Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: muzik on January 29, 2014, 09:30:40 PM
-
Some time ago there was a wish posted about head shake that evolved into a discussion about the physical effects on pilots. In particular uncoordinated flight and violent maneuvers. I've seen this issue come up in other unrelated posts. One was about learning/practicing coordinated flight in AH.
I found the the misconceptions about the reality of air combat interesting and was reminded about these forum conversations when I found this video that demonstrates the "rag doll" effect as I called it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er1gOYKmOCE
The manuever being conducted is described starting at 10:45
The rag doll effect is related starting at 11:38
The issues even though unrelated essentially came down to how real world flying (civil, professional and aerobatic) compared to combat flying (real or in game.)
-
I hope this doesn't translate to someone in my home smacking the back of my head as I try that "reversement".
-
In game it is almost impossible to pull a trick like that to break out from the fight and get away...
once in the icon range it is almost impossible to loose visual on your target or make you target to loose visual on you...
-
I would be glad to pay perk points for a P-51D that can fly like these Dog Fight 51s do. But then everyone would be flying the P-51D and the game would be called P-51D High lol.
-
I hope this doesn't translate to someone in my home smacking the back of my head as I try that "reversement".
If anyone needed it...
:devil
In game it is almost impossible to pull a trick like that to break out from the fight and get away...
once in the icon range it is almost impossible to loose visual on your target or make you target to loose visual on you...
I have never tried this move in AH. Recently I snapped my stick back in a pony, I was fast but not sure how fast, and pulled the wings off of it. I couldn't believe it happened but it was the only explanation.
-
If anyone needed it...
:devil
I'll be sure to be the first volunteer to offer you said needed smack
-
I would be glad to pay perk points for a P-51D that can fly like these Dog Fight 51s do. But then everyone would be flying the P-51D and the game would be called P-51D High lol.
Its under modeled,and fact is, it needs to be.
-
Its under modeled,and fact is, it needs to be.
ROFLMAO
Yeah..........ok............. .sure
-
I would be glad to pay perk points for a P-51D that can fly like these Dog Fight 51s do. But then everyone would be flying the P-51D and the game would be called P-51D High lol.
Hardly anyone flies the P-51D anymore:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/51.jpg~original) (http://s343.photobucket.com/user/caldera_08/media/51.jpg.html)
-
ROFLMAO
Yeah..........ok............. .sure
(http://i1206.photobucket.com/albums/bb441/huskerly/tumblr_mxek5hVrZD1rqd0kpo1_250_zpsec72317e.gif) (http://s1206.photobucket.com/user/huskerly/media/tumblr_mxek5hVrZD1rqd0kpo1_250_zpsec72317e.gif.html)
-
Hardly anyone flies the P-51D anymore:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/51.jpg~original) (http://s343.photobucket.com/user/caldera_08/media/51.jpg.html)
Looks like the hurri 1 is the lest used,Lets all you pilots that think your something start flying that for 2 tours,get it to number 3 or 4 most flown.
I'll start tonight.
-
Its under modeled,and fact is, it needs to be.
Of all the planes in the game, the one HiTech has actually flown a considerable amount is the P-51D.
-
Of all the planes in the game, the one HiTech has actually flown a considerable amount is the P-51D.
Yep and at a convention it was said or it was (rumored) its under modeled on purpose, or it WOULD be called p 51 high.
-
Yep and at a convention it was said or it was (rumored) its under modeled on purpose, or it WOULD be called p 51 high.
ROFLMAO...............serious ly................
Somebody migh have heard somebody say something one time when they were drunk about something............
-
ROFLMAO...............seriously................
Somebody migh have heard somebody say something one time when the were drunk about something............
Opp my legs getting humped.
So why am i not to believe all the p 51 sticks that flew in WW II that say it dose things ours dose not,and belive HTC more?
(Edit) Zoney you in on this only flying the hurri 1 for a tour or two? :rock
-
Sometimes I wish they would allow the P51 to turn like a zeke. I get tired of looking at the 6 o'clock all the time as they r... err extend out.
-
I'm a member of JG11. We are a luftwaffe squad. We do not fly anthing except luftwaffe aircraft in the MA. We fly what we are assaigned in the FSO's, normally axis.
So, no, I wouldn't be interested in flying the Hurri I.
-
I'm a member of JG11. We are a luftwaffe squad. We do not fly anthing except luftwaffe aircraft in the MA. We fly what we are assaigned in the FSO's, normally axis.
So, no, I wouldn't be interested in flying it.
Just a thought to get all "us" uber bird sticks into something a bit more challenging. No worries keep it fast.
-
Sometimes I wish they would allow the P51 to turn like a zeke. I get tired of looking at the 6 o'clock all the time as they r... err extend out.
I think there is an in between from turning "better" and turning like a zeek. :banana:
-
He would be able to fly the 109e4 though... Bino flew it and the 110c exclusively one tour if I recall correctly.
-
He would be able to fly the 109e4 though... Bino flew it and the 110c exclusively one tour if I recall correctly.
Ahh yes there are options. :aok
-
Yep and at a convention it was said or it was (rumored) its under modeled on purpose, or it WOULD be called p 51 high.
In a previous thread, it was posted by someone from HTC that clearly stated flight models aren't adjusted for 'game play' purposes.
ack-ack
-
In a previous thread, it was posted by someone from HTC that clearly stated flight models aren't adjusted for 'game play' purposes.
ack-ack
I think it would be very bad for the game to admit it changes anything for game play. (we would not take well to it)
And i have wondered for years...why the story's i hear for years from WWII pilots don't jive with HTC's p51 model.
No big deal ,counter to many peoples believes this game is not real life,its aces high world,im good with it.
:salute
-
In a previous thread, it was posted by someone from HTC that clearly stated flight models aren't adjusted for 'game play' purposes.
ack-ack
Yeah ok the brew isnt :rofl
-
Yeah ok the brew isnt :rofl
Show any data that proves the flight model on the B-239 is incorrect. To date, all of those that have complained about the B-239's flight model have yet to show any data to back their claim. Most seem not to realize that the B-239 we have is the F2A-1 and not the F2A-2 the Dutch/RAF/Commonwealth forces flew or the F2A-3 the Marines flew at Midway.
ack-ack
-
I think it would be very bad for the game to admit it changes anything for game play. (we would not take well to it)
And i have wondered for years...why the story's i hear for years from WWII pilots don't jive with HTC's p51 model.
No big deal ,counter to many peoples believes this game is not real life,its aces high world,im good with it.
:salute
So you have no proof other than some baseless rumor and you're willing to believe that over the developers. :rofl
ack-ack
-
I think it would be very bad for the game to admit it changes anything for game play. (we would not take well to it)
And i have wondered for years...why the story's i hear for years from WWII pilots don't jive with HTC's p51 model.
No big deal ,counter to many peoples believes this game is not real life,its aces high world,im good with it.
:salute
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Wiley.
-
I think it would be very bad for the game to admit it changes anything for game play. (we would not take well to it)
And i have wondered for years...why the story's i hear for years from WWII pilots don't jive with HTC's p51 model.
No big deal ,counter to many peoples believes this game is not real life,its aces high world,im good with it.
:salute
Let me state this as strongly as I can. We model planes to the absolute best of our ability and our only goal is to make them perform as close to the real thing as we can.
We have NEVER made flight model decisions based on any game play criteria.
If you ever imply other wise again either on the board or in the arena you will in effect be calling me a liar , and I would no longer have use for you as a customer.
Why would we have any reason to do other wise. Do you think it really makes us any difference to HTC what plane is better then another? What motivation could we possibly have to make flight models base on anything but real data.
I can show you multiple instances where players have shown us an inaccuracy in our flight model and backed it up with real data. And we have made modification base on those finds.
HiTech
-
The whole reason for this game is WW2 combat aircraft simulation.. Anyone that has followed this series or prior HTC projects at all is aware of that.. Why someone would suggest otherwise is really selfish and ignorant..
-
Let me state this as strongly as I can. We model planes to the absolute best of our ability and our only goal is to make them perform as close to the real thing as we can.
We have NEVER made flight model decisions based on any game play criteria.
If you ever imply other wise again either on the board or in the arena you will in effect be calling me a liar , and I would no longer have use for you as a customer.
Why would we have any reason to do other wise. Do you think it really makes us any difference to HTC what plane is better then another? What motivation could we possibly have to make flight models base on anything but real data.
I can show you multiple instances where players have shown us an inaccuracy in our flight model and backed it up with real data. And we have made modification base on those finds.
HiTech
:D You want to remove me from your game because i have an opinion,right or wrong? Then that's your game to do with as you wish. Again all i said was i WONDER why all the shows and story's i seen seem to say your p51 under preforms,it was just a question.
-
So you have no proof other than some baseless rumor and you're willing to believe that over the developers. :rofl
ack-ack
Geshh i was not trying to prove anything lol calm down people,was just a statement that like in MA you all gang tard on.
-
.
-
Just a question?
That sounds like a thinly veiled accusation.
Yes (i WONDER why) and Nope not at all...Decided to jump on this train to?
-
Sunka which particular pilot story are you talking about? Put the quote down so we can figure out the issue..
-
Also remember that the planes as flown in the game and as flown historically may have different characteristics in those speed/altitude ranges... the average AH furball is with the throttle wide open/WEP engaged below 5,000 ft with pilots who've spent literally hundreds of hours at the stick fighting in that cartoon plane. In practice, most pilots had minimal actual fighting experience, and were at lower speeds and higher altitudes.
-
agreed Jeff.. no one in the Late War Arena cares about engine reliability.. or fuel consumption.. or sickening g-forces.. to the degree I think a real combat pilot would.. good points to ponder before opening the ole cake hole..
-
Sunka which particular pilot story are you talking about? Put the quote down so we can figure out the issue..
Well dog fights for one.There are one or two more that tell storys but i cant think of the show,ones on hulu i think.
And thank you for being the only one to treat this like a person and not get all defensive.
I never tried to trash talk AH and was not trying to now
In all the years i have been here i have been nothing but respectful and upstanding.
One comment is all it takes from this community to all gang on ya ,including the owner.Very nice really guys.
ty again craz07 :salute
-
Also remember that the planes as flown in the game and as flown historically may have different characteristics in those speed/altitude ranges... the average AH furball is with the throttle wide open/WEP engaged below 5,000 ft with pilots who've spent literally hundreds of hours at the stick fighting in that cartoon plane. In practice, most pilots had minimal actual fighting experience, and were at lower speeds and higher altitudes.
Good point.
-
Yes (i WONDER why) and Nope not at all...Decided to jump on this train to?
You're right, it's not my fight. Still, you could have worded that first sentence much better.
-
Still, you could have worded that first sentence much better.
Agreed.
-
Sunka is my friend :)
-
Sunka is my friend :)
(http://i1206.photobucket.com/albums/bb441/huskerly/od_zps7b1d5264.gif) (http://s1206.photobucket.com/user/huskerly/media/od_zps7b1d5264.gif.html) :D
-
I'm gonna play devils advocate for both sides here.
In a previous thread, it was posted by someone from HTC that clearly stated flight models aren't adjusted for 'game play' purposes.
ack-ack
First, I sense a lack of inertial roll that doesn't seem realistic. No I don't have hard data except for a simple law of physics. Seems once a roll is initiated, no matter how fast that roll was, it quickly stops with little or no stick counter.
And the Brew is an unbelievable freak of nature.
I don't know if either is proof of anything and I don't believe it is intentional if they are off.
And i have wondered for years...why the story's i hear for years from WWII pilots don't jive with HTC's p51 model.
And back to the op, misconceptions.
First is pride. Lots of pilots said their a/c was the best ever made. Some really believed their own hype.
I've heard the same things about the pony. A lot of vets believed they could out turn any 109. I think they just never met a 109 in the right conditions that included a pilot who was skilled with the 109, who was dumb enough to get into a protracted turn fight when he was most likely outnumbered and probably a half a dozen other factors.
The 109 turns well but has nasty all around handling characteristics. The Pony had great handling characteristics all around.
IRL no one pushed the envelope without huge concern for what the consequences were. In the Mustang our guys felt comfortable pushing further. I would bet not so much in the 109.
And from what I can tell, the 109 wasn't seen as a turn fighter by the Germans. What I see is that they were always focused on speed and the fact that a couple of 109s were close in turn performance to Allied counterparts was incidental to them.
-
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Wiley.
I love this quote, Wiley. It is your concise and apropos comments like this that make me wonder if I'll ever have the opportunity to buy you a scotch and sit together solving the worlds ills while drinking it. Here's a virtual cheers, anyway. [clink]
<S>
Ryno
p.s. I think it's great that we are afforded a forum to question and debate FM's and other aspects of the game design. I also think it's exceptional that HT takes the time to personally come here and staunchly defend them. It shows that he both pays attention to what we lowly customers are saying and also that he takes great pride in his product. These are good things.
-
I love this quote, Wiley. It is your concise and apropos comments like this that make me wonder if I'll ever have the opportunity to buy you a scotch and sit together solving the worlds ills while drinking it. Here's a virtual cheers, anyway. [clink]
<S>
Ryno
p.s. I think it's great that we are afforded a forum to question and debate FM's and other aspects of the game design. I also think it's exceptional that HT takes the time to personally come here and staunchly defend them. It shows that he both pays attention to what we lowly customers are saying and also that he takes great pride in his product. These are good things.
this I think is great also.... :aok
I don't know why people talk so badly of the brew..its a good little plane...but very easy to defeat.....
any plane is dangerous if the situation favors that plane....
its like when I flew the Hurri2c....you wouldn't believe the amount of times I was called a cheater for killing people in that plane....
im like ......ummm durrrr dude I may not be faster then you.....but my 4 20mm are..... :rolleyes:
-
I also think it's exceptional that HT takes the time to personally come here and staunchly defend them. It shows that he both pays attention to what we lowly customers are saying and also that he takes great pride in his product. These are good things.
I just think he was offended,and defended something HE made and nothing more. And us "lowly" customers keep his money flowing.
:salute
-
I just think he was offended,and defended something HE made and nothing more. And us "lowly" customers keep his money flowing.
:salute
Don't get me wrong, I think it's OK for you to state an opinion and ask if there is bias in FM design for game purposes, especially based on information you've seen. I just think it's cool that the game designer would come in and address those concerns personally.
It sounded to me more like he was offended at the suggestion of bias in the FMs or fudging of numbers for the purpose of game balance. It is probably a pet peeve that he's had to hear over and over for... how many years now? While the tone may have been defensive, I think he simply wanted to nip that in the bud, which he clearly did.
Anywho, I think discussions like this, heated or otherwise, are good every now and again as they keep the integrity of the game in the open for those who haven't been in on such discussion before.
My positive take on the whole thing.
<S>
Ryno
-
deleted
-
Well i'm not typically a brown noser but in any case.. I'll tell you why I keep the money flowing.. becuase AH is the best WW2 sim in the world for freaks like you and me... Years ago a man could only dream about such a game that we play almost every day, after work, school, chores what have you.. Its accurately modeled.. Its fun.. and its cheap.. Are there little tweaks that we bring up everyday.. absolutely.. it never ends.. But no need to be rude or condescending about it.. state the facts and lets play!! One thing I noticed about the fm that was a welcome surprise was the way flaps affect flight.. Coming over from warbirds in all respect i thought the flap flight modeling was a little wacky.. AH seems to be more accurately modeled as in it feels like the a320 you took your last vacation on when you start to get almost a float feeling when those flaps come down.. Any ways not looking to knock you Sunka really not, just there are better ways!
-
Is this the same show people use to justify the "cobra", "tail slide", "tail whip?" maneuver? still haven't gotten an answer from HTC on that one. :(
-
Hitech: I think this is what causes a lot of players' concerns with the P-51's performance, especially the no-flap comparison.
(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/1601287_10200997319727641_1245422875_n.jpg)
Now people who are expecting the P-51 to out-turn Zeros, or to implicitly out-turn 109s because of pilot reports, these people are not showing intellectual rigor, I grant you. But when comparing these two aircraft, the D-11 has the heavier wing-loading and the lesser power-loading (at low altitudes), correct? Also, I have generally seen the clean stall speed of the P-51 listed at 100mph, while I distinctly remember Johnson writing in "Thunderbolt" that his jug stalled at 105. Correct me if I am wrong on any of these figures, but you can see why they make people wonder.
-
I am no physicist or claim to be, however, I am indeed an avid Wikipedia reader... did the jug not have a several hundred more horsepower, would that not account for a tighter turn radius? P.S. I'm surprised by that finding also.. how do you test that?
-
Is this the same show people use to justify the "cobra", "tail slide", "tail whip?" maneuver? still haven't gotten an answer from HTC on that one. :(
Yep.
ack-ack
-
I am no physicist or claim to be, however, I am indeed an avid Wikipedia reader... did the jug not have a several hundred more horsepower, would that not account for a tighter turn radius? P.S. I'm surprised by that finding also.. how do you test that?
And quite a bit more weight to go along with the extra power.
Also, IIRC our P-47D-11 has toothpick prop, which I believe would negatively impact thrust from the prop at low speeds, in exchange for a slightly higher top-end speed.
Here is the climb rate comparison for the two craft:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=46&p2=45&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
I think this debate is mostly a product of people being disappointed that their hero plane isn't actually the all-powerful death machine that the History Channel would have them believe it was.
-
I think this debate is mostly a product of people being disappointed that their hero plane isn't actually the all-powerful death machine that the History Channel would have them believe it was.
I knew nothing of WWII planes before i came to this game. And had nothing to pre judge this on. Only what i seen in shows for the most part,and never claimed anything else.
But im moving on from this thread :bolt: :aok.
-
Wing that are streamlined and produce no lift... Who knew eh!?
-
I think this debate is mostly a product of people being disappointed that their hero plane isn't actually the all-powerful death machine that the History Channel would have them believe it was.
Is it? What about the comparison between the P-51 and the Jug and the attendant numbers? Reports of Mustang pilots out-turning 109s in combat can be taken with a grain a salt, as so many factors go into combat turning. However, when comparing the Jug and the P-51, you are talking about two American airplanes that the Allies had plenty of examples of and tested extensively. And it was widely agreed that the P-51 was better in the turn. Pilots generally felt that the P-47 could not turn with the German fighters, while the P-51 could. At least one German pilot agreed with them:
Walter Wolfrum, a Luftwaffe ace with 137 victories, remembered of his encounters with American fighters that "the P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it, initially. The P-51 was something else.
http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/germany/germany.htm (http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/germany/germany.htm)
-
Wing that are streamlined and produce no lift... Who knew eh!?
The important factor is lift produced in relation to weight. When one airplane stalls clean at 100 mph, and another stalls clean at 105 mph, the former is producing more lift in relation to its weight.
-
I was just what I presume to be Mosq's latest turn data, and I came across the startling fact that according to his figures, the P-47M turns a tighter radius with the same turn rate with no flaps as the P-51D does with one notch of flaps!
70 P47 M 6x 267 25% 753.9 18.9
73 P51 D 6x 25% 1 flap 759.6 18.9
This seems very odd. Is this possibly a typo, and the above refers to the 47M tested with a notch of flaps?
Here are the weights for the two planes at the specified load outs, per the E6B in the hangar:
P-47M 12688 pounds
Wing area 300 square feet
Wing loading=42.29 pounds/square foot.
P-51D 8968 pounds
Wing area 235 square feet
Wing loading=38.16 pounds/square foot
-
Color me confused, but BnZ's you show our chart comparison for the P51B, not the D, then you later compare the D to the P47.
-
JUGS rule! :neener:
:D
-
Color me confused, but BnZ's you show our chart comparison for the P51B, not the D, then you later compare the D to the P47.
I just brought up Mosq's data on the P-51D vs. P47M because it showed the 47M with no flaps turning a slightly smaller radius than the P-51D with one notch, which is exceedingly odd. It may be a typo on the tester's part.
I'm not trying to argue that the P-51 series could out-turn Zeros or even 109s here, but its abilities relative the Jug seem odd given the wing loadings, power loadings, and the opinions of pilots who got to fly both.
-
I personally think that the P51D has been gutted. The pony cant outrun anything anymore the bullets drop way to soon. I mean at 600 I have to aim from the 6 oclock position I have to aim at the top of the cockpit to hit the wings. The damn pony cant take any damage like it used to. Now one ping from a field ack and your damn wing comes off. Pony used to be the best bird in here now it is just a closed cockpit I16
-
I personally think that the P51D has been gutted. The pony cant outrun anything anymore the bullets drop way to soon. I mean at 600 I have to aim from the 6 oclock position I have to aim at the top of the cockpit to hit the wings. The damn pony cant take any damage like it used to. Now one ping from a field ack and your damn wing comes off. Pony used to be the best bird in here now it is just a closed cockpit I16
Go home Pops, you're drunk.
-
Is this the same show people use to justify the "cobra", "tail slide", "tail whip?" maneuver? still haven't gotten an answer from HTC on that one. :(
Showed the Cavanaugh flight museum curator and their 51 pilot ride-giver those three moves in the 109 and both said, NO Freakin Way. I showed them a film of YOU low and slow in a CHOG (you killed me, lol) and they both said NFW....all four moves put too much stress on the airframe. The guys refurbishing the P40C that were there said they wouldn't want to see either plane after the maneuvers were complete.
Now, all said that was their opinion. It could possibly be done but counter-controlling the air surfaces is not a great idea in ac that are that heavy.
Their words, not mine.
-
Seems to me, i remember hearing that the D-Pony was the top killer of WWII. That it was the best, because it had a 1500 mile combat radious. It could fight for hours on station while the 109 had only ninety minutes. It was used typically as a BnZ. But sometimes when being picked (low and slow) they tried crazy stuff because living depended on it! The 109 pilots by the time the D model was introduced were not the highly experienced ones from early on, due to attrition (battle of Briton - Eastern Front). As an example Eric Hartman (Bubi) (highest scoring ace of all time, 362 kills) out flew 4 or perhaps it was 5, P51Ds in his E model 109 till he was out of gas and jumped out.
The P51 pilots were so impressed that they flew by his chute not to strafe it, but to salute him with a WingWave. By the way, Eric standard tactic, was out of the sun and on a low slow enemy's six and not firing till he was practically on top of his target. He damaged many of his planes from pieces of his kills.
As in all things, experience and being an expert in your craft is better than a perfect tool. Ask any golfer!
IMHO
-
If i could request any sort or "remodel" it would be to make the ground vehicle *not icon) easier to see. All the gun camera footage i have seen the ground targets are quite easy to pick out. I can see vehicles quite easily when I fly (53 years old). I still struggle in game (36" monitor) (excellent video card and quad i7)to find an ack or tank without being practically on top of it and then getting shot to he!!
as are the phrases, "where is that ^^&%", "mark him for me" "can you strafe him then i will drop" etc
again IMHO
-
Seems to me, i remember hearing that the D-Pony was the top killer of WWII.
You heard incorrectly. The U.S. plane with the highest k/d ratio of the war was the F6F Hellcat. And the Jug probably did more to kill the Luftwaffe in the ETO than the P-51. This does not mean that the Hellcat or Jug were "better" than the P-51 necessarily, but that is how it played out factually.
That it was the best, because it had a 1500 mile combat radious. It could fight for hours on station while the 109 had only ninety minutes. It was used typically as a BnZ. But sometimes when being picked (low and slow) they tried crazy stuff because living depended on it!
Every plane and pilot made a surprise attack from altitude when it could be done. But it could not always be done. Familiar with Clarence "Bud" Anderson's most famous account of a dogfight?
The 109 pilots by the time the D model was introduced were not the highly experienced ones from early on, due to attrition (battle of Briton - Eastern Front).
This is true. However, the 109 pilot Anderson out-turned and out-climbed in his P-51B@~30K altitude per the above-mentioned account was *not* an inexperienced dogfighter, but the opposite. Anderson credited his plane's performance for the victory.
-
GVers were whining about the AH "pilot" having normal 20/20 vision when it came to spotting multi-ton tanks in open fields, so the icon was shortened.
If i could request any sort or "remodel" it would be to make the ground vehicle *not icon) easier to see. All the gun camera footage i have seen the ground targets are quite easy to pick out. I can see vehicles quite easily when I fly (53 years old). I still struggle in game (36" monitor) (excellent video card and quad i7)to find an ack or tank without being practically on top of it and then getting shot to he!!
as are the phrases, "where is that ^^&%", "mark him for me" "can you strafe him then i will drop" etc
again IMHO
-
The most inane maneuver one sees a lot of IMO is that rapid oscillation between negative and positive Gs that a lot of people do in place of proper BFM gun defense. Alas, it can be a rather effective shot spoiler, but the idea that the pilot would be physically able to stand it is suspect. It would probably feel like this :bhead Not a part of real guns defense as taught for a good reason.
-
You heard incorrectly. The U.S. plane with the highest k/d ratio of the war was the F6F Hellcat. And the Jug probably did more to kill the Luftwaffe in the ETO than the P-51. This does not mean that the Hellcat or Jug were "better" than the P-51 necessarily, but that is how it played out factually.
Every plane and pilot made a surprise attack from altitude when it could be done. But it could not always be done. Familiar with Clarence "Bud" Anderson's most famous account of a dogfight?
This is true. However, the 109 pilot Anderson out-turned and out-climbed in his P-51B@~30K altitude per the above-mentioned account was *not* an inexperienced dogfighter, but the opposite. Anderson credited his plane's performance for the victory.
maybe i should have been clearer. The P51 accounted for more enemy kills than any other single allied aircraft (not k/d), possibly due to the fact that as it became more mass produced the skill level of the enemy was waning. Obvioussly there were still skilled luftwaffe pilots around till after the war, Galland, hartmann and others. and yes a super bird will give an advantage to a lesser skilled pilot. even in aces high spixteens are a nuisance. But all else being equal or at least close, the skill wins. more on 109 vs P51B this time
While flying "top cover", Hartmann attacked a flight of four P-51s over Bucharest, Romania, downing two, while the other two P-51s fell victim to his fellow pilots. On 1 June 1944, Hartmann shot down four P-51s in a single mission over the Ploieşti oil fields. Later that month, during his fifth combat with American pilots, he shot down two more P-51s before being forced to bail out, when eight other P-51s ran his Messerschmitt out of fuel. During the intense manoeuvring, Hartmann managed to line up one of the P-51s at close range, but heard only a "clank" when he fired, as he had run out of ammunition. While he was hanging in his parachute, the P-51s circled above him, and Hartmann wondered if they would take this opportunity to kill him. One of the P-51Bs flown by Lt. Robert J. Goebel of the 308th Squadron, 31st Fighter Group, broke away and headed straight for him. Goebel was making a camera pass to record the bailout and banked away from him only at the last moment, waving at Hartmann as he went by.
-
and then there is this...
The Bf 109 may be credited with more aerial kills than any other aircraft. One hundred and five (possibly 109) Bf 109 pilots were credited with the destruction of 100 or more enemy aircraft. Thirteen of these men scored more than 200 kills, while two scored more than 300. Altogether this group were credited with nearly 15,000 kills between them. Official ace status was granted to any pilot who scored five or more kills. Applying this to Luftwaffe fighter pilots and their records reveals that "Ace" status belonged to more than 2,500 German pilots. Against Soviets, the Finnish-flown Bf 109Gs claimed a victory ratio of 25:1 in favour of the Finns
-
and then there is this...
The Bf 109 may be credited with more aerial kills than any other aircraft. One hundred and five (possibly 109) Bf 109 pilots were credited with the destruction of 100 or more enemy aircraft. Thirteen of these men scored more than 200 kills, while two scored more than 300. Altogether this group were credited with nearly 15,000 kills between them. Official ace status was granted to any pilot who scored five or more kills. Applying this to Luftwaffe fighter pilots and their records reveals that "Ace" status belonged to more than 2,500 German pilots. Against Soviets, the Finnish-flown Bf 109Gs claimed a victory ratio of 25:1 in favour of the Finns
The 109 is a good plane, and it was flown by lethal pilots. However, there are numerous other factors involved, especially when we consider the German and Finn scores against Soviet air forces that had been porked by Stalin just before the war.
For instance, the reason the Germans have so many aces scoring in the hundreds is that they did not rotate them out of combat. If memory serves, Hartmann flew something like 1400 sorties to earn his 352 kills. By contrast, Robert Johnson was credited with 28 kills in 25 sorties in ETO.
-
109G's could outdive a P51D IRL because it compressed to becoming un-maneuverable earlier than the 109G ( it's NOT what I see in AH)
P51B/C could, however outdive the 109G, this was due to the bubble canopy of the D model that disturbed airflow over tail
There are numerous pilots accounts of that.
-
About this big : _________ IM very, very cold :bolt:
-
especially when we consider the German and Finn scores against Soviet air forces that had been porked by Stalin just before the war.
Hartmann flew something like 1400 sorties to earn his 352 kills. .
In Hartmann's book, the Blond Knight of Germany. He mentions early that he had 352 kills (362 memory didn't serve me well there), "that some will attempt to discredit my numbers because they were mostly against Russians/Soviets". He stated (paraphrased) "however they (russians) had many leading aces with numbers above 100. The Russians had very excellent pilots". He did reveal that he had amassed such a large amount of kills because of the Sturmovik flying in B-17 like formations!
I thought The Stalin purges were largely officer corps, potential threats to his regime.
anyway I think we agree that it is man and machine that makes the winner. But how the man uses the machine, IMHO can and often is the deciding factor in the final outcome of engagements.
Think USAF and the Raptor vs 5 F-15s. Raptor wins every time, all pilots receive the exact same flight training but the F-22 pilot had the better tech!
Also anything I have said was meant to discredit US or Allied Pilots. Everyone knew that the Germans had way more experience in ACM because they had been doing it longer. and in those over 1500 sorties, he had never been bested! all damage forcing his 14 bailouts was debris and in one case
-
I believe the man is a bigger factor over the machine in real life than in Aces High. In real life, men will have different levels of eyesight, G tolerance, general endurance, and will deal with crippling fear with varying levels of effectiveness. All that is leveled out in the game.In real life combat experience is rare and precious, whereas in Aces High many of us get 50 hours dogfighting every month. All these factors tend to make relative aircraft performance more of a deciding factor in the game.
-
I just brought up Mosq's data on the P-51D vs. P47M because it showed the 47M with no flaps turning a slightly smaller radius than the P-51D with one notch, which is exceedingly odd. It may be a typo on the tester's part.
I'm not trying to argue that the P-51 series could out-turn Zeros or even 109s here, but its abilities relative the Jug seem odd given the wing loadings, power loadings, and the opinions of pilots who got to fly both.
I think there is more to turn radius at low speed than wing loading. The shape of the wing make big difference. The pony is known for it's very thin, leading edge which helped it go so fast. But that leading edge loses lift faster than more rounded designs do, as the angle of attack increases. Perhaps the airfoil shape of the Jug's wings were more forgiving than the P-51's. P-40, P-38s, and hurris have very teardrop shaped air foils which helps maintain streamlined airflow over the wing an higher angles of attack. The Pony and 190 have "sharper" [for lack of a better term] leading edges, so the airflow over the top of the wing become turbulent at lower angles of attack and that turbulence lowers the lift of the wing.
There are real aero engineers that play this game that could explain it a lot better, but they explain why the jug and pony end up very similar.
-
The 190s perform where you would expect them to, given their wingloading. Yes, some airfoils produce more lift than others, but the usual listed clean stall speed for the P51 is 100 mph IAS, for the Jug 105. Anecdotes are problematic in the extreme, but the concensus among Allied pilots that the Pony outurned the Jug seems relevant, given the fact that so many of them got so much time in both.
-
The 190s perform where you would expect them to, given their wingloading. Yes, some airfoils produce more lift than others, but the usual listed clean stall speed for the P51 is 100 mph IAS, for the Jug 105. Anecdotes are problematic in the extreme, but the concensus among Allied pilots that the Pony outurned the Jug seems relevant, given the fact that so many of them got so much time in both.
What about stall maneuvering? In game, in a 51 I would always try and succeed in first-turn out turning the jug but I would never get slow with one. The type of fights ours devolve into in AH are not the same fights that occurred during the war.
-
What about stall maneuvering? In game, in a 51 I would always try and succeed in first-turn out turning the jug but I would never get slow with one. The type of fights ours devolve into in AH are not the same fights that occurred during the war.
I think it's better to state the average AH fight doesn't devolve into the same as those during the war. I've run into 51s flying above 20K using slashing style attacks which would have been seen during the war.
That being said I grant I run into plenty of 51s above 15K who want to get slower and turn like a Spitfire, with varying degrees of success.
-
The 190s perform where you would expect them to, given their wingloading. Yes, some airfoils produce more lift than others, but the usual listed clean stall speed for the P51 is 100 mph IAS, for the Jug 105. Anecdotes are problematic in the extreme, but the concensus among Allied pilots that the Pony outurned the Jug seems relevant, given the fact that so many of them got so much time in both.
BnZ, again I'm no aero expert but I think there is no one stall speed. The number you quote might be level flight at sea level. In level flight the stall speeds may be very similar because the angle of attack is very low. That is not the case when turning hard at low speed. :salute
-
What about stall maneuvering? In game, in a 51 I would always try and succeed in first-turn out turning the jug but I would never get slow with one. The type of fights ours devolve into in AH are not the same fights that occurred during the war.
This is a matter of pilot skill rather than plane advantage I believe. The P-47D-11's turn radius advantage in AHII would also suggest it would higher *instantaneous* turn rate. That would lead to *initial* advantage in turning going to the Jug in this case, if flown equally well. The P-51 with one flap probably has about a degree of *sustained* turn *rate* advantage however, which would lead to it eventually coming around on the D-11 in extended nose to tail turning, esp. if the Jug pilot hurts his own turn rate by throwing out too much flap. However, none of this is not the historical reputation of the P-51 versus Jug, both Allies and enemies recognized the P-51 as better in the turnfight, as one would expect an aircraft with lower wingloading, lower stall speed, and better power-loading at most altitudes to be.
-
BnZ, again I'm no aero expert but I think there is no one stall speed. The number you quote might be level flight at sea level. In level flight the stall speeds may be very similar because the angle of attack is very low. That is not the case when turning hard at low speed. :salute
Stall speed is a function of indicated air speed. An aircraft at 20,000 feet indicating 100mph will have a higher true airspeed than it does indicating 100mph on the deck, but it will still stall at 100mph IAS. And the aircraft that stalls at 105 mph IAS on the deck will still do so at 20,000 feet.
Accelerated stalls speed for any aircraft is obtained by multiplying the 1G stall speed of that aircraft by the square root of the Gs being pulled. Therefore, if an aircraft stalls at 100ph IAS at 1G, it will stall pulling 4Gs at 200mph IAS. And the aircraft that stalls at 105 mph will stall at 210 at 4gs. So on and so forth. Again, altitude will not change the IAS at which these things occur.
-
Stall speed is a function of indicated air speed. An aircraft at 20,000 feet indicating 100mph will have a higher true airspeed than it does indicating 100mph on the deck, but it will still stall at 100mph IAS. And the aircraft that stalls at 105 mph IAS on the deck will still do so at 20,000 feet.
Accelerated stalls speed for any aircraft is obtained by multiplying the 1G stall speed of that aircraft by the square root of the Gs being pulled. Therefore, if an aircraft stalls at 100ph IAS at 1G, it will stall pulling 4Gs at 200mph IAS. And the aircraft that stalls at 105 mph will stall at 210 at 4gs. So on and so forth. Again, altitude will not change the IAS at which these things occur.
:airplane: What you say about the IAS stall speeds are correct, the ANGLE OF ATTACK of the wing has everything to do with the stall speed. The center of gravity will also affect how quickly you reach that AOA. A lot of pilots in this game, who fly the ponie, does not understand that they should burn off AUX first, then drops to move the CG further to the front, which will increase your maneuvering ability during ACM's.
The only time the AOA doesn't come into effect during stall maneuvers is when doing a hammerhead! In all other realms of flight, where are not doing 300IAS or 85IAS, the wing will always stall at the same AOA!
However there are things which can affect the stall speed to, such as wing damage, ice on the wing, or clipping that South Georgia pine tree at Moody AFB. (no, wasn't me, was section leader, he lived through it).
-
Stall speed is a function of indicated air speed. An aircraft at 20,000 feet indicating 100mph will have a higher true airspeed than it does indicating 100mph on the deck, but it will still stall at 100mph IAS. And the aircraft that stalls at 105 mph IAS on the deck will still do so at 20,000 feet.
Accelerated stalls speed for any aircraft is obtained by multiplying the 1G stall speed of that aircraft by the square root of the Gs being pulled. Therefore, if an aircraft stalls at 100ph IAS at 1G, it will stall pulling 4Gs at 200mph IAS. And the aircraft that stalls at 105 mph will stall at 210 at 4gs. So on and so forth. Again, altitude will not change the IAS at which these things occur.
This sounds like a rule of thumb. I do not believe the stall limit/aoa is the same for every wing. :salute
-
This is a matter of pilot skill rather than plane advantage I believe. The P-47D-11's turn radius advantage in AHII would also suggest it would higher *instantaneous* turn rate. That would lead to *initial* advantage in turning going to the Jug in this case, if flown equally well. The P-51 with one flap probably has about a degree of *sustained* turn *rate* advantage however, which would lead to it eventually coming around on the D-11 in extended nose to tail turning, esp. if the Jug pilot hurts his own turn rate by throwing out too much flap. However, none of this is not the historical reputation of the P-51 versus Jug, both Allies and enemies recognized the P-51 as better in the turnfight, as one would expect an aircraft with lower wingloading, lower stall speed, and better power-loading at most altitudes to be.
In this scenario it is not a function of pilot skill. Some aircraft perform better at stall speeds than others and some accelerate better than others. Stall fights do not always end up with the victor making a smaller or faster circle. A jug driver will try to keep his 51 or 109 adversary in turns rather than allow them the space to use their superior climb rate to put the fight in the vertical.
If done close to correct, a jug driver can bleed his 109 or 51 into a sustained turn fight slow. They'll lose because they aren't as stable slow. That's an a/c function, not a pilot skill.
-
if the 109 has any sense of performance of the planes, he will not turn horizontal against a d series 47 but bring it vertical
-
if the 109 has any sense of performance of the planes, he will not turn horizontal against a d series 47 but bring it vertical
Exactly. Why?
-
Exactly. Why?
Because 109 drivers are all girly men in who wear leotards and listen to Berry Manilow.
:bolt:
-
This sounds like a rule of thumb.
This is not a rule of thumb. It is the mathematical formula for accelerated stall speed. It is no more a "rule of thumb" than A squared+B squared=C squared is a "rule of thumb" in relation to right triangles.
I do not believe the stall limit/aoa is the same for every wing. :salute
You are of course correct here, but that is irrelevant to the topic. Stall speed is simply the minimum airspeed required for the plane to produce enough lift to keep its own weight in the air. So on and so forth with accelerated stall speed.
Turn rate and radius for a plane at any given moment will be defined by Gs and airspeed, NOT by the critical AoA of the airfoil. Given the same airspeed and the same G load, any two planes will have the same rate and radius of turn. Being able to produce more G at lower airspeed is better. Best possible turn rate and radius is achieved at corner velocity, the lowest speed at which the airplane can pull maximum allowable Gs. The critical relationship is the one between the lift available to the airplane and the weight of the airplane.
To give you a practical example, many WWI airplanes have relatively bad airfoils that are little more than flat plates. This is because the science of aerodynamics was not as well understood when many of these planes were designed. Compared to the airfoil of say, a Hawker Hurricane, they are really inefficient. None the less, these WWI have a lower stall speed and will turn in a smaller circle than a Hurricane simply because the loading on the wings is so light.
The airplane that has a lower stall speed WILL have the better instantaneous turn rate and radius at corner velocity, assuming both aircraft are operating under the same G limitation. It is very likely to have a smaller sustained turn radius, because turn radius is so strongly a function of stall speed. Sustained turn rate is another matter, an airplane with a heavier wing loading and higher stall speed can sometimes still have a better sustained turn rate via having a lot of thrust and the ability to sustain more Gs in a turn.
:salute
-
If done close to correct, a jug driver can bleed his 109 or 51 into a sustained turn fight slow. They'll lose because they aren't as stable slow. That's an a/c function, not a pilot skill.
I've done a good bit of duels and furball lake encounters with 109ers in the D-11. Last time was with Tongs early in the week, in point of fact. The Jug is eventually pretty dead at typical MA low alts if the 109 man doesn't make gross mistakes. Even the K4 can out-rate and out-radius the D-11. Indeed the Jug's roll rate, ability to hit the brakes, and toughness can be used to go for deadly overshoots, but the 109s massive vertical performance will get any smart pilot out of trouble and allow him to reset even if he makes a minor miscalculation. This is in a duel of course, I'm sure under MA conditions impatience leads to a lot of superior maneuvering planes eating 8x.50 caliber snapshots after overshooting good Jug drivers.
-
I've done a good bit of duels and furball lake encounters with 109ers in the D-11. Last time was with Tongs early in the week, in point of fact. The Jug is eventually pretty dead at typical MA low alts if the 109 man doesn't make gross mistakes. Even the K4 can out-rate and out-radius the D-11. Indeed the Jug's roll rate, ability to hit the brakes, and toughness can be used to go for deadly overshoots, but the 109s massive vertical performance will get any smart pilot out of trouble and allow him to reset even if he makes a minor miscalculation. This is in a duel of course, I'm sure under MA conditions impatience leads to a lot of superior maneuvering planes eating 8x.50 caliber snapshots after overshooting good Jug drivers.
All true. My point was that turn rates are not the only way to evaluate planes because we fly them much different in game than they did in RL. For folks to critique the RL performance vs game performance is only relevant if we flew the same way, which we don't.
-
All true. My point was that turn rates are not the only way to evaluate planes because we fly them much different in game than they did in RL. For folks to critique the RL performance vs game performance is only relevant if we flew the same way, which we don't.
I'm not critiquing Pony vrs. Jug performance because the Jug can pull a neat scissors, which no doubt was possible in R/L as well, what with it's rather excellent roll rate. I'm critiquing the fact that their relative turn performance as tested in game seems to be the opposite of their relative turn performance as tested in real life. That is apples to apples and not so easily explained away.
-
Because 109 drivers are all girly men in who wear leotards and listen to Berry Manilow.
:bolt:
No that's 110 drivers :lol
-
No that's 110 drivers :lol
Says the girl with the short skirt and hairy legs in his Yak 3. :rofl
-
Says the girl with the short skirt and hairy legs in his Yak 3. :rofl
Fulcrum you really need to work on your shade technique. Much to easy to spot.
-
Fulcrum you really need to work on your shade technique. Much to easy to spot.
:lol
You have a real hard-on for this Fulcrum guy, Poo Bear!? That's the second time you've said that to me.
That's so cute you are searching for him too! He break your heart or something?! :rofl
Muppets. God love them. They never change. :aok
-
:lol
You have a real hard-on for this Fulcrum guy, Poo Bear!? That's the second time you've said that to me.
That's so cute you are searching for him too! He break your heart or something?! :rofl
Muppets. God love them. They never change. :aok
If you're going to shade you shouldn't say and do the same things. Way too obvious and pathetic.
-
If you're going to shade you shouldn't say and do the same things. Way too obvious and pathetic.
You just keep thinking I'm your boyfriend if it makes you happy! ;)
-
It's only a matter if time before we have TIE fighters :aok
I'll continue to look forward to my TIE fighter.
Yeah...I've seen the drawings from the non-canon / extended universe stuff. Some of it is good, some (like the X-TIE) not so much.
Yup. I can see it now...a TIE cockpit with S-foils.
Interesting. As someone who still considers the original TIE Fighter as one of the greatest games ever I am excited.
Don't worry… no one knows your Fulcrum.
-
OK. Ya got me! Gosh almighty I gave myself away by using a single Star Wars reference! Golly! Everyone knows that only FULCRUM watched those movies! :lol
Think whatever ya like, guys. :lol :salute
-
:lol
Muppets. God love them. They never change. :aok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yADrtfAmLTo
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yADrtfAmLTo
:rofl
-
:rofl
oh crap Kappa..... :rofl
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yADrtfAmLTo
OMG! BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
The AH P-51D is a supremely maneuverable, fast and powerful fighter at the speeds and altitudes it actually fought in WWII. Above ~300 mph it out accelerates, out climbs and out turns just about every other prop fighter in the game. It also bleeds far less E in high-speed turns and climbs due to the laminar flow wing design. The people who think the way we fight in this game with our low and slow flap and gear dropping antics and daredevil post stall maneuvering, is an accurate representation of how the real warriors fought back in WWII, and make comparisons and assumptions on plane performance based on that, are complete and utter morons... In my opinion.
-
The AH P-51D is a supremely maneuverable, fast and powerful fighter at the speeds and altitudes it actually fought in WWII. Above ~300 mph it out accelerates, out climbs and out turns just about every other prop fighter in the game. It also bleeds far less E in high-speed turns and climbs due to the laminar flow wing design. The people who think the way we fight in this game with our low and slow flap and gear dropping antics and daredevil post stall maneuvering, is an accurate representation of how the real warriors fought back in WWII, and make comparisons and assumptions on plane performance based on that, are complete and utter morons... In my opinion.
True, but remember there are those in game who don't care for the low and slow, flap and gear dropping antics.
FYI - These are usually the same people who complain about being picked by someone using a 51 in a manner consistent with it's design parameters. :lol
-
The AH P-51D is a supremely maneuverable, fast and powerful fighter at the speeds and altitudes it actually fought in WWII. Above ~300 mph it out accelerates, out climbs and out turns just about every other prop fighter in the game. It also bleeds far less E in high-speed turns and climbs due to the laminar flow wing design. The people who think the way we fight in this game with our low and slow flap and gear dropping antics and daredevil post stall maneuvering, is an accurate representation of how the real warriors fought back in WWII, and make comparisons and assumptions on plane performance based on that, are complete and utter morons... In my opinion.
Being able to perform the maneuversow and slow and preferring to try to fly that way are two very different things. In point of fact, no one that I've talked to that are actually rated to fly the 51D (Cavanaugh Flight museum pilots) has said those birds can actually do those things low and slow. Specifically, the 51, F6F, the 4-HOG and the 109E. Those are the planes that are at the museum and airborne regularly.
Secondly, I haven't read one person that claims they think they were flown that way. Some have used HOW they're flown in-game as a base of establishing their possibly being overmodeled.
-
Reference the 51 and how it was flown in combat, take a peek at these encounter reports. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html) Scroll down to "Flap use"…some interesting reports there. One I remember said he was flaps out, 130IAS, on the deck turning with a 109. From reading these reports it looks like guys did what they had to do to get a shot.
I'm not saying that what we see in game is realistic.
-
I wonder what fluid dynamics HTC goes through when determining Flight models from the 3D models.
-
The AH P-51D is a supremely maneuverable, fast and powerful fighter at the speeds and altitudes it actually fought in WWII. Above ~300 mph it out accelerates, out climbs and out turns just about every other prop fighter in the game. It also bleeds far less E in high-speed turns and climbs due to the laminar flow wing design. The people who think the way we fight in this game with our low and slow flap and gear dropping antics and daredevil post stall maneuvering, is an accurate representation of how the real warriors fought back in WWII, and make comparisons and assumptions on plane performance based on that, are complete and utter morons... In my opinion.
There are several problems with this. The first is making the mistake, yet again, of saying that one plane can "out-turn" each other when both are well above corner velocity and G-limited anyway. This is simply not true, turn rate and radius are defined by airspeed and G load. If two airplanes are going at the same high speed with heavy G load and "riding the tunnel" in AHII, then neither has the advantages. In real life, the pilot who could stand to pull more Gs would gain the advantage, assuming he didn't break his airplane doing so.
The idea that the P-51 bleeds less E in turns, whether in game or in real life, is also extremely problematic. E bleeds in turns because of induced drag. Induced drag is a functional of AoA. A heavy wing-loaded plane like the P-51 must pull a higher AoA to generate the same G as a lighter-loaded plane in a turn, so, all other factors being equal, the heavy loaded plane bleeds more E in maneuvers.
As for the rest, a variety of tactics were used in real life. AHII mains are a low-altitude environment, so planes that worked well in that environment tend to work well in AHII. Aggressive pilots could and did end up fighting extremely slow in real life. But plenty of people in the AHII mains also adhere to the idea "speed is life" and use hit and run/or wingman tactics, and that generally pays of in terms of k/d ratio.
-
There are several problems with this. The first is making the mistake, yet again, of saying that one plane can "out-turn" each other when both are well above corner velocity and G-limited anyway. This is simply not true, turn rate and radius are defined by airspeed and G load. If two airplanes are going at the same high speed with heavy G load and "riding the tunnel" in AHII, then neither has the advantages. In real life, the pilot who could stand to pull more Gs would gain the advantage, assuming he didn't break his airplane doing so.
The idea that the P-51 bleeds less E in turns, whether in game or in real life, is also extremely problematic. E bleeds in turns because of induced drag. Induced drag is a functional of AoA. A heavy wing-loaded plane like the P-51 must pull a higher AoA to generate the same G as a lighter-loaded plane in a turn, so, all other factors being equal, the heavy loaded plane bleeds more E in maneuvers.
As for the rest, a variety of tactics were used in real life. AHII mains are a low-altitude environment, so planes that worked well in that environment tend to work well in AHII. Aggressive pilots could and did end up fighting extremely slow in real life. But plenty of people in the AHII mains also adhere to the idea "speed is life" and use hit and run/or wingman tactics, and that generally pays of in terms of k/d ratio.
No it doesn't have to pull higher AoA. One of the benefits of a laminar flow wing is that it generates more lift at lower AoA than more conventional WWII profiles. However once it gets into high AoA needed for tight turns at low speed the laminar flow wing generated less lift and more drag than a more conventional wing. When the P-51 is in it "drag bucket" zone the reduction of drag is significant.
(http://www.dreesecode.com/primer/p5_f003.jpg)
Secondly, you assume all other aircraft are able to actually pull 6+ G at high speed. A 109 pilot would have to work very hard to pull that much at 350+ mph due to the heavy controls at high speed. Thirdly you erroneously state that the P-51 is a high wing loading aircraft. It has a wing loading of 39 lb/sq.ft; slightly better than a 109G-6 at 40 lb/sq.ft. By comparison a Spitfire L.F Mk IXe has a wing loading of 31 lb/sq.ft. and the Fw 190D has 49 lb/sq.ft.
The heavy controls of the 109 at high speed combined with the DB 605 under performing at typical interception altitudes against the USAAF allows the P-51 to easily out perform the 109 in all aspects of flight in typical WWII engagements. Also, in 1944 there was a marked difference in pilot quality between the allies and the Germans; Most of the Jagdwaffe pilots were greenhorns with only a few hours of training in an aircraft that we all know is demanding to master. I'll take a P-51D up against a 109G "two weeker" rookie in AH and I'll win every single time.
However low and slow the 109G easily outperforms the P-51 in all aspects of flight except top speed, and in the hands of pilot of equal skill it will dominate a P-51D. As fighter pilots say: Speed is life, so the P-51 can disengage and run, but it will have to do so before the fight slows down too much, or risk being out accelerated at low speed by the 109 and caught by its guns.
Take it from two men who flies both the P-51D and the 109G: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
And again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b69pO7538sE
Mark Hanna (who sadly is no longer with us) flew Spits and 109s and P-51s through his life: "The '109 will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor."
-
No it doesn't have to pull higher AoA. One of the benefits of a laminar flow wing is that it generates more lift at lower AoA than more conventional WWII profiles. However once it gets into high AoA needed for tight turns at low speed the laminar flow wing generated less lift and more drag than a more conventional wing. When the P-51 is in it "drag bucket" zone the reduction of drag is significant.
(http://www.dreesecode.com/primer/p5_f003.jpg)
The kind of AoA you're talking about in the laminar drag bucket is useful for gentle turns while cruising around. Not for combat. Any P-51 trying to win a dogfight by using a turn gentle enough to stay inside that bucket is simply going to have the opponent cut inside his circle. But this is a minor point, as the airfoil on the P-51 isn't actually horrible at high AoA either.
Secondly, you assume all other aircraft are able to actually pull 6+ G at high speed. A 109 pilot would have to work very hard to pull that much at 350+ mph due to the heavy controls at high speed.
Granted, in AHII our "pilot" can stand 6Gs and can pull 50 pounds on the controls. This combo leads to control heavyness in the 109 not being much of a factor in our combat, especially at higher altitudes where it is difficult to get up to 350+IAS in the first place. In point of fact, I have spoken about this before. In the series Il2, for instance, they have chosen to model the elevator deflection possible with the 109 at high IAS much more conservatively.
Thirdly you erroneously state that the P-51 is a high wing loading aircraft. It has a wing loading of 39 lb/sq.ft; slightly better than a 109G-6 at 40 lb/sq.ft. By comparison a Spitfire L.F Mk IXe has a wing loading of 31 lb/sq.ft. and the Fw 190D has 49 lb/sq.ft.
Getting down to brass tacks, that number reflects a 109G6 completely full of internal fuel, which is fair if we assume it just entered a dogfight after punching off the external tank. If we assume a P-51B in an equivalent condition (aft tank burned off first enroute, as they did, full wing tanks), it also has a wing loading of around 40. Both aircraft are fairly heavily loaded compared to a lot of other WWII aircraft. However, this is a technicality.
Far be it from me to argue against the idea that the P-51 is better match for the 109 than game would lead us to expect, the whole point I've been talking about in this thread is that in AHII the P-51 cannot turn quite as well as an airplane with even heavier wingloading, higher stall speed, which was generally regarded by pilots who flew both as not as good a turner, i.e the P-47.
The heavy controls of the 109 at high speed combined with the DB 605 under performing at typical interception altitudes against the USAAF allows the P-51 to easily out perform the 109 in all aspects of flight in typical WWII engagements. Also, in 1944 there was a marked difference in pilot quality between the allies and the Germans; Most of the Jagdwaffe pilots were greenhorns with only a few hours of training in an aircraft that we all know is demanding to master. I'll take a P-51D up against a 109G "two weeker" rookie in AH and I'll win every single time.
However low and slow the 109G easily outperforms the P-51 in all aspects of flight except top speed, and in the hands of pilot of equal skill it will dominate a P-51D. As fighter pilots say: Speed is life, so the P-51 can disengage and run, but it will have to do so before the fight slows down too much, or risk being out accelerated at low speed by the 109 and caught by its guns.
Take it from two men who flies both the P-51D and the 109G: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
Mark Hanna (who sadly is no longer with us) flew Spits and 109s and P-51s through his life: "The '109 will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor."
WWII combat accounts would lead one to believe that in dogfights between 109s and 51s, even low and slow ones, pilot ability was still the deciding factor.
-
Between a 109G and a P-51D pilot ability is the deciding factor only if the difference of skill is great, as it usually was in 1944. However, when a 109 "experten" encountered the P-51 it was a much more even fight at altitude, and a very one sided fight at low altitude to the 109's advantage. The highest scoring P-51 killer was Major Wilhelm Steinmann. While flying for JG4 in 1944 he shot down 10 P-51s in his 109. He got two more Mustangs while flying the 262 in 1945. He also shot down 7 P-47s, two Spitfires, a P-38, a P-40 and a Typhoon in his 109. The rest of his 44 total victories were bombers. Experienced German pilots trimmed their 109s nose high, requiring constant forward pressure on the stick just to stay in level flight, but allowing for pulling more Gs at high speed. In AH one must also trim manually to get the most out of a 109.
The German pilots who test flew captured P-51s gave generally favorable reviews of the aircraft's performance, but often criticized the heavy workload in operating it: "During the war I had the oppertunity to fly captured P-47's and P-51's. I didn't like the Thunderbolt. It was too big. The cockpit was immense and unfamiliar. After so may hours in the snug confines of the 109, everything felt out of reach and too far away from the pilot. Although the P-51 was a fine airplane to fly, because of its reactions and capabilities, it too was disconcerting. With all those levers, controls and switches in the cockpit. I'm surprised your pilots could find the time to fight. We had nothing like this in the 109. Everything was simple and very close to the pilot. You fitted into the cockpit like a hand in a glove. Our instrumentation was complete, but simple: throttle, mixture control and prop pitch. How your pilots were able to work on all their gadgets and still function amazes me." - Walter Wolfrum. Bf 109 ace with 137 confirmed air kills.
During his combat career on the Russian front, Erich Hartmann met US planes over Romania, shooting down seven P-51s during these engagements and it is thought that US ace Ralph K. Hoffer (16.5
victories) was one of Hartmann's victims. US fighter pilot Lawrence Thompson fought a German ace over Romania in early 1945. He claims it was Erich Hartmann, but there is some controversy over this claim. Consensus seems to be that it was another Experten and the story is obviously exaggerated in parts. It's a good read nonetheless...
".... this was my first major dogfight I had in the war, in January 1945. I was flying a P-51D and we were supposed to meet with bombers over Romania. Well, the bombers never showed up! And we kept circling and wasting our fuel. When we were low on fuel the squadron leader orders us back to base, with the top group at 24,000 feet and the four bait Mustangs ordered to 15,000 feet. Now you might not really think about it, but the difference in altitude, 9,000 feet, is almost two miles, and assuming that the top flight could dive and rescue the 'bait' airplanes, it might take a full sixty seconds or more for the top group to come to the rescue. A heck of alot can happen in sixty seconds. Earlier, I requested to fly in the bait section believing that I'd have a better chance to get some scores (at that time I had no victories either) and this was my seventh mission. I have to say now that I grew up in Kansas City, Kansas, and my older brother flew a Jenny biplane in the late 1930s, so I learned the basics of flying even before joining the Army.
So we're all heading back to Italy when, all of a sudden, a dozen or so Me109's bounce us. From one moment it's a clear blue sky, next moment there are dozens' of tracers passing my cockpit. I'm hit several times and I roll over to the right, and below me is an P-51, heading for the deck, with an Me109 chasing him. I begin to chase the Me109. All this time I believe there was another Me109 chasing me! It was a racetrack, all four of us were racing for the finish line! Eventually I caught up with the first Me109 and I fired a long burst at about 1,000 yards, to no effect. Then I waited until about 600 yards, I fired two very long bursts, probably five seconds each (P-51 has ammo for about 18 seconds of continuous bursts for four machine guns, the remaining two machine guns will shoot for about 24 seconds). I noticed that part of his engine cowling flew off and he immediately broke off his attack on the lead P-51. I check my rear view mirrors and there's nothing behind me now; somehow, I have managed to lose the Me109 following me, probably because the diving speed of the P-51 is sixty mph faster than the Me109. So I pull up on the yoke and level out; suddenly a Me109 loomes about as large as a barn door right in front of me! And he fires his guns at me, and he rolls to the right, in a Lufberry circle. I peel off, following this Me109. I can see silver P-51s and black nosed camouflaged painted Me109s everywhere I look, there's Me109 or P-51 everywhere! At this time I cannot get on the transmitter and talk, everyone else in the squadron is yelling and talking, and there's nothing but yelling, screaming, and incoherent interference as everyone presses their mike buttons at the same time. I can smell something in the cockpit. Hydraulic fluid! I knew I got hit earlier.
.... I'm still following this Me109. I just got my first confirmed kill of my tour, and now I'm really hot. I believe that I am the hottest pilot in the USAAF! And now I'm thinking to myself: am I going to shoot this Me109 down too?! He rolls and we turn, and turn; somehow, I cannot catch up with him in the Lufberry circle, we just keep circling. About the third 360 degree turn he and I must have spotted two Mustangs flying below us, about 2,000 feet below, and he dives for the two P-51s.
Now I'm about 150 yards from him, and I get my gunsight on his tail, but I cannot shoot, because if I shoot wide, or my bullets pass through him, I might shoot down one or both P-51s, so I get a front seat, watching, fearful that this guy will shoot down a P-51 we're approaching at about 390 mph. There's so much interference on the R/T I cannot warn the two Mustangs, I fire one very long burst of about seven or eight seconds purposely wide, so it misses the Mustangs, and the Me109 pilot can see the tracers. None of the Mustang pilots see the tracers either! I was half hoping expecting that they'd see my tracers and turn out of the way of the diving Me109. But no such luck. I quit firing. The Me109 still dives, and as he approaches the two P-51s he holds his fire, and as the gap closes, two hundred yards, one hundred yards, fifty yards the Hun does not fire a shot. No tracers, nothing! At less than ten yards, it looks like he's going to ram the lead P-51 and the Hun fires one single shot from his 20mm cannon! And Bang! Engine parts, white smoke, glycol, whatnot from the lead P-51 is everywhere, and that unfortunate Mustang begins a gentle roll to the right.
I try to watch the Mustang down, but cannot, Now my full attention is on the Hun! Zoom. We fly through the two Mustangs (he was taken POW). Now the advantage of the P-51 is really apparent, as in a dive I am catching up to the Me109 faster than a runaway freight train. I press the trigger for only a second then I let up on the trigger, I believe at that time I was about 250 yards distant, but the Hun was really pulling lots' of negative and positive g's and pulling up to the horizon. He levels out and then does a vertical tail stand! And next thing I know, he's using his built up velocity from the dive to make a vertical ninety degree climb. This guy is really an experienced pilot. I'm in a vertical climb, and my P-51 begins to roll clockwise violently, only by pushing my left rudder almost through the floor can I stop my P-51 from turning. We climb for altitude; in the straight climb that Me109 begins to out distance me, though my built up diving speed makes us about equal in the climb. We climb one thousand fifteen hundred feet, and at eighteen hundred feet, the hun levels his aircraft out. A vertical climb of 1,800 feet! I've never heard of a piston aircraft climbing more than 1,000 feet in a tail stand. At this time we're both down to stall speed, and he levels out. My airspeed indicator reads less than 90 mph! So we level out. I'm really close now to the Me109, less than twenty five yards! Now if I can get my guns on him.........
-
Continued...
"At this range, the gunsight is more of nuisance than a help. Next thing, he dumps his flaps fast and I begin to overshoot him! That's not what I want to do, because then he can bear his guns on me. The P-51 has good armor, but not good enough to stop 20mm cannon hits. This Luftwaffe pilot must be one heck of a marksman, I just witnessed him shooting down a P-51 with a single 20mm cannon shot! So I do the same thing, I dump my flaps, and as I start to overshoot him, I pull my nose up, this really slows me down; S-T-A-L-L warning comes on! and I can't see anything ahead of me nor in the rear view mirror. Now I'm sweating everywhere. My eyes are burning because salty sweat keeps blinding me: 'Where is He!?!' I shout to myself. I level out to prevent from stalling. And there he is. Flying on my right side. We are flying side to side, less than twenty feet separates our wingtips. He's smiling and laughing at himself. I notice that he has a red heart painted on his aircraft, just below the cockpit. The nose and spinner are painted black. It's my guess that he's a very experienced ace from the Russian front. His tail has a number painted on it: "200". I wonder: what the "two hundred" means!? Now I began to examine his airplane for any bullet hits, afterall, I estimate that I just fired 1,600 rounds at the hun. I cannot see a single bullet hole in his aircraft! I could swear that I must have gotten at least a dozen hits! I keep inspecting his aircraft for any damage. One time, he even lifts his left wing about 15 degrees, to let me see the underside, still no hits! That's impossible I tell myself. Totally impossible. Then I turn my attention back to the "200" which is painted on the tail rudder. German aces normally paint a marker for each victory on their tail. It dawns on me that quick: TWO HUNDRED KILLS !! We fly side by side for five minutes. Those five minutes take centuries to pass. Less than twenty five feet away from me is a Luftwaffe ace, with over two hundred kills. We had been in a slow gradual dive now, my altitude indicates 8,000 feet. I'm panicking now, even my socks are soaked in sweat. The German pilot points at his tail, obviously meaning the "200" victories, and then very slowly and dramatically makes a knife-cutting motion across his throat, and points at me. He's telling me in sign language that I'm going to be his 201 kill! Panic! I'm breathing so hard, it sounds like a wind tunnel with my mask on. My heart rate must have doubled to 170 beats per minute; I can feel my chest, thump-thump and so.
This goes on for centuries, and centuries. The two of us flying at stall speed, wingtip to wingtip. I think more than once of simply ramming him. He keeps watching my ailerons, maybe that's what he expects me to do. We had heard of desperate pilots who, after running out of ammunition, would commit suicide by ramming an enemy plane. Then I decide that I can Immelmann out of the situation, and I began to climb, but because my flaps are down, my Mustang only climbs about one hundred feet, pitches over violently to the right and stalls. The next instant I'm dangerously spinning, heading ninety degrees vertically down! And the IAS reads 300 mph! My P-51 just falls like a rock to the earth! I hold the yoke in the lower left corner and sit on the left rudder, flaps up, and apply FULL POWER! I pull out of the dive at about 500 feet, level out, (I began to black out so with my left hand I pinch my veins in my neck to stop blackout). I scan the sky for anything! There's not a plane in the sky, I dive to about fifty feet elevation, heading towards Italy. I fly at maximum power for about ten minutes, and then reduce my rpm (to save gasoline), otherwise the P-51 has very limited range at full power. I fly like this for maybe an hour, no planes in the vicinity; all the time I scan the sky, check my rear view mirrors.
I never saw the Me109 with the red heart again. At the mess I mention the Me109 with the red heart and "200" written on the tail. That's when the whole room, I mean everybody, gets instantly quiet. Like you could hear a pin drop. Two weeks later the base commander shows me a telex: "....according to intelligence, the German pilot with a red heart is Eric Hartmann who has downed 250 aircraft and there is a reward of fifty thousand dollars offered by Stalin for shooting him down. I've never before heard of a cash reward for shooting down an enemy ace ... "
-
True, but remember there are those in game who don't care for the low and slow, flap and gear dropping antics.
FYI - These are usually the same people who complain about being picked by someone using a 51 in a manner consistent with it's design parameters. :lol
For others it's not that they don't care, it's that they can't. :lol
-
For others it's not that they don't care, it's that they can't. :lol
Completely agree. :aok
-
Scholz, that is an incredible story, thanks for posting it! :salute
But what shows is a P-51 pilot following the 109 flown by the Luftwaffe ace of aces maneuver for maneuver, right down to the slow speed end of the envelope. Maneuvering almost as well as a 109 is a thing I feel like I can do with the AHII P-47D-11, I don't feel like the P-51 will do it as well, and again this is odd, given where the two planes were historically ranked on agility.
But you know, given the P-51's popularity and other excellent attributes, if they turned as well or modestly better than the D-11, I think the D model would have to be a perk ride. And what would the effect be if new players clicked on the most popular WWII plane in our culture and were greeted by the message "You don't have enough perks for that model"?
-
Completely agree. :aok
Acceptance is your first step. Be happy to help you learn. :aok
-
Learn? :lol
Ok, got to admit that's a good one. :rofl
Keep on trolling, Bearie.
-
Reference the 51 and how it was flown in combat, take a peek at these encounter reports. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html) Scroll down to "Flap use"…some interesting reports there. One I remember said he was flaps out, 130IAS, on the deck turning with a 109. From reading these reports it looks like guys did what they had to do to get a shot.
I'm not saying that what we see in game is realistic.
Fricken AWESOME post.
I always suspected there were instances of heavy flap use like we see in game but thought it was rare because I haven't seen any accounts of it. another reason why I wondered was the flight model in IL-2. I don't have a lot of faith in their flight model but the instant flap destruction seemed reasonable above certain airspeed even if their data is off. That likely came down to the quality of craftsmanship from country to country.
from what I can see in those reports American flaps must've been pretty tough because at least two of those reports describes dropping full flaps in what sounded like high-speed dives.
It's nearly impossible to imagine pilots were more afraid of turning in an abused airframe to their ground crews than they were of getting shot up if they didn't take drastic action. If I recall, either Maguire, Bong or both were known to cause heavy stress damage to their frames. Popping rivets and wrinkling the skin. I know they weren't the only ones.
I think I'm sticking with the opinion that the way we fly in aces high is realistic, it was just relatively rare for more than one reason.
hell, this report
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/353-cundy-14jan45.jpg
sounds exactly like aces high, five ponies spraying and praying from long range, trying to kill a helpless 190 trying to ditch when another one comes in to clear their 12. LOL
-
Wow. No wonder they got rotated after 30 missions or however many. They'd have gotten as bored as we are at the hording, lol
-
Learn? :lol
Ok, got to admit that's a good one. :rofl
Keep on trolling, Bearie.
Your emoticons must have seen you fly :aok
-
Your emoticons must have seen you fly :aok
I'm not disputing I could learn something from you. The question is what exactly could you teach me and why on earth would I want to learn?
Since I returned to the game and the forum, you have sent me a harassing PM and made snide little comments in response to my posts. In response, I did a little research. Going back though your posts and those of a few of your compatriots I was struck by how many are derogatory in nature. Any time someone disagrees with you or one of your squad mates, they are labeled, harassed and ridiculed without mercy. It appears you and those like you treat this behavior as a game for your amusement. Wow, some game. It sure discourages me from letting my own kids play this game or recommend it to other parents for their kids to play.
You are, in my mind, the very epitome those that keep driving me away from this game. I hope you get something from your silly harassment, because I think many in here don't. It's your attitude, and that of those like you, that is slowly but surely driving people from this game. So enjoy it while it lasts.
I think I'll go back to flying other games with people who don't beat their chests, make fun of others and conduct themselves like a 15-year old rather than an adult.
-
Armbiter,
After going back through some of your posts, it seems that you are the one that has started with everything in pretty much every thread. You, yourself even admitted...
Quote from: Arbiter on February 06, 2014, 12:40:08 PM
No worries man. I also admit it was just a wee bit trollish. I figured a few of your more vocal squadees would saddle up. Wink
Don't understand why you troll just to get mad and say they have a bad attitude if somebody bites. You came looking for it and thrive off of it and trying to make others look
bad when everyone that can read can see what you are doing is just kind of silly.
Trust me, it wasn't the star wars reference. :aok
....oh, and have a nice day! :)
-
I'm not disputing I could learn something from you. The question is what exactly could you teach me and why on earth would I want to learn?
Since I returned to the game and the forum, you have sent me a harassing PM and made snide little comments in response to my posts. In response, I did a little research. Going back though your posts and those of a few of your compatriots I was struck by how many are derogatory in nature. Any time someone disagrees with you or one of your squad mates, they are labeled, harassed and ridiculed without mercy. It appears you and those like you treat this behavior as a game for your amusement. Wow, some game. It sure discourages me from letting my own kids play this game or recommend it to other parents for their kids to play.
You are, in my mind, the very epitome those that keep driving me away from this game. I hope you get something from your silly harassment, because I think many in here don't. It's your attitude, and that of those like you, that is slowly but surely driving people from this game. So enjoy it while it lasts.
I think I'll go back to flying other games with people who don't beat their chests, make fun of others and conduct themselves like a 15-year old rather than an adult.
Bye
-
Armbiter,
After going back through some of your posts, it seems that you are the one that has started with everything in pretty much every thread. You, yourself even admitted...
from: Arbiter on February 06, 2014, 12:40:08 PM
No worries man. I also admit it was just a wee bit trollish. I figured a few of your more vocal squadees would saddle up. ;)
Don't understand why you troll just to get mad and say they have a bad attitude if somebody bites. You came looking for it and thrive off of it and trying to make others look
bad when everyone that can read can see what you are doing is just kind of silly.
Trust me, it wasn't the star wars reference. :aok
....oh, and have a nice day! :)
:rock
-
oh and Pepprr, I will teach you how to quote stuff from other posts if you want.. its super simple and will make you look more profesh. :neener:
-
Scholz, that is an incredible story, thanks for posting it! :salute
But what shows is a P-51 pilot following the 109 flown by the Luftwaffe ace of aces maneuver for maneuver, right down to the slow speed end of the envelope. Maneuvering almost as well as a 109 is a thing I feel like I can do with the AHII P-47D-11, I don't feel like the P-51 will do it as well, and again this is odd, given where the two planes were historically ranked on agility.
But you know, given the P-51's popularity and other excellent attributes, if they turned as well or modestly better than the D-11, I think the D model would have to be a perk ride. And what would the effect be if new players clicked on the most popular WWII plane in our culture and were greeted by the message "You don't have enough perks for that model"?
You're welcome. :salute What you don't seem to realize is that without flaps or with only combat flaps the P-51D is very close to a 109G in flat turning performance in this game. Just like it was in that encounter.
These numbers are from Mosq's sustained turn list:
P51D, no flaps, 25% fuel, radius: 780.3 feet, rate: 18.3 dps
P51D, 1 notch of flaps, 25% fuel, radius: 759.6 feet, rate: 18.9 dps
Bf 109-G14 (the 109 model Thompson fought), no flaps, 25% fuel, radius: 672.2 feet, rate: 20.0 dps
A real turner:
A6M2 Zero, no flaps, 25% fuel, radius: 376.8 feet, rate: 27.2 dps
As you can see the two aircraft are not that different with the 109 having marginally better turning performance. A more realistic MA setup would be to give the 109 more fuel, at least 50%, and then they would be even more closely matched.
The problem you face in a Pony fighting a 109 in this game is that we drop flaps a lot more than what they did in real life, and a 109G with full flaps out turns a Pony easily.
-
Wow, some game. It sure discourages me from letting my own kids play this game or recommend it to other parents for their kids to play.
conduct themselves like a 15-year old rather than an adult.
[/snippy snip]
You're seriously saying that you don't want their kids playing because the player-base acts like kids. :rolleyes:
I'd say your kids and their kids would fit in quiet well here.
-
Scholz: These numbers actually show the G-14 having a significant advantage in dogfighting. But as the physics of the matter imply the 109 will have the advantage to one extent or the other, I will leave it there. What is harder to dismiss is the fact that in AH the P51 cannot sustain as small a turn radius as the P47D-11, a heavier wingloaded aircraft with a higher stall speed, with or without flaps.
-
Then perhaps you should take a closer look at the P-47 and not the P-51.
-
Then perhaps you should take a closer look at the P-47 and not the P-51.
Among AH planes, the D-11 is not the odd man out when it comes to turn performance in relation to these physical parameters, the P-51 is.
-
Been working with Mosq's turn data, the weights of the planes as tested as given by the game in hangar, and the wing areas of planes.
The P-51B as tested had a wing loading of 36.7 pounds/foot. The P-47D-11 had a wing loading of 39.7 pounds/foot. The F4U-1 as tested had a wing loading of of 35.5 pounds foot. The Fw-190A5 as tested had a wing loading of 41.4 pounds/foot.
Their wing loading ranked from least to greatest
F4U-1 35.5
P-51B 36.7
P-47D 39.7
190 41.4
Their turn radii listed ranked from least to greatest:
F4U-1 710 feet.
P47D11 726 feet
P51B 769 feet
Fw190 789 feet
-
And their power loading?
At high AoA the P-51's laminar flow wing is less effective than the more conventional wing profiles of these other fighters. Must be it.
-
Among AH planes, the D-11 is not the odd man out when it comes to turn performance in relation to these physical parameters, the P-51 is.
I've already posted a video of two gentlemen who fly both the P-51D and the 109G, and who say that the 109 turns better. The 109's and P-51's in-game performance seems to agree with this.
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/stall%20survey.jpg)
Wing loading is a meaningless parameter unless you also know how much lift each wing produces for any given area. As you can see in the chart above, a laminar flow wing like the NACA-64(1)-212 performs poorly at high AoA (alpha) compared to other wing profiles. The NACA 23012 is very similar to the S-3 airfoil used on the P-47, and the NACA 2412 looks similar to NACA 2R1 14.2 airfoil of the 109.
You can see how the lift coefficient drops of sharply at 11 degrees AOA while the other profiles continue generating more lift beyond 15 degrees. Also the laminar flow wing produces more drag than the other wing profiles beyond 11 degrees.
With the automatic slats the 109's wing could achieve AoA of 19 degrees (20 with flaps) and a Cl of more than 2 which would bring its curve beyond the top on that chart. This is why the 109 was such a good turner despite the high wing loading. Every sq.ft. of wing area on the 109 could produce one-third more lift than a sq.ft. of the P-51's wing. The trade-off is more drag at high speed, which is why the 109 isn't as fast as a P-51 at the same power despite being smaller and lighter.
While the laminar flow wing of the P-51 gave it great speed and range, it didn't help it in the slow turn fight.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,257158.msg3187610.html#msg3187610 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,257158.msg3187610.html#msg3187610)
"NACA Report 829 states and clearly demonstrates that the P-51B, due to the extremely smooth and clean design of the wing, has a slightly higher Coefficient of Lift than the F4U-1A. This is when both wings are in "service condition". Moreover, the P-51B hits its max CL at a greater angle of attack than the Corsair. Why did the Corsair out-turn the P-51B in Navy comparison testing? Lower wing loading and the fact that the F4U had its wings taped (sealed), without which, its CLmax drops substantially due to intra-surface leakage.
The P-51B has a CLmax virtually identical to the P-47D, and a lower wing loading.... In the real world, the P-51B could handily out-turn a P-47D. This makes sense as turn radius is basically determined by the weight load carried by the wing divided by the wing's efficiency at lifting the load. In the game (clean condition), the P-47D-11 turns smaller circles than the P-51B, with the P-47D-40 nipping at the Mustang's heels. If you take the lesser ammo load in the Jug (which was what was usually loaded for combat in the 8th AF), it matches the P-51B."
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1945/naca-report-829.pdf (http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1945/naca-report-829.pdf)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/stall%20survey.jpg)
Wing loading is a meaningless parameter unless you also know how much lift each wing produces for any given area. As you can see in the chart above, a laminar flow wing like the NACA-64(1)-212 performs poorly at high AoA (alpha) compared to other wing profiles. The NACA 23012 is very similar to the S-3 airfoil used on the P-47, and the NACA 2412 looks similar to NACA 2R1 14.2 airfoil of the 109.
You can see how the lift coefficient drops of sharply at 11 degrees AOA while the other profiles continue generating more lift beyond 15 degrees. Also the laminar flow wing produces more drag than the other wing profiles beyond 11 degrees.
With the automatic slats the 109's wing could achieve AoA of 19 degrees (20 with flaps) and a Cl of more than 2 which would bring its curve beyond the top on that chart. This is why the 109 was such a good turner despite the high wing loading. Every sq.ft. of wing area on the 109 could produce one-third more lift than a sq.ft. of the P-51's wing. The trade-off is more drag at high speed, which is why the 109 isn't as fast as a P-51 at the same power despite being smaller and lighter.
While the laminar flow wing of the P-51 gave it great speed and range, it didn't help it in the slow turn fight.
-
I've already posted a video of two gentlemen who fly both the P-51D and the 109G, and who say that the 109 turns better. The 109's and P-51's in-game performance seems to agree with this.
Which is relevant to two gents flying a 109 and a P-51 not in WWII, and also *possibly* 109 vs. P-51 in WWII. However, it is NOT relevant to the relative turn performance of the P-51 and P-47, a matter in which Allied pilots universally agree the 51 had the edge. I assume you trust that their observations are equally valid?
And at least one Axis pilot:
"Walter Wolfrum, a Luftwaffe ace with 137 victories, remembered of his encounters with American fighters that "the P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it, initially. The P-51 was something else."
Basically to make you're argument, you have to say that Allied pilots who flew P-51s and Jugs and noted that Mustangs turn better were in fact incorrect, as were German pilots who fought both and noted that the Mustang was more formidable in a maneuvering fight. Somehow they got it all wrong...
This in spite of the fact that pilots lived and died by having some grasp of relative aircraft performance. Allied pilots in the Pacific knew to avoid slow speed turning contests with the Japanese planes if at all possible, a 190A pilot knew to avoid going in slow circles with SpitVs...but somehow when it came down to P-51s and Jugs, pilots on both sides had a blind spot.
-
And their power loading?
At high AoA the P-51's laminar flow wing is less effective than the more conventional wing profiles of these other fighters. Must be it.
The P-47D-11 has a worse power loading than the P-51B, moreover it is modeled with the toothpick as opposed to paddle prop, which costs low end thrust.
-
Jeebus! Are we there yet?
-
Jeebus! Are we there yet?
You'll have to forgive me and the other guy for throwing math and charts at each other instead of "DWEEB! PWNED! SPYZ DA!"-Some folks are weird like that :D
-
Keep grasping at straws all you want BnZs. That old thread didn't reach anything conclusive either, and you'll need a lot more than that to convince HTC, or anybody for that matter. I'll defer to HiTech's judgement in this case; after all he has flown the Pony in real life.
-
Keep grasping at straws all you want BnZs. That old thread didn't reach anything conclusive either, and you'll need a lot more than that to convince HTC, or anybody for that matter. I'll defer to HiTech's judgement in this case; after all he has flown the Pony in real life.
On the one hand, I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable question to ask. On the other hand, when it comes to FM stuff the fine, miniscule details seem to make all the difference. Without ironclad math, anything people say is pretty much meaningless. I have no idea what the math looks like though. Just wanted to point that out.
Wiley.
-
In 1996 Ferrari used maths and a wind tunnel to determine how to build their car. The figures where phenomenal, based solely on that the car they thought was going to be an epic car and a winner straight out of the box with a double floor sidepod. Even with Schumacher at the wheel the car was a complete dog.
This was a lesson where practical application out does charts and maths.
-
Keep grasping at straws all you want BnZs. That old thread didn't reach anything conclusive either, and you'll need a lot more than that to convince HTC, or anybody for that matter.
A NACA report refuting the contention that the P-51 performance in AHII can be explained by low ClMax is hardly a "straw".
It was acknowledged in WWII that the Pony was better in the turn than the Jug by those who flew or encountered it. The contrary position, to argue that they somehow got it wrong, this is what requires a massive burden of proof.
I'll defer to HiTech's judgement in this case; after all he has flown the Pony in real life.
Quite true. Has he flown both a P-51B and a P-47D-11 at War Emergency Power settings to compare best sustained turn radius?
I have flown a Cessna 175 (yes, the 175, not 172), does this give me implicit knowledge about its tightest possible turning radius in square feet or its relative turning radius versus all other aircraft?
However, I am not at all sure that the P-51 in the game should be changed. It is already the most popular aircraft, and a little more performance could make things truly ridiculous.
-
In 1996 Ferrari used maths and a wind tunnel to determine how to build their car. The figures where phenomenal, based solely on that the car they thought was going to be an epic car and a winner straight out of the box with a double floor sidepod. Even with Schumacher at the wheel the car was a complete dog.
This was a lesson where practical application out does charts and maths.
This is a good point, but of course it cuts both ways-The possibility that calculated performance can be wrong also exists when the calculations are being done by a desktop computer program. :salute
-
BnZ you keep saying "out turn" as if that is a singular quantity. Are you sure the pilot's anechdotal evidence mean at stall speeds? Also, sustained turn rate and turn radius are no tthe same thing. I would think rate is more important. Max turn rate may not occur at min turn radius.
As for anechdotal descriptions. wasn't the 190 anechdotaly discribes as "Highly maneuverable"? Wasn't it also discribed as a newer fighter than the 109 and an answer to, and superior to, the Spitfire? I'm shocked everytime I read about's high turn rate. Did pilots included Roll rate with turn rate because you had to roll before you could turn? Is that what they mean by "turned better"? Anechdotal vs test data is usually an Apples and Oranges problem.
A famous anechdotal "Huh?"... is Bud Anderson's encounter with a 109, where after a sustained turn circle stalemate he pulls his plane vertical and ropes a 109. He attributes this to the superiority of the P-51B's performance over a 109. Maybe ponyB's really do outclimb 109s. Or maybe the explanation was that the german pilot was terrible and executed the maneuvers very badly. Maybe he had a batch of bad gasoline, or ran his plane on Truck gas because Av-gas was in short supply that day. Maybe he had previously been shot in the left arm by a different P-51 and couldn't move the throttle. but the story will come back, "pony ropes a 109, therefore the pony obviously climbs better than the 109 does, the game isn't modelled right!"
Just food for thought. :salute
-
BnZ you keep saying "out turn" as if that is a singular quantity. Are you sure the pilot's anechdotal evidence mean at stall speeds? Also, sustained turn rate and turn radius are no tthe same thing. I would think rate is more important. Max turn rate may not occur at min turn radius.
As for anechdotal descriptions. wasn't the 190 anechdotaly discribes as "Highly maneuverable"? Wasn't it also discribed as a newer fighter than the 109 and an answer to, and superior to, the Spitfire? I'm shocked everytime I read about's high turn rate. Did pilots included Roll rate with turn rate because you had to roll before you could turn? Is that what they mean by "turned better"? Anechdotal vs test data is usually an Apples and Oranges problem.
A famous anechdotal "Huh?"... is Bud Anderson's encounter with a 109, where after a sustained turn circle stalemate he pulls his plane vertical and ropes a 109. He attributes this to the superiority of the P-51B's performance over a 109. Maybe ponyB's really do outclimb 109s. Or maybe the explanation was that the german pilot was terrible and executed the maneuvers very badly. Maybe he had a batch of bad gasoline, or ran his plane on Truck gas because Av-gas was in short supply that day. Maybe he had previously been shot in the left arm by a different P-51 and couldn't move the throttle. but the story will come back, "pony ropes a 109, therefore the pony obviously climbs better than the 109 does, the game isn't modelled right!"
Just food for thought. :salute
The explanation here is that the P-51Bs performance at 30,000 feet or so is quite competitive relative to most variants of the 109. Also this was more a zoom than a sustained climb. Also the pilot probably killed quite a bit of energy forcing Anderson to overshoot. And from what I've read, Anderson studied dogfighting especially diligently, and was quite aware of this. Similar things are done all the time in AHII in various plane combinations. No minds need be blown when this report is looked at in depth.
The comparison is in-apt because P-51 vs. 109 reports reflect the P-51 pilots turning with an aircraft the Allies had relatively little access too, which the pilot himself had probably never flown, under combat conditions. Way too many variables there to derive anything definite, truly anecdotal data. Allied pilot opinions of Jug vs. P-51 are another kettle of fish, since they are derived from Allied test pilots actually TESTING the airplanes on different parameters. Especially when the physics of the matter supports their take on it...
-
BnZ you keep saying "out turn" as if that is a singular quantity.
I have been emphasizing relative radii here, simply because it is quite unlikely that an airplane that stalls at 105 mph will be able to sustain a turn radius decidedly smaller than one that stalls at 100 mph.
-
Are you sure the pilot's anechdotal evidence mean at stall speeds?
Sustained turn tests are not done at stall speeds, at stall speed an airplane is making only just enough lift to keep itself in the air and has no G to spare for turning. But stall speeds do reflect the maximum possible lift that one airplane has in relation to its own weight. The airplane that stalls at 100mph has more lift in relation to its own weight than the one that stalls at 105.
-
This in spite of the fact that pilots lived and died by having some grasp of relative aircraft performance. Allied pilots in the Pacific knew to avoid slow speed turning contests with the Japanese planes if at all possible
If you mean that they knew what the enemy aircraft could do, that would be incorrect. At first they didn't know anything. And when they were lucky enough to capture an enemy aircraft there was no guarantee that upgrades wouldn't completely change the capabilities of the aircraft, like it happened with the 109 and the FW.
Even when they did have good information they didn't always listen. Joe Foss was asked to speak to an entire spit 5 squadron about combat tactics. They scoffed when he told them to run if they lost their advantage on the Zero. Foss later found out that almost the entire squadron had been wiped out in their first couple of weeks of combat.
"Walter Wolfrum, a Luftwaffe ace with 137 victories, remembered of his encounters with American fighters that "the P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it, initially. The P-51 was something else."
I don't believe that Germans or Americans knew the difference between different models of enemy aircraft or they could see them well enough to identify them in the heat of combat even if they did know the difference. so a combat report by a German pilot is not proof of anything, you don't know If he was flying against somebody less talented or in an inferior aircraft.
Just because your information comes from a fighter pilot with experience doesn't guarantee its factual. Until you have a report of mock combat between the B and the D11 all you have is theory.
It was acknowledged in WWII that the Pony was better in the turn than the Jug by those who flew or encountered it. The contrary position, to argue that they somehow got it wrong, this is what requires a massive burden of proof.
you are taking a blanket statement about all models of The jug and pony and using it to validate the performance of one particular model and you're ignoring huge variables.
It doesn't matter how many thousands of guys said it. there's only one fact here, only a handful of those actually did any tests and even less of them under the same circumstances you are arguing. The rest is either arrogance, blind faith or naivety
-
Just because your information comes from a fighter pilot with experience doesn't guarantee its factual. Until you have a report of mock combat between the B and the D11 all you have is theory.
LOL, so you are under the impression that at no point during the testing of these aircraft before they were sent to the front lines were they put into a turn to see what they would do?
In point of fact mock dogfighting or "hassling" was part of being a fighter pilot, especially in WWII.
-
Even when they did have good information they didn't always listen. Joe Foss was asked to speak to an entire spit 5 squadron about combat tactics. They scoffed when he told them to run if they lost their advantage on the Zero. Foss later found out that almost the entire squadron had been wiped out in their first couple of weeks of combat.
So they believed they could turn with Zeros, they were proven wrong, QUICKLY, and different tactics took over. The Germans believed they could out-turn P-47s, the Americans believed they were right and adjusted tactics accordingly. Neither side was proven wrong. The Americans also believed P-51s could turn with 109s. We can safely say that this tactic did not fail to the extent they were forced to drop it, as even Spits trying to turn with Zeros failed in the Pacific.
I don't believe that Germans or Americans knew the difference between different models of enemy aircraft or they could see them well enough to identify them in the heat of combat even if they did know the difference.
Well now this is just flat hilarious. Fortunately for WWII pilots, they weren't legally blind and it wasn't like AHII with no icon-otherwise friendly fire would have been the number one killer of planes :rofl
so a combat report by a German pilot is not proof of anything, you don't know If he was flying against somebody less talented or in an inferior aircraft.
He was flying against multiple aircraft throughout his career, and flying with other men who did the same. If the P-51 was slightly worse than the P-47, not noticeably better, how the deuce did even *enemy* pilots get exactly the opposite impression?
Until you have a report of mock combat between the B and the D11 all you have is theory.
Yes, because there is no other way to ascertain turn radius besides mock combat. That is why Mosq had to fly every single possible combination of planes against other planes in mock dogfights to arrive at his turn data for AHII....
-
LOL, so you are under the impression that at no point during the testing of these aircraft before they were sent to the front lines were they put into a turn to see what they would do?
In point of fact mock dogfighting or "hassling" was part of being a fighter pilot, especially in WWII.
Where did I say that? Let me simplify it for you. I said fighter pilots aren't always right. They make mistakes and let pride get in the way of their judgment just like everyone.
I am well aware of the kind of mock fighting that went on but you sound like you think everyone had a dueling ladder going in their spare time.
It didn't happen that way. Lots of guys went into combat with less than 10 hours in the aircraft that they fought in. 10 hours isn't enough time to become expert at flying a new aircraft, let alone how it compares to other aircraft.
So they believed they could turn with Zeros, they were proven wrong, QUICKLY, and different tactics took over.
So what you're saying is, pilot stories, opinions and judgement is infallible when it supports your point, but you continue to admit...
they were proven wrong
you have repeatedly agreed with and pointed out that pilots on both sides had false beliefs about the performance of aircraft. Even more astounding, you still think pilot stories proves your argument in the face of undeniable proof that many pilots were so arrogant that they refused to accept FACTS from recent combat vets who knew better.
Well now this is just flat hilarious. Fortunately for WWII pilots, they weren't legally blind and it wasn't like AHII with no icon-otherwise friendly fire would have been the number one killer of planes
And you misunderstand again. I wasn't talking about the difference between a FW and a 109, I was talking about the difference between 109 Es, Fs, and Gs. Or D11s and D25s.
I have never seen any references that suggest the average pilot even knew or cared there were 30 different models of 109. They couldn't have kept up with it all. So the point you missed was, your 109 G14 ace never identified the variant of jugs he was fighting making his conclusions nothing more than generalizations.
Likewise, look through some of those combat reports posted earlier and show us how many times allied pilots identified a particular variant of 109 or FW they had shot down. They never knew exactly who they were fighting.
If the P-51 was slightly worse than the P-47, not noticeably better, how the deuce did even *enemy* pilots get exactly the opposite impression?
Finally, and yet again the fact you don't seem to want to accept is reputations are distorted by pride and arrogance. Reputations aren't facts.
-
Sustained turn tests are not done at stall speeds, at stall speed an airplane is making only just enough lift to keep itself in the air and has no G to spare for turning. But stall speeds do reflect the maximum possible lift that one airplane has in relation to its own weight. The airplane that stalls at 100mph has more lift in relation to its own weight than the one that stalls at 105.
Isn't that 100 mph in level flight? If stall speed varies by AoA, then this number may not directly correlate to a stall turn. I think that's Scholz' point. :salute
-
BnZ you keep saying "out turn" as if that is a singular quantity. Are you sure the pilot's anechdotal evidence mean at stall speeds? Also, sustained turn rate and turn radius are no tthe same thing. I would think rate is more important. Max turn rate may not occur at min turn radius.
As for anechdotal descriptions. wasn't the 190 anechdotaly discribes as "Highly maneuverable"? Wasn't it also discribed as a newer fighter than the 109 and an answer to, and superior to, the Spitfire? I'm shocked everytime I read about's high turn rate. Did pilots included Roll rate with turn rate because you had to roll before you could turn? Is that what they mean by "turned better"? Anechdotal vs test data is usually an Apples and Oranges problem.
A famous anechdotal "Huh?"... is Bud Anderson's encounter with a 109, where after a sustained turn circle stalemate he pulls his plane vertical and ropes a 109. He attributes this to the superiority of the P-51B's performance over a 109. Maybe ponyB's really do outclimb 109s. Or maybe the explanation was that the german pilot was terrible and executed the maneuvers very badly. Maybe he had a batch of bad gasoline, or ran his plane on Truck gas because Av-gas was in short supply that day. Maybe he had previously been shot in the left arm by a different P-51 and couldn't move the throttle. but the story will come back, "pony ropes a 109, therefore the pony obviously climbs better than the 109 does, the game isn't modelled right!"
Just food for thought. :salute
One other thing most people tend to over look is the fact that German Pilots were flying more than 1 combat sortie a day.. Start taking in that factor to the equation, there was a extreme wear on their pilots.
I agree with Vinkman that it was probably bad luck for the german. Not because the plane sucked put because of some fatal mistake. Remember the only fighter back then that was easy to dogfight with for long periods of time was the P-38. Reason being that the later models had Hydrolic Boosted controls.
In other words that means that the 109 pilot could have been completely wore out. ( Think how fit you would have to be pulling a plane around the sky in a dogfight at 200+ knots. It wasnt a uncommon pratice back then that some time you had to put your feet on the dash to get leverage.
Whether this was the cause or knot I do not know. IT is said that you could tell how tired your opponet was by how he pulled his aircraft around the sky
-
Isn't that 100 mph in level flight? If stall speed varies by AoA, then this number may not directly correlate to a stall turn. I think that's Scholz' point. :salute
Stall speed doesn't "vary by AoA." Stall always occurs at the critical AoA for the airfoil, and reflects the minimum airspeed needed to generate enough lift to counter the weight of the aircraft. If G forces are being applied to the aircraft, then the stall speed increases by a factor which can be deduced by multiplying the 1G stall speed by the square root of the Gs being pulled. The aircraft which has the higher stall speed at 1G will also have the higher accelerated stall speed under G load.
-
Where did I say that? Let me simplify it for you. I said fighter pilots aren't always right. They make mistakes and let pride get in the way of their judgment just like everyone.
I am well aware of the kind of mock fighting that went on but you sound like you think everyone had a dueling ladder going in their spare time.
You should read some of the bordering-on-insane stuff Yeager and his fellows got up to when it came to maneuvering their aircraft in every possible way. Bob Johnson and his fellows got up to the same sort of thing, per "Thunderbolt". Hoover. Etc. These men knew anything they flew cold. And it doesn't a Yeager or a Hoover at the stick to notice that say, a P-47D couldn't generate quite as much G in a 200 mph turn as a P-51B.
Even more astounding, you still think pilot stories proves your argument in the face of undeniable proof that many pilots were so arrogant that they refused to accept FACTS from recent combat vets who knew better.
You are making a fatally flawed apples to oranges comparison with your example of Spits fighting Zeros. In that case, they were acting from a position of zero experience, or rather, a position lacking in Zero experience. :D They had neither flown nor even fought against Zeros, they had no idea what they were up against. And in combat, they were proven fatally wrong.
Compare this to the relative strengths of the P-47 versus the P-51 as ascertained in WWII. In this case, we are talking about two airplanes on the Allied side that were extensively tested by the Allies. Many men on the Allied side flew both, (as well as Spitfires) in testing, training, as well as combat. They did not have to guess about relative performance. Under these circumstances, they noted a lack of maneuverability on the Jug's part which made turn fights with the 109 a bad idea, unlike with the Spitfire, and devised tactics to compensate. Now when forces were given P-51s, they ascertained they could turn on a more even basis with the German aircraft, and they did. If somehow their impression, derived from flying BOTH, that the P-51 could turn better than the Jug was a hallucination, if in fact in turned *worse* than P-47, then this idea would have proved as fatally wrong as the Spitfire pilots' idea they could turn with the Zero on an even basis. But this is not what happened.
Finally, and yet again the fact you don't seem to want to accept is reputations are distorted by pride and arrogance. Reputations aren't facts.
What you don't seem to understand is that you are essentially arguing that the Allied side which produced Jugs and Mustangs by the thousands, extensively tested them, and had thousands of men fly both, that after all their direct experience with both airplanes, they somehow got an important aspect of their relative performance EXACTLY WRONG. But a simulator is getting it right. At least until the next FM update changes relative performance yet again, then the new in-game reality will be infallible and unquestionable :rofl That is where the arrogance, if any, lies IMO.
If things like the following were wrong, then it means that many men who evaluated planes for the Allies in WWII were criminally incompetent at their jobs and potentially caused the deaths of any number of airmen through flawed tactical advice:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg)
-
Stall speed doesn't "vary by AoA." Stall always occurs at the critical AoA for the airfoil, and reflects the minimum airspeed needed to generate enough lift to counter the weight of the aircraft. If G forces are being applied to the aircraft, then the stall speed increases by a factor which can be deduced by multiplying the 1G stall speed by the square root of the Gs being pulled. The aircraft which has the higher stall speed at 1G will also have the higher accelerated stall speed under G load.
But the critical AoA varies by Speed. As do Gs in a turn. So perhaps stall speed relates to minimum turn radius because they both occur at the same speed, but higher Gs can only be generated at higher speeds and then the AoA will vary. So which plane turns better can vary by speed and radius of the turn up to the black out limit. it seems :salute
-
Where did I say that? Let me simplify it for you. I said fighter pilots aren't always right. They make mistakes and let pride get in the way of their judgment just like everyone.
I am well aware of the kind of mock fighting that went on but you sound like you think everyone had a dueling ladder going in their spare time.
There was a lot of testing of the capabilities of Allied fighters against Axis fighters and Allied against Allied. This information was then distributed to the various fighter squadrons and then to the pilots. The pilot's training didn't end when his stateside training did, it continued throughout their combat tour. The training took place in the form of continued flight training (could involve such things as navigation, formation flying, mock combat, etc.) and classes/briefings. Both Allied and Axis pilots were well aware of the capabilities of the aircraft they fought against, they had to otherwise they'd never have developed the necessary tactics. The information from these reports were also shared with the plane designers and manufacturers.
Here is an example of a report that would have been distributed to the squadrons and then the pilots briefed on comparing the capabilities of the Thunderbolt vs. the FW 190.
The P-47 versus FW-190 at Low Altidude (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_versus_FW-190.pdf)
The example you used previously about the Spitfires meeting the Zeke and Oscar is more of a case study of dangers of hubris, that's what really caused the early losses. The RAF Spitfire and Hurricane pilots largely ignored the advice of the US, Aussie and Kiwi pilots on how to counter the Zeke. The capabilities of the Zeke were already known, that knowledge was gained by the blood of Allied fighters that fought the Zeke in the SWPA. Through painful learning through trial and error (the error usually resulted in the Allied pilot's death), tactics to fight the Zeke were learned. That's how the Allied pilots in inferior planes were able to hold the line in the beginning. It was further helped that in 1942, we captured an intact Zeke (A6M2) that was extensively test flown to find out the capabilities of the Zeke. This information was then filtered to the fighter squadrons and also to Grumman, which used this information in the design of the Hellcat, that's why the Hellcat was such a good Zeke killer.
The reports were Informational Intelligence Summary 59, Technical Aviation Intelligence Brief #3, Tactical and Technical Trends #5 and Informational Intelligence Summary 85
ack-ack
-
But the critical AoA varies by Speed. As do Gs in a turn. So perhaps stall speed relates to minimum turn radius because they both occur at the same speed, but higher Gs can only be generated at higher speeds and then the AoA will vary. So which plane turns better can vary by speed and radius of the turn up to the black out limit. it seems :salute
Ah, I begin to see where the confusion lies. Crtitical angle of attack does not in fact change at higher airspeeds. For a given airfoil, it always occurs at the same angle to the relative wind. Higher airspeeds simply mean the airfoil can generate more lift at any given AoA. Hence the airplane which can only hold up its own weight at critical AoA and 100mph IAS can generate lift equivalent to 4 times its own weight at 200mph IAS, etc.
-
That turning circle diagram BnZs posted is from a post-war article written by T.S. Wade, an RAF officer. Not from any allied test report. In any case, allied tests of German aircraft were never done under optimal conditions; the aircraft were in most cases repaired after ditching and battle damage and run on Allied non-synthetic fuels that often meant the engines ran rough. The pilots were also careful not to push the aircraft too hard, especially with the 109 which had an unfounded reputation with the RAF for losing its wings in hard turns. Allied test pilots would normally not pull harder than to the point where the slats deploy.
A German test pilot's perspective:
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, because the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
Fly around in AH and don't pull harder than up to the point where the slats deploy, then yeah... The Pony will out turn you.
-
Yes Scholz, that is why the evaluation of the 109 is questionable, especially as the physics of the matter would lead one to a different conclusion. The Allies had no such hurdles in testing P51 and P47 relative performance, and in this case the physics agree with their conclusions.
That turning circle diagram BnZs posted is from a post-war article written by T.S. Wade, an RAF officer. Not from any allied test report. In any case, allied tests of German aircraft were never done under optimal conditions; the aircraft were in most cases repaired after ditching and battle damage and run on Allied non-synthetic fuels that often meant the engines ran rough. The pilots were also careful not to push the aircraft too hard, especially with the 109 which had an unfounded reputation with the RAF for losing its wings in hard turns. Allied test pilots would normally not pull harder than to the point where the slats deploy.
A German test pilot's perspective:
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, because the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
Fly around in AH and don't pull harder than up to the point where the slats deploy, then yeah... The Pony will out turn you.
-
You have posted no relevant data on the relative performance of the P-51 and P-47. HTC won't do anything based on hearsay.
-
You have posted no relevant data on the relative performance of the P-51 and P-47. HTC won't do anything based on hearsay.
Relative turn performance as tested by pilots is not "hearsay". Wing-loading is not "hearsay". Respective stall speeds as an indicator of maximum lift in relation to weight is not "hearsay". That said, I don`t expect HTC to do anything. Despite oddities like the poor performance of the Pony or the low speed performance of the Corsair, AHII remains a fun game in which plane performance is mostly pretty close and many real life ACM tactics work well. If the P51D performed better in turns, the LW main might necome the mostly P51D arena. That would be bad for the game. OTOH, perking the P51D. THE airplane noobs in this culture WILL want to fly, might be very bad for subscriptions. While I am sure it is not deliberate, the current P51D modeling fortuitously avoids this problem. I`d rather fly this excellent sim with a porked P51D then fly in a porked arena with perfect modeling or in an arena with fewer subscribers.
-
You don't think HTC knows the relative wing loading of these aircraft? Everything you've posted that contradicts the AH performance of the P-51 is hearsay. Pilot anecdotes that are no more definitive than "I out turned him". Thinly veiled accusations won't get you anywhere either.
(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7093/poweron03.jpg)
-
You don't think HTC knows the relative wing loading of these aircraft? Everything you've posted that contradicts the AH performance of the P-51 is hearsay. Pilot anecdotes that are no more definitive than "I out turned him". Thinly veiled accusations won't get you anywhere either.
(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7093/poweron03.jpg)
Of course they know it. They knew it in AH version 1 as well, yet the relative performance in that version was different. So which was the perfect and unquestionable reality? Or perhaps you think that the performance of real airplanes in the past changes when HTC changes the flight model. Also, if you fail to comprehend the difference between combat reports on encounters with enemy aircraft and reports on relative performance regarding aircraft your own side developed and tested, you are an idiot. Since you are plainly not an idiot, you must be deliberately being obtuse about the difference for some reason. Finally, I am not making an accusation. It is a fact that P51D use verges on being perk-worthy already and additional performance could put it right over the top. Admittedly the idea that perking the P51D would turn off new players is speculative, but I think it plausible.
-
They knew it in AH version 1 as well, yet the relative performance in that version was different. So which was the perfect and unquestionable reality? Or perhaps you think that the performance of real airplanes in the past changes when HTC changes the flight model.
...Possibly they found better information/something they previously used was discredited?
Wiley.
-
Nothing is "unquestionable". However, you're the one claiming something is wrong, thus the burden of proof lies squarely on you. To my knowledge the biggest difference between AH1 and AH2 was the fidelity of the flight model. More available CPU power allowed more data points to be calculated simultaneously resulting in a more accurate "higher resolution" simulation.
A pilot anecdote, Allied vs Allied or otherwise, is not something HTC can punch into a simulator and calculate a result from. They need numbers.
Oh and if you do find actual usable information, be sure to post about it on other sites as well; I have played just about every WWII simulator since Chuck Yeager's Air Combat more than 20 years ago, and I cannot recall one game where a 109 doesn't out turn a Pony slow and low.
-
You should read some of the bordering-on-insane stuff Yeager and his fellows got up to when it came to maneuvering their aircraft in every possible way.
funny you should mention him. I thought that might have been where you got your false conclusions.
Bob Johnson and his fellows got up to the same sort of thing, per "Thunderbolt". Hoover. Etc. These men knew anything they flew cold.
both of these guys were EXTRAORDINARY pilots by EVERY account. If I remember correctly, Hoover had over 1000 hours in multiple types before he even went to combat, which was extremely rare.
And it doesn't a Yeager or a Hoover at the stick to notice
if it doesn't take a Yeager or Hoover to notice then why are you using two exceptional pilots as an example of what the AVERAGE pilot knew or didn't know?
to notice that say, a P-47D couldn't generate quite as much G in a 200 mph turn as a P-51B.
You are making a fatally flawed apples to oranges comparison
who's making apples to oranges comparisons? You're trying to say that because a few American pilots understood the differences in American aircraft variants, that all of them did and that pilots on both sides understood the handling characteristics of MULTIPLE ENEMY FIGHTER VARIANTS.
And you are using test pilots as an example of what typical pilots knew when even test pilots had limited access to enemy hardware until after the war. Yes I know we tested captured enemy aircraft, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about how many. I've been researching this stuff for several years now.
your example of Spits fighting Zeros. In that case, they were acting from a position of zero experience, or rather, a position lacking in Zero experience. :D They had neither flown nor even fought against Zeros, they had no idea what they were up against.
They were experienced combat pilots from Africa with several aces, they had first-hand knowledge from Joe Foss who had just spent months engaging zeros. And if that was not enough, it was well known from 3 years of combat in the Chinese theater that Japanese planes were extremely maneuverable. There was no excuse. It just goes to prove how stubborn some people can be when presented with FACTS.
Obviously, times havent changed much.
we are talking about two airplanes on the Allied side that were extensively tested by the Allies.
Here's The heart of your misconception. What exactly do you think extensively means in this case? Thousands of hours of flight time? Guess again. I would love for you to show me where I can find data that supports that. I've been looking for it for some time now.
Ack-Ack posted a single report comparing the FW to the P47. I see no mention of mock combat, they drag raced and chased each other around in circles. I'm not saying that's not good enough, I'm just saying that's not extensive. They didn't even identify the exact variant of FW.
That report was intended to prepare every Allied P 47 pilot for combat against the FW. Their lives depended on that information and they put a whopping four hours of testing into it and they didn't specifically identify the FW variant. Is that what you call extensive?
You don't even see a disclaimer like...
"WARNING - This comparison is just one variant of the FW-190. Performance can change considerably from one version to another..."
You have misguided beliefs about how much testing was done. When the US got its hands on an enemy aircraft, more hours were spent taking them apart, putting them back together and analyzing the technology than was spent test flying.
After we got done testing an aircraft it might get passed around to be flown by a few trusted pilots. But after incidents like the time someone wrecked Koga's zero, it seems that kind of thing slowed.
So back to Yeager again, I'm guessing you read about how he used to "bounce" a/c coming in and out of Wright Field and kicking everyones ass. And this makes you think everyone was out there having a good ol time in mock fights <cough> in the name of training and flight testing.
The US didn't have a policy of allowing a bunch of kids to "play dogfighting" with valuable aircraft anytime they felt like it.
1- Those antics of Yeagers were either late or right after the war and times weren't as tight.
2- He was a decorated ace and a Captain by that time and I'm certain given a little leeway.
That's not to say that some didn't break the rules, but in the first half of the war, anyone caught breaking this rule probably wouldn't fly again. It didn't happen as often as you think.
The point of all of this? You seem to think most of these guys had first hand knowledge of whether a D11 could out turn a 51B. It wasn't, it was 99% hearsay.
They did not have to guess about relative performance.
You're right, they didn't have to guess. They had hearsay and... "I flew both and I can tell the pony turns better because my nuts hurt more when I flew the pony in hard turns."
Of course all of them who flew both, and swear that the Pony turns better than a Jug, MUST have flown every single model of the Jug. :rolleyes:
-
See rule #4
-
There was a lot of testing of the capabilities of Allied fighters against Axis fighters and Allied against Allied.
Yea, and your post demonstrates how much "a lot" is... 4 hours to produce a "definitive report."
The pilot's training didn't end when his stateside training did, it continued throughout their combat tour.
I have no doubt, but I have read tons on the subject and I can't recall any accounts of any significant training after being deployed. I do recall many accounts of booze and women when not flying.
Obviously the military would work to remedy any training deficiencies if they could, but that doesnt mean these guys were out there using valuable fuel and risking valuable aircraft in their spare time. So, I am certain you are right and they had hours upon hours of lectures by all sorts of successful pilots, just like what Foss did for the Spit squadrons.
The vast majority of pilots were basing their opinions on hearsay and the reports you pointed out. As you should already have seen, they overlook potentially critical details, like the fact that one FW variant may perform differently than another.
That report made a blanket statement about the FW. It may not have been a big deal in the war or someone may have died because of it.
That's not the issue, the issue now is that some guys cant get over that their heroes, who got incomplete information from blanket statement reporting, may have had false impressions about their fave-oh-right air-oh-planes.
The training took place in the form of continued flight training (could involve such things as navigation, formation flying, mock combat, etc.) and classes/briefings.
I have never heard of an operational squadron on deployment being taught to fly. Please provide a reference.
If navigation was a problem with any pilot, he may have been ordered class time, but I have never heard of it. Some may have even done it voluntarily. What I have heard, is that good pilots were assigned lead positions and lacking pilots were made wingmen.
In an operational squadron, formation flying was done on missions. There was no additional "training" flights.
And again, once deployed, a pilot was done with mock combat. He was not guaranteed any additional flight time for mock fights, they weren't allowed without permission and permission was not typical. Commanders did not particularly care to risk planes, pilots and fuel that way. MAYBE, later in the war that lightened up a little, but I doubt it.
Both Allied and Axis pilots were well aware of the capabilities of the aircraft they fought against
No, they were well aware of REPUTATIONS and "blanket statement reports" about particular aircraft and your post proved that.
BnZs is trying to suggest that because everyone thought one thing or the other, that it was a hard fact that applied to all aircraft. Are you going to agree with him?
The example you used previously about the Spitfires meeting the Zeke and Oscar is more of a case study of dangers of hubris
Very observant, but you missed the point. Even in the face of undeniable FACTS, personal prejudices cloud reality. And BonZai there thinks there is no such thing as mass misinformation. Are you going to agree with that too?
-
I have never heard of an operational squadron on deployment being taught to fly. Please provide a reference.
56th FG had an in-theater training unit, operated by the group, where replacement pilots were brought up to snuff before they were permitted to fly combat missions. Was just reading about this again in Roger Freeman's book on the 56th - "Wolfpack Warriors" or something like that. This wasn't basic training; it was local detail stuff, radio operational procedures, group assembly, that sort of thing. I assume other units had similar setups.
- oldmdan
-
One thing that I have not seen mentioned so far in this discussion is that allied planes like the P51 were using 150 octate fuel later in the war. I don't believe the AH models are based on 150 octane fuel. Any historical accounts of plane performance after the 150 octane fuel was introduced may be different than AH performance, at least in terms of speed and climb.
-
bnz what do you think that Turning Circle chart is displaying?
HiTech
-
This wasn't basic training; it was local detail stuff, radio operational procedures, group assembly, that sort of thing. I assume other units had similar setups.
Local details!!! This was orientation that everyone went through in every theater. This was not "continued" training that ackack was implying.
-
Got quiet in here...
-
Got quiet in here...
*s n i g g e r s*
(http://wp.clicrbs.com.br/holofote/files/2013/06/mutley-laugh-o.gif)
-
Local details!!! This was orientation that everyone went through in every theater. This was not "continued" training that ackack was implying.
All of that stuff was considered training, just like the briefing/classes that pilots had to go to on such mundane things like aircraft recognition, etc. Training never stopped, even on the front lines.
ack-ack
-
Oh and if you do find actual usable information, be sure to post about it on other sites as well; I have played just about every WWII simulator since Chuck Yeager's Air Combat more than 20 years ago, and I cannot recall one game where a 109 doesn't out turn a Pony slow and low.
Useable information such as wing-loading data and NACA reports regarding lift coefficients and such? Yeah, I'll post some of them as soon as I find them.
Yeah, not once have I said the P-51 should out turn the 109 low and slow. Nice little attempted bait and switch there, it won't work.
Other sims? Are you using a sort of "wisdom of crowds argument here?" Okay, I'll play-I have flown many sims containing WWII aircraft, including Microsofts CFS and most iterations of IL2, and I've never seen another one where Jug turn performance matched or exceeded that of the P-51.
-
bnz what do you think that Turning Circle chart is displaying?
HiTech
Circles have "radii"...I think it is quite clear what the chart is displaying.
Do I get a question now? How did the Allied side get their notions about relative turn performance of two of their own airplanes exactly wrong?
-
You realize this entire wall of verbage is essentially saying "You have no proof regarding relative turn performance of planes, all you have is the opinions of pilots which is hearsay" blah blah blah.
Fine, we'll roll with that argument. By the same logic have no PROOF that a A6M2 "Zero" fighter could out-turn a Hurricane, a Spitfire, a P-40, or even a heavily laden B-17. Fair?
And then you post this:
They were experienced combat pilots from Africa with several aces, they had first-hand knowledge from Joe Foss who had just spent months engaging zeros. And if that was not enough, it was well known from 3 years of combat in the Chinese theater that Japanese planes were extremely maneuverable. There was no excuse. It just goes to prove how stubborn some people can be when presented with FACTS.
This bears repeating for emphasis.
"It was well known from 3 years of combat in the Chinese theater that Japanese planes were extremely maneuverable. There was no excuse"
So suddenly you're taking the same sort of pilot anecdote you say is useless and unreliable and lambasting, in hindsight, a group of pilots for not taking it as gospel. So is pilot anecdote regarding relative maneuverability relevant or not? Choose one.
-
I tried to look up some information regarding the turn performance of the P47 and the P51, but I didn't find anything that showed a direct comparison. The stuff I found has probably already been posted, but just in case here are a couple of things I found.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_versus_FW-190.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
-
Circles have "radii"...I think it is quite clear what the chart is displaying.
Do I get a question now? How did the Allied side get their notions about relative turn performance of two of their own airplanes exactly wrong?
You are 100% correct, all circles have radi, by definition.
But you did not answer what you believe that chart is displaying.
HiTech
-
You are 100% correct, all circles have radi, by definition.
But you did not answer what you believe that chart is displaying.
HiTech
Sorry, I believe the chart is simply ranking relative turn radius. Your next question will be something along the lines of "How can I use this as data for the sim?" which you can`t. Nor do I think a flight game that works this well needs to be tinkered with lightly anyway. A sim that uses *calculated performance* (as opposed to simply saying "this is what the plane should do" and plugging it in to the code) and mostly gets it very, very close is a triumph.
-
Sorry, I believe the chart is simply ranking relative turn radius. Your next question will be something along the lines of "How can I use this as data for the sim?" which you can`t. Nor do I think a flight game that works this well needs to be tinkered with lightly anyway. A sim that uses *calculated performance* (as opposed to simply saying "this is what the plane should do" and plugging it in to the code) and mostly gets it very, very close is a triumph.
What is "relative turn radius", btw I am not trying to be obtuse, you are trying to use a diagram, but have in no way used any defined terms that can even be analyzed. I really have no idea what "relative turn radius" is?
I know what corner speed is.
I know what instantaneous turn rate is.
I know what sustained turn rate is.
But I really have no idea what you think "relative turn radius" is.
HiTech
-
What is "relative turn radius", btw I am not trying to be obtuse, you are trying to use a diagram, but have in no way used any defined terms that can even be analyzed. I really have no idea what "relative turn radius" is?
I know what corner speed is.
I know what instantaneous turn rate is.
I know what sustained turn rate is.
But I really have no idea what you think "relative turn radius" is.
HiTech
How do you model this type of thing in the game. I am able to follow what you guys are talking about. I guess my question is what type of information do you use for this type of modelling :salute
-
"Relative Turn Radius" as a term does not exist.
-
You realize this entire wall of verbage is essentially saying "You have no proof regarding relative turn performance of planes, all you have is the opinions of pilots which is hearsay" blah blah blah.
No, that is not all I said. I also made it abundantly clear that, not only were their beliefs based on hearsay, but in spite of ABUNDANT evidence to the contrary, they refused to accept that their beliefs were wrong. Sound familiar?
Fine, we'll roll with that argument. By the same logic have no PROOF that a A6M2 "Zero" fighter could out-turn a Hurricane, a Spitfire, a P-40, or even a heavily laden B-17. Fair?
Seriously dude, you are losing your mind. And you conveniently left out part of that ridiculous sentence; WHO has no proof?
If you are referring to me, you are correct. I have no proof to offer you because I don't have access to any of the turn performance reports of any of those aircraft and I do not intend on wasting my time looking for them. I wasn't making the claim that a Zero could out turn anything. I was relating a story about stubbornness and pilots being WRONG.
But if you want to change the subject just a little, the BEST EVIDENCE they had AT THAT TIME showed that the Zero could out turn said aircraft and those Spit pilots REFUSED to even give it proper consideration. And we know now, without a doubt, that Joe Foss was right, and the strength of the evidence at the time was likely almost as strong as it is now.
You are the one making unfounded claims, not me. If I chose to assert the Zero could out turn any of them, I would look for proof. What kind of proof would depend on how critical it was to provide it. If it was just to argue on a forum, I might use hearsay. If it was to convince a programmer that their FM was wrong, I guess I would look for the appropriate flight test data.
And then you post this:
This bears repeating for emphasis.
"It was well known from 3 years of combat in the Chinese theater that Japanese planes were extremely maneuverable. There was no excuse"
So suddenly you're taking the same sort of pilot anecdote you say is useless and unreliable and lambasting, in hindsight, a group of pilots for not taking it as gospel. So is pilot anecdote regarding relative maneuverability relevant or not? Choose one.
The accuracy of those claims was NEVER the key point. The point was that those pilots, even ENTIRE GENERATIONS of people can have biased or flawed BELIEFS even when available information is overwhelming.
Sorry, I believe the chart is simply ranking relative turn radius.
A great demonstration of the failure to see the difference between general information and specific information.
-
"Relative Turn Radius" as a term does not exist.
Sure it does, as soon as a subject is defined and what the subject is being related to.
The relative turn performance of the P47D11 is better than the P51...
Which could easily be more specific if someone comes up with the turn performance data of the real aircraft.
I don't know if any version of the Jug can out turn a Mustang, but I haven't seen any proof other than hearsay provided.
-
"Relative turn radius" is very plain English for the turn radii aircraft in *relatIon to one another*. No different or more obtuse than saying that "Bob is taller than Tom who is taller than John." This does not tell you the exact height of each man, but, if true, it does give you an idea of what the ordering will be. A ranking of turn radius size from smallest to largest is what the diagram is trying to convey, unless the author is using the equally plain English words "turning circle" very badly. Now the author may be wrong indeed, but if so he had plenty of company. And such an assertion again begs the question, how did the Allies get it wrong when it came to two of their *own* aircraft? Why did 47 pilots recognize they should avoid turning contests with German aircraft at all costs and then forget this tactical wisdom IF the P-51s they transitioned into were even worse turners? And why on Earth would German pilots suffer the same delusion.
-
I don't know if any version of the Jug can out turn a Mustang, but I haven't seen any proof other than hearsay provided.
In January of 1943, the RAF's AFDU (Air Fighting Development Unit) conducted a trial using the P-47C against the Spitfire IX, Typhoon Ib, P-38F and the Mustang X. Below is the results of the trial against the Mustang X.
P-47C v. Mustang X
31. Short trials were made against the Mustang X between 20,000 and 27,000 feet, at which heights the performances of the two aircraft are most nearly related. The Mustang is designed as a low altitude fighter.
32. Performance – At heights below 27,000 feet the Mustang is considerably faster than the P-47 and at that height it is faster than the P-47 by about 10 m.p.h., accelerating away better and maintaining its lead fairly easily. Above 27,000 feet the Mustang still appears slightly faster but no trials could be carried out in the time available.
33. Climb – The rate of climb of the Mustang at these heights is still better than that of the P-47, but the latter again improved in zoom climbs so that between 20,000 feet and 25,000 feet the Mustang was only 15 seconds ahead of the P-47. Above 27,000 feet the Mustang’s rate of climb is still slightly superior.
34. Dive – Several full throttle dives were carried out at these heights and I each the Mustang accelerated away from the P-47 and remained in front.
35. Manoeuvrability – The rate of roll of the P-47 is considerably better than that of the Mustang, which cannot follow sudden changes in direction. In rate of turn, however the two aircraft are practically identical.
CONCLUSIONS
56. When flown against the Mustang X (Merlin 65) between 20,000 and 27,000 feet, the Mustang was the faster, and had the better rate of climb. In dives the Mustang was able to accelerate away and remain in front. The aircraft are identical in rate of turn but the P-47 superior in roll. (paras.31-35)
P-47 Tactical Trials (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47c-afdu.html)
ack-ack
-
Interesting, but there are a few quibbles.
"31. Short trials were made against the Mustang X between 20,000 and 27,000 feet, at which heights the performances of the two aircraft are most nearly related. The Mustang is designed as a low altitude fighter."
It would be rather bad if the extra weight of the Jug's turbocharger did it no good at high altitudes, now wouldn't it? The AHII turn data was gathered on the deck however.
Also, the Mustang X was *not* the final P-51B, but refers to some test-bed aircraft for the mating of the Merlin engine and earlier Mustang variants. In point of fact, the following may be the actual individual aircraft tested
"AL975/G: First used for performance and handling trials of the Mustang I before conversion on 2 July 1942; flying for the first time on 13 October 1942. The aircraft was identifiable by a bulged lower engine cowling and was also fitted with a four-blade Spitfire Mk IX propeller. In testing, it achieved a top speed of 425 mph (684 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,401 m)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Mustang_Mk.X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Mustang_Mk.X)
If you have some inkling of the weights for the Mustang X and P-47C as tested here, I would love to see them. I did come across the bit as regards the difference between 47Cs and Ds
"The P-47D-1 through P-47D-6, the P-47D-10, and the P-47D-11 successively incorporated changes such as the addition of more engine cooling flaps around the back of the cowl to reduce the engine overheating problems that had been seen in the field. Engines and engine subsystems saw refinement, as did the fuel, oil and hydraulic systems. Additional armor protection was also added for the pilot."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_P-47_Thunderbolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_P-47_Thunderbolt)
This alone would cause some differences in empty weight, possibly bringing the P47C more into the same ballpark with the Mustang as far as wing loading is concerned.
Also of slight interest is this part from the same report you posted:
"30. Manoeuvrability – The P-47C was considered far superior in rate of roll to the Typhoon, and at 20,000 feet in turning circles proved itself slightly better."
Interesting. According to Mosq's turn data however, the Typhoon in AHII with *no flaps* has a sustained turn radius of 714.5, actually beating out the P-47D-11 as tested with *one notch* of flaps, which came in at at 741.6.
This is odd and seems to directly conflict with the trials you have graciously provided, but this may again have to do with the high altitude at which the trials were conducted, whereas Mosq gathered his data on the deck.
-
In January of 1943, the RAF's AFDU (Air Fighting Development Unit) conducted a trial using the P-47C against the Spitfire IX, Typhoon Ib, P-38F and the Mustang X. Below is the results of the trial against the Mustang X.
After all this time? Really? Why didn't you tell BnZ that pages ago and why are you telling me now? I wasn't siding with him, all I said is "I don't know..."
My position has always been that the armed services didn't (from what I can tell) make fine distinctions between the different variants of aircraft in their "tactical" reports. And that pilots aren't any less likely to believe minor myths than the rest of the human race. Which has tragically resulted in poor BnZ's life crisis.
And if this report is any indication, the fact that one Jug was tested and reported as "identical" turn performance, makes it nearly impossible to believe that some version of the Jug couldn't wind up with better turn performance.
-
Muzik, your posts were nothing but hyperbole saying pilots didn't know what they were talking about, except when you think they knew what they were talking about. No logical consistency to be found there. By the standards you have earlier stated, this report could be tossed out as irrelevant, unless we invoke the mysterious "Muzik think it is relevant" standard. :devil
And if this report is any indication, the fact that one Jug was tested and reported as "identical" turn performance, makes it nearly impossible to believe that some version of the Jug couldn't wind up with better turn performance.
It is entirely plausible to me that a Jug light enough to put the wing loading in the same neighborhood could turn with a Mustang, particularly above 20K. But there was weight creep to the Jugs as time went on, as things like additional pilot armor were being added to the P-47Ds.
-
"Turning circle
36. The Tempest is not quite as good."
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-tactical.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-tactical.html)
Not quite as good?
(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1623760_10201109264366187_1503954570_n.jpg)
-
My position has always been that the armed services didn't (from what I can tell) make fine distinctions between the different variants of aircraft in their "tactical" reports.
I don't think they got into that fine of detail, unless that model was the definitive of its type. For example, in the trials it might be P-51D vs. P-47D but the P-47D could be any of the D models, with probably the best model chosen for the trial. Same with the P-51D. Same thing with trials done by the RAF from the reports I've seen. Like this one comparing the Mustang III with the FW 190 and Bf109G, the report doesn't go into which Focke Wulf or Bf109G model.
Mustang III Tactical Trials (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-tactical.html)
And if this report is any indication, the fact that one Jug was tested and reported as "identical" turn performance, makes it nearly impossible to believe that some version of the Jug couldn't wind up with better turn performance.
I'm sure that is something that can be found out using EM diagrams to compare each model of the P-51 and P-47, if there are EM diagrams for each and every model.
ack-ack
-
"Turning circle
36. The Tempest is not quite as good."
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-tactical.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-tactical.html)
Not quite as good?
(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1623760_10201109264366187_1503954570_n.jpg)
The only problem is we don't know what altitude the test between the Mustang III and the Tempest or any of the other planes mentioned in the trial report.
ack-ack
-
"Relative turn radius" is very plain English for the turn radii aircraft in *relatIon to one another*. No different or more obtuse than saying that "Bob is taller than Tom who is taller than John." This does not tell you the exact height of each man, but, if true, it does give you an idea of what the ordering will be. A ranking of turn radius size from smallest to largest is what the diagram is trying to convey, unless the author is using the equally plain English words "turning circle" very badly. Now the author may be wrong indeed, but if so he had plenty of company. And such an assertion again begs the question, how did the Allies get it wrong when it came to two of their *own* aircraft? Why did 47 pilots recognize they should avoid turning contests with German aircraft at all costs and then forget this tactical wisdom IF the P-51s they transitioned into were even worse turners? And why on Earth would German pilots suffer the same delusion.
WHAT IS TURN RADIUS? And no I am not being obtuse, I can tell you what the radius of a standard rate turn is, at a give speed. But the term TURN RADIUS has absolutely no meaning with out putting it in a context.
And hence Relative turn radius is also meaningless with out a context.
What turn radius are you referring to?
Here is the paragraph that goes along with the diagram.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html
Turning Circles
In circumstances where the ability to turn quickly or tightly are infinitely variable, and where two aircraft are nearly the same, such as the Tempest V and Thunderbolt II, a great deal depends on the ability of the pilots. Speed must be taken into account if the results are going to be of any real value.
For example, if a Tempest dives on a Thunderbolt with an overtaking speed of only 50 mph, the Thunderbolt will easily be able to avoid the attack by turning, although at the same speed in the hands of equally competent pilots, the Tempest will outmanoeuvre the Thunderbolt. This advantage, however, is no by any means so apparent at high altitudes, due to the greater engine efficiency of the Thunderbolt above 25,000ft.
Similarly, where low-altitude and high-altitude fighters are compared any advantage shown by the former will be reduced as the high-altitude fighter gets nearer to its best operational altitude. After taking all these considerations into account, the position of the aircraft relative to each other will be seen from the diagram.
Once again, the Spitfire maintains top place, followed by the Mustang, Meteor, Tempest and Thunderbolt. Too much regard to this order should not be paid, particularly by the individual who will angrily recall the occasion when he out-turned a Meteor when flying his Tempest. This sort of thing is inevitable, but we can only repeat that where the circumstances are common to both aircraft, these positions are not far wrong.
First prize to the Spitfire XIV.
Now if you read closely he is saying "Turning Circle" changes with alt. Hence the term "Turning Circle" is referring to sustained turn rate, and is not referring to "Turn Radius" at corner speed, which is what your point was. Hence the diagram is meaningless for your argument.
I have been pushing this point to simply show you can not freely interchange terms like "Turn Radius" and "Turning Circle", both these terms with out a context are very imprecise and really are meaningless unless you have a real definition of the term. And when trying to convince someone like me of the correctness of your idea, terms and precision and back up sources mean something. 2nd you need to understand I really have no bone in this fight. I am interested in anything showing an inaccuracy in our plane modeling. I have no desire to prove ours correct. I have a major desire to correct a model if it is incorrect. Hence statements like "I think it is wrong but no need to change it" are 100% opposite of my attitude.
The more you understand about modeling , the more you understand the complexity of modeling . Simple things like a wings area, lift and drag co's are only starting points to model an aircraft. Each piece of the plane is an airfoil creating lift and drag not just the wing. Then next thing you find is that there are an large number of conflicting data sources on aircraft.
HiTech
-
Then next thing you find is that there are an large number of conflicting data sources on aircraft.
HiTech
Just curious, in cases of aircraft with conflicting data, how do you guys choose which data to use?
ack-ack
-
Just curious, in cases of aircraft with conflicting data, how do you guys choose which data to use?
ack-ack
They toss it up in a vaccum and whichever 1 lands first is chosen! :devil
:salute
-
They toss it up in a vaccum and whichever 1 lands first is chosen! :devil
:salute
I always assumed it would be the data from the heaviest book.
Wiley.
-
Just curious, in cases of aircraft with conflicting data, how do you guys choose which data to use?
ack-ack
There isn't a hard and fast way. Some times other sources back another up. Some times crunching the numbers shows something obviously is wrong with a publication and we have no choice but best estimate base on normal range of values. I've seen original reports on some planes that list a climb rate that would require more then 100% efficiency to accomplish. The reports we tend to trust the most are those that give all surrounding data and methodology of the measurements.
HiTech
-
I do have some notion of how complex calculating flight performance is (The other sim I fool with to any extent is Meyer's X-Plane), and I appreciate the fact that (as far as I can tell) your approach is to *calculate* it, instead of saying "the plane should fly like this" and coding the program to just regurgitate that. To use that approach, and to come up with results that we all agree are very darn close to the actual tested performance numbers across hundreds of planes is a helluva achievement. I understand that you can't go tinkering with the flight model of an entire game every time someone thinks there is a slight problem with a particular plane's performance, and frankly I think your time is be better spent with new planes, the new terrain, and other things that are good for growing the game. That is my attitude.
My beef is with those who think the sim implicitly trumps the experiences of people who actually flew the darn things, and in this particular case those who think the people who raise questions about P-51 turn performance are just biased whiners without intellectual rigor. But if the P-51s turned better, it would make my 190 or Fm2 easier for the most common plane in the game to kill when I'm flying those, so it is not bias on my part either.
Now if you read closely he is saying "Turning Circle" changes with alt. Hence the term "Turning Circle" is referring to sustained turn rate, and is not referring to "Turn Radius" at corner speed, which is what your point was. Hence the diagram is meaningless for your argument.
HiTech
Actually I was thinking this chart referred to sustained turn radius, not corner speed/instantaneous turn. Can't one airplane having an advantage in power at a higher altitude also cause it's sustained turn radius to grow less than another plane which loses more engine performance at altitude?
No, was "turning circle" known to be another way of saying "turn rate" back then? If not, then it seems to me that "turning circle" is the logical choice of words for sustained turn radius, not the other performance parameters. A turn at corner speed can't very well be called a "circle" because it can only be sustained for moments in these planes. And in the case of turn rate, "turn rate" was a term they actually used then, so would it not be more sensible to simply say turn rate, or to say that a given plane turned faster, more quickly, etc?