Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: uptown on January 26, 2009, 07:34:19 AM
-
Can anyone tell me what the ingame specs are for the wing loading (lb./ft) for the P51D? :salute
Is there a link to get this info from?
-
Same as real world? ;)
Wing area is 235ft², and you can see your actual weight at any moment using E6B. Pony D with 50% Fuel = 9368lbs, thus wingloading = 39,86lbs/ft²
-
Same as real world? ;)
Wing area is 235ft², and you can see your actual weight at any moment using E6B. Pony D with 50% Fuel = 9368lbs, thus wingloading = 39,86lbs/ft²
Just as I suspected :frown: I have a printout of the performance calculations of the P51D from North American Aviation,Inc. dated 2/6/46 and in comparing HTC P51D to the real one, the differences are stacking up in almost every catagory.
For instance: max rpm is 3000 rpm in real world. Hightechs world..2900. Top speed on the deck without WEP is 355 in RL, HTCs 353
At 13,300 ft 412 in RL...HTCs 411
The speed at 26,200 is the only thing I've seen so far that does match. 435 MPH
The tests I did in the TA were with a lighter fuel load then the NAA printout of 9611 lbs. My tests were done with a weight of 9368 at take off. Also it took me 8.0 minutes to climb to 20K (with wep).
According to NAA it only takes 6.4 minutes.
I've thought for some time that the P51 is not what it used to be in the game. I do believe HTC has porked the P51. Why? I don't know, but it's a real shame we can't have the P51 modeled right.
-
Damn pony dweebs :noid :lol
-
nm
-
Top speed on the deck without WEP is 355 in RL, HTCs 353
At 13,300 ft 412 in RL...HTCs 411
Surely you cannot complain about the speeds being 1-2mph off, that's fantastic accuracy.
-
Do bear in mind the different levels of boost used throught the D series.
The Delta is using early '44 boost levels, isn't it? I'm a luftweenie so I'm not sure but I seem to remember this point coming up in a discussion about the use of C3 fuel for the 109K.
-
Surely you cannot complain about the speeds being 1-2mph off, that's fantastic accuracy.
Depends how FAT the game thinks you are.. to how fast it flys :D
-
Depends how FAT the game thinks you are.. to how fast it flys :D
...and drag from those big ears.
-
:lol ok wise guys :lol Yes maybe 1 or 2 mph is nit-picking. But I also noticed that at 24,500ft the pony should produce 67" of MP. The game model is only putting out 65" MP. And that costs the pony 2 mph and it 438mph when it should go 440 at that altitude. And it takes 2 sectors to get to that speed.
I'm just asking for the right specs is all. If it takes perking to do that, so be it. I'm all for it. I'd just like to see it the way it used to be modeled. I agree HTC does an outstanding job at getting these planes close to actual performance specs. But I have a suspicion they "dumb down" some models to keep alot of folks out of certain planes to promote the use of only aircraft.
But I got into this game as an alternative to Microsoft Flight Simulator. I wanted a correct flight model to fly. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I don't care what the other planes can or can't do. I just want my chosen ride to do what it was built to do. As I said before, if that means perking then by all means perk it. I'd rather see people not fly it because of the perk cost rather then because it doesn't perform as it should.
-
No, in AH the top speed of the P-51D on the deck is 365mph.
According to NAA 368mph with wep at sea level and 355mph without wep. I got 353 without wep and 365mph with wep in the TA testing. Again, it's 2 or 3 mph under what it could do in real life conditions.
-
If you want the real experience...
It will cost you 1,290,000 US dollars.
http://www.flypowerjet.com/view_aero_details.php?RID=154 (http://www.flypowerjet.com/view_aero_details.php?RID=154)
For 14.95 a month... deal with the 1 mph differences. :rolleyes:
-
According to NAA 368mph with wep at sea level and 355mph without wep. I got 353 without wep and 365mph with wep in the TA testing. Again, it's 2 or 3 mph under what it could do in real life conditions.
Crap, I misread the "without WEP," :o but you are splitting hairs.
-
If you want the real experience...
It will cost you 1,290,000 US dollars.
http://www.flypowerjet.com/view_aero_details.php?RID=154 (http://www.flypowerjet.com/view_aero_details.php?RID=154)
For 14.95 a month... deal with the 1 mph differences. :rolleyes:
:rofl :rofl :rofl
And I thought I was anal!
-
I'm not going to get any sympathy in this crusade am I. :uhoh
-
According to NAA 368mph with wep at sea level and 355mph without wep. I got 353 without wep and 365mph with wep in the TA testing. Again, it's 2 or 3 mph under what it could do in real life conditions.
That means HTC has a 0.56% error from real life. Im betting that variation from plane to plane matches this.
At 13,300 ft 412 in RL...HTCs 411
That 0.24% error. To me it looks likes HTC has things pretty close.
I think you will find larger errors in the modeling of other planes, maybe HTC should worry about them first.
-
I just want the drag/flap ratio fixed there is WAY too much drag for those flaps.
-
I'm not going to get any sympathy in this crusade am I. :uhoh
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Doesn't sound like it.
-
Flaps are yet another issue. They are not what they used to be. You guys are singling out the difference in the mph but thats only 1 example. The MP is wrong, flaps are wrong, speed is wrong...bottom line is that it's not right. It used to be. But why the change in the first place is my question.
Also if I had 9611 lbs of fuel in instead of the 9368 that I tested with, these numbers would be off even more. Not just 1 or 2 mph.Oh, did I mention that the wingloading is not right either?
-
...and drag from those big ears.
:lol
-
Can HTC please give uptown the 1-2 mph he so needs when running away. Give him his flaps that he wants. Then and only then, finally perk the dweeb ride that so many Ho and run in. Just my 2 cents :aok
-
It's all becaused HT is biased against American planes and is not willing to fix them!
Just the same way he has porked German Iron (just ask Schlowy!), Japanese, Soviet & Italian planes, and it's no secret he hates British Steel too, so he gave Mossie flame dampers and Spit's wings made of paper.
He hate's 'em all, and he hates us all, so he made a game we just can't quit
:noid
-
It's all becaused HT is biased against American planes and is not willing to fix them!
Just the same way he has porked German Iron (just ask Schlowy!), Japanese, Soviet & Italian planes, and it's no secret he hates British Steel too, so he gave Mossie flame dampers and Spit's wings made of paper.
He hate's 'em all, and he hates us all, so he made a game we just can't quit
:noid
He called HT a biased russian Jew one time comedy gold! :rofl
-
Uptown:
IMHO, 1-2 mph is not worth complaining about,(although see below), the strangely porked turning and flap performance has been noted for a long time now by Widewing and other quite knowledgeable folks, so apparently is not going to get changed anytime soon.
You're seeing something of the attitude problem a lot of simmers have with the Mustang though. It is so popular and they've been beaten over the head with the "best plane of WWII" stuff so much that it has shell-shocked them and made them bloody hostile towards the thing, almost glad for it to be modeled as a dog.
I can tell you though Uptown, if the thing was a little faster and turned a little better, with its speed, range, visibility, decent ord capacity and accurate guns, it would cry out to be lightly perked. This would be my preference but might be a bad business model for HTC, because lets face it, conservatively 70% of new players want to fly the P-51 first and might not renew after their two week trial if the first message they got on clicking upon it was "You don't have enough points for that model".
Okay, note the P-51D-15NA doing 375mph on the deck, WITH wing racks and limited to 67" MAP.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-level-67.jpg)
-
Just as I suspected :frown: I have a printout of the performance calculations of the P51D from North American Aviation,Inc. dated 2/6/46 and in comparing HTC P51D to the calculated one, the differences are stacking up in almost every catagory.
fixed
-
Along with a certain hostility towards the P-51 because of the History Channel shoving it down people's throats, there is another interesting attitude. The fact that HT has constructed what is possibly the *best* WWII flight sim and certainly the best MMOG WWII flight sim has made a certain percentage of the community so grateful they do not believe any allegations of fallibility on the part of HTC. :D
It's all becaused HT is biased against American planes and is not willing to fix them!
Just the same way he has porked German Iron (just ask Schlowy!), Japanese, Soviet & Italian planes, and it's no secret he hates British Steel too, so he gave Mossie flame dampers and Spit's wings made of paper.
He hate's 'em all, and he hates us all, so he made a game we just can't quit
:noid
-
Flaps are yet another issue. They are not what they used to be. You guys are singling out the difference in the mph but thats only 1 example. The MP is wrong, flaps are wrong, speed is wrong...bottom line is that it's not right. It used to be. But why the change in the first place is my question.
Also if I had 9611 lbs of fuel in instead of the 9368 that I tested with, these numbers would be off even more. Not just 1 or 2 mph.Oh, did I mention that the wingloading is not right either?
Your troll is far too weak for the HTC to respond.
Man you are weak. Not even entertaining.
-
The fact that HT has constructed what is possibly the *best* WWII flight sim and certainly the best MMOG WWII flight sim has made a certain percentage of the community so grateful they do not believe any allegations of fallibility on the part of HTC. :D
I agree that this phenomenon is occurring. Yet all you have to do is compare how much their flight models have changed over the years to know that they are fallible (the changes I'm talking about are not the "oops, it's 500lbs too light" kind of mistake). Specifically, the P-38L was the dominant plane of the early versions of Warbirds: everyone defended its flight model, and 50% of the players flew it 90% of the time "for its history."
-
Specifically, the P-38L was the dominant plane of the early versions of Warbirds: everyone defended its flight model, and 50% of the players flew it 90% of the time "for its history."
Is this what happens if a plane is both too "popular, historic" and too effective?
...could there be motivation to avoid some "perfect storm" of popularity and effectiveness in an AHII aircraft for similar reasons?
-
Another change is the roll rate of the Spitfire IX. In Warbirds it rolled about as well as the Spitfire V at 400mph, and now it rolls much more slowly at 400mph than the V.
The 109K-4 used to max out at around the 340mph on the deck, and the P-51 at around 350mph. Now the K-4 does 368mph and the P-51 365mph.
-
If you want to do some comparisons check out: http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/ (http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/)
The P38L has been called in Warbirds, and rightfully so, the Super Plane. The P38L is Jack of all trades, and master of most. The P38L does practically everything well, it dives with the best of them, is fast, has excellent high altitude performance, rolls with the best of them, until beyond 275mph, where it leaves all other planes in the dust, outturns all but the Zero and Ki43, has an excellent climb rate, has one of the best and most accurate gunnery packages in the game (with the exception of Otto), and has plenty of ammunition to burn. It's only major weakness is it's huge planform, making it an easy target in some situations. Fortunately, it's exceptional roll eliminates it's predecessor's big problem of being unable to roll away when that huge planform is exposed.
-
I'm not going to get any sympathy in this crusade am I. :uhoh
Too many different options in most planes. They have to freeze it at some point and use that aircraft specs. Many if not all planes in the game are that way.
P-38J at one point had higher MP and faster speed.
P-38L at one point was able to carry torpedos.
Just enjoy the game... :)
-
Just enjoy the game... :)
Sort of like flying inverted through hangers at fully defended enemy fields... just for fun ;)
Agree completely :salute
-
As long as the pony is able to do a quick split-s followed by a run to the ack or friendlies then it'll be just fine :)
-
a couple of mph difference? there would have been way more variation between individual airframes or batches (aircraft, engine, fuel etc) than that, and unless HT has literally clipped its wings, the wing loading has to be right. plenty of other factors too like temp and humidity.
given the mostly US player base, and the fact that so many 51s are still flying (hasn't HT even flown one himself?) doesnt it seem reasonable to assume that its probably one of the better modelled ac in the planeset?
cant kill anything in it myself but it seems a pretty nice ac to fly :)
-
I met with several ponies last night in MW. I unloaded all their wings. Not one ran to ack..... of course they were coming in high to cover the lower heavies that were attacking our base. I was surprised as all of them chose to fight instead . Not one moved out more than 1.5k.
-
As long as the pony is able to do a quick split-s followed by a run to the ack or friendlies then it'll be just fine :)
99.9% of the people I engage run regardless of what they fly or who they are. Against a co-alt aircraft that turns similar or slightly better then my plane (and also has my six) I will extend to 3k and then turn back (which levels the fight more or less). Those individuals that hate to die will always PM afterwards about how I kept running. Funny stuff! They always forget their friends around too who will always join in if given the chance. Everyone in this game is a potential 'cherry-picker' if given the chance regardless of how they talk about it.
a couple of mph difference? there would have been way more variation between individual airframes or batches (aircraft, engine, fuel etc) than that, and unless HT has literally clipped its wings, the wing loading has to be right. plenty of other factors too like temp and humidity.
given the mostly US player base, and the fact that so many 51s are still flying, and indeed HT has flown one himself, doesnt it seem reasonable to assume that its probably one of the better modelled ac in the planeset?
cant kill anything in it myself but it seems a pretty nice ac to fly :)
Assumptions are just that but I dont have a problem with the majority of the way the plane flies or the way planes compare one to another. The flaps on the P51 being the one exception that kills its ability to engage fairly against Yaks and Tempests and UFOs... I mean F4Us. :D
-
its ability to engage realistically against Yaks and Tempests and UFOs... I mean F4Us. :D
surely thats more important? I guess it would take a pilot like Ray Hanna :salute with plenty of hours (and big balls) in a wide variety of warbirds to fill in the blanks for us. imagine trying to model eg. the typhie when theres only one left - a static exhibit :(
-
surely thats more important? I guess it would take a pilot like Ray Hanna :salute with plenty of hours (and big balls) in a wide variety of warbirds to fill in the blanks for us.
I said 'fairly' because I meant on a realistic (real world) basis rather then a modified and incorrect basis. So its the same point.
And I believe the Typoon is incorrect.
-
ah I see :)
shame we'll never find out about the typhie for real :( not wanting to hijack, but how so with the typh? I've read plenty of accounts, pilots thought it was fast and capable but easy to get into big trouble with, they were very relieved when the temp arrived. wikipedia has a great account of a first hop in one, the pilot was bathed in sweat when he landed - sounds about right :D
-
Just as I suspected :frown: I have a printout of the performance calculations of the P51D from North American Aviation,Inc. dated 2/6/46 and in comparing HTC P51D to the real one, the differences are stacking up in almost every catagory.
For instance: max rpm is 3000 rpm in real world. Hightechs world..2900. Top speed on the deck without WEP is 355 in RL, HTCs 353
At 13,300 ft 412 in RL...HTCs 411
The speed at 26,200 is the only thing I've seen so far that does match. 435 MPH
The tests I did in the TA were with a lighter fuel load then the NAA printout of 9611 lbs. My tests were done with a weight of 9368 at take off. Also it took me 8.0 minutes to climb to 20K (with wep).
According to NAA it only takes 6.4 minutes.
I've thought for some time that the P51 is not what it used to be in the game. I do believe HTC has porked the P51. Why? I don't know, but it's a real shame we can't have the P51 modeled right.
1. Wing loading is not a static figure. It's gross weight divided by wing area. Gross weight changes. For every gallon of fuel consumed, gross weight drops by 6 lbs in flight. Wing area of the 51D is 233 sq.ft by the way.
2. Max RPM is 3000 in the game. The in game guage reads exactly the same as the insturments figure in the USAAF pilot training manual for 3000 RPM.
3. Your "tests" have a margin of error. I just ran a P-51D at MIL power with 9700 lb weight at 10 ft altitude for 354 IAS/355 TAS maxium speed.
-
As long as the pony is able to do a quick split-s followed by a run to the ack or friendlies then it'll be just fine :)
Good times. I need to review a film from today at lunch. A p-51b made a few passes at me in a 109K. After watching him turn tail and run I pursue for a few minutes on the deck with WEP on. He was making a straight line for home. I got to 800 out and knocked a flap off him trying to get him to break but had to let him go as I was running on fumes at that point.
Can't wait to see who it was and mock them if I know them. :D
-
Uptown, maybe if you washed and waxed it more often, you might squeak out the couple of extra mph you are looking for.
I saw you last night and man, was that thing filthy.
:noid
:D
-
I have 2 words.........Tobbacco juice......... :D
-
Good times. I need to review a film from today at lunch. A p-51b made a few passes at me in a 109K. After watching him turn tail and run I pursue for a few minutes on the deck with WEP on. He was making a straight line for home. I got to 800 out and knocked a flap off him trying to get him to break but had to let him go as I was running on fumes at that point.
Can't wait to see who it was and mock them if I know them. :D
I'm switching my attention to the hog and 38 drivers now, You get a much better fight as those guys (mostly) know what they're doing. What you describe is a typical engaement with a pony, got 2 last night like that, fun seeing their wing come off when a tater hits them :) As fas as the thread goes, I think HT has it about as accurate as he can get, I betcha we could all get different results, as it stands, it's fast, dives well, got good guns (although I can't hit squat when I've tried flying it :)) in the capable hands of a decent stick it's a capable oponent, just a shame the bad rap it gets from being used by the ack huggers and runners.
-
Your troll is far too weak for the HTC to respond.
Man you are weak. Not even entertaining.
I can see why you're a parolee on these boards. You have nothing to add to this thread but a big mouth.And I could careless if you're entertained.
-
As long as the pony is able to do a quick split-s followed by a run to the ack or friendlies then it'll be just fine :)
Some ponies will fight. Do they catch you off guard?
-
Man, Uptown, what kind of tolerance do you think these various specifications have?
Take your car for example. Do you think if you calculated the maximum speed that your car could reach and you went out and actually drove it you would have a perfect match? Also, if you clocked yourself more than once, do you think you would get exactly the same speed each time? If you took another car just like yours and clocked it, would you get the same speed that you got with your car? The answer to all of those questions is no.
I’d say HTC did pretty dang good.
-
Man, Uptown, what kind of tolerance do you think these various specifications have?
Take your car for example. Do you think if you calculated the maximum speed that your car could reach and you went out and actually drove it you would have a perfect match? Also, if you clocked yourself more than once, do you think you would get exactly the same speed each time? If you took another car just like yours and clocked it, would you get the same speed that you got with your car? The answer to all of those questions is no.
I’d say HTC did pretty dang good.
In a computer simulation the answer is yes.
-
A quick checklist...
Turn rate and radius vs. the enemy a/c-Hopelessly inferior.
Thrust-to-weight/ROC/acceleration vs. the enemy a/c-Hopelessly inferior
Top speed vs. the enemy a/c-better
Under these circumstances, the proper tactic is to use is to use speed to force the engagement when an advantage is held and disengage when at a disadvantage, whenever possible. These circumstances will be true of the P-51 vs. X quite a bit in the MAs. Thus I will not sit here and self-righteously condemn P-51s for running. P-51s rarely run away from D9s and P-47Ns btw. :)
I WILL self-righteously condemn P-51s for HOing however, since it is a rather fragile airplane with a mediocre armament package that will likely come out on the short end of the stick if the other pilot HOs the SOB right back, instead of trying to avoid go for a more productive tactic, at which point gives the HOtard the ability to say "but it was a front-quarter shot, not a HO". :rofl
-
I remember the pony as a much different plane 2 years ago then it now. The guys that have flown the mustang alot know what I'm talking about. It's just not the same. So which model was right? The old one or the one we have now? I say this version is the dumbed down model.Every pony pilot I know in this game will tell you the same thing. It's not just me. But I come here to bring up the subject because I'd like to know why it was changed to begin with.
-
99.9% of the people I engage run regardless of what they fly or who they are. Against a co-alt aircraft that turns similar or slightly better then my plane (and also has my six) I will extend to 3k and then turn back (which levels the fight more or less). Those individuals that hate to die will always PM afterwards about how I kept running. Funny stuff! They always forget their friends around too who will always join in if given the chance. Everyone in this game is a potential 'cherry-picker' if given the chance regardless of how they talk about it.
Assumptions are just that but I dont have a problem with the majority of the way the plane flies or the way planes compare one to another. The flaps on the P51 being the one exception that kills its ability to engage fairly against Yaks and Tempests and UFOs... I mean F4Us. :D
The only plane I agree with you there is the F4U which is horribly over modeled. Its probably the biggest easy mode plane in the game. The other two are a little harder to make that claim against. I think in each case it would come down to the pilot. The F4U makes mediocre pilots (players) seem a lot better than they are. Which is the complete opposite of what the real F4U did to crappy pilots. It wasn't called the ensign eliminator for nothing. I realize there are some REALLY good players that fly the F4 all the time, which makes them almost unbeatable unless you're in one too. Its low speed handling defies the laws of physics. Anyway, I'm on a rant. The point is that the P51 is great and doesn't need to be changed. Maybe some of the planes around it need some tweaking though?
-
The point is that the P51 is great and doesn't need to be changed.
It's already been changed, and for the worse.
-
It's already been changed, and for the worse.
I dunno about that. I spend most of my time in it below 5k or on the deck stall fighting. Ive been surprised with how well it contends with other planes in those situations. I don't employ the same "tactics" that most 51 drivers use so i couldn't speak to that aspect of it.
-
Some ponies will fight. Do they catch you off guard?
Usually the ones who catch me off guard are the one's who fight :)
-
Usually the ones who catch me off guard are the one's who fight :)
That you can be caught 'off guard' tells me more then your other comments.
The only plane I agree with you there is the F4U which is horribly over modeled...
I dont agree there because the number one problem with noobs is believing what they have read about history and expecting it to be true in AH. Further along that same thought I expect the P51 and its flaps to work as they would in the real world. If they did I could maintain a fight against a Tempest or a Yak (especially against the teeny boppers that dont belong in perk planes) for a little longer and it would be enough to win in the vast majority of cases.
The flaps have been demonstrated to be modeled incorrectly and should be fixed IMO.
-
The last flight model change to the P-51 was in the flaps and that was almost 3 years ago. I challenge you to go load up an old version and show the difference in performance.
I will say that you are correct about the tachometer being out of alignment but that has diddly squat to do with the actual performance. Just because your speedometer is off in your car it doesn't change how fast you're actually going.
-
That you can be caught 'off guard' tells me more then your other comments.
Meaning, ponies who stay and fight are the ones who surprise me, by that you could class as "off guard" no ref to SA, more like " I don't belive it, a pony that wants to fight" not dissing the pony drivers, just pointing out the reality of AH.
-
The last flight model change to the P-51 was in the flaps and that was almost 3 years ago. I challenge you to go load up an old version and show the difference in performance.
I will say that you are correct about the tachometer being out of alignment but that has diddly squat to do with the actual performance. Just because your speedometer is off in your car it doesn't change how fast you're actually going.
Was that the same patch that rendered the F4U a super-plane and the 190's flaps worthless?
-
Meaning, ponies who stay and fight are the ones who surprise me, by that you could class as "off guard" no ref to SA, more like " I don't belive it, a pony that wants to fight" not dissing the pony drivers, just pointing out the reality of AH.
The reality of AH lately has been that any plane that sees a coalt or higher plane will immediately turn tail and the strange thing is they also show great bravery in attacking bombers coalt from dead six where they know its just like a HO and they very likely will die for a single kill or two at the most. With the same 'skill' it takes to manuever for a kill they could use a little patience and manuever and maybe get all three.
-
The last flight model change to the P-51 was in the flaps and that was almost 3 years ago. I challenge you to go load up an old version and show the difference in performance.
This has already been done. :)
-
I'm not going to get any sympathy in this crusade am I. :uhoh
Crusade, yeah..I agree HTC does an outstanding job at getting these planes close to actual performance specs. But I have a suspicion they "dumb down" some models to keep alot of folks out of certain planes to promote the use of only aircraft.
It's a couple of % off the official numbers. You're comparing it to just one data point. I haven't sorted through enough historical trials, but I'm pretty sure every plane was different.. Every day had different weather, the test was done a little differently.. and 1 or 2 mph or inches of manifold pressure is worth being suspicious that they skew the planeset?
-
Well if Pyro says the performance of the 51s wasn't changed, I'm not going to disagee with him. Although I'd love to have a old version of AcesHigh to set my mind more at ease.
But on the issue of the flaps. Why was it felt that a change was needed in the modeling? I'm I correct in assuming that the old configuration was incorrect and what we have now is modeled right? :salute
-
:lol ok wise guys :lol Yes maybe 1 or 2 mph is nit-picking. But I also noticed that at 24,500ft the pony should produce 67" of MP. The game model is only putting out 65" MP. And that costs the pony 2 mph and it 438mph when it should go 440 at that altitude. And it takes 2 sectors to get to that speed.
I'm just asking for the right specs is all. If it takes perking to do that, so be it. I'm all for it. I'd just like to see it the way it used to be modeled. I agree HTC does an outstanding job at getting these planes close to actual performance specs. But I have a suspicion they "dumb down" some models to keep alot of folks out of certain planes to promote the use of only aircraft.
But I got into this game as an alternative to Microsoft Flight Simulator. I wanted a correct flight model to fly. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I don't care what the other planes can or can't do. I just want my chosen ride to do what it was built to do. As I said before, if that means perking then by all means perk it. I'd rather see people not fly it because of the perk cost rather then because it doesn't perform as it should.
Yea but 1 or 2 mph at sea level is a lot when your running from the LALA masses! :lol
-
Uptown:
Anecdotes are terribly unreliable as a basis for aircraft relative performance. This includes our squaddies who have been flying the Mustang for years in AH :).
Regarding the perceived flaps issue with Mustang, I've seen nothing that anyone has produced here that causes me to take it seriously.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
But on the issue of the flaps. Why was it felt that a change was needed in the modeling? I'm I correct in assuming that the old configuration was incorrect and what we have now is modeled right? :salute
2.07 Release Notes:
Made several changes to the flight model affecting static thrust, propeller slipstream effects,
ground effect, flaps and slats. This affects all planes to one degree or another. Due to this change, the
table that controls combat trim had to be redone for all planes.
They did not "change" the P-51 model specifically. They made a sweeping change to the flight model that affected all planes.
-
Although I'd love to have a old version of AcesHigh to set my mind more at ease.
http://downloads.hitechcreations.com/AH2061.EXE
Knock yourself out.
-
http://downloads.hitechcreations.com/AH2061.EXE
Knock yourself out.
Ooohhh! Does that have the 109G-10 with a 20mm cannon? :pray
-
Alright Murdr! :aok thank you sir :salute
-
2.07 Release Notes:
They did not "change" the P-51 model specifically. They made a sweeping change to the flight model that affected all planes.
Yeah, yeah, all planes lost some turn performance, already knew this.
But it has been demonstrated that some planes were effected more deleteriously than others, Mustang among them.
Widewing made some good posts on it if anyone cares to search, no real need to repeat all that stuff here.
The one thing no one has ever explained to me was how Allied pilots could be so completely and totally wrong about the relative turning qualities of the Mustang, relative other Allied aircraft with which they had familiarity, like the Typhoon and Jug, and relative enemy aircraft in combat. It was realized very quickly that the Zero had P-40s and Wildcats completely outclassed in turning. It was also realized that 109s had the advantage over P-47s in this regard. But if the AHII modeling of relative turning capacity is correct, the Mustang is even less of a turner than the P-47. Thus, we are to believe that pilots were handed a new ride that was less maneuverable than the old one, flew it, somehow formed a completely wrong conclusion about its relative maneuverability vs the Jug, took it into combat, managed (as can be indisputably demonstrated) to win many turning contests against 109s with a machine less maneuverable than the P-47 they thought was unsuited for such a task. Not only that, but apparently German pilots also managed to form a completely wrong impression about the turning qualities of the P-51 relative the P-47. Does this make any sense to anyone?
-
gonzoville.com shows the pony has smaller turn radius than the jug in AH without flaps, which is consistent with your info. the jug wins with full flaps, but this is irrelevant to acm. turn performance using 1 or 2 notches (ie as designed to assist manouvering rather than landing) might be a more useful measure.
the problem with pilot accounts is they use use terms like "agility" or "manouverability" which are qualitative and composed of a whole bunch of factors which are relevant to the kind of fights the pilot or plane were used for. "agility" might include turn rate and radius (instantious and sustained), roll rate (at speeds depending on usage), control response, acceleration, high AoA stability, e-retention, dive speed, feedback on impending stall conditions etc. etc.
-
When I tested the sustained turn rate of the P-51 and P-47, I was able to complete a 360 degree turn almost a half second faster in the 51D than in the 47N (both with 50% fuel):
P-51D: ~20 seconds
P-47N: ~20.4 seconds
The P-51D's best turn rate seems to be with one notch of flaps, while the 47N does best with two. When I tested the other 47s with 75% fuel (to better compare them to the N, which is a flying gas tank), they turn more slowly than the 47N...even the D11 (the D-25 was the worst). The extra thrust of the N overcompensates for its extra weight.
On the other hand, even with full flaps deployed, the 51D still has a huge turn radius. Its turning circle is larger than all the 47s.
In combat that extra .4 seconds of turn rate isn't worth much. So long as a 47N has a little altitude to play with, a good low-yo-yo with flaps is going to haul the jug around on the 6 of the 51 without too much difficulty.
-
The one thing no one has ever explained to me was how Allied pilots could be so completely and totally wrong about the relative turning qualities of the Mustang, relative other Allied aircraft with which they had familiarity, like the Typhoon and Jug, and relative enemy aircraft in combat.
What we don't experience in game are the things that no computer simulator will be able to ever produce. For example, perhaps (and I emphasize "perhaps" as a method to frame annecdotal evidence in context) a real-life P-51 could enter a 3-G turn at 350 mph with very little stick force. If another plane required 3 times the stick force to make the same turn, then a real-life pilot might say that the P-51 "turned" better than plane X, even though both aircraft were mechanically/aerodynamically capable of performing the same turn at the same rate. HTC's modelling presents what is mechanically/aerodynamically possible, based on performance equations and real life dimensions. It does not present what was palatable/comfortable to actual human pilots during those maneuvers. The anecdotal judgements of pilots cannot be taken as writ law without considering the context of those judgements.
Like everything else in aerodynamics, many performance characteristics are impossible to accurately and precisely model. The best we can do in those cases is create approximations. The fact that HTC's models are so close to actual tested performance criteria is amazing to me, and a testament to what they've achieved so far. Additionally, if you consider that each aircraft represented in game uses the same performance equations, then there's no reason to consider any one aircraft as "porked"--merely that the equations used to model the performance of all the aircraft may make some facets of some planes more conspicuous.
-
What we don't experience in game are the things that no computer simulator will be able to ever produce. For example, perhaps (and I emphasize "perhaps" as a method to frame annecdotal evidence in context) a real-life P-51 could enter a 3-G turn at 350 mph with very little stick force. If another plane required 3 times the stick force to make the same turn, then a real-life pilot might say that the P-51 "turned" better than plane X, even though both aircraft were mechanically/aerodynamically capable of performing the same turn at the same rate.
P-51 had higher stick forces than the P-47.
Basically, you're still arguing that test and combat pilots of the WWII era didn't have a *clue* about turn performance, not even so much as the average AHII pilots knows. Not only that, one has to argue that the Germans, including those who tested captured Allied aircraft, also did not have a clue about the qualities of P-51 vs. P-47.
Walter Wolfrum, a Luftwaffe ace with 137 victories, remembered of his encounters with American fighters that "the P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it, initially. [...] The P-51 was something else."
-
gonzoville.com shows the pony has smaller turn radius than the jug in AH without flaps, which is consistent with your info. the jug wins with full flaps, but this is irrelevant to acm. turn performance using 1 or 2 notches (ie as designed to assist manouvering rather than landing) might be a more useful measure.
1. The P-47D-11 out-turns the P-51 *without* flaps, despite having a significantly higher wingloading (43 lbs vs. 39 lbs/foot, loaded for the same flight time.) By comparison, this is greater than the wingloading disparity between a P-51 and and an F4U-1A loaded for similar flight times.
2. Full flaps are *NOT* useless in ACM in AHII since it is more than possible to use them successfully. Moreover, A P-47 of any stripe will gain on the pony in an angles fights with only 1 or 2 notches of flap. (It would be impossible to win an angles fight with a Pony if this were not so, since the Jug would be beaten before it could get full flaps out.) Note that the Fw-190 D9 will turn a smaller radius than the Pony on full flaps, which is absurd, considering that the wingloading of that bird is 48 lbs/foot and is equipped with inefficient split-type flaps. The low speed at which these flaps deploy keep this from being an effective strategy however.
3. A Typhoon also beats a P-51 in the turn in either flaps in our flaps out configuration, again in conflict with historical testing.
-
"--merely that the equations used to model the performance of all the aircraft may make some facets of some planes more conspicuous. "
BTW, the P-51 is not the only plane that suffers. The Ki-61 also turns below actual tested parameters in AHII.
OTOH, F4Us and especially the 109s are if anything, doing better than the historical birds.
-
Was that the same patch that rendered the F4U a super-plane and the 190's flaps worthless?
If I understand correctly, and I wasn't there, the F4U4 was a super plane at the beginning of AH. Then it got tamed. I guess now it's super again. I don't fly many perked planes. Each time I do I lose them. Especially the C hog and tempest.
-
P-51 had higher stick forces than the P-47.
Basically, you're still arguing that test and combat pilots of the WWII era didn't have a *clue* about turn performance, not even so much as the average AHII pilots knows.
I absolutely did not say that, would never contend that, and ultimately had no intention of comparing the P-51 to any aircraft. If you'll re-read the excerpted portion of my post, and understand exactly why I chose the language that I chose, you'll understand that what I was talking about was perception. We argue absolute performance of these aircraft because that's the realm in which we fly them, and in doing so, remove our discussions from the context with which our historical evidence is based.
For example, if we read in a pilot's memoirs, that a plane was more "maneuverable" than another plane, how should we interpret that statement with respect to the absolute performance of either aircraft, in the absence of any other information?
-
We are hardly talking only about offhand comments in some WWII diary. We are considering formal reports from flight test pilots, which are diametrically opposite of the results we see in AHII. This combined with indisputable oddities like the P-51 being out-turned by the significantly higher-wingloaded P-47 D-11 and out-turned with flaps by an airplane (D9) with much, much greater wingloading and what should be *worse* maneuvering flaps is a solid enough case that something is wrong. The fact that an identical odd phenomenon occurs with at least one other aircraft, the Ki-61, is further proof.
The fact that the differences in maneuverability between the P-47 and P-51 were noted by Luftwaffe pilots but are practically nonexistent in AHII, indeed, the Jug has the slight advantage, is icing on the cake.
I absolutely did not say that, would never contend that, and ultimately had no intention of comparing the P-51 to any aircraft. If you'll re-read the excerpted portion of my post, and understand exactly why I chose the language that I chose, you'll understand that what I was talking about was perception. We argue absolute performance of these aircraft because that's the realm in which we fly them, and in doing so, remove our discussions from the context with which our historical evidence is based.
For example, if we read in a pilot's memoirs, that a plane was more "maneuverable" than another plane, how should we interpret that statement with respect to the absolute performance of either aircraft, in the absence of any other information?
-
1. The P-47D-11 out-turns the P-51 *without* flaps etc.
2. Full flaps are *NOT* useless in ACM in AHII since it is more than possible to use them successfully etc.
1. sure the D11 outturns the B pony, but only marginally. all the later models are outturned by both ponies, by a decent margin. consistent with lw pilot reports that the pony outturns the jug, because over the course of the war, on average, this would have been true. perhaps theres something amiss with the D11 model? I'm sure if you have test data which shows smaller turn radius for 51s vs D11s HT would look at it.
2. well, lancstukas are used successfully in AH, and about as realistic as floating around on the deck in a jug at 100kts with full flaps out in hostile airspace.
edit:
Flight Test Engineering Branch
Memo Report No. Eng-47-1734-A
24 April 1944
FLIGHT TESTS ON THE NORTH AMERICAN
P-51B-5-NA AIRPLANE, AAF NO. 43-6883
"The airplane is very maneuverable with good controllability at indicated speeds to 400 MPH. The stability about all axes is good and the rate of roll is excellent, however, the radius of turn is fairly large for a fighter. The cockpit layout is excellent, but visibility is poor on the ground and only fair in level flight. "
-
1. sure the D11 outturns the B pony, but only marginally. all the later models are outturned by both ponies, by a decent margin. consistent with lw pilot reports that the pony outturns the jug, because over the course of the war, on average, this would have been true. perhaps theres something amiss with the D11 model? I'm sure if you have test data which shows smaller turn radius for 51s vs D11s HT would look at it.
No, All P-47s loaded reasonably light will consistently win a turning contest with P-51s. Full flaps are not needed. The D11 is even more advantaged than the rest of them is all. And remember, the wingloading advantage of the P-51D vs. the D11 is comparable to that of the F4U-1A vs. the P-51.
"The stability about all axes is good and the rate of roll is excellent, however, the radius of turn is fairly large for a fighter."
Entirely true when comparing the Mustang to a P-40, P-38, and especially the sweetheart amongst them, the Spitfire. However, we are talking about the turn performance relative such things as P-47s and Typhoons.
I'm sure if you have test data which shows smaller turn radius for 51s vs D11s HT would look at it.
You'd think so.....
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/38848cc6f343c5c391e46465300c73286g.jpg)
-
You'd think so.....
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/38848cc6f343c5c391e46465300c73286g.jpg)
You know there are other reports on that website that contradict that graphic. Even the report in which it was first presented states this:
"In circumstances where the ability to turn quickly or tightly are infinitely variable, and where two aircraft are nearly the same, such as the Tempest V and Thunderbolt II, a great deal depends on the ability of the pilots. Speed must be taken into account if the results are going to be of any real value.
For example, if a Tempest dives on a Thunderbolt with an overtaking speed of only 50 mph, the Thunderbolt will easily be able to avoid the attack by turning, although at the same speed in the hands of equally competent pilots, the Tempest will outmanoeuvre the Thunderbolt. This advantage, however, is no by any means so apparent at high altitudes, due to the greater engine efficiency of the Thunderbolt above 25,000ft.
Similarly, where low-altitude and high-altitude fighters are compared any advantage shown by the former will be reduced as the high-altitude fighter gets nearer to its best operational altitude. After taking all these considerations into account, the position of the aircraft relative to each other will be seen from the diagram.
Once again, the Spitfire maintains top place, followed by the Mustang, Meteor, Tempest and Thunderbolt. Too much regard to this order should not be paid, particularly by the individual who will angrily recall the occasion when he out-turned a Meteor when flying his Tempest. This sort of thing is inevitable, but we can only repeat that where the circumstances are common to both aircraft, these positions are not far wrong.
First prize to the Spitfire XIV." ( quoted from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html )
That graphic is exactly what I was referring to earlier. First, it is far from quantitative test data. It is merely a graphical presentation of the perceived relative turning circles of those aircraft. Like I said before, there is another comparison that states the P-51B and P-47C turning circles are almost equal. The is almost no quantitative test data that measures turn performance. Its a quality quite like roll rate, where comparitive statements dominate the reports instead of degrees of roll/sec.
Finally, you keep bringing up the topic of wingloading, and while it is a useful tool for comparison, it is not the panacea for turning ability you seem to think it is. There are a myriad of other factors that contribute to the turning behavior of an aircraft. If we compute the difference in wing-loading at typical combat weights, you could say that the P-47 possesses 17% higher wing-loading, but it would not be accurate to say that the P-51 turns 17% better, or to make any comparison at all, other than to say the Mustang has lower wing-loading. To say that it is curious that a lower wing-loaded aircraft turns worse or the same as a higher wing-loaded aircraft is rational. But, there are examples of this.
Another factor that I've discussed before is the airfoil difference. Laminar airfoils achieve their highest lift/drag ratios over a very narrow spectrum of angles of attack. Inside of their "buckets", they are very efficient, much more so than turbulent airfoils. Outside of their buckets, they are very inefficient, and profile drag in most cases is worse than turbulent airfoils at the same angles-of-attack. The P-51 airfoil displays much higher profile drag at high angles-of-attack than the P-47 airfoil. Perhaps this is significant enough to reduce the P-51's turning circle. I don't know--but it could be a factor that retards the Pony's turning performance.
What I do believe is that if HTC thought there was something wrong with the way the P-51 turned, he would tweak the flight model, the aircraft model, or otherwise admit something amiss. Just be careful about how you form opinions based on historical reporting, be it technical or otherwise. Look what happened to Kurfurst :O
:aok
-
PS. Thunderbolt II in the diagram is RAF for D25 ;)
-
So 2.07 was the patch that drastically affected several planes.
The 109 and F4u (all of them, not only the F4u4) were dramatically improved, the P51 and 190 got much much worse.
-
So 2.07 was the patch that drastically affected several planes.
The 109 and F4u (all of them, not only the F4u4) were dramatically improved, the P51 and 190 got much much worse.
What are the similarities between the 109 and F4U, and the P-51 and 190? Perhaps that will let us know what change produced these effects.
EDIT:
Google search found that both the 109 and the F4U have slotted flaps, while the P-51 and 190 have combat flaps and split flaps respectively. So whatever this patch did, favored slotted flaps... a lot...
-
Interesting how you ask for data, say you're sure if I had some data indicating an error, X would happen, then say the data from the period doesn't exist or is wrong. Sorry, the time machine is out for repairs, thus I cannot travel back to the '40s, kipe an in-service Mustang, and then fly it in the tightest possible circle around HTC HQ with a nun, a priest, and a representative from the department of weights and measures there to put the tape to it....
What are the similarities between the 109 and F4U, and the P-51 and 190? Perhaps that will let us know what change produced these effects.
EDIT:
Google search found that both the 109 and the F4U have slotted flaps, while the P-51 and 190 have combat flaps and split flaps respectively. So whatever this patch did, favored slotted flaps... a lot...
Remember that the heavier loaded Dora9, which does not compete with the P-51 in turning in no flaps configuration, turns a smaller radius in full flaps condition, despite the split flaps, which are very poor flaps in terms of L/D ratio. They are used largely because they increase the nose-down pitching moment less than other styles of flaps. :huh
The there was a test by Widewing. He showed that even though the AHII P-51 has much less drag than the 109K-4 with flaps stowed, apparently somehow it has more drag with one notch of flaps deployed. A simple and inexplicable rise in drag in level flight, nothing to do with relative power loading between the two airplanes or airfoil efficiency at high AoA.
-
The figure that BnZ posted is ridiculous. It is nothing more than someone's schematic impression of the general turning ability. In AH people measure minimum turning radius in a way no real plane will be tested. The planes are flow with WEP on, right on the edge of the stall, high torque, nose up high in the sky and a wing dipped low. In real life this is madness (or Sparta?) - a sure way to get yourself killed by a super-nasty stall.
In many of the comparative tests, the planes were flown in close "follow the leader" style. The leader makes its maneuvers and the other tries to keep his position, then switch parts. These are completely different conditions. It tests the turning circle in more of a "given constant speed" manner, which is likely a little higher than for the absolute minimum turning radius.
The effect of flaps is a completely separate discussion.
What is being argued here is the correct aerodynamic behavior in the most difficult conditions to simulate. HTC calculates the physics of its models and the impression I get is that they use the same physics for all models. If P51 turned better in real life, you have to be able to explain EXACTLY why it turned better, so the flaw in the model can be corrected. Regarding the flaps there is such an attempt to show how much drag it produces.
The final thing that people neglect is the departure behavior of the planes. P47 turns tighter circles than the 51 (no flaps, leave the flap-fest AH has become out of this) only in really low speeds. This is possible because the 47 is so much more stable than the 51. The more extreme example is the F4U. If your plane is unstable, the pilot will leave a larger margin of error and not get the full 100% of the performance. If you remember the old 109s model that started to swing close to the stall, or the Mosquito that used to throw itself into flat spin without warning, or the F6F in old AHI (~2002) that so few flew due to the nasty sudden stall, you will understand. They had the potential, but using it was risky. Where HTC might be off is in the departure behavior of the models that allow us to reach unrealistic conditions - and these are the ones we compare to the data.
-
I'm not an aerospace engineer. All I can do is look at the "truth" before - and it must have been the 'truth' because any naysayers were shouted down with cries of absolute fidelity BEFORE version 2.07, and compare it with the 'truth' after. As even a simple mathematician like myself can see, the two are not the same. This would leave one to believe that somehow, in some way, the 'truth' is wrong, or was. Since that is obviously impossible given the absolute fidelity of the modelling, and wonder what must have changed with me or my computer.
Sarcasm aside - all I can do is look at the performance of the planes before and after, and ask WHY there were such drastic changes in performance (I seem to recall Widewing comparing the turning circle of the 190s before and after - and the after circle was 20% larger). To me, drastic changes in the flight model with no explanation of why is ... unacceptable.
-
To me, drastic changes in the flight model with no explanation of why is ... unacceptable.
Have you taken the time to give HTC a call or email asking about it?
-
1. sure the D11 outturns the B pony, but only marginally. all the later models are outturned by both ponies, by a decent margin.
edit:
Wrong ang wrong. With flaps, the D stang is the worst turner of the bunch.
-
I was comparing turn radius without flaps, as this is the only AH data available on gonzoville and RL data from wwiiaircraftperformance.org. gonzoville has data for full flaps as well, but as I and others have suggested, this isn't a useful comparison for realistic ACM, and not a configuration they tested during WWII.
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=p51d&p2=p47d11&p3=p47d25&p4=p47d40 (http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=p51d&p2=p47d11&p3=p47d25&p4=p47d40)
wwiiaircraftperformance.org has data showing a 47C radius about the same as a 51B, consistent with AH's D11 and 51B data. BnZ's diagram shows the Mustang III (51B/C) outturning the Thunderbolt II (D25), again consistent with AH.
gonzoville doesnt give the test conditions - fuel load for equivalent range perhaps? perhaps WW could shed some light on this?
-
Sarcasm aside - all I can do is look at the performance of the planes before and after, and ask WHY there were such drastic changes in performance (I seem to recall Widewing comparing the turning circle of the 190s before and after - and the after circle was 20% larger). To me, drastic changes in the flight model with no explanation of why is ... unacceptable.
Well, BnZ did mention the types of flaps--if indeed slotted flaps were made more effective. Does anyone have any comparisons of Spitfire turning circles before and after that version? If plain flaps were made less effective, it should show up in the king of plain-flap turning circles. If anyone remembers the anchor that was the last notch of P-38 flaps from that update, I was always interested in what was changed to make that go away, even though those are Fowlers. However, I personally would not classify the difference in the Pony's behavior before and after as "drastic". Conspicuous perhaps, but not earth-shattering.
-
The bottom line, the good flyers in ponies were good before the update and still are, the guys who fly the pony "Duke Nukem MA style" are still going to be just that.
-
The bottom line, the good flyers in ponies were good before the update and still are, the guys who fly the pony "Duke Nukem MA style" are still going to be just that.
I'm sure you are right. I'm not declaring myself "good" but I did have to make some adjustments with the update.
-
Well, BnZ did mention the types of flaps--if indeed slotted flaps were made more effective. Does anyone have any comparisons of Spitfire turning circles before and after that version? If plain flaps were made less effective, it should show up in the king of plain-flap turning circles. If anyone remembers the anchor that was the last notch of P-38 flaps from that update, I was always interested in what was changed to make that go away, even though those are Fowlers. However, I personally would not classify the difference in the Pony's behavior before and after as "drastic". Conspicuous perhaps, but not earth-shattering.
I have filmed guys using flaps in a spit but... why? They are always easy kills.
-
I have filmed guys using flaps in a spit but... why? They are always easy kills.
[sigh]...
-
RTHolmes, I believe the tests are actually carried out with full fuel. I came to this conclusion after taking a look at some of WW's turn radius tests at full fuel. I saw that they were more or less consistent with the turn radius measurements at Gonzo's.
What is strange are the amount of differing information there is on the Mustang.
One of the NACA tests I have on my home computer states that the P-51's of all models had slotted flaps and that the D version had 235 sq. ft. of wing area.
Another test I have compares a field-standard P-51D-15 with an F4U-1. This test by NACA states that the P-51D has plain flaps and a wing area of 240.1 sq. ft.
-
I'm sure you are right. I'm not declaring myself "good" but I did have to make some adjustments with the update.
Ah. C'mon man, your good in that thing :) But I guess what I'm trying to say is the guys like you will still fly it the way it's mean't to be flown and tghe dweebs, well they won't notice any stuble changes.
Said this once and I'll say it again, it's a shame the pony gets flown the way it does by so many, it ends up getting a bad rap when it's the Duke nukems that are the issue and not the pony. It's just that the majority of the ack huggers and runers/ split sers follwed by the quick dive crowd tend to stick to the pony.
-
gonzoville doesnt give the test conditions - fuel load for equivalent range perhaps? perhaps WW could shed some light on this?
Here is a copy of the data that was used... Mosq's turn data AHv2.07 (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/murdr/Mosqs_Revised_Sustained_Turn_List_5-20-06.pdf). Test conditions are on the last page.
-
Oh, by the way. The dokgonzo/mosq 2.07 data is not up to date for flaps on either the P-38G/J/L, or the P-51B/D.
2.08 changes:
Fixed a bug in the P-38 flaps that was causing excessive drag with full flaps.
Made some minor corrections to the lift and drag properties of the P-51 flaps.
-
The figure that BnZ posted is ridiculous. It is nothing more than someone's schematic impression of the general turning ability.
Believe me, it is hardly the depth of testing I would prefer, but it is better than simply asserting the infallibility of a computer game. :devil
-
wwiiaircraftperformance.org has data showing a 47C radius about the same as a 51B, consistent with AH's D11 and 51B data. BnZ's diagram shows the Mustang III (51B/C) outturning the Thunderbolt II (D25), again consistent with AH.
And the Typhoon?
-
To me, drastic changes in the flight model with no explanation of why is ... unacceptable.
Reminds me of the F4Us. Before the airflow recode they were hangar queens, used only by great USN fans or by carrier ops. They were not manuverable at all. For YEARS, since AH1 came out, nobody questioned this, at all. Nobody cried foul, NOBODY came out with metric tons of evidence saying "this is wrong!!!" -- the plane turned about as well as a Jug did, back before the Jug turns like it does now. It was BNZ and angles, NOT a turn fighter.
Then it gets magically revamped, and all of a sudden it's got docile handling, superb stability, super-uber-flappen that make it contend with the best of spitfires, and general performance that catapult it into the top 5 most common dweeb rides I see nowadays.
Yet, when folks question this, all the new-found F4U pilots cry out in unison "No! This is how it really was! See?? See?? Here, and here, it states this was the best turning plane in the war!"
I wonder where they were for almost 8 years or so until just recently when 2.07 changed all that.
:rolleyes:
-
Then it gets magically revamped, and all of a sudden it's got docile handling, superb stability, super-uber-flappen that make it contend with the best of spitfires, and general performance that catapult it into the top 5 most common dweeb rides I see nowadays.
The F4U was always turning better than the P51 throughout the envelope, in all AH version as far as I can remember. What has changed is only the behaviour of planes very close to stall and in particular the effects of flaps. Since the latter became standard flight control surfaces where every turn starts by lowering flaps, this had a significant effect on the relative performance of planes. Without flap usage, the differences are much smaller.
-
Have you taken the time to give HTC a call or email asking about it?
I've got the answer I'd get right here.
The last flight model change to the P-51 was in the flaps and that was almost 3 years ago. I challenge you to go load up an old version and show the difference in performance.
I will say that you are correct about the tachometer being out of alignment but that has diddly squat to do with the actual performance. Just because your speedometer is off in your car it doesn't change how fast you're actually going.
Pyro does all the modeling. He says there has been no changes to the P-51's flight envelope.
-
And the Typhoon?
I cant find any data for Typhoon or Tempest turn performance :(
-
I've got the answer I'd get right here.
Pyro does all the modeling. He says there has been no changes to the P-51's flight envelope.
I was mostly asking BnZ if he had aired his concerns directly with HTC. But thanks for the response, always good to see answers from the company.
-
I'm not an aerospace engineer. All I can do is look at the "truth" before - and it must have been the 'truth' because any naysayers were shouted down with cries of absolute fidelity BEFORE version 2.07, and compare it with the 'truth' after. As even a simple mathematician like myself can see, the two are not the same. This would leave one to believe that somehow, in some way, the 'truth' is wrong, or was. Since that is obviously impossible given the absolute fidelity of the modelling, and wonder what must have changed with me or my computer.
Sarcasm aside - all I can do is look at the performance of the planes before and after, and ask WHY there were such drastic changes in performance (I seem to recall Widewing comparing the turning circle of the 190s before and after - and the after circle was 20% larger). To me, drastic changes in the flight model with no explanation of why is ... unacceptable.
Because the "NEA SAYERS" are normally like you , and want to state things that are not based in fact. Even if we explained things you would still not be capable of understanding. You also love to throw around words like "Drastic changes in the flight model" when in reality they are very minor changes. The why was stated you just will never be able to , or wish to, understand the answer. You are much more content to sit back and just throw darts, then ever set on a quest for understanding and knowledge.
HiTech
-
I cant find any data for Typhoon or Tempest turn performance :(
Mea Culpa. I meant Tempest. According to DokGonzo's, the Tempest clearly out-turns the P-51 in AHII in both flaps and non-flaps configuration.
-
Because the "NEA SAYERS" are normally like you , and want to state things that are not based in fact. Even if we explained things you would still not be capable of understanding. You also love to throw around words like "Drastic changes in the flight model" when in reality they are very minor changes. The why was stated you just will never be able to , or wish to, understand the answer. You are much more content to sit back and just throw darts, then ever set on a quest for understanding and knowledge.
HiTech
Dale, buddy, you know I think AHII is the best and most cleverly designed WWII flight sim out there, and you'd deserve to get paid handsomely for creating for the rest of your life, even if you never did another lick of work on it. But, seriously, how did we end up with Allied and Axis pilots thinking the Mustang is a good-turning planed compared to just about everything but the Spitfire, better than the P-47 and fit to compete with the 109G in the turn? How is it that no one ever noticed the "truth" and said, "WTF, this bucket of bolts can't even turn quite as well as my old razorback Jug, it just can't win turning with a 109 at any practical speed!"? I mean, they noticed that the Wildcats and P-40s couldn't compete with the Zeros turn-for-turn rather quickly...
-
How is it that no one ever noticed the "truth" and said, "WTF, this bucket of bolts can't even turn quite as well as my old razorback Jug
And hence why you do not understand the concept of flight modeling. In your statement you assume it is because the model is incorrect, instead of assuming the model is correct,and then try finding the real reason people did not speak about it.
When you start being able to answer both questions and look at both sides. I.E. maybe the model is wrong, or maybe what they say in the book is do to some other reason, or because it was not important to them at that time. Then you will start to see data, and flight modeling in a different light.
BnZ to give you an idea of how far you must come, your post before is completely meaningless.
Mea Culpa. I meant Tempest. According to DokGonzo's, the Tempest clearly out-turns the P-51 in AHII in both flaps and non-flaps configuration.
There is no information that can really be discerned from your statement. For one reason the statement "out-turns" can mean almost anything, and hence can not be used for any modeling. 2nd there are other great problems with your statement as far as modeling is concerned. Now if you can answer why I said your statement is meaningless,and list the reasons why, you will then gain a little knowledge what modeling is all about.
HiTech
-
Speaking of meaningless, that is a dodge that would do a politician proud. Relax. :) There is not going to be any mass canceling of subscriptions just because we are having this discussion.
As far as what "turning" means, in this particular case, it means that the Tempest, as well as the Typhoon and P-47 D-11 can turn with a smaller radius than the P-51. It also means that as a practical fact, the planes mentioned can whip a P-51 in-game in an angles fight from an even break between competent pilots, and that such a contest isn't even close in the case of P-51 vs. 109 of any stripe. This last bit seems strange, given the Mustang's historic reputation. It would have surprised Bud Anderson, among other people.
Are you perhaps saying there is an unknown factor which lead to otherwise intelligent people being completely wrong in their evaluation of the relative merits of the P-51 in a turning contest with other aircraft? If so, what is it? I mean, if for instance there was a mass propaganda campaign by North American so effective even the Krauts believed the disinformation, that would be fascinating episode in and of itself.
And hence why you do not understand the concept of flight modeling. In your statement you assume it is because the model is incorrect, instead of assuming the model is correct,and then try finding the real reason people did not speak about it.
When you start being able to answer both questions and look at both sides. I.E. maybe the model is wrong, or maybe what they say in the book is do to some other reason, or because it was not important to them at that time. Then you will start to see data, and flight modeling in a different light.
BnZ to give you an idea of how far you must come, your post before is completely meaningless.
There is no information that can really be discerned from your statement. For one reason the statement "out-turns" can mean almost anything, and hence can not be used for any modeling. 2nd there are other great problems with your statement as far as modeling is concerned. Now if you can answer why I said your statement is meaningless,and list the reasons why, you will then gain a little knowledge what modeling is all about.
HiTech
-
HiTech, there are a lot of biased opinions out there and a lot of weird crap in books that I've seen too that makes me really wonder what's going on. You're right about the both sides arguments... one can't come up with a conclusion until one knows about both sides.
However, when we say 'out-turns' it usually means: 'maintains a higher, horizontal turn rate where both aircraft are turning at maximum sustainable AoA while both are turning horizontally at the same time etc etc.' I mean, there are a lot of things that one can say against my statement but some things are just assumed when they are spoken. i.e. If someone says: 'Wow, this is gay' that is not assumed to mean 'This is homosexual' rather: 'this is stupid.' Correct me if I'm wrong; I don't think I am. After all, many NACA and especially RAF tests use this kind of language which appears so vague at first. I.e. 'Turning circle: 36. The Tempest is not quite as good.' is a direct statement off of an RAF Mustang Mk.III tactical test in 1944.
It's a crappy description, but it gives you an idea of what turning is. We wouldn't assume a faster vertical loop rate as a faster turn rate would we? Maybe, but for the most part, no.
At any rate, the statement:'the Tempest clearly out-turns the P-51 in AHII in both flaps and non-flaps configuration.' is a summary of what happens on Gonzo's test page. Those are the best turn radii (I think) according to Gonzo's tests.
-
Mea Culpa. I meant Tempest. According to DokGonzo's, the Tempest clearly out-turns the P-51 in AHII in both flaps and non-flaps configuration.
yes it does, my point was that to contest this you need some RL test data on turn radii under the same conditions as the AH tests, rather than just believing it to be the case. reputations often conflict with the real data due to proaganda and a bunch of other factors. example: ask the average Brit which aircraft won the BoB and they will say Spitfire, despite the Hurri claiming most of the kills.
edit: Pappy, this is the problem with using descriptions rather than standardised test data - "turning" could mean instantanious or sustained, with vertical elements or not, and might also include rollrate, onset of stall and control response as these will factor in any ACM which involves "turning". When pilots talk about "agility" or "manouverability" you can also throw in a load of other factors like acceleration, e-bleed, rudder response etc.
-
SgtPappy I really was not being purposely stupid.
SgtPappy: You prove my point very well, you defined it as Max sustained level turn rate (but you did not define at what alt). But look at the post above, Bnz defined it as smallest turn radius. Those 2 definitions are not the same. So now what did Doc really test. Even in your statement you switch from "maintains a higher, horizontal turn rate" to 'Turning circle: 36. The Tempest is not quite as good.' so even you are speaking of 2 different numbers.
2nd in Bnz's statement he did not define what version of the P51 and variant of the tempest. So from his statement all I can really conclude is that some version of a p51 turns faster in some manner at some altitude than some version of a Tempest.
I.E. it is totally useless information. And since the poster does not even understand how useless a statement like this is I can not even begin to do any type of evaluation on it.
You may believe that I am nit picking, but I really am not , We come across these type of statements all the time. The uniformed will read something like his statement in a book, and believe it means one thing, while it really was referring to something else. When we read these type of statements and believe that the statement is really based in fact, we then do not automatically think that our model is wrong but begin to evaluate if something is wrong or if both can be correct and there is some thing that is being said , or a slightly different plane configuration that makes both the statement and our model correct.
The processes of modeling is an engineering process. Any one data point can not be looked at in isolation. Anecdotal evidence can be used to swag numbers when nothing better exists, but many things must be considered about that type of evidence.
HiTech
-
Because the "NEA SAYERS" are normally like you , and want to state things that are not based in fact. Even if we explained things you would still not be capable of understanding. You also love to throw around words like "Drastic changes in the flight model" when in reality they are very minor changes. The why was stated you just will never be able to , or wish to, understand the answer. You are much more content to sit back and just throw darts, then ever set on a quest for understanding and knowledge.
HiTech
HT,
Try me. I'd LOVE to know exactly what changed so that the P-51 (actually, the 190 for me) had its flaps down turning performance changed. Widewing compared the old 190a5 to the new one, the flaps down turning circle is much larger.
-
2nd in Bnz's statement he did not define what version of the P51 and variant of the tempest. So from his statement all I can really conclude is that some version of a p51 turns faster in some manner at some altitude than some version of a Tempest.
I.E. it is totally useless information. And since the poster does not even understand how useless a statement like this is I can not even begin to do any type of evaluation on it.
I'm sorry, I rather assumed you had seen the image comparing the turning circle of the Mustang Mk.III to the Tempest II&V.
You seem to be getting rather defensive here. That is not my intent. I realize that is enormously difficult to model real worlds physics for computer simulation, and as I have stated before, I think HTC has done the best work to date on WWII flight sims. Nor do I expect some sort of "quick fix" for what may indeed be a very knotty problem.
If there is some logical reason for the disparity between the perceived turning abilities of the P-51 relative other aircraft during the period vs. its performance in game not related to flight model, I would be glad to hear it. Asking questions about this issue does not constitute throwing darts, and pretending this disparity I speak of does not exist is not helpful.
-
that image, although interesting as a period artifact, is not very helpful for your cause. provide some proper standardised test data on the relative "turn performance" of the pony and jug, temp, whatever and you might have more luck...
-
One of the problems associated with modeling an aircraft, specifically a WWII fighter, is that there exists no real world quantitative testing that measured turning ability with flaps fully down. I have never seen any and I'll wager no one else has either. It was something that was not tested. Therefore, HTC has to make decisions based upon what they do know. No doubt, it's an imperfect art.
Likewise, I have not any testing of minimal turn radius clean. Most testing was done on a comparison basis.
There is flight testing of a P-51 (Allison) comparing maneuverability to the P-39D, P-40F (Merlin powered), P-38F and P-47C. We know the takeoff weight of the this P-51, 8,443 lb. We don't know how much of its 140 gallons was burned off prior to the actual "dog fights", but we can assume that it was proportional to the others. Note that this P-51 shares the same basic air frame with P-51B, including the wing and tail appendages, except that the rudder trim was changed and rigged as an anti-balance tab. This Allison P-51 is lighter by 440 lb in basic weight.
The text from the test describes the comparison as follows:
b. Maneuverability. The subject aircraft was flown in "mock" combat against the P-38F, P-39D, P-40F, P-47B, and the Mitsubishi "00" type of aircraft.
c. The following results were obtained:
(1) The subject aircraft was found to be superior in speed of the Mitsubishi "00", P-39D, P-47F at all altitudes and the P-47B and P-38F up to fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet.
(2) The subject aircraft was found to be superior in rate of climb to the P-39D, P-40F, and the P-47B up to fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet.
(3) The acceleration in dives and the maximum permissible diving speed of the subject aircraft is superior to all types tested.
(4) The turning characteristics of the subject aircraft are substantially the same as the P-40F and the P-39D. None of these appears to have any definite superior turning characteristics.
(5) In close "dog fighting" the subject aircraft has the very decided advantage of being able to engage or break off combat at will. However, if neither airplane attempts to leave the combat, the P-40F is considered to have a slight advantage.
Let's look at our P-51B... The minimum takeoff weight that can be produced in the game is 8,213 lb. This is obtained by shooting out all of the ammunition prior to takeoff. This weight is substantially less than the takeoff weight of the P51 in the above test. Even if the that P-51 had burned off 40 gallons of its fuel, it would weigh in at 8,195 lb, very close to the 8,213 lb for a light P-51B.
Let's compare our P-40E to the P-40F. Like the P-51B, this P-40 was fitted with a Merlin. This installation added nearly 400 lb to the airframe. So, if we compare the P-51B to the P-40E, we need to allow for an additional 400 lb of weight for the P-40E. Takeoff weight for a fully loaded P-40F is 8,678 lb. Let's reduce that by 40 gallons of gas. That comes out to 8,430 lb. With that figure in mind, I'll configure the P-40E to that weight. To get this, I load 75% internal fuel and a drop tank. I then have to shoot out a little ammo to get down to 8,430 lb. The drop tank adds drag, so the numbers will be skewed to reflect that.
With both fighters configured, I then do a minimum turn radius test, both clean and with full flaps.
So, in "close dog fighting", is the P-51B only "slightly" inferior to the P-40E at the weights defined above?
Minimum turn radius clean...
P-40E: 743.5 feet
P-51B: 770.6 feet
Minimum turn radius full flaps...
P-40E: 566.4 feet
P-51B: 601.1 feet
Remember now, the P-40E has 75% fuel and a 75 gallon drop tank, vs a P-51B with 25% fuel and no ammo.
The ratio between clean and full flaps is about the same between them.
However, I don't see this as a "slight" difference. It's roughly the same as the difference between a SpitV and a SpitIX, which is much more than "slight".
Moreover, the fact that a clean A-20G easily out-turns a clean P-51B should create a pause for thought, agree?
My regards,
Widewing
-
...
However, I don't see this as a "slight" difference. It's roughly the same as the difference between a SpitV and a SpitIX, which is much more than "slight".
Moreover, the fact that a clean A-20G easily out-turns a clean P-51B should create a pause for thought, agree?
...
Going by memory here, I recall spit IX and spit V to be considered "equal" in turn ability in evaluation tests.
Many big aircraft (empty) will have lower stall speeds that a P51. Most likely, the will have smaller minimum turn radius. It does not mean that they will win a dogfight vs. a P51, as I am sure you know.
Testing "turn ability" is futile as a mean to test a flight model. If you like, you can test the actual drag and lift of the plane at various configurations and speeds and then see the effects of flaps and other things. I have not devised a full testing procedure yet, and definitly do not have the time to do it, but in principle this can be done either by power off glide at constant speed and reading the rate of decent and weight, or turning on auto level and monitoring the minimum speed before loss of alt (this will have to assume something about what auto-level actually does). Some of the aeroengineers here probably have some standard way to do it.
-
interesting stuff Widewing, although I still wonder about how much the report's definition of "turning characteristics" releates directly to minimum flat turn radius.
overall I'm not surprised that the 51 isnt a great turner relative to similar aircraft because the wing is optimised for low drag rather than lift. am I right in thinking that loaded 51s climbed to alt with 1 notch of flaps?
the A20 is an interesting example, the wing was designed to lug a fully loaded (26,000lb) bird at a reasonable climbrate for the operations it would be used for, but not at 400mph, ie optimised for lift with a drag penalty. lose 7,000lb of ords and fuel and that lift and the power/weight ratio translates to a very tight turning circle.
-
I'm not saying that the A-20 is incorrect.
The A-20G without bombs and 25% fuel weighs in at 18,738 lb. Its wing area is 465 sq/ft. This produces a wing loading of 40.3 lb per sq/ft.
P-51B, no ammo, 25% fuel weighs in at 8,213 lb. Its wing area is 235 sq/ft. This produces a wing loading of 34.9 lb per sq/ft.
P-40E, 75% fuel and drop tank weighs in at 8,430 lb. Its wing area is 236 sq/ft. This produces a wing loading of 35.7 lb per sq/ft.
Fw 190A-5, 25 fuel, 4 cannon weighs in at 8,158 lb. Its wing area is 197 sq/ft. This produces a wing loading of 41.4 lb per sq/ft.
My testing at the weights above (rounded to nearest foot measurement):
Turn radius, clean...
A-20G: 722 ft
P-51B: 770 ft
P-40E: 744 ft
190A-5: 787 ft (Mosq's data)
Turn radius, full flaps...
A-20G: 586 ft
P-51B: 601 ft
P-40E: 566 ft
190A-5: 584 ft (Mosq's data)
Clearly, there is something different about the P-51s... What I would like to know is: What is it?
My regards,
Widewing
-
WTF is up with the Fw-190s?
The A-20 and P-51B experienced a 19% and 22% reduction in turn radius respectively comparing clean configuration to full flaps.
The 190A5 got a 24% reduction in turn radius. The thing that sticks out here is that it has Split-flaps, not designed for aiding maneuvering and not efficient for that purpose from a lift/drag ratio standpoint. Yet it gets as much turn radius benefit as the P-47s get from their maneuvering flaps and almost as much as a P-38J gets (26%) from full deployment of Fowler flaps!
-
Guys
I'd just like to clarify a couple of points.
Firstly, wing loading is not a useful comparison in the context of this thread. It is only useful when you are discussing aircraft that have wings with similar lift coefficients. Generally, comparing fighters using wing loading values alone can be misleading, comparing bombers with fighters using wing loading is more so.
Secondly, bombers that have wings that can reach higher coefficients of lift, because they have been designed to carry heavy loads, often compare favourably with fighters if you do calculations on their turning ability when they are light. This has been a noticeable feature of almost every flight sim' that allows the players to fly bombers. Does that mean the fighters involved are wrong? Nope. If you look at the A20 in the file containing Mosq's data posted earlier in this thread you will notice that the A20 has a smaller sustained turn radius than the TA152, the P38L and P38J with heavy ammo, the P-51B, P-51D, the P47N with heavy ammo, the FW-190D9, FW-190A8 and FW-190F8. Does that mean there is something wrong with all of those fighters? Nope. I'd be surprised if anyone who flies any of those fighters as their main ride, would complain that they have any difficulty dispatching A20's in the MA. That's because very little of the air combat in the MA takes place under the sustained turning conditions illustrated by that data.
Lastly, I would like to point out as someone who is totally neutral on this issue, that none of the arguments or data presented so far in this thread lends any credibility to the contention that there is anything wrong with the P-51.
Badboy
-
Guys
I'd just like to clarify a couple of points.
Firstly, wing loading is not a useful comparison in the context of this thread. It is only useful when you are discussing aircraft that have wings with similar lift coefficients. Generally, comparing fighters using wing loading values alone can be misleading, comparing bombers with fighters using wing loading is more so.
Secondly, bombers that have wings that can reach higher coefficients of lift, because they have been designed to carry heavy loads, often compare favourably with fighters if you do calculations on their turning ability when they are light. This has been a noticeable feature of almost every flight sim' that allows the players to fly bombers. Does that mean the fighters involved are wrong? Nope. If you look at the A20 in the file containing Mosq's data posted earlier in this thread you will notice that the A20 has a smaller sustained turn radius than the TA152, the P38L and P38J with heavy ammo, the P-51B, P-51D, the P47N with heavy ammo, the FW-190D9, FW-190A8 and FW-190F8. Does that mean there is something wrong with all of those fighters? Nope. I'd be surprised if anyone who flies any of those fighters as their main ride, would complain that they have any difficulty dispatching A20's in the MA. That's because very little of the air combat in the MA takes place under the sustained turning conditions illustrated by that data.
Lastly, I would like to point out as someone who is totally neutral on this issue, that none of the arguments or data presented so far in this thread lends any credibility to the contention that there is anything wrong with the P-51.
Badboy
+1 here, I'd also add that at say 20-25k doing combat speed in a pony, there wouldn't be a whole lot that could out turn you.
-
Guys
I'd just like to clarify a couple of points.
Firstly, wing loading is not a useful comparison in the context of this thread. It is only useful when you are discussing aircraft that have wings with similar lift coefficients. Generally, comparing fighters using wing loading values alone can be misleading, comparing bombers with fighters using wing loading is more so.
Absolutely, CLmax is equally important with wing loading. Neither can define turn radius alone. However, the P-51's CLmax was not so low as to create the issue we see in the game.
NACA Report 829 states and clearly demonstrates that the P-51B, due to the extremely smooth and clean design of the wing, has a slightly higher Coefficient of Lift than the F4U-1A. This is when both wings are in "service condition". Moreover, the P-51B hits its max CL at a greater angle of attack than the Corsair. Why did the Corsair out-turn the P-51B in Navy comparison testing? Lower wing loading and the fact that the F4U had its wings taped (sealed), without which, its CLmax drops substantially due to intra-surface leakage.
The P-51B has a CLmax virtually identical to the P-47D, and a lower wing loading.... In the real world, the P-51B could handily out-turn a P-47D. This makes sense as turn radius is basically determined by the weight load carried by the wing divided by the wing's efficiency at lifting the load. In the game (clean condition), the P-47D-11 turns smaller circles than the P-51B, with the P-47D-40 nipping at the Mustang's heels. If you take the lesser ammo load in the Jug (which was what was usually loaded for combat in the 8th AF), it matches the P-51B.
NACA 829 included CLmax testing of three aircraft with landing flaps fully extended... As expected, higher CLmax, occurring at much lower angles of attack.
The conclusions of NACA829 are interesting:
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/WingCLmax.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Guys
The problem with discussions of this type is that there is often a great deal of misunderstanding about exactly what it is that is actually being compared. For example, because aircraft A has a higher lift coefficient and lower wing loading than aircraft B it is automatically assumed that aircraft A will be superior in turning, but that simply isn't always the case. Lift coefficient and wing loading even when taken together are not enough to make valid predictions about the outcome of a turning engagement.
I hear you asking… Am I really saying that an aircraft with a higher maximum lift coefficient and lower wing loading can be out turned by one with a lower maximum lift coefficient and higher wing loading? Absolutely, that's exactly what I'm saying. But it is important to be very clear about what we mean by “out turn”, just quoting turn radius and turn rate values is meaningless, we need to be sure if we are talking sustained or instantaneous turn values.
The problem is that when people on these boards quote lift coefficients and wing loadings, and then compare them with turn radius and turn rate values, they are often using the turn rate and turn radius as determined in sustained turn tests. That data is important and useful to help predict the outcome of an engagement, and is readily available. The catch is that in a sustained turn, the performance depends very heavily on factors that are often ignored in the discussion. What factors? Well, in a sustained turn a lot depends on the ability of the engine and prop to pull the aircraft around the turn, so a large number of factors associated with the engine and propeller come into play.
So, if you are comparing lift coefficient and wing loading data for aircraft with different engine and prop configurations, the results may well be counter intuitive because the sustained turn rate may well be influenced more by differences in the thrust producing capability of the aircraft than by differences in lift and weight. As an example, I just ran the calculations for the case of the F4U1 and P-51B from the report cited earlier in this thread and the results show that even with a higher wing loading, and lower maximum lift coefficient the F4U1 can still achieve the higher sustained turn rate.
I think that result would surprise some people, and so I think it helps to illustrate the danger in trying to draw conclusions based on performance ratios, and unfortunately, there really aren't any reliable short cuts to this sort of thing.
What does all that mean? It all adds up to the conclusion that, as yet, we haven’t really seen a compelling argument regarding any particular comparison.
Hope that helps.
Badboy
-
When WW states that the reasons as to why the F4U-1 'outturns' the P-51B in the Navy test, it is stated that there is experimental error involved. Perhaps even without the sealed wings, perhaps the F4U would still turn 'better' but not as much so. We don't know.
Additionally, I'm sure someone has thrust numbers here somewhere. I don't know off hand myself, but I believe the F4U-1 (P&W R-2800; no water injection/old propeller) produces slightly more thrust than a P-51B (V-1650-3/Hamilton Standard w/rubber slips). But a lot relies on the drag of the plane as well. I mean, what good is all this thrust if the drag penalty is really high? Hence, the lower thrust/lower drag P-51B and higher thrust/higher drag F4U-1 accelerate similarly.
That was just a simple deduction based on absolutely nothing but it I hope it makes you think. The P-51B - as discussed in previous other threads on the exact same topic - has one of the absolute lowest overall drag coefficients of any WWII fighter.
-
SgtPappy:
Badboy know's what he's talking about and is absolutely spot on in what he states :).
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
SgtPappy:
I should elaborate just a little since I posted my earlier response on the way out of the office :).
Thrust and drag are not single point values. In the case of thrust it varies with airspeed and besides engine BHP is also highly dependent on propeller efficiency which is a function of propeller aerodynamics. Drag is obviously not a single point value either and varies with both speed, configuration, and lift.
The point is that often folks tend to over-generalize the aerodynamics which leads to picking on your favorite aerodynamic variable and trying to make some conclusion from it but don't realize it's incorrect. Your thrust and drag assumptions of the F4U and the P-51 are is an example of this kind of over generalization. It is aero-"DYNAMICS" afterall, meaning that the forces involved are complex and change so that what you find in one flight condition can be dramatically different in a different condition for the same airplane.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
The P-51s turning abilities or lack thereof relative to certain other aircraft does not match what virtually all the test and combat reports we have say, and as you have admitted seem rather odd in light of the physical traits of the P-51 vs. other aircraft. Widewing in his many posts on this matter has dug up as much empirical evidence as you are likely to get on "real world" testing. With this mass of evidence in mind, what proof can naysayers present that the P-51 modeling is NOT wrong, and what explanation can be given for so many persons making such a grave error about the P-51 relative maneuvering qualities, especially since such an error was liable to be fatal to combat pilots?
-
Well, we got some test data about the turn radius, but what about the corresponding turn rate? When the turn radii are similar, then the turn rate will make the difference.
-
dTango, Badboy,
I hope it didn't look like i was critisizing everything. I was simply stating a rebuttle. I am here to learn after all, and hope to study aerodynamics myself in about 7 months time.
But what I can't understand are the conflicts between the real-world data vs. AHII data and the real-world data vs. itself.
As an example, we have all seen the numerous tests stating that the Mustang III handily has a better sustained turn than the Tempest V, that is, turns inside the Tempest V. We don't see that in game. It is also found that though the P-47D's have lighter controls, that they have a slower turn rate vs. the P-51B.
But then again, the data is confusing. AFDU stating that the 109G6 cannot turn inside a P-47 or even Fw190.
-
But what I can't understand are the conflicts between the real-world data vs. AHII data and the real-world data vs. itself.
How many history books have errors in them? Most of the time, its due to poor research, bias, or questionable reference material. The 1940's were some of the best and worst times for aerodynamic research. Many groundbreaking discoveries were made, but some of the worst aviation myths were also created. Simple scientific method was sometimes completely ignored, even by NACA, the USAAF, the RAF, etc. Objectivity was often questionable, even if the bias was inadvertent. Additionally, different sources of information from the period directly contradict each other. Who or what do you believe in these situations?
Its ironic that this discussion revolves around one of the most famous and thoroughly documented aircraft in history. Coincidence?
-
dTango, Badboy,
But what I can't understand are the conflicts between the real-world data vs. AHII data and the real-world data vs. itself.
The problem is we have no earthly idea what the supposed "data" even means. The oft referenced report is this AFDU doc with something about comparison of turning circles. Some people seem to think they know what kind of turn data it is - e.g. it must be the best sustained radius. I have no clue as to how they could even make that conclusion.
For all practical purposes it's pretty much crap for us. There's not even any hint of how the turns were performed and under what plethora of conditions. Nothing. On top of that there isn't even any turn radii data at all. Zip. None. Nothing that we can even use to know exactly what it was we are comparing. There's no data point to even begin to try and understand.
I have another AFDU in 1945 report comparing the Mustang III with the Spit IX, Spit XIV, Tempest V, Fw-190, and 109G. Guess what it says about the turning circle of the P-51 in relationship with the Fw190 and 109G? The P-51 is slightly better than the Fw190 while it's tremendously better than the 109G. So why is the Fw190 all of the sudden better than the 109G while in the quoted AFDU report here in the thread the diagram show the Fw190 and 109G the same? Hmm. Go figure. Unfortunately my AFDU report is just about as useless :) because it doesn't give us any relevant info to understand what the heck they are really comparing.
Interestingly enough at least my AFDU report gives a really vague statement about possible turning conditions in the section comparing the Fw190 turning circle with the Mustang. It states...
Turning Circle
...The Mustang is always slightly better. When evading an enemy aircraft with a steep turn, a pilot will always out-turn the attacking aircraft initially because of the difference in speeds.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? Beats the crap out of me, but it sure doesn't sound like a comparison of best sustained turn radii of the aircraft. I could speculate but it's pretty pointless because we don't have any real reference point to understand what type of turning they are really comparing.
I and others have stated it already in multiple different ways. The bottom line is the AFDU "turning circle" drawing is useless as any real form of comparison.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
That means HTC has a 0.56% error from real life. Im betting that variation from plane to plane matches this.
That 0.24% error. To me it looks likes HTC has things pretty close.
I think you will find larger errors in the modeling of other planes, maybe HTC should worry about them first.
This raises an interesting point and a question in my mind.
Has HTC bothered to band the models such that they exhibit variation? My gut-level guess: I sincerely doubt it. However, consider how neat it would be that you might, for example, saddle up a D9 only knowing that its performance fell within a certain error band.
If so, it would also be really neat if you could "save" that ride - once you found one you liked. Of course, your saved ride would last until somebody turned you - and it - into a crispy critter. Then it'd be back to the bullpen.
You'd need some randomized constant on some of the key physicals, I think... e.g., power output or normalized drag (reflective of variable fit and finish) right? I mean, it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult.
Of course, getting the data for that variability, otoh, might be a serious pain. Do you reckon they kept SPC data at the FW plant? This was pre-Deming, after all. However, they might've done small sample tunnel tests. I can't imagine they would've seen any need to run anything more than a few models, though, and you'd need something like 30 production examples to get exemplary coefficient variability data.
-
The rides are standard. 2 folks in identical rides with identical setups, one isn't going to outperform the other.
HT left it up to the pilot to fly the plane, not to hope for random luck to get the "sweet ride" one out of 10 times [or whatever].
-
Yes, I understand. BTW, I think I saw you in the MA recently flying a P40.
I guess you were challenging yourself. The thing can't climb but it compensates with a lousy roll rate...
I think it'd help the realism aspect but hurt the competitive parity aspect. You could say the same about figuring in statistical failure rates for other things like engine cutouts or gun jamming.