Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Noah17 on November 15, 2009, 11:16:06 AM
-
A lot of similarities between the two but the 16 seems hard to beat.
Any ideas?
:salute
-
Flap turns.
-
prayers, Boom and zoom from outside icon range...you can try flap turns also, and run as soon as your speed gets too low. The spit16 is just too good for an unperked plane (yes I know its been talked again and again but still)
-
and run as soon as your speed gets too low.
:confused:
While mid range speeds favor the spixteen, I would think extremely slow speeds favor the hog. I'll let some hog experts weigh in on this though. If I'm wrong, apologies.
-
Flap turns.
+1
Drop flaps, pull back on the stick. You'll only be in trouble vs a XVI pilot who knows to use his climbrate advantage.
-
Exactly. A good driver would abort the turn and go vertical. Since the Spixty is quite a fast climber, she'll hold the upper hand.
Ms.Spixty is a naughty girl for almost all to handle :devil
-
If you're defensive versus a good stick in a Spixteen, there's not much you can do except pray for him to make a mistake. If they're higher and faster than you, hope you can get them to a position where you can get the flaps out and get your nose around for a gun solution. The Spitfire XVI has it all; energy retention, climb/acceleration, great gun package, great views, and it's very forgiving.
Like one of the above posters said, it really merits a light perk. If the chog and spit XIV are perkworthy, so is the Spixteen.
-
I would think extremely slow speeds favor the hog.
Low speed high nose climb is my trick to defeat F4U's in lala's. At some point they just can't point their nose up. Ask Manurin, it works :) The F4U is not known for is weight/power ratio. Also most people deploy flaps too early in F4U, bleeding E like mad as soon as I get them vertical. Flaps are a double edge tool, but you know that.
-
If you're defensive versus a good stick in a Spixteen, there's not much you can do except pray for him to make a mistake. If they're higher and faster than you, hope you can get them to a position where you can get the flaps out and get your nose around for a gun solution. The Spitfire XVI has it all; energy retention, climb/acceleration, great gun package, great views, and it's very forgiving.
Like one of the above posters said, it really merits a light perk. If the chog and spit XIV are perkworthy, so is the Spixteen.
you know I never really agreed on perking the 16, of course I never flew it a lot, but damn last night I was fighting the hourd like normal in my Hurri but the thing is so easy to beat because of it's speed factor, I upped a 16, man that is a extremely kick butt bird, had 3 trying to kill me they all died, was surrounded by too many to count got 4 of them and was able to get out of trouble and head home bingo ammo, hurri could never do that, I have since changed my mind on perking the 16 it does deserve one.
-
Yup, you can beat a spit16 a couple of vertical scisors with good use of rudder, but you need to get the aim down or you won't last to long. Flat turns as well, only a couple of turns and then the spit will start to get the advantage.
-
At around 300 mph, the Hog out turn rates and turn radius's the 16, so use that to your advantage by dropping flaps, and do not waste your short tracking shot. Or if you have speed, take it straight up, and use the hover flaps to rope'im. The hover flaps technique is dangerous however.
-
The F4U is not known for is weight/power ratio.
I loved the Battle Stations episode on the F4U when the Marine pilot stated that the F4U was the first airplane to have one horsepower per pound... new one on me! :D
-
the secrets to victory will be in the harry potter series someplace ...
remember it's not how big your wand is, it's how you misuse it ...
:devil :rofl :bolt:
-
At around 300 mph, the Hog out turn rates and turn radius's the 16, so use that to your advantage by dropping flaps, and do not waste your short tracking shot. Or if you have speed, take it straight up, and use the hover flaps to rope'im. The hover flaps technique is dangerous however.
A smart Spixty-driver will counter anout turn (through flap using) with either a chandelle or a hammerhead. I do it with a loop in the Mk VIII if I don't get a firing solution in a full power turn.
Just my cents.
-
It's a sustained radius vs. sustained rate thing. I'll consistently bet on the Spixteen in this matchup because it also has climb rate, roll rate, its turn radius when its flaps DO come out isn't all that much bigger, and a crossing shot with Hispanos during a scissors is liable to knock something off even the tough Hog.
-
At around 300 mph, the Hog out turn rates and turn radius's the 16,
This simply isn't true. Both airplanes being at 300mph, both airplanes are above corner speed and thus their turn rates are limited by pilot G tolerance, which of is the same for everyone in-game. (Neither airplane suffers from significant loss of control authority at 300mph IAS either.) The Corsair can dump E and get down to a more reasonable turning speed faster than the Spit though, that is not the same as sustaining a better rate or radius at 300mph IAS.
-
I loved the Battle Stations episode on the F4U when the Marine pilot stated that the F4U was the first airplane to have one horsepower per pound... new one on me! :D
It's ENGINE had one horsepower per pound I think... :devil Theres all this airplane attached to it though...12,000 horsepower radial...what a concept.
-
So if we're over 300 the guy that turns better on the edge of blackout wins?....If we're both trying to turn.....
-
i'm thinking the opposite the guy who preserves his energy better wins, each plane would do this different so i think it is as per usual a contest of wills and the guy that forces his fight on the other guy better wins ...
usually ...
i know ...
duh !!!
;)
So if we're over 300 the guy that turns better on the edge of blackout wins?....If we're both trying to turn.....
-
This simply isn't true. Both airplanes being at 300mph, both airplanes are above corner speed and thus their turn rates are limited by pilot G tolerance, which of is the same for everyone in-game. (Neither airplane suffers from significant loss of control authority at 300mph IAS either.) The Corsair can dump E and get down to a more reasonable turning speed faster than the Spit though, that is not the same as sustaining a better rate or radius at 300mph IAS.
that leaves high speed roll rate then...but the spit16 rolls like a 190 so.....at that point you drop engine power, put the gear down, stick stir, and pray for the best :P
-
Any rudder-assisted maneuvers you can think of are your friend. The F4U has an advantage in that department due to the sheer size of the thing. Keep your speed between 250-300, go nose-high in a yo-yo and kick the inside rudder to swing in on him. The end result is you're almost rolling over the top of him, and it surprises the hell out of those Spitty pilots with how quickly you can haul your nose around that way. You also don't bleed off E the same way as if you start trying to dump straight to flaps.
I'll keep on saying it: Effective use of rudder may be even MORE important to success in the F4U than flaps.
-
Any rudder-assisted maneuvers you can think of are your friend. The F4U has an advantage in that department due to the sheer size of the thing. Keep your speed between 250-300, go nose-high in a yo-yo and kick the inside rudder to swing in on him. The end result is you're almost rolling over the top of him, and it surprises the hell out of those Spitty pilots with how quickly you can haul your nose around that way. You also don't bleed off E the same way as if you start trying to dump straight to flaps.
I'll keep on saying it: Effective use of rudder may be even MORE important to success in the F4U than flaps.
Don't give the spit queens all our secrets, hehehehe.
-
I'll keep on saying it: Effective use of rudder may be even MORE important to success in the F4U than flaps.
How much whisky have you been drinking? ;)
No other plane undergoes such an impressive transformation with the use of flaps. It cannot be understated how effectively the F4U's flaps change it from a high-speed energy fighter into a knock-out stall fighter. The F4U-1A and Spit XVI seem to equally share the distinction of being able to run-down and out-turn a big chunk of the planeset, but only the XVI can also out climb them and do the death-blossom maneuver. :noid
-
big rudder big flaps ...
a big plane changing direction hard bleeds a lot of energy a lot more than a significantly smaller plane for the same change of direction ...
if you are talking a low e top turn or a high yo yo with a ton of rudder that would seem to be a loosing battle hog vs. spit ...
neither of which are rated as great turners in the real world vs. their contemporaries btw ...
t
-
spit16 will have problems following highspeed maneuvers .
And no, a spit16 is no match för a rolling 190a series specially at speed.
-
spit16 will have problems following highspeed maneuvers .
And no, a spit16 is no match för a rolling 190a series specially at speed.
XVI rolls better than the 190A series at low speed, and rolls almost as well all the way up to 400mph ias.
-
a big plane changing direction hard bleeds a lot of energy a lot more than a significantly smaller plane for the same change of direction ...
Absolute size has nothing to do with energy bleed in turns. Lift/Drag efficiency is the key.
And the opinion seems to have been that the Spits were the best turners in the ETO except for possibly the Hurricanes. Whereas in AHII they are approached by the 109s.
For all the complaints about the Corsair's tiny turn radius with flaps, there remains the fact that it was designed to fly as slow as 75mph IAS, which indicates very effective increase in lift production with flaps. An airplane which can fly that slowly *will* have a tiny turn radius. In the PTO it was used as a high-speed fighter because a Zero will easily whomp a Corsair in a slow turning fight, flaps or no, and speed is the way to live. And in AHII a Zero easily whomps a Corsair in a slow turning flight, however the Hog is much more likely to be crossing swords with P-51s and Fw-190s than Zekes in the AHII MA, so you get what you get...the Hog used as turn fighter because a huge % of its opposition are superior E fighters/inferior angles fighters.
-
death-blossom maneuver
Care to elaborate?
-
Oswald Boeleke and the Eight Rules of Air Combat
Basic tactics and rules established by Oswald Boeleke in 1916, however, have stood the test of time well. He gave new pilots eight rules of air combat to help them survive and win.
•Try to secure an advantage before you begin your attack. This advantage could be altitude, position, or surprise.
•Always carry through with an attack once you've started.
•Fire only at close range and when your opponent is properly in your sights.
•Always keep your eye on your opponent. Don't be deceived by ruses.Be prepared for your opponent to cut his speed to force you to overshoot.
•Always attack from behind your opponent.
•When attacked, turn into the attack; don't try to evade. This still holds true. Always be on the offensive.
•When over enemy lines, never forget your own line of retreat. When your fuel and/or weapons are low, start thinking about how you're going to get back to base.
•Attack in groups of four or six.
This is how you beat a Spit XVI in any plane. This applies mostly to the MA I would say. In a Co-E/ Co-alt situation dueling one v one, I would be of little help in giving advice for the F4U. I rugularly kill more Spit XVI's than most other aircraft in poorer turning planes. I do this by setting myself up with the advantage first and if I had accomplished this in an F4U I would dive and gather a little speed and as the Spit was trying to turn back into me (which they often do) I would visualize his flight path, pull low g to cut across it, unload and fire when the icon goes from 800 to 600. If you miss, blow through, at 1.5k use the F4U's great zoom in an immelman to gain alt and reverse back. The Spit has probably lost some E when he turned into you and now he is slower and you are above him....repeat (BnZ). Since the hog has few advantages you need to create them ahead of time. If he gets behind to, you are pretty much done as I believe that Spit XVI's are "magic" and do some amazing things sometimes.
If I were one on one in the DA, I would probably gain E and make all my passes long enough that I could safely extend to set up again and be very patient with low G manuvers when reversing my flight path for the next pass until I have spotted the opponent make a mistake giving me an advantage. As for turn fighting, it is not my forte' and I'm sure there are pilots here that can whip the pants off a XVI in a turn fight with a Hog.
SEsaber, Screaming Eagles
-
mass momentum and acceleration means more energy will be required(lost) changing the acceleration(turning) of a larger heavier object. fancy flaps and fairie dust will not change that, no matter how bad the video gamers wish it would ...
at 75mph there is not a lot of energy left to be lost is there ...
Absolute size has nothing to do with energy bleed in turns. Lift/Drag efficiency is the key.
And the opinion seems to have been that the Spits were the best turners in the ETO except for possibly the Hurricanes. Whereas in AHII they are approached by the 109s.
For all the complaints about the Corsair's tiny turn radius with flaps, there remains the fact that it was designed to fly as slow as 75mph IAS, which indicates very effective increase in lift production with flaps. An airplane which can fly that slowly *will* have a tiny turn radius. In the PTO it was used as a high-speed fighter because a Zero will easily whomp a Corsair in a slow turning fight, flaps or no, and speed is the way to live. And in AHII a Zero easily whomps a Corsair in a slow turning flight, however the Hog is much more likely to be crossing swords with P-51s and Fw-190s than Zekes in the AHII MA, so you get what you get...the Hog used as turn fighter because a huge % of its opposition are superior E fighters/inferior angles fighters.
-
:aok :aok :aok amen brotha
Oswald Boeleke and the Eight Rules of Air Combat
Basic tactics and rules established by Oswald Boeleke in 1916, however, have stood the test of time well. He gave new pilots eight rules of air combat to help them survive and win.
•Try to secure an advantage before you begin your attack. This advantage could be altitude, position, or surprise.
•Always carry through with an attack once you've started.
•Fire only at close range and when your opponent is properly in your sights.
•Always keep your eye on your opponent. Don't be deceived by ruses.Be prepared for your opponent to cut his speed to force you to overshoot.
•Always attack from behind your opponent.
•When attacked, turn into the attack; don't try to evade. This still holds true. Always be on the offensive.
•When over enemy lines, never forget your own line of retreat. When your fuel and/or weapons are low, start thinking about how you're going to get back to base.
•Attack in groups of four or six.
This is how you beat a Spit XVI in any plane. This applies mostly to the MA I would say. In a Co-E/ Co-alt situation dueling one v one, I would be of little help in giving advice for the F4U. I rugularly kill more Spit XVI's than most other aircraft in poorer turning planes. I do this by setting myself up with the advantage first and if I had accomplished this in an F4U I would dive and gather a little speed and as the Spit was trying to turn back into me (which they often do) I would visualize his flight path, pull low g to cut across it, unload and fire when the icon goes from 800 to 600. If you miss, blow through, at 1.5k use the F4U's great zoom in an immelman to gain alt and reverse back. The Spit has probably lost some E when he turned into you and now he is slower and you are above him....repeat (BnZ). Since the hog has few advantages you need to create them ahead of time. If he gets behind to, you are pretty much done as I believe that Spit XVI's are "magic" and do some amazing things sometimes.
If I were one on one in the DA, I would probably gain E and make all my passes long enough that I could safely extend to set up again and be very patient with low G manuvers when reversing my flight path for the next pass until I have spotted the opponent make a mistake giving me an advantage. As for turn fighting, it is not my forte' and I'm sure there are pilots here that can whip the pants off a XVI in a turn fight with a Hog.
SEsaber, Screaming Eagles
-
Care to elaborate?
Didn't you ever see The Last Starfighter? :rofl
-
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlAsSyDAWR8)
Only in the 80s would they make break dancing become a combat maneuver.
:D
Great movie, I keep hearing there's a sequel in the works.
-
...a crossing shot with Hispanos during a scissors is liable to knock something off even the tough Hog.
I'd much rather take a crossing snapshot from the Spixteen's gun package into the wing of a Hog than I would a snapshot from a Browning 6-pack into the wing of a Spit.
-
mass momentum and acceleration means more energy will be required(lost) changing the acceleration(turning) of a larger heavier object. fancy flaps and fairie dust will not change that, no matter how bad the video gamers wish it would ...
at 75mph there is not a lot of energy left to be lost is there ...
Airplane performance is defined by the ratio of power and lift to weight and drag. Not by the absolute size of the craft.
Turn radius, though not turn rate performance, hinges mostly on how slowly the airplane can fly.
-
I'd much rather take a crossing snapshot from the Spixteen's gun package into the wing of a Hog than I would a snapshot from a Browning 6-pack into the wing of a Spit.
Yes, a decent burst at convergence from 6x .50s can de-wing a spit. Of course, if your opponent is butter-churning instead of simply turning, as he likely will be, these hits will not be all in the same place... Still doesn't compare to the Hispano's ability to remover control surfaces and vertical stabs with single pings at any reasonable distance whatsoever, to say nothing of what it can do with a decent burst.
-
Oswald Boeleke and the Eight Rules of Air Combat
Basic tactics and rules established by Oswald Boeleke in 1916, however, have stood the test of time well. He gave new pilots eight rules of air combat to help them survive and win.
•Try to secure an advantage before you begin your attack. This advantage could be altitude, position, or surprise.
•Always carry through with an attack once you've started.
•Fire only at close range and when your opponent is properly in your sights.
•Always keep your eye on your opponent. Don't be deceived by ruses.Be prepared for your opponent to cut his speed to force you to overshoot.
•Always attack from behind your opponent.
•When attacked, turn into the attack; don't try to evade. This still holds true. Always be on the offensive.
•When over enemy lines, never forget your own line of retreat. When your fuel and/or weapons are low, start thinking about how you're going to get back to base.
•Attack in groups of four or six.
This is how you beat a Spit XVI in any plane. This applies mostly to the MA I would say. In a Co-E/ Co-alt situation dueling one v one, I would be of little help in giving advice for the F4U. I rugularly kill more Spit XVI's than most other aircraft in poorer turning planes. I do this by setting myself up with the advantage first and if I had accomplished this in an F4U I would dive and gather a little speed and as the Spit was trying to turn back into me (which they often do) I would visualize his flight path, pull low g to cut across it, unload and fire when the icon goes from 800 to 600. If you miss, blow through, at 1.5k use the F4U's great zoom in an immelman to gain alt and reverse back. The Spit has probably lost some E when he turned into you and now he is slower and you are above him....repeat (BnZ).
That's is one way of doing it. I don't have the patience for it though. If I come in with an advantage in a 1A I use the E to get in guns range in his rear hemisphere, then dump as much E as i need to stay there (which is easy for an F4U.) This results in either a quick kill or the con reversing and maybe killing me instead. Which at the least may be an interesting fight.
Probably not the best advice, but it is fun.
-
Yes, a decent burst at convergence from 6x .50s can de-wing a spit. Of course, if your opponent is butter-churning instead of simply turning, as he likely will be, these hits will not be all in the same place... Still doesn't compare to the Hispano's ability to remover control surfaces and vertical stabs with single pings at any reasonable distance whatsoever, to say nothing of what it can do with a decent burst.
This and many other arguments about the superiority of the SpitXVI are moot. It has more advantages, I think that everyone can agree on that. The bottom line is that to win, you fight your fight, not the opponents and you just don't give them the opportunity to get you. That is how you win any plane vs any plane. What "The Most Interesting Man in the World" says about career choices applies here; "find out what it is in life you don't do well, and then don't do that thing."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNYHoI47fw0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNYHoI47fw0)
SEsaber, Screaming Eagles
-
Well, then we are back to the answer no one particularly likes. The F4U-1A's largest advantage over the Spixteen is that its fast enough that it doesn't usually HAVE to engage it if conditons are not advantageous. But that is shamefully unmanly cartoon airplane thinking, now ain't it? :devil
This and many other arguments about the superiority of the SpitXVI are moot. It has more advantages, I think that everyone can agree on that. The bottom line is that to win, you fight your fight, not the opponents and you just don't give them the opportunity to get you. That is how you win any plane vs any plane. What "The Most Interesting Man in the World" says about career choices applies here; "find out what it is in life you don't do well, and then don't do that thing."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNYHoI47fw0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNYHoI47fw0)
SEsaber, Screaming Eagles
-
not sure how your statement negates mine ...
the maneuver fight should go to the spit barring any extreme pilot stupidity ...
however there is that pull harder and win mentality in the video games that would not translate to TRW.
t
Airplane performance is defined by the ratio of power and lift to weight and drag. Not by the absolute size of the craft.
Turn radius, though not turn rate performance, hinges mostly on how slowly the airplane can fly.
-
not sure how your statement negates mine ...
the maneuver fight should go to the spit barring any extreme pilot stupidity ...
however there is that pull harder and win mentality in the video games that would not translate to TRW.
t
Airplane performance is defined by the ratio of power and lift to weight and drag. Not by the absolute size of the craft.
Turn radius, though not turn rate performance, hinges mostly on how slowly the airplane can fly.
-
That's is one way of doing it. I don't have the patience for it though. If I come in with an advantage in a 1A I use the E to get in guns range in his rear hemisphere, then dump as much E as i need to stay there (which is easy for an F4U.) This results in either a quick kill or the con reversing and maybe killing me instead. Which at the least may be an interesting fight.
Probably not the best advice, but it is fun.
Yes, you are correct, when 1v1 and don't have to worry about other cons, I would do the same, but not to the point of losing the advantage. I would leave enough wiggle room and have a plan of egress if I don't get the kill. I have two rules for my style of flying if there are multiple enemies though;1) don't drop flaps ,anticipate enemies flight path and cross it. If you drop 2 notches, get the kill most likely you die shortly after) and 2)If I don't get the kill within 5 seconds of getting on an enemies six, I disengage as I have a habit of getting target fixation. Keep in mind, this is vs. multiple bandits.
Like you said though in a 1v1 the rules relax a little since I can keep my total situational awareness on my fight and not spend most of it looking backwards.
SEsaber
-
I loved the Battle Stations episode on the F4U when the Marine pilot stated that the F4U was the first airplane to have one horsepower per pound... new one on me! :D
forget it... :D
-
That's is one way of doing it. I don't have the patience for it though. If I come in with an advantage in a 1A I use the E to get in guns range in his rear hemisphere, then dump as much E as i need to stay there (which is easy for an F4U.) This results in either a quick kill or the con reversing and maybe killing me instead. Which at the least may be an interesting fight.
Probably not the best advice, but it is fun.
Yes, you are correct, when 1v1 and don't have to worry about other cons, I would do the same, but not to the point of losing the advantage. I would leave enough wiggle room and have a plan of egress if I don't get the kill. I have two rules for my style of flying if there are multiple enemies though;1) don't drop flaps ,anticipate enemies flight path and cross it. If you drop 2 notches, get the kill most likely you die shortly after) and 2)If I don't get the kill within 5 seconds of getting on an enemies six, I disengage as I have a habit of getting target fixation. Keep in mind, this is vs. multiple bandits.
Like you said though in a 1v1 the rules relax a little since I can keep my total situational awareness on my fight and not spend most of it looking backwards.
SEsaber
-
not sure how your statement negates mine ...
"a big plane changing direction hard bleeds a lot of energy a lot more than a significantly smaller plane for the same change of direction ..."
Is the part that is misleading without reference to the wingloading, powerloading, and lift/drag of the A/C in question. You have a habit of implying that certain aircraft (P-38, Corsair, whatever) should not maneuver well as they do in AH because of absolute weight, which is no factor in and of itself, too late to retract it.
-
retract what ???
weight is no factor ?????????
funny it is such a primary concern then ...
tell me who does the wing loading, power loading, lift loading, lift, drag, AND SIZE AND WEIGHT favor in the spit vs. f4u?
as far as either being great turners neither would be near the top in their respective theaters spit 16/f4u4 ...
and i think you will find that size and weight may be the two most important factors determining maneuverability ...
in the real world that is ...
t
"a big plane changing direction hard bleeds a lot of energy a lot more than a significantly smaller plane for the same change of direction ..."
Is the part that is misleading without reference to the wingloading, powerloading, and lift/drag of the A/C in question. You have a habit of implying that certain aircraft (P-38, Corsair, whatever) should not maneuver well as they do in AH because of absolute weight, which is no factor in and of itself, too late to retract it.
-
retract what ???
weight is no factor ?????????
Correct. Weight by itself is no factor, but rather the ratio of weight (and drag) to lift and power. The Corsair possessed a rather heavy lift loading in comparison to Japanese aircraft and much greater speed than most opposition types, so it was very much best to keep it fast and boom and zoom in the PTO. In the AHII MA, the Corsair has a better lift loading than much of what it fights and is slower, so it becomes known as a turn fighter.
tell me who does the wing loading, power loading, lift loading, lift, drag, AND SIZE AND WEIGHT favor in the spit vs. f4u?
See, here you are making the same mistake again. You gave power loading, lift loading, and drag. These ratios define fighter turn, climb, and speed performance. Once again, the absolute size itself is irrelevant to performance. Since you ask, power loading obviously favors the SpitXVI. The F4U-1A is obviously the less draggy aircraft, since it goes faster despite having a lower power loading, this will primarily effect E retention in diving and zooming. The ratio of lift/weight in various configurations can be determined by comparing 1G stall speeds. Lift loading clean obviously favors the Spit, lift loading with flaps is harder to determine, since I cannot find a good source for the SpitXVI's stall speed with flaps. However, spitfireperformance.org does list the flaps down stall speed of the SpitI as 68mph IAS. Since the SpitXVI was a more heavily loaded aircraft than the Mk.I, it is entirely plausible that the its stall speed with flaps would be higher than the 70-75 usually stated for the F4U, which in turn would imply a tighter minimum turn radius for the Corsair.
IOW, the performance of the Corsair relative the Spit in AHII is perfectly plausible from a physics standpoint.
as far as either being great turners neither would be near the top in their respective theaters spit 16/f4u4 ...
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/38848cc6f343c5c391e46465300c73286g.jpg)
Huh...apparently Allied test pilots thought the Spit pretty much out-turned everything else in the Allied arsenal.
And of course the F4U was not know as a great turner in the PTO. Its primary opposition was designed specifically to be superlative in turn fighting. That's like claiming a Spad can't out-turn a P-51 because the Spad wasn't known as a great turner in its environment.
and i think you will find that size and weight may be the two most important factors determining maneuverability ...
in the real world that is ...
I think if you will do as many of us, especially Hitech himself, have done, and actually crack a book to learn something about aerodynamics, you will find the real world fails to conform to your preconceived notions and that Hitech is not deliberately ignoring physics and mis-modeling the planes to give you an apoplexy.
-
no the mistakes are yours, and whomever convinced you that the f4u4 could compete well in a maneuver fight vs. a spit 16.
all your statements below are suspect imo.
Correct. Weight by itself is no factor ...
Once again, the absolute size itself is irrelevant to performance. ...
The F4U-1A is obviously the less draggy aircraft,
since it goes faster despite having a lower power loading,
this will primarily effect E retention in diving and zooming.
The ratio of lift/weight in various configurations can be determined by comparing 1G stall speeds.
your picture is cute but you have left out quite a few aircraft many of which out turned the spit 16 ...
spits 1-5, 109s E&Fs, yak 3?, laggs?, prolly the maccis, the hurris, some others as well ...
you sure are intrigued with near stall speed performance, however equating that with maneuverability in a fighter is comical, just ask any fighter pilot ...
it is you who needs to read because the only way to get around newton is "virtually" no matter what you see here.
if that were not so then the extras and SUs would not dominate aerobatics ...
t
-
no the mistakes are yours, and whomever convinced you that the f4u4 could compete well in a maneuver fight vs. a spit 16.
You are starting with your mind made up because of the relative "reps" of the Spitfire and Corsair, and damn the historical context or the physics.
all your statements below are suspect imo.
your picture is cute but you have left out quite a few aircraft many of which out turned the spit 16 ...
spits 1-5, 109s E&Fs, yak 3?, laggs?, prolly the maccis, the hurris, some others as well ...
Did I leave out XVI's own predesscors, 109 variants which were largely on the way out, and Allied stablemates from another theater of operations which the Spit likely never crossed swords with? Mea culpa. The SpitXVI's most typical opponents would be the 109G variants and 190s, which were for the most part energy fighters relative the Spit's abilities.
But, if it makes you feel any better, many of the planes you named on the list will indeed out-perform the SpitXVI in some aspect of turn performance in AHII. What is it in the modeling you are complaining about again? :devil
you sure are intrigued with near stall speed performance, however equating that with maneuverability in a fighter is comical, just ask any fighter pilot ...
The 1g stall speed of an aircraft is irreducibly related to the ratio of available lift to weight. This ratio defines certain aspects of turn performance. The aircraft that stalls at 100mph at 1G will stall at 200mph at 4G, so on and so forth, in a mathematically definable way. This is not debatable.
As for real fighter pilots, what do you think the "ragged edge of the envelope" in fighter maneuvering refers to? You seem to be very pathologically hung up on the fact that AHII pilots push the envelope more than is usual in the r/w, because they have 0 chance of dying and often 10 times the amount of stick time in combat maneuvering that any real pilot has ever had. If you want to change the physics of the aircraft in game to try and force players to fly in what you deem a more "realistic" manner, why don't you just admit it?
Even in real combat, their are plenty of instances of maneuvering on the ragged edge being decisive, dangerous though it can be in a multi-bandit environment.
Speaking of real pilots, "Fighter Combat" by Shaw is considered definitive, and it explains enough flight physics for a layman to get a basic grasp of the performance factors.
it is you who needs to read because the only way to get around newton is "virtually" no matter what you see here.
if that were not so then the extras and SUs would not dominate aerobatics ...
Oh Christ, he brings up Newton. Its more like Galileo. And you're the one arguing from your intuition that a heavier object should fall faster...
I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you to understand.
You have an aircraft that is moving in one direction at some given speed. You want to be moving in the opposite direction, to turn. What force do you bring to bear to accomplish this? Lift.
It is the ratio of how much lift you have available in relation to weight of the aircraft that will be important here, not the absolute weight. This should be no harder to understand than the more intuitively graspable fact that thrust/weight, and not absolute weight, is the crucial factor in acceleration, all other factors being equal.
Extras and SU dominate aerobatics, because (among other things), their combination of power loading and wing loading. If for some perverse reason, you wanted to build an aircraft that was 10 times as heavy as an Extra 300, but also possessed an engine 10 times as powerful and a wing with 10 times the lift capacity, it would climb with, accelerate with, and be just as maneuverable as the Extra300. I wouldn't want to buy gas for the thing, however.
-
no the mistakes are yours, and whomever convinced you that the f4u4 could compete well in a maneuver fight vs. a spit 16.
WTF? When did we go from the F4U-1A to the F4U-4? The -4 is an ENTIRELY different beast than the 1-series Hogs.
-
hey quit projecting into my posts all i said was the spit should win the maneuver fight,
and that smaller lighter will win those fights ...
you seem to have a problem with that, so give a real world example where that is not he case.
neither the hogs or the long nose spits are considered among the great turners of the war ...
you had a problem with that until i reminded you about that ...
and yes my mind is made up that the spit should win the maneuver fight over the hog, in the real world ...
they are both flying why don't you go ask the guys who are flying them what they think.
You are starting with your mind made up because of the relative "reps" of the Spitfire and Corsair, and damn the historical context or the physics.
Did I leave out XVI's own predesscors, 109 variants which were largely on the way out, and Allied stablemates from another theater of operations which the Spit likely never crossed swords with? Mea culpa. The SpitXVI's most typical opponents would be the 109G variants and 190s, which were for the most part energy fighters relative the Spit's abilities.
But, if it makes you feel any better, many of the planes you named on the list will indeed out-perform the SpitXVI in some aspect of turn performance in AHII. What is it in the modeling you are complaining about again? :devil
The 1g stall speed of an aircraft is irreducibly related to the ratio of available lift to weight. This ratio defines certain aspects of turn performance. The aircraft that stalls at 100mph at 1G will stall at 200mph at 4G, so on and so forth, in a mathematically definable way. This is not debatable.
As for real fighter pilots, what do you think the "ragged edge of the envelope" in fighter maneuvering refers to? You seem to be very pathologically hung up on the fact that AHII pilots push the envelope more than is usual in the r/w, because they have 0 chance of dying and often 10 times the amount of stick time in combat maneuvering that any real pilot has ever had. If you want to change the physics of the aircraft in game to try and force players to fly in what you deem a more "realistic" manner, why don't you just admit it?
Even in real combat, their are plenty of instances of maneuvering on the ragged edge being decisive, dangerous though it can be in a multi-bandit environment.
Speaking of real pilots, "Fighter Combat" by Shaw is considered definitive, and it explains enough flight physics for a layman to get a basic grasp of the performance factors.
Oh Christ, he brings up Newton. Its more like Galileo. And you're the one arguing from your intuition that a heavier object should fall faster...
I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you to understand.
You have an aircraft that is moving in one direction at some given speed. You want to be moving in the opposite direction, to turn. What force do you bring to bear to accomplish this? Lift.
It is the ratio of how much lift you have available in relation to weight of the aircraft that will be important here, not the absolute weight. This should be no harder to understand than the more intuitively graspable fact that thrust/weight, and not absolute weight, is the crucial factor in acceleration, all other factors being equal.
Extras and SU dominate aerobatics, because (among other things), their combination of power loading and wing loading. If for some perverse reason, you wanted to build an aircraft that was 10 times as heavy as an Extra 300, but also possessed an engine 10 times as powerful and a wing with 10 times the lift capacity, it would climb with, accelerate with, and be just as maneuverable as the Extra300. I wouldn't want to buy gas for the thing, however.
hog 4 hog 1 my statement stands but apologies for the type change ...
WTF? When did we go from the F4U-1A to the F4U-4? The -4 is an ENTIRELY different beast than the 1-series Hogs.
it amazes me that you guys sluff off a what 100% weight advantage of something like 3 tons as insignificant ...
the spit should dominate the maneuver fight "."
get over it.
-
hey quit projecting into my posts all i said was the spit should win the maneuver fight,
and that smaller lighter will win those fights ...
you seem to have a problem with that, so give a real world example where that is not he case.
The Fw-190 being easily out-turned by the bigger Hellcat and Corsair in Navy tests, despite being smaller, because of a decidedly heavier lift-loading The P-51 being out-turned by the Corsair for the same reason, despite being smaller. Just how many more examples do you want?
neither the hogs or the long nose spits are considered among the great turners of the war ...
It is irrelevant what a plane is "considered". The P-51 was considered a decent turner, and it was, compared to its ETO opposition, but the F4U can and did handily out-turn it. The Mig17 was considered a great turner in its own time, but that hardly means it would stack up to a Spitfire, now does it?
What the hell is a "long-nose" Spit? If you mean a Griffin-engine Spit, then we are not talking of that. We are talking of the Mk. XVI, which had a Merlin under the hood.
it amazes me that you guys sluff off a what 100% weight advantage of something like 3 tons as insignificant ...
It amazes me that you can't "get", once again,the simple fact that it is the ratio of lift and power to weight and not simply weight itself that is important.
I'll try to make this simple for you once again, once again. Plane A weighs 6000 lbs, has an engine capable of producing 1200 horsepower, and a wing that is capable of producing 24,000 lbs of lit at Clmax@200mph IAS. Plane B weighs 12,000 lbs, has an engine capable of producing 2,400hp, and a wing that is capable of producing 48,000 lbs of lift at Clmax@200mph. All other factors being equal, what possible reason can you give for thinking plane B should have worse climb, acceleration, or turn performance than plane A?
-
What some of u people don't understand is a spitfire has 1 flap setting, all or nothing. A f4u has 5 settings if i remember correctly. The F4u can start deploying flaps at 250 +/- mph. Spit brings out its flap at what, 160-180?. What that tells ya is the hog can maintain its lift with the use of flaps at slower speed without dropping off till real slow, while the spit loses its turning capability because there is no in between for flap setting at higher speeds. When the fight gets down to 150 mph range, the spit wins. get above the mph that flaps can be out for the spit and hog wins.
-
What some of u people don't understand is a spitfire has 1 flap setting, all or nothing. A f4u has 5 settings if i remember correctly. The F4u can start deploying flaps at 250 +/- mph. Spit brings out its flap at what, 160-180?. What that tells ya is the hog can maintain its lift with the use of flaps at slower speed without dropping off till real slow, while the spit loses its turning capability because there is no in between for flap setting at higher speeds. When the fight gets down to 150 mph range, the spit wins. get above the mph that flaps can be out for the spit and hog wins.
The Spitfire flaps degrade its turn rate. They are only meant for landing. I find the truth to be the opposite of what you say: extremely low speeds favor the F4U, medium speeds favor the XVI.
-
What some of u people don't understand is a spitfire has 1 flap setting, all or nothing. A f4u has 5 settings if i remember correctly. The F4u can start deploying flaps at 250 +/- mph. Spit brings out its flap at what, 160-180?. What that tells ya is the hog can maintain its lift with the use of flaps at slower speed without dropping off till real slow, while the spit loses its turning capability because there is no in between for flap setting at higher speeds. When the fight gets down to 150 mph range, the spit wins. get above the mph that flaps can be out for the spit and hog wins.
I also think there's way too much emphasis on what one plane does at a certain speed vs what another does at that same speed. While that knowledge is useful to a certain extent, it's very rare that I see that come into play in "regular" fights.
If I've got my F4U slow and flaps out on the deck, in a lufberry circle against a spit, I'm dead. I can't compete with that. However, I'm almost never in that situation. It's much easier for me to survive if my opponent is faster OR slower than me, higher OR lower than me. Each scenario gives me loads of options that I don't have in a simple stall-speed circle-fight.
If I'm on the deck slow with my flaps out against a spit doing the same thing, I've screwed up royally and will be in the tower soon, unless I'm fighting a rank amateur. In this Spit16 vs F4U-1A scenario, regardless of the turn radius similarity, that 16 is coming around the circle on me with his higher turn rate. Plus, toss in his greater acceleration, fast roll rate, etc, and I've got my hands full, planewise. That doesn't mean I'll have my hands full pilot-wise, of course. That's what it really comes down to in those situations. It matters not if you have the advantage, if you don't know how or choose not to use it effectively.
-
you need to look into that test, it is too flawed to be seriously considered. as far as the USNs opinion of the 190 the design principals used for the F8F is a better example than that test of the bomber fighter to which you refer.
the p51 was not considered a great turner ...
here is an opinion from a couple of guys guy who fly the escort and an interceptor that like the spit is not compromised in its design by things like the need to operate from a carrier, fly a long way, carry a bunch of bombs etc ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
so still waiting for just the one example, and btw maneuvering is much more than turning circles,
once again i refer you to any fighter pilot you want to ask.
The Fw-190 being easily out-turned by the bigger Hellcat and Corsair in Navy tests, despite being smaller, because of a decidedly heavier lift-loading The P-51 being out-turned by the Corsair for the same reason, despite being smaller. Just how many more examples do you want?
going to such extremes as the mig 17, i think the 20 years and a few other things would preclude those two planes as a good example, however yes the mig 17 was considered an excellent maneuver fighter vs. it's BIGGER HEAVIER contemporaries, thanks for the excellent example of my point.
It is irrelevant what a plane is "considered". The P-51 was considered a decent turner, and it was, compared to its ETO opposition, but the F4U can and did handily out-turn it. The Mig17 was considered a great turner in its own time, but that hardly means it would stack up to a Spitfire, now does it?
spits after the 5 when they had to contend with the later axis aircraft by sacrificing some maneuverability for more power.
What the hell is a "long-nose" Spit? If you mean a Griffin-engine Spit, then we are not talking of that. We are talking of the Mk. XVI, which had a Merlin under the hood.
no i get that what you fail to "get" is that size and weight itself is a factor above and beyond what they do for the loading values, as is power.
once again i refer you to acrobatic aircraft and why they look a lot more like a small fw190 than a small p38.
It amazes me that you can't "get", once again,the simple fact that it is the ratio of lift and power to weight and not simply weight itself that is important.
once again i refer you to newton, and even though the numbers you quote below may give a very close match up in stable situations the maneuver fight is won in the transitions between those more stable situations, and the smaller lighter quicker aircraft wins those fights.
I'll try to make this simple for you once again, once again. Plane A weighs 6000 lbs, has an engine capable of producing 1200 horsepower, and a wing that is capable of producing 24,000 lbs of lit at Clmax@200mph IAS. Plane B weighs 12,000 lbs, has an engine capable of producing 2,400hp, and a wing that is capable of producing 48,000 lbs of lift at Clmax@200mph. All other factors being equal, what possible reason can you give for thinking plane B should have worse climb, acceleration, or turn performance than plane A?
-
The Spitfire flaps degrade its turn rate. They are only meant for landing. I find the truth to be the opposite of what you say: extremely low speeds favor the F4U, medium speeds favor the XVI.
The Spit flaps were intended mostly as an air-brake since the aircraft was quite willing to fly and float, thereby overshooting.
-
no i get that what you fail to "get" is that size and weight itself is a factor above and beyond what they do for the loading values, as is power.
once again i refer you to acrobatic aircraft and why they look a lot more like a small fw190 than a small p38.
Seriously? You want to argue along those lines? Looks? What's next? FW190 should fly like an aerobatic plane, cause it looks like one?
Compare a modern, high-performance specialty plane against a 70 year old warplane? Design differences, materials, weights, are nothing alike... Airfoil differences alone... Fixed gear, no flaps... Sheesh, not even close to an apples/apples comparison!
I'm with you on the size idea, BTW.
BNZ has been careful to keep his argument to thrust/weight/lift, without including overall size. Making a copy of a plane ten times larger (or smaller) would greatly change it's measured turn radius. But he's not saying 10 times larger. He's saying 10 times heavier, more thrust, more lift; overall size stays the same. I'd tend to agree with his argument there...
And what's the overall point you're trying to make here? Are you of the opinion that the F4U out-turns the spit16 in AH?
-
the spit should dominate the maneuver fight "."
get over it.
It does (if the pilot knows how to fly it effectively).
-
i said "looks like" relative to the p38 ...
a general size weight advantage in maneuver example ...
the comparison was to the 38 not an extra or su31 ...
sorry it confused you
my argument is that spit should win the maneuver fight, that is all ...
oh and as far as your agreement with b and z then the hog 4 should by your logic should outmaneuver the hog 1 likewise the 190 a8 should outmaneuver the a5, is that the argument you are trying to make?
t
Seriously? You want to argue along those lines? Looks? What's next? FW190 should fly like an aerobatic plane, cause it looks like one?
Compare a modern, high-performance specialty plane against a 70 year old warplane? Design differences, materials, weights, are nothing alike... Airfoil differences alone... Fixed gear, no flaps... Sheesh, not even close to an apples/apples comparison!
I'm with you on the size idea, BTW.
BNZ has been careful to keep his argument to thrust/weight/lift, without including overall size. Making a copy of a plane ten times larger (or smaller) would greatly change it's measured turn radius. But he's not saying 10 times larger. He's saying 10 times heavier, more thrust, more lift; overall size stays the same. I'd tend to agree with his argument there...
And what's the overall point you're trying to make here? Are you of the opinion that the F4U out-turns the spit16 in AH?
-
Mntman:
Nope. Neither size nor weight alone tell us anything about the rate or radius of turn for a given aircraft.
Seriously? You want to argue along those lines? Looks? What's next? FW190 should fly like an aerobatic plane, cause it looks like one?
Compare a modern, high-performance specialty plane against a 70 year old warplane? Design differences, materials, weights, are nothing alike... Airfoil differences alone... Fixed gear, no flaps... Sheesh, not even close to an apples/apples comparison!
I'm with you on the size idea, BTW.
BNZ has been careful to keep his argument to thrust/weight/lift, without including overall size. Making a copy of a plane ten times larger (or smaller) would greatly change it's measured turn radius. But he's not saying 10 times larger. He's saying 10 times heavier, more thrust, more lift; overall size stays the same. I'd tend to agree with his argument there...
And what's the overall point you're trying to make here? Are you of the opinion that the F4U out-turns the spit16 in AH?
-
Mntman:
Nope. Neither size nor weight alone tell us anything about the rate or radius of turn for a given aircraft.
Well, they tell you something... Just not enough for either one to tell the whole story alone...
An argument based solely on one variable would be pointless, yes. I'm also questioning how far the "theory" could be taken in reality.
For example, take a full-size P51, and create a same-sized copy of it 10x heavier, 10x more thrust, and 10x more lift. How could you do that, and even consider it a "copy"? If the airfoil stays the same, how can it ever generate 10x more lift without an increase in flying speed? If the speed increases, it can't really be considered to be flying the "same way", and I'd be awful skeptical that it could have a comparable turn radius. Rate? Maybe, cause it'd have to be haulin' donut to stay in the air...
Likewise with size- if you made a "copy" 10x larger (370 ft wingspan), I would in expect it in reality to be much more than 10 times heavier. I realize that could be compensated for with different building materials, but when I fly my birds, one that's twice as large as another weighs roughly 8x as much as the bird it's twice as big as. Overall size doubled, weight goes up at a much faster rate. Same thing with my lead balls for my rifles. Double the size, weight increases by @ 8x. Regardless, how would we test it? Fly it at the same speed as the smaller model? Or would that be adjusted for scale too? If it flew at the same speed, it would look like it was floating in comparison. Fly it at a "scale" speed, and I'd expect the larger version to take a longer flight path around the circle.
Things get kind of messy in my mind when we start to radically adjust scale.
-
you need to look into that test, it is too flawed to be seriously considered. as far as the USNs opinion of the 190 the design principals used for the F8F is a better example than that test of the bomber fighter to which you refer.
The aspects of the Fw-190 that *might* have figured into the design of the F8F were its power/weight ratio and aileron design. Giving the F8F a relatively high wingloading like the 190's would not have done anything for its maneuverability. All 190 variants were significantly heavier loaded than the HellKitty/Corsair, and there is 0 debate among the non-delusional about the 190's deficiencies as a turner.
the p51 was not considered a great turner ...
At altitude, it was a decently competitive turner against the 190s and the late 109Gs it fought. Especially the 190s. This is born out by both the physics and pilot reports. It is still a decidedly poorer turner than the F4Us...or do you wish to now claim the Corsair should turn worse than the P-51 because it is larger?
going to such extremes as the mig 17, i think the 20 years and a few other things would preclude those two planes as a good example, however yes the mig 17 was considered an excellent maneuver fighter vs. it's BIGGER HEAVIER contemporaries, thanks for the excellent example of my point.
The Mig17 out-turned the F4 because the latter's wing loading was basically twice as heavy. The F4 still out-climbed and out-accelerated the Mig, because its ratio of thrust/weight was higher.
spits after the 5 when they had to contend with the later axis aircraft by sacrificing some maneuverability for more power.
Yes, sticking a larger engine in the same basic airframe will result in a higher wingloading. What is your point?
no i get that what you fail to "get" is that size and weight itself is a factor above and beyond what they do for the loading values, as is power.
once again i refer you to acrobatic aircraft and why they look a lot more like a small fw190 than a small p38.
No, it really isn't it, as far as basic performance is concerned.
They look like a small fw190 because why would you go to the trouble and cost of constructing a twin-engine, twin-boom aircraft for such a purpose? And also because roll rate is an important part of aerobatics, the 190's planform (most of the weight close to the center axis, relatively low aspect ratio wing) IS beneficial to roll rate. This of course has nothing to do with the high wingloading that made the 190 a relatively poor turner, which would of course be unacceptable in an aerobatic aircraft.
once again i refer you to newton,
What part of the good Sir Isaac are you referring to?
and even though the numbers you quote below may give a very close match up in stable situations the maneuver fight is won in the transitions between those more stable situations, and the smaller lighter quicker aircraft wins those fights.
Nonsensical gibberish.
-
You have a point with the scaling concern, but that does not change the fact that is possible for larger aircraft to have equal/better lift loadings and power loadings than smaller ones and that this will lead to equal/better turn, climb, and accel performance, all other factors being equal.
IF you can get two aircraft to sustain the same speed, G, and bank angle, rate and radius will be identical. It really doesn't matter if one aircraft is a small R/C model and the other is an airliner.
Well, they tell you something... Just not enough for either one to tell the whole story alone...
An argument based solely on one variable would be pointless, yes. I'm also questioning how far the "theory" could be taken in reality.
For example, take a full-size P51, and create a same-sized copy of it 10x heavier, 10x more thrust, and 10x more lift. How could you do that, and even consider it a "copy"? If the airfoil stays the same, how can it ever generate 10x more lift without an increase in flying speed? If the speed increases, it can't really be considered to be flying the "same way", and I'd be awful skeptical that it could have a comparable turn radius. Rate? Maybe, cause it'd have to be haulin' donut to stay in the air...
Likewise with size- if you made a "copy" 10x larger (370 ft wingspan), I would in expect it in reality to be much more than 10 times heavier. I realize that could be compensated for with different building materials, but when I fly my birds, one that's twice as large as another weighs roughly 8x as much as the bird it's twice as big as. Overall size doubled, weight goes up at a much faster rate. Same thing with my lead balls for my rifles. Double the size, weight increases by @ 8x. Regardless, how would we test it? Fly it at the same speed as the smaller model? Or would that be adjusted for scale too? If it flew at the same speed, it would look like it was floating in comparison. Fly it at a "scale" speed, and I'd expect the larger version to take a longer flight path around the circle.
Things get kind of messy in my mind when we start to radically adjust scale.
-
since the hog is @ 2x the weight yet not nearly 2x the size of the spit it can not hope to get enough air resistance to change the direction of it's velocity vector as quickly as the spitfire 16.
i will leave it at that i think.
-
oh and as far as your agreement with b and z then the hog 4 should by your logic should outmaneuver the hog 1 likewise the 190 a8 should outmaneuver the a5, is that the argument you are trying to make?
I don't know anything about the 190's; I'm not even sure if I've ever flown those models.
Outmaneuver, yes, I'd expect so, although I wouldn't necessarily expect it to out-turn it.
Since we're talking nearly identical planes with a stronger, heavier engine in one, I sure wouldn't expect the plane with the lighter, weaker engine to be the better performer. Would lowering the weight and power of the -1 engine have made the -1 fly better? Of course, I think there's a point where the engine could be too heavy, and too powerful to be beneficial.
Mainly, the lower thrust of the lower-class plane can't maintain energy to maneuver with the ease that the higher powered version can. The lower powered plane may very well be able to turn tighter than the higher powered version, but that's not enough to really matter in the end. It'll run out of E sooner, and succumb to the higher powered version.
Our fight results are not dictated by results of one maneuver, but rather by successive strings of maneuvers. Can the lower powered plane win the fights? Absolutely! But it comes down to the pilot there, not the plane.
If it was just a matter of "this plane trumps that plane" we could just make the fight results more like a game of rock, paper, scissors. You fly along in your 190, until you see a P51, at which point you die. Why fight, if one plane is better?
-
You have a point with the scaling concern, but that does not change the fact that is possible for larger aircraft to have equal/better lift loadings and power loadings than smaller ones and that this will lead to equal/better turn, climb, and accel performance, all other factors being equal.
IF you can get two aircraft to sustain the same speed, G, and bank angle, rate and radius will be identical. It really doesn't matter if one aircraft is a small R/C model and the other is an airliner.
Yup, I agree there...
-
since the hog is @ 2x the weight yet not nearly 2x the size of the spit it can not hope to get enough air resistance to change the direction of it's velocity vector as quickly as the spitfire 16.
i will leave it at that i think.
So, we're at "size and weight matters, but nothing else does"? What about thrust, lift, shape, drag, et al...
That could sure lead people to make erroneous judgments.
-
no you are projecting again, my point is that everything matters, including size and weight beyond their effects on the loadings. size and weight matter just as much as anything else, on their own.
So, we're at "size and weight matters, but nothing else does"? What about thrust, lift, shape, drag, et al...
That could sure lead people to make erroneous judgments.
-
Likewise with size- if you made a "copy" 10x larger (370 ft wingspan)
Mtnman i would say 10x larger , means 10x the wing area not 10 times the wing span for this discussion.
And over all I am on BNZ side of this discussion .(concept wise, not the specific f4u1 and spit16, for that discussion no one here has begun to give enough details to make a real choice) He is just not describing every little piece of the discussion.
But the one item that is missed here when you scale a plane up is roll rate, yes given the concept of 10 times area,weight and power, turn rates , stall speeds, turn radius , and climb rates would all be the same so thorsim argument is either badly described or does not hold water. As to who has the minimum turn radius, just compare stall speeds of the 2 planes.
What is strange is that the numbers can be tested very quickly in game, yet you guys sit here arguing which is best with out spending 20 mins running some tests in game.
HiTech
-
Actually I'm starting to see Thorsim's point.
Drag is NOT a function of mass, whether it is parasitic or lift induced (lift induced being the one we're interested in here).
Drag is a force, the energy lost due to drag is the line integral Integral[Drag * ds]. Notably, this equation does not involve aircraft mass. On the other hand, kinetic energy is KE = m v^2, which DOES involve mass.
Assume we're analyzing two aircraft, one with twice the mass but the same wing area as the second.
Now, the aircraft with twice the mass will require twice the lift to pull the same turn. As per the equation for lift-induced drag
D~L^2/S (where L is the lift and S is the wing area)
any amount of lift will induce a drag proportional to the square of the lift , therefore the aircraft with twice the mass (and twice the lift to pull the same turn) will incur FOUR times the drag to pull the same turn since the wing area is the same. Correspondingly, it will dump FOUR times the energy in the same turn as the energy lost is linear in the amount of lift.
But the aircraft with twice the mass only has twice the energy (given equal velocities) as per the kinetic energy equation. So an aircraft with more mass but the same wing area will bleed a proportionately larger amount of energy to pull the same turn.
Here's HiTech's and BnZ's point:
Notice again the equation for lift induced drag has proportionality:
D ~ L^2/S
If we increase the wing area by the same factor as the mass (and therefore by the same factor as the lift), we see that drag increases linearly with mass. This means that an aircraft with 2x mass but 2x wing area will bleed proportionately the same amount of energy in a turn as one with 1x mass and 1x wing area.
This reinforces HiTech's point, if we scale the ENTIRE plane's statistics, we'll come up with the same turn performance.
-
I'm not sure on the following, but I believe you cannot scale a plane's performance by simply making every dimension of the plane larger (even if we handwave and say that the engine produces 2x more horsepower with 2x more weight).
This is because mass is proportional to volume, which is proportional to (dimensions of the plane)^3. On the other hand, planform and wing area (which are very important in calculating lift etc) scale as (dimensions of the plane)^2.
Roll rate... wouldn't roll rate scale properly if we increased wing area and mass equally? The assumption being that we also scale the size of the ailerons, so they'd provide proportionally more torque to overcome the wing area's resistance to rolling (which I believe is linearly proportional to wing area).
Edit: sorry to pull out the formulas and everything, but how else can a person understand WHY scaling something up won't work? Without the formulas, you're reduced to trusting whoever seems to know what they're saying the best.
-
Wow, there's all kind of stuff I hadn't thought of...
Didn't mean to get people all stirred up....Kind of liking it though.
Learnin lots!
:banana:
Yes...Actually used the dancing banana.
-
the less you have to move around the less energy it takes to move it and the more energy you will retain while doing so ...
due to the physical and engineering limitations it is more likely that you will achieve superior maneuverability by reducing size and weight than you would trying to increase the size and corresponding power of your aircraft.
i suspect that you will find that all the designers make the smallest lightest aircraft they could which would meet the requirements of it's design purpose.
increasing power adds weight, increasing wing area adds weight. things are not as simple as oh well i will just double my wing area and double my lift loading.
an aircraft is "a series of compromises flying in close formation" the fewer concessions to requirements not directly related to air combat the better pure fighter you can make.
it may not be able to land on a carrier, or fly for eight hours, or have a redundant power plant, however it would likely out perform any of those planes that could do those things for the simple reason that the design was not compromised to be able to do those things.
t
-
One thing about the Corsair is that the wing configuration introduces a number of odd wrinkles. Would it necessarily explain everything? Maybe not, but the way the wings are angled at the roots was discovered to greatly reduce drag on the airframe. The wing is also larger than it looks (straighten out the wings and she's sure to gain a good bit of span on each side) and certainly has a particularly broad chord all the way out towards the tips. The lowest point of the wing is also positioned in a way that places it well BELOW the fuselage (I think the top wing surface ends up in line with the very bottom of the fuselage).
Has there ever been an actual targeted study of the aerodynamic effects of the Corsair's wing configuration?
-
my argument is that spit should win the maneuver fight, that is all ...
And it will in most cases unless the pilot in the Spitfire is extremely clueless. I don't think anyone in this thread and denied that but you also fail to realize that there are some parts in the flight envelope where some of these 'bigger' aircraft have an advantage over the Spitfire in a maneuver fight, these areas you seem to ignore since it goes against your beliefs on how a plane should fly.
ack-ack
-
since the hog is @ 2x the weight yet not nearly 2x the size of the spit it can not hope to get enough air resistance to change the direction of it's velocity vector as quickly as the spitfire 16.
The "size" of the aircraft is not a factor. For the umpteenth time, the primary factor under consideration as regards turn radius is the lift of the wing in relation to to the weight of the aircraft. Which for the SpitXVI and F4U-1A, is actually fairly similar in flaps down configuration, or as Hitech said, "Just look at the stall speeds"
-
What is strange is that the numbers can be tested very quickly in game, yet you guys sit here arguing which is best with out spending 20 mins running some tests in game.
HiTech
Oh, we all already know the numbers for the SpitXVI and F4U-1A in-game. F4Us have a slightly smaller turn radius with full flaps, SpitXVI has a decided edge in sustained rate with flaps and without.
We have moved past the fun ACM-chess discussion and are now going merrily round with someone straight-facedly espousing the theory that in reality the lighter airplane should always out-turn heavier one, and by implication claiming that you pulled in-game F4U performance straight from thin air with no basis in real aerodynamics.
-
the only one making stuff up is you when you project into my posts ...
please address what i post, not what your imagination leads you to think i posted ...
t
Oh, we all already know the numbers for the SpitXVI and F4U-1A in-game. F4Us have a slightly smaller turn radius with full flaps, SpitXVI has a decided edge in sustained rate with flaps and without.
We have moved past the fun ACM-chess discussion and are now going merrily round with someone straight-facedly espousing the theory that in reality the lighter airplane should always out-turn heavier one, and by implication claiming that you pulled in-game F4U performance straight from thin air with no basis in real aerodynamics.
-
your picture is cute but you have left out quite a few aircraft many of which out turned the spit 16 ...
spits 1-5, 109s E&Fs, yak 3?, laggs?, prolly the maccis, the hurris, some others as well ...
Not sure of the particulars, but the wasn't hurricane larger and heavier than the spitfire?
-
Not sure of the particulars, but the wasn't hurricane larger and heavier than the spitfire?
the spit 16? don't think so but i was referring to the earlier hurris not sure about the later hurris but still think 16 heavier ...
-
Not sure of the particulars, but the wasn't hurricane larger and heavier than the spitfire?
Yep.
For that matter, the Hurri MkI is also larger than the 109E. Guess all that scuttlebutt from the BoB about the Hurri being the tighter turner was wrong, aye Thorsim?
-
the only one making stuff up is you when you project into my posts ...
please address what i post, not what your imagination leads you to think i posted ...
t
You have been demonstrated to be either almost unbelievably ignorant on a particular point of aerodynamics or deliberately misleading. You have more than once in this particular thread stated that you believe that absolute weight rather than lift-loading is some sort of factor in an aircraft's maneuverability. This goes in the hall of fame with other outlandish nonsense about aerodynamics you have pulled out of thin air,like some of your "ideas" about flaps. Don't try to obfuscate or wriggle out of it.
This whole thread into your general pattern of kvitching because you are unhappy with the relative turn performance of 190s and obliquely accusing the designer of the game of being absolutely clueless about flight physics, which is really ironic coming from someone with your notions. Well, if you find turn-fighting difficult in the 190s, blame Kurt Tank for designing the thing with such a high-loading, don't blame Hitech for modeling the physics of the thing correctly.
-
heavier than the 16 the hurri 1 ... you sure ?
Not sure of the particulars, but the wasn't hurricane larger and heavier than the spitfire?
Yep.
For that matter, the Hurri MkI is also larger than the 109E. Guess all that scuttlebutt from the BoB about the Hurri being the tighter turner was wrong, aye Thorsim?
-
Yep.
For that matter, the Hurri MkI is also larger than the 109E. Guess all that scuttlebutt from the BoB about the Hurri being the tighter turner was wrong, aye Thorsim?
3 tons heavier like what we are talking about b and z ???
any other pointless points you wanna make?
-
not the wing loading of the 190 i expressed my doubts about BandZ but go ahead and continue with your fairie tales ...
suspension of disbelief is easy for you as your arguments clearly show ...
pretty comical you suggesting that any a8 hitech ever modeled has been correct, shows how much you pay attention.
do tell me which a8 do we have? i mean relative to a real a8 that is.
enough of you ...
can't wait to see your 6000bhp 15,000lb aerobatic plane with the 300 foot wingspan ...
obviously flying circles around the extras ...
let me know when you sort that out ok :aok
t
You have been demonstrated to be either almost unbelievably ignorant on a particular point of aerodynamics or deliberately misleading. You have more than once in this particular thread stated that you believe that absolute weight rather than lift-loading is some sort of factor in an aircraft's maneuverability. This goes in the hall of fame with other outlandish nonsense about aerodynamics you have pulled out of thin air,like some of your "ideas" about flaps. Don't try to obfuscate or wriggle out of it.
This whole thread into your general pattern of kvitching because you are unhappy with the relative turn performance of 190s and obliquely accusing the designer of the game of being absolutely clueless about flight physics, which is really ironic coming from someone with your notions. Well, if you find turn-fighting difficult in the 190s, blame Kurt Tank for designing the thing with such a high-loading, don't blame Hitech for modeling the physics of the thing correctly.
-
fairy tales? thats pretty rich coming from someone who posts vague nonsense like:
since the hog is @ 2x the weight yet not nearly 2x the size of the spit it can not hope to get enough air resistance to change the direction of it's velocity vector as quickly as the spitfire 16.
so .. the 16 has better (instantanious/sustained?) turn (radius/rate?) than F4U because it has higher total drag? wth? :confused:
I'm more inclined to listen to BnZs at this point ...
-
*cough*
The Hurricane is slightly bigger than the Spit, and slightly heavier AFAIK. Wing loading is in the same ballpark with the Spitfire in favour AFAIK.
It's slower, it dives slower, it's lighter on the roll at some speeds, it's more stable, and it can almost land on a tuppence. It is recorded to out turn the Spitfire. Now, I am talking about two aircraft with exactly the same engine.
Tell me Thorsim, why do you think this is the case? Surely an aircraft with higher wingloading would dive better, zoom better, and have similar top speed, as well as according to physics it should turn worse???
Please enlighten :D
-
not the wing loading of the 190 i expressed my doubts about BandZ but go ahead and continue with your fairie tales ...
suspension of disbelief is easy for you as your arguments clearly show ...
pretty comical you suggesting that any a8 hitech ever modeled has been correct, shows how much you pay attention.
do tell me which a8 do we have? i mean relative to a real a8 that is.
enough of you ...
Demonstrate what is wrong the with the A8 if you can, instead of spouting nonsense about flight physics and you might get results.
can't wait to see your 6000bhp 15,000lb aerobatic plane with the 300 foot wingspan ...
obviously flying circles around the extras ...
let me know when you sort that out ok :aok
If you built with a 15,000 lbs aircraft with a lower lift loading and higher power loading than the Extras, then indeed it would fly circles around them. Not all that hard to comprehend. Just like the larger F4U or Hellcat will fly circles around any 190 in turning combat. It would take all of five minutes for you to crack any aerodynamic text and learn that is the ratio of power and lift to weight that defines performance, not absolute weight, yet you refuse to admit your error.
-
Don't forget that the Hurri has a fatter, higher lift airfoil. That is why it is important to speak of lift loading and not just basic wing loading. The latter will give you a ball park estimate only.
Easiest way to compare the ratio of lift/weight for two craft in a given configuration is to compare stall speeds in that configuration.
*cough*
The Hurricane is slightly bigger than the Spit, and slightly heavier AFAIK. Wing loading is in the same ballpark with the Spitfire in favour AFAIK.
It's slower, it dives slower, it's lighter on the roll at some speeds, it's more stable, and it can almost land on a tuppence. It is recorded to out turn the Spitfire. Now, I am talking about two aircraft with exactly the same engine.
Tell me Thorsim, why do you think this is the case? Surely an aircraft with higher wingloading would dive better, zoom better, and have similar top speed, as well as according to physics it should turn worse???
Please enlighten :D
-
not the wing loading of the 190 i expressed my doubts about BandZ but go ahead and continue with your fairie tales ...
suspension of disbelief is easy for you as your arguments clearly show ...
pretty comical you suggesting that any a8 hitech ever modeled has been correct, shows how much you pay attention.
do tell me which a8 do we have? i mean relative to a real a8 that is.
enough of you ...
can't wait to see your 6000bhp 15,000lb aerobatic plane with the 300 foot wingspan ...
obviously flying circles around the extras ...
let me know when you sort that out ok :aok
t
I've seen you fly in the MA and you rely on others, more so than your own "skill". I'm curious as to why you're still ripping on HTC's "accuracy" when your "skills" are the crux of your "knowledge".
Let me know when you want to go to the DA ok :aok
-
fairie tales sir refers to bandz and the usual suspects once again arguing with things that others never said as if they had in order to undermine the other poster in the current argument ...
i ONCE AGAIN challenge BandZ or any other of the usual suspects to find where i complained about the wing loading of the a8 anywhere on any board ever. when they are unable to do that please take issue with them and their freewheeling habit of misquoting misrepresenting exaggerating and flat out making up things they say other people have said.
there ought to be a rule about that huh skuzzy
as far as my issues with the combat flaps that BandZ and others brought up ...
why don't you take your "flaps fix everything" to another board where there aren't so many with a vested interest in the status quo here and see what happens ...
try this place
http://www.ww2aircraft.net
there is an example of one of you flap fans in here someplace
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-fighter-iii-614.html
let me know when you guys do i would very much like to see the result.
as far as why i think smaller and lighter is a better way to go in a pure fighter ...
(http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jrboyd-photo.jpg)
argue with this guy and his friends, i'm no longer in the mood ...
t
fairy tales? thats pretty rich coming from someone who posts vague nonsense like:
so .. the 16 has better (instantanious/sustained?) turn (radius/rate?) than F4U because it has higher total drag? wth? :confused:
I'm more inclined to listen to BnZs at this point ...
-
i work to my advantages, numbers are pretty close to the top ...
interesting that you think not being stupid makes it inappropriate to discuss things here like HTCs accuracy ...
t
I've seen you fly in the MA and you rely on others, more so than your own "skill". I'm curious as to why you're still ripping on HTC's "accuracy" when your "skills" are the crux of your "knowledge".
Let me know when you want to go to the DA ok :aok
-
fairie tales sir refers to bandz and the usual suspects once again arguing with things that others never said as if they had in order to undermine the other poster in the current argument ...
i ONCE AGAIN challenge BandZ or any other of the usual suspects to find where i complained about the wing loading of the a8 anywhere on any board ever. when they are unable to do that please take issue with them and their freewheeling habit of misquoting misrepresenting exaggerating and flat out making up things they say other people have said.
there ought to be a rule about that huh skuzzy
as far as my issues with the combat flaps that BandZ and others brought up ...
why don't you take your "flaps fix everything" to another board where there aren't so many with a vested interest in the status quo here and see what happens ...
try this place
http://www.ww2aircraft.net
there is an example of one of you flap fans in here someplace
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-fighter-iii-614.html
let me know when you guys do i would very much like to see the result.
as far as why i think smaller and lighter is a better way to go in a pure fighter ...
(http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jrboyd-photo.jpg)
argue with this guy and his friends, i'm no longer in the mood ...
t
Funny, I rack up kills turn fighting in an A8. I've never once deployed flaps, then I rarely use flaps in ANY plane.
-
i work to my advantages, numbers are pretty close to the top ...
interesting that you think not being stupid makes it inappropriate to discuss things here like HTCs accuracy ...
t
I'll put Quality over Quantity every time. I never used the word "stupid" in my previous reply, so it is very ironic coming from you. You're trying to come across as an "expert" in the A8 and I'm pretty sure I can hand you your own posterior in it.
You have "excuses" and in turn, try to put the blame on HTC. It's your own shortcomings that are the direct result of your "beef" with HTC.
-
Showing a picture of John Boyd is very funny in this context Thorsim. Because what Boyd emphasized, among other things, was the importance of low lift loading and and high thrust-weight in a fighter, concepts you clearly do not comprehend.
By your twisted logic, the F-104 ought to be far better at maneuver combat than the F-15, because it is almost exactly half the weight.
F-104G
Empty weight: 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)
Loaded weight: 20,640 lb (9,365 kg)
F-15C
Empty weight: 28,000 lb (12,700 kg)
Loaded weight: 44,500 lb (20,200 kg)
So, since the Eagle is literally double the weight of the Starfighter, the latter should fly circles around it in maneuver combat, correct?
The only actual combat advantage of small size *in and of itself* is that a smaller aircraft is harder to pick up visually. If you had argued that it may be more practical and cost effective to build a 20,000 lbs airplane with an engine producing 20,000 lbs of thrust than a 40,000 airplane with two engines producing 40,000 lbs of thrust, that would have been one thing. But no, you specifically stated that absolute size and weight have an effect on maneuver performance independent of the ratios of weight and drag to lift and thrust, and that is absolute hogwash.
-
i ONCE AGAIN challenge BandZ or any other of the usual suspects to find where i complained about the wing loading of the a8 anywhere on any board ever. when they are unable to do that please take issue
You just said it wasn't modeled correctly. Tell me then, exactly what do you think is wrong with the A8?
why don't you take your "flaps fix everything" to another board where there aren't so many with a vested interest in the status quo here and see what happens ...
Factually, the Corsair's flaps allow it to fly as slow as 70-75mph IAS. Factually, turn radius is defined mostly by the minimum flying speed an aircraft can maintain. Therefore, it plays out that the F4U has a very competitive turn radius against much of the opposition. You don't like this fact, you have some 100% wrong idea that because of the airplanes absolute weight it should be an unmaneuverable brick, but you cannot come up with a single valid problem with HTC's physics modeling. So we get what we have here right now...
[/quote]
-
Funny how a empty and low fuel b17 will out turn most fighters at altitude.
Thorsim: You really do try to use general statements and rules of thumb to try prove a point that can not be done with rules of thumb.
You seem to believe that aerobatic planes are designed small so they perform better. While as a general statement that idea is some what true, it is not true when it comes to each detail. Increasing the wing span of an extra would make it better turn fighter. So we have added weight and added size, but increased turn rate. Of course speed ,climb,roll rate were sacrificed but not turn radius.
You are trying to argue specifics about 2 planes with no real fact but simply general concepts. This really does not work.
As far as I can see your complete argument is a spit 16 should win a angles fight against an f4u1d because the spit is 1/2 lighter but not 1/2 as big. This is a complete nonsensical argument and why many here are arguing with you. Again all this would take is some real testing and research to see whats up. I have not looked at all the details, but a quick glance.
At 20 degrees flaps an f4u1 has a slower power off stall speed than a spit 16 with no flaps. This translate to better lift to weight ratio, an hence a better turn radius. Now if a pilot in an f4u goes very nose low with 30 degrees flaps, if the spit tries to follow with no flaps, the spit will probably have a big problem because it will not be as dragy as the f4u and it would tend to overshoot the smaller turning f4u1. Once on the deck, things would start to change.
HiTech
-
Funny, I rack up kills turn fighting in an A8. I've never once deployed flaps, then I rarely use flaps in ANY plane.
Thorsim doesn't understand how flaps work and he's going by how he thinks they should work. He asked for real life examples of pilots using flaps in combat and he was provided with them but still refuses to believe it because it doesn't mesh with how he thinks they should work. He cries how the modeling of the flaps is incorrect but each and every time has failed to show any proof how the modeling is incorrect. The crux of his hidden agenda is that he wants players to fly like he does, which would result in an arena full of timid pilots.
If you look at each of his threads he's posted in complaining about the flight model, his little agenda always rears its ugly, timid head and never has he provided any proof of any errors in the flight model. He's just another version of the old Luftwhiner.
ack-ack
-
i never once said turn fighting here hitech did i?
i said maneuver fight.
now hitech do you mean to say that the light b17 will out maneuver these fighters within the fighters operational altitudes? if that is not what you are saying i fail to see it's relevance to this discussion.
not that relevance seems to stop anyone here. lets see we have a thread about the spit 16 and the f4u where people have brought up the f104 f15 mig 17 a8 oh and the b17 among several others to discuss the relationship between the spit and the hog.
...
i too could post the extremities of the envelopes to find the exceptions in that 5% of the envelope in order to contradict the general statements others make.
i could argue my point with planes 20+ years apart in design and world away in mission purpose to try and dispute the obvious.
however i do not see the point in that as it would not disprove anything, would it?
i don't because there are exceptions to every rule, stating an exception to a rule does not disprove a rule, does it?
it seems to me that if you really look at your examples the good spitfire pilot would not tail chase and solve his angle with another maneuver and let the hog continue to bleed his energy until he finishes the hog off, or until the hog augers finally having used up all its energy because he has to spend more than the spit to stay in the fight ...
because he is heavier and therefore less able to maneuver and preserve his energy as well as the spitfire.
which is my point.
i never said wingloading, powerloading, liftloading, were inconsequential.
however size, weight, mass and how they effect acceleration/momentum is a factor as well and should be taken into account.
others took issue with that for some reason, and here we are.
again ...
t
Funny how a empty and low fuel b17 will out turn most fighters at altitude.
Thorsim: You really do try to use general statements and rules of thumb to try prove a point that can not be done with rules of thumb.
You seem to believe that aerobatic planes are designed small so they perform better. While as a general statement that idea is some what true, it is not true when it comes to each detail. Increasing the wing span of an extra would make it better turn fighter. So we have added weight and added size, but increased turn rate. Of course speed ,climb,roll rate were sacrificed but not turn radius.
You are trying to argue specifics about 2 planes with no real fact but simply general concepts. This really does not work.
As far as I can see your complete argument is a spit 16 should win a angles fight against an f4u1d because the spit is 1/2 lighter but not 1/2 as big. This is a complete nonsensical argument and why many here are arguing with you. Again all this would take is some real testing and research to see whats up. I have not looked at all the details, but a quick glance.
At 20 degrees flaps an f4u1 has a slower power off stall speed than a spit 16 with no flaps. This translate to better lift to weight ratio, an hence a better turn radius. Now if a pilot in an f4u goes very nose low with 30 degrees flaps, if the spit tries to follow with no flaps, the spit will probably have a big problem because it will not be as dragy as the f4u and it would tend to overshoot the smaller turning f4u1. Once on the deck, things would start to change.
HiTech
-
once again not exactly true is it?
Thorsim doesn't understand how flaps work and he's going by how he thinks they should work. He asked for real life examples of pilots using flaps in combat and he was provided with them but still refuses to believe it because it doesn't mesh with how he thinks they should work. He cries how the modeling of the flaps is incorrect but each and every time has failed to show any proof how the modeling is incorrect. The crux of his hidden agenda is that he wants players to fly like he does, which would result in an arena full of timid pilots.
If you look at each of his threads he's posted in complaining about the flight model, his little agenda always rears its ugly, timid head and never has he provided any proof of any errors in the flight model. He's just another version of the old Luftwhiner.
ack-ack
-
i said maneuver fight.
Ok I must be daft, because I have no idea what a maneuver fight is.
-
however size, weight, mass and how they effect acceleration/momentum is a factor as well and should be taken into account.
And here you repeat the fallacy yet again. Acceleration will have everything to do with the plane's ratio of thrust to weight and drag, and absolutely nothing to do with what the plane registers on the scale.
I bring up the F-104 vs. F-15 because according to the sort of logic you have repeatedly stated in this thread, the F-15 must turn less well and bleed more energy in maneuvers, because it is more than double the weight.
-
then why is your example soo far off my point sir?
Ok I must be daft, because I have no idea what a maneuver fight is.
-
Thorism wrote:
because he is heavier and therefore less able to maneuver
Complete and utter kaka.
Please define the term maneuver in the contexts of your sentence above.
HiTech
-
it is an extreme example you cherry picked to attempt to make your point.
different generations(what 20 years?) different missions (high alt high speed interceptor vs. air superiority fighter) ...
try the f15 with the f16 and come back with your mass is inconsequential argument ...
mmmmk
tks.
t
And here you repeat the fallacy yet again. Acceleration will have everything to do with the plane's ratio of thrust to weight and drag, and absolutely nothing to do with what the plane registers on the scale.
I bring up the F-104 vs. F-15 because according to the sort of logic you have repeatedly stated in this thread, the F-15 must turn less well and bleed more energy in maneuvers, because it is more than double the weight.
-
you misquoted me, again, thanks.
try that on AGW where there is a neutral monitor and i can express my feelings about those kind of board tactics more colorfully ...
you can use shaw's definition of maneuverability since i am sure you know what it is and all ...
t
Thorism wrote:
Complete and utter kaka.
Please define the term maneuver in the contexts of your sentence above.
HiTech
-
you misquoted me, again, thanks.
try that on AGW where there is a neutral monitor and i can express my feelings about those kind of board tactics more colorfully ...
you can use shaw's definition of maneuverability since i am sure you know what it is and all ...
t
You need to seek some Professional help and I'm not kidding. You make some of the most absurd "claims/allegations" and NEVER back a single one of them up with something substantiated.
-
was his quote my complete thought? or sentence even?
You need to seek some Professional help and I'm not kidding. You make some of the most absurd "claims/allegations" and NEVER back a single one of them up with something substantiated.
-
it is an extreme example you cherry picked to attempt to make your point.
different generations(what 20 years?) different missions (high alt high speed interceptor vs. air superiority fighter) ...
NONE of which makes any difference to the point at hand. The physics of flight remains constant. You have stated repeatedly that weight *alone* without reference to such factors as thrust, lift, and drag somehow negatively effects aircraft maneuvering performance, in some fuzzy manner which you cannot define. If this is in any way true, ti should be apparent in comparing the F-104 to the F-15, which is, again, double the weight. You are wriggling because you have conclusively been proven 100% wrong on this point.
try the f15 with the f16 and come back with your mass is inconsequential argument ...
The F-16 boasts a similar thrust/weight ratio and a basic wingloading almost half that of the F-15. What part of bringing this up do you think argues for your nonsense?
-
The F-16 boasts a similar thrust/weight ratio and a basic wingloading almost half that of the F-15. What part of bringing this up do you think argues for your nonsense?
right, so find a more appropriate example, which is what i asked you to do.
not sure why you have a problem with that.
hell put some external fuel on the f16 and even out the wing loading and then make your case.
although the Thrust to weight will probably not translate to our OPs discussion.
how about we use HT's B17 vs. a fighter example i am sure you can match wing loading and BHP with some fighter and make your case.
lets see it, or make another more relevant comparison i am patient, i can wait.
-
right, so find a more appropriate example, which is what i asked you to do.
not sure why you have a problem with that.
hell put some external fuel on the f16 and even out the wing loading and then make your case.
although the Thrust to weight will probably not translate to our OPs discussion.
how about we use HT's B17 vs. a fighter example i am sure you can match wing loading and BHP with some fighter and make your case.
lets see it, or make another more relevant comparison i am patient, i can wait.
As I said, define maneuverability, I'm done guessing what your point is. When asked I always define my terms, why will you not do the same? As I asked before what is a maneuver fight? I know what an angle/turn fight is. I know what an energy fight is. I and I would assume most people have no idea what a maneuver fight is, that could be anything.
So what are you trying to say, because most of us here can not tell. Are you simply saying a spit 16 should win against an f4u-1d? If so I believe it does. Are you saying YOU should always win in a 16 against a f4u1d? If so I can see many ways to beet a 16 in an f4u1d against most pilots some of the time.
I in no way misquoted or cherry picked, this entire thread you have been you trying to make a claim that weight causes less of something, "maneuverability" which I can not even discuss because you will not define what you mean. I have no desire to get on the phone with bob and ask him for his definition of maneuverability.
As far as AGW if you feel you have to stoop to a name calling level to discuss this topic then my opinion slips even more of you .
HiTech
-
right, so find a more appropriate example, which is what i asked you to do.
The F-104 vs. F-15 WAS a perfectly appropriate example. You don't like it because it completely disproves your nonsense. The fighter with the higher thrust/weight and lighter lift loading has the edge in maneuvering. There is no debate about this from anyone...except you. According to all your theorizing, the F-104 should have some sort of edge in maneuver because the F-15 is heavier, not just by a little bit, but literally double the weight. Define what this "edge" is, and back it up with physics.
This is the theory you have thrown out over and over again, the one you stick to without a shred of backing and you cannot retract it now.
Yes, if you manage to actually hang enough weight off of an F-16 to make its lift loading higher than that of an F-15, the F-15 will out-turn it. Easily, considering that so much weight will have also greatly reduced the thrust/weight ratio. What, do you also think a SpitXVI with ord on the racks should be able to outmanever a clean F4U? :rofl
-
I'm not sure on the following, but I believe you cannot scale a plane's performance by simply making every dimension of the plane larger (even if we handwave and say that the engine produces 2x more horsepower with 2x more weight).
This is because mass is proportional to volume, which is proportional to (dimensions of the plane)^3. On the other hand, planform and wing area (which are very important in calculating lift etc) scale as (dimensions of the plane)^2.
Roll rate... wouldn't roll rate scale properly if we increased wing area and mass equally? The assumption being that we also scale the size of the ailerons, so they'd provide proportionally more torque to overcome the wing area's resistance to rolling (which I believe is linearly proportional to wing area).
Edit: sorry to pull out the formulas and everything, but how else can a person understand WHY scaling something up won't work? Without the formulas, you're reduced to trusting whoever seems to know what they're saying the best.
The roll rate would not scale the same.
Roll rate is not so much a force, but a camber change. A planes roll rate does not continue to increase for a give speed the longer you hold the stick. (of course this is obvious) but what really creates this is the apparent wind that is created by the roll, I.E. in a left roll the wind is striking the right wing in a more downward vector, than it would in level flight. When the change in camber matches the changes in net AOA on both wings , you will be in a steady state roll. When you go faster the sum of the 2 vectors, (roll and fwd vel) create a faster roll, in the opposite way, a longer wing span creates more (downward/ upward) speed on the out side of the wing, causing the steady state roll to be lower.
HiTech
-
Is Thorsim Hijacking ANOTHER thread and changing it to the SAME argument as all of his previous misconceptions? Sheesh.
-
I think this explains calculating the radius of a turn pretty well.
http://www.flightlearnings.com/radius-of-turn/443/ (http://www.flightlearnings.com/radius-of-turn/443/)
It's enlightening that weight is not a necessary value to calculate a turn radius, you only need to know bank angle and speed. As Hitech posted, a few simple flight tests would provide the data necessary to calculate which plane will out maneuver the other, at various bank angles and speeds.
-
i think "bob" says something like
the ability to change the direction of your velocity vector ...
i would prefer the ability to change your state of motion ...
however, either will do.
a maneuver fight for my purposes here is a fight where the pilot uses his ability to change his state of motion to defeat his opponent.
as opposed to an energy fight which for my purposes here would be where the pilot uses his energy advantage/s to defeat his opponent.
i did not say you cherry picked, however you did miss quote me.
what i said ...
"because he is heavier and therefore less able to maneuver and preserve his energy as well as the spitfire."
what you quoted ...
"because he is heavier and therefore less able to maneuver"
not the same thing at all, therefore a misquote, and as you stated nonsense, but also not an accurate representation of what i posted either.
what i am saying is that size and weight are also factors in and of themselves, not the only factors but factors that also play in the favor of the spitfire when compared to the hog in their relative abilities in a maneuver fight as i defined above.
i am not sure i have called you a name anywhere, mostly on AGW i have taken issue with certain aspects of the games you designed, your unwillingness to make discussions like some of the ones we have had productive by posting information we can then discuss, and your general message board behavior which many mirror here.
now i may have called you a name in the process i do not remember doing so, but considering the discussions we have had over various topics and your consistent behavior which i find objectionable, i do not feel compelled to adjust any of my previous comments in regard to anything i may have posted to or about you.
i completely understand if you feel the same.
t
As I said, define maneuverability, I'm done guessing what your point is. When asked I always define my terms, why will you not do the same? As I asked before what is a maneuver fight? I know what an angle/turn fight is. I know what an energy fight is. I and I would assume most people have no idea what a maneuver fight is, that could be anything.
So what are you trying to say, because most of us here can not tell. Are you simply saying a spit 16 should win against an f4u-1d? If so I believe it does. Are you saying YOU should always win in a 16 against a f4u1d? If so I can see many ways to beet a 16 in an f4u1d against most pilots some of the time.
I in no way misquoted or cherry picked, this entire thread you have been you trying to make a claim that weight causes less of something, "maneuverability" which I can not even discuss because you will not define what you mean. I have no desire to get on the phone with bob and ask him for his definition of maneuverability.
As far as AGW if you feel you have to stoop to a name calling level to discuss this topic then my opinion slips even more of you .
HiTech
-
curious why you need to make the wing loading more on the f16 to make your point, as that is not at all what i am saying.
even out all the other factors you choose and then make your case, stacking the deck would prove nothing,
like your other examples so far.
i stated no theory i stated that size and weight are also factors, you are saying they are not ...
prove it.
t
The F-104 vs. F-15 WAS a perfectly appropriate example. You don't like it because it completely disproves your nonsense. The fighter with the higher thrust/weight and lighter lift loading has the edge in maneuvering. There is no debate about this from anyone...except you. According to all your theorizing, the F-104 should have some sort of edge in maneuver because the F-15 is heavier, not just by a little bit, but literally double the weight. Define what this "edge" is, and back it up with physics.
This is the theory you have thrown out over and over again, the one you stick to without a shred of backing and you cannot retract it now.
Yes, if you manage to actually hang enough weight off of an F-16 to make its lift loading higher than that of an F-15, the F-15 will out-turn it. Easily, considering that so much weight will have also greatly reduced the thrust/weight ratio. What, do you also think a SpitXVI with ord on the racks should be able to outmanever a clean F4U? :rofl
-
no, other people are bringing up old discussions my point here is a new one.
Is Thorsim Hijacking ANOTHER thread and changing it to the SAME argument as all of his previous misconceptions? Sheesh.
-
Thorism wrote:
the ability to change the direction of your velocity vector
The only thing that changes the direction of your Vel vector is lift.
And hence we are talking about turn radius & turn rate as I have stated before.
-
Thorism wrote:
The only thing that changes the direction of your Vel vector is lift.
And hence we are talking about turn radius & turn rate as I have stated before.
Bust out some poster board or flash cards, then he might grasp the concept Dale.
-
once again not exactly true is it?
What part isn't exactly true? That you have no idea how flaps work or you haven't provided any proof how any parts of the flight model are incorrect?
ack-ack
-
Thorsim, flight modelling is the realm of Physicists, Aero Engineers, and Applied Mathematicians. It is too complicated for common sense. Given that you have no aero-credibility otherwise, your appeals to common sense hold no water against these guys who do have such credibility. If you are going to sensibly argue, you MUST learn the math behind it and use math to demonstrate it.
It is NOT sufficient to quote an aero-expert or pilot if you are not able to see the underlying mathematical reason. Quoting an aero-expert in this way means you have no idea if the quote is in the proper context.
I'm a physicist, I have no aero-qualification but I know enough to infer what I need. My post a few pages back clearly demonstrates that if you scale mass and wing area equally, the turn performance will be equal (assuming unpowered flight - if flight was powered, we would have to scale thrust equally but the result would still be the same). This is NOT necessarily possible in real life due to engineering constraints, but it is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT so I've not applied engineering constraints.
Re:Hitech on roll rate. Sorry I still think in terms of torques and force of drag, but that's how I function. I doubt that'll change unless I really go get an aero masters. I see your point though - this is how I imagine it.
The linear velocity due to rolling at the wingtip is RR * wingspan. So the drag caused by rolling would be proportional to (RR * wingspan)^2. But the force available from the ailerons changing camber is only proportional to wingspan. Now that we have a force balance...
(RR * wingspan)^2 ~ wingspan
=> RR * wingspan ~ sqrt(wingspan)
=> RR ~ 1/(sqrt wingspan)
I know this is overly simplistic, but this is my physicists' approximation. I think this is what you mean by a longer wing creates a higher speed on the outside of the wing?
Edit: I'm trying to reconcile this with the lift equation, which is linearly proportional to wing area. So for that to work, scaling an aileron's size must only be able to affect a linear increase in its ability to change wing area?
-
curious why you need to make the wing loading more on the f16 to make your point, as that is not at all what i am saying.
Make the *lift-loading* and thrust ratios on both airplanes equal and you will get equal results in turn performance, all other factors being equal. In reality, if you hung enough odds and ends on the aircraft bring the F-16's lift-loading up as high as that of the F-15s, you would also be tremendously reducing the thrust/weight and tremendously increasing the drag, so it wouldn't even be a contest.
-
Backing up to the base of this argument.
The original controversy.
Thorism wrote.
mass momentum and acceleration means more energy will be required(lost) changing the acceleration(turning) of a larger heavier object. fancy flaps and fairie dust will not change that, no matter how bad the video gamers wish it would ...
While this on the surface is almost a correct statement, it negates a lot of things. Lets begin with a simple no motor , glide only case. You statement seems to imply the heaver object will slow down more quickly. This is not true at all, while correct all things being equal the heaver object will loose more energy, it has more energy stored, and hence the heaver object and lighter object will loose speed at the same rate if the L/D ratio and W/L ratio are the same. And hence if both are gliding would turn on the same downward spiral.
Now as we add a motor which plane will slow down more quickly will simply depend on the T/W ratio given the above case. I.E. who ever would climb the fastest would slow down the least.
So the problem some of us have with this statement it is a completely miss leading statement.
fancy flaps and fairie dust will not change that
And then thorsim statement got the ball rolling because he again back hands he belief that flaps are incorrect. (You said in a previous thread you were done with that topic, why do you bring it up again?[/quote]
Bnz wrote.
Correct. Weight by itself is no factor, but rather the ratio of weight (and drag) to lift and power. The Corsair possessed a rather heavy lift loading in comparison to Japanese aircraft and much greater speed than most opposition types, so it was very much best to keep it fast and boom and zoom in the PTO. In the AHII MA, the Corsair has a better lift loading than much of what it fights and is slower, so it becomes known as a turn fighter.
This statement.
Weight by itself is no factor, but rather the ratio of weight (and drag) to lift and power.
Is completely accurate, unlike thorsim's.[/quote]
And now it apears to me Thorsim has a problem because he switches from a debate of physics to a personal attack.
no the mistakes are yours, and whomever convinced you that the f4u4 could compete well in a maneuver fight vs. a spit 16.
all your statements below are suspect imo.
Quote from: BnZs on Yesterday at 12:27:30 AM
Correct. Weight by itself is no factor ...
Once again, the absolute size itself is irrelevant to performance. ...
The F4U-1A is obviously the less draggy aircraft,
since it goes faster despite having a lower power loading,
this will primarily effect E retention in diving and zooming.
The ratio of lift/weight in various configurations can be determined by comparing 1G stall speeds.
your picture is cute but you have left out quite a few aircraft many of which out turned the spit 16 ...
spits 1-5, 109s E&Fs, yak 3?, laggs?, prolly the maccis, the hurris, some others as well ...
you sure are intrigued with near stall speed performance, however equating that with maneuverability in a fighter is comical, just ask any fighter pilot ...
it is you who needs to read because the only way to get around newton is "virtually" no matter what you see here.
if that were not so then the extras and SUs would not dominate aerobatics ...
t
And the persona attack begins, for what reason I can only guess. But BNZ is seems to be trying to describe things as accurately as possible, Thorsim seems to have barly any knowledge of the physics because of statements like this.
ure are intrigued with near stall speed performance, however equating that with maneuverability in a fighter is comical
Stall speed is a function of Weight/MaxLift which has everything to do with turn radius.
HiTech
-
and your lift is acting against the Vel vector to a new Vel vector ...
the force required to change the Vel vector of a heavier object is more than a lighter object.
therefore the lighter object requires less force to change it's Vel vector.
now the question is could we switch the terms force and energy?
i think to a large extent we can, and there in lies the advantage of which i speak.
t
Thorism wrote:
The only thing that changes the direction of your Vel vector is lift.
And hence we are talking about turn radius & turn rate as I have stated before.
-
so limit the trust available to the f15 and add some drag then make your case.
Make the *lift-loading* and thrust ratios on both airplanes equal and you will get equal results in turn performance, all other factors being equal. In reality, if you hung enough odds and ends on the aircraft bring the F-16's lift-loading up as high as that of the F-15s, you would also be tremendously reducing the thrust/weight and tremendously increasing the drag, so it wouldn't even be a contest.
-
now the question is could we switch the terms force and energy?
i think to a large extent we can, and there in lies the advantage of which i speak.
Pick up a high school physics textbook. Your butchery of the subject is quite comprehensive.
Edit: to be clear, a more massive object also CARRIES more energy than a smaller object for the same velocity. In a turn, a more massive airplane with correspondingly larger wing area will lose the same PROPORTION of energy as a smaller airplane with a correspondingly smaller wing area, everything else the same. Therefore the more massive aircraft will lose the same amount of airspeed as the smaller one as per the kinetic energy equation K = m v^2 with K the kinetic energy, m the mass, and v the velocity.
The loss of energy is NOT from lift as you suggest. It is from the induced drag caused by lift, and the force is given as D ~ L^2/S with D the drag, L the lift, S the wing area, and the ~ symbol denoting "is proportional to".
-
so limit the trust available to the f15 and add some drag then make your case.
And the song remains the same. Identical lift loading and identical thrust loading will result in identical turn performance, all other factors being equal. What part of that is so hard to understand?
-
and your lift is acting against the Vel vector to a new Vel vector ...
the force required to change the Vel vector of a heavier object is more than a lighter object.
therefore the lighter object requires less force to change it's Vel vector.
Which can be a real knotty problem...unless the heavier object also has more force available (lift and thrust) with which to work. Not...all...that...hard...to. ..comprehend.
It can also be a knotty problem if the smaller object has even less of one of these forces in proportion to its weight, say lift...which is why much heavier F6Fs and F4Us can, did, and will easily out-turn the smaller 190s, a fact of history and physics which all your whining and non-science will never change.
-
nope slowing down is "acceleration" try again ...
Backing up to the base of this argument.
The original controversy.
Thorism wrote.
While this on the surface is almost a correct statement, it negates a lot of things. Lets begin with a simple no motor , glide only case. You statement seems to imply the heaver object will slow down more quickly. This is not true at all, while correct all things being equal the heaver object will loose more energy, it has more energy stored, and hence the heaver object and lighter object will loose speed at the same rate if the L/D ratio and W/L ratio are the same. And hence if both are gliding would turn on the same downward spiral.
ok but i never said it wouldn't, and that is not my point, i did not deny the effects of any other factors, that was other people exaggerating my point so they could take issue with it.
Now as we add a motor which plane will slow down more quickly will simply depend on the T/W ratio given the above case. I.E. who ever would climb the fastest would slow down the least.
no peoples exaggeration of my statements are misleading, just like you suggesting i was suggesting the flaps were wrong in the quote you posted.
So the problem some of us have with this statement it is a completely miss leading statement.
you should note that any comments directed at B&Z were in response to his made at me. once again please show where i discounted any of the lift values anywhere in this thread sir.
since you will be unable to, please address our point of contention which is that i believe that size and weight are factors in and of themselves to be considered in the maneuverability of an aircraft where as others deny that.
BTW HT you, and everyone else for that matter, can feel free to stop misrepresenting my point anytime now.
i do not do it to any of you.
minimum turn radius may have everything to do with stall speed, however not much to do with ACM.
you can call Bob on that steve, if you feel the need.
t
Bnz wrote.
This statement.
Is completely accurate, unlike thorsim's.
And now it apears to me Thorsim has a problem because he switches from a debate of physics to a personal attack.
And the persona attack begins, for what reason I can only guess. But BNZ is seems to be trying to describe things as accurately as possible, Thorsim seems to have barly any knowledge of the physics because of statements like this.
Stall speed is a function of Weight/MaxLift which has everything to do with turn radius.
HiTech
-
minimum turn radius may have everything to do with stall speed, however not much to do with ACM.
Nose-to-nose turning (such as in a flat scissors) favors the plane with minimum turning radius. "Bob" seems to think that nose-to-nose turning is important enough in ACM to devote quite a few pages to it.
-
right, and that larger aircraft will need to be able to apply all that extra force and have the extra power to over come the energy lost applying that force vs. the other aircraft not burdened with the same weight disadvantage.
does the f4u have the power lift and drag advantages to over come the weight disadvantage it has vs. the spitfire?
i think not.
Which can be a real knotty problem...unless the heavier object also has more force available (lift and thrust) with which to work. Not...all...that...hard...to. ..comprehend.
It can also be a knotty problem if the smaller object has even less of one of these forces in proportion to its weight, say lift...which is why much heavier F6Fs and F4Us can, did, and will easily out-turn the smaller 190s, a fact of history and physics which all your whining and non-science will never change.
-
i think there are other factors more important to a scissor and i suspect bob would agree.
Nose-to-nose turning (such as in a flat scissors) favors the plane with minimum turning radius. "Bob" seems to think that nose-to-nose turning is important enough in ACM to devote quite a few pages to it.
-
and it would require a proportionally higher thrust to match the thrust/weight ratio to be able to recover that lost energy as quickly as the lighter aircraft.
theory is all very nice but not always practically applicable ...
as you will notice nobody has tried to use the B-17 example again.
Pick up a high school physics textbook. Your butchery of the subject is quite comprehensive.
Edit: to be clear, a more massive object also CARRIES more energy than a smaller object for the same velocity. In a turn, a more massive airplane with correspondingly larger wing area will lose the same PROPORTION of energy as a smaller airplane with a correspondingly smaller wing area, everything else the same. Therefore the more massive aircraft will lose the same amount of airspeed as the smaller one as per the kinetic energy equation K = m v^2 with K the kinetic energy, m the mass, and v the velocity.
The loss of energy is NOT from lift as you suggest. It is from the induced drag caused by lift, and the force is given as D ~ L^2/S with D the drag, L the lift, S the wing area, and the ~ symbol denoting "is proportional to".
-
right, and that larger aircraft will need to be able to apply all that extra force and have the extra power to over come the energy lost applying that force vs. the other aircraft not burdened with the same weight disadvantage.
Aircraft bleed airspeed in turns because increasing the AoA to increase lift causes massive increases in induced drag. If two aircraft enter the same maneuver, say a 4g turn at 300mph, whichever bleeds airspeed the most quickly will be determined by the ratio of available thrust to drag. Again, absolutely nothing to with size and weight by themselves.
does the f4u have the power lift and drag advantages to over come the weight disadvantage it has vs. the spitfire?
i think not.
You think wrong. In certain configurations, the F4U has a lift/weight comparable to a SpitVb! This is demonstrable from a stall speed comparison.
-
(http://www.flightlearnings.com/backup/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/calc.jpg)
-
and it would require a proportionally higher thrust to match the thrust/weight ratio to be able to recover that lost energy as quickly as the lighter aircraft.
Yes that is TRUE. Hence the F4U1A reflects its disadvantage in thrust/weight ratio in its inferior climb rate statistics in the game. Yes... it's modeled properly. The F4U1-A winning vs a Spit 16 in a fight does not invalidate the flight model.
And thank you for bringing up theory vs practice when you are trying to make a THEORETICAL argument that the Spitfire SHOULD beat the F4U1A.
Unfortunately you neglected pilot skill. But even if we assume pilot skill is equal, you've still neglected intial E-state, initial merge altitudes etc etc.
Even if these were all equal, a lot can happen in the sky that will negate the Spitfire's advantages. Yes, I would bet on the Spitfire most of the time, but in any given fight even if we hold all other factors constant, a lot can happen.
Theoretically, the Spitfire should win most of the time. Note the operative words... "theoretically," "should," and "most". A Spitfire loss in these fights does not invalidate the flight model.
-
i think there are other factors more important to a scissor and i suspect bob would agree.
It is apparent which one of us owns and has read a copy of "Fighter Combat" and which has not.
No, minimum turn radius/ability are the most critical to winning the flat scissors. If it begins at *high speed* ability to dump airspeed will also be critical. Roll rate is also important, but not enough to avoid loosing the fight as the fight slows downs if one fighter is significantly inferior to the other in turn radius.
-
i have stated my agreement with you about the other factors, there is no "by themselves" in my argument, more like "along with" ...
well then i guess we will need to state the configurations, feel free since you brought it up.
Aircraft bleed airspeed in turns because increasing the AoA to increase lift causes massive increases in induced drag. If two aircraft enter the same maneuver, say a 4g turn at 300mph, whichever bleeds airspeed the most quickly will be determined by the ratio of available thrust to drag. Again, absolutely nothing to with size and weight by themselves.
You think wrong. In certain configurations, the F4U has a lift/weight comparable to a SpitVb! This is demonstrable from a stall speed comparison.
-
Pick up a high school physics textbook.
Let's drift away from the use of "physics". We're talking "aerodynamics", with the emphasis is on "dynamics"
-
that would depend on the relative advantage %ages wouldn't it. my copy of shaw is right here btw.
It is apparent which one of us owns and has read a copy of "Fighter Combat" and which has not.
No, minimum turn radius/ability are the most critical to winning the flat scissors. If it begins at *high speed* ability to dump airspeed will also be critical. Roll rate is also important, but not enough to avoid loosing the fight as the fight slows downs if one fighter is significantly inferior to the other in turn radius.
-
Let's drift away from the use of "physics". We're talking "aerodynamics", with the emphasis is on "dynamics"
Aerodynamics is applied physics. To be be able to reason clearly and rigorously with regards to aerodynamics, one must have a basic understanding of at least high school level mechanics, otherwise one ends up attempting to say that force and energy are interchangeable. Yes in aerodynamics, there is a tradeoff between drag and lift which brings energy into the force equations, but that does not make them interchangeable, only related.
In addition, energy, force, and velocity are physics concepts and these are the terms thor has chosen to argue using.
-
absolutely nothing to with size and weight by themselves.
Be careful how you say this. I know what you mean, but when discussing induced drag, weight has a significant impact.
Also, when you use the term "lift loading", are you using it to represent the ratio between existing lift and aircraft weight? L/w?
-
where did i propose to invalidate the FM ???
i just said size and weight are factors in maneuverability, do i need to put that in my sig?
WTF ...
Yes that is TRUE. Hence the F4U1A reflects its disadvantage in thrust/weight ratio in its inferior climb rate statistics in the game. Yes... it's modeled properly. The F4U1-A winning vs a Spit 16 in a fight does not invalidate the flight model.
And thank you for bringing up theory vs practice when you are trying to make a THEORETICAL argument that the Spitfire SHOULD beat the F4U1A.
Unfortunately you neglected pilot skill. But even if we assume pilot skill is equal, you've still neglected intial E-state, initial merge altitudes etc etc.
Even if these were all equal, a lot can happen in the sky that will negate the Spitfire's advantages. Yes, I would bet on the Spitfire most of the time, but in any given fight even if we hold all other factors constant, a lot can happen.
Theoretically, the Spitfire should win most of the time. Note the operative words... "theoretically," "should," and "most". A Spitfire loss in these fights does not invalidate the flight model.
-
is that what i sad, exactly? i think not.
otherwise one ends up attempting to say that force and energy are interchangeable.
-
where did i propose to invalidate the FM ???
i just said size and weight are factors in maneuverability, do i need to put that in my sig?
My mistake, but then, what the hell are we arguing about now? Others have mentioned it - size matters, but only insofar as it changes aerodynamic variables like lift, drag, etc. Weight matters, but again only insofar as it changes factors like lift loading and power loading.
By themselves they mean nothing. A 1 lb rock can't outmaneuver a Spitfire despite being much lighter. Why? Because the rock has no lift and no power.
-
now the question is could we switch the terms force and energy?
i think to a large extent we can, and there in lies the advantage of which i speak.
"Switch the terms" suggests they are interchangable. You qualify that with "to a large extent".
They are related, but your statement in no way addresses HOW they are related. Therein lies the problem. That's where common sense ends and physics/aerodynamcis has to take over.
You followed my analysis to its conclusion and agree with it, so what are we still arguing about?
-
i have stated my agreement with you about the other factors, there is no "by themselves" in my argument, more like "along with" ...
You have repeatedly claimed that size and weight *by themselves* without reference to lift, power and drag loading will constitute some sort of disadvantage in turning, even if all other factors are equal. This is a proven falsehood. Now you are falsely claiming to have never stated the initial falsehood. But see below.
"a big plane changing direction hard bleeds a lot of energy a lot more than a significantly smaller plane for the same change of direction ..."
"and i think you will find that size and weight may be the two most important factors determining maneuverability ..."
no i get that what you fail to "get" is that size and weight itself is a factor above and beyond what they do for the loading values, as is power.
once again i refer you to newton, and even though the numbers you quote below may give a very close match up in stable situations the maneuver fight is won in the transitions between those more stable situations, and the smaller lighter quicker aircraft wins those fights.
since the hog is @ 2x the weight yet not nearly 2x the size of the spit it can not hope to get enough air resistance to change the direction of it's velocity vector as quickly as the spitfire 16.
no you are projecting again, my point is that everything matters, including size and weight beyond their effects on the loadings. size and weight matter just as much as anything else, on their own.
i never said wingloading, powerloading, liftloading, were inconsequential.
however size, weight, mass and how they effect acceleration/momentum is a factor as well and should be taken into account.
-
because most of the factors others are using are related to a steady state of flight. the advantage i presented comes into play when changing the state of flight. it is the difference between how much one can maneuver and how quickly one can maneuver and it can be a significant advantage/disadvantage and it most often goes to the plane that has less mass to move around.
i do not see how that is difficult to understand.
My mistake, but then, what the hell are we arguing about now? Others have mentioned it - size matters, but only insofar as it changes aerodynamic variables like lift, drag, etc. Weight matters, but again only insofar as it changes factors like lift loading and power loading.
By themselves they mean nothing. A 1 lb rock can't outmaneuver a Spitfire despite being much lighter. Why? Because the rock has no lift and no power.
-
Aerodynamics is applied physics.
To be sure. A good example is Baumer's turn radius equation. While the equation's numerator is simply "V^2", that term represents a whole lot of dynamic stuff if you compare everything that makes that number what it is. Further, thrust to weight is a poor relationship to use when discussing propellor aircraft.
-
no i said maneuvering, it is not the same as turning.
You have repeatedly claimed that size and weight *by themselves* without reference to lift, power and drag loading will constitute some sort of disadvantage in turning, even if all other factors are equal. This is a proven falsehood. Now you are falsely claiming to have never stated the initial falsehood. But see below.
-
boomerlv:
Your equations work for the initial acceleration of the roll. Consider why the roll does not continue to accelerate but reaches equilibrium.
To do a complete calculation of the roll rate you need to integrate the lift across the length of the wing (very similar to if you think of the increasing angle of a prop toward the center).
Think about how the lift is effected at the outer portion of the wing as it goes around the circle.
I do not believe you are thinking about the opposite force to the ailerons that creates the steady roll.
HiTech
-
and i think you will find that size and weight may be the two most important factors determining maneuverability ...
in the real world that is ...
To go back to what you've said earlier...
Size? Is a zeppelin maneuverable because it's bigger than a Spit? Weight? Is a 1 lb rock maneuverable?
Lift and thrust. Lift loading and power loading, those are the important factors. S
Oh and your second statement is basically you implying that the flight model is not correct.
-
Your equations work for the initial acceleration of the roll. Consider why the roll does not continue to accelerate but reaches equilibrium.
That's the drag factor. I've used a force balance for the steady state.
To do a complete calculation of the roll rate you need to integrate the lift across the length of the wing (very similar to if you think of the increasing angle of a prop toward the center).
Yes I realized this, but I'm not about to do that integral for the sake of a BBS discussion :lol.
I do not believe you are thinking about the opposite force to the ailerons that creates the steady roll.
That's the drag factor I used in my force balance. Force balance means no acceleration. Maybe I'm wrong on which force I picked, but the drag factor was my guess as to the opposite force.
-
it is the difference between how much one can maneuver and how quickly one can maneuver and it can be a significant advantage/disadvantage and it most often goes to the plane that has less mass to move around.
Whatever are you talking about here? Turn rate is *precisely* how quickly an airplane can turn.
-
because most of the factors others are using are related to a steady state of flight. the advantage i presented comes into play when changing the state of flight. it is the difference between how much one can maneuver and how quickly one can maneuver and it can be a significant advantage/disadvantage and it most often goes to the plane that has less mass to move around.
How does a plane change its state of flight? Lift, drag, power. More wing area means more available lift both steady state AND at higher AoA. Lift loading is a steady state parameter, but it generally scales well as you increase AoA. But the thing is, we've discounted the differences in scaling regarding increased AoA, with the operative words "all else equal" i.e., we've assumed the wing geometry is the same, only the area changes.
-
no i said maneuvering, it is not the same as turning.
So what are we talking about now then? Roll rate? Won't help your asinine "heavier=worse" nonsense, because roll rate will once again be defined by the ratio of the aerodynamic force the ailerons can bring to bear against the resistant forces in the roll axis. If you way of "thinking" were accurate, then the heavier 190 could *never* out-roll lighter Spits, 109s, Laggs, and Yaks. :rofl Come to think of it, the two planes with the best roll rate in the ETO, the 190 and the P-47, were also the heaviest single-engine prop fighters in their respective air forces....hmmm...I guess now I should go about claiming that heavier=better roll rate. :x
-
To be sure. A good example is Baumer's turn radius equation. While the equation's numerator is simply "V^2", that term represents a whole lot of dynamic stuff if you compare everything that makes that number what it is.
Yup, I fully understand. The numerator is not a number, but rather a function of many things. But I really don't feel like doing calculus or differential equations for a BBS discussion, especially with a subject like aero. 99% of fully accurate real world physics calculations can't be solved exactly but rather must be done either numerically or solved using some approximation/simplification.
On the other hand, a very rough approximation using basic mechanics is enough to see the basic gist.
Further, thrust to weight is a poor relationship to use when discussing propellor aircraft.
I'm not sure why. But of course this is one front where my ability to reason from physics to aero ends.
-
not quite, a plane needs to roll before it can explore its turn rate. a plane can be great at one and not so good at the other and be easily out maneuvered. there are 6 planes of motion and two directions of roll involved in maneuverability not just left or right. agility in all 8 defines an aircrafts maneuverability. at least practically.
Whatever are you talking about here? Turn rate is *precisely* how quickly an airplane can turn.
-
yep i did not consider balloons or rocks in my discussion about airplanes, my apologies ...
although i probably should have said practically instead of "the real world" it would have been more appropriate
sorry for the confusion.
To go back to what you've said earlier...
Size? Is a zeppelin maneuverable because it's bigger than a Spit? Weight? Is a 1 lb rock maneuverable?
Lift and thrust. Lift loading and power loading, those are the important factors. S
Oh and your second statement is basically you implying that the flight model is not correct.
-
That's the drag factor. I've used a force balance for the steady state.
Yes I realized this, but I'm not about to do that integral for the sake of a BBS discussion :lol.
That's the drag factor I used in my force balance. Force balance means no acceleration. Maybe I'm wrong on which force I picked, but the drag factor was my guess as to the opposite force.
Sorry boomerlu, I miss read you post as not agreeing with change in roll rate, yes I agree with a basic idea that drag (if you think of it that way) increases with the ^2 of the length, and roll force increases linearly with the length. In Aerodynamics, I tend to think of everything in AOA's when any force is applied as a lifting force, and not a drag slowing the roll.
HiTech
-
not quite, a plane needs to roll before it can explore its turn rate. a plane can be great at one and not so good at the other and be easily out maneuvered. there are 6 planes of motion and two directions of roll involved in maneuverability not just left or right.
Wow. No.
A rigid object's position is defined by 6 degrees of freedom - [X, Y, Z] (translational freedom) and [roll, pitch, yaw] (rotational freedom).
Each of these has a corresponding velocity component and an acceleration component.
A pilot/airplane traveling horizontally along the X axis (which we assume for simplicity) has direct control over his acceleration in the X direction and indirect control of his acceleration in the other translational directions.
The direct acceleration control comes from throttle and drag. The pilot has indirect control over the acceleration in other translational directions via the use of roll and pitch to orient the lift vector and increase/decrease it. Alternatively the pilot could use roll and yaw to do the same, but it is generally less efficient because the lift provided by yaw is much less than the lift provided by pitch.
Of course this does not contradict your point that roll is important. But BnZs has already covered that.
-
maneuverability: Ability to change the direction of its velocity vector.
The only force that is perpendicular to the Velocity vector , simply by definition, is lift. Until you accept this very simple premise, there is no use in any discussion, because turning, and changing vel vector are 100% the same term.
HiTech
-
yep i did not consider balloons or rocks in my discussion about airplanes, my apologies ...
My point is simply that the difference between the zeppelin/rock and an airplane is LIFT AND THRUST. By saying "size and weight by themselves are important" you are taking lift and thrust out of the picture. Take that to the extreme, and you get rocks and zeppelins.
Yes they are important, but as we've repeatedly stated (and you seem to have come to agree), more important than size and weight by themselves are their effects on lift loading and power loading. Once again, take those two factors out of the equation and you're left with rocks.
although i probably should have said practically instead of "the real world" it would have been more appropriate
sorry for the confusion.
If that's what you meant, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Your history on these boards so far has indicated otherwise, so that's what I inferred.
-
not quite, a plane needs to roll before it can explore its turn rate...
Why do you need to roll before you can turn?
I'm thinking that " The state of flight is the crux of the maneuver fight" would be a good signature for you thorsim.
-
so the ability to speed up slow down and dive (unless you mean lift as a negative value as well) have no place in conversations about maneuverability?
:headscratch:
maneuverability: Ability to change the direction of its velocity vector.
The only force that is perpendicular to the Velocity vector , simply by definition, is lift. Until you accept this very simple premise, there is no use in any discussion, because turning, and changing vel vector are 100% the same term.
HiTech
yea we were posting at the same time.
Wow. No.
A rigid object's position is defined by 6 degrees of freedom - [X, Y, Z] (translational freedom) and [roll, pitch, yaw] (rotational freedom).
Each of these has a corresponding velocity component and an acceleration component.
A pilot/airplane traveling horizontally along the X axis (which we assume for simplicity) has direct control over his acceleration in the X direction and indirect control of his acceleration in the other translational directions.
The direct acceleration control comes from throttle and drag. The pilot has indirect control over the acceleration in other translational directions via the use of roll and pitch to orient the lift vector and increase/decrease it. Alternatively the pilot could use roll and yaw to do the same, but it is generally less efficient because the lift provided by yaw is much less than the lift provided by pitch.
Of course this does not contradict your point that roll is important. But BnZs has already covered that.
well since the accepted limits on maneuverability in this discussion are limited to steady states of flight, and only one direction i will just leave all you experts at it and go into the arena and kill some more guys with my wild notions ...
+S+
t
-
Sorry boomerlu, I miss read you post as not agreeing with change in roll rate, yes I agree with a basic idea that drag (if you think of it that way) increases with the ^2 of the length, and roll force increases linearly with the length. In Aerodynamics, I tend to think of everything in AOA's when any force is applied as a lifting force, and not a drag slowing the roll.
Hey no problem. I'm used to thinking about forces, you're used to thinking about AoAs. I just wanted to figure this thing out and see if I understood what was going on underneath the surface. Good to hear my basic premise is correct. :cheers:
-
well since the accepted limits on maneuverability in this discussion are limited to steady states of flight, and only one direction i will just leave all you experts at it and go into the arena and kill some more guys with my wild notions ...
This clearly shows me you don't understand what I was getting at, which may be partially my fault. I was primarily trying to correct your notion that there are 8 degrees of freedom.
There are 3 positional degrees of freedom which define where the aircraft is (XYZ) and 3 angular degrees of freedom which define how it is oriented (roll pitch yaw). Each of these DoF also has a corresponding velocity and acceleration.
The pilot has no direct control over the 3 translational degrees of freedom. He approximately has direct control over pitch and yaw angles. The pitch angle in turn indirectly controls the size of the lift vector and thus acceleration in the direction of the lift vector. The yaw angle indirectly controls a yaw-force vector as well, but we generally don't use it to maneuver. The pilot also has approximately direct control over roll velocity (in other words roll rate) which allows him to orient the lift vector. He also has direct control over acceleration in the direction the aircraft is pointed in via throttle.
In total there are actually 18 degrees of freedom! The pilot has direct control over 4.
P.S. I already addressed your "steady-state" fallacy earlier.
-
it wasn't you i was referring to boomer
i just think i am on a different level of thought right or wrong, or people here like to over complicate or over simplify things to advance their agenda.
simply stated if you are going in one place heading in one direction and then you apply forces and you are in another place heading in another direction how big and heavy you are will make some notable difference in how long it takes you to get to your new place and direction.
i am sorry if that concept is not well received, but nobody here has convinced me otherwise.
t
-
simply stated if you are going in one place heading in one direction and then you apply forces and you are in another place heading in another direction how big and heavy you are will make some notable difference in how long it takes you to get to your new place and direction.
What you're missing here is the following...
F = m a
Since we're talking about aero and maneuvering, F = Lift so
L = m a
Rearranging we get
L/m = a
What's L/m? Lift loading.
Alternatively, F = Thrust
T = m a
T/m = a
What is T/m? Thrust to weight ratio.
Or if we're trying to decelerate, F = Drag
D = m a
D/m = a
In other words, roll rate aside, the ability of a plane to change its velocity vector is defined by its Lift/Weight, Thrust/Weight, and Drag/Weight ratios.
Oh and just to be extra clear...
a = dv/dt
in other words, the acceleration a is equal to the change in velocity over one unit of time.
-
well ok does the application of force via the controls translates into direction/velocity changes instantly and fully?
if not do you think that the mass that is required to be moved may have an effect on how quickly the force applied results in the desired changes?
?
t
-
well ok does the application of force via the controls translates into direction/velocity changes instantly and fully?
No, because, acceleration, velocity, and position are all continuous rather than discrete. You cannot instantly go from 10 mph to 20 mph, nor can you instantly go from 10 mph south to 10 mph east.
if not do you think that the mass that is required to be moved may have an effect on how quickly the force applied results in the desired changes?
Yes it does, but again, if you look at the equations above (which are the SIMPLEST forms in which I can show the math), acceleration depends only on the RATIO between lift, drag, and thrust to mass.
To move a bigger mass with the same acceleration, you must have a correspondingly bigger force. The capacity of the plane to generate that extra force for the purposes of turning is directly proportional to the wing area as per the Lift equation (which I will not write down, but I invite you to Google it to see for yourself).
So as with all our "scaling" thought experiments, if you double the mass of a plane but also double the wing area , double the thrust, and double the drag it will perform exactly the same in all regards except roll rate as per the equations of motion I've written down for you.
Notice the lift equation works at all AoA, not just steady state. The AoA effects are captured by CL the coefficient of lift which also incorporates the effects of wing shape (and we assume wing shape does not change).
We also have not considered the effects of control forces and other practical engineering constraints. We ignore them because they are irrelevant to the thought experiment which merely involves comparing two hypothetical aircraft, the second of which has double the thrust, drag, weight, and wing area of the first.
-
Wow, 12 pages later does anyone remember that this thread essentially started as a question on how the 1A can beat the Spixteen in a fight?
:D
-
yes provided your control surfaces are as relatively efficient and that you have enough extra power to counter the drag of those control surfaces and of course the weight of those control surfaces and the weight of the extra power and the extra wing for the wing and lift loading and the extra fuel the extra power requires ...
i don't intend to be snide but i suspect you can see what i am getting at. scaling up is easy on paper, the engineering realities, not so much.
EDIT : and since we are talking WW2 does the pilot have the strength to be able to deflect that much more force required to make the desired changes, if not how much will the system to assist the pilot weigh and once again you get into the scaling problem.
t
No, because, acceleration, velocity, and position are all continuous rather than discrete. You cannot instantly go from 10 mph to 20 mph, nor can you instantly go from 10 mph south to 10 mph east.
Yes it does, but again, if you look at the equations above (which are the SIMPLEST forms in which I can show the math), acceleration depends only on the RATIO between lift, drag, and thrust to mass.
To move a bigger mass with the same acceleration, you must have a correspondingly bigger force. The capacity of the plane to generate that extra force is directly proportional to the wing area as per the Lift equation (which I will not write down, but I invite you to Google it to see for yourself).
So as with all our "scaling" thought experiments, if you double the mass of a plane but also double the wing area, it will perform exactly the same with regards to changing direction using its lift vector.
-
i don't intend to be snide but i suspect you can see what i am getting at. scaling up is easy on paper, the engineering realities, not so much.
The point was never to highlight engineering realities, but to do a thought experiment to see what the most important variables are.
And again, they are lift/mass, weight/mass, drag/mass, with lift being proportional to wing area.
The RATIOS are important. Mass in and of itself is not.
-
well we will need to agree to disagree about the importance of size and weight as it seems very difficult to isolate them for discussion.
i am sorry i am unable to express my ideas better.
+S+
t
The point was never to highlight engineering realities, but to do a thought experiment to see what the most important variables are.
And again, they are lift/mass, weight/mass, drag/mass, with lift being proportional to wing area.
The RATIOS are important. Mass in and of itself is not.
-
and maybe that is where the core of the disagreement lies ...
in theory some say we can double all the values and achieve the same result.
practically i say that is impossible for a lot of reasons that tend to stack the deck against that result.
and i am sorry but i always saw this as a practical discussion not a theoretical one.
and even if roll rate alone is the only change that would be enough to make my case ...
imo
+S+
t
The point was never to highlight engineering realities, but to do a thought experiment to see what the most important variables are.
And again, they are lift/mass, weight/mass, drag/mass, with lift being proportional to wing area.
The RATIOS are important. Mass in and of itself is not.
-
:rolleyes:
Then you should have said "extra size and mass from the AIRFRAME cause engineering constraints such as extra control surface forces etc etc and these constraints will factor in as disadvantages to larger and heavier AIRFRAMES."
You have basically been trying to run a debate over the wrong topic the whole time. Your inability to come out with your point earlier is absolutely astounding.
Also note in the F104 vs F15 example, the engineering improved so dramatically for the F15 that it was able to overcome its inherent weakness of a larger and heavier airframe and is thus a better maneuvering fighter. Once again showing that a larger and heavier airframe alone will not make a worse fighter.
And finally, you only mentioned roll rate after 80% of the debate had already occurred despite repeated requests for you to completely define what you mean by maneuverability. Also, BnZ covered roll rate's non-correlation with mass.
-
Boomerlu I think what you're noticing is that thorsim isn't arguing any particular point, he's just arguing that he's right.
-
quite frankly considering the way the conversation started with specific aircraft i don't think i needed to state anything, it was always a practical discussion.
the theory was introduced by others who were trying to argue that weight and size have no real world consequences or effects in and of themselves.
i disagree.
i did not try to run anything, i was just stating my case. i am sorry if you misunderstood.
t
:rolleyes:
Then you should have said "extra size and mass from the AIRFRAME cause engineering constraints such as extra control surface forces etc etc and these constraints will factor in as disadvantages to larger and heavier AIRFRAMES."
You have basically been trying to run a debate over the wrong topic the whole time.
-
Boomerlu I think what you're noticing is that thorsim isn't arguing any particular point, he's just arguing that he's right.
Meh, at least it wasn't a total waste of time. I figured out how roll rate works. :joystick:
-
hey look i am not rehashing old ground the 104 was not designed as an air superiority fighter and is a poor example because it is so extreme.
i offered the weight and power leveled f-16-f15 comparison but that was deemed not good enough ...
f86, mig 15 cant be used because of the control system differences spit and 109 not good because the wings and approaches to their design effect to much ...
some version hurricane and macci maybe,
or the same plane loaded and unloaded but power limited?
if you can think of a better example of a significantly bigger heaver but otherwise well matched pair of fighters i am all ears but i never said the other factors were not factors i just said weight and size are factors.
i am happy to look at a good example, and have stated so, so get upset elsewhere.
:rolleyes:
Then you should have said "extra size and mass from the AIRFRAME cause engineering constraints such as extra control surface forces etc etc and these constraints will factor in as disadvantages to larger and heavier AIRFRAMES."
You have basically been trying to run a debate over the wrong topic the whole time. Your inability to come out with your point earlier is absolutely astounding.
Also note in the F104 vs F15 example, the engineering improved so dramatically for the F15 that it was able to overcome its inherent weakness of a larger and heavier airframe and is thus a better maneuvering fighter. Once again showing that a larger and heavier airframe alone will not make a worse fighter.
And finally, you only mentioned roll rate after 80% of the debate had already occurred despite repeated requests for you to completely define what you mean by maneuverability. Also, BnZ covered roll rate's non-correlation with mass.
-
Wow, 12 pages later does anyone remember that this thread essentially started as a question on how the 1A can beat the Spixteen in a fight?
:D
I believe the answer was "with equal pilots it cant", apart from maybe running it outta fuel :uhoh
As you were.
-
There's no point to further discussion. We've resolved our differences, but you definitely should have stated more clearly your premise of discussion and stated it earlier. Basically everybody that argued with you has been going down a blind alley with regards to what you are talking about. We have argued entirely different things.
I doubt anybody would disagree that engineering practicalities caused by size and weight differences of the airframe would change performance and be biased towards lighter airframes. Note I say airframes because the weight of an "aircraft" implicitly includes all weight differences from engineering already.
Note also I said "biased towards". To what extent these differences would allow or prevent a particular bigger/heavier airframe from outperforming a particular lighter one can't be adequately examined without digging into a TON of technical detail in most cases. But an extreme case is the F104 vs F15 example I mentioned.
Also the reason we've been examining theoretical cases is simply because it is impossible to truly compare two different real aircraft in a way that accounts for (available lift)/weight, thrust/weight, and drag/weight. Essentially trying to argue this any way but theoretically with the scaling examples is comparing apples to oranges.
The closest you can get is the same airplane with a lighter fuel load. But a lighter fuel load improves all the above mentioned ratios. You can limit thrust so that thrust/weight is constant, but you cannot limit drag or available lift.
Anyways, that's my last word on the subject.
-
Boomerlu I think what you're noticing is that thorsim isn't arguing any particular point, he's just arguing that he's right.
Someone else "get's it".
Have a seat and crack open a cold one from the Stryofoam cooler held together with ductape. Ask Shuffler if he has an extra lawn chair. :devil
-
i believe i asked for examples early on, and was not the only one involved in the discussion ...
could not someone just as easily have said, i know you can't do it practically but if you could ...
blame for the 12 pages should fall equally on them, don't you think?
There's no point to further discussion. We've resolved our differences, but you definitely should have stated more clearly your premise of discussion and stated it earlier. Basically everybody that argued with you has been going down a blind alley with regards to what you are talking about. We have argued entirely different things.
I doubt anybody would disagree that engineering practicalities caused by size and weight differences of the airframe would change performance and be biased towards lighter airframes. Note I say airframes because the weight of an "aircraft" implicitly includes all weight differences from engineering already.
Note also I said "biased towards". To what extent these differences would allow or prevent a particular bigger/heavier airframe from outperforming a particular lighter one can't be adequately examined without digging into a TON of technical detail in most cases. But an extreme case is the F104 vs F15 example I mentioned.
Also the reason we've been examining theoretical cases is simply because it is impossible to truly compare two different real aircraft in a way that accounts for (available lift)/weight, thrust/weight, and drag/weight. Essentially trying to argue this any way but theoretically with the scaling examples is comparing apples to oranges.
The closest you can get is the same airplane with a lighter fuel load. But a lighter fuel load improves all the above mentioned ratios. You can limit thrust so that thrust/weight is constant, but you cannot limit drag or available lift.
Anyways, that's my last word on the subject.
-
so the ability to speed up slow down and dive (unless you mean lift as a negative value as well) have no place in conversations about maneuverability?
:headscratch:
yea we were posting at the same time.
well since the accepted limits on maneuverability in this discussion are limited to steady states of flight, and only one direction i will just leave all you experts at it and go into the arena and kill some more guys with my wild notions ...
+S+
t
so the ability to speed up slow down and dive (unless you mean lift as a negative value as well) have no place in conversations about maneuverability?
Per your definition of maneuverability they have nothing to do with it, YOUR definition was change in DIRECTION of the Vel Vector, speeding up or slowing down is changing it's length not its direction.
HiTech
-
Someone else "get's it".
Have a seat and crack open a cold one from the Stryofoam cooler held together with ductape. Ask Shuffler if he has an extra lawn chair. :devil
plenty of cold beer extra lawn chairs and a great view from the gold coast. Pull up a chair.
-
actually that was bobs definition, mine was different and accounted for such changes ...
i think "bob" says something like
the ability to change the direction of your velocity vector ...
i would prefer the ability to change your state of motion ...
however, either will do.
remember?
Per your definition of maneuverability they have nothing to do with it, YOUR definition was change in DIRECTION of the Vel Vector, speeding up or slowing down is changing it's length not its direction.
HiTech
i know that may be nitpicking since i said either would do, but you did start it, and misquoted me again in the process ...
-
I'm not sure why. But of course this is one front where my ability to reason from physics to aero ends.
Because determining thrust in a propellor aircraft is difficult, or perhaps imprecise would be a better descriptor. To say that thrust is the same as
F = M*A is not a good way to express it. For example, a plane at zero velocity will still produce thrust, even though the equation would tell you otherwise.
But, I'm hijacking a bit. Just use terms with caution...
-
F = M*A is not a good way to express it. For example, a plane at zero velocity will still produce thrust, even though the equation would tell you otherwise.
But, I'm hijacking a bit. Just use terms with caution...
Acceleration can be positive while velocity is zero ;). They're related but not equivalent.
I kind of see what you mean though. The conversion from horsepower to thrust is not exact because the propeller still has to cut air and it's not a 100% efficient transfer of force from the engine to the surrounding air - the turbulence caused by the prop reduces the efficiency.
Whereas a jet's thrust can be more easily measured by finding the output, I'm guessing? The output from a jet seems to be a more efficient transfer of engine power to usable thrust.
-
EDIT : and since we are talking WW2 does the pilot have the strength to be able to deflect that much more force required to make the desired changes, if not how much will the system to assist the pilot weigh and once again you get into the scaling problem.
This is a valid point, however, as regards WWII prop fighters, it was apparently possible to design quite large fighters with decently light controls at typical WWII prop fighter airspeeds, if properly engineered. I can say this with confidence because the P-47 Thunderbolt, the largest single engine fighter of the war, had nicely light stick forces up to very high airspeeds, in fact lighter than those of many of its more miniscule contemporaries. And when you add powered control surfaces, this too becomes a non-issue.
-
Also note in the F104 vs F15 example, the engineering improved so dramatically for the F15 that it was able to overcome its inherent weakness of a larger and heavier airframe and is thus a better maneuvering fighter. Once again showing that a larger and heavier airframe alone will not make a worse fighter.
As much as anything else, improved understanding of what fighters would be asked to and what attributes they needed to do it led to new designs like the F-15 and F-16. Initially jet fighters were haunted by the "dogfighting is obsolete, the planes go too fast and the weapon systems make it unnessecary" myth. Interesting, this myth was also widely held at the outset of WWII, before the lessons of actual combat once again taught people its falsehood.
-
This is a valid point, however, as regards WWII prop fighters, it was apparently possible to design quite large fighters with decently light controls at typical WWII prop fighter airspeeds, if properly engineered. I can say this with confidence because the P-47 Thunderbolt, the largest single engine fighter of the war, had nicely light stick forces up to very high airspeeds, in fact lighter than those of many of its more miniscule contemporaries. And when you add powered control surfaces, this too becomes a non-issue.
Correct. At my Kalamazoo AirZoo meet in Feb, they had an Open Cockpit weekend. LyeEl sat in the D-40 they have, painted in and blessed by Gabreski's D-25 markings.
The gentlemen posted on the Jug, flew Ponies and Jugs in WWII. He preferred the Jug. He said and I quote: "The biggest concern was "crabbing on the runway while taxiing. But once the wheels lifted you could move the stick with two fingers, EASILY. You cannot do that in a P-51 or most other fighters. The controls were a dream to operate in the Jug and you had a ton of room as well."
-
I kind of see what you mean though. The conversion from horsepower to thrust is not exact because the propeller still has to cut air and it's not a 100% efficient transfer of force from the engine to the surrounding air - the turbulence caused by the prop reduces the efficiency.
Whereas a jet's thrust can be more easily measured by finding the output, I'm guessing? The output from a jet seems to be a more efficient transfer of engine power to usable thrust.
boomerlu, it is more because on a constant speed prop the basic thrust equation is T = (HP / Speed) * PropEff. Hence thrust changes drastically so terms like Trust to Weight must also specify a speed. Prop design can drastically effect the PropEff at different speed. Think Helicopter as an extream example Its thrust = weight at zero Vel. But if you would view it moving vertically with out gravity. Your PropEff would drop of very quickly as speed increases. Vs a high speed fighter whos PropEff at very slow speeds is extremely low but is very high at higher speeds.. In many ways it is just using the generic term torque with out giving an rpm with an infinite ratio gear box.
Jets tend to be much more constant thrust, and hence there HP increases with speed.
HiTech
-
boomerlu, it is more because on a constant speed prop the basic thrust equation is T = (HP / Speed) * PropEff. Hence thrust changes drastically so terms like Trust to Weight must also specify a speed. Prop design can drastically effect the PropEff at different speed. Think Helicopter as an extream example Its thrust = weight at zero Vel. But if you would view it moving vertically with out gravity. Your PropEff would drop of very quickly as speed increases. Vs a high speed fighter whos PropEff at very slow speeds is extremely low but is very high at higher speeds.. In many ways it is just using the generic term torque with out giving an rpm with an infinite ratio gear box.
Mm... more to read about on wikis. Thanks. Out of curiosity - what are some general ranges of the PropEff number?
From a theoretical standpoint, it looks like it should be (0,1). What are some "normal" ranges for aircraft, e.g. ours in Aces High?
Jets tend to be much more constant thrust, and hence there HP increases with speed.
Yup, this is why I'm guessing with the advent of jet engines, aircraft stats started to quote thrust rather than HP.
-
0.80 is a good starting point for most speed ranges. Those being best climb speed to max level speed.
HiTech
-
Cool thanks! I'm actually surprised to see prop efficiency is that high. After I learned thermodynamics, I kind of got used to the idea that most things are very inefficient.
-
Cool thanks! I'm actually surprised to see prop efficiency is that high. After I learned thermodynamics, I kind of got used to the idea that most things are very inefficient.
Theoretically, prop efficiency is very bad at low speeds. Its a very dramatic curve, with your 75-80% peak efficiencies coming near a planes best speeds, like Hitech said.
-
Thanks. Out of curiosity - what are some general ranges of the PropEff number?
Here is a prop chart for the F4U-1 as an example...
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/F4U1PROP.jpg)
At 100mph (close to the stall speed) the advance ratio is 0.55, so the efficiency can be read from the chart at 59%. The maximum efficiency is just over 83% at an advance ratio equivalent to about 300mph. In general, you might expect prop efficiency to vary between about 40% and 85%.
Badboy
-
I'd much rather take a crossing snapshot from the Spixteen's gun package into the wing of a Hog than I would a snapshot from a Browning 6-pack into the wing of a Spit.
Didn't read all the way through but this snapshot on a pusfires wings has been very effective for me on the crossing shot.
-
Didn't read all the way through but this snapshot on a pusfires wings has been very effective for me on the crossing shot.
Agreed, their wings are like peanut brittle. Peanut brittle being pounded with a .50 caliber sledgehammer.