Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SuBWaYCH on November 20, 2007, 09:39:52 PM
-
Best site for turn radius, airspeed etc, etc (http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php)
This is a great resource. Dunno if all the info is acurate, but I got a few things outta this site....
(All tests done with 0 flaps, and at 5,000 feet of altitude)
Comparison between Spit 5, 8, 9, 14:
Turn Radius.
Spit 9: 632 feet
Spit 5:503 feet
Spit 8: 568 feet
Spit 14: 639 feet
I had no idea the diffrence beetwen the 9 and 5 was so big....
Another test:
Comparison between Spit 16, LA-7 and NIK2-J:
Turn Radius.
NIK2-J: 610 feet
Spit 16: 567 feet
LA-7:617 feet
Wow.
Yet another:
Comparison Between P-47D11, P-47D25, P-47D40:
Turn Radius.
D-11: 757 feet
D-25: 818 feet
D-40 806 feet.
The D-40 turns better then the D-25.. hmmmmm
Just a few tests.
Regards,
Subway
EDIT: Very accurate, WW helped make it :)
-
I already use it. :confused:
-
Ditto.
-
Well, it was new to me...
Regards,
Subway
-
Thanks for the info. I too use it but never took the time to organize the info as you have. If you have some more... post it.
Here is another site you might like reading.
http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/models.htm
Soda AH Aircraft Evaluation Website
http://www.71sqn.co.uk/hints.html
.:71 'Eagle' Sqn RAF An Aces High II Virtual Sqn:.
-
It depends very much on the pilot who generated the test data. I have no trouble getting a Spit IX to a slightly smaller turn radius than the Spit VIII. The Mk.IX is simply lighter.
Most of the data was generated by Mosq. Most of it is accurate. However, when I do the same tests, I consistently get a smaller turn radius for the Spit IX and F6F-5. Sometimes, I think Mosq flies a bit too far into the stall, which results in larger circles. But, don't think that it is easy to do this testing. It isn't. It's damn difficult. It's difficult enough that a minor slip or error can result in significantly different numbers. Which is why two or more tests are better than one. Three is even more reliable. Always take the best result. Why? because you can always make the circle bigger, but there is a finite limit on how small it can be. The smallest is always the more accurate measurement.
The methodology of the testing has been posted to the Aircraft and Vehicle forum several times. You need a stop watch, calculator and the ability to fly a fighter to its absolute limit and keep it there for three consecutive circles (I haven't seen more than a few who can do this, by the way). Then, repeat the test two more times and take the best results. Now, you must be able to do all of the above in every fighter.. That takes huge amount of time, and an equal amount of practice.
Here's something to consider. As a Trainer, I hear guys state that "no one can turn" their particular fighter tighter (a smaller circle) than they can. I like to get them into a flat, continuous turn (either left or right) and we start to tighten it up with this guy on my six. With very few exceptions, most guys find out that they were nowhere near the smallest possible circle. Within four or five full turns, they find me on their six. This is why I preach the need to know the true limits of their aircraft, which is often well beyond the limits of the pilots. Many duels are decided by one pilot being able to wring more out of a fighter than the other pilot can. All else being equal, the guy who fly right on the edge of being out of control, and do so without so much as a wiggle, he will win the fight. Like good SA and good ACM skills, plane control skills are vital to being successful.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
It depends very much on the pilot who generated the test data. I have no trouble getting a Spit IX to a slightly smaller turn radius than the Spit VIII. The Mk.IX is simply lighter.
Most of the data was generated by Mosq. Most of it is accurate. However, when I do the same tests, I consistently get a smaller turn radius for the Spit IX and F6F-5. Sometimes, I think Mosq flies a bit too far into the stall, which results in larger circles. But, don't think that it is easy to do this testing. It isn't. It's damn difficult. It's difficult enough that a minor slip or error can result in significantly different numbers. Which is why two or more tests are better than one. Three is even more reliable. Always take the best result. Why? because you can always make the circle bigger, but there is a finite limit on how small it can be. The smallest is always the more accurate measurement.
The methodology of the testing has been posted to the Aircraft and Vehicle forum several times. You need a stop watch, calculator and the ability to fly a fighter to its absolute limit and keep it there for three consecutive circles (I haven't seen more than a few who can do this, by the way). Then, repeat the test two more times and take the best results. Now, you must be able to do all of the above in every fighter.. That takes huge amount of time, and an equal amount of practice.
Here's something to consider. As a Trainer, I hear guys state that "no one can turn" their particular fighter tighter (a smaller circle) than they can. I like to get them into a flat, continuous turn (either left or right) and we start to tighten it up with this guy on my six. With very few exceptions, most guys find out that they were nowhere near the smallest possible circle. Within four or five full turns, they find me on their six. This is why I preach the need to know the true limits of their aircraft, which is often well beyond the limits of the pilots. Many duels are decided by one pilot being able to wring more out of a fighter than the other pilot can. All else being equal, the guy who fly right on the edge of being out of control, and do so without so much as a wiggle, he will win the fight. Like good SA and good ACM skills, plane control skills are vital to being successful.
My regards,
Widewing
Truth. This is why I manage to regularly get behind many La-7 pilots in my Yak-9U in such situations... Not to mention that many who fly the La-7 do so because they see it as a "beginner's plane", and really don't have much of a clue about what they're doing.
Nevertheless, it's good (nay, great) practice to test your aircraft of choice and see just how far you can take it, and just how far you can push yourself before you fall out of the sky.
-
Aircraft turn the best (tightest, fastest) at their corner velocity.
Each plane has a different corner velocity. The turn data needs to include the speed at which the turn was performed to be meaningful.
-
the guy who posted that obviously can't turn a spit 9 for chit!
Don't believe everything you read in books Subway!
-
Wow, Who needs graphs to turn?? :p
-
So let me ask this. When in a flat turn and the stall buzzer starts to go off but I'm still in control of the plane am I making a tighter turn then if I did not push the plane to stall... or buffet?
it seems I may be making a tighter turn trying to stay out of stall
When doing a loop does the same apply?
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Here's something to consider. As a Trainer, I hear guys state that "no one can turn" their particular fighter tighter (a smaller circle) than they can. I like to get them into a flat, continuous turn (either left or right) and we start to tighten it up with this guy on my six. With very few exceptions, most guys find out that they were nowhere near the smallest possible circle. Within four or five full turns, they find me on their six. This is why I preach the need to know the true limits of their aircraft, which is often well beyond the limits of the pilots. Many duels are decided by one pilot being able to wring more out of a fighter than the other pilot can. All else being equal, the guy who fly right on the edge of being out of control, and do so without so much as a wiggle, he will win the fight. Like good SA and good ACM skills, plane control skills are vital to being successful.
My regards,
Widewing
This is actually true for a lot of folks I think. I know I have absolutely no idea how hard I can "push" a plane into a Luftberry type turning fight, so I avoid them like the plague. If I'm not gaining angles visibly after a circle or so, I'll leave and try to get back into nose to nose manuevering, because I am much better at that.
-
Originally posted by A8TOOL
So let me ask this. When in a flat turn and the stall buzzer starts to go off but I'm still in control of the plane am I making a tighter turn then if I did not push the plane to stall... or buffet?
it seems I may be making a tighter turn trying to stay out of stall
When doing a loop does the same apply?
You almost certainly are making a tighter turn inside the stall buzzer but it will also be a slower turn. There's a point at which tightning the turn at the expense of speed actually reduces turn rate (time to get around 360 degrees). It will all depend on the plane.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
This is actually true for a lot of folks I think. I know I have absolutely no idea how hard I can "push" a plane into a Luftberry type turning fight, so I avoid them like the plague. If I'm not gaining angles visibly after a circle or so, I'll leave and try to get back into a HO because I am much better at that.
Fixed.
:rofl
-
And you are...?
-
I am the one who translated:
"I'll leave and try to get back into nose to nose manuevering"
into :
"I'll leave and try to get back into a HO"
because, after all, why else would you want to go nose to nose?
-
Ah.. so in other words, you aren't worth my time.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Ah.. so in other words, you aren't worth my time.
Please then, tell me why you want to go nose-to-nose if not to HO.
It sounds to me like you originally said; "I don't have the acm skills to aquire my opponent's six so I extend then turn back for the HO because I'm good at it". Did I somehow mis-read this?
BTW, originally, it was a joke but now I'm serious. Refusal to answer just means there is none outside the one I've given.
BTW again, Don't care if I'm "worthy" of your time or not.
-
Yea, if you don't know what nose to nose manuevering vs nose to tail manuevering means... then go educate yourself. Then if you would like to have a discussion with me on the relative merits of each, I'd be happy to.
Until then, happy putzing around.
-
come on Urch, take him to the DA and show him a few tips ;)
I used to love getting into battles against Urchin, he is a player that makes you work for every possible advantage although they will come far and few between.....
-
I guess I was right. You have 83% of your air kills in planes ideally suited to the HO. They are:
BF109K-4
FW190A-5
FW190A-8
FW190D-9
La-7
N1K2
Go ahead. Explain the merits of the HO. :rofl
[EDIT] Just saw TC's post. I'd be glad to go to the DA w/you any time.
-
Nose to Nose manuevering is not HOing.
Urchin does not HO. He has a lot more credibility than you do BaldEagl.
-
You are over-stretching yourself, BaldEagl. That'll end up badly for your self esteem :rofl
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
I guess I was right. You have 83% of your air kills in planes ideally suited to the HO. They are:
BF109K-4
FW190A-5
FW190A-8
FW190D-9
La-7
N1K2
Go ahead. Explain the merits of the HO. :rofl
[EDIT] Just saw TC's post. I'd be glad to go to the DA w/you any time.
Urchin and I flew a series of duels last week. He flew the 190A-5 and the 190D-9 against my P-47D-25 and D-40. Nothing even approaching an HO was seen. We dueled La-7 vs F4U-4, again no HOs. Urchin is a pal of mine, and we've done this many times. He's as clean and honest a pilot as anyone I've played with. He's also very, very good. I had to work my butt off to be competitive.
So, by all means, go to the DA with Urchin. However, do so for the learning experience, because you won't have an ice cube's chance in hell of living 60 seconds beyond the initial merge. Trust me on this...
(Edit: Urchin, should I post a film from that series to better make my point?)
My regards,
Widewing
-
OK OK. I'll retract my speculation. Like I said, it started out as a joke anyway.
I will, however, still accept a trip to the DA, not for the learning experience, but to prove I'll live beyond 60 seconds. I'm not as entirely skilless as you may believe.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
OK OK. I'll retract my speculation. Like I said, it started out as a joke anyway.
I will, however, still accept a trip to the DA, not for the learning experience, but to prove I'll live beyond 60 seconds. I'm not as entirely skilless as you may believe.
I don't believe that you're without skills. I do know that Urchin is a top tier pilot, one of the best in the game. Film your duels and review the films. You can learn from them.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
OK OK. I'll retract my speculation. Like I said, it started out as a joke anyway.
I will, however, still accept a trip to the DA, not for the learning experience, but to prove I'll live beyond 60 seconds. I'm not as entirely skilless as you may believe.
You seem to think your are the cat's meow from wht i've eread of your posts. My money is on Urchin.
-
I'm sorry BaldEagl, I was kinda of a jerk. Been a long day.
Widewing, if you would like to post film go ahead and do so, it will at least show what I mean by nose to nose manuevering.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
You seem to think your are the cat's meow from wht i've eread of your posts. My money is on Urchin.
Nope. Thats not the case. Many are far better than me but I'm also not afraid to back down from a fight. What's the worst that can happen? I lose a cartoon airplane and a little pride?
I firmly believe I can last longer than 60 seconds against pretty much anyone in a fair one-on-one fight. I rarely lose one-on-one which is why I try so hard to seek them out. Bring the stopwatch. I may lose but probably not that quickly.
Urchin, I know the difference between nose to nose and nose to tail fighting, but after this started I couldn't help but keep digging. I accept your appology but even more so, hope you accept mine.
I will still, however, accept a trip to the DA if you're up for it sometime. Same goes with you Steve... and Widewing. I'd actually like to see exactly what I do or don't have. I'd like to think that after over 11 years I've picked up a thing or two but I could be wrong.