Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Gaston on October 10, 2009, 04:24:35 PM
-
Hello everyone,
From a series of British and American tests (most available on the Mike Williams WWII aircraft performance site), I made the following correlations in turn rates, all using the same A6M5 Zero as the "link" benchmark between many of the various tests:
If the A6M5 Zero turns 2000°:
-The F6F-5 turns 1550° (A6M5 gains 360° in 3.5 X 360°)
-The F4U-1D turns 1550° (same as F6F-5)
-The P-38L turns 1330° (A6M5 gains 360° in 2 X 360°)
-The P-51D turns 1100°-1190° (A6M5 gains 360° in LESS than 2 X 360°)
-The P-47D Bubbletop turns 997° (A6M5 gains 360° in 1.5 X 360°)
-The FW-190A-5 turns 1162° (F6F-5 gains 360° in 3 X 360°): Despite this being roughly equal to the P-51D, it is made using a fully disassembled and re-built captured machine, whose aileron performance in this US Navy test was then contested by British evaluators in an official wartime document: Aileron performance DID affect low-speed sustained turn performance on the FW-190A...
Official British test have the FW-190A-4 pegged as "equal" in sustained turn rate to the P-38G, and the FW-190A-4 could also out-turn the Spitfire Mk V in sustained horizontal turns, as seen in this combat account:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
The P-38G was pitted against a Spitfire Mk XIV in mock combat, which failed to shake it from its tail in repeated attempts, so a turn rate of 1300°-1400° (vs 2000° on the A6M5) does not seem implausible for both the early-mid FW-190A's and the P-38G.
The newly-built FW-190A-8Ns flying today are also confirmed by their pilots as being superior in turns to the P-51D, but inferior to the Yak-3.
At least one FW-190A-8 Western ace claims to have regularly observed a gain of 360° in 2 X 360° against a P-51D at low speed and very low altitude (on the deck), but that would result in a turn rate of 1650°, which means the A6M5 Zero would require almost 5 X 360° to gain 360° on the FW-190A-8, which seems a bit much to me: The FW-190A-8 is described as a large advance in turn performance on the earlier models, but even then a turn rate of 1450°-1500° versus the A6M5's 2000° seems more reasonable.
The P-47D Razorback could beat another, not rebuilt, FW-190A-5 in turns above 250 MPH indicated, but was soundly beaten by the FW-190A-5 below that speed. This still suggests a much better performance than what is displayed by the 1000 lbs heavier Bubbletop above. The Me-109G was very close in turn rate to the P-51D in many combat accounts, yet the 109G was much inferior-turning to a Needle-prop P-47D Razorback in Luftwaffe captured tests (On Special Missions: KG 200). The Needle-prop P-47D Razorback probably ranges from 900° or less below 250 MPH to 1300° above, but to what extent it can sustain this turn rate at higher speeds is hard to say. See the test here:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
Note that the use of flaps may be a temporary help against a wider tuning radius aircraft like the Me-109G (for a P-38 for instance), but against a smaller turning radius aircraft, the use of flaps actually ACCELERATES the gain of the smaller-radius opponent... I doubt flaps are a panacea that would significantly jumble the above hierarchy, since what they gain you in radius you lose, and more, in speed, unless the speed is so low that the engine has enough reserve power to keep speed constant. (But then torque becomes troublesome...)
What does remain unresolved in the above tests is how the P-47D Razorback, especially with a Paddle-blade prop, would actually do in turns against a P-51D. Correlating their performance against the Me-109G in 1200 combat reports on the Mike Williams site absolutely confirms the turn superiority of the P-47D Razorback to both the Me-109G and the Merlin P-51, especially to left, as does the German captured test evaluations of the Needle-prop P-47D Razorback against both of them (but a P-51B or C in this instance).
The Navy tests unfortunately pegs the FW-190A-5 and the P-51D as equals in sustained turns, but the mass of evidence elsewhere does favor even the earlier FW-190As at low speeds and low altitudes at least... Later FW-190A-8s were much improved.
Note that all the data correlated here is from many repeated tests by many different pilots, except for the benchmark A6M5 Zero, which was always flown by the same pilot. The use of flaps was also widely tried in many different tests on all US fighters, and was found to make little or no difference against the tighter-turning A6M5...
Gaston
P.S. A link to the Mike Williams site: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
G.
-
Official British test have the FW-190A-4 pegged as "equal" in sustained turn rate to the P-38G, and the FW-190A-4 could also out-turn the Spitfire Mk V in sustained horizontal turns, as seen in this combat account:
If you read the account, you will notice that Johnson claims to be "greying out" during the vertical turning contest. That says much more than you apparently realize.
Johnson's fight was at speeds where G loading on the pilot is the limiting factor. At high speed, a P-51 could match a Zero in a turn. Had the fight been slower, where no more than 3g could be pulled, the Spitfire Mk.V would have easily out-turned the 190.
Another factor is that the 190 pilot sat in a semi-reclining seat, which increased the g loading the pilot could sustain before greying out.
In mid 1944, 8th AF pilots were being outfitted with G-suits. This gave the pilots an advantage as they could pull up to between 0.5g and 0.8G more loading than a typical Luftwaffe pilot. Pushing up the threshold of G-lock is no minor consideration.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You say the zero turns 360 on a P-47 within 1.5 turns but a zero turns 360 on a P-51 in 2 turns and then you say the P-47 out turns a P-51? I dont follow the logic.
-
I'm assuming it's how many degrees each aircraft turns in the time it takes the Zero to turn 2000?
-
If you read the account, you will notice that Johnson claims to be "greying out" during the vertical turning contest. That says much more than you apparently realize.
Johnson's fight was at speeds where G loading on the pilot is the limiting factor. At high speed, a P-51 could match a Zero in a turn. Had the fight been slower, where no more than 3g could be pulled, the Spitfire Mk.V would have easily out-turned the 190.
Another factor is that the 190 pilot sat in a semi-reclining seat, which increased the g loading the pilot could sustain before greying out.
In mid 1944, 8th AF pilots were being outfitted with G-suits. This gave the pilots an advantage as they could pull up to between 0.5g and 0.8G more loading than a typical Luftwaffe pilot. Pushing up the threshold of G-lock is no minor consideration.
My regards,
Widewing
^^ What he said. :salute
-
I'm assuming it's how many degrees each aircraft turns in the time it takes the Zero to turn 2000?
Yes and obviously the P-51 is doing a better job at degrees turned than the P-47 is.
-
See rule #4
-
Rule #4 quote
-
Yes, I picked 2000° as an arbitrary reference point. In the time it takes the A6M5 Zero to turn 2000°, the others do x degrees in a sustained way: Sustained turns implies a G loading of 3-4 Gs where pilot endurance to Gs is not the dominant factor...
If you read the Johnny Johnson account, it is VERY clear these are turns sustained for a long time, several 360s, horizontally: Everything in Johnny Johnson's wording is very indicative of Medium-slow speed turning: The vertical bank, the low altitude, with diving only at the end of a losing turning contest: "It was only a matter of time", and most importantly the complete lack of diving PRIOR to the combat.
Greying out actually confirms to me the fight was not at high speeds, as the Spitfire's light elevators could easily induce BLACKING out above 300-350 MPH...
Quote: Challenge
"You say the zero turns 360 on a P-47 within 1.5 turns but a zero turns 360 on a P-51 in 2 turns and then you say the P-47 out turns a P-51? I dont follow the logic."
-Yes the BUBBLETOP P-47D is worse-turning than the P-51D Mustang, but the linked FW-190A-5 comparison test (Which FW-190A-5 I speculate performed much better than the US Navy test, P-51D-equalling, fully-rebuilt 190A-5...) shows the P-47D RAZORBACK (1000 lbs lighter) to be competitive at high/medium speeds with even an untampered with FW-190A-5, something I consider far too impressive a performance for the Razorback to be similar performing to a Bubbletop...
This is further confirmed by the fact that the German captured tests, and about 600 P-47 combat reports, describe the Razorback as CLEARLY better-turning than the Me-109G in medium/high-speed turns with needle blade prop, extending to low-speed turns with the paddle-blade prop (post Jan '44)... Neither German captured tests, or 700 P-51 combat reports, are as clear about that for the P-51, especially against later 109s, except for a very good speed retention in LEVEL turns for the American fighter (giving the P-51 a turn rate (not radius) advantage low on the deck, where there is no downward spiral to help the non-MW-50 109G).
I reason that if the Bubbletop P-47D is slightly worse than the P-51D in sustained level turns, then it must be MUCH worse than the Razorback also...
I don't really know why it is, but it seems a logical deduction that the P-47D Razorback turns better than the P-51D and its own Bubbletop cousin.
But to get the proper relationship, it must first be accepted that the FW-190A turned significantly better at low speeds than the Me-109G, or no wartime account makes any sense... To ALL participants directly involved with these aircrafts, it was no mystery that the FW-190A turned better at sustained low speeds than the Me-109G. (This is contradicted only once by a sentence in a La-5 Rechlin evaluation, in which a MW-50 equipped Me-109G is compared to a FW-190A at unknown speed, but probably I would assume above 250 MPH, and this would tend to support the notion that Me-109Gs with MW-50 could match or beat in turns, at some speeds, some of the FW-190A versions. Note MW-50 was considered by Hartmann to be essential to Me-109G competitiveness in late '44, but was not that widely available)
In addition, very late-war combat accounts make it clear the later Bubbletop P-47Ds could not compete in turns at all with later FW-190A-8s: Typical November-December 1944 quote: " Three P-47s were turning on the deck with one lone 190, going nowhere fast..." These types of comments do not really occur in early 1944, where the P-47D/FW-190A parity appears much greater...
How much better was the Razorback in turns to the Bubbletop is unfortunately not clear to me, although I do remember reading a P-51B/P-47D Razorback flight comparison somewhere that would be of interest here, if I could find it... It was with a B model Mustang however, so the continuity vs the P-51D is again not clear... It probably did NOT say the P-47D Razorback out-turned the P-51B, or I would have remembered it... It did say the P-47D Razorback out-accelerated the P-51B in dives, completely contradictory to to what the later Bubbletop vs P-51D said in the Zero evaluations tests... I think this could be due to the Paddle-blade prop creating extra drag in a dive compared to a needle-blade, but it still seems strange to me...
It would be interesting to find a P-47D Razorback vs Merlin P-51 evaluation to clarify the picture...
Gaston
-
The RAF disagrees with your assessment:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg
You seem to consistently ignore the effect that speed has on both the relative rate and radius of turn for various aircraft.
-
I think the primary problem is the mixing of anecdotal and empirical evidence the way I read the post. You cant mix the two and then come away with any hard evidence at all yet you are trying to draw conclusions that way.
-
Gaston,
If Johnson was greying out, they were going way, way above sustained turn speeds. He wasn't blacking out because he wasn't pulling into a blackout, not because he couldn't.
No WWII fighter, not the Fw190, not the Spitfire and not the A6M, could maintain greater than a 3g turn, and a 3g turn is not going to being greying you out.
-
While this is an impressive literature study, it is doomed to produce meaningless results. Different tests are done at different conditions and have different meanings to their results. You normalize all the results in terms of degrees per second (dps), but is doesn't say anything about the turn radius or G loads.
There is a difference between measuring the time it takes a plane to turn until it covered a certain direction change and two planes flying in a circle around each other to see who gains. In the first case, each will try to be close to its own corner speed (lowest speed that allows max G). In the second they need to match turning radius or this becomes meaningless as a "turn rate" measure, but some combination of rate and radius instead.
These tests have only a qualitative meaning.
-
If you read the account, you will notice that Johnson claims to be "greying out" during the vertical turning contest. That says much more than you apparently realize.
Johnson's fight was at speeds where G loading on the pilot is the limiting factor. At high speed, a P-51 could match a Zero in a turn. Had the fight been slower, where no more than 3g could be pulled, the Spitfire Mk.V would have easily out-turned the 190.
Another factor is that the 190 pilot sat in a semi-reclining seat, which increased the g loading the pilot could sustain before greying out.
In mid 1944, 8th AF pilots were being outfitted with G-suits. This gave the pilots an advantage as they could pull up to between 0.5g and 0.8G more loading than a typical Luftwaffe pilot. Pushing up the threshold of G-lock is no minor consideration.
My regards,
Widewing
man i wish i could have your brain for this game :D
-
Quote Jabberwock: "The RAF disagrees with your assessment:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg
You seem to consistently ignore the effect that speed has on both the relative rate and radius of turn for various aircraft."
Prolonged sustained turns are basically ALL medium-low speed turns, eventually anyway... It is the basic standard used in all WWII tests... This is why the FW-190A is said to out-turn the Me-109G, even though the Me-109G is much better-turning above 250 MPH, as is the P-51, despite both having much heavier elevators... As this P-47D comparison test shows, the FW-190A had terrible handling immediately above 250 MPH:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
This terrible high speed handling is confirmed by innumerable tests and assesments by all sides, I'll only quote the Russian experience:
"The FW-190A will inevitably offer turning combat at minimum speed"
"The FW-190A is more maneuverable than the BF-109 in horizontal maneuvers"
"The FW-190A does not like vertical maneuvers"
E. Brown: "Care must be taken not kill speed by "sinking" during dive pull-outs..." AND the above-linked P-47D high-speed debacle...
It doesn't get much plainer than this...
Quote: ""The RAF disagrees with your assessment:"
And you seem to ignore that I DID say the BUBBLETOP P-47D ("Thunderbolt II" in RAF speak) IS a poorer turner than the P-51D, as I quoted myself several times in the Zero relative turn tests (997° to the Mustang's 1100°-1190°). It is the 1000 lbs lighter and DIFFERENT-shaped RAZORBACK P-47D that I think turns better than a P-51D, and the RAZORBACK is confirmed by German captured tests as turning better than their Me-109G (which is itself pretty close to a Merlin P-51)...
I have repeated the above point several times already... Obviously you must have skipped over some paragraphs...
Note the Germans in those same test did NOT say the P-51B out-turns their Me-109G, and instead insisted on the fact that one of their pilots got killed in a stall-turn with the P-51B... Hmmm... They STILL liked better the Mustang's speed and acceleration, but the Razorback was probably a bit below specs on top-end power...
Johnny Johnson mentions greying-out at the beginning of his battle ONLY. He then mentions several complete AND CONSECUTIVE 360° turns "on opposite sides of an ever-decreasing circle". VERTICAL bank so NO diving (and no diving prior to the battle either)... He could have done more than greying out?: " I asked the Spitfire V for all she had" but: "It was only a matter of time" ie: for the FW-190A to gain a tail position on him.... He knew that pulling a tighter turn would only stall him or lose him more speed, and thus get him killed sooner...
There is no ambiguity possible in this exceptionally detailed battle. It is prolonged level and sustained turning at medium then lower speeds... People are so bewildered by this article some have even resorted to calling Johnson's "vertical turns" as meaning something other than a vertical bank... A "vertical" vertical turn would have been called a loop.... In those days "vertical turn" for a vertical bank was common parlance.
But it does illustrate how desperate people get to not read what is in plain sight...
Direct comparisons to the P-47D Razorback would still be of interest, but they appear rare compared to the "Thunderbolt II"...
Gaston
-
Conventional wisdom, both during and after the war, indicates sustained turn performance:
Spitfire>Bf-109>P-47>FW-190
Most, if not all, anecdotal pilot accounts, place the Spitfire as the second best sustained turner in the ETO, surpassed only by the Hurricane.
You, Gaston, are trying to imitate that :
P-47>Fw-190>Spitfire>Bf 109
Leaves me doing this: :confused:
-
No, the medium-low speed (sustained) turn hierarchy goes something like like this, the A6M5 being at the top:
Spitfire Mk VIII/IX(+25 lbs)> FW-190A-8 wood prop> Me-109G-14 with MW-50> FW-190A-5> Spitfire Mk V OR P-47D Razorback paddle-blade prop?> P-51B/C maybe D (+21 lbs/72") OR P-47D Razorback needle prop(to left?)?> Me-109G-6 (1.42 ata)> P-51D (+18lbs/67")> P-47D Bubbletop.
The Hellcat and Corsair are somewhere near the FW-190A-8 wood prop, which is to say they can gain on the P-51D 30-40% on every 360° turn, and so can reverse a tailing P-51D (at 67" at least) in less than or near to 3X 360°... This MATCHES actual tests, anecdotes (up to a Honduran Soccer War account, of all things!), and the only thing in my above list that doesn't match a real test is...: The US Navy's test of the FW-190A-5 that is pegged as EQUAL to a P-51D at 1100° vs an A6M5's 2000° , CONTRARY to conventional wisdom... And STILL not good enough for me (I would expect 1300° at least if the A-8 is 1500-1600°, or if the FW-190A-4 can match turns with the P-38G, which British tests confirm it did)...
So not specifying variant, power settings or propeller type just doesn't cut it.
Except for one Luftwaffe La-5 evaluation, where a MW-50 Me-109 is said to out-turn an unknown FW-190A at an unknown speed (above 250 MPH I would guess), and another late-war test at 27 000 ft.+, where the Me-109G-14AS's superiority over the FW-190A-9 is very predictable, you will not find a single wartime statement where the Me-109G is accepted as turning better than the FW-190A...
At the FW-190A's introduction, Gunther Rall came closest to saying the opposite vs his Me-109F, but his statement merely confirms that the FW-190A's turning superiority WAS A WIDELY ACCEPTED FACT: "They told us the FW-190A could out-turn our Me-109Fs... I, however(wry smile) could out-turn it..."
Oh, and US 8th Air Force pilots also widely accepted that the FW-190A turned better than the Me-109, versus the ubiquitous 109G model at the very least, and there are numerous statements to that effect, and NONE that I know of to the contrary from British or US tests or pilots... As for the massive Russian combat evaluation I mention in this thread, I really wonder what room for interpretation it leaves:
http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html
Basically to ignore this you have to say: They don't really know what they are saying (like Johnny Johnson for instance), or... words don't actually mean what they mean... Or... Reality isn't really real...
It's quite a gymnastic, and I am intimately familiar with it: I did the same for decades on end...
Hopefully, one day the general consensus will try to go beyond deceptive appearances...
Until then, if you want an accurate game comparison for some of these aircrafts, all I can do is offer you, for free, my recently updated, in full color, variant of Avalon Hill's "Air Force", a really intricate... Boardgame... E-mail me at : gaston1_01@hotmail.com
Gaston
-
Spitfire Mk VIII/IX(+25 lbs)> FW-190A-8 wood prop> Me-109G-14 with MW-50> FW-190A-5> Spitfire Mk V OR P-47D Razorback paddle-blade prop?> P-51B/C maybe D (+21 lbs/72") OR P-47D Razorback needle prop(to left?)?> Me-109G-6 (1.42 ata)> P-51D (+18lbs/67")> P-47D Bubbletop.
The Hellcat and Corsair are somewhere near the FW-190A-8 wood prop,
Geez Gaston, I'm glad you are staying away from armored vehicles, lest we see Sgt Rock being quoted as a source....
Can you explain how the heavier 190A-8 turns with an F6F, when an 190A-5/U4 was badly outclassed by the F6F and F4U in this test? http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Well, first of all, the place I put the F6F/F4U in the list above DOES make them out-turn the FW-190A-5 significantly, just NOT by so large an amount as in the test you linked: I think an F6F 360° gain in 5-6 turns instead of 3 is more reasonable... The better-turning FW-190A-8, with wood prop, may in fact be equal to the F6F/F4U, if its low-speed performance against the P-51D is any guide (a 360° gain in 2-3 turns in some low-speed combat accounts, broad wood prop specified)...
In the test you linked, the maneuverability results for the FW-190A-4 are mostly identical to the FW-190A-5 in the other, later A-5 test I used for reference:
They AGAIN state that the F4U's roll rate is similar to the FW-190A-4! See what happened to the A-5 test below on this issue:
In the particular FW-190A-5 I used to correlate the turn rates, this FW-190A-5 was fully dismantled and reassembled by the Allies, which was recognized as a bad mistake at the time, and this resulted in underperforming ailerons that the RAE contested with an official document during wartime, aimed at THAT particular test result, saying in effect the FW-190's roll rate was so superior it should NEVER be considered as equal to an F4U's roll rate, and that the US test was thus invalid in its conclusions... Imagine that: A roll rate argument... In wartime!
Any Wartime FW-190A pilot will tell you the adjustement and choice of the FW-190A's ailerons were absolutely critical to its low-speed turn performance, allowing the aircraft to ride the stall better, with less "snapping" wing drop and thus less drag...
Therefore these contested aileron results, by an actual Wartime document from the official test facility in the UK, also extend to the sustained low-speed turn performance of the aircraft in question...
The fact that BOTH tests make the SAME mistake about the aileron performance show they are both invalid in the same way... There must have been something wrong with the way the Americans adjusted the ailerons. It's not me saying it: It's the British, during wartime!
Note that DESPITE this handicap, the correlation of the F6F losing 360° from the A6M5 Zero in 3.5 X 360°, While the same A6M5, with the same pilot, gains on the P-51D 360° in about 1.8 X 360°, means that, since the FW-190A-5 loses 360° in 3 X 360° vs the F6F, the FW-190A-5 and the P-51D BOTH lose at the SAME rate versus the F6F or the A6M5...
The F6F will gain 360° on the P-51D in 3X 360°, just like it did against the poorly reassembled FW-190A-5!
If the A6M5 Zero turns 2000°; the F6F will do 1550°, the P-51D does about 1100-1190°, the "handicapped" FW-190A-5 will do 1180° or thereabout if the Navy test is to be believed (I don't, and I am sure it does at least 10-16% better)...
So the FW-190A-5 (and A-4?) is EQUAL to the P-51D in low-speed turns FROM ACTUAL flight tests... Correlate the math: you will see it is correct, but take into account that the Army Zero tests required the A6M5 to gain only 180° to get on the tail of an Army fighter, while the Navy A6M5 Zero tests required the full 360°. (500 ft. Offset facing turn start for the US Army fighters, vs line astern for the US Navy fighters)
So vs the Zero the P-51D lost-out in "less than a 360° turn", while the F6F lost out in "three and half 360° turns".
I say the FW-190A-5 at low speeds should do about 14-20% better, gaining 360° on the P-51D in about five to seven 360° turns, while the FW-190A-8 should be 40% better, gaining 360° on the P-51D in about 2.5 360° turns (some actual combat accounts have it as low as two 360° turns with the broad wood prop, but I doubt these are correct or representative)...
In any case, nobody accepts ANY FW-190As as equal-turning at low speeds to a P-51D, and yet the "handicapped" reassembled Navy test FW-190A-5, AND the A-4 test you linked, clearly shows them as equal to a P-51D in prolonged sustained turns, NOT high speed turns (where the P-51D's superiority is crushing).
They are both gained on 360° by the F6F in the same number of 360° turns: 3.
It's all there if you do the math...
Gaston
-
The US test had badly aligned/adjusted trim tabs, and among other things this would ruin sustained turning (and probably explains noticable vibrations at a "mere" 350 knots). The British promptly took posession of the plane, readjusted it properly, and proved that the 190 performed better than they thought.
That aside, I don't see how a Spit8/9 is going to so significantly out-turn the Spit5 that it's got the 190s, the 109s, and the p47 between them in the rankings....
But.. er... not the 109G6??
:headscratch:
That's just whack.
-
Quote, Krusty: "That aside, I don't see how a Spit8/9 is going to so significantly out-turn the Spit5 that it's got the 190s, the 109s, and the p47 between them in the rankings...."
Well the Spifire Mk IX at +25lbs has such climb acceleration that it outclimbs everything else in WWII: How many people realize that? 4.2 minutes to 20 000 ft.! It even outclimbs the MK XIV at +18 lbs! The Me-109K does at best 4.8 minutes, or 4.5 with the contested 1.98 ata...
To give you an idea, even the early Spitfire Mk IXs, when experimentally fitted as FLOATPLANES, had identical performance as their contemporary Mk Vs!!! THAT's how much extra power the Mk IX had....
That kind of acceleration is paying dividents in the turn rate, just like it does for the Me-109G-14 with MW-50... Hartmann said the Me-109G could not compete on the Western Front without MW-50, and he was shot down the very first flight he flew after they took it out of his aircraft...
The Me-109G-6 was about equal in turn rate to a P-51D, but slower on a smaller radius; this is actually not very good performance at all, but it DID match or beat the P-51D with the help of a downward spiral, especially if the P-51D didn't have the 72" boost from 150 Octane fuel...
The Spit V varied greatly in available power. This may not apply to all: My ranking is based on this Johnny Johnson account:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
Back on the 109 issue, the Hartmann comment does show you how laughable is ANY notion that the G-14 turns LESS well than a G-6....
We do agree fully on these American FW-190A4/5 tests: Something just doesn't add up...
Gaston
-
Horsepower alone won't make a plane turn. Usually the higher powered planes are much heavier, and fight a lot more torque, and the lighter (slower) planes turn much better. Seems to be the case in almost every WW2 plane that gained power in later versions during the war,
-
I do have an account of a P51 ending in a sustained stall turn at tree-top level. With one notch of flap, the 51 out turned the 190. The 190 pilot took the clever way out, zoomed to a standstill and bailed.
Same allied pilot did however get into trouble with a 190. This was earlier, hence a lighter 190, and at the 190's optimum altitude. Spit pilot got away with a flick, where the 190 decided to leave.
Altitude is a key thing there, since the 190A series are optimized for low-medium.
BTW, Rall didn't fancy the 190 so much, untill the arrival of the Dora. But again, his playground was very high altitude in the west, and often top cover in the east.
-
Quote: Angus: "I do have an account of a P51 ending in a sustained stall turn at tree-top level. With one notch of flap, the 51 out turned the 190. The 190 pilot took the clever way out, zoomed to a standstill and bailed."
Yes, and I do know of another similar account, where the FW-190A's wingtip caught the three tops after being matched or slowly gained on by a Merlin P-51 in at least four consecutive on-the-deck 360° turns... Though in that account the speed might not have been sustained even with the 4 full 360° turns, as the speed at the moment it caught the threes was so high that the FW-190A STILL bounced on the ground and cartwheeled several times over a long distance, DESPITE the 4 consecutive 360° turns...
Something to keep in mind is that usually all these three-top fights with escort fighters FOLLOW a continuous dive from 25 000 ft., so the speed at the start of turning could be extremely high, and still be well above 250 MPH after as many as four full 360° turns.
You have to keep in mind the IMMEDIATE, and large, deterioration of the FW-190A's turn rate above 250 MPH, a speed still well below the maximum sustained turn rate ability of many other fighters. Above 400 MPH however, the disparity narrows down a little between most fighters, except apparently, in the 190A's case, to the right... (Also the FW-190A's disparity in high dive speed pull-outs is even larger still...)
Another factor to consider is pilot experience, where in the case of one Merlin P-51 account, the FW-190A followed him around in a low speed turn, matching his turn rate, but according to the US pilot: "Snapping his wings all the way aroung the turn as he tried to follow"... The P-51 ended up the victor with flaps-down and the prop set on coarse pitch at very low speeds...
This could be due to a lack of "patience" in fighter pilot's lingo: Trying to gain too much too quickly, and as a result constantly "catching" the FW-190A's violent wing drop all the time, and thus creating drag. This could easily happen due to overeagerness or a lack of pilot experience: Other aircrafts, such as the Spitfire, "rumbled" instead of snapping one wing violently down, and this may have been more "newbie"-friendly for getting maximum turn performance at low speeds.
The final point that may cloud the issue is the FW-190A variant involved: The A-8 was THE major advance over all previous models, in both turn rate, initial level speed zoom and acceleration, yet that aircraft could often be a heavily armoured bomber-destroyer version. Even the use of four 20 mm cannons could make a big difference. The fact that Luftwaffe pilots cared about the FW-190A's low-speed handling is reflected by the VERY common removal of the outer 20 mm guns... Another major issue is the use of the broad-blade wood prop, which was a bit limited in availability even late in the war... So compare a four-20 mm guns FW-190A-6 at 1.42 ata with a narrow metal prop, or a two-20 mm gun FW-190A-8 at 1.58 ata with a broad wood prop, and it is a significant difference from some early 1944 accounts compared to some late 1944 ones...
With the broad wood prop, this specialized low-speed turn fighter had little to fear apparently: "I feared no other aircraft in my FW-190A-8" said a FW-190A Western ace, an "ace" in P-51 kills, that would always, in his accounts, downthrottle below 250 MPH, and pop the flaps, to prepare AHEAD of a low-altitude fight with P-51s... The counter to "hit and run" tactics in this case would have been to force a series of head-to-heads, which usually favoured the FW-190A... "The FW-190A eagerly makes frontal attacks" as the Russian combat evaluation observed...
As you can see in the ranking I made earlier in the thread, there is, from what I saw in 600 combat reports, little difference between a P-47D Razorback with paddle-blade prop and, say, a narrow-blade FW-190A-5. The Merlin P-51 should be MUCH worse than either with the flaps up, but as you will find in many accounts, it could become almost equal to earlier narrow-blade FW-190As, and even GAIN on Me-109Gs, by dropping the flaps and setting the prop pitch to coarse below 200 MPH. Here the Merlin's extra power at these low speeds allow it to maintain a stable speed even with the drag of the flaps that should be the downside of using flaps: Losing more speed than you gain in radius.
This coarse-prop-pitch/flaps-down below 200 MPH is a very common, and successful, Merlin P-51 tactic at VERY low speeds (the flaps alone also help at high speeds), but in the words of one RAF Polish pilot, "It made the stall even more dangerous". I still don't think the Merlin P-51 could compete at all at low speeds with an optimized FW-190A-8 with wood prop, and even earlier FW-190As would give it trouble, especially with only two-20 mm guns and an experienced pilot...
Quote Krusty; "Horsepower alone won't make a plane turn. Usually the higher powered planes are much heavier, and fight a lot more torque, and the lighter (slower) planes turn much better. Seems to be the case in almost every WW2 plane that gained power in later versions during the war."
-It's not a simple cut-and-dried matter, but where turn RATE is concerned, more power WILL get you more turn rate, while lighter, lesser power planes will have a tighter RADIUS. Note that despite a generally crummy turn RADIUS, the Merlin P-51 often defeated the smaller turn radius of the Me-109G-6 with a better speed retention during a horizontal turn (a slight downward spiral helped the 109G-6 compete), resulting in faster turn RATE. But sitting on the "outside" of the 109's turn, P-51 pilots often describe having great difficulty "concluding" without stalling or "swinging" the nose inside their turn. (One P-51D pilot tells of almost stalling seven times on the deck, in a continuous turn, each time at the moment of firing, before finally hitting his late-war, probably MW-50-equipped, 109G target)
The use of flaps is not such a great bonus, because what you get in radius you lose in turn rate...
Turn rate is generally more tactically important than turn radius, which is why the notion of the MW-50 equipped Me-109G-14 being WORSE turning than the Me-109G-6 is so absurd...
Gaston
-
Gaston: Wrote
by dropping the flaps and setting the prop pitch to coarse below 200 MPH.
This has to be one of the most backward statements I have heard.
Gaston: Do you understand how a constant speed props work? You statement is saying less HP is better when flying less than 200 MPH.
HiTech
-
Gaston: Wrote
This has to be one of the most backward statements I have heard.
Gaston: Do you understand how a constant speed props work? You statement is saying less HP is better when flying less than 200 MPH.
HiTech
I was thinking the same thing; why would a pilot pull back the prop in combat??? The reality was that the throttle and prop went up and stayed up.
There were so many errors in Gaston's last post that I have no desire to spend an hour trying to correct them....
My regards,
Widewing
-
If you say I am making errors without saying what they are, you're not giving me a chance to respond...
Probably a lot of the disagreements have to do with the FW-190A supposedly not being an exclusive-horizontal-low-speed-turn-specialist, which is simulation-based nonsense that has nothing to do with what almost everybody in WWII ever said about them...
As for the Merlin P-51 very low-speed down-throttling, with flaps down, and increased prop pitch settings (I said "coarser": sorry about that, but I think some of the pilots wrote the very same thing in their reports!), this is a very common tactic for the Merlin P-51s...
Here is an example among many, a very interesting combat:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
Note he DID lower his throttle prior to out-turning the tailing Me-109G, and was being out-turned by it while the throttle was set higher...
Gaston
-
More thrust at the same weight will give you a better sustained turn rate. How's that :angel:
-
Quote: "More thrust at the same weight will give you a better sustained turn rate. How's that"
-Yes it does make more sense that way, but maybe the peculiarities of the Merlin P-51 airframe with flaps down require the lowering of the throttle. One of the stated advantages of the FW-190A's "brainbox" throttle is that it allowed downthrottling prior to the turn and then throttling up during the turn.
In the Merlin Mustang's case, it does appear very clearly in the above combat that the lower airspeed increased the turn rate, probably at or below 200 MPH given the number of consecutive turns on the deck (while being gained on!), and especially decreased the turn radius, to a far higher performance than higher speeds would have allowed.
Yet at the same time, this 1990 test by several seasoned test pilots revealed a peak turn rate "very close" to the maximum level speed, which I read as above 300 MPH, maybe even as high as 350 MPH. I believe both are correct... Depending on flap position the turn behaviour of the Merlin P-51 is not really a linear rise followed by a linear drop...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html
As another example of Merlin P-51 peculiarities, the P-51 clearly accelerates or sustains speed better in level turns than earlier '44 Me-109Gs (not so much the late '44 one in the combat linked above!), yet cannot match their climb rates...
In any case, it is obvious the lowering of throttle, and prop pitch change with popped flaps, during low speed turns, was a VERY common tactic on the Merlin P-51, and was widely known among US WWII pilots...
Gaston
-
So far I've got gaston throwing up a wall of text and hoping for something to stick.
.... Or have I not got the gist of it?
-
Gaston,
"Peculiarities" can't violate the rules of physics.
Also, WWII fighters, none of them, produced enough thrust for an Fw190 to overcome the wingloading deficit to out turn a Spitfire Mk V. If that were the case, the La-7, Spitfire Mk XIV, Ki-84 and N1K2-J would assuredly out turn the A6M5.
-
Quote: "More thrust at the same weight will give you a better sustained turn rate. How's that"
-Yes it does make more sense that way, but maybe the peculiarities of the Merlin P-51 airframe with flaps down require the lowering of the throttle. One of the stated advantages of the FW-190A's "brainbox" throttle is that it allowed downthrottling prior to the turn and then throttling up during the turn.
In the Merlin Mustang's case, it does appear very clearly in the above combat that the lower airspeed increased the turn rate, probably at or below 200 MPH given the number of consecutive turns on the deck (while being gained on!), and especially decreased the turn radius, to a far higher performance than higher speeds would have allowed.
Yet at the same time, this 1990 test by several seasoned test pilots revealed a peak turn rate "very close" to the maximum level speed, which I read as above 300 MPH, maybe even as high as 350 MPH. I believe both are correct... Depending on flap position the turn behaviour of the Merlin P-51 is not really a linear rise followed by a linear drop...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html
As another example of Merlin P-51 peculiarities, the P-51 clearly accelerates or sustains speed better in level turns than earlier '44 Me-109Gs (not so much the late '44 one in the combat linked above!), yet cannot match their climb rates...
In any case, it is obvious the lowering of throttle, and prop pitch change with popped flaps, during low speed turns, was a VERY common tactic on the Merlin P-51, and was widely known among US WWII pilots...
Gaston
Drop your power and you will stall. Dead simple. WW2 aircraft did not have the enormous thrust in such an abundance.
Full power will give you the best sustained turn. You may be able to chop the throttle and get a nastyly tight turn...untill you stall out. In that scenario you would be fighting a blackout anyway.....and a better maneuver would be a chandelle.
Anyway, speculate on "POWER LOADING" instead of just wing-loading and HP
-
Yet at the same time, this 1990 test by several seasoned test pilots revealed a peak turn rate "very close" to the maximum level speed, which I read as above 300 MPH, maybe even as high as 350 MPH. I believe both are correct... Depending on flap position the turn behaviour of the Merlin P-51 is not really a linear rise followed by a linear drop...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html
As another example of Merlin P-51 peculiarities, the P-51 clearly accelerates or sustains speed better in level turns than earlier '44 Me-109Gs (not so much the late '44 one in the combat linked above!), yet cannot match their climb rates...
In any case, it is obvious the lowering of throttle, and prop pitch change with popped flaps, during low speed turns, was a VERY common tactic on the Merlin P-51, and was widely known among US WWII pilots...
Gaston
Pulling off throttle entering a turn is always a very bad idea. Want to kill E? Go vertical; a high yo-yo is a far better maneuver than pulling off power. Your speed is reduced, but your potential energy is very high... An ideal position to be in for most engagements when dealing with a slower enemy.
Gaston, just because some WWII pilot did something and survived, that doesn't make it a smart thing to do. There are times when pulling off power is necessary, but to reduce speed to get inside the turn of an enemy is usually not necessary or smart. When you quote a pilot who did this, did it occur to you how many didn't get home?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Quote Widewing:"Gaston, just because some WWII pilot did something and survived, that doesn't make it a smart thing to do. There are times when pulling off power is necessary, but to reduce speed to get inside the turn of an enemy is usually not necessary or smart. When you quote a pilot who did this, did it occur to you how many didn't get home?"
-There are numerous instances of pulling off power to keep overunning a slower opponent (one P-47 even firing guns for that purpose!), especially with the generally faster relative speed of US fighters at high altitudes. But we can all agree that in the example that I quoted, that is, for a TAILING Me-109G, things are here of a completely different nature than downthrottling to prevent a simple overunning...
This specific combination of actions, downthrottling, popping flaps, changing prop pitch, is one I have encountered a dozen times or more in instances where the P-51 is caught in a low-speed horizontal turn fight, usually on the deck. It is always mentionned in a matter-of-fact way that suggest that whoever is reading it is expected to know what it is about (Not: "I had this sudden idea", or "I tried this unusual action"), which suggests this is a widely accepted procedure. The results are usually large gains on the Me-109G and slower gains on some FW-190As, including those that "snap" their wings a lot, indicating perhaps inexperience on the FW-190 pilot's part. It is not very common, but very characteristic in the situations it is employed: It must have been taught at some level or other, as it is too complicated to have been conjured-up on the spot.
Downthrottling is also described by a FW-190A Western ace PRIOR to the merge, and is also combined with deploying the flaps. Note that this procedure, as it applies to turning, I have never encountered in 600+ P-47D combat reports, which I consider highly significant. It did not suit the P-47D...
I can't hunt down and link all the instances I have read about it, but it is common enough, and exclusive enough to the P-51, as to be a sort of "proprietary" tactic that only the FW-190A seems to have a counterpart for... Note also that engine peak torque is always at a lower rpm than peak power, so that could explain the advantage gained. As with the FW-190A's turning advantage, I think in this case I would go with pilots accounts yet again...
Quote, Angus: "Drop your power and you will stall. Dead simple. WW2 aircraft did not have the enormous thrust in such an abundance."
-They did at low speed, and probably more than many fighter jets up to a surprisingly advanced generation...
Without steam catapults, fighter jet operations from aircraft carriers would be non-existent up to a much later period in history, if at all, because the area of thrust from the jet is so much smaller, and they cannot regain speed as rapidly from low speed, because they need a correspondingly higher speed of air inflow at the front of the intake to generate all this power at the rear.
There was an interesting acceleration comparison once between a 800 hp(?) Formula 1 race car (0-60 MPH in 1.8/2 sec?) and a 30-40 000(?) hp F-18 fighter jet, both starting from a standstill and accelerating as fast as they could. It wasn't even a close call: The Formula 1 beat the crap out of the F-18 all the way to 200 MPH, because the available purchase area, for all that power to take hold of, was so much better on the car...
Now take another similar comparison, A 1990s Corvette ZR-1 and a P-51D Mustang: OK, the Corvette takes 4.2 sec or so to reach 60 MPH, a far cry from the Formula 1, but this time the Mustang had only about four times as many horses, not 40 times! The result? Again, not a close call at all: The Mustang absolutely creamed the Corvette ZR-1 right from the brake release...
The absence of catapults on WWII carriers alone tells you a lot about how different the rules are, at low speeds, for propeller aircrafts versus jets...
Gaston
-
Quote Widewing:"Gaston, just because some WWII pilot did something and survived, that doesn't make it a smart thing to do. There are times when pulling off power is necessary, but to reduce speed to get inside the turn of an enemy is usually not necessary or smart. When you quote a pilot who did this, did it occur to you how many didn't get home?"
-There are numerous instances of pulling off power to keep overunning a slower opponent (one P-47 even firing guns for that purpose!), especially with the generally faster relative speed of US fighters at high altitudes. But we can all agree that in the example that I quoted, that is, for a TAILING Me-109G, things are here of a completely different nature than downthrottling to prevent a simple overunning...
This specific combination of actions, downthrottling, popping flaps, changing prop pitch, is one I have encountered a dozen times or more in instances where the P-51 is caught in a low-speed horizontal turn fight, usually on the deck. It is always mentionned in a matter-of-fact way that suggest that whoever is reading it is expected to know what it is about (Not: "I had this sudden idea", or "I tried this unusual action"), which suggests this is a widely accepted procedure. The results are usually large gains on the Me-109G and slower gains on some FW-190As, including those that "snap" their wings a lot, indicating perhaps inexperience on the FW-190 pilot's part. It is not very common, but very characteristic in the situations it is employed: It must have been taught at some level or other, as it is too complicated to have been conjured-up on the spot.
Downthrottling is also described by a FW-190A Western ace PRIOR to the merge, and is also combined with deploying the flaps. Note that this procedure, as it applies to turning, I have never encountered in 600+ P-47D combat reports, which I consider highly significant. It did not suit the P-47D...
I can't hunt down and link all the instances I have read about it, but it is common enough, and exclusive enough to the P-51, as to be a sort of "proprietary" tactic that only the FW-190A seems to have a counterpart for... Note also that engine peak torque is always at a lower rpm than peak power, so that could explain the advantage gained. As with the FW-190A's turning advantage, I think in this case I would go with pilots accounts yet again...
Quote, Angus: "Drop your power and you will stall. Dead simple. WW2 aircraft did not have the enormous thrust in such an abundance."
-They did at low speed, and probably more than many fighter jets up to a surprisingly advanced generation...
Without steam catapults, fighter jet operations from aircraft carriers would be non-existent up to a much later period in history, if at all, because the area of thrust from the jet is so much smaller, and they cannot regain speed as rapidly from low speed, because they need a correspondingly higher speed of air inflow at the front of the intake to generate all this power at the rear.
There was an interesting acceleration comparison once between a 800 hp(?) Formula 1 race car (0-60 MPH in 1.8/2 sec?) and a 30-40 000(?) hp F-18 fighter jet, both starting from a standstill and accelerating as fast as they could. It wasn't even a close call: The Formula 1 beat the crap out of the F-18 all the way to 200 MPH, because the available purchase area, for all that power to take hold of, was so much better on the car...
Now take another similar comparison, A 1990s Corvette ZR-1 and a P-51D Mustang: OK, the Corvette takes 4.2 sec or so to reach 60 MPH, a far cry from the Formula 1, but this time the Mustang had only about four times as many horses, not 40 times! The result? Again, not a close call at all: The Mustang absolutely creamed the Corvette ZR-1 right from the brake release...
The absence of catapults on WWII carriers alone tells you a lot about how different the rules are, at low speeds, for propeller aircrafts versus jets...
Gaston
A couple of points..
Throttling back will not significantly reduce speed by itself. Ideally, the maneuver is to go up, roll and drop back in. The fact was and is that most WWII pilots had very little actual combat. Many in the 8th AF never fired their guns at an enemy fighter. I would expect these guys to do dumb things.
Re: Jet engines... Did you ever hear of "static thrust"? Jet engines are rated in pounds of static thrust, meaning that the engine is securely mounted to a test stand and not moving. The reason an F1 car accelerates faster than the F-18 is that the jet is at idle when the race begins. It takes time to spool up the engines. If the F-18 began with the engines powered up and the burners lit, it would be far more impressive. Piston aircraft engines get to max RPM within a couple of seconds. My S-2F would easily beat an F-4J in a drag race from idle, but if the Phantom started with the burners lit, it simply disappeared.
And finally, by mid war, all US carriers had catapults and they were used more often than not. Especially when the flight deck was full. These were hydraulic cats.
My regards,
Widewing
-
man reading this thread and having to memorize all the different turn rolls (degrees or whatever) its pretty interesting.
planes came out of the factory pretty much the same way some may have some minor improvements in the field. also, for some reason, some planes were actually better than the one built before or after it. that applies to pretty much any ww2 plane, what made a plane better was the pilot himself. the best pilot could use a lesser plane to shoot down a crappy pilot in a superior plane, it was proven many times. Of course the better pilots ended up dying anyway basically because nobody can win all the time.
but what u guys fail to take into account when you quote all this cool books when trying to make this game as realistic as possible is that we actually dont use the same plane per say (ok forgive me for misquote, grammar or spelling). some people fly with stall enabled, some dont, some use trackir, most dont, some have better joystick with twist rudders, others dont, some know how to change settings on joystick to make it turn easier, most dont. shoot, i bet some dont even have joysticks. there are more variables in this game than just pilot skill.
then again not trying to put anybody down, but sometimes I hear somebody say "my plane should have outturned yours and my skill is better than yours" that is actually true but the other guy's "extras" could've been better and made the difference. and when you guys talk about planes in ah, you seem to forget to take into account all the little "extra toys" that people get in this game which are not on any of the books you guys read about.
semp
-
This specific combination of actions, downthrottling, popping flaps, changing prop pitch, is one I have encountered a dozen times or more in instances where the P-51 is caught in a low-speed horizontal turn fight, usually on the deck. It is always mentionned in a matter-of-fact way that suggest that whoever is reading it is expected to know what it is about (Not: "I had this sudden idea", or "I tried this unusual action"), which suggests this is a widely accepted procedure. The results are usually large gains on the Me-109G and slower gains on some FW-190As, including those that "snap" their wings a lot, indicating perhaps inexperience on the FW-190 pilot's part. It is not very common, but very characteristic in the situations it is employed: It must have been taught at some level or other, as it is too complicated to have been conjured-up on the spot.
Reducing throttle and poping flaps is done to reduce turn radius, not to increase turn rate. For maximizing turn rate you want the plane close to its corner speed and keep it there. The combination of increasing drag (flaps) and reducing thrust (throttle back) will prevent them from maintaining this speed.
On the other hand, to fly slow and in a small circle, flaps help in increasing the maximum lift, which helps when the speed falls and you reach the maximum normal angle of attack. Throttling back is then required in order to fight the torque - as the plane slows down, the full throttle torque remains high but the effectiveness of the controls drops. At some point, the controls will not be able to over come the torque primary and secondary effects, even if the pilot is standing on the rudder pedal and trying to roll into the turn. P-38s used to do a tight right handed climbing turn, because 109/190s torque at low speed would flip them over to the left and prevent them from following.
Using flaps in combat was forbidden (by the squadron/group leaders) in some P-51 squadrons. It was considered a bad thing to intentionally get into a situation where they gain you anything. I remember at least one report from an RAF P-51 pilot that was in a long turning circles with a 109 at 0 alt and used the flaps against the official orders. He won the fight, but those that didn't don't come back to tell about it.
-
Marseille used this choppy trick to get a bead on the enemy. It called on two things though. Firstly, he had to be a good shot and a good stick, for the window of time was very short. He was a good stick and a good shot.
Secondly, he needed his mates to cover him. Which they did, and he got the kills.
Anyway, EF Typhoon vs Bugatti :neener:
(btw, a commonjet engine will use 8 seconds to rev up)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NZ9X9A2efA
Enjoy.
-
Note also that engine peak torque is always at a lower rpm than peak power, so that could explain the advantage gained.
Would you please study some basic physics so you will start to understand how stupid this statement you made is.
Power = RPM * Torque.
Lower RPM = less power = less thrust = less turn rate.
HiTech
-
Does Gaston even fly AcesHigh.
-
Does Gaston even fly AcesHigh.
If he did, he would die...Immediately.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Quote Hitech: "Quote
Note also that engine peak torque is always at a lower rpm than peak power, so that could explain the advantage gained.
Would you please study some basic physics so you will start to understand how stupid this statement you made is."
-Quote: From "Torque and Power": "Why does power continue to increase after torque decreases?
Remember that the power is essentially the product of the RPM and the torque. At first, decrease in torque is small and is not enough to offset the increasing RPM, so the overall product still increases. Eventually the decrease in torque becomes large enough that it outweighs the increase in RPM and we see the power start to drop. Because of this, the power peak will always be after the torque peak."
-Quote from one of MANY sites if you google: "Torque vs Horsepower"...
Of course a P-51 flying slower will be doing so with with LESS power than one one flying faster... The issue here is the pilot apparently WANTS less overall power because the extra power pulls him into a wider turn he doesn't want...
Also at low speeds, it may be useful to have a reserve of power to call on if the aircraft starts to "warn" and you don't want to relax the turn even if it does...
The lower rpm torque peak does not mean there is more acceleration offered than at higher rpm power settings, there isn't, but it does mean there is not PROPORTIONATELY less acceleration available at a lower power setting and lower speed. In other words, a modest drop in speed and power MAY, in some aircraft types, make a big difference to the aircraft's aerodynamic response to a turn, and thus the tightness of a turning radius, but not as big a difference to the ability of the aircraft's engine to sustain speed in this turn, even if the overall power does drop.
Clear enough?
Quote Widewing: "Re: Jet engines... Did you ever hear of "static thrust"? Jet engines are rated in pounds of static thrust, meaning that the engine is securely mounted to a test stand and not moving. The reason an F1 car accelerates faster than the F-18 is that the jet is at idle when the race begins. It takes time to spool up the engines. If the F-18 began with the engines powered up and the burners lit, it would be far more impressive."
-Of couse the F-18 had its engines spooled-up prior to brake release, or it wouldn't have been a contest at all... I saw the tape.
Same with the Merlin Mustang: If it had been idling, it would have had no chance vs the ZR-1...
Quote Angus: "Marseille used this choppy trick to get a bead on the enemy. It called on two things though. Firstly, he had to be a good shot and a good stick, for the window of time was very short. He was a good stick and a good shot."
-In the linked combat report, the Me-109G was gaining, on the deck, on the P-51D's TAIL, which means this wasn't just an issue of quickly chopping the throttle for a short time: The account is very clear: The Mustang gained gradually over what still would have taken several complete 360° turns to reverse the Me-109G's tailing position, and in fact the US cavalry arrived and interrupted the Me-109G's turn, since the Geman was forced to make a run for it, well before the P-51D had the considerable needed time to reverse the Me-109G's tail position, at least in what could have been called a fair 1 on 1 contest prior to the interruption...
I'll have a look at that EF vs Bugatti tape: Thanks Angus!
Quote: Widewing: "The fact was and is that most WWII pilots had very little actual combat. Many in the 8th AF never fired their guns at an enemy fighter. I would expect these guys to do dumb things."
-Since pilots of the times don't know what went down, why don't you guys find me a Luftwaffe pilot stupid enough to say the Me-109G-6 out-turns the FW-190A?
Oh, Rall said he could do it, with an Me-109F(!), and he starts by saying "They told us the FW-190A out-turns our Me-109, however I could do it..." So that's not exactly a supporting statement, and not for the "Gustav" by a long shot: Rall in fact complained about the G model being a bit too degraded in handling compared to the F...
The Rechlin La-5FN test, in late 1944, does say a MW-50 equipped Me-109G out-turns a FW-190A, speed unspecified. See my ranking above, based on the G-14's MW-50 use... And, finally, let's be fair and discount altitudes above 21 000 ft... So that Me-109G-14AS vs FW-190A-9 test at 27 000 ft. doesn't count either...
Since wartime pilots do indeed say and do dumb things, it shouldn't be too hard to find one pilot dumb enough to say he out-turned the FW-190A in a non-MW-50 Me-109G, and this in sustained turns below 250 MPH...
Gaston
P.S. I don't quite know what to make of my ignorance being now lumped-in with the ignorance of WWII fighter pilots...
G.
-
(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4708/gastonu.jpg)
(http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/3186/gaston2.jpg)
By using the (quote) and (/quote) you are able to insert multiple quotes from multiple posts.
use [ ] not ( )
To get a basic grasp on how to post on this forum I refer you to THIS (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=help;page=post#quote) link that will explain most all the of various posting options.
Granted, learning how to quote topics in your reply would take a desire to learn something you obviously know very little about and then spending some time and effort to get a basic grasp of the subject matter.
(ain't nobody here gonna hold their breath waiting for THAT to happen though...)
(http://thegurglingcod.typepad.com/thegurglingcod/images/2008/02/12/the_more_you_know2.jpg)
-
-Quote from one of MANY sites if you google: "Torque vs Horsepower"...
Of course a P-51 flying slower will be doing so with with LESS power than one one flying faster... The issue here is the pilot apparently WANTS less overall power because the extra power pulls him into a wider turn he doesn't want...
The quote clearly is referring to turn radius not turn rate. In that case the pilot want to keep his speed lower.
Many people, including pilots mix and confuse turning radius and turn rate into the general tern of "out turning". From the pilot's point of view, he pulled on the stick and the enemy plane advanced in his front window from top down to the gun sight and into a lead firing position. If it was pure turn rate, or the geometry of two planes turning on different circles is hard to judge in the heat of things. On top of that, a long sustained turning circles fight will almost never happen at the best turning speeds of either plane.
The result of such a fight will depend on the pilots ability to optimize the speed for a combination of turn rate and turn radius that will win the fight. No point in turning faster if the enemy is inside your circle - you will never get guns on him, unless you "cheat" and displace the circles. If he needs to accelerate to increase his rate of turn, it means that for a few moments he will loose both in angles and in radius as he unloads and let the plane accelerate. I am not sure many pilots nerves will hold long enough to gain from such a gamble.
-
none of this will translate to AH anyway other incorrect modeling factors will prevent the proper envelopes from ever showing themselves in the game.
GL gaston, but there is no interest in this sort of argument in here.
the game is balanced the way they want it to be balanced.
+S+
t
-
none of this will translate to AH anyway other incorrect modeling factors will prevent the proper envelopes from ever showing themselves in the game.
GL gaston, but there is no interest in this sort of argument in here.
the game is balanced the way they want it to be balanced.
+S+
t
Ah yes--taking the proverbial ball and going home...
-
well hey lets have this discussion then, what are the turn rates and radius for the set best of both and don't forget the "flaps" on those planes blessed with them ...
include anything else you feel is pertinent as you see fit.
Ah yes--taking the proverbial ball and going home...
-
Thorsim,
He is describing things that are impossible. You can't have the Fw190A out turning the Spitfire Mk V, but being out turned by the Spitfire Mk IX. Physics doesn't work that way.
-
right ...
so is there a problem with seeing the in-game turn performance, one that shows the best rate and best radius for the set, that way we can compare things.
as far as what is impossible/possible that has never been very clear in these games has it?
-
right ...
so is there a problem with seeing the in-game turn performance, one that shows the best rate and best radius for the set, that way we can compare things.
as far as what is impossible/possible that has never been very clear in these games has it?
There are tools out there that people have made showing turn radius, others have posted turn rate data. What is possible or impossible in these games is just as clear as in the real things. The same flight tests work in both.
-
include anything else you feel is pertinent as you see fit.
First, your main issue is that you came onto this board with a huge chip on your shoulder, and then are mad that no one else agrees with you, or backs you up. So, I don't think I could add anything pertinent, or at least what you would consider pertinent.
To perform an actual, detailed analysis of the aircraft in question, and their respective performance differences for us would be a huge undertaking. I've got a book of aerodynamic equations that would allow me to do it, if I had access to some data that I don't, and it would probably take me hours upon hours of personal time to do so, for each aircraft. I've seen enough of HTC's methodology to know that their approximate performance modelling is pretty close to accurate, in that they consider almost all of the major aerodynamic forces that act upon a plane. So, armed with that trust in their methods, I simply push the "I believe" button when there are things that I don't know or question, but don't have or don't make time to determine for myself, using those aforementioned aerodynamic equations. So, if you really want to start comparing apples to apples, come in here with your power available/power required curves, propellor efficiency numbers, thrust approximations, et al instead of simply waving an anecdotal pilot report or a single chart that has undertermined origins.
You may be right, after all. But most of us will remain skeptical until you can produce something tactile that we can wrap our minds around. Being right doesn't matter at all if you can't convince people you are. For me personally, I'm tired of your BBS Sniper tactics in these threads...
-
First, your main issue is that you came onto this board with a huge chip on your shoulder, and then are mad that no one else agrees with you, or backs you up. So, I don't think I could add anything pertinent, or at least what you would consider pertinent.
To perform an actual, detailed analysis of the aircraft in question, and their respective performance differences for us would be a huge undertaking. I've got a book of aerodynamic equations that would allow me to do it, if I had access to some data that I don't, and it would probably take me hours upon hours of personal time to do so, for each aircraft. I've seen enough of HTC's methodology to know that their approximate performance modelling is pretty close to accurate, in that they consider almost all of the major aerodynamic forces that act upon a plane. So, armed with that trust in their methods, I simply push the "I believe" button when there are things that I don't know or question, but don't have or don't make time to determine for myself, using those aforementioned aerodynamic equations. So, if you really want to start comparing apples to apples, come in here with your power available/power required curves, propellor efficiency numbers, thrust approximations, et al instead of simply waving an anecdotal pilot report or a single chart that has undertermined origins.
You may be right, after all. But most of us will remain skeptical until you can produce something tactile that we can wrap our minds around. Being right doesn't matter at all if you can't convince people you are. For me personally, I'm tired of your BBS Sniper tactics in these threads...
hey i'm sorry i thought somebody had the turn performance for the game done someplace ...
now i'm not about to take on another sim related project ...
i just thought that since everyone is so sure everything is correct in the game that the numbers would be available ...
someplace ...
:headscratch:
There are tools out there that people have made showing turn radius, others have posted turn rate data. What is possible or impossible in these games is just as clear as in the real things. The same flight tests work in both.
right so i am gonna see some data from someone else on these boards ?
i'm so excited, where can i find it?
? ? ?
-
I am not sure AH is correct in all cases, but Gaston's methodology is very flawed.
There are places that show the turn radius for various AH fighters, but none that I know of that show turn rate. Widewing generally tests new aircraft as they are added and, so far as I can tell, is unbiased in his reports.
-
:headscratch:
right so i am gonna see some data from someone else on these boards ?
i'm so excited, where can i find it?
There are places that show the turn radius for various AH fighters, but none that I know of that show turn rate. Widewing generally tests new aircraft as they are added and, so far as I can tell, is unbiased in his reports.
A thread that immediately came to my mind: MOSQ's Sustained Turn List (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,177723.0.html)
preceded by Kweassas List (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,155592.0.html)
And most important the tool to determine turn rate, radius and corner speed: Badboys Bootstrap Calculator (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,233819.0.html)
-
I am not sure AH is correct in all cases, but Gaston's methodology is very flawed.
There are places that show the turn radius for various AH fighters, but none that I know of that show turn rate. Widewing generally tests new aircraft as they are added and, so far as I can tell, is unbiased in his reports.
aww bummer and i was so excited ...
stoney, i can't discuss anything with nothing, no data, no point, no discussions ...
as far as gaston's arguments go i have no idea what is correct because as you say his methodology is not linear.
which leaves very little that is able to be discussed. that was my point in my original post you can't disagree here as there is nothing available for us to discuss in an informed manner.
i am sorry you don't see more information from me. i am frustrated i have seen no information at all from anyone.
no offense
+S+
t
-
Gaston, you could also fall into Crumpp's pit, praising more weight and hence heavier wingloading. For making this simple, you need lift for flying at all, and you need lots of it in a turn. Lift is an amalgam of thrust and area+angle etc. And weight is just weight. Drop the power, and there is no lift except what you get when you travel down. And you cannot do that forever.
Heavier wingloading can be countered by power. And chopping power is the opposite. FYI, if WW2 aircraft entered a deadly turnfight, they were normally at screeming panick boost while shuddering at the stall. The Marseille trick I mentioned benefitted from carefully utilizing the leading edge slots to tighten a turn in order to get a bead. It would leave the shooter hanging in the air by the way, and the exit would have to be downwards.
Anyway, read this, and especially what HiTech wrote.
-
Gaston You do realize
torque becomes large enough that it outweighs the increase in RPM and we see the power start to drop
Is not applicable to any motors & operable RPM ranges in any of the plane set?
And as I stated Less power = less turn rate?
HiTech
-
Thor,
I guess you didnt see the post above,the 1 where Lusche points to the exact imformation you are looking for. Now that you have been handed what you wanted to proceed with your arguement,you know the fact that the game is biased to favor a certain segment of the plane set. Will you take the time,check all the figures and show us exactly where the bias is?
Myself,I wish the FW's turned better and handled better,but the reality is the numbers dont add up to that fact.As a youngster I heard all sorts of stories from guys who were there. :salute In fact I had nightmares of "butcherBirds" shooting the{deleted} outta me from these "stories". So you see I admit I'm biased about the planeset,but that doesnt mean the "real" AC preformed any better than they do "ingame".
:salute
-
Ah yes--taking the proverbial ball and going home...
Actually, it's the proverbial Luftwhiner whine. He wants his beloved Luftwhiner plane fixed because it's under modeled and everything else not Luftwhiner is over modeled. He also wants everyone to fly his way and blames the flight model of the game for not making people fly the way he wants them too. Also in true typical Luftwhiner style, he has failed each time to show any proof he's correct about his beloved Luftwhiner plane is under modeled while everything else is over modeled.
ack-ack
-
I am not sure AH is correct in all cases, but Gaston's methodology is very flawed.
There are places that show the turn radius for various AH fighters, but none that I know of that show turn rate. Widewing generally tests new aircraft as they are added and, so far as I can tell, is unbiased in his reports.
Mosq's data showed turn rate. Mine does as well.
Perhaps a search of the forum would reveal if Mosq's data is still available on some server (in PDF format).
You can also use Badboy's bootstrap calculator to generate turn rate and radius data. Works very well.
You can download it here: http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Academy/AH_BootStrap.zip (http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Academy/AH_BootStrap.zip)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thorism wrote.
stoney, i can't discuss anything with nothing, no data, no point, no discussions ...
Since you do not wish to do simple testing. You have no data, and you can not discuss anything.
I suggest you
1. Get some data, or do some testing.
2. Or stop speaking about something that YOU ADMIT you can not speak about because have no knowledge of, or data for. And are not even willing to simply go fly ah with a stop watch and get all the data you need.
P.S. We do publish all climb and speed data for all our planes.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/planeperf.php
HiTech
-
Hmm, something might be wrong with that page HiTech. I remember just last month having bombers in the drop down selections to get their speed and climb rates. Today, it doesn't show any bombers in the drop down selections.
-
hitech if you read i said that one can't do the real world/in game comparisons in my first post.
what is the point of collecting game data for a game that refuses to share it's historic reference data for comparison? what conclusions could be drawn from only one side of the picture?
btw why should we need to do any simple testing of in game performance anyway,
don't you do that yourselves when you test the FMs?
i mean i think that information should be available to you already.
why not share it like the other in game performance data?
i suggested that we may be able to have a discussion about in game turn performance however there is no official data available for that discussion either. now i don't have time to do that kind of testing, and quite frankly it should be done officially as turn rate would be better shown with an AI or projected from the code than from a player pilot for consistency.
now if you want to provide that info than great, if you don't well fine. however it is not my job, or place,
to provide the performance numbers for HTC, however nice they would be to have for discussion purposes.
i see no reason for you to get snippy with me for me letting another player who suspects something is not correct in on the difficulties associated with trying to prove anything in these discussions for the reasons stated above and the hostility one faces when they question the status quo around here.
especially for something as elusive as turn performance as we have had better smarter more experienced than any of us arguing about the real world aircraft for what 6+ decades now with no real consensus so far, at least none that i have seen.
no offense
+S+
t
Thorism wrote.
Since you do not wish to do simple testing. You have no data, and you can not discuss anything.
I suggest you
1. Get some data, or do some testing.
2. Or stop speaking about something that YOU ADMIT you can not speak about because have no knowledge of, or data for. And are not even willing to simply go fly ah with a stop watch and get all the data you need.
P.S. We do publish all climb and speed data for all our planes.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/planeperf.php
HiTech
-
Thorsim,
That makes no sense. You test the aircraft in the game and you compare the results with the available documentation. It doesn't matter what HTC's particular sources are.
Just make sure not to pick the one historical source that most favorable to your chosen aircraft or most unfavorable to other aircraft. Use as wide a cross section of data as you can.
-
Is there in fact any such thing as data on sustained rate and radius of turn for WWII aircraft at all?
-
it is necessary to have the pertinent data when your discussion will involve the interpretation of that data. otherwise all you have is "that is not what the data that we use says" ...
that is an issue that can not be resolved unless everyone presents their data. HTC will not do that,
so these discussions can not be resolved and are there by pointless.
Thorsim,
That makes no sense. You test the aircraft in the game and you compare the results with the available documentation. It doesn't matter what HTC's particular sources are.
Just make sure not to pick the one historical source that most favorable to your chosen aircraft or most unfavorable to other aircraft. Use as wide a cross section of data as you can.
not a consistent single source one that i know of or have ever heard of for that matter, there are even disagreements on the physical basics of many types. that is why we need to know exactly what we are discussing before it would be worth having a discussion.
Is there in fact any such thing as data on sustained rate and radius of turn for WWII aircraft at all?
no offense
+S+
t
-
it is necessary to have the pertinent data when your discussion will involve the interpretation of that data. otherwise all you have is "that is not what the data that we use says" ...
that is an issue that can not be resolved unless everyone presents their data. HTC will not do that,
That is not the way HTC has behaved in my experience. They have modified many flight models when data was presented showing their model was in error. You don't need their data to do so.
However, as I noted, if you just cherrypick the most favorable data and pretend the rest doesn't exist, well, you won't get very far.
-
i am not talking about behavior, behavior and attention wise i think HTC is ahead of the curve in a big way.
however it is impossible to address where HTC may be incorrect in their data if they do not show it.
there are many many many factors that determine different kinds of performance so without the source data how would we know if for example the lift, power, wing loading or drag or acceleration is the reason things are incorrect and the cause of our concern if we do not know what any of those values are?
do you get my point ...
i may feel very strongly things are incorrect, but without knowing what or how things are done how can i possibly address something like turn rate when there are so many unknown value/factors contributing to turn performance.
no offense
+S+
t
That is not the way HTC has behaved in my experience. They have modified many flight models when data was presented showing their model was in error. You don't need their data to do so.
However, as I noted, if you just cherrypick the most favorable data and pretend the rest doesn't exist, well, you won't get very far.
-
what is the point of collecting game data for a game that refuses to share it's historic reference data for comparison?
If HTC were to share their historical reference data openly in public on this board, some in which possibly other competing flight sims might not have available to them, that would be the same as shooting yourself in your own foot.......wouldn't you agree? and for the record....why should they share something that has taking thousands of manhours, possibly including traveling to different states, countrys, museums and researching thru archived records to for years to find the data needed just to add each plane to a flight sim........ show it publically and then all other flgiht sim creators gets to go down easy street....
i suggested that we may be able to have a discussion about in game turn performance however there is no official data available for that discussion either. now i don't have time to do that kind of testing, and quite frankly it should be done officially as turn rate would be better shown with an AI or projected from the code than from a player pilot for consistency.
you are very new to the flight sim world of games. or have no idea what you are talking about......... as a matter of fact 2 of the most qualified Aces high participants in the game, are as well trainers for the game and their efforts and consistency has never came into question ....... going back more than a decade of test data for various flight sim games....... this being Leon "Badboy" Smith and Widewing........
it appears you have went up the creek without a paddle........ so sad
-
however it is impossible to address where HTC may be incorrect in their data if they do not show it.
This is incorrect.
What you do is you show how the performance in AH conflicts with sources x, y and z and then HTC, if they agree with the conclusions, will make changes. You aren't testing it against their data, you are testing it against the best historical data you have.
Doing that I got the fuel consumption on the Mosquito changed. I saw another person get the Ki-84's roll rate increased dramatically. Those are just a couple of examples, but there have been many more.
-
To paraphrase Thomism argument.
Thor: I think htc's flight models are incorrect and that they are biased to make American planes better than the LW, but I do not have any data to back it up.
HiTech: If you believe so, what data do you have showing so.
Thor: None, therefore you should show me all your data so I have some.
HiTech
-
more like ...
thor: why does this plane do that so well when its physical characteristics and pilot reports and POHs all say it shouldn't be able to ...
hitech: because i say so ...
thor: your kidding right?
hitech: "we have the proof, it is irrefutable"
thor: oh could we see it ?
hitech: no it is top secret
thor: that was 60 years ago ...
hitech: it's mine ... what do you know anyway?
etc. etc. till the end of time
so like i told gaston, why bother ...
no offense ...
+S+
t
To paraphrase Thomism argument.
Thor: I think htc's flight models are incorrect and that they are biased to make American planes better than the LW, but I do not have any data to back it up.
HiTech: If you believe so, what data do you have showing so.
Thor: None, therefore you should show me all your data so I have some.
HiTech
...
-
historic data is historic, exactly who would have the resources to develop a competing sim that does not have the resources to acquire the data themselves? i.e. snowjob.
been a flight sim player since the dos hornet game, actually played that "hit return to refresh" jet ACM game "pre mass internet" with my brother at the college he was attending. MMOL since AW classic ...
other experts not affiliated with HTC have very different conclusions about the specifics of my issues with hitech's games. asking for the reasoning is not unreasonable.
If HTC were to share their historical reference data openly in public on this board, some in which possibly other competing flight sims might not have available to them, that would be the same as shooting yourself in your own foot.......wouldn't you agree? and for the record....why should they share something that has taking thousands of manhours, possibly including traveling to different states, countrys, museums and researching thru archived records to for years to find the data needed just to add each plane to a flight sim........ show it publically and then all other flgiht sim creators gets to go down easy street....
you are very new to the flight sim world of games. or have no idea what you are talking about......... as a matter of fact 2 of the most qualified Aces high participants in the game, are as well trainers for the game and their efforts and consistency has never came into question ....... going back more than a decade of test data for various flight sim games....... this being Leon "Badboy" Smith and Widewing........
it appears you have went up the creek without a paddle........ so sad
i did that, it resulted in discussions with other "interested" players which degraded to the point of rule number 4 being used to censor my responses. at that point i smelled the coffee and moved on, as i will now. for those of you who have been around there is a discussion on an uncensored board going on, it may be more enlightening.
AGW for those who know enough to know.
This is incorrect.
What you do is you show how the performance in AH conflicts with sources x, y and z and then HTC, if they agree with the conclusions, will make changes. You aren't testing it against their data, you are testing it against the best historical data you have.
Doing that I got the fuel consumption on the Mosquito changed. I saw another person get the Ki-84's roll rate increased dramatically. Those are just a couple of examples, but there have been many more.
back to smelling the coffee, i think i will leave you all to your discussions ...
no offense ...
+S+
t
-
HiTech Wrote.
Thor: I think htc's flight models are incorrect and that they are biased to make American planes better than the LW, but I do not have any data to back it up.
Thore wrote.
thor: why does this plane do that so well when its physical characteristics and pilot reports and POHs all say it shouldn't be able to ...
Hmm I am still waiting for that proof you claim to have, but then again you say you have no data to back up your claims.
And finally , as many players have said. No one ever gets any grief from me when speaking analytically about airplane performance. I am always open to learning new things, but I am NOT open to discussing flight dynamics,or be criticized by someone who has the knowledge of a Kindergartner , but with the attitude he has a PHD in Flight Modeling. You would be hard pressed to ever find me taking the attitude on this BBS or in person of ever stating I am write because I know I am write. That attitude is the death of a good programmer. As I said way back when, If you wish to show us we are incorrect, get off your duff and do some research and flight testing. Show us where we do not mach the real world. But do not expect us to do the work for you when it is YOU claiming there is a problem not us.
The only time they get grief is when they speak as you with nothing but pure BS and their only desire is to make the plane they love the most fly better.
I have seen 2 out comes from this.
1.
f4udoa used to do the same type of cherry picking wanting to make is F4U better. After getting no where he started doing real research and looking at all information, and also taught himself to do some number crunching. He then was able to start to talk in an informed and intelligent fashion , he also found out that things were not as he first envisioned them.
2.
Crump used to do but could not hold a solid arguement. He had a fair amount of data but never learned to analyze it. He ended up getting kicked of from the boards.
HiTech
-
you bumped one of the guys restoring White 1 who had good data (obviously) but did not meet your standards for argument?
really?
hehe ok what are those standards ?
just out of curiosity ...
you know my issues with your game, they are pretty specific. initially you expressed some interest that is true, however you did "rule number 4" me when defending my point of view with other people who i proved knew less about the issues than i did. so why should i waste my efforts here?
why should i work to help you improve your product when it seems to be in areas you just don't seem interested in addressing.
give me a reason and i will post some data. otherwise i will wait to make my case elsewhere, or here at a time when it is irrefutable.
why am i being harassed for informing another that his case was not going to sway anyone here,
when his case was not going to sway anyone here?
? ? ?
t
HiTech Wrote.
Thore wrote.
Hmm I am still waiting for that proof you claim to have, but then again you say you have no data to back up your claims.
And finally , as many players have said. No one ever gets any grief from me when speaking analytically about airplane performance. I am always open to learning new things, but I am NOT open to discussing flight dynamics,or be criticized by someone who has the knowledge of a Kindergartner , but with the attitude he has a PHD in Flight Modeling. You would be hard pressed to ever find me taking the attitude on this BBS or in person of ever stating I am write because I know I am write. That attitude is the death of a good programmer. As I said way back when, If you wish to show us we are incorrect, get off your duff and do some research and flight testing. Show us where we do not mach the real world. But do not expect us to do the work for you when it is YOU claiming there is a problem not us.
The only time they get grief is when they speak as you with nothing but pure BS and their only desire is to make the plane they love the most fly better.
I have seen 2 out comes from this.
1.
f4udoa used to do the same type of cherry picking wanting to make is F4U better. After getting no where he started doing real research and looking at all information, and also taught himself to do some number crunching. He then was able to start to talk in an informed and intelligent fashion , he also found out that things were not as he first envisioned them.
2.
Crump used to do but could not hold a solid arguement. He had a fair amount of data but never learned to analyze it. He ended up getting kicked of from the boards.
HiTech
-
Hmm, something might be wrong with that page HiTech. I remember just last month having bombers in the drop down selections to get their speed and climb rates. Today, it doesn't show any bombers in the drop down selections.
GD, that was an error and is now corrected. We added more data to the tables and I missed that one utility in scnanning for any that needed to be updated.
-
you bumped one of the guys restoring White 1 who had good data (obviously) but did not meet your standards for argument?
really?
hehe ok what are those standards ?
just out of curiosity ...
you know my issues with your game, they are pretty specific. initially you expressed some interest that is true, however you did "rule number 4" me when defending my point of view with other people who i proved knew less about the issues than i did. so why should i waste my efforts here?
why should i work to help you improve your product when it seems to be in areas you just don't seem interested in addressing.
give me a reason and i will post some data. otherwise i will wait to make my case elsewhere, or here at a time when it is irrefutable.
why am i being harassed for informing another that his case was not going to sway anyone here,
when his case was not going to sway anyone here?
? ? ?
t
Holy strawman batman!
-
why should i work to help you improve your product when it seems to be in areas you just don't seem interested in addressing.
give me a reason and i will post some data. otherwise i will wait to make my case elsewhere, or here at a time when it is irrefutable.
why am i being harassed for informing another that his case was not going to sway anyone here,
when his case was not going to sway anyone here????
t
You can knock off the ad hominem argument you've continued throughout this thread. HiTech has said all along "Prove to me that my data is off and I'll be more than happy to discuss it intelligently". I am paraphrasing HiTech, but I've met him and he's a great person who is not a snob. However, you're coming across as someone who merely is arguing in circles, for the sake of the argument itself and not providing a solution.
Can the "no offense" reply to my post. We both know what your intention is, do it to someone else who is naive.
-
you know my issues with your game, they are pretty specific. initially you expressed some interest that is true, however you did "rule number 4" me when defending my point of view with other people who i proved knew less about the issues than i did. so why should i waste my efforts here?
I Deleted your post because you were grinding you ax into a different topic.
We also had begun to have a conversation on modeling and you had stopped with your BS hyperbole, I was waiting for your information, but you again jump on your no data criticizing hyperbole and at that point I had no interest in debating any real data or techniques with you, and that is when I said I am done discussing any data related topic because your desire is obviously not to implement what is correct or consistent, only to improve the plane you love.
In fact again you derailed a topic (This one) just do to the ax you want to grind. I have given you a fair amount of slack so far. But unless you begin to post in a respectful manner you will soon be either ignored or gone.
HiTech
-
for future reference where to you believe i am being disrespectful here?
-
Don't forget your obligatory "no offense". :rolleyes:
-
for future reference where to you believe i am being disrespectful here?
You state falsehoods as fact. You accuse people of being liars, but use flowery language to avoid sounding like you are calling them liars. You accuse people of having ulterior motives.
-
you bumped one of the guys restoring White 1 who had good data (obviously) but did not meet your standards for argument?
Just because Crummp is helping to restore some warbird doesn't qualify him to be an expert. Just look at some of his previous posts or do a search in the IL2 UbiSoft boards for some recent examples of his 'expert' opinions. His explanation of how the dive flaps on the P-38L in AH are not modeled at all and his explanation on how they worked in real life would be considered high satire if he wasn't being serious. Come to think of it, he had the same incorrect explanation on how they worked as you do.
It wasn't his lack of meeting any argument standards that got him removed from this board but rather his tendency to insult those that took his data into question, especially when they refuted any point he was trying to make.
In all honesty, the majority of his posts boiled down nothing more than a simple Luftwhiner crying about some HiTech conspiracy against anything Luftwaffe. Sound familiar?
ack-ack
-
so like i told gaston, why bother ...
no offense ...
+S+
t
...
Gaston has no baseline... He doesn't fly Aces High to my knowledge. He posts walls of text that invariably point to the comments of WWII pilots, but not actual flight test data. I know two WWII vets who swear they broke the sound barrier in a dive. The fact that what they claim was actually impossible does not dissuade them from repeating their claim over and over and over, ad nauseum.
If you have an issue with any flight model, present your evidence. If you have no evidence, then you have no argument. It's that simple. If you should think that anyone will entertain your claim without evidence, think again. It is in your interest to be prepared, unless you prefer to get your nose rubbed in the proverbial horsecocky.
My regards,
Widewing
-
for future reference where to you believe i am being disrespectful here?
Contribute, or go away--its that simple.
-
Quote Angus: "Gaston, you could also fall into Crumpp's pit, praising more weight and hence heavier wingloading. For making this simple, you need lift for flying at all, and you need lots of it in a turn. Lift is an amalgam of thrust and area+angle etc. And weight is just weight. Drop the power, and there is no lift except what you get when you travel down. And you cannot do that forever."
-I do not praise weight or any other simplistic notion! You forget that as the power is diminished (not dropped completely!), the flaps are also deployed or/and the angle of attack is increased: Real pilots in the FW-190A routinely reduced power prior to combat, especially at lower altitudes, and they also did deploy the flaps. Even without flaps, lower power could help raise the nose to a higher angle of attack relative to the trajectory, while just slightly more speed or power could actually pull the nose down in a fairly sudden, non-linear fashion as it does on the clean Me-109G at 300 MPH (I'm pretty sure the same thing happens on the Me-109G with underwing gondolas at 250 MPH...).
-Crump is tirelessly argueing, based on maths and algebra alone, that the FW-190A is superior at speed retention and turn rate at high speeds. I would have seen nothing wrong with this argument, except that I got tired of reading over decades thousands of real-life accounts that NEVER stop clobbering this math-based notion on the head... Do I have to link the "Russian experience" for the millionth time?
http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html
The fact is maths alone cannot give us the answer here, and the insistence on them just shows the bias of many education systems towards maths at the expense of both reading skills and rational thinking. I'll bet you would be hard-pressed to find an aerodynamic formula, for estimating maximum turn rate, that takes into account how far ahead of the leading edge of the wings the propeller is... If you don't even compute basic facts about the object, how can you even pretend to predict behaviour on a messy object that churns the air into a spiral?
In addition to this math bias, all the counter-arguments presented here has clearly a "jet" feel to it based on the post-war work of authors who were mostly focussed on current jet technology. I hate to break any shocking news here, but jets and prop fighters are quite different, and their weapons are usually not the same either...
Quote, Widewing: "He posts walls of text that invariably point to the comments of WWII pilots, but not actual flight test data."
-All the evidence I presented is based on actual side-by-side flight tests. Tough. (Source: "WWII Aircraft Performance" site, TAIC report #17 and #38, + the US Navy's project TED # PTR-1107 [FW-190A-5/U4 Navy test]):
If the A6M5 Zero turns 2000°:
-The F6F-5 turns 1550° (A6M5 gains 360° in 3.5 X 360°)
-The F4U-1D turns 1550° (same as F6F-5)
-The P-38L turns 1330° (A6M5 gains 360° in 2 X 360°)
-The P-51D turns 1100°-1190° (A6M5 gains 360° in LESS than 2 X 360°)
-The P-47D Bubbletop turns 997° (A6M5 gains 360° in 1.5 X 360°)
-The FW-190A-5 turns 1162° (F6F-5 gains 360° in 3 X 360°): Despite this being roughly equal to the P-51D, it is made using a fully disassembled and re-built captured machine, whose aileron performance in this US Navy test was then contested by British evaluators in an official wartime document: Aileron performance DID affect low-speed sustained turn performance on the FW-190A...
Official British test have the FW-190A-4 pegged as "equal" in sustained turn rate to the P-38G, and the FW-190A-4 could also out-turn the Spitfire Mk V in sustained horizontal turns, as seen in this combat account:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
The P-38G was pitted against a Spitfire Mk XIV in mock combat, which failed to shake it from its tail in repeated attempts, so a turn rate of 1300°-1400° (vs 2000° on the A6M5) does not seem implausible for both the early-mid FW-190A's and the P-38G."
Quote, Widewing: " If you have no evidence, then you have no argument. It's that simple. If you should think that anyone will entertain your claim without evidence, think again."
-It is you who has no evidence except maths that are contradicted by repeated flight tests and millions of concurring pilots.... You DO have TWO separate Navy tests that peg the FW-190A-4 and A-5 as EQUAL(!) in turn rate to a P-51D, which I think is STILL not quite 100% good enough, as the British RAE test establishment, not me, agreed during wartime and send the US Navy a contestation to that effect, at least concerning the roll rate...
This is all quite simply the destruction of painfully obvious history at the hands of simplistic maths: With the relative emphasis put on either in most nation's education system, I guess the result was predictable...
I think I'll take the hint from Thorsim...
Gaston
-
You DO have TWO separate Navy tests that peg the FW-190A-4 and A-5 as EQUAL(!) in turn rate to a P-51D, which I think is STILL not quite 100% good enough, as the British RAE test establishment, not me, agreed during wartime and send the US Navy a contestation to that effect, at least concerning the roll rate...
You do know that the movement in engineering during the war was faster and higher and not tighter right? No I dont think you do.
You have been using anecdotal evidence all along and no empirical evidence whatsoever. If you have real evidence that something is wrong in the game then present it but do not offer anecdotes as real evidence. I can setup a situation in which it appears that a Lancaster can turn inside of a Zero and once you see it you might report that your Lancaster can easily out turn a Zero but thats not hard and real evidence or data its anecdotal in nature.
-
I'll bet you would be hard-pressed to find an aerodynamic formula, for estimating maximum turn rate, that takes into account how far ahead of the leading edge of the wings the propeller is...
:O
-
more like ...
thor: why does this plane do that so well when its physical characteristics and pilot reports and POHs all say it shouldn't be able to ...
hitech: because i say so ...
thor: your kidding right?
hitech: "we have the proof, it is irrefutable"
thor: oh could we see it ?
hitech: no it is top secret
thor: that was 60 years ago ...
hitech: it's mine ... what do you know anyway?
etc. etc. till the end of time
so like i told gaston, why bother ...
no offense ...
+S+
t
...
Thor, you created a thread not long ago stating that the P38 does things in the game that it should not be able to do. After a lengthy discussion, you eventually came to realize it was not incorrect modeling, but your lack of understanding about how everything works. Now here you are again trying to dig your way out of a hole.
Fly some luftwaffe aircraft against their respective counterparts, they perform true to records and statements made 60 years ago. The 109k is a beast in the late war arena, the 109e may be the best fighter of the early war set.
As per Gaston, referring to a pilot's encounter is sure to be flawed. Judging from the article, the spitv pilot was diving away from enemies, the 190 saw him and turned toward him (losing speed). The spit pilot is going full throttle according to the article, turns and wonders why the 190 is not in front of him... if the spit is going at a much faster speed, then the early 190 will surely be able to turn inside him. Our earliest 190 is the a5, I have read that earlier 190 models could turn better than the a5 and do not doubt. But the German's gave up maneuverability for speed and firepower, as they were facing increasing bomber numbers and maneuverability does not help against bombers.
-
You DO have TWO separate Navy tests that peg the FW-190A-4 and A-5 as EQUAL(!) in turn rate to a P-51D, which I think is STILL not quite 100% good enough,
Just arbitrarily picking this sentence as a reason to show:
(http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/859/germ51comp.jpg)
In Aces High, the 109G-6 has a much smaller turning radius and a notably higher sustained degrees/sec rate than the Pony.
Without flaps the A-5 is very close in turn radius as well as degrees/sec turn rate.
-
LOL, well there was a reason why 190's were escorted with 109's, but that applies for the weightier ones at altitude over their best power.
By the way, ROC is very much linked with turn performance....just not absolutely.
-
i did ?
where?
Thor, you created a thread not long ago stating that the P38 does things in the game that it should not be able to do. After a lengthy discussion, you eventually came to realize it was not incorrect modeling, but your lack of understanding about how everything works. Now here you are again trying to dig your way out of a hole.
Fly some luftwaffe aircraft against their respective counterparts, they perform true to records and statements made 60 years ago. The 109k is a beast in the late war arena, the 109e may be the best fighter of the early war set.
As per Gaston, referring to a pilot's encounter is sure to be flawed. Judging from the article, the spitv pilot was diving away from enemies, the 190 saw him and turned toward him (losing speed). The spit pilot is going full throttle according to the article, turns and wonders why the 190 is not in front of him... if the spit is going at a much faster speed, then the early 190 will surely be able to turn inside him. Our earliest 190 is the a5, I have read that earlier 190 models could turn better than the a5 and do not doubt. But the German's gave up maneuverability for speed and firepower, as they were facing increasing bomber numbers and maneuverability does not help against bombers.
-
Gaston.
The fact is maths alone cannot give us the answer here, and the insistence on them just shows the bias of many education systems towards maths at the expense of both reading skills and rational thinking. I'll bet you would be hard-pressed to find an aerodynamic formula, for estimating maximum turn rate, that takes into account how far ahead of the leading edge of the wings the propeller is... If you don't even compute basic facts about the object, how can you even pretend to predict behaviour on a messy object that churns the air into a spiral?
Will you give me copy right privs of this statement? It is just to good not to keep.
1. Math by definition is pure rational thinking.
2. It is not hard to find the formula that takes into account how far the prop is ahead of the wing to estimate spiral airflow effects over the wing, fuse and tail, AH does this all the time.
3. You are trying to argue that the least significant forces of sustained turn, have a significant effect. Estimations are just that, that is why they are called estimations and if you wish to be precise can even be given a % of accuracy do to the small forces they ignore.
HiTech
-
i did ?
where?
He's referring to the thread that discussed the dive flaps in the P-38 and your posts where you were pretty much clueless on how they worked both in game and in real life. Even in that thread when you were asked to provide any data to back up your assertions you refused to do so. When others provided data to refute your claims, you just ignored them.
ack-ack
-
i did ?
where?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274614.240.html
-
i did ?
where?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274614.240.html
LOL burn!
-
you did notice that my first post is on page 16 on that thread "i created" ...
as far as what was discussed lets see ...
that is the thread where i enlightened some "p38 expert" that the p38 was the biggest heaviest largely produced american fighter of the war.
now do you guys still want to contend that ...
the dive flap did not increase the drag on the airframe and therefore did not slow it down?
or
that fowler flaps do not increase drag?
because those are the things i found fault with in other peoples arguments ...
whatever else the dive flap might do to improve the high speed handling them my statement about it's drag is a fact it must and does in fact slow the plane down, in the real world anyway.
however comparatively less drag the fowler flaps produce they still produce drag that is also a fact.
now feel free to look at my statements and find something else i was "wrong" about, feel free but i assure you that my understanding of any of the above issues did not change and any modeling that is different than i stated above is still incorrect.
you guys will do better addressing what i say than what you think i said.
no offense
+S+
t
LOL burn!
Thor, you created a thread not long ago stating that the P38 does things in the game that it should not be able to do. After a lengthy discussion, you eventually came to realize it was not incorrect modeling, but your lack of understanding about how everything works. Now here you are again trying to dig your way out of a hole.
Fly some luftwaffe aircraft against their respective counterparts, they perform true to records and statements made 60 years ago. The 109k is a beast in the late war arena, the 109e may be the best fighter of the early war set.
As per Gaston, referring to a pilot's encounter is sure to be flawed. Judging from the article, the spitv pilot was diving away from enemies, the 190 saw him and turned toward him (losing speed). The spit pilot is going full throttle according to the article, turns and wonders why the 190 is not in front of him... if the spit is going at a much faster speed, then the early 190 will surely be able to turn inside him. Our earliest 190 is the a5, I have read that earlier 190 models could turn better than the a5 and do not doubt. But the German's gave up maneuverability for speed and firepower, as they were facing increasing bomber numbers and maneuverability does not help against bombers.
He's referring to the thread that discussed the dive flaps in the P-38 and your posts where you were pretty much clueless on how they worked both in game and in real life. Even in that thread when you were asked to provide any data to back up your assertions you refused to do so. When others provided data to refute your claims, you just ignored them.
ack-ack
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274614.240.html
-
you did notice that my first post is on page 16 on that thread "i created" ...
as far as what was discussed lets see ...
that is the thread where i enlightened some "p38 expert" that the p38 was the biggest heaviest largely produced american fighter of the war.
now do you guys still want to contend that ...
the dive flap did not increase the drag on the airframe and therefore did not slow it down?
or
that fowler flaps do not increase drag?
because those are the things i found fault with in other peoples arguments ...
whatever else the dive flap might do to improve the high speed handling them my statement about it's drag is a fact it must and does in fact slow the plane down, in the real world anyway.
however comparatively less drag the fowler flaps produce they still produce drag that is also a fact.
now feel free to look at my statements and find something else i was "wrong" about, feel free but i assure you that my understanding of any of the above issues did not change and any modeling that is different than i stated above is still incorrect.
you guys will do better addressing what i say than what you think i said.
no offense
+S+
t
You proved nothing in that thread other than you really don't have a clue.
The fact that the P-38 was the USAAF's largest and heaviest fighter was never in dispute nor would you find any of us regular P-38 flyers argue otherwise.
Again, we never said that the flaps of any type on the P-38 didn't not have a drag penalty, we just corrected your incorrect assertion that the dive flaps were in fact dive brakes because they caused sufficient drag to slow the P-38 down. Of course there is a speed hit with anything when drag is introduced but as we stated, it was not sufficient enough to provide any sort of braking in a high speed dive. You kept claiming otherwise and refused to post anything to support your claim.
You also in that thread assumed that everyone that flies the P-38 does so at full flaps while in Lufberry turns out turning anything under the sun. Again, we proved that to be incorrect as well.
You also claimed in that thread that in real life, P-38 pilots didn't use their flaps the way we use them in game. Again, with pilot AARs that we posted we showed that the use of the P-38 flaps in game pretty much mirrored their usage in real life.
You just dismiss anything that does not support what you think to be correct despite the fact that you have provided nothing to back up your claims.
ack-ack
-
no on all counts, please post quotes from me where you think i did any of that to back up your accusations ...
You proved nothing in that thread other than you really don't have a clue.
The fact that the P-38 was the USAAF's largest and heaviest fighter was never in dispute nor would you find any of us regular P-38 flyers argue otherwise.
Again, we never said that the flaps of any type on the P-38 didn't not have a drag penalty, we just corrected your incorrect assertion that the dive flaps were in fact dive brakes because they caused sufficient drag to slow the P-38 down. Of course there is a speed hit with anything when drag is introduced but as we stated, it was not sufficient enough to provide any sort of braking in a high speed dive. You kept claiming otherwise and refused to post anything to support your claim.
You also in that thread assumed that everyone that flies the P-38 does so at full flaps while in Lufberry turns out turning anything under the sun. Again, we proved that to be incorrect as well.
You also claimed in that thread that in real life, P-38 pilots didn't use their flaps the way we use them in game. Again, with pilot AARs that we posted we showed that the use of the P-38 flaps in game pretty much mirrored their usage in real life.
You just dismiss anything that does not support what you think to be correct despite the fact that you have provided nothing to back up your claims.
ack-ack
-
In fact as I recall it has been nearly every discussion on anything American has been entered into and brought about to enlighten us as to how much better the Fw190 was to our planes (and incorrectly so). Its gotten to the point we cannot talk about P-38s or P-47s or P-51s or F-4Us without the 190 being brought up as an off topic interruption.
-
In fact as I recall it has been nearly every discussion on anything American has been entered into and brought about to enlighten us as to how much better the Fw190 was to our planes (and incorrectly so). Its gotten to the point we cannot talk about P-38s or P-47s or P-51s or F-4Us without the 190 being brought up as an off topic interruption.
really where did i say any of that? my quotes only please, as your recollection seems different than mine.
-
really where did i say any of that? my quotes only please, as your recollection seems different than mine.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447081.html#msg3447081
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447128.html#msg3447128
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3448342.html#msg3448342
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447499.html#msg3447499
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3448728.html#msg3448728
All of these posts are you trying to say the P-51 and P-38 are overmodeled in the use of flaps and you want it more like 'TRW' consequences (which is impossible unless you really want to be SHOT when you are defeated in cartoon combat) and the reason is you want to have more of a chance in your 190. We can all see through the deception and poorly conceived/offered arguments so you might as well give up because your agenda is well defined by your actions.
-
yes, i believe that the lack of negative consequences for using extreme flap deflections, combined with the criteria decisions that limit some of the planes ability to exploit the use of flaps, does shifts the balance of the plane set in favor of the bigger heavier planes that have the benefit of higher low deflection flap deployment speeds in the game.
how does that equate to this ???
... to enlighten us as to how much better the Fw190 was to our planes
that is a bit of a stretch, although this board does seem to be very flexible that way.
wanting more real world consequences to be virtually represented does not mean anyone is to be shot in real life.
another "elastagirl" reach there, that makes it really difficult to address your points btw.
now on to full flaps in combat, in the case of the f4u it's POH states warnings and limits to full flap use to the extent that those deployments are restricted even for landings. that does not sound like a combat approved configuration to me, do you feel differently?
so in essence i wish the game were more realistic, like as you say the 'TRW', and because of that you feel i am somehow saying the 190 is superior than anything?
that is far to complicated a discussion for me to ever try and simplify it to that extent.
by the way specific quotes and threads i am involved in are two very different things,
if you wish to be more specific we can maybe address what seems to be bothering you,
but not until then.
no offense,
+S+
t
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447081.html#msg3447081
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447128.html#msg3447128
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3448342.html#msg3448342
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447499.html#msg3447499
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3448728.html#msg3448728
All of these posts are you trying to say the P-51 and P-38 are overmodeled in the use of flaps and you want it more like 'TRW' consequences (which is impossible unless you really want to be SHOT when you are defeated in cartoon combat) and the reason is you want to have more of a chance in your 190. We can all see through the deception and poorly conceived/offered arguments so you might as well give up because your agenda is well defined by your actions.
-
really where did i say any of that? my quotes only please, as your recollection seems different than mine.
I realize now that if I drink a beer, I burn off more brain cells than you woke up with this morning....
Please, just go away.
Oh, and "no offense."
My regards,
Widewing
-
well then you are welcome to find my quotes to that effect as well ...
until then feel free to follow your own advice ...
projecting and miss representing is something i just don't like ...
none taken
regards back
+S+
t
I realize now that if I drink a beer, I burn off more brain cells than you woke up with this morning....
Please, just go away.
Oh, and "no offense."
My regards,
Widewing
-
Glad we got some luftwhiners back.. I was missing crump and kerfi. :neener:
-
All of these posts are you trying to say the P-51 and P-38 are overmodeled in the use of flaps and you want it more like 'TRW' consequences (which is impossible unless you really want to be SHOT when you are defeated in cartoon combat) and the reason is you want to have more of a chance in your 190. We can all see through the deception and poorly conceived/offered arguments so you might as well give up because your agenda is well defined by your actions.
Expect anything less from a Luftwhiner?
ack-ack
-
another "elastagirl" reach there, that makes it really difficult to address your points btw.
now on to full flaps in combat, in the case of the f4u it's POH states warnings and limits to full flap use to the extent that those deployments are restricted even for landings. that does not sound like a combat approved configuration to me, do you feel differently?
I wonder if you may be guilty of some "elastagirl" reaching yourself...
The F4U POH (at least the one I'm looking at) doesn't word it that way at all...
The section on MANEUVER FLAPS says this-
"The wing flaps have been designed for possible use in maneuvering. The flaps may be used to increase the lift and thereby decrease the radius of turns at low speeds. The flaps are also useful in increasing the drag of the airplane so that it may be quickly decelerated to the optimum speed for a short radius turn. In general, flap deflections of 20 degrees or less will be the most helpful in improving maneuverability. Therefore, a setting of 20 degrees has been established as the "maneuver flap" condition.
Wow, it's amazing how close that sounds to what the most experienced F4U sticks in the game keep saying when asked about the F4U and her flaps, and how close it sounds to the results of some of the trainers' flight tests on the F4U and the performance of the plane with different flap settings.
My reading of the actual POH leads me to a different opinion than your statement would lead me to believe, had I not read the POH. Is it possible that might be the case if I researched your other claims? Are you mistaken in this case? Or misleading?
And...
In this quote of yours (that Chalenge found/posted)-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,274763.msg3447081.html#msg3447081
You say- "since you are looking for lift and speed for turn performance it seems to me that any flap setting higher than your "normal" (i.e. not short take off settings) take off flap setting is likely to be adding more drag than the added lift would be worth."
While the F4U POH says-
"In case of short field or runway, lower flaps "FULL DOWN," make a normal take-off run, and take off with nose high."
In a low alt, low speed setting, why would the POH recommend full flaps, and a nose high attitude, if the flaps created more drag than the added lift is worth, and then use the word "normal" to describe it? As a matter of fact, the only warning associated with this is that it's very harmful to the engine...
Another quote from the POH states (for take-off) "Actually, any flap setting from 0 to 50 (degrees) may be used, the higher settings giving shorter ground distance".
Hmm, is it the extreme drag penalty that causes the plane to rise up off the ground in less distance? In all fairness, the POH recommends not doing full flap take-offs unless necessary, and states that climb rate suffers at the higher settings. It doesn't warn against it though...
It doesn't sound like "in the case of the f4u it's POH states warnings and limits to full flap use to the extent that those deployments are restricted even for landings" is quite an accurate appraisal...
Are your inaccuracies limited to the F4U? Or do they extend to any of the other planes in question as well?
-
i have never said combat flaps did not work in so far as they were meant to work however in my complaints about the flaps being wrong in their ability to be used for combat at extreme deflections as they are often used in the video games i direct you to the actual landing restrictions from the actual POH. i believe you had to qualify for these typed of landings in the hog because the hog had poor low speed handling characteristics, a trait it shared with many other american types.
(http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k44/thor-jg51/hogflapwarning.jpg)
remember it is only the extreme flap deployments and the handling problems associated with them that i have expressed misgivings about.
i am sure you will be apologizing soon for suggesting that i was being disingenuous.
right?
t
I wonder if you may be guilty of some "elastagirl" reaching yourself...
The F4U POH (at least the one I'm looking at) doesn't word it that way at all...
The section on MANEUVER FLAPS says this-
"The wing flaps have been designed for possible use in maneuvering. The flaps may be used to increase the lift and thereby decrease the radius of turns at low speeds. The flaps are also useful in increasing the drag of the airplane so that it may be quickly decelerated to the optimum speed for a short radius turn. In general, flap deflections of 20 degrees or less will be the most helpful in improving maneuverability. Therefore, a setting of 20 degrees has been established as the "maneuver flap" condition.
Wow, it's amazing how close that sounds to what the most experienced F4U sticks in the game keep saying when asked about the F4U and her flaps, and how close it sounds to the results of some of the trainers' flight tests on the F4U and the performance of the plane with different flap settings.
My reading of the actual POH leads me to a different opinion than your statement would lead me to believe, had I not read the POH. Is it possible that might be the case if I researched your other claims? Are you mistaken in this case? Or misleading?
And...
In this quote of yours (that Chalenge found/posted)-
You say- "since you are looking for lift and speed for turn performance it seems to me that any flap setting higher than your "normal" (i.e. not short take off settings) take off flap setting is likely to be adding more drag than the added lift would be worth."
While the F4U POH says-
"In case of short field or runway, lower flaps "FULL DOWN," make a normal take-off run, and take off with nose high."
In a low alt, low speed setting, why would the POH recommend full flaps, and a nose high attitude, if the flaps created more drag than the added lift is worth, and then use the word "normal" to describe it? As a matter of fact, the only warning associated with this is that it's very harmful to the engine...
Another quote from the POH states (for take-off) "Actually, any flap setting from 0 to 50 (degrees) may be used, the higher settings giving shorter ground distance".
Hmm, is it the extreme drag penalty that causes the plane to rise up off the ground in less distance? In all fairness, the POH recommends not doing full flap take-offs unless necessary, and states that climb rate suffers at the higher settings. It doesn't warn against it though...
It doesn't sound like "in the case of the f4u it's POH states warnings and limits to full flap use to the extent that those deployments are restricted even for landings" is quite an accurate appraisal...
Are your inaccuracies limited to the F4U? Or do they extend to any of the other planes in question as well?
-
i have never said combat flaps did not work in so far as they were meant to work however in my complaints about the flaps being wrong in their ability to be used for combat at extreme deflections as they are often used in the video games i direct you to the actual landing restrictions from the actual POH. i believe you had to qualify for these typed of landings in the hog because the hog had poor low speed handling characteristics, a trait it shared with many other american types.
(http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k44/thor-jg51/hogflapwarning.jpg)
remember it is only the extreme flap deployments and the handling problems associated with them that i have expressed misgivings about.
i am sure you will be apologizing soon for suggesting that i was being disingenuous.
right?
t
just a question.......... do you not think the pilots of the F4U series in WWII would eventually findout exactly how far they would be able to push the envelope, repeatedly, if they had the ability to fly their plane for thousands of hours........even more so if it did not have the factor of losing their life involved?
so who is to say truely, what one can get out of the F4U? who has the most experience?
Saxman had a post, I cannot find right now, of an F4U at an airshow doing some good stuff.......
yes this is a game, but how bout we ask the Real World pilots what they think? how about asking "Flyboy" who played this game before going into his countries airforce, and see how much this game helped him in a real plane(jet)?
~S~ no offense :aok
-
I like the "bent-wing widow-maker" and "ensign eliminator" highlights. Wonder why "Sweetheart of Okinawa" was left off?
Did you add those? Or are they actually in your POH? Seems like it could be a selective use of nicknames to skew an opinion... Of course, I'm not sure you're the one who overlay-ed them... And of course, the "bent-wing widow-maker" could actually be seen as a very "positive" nickname, since I don't know which country the widows were from.
I'm still not seeing "in the case of the f4u it's POH states warnings and limits to full flap use to the extent that those deployments are restricted even for landings."
Even if they (full flaps) weren't recommended for landings, apparently they were ok with higher power settings, and a nose-high attitude (as I mentioned earlier)? Where would we expect to find the behaviors you've expressed misgivings about? Would low, slow, high throttle and high nose be safer conditions? Less dangerous than low, slow, low throttle, and low nose?
Are you equating "restricted" with "recommended"? I don't view those words as "equal", and if one was intentionally substituted for the other, I very well might be suspicious of "disingenuous" intent.
Apologize? I'm still not so sure your intent isn't disingenuous, so I sure wouldn't rush to apologize for suspecting you of something, until I was sure you really weren't guilty of it. Although when you first started posting I hadn't formed any opinion of you, based on what I've seen of your posts, I, like many others, am failing to find you a neutral, helpful, or positive influence, at least so far. I didn't start out suspecting you of anything, let alone of being disingenuous. I had to read your posts for that to happen... You appear argumentative, smug, and unwilling to accept anyone's point but your own. Your "no offense" tag seems disingenuous, all by itself. If my would change, and I felt I'd judged you incorrectly, I certainly would be willing to apologize for misjudging you. I haven't reached that point yet.
-
you did notice that my first post is on page 16 on that thread "i created" ...
You're right, I apologize for thinking you were the one to eventually listen to others and learn something in aeronautics. However your tenancy to hijack threads (as is the case with this thread now, going from Gaston's arguement to the exact same argument as before) made me think you created them.
-
Expect anything less from a Luftwhiner?
ack-ack
No... if you read through the P-51 thread you would see where I gave up trying to discuss things with this individual because he refuses to retain the pertinent points opposing him and keeps pulling out the fluffy bunny comments. It was even worse in the P-38 thread and his comments about laminar flow and how the P-51 was not the fine airplane history says it was.
I think Hitech should push the red button but its his call. :devil
-
Saxman had a post, I cannot find right now, of an F4U at an airshow doing some good stuff.......
yes this is a game, but how bout we ask the Real World pilots what they think? how about asking "Flyboy" who played this game before going into his countries airforce, and see how much this game helped him in a real plane(jet)?
This what you're looking for?
Corsair 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-YrzjdExs&feature=player_embedded)
Can't get enough of that oil cooler whine. :D
-
i have good things to say about all these games, what bugs me are the specific issues i bring up ...
so you are correct imo ...
i just think we push it further than TRW because i think we get away with more ...
++S++
t
just a question.......... do you not think the pilots of the F4U series in WWII would eventually findout exactly how far they would be able to push the envelope, repeatedly, if they had the ability to fly their plane for thousands of hours........even more so if it did not have the factor of losing their life involved?
so who is to say truely, what one can get out of the F4U? who has the most experience?
Saxman had a post, I cannot find right now, of an F4U at an airshow doing some good stuff.......
yes this is a game, but how bout we ask the Real World pilots what they think? how about asking "Flyboy" who played this game before going into his countries airforce, and see how much this game helped him in a real plane(jet)?
~S~ no offense :aok
-
curious, why do you assume they were ok at higher power settings, do you have some data on that because i have not seen any. since a lot of the problems i have seen on film were on take off and "bolter" situations i have no reason to believe the plane was any less difficult with a lot of power added when the flaps were fully deployed.
as far as the recommendation/restriction thing goes, i guess i could be wrong, but i know you had to "qualify" to land the hog on a carrier so i expect there was some sort of testing done before you were allowed to make the attempt and probably a number of operating hours in the hog before you were even able to be instructed for high deployment approaches, at least that is what it sounds like in the recommendation.
i.e. it seems like they were recommending restrictions on pilots that were newer to the hog, if that is not how you see it we will have to agree to disagree i guess.
well then i think we can chalk up the misunderstanding between us to unresolved semantics between recommendation/restriction and you can keep your apology until you feel compelled to extend it, or not.
thanks for listening
+S+
t
"Sweetheart of Okinawa" is not on the page because the page is referring to its low speed handling.
i've never heard this plane described that way in that part of its operational history.
I like the "bent-wing widow-maker" and "ensign eliminator" highlights. Wonder why "Sweetheart of Okinawa" was left off?
Did you add those? Or are they actually in your POH? Seems like it could be a selective use of nicknames to skew an opinion... Of course, I'm not sure you're the one who overlay-ed them... And of course, the "bent-wing widow-maker" could actually be seen as a very "positive" nickname, since I don't know which country the widows were from.
I'm still not seeing "in the case of the f4u it's POH states warnings and limits to full flap use to the extent that those deployments are restricted even for landings."
Even if they (full flaps) weren't recommended for landings, apparently they were ok with higher power settings, and a nose-high attitude (as I mentioned earlier)? Where would we expect to find the behaviors you've expressed misgivings about? Would low, slow, high throttle and high nose be safer conditions? Less dangerous than low, slow, low throttle, and low nose?
Are you equating "restricted" with "recommended"? I don't view those words as "equal", and if one was intentionally substituted for the other, I very well might be suspicious of "disingenuous" intent.
Apologize? I'm still not so sure your intent isn't disingenuous, so I sure wouldn't rush to apologize for suspecting you of something, until I was sure you really weren't guilty of it. Although when you first started posting I hadn't formed any opinion of you, based on what I've seen of your posts, I, like many others, am failing to find you a neutral, helpful, or positive influence, at least so far. I didn't start out suspecting you of anything, let alone of being disingenuous. I had to read your posts for that to happen... You appear argumentative, smug, and unwilling to accept anyone's point but your own. Your "no offense" tag seems disingenuous, all by itself. If my would change, and I felt I'd judged you incorrectly, I certainly would be willing to apologize for misjudging you. I haven't reached that point yet.
-
i have good things to say about all these games, what bugs me are the specific issues i bring up ...
so you are correct imo ...
i just think we push it further than TRW because i think we get away with more ...
++S++
t
fair enough, yes we do have that luxury........
This what you're looking for?
Corsair 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-YrzjdExs&feature=player_embedded)
Can't get enough of that oil cooler whine. :D
yep that was one of them Saxman, Thanks! here is another Realworld F4U flyby I truly enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKbxj4SU-dU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKbxj4SU-dU&feature=related)
-
once again i am pretty sure i did not say any of that, or anything like that actually ...
care to remind me specifically, if you can.
No... if you read through the P-51 thread you would see where I gave up trying to discuss things with this individual because he refuses to retain the pertinent points opposing him and keeps pulling out the fluffy bunny comments. It was even worse in the P-38 thread and his comments about laminar flow and how the P-51 was not the fine airplane history says it was.
I think Hitech should push the red button but its his call. :devil
-
well since you seem to understand that you were wrong, i have no problem accepting your apology ...
in the same spirit that it was offered of course.
You're right, I apologize for thinking you were the one to eventually listen to others and learn something in aeronautics. However your tenancy to hijack threads (as is the case with this thread now, going from Gaston's arguement to the exact same argument as before) made me think you created them.
-
This what you're looking for?
Corsair 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-YrzjdExs&feature=player_embedded)
Can't get enough of that oil cooler whine. :D
This is what I love to hear! :aok (P-51D)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiU3VpP2VhU&feature=related
-
curious, why do you assume they were ok at higher power settings, do you have some data on that because i have not seen any. since a lot of the problems i have seen on film were on take off and "bolter" situations i have no reason to believe the plane was any less difficult with a lot of power added when the flaps were fully deployed.
I assume they have a higher power setting for take-off, than for landing. I could verify it by checking the book I suppose. As I posted earlier, the POH says-
"In case of short field or runway, lower flaps "FULL DOWN," make a normal take-off run, and take off with nose high."
In other words, low, slow, full flaps, and nose high (but with power) is ok. And that's "recommended"... The warning tied to this was for engine damage, not handling issues. We could also assume that the fuel load would generally be heavier at take-off than while landing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bolter". The issues I'm familiar with were due to inexperienced pilots on a poor landing approach suddenly going to a full throttle setting while in a near stall, generally with flaps down, which resulted in a hard left roll. "The inexperienced" part is what I've heard the "ensign" part of the nickname attributed to. It's funny, but I've experienced this exact issue with an RC corsair, and it didn't end well.
-
not sure how to spell it but "bolter" is what i have heard missed carrier approaches called ...
my point is i guess that none of these are beginner aircraft and few of them like being "slow" ...
imo that type of fight should be more difficult, in pointing out the specifics of that argument i can seem that i am slighting some aircraft, i do not mean to come across that way. that is not the point i am trying to make.
if i had to supply a country with fighters in WW-2 and i could only pick one, it would more than likely be the HOG or the FW-190 with the deciding factor being whether the main priority is ease of use or naval operations.
i hold the hog in high regard ...
+S+
t
I assume they have a higher power setting for take-off, than for landing. I could verify it by checking the book I suppose. As I posted earlier, the POH says-
"In case of short field or runway, lower flaps "FULL DOWN," make a normal take-off run, and take off with nose high."
In other words, low, slow, full flaps, and nose high (but with power) is ok. And that's "recommended"... The warning tied to this was for engine damage, not handling issues. We could also assume that the fuel load would generally be heavier at take-off than while landing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bolter". The issues I'm familiar with were due to inexperienced pilots on a poor landing approach suddenly going to a full throttle setting while in a near stall, generally with flaps down, which resulted in a hard left roll. "The inexperienced" part is what I've heard the "ensign" part of the nickname attributed to. It's funny, but I've experienced this exact issue with an RC corsair, and it didn't end well.
-
The issues I'm familiar with were due to inexperienced pilots on a poor landing approach suddenly going to a full throttle setting while in a near stall, generally with flaps down, which resulted in a hard left roll.
This was EXACTLY the main "handling problem" the Corsair experienced at low speeds. Inexperienced pilots on landing approach were coming in too slow and the aircraft began to stall. Rather than slowly increasing power they would slam the throttle to firewall and the sudden increase in torque would flip the aircraft over on its back. At low altitudes this was generally going to be fatal.
-
here is another Realworld F4U flyby I truly enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKbxj4SU-dU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKbxj4SU-dU&feature=related)
my bad, the comments says this was a flightsim....guess I am getting old & bad eye sight setting in, it looked real to me......
also, sorry for the hijacking/side stepping....... edit: guess I should use the spell checker also :D
-
yep that was one of them Saxman, Thanks! here is another Realworld F4U flyby I truly enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKbxj4SU-dU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKbxj4SU-dU&feature=related)
Wow TC didn't think you were hampered by "didn't read the entire thing"...you are joking about the "realworld" thing on that vid right?
That's not a "real world" flyby
Awesome CGI animation of an F4U Corsair making a pass during a simulated airshow.
-
you are joking about the "realworld" thing on that vid right?
That's not a "real world" flyby
I know it's not...but one is only limited to 120 minutes to edit their post.... is why I made the extra post apologizing for the mislabeling of it........
here:
I APOLOGIZE FOR MISLABELING THE ABOVE YOUTUBE VIDEO I LINKED TO AS Realworld F4U flyby
........ PLEASE FORGIVE ME
I typed in capital letters to make sure everyone sees it this time..... thanks for understanding....... on my end the video link said F4U flyby, I clicked it but I was viewing it in full screen HD windowsmediaplayer11........s o NO, i saw no comments or other parts of the actual webpage it was on until this morning around 6 or 7 am.....
let me say that one more time, though.....
my bad, the comments says this was a flightsim....guess I am getting old & bad eye sight setting in, it looked real to me......
also, sorry for the hijacking/side stepping.......
-
LOL...sorry TC...I stepped on your last post without "reading the entire thing"... have a beer :cheers: on me.
So why do these threads turn into personal bashing? Seems like any post in these forums is open to someone tossing a flame in just for kicks...then the "experts" jump in and add their 2 cents worth of gasoline... :huh
10 yrs of flying some flight sim does not make you any type of an expert in anything but gaming...and there have been a few who have posted in this thread and some others who seem to believe they have become aeronautical engineering experts in WWII aviation for every country involved just because they happen to have played a game for 10 years...or some other nonsense. Laughable.
Then there are the wagon riders...the band wagon experts by proxy...just because they like one person and dislike another, they suddenly become experts on something and feel free to interpret everything regardless of actual content. Laughable.
This thread started out as one person presenting what he believes to be factual data...and rather than anyone finding then posting opposing data... it's turned into "my pea brain is bigger than yours because I have been playing this game longer than you"...just goes to show intelligent discussion is only possible here if you're on the "popular kids bandwagon" from the top of the tree down...and that's a shame.
-
LOL...sorry TC...I stepped on your last post without "reading the entire thing"... have a beer :cheers: on me.
So why do these threads turn into personal bashing? Seems like any post in these forums is open to someone tossing a flame in just for kicks...then the "experts" jump in and add their 2 cents worth of gasoline... :huh
10 yrs of flying some flight sim does not make you any type of an expert in anything but gaming...and there have been a few who have posted in this thread and some others who seem to believe they have become aeronautical engineering experts in WWII aviation for every country involved just because they happen to have played a game for 10 years...or some other nonsense. Laughable.
Then there are the wagon riders...the band wagon experts by proxy...just because they like one person and dislike another, they suddenly become experts on something and feel free to interpret everything regardless of actual content. Laughable.
This thread started out as one person presenting what he believes to be factual data...and rather than anyone finding then posting opposing data... it's turned into "my pea brain is bigger than yours because I have been playing this game longer than you"...just goes to show intelligent discussion is only possible here if you're on the "popular kids bandwagon" from the top of the tree down...and that's a shame.
no worries....
as for the other part........is the nature of the beast ( the internet & forums ) btw........found your post/reply about why these threads turn out this way, truthful and hilarious........... :D
-
my bad, the comments says this was a flightsim....guess I am getting old & bad eye sight setting in, it looked real to me......
also, sorry for the hijacking/side stepping....... edit: guess I should use the spell checker also :D
CGI
-
however it is impossible to address where HTC may be incorrect in their data if they do not show it.
Not at all. I've came across errors, emailed a brief explaination with supporting source (if applicable) to the appropriate person, and it was fixed the following release.
This thread started out as one person presenting what he believes to be factual data...and rather than anyone finding then posting opposing data... it's turned into "my pea brain is bigger than yours because I have been playing this game longer than you"...just goes to show intelligent discussion is only possible here if you're on the "popular kids bandwagon" from the top of the tree down...and that's a shame.
Nah, you are just walking into the middle of a 10 month long conversation. If you follow the "Show the last posts of this person." link on the OP's profile, you will find nearly all posts are in the same vein. And if you browsed those threads, you'd find many patient and reasoned replies trying to educate the OP on factors that he's not taking into consieration when trying to draw conclusions from the sources he's reading. Maybe in another 10 months there will be progress on that front.
-
here is another Realworld F4U flyby I truly enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKbxj4SU-dU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKbxj4SU-dU&feature=related)
Hey, you stupid non thorough reading ID10T it is
lape2002
December 04, 2007
Awesome CGI animation of an F4U Corsair making a pass during a simulated airshow.
these stupid unknowing people on these boards.... I swear.......
-
LOL...sorry TC...I stepped on your last post without "reading the entire thing"... have a beer :cheers: on me.
So why do these threads turn into personal bashing? Seems like any post in these forums is open to someone tossing a flame in just for kicks...then the "experts" jump in and add their 2 cents worth of gasoline... :huh
10 yrs of flying some flight sim does not make you any type of an expert in anything but gaming...and there have been a few who have posted in this thread and some others who seem to believe they have become aeronautical engineering experts in WWII aviation for every country involved just because they happen to have played a game for 10 years...or some other nonsense. Laughable.
Then there are the wagon riders...the band wagon experts by proxy...just because they like one person and dislike another, they suddenly become experts on something and feel free to interpret everything regardless of actual content. Laughable.
This thread started out as one person presenting what he believes to be factual data...and rather than anyone finding then posting opposing data... it's turned into "my pea brain is bigger than yours because I have been playing this game longer than you"...just goes to show intelligent discussion is only possible here if you're on the "popular kids bandwagon" from the top of the tree down...and that's a shame.
One thing to consider is that there are some Aces High players who are, in fact, experts in WWII aviation history and/or aeronautics. Thus, when someone posts nonsense and repeats it over and over, they will eventually draw the attention of said individuals. Usually resulting in a one-sided discussion that degenerates into a pissing contest. Largely because the offending individual has no idea what they are up against, and can't seem figure out that they may not truly understand the topic. Indeed, anecdotal evidence is usually the most unreliable kind. Therefore, it is of dubious value, at best.
So, consider that there are some genuine "historians" who enjoy this game and participate in discussions.
My regards,
Widewing
-
One thing to consider is that there are some Aces High players who are, in fact, experts in WWII aviation history and/or aeronautics. Thus, when someone posts nonsense and repeats it over and over, they will eventually draw the attention of said individuals. Usually resulting in a one-sided discussion that degenerates into a pissing contest. Largely because the offending individual has no idea what they are up against, and can't seem figure out that they may not truly understand the topic. Indeed, anecdotal evidence is usually the most unreliable kind. Therefore, it is of dubious value, at best.
So, consider that there are some genuine "historians" who enjoy this game and participate in discussions.
My regards,
Widewing
Sorry Widewing but eh...the "genuine" historians and or aeronautics experts do not partake in making personal affronts to individuals in threads such as this one...from personal experience...they either refrain from posting or they present the evidence they have as fact not opinion. To simply dismiss someone's post based on "how long they have been playing AH" makes a person less credible than a person making erroneous statements...especially when words like "luftwhiner" and remarks like "Johnny has been here longer than you and he's an expert blah blah blah" are tossed about randomly...such things do not add to the discussion in any manner.
I happen to know Thor has gone through a lot of trouble over the years to educate himself as much as possible through research and personal contact with combat experienced pilots via multiple venues and though he does not present his case well in some ways...having knobs with less than zero factual information post personal attacks against him shows a level of infantile mentality here.
-
gyrene,
You may consider researching Widewing,He's far to humble to state his experence.
I'll tell you this,he's an historian and has practical experence,the rest I'll leave up to you!
An appology may be in order,provided you both to find out who the man is!!!
:salute
-
Sorry Widewing but eh...the "genuine" historians and or aeronautics experts do not partake in making personal affronts to individuals in threads such as this one...from personal experience...they either refrain from posting or they present the evidence they have as fact not opinion. To simply dismiss someone's post based on "how long they have been playing AH" makes a person less credible than a person making erroneous statements...especially when words like "luftwhiner" and remarks like "Johnny has been here longer than you and he's an expert blah blah blah" are tossed about randomly...such things do not add to the discussion in any manner.
I happen to know Thor has gone through a lot of trouble over the years to educate himself as much as possible through research and personal contact with combat experienced pilots via multiple venues and though he does not present his case well in some ways...having knobs with less than zero factual information post personal attacks against him shows a level of infantile mentality here.
None of the people Widewing was referring to have called thorim a "luftwhiner" or such.
That they may not want to, again, do extensive posts explaining to somebody why they are mistaken when that person isn't willing to do even basic research is also quite understandable. Why should they spend that kind of effort on somebody who hasn't demonstrated the willingness to put any effort at all into their own eduction on the subject.
-
No disrespect intended my Amphibious Brother, but once you've been around the community for a bit longer, you'll know how to separate the wheat from the chaff on these boards.
-
One thing to consider is that there are some Aces High players who are, in fact, experts in WWII aviation history and/or aeronautics. Thus, when someone posts nonsense and repeats it over and over, they will eventually draw the attention of said individuals. Usually resulting in a one-sided discussion that degenerates into a pissing contest. Largely because the offending individual has no idea what they are up against, and can't seem figure out that they may not truly understand the topic. Indeed, anecdotal evidence is usually the most unreliable kind. Therefore, it is of dubious value, at best.
So, consider that there are some genuine "historians" who enjoy this game and participate in discussions.
My regards,
Widewing
i can not think of one real world expert that has not expressed serious reservations about the successful use of extreme flap deflections in air to air combat with these aircraft.
i would be happy to hear from some, if any of you (players) can find any (real world experts) to chime in on the matter.
also, i think time is running out for showing any of my actual quotes to show that i posted
any of those things people want to falsely attribute to me.
soooo
hurry up because times a wasting.
i think i will give you the weekend until i expect to see some more retractions ...
mmmk
thanks,
t
-
thorsim,
I think you may be mistaking success for the right thing to do. Just because somebody in AH might use an extreme flap setting and still win doesn't mean that the flap setting should have been used. Every test I have seen of AH aircraft has shown that extreme flap positions reduce turn rate and bleed speed like mad. Making a mistake doesn't necessarily mean that the person loses the fight. Combat settings decrease radius, landing positions decrease radius even more, but also reduce turn rate and bleed excessive E.
Perhaps it would help us if you would describe the exact effects you see in AH and describe the exact effects you think should happen based on your knowledge so that we're all on the same page, rather than guessing at what the other person really means.
-
An appology may be in order,provided you both to find out who the man is!!!
:salute
There was nothing said by myself that would require an apology to Widewing...I don't understand where you would get the idea that I would need to apologize to the man.
Why should they spend that kind of effort on somebody who hasn't demonstrated the willingness to put any effort at all into their own eduction on the subject.
Strange how it's assumed Thor hasn't put forth any effort in educating himself on this or any subject he has posted on...or where you not directly referring to Thor with that line?
-
Hey TequilaChaser sir? ... It was CGI man. :old:
:neener:
-
Strange how it's assumed Thor hasn't put forth any effort in educating himself on this or any subject he has posted on...or where you not directly referring to Thor with that line?
gyrene I value some of the things you contribute to the topics and threads but if you really feel this way... you have not been paying attention. I believe everyone should be given the oppurtunity to redeem themselves but when offered citations and quotes are given and the response is along the lines of 'I dont have the knowledge or research so you should do it for me to prove my point'... after that they pretty much are ignored.
-
ok karnak here it is in a nutshell ...
when things were (i will take out any projections of intent) more simple like in WB-2.xx or AW everyone was very sure where his planes advantages and disadvantages were relative to the rest of the set. when a player tried to force his way into another planes envelope there was very little chance of success at all.
the very last thing you wanted to do was bleed e, and heaven help you if you were in an e- situation vs. a superior turn-fighter.
the turn-fighters had to work hard to keep out of a solution while trying to turn the energy tables and or get a solution on the boom and zoom fighters, conversely the boom and zoomer would never give up any of his energy unless he was very confident that that little bit of harder turn would result in a kill.
each plane had "it's fight" and the game was a contest of wills to see who could work the fight to their favor and a victory. because back then there were very very few victories outside of your envelope.
since WB-3 in the IEN or HTC offerings those envelopes have been altered to the extent that the clear advantages of the two energy state fighters are lost. now no longer does the slower lower plane pose as much of a relative maneuver threat as he used to, and so many of the rules of ACM have gone by the wayside.
in my opinion this reduces the challenge of the game and has changed it fundamentally from the historic reality.
it used to be "speed is life", now the first thing almost every energy advantaged player seems to want to do is blow all his energy and park himself on the e- fighters 6 because he knows he can get away with that. over shoots are as rare as 4 leaf clovers.
it has retarded what should be a high speed ACM simulation into a mutant WW-1 Luftberry and Immelman oriented game with WW-2 "aircraft"
imo that is a shame, and the games are lesser for it.
IMO the biggest factor contributing to this is the exaggerated low speed stability of the bigger fighters the flaps allow through generous drag penalties and reduced difficulty over all. the limited availability of high speed low deflection flaps compounds the problem and further moves the games into that "furball is all and flaps is life" distortion that we have currently.
some accuse me of wanting my plane "better", not so, or at least not so simple. i want all the planes to show both the benefits and liabilities of their respective designs in equal measure, and thereby restore the clearly defined envelopes and all the great parts of the simulations that we lost with them.
addressing the flap issues is imo where that needs to start.
i hope that is clear enough.
i really miss that part of those games.
+S+
t
i don't want to be mistaken, i am not saying there has been no progress, i just think we have lost something that made the games special, i would like to see those aspects improved.
thorsim,
I think you may be mistaking success for the right thing to do. Just because somebody in AH might use an extreme flap setting and still win doesn't mean that the flap setting should have been used. Every test I have seen of AH aircraft has shown that extreme flap positions reduce turn rate and bleed speed like mad. Making a mistake doesn't necessarily mean that the person loses the fight. Combat settings decrease radius, landing positions decrease radius even more, but also reduce turn rate and bleed excessive E.
Perhaps it would help us if you would describe the exact effects you see in AH and describe the exact effects you think should happen based on your knowledge so that we're all on the same page, rather than guessing at what the other person really means.
-
i don't think i have said anything like that either ...
i don't feel the need to redeem myself for something others pretend i said ...
gyrene I value some of the things you contribute to the topics and threads but if you really feel this way... you have not been paying attention. I believe everyone should be given the oppurtunity to redeem themselves but when offered citations and quotes are given and the response is along the lines of 'I dont have the knowledge or research so you should do it for me to prove my point'... after that they pretty much are ignored.
-
Why do you think the older WB 2.xx flight model was more accurate? You say the envelopes are not distinct, but I haven't ever felt that and I did fly in WB 2.xx.
Also, your observations do not really match mine, with the exception of the F4Us. If I am flying a Ki-84 or Spitfire Mk VIII, believe me you, I love it when a P-51D or La-7 is stupid enough to blow his E and try to saddle up on me as it very much means he is about to die. A slow P-51D in front of one of those has very, very little it can do to live. Even in my Mossie I feel completely confident in my ability to kill a P-51D that decides to slow down with me. If he drops his flaps it only makes it easier.
I remember a flight I had some time ago that had a bit of role reversal. I was flying an A6M5b and came across a C-47 being escorted by four P-51Ds, the whole gaggle about 5,000ft below me. I dove in, and despite the stiff controls, killed the C-47, then I climbed back up and there was nothing the P-51s could do as they had positioned themselves so that even a slow, turn fighting, A6M5 could kill their C-47 without risking reprisal. If an A6M5 can E fight like that, a P-47, Fw190 or P-51 most certainly can as well.
I honestly don't feel like all the fighters are turn fighters in AH, which is what it seems to me you are saying.
-
You may consider researching Widewing,He's far to humble to state his experence.
I was at Udvar-Hazy awhile back and there was a WWII Aviation author there for a book signing whom I was not familure with. Real easy to find out if I should take advantage of the opportunity. Pull out my cell and call Widewing to get the low down on the author. I was not a bit surprised that they knew each other well, nor the pleasant reaction I recieved when I passed along that I just talked to Widewing and he says hi :)
-
over shoots are as rare as 4 leaf clovers.
Not in my world.
-
Not in my world.
Aye but you don't always fly smart. You'd have to play 133t picker to see a change.
-
Aye but you don't always fly smart. You'd have to play 133t picker to see a change.
Depending on who you ask, I may be classified as one of those l33t pickers. But you are getting off track of the many points I disagreed with when you refer to a "change". I do no buy the idea that the specific cited game play styles are related to the flight modeling. No offence intended, but the average run of the mill AH player does not either know how to fly "smart", or does not have the patience to stick to flying smart through an engagment that lasts beyond a few passes. There are a number of experienced players who know this, who make their living off of blending in to trick opponents into thinking they are the average con just to set the trap. There are also a number of experienced players who prefer a certian kind of dogfight and will go out of their way to guide their engagments into prefered style whether it is tactically the smart thing to do or not.
I was there "back in the day" throughout a number of games. The flight model fidelities have done nothing but improve. The difference I would cite is the player base has opened up from the realy die hard historical, and flight sim enthusiest into a wider crossection of players. Or as many have put it, simmers and gamers. Naturally as the balance of that population shifts, so with the gameplay, and there are domino effects as tactic evolve along with overall gameplay. Even at that, any "changes" are a subjective matter of degree and perspective.
-
i can not think of one real world expert that has not expressed serious reservations about the successful use of extreme flap deflections in air to air combat with these aircraft.
i would be happy to hear from some, if any of you (players) can find any (real world experts) to chime in on the matter.
Thorism, very much depends on circumstances.
For example, a guy flying a Birdcage Corsair in the Solomons in 1943 wasn't going to deploy flaps to engage a Zeke or Ki-43. He might gain the required angle to get off a killing shot, but invariably, he would have exposed himself to any other enemy fighters present. Even in a one on one, the Corsair pilot would fly to his aircraft's strengths. Instead, he would have used his fighter's vast advantage in speed to attack and zoom back up. SOP by that time in the Pacific. The major exception to this was the F6F, which often tangled with JAAF fighters in genuine furballs.
In the ETO and Med, various rules applied. There wasn't a great difference in maneuverability between American and German fighters. In North Africa, it was not unusual for an engagement between AAF and Luftwaffe fighters to degenerate into a down-in-the-weeds brawl. I've interviewed quite a few P-38 pilots (flying F and G models) who had used flaps to gain advantage in fights.
When I have more time to dedicate to this discussion (very busy schedule today), I'll go into this in more detail.
I will summarize by stating that it was not SOP in the USAAF to use more than maneuver flaps in combat. Of course, your life is not at stake in the game, so it is SOP to deploy flaps in the game. Often, they are overused, and that usually results in predictable outcomes.
More later...
My regards,
Widewing
-
no sir you are projecting and extending my comments beyond my intent.
yes there are turn fighters the spit 8(i guess) and ki84(i would think) should historically be two of the better ones. however as you noted some energy fighters are very comfortable trading their envelopes for yours as you stated below. the only reason for that is that experience in the game tells them that that is a way to achieve success. nothing historically tells me that this should be the case. were the envelopes more distinct this would not happen they would more often choose the energy fight as that is where their true advantages are.
i never said the FMs were more accurate in either sim, the area we are discussing is mostly untested so there is no way to properly test them vs. data. we could use E/M curves if we knew all the data for all the deployment settings but i have not seen that listed anywhere for many of the types.
what i have seen are warnings and what i have heard first hand from everyone i have talked to is that the flaps all increase lift and therefore will close up a turn but the cost is always drag and each extra degree/distance gets more and more expensive so the benefit/cost very soon starts to look very bleak. that just does not appear to be what is happening in these games.
i am not saying all the fighters are turn fighters quite the opposite. i am saying that some of the fighters are no longer "either or" vs. some of their opponents i.e. they are better energy fighters when they want to be and then when they want to, they can drop some flap and are better turn fighters. that i have never heard of anywhere. i have always understood combat flaps to be a momentary aid to a couple of specific problems not a catch all turn "improver" that can be used continuously with so few consequences.
the a6m is at the extreme here and not really representative of my argument.
i hope that makes my observation more clear.
+S+
t
Why do you think the older WB 2.xx flight model was more accurate? You say the envelopes are not distinct, but I haven't ever felt that and I did fly in WB 2.xx.
Also, your observations do not really match mine, with the exception of the F4Us. If I am flying a Ki-84 or Spitfire Mk VIII, believe me you, I love it when a P-51D or La-7 is stupid enough to blow his E and try to saddle up on me as it very much means he is about to die. A slow P-51D in front of one of those has very, very little it can do to live. Even in my Mossie I feel completely confident in my ability to kill a P-51D that decides to slow down with me. If he drops his flaps it only makes it easier.
I remember a flight I had some time ago that had a bit of role reversal. I was flying an A6M5b and came across a C-47 being escorted by four P-51Ds, the whole gaggle about 5,000ft below me. I dove in, and despite the stiff controls, killed the C-47, then I climbed back up and there was nothing the P-51s could do as they had positioned themselves so that even a slow, turn fighting, A6M5 could kill their C-47 without risking reprisal. If an A6M5 can E fight like that, a P-47, Fw190 or P-51 most certainly can as well.
I honestly don't feel like all the fighters are turn fighters in AH, which is what it seems to me you are saying.
-
wildewing sir as i stated in my first post in that much referred to (often erroneously) p-38 thread where i state how interesting the p-38 was, it may to some extent actually be the exception that proves all the rules ...
btw from what little i have seen the 38 seems to have faired rather poorly in many of those early low and slow ETO/MED engagements, but i am not a p-38 historian, my knowlege is more general, so i am looking forward to your info ...
+S+
t
Thorism, very much depends on circumstances.
For example, a guy flying a Birdcage Corsair in the Solomons in 1943 wasn't going to deploy flaps to engage a Zeke or Ki-43. He might gain the required angle to get off a killing shot, but invariably, he would have exposed himself to any other enemy fighters present. Even in a one on one, the Corsair pilot would fly to his aircraft's strengths. Instead, he would have used his fighter's vast advantage in speed to attack and zoom back up. SOP by that time in the Pacific. The major exception to this was the F6F, which often tangled with JAAF fighters in genuine furballs.
In the ETO and Med, various rules applied. There wasn't a great difference in maneuverability between American and German fighters. In North Africa, it was not unusual for an engagement between AAF and Luftwaffe fighters to degenerate into a down-in-the-weeds brawl. I've interviewed quite a few P-38 pilots (flying F and G models) who had used flaps to gain advantage in fights.
When I have more time to dedicate to this discussion (very busy schedule today), I'll go into this in more detail.
I will summarize by stating that it was not SOP in the USAAF to use more than maneuver flaps in combat. Of course, your life is not at stake in the game, so it is SOP to deploy flaps in the game. Often, they are overused, and that usually results in predictable outcomes.
More later...
My regards,
Widewing
-
i never said the FMs were more accurate in either sim, the area we are discussing is mostly untested so there is no way to properly test them vs. data. we could use E/M curves if we knew all the data for all the deployment settings but i have not seen that listed anywhere for many of the types.
what i have seen are warnings and what i have heard first hand from everyone i have talked to is that the flaps all increase lift and therefore will close up a turn but the cost is always drag and each extra degree/distance gets more and more expensive so the benefit/cost very soon starts to look very bleak. that just does not appear to be what is happening in these games.
i am not saying all the fighters are turn fighters quite the opposite. i am saying that some of the fighters are no longer "either or" vs. some of their opponents i.e. they are better energy fighters when they want to be and then when they want to, they can drop some flap and are better turn fighters. that i have never heard of anywhere. i have always understood combat flaps to be a momentary aid to a couple of specific problems not a catch all turn "improver" that can be used continuously with so few consequences.
It does, for instance...
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/BBF4U1DFlaps.jpg)
You can see in this plot that flap deployment degrades rate of turn beyond 2 notches. You can expect different characteristics with each plane model in this regard. F4U1-D loses a little over 1/2 a degree per second in sustained turn rate at full flaps. A P-51D loses a little over 2dps sustained over the range of flap deployment.
Issues can also get muddied when going from anicdotal to simulation. Realisticly many US pilots flew combat missions and never saw an enemy aircraft. That level of realism would be pretty boring. While I wouldn't argue that flap usage in combat was anywhere near as common as you might see in AH it was done. I've reposted an AAR a number of times of a 475th pilot who turned with an oscar at 90 mph IAS, where he says he did it because he knew had pleanty of help nearby if he needed it. This after spending paragraphs explaining how they were told not to try to turn with enemy fighter, but pilots like McGuire often did it anyways. But again, I would not argue that it was the norm when the situation was life and death. Only that it did happen sucessfully when circumstances were right. In a sim I'd expect it to happen more often. Not that the model is perfect. Widewing and I have discussed very specific performance issues that appear to be off by a degree, but I don't see a glaring FM wide issues as a problem.
-
thorsim,
The problem I am having in understanding the problem you have is how vague you state it. I am trying to follow you, but, well, I am not sure I am able to here.
What do you mean by:
yes there are turn fighters the spit 8(i guess) and ki84(i would think) should historically be two of the better ones. however as you noted some energy fighters are very comfortable trading their envelopes for yours as you stated below. the only reason for that is that experience in the game tells them that that is a way to achieve success. nothing historically tells me that this should be the case. were the envelopes more distinct this would not happen they would more often choose the energy fight as that is where their true advantages are.
It sounds to me like you are saying that there should be a bigger difference between, say, a Spitfire and a P-47 in terms of turn performance than is the case in AH. Is that correct?
i never said the FMs were more accurate in either sim, the area we are discussing is mostly untested so there is no way to properly test them vs. data. we could use E/M curves if we knew all the data for all the deployment settings but i have not seen that listed anywhere for many of the types.
As has been stated, it can and has been tested for many of these fighters in AH. I agree that HTC's charts are not explicit, but players have generated more detailed information as well as E/M curves for at least some of the fighters.
what i have seen are warnings and what i have heard first hand from everyone i have talked to is that the flaps all increase lift and therefore will close up a turn but the cost is always drag and each extra degree/distance gets more and more expensive so the benefit/cost very soon starts to look very bleak. that just does not appear to be what is happening in these games.
They do that in AH too, but it sounds like you think the impact should be more dramatic. I have also read extensively on WWII aviation, though not nearly to the degree that somebody like Widewing or Dan (Guppy) has, and nothing I've read makes me think the physics in AH are off. I do think that player's use of those abilities is blatantly different, mostly due to a lack of air combat training and a lack of consequences should they lose or hit the ground. I am not a physics guy here, but none of the equations that I have seen and been able to follow were wrong.
i am not saying all the fighters are turn fighters quite the opposite. i am saying that some of the fighters are no longer "either or" vs. some of their opponents i.e. they are better energy fighters when they want to be and then when they want to, they can drop some flap and are better turn fighters. that i have never heard of anywhere. i have always understood combat flaps to be a momentary aid to a couple of specific problems not a catch all turn "improver" that can be used continuously with so few consequences.
Why do you think that is not correct? I can think of multiple WWII fighters that could be either/or and some don't even have to use flaps to do it. Specifically, things like the later Spitfires, the Ki-84, the F6F can all play both games, and do them both well. That matches up very well with the historical accounts of those aircraft. In regards to the flaps, I don't know any player in AH who is consistently successful and who lets his flaps hang out all the way. The lack of real death certainly allows players to do so, but I think the ones that do that, die a lot because of it when a player who knows how to fight is encountered.
-
"Sweetheart of Okinawa" is not on the page because the page is referring to its low speed handling.
i've never heard this plane described that way in that part of its operational history.
Every Marine pilot that flew the Corsair called it the "Sweetheart of Okinawa".
-
Neither the Spit or Hurry benefitted from flaps in a turnfight. While the flaps would indeed deploy quite quickly, their purpose was drag above lift.
Imagine the whine if the Spit had some turn flaps :devil
FYI, land based Hurricanes were landed on a British aircraft carrier as soon as 1940. The Carrier was smaller than the U.S. ones, and the Hurricanes had no tailhooks at all. (I think they had a sandbag aft of the radio in the fuselage). The pilots had never done this before. And the landing...without a mishap. (disaster came later).
Anyway, I hope that puts some light on those flaps.
Now imagine a Corsair as a counter to that. It has tremendous power, but quite some weight. With the advanced flaps it had, it could harness the power at lower speeds. Well, my 2 cents anyway.
BTW, I recall a mock-fight between a P51-H and a F4U-4, post war, where just about every trick in the book was used. I think the F4U had the better, and the pilot was later to become an astronaut, but who it was escapes me. Glenn perhaps, or would he be too young????
-
every plane type should have its distinct advantages and disadvantages vs. every other plane. that is the reality of different designs.
even in planes where something like turn performance is a very close thing historically,and where one had low deflection flaps and one did not (say the spit and 109)
the flaps did not change the relationship between the two enough to clear up the turn performance debate between the two. in the game they seem to make quite a bit of difference.
i have never heard of a situation where combat flaps produced enough of a change to shift a relationship between two planes that is normally most defined by the size of the two aircraft in question.
big planes have never been able to fight small, not even with 2 powerful jet engines and variable geometry wings.
size of a plane is a design decision, the consequences of which can not be significantly mitigated by other features.
whatever is going on in AH and some other sims the smell test is very off imo.
when you combine that with
The thing here is that while the stall is milder it's the case universally, so it's not just the F4Us.
a reduced difficulty and a criteria that limits the effective use of combat flaps to only a few planes the envelopes on those planes become unrealistically expanded and the historic maneuverability relationships disappear.
what it is exactly that causes this in the game i do not know, however the flaps are clearly a contributing factor.
which lessens the experience imo.
+S+
t
---------------------------------------------------------------------
thorsim,
The problem I am having in understanding the problem you have is how vague you state it. I am trying to follow you, but, well, I am not sure I am able to here.
What do you mean by:
It sounds to me like you are saying that there should be a bigger difference between, say, a Spitfire and a P-47 in terms of turn performance than is the case in AH. Is that correct?
As has been stated, it can and has been tested for many of these fighters in AH. I agree that HTC's charts are not explicit, but players have generated more detailed information as well as E/M curves for at least some of the fighters.
They do that in AH too, but it sounds like you think the impact should be more dramatic. I have also read extensively on WWII aviation, though not nearly to the degree that somebody like Widewing or Dan (Guppy) has, and nothing I've read makes me think the physics in AH are off. I do think that player's use of those abilities is blatantly different, mostly due to a lack of air combat training and a lack of consequences should they lose or hit the ground. I am not a physics guy here, but none of the equations that I have seen and been able to follow were wrong.
Why do you think that is not correct? I can think of multiple WWII fighters that could be either/or and some don't even have to use flaps to do it. Specifically, things like the later Spitfires, the Ki-84, the F6F can all play both games, and do them both well. That matches up very well with the historical accounts of those aircraft. In regards to the flaps, I don't know any player in AH who is consistently successful and who lets his flaps hang out all the way. The lack of real death certainly allows players to do so, but I think the ones that do that, die a lot because of it when a player who knows how to fight is encountered.
-
so it is monday and none of those statements others have attributed to me in this thread have been shown to have actually been a quote of mine.
miss quotes, miss representations, and projections are a distraction to these conversations and really tend to be unproductive so i would appreciate it if others would only address what i actually say in the future.
thanks,
t
-
thorsim,
I understand your claims. You need to produce evidence to support it though. Nowhere in all the reading I have done, and that is extensive, have I found anything that supports your concept of:
every plane type should have its distinct advantages and disadvantages vs. every other plane. that is the reality of different designs.
even in planes where something like turn performance is a very close thing historically,and where one had low deflection flaps and one did not (say the spit and 109)
the flaps did not change the relationship between the two enough to clear up the turn performance debate between the two. in the game they seem to make quite a bit of difference.
You are, in fact, the first person I have ever seen make claims that things should be locked in stone like that.
Sorry, but for such outlandish claims, you need to post supporting evidence.
-
not sure what is outlandish ...
the envelopes seem very different from the origin games and not really reflective of history, and that was a good thing about those games.
isolating the exact issues or combination of issues would be quite a task however, and i think i am not out of bounds noticing these things and commenting on them or asking for explanations until the specifics are rooted out. after all someone else might have some insights that i do not.
+S+
t
-
not sure what is outlandish ...
the envelopes seem very different from the origin games and not really reflective of history, and that was a good thing about those games.
Using earlier games as a reference isn't a great idea. Flight models have only become more realistic, not less.
isolating the exact issues or combination of issues would be quite a task however, and i think i am not out of bounds noticing these things and commenting on them or asking for explanations until the specifics are rooted out. after all someone else might have some insights that i do not.
You have only presented your feelings, no data. You say the model in AH and WB3 are not reflective of history, others say they are. Which shall we go with, the data or the feelings? I cannot emphasize this enough, you MUST present performance data that supports your argument. Without that, you are just shooting the breeze.
Try http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ as a starting point.
-
Using earlier games as a reference isn't a great idea. Flight models have only become more realistic, not less.
The thing here is that while the stall is milder it's the case universally, so it's not just the F4Us.
And this is what it states about the POWER ON, FLAPS DOWN stall;
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/F4U-4pwronstall.jpg)
Now take an F4U-4 and replicate that stall, perhaps I'm not flying it correctly, but I could not get it to " roll-off violently" and drop 600 to 900 feet. (yes I have stall limiter off :) )
To me the stall was rather gentle and easily managed with rudder, but I'd like to hear what everyone thinks, in comparing the handbook statement to how it "feels" in game.
In our game, to really succeed in some knock-down scissors fights you have to be prepared to drop full flaps and raise them up again in a number of seconds.
i do not agree with your statement quoted above. i stand on my observations about the set relative to previous versions and the historic reality in the specific areas in which i have expressed my reservations in regards to the FMs
please do not infer that someone needs to have all the resources of the NOAA in order to accurately state that it is raining in a discussion that is taking place outside where everyone is getting wet.
t
-
i have never heard of a situation where combat flaps produced enough of a change to shift a relationship between two planes that is normally most defined by the size of the two aircraft in question.
big planes have never been able to fight small, not even with 2 powerful jet engines and variable geometry wings.
size of a plane is a design decision, the consequences of which can not be significantly mitigated by other features.
This is taken from "Hangar Flying - Issue 6"
"Compiled from pilots, for pilots"
"High speed fighters today have a high wing loading and we all know that this increases the turning radius. This condition has been improved in the 38 by the use of Maneuvering or Combat Flaps. There is a Maneuvering Flap stop on the flap controls which extends the flaps fifty percent. These should not be extended at speeds in excess of 250 MPH. There is danger of structural failure if this limitation is disregarded.
Maneuvering flaps increase your lift, thus assisting you in making tighter turns. For greatest maneuverability we have found that the maneuvering flaps should be extended only long enough to complete the particular maneuver and then be retracted immediately. For example, in an effort to stay on an enemy's tail, you might feel in a tight turn the buffeting which is characteristic of an accelerated stall. You can "reef" her in and tighten your turn by lowering the maneuvering flaps until you have completed the maneuver, then retract them. By doing so immediately, little air speed is lost, and the plane is set again for maximum operations.
Don't be caught with your flaps down for any length of time in combat; the reason being that with maneuvering flaps down you can unknowingly get down to such low speeds that all the power in the world won't do you much good should you need sudden acceleration. From 25,000 feet to 35,000 feet the maneuvering flaps become increasingly helpful. Due to the thinness of the air you can't turn as sharp nor can you pull as many G's as can be done below 20,000 feet. As you go higher you find that you are stalling more frequently. You will be surprised at the increased maneuverability resulting from extending your flaps at this altitude.
I am taking a moment here to explain why Ray Meskimen says not to be caught with your flaps down. You gain maneuverability in flight with the flaps extended, but you are left slow for other fighters to dive in and "pick" you off. This is true in Aces High as well, you may get into a turnfight with a spit in a P38, leave your flaps out and get the kill. But once you level off, you are going 200mph at 5k when you started at 350mph at 10k. So a plane coming in at 7k will have an advantage over you.
Usually the individual's physical and mental limitations - not the plane's limitations - are factors that govern combat maneuverability. In many cases the plane will "take" a lot more than you as the pilot can stand; therefore, recognize your own limitations-know how many G's you can stand, and for how long; be so familiar with your plane that .you automatically react to a situation despite the gray haze that creeps before your eyes in a sharp pull out.
Thomas McGuire was often noted for bending the wings on his P38 because he pulled so many G's in his P38.
One test pilot flew the P38 in mock combat against several other American fighters, he said he easily out maneuvered them "except for one shifty pilot in a wildcat."
-
i do not agree with your statement quoted above. i stand on my observations about the set relative to previous versions and the historic reality in the specific areas in which i have expressed my reservations in regards to the FMs
please do not infer that someone needs to have all the resources of the NOAA in order to accurately state that it is raining in a discussion that is taking place outside where everyone is getting wet.
t
Then don't be surprised when we express contempt. For most of us unwashed masses, we feel the model is an accurate approximation (i.e. we are not getting wet).
-
Thomas McGuire was often noted for bending the wings on his P38 because he pulled so many G's in his P38.
One test pilot flew the P38 in mock combat against several other American fighters, he said he easily out maneuvered them "except for one shifty pilot in a wildcat."
Thinking of John Tilley maybe?
"Mac (McGuire) told those under his command never to turn with an enemy fighter in the heavy 38 but he did it anyway with great sucess, particularly at low altitudes and low airspeeds of 90 mph." Although dogfighting in the Lightning was often played down officially, it was more common than not. Tilley remembered 'most of our fights with the Japanese started out above 20,000 feet but damned soon everyone was milling around on the deck. And that lovely Lightning just didn't have any competition at low altitude. Ive flown the P-51 (liked it very much) and the P-47 (disliked it very much), and Ive engaged in mock dogfights against just about all our WWII fighter planes. The only one the ole Lockheed Rocking Chair and I had trouble staying behind was a pretty savvy Navy type in an F4f Wildcat."
-
right, so if what the historic reference says is true in the game why would the 38 pilot enter that fight in AH unless in the game his is experiencing more success than the historic reference states that he should.
also the historic reference states ...
"For greatest maneuverability we have found that the maneuvering flaps should be extended only long enough to complete the particular maneuver and then be retracted immediately"
that is far less than your apparent understanding according to this statement here.
"You gain maneuverability in flight with the flaps extended"
as maneuvering flaps as your source stated only helps in some maneuvers.
i am not sure what flaps might have to do with over-stressing your airframe, as i believe you can do that whatever your flap state.
btw Thomas McGuire died doing those things we regularly get away with in the game because it has been made more survivable ...
WHICH HAS RESULTED IN AN ARTIFICIAL EXTENSION OF THE BIG PLANES ENVELOPE RELATIVE TO THE REST OF THE SET
the other american fighters were not the best turn-fighters of the war, and the wildcat results kind of proves my point about bigger planes not being able to beat a smaller one in the smaller planes fight.
if we all had to fight our fights the game would be much more interesting, like they were before. IMO
This is taken from "Hangar Flying - Issue 6"
"Compiled from pilots, for pilots"
"High speed fighters today have a high wing loading and we all know that this increases the turning radius. This condition has been improved in the 38 by the use of Maneuvering or Combat Flaps. There is a Maneuvering Flap stop on the flap controls which extends the flaps fifty percent. These should not be extended at speeds in excess of 250 MPH. There is danger of structural failure if this limitation is disregarded.
Maneuvering flaps increase your lift, thus assisting you in making tighter turns. For greatest maneuverability we have found that the maneuvering flaps should be extended only long enough to complete the particular maneuver and then be retracted immediately. For example, in an effort to stay on an enemy's tail, you might feel in a tight turn the buffeting which is characteristic of an accelerated stall. You can "reef" her in and tighten your turn by lowering the maneuvering flaps until you have completed the maneuver, then retract them. By doing so immediately, little air speed is lost, and the plane is set again for maximum operations.
Don't be caught with your flaps down for any length of time in combat; the reason being that with maneuvering flaps down you can unknowingly get down to such low speeds that all the power in the world won't do you much good should you need sudden acceleration. From 25,000 feet to 35,000 feet the maneuvering flaps become increasingly helpful. Due to the thinness of the air you can't turn as sharp nor can you pull as many G's as can be done below 20,000 feet. As you go higher you find that you are stalling more frequently. You will be surprised at the increased maneuverability resulting from extending your flaps at this altitude.
I am taking a moment here to explain why Ray Meskimen says not to be caught with your flaps down. You gain maneuverability in flight with the flaps extended, but you are left slow for other fighters to dive in and "pick" you off. This is true in Aces High as well, you may get into a turnfight with a spit in a P38, leave your flaps out and get the kill. But once you level off, you are going 200mph at 5k when you started at 350mph at 10k. So a plane coming in at 7k will have an advantage over you.
Usually the individual's physical and mental limitations - not the plane's limitations - are factors that govern combat maneuverability. In many cases the plane will "take" a lot more than you as the pilot can stand; therefore, recognize your own limitations-know how many G's you can stand, and for how long; be so familiar with your plane that .you automatically react to a situation despite the gray haze that creeps before your eyes in a sharp pull out.
Thomas McGuire was often noted for bending the wings on his P38 because he pulled so many G's in his P38.
One test pilot flew the P38 in mock combat against several other American fighters, he said he easily out maneuvered them "except for one shifty pilot in a wildcat."
not surprised, we just want different things from the video game, it is disappointing that results in contempt from some of you though.
Then don't be surprised when we express contempt. For most of us unwashed masses, we feel the model is an accurate approximation (i.e. we are not getting wet).
-
Thorism wrote.
please do not infer that someone needs to have all the resources of the NOAA in order to accurately state that it is raining in a discussion that is taking place outside where everyone is getting wet.
You in no way can be sure it is raining because again you make 1 conclusion with out any research, just because you are getting wet does not imply it is raining.
1. You could be under a tree and a monkey could be peeing on everyone.
2. Everyone could be standing under a sprinkler.
3. Kids could be shooting you with squirt guns.
So again you fail completely to simply show if it is raining or not. Because you want to ignore all other information and only choose the information you wish to consider. I.E. you are getting wet, there you want to say it is raining.
As stoney also states, you use hyperbole because only you are getting wet, and everyone else is nice and dry, yet you want to insist it is raining with out 1 other observation .
-
right, so if what the historic reference says is true in the game why would the 38 pilot enter that fight in AH unless in the game his is experiencing more success than the historic reference states that he should.
also the historic reference states ...
"For greatest maneuverability we have found that the maneuvering flaps should be extended only long enough to complete the particular maneuver and then be retracted immediately"
that is far less than your apparent understanding according to this statement here.
"You gain maneuverability in flight with the flaps extended"
as maneuvering flaps as your source stated only helps in some maneuvers.
i am not sure what flaps might have to do with over-stressing your airframe, as i believe you can do that whatever your flap state.
btw Thomas McGuire died doing those things we regularly get away with in the game because it has been made more survivable ...
WHICH HAS RESULTED IN AN ARTIFICIAL EXTENSION OF THE BIG PLANES ENVELOPE RELATIVE TO THE REST OF THE SET
not surprised, we just want different things from the video game, it is disappointing that that results in contempt from some of you though.
Why do you comment on the few things in what I posted (which I further elaborated on because I had a hunch you would twist them) yet ignore the other statements? What about Murdrs' description of Thomas McGuire's squadron getting into dogfights at 90mph on a regular basis (yes he did die during his final flight, but he managed to get many kills prior to that incident in that fashion. Not to mention he was doing it with Drop tanks on, which we have excluded to mention thus far)
So don't take only tidbits that only support your opinion, take all of the facts into consideration. For when you start ignoring facts is when you move from ignorance into the irrational.
-
right all those things could be happening, but it also could be raining couldn't it ...
the thing is we could kill the pissing monkey, turn off the sprinkler, and beat the kids ...
thunderstorms being what they are, in that case we are pretty much screwed and gonna get wet.
until either we go away or it stops raining anyway.
i am sure we both understands each others points on the matter.
t
Thorism wrote.
You in no way can be sure it is raining because again you make 1 conclusion with out any research, just because you are getting wet does not imply it is raining.
1. You could be under a tree and a monkey could be peeing on everyone.
2. Everyone could be standing under a sprinkler.
3. Kids could be shooting you with squirt guns.
So again you fail completely to simply show if it is raining or not. Because you want to ignore all other information and only choose the information you wish to consider. I.E. you are getting wet, there you want to say it is raining.
As stoney also states, you use hyperbole because only you are getting wet, and everyone else is nice and dry, yet you want to insist it is raining with out 1 other observation .
-
because you are trying to use specific anomalies to counter general statements. i can find specific rarely experienced exceptions to every general rule of air combat. the thing is in the real world those are exceptions, when they are given too much prominence in a FM decision process they tend to become the rule rather than the exception.
Why do you comment on the few things in what I posted (which I further elaborated on because I had a hunch you would twist them) yet ignore the other statements? What about Murdrs' description of Thomas McGuire's squadron getting into dogfights at 90mph on a regular basis (yes he did die during his final flight, but he managed to get many kills prior to that incident in that fashion. Not to mention he was doing it with Drop tanks on, which we have excluded to mention thus far)
So don't take only tidbits that only support your opinion, take all of the facts into consideration. For when you start ignoring facts is when you move from ignorance into the irrational.
-
right all those things could be happening, but it also could be raining couldn't it ...
the thing is we could kill the pissing monkey, turn off the sprinkler, and beat the kids ...
thunderstorms being what they are, in that case we are pretty much screwed and gonna get wet.
until either we go away or it stops raining anyway.
i am sure we both understands each others points on the matter.
t
Your only point is you are all wet.
HiTech
-
because you are trying to use specific anomalies to counter general statements. i can find specific rarely experienced exceptions to every general rule of air combat. the thing is in the real world those are exceptions, when they are given too much prominence in a FM decision process they tend to become the rule rather than the exception.
You may consider them anomalies, but they were still possible. The physics did not change for one day, then go back to normal. In AH we have unlimited hours and lives to learn the ins and outs of how to fly the planes to their true limits, that we wouldn't dare try to reach if our lives were at stake.
If they were anomalies, why then, did so many P38 pilots encounter these rarely experienced exceptions on the 38's maneuverability?
-
are you sure? do you have any data to prove that?
oh wait, never mind.
t
Your only point is you are all wet.
HiTech
-
yes you have all the time and lives you need to find out exactly what the "true" VIDEO GAME limits are.
the real world pilots did not enjoy the time, multiple lives, and were operating under different limits.
that is why things tended to be different historically. were the virtual consequences more realistic, the results and game play would follow. IMO
You may consider them anomalies, but they were still possible. The physics did not change for one day, then go back to normal. In AH we have unlimited hours and lives to learn the ins and outs of how to fly the planes to their true limits, that we wouldn't dare try to reach if our lives were at stake.
If they were anomalies, why then, did so many P38 pilots encounter these rarely experienced exceptions on the 38's maneuverability?
-
:lol gets a picture of Thor peeing in the wind :eek:
-
more like trying to end rent control ...
the results can look very similar ...
until next time guys ...
t
:lol gets a picture of Thor peeing in the wind :eek:
-
...were the virtual consequences more realistic, the results and game play would follow. IMO
You have finally hit on what, in essence, many people have tried to tell you. Ask murdr how many times he crashed while learning the limits of the 38. Or any other experienced player the same question about their plane of choice. We have limitless opportunities to learn the absolute limit of our plane(s) of choice in limitless situations.
All but the newest pilots in Aces High have more victories than the leading ace of the war. Many people get that many victories each month. We get away with things that wouldn't be tried IRL because this isn't real life and, if at first we don't succeed, we can try again. Real pilots didn't have that opportunity because one mistake often ended their learning opportunities.
If your main complaint is a plane that is traditionally a BnZ plane saddles up on you and kills you, I would suggest a little reading on energy. Most of those planes might be able to get slow and turn that tight circle, but that usually leaves them vulnerable to a good TnB plane's normal advantage in gaining E. Not always, but you get multiple lives to figure it out!
Regards,
Hammer
-
Your only point is you are all wet.
HiTech
Too funny! :rofl
-
You have finally hit on what, in essence, many people have tried to tell you. Ask murdr how many times he crashed while learning the limits of the 38. Or any other experienced player the same question about their plane of choice. We have limitless opportunities to learn the absolute limit of our plane(s) of choice in limitless situations.
i understand that opportunity to explore is a factor, it is not the only factor and it is limited to the FM limits, another factor is that the "absolute limits" are different FMs to reality, as has also been noted by many of you in other threads and those are the limits i think should be addressed.
All but the newest pilots in Aces High have more victories than the leading ace of the war. Many people get that many victories each month. We get away with things that wouldn't be tried IRL because this isn't real life and, if at first we don't succeed, we can try again. Real pilots didn't have that opportunity because one mistake often ended their learning opportunities.
i don't believe i have not said that that was a factor, it is the people arguing with me that are not accounting for other factors like the difference between the limits themselves.
If your main complaint is a plane that is traditionally a BnZ plane saddles up on you and kills you, I would suggest a little reading on energy.
i fly the a8 mostly because as i have pointed out i enjoy more of a challenge than most seem to want in here.
doing that my k/d is some 5x better than the average a8 pilot in here. point being that compared to most i could write the book on energy in these games. at least compared to the B&Z pilot who likes to "saddle up" i suggest you read a little on energy and see how truly unlikely that would be in TRW.
Most of those planes might be able to get slow and turn that tight circle, but that usually leaves them vulnerable to a good TnB plane's normal advantage in gaining E. Not always, but you get multiple lives to figure it out!
problems in bold, lets try this on for size ...
Most of those planes might be able to get slow and turn that tight circle, but that will always leave them at a disadvantage to a better TnB plane. negating their advantage in gaining E. always "."
you get multiple lives to figure that out, so even the "slowest" learn that given the choice, you do not want to fight in the other guys area of advantage, ever.
when you can say the above, then you will be getting closer to reality and the game gains back a dimension it has lost from it's origin games.
respectfully returned
+S+
t
-
thorsim,
It sounds like you want a more binary game. Something like X-Wing vs TIE Fighter where you know that the TIE Fighter will always out turn the X-Wing and there is no question about what to do with each unit.
Reality is a lot messier than that though, and AH does a good job of showing that compared to older flight models that were more like X-Wing vs TIE Fighter. WWII aircraft designers were still learning a lot about aerodynamics and what works and does not work. Consequently almost all WWII fighters had performance that varied wildly depending on the speed, altitude and other factors.
Sometimes the Fw190 did out turn the Spitfire.
-
i realize that, however each plane had its advantages and disadvantages over every other plane as well.
once again my point is these features did not change that so the planes tended to not have very much success vs. other planes in the other planes fights. there really is not much picking away to be done with that argument.
look at the mig 15 vs. the f-86, you will not likely find a more closely matched pair of opponents, even so each had its fights and with comparable pilots the one who stuck to his advantages better almost always won the "fights" (one must exclude non fight examples like surprise bounces and poor pilots of course)
where the differences are wide i fail to see how there could be much of a argument against my point as i would not give much of a chance for the p-51 or the jugg vs say a spitfire in a low and slow turn fight no matter how much flap was used or who was piloting each aircraft. the american planes are not designed or suited for that kind of fight vs. a spitfire that excelled in it. i requested a different opinion from an expert before, and none was offered, i suspect because one could not be found.
+S+
t
thorsim,
It sounds like you want a more binary game. Something like X-Wing vs TIE Fighter where you know that the TIE Fighter will always out turn the X-Wing and there is no question about what to do with each unit.
Reality is a lot messier than that though, and AH does a good job of showing that compared to older flight models that were more like X-Wing vs TIE Fighter. WWII aircraft designers were still learning a lot about aerodynamics and what works and does not work. Consequently almost all WWII fighters had performance that varied wildly depending on the speed, altitude and other factors.
Sometimes the Fw190 did out turn the Spitfire.
-
Thorsim, I suggest you fly in a scenario in Aces High. You see much different tactics because you are limited on the number of aircraft. There you will rarely see a P38 trying to turn with a zero, but in the MA there is no consequence for trying.
-
where the differences are wide i fail to see how there could be much of a argument against my point as i would not give much of a chance for the p-51 or the jugg vs say a spitfire in a low and slow turn fight no matter how much flap was used or who was piloting each aircraft. the american planes are not designed or suited for that kind of fight vs. a spitfire that excelled in it. i requested a different opinion from an expert before, and none was offered, i suspect because one could not be found.
Any Merlin Spitfire in AH will eat the P-51 or P-47 for lunch in that scenario. The Spit XIV might as well, I haven't tried it.
I remember being in the TA one night when a new player started asking for help. He'd seen the advert on TV and jumped into a P-51, which was the fighter he was hyped about. After about a day in the MA of having his bellybutton handed to him he was in the TA trying things out and he concluded that the game was BS because the Spitfire Mk V was obviously a vastly better fighter than the P-51D. In his mind, the P-51D was the greatest fighter of WWII and he was expecting to easily kill other aircraft with it. Problem was, like most players new to the genre, his only tactic was to roll onto his side and pull the stick back as far as he could in luftberry turn fights. Obviously any Spitfire is going to destroy a P-51 in that kind of fight, and that is exactly what happened.
-
i understand that opportunity to explore is a factor, it is not the only factor and it is limited to the FM limits, another factor is that the "absolute limits" are different FMs to reality, as has also been noted by many of you in other threads and those are the limits i think should be addressed.
As has been pointed out numerous times, well documented differences have been addressed in the past and, I'm sure, will continue to be addressed in the future. As has also been pointed out numerous times, anecdotal evidence is not reliable for a number of reasons. Making inferences based on one pilot's account provides no data, just opinions. Without precise data on all of the variables applied to both planes in an engagement, you are trying to distill facts from thin air. While it is true that anecdotal evidence can provide you with a theory, you still need hard facts to prove it.
It has also been pointed out that many sources differ on the performance of different planes. The completeness of the data about the plane being tested (i.e. load-out) must be known before the recorded performance can be duplicated. Just as with anecdotal evidence, if there is an unknown variable, it can skew the entire model.
i fly the a8 mostly because as i have pointed out i enjoy more of a challenge than most seem to want in here.
doing that my k/d is some 5x better than the average a8 pilot in here.
[ Golf Clap ] BnZing while maintaining an energy advantage is a very basic form of e-fighting but not what I'm talking about here. that may not be how you fly the A8, but it's what I see most often in that plane. Also, the A8 would not be a good candidate for the type of e-fighting I'm talking about.
point being that compared to most i could write the book on energy in these games. at least compared to the B&Z pilot who likes to "saddle up" i suggest you read a little on energy and see how truly unlikely that would be in TRW.
:huh
, lets try this on for size ...
Most of those planes might be able to get slow and turn that tight circle, but that will always leave them at a disadvantage to a better TnB plane. negating their advantage in gaining E. always "."
you get multiple lives to figure that out, so even the "slowest" learn that given the choice, you do not want to fight in the other guys area of advantage, ever.
There are so many things a "lesser" turning plane can do to a better turning one that it's not even funny. The 38 was famous for the "cloverleaf". A barrel roll in the opposite direction your opponent turns can make it seem like your screaming BnZer followed his slow TnBer in a turn. Putting the nose down can let a plane cut inside the circle of one that is flat turning. Nose up with the power to sustain it can stall out a low powered turner if it tries to follow. So no, I don't agree with you assertion that saddling up on a "better" turner always results in death for the "lesser" turning plane. As many people have figured out, you don't have to out-turn a plane to out maneuver it.
when you can say the above, then you will be getting closer to reality and the game gains back a dimension it has lost from it's origin games.
So what you're really saying is that you don't like the fact that people don't fly the way they did in the war. I submit that, just as you point out, flying that way gets people killed on a regular basis. It's not the flight model that's screwed up, it's the fact that we don't die so we're willing to try to saddle up and figure out a way to beat a "better" plane in a "lesser" plane in some way other than trying to pick an unsuspecting enemy off as we zoom through a a furball. Sure, that's a better way to survive the sortie, but it sure gets boring sometimes! Instead, we try things that someone concerned about their own skin wouldn't try. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. The F4U that throws out its flaps might get the unsuspecting spit, but he's easy prey for the next enemy in line. That's why they didn't do it in real life, not necessarily that their plane wasn't capable of doing it. In the game, a kill is worth a death to many people. In real life mission objectives could often be accomplished simply by chasing an enemy away. In the game, for the fighter pilot, the kill is the mission.
Regards,
Hammer
-
no hammer what i am saying is what i have said, nothing else so lets please not start that again.
the hog that "catches" the unsuspecting spit by giving away it's E advantage should not be worrying about the next spit but the one he just "saddled up on" because i assure you that in most states the spit should fly circles around the hog and if that is not happening and the spit does not reverse on the hog in very short order then something is very wrong with the respective FMs.
that is what i am saying, and in this instance you can project along the entire very big vs. pretty small planes in the set.
regards,
t
-
no hammer what i am saying is what i have said, nothing else so lets please not start that again.
the hog that "catches" the unsuspecting spit by giving away it's E advantage should not be worrying about the next spit but the one he just "saddled up on" because i assure you that in most states the spit should fly circles around the hog and if that is not happening and the spit does not reverse on the hog in very short order then something is very wrong with the respective FMs.
that is what i am saying, and in this instance you can project along the entire very big vs. pretty small planes in the set.
regards,
t
You need to provide some evidence to support that claim.
-
s the spit should fly circles around the hog and if that is not happening and the spit does not reverse on the hog in very short order then something is very wrong with the respective FMs.
Why? Err, Karnak beat me to it...
-
the spit should fly circles around the hog
A Spit V seems to me to handily beat an F4U-1D in a stallfight.
In AH, one plane that outturns another with no flaps generally (maybe not always, but generally) outturns it when both are flying around with full flaps. Your turn-rate hierarchy is thus generally preserved there. There are perhaps a couple of exceptions, but that is to be expected. Flaps do change lift and drag, and thus turn rate and turn radius. Some flaps will be more effective than others, naturally.
It seems to me that you feel that plane A should outturn plane B based on a handful of anecdotal quotes. Anecdotal quotes, as pointed out, can be quite inaccurate. Much better is flight-test data; and even one example of flight-test data is not necessarily as good as several examples of flight-test data, so that you can spot means, anomalies, and outliers.
My guess is that the performance of planes in AH is typically backed up by multiple sets of flight-test data.
If you come up with some flight-test data that contradicts performance of a plane in AH, I'd bet HTC would be interested to know it. But anecdotal statements from pilots here and there are not something solid on which you can base a simulator's settings. Anecdotal statements have way too much noise in them, and you can find examples of such statements supporting opposite conclusions.
-
A Spit V seems to me to handily beat an F4U-1D in a stallfight.
All other things being equal, it should. However, the great thing about this game is that it doesn't always. And that has nothing to do with the FM.
-
the hog that "catches" the unsuspecting spit by giving away it's E advantage should not be worrying about the next spit but the one he just "saddled up on" because i assure you that in most states the spit should fly circles around the hog and if that is not happening and the spit does not reverse on the hog in very short order then something is very wrong with the respective FMs.
You're all sorts of wrong with this statement.
A- "unsuspecting spit" implies what? If I can drop onto an "unsuspecting spit" in almost any plane I shouldn't have to worry about him flying circles around me... If he's unsuspecting because he's not paying attention, he may not even turn, and if he does, why would I expect him to out-turn me (in an F4U, in this argument)? If he's unsuspecting because I can surprise him with a brief turning advantage in the right situation, I also don't need to worry about him flying circles around me then either...
Now, if I saddle up, and don't make a quick kill, then guess what? He can fly around the circle quicker, and I'm going to die if I allow that. No amount of flaps will save me in that situation, and actually, the incorrect or overuse of flaps is probably what got me in that situation to begin with... Low, slow, flat turning, and flaps out will favor the spit (or a multitude of other AC) over the F4U. Regardless of the turn radius, the turn rates will come into effect, big time.
For that matter, the F4U (or any other flap-using American plane) that drops flaps and gets slow is fairly easy pickings for a whole lot of planes (even the German ones). Possibly not easy pickings for a whole lot of pilots, but that's not the fault of the plane or the FM.
-
Most of those planes might be able to get slow and turn that tight circle, but that will always leave them at a disadvantage to a better TnB plane. negating their advantage in gaining E. always "."
you get multiple lives to figure that out, so even the "slowest" learn that given the choice, you do not want to fight in the other guys area of advantage, ever.
when you can say the above, then you will be getting closer to reality and the game gains back a dimension it has lost from it's origin games.
The game is its own reality... You need to grasp that.
I can take a Boston III into a dogfight (dueling as well) against a Spit8, and win more than 90% of the time. That's a reality. Can a Boston out-turn a Spitfire Mk.8? Not even close... For example a typical difference could be that I can fly that Boston to the absolute edge of its flight envelope, while 90% of the players in the game can't even come close to attaining the limits of their Spitfire. Adding to their dilemma is being freaked-out that they have to fight for their life against a medium bomber in the first place. That psychological edge should not be underestimated. That's part of the game reality too. Getting inside the other guy's head is part of the reality. Are you familiar with John Boyd's OODA loop?
BFM and ACM skills, rock solid SA, complete knowledge and understanding of all aircraft capabilities and good tactical sense... Add to this aggressiveness. These are the things that enable pilots/players to fight and win engagements in a manner counter-intuitive to accepted norms.
Another factor touched on is experience. A player who logs 100 hours a month for 5 years will have 6,000 hours of combat experience and probably more than 20,000 engagements. Some players have been in this game much longer than that. Compare that to the typical WWII pilot with 300 total hours in fighters and a tiny number of actual engagements. This difference in experience is mind boggling. That difference is seen in how they are able to do things a WWII pilot would think impossible. Now, add in the fact that being shot down is without the slightest penalty and you have the reality that is Aces High.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thanks a lot for making me add all those hours up Widewing. :mad:
-
Thanks a lot for making me add all those hours up Widewing. :mad:
Yeah, made me wonder if I had broken the 500,000 sortie mark. Then I started to cry.
ack-ack
-
Yeah, made me wonder if I had broken the 500,000 sortie mark. Then I started to cry.
ack-ack
Maybe you don't need to cry..
If AKAK is your only handle, you have "only" 22,716 fighter & attack sorties (and 37,648 kills) in AH so far (all Main Arenas only)
I doubt even with all AW sorties added you are even remotely approaching 500,000 ;)
-
i fly the a8 mostly because as i have pointed out i enjoy more of a challenge than most seem to want in here.
doing that my k/d is some 5x better than the average a8 pilot in here. point being that compared to most i could write the book on energy in these games. at least compared to the B&Z pilot who likes to "saddle up" i suggest you read a little on energy and see how truly unlikely that would be in TRW.
I can rattle off 200 names that could hand you your own arse in the A8. Because it's obvious your gunnery is in need of an overhaul. 3.16%?
-
yep gunnery pretty poor, that is different in this game. not sure why you think that would mean that i know less about energy fighting though, as i am making up for my gunnery with my flying.
I can rattle off 200 names that could hand you your own arse in the A8. Because it's obvious your gunnery is in need of an overhaul. 3.16%?
-
well then why would the pilot choose that approach? far more often than not i see E+ planes abandoning their energy advantage for a park and squat turn fight. in ACM the slower fighter almost always has the advantage in that fight in the first place. that is the relationship energy/maneuver if you got the speed keep it because the slower plane has the turn advantage.
very rarely does a plane have both and even more rarely when they are as similar as the planes were in WW-2.
if the relationship held true the way physics says it most often should they why are guys swimming up stream and getting away with it?
especially the boom and zoomers?
it goes against Shaw and Boyd and every other expert all the way back to Boelcke.
anyway this is going round and round if you guys can't understand this then you are too far behind for me to try and catch you up here.
once again, until next time.
+S+
t
You're all sorts of wrong with this statement.
A- "unsuspecting spit" implies what? If I can drop onto an "unsuspecting spit" in almost any plane I shouldn't have to worry about him flying circles around me... If he's unsuspecting because he's not paying attention, he may not even turn, and if he does, why would I expect him to out-turn me (in an F4U, in this argument)? If he's unsuspecting because I can surprise him with a brief turning advantage in the right situation, I also don't need to worry about him flying circles around me then either...
Now, if I saddle up, and don't make a quick kill, then guess what? He can fly around the circle quicker, and I'm going to die if I allow that. No amount of flaps will save me in that situation, and actually, the incorrect or overuse of flaps is probably what got me in that situation to begin with... Low, slow, flat turning, and flaps out will favor the spit (or a multitude of other AC) over the F4U. Regardless of the turn radius, the turn rates will come into effect, big time.
For that matter, the F4U (or any other flap-using American plane) that drops flaps and gets slow is fairly easy pickings for a whole lot of planes (even the German ones). Possibly not easy pickings for a whole lot of pilots, but that's not the fault of the plane or the FM.
-
Lol... so its us that are behind the curve. :rofl
-
well then why would the pilot choose that approach? far more often than not i see E+ planes abandoning their energy advantage for a park and squat turn fight.
You should take into account that the vast majority of players in AH has not much knowledge about ACM, or do have the "nerves" patience to apply their rudimentary knowledge all the time. The average player is indeed more like a point & shoot guy.
Also, many of the "better" cartoon pilots find going in and trying to dogfight even with a more maneuverable enemy way more fun than winning all fights by careful BnZming their opposition. After all, like said before: Planes are free.
Your own stats may give some hint in the same direction: Your K/D is very above-average, your K/H is quite...uhm... low. It seems like you really trying to fly "smart" & stay alive. Many, if not most players do find that boring or can't do that - see above. That's why their K/D is way lower, but K/H is much higher.
it goes against Shaw and Boyd and every other expert all the way back to Boelcke.
Those guys were flying or training for a real war. And how many of our sqeakin' 5000+ players have ever read what those experts wrote... or even heard about them?
Players are not using the planes "wrong" because they have to - they do it because they want to, or can't do at all.
-
See Rule #4
-
yes i am familiar with the OODA loop, are you familiar with E/M and AAS? then you know how unlikely it should be that a decent spit pilot would loose to a boston III.
so clearly the game is it's own reality.
as far as the we are better at our make believe planes than the real guys were at their real ones.
i have heard that argument before and it still sounds the same.
i suggest that if you can do something in your fake Boston III that the real guys couldn't in the real ones the reason lies in the relative situations and not the relative talents.
(BTW you can apply that to any FM/real aircraft relationship IMO)
regards back,
t
The game is its own reality... You need to grasp that.
I can take a Boston III into a dogfight (dueling as well) against a Spit8, and win more than 90% of the time. That's a reality. Can a Boston out-turn a Spitfire Mk.8? Not even close... For example a typical difference could be that I can fly that Boston to the absolute edge of its flight envelope, while 90% of the players in the game can't even come close to attaining the limits of their Spitfire. Adding to their dilemma is being freaked-out that they have to fight for their life against a medium bomber in the first place. That psychological edge should not be underestimated. That's part of the game reality too. Getting inside the other guy's head is part of the reality. Are you familiar with John Boyd's OODA loop?
BFM and ACM skills, rock solid SA, complete knowledge and understanding of all aircraft capabilities and good tactical sense... Add to this aggressiveness. These are the things that enable pilots/players to fight and win engagements in a manner counter-intuitive to accepted norms.
Another factor touched on is experience. A player who logs 100 hours a month for 5 years will have 6,000 hours of combat experience and probably more than 20,000 engagements. Some players have been in this game much longer than that. Compare that to the typical WWII pilot with 300 total hours in fighters and a tiny number of actual engagements. This difference in experience is mind boggling. That difference is seen in how they are able to do things a WWII pilot would think impossible. Now, add in the fact that being shot down is without the slightest penalty and you have the reality that is Aces High.
My regards,
Widewing
-
then you know how unlikely it should be that a decent spit pilot would loose to a boston III.
In AH, a decent Spit pilot doesn't loose to a Boston III, unless being very handicapped by other factors.
Most players are not decent. The quote of decent pilots in spits even lower. Other way round, it's often the better players that do try to fly a Boston in a A2A role, just because way more difficult.
If you see a Boston III aggressively attacking you, the chances are quite high it's a good virtual pilot. But still, if you are the same, you will win.
BTW, last tour Spits got 55 kills on Boston III's and were killed 6 times by then...
-
that was wildewings example take it up with him as i am as confused about that as you are.
+S+
t
In AH, a decent Spit pilot doesn't loose to a Boston III, unless being very handicapped by other factors.
Most players are not decent. The quote of decent pilots in spits even lower. Other way round, it's often the better players that do try to fly a Boston in a A2A role, just because way more difficult.
If you see a Boston III aggressively attacking you, the chances are quite high it's a good virtual pilot. But still, if you are the same, you will win.
BTW, last tour Spits got 55 kills on Boston III's and were killed 6 times by then...
-
It's funny how it's never a case of superior knowledge of fight geometry, or siezing a brief opportunity...It's always "you cheated" or "the FM is porked" when someone pulls off a victory that shouldn't have happened in theory. Then when a few get good at that, everybody want to try their hand at it...then it's definately the FM.
-
that was wildewings example take it up with him as i am as confused about that as you are.
Where do you see me confused?
-
What's the problem here? Planes being able to win in situations that they shouldn't be able to in real life?
I still remember when I first started AH - the one phrase that stuck out in my mind was "It's the pilot not the plane."
There any number of explanations for why a Spit8 would lose to e.g. a Boston III in AH
1) The Spit8 pilot isn't flying the plane to its limits.
2) The Boston III got a clean shot and got the kill before the Spit's turn advantage could even come into play.
3) The Spit8 pilot does fly his plane to the limits, but the Boston III uses superior ACM (turning in the vertical, energy management, etc) to get a few clean shots to get the kill.
There are any number of explanations for why a Boston III would lose in real life
1) The Boston pilot is not at all trained in ACM.
2) The Boston pilot is scared to even engage.
3) The Boston pilot can't sustain as many Gs as the Spit pilot because he never has to train for them.
4) Maybe the Boston had no flight harness so it could not pull most BFM maneuvers (else the pilot would be thrown out of his chair). This could apply to the rest of the flightcrew as well.
5) From what I've seen in AH, the Boston uses a ring and bead sight, making good gunnery under hard maneuvering exceeindgly difficult in real life.
So here we have 8 reasonable explanations for why AH deviates from what you expect in real life. But I invite you to look closer: if any of the 3 explanations for why the AH Boston wins were actually true in real life, the RL Boston would still win. Likewise, if any of the explanations for why the RL Boston loses were actually true in AH, then the AH Boston would also lose. Furthermore, not ONE of these explanations invalidates the flight model.
Remember, when we say "it's the pilot not the plane", you have to consider the whole brain->flight stick signal path. AH's signal path is a lot cleaner and more reliable than the one pilots had in real life.
-
Where do you see me confused?
Its always going to be the same story with this guy. Its your fault its your job to do more research and its not his job to show you anything. You are too far behind the curve to catch on anyway! :D
Instant thread killer now all he has to do is show up and post and its game over man! :rolleyes:
-
well then why would the pilot choose that approach? far more often than not i see E+ planes abandoning their energy advantage for a park and squat turn fight. in ACM the slower fighter almost always has the advantage in that fight in the first place. that is the relationship energy/maneuver if you got the speed keep it because the slower plane has the turn advantage.
Maybe for the challenge of it?
Anyone can hover for hours above the crowd, zip in and pick someone who's in a fight...
Where's the challenge there? Even if it's in an A8...
-
apparently in reading comprehension as well ...
Sheesh, resorting to that now???
Sad.
-
LOL, Widewing and his Boston.
Last time I flew the A-26, which at least has a proper Gunpack, I got killed. By a Spitfire.
But I did get kills in a Boston some whiles back.
Once I also outmaneuvered and killed a Spit and a P47, 2 vs 1, - with a TBM.
Anything can happen, and what happened there was that I met completely unskilled pilots.
Don't think Widewing can kill me in a Spit VIII though :bolt:
-
yes i am familiar with the OODA loop, are you familiar with E/M and AAS? then you know how unlikely it should be that a decent spit pilot would loose to a boston III.
so clearly the game is it's own reality.
You really can't comment on someone's reading comprehension when you lack that basic skill yourself. Since you obviously didn't understand Widewing's reply the first time, here it is again. It answers the statement in your reply that I've bolded. I suggest reading it slowly, aloud if it helps you to understand.
I can take a Boston III into a dogfight (dueling as well) against a Spit8, and win more than 90% of the time. That's a reality. Can a Boston out-turn a Spitfire Mk.8? Not even close... For example a typical difference could be that I can fly that Boston to the absolute edge of its flight envelope, while 90% of the players in the game can't even come close to attaining the limits of their Spitfire. Adding to their dilemma is being freaked-out that they have to fight for their life against a medium bomber in the first place. That psychological edge should not be underestimated. That's part of the game reality too. Getting inside the other guy's head is part of the reality. Are you familiar with John Boyd's OODA loop?
BFM and ACM skills, rock solid SA, complete knowledge and understanding of all aircraft capabilities and good tactical sense... Add to this aggressiveness. These are the things that enable pilots/players to fight and win engagements in a manner counter-intuitive to accepted norms.
Another factor touched on is experience. A player who logs 100 hours a month for 5 years will have 6,000 hours of combat experience and probably more than 20,000 engagements. Some players have been in this game much longer than that. Compare that to the typical WWII pilot with 300 total hours in fighters and a tiny number of actual engagements. This difference in experience is mind boggling. That difference is seen in how they are able to do things a WWII pilot would think impossible. Now, add in the fact that being shot down is without the slightest penalty and you have the reality that is Aces High.
My regards,
Widewing
as far as the we are better at our make believe planes than the real guys were at their real ones.
i have heard that argument before and it still sounds the same.
i suggest that if you can do something in your fake Boston III that the real guys couldn't in the real ones the reason lies in the relative situations and not the relative talents.
(BTW you can apply that to any FM/real aircraft relationship IMO)
regards back,
t
Read Widewing's previous post again. He didn't do anything that the Boston III was incapable of, he encountered a pilot of lesser skill that just happened to be flying a good fighter. Now, we all know that the majority of the time, it's the pilot and not the plane that is the deciding factor and this is a classic example of such a case. There was nothing wrong in the flight model that allowed Widewing to come out on top over a Spitfire in a Boston. The problem was the Spitfire pilot wasn't very good and paid the price by being shot down.
This evening in the MW arena, I was bounced by two Ki-61s that had both altitude and energy advantage while I was on the deck in a P-38J. A 5 minute angles fight ensued with me coming out on top, downing both Ki-61s. How could a P-38J beat two Tonys on the deck in an angles fight? Easy, the P-38J pilot was better than the two Ki-61 pilots and I was able to exploit the strengths of my plane while at the same time exploiting the weaknesses of theirs and negating their strengths. According to you, this would only be possible if there was something wrong in the flight model and not due to lack of skill and/or inexperience.
Now, lets say I was to encounter you in a FW190A-8 co-altitude and energy in my P-38J. After I shot you down, would you immediately claim it was due to bad flight modeling or chalk it up that you just ran into a better and more experienced player?
ack-ack
-
i am not really interested in conversations that are monitored selectively
the game dictates the behavior, what i describe is far to common to be considered adventure.
if you guys want to believe you are all so much better than the real pilots you are pretending to represent that you can abandon 90+ years of expertise in the area that this game presents itself as simulating,
then you know or care far to little about reality to have any conversation about how this VIDEO GAME does anything in relation to reality. it is NOT worth discussing in this regard.
-
See Rules #2, #4, #5
-
i am not really interested in conversations that are monitored selectively
the game dictates the behavior, what i describe is far to common to be considered adventure.
if you guys want to believe you are all so much better than the real pilots you are pretending to represent that you can abandon 90+ years of expertise in the area that this game presents itself as simulating,
then you know or care far to little about reality to have any conversation about how this VIDEO GAME does anything in relation to reality. it is NOT worth discussing in this regard.
None of us are saying we could get in the real thing, and perform better than our real life predecessors. What they're describing is the decision-making process, the use of ACM in a fight, accrued gunnery skills, and overall experience in-game, compared to those same characteristics which were possessed by our real life predecessors during the War.
-
I can rattle off 200 names that could hand you your own arse in the A8. Because it's obvious your gunnery is in need of an overhaul. 3.16%?
Some people will strafe ground targets while in fighter mode, which I've done on plenty of occasions. Not shooting an M3 because you're in the wrong mode and it won't score properly is silly.
Fwiw, I would never bring someone's score into an argument, because some of the best pilots I've seen have terrible scores. We can't insist on the one hand that score is meaningless and then on the other criticize someone for a crappy gunnery %.
Carry on with the flame fest...
-
i believe that if the virtual consequences were more representative of the real world consequences,
then the virtual behavior in the virtual environment would be more like the real behavior in the real world,
and the 90+ years of real world expertise would be more applicable to the video game.
if you do not agree then i guess we will remain in disagreement.
+S+
t
None of us are saying we could get in the real thing, and perform better than our real life predecessors. What they're describing is the decision-making process, the use of ACM in a fight, accrued gunnery skills, and overall experience in-game, compared to those same characteristics which were possessed by our real life predecessors during the War.
-
Some people will strafe ground targets while in fighter mode, which I've done on plenty of occasions. Not shooting an M3 because you're in the wrong mode and it won't score properly is silly.
Fwiw, I would never bring someone's score into an argument, because some of the best pilots I've seen have terrible scores. We can't insist on the one hand that score is meaningless and then on the other criticize someone for a crappy gunnery %.
Carry on with the flame fest...
He made the "I'm 5x times better in an A8 than the average player" claim, not me.
-
He made the "I'm 5x times better in an A8 than the average player" claim, not me.
Fair enough. I've never fought thorsim so I have no way to evaluate such a claim, but based on the average AH 190 pilot 5x better isn't hard to achieve. There's a bad tendency at the AH bbs to assume that because someone is new to the game, that they have no clue about air combat. I have a long time friend I grew up with who now flies an F-16C in the air force. If he came to the AH bbs, I'm sure he would be told he was a noob and needed to read Shaw. Aces High is not the end all be all standard of who's who in air combat, but you certainly don't get that impression from reading the boards. And I'm not picking on any one individually, it's a general trait I see time and time again.
-------------
I'm reading through the thread at the moment. So far as I can tell, real world tests sometimes contradict each other, are conducted improperly, and even after you sort through all of that, the results still may not reflect what we observe in the game. Is this really so surprising? However, it's no evidence for intentional bias.
-------------
Here is my own test for turn rate. Radius data is readily available. Aircraft were tested with 75% fuel, except in cases where full internal fuel would give more than 45 minutes of flight time with main arena fuel burn. Those aircraft were tested with 50% fuel. Altitude is close to 0' asl. Flaps were used to the extent that they benefited turn rate, where they did not, they were not used, e.g. Spitfire.
The rates are expressed as a zscore:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3608/3528669325_8379c19fd6_o.png)
-
i believe that if the virtual consequences were more representative of the real world consequences,
then the virtual behavior in the virtual environment would be more like the real behavior in the real world,
and the 90+ years of real world expertise would be more applicable to the video game.
if you do not agree then i guess we will remain in disagreement.
+S+
t
How so?
Like, if you die, you're just done playing? That's what it would take to get people to fly like they're lives depended on it, and even that wouldn't do it. People would just move to a new game, or create a new account. Maybe if HTC could add a RL death aspect to the subscription? You can't expect people to fear death, when death isn't a possibility...
Or do you have specific things you think need to be changed (rather than all the vague claims/references you've made so far) in the FM?
What should specifically happen if an F4U drops two notches of flaps in a fight with a Spit8, if the Spit8 is in front of the F4U, and how does the game differ from RL in this respect? Or pick your 190A8 as an example. What does it do differently than it should, specifically? Since you started with flap deployment, what speed should they drop in the 190A8, and what should be the effect? And would it be a good idea to drop them anyway?
Can you even present any examples from the GAME (film, maybe) where you believe the FM is wrong? And back that opinion up with any factual RL examples?
Are you blowing smoke?
Is it possible that your frustration with the "FM" has more to do with your skill level? I agree with Anaxogoras, in that you don't need a great score to be a decent stick, but at the same time your score doesn't make you look very successful at all. It looks like I imagine mine would if I just avoided 1v1 fights, and flew around high and fast looking for some cherry picking opportunities (that you then have trouble connecting on). I could be wrong of course- do you have any film of your fights? Showing your self-acclaimed 190A8 E-fighting prowess? I really have no interest in "ripping them apart", I'm just curious as to how you fight, and how it may skew your perception of the FM. Can you show yourself getting away with things you think you shouldn't be able to? Out-turning a spit with a full-flaps F4U, maybe? Or show others doing the same?
This is a crazy argument that just goes 'round and 'round. Of course, you could take the "easy route" and blame it on our inability to comprehend your writing, or claim that we're only selectively monitoring the conversation, but of course we could do that too. Look back at your own posts, do they flawlessly present an argument? How about some specifics for a change? You're the one claiming the game/FM is "broken"; show us the crack!
Since you're the one making the claims, the burden of proof falls on you. Your inability to present that proof doesn't mean we're selectively monitoring your argument, or that we can't comprehend it. Conversely, it's just as likely that your attempt to present a factual, comprehensive argument is a failure.
-
How so?
Like, if you die, you're just done playing? That's what it would take to get people to fly like they're lives depended on it, and even that wouldn't do it. People would just move to a new game, or create a new account. Maybe if HTC could add a RL death aspect to the subscription? You can't expect people to fear death, when death isn't a possibility...
FSO is exactly what you describe, and it's the only reason I keep an account. ;)
So far as I can see, the 190A-8 is about the only plane thorsim flies. Let's all be honest and admit that BnZ is about the only thing that plane is good at. I know someone is going to mention this or that sierra hotel stick, and how he can out turn Ki-84s in the A8, and so on. Let's be honest again and admit that success stories like that only occur because of massive error on the part of the opposition. I enjoy BnZ cherry picking just as much as I enjoy a good duel. The perception that the former is easy is wrong. It is wrong because good cherry picking requires moderation, being an expert at taking the middle path to conserve energy. Riding the stall horn is what is easy. Pull back as much as the plane will allow and turn, turn, turn.
edit:
Burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim. "I doubt it's true," is immune from burden of proof. Doubt can always be reasonably maintained where there is lack of evidence on the affirmative side. For example, I do not require evidence to justifiably say "I doubt the turn rate of the 190A-8 in Aces High," in the absence of evidence to support it. Even if there is evidence supporting the affirmative, doubt is still reasonable when the evidence is unconvincing, ambiguous, or fails to meet some other epistemic standard, and such doubt does not require a presentation of evidence. What requires evidence is if I specify how it should turn, relative to other aircraft, or how many circles in so many seconds, etc.
-
FSO is exactly what you describe, and it's the only reason I keep an account. ;)
Not really.
I would still fly differently in an FSO event than I would if it was RL. After all, I can just log into a different arena after I die in FSO... "Death" is still no big deal.
-
See Rules #2, #4, #5
it's ok i already printed a copy :P ...
-
the consequences i speak of would be getting shot down or crashing in the video game as often as you would in the real world when you did something that would result in those two things ...
in the real world.
if that happened the negative feedback would IMO adjust the behavior in the game.
since the behavior persists, than my reasoning is that the consequences RE the way i stated them above are not in line with the real world, and so beyond my "impressions while flying" there is that behavior to lead me to question how well the game reflects reality.
just to clear up the whole consequences thing ...
+S+
t
-
Okay Anax...how did you end up getting a better turn rate out of the P-38L than the J?
Fair enough. I've never fought thorsim so I have no way to evaluate such a claim, but based on the average AH 190 pilot 5x better isn't hard to achieve. There's a bad tendency at the AH bbs to assume that because someone is new to the game, that they have no clue about air combat. I have a long time friend I grew up with who now flies an F-16C in the air force. If he came to the AH bbs, I'm sure he would be told he was a noob and needed to read Shaw. Aces High is not the end all be all standard of who's who in air combat, but you certainly don't get that impression from reading the boards. And I'm not picking on any one individually, it's a general trait I see time and time again.
-------------
I'm reading through the thread at the moment. So far as I can tell, real world tests sometimes contradict each other, are conducted improperly, and even after you sort through all of that, the results still may not reflect what we observe in the game. Is this really so surprising? However, it's no evidence for intentional bias.
-------------
Here is my own test for turn rate. Radius data is readily available. Aircraft were tested with 75% fuel, except in cases where full internal fuel would give more than 45 minutes of flight time with main arena fuel burn. Those aircraft were tested with 50% fuel. Altitude is close to 0' asl. Flaps were used to the extent that they benefited turn rate, where they did not, they were not used, e.g. Spitfire.
The rates are expressed as a zscore:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3608/3528669325_8379c19fd6_o.png)
-
Okay Anax...how did you end up getting a better turn rate out of the P-38L than the J?
I don't know. I had the same question, and so I ran the test multiple times with a similar result. In any case, the difference is small, about .7 seconds difference to complete a 360. The difference looks large in the chart because of the Zscore scaling, i.e. a very large number of aircraft turn 360 degrees in +/- 18 seconds.
Here are the raw times to complete a 360 in sustained turn:
190F-8 22
P47D-25 21.91
190A-8 21.32
P47D-40 20.99
P47D-11 20.94
P40B 20.46
P47N 20.41
190D-9 20.06
P51D 20
P-39D 19.82
190A-5 19.53
P38G 19.34
P51B 19.26
Typhoon 19.02
YAK 9T 18.91
P38J 18.85
Mossie 18.83
109 K-4 18.57
P40E 18.55
C205 18.47
TA152 18.46
110 C 18.36
F4F 18.31
LA5 18.27
YAK 9U 18.22
109 G-14 18.2
110 G 18.19
F4U-1 18.16
F6F 18.14
LA7 18.13
109 G-6 18.13
P38L 18.13
109 G-2 18.12
Tempest 18.02
F4U-1C 17.94
P-39Q 17.8
F4U-1D 17.73
F4U-1A 17.57
Hurri IID 17.49
109 E-4 17.39
KI61 17.39
109 F-4 17.14
C202 17.06
N1K2 16.84
FM2 16.63
Spit XIV 16.56
Seafire IIC 16.46
F4U-4 16.39
KI84 16.12
Spit XVI 15.77
Spit IX 15.73
Hurri IIC 15.71
Spit VIII 15.66
Spit V 14.97
Hurri I 14.91
Spit I 14.73
A6M5 14.58
A6M2 13.16
Oh, and before someone asks, I turned to the right with the XIV and Yaks, to the left with the rest.
Not really.
I would still fly differently in an FSO event than I would if it was RL. After all, I can just log into a different arena after I die in FSO... "Death" is still no big deal.
That's not how many of us look at it. 1) it hurts the total point score for your team; 2) it impedes on your squad's ability to complete its mission objective; 3) the main arena is a cesspool in comparison to FSO. Many of us try very hard not to die in FSO because main arena combat is such a boor in comparison.
-
How so?
Like, if you die, you're just done playing? That's what it would take to get people to fly like they're lives depended on it, and even that wouldn't do it. People would just move to a new game, or create a new account. Maybe if HTC could add a RL death aspect to the subscription? You can't expect people to fear death, when death isn't a possibility...
FSO is exactly what you describe, and it's the only reason I keep an account. ;)
Thing about FSO, like reality and unlike the MAs, is that you have orders and a goal. If you make the death penalty in the MAs too harsh, people just stop engaging unless they have a massive advantage. There are many examples from history where pilots engaged in a heavily disadvantageous way because they had to do so for war reasons.
the consequences i speak of would be getting shot down or crashing in the video game as often as you would in the real world when you did something that would result in those two things ...
Demonstrate that this does not already happen. I have pancaked many a Mossie because I pushed the envelope too far. Unlike reality, I learn and try again.
-
There's a bad tendency at the AH bbs to assume that because someone is new to the game, that they have no clue about air combat. I have a long time friend I grew up with who now flies an F-16C in the air force. If he came to the AH bbs, I'm sure he would be told he was a noob and needed to read Shaw.
I disagree, I'm sure if your Air Force buddy came to these boards, he would conduct himself in a way that would earn respect. I seem to notice that people who are challenged on these boards generally earn it. Most importantly, when somebody makes an incorrect or uninformed statement, or when they are simply wrong, there are often many helpful responses, it is only those who are wrong with determination and persistence who get bashed. Being wrong is a very honourable status, providing it is accompanied by an honest and open minded willingness to learn. The simple fact is, that some of the posters in this thread are not just wrong, they are persistently wrong and appear determined to remain so. I have no doubt that anyone trusted to fly an F-16 is very unlikely to fall into that category, and would be very well received here.
Badboy
-
from a guy i know who just happens to have been a viper tester, after 400 or so combat missions in Southeast Asia ...
From a real world pilot that has flown planes from Cubs, Taylorcrafts, Luscombs, Champs, straight-wing and bent wing jets, and more, I have very serious doubts about many aspects of our flight models.
had pizza and beers with him a few days ago ...
+S+
t
I disagree, I'm sure if your Air Force buddy came to these boards, he would conduct himself in a way that would earn respect. I seem to notice that people who are challenged on these boards generally earn it. Most importantly, when somebody makes an incorrect or uniformed statement, or when they are simply wrong, there are often many helpful responses, it is only those who are wrong with determination and persistence who get bashed. Being wrong is a very honourable status, providing it is accompanied by an honest and open minded willingness to learn. The simple fact is, that some of the posters in this thread are not just wrong, they are persistently wrong and appear determined to remain so. I have no doubt that anyone trusted to fly an F-16 is very unlikely to fall into that category, and would be very well received here.
Badboy
-
Wow, this argument is becoming like nuclear war - everybody loses.
-
Translation: I can't win this fight with hard numbers, so I'll bring in hearsay from someone not even involved in the discussion.
-
always welcome to entertain dissenting opinions from other experts,
in fact i think i posted a request for any several pages ago ...
still waiting ...
+S+
t
Translation: I can't win this fight with hard numbers, so I'll bring in hearsay from someone not even involved in the discussion.
-
I like how you took gum's quote about warbirds and inferred he was talking about ah or sims in general. He was criticizing that particular sim and Hotseats changes, not this one.
From a real world pilot that has flown planes from Cubs, Taylorcrafts, Luscombs, Champs, straight-wing and bent wing jets, and more, I have very serious doubts about many aspects of our flight models.
Nice slight of hand, but that seems to be your MO.
And so there's no confusion it's the 10th post on this page: http://www.squadselectforum.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=13896&sid=646d866c677e64846a86bd0cf57b754b
-
I like how you took gum's quote about warbirds and inferred he was talking about ah or sims in general. He was criticizing that particular sim and Hotseats changes, not this one.
Nice slight of hand, but that seems to be your MO.
And so there's no confusion it's the 10th post on this page: http://www.squadselectforum.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=13896&sid=646d866c677e64846a86bd0cf57b754b
Ouch. That's gotta sting.
-
I was wondering where that quote came from. :headscratch:
-
I like how you took gum's quote about warbirds and inferred he was talking about ah or sims in general. He was criticizing that particular sim and Hotseats changes, not this one.
Nice slight of hand, but that seems to be your MO.
And so there's no confusion it's the 10th post on this page: http://www.squadselectforum.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=13896&sid=646d866c677e64846a86bd0cf57b754b
:rofl
Thor cherry picks/takes out of context almost like barbi or say crump.
Cmon thor who are you really. :rofl
-
All I got to say now is: :rolleyes:
-
if you think i am misrepresenting his opinions feel free to tell him so and then we can discuss it the next time i talk to him, or you can talk to him yourself assuming you know him as well as i do.
of course if you did you would also feel pretty comfortable including his opinion on the video games in this discussion because in person he is very specific and outspoken about what is right and what is wrong in the games.
I like how you took gum's quote about warbirds and inferred he was talking about ah or sims in general. He was criticizing that particular sim and Hotseats changes, not this one.
Nice slight of hand, but that seems to be your MO.
And so there's no confusion it's the 10th post on this page: http://www.squadselectforum.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=13896&sid=646d866c677e64846a86bd0cf57b754b
-
Yes, they are different. I have plenty of experience with both. I flew warbirds from '98-'04, plenty of s3's under my belt too. In fact if you read the post you cherry picked from, Gums laments the fact that warbirds lost its fm designers before hotseat. I wonder who those guys were?
You truly are something else, I've wasted enough time here.
-
You really need to make it explicit if you're pulling quotes from another forum for a different game. That is bad. I'm done with this thread and feel thoroughly sullied. :uhoh
-
Banhammer for out write liez.
-
I don't know. I had the same question, and so I ran the test multiple times with a similar result. In any case, the difference is small, about .7 seconds difference to complete a 360. The difference looks large in the chart because of the Zscore scaling, i.e. a very large number of aircraft turn 360 degrees in +/- 18 seconds.
Here are the raw times to complete a 360 in sustained turn:
Oh, and before someone asks, I turned to the right with the XIV and Yaks, to the left with the rest.
just exactly how do you go about performing/flying to gather your test data for planes in the game? going by the highlighted bold lines I quoted you on, it looks as if you only are doing your test using 1 turn, maybe 2 turns tops........ are you using the stall limiter ( as has been the case by another gameplayer in the past, when he was doing a similar test )....
having differing fuel loads for the planes can skew the results as well........ they should be tested in the same setup of loadouts.not some with 75% and others with 50%......... using the same settings for all planes ie.... all at 25% or all at 50% etc...also setting the fuel burn to 0.0001 ( practically zero fuel burn ) so the weight remains constant, will give better results.........flying for a minimal of 3 complete turns ( I prefer minimal of 5 or minimal of 10 is even better ) and then doing an average by dividing the 3 / 5 / or 10 to get an average will be alot more accurate of what the actual test data shows, then just doing 1 or 2 turns.....
I am not trying to criticize your results...only trying to be more helpful........
also keeping your turning with as little of an altitude rise/drop say less than 50 ft (no more than 100 ft) will be even more accurate ..meaning the less altitude variance the better the data......
then have 2 or 3 others perform the same test, using the same procedures to cross reference......if 1 person has set data , but the 2 others are more in line with each other or vice versa. will show any potential mistakes in the data.....
If you have any questions, I am sure their are people in the game that will have no problems with offering you solid answers / suggestions ......
I have seen many people go forth and test......but their are maybe 4 or 5 tops I will not worry about when they post plane performance data from the game, and it is always best to post with your data what version & patch of the game the testing was done in........
YMMV......
hope this helps
-
Those are mostly good questions, but the stall limiter question is a little insulting, so I'll ignore it.
All times were averaged over 3 trials, fuel burn was set to .00001. Turns were conducted at <100' asl, over the water. My procedure was to enter a sustained turn over the water do about 3 or 4 complete circles, or even more, in order to attain a sustained airspeed before starting the stopwatch at a point on the compass. I would do this test with different flap positions to find the optimal setting, and then conduct more tests with that setting to come up with an average.
In other words, I had already considered most of the variables that you are pointing out. As for different fuel % for aircraft with the largest gas tanks, that was an attempt to correct for a variable, not create one.
The specific version of AH I don't recall, but would be from within the last 9 months.
-
i did not quote the specifics of that thread only his general feelings about the games,
which was the part i believed to be pertinent to this discussion.
we discussed both games over pizza btw, you should note that he is still in WB.
as far as the differences between the FMs we will just have to disagree there, the transition has been pretty effortless for me.
as far as both games go i still play both, they do not seem very different to me in most regards and certainly not in the specific aspects of my issues with them both. my opinions and gums about what specific problems are very similar, if you read the thread he alludes to many of the same issues i am speaking of, although from a bomber pilots perspective.
Yes, they are different. I have plenty of experience with both. I flew warbirds from '98-'04, plenty of s3's under my belt too. In fact if you read the post you cherry picked from, Gums laments the fact that warbirds lost its fm designers before hotseat. I wonder who those guys were?
You truly are something else, I've wasted enough time here.
-
i did not quote the specifics of that thread only his general feelings about the game,
which was the part i believed to be pertinent to this discussion.
Fixed ... get it correct you disingenuous luftwhiner.
-
was not trying to insult or criticize, Anax.........( I was recollecting on a player that used the stall limiter, thinking it would help him remain constant)
sorry you took it as insulting
I just trying to figure out your testing procedures...... it could be the Zscore which is might cause people to be thrown off a bit.......
as for what version or patch..it is not a "big" requirement, but it does help if your test were performed before/after certian AirCraft may have been adjusted, although you already knew what I meant when I suggested that......
from your reply, it looks as though you understand how to go about testing, all I can suggest is staying with the same percentage of fuel load, for it is my belief this may be skewing your results a little bit .......
my thoughts anyhows, and I appreciate anyone who takes the tedious time it calls for to go through and gather such data..... :salute
-
i'm pretty sure i have referred to both games throughout my postings in here.
Fixed ... get it correct you disingenuous luftwhiner.
-
was not trying to insult or criticize, Anax.........( I was recollecting on a player that used the stall limiter, thinking it would help him remain constant)
sorry you took it as insulting
I just trying to figure out your testing procedures...... it could be the Zscore which is might cause people to be thrown off a bit.......
as for what version or patch..it is not a "big" requirement, but it does help if your test were performed before/after certian AirCraft may have been adjusted, although you already knew what I meant when I suggested that......
from your reply, it looks as though you understand how to go about testing, all I can suggest is staying with the same percentage of fuel load, for it is my belief this may be skewing your results a little bit .......
my thoughts anyhows, and I appreciate anyone who takes the tedious time it calls for to go through and gather such data..... :salute
You know, now that some of you have pointed it out, I'm not so happy with the difference between the J and L. They should be closer (about a 3.5% difference right now). I'll chalk it up to a small sample size, but even now I find I get the L around just a tiny bit faster, judging by my stopwatch 5 minutes ago.
:salute
-
i'm pretty sure i have referred to both games throughout my postings in here.
You use your pal's quotes about another game to compare with AH.
Yup you are a disingenuous luftwhiner. You should be lumped in with the likes of kurfurst/barbi.
-
i'm pretty sure i have referred to both games throughout my postings in here.
I think thorism needs to duel WideWing. (edit: or Badboy or heck, any of the trainers)
I then think WW (or whomever) needs to post the film of said duel here so we can all kick ourselves for wasting so much time arguing with someone that only has a basic grasp on how to fly and fight in AH and has no business commenting on a FM they do not understand in the first place.
-
I think thorism needs to duel WideWing. (edit: or Badboy or heck, any of the trainers)
I then think WW (or whomever) needs to post the film of said duel here so we can all kick ourselves for wasting so much time arguing with someone that only has a basic grasp on how to fly and fight in AH and has no business commenting on a FM they do not understand in the first place.
Why, wouldn't last 1 turn past the merge.
-
Why, wouldn't last 1 turn past the merge.
My point exactly.
-
from a guy i know who just happens to have been a viper tester, after 400 or so combat missions in Southeast Asia ...
Oh, jeez. Thanks, Blshar, for pointing out that the quote from the guy he knows is about a totally different sim and thus not at all applicable to Aces High.
Posting that as if it were about Aces High was a disingenuous ploy. I'm always glad to see such things flagged for what they are.
-
for the record i did not attribute the post to anyone because they are not involved in this discussion,
not because i was trying to mislead anyone about the opinions of the poster, which i do not think i have.
i have shown you what i believed to be the same courtesy when i have quoted you in discussions in which you are not active.
specifically this one ...
In our game, to really succeed in some knock-down scissors fights you have to be prepared to drop full flaps and raise them up again in a number of seconds.
would you i prefer i do things differently in your case?
had anyone inquired i would have more throughly explained the origins of the quote.
i just try not to involve people in discussions where they do not involve themselves.
sorry for the confusion.
+S+
t
p.s. i BCC mail as well ...
I was wondering where that quote came from. :headscratch:
-
for the record i did not attribute the post to anyone because they are not involved in this discussion,
not because i was trying to mislead anyone about the opinions of the poster, which i do not think i have.
i have shown you what i believed to be the same courtesy when i have quoted you in discussions in which you are not active.
specifically this one ...
would you i prefer i do things differently in your case?
had anyone inquired i would have more throughly explained the origins of the quote.
i just try not to involve people in discussions where they do not involve themselves.
sorry for the confusion.
+S+
t
BS you were hoping to sneak it through otherwise you'd have said so first. You've been caught and are now peddling hard to CYA.
Begone
-
no i do the same thing for the reasons i posted ...
as do others ...
And another reason why I do not take you seriously,thor.
The real numbers, notice the p51's turn rate slows with flaps down? But the rate stays the same on the 2 German planes? Yet you claim they are some how fantasy ?
(http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/859/germ51comp.jpg)
So your claims about bias are accurately backwards. But then you have never pulled any hard numbers or done any real testing to see what the numbers really are, you just wish to say things are incorect.
So I again ask, in a 15 deg dive at 400 mph with dive flaps extended at 25k, what should the acceleration/deceleration be in a p38? You claim they are incorrect in our game, so please tell me what you think it should be.
HiTech
(http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/859/germ51comp.jpg)
quoted image ^^^ sorry if i am over stepping bounds to make a point about over stepping bounds.
although i wouldn't present something as my own that was not ...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,275682.75.html
i apologize if that is not cricket here.
BS you were hoping to sneak it through otherwise you'd have said so first. You've been caught and are now peddling hard to CYA.
Begone
edit sorry the pertinent thread ...
http://agw.bombs-away.net/showthread.php?t=88480&page=9
sorry if some of you are too new to this to enjoy ...
+S+
t
-
for the record i did not attribute the post to anyone because they are not involved in this discussion,
not because i was trying to mislead anyone about the opinions of the poster, which i do not think i have.
Oh, please.
Imagine if we were talking about the accuracy of Aces High's flight-dynamics model. And you say, "I know an expert who says the flight model sucks." It's true that you know an expert. It's true that the expert thinks the flight model sucks. But it turns out the flight model he was talking about was for the 1990 version of the game Red Baron -- a fact that you leave out.
Oh, wait. That's pretty much what you did. That is misleading and underhanded, and you got called on it.
-
no, i "quoted" an opinion (in hind sight that i should have just stated) because it was a posted example of his opinions that i have become very familiar with through discussions we have had in person on many occasions.
discussions which most recently involved AH as well as WB.
but like i said if i am so disingenuous and deceitful feel free to post another expert opinion that differs from my own on the matters we have been discussing. until then feel free not to project anything other than my desire to keep a friend out of something he did not involve himself in. i would do no less for any of you.
+S+
t
Oh, please.
Imagine if we were talking about the accuracy of Aces High's flight-dynamics model. And you say, "I know an expert who says the flight model sucks." It's true that you know an expert. It's true that the expert thinks the flight model sucks. But it turns out the flight model he was talking about was for the 1990 version of the game Red Baron -- a fact that you leave out.
Oh, wait. That's pretty much what you did. That is misleading and underhanded, and you got called on it.
-
"No, it's not disingenuous to post an opinion about Red Baron's flight model in a discussion about Aces High without telling anyone that the opinion did not apply to Aces High."
"My hand is in the cookie jar? No . . . Oh, this hand? That's not my hand. Oh, it's attached to my arm? Well, listen to this bunch of irrelevant rambling then! See?"
-
I like how you took gum's quote about warbirds and inferred he was talking about ah or sims in general. He was criticizing that particular sim and Hotseats changes, not this one.
Nice slight of hand, but that seems to be your MO.
And so there's no confusion it's the 10th post on this page: http://www.squadselectforum.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=13896&sid=646d866c677e64846a86bd0cf57b754b
pwnt
epic pwnt
-
if you think i am misrepresenting his opinions feel free to tell him so and then we can discuss it the next time i talk to him, or you can talk to him yourself assuming you know him as well as i do.
of course if you did you would also feel pretty comfortable including his opinion on the video games in this discussion because in person he is very specific and outspoken about what is right and what is wrong in the games.
You do realize that you lost whatever miniscule amount of credibility you had by posting gum's quote about the flight model of WB to try and prove a point about the flight model in AH. It's beyond sad, it's rather pathetic actually.
ack-ack
-
Why, wouldn't last 1 turn past the merge.
Honestly, I don't think he'd last beyond the 1st turn against anyone other than a new player. From his own description of how he flies, he's a very timid BnZ picker that avoids any type of 1v1 fight.
ack-ack
-
Dale, I think we a lock and a swift boot....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Did Thor say his buddy was a Viper tester? Does he own a Mustang and was he bitten by a scorpion?
-
Did Thor say his buddy was a Viper tester? Does he own a Mustang and was he bitten by a scorpion?
ZING!!! :bolt:
-
ahh well another "reason" to divert the issue fine ...
i see the games that emerged from WB-2.xx as much the same, i wasn't involved in amy of the drama back at the split and am not really interested.
the post i quoted touched on many of the issues we discussed about both games, his post is partly sort of a synopsis of our last discussion about where things went wrong in both games. i knew the games, gums knew them and the people involved. so it was a good discussion and i thought it fit nicely into our conversation here so i felt the quote pertinent to this discussion when expert opinions were brought up.
to me this is one issue in two games with it's origins back in the redesign of WB 2.xx i know some of you may not understand that being newer to the genre, but that is the way gums and i felt about it the other night.
he posted about it over there in a thread that was going on on the subject and i did so here. he refers to my opinions in that thread about how the changes effected some of the fighters, and i referred to his opinions about the FMs in general.
there is life and conversations outside this BBS that can have value to discussions here, sorry for sharing.
it won't happen again.
-
you might want to look into that ...
as someone did bring up the F-16, sort of what prompted me to post the quote in the first place.
google is your friend ...
Did Thor say his buddy was a Viper tester? Does he own a Mustang and was he bitten by a scorpion?
ZING!!! :bolt:
-
For reference, the correct formula for horsepower, which is in fact a calculation derivative, is: HP = TQ x RPM / 5252.
An engine with 1625HP @ 3200 RPM has about 2660 ft/lbs of torque at that RPM.
Built for racing, in unlimited hydroplanes, the same basic engines turned about 6000 RPM and made about 4000 HP, that's about 3510 ft/lbs of torque @ 6000RPM. Maximum torque would probably be close to 4500 ft/lbs, probably around 4000RPM.
-
"For reference, the correct formula for horsepower, which is in fact a calculation derivative, is: HP = TQ x RPM / 5252."
It thought the correlation between Tq and Hp depended on cylinder head/cam design and timing.
-C+
-
ahh well another "reason" to divert the issue fine ...
i see the games that emerged from WB-2.xx as much the same, i wasn't involved in amy of the drama back at the split and am not really interested.
the post i quoted touched on many of the issues we discussed about both games, his post is partly sort of a synopsis of our last discussion about where things went wrong in both games. i knew the games, gums knew them and the people involved. so it was a good discussion and i thought it fit nicely into our conversation here so i felt the quote pertinent to this discussion when expert opinions were brought up.
to me this is one issue in two games with it's origins back in the redesign of WB 2.xx i know some of you may not understand that being newer to the genre, but that is the way gums and i felt about it the other night.
he posted about it over there in a thread that was going on on the subject and i did so here. he refers to my opinions in that thread about how the changes effected some of the fighters, and i referred to his opinions about the FMs in general.
there is life and conversations outside this BBS that can have value to discussions here, sorry for sharing.
it won't happen again.
You are still trying to post miss conceptions. Gums post state that the changes to WB went down hill AFTER Pyro and I left. Yet you are trying to still claim that it is in some way about AH and sims in general.
And btw stating some one elses opinion who is not involved in the discussion is very strange. Because you may believe he is saying one thing but as you interpret what he said, it comes out very different. And as far as you trying to claim "But I stayed in a holiday in last night" I.E. you had dinner with someone who flys a lot,you would not really want to stack that credential against many in this thread. Because many here have the same experience as Gum.
HiTech
-
Dale, I think we a lock and a swift boot....
My regards,
Widewing
QFT
-
disregard
-
respectfully you were not there so you have nothing to say as to where gum's post differed from our conversation.
you have admitted to the difficulty you have representing trim because of the input devices in another conversation of ours. that is one of his bigger issues one which he addresses in that post. i will be fair and say that you say it is different between the games, however it feels very much the same to me.
my bigger issue is the flaps and low speed handling and maneuverability they allow, and that seems to come down to how much they helped over hurt in the game vs reality. none of the experts here you speak of have chimed in against my sentiments on this issue, at least not in any "i am an expert here is the data" manner that i have noticed.
on some of the Grognard ww2 boards i have seen where AH players get set very straight on the use of extreme flap deployments in combat, not one expert in favor of the possibility chimed in over there there either.
other players have posted about relaxed stalls as i have noted in here which also contributes to my issue of success outside of ones envelope. i was not here before so i will just have to take their word on the matter.
as far as who was where when during the WB2-WB3-AH break up reform start up thing i do not know, i will defer to you on that.
i assure you that your name was not left out of that discussion PD gums and i were having about where things went astray in the games, but i will allow that you will probably know more about that than any of us would.
it is possible i may have misunderstood his opinion on your involvement but that was not something i brought up here in any way so if you feel the need to sort that out with him go ahead.
i posted gums opinion because i value it, i felt it was on topic as i was involved in the discussion that that post mirrored. the aspects of the games which we were discussing were considered by all to be very off and included those i have brought up here. for the record we were discussing AW AH WB and IL-2. it was very much a what was good what was bad and where it went wrong and how. the consensus was that all the games were better at some things than all the others even the lowly AW had its good points that none of the others have done as well.
i suspect that that would be the conclusion of most players who have been around long enough to offer an opinion.
as far as others opinions not involved in this discussion i have pointed out that you yourself make decisions about including others posts that you feel are pertinent to a discussion and handle that in very much the same manner as i did. the only comment about that was that the data did not actually address the specific point under discussion.
so i guess though we believe we were contributing at the time others feel differently, so be it.
funny that AGW has turned out to be the more civil board than this one in any regard.
t
You are still trying to post miss conceptions. Gums post state that the changes to WB went down hill AFTER Pyro and I left. Yet you are trying to still claim that it is in some way about AH and sims in general.
And btw stating some one elses opinion who is not involved in the discussion is very strange. Because you may believe he is saying one thing but as you interpret what he said, it comes out very different. And as far as you trying to claim "But I stayed in a holiday in last night" I.E. you had dinner with someone who flys a lot,you would not really want to stack that credential against many in this thread. Because many here have the same experience as Gum.
HiTech
-
Be gone already. We don't care. No one is forcing you to play AH.
-
(http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh253/Lenka_falconer/2ba100.jpg)
-
yea well the game developer addressed me directly, so i replied.
-
(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/723/thedefinitionofinsanity.jpg)
-
Thor wrote;
actually my complaints about the flaps between the planes are about deployment speeds alone not so much in their effect once hey are deployed.
Thor wrote:
my bigger issue is the flaps and low speed handling and maneuverability they allow, and that seems to come down to how much they helped over hurt in the game vs reality.
So which is it Thor? Or is your real issue you just wish to sling mud. If it is just to sling mud I would suggest you stop.
you have admitted to the difficulty you have representing trim because of the input devices in another conversation of ours.
This is a miss representation, I did not state I have difficulty, I said it is impossible because the mechanics of the 2 systems are different.
ther players have posted about relaxed stalls as i have noted in here which also contributes to my issue of success outside of ones envelope.
Stalls are not relaxed.
HiTech
-
I'm guessing we're finally getting WW1 aircraft because they don't have flaps. :neener::devil:neener:
-
no hitech i am not slinging mud here not calling anyone a liar, i am just pointing out things that seem to me to be incorrect and trying to discuss them.
my issues i think have been pretty clear, although you are posting examples from different discussions one from a table over beer and pizza about several games and one on these boards about this one.
just lets say my most expressed complaint is about ...
"flaps in general, and how they effect the envelopes of the plane set" for simplicity.
i am just having trouble equating the situation in AH and some other games with the expert conclusions such as the one in this report
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092640_1993092640.pdf
which seems to limit the benefit of combat flaps more so than what the game represents.
EDIT : oh and the reservations i have about the criteria you use to determine the flap deployment speeds, reservations shared by every other game of this type, even the ones that you were involved with when that criteria was selected.
sorry i did not mean to misrepresent your statement, thanks for clearing up the difference between difficult and impossible and why.
the stall comment was a quote from someone else. it is quoted previously in this thread.
i confess things seem to escalate when more people get involved and we all are making points often on tangents.
i will be more restrictive with my points in the future on this board.
i will just once more get back to my original message in this thread which is that the criteria requirements here are too restrictive for these types of discussions, so i will no longer discuss things this way in here either even to point that out.
t
Thor wrote;
Thor wrote:
So which is it Thor? Or is your real issue you just wish to sling mud. If it is just to sling mud I would suggest you stop.
This is a miss representation, I did not state I have difficulty, I said it is impossible because the mechanics of the 2 systems are different.
Stalls are not relaxed.
HiTech
-
Thor, you are quoting a report on the Navy version of the Buffalo. Probably not the strongest document to state your case.
-
Results of flight tests to determine the turning performance
of a Heavy F2A-3 airplane over a speed range of
approximately 90 to 160 miles per hour for three flap deflections
at two altitudes are presented. In general, for horizontal turns,
the use of the standard airplane split flaps does not appear
desirable for this airplane. For turns involving a loss of altitude
the turning radius is decreased by the use of the flaps.
This reflects exactly what people have been trying to communicate with you this entire discussion.
(http://www.cheffers.co.uk/flaps1.GIF)
The F2A in that report has the same type of flaps as a spitfire or a hurricane (Split Flaps). These flaps, as we have said, are not meant for maneuvering purposes. Be that as it may, they will still increase the turn performance... AS INDICATED IN THE REPORT YOU CITED...
Other aircraft, have flaps designed specifically for maneuvering, IE. the P38, which is why they have a more dramatic effect.
Edit: in case you don't know what type of flaps the P38 has, they are Fowler flaps.
-
Thorsim,
Did you look at the conclusions on page 23, specifically #3?
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/F2A-3report.jpg)
-
Boot em and be done with it.
-
i just thought it was a through report that shows a lot of the drawbacks of using flaps. i will look for others on other types but there are some general conclusions about costs and benefits in the report and at what point flaps start to hurt turn performance, it has to do with drag and C of L and is on page 21. also interesting to note the maneuverability loss that made some of the testing impossible to obtain.
just lots of interesting basic stuff about lift drag and available power and some general conclusions that it seemed to me that the testers thought should apply beyond the specific airframe being tested.
that is all This reflects exactly what people have been trying to communicate with you this entire discussion.
(http://www.cheffers.co.uk/flaps1.GIF)
The F2A in that report has the same type of flaps as a spitfire or a hurricane (Split Flaps). These flaps, as we have said, are not meant for maneuvering purposes. Be that as it may, they will still increase the turn performance... AS INDICATED IN THE REPORT YOU CITED...
Other aircraft, have flaps designed specifically for maneuvering, IE. the P38, which is why they have a more dramatic effect.
Edit: in case you don't know what type of flaps the P38 has, they are Fowler flaps.
Thor, you are quoting a report on the Navy version of the Buffalo. Probably not the strongest document to state your case.
-
This reflects exactly what people have been trying to communicate with you this entire discussion.
(http://www.cheffers.co.uk/flaps1.GIF)
The F2A in that report has the same type of flaps as a spitfire or a hurricane (Split Flaps). These flaps, as we have said, are not meant for maneuvering purposes. Be that as it may, they will still increase the turn performance... AS INDICATED IN THE REPORT YOU CITED...
Other aircraft, have flaps designed specifically for maneuvering, IE. the P38, which is why they have a more dramatic effect.
Edit: in case you don't know what type of flaps the P38 has, they are Fowler flaps.
i thought the spitfire only had one deployment setting, not the several cited in this report.
the reduced drag of the fowler flap would extend the useful deflections, i don't think i have ever proposed that it wouldn't however it seems the statement about lift/drag should still hold true, or that is how it sounds.
i am all for other tests on flaps, this one came up in the search and did seem to be quite through and did seem to offer some general conclusions.
if you guys have something you feel is better or more specifically appropriate then please post a link. but my post before last was not really intended to restart this discussion.
-
"Boot em and be done with it."
Bronk, have you ever contributed anything sensible in these threads?
Did you achieve your platinum status simply by violating the forum rule nr 4? It seems so.
Quote: "If you cannot make a positive contribution to the thread, then just stay out of it."
Translation: STFU
-C+
-
yes i also found conclusions 5, 7, and 9 to be interesting as well ...
Thorsim,
Did you look at the conclusions on page 23, specifically #3?
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/F2A-3report.jpg)
-
"Boot em and be done with it."
Bronk, have you ever contributed anything sensible in these threads?
Did you achieve your platinum status simply by violating the forum rule nr 4? It seems so.
Quote: "If you cannot make a positive contribution to the thread, then just stay out of it."
Translation: STFU
-C+
He post out of context quote and tries to spin it. BS he lied to us, and hoped to get away with it.
Ban.
Ohh and make me STFU tuff guy. :rofl
-
Then do you see the contradiction of the report in supporting your position?
You are using this report to support your claim that excessive flaps were detrimental to turn performance. However, this report while looking at the summary supports your claim, the data supports the position that full flap deflection will result in a smaller radius and a shorter 360 degree turn time.
Looking at it from another perspective, the reasons the report recommends not using flaps is due to a loss of speed or altitude, not because the turn performance isn't improved.
-
you misunderstand my complaint ...
it seems to me that the drawbacks noted in the report are underrepresented relative to the benefits.
loss of speed, ability to sustain altitude, and maneuverability deterioration are all noted at one place or another in that report. it seems very through which is why i posted the link to present expert opinions for my statements.
Then do you see the contradiction of the report in supporting your position?
You are using this report to support your claim that excessive flaps were detrimental to turn performance. However, this report while looking at the summary supports your claim, the data supports the position that full flap deflection will result in a smaller radius and a shorter 360 degree turn time.
Looking at it from another perspective, the reasons the report recommends not using flaps is due to a loss of speed or altitude, not because the turn performance isn't improved.
-
And we are back to square 1.
you misunderstand my complaint ...
it seems to me that the drawbacks noted in the report are underrepresented relative to the benefits.
loss of speed, ability to sustain altitude, and maneuverability deterioration are all noted at one place or another in that report. it seems very through which is why i posted the link to present expert opinions for my statements.
Please find some number that supports your claim ah's lift and drag curves for flaps are off for any plane. If they are , and your source is valid, we we absolutely take a look. But to use a sorce of general principles to support you claim that AH is incorrect will not get you very far. Many people in here have degrees in aeronautics. You think AH is incorrect, there are many ways to prove your position. It is as simple as finding lift and drag data for flaps on your plane of choice and then test AH against that data. If you can not find the data, then find data on a different plane and see how we do.
I read that report and say, well Duhh, what is new. All the report really says in all those post is the lift co of flaps increase most before 22 degs, after which it does not increase much but drag continues to increase. Nothing in that report in any way shows AH to be incorrect, infact go do some testing of AH, you will see the game act just as that report shows. Also with many people will do ,simply using flaps nose low as someone tries to follow with out flaps will win you the fight simply because you have decreased your radius and speed as they fly around you out side your circle.
People in here have been telling you that using flaps in ah is best used as described in that report.
HiTech
-
none of the experts here you speak of have chimed in against my sentiments on this issue, at least not in any "i am an expert here is the data" manner that i have noticed.
I'll chime in against your sentiments. Here is my data.
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/turningMath.html
So as not to mislead: I have never flown a WWII airplane. I do not have an aeronautical engineering degree. But I do claim some flight experience (including some dogfights at Air Combat USA) and expertise and much education in engineering, physics, applied math, and modelling.
I did the above modelling because some folks were complaining so much about the turning performance of the F4U, especially with flaps -- saying that the F4U dynamics in AH couldn't possibly be correct. I decided to look into it myself and see if I could come up a model that took more into account just than things like "well, the F4U's wing loading is [blah], so it should turn like so". It's not a perfect model -- it has lots of assumptions and simplifications in it. It might even have errors in it that I haven't yet caught. But it has more to it than some typical arguments showing a thorough lack of knowledge of flight dynamics.
-
I think I understand what your complaint quite clearly given the last line of my previous post.
Regardless, I think a good starting point would be to fly the B-239 in game and perform the same tests that are used in the report. Be sure to follow the test procedure as closely as possible and film everything, then compare with the report (yes I understand there will be differences based on weight, but it's a good starting point to quantify the problem).
-
I'll chime in against your sentiments. Here is my data.
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/turningMath.html
So as not to mislead: I have never flown a WWII airplane. I do not have an aeronautical engineering degree. But I do claim some flight experience (including some dogfights at Air Combat USA) and expertise and much education in engineering, physics, applied math, and modelling.
I did the above modelling because some folks were complaining so much about the turning performance of the F4U, especially with flaps -- saying that the F4U dynamics in AH couldn't possibly be correct. I decided to look into it myself and see if I could come up a model that took more into account just than things like "well, the F4U's wing loading is [blah], so it should turn like so". It's not a perfect model -- it has lots of assumptions and simplifications in it. It might even have errors in it that I haven't yet caught. But it has more to it than some typical arguments showing a thorough lack of knowledge of flight dynamics.
really enjoyed that "data paper" just as much as the day you originally posted it, even better when you appended it with the F4U-1 info , you had tested/gathered :aok
-
right, however there are discussions that go on in the meantime.
now i have provided engineering documents that were deemed interesting but inconclusive and possibly incomplete. on that issue you stated that the POH determined the flap settings.
so later on i state something and later post it (after no small amount of abuse) from the POH on an issue that you now ask me to produce data for so math can be done.
we have discussed the availability of tat type of data. it is discouraging.
so i think from now on should i find any data that seems to be interesting i will just post it from the "this may be interesting" point of view and i will let you all figure out how interesting you all think it is.
more than that and i just see little point in discussions here about these matters.
you are right we have ben here before.
no offense,
t
And we are back to square 1.
Please find some number that supports your claim ah's lift and drag curves for flaps are off for any plane. If they are , and your source is valid, we we absolutely take a look. But to use a sorce of general principles to support you claim that AH is incorrect will not get you very far. Many people in here have degrees in aeronautics. You think AH is incorrect, there are many ways to prove your position. It is as simple as finding lift and drag data for flaps on your plane of choice and then test AH against that data. If you can not find the data, then find data on a different plane and see how we do.
I read that report and say, well Duhh, what is new. All the report really says in all those post is the lift co of flaps increase most before 22 degs, after which it does not increase much but drag continues to increase. Nothing in that report in any way shows AH to be incorrect, infact go do some testing of AH, you will see the game act just as that report shows. Also with many people will do ,simply using flaps nose low as someone tries to follow with out flaps will win you the fight simply because you have decreased your radius and speed as they fly around you out side your circle.
People in here have been telling you that using flaps in ah is best used as described in that report.
HiTech
interesting Brooke thanks for posting ...
I'll chime in against your sentiments. Here is my data.
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/turningMath.html
So as not to mislead: I have never flown a WWII airplane. I do not have an aeronautical engineering degree. But I do claim some flight experience (including some dogfights at Air Combat USA) and expertise and much education in engineering, physics, applied math, and modelling.
I did the above modelling because some folks were complaining so much about the turning performance of the F4U, especially with flaps -- saying that the F4U dynamics in AH couldn't possibly be correct. I decided to look into it myself and see if I could come up a model that took more into account just than things like "well, the F4U's wing loading is [blah], so it should turn like so". It's not a perfect model -- it has lots of assumptions and simplifications in it. It might even have errors in it that I haven't yet caught. But it has more to it than some typical arguments showing a thorough lack of knowledge of flight dynamics.
-
sorry if i misunderstood, can the film files be uploaded on this sight someplace or do they need to be on another server. or would a converted move be better on say youtube?
I think I understand what your complaint quite clearly given the last line of my previous post.
Regardless, I think a good starting point would be to fly the B-239 in game and perform the same tests that are used in the report. Be sure to follow the test procedure as closely as possible and film everything, then compare with the report (yes I understand there will be differences based on weight, but it's a good starting point to quantify the problem).
-
Well, I will post the films of my tests on another server and provide links here when I'm done testing.
Anyone can download the .ahf file and watch it, I think that's much better than putting it on youtube.
-
"For reference, the correct formula for horsepower, which is in fact a calculation derivative, is: HP = TQ x RPM / 5252."
It thought the correlation between Tq and Hp depended on cylinder head/cam design and timing.
-C+
You thought wrong. Horsepower is simply a calculation of speed (RPM) and power or force (torque). The formula I posted is the SAE standard formula. There is no other standard formula for horsepower.
Horsepower is simply a term used to describe how much torque is produced at a given RPM. Or, in simplistic terms, how fast a given amount of "work" can be done. As an example, the original "value" given to horsepower was 1 HP equals 550 pounds lifted 1 foot in 1 second.
The "correlation" you speak of is that of the RPM at which peak torque produced as compared to the RPM at which peak horsepower is produced. Again, you give a very simplistic correlation that leaves out a large number of factors, not the least of which are bore, stroke, connecting rod length, and mechanical (or static) compression ratio. Change any of those relationships, for example the bore:stroke ratio, or the rod:stroke ratio, and you can change the RPM at which each peak occurs, change the RPM spread between the peaks, and change the operating range of the engine. And you can do that without changing the displacement, the cylinder head, or the camshaft.
-
just lets say my most expressed complaint is about ...
"flaps in general, and how they effect the envelopes of the plane set" for simplicity.
i am just having trouble equating the situation in AH and some other games with the expert conclusions such as the one in this report
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092640_1993092640.pdf
which seems to limit the benefit of combat flaps more so than what the game represents.
Hi Thorsim
It may seem that way, but if you had the ability to produce the kind of diagrams used in that report for the Aces High aircraft, and compare them with those for real aircraft, you would then see that the report you posted provides strong and convincing support for the behavior of the Aces High aircraft.
However, I suspect you may not be able to do that, but fortunately I can. I've been applying those methods to flight sim's since Air Warrior back in 1989. I can also produce EM diagrams of real aircraft for comparison, and where diagrams already exist for real aircraft it is also possible to compare them directly with an overlay.
When I do this, I can use either the modern format EM diagrams developed by Boyd in the 60s, or I can use the style of diagram used by the original inventor who developed them in England in the 30s that are very similar to those in the F2A-3 report you posted. However, one advantage to producing the EM diagrams seen in those early reports is that they can be compared with the ones that exist for the real aircraft.
For example, here is an overlay of the AH Spitfire MkI and the Me109E (that I did about 7 years ago now) using the modern format.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/Spit1c.jpg)
Now using the WWII format, the Spitfire in the previous example has this diagram:
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/Spit1b.jpg)
But let's compare that with the diagram for the real Spitfire MkI.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/Spit1a.jpg)
Here we can see that both the real Spitfire and the AH Spitfire have the same corner velocity at that altitude and configuration, so let's compare a turn. Just for example I've selected a 5g turn at the corner speed of 250mph. I've indicated on the diagram for the real Spitfire that it would need to descend at 16 degrees below the horizon to sustain that turn and it would turn a full circle in about 14.5 seconds with a radius of about 850ft. You can see from the diagram for the AH Spitfire that it would also make the same turn in about 14.5 seconds with a radius of 850ft, and that it would need to descend at an angle of 23 degrees below the horizon, a descending turn only 6 degrees steeper than the real aircraft. But the turn rates and radii for the turn, along with the corner speed are amazingly close. The difference in the angle of descent is probably due to differences in engine power available at that altitude between the real world tests and Aces High, and perhaps some differences in weight. It is interesting that both diagrams are the same shape, and that they agree very closely in many respects, indicating that the flight model in Aces High has accounted for all of the aerodynamic factors that would influence the shape of the curves to any significant degree. A worthy achievement indeed. This is even more significant, because I've made a similar comparison with the Spitfire and 109E from other simulations, and so far Aces High has first place for accuracy.
That example doesn't include the use of flaps, however, I can just as easily produce the same analysis and corresponding diagrams for cases where flaps are employed, which brings us to the question of flaps...
Now what about the situation when flaps are employed?
The problem here is that when you find either technical reports or anecdotal evidence on the merits of flap use, some seem to say say that prolonged use will harm turning performance and others will say that it won't, and the striking thing about those sources is that there is truth in both perspectives.
We can see why by looking at the diagram shown below:
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/Flaps.jpg)
For the split flap configuration illustrated in the diagram above, the benefit depends on how high the lift coefficient is. For example, at low values of lift coefficient use of flaps is not good, and you can see that the two points A and B in that diagram have exactly the same lift coefficient, but point B, has a higher corresponding drag coefficient. That explains why you shouldn't try to use flaps during maximum rate climbs, or power off glides, the drag penalty makes it prohibitive. That situation continues up to a relatively high lift coefficient where the two polars cross each other. The point where the polars cross is quite high, and that means that most turns at high G conducted at speeds close to corner velocity will suffer higher drag and lower sustained turning ability with flaps extended, which also explains why so much anecdotal evidence claims that using flaps is bad.
However, there is more, if you look at the diagram again, you notice that the drag is exactly the same at point C and D, but that the lift coefficient is much higher at D, meaning that once the crossover point is exceeded, you can get more lift for the same drag, making flap usage advantageous. In practice the region of the envelope where pilots can take advantage of this, occurs generally at much lower speeds, where high coefficient of lift values can be achieved at tolerable G levels and can result in better sustained turns.
The point is that both better and worse sustained turns are possible, it just depends on the particular conditions under which the turn is being executed, which basically means that so far everyone could be right. But most importantly, Aces High gets it right across the entire envelope.
While it isn't easy to find data for flight tests carried out using flaps, (of which the report you posted earlier for the F2A-3 is a rare example) it is much easier to obtain data such as the flap characteristic curves I posted earlier and use them to generate EM diagrams for the real aircraft that can then be compared/overlaid with the EM diagrams produced for the aircraft in Aces High. For the very limited number of comparisons I've made, the degree of correspondence with the Aces High flight model has been very impressive indeed. This may simply mean that HTC were able to find the same polar curves that I found, but either way, the correlation with real world data is there to a high degree of accuracy.... A significant achievement, once again, Kudos HTC.
Lastly, there is one other very good reason why it may be possible to find much anecdotal evidence against the use of flaps in combat, and why that may conflict with our experience in a simulation. The reason for this is due to something that is as true today as it was in WWII.... Speed is life. Getting slow in a hostile environment is the kiss of death. In real life nobody wants to die, so nobody wants to get slower than necessary. Those who did, probably didn't survive to talk about it.
In contrast to that, in our flight Sim's, nobody has to experience fear, and the slow fights are much more fun than high speed attacks, which are almost boring in comparison. In an environment where life and death are meaningless, we have the ability to explore the envelope in a way that may well be unrealistic in terms of the human instinct for survival, but is entirely realistic in the way the aircraft perform, both in Aces High and in the real world.
Hope that helps...
Badboy
-
The deeper you dig into Aces High the more impressive it is. :aok
-
Badboy, I was wondering: how do you produce those EM diagrams? I saw your articles at SimHQ and have always wondered how you made them - they contain so much information and are extremely helpful in analysis but I've never seen more than a handful at a time.
-
Badboy,
Would you please post your graphs that show flap useage in turns!
I recall seeing those graphs and they clearly showed that more than 2 notches had diminishing returns.
:salute
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271266.0.html
-
an excellent post badboy i would also like to know how you make the charts.
i have a couple of testing questions ...
can the conditions offline be made the same as the online arenas, and if so how?
is there an effects package that shows "air show smoke" permanently? so a flight path record can be recorded.
can that smoke be applied to a previously made film?
will an ai fly the most efficient way possible for the flight model?
-
i thought the spitfire only had one deployment setting, not the several cited in this report.
I was referring to the split flap design. Several other planes in AH have them as well and may be more similar to the report you are referring to (Baumer's proposal to test the Brewster flaps is a good idea).
HiTech isn't the kind of person that constantly thinks he is right and not willing to listen to anyone. I remember in version 2.07 when the P38's flaps were causing excessive issues. People from the community provided data supporting how a real P38 with full flaps extended would perform and what their tests resulted in in Aces High. Hitech took a look at them and fixed them to accurately represent real P38 performance.
I couldn't find any of the technical threads I remember reading, but here is a thread from that time frame:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,175185.50.html
Followed by the fix:
http://www2.hitechcreations.com/frindex.html
What you have in your head and what happens in Aces High is not that far off, I am slowly starting to see. In aces high when you deploy full flaps, you lose airspeed. When you have little airspeed, you have less energy or "E." The less E you have the more susceptible to planes with higher levels of E.
So if you are flying a 190a8, it is not advisable to deploy your flaps. 190s were designed for speed, although early 190s were more agile than later 190s, they were also slower. If you were to drop your split flaps in a 190, you will turn slightly better. But because they were not designed for maneuvering, they will hurt you because you will lose E and your turn radius will not increase enough to turn inside a P38 using fowler flaps. However, now that you have deployed your flaps, your airspeed is low and you are vulnerable to the P38 or another aircraft (say a P51) coming in at a higher airspeed.
I will try to use my flaps and out maneuver spitfires and zeros in a P38. I will never turn tighter than them, so I will try to use my assumable better knowledge of ACM against them. More often than not I underestimate their abilities and find that zero coming around on my 6, so I have to use my airplane's better dive rate and top speed to regain E and rethink my strategy. Most of my kills against zeros I end up using E instead of flaps.
The 109K4 is an example of a german plane that benefits from using flaps. It is a beast in the proper hands.
-
an excellent post badboy i would also like to know how you make the charts.
i have a couple of testing questions ...
can the conditions offline be made the same as the online arenas, and if so how?
is there an effects package that shows "air show smoke" permanently? so a flight path record can be recorded.
can that smoke be applied to a previously made film?
will an ai fly the most efficient way possible for the flight model?
On your clipboard go to Options-> Arena Setup-> Environment -> Arena Settings
The conditions offline are the same as the Main Arenas except the Main arenas have a fuel burn of 2.0 and offline has a fuel burn rate of 1.0
There is no wind in the main arenas, offline there is no wind... Make sure you go to Preferences -> Flight and have the stall limiter turned off. The stall limiter prevents you from getting your plane in a state that it is going to stall, you may still see stall characteristics but not a full blown stall. This option sometimes helps new players with the learning curve. Most advanced players turn the stall limiter off so that they can push the plane to its limits (stall limiter is a handicap)
I cannot think of any other settings you would need to know of, you should be able to simply go offline and fly the same as if it is the Main Arenas.
Smoke is activated using "r" for me, it is individually mapped under controls. The film viewer has an option called "show trail" which will give you a grid trail following your aircraft. You can do this in new and old films, just make sure it is marked and press play.
Edit:
Just wanted to add I feel like you are more open than before to testing these concepts and respect how your mannerisms seem more respectful and open.
-
well the main difficulty i find about the flaps in the FWs is not how well they work closing up a turn.
the problem i find is the lengthy and troublesome zone of flight between good stability speeds and the allowed first notch deployment speed. it is in that part of the flight envelope where the 190s imo really suffers vs. the rest of the plane set. that is where most fights are lost. if the fight is destined to be a slow one and i can get my flaps out without stalling first the 190 is still competitive. if you get caught in between though it is very difficult to manage that situation.
i suspect that is the same with all the very low speed small deflection flap deployment planes, changing from POH number to a force load determined flap speed deployment would do wonders for all those planes IMO.
i like "Mr. K" it is a very good plane indeed.
+S+
t
I was referring to the split flap design. Several other planes in AH have them as well and may be more similar to the report you are referring to (Baumer's proposal to test the Brewster flaps is a good idea).
HiTech isn't the kind of person that constantly thinks he is right and not willing to listen to anyone. I remember in version 2.07 when the P38's flaps were causing excessive issues. People from the community provided data supporting how a real P38 with full flaps extended would perform and what their tests resulted in in Aces High. Hitech took a look at them and fixed them to accurately represent real P38 performance.
I couldn't find any of the technical threads I remember reading, but here is a thread from that time frame:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,175185.50.html
Followed by the fix:
http://www2.hitechcreations.com/frindex.html
What you have in your head and what happens in Aces High is not that far off, I am slowly starting to see. In aces high when you deploy full flaps, you lose airspeed. When you have little airspeed, you have less energy or "E." The less E you have the more susceptible to planes with higher levels of E.
So if you are flying a 190a8, it is not advisable to deploy your flaps. 190s were designed for speed, although early 190s were more agile than later 190s, they were also slower. If you were to drop your split flaps in a 190, you will turn slightly better. But because they were not designed for maneuvering, they will hurt you because you will lose E and your turn radius will not increase enough to turn inside a P38 using fowler flaps. However, now that you have deployed your flaps, your airspeed is low and you are vulnerable to the P38 or another aircraft (say a P51) coming in at a higher airspeed.
I will try to use my flaps and out maneuver spitfires and zeros in a P38. I will never turn tighter than them, so I will try to use my assumable better knowledge of ACM against them. More often than not I underestimate their abilities and find that zero coming around on my 6, so I have to use my airplane's better dive rate and top speed to regain E and rethink my strategy. Most of my kills against zeros I end up using E instead of flaps.
The 109K4 is an example of a german plane that benefits from using flaps. It is a beast in the proper hands.
-
i suspect that is the same with all the very low speed small deflection flap deployment planes, changing from POH number to a force load determined flap speed deployment would do wonders for all those planes IMO.
Sounds like you shold join Ack Ack in his campaign for HiTech to remove the "Auto Retracting Flaps" and replace them with a damaged flap system. Hitech looked at what the aircraft flight manuals said was a safe operating speed for flaps and imposed the auto retract code instead of the flaps being damaged or falling off in excess of that recommended speed (like the landing gear)
-
it doesn't really seem like the same issue, the flaps damage model would be even more complicated and the POH issue would even be less popular if malfunction was replaced with blow-back. it might be interesting and i suspect an error that resulted in an asymmetric flap deployment or two per pilot would certainly discourage the nonchalant flap use in combat. i think the first few days would be like say thinning out the air density or turning on friendly collisions, i suspect it would get very loud down at the suggestion box :D
Sounds like you shold join Ack Ack in his campaign for HiTech to remove the "Auto Retracting Flaps" and replace them with a damaged flap system. Hitech looked at what the aircraft flight manuals said was a safe operating speed for flaps and imposed the auto retract code instead of the flaps being damaged or falling off in excess of that recommended speed (like the landing gear)
-
F4U would be the king of flaps :D
Deployment time and physical effort if modelled would also rule some out, for example the 109.
-
F4U would be the king of flaps :D
Deployment time and physical effort if modelled would also rule some out, for example the 109.
i don't hold much with that video, the guy does not seem that good at it, in very good shape, or trying real hard ...
also if 45 seconds is all it took that guy to raise and lower full deflection, which as we have seen is not helpful anyway, it seems to me that a person familiar with the system would only need a few seconds to get to a meaningful amount of deflection. the flaps movement is immediate with the wheel and we know the trim wheel was used which is in the same place and operates the same way ...
i suspect the flaps were used if needed and probably even deployed every once in a while unintentionally by the pilot adjusting trim, as the controls were designed to work together very easily.
-
I've never heard of flaps deploying asymmetrically, but I suppose it would be possible. Certain types did have settings for combat maneuvers, but these seem to have been only American or Japanese, on only some types for each nation.
The P-51, P-38, F4U, Ki-43, Ki-44 (Ias I recall) and Ki-84 all had a maneuver setting. The P-38, Ki-43, Ki-44 and Ki-84 all have Fowler flaps.
The N1K1-J and N1K2-J took it a step further than any other WWII fighter and had combat flaps that automatically deployed and retracted based on the angle of attack detected by a crude sensor. The system is not modeled in AH as far as I know.
-
well it would depend on the damage model, i have heard of pilots having to deal with a broken flap on one wing
as they are not connected. they model the damage from guns that way in the game, i don't see why the stress damage would be handled differently, but i guess it could be. but evenly stuck flaps would not be that big a deal, i mean where is the fun in that ;)
I've never heard of flaps deploying asymmetrically, but I suppose it would be possible. Certain types did have settings for combat maneuvers, but these seem to have been only American or Japanese, on only some types for each nation.
The P-51, P-38, F4U, Ki-43, Ki-44 (Ias I recall) and Ki-84 all had a maneuver setting. The P-38, Ki-43, Ki-44 and Ki-84 all have Fowler flaps.
The N1K1-J and N1K2-J took it a step further than any other WWII fighter and had combat flaps that automatically deployed and retracted based on the angle of attack detected by a crude sensor. The system is not modeled in AH as far as I know.
-
Oh yes, I did once have one of my Ki-84's flaps jammed open. Visually it had been shot off, in the flight model it was jammed open and trying to force a roll to the right. It was a pain in the seat to fly that thing home. Landing wasn't bad though because the issue went away at low speeds when I could deploy the functional flap.
-
LOL... back to the flaps. Well since we're here again, I have to once again offer my suggestion of corner velocity auto-retract flaps.
Simple concept:
1) Perform calculations and/or find data to support the idea that flaps on most of our airplanes can withstand airspeeds far in excess of their corner velocities (I'm talking e.g. 250 mph corner velocity pulling 6gs and the flap can withstand say 350 mph pulling 6gs).
2) Set the first setting of flaps to be deployable at corner velocity.
3) Set the second setting to be deployable 20-30 mph below that
4) Etc...
5) Of course autoretract would be at these same velocities.
Again, this gives us high enough deployment speeds to be useful, but not so much that we could violate structural limits. It also shortcuts the lengthy and expensive process of constructing structural damage model. It would not impair planes that currently have combat flaps, but it would give something extra to everything that doesn't. Of course as with any flap deployment, there's the tradeoff of tighter turn radius/better turn rate vs bled airspeed.
-
i don't hold much with that video, the guy does not seem that good at it, in very good shape, or trying real hard ...
also if 45 seconds is all it took that guy to raise and lower full deflection, which as we have seen is not helpful anyway, it seems to me that a person familiar with the system would only need a few seconds to get to a meaningful amount of deflection. the flaps movement is immediate with the wheel and we know the trim wheel was used which is in the same place and operates the same way ...
i suspect the flaps were used if needed and probably even deployed every once in a while unintentionally by the pilot adjusting trim, as the controls were designed to work together very easily.
I asked Rall if he ever used flaps in combat, and he shook his head and said "NEVER".
45 seconds is more than 2 circles in a Spitfire by the way.
Now compare that with the P51, just flick a switch.....
-
well the point i made before is that max flaps and back is not what you would be wanting in the first place,
and the guy in the video seemed to be in no real hurry, so 45 seconds i do not think is the time we would be looking at.
as far as Rall not using them i am not surprised the 109 could turn very well yet it was not it's best attribute vs. it's opponents which i think was climb and acceleration due to the power/size of the plane, so an experienced pilot would probably choose another maneuver use the vertical and not get into a circle turning type of fight.
the 109 also has those slats to hold off the stall not just the flaps like it's opponents.
+S+
t
I asked Rall if he ever used flaps in combat, and he shook his head and said "NEVER".
45 seconds is more than 2 circles in a Spitfire by the way.
Now compare that with the P51, just flick a switch.....
-
Read about Marsailles....he used flaps frequently...of course he flew rather unorthodox compared to other LW pilots. Was a good read on his "technique".
-
thanks, i'd like to ...
Read about Marsailles....he used flaps frequently...of course he flew rather unorthodox compared to other LW pilots. Was a good read on his "technique".
got a title and author?
-
I'll have to look up if Marseille used the flaps, but he sure used the slats in low speed turns.
His setup allowed him to get a ton of kills, since he bat-turned with allied aircraft running on full power. The kills were HIS though, since he needed the rest of his mates to cover him while he took care of the "act".
BTW, his kills were mostly at very low G at very very short range.
-
Read about Marsailles....he used flaps frequently...of course he flew rather unorthodox compared to other LW pilots. Was a good read on his "technique".
His use of flaps was almost unique to his attack style. IIRC, when the British would enter into a Luftberry his preferrred method was to attack from below, coming straight up at them and he'd be in range as he approached the stall. When he attacked from above, I don't think he would use flaps as he came down for a quick deflection shot on the British in the Luftberry.
Diving alone into a pack of 16 P-40s and scoring 6 kills, 5 of them in just as many minutes, that is some excellent flying and gunnery skills.
Aren't there some reports that he shot down 17 RAF fighters in a single day?
ack-ack
-
Akak, I read the same on his approach to the luftberry....and yes, there was a report of 17 in one day.
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/marse/marse.htm (http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/marse/marse.htm)
decent write up that sites some sources.
"Marseille was one of the few pilots who was able to totally master his Messerschmitt fighter through the full flight envelope. He would practice his techniques over and over again, often against men in his own squadron while returning home from sorties. He was so comfortable and confident in his flying abilities that he would often break standard rules of aerial combat by pulling his power to idle and using flaps to help tighten his turns."
From another write up...mentions not flying to standards (cutting throttle and use of flaps).
-
Something else to take into account when comparing turn radius/rate is the shape of the wings airfoil. For example, the size of the wing or the power of the engine is not enough. For example I have read in certain places the laminar flow wing cross section shape of the 51 caused problems at slow speeds or at sharp angles of attack. Also, for example thinner air foils work better at high speeds but fail to produce enough lift at slower speeds where a thicker wing produces much more lift and thus is able to turn tighter but at high speeds creates too much drag and even may cause the air to separate causing a loss of aileron authority.
for example
109g = NACA 2r(1)14 - naca 2411
P51 = NAA/NACA 45-100
Also, a side note, the p51 wing foil design caused a whole new series of NACA designations using 6 digits instead of the old 4 digit numbers..
heres a link to some of the math around the shapes..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_airfoil
-
His use of flaps was almost unique to his attack style. IIRC, when the British would enter into a Luftberry his preferrred method was to attack from below, coming straight up at them and he'd be in range as he approached the stall. When he attacked from above, I don't think he would use flaps as he came down for a quick deflection shot on the British in the Luftberry.
Diving alone into a pack of 16 P-40s and scoring 6 kills, 5 of them in just as many minutes, that is some excellent flying and gunnery skills.
Aren't there some reports that he shot down 17 RAF fighters in a single day?
ack-ack
That's how he did it. But his buddies had to cover him well while he performed his butchery, since he was slow in the air.
He was a good shot as well, but the method would have forgiven a worse shot, since he was firing almost at point blank.
The 17 RAF fighters shot in a single day has been the fuel for many debates. In short AFAIK the RAF didn't even loose 17 fighters that day, nor were all those lost in Marseilles area. But the SAAF was also there, and he may well have managed to ping 17 aircraft.
-
Im with you there Angus, I think in his book, Full Circle, Johnny Johnson did some research on that 17 Kills and found that the total aircraft lost on the day in question was less than that, and some of those lost were not of the types claimed. As to the SAAF, well i've never considered that any commonwealth squadron would be operating independently of the RAF. Did that happen?
-
I can look it up (I have "Full Circle"), but I do recall it from Duncan-Smith's book "Spitfire into battle". Will have a lookie though.