Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: STEELE on April 08, 2011, 02:30:49 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
Surprizing information about turn radius and E retention from pilots who fly both 51, Spit9, and 109G Today, all the time, side by side.
:rock
-
an·ec·dote/ˈanikˌdōt/Noun
1. A short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
2. An account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.
-
The Bf109 out turns the P-51 in AH. It is one of the reasons the Bf109K-4 is so lethal to P-51s.
The guy said he had no personal experience with the Spitfire and was told it would out turn the Bf109G, but he'd have to see it to believe it and the yahoos doing the interview go all Luftwaffe fanboi and take it as gospel. Wonder what he'd have said if they asked if the Zero would out turn it, after all, he claimed the Bf109G turned on a dime.
I am also curious as to the state of the guns, armor, self sealing tanks and ammunition on that Bf109G.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
Surprizing information about turn radius and E retention from pilots who fly both 51, Spit9, and 109G Today, all the time, side by side.
:rock
Not valid. Not only is it anecdotal, but it's anecdotal about warbirds, or historic planes from 60+ years ago being maintained and flown today as history pieces. They are not being pushed anywhere like they were in WW2, and most of these warbirds aren't in war-time condition and aren't allowed to run at full power because the engines are precious and rare.
Now if you had a WW2 pilot talking about his combat in WW2, .... well it would still be anecdotal but it would be a heckuva lot closer to relevant.
-
Not valid. Not only is it anecdotal, but it's anecdotal about warbirds, or historic planes from 60+ years ago being maintained and flown today as history pieces. They are not being pushed anywhere like they were in WW2, and most of these warbirds aren't in war-time condition and aren't allowed to run at full power because the engines are precious and rare.
Now if you had a WW2 pilot talking about his combat in WW2, .... well it would still be anecdotal but it would be a heckuva lot closer to relevant.
I find myself in complete agreement with Krusty.... :aok
-
I find myself in complete agreement with Krusty.... :aok
Me too.
- oldman
-
I agree with Krusty.
Just the point out the guy in the video (don't know the name) agreed that Spit5 and Spit9 are pretty much the same airplanes. :confused:
-
Just the point out the guy in the video (don't know the name) agreed that Spit5 and Spit9 are pretty much the same airplanes. :confused:
well if you rule the engine out it is pretty much true
-
well if you rule the engine out it is pretty much true
That would be ruling out what is probably one of the two or three most important determining factors in a fighter's performance. Kinda silly to do that.
-
Just the point out the guy in the video (don't know the name) agreed that Spit5 and Spit9 are pretty much the same airplanes. :confused:
Your taking it out of context in an attempt to discredit him... His point was to say that a spit 5 and a spit 9 are very similar unlike say a spit 5 and a spit 14 or spit 16. So yes, a spit 5 is very similar but has a smaller engine than the spit 9 but unlike the spit 16, which has clipped wings, etc...
-
Your taking it out of context in an attempt to discredit him... His point was to say that a spit 5 and a spit 9 are very similar unlike say a spit 5 and a spit 14 or spit 16. So yes, a spit 5 is very similar but has a smaller engine than the spit 9 but unlike the spit 16, which has clipped wings, etc...
You contradicted yourself. The Spitfire Mk XVI IS a Spitfire Mk IX. Some Vs had clipped wings too.
-
Spit IX and Spit XVI both have merlin 61? :headscratch:
You contradicted yourself. The Spitfire Mk XVI IS a Spitfire Mk IX. Some Vs had clipped wings too.
We all know that 109g outturns 51, What I found most interesting was the last minute or two where Skip says no way can earlier Spits outturn earlier 109's, also that the 109 retains E much better in turns than the spit.
Also mentioned was the fact that the later Spits had high wingloading and couldnt turn nearly as well (K4 vs 109F comes to mind)
-
Spit IX and Spit XVI both have merlin 61? :headscratch:
Spitfire Mk IXs had a Merlin 61 or Merlin 63 or, most commonly, Merlin 66 or Merlin 70. Spitfire Mk XVI had a Merlin 266, which is an American built Merlin 66.
We all know that 109g outturns 51, What I found most interesting was the last minute or two where Skip says no way can earlier Spits outturn earlier 109's, also that the 109 retains E much better in turns than the spit.
Which is completely undone by the fact that he has never flown a Spitfire, which he says in the clip.
Also mentioned was the fact that the later Spits had high wingloading and couldnt turn nearly as well (K4 vs 109F comes to mind)
And? The Spitfires in AH follow that same trend, as do the Bf109s for the same reason.
-
You contradicted yourself. The Spitfire Mk XVI IS a Spitfire Mk IX. Some Vs had clipped wings too.
Huh?
Spit 9s don't have clipped wings (at least in AH), where a spit 16 does..
-
Huh?
Spit 9s don't have clipped wings (at least in AH), where a spit 16 does..
The guy in the video will not have been talking about AH Spitfires, thus I treated your comment as a comment about real Spitfires.
The Spitfire Mk XVI in AH is actually a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe. Full throttle height is the same as the Mk VIII's which is where it should be for a Merlin 66, and about 1000ft below where it should be for the Merlin 266 of a Spitfire Mk XVI. In reality the Spitfire Mk XVI is merely a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe with an American built engine. Other than full throttle height the engines are the same and produce the same power.
According to Guppy changing the wing tips on a Spitfire took about 30 minutes work at an airfield.
-
The Spitfire Mk XVI in AH is actually a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe.
ahh didn't know that
-
The first guy says he has never flown a spit, the 2nd guy is the one who has , and the one who says the 109 turns tighter and holds E better in a turn.
Where to draw the line btwn anecdote and fact? Test pilot reports could technically be considered anecdotes. Does the plane have to be flown by robots to give an accurate performance report?
Mil. Channel should do a flyoff between the old rivals, all with ballast to simulate ammo load to solve the questions once and for all. :AOK
-
The first guy says he has never flown a spit, the 2nd guy is the one who has , and the one who says the 109 turns tighter and holds E better in a turn.
Where to draw the line btwn anecdote and fact? Test pilot reports could technically be considered anecdotes. Does the plane have to be flown by robots to give an accurate performance report?
Mil. Channel should do a flyoff between the old rivals, all with ballast to simulate ammo load to solve the questions once and for all. :AOK
A test pilot goes through a rigid and difficult training program. His aircraft is equipped with data recorders and cameras. He flies a very specific test card. More often that not, WWII test pilots were combat veterans as well. In short, no one in the flight test community then or now, will consider test reports generated by these pilots as anecdotal in any way.
Now, the typical warbird owner was never trained as a test pilot (there are a few exceptions, such as Hoover and Henriques). A considerable number were never military pilots. These days, warbird owners are well represented by guys with deep pockets rather than military and combat experience.
So, the comments provided in that video clip represent ignorance more than knowledge. Especially when WWII test pilots on both sides have stated the exact opposite. Indeed, as Krusty pointed out, these guys have never flown these aircraft at anything approaching the limits of performance. You will never experience the behavior at the limits if you don't push to them. Like the middle-aged stock broker down the block with the Porsche 911 Turbo Carrera, he can only describe the limits of his skills or fear, which will never approach the limits of his machine. He would need a great deal of training to actually begin to explore the limits of his Porsche, and even then will probably not have the natural talent required to truly extract everything the Porsche has.
As to competitive fly-offs being done these days.. Forget about that. These aircraft are extremely rare and valuable. The cost of rebuilding an engine can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. No warbird owner wants his aircraft flogged that hard. The best data already exists, just read it.
-
But Widewing, the data doesn't say what he wants it to say.
-
But Widewing, the data doesn't say what he wants it to say.
Thats what I was thinking
-
Mil. Channel should do a flyoff between the old rivals, all with ballast to simulate ammo load to solve the questions once and for all. :AOK
The "victory channel" is anything but factually accurate. For example, the show "dogfights" It regularly makes gross inaccurate statements about various planes capabilities.
-
A test pilot goes through a rigid and difficult training program. His aircraft is equipped with data recorders and cameras. He flies a very specific test card. More often that not, WWII test pilots were combat veterans as well. In short, no one in the flight test community then or now, will consider test reports generated by these pilots as anecdotal in any way.
Now, the typical warbird owner was never trained as a test pilot (there are a few exceptions, such as Hoover and Henriques). A considerable number were never military pilots. These days, warbird owners are well represented by guys with deep pockets rather than military and combat experience.
So, the comments provided in that video clip represent ignorance more than knowledge. Especially when WWII test pilots on both sides have stated the exact opposite. Indeed, as Krusty pointed out, these guys have never flown these aircraft at anything approaching the limits of performance. You will never experience the behavior at the limits if you don't push to them. . The cost of rebuilding an engine can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. . The best data already exists, just read it.
Exceptional summary
-
Note: VERY few warbirds of any genre have gentle departure characteristics.. a specific example relative to this discussion is the frequent snap roll/flat spin maneuver that no wishes to experience first hand in a high G stall.
Millionaire warbird owner with brains usually want to relive the experience of flying one.
-
A test pilot goes through a rigid and difficult training program. His aircraft is equipped with data recorders and cameras. He flies a very specific test card. More often that not, WWII test pilots were combat veterans as well. In short, no one in the flight test community then or now, will consider test reports generated by these pilots as anecdotal in any way.
Now, the typical warbird owner was never trained as a test pilot (there are a few exceptions, such as Hoover and Henriques). A considerable number were never military pilots. These days, warbird owners are well represented by guys with deep pockets rather than military and combat experience.
So, the comments provided in that video clip represent ignorance more than knowledge. Especially when WWII test pilots on both sides have stated the exact opposite. Indeed, as Krusty pointed out, these guys have never flown these aircraft at anything approaching the limits of performance. You will never experience the behavior at the limits if you don't push to them. Like the middle-aged stock broker down the block with the Porsche 911 Turbo Carrera, he can only describe the limits of his skills or fear, which will never approach the limits of his machine. He would need a great deal of training to actually begin to explore the limits of his Porsche, and even then will probably not have the natural talent required to truly extract everything the Porsche has.
As to competitive fly-offs being done these days.. Forget about that. These aircraft are extremely rare and valuable. The cost of rebuilding an engine can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. No warbird owner wants his aircraft flogged that hard. The best data already exists, just read it.
The thing is, is that Skip Holms is correct.
In the video, the 109 looks like a g2
A G2 will turn with a spit (within 20 feet). All the 109s will out turn a p51 any day.
| ---spec--- | ---P51 D--- | ---P51 B--- | ---Spit 16--- | ---Spit 9--- | ---109 G2--- | ---109 k4--- |
| turn (no flaps) | 777 | 766 | 567 | 632 | 636 | 703 |
| turn (full flaps) | 633 | 598 | 450 | 433 | 467 | 533 |
-
What is the source for your posted turn data - and what additional parameters are included? like Gross weight, rated Hp, altitude, sustained turn? if so, what G levels recorded.. all tests reduced to STP, instruments calibrated, etc, etc
-
What is the source for your posted turn data - and what additional parameters are included? like Gross weight, rated Hp, altitude, sustained turn? if so, what G levels recorded.. all tests reduced to STP, instruments calibrated, etc, etc
The figures relate to the planes in AH.
http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php (http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php)
Also you can do your own in testing with "Badboys calculator". Search the BBS for it, it will extract the values from the game.
Although anecdotal, in AH, my findings correlate with the table, I never have trouble out turning p51s, and in a G2, I can turn with spits all day (except for spit 5 and earlier).
-
...I never have trouble out turning p51s, and in a G2, I can turn with spits all day (except for spit 5 and earlier).
What do you mean when you say "out turn"? Better sustained turn radius? Better turn rate? Or just the ability to gain angles during a fight in-game? Those are three completely different things. During these comparative performance comparisons, it is absolutely essential that precise language is used to compare performance. That means having a thorough understanding of what each term means. I've been able to kill Spits in a Jug in a turn fight before. That doesn't mean it has a better turn radius or turn rate--merely that I've been able to gain angles sufficient for a shot during the fight.
When Tango says "aeroDYNAMICS", its very important to understand the importance of the capitalized part...
-
What do you mean when you say "out turn"? Better sustained turn radius? Better turn rate? Or just the ability to gain angles during a fight in-game?
blah.. blah...
"Out turn" = sustained turn radius. The figures I posted were for best sustained turn radius.
but as a side note...
"Or just the ability to gain angles during a fight in-game? " = yes to that too for different reasons.
I people have posted the turn curves before on both the p51 and the 109s in the BBS, which show both the corner speed and sustained turn rate.
If you are willing, I'll will go to the TA with you, and we can test and post the video.
Here is Badboys calculator thread
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,284578.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,284578.0.html)
Badboy could you please update the link
-
Second link in the above works
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,284578.msg3688792.html#msg3688792
-
In general I respect and like what Badboy achieved in his broad models.
Having said this I disagree with the flight mechanics of the model wrt low ratios of Vturn/Vmax at or near CLmax.
Simply, absent CFD and/or flight test data for variations in Parasite drag due to increases in AoA - which is required to achieve the low speed T=D equations -
you just can't 'get there from here' with level flight, low AoA models based on level flight CLmax at Power on stalls or CDo for sub mach critical speeds calculated from max level flight dash speeds with known HP and known altitudes and Gross Weights.
As to 'fixing it', I have no suggestions which embrace everything from a 'draggy Me 109G' to a 'clean P-51D' in high bank angle, asymmetric, high AoA, large viscous drag flight conditions in which even Prop efficiencies at max power/low airspeed are suspect.
Which, Ardy, caused me to ask about your sources for the results..
-
In general I respect and like what Badboy achieved in his broad models.
Having said this I disagree with the flight mechanics of the model wrt low ratios of Vturn/Vmax at or near CLmax.
Simply, absent CFD and/or flight test data for variations in Parasite drag due to increases in AoA - which is required to achieve the low speed T=D equations -
you just can't 'get there from here' with level flight, low AoA models based on level flight CLmax at Power on stalls or CDo for sub mach critical speeds calculated from max level flight dash speeds with known HP and known altitudes and Gross Weights.
As to 'fixing it', I have no suggestions which embrace everything from a 'draggy Me 109G' to a 'clean P-51D' in high bank angle, asymmetric, high AoA, large viscous drag flight conditions in which even Prop efficiencies at max power/low airspeed are suspect.
Which, Ardy, caused me to ask about your sources for the results..
Thats a good point, I wonder if and how AH models parasite drag? But at low speeds, wouldn't it be more induced drag and not parasite drag?
-
The thing is, is that Skip Holms is correct.
In the video, the 109 looks like a g2
A G2 will turn with a spit (within 20 feet). All the 109s will out turn a p51 any day.
No, he's not correct. He stated that the 109G would out turn a Spit IX in answer to that question (he said, "sure"). It will not. He didn't specify which G model, but it really makes no difference. Also, Gonzo's Spit IX turn radius is suspect when compared to the Spit XVI, which is a Spit IX with a low altitude engine. I can match the Spit XVI's turn radius with a Spit IX (571 feet, no flaps). I can't match the rate (at low altitude) being down on relative power. My preferred Spitfire is the Mk.VIII, which has better low speed handling than the Mk.XVI, and superior acceleration and climb relative to the Mk.IX Spit.
That said, lets look at the the test methodology used to get the in-game turn data. All data is taken close to sea level. The Spitfire IX in the game has an engine optimized for high altitude. Do that test at 25k+ and the Spit IX will embarrass any 109G. That's an important context. On the other hand, if sea level data is valued, compare the Spit XVI to the 109G-2 and things get really dicey for the 109 very quickly.
Don't misunderstand me... When I was a Trainer and flying on a regular basis, I could hold my own with anyone in a 109 dueling 109s or dissimilar types. I like the 109s...
-
No, he's not correct. He stated that the 109G would out turn a Spit IX in answer to that question (he said, "sure"). It will not. He didn't specify which G model, but it really makes no difference. Also, Gonzo's Spit IX turn radius is suspect when compared to the Spit XVI, which is a Spit IX with a low altitude engine. I can match the Spit XVI's turn radius with a Spit IX (571 feet, no flaps). I can't match the rate (at low altitude) being down on relative power. My preferred Spitfire is the Mk.VIII, which has better low speed handling than the Mk.XVI, and superior acceleration and climb relative to the Mk.IX Spit.
That said, lets look at the the test methodology used to get the in-game turn data. All data is taken close to sea level. The Spitfire IX in the game has an engine optimized for high altitude. Do that test at 25k+ and the Spit IX will embarrass any 109G. That's an important context. On the other hand, if sea level data is valued, compare the Spit XVI to the 109G-2 and things get really dicey for the 109 very quickly.
Don't misunderstand me... When I was a Trainer and flying on a regular basis, I could hold my own with anyone in a 109 dueling 109s or dissimilar types. I like the 109s...
I don't understand, your saying that on the deck, the spit 16 (spit XVI) will out turn a 109 G2? Thats not inline with the your & Gonzos tests (your given credit for some of the figures according to gonzo). With no flaps the spit 16 will by 60 feet, but with flaps, the difference is 17 feet!
| ---spec--- | ---P51 D--- | ---P51 B--- | ---Spit 16--- | ---Spit 9--- | ---109 G2--- | ---109 k4--- |
| turn (no flaps) | 777 | 766 | 567 | 632 | 636 | 703 |
| turn (full flaps) | 633 | 598 | 450 | 433 | 467 | 533 |
-
"Out turn" = sustained turn radius. The figures I posted were for best sustained turn radius.
I was talking about your last point where you said "in a G2, I can 'turn' with Spits all day"...
You missed my point.
-
I was talking about your last point where you said "in a G2, I can 'turn' with Spits all day"...
You missed my point.
Ahh...
That comment was in reference to the fact that many spit pilots go into endless flat turns on the deck when they are in trouble in AH. I can follow them in their turns in a G2, I can't in a k4 (I have to do yo-yos or some other acm to cut it).
-
Ahh...
That comment was in reference to the fact that many spit pilots go into endless flat turns on the deck when they are in trouble in AH. I can follow them in their turns in a G2, I can't in a k4 (I have to do yo-yos or some other acm to cut it).
My point is simple... The 109G2 won't live long enough to get slowed down enough to deploy flaps. The Spit XVI accelerates faster, climbs as well or faster, rolls much faster and can turn a smaller circle at a higher turn rate.
Another point to remember is that the majority of air combat on the western front was flown at much higher altitude than you will typically see in Aces High.
-
My point is simple... The 109G2 won't live long enough to get slowed down enough to deploy flaps. The Spit XVI accelerates faster, climbs as well or faster, rolls much faster and can turn a smaller circle at a higher turn rate.
Another point to remember is that the majority of air combat on the western front was flown at much higher altitude than you will typically see in Aces High.
Ok fine, I'll bite...
The above post is total BS... And with all the times you have told others to not make "blanket statements" to say something like that makes you appear like a complete hypocrite.
There are so many factors that go into that equation and you once being a trainer, you know that.
Regardless... The topic was on turn radius not fight, and at full flaps its 17 feet difference (roughly) on the deck.
-
Take it easy Ardy..
The XVI does trump pretty much anything the G2 can come up with against it..
-
Take it easy Ardy..
The XVI does trump pretty much anything the G2 can come up with against it..
I think he was trying to start a BBS fight as the original topic was about turn radius.
-
Ok fine, I'll bite...
The above post is total BS... And with all the times you have told others to not make "blanket statements" to say something like that makes you appear like a complete hypocrite.
There are so many factors that go into that equation and you once being a trainer, you know that.
Regardless... The topic was on turn radius not fight, and at full flaps its 17 feet difference (roughly) on the deck.
So, you're saying that what I said isn't true?
And, yes, we're discussing a very specific dynamic... Turn radius. Just understand that you cannot isolate turn radius from turn rate. Turn rate, IMHO, is the more important factor.
In a duel there are just two variables to the equation... Pilot skill and aircraft. Spit XVI vs 109G2, call pilot skill equal. 109G-2 dies. That's not a blanket statement, it's a very specific fact.
-
So, you're saying that what I said isn't true?
And, yes, we're discussing a very specific dynamic... Turn radius.
I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to pick a BBS fight as you changed it to being about a fight from turn radius. My apologies if you were not. No, I agree with you that barring equal pilots, a spit 16 will win in a duel, but in terms of turn radius, I believe the spit 16 and the g2, with full flaps are very close.
-
LOL, if the guys in the video are your argument for a better turning 109, I'd skip it. The "109" that Skip Holm has flown is a Spanish built Buchon not a 109G. Good luck on finding a 109G to fly. The last one in the air was the IWM 109G2 that crashed and is now static at the RAF Museum. Those in Germany are rebuilt Buchon's with DB engines.
Skip Holm's 109 flying is behind a Merlin engine :)
-
well that guy just needed to read AAR from german pilots to see that the spitfire would out turn the 109. German pilot training told them not to turn with spits but to use slashing attacks and keep speed. Next that guy will say the hurricane would only just take off.
-
Thats a good point, I wonder if and how AH models parasite drag? But at low speeds, wouldn't it be more induced drag and not parasite drag?
I suspect that the only parasite drag modelled in AH is zero lift parasite drag. Drag has four components, one of which is irrelevant for sustained turns - namely compressibility. The other three however are Parasite drag, Induced drag and viscous drag due to lift and changes to AoA.
For velocities below max L/D on the drag polar, drag is dominated by Induced Drag. At CDmin for level flight L/D is max and CDi = CDo for level flight. For level flight conditions from stall to near max speeds (below the start of compressibility ( at ~ .55-60M) you can perform all your performance derivatives with T=D, Drag = Induced and Zero Lift Parasite Drag
Virtually all the sustained turns for WWII fighters were at or below CDmin values for level flight... This is where the modelling gets tricky because holding altitude in a sustained turn REQUIRES significant elevator and rudder deflection - adding trim drag - and the dramatically increased AoA to push the a/c to the max sustained turn rate increases viscous drag - another delta to parasite drag. Induced drag should still be the most important until the a/c approaches stall range velocities but this is where the combination of viscous and zero lift parasite drag combined is nearly equal in magnitude to induced drag.
-
I am also curious as to the state of the guns, armor, self sealing tanks and ammunition on that Bf109G.
This. :aok
-
As to competitive fly-offs being done these days.. Forget about that. These aircraft are extremely rare and valuable. The cost of rebuilding an engine can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. No warbird owner wants his aircraft flogged that hard. The best data already exists, just read it.
$14,000,000 is the cost to produce one episode of ER. These planes are rare but it might be worth asking what kind of revenue could be generated from such a show, and how much could be put up to cover the cost of repairs/ losses. Some planes might be priceless, to collectors if original, but aren't many warbirds re-manufactured? just saying. :salute
-
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45704000/jpg/_45704530_bigcrash_ap416.jpg)
Can't deny it. It works.