Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: F4UDOA on June 26, 2000, 11:07:00 AM
-
Did some offline testing on straight ahead stall speeds. 100%fuel ammo sealevel no Flaps
FW190A-5 1G stall=100mphTAS sealevel
F4U-1D 1G stall=100mphTAS sea level
Using those stall numbers calculate the max CL
Cl = Lift * 391 / (V^2 * Area)
FW190A5 weight 8690Lbs wingarea 197sq ft
max Cl=1.72
F4U-1D weight 12000lbs wing area 314sqft
Max Cl=1.49 <==matches NACA documentation for Max Cl no Flaps.
Isn't 1.72 high for a WW2 fighter or anyplane for that matter without flaps?
If the stall speed is corrected to 110mph then the Max Cl drops to 1.42 which corresponds to the Max Cl data I have.
Also based on that correct the 3G stalls speeds to be
F4U-1D=173MPH
FW190A5=190MPH
Does this sound right?? Can anyone confirm my testing?
Thanx F4UDOA
-
This is a bit off topic, but why are these tests done with 100% fuel? Is it assumed that all testing was (is) done with 100% fuel?
Just wondering.....
popeye
-
I think you could be right. 110 mph sounds more reasonable. Airfoil data shows the following
NACA 23015 - 1.64 @ 17 deg (root)
NACA 23009 - 1.16 @ 12 deg (tip)
Average is somewhere around 1.4
Compare the a8 to the a5 and see what you get?
-
Yes, all test were done 100%fuel no flaps at sea level in TAS(true air speed).
I guess I'am looking for somone to perform the same offline test to confirm or give me some data to contradict my calcs.
Thanx
F4UDOA
-
YES!!
WOOHOO, I'm right!!
Anyway thanks for checking Wells. Have you done any testing offline to verify 1G and 3G stalls?
Thanks again
F4UDOA
Wells, I have some more questions for you on accelleration. Will email you offline.
-
I got 104 mph for the 190a5
109 mph for P-51 and P-38
107 mph for P-47
Those were in level flight with just enough power to maintain altitude (about 30")
Power off stall for a P-51 at 10000 lbs is 106 mph by the manual, so it could be tad high in the sim. The P-47 is 115 mph 'clean' so it could be a bit low.
-
Wells,
Used your numbers to calculate accelleration between Fw190A-5 and F4U-1D. They are a virtual dead heat. FYI if you are just joining this conversation these numbers are real world physics model, not AH based.
(thrust-total drag)/mass=acceleration in m/s/s
FW-190A-5 weight =8535lbs(3875KG)
49 meters per second=110Mph and also is TAS 1g stall for 190A-5
49(110mph) accelleration =2.78Meters per Sec.
60(134mph) acclleration = 2.81MPS
80(179MPH) accelleration =2.30MPS
100(234MPH) accelleration=1.66MPS
120(268MPH) accelleration=1.02MPS
140(313MPH) accelleration=.38MPS
F4U-1D weight =12,000Lbs(5455Kg)
45Meters per sec is the TAS 1G stall for the -1D
45(100mph) accelleration =2.78meters per sec
60(134MPH) accelleration =2.80MPS
80(178MPH) accelleration=2.30MPS
100(234MPH) accelleration=1.71MPS
120(268MPH) accelleration=1.14MPS
140(313MPH) accelleration=.58MPS
The point here being that the accelleration between the F4U-1D and Fw190A-5 should be identical up until high speed were the F4U should gain by a slight margin. This corresponds exactly to the 1944 test results.
Wells, Pyro, Hitech,
If I am wrong please let me know. I have been pointing in this direction since well before the release of the A5. This just makes it stand out a little more. The thrust and drag numbers came from Wells(thanks again Wells). If your data is different than mine let me know. Also Wells your sustained turn for the F4U is 180MPH. In the Game it is somewhere aroung 130MPH. I think the accelleration would change that as well.
Thanx
F4UDOA
-
How did you calculate total drag and thrust?
-
Funked,
I was hoping you would reply. I didn't.
Wells did. I asked him about climb so he did two charts showing thrust, induced drag, Zero lift Drag and Total drag at various speeds. I took the calc for accelleration and their it is. I would post Wells graphs on my web page but they are his and I don't want to take credit. If he doesn't want to post them and doesn't mind I'll put them up.
I can email them to you in the mean time.
Are you surprised? It matches the flight test data right on.
Later F4UDOA
-
Thanks to all for this interesting thread.
IMHO, this is the way the "discussions" about the game should go. So far, what I'm seeing is an attempt to identify a perceived problem and provide some hard numbers supporting a position.
I'm NOT saying any of the stuff is right. I'm just saying I REALLY prefer to see things done in this manner. No acrimony, no finger pointing...just research, testing, calculating and team work to see "what's up".
This kind of discussion HAS to be more helpful to HTC than the unsubstantiated "did not..did so" approaches most threads end up using.
Thanks to all again.
-
Looks good to me DOA - exactly what I would expect. The -1D and A-5 have about the same power/weight ratio, and the -1D is a hair faster in top speed, so I would expect a close race until the very end where the -1D pulls away.
-
Thanks Toad,
Trying to keep focused on issues and not the personalities.
Funked,
Wells did allot of work on those charts. Just doing the accelleration made my eyes bleed. Guess that's why I am not an engineer.
Do you think this corresponds to the game accurately. I think the accelleration may be the piece of the F4U puzzle that cures the sluggish characteristics of the -1D FM including sustained turning abilty.
Thanx
F4UDOA
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
DOA,
The sustained turn speeds in AH seem really low to me. I'm sure they would be a tad lower than the charts with the drag being slightly higher at the higher angles of attack, but to go from 180 to 130 mph implies nearly double the overall drag. Perhaps the thrust values are lower in the sim as well, I don't know.
-
Wells,
So what do I do now that I think I found a flaw in the FM? I guess I'll try doing the
P-51D numbers too. Or I'll just wait for the FM fairy to come along and fix everything?
Have you done any offline testing to show the accelleration of the F4U and Fw190A5. I know Funked has, I have to find it. But I know it is not close to the calculated results. My test are done by counting so I need more accurate data. Am I out of line thinking that this is a problem that should be fixed?
Later
F4UDOA
-
I think you'll find it very difficult to prove as a flaw. You'll have to find some hard evidence to disprove the manual and AHT figures for climb rate. What I've done offline can be found here..
Aces High Climb Tests (http://www.iaw.com/~general6/ah_climb.htm)
-
DOA, I have been at the WarBirds Con for a week and have yet to play AH 1.03 online or do any flight testing.
Actually that's not true, I did a sea level check of the Fw 190A-5 and found that the maximum speed is appropriately lower than the A-8.
Anyways I'll let you know when I get bored enough to test things again. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I did some calculations too.
First i got 100mph stall speed for the f4u-1c and 105mph for the A5.
With
A5:
A=18,9m^2
v=47m/s
P=1250kw
Fu41-c
A=28,8m^2
v=44,5m/s
P=1655kw
and g=9,81 and density=1,225 i got
camax 190: 1,51
camax f4u: 1,53
no big difference imo
I then did some calculation for acceleration, with Propforce = 0.8*Power/speed and Drag = (cw0+Kca^2)*wingarea*density/2*speed*speed
the result comparing 190A5 and F4u-1c from my calculation is:
(http://www.stud.mw.tum.de/~sl1/acc.gif)
I know that this is not the same like in AH, but i used for both AC the same method so WHEN i did a mistake i did it for both and no one should get a significant advantage.
some notes:
i got topspeed (measured with autospeed) near the ground for the F4u-1c of 359MPH. With a wingarea of 28.8m^2 this is a cd0 of ~0,0175. For the A5 i got cd0 ~0,0236
So HOW can cd0 for the f4u be SO much lower? it doesnīt have a laminar wing!
The problem of the F4U is imo the high factor K for the induced drag. I got earlier ~0,12 for the fw190 and ~0,19 for the fu4. In combination with a very low cd0 the point of lowest drag should be at higher speed than for the fw190. Letīs see
niklas
[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 06-27-2000).]
[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 06-27-2000).]
[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 06-27-2000).]
[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 06-27-2000).]
-
Niklas,
What calculation did you use to get your Clmax? I am a newbee to physics arena so please let me know what you did so I can check it out with other A/C. I don't understand why our accelleration charts are different at low speed. What did you use for Cdi and Cdo and thrust at 50MPS. Sorry about the stupid questions. Trying to reverse engineer everything and I am new to this.
Funked,
I'm not contesting the max speeds of any of the AH plane set. Just the accelleration. What I have tested so far in AH shows the
A-5 accellerating rapidly away from the F4U. I believe based on my previous accelleration curve that they should be about equal. Also I tested the stall of the A5 and it seems to depart at 100mphtas. Niklas is getting 105mph so I'm not sure if he is measuring the stall buzzer or the departure. I need to see what calc Niklas used for ClMax to verify since he got a different result.
At the top of the post I was getting 1.72 for the Fw-190 which is to high for no flaps. Like I said I'm a newbee to this so if I am missing something let me know. But I am focusing on accelleration, Clmax and sustained turn speed.
Wells,
Your chart is based on the AH FM right? It shows the Max Climb of the F4U being 2535FPM.
Isn't that to low based on your own drag thrust calc? The AH charts even show the Max climb being almost 3200FPM 100%fuel WEP. I'm confused as to what you think is accurate.
Thanx
F4UDOA
-
Your chart is based on the AH FM right? It shows the Max Climb of the F4U
being 2535FPM.
Isn't that to low based on your own drag thrust calc? The AH charts even
show the Max climb being almost 3200FPM 100%fuel WEP. I'm confused as
to what you think is accurate.
Yes, I did some testing in AH. Check AHT and see what the MIL climb rate is at 12000 lbs. It's just a hair over 2500 fpm, so the AH model would seem to match that data. The calcs I sent you were for WEP, not MIL power. I'd like to believe that the F4u-1 could climb better than 2500 fpm, but as I said before, proving it could be very difficult. As Pyro mentioned, compare to the F4u-4, basically the same airframe and notice the climb rate difference, 800 fpm (a 30% increase) with only 100 extra HP (5% increase) and 400 more pounds of weight (3% heavier). What explains that? It could partly be the propeller or it could partly be that the higher induced drag of the -4 moves the best climb speed up the scale a bit.
-
First i used metric units. Iīm simply used to them (ca=cl, cw=cd) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
I made a little mistake, and put up a new pic.I added some other planes, too, have a look at the picture again
And something really important: Every formula i used, you used and everyone here used is so simple that itīs usually not enough to describe the characteristic of a real ac. A guy of a chair for flight mechanics told me that the mistake that you have with those simple formulas are often bigger than the differences between the ac.
I calculated with a constant prop effectivity from 100-400mph. I did not take into consideration that your elevator reduce total lift, and that this changes when you go faster. Drag from control surfaces, interferences between wing and airframe... there are so many variables
ok now to your question. I simply said Lift=weight*earth_acceleration or L=m*g
air density near the ground (i did all my tests near f8, sometimes i have the impression people do flight tests from fields which are in 1000-5000ft) is 1,225kg/m^3, g=8,81m/s^2
i calculated v[m/s]=v[mph]*1,61/3,6
m*9,81=camax*1,225/2 * A * v_min^2
I didnīt had a look at departure, i tried to hold the plane in the air.
BTW, i have an excellent table for drag coefficients for the 190A8, A9, D9, D12, TA152-C1 , 152 E1, 152H1. According to this table the fw190A8 had a camax of 1,59, like the other ones except 152H with camax of 1,7.
The 190 had a NACA230 airfoil btw, same like the F4u (though different in itīs thickness etc.)
In Nacareport829 figure 14 and 15 are the camax values for the corsairs, in service condition ~1,25-1,3
i donīt know why our acc. charts are different because i donīt know your method. I only can see at your calculation that acc for 60m/s is higher than for 50m/s (??).
The problem is that you donīt know the effect of the control surfaces. In a slow flight you must pull a lot >> much "negativ lift". And you donīt know the exact K value for the calcultaion of the induced drag. From earlier glide test i calculated for myself some K values, but they are all very high compared to 1/pi*AR. Esspecially for small ac where you need theoretically bigger surfaces (neg. lift) to hold the plan stable, so maybe that makes the difference. The answer knows only HTC. But how i said, you can do many little calculation, in best case you come close to AH values. And i donīt think theyīre (mine included) good enough to demand some improvements.
For the drag calculation i used
cw=cw0+Kca^2
cw0 from maxspeed
K from the glide tests (unfortunality not possible anymore because of prop drag (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) )
ca like camax for every speed.
I donīt know exactly how to handle propeff. so i simple said:
Trust=0.8* Pmax(nominal)/v
Facc=Trust-Drag
acc=Facc/m
climb=acc*v/9,81
Thatīs it. If you want my excelsheet mail me
Corresponding climbrates would be for my calc:
(http://www.stud.mw.tum.de/~sl1/acc2.gif)
niklas
-
Niklas;
Off topic, sorry...
What program did you use to convert that Excel chart to a gif file?
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
"You mess with the Bull, you get the horn."
Minotaur
-
mino, i copy it with copy-paste into the windows-paint-programm. That works fine (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by niklas:
mino, i copy it with copy-paste into the windows-paint-programm. That works fine (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<Sigh>
Sometimes the easiest ways are the hardest to discover.
LOL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Thanks!
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
"You mess with the Bull, you get the horn."
Minotaur
-
Handy little program to make batch conversions, compress photos, resize, make thumbnails pics of photos etc etc....
Irfan View
http://stud1.tuwien.ac.at/~e9227474/ (http://stud1.tuwien.ac.at/~e9227474/)
btw: freeware (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I've changed some excel-charts to transparent .gifs with HyperSnap
[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 06-29-2000).]
-
Gentlemen. There are things pyro and I always look at to see if we can do better at accuracy in the flight modeling.
As it stands today we are very confident that we hit climb rates,top speeds and accelerations. Plane acceleration is realy proportion to sustained climb rate for a plane at any given speed. i.e. thrust - total drag = acceleration and accel = climb rate given the mass of a plane dosn't change.
Any argument on this has to be that you disagree with our published charts, because we do hit those numbers.
Where we might have some more work to do is instantainous, and sustained turns. Since this discusion first began ive been wondering what factor could be off or 2. what we are not modeling correctly that could effect these 2 specific numbers. Both numbers especialy sustained turn rates is generaly not availible on most WWII aircraft or is given totaly with out any other background information needed like the test wieght.
We are continuing to look into the matter and have some idea's and test we might run to see if a change to a few items wil enhance the sustained turn rate accuracy Write now I feel it could be off but realy havn't seen any real evidence that it is.
On a side note please do not expect us to publish exactly how we model things. It realy is not to our benifit to debate or Inform people on modeling techniques that we have come up with over the years just to satisfy a players curosity.
HiTech
-
Hitech,
I think you are missing my point. I have two goals in my line of questioning. One is two educate myself on aerodynamics and the Physics behind it. And two, the most obvious goal is two find out if the AH FM of the F4U-1D is correct. And from speaking to some of the more educated people on the message board I have a logical reason to belive what I have read repeatedly from multiple sources. Namely flight test reports involving the F4U-1 vrs the P-51B, F6F-3/5, FW190-A5 and A6M-2/5 Zero in which the only aircraft with a climb advantage over the F4U was the FW-190A5 and only at speeds above 150MPH and Below 250MPH. And none of the previous A/C could out accellerate it in these flight test. Apparently the Hitech creations has decided to go with a 100% Physics based flight model which is your choice. So I have decided to ask the people that know the most about aredynamics to tell me why the F4U-1D has the worst FM in AH with the possible exception of the Typhoon.
And there is some question as to weather all factors have been considered. Propeller efficiency, Cowl flaps open during climb closed during level flight accelleration, addition weight and drag from bomb racks and rocket launch rails that would not be present in a fighter configuration, lift coefficient of a 314sq ft wing affecting turn rate and radius. So basically I may not have the answers right now but at least I am finding the right questions. When I get the answers I will be sure to let you know. If the -1C cannons can be fixed for the LW boy's the FM can be fixed for a few American patriots. After all, it is the 4th of July weekend (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
F4UDOA
-
even tho i'm (and not everybody) flying the F4U is an american patriot (jeeeezz) any improvements to the acceleration would be appreciated
Keep going F4UDOA
-
yeah what Duckwing said! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
The F4U alreadu has the best K/D in the arena. Why don't you just live with the great airplane you have.
-
Zig I fly the 1D exclusively... needlesss to say more right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Redwing <S> I respect 1d drivers very much (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I think the f4u series as we have it now is accurately modeled, but give us the F4u-4! Instead of whining about the f4u-1 which i believe is correct, whine for the f4u-4, which will whoop some ace (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
DOA there was a test of an A6M5 vs. F4U-1D at NAS Patuxent River which determined that climb below 10,000 feet, rate of roll under 230 mph, and initial dive acceleration were identical. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Zigrat,
I hope you check this post again because you made a good point. Why fix the plane in AH because it already has the best K/D ratio in the plane set. Because the -1C it has four of the best cannons in the game and has a reasonable flight model. The models that should be reprented in the game is a true -1A and a late model -4. There were 1700 -4's delivered during wartime and they saw plenty of combat. I'm guessing more -4's were built than C202 and C205's during the war. The -1D however is a much bigger pig. I am surprised that more people don't notice it but the -1C is based on a different model F4U(The -1A) than the -1D so it performs differently. At military power the -1D climbs about 200FPM slower and handles more sluggishly at low speed. The -1D also had extra weight in bomb racks and hard points that could be mounted for additional ordinance so it brought the weight up approx 800lbs. I believe these bomb racks and much of the weight could be removed for fighter operations but not in AH. In anycase I believe that the FM for both A/C is less than a historical represention and I am trying to prove it without the He said she said bull. I will do it with numbers and data. Currently the only reasons the -1C is successfull is the best cannons (duh) and good high speed handling. The -1D however which was considered in the report of joint fighter conferance 1944 to be the equal of the P-51D below 25K is absolutely pathetic in the K/D ratio. It does not represent the F4U in any historic sense.
Thanx
F4UDOA
-
Funked,
Your exactly right. The F4U-1D climbed identically to the A6M-5 Zero below 10k. If it climbed like that in AH I would shut my big smelly hole and play the game. But it climbs much slower initially and sustained to 10K. I didn't mean to say that it climbed better below 10K. Initial for the Zero in AH is 3400FPM then sustaining over 3000fpm until well beyond 10K where the F4U was superior. If this were the case since climb and accelleration are tied together it would accellerate at an increased rate as well. I just want the plane that was flown in those test. Not an uberplane just one that could climb with a Zero to 10K. I am also aware that there best climb speeds varied but max rate was the same.
Also a quick aside. Shouldn't the cockpit F4U be modeled with a rear view mirror??
Thanx Again
F4UDOA
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 06-30-2000).]
-
I hear ya DOA.
About mirrors, I can tell you from experience with driving games that have mirrors, that they are framerate hogs. But yeah a lot of pictures of Spits, Jugs, Hogs show mirrors.
-
Well, I'm gonna put my money where my mouth is (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) for the rest of the tour (err today? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) i'll fly the f4u-1d exclusively. We will see how I do in it.
I just argue this because I am scared enough of pilots like kbman and torque as it is now in their big blue monster, if it gets any better ill get cremated.
-
F4UDOA,
Are you sure the -1C was based on the -1A? I know AHT says it was, but do you have any other source?
ra
-
RA,
Funny you should ask. I just went looking at another source and I read an interesting little piece of info. From Warbird History motor books international on the -1C.
"From the outside the F4U-1C appeared to differ from earlier Corsairs by only the wing cannon installation. But Vought took the opportunity to incorperate a number of major internal changes. To reduce the weight of the F4U-1C, Vought requested the BuAer permission to delete the wing bombracks and all provisions for towing ariel targets."
It also states that "The aircraft remained the same as the F4U-1 with the exception of a clear bubble canopy".
Also notice the difference in hard point slection in the AH bird. Don't know if they are accurate but at least they are different.
Thanx
F4UDOA
-
Hi Zig!,
Just wanted to say that I'm truly honored to be in the same class as Torque in your feared Hog pilots list, even if I don't deserve it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) He could paste me any day of the week, and does regularly. I think that the 1-D challenge is interesting and may try it as well. Cya up!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
One point in response to F4UDOA, whose dedication to the Hog I certainly appreciate,
although you may disagree with the results, I dont think HT misses much (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Diplomacy and respect work wonders. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) And I think discussions like this can only make the game better when conducted with both elements held in high standing. Just my $.02...
Keep up the good work!!!
kbman
-
F4UDOA,
'Deleting wing bombracks' implies that the -1C was not derived from the -1A, which had no wing bombracks, just 1 centerline hardpoint.
Should I read this quote as implying that the -1C was just a 4-cannon -1D with no ability to carry ord, not even drop tanks?
ra
OK, I found a Vought site which shows pretty clearly that the -1C was a -1D with 4x20mm cannons: http://www.vought.com/photos/data/f4u-1c.htm (http://www.vought.com/photos/data/f4u-1c.htm)
Pyro had it right.
ra
[This message has been edited by ra (edited 06-30-2000).]
-
KBMAN,
You my neighbor buddy. I'm from philly but living in Cherry Hill NJ. I try to keep it straight forward but sometimes it makes me come off wrong. Trying to stay out of flame wars or sounding to much like a baby. Sometimes I still think I do though.
Zigrat,
You would do well in a Brewster Buffalo. The high speed attack qualities of the F4U-1D in AH will do you well. Where the trouble starts is anybody with an E or alt advantage.
Their is simply no ability to reverse without bleeding so much E as to make you a big fat target. Then the lack of accelleration and climb make recovery to an offensive position very difficult. On offense you will find yourself chasing slower A/C forever to makeup ground then losing it again on any manuevering. You a very good pilot so I will respect what ever you find.
RA,
Interesting sight. Still not sure if the -1C had the same hardpoint config as the -1D though. I have seen it both way's. I do believe the AH version has the correct config on this one. But it is closer to a -1A than -1D in number of hardpoints. By the way the same link shows pictures of the
F4U-4B in service dated 1944 with 4 20mil cannons sticking out of the wings on a carrier. Wasn't this a big contraversy in Warbirds weather or not this was a WW2 aircraft or not? I guess that's the proof positive huh.
Later
F4UDOA
-
Zigrat:
I think F4UDOA said it all, the 1D is a great plane as long as you have E or alt advantage, when your enemy has you'd better run.
Especially avoid 190s... their roll rate is quite similar (or even better, I never tested it) to yours so they can easily compensate the only really good defensive move of the 1D, the defensive spiral followed by a quick pullout.
When facing 190s the only thing you can do is try to make em overshoot... its dangerous (especially when guys like RAM are flying) plus it'll spoil your E, but I think its the only way to clear your 6.
I'm in no way good in the Hog though, so I might be absolutely wrong (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Redwing
Commanding Officer
Red Dragons Aces High Division
www.reddragons.de (http://www.reddragons.de/aceshigh)
(http://www.reddragons.de/aceshigh/stuff/sig.gif)
[This message has been edited by RDRedwing (edited 07-01-2000).]
-
Take the C and the D and give them to the salvation army, the Hogs are inferior to every other countries fighters in here no matter how old, dated, underpowered or poor the designs actualy were.
I can't see how they ever survived long enough to die cobbing the throttle on a bolster and torque flipping into the big blue, hell they never would have come back to land.
Every euro fighter in here eats them UP, the soviets couldn't even produce their own ball bearings yet heaven help you if one of their fighters is on your six, and 205's??? come on, the navy got ripped off by Chance Voughts finest fueselage with the injected R2800 swinging a 13 foot variable pitch prop, I say take the SUPER cannons and give us some torque to go with our torque effects.
Thankfully the old P47 spanks it too and not just in top speed, I'll die in it from now on I guess.
Some of you veteran flamers can let me know if I did this one right.
well she jumped into bed and she covered up her head and I followed in close behind her,
I lifted up the sheets and I smelled of her feets and I saw her sausage grinder.
(insert stupid smiley face here)
-
i don`t quite understand what you were trying to say Pappy LOL
ahh and btw .. can the techies please take that Thread back over it`s starting to get off topic .. i rather see one of those nice digramms to discuss about than .. well the above (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
DW6
-
Hey maybe you don't have to understand, LOL
after all I didn't write it to keep critics busy I wrote it to say the Hogs are porked LOL hehehe and all that crap
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
What calculation did you use to get your Clmax?
Maybe I've just got a perverted mind, but I got a great laugh out of that one (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Duma,
You are a sick puppy, but I like the way you think. The fact is your CL won't max unless you play with your slide rule too much.
Later
F4UDOA
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 07-03-2000).]
-
Actually.... if you just remove all the U.S. fighters from the set and add about 10% to the Soviet planes turn rate... The sim wouldn't be all that far off.
lazs
-
I think the top 2 f4u4b photos are mislabeled DOA. The insignia are the 1947 ones (the year adopted). The other 2 photos are 6 machine gunned equiped birds.
------------------
Dnil
JG-2
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)