Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Knegel on November 21, 2005, 02:53:50 AM
-
Hi,
1. Please use a more credible E-bleed formula!!
Currently light wingloaded planes get a much to big advantage.
They not only can turn more tight and fly more slow, they also can keep most energy while that and at ALL speeds.
If a Hurri turn with max AoA it should bleed energy like mad, same count for the A6M, Spitfire and all more light wingloaded planes in relation to a more heavy wingloaded oponent. The advantage of a tight turn should have much E-bleed as result, specialy at highspeed.
Another aspect i miss is the influence of the wing aspectratio to the max AoA and induced drag.
2. Please dissable the laserguns!
Some guns in AH seems to be real laserguns. Specialy the .50cal, the Hispano, the La guns and the MK108 seems to have heatseakers.
Kills on 0,8k are pretty easy, same like snapshoot kills without real aiming.
Currently i dont see a sence to fly LW planes anymore(i almost only see Spit16´s and La7´s in the sky). Dogfighting is hopeless and Hit and Run i can play offline vs Ai´s in other games with a better graphic.
The X-wing like planes are not fun at all for me.
Dont get me wrong, i always did like the challenge to fly FW190A´s and 109G6´s vs SpitIXc´s and even SpitV´s, but now even a D9 is hopeless(the G6 without the heatseaker 30mm lost 50% of its power).
Anyway, what i wanna say is: Imho Ah got a bad drawback already with the strange La7, US combat flaps and endless diveacceleration of the 109´s even without power, but now it got even more bad. (no i dont show a film of the strange behaviour of the light wingloaded planes and the La7, who dont see it while gaming must think thats realistic, so there is no sence).
Greetings, Knegel
-
Provide evidence to back up all your claims. Making accusations of that nature without providing supporting evidence will net you nothing.
For what it is worth I recall in the early days of AH the e bleed was as you request, until it was demonstrated to be wrong and fixed in v1.04. You'll need to actually prove your point there as I recall HiTech explained to you why you were wrong in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum.
As to the guns, perhaps a quick overview of the muzzle velocites of the .50 cal BHMG and Hispano would enlighten you as to why they are so strong. Perhaps the drag calculations on the rounds are off though, I don't know about that. I do know that I'd take a Spitfire with MG/151/20s or Ho-5s over a Spitfire with Hispanos any day. That would very significantly lighten the Spitfire, making it more manuverable.
A more detailed damage model would be very nice, that is true.
-
Hi,
i need to proofe that a real 109G dont accelerate endless zero power??
I need to proofe that a Fw190D9 with 2250hp and 4270kg should outaccelerate a 1850hp, 3300kg La7 in a dive by easy??
Even the 190A8 and A5 should outdive the La7. 500-1000kg more weight is not a bit, same like 500-1000kg inertia.
What i find most strange is that heavy wingloaded allied planes, like the F4U, P38 have the correct energy bleed in relation to the more light wingloaded 109´s, and even more strange are the incredible combat flaps of the F4U´s and P38´s. The P38 with full flaps can keep a level flight with 50mph, the F4U-1 do the job with 75mph, while the 109F snaproll with 80mph(all planes 25% fuel)!!
I know that the P38 had good flaps, but its wingload without flaps was very high in comparison to the 109F, which had slats and good flaps too.
The SpitfireIXc also nees at least 75mph(i know that its flaps wasnt made for combat at all).
Or compare the ta152H stallspeed with that of the P51D.
The Ta152H had 197kg/m²(25% fuel) and the P51D had 203kg/m² (25% fuel). The P51D had a semi laminar airfoil, known to give bad lift at slowspeed. The Ta152H had a incredible wing aspectratio and was made to fly at very slow speed´s.
But both planes stall almost at exact same speed(with or without flaps).
btw the P38H had a wingload with 25% fuel of 236kg/m², while the 190A8 with 4 x 20mm had 224kg/m², the 109G6 had 190kg/m², the 109F4 had 172kg/m², the F4U-1 had 179kg/m²(all 25% fuel).
Another btw: The A6M2 keep a level flight with 75mph with or without flaps.
This all dont say that much in general, but why the heavy wingloaded P38 stall later than the much more light wingloaded Ta152H, specialy cause the Ta152H had a more big aspectratio, is a miracle for me!
I could go on with strange relations, unfortunately the E-bleed isnt that easy to explain. But who ever did compare the dive acceleration between a stone and a leaf should understand the influence of the dragload to the diveacceleration(and again, strangewise the P38 already have what i would expect from other heavy wingloaded planes, but the P38 have a much to big max AoA and with flaps its the best turnfighter in game).
Heavy wingloaded plane = smal drag/load = smal E-bleed but as disadvantage often a less good powerload(not so in the case of the 109D9 with MW50), thats why such planes often suffer while sustained turns and specialy turnradius at slow speed.
As long as a heavy wingloaded plane keep highspeed (dive) turns and slowspeed stallturns(typical B&Z) no light wingloaded plane should be able to keep up.
But what do i tell, all constructors of modern fighters simply suck, cause they gave their planes so smal wing. The FW190 still count as one of the best WWII fighters, much better in a dogfight than the SpitV and still even to the SpitIXc(depending to the altitude) by mistake.
I dont wanna start to talk about the influence of the wing aspectratio to the lift and induced drag(wing efficiency), but the Spit´s , La7, Yak´s and F4U´s had a pretty poor aspectratio.
Thats the CW Spit16 stall exact like a normal Spit also is funny.
To ask for proofing all this is like asking for proofing the physical law or Darwins theory. Sure, both could be only imagination, but realy, iam not in a church here.
I know that we have a wide range where a FM/DM is somewhat credible, what iam asking for is a more balanced gameplay!
btw, the Hispano had a good muzzvel, but a pretty poor rof, therfor the hitprobability between MG151/20 and hispano should be pretty even. The guns got adjusted to s specialy distance anyway. And the in most cases far outside wingmouted position should make long distance kills even more difficult(even with max convergence setting). In reality most convergence settings wasnt at around 200-300m for fun(smal MG´s even closer).
Why the MK108 with its poor rof and muzzvel have a so big hitprobability is the biggest miracle! The 109´s with MG151/20 should be much better while a dogfight, not so in AH(actually IL-2 have the same problem).
What shal i say, once i did like AH very much, now its getting pretty onesided(imho of course)!
Greetings, Knegel
-
I can't even begin to respond to a post like this. I truly love the logic of , it's incorect, but no one can prove that it is correct or incorrect, so just fix because I know the 190 is the best plane ever made.
HiTech
-
Survey says:
PWN3D!
-
knegal,
If you want anyone on this board to take you seriously, hitech included, you need to provide proof for your ideas. This means testing the stuff in game, filming it to record the evidence. Providing real world documentation to support your claims. Hitech (and co) may very well be the emminent authority on WWII aircraft performance. Be wary of what you have read and seen on TV. They are incorrect more often than not.
g00b
-
Logic ,wtf logic ?
We ain't need any logic we're customer !
Damit !
:p
-
Knegel,
The Hispano had a rate of fire of 10 rounds per second and that is exactly what it does in AH. Many of the MG151/20s are slowed down due to syncronization, depending on what fighter we're discussing here, but despite that they do have a higher rate of fire. The Japanese Ho-5 has the highest rate of fire of any 20mm cannon in AH.
I actually do agree with you that the flaps on the American aircraft are too good to be true, but I have no evidence of this nor am I good enough at math and physics to try to back up my gut feeling. That being the case I must bow to those who are good enough and accept it as is.
Your anti-Spitfire stuff looks like the typical old Luftwhiner BS. I don't think the Spitfires are over modeled and in a couple of cases I think them undermodeled. I also think many of the German fighters are under modeled with a couple being over modeled. Once again I have no specific evidence so I leave it alone as vague charges yeild nothing.
-
Yeah, MG-151 gondola and cannon hub fire REALLY FAST on 109s cause they are un-syncronized. This is the different story on 190s because the cannon fire on 190s goes through propeller arc
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Currently i dont see a sence to fly LW planes anymore(i almost only see Spit16´s and La7´s in the sky). Dogfighting is hopeless and Hit and Run i can play offline vs Ai´s in other games with a better graphic.
The X-wing like planes are not fun at all for me.
Kneg... expect to see more spit LF 16s, 109G-14s, and 109K-4s. These planes are pretty new and most people will fly fly them untill the novelty dies out...
btw, tired of dogfighting the same planes over and over again? If yes, get in 109F.:)
-
Hi,
again, i dont need to proof anything here!
This is a wishlist forum, i simply ask for a more balaced FM/DM´s, noone need to be Einstein to understand the relations of moving forces!
For whom i need to make the movies? Thats rubbish, what i write is well known and the physical law also is well know.
Everybody who is interested can read articles regarding the influece of the aspectratio to the induced drag, the influence of the dragload to the energybleed etc.
I think i realy dont need to make a movie to show how hopeless the D9 or P51D is, in relation to the La7.
And stop this BS talk regarding LW luftwhiners, i liked the 190 cause its a challenge to fly, not cause its a 190, in the same way i like the P51, P47 and 109G6(not G10,G14 or K4). But to fly a hopeless plane in almost all aspects is no fun, specialy when the results in war was so much different.
And what i dont want at all is to have better performing P51´s or 190´s, i wish me to have particular less good performing oponents(not more bad than this planes in general, it should be more balanced).
Anyway, read more about flightmechanic, i cant proof anything if you dont know the basics! Other people study some years to get knowledge of this and i guess HT also made many researches regarding this, i guess he will understand my request, although he may not agree(the "greyzone" of realism is pretty wide).
Greetings, Knegel
-
Ok I'll bite
Please show us a film were you get a kill at 800yard with
.50cal, the Hispano, the La guns and the MK108 seems to have heatseakers.
Kills on 0,8k are pretty easy, same like snapshoot kills without real aiming.
and not a film were you got killed at 800 yard (as we all know in this case lag got too much influence).
PS: I'll give you and hint : induced drag.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Ok I'll bite
Please show us a film were you get a kill at 800yard with
and not a film were you got killed at 800 yard (as we all know in this case lag got too much influence).
PS: I'll give you and hint : induced drag.
50cal...........lol so easy even noobs can do it.
Hispano......also very easy.
La guns......kinda easy.
MK108........now thats a callange.
-
Something I've always found to be terribly amusing here. Why is it everyone attempts to make direct comparisons using simple wingloading data and ignores airfoil profile and shape, aspect ratio, and a host of other factors that COMBINE to give the actual wing of an aircraft its characteristics?
Using a simple and crude formula of weight per square foot of wing area is so incomplete as to be totally useless. No wonder there are so many misconceptions and false assumptions. It is simply impossible to get an honest and direct comparison by simply dividing gross weight by the area of the wing.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
The Ta152H had a incredible wing aspectratio and was made to fly at very slow speed´s.
Greetings, Knegel
Umm wasnt the Ta152 made for high alt and high speed flight. Dont know why it would want to fly slow while trying to fight.
-
Originally posted by Larry
50cal...........lol so easy even noobs can do it.
Hispano......also very easy.
La guns......kinda easy.
MK108........now thats a callange.
where is your film ?
-
dont need one. even if i did im not ganan spend 15mins trying to upload a film.
-
I smell troll. Nobody is this dumb... right?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I smell troll.
-- Todd/Leviathn
No thats just straffo dont you know french people dont take baths.:lol
-
Exact we don't even have the word "bath" in our language.
-
Question - from an apparently 'Junior' Member...
In the field, how many planes actually managed to fly to spec? Is it not at all possible that 2 machines turned out from a hurried, and harried, manufacturing line, then maintained by crews of varying competence - might differ a little in performance?
-
Originally posted by Martyn
Question - from an apparently 'Junior' Member...
In the field, how many planes actually managed to fly to spec? Is it not at all possible that 2 machines turned out from a hurried, and harried, manufacturing line, then maintained by crews of varying competence - might differ a little in performance?
Certainly, for example the NC900 who was a end/post war fw190A5 or A8 made in France was crippled and performed pretty poorly.
-
Hi,
Originally posted by Larry
Umm wasnt the Ta152 made for high alt and high speed flight. Dont know why it would want to fly slow while trying to fight.
Spechialy at high alt the planes fly with very slow speed IAS! And IAS(indicated airspeed) is the speed where plane performences good below supersonic are related to.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Something I've always found to be terribly amusing here. Why is it everyone attempts to make direct comparisons using simple wingloading data and ignores airfoil profile and shape, aspect ratio, and a host of other factors that COMBINE to give the actual wing of an aircraft its characteristics?
Using a simple and crude formula of weight per square foot of wing area is so incomplete as to be totally useless. No wonder there are so many misconceptions and false assumptions. It is simply impossible to get an honest and direct comparison by simply dividing gross weight by the area of the wing.
Yep, thats it, thats why i use 25% or 50% fuel while comparisons and always talk about the aspectratio and dragload, next to the enginepower.
Straffo, are you kidding?? 800yard is nothing, you should try to set your convergence to max, with short convergence settings its realistic difficult(maybe the convergence settings should get limited to real used distances distances?).
With the MK108 its more difficult on this long distances, but if you shoot witha 190A8(2 x 30mm, 2 x 20mm), in 80% of all cases the 30mm will hit and bring down the enemy. The 30mm was the only reason to take the 109G6 over the 109G2, now the G6 with its much more bad performence can get deleted. The MK108, with its very poor Muzzvel, wasnt realy usable while a turnfight, it was a real 'bomber weapon'.
btw, here is your 800yard kill film(4 x .50cal P51B):
50cal_800yard_kill (http://www.raf-roy.com/share/knegel/Screenes/film3.ahf)
This is made offline with only 4 x 50cal, with very low speed (unstable gunplattform) and the target is turning a bit(online, when the the planes need to fly strait to keep energy, its much more easy, i can get kills on 1000+ and i often get killed on 1.5k displayed, lag included).
Here is a P47 1000+ kill:
50cal_800yard_kill (http://www.raf-roy.com/share/knegel/Screenes/film4.ahf)
This is was my 1st try, the P51B film was my 2nd try, i never did test this offline and rarely did try this with a so big deflection on this distances online, nice to know its possible. lol
Why the target always explode is a miracle anyway, AP amo should have problems to do this.
btw, the USAF gave the .50cal a max theoretical effective range of 900yard and a max practical effective range of 300yard.
Therefor the convergence setting of this guns was in general on 200-300yard.
To show the strange dragload setting of the La7 in AH you also can make deceleration tests. Use a 190D9, a 109K4 and a La7, accelerate at sea level to around 350mph, push X (autoleveler) and cut down the throttle to zero. Take a stopclock and count the time from 300mph to 200mph.
As result i get the K4 as fastest decelerating plane(around 17,5sec), then the 190D9 with around 18,5sec and then the La7 with around 19sec.
Looks like the 1000kg and the resulting inertia, which limit the climb of the 190´s so much, dont count while decelerating. The 109K had next to the more streamlined engine also a smaler wingarea, therfor i guess its drag wasnt more big than that of the La7, while it had more weight, so the faster deceleration looks strange too.
Ok ok, now you will call me Luftwhiner again, so we do the same with the P51D, and, what shal i say, the heavy lady with its so high praised semi laminar airfoil decelerate only a bit more slow than the 109K4.
So the plane with the by far smalest wingload, and since the wingload is a pretty good indicator for the dragload(next to the form of the engine, while a radial engine in general dont provide the best drag while gliding), the plane with probably the smalest dragload decelerate most slow, and this at speeds where the AoA particular show a minus value(gunsight below the horizon), so the wingload isnt a factor.
All the planes had 25% fuel while this test, now i took the 109G2 with 100% fuel, so it has around 50kg more weight than the La7, while the wingarea is more smal and for sure the drag too.
Deceleration of the G2 is around 16sec!! Btw, the K4 only have 50kg more weight, but decelerate much more slow, althought its drag should be pretty similar to the G2.
Anyway, iam sure all this is pretty well known(at least i know what i do if i create a FM/DM), thats why i think proofs are not needed and thats why i did offer a simple wish.
Greetings, Knegel
-
You think using the Lead computing Gun sight helped?
HiTech
-
btw, the Yak9T with 100% fuel (around 50kg more weight than the La7 25% fuel), smaler wings, similar aspectratio, more streamlined fuselage, decelerate with around 18sec!
-
Hi HT,
lead computing gun sight?? I did use 'X' to levelflight, always in 100ft alt.
This test is pretty easy to reproduce and after 5 times the same test with every plane i got a variation of +/-0,5sec.
A problem of course would be, if the gauges show a wrong measurement(different in the planes).
Greetings, Knegel
-
knegel,
What it means when the whole plane explodes like that is that you killed the pilot. Nothing more. That is the only thing that causes aircraft to explode like that in AH as the player that was sending the data for that aircraft's position is no longer there to send the data, the aircraft needs to be removed from the area. Having it explode is simply the fastest way to do that.
It has nothing to do with how powerful the ammo is.
-
Lead com.... Damit HT got in before me :furious
-
I just watched those films. In the P-51B you would never have that kind of time or a target that cooperated like that for you to kill it. You burned nearly all of your ammo and made yourself a sitting duck for a minute to kill a target at about 800 yards, the icons are not precise anymore.
In the P-47D-11 you blazed away, wontonly wasting ammo, against a stable target once again.
As a counter I just had Morpheus, one of the better pilots in AH, chase my Bf109G-14 in his Spit XVI for about three minutes from a range of 400 yards extending out to 800 yards and while he pinged me up at 400 yards he couldn't kill me until Stang made a fast pass at me and I was forced to do hard manuvers. I'd bet Morpheus was under 200 yards out when he killed me.
The Spit XVI is armed with both Hispanos and .50 cals.
-
Hi,
the kills in this films are made with a big deflection(for this distance) and a unstable gunplattform(low speed). If a P51 hunt a FW190D it for sure have the time to do this!
As i told i dont had any training with such a deflection and i didnt made many attempts. With more try´s i could make more films, where the enemy die, while i need much less time and amo!
In the MA, where one kill is enough per flight such a kill is good enough anyway. In H2H, where the planes often have much more amo, its even more easy to get such a kill.
When a 190A8 have a SpitIxc or a P47 on its tail, or a 190D have a P51 or La7 on its tail its a pretty bad idea to turn like mad to evade, cause then the high E-bleed fast make the enemy faster.
Online, where a enemy fly with less deflection and my plane is a stable gunplattform, such kills are more easy.
The P47 kill is 1000yard +, while the USAF gave the .50cal a max theoretical effective range of 900yard! While a B&Z, where the high plane, on the top of the move, have almost zero speed, 1000yard kills are far more easy.
The PK would explain the exploding plane, thanks, but not why a .50cal can damage the pilot plating on 1000yard!
But anyway, if you think that it was like this, ok, i dont think so.
Greeting, Knegel
-
wtf have you been smoking??? by 800-1000 yards the 50 cals effectiveness gets weak and it tickels the plane!
-----------------------
Some people are pointing out that 50 cals in AH2 got neutered. 50 cals cant kill acks while RAF/LW/VVS/IJN/IJA plane armed cannons only need shots to kill acks.
-
@Knegel : I didn't had the time to see your film.
According to the posts of those who see it it look like you prooved it's possible to kill at 800 yard.
It's certainly not new !
Offline I can kill the liberator at 1.2 with a Yak9T (I did it in the MA twice also,but you have to be very lucky)
Usually in the MA trying to have a kill a such distance is a good way to get killed.
In H2H, where the planes often have much more amo, its even more easy to get such a kill.
Well, it's not a normal setup don't you think ?
Originally posted by 1K3
Some people are pointing out that 50 cals in AH2 got neutered. 50 cals cant kill acks while RAF/LW/VVS/IJN/IJA plane armed cannons only need shots to kill acks.
Strange ,I've not trouble killing ack with .50 ...
PS : Knegel I expected a combat film
-
Given it was a deflection shot it probably went in the side and not through the pilot armor. Armor on fighters was very limited.
As to those films, you weren't going slow enough to be unstable. You were matching the drons which go 200-225mph as I recall, well into stable flight. Yes, it was a deflection shot, but it was a stable one against a target that allowed you to ping it up repeatedly without altering your aiming calculations.
I can do the same thing you show with .50 cals using MG151/20s or Ho-5s. The drones are easy kills.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
To show the strange dragload setting of the La7 in AH you also can make deceleration tests. Use a 190D9, a 109K4 and a La7, accelerate at sea level to around 350mph, push X (autoleveler) and cut down the throttle to zero. Take a stopclock and count the time from 300mph to 200mph.
As result i get the K4 as fastest decelerating plane(around 17,5sec), then the 190D9 with around 18,5sec and then the La7 with around 19sec.
Looks like the 1000kg and the resulting inertia, which limit the climb of the 190´s so much, dont count while decelerating. The 109K had next to the more streamlined engine also a smaler wingarea, therfor i guess its drag wasnt more big than that of the La7, while it had more weight, so the faster deceleration looks strange too.
I have some sympathy with this claim but admit to not knowiing how great the effect is upon the "trueness" of the model.
Timing deceleration in level flight presumably factors in both lift related drag as well as pure drag. Albeit that showing the time for a higher speed will increase the pure drag effect.
Would another test be to take the ac to 10k set the auto speed to 350 (or what ever the max is)then switch off the engine and time the descent between say 5000 and 0?
Then we have a high constant speed dive test that emphasises the effect of pure drag and minimises the effect of induced drag. The higher drag should hit the ground quickest .
Hence an La5FN should hit the ground quicker than an La7 (it has a poorer pure drag coefficient)
109's should all hit pretty much the same time as each other with the heavier and less slip streamed later models hitting just ahead of the earlier models.
Based upon Tsagi/VVS trials I have the La7 should hit the ground before the 109G2.
I have never noted any comment from HTC re how drag is modelled..............and indeed this might rightly be treated as a confidential matter by HTC.
knegel rightly states that there is a large grey area open for opinion about the RL actuality.
I struggle with understanding of Knegels ebleed arguements during manouvering..............main ly because I dont understand.
I look upon the balance as being
Kinetic Energy =thrust + (mass* accel) - total drag
In manouvre I believe total drag is predominently induced drag and this is a function of G incurred which as we know also carries a large mass*accel component along with some sort of efficiency factor for the wing profile.
Also in manouvre thrust is "out of plain" such that eventually the thrust vector is displaced and the total drag increased to a point where the manouver cannot be sustained.
We have curves/diagrams that show this. I would comment that most folk who test AH's curves in this respect with RL curves seem to think that AH models stuff very near to actuality........... better in fact that most other sims.
Of course there are no such RL curves for Yaks or Lavochkins! or at least I have never seen one.
What we do know about these ac is
Various max speeds, climb rates, sustained turn times at speeds/angles, roll rates, weights, wing loadings, wing profiles, generic dimensions, engine power and prop dimensions.
Even given all this I would expect a model to have to have some gaps filled in re drag and wing efficiencies................. . but then what do I know?
-
OK I ran the above test both at max and min rpm during an engine off dive with auto speed on at 350 IAS.....all tests had the speed stabalised from 5000 to the floor.
All ac were 100% fuel with no externals.
Times are from 5000 ft to Sea level
Max rpm (max engine brake)
La7=37, La5FN=34, 109K4=34, 109G6=31, 109G2=31
Min rpm (min engine brake)
La7=46, 190A5=43, La5FN=41, 109K4=41, Yak9U=39, 109G6=37, 109G2=37
IMO we can learn nothing imperical from this but we can see some interesting comparisons.
The La7 does have significantly less drag than the La5FN........as it should.
The 109K4 has less drag than the 109G2&6.
This does not seem right.
Infact if we consider the pure drag to be equal then its induced drag due to heavier weight should have penalised it. Yet it glided further during our constant speed dive test.
The La7 has significantly less drag than the 109K4 and a massive drag advantage over the 109 G2&6.
This does not seem right either.
The fully laden weight of the ac is not so different. Further we know that in a sustained (powered dive) a 109G4 could (once initial acceleration was overcome) out dive the La7. trials VVS 11 Oct 44 Chief Eng A. Repin ac # 45210203 prod batch july 44 plant 21 with Me 109 G4 Suggesting that the la7's pure drag hindered its acceleration in a dive beyond normal level speeds.
if AH were to model this then (by comparison) the 109's would have glided longer then the lavochkins.
I threw in the FW190 A5. I have no data on where this should be but would expect it to have also been worse than the 109's where infact it seems to glide for longer even though again its heavier. Compared to the Lavochkins it is not as drag free as the La7 (which I would expect) but has lower drag than the La5FN which I suppose is possible.
The potential misnomer is that it is impossible to totally eliminate AH's engine braking in these tests.
-
Hi Tilt,
you forget that the factor is dragload not drag!!!
The dragload determine the sincrate and deceleration without power!!
The K4 simply reach the ground faster cause its more heavy, thast ok!
But why the La7, with its smal aspectratio, is so much better than the 109G2(same wingload, but better aspectratio) is a miracle to me.
The test you made is a high AOA test, the test i made was a smal AoA test. In both cases the La7 is the best plane and thats a bit strange.
The La7 is the 'Eier legende Wollmilchsau'( oviparous woolmilksow).
I can imagine that its drag at highspeed was smal, although it has a radialegine, cause a smal aspectratio wing is better able to shift away the airmasses, but since the 109K4 and La7 had a pretty similar Vmax with very similar power the drag of both planes at highspeed should be relative similar.
Therfor the more heavy plane should decrelerate more slow out of highspeed.
While flying with AoA´s and so for the indieced drag, the aspectratio, is a most important factor.
Greetings, Knegel
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Hi Tilt,
you forget that the factor is dragload not drag!!!
The dragload determine the sincrate and deceleration without power!!
The K4 simply reach the ground faster cause its more heavy, thast ok!
The K4 did not reach the ground faster than the G2, G6............thats what seemed wrong............. it is heavier than the G2&6, it would be "dirtier" than the G2 & G6 (just a little) hence both induced drag and pure drag would be higher yet it glided longer.
If we were to assume that the trial time for the K4 was correct then the G2 & G6 times should be longer than the K4 and closer to the Lavochkins.
Equally the 190 A5 is both heavier and (one would think) less drag efficient than the 109G2&6 (Its aspect ratio is the worst of all those tested). Yet we see here that indeed it glides further than the 109's!. Comparing it with the Lavochkins one would say that it seems "in the ball park".
the key aspect of the dive trial is the constant high speed inducing a higher pure drag for the trial period. I realise that induced drag is still present........... that due to this the weight becomes a factor.
My main concern over the validity of the trial is the engine breaking component.................... .
Looking at the marked difference in glide times between full and minimum rpm it seems to me that AH engine braking is a very significant factor in the engine off drag model.
Minimum RPM is by no means as low as 50% rpm at these speeds and even if the "engine braking effect:rpm" is not linear I think its creating a significant component (rather than a minor error) which is messing up the data.
Given this another test would be a full throttle dive test at say 400 IAS at min rpm. Its a pain because you have to climb to 20 k just to get the 400IAS stabalised by 5K.....and the time to impact is so short that the differences are not so stark. However it would take the engine braking out of the equation for the purposes of comparison.
-
(http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/lav109.jpg)
We can see that whilst the overall dimensions are very similar the La7 has
a greater frontal fuselage area
a greater area of wing at the wing root joint.
a greater depth of fuselage (not shown)
a greater area of tail and elevator surfaces.
Its depth of wing is on a par with the 109 (in fact the La7 has a thinner wing than the Spitfire!)
What we do know is that the La7 had very low drag thru panel joints etc.
The bulk of the fuselage and wing surfaces were varnished smooth and the engine cowl shape and joints were sealed and smooth. Its lines were much cleaner than the 109.
This would explain why an La7 could be considered the most (pure) drag free radial engined fighter of its time.
It does not mean it would be lower in drag than a 109G.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Given this another test would be a full throttle dive test at say 400 IAS at min rpm. Its a pain because you have to climb to 20 k just to get the 400IAS stabalised by 5K.....and the time to impact is so short that the differences are not so stark.
Dumb idea............ guess I need to get the prop shot off to do any meaningfull test.:(
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Why the target always explode is a miracle anyway, AP amo should have problems to do this.
Did you ever notice that the offline drones dont quite act like the ingame player controlled planes?
-
Hi Tilt,
you be right, i made a reading error!!
The aspectratio you can calculate rather exact by this formula:
(wingspan x wingspan) / wingarea
La7 = 5,5
Yak9=5,6
Me109E = 6
Me109F/G/K = 6,1
FW190A/D= 6
Ta152H = 8,8
P38 = 8,2
Spit= 5,6
Hurri= 6,5
P51=5,9
P47= 5,2
The aspectratio is a good idicator for the atltitude where the airframe is made for. To give a smal acpectratio plane a good high alt performence it need a extreme good engine or a very smal wingload. To make a high aspectratio plane to a good low altitude fighter it need a high wingload or good engines(the three different wingtips of the Spitfire follow the same logic, same like the 'panning' wings of modern jets).
As your picture show, the 109 had a much smaler fuselage, a smaler tailwing/vert stab and a smaler wing, therfor i guess it dont had a more big drag(at very highspeed, this could change due to the higher aspectratio).
The same time for the G6 and G2 also looks strange, could that be a measurement mistake??
Greetings, Knegel
-
Originally posted by Knegel
The aspectratio is a good idicator for the atltitude where the airframe is made for. To give a smal acpectratio plane a good high alt performence it need a extreme good engine or a very smal wingload. To make a high aspectratio plane to a good low altitude fighter it need a high wingload or good engines(the three different wingtips of the Spitfire follow the same logic, same like the 'panning' wings of modern jets).
You confused aspect ratio with wetted aspect ratio IMO.
PS : what do you think of the aspect ratio of a glider ?
Is it really to make the wing efficient at high altitude ?
PS : high aspect ration usualy mean lower roll rate nothing more.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
The aspectratio you can calculate rather exact by this formula:
(wingspan x wingspan) / wingarea
La7 = 5,5
According to this formula the aspect ratio you use would be the same for the La5FN as the La7.
Yet we know that pure drag was substantially decreased between the two ac just by attention to a detailed air flow analysis around and under the fuselage during the development of the La7.
This coupled with a 3% reduction in weight and a more efficient prop are the only performance related differences between the two ac yet the performance differences were significant.
I think there is more to pure drag than just aspect ratio...................
Thinking on this further the accel of the La7 and La5FN should be nearly the same at low speeds the La7 superior at high speeds. Which would explain why the climb rates and sustained (slow) turn rates of the two ac are nearly identical whilst the max speeds were significantly different.
-
I was unable to detect the LCG in the film. Is this something that you can detect from the guts of the film or is it related to setting on my computer or a graphic limitation.
Being in the TA quite often I am familiar with enableing it and what it looks like.
It would be nice to be able to see it in a film, IMO.
-
Hi,
straffo, a glider is made to fly most effective with slow IAS, the aiframe of a glider would work pretty good for high altitude!
The wing aspectratio is the most important factor in calculating the wing effectivity, if the Airfoils are similar and we assume a similar surface quality.
The aspectratio influece a 'bit' more than the roll rate, or do you think the cunstructors all was stupid?? They all would have used a smal aspectratio if it dont would influece more and gliders also would have a smal aspectratio.
Tilt, as the formula show, i talk about the wing aspectratio and particular to its influece to the drag, not about the drag in general. That the airframe of the la7 got more streamlined dont change the fact that the smal aspect ratio wing of both La´s have the tendency to produce less drag at highspeed than a same sized wing with a more big aspect ratio and the other way around at slow speed IAS(more big aoa).
I agree to your La7/5 assumptions, only that the la5 wasnt allowed to climb with WEP(overheating in a few sec) and that the WEP was a real short time WEP to disengage, while the La7 could use it up to 10min.
Therfor the La5 i would count as a 1650HP plane, while the La7 is more a 1850HP plane(same like the 109G2 is more a 1310/1400@2000m plane, while the late 109G6 was more a 1475/1520@2000m plane.
fuzeman, what is LCG??
Greetings,
-
Originally posted by Knegel
I agree to your La7/5 assumptions, only that the la5 wasnt allowed to climb with WEP(overheating in a few sec) and that the WEP was a real short time WEP to disengage, while the La7 could use it up to 10min.
Therfor the La5 i would count as a 1650HP plane, while the La7 is more a 1850HP plane(same like the 109G2 is more a 1310/1400@2000m plane, while the late 109G6 was more a 1475/1520@2000m plane.
ehh which La-5?;) There's the La-5, La-5F, and La-5FN. The first 2 la-5s faced problems mentioned above. they were too heavy and the engine did not allow full power use. I think the arrival of Shvetsov M-82FN radial For La-5FN changed all that.
PS La-7s used the M-82FN too :)
-
Originally posted by Knegel
I agree to your La7/5 assumptions, only that the la5 wasnt allowed to climb with WEP(overheating in a few sec) and that the WEP was a real short time WEP to disengage, while the La7 could use it up to 10min.
Therfor the La5 i would count as a 1650HP plane, while the La7 is more a 1850HP plane(same like the 109G2 is more a 1310/1400@2000m plane, while the late 109G6 was more a 1475/1520@2000m plane.
Well the performance figure re turn and climb are nearly the same for both ac when WEP is not engaged.
I have checked the acceleration rates of the AH la5FN and La7 (no WEP)and compared to each other they behave as we would expect.
Actually AH models WEP duration on the La5FN the same as the La7. (or seems to)
The closer cowl of the La7 did cause air to flow more efficiently around the cylinder heads than on the slightly more bulbous La5 cowl.
Czech pilots flying La5FN's did coment that engine temperature management was a permanent concern. Claiming 2 minutes WEP was the max.
German La5FN trials indicated that engine temperature rapidly rose too high climbing under WEP.
One set of Russian curves I have dont show any WEP max speeds for the La5FN whilst showing them (and their duration) for the La5F and the La7.
Unfortunately hard data on the la5FN is (other than the german trials) is rare.
In Conclusion
I think it is difficult for HTC to get FM's spot on in all respects when there is such greyness around a lot of the data concerned. The priority would seem to get the comparable ac to ac performance as correct as possible.
It would seem to me that the comparable AH sustained dive rates of some ac do not hold true to the historical reference or even indeed to what we would expect.
Its difficult to test this.
The effect of this on combat would be the ability to run away and the effects of throttle control (at high speed) on deceleration.
I have argued above how drag free the La7 was compared to other radials but there are some La7 wing aspects that have always interseted me and yet I am always advised it is of no consequence.
1) The la7 wing is triangular in shape (much more so than other comparable AH ac). There is a chart somewhere that shows the lift pattern across such a wing. How does this effect how we consider wing loading and aspect ratios compared to a rectangular wing?
2)The triangular wing has a long root surface with the fuselage. A large proportion of the wing is subject to propwash. A large portion of the wing root is behind the engine cowl due to the fuselage taper. How would this effect drag in this area compared to a rectangular wing of similar length and surface area?
3)The distance between the C of G and the tail section is shorter than nearly every other ac modelled in AH. The horizontal tail section area is corresepondingly much greater that other comparable ac. The elevator areas are significantly larger than other ac (of similar size). If this must be larger does it have effects upon pure and induced drag? Would this component be more significant in straight line flight? would it be removed in turn?
-
Hi,
IK3, as tilt wrote, one major different between the La5FN and La7 was a better cooling for the engine. Thats the major different between this two planes. The La5 and La5F had even less power than the La5FN(actually still pretty much!).
Iam pretty sure, the La5/7 series was very very good fighters, i only cant believe that it was able to turn circles around the enemy planes like it is currently in AH. Imo a bit more E-Bleed would be more credible and it would be good for the gameplay.
Tilt, the Yak9 had a very similar wingshape, aspectratio and size like the la5/7 but it perform total different.
But its realy more easy to compare similar airframes, and as your test did show the K4 act strange in relation to the 109G´s, but it need to act strange , otherwise it would be a absolute sitting duck vs other late war planes.
Anyway, this lead far to much into details, this isnt the vehicle forum, its a simple wish in the wishlist forum, based on well known and often complained strange behaviours of guns and planes!
Not that someone got me wrong, imho most AH planes and guns show a very good playable and also credible relation!
Greetings, Knegel