Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: fscott on March 02, 2001, 12:52:00 PM
-
"I'm not a Chog hater, I'm not a whiner about the hispano's, or any of the other standard pro or con -1C's special interest groups. But I do know that I will enjoy an arena with increased diversity, that I hope perking the -1C will bring."
Do you remember saying this about a month ago? Please tell us why you believe the Chog should be perked and not the La7? After all, shouldn't there be a standard? From this statement it seesm your standard for perking the Chog is becasue it's too popular? How could that ever compare to a plane like the La7 that is faster on deck than any other plane in the current planeset, can turn like heck, and can climb like a mother? Such a light standard for perking the chog, but you raise the standard for the precious La7? See below...
"I just don't get it. You keep saying "Look at XXX its too good", but we already have other planes that are just as good. Either its a standard or its not a standard. If it applies to one, it should apply to all."
So again elaborate on what that standard is? First you are die-hard against perking the uber-ride like the La7, but all for perking the Chog becasue of it's guns make it so popular??????? Guns that are also found on the Tiffy and teh Niki btw. Come on Verm, admit it. You just want a free ride in the La7 cause you know it's an awesome ride.
fscott
[This message has been edited by fscott (edited 03-02-2001).]
-
AGW awaits you Fscott (hint) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Though I'm not sure that this is how HTC will do it, I believe that the question of perking should look at the abilities of a plane en toto. Yes, the F4U-1C has some amazing guns with an awful lot of ammo, but it is otherwise about average. The forthcoming P-51B will be faster, turn better, and climb better than the D model, but it will do so at the cost of a great deal of lethality. The Dora will climb better and be faster than the A8, but it sacrifices 2 20mm cannons and should turn only marginally better... meaning it'll still be easy meat for most planes in a turnfight.
If anything, the two planes in the current dataset that most closely fit this perking criteria would be the N1K2 and the Yak-9U. Even then you make tradeoffs in top speed and performance at high alts with the N1K2, and the Yak suffers from very short range and an anemic ammo load.
Perk the La-7? Following this logic, I'd have to ask myself if it is exceptional in almost all areas without any tradeoffs. Range? Lethality? Speed? Turning? Climbrate? From what I've read, it may be perk worthy. But reading and seeing are two different things. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-- Todd/DMF
-
Exactly Dead Man. It's called totality of the circumstances. Imagine this scenario. A p51D/B hits the deck to get away from a furball. An La7 at the same altitude or even a little below chases, and of course he's gonna close in. What options does the P51D/B pilot have? Zilch. He cannot outturn the La7, he cannot outclimb the La7, he cannot out-scissor the La7, (provided equal pilots). Why can't he do this? Becasue the La7 is an uber ride.
Think of the same scenario with other ac chasign the P51. If they CAN catch the P51, the P51 will noramlly be able to put up a good turn fight even with a Tiffy, and a 109G10.
If it ain't perked, it will be my #1 ride, casue I know how easy it'll be to get kills and simply hit the deck and run home when I lose the advantage.
fscott
-
So your yardstick is that if it can beat a P51D on the deck it has to be perked?
Fscott, I'm not sure your logic holds water. You're saying that because it beats a P51D that it should be perked? That's the only criteria? And you limit that criteria to just the deck...not at alt? The P51D will eat up the La7 at alt.
So why not the inverse...Perk the P51D because it performs better than the La7 at alt.
You are limiting your arguement to only 1 dimension and narrowing it to the deck as validation for your position.
Cobra
-
Someone post some numbers on the LA7 and Chog, side by side, so we can see what a perk the LA7 is.
Also, since it isn't even out yet why are people predicting how popular it will be?
fscott, so far the only reason you want the LA7 perked is because it is fast on the deck. That's not a good enough reason. Gimme some more, and not the predictions about what a popular ride it will be. Why is the LA7 so much more uber than the other planes that it needs to get perked?
Fury
-
Perk the Yak?!
You have GOT to be kidding...
Servo
**MOL**
-
Perk everything. Perk you, perk him, perk me, perk it all, I am going flying later!
"What the perk!?"
Kieren
[This message has been edited by dolomite (edited 03-02-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Servo:
Perk the Yak?!
You have GOT to be kidding...
Did I say perk the Yak? No. Read what I wrote again, then think hard about it.
-- Todd/DMF
-
Lets look at the La5 versus the chog and apply FScotts logic to it.
La5 is faster than chog
La5 turns better than chog
la5 climbs better than chog
la5 accelerates better the chog
la5 and chog are fairly eqaul in roll rate.
Is the la5 perked? is this a good argument for the choggers to use for perking it?
Ok, and la7 is going to be even better. Im just thinking that if we use fscotts logic to dictate what planes get perked then we might run into trble.
The la7 is going to be the best arena plane for low to medium alts *easy*.
-
Uh-oh, if the LA7 is going to be better than or equal to the chog then EVERYONE will be flying the LA7. That will for sure get it perked! It will be responsible for at least 30% of the MA kills!
I wonder about ammo load, will I be able to do my dweeby spray-and-pray with BFGs in the LA7?
Instead of accusing "chog dweebs" statements on ch 1 we'll see "LA7 dweeb"? No more chog whines, just LA7 whines! Chog dweebs have got to be salivating now that they know the pressure will be off them while everyone whines about the newest uber-plane!
Hehehe I guess I'll just wait to see what *the company* decides to perk or not perk.
Fury
-
I have been working on the performance comparison charts in my spare time at work today Fscott, that will prove my point.
As soon as I get them done, I will post them for you.
You DO realize don't you that the La7 is basically a La5 with a different top speed don't you?
Same turn (which is same as Yak9U & Pony), same climb, same acceleration, same type and number of guns (one varient will add +1), same ammo load.
Should the La5FN be perked too?
Anyways, I will show my proof as soon as I get them done.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
I'd like to see the Chog perked based solely upon the vast numbers constantly in the MA. That doesn't mean I dislike the Chog as an aircraft for any particular reason, I fly the thing now and again myself. AND I to find it average, But..I often catch myself doing the ole "<sigh>..another Chog to fight" routine, and I'm sure I'm not the only one around who does that. Perking the Chog will force (sorry bout my political incorrectness) yes force more of a mixed "on average" planeset in use in the MA at any given time, and IMHO that is good.
By the way, do we the masses have any say in whats to be or not to be perked anyway?
Swamp
-
Conincidentally, "perky" is also defined as an emotion. You can that that pretty clearly here.
Guys I'll spare you a lot of the blah-blah-blah but my only problem with the whoke Perky Point crap is for those of us who do not put in nearly as much stick n rudder time as you guys do. I'm lucky to get 5-10 hours a week.
As a *paying* member, I'd sure like to settle into a game and fly the "perked" aircraft without being turned away at the gate because I haven't flown enough (or accumulated enough) magic "tokens" to fly them.
While your ideas to balance the game make some sense to me, I think many of y'all are missing the fact that many who play do not rack up the kills/hours/sorties some of you do.
Its an honor to fly with you guys when I can. But!...it leaves me with a sour aftertaste in my mouth to know that if this perk system that is being rumored for 1.06 will bar me from the good stuff.
My 2 cents have been aired. Thank you
------------------
Paul J. Busiere
Aces High Arena handle: BD5Pilot
http://bd5.checksix.net (http://bd5.checksix.net)
BD-5 "T" (TurboProp) 90% complete, first flight in 2001 (We hope!)
[This message has been edited by LePaul (edited 03-02-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Spatula:
La5 is faster than chog
La5 turns better than chog
la5 climbs better than chog
la5 accelerates better the chog
la5 and chog are fairly eqaul in roll rate.
I think you're misapplying the criteria. Rather than using an "average" plane as a standard of comparison, consider instead a plane in the context of all other planes (and keep in mind that I'm against perking the cannon Hog for this very reason).
To wit: The La5 is faster than the F4U-1C, but the P-51, 109G10, and Typhoon are faster. The La5 turns better than the cannon Hog, but the Spit V/IX, N1K2, and Zeke turn better. The La5 climbs better than the cannon Hog, but the 109G10 and the Yak climb better. The La5 outaccelerates the Hog, but the 109G10, the Yak, and the N1K2 at various alts outaccelerate it.
The point here is that, when compared to the other planes, the F4U-1C does not exhibit properties that suggest that it should be perked. Except for the guns, it's pretty average. And while the La5 outperforms it in many key ways, it is also outperformed by other planes in key areas. Such tradeoff in performance creates balance in the planesets.
If, for some reason, the La7 outperforms every other plane in a substantial number of categories, then of course HTC should consider perking it. If not... then they shouldn't. Seems pretty simple.
-- Todd/DMF
-
They should perk people, not planes.
There are a lot of people, playing this game, that im going to kill, no matter what they are flying. Others, that are going to give me fits, no matter what they are in. "The other guy is in a uber plane" is and always has been nothing but an excuse for loseing.
-
I'm actually looking forward to getting in a fight with a P-51D, and just split-essing, and leaving (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
Originally posted by easymo:
They should perk people, not planes.
Obviously, when using some "perk" criteria to evaluate planes against one another, you'd assume equal pilots. To clarify, let's rephrase things:
Ceteris parebis, a plane might be perk-worthy if it outperforms all others in a substantial number of categories. Additionally, a plane might be perk-worthy if it substantially outperforms all others in a small number of categories.
-- Todd/DMF
[This message has been edited by Dead Man Flying (edited 03-02-2001).]
-
I was not implying that since the La7 can beat the P51D down low, that it should be perked, rather I was using this as an example of a plane that can beat one of the most perkable aircraft in our current inventory, the P51D. I am not implying we use the P51D as a standard.
My point is that we have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. At what point does one aircraft become a perk? This is the same question that HT and friends will have to struggle with.
Finally, consider this, why would HT add the La7 which is everything the La5n is and more, if he did not plan on perking the La7? Does this make sense to anyone? What advantage does the La5n have over the La7? Nothing. As far as the P51D/B variant, the B model has several key advantages over the D model, and vice versa. So the addition of the B model was quite logical. I don't see the logic in adding an La7 if it were not to be perked. Then no one would ever fly the La5N unless they are masochists, when the La7 is available.
fscott
-
Verm ur funny and full of toejam on this issue how many times do you just dismiss LA7 as being JUST 20-30mph faster than LA5, as JUST climb a lot better, as JUST having an extra cannon, as JUST being the fastet plane on the deck, and as JUST being mediocre. If this plane is JUST such low performer why do you care if its in planeset. Basically your judgement and reasoning is full of BS when u want someting, werent u the genious who put the "Beufigher" in the AK scenario"?
So stop whining, it mite be perked and it mite not, but we all (reasonable ppl) know LA7 will be one heck of lo-mid (95% ah figting) alt fighter.
-
Originally posted by fscott:
Exactly Dead Man. It's called totality of the circumstances. Imagine this scenario. A p51D/B hits the deck to get away from a furball. An La7 at the same altitude or even a little below chases, and of course he's gonna close in. What options does the P51D/B pilot have? Zilch. He cannot outturn the La7, he cannot outclimb the La7, he cannot out-scissor the La7, (provided equal pilots).
fscott
Sounds like an everyday flight in a P47-D30 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Okay, now I'm getting peeved. What is the problem with so many people seeing the La7's inclusion without being perked? It arrived in the autumn of 1944, and was produced in large numbers before the war ended. It is a short-ranged aircraft, possibly even shorter ranged than the Yak-9U. It will have excellent performance up to 10k, and good performance to 20k. Down low it will be one of the fastest fighters to be produced in large numbers in WWII, possibly even the fastest. The loadout option for three 20mm will give it great armament. Thus, it is a great fighter. Not a UFO, but a great fighter.
Is this reason enough to have it perked? Of course not. It was a main contributor of the air war over Russia during WWII, not some rare variant, or post-war production. If this plane dominates the MA, then consider perking it then, but only until then.
If anyone here is complaining about the La7 robbing the P-51D's ability to leave combat at will, please keep it to yourself, because it only makes you look bad. If you can't fight without a speed advantage, then that says volumes about your abilities, doesn't it? And for what it's worth, the P-51 has one of the sweetest energy characteristics you'll ever find in a WWII aircraft, and there are very few aircraft of that era that can match it. When used within its performance envelope it will be just as much of a threat to the La7 as it has been for all present aircraft in AH.
When the wind shifts you can either snap in two, or bend with it. It's your choice.
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
Fscott,
Honestly, I think that you're predicting things to go with worst scenario...
I haven't seen many La-5s to date (well.. to december) and surprisingly low amount of great Yak's as well.
Why? low ammo count, lethality and neither of those are easiest planes to fight in.
(and I still haven't got used to cockpit of LA-5.. tho, new one seems bit less restricting so I don't know how good it would be)
Personally, if I could choose to rid either chog or la7, I would choose chog.
Its simple - it has sh**loads of ammo, and what worst, for these miracle cannons called perfect hispanos (now, wheres the jamming ones?)
Nor was it produced in such great quantities as La-7.
For me, it's more about historical quantity and how often it gets flown.
Right now we have somewhat rare Chog flown by majority of hog fliers, when Dhog should be more used. (and those super cannons with probably more cannon rounds than in any other plane.. gosh)
No need to arque with me, since this has been my opinion for a long time and it wont change.
only thing that might change my opinion would be jamming of guns modelled. (Hispano II's werent too highly praised for their reliability)
Good thing with La-7 is that it sticks with that normal soviet design - low ammo.
-
GRUENHERZ your Afrika Corps comment was highly usless to the discussion and i suggest you pull off something alone the lines of Afrika that pleases SO MANY before you trash it's designer.
[This message has been edited by Duckwing6 (edited 03-03-2001).]
-
So can we look forward to an unperked Spit XIV?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I'd like to have the La-7 as a regular unperked item in AH too. It was much more common than say 109G10 or 190D9. I would understand though if they model it as superior in very many aspects to the rest of the fighters in the whole range of alts (from 0 to 30k). If someone fears that nobody will play in the La-5FN then I could argue that the value of kills would be higher in a not-as-popular La-5FN and some folks will still take it for a spin.
The ammo amount seems low only in games like AH. Apparently it was enough for the job. The guns' lethality apparently was also good - if it hadn't been there would be a better gun fitted on soviet fighters. They already had better designs but didn't replace it. (Actually one can see that the lethality and ammoload was more than enough
if to take a look at the fight of July 6th, 1943 when Guards Sr Lt Alexander Gorovets in a La-5 (early model, not FN) shot down 9 Ju-87s (so 340 20mm rounds he had were enough). The fight took place over the frontline at the Kursk salient, hundreds of infantry soldiers were witnesses).
Also, the AH La-5 is missing the capability to carry bombs (either 2 AO/FAB-50 or 2 AO/FAB-100) and the version with five internal fuel tanks isn't modeled either (all La-5s up to the 9th series had 5 fuel tanks - they were not needed in the Eastern Front conditions, so they removed them; BTW that's another thing AH crew could do - change La-5FN to the 5 fuel tank version and there will be another reason to take La-5 over La-7).
As a matter of fact I do not quite understand why ShVAKs are so crappy in AH as compared to 6 50s and MG151s.
Even if to go only by muzzle velocity, rate of fire and projectile weight - ShVAKs are better. In addition to that there were some types of amunition for soviet guns that made them more effective than competitors.
Here is the data (these are from "Weapons of victory" published by "Mashinostroenie", Moscow, 1985):
(Type Muzzle Vel. ROF Proj.Weight)
ShVAK(20mm) 800m/s 800rpm 96 grams
MG151(20mm) 780m/s 700rpm 90 grams
Hispano(20mm)860m/s 800rpm 130 grams
US M3(12.7mm) 800m/s 750rpm 43 grams
UB-12.7mm 860m/s 1000rpm 48 grams
MG131(13mm) 700m/s 800rpm 36 grams
US M4(37mm) 700m/s 130rpm 650 grams
MK-101(30mm) 760m/s 200rpm 330 grams
MK-103(30mm) 580m/s 200rpm 330 grams
MK-108(30mm) 500m/s 600rpm 330 grams
NS-37(37mm) 900m/s 250rpm 735 grams
So, Hispano is the only 20mm gun that is better than ShVAK if to compare only by these three parameters.
Also, I heard statements that even one 20mm and 2 12.7mm have more destructive power than 6 12.7mm (these statements were based on tests and pilots' experience).
Here's an excerpt from TsAGI study (chapter assessing lend-lease aircraft):
"Soviet and foreign fighters differed significantly in the positioning and power of their armament. Central positioning of armament, typical for Soviet fighters, allowed for better concentration of fire than wing positioning, typical for US and British aircraft. And this was so even though the rate of fire on Soviet aircraft was reduced due to the synchronization needed to fire through the proppeller area. So that to increase concentration and effectiveness of fire, the british and americans were forced to increase the number of guns, which resulted both in increase of the aircraft weight and the moment of inertia relative to the nose-tail axis. Because of this the responsiveness of the aircraft to the pilot's roll control inputs was worsened. It must be noted that even though the P-51B and D (that had only machine-guns) had higher weight of a burst, their effectiveness of fire was lower than that of the La-7, Yak-3, and "Spitfire" armed with cannon."
Here's what Oleg Maddox (Il-2 game creator, long-time aerospace industry engineer) had to say about some of the ammo used in USSR:
"Also 12,7 mm rounds for UB, BK and UBT had versions with contact explosure.
Such shells(rounds) used mostly on IL-2 rear gunner UBT as well as on most Russian bombers.
Less use of such shells on fighters was in the first period of the war, but from 1943 all planes were supplied with such power rounds.
So there was each third with traccer and others with explosure...
It was much more effective than say German 13 and 15 mm MG and of course more effective than US and UK MGs (There was total replacement of weapon on the lend-lease planes. Even on aircobra there is known such replacement of 12,7 mm US MG's, but not so many replacements than on Lend lease Hurricanes, P-40s and Spits)
Lend lease bombers also had replacement of weapon. Say such as A-20 even had Russian design turret as much more effective than original.
So, if someone think that one high speed 20 mm cannon and one 12,7 mm MG on Russian fighters was not enough, should read Hartmann's description with comparison - One gun is more effective then 6 MGs on US fighters. (And of course is big advantage when cannons are nose mounted).
The old time docs comparison with shot-weight per sec isn't so correct and can be used only as a basic comparison in additional to type and explosure effect of shells/rounds."
So, LW types waiting for the "Il-2" game you've been "warned" what to expect (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
-
Some different ShVAK stats from this site (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1852/index.html)
Type: weight(g) velocity(m/s) notes
HEI: 75.3 770 Nose fuze, 2.8g HE + 3.3g incediary
HEIT: 75.8 770 Nose fuze, 2.8g HE + 3.3g incediary, tracer
HE-Frag: 67.6 790 Nose fuze, 6.7g HE, fragmentation grooves on shell
HEI-Frag. 68.3 790 Nose fuze, 0.8g HE + 3.8g incediary, fragmentation grooves on shell
API-HC 96.0 750 Mild steel shell with hard core, surrounded by 2.5g incendiary, screwed on aluminum or bakelite ballistic cap
API 96.0 750 Solid steel shot with incendiary in swaged steel cap
APIT 96.0 750 As above but with tracer in base cavity
In AH, the ShVAK have been tested and shown to do the same damage as the MG 151/20.
-
"The forthcoming P-51B will be faster, turn better, and climb better than the D model, but it will do so at the cost of a great deal of lethality"
I would hope not (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Faster, only a tad a certain alts.
Turn better, maybe sustained if your slow, but I`m not sure I would want to fly a P-51 like that. If flown properly (fast) like a P-51 should be flown, the D has a much better high speed corner turn because of it`s wings.
Climb, yea, B about 1000 lbs lighter.
Cost of a great deal of lethality, shouldn`t be. I wouldn`t think 2-50 cal would be considered a "great deal". It should be only minor.
Most P-51 Vets you talk to who flew both the B & D, rather have the B. The D felt sluggish to them, said the 2 extra 50 cals were not a must.
What really blew me away, was how many preferred the B visibility! That`s right the B. Huh? They say the malcom hood razor back could get a better view than the Ds tear drop bubble.
Put the D`s wings on the B, and add cannons (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif), and you have the ultimate Mustang. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
NACA wind tunnel tests really made a difference when you think about how much it contributed to the development of US aircraft. Made the Jugs, Pony`s, and Fork-tailed Devils cleaner, faster, and safer.
------------------
[This message has been edited by sky_bax (edited 03-03-2001).]
-
I go with Juzz about AH effectiveness.
I've personally tested hispano, shvak and mg151/20 in the game and come to results that Hispano is next to god while mg151/20 and shvak are somewhere way below hispano and close to equal with each other.
Though, im not sure if N1K2's cannons (whatever types those were..), but I think those cannons might be more powerful in the game than MG151 or Shvak.
(at least it bites on the tanks better than MG151/20 what I remember)
though, I don't know anything about guns for japs...
I've shot a tiffie for bunch with shvak, but I've also shot somewhat alot on zeke with MG151 carried by 190A8.
(im still laughing at that peashot thing with zeke case)
-
S!
A small correction to the above statement of MG151/20.The bullet weighed from 86g(M-Geschoss) to 115g(HE,HEI,AP,API,APHE).This is from actual FAF data and the MG151/20 was used well to the 80's as self defence gun mounted as pair on a swivel(like on tanks etc).Vo(M/s) varied from 705m/s(diff. AP's and tracers) to 805m/s(M-Geschoss).In comparison the MG151 had Vo=850m/s(API),960m/s(Incendiary tracer) and 1030m/s(AP).Bullets weighed:52g(APHE),57g(HEI) and 72g(API).Rate of fire was the same on both,about 700rds/min.
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue34
[This message has been edited by DB603 (edited 03-03-2001).]
-
That webpage was the first source I saw that gave ShVAK's muzzle velocity below 800m/s. I didn't find any bibliography there, I wonder where they took their data from. Also there is a great variety of ammo - which types were actually used in ShVAKs during WWII?
Also, they mention there were two versions with different lengths of the barrel, but they don't differentiate between them in the specs, so the length of the barrel didn't change anything ?
BTW, I found that the ShVAKs that are installed on fighters are referred to as the "SP-20". Which raises the question, was it a different version or just a different designation ?
-
Here is a preview of what I'm working on. I was able to construct a projected Speed vs Alt chart for the La7 given known data points, and its similarity to the La5FN. I am also working on the equivalanet climb vs alt chart also.
Here is what is done so far.
(http://www.vermin.net/la7/la7-comparison.gif)
Black = La7
Blue = Typhoon
Green = P-51D
Red = 109G10
And I plan to add the F4U-1 to the comparison as well. I can also add in the Fw190D9 as soon as we get a chart available on it.
Similar to the Typhoon that we already have, down right on the deck the La7 is fastest, but it quickly is taken over by other planes. By 7,000ft both the P-51D and 109G10 (and most likely the F4U-1), are all faster.
This is only one small portion of my comparison. I will also look at climb/acceleration vs altitude, turn rates (if I get the time to do the in game testing) , gun lethality, ammo loads, Operational range, and external ordinance. So you will get the "totality of the whole".
Just giving you a taste of what I'm preparing.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Verm, I don't know about 51 or F4U but G10 overtakes the La-7 in speed at about 6.3km (which is above 18k) if to look only at those power augmentation engine modes that can be sustained for 10min. I don't have the G10 data for the emergency power that it can only sustain for 1-2min, so it might be that fast in that mode.
[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-03-2001).]
-
Whisk, I'm using WEP speeds for all aircraft in this comparison, and all the data comes directly from the Aces High charts to reflect in game performance.
The La7 data is calculated given the La5fn curve and the known La7 data points from Gordon & Khazanov.
The Fw190D9 (with MW50) data is from the Focke Wulf factory tests table in the Ta152 book, and the test documents that Naudet posted.
The G10 line represents the WEP in Aces High which I believe can be maintained for up to 10 minutes, the longest of any fighter in the game.
Here is the final version of this particular chart. Hopefully tomorrow I will get a chance to do the rest I talked about.
Anyone still think the La7 is uber and needs perked?
(http://www.vermin.net/la7/la7-comparison-2.GIF)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Great info Verm!
Could you be a sport and add the P-47D in there for me? That would rock. If you don't mind, I'd like to post this on my web page... with credit of course! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer
A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com
Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome (http://users.andara.com/~sconrad/) for AH articles and training info!
-
1. The La-7 can out-turn all of those planes.
2. It can out-climb all bar the G-10.
3. It has arguably better guns than all bar the Typhoon/F4U-1C, or G-10 with gondolas.
4. The Spitfire XIV only does about 360mph at sea level. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
All the planes on that chart(except the Typhoon Ib and F4U-1D) should all be perked, if any one of them is made a perk.
-
Verm, your speeds for the 190d9 look suspect. I've seen in many books that with MW50 it attains only 357 mph on the deck.
The La7 speed curve is also suspect. You say you got this curve from Gorgon and Khasonov, but they do not have speed curves. They only give you speeds on deck and at alt. You base your La7 curve on the La5n curve, but this could be in error.
Additionally, I believe the 109g10 takes over the La7 in speed at 18k.
Additionally, as someone just posted, the La7 can climb and outturn just about all those aircraft you have there.
Finally, if the La7 is perked, I'll be flying quite a bit cause I know it will rock. In tour 12 I had the most kills in the La5N and didn't even fly it that much. I know how good they are, and the La7 will beat anything you see there under 10k, where the majority of fights take place.
fscott
[This message has been edited by fscott (edited 03-03-2001).]
-
Fscott,
Two charts for Dora, both from the Focke Wulf factory. The 357 is the Non-MW50 speed.
Chart 1 http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-4.jpg (http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-4.jpg)
Chart 2 http://people.freenet.de/Lutz_Naudet/D9speed2chart.jpg (http://people.freenet.de/Lutz_Naudet/D9speed2chart.jpg)
The curve for the La7 is done by taking the La5FN curve from Aces High, and adjusting it to hit the known data points from Gordon & Khazanov. Principally the 380mph at SL, and the 408 at 19,250ft. Since they have the same engine, same general weight, and the same wing, the curve shape will be very similar if not the same. No its not exact, but its awful awful close. If you can do better, please do so.
The G10 Curve is exactly from the Aces High chart. If you think its wrong, talk to Pyro.
Juzz, the La7 can not outturn all those planes. Not at all. The La7 has a turn time of 20.5 seconds, the La5FN has a turn time of 19 seconds, and the Yak-9U has a turn time of 20 seconds (all Gordon & Khazanov numbers). Back when the Yak-9U first came out in Aces High, I did sustained turn tests for the La5FN, Yak-9U, and the Pony. Both VVS planes hit the numbers within the margin of error of the Khazanov numbers (listed above), and the Pony had roughly the same turn times as the Yak-9U (but in opposite directions). Now I know instantaneous turn rates changed in 1.04, but I don't believe sustained turn rates did (and they shouldn't have). So unless something drastic has changed, the La7 will turn about like the P-51 and Yak-9U. It is not a TnB plane like you all are describing. If I get the time though, I will repeat the turn time tests for all the planes in the chart above.
Also Juzz, by your own statement, about half the planes listed above would have equivalent firepower, and almost every one of them has more ammunition. So its middle of the road in lethality, with shorter firing lengths. ie Average, and below average in gun categories.
You guys are so quick to point out where it is good, but you conviently ignore where it is bad in comparison to all the rest. Range, lack of drop tanks, ammo loads, visibility, and non external ordinance at all. So its the worst of all the planes in the comparison in those categories. Remember from your own statements "totality of the circumstances".
Climb rates I haven't gotten too yet.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 03-03-2001).]
-
Thje problem I have with the Dora9 curve is that it is with MW50. Please correct if wrong but isn't it only good for 10 second intervals? That almost seems useless except in critical points of a fight where u may need that boost, but it is nowhere near the length of wep of 5 min or 10 min.
SO if you use the non-MW50 curve for the D9, we would see that the La7 is king under 10k in raw speed. And again, your La7 curve will not match an La5n like verbatim. It's my guess that the La7 will have a much greater angle in its speed curve up to 10k than you have there. But I see we are going nowhere until HT releases the bird and we see how it performs.
I want it perked at about 100 points. That'll keep the general crowd away so you won't be seeing 100 La7's in the arena.
fscott
-
10 seconds??!! - it was 10 minute intervals, like the G-10 which also has MW 50.
"During the period April 1945 La7 serial No.452132-76 underwent production test trials at the NII-VVS. Below is some of the data from those tests." Original website here (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Lavochkin.html)
(http://www.geocities.com/qwejibo2000/la-7spd.gif)
(http://www.geocities.com/qwejibo2000/la-7clm.gif)
-
Here is a link to the chart that verm posed but translated and rotated horizontally.
http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/bs/chrta.jpg (http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/bs/chrta.jpg)
-
I choose to include the MW50 Dora, because that is what everyone seems to "think" is going to show up. I honestly don't know.
SO if you use the non-MW50 curve for the D9, we would see that the La7 is king under 10k in raw speed
Actually its only "king" under 6k, where the G10 takes over. The Pony takes over at 8k, and the F4U-1 series takes over at about 11k.
Even still, what is wrong with it being the fastest below 6k? That was its real life strength. Its huge weakness is speed/power at altitude.
Fights rarely start at 5k or less (not counting the vulch sessions we see), most start much higher, and the fight is pretty much decided before you get down to 5k less.
The Typhoon is currently in the same position being "king of the hill down low", has much better guns & visibility, plus it can carry external ord. Its not taking over the arena right now.
Don't get me wrong guys. I agree that the La7 will be a very potent fighter in the hands of a skilled E fighting pilot, just as it was in history. Strong, but with some very defineable weakness, that will most likely make the plane "unpopular" and not one everyone will rush to fly.
Its definitely not going to be some kind of mystical cross between a Chog & Spitfire with a 3400hp engine, thats the F2G SuperCorsair (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Don't even need an F2G... The -4 Corsair was quite common and outperformed all those planes in allmost every way. 380mph plus on the deck and 460 or so at 20k. climb at 4000 + and turn as well or better than the 1D. And... it takes off from carriers.
lazs
-
The data for FW-190s in the table given by Nath seem pretty high. Are those tests of prototypes or production ACs ? Who ran those tests ? The manufacturer ? Some German research institute ? Did they also conduct measurements to create speed vs alt and climbrate vs alt charts ? What was the methodology for measuring the speeds (i.e did they do a shallow dive or what?)? Where was it described ? How meticulous was it and how many hours did they spend on it ?
When comparing any figures it is always important to know the process of how they were obtained - the difference in the process can render data from different sources completely uncomparable. For those interested (and those who can get access) the process used by NII VVS is described in:
"Lyetnye ispytaniya samolyetov" (Flight testing of aircraft) by Egorov B.I., internal publication of BNTI NKAP dept. of TsAGI, 1941 and revised in
"Rukovodstvo dlya konstruktorov" (Instructions for designers), vol. 2, 2nd edition, chapter 4000, Moscow BNTI TsAGI, 1944. The whole process for a particular AC took 92 flights (82-95 hours of flight time).
If anyone knows corresponding german documents, including data that are known to be produced by the described process, could you please let me know at least the title, author and who was it published by and when ?
Here are NII VVS data for production ACs (obtained by what they call "kontrol'ny" - "control" tests). They were verified by TsAGI research in 1994. TsAGI researchers claim they compared them against the trustworthy foreign sources, made sure the data correlate by correcting them if needed (e.g. data for 109F-4 were too low because it had a defect in the supercharger system that the test pilots didn't know about), so these are not data for some particular copy of an AC, this is what they arrived at as representative of the whole type; they also have charts but I don't have a scanner:
FW-190A8(light armament, with 2 20mm and 2 13mm):
Engine: BMW-801D: 1700hp at take-off, 1360hp
Take-off weight: 3986kg
Specific wing loading: 214 kgs/m^2
Power loading: 2.93 kgs/h.p.
Top speed: sea lvl - 522km/h (542 in combat mode)
alt - 614km/h at 6150 (642 at 6500 in combat mode)
Time of climb to 5000m: 6.1min (5.4 in combat mode)
Time for 360 turn at 1000m: 21-22 sec
Gain of altitude in a combat turn: 1100m
Landing speed: 153km/h
FW190-D9:
Engine: Jumo-213A, 1780hp at take-off, 1480hp at alt (1600 in combat mode)
Take-off weight: 4197kg
Specific wing loading: 228 kgs/m^2
Specific power loading: 2.84kgs/h.p. (2.62 in combat mode)
Top speeds: sea lvl - 530km/h(543 in combat mode), at alt - 631km/h at 6150m (642 at 6100m)
Time of climb to 5000m: 5.6min
Time of 360 turn at 1000m: 22-23sec
Gain of altitude in a combat turn: 1000m
Landing speed: 158km/h
For comparison, here are data for the La-7 that were put through the same kind of tests with the same methodology and measuring instruments (i.e. NII VVS) and then verified by TsAGI in 1994; again this is "cumulative" data based on a number of "control" tests guided by the same process, not for some particular copy of the AC (at least as TsAGI authors claim).
La-7 (3 20mm version):
Engine: ASh-82FN, 1850h.p. at take-off, 1430h.p. at alt
Take-off weight: 3315kg
Specific wing loading: 189 kgs/m^2
Specific power loading: 2.32kg/h.p.
Top speeds: sea lvl - 579km/h (613 in combat mode), at alt - 661km/h at 6000m
Time of climb to 5000m: 5.25min (4.6 in combat mode)
Time of 360 turn at 1000m: 18-19secs
Gain of altitude in a combat turn: 1200m
Of course, AH folks have to make their own decisions about the performance, we can only help them by making data like these available. I do think that the upcoming "Il-2" game will use primarily the NII VVS data
as the soviet/russian engineering community has very strong confidence in them.
[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
Ehm... D9 flying as fast as 190A8?
and top speed being below 400mph?
I can't really believe on that one, since already 190A5 has top speed over 400mph.
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
Ehm... D9 flying as fast as 190A8?
and top speed being below 400mph?
The issue here isn't whether or not the D9 is faster than 400mph... it is at its best performance altitude. The issue is whether or not it's as fast as these charts show it to be at sea level. According to Verm's and Nath's charts, the D9 with MW-50 can go about 380+ mph on the deck. That's currently faster than any other plane in AH.
-- Todd/DMF
-
Oh yeah, the same study gives charts for Spit 14, the P-51D and 109K-4 as compared to the La-7 (all in different kinds of power augmentation).
The P-51D in 15min WEP becomes faster than La-7 at about 3km (9k), Spit 14 in 5min WEP is faster above 6km (18k), 109K-4 in 1-3min MW-50 is faster above 3.1km (9.3k) or so.
Authors claim MW-50 could be engaged only for 1-3min at a time, then the pilot had to let the engine cool so that not to risk a catastrophic failure. So even though the amount of the methanol/water mix was enough for longer the pilot couldn't use all of it in one contiguous time period.
-
This is lightly armed 190A-8, not the four cannon version.
Another thing - the spped info given in table format is tricky to comprehend. Fishu - you got into this trap. I am looking at the charts and 190D-9 is constantly and noticeably faster than 190A-8, but the power curve of Jumo in combat mode goes down earlier than BMW, note the difference in alts of max speeds.
So the speeds of 190A8 and 190D-9 are similar
since 6.3km. Actually the chart shows that 190-D9 is still faster by some 2-3km/h above that.
The authors didn't bother with MW-50 as it could only be used for 1-3min at a time, which wasn't considered good enough for a fight.
This is not a popular-history book for enthusiasts - this is a limited edition (1000 copies) study. It has like 10 authors with maojority of them with PhD in aerospace engineering and abundant with minute technical details of designs and design trade-offs - it's intended for engineers with the corresponding education, not the common folk like us. It reads like a scientific paper, not like some Jane's publication on WWII aircraft.
I wonder where Nath's data came from and how they were obtained.
[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
BTW Fishu, I mentioned that the process of obtaining the data is as important as the data itself and one can make a valid comparison only of thise data that were obtained with a similar process. So, your statement that "190A-5 already gives 400mph" cannot be directly applied to these figures
as you don't mention the source and process (methodology) of how it was obtained. In other words you cannot argue that NII VVS data are inconsistent (i.e. "better" plane has worst speed than earlier, "worse" plane) based on your figure.
Here is NII VVS data for FW 190A-5 (NOTE: 2 20mm and 2 7.92mm variant):
Engine: BMW-801D, 1700h.p. at take-off, 1360 at alt
Take off weight: 4070kg
Specific wing loading: 218kgs/m^2
Specific power loading: 2.99 kgs/h.p.
Top speeds: sea lvl - 510km/h, at alt 604km/h at 6000m
Time of climb to 5000m: 6.8min
Time of 360 turn at 1000m: 22-23sec
Gain of altitude in a combat turn: 850-900m
Landing speed: 154 km/h
As you can see the performance of 190A-8 with 2 cannon and 190-D9 are better than 190A-5 so NII VVS data are consistent in that.
I am just showing you what appears to be a result of a long study and something the russian aerospace community considers valid.
-
When comparing planes, people see 2 things, climb rate and max speeds. Obviously if you compare the max speed of the La7 with the D9/P51/109G10/even 190a8, you tend to think the La7 is a non-perk plane. This is a mistake to do. There are many other elements such as a combat turn which the La7 excels at, and this was important enuff for Gorgon and Khasanov to record among their many tests.
Here's what many people cannot understand - athe decision to perk a plane should not be based upon its performance in WW2, but rather how it will be used in AH. Perked aircraft is something that only belongs to AH. Most fights tend to digress below 10k and even 5k. This is where the La7 is KING!
As I stated earlier, back in tour 12 I flew the La5 a bit and wasn't even sure how to fly it. I got the most kills of anyone with 165 kills. Since this discussion started, I have started flying the La5 again. At this point I have 27 kills and 4 deaths. And none of these kills were vulches either. Two of those deaths were from acks and one was from a bad landing! So I've only been killed 1 time by an enemy plane. Now tell me this plane isn't really something, and it's not even an La7.
And what is so wrong with making it a 50 or 100 point perk? And if we get a D9 with MW50, then heck make it a 200 to 300 point perk...and right on down the line.
fscott
[This message has been edited by fscott (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
FW190-D9:
Engine: Jumo-213A, 1780hp at take-off, 1480hp at alt (1600 in combat mode)
Take-off weight: 4197kg
Specific wing loading: 228 kgs/m^2
Specific power loading: 2.84kgs/h.p. (2.62 in combat mode)
Top speeds: sea lvl - 530km/h(543 in combat mode), at alt - 631km/h at 6150m (642 at 6100m)
Time of climb to 5000m: 5.6min
Time of 360 turn at 1000m: 22-23sec
Gain of altitude in a combat turn: 1000m
Landing speed: 158km/h
BS. So the Fw190D9 did 401mph@20000feet?.
I dont know where did you read that, but you should know to give credit the sources that deserve it, and to forget about the ones that don't.
First of all, the Fw190D9, without MW50 and rated to 1750hp SL did 357mph at SL and 426mph at 21600feet. This is widely known.
The most common figures for the Fw190D9, fitted with MW50 (2100hp at Sea level) are 380mph at SL and almost 448mph@21000feet...but according to Niklas ,and matching Focke wulf Factory data, this numbers correspond to a Fw190D9 with a special WEP system that allowed for increased Manifold pressure and made the Ju213A-1 deliver 1900hp, BUT with no MW50 system fitted.
the true Fw190D9 fitted with MW50,according to Niklas, did 395mph@SL at a rated engine output of 2100hp.
PLease take a look into this thread for all this info, lots of good stuff there:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000001.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000001.html)
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
If anyone knows corresponding german documents, including data that are known to be produced by the described process, could you please let me know at least the title, author and who was it published by and when ?
Sure, but you dont need any books listed here, BTW. You have the links in this same boards (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Funked and vermillion own an original Fw190A8 pilot's handbook wich lists Fw190A8's deck speed at 350mph (not the 340mph you want us to believe). Vermillion has posted several scans of this handbook.
Links to charts:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/001655.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/001655.html)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/001656.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/001656.html)
I have a hard time with those charts because I've kept seeing the 360mph@Sea Level as the real Fw190A8's speed. This data comes from a VVS-dedicated web, and from this chart that lists all the lateste Fw190's and Ta152's speeds:
http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-4.jpg (http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-4.jpg)
As you see, the deck speed of the Fw190A8 in that chart is listed at 578km/hour, exactly 360mph.
Note the date of those charts, those are original Focke-Wulf factory documents. The chart that lists the Fw190A8 with a speed of 360mph@Sea level is dated 1-10-1944 while Vermillion Fw190A8's handbook's dates are march 1945.
This is original factory data, and no VVS tests in god-knows-in-wich-state captured planes will change that.
Naudet's charts showing 395mph@Sea level for the Mw50 Dora-9 are in:
http://www.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/213A1.jpg (http://www.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/213A1.jpg)
That is the chart for a Ju213-A1 engine. As niklas noted in the tread I linked above, NOTE that the second stage of the supercharger is kicked in from 0feet!!!!.
Amazing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
There is another chart for a Ju213-E1 in
http://www.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/213E1.jpg (http://www.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/213E1.jpg)
Of course the latest is not from a Dora-9, as the Fw190D9 had a Ju213-A1 engine.
Personally I'm shocked after Niklas's posts in the thread I linked above. The Fw190D9 he describes, with Mw50, is with no doubt the best fighter of the WWII and by a wide margin.
I am pretty sure that in AH we are getting the increased Manifold pressure Fw190D9 with a 1900hp Ju213A1, not the MW50 fitted one. The Mw50 Fw190D9,according to the data on those charts, would be a perk plane in the range of the Tempest, in fact a bit more expensive.
One doesnt wake up every morning to discover that his favorite plane is the best WWII fighter (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). Sweet! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
Originally posted by fscott:
As I stated earlier, back in tour 12 I flew the La5 a bit and wasn't even sure how to fly it. I got the most kills of anyone with 165 kills. Since this discussion started, I have started flying the La5 again. At this point I have 27 kills and 4 deaths. And none of these kills were vulches either. Two of those deaths were from acks and one was from a bad landing! So I've only been killed 1 time by an enemy plane. Now tell me this plane isn't really something, and it's not even an La7.
Does this mean that Fw 190A-8 is ultra super plane since I did 270 streak in it?
-
As far as the 190D9 "official" FW documents go.
"Focke-Wulf Ta 152, Der Weg zum Höhenjäger" by Dieter Hermann, ISBN
3-925505-44-X, published by AVIATIC.
Regarding their test values and the companys specification, you should take these published charts with a grain of salt. But they are for sure the best available in "publications" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
[This message has been edited by sky_bax (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
Don't even need an F2G... The -4 Corsair was quite common and outperformed all those planes in allmost every way. 380mph plus on the deck and 460 or so at 20k. climb at 4000 + and turn as well or better than the 1D. And... it takes off from carriers.
lazs
Actually, no. Most of those planes have better performance than the F4U-4 below 10,000ft. However; the F4U-4 is almost certainly the best all-purpose fighter. It can do everything well. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Now, this here is the ultimate in Corsair technology:
(http://www.vought.com/photos/images/1065_25.jpg)
XF4U-3: 387mph at s/l, 487mph at 27,500ft, 4,850fpm initial climbrate, only 380lbs heavier than the -4 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Wisk, do you have any english translations of that document that describes the differences between the procedures between the so called "prototype" and "production" VVS flight tests, as they are called in the Gordon & Khazanov series? I believe you used the term "control" instead of "production". I would be really interested in it, if you did.
Its long been a contention of mine on this board that the terms "prototype and production" are somewhat out of context in regards to comparing Allied Flight testing and the VVS testing.
Fscott, one more time.
And what is so wrong with making it a 50 or 100 point perk?
Let me turn it around. Whats so wrong with letting the La7 be the best at low altitude, why does it have to be the P51 or Typhoon? Is it because then you couldn't run away at will in the P51 Mustang, which is one of your top 3 favorite planes in the last couple of tours? You sure you don't have a personal interest in this arguement, in that one of your favorite planes/tactics would not be so easy anymore? Honest questions, not a flame at all. Because every time I try to quantify in a logical way the strengths and weakness of this plane, in comparison to the other planes that are freely available, you only point back that it would be the fastest below 5k and ignore everything else.
Historically the La7 is as important to the VVS as the P-51D is to the Americans, the Spit IX is to the British, and the Fw190A8 is to the Germans. But you would perk it because it would be the fastest in a very narrow range of the combat spectrum.
I'm done with this petty arguement, no matter what I say, or how many hours I put into making charts that prove my point I'm not going to convince you to even consider changing your mind. Because every time I make a point, your "target" or arguement for perking the plane changes. Basically its my opinon that it comes down to the old "But it will be better than my plane!!" complaint and thats the reason you want to see it perked. I'm done. Go ahead and get the last word in now.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Huh guys?
I think some of you have false impression that perking means same as excluding or removing which is totally wrong idea. They can perk Fw 190A-5 and Fw 190A-8 too but if the price is only 1 or 2 perk points, what difference does it make? None since everybody still can fly them.
The Real Question (tm) is not perk or not to perk but how much it will cost. This is a difficult one, how to determine cost for Ta 152 and La 7 since they are so different planes.
I think HTC might apply same perk cost to every new perk plane and then see for one tour what perk plane gets most use and then increase its cost.
------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski
Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
[This message has been edited by Jochen (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
Here is NII VVS data for FW 190A-5 (NOTE: 2 20mm and 2 7.92mm variant):
Time of 360 turn at 1000m: 22-23sec
Your beloved NII VVS data is telling us the 2x20 190A5 turns worse than 190A8(2x20) and 190D9. Even more, the 190D9 turns worse than 190A8(2x20)...
-
I'm not defending the VVS data on Luftwaffe aircraft (I've never looked at it very carefully), or how well it is comparitively between the different models of 190, but a range of 20-22 seconds for a Fw190's 360 degree turn times is definitely in the correct ballpark.
FYI from the same source, the La5FN is 19.5 seconds, the La7 is 20.5 seconds, and the Yak-9U is 20 seconds.
Given what we know about wingloading and other characteristics, 20-22 seconds for the different 190's is certainly possible.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
I dont know what all you guys are worried about. If the La7 carries the same ammo load and the same fuel load as the La5 then no one is going to be flying it much. If its perked I'm sure hell never gonna fly or waste my few perk points on it. I'll fly it in the TA where it has unlimited fuel and ammo (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Its really a non-issue.....
LLB OUT!!!!!!!!!
-
Fscott-
I can tell you that when I am in a furball, the LAST plane I worry about would be the 202, followed closely by the La5. The 202 doesn't scare me because it has no guns and I can outrun it at will, the La5 because if I can't outrun it I most likely can outturn it (meaning the planes that can't outrun it usually turn better, and vice versa). The La7 wouldn't do much better, it would just make the Mustangs turn around and fight- and the La7 just might be sorry in that event (La7 vs. P-51B? Put the money on the 'stang. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
[This message has been edited by dolomite (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
Well if I'm in a zeke I don't worry about any planes, cause I know I can outturn them all. Does this mean that all other planes are worthless when fighting a Zeke? What you do need to worry about is an La5 that is above you while you are furballing with someone else.
Me too Verm. It is worthless. We both have differing opinions on what makes a perk. So I'm finished too.
fscott
-
Well if I'm in a zeke I don't worry about any planes, cause I know I can outturn them all.
Bad analogy, and you know it. You can turn, turn, turn, but if I'm in a 51 I will kill you every time unless I do something stupid.
Your argument is that the La7 has such high speed down low it should be perked. Other than top speed, it has nothing on the La5, which is hardly an arena killer. The La7 won't have an overall performance advantage great enough to make it much more of a threat than the La5.
-
what? you mean there may be some dissagreement as to what should be perked and what not? Perhaps some cretins will actually feel that some planes enjoy an unfair advantage over others?
lazs
-
Originally posted by fscott:
Well if I'm in a zeke I don't worry about any planes, cause I know I can outturn them all. Does this mean that all other planes are worthless when fighting a Zeke? What you do need to worry about is an La5 that is above you while you are furballing with someone else.
Mmmm... I like killing slow Zekes..
Probably easiest planes to kill after Ju-88 and C.202 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
blah blah blah.....why dont we just wait and see what HTC is giving us and what decisions they make? if ya dont like it, then....let the whining commence. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Verm, I don't have any English translations - just the originals in Russian. I mentioned the exact names of internal TsAGI publications on the issue in the earlier post. I can try and translate some of it - but it will take a helluva amount of time.
I actually talked to one of the authors of the study suggesting an English translation. He refused - he said he was "burned" by some US magazine that completely misprepresnted what he wrote and he won't let that happen again, so any translation he would allow has to take place in Russia.
Mandoble, if you look at the data you will see that 190A-5 and 190A-8 have the same engine, but 109A-5 weighs noticeable more, so it's not surprising that it turns worse, 190-D9 did turn worse than 190A-8 - actually it is even modeled so in WB.
R4M,
I think you are being too emotional as a true believer who is shown something that is outside of his perception of this world.
I'll try to carefully respond to your points.
- I dont know where did you read that, but you should know to give credit the sources that deserve it, and to forget about the ones that don't.
I mentioned where I read that. I'll repeat again: "Aircraft construction in the USSR", published by TsAGI (Central Aerhydrodynamic Insitute); Full author list of the study:
Academician G.S. Byushgens (Russian Academy of Sciences)
Gen Lt A.I. Ayupov (VVS),
Scientists and engineers of Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute:
Doctor Tech. Sc. A.M. Batkov, Academician R.A. Belyakov (whom western readers might know - he had some western publications), Doctor Tech. Sciences R.V. Sakach, K.Yu. Kosminkov (M.Sc. aerospace eng), N.V. Grogroryev(M.Sc. aerospace eng), G.V. Kostyrchenko(M.Sc. aerospace eng), A.I Makarevsky(M.Sc. aerospace eng), A.D. Mironov(M.Sc. aerospace eng), V.V. Lazarev(M.Sc. aerospace eng), R.D. Irodov(M.Sc. aerospace eng), Yu.A.Egorov(M.Sc. aerospace eng), Yu.V. Zasypkin(M.Sc. aerospace eng)
Internal publication of TsAGI, circulation 1000, Moscow, 1994
Do these guys deserve credit ?? Like at least 50% ?? In case you don't know - TsAGI does state-of-the-art research in the aerospace field - they don't hire mediocre people.
- First of all, the Fw190D9, without MW50 and rated to 1750hp SL did 357mph at SL and 426mph at 21600feet.
- This is widely known.
"Widely known" is not a proof, also where is it widely known? Cause as I can see something completely different is widely known in the aersopcace community of fSU (and I'm only talking about aerospace engineers actively involved in the field, not the hobbyists without proper education)
- god-knows-in-wich-state captured planes
the state of the planes was very well known to the engineers and test-pilots - they were not idiots to claim that some wreck is representable for a series and then feed the data for some wreck to their design buros and military tactitians. They recognize they screwed up big time with 109F-4 - this cost some lives - they made the changes and didn't let it happen again.
Also, it was quite common for the fast advancing Soviet army to capture a lot of german equipment intact. Actually Oleg Maddox of the Il-2 fame claims a whole squadron of virtually new 190D-9s was captured. 109s of all makes and models were captured on fields all the time (with especially abundnant "harvests" in Stalingrad and Kurks, later in the war it was even more plentiful; after the war the NII VVS also got the docs and even german engineers who designed them).
I mentioned that the study reads like a scientific paper, which means - they describe their assumptions, methodlogy of conductiong the experiment, methods of treatment of experimental results and the description of the results themselves including conclusions.
All sources you threw at me only include "end" results - I was asking about description of the process of how they were obtained - i.e. which organization in germany desgined the tests procedures and validated them ? what those procedures are (for instance, in what configuration the plane is flown for speed trials, what method and instruments are used to measure the speed, how the collected results were treated, i.e. how do they calculate erors detected spurious results etc.)
Is there any german/western research organization with an established name in academic aerospace community who do this kind of historical research ? I understand that there are a lot of what I call "popular" publications on the subject.
But I'm not interested in those - they are usually compilations by some enthusiasts or former professionals who have been out of touch with the field for too long time and just want to cash in.
To draw a parallel in computer science area (cause that's my field and I understand there r a lot of computer industry folk here who will understand): I'm looking for something like "IEEE transactions", not "Dr.Dobb's magazine".
Another thing - I am not claiming anything but the fact that those TsAGI guys did their research using scientific method and published a well-written and scientifically literate work (with surprising results for some).
One cannot compare the "end" results of any experiments without knowing the experimental design and assumptions. I want to get the description of that experimental design (german flight test procedures - not just what the pilot does, but how instruments are chosen, positioned, calibrated; how they treated (in empirical study sense) the data they got).
To draw a parallel again - I did comparisons of processors and development methodologies (for research labs, not the internet layman crap) - any valid comparison of results MUST include the process and assumptions of the experiment itself. Sometimes a wrong benchmark can completely skew the results.
If you are comparing results obtained by two different teams in two different compnaies you may be amazed at how different the end-results look, once you take into account the methodology you can actually see why they differ and sometimes you can consistently compensate for the differnce in process and "calibrate" the results from the two teams so that they would become comparable.
Claiming that some figures are "widely known" is like saying nothing. Throwing charts without sources and methodology descriptions is not that far away. Such "reasoning" will not fly in any scientific discourse.
And for those wishing to try and get in touch with those guys (you have to write in Russian) TsAGI address is:
Rossijskaya Federatsiya,
140160, g. Zhukovsky, Mosk. obl.
TsAGI
[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
Wisk are you in the US ?
If you are, and it wouldn't be too hard for you, is it possible to photocopy the documents and mail them to me?
If so I have a Ukrainian Engineer in my Office that has offered to do any translation work for me, and I know of one other native russian speaker that has offered to do some translation work.
If its difficult for you too do so, don't worry about getting me the documents. Its something that would be nice to have, but not imperative (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Contact me by email if you need my address. Thanks!
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
Mandoble, if you look at the data you will see that 190A-5 and 190A-8 have the same engine, but 109A-5 weighs noticeable more, so it's not surprising that it turns worse, 190-D9 did turn worse than 190A-8 - actually it is even modeled so in WB.
I see, and what kind of 190A8 is that being lighter than a 190A5 both with 2x20mm guns?
As a side note, you surelly will notice big differences between AH models and WB models, in almost any plane. What I expect here is a better Hp/W 190D9 than in WB, and having less wingload than "normal" 190A8 I cant understand why it should turn worse.
-
Verm,
Regarding the La-7, Tilt (The guy I CM'd AW's Nieman with) sent me this:
..very good book is just published.....
I have a copy originally in Czech but now with English subtexts Lavockin La-7 by Milos Vestik ISBN 80-902238-7-7.
he took many pictures of White 77 in Prague. His are better quality than mine. But his la 7 combat history is very good.
btw White 23 (AH's La7) with 2 diagonal grey white tail markings was flown by Maj. V A Orekov for the 32 nd GIAP in lithuania in autumn 44 so had AW had an La-7 the VVs could have replaced one of their units with la-7's as the frames progressed during Niemen.
Might be worth a look?
and...get a working Email, will ya ? :-)
How do I make a link to this thread, I'd like to send it to Tilt?
[This message has been edited by Seeker (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
Guys you reacting like I called your mother a bad name or something. Direct your indignation at the authors of the study (Academicians Belyakov, Byushgens etc.) and the whole russian aerospace community if you feel the need, I didn't write it I just translated it.
These are production AC tests, the majority of "popular" publications I've seen give FW-190D9s top speed at alt as 685km/h, but those data are for a completely new aircraft, La-7 also is listed as 680km/h for a new one. Their study explicitely stated that they used "a "cumulative" assesment of control tests to reflect capabilities of the whole type with the use of trustworthy foreign test data when warranted".
As for the weight of the 190A-5 - I actually gave the lower figure, they also list 4270kg at take-off for a different configuration - all that weight is armor. Maybe there was a difference between 190A-5 used on Western front and Eastern front. the 190A-5 the authrs describe was a dedicated ground attack aircraft. Also, the 190A-8 they tested was made lighter also because they removed some armor, not just cannon. That's why you are seeing this. As per why 190D-9 turns worse than 190A-8: this is whole another story with some math and the ttheory of airframe comprasion called "criteria of similarities". This theroy creates dependencies between certain ratios of airframe parameters and performance parameters. As more than one paramater can be changed these dependencies are expressed as high-dimensional surfaces (i.e. you can only view one projection of it on the two axes - planar surface). The relative position of function surfaces for different airframes show tendencies of the airframe to be better than the other in a ceratin flight parameter. The authors give the equations and projections of these surfaces they come up with that show where different airframes fit. They plugged in the data for WWII ACs into their modern proprietary software packages for airframe analysis and showed the results. I saw a US version of this kind of package in action at National Labs that are near Chicago - they were doing some calculation for the X-38 (I was just giving a talk there and the hosts show-cased some of their wonders). I can't replicate all that stuff in a post.
Here is what they say, p.98:
"In the 2nd half of 1942 a new german fighter with an air-cooled engine, FW-190, appeared at the front line. This fighter was developed before the war and by the time of its appearance at the front its design was well-developed and reached high level of maturity. As compared to the Me-109 the new fighter was significantly heavier, had an exceptionally powerful armament and significantly higher weight of the payload. On the Eastern front the 4th modification appeared first - FW-190A-4. ... by the combination of its capabilities the FW-190 could more effectively fight the soviet shturmoviks and bombers, that were arriving at the front in increasingly greater numbers and were inflicting increasingly greater
losses on the german personnel and equipment. Using the FW-190, as the most powerfully armed aircraft with higher survivability, against ground targets, the designers tried to increase the effectiveness of ground assault activities and at least partially offset the lack of a dedicated armored shturmovik of the likes of the Soviet Il-2.
So that to increase the survivability of the aircraft, the designers used armor protection of the most important devices of the aircraft and partially the pilot. The whole weight of the armor was 110kgs. But the experience of combat operations of the FW-190A-4 showed its high vulnerability from below, so the next version - FW-190A-5 had a significantly increased armor protection. Sixteen 5-6mm armor plates with the total weight of 200kgs were added. These plates formed a contiguous armored surface protecting the belly of the aircraft. So that to keep flight characteristics almost the same the designers had to remove two wing cannon. One must note that unlike the Il-2, the armor on the FW-190 was not part of the aircraft's "carrying skeleton" and was essentially a "dead" weight. Because the FW-190A-4 and 190A-5 had worse maneuvering characteristics than the Soviet fighters they were often escorted by the Me-109s..."
-
Hi guys,
Here is right speed curves for SERIAL PRODUCTION La-5, La-5FN and La-7. Units taken in troops after they had some intensive operation there. (Tests made for each 6-10 planes and then calculated middle parameters for summer and winter time. So it is middle parameters - not the best)
ftp://ftp.bluebyte.com/il2/Las.jpg (http://ftp://ftp.bluebyte.com/il2/Las.jpg)
Dashed line - with 10 min engine boost before overheating.
Above ~ 3,000 m (3,200 for La-7 in WWII time original flight manual) - there are not a problem with any overheating. You may fly with maximum power as long as you want, but you should remeber that the engine eat the fuel in 1,5 times faster then on 90-92%% of power.
For Yaks - there is almost no limit for maximum power, except limitation of fuel...
Yak-9U with VK-107 engine was able to fly up to 30-40 min on maximum boost, but range in this case was in 2,5-3 times less.
For most German planes the limit of power boost with MW-50 injection was 2 min maximum. Of course you may use such boost many times in flight, but always should remember and see the temperaure indicators, or if you forgot it, and use boost once more after last time in the next 10 minutes - your engine will be damaged.
For most FW-190A, G, F without special injection boost the limit of maximum power use was 8-10 min. With MW-50 - see above.
Why many Russians pilots love P-39 late models? Not only because this bird was not so bad as stated some Western docs for P-400 and early models... it was most advanced plane in auto control. It was like 'Mercedes' comparing to almost any other cockpits of WWII fighter planes. Cockpit was so friendly to pilots...(can't explani in English better)
Some time later in this year I hope to have rights to publish a lot of data which I use in development (sorry not all at the moment possible, because I promissed some authors of new books).
[This message has been edited by Oleg Maddox (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
Oleg, Thank you for finding time to post this.
That would be awesome to get hands on the data you used for development after they can become available. Also, please, let us know what books those guys are publishing - I'll buy them right away.
Thank you again
-
(http://www.airtel.net/hosting/0003d/ebringas/D9climb.jpg)
(http://people.freenet.de/Lutz_Naudet/D9speed2chart.jpg)
Yes, that tittle number at 0K for the Fw190D9, is a 650. Yes, the Fw190D9 with MW50 line is at 640km/h at 0K. And yes, that it is in Km/hour. Yes, that means 395mph on the deck.
And yes, that is an original Focke-Wulf factory document, dated in March-1945. And yes, it is about serial Fw190D9s with ETC 504 racks.
No VVS documetns about captured Fw190s will change that, I repeat. And much less if you keep on coming here insisnting that the Fw190A5 was heavier and worse turner than the Fw190A8 (lol), because that does nothing but to rest credibility to your source.
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
One book will be about complete FW-190 series with a lot of data.
Couple books about Yaks and story of test in NII VVS of all captured, lend lease (including P-47D, P-51B, Spits, etc) and Russian WWII planes. There aslo should be present test of captured P-51D(many of them landed on Russian territory of occupation), P-38J and some others (similar situation), B-17 (there were even real battle sorties in the end of the war together with Pe-8, B-25, A-20, IL-4.... I don't mean US B-17 flying from Poltava in 1944). I mean B-17 with red stars).
Ok, no time. Soon beta...
-
R4M,
I don't know about VVS data(yes, there was squadron of captured FW-190D-9 in use by VVS, but I know about trial tests in Russia.
They show even a bit better performace on high alt and a bit worse on SL.
But in general almost similar. I don't see any contradictions if data diffesrs for 1% (and remember, that tests at winter and summer had some good differences even after use special formulas to complete test data to real things).
We use for our AI(currently) FW-190D-9 the manufacture data. And really it is very good and friendly to pilot plane.
-
- I dont know where did you read that, but you should know to give credit the sources that deserve it, and to forget about the ones that don't.
I mentioned where I read that. I'll repeat again: "Aircraft construction in the USSR", published by TsAGI (Central Aerhydrodynamic Insitute); Full author list of the study:
Academician G.S. Byushgens (Russian Academy of Sciences)
Gen Lt A.I. Ayupov (VVS),Scientists and engineers of Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute:
Doctor Tech. Sc. A.M. Batkov, Academician R.A. Belyakov (whom western readers might know - he had some western publications), Doctor Tech. Sciences R.V. Sakach, K.Yu. Kosminkov (M.Sc. aerospace eng), N.V. Grogroryev(M.Sc. aerospace eng), G.V. Kostyrchenko(M.Sc. aerospace eng), A.I Makarevsky(M.Sc. aerospace eng), A.D. Mironov(M.Sc. aerospace eng), V.V. Lazarev(M.Sc. aerospace eng), R.D. Irodov(M.Sc. aerospace eng), Yu.A.Egorov(M.Sc. aerospace eng), Yu.V. Zasypkin(M.Sc. aerospace eng)
If god himself was signing that study I wont believe it. Fw190A8 was a plane 500kg heavier than the Fw190A5 in any comparable loadout and you tell us that the A5 turned WORSE?...and not only that you say that it is REASONABLE?.
Sorry but that is BS. And the 400mph@20000feet for the D9 is even more BS.
I dont know if that was communist propaganda or what <G>, but my god you are listing A8's deck speed as SLOWER than Fw190A5's in Aces High...remember that in 1941, when it was introduced the FASTER plane on the deck in the world, was the Fw190A2?...or maybe you have some VVS data saying that it only did 250mph at deck level?... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
lol.
Ok, you have up there two original Focke Wulf factory charts, dated March 1945. Now care to explain them?...the german focke-wulf engineer who did those charts was drunk,I guesS?.
Yeah. and the "virtually new 190D9s" did 400mph at 20000 feet. Sure <G>
VVS or not, scientific research whatever or not....if you come here saying that the Fw190D9 did 400mph at high level and only 330mph at sea level expect not to be believed.
In the meantime tell me what does the charts I presented you avobe mean, please. I guess that some SS officer was pointing with a pistol the engineer who was drawing them, so the communist studies after the war didnt disprestige the german "fake" air engineer quality (hehehe) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Look...your sources give so low numbers that even a 1943 plane would be outperformed...yet those planes were known to be "more than a match" for the P51, and are renowned as the best german prop fighter, by far, and one of the best if not the best of the war. All with a top speed of 400mph?
You know that russian captured lots of equipment in 1945...but that the western allieds too?. You can be sure as hell that they did research and test the planes they had captured too. I have read many performance numbers for the Fw190, all the versions, but by far the worse are yours....you want me to believe that the western nations test were worth nothing and the only valid ones were the ones on the VVS?...
Nope. And less with original factory data backing up my position and not yours, sorry.
And apart of being the worse, it is backed up by VERY dubvious asseverations like "the Fw190A8 was a better turner than the Fw190A5" or "the Fw190D9 did 400mph at 20000feet".
Hell, the Fw190A8 did 408mph at 20000 feet...why would Tank take the time to design a plane to do 400mph at the same altitude?......
Its senseless...really, it is.
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
I am just showing you what appears to be a result of a long study and something the russian aerospace community considers valid.
Really?
From http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Lavochkin.html (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Lavochkin.html) , a web dedicated to the VVS and especially to the La5FN and La7:
The following is a text from Soviet Combat Aircraft (see bibliography) regarding The La-7.
"The La-7's high performance became fully apparent in the change of Luftwaffe tactics at the end of the war. German fighter units re-equipped with the multi purpose Fw190a,'F and G used the tactic of "surprise pirate raids" on a large scale. They would attack advancing Soviet vehicle columns, the forward edge of the front line and close up rear positions, then escape at full speed using augmented power. Yak 3's and Yak 9U's had an insufficient margin of speed to intercept the Fw190's , but the task could be performed by the La7, though not without difficulty."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a text from the publication La5/7 fighters in action (see bibliography)
"The standard La 7 had a top speed of 592km/h at sea level - 46 km/h more than the La5fn and 72km/h faster than the Focke Wulf Fw190A-3............
The La 7 was also 15km/h faster than the Focke Wulf Fw190A-8, the latest version of this German fighter deployed on the Eastern front. With a take of weight of 3240 kg the La7 was about 1060 kgs lighter than the Fw190A-8.
The climb rate was also greatly improved . The La7 easily out climbed the Fw190A-8 at altitudes upto 5000 m . The La7 reached this altitude in 4.95 minutes, while the Fw190A-8 required six minutes. The La7 was also more manoeuvrable than the Focke Wulf at any altitude, taking only 20 seconds for a 360 degree turn versus the German fighters 26 seconds."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/i]
Seems that the VVS pilots aboard La5FN and Yak9Us had no idea that the Fw190A8s and F8s were only running at 335mph at sea level because the Fw190A8 speed was so crappy. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I guess that they could barely catch them in Yak9Us because they liked to run races with them before trying to shoot at them ,huh?
Seems that the "russian community" does not accept that "widely accepted" data you present to us.
And for sure the combat quotes DONT match the data...see that source?...calls the Fw190A8 being 15km/h slower than the La7...
But of course we all know that the Fw190A8 only did 335mph at SL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Oleg Maddox:
R4M,
I don't know about VVS data(yes, there was squadron of captured FW-190D-9 in use by VVS, but I know about trial tests in Russia.
They show even a bit better performace on high alt and a bit worse on SL.
But in general almost similar. I don't see any contradictions if data diffesrs for 1% (and remember, that tests at winter and summer had some good differences even after use special formulas to complete test data to real things).
We use for our AI(currently) FW-190D-9 the manufacture data. And really it is very good and friendly to pilot plane.
Oleg you are telling me that in Il2 the Fw190D9 is doing 330mph at sea level and 400mph at 20000 feet? Or that you use the 357mph/426mph figure? (or the 380mph/448mph (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
-
I don't understand either how could A-8 turn better than A-5...
with guns and armor ripped off? then it might work.
from every source, I've read D9 being faster than A8, also faster than A5. (and I read A5 being faster than A8)
-
No VVS documetns about captured Fw190s will change that, I repeat. And much less if you keep on coming here insisnting that the Fw190A5 was heavier and worse turner than the Fw190A8 (lol), because that does nothing but to rest credibility to your source.
Again, get a grip R4M.
It is possible that tested 190A-5 was in fact 190F-2 or F3 (based on 109A-5, maybe having a rustsaze) which in fact had 100 - 200 kg of additional armour plating. I can easily understand light 190A-8 outturning 190F-3...
------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski
Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A[/b, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
-
Originally posted by Jochen:
It is possible that tested 190A-5 was in fact 190F-2 or F3 (based on 109A-5, maybe having a rustsaze) which in fact had 100 - 200 kg of additional armour plating. I can easily understand light 190A-8 outturning 190F-3...
Fw190A8 was 500kg heavier than A5, more or less. Even with a 200kg overweight, A5 will be a lighter plane than the A8. So this assumption is wrong. If the Fw190F2 is 200kg heavier than the Fw190A5, it still should have a lower wingloading and better turning than the Fw190A8.
Second, he explicits that the Fw190A5 is a leightweight one:
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
Here is NII VVS data for FW 190A-5 (NOTE: 2 20mm and 2 7.92mm variant)
so frankly if he is nitpicking to ensure that we know that it is the light Fw190A5, without outboard cannons, then I doubt that it is a F2.
Even more:
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
FW-190A8(light armament, with 2 20mm and 2 13mm):
Engine: BMW-801D: 1700hp at take-off, 1360hp
.
.
.
Top speed: sea lvl - 522km/h (542 in combat mode)
alt - 614km/h at 6150 (642 at 6500 in combat mode)
Time of climb to 5000m: 6.1min (5.4 in combat mode)
Look, sir...first of all,the power output is wrong. The Fw190A8 had a 1800hp engine with the Petrol injection system (wich was standard, so dont try to tell me that maybe that A8 "didnt had the system").
Second of all the speed figures are wrong, because they are too low. I can post more charts in this thread, both the ones with all the speeds of the Fw190 family from the A8 onwards, or the ones from the Fw190A8 handbook, posted by Vermillion. The Fw190A8 had a 350mph speed on the deck according to Vermillion's scans and 360mph according to the chart comparing all the Fw190s and Ta152s.
Jochen,a Fw190A5 is a Fw190A5. If is a Fw190F2 is a Fw190F2. If you post data here that a Fw190A5 turns worse than a Fw190A8, then I have to assume that it is an A5, not a F2. Or do we have to play the riddle game to sort out where does that data come from, or belongs to?.
I say that those numbers, as are presented are WRONG. THat the data he posted is FAULTY. That the speeds are significantly porked,that the turnrates are wrong and that the general information seems screwed up.
And if that A5 is in fact a F2, then you are nothing but proving my point, being my point that that data is unreliable...
Or maybe should I post here the turnrates and accelerations of an Fw190G3 and say that those figures belong to the Fw190A5?...(remember, the first incarnation of the A5 had the same performance as a Fw190G3, and it was a terror).
I have posted two Focke-Wulf factory performance charts, signed in March'45. We can post here more original charts from the FW factory.
He posts that an fw190A5 turns worse than the A8...in fact is worse and performs worse than A8, he says that it was to be EXPECTED!!!!
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
As you can see the performance of 190A-8 with 2 cannon and 190-D9 are better than 190A-5 so NII VVS data are consistent in that.
The Fw190A8 performer markedly worse than the A5 at most altitudes, and was faster at low altitudes because the lack of petrol injection overboost system in the A5. The Fw190A5 was faster at most altitudes and had lower wingloading, wich is perfectly normal in a plane with an identical engine but 500kg more.
And now you try to explain it because "it can be a F2"...
Then that A8 can be an A6, or an A7, right? and the D9 could be what?...(a toejam of course, given that it is a late'44 plane that, according to him, only makes 400mph at 21000feet)
enough said. I think that this falls by its own weight. Above you have original Focke wulf charts, and a bunch of numbers that assure that the Fw190A5 was outturned by a Fw190A8, and that the Fw190D9, a 1944 german plane, did 400mph at 20000 feet...
Give credibility to the source you think is more reliable. I couldnt care the less (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
R4M, like I said above about those charts,
Quote:
As far as the 190D9 "official" FW documents go. "Focke-Wulf Ta 152, Der Weg zum Höhenjäger" by Dieter Hermann, ISBN
3-925505-44-X, published by AVIATIC.
Regarding their test values and the companys specification, you should take these published charts with a grain of salt. But they are for sure the best available in "publications"
328th Fighter Squadron
352nd Fighter Group.com (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"Blue-Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
[This message has been edited by sky_bax (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
Now this is another thing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
skybax you say those charts are extracted from that book, isnt it?
(frankly, I still am awed by the 395mph SL speed number for the MW50 D9, and still cant believe it completely (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)).
Ok you say they sould be taken "with a grain of salt". I understand that prototypes can have too good performance, but those charts show a HUGE leap of performances between the assumed figures for the MW50 D9 we had known until now, and the ones that those charts present to us...
so, in your opinion, are they reliable?...to wich point?
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
Duh:
I say that those numbers, as are presented are WRONG. THat the data he posted is FAULTY.
The god has spoken - what's the point in arguing and presenting facts since they don't fit the views acceptable by our very emotional LW fans?
Surely a graph from a FW factory is more credible than combat testing of the whole squadron of that very factory produce?
Look, sir...first of all,the power output is wrong. The Fw190A8 had a 1800hp engine with the Petrol injection system (wich was standard, so dont try to tell me that maybe that A8 "didnt had the system").
You do know that power output is dependant on the grade of fuel used, don't you? You can quote factory figures until cows come home - front line units used the fuel available to them, not that maximising theoretical performance figures. Another thing - that wonderful "Petrol injection system" was indeed standard on this engine. Didn't have any magic qualities to it though - it simply replaced carburettor. German designers pioneered the use of fuel injection in combat aircraft engines. Injection is simply a more reliable way to create air/fuel mixture...
It is indeed "...Give credibility to the source you think is more reliable. I couldnt care the less..."
p.s. WISK - you need help translating anything - give me a shout.
[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
R4M,
If the figures you present are from the manufacturer (Focke-Wulf) - there are much morelkely to be dubious. But...
My point was not that - you COMPLETELY ignored all the things I explained about valid comparisons and how the PROCESS of teh experment should be FACTORED IN. You might comparing UNCOMPARABLE things !!!
Say, forget that these r planes, think about a flight test as a physics experiment - if two people at different parts of the globe use their own different methods and instruments to measure any complex parameter - they are almost bound to get different results.
I repeat again... Do you have a description of the processs by which those german charts were obtained ???
There are perfectly good answers too all the questions about the weight descrapanecies and oher things that look unusual for you. The scientits do not SCREW AROUND. Everything is noted and written down. And the answers can be obtained from the original tests - I bet they even have werk numbers and numbers for the engine template and probably the designation of the weights they used to weigh the thing and then breka-up of the weight bu AC componets. Because this is like a mechanical autopsy. THese guys rever engineered B-29, do you think they are not scrupulous or unprofessional ??
Do you know what it takes for a scientist to put his name on a research paper and how many times he makes sure so that there would no faux pas's in it ? Like mixing the notion of "taxonomy" and "classification" or some other crap like that ??
And your statement about how even if it would be signed by god himself you wouldn't belive it bla, bla...
I pity Kopernikus if he got into your hands..
Why do you cite all those indirect "popular" sources ? I told you myslef that the majority of the popular aviation magazines and books ala Jane's aircraft on WWII give different data - but where they got them from ??
The point is not how many times someone printed a certain figure. As they say if you call someone a pig too many times maybe he'll become a pig??
Well, it doesn't work so. I described to you in gist how things are proven in sciences, i.e. when someone wants to present new info as valid (NOTE: valid within the assumptions, not the only absolute truths; you are mixing this up in your posts). So one approach is to use mathematically formal proofs, which is theoretical approach and another is to stage experiments, which is empirical study's approach. Flight tests are experiments. TsAGI folks used the experimental results obtained by a meticulous process for every plane (90-70 hours fo flight time) and used their scientific skills and knoweldge to validate the results (using aerodynamic calculations when needed) to create a cumulative view of the performances. THEY DESCRIBED THEIR PROCESS. In other words if someone wants to repeat it and have the subjects to do so they can ! They wrote a paper about their experimental design and assumptions. They argued using means and techniques of a scientific discourse - you argue like an old woman at the market with categorical unsubstantiated phrases like: this is WRONG, I do not believe, etc. None of your statements have any value. I was wondering if some german/western research lab did a similar research - if they did they must have published their work in the scientific literature (not the internet, popular books/magazine crap). That's what I would like to take a look at. If you don't know of any of the work of this caliber - just quit it.
Are you so mad because they don't match what the producers of FW were telling their customers ??? Is that the only reason by which you discard the efforts of a dozen of very good aerospace scientists and engineers working in one of the premier research labs ??? This is simply bigoted - you reacted hostile from the start, as if someone called you a bad name, that's an abnormal reaction, it's completely unwarranted.
Hey, I never even said anywhere in my post that one set of data is absolute truth! Did you notice that ? Do you know why I didn't do that ?? Because without knowing the procedure for tests used by the Focke-Wulf team I do not have any grounds for comparing whatever parameters they found - they are not comparable !!!
Now I repeated this point so many times that hopefully you are bound to notice what I am talking about.
I just wanted to let the wider AH community know of this work and some are definitely appreciative, why the hell you are taking this so personally ? Why do you keep to refer to these data as My data ? I can't take credit for them - this is work by TsAGI and NII VVS. I gave you the exact names of the people who did it. Stop referring to this as my work.
[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
I'm not here to contribute to a flamewar anymore. This is my last answer here; I returned to this board to keep civil discussions, but sometimes is almost impossible.
Please allow me to answer a last time.
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
why the hell you are taking this so personally ? Why do you keep to refer to these data as My data ? I can't take credit for them - this is work by TsAGI and NII VVS. I gave you the exact names of the people who did it. Stop referring to this as my work.
because you did it since the first answer you gave me:
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
R4M,
I think you are being too emotional as a true believer who is shown something that is outside of his perception of this world.
I took that as a direct insult, still I argued with your data, not with you. I say that the data is highly unreliable, and much more as you present it. You say that the official Focke-Wulf data is the document to be put in doubt?...LOL...you say that scientifics take notes carefully, blah blah bla...yeah, and the factory engineers who are doing charts of the planes they are sending to the front just put great numbers with no reason there, right?.
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
My point was not that - you COMPLETELY ignored all the things I explained about valid comparisons and how the PROCESS of teh experment should be FACTORED IN.
ok. Sure. The problem is that I read too much about what you say...things like...
As you can see the performance of 190A-8 with 2 cannon and 190-D9 are better than 190A-5 so NII VVS data are consistent in that.
This you said, when we all know that the A8 was a heavyweight version of the A5 with the same engine, only with a special WEP to deliver more power under certain altitudes.
Another thing - the spped info given in table format is tricky to comprehend. Fishu - you got into this trap. I am looking at the charts and 190D-9 is constantly and noticeably faster than 190A-8, but the power curve of Jumo in combat mode goes down earlier than BMW, note the difference in alts of max speeds
The Fw190D9 was built to the purpose to achieve ab etter high altitude performance than that on the A versions, because the BMW801 proved too hard to be properly supercharged or turbocharged for high altitudes.
The Ju213A1 was put there with one thing in mind: to improve 190's high altitude performance. Yet you say that the ju213A1 delivered less power than the BMW801 at high altitudes
So, why did Germany built the D9, after all?...the Ju213A1 was an engine that gave no advantages over the BMW801,right? then what was the point to build the D9? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
MOre...
Mandoble, if you look at the data you will see that 190A-5 and 190A-8 have the same engine, but 109A-5 weighs noticeable more, so it's not surprising that it turns worse, 190-D9 did turn worse than 190A-8 - actually it is even modeled so in WB.
This is PRICELESS ,and the final proof that you have no idea about what you are talking. So the A-5 WEIGHTS NOTICEABLE MORE!!!!!! ROFLOL!. The Fw190A8 had about 500kg more weight than the A5, product of added pilot and airframe armor, heavier cannons, heavier machineguns, one more fuel tank, and the special WEP system.
And you say that the A5 was heavier...
You want me to follow quoting crappy aseverations from you? Because there are more!...you are proving that you know less than nothing about the Focke-Wulf Fw190, its variants and performances. And yet you still want me to believe an unbeliable information, an information that says that a Fw190A5 turned WORSE and was slower than a Fw190A8. An information that says that the Ju213A1 delivered less power than a BMW801D at high altitudes...
In short: completely unreliable information, regardless of the procedence.
Still, I try to argue with you, and to make my point. I present you factory charts of the Focke-Wulf factory; Yet you say that those charts, signed during the war by the original builders of the plane, is less reliable than the VVS tests you present to us. In the grounds that the "VVS tested them". I say that the data you talk about makes no sense and that is unreliable. Or maybe the VVS engineers knew more about the FW190 than the original FW engineers?
And now here I present you the FW-190A8 ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL PILOTS HANDBOOK!:
http://www.airtel.net/hosting/0003d/ebringas/190.gif (http://www.airtel.net/hosting/0003d/ebringas/190.gif)
I refuse to post the image here, are almost 500kb and will make the page impossible to load, if you want, download it and take a look.
You want us to believe that the pilot handbook was lying the pilot who was about to pilot the plane wich that chart belongs to?. Do you realize that this charts were used to make pilots know the performances of the planes THEY WERE GOING TO FLY AND FIGHT WITH?.
Sure, they were to do it, and the Fw190A8 was 15mph slower on the deck than what that chart shows. Guess that FW engineers liked to cheat their pilots (who were stupids and didnt notice that the performances on their aircraft didnt match the ones on the charts)
THe problem is not that I dont read what you say. The problem is that what you say demonstrates an absolute lack of knowledge of the plane we are discussing about.
I could follow with this (in fact I could make this post be twice as large), but I'm not here to see nor to contribute to a flamewar.
Sorry people if I have been harsh and flaming in this thread. But this guy has no clue of what he is talking about.
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
Originally posted by -lynx-:
that wonderful "Petrol injection system" was indeed standard on this engine. Didn't have any magic qualities to it though - it simply replaced carburettor. German designers pioneered the use of fuel injection in combat aircraft engines. Injection is simply a more reliable way to create air/fuel mixture...
NO, sir, the Petrol injection booster was a system that injected high octane petrol (96 octane fuel) directly in the port air intake to act as antidetonant and as cylinder cooling. This allowed for a significant increase on the available manifold pressure you could set without getting an engine detonation.
Is bassicaly the same principle as the MW50 booster, but using high octane fuel instead of methanol-water injection. It only gives increased performance at quite low altitudes, tho, and gave less % of increased power than the MW50 system did. but it was much cheaper and didnt require the full Mw50 instalation, nor the special mixture.
And it was standard on the Fw190A8, and not in the Fw190A5.
It has nothing to do with conventional "fuel injection" instead of carburator, thing that all the important WWII german piston engines had,from the DB600 up to the Ju213E. It is a power boost system analogue to the MW50, working on the same principle.
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
Hrmh..
this is ridicilous stuff I've read.. and I haven't even read it all.
First of all, every source I've read about focke-wulfs, says that A-5 is far lighter than piggy A-8, with all the armors, heavier guns and yaddayadda..
I would rate A-4 or A-5 as the best of Wuergers.
A-8 is less maneuverable, slower and climbs slower than A-5 or A-4, although, more heavily armed and armored.
I don't think I have to find some 'trust worthy' source to prove this, since thats an old fact.
by the way, I laughed when I noticed that someone said this:
Mandoble, if you look at the data you will see that 190A-5 and 190A-8 have the same engine, but 109A-5 weighs noticeable more, so it's not surprising that it turns worse, 190-D9 did turn worse than 190A-8 - actually it is even modeled so in WB.
Credibility was totally lost when I read last sentence.
Its also very old fact that Dora has been teethless in WarBirds, its so old fact that I was still flying Ki84 and other such fighters when I first time came across with this statement about "Teethless Dora".
I don't know much about D9, what comes to turn rates and maneuverability, but I don't hesitate to say that its better than it is in WarBirds. (well, at least from last time I tried)
more of, I wonder how A-5 would turn worse than A-8, since it is far by lighter.
-
ok i know this has no way of being a 'rule' but i think planes that you see too bloody much of should be perked for the next tour.
This would solve my problem which is too damn many f4c's and too damn many nikis.
If they are perked for 1 tour and then are reinstated the tour after fine...AT LEAST I GET A MONTH WITHOUT SO MANY CANNON DWEEBS RUINING MY FUN! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
hazed
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
We are talking apples and oranges here.
I am asking for a german flight test procedures - you are shoving some end results at me.
I'm trying to eplain why a properly staged experiment is valid - you are branding the data as unreliable without even knowing how they were obtained. Actually I even stated that I don't intend to compare the end results and explined my experience in comparing things in a scientific, rigorous and sytemaitc manner - you accuse me of not knowing that one experimental subject was always supposed to be heavier than the other.
Geez, if one of us measuers gravity acceleration at the north pole and the other at the equator - do you think we come up with the same results ?? Do you know how many more parameteres can affect testing of anything ? Have you ever tested anything yourself at least for a research project?
I just defended the scientific method of experimentation and my strong bilief in value of degrees from accredited universities and value of work performed by individuals who have them.
You never understood what I was saying about validity of comparisons though and you keep comparing uncomparable things and getting indignated.
BTW, I never attributed any of the work I presented to myself, I always mentioned "the authors claim", "by data of ..." etc. So once again, don't accuse me of not knowing which plane was heavier or not - I let you know where the data came from - they had a plane called 190A-5 with that weight. It's totally possible to get the detailed description of that particular copy (or copies) and then throw it at you. To make it interesting we could even have a bet for 5 grand or so on whether the TsAGI guys were lying about the weight or not. Once again, I just translated and, being a researcher myself, noted that if I were to review their paper on the merits of following a scientific method of experimentation I would call it a literate and well-written work. This only means that with their assumptions and the copies they had, with the procedures they followed - their data do not have flaws. In case you don;t get it - another experiment comparing items of the same class with different assumptions and different experimental design can get different end results and still be valid ! But, because of the differences in expremintal dsing the end results will not be comparable!!!
Knowledge of objective comparison practices has nothing to do with deep knowledge of items being compared - give two differnt UFOs and I'll get you valid results too by following laws and practicies of empirical studies.
[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
Fishu, you chose only the first sentence, somehow you ommited the whole explanation of criteria of similarities analysis. But that'snot the point - you are mixing up what TsAGI folks say and what I say. If you lost your credibility to TsAGI research lab based on that sentence - well, that's pretty strong-headed.
-
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
Fishu, you chose only the first sentence, somehow you ommited the whole explanation of criteria of similarities analysis. But that'snot the point - you are mixing up what TsAGI folks say and what I say. If you lost your credibility to TsAGI research lab based on that sentence - well, that's pretty strong-headed.
so... you did say that what I quoted eh?
-
If you guys are gonna show up at the conn - I'll show you this work. I can't imagine a dozen of world-class caliber scientists wasting time on 437 pages of work and producing crap - it's not their style.
I don't like on-line flamewars - so if you are gonna show up at the conn - let's meet face to face and settle the differences in RL.
-
Yes I did say that about WB thikning that for WB crowd it would be "closer" so to speak. I am as much of a fan of military aviation (for the past 17 years or so) as you are and helped out with some publications myself and real life software prototypes for aviaonics.
I spent effort and money on getting the data from NII after I heard that they tested those ACs - that's what they have.
As CPU's speeds are still going up according to Moor's law the time will come when we'll be able to model the airflows on the shapes of ACs not only on Cray's - it will put to rest all the similar debates.
Heck, when somone else lands on the moon we'll even know if it was all a US conspiracy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Some info from a third party to this....uhh, discussion is it?
There were a small number of Fw 190D-0 and D-1 aircraft built for service evaluation and delivered during the spring and summer of 1943. For some odd reason, the designations Fw 190D-2 thru 8 were skipped, and the first production version of the "Dora" was the Fw 190D-9, which attained production status in the early summer of 1944. It was powered by a
Jumo 213A-1 engine rated at 1776 hp for takeoff and 1600 at 18,000 feet. However, with MW 50 (water/methanol) injection, it could give 2240 hp at sea level and 2000 hp at 11,150 feet. The boost could not be used longer than ten minutes at a time, but there was sufficient MW 50 fuel for a maximum of 40 minutes use. Armament was two 20-mm MG 151 cannon in the wing roots with 200 rpg and two 13-mm MG 131 machine guns with 475 rpg mounted in the upper fuselage deck. A 1102-pound bomb could be carried on an underwing rack. Maximum speed was 357 mph at sea level, 397 mph at 10,830 feet, 426 mph at 21,650 feet, and 397 mph at 32,800 feet. An altitude of 6560 feet could be reached
in 2.1 minutes, and 32,801 feet could be attained in 16.8 minutes. Range was 520 miles at 18,500 feet on internal fuel. Weights were 7694 lbs empty, 9840 lbs normal loaded, and 10,670 lbs maximum. The aircraft was well-armored, having a 14-mm plate for the pilot's head and shoulders, and an 8-mm plate for the seat back and surrounding area. The engine was protected by armor rings around the cowling.
I borrowed that from William Green's book Joe Baugher kindly reprinted on his site:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html#RTFToC1 (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html#RTFToC1)
The 357mph figure I've seen in books, read on the web, and I've now seen it from the original documents. If this piece of data is propaganda, someone REALLY put their bellybutton in gear to fool the entire planet. I doubt that; a lot. Now drop the childish crap will you? We know the Dora weighed 9,480 lbs loaded, we know it was some 300 lbs lighter than the A8, we know it did 357mph on the deck, and we know it turned a smidge better than an A8. We also know that pilots wore stripped underwear complete with skid marks that were 6 months old and had to be removed with a chisel. In short; we're right you're wrong now can it!
Will our new Dora have MW 50? I don't give a rip.
Will our new Dora turn better than an A8? Yep.
Will our new Dora weigh less than a 190 A8? Yep.
Another thing I've noticed as being fact. Russian history hardly puts in a footnote where a US-built plane did well, yet the over-blow their own historical aircraft performance. They got pissed off when the US and Britain stopped convoys until winter after comvoy PQ-17 was sunk. They accused Britain and the US of holding out on them for supplies when the convoy went down. Then they never mentioned Lend Lease as being a major factor in why they kicked Germany's ass.
Another pointless argument ladies. Numbers; not tempers, not superstitions, not personal preference, and certianly not pilot's stories run the game. RAM posted original FW documents, which are taken as FACT until such time someone gets off their butt and builds a Dora to test.
Jeezes am I tired of this.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
-
You don't need a real life Dora - the folks at National Labs have packages that can get all the data you want from the iarframe descriptions. I mentioned I've been to National Labs and saw how they did some calcualtions of the X-38 - it also looks spectacular - they have a room they call a "cave" - you put on goggles and you can watch the airflow over the simulated the surfaces in 3-D and walk around it or inside, make it slower, freeze it: whatever - you can measure whatever you want and do all kinds of simulations. The work on methods of comparative analysis of AC airframes has been
going on for a long time.
One thing though - all these comparisons just using specific loadings etc are not nearly as complex as they use, they can only show TENDENCIES", they are not enough to say that beacuse one AC has lower wing loading it will always be more maneuverable in the whole envelope at any part of the globe. It's much more difficult than that and I only gave a short description of how it's done in one of my previous posts.
If some research organization would buy enough time on those Cray's and got a team of scientists who could run the experiments you could get all that now. So it's not just numbers - it's methods of modeling, computational power, and accurate algorthms - these produce numbers for any set of parameters - (example: you want to know how fast an AC do a horizontal turn over the top of Mountain Rushmore with heavy winds and lightinning, certain temperature, humidity etc. - you plug all those params in and get your number)
[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
DAmn it folks, once again you are giving pure numbers and saying that one number is right the other is wrong. Hell, let me throw a brick of tungsten in one car and rip all the non-essential insides from another car of the type and run the first one on the cheapest gas I can find and the other one on some super+ and one will be run on an Autobahn in Germany and the ther on some serpantine road in Alps adn then let's compare their avergae speed in like one hour.
Do you think they'll match ??? Can you say that the first car driver measured his speed wrong and was inaccurate 'cause with all that cheap fuel, trunk full of tungsten and serpantine road ?? And it is the second one who's right ??
Do you see my point ?? You cannot compare two numbers if you don't know how they were obtained. You cannot say I'm right and you are wrong based on end-numbers alone!! If my boss tells me to buy a computer for some heavy numerical analysis simulations and I go by some manufactures data (say, SUn Micorsystems) - I'll be freaking SCREWED, cause they rig their data big time - and not because they mess with numbers, know they choose such conditions and such things to rn on it that it performs better that it will on user's data !!! Now they are not lying, but I'm not lying either it's just that one CANNOT compare data without knowing HOW they were obtained.
And folks, there are only two ways in this world how you can prove someting is a fact : mathematically formal proof or sound empirical studies - nothing else does, everything else is hearsay. That's how science evlolved and thanks to scientists who followed these methods that we now have things like computers, reliable airplanes, and other wonders of a technological civilization.
Geez folks.
[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
NII-VVS Fw 190D-9 s/l speed: 530km/h
FW Fw 190D-9 s/l speed: 549km/h
Difference = 3.5%
NII-VVS La-7 s/l speed: 579km/h
Oleg Maddox La-7 s/l speed: 597km/h
Difference = 3.1%
Point: YOU MUST CONSIDER HOW THE DATA WAS COLLECTED!!!
-
None of it is fact, and it all has to be taken with a grain or salt.
Interesting though.
If you personally talk to guys who flew them and were actually there, the charts go out the window.
Would 4 P-51s survive against 40 FWs in AH or WB? LOL hell no!
But in RL some did. Here is a post of mine on a P-51 Vet experence I talked with.
http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/018201.html (http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/018201.html)
Official charts are nice, but different "official" charts from different "official" sources say different things.
------------------
-
Originally posted by sky_bax:
Would 4 P-51s survive against 40 FWs in AH or WB? LOL hell no!
But in RL some did. Here is a post of mine on a P-51 Vet experence I talked with.
http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/018201.html (http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/018201.html)
In real life you dont have an icon on the top of your plane that is yelling "fire at me" to any nearby enemy...in WBs and AH you have it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)Plus, in 1945 the average quality of the german pilot was very low.
Anyway, there are accounts of rotten of German fighters swarming across dozens,even hundreds, of soviet formations, and getting out alive and even with some kills. two vs one hundred (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Just remember that if you come with enough advantage and you fly smart, you will survive regardless of the odds (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Also, that story tells about a chase at 33000 feet (alt monkey dweebs (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)). Over 23-24K altitudes the P51D gets a significant speed advantage compared with any Fw190D9,MW50 or not, Special WEP or not. So that the fact that the P51D wasnt caught doenst mean anything against the charts avobe posted, because at 33K those charts say that the D9 will be slower than a P51 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I dont say they are 100% accurate, but the story of those P51Ds doesnt show anything against them either...If that chase had happened at 10000 feet, the P51Ds would've been surely chewed up (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
-
u missed the point
<S>
-
Another thing I've noticed as being fact. Russian history hardly puts in a footnote where a US-built plane did well, yet the over-blow their own historical aircraft performance.
Bollocks Flak - read the books (as rear as they are), they all show the test data of front line delivered aircraft. That is - the data of the aicraft actually delivered to the front, from factories with all manufacturing inadequacies and imperfections.
They got pissed off when the US and Britain stopped convoys until winter after comvoy PQ-17 was sunk. They accused Britain and the US of holding out on them for supplies when the convoy went down. Then they never mentioned Lend Lease as being a major factor in why they kicked Germany's ass.
This is a complete and utter roadkill. The combat quality of the arms was substandard - you do know why most of P39s were shipped to Russia? I tell you - it wasn't because it was the latest and greates US could come up with... Workers on tractor factory in Stalingrad were making better fighting machines out of converted tractors than tanks supplied under lend-lease. And that with no roof over their heads and with german shells falling (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif).
If you try learning history not from History channel you'll see how big a factor lend-lease actually was. It was a big help (paid for in gold by the way - for every tin of food, tank, whatever - even those that didn't make it to Murmansk) - but major factor? Oh please...
p.s. bummer this thread has detiriorated into this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Originally posted by juzz:
NII-VVS Fw 190D-9 s/l speed: 530km/h
FW Fw 190D-9 s/l speed: 549km/h
Difference = 3.5%
NII-VVS La-7 s/l speed: 579km/h
Oleg Maddox La-7 s/l speed: 597km/h
Difference = 3.1%
Point: YOU MUST CONSIDER HOW THE DATA WAS COLLECTED!!!
Juzz,
Where you got NII VVS speed for FW-190D-9?
I didn't post it anywhere. NII VVS test show almost SIMILAR TO WHAT GERMANS DECLARED in manufacture docs!!! Differs are minimal!
Sometime NII VVS got BETTER RESULT (For 109G-2 for example). And data of Finnish airforce tests of similar German planes is SIMILAR TO NII VVS tests.
And where you got that I posted speed of La-7 at sea level = 597km/h
I posted here the MIDDLE CALCULATION OF SEVERAL TRIAL TESTS MADE BY PERSONNEL OF TWO DIFFERENT ORGANISATIONS 'LII' (Letniy Ispitatelniy Institut) and NII VVS
The top speed WITHOUT 10 min BOOST of LA-7 MANUFACTURE DATA is 605 km/h at Sea level
With 10 min boost = 640 km/h at Sea level
Real tests made with delivered in troops planes shown above in the link I gave.
596-598 without boost at sea level
630-637 with the boost at seal level
Somewhere at dogfighter.com I already posted why in a couple of squadrons La-7 were slowly then should be. Sorry don't remember the direct link. If someone will find, please let me know (I will copy my text there that to post later with such treads...)
-
Wisk,
I'll claim that spitfire was a brick, hurricane was zeke with spit XIV's speed and what claims anything else, is just matter of "different testing methods".
So, can we now model spitfire to fly like rock?
mm'kay?
-
Fw190A8 was 500kg heavier than A5, more or less. Even with a 200kg overweight, A5 will be a lighter plane than the A8. So this assumption is wrong. If the Fw190F2 is 200kg heavier than the Fw190A5, it still should have a lower wingloading and better turning than the Fw190A8.
A-5 and A-8 are basically the same plane, only changeable equipment like cannons and armour plating is different and I bet A-5 can be heavier than A-8 if A-5 is actually F-3 with armour plating and A-8 is light version.
so frankly if he is nitpicking to ensure that we know that it is the light Fw190A5, without outboard cannons, then I doubt that it is a F2.
Surely you must know none of the F series planes did have outer cannons fitted, making this A-5 a possible F model? And maybe the russians didn't open up the belly of the A-5, missing the presence of armour plates that actually made the plane F-2 or F-3?
Jochen,a Fw190A5 is a Fw190A5. If is a Fw190F2 is a Fw190F2. If you post data here that a Fw190A5 turns worse than a Fw190A8, then I have to assume that it is an A5, not a F2. Or do we have to play the riddle game to sort out where does that data come from, or belongs to?.
I diddlying know A-5 is A-5 and F-2 is F-2 but that is not the question. The question is did the soviets actually know it was A-5, not heavier F-2 which was tested as being A-5? I just pointed out that is a possiblity.
------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski
Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
-
Originally posted by Oleg Maddox:
Juzz,
Where you got NII VVS speed for FW-190D-9?
I didn't post it anywhere.
Oleg, methinks that Juzz is refering to "this":
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
FW190-D9:
Engine: Jumo-213A, 1780hp at take-off, 1480hp at alt (1600 in combat mode)
Take-off weight: 4197kg
Specific wing loading: 228 kgs/m^2
Specific power loading: 2.84kgs/h.p. (2.62 in combat mode)
Top speeds: sea lvl - 530km/h(543 in combat mode), at alt - 631km/h at 6150m (642 at 6100m)
Time of climb to 5000m: 5.6min
Time of 360 turn at 1000m: 22-23sec
Gain of altitude in a combat turn: 1000m
Landing speed: 158km/h
Ahem... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
NII VVS test show almost SIMILAR TO WHAT GERMANS DECLARED in manufacture docs!!! Differs are minimal!
Oleg, Wisk claims that the performance numbers I quoted above come from the NII VVS tests; and,well I think you will notice that 543km/hour@S.L. and 631km/h@6300m (338mph@SL, 392mph@21000feet aprox) are light years away from the manufacture docs of the Focke-Wulf factory I have posted in this thread.
Originally posted by Jochen:
A-5 and A-8 are basically the same plane, only changeable equipment like cannons and armour plating is different and I bet A-5 can be heavier than A-8 if A-5 is actually F-3 with armour plating and A-8 is light version.
FIrst this is not true:
1-A5 had light MGs, A8 had heavy MGs
2-A8 had worse areodinamics because the MG bulges
3-A8 had more powerful engine at certain altitudes because the petrol injection system
4-A8 had a slightly different wing than A5; the wing was redesigned in the A6.
Second of all, I bet that if you test a fully loaded Spitfire against an empty Fw190A5 the A5 will easily outmaneouver,outaccelerate, outclimb,etc the spitfire. Comparative tests on different planes should be done in comparative loadouts and relative weights. So this is yet another reason for me to say that wisk's data is faulty.
And, Jochen, I said already I'm in this thread to discuss things, not to start a flamewar. My answer to you was intended to make a point: if the soviets confused a F2 with an A5, then their whole studies can be completely wrong (maybe they confused the landing gear lever with the flaps one, and they did the test with the gear down (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) <J.K., but you get the idea?> )
I gave you what intended to be a civil answer, and you had to answer in a harsh way with no motive and cussing words...well, sorry but this is my last answer to you in this thread.
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-07-2001).]
-
Originally posted by R4M:
My answer to you was intended to make a point: if the soviets confused a F2 with an A5, then their whole studies can be completely wrong (maybe they confused the landing gear lever with the flaps one, and they did the test with the gear down (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) <J.K., but you get the idea?> )
Didn't that one genius use the 'red button' in a plane with ejection seat that shot him up to skyhigh from the cockpit?
-
Oleg:
"Where you got NII VVS speed for FW-190D-9?" - from the data posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-, which he says is from NII-VVS.
"And where you got that I posted speed of La-7 at sea level = 597km/h" - from the chart you posted the link to. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Oleg, do you really want to tell us that a 1850hp fighter with radial engine (usually aerodynamically worse than a inline engine) averaged at 640km/h at sealevel?? With a usual naca230 airfoil?
Averaged, that means some aircraft did fly 650km/h or even a bit more?
niklas
-
That was manufacturer data - probably the best you would ever get.
-
Hmm, methinks all these arguements wouldn't matter if this game didn't mix various WW2 aircraft from various stages of the war and have them all slogging it out against each other. Also, this perk stuff would be irrelevant if HTC had arenas with a proper RPS for each one - then you could take your pick from any period of the war and see what the planes from each period could do against each other. IMHO, there should be no complaints about any planes if they're all thrown together in the MA - I mean, what do you expect to happen?
-
R4M, Fishu whoever else,
I can xerox and send you those data. THEY ARE NOT MINE. I got them from a TsAGI publication. And I gave you the full list of the people who claim those data. DO NOT SAY THAT I AM CLAIMING ANYTHING BUT THE FACT THE TSAGI FOLKS DID A SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE WORK AS EVIDENCED FROM THE PROCESS THEY FOLLOWED. (I mentioned this already - you just are not listening).
You don't listen to any of my explanations about how you can't compare end results without knowing the process.
[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-07-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
R4M, Fishu whoever else,
I can xerox and send you those data. THEY ARE NOT MINE. I got them from a TsAGI publication. And I gave you the full list of the people who claim those data. DO NOT SAY THAT I AM CLAIMING ANYTHING BUT THE FACT THE TSAGI FOLKS DID A SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE WORK AS EVIDENCED FROM THE PROCESS THEY FOLLOWED. (I mentioned this already - you just are not listening).
You don't listen to any of my explanations about how you can't compare end results without knowing the process.
Only thing I am saying, is that I don't trust on those, no matter what results..
-
Wisk, your point is absolutely clear, and I agree with you 100%, in fact, I see no possible way to disagree with your statements.
But it seems that, in the case of 190s, the aircrafts tested where not very representative of the real (common) variants, that is, the 190A8 doesnt seem a common 190A8 and the 190A5 doesnt seem a common 190A5.
-
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
I can xerox and send you those data. THEY ARE NOT MINE. I got them from a TsAGI publication. And I gave you the full list of the people who claim those data. DO NOT SAY THAT I AM CLAIMING ANYTHING BUT THE FACT THE TSAGI FOLKS DID A SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE WORK AS EVIDENCED FROM THE PROCESS THEY FOLLOWED. (I mentioned this already - you just are not listening).
A little clarification, when I talk about "your" data, and "your" numbers, I am talking about the source you are extracting those numbers and performances from. I dont try to say that YOU have calculated that.
Mandoble, el problema es saber que tipo de dora testearon esos (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) para decir que el BMW801 era mejor a alta altura que el Ju213A1 hace falta tener MUY poca idea.
-
Let's abstract away from aircraft.
Now I will be repeating myself as I already mentioned all this in earlier posts.
Sometimes in any science discipline a team of researchers comes up with some data that are drastically different from those in a certain community. Now, as that team is usually composed of well-educated individuals "visible" in the community (i.e. they published somethign before and did some other work; plus most importantly they got their degrees from accredited universities which means they are qualified). That's the reason why in such a case scientists or engineers do not reject data outright - it is simply unreasonabel and impolite (of course on-line forum is not an international conference by any means). End data are not enough by itself for rejecting the whole research process. Instead other scientists start looking at the assumtions and process given by other people. Sometimes they can see a difference in the process/methods that can account for consistent difference in results - then the results can be corrected and compared. Or sometimes they find a fault in the process.
BTW, the term "fault" has very precise meaning in emprirical studies - it doesn't mean just "wrong" - it is a certain kind of error brought by certain well-defined kinds of mistakes. In any case, one has to look at what the researchers did from scratch so that to be able to claim that they went wrong.
Now my original desire was to find a description of such a process followed by those german testpilots who came up with the manufacturer's results. That's the reference I was asking for. What's so offending in that ? It is normal scientific method. I do not attack anyone's personal beliefs - I do not want to make someone believe in the data - I do not care what you guys believe. I do though have experience in proving things in sciences to my peers in my field, but that does not relate to this thread in any way.
I do believe in scientific method of research and I'm trying to follow it. I don't claim anything drastic as I do not have enough information.
As for these specific 190s - I am sure that it's possible to investigate and get all the Werknummers of all the 190s they obtained - including the ways they were obtained by and units they originally belonged, flight hours they logged, detailed description of their states down to a scratch.
Another note, in general, there is a great difference between beliefs and convictions of the nations of fSU and US. Either side has strong confidence in those convictions. Sometimes I find myself on this kind of "frontline". Say once (long time ago - back in 1990) I was trying to describe advantages of the F-15 in certain aspects with a group of russian engineering students - you can't imagine how much I got flamed - there is a very strong belif among them that the Su-27 is better in all aspects (now please don't start here; this is just an example). So at times I get it from both sides. And God forbid you say something like flakbait said when, say, you are traveling on a train somewhere in fSU (Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, whatever - they all still speaking russian and have largely the same sentiments about WWII) - you may get beaten for real.
So convictions of that TsAGI team is drastically different from your personal convictions. Your convictions are based on a piece of paper that represents manufacturer's test data. Their convictions are based on the copies of ACs they got and tested to the best of their skills and ability.
You believe that the german data are correct as they manufactured the thing and you have a great distrust for any russian claims or any russians for that matter.
They believe they are right as they tested it and they think they are good scientists and engineers and they don't particularly trust anything until they try it etc. ad nauseum
[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-07-2001).]
-
Originally posted by R4M:
Mandoble, el problema es saber que tipo de dora testearon esos (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) para decir que el BMW801 era mejor a alta altura que el Ju213A1 hace falta tener MUY poca idea.
Fuel type used, climatology, engine state, knoledge of the plane and its limits, etc, etc are all of them factors than can affect negativaly any test on any plane.
-
Ram:
I wish to make one point concerning the 190 A5 vs A8 response here.
As you may recall my great-grandfather was a mechanic on the eastern front from early war until mid 1944 and I have spent many hours translating his diaries and scanning his photos for future reference and for my family records.
The following things jumped out to me immediatly: The 190's servicing on the Eastern front that would have fallen into soviet hands would have been 99% F or G models. Most 190's (I think there was only 1 interceptor squadron over army group A that had A5's) were the 2 cannon ground attack planes. These planes quite correctly had massive amounts of steel attached to the bottoms to protect against ground fire and were generally described by him as a "pain in the ass". A Soviet picking apart a "190" would not likely pick up on FG or A designations- all they would see was a 190 since almost all the lighter A5's were in north africa or france as interceptors. Thus the results given are probably quite correct for what they were fighting.
The A8 mentioned: I completely believe the test results given by the Soviets that the 190 8 revision was a far better plane- I mentioned previously almost a year ago that when they arrived pilots had fistfights over who flew them and who remained in the earlier planes. The planes they reviewed were far more likely once more to be F versions than A ones, not many interceptors over Eastern front conflicts. As such they would be in a plane that had the armor integrated instead of dead weight, had overboost for more power at SL where they fought, and had more powerfull machine guns instead of rifle caliber popguns.
Instead of disbelieving this information I would advise instead to just consider more of what it describes. The process of accumulating it was intensive and exacting and I really find it hard to believe it is inaccurate. However upon examination it often proves that things you found completely wrong or unbelievable were actually quite explainable when put into context.
Sorrow
-
FIrst this is not true:
1-A5 had light MGs, A8 had heavy MGs
2-A8 had worse areodinamics because the MG bulges
3-A8 had more powerful engine at certain altitudes because the petrol injection system
4-A8 had a slightly different wing than A5; the wing was redesigned in the A6.
I was talking about weight of those planes and bulges and additional fuel injection does not affect weight of plane, at least significantly. Wing was indeed modified in A-6 to hold MG 151/20 instead of MG FF but I doubt it will make great difference in weight. And I already said that guns were different, no need to repeat the obvious.
Comparative tests on different planes should be done in comparative loadouts and relative weights. So this is yet another reason for me to say that wisk's data is faulty.
Maybe the soviets didn't know real A-5 was actually lighter than A-8 and they tested F-3 as A-5 and listed the results as A-5? I bet germans didn't bother to tell them that they had actually tested F-3 which was heavier than A-5? Test results can be right afterall but for the F-3, not A-5.
My answer to you was intended to make a point: if the soviets confused a F2 with an A5, then their whole studies can be completely wrong (maybe they confused the landing gear lever with the flaps one, and they did the test with the gear down <J.K., but you get the idea?>
I agree it could be wrong info but to say it is all bad info is bit of a stretch. For example you have quoted many charts from RLM and FW companies but do you know wether they are calculated or estimated speeds or got from actual flight tests?
I gave you what intended to be a civil answer, and you had to answer in a harsh way with no motive and cussing words...well, sorry but this is my last answer to you in this thread.
Well, I don't feel sorry at all if you dont answer my posts in this thread or any other (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski
Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
-
Originally posted by niklas:
Oleg, do you really want to tell us that a 1850hp fighter with radial engine (usually aerodynamically worse than a inline engine) averaged at 640km/h at sealevel?? With a usual naca230 airfoil?
Averaged, that means some aircraft did fly 650km/h or even a bit more?
niklas
Ok...
look here:
http://www.blackcross-redstar.com/koz.html (http://www.blackcross-redstar.com/koz.html)
Especially bellow the list. Americans p-51s attacked his plane were both shot down .... He flew only Las.... His opinion - the best WWII plane - he describe after many years of the war, and after the war in Korea, where he also was.
There on the site is not present the full type of shot down him planes. In real log book the last months - fixed that most was D-9.
And about airfoil. Common Performance of planes which has laminar airfoil is worse at low altitudes. Advantages shown only at highest speeds at high altitude.
Laminar airfoil has as many good advantages as many disadvantages.
I don't think that you like to teach me because I'm real aviation engineer. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
For sure, La-9 and La-11 had both vearians of wings...
I'm out.
Each best plane of WWII had some advantages and disadvantages. Depends for the purpose they were designed.
La-7 was one the best if not the best for low altitudes, especially if there was good pilot.
And last... Of course, it is important which plane is, but alo VERY IMPORTANT, who is inside the plane.
EXPERIENCE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT TO SURVIVE THE WAR.
-
Is it just me or does anyone else notice that the LuftWaffles hijack each and every thread?!?!?!
Next they will be hijacking the Happy Birthday Ice thread and saying that it is really Kurt Tanks birthday and that no flight sim has got it modeled right yet, because he is immortal.
Cobra
-
Originally posted by Cobra:
Is it just me or does anyone else notice that the LuftWaffles hijack each and every thread?!?!?!
Next they will be hijacking the Happy Birthday Ice thread and saying that it is really Kurt Tanks birthday and that no flight sim has got it modeled right yet, because he is immortal.
Cobra
Wait till I get to test P-51B... then this so claimed "luftwaffle" whines about lacks which it has..
well, at least if it follows the current trend of having 20mph off the speed like with some LW plane(s).
-
Fishu,
You prove my point. This thread is about the La7!!
Cobra
-
Originally posted by Cobra:
Fishu,
You prove my point. This thread is about the La7!!
Cobra
I just went with the others, since original thread seemed lost.
-
Originally posted by Cobra:
no flight sim has got it modeled right yet.
Cobra
Here you is perfectly right.