Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: wells on September 17, 2000, 09:04:00 PM
-
With 1.04 out the door, it might be a good time to analyse e-retention of AH planes. Sure, there's some work to be done in yaw still, but you're supposed to be coordinated to conserve E, right? I did calculations for WB a long time ago and there's a few different ways to measure it. My preferred method is to convert the acceleration or deceleration at various speeds and G-loads into a rate of decent, since acceleration and vertical velocity are directly related.
Testing in the simulation requires good piloting skills to maintain a constant speed and G-load in a spiral dive. What you do is measure the rate of decent. The plane that decends faster at a given speed and g-load is losing energy fastest. For best accuracy, you want it to take longer to decend so that any time discrepencies equate to minimal error, yet at the same time, you want to be close to the angle of attack limit for maximum energy bleed. What this means is that you should choose a relatively low speed and a G-load that you know all planes are capable of, say 250 mph and 4 g's. Start at 20000 feet, get the plane trimmed up for 250 mph IAS level, set power as required, then go into a spiral dive, maintain speed and 4 G's in the dive, do not adjust power (It is essentially cancelling out the parasite drag, so we can limit the results to the effects of increased induced drag only).
If anyone wants to volunteer to test fly a few planes, I'll post the calculations so we can compare. The calculations may not match sim results perfectly, but should give a very good indication of relative performance between aircraft. I guess 50% fuel load would be appropriate?
-
First 4 planes, F4u-1D, P-51D, P-47D, P-38J (50% fuel, 250 mph, 4G's) I will apply an efficiency to the induced drag called Oswalds' efficiency, calculated by 1 - 1/AR for a straight wing. Taper ratio is also factored in
P-38J (16500 lbs)
Wing Area = 327.5 sq ft
Aspect ratio = 8.25
Taper ratio ~ 0.33
Oswald efficiency = 0.96
Induced drag = 3344 lbs
Deceleration = 4.44 mph/s
Rate of decent at 10000 ft: 5219 ft/min
P-47D (13300 lbs)
Wing Area = 300 sq ft
Aspect ratio = 5.56
Oswald efficiency = 1.0 (ideal elliptical)
Induced drag = 3379 lbs
Deceleration = 5.58 mph/s
Rate of decent at 10000 ft: 6542 ft/min
P-51D (9400 lbs)
Wing Area = 235.75
Aspect ratio = 5.81
Taper ratio ~ 0.5
Oswald efficiency = 0.91
Induced drag = 2258 lbs
Deceleration = 5.27 mph/s
Rate of decent at 10000 ft: 6186 ft/min
F4u-1D (11250 lbs)
Wing Area = 314 sq ft
Aspect ratio = 5.35
Taper ratio ~ 0.67
Oswald efficiency = 0.87
Induced drag = 2759 lbs
Deceleration = 5.38 mph/s
Rate of decent at 10000 ft: 6315 ft/min
[This message has been edited by wells (edited 09-17-2000).]
-
My own preliminary flight tests show pretty good results. I took off with 75% fuel, so that when I got to 20k, I had close to 50%. I set up the spiral and timed it from 15k down to 5k. I got these average rates of decent.
P-38J/L: 6000 fpm
P-47D-30: 7500 fpm
P-51D: 6800 fpm
F4u-1D: 6700 fpm
-
Uhm
Someone tell me what tbhese numbers mean, and how you acn use them.
Rate of descent? Point nose straight down, apply full throttle.
I can do more than a meagre 6k a minute freefalling (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Talking to yourself again Wells? I'm callin your shrink, you need to be medicated.....again. :P
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
-
ahhhh...thanks Flakbait, I thought I'd lost those pills! Turned out they were right where I left 'em...doh! <swallows pill>
uh...duh...sim good....yeah...mmmmm donut...
-
Santa, nose straight down and full throttle you won't do steady 250mph and 4G (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Santa the numbers represent energy lost per minute in a 4g turn at 250 mph.
Thanks Wells for doing the calcs and testing. The two sets of numbers look a LOT closer than pre-1.04. Now if they can only fix the bizzare behavior at high slip angles.
-
Wells, you can set fuel burn rate to mimimum in Arena settings. Now you can climb to 20k and still have 50% like you took off.
And now please include Fw 190A-8 in your tests (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
-
Interesting thread. I'm no aeronautical engineer, but looking at your calculated rates of descent vs. tested rates, it looks like AH planes still bleed E too fast. Assuming the calculations are correct and there was no error in testing, is that a correct interpretation? Also, looks like the pony is bleeding E too fast or the F4U is holding it too well.
I'm just trying to understand what the numbers mean, not say whether they're right or not.
-
I probably had a bit more than 50% fuel, maybe 60% or so and that would affect things. I didn't know I could set up the fuel burn rate, so I'll try it again with 50% and see what happens.
The results:
P-38L: 5700 fpm
P-47D-30: 7300 fpm
P-51D: 6700 fpm
F4u-1D: 6350 fpm
[This message has been edited by wells (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
A few more planes (50% fuel)
190a8 (4 cannons) (9000 lbs)
Wing Area = 197 sq ft
Aspect ratio = 6.0
Taper ratio ~ 0.5
Oswald efficiency = 0.92
Induced drag = 2373 lbs
Deceleration = 5.79 mph/s
Rate of decent at 10000 ft: 6787 ft/min
Tested in sim: 6450 fpm
109G-10 (6850 lbs)
Wing Area = 173 sq ft
Aspect ratio = 6.1
Taper ratio ~ 0.5
Oswald efficiency = 0.92
Induced drag = 1540 lbs
Deceleration = 4.94 mph/s
Rate of decent at 10000 ft: 5787 ft/min
Tested in sim: 6400 ft/min
Spit IX (7100 lbs)
wing Area = 242
Aspect ratio = 5.6
Induced drag = 1185 lbs
Deceleration = 3.66 mph/s
Rate of decent at 10000 ft: 4296 ft/min
Tested in sim: 4080 ft/min
Keep in mind that I don't know the exact weights of the planes in AH, so I'm going on my own data for that and subtracting the weight of 1/2 the fuel load.
-
Really interesting Wells, really interesting (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
When you get done, you need to do a "best to worst" list
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Oh come on Wells, quit trying to clear up these issues with objective analysis. It's much more fun and self-gratifying to just say that this was just a playability change away from realism. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
BTW- thanks for the film you sent of the yaw problems. The reason why I doubted your findings initially was that they were totally different than mine. It turned out to be a bug in the reader of the data for building release files. That's why it didn't come close to what I'd seen on my test version.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Hi Sancho
Originally posted by Sancho:
Interesting thread. I'm no aeronautical engineer, but looking at your calculated rates of descent vs. tested rates, it looks like AH planes still bleed E too fast. Assuming the calculations are correct and there was no error in testing, is that a correct interpretation? Also, looks like the pony is bleeding E too fast or the F4U is holding it too well.
I'm just trying to understand what the numbers mean, not say whether they're right or not.
You can really only use those calculations for a relative comparison, not for absolute performance prediction. So if you want to rank the aircraft in order of their energy retention under those conditions, it probably won't be too far off for that, but that's about it.
For example, if you redo the same calculations but include the full drag polar, along with thrust, using exactly the same data, and inserting popular values for the missing parameters, you get the following rank order comparison.
With lowest energy loss values ranked highest:
Cdi only at 10k (Wells)
Rank Ship E-loss (mph/s)
1 P-38J 4.44
2 P-51D 5.27
3 F4U 5.38
4 P-47 5.58
Complete drag polar + thrust with the same data.
Rank Ship E-loss (mph/s)
1 P-38J 2.42
2 P-51D 3.24
3 F4U 3.98
4 P-47 4.16
Ranking clocks out the same!
The rate of energy loss for the aircraft are different, that's why I pointed out that you can't use the values for absolute performance prediction. The original assumption that the other drag components would cancel out the thrust at that speed is weak, because if it were true, those aircraft wouldn't be able to go any faster. However, because the induced drag is dominant at 4g, the relative comparison hasn't been lost, so the calculations are still quite valuable.
Having said that, the values for the Oswald Efficiency factor look a little suspect (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Badboy
[This message has been edited by Badboy (edited 09-19-2000).]
-
Someone was questioning the Typhoon's E-retention in another thread, so I thought I'd do that one too...
At 10600 lbs (50% fuel)
Wing Area = 279
Aspect ratio = 6.0
Induced drag = 2139 lbs
Deceleration = 4.43 mph/sec
Rate of decent (10k): 5194 ft/min
Tested in sim: 5900 ft/min
This plane is GOOD at E-retention, right in there with the P-38, which is second to the Spitfire, of the planes tested so far! Hey, this is like the olympics or something....hehehe
-
The original assumption that the other drag components
would cancel out the thrust at that speed is weak, because if it were
true, those aircraft wouldn't be able to go any faster.
They couldn't go any faster, because I was using only about 35" in those tests. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I am just testing out induced drag as throwing in excess thrust at the same time would add too many variables. But since the FM is now very close to calculations for induced drag, you could take your max thrust predictions and see how the thrust model works out to calculations?
-
wells,
Give some Soviet iron a whirl. Besides, the Yak-9U has become a real killer in this version.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
All i want to know is have any performance enhancing drugs been used?
P.S. GB have a gold and bronze at the moment putting them a top the medals table at this early stage (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Hi Wells,
Originally posted by wells:
They couldn't go any faster, because I was using only about 35" in those tests. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I am just testing out induced drag as throwing in excess thrust at the same time would add too many variables. But since the FM is now very close to calculations for induced drag, you could take your max thrust predictions and see how the thrust model works out to calculations?
Hmm, were you setting up a constant speed cruise before the test so that you knew for sure that the thrust and drag were balanced before starting the 4g turn? That's a good thought, and it may well have come quite close to isolating the induced drag, it would also explain your altitude loss figures in the flight tests. Unfortunately it wouldn't reveal anything worthwhile about the actual rate of energy loss when turning with the benefit of full power. Other than the interesting observation that when the same calculations, using the same data, but factoring in thrust and parasite drag are done, the ranking (at least for the few aircraft I checked) comes out the same. Which might make it a useful shortcut method of comparison.
However, all of those calculations depend on the values chosen for the Oswald Efficiency factor. It looks as though you have calculated those values from wing geometry as a function of wing Aspect and Taper. However, Oswald's efficiency factor is a function of Aspect, Taper, Sweep, Mach, Camber and Twist. If I calculate new values including leading edge sweep and mach no, as well as aspect ratio and taper ratio, only ignoring camber and twist and then redo the calculations, the ranking comes out as:
1 P38
2 F4U
3 P51
4 P47
In which the F4U beats the P51 (they were quite close in your tests also). Perhaps it would be worth re-testing the F4U and P51? If so, it would probably be easier and more reliable to time how long it takes to decelerate from one speed to another in level turn tests at constant g. That way you also account for the previously ignored drag components and thrust.
The previous result simply demonstrates that the outcome is sensitive to changes in Oswald values. In any case, calculating the Oswald efficiency factor from wing geometry is problematic. The values obtained are generally only valid for low AoA work because the calculations require that the flow remains fully attached, whereas in practice that is rarely the case. Generally such methods produce optimistic results, particularly since we are interested in performance close to the edge of the envelope. Just curious… Where did you obtain your Oswald values? Did you know that it is possible to discover exactly what values are being used by AH? I haven't done it myself yet because I've been otherwise absorbed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Anyway, an interesting thread!
Badboy
[This message has been edited by Badboy (edited 09-20-2000).]
-
Badboy,
Ur right, I porked the taper corrections. I wasn't trying to be dead accurate as I didn't want to spend too much time with calculations, only to show that the model is very reasonable compared to what it was before.
Leonid,
Sorry, didn't mean to be biased on planeset that I chose to cross-section. I'm sure the Russian planes check out equally as well, but I'll take a look at em anyway...
-
Originally posted by wells:
Badboy,
I wasn't trying to be dead accurate as I didn't want to spend too much time with calculations, only to show that the model is very reasonable compared to what it was before.
I agree!
I was almost going to take the discussion of the Oswald numbers to e-mail, but I'm normally reluctant to impose (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Badboy
-
Did a few more calculations, here's a best to worst list. The best gets a score of 100 and the rest are relative to that.
Spit IX - 100
N1K2 - 82 (100% fuel, fuel capacity is unknown)
P-38L - 81
Macchi 205 -77
Typhoon - 73
Yak-9U - 72
109G10 - 72
F4u-1D - 69
La-5FN - 69
P-51D - 68
P-47D - 66
Fw-190A8 - 62
-
That's theoretically right? i.e. real life as opposed to AH
-
No, look above earlier in the thread. Thats done with testing in AH.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Of course, I bet that if you made the same tests with the engines OFF and at 20k... the P38 would get 1000/100 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)!! That puppy can glide for 2 sectors at a sustained 300mph with an 8 degree dive heehee...
Now you know why so many P-38's make it home (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Hi Tac,
Originally posted by Tac:
That puppy can glide for 2 sectors at a sustained 300mph with an 8 degree dive heehee...B]
How do you achieve the best glide in AH, is there a way to feather the prop to stop it windmilling? Or doesn't that matter?
Badboy
-
There is indeed a way to stop the prop from windmilling badboy
you must use the old beta terrain where you can start from fields which are in 5k.
Roll slowly to the edge of the hill (80mph), trim down. Before you overshoot the mountain, you push your stick forward and ramm you propeller into the ground what kills your engine.
Then you´ll leave the mountain and your engine is dead, rpm gauge is at zero that means no prop drag. have a nice glide (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by niklas:
Roll slowly to the edge of the hill (80mph), trim down. Before you overshoot the mountain, you push your stick forward and ramm you propeller into the ground what kills your engine.
Damn... Why didn't I think of that? Slaps forehead (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Badboy
[This message has been edited by Badboy (edited 09-26-2000).]
-
<----wonders when i will see the badz callsign in the arena?
You flying under another name?
I would love to see how good you would be in this game.
There is a higher standard of pilot here vs aw3.
EYE
BTW the last patch made this sim much more aw friendly.
-
Wells, any way you could do this test for the -1C, seperate from the -1D ?
I keep seeing threads about how the -1C is so superior in E retention to other aircraft and the -1D, and I was wondering as to the accuracy of the statement.
Would appreciate it greatly!!
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
FIX THE CHOG!
ITS FRIGGIN REDICULOUS!!!!!!!
Brought to you by:
Yeager
-
Fix it how?
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
I think he means that it's supposed to have 8 rocket rails, not 4.
-
Pyro,
I cant put a specific claim fourth using film or graphs or charts. Its simply multiple observations on my part that the F4U1C is retaining unbelievable energy, especially in ultra tight combat speed reversals.
Just like the 190A5s were doing in 1.03 there seems to be no substantial loss of energy executing a 180 degree turn at well over 350 mph in under 1k and then gaining on a combat speed Mustang that has made no evasives prior or subsequent to the initial merge and in fact noses down to attempt separation to no avail. I have been whacked a dozen times in this manner and I am puzzled to say the least.
Is it believable? Thats my problem I guess.
Straighten me out!
Yeager
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 10-18-2000).]
-
Man,this Wells guy continues to blow my not so impressive mind .The highest level of mathematics I've ever achieved (with a passing mark)was Mechanics 1. Ex.Figure the forces acting upon EACH member of said bridge structure.I was totally mentally exhausted at the end of each 45 min,1 question,3 pages of calculations test.Trig and wholy toejam algebra(miss 1 +\- sign and whole problem is out the door!).
Forgot my point here but to be so impressed with you numbers type thinkers.
I am an artist by trade and as such working off the wrong damn lobe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
However I do play a MEAN bass guitar!
-
Again another UFO-encounter yesterday that I forgot to film.
I was chasing an F4U at 1000yds+ with my C205. We were both in a shallow dive. The Hog pointed against some friendly dots. He turned slowly to the right, still in a shallow dive and lower than me (I guess at about 400mph+). So I decided to gave up the chase and gently zoomed at 400mph+, without *any* other manoeuver, pulling as low "g" as I could, gaining thousands of feet, in order to engage with an inbound 109 higher than me. The 109 turned into me from the left side. When I looked at my 6 I saw the 109 at 1,000yds (thats ok) .... and the same Hog at 400yds (sic), *quickly* gaining on me, shooting and .... well you know the end: BOOM. Stupid me I didnt film it. I'm not joking, this was the worst AH night in one year.
-
Is it possible he turned a smaller radius than you, taking a shorter path at a slower speed?
Or that he was going faster than you in the dive and had more speed after the pull out?
High speed climbing ability usually goes with top speed - F4U is a faster plane than the 205 at all altitudes IIRC. It seems possible that he might have been able to climb at a higher speed than you after the pull-out.
Just some non-UFO possibilities you might consider.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-18-2000).]
-
Well,
I didnt turn at all. I simply pulled up trying to save as much E as possible. And a 205 at 400mph+ has plenty of E. Before, he was slightly lower and ahead of me about 1,100yds, with his nose pointing down in a shallow dive to the right. However, he had enuff E to roll left, pull up and zoom into an higher and fast climbing 205. The guy flying the Hog was kind and explained me his whole manoeuver. I couldnt believe my eyes reading in the radio-buffer. I think thats simply enuff for me. After one whole year and hundreds of engagements I think I can judge pretty well what happens around me and in particular the E-state of a/c I'm engaged with. Anyway, thx Funked. I'm in a real low mentally E situation (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Probably I'll take a leave from AH.
Disclaimer: this is only my humble, personal, biased, dweebish, partial opinion.
------------------
GATT
4° Stormo Caccia - Knights (http://www.4stormo.it)
-
Turn = pulling gees. When you pulled up your flight path had a radius of curvature. If the Hog's path had a smaller radius he could travel a shorter distance and decrease his range on you. I.e. he "pulled lead".
If he was only 1100 yds ahead of you in a shallow dive, his altitude was only slightly less than yours. But because of his faster aircraft he may have been going much faster and had more energy.
I'm suprised that you are surprised by this.
Disclaimer: I am not very humble but I am a dweeb. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-18-2000).]
-
We had about the same speed, I have been chasing him for about half a minute.
If I cant break from a fighter I'm chasing from 1,100yds and a slightly higher position, then it means I'm playing the wrong game. I mean wrong for me. I need something easier or different.
Disclaimer: I'm a dweeb without film camera so I dont know what I mean (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 10-18-2000).]
-
One thing we need to not forget is the old fashioned factor of netlag.
Nothing personal Gatt, but I have noticed repeatedly when flying in the Med SEA against some of your squadmates that the connects from Italy to the server can be quite variable. Sometimes they are very good, and others it looks like a romulan warp fest (Star Trek reference (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ) and this can change back and forth, even within the same fight.
Unfortunately this can happen to any of us, its a factor of the internet.
All it takes to make something "strange" is a single long delay at the time a plane begins its manuever.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
I think Gatt is also confusing climb with zoom. While the Hog doesn't climb very well, it zooms very well from high speed.
I'm not surprised by this at all. In fact, if you tried this behind my Jug I'm certain I could have done the same thing with a light fuel load.
BTW, 180 degrees of turn is not much really. The Hog has a great initial turn at high speed, and hence they can do the 180 reversal pretty damn fast. The Hog also is renowned for being a pure E fighter, and retaining E well especially at high speed. If any plane is going to nail you in the situation you described it would be a Hog.
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
(http://tuweb.ucis.dal.ca/~dconrad/ahf/lepht.gif)
"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
- Steve Earl
-
Thx Verm and Lepht,
AFAIK the connx was very good and yes, I meant zoom and not sustained climb. Anyway, I've been playing from the first beta and now 1.04 is ruining my enjoiment. Just my personal opinion, not a flame war at all.
Good hunting,
------------------
GATT
4° Stormo Caccia - Knights (http://www.4stormo.it)
-
Gatt;
I would say forget trying to get anything across here. Almost before the ink dries players will be out to prove what you have written to be wrong. Almost no one reads and tries to understand what you have said.
LOL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It really is pointless...
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
"Anyway, more golf..."
Humble
-
Hey Mino try posting on the subject instead of making thinly veiled personal comments. There are plenty of good explanations for what Gatt saw. In fact I bet I read his post more carefully than you and understand it better. If he wants to blame his death on bad flight models and make it a reason for quitting... too bad for him.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-18-2000).]
-
Funked;
Sorry; I always forget how inferior that I am to you in every way. My bad.
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
"Anyway, more golf..."
Humble
-
LOL Mino! Maybe true, but you probably have a better sense of humor. Your statements above remain false.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-19-2000).]
-
You might be doing a slight mistake here.
Many aircraft like the F4U, 109
190 and a few others have a rather
flat underside. And at high speed
and some angle of attack
these do produce some lift which
if not considered will result in
a plane that does not behave like
intended. So when you use wing loading
you have to modify this value depending
on the type of plane and the angle of attack.
Regards,
Coolknight
-
Had my first raised eye brow encounter with TWO F4U's (blie nose. is that the D or C?) last night.
I in a P-38 with an alt advantage proceeded to make a 450+mph pass at two F4U's who break, come back around and chased me down in no time flat.
Can I have the P-38's "E" back from version 1.02 or whatever?
-Westy
-
<S> Westy! You had two hog's chasing you last night. I was in the "D" model hog(yellow nose), and the guy that killed you was in the "C" model hog(blue nose).
I was amazed at how well you flew that P-38 last night, it was a remarkable display of flying skill. Nonetheless, I came at you from an oblique angle while you were involved with the "C" hog, and had a good deal of energy myself. And, once I latch onto someone, they don't escape too many times. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I will say, however, that the Chog seemed to have more power than my Dhog during our chase of you.
-
Thanks banana (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) The 'incident' I'm mentioning happened after I came back about an hour later. You two were a really good fight (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) and one that was honest and fair. I wish I'd lasted a wee bit longer to at least have gotten one of you two. As it was I only managed to nail an unsuspecting 'Animal' before succumbing to the 1C's cannon on my 6.
-Westy
*now I wish I could recall how I flew that 38 to duplicate it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Can I have the P-38's "E" back from version 1.02 or whatever?
LOL!! Now THAT was a TIE fighter Westy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Go look up at the top of this thread, and you will see that the P-38 is in a virtual tie with the N1K2, for second place in E retention.
Two V One is tough in just about any matchup.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
I figured someone would catch that one Verm (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Anyway,,, it was one-on-two! I had them cornered, or so I though. I had the speed, the E and it was no way a turn fight. I'm about to hop in a 1C too at this point. <shivers>.
-Westy
-
The -1C and -1D both use the same flight model. Without external ordnance, the -1C is about 100-200 lbs lighter than the -1D.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Pyro:
Thanks for the info.
Hooligan
-
Westy:
I think I was the guy in the 1C. I wish I had filmed it. As I recall once I slipped your attack I managed to climb a bit off and on when you were busy with banana. When I finally got you, you were evading banana and I was almost co-E with you about that time. My recollection is that we slowly erroded your e-margin because you had to maneuver more since you had to deal with both of us.
Hooligan
-
LOL! Is there anyone who didn't shoot down Westy last night? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
Hooligan, I think we're talking about two different times, because when the Chog next to me finally waxed Westy, we were at tree-top level. Sounds like your fight ended much higher. Btw, Westy put up one helluva fight with us. He's more slippery than an eel!
-
Why can't we have more threafds like this?
Where's Badz these days??
-
Originally posted by Seeker:
Why can't we have more threafds like this?
Where's Badz these days??
Hi Seeker,
I'm very busy, Andy Bush and I are working hard on the Eurofighter Typhoon strategy guide.
However, I have promised to do a full EM analysis for all of the AH aircraft, and will begin that once my schedule is clear in September. I'm looking forward to it. I’m really missing my online flying!!
Badboy
[ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: Badboy ]
-
For the love of.... I freakin wish that Austin Meyer would just give HTC the freaking source code for X-planes REALISTIC FLIGHT simulation. gawd.. :mad: all this Something isnt PRE-DETERMINED modeled correctly crap... :rolleyes: :p