Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Uriel on August 11, 2007, 03:26:30 AM
-
no replies needed read it yourself:
Republic P-47D-35-RA Vital Statistics
Type: Single seat fighter/bomber
Power Plant: one 2,535-hp (wet rating) Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59W Double Wasp radial piston engine
Performance
Maximum Speed (clean)
363 mph (584km/h) at 5,000 ft
433 mph (697km/h) at 30,000 ft
Initial Climb:
3,200 ft (976m) per minute
Service Ceiling: 41,000 ft (12495m)
Range: (Max external fuel, three drop tanks) 1,800 miles (2897 km) at 195 (314 km/h) at 10,000 ft (3050m)
Weights:
Empty: 9,950 lb (4513 kg)
Loaded Max Takeoff): 17,500 lb (7,938 kg)
Dimensions
Span: 40 ft 9 in (12.42m)
Length: 36 ft 2 in (11.02m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47m)
Wing Area: 300 sq. ft (27.87m2)
Armament
8 X 0.5 (12.7mm) machine guns
Bomb Load: 2500 lb (1134 kg) including bombs and up to 8 rockets
source is: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-47.html
-
....Your point being???
-
everyone kept asking for the charts here they are boys.
this place has real WW2 training video's and combat charts
read it and weep suckers
the P47 is handi-capped in the game
-
You have also just provided proof that you are, as we all thought, a cretin.
-
You do of course realize that the 109's Climb rate is ~4,000 FPM with WEP?
And 3500-3800 depending on fuel load on Military Power?
(K4 Model)
-
In what way does that remotely qualify as proof?
Try getting some primary documents to back up your argument.
You do know what "primary documents" are, correct?
-
I dont know where to start with your post.
You didn't spell "handicaped" right
HiTech has personally answered your challenges in your previous thread.
Widewing and others have tried to show you that being the biggest motor in the game doesn't mean you'll win everytime.
The points you keep missing...
1) Average fights in AH are well under 10k. The ideal alt for the P-47 is way up high.
2) The P-47 may have a big motor, it also weighs a lot! You continue to miss the fact that the German planes are vastly lighter and ideal down low.
3) Your sources, such as the History Channel cited before, is not the one-stop know it all of P-47 info.
You seem skewed and determined to make the P-47 the "F-16" of WW2. It wasn't. It has its strengths and weaknesses, like any aircraft.
You seem to be stuck at one point in its performance rather than analyzing the complete package.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
In what way does that remotely qualify as proof?
Try getting some primary documents to back up your argument.
You do know what "primary documents" are, correct?
ah see what I mean? pure denial.. this is a 35 not even a D-40 no paddle prop yet but a jug loaded with 8 50's does not go 363 at 5k in this game.. not without diving.. anyways I have done my duty.. here are real charts and real training videos declassified... you pay for them
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I dont know where to start with your post.
You didn't spell "handicaped" right
HiTech has personally answered your challenges in your previous thread.
Widewing and others have tried to show you that being the biggest motor in the game doesn't mean you'll win everytime.
The points you keep missing...
1) Average fights in AH are well under 10k. The ideal alt for the P-47 is way up high.
2) The P-47 may have a big motor, it also weighs a lot! You continue to miss the fact that the German planes are vastly lighter and ideal down low.
3) Your sources, such as the History Channel cited before, is not the one-stop know it all of P-47 info.
You seem skewed and determined to make the P-47 the "F-16" of WW2. It wasn't. It has its strengths and weaknesses, like any aircraft.
You seem to be stuck at one point in its performance rather than analyzing the complete package.
how about rated speed? and climb.. try taking a jug up with full fuel with 8 50's and reach 3200 feet per minute I dare you.. I fly them all the time I know what they can do.. as fur a spllin tihs si no shcool gruond
-
Alright fine, here's your Emperical Bloody Evidence Uriel.
I just went Offline, Grabbed a D-40, put in on 25% fuel load took off no flaps full WEP. Took a SS once the climb rate stabilized. Here it is.
(http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/970/jugqy6.jpg)
Here's a 109 K4, same deal.
(http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/4131/109cw7.jpg)
-
Uriel,
Show evidence that it should do 363mph at 5000ft.
You have not done that at all.
You must use primary documentation to do so.
EDIT:
Here are some graphs from Mosquito oriented primary documents:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/MosquitoVI.JPG)
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/Mosquito6.jpg)
This page has lots and lots of primary documentation for many different WWII aircraft on it:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
Read through some of them.
-
But then, Uriel would understand something about being handy-capped.
I mean, really.
Fargin troll.
-
Guys, why are we all still bothering here with our endevors to have a logical discussion? This guy obviously has his oppinions and will not even hear what y'all are saying. Everyone just relax and let him keep dreaming of his super jug, HT already said its modelled as it was so why keep feeding the fire?
:D
-
Originally posted by Hoffman
Alright fine, here's your Emperical Bloody Evidence Uriel.
I just went Offline, Grabbed a D-40, put in on 25% fuel load took off no flaps full WEP. Took a SS once the climb rate stabilized. Here it is.
(http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/970/jugqy6.jpg)
Here's a 109 K4, same deal.
(http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/4131/109cw7.jpg)
see thats 25 percent fuel.. not performing like chart above anyways.. I think some of you guys will like that site.. its got really great authentic stuff if nothing else comes of this enjoy, but Im officially done making my point
-
Well I'm out. You can't cure stupid.
-
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47TOCL.gif
more charts for fun
-
You didn't make a point.
You seem very young and lacking in education regarding valid sources for highly specific things. You will be taught this as you go through school though.
Websites are not highly regarded sources unless they can provide sourcing data. There are a great many sites out there that have supposed performance numbers on them for this or that aircraft. BUt without sourcing we have no way to know if they site's author didn't just make them up.
Another example is the danger of taking first hand accounts as gospel. I have talked (via the internet) to some Mossie pilots who claimed it would do better than 370mph on the deck. I also have comments from De Haviliand that the Mosquito's airspeed indicator sometimes read about 20mph faster than the aircraft was going.
Now, do you think the odd Mossie was about 20mph faster than the normal ones or do you think the pilots were reading 370mph while really doing about 350?
-
Originally posted by Uriel
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47TOCL.gif
more charts for fun
Interesting, but it doesn't have anything to do with your claims. The climb data on it peaks at 2300ft/min. The rest has to do with runway lengths and conditions.
And FYI, LePaul is one of the biggest P-47 fans in AH. He isn't knocking it at all.
-
Originally posted by Uriel
see thats 25 percent fuel.. not performing like chart above anyways.. I think some of you guys will like that site.. its got really great authentic stuff if nothing else comes of this enjoy, but Im officially done making my point
Where did you find the load-out / weight for those numbers provided at Zeno's? Can't see it in your above quotation.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
You didn't make a point.
You seem very young and lacking in education regarding valid sources for highly specific things. You will be taught this as you go through school though.
Websites are not highly regarded sources unless they can provide sourcing data. There are a great many sites out there that have supposed performance numbers on them for this or that aircraft. BUt without sourcing we have no way to know if they site's author didn't just make them up.
Another example is the danger of taking first hand accounts as gospel. I have talked (via the internet) to some Mossie pilots who claimed it would do better than 370mph on the deck. I also have comments from De Haviliand that the Mosquito's airspeed indicator sometimes read about 20mph faster than the aircraft was going.
Now, do you think the odd Mossie was about 20mph faster than the normal ones or do you think the pilots were reading 370mph while really doing about 350?
wow dude.. Im done. For your info Im 28, a home owner, a veteran, and scored much higher than the norm on the ASVAB.
I don't just go by military spec charts because they show the operational "safety limit", as anyone who has opened a EOSS manual would know. Yes I take into acounts historic battles and kill ratio, as they must reflect the performance of the aircraft to some degree. You people are dense- good night.
-
Boy your proffessors are gonna have fun with you in college.
Your documentation sucks.
You're using a .COM[/i][/u] website for 'factual' information.
You know... I was really tempted to put something mean in here the moment I saw 28 and ASVAB. Then decided not to... then saw the part where you called me dense.
I shall now contentedly go to bed secure in the knowledge that some PFC knows basic math. Because with an attitude like that you sure as hell didn't get a higher rank than that. Especially if you have to invoke ASVAB on an internet board.
-
ARMY AIR FORCES
PROVING GROUND COMMAND
Eglin Field, Florida
TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-47C-1 TYPE AIRCRAFT
18 December 1942
Conclusions
a. The P-47C-1 is the best high altitude fighter aircraft now in production with regard to high speed, stability, pilot comfort, height and armament.
b. The rate of climb is not as good as desired, which fact limits its suitability as a medium altitude fighter and as an interceptor.
c. All weight in the structure and accessories not vital to operational use should be eliminated.
d. The aircraft is pleasant and easy to fly. New pilots should have no trouble being checked out in it.
e. The rate of aileron roll is the best found in any type of American fighter.
f. The view over the nose is not great enough to allow desired deflection shooting.
g. The demand type oxygen installation is satisfactory, but the service type mask with this installation is bulky, heavy, cumbersome and irritating to the pilot.
h. It is dangerous to attempt to take-off with mixture control in full rich position.
i. In a glide with engine idling, engine tends to load up and difficulty is encountered starting up engine again.
j. The hook-up of the throttle, R.P.M., and turbo control handles to operate as one if desired is very satisfactory.
k. With the present ceiling now obtainable with this aircraft, and the added height with new modifications, experiments should be pushed to perfect a pressurized cockpit on this type plane now.
Source (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html)
-
Doesn't one of the p47 D models in AH do about 360 at 5k? Guessing the d-40. 5mph is within variations you would expect from different machines anyway.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
And FYI, LePaul is one of the biggest P-47 fans in AH. He isn't knocking it at all.
I love my single-engined Lancaster! Its my personal favorite for GV plinking.
I don't think Im quite the biggest fan, but I do like its payload and ability to survive the LTARs :) (I'm usually in a P-38J, P-51B, Ar234 or Juggy)
-
wow dude.. Im done. For your info Im 28, a home owner, a veteran, and scored much higher than the norm on the ASVAB.
Then how do you explain your utter lack of understanding and comprehension concerning what these gentlemen are trying to tell you? Why can't you understand what 'primary documentation' means? Or what it means to 'prove' something in these boards?
...
At this point, I'm kinda confused as to whether continue with the insults against you or not, because now, I'm actually becoming worried that I might be talking to a mentally-challenged person. I wouldn't want to ridicule someone who can't comprehend things the way a normal person does. Making fun of retards is plain bad form.
-
(http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z21/wmlute/JugsRGud.jpg)
Whelp... that seals it.
It's on a website, so it MUST be true.
We have been overmatched.
Time to throw in the towel gents.
-
Originally posted by Uriel
see thats 25 percent fuel.. not performing like chart above anyways.. I think some of you guys will like that site.. its got really great authentic stuff if nothing else comes of this enjoy, but Im officially done making my point
Welcome to 1997! The 100s or maybe 1000s of AH players that have been flying this type of sim as early as 1987 might have missed this site in the decade its been around :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Welcome to 1997! The 100s or maybe 1000s of AH players that have been flying this type of sim as early as 1987 might have missed this site in the decade its been around :rolleyes:
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Hoffman
Boy your proffessors are gonna have fun with you in college.
Your documentation sucks.
You're using a .COM[/i][/u] website for 'factual' information.
You know... I was really tempted to put something mean in here the moment I saw 28 and ASVAB. Then decided not to... then saw the part where you called me dense.
I shall now contentedly go to bed secure in the knowledge that some PFC knows basic math. Because with an attitude like that you sure as hell didn't get a higher rank than that. Especially if you have to invoke ASVAB on an internet board.
A PFC is a Marine, and a Marine would never make this much of a mistake. Uriel has already let us know he is a Navy Swabby, and well.. you've seen the results of the lack of booze, and women on those long 6 month deployments....
He once saw a ship go faster than Janes said it would... WOW.. this is classified as TOP SECRET by the government... Also he cannot confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on his ship.
I think this one spent too much time in the paint locker of that ship he was on. Boatswains mate???
Balsy
-
I mean, if we are talking numbers ... Pffft .... P-47 ... the HellCat pwns the Jug !!!
"Navy and Marine F6Fs flew 66,530 combat sorties (45% of all fighter sorties of the war, 62,386 sorties were flown from aircraft carriers) and destroyed 5,163 enemy aircraft (56% of all Naval/Marine air victories of the war) at a cost of 270 Hellcats (an overall kill-to-loss ratio of 19:1).
The aircraft performed well against the best Japanese opponents with a 13:1 kill ratio against Mitsubishi A6M, 9.5:1 against Nakajima Ki-84, 28:0 against Kawanishi N1K-J, and 3.7:1 against Mitsubishi J2M during the last year of the war.
In the ground attack role, Hellcats dropped 6,503 tons of bombs.
The F6F became the prime ace-maker aircraft in the American inventory, with 306 Hellcat aces."
After all ... with those types of numbers, the F6F HAS GOT to be a better plane than the P-47 ... right ?
-
The hellcat is undermodelled.
I was in the MA a while back and i got killed by a zero.
I was watching the dogfights show, and they said how the hellcat pwns the zero. There's definitely something wrong with the hellcat in the game.
It's blue and has a tailhook, and it even carries big bombs so there's no way that the zero should have killed me.
If you don't believe me go watch the dogfights. Ha suckers, i just proved that the l33t info is out there so don't bother trying to re-buttle me.
....And profalactically speaking, i was once on an airplane with 2 propellers, so i know how a flight model works.
-
As big as the Jug was..didnt the f6F have an even larger wingspan?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
As big as the Jug was..didnt the f6F have an even larger wingspan?
Wingspan ... 42 ft 10 in
-
While I do believe that the P-47 (and most American aircraft in Aces High II) are handicapped in that they are running at some of the lowest ratings they ran at in reality, you make very bad arguments. First, the P-47 was not the most-produced fighter of all time; that would be the Messershmitt Me-109. The Republic P-47 was only the highest-produced American fighter of all time. Second, the flight model seems to be accurate, given the model and rating it's supposed to model. The problem lies in almost nobody knowing what ratings were actually used for each aircraft. Hitech (and most other simulator developer) has gone with the power ratings given in the pilot manuals for each ship. Again, those ratings were, unfortunately, some of the lowest ratings that the actual birds ran at. The later, higher ratings never made it into the manual; instead, they were sent to individual units via memorandums. It was official; you can find the documents at Mike Williams' excellent site, Wwiiaircraftperformance.com, which was already linked.
Also, people are right when they say that History Channel cannot be trusted. It is entertainment, and statements made on History Channel have been proven false many times. Television is not a good source of information, and Internet sites aren't much better. Books, while far from infallible, at least require a great deal of effort to write and get published, and authors' credentials can be checked.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
As big as the Jug was..didnt the f6F have an even larger wingspan?
Yes.
Uriel, I don't feel bad for you. You've acted like a teenager in the aspect that WE "should somehow dispel your moronic claims of P-47 elitism where it is not granted". You made the moronic claims and provided one old link that didn't handle your discussion, in the 2 days. You brought it on yourself. Problem is, you're the dense one but it hasn't hit you yet.
The TWO threads you've started over this prove your "denseness".
-
Uriel try this i want you and mrdur to go into a h2h arena and then go to 109 best perdormance alt the go to p47 best performence alt yes the 109 has a lower performance alt but that is the disadvantage 109 were for intercept or escort not dogfighting the cannnon was for riping apart bombers not dogfighting
therfor you do that you'll see
-
Originally posted by Uriel
ah see what I mean? pure denial.. this is a 35 not even a D-40 no paddle prop yet but a jug loaded with 8 50's does not go 363 at 5k in this game.. not without diving.. anyways I have done my duty.. here are real charts and real training videos declassified... you pay for them
Every P-47 beginning with the D-22 was fitted with paddle-blade props at the factory. Virtually every previous model back to the D-5 was fitted with paddle type props in the field.
HTC has modeled the P-47s very accurately to existing test data. Here's an example.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/comp-p47dmn.jpg)
This next chart shows climb for a D-10 fitted with various props.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47d-75035-fig2.jpg)
Examine this chart and you will see that nowhere is 363 mph seen at 5,000 feet.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg)
Your problem is that you lack any primary source documentation and pluck your numbers from website sources that offer no substantiating documentation.
Here's HTC's speed and climb charts for the P-47D-40 with max internal fuel and full internal ammunition...
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/p47d40spd.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/p47d40clmb.gif)
I think you need to be less obtuse and strident in your argument, and find reliable test data, rather than rant like spoiled school girl.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by WMLute
(http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z21/wmlute/JugsRGud.jpg)
As signs go, I kinda like this one...
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/Parking.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Yet another WideWing pwnage !!!
:aok
-
Widewing on the propeller chart, which one represents the 'paddle' prop, and did anyone notice the charts show the "N" with a greater climb rate than the "D"? In AH, N falls behind D40 in climb rate with similar loads about 20% across the board
-
It does no good to get into arguments over things that are trivial in nature. Because in the long run it is not going to change anything anyway. The "JUG" is a great aircraft, but like all the aircraft in this game it is misrepresented in a big way. Take for instance, look at all of the material concerning the Typhoon, and everyone will see it was the biggest joke plane of World War 2. But in the game it is "Super Plane".
Another concern would the how the armament rating is set in this game. As all true veterans will tell you, the API ( that is Armor Piercing Incendiary for you non-military types) for the .50 Caliber Machine Guns, will literally burst a plane into flames after a quick hit from these rounds. And yes they were used in WW2 and a lot of the old warstock from that war is still being used today in the desert theaters.
-
ssDruid, see Forum Rule 17.
-
[offtopic] The Typhoon was pressed into service long before it was finished, that's why it gained the bad reputation. The one we have in game is Typhoon IB, which doesn't have the engine and tail troubles the Typhoons first suffered from. [/offtopic]
-
Originally posted by ssDruid
It does no good to get into arguments over things that are trivial in nature. Because in the long run it is not going to change anything anyway. The "JUG" is a great aircraft, but like all the aircraft in this game it is misrepresented in a big way. Take for instance, look at all of the material concerning the Typhoon, and everyone will see it was the biggest joke plane of World War 2. But in the game it is "Super Plane".
Another concern would the how the armament rating is set in this game. As all true veterans will tell you, the API ( that is Armor Piercing Incendiary for you non-military types) for the .50 Caliber Machine Guns, will literally burst a plane into flames after a quick hit from these rounds. And yes they were used in WW2 and a lot of the old warstock from that war is still being used today in the desert theaters.
I never ran into a Typhoon 1 v 1 that I couldn't slap the crap out of in less than 3 turns ... so I would hardly consider it a "Super Plane". It is a favorite of the "HO and RUN" mindset and the "Pickers" tho.
I don't believe that the .50 cals that we have in the game have API rounds modeled. The API rounds would only cause a plane to burst into fire if they hit something flammable ... I would think.
-
Yes you are correct on the fact that the API would only cause certain items to catch on fire. Wait a minute, most planes in WW2 were made out of Depleted Uranium and it would take an Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot with Tracer (APFSDS-T) to knock out of the sky. The 50 cal is underrated in this game. It has a tracer burn out of 1800 meters. Okay lets see that is 1.8K on game visual range. Unless you have actually been behind the triggers of a real .50 cal then you can't possibly know what it's true capabilities are.
A real M1A1 Abrams Tank Master Gunner is what I am. If you do not know what that means look it up and learn.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
The API rounds would only cause a plane to burst into fire if they hit something flammable ... I would think.
Ohh no these are +5 api rounds, right ssDruid?
:D
Bronk
-
Originally posted by ssDruid
Yes you are correct on the fact that the API would only cause certain items to catch on fire. Wait a minute, most planes in WW2 were made out of Depleted Uranium and it would take an Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot with Tracer (APFSDS-T) to knock out of the sky. The 50 cal is underrated in this game. It has a tracer burn out of 1800 meters. Okay lets see that is 1.8K on game visual range. Unless you have actually been behind the triggers of a real .50 cal then you can't possibly know what it's true capabilities are.
A real M1A1 Abrams Tank Master Gunner is what I am. If you do not know what that means look it up and learn.
.50 cals work fine for me ... I have no problem ripping wings off at D600 and under and no problem taking parts off at D800. The frustrating part for most who use .50 cals in this game is that they really don't know how to use them ... they have a "cannon" mentality and that doens't work for .50 cals.
I salute your service for this country, but your condecending attitude and smugness don't suit you well ("look it up and learn").
Yeah your ... "A real M1A1 Abrams Tank Master Gunner" ... that and a nickel won't get you a cup of coffee in my shop with that attitude.
Also, when addressing someone you have no clue about ... don't assume that they know less than you or have not had similar experiences as you.
-
Originally posted by ssDruid
Yes you are correct on the fact that the API would only cause certain items to catch on fire. Wait a minute, most planes in WW2 were made out of Depleted Uranium and it would take an Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot with Tracer (APFSDS-T) to knock out of the sky. The 50 cal is underrated in this game. It has a tracer burn out of 1800 meters. Okay lets see that is 1.8K on game visual range. Unless you have actually been behind the triggers of a real .50 cal then you can't possibly know what it's true capabilities are.
A real M1A1 Abrams Tank Master Gunner is what I am. If you do not know what that means look it up and learn.
Why can I repeatedly without fail, saw a wing off in about 2 seconds, in a Spit 1? The problem isn't the ammo, it's the person pulling the trigger.
You can stop with your "Civilian's don't know watermelon Campaign" from the other night in LW Blue.
-
Originally posted by ssDruid
Another concern would the how the armament rating is set in this game. As all true veterans will tell you, the API ( that is Armor Piercing Incendiary for you non-military types) for the .50 Caliber Machine Guns, will literally burst a plane into flames after a quick hit from these rounds. And yes they were used in WW2 and a lot of the old warstock from that war is still being used today in the desert theaters.
I recall several discussions of how the ammunition is modeled in AH. Individual rounds are not modeled, rather their lethality is averaged over what a typical belt would carry. Which is to say, if a typical belt used only 20% API rounds, then the lethality reflects that mix. This may be why it seems "underpowered" to you if in your experience you typically see .50s shooting off nothing but API rounds.
-
Go to Al Khalidyah, Iraq and ask them about the 50 cal. And yes it can saw wings off in this game. But it is still not represented correctly. The ammo has more punch and knock down power than is displayed. Enough said on this matter. I am more than willing to loan my 50 cal ammunition firing tables to anyone who would like to see them.
-
I think you are having convergence issues.
-
Give me a break. Convergence is set upon mission/ flight requirments. Higher convergence for longer engagements and lower convergence for furballs.
How many rounds of API does it take to kill a BRDM/ Truck? That would be three to ten. And it has armor on it.
The are no issues. Things need to be fixed to truly make this game the best featured item on the web. In the late war arenas there should be more vehicles types at the disposal of ground runners. Where are the late model Tiger 1s, Panther A, D, G; King Tiger Aus A and B and etc. If information is needed on these I am right down the road from HTC and would be more than willing to supply the best material references to make this game a true winner.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Widewing on the propeller chart, which one represents the 'paddle' prop, and did anyone notice the charts show the "N" with a greater climb rate than the "D"? In AH, N falls behind D40 in climb rate with similar loads about 20% across the board
The Curtiss 714 is the standard narrow chord "toothpick" prop. The 836 is the Curtiss wide chord "paddle" type. The H&S 6507A-2 is also a wide chord prop.
You can read a NACA test of the H&S prop tested on a YP-47M here. (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030065899_2003072770.pdf)
As to the climb of the P-47N, the report shows WEP being used. Without WEP, the N will fall behind the D model (in MIL power), because they have the same HP, but the N is heavier.
My regards,
Widewing
-
druid the 50 cals are easily the best guns in the game if you know how and when to shoot. i'd much rather have 6 or 8 50's than 4 hispanos.
at or around convergence distance, in a good tracking shot, a 1/4-1/2 second burst usually rips both wings and the tail off for me, they're deadly, you just need to learn how to use them. they aren't that great as single rounds like the cannons are, because they aren't explosive. hit with a lot of them though, and i think they do more damage on average than a 20mm burst because of the better ballistics and ROF.
-
I think I may have found the problem:
Tour 91 Fighter Scores for ssDruid
Kills Hit Percentage 2.28
-
I'd recommend some of Tony Williams' books, or you can read about the guns, cannons and ammunition at his website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/), especially the article on World War 2 gun effectiveness (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm) (edit: specifically fighter armament).
edit2: spelling.
-
Originally posted by RELIC
I think I may have found the problem:
Tour 91 Fighter Scores for ssDruid
Kills Hit Percentage 2.28
I knew I had it pegged. Thanks for checking RELIC.
-
How about Jentz and Doyle's book on the Tigers and Panthers. Or you can go spend about 250 dollars and pick up the hard back editions of Tigers in Combat Vol.1 and Tigers in Combat Vol.2. Or I can sell you mine for about the same price because they are out of print. I will just pull it out of my library of other books that I have on military weapon systems. If you believe things found on the internet and Wikepedia then you are truly hurting for information. Manuals, reference books are the only way to go unless you have first hand experience on a specific weapon system.
And yes Major Biggles, I agree with you completely. It has to be used properly with correct convergence. Thanks for your great confidence boost on the 50 Cal.
-
Originally posted by RELIC
I think I may have found the problem:
Tour 91 Fighter Scores for ssDruid
Kills Hit Percentage 2.28
And for scores, there is only one true score. Kill or be killed. And I have passed that test for real. How about you.
-
Originally posted by ssDruid
And for scores, there is only one true score. Kill or be killed. And I have passed that test for real. How about you.
You've been playing this game for three months. Your accuracy is more in tune to your whine.
Your "military superiority" has yet to impress no one but yourself. Furthermore, never begin a sentence with the word "and", you did it twice. :aok
-
You are absolutely right. I have only been playing for a little while. I was to busy doing other things for over 20 years. For instance, fighting the GWOT and spending more time than I would like away from my family. But that is the price one pays for putting the needs of the something more valuable (country) than one's self.
I am still in the learning phase of this game, but as with all things that I do I strive to be the best at it.
Have a nice day. I am off to see RUSH in concert instead of sitting at the computer.
-
Originally posted by ssDruid
How about Jentz and Doyle's book on the Tigers and Panthers. Or you can go spend about 250 dollars and pick up the hard back editions of Tigers in Combat Vol.1 and Tigers in Combat Vol.2. Or I can sell you mine for about the same price because they are out of print. I will just pull it out of my library of other books that I have on military weapon systems. If you believe things found on the internet and Wikepedia then you are truly hurting for information. Manuals, reference books are the only way to go unless you have first hand experience on a specific weapon system.
Did you even visit Tony Williams' website? Or do you claim that you have better data on the fighter armament from Tigers in Combat than mr Williams does based on his years of research? I know where to throw my coins to in this bet. See you next week, off for a day or two... S!
-
Originally posted by ssDruid
And for scores, there is only one true score. Kill or be killed. And I have passed that test for real. How about you.
That's a rather thin chord that you're hanging from there pal. There's probably hundreds of combat vets playing this game, as well as active duty personnel. Some are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan at this moment.
We have Gulf War I vets, Vietnam vets, Korean War Vets and several WWII vets. This doesn't count the large number of guys who served during peace-time. I'm a vet and was under fire several times. So what? That makes me a special person here??? Hardly.
If you really want to find yourself ostracized in this community, keep thumping your chest.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by ssDruid
You are absolutely right. I have only been playing for a little while. I was to busy doing other things for over 20 years. For instance, fighting the GWOT and spending more time than I would like away from my family. But that is the price one pays for putting the needs of the something more valuable (country) than one's self.
I am still in the learning phase of this game, but as with all things that I do I strive to be the best at it.
Have a nice day. I am off to see RUSH in concert instead of sitting at the computer.
Again, "your military superiority" feeds your own ego. When you want to LEARN something in this game, I'll show you the DA. You'll come out better than when you came in.
That is, if you are willing to learn.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
That's a rather thin chord that you're hanging from there pal. There's probably hundreds of combat vets playing this game, as well as active duty personnel. Some are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan at this moment.
We have Gulf War I vets, Vietnam vets, Korean War Vets and several WWII vets. This doesn't count the large number of guys who served during peace-time. I'm a vet and was under fire several times. So what? That makes me a special person here??? Hardly.
If you really want to find yourself ostracized in this community, keep thumping your chest.
My regards,
Widewing
Amen WW!
-
Originally posted by ssDruid
You are absolutely right. I have only been playing for a little while. I was to busy doing other things for over 20 years. For instance, fighting the GWOT and spending more time than I would like away from my family. But that is the price one pays for putting the needs of the something more valuable (country) than one's self.
I am still in the learning phase of this game, but as with all things that I do I strive to be the best at it.
Have a nice day. I am off to see RUSH in concert instead of sitting at the computer.
if you ever see me online, give me a shout and we can DA together, i'll try and teach you some stuff :)
-
I'm looking forward to the next "P-47 is fubared" thread he starts!!!! :aok
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
I'm looking forward to the next "P-47 is fubared" thread he starts!!!! :aok
Shhhhhh. You'll give him "overload". :noid
-
Originally posted by Widewing
The Curtiss 714 is the standard narrow chord "toothpick" prop. The 836 is the Curtiss wide chord "paddle" type. The H&S 6507A-2 is also a wide chord prop.
You can read a NACA test of the H&S prop tested on a YP-47M here. (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030065899_2003072770.pdf)
As to the climb of the P-47N, the report shows WEP being used. Without WEP, the N will fall behind the D model (in MIL power), because they have the same HP, but the N is heavier.
My regards,
Widewing
I would assume same, but the first chart you showed had the N significantly faster on the climb than the D40 (with W.E.P.)--our modeling in AH shows otherwise?
Hmm...ok did offline, fully gassed N on wep from sea level: 2712
fully gassed D40 on wep from same:----------------------2991
no wep: N ----------------------------------------------1738
no wep D40: --------------------------------------------2267
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
I'm looking forward to the next "P-47 is fubared" thread he starts!!!! :aok
Hey if I can kill stuff with jugs, anyone can:lol
-
Word to the wize:
Rush concert should never be used as a better option compared to anything.
That is all, please continue.
-
Uriel,
One thing you should be aware of is that there is lots of primary documentation that measures what an aircraft could do, not the limits listed in the pilot's manuals.
The NACA and A&AEE Boscombe Down people were interested in telling combat pilots engaged in the largest war in history what to expect, not in setting conservative peacetime saftey limits.
That isn't to say that there aren't huge unknowns out there, just that your claim about such tests being useless is false.
Others, tossing insults isn't helpful. Please lay off it.
-
Originally posted by Uriel
everyone kept asking for the charts here they are boys.
this place has real WW2 training video's and combat charts
read it and weep suckers
the P47 is handi-capped in the game
well, it seems to me that htc does what they can for modeling these aircraft. i've been of the belief that the 38 is too.......BUT....and here's the key.........i DON'T give a rats arse..........i simply try to learn her strengths in the game and fly her to those strengths. i NEVER take a 38 to a furball as i personally can't survive in her there yet......but although i've been advied against it, i do find her to be a good bomber hunter. for quick upping base defense, usually some version of spit or zeke........but you see my point here? what they did/do in real life, doesn't really matter to us, as we don't get to fly em in real life:cry what matters to us is in the game. learn the 47's strengths IN GAME. learn her weaknesses too. then you'll be able to make her perform the way YOU want to, and you'll probably kill a lot more in her.
i apologize if it sounds as if i'm lecturing ya, because that's not my intention........just tryin to give ya another point of view.
<>
john(1ltcap)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I would assume same, but the first chart you showed had the N significantly faster on the climb than the D40 (with W.E.P.)--our modeling in AH shows otherwise?
Hmm...ok did offline, fully gassed N on wep from sea level: 2712
fully gassed D40 on wep from same:----------------------2991
no wep: N ----------------------------------------------1738
no wep D40: --------------------------------------------2267
When testing the P-47N, I doubt that the USAAF filled the wing aux tanks as these were only used when extreme range was required. These tanks were usually burned off immediately after draining the drop tanks.
I tested the four different P-47s for climb using WEP. I took a screen shot at 5k for each and combined them into a single image. I selected 5k as this is directly comparable to the document posted.
I used 100% fuel for the D models and 75% for the P-47N.
Note that the P-47N is the best climber in WEP at the weights noted.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/5k-Jug-Climb.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I dont know where to start with your post.
You didn't spell "handicaped" right
HiTech has personally answered your challenges in your previous thread.
Widewing and others have tried to show you that being the biggest motor in the game doesn't mean you'll win everytime.
The points you keep missing...
1) Average fights in AH are well under 10k. The ideal alt for the P-47 is way up high.
2) The P-47 may have a big motor, it also weighs a lot! You continue to miss the fact that the German planes are vastly lighter and ideal down low.
3) Your sources, such as the History Channel cited before, is not the one-stop know it all of P-47 info.
You seem skewed and determined to make the P-47 the "F-16" of WW2. It wasn't. It has its strengths and weaknesses, like any aircraft.
You seem to be stuck at one point in its performance rather than analyzing the complete package.
perhaps i can simplify the above atatement a bit?
imagine a mustang cobra vs a corvette. they're pretty close in performance on the skidpad, but the vette will still beat the cobra. put a proffesional driver in the vette vs u in the stang. we all know the vette gonna win. now swap cars. i'd be willing to bet that now the pro driver'sgonna hammer you in the vette. point being.....if performance is even close, then the petter pilot/driver is gonna win.
<>
john
-
Originally posted by Widewing
When testing the P-47N, I doubt that the USAAF filled the wing aux tanks as these were only used when extreme range was required. These tanks were usually burned off immediately after draining the drop tanks.
I tested the four different P-47s for climb using WEP. I took a screen shot at 5k for each and combined them into a single image. I selected 5k as this is directly comparable to the document posted.
I used 100% fuel for the D models and 75% for the P-47N.
Note that the P-47N is the best climber in WEP at the weights noted.
............
My regards,
Widewing
CC that, the gas amount factor is the one thing I wasn't sure of, so I just did 100% on the N (which apparently is akin to adding a drop to the D40) but aside from that, why IS the N faster than the D40, I thought N had newer variant of engine, yet both have 2800 hp? As I can tell, D40 has to hit wep at 5ish to keep up with N, and more importantly, dweeb16 cant catch N, whereas it CAN catch D40 (I die under 5k a LOT:eek: )
-
Originally posted by bj229r
CC that, the gas amount factor is the one thing I wasn't sure of, so I just did 100% on the N (which apparently is akin to adding a drop to the D40) but aside from that, why IS the N faster than the D40, I thought N had newer variant of engine, yet both have 2800 hp? As I can tell, D40 has to hit wep at 5ish to keep up with N, and more importantly, dweeb16 cant catch N, whereas it CAN catch D40 (I die under 5k a LOT:eek: )
I believe that the P-47D-40's R2800-59 is rated at 2,600 hp @ 2,800 rpm in WEP, whereas the P-47N has 2,800 hp @ 2,900 rpm on tap.
My regards,
Widewing
-
bj229r:
Hmm, I have the D-40's listed as using the R-2800-59 while the N's using the R-2800-57,-73,-77's.
The -59's have a different power output than the -57's,73's,& 77's. For WEP it's 2600 hp (-59) vs. 2800 hp (-57,73,77).
2ndly you have to keep in mind that the power curves for each engine can also vary with altitude.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Ah, Widewing beat me to it :).
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Ahh...makes sense:aok
-
Alright, how about you do what you should have done in the very beginning. Get some charts, load up a P47 with 25% fuel, 6 .50s, empty the .50's (your information states that it was 'clean', which I assume means completely unoaded) and do tests at multiple altitudes. Then there's absolutely no arguement, just fact.
-
Originally posted by ssDruid
And for scores, there is only one true score. Kill or be killed. And I have passed that test for real. How about you.
His point was that the reason you feel that the Brownings are undermodelled in Aces High II is because your accuracy is so low that you're not hitting with them. You're a tank gunner; you're used to firing the heavy machine gun from a stable and fixed platform. Aircraft are not nearly as stable as tanks; worse, commercial gaming joysticks like the ones we use are not nearly as precise as the real thing. You are not experiencing the results you do in reality because you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
That said, I do feel that the fifty caliber's a bit off; it should cause a lot more fires than it does. The overwhelming majority of my kills come from catastrophic structural failure. The majority should be from fires, as countless wartime sources stated.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
That said, I do feel that the fifty caliber's a bit off; it should cause a lot more fires than it does. The overwhelming majority of my kills come from catastrophic structural failure. The majority should be from fires, as countless wartime sources stated.
I dont think thats as much the .50 as it is the damage model. Still, it doesnt matter how you bring down an aircraft, if you bring it down, all is well :aok
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
His point was that the reason you feel that the Brownings are undermodelled in Aces High II is because your accuracy is so low that you're not hitting with them. You're a tank gunner; you're used to firing the heavy machine gun from a stable and fixed platform. Aircraft are not nearly as stable as tanks; worse, commercial gaming joysticks like the ones we use are not nearly as precise as the real thing. You are not experiencing the results you do in reality because you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
That said, I do feel that the fifty caliber's a bit off; it should cause a lot more fires than it does. The overwhelming majority of my kills come from catastrophic structural failure. The majority should be from fires, as countless wartime sources stated.
not the 50s but the damage model that's the problem in this case.
AH doesn't have a great internal damage model, one thing i hope will be updated sometime soon. i'd like to see damage to control wires, better fuel tank damage things like that, hopefully one day :)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
...why IS the N faster than the D40, I thought N had newer variant of engine, yet both have 2800 hp? As I can tell, D40 has to hit wep at 5ish to keep up with N, and more importantly, dweeb16 cant catch N, whereas it CAN catch D40 (I die under 5k a LOT:eek: )
The N is a WEP plane. Without WEP it is the worst performing jug except for roll rate. Yes, it is the SLOWEST of them all. Without WEP it has 2000 HP just as all the D jugs, but is heavier. With WEP it is a P47 on steroids.
Also, N lethality is lower as I believe the guns are even farther out in the new wing, than they were in the eliptical.
I don't like the N. I do much better in the D models.
-
Originally posted by bozon
The N is a WEP plane. Without WEP it is the worst performing jug except for roll rate. Yes, it is the SLOWEST of them all. Without WEP it has 2000 HP just as all the D jugs, but is heavier. With WEP it is a P47 on steroids.
Also, N lethality is lower as I believe the guns are even farther out in the new wing, than they were in the eliptical.
I don't like the N. I do much better in the D models.
Did an offline test, yup, you're right--with no wep, they go same speed, unless at climb, the N lags 20%. Never really noticed that...still like N better--save that wep like water in a desert:aok--I dont fly D40 TOO much, but the biggest difference I see is going nose up in a fight to get catch some puke climbing out on the jug...---D40 falls outta sky WAY earlier
-
Originally posted by ssDruid
Yes you are correct on the fact that the API would only cause certain items to catch on fire. Wait a minute, most planes in WW2 were made out of Depleted Uranium and it would take an Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot with Tracer (APFSDS-T) to knock out of the sky. The 50 cal is underrated in this game. It has a tracer burn out of 1800 meters. Okay lets see that is 1.8K on game visual range. Unless you have actually been behind the triggers of a real .50 cal then you can't possibly know what it's true capabilities are.
A real M1A1 Abrams Tank Master Gunner is what I am. If you do not know what that means look it up and learn.
DAT!
:rofl
Oz
-
Hey , way to stay on-topic trashing this guy for miss-spells, Aces High, peopled by both english teachers and outcasts....
alot of planes have discrepancy's as far as performance goes, but that fact still remains that this game is above all others in terms of flight modeling, you give and get, my advice would be live with it.:aok
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Yes.
Uriel, I don't feel bad for you. You've acted like a teenager in the aspect that WE "should somehow dispel your moronic claims of P-47 elitism where it is not granted". You made the moronic claims and provided one old link that didn't handle your discussion, in the 2 days. You brought it on yourself. Problem is, you're the dense one but it hasn't hit you yet.
The TWO threads you've started over this prove your "denseness".
:furious im a teenager, and I don't troll, I think the P-47 does really well, maybe the planes not the thing that is handicapped here... ya'll have posted some perfectly valid evidence that he is in the wrong, so oh well, lol @ the road sign too:rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by stockli
Word to the wize:
Rush concert should never be used as a better option compared to anything.
That is all, please continue.
:mad: Rush is awesome...
-
wow kids easy. Its a game.. Nothing is going to be exact. its not a 1%er.
1%er is for those of you who dont know. A flightsim that is within 1% of reality.
This is a good game but not exactly real.
Sure the P47 here doest do like the history channel says. But let look at the history channel. Its about 40-60% right about most of the subjects. They cant be perfect as there isnt many working P47s that can be tested now is there?
I like the P47, I like the Bf110, I like the P38..... I like WWII planes. But I am not here for realism. If I wanted that all the time I would fly Target Tobruk or any of Targetwares other WWII flightsims. There I have to worry about cowl flaps RPM, prop pitch, actual trim. Its enough work to get a F4U off the ground there. Let alone land that torque monster. This is why I will stick to my jets in Korea... at least there I only have to trim the elevator.
keep the peace in the forums save the flaming for the arena.
-
For all of you who keep downtalking the 109, I ask you this: have you ever read book about fighter aces of Germany, World War II, or in general? If you have, you would find as much BS in this P47 pwns 109 crap as I do.
IF the 109 is such an inferior aircraft, then how would you explain the simple fact that the top aces of any war, ever, flew them? Erich Hartmann, 352 kills, and Gerhard Bekhorn, 301 kills, both flew 109's. Furthermore, there are 30 more pilots just from JG52 that didnt just earn the rank of ace, but had more than 100 kills, 4 of those with more than 200! Just from JG52! And this was against the best Allied pilots of the war, the Russians! Now, I dont have a book with a list of all the German 109 aces, but, if every ace were listed, down to 5 kills, I am quite sure that it would take up several good sized pages.
I wouldnt be surpised to find that all the kills made by 109 pilots from JG 52, or JG 54, and definately the two put together, would amount to more than claimed by all American fighter pilots in both Theaters.
-
Originally posted by Motherland
For all of you who keep downtalking the 109, I ask you this: have you ever read book about fighter aces of Germany, World War II, or in general? If you have, you would find as much BS in this P47 pwns 109 crap as I do.
IF the 109 is such an inferior aircraft, then how would you explain the simple fact that the top aces of any war, ever, flew them? Erich Hartmann, 352 kills, and Gerhard Bekhorn, 301 kills, both flew 109's. Furthermore, there are 30 more pilots just from JG52 that didnt just earn the rank of ace, but had more than 100 kills, 4 of those with more than 200! Just from JG52! And this was against the best Allied pilots of the war, the Russians! Now, I dont have a book with a list of all the German 109 aces, but, if every ace were listed, down to 5 kills, I am quite sure that it would take up several good sized pages.
I wouldnt be surpised to find that all the kills made by 109 pilots from JG 52, or JG 54, and definately the two put together, would amount to more than claimed by all American fighter pilots in both Theaters.
You, my friend, have just bit off more than you can chew :D
-
Originally posted by Motherland
For all of you who keep downtalking the 109, I ask you this: have you ever read book about fighter aces of Germany, World War II, or in general? If you have, you would find as much BS in this P47 pwns 109 crap as I do.
IF the 109 is such an inferior aircraft, then how would you explain the simple fact that the top aces of any war, ever, flew them? Erich Hartmann, 352 kills, and Gerhard Bekhorn, 301 kills, both flew 109's. Furthermore, there are 30 more pilots just from JG52 that didnt just earn the rank of ace, but had more than 100 kills, 4 of those with more than 200! Just from JG52! And this was against the best Allied pilots of the war, the Russians! Now, I dont have a book with a list of all the German 109 aces, but, if every ace were listed, down to 5 kills, I am quite sure that it would take up several good sized pages.
I wouldnt be surpised to find that all the kills made by 109 pilots from JG 52, or JG 54, and definately the two put together, would amount to more than claimed by all American fighter pilots in both Theaters.
NOMEX UNDERWEAR!!!! QUICK!!!!! :rofl
-
Originally posted by Hodo
1%er is for those of you who dont know. A flightsim that is within 1% of reality.
No flight simulator is within 1% of reality, or even 25%.
Originally posted by Hodo
I am not here for realism. If I wanted that all the time I would fly Target Tobruk or any of Targetwares other WWII flightsims. There I have to worry about cowl flaps RPM, prop pitch, actual trim. Its enough work to get a F4U off the ground there. Let alone land that torque monster.
Targetware is very unrealistic. The engine management is a bit better yes, but still hugely lacking. The trim system is actually less realistic than Aces High II's. And in Targetware, every aspect of the flight is grossly exaggerated; torque, P-factor, propwash, gyroscopic effect, and adverse yaw are all assigned wildly inflated values, perhaps three or four times what they should be. Lastly, Targetware doesn't use the complex, realistic multi-vector lift and drag model Aces High II uses. Thus, Targetware's stalls stink. The P-38 always spins in Targetware, it can't stall straight forward like the real P-38 (and the P-38 in Aces High II).
It's ironic that the game (namely Aces High II) which doesn't claim to be the "most realistic simulator ever" has by far the most realistic flight model, while "simulators" which claim to be "hyper-realistic" and "ultra-high fidelity" (such as the travesties of IL-2, Targetware, Falcon, and Microsoft Combat Simulator) have terribly unrealistic flight models. True, they have slightly better engine management and avionics, but it's still more simple than flying even a real Cessna (let alone a warbird).
Originally posted by Motherland
And this was against the best Allied pilots of the war, the Russians!
Hee hee! You're funny. I like Russians, they have a good sense of humor.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
No flight simulator is within 1% of reality, or even 25%.
Targetware is very unrealistic. The engine management is a bit better yes, but still hugely lacking. The trim system is actually less realistic than Aces High II's. And in Targetware, every aspect of the flight is grossly exaggerated; torque, P-factor, propwash, gyroscopic effect, and adverse yaw are all assigned wildly inflated values, perhaps three or four times what they should be. Lastly, Targetware doesn't use the complex, realistic multi-vector lift and drag model Aces High II uses. Thus, Targetware's stalls stink. The P-38 always spins in Targetware, it can't stall straight forward like the real P-38 (and the P-38 in Aces High II).
It's ironic that the game (namely Aces High II) which doesn't claim to be the "most realistic simulator ever" has by far the most realistic flight model, while "simulators" which claim to be "hyper-realistic" and "ultra-high fidelity" (such as the travesties of IL-2, Targetware, Falcon, and Microsoft Combat Simulator) have terribly unrealistic flight models. True, they have slightly better engine management and avionics, but it's still more simple than flying even a real Cessna (let alone a warbird).
Hee hee! You're funny. I like Russians, they have a good sense of humor.
Like anyone here could make any claim's either way, Benny.
Unless, you have personally in real life, climbed in and actually flown any of the warbird's that any of the sim's that you've listed, simulate-we're stuck drawing the same conclusions' that any of those game writers' could have made.
-
Don't be ridiculous. We have solid proof that, for example, some U.S. ships would stall straight forward under some or most conditions. We know what those conditions are. For instance, we know that a P-38 with weight correctly distributed, no drop tanks, and gear retracted will stall straight forward power on and power off, accelerated and slow, flaps up and flaps down, and even in a turn, as long as it is coordinated (there is no slip) throughout the stall. We also know the approximate stalling characteristics of other U.S. fighters because of the documentation (including video footage of them being stalled under various conditions while the narrator, a test pilot, even describes it).
I also know that Hitech's general flight model is very close to reality, having flown real airplanes. He himself owns an Rv-8, as you surely know, and compares the flight model to the real thing by doing aerobatics in both the real and virtual plane. We also know that the mechanics of Aces High II's flight model are very exact, having dozens of lift and drag vectors, and more for thrust and weight. The other "simulators" use only a handful (which is why their stalls stink).
I suggest you do more research, perhaps fly a real plane for a few hours, do some stalls and stuff, and then come back and restate your opinion.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Hee hee! You're funny. I like Russians, they have a good sense of humor.
Well, looking at pure data...
The highest scoring Allied ace of the war was Ivan Kozhedub, with 62 air-to-air kill's. The highest scoring, non-Russian Allied ace was British Marmaduke Pattle, with 51 kills. There are 5 VVS pilots, including Kozhedub, with more kills than that. The highest scoring American ace was Richard Bong, with 40 air-to-air kills. Including the 5 afore mentioned, that's 9 VVS pilots that scored higher than the highest scoring American ace. Also take into account, pilots like Aleksandr Pokryshkin (by the end of the war, 59 kills, including 53 personal kills and 6 'shared'), who were able to score kills in the first day's of Operation: Barbarossa, in their heavily outclassed I-16's, I-153's, MiG-3's and LaGG-3's, whilst the Luftwaffe was in its prime, not on it's last leg.
The Russian front is overlooked, probably because of Cold-War propaganda in Western countries, but in reality, it saw the feircest air combat of the war.
Originally posted by Vudak
You, my friend, have just bit off more than you can chew :D
Probably. Lets see how this goes. First time, as of yet, Ive made an objectionable statement on this BBS. I wonder how Ill fair in the arguement which will undoubtedly come up...
-
Originally posted by Motherland
The Russian front is overlooked, probably because of Cold-War propaganda in Western countries, but in reality, it saw the feircest air combat of the war.
You mean ground combat, don't you?
Some stats to ponder,
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/thtrloss-1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
You mean ground combat, don't you?
Some stats to ponder,
Chart
Could you explain how the chart work's? How can a country have 368 planes and lose 969 of them?
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Could you explain how the chart work's? How can a country have 368 planes and lose 969 of them?
They build more.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Don't be ridiculous. We have solid proof that, for example, some U.S. ships would stall straight forward under some or most conditions. We know what those conditions are. For instance, we know that a P-38 with weight correctly distributed, no drop tanks, and gear retracted will stall straight forward power on and power off, accelerated and slow, flaps up and flaps down, and even in a turn, as long as it is coordinated (there is no slip) throughout the stall. We also know the approximate stalling characteristics of other U.S. fighters because of the documentation (including video footage of them being stalled under various conditions while the narrator, a test pilot, even describes it).
I also know that Hitech's general flight model is very close to reality, having flown real airplanes. He himself owns an Rv-8, as you surely know, and compares the flight model to the real thing by doing aerobatics in both the real and virtual plane. We also know that the mechanics of Aces High II's flight model are very exact, having dozens of lift and drag vectors, and more for thrust and weight. The other "simulators" use only a handful (which is why their stalls stink).
I suggest you do more research, perhaps fly a real plane for a few hours, do some stalls and stuff, and then come back and restate your opinion.
Allright, I'll put it this way: HTC has a personal RV-8. He can fly it whenever he needs a comparison to the RV-8 in the game.
But, does he have an F6F? an FW-190D9? A Spit IX? For this, he has to use what archived and published data. Pilot reports. Hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of data. I've taken the stick on a Beech bonanza. That doesn't make me an expert on what the proper FM should be on any game. It gives me an idea, but not the ability to make an absolute statement on whether or not the game has the proper power settings for the P-38L. Or the proper turn rate for the Spit XIV. Or the true sea-level speed for an LA-7.
It does not give anyone the absolute last-word on wether or not AH, or Targetware, Or IL-2, or warbirds, or airwarrior, have the correct FM's.
At the best, it's merely your opinion. And should be kept as such.
If you have a perfect, flyable P-38 at your disposal, then please, bring it to the con. Give Dale a ride, show him any flaws. If not, I've stated what should be done.
THAT'S what I was alluding to in my previous post.
-
Has the Uriel guy ever looked at a 109 an da P47 in real life?
The 109s are so FRIKN SMALL!!! compared to pretty much ALL ALLIED planes......SMALLLL 109s'!!!!
And Tank guy...lord have mercy.....You sound Like like a Chuck Norris Action Figure..
"I have passed the test for real..have you?"
Save that talk for the bar..Not the Aces High Computer Game..Do you really believe this helps your points in your posts?
-
I have no dout that there are better performers than the P-47, but why does the P-47D-40 have a superior climb rate than the P-47N. I thought the 47N had more horses and I know it is faster?
-
Originally posted by Nimrod45
I have no dout that there are better performers than the P-47, but why does the P-47D-40 have a superior climb rate than the P-47N. I thought the 47N had more horses and I know it is faster?
Only under wep .
Bronk
-
You are right about the speed part but the D40 climbs better with or without.
-
Originally posted by Nimrod45
You are right about the speed part but the D40 climbs better with or without.
From HTC plane info:
Republic P-47N Thunderbolt
Country of origin: USA
Crew: Single-seat
Type: Fighter/Attacker
Maximum loaded weight: 20,700 lbs.
P-47D-40
Country of origin: USA
Crew: Single-seat
Type: Fighter/attacker
Normal loaded weight: 14,500 lbs.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Allright, I'll put it this way: HTC has a personal RV-8. He can fly it whenever he needs a comparison to the RV-8 in the game.
But, does he have an F6F? an FW-190D9? A Spit IX? For this, he has to use what archived and published data. Pilot reports. Hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of data. I've taken the stick on a Beech bonanza. That doesn't make me an expert on what the proper FM should be on any game. It gives me an idea, but not the ability to make an absolute statement on whether or not the game has the proper power settings for the P-38L. Or the proper turn rate for the Spit XIV. Or the true sea-level speed for an LA-7.
It does not give anyone the absolute last-word on wether or not AH, or Targetware, Or IL-2, or warbirds, or airwarrior, have the correct FM's.
At the best, it's merely your opinion. And should be kept as such.
If you have a perfect, flyable P-38 at your disposal, then please, bring it to the con. Give Dale a ride, show him any flaws. If not, I've stated what should be done.
THAT'S what I was alluding to in my previous post.
To tack on a bit more on to what you are saying. Even IF you have a P38/P40/P51/F86/F15/Piper Cub whatever. You will most likely never put it through the same menuevers as a fighter pilot did in the actual war. I can say its like compairing cars. If I say the RX7 (FD3S) is faster than the Mustang (Foxbody). I would be like in what? 1/4 mile, top end, road course? And even then most cars on the road and their drivers most never push themselves or their vehicles to the limit of what they can do. I push my car whenever I get a chance and my license shows it, along with my tires and brakes.
-
Wow, I can't believe this thread is still here. :lol