Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: uptown on October 09, 2008, 07:22:18 AM
-
about everyone I talk to in this game that knows anything about the P-51 will tell you that the pony in this game does not perform as it did in the real world. Is this in fact the case? And if so why would HTC do that?
I'd like to hear from someone on the HTC staff on this. :salute
-
How many of the "about everyone I talk to in this game that knows anything about the P-51" have actually flown one? Most of them are just "educated" by the Discovery Channel BS. Perhaps one or two have actually read a book on the subject.
-
Also how many people in the game actually fly the cartoon plane correctly;) i know when I get behind people like steve or shreck it handles pretty good against my corsair. Sometimes the problem is not the plane sometimes its the pilots who think the p-51 is suppose to be super uber easy mode
-
Everything I've seen has matched the books I've read more or less. What sources are telling you HTC has modeled it incorrectly? Some books or perhaps talking to actual pilots?
If you're having trouble landing kills in a P-51 than perhaps it is the pilot at fault? The plane in game is a beast.
-
I think I read in another thread that Hitech has flown a Mustang. I guess he has no point of reference. :lol
-
I like Ponies. :aok
-
Ponies are [Borat Voice] Very nice! :aok
-
about everyone I talk to in this game that knows anything about the P-51 will tell you that the pony in this game does not perform as it did in the real world. Is this in fact the case? And if so why would HTC do that?
I'd like to hear from someone on the HTC staff on this. :salute
Who is this everyone that knows so much about flying real Mustangs that they can comment on the modeling in game?
-
about everyone I talk to in this game that knows anything about the P-51 will tell you that the pony in this game does not perform as it did in the real world. Is this in fact the case? And if so why would HTC do that?
I'd like to hear from someone on the HTC staff on this. :salute
You mean that in real life they were not as stable as they are in the game? :D
-
Hitech doesn't like any aircraft. He created this game and intentionally undermodels every aircraft for the sole purpose of pissing us off. Threads like this just encourage him. :cry
Hooligan
-
HiTech has flown a P-51, I think he knows how it should handle. It handles just fine ingame, only a moron couldn't rack up kills in one. :aok
-
Hitech doesn't like any aircraft. He created this game and intentionally undermodels every aircraft for the sole purpose of pissing us off. Threads like this just encourage him. :cry
Hooligan
best answer yet! :rofl :rofl :aok
-
Clearly hitech is a cyber vampire that feeds on the tears of internet gamers hence the deliberate neutering of the p51 and luftwaffe rides to provide himself with a near infinite supply of meals. Stop your crying fools! You're feeding the cyber darklord that is known as Hitech.
-
uptown,
I think I understand what you are saying. When I started this game all my efforts in the P-51 did not correspond to the legend. I did notice however that there where a significant number of P-51 pilots that were VERY effective. Hmmm...
There were many nuances that I noticed in time that made all the difference. I guess this is true for all planes. What I found was you simply cannot fly all planes like they are a Spit! :eek:
Just a few nuances I found about the P-51 that made it a killer plane for me:
- In most encounters the P-51 can decide when to start and when to end the encounter (run via diveout). Very fast!
- Has better dive performance than most planes.
- Out turns most planes at high speed encounters without using flaps (both planes going 350mph +)
- Unlike most any other plane, I could use flaps at 400 mph. This added to the above.
- Setting the convergence to 300 = massive damage to enemy plane (if firing at 300 too and not 800 etc.)
- At high altitudes it has uber performance.
- Nose over view good.
- GREAT visibility (bubble canopy). Setting my views to take advantage of this was useful.
- Lastly, knowing these assets I weigh them against the pros\cons of the opponent vehicle (and skill).
It took much time to integrate these nuances into my actual flying (still working on it). ;-)
Good luck,
WT
-
Uptown: Basically complaints come down to relative turn performance, according to tests the P-51 turned better than the Jug, Typhoon, and Tempest. It does not in game. I personally find the Jug just plain handles nicer and can follow things like a Typh, 109 G-14/K, or a Pony itself around in turns long enough to get the kill more easily, which is the opposite result than pilot opinion from WWII would lead us to expect. In particular, the P-47D-11 turns noticeably better than the Mustang.
Unfortunately, there are those on the internet who don't know any better and think the Mustang is a super-plane that ought to out-turn the Zekes and the like. This tends to muddy the water and make legitimate quibbles about the modeling of the P-51 in a particular sim difficult to bring up without a certain amount of guilt by association.
-
Clearly hitech is a cyber vampire that feeds on the tears of internet gamers hence the deliberate neutering of the p51 and luftwaffe rides to provide himself with a near infinite supply of meals. Stop your crying fools! You're feeding the cyber darklord that is known as Hitech.
I vwant toooo Suuuuckkk vyour Bloooooooodddddd.
Feeed meee seemore.
-
HiTech is an PUTZ.... and yes he did fly a real one a few times.... But he is still a Dweeb PUTZ!
PS: HiTech really dose like Ponies..... They just don't like him!
-
Flat out disagree the Pony is under modelled.
Based on its weight, engine power, and wing area, and high speed wing design <, it seems to be fine.
Also, as has been pointed out, and experienced by anybody who spends any time in the MA, it is clearly one of the most succesfull designs in Aces High. When flown to its stregths, its a very capable fighter.
Is is perfect? no, it is not. Neither are any of the other ENY5 1944 rides, they ALL have drawbacks. Its a machine, thats all, it does not possess supernatural qualities.
-
Is is perfect? no, it is not. Neither are any of the other ENY5 1944 rides, they ALL have drawbacks. Its a machine, thats all, it does not possess supernatural qualities.
The Pony is 8 ENY. Probably should be 5, but whatever, I'm not going to split hairs over 3 ENY points.
-
I stand corrected. Low ENY "1944-45" rides then. ENY value is just a subjective # decided on by HTC, as are "perk rides".
-
Other that the F6F the P-51D is the most stable dive-bombing fighter I have used. If you set your convergence right and can actually put rounds on target in one area for more than 1/2 second you can get a kill. Watch Steve or 0ldemon fly one and you'll be a believer. I get flashes of brilliance once in a blue moon. LAst night I killed 2 planes in less than 10 seconds in a pony. Both planes received less than 100 rounds apiece and broke apart. The first was a spit9 that I hit for a split second with all six guns in the right wing root. The second was a F6F that I racked the tail on a snapshot. I fired less than 150 rounds total and had 2 kills.
(Hitech has paid for this message) :noid :t
-
Let's say the pony is undermodeled.. just for the sake of this discussion. I think were you increase the turn performance of the pony very much it would become an uber ride. Each plane needs to have some balance to it.
I personally believe the pony out turns a jug in the real world but only because of what I've read. Even so, I'd hate to have any plane clearly dominate the rest of the plane set. A pony that turned sigificantly better than our current modeling would be such a plane, IMHO.
I'm no expert on modeling, I admit this so there is no sense in telling me what a fool I am.... I already know. :aok
Let's not unbalance the arena by creating an uber ride.
YMMV.
get flashes of brilliance once in a blue moon. LAst night I killed 2 planes in less than 10 seconds in a pony.
WTG :salute
-
I vwant toooo Suuuuckkk vyour Bloooooooodddddd.
Feeed meee seemore.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Just a few nuances I found about the P-51 that made it a killer plane for me:
- Nose over view good.
- GREAT visibility (bubble canopy). Setting my views to take advantage of this was useful.
You forgot to mention that it has the new, secret see-through aluminium in the forward windshield frames :lol
I know.. old news, but I cannot help twisting the knife :devil
-
Let's say the pony is undermodeled.. just for the sake of this discussion. I think were you increase the turn performance of the pony very much it would become an uber ride. Each plane needs to have some balance to it.
I personally believe the pony out turns a jug in the real world but only because of what I've read. Even so, I'd hate to have any plane clearly dominate the rest of the plane set. A pony that turned sigificantly better than our current modeling would be such a plane, IMHO.
I'm no expert on modeling, I admit this so there is no sense in telling me what a fool I am.... I already know. :aok
I though the whole point of ENY/Perks was for every aircraft to be modeled as faithfully as possible, and to perk the ones that are unbalancing. Any knowing compromise with real world flight data is unjustified.
-
Uptown: Basically complaints come down to relative turn performance, according to tests the P-51 turned better than the Jug, Typhoon, and Tempest. It does not in game.
A Typhoon or a Tempest???? When was the last time you saw one of those things trying to turn? :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Maybe he was thinking about this:
Maybe, but in the real world the Mustang wasn't the dog we have here. Our P-51D has porked flaps. Moreover, about the time the P-51D arrived, the 8th AF switched over to 150 octane fuel. With that, it was faster than the 109K-4 at almost all altitudes. Add to that; G-suits were entering service with the AAF, and were fully deployed by late summer.
My regards,
Widewing
From this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,249100.0.html
-
Any knowing compromise with real world flight data is unjustified.
I agree 100%
HiTech
-
I agree 100%
HiTech
so then you have real world data that shows the jug out turns a pony at low speed. I'd like to read about that.. can you tell me where to find it?
-
I agree 100%
HiTech
You are just trying to get your post count up to Krusty's knowledge level.
-
HiTech has flown a P-51, I think he knows how it should handle. It handles just fine ingame, only a moron couldn't rack up kills in one. :aok
completely misses the point. My only question was, is it or is it not under-modeled? I never said it handles bad or can't get kills in it.Maybe he was thinking about this:
From this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,249100.0.html
Yes this is why i wanted to know. BnZ also always posts about how under-modeled it is. And just because Hitech has flown one does not mean it is or isn't under-modeled.
-
also, my post is not a whine or complaint....I'm just curious. No need for the flames you twits!
-
See you think this is a sim. If it were there would be lead computing gun sights and more things to control like radiator flaps and such. There wouldn't be things that are left out or added for fairness.
-
Run tests yourself. Then Compare to tests and reports on real Stangs. Then let us know your findings.
-
See rule #4
-
^
^
^
^
^
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Hi tech constantly misspells P51...
-
^_^ come now u can't try to link between a 90 mph crusing cessna to a 350 mph crusing mustang!
-
about everyone I talk to in this game that knows anything about the P-51 will tell you that the pony in this game does not perform as it did in the real world. Is this in fact the case? And if so why would HTC do that?
I'd like to hear from someone on the HTC staff on this. :salute
No offense but this will only attract the armchair historians out of the woodwork. Hitech flew a p-51, at least that's what the guys here say. Don't know if it was an "original" or restored bird. Maybe a reno racer version, who knows. I would imagine that it wasn't the real thing being so old as they are now having to have so much replaced on them to take away from the authenticity of said p-51. I'm sure that from that ride or rides the flight model is completely piss perfect and true to the real thing as much as possible that can be recreated within the game engine as it is. Also, think that my wifes grandfather is more correct on the flight model of the F6F over the games version as he used to fly one himself in the pacific theatre, but that's for another post. Hard part for the game is to replicate the feeling of flight and speed as well. If you have some sort of found manual or something that gives tactical diameters and things of that nature, please scan them and send them to hitech so they can look them over. Who knows maybe you might have somethig that can bring the game closer to being a sim.
-
^_^ come now u can't try to link between a 90 mph crusing cessna to a 350 mph crusing mustang!
Why not... he consistantly links a 50 IQ to a 125 one. He's part of the 80th information services.
-
My only complaint on the pony would really torque people off when they discover that (according to the manifold gauge) the P51 has too much power. According to the book on the pony the engine could develop 61" of manifold pressure and had NO WEP. My other complaint is that the use of flaps is modelled wrong as I never heard of a mustang pilot saying that dropping one notch of flaps made his airplane shake like a paint mixer but of course its something I try not to do. I can live with it either way because in actual use none of these planes could use 100% engine power for the duration of a flight.
I certainly dont wish to see WEP removed because the pony has enough problems already.
-
LOL, sorry Hitech :)
-
Widewing has posted a handful of threads and tests regarding this. I'd say he's more qualified than most everyone posting in this thread. You guys should use the search tool...
-
Keep in mind also that in a real one when wep is engaged a cord was severed inside the plane and was only used in emergencies. It wasn't turned on and off like a button we have on our ch sticks. This kind of a one time use might be kind of cool to actually add to some of the planes that were built this way. I like the sum side of the game to get better even if its not uber.
-
Ooops! I stand corrected! According to declassified DOD records comparing the P51B and F4U4 the P51B had a war emergency rating of 67" of manifold pressure. I am interested in why the pilots manual for the P51D says 61" and no WEP and the DoD says 67"?
EDIT: Reading further I see the DOD in 1944 contracdicted itself by one time stating the F4U-1 could manage 65" and another only 57" while also stating the P51B had 67" of WEP and later 61" maximum military and no WEP. Even official records are confusing.
-
A Typhoon or a Tempest???? When was the last time you saw one of those things trying to turn? :rofl :rofl :rofl
yeah tiffies can't turn... thats right, if you see a tiffie on your ponies 6 alwayyyyyyyys turn....
:cool:
-
yeah tiffies can't turn... thats right, if you see a tiffie on your ponies 6 alwayyyyyyyys turn....
:cool:
Heh, that is the only time you may see one turn. Diving in your six, pull the stick for the shot, miss and never see them again until you engage someone else.
Wana tell me how your tiffie is going to find its way to my 6 after re-entry?
-
Widewing has posted a handful of threads and tests regarding this. I'd say he's more qualified than most everyone posting in this thread. You guys should use the search tool...
HT has flown a P-51D. Has Widewing? I don't know the answer, just asking... :salute
-
A Typhoon or a Tempest???? When was the last time you saw one of those things trying to turn? :rofl :rofl :rofl
DokGonzo's listing for turn radius clearly indicates both airplanes out-turning the AH Mustang.
I have also experimented with it with a squaddie of mine a bit. The P-51, starting on a Tempest's six, using flaps intelligently can just barely follow a Tempest through a series of turns and get in shots. The Tempest, starting from the same position, can follow a P-51 through a series of turns without any undue effort and WITHOUT using flaps.
-
Let's say the pony is undermodeled.. just for the sake of this discussion. I think were you increase the turn performance of the pony very much it would become an uber ride. Each plane needs to have some balance to it.
I personally believe the pony out turns a jug in the real world but only because of what I've read. Even so, I'd hate to have any plane clearly dominate the rest of the plane set. A pony that turned sigificantly better than our current modeling would be such a plane, IMHO.
WTG :salute
I believe you are wrong here Steve. The point is to have aircraft that conform to their real performance as much as possible. If that means the P-51D would perform so well that it would require a light perk price, so be it.
It would never be a super-plane anyway. It would still be out-turned and out-climbed by the Spixteen. The La7 would still be faster in the weeds. The 109s would still out-climb and out-turn it sustained. The Jug would still have 2 more guns, roll better, and absorb punishment better. The F4U-4 would still out-everything the Pony.
-
about everyone I talk to in this game that knows anything about the P-51 will tell you that the pony in this game does not perform as it did in the real world. Is this in fact the case? And if so why would HTC do that?
I'd like to hear from someone on the HTC staff on this. :salute
I'd like to inject some realism here. None of the planes in this game perform like the real thing. In fact, they don't even perform like real planes in some aspects.
-
I believe you are wrong here Steve. The point is to have aircraft that conform to their real performance as much as possible. If that means the P-51D would perform so well that it would require a light perk price, so be it.
It would never be a super-plane anyway. It would still be out-turned and out-climbed by the Spixteen. The La7 would still be faster in the weeds. The 109s would still out-climb and out-turn it sustained. The Jug would still have 2 more guns, roll better, and absorb punishment better. The F4U-4 would still out-everything the Pony.
the -4 is perked. moot.
-
HT has flown a P-51D. Has Widewing? I don't know the answer, just asking... :salute
I've driven a car. Does that make me an expert in race cars? Just asking...
Widewing posts credible data. Just look it up...
-
I'd like to inject some realism here. None of the planes in this game perform like the real thing. In fact, they don't even perform like real planes in some aspects.
:aok at list someone gets it
-
I'd like to inject some realism here. None of the planes in this game perform like the real thing. In fact, they don't even perform like real planes in some aspects.
That's a simple enough answer for me..thanx. :salute
-
That's a simple enough answer for me..thanx. :salute
Except when someone typed:
Any knowing compromise with real world flight data is unjustified.
Dale said he agreed 100%.
-
yeah, i missed that one steve. it was silly of me to think this is a flight simulator game.
-
most people dont like P51s cuz of the simple fact that everyone is tired of chasing after it...just like the typh. i dont see anything wrong with that.. using the planes strong point to ur avg. but man do i see a lot of people complainb about haeing to chase down a p51 for 3days.
-
The simple solution is dont chase after them and they will probably come back.
-
I've driven a car. Does that make me an expert in race cars? Just asking...
Widewing posts credible data. Just look it up...
That's precisely what I have been thinking. Tooling around in a Pony was certainly a great experience... But nobody should be making the mistake of equating that to flying it on the ragged edge, milking every bit of performance out of it and flirting with that nasty snap roll that P51s are known for.
-
I talked with three different sources on the P51s available power. The first question was regarding the legend of a 'soft wire gate' at the maximum throttle position which turns out to be urban legend. The second question concerns maximum available power which has two answers the first of which is full military power of 61" Hg and war emergency power which is 67" Hg (limited to 5 minutes). WEP doesnt run out on a P51 unless you leave it at 67" in excess of five minutes and then the engine is toast! So what we have is a pretty good representation of the P51 since we dont want to see engines cooked.
The only remaining question I have concerns the way flaps kill the P51 in slow speed cornering. I have seen F4Us drop flaps and do snap rolls (contrary to the F4Us operations manual) and then exit the snap roll and very nearly immediately go into a nose high climb! While that doesnt seem right to me I cant argue with rooks for making it the hands down favorite plane to fly right now. Thats a plane I would like to have some answers on!
-
Well said.
An hour in a Pony does not make one an expert in its 'performance'.
Having said that, I have 0 hours in the Pony, so...so much for my .02 about how the Pony is modeled.
-
All I know is that on those times I've taken up a B or D Mustang, it seems to do the things that my imagination says it should after reading all those P51 pilot stories.
Seems like it's working just fine if it can do that for me :)
-
I have no argument with the P51 model as it is, quite a few are aggressive with it (like OlDemon and WldThing).
I feel the real problem is the 90% of guys that aren't aggressive with it, they fly it like it is missing an elevator.
I have seen F4Us drop flaps and do snap rolls (contrary to the F4Us operations manual) and then exit the snap roll and very nearly immediately go into a nose high climb!
Many knowledgeable individuals (Widewing, Bodhi, et al) have said the Corsair is overmodeled, my $0.02 is to agree with them.
-
I don't think it's that the corsair is overmodeled, but something is definitely funny with its super-high AoA stability.
-
I don't think it's that the corsair is overmodeled, but something is definitely funny with its super-high AoA stability.
I've flown the 1A a few times lately when the bases are too far apart for my 38G. I was amazed at how stable it was a slow speeds with everything hanging out. The 38G, which is great low and slow, is much quicker to depart then the Hog, despite no torque. It was a fun bird to fly...not that anything outside of a Spit XII could replace my 38G :)
-
I spent an hour putting a TF-51D, converted from a 1944 vintage P-51D, call sign 'Crazy Horse' thru an aerobatic session,
..including accelerated stalls, power on straight ahead stalls, right turn hard pull till she stalled,
..and the dreaded left turn hard pull until she snapped, 10 degree flap down max turn rate turns,
..it's on video if you want to watch it.
Lee Lauderback had the camera pointing back at me and one up on the fin looking forward
for the whole sequence from engine start to engine shut off.
I did everything I useda do in the Arena except gun some helpless dweeb outta the sky
ie: we did simulated ground attack runs, the 'pop up' for target aquisition completely matched what you get out of the Stang in the arena, ..
..zoom from 400mph to 3500', roll onto target, guns-guns-guns..pull off at 100' AGL ..oh yaaa.
The biggest differences?
Awesome frame rate.
You have to put 50lbs of pressure on the stick for each 'G' you pull.
(ya .. to pull 4G's it takes about 150lbs of pressure on the stick
..that's both hands, feet braced on the rudder pedals, and PULL ..HARD ..HARDER ..PULLHARD!!
.. unless you trim thru it, which I did on the Split S from 8500' AGL)
The sound.. just cant get that gut feelin of the Merlin up front, the shake of the whole fuselage when she fires up, etc.
..and last but not least, the feelin on touchdown after an hour of dancing in the clouds ..
..ya bay-bee .. worth every penny.
Instead of the radio in back, it had me.
Instead of the 50 cals in the wings, he has fuel tanks there.
We were runnin about 50 percent fuel quantity, and of course, nothing in the rear fuse tank
(I don't think that one is still installed .. just too dangerous with it).
He said the weights about matched a combat ready P-51D without the drop tanks.
They use Crazy Horse to train Naval Aviators, it's rigged so it flies very much like the 1944 P-51D it came from.
No hot rod Reno engine, 'stock' motor.
Control deflections all match the original Tech Orders, .. the works.
I know Dale flew it also, and Mad Max ..the other TF-51D that Lee operates.
It was and is just a little bit more than 'just spendin time flyin around'
.. Lee let us find out where the Lady sings.
-GE aka Frank
www.stallion51.com
-
I have no argument with the P51 model as it is, quite a few are aggressive with it (like OlDemon and WldThing).
I feel the real problem is the 90% of guys that aren't aggressive with it, they fly it like it is missing an elevator.
Many knowledgeable individuals (Widewing, Bodhi, et al) have said the Corsair is overmodeled, my $0.02 is to agree with them.
Fortunately most of the pilots trying to take advantage of an advantage still fail. :aok
-
There seems to be a campaign to make poor old hitech relent and give the p51d discovery channel style powers :lol heres an interview with a guy whos flew spit9s p51s and 109s http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94. I cant comment on real life flight performance of a p51 but neither can 99% of people in this thread hitech being the exception. But skip makes a valid point about people who play/buy the game want to keep the allies winning, so its to aces highs credit that the axis planes are more than competitive, even if that means the allies dont always win.
I can remember playing IL2 online and the russian planes are far superior to everything else especially the la7. Like Vladimir Putin had been poking old Oleg with a sharp stick as he wrote the game from the in game write ups to cannon and flight performance of russian aircraft :eek:
ps uptown have read a couple of write ups from you about what should I do p51 v how do I beat 109 etc and now this questioning the p51 flight modelling if you have enough airspeed to manoveur it doesnt matter whats on your 6 or what inherit advantages their aircraft has over yours it'll come down to whos the better pilot or a mistake. :salute
-
I really don't have any complaints about the pony. But I was wondering why several that post in this board from time to time say the modeling is porked. I hear the flaps, turn and climb rate are under-modeled. I remember when the 51 have a eny of 5..now it's at 8. And wanted to ask if it was undermodeled. Personally, I wouldn't care if it is. I'd still fly it anyway.
It's my main ride because it don't turn as well as a spit, niki, hurri,or 109. It's not as fast as a la,tippy or K4 and it has .50 cals instead of cannons.
I like to put it in harms way. For me to just BnZ in it from 15k is just boring. Most of the fights in the MA are on the deck so thats where I take it. It's a fact that I'm not the best at what I do, but I'd like to have all the information i can get on my plane of choice to see what I can do different to be more successful in it.
Sure, I could stay at 20k and cherry pick and run for 2 sectors when I get into trouble, but imo that don't make you a good stick.I fly most of the time without a wingman and I'm stuck in a rut and can't seem to get over the adverage pilot hump. :salute
-
I always thought the pony was your main ride because you where in a pony squadron. Cos you used to fly a 38 :rofl Why dont you get Iucky to teach ya a few pony tricks?
-
There seems to be a campaign to make poor old hitech relent and give the p51d discovery channel style powers :lol heres an interview with a guy whos flew spit9s p51s and 109s http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94. I cant comment on real life flight performance of a p51 but neither can 99% of people in this thread hitech being the exception. But skip makes a valid point about people who play/buy the game want to keep the allies winning, so its to aces highs credit that the axis planes are more than competitive, even if that means the allies dont always win.
Horse Crap!
I fly a 190 alot more than I fly a P-51...so much for some deep, dark bias against Luftwaffe birds. No one on this thread wants some sort of unrealistic Super-Mustang that out-turns Zeroes either, that is a paper-tiger.
It is not about having a P-51 that out-turns a SpitV. The fact remains that the AHII Pony can NOT out-turn such bricks as the P-47 and Typhoon, in direct contradiction of what pilots who tested them and flew during war have to say about the matter. German pilots even recognized the P-51 as being more agile than the P-47, but it is absolutely the opposite in AH.
-
I suspect thats because WWII pilots were mostly talking about agility at realistic alts/speeds, not scissors floating 50' off the ground at 80mph with full flaps like we do in AH?
-
I suspect thats because WWII pilots were mostly talking about agility at realistic alts/speeds, not scissors floating 50' off the ground at 80mph with full flaps like we do in AH?
Another paper-tiger. Fast or slow, the Jug will keep up with a turning Pony at high-speed, and gain ground as things slow.
I find it real "cute" when people say the P-51 turns well above 280 mph or so btw. Almost everything in the game, including the Fw-190s, turn well at such high-speeds, if by "turn well" you mean it can pull enough Gs to run into the black-out that is the real limit during high-speed turning anyway.
-
There seems to be a campaign to make poor old hitech relent and give the p51d discovery channel style powers :lol heres an interview with a guy whos flew spit9s p51s and 109s http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94. I cant comment on real life flight performance of a p51 but neither can 99% of people in this thread hitech being the exception. But skip makes a valid point about people who play/buy the game want to keep the allies winning, so its to aces highs credit that the axis planes are more than competitive, even if that means the allies dont always win.
I think skip is wrong that CRS overdid the Spitfire because people want the allies to win. There are many other explanations for getting something wrong besides outright bias.
That said, I find his comments about a 109G out turning a Spitfire IX curious because wingloading figures would suggest otherwise, not to mention the lower induced drag that a Spitfire incurs at low speed. If they've flown the P-51D alongside the 109G and found that the latter climbs better and is more nimble, fine, but I'd like to see the same side-by-side comparison with the Spitfire IX before I believe it.
It's also good to remember that AH errors in performance also reflect the limitations of computer modeling. The P-38L turned with a Spitfire V back in HT/Pyro's warbirds, and it outrolled the 190. The flight data didn't change, but the modeling changed over time and gave us the P-38L we have today. Oh yeah, if you're wondering, 50% of the planes you'd see in a furball then were P-38L's, and everyone swore the performance was realistic and that they just flew it because they loved the P-38. :devil
-
That's precisely what I have been thinking. Tooling around in a Pony was certainly a great experience... But nobody should be making the mistake of equating that to flying it on the ragged edge, milking every bit of performance out of it and flirting with that nasty snap roll that P51s are known for.
Acctualyy PFactorDave, that is exactly how I was flying it, including using flaps to increase turn rate. Bob Shaw was in the other p51 and we were dog fighting for about 30 mins between the 2 planes. We both departed controlled flight with snap rolls multiple times.
But please do not think that flying a plane has anything to do with being an expert on the plane. It did give me a very good feel for the edges but as for performance, that comes from data and testing.
We have very very good data on the P51, And our performance matches this data.
As always, if you think there is an error in our performance, please post specifics, because post like, "I think the p51 should turn better" is completely useless.
HiTech
-
Sure, I could stay at 20k and cherry pick and run for 2 sectors when I get into trouble, but imo that don't make you a good stick.I fly most of the time without a wingman and I'm stuck in a rut and can't seem to get over the adverage pilot hump. :salute
Last tour, 26 of your 101 kills were buffs, your single biggest ticket item was 15 Lancasters.
The fighter you seem to have killed the most were variants on the Fw-190 series, from whom you claimed 17 victims. (Ta-152s included)
The single type of fighter you killed most was the P-51D, with 10.
So half your kills last tour were buffs or things that the P-51 can match agility with once it runs 'em down. (Of course, you flew other things than Mustangs occasionally, so that muddies the waters a bit.)
To which I can only say, :salute :salute :salute . You are destroying the enemy's craft more than twice as often as he destroys you, which is actually quite well above average for AHII.
But you are probably NOT flying the P-51 like a moron or getting most of your kills turn-fighting on the deck with Spixteens. I would imagine you are flying it more like I fly my D9 :devil
-
I wasn't trained as an engineer Dale, so sorry. I was trained as a historian. What would interest me is a good explanation for how so many people involved with the Pursuits during the war got exactly the wrong impression about the qualities of the P-51 relative the P-47, or the 109G for that matter, if we assume the AHII P-51 is indeed correctly modeled in all facets.
Acctualyy PFactorDave, that is exactly how I was flying it, including using flaps to increase turn rate. Bob Shaw was in the other p51 and we were dog fighting for about 30 mins between the 2 planes. We both departed controlled flight with snap rolls multiple times.
But please do not think that flying a plane has anything to do with being an expert on the plane. It did give me a very good feel for the edges but as for performance, that comes from data and testing.
We have very very good data on the P51, And our performance matches this data.
As always, if you think there is an error in our performance, please post specifics, because post like, "I think the p51 should turn better" is completely useless.
HiTech
-
I think the lesson here is that realistically modeling all these aircraft is a tough job. We've got primary documents that contradict each other. WW2 pilots that contradict primary documents and themselves. We've got groundcrews and pilots making modifications, often sparsely documented, to their aircraft during the war to change their performance compared to others of the same model. We've got aircraft that no longer even exist any more. While we have people with real life flights in actual WW2 aircraft, this is only available for a few of the aircraft in Aces High, the rest have to be modeled on best guesses and their true performance will likely never be known with any certainty. And that's before even considering the modeling of guns and ammunition.
It seems likely to me that the P51 is one of the best modeled aircraft in the entire game. Many survived the war to this day compared to other fighters. The 50 cal is also likely one of the best modeled armaments in the game, with tons of guncam footage and lets not forget that the 50cal is still widely used as a weapon today, not much changed from WW2.
So it seems to me, if you're going to complain about aircraft modeling, you'd have a better argument to say that everything else is overmodeled compared to the P51. The P51 is probably the most right fighter aircraft in the game, just based on how much easier it would be to model it right compared to everything else.
-
Bnz: If you really have been trained as a historian, then please do lots of research. And you also must know how nonfactual simple observation is, with out concurrent documentation. So do not put lots of weight in antidote evidence by pilots.
You must also view the writings from the eyes of the observer. Every pilot wants to believe his plane is the best.
And as always we appreciate new data we do not have already, but if you do start researching this, and not just make off the cuff statements like you have, you will have to gain some basic knowledge of aerodynamics to be able to separate fact from fiction.
Even your question in the last post can not be answered. Because you just say our P51d is different from impressions, but give no facts to be addressed, only your claims.
HiTech
-
I'll get right on that.
WAIT...Widewing has already done it, by and large. And nothing has changed. I was going to attach the (in)famous relative turn radius illustration to this post, but why bother?
P-51 is going to stay the same, (unless it doesn't), quit wasting my breath, got it.
-
Let me get this straight. Are we saying that a P51 cannot out turn a tiffy in the game :confused: You are kidding right?
-
(http://img256.echo.cx/img256/7295/notachance8zt.gif) Tiff out turn a pony lol
-
HiTech,
After 5 years of playing your game and observing your conduct on this BBS, how do you maintain your graciousness and patience over this single issue? You allow credibility lines to be crossed after which you politely and ernestly attempt to provide the most honest data and personal experience info you can in response.
My confusion is that I am unable to beleive as is subliminaly infered by some of these threads that you have made a choice to "not" provide the best P51D that your skills are capable of.
I do not understand this "zombi poni forever fishing expedition"............................. :huh
How do you do it sir with so much grace?
-
Horse Crap!
I fly a 190 alot more than I fly a P-51...so much for some deep, dark bias against Luftwaffe birds. No one on this thread wants some sort of unrealistic Super-Mustang that out-turns Zeroes either, that is a paper-tiger.
Since when did BnZ = the commonly held belief???? Just because you dont think like that doesnt mean others dont you fool???
Just read the comments on youtube the arguing the video itself is proof of peoples commonly held beliefs about their own nations aircraft and the annoying interviewers shock at the comments his subjects make!! Hes like hey skip you fly these for real but I fly in a make believe world on a pc and I suspect your a liar because this is what I have read/been told all my life titter titter :lol :lol :lol
-
... So do not put lots of weight in antidote evidence by pilots.
Ahh... I think you meant anecdotal.
Hitech 1; Spellcheck 0
-
Acctualyy PFactorDave, that is exactly how I was flying it, including using flaps to increase turn rate. Bob Shaw was in the other p51 and we were dog fighting for about 30 mins between the 2 planes. We both departed controlled flight with snap rolls multiple times.
But please do not think that flying a plane has anything to do with being an expert on the plane. It did give me a very good feel for the edges but as for performance, that comes from data and testing.
We have very very good data on the P51, And our performance matches this data.
As always, if you think there is an error in our performance, please post specifics, because post like, "I think the p51 should turn better" is completely useless.
HiTech
thank you for the reply. I bet flying the real thing was a blast. Talk about researching your work :lol well done sir :salute
-
Scientists have come to understand that brains in humans dont fully develop until a person reaches the approximate age of 25 years before which they are dangerous on the roads (not realizing they can be killed) and after which they are dangerous on the internet (thinking they know it all). Its possible to conduct 'research' in such a way that you come away with your 'biased' opinion confirmed while ignoring data that would counter your viewpoint especially if you conduct that research on the internet because there is so much untruth and misinformation posted.
-
Let me get this straight. Are we saying that a P51 cannot out turn a tiffy in the game :confused: You are kidding right?
According to http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php (http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php) the Typhoon out turns the P-51D. I don't fly either aircraft much, but I wouldn't assume anything here. Flying against Typhoons, they seem to turn fairly well, better than P-51s.
-
Tiffs and temps out turn the 51
-
Now I'm not a Steve, nor a Bob, a Herb, a Pete, or any other diminutive noun.
But.
I used to loathe the P51. It dented my pride and stats horribly, because I'd try to TnB in it. Once I relaxed the stick pressure a LOT it all became clear. Now I feel guilty flying it. It is by far the easiest of the non-perk planes to rack up kills in, if you can avoid the call of the TnB.
-
Tiffs and temps out turn the 51
Just got back from Gonzo's site and as expected almost everything out turns the P51D. That's why I only turn in it when I have the advantage, or goofed up on the deck and am impersonating a gerbil wiggling in the bushes.
It could be a mistake on Dok's comparison site, but if it's not, under 20k the spit16 and spit 14 are closer in performance than the P51D and 109K4. I've read the threads concerning the 16 vs. 14 perk or not perk question. Why with those planes do players keep it to the known values while with the P51D it turns into my daddies Muskcle car had a godzilla 12 humpper in it and could strip tarmak while going 0-69 in 2 seconds?
Wouldn't it be easier if you aspire to become the P51 godzilla of Aces High to just ask Steve to give you lessons on how to fly it in this computer environment?
-
SkatrSr is a pretty handy Pony - D stick as well
-
Now I'm not a Steve, nor a Bob, a Herb, a Pete, or any other diminutive noun.
But.
I used to loathe the P51. It dented my pride and stats horribly, because I'd try to TnB in it. Once I relaxed the stick pressure a LOT it all became clear. Now I feel guilty flying it. It is by far the easiest of the non-perk planes to rack up kills in, if you can avoid the call of the TnB.
diminuative :rolleyes:
I enjoy the occasional TnB in a pony... of course it gets me dead quite a bit when I do. Something about a low and slow pony... seems to attract more than its share of attention. It could be just my imagination though.
SkatrSr is a pretty handy Pony - D stick as well
yup he sure is. and one of my favorite pony wingies.
-
Changed my mind. Since I was challenged to get technical, I shall get technical. This is nothing that Widewing before me has not done, but since people are apparently under the impression I am simply deluded by History Channel propaganda as regards the P-51 Mustang, I suppose I must rehash.
DokGonzo's test website shows that in-game, our lightest Jug, the P-47D-11 can sustain a tighter radius than the P-51D both with no flaps and with full flaps. This is not in concurrence with the experiences of test and combat pilots during the war. Let us take a closer look at both airplanes.
In AHII, a six-gun P-51D carrying 50% fuel weighs 9,365 lbs. A P-47D-11 with the lighter 8-gun package carrying 50% fuel weighs 12,676 lbs. (Note: The P-51 of course can carry a larger fraction of its gross weight in the form of fuel, the P-51D will fly slightly longer on Mil with 50% fuel than the P-47D-11 will with 75% fuel.)
The P-51D has a wing area of 235 square feet. The P-47D has a wing area of 300 square feet.
9,365/235=~39.9
12,676/300=~42.7
So the P-51D is clearly superior in wing-loading.
What about power-loading?
Assuming the figures for WEP horsepower in AHII agree with the ones I was able to find for WEP horsepower of the P-51D and early P-47Ds, we get this result..
9,365 lbs/1,720hp=5.44 lbs/hp
12,676 lbs/2,300hp=5.51 lbs/hp.
So the P-51D is also slightly superior in power-loading.
In AHII the P-51 is out-turned by an aircraft that is decidedly inferior in wing-loading and also inferior in horsepower, in both no-flaps and full-flaps configuration.
My gripe has nothing to do with whether or not the Pony should be out-turning 109s, Zekes, or winning the war single-handed.
-
In AHII the P-51 is out-turned by an aircraft that is decidedly inferior in wing-loading and also inferior in horsepower, in both no-flaps and full-flaps configuration.
My gripe has nothing to do with whether or not the Pony should be out-turning 109s, Zekes, or winning the war single-handed.
This is the sort of data I asked Dale for but was ignored.
-
I spent an hour putting a TF-51D, converted from a 1944 vintage P-51D, call sign 'Crazy Horse' thru an aerobatic session,
..including accelerated stalls, power on straight ahead stalls, right turn hard pull till she stalled,
..and the dreaded left turn hard pull until she snapped, 10 degree flap down max turn rate turns,
..it's on video if you want to watch it.
Where might one view this video??
-
.....
Assuming the figures for WEP horsepower in AHII agree with the ones I was able to find for WEP horsepower of the P-51D and early P-47Ds, we get this result..
9,365 lbs/1,720hp=5.44 lbs/hp
12,676 lbs/2,300hp=5.51 lbs/hp.
So the P-51D is also slightly superior in power-loading.
In AHII the P-51 is out-turned by an aircraft that is decidedly inferior in wing-loading and also inferior in horsepower, in both no-flaps and full-flaps configuration.
My gripe has nothing to do with whether or not the Pony should be out-turning 109s, Zekes, or winning the war single-handed.
Thanks for the numbers, (if legit) they do add some food-for-thought to this conversation.
-
Maybe the P47 turns too well and the Pony is fine. ;)
-
We have very very good data on the P51, And our performance matches this data.
As always, if you think there is an error in our performance, please post specifics, because post like, "I think the p51 should turn better" is completely useless.
HiTech
OK, I'll bite. Most obvious physics problem that I've seen in game is the (name your favorite single engine fighter plane here) getting both wings shot off. In real life, it would spin like a top (perhaps the term "drill" would be appropriate) from the engine torque at that point. I probably wouldn't want to be in that plane trying to bail out, either.
-
No time in P-51s.. 24.25 hours in TA-4Js though accumulated over the course of 15 months... However, I never got close to exploring the Scooter's capabilities. I was only beginning to get a basic feel for it under the watchful eye of the various pilots in the front seat.
How does an Navy AD2 (Petty Officer, 2nd Class) manage to get flight time in a Skyhawk? Easy, I traded flight time for crew seats on my C-118 or C-131 flying stateside. I ran shopping errands for pilots while up in Jax and Miami. I even flew back brand new motorcycles. We would post our flight dates for VC-10, listing the number of seats we had allocated for crew. VC-10 pilots and enlisted personnel would fly as crew, their names added to the yellow sheet. We would collect shopping lists and even flew in a dozen pizzas for a VC-10 party. In exchange, backseat flight time was made available for ejection seat qualified aircrew. Everyone benefited and the command actually encouraged this as it was a boost for morale.
Of course, I know guys with thousands of hours in P-51s, P-38s, P-47s, F6Fs, etc. Plus I have seen enough test data to cause brain damage.
My regards,
Widewing
-
All of this doesn't matter.
Pick a plane, pick a red guy.
Shoot, and hope you him.
-
All of this doesn't matter.
Pick a plane, pick a red guy.
Shoot, and hope you him.
Well said! :huh
-
Tiffs and temps out turn the 51
What speed, what alt etc?
I've run into some guys who really work the 51D on the deck. I had a TnB fight with a guy named Magoo1 last week and he was really working it against my 38G. OlDemon always seems to turn the 51 well low and slow.
When I've winged with Fencer in a 51, there is a zone of speed where I felt very comfortable turning with a 16. Would I want to get full flaps slow? Not a chance. The 51 shouldn't out turn a Spit. But with a notch of combat flaps and working it, the 51 did just fine.
Granted I don't fly it all that much, but it sure seems to fly like I see it described by the guys who flew it in combat.
It was never meant to be a Spitfire. It's range and all the things it could do well made it what it was.
-
All of this doesn't matter.
Pick a plane, pick a red guy.
Shoot, and hope you him.
:huh :huh
-
Granted I don't fly it all that much, but it sure seems to fly like I see it described by the guys who flew it in combat.
The guys who flew it and the guys who fought it thought it was a decided step-up in maneuverability from the P-47s they had flown/fought before. In AHII it is a step-down.
It was never meant to be a Spitfire. It's range and all the things it could do well made it what it was.
Who in this thread has made the assertion that it should turn better than the Spitfire? I've never heard another person claim the Mustang should out-turn the Spit, period. The History Channel doesn't even claim that. ;)
-
I hope we can all agree that there is conflicting data regarding ancedotal data and performance from 2 different sources can be significantly different too. I can't count how many times i've seen a quote from a pilot "no fighter can roll with X plane"
Anyway, I just looked at gonzo's sight and the p47D-11 doesn't turn significantly better with no flaps with turning circles listed as 757 to 777 a negligble difference in combat, the D25 and d40 turn marginally worse than the 51D. There's a p51vs p47 tactical trials on spitfireperformance.com somewhere and it concludes the turning circles are similar- but i wouldn't be surprised if data could be found contradicting it either way.
With flaps the jug beats the 51 hands down it seems- is that correct? i've no idea personally, the p51's flaps could be inefficient for all i know.
Regardless, i pray someone stakes hitech through the heart at the con while he is passed ou...errr sleeping. No more blood sucking for him
-
The guys who flew it and the guys who fought it thought it was a decided step-up in maneuverability from the P-47s they had flown/fought before. In AHII it is a step-down.
Who in this thread has made the assertion that it should turn better than the Spitfire? I've never heard another person claim the Mustang should out-turn the Spit, period. The History Channel doesn't even claim that. ;)
My point being, that it's not meant to be a pure TnB bird. It does it well however. Some folks in D-11 Jugs or any Jug can do that too. Not everyone.
I still don't get what folks think it isn't doing that it should.
-
I still don't get what folks think it isn't doing that it should.
Really? You missed the 387 times in this thread that I mentioned the Pony doesn't turn as well as aircraft that have a significantly higher wing-loading?
If the Pony turned at least as well as the D-11, would make a big difference.
Oh, btw, here is an interesting comparison.
An F4U-1A at 50% fuel weighs 11,819 lbs. It has a wing area of 314 square feet. This gives it a wing-loading of 37.6 lbs. So its wing-loading is lighter than that of the P-51D's by approximately the same margin as we found in the P-51D/P-47D-11 comparison. I don't know precisely what the rated WEP power on the F4U-1A's R-2800 is, but considering the AHII P-51D accelerates better, I'm guessing the horsepower/weight is better for the 'Stang. Leaving the F4Us very effective flaps out of the equation, according to DokGonzos it still betters the P-51D's no-flaps radius.
There is a reason I specifically mention the Corsair in this comparison. Anyone who can guess it (besides Widewing) gets the No-Prize.
-
Really? You missed the 387 times in this thread that I mentioned the Pony doesn't turn as well as aircraft that have a significantly higher wing-loading?
If the Pony turned at least as well as the D-11, would make a big difference.
What alt, what speed, what fuel load, etc. I missed all that too.
But what the heck. Go get em. I'll be the first to admit I'm not a numbers junkie. It's purely the 'feel' and how it fits with my imagination. The Mustang has done that in the game.
Clearly it hasn't for you. I hope you can find some satisfaction in the numbers.
-
Thought of a way to get the point across.
Fly the P-51D in a t'n'b manner below 300mph, then try the D-11. The difference in handling is like the difference between the P-38J and P-38G. Only backwards, because the light plane is turning worse than the heavy plane in this case.
-
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet... but according to ADFU trials on www.spitfireperformance.com (http://www.spitfireperformance.com), the British testing (and the U.S. testing too , I think) states that the Mustang III (P-51B/C): 'Use of flaps on the Mustang does not appear to improve the turning circle.'
Additionally, the P-47 utilizes a slotted flap which really energizes the air as it enters the trailing edge of the flap, speeding up the air over the flap allowing for more lift. The P-51 has a regular plain flap which simply works like a conventional flap. It does create more lift but the air up top isnt really energized, just the air at the bottom slowed down.
In-game however, Widewing has shown some numbers of some suspicion. The P-51's turn rate gets horridly worse since the drag seems to increase to a point where the lift is negligible when considering how slow the plane turns. The turn rate would moreso be likely to stay the same as the drag increases proportionally to the lift. Or so goes my account of WW's theory.
It's not confirmed though.
-
I don't know precisely what the rated WEP power on the F4U-1A's R-2800 is, ...
R-2800-21W: 2,300 hp (1,700 kW) MSL SAP
-
Again, why the assumption that the P-51 model is wrong and the others are right? The opposite explanation is equally good.
-
Again, why the assumption that the P-51 model is wrong and the others are right? The opposite explanation is equally good.
So everything else turns worse?
Anax, I knew I could count on you to look at the problem exactly bass-ackwards. :D
-
In AHII the P-51 is out-turned by an aircraft that is decidedly inferior in wing-loading and also inferior in horsepower, in both no-flaps and full-flaps configuration.
Tell you what, I don't even fly the p50run, but if you want, get a tiffi and try to out turn me in one. Did you ever think it may be you and not the plane?
P51 vs Spit9. Flat turn at the merge and watch the spit. The goal is to make him go for the turn fight. If he takes the bate, release a little pressure and push nose down a bit to maintain speed. He will win the turn but get slow in the process. Avoid the HO :lol and pull up and over. The spit will be too slow to follow and either get roped if he tries or you will get a shot after you loop over. Only other option for him will be to dive for speed but then you have the advantage. So, my point is, what does turning have to do with winning a fight? You just beat a better turning plane without even turning. What do you people mean when you say out turn anyway? I would bet 99% of the time you mean that you got killed :rofl
-
Well heck .. seems the video isnt posted anymore on the Damned.org webiste.
Sorry man .. will ask what they need to post it.
May as well post some of the artwork I did also, since +Mia's site went tits up.
I could prolly bring it to the Con if any interest in watchin it.
I pull horizontal at 250 indicated with the stick shaking, then pull a little more and she departs,
..you can watch the nose track around the horizon, it definitely aint no spitfire :)
Lee dumped 10 degrees of flaps on me while I held her at stick shake
and you can see the nose increase the speed she's tracking across the horizon dramatically.
THen he dumped 20 degrees ..and I could not pull hard enough fast enough
..LOL .. then he put flaps back up and we departed.
The interesting thing was .. I was expecting a full on snap opposite prop torque
... and
.. well it did
.. but
.. it was not anything wild or out of control
.. pushed right rudder, waited till ailerons were biting, leveled out.
In a right turn, she just comes out level.
In a left turn tho .. baby ..
..you get nearly inverted and lose altitude in a hurry while you push right rudder
and wait till she's flying again to ease her wings level and nose her back up.
I would *really* hate to have that happen just over the trees :)
-GE
-
Sounds like AH P51 to me.
-
My 2 cents (as if they matter) -
The only thing that has never made sense to me is the way relative performance changes over the years. The F4U didn't used to be a superplane. The 190A-5 used to be able to turn with a P-47 (or just about, at any rate).
One time I go away for a while and come back, and the damn 190 just won't turn any more.
Then I find a thread about the P-51, and lo and behold both planes had thier flaps-down turn radii increased by 25%.
Why?
-
HiTech,
The P51H got into the Pacific theater at the wars end. Did enough numbers get to participate that you would consider releasing it into Aces High on a perked basis? From what I have read it will do everything you are being accused of not allowing the current P51D to do. I get the impression it is a Spit16 that raped a P51B and spawned a iligitiment hybred. If you do..... perk it equal to the F4U-4.
Thank you Sir...... ;)
-
190 A-5 @75% w/ 4x20MM=8,571 lbs.
Wing area=196.99 square feet
8,571/196.99=43.5 lbs/square foot.
8,571/1,677hp=5.11 lbs/horsepower
Urchin: Sounds very reasonable to me for 190 A-5s to be nearly matching Jugs in no-flaps radius, at low altitude Sir. :aok
The only thing that has never made sense to me is the way relative performance changes over the years. The F4U didn't used to be a superplane. The 190A-5 used to be able to turn with a P-47 (or just about, at any rate).
-
IIRC, thrust/drag is more important for calculating turn rate than lbs/hp.
-
IIRC, thrust/drag is more important for calculating turn rate than lbs/hp.
Well, yes, really, its the thrust from the engine vs. all that induced drag at a high AoA that is important in turning, but there is a crude correlation between that and weight/hp, and weight/hp is easier to calculate. :D
-
Well I have flown the pony a lot in the past 2 and a half fun years. I really don't think the plane turns bad its not the best by no means :) I don't understand were the tempest typhy out turns the pony..If it does it does not make enough of a difference to me, or even the jug. yes there are a few Folks that fly these ac that can woop me in them I no that, but Ill bloody there noses :lol Once again it boils down to the pilot IMHO. I really do not see the pony turning that bad though. That first high speed deflection is a killer. If a guy flys it the way it was designed to be flown it does what its suppose to do :aok The plane is not made to get low and slow with the zekes las spittys so on so forth..I will do it for fun because this is just a game and it does pretty good for what it was actually designed for :D Jugs temps typhs lala's 190s are on my to turn with list.So I really do not believe its that bad of a turner :salute I do not fly the bad boy much anymore moved on to hogs , but I always enjoy taking her up when the situation calls for it... :salute
-
A long long time ago I got interested in what different airfoils made on airplanes and talked to a few people that should have a great idea what the different airfoils would do on various designs. What got me interested was the difference between the wing on a P47 and a P51 but the one man that really got into the discussion (a fellow r/c club member and engineering professor at FSU - I can see his face but his name wont come to me) told me it would be better for me to look at the F4U. His reasoning was that both aircraft had very different airfoils and the F4U used a different approach to reducing drag which was the major problem in prop designs. He pointed me in the direction of something called 'drag divergence' which unfortunately I never followed up on because at the time I just wanted to build a fast airplane. Maybe someone here can describe why the P51 by legend at least performed so much better at high altitude because of this factor despite having less horsepower? I dont think I will get to the answer myself without involving a few thousand dollars in books on the subject of aerodynamic design and his suggestion might be a blind alley anyway...
-
Well I have flown the pony a lot in the past 2 and a half fun years. I really don't think the plane turns bad its not the best by no means :) I don't understand were the tempest typhy out turns the pony..If it does it does not make enough of a difference to me, or even the jug. yes there are a few Folks that fly these ac that can woop me in them I no that, but Ill bloody there noses :lol Once again it boils down to the pilot IMHO. I really do not see the pony turning that bad though. That first high speed deflection is a killer. If a guy flys it the way it was designed to be flown it does what its suppose to do :aok The plane is not made to get low and slow with the zekes las spittys so on so forth..I will do it for fun because this is just a game and it does pretty good for what it was actually designed for :D Jugs temps typhs lala's 190s are on my to turn with list.So I really do not believe its that bad of a turner :salute I do not fly the bad boy much anymore moved on to hogs , but I always enjoy taking her up when the situation calls for it... :salute
Tiffy and temp out turn pony. Not as dramatically as a zeke... but they do.
-
190 A-5 @75% w/ 4x20MM=8,571 lbs.
Wing area=196.99 square feet
8,571/196.99=43.5 lbs/square foot.
8,571/1,677hp=5.11 lbs/horsepower
Urchin: Sounds very reasonable to me for 190 A-5s to be nearly matching Jugs in no-flaps radius, at low altitude Sir. :aok
I think there might be more to aerodynamics than simple wingloading and HP/weight ratios such as the lift produced by the wing shape, drag produced by the airframe and prop configuration among others.
Calculations such as above might give indications but not nessesarily the final answer. Test and flight data are the only reliable sources in comparing real-world vs game performance.
-
Maybe someone here can describe why the P51 by legend at least performed so much better at high altitude because of this factor despite having less horsepower?
First, you fail to specify what you're comparing the P-51 to when you say it performed better at high altitude.
Second, since we've been talking about the P-47 a lot, the P-51 was not better "at altitude." In the ETO typical altitudes were 30k feet and higher, and at those altitudes the P-47 was faster and, iirc, climbed better. It also rolled better and dove better. The P-51 was a flying gas tank. Therein lies its greatness. Its great speed with less horsepower was just another expression of the same motivating principle of efficiency.
-
If a guy flys it the way it was designed to be flown it does what its suppose to do :aok The plane is not made to get low and slow with the zekes las spittys so on so forth..I will do it for fun because this is just a game and it does pretty good for what it was actually designed for :D Jugs temps typhs lala's 190s are on my to turn with list.
Tiffy and temp out turn pony. Not as dramatically as a zeke... but they do.
Zazen has convincingly argued, on many occasions, that when aircraft have similar speed, stall fighting becomes more and more profitable. This is because neither aircraft has the initiative, i.e. speed, to dictate the terms of the fight, and therefore must go defensive. That's why it's normal and correct for a P-51 to ride the edge of a stall in a fight with a 190D-9 much more so than it's correct against an A6M.
-
Tiffy and temp out turn pony. Not as dramatically as a zeke... but they do.
Maybe but not with me :aok
-
With all due respect to most of those of have commented on the Pony--with nothing in real life to compare it to, I believe the Pony to be the best all-around FIGHTER in the game. Speed, visibility, hi speed turn and get away time requires pushing the nose down. This, of course, is IF you started the engagement on your term's altitude and hopefully in super cruise--and not being afraid to egress BACK to that altitude when you opponent begins to get upper hand. Some may call it it BnZ queen, undermodelled, whatever...but I have landed more kills in it than any other platform despite the Jug being my second favorite ride. Its the pilot, not the plane and the plane is fine IMHO.
If I can land 'em...anyone can. Know your ride...know your opponent and like I said. Know when to run. It brought 'em home in WWII and will do the same if you know when to book.
No new news here...just giving my opinion.
<<S>>
Kudzu31 :salute
-
Most of you are missing the point.
-
Maybe but not with me :aok
Riiiight,, you are the king of all pony pilots. You don't have to like it, but the tiff and tempy out turn the pony. The data is irrefutable. I made no mention of a difference in pilot skill.
-
...and skyrock can outturn Spit16s with a 190D-9. :P
-
It's a game....
Who gives a S$%t :rolleyes:
-
The biggest reason the Stang was faster than expected was due to the Laminar flow wing.
It has a lot less drag than the other designs of the era.
There were several smaller contributing factors ie: wing approx 90 degrees off the fuse, scoop exhaust providing thrust in some configurations, etc.
I had read somewhere that the fat leading edge of the Jug's wing worked very well at high AoA, giving the pilot definite feedback on just how close to stall he was hangin ..makin the Jug pilot confident in runnin her right up to the edge and holding her there.
The Mustang is .. different.
You get a mild stick shake at the borderline, any more back pressure and she departs.
Easy to miss in the heat of combat I expect.
I would imagine the first time the Stang departed on the new pilot probably scared the crap out of him if he wasn't expecting it, so he would not want to push it if he could help it.
Turn an burn wasn't American official procedure anyway :)
American iron was boom an zoom :)
-GE aka Frank
-
Reading up on drag divergence has me wondering what the mach numbers are on a P51 at 25k max speed and the same for an F4U? and drag coefficients also?
-
Reading up on drag divergence has me wondering what the mach numbers are on a P51 at 25k max speed and the same for an F4U? and drag coefficients also?
Widewing made a few good posts a while ago about drag of the various airframes with respect to how far they will glide unpowered... would be worth searching for 'cause I think that information or some of it is in that post. Of course they were ingame numbers, not IRL.
-
Isn't really a problem in AHII. Got the horn going "eh" in your ear and every airplane in the game buffets before departure. Also, I think these turning tests are conducted with the stall limiter on to take skill at "riding the edge" out of the equation and give apples-to-apples comparisons.
The biggest reason the Stang was faster than expected was due to the Laminar flow wing.
It has a lot less drag than the other designs of the era.
There were several smaller contributing factors ie: wing approx 90 degrees off the fuse, scoop exhaust providing thrust in some configurations, etc.
I had read somewhere that the fat leading edge of the Jug's wing worked very well at high AoA, giving the pilot definite feedback on just how close to stall he was hangin ..makin the Jug pilot confident in runnin her right up to the edge and holding her there.
The Mustang is .. different.
You get a mild stick shake at the borderline, any more back pressure and she departs.
Easy to miss in the heat of combat I expect.
I would imagine the first time the Stang departed on the new pilot probably scared the crap out of him if he wasn't expecting it, so he would not want to push it if he could help it.
Turn an burn wasn't American official procedure anyway :)
American iron was boom an zoom :)
-GE aka Frank
-
I dont think the two instances (unpowered glide and rising mach) have much in common. I can see that the P51s laminar wing design would be a great benefit at high altitude and high speed. The F4U had its wing mated to the fuselage in such a way it didnt require a fillet to reduce parasitic drag. Both are good methods of holding drag to a minimum but in practice the P51s laminar wing was only 65% efficient at its purpose and the F4U had one of the worst cross sectional drag coefficients in the air! You can see this by looking at the two fuselage designs involved. The F4U has a nearly constant cross section while the P51 steadily decreases in cross section. As the aircraft approach (lets say) Mach 0.75 (both aircraft could attain this) the drag increases on the two airframes and the horsepower required to increase speed increases by a factor of ten (some sources say exponentially). The problem (I believe) is that the 'induced lift drag coefficient' in a turn slows planes down and for the P51 that induced drag should be only 35% of that for the F4U (because the F4U will induce substantially more drag owing to the fact it does not have laminar flow and the reason the F4U needed so much power to begin with) giving the pony a significant advantage in turn performance at high altitude and high speeds. I am admittedly not well informed on this topic but that is what I am reading seems to be telling me.
I really would like to hear from someone (anyone) that truly understands this.
EDIT: Man! Took me nearly an hour in editing to get any of that to make sense! :D
-
Mach .75 is well over 500mph TAS at 20K feet.
IOW, territory you have to enter a dive to reach in the first place. Not a corner of the envelope I am excessively concerned with Chalenge :-)
Oh, btw, the reason I mentioned the Corsair earlier in a comparison is, because (If I remember correctly, it has been awhile), the P-51's airfoil actually has a slightly higher Cl-max, IOW, it should actually produce a bit more lift and turn a bit better in relation to its wing-loading than does the Corsair, once again, leaving the Corsair's flaps out of the equation.
I dont think the two instances (unpowered glide and rising mach) have much in common. I can see that the P51s laminar wing design would be a great benefit at high altitude and high speed. The F4U had its wing mated to the fuselage in such a way it didnt require a fillet to reduce parasitic drag. Both are good methods of holding drag to a minimum but in practice the P51s laminar wing was only 65% efficient at its purpose and the F4U had one of the worst cross sectional drag coefficients in the air! You can see this by looking at the two fuselage designs involved. The F4U has a nearly constant cross section while the P51 steadily decreases in cross section. As the aircraft approach (lets say) Mach 0.75 (both aircraft could attain this) the drag increases on the two airframes and the horsepower required to increase speed increases by a factor of ten (some sources say exponentially). The problem (I believe) is that the 'induced lift drag coefficient' in a turn slows planes down and for the P51 that induced drag should be only 35% of that for the F4U (because the F4U will induce substantially more drag owing to the fact it does not have laminar flow and the reason the F4U needed so much power to begin with) giving the pony a significant advantage in turn performance at high altitude and high speeds. I am admittedly not well informed on this topic but that is what I am reading seems to be telling me.
I really would like to hear from someone (anyone) that truly understands this.
EDIT: Man! Took me nearly an hour in editing to get any of that to make sense! :D
-
Mach .75 is well over 500mph TAS at 20K feet.
IOW, territory you have to enter a dive to reach in the first place. Not a corner of the envelope I am excessively concerned with Chalenge :-)
Oh, btw, the reason I mentioned the Corsair earlier in a comparison is, because (If I remember correctly, it has been awhile), the P-51's airfoil actually has a slightly higher Cl-max, IOW, it should actually produce a bit more lift and turn a bit better in relation to its wing-loading than does the Corsair, once again, leaving the Corsair's flaps out of the equation.
Sorry to say it BnZ (not really) but I didnt ask the question because of your 'excessive concerns.' :D I believe the P51D was designed for advantages above 12k and not down in the mud. If you like it low you should fly the Tempest (now there is a plane that is excessively modelled!).
Mach 0.75 at 25000 feet is 520mph and at that altitude you dont have to do a lot of diving to get that kind of speed.
I asked the question because I fly that altitude often enough to have seen a few things you probably havent like F4Us running off and leaving a P51 in a dive when the P51 is compressed and the F4U isnt. I dont think thats accurate but please cite a book or other reference if you have it stating differently. Also you might note that the speed I mentioned was an example given because of compressibility issues and I would like to know the limits (mach) for a Corsair (a real one). I know the P51 can enter 0.78 Mach with the wing design of 1944-45 (the edge of compressibility) and I know the laminar flow wing should present advantages in performance and efficiency at high altitude manuevering and yet I dont see it and therefore the questions.
-
Did the P-51 have boosted control surfaces? I know the F4U did...
-
Sorry to say it BnZ (not really) but I didnt ask the question because of your 'excessive concerns.' :D I believe the P51D was designed for advantages above 12k and not down in the mud. If you like it low you should fly the Tempest (now there is a plane that is excessively modelled!).
Well, you know, it was ORIGINALLY designed to be a low-altitude, high-speed attack plane to replace the P-40s the Brits were using in that role.
And the P-51D has an engine tuned for lower altitude performance than the B model. In no small part because by late in the war, the drive to fly the bombers in ever-higher had abated somewhat and also more fighters were being used for a mud-moving role in the final push on Hitler's Germany.
I'm not saying your research isn't interesting, I'm just saying that right now I'd be more concerned that the AHII P-51D can not turn as well as a P-47D-11 or that a 190-D9 can actually make a smaller circle with full flaps. :aok
-
Did the P-51 have boosted control surfaces? I know the F4U did...
The F4U did not have boosted control surfaces. From the P-38J-25 on, Lightnings were the only fighter with hydraulically boosted controls surfaces and that was limited to the ailerons only.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The F4U did not have boosted control surfaces.
While not hydraulically boosted, it appears to me that F4U ailerons did have a clever tab system slaved to the stick that, I would guess, was specifically incorporated to reduce aileron stick pressure and help roll rate. I noticed this on the AH F4Us after the last F4U update. You can see a small tab on the inboard end of each aileron that is distinct from the single trim tab in the middle of the port aileron. The deflection of the two smaller tabs is directly proportional to the throw of the stick. Not a bad idea if that's what it really is.
:salute
-
Well, you know, it was ORIGINALLY designed to be a low-altitude, high-speed attack plane to replace the P-40s the Brits were using in that role.
And the P-51D has an engine tuned for lower altitude performance than the B model. In no small part because by late in the war, the drive to fly the bombers in ever-higher had abated somewhat and also more fighters were being used for a mud-moving role in the final push on Hitler's Germany.
I'm not saying your research isn't interesting, I'm just saying that right now I'd be more concerned that the AHII P-51D can not turn as well as a P-47D-11 or that a 190-D9 can actually make a smaller circle with full flaps. :aok
I am well aware that the earlier Mustang (with an Allison engine) was designed for low altitude. You are mistaken about the D model though as 'ever-higher' altitudes is precisely what the D model was for and that statement was a ridiculous comment. Like you though if the P51 is in anyway modelled incorrectly I would like it fixed.
-
I am well aware that the earlier Mustang (with an Allison engine) was designed for low altitude. You are mistaken about the D model though as 'ever-higher' altitudes is precisely what the D model was for and that statement was a ridiculous comment. Like you though if the P51 is in anyway modelled incorrectly I would like it fixed.
Ummm, have you actually checked the speed and climb rates of our Dstang vs. our Bstang at altitudes above 20K?
-
Riiiight,, you are the king of all pony pilots. You don't have to like it, but the tiff and tempy out turn the pony. The data is irrefutable. I made no mention of a difference in pilot skill.
:rofl I guess if a guy stays in a flat turn because he don't no how to do anything else...I just never thought they out turned the pony. I don't think they do enough to make much of a difference..Unless ur in a stalling flat turn<<< noob turn :O
-
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk121/TheAmish/Turnradius.gif) there's not much a mustangs can out turn :frown: This chart does not represent what i see in the game. The P38 will eat a pony up in a turn fight. But according to this the pony out turns the J & L models. Charts and stats are one thing and game performance is another. The P51D works best for me between 8 and 12K and seems very unresponsive at 15K and above. I was always under the impression the the P51D was a high alt dog fighter.
-
:rofl I guess if a guy stays in a flat turn because he don't no how to do anything else...I just never thought they out turned the pony. I don't think they do enough to make much of a difference..Unless ur in a stalling flat turn<<< noob turn :O
I sometimes end up on the deck, barely flying in a 51, flat turning and rolling, scirssoring. I wish I was as uber as you. :salute
-
Ummm, have you actually checked the speed and climb rates of our Dstang vs. our Bstang at altitudes above 20K?
The B is lighter than the D, and that makes most of the difference in performance. When the D was designed, it WAS designed for HIGH altitude performance, that is why the second blower speed comes on where it does. The problem is that even with the second blower speed, the Merlin loses HP quickly as altitude increases, and as such, weight makes a huge difference. To enter service when it did, the D model changes had to have been designed and accepted almost 6-8 months earlier, and at that time, the requirement was for high altitude work.
-
I sometimes end up on the deck, barely flying in a 51, flat turning and rolling, scirssoring. I wish I was as uber as you. :salute
I was referring to just holding the stick back in a flat turn...I am not that good ,but when we duel as a squad I chew some butt over the circle jerk noob flat turn for 10 minutes :rofl I will flat turn also but will try to pull out of it if I am loozin ground before my energy state is completely hopeless :aok Most likely if u are being out turned the plane will also out climb u in most cases and loosing your E is the first step to a silk ride...I found that with the pony if you wrench your flaps down aggressively trying to beat the better turning aircraft to the punch is your best chance in a turn fight. That is the way I try to do it.. Note {TRY}.. There are plenty of times I am simply just out classed also :noid Thats why I love this game someone; well in my case will always be better ,or make fewer mistakes than myself keeping the interest in the game..As far as the stats and all the real technical points of the game I really don't no what plane turns the tightest. There are the planes I absolutely no not to turn with in the pony: zeke spit hurri 109f g2 g6 early model 110 corsairs - I no I am missing a few but oh well.. :salute
-
there's not much a mustangs can out turn :frown: This chart does not represent what i see in the game. The P38 will eat a pony up in a turn fight. But according to this the pony out turns the J & L models. Charts and stats are one thing and game performance is another. The P51D works best for me between 8 and 12K and seems very unresponsive at 15K and above. I was always under the impression the the P51D was a high alt dog fighter.
Don't forget about turn rate vs turning radius. It matters not how tight a plane is turning if it's supper slow. The P-38 keeps a notable amount of speed even through flap deployment (and the flaps are unique along with the Ki-84). The me-163 will outturn planes in this game 90% of the time simply because it can finish a circle that quickly. It's massive turn radius is completely negligible.
-
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk121/TheAmish/Turnradius.gif) there's not much a mustangs can out turn :frown: This chart does not represent what i see in the game. The P38 will eat a pony up in a turn fight. But according to this the pony out turns the J & L models. Charts and stats are one thing and game performance is another. The P51D works best for me between 8 and 12K and seems very unresponsive at 15K and above. I was always under the impression the the P51D was a high alt dog fighter.
I ran into a rook horde tonight as I was climbing through 22k. I saw the bombers (a dozen B24s) of the horde at 25k and fighters at 27-30k (a dozen P51Ds P38s and at least one F4U4) and I am glad to say not one of them knew how to fly that high even with an 8k advantage they could not get closer then 1.5k although the F4U4 (with drop tanks so he claimed) did once I raised my nose up and inched toward the bombers. From that I can see why it is P51s are thought of the way they are in AH. Once on the deck the F4U4 resorted to HOs and helicopter flight only to die in a stall with nothing left of his plane but a cockpit. The problem with having the upper hand (in a lot of cases online) is that the pilot stops flying smart thinking the advantage is all his.
EDIT: Checked the film and the F4U4 pilot was incorrectly portraying his situation because if he had DTs they were long gone when we started to dance.
-
I ran into a rook horde tonight as I was climbing through 22k. I saw the bombers (a dozen B24s) of the horde at 25k and fighters at 27-30k (a dozen P51Ds P38s and at least one F4U4) .
Wow. They must know what the dark side of the moon looks like.
-
If some of you guys are realy set on the Poni D is neutered in this game here is the solution. The P51H saw limited service in the Pacific at the end of the war. Buy HiTech a truck load of his favorite Scotch to put it in the game with the appropriate HIGH PERK PRICE. If he did exactly what the poni D is neutered crowd wants verbatum, it would have to be perked at about 100.
In that case we should whine that the TigerCat saw very limited service in 1945 and the BearCat got on the deck of an outbound carrier in 1945. We should have them perked at about 150.......all those 20mms.
Why not ask for the A26. 370mph on the deck......8 .50 in the nose.....can furbal almost as well as a P38 with a light fuel load... :rolleyes: But perk it at about 175.
My only complaint about any of the Poni's is HiTech forgot the Asgard tech sheilding for the radiator. I'm as convinced as the tinfoil hat I wear to play the game that HiTech made the Poni's radiators out of plastic to keep us from having our TiFighter uber ride................... :furious :furious :cry :rolleyes: :pray :angel: :devil :noid
-
There's a story I heard long ago about the A-26 in WW2..
..buncha 109's 'bounced' the new bomber in the theater as they were returning home ..
..they tore thru the buff formation from hi-6, the buffs nosed over and chased em down ..
..shot a bunch of the 109's outta the sky both incoming and after diving after 'em.
-GE aka Frank
-
Gra,
You know Dale hates the A26 more than cheap whisky and a loose RV8 head gasket......... :uhoh
-
If some of you guys are realy set on the Poni D is neutered in this game here is the solution. The P51H saw limited service in the Pacific at the end of the war. Buy HiTech a truck load of his favorite Scotch to put it in the game with the appropriate HIGH PERK PRICE. If he did exactly what the poni D is neutered crowd wants verbatum, it would have to be perked at about 100.
A quote from Detail & Scale Vol.51:
With a top speed of 487 miles-per-hour in a clean configuration the P-51 H was the fastest propeller-driven aircraft produced during World War II. However production was so late that the war ended before any of these "Hot Rod" Mustangs saw combat service.
I also dispute what you believe the 'poni D is neutered crowd' wants or that a high perk value should be a consequence. If someone can show that the P51D is truly inaccurate as modelled in the game then it should be fixed and thats all.
-
Looks like I need to only enjoy the good historical pictures and airframe 3D drawings in my porcelain throne reading reference. Is there a reason you guys act like this game is anything other than an interactive cartoon?
Chalenge, what in gods name are you disputing? Your self validation and personal reality defined by an interactive cartoon and an anonymous bulletin board? Is there a prize we get in these threads if you can catch posters making erroneous statements? If its one month of free playing time I might get interested only in the sport of catching erroneous statements.
If the idiot editor of my reference made a boo boo, well its not like I'm rebuilding a poni-H from his instructions so I can fly from a corn field. Now that would be a real world tragedy with me playing lawn dart with my life. But an editorial boo boo..............sheesh...car toon airplanes and editorial boo boos........what next....erroneous statement posting tickets from the internet cops.......
American Warplanes of WW2
Editor: David Donald <---so should I find an address so you can yell at this guy Chalenge.... :rolleyes:
Barns & Noble Books
Aerospace Publishing Ltd
ISBN: 0-7607-2274-9
Page 210.
"Although the lightweight P-51H did see limited combat in the Pacific, contrary to most Published reports, the best Japanese fighters were no longer available by late 1945."
-
No p51 h did any combat missions.
In the ETO the Do 335 was the fastest propdriven plane according to WIKIpedia,
Capable of a maximum speed of 474 mph (763 km/h) at 6,500 m (21,300 ft)
Only 11 Do 335 A-1 single seat fighter-bombers and two Do 335 A-12 conversion trainers was completed.
According to Pierre Clostermann his Tempest , he could not catch a the Do 335 at treetop level.
-
about everyone I talk to in this game that knows anything about the P-51 will tell you that the pony in this game does not perform as it did in the real world. Is this in fact the case? And if so why would HTC do that?
I'd like to hear from someone on the HTC staff on this. :salute
I know, they always win on History Channel :mad:
-
Gra,
and a loose RV8 head gasket......... :uhoh
Now THAT is a lot of hate!
-
If someone can show that the P51D is truly inaccurate as modelled in the game then it should be fixed and thats all.
I've demonstrated in this very thread that in AHII the P-51 out-turned by an aircraft that 1. Has a decidedly higher wing-loading and and less horsepower 2. Was historically considered to be the less agile bird. Widewing has demonstrated repeatedly that there is something funny with the flaps. What more do you want?
-
I've demonstrated in this very thread that in AHII the P-51 out-turned by an aircraft that 1. Has a decidedly higher wing-loading and and less horsepower 2. Was historically considered to be the less agile bird. Widewing has demonstrated repeatedly that there is something funny with the flaps. What more do you want?
1) Give us the scientific data.
2) Give Bustr whatever meds he missed because unless he is just trying to be funny there is something seriously wrong. :D :huh :uhoh
-
1) Give us the scientific data.
Chalenge, Just what the f*** do you think those numbers I figured for wing-loading and power-loading were?
Do you understand the implications of a nearly 3 lbs/foot difference in wing-loading?
And do a search for some of Widewing's posts on the subject. He thoroughly dissects the problems with the AHII Pony's flaps.
DokGonzo's test website shows that in-game, our lightest Jug, the P-47D-11 can sustain a tighter radius than the P-51D both with no flaps and with full flaps. This is not in concurrence with the experiences of test and combat pilots during the war. Let us take a closer look at both airplanes.
In AHII, a six-gun P-51D carrying 50% fuel weighs 9,365 lbs. A P-47D-11 with the lighter 8-gun package carrying 50% fuel weighs 12,676 lbs. (Note: The P-51 of course can carry a larger fraction of its gross weight in the form of fuel, the P-51D will fly slightly longer on Mil with 50% fuel than the P-47D-11 will with 75% fuel.)
The P-51D has a wing area of 235 square feet. The P-47D has a wing area of 300 square feet.
9,365/235=~39.9
12,676/300=~42.7
So the P-51D is clearly superior in wing-loading.
What about power-loading?
Assuming the figures for WEP horsepower in AHII agree with the ones I was able to find for WEP horsepower of the P-51D and early P-47Ds, we get this result..
9,365 lbs/1,720hp=5.44 lbs/hp
12,676 lbs/2,300hp=5.51 lbs/hp.
So the P-51D is also slightly superior in power-loading.
In AHII the P-51 is out-turned by an aircraft that is decidedly inferior in wing-loading and also inferior in horsepower, in both no-flaps and full-flaps configuration.
-
Chalenge, Just what the f*** do you think those numbers I figured for wing-loading and power-loading were?
Do you understand the implications of a nearly 3 lbs/foot difference in wing-loading?
And do a search for some of Widewing's posts on the subject. He thoroughly dissects the problems with the AHII Pony's flaps.
Yes you gave the scientific data and then you rambled on and on and showed your potty mouth. Well done! :aok
-
Wow, this thread has gone on forever :). I thought HT already addressed this all by pointing out the confidence level they have in the data they've obtained.
BnZ it's much more complicated than that regarding sustained performance of the P-51 vs. other aircraft than just looking at power-loading.
Assuming small thrust angle approximation and velocity=best sustained turn velocity:
Sustained Turn Rate Equation:
(http://brauncomustangs.org/images/eq1-4.jpg)
Sustained Turn Radius Equation:
(http://brauncomustangs.org/upload/turn-radius-eq.jpg)
Simply taking power-loading to gauge sustained turn performance is extremely inaccurate because it does not factor in 1) thrust variation with velocity due to changing prop efficiency and 2) the variation of power required due to changes in cl/cd with configuration and under g-load.
That's where having data becomes paramount. HT has confidence that the data they've derived the cl/cd, thrust, etc. and their variation over an aircraft's flight envelope is solid. I have yet to see anyone come up with cl/cd drag polar or thrust data to show how the P-51 is underperforming in AH. Understand that this statement comes from an absolute fan of the Mustang :).
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
So I am to believe that the P-51's airfoil is so inefficient compared to the P-47D-11s that the latter's substantial disadvantage in wing-loading is more than negated?
I am quite sure they were confident that the performance data in AHI was solid. "Air Warrior" had solid data too, right? After all, all this data had been around since the 40's. I am quite sure that the team at "Il2" and "CFS" would tell you their data is solid too. Everyone's data is "solid", no matter how different their results, aye? :rofl
Except the "data" that I consider the most telling, the experiences of people who actually flew and fought in these planes in WWII...that is merely anecdotal and carries no weight compared to calculations of a video game can be run on a $500 PC from Wal-Mart. :rolleyes:
Wow, this thread has gone on forever :). I thought HT already addressed this all by pointing out the confidence level they have in the data they've obtained.
BnZ it's much more complicated than that regarding sustained performance of the P-51 vs. other aircraft than just looking at power-loading.
Assuming small thrust angle approximation and velocity=best sustained turn velocity:
Sustained Turn Rate Equation:
(http://brauncomustangs.org/images/eq1-4.jpg)
Sustained Turn Radius Equation:
(http://brauncomustangs.org/upload/turn-radius-eq.jpg)
Simply taking power-loading to gauge sustained turn performance is extremely inaccurate because it does not factor in 1) thrust variation with velocity due to changing prop efficiency and 2) the variation of power required due to changes in cl/cd with configuration and under g-load.
That's where having data becomes paramount. HT has confidence that the data they've derived the cl/cd, thrust, etc. and their variation over an aircraft's flight envelope is solid. I have yet to see anyone come up with cl/cd drag polar or thrust data to show how the P-51 is underperforming in AH. Understand that this statement comes from an absolute fan of the Mustang :).
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
So I am to believe that the P-51's airfoil is so inefficient compared to the P-47D-11s that the latter's substantial disadvantage in wing-loading is more than negated?
I am quite sure they were confident that the performance data in AHI was solid. "Air Warrior" had solid data too, right? After all, all this data had been around since the 40's. I am quite sure that the team at "Il2" and "CFS" would tell you their data is solid too. Everyone's data is "solid", no matter how different their results, aye? :rofl
Except the "data" that I consider the most telling, the experiences of people who actually flew and fought in these planes in WWII...that is merely anecdotal and carries no weight compared to calculations of a video game can be run on a $500 PC from Wal-Mart. :rolleyes:
Well, BnZ does have a point here. The data on the 109s was solid until they were changed to solid data spitfires. The US needed a spitfire also the solid data on the F4Us became more solid around the same time.
No matter how "solid" once data is, there are many variables on how they are used, processed, interpreted etc
-
So I am to believe that the P-51's airfoil is so inefficient compared to the P-47D-11s that the latter's substantial disadvantage in wing-loading is more than negated?
Well it's irrelevant. Wing-loading tells us something about instantaneous turn performance, but it doesn't tell us anything useful about sustained turn performance. The discussions in the past have centered around sustained turn performance.
I am quite sure they were confident that the performance data in AHI was solid. "Air Warrior" had solid data too, right? After all, all this data had been around since the 40's. I am quite sure that the team at "Il2" and "CFS" would tell you their data is solid too. Everyone's data is "solid", no matter how different their results, aye? :rofl
Well, BnZ does have a point here. The data on the 109s was solid until they were changed to solid data spitfires. The US needed a spitfire also the solid data on the F4Us became more solid around the same time.
No matter how "solid" once data is, there are many variables on how they are used, processed, interpreted etc
Don't confuse solid data with differences in flight models including differences between AH1 and AH2.
Except the "data" that I consider the most telling, the experiences of people who actually flew and fought in these planes in WWII...that is merely anecdotal and carries no weight compared to calculations of a video game can be run on a $500 PC from Wal-Mart. :rolleyes:
There's the rub. The problem is that it's extremely difficult to create something that can be construed as obeying the laws of physics from anecdotes for a variety of reasons including: 1) typically we don't have enough data in the anecdote to pin it for apples to apples aero analysis, 2) we as humans are fallible and horrible at getting the details right for past events (heck you can see this in AH from any number of post-dogfight whines about how it "really" happened :D).
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Hey Tango, where have you been? :salute
-
Well it's irrelevant. Wing-loading tells us something about instantaneous turn performance, but it doesn't tell us anything useful about sustained turn performance.
Really? Wing-loading has nothing at all to do with it? I was under the impression one could sustain a turn with a smaller radius flying the Val than with the Fw-190 D9, despite the fact that the former is sadly under-powered in comparison.
Don't confuse solid data with differences in flight models including differences between AH1 and AH2.
What is your point here sir? If you are admitting that relative performance shifts between different versions, then in-game performance is not as an infallible a representation of real world performance as some have claimed. IOW, the program CAN have glitches that produce odd results, such as our P-51D's turn performance relative other aircraft in-game. I'm not demanding this be fixed this afternoon, tomorrow, next week, or next month, but I damn well resent being told the modeling is infallible and that I have been brainwashed by the History Channel when I bring up such discrepancies.
-
Really? Wing-loading has nothing at all to do with it? I was under the impression one could sustain a turn with a smaller radius flying the Val than with the Fw-190 D9, despite the fact that the former is sadly under-powered in comparison.
It's incorrect to assume that lower wing-loading ALWAYS results in better sustained turn radius. Yes wing-loading is a rough measure of the lift limit of an aircraft. Let's go back to the sustained turn radius equation:
(http://brauncomustangs.org/upload/turn-radius-eq.jpg)
The lift limit of the aircraft impacts what the best sustained turn velocity will be. Lower wing-loading means lower best sustained turn velocity. In your Val and 190D-9 example the difference in velocity for best sustained turn radius is a deciding factor in favor of the Val's sustained turn radius.
However that's not the only thing that governs sustained turn radius. There are other variables you have to consider besides wing-loading. For example here's an E-M diagram put together by Badboy comparing a Yak-9 and P-51D.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/Yak9UvP51D2.jpg)
This is an example where an aircraft with a better (lower) wing-loading (Yak9U) yet has worse a sustained turn rate performance. The sustained turn radius is about equal in this example but you can easily see that if the Ps=0 curve was lower for the Yak or if it was higher for the Mustang than the lower wing-loaded aircraft would have a larger sustained turn radius. You can't ignore all the other parts that influence sustained turn performance such cl, cd and thrust and look only at wing-loading.
What is your point here sir? If you are admitting that relative performance shifts between different versions, then in-game performance is not as an infallible a representation of real world performance as some have claimed. IOW, the program CAN have glitches that produce odd results, such as our P-51D's turn performance relative other aircraft in-game. I'm not demanding this be fixed this afternoon, tomorrow, next week, or next month, but I damn well resent being told the modeling is infallible and that I have been brainwashed by the History Channel when I bring up such discrepancies.
The point is bring appropriate data to the table. HTC can have glitches. They also are willing to change their flight data as well. Anecdotes aren't enough however.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Hey Tango, where have you been? :salute
Not flying online obviously - partially because I'm distracted by threads like these!! :D Hopefully I'll be airborne again soon when things settle down a bit with work and home! Of course I'm not sure I have a good excuse for not being online relative to your army you take care of at home :D! :salute
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Dang Tango! I had no idea you was that smart. Looking forward to your return sir :salute
-
We proved tiffies outturn ponies eh uptown :D
-
I like the chart but I want to ask about the fuel levels. Why would we compare the yak with 100% to a p51 with 10%?
Typo?
-
I like the chart but I want to ask about the fuel levels. Why would we compare the yak with 100% to a p51 with 10%?
Typo?
No typo. It comes from a thread that Badboy posted regarding corner speed. Here's his complete post for reference and why he compared what he did:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,233157.msg2837335.html#msg2837335
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
The P-51 had a laminar flow wing. While laminar flow airfoils produce less drag than more conventional airfoils at low lift coefficients (low angle of attack), they produce more drag at high lift coefficients (high angle of attack). Lift coefficient represents the relationship between the total lift generated by an aircraft to the total area of the wing of the aircraft. Simplistic and short version: At high speed the P-51's wing was superior to the more conventional WWII airfoils, but at lower speeds it was inferior creating more drag.
(http://content.screencast.com/users/Lumpy/folders/Jing/media/1147bbd6-db86-4271-a64f-5fecc280b472/2008-10-14_1630.png)
-
I did not read thru this whole 4 page thread, but it is very apparent.........
just look at the 109 shooting down the P51D on the log-In screen :devil
-
Yeah, it looks like that cannon hit sprite put a drag bucket right on that Pony's laminar wing.
-
Yeah, it looks like that cannon hit sprite put a drag bucket right on that Pony's laminar wing.
I think that drag bucket in the graph is indicating that at that angle of attack, the Pony is surprisingly more slippery. That hole the 109 put in the wing... it's the opposite of a drag bucket... :P
-
It should be noted that actual testing of the P-51 vs F4U-1 revealed that the F4U had a smaller turn radius with and without flaps. However, the P-38G was just about dead even with the F4U, again with and without flaps.
That is not the case in AH2, where the F4U-1 has a significant advantage. So, you can find some discrepancies between real world data and modeling in AH2, but these are the exceptions, not the rule. Tailoring flap performance for individual flight models cannot be anything but difficult.
I do know that the flap issues are something Pyro wants to address. I imagine that this will not be a simple thing to accomplish. Previously, it seems that changes to the drag model helped some aircraft and hurt others. There probably isn't a simple solution, so I think that we will have to soldier on with what we have for the time being, adjusting tactics for the individual characteristics of each type. In the mean time, I'm confident that Pyro will get his arms around it.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thank you for that breakdown Widewing, I always look forward to your posts actually. Helpful and considerate; not in large supply in these parts.
-
I think that drag bucket in the graph is indicating that at that angle of attack, the Pony is surprisingly more slippery. That hole the 109 put in the wing... it's the opposite of a drag bucket... :P
:aok
-
I did not read thru this whole 4 page thread, but it is very apparent.........
just look at the 109 shooting down the P51D on the log-In screen :devil
That's obviously HTC's cover for their anti-Luftwaffe bias. :noid