Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Urchin on February 16, 2008, 08:10:31 AM
-
What happened to it?
It is awful! Gets ripped to shreds by F4U's now. Feels about as manueverable as the 190A-8 once you get slow (almost like everything feels like it should, but the other plane can do it twice as well as yours).
-
Apparently the most recent patches (well the patch that introduced the new F4U's) re-engineered the drag model of the aircraft and essentially hindered the P-51's flaps useless above a notch in terms of turning anyway. It's turn rate is simply dreadful now and the P-47 can outturn it according to WideWing's tests.
-
i agree.the mustang doest seem to have its honorable praze it should have.the mustang is suposed to be the great fighter over most of the planes in here,yet it does'nt turn quik,the other planes can ketchup to you with no problems and shoot you dwn.and the 50cals dont seem to take the other planes dwn all that quick ether.
-
I think a guy like AKDG could help you out. He has three hundred and eight kills in the P-51D going into the third week. He's the PONY MASTER...
(http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1987_7980260.jpg)
Down Goes NOWOTNY!
Cheers:aok
-
Originally posted by swareiam
I think a guy like AKDG could help you out. He has three hundred and eight kills in the P-51D going into the third week. He's the PONY MASTER...
Down Goes NOWOTNY!
Cheers:aok
You might want to ask SkatSR also. He too, is a great stick in a pony, If you want to talk about the A-8 however, Talk to me or Eagle about it.
-
Originally posted by GreenEagle43
i agree.the mustang doest seem to have its honorable praze it should have.the mustang is suposed to be the great fighter over most of the planes in here,yet it does'nt turn quik,the other planes can ketchup to you with no problems and shoot you dwn.and the 50cals dont seem to take the other planes dwn all that quick ether.
My brain hurts.
-
Originally posted by Bosco123
If you want to talk about the A-8 however, Talk to me...
Thanks for the hearty laugh, pure comedic gold.
ack-ack
-
:lol Kids say the darndest things...
By the way, Bosco, there are 2 Is in "recruiting".
-
Originally posted by Bosco123
If you want to talk about the A-8 however, Talk to me or Eagle about it.
:rofl
Last three months:
252 Kills
182 Deaths
1.38 K/D in a Fw190A8
Yep you're the leet ninja pilot.:rolleyes:
-
Urchin, F4U's are no good comparison to anything. They are perhaps the most forgiving plane on the set and capable of ultra low speed handling with the flaps out.
The problem is that these days plane performance is measured with flaps fully out, as this became the norm.
-
F4Us got uber-fied in the airflow update. It's not right. They had a lethal stall and in this game float like a bubble.
Don't stall fight a F4u, period.
Considering that, the P-51s are still competent killers. You can't turn fight, and you frankly never should have been able to. I'm not saying you can't turn, I'm just saying don't fall into the slowest-tightest-turner-wins mentality.
They turn pretty well, zoom, dive, etc. All those staples that you remember. But *every* plane flies a little differently now. The airflow code is much more refined, save for a few questionable things here and there.
P-51s excel in many areas. Turn radius isn't one.
-
SkatSr, AKDG and AKNOT are all very good in the Pony rides...:aok
-
Originally posted by Sketch
SkatSr, AKDG and AKNOT are all very good in the Pony rides...:aok
They are good P-51 sticks, but Urchin would eat all three alive... Urchin is top tier in virtually anything.
He's not asking for help gents, he's pointing out that the P-51's FM isn't what it was several years ago. There was a time when you could dump flaps and out-fly a 109G-2.. Not anymore, not even close.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by GreenEagle43
,the other planes can ketchup to you with no problems and shoot you dwn.and the 50cals dont seem to take the other planes dwn all that quick ether.
I've mustard up those same results in a 190.:aok
-
This thread made me smile on so many levels... :aok
-
Originally posted by Widewing
He's not asking for help gents, he's pointing out that the P-51's FM isn't what it was several years ago. There was a time when you could dump flaps and out-fly a 109G-2.. Not anymore, not even close.
Which is the way it should be- many of the surviving Luftwaffe pilots said after the war that the best tactic against P-51s was to get them in a slow turnfight because the 109 had better low-speed handling, especially down low.
And many of the P-51 aces (like Meyers of the 352nd) refused to turn with the Germans for just that reason- they drilled it into the new guys to never make more than a quarter turn with the enemy before straightening out and extending, and either find another target or set up for another slashing attack.
Of course, god forbid the majority of AH players learn to use actual tactics instead of just going around in circles with every red guy they run across. Personally the only time I ever used flaps in a Pony was to land.
-
Originally posted by GreenEagle43
i agree.the mustang doest seem to have its honorable praze it should have.the mustang is suposed to be the great fighter over most of the planes in here,yet it does'nt turn quik,the other planes can ketchup to you with no problems and shoot you dwn.and the 50cals dont seem to take the other planes dwn all that quick ether.
mayo get better flying it hopefully
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
mayo get better flying it hopefully
One day he will relish in the glory the Pony will bring.
-
Originally posted by Larry
:rofl
Last three months:
252 Kills
182 Deaths
1.38 K/D in a Fw190A8
Yep you're the leet ninja pilot.:rolleyes:
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Widewing
They are good P-51 sticks, but Urchin would eat all three alive... Urchin is top tier in virtually anything.
Not quite sure about that... DG carries close to a 6+ k/d on average in a D-Pony... and that is when he is flying alone. It goes up when the rest of the AK's are on. Just saying...:aok
-
Originally posted by Bosco123
You might want to ask SkatSR also. He too, is a great stick in a pony, If you want to talk about the A-8 however, Talk to me or Eagle about it.
Take 2 helpings' of humble pie, and call the doctor in the morning. :rofl
-
nah urchin pwns, i flew the pony with the 412th for a while and i can tell you id rather turn with a spit than bnz one... its more rewarding. :)
-
Originally posted by Sketch
Not quite sure about that... DG carries close to a 6+ k/d on average in a D-Pony... and that is when he is flying alone. It goes up when the rest of the AK's are on. Just saying...:aok
i have fought AKDG pony on pony several times, and won every time. he's good but i promise you urchin is a far better pilot.
-
So Kill Death ratio is the be and end all of capability in a fighter?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by swareiam
I think a guy like AKDG could help you out. He has three hundred and eight kills in the P-51D going into the third week. He's the PONY MASTER...
I'm sorry but I've been killed three times recently by AKDG. In each and every instance, he ran away from me, then came back and picked me while I was engaged with 2-3 other enemy's.
I could tell you how to do that, and in fact, I just did.
[EDIT] Urchin vs. AKDG? No contest. Urchin.
-
Originally posted by Sketch
Not quite sure about that... DG carries close to a 6+ k/d on average in a D-Pony
Mine is even better, averaging 10 K/D in D Pony. And guess what? Any of those better Pony sticks can eat me alive in a 1v1 co-alt, co-E situation.
So I wouldn't put too much trust in K/D as skill indicator alone ;)
-
I'm 17/1 in the Tempest. That doesn't mean I'm a top tier pilot, just that I'm usually flying around in excess of 400 mph thwacking seal pups.
Stats can be very misleading.
-
Speaking of uberness, I was 27:1 in a Stuka a few months ago. Beat that.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Speaking of uberness, I was 27:1 in a Stuka a few months ago. Beat that.
Offline doesn't count. :D
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Offline doesn't count. :D
Offline doesn't end up in your stats, this did :)
-
Haxxor!
-
Here comes the popularity contest again.... :rolleyes:
No, K/D does not mean everything in this game, in fact it means very little to a sense. I remember SHawk once went on a fighter kill streak with no deaths, (or 1 or 2) but had like 200 kills or some crap. (If he drops in on this please post as I have the memory of a mosquito on speed)
I am not saying Urchin is a bad pilot or not because I have fought him. I am not even saying he would lose/win against the pilots I wrote about previously. Whatever it is that BaldEagle is saying: "He ran away and came back and 'picked' me." Yeah maybe he did... maybe more SA is in need. Not trying to be rude either Bald and I mean that. The point is if you use a plane the way it is intended to be flown... what is wrong with that?
The plane has speed and like said earlier in this thread by Treize69 Which is the way it should be- many of the surviving Luftwaffe pilots said after the war that the best tactic against P-51s was to get them in a slow turn fight because the 109 had better low-speed handling, especially down low.
Okay, so he kept his plane fast and reset the fight, came back and shot you down. That is like telling Karaya not to slow his Ki-61 down and make you overshoot him.
Yes Biggles you might have a better K/D right now in this tour. But with Tempest, La's and Ponies... all fast rides, what do you use to your advantage?
Lusche, trust me I respect you in this community very much and yes yours is better right now as well... let's see: 173 k/d right now in a Me262. Fast plane, big guns. Once again I wonder how guys do it as I struggle half the time just keeping mine above 2, but I don't play for score really as it becomes boring and I like to have fun. I have fought you before and have lost so bad I just didn't want to up again because I died from a stupid mistake such as trying to turn a A8 with a Spit or Niki...
I have lost many times and become very humble over the years playing this game.
Hubs... Yes it is just because your flying 400mph with big guns (stop going to the gym) :D (And stats are misleading in this game as we know)
You take into fact a plane that is fast, has .50cal (and don't give me a speech on bullets and stuff, I deal with ordnance day to day at work) and not wanting to get it low and slow in a turn fight, that is the Pony. I have just started flying it and am flying it because I want to work on my gunnery. Hitting stuff with a 20mm/30mm does not take much to rip off a wing. Keeping your guns on with a smaller round long enough to take off that winning piece to get the kill is what matters.
Like I said, I am not saying Urchine is a bad pilot. Some people are on here praising people from this games past/present and they have flown on here maybe a year or so (sometimes if that) Wait, where is Serinity when we need him... :rolleyes:
Not trying to have an argument. Just saying they are great pilots in that plane and have not ever tried to take away anything from anyone else. And if I want to go that route I would just say they suck, pick, ho, etc. But using a plane to it's 'best' advantages isn't wrong is it...
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Haxxor!
BaldEagl is a Haxxxor
He's a triple-x kind of guy.... :rofl
-
Originally posted by Lusche
So I wouldn't put too much trust in K/D as skill indicator alone ;)
SHHH!!! Don't tell Karnak!
-
Does it realy matter what my score is in the A-8? I looked at yours Truekill and you have 0 in all three months! looks good to me. I said me because I know how to fly it and I have a good understading on what it can or cannot do.
-
Originally posted by Bosco123
Does it realy matter what my score is in the A-8? I looked at yours Truekill and you have 0 in all three months! looks good to me. I said me because I know how to fly it and I have a good understading on what it can or cannot do.
DA!!!! DA!!!! DA!!!! DA!!!! DA!!!!:noid
-
Originally posted by Bosco123
I said me because I know how to fly it and I have a good understading on what it can or cannot do.
Just like you have a true understanding of the P-51D's top speed?
No offense, but when one thinks of the better FW190A-8 drivers in the game, your name is nowhere on that list. I don't even fly it and I have a better understanding of the plane than you do.
ack-ack
-
sketch, K/D isn't the best indicator of skill by a long shot. as long as it's not 0.25 or something, there's no way of telling how good the guy is one on one. the tempest lgay and pony sorties are the ones i score in fighter mode on sweeps i know i'll need speed for, like intercepting mssions and doing base defense. i have high K/Ds in those rides because i'm flying smart when i fly em, not rushing into low red clouds etc.
i fly a lot of random planes when i'm messing about in attack mode.
anyways, DG is a good stick, don't get me wrong, i was simply saying urchin WILL win. i've fought both several times one on one, and i can assure you, urchin is the better 1 on 1 stick.
not to put DG down or anything, urchin is just VERY good.
-
Sketch, you and I will form the "We Both Wish We Could Be Good Club".
Maybe one day......until then, we're just a couple of cartoon pile-its who know how to crack a joke and have fun.
-
Originally posted by Major Biggles
I won't start a purse fight with yah Biggles, your too nice of a guy for that as am I. My post on this is just my opinion... but there is always that one time. Like I said before... I am just saying
:aok
-
Originally posted by Sketch
Not quite sure about that... DG carries close to a 6+ k/d on average in a D-Pony... and that is when he is flying alone. It goes up when the rest of the AK's are on. Just saying...:aok
I understand your view. But I've dueled the best in this game, and I have absolutely no doubt that Urchin wins.
Running up huge K/Ds is easy. In of itself, a big K/D means little unless one knows the context involved. Does the pilot fly with a group? How much vulching does he do? Etc...
Fly alone, avoid vulching, fly less than uber aircraft, don't be an alt-monkey, avoid picking guys in another fight. Then, run up a massive K/D and you'll have something to be proud of.
With that under your belt, go to the DA and TA, duel with the best in the game on a regular basis. When you can hold your own with them, wining as much as losing; now you are in the top tier, someone to be feared. Urchin is in that category.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Like I told Biggles...
I won't argue about this Widewing. Maybe he could, maybe not... That is my opinion and that is all. But in this game a lot of times it doesn't matter to most. I just shrug my shoulders and accept it and move on. I have said K/D doesn't matter, hell look at Axer/Dexter and the 15 people or whatever that fly on their account... You have your opinion and I have mine, but I won't say your right or wrong, just like I won't say I am or not... The criticism in this game is tough and I have been playing since Air Warrior. I just accept it.... :aok
-
Not to be an ass, but.. At the same time you say you won't argue, but keep arguing? Sounds like you just want to keep DG's name up there next to Urchin.
An ostrich has an opinion too, down there in the sand.
There's subjective criticism, like in art. And there's objective criticism in exact sciences such as dogfighting.
-
Originally posted by moot
Not to be an ass, but.. At the same time you say you won't argue, but keep arguing? Sounds like you just want to keep DG's name up there next to Urchin.
An ostrich has an opinion too, down there in the sand.
There's subjective criticism, like in art. And there's objective criticism in exact sciences such as dogfighting.
Like your opinion.... ?
I am not arguing and yet I am not running down Urchin either. Maybe you just want to keep Urchin at the top... or maybe monkeys swing from trees... I could care less.... But when others bring it up again again I guess a guy just needs to go along with the Chair-Generals and accept things how they are....
Not to be an ass... :D
-
I have alot of respect for DG, he's a good guy and a more then competent stick (not just in the pony). He flies smart, engages well and rarely gets into unmanagable situations unless he's stuck defending other squaddies. All that being said there are a small handful of guys who go above and beyond when pushed into a corner or left with a true 1 on 1. Urchin is in that small group that have you "outnumbered" when its just you and he and you have alt & E...more often then not he'll find a way to eek out a "W" from a bad situation. DG does well because he flies smart and flies to his planes strength. Urchin will T&B a plane beyond the limits of common sense and find a way to make it work. Thats nothing negative to DG...just a realistic assessment of Urchins tremendous skills....
-
Originally posted by Bosco123
Does it realy matter what my score is in the A-8? I looked at yours Truekill and you have 0 in all three months! looks good to me. I said me because I know how to fly it and I have a good understading on what it can or cannot do.
Check again kid. Two kills and no deaths in Jan., but hat was the month I was dweebing it out in the tempest and dora. In Dec. I have 106 kills with 19 deaths. Thats a 5.68 K/D I would say it does look good. Looks like Im a better ninja then you!
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Just like you have a true understanding of the P-51D's top speed?
No offense, but when one thinks of the better FW190A-8 drivers in the game, your name is nowhere on that list. I don't even fly it and I have a better understanding of the plane than you do.
ack-ack
I bet his only undr standing of the A8 is its a good HO plane. When I think of a 190 pilot I think of someone like wilbuz.
-
Originally posted by Sketch
Like your opinion.... ?
Huh? My opinion is clear and backed with facts, not just a fact with a disclaimer that it may or may not be a fact...
My opinion is that Urchin eats DG for lunch, no sweat, based on first hand evidence. Dogfighting isn't like figure skating, there's a clear cut bottom line to it, and the bottom line is that Urchin beats DG.
-
sketch i'm really not looking for an argument, but, urchin is a better stick. i know you're backing upa squaddie but there is no shame in being second to urchin, seeing as he's one of the best duellers in the game.
DG is a great MA style pilot, smart and smooth pilot, perhaps better at the MA style of play than urch, and so will have a better K/D etc.
in a fair 1 on 1 with DG though, urchin will win pretty much 100% of the time. that's not my opinion, that's a fairly factual assessment of the two sticks.
there are several of the best sticks in the game in this thread stating the same.
-
Well okay...
Urchin is better...
Like I said, not trying to fight a war here... sorry for an opinion...
-
Originally posted by Sketch
Whatever it is that BaldEagle is saying: "He ran away and came back and 'picked' me." Yeah maybe he did... maybe more SA is in need. Not trying to be rude either Bald and I mean that. The point is if you use a plane the way it is intended to be flown... what is wrong with that?
The plane has speed and like said earlier in this thread by Treize69
Okay, so he kept his plane fast and reset the fight, came back and shot you down. That is like telling Karaya not to slow his Ki-61 down and make you overshoot him.
Running until you are out of icon range isn't re-setting a fight. Extending 1-2K is re-setting. What I'm saying is he ran away, then got all brave and came back for the kill once I was engaged with multiple cons.
Most on these bbs would be ridiculed for such cowerdice. It is however, a good way to get a high K/D ratio.
I have a lot of respect for the AK's and count several as friends and most as worthy adversaries. Unfortunately, AKDG falls into neither of those categories and I was (am) dissapointed in him given my high regard for the rest of the squad.
I hope that makes it a little clearer.
-
It's not about you being sorry or wrong.. It's about what's true. Do you expect anyone to argue something they know isn't true?
-
Originally posted by moot
It's not about you being sorry or wrong.. It's about what's true. Do you expect anyone to argue something they know isn't true?
I wasn't arguing with who was better... I could really care less. I was saying he is a good stick and I like what Biggles just posted:
sketch i'm really not looking for an argument, but, urchin is a better stick. i know you're backing up a squaddie but there is no shame in being second to urchin, seeing as he's one of the best duellers in the game.
Point is Moot it doesn't matter... it's a game...
-
I'll jump in here cuz i saw my name mentioned. For the record I will lose a 1-1 to any of those previously mentioned........except Boscoe......:noid
NOT
-
Originally posted by Widewing
There was a time when you could dump flaps and out-fly a 109G-2.. Not anymore, not even close.
Yup, i remember those days, it handled like it was on rails -
-
I never said it mattered or that it was anything more than a game. I said you were wrong saying there was any doubt Urchin eats up DG.
-
I have noticed the pony was hurt pretty bad by the update. I know I shouldn't try but I'll get into turn fights (or at least get angle) with better turning planes and I can tell the difference now as opposed to what it was before the update. As for the 50s. It seems to be less effective now, especially against Spits (I have my guns set for 200 thus should saw wings in half)
And hopefully I'll be nearly as good as AKDG and Urachin someday; long road on the one though
-
Originally posted by moot
I never said it mattered or that it was anything more than a game. I said you were wrong saying there was any doubt Urchin eats up DG.
Okay I am wrong.... :)
Anything else.... ?
-
Originally posted by Larry
:rofl
Last three months:
252 Kills
182 Deaths
1.38 K/D in a Fw190A8
Yep you're the leet ninja pilot.:rolleyes:
jesus i do better than that lol
-
i think SkarSR is one of the best 51 pilots. Ive flown with him a few times and Ive seen him do some amazing stuff with it.
just throwing it out their Ive got close to a 10K/D in a 51.I think it's a great plane, really the only problem with it besides the turn rate would be that the .50cals are weaker then the real thing.
-
I guess the pony isn't what it used to be from what has been said in this thread.
I think its still a great plane, it won't perform that great against good sticks in more turnable planes down low but its high speed performance and all round attributes still make it formidable.
With good throttle/flap work you can still be dangerous.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
I'm sorry but I've been killed three times recently by AKDG. In each and every instance, he ran away from me, then came back and picked me while I was engaged with 2-3 other enemy's.
I could tell you how to do that, and in fact, I just did.
[EDIT] Urchin vs. AKDG? No contest. Urchin.
Eagle and Others,
You seem to forget the Mustang is a 11,000 lb. aircraft. Thrust to weight ratio is only good in this aircraft when moving fast or "RUNNING AWAY", so to speak. The honest truth is that you are crazy for trying to turn and burn in this ride. As soon as you get slow there are 11,000 lbs. that say you're not going anywhere fast chum. AKDG has just taken advantage of the best flight characterists of the aircraft itself. Go ahead, up in a pony, 50% fuel, find a furball, dump flaps and make your first turn at a 60 degree angle or better. You just went from 350 knot to 200 knots or less in just a few seconds. This at low alt means you dead. Anything else that can turn is eating your lunch.
Don't blame the man for figuring that out...
Cheers:aok
-
It's really not that bad. I recently dueled it against some good sticks in K4s, and it held its own very well.
-
Originally posted by Larry
Check again kid. Two kills and no deaths in Jan., but hat was the month I was dweebing it out in the tempest and dora. In Dec. I have 106 kills with 19 deaths. Thats a 5.68 K/D I would say it does look good. Looks like Im a better ninja then you!
Ok only checked lasy month.
Originally posted by Larry
I bet his only undr standing of the A8 is its a good HO plane. When I think of a 190 pilot I think of someone like wilbuz.
Next thing is that I never HO so get that out of your mind quick.
-
Originally posted by Bosco123
Next thing is that I never HO so get that out of your mind quick.
Yea what ever you say.
-
Originally posted by Larry
Yea what ever you say.
ROLFLMAO!!:rofl :rofl
-
Thread wasn't really about my cartoon flying skills (or lack thereof), but rather about the P-51.
Since I have never flown a real P-51, all I have to go by is the old FM. The old Pony would fly a wide variety of geometric shapes around the new one, in my opinion.
I understand that "stall fighting" the Pony isn't the "right" way to fly it... but I am more curious about the HUGE change in the way it flies, not with how it "should" be flown.
Sketch - no harm no foul. I certainly did not take anything you said personally.
-
When did you last fly the pony Urchin?
I remember the pony of AH 1 which was totally wicked! Then, IIRC, the drag model changes for flaps hit the pony, and gave the hogs a new lease of life. I dont pretend to know how either of them fly in real life and they compare relative to each other - i dont think many here do...
-
Just an off the wall observation..
Was the 51D historicaly shown to out maneuver the 47s we have, more than the 51D we have does? The 190D9 was supposed to historicaly (IIRC) be about equal in maneuverability to the 51D.
That could make our 51D more true to life.
-
This is how the RAF rated them for turn radius.. From Mike Williams' and Neil Sterling's site.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg)
For acceleration....
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-accel.jpg)
Speed and climb....
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-comp-perf-chart1.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
I guess not.. Great charts Widewing, thanks for sharing them.
-
I always find it interesting the discussion of who is the best P51d pilot. So I am going to throw a name in that seems to miss this type of debate & goes unnoticed & that is a squad mate Challenge. Most of every one of the top names talked about in other threads Challenge has for the most part beat them all on numerous occasions regardless of what they are flying. At one point & this is going back some months now & may not be correct on my part he had never been shot down by another d pony while he was in a one on one situation. If I am wrong then that is me & not Challenge, any way decided to throw his name in the mix.
-
Who's Challenge?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Who's Challenge?
ack-ack
Urchin's shade account.... :noid
:rofl
-
Vati used to be a good 51 stick.
Surprised Demon hasnt been mentioned.
-
*Looks at past 20 films...* Nope The P-51 doesn't suck. When flown right she outmaneuvers my 109-K4 and makes me look and feel like an idiot. I ain't the best 109 pilot in the world but I know I ain't the worst. When flown by a novice, I can beat a Pony down with one elevator and half a wing missing. (... probably...)
*Looks at holes all over 109...* No, those .50 cals are very painful thank you very much. Anyone who says that their .50's aren't hurting have their convergence set wrong, your only getting 1 or 2 guns actually hitting the target. When 4, or all 6 get lead into the target it'll disintigrate very rapidly, as many of my 109's have proven.
*Thinks for a minute...*
Perk the Pony!:D
-
Originally posted by RoGenT
And hopefully I'll be nearly as good as AKDG and Urachin someday; long road on the one though
:huh im sorry, but you are crazy my pig
you have 700+ kills and 84 deaths in the pony... i think you are good enough...
im only 1k/d in my best plane(ki-84).... (then again, i fight to the finish)
-
Rogent has been putting in alot of effort with his 51 mixing it up in all situations. I have had to raise my game to beat him on a number of occasions but thats with better planes down low.
No doubt that he will over time become even better in it.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Who's Challenge?
ack-ack
Well I guess my post of not being noticed is correct.
-
then came back and picked me while I was engaged with 2-3 other enemy's.
====
I feel your pain bro.
Heres my take....not that it matters.
Every time another player ends a sortie of mine it is strictly my fault. I never get bested, I never get cheated, I never simply lose to a better player with more experience or better equipment. All that happens is I screw up and I get busted.
If I play the game the way I truly want to this is what generally happens: I spend a few hours online and end maybe eight-ten sorties of other people without anyone ending my sortie. That is when I log the most satisfied.
Does it happen very often? No, I usually screw up and well........you know.
-
Widewing, I looked at your charts and decided to make some research of my own.
Apparently, according to AFDU trials (and your chart), the P-51B/C (Mustang III) turns not only better than the Tempest II, but the Tempest V as well (flaps up on both planes). In our game, we know that the Tempest V turns a good amount tighter than the P-51B or D at any speed when both planes have flaps up.
Is our P-51, therefore, mis-modeled?
-
... or the Tempest. Or both. ;)
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Widewing, I looked at your charts and decided to make some research of my own.
Apparently, according to AFDU trials (and your chart), the P-51B/C (Mustang III) turns not only better than the Tempest II, but the Tempest V as well (flaps up on both planes). In our game, we know that the Tempest V turns a good amount tighter than the P-51B or D at any speed when both planes have flaps up.
Is our P-51, therefore, mis-modeled?
I've been bellyaching about the P-51's turn radius for a long time.
Also, consider that the Tempest weighs about 12,500 lb. This gives it a power loading virtually identical with the P-51D. Yet, the P-51 has a much lower drag coefficient. Thus, one would think that the P-51 should accelerate faster, especially as speed (and drag) increase. Wing loading is similar, especially if the P-51 is configured for normal fuel, rather than max range.
AFDU testing shows the P-51 accelerating faster and turning smaller circles. I think the P-51 accelerates too slowly and the large Tempest accelerates too fast (in game).
I'm hoping that Pyro and co. look at the P-51 FM when time permits.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Why wont HTC listen to WideWing? :(
-
RAF Mustang III http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/129-davis-23march45.jpg
Neil.
-
Let's hope the model is looked at soon because I'm falling in love with the P-51B.
Also, thanks for the report, Neil. That +25 lb. boost is likely the cause of the RAF's introduction of the new 150 grade octane they were installing in their Spitfire, Mustang and Tempest fighters during the later half 1944.
-
Would the larger prop on the Tempest not help with acceleration over the 'tooth pick' (relative) on the P-51?
-
That's what I was initially thinking as well since the Tempest's prop is actually larger than that of the F4U's prop (14' 0" vs. 13' 4" for the F4U-1's +, 13' 2" for the F4U-4).
But perhaps there's some kind of equation there somewhere. I mean the P-51's prop blade is far from a toothpick, even compared to the Tempest's prop. Judging by the relative tiny size of the actual Mustang when compared to the gigantic Tempest, the prop might be more efficient for the P-51 than the Tempest's prop is for the huge Tempest.
Looking at the official tests, it seems as though the P-51 somehow creates more thrust or something as it turns better than the Tempest despite the Mustang's slightly heavier wingloading (P-51B weight @ 25% fuel, full ammo, clean/wing area: 8,604 lbs./235 sq.ft. = 36.6 lbs./sq.ft. VS. Tempest V weight @ 25% fuel, full ammo, clean/wing area: 10,525 lbs./ 302 sq.ft. = 34.9 lbs./sq.ft.).
Even through that, the Mustang turns better so the trust factor (which seems very evident in our current F4U) must be helping turn rate or turn radius somehow, though I cannot fully base my opinion on the F4U since I truly do not yet understand the equations which determine the Corsair's amazing turn rate.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Would the larger prop on the Tempest not help with acceleration over the 'tooth pick' (relative) on the P-51?
When I have a little more time, I'll calculate acceleration for these two, and I'll give the Tempest an extra 5% more prop efficiency when calculating thrust. The lower the speed, the greater the available thrust.
Acceleration in feet per second, per second = Thrust - Drag/Weight/32.2
IIRC, the Tempest has a profile drag coefficient of about .0245, with the P-51D coming in at .0176 (with pylons, .0168 without)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Tempest V
Normal loaded weight: 11,400 lbs
Power: 2,180 hp
Wing area: 302 ft²
Wing loading: 37.7 lbs/ft
Power loading: 5.22 lbs/hp
D Pony
Normal loaded weight: 9,200 lbs
Power: 1,695 hp
Wing area: 235 ft²
Wing loading: 39.2 lbs/ft
Power loading: 5.42 lbs/hp
Seems to me the Tempest should both out turn and out accelerate the Pony. The Tempest also has a better wing profile for high angle of attack turning. The Pony's laminar flow wing profile generated much more drag at high angle of attack than a more typical WWII wing profile.
-
Didn't the Tempest also have a laminar airfoil?
Lumpy:
- what was the hp of the 25lb boost Packard-Merlin?
- what was the hp of the 13lb boost Sabre?
-
As for the RAF documents posted: By the summer of 1944 the RAF were running their Merlins at +25 boost producing almost 2000 hp. The USAAF never boosted their Merlins that much, and the in-game Ponies are limited to 100/130 avgas boost levels (+18 I believe).
The RAF documents are meaningless unless boost levels used also can be documented. A 2000 hp Mustang is a far superior machine, but alas, not one we have in the game.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Didn't the Tempest also have a laminar airfoil?
Lumpy:
- what was the hp of the 25lb boost Packard-Merlin?
- what was the hp of the 13lb boost Sabre?
I don't think the Tempest had a laminar flow wing. Not sure though.
The +25 Merlin made almost 2000 hp. However we don't have one of those in-game.
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
I don't think the Tempest had a laminar flow wing. Not sure though.
It did....
My regards,
Widewing
-
What aircraft had laminar flow wings?
P-51
Tempest
Ki-84
What else?
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
As for the RAF documents posted: By the summer of 1944 the RAF were running their Merlins at +25 boost producing almost 2000 hp. The USAAF never boosted their Merlins that much, and the in-game Ponies are limited to 100/130 avgas boost levels (+18 I believe).
The RAF documents are meaningless unless boost levels used also can be documented. A 2000 hp Mustang is a far superior machine, but alas, not one we have in the game.
Sure the USAAF did when 150 fuel was used.
-
History channel and military channel call it the best fighter of the war as far as turning ability and overall performance. Just finished watching the historians get down and dirty about all these little ratios on the history channel. Seems like our version of the p-51d is really castrated. Not a pilot but for a plane to have so much praise and so much performance and yet it turns like a brick and for not very long before the E gets sucked out of it.... hmmm don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that our version is made of the same stuff a nerf football is.Don't hurt your heads crunching numbers. The benchmarks of the guys making these models is really off or using different information it seems. Cheers anyway and hope the planes (not just the p51D) get fixed at least a bit. See you guys in the MA.
James
-
don't ever believe anything you see on the history channel...
the mustang was definitely not a good turner.
-
^^^^what she said.
it was no turner but it did have a tight radious at speed.
-
Saw that one show "Top 10 Fighters" said the P51 was the all time best fighter. Yea shows you what they know.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Sure the USAAF did when 150 fuel was used.
No they never approved +25 lbs. I believe they got up to little more than +22 lbs. But again, we don't have any of these boosts available in-game.
-
Originally posted by Larry
Saw that one show "Top 10 Fighters" said the P51 was the all time best fighter. Yea shows you what they know.:rolleyes:
Yeah I remember. The Me 262 wasn't even mentioned lol.
-
James, You're talking about the channel that used stock footage of b24's when describing the Doolittle raid. Just because it's on TV doesn't mean it's true. ;)
The flight models are done as accurately as possible from the historical documents on record at the time, from my understanding. If we find and present evidence other than what is used from reliable sources, then they consider those for future updates.
The P51 was designed for high altitude escort and fighter intercept, not knife fighting in a phone booth down on the deck, like we tend to do here. It does it's job pretty well when it's used properly. take it up above 20k, keep it fast and she shines. The guys who escort my bombers seem to like it.:aok
-
Originally posted by Widewing
It did....
My regards,
Widewing
Ok, strike my last remark then. The Tempest's better power and wing loading will have to stand on its own.
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
No they never approved +25 lbs. I believe they got up to little more than +22 lbs. But again, we don't have any of these boosts available in-game.
75" MAP was approved for the V-1650-7 in 8th AF service.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/75inch-clearance-v-1650-7.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-29april44.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
"Even though the USAAF had cleared the P-51 for 75" Hg., the Eighth Air Force chose 72" Hg as the P-51's War Emergency Rating."
"Those RAF Mustang units tasked with defending against the V-1 were modified to operated at +25 lbs./sq.in. - the equivalent of 80" Hg."
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html
And we still don't have any of these boosts available in the game.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
When I have a little more time, I'll calculate acceleration for these two, and I'll give the Tempest an extra 5% more prop efficiency when calculating thrust. The lower the speed, the greater the available thrust.
Acceleration in feet per second, per second = Thrust - Drag/Weight/32.2
IIRC, the Tempest has a profile drag coefficient of about .0245, with the P-51D coming in at .0176 (with pylons, .0168 without)
My regards,
Widewing
A quick calculation based upon 80% prop efficiency shows me that acceleration is as follows.
Beginning at 150 mph
Tempest: 8.44 ft/sec/sec
P-51D: 8.69 ft/sec/sec
Tempest at 85% prop efficiency: 9.21 ft/sec/sec
At 300 mph, the rate of acceleration slows to:
Tempest: 2.32 ft/sec/sec
P-51D: 2.93 ft/sec/sec
This makes good sense as the greater profile drag of the Tempest begins to tell more at higher speeds.
This is based upon weights of 11,480 lb for Tempest and 9,611 lb for the P-51D.
Total drag used for the Tempest is 1,350 lb, 845 lb for the P-51D (based upon profile drag coefficients, wing area and dynamic pressure at sea level, meaning that increases in altitude will result in decreased drag).
Horsepower depends on boost.
I used 1,720 hp for the V-1650-7 and 2,180 for the Sabre IIA at 9.0 lb boost. Greater boost means greater power. However, I'm going by standard boost of 67" MAP for the Packard Merlin and 9.0 lb for the Sabre.
By the way, if I add the 2,800 hp P-47M to this, you would see that it runs away from both of the others.
One other factor that bugs me is the P-38J/L. Using the same calculation, it should accelerate faster than the P-51, Tempest or P-47M. Currently in the game, it's about even with the P-51D, which means it accelerates rather slowly despite 1/3 more hp than the Tempest and a total drag only slightly greater than the P-47M. It strikes me as very odd. I have no idea how profile drag is coded into the game, so I can't even begin to guess why this exists. It is what it is and we have adapted to it.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Then perhaps your calculations are missing something vital. Distilling something so complex as the physics of powered flight down to math cannot be simple or easy.
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
"Even though the USAAF had cleared the P-51 for 75" Hg., the Eighth Air Force chose 72" Hg as the P-51's War Emergency Rating."
Let's finish the paragraph...
"Apparently there is more to the story, however, as Encounter Reports demonstrate that 75" Hg was used operationally."
This shows that the modifications resulted in 75" regardless of preferred rating.
Nonetheless, you are right in that these boost pressures are not available in game. However, the AH2 Tempest seems to run at considerably greater boost than the standard 9.0 lb. It looks like 10.5 lb to me.
This chart shows performance with 150 octane fuel.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/spit14+25lbs.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
Then perhaps your calculations are missing something vital. Distilling something so complex as the physics of powered flight down to math cannot be simple or easy.
This calculation is middle-school simple if you have the required drag, weight and power figures. These I have as they are published. The only estimate is propeller efficiency. Usually, this is plugged in as 80%. See Dean's explanation for non-engineers in America's Hundred Thousand.
My results agree with the AFDU chart, btw.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Yes I'm sure there were many pilots who flew with higher than officially allowed boosts. I know a few P-47 pilots did that. Still, the 8th only allowed 72" for the Pony, and even 75" isn't +25 lbs, so the RAF documents are still useless without knowing what boost they represent.
If your calculations are middle-school simple and rely on only three factors then I can safely say that your results won't be accurate within any reasonable margin. And I can also say with some conviction that the calculations of Hitech Creations are likely much more complex and accurate.
-
"However, the AH2 Tempest seems to run at considerably greater boost than the standard 9.0 lb. It looks like 10.5 lb to me."
If that is the case than surely the Tempest should out perform the Pony?
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
Then perhaps your calculations are missing something vital. Distilling something so complex as the physics of powered flight down to math cannot be simple or easy.
How do you think HTC does it then? Its a vector-based flight model, so it has to use math. That equation that WW used is the basis of just about every thrust/drag calculation presented in current aerodynamics textbooks.
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
I don't think the Tempest had a laminar flow wing. Not sure though.
Looking at the profile on the UIUC database, it doesn't appear to be in the laminar family, certainly not the NACA 6 digit series. It almost appears to be a modified NACA 14XX series with the position of maximum thickness pushed back (they list it as 37% which would put it between the NACA 63XXX and NACA 64XXX series). Perhaps a NACA 1414/1410 with the maximum thickness adjusted. Dave Lednicer lists it as a H-1414 root/H-1410 tip. Some Hawker airfoil I suppose. I could run it on X-Foil and compare it to the P-51 under the same conditions as a comparison. Its the same as the airfoil used on the Sea Fury.
-
War time Tempest V's were fitted with two different marks of Napier Sabre.
The Sabre IIa +9lbs boost 3,700rpm, upped to +11lbs for V1 interception and the Sabre IIb +11lbs boost 3,850 rpm.
Those Sabre IIA's having Mod. No. Sabre/158 or 297 ("strengthened propeller reduction gear assembly") were converted to IIB's by the incorporation of a new boost control cam (Mod. No. Sabre/433) and a new boost control capsule (Mod. No. Sabre/435).
More in detail here:-
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-V.html
Neil
-
Lumpy
RAF documents are still useless without knowing what boost they represent.
Do you mean these?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html
If so http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-data.jpg
Neil.
-
Originally posted by Stoney
How do you think HTC does it then? Its a vector-based flight model, so it has to use math. That equation that WW used is the basis of just about every thrust/drag calculation presented in current aerodynamics textbooks.
Somehow I think Hitech Creation's flight model is a bit more complicated than that. ;)
(http://hitechcreations.com/pyro/poweron01.jpg)
-
Neil Stirling: Do you mean these?
No. I meant the documents Widewing posted, unless they are the same.
-
They are.
Neil.
-
Originally posted by Neil Stirling
War time Tempest V's were fitted with two different marks of Napier Sabre.
The Sabre IIa +9lbs boost 3,700rpm, upped to +11lbs for V1 interception and the Sabre IIb +11lbs boost 3,850 rpm.
Those Sabre IIA's having Mod. No. Sabre/158 or 297 ("strengthened propeller reduction gear assembly") were converted to IIB's by the incorporation of a new boost control cam (Mod. No. Sabre/433) and a new boost control capsule (Mod. No. Sabre/435).
More in detail here:-
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-V.html
Neil
Lol that's what I put in the Tempest Engine thread and no one listened to me :rolleyes:
The Tempest is using 150 grade as seen from the document posted. Thus +10.5 lb. boost is generated from our in-game Tempest's Sabre IIA, not +11 lbs. You can check the maximum boost from the E6B. I think most Tempests used the Sabre IIB (at WEP: +11 lbs.) which actually had better power... 2,420 hp by the documented standards compared to the Sabre IIA's lower 2,180 hp I believe.
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
If your calculations are middle-school simple and rely on only three factors then I can safely say that your results won't be accurate within any reasonable margin. And I can also say with some conviction that the calculations of Hitech Creations are likely much more complex and accurate.
Well, you're not safe and your conviction is misplaced. These calculations represent an excellent relationship between the two aircraft. The AFDU shows the P-51 having better initial acceleration, which means that the acceleration at higher speed ranges should be even more in favor of the P-51 until a maximum is approached... The effect of drag is not linear.
So, the P-51 should walk away, with the Tempest eventually catching up after a long run.
One could argue that the AH2 Tempest is boosted above standard. However, this opens a Pandora's box or sorts; because everyone could begin arguing that their favorite aircraft should be boosted to something beyond standard that was actually used. I wouldn't bother to argue that, but would rather see acceleration more closely match the theoretical numbers without over-boosting or higher octane fuel.
The P-38J/L should be one of the premier drag racers of the plane set, but isn't.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Well did the Sabre IIB-equipped Tempest V's have a higher boost level anyway? If anything, I think our Tempest is underboosted. Just pulling some info off of spitfireperfromance.com
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
Somehow I think Hitech Creation's flight model is a bit more complicated than that. ;)
Sure, its crunching a lot of numbers simultaneously, but the equations used to compute the multiple vectors used to simulate the 3D aerodynamic effects on the models, are all computed with either the standard aerodynamic equations for each vector, or variations of the same.
For example, the top number of all the vectors displayed along the wing looks to be pounds of lift at each station. Those numbers would be substituted in for a number of equations running simultaneously. They could be used to determine the rolling moment created by the propwash on the left wing, whether or not the spar reaches its ultimate load as a result of lift, etc. All of these factors that act upon the plane must be a result of some equation. Otherwise, HTC would be relying on an FM that used Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to determine the forces that acted upon each aircraft. Most of us have computers that would crash shortly after engine start if that was the case.
My point being, that WW's use of a common, simple thrust/drag formula to represent the relative difference between two aircraft is a proper and rational argument. After all, its what HTC does in order to make the FM work.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
The P-38J/L should be one of the premier drag racers of the plane set, but isn't.
It had a flat plate area over twice as large as the Pony (8.78 to 3.80), with a Cd over 60% greater than the Pony (.0268 to .0163) with not quite twice the power. I appologize for fanning the flames without doing the math first. (Numbers pulled from this (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/app-a2.htm))
Its possible that the 85% eta-P for the Tempest is a bit generous.
Anyone have the Root/Tip Chord or MAC of the P-51D and Tempest? Having a hard time finding them for airfoil comparisons. (Need the lengths in order to generate the proper Reynolds number).
-
Originally posted by Stoney
It had a flat plate area over twice as large as the Pony (8.78 to 3.80), with a Cd over 60% greater than the Pony (.0268 to .0163) with not quite twice the power. I appologize for fanning the flames without doing the math first. (Numbers pulled from this (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/app-a2.htm))
Its possible that the 85% eta-P for the Tempest is a bit generous.
Anyone have the Root/Tip Chord or MAC of the P-51D and Tempest? Having a hard time finding them for airfoil comparisons. (Need the lengths in order to generate the proper Reynolds number).
I'll answer the last question first as I have this handy.
Root Chord @ C/L is 103.99"
Wing Tip Chord at Station 215 (where the wing tip cap is screwed on) is 50.0".
As to the the P-38/P-51 comparison, there's a few things your source omits, if you will..
They have the CDo at .0163. This is for a P-51B/C and it reflects no stores pylons and taped over gun ports. For the P-51D it should be .0176 with pylons and untaped gun ports.
Also to be considered is that the hp rating for the P-38 reflects MIL power, not WEP. It gets tricky because the AAF rated the V-1710-89/91 engines at 1,600 hp in WEP, and applied the same rating to the V-1710-111/113 of the L model. However, the L model was delivered with a factory rating of 1,725 hp. Tony LeVier and Kelly Johnson have both stated that the L models were delivered and accepted by the AAF with the full 1,725 hp available in WEP. However, it was merely an adjustment to the prop governors to limit RPM to 3,000 and 1,600 hp. The full 1,725 hp occurred at 3,200 RPM (according to LeVier). So, the AAF could have readjusted the RPM during assembly and rigging at the Burtonwood or Langford Lodge depots. Of course, the Lockheed and Allison reps immediately reset the RPM when the aircraft were ferried to the combat units (according to several P-38 crew chiefs).
As to the P-51, we have the same issue in that the MIL rating appears in your source rather than the 1,720 hp WEP rating.
If we do the math, we find the following using full internal fuel weights:
P-38J: 375 x .8 x 3,200 / 150 mph = 6400 lb thrust
So, 6,400 lb thrust - 1676 lb drag / (16,480/32.2) = 9.23 ft/sec/sec
P-38L: 375 x .8 x 3,450 / 150 mph = 6,900 lb thrust
So, 6900 lb thrust - 1676 lb drag / (16880/32.2) = 9.97 ft/sec/sec
P-51D: 375 x .8 x 1,720 / 150 mph = 3,440 lb thrust
so, 3440 lb thrust - 845 lb drag / (10,208/32.2) = 8.18 ft/sec/sec
At 250 mph:
P-38J: 4.22 ft/sec/sec
P-38L: 4.70 ft/sec/sec (4.13 ft/sec/sec for 1600 hp rating)
P-51D: 3.85 ft/sec/sec
Much depends upon weight. Early P-38Js didn't have leading edge tanks, so you could subtract the weight of 110 gallons, or 660 lb.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
As to the the P-38/P-51 comparison, there's a few things your source omits, if you will..
Obviously, those differences would be significant. I assume all of those are Sea Level comparisons. Given that the P-38 is turbo-supercharged, I'm assuming the Allisons made 1725 up to altitude (a la P-47). I'm curious as to standard day altitude comparisons that could create an advantage for the sleeker Pony.
I'm having some trouble getting XFoil to accept the coordinates for both the Tempest and P-51 airfoils as listed on the UIUC website. I'll play around with it to see if I can get some results.
-
Stoney, if you could send me the coordinates for the airfoils I can try my software to see if I can generate a set of polars for you to compare.
-
Originally posted by SD67
Stoney, if you could send me the coordinates for the airfoils I can try my software to see if I can generate a set of polars for you to compare.
PM sent...
-
Originally posted by Widewing
IIRC, the Tempest has a profile drag coefficient of about .0245, with the P-51D coming in at .0176 (with pylons, .0168 without)
0.0245 doesn't really match with known power and speed.
As the Tempest has both better power loading and better top speed (at low altitude), it seems obvious even without calculating that i has better acceleration at all speeds.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
This calculation is middle-school simple if you have the required drag, weight and power figures.
Widewing
So if I have a Cx of 0.0228 (trimmed) and 0.0273 (untrimmed)
an all up weight of 7115 lbs
and a max take off power of 1850 hp
(36.6lbs/ft^2 wing loading)
How would you compare them to the P51 and the Tempest under study above.
-
Not to shoot down your statements, Widewing, but if they purposely limited the RPM which lowered the maximum power output, would that not mean there was a reason for the lowered RPM; i.e. they lowered the RPM (and consequently, power) for a reason.
Now did the pilots flying these P-38L's commonly manage 1,700 + hp using the Allison F-30's? If not, that would be the reason as to why we do not have the max. power output. Whether the F-30's had the ability and potential to produce that power is irrelevant... it's whether it was used commonly or not... I think. I could be wrong. I'm not sure how HTC controls how they add features to planes.
-
Same reason we don't have a 2200 hp C3 fueled uber 109K SgtPappy.
-
However if it can be proved that these boost levels were used at least by one pilot perhaps they can be added as perk "ace planes". Would be fun I think.
-
Those would be fitting rewards for a successful pilot career in CT.
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
Same reason we don't have a 2200 hp C3 fueled uber 109K SgtPappy.
1 PS does not = 1 HP
-
I know. PS ratings are approx. 98% of a similar HP rating. Also the 109K doesn't develop exactly 2200 hp or PS. I was generalizing.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
So if I have a Cx of 0.0228 (trimmed) and 0.0273 (untrimmed)
an all up weight of 7115 lbs
and a max take off power of 1850 hp
(36.6lbs/ft^2 wing loading)
How would you compare them to the P51 and the Tempest under study above.
What is the wing area?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Not to shoot down your statements, Widewing, but if they purposely limited the RPM which lowered the maximum power output, would that not mean there was a reason for the lowered RPM; i.e. they lowered the RPM (and consequently, power) for a reason.
Now did the pilots flying these P-38L's commonly manage 1,700 + hp using the Allison F-30's? If not, that would be the reason as to why we do not have the max. power output. Whether the F-30's had the ability and potential to produce that power is irrelevant... it's whether it was used commonly or not... I think. I could be wrong. I'm not sure how HTC controls how they add features to planes.
YES, 70"+ MAP @ 3200 RPM WAS commonly used. NO, it was not an accepted power setting in MOST documents. That is why it (P-38L) does not have that setting in AH. Lockheed reps did turn the planes up in the field, and they also showed mechanics and crew chiefs how to do it.
-
Originally posted by Stoney
Obviously, those differences would be significant. I assume all of those are Sea Level comparisons. Given that the P-38 is turbo-supercharged, I'm assuming the Allisons made 1725 up to altitude (a la P-47). I'm curious as to standard day altitude comparisons that could create an advantage for the sleeker Pony.
I'm having some trouble getting XFoil to accept the coordinates for both the Tempest and P-51 airfoils as listed on the UIUC website. I'll play around with it to see if I can get some results.
Most P-38's from the mid to late G on (and probably earlier) could maintain full boost on up to around 29,000 to 30,000 feet. The limit, same as the P-47, was turbine RPM in the turbochargers. There's an armored ring around the turbocharger for a reason. If you exceed the RPM limit, there's a serious risk of turbine explosion.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Not to shoot down your statements, Widewing, but if they purposely limited the RPM which lowered the maximum power output, would that not mean there was a reason for the lowered RPM; i.e. they lowered the RPM (and consequently, power) for a reason.
There was a reason. Standardization. Plus, previous issues with the F-17s.
From what I have learned talking with pilots and crew chiefs, the P-38Ls were almost universally adjusted for max RPM after the aircraft was received by the various Groups.
By the way, I have no issue with HTC using the standardized 1,600 hp rating. That's what the AAF decided to rate them at. Of course, both Allison and Lockheed did not.
In late September of 1945, a memo from 5th AF HQ was circulated through the 49th FG directing fighter squadrons to adjust the prop governors on the P-38s to peace time settings. According to Bill Pascalis, the 49th's historian, this meant resetting the engines to 3,000 RPM.
My regards,
Widewing
-
If you accept the 1600 hp rating in-game then you should also use 1600 hp in your calculations. Using boost settings that are not available in the game is not relevant if you're trying to argue that the flight model is wrong. It could even be considered misleading.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
What is the wing area?
My regards,
Widewing
So if I have a Cx of 0.0228 (trimmed) and 0.0273 (untrimmed)
an all up weight of 7115 lbs
and a max take off power of 1850 hp
(36.6lbs/ft^2 wing loading.............. = 194.4 ft^2 @ NACA root>tip 23016>23010)
How would you compare them to the P51 and the Tempest under study above.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
So if I have a Cx of 0.0228 (trimmed) and 0.0273 (untrimmed)
an all up weight of 7115 lbs
and a max take off power of 1850 hp
(36.6lbs/ft^2 wing loading.............. = 194.4 ft^2 @ NACA root>tip 23016>23010)
How would you compare them to the P51 and the Tempest under study above.
One still needs to know what the total drag is, and that will vary with speed and altitude due to the changes in dynamic pressure. Do you have access to wind tunnel data showing the drag at various speeds?
Perhaps someone with more familiarity can calculate the drag based upon the
flat plate area of 4.4574 sq/ft.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Tilt
So if I have a Cx of 0.0228 (trimmed) and 0.0273 (untrimmed)
an all up weight of 7115 lbs
and a max take off power of 1850 hp
(36.6lbs/ft^2 wing loading.............. = 194.4 ft^2 @ NACA root>tip 23016>23010)
How would you compare them to the P51 and the Tempest under study above.
What aircraft are these numbers for? Certainly not the Tempest?
-
Originally posted by Stoney
What aircraft are these numbers for? Certainly not the Tempest?
Looks like the La-7 to me.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
If you accept the 1600 hp rating in-game then you should also use 1600 hp in your calculations. Using boost settings that are not available in the game is not relevant if you're trying to argue that the flight model is wrong. It could even be considered misleading.
He did.
-
He did? I don't know what middle-school math you guys use but to me 2 times 1600 does not equal 3450.
Originally posted by Widewing
I'll answer the last question first as I have this handy.
Root Chord @ C/L is 103.99"
Wing Tip Chord at Station 215 (where the wing tip cap is screwed on) is 50.0".
As to the the P-38/P-51 comparison, there's a few things your source omits, if you will..
They have the CDo at .0163. This is for a P-51B/C and it reflects no stores pylons and taped over gun ports. For the P-51D it should be .0176 with pylons and untaped gun ports.
Also to be considered is that the hp rating for the P-38 reflects MIL power, not WEP. It gets tricky because the AAF rated the V-1710-89/91 engines at 1,600 hp in WEP, and applied the same rating to the V-1710-111/113 of the L model. However, the L model was delivered with a factory rating of 1,725 hp. Tony LeVier and Kelly Johnson have both stated that the L models were delivered and accepted by the AAF with the full 1,725 hp available in WEP. However, it was merely an adjustment to the prop governors to limit RPM to 3,000 and 1,600 hp. The full 1,725 hp occurred at 3,200 RPM (according to LeVier). So, the AAF could have readjusted the RPM during assembly and rigging at the Burtonwood or Langford Lodge depots. Of course, the Lockheed and Allison reps immediately reset the RPM when the aircraft were ferried to the combat units (according to several P-38 crew chiefs).
As to the P-51, we have the same issue in that the MIL rating appears in your source rather than the 1,720 hp WEP rating.
If we do the math, we find the following using full internal fuel weights:
P-38J: 375 x .8 x 3,200 / 150 mph = 6400 lb thrust
So, 6,400 lb thrust - 1676 lb drag / (16,480/32.2) = 9.23 ft/sec/sec
P-38L: 375 x .8 x 3,450 / 150 mph = 6,900 lb thrust
So, 6900 lb thrust - 1676 lb drag / (16880/32.2) = 9.97 ft/sec/sec
P-51D: 375 x .8 x 1,720 / 150 mph = 3,440 lb thrust
so, 3440 lb thrust - 845 lb drag / (10,208/32.2) = 8.18 ft/sec/sec
At 250 mph:
P-38J: 4.22 ft/sec/sec
P-38L: 4.70 ft/sec/sec (4.13 ft/sec/sec for 1600 hp rating)
P-51D: 3.85 ft/sec/sec
Much depends upon weight. Early P-38Js didn't have leading edge tanks, so you could subtract the weight of 110 gallons, or 660 lb.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
He did? I don't know what middle-school math you guys use but to me 2 times 1600 does not equal 3450.
No, but 1725X2 does...
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
He did? I don't know what middle-school math you guys use but to me 2 times 1600 does not equal 3450.
You missed this...
P-38J: 4.22 ft/sec/sec
P-38L: 4.70 ft/sec/sec (4.13 ft/sec/sec for 1600 hp rating)
P-51D: 3.85 ft/sec/sec
My regards,
Widewing
-
So they did commonly use the rating, eh?
Well then. I guess it's HTC's call whether or not to use the rating or not. Is there any flight test data that shows this rating?
-
Originally posted by Widewing
One still needs to know what the total drag is, and that will vary with speed and altitude due to the changes in dynamic pressure. Do you have access to wind tunnel data showing the drag at various speeds?
Perhaps someone with more familiarity can calculate the drag based upon the
flat plate area of 4.4574 sq/ft.
My regards,
Widewing
It is an La-7 and the data is from wind tunnel tests.
However it was to show Cx and Cy against attitude.(not altitude) and two levels of "trim" caused by a change to the fuselage. The lower level is the standard fully feathered setting.
All tests were at approx 40.5m/sec (89mph?) at 756 mm mercury (sea level'ish) at 26 deg C. The only graphs showing variance in air speed are showing Cx at fixed attitudes and then the line is flat regardless of speed.
Cy at 0 degrees attitude was approx .005 but it changes from -.1 at -2 degrees to +. 2 at + 2 degrees with hardly any change in Cx at all.
in the formulae attached showing various calculations Cx=f(V)
a figure for Fa is referred to frequently
Another brick wall I guess. thanks anyway.
-
"Perhaps someone with more familiarity can calculate the drag based upon the
flat plate area of 4.4574 sq/ft."
What do you mean with flat plate area in this case?
Is it this?
f = CDp x S
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Drag/Page4.html
-C+
-
Originally posted by Tilt
It is an La-7 and the data is from wind tunnel tests.
However it was to show Cx and Cy against attitude.(not altitude) and two levels of "trim" caused by a change to the fuselage. The lower level is the standard fully feathered setting.
All tests were at approx 40.5m/sec (89mph?) at 756 mm mercury (sea level'ish) at 26 deg C. The only graphs showing variance in air speed are showing Cx at fixed attitudes and then the line is flat regardless of speed.
Cy at 0 degrees attitude was approx 0.05 but it changes from -.1 at -2 degrees to +. 2 at + 2 degrees with hardly any change in Cx at all.
in the formulae attached showing various calculations Cx=f(V)
a figure for Fa is referred to frequently
Another brick wall I guess. thanks anyway.
-
Originally posted by Stoney
No, but 1725X2 does...
And no P-38 has 1725x2 hp in-game. Which was my point.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
You missed this...
P-38J: 4.22 ft/sec/sec
P-38L: 4.70 ft/sec/sec (4.13 ft/sec/sec for 1600 hp rating)
P-51D: 3.85 ft/sec/sec
My regards,
Widewing
Yes you're right, I did.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
P-38J: 375 x .8 x 3,200 / 150 mph = 6400 lb thrust
So, 6,400 lb thrust - 1676 lb drag / (16,480/32.2) = 9.23 ft/sec/sec
P-38L: 375 x .8 x 3,450 / 150 mph = 6,900 lb thrust
So, 6900 lb thrust - 1676 lb drag / (16880/32.2) = 9.97 ft/sec/sec
P-51D: 375 x .8 x 1,720 / 150 mph = 3,440 lb thrust
so, 3440 lb thrust - 845 lb drag / (10,208/32.2) = 8.18 ft/sec/sec
Propeller efficiency at 150 mph would be lower than 80% and probably around half that amount. So those acceleration values may be out by a large percentage. The relative difference between the aircraft would also be out by the same amount.
Proton
-
Originally posted by Captain Proton
Propeller efficiency at 150 mph would be lower than 80% and probably around half that amount. So those acceleration values may be out by a large percentage. The relative difference between the aircraft would also be out by the same amount.
Proton
Actually, about 70% at 150 mph. I didn't want to muddy the water with that as it does not change the relationship between aircraft. We simply don't have details of the various propeller's efficiency, so we have to use a constant.
Here's a generalized chart provided by DTango.
(http://brauncomustangs.org/images/prop-e.jpg)
I did make an error tho... I applied the drag associated with 250 mph to the 150 mph calculation. Drag for each aircraft would be about 50% of the value I used. It doesn't change the relationship between the aircraft, but it does change the acceleration values.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing, if that chart is right how does planes even get rolling on the runway? ;)
-
A common way to present propeller thrust is:
(p * e)/ v = t
where
p = engine output
e = propeller efficiency
v = speed
t = thrust
Formula is simple and works ok when the plane has some speed. However, at low speed it's obviously flawed because thrust increases endlesly when the speed decreases. So to get sensible values using this simple formula at low speed, the generalized efficiency function is a bit hacked at low end.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Another brick wall I guess. thanks anyway.
Maybe not a brick wall.. Perhaps only a stockade fence. We can fudge some things.
The La-7 has a CDo a bit greater than the P-39Q, but has a smaller wing which produces a slightly smaller flat plate area. I'm going to guess and say that the La-7 would have a total drag in pounds of around 950 lb at 250 mph.
So, let drop in the balance of the data and see what pops out..
375 x .8 x 1,850 hp / 250 mph = 2,220 lb thrust
2,220 lb trust - 950 lb drag / (7115/32.2) = 5.75 ft/sec/sec at 250 mph
Lets do the P-39Q-1...
375 x .8 x 1,420 hp / 250 mph = 1,704 lb thrust
1704 lb thrust - 864 lb drag / (7570/32.2) = 3.57 ft/sec/sec at 250 mph
So, the P-39Q-1 should be very close to the P-51D in acceleration at sea level, but the La-7 will leave both behind with relative ease.
My regards,
Widewing
-
thanks Widewing thats very interesting..........
is it fair to say that the 3.1m 3 bladed prop pulling over a radial engine housing would be as efficient as 80% ?
The la5Fn had greater drag to some unknown extent but (IMO) had less access to WEP.
Given this and your math above would it be reasonable to suggest that a WEP'ed out La7 only able to give 1600HP of thrust would be limited to less than 4.34 ft/s^2 and given it is also forced to open engine cooling vanes more likely 4.2 ft/s^2.
IMO WEP on the La5 FN was not available as long as it was on the La7 (engine heated much more readily) plus given its extra drag would it be totally unreasonable to assume a comparative figure for a WEP'ed out La5FN closr to 4.0 to 4.1 ft/s^2. ?
-
Interesting, I guess that on the deck 190A8 would be a good accelerator too with its small wing... :huh
-C+
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Here's a generalized chart provided by DTango.
You made a good point about it not changing the relationship between aircraft, but that prop chart can't be right because all real prop charts drop away from maximum efficiency shortly after they reach it. It is probably only an idealised chart that ignores efficiency losses at high speed.
Also, using the same efficiency value for each aircraft isn't right. It isn't right, because different propellers with different diameters and different activity factors running at different rpms will have different efficiency even at the same speed. You can't use one single curve for all of them. And that will change the relationship between the aircraft.
Proton
-
Originally posted by gripen
However, at low speed it's obviously flawed because thrust increases endlesly when the speed decreases.
It is only a problem if you use constant efficiency in which case the thrust would increase to infinity, but don't forget that as the speed decreases increasing the thrust, so does the efficiency decrease, reducing the thrust and the two effects tend to balance each other out resulting in zero thrust at zero airspeed, which is obviously wrong, and why static thrust calculations are done differently.
Proton
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Running until you are out of icon range isn't re-setting a fight. Extending 1-2K is re-setting. What I'm saying is he ran away, then got all brave and came back for the kill once I was engaged with multiple cons.
Most on these bbs would be ridiculed for such cowerdice. It is however, a good way to get a high K/D ratio.
I have a lot of respect for the AK's and count several as friends and most as worthy adversaries. Unfortunately, AKDG falls into neither of those categories and I was (am) dissapointed in him given my high regard for the rest of the squad.
I hope that makes it a little clearer.
I despise people who do this! Run until I turn away to let you go home and you immediately turn to try and pick me not looking. Thats just a pansy way to fight and your wasting my time. If your going to run away go ahead and go all the way back with your tail between your legs.
Funny thing about this type of fighting is that they make a mistake. They turn back to fight. Thats usually enough.
-
Hi Widewing
Here are prop curves for the P-38L and P-51D. It shows the P-51D at 68.5% and the P-38L at 64% at 150mph. I can generate prop curves for many other propeller/engine configurations, so if you need something specific just let me know.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/PropCurves.jpg)
Hope that helps.
Badboy
-
Badboy, is that strictly a difference between the crappy Curtiss Electric 3 blade prop on the P-38L as compared to the 4 blade Hamilton Standard prop on the P-51D? Which P-51 prop? Is it a high activity paddle prop?
-
Originally posted by Badboy
I can generate prop curves for many other propeller/engine configurations, so if you need something specific just let me know.
Can you post the method? In keeping with the previously mentioned aircraft, it could be helpful to have an LA-7, P-38L, P-51D, and Tempest comparison.
-
Originally posted by Captain Proton
You made a good point about it not changing the relationship between aircraft, but that prop chart can't be right because all real prop charts drop away from maximum efficiency shortly after they reach it. It is probably only an idealised chart that ignores efficiency losses at high speed.
Also, using the same efficiency value for each aircraft isn't right. It isn't right, because different propellers with different diameters and different activity factors running at different rpms will have different efficiency even at the same speed. You can't use one single curve for all of them. And that will change the relationship between the aircraft.
Proton
During a detailed analysis, sure. But, for merely doing some rough comparisons, a prop efficiency number around 70-80% is consistent with current methods. After looking at Badboy's graph, Dtango's isn't too far off.
Comparisons such as WW's are helpful because they can become the catalyst for the next theoretical question.
-
Actually Stoney, my generalized prop efficiency curve I'm not too proud of :). I've never sat down to dissect methods for producing prop efficiency curves for different configurations. Producing good prop curves can be quite challenging because of all the variability. I'm impressed that Badboy has a method for doing so!
I have Edmund Allen's 1940's paper and also the Hamilton Standard Redbook which let's you extrapolate prop curves for specific configurations given the right data. I've toyed with the idea of sucking them from graphical form into a database to be used for lookups.
Secondarily from blade element theory there is a way to generate thrust coefficient and power coefficients to arrive at prop efficiency but the math is quite challenging as well requiring calculation by iteration as well as in stages from obscure propeller data points.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Well, just noticing that the values are close enough for the girls we date.
Raymer suggests values of Eta-P as 75-80% for early comparisons. He lists the full monty of equations for advance ratio, activity factor, power coefficients, etc. He uses the Hamilton Standard book and another as references for these equations. The Hamilton Standard book should be a gold mine for at least the U.S. prop efficiency numbers.
He lists Eta-P=Thrust X Velocity / 550*bhp
Thrust= 550*bhp*Eta-p / Velocity
If we have drag coefficients or flat plate areas, we should be able to solve for propellor efficiency since drag = thrust in unaccelerated flight.
-
Even if the fm was changed, I still find the 51 to be a very capable aircraft. I can even land 4-5 kills with it now and then, and not even by vultching! :p And if I can do that, it says something.
On the other hand, I still see plenty of other 51 pilots who love to dive down from 20k on me down when I'm extending away from Spixteens.
-
The P51
-
Originally posted by Sketch
Wait, where is Serinity when we need him... :rolleyes:
Never f34r! Serenity is here!!! :aok
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Never f34r! Serenity is here!!! :aok
Great... all that time away and he still can't spell....:rolleyes: