Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Widewing on January 21, 2014, 09:55:39 PM
-
With regard to a USAAF test of the Tempest V (which they liked very much), it is very plain that the test pilots found that while the Tempest was an outstanding aircraft, their findings are at odds with Aces High.
See the portion of the test report below... While finding the Tempest to be an outstanding fighter they also found that its turn radius was considerably greater than that of the Typhoon. Yet, in Aces High, the Tempest has a markedly smaller turn radius than the Typhoon. Perhaps, when the Tempest is updated, this discrepancy can be addressed.
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/fb1a/z70m5lowkhlikkjfg.jpg)
-
Yeah, but check the date on that report- 1943.. the A-H Tempest is an improved late-war series 2..
-
Yeah, but check the date on that report- 1943.. the A-H Tempest is an improved late-war series 2..
There were no design changes that would decrease the turn radius. If anything, it gained weight.
-
Yeah, but check the date on that report- 1943.. the A-H Tempest is an improved late-war series 2..
Rrrright. But if you look at, well, pretty much EVERY other aircraft, the trend seems to be increasingly larger turning circles throughout the series as sustained maneuverability becomes increasingly deemphasized. Were there exceptions? Almost certainly. But they're just that: exceptions.
Looking at the Spits, you have a pretty clear increase in turn radius from the I to V to IX to XIV. Even in the case of the Zeros (which are pretty much the definition of "maneuverability over power"), the development cycle was for more power, increased weight, and larger turning circles as the war progressed.
-
Significantly more power available to haul 'em round - via later series Sabre mills..
-
Significantly more power available to haul 'em round - via later series Sabre mills..
Wait, what? I can see where that would help keep from bleeding off speed in a maneuver, but isn't the size of the turning circle a product of aerodynamics and lift from the wing against the weight of the aircraft?
The F4U-4 has over twice the engine power of the F4F-4. But the F4F-4 has a significantly smaller turning radius with flaps up. It takes the Corsair dropping its flaps (changing the shape of the airfoil and increasing lift) to cut inside the F4F's turns.
And using the same airfoil for comparison, by your argument the F4U-4 should turn inside the F4U-1 by benefit of its increased horsepower and more effective prop. The -4 very much does NOT.
-
Might as well ask for a P-51 that turns at least as well as a Jug Wide... Madness ;)
-
Bit more to it than that, there is turn radius in distance & speed/time to complete..
Of course A-H ought to correct anomalous performance, but this evaluation reckons there wasn't much in it..
Perhaps the A-H Typhoon needs upgrading here too..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestafdu.html
-
I find it interesting that while the P-51B and Tempest have the same wing loading (about 38 lb/sqft), the Tempest (with a very similar laminar flow airfoil) has a 16% to 18% (clean/full flaps) smaller turn radius that the Mustang. It becomes more of a mystery when one compares the difference in flap designs.
-
Distance between prop disc & wing differential?
According to the AFDU trials posted above there wasn't much in turn performance between Mustang/Typhoon or Tempest..
Typhoon has shortest nose, & P-51 longest..
Typhoon also has a thick profile high lift wing of lesser area..
-
Distance between prop disc & wing differential?
According to the AFDU trials posted above there wasn't much in turn performance between Mustang/Typhoon or Tempest..
Typhoon has shortest nose, & P-51 longest..
Typhoon also has a thick profile high lift wing of lesser area..
"Turning Circle
28. The Tempest is not quite as good as the Mustang III."
In Aces high, both the Tempest and Typhoon have a considerably smaller turn radius than the Mustangs. Clearly, they should not.
-
As stated, there is more to it than simple turning circle..
Top-scoring RNZAF ace Evan Mackie explains..
"The Tempest makes a bigger orbit than the FW190 but at about 220mph it completes the actual turn quicker."
"Using +11lbs boost & 3,750 rpm, the Tempest would almost get in to a position to fire after about 3 complete turns..."
-
Turn radius is so strongly a function of slow-flying ability that the airplane with the lower stall speed will almost certainly have the smaller turn radius. A more heavily loaded airplane with a more powerful engine may sometimes have a faster sustained turn rate due to ability to sustain more Gs, but not a smaller radius. Therefore weight creep in a given airframe will hurt turn radius, more power or no.
-
As stated, there is more to it than simple turning circle..
Top-scoring RNZAF ace Evan Mackie explains..
"The Tempest makes a bigger orbit than the FW190 but at about 220mph it completes the actual turn quicker."
"Using +11lbs boost & 3,750 rpm, the Tempest would almost get in to a position to fire after about 3 complete turns..."
Turn rate is important, but no more than turn radius. To benefit from a higher turn rate, you would have to have a offset turning circle to the aircraft with the better turn radius. if not, you may stay behind the better turning fighter, but you'll never get in position to shoot. The best turn rate occurs at corner speed. Go below corner, and rate drops off, even as radius tightens. Go above corner velocity and the limiting factor is g loading on the pilot.
-
Which is why the Tempest's superb roll rate trumped mere horizontal turning contests..
-
Which is why the Tempest's superb roll rate trumped mere horizontal turning contests..
The FW 190 had a much faster rate of roll than the Tempest. According to the document you linked, the 190 and Tempest had very similar turning circles. So, where is the advantage for the Tempest?
"Turning Circles
41. There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest.
Rate of Roll
42. The Tempest V cannot compare with the FW 190. "
Compared to the Mustang III:
"Turning Circle
28. The Tempest is not quite as good as the Mustang III.
Rate of Roll
29. The Tempest is not so good. This attribute may be improved upon later aircraft with re-designed ailerons. "
-
FYI that AFDU trial also used the early series low-boost , non-spring tab aileron Tempest..
(note: Grumman picked up on those Hawker patented spring tabs, along with the bubble canopy).
The A-H Tempest is the later series, but check the comment Tempest vs the Spitfire roll rate.
High speed roll-wise - even well above 400mph, the Tempest was still rolling real good..
-
Here's the charted roll rates of various WWII fighters as tested by NACA.
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/5611/oeaig3dtfnrhsl1fg.jpg)
The fastest rolling fighter at high speed (above 350 mph) was the P-38L.
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/1c04/i26x0lddb3s29f9fg.jpg)
-
& Tempest roll..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temproll.jpg
According to Tempest test/combat pilot R. Beamont..
The Tempest retained useful roll rate right out to its high Vne of 540 IAS mph..
A P-38 trying to roll at 540 IAS mph.. don't think so.. whether Kelsey reckoned so or not..
What did the official USAAF tests show the power assisted aileron `38 made..
-
WideWing quit trying to make sense bro it makes your head hurt after awhile.
-
WideWing quit trying to make sense bro it makes your head hurt after awhile.
Take a couple of Aspirin..
-
Take a couple of Aspirin..
Because gashats never quit. Just another flaw the cheerleaders want to sweep under the carpet.
-
Interestingly enough, when Grumman installed and tested spring tab ailerons on an F6F-3, they saw reduced roll rate at speeds below 280 mph, but a significant improvement above that speed.
https://archive.org/stream/flighttestsoflat00lang#page/n0/mode/2up (https://archive.org/stream/flighttestsoflat00lang#page/n0/mode/2up)
-
Because gashats never quit. Just another flaw the cheerleaders want to sweep under the carpet.
Yeah, right - since that is your 2nd non-constructive post ( of 2) on this thread already..
-
Interestingly enough, when Grumman installed and tested spring tab ailerons on an F6F-3, they saw reduced roll rate at speeds below 280 mph, but a significant improvement above that speed.
https://archive.org/stream/flighttestsoflat00lang#page/n0/mode/2up (https://archive.org/stream/flighttestsoflat00lang#page/n0/mode/2up)
Yeah the Brits ran tests on their spring-tab F6F too, & queried whether the fabric-skinned ailerons ballooning out
were the culprit..
-
Yeah, right - since that is your 2nd non-constructive post ( of 2) on this thread already..
I think you should ignore him. :aok
-
I think you should ignore him. :aok
Now that IS a good call, thanks Baldy..( I did dig that B-26 beasting.)
-
Another roll comparison.. At high speeds "Tempest...best"
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/waderoll.jpg
-
Another roll comparison.. At high speeds "Tempest...best"
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/waderoll.jpg
Nice graphic as it shows the Tempest wasn't that great at speeds combat typically took place at.
-
Another roll comparison.. At high speeds "Tempest...best"
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/waderoll.jpg
Yeah yeah but what's it's roll/distance?
-
Nice graphic as it shows the Tempest wasn't that great at speeds combat typically took place at.
Nevermind the 'nice graphic'.. ..didn't you read post #18?
If you had you'd understand..
The test figures show that the Tempest had a roll rate of over 80 deg/sec from 180mph through 400mph..
Another one you got wrong there m.m...
-
Yeah yeah but what's it's roll/distance?
Depends.. barrel roll.. all +G, or a -G stunt flick (naughty)..
-
From a USAAF captured LW pilot interrogation report dated 18 March 1945..
"He believed the Me 109 could out-curve (sic) the Tempest, but that the latter had superior speed
& climbing ability which made it extremely formidable.
The apparently excellent field of vision afforded the Tempest pilot made it very hard to surprise."
-
Tempest couldn't out turn a Ta152H
-
As a general comment, it is not very analytical to determine that the plane-x is 'wrong' because it performs better/worse than plane-y. That line of thought doesn't take into account the fact that maybe the plane-y/both planes are 'wrong'.
Regarding the Typhoon/Tempest...
In a memorandum report on Typhoon, Americans reported the Typhoon's turn radius as "short". :) Well, is it "short" in AH? Well, that is pretty hard to say isn't it. :)
In Mosq's turn radius testing Typhoon came 67th out of 103 AH fighters with a turn radius of 714,5ft. Mosq performed the turns as left hand turns. At right hand turns Typhoon would have most likely been more controllable due to its counter-clockwise turning prop and turning that way might have given a shorter radius.
Another general comment...
I'd like to see pyro doing a global review on some aspects of the flight model. Last major across-the-board flight model change was done in spring 2006 (version 2.07). A thing I'd like to see looked at is the lift/drag that the flaps cause in general. I really can't pin-point any particular planes, all I'm saying is that a fresh look is many times a good thing. I have no doubt that it would be a lot of work but I consider flight model to be the bread and butter of AH.
I remember pyro himself saying that he should 'weed out some inconsistencies' regarding the flight model after that 2006 2.07 update. No changes came after the 2.07 update, though.
-
Turn *radius* should be easy to say right/wrong. The airplane with a significantly lower stall speed in a given configuration should have the smaller turn radius.
Turn rate is above my paygrade.
As a general comment, it is not very analytical to determine that the plane-x is 'wrong' because it performs better/worse than plane-y. That line of thought doesn't take into account the fact that maybe the plane-y/both planes are 'wrong'.
Regarding the Typhoon/Tempest...
In a memorandum report on Typhoon, Americans reported the Typhoon's turn radius as "short". :) Well, is it "short" in AH? Well, that is pretty hard to say isn't it. :)
In Mosq's turn radius testing Typhoon came 67th out of 103 AH fighters with a turn radius of 714,5ft. Mosq performed the turns as left hand turns. At right hand turns Typhoon would have most likely been more controllable due to its counter-clockwise turning prop and turning that way might have given a shorter radius.
Another general comment...
I'd like to see pyro doing a global review on some aspects of the flight model. Last major across-the-board flight model change was done in spring 2006 (version 2.07). A thing I'd like to see looked at is the lift/drag that the flaps cause in general. I really can't pin-point any particular planes, all I'm saying is that a fresh look is many times a good thing. I have no doubt that it would be a lot of work but I consider flight model to be the bread and butter of AH.
I remember pyro himself saying that he should 'weed out some inconsistencies' regarding the flight model after that 2006 2.07 update. No changes came after the 2.07 update, though.
-
. A thing I'd like to see looked at is the lift/drag that the flaps cause in general. I really can't pin-point any particular planes, all I'm saying is that a fresh look is many times a good thing.
A small amount of flaps in AH (theoretically a relatively large increase in lift for a relatively small increase in drag) increases turn rate in many planes. For instance, one notch in the P-51D or two notches in the Corsairs. A larger amount of flaps seems to reduce turn rate but does allow a plane to fly slower, which is in accordance with the principle that large flap deflections greatly increase drag for diminishing returns on lift. This does not prove anything right or wrong, but flaps do seem to be working like one would expect them to work.
-
Turn *radius* should be easy to say right/wrong. The airplane with a significantly lower stall speed in a given configuration should have the smaller turn radius.
Turn rate is above my paygrade.
My point was that you can't base an argument on comparing the target aircraft with another modeled aircraft and that defining "what is short" is hard without doing the math.
Also, defining exactly what lift coefficient of an aircraft should be isn't necessarily easy without wind tunnel data and stall speeds many times leave parameters like weight unmentioned and are given as speeds what the ASI shows which can have an error.
A small amount of flaps in AH (theoretically a relatively large increase in lift for a relatively small increase in drag) increases turn rate in many planes. For instance, one notch in the P-51D or two notches in the Corsairs. A larger amount of flaps seems to reduce turn rate but does allow a plane to fly slower, which is in accordance with the principle that large flap deflections greatly increase drag for diminishing returns on lift. This does not prove anything right or wrong, but flaps do seem to be working like one would expect them to work.
You don't say?
Lift/drag in relation to the angle and area of the flaps is what I was talking about...in other words, are the values in the ballpark per plane basis. Pyro himself was clearly wondering it back then.
-
I think you should ignore him. :aok
BE sorry for the distraction. Just get tired of people who want to blame everything but what is at fault for problems. JAW I can't help it if you assumed I was referring to you with gashat comment.
-
BE sorry for the distraction. Just get tired of people who want to blame everything but what is at fault for problems. JAW I can't help it if you assumed I was referring to you with gashat comment.
Duly noted, & your point, (once clarified) - has merit..
-
Tempest couldn't out turn a Ta152H
Sez who?, As usual m.m., puts his weird slant on..
One-one was the score in that encounter, & the Tempest pilot who crashed - was a noob..
-
The props on the Tempest and Typhoon rotate <<< left (from the pilots pov) while most other fighters, including the P-51 and Spitfire turn >>> right. That's a lot of torque (2000 h.p.+) with a massive prop. As with a lot of flying tests the details seem to be very sparsely written. Im not an expert on aerodynamics and im not pretending to be but its an interesting bit of info.
-
Griffon Spits had opposite prop rotation to the Merlin, & was the predictable cause of numerous crashes..
-
Sez who?, As usual m.m., puts his weird slant on..
One-one was the score in that encounter, & the Tempest pilot who crashed - was a noob..
The weird slant is by jaw because Mitchell and Reschke (14 April he flew the new Focke-Wulf Ta 152 for the first time) were in a turning fight. Yup, a noob with at least 300hrs of flight time.
-
Not on Tempests though..
& by the way, how does the Ta 152 compare on weight/wing area ratio to the Tempest m.m.?
Not favourably..
-
Not on Tempests though..
& by the way, how does the Ta 152 compare on weight/wing area ratio to the Tempest m.m.?
Not favourably..
Mitchell had more hours in a Tempest than Reschke in a Ta.
Tempest 37.75 lb/ft²
Ta152H-1 41.38 lb/ft²
-
Mitchell had more hours in a Tempest than Reschke in a Ta.
Tempest 37.75 lb/ft²
Ta152H-1 41.38 lb/ft²
Reschke was an experienced combat pilot, Mitchell was new..
The Ta 152 was a tarted-up FW 190, how many hours did Reschke have on them..
& thanks for those wing load specs m.m., they kinda make your 'out turn' claim unlikely,
unless there was a significant disparity in piloting capability involved, don't they..
-
a high aspect wing vs a laminar flow wing.
if you say so.
keep making excuses
-
Or a high lift wing ( Typhoon) vs larger area laminar flow wing ( Tempest)..
& prop disc to wing distance ratio, - effect on thrust/turning?
Did FW 190As out turn the long-nose variants?
& m.m., you get so many things wrong, its almost entertaining..
-
As a general comment, it is not very analytical to determine that the plane-x is 'wrong' because it performs better/worse than plane-y. That line of thought doesn't take into account the fact that maybe the plane-y/both planes are 'wrong'.
Regarding the Typhoon/Tempest...
In a memorandum report on Typhoon, Americans reported the Typhoon's turn radius as "short". :) Well, is it "short" in AH? Well, that is pretty hard to say isn't it. :)
In Mosq's turn radius testing Typhoon came 67th out of 103 AH fighters with a turn radius of 714,5ft. Mosq performed the turns as left hand turns. At right hand turns Typhoon would have most likely been more controllable due to its counter-clockwise turning prop and turning that way might have given a shorter radius.
Another general comment...
I'd like to see pyro doing a global review on some aspects of the flight model. Last major across-the-board flight model change was done in spring 2006 (version 2.07). A thing I'd like to see looked at is the lift/drag that the flaps cause in general. I really can't pin-point any particular planes, all I'm saying is that a fresh look is many times a good thing. I have no doubt that it would be a lot of work but I consider flight model to be the bread and butter of AH.
I remember pyro himself saying that he should 'weed out some inconsistencies' regarding the flight model after that 2006 2.07 update. No changes came after the 2.07 update, though.
Wm, as usual points well made..
Widey's (simplistic or sly?) seeming bid to have the Tempest pegged back beyond the `51, turn-wise,
was not well-reasoned, especially if the `51 turn rate is not accurately modelled in A-H..
The objective solution is as you write, to match known test data on a broad base, not cherry-pick
as - what appears to be - attempted provocation..
Obviously there is scope for improvements & a tension between reality-check & game distortion effects
that can present players with frustration, i.e. Spit XIV wings departing more easily than Spit XVI..
-
Can we please have this Tempest WEP configuration ( with 28 imp gallons of ADI-juice) - added in the next update?
Awww, can we.. ..huh.. ..please.. ..aww.. ..c'mon.. ..please.. ..aww..
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%201455.html
Yeah, ok, so it is the Mk 6.. ..as described by Mason..
"The original Tempest V prototype was modified to Mk VI standard & 1st flown in this form on 9 May 1944...
Performance trials at Boscombe Down revealed a maximum speed of 462mph at 19,800ft,
& exhaustive trials were flown to clear the carriage of a wide range of ground attack stores."
How many other recips were flying around at 460+ mph at under 20,000ft before D-day?
-
If this would qualify as a field mod, then it shouldn't be added.
Hell, I've been asking to get water injection modeling REMOVED from the F4U-1, even if many of them were retrofit for it in the field, since the -1 wasn't equipped with the -8(W) engine.
-
When the 3D model is updated all will be 'fixed', but I can't see a Typhoon out turning a Tempest, not when the tempy has a spit style wing. A wing that generated such impressive lift with it's own stick shaker buffet in a turn.
-
According to Mosq's list the tempest out turns the spit14. But the spit14 in AH performs nothing like stated on RAF tactical trials of the time.
-
When the 3D model is updated all will be 'fixed', but I can't see a Typhoon out turning a Tempest, not when the tempy has a spit style wing. A wing that generated such impressive lift with it's own stick shaker buffet in a turn.
Except that the Tempest had a laminar flow airfoil profile, decidedly not Spitfire-like.
-
Wm, as usual points well made..
Widey's (simplistic or sly?) seeming bid to have the Tempest pegged back beyond the `51, turn-wise,
was not well-reasoned, especially if the `51 turn rate is not accurately modelled in A-H..
I don't care which is wrong, the P-51 or the Tempest (or both). I only want something closer to reality.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-roll.jpg)
From here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html)
-
Widewing:
It should be relatively simple to find the stall speed numbers for the P-51 and Tempest at a given weight and configuration, then calculate how the listed stall speed is effected by the weight as tested in AHII. If a P-51@50% fuel should have a lower stall speed than a Tempest@50% fuel, but has a worse turn radius, this is decent evidence that the relative turn performance in game is wrong.
I feel that in-game turn testing of the P-51 is slightly skewed by the fact that 50% fuel in a Mustang amounts to a lot more gasoline than it does in most other fighters.
-
according to the chart, 190a(8 if you look at competitors) and p47/tempest/109, turns about the same, in AH its very much different.
-
Widewing:
It should be relatively simple to find the stall speed numbers for the P-51 and Tempest at a given weight and configuration, then calculate how the listed stall speed is effected by the weight as tested in AHII. If a P-51@50% fuel should have a lower stall speed than a Tempest@50% fuel, but has a worse turn radius, this is decent evidence that the relative turn performance in game is wrong.
I feel that in-game turn testing of the P-51 is slightly skewed by the fact that 50% fuel in a Mustang amounts to a lot more gasoline than it does in most other fighters.
Turn radius testing is almost always done at 25% fuel, zero burn rate. This is to minimize variables as much as possible.
-
Turn radius testing is almost always done at 25% fuel, zero burn rate. This is to minimize variables as much as possible.
Oh, I thought it was 50%, bad memory. Still a Mustang at 25% fuel is carrying a higher percentage of weight as gasoline than most anything else at 25% fuel.
-
I don't care which is wrong, the P-51 or the Tempest (or both). I only want something closer to reality.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-roll.jpg)
From here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html)
That has to be the most generalised and inaccurate diagram I have ever seen.
-
That has to be the most generalised and inaccurate diagram I have ever seen.
The chart is deliberately generalized. It was generated for an article written by Battle of Britain ace and later Squadron Leader, T.S. (Wimpy) Wade, published in The Aeroplane magazine. It was intended to give a general understanding of turn radii, rather than a precise figure. Wade would later be a Hawker test pilot, and died in a crash of the P.1081 (a precursor of the Hunter) in 1951.
-
agred, a stupid diagram, only tempest and spit21 dive at 400mph+ :banana: