Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: icepac on July 17, 2011, 11:17:24 AM
-
Since the I15's (biplane) flight model already exists with our current brewster, maybe we could bring in the plane that actually flew like the flight model.
We could shave some MPH from the current brewster flight model and use damage modeling ques from some of the WWI aircraft and arrive at a good I15 flight model.
Then we could take the KI61 flight model and shave some mph and climb from it and arrive at a more accurate brewster flight model.
-
It has become clear to me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
-
:bhead
-
icepac,
I have no idea where you got those absurd ideas, but I will tell you they bear no resemblance to reality.
-
It has become clear to me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
It took you this long? :huh
wrongway
-
It took you this long? :huh
wrongway
This long to say, not to notice :D
-
Wow.....so you guys think the Brewster flight model is accurate?
I think it's turn performance is closer to the I15 than it is to the B239.
-
Flight modeling isn't about "cutting" stuff. Otherwise we'd be playing IL-2 Sturmovik.
How can you have the slightest idea on how behaved these planes in real life?
-
From the time I spent restoring planes at the smithsonian and poring over manuals from the archives maybe?
-
If you want to properly criticize the turn performance you should post your data for the Finnish Brewster model we have in AH and contrast it to the in-game turn performance so that we can see what the problem is.
-
From the time I spent restoring planes at the smithsonian and poring over manuals from the archives maybe?
speed, climb rate, measured turn performance is only the emerged part of the airflow iceberg.
-
From you guy's reasoning, nobody can comment on a flight model.
This includes you as well.
-
This includes ME as well.
-
...How can you have the slightest idea on how behaved these planes in real life?
I have been flying a 5700lb 600hp radial engined t-6 texan about every other weekend sometimes in formation with another t-6.
if your interested in what flying real warbirds is like I recomend the t-6 as it is actually available in many locations with about 5-600 of them still around and a good majority are flying. the cockpit of the t-6 and p51 are quite similar with them both being built by north american. it is said the p51 is actually easier to fly.
back to your origional statement of how these planes behave in real life...
let me say this. Aces High models the airspeeds and the flight characteristics just fine. what is not modelled is the actual sensation of you being in a fire breathing military warbird with its deafening engine noise, vibration, heat, wind, turbulence, G forces and the actual workload of maintaining visual contact with your target and or wingman while the horizon is going in strange directions.
the game gives you a glimps of the real thing and its depiction of the area being glimpsed at is very well done and entertaining. the rest is beyond our current technology.
-
From you guy's reasoning, nobody can comment on a flight model.
This includes you as well.
Everyone is free to comment. If you want your claim that the Brewster flight model is incorrect to be taken seriously then you need to post the relevant data.
-
I really think the brewster turns better in game than it did in real life.
Did the finn version turn a huge amount better than the american version?
If so, what modifications allowed it to outperform the american version?
-
Did the finn version turn a huge amount better than the american version?
If so, what modifications allowed it to outperform the american version?
Don't you think an 18% decrease in weight for the b239 vs. the US F2A-3 would make a difference? Thats a lot of junior mints missing there don't you think?
-
From the time I spent restoring planes at the smithsonian and poring over manuals from the archives maybe?
Still waiting on the info from the manuals backing up your claim.
-
Sorry dude....I am going on memory.
I won't be there for a few more months as I am busy doing aero work for our next trip to nasa.
Since someone threw out the figure 18% lighter figure.....how was this achieved?
Was this before the fins added the pilot seat armor or after as well?
-
Since someone threw out the figure 18% lighter figure.....how was this achieved?
Was this before the fins added the pilot seat armor or after as well?
Covered previously by others before. However I'll repeat what info I have.
It's not that the finns reduced the weight, it's the US added a bunch of weight instead. According to Dean's AHT, empty weight of the B239 was only 3744 lbs. By contrast the F2A-3 empty weight was 4765 lbs. Where did all that come from? +280 lbs on the airframe, +547 lbs for a new version of the Wright Cyclone 1820 engine, +215 lbs for fixed equipment. The wing weight went up 172 lbs with no change in area. That's just empty weight.
Add the additional fuel and ammo etc etc. and voila you get 5276 lbs vs. 6906 lbs. Looking at the math, that's actually 23% lighter than the F2A-3.
-
Math?
MATH?!?!?!?!?!?!
You DARE bring MATH into an AH thread?
A witch!
Burn him!
-
Math?
MATH?!?!?!?!?!?!
You DARE bring MATH into an AH thread?
A witch!
Burn him!
:lol :lol :lol
-
Sorry dude....I am going on memory.
I won't be there for a few more months as I am busy doing aero work for our next trip to nasa.
Since someone threw out the figure 18% lighter figure.....how was this achieved?
Was this before the fins added the pilot seat armor or after as well?
As you are the one positing that the numbers in AH are wrong, it is your job to show the data to back it up.
Before you trot out the tired "You're just as guilty of assuming the data is correct as I am of assuming it is wrong, all opinions are equally valid!" crap, know that many of us have provided data to prove something we thought was modeled wrong in AH was really modeled wrong. It is your claim, most of us that have some knowledge of the subject don't see anything grossly off with it, so you go get the data to prove it wrong. Don't ask for other people to do your work for you.
-
Covered previously by others before. However I'll repeat what info I have.
It's not that the finns reduced the weight, it's the US added a bunch of weight instead. According to Dean's AHT, empty weight of the B239 was only 3744 lbs. By contrast the F2A-3 empty weight was 4765 lbs. Where did all that come from? +280 lbs on the airframe, +547 lbs for a new version of the Wright Cyclone 1820 engine, +215 lbs for fixed equipment. The wing weight went up 172 lbs with no change in area. That's just empty weight.
Add the additional fuel and ammo etc etc. and voila you get 5276 lbs vs. 6906 lbs. Looking at the math, that's actually 23% lighter than the F2A-3.
Nice figures.
The finns removed the tailhook and other carrier type equipment but didn't they run 4x50 caliber guns while the original f2A1 was armed with 1x30 and 1x50 guns?
This thread is way off track from it's original intent which is to discuss the I15/I153 biplane being in game.
It's numbers exceed the B239 and many other planes in game at this time.
I only mentioned the brewster because I feel it's flight model most closely resembles how the I15/I153 would fly.....but with a bit of speed removed.
Karnak.......from another thread......
This.
Giving the Allies the B-239 in Pac scenarios isn't very fair to the Japanese as it gives the Allies a fighter that can turn with the A6M when there shouldn't be an Allied fighter there that can turn with the A6M.
They delivered 3437 of these planes.
The I153 were armed with 4x7.62 shkas or 2x12.7 bs.
The I153BS had 4x12.7 and another model had 2x20mm shvak.
They also flew with 6xRS82 rockets.
26 were delivered with pressurized cockpits and turbocharged engines.
(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Polikarpov-I-153/IMAGES/Polikarpov-I-153-Inflight.jpg)
-
.....but with a bit of speed removed.
That's what people are trying to explain, planes don't handle like something else with a bit a speed removed. I'15 & B-239 are totally different airplanes even thought their fuselages look alike. They have a different wing (I-15 has two of them), different engine, different stabilizers, I-15 has un-retractable landing gear, and I-15 has an open cockpit. Also keep in mind that they are built totally different that means the structure in the wind is different and the fuselage, so your damage model has to also be made from scratch.
-
You forgot to mention manufactured by two different companies, in two different countries. :uhoh
That's what people are trying to explain, planes don't handle like something else with a bit a speed removed. I'15 & B-239 are totally different airplanes even thought their fuselages look alike. They have a different wing (I-15 has two of them), different engine, different stabilizers, I-15 has un-retractable landing gear, and I-15 has an open cockpit. Also keep in mind that they are built totally different that means the structure in the wind is different and the fuselage, so your damage model has to also be made from scratch.
-
icepac,
What has that to do with this discussion? Yes, using the B-239 in Pac or CBI settings is not appropriate. That has literally nothing to do with whether the flight model for the B-239 is accurate or not. What it is saying is that the B-239 is not an appropriate substitution for a B-339E or a F2A-3 and that is all that it is saying.
In no way was I contesting the flight model of the B-239 with that comment.
-
Ok.....let's remove the b239 from this discussion.
What about the I153 in game?
It flew a considerable amount of missions than many other planes discussed for inclusion.
-
I-153 would be a very nice addition. The only people likely to say otherwise are those who don't want anything that won't become the new MA monster added.
-
I would like to have it Big +1
Not for the reasons icepak stated though...that was confusing and didnt make much sense. But Biplanes in the MA would be great!