Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: WING47 on November 16, 2010, 07:46:39 PM
-
I have done some recent research on each of these four aircraft and the way some perform in AH has, at least to me, come under question. This is due to the numbers and facts, as well as pilot opinions. First off is the wing loadings of each aircraft:
Spitfire(early versions):27Lbs per sq-ft
P-51D:39Lbs per sq-ft
Bf-109:40Lbs per sq-ft
Fw-190:48Lbs per sq-ft
Other factors include center of gravity, which is another critical factor in maneuverability. The further forward the better the stability,but lower the maneuverability,and vice verse.
Spitfire:at least when the fuel tanks are full,it is tail heavy,especially in earlier versions
P-51:due to the placement of the fuel tank,and radio,as well as indicating flight characteristics,show it is tail heavy
Bf 109:is a forgiving fighter and as far as i know no heavy equipment was behind the pilot,it is also light and had a big meaty engine hung ont the front.This suggests in level flight it may have been nose heavy.
Fw190D:According to the information i have found,the 190 was a little unstable and had a fuel tank in the rear,suggesting it may have been tail heavy.
If the pilot accounts i have heard are true, in a dogfight from best to worst are:
#1:spitfire
#2:P-51
#3:190
#4:109
Of course the 190 vs 109 is controversial, as the 109 was probably better at low speeds,especially early versions.
Now for my list,at high speeds or speeds above 300mph I would vote:
#1;P-51 and 190 as they were easier on the pilot.
#2:spitfire only because the controls seemed slightly slower at these speeds.
#3:Bf 109 as its controls were very difficult at high speeds.
At low speeds the spitfire comes up on top followed by the P-51,109, and last is the 190.Of course earlier 109s were lighter and probably could beat a Mustang at low speeds.
The bottom line is that the modeling on each aircraft is questionable,except perhaps the pony as AHes creator flew it,and this is also confirmed by a earlier post.HTC may also want to look into other aircraft as well as their modeling is also questionable,but i haven't done enough research to confirm this.So at least for now spitfire pilots rejoice.
-WING47 :airplane:
-
Wing47,
here is an account of a pilot who has flown both the p51 and the 109 and he stats the 109 turns much tighter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94)
-
I have done some recent research on each of these four aircraft and the way some perform in AH has, at least to me, come under question. This is due to the numbers and facts, as well as pilot opinions. First off is the wing loadings of each aircraft:
Spitfire(early versions):27Lbs per sq-ft
P-51D:39Lbs per sq-ft
Bf-109:40Lbs per sq-ft
Fw-190:48Lbs per sq-ft
Other factors include center of gravity, which is another critical factor in maneuverability. The further forward the better the stability,but lower the maneuverability,and vice verse.
Spitfire:at least when the fuel tanks are full,it is tail heavy,especially in earlier versions
P-51:due to the placement of the fuel tank,and radio,as well as indicating flight characteristics,show it is tail heavy
Bf 109:is a forgiving fighter and as far as i know no heavy equipment was behind the pilot,it is also light and had a big meaty engine hung ont the front.This suggests in level flight it may have been nose heavy.
Fw190D:According to the information i have found,the 190 was a little unstable and had a fuel tank in the rear,suggesting it may have been tail heavy.
If the pilot accounts i have heard are true, in a dogfight from best to worst are:
#1:spitfire
#2:P-51
#3:190
#4:109
Of course the 190 vs 109 is controversial, as the 109 was probably better at low speeds,especially early versions.
Now for my list,at high speeds or speeds above 300mph I would vote:
#1;P-51 and 190 as they were easier on the pilot.
#2:spitfire only because the controls seemed slightly slower at these speeds.
#3:Bf 109 as its controls were very difficult at high speeds.
At low speeds the spitfire comes up on top followed by the P-51,109, and last is the 190.Of course earlier 109s were lighter and probably could beat a Mustang at low speeds.
The bottom line is that the modeling on each aircraft is questionable,except perhaps the pony as AHes creator flew it,and this is also confirmed by a earlier post.HTC may also want to look into other aircraft as well as their modeling is also questionable,but i haven't done enough research to confirm this.So at least for now spitfire pilots rejoice.
-WING47 :airplane:
No offense but what you've done doesn't prove diddly squat, think you need to do far more and better research.
ack-ack
-
Wing47,
here is an account of a pilot who has flown both the p51 and the 109 and he stats the 109 turns much tighter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94)
nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
-WING47 :airplane:
All you did was list a few opinions and then called HTC flight models into question. Opinions can be very jaded. Lets use Ack-Ack as an example.
Ack gets the chance of a life time and is offered flight time in a P38j, as well as a P51D. He is given instruction and time to get use to the planes. After running them through their paces he files a report. Cutting through all the technical garbage we can boil it down to Ack-Ack says the P38j is the better aircraft :D
I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but everyone knows he is a 38 jock through and through. Don't you think that might skew his "opinion" a bit?
If you want to call the flight models into question you had better have a LOT of data to back you up from reputable sources. HTC uses books and books of data to get the flgiht models as close as possible while still keeping the game playable.
oh and as a side tip, don't use Wikipedia as a source.
-
All you did was list a few opinions and then called HTC flight models into question. Opinions can be very jaded. Lets use Ack-Ack as an example.
Ack gets the chance of a life time and is offered flight time in a P38j, as well as a P51D. He is given instruction and time to get use to the planes. After running them through their paces he files a report. Cutting through all the technical garbage we can boil it down to Ack-Ack says the P38j is the better aircraft :D
I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but everyone knows he is a 38 jock through and through. Don't you think that might skew his "opinion" a bit?
The P-38J isn't the better plane? Holy crap, the P-38J FM is PORKED! HiTech fix it!
ack-ack
-
Then explain to me why I enjoy turn fighting and winning frequently in my 109? Oh wait, it's cause all those fun tricks that you don't even mention. It all boils down to pilot skill, not the aircraft. You can have an extremely balanced, strong, and lightweight sword, but if your were new with it, you'd be killed with a master using only a wooden pole.
-
From the articles I've read and opinions of pilots who have actually flown the plane, the P-51 is overrated. Yes, it's fast. But it doesn't maneuver for squat. It certainly can't dogfight. The strategy of P-51 pilots is always gain altitude, dive on your opponent and run like hell.
-
From the articles I've read and opinions of pilots who have actually flown the plane, the P-51 is overrated. Yes, it's fast. But it doesn't maneuver for squat. It certainly can't dogfight. The strategy of P-51 pilots is always gain altitude, dive on your opponent and run like hell.
Only gamers fly in circles.
-
[..]
Now for my list,at high speeds or speeds above 300mph I would vote:
#1;P-51 and 190 as they were easier on the pilot.
#2:spitfire only because the controls seemed slightly slower at these speeds.
#3:Bf 109 as its controls were very difficult at high speeds.
Your list is pretty much what is happening in AH, isn't it?
I'm an aerodynamics noob, but just wingloading (and the CoG you mentioned) is not a reliable indicator for aircraft performance.
You are missing things like wing shapes, engine power (varies with alt) -> thrust, lift(loading)/weight (varies with fuel,ammo), drag (varies with speed), how effective control surfaces remain at certain speeds (aileron+elevator authority, throw in flaps) and maybe arcane things like laminar flow (arguably the P-51's selling point) or exhaust thrust (certainly a selling point of the 51).
While I'm just namedropping here .. there are quite a few variables out there.
-
aaaahhh what about the RE 2005 ??? better than the spit and 109 and equal to or better than the spit and p51 in every catagory under 20000ft....... yeah we need it in AH
-
the P51 only has that rear weight when it is 75% fuel or greater. WW2 pilots always tried to burn the AUX tank before engaging in combat, as it was known to seriously throw off the CG.
-
aaaahhh what about the RE 2005 ??? better than the spit and 109 and equal to or better than the spit and p51 in every catagory under 20000ft....... yeah we need it in AH
The Re 2005 was a bit better than the C.205 and worse than the G.55... in 1943.
Don't know why everybody seems to think that the -5 series fighters were über planes. They were good in 1943, but they'd be pretty... maybe below average at best in the late war arenas.
-
The Re 2005 was a bit better than the C.205 and worse than the G.55... in 1943.
Don't know why everybody seems to think that the -5 series fighters were über planes. They were good in 1943, but they'd be pretty... maybe below average at best in the late war arenas.
2005 is a larger number than 205, it has to be better.
ack-ack
-
From the articles I've read and opinions of pilots who have actually flown the plane, the P-51 is overrated. Yes, it's fast. But it doesn't maneuver for squat. It certainly can't dogfight. The strategy of P-51 pilots is always gain altitude, dive on your opponent and run like hell.
Can you point us to these articles and opinions? Are you talking about real 51s or in game 51 flying?
The goal of any real life wartime pilot is to have height and speed on his opponent. That doesn't mean it always happened. Also didn't mean that 51 pilots didn't dogfight when they had to.
-
Can you point us to these articles and opinions? Are you talking about real 51s or in game 51 flying?
The goal of any real life wartime pilot is to have height and speed on his opponent. That doesn't mean it always happened. Also didn't mean that 51 pilots didn't dogfight when they had to.
In the case of the late '44/'45 air war over Europe for the American/British side, it almost always was in the P51s favor. The Americans/British out numbered the Germans by a significant magnitude. Many of the major battles involved over 1000+ US aircraft. Many complain about hoards now, could you imagine if all the 'AH should be like WW2' people had their way? It would be a completely lopsided hording nightmare.
here look at the some of the numbers.
March 6, 1944: The first large scale US attack on Berlin (some 600 bombers) drop 1600 tons of bombs
July 23/24, 1944: The first major raid (629 British aircraft) on a German city for two months bombs Kiel
July 25, 1944: Mission 494 (1581/500 USA bombers/fighters) supporting Operation Cobra
February 13-15, 1945: The Bombing of Dresden in World War II (1300 bombers)
March 12, 1945: A Dortmund raid of 1108 aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_operations_during_the_Battle_of_Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_operations_during_the_Battle_of_Europe)
-
Suggest some digging into the February to May 44 time frame where the Mustangs were first in combat.
We seem to be talking about the ability of the Mustang to fight.
Most certainly the sorties the Allies could put up from mid 44 on were far greater then the Luftwaffe. The OP's suggestion seems to be that the 51 couldn't hold it's own in 1 v 1 combat, and I'd suggest that this belief is wrong based on some of the combat reports of that time in early 44 where it was a battle for air superiority over Germany. This wasn't horde em, BnZ time, this was knock down, drag em out, fights. Add that the 51s were suffering from any number of mechanical problems common to new birds in combat too.
Where the Mustang puts them all to shame is that it could fight both in close(search Y-29) and on the other guys turf, had far greater range then any other potential escort fighter beyond the Lightning, and was much more economical to produce and maintain then the 38.
-
Suggest some digging into the February to May 44 time frame where the Mustangs were first in combat.
Very good advice Dan.
-
Suggest some digging into the February to May 44 time frame where the Mustangs were first in combat.
that's for Mustang Bs right?
-
that's for Mustang Bs right?
51Bs it is. The 51D made it's appearance at the end of May 44 so it was there for D-Day although the 51B/C was still the dominant model in the fighter groups into probably July 44 when attrition and D model deliveries changed the balance. You could find B/C models in the Fighter Groups right til the end of the war in Europe.
-
Well I'm personally glad that you've exposed these HTC guys and their couple of decades worth of experience with your recent research! It was bound to happen eventually! And to think they've been successfully running a business doing it as well all these years makes my blood boil!! :mad:
Hopefully HTC will buck up their ideas and do some recent research themselves! This farce has gone on long enough! :old:
-
i dont think the mission of the 109's at the time was "engage the P51 and find out which plane is better at turning" The 109's were trying to kill Bombers that were destroying their countries ability to fight. The P51's were a distraction from that objective and most fights probably started with the Pony having the advantage.
-
Wing47, with respect, your research thus far has just barely scratched the surface. Wing loading, for example, is very hard to accurately pin down. Respectable, original sources often differ by quite a bit, and that's just about wing loading. Center of balance is relevent to the discussion, but similarly hard to quantify, and only one from a rather long list of germaine measurements. You would need to have multiple, original, verified sources providing a LOT more numbers than what you have listed here. Finally, in order to truly critique the AH flight models, you would need to have all the data that HTC plugged into the formula, and the formula itself. HTC is not about to share either, since that would be giving away the farm (see also "hackers").
-
i dont think the mission of the 109's at the time was "engage the P51 and find out which plane is better at turning" The 109's were trying to kill Bombers that were destroying their countries ability to fight. The P51's were a distraction from that objective and most fights probably started with the Pony having the advantage.
Suggest you go dig a bit deeper. To get at the bombers the fighters needed to be drawn off. Most certainly their were LW units that engaged the fighters. Keep in mind that the LW was operating over their turf with their radar and ground controllers to put them in position for the bounce on the bombers and fighters coming in.
Was the Mustang able to fight when it had to? Yes.
-
Suggest you go dig a bit deeper. To get at the bombers the fighters needed to be drawn off. Most certainly their were LW units that engaged the fighters. Keep in mind that the LW was operating over their turf with their radar and ground controllers to put them in position for the bounce on the bombers and fighters coming in.
Was the Mustang able to fight when it had to? Yes.
Guppy i have spent that last hour looking but cant find the article that i read that actually partially contradicts your statement. hitler and goering gave the order to the LW that it was to avoid contact with the fighter escort as much as possible and to engage only the bombers. the bombers were the threat to the populace and the war machine not the fighters they were mere pests.
the article was an interview with a region commander, if i could remember how to spell his name i could find it. sorry i cant find it directly but if you have time look, let me know if you find it. it was a good article.
-
correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm sure LW did go after fighters and fighter/bombers when US conducted tactical missions (usually lower alt compared to strat mission?)
-
Guppy i have spent that last hour looking but cant find the article that i read that actually partially contradicts your statement. hitler and goering gave the order to the LW that it was to avoid contact with the fighter escort as much as possible and to engage only the bombers. the bombers were the threat to the populace and the war machine not the fighters they were mere pests.
the article was an interview with a region commander, if i could remember how to spell his name i could find it. sorry i cant find it directly but if you have time look, let me know if you find it. it was a good article.
The key to knocking down the bombers was to open a spot in the cover so that other fighters could attack the bombers without escort. Certain Fighter Groups were better then others at 'staying with the bombers'. The 359th of the 8th AF and the 332nd of the 15th AF in particular were known for not getting sucked away. You have to keep in mind a bomber stream that is very long, with groups assigned to cover different parts of that stream.
Certainly the bombers were the main priority and killing a many bombers as possible meant either getting through the fighters or sucking them off so that others could go into the unprotected gap.
Not near the book collection at the moment, but will find stuff to support it when I get the chance.
-
Wading through the massive 2 volume set on JG300. The same theme over and over again in pilot reports. "Turning fights", "Dogfights from 9000 meters to the deck", "Positioning ourselves 1000 meters higher then the escorts" etc.
The other theme from the summer of 44 to the end. "Aggressive Mustangs".
Still trying to find the specific story regarding drawing the fighters away. I'd typed it up for the DGS scenario and it was about the Merseberg Raid in November 44. lost all that in the great computer crash of 2010 :( Oscar Boesch is the pilot quoted. He was a 190 driver.
Jeff Ethell and Alfred Price's book "Target Berlin" about the March 6, 1944 raid on Berlin talks about the 109s. The majority of the 109s had the added gondolas for attacking the bombers, which made their performance suffer in terms of combat against fighters. There were 4 groups of 109s not equipped for attacking the bombers that were 'high cover' as their smaller armament made them 'useless' in attacking bombers but left them better able to combat American fighters. They were to get the heavy fighters, both 109s and 190s and 110s and 410s through the fighter escort and remain up sun and higher to protect them.
Bottom line is the notion that the Mustangs sat up high and just BnZ'd the LW planes is wrong. Would they if they could? Sure. Again, the LW had the radar and ground controll to direct their fighters to the bomber stream and set them up for the best position to do so. The Mustangs had to fight from that position. The other interesting note in the JG300 stuff is how the numbers were more equal in the dogfights as they were attacking certain sections of the bomber stream and escorts not all at once, so it wasn't 1000 American planes against 200 German, but smaller engagements of 20+ fighters or something similar.
-
The key to knocking down the bombers was to open a spot in the cover so that other fighters could attack the bombers without escort. Certain Fighter Groups were better then others at 'staying with the bombers'. The 359th of the 8th AF and the 332nd of the 15th AF in particular were known for not getting sucked away. You have to keep in mind a bomber stream that is very long, with groups assigned to cover different parts of that stream.
Certainly the bombers were the main priority and killing a many bombers as possible meant either getting through the fighters or sucking them off so that others could go into the unprotected gap.
Not near the book collection at the moment, but will find stuff to support it when I get the chance.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
If the name fits wear it :P
-
In game there are guys who specialize in the 51 who can shoot down (aka defeat) just about anything most of the time. Same can be said for everyone else in game who specializes in a single aircraft type be it 109s, Yaks, Zekes, 38s....
If this game and the historical record ever come together it is on this point: The guy flying the plane (or as it would be in the case of AH, playing) tends to be the deciding factor most of the time.
Luck comes into the equation pretty much as it always does.
-
Another obvious benefit to LW fighters at least attempting to engage the escorts was the escorts dropping their DTs which would then limit their time in combat. Sooner the DTs are gone, the faster they have to turn for home.
-
I have done some recent research on each of these four aircraft and the way some perform in AH has, at least to me, come under question. This is due to the numbers and facts, as well as pilot opinions. First off is the wing loadings of each aircraft:
Spitfire(early versions):27Lbs per sq-ft
P-51D:39Lbs per sq-ft
Bf-109:40Lbs per sq-ft
Fw-190:48Lbs per sq-ft
Other factors include center of gravity, which is another critical factor in maneuverability. The further forward the better the stability,but lower the maneuverability,and vice verse.
Spitfire:at least when the fuel tanks are full,it is tail heavy,especially in earlier versions
P-51:due to the placement of the fuel tank,and radio,as well as indicating flight characteristics,show it is tail heavy
Bf 109:is a forgiving fighter and as far as i know no heavy equipment was behind the pilot,it is also light and had a big meaty engine hung ont the front.This suggests in level flight it may have been nose heavy.
Fw190D:According to the information i have found,the 190 was a little unstable and had a fuel tank in the rear,suggesting it may have been tail heavy.
If the pilot accounts i have heard are true, in a dogfight from best to worst are:
#1:spitfire
#2:P-51
#3:190
#4:109
Of course the 190 vs 109 is controversial, as the 109 was probably better at low speeds,especially early versions.
Now for my list,at high speeds or speeds above 300mph I would vote:
#1;P-51 and 190 as they were easier on the pilot.
#2:spitfire only because the controls seemed slightly slower at these speeds.
#3:Bf 109 as its controls were very difficult at high speeds.
At low speeds the spitfire comes up on top followed by the P-51,109, and last is the 190.Of course earlier 109s were lighter and probably could beat a Mustang at low speeds.
The bottom line is that the modeling on each aircraft is questionable,except perhaps the pony as AHes creator flew it,and this is also confirmed by a earlier post.HTC may also want to look into other aircraft as well as their modeling is also questionable,but i haven't done enough research to confirm this.So at least for now spitfire pilots rejoice.
-WING47 :airplane:
:O That was some of the shallowest research, selective misunderstanding of aerodynamics and unsupported anecdotal eveidence I think I may have ever seen posted in this forum. And to make it worse I'm not even sure what he's advocating as a change other than to tell HT he doesn't have a clue as to how to correctly model flight charachteristics.
From everything I've read all the flight models in AW seem pretty much correct. Go HT!
-
Wing47,
here is an account of a pilot who has flown both the p51 and the 109 and he stats the 109 turns much tighter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94)
P-51 with flaps down will make pony manuver better, without it though it's a heavy bird that will stall.
-
Go easy on the OP. He must be young and at least shows some historical interest.
WING47,
You must understand that many of the forum dwellers here have a huge amount of knowledge of WWII aircrafts and very little good manners. Most will be more than happy to discuss your findings, answer your questions and point you to more material to read, but you must make your posts in an appropriate fashion. Always expect the few rude replies and just live with them. When you are discussing some "facts", a source must be provided. There is a huge amount of wrong or just misleading information on the Internet and books and a lot of has been discussed on these forums before.
-
I really don't think any of you know the key factors in determining a aircrafts performance.This is only a fraction of what I've got on all these aircraft.I was hoping you people would know what at least wing loading is.
-apparently not
-
Go easy on the OP. He must be young and at least shows some historical interest.
WING47,
You must understand that many of the forum dwellers here have a huge amount of knowledge of WWII aircrafts and very little good manners. Most will be more than happy to discuss your findings, answer your questions and point you to more material to read, but you must make your posts in an appropriate fashion. Always expect the few rude replies and just live with them. When you are discussing some "facts", a source must be provided. There is a huge amount of wrong or just misleading information on the Internet and books and a lot of has been discussed on these forums before.
Im not saying HTC is wrong, the information i found just brought question to his modeling.
-
Wing47,
here is an account of a pilot who has flown both the p51 and the 109 and he stats the 109 turns much tighter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94)
Good info just one question, i heard G and F, if were talking about a 109F than of course it could out turn the 51,possibly the early G models as well. We have to remember that the 109 continued to gain weight throughout its service career.