Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Hangtime on December 04, 1999, 09:52:00 AM
-
Hmmmm.. mebbe it's a mite early; but does anybody else think the Corsair as modeled is a bit optimistic in the T&B catgory?? It seems to stall kinda late for such a heavy fighter; and it's initial turn also seems optimistic.
Flat out; I think it's speed is about right; the accel seems right for a big radial; and the accel in a dive seems good too. But the turnfights.. jeeze; its like an uber spit as modeled; and is seemingly out of its 'heavy fighter catagory' hanging on so well without a stall in the low slow turns.
------------------
Hangtime PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
-
Stallfighted one on the deck in 190. It is my opinion that it handles better at low speeds than 2 MG 151 190, as well that it outturns it in a flat turn. Only its inertia seems greater, and thus its reversals take longer.
So, 190 is better in reversals, while Hog beats it in sustained maneuvers (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The fight was really desperate and I was hard pressed, but at the end te Hog augered. I guess that Eliminator nickname is in order (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Also, that might not be the last from Hog pilots. Their quality jumped compared to yesterday, when it was easy meat for Wurger. Who knows what secrets its FM hides for the future.
-
The Navy flew a Fw 190A-5 extensively against the F6F-3 and the F4U-1. They found the Navy planes were better in a sustained turning fight. The F6F could not roll as well as the Fw 190 but the F4U was close. Fw 190 outclimbed both aircraft at all test altitudes. F4U was faster on the deck, F6F and Fw 190 were about even. At 25k the Fw 190 was faster than either Navy plane. If anybody wants this document, email and I'll give you the National Archives reference.
-
190 climbed better than F4U and faster at 25k ? Wow, I never had that impression in the arena (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 12-04-1999).]
-
Post the ref, funky one...I vaguely remember the document. FWIW, and I may be mistaken, but I think some mentioned today to HT that he thought the Hog bled too much E in a turn and HT said he and Pyro were looking into it.
( (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
------------------
Spinny, VF-17
8X
-
I love it.. but it does seem really forgiving at low speed.. much like the Pony. Love the gun sight on it though, and it is a very stable BnZ platform. My favorite for now... and it might even keep me happy until I get my P47D. <G>
------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs
-
Never flown a real F4, but all that I have read said that they were indeed very forgiving at stall.
Mino
-
When slow, the F4U were supposedly somewhat decent handling. If you look at the gull, it kinda gives it a large amount of dihedral. It gots it's nickname from the torque, not so much the airframe itself.
As for the 190-A outclimbing it and outrunning it at 25k, well, that goes against everything I've beleived, but of course, I'm prolly wrong = )
I've known the A model wulfs to be poor performers at alt, and the corsair to be a somewhat good one. Just doesnt make sense IMPIO (in my probably incorrect opinion)
-
Rgr all the above.. seems reasonable, but would expect torque to be a much bigger factor in the stall speed turns...
Tks for the feedback. This ones destined to be a Great Plane Pyro!
------------------
Hangtime PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
-
Now when we compare 190 and F4u, I can only say that 190 feels VERY lousy at slow speeds when compared to P51 and even more with F4u, which doesn't seem to have any problems with 40mph and its "big" torque.
If F4u had big torque, real ensign killer, then Me109 had so big torque that it shouldn't been able to get off even with expert (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(109 in AH has alot greater torque effects than F4u, even 190 has greater)
If these all allie planes can stall so fine, why don't we make it more closer to that same overmodel/realism for LW planes.
For now, it seems like LW planes are in different priority caterogy of modelling than allies.
-
Yes, it's clearly a diabolical plot by the imperialist American flight modelers to uber-model US iron and mini-model LW engineering genius, thus insuring running-dog capitalist superiority for this present generation of on-line flight simulations.
The only possible countermove is for the LW supporters to create their own programs that correctly model the superior materials, engineering and workmanship of the fighters in question while also accurately modeling the slipshod, inefficient mass produced American trash.
Then this new program can go H2H against Aces High and truth and justice will be served!!!!
-
The above post is tongue-in cheek. :-^
Since WB, I've watched HT, Pyro and the whole crew get accused of favoring one nation's planes over another nation's planes by unfairly programming the flight models.
They get accused of incorrect modeling every which way. LW planes are too strong/too weak, US planes are too strong/too weak, Brit planes are too strong/too weak and on and on and on and on.
I think they just model them according to their system. They get the data, plug it into the equations they use for baseline and tweak the results.
I seriously doubt if there is any INTENT to over or under model any particular nation's aircraft.
Perhaps their system could be improved, perhaps not. Anyone know of any other game or games that do this better than WB or AH which are essentially products of the same team?
Let them work, make suggestions if you really do have serious, reliable information (forget the coffee-table books) but skip the accusatory finger-pointing, OK?
I think they're doing the best they can and trying to be fair to all.
-
HEAR! HEAR! Toad, well said, sucinct and to the point.
MarkAT
-
Toad <Salute>;
Thanks! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I have been getting pretty tired of this whining myself. I usually read new posts almost every day. Alot of threads have been getting fairly poluted by this line of discussion.
I keep expecting some one to post up some kind of "Real World Data" and compare it to "AH Actual Results", but it has not happened yet. Mostly just "Repetative Spouting Off" is what I have read.
As a side note. I was watching The History Channel today. Chuck Yeager was being interviewed. Chuck stated something very close to "The 51 was superior to almost all the planes it encountered. It was faster, climbed and turned better. It was often underestimated". Obviously Chuck is biased, but I believe his experience justifies his comments much more than many comments I have read in this forum. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mino
-
History Channel is overmodeled (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
OK, seriously now. What I try to point out is that for some reason Pony became much more dangerous since early versions. This is not so obvious, beause many newbies fly it. But average pilot in Pony is very dangerous nowadays. And moreover, G-10 got castrated and we got a buff killer to fight such Pony. Dora is still held away from us, but we are promised early war planes to fight this menace. They are not the answer, IMHO.
I have following complaints about the Pony:
It seems very docile at low speed and high AoA. It zooms till 0 speed, then reverses by itself. A little stall horn, but that's it. No sign of possible spin. Is this really the famous laminar wing, of which I heard many times that it is not suited for slow flying ?
OK, its low drag might be able to keep its E. I totally agree with that. But its power loading should not make it such a climber and accelerator, nor a low level dogfighter. Its greatest help in attaining speed should not be engine and nose level, but gravity assist. If you lose speed in Pony, better have some alt below you. After all it is a heavy plane with moderate engine power, and should behave as such.
I trust to HTC crew, even if it is hard sometimes. Otherwise I wouldn't be here.
-
Minotaur, you can find guys who will make comments like Yeager's about every frikkin plane in the war!
Also Yeager is a stick&rudder guy. He's not an engineer and he's not exactly what you'd call a brain surgeon on the IQ scale either.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-06-1999).]
-
I think Chuck would be right if he's talkin about a P-51 over Germany that's burned off 1/2 it's fuel!
-
Hey Minotaur,
I heard Chuck answer the question, at the "Heritage Days" airshow in Clark County Indiana in 94, "Which plane is better, the F4U or the P-51". His answer was "I'll not answer that question". If you could have heard the tones when he said it, and went on about why, He was clearly biased to the -51 and would not venture to pit one bird against the other (he WAS standing in a hanger that an almost fully restored FG-1D was housed in, with the pilot who flew both a Mustang (Hurry Home Honey), and the FG-1D, as well as a T-28 and P-47D (Tarheel Hal)=> ).
------------------
Drdoyo, Lt. J.G.
VF-17 the Jolly Rogers
8X
-
Dunno, about stallfights, but I sure had fun Friday night trying to coax my staggering Hog over the mountains into Rookland, loaded with rockets, a drop tank and 1000 lb. of HATE(tm).
Henceforth, all my Corsairs will be named "Hannibal". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Flathat
'Black Dahlia'
No10 RNAS "The Black Flight"
Angel on your wing, devil on your tail
-
First, I love the F4U!
I think we have a good first implementation of the F4U as compared to the other planes. Remember that this is still beta and that there are a few things that needs work on the flight models for all the planes. One thing that effects the Corsairs handling more then the other planes is the understated torque, most all the effects of the prop and engine are modeled in AH, but not anywhere near realistic levels. I would like to see it turned up, but I can see how that could be a problem for the new guy, turning on the engine at full throttle and promptly flipping his new ride on its back.
That said, the F4U was made as a carrier fighter, not the most forgiving, but still, it was flown in that roll. What that implies are things like very low stall speed and very good low speed handling. The thing that can’t be done in real life is gunning the engine from idle to WEP at a hundred knots and expecting it keep flying.
I don’t expect to sustain a turn inside a spit with the hawg, but I do expect to outmaneuver it. Using E fighting tactics and the strong points of its flight characteristics, low speed handling, vertical moves, acceleration, deceleration, roll rate, effective rudder, flaps and so on. My point is, don’t be surprised if a plane that can’t flat out outturn you, win over you in a turn fight.
-Jinx
The Flying Pigs
[This message has been edited by Jinx (edited 12-14-1999).]
-
Ho! Ho! UMBRAGE1 OUTRAAGE!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
>>>>It seems very docile at low speed and high AoA. It zooms till 0 speed, then reverses by itself. A little stall horn, but that's it. No sign of possible spin. Is this really the famous laminar wing, of which I heard many times that it is not suited for slow flying<<
Jeeze... hristo.. u talkin about the Mustang in THIS sim?? hehhehheeee.
I think mebbe you should fly and die in the AH paper stang fer about 30 sorties. The stang don't live longer than moments in the overpopulated weed height circle jerks; yet I find myself constantly amazed at the incredible durability and manuverabilty of the FW's slashing about thru the furballs, ringing up kills like a cash register at Macy's xmas eve.. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Further; we don't get early war cammo like you LW boys.. so every time I go low its like sombody turned a light on in yer gunsite. When u go low; all I see in mine is HT's gawdamed sheep! (harumph; sputter, sniff,sniff)
...and YAH; dammit the sheep here are overmodeled! (hang looks furtively around)
>>If you lose speed in Pony, better have some alt below you. After all it is a heavy plane with moderate engine power, and should behave as such.<<
Yah got that part right hristo.. can't tell yah how many times in AH I've had it demonstrated.. in spades to my chagrin. I think the pony in AH is dead on there too.
------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
-
I rhink from what I have read about the F4U is that the one we have now is alittle more forgiving then the real one was. In real life it had a very unforgiving stall. It has to be flown fast closer to 300k then 100, Landing gear doors were the dive brakes. The corsair could out turn anything instantly but could not sustain the turn could out climb anything in the pacific, no record ive seen or heard of firing guns at germans did fly in combat over the big battle ship (not bizmark the other big one British corsairs). The F4U had a 13:1 kill ratio. And in the soccer war shot down a P51 and 2 FG-1D's.
The Corsair we have here doesnt show the torque on taxi that it should, it was called the ensign ellimenator. Americas Hundred Thousand says something like it was a hand full to fly constant trim adjustments where nessecary. One F4U-1D was award a citation for most reliable ariplane it had it varnished in the instrument panel number 122 of squadron 111 (i may have missed squad number). The plane should be harder to fly when it is tweaked but not to much. I do believe the climb rate is a little low. acceleration might be alittle slow but the plane is still good and fun to fly. It should be alot more durable in my opinion. It should not ever stall fight it is a boom and zoom plane. It will out roll all but the 190's and once lerned out brake turn anyhting else also. It will turn fight a P51 and win properly flown.
In case you havent figured it out yet I love the F4U and was very sad to hear of cavanaugh's being envovled in the crash at osh kosh. Enough for now.
------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
Cherokee Indian
My Homepage
Where you can find the Key Commands in files for Word6 Wordpad and text mode.
indians Homepage (http://www.geocities.com/~tltoon)
Aces High Word6 and Wordpad Doc's available on my web site.
-
Corsair got a Mig kill in Korea too didn't it?
-
and oh yea.. I'm with mino's comments regarding Chuck:
>>>"The 51 was superior to almost all the planes it encountered. It was faster, climbed and turned better. It was often underestimated". Obviously Chuck is biased, but I believe his experience justifies his comments much more than many comments I have read in this forum.<<
our man Chuck was an accomplished test pilot; aknowledged as the best of the best by his contemporaries then and now. And Chuck spent time in a Corsair cockpit, as well as virtualy every other fighter type he could lay hands on. So Chuck places the Mustang at the top of the fighter foodchain.
Who are we to argue??? I Think Chuck would agree that all these comparisons of AC should be prefaced with the given unsaid axiom of "pilot skills notwithstanding".
I strongly suspect that the attribute that wins more engagements here in AH is the pilots skill in reading relative e states.
Certainly, AC selection, overall experience and gun platform capabilities all play a role; but I submit that here the attentive implementation of tactics (e mangement)clearly emerge in a sim as being the decisive factor in a fight; and I luv it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
-
Geez;
I just read an article not long ago that said the F4 had less or about the same torque as the 51. I'll try to re-locate it.
It was just that when the 51 came along the experience with torque was in place, not true with the F4.
Mino
-
Hangtime, I have read guys with equal or better credentials to Yeager who say the same things as he does but it's the P-38, the Spitfire, the Fw 190, the F4U, so on and so forth. The way you separate the truth from the BS is controlled flight testing.
-
Minotaur, you can find guys who will make comments like Yeager's about every frikkin plane in the war!
Also Yeager is a stick&rudder guy. He's not an engineer and he's not exactly what you'd call a brain surgeon on the IQ scale either.
"The guy was an instinctive engineer, born to an innate understanding of mechanics and mechanical systems ........ He used Ridley and me as his professors, and wound up knowing nearly as much as we did" a quote by Dick Frost, Bell X-1 Project engineer.
Source :Yeager, p.144.
Somehow I don't think that guys on the bottom end of the IQ curve finish up as USAF Test Pilots, nor do they become the head of the Air Force Aerospace Research Pilots School, training military astronauts.
But of course funked, you would no doubt be more of an expert on flying the P51, wouldn't you? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) And just WHAT are your qualifications???
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
hangtime
"I strongly suspect that the attribute that wins more engagements here in AH is the pilots skill in reading relative e states."
Lets see. probebly 70% of the top pilots kills are vulches. I would imagine that can be interpreted as supperior skill in establishing E state...
Check list to establish E state.
1. Is he on the ground?
-
Hey Pongo, quit insulting (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Most of my kills are darn boring P-51s at 25k, whos been dumb enough to lose altitude (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
How easy it is to judge things, "When the Judgement Comes from a Position of Incomplete Understanding and Complete Assumption".
Mino
-
Kudo's Jekyll!!
I concur. Chuck did do his homework. Anybody who considered the guy was a dope better do theirs. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
-
Hiya Mino!..
>>How easy it is to judge things, "When the Judgement Comes from a Position of Incomplete Understanding and Complete Assumption".<<
Yah; as I recall, my granpappy called it "..operating entirely unencumbered by fact". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hang
-
Hey Guys,
Everyone has their own personal conceptions of how both the Pony and Hawg fly and perform. I have been up in both of them (p-51D and FG-1D) I think most of the complaints I have read about the F4U on this board are bogus. Our hawg wasn't shifty in the air requiring a lot of trim and it was a joy to fly. The comment Minotaur made about the torque factor on takeoff is a true statement. The P-51 has as much if not more torque on takeoff then the Hawg. Think about how much extra side area the F4U has compared to the Mustang and that huge rudder. This acts to counteract the torque. The big difference making the hawg an ensign eliminator was going from an SNJ or F4F into an F4U compared to upgrading a USAAF Pilot into a D model mustang from a C or B model mustang. And yes by the time the D model mustang was operational a lot more was known about how to deal with the torque.
Personally I think all the F4U's I have flown in all the sims have been mismodeled in the respect of Acceleration. That damn plane would jump when you goosed the throttle.
Well, enough for now. I just felt like I needed to say a few words while I was on here. I can probably put together some hard data in the near future if it is desired.
Cya all later
Jerry Zollman
Lt. -zoll-
Executive Officer
VF-17 the Jolly Rogers
-
Hiya Zoll! Point taken.. flyin the real thing; lordy! (hang wipes drool from chin)
Hey; anybody know what a single .50 cal weighed?? I thought it was somethin like 1200 lbs with ammoo per gun (per pair??).. can't recall for sure.
Anyhoo; I'd guess that less pilot combat armor and bullet proof fuel tanks, combat armaments and all the other wartime stuff, a Corsair would fly like a dream. Hell maybe even as well as a P51..
(hang; ducking a barrage of empties)
-
zoll no offense but I read the trim issue in Americas haundered thousand. Trim was all in the left hand Im sure they have fixed some of the trim problems by now. The biggest thing I wonder about is do they model the stall strips on the inboard wing (not really but kinda). I am with you on the accelleration but dont totally agree on torque the big radial should behave different then the inline v12 more mass moveing in circle and all, I think the experience pilots have now makes a big difference. You didnt say anything about the stall was it as bad as other have wrote it should be. I love the F4U ad the more info I find the happier I am.
------------------
Tommy (INDIAN) Toon
Cherokee Indian
My Homepage
Where you can find the Key Commands in files for Word6 Wordpad and text mode.
indians Homepage (http://www.geocities.com/~tltoon)
Aces High Word6 and Wordpad Doc's available on my web site.
-
I'll quote Mino a couple of times:
1. "How easy it is to judge things, "When the Judgement Comes from a Position of Incomplete Understanding and Complete Assumption"."
2. "Chuck stated something very close to "The 51 was superior to almost all the planes it encountered. It was faster, climbed and turned better."
Anybody who looks deeper than the History channel will know that statement 2 is utter BS.
So why post crap like statement 1?
-
2. "Chuck stated something very close to "The 51 was superior to almost all the planes it encountered. It was faster, climbed and turned better."
Anybody who looks deeper than the History channel will know that statement 2 is utter BS.
Hmm. Ok lets think about the aircraft the P51 "encountered". I would imagine that ol Chuck meant ENEMY aircraft. I sincerely doubt he would have been comparing the 51 to a F4U for example.
P51-v-109G/K Well the P51 would have been superior in top end speed and rate of turn. 109 would have had the edge in climb rate.
P51-v-190A series. P51 faster, climbed better over 20k and better in sustained turn due to the fact that it bleeds speed more slowly than the 190. 190's only advantage would be in roll performance.
P51-v-190D9. P51 again holds the aces in top end speed and sustained turn. Better power/weight ratio of 190 helps to offset turn advantage of the 51. A pretty even matchup, depending heavily on the respective skills of the pilots.
P51-v-Bf110. No contest. P51 wins in all categories except firepower.
P51-v-Me262. The jet obviously has the advantage in top end speed, although if caught low and slow its a turkey shoot for the stang pilot.
OK, so Chuck's quote was that the 51 was superior to almost all the planes it encountered. Hmmm, tell me funked, what's wrong with that statement??
In your expert opinion, of course (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
Agreed, Jekyll, but some of these P 51 advantages were at high alt.
Next, I think 109G/K would turn better than P 51D in sustained turn, at least at lower alt.
Also, wasn't it said that 109G-10, and especially Dora, were faster than P 51D on the deck ?
190A would also be more trouble at low alts, while it is a complete dog at 20k and higher. Roll rate makes it evade longer, and luck saves it from time to time.
Also, I believe Dora climbed better than P 51D at altitudes below 20k.
What I like the most is your opinion on P 51D vs 190D-9 matchup. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Is anyone listening, please ?
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 12-08-1999).]
-
Hey Zoll,
Its always interesting to hear first hand accounts instead of the second or third hand info we usually have to go on, thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts.
I understand that the torque effects on takeoff can be about the same on a P51 and an F4U, given that the hawg is a bigger plane. But I have always, based on what I have read on the F4U, thought that the ‘killer’ effect with the huge radial was from sudden changes in power. Like getting long on final and slamming the throttle to go around, the plane would snap instantly and dig a big hole next to the runway.
I have also seen film of F4Us taking off from a carrier, presumably in to the wind. Watching from behind, it looks like the pilot is holding almost full rudder to counter the prop and engine forces, would you say that is a misinterpretation? Or is the Mustang just as bad on a short takeoff?
-Jinx
The Flying Pigs
-
100 rounds of .50 weighs about 35 pounds; the gun (aircraft version) weighs about 100 pounds (recoil absorption stuff), so on a fully loaded Hog, the guns and ammo weigh a little over 1400 pounds.
I understand, FWIW, that some Marine squadrons in the PAC removed the arresting gear and the two outer guns from the Hog, thus saving over 1000 pounds of weight.
The tail-hook alone weighs 600 pounds.
------------------
Spinny, VF-17
8X
-
Hey Guys,
No offense taken Indian (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) When we discuss torque we have to keep something in mind. Just because the radial engine is round doesn't mean that it will create more torque than a V-12 engine. Keep in mind we are not talking about a "rotary" round engine. The engine doesn't spin. In the R-2800 in paticular the Crankshaft is well balanced and dampened. The main determining factor of torque is the Propeller size, rpm and pitch.
Jinx, That was a very valid point you brought up about sudden power increases and torque which helps my argument concerning acceleration. A sudden increase in power at slow speeds was as detrimental in the Pony as the f4U. The torque roll crash on takeoff or final approach in the Hawg was more prominent given the role the plane was operated in. Full power takeoff's from short jungle strips or carrier decks compared to USAAF airfields. I can assure you if you were trying to coax enough power out of a pony to get airborne in the short distance the Hawg had to take off from you would need a huge amount of rudder input to counteract the torque as well. Now when you look at the acceleration models in these sims, and you take an airplane that has so much power and torque that it can slam dunk you into the ground at slow speed, then in the sim at 150mph you throw in full military power and WEP, no torque effect? 75% of all planes out accel you? Something is wrong here. I am not singling out this sim in paticular. Just sims in general HT.
To all: I don't mean to offend anyone with what I say. I can tell you that a lot of my conceptions and views of air combat and the operation of these planes was blown out of the water when I got the oportunity to be around them as much as I have been now.
Blue skies and happy hunting (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Jerry Zollman
Lt. -zoll-
Executive Officer
VF-17 The Jolly Rogers
-
I'd like to add a couple of comments to this thread...
1) Everything I'm reading supports the Pony's rate of climb in AH..as a former AW type I'm used to pony being a slow climber..in both Mike Spicks book on WW2 and Bob Hoovers book pony is specifically praised for climb and handling.
2) My understanding is that there is a huge difference in climb and sustained turn capability between the 190a5 and a8..I believe the a5 is much the same as the a4 in those respects
3. Pilot ability here is far more important than in AW and I believe pilots who can fly the optimal "line" thru there manuvers in AH can coax a huge performance differential vs the average pilot and make newbies scream.
I've come to belief the biggest issue here is often the 6 inches between my ears are undermodeled with regard to understanding the FM's.
-
Re: Dora v Mustang D model...
Oh; I can't wait! I was very impressed and surprised by the energy and aerodynamics modeling in AH. If the flight model fidelity holds for the Dora the way it currently does in the Mustang; we will have the most outstanding cross-platform matchup (LW v USAAF)in this sim.
..and since this sub thread is kinda polluting the original; (and I do very much wish to hear this discussion) I'm gonna start a new topic with this post... USAAF v Luftwaffe. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hang
------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
-
OK, Dora comes in, so does -4 Hog (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Jekyll: I'll leave the "superior" comment alone because that is subjective. The part about speed, climb, and turn is the obviously false part.
P-51D fought in the PTO, and there were several Japanese fighters that could turn better and outclimb it at low altitude.
The P-51D was faster than some Fw 190 variants, but not faster than a Fw 190D-9 at all altitudes. All Fw 190 variants could climb as well or better up to 20k or so, and several Me 109 variants could climb better at any altitude.
Chuck's full of it in this case.
-
regarding turn of P-51D and 109G:
Late in the war most LW pilots were inexperienced, and were not able to get max performance out of their aircraft. It doesn't surprise me that Yeager found he could out turn his rivals, he was a good stick. Yet often in allied combat reports, there is the theme of incompetent axis pilots, with the occasional super-pilot who made them say "what the f•ck!?"
The 109G had lower wingloading than the P-51D, so with comparable pilots it would turn better. Another 109G advantage in a turn is that the P-51D had that laminar flow wing which was the worst possible wing you could have in a high aoa situation.
Also, in combat reports by certain P-51 pilots who encountered the 190D-9, they found it could match or outperform the P-51 in maneuverability. The 190D-9 didn't earn the nickname "stang-killer" for nothing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Luckily not very many of them were around and pilot quality was low...
------------------
-
Hristo.. I wish I could say the opinion re the 190D-v-P51 matchup was original, but it isn't (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In all the time I flew brand W in 190's, I kept thinking about the comment made by John T Godfrey, in his fight against a 190D. Godfrey was flying a P51B at the time.
It seemed that both aircraft were pretty even in turn performance... the 51 had the radius advantage when Godfrey dropped flaps, but the D9 had the thrust/weight ratio advantage which enabled it to use alternating low/high yoyo's to drop back onto Godfrey's tail.
Godfrey actually had his guns jam in the engagement, so he had to run for home, and was probably lucky to escape with his life.
In all those years of flying brand W I always thought the 190's T/W ratio was a little screwy. Try turnfighting a 51B with a Dora in brand W and the dora pilot is just asking for a nylon letdown.
Also, regarding ol Chuck's opinion of the 51. You're probably right that he was talking about relative performance at high altitude, but after all, high altitude was where these planes lived! It would seem only natural to compare the aircraft's performance in the altitude range where they commonly fought.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm (http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm)
'feel the heat .......'
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 12-08-1999).]
-
"You're probably right that he was talking about relative performance at high altitude, but after all, high altitude was where these planes lived! It would seem only natural to compare the aircraft's performance in the altitude range where they commonly fought."
Ol' Chuck made no such qualification. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I like how you guys keep putting words in his mouth to prevent your idol from being wrong.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-08-1999).]
-
Right, Jekyll.
Also, when comparing 109 vs P 51 turn, 109 has lower wingloading + slats (not modeled), while P 51 has higher wingloading - laminar wing (not modeled, it seems). And power loading is clearly in favor of the 109.
As if our 109 is modeled with Nachwuchs factor, or our P 51 has Chuck Yeager factor modeled.
Many times I tried to compare that Godfrey's duel with the relative plane performance in WB. No way Dora could win yoyo/flat turn contest there. It would have to extend extend extend...you know it better than me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
However, I look forward to correct Dora modeling in AH. They did a good job with A-8.
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 12-09-1999).]
-
Had I known some of your feelings were so strong, I would have not posted any other persons opinions regarding anything.
Now we have gone from argueing over which plane is the best and all the reasons why or why not it is the best. To insulting people that might have no interest whatever in what we have written here. Insulting them for no clear reason that I can distingiush.
I feel badly that another person is now slandered for something I considered "General Interest Only". I must also apologize to Hangtime for the stir it has created in this thread.
I said it was "Chuck's biased opinion" I did not say "Chuck said it was a fact". Sheesh...
I said it was Chuck's opinion about "almost" all the planes the 51 "encountered". I did not say it was Chuck's opinion about the fighter plane set (or the wished for plane set) represented in AH. Double Sheesh....
I also can say that "No one posting for or against whatever they are posting for or against, ever flew any real airplane during WW2". But IMO, I suspect -Zoll- has the best idea as to what it is like to really fly them. However; it seems some people who have only flown them during "Simulated Flight", seem to know better. That cracks me up. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The Victors of War dictate how history is shaded. You can argue about that as well.
BTW I just enjoy AH, give me a plane and I'll fly. Until the parts for my RV-8 arrive. (LOL - Yeh Right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
Merry Chistmas Everyone!
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 12-09-1999).]
-
Further re the D9 Hristo, everything I've read suggests that the turn ability of the Dora was about the same as the A4, since it did not bleed speed as quickly in a turn.
Wouldn't you love to see the Dora modelled in brand W with the turning ability of the A4 (such as it is) but with the vertical performance it's outstanding power/weight ratio SHOULD have given it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
P/W ratio for Dora: 4.2lb/hp (loaded weight)
P/W ratio for P51D: 6.3lb/hp (loaded weight)
Use the Vertical Luke!!!
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
Minotaur - Sorry.
My point isn't "Yeager is a handsomehunk", it's just that pilots make a lot of silly claims. They tend to get emotional about their planes, and they have better things to do than digging up flight test data on foreign A/C. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Jekyll, make an AH clone, please !!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Somehow I feel we will wait very long for AH Dora, and it might not live to our expectations, no matter how accurate these numbers are.
I am afraid of repeating the WB Dora (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 12-09-1999).]
-
Minotaur you hit the nail on the head with " it seems some people who have only flown them during "Simulated Flight", seem to know better. That cracks me up."
Or flew Cessnas and remark how 'off' the flight model of a "North Suzuki ME-908-G-66 with two 23.99 CM HO cannon" is.
I read the anecdotal evidence of the pilots who told thier stories (aces and non aces) and from all sides to judge what I think where an airplane stands in comparison to it's pears.
I'm sure any lover of any plane will find a publication sooner or later that has the right specs written down that puts thier favorite aricraft in the best light and shows without a doubt how "thier" aircraft WAS the best after all.
Point is if you read all these specs from folks with "thier papers" that they refer from you would wonder how some planes that did not so well didn't absolutley rule the skies and the planes that did rule why they were not relegated to training services as unfit for combat.
It's like anything. Some stuff looks good on paper and put it to use and it did not measure up. And some look like the Uber plane handed down from the Cods themselves and it is a royal flop in combat.
It does make for interesting reading. Sometimes.
--Westy
-
Funked;
Apology accepted. Thanks. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I find this entire thread to be entirely described in the below quote.
Funked Quote ---
<edited> it's just that pilots make a lot of silly claims. They tend to get emotional about their planes, <edited>
--- End Quote
I find no fault for anyone to "Rant and Rave" or get "Emotional or Silly" about "Their Favorite Plane". However; I do tend to find fault with uneccessary insults.
I read the "R&R's" for the chance that I might pick some new information, so that I can improve my knowledge or my skills. This is "Good". This is "Bad", when I become "Emotional or Silly" about what I read. For that I must also apologize.
I most often just find these posts very interesting. The information is there, just wading through the rest can be a pain. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Mino
-
No doubt that RL pilots would tend to prefer the plane that brought them home time and again (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I think the most useful info from books written by WW2 pilots is contained in the descriptions of matchups between aircraft, e.g.
Godfrey's description of his P51B-v-190D turnfight,
Robert S Johnson's description of his P47C-v-Spitfire IX dogfight
Stories like these give readers a pretty good idea of the relative strengths/weaknesses of particular aircraft. More importantly, I think it gives us the opportunity to recreate these fights in order to test flight models, and to see where particular aircraft might be 'uber' or 'unter' modelled (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
Hey Funk!
>it's just that pilots make a lot of silly claims. <
At least WE haven't crashed and burned on Mars yet!
The brainiacs are up two to nothing right now in that department!
Maybe they better try and put in a "stick and rudder monkey", eh?
<G,D,R>