Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Widewing on September 10, 2004, 04:23:08 PM
-
Since I joined the Aces High Trainer’s Corps, naturally, I have spent considerable time in the Training Arena. This has allowed me to fly the various perk fighters quite a bit.
Early this afternoon, I took up an F4U-4 for some furballing with Bighorn, who was up in a Tempest. What we discovered doing this was a bit surprising for us both.
I suppose that most people know that the American fighters have improved a bit in AH2. I suspect this is because of refining the flight models, but also because HTC had additional test data on hand that they did not have when doing the AH1 modeling.
Whatever the reason, some aircraft show a substantial improvement in performance. The F4U-4 is certainly one of them.
To begin our furball, I pulled alongside the Tempest at about 5,000 ft and throttled back until we were in formation. Bighorn then broke left and I went after him. The first thing I noticed was that the F4U-4 had no trouble pulling lead on his initial turn. He tried to fight in the vertical, but the Corsair followed him up and actually closed the distance. Bighorn tried to scissor, but that’s usually a bad idea with an F4U, and it certainly was in this case. A turning fight then ensued, but the F4U-4 could follow the Tempest in a lazy lag pursuit with no significant effort. Vought’s monster had a maneuver setting for the flaps, so I let down one notch and the big blue bird easily turned inside the Tempest. In level speed runs, the Tempest was unable to gain any ground whatsoever (at about 2k). Now, Bighorn is a very good pilot. Anyone who has played tag with him in the TA or DA will attest to that. One on one, he is well above average. So, this was far from a noob flying the Tempest.
After a few minutes of this fun, I broke off and headed south. Bighorn came up from behind, to within 1.2k. I firewalled the throttle and pulled into a climb. Within several minutes the Tempest was about 4k behind and about 2,000 feet below, and losing ground faster with each passing moment. That Corsair simply “checked out”. At 20k, I engaged WEP and the F4U-4 was pulling something above 4k/min. Bighorn reported the Tempest to be climbing at just over 3k and he was about to run out of WEP.
Holy moly, not only did the F4U-4 out-climb and out-run the Tempest, it did so by a notable margin.
To explore this more, I did some acceleration runs using a stopwatch. Acceleration from 200 mph to 300 mph at 100 feet showed a virtual dead heat.
Next I performed some climb tests. Again from 200 mph at 100 feet, full power was added with WEP and I measured how long it took to get to 10,000 feet. Both aircraft were loaded with 25% fuel and the burn rate set at zero. I did several runs in both types. My net result was that the F4U-4 won every match, so to speak. I also tested several of the other good climbing fighters.
The results are a follows.
First place went to the Bf 109G-10, which took just 2 minutes flat to reach 10k. Just 4 seconds behind was the Spitfire Mk.XIV. Another 12 seconds back to the F4U-4. The unperked La-7 was next, 4 seconds behind the Corsair. Next, we find the Tempest and P-38L in a dead heat, their times differing by just ¼ of a second, but still two seconds behind the Lavochkin. 6 seconds behind these two was the Spitfire Mk.IX, but in another shocker, the P-47D-40 was just ½ second behind the Spitfire!
Compared to the La-7, this greatly improved F4U-4 is at least a match on the deck, and markedly superior above 15k. My testing shows that the La-7 no longer accelerates better than the F4U-4, it is just about dead even now. Below 5k, the La-7 climbs as well or better than the F4U-4, but any difference is insignificant. Above 5k the Corsair begins to pull way and by 10k, the difference is big, but impossible to measure as the Corsair is still climbing at well over 4k/min, while the La-7 has fallen to below 3,900 fpm. In any co-E fight at 10k or above the La-7 will be sucking hind tit against the F4U-4. Again, I will mention that most American fighters have vastly better flaps systems than other fighters. P-51s and P-47s can deploy flaps at 400 mph, while the P-38 and F4Us can get them out at 250 mph. If you’re flying a Tempest, La-7 or 109, you can’t gain any benefit from flaps until you are already wallowing near a stall. By then, you are dead.
Hey, what about those other two American fighters? Both show themselves to be excellent climbers, capable of fighting both the Tempest and the La-7 in a vertical brawl. Moreover, should the fight degrade down to 200 mph or less, both the P-38 and the D-40 Jug will slice and dice the Lavochkin or Tempest once they get some flaps out. Especially the P-38, which is probably without equal in a climbing fight. Another fighter that seems improved is the Ta 152, although the improvement is not as dramatic as that seems in the F4U-4 and P-38L.
After this experience, my opinion of both the F4U-4 and Tempest has changed. In terms of raw performance, the revised F4U-4 is the equal of the Tempest, and right where the Tempest excels, down low. Up high (Above 20k), the F4U-4 is now markedly superior in every category.
As I said, in light of what I learned today, my opinion that that Tempest was the best low-level fighter, followed closely by the La-7 has changed. Those two must now fight over second place, because the new flight model has elevated the F4U-4 into first place. The really impressive thing is that the higher it goes, the better the F4U-4 gets. At 20K only a handful of aircraft can really compete (P-51B and D, SpitXIV and 109G-10 being 3 examples).
I suggest that players try the F4U-4 if they haven’t flown it since AH2 went online and fly it against the other late-war monsters in the DA or TA. I’m convinced that you’ll come way as surprised as I was.
Climb times from 200 mph @ 100 feet up to 10,000 feet. 25% fuel for all, zero burn rate. WEP engaged.
Bf 109G-10: 2:00 flat
Spit Mk.XIV: 2:04
F4U-4: 2:16
La-7: 2:21
P-38L: 2:23
Tempest: 2:23
Spit Mk.IX: 2:29
P-47D-40: 2:29 (Jug configured with 6 guns only)
My regards,
Widewing
-
The two changes I was aware of in the perk planes was a decrese in the Spitfire Mk XIV's climb rate and and increase in the F4U-4's climb rate. These changes would also have affected their accelerations.
I don't know why the Spitfire Mk XIV was changed, but F4UDOA provided info about the F4U-4 that led to those changes.
-
Thanks for the heads up, must check out that Corsair sometime. Beautiful bird, perhaps now it is also worth flying.
-
woooot?!
what are you feeding your jugs?
that jug climb rate is outrageous! :eek:
i gonna have to give it a try
-
The P-47D-40 had a very powerful engine. At high altitude, it could out-run the P-51D.
It had a top speed of about 451mph, whereas the Pony-D had a top speed of ~436.
-
Hmmm ... just tested it offline. I must say I am not much more impressed with it than the AH1 version. It has gained about 200-250 fpm more climb, but that's it.
I tested the F4U-4 with 50% fuel against an La-7 with 100% fuel, even if the F4U-4 with 100% fuel didn't have much more flight time on full power than the La-7 did, another disappointment. Fuelburn was set to 0.
Acceleration and speed test was done at 100 feet. Clock stared at throttle-up on runway.
La7
300 mph in 57 seconds.
350 mph in 1 minute, 33 seconds.
370 mph in 2 minutes, 10 seconds.
La-7 was able of reaching max speed of ~380 mph.
F4U-4
300 mph in 1 minute, 3 seconds.
350 mph in 1 minute, 41 seconds.
370 mph in 2 minutes, 36 seconds.
F4U-4 was unable of reaching more than 375 mph due to running out of WEP.
Low speed acceleration is very similar with the La-7 having a marginal edge, however as speed increase the F4U-4 seems to run out of steam compared to the Lavochkin which just kept on going past 375 mph.
I also noted that the La-7 was markedly more manoeuvrable, especially at low speeds even with the F4U-4 using flaps. (Not a scientific test though)
Testing the F4U-4 on 25% fuel is about as irrelevant as testing the La-7 on 25% fuel. Both have less than 10 minutes of flight time at 25%.
My conclusion is that the La-7 is markedly superior below 10k, and that the F4U-4 is still not worth the perks and the gang-tag. The F4U-4 is still an awesome plane though.
-
In fact the F4U-4 and the Fw190D-9 are very similar in performance up to about 20k where the Dora's performance starts to drop off. The Corsair obviously being the better turner while the Dora having slightly better climb up to 18k, and slightly more speed between 3k and 18k.
-
Yea testing planes with 25% fuel is meningless with the MA burn rate.
Gotta test with at least 75%..
That said I thin the P47 is ridiculously manouverable for such a highly loaded plane, always has been imo...
-
The Spit14 out turns the C.202 now.
-
The biggest problem with the F4U-4 is the same as with the Spit 14.. it has the performance to go 1v1 with any other 1945 plane and have a 50/50 shot at winning.
Of course, since the 109G-10, P-51D, and La-7 are free.. why bother with the F4U-4 or Spit 14?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Corsair obviously being the better turner while the Dora having slightly better climb up to 18k, and slightly more speed between 3k and 18k.
I found that the F4U-4 out-climbs the Dora to 10k. Same rules as before, 200 mph start speed at 100 feet. This time all planes had 50% fuel except the P-38, which can fly further on 25% than the others can on 50%. Fuel burn set to zero.
To 10,000 feet
F4U-4: 2:21
P-38L: 2:22
Fw 190D-9: 2:26
Tempest V: 2:28
La-7: 2:29
To 20,000 feet
F4U-4: 4:58
P-38L: 5:17
Fw 190D-9: 5:22
Tempest V: 5:43
La-7: 6:07
Level acceleration from 200 mph to 300 mph at 100 feet.
Tempest V: 27.7 seconds
La-7: 28.2 seconds
F4U-4: 28.4 seconds
Fw 190D-9: 31.4 seconds
P-51D: 32.3 seconds (25% fuel)
P-38L: 33.5 seconds (odd because the USAAF found the P-38L to accelerate faster than the P-51D at all altitudes)
My regards,
Widewing
-
F4u-4 is a monster. In every matchup you test it, it has almost no negetives and same or better positives. at 15k or below it's Temp, G10, La7 class. higher it rules.
The P47D-40 was tested with 25% fuel. In a plane that carries 370 gallons, when you measure weight in precentage that is a huge difference in lb. When light, the P47D-40 is not such a bad climber on wep. above 15k it will outclimb the P51D - always have.
Bozon
-
Here is the performance of the F4U-4 in AH2
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/f4u4t.jpg)
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/f4u4i.jpg)
The reason the -4 is outclimbing the Dora below 10K is because they are being tested with 25% fuel. This gives the F4U-4 a much more significant reduction in weight than the Dora. The -4 carries 234 gallons of fuel weighing 1,416LBS. With 25% fuel you have taken over 1,000lbs off of the F4U-4 hence an "Uber intercepter". At 100% fuel the results would probably favor the 190.
-
Today I found out that the F4U-4 isn't a great diver either. I caught one in a La-5 today, and initially he was opening the distance, but after about 5-7 seconds I started gaining and shot him down. The F4U-4 probably has more control in high-speed dives though.
-
I can't belieave the P-38 was so turnable.
-
Originally posted by Mitsu
I can't belieave the P-38 was so turnable.
High wingloading is apparently not a factor in US planes... Certainly does not seem to bacdly affect the manouverablity of P38 and P47... Especailly P47.. :)
-
Think it has more to do with the flaps for the U.S. planes.. they add surface area to the wing, lowering the wingloading.
Of course, I don't know exactly how much they do this, nor how to figure it out.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Think it has more to do with the flaps for the U.S. planes.. they add surface area to the wing, lowering the wingloading.
Of course, I don't know exactly how much they do this, nor how to figure it out.
Not on the 51 - it has the same type of flap as Bf109.
But lets take the P47 example - it has a fowler type flap and it gets extremly manouverable for its wing loading with them down.
Would you agree?
Do you think you get the same huge increse in manouverability when you lower niki flaps?
-
But lets take the P47 example - it has a fowler type flap and it gets extremly manouverable for its wing loading with them down.
true, but it can only fight down hill with them. They suck up lots of energy. As they should.
Another reason for the P47 "manuverability" is that it's a friggin massive brick with eliptical wings. This makes it very stable near the stall, but it will turn as nimbly as an 80 year old lady driving a truck. OK for a scissor fight, certain death in a turning fight.
This apply to most of the US iron. The F4u and F6F enjoy the benifit of extremely low stall speeds.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But lets take the P47 example - it has a fowler type flap and it gets extremly manouverable for its wing loading with them down.
They're not Fowler flaps, but NACA slotted flaps, and very efficient.
They move aft, and then pivot down.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by bozon
true, but it can only fight down hill with them. They suck up lots of energy. As they should.
I fly the P-47 in the vertical with flaps out often. That 2,600 hp engine on the D-40 provides plenty of power. Add to that, superior stability at low speed and the D-40 can slice and dice with many supposedly more maneuverable fighters. I train at this type of fight quite a bit.
Just remember, never take more than 50% internal fuel. Take a drop tank or two if you need to get somewhere. And take just six guns. If you get in a scrum, you can lighten up to under 13,000 pounds. A D-40 that light is a delight, and can hold its own very well.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Today I found out that the F4U-4 isn't a great diver either. I caught one in a La-5 today, and initially he was opening the distance, but after about 5-7 seconds I started gaining and shot him down. The F4U-4 probably has more control in high-speed dives though.
Sounds like you found a putz. The plane is only as good as the peawit flying it. I once chased down and killed an F4U-4 while flying an SBD. He misjudged my E state (about 420 mph).
Both the 190s and the F4Us use the same NACA airfoil. Corsairs dive very well, you can reach 600 mph and not break it.
My regards,
Widewing
-
by "fighting down hill" I ment that the average altitude of the fight will be droping quickly. Pulling out the flaps to tighten a turn (not in order to hang on the prop at 100 mph) means you are willing to throw away ALOT of E to gain a little better turn rate/radius.
In order to keep a sustained tight turn you have to keep your speed up by making a nose low turn. If you let your speed drop too low you will not stall but the turn rate will be horrible.
Bozon
-
May i ask widewing how you got a SBD to 420mph?
-
by "fighting down hill" I ment that the average altitude of the fight will be droping quickly. Pulling out the flaps to tighten a turn (not in order to hang on the prop at 100 mph) means you are willing to throw away ALOT of E to gain a little better turn rate/radius.
Doesn't matter.
When both planes drop down to low E the stability of the P-47 will enable to fish-flop its way to victory.
At least, having flown the Bf109 since version 1.05, there's no way I'm ever engaging a P-47 or a P-51 in low speed maneuvering ever again. The AH2 P-47 out turns all 109Gs at all alts all speeds all situations.
-
Bf109 was noted for its low speed stability.. There was a recent test where tyey flew a restored G10 (no MW50) aginst a P51D and they said the 109 was better and prefered in a low speed fight.. Even eric brown said that a captured and prolly underperforming 109G6 was delightful at low speed..
And I'm just amazed by the crazy manouverabilty of P47 at low speed in this game..
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
At least, having flown the Bf109 since version 1.05, there's no way I'm ever engaging a P-47 or a P-51 in low speed maneuvering ever again. The AH2 P-47 out turns all 109Gs at all alts all speeds all situations.
Well, I've only been flying the jug since version 1.08, so I guess I just suck. If a 109 will enter a rolling scissor fight starting from high speed I'll beat it by stepping on the breaks, pulling out the flaps, opening the canopy and flaping my hands while rolling. That is possible as long as we have speed to start with and we dont turn much.
if we start slow or get into a sustained circle fight, I will die if the 109 pilot is of any worth.
I flew the G2 alot during the beta. it felt great when turning. the slats created some instability while deploying though. I don't know if that was fixed.
Bozon
-
Grunherz,
I am not a big P-47 fan but the thing about that bird is that if you start pulling things off of it like fuel and guns the wingloading goes way down.
14,500lbs fully loaded with 8 guns and full fuel gives it wing loading of 48.3.
370 gallons of fuel!! Weighting 2,200lbs! At 25% fuel (555lbs) the P-47 now weights 12,850lbs.
Now get rid of 2 .50 cal guns. 145lbs total and the reduced ammo load which acounts for another 166lbs at least.
And viola
12,539lbs with wing loading of 41.79 with plenty of ammo and significnant duration with almost 100 gallons of fuel on board.
Superbolt.
-
Well, I've only been flying the jug since version 1.08, so I guess I just suck. If a 109 will enter a rolling scissor fight starting from high speed I'll beat it by stepping on the breaks, pulling out the flaps, opening the canopy and flaping my hands while rolling. That is possible as long as we have speed to start with and we dont turn much.
I'm pretty sure you are aware of the standard procedures in rolling scissors bozon. The basic aim of this maneuver, is to overshoot the enemy and evade bullets by barrel rolling.
According to the danger levels, a pilot may have to pull a wider and/or slower barrel roll, with harsher and more sharper angle in whipping the nose around by rudder assists.
The problem is, assuming co-E conditions, at least to the extent of my own skills pitted against all kinds of P-47 pilots from noobs to experts, no 109G in AH2 can pull enough angle, whip the nose, slow down, and pull off a barrel roll at the same time.
The P-47s can do that. So can the P-51s. The 109G cannot.
If we start slow or get into a sustained circle fight, I will die if the 109 pilot is of any worth.
I used to think so, too. Not anymore in AH2. For about two circles the 109 may stay with a P-47D. Then comes the really low speed, harsh maneuvering phase, under 200mph.
At these speeds as you know, turning a tighter radius and keeping it there is often more important than the turning speed or the turn rate itself.
The P-47 can keep the harsh AoA, assisted by flaps and rudders. It slow, but it chugs on, keeping its nose up like a cobra. The 109G cannot. If I stay above 200mph, my turn radius is too wide so I cannot follow the turn. But if I drop my own speed to use my own flaps, the plane suddenly turns into a pig.
The plane just reached its point where it could start using its own flaps - which is about 90mph higher than the stall speed. I'm pulling only about 15% of the stick at 180mph, first notch of flaps down and the plane starts to snaproll and shake already. While destabilized the nose drops down, the plane accelerates, and the flaps retract. I organize things out pull the nose up again, kick rudder and engage flaps again - by this time I've lost about 30 degrees amount of ground in the turn fight.
Eventually, the P-47 wins.
Okay, I'm not a hot-shot LW fighter like Nath or Urchin or Grunherz. But as much, I don't always face the best of the P-47 pilots neither. Dear lord HT, is outturning a P-47 supposed to be this hard in a Bf109G?
I flew the G2 alot during the beta. it felt great when turning. the slats created some instability while deploying though. I don't know if that was fixed.
Then you'd remember the weird stalls bozon - something which people referred to as "aileron reversals" or something. The sort where you arrive at stall, and the plane would snap roll to one direction. Applying ailerons to stop it would cause the plane to snaproll into the other direction.. and consequentially the plane would rock around in its roll axis left and right, as it augers.
Well, I don't see that happening in P-47s or P-51s anymore, but the 109s and 190s still have it. Exactly same behavior with the C.202 and the C.205.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
12,539lbs with wing loading of 41.79 with plenty of ammo and significnant duration with almost 100 gallons of fuel on board.
7 or 8 minutes is significant duration? Your definition is different than mine.
Unless the D-40 has significantly greater tankage than the D-25 or D-11 as those are the two I fly when I take a P-47. 50% fuel on those was nowhere near adequate.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Grunherz,
I am not a big P-47 fan but the thing about that bird is that if you start pulling things off of it like fuel and guns the wingloading goes way down.
14,500lbs fully loaded with 8 guns and full fuel gives it wing loading of 48.3.
370 gallons of fuel!! Weighting 2,200lbs! At 25% fuel (555lbs) the P-47 now weights 12,850lbs.
Now get rid of 2 .50 cal guns. 145lbs total and the reduced ammo load which acounts for another 166lbs at least.
And viola
12,539lbs with wing loading of 41.79 with plenty of ammo and significnant duration with almost 100 gallons of fuel on board.
Superbolt.
Thats still higher than even a Bf109G10 IIRC, let alone a G6 or G2..
-
Karnak,
I don't fly the P-47 very much if at all but I would be surprised if 100 gallons only last 7 or 8 minutes. Not to say that it doesn't.
Grunherz,
Again not my favorite ride. I'm just expaining how the wingloading can be brought down to well within a "reasonable" range.
Also the flaps on the Bolt could be used up until 200+ MPH. So by the time E has bled down the flaps are more than likely out.
The other factor that really helps the bolt is the increase in climb and accleration with weight loss.
I can only base this on the F4U (Because I have a chart that shows it) but with weight loss of 1,000lbs is an decrease in climb by 1 minute to 20,000FT at mil power. So instead of 8 minutes at 12,000lbs it gets there at 7 minutes at 11,000lbs. An increase from an average climb rate of 2500FPM to 2857FPM.
357FPM is a significant increase in climb. The Bolt cuts over 2,000lbs when trimming weight. This gives it an enormous boost in climb and acceleration to go with the lower wing loading.
Check the climb times done by WW.
BTW I have no idea if this was the case with the P-47 as I only have that chart for the F4U-1D for comparison.
-
F4UDOA,
I can't remember if it was a P-47D-11 or a D-25, but the first time I flew a P-47 in AH2 I took 50% fuel because I thought it would be plenty to attack the next base over. That gave me about 15 minutes of fuel at MIL power. Ever since then I take 100% fuel and maybe drop tanks with the P-47. I treat it just like a Spitfire in regards to fuel.
-
I know F4UDOA, I was just adding that it's still higer than Bf109 loading.
-
Do not listen to widewing.. his information is incorrect about the f4u4 move along..
:rolleyes:
(Down)
Now that the cat is out of the bag.. yeah i have to agree Everything Widewing said is true.. Tempest and Typhoons used to be the bane of f4u4 do to their ability to bleed e (out radii) then regain it.. now the f4u4's acceleration got a boost.. along with stability near the stall.. it matches up very well..
This aircraft was a bear duirng AH1 and now its improved.. just watch it lift off a deck with 2 1000lbs no problem says it all.. Freaking carrier supermustang is what it is..
Props to Widewing and Bighorn for the tests.....
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by Karnak
F4UDOA,
I can't remember if it was a P-47D-11 or a D-25, but the first time I flew a P-47 in AH2 I took 50% fuel because I thought it would be plenty to attack the next base over. That gave me about 15 minutes of fuel at MIL power. Ever since then I take 100% fuel and maybe drop tanks with the P-47. I treat it just like a Spitfire in regards to fuel.
I think more people are running into "light" P47's now. Even only 25% can be stretched out to 15min so that's not too bad. The change in fuel-porkage also means droptanks are almost always available, hence people load them up and transit/climb/position with those and then switch to internal fuel. I know I've limped a lot of low-gas P47's home with only a couple of gallons to spare.. the guys I'd fought had been dealing with me at 1/3 internal or less.
The difference in stats is dramatic too between the weights possible in the P47's. I had some AH2 numbers I was testing, I don't have it right infront of me right now, but I remember it being pretty significant (very measurable) in acceleration/climb and in general the handling just seemed a lot better.
-
That 50% + DT nonsense has to stop...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
That 50% + DT nonsense has to stop...
I agree.
DTs (or multiple DT options as on the P-47D-40) need to be handled in a linear fashion along with fuel percentages.
P-47D-40 should go like:
25% --> 50% --> 75% --> 100% --> 100% + Center DT --> 100% + Wing DTs --> 100% + Wing DTs + Center DT
The Ki-84-I-Ko would look like this (if the one DT and one bomb option were allowed):
25% --> 50% --> 75% --> 100% --> 100% + Left Wing DT --> 100% + Wing DTs
The Fw190A-5 would look like:
25% --> 50% --> 75% --> 100% --> 100% + DT
The Mosquito Mk VI would look like:
25% --> 50% --> 75% --> 100% --> 100% + DTs
-
I just noticed on this screen shot that the Ki-84 seems to have the same kind of flaps as the P-51, that move back and then down.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/natedog/ki842.jpg)
Is that correct and does that bode well for the Ki-84's manuverability?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I agree.
DTs (or multiple DT options as on the P-47D-40) need to be handled in a linear fashion along with fuel percentages.
P-47D-40 should go like:
25% --> 50% --> 75% --> 100% --> 100% + Center DT --> 100% + Wing DTs --> 100% + Wing DTs + Center DT
The Ki-84-I-Ko would look like this (if the one DT and one bomb option were allowed):
25% --> 50% --> 75% --> 100% --> 100% + Left Wing DT --> 100% + Wing DTs
The Fw190A-5 would look like:
25% --> 50% --> 75% --> 100% --> 100% + DT
The Mosquito Mk VI would look like:
25% --> 50% --> 75% --> 100% --> 100% + DTs
I agree.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I agree.
DTs (or multiple DT options as on the P-47D-40) need to be handled in a linear fashion along with fuel percentages.
P-47D-40 should go like:
25% --> 50% --> 75% --> 100% --> 100% + Center DT --> 100% + Wing DTs --> 100% + Wing DTs + Center DT
The Ki-84-I-Ko would look like this (if the one DT and one bomb option were allowed):
25% --> 50% --> 75% --> 100% --> 100% + Left Wing DT --> 100% + Wing DTs
The Fw190A-5 would look like:
25% --> 50% --> 75% --> 100% --> 100% + DT
The Mosquito Mk VI would look like:
25% --> 50% --> 75% --> 100% --> 100% + DTs
Wow, you guys need a history lesson. STANDARD procedure within the 9th AF was NOT to take anymore internal fuel than you needed to fly to the target and return (+10 minutes for combat). Talk to some 9th AF vets and you find them flying with only the main tank fueled and the aux left empty MOST of the time. Even then, they would only add as much fuel as was required. Granted, some units didn't like to fly on less than full tanks, but that was local policy. The use of a disposable belly tank just to get them to the target area (where it was dumped) was not unusual. Remember, Crew Chiefs were making all sorts of unauthorized mods to fighters to give their pilot every advantage possible. Common sense (an oxymoron if ever there existed one) indicates that by limiting the fuel to what was needed to complete the mission, performance would be enhanced.
Many 9th AF units were based within 20 miles of the front. By mid 1944, the 9th was the largest user of P-47s in the ETO. Our field spacing is not out of line with the range required to reach the combat area in the ETO (post invasion).
If you manage your fuel, you can stay airborne a long time on 50% internal, which is how I usually configure my P-47s. I usually take a single belly tank and a full load of rockets and two 1k bombs. This is for offensive missions within a range of 1 to 1.5 sectors. Moreover, I rarely take the Jug above 10k anyway. For defensive work (fighting off GV hordes), I'll take 25% and substitute a 500 pounder for the belly tank. Since I'll rarely be using max power, I can hang out for 15-20 minutes on this, but rarely need to. I drop my ordnance and immediately go and rearm (strafing is of little value, and the time wasted could be used to rearm). For defensive work against incoming fighters, I will take a P-38 with 50% gas instead.
Gentlemen, you can do the same thing with any aircraft that has external fuel capability. I don't understand the whining about taking less than full internal fuel and adding a drop tank. The pilot has the option to configure his aircraft anyway possible within the alotted options. If you feel taking less than full tanks is an issue, than take full tanks on your planes. But, please stop playing hall monitor with how others prefer to fly. If you're afraid of a lightweight P-47 or P-38, well you should be. Especially if you're horsing around a wallowing whale with unnecessary gas aboard. Perhaps it bothers you that a light P-38 or P-47 can fight just about anything on even terms. Too bad, life sometimes sux.
There's only a few aircraft in the game that can take full underwing ordnance AND a belly tank. These include the P-47D-25 and D-40, as well as the F6F-5. This is a perfectly normal load-out. To eliminate that option WOULD be unrealistic.
By the way, I tested the P-47D-40 for acceleration at sea level. at 100 feet at 200 mph, it accelerated to 300 mph in 38 seconds. That's nearly 5 seconds slower than the P-38L. However, it's 12 seconds faster than the Spitfire Mk.IX under the same parameters. Of course, there is a direct correlation between max deck speed and acceleration on the deck if the upper test limit is close to its maximum deck speed.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I just noticed on this screen shot that the Ki-84 seems to have the same kind of flaps as the P-51, that move back and then down.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/natedog/ki842.jpg)
Is that correct and does that bode well for the Ki-84's manuverability?
Those appear to be Fowler type flaps, completely different from that of the P-51, which has plain flaps. There are four main types of flaps, Plain, Split, Slotted and Fowler.
P-38 has Fowler type
P-47 has Slotted type
P-51 has Plain type
P-40 has Split type
My regards,
Widewing
-
Karnak
I don't think the P-51 had Fowler flaps as on the Ki-84.
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p51-24.jpg)
-
KI84 also had another flap setting that slid them straight back to increase wing area for manouver..
-
Oops on the flap thing. I thought I'd read up above that the P-51's flaps moved back and then down.
Widewing,
Hmmm. I'd read that drop tanks were supposed to be retained if possible. That was pertaining to the RAF though. I guess the USAAF had a larger supply of drop tanks.
-
what're the type the F4U has called?
-
The F4U has fixed hinge slotted flaps.
Most importantly they could be deployed up to two notches at 200Knots IAS. That means that they could withstand G's and be used in maneuvering.
-
thanks.