that there's no need to 'balance' the plane carefully during the take-off roll?? .... and just giving right rudder and right aileron deflection so the two main gears remain firm against the ground until enough speed is caught, is enough to let the plane take off on its own..?)