Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: VAMPIRE 2? on February 22, 2011, 10:10:18 PM
-
Flying with Flaps up in non increased lift position: When there shot off there is no change in flight behavioristics, until you attempt to apply a notch or more,nothing happens, and also no change in behavioristics. I believe this is TOON correct; although I believe there is actually a decrease in overall wing loading, creating less lift, IMO this is correct at least for toon planes. no issue here.
Flying with Flaps DOWN in an IN-creased lift position: When they are shot off, they are still creating more lift or wing load as if they were still there. only difference is you cant raise, or retract or, de-notch, or decrease the lift position. ie. full flap in scissors I get my arse handed but only loose 1 or both flaps. as I limp on home with my head between my knees, I can't get over ,say 150kts because of the extreme lift or drag that is occurring due to my non-existent flaps. or 1 flap causing me to roll incredibly hard, mind you right flap gone, hard left hand roll. this is under no circumstances correct.
I only fly P-51 enough to notice the issue here. I'm unaware if the issue lies in other craft. is there a way to code the flaps to a retracted position when they are shot off and no longer usable? or perhaps if they are only damaged but not missing, leave some sort of texture in place of the flap to indicate that it is mangled? :headscratch: :confused:
-
Graphically the flap is shot off but what is actually happening as far as the flight model is concerned is the flap is jammed/stuck in what ever position it was in when the damage occurred.
-
Obviously HTC should somehow nerf the P51... Obviously! :bolt:
-
Graphically the flap is shot off but what is actually happening as far as the flight model is concerned is the flap is jammed/stuck in what ever position it was in when the damage occurred.
ok thats acceptable , it's just hard to comprehend since there in nothing there. maybe in a future 51 update if there ever will be... something could be different. what ever is easiest for AH. I love the modeling, thats the real only major malfunctions i've noticed <S>
-
Hasn't this flap damage model been like this since before AH2?
-
Hasn't this flap damage model been like this since before AH2?
sorry I had a feeling this would be said.. think of it as a subtle reminder. :bolt:
-
sorry I had a feeling this would be said.. think of it as a subtle reminder. :bolt:
A subtle reminder that you do not comprehend how flap damage works?
Noted.
wrongway
-
A subtle reminder that you do not comprehend how flap damage works?
Noted.
wrongway
Considering the BS flap damage model it's easy to see how people would get confused.
-
Wait a moment..... You're flying a Pony..... And you're losing the scissor? NO WAY!!!
:headscratch:
-
I only fly P-51 enough to notice the issue here. I'm unaware if the issue lies in other craft.
All planes suffer this when flaps are destroyed. To counter the roll on the dead flap side, lower the remaining flap to the same position as the damaged one and you will have full and stable control of your plane.
ack-ack
-
ok thats acceptable , it's just hard to comprehend since there in nothing there. maybe in a future 51 update if there ever will be... something could be different. what ever is easiest for AH. I love the modeling, thats the real only major malfunctions i've noticed <S>
It's always been that way, and I believe it's consistent with all the 3D models. Why they just fall off/disappear and don't show as stuck I couldn't say although I assume there's a reason for it.
-
Wait a moment..... You're flying a Pony..... And you're losing the scissor? NO WAY!!!
:headscratch:
To a JUG, yes ;)
JUGgler
-
LLogan, JUGGler,, I'm working hard at mastering my cartoon pony and Its capabilities! I will soon, and you will be the ones of many to see the results once they are accomplished! :airplane:
good or bad... ;)
I enjoy working with the many veterans of AH and learning the skills they put forth to succeed in this cartoon simulation world.
Also I am not by any means an expert on "CARTOON" airplanes, but there is speculation, particularly with the p-51 (since that is what I fly, that is what I hear) from written sources of capability and performance that are not up to "PAR" in this simulated world. If I may ask that the pony be reassessed and have any, and hopefully subtle changes to make it perform closer to its documented charts. as I said this is speculated and hearsay. so with the experts that are hear maybe they can clarify that it needs some adjustments or not would be fantastic and maybe then we can provide the dispute with Dale, or "Skuzzy." :angel:
-
Also I am not by any means an expert on "CARTOON" airplanes, but there is speculation, particularly with the p-51 (since that is what I fly, that is what I hear) from written sources of capability and performance that are not up to "PAR" in this simulated world. If I may ask that the pony be reassessed and have any, and hopefully subtle changes to make it perform closer to its documented charts. as I said this is speculated and hearsay. so with the experts that are hear maybe they can clarify that it needs some adjustments or not would be fantastic and maybe then we can provide the dispute with Dale, or "Skuzzy." :angel:
What is wrong with the P-51s flight model?
ack-ack
-
It does not do 500 on the deck. It does not have 4 x 20mms. It will not outclimb a K4. It will not out turn a zeke. It will not out loop a P-38. It will not fly 550 at 20k.
Other than that, nothing. :joystick:
-
What is wrong with the P-51s flight model?
ack-ack
well one was the flaps which has been confirmed and already noted, maybe just not enough of an issue to be recognized or addressed just yet.
nothing negative about the power or thrust, I adjust fuel levels pertaining to the type of flying I would be preparing to do.
but there is speculation and I have also noticed a few things about the wing loading and how the lift is generated with the wing. the p-51 seems to suffer greatly at the altitudes it presumably is able to excel at. (this could be particularly a mix of thrust to weight and wing coding) also when the flaps are deployed generally since the flaps are deploying on the underside of the wing there are two factors coming into play, first the one everyone knows, is an increase in lift of the aircraft as a whole. which we all know all too well. but the other factor that seems to be missing is the drag direction caused from the flaps. yes the planes slow down because of the the drag. NOTED. but the drag on the under side of the wing should pull the nose in a downward fashion, while lifting the entire craft. I have flown both a Cessna 152 "high wing" and a Piper Warrior II "low wing" to verify how this should look and feel. I realize that wwII planes are by no means similar to these two crafts I stated, but aerodynamics apply the same to all crafts. Like I said before tho I'm not the expert here, just wanting to be informal of speculation, only in hopes to improve the realism of this AWESOME game! :angel: I also come to realize that there are p-51 haters and lovers in the game, I like the p-51, but I remain neutral on the opinion aspects. I just want my plane to perform IN COMPARISON at LEAST to the other crafts in the game. ie. if one plane flew xxx ft at xxx speed in wwII and it also dose in game... BUT the p-51 flew xxx alt at xxx speed, but not quite to that degree in-game. make sense?
-
well one was the flaps which has been confirmed and already noted, maybe just not enough of an issue to be recognized or addressed just yet.
nothing negative about the power or thrust, I adjust fuel levels pertaining to the type of flying I would be preparing to do.
but there is speculation and I have also noticed a few things about the wing loading and how the lift is generated with the wing. the p-51 seems to suffer greatly at the altitudes it presumably is able to excel at. (this could be particularly a mix of thrust to weight and wing coding) also when the flaps are deployed generally since the flaps are deploying on the underside of the wing there are two factors coming into play, first the one everyone knows, is an increase in lift of the aircraft as a whole. which we all know all too well. but the other factor that seems to be missing is the drag direction caused from the flaps. yes the planes slow down because of the the drag. NOTED. but the drag on the under side of the wing should pull the nose in a downward fashion, while lifting the entire craft. I have flown both a Cessna 152 "high wing" and a Piper Warrior II "low wing" to verify how this should look and feel. I realize that wwII planes are by no means similar to these two crafts I stated, but aerodynamics apply the same to all crafts. Like I said before tho I'm not the expert here, just wanting to be informal of speculation, only in hopes to improve the realism of this AWESOME game! :angel: I also come to realize that there are p-51 haters and lovers in the game, I like the p-51, but I remain neutral on the opinion aspects. I just want my plane to perform IN COMPARISON at LEAST to the other crafts in the game. ie. if one plane flew xxx ft at xxx speed in wwII and it also dose in game... BUT the p-51 flew xxx alt at xxx speed, but not quite to that degree in-game. make sense?
The challenge you will have is proving your point with tangible evidence. I speak from the point of someone egged in the face many times over the years. If you assert X, post your evidence which contradicts the existing flight model. If you do not do this, no one will take your argument seriously and the BBs trolls will have a field day with you. <S>
-
It does not do 500 on the deck. It does not have 4 x 20mms. It will not outclimb a K4. It will not out turn a zeke. It will not out loop a P-38. It will not fly 550 at 20k.
Other than that, nothing. :joystick:
I really don't think my post was at all a complaint about the 51 just understand that I hear talk in the game, and I know that their are talkers and writers. I'm simply writing what I hear about the 51 in game so It will be noticed. I love the characteristics of the p-51 in game, I'm fine with no changes, but if there are realisms that can be adjusted, it would make the flight dynamics more realistic and enjoyable at the Simulation standpoint. :salute
-
I really don't think my post was at all a complaint about the 51 just understand that I hear talk in the game, and I know that their are talkers and writers. I'm simply writing what I hear about the 51 in game so It will be noticed. I love the characteristics of the p-51 in game, I'm fine with no changes, but if there are realisms that can be adjusted, it would make the flight dynamics more realistic and enjoyable at the Simulation standpoint. :salute
I am with ya man, however, some folks take these BBs a bit seriously. Innuendo will not work. If you want to stimulate discussion you have to start with facts. A sad fact is that some of the guys in here have aviation libraries that would make the Smithsonian jealous. So, it can be a very difficult subject to be successful in arguing. Take a look at the arado 234 tail gun thread or the gondola gun on 109 threads. The two arguments are... they were there at production so use them, or they were removed at the field and never used. Which one should HTC support? Which one improves gameplay? Both are subjective and it is very difficult to get a vote.
-
The challenge you will have is proving your point with tangible evidence. I speak from the point of someone egged in the face many times over the years. If you assert X, post your evidence which contradicts the existing flight model. If you do not do this, no one will take your argument seriously and the BBs trolls will have a field day with you. <S>
thank you for this input, NOTED :salute
If no one post facts here by the end of today, I will get the sources that prove OR throw my topic. like I said, my point was souley, informational and put there for the argument, I do realize that I will be bashed and hopefully by some encouraged. :uhoh
-
LLogan, JUGGler,, I'm working hard at mastering my cartoon pony and Its capabilities! I will soon, and you will be the ones of many to see the results once they are accomplished! :airplane:
good or bad... ;)
I enjoy working with the many veterans of AH and learning the skills they put forth to succeed in this cartoon simulation world.
Also I am not by any means an expert on "CARTOON" airplanes, but there is speculation, particularly with the p-51 (since that is what I fly, that is what I hear) from written sources of capability and performance that are not up to "PAR" in this simulated world. If I may ask that the pony be reassessed and have any, and hopefully subtle changes to make it perform closer to its documented charts. as I said this is speculated and hearsay. so with the experts that are hear maybe they can clarify that it needs some adjustments or not would be fantastic and maybe then we can provide the dispute with Dale, or "Skuzzy." :angel:
Lesson #6 Vampire- The pony will out "flat scissor" almost anything. As a JUG dweeb I am looking to get you "rolling" Then my BIG FAT RUDDER takes over and you die :)!! Keep it flat with "WELL TIMED" vertical and you will be fine :rock
Oh and stop the soft E merge, anyone with good control and timing will punish you endlessly for this!! :devil
Have fun
JUGgler
-
I am with ya man, however, some folks take these BBs a bit seriously. Innuendo will not work. If you want to stimulate discussion you have to start with facts. A sad fact is that some of the guys in here have aviation libraries that would make the Smithsonian jealous. So, it can be a very difficult subject to be successful in arguing. Take a look at the arado 234 tail gun thread or the gondola gun on 109 threads. The two arguments are... they were there at production so use them, or they were removed at the field and never used. Which one should HTC support? Which one improves gameplay? Both are subjective and it is very difficult to get a vote.
understandable. but the 234 thread was probably brought up with the same good intentions I have with this post. but what you mention with the guns, i did read that thread and saw the pictures, is an arguable point. where as flight dynamics are more along the lines of LAW. I gather from that thread with the 234 is that the pilots OR squads that utilized that plane had the options for the rear guns and so should the pilots in AH. ?? no?? alot of AH pilots empty there armament in intentions of saving weight.
-
well one was the flaps which has been confirmed and already noted, maybe just not enough of an issue to be recognized or addressed just yet.
The issue with damaged flaps effects all planes, not just the P-51.
but there is speculation and I have also noticed a few things about the wing loading and how the lift is generated with the wing. the p-51 seems to suffer greatly at the altitudes it presumably is able to excel at. (this could be particularly a mix of thrust to weight and wing coding) also when the flaps are deployed generally since the flaps are deploying on the underside of the wing there are two factors coming into play, first the one everyone knows, is an increase in lift of the aircraft as a whole. which we all know all too well. but the other factor that seems to be missing is the drag direction caused from the flaps. yes the planes slow down because of the the drag. NOTED. but the drag on the under side of the wing should pull the nose in a downward fashion, while lifting the entire craft. I have flown both a Cessna 152 "high wing" and a Piper Warrior II "low wing" to verify how this should look and feel. I realize that wwII planes are by no means similar to these two crafts I stated, but aerodynamics apply the same to all crafts. Like I said before tho I'm not the expert here, just wanting to be informal of speculation, only in hopes to improve the realism of this AWESOME game! :angel: I also come to realize that there are p-51 haters and lovers in the game, I like the p-51, but I remain neutral on the opinion aspects. I just want my plane to perform IN COMPARISON at LEAST to the other crafts in the game. ie. if one plane flew xxx ft at xxx speed in wwII and it also dose in game... BUT the p-51 flew xxx alt at xxx speed, but not quite to that degree in-game. make sense?
speculation isn't verifiable proof there is something wrong with the P-51's flight model. If you do have verifiable data then you should present it to HTC for them to look at.
ack-ack
-
Lesson #6 Vampire- The pony will out "flat scissor" almost anything. As a JUG dweeb I am looking to get you "rolling" Then my BIG FAT RUDDER takes over and you die :)!! Keep it flat with "WELL TIMED" vertical and you will be fine :rock
Oh and stop the soft E merge, anyone with good control and timing will punish you endlessly for this!! :devil
Have fun
JUGgler
I thank you for that excelent lesson, My bigest failure in flight IMO, is getting my opponent to fly on MY terms. like you said I'm to soft. funny, I think it's a physiological thing cause I'm the same way in real life. I get "defensive- mechanisms" activating when people get tough or intimidating. some of you should have a full understand of what this means, I think it falls under "rhetoric"
-
Jugler we need to hook up in the DA bud. I had a tight fight with a Muppet 47M in a pony the other day. Your comments make me want to try that combination in a bit more controlled environment. I was trying something a bit different and your rudder comments triggered some thoughts.
-
The issue with damaged flaps effects all planes, not just the P-51.
speculation isn't verifiable proof there is something wrong with the P-51's flight model. If you do have verifiable data then you should present it to HTC for them to look at.
ack-ack
ok I'll see what I can dig up, even if it proves me or "us" wrong, I will post here or in a new thread. I'm now a full time student so I SHOULD be able to have the access to some type of documentation retaining to flight dynamics hopefully with the p-51 in mind.
thank you ack-ack
-
Aerodynamics is extremely complex, this is something you'll have to keep in mind. Here's an interesting discussion on the wings of the P51.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,296622.15.html
Of course, the P51 is one of the more discussed aircraft due to its seeming lack of performance compared to post war propaganda.
-
well one was the flaps which has been confirmed and already noted, maybe just not enough of an issue to be recognized or addressed just yet.
nothing negative about the power or thrust, I adjust fuel levels pertaining to the type of flying I would be preparing to do.
but there is speculation and I have also noticed a few things about the wing loading and how the lift is generated with the wing. the p-51 seems to suffer greatly at the altitudes it presumably is able to excel at. (this could be particularly a mix of thrust to weight and wing coding) also when the flaps are deployed generally since the flaps are deploying on the underside of the wing there are two factors coming into play, first the one everyone knows, is an increase in lift of the aircraft as a whole. which we all know all too well. but the other factor that seems to be missing is the drag direction caused from the flaps. yes the planes slow down because of the the drag. NOTED. but the drag on the under side of the wing should pull the nose in a downward fashion, while lifting the entire craft. I have flown both a Cessna 152 "high wing" and a Piper Warrior II "low wing" to verify how this should look and feel. I realize that wwII planes are by no means similar to these two crafts I stated, but aerodynamics apply the same to all crafts. Like I said before tho I'm not the expert here, just wanting to be informal of speculation, only in hopes to improve the realism of this AWESOME game! :angel: I also come to realize that there are p-51 haters and lovers in the game, I like the p-51, but I remain neutral on the opinion aspects. I just want my plane to perform IN COMPARISON at LEAST to the other crafts in the game. ie. if one plane flew xxx ft at xxx speed in wwII and it also dose in game... BUT the p-51 flew xxx alt at xxx speed, but not quite to that degree in-game. make sense?
...and keep in mind, while you have flown the planes you stated above, Hitech has flown a P-51 :D
-
...and keep in mind, while you have flown the planes you stated above, Hitech has flown a P-51 :D
yeah but he needs to try one that has flaps shot off! :D :D :D
-
...and keep in mind, while you have flown the planes you stated above, Hitech has flown a P-51 :D
so he should know all to well what happens when the flaps are lowered, I could be wrong or the coding may be contradictory rendering it out of the question. as for the flaps shot off tho, they have been stated as damaged and stuck in position. could a textile be put in place for the the damaged flap? verses changing the flight characteristics? :headscratch:
also the altitude performance; now that the 29 is here I thought this should reemerge since the 51 should be a good candidate in forming up to protect the b-29 ???? at those speeds and altitudes, should it not be up there with it????
-
Aerodynamics is extremely complex, this is something you'll have to keep in mind. Here's an interesting discussion on the wings of the P51.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,296622.15.html
Of course, the P51 is one of the more discussed aircraft due to its seeming lack of performance compared to post war propaganda.
very detailed and informative, but I gather this is mostly about clean airflow and wing drag, versus other types of wings. I can't find information in the thread regarding flap performance or 51 particular alt performance (unless it fell under wing loading ... if that is the 51's alt issue.)
-
I thank you for that excelent lesson, My bigest failure in flight IMO, is getting my opponent to fly on MY terms. like you said I'm to soft. funny, I think it's a physiological thing cause I'm the same way in real life. I get "defensive- mechanisms" activating when people get tough or intimidating. some of you should have a full understand of what this means, I think it falls under "rhetoric"
Vampire I will list a few names here but by no means will it include "ALL" the good ones
Grizz, Kappa, Krup, JUG, Drbone, SeRaider, Dedalos, 2Bighorn, Sunsfan, Wmaker, Rud, 0lDemon, Batfink, Levi,
Perdweeb, Dodger, Lippy, soulyss, Delirium, on and on, waaaaay to many to mention But we all have one thing in common
WE FLY TO WIN!!
I would say the LARGE majority of players fly " NOT TO LOSE" !! There is a HUGE difference to how both styles approach the fight!
That was lesson #7 <S>
JUGgler
-
Vampire I will list a few names here but by no means will it include "ALL" the good ones
Grizz, Kappa, Krup, JUG, Drbone, SeRaider, Dedalos, 2Bighorn, Sunsfan, Wmaker, Rud, 0lDemon, Batfink, Levi,
Perdweeb, Dodger, Lippy, soulyss, Delirium, on and on, waaaaay to many to mention But we all have one thing in common
WE FLY TO WIN!!
I would say the LARGE majority of players fly " NOT TO LOSE" !! There is a HUGE difference to how both styles approach the fight!
That was lesson #7 <S>
JUGgler
How can this be taught?
I would like to expand on this lesson and practice with it for it may help me in real life also !! :banana: :cheers:
I will ask you every time I see you then... to avoid this annoyance I will be patient and await your offer to 1V1 :salute
-
Jugler we need to hook up in the DA bud. I had a tight fight with a Muppet 47M in a pony the other day. Your comments make me want to try that combination in a bit more controlled environment. I was trying something a bit different and your rudder comments triggered some thoughts.
Find me in the MA and we will go play!
anytime!
JUGgler
-
^ I reposted in your response ^ :rock
-
"defensive mechanisms" in AH consist of running, slow merge, extra high alt, not saddling up but overshooting, "extending" when 1v1 or 2. the list is long and probably could make another post on it lol
-
How can this be taught?
I would like to expand on this lesson and practice with it for it may help me in real life also !! :banana: :cheers:
I will ask you every time I see you then... to avoid this annoyance I will be patient and await your offer to 1V1 :salute
I'm absolutely sure if you ask any of these folks if you can ride in their plane once in awhile, they will be more than happy to allow it. Then you can see for yourself and compare how they approach a situation to how you would approach it. Tagging along as baggage can be very helpfull indeed!
JUGgler
-
I'm absolutely sure if you ask any of these folks if you can ride in their plane once in awhile, they will be more than happy to allow it. Then you can see for yourself and compare how they approach a situation to how you would approach it. Tagging along as baggage can be very helpfull indeed!
JUGgler
NOTED will do,
-
anyone have the alt statistics on the p-51D and B ??? :huh
-
anyone have the alt statistics on the p-51D and B ??? :huh
I would probably have to say about 30K
-
I would probably have to say about 30K
any documentation? speed?
-
P-51B:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/9/92/P51bspd.jpg) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/5/51/P51bclmb.jpg)
P-51D:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/4/45/P51dspd.jpg) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/b/b1/P51dclmb.jpg)
-
It does not do 500 on the deck. It does not have 4 x 20mms. It will not outclimb a K4. It will not out turn a zeke. It will not out loop a P-38. It will not fly 550 at 20k.
Other than that, nothing. :joystick:
It does do 500 on the deck if you come out of a dive, only for about 4-5 seconds, it use to have 4 20s, it might not be able to out climb K4, but other 109s it has a chance. Now on the loop part, what speed? which model 38? which model P-51? You are starting to forget that flaps make a difference in turning fights and/or getting the angle of attack on your opponent. Now at low speed, a 38 will outturn a pony by far, at high speed, a 38 stands no chance at turning with a mustang. If a 38 and pony are both going fast (over 350), the 51 will only have to drop 1 notch of flaps to loop with a 38, at low speed, a pony might have a tough time looping with the 38. The only thing that I know can fly over 500, is the 262 and 163 over 20K, mostly the 163. :lol
-
but other 109s it has a chance.
The Bf 109F-4 has a higher sustained climb rate than the P51D at all altitudes, by a surprisingly significant margin. There's even a band at which the Bf 109E-4 has a higher climb rate.
-
The Bf 109F-4 has a higher sustained climb rate than the P51D at all altitudes, by a surprisingly significant margin. There's even a band at which the Bf 109E-4 has a higher climb rate.
Well... like I said, it depends on speed. The talk about G models is varied and can be argued in another person's own opinion against a P-51, it won't always be the same.
-
Well... like I said, it depends on speed. The talk about G models is varied and can be argued in another person's own opinion against a P-51, it won't always be the same.
Sustained climb rate is not dependent on speed.
Sustained climb rate is also a quantity, a measurement. It can't be argued. From the Bf 109F-4 onward, all Bf 109s outclimb the P51D in a sustained climb at all altitudes.
-
****please note.... my points on the p51 modeling were sarcasm hinted at all of the comments folks have said over the years...
-
sector nine, thank you for your impute. but I'm looking for actual p-51 data, VS toon p-51
-
well one was the flaps which has been confirmed and already noted, maybe just not enough of an issue to be recognized or addressed just yet.
nothing negative about the power or thrust, I adjust fuel levels pertaining to the type of flying I would be preparing to do.
but there is speculation and I have also noticed a few things about the wing loading and how the lift is generated with the wing. the p-51 seems to suffer greatly at the altitudes it presumably is able to excel at. (this could be particularly a mix of thrust to weight and wing coding) also when the flaps are deployed generally since the flaps are deploying on the underside of the wing there are two factors coming into play, first the one everyone knows, is an increase in lift of the aircraft as a whole. which we all know all too well. but the other factor that seems to be missing is the drag direction caused from the flaps. yes the planes slow down because of the the drag. NOTED. but the drag on the under side of the wing should pull the nose in a downward fashion, while lifting the entire craft. I have flown both a Cessna 152 "high wing" and a Piper Warrior II "low wing" to verify how this should look and feel. I realize that wwII planes are by no means similar to these two crafts I stated, but aerodynamics apply the same to all crafts. Like I said before tho I'm not the expert here, just wanting to be informal of speculation, only in hopes to improve the realism of this AWESOME game! :angel: I also come to realize that there are p-51 haters and lovers in the game, I like the p-51, but I remain neutral on the opinion aspects. I just want my plane to perform IN COMPARISON at LEAST to the other crafts in the game. ie. if one plane flew xxx ft at xxx speed in wwII and it also dose in game... BUT the p-51 flew xxx alt at xxx speed, but not quite to that degree in-game. make sense?
Could it be the auto-trim negating the effect you are expecting? The nose down, aircraft lifting?
Just a thought.
wrongway
-
Sustained climb rate is not dependent on speed.
Sustained climb rate is also a quantity, a measurement. It can't be argued. From the Bf 109F-4 onward, all Bf 109s outclimb the P51D in a sustained climb at all altitudes.
Ok...the F will because of its power-weight, the G models are some bit of an argument, I'm not going to go there, the K4 I know out climbs pony. Have you heard of Bud Anderson's most rememorable fight he encountered with a 109? If not, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXOCKEotmoU , ignore what they say about slow turn because I already know that's wrong, 109 out corners a pony slow, wait till about 4:20 then it starts. I'm guessing the 109 had to have been a G6, not to sure. Just because all 109s were great at climbing doesn't mean they always won, they say the 109 had better climb at "some altitudes", not all. For example, your saying the 109 can out climb a pony, that's like saying a 109 can out climb a P-38 every time, don't think that's going to happen. You also have to remember that the 109 became more nose heavy throughout the war, so as it's in a climb fight, gets really slow, the plane tends to want to pitch down, hence "nose-heavy", it didn't keep climbing and climbing till the pilot felt like it was time to flip it over.
-
Could it be the auto-trim negating the effect you are expecting? The nose down, aircraft lifting?
Just a thought.
wrongway
good thinking, I know exactly what you mean, but no I use manual trim on all axis and my elevator stays centered through all aspects of flight, unless im in a high speed Jugg or F4U wich has a tendency to have a lot of lift so I trim down to stay in level flight, but again it
s stays in that position even after flaps are deployed :)
-
yeah but he needs to try one that has flaps shot off! :D :D :D
...and pilot armor, self sealing fuel tanks, and the other 2000 pounds of hardware the original had.
-
Now on the loop part, what speed? which model 38? which model P-51? You are starting to forget that flaps make a difference in turning fights and/or getting the angle of attack on your opponent. Now at low speed, a 38 will outturn a pony by far, at high speed, a 38 stands no chance at turning with a mustang. If a 38 and pony are both going fast (over 350), the 51 will only have to drop 1 notch of flaps to loop with a 38, at low speed, a pony might have a tough time looping with the 38. The only thing that I know can fly over 500, is the 262 and 163 over 20K, mostly the 163. :lol
The P-38 (G/J/L) will out turn and out loop a P-51 pretty much at any speeds and the P-38L has the ability to use its dive flaps at high speeds to aid in turning. At low speed a P-51 will definitely have troubles trying to play the looping game with a P-38. The P-38 can loop with just the use of flaps without any stick input needed, this allows the P-38 to keep enough energy to pretty much loop endlessly at low speeds and the Mustang wouldn't even be able to come close to matching.
ack-ack
-
The P-38 (G/J/L) will out turn and out loop a P-51 pretty much at any speeds and the P-38L has the ability to use its dive flaps at high speeds to aid in turning. At low speed a P-51 will definitely have troubles trying to play the looping game with a P-38. The P-38 can loop with just the use of flaps without any stick input needed, this allows the P-38 to keep enough energy to pretty much loop endlessly at low speeds and the Mustang wouldn't even be able to come close to matching.
ack-ack
haven't seen you in the MA, your not rook are you......
-
OK guys... my mustang comments were just compilations of what guys "whine the most about". A mustang will never outclimb a K4 unless it's E state is wicked high. the K4 bleeds E like our deficit climbs. A 38 will always sustained out loop a mustang. Etc.... :rofl
-
well one was the flaps which has been confirmed and already noted, maybe just not enough of an issue to be recognized or addressed just yet.
what about the flaps?
but the other factor that seems to be missing is the drag direction caused from the flaps. yes the planes slow down because of the the drag. NOTED. but the drag on the under side of the wing should pull the nose in a downward fashion, while lifting the entire craft.
almost all the pilot's notes ive read describe the nose pitching up on deployment of flaps for landing (as I would expect). this is generally cancelled out by the deployment of gear, the gear's drag causing the plane to pitch down.
-
Ok...the F will because of its power-weight, the G models are some bit of an argument, I'm not going to go there, the K4 I know out climbs pony. Have you heard of Bud Anderson's most rememorable fight he encountered with a 109? If not, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXOCKEotmoU , ignore what they say about slow turn because I already know that's wrong, 109 out corners a pony slow, wait till about 4:20 then it starts. I'm guessing the 109 had to have been a G6, not to sure. Just because all 109s were great at climbing doesn't mean they always won, they say the 109 had better climb at "some altitudes", not all. For example, your saying the 109 can out climb a pony, that's like saying a 109 can out climb a P-38 every time, don't think that's going to happen. You also have to remember that the 109 became more nose heavy throughout the war, so as it's in a climb fight, gets really slow, the plane tends to want to pitch down, hence "nose-heavy", it didn't keep climbing and climbing till the pilot felt like it was time to flip it over.
You're not making the distinction between sustained climb and zoom climb, they're two completely different animals.
Every Bf 109 we have from the F model on has a better sustained climb rate than the P51D, period.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=13&pw=2>ype=2)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=14&pw=2>ype=2)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=15&pw=2>ype=2)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=84&pw=2>ype=2)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=1&pw=2>ype=2)
-
what about the flaps?
(when shot off in the down position, they still generate lift) <---false, but they said they are broke stuck in position even though they appear missing.
almost all the pilot's notes ive read describe the nose pitching up on deployment of flaps for landing (as I would expect)<---FALSE in all conventional real life air craft the nose pitches down word due to the center of lift being pushed further back on the wings.... this is generally cancelled out by the deployment of gear, the gear's drag causing the plane to pitch down.
yes the gear also causes drag on the lower quarters of the plan causing it to pitch down.
back to the flaps. when the flaps are deployed: the wings begin to create more lift increasing the lift ratio verses gravity. yes? thus making the wing stable at lower speeds. but the nose pitches downward. but in aces high it is pitching up
-
Can I invite Hitech to this thread to perhaps shed some light on this "flap" discussion? I mean there's no use in trying to point it out if the coding can't be changed or if it would be conflicting in a way with the other flight dynamics. I'm sure we can all agree with real life can't always be replicated in every witch way. at least not yet lol but I'm still digging for graphs and charts but busy with other things mostly, so don't wait on me.... :angel:
<S> :airplane:
-
Can I invite Hitech to this thread to perhaps shed some light on this "flap" discussion? I mean there's no use in trying to point it out if the coding can't be changed or if it would be conflicting in a way with the other flight dynamics. I'm sure we can all agree with real life can't always be replicated in every witch way. at least not yet lol but I'm still digging for graphs and charts but busy with other things mostly, so don't wait on me.... :angel:
<S> :airplane:
Honestly, there really is "no flaps" issue other than the damage modeling of the flaps. Remember that flaps are not the same for all planes, for example the Spitfire and the P-38. Totally different flap design and function when used, on some planes flaps were to help with landing and on others to help with maneuverability.
ack-ack
-
What planes besides the 38 had folwer flaps? Ki-84? I am not sure.
-
Honestly, there really is "no flaps" issue other than the damage modeling of the flaps. Remember that flaps are not the same for all planes, for example the Spitfire and the P-38. Totally different flap design and function when used, on some planes flaps were to help with landing and on others to help with maneuverability.
ack-ack
same basic principle is apparent in all conventional air crafts, added lift...
and the same happens for all conventional aircraft when the flaps are deployed, ? right?
nose pitches down
-
Can I invite Hitech to this thread to perhaps shed some light on this "flap" discussion? I mean there's no use in trying to point it out if the coding can't be changed or if it would be conflicting in a way with the other flight dynamics. I'm sure we can all agree with real life can't always be replicated in every witch way. at least not yet lol but I'm still digging for graphs and charts but busy with other things mostly, so don't wait on me.... :angel:
<S> :airplane:
There is not a flap issue, other then graphically displayed incorrectly when damaged, some planes pitch up and some down with flaps.
Your welcome to dig for data and post it if you believe it ours is incorrect, please do so in the Aircraft and vehicle forum. But understand , Doug and I have been doing this for 16 years. The odds on you finding better data , or data we do not have is slim.
HiTech
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU6i0Ix5QvI
this is not flap related, but I am still looking
-
There is not a flap issue, other then graphically displayed incorrectly when damaged, some planes pitch up and some down with flaps.
Your welcome to dig for data and post it if you believe it ours is incorrect, please do so in the Aircraft and vehicle forum. But understand , Doug and I have been doing this for 16 years. The odds on you finding better data , or data we do not have is slim.
HiTech
thank you for the response, I had no question of your knowledge, so your saying that like in game the mustangs nose pitches UP when the flaps are deployed...? what plane in game pitches down?
-
You're not making the distinction between sustained climb and zoom climb, they're two completely different animals.
Every Bf 109 we have from the F model on has a better sustained climb rate than the P51D, period.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=13&pw=2>ype=2)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=14&pw=2>ype=2)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=15&pw=2>ype=2)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=84&pw=2>ype=2)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=0&p2=1&pw=2>ype=2)
It climbs better than mustang, so.... just because it has better climbing doesn't mean it was never nose heavy, I can tell that I've never heard of a 109 that fell backwards tail down. A 109 is not going to win 100% of the time in all of it's climbs in fights. Sorry to go here, but if you think the 109 was so dominant, why is it that ALL of its experienced pilots had been shot down by the pony as it came into the Euro. theather? The pony in other words broke the back of the Luftwaffe, mainly to the near end of the war. Which then by that time, a couple months before the war had ended, new recruits, who were kids with inexperience/no pilot skill and who had very little hours of training, probably not even up to a day, took to the sky and probably never came back.
-
nose heavy
I'd imagine every plane with the engine in the front is nose heavy.
but if you think the 109 was so dominant
The Bf 109 airframe was more or less obsolete by 1943
ALL of its experienced pilots had been shot down by the pony
Source please
The pony in other words broke the back of the Luftwaffe
>propaganda
The Luftwaffe was largely broken already by the time the P51 saw large scale action
-
It climbs better than mustang, so.... just because it has better climbing doesn't mean it was never nose heavy, I can tell that I've never heard of a 109 that fell backwards tail down. A 109 is not going to win 100% of the time in all of it's climbs in fights.
I do believe it was quite possible in doing a tail slide in a Bf 109 in real life. Don't know why you bring that up to try and prove some point about substained climb rates.
Sorry to go here, but if you think the 109 was so dominant,
I don't think anyone in this thread has tried to make that claim. Just because people have correctly stated that the Bf 109s had a better substained climb rate than the P-51D is not the same as saying the "Bf 109 is so dominant..." A lot of planes had a better climb rate than the Mustang.
why is it that ALL of its experienced pilots had been shot down by the pony as it came into the Euro. theather?
Seriously? I don't know where you've learned your WW2 history but where ever it was you need to find some place else. Erich Hartmann, the highest scoring ace of all time wasn't shot down by Mustangs as were a lot of Luftwaffe aces that only saw action on the Eastern Front
The pony in other words broke the back of the Luftwaffe, mainly to the near end of the war.
No, it was the P-47 that broke the back of the Luftwaffe
No one has said or implied that the Mustang was not a good plane, it clearly was. However, as someone else noted earlier, there is a big difference between the reality of the Mustang and the image portrayed by post-war propoganda.
ack-ack
-
All planes suffer this when flaps are destroyed. To counter the roll on the dead flap side, lower the remaining flap to the same position as the damaged one and you will have full and stable control of your plane.
ack-ack
For bombers, but for single-engined fighters it can create debilitating amounts of drag to the point of unstabley flying on the edge of a stall. ( :devil :bolt: )
-
Erich Hartmann, the highest scoring ace of all time wasn't shot down by Mustangs as were a lot of Luftwaffe aces that only saw action on the Eastern Front
No, it was the P-47 that broke the back of the Luftwaffe
Well..you just put the most obvious answer straight of in front of me... Erich Hartmann and other aces that "only saw combat on the eastern front". I don't really know what would have happen on the western front if they went. I will have to say that the Russian pilots were trash, even though they had good planes.
As for the P-47 breaking the Luftwaffe's back, I can see it on strafing and bombing runs, though the P-51 and P-38 I think though broke the back of the Luftwaffe in dogfighting.
-
I'd imagine every plane with the engine in the front is nose heavy.
Most planes in the game don't have a 2000hp engine with a 30mm in the nose
-
Hans Joachim Marsielle FTW!
-
Well..you just put the most obvious answer straight of in front of me... Erich Hartmann and other aces that "only saw combat on the eastern front". I don't really know what would have happen on the western front if they went. I will have to say that the Russian pilots were trash, even though they had good planes.
Erich Hartmann flew 5 combat missions against USAAF pilots and scored 4 kills on Mustangs.
Your opinion of Soviet pilots is also incorrect as by 1943 and onwards, they were just as experienced and trained as the Luftwaffe pilots they faced.
As for the P-47 breaking the Luftwaffe's back, I can see it on strafing and bombing runs, though the P-51 and P-38 I think though broke the back of the Luftwaffe in dogfighting.
It wasn't until the later part of the war that the P-47 was primarily used in the ground attack role when the P-51D started to appear in numbers. Prior to that, the Thunderbolt was the primary USAAF escort fighter. In the first three months of 1944, when the Allies undertook major operations against German aircraft industry and Berlin, the Jug shot down more fighters than the Mustang and shot down almost half of the reported kills in the 1st 6 months of 1944. The Jug also flew more missions than the Mustang, P-38 and P-40 combined.
Not to belittle the contribution of the Mustang but to say that it was the plane that broke the back of the Luftwaffe is akin to laughing at the face of reality.
ack-ack
-
Erich Hartmann flew 5 combat missions against USAAF pilots and scored 4 kills on Mustangs.
Your opinion of Soviet pilots is also incorrect as by 1943 and onwards, they were just as experienced and trained as the Luftwaffe pilots they faced.
It wasn't until the later part of the war that the P-47 was primarily used in the ground attack role when the P-51D started to appear in numbers. Prior to that, the Thunderbolt was the primary USAAF escort fighter. In the first three months of 1944, when the Allies undertook major operations against German aircraft industry and Berlin, the Jug shot down more fighters than the Mustang and shot down almost half of the reported kills in the 1st 6 months of 1944. The Jug also flew more missions than the Mustang, P-38 and P-40 combined.
Not to belittle the contribution of the Mustang but to say that it was the plane that broke the back of the Luftwaffe is akin to laughing at the face of reality.
ack-ack
Or to laughing in the face of a JUG :t
JUGgler
-
thank you for the response, I had no question of your knowledge, so your saying that like in game the mustangs nose pitches UP when the flaps are deployed...? what plane in game pitches down?
IIRC, some planes pitch downwards with dive-flaps in-game(such as the SBD).
-
The pitching moment from flaps is wrong in a lot of the planes in game. HiTech recently gave me a way to fix this but I haven't implemented it yet.
-
Oooh... this will be interesting...
I wonder if we'll start to see planes that people DON'T want to deploy flaps on when trying to pull a lead... :confused:
-
Doubt it. It's not like flaps will stop producing lift. People will still use them, but perhaps differently.
When Pyro implements this new 'flap code' (in say, I dunno... 2 weeks?) then pitching moment will be produced about an axis such that the nose will pitch down, but the lift is still there to use.
Can't wait til' the flaps are fixed, Pyro! :D
-
The pitching moment from flaps is wrong in a lot of the planes in game. HiTech recently gave me a way to fix this but I haven't implemented it yet.
thank very much for the acknowledgment of this thread and see it for the purpose it was intended. :salute
-
Doubt it. It's not like flaps will stop producing lift. People will still use them, but perhaps differently.
When Pyro implements this new 'flap code' (in say, I dunno... 2 weeks?) then pitching moment will be produced about an axis such that the nose will pitch down, but the lift is still there to use.
Can't wait til' the flaps are fixed, Pyro! :D
Right, but one of the beautiful things about the flaps on something like the pony (which by the sounds of it, won't change), is that when you dropped the flaps, the nose coming up gave you a lead on your target. If the nose comes down, your going to have to reef on those elevators to pull lead. Therefor, they won't be as useful from an attacking standpoint, but you are probably right, they would be still as effective in a defensive maneuvering standpoint.
-
Well, like everything in aerospace technology, nothing works the same way in every flight regime.
Perhaps this pitch down is caused not only by lift being produced behind the aerodynamic center of the airfoil, but also in part due to the sudden increase in drag the flaps impart when they drop. Maybe if you're pulling lead like a madman, perhaps the flaps don't pitch you down as aggressively since you're pulling up on the stick.
Also for the P-51, it is to my belief that the laminar flow airfoil (which has its maximum thickness moved more aft than most airfoils at the time), the pitch down may be less obvious, especially when the CoG is far aft, such as a full rear fuel tank condition.
-
I see what you are saying, and I suppose like everything, only time will tell. :)
Although, I will say, in terms of the pony, every notch of added flap does pick the nose up, even with the AUX tank empty. However, I don't know what contribution combat trim has in this.
I'm excited to see these changes, I like when things become more realistic, even if it makes an aircraft more difficult. :x
-
I see what you are saying, and I suppose like everything, only time will tell. :)
Although, I will say, in terms of the pony, every notch of added flap does pick the nose up, even with the AUX tank empty. However, I don't know what contribution combat trim has in this.
I'm excited to see these changes, I like when things become more realistic, even if it makes an aircraft more difficult. :x
I never use the combat trim so its effect to work against the flaps should be nil to none :salute
-
The pitching moment from flaps is wrong in a lot of the planes in game. HiTech recently gave me a way to fix this but I haven't implemented it yet.
Is this something that may be implemented in the near future? say two weeks? needing to take a school break, catch up, I would like to be back asap if this is to be addressed. :joystick:
-
I will have to say that the Russian pilots were trash, even though they had good planes.
wow......... just wow.
:huh
-
wow......... just wow.
:huh
I try not to feed in such negativity, but thanks for pointing it out :rolleyes:
-
Trim tabs for teh win! :O
-
Is this something that may be implemented in the near future? say two weeks? needing to take a school break, catch up, I would like to be back asap if this is to be addressed. :joystick:
I'm sure most if not all of the community would like to see a more realistic flap model implemented. Ironically though, not many seem very into this thread. Perhaps it's the title.
At any rate, fixing the flaps on almost every plane (keep in mind that not all planes pitch down with flaps in RL) would take longer than 2 weeks. If it ever happens in the near future, it's likely to come out in v2.24.x with the remodeling of the next plane. And it's not going to be anytime within the next month. We'll have to give HTC a break; they JUST gave us the Superfort.
-
I'm sure most if not all of the community would like to see a more realistic flap model implemented. Ironically though, not many seem very into this thread. Perhaps it's the title.
At any rate, fixing the flaps on almost every plane (keep in mind that not all planes pitch down with flaps in RL) would take longer than 2 weeks. If it ever happens in the near future, it's likely to come out in v2.24.x with the remodeling of the next plane. And it's not going to be anytime within the next month. We'll have to give HTC a break; they JUST gave us the Superfort.
Props to HTC and there progress and to you for pointing it out! I didn't mean to sound so hasty, I was just curious if this was really going to to be implemented as they said they may. I could never be dissatisfied with the routine that is involved with the modeling. after all this is the best MULTI PLAYER air combat simulator made as far as my opinions go. :salute as for the title; the thread was started for the damage model of the flaps, but progressed into pitch moment due to verbal communications in game. So I took it upon myself to at least put it down in writing here, for the purpose of recognition vs. just the talk in game. :aok
-
I didn't mean to sound like a dictator myself. I just wish we as a community showed HTC more gratitude when it comes to all their hard work.
Anyway, when Pyro said that 'The pitching moment from flaps is wrong in a lot of the planes in game. HiTech recently gave me a way to fix this but I haven't implemented it yet,' I saw that as a huge deal. I mean, it's a major modeling detail, and thankfully, it's likely to be fixed. I can't wait, but I just wouldn't get my hopes up too soon.
-
I didn't mean to sound like a dictator myself. I just wish we as a community showed HTC more gratitude when it comes to all their hard work.
Anyway, when Pyro said that 'The pitching moment from flaps is wrong in a lot of the planes in game. HiTech recently gave me a way to fix this but I haven't implemented it yet,' I saw that as a huge deal. I mean, it's a major modeling detail, and thankfully, it's likely to be fixed. I can't wait, but I just wouldn't get my hopes up too soon.
It's really not much of a modeling detail, because it's effect on performance is extremely minor.
HiTech
-
:aok :salute
-
Sorry Hitech, didn't mean to make the program sound flawed. I just meant it's something I would notice easily.
-
I am curious if what was discussed in this post will be implamented in the upcomeing update or two ? not the most popular interest but I can be confident to say many would be excited to see the results! Skuzzy? Hitech? :salute