Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Whisky58 on January 16, 2008, 06:02:49 AM
-
Is 190a5's turn affected significantly by adding outer cannons & if so do Dokgonzo's performance figures relate to 2 or 4 cannon planes?
Thank you.
-
Whisky, the 190A-5's turn might be affected as much by fuel load as the two extra wing cannons.
What's more, why do you want to flat turn it?:lol
-
I'm sure it makes some sort of difference although I doubt it's noticable (I always fly 190's with the biggest gun package available). Since they are internal guns it won't have the drag effects of hanging gondola's on a 109 for instance. Fuel load would have a larger impact for sure.
I'm not sure how the Doc Gonzo tests were done.
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
What's more, why do you want to flat turn it?:lol
Not every turn is a flat turn.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Not every turn is a flat turn.
ack-ack
But, but... what? Flat turn performance is everything!
;)
-
To get any accurate measurement of turn radius, you need to turn flat to keep a constant speed. Unless your ASI is computer monitored, I can't think of any other way to do it...
And this post was about Gonzo's performance charts, or were you just stating a platitude for kicks?
-
the outer wing cannons are FF's anyway, so not worth taking. Might as well take a couple of spud guns in the wings.
-
Anaxogoras, a flat turn at a constant speed and the time for one revolution is enough to solve for the turn radius with some very basic geometry.
-
Yes, what you said is equivalent to what I said.
-
Originally posted by Furball
the outer wing cannons are FF's anyway, so not worth taking. Might as well take a couple of spud guns in the wings.
Up close they work just fine.
They're no use for long-distance shots but they add that extra punch in close.
-
I never take outer cannons as Furball says & low rounds, but Dokgonzos lethality figures for a5 are for the 4 cannon version. I just wondered if anyone knows whether the extra cannon have an adverse effect on performance and if DG's other charts are based on 4 cannon model. The reason being is that my gut feeling is that the a5 turns better than his chart suggests, but it is only an impression based on the little experience I have. If I'm right, this could be an explanation. It may just be it "feels" to turn better because the rapid roll rate initiates the turn quicker than most planes.
Thanks for the input.
-
I feel that the 190 20mms are massively under-powered, so I never take a 2 x 20mm loadout if I can avoid it.
Even the 4 x 20mm A8 version is hopelessly under-powered. I always take the 2 x 20mm and 2 x 30mm loadout and have much greater success with that.
-
Just a placebo I think Xasthur.. I manage fine with the 2x20 and 1x30 in the 152. They are definitely less powerful than the Hispanos, but not anemic either. The only plane I find a bit underpowered is the D9. But you just have to stay on target a little longer than usual. There's gobs of ammo, so it's not that bad.
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
Up close they work just fine.
They're no use for long-distance shots but they add that extra punch in close.
Agreed. I think the notion that deleting the MG/FFs improves performance is largely in the mind of the pilot. The plane is a pig in a dogfight, anyway, so you want the maximum firepower for when (if) you get a chance to shoot at someone.
- oldman
-
No.. MGFF is definitely ballast worth removing unless you're going to do nothing but BnZ slashes, where even there the weight becomes useless ballast after much less than half the sortie, which is the tolerance threshold I think best applies.
-
Originally posted by moot
Just a placebo I think Xasthur.. I manage fine with the 2x20 and 1x30 in the 152. They are definitely less powerful than the Hispanos, but not anemic either. The only plane I find a bit underpowered is the D9. But you just have to stay on target a little longer than usual. There's gobs of ammo, so it's not that bad.
I've noticed the same underpowered performance in the 20mms that you've notived in D9 in all other 190 variants too..
The 109 seems different... the 1 x 20mm seems to hit just as hard as the two which doesn't seem right to me.
I've also noticed that it comes and goes too... It might be a connection issue... The other night I was flying the A5 with the 4 x 20mm loadout and I'd hit targets 2 or 3 times with no result.... later that night the same shots would pull an aircraft apart with little effort.
I believe that my connection is pretty good too... perhaps latency or something given that I'm in Australia... who knows.
In any case I see no difference between the D9 and A5 when using the same cannon load-out.
I'll have to try the 2 x 20 loadout on the A5 again and see if it makes that much difference. I do pretty well with the 4 x 20mm load.
-
I think there was a definite calculation of damage which showed the MG151/20 to be less powerful than the Hispano in AH.
In practice, there's definitely the most noise in the data from lost packets, or rubber bullets, or whatever it is. Recently I've had a lot of planes shrug off one or two (or three, once) 30mm hits.
It's my impression that the 151/20 can do as much damage as a hispano if you hit with the 151/20 at high speed relative to your target... Which isn't that hard to do with a D9 :)
-
The 109 seems different... the 1 x 20mm seems to hit just as hard as the two which doesn't seem right to me.
I've noticed the same thing sometimes, but it could be because only one of the 190A5/D9's cannons are hitting. That's the whole idea behind the motorkannone. Moreover, when you fire mg's plus cannon in the 109, they're almost always hitting in the same spot.
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
I've noticed the same thing sometimes, but it could be because only one of the 190A5/D9's cannons are hitting. That's the whole idea behind the motorkannone. Moreover, when you fire mg's plus cannon in the 109, they're almost always hitting in the same spot.
I have my convergence set in fairly tight on the 190s so there isn't a lot of room for dispersal. Most of the time both cannons are on target.
I rarely ever fire cannons and MGs in the 109 at the same time regardless of what cannon I have.
I set the MGs out a long way in order to 'tickle' a target into turning. I have the cannon set to 200 for 30mm and 300 for 20mm (or even 200 for 20mm sometimes) and only ever fire the cannon so as to not spoil the shot.
M00t, I have noticed that the tail section of the B 24 is particularly good at soaking up damage. 4 passes on one the other night... all landed at least 1 if not 2 seperate 30mm hits and I got nothing.
I killed the pilot in the other two but this third one just kept going.
-
You think that's bad.. My rubber bullets were on spits and La's... hehe. One hit in the fwd fuselage, another in the wingspar, and nothing. They just flew off, with at most an oil leak.
At first I thought I had imagined the 30mm animated hit sprite, but I checked the film and they're definitely 30mm rounds.
-
I did the turn and accel tests that Dok uses.
The 190A5 was turn tested with 4 cannons, not 2.
I can tell you the two cannon is significantly faster accelerating, about .5 sec across the board on all speed ranges and all fuel weights. So it makes sense the 2 cannon will turn a bit better. Maybe someday I'll go back and test the 2 cannon for turn performance.
-
Thanks Mosq - that answers my question and confirms my gut feeling. I'd be very interested to see the results of your tests on the 2 cannon model.
Regards :)
-
I have my convergence set in fairly tight on the 190s so there isn't a lot of room for dispersal.
Well, then I don't know how to explain the effect you see, except for the fact that the MG151 sprays at all sorts of angles when I fire it on the runway offline. I'm near 100% certain that the MG151 of the 109F-G is no more lethal than on the 190.
I agree with you to never fire the MG131s at the same time as the 30mm, but the balistics of the 20mm are good enough that you might really be missing out if you're not firing at the same time as the mg's when you're close in (in the 109). It really makes a difference for shooting off those spitfire wings when you have a small window of opportunity.;)
-
You gentlemen should keep something in mind as concerns the turning ability of the 190A-5 (or any other 190 type). Mosq's data reflects the use of full flaps. That's perfectly fine. Every other fighter was tested with full flaps.
The problem for the 190s is that you will rarely, if ever, get so slow as to be able to get the flaps fully down. This is important to remember as it makes a significant difference when fighting most fighters. That last notch of flaps (fully 1/2 of the total displacement) will not come down until you are so slow as to be virtually helpless.
My advice is to avoid flaps altogether flying 190s, unless coming over the top of a vertical maneuver.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Indeed, full flaps in a 190 is a very last-ditch effort.
If you're trying to force and over-shoot and you're almost there, the flaps do help you stay up and keep that wing-dropping stall under control a little.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
You gentlemen should keep something in mind as concerns the turning ability of the 190A-5 (or any other 190 type). Mosq's data reflects the use of full flaps. That's perfectly fine. Every other fighter was tested with full flaps.
The problem for the 190s is that you will rarely, if ever, get so slow as to be able to get the flaps fully down. This is important to remember as it makes a significant difference when fighting most fighters. That last notch of flaps (fully 1/2 of the total displacement) will not come down until you are so slow as to be virtually helpless.
My advice is to avoid flaps altogether flying 190s, unless coming over the top of a vertical maneuver.
My regards,
Widewing
WW, actually my tests are both no flaps and full flaps, and DoKtor GonZo displays both sets of results on his website.
I have some planes tested with 1, 2, 3 notches, but what I found was that it really didn't change the standings relatively. In fact only a few planes moved up relative to other planes when going from no flaps to full flaps, the F4U being the notable exception to the rule.
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
WW, actually my tests are both no flaps and full flaps, and DoKtor GonZo displays both sets of results on his website.
I have some planes tested with 1, 2, 3 notches, but what I found was that it really didn't change the standings relatively. In fact only a few planes moved up relative to other planes when going from no flaps to full flaps, the F4U being the notable exception to the rule.
I should have been more specific. Where flaps are indicated, the flaps are fully down.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Whisky58
Is 190a5's turn affected significantly by adding outer cannons & if so do Dokgonzo's performance figures relate to 2 or 4 cannon planes?
Thank you.
Doubt it really affects turn rate, probably more roll rate as theres slightly more weight added to the wings, but, in a 190, that should be no trouble...
P.S. if your trying to turn a 190, I suggest the TA a bit to find out *subliminal message*it's the worst turner in the game*end subliminal message* how to fly it :]
-
The extra cannons have worst ballistics than the german 30mm. Don't use them. On a side note the A5 is a has a horrible turn rate but with enough rolling and angling you can beat alot of planes with it.:noid
-
Originally posted by TheThang
The extra cannons have worst ballistics than the german 30mm.
If you are trying to say "worse than the 30mm" - that's not quite correct.
For example at 600m (~660yds):
2cm M-Gesch FFM m. Zerl
time of flight: 1.43 seconds
drop: 7.63m (~25ft)
3cm M-Gesch 108 m. Zerl. Ausf. A
time of flight: 1.66 seconds
drop: 11.1m (~36ft)
-
Originally posted by Lusche
If you are trying to say "worse than the 30mm" - that's not quite correct.
For example at 600m (~660yds):
2cm M-Gesch FFM m. Zerl
time of flight: 1.43 seconds
drop: 7.63m (~25ft)
3cm M-Gesch 108 m. Zerl. Ausf. A
time of flight: 1.66 seconds
drop: 11.1m (~36ft)
Just the same...if your are firing them along with the normal 20mm only 1 or the other is going to hit....unless your shooting at bombers in which case just use an A8
-
Originally posted by trigger2
Doubt it really affects turn rate, probably more roll rate as theres slightly more weight added to the wings, but, in a 190, that should be no trouble...
P.S. if your trying to turn a 190, I suggest the TA a bit to find out *subliminal message*it's the worst turner in the game*end subliminal message* how to fly it :]
Maybe you should fly one first. The A5 is a luvly little ride, it can give spits, ponies, la's, etc a bit of a fright in the right hands.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Maybe you should fly one first. The A5 is a luvly little ride, it can give spits, ponies, la's, etc a bit of a fright in the right hands.
Agree, A5 is a great ride.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Maybe you should fly one first. The A5 is a luvly little ride, it can give spits, ponies, la's, etc a bit of a fright in the right hands.
That really isn't true. A fantastic pilot in a 190 may be able to give a completely clueless pilot in an La-7 or Spit a fight - but if the Spit or La-7 pilot knows enough to go into a flat turn in one direction.. the 190 will die (A or F) or have to run (and still probably die, if its a better spit or an La-7 [D]).
Even a P-51 should be able to beat one with very little trouble, and the P-51 isn't exactly a fearsome dogfighter.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
That really isn't true. A fantastic pilot in a 190 may be able to give a completely clueless pilot in an La-7 or Spit a fight - but if the Spit or La-7 pilot knows enough to go into a flat turn in one direction.. the 190 will die (A or F) or have to run (and still probably die, if its a better spit or an La-7 [D]).
Even a P-51 should be able to beat one with very little trouble, and the P-51 isn't exactly a fearsome dogfighter.
Agreed, on all points. The FWs are pigs, plain and simple.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Urchin
but if the Spit or La-7 pilot knows enough to go into a flat turn in one direction.. the 190 will die .
This makes the assumption that an A5 stick is dumb enough to flat turn with a spit. At speed, the A5 is a fine match for a 51. At low speed, rolling overshoots are your friend.
And, if it hasnt been said already, the addition of the outboard 20mm's on the A/F/5/8 do not reduce the roll rate, they reduce the acceleration of the roll rate.
In other words, youll still achieve maximum roll, but it will take you longer to get there.
-
The Spit and La7 are just flatly more manueverable than any 190... at any speed, in any direction. The flat turn reference is just that... should the 190 attain decent position in a "rolling scissors", all the Spit or La has to do is turn.. in one direction. The 190 can follow in the turn and die after 2-3 turns, or try to run. If he runs, he will be run down and killed, or the cycle will start again after a brief chase.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
That really isn't true. A fantastic pilot in a 190 may be able to give a completely clueless pilot in an La-7 or Spit a fight - but if the Spit or La-7 pilot knows enough to go into a flat turn in one direction.. the 190 will die (A or F) or have to run (and still probably die, if its a better spit or an La-7 [D]).
Not nessesarily. If the 190 has enough speed to use a vertical reversal he'll have at least one good shot opportunity on the bogie below him and, even if that just gets the bogies attention he may get a second opportunity in a subsequent move.
Also, a 190 with speed can easily handle ~540 degrees of flat turning before it has to break off as long as it's turning at relatively low G's.
Against a better stick (like you) the 190 won't match up for long but there's enough inexperience in the MA's that I've managed to beat Spits, F4U's, Hurri's, Zeke's, F6F's and many other more nimble fighters in the 190A-8 while sticking around to fight it out. Occasionally, I've even won in slow turn fights with all three notches of flaps out but I wouldn't reccomend trying this.
-
Originally posted by Whisky58
Thanks Mosq - that answers my question and confirms my gut feeling. I'd be very interested to see the results of your tests on the 2 cannon model.
Regards :)
I retested the 2 cannon and the 4 cannon.
2 Cannon 25% Fuel: No flaps Radius: 750 / Full Flaps: 556
2 Cannon 99% Fuel: No Flaps Radius: 836 / Full Flaps: 609
4 Cannons 25% Fuel: No Flaps Radius: 785 Full Flaps: 599
I didn't test the A5 with 99% fuel and 4 cannons. By the time you got slow enough to drop flaps, you're dead!
-
MOSQ, 1 notch of flap is very often better than flaps fully down.
-
This goes along with turn radius (i.e. how much weight do you save for how much turn radius?)
Taken from here:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=197645
190A-5 2 guns 100% (139gal): 8584 lbs
190A-5 2 guns 0%: 7752 lbs
190A-5 2 guns (no20mmAmmo) 100%: 8341 lbs
190A-5 2 guns (noMGAmmo) 100%: 8467 lbs
190A-5 4 guns 100% (139gal): 8780 lbs
190A-5 4 guns 0%: 7948lbs
190A-5 4 guns (no20mmAmmo) 100%: 8465lbs
190A-5 2 guns DT (218gal): 9124 lbs
190A-5 2 guns DT dry (139gal): 8650 lbs
190A-5 2 guns DT dropped (rack on): 8584 lbs
139 gal = 832 lbs
1 gal = 5.985 lbs
79 gal DT = 474 lbs
1800 7mm rounds = 117 lbs
500 20mm rounds = 243 lbs
120 20mm rounds = 72 lbs
1x 7mm round = 0.065 lbs
1x 20mm round = 0.486 lbs
1x 20mm (MG/FF) = 0.6 lbs
2x MG/FF plus ammo = 196 lbs
each MG/FF gun without ammo = 62 lbs
Total DT weight = 540 lbs
Empty DT weight = 66 lbs
Total weight of the MG/FF and amm, 196 lbs. So for almost 200lbs savings, you gain about 40 feet.
MOSQ, is that radius, or diameter? I think it's radius, but have to ask.
So, could one theorize that if you saved 400lbs total, you'd gain 80 feet? What does that come out to, about 5 pounds per gained foot.
Still not too much, considering most planes out there. So, if you took off 1000lbs, you're gaining 200 feet. So if the plane had no gas and no ammo whatsoever, and only had the 2 gun option, imagine how tightly it could turn!!!
:O :t
-
Originally posted by moot
MOSQ, 1 notch of flap is very often better than flaps fully down.
Never in my testing. Every plane turns a tighter circle with full flaps than 1 notch of flap. The only exception was the mis-modelled P-38 for awhile, but HTC fixed that.
I used to test at every flap setting. I gave up on that when I realized that it was irrelevant. It's important to know how well a plane turns with no flaps, and again at max flaps. In between you will be using them at various notches, but ultimately you and your opponent will end up at max flaps.
Krusty, yes, my numbers are in feet of radius.
-
No MOSQ.. In practice 1 notch of flaps is a better choice than full flaps. With full flaps there's a tighter turn but a proportionaly much lower speed.
It is an important enough figure to include it with no flaps and full flaps benchmarks.
-
Originally posted by moot
No MOSQ.. In practice 1 notch of flaps is a better choice than full flaps. With full flaps there's a tighter turn but a proportionaly much lower speed.
It is an important enough figure to include it with no flaps and full flaps benchmarks.
Then go for it. Please do the testing and post your work.
-
Nah.. I am right, though. I'm pretty sure Widewing himself said more or less the same thing.