Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Fianna on January 07, 2009, 12:29:27 PM
-
The P51 is first designed and produced with an Allison engine, but performance isn't that great. So they switch from the Allison engine to the Merlin, and performance improves drastically. The Merlin is the same engine that is used in the Spit 16.
Why is it that the P51 is so much faster than the Spit 16, but the Spit 16 holds E better and is so much better in the vertical? If the P51 is so much more aerodynamically "cleaner" than the Spit, then shouldn't it hold E as well? If the Spit is better in the vertical because it is lighter, shouldn't it also have a higher top speed (power to weight)?
It is entirely possible that something I have said is incorrect... I was just guessing as to why the P51 is faster and why the Spit is better in the vertical. Either way, though, I'd love it if someone could explain this to me. Thanks in advance.
-
Spits actually don't hold E all that remarkably well at all, they just REGAIN it faster because of their better level acceleration. As far as rate of climb, power-to-weight ratio is a big factor. The P-51 is a heavier aircraft so she's not going to climb as well. However she WILL still beat the Spixteen in the Zoom, because the cleaner and more massive P-51 is going to holds her energy better.
-
The P-51D does hold energy better than the Spit16. The phenomenon you're referring to is Induced Drag, or the drag caused by lift required to maintain flight, of which the Spit16 has less than the P-51D. Induced drag increases at low speed, and that's why the Spit16 can come out of a hard turn and hardly have suffered for it, while the P-51D, if it were to follow, is wallowing at the edge of a stall.
-
However she WILL still beat the Spixteen in the Zoom, because the cleaner and more massive P-51 is going to holds her energy better.
Not in this game. In Aces High light aircraft with good power-loading consistently outzoom heavier aircraft with worse power-loading. Maybe the only way a P-51 could outzoom a Spit16 in aces high is if both cut their engines upon initiating the zoom climb. :lol
-
Spits actually don't hold E all that remarkably well at all, they just REGAIN it faster because of their better level acceleration.
This isn't true. Spits hold E incredibly well under power, particularily in a turn. I fly Spits a lot and if I come into a fight at full speed without chopping throttle it will take 2-3 full turns before I'm at corner speed and not risking black-out. This has absolutely nothing to do with re-gaining E as I'm trying to lose E continually.
As to zoom climb if a P-51 and Spit begin at the same speed and altitude the Spit will close on the P-51 all the way up.
-
Don't confuse Energy Retention with low Induced Drag.
-
Btw, this will surprise you all:
The fighters with the best energy retention are the P-38 series (ok, not so surprising), and the 110C/G! ;)
-
Heavy + twin engines= more E retention.
-
The P51 is first designed and produced with an Allison engine, but performance isn't that great. So they switch from the Allison engine to the Merlin, and performance improves drastically. The Merlin is the same engine that is used in the Spit 16.
Why is it that the P51 is so much faster than the Spit 16, but the Spit 16 holds E better and is so much better in the vertical? If the P51 is so much more aerodynamically "cleaner" than the Spit, then shouldn't it hold E as well? If the Spit is better in the vertical because it is lighter, shouldn't it also have a higher top speed (power to weight)?
It is entirely possible that something I have said is incorrect... I was just guessing as to why the P51 is faster and why the Spit is better in the vertical. Either way, though, I'd love it if someone could explain this to me. Thanks in advance.
i think, more than anything, it's a weight issue. isn't a pony somewhere in the ballpark of 12,000 pounds in combat trim? compared to spits being under 10,000? (i think)
-
I think, more than anything, it's an issue with the spit modeling.
I was in a Ta152, had speed and alt at about 8-10k. A spixteen zooms up from below me with a bit of speed so I spiral climb up. It takes him a while to stall out, but when he does (at 600 yards) he stalls hard enough to dip a wing. I was saving my E for this, so I'm about to roll in on him and he recovers.
From a stalled out position he recovers, noses UP at me in an 80-degree climb, and stays laser-aimed at me (never rolling, faltering, spinning, dipping a wing) while I use all the rest of my E spiralling way way higher to get away (and he stays with me, 600-800, perfectly aligned with his target), but the spixteen that had just stalled out hard was able to catch a faster, higher E-state, ta152.
This was just last night. A squaddie zoomed in at the last second and killed said spitty, I think. It was a busy night, I can't recall. Regardless, the spit model is bogus. It's more like flying TIE Fighter (Lucasarts) than a spitfire in this game.
-
Just under four hours, you're getting slow Krusty. I figured this had "devolve into a whine about the spit FM in under an hour" written all over it.
-
Treize, this game has the best flight model BY FAR but it is lacking in a few key MAJOR areas. It's the best, but it's not perfect.
The spit model is one glaring issue that needs to be looked at. I won't even go into some first-generation models that still need updating to new standards.
Another issue is the loss of "instability" as a feature in this game. Used to be you could take a p51 up and instantly tell the difference between a B and a D in the turns because the B didn't want to spin as easily.
Now we have ensign eliminators that have better handling than spits and zeros, p51s have none of the lethal widow-maker spins they were known for, and many other issues.
Mind you, we USED to have some of these, so somewhere along the way, something got "dulled" or perhaps a decimal was moved to the wrong position.
Oh, and on at least half a dozen planes now I've noticed the plane is 100% unstable and unflyable with both wingtips missing. The game USED to not do this. USED to be if the loss was symmetrical you lost the lift but could still control using torque and rudder. Now many planes I've run into this situation with squirrel about as if the COG is 10 feet below the plane and you've just lost your v-stab, even with the best of conditions (not counting missing both wingtips).
Something is off in the flight model.
-
I was in a Ta152, had speed and alt at about 8-10k. A spixteen zooms up from below me with a bit of speed so I spiral climb up. It takes him a while to stall out, but when he does (at 600 yards) he stalls hard enough to dip a wing. I was saving my E for this, so I'm about to roll in on him and he recovers.
From a stalled out position he recovers, noses UP at me in an 80-degree climb, and stays laser-aimed at me (never rolling, faltering, spinning, dipping a wing) while I use all the rest of my E spiralling way way higher to get away (and he stays with me, 600-800, perfectly aligned with his target), but the spixteen that had just stalled out hard was able to catch a faster, higher E-state, ta152.
I call BS or at least it didn't happen the way you thought it did.
-
Had 2 squaddies witness it. I believe B2B and Snaphook, or B2B and Gumby, maybe?
Edit: regardless, that's not the only BS the spit has shown. You can have a spixteen dweeb HO you, pull a 180 behind you as you continue straight, and then accelerate and close to kill range from behind you while you retained full speed the entire time. The Spits are bogus.
-
Treize, this game has the best flight model BY FAR but it is lacking in a few key MAJOR areas. It's the best, but it's not perfect.
The spit model is one glaring issue that needs to be looked at. I won't even go into some first-generation models that still need updating to new standards.
Another issue is the loss of "instability" as a feature in this game. Used to be you could take a p51 up and instantly tell the difference between a B and a D in the turns because the B didn't want to spin as easily.
Now we have ensign eliminators that have better handling than spits and zeros, p51s have none of the lethal widow-maker spins they were known for, and many other issues.
Mind you, we USED to have some of these, so somewhere along the way, something got "dulled" or perhaps a decimal was moved to the wrong position.
Oh, and on at least half a dozen planes now I've noticed the plane is 100% unstable and unflyable with both wingtips missing. The game USED to not do this. USED to be if the loss was symmetrical you lost the lift but could still control using torque and rudder. Now many planes I've run into this situation with squirrel about as if the COG is 10 feet below the plane and you've just lost your v-stab, even with the best of conditions (not counting missing both wingtips).
Something is off in the flight model.
couldn't a spit run circles around a pony in real life?
also, the only spin problems i remember reading about in any of the ponys was caused by trying to fight with the aft fuel tank full?
just asking.....
-
No, that made them highly unstable. They could and did spin out. They had a nasty unrecoverable spin, because the wonderful visibility of the bubble canopy came at a cost in dorsal surface area (cut down from the B-models)
-
Krusty any film of this UFO spit?
-
Been happening for years. Since we got the spixteen it's been a UFO. Spit8 gets less press, but just as bad. I'm sure the fact the spit16 even stalled out below me the first time was an utter shock to the pilot, as the plane is almost impossible to stall.
I stopped recording film a while back. Got a tip about others seeing distant dots before I did, and how maybe rolling film was the cause, so I stopped rolling film to avoid this.
-
:lol
I've never, ever seen a spit do anything like you said Krusty. Never. Not even close. Spits aren't fast. Either you were going really slow or were turning and allowed him to not have to break that hard and not lose E to stay on you. Plus you were probably crying hysterically like a hyena about the BS of it all so you were probably moving your controls around frantically wasting more E as the spit caught up to you. Wish I woulda seen it.
;)
-
Yea not that I don't believe you but... I treat this type of thing like a collision whine. Need something a bit more tangible than hyperbole.
-
So much for answering the original question. :lol Let me try to address the points more individually:
Why is it that the P51 is so much faster than the Spit 16, but the Spit 16 holds E better and is so much better in the vertical? If the P51 is so much more aerodynamically "cleaner" than the Spit, then shouldn't it hold E as well? If the Spit is better in the vertical because it is lighter, shouldn't it also have a higher top speed (power to weight)?
You need to understand a few concepts which are, more or less, in opposite pairs:
- parasite drag vs. induced drag
Parasite drag is comparable to holding your arm out of a car window. The faster you go, the more drag your arm creates which you can feel from the force of the wind on your skin. One of the big contributing factors to parasite drag on an aircraft are the wings. Big wings that create lots of lift incur more parasite drag than small wings that create less lift.
Induced drag is caused by the force required to create lift. The faster you go, the less induced drag you incur. At low speeds, induced drag increases, but a large wing will incur less induced drag at low speed than a small wing.
The P-51 wing incurs high induced drag at low speed, but little parasite drag at high seed. The Spitfire is the opposite. Because the P-51 incurs little parasite drag compared to the Spitfire, it has a better thrust/drag ratio, and so it is faster.
- Powerloading vs. energy retention
Powerloading is the ratio of an aircraft's weight to its horsepower. Better powerloading means better acceleration and better climbrate. Energy retention is comparable to kinetic energy. The heavier aircraft retains energy better than the lighter aircraft because of its higher kinetic energy state. The Spitfire may be slower than the P-51 because of their thrust/drag ratios, but it accelerates and climbs better because it is lighter. That the spitfire doesn't slow down much in a turn is due to its low induced drag, not energy retention. An aircraft with superior energy retention will lose speed more slowly after diving to 500mph and then leveling off compared to one that is lighter (assuming similar drag coefficients), so you see that what the spitfire can do is not an example of superior energy retention.
What I have said is a simplification, but I hope it helps to tease out the most important concepts. :salute[/list]
-
Had 2 squaddies witness it. I believe B2B and Snaphook, or B2B and Gumby, maybe?
Edit: regardless, that's not the only BS the spit has shown. You can have a spixteen dweeb HO you, pull a 180 behind you as you continue straight, and then accelerate and close to kill range from behind you while you retained full speed the entire time. The Spits are bogus.
Fortunately the Spit is so mismodeled that you immediately went offline and made a film of it doing these things and sent it to HTC. Right? Oh, no, you didn't because you can't because it can't.
-
You can have a spixteen dweeb HO you, pull a 180 behind you as you continue straight, and then accelerate and close to kill range from behind you while you retained full speed the entire time. The Spits are bogus.
I got into a fight last night with a Yak that had both altitude and energy advantage over me and dove at me from my 12 O'clock for a head to head merge. We did a clean merge and I went into a low Yo-Yo, only pulling 3Gs to maintain my E state and gain a little in the Yo-Yo and was able to saddle up on the Yak, which was going much faster than I was on the merge and killed him. The player asked me how I was able to maintain me I after pulling a 180 turn and I explained how by using a low yo-yo and pulling 3Gs, I was able to maintain my merge energy state and even gain a little bit of extra E, which allowed me to have enough speed to chase down the Yak and kill him. Nothing bogus about the flight model and probably what the Spitfire Mk XVI did to you.
But if you have any definitive proof the flight model of any of the Spitfires are incorrect, you should post the data. From the years I've been playing AH, so far no one has been able to show any sort of definitive proof that any of the Spitfire models are porked other than "so and so did that to me in a Spitfire and it's B.S! Spitfire model is FUBAR!" I don't have to tell you that's not any sort of proof.
ack-ack
-
While Krusty does have to provide film to support his point, I have to agree that the FM is flawed in some ways. e.g. The Tempest is not supposed to be one of the spunkiest accelerator in the game, according to one of the charts Widewing posted. It's the one that's part of the same series of docs that includes the not-to-scale relative turning circles featuring the Tempest, Meteor, "P47 thunderbolt", one or a couple of Spitfires, the 190A, 109G, and at least one P51.. That series of docs has the Tempest as one of the slower level flight accelerators, and yet it's the opposite in AH.
-
Why would HTC fix the current stuff when they can just add new?
There have been countless observations with legit proof of certain aircraft doing certain things that the real thing couldnt do, likewise there are things the real thing could do that we cant because of programming issues, etc.
For some reason, HTC just doesnt seem to jump on the ball and work on the items that are routinely brought up with legit information and proof. No, Krusty didnt submit film but is he the first to make an issue out of the Spit16's super powers? No way.
-
For some reason, HTC just doesnt seem to jump on the ball and work on the items that are routinely brought up with legit information and proof.
orrrr.......maybe they are, and it's not as easy as we all think?
-
Why would HTC fix the current stuff when they can just add new?
There have been countless observations with legit proof of certain aircraft doing certain things that the real thing couldnt do, likewise there are things the real thing could do that we cant because of programming issues, etc.
For some reason, HTC just doesnt seem to jump on the ball and work on the items that are routinely brought up with legit information and proof. No, Krusty didnt submit film but is he the first to make an issue out of the Spit16's super powers? No way.
fudge..
-
I think, more than anything, it's an issue with the spit modeling.
I was in a Ta152, had speed and alt at about 8-10k. A spixteen zooms up from below me with a bit of speed so I spiral climb up. It takes him a while to stall out, but when he does (at 600 yards) he stalls hard enough to dip a wing. I was saving my E for this, so I'm about to roll in on him and he recovers.
From a stalled out position he recovers, noses UP at me in an 80-degree climb, and stays laser-aimed at me (never rolling, faltering, spinning, dipping a wing) while I use all the rest of my E spiralling way way higher to get away (and he stays with me, 600-800, perfectly aligned with his target), but the spixteen that had just stalled out hard was able to catch a faster, higher E-state, ta152.
Sounds to me that you just got duped by a spit faking a stall. The funny thing is you do not realize it and instead blame the game.
-
Sounds to me that you just got duped by a spit faking a stall. The funny thing is you do not realize it and instead blame the game.
Yep, I love faking the stall in a 16. Dip a wing, you think I'm stalling and turn in for the shot, and I'm left with plenty of E and a nice little snapshot. I normally use this on B&Z planes that are trying to rope/spiral climb on me, no way they are going to turn on me and give me that shot otherwise.
-
Yep, I love faking the stall in a 16. Dip a wing, you think I'm stalling and turn in for the shot, and I'm left with plenty of E and a nice little snapshot. I normally use this on B&Z planes that are trying to rope/spiral climb on me, no way they are going to turn on me and give me that shot otherwise.
the key here is to watch them VERY carefully when you're dragging em up. i fell for that "fake" stall in the past. then i started being a bit late in nosing over for a stalled con.
what i do now, is to watch for the nose to "wobble" a bit, then wings dropping.....these are kinda hard to fake, and a sure sign that he's about to stop flying for a few seconds. When i see the combination, i crank her over, and take my shot......although i generally miss, as my gunnery sucks. :D
-
the key here is to watch them VERY carefully when you're dragging em up. i fell for that "fake" stall in the past. then i started being a bit late in nosing over for a stalled con.
what i do now, is to watch for the nose to "wobble" a bit, then wings dropping.....these are kinda hard to fake, and a sure sign that he's about to stop flying for a few seconds. When i see the combination, i crank her over, and take my shot......although i generally miss, as my gunnery sucks. :D
If you don't already do it, you should try cutting throttle as soon as you nose over. It'll give you longer to line up a shot.
-
If you don't already do it, you should try cutting throttle as soon as you nose over. It'll give you longer to line up a shot.
i do....since i'm almost always one of the 38's, i crank hard rudder, and aielron, as i chop throttles to idle......then i adjust as needed when i'm pointed the right way.
thanks!
-
No, trust me. This was nobody special. Typical ho-an-yank pilot in the spitty. Very low on the skill chart. And no it wasn't a "fake dip" because he had to completely roll under himself to recover.
Spits are just UFOs in this game.
-
No, trust me. This was nobody special. Typical ho-an-yank pilot in the spitty. Very low on the skill chart. And no it wasn't a "fake dip" because he had to completely roll under himself to recover.
Spits are just UFOs in this game.
Then it should be easy for you to fim yourself doing so as evidence and get HTC to change it.
Or your full of roadkill as usuall when it comes to Spitfires.
-
Why is it that the P51 is so much faster than the Spit 16, but the Spit 16 holds E better and is so much better in the vertical? If the P51 is so much more aerodynamically "cleaner" than the Spit, then shouldn't it hold E as well? If the Spit is better in the vertical because it is lighter, shouldn't it also have a higher top speed (power to weight)?
Well of course it's for the same reason the Spitfire LF Mk IX (AH Spitfire 16) has a higher maximum rate of climb than the P-51D in real life even though the P-51D has a higher top level speed.
Once you find the answer to this question then you'll also find the answer to your original question ;). Sorry, I don't have time to post anymore at the moment. Work through the dynamics involved above and you'll find the answer you're looking for.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
No, trust me.
See.. that just doesn't cut it when it comes to the FM. I'm quite sure HTC spends a great deal of time on that. Do you think If I said " Trust me, the 190 could do 700 mph on the deck." is all that is needed?
-
The full question is "needed for what". Anecdotic is enough to point out that something's wrong if it's that obvious (e.g. the tempest being unhistoricaly faster in level acceleration), but not to say what the fix is. HTC coded the thing and prolly dug thru all the documentation, so they prolly know all about it and more than anyone else... just sayin.
-
Specifications (Spitfire Mk Vb)
Data from The Great Book of Fighters[80] and Jane’s Fighting Aircraft of World War II[81]
General characteristics
Crew: one pilot
Length: 29 ft 11 in (9.12 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)
Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)
Wing area: 242.1 ft² (22.48 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 2200
Empty weight: 5,090 lb (2,309 kg)
Loaded weight: 6,622 lb (3,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 6,770 lb (3,071 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Rolls-Royce Merlin 45 supercharged V12 engine, 1,470 hp at 9,250 ft (1,096 kW at 2,820 m)
Performance
Maximum speed: 378 mph, (330 knots, 605 km/h)
Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi, 760km)
Ferry range: 991 nmi (1,140 mi, 1,840 km)
Service ceiling 35,000 ft (11,300 m)
Rate of climb: 2,665 ft/min (13.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 24.56 lb/ft² (119.91 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (360 W/kg)
Armament
Guns: Mk I, Mk II, Mk VA
8x 0.303-inch (7.7-mm) Browning machine guns, 350 rounds per gun
Later versions (VB on)
2× 20 mm (0.787-in) Hispano Mk II cannon, 60 (later 120 (Mk VC)) shells per gun
4× 0.303-in (7.7-mm) Browning machine guns, 350 rounds per gun
Bombs:
2× 250-lb (110-kg) bombs
^^^^^^^^^^^from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Armament: Six .50-cal. machine guns and 10 5-in. rockets or 2,000 lbs. of bombs
Engine: Packard-built Rolls-Royce Merlin V-1650 of 1,695 hp
Maximum speed: 437 mph
Cruising speed: 275 mph
Range: 1,000 miles
Ceiling: 41,900 ft.
Span: 37 ft.
Length: 32 ft. 3 in.
Height: 13 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 12,100 lbs. maximum
Serial number: 44-74936
^^^^^^^^^^^from here: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=513
Specifications
[edit] P-51D Mustang
Data from The Great Book of Fighters,[75] and Quest for Performance[76]
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m)
Height: 13 ft 8 in (4.17 m)
Wing area: 235 ft² (21.83 m²)
Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,465 kg)
Loaded weight: 9,200 lb (4,175 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 12,100 lb (5,490 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Packard V-1650-7 liquid-cooled supercharged V-12, 1,490 hp (1,111 kW) at 3,000 rpm;[77] 1,720 hp (1,282 kW) at WEP
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0163
Drag area: 3.80 ft² (0.35 m²)
Aspect ratio: 5.83
Performance
Maximum speed: 437 mph (703 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Cruise speed: 362 mph (580 km/h)
Stall speed: 100 mph (160 km/h)
Range: 1,650 mi (2,755 km) with external tanks
Service ceiling 41,900 ft (12,770 m)
Rate of climb: 3,200 ft/min (16.3 m/s)
Wing loading: 39 lb/ft² (192 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg)
Lift-to-drag ratio: 14.6
Recommended Mach limit 0.8
Armament
6 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns; 400 rounds per gun for the two inboard guns; 270 per outboard gun
2 hardpoints for up to 2,000 lb (907 kg)
10 × 5 in (127 mm) rockets
^^^^^^^^^from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang ^^^^
note the power to mass ratings. that's why(at least partly) the spit can climb, and accelerate faster, turn tighter, and do seemingly impossible things.
-
I was in a Ta152, had speed and alt at about 8-10k. A spixteen zooms up from below me with a bit of speed so I spiral climb up. It takes him a while to stall out, but when he does (at 600 yards) he stalls hard enough to dip a wing. I was saving my E for this, so I'm about to roll in on him and he recovers.
Just so I learn, how do you save your E while spiral climbing?
-
Just so I learn, how do you save your E while spiral climbing?
You're gaining potential energy.
-
Don't confuse Energy Retention with low Induced Drag.
Imprecise terminology. Induced drag increases with angle of attack, not lower speed. While typically, AoA increases as speed decreases, you'll get lost in the terminology if you approach this comparison from these perspectives.
-
What I have said is a simplification
:aok
But thanks for the clarification.
-
You're gaining potential energy.
Saving Energy is when you're flying along and you see a bogie below you and you keep stalking him until you're ready to pounce, which at that time you're cashing in the Energy you were saving while stalking.
What Krusty was describing isn't saving energy by using a spiral climb, he was doing what you said, gaining potential energy.
ack-ack
-
What I have said is a simplification, but I hope it helps to tease out the most important concepts. :salute[/list]
Quite understated actually. What I was trying to point out, diplomatically, was that you cannot answer the OP's question by comparing induced drag. The difference in the induced drag of either plane is not the property that differentiates the two aircraft with respect to the original question.
-
Quite understated actually. What I was trying to point out, diplomatically, was that you cannot answer the OP's question by comparing induced drag. The difference in the induced drag of either plane is not the property that differentiates the two aircraft with respect to the original question.
i still think it's got more to do to their weights, and power to weight ratios than anything........[/list]
-
No, trust me.
Should we trust you like when you said you had 200 foot tall pine trees?
Should we trust you like when you said the Polesti raid was conducted above 4k exclusively?
I am curious as to why anyone would trust you...
This was nobody special. Typical ho-an-yank pilot in the spitty. Very low on the skill chart. And no it wasn't a "fake dip" because he had to completely roll under himself to recover.
Spits are just UFOs in this game.
wahhh, mommy, make the mean cartoon airplane game easier for me... wahhh
-
i still think it's got more to do to their weights, and power to weight ratios than anything........[/list]
Rate of climb is affected largely by power loading, so you're correct on that part.
Top speed is a function of thrust/drag. Obviously, the Spit has better power loading, hence better rate of climb. And, if you assume that both aircraft get the same amount of thrust out of the same powerplant, the P-51 has lower drag. Or perhaps North American figured out a way to get more thrust out of the same engine and the aircraft have the same drag coefficient. Luckily, we know from test data that the P-51 drag coefficient is lower than the Spitfire Cd, so we don't have to guess there. We would need to do some math to determine whether or not the P-51 creates more thrust than the Spit 16 (or perhaps test data already exists).
So, to answer the OP's question, we don't have to talk about induced drag or energy retention.
-
Rate of climb is affected largely by power loading, so you're correct on that part.
Top speed is a function of thrust/drag. Obviously, the Spit has better power loading, hence better rate of climb. And, if you assume that both aircraft get the same amount of thrust out of the same powerplant, the P-51 has lower drag. Or perhaps North American figured out a way to get more thrust out of the same engine and the aircraft have the same drag coefficient. Luckily, we know from test data that the P-51 drag coefficient is lower than the Spitfire Cd, so we don't have to guess there. We would need to do some math to determine whether or not the P-51 creates more thrust than the Spit 16 (or perhaps test data already exists).
So, to answer the OP's question, we don't have to talk about induced drag or energy retention.
the p51 is heavier. thus it will carry a bit more momentum. it's also cleaner aerodynamicly, along with what appears to be a more efficient prop, also helping its top speed.[/list]
-
Agh Krusty, some P-51B/C's also got a fin fillet because of instability.
(http://www.swissmustangs.ch/mediac/400_0/media/309_Mustangs_flying.jpg)
-
Quite understated actually. What I was trying to point out, diplomatically, was that you cannot answer the OP's question by comparing induced drag. The difference in the induced drag of either plane is not the property that differentiates the two aircraft with respect to the original question.
Well, thanks for going easy on me! :lol I know you know more about this stuff than I do and I'd love to hear your correct explanation.
-
Hi guys I'm travelling so don't have a lot of time to respond at the moment. Anax with correction by Stoney includes a part of the answer by mentioning induce drag. CAP1's answer is better with mention of power to weight loading.
Let me give another hint. Here's the key relationship to understand.
Ps = (Thrust - Drag ) * Velocity / Weight
Ps is "Specific Excess Power" and represents the energy balance of an airplane. Study and understand this relationship and you'll unlock the more comprehensive explanation for the faster P-51D but yet the better energy retaining and in the vertical Spitfire.
Cheers!
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Agh Krusty, some P-51B/C's also got a fin fillet because of instability.
(http://www.swissmustangs.ch/mediac/400_0/media/309_Mustangs_flying.jpg)
I was referring more to in-game, milo. I do recall some razorbacks had fillets, but the D models were more spin-prone and once p51Ds departed they had an unrecoverable stall. I believe even the pilot handbook tells the pilots to 'just bail, it's unrecoverable, save themselves.' [paraphrase]
-
I was referring more to in-game, milo. I do recall some razorbacks had fillets, but the D models were more spin-prone and once p51Ds departed they had an unrecoverable stall. I believe even the pilot handbook tells the pilots to 'just bail, it's unrecoverable, save themselves.' [paraphrase]
No. Not even close.
There are incidents of pilots deliberately putting a P-51D into a spin as a defensive maneuver.
-
Had 2 squaddies witness it. I believe B2B and Snaphook, or B2B and Gumby, maybe?
Edit: regardless, that's not the only BS the spit has shown. You can have a spixteen dweeb HO you, pull a 180 behind you as you continue straight, and then accelerate and close to kill range from behind you while you retained full speed the entire time. The Spits are bogus.
Yup had that happens to me alot. And then there is the spixteen flipflop thing where they just start spinning, flopping and twirling around to get away from your shot.
Spixteen is the perfect planer for arcade gamers. Thankfully most of those who fly em are utterly useless even with their trackIR, hotas, pedals and whatever aids they need to game. :lol
-
Spits do not out zoom the 51. At least not when starting from decent speeds. I did a zoom test way WAY back (AHII beta), the flight model has been tweaked since then, but I don't think that the conclusion will be different:
Spits are mediocre zoomers. However, the advantage of the "best" zoomers is quite small and will often not be more than 100-300 feet, meaning less than 100 yards. Even a slight energy advantage to the spit will result in it zooming to the same alt. The major factor that makes the light planes seem to be good zoomers is the great stall stability that almost ALL AH planes posses.
Normally, the player have no fear of full-power, extreme attitude stalls. This means that the hovercrafts gain an advantage not by zooming higher, but by zooming longer. The P51 will pull away only a little and start falling back while the spit/zeke/F4u(!) is still pointing up, hanging in there deep in the stall. It is not going up, but from the POV of the falling P51 it looks like it is closing the distance (but it doesn't get any alt at all). The little extra zoom of the 51 (~100 yards or less) is not enough to get it out of gun range and the stably hovering plane below can hose it down during this phase.
I blame the FM easy stalls on this. In real life, no WWII plane (I think) will be stalled until it falls tail-forward with full power on. If it does, the consequences will be severe. It means that there will not be a long hover period at the top of the zoom and power needs to be reduced to maintain control. E-retention becomes more important than power-loading and deep stall stability. The higher zoomer also zooms longer or equal in time.
-
And then there is the spixteen flipflop thing where they just start spinning, flopping and twirling around to get away from your shot.
Ohh just like the fw-190 patented neg g into the land trout maneuver? Or the the 109 falling leaf move?
Cmon nils any ac can be stick stirred.
-
Ohh just like the fw-190 patented neg g into the land trout maneuver? Or the the 109 falling leaf move?
Cmon nils any ac can be stick stirred.
Nothing like the spixteen Bronk
-
No. Not even close.
There are incidents of pilots deliberately putting a P-51D into a spin as a defensive maneuver.
Somebody posted actual scans of a P51 manual and it showed this info. It was some time ago, I did not save them (I have little interest in the P51 references, so I don't save 'em).
The P51 did have a lethal spin, and not just with the aux tank filled. It USED to spin much more in tight turns in this game, long ago. It has been dulled down. It and many other planes have a VERY hard time spinning now.
-
i found this::::::
Some World War II airplanes were notoriously prone to flat spins when loaded erroneously, such as the Bell P-39 Airacobra. The P-39 was a unique design with the engine behind the pilot's seat and a large cannon in the front. Without ammunition or a counterbalance load in the nose compartment, the P-39's center of gravity was too far aft to recover from a spin. Soviet pilots did numerous tests of the P-39 and were able to demonstrate its dangerous spinning characteristics. Bell then issued a recommendation to bail out if the airplane entered a spin. North American P-51 Mustangs with auxiliary fuel tanks not originally designed for the P-51 suffered from the same problem. Similarly, the Vought F4U Corsair was reputed to have appalling stall and spin recovery characteristics, even in the "clean" (no stores) configuration.
here:::::::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(flight)
-
Somebody posted actual scans of a P51 manual and it showed this info. It was some time ago, I did not save them (I have little interest in the P51 references, so I don't save 'em).
The P51 did have a lethal spin, and not just with the aux tank filled. It USED to spin much more in tight turns in this game, long ago. It has been dulled down. It and many other planes have a VERY hard time spinning now.
I agree, most of the aircraft seem rather hard to get into a spin, and impossible to do a pretty hammerhead.
What I say about deliberate spins in the P-51 can be backed up though...it can and has been done. But there are alot of variables. Even the Corsair *can* recover from a spin...ask William Kershner...though you wouldn't want to try it, especially close to the ground.
-
Even the Corsair *can* recover from a spin...ask William Kershner...though you wouldn't want to try it, especially close to the ground.
Why wouldn't you want to ask him this when close to the ground?
-
:rolleyes:
Why wouldn't you want to ask him this when close to the ground?
-
i found this::::::
Some World War II airplanes were notoriously prone to flat spins when loaded erroneously, such as the Bell P-39 Airacobra. The P-39 was a unique design with the engine behind the pilot's seat and a large cannon in the front. Without ammunition or a counterbalance load in the nose compartment, the P-39's center of gravity was too far aft to recover from a spin. Soviet pilots did numerous tests of the P-39 and were able to demonstrate its dangerous spinning characteristics. Bell then issued a recommendation to bail out if the airplane entered a spin. North American P-51 Mustangs with auxiliary fuel tanks not originally designed for the P-51 suffered from the same problem. Similarly, the Vought F4U Corsair was reputed to have appalling stall and spin recovery characteristics, even in the "clean" (no stores) configuration.
here:::::::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(flight)
On the other hand the RAE notes that the Spitfire Mk XIV (yes, the horrible handling Griffon Spit) had to be held in a spin or it came out of it on its own after three rotations. I don't know if that is power on or off.
-
I fly spits all the time and kill more people than kill me. The 16 is easier to get kills in than the 9 but not by a huge margin. The best spit for me close in is the Seafire and I am increasingly chooseing this over the 16.
The Sixteen is light, has a grunty engine and was designed for fighting at lower alts which is where allot of the action is in ah. Get up high and run into 51's and it feels wheezy and outclassed. I have to say though more often than not you will still get results up high as the P51, P47 seem to have less idea how to fly there planes than even the spit newbs. Time and again the blow there E and end up down low. The battle shifts against them becuase they dont know how to use their advantages properly.
Ive also flown the other way particularly in Spit 14's and Ok Ill try to spiral climb and rope them and often there E state is greater than I think. This is just a likely to be a Nikki or a Zero as a spit 16 which all share similar lightweight characteristics.
If Krusty is all fired up about the Spit model I would advise him to fly it and film his extrodinary adventures. Im my opinion if we lost the 16 and 8 the 9 would get the flak. Spits are great planes to fly with excellent stall characteristics they are light because they are fragile, lack endurance and ammunition which doesnt matter to a furballer.
-
Before the spit XVI and VIII came along there were indeed posts demanding the perking of the uber UFO spit9. :D
-
Im my opinion if we lost the 16 and 8 the 9 would get the flak.
That's probably true, but it's irrelevant to the actual performance of these aircraft. In terms of over-all performance stats, the SpitXVI is comparable to our perked aircraft, while the VIII and IX are not. In fact, the XVI usually scores better than the C-Hog depending on what kind of modifiers I use for various factors.
-
In terms of over-all performance stats, the SpitXVI is comparable to our perked aircraft, while the VIII and IX are not.
The VIII and XVI share almost identical performance stats across the board. The VIII gives up a little roll rate, swaps the 2x.50's for 4x.303's and adds an internal fuel tank.
-
The VIII and XVI share almost identical performance stats across the board. The VIII gives up a little roll rate, swaps the 2x.50's for 4x.303's and adds an internal fuel tank.
Yes. It is slightly faster, rolls significantly better, has better firepower, accelerates better level and in a dive, and can carry 1k lbs of ordinance (though you rarely see people take advantage of that and I weight ordinance minimally).
All those little advantages add up. ;)
-
Yes. It is slightly faster, rolls significantly better, has better firepower, accelerates better level and in a dive, and can carry 1k lbs of ordinance (though you rarely see people take advantage of that and I weight ordinance minimally).
All those little advantages add up. ;)
By the time you either add a sipper tank to the XVI or reduce internal fuel in the VIII those very slight XVI advantages are negated (except the roll rate advantage and the XIII's gun pacakge isn't significantly worse than the XVI's).
-
2 x 50cals is more than a 50% increase in firepower over 4 x 303s. And you and I both know that the sipper tank is dropped before combat.
-
And you and I both know that the sipper tank is dropped before combat.
I carry mine in the Spits even in a fight as long as it's still got fuel in it.
-
Before the spit XVI and VIII came along there were indeed posts demanding the perking of the uber UFO spit9. :D
Precisely. The spitfire "The best close in fighter of the lot" (Johnie Johnson the story of air fighting and top scoring WW2 british ace).
If you want to beat someone in a spit in something else you probably need to be a better fighter pilot than them and some or know how to boom and zoom. Be aware though as soon as you slip into co-e you will quickly be at a dissadvantage :lol
Dont blame the spit if you are not up to the task :mad:
Now if people want to complain about a plane its obviously the LA7.
1) Newbs can jump in and charge around without even looking behind them. Point and squirt.
2) In reality unreliable to the extreme and major inconsistencies in performance and build quality. What we have in the game is the best of the best la7.
So dont perk it though as once you know what you are doing its just an annoying inconvenience that keeps you looking over your shoulder but easy to defeat if you are paying attention. If you keep getting shot down by newbs in anything your either drunk or not as good as you think you are. I have no fear of the 16 in for example a 51 but I am carefull how I fight it. It amazes me when I am in a 16 how many people will fight you like they are in another 16 when they are in something like a 51 and then start crying when they get it from behind :rolleyes:
-
I carry mine in the Spits even in a fight as long as it's still got fuel in it.
So should I test the Spitfires with external fuel tanks loaded but all other aircraft without them?
-
So should I test the Spitfires with external fuel tanks loaded but all other aircraft without them?
Personally I could care less how you do your tests. I was just pointing out that when the fuel loads become similar the very marginal advantages in speed, climb and acceleration that the XVI has over the VIII, and that you think in sum total equate to a significant advantage, largley dissapear.
As to external fuel tanks I carry them on all of the Spit models and contrary to your assertation that they are always dropped once engaged, I mentioned that I don't drop mine. As far as external fuel tanks go they are relatively clean aerodynamically in comparison to any others in the game.
But now that you bring it up I would think all testing should be done with similar fuel loads (i.e. flight duration) if you wanted true comparisons. Planes such as the F4U1-A, Ki-61, P-47-N and others suffer from full fuel comparisons just as the Spit VIII suffers against it's "bigger" brother.
-
Baldeagl, you do realize that the Spit XVI is ~286 lbs lighter than the Spit VIII when both have zero fuel, right?
Even with equal flight times the Spit XVI is going to be slightly better in many categories.
As to external fuel tanks I carry them on all of the Spit models and contrary to your assertation that they are always dropped once engaged, I mentioned that I don't drop mine. As far as external fuel tanks go they are relatively clean aerodynamically in comparison to any others in the game.
The point was that it's absolutely ridiculous to measure the Spit's top speed with an external fuel tank, but measure other aircraft clean. The suggestion that the XVI's performance stats are misleading because you like to fight with the drop tank on is...well, I think you know where I'm going with that.
Just be glad that HTC gives us a free aircraft that could easily be perked. ;)
-
Roll rate, especially at high speeds, is of course totally unimportant.
-
Roll rate, especially at high speeds, is of course totally unimportant.
:lol
You are far worse than me with the sarcasm. Kweassa should take you under his wing and help you perfect it. :aok
-
Roll rate, especially at high speeds, is of course totally unimportant.
I never said that did I? Please quote it if I did.
This started out with me making the comment that the Spit VIII and Spit XVI performance stats were nearly identical. If you don't believe me go to DocGonzos and check for yourself.
Anax countered by claiming the XVI was vastly superior. He made it sound like a XVI would eat VIII's for lunch then jet away like a Jug in a dive afterwards. I fly Spits all the time and I can tell you that's just not true.
I pointed out that there's a difference in fuel loading to which Anax replied that EVERYONE drops the drop tanks before engaging. I simply stated that I' for one, dont.
I'm done with this pissing match. I started with one simple comment:
The VIII and XVI share almost identical performance stats across the board. The VIII gives up a little roll rate, swaps the 2x.50's for 4x.303's and adds an internal fuel tank.
which I still stand by, and am now taken to task over every single thing I type. Well piss off.
-
I never said that did I? Please quote it if I did.
This started out with me making the comment that the Spit VIII and Spit XVI performance stats were nearly identical. If you don't believe me go to DocGonzos and check for yourself.
Anax countered by claiming the XVI was vastly superior. He made it sound like a XVI would eat VIII's for lunch then jet away like a Jug in a dive afterwards. I fly Spits all the time and I can tell you that's just not true.
I believe you. In fact, the SpitVIII has a slightly superior rate and radius of turn IIRC.
However, the roll rate advantage of the SpitXVI is vastly more important for MA purposes than the SpitVIII's advantages, IMO
-
Time to complete a 360 roll from zero-inertia start (all times approximate in seconds):
200mph
SpitVIII: 2.88
SpitXVI: 1.92
300mph
SpitVIII: 4.3
SpitXVI: 2.65
400mph
SpitVIII: 10.03
SpitXVI: 4.28
I can run it again a few more times to get a better average over a larger distribution, but the trend is obvious.
P.S. I tested these times with only 50% fuel to be sure the SpitVIII wouldn't have fuel in the wings.
-
Time to complete a 360 roll from zero-inertia start (all times approximate in seconds):
200mph
SpitVIII: 2.88
SpitXVI: 1.92
300mph
SpitVIII: 4.3
SpitXVI: 2.65
400mph
SpitVIII: 10.03
SpitXVI: 4.28
I can run it again a few more times to get a better average over a larger distribution, but the trend is obvious.
P.S. I tested these times with only 50% fuel to be sure the SpitVIII wouldn't have fuel in the wings.
I have to agree that in my experience this difference in roll rate puts the VIII at a significant dissadvantage though not in the fairly typical lower speed turn fight as bourne out by the data.
-
It's more like flying TIE Fighter (Lucasarts) than a spitfire in this game.
When I came up there were no Spit16's. I learned primarily in the Spit5 and YakU.