Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: highflyer on September 10, 2001, 09:49:00 AM
-
Has anyone seen possi's post In the O'club?
Its very interesting. I see much argument about 109 roll rates here.
I wasnt sure as to who to side with on this issue, but after seeing the video, the 109 in AH does not roll like it shows in the clip.
I have recently been trying the IL2 beta (russian lol) and it appears to have more correct charcteristics (sp?)
Any one see the same?
:confused: :eek:
-
There was a reason that post was in the O'club.....you better duck!
-
Ok.
How much fuel was the 109 carrying? What was the speed was it rolling at? What altitude, on the deck of course. Certainly not at 15k or 25k like it would have been in the war eh? Was it carrying wartome guns, ammo load and REAL wartime equipment.
So, after watching that movie, please tell us idiots just what is the roll rate of the 109 was that movie? In 'Degrees per second' please.
Westy
-
lol <--Ducking :D
Seriously though, If the video shows how the reported russian data aka, IL2 109 handles, and it is by far a closer match to than what is seen here in AH, than this entire debate about Roll rates should be resolved.
Yes?
I think that issues that can be proven by simply looking for ourselves, instead of arguing about what such and such a number shows on such and such a graph.
Anyone agree that a picture is worth a 1000 words?
hehe how about hundreds of pictures played back at 30fps ;)
anyway just my thoughts. :cool:
-
I watched the video, I honestly was not to impressed with it. The only manuever you can really see is the barrel roll there at the beginning, and I can make the 109 in Aces High do that no problem. You guys saying the 109 should roll like a 190 or something?
-
"Anyone agree that a picture is worth a 1000 words?"
In most cases definately. However I've yet seen one by you or Possi to back up the specs or performance you seem to think that film shows.
And this has nothing to do with AH or IL2 either really. It's all to do with eronious presumptions of a few who have figured out that they know what the capabilities of an unarmed, low fuel load, rebuilt 55 year old plane is after watching a 15 second mpeg.
Westy
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
The only thing that's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt here is that the IL-2 cheerleaders have absolutely no idea of the capabilities of planes in AH beyond some rudimentary conception that they "aren't right." The film posted in the O'Club demonstrates nothing that I am incapable of doing with AH's Bf109G-2.
-- Todd/DMF
-
uhmmm westy carrying wartime equipment will have very little bearing on roll performance. what wartime equipment would a non gondola equipped 109 be carrying in the wings.
nevertheless, the roll rate of that 109 can be replicated at modeerate speeds in ah. noone argues that the 109 shouldnt have good control at moderate speeds. its the 350+ stuff that theres some contention about.
-
We got spirit, so let's hear it!
S-P
I-R
I-T
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay OLEG!
(http://www.raf303.org/funked/ag00290_.gif)
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
All I am saying is that the 109 in IL2 from what I have seen rolls as quick as the 109 in the video compared to the one in AH.
Perhaps this is all perspective, But I cannot argue that what I see the 109 doing in this video, pretty much matches IL2's 109 characteristics.
The 109 in AH just seems sluggish or something in effect. Similar to WB. Maybe it is all perspective.
:confused:
-
Uh, I've never gotten a chance to fly a 109 before ... I like to know how you can compair.. I've seen racing on tv.. that doesn't mean I can compair it to GT3. It's just too different...
sorry
Roo2104
-
Originally posted by highflyer:
The 109 in AH just seems sluggish or something in effect. Similar to WB. Maybe it is all perspective.
Download the film I posted in the O'Club thread about this. Watch it in AH. The timing of the rolls I make in the AH film closely match the timing of the rolls in the real film.
All this arguing about NACA vs. this or that misses the very simple point that, in fact, AH does accurately model the 109G-2's ability to perform this kind of manuever. I therefore fail to see what all this fuss is about.
-- Todd/DMF
-
Seriously though, If the video shows how the reported russian data aka, IL2 109 handles, and it is by far a closer match to than what is seen here in AH, than this entire debate about Roll rates should be resolved.
The video shows a 109 at an airshow being filmed by a Brit.
The fact that the video is accelerated and finishes about 2/3 the way through the movie speaks volumes.
Anyone agree that a picture is worth a 1000 words?
I agree that this film clip is all most "Il-2's 109 FM is accurate" supporters have to hold on too. And to call it weak is an understatement.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
The fact that the video is accelerated and finishes about 2/3 the way through the movie speaks volumes.
AKDejaVu
So AkDjV you say that vid-clip is "Doctored" to give 109 a faster rollrate than it really had in that airshow?
-
Originally posted by Staga:
So AkDjV you say that vid-clip is "Doctored" to give 109 a faster rollrate than it really had in that airshow?
He's implying that the film isn't running at the normal rate.
Anything else, you all implied he said.
-SW
-
The video shows a 109 performing a roll with heavy use of rudder and some elevator input.
It proves absolutely nothing except the bunch of IL2 cheerleaders have no idea what they're looking at.
-
If you were born in the 1920's, early preferable, and strapped a 109 on and went out and did combat you would know how it handled. Anything else is pure speculation.
(http://home.att.net/~lmluper/markatsig.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
Who has few million bucks? let's rebuilt 109 completely with each part matching original kind ....
oh but then they would claim that its not made in WWII...
-
Yay for Luper.
It's all theories. HT has a theory on how the 109 should handle, so does Oleg. Right now I'm with Oleg.
-
DMF,
I at least read your post :D
It seems the Oleg cheerleaders want to ignore the fact that the G2 here is the same as the one in the film.
S!
Rocket
-
Originally posted by fscott:
Yay for Luper.
It's all theories. HT has a theory on how the 109 should handle, so does Oleg. Right now I'm with Oleg.
fscott only returns to cheerlead for other games. :rolleyes:
$15 a month not cheap enough for ya?
go back to the WWIIOL or IL2 boards
-
What do you want me to say? How can get to be the apple of your eye again moosie?
I dare you to once go find something I said that was derogatory or even remotely bashing towards AH.
I love AH! I'm just worn out on it. 8 months straight was too long.
I still play WW2OL, and I love it. It's the best game around. Combined arms makes it great.
I play IL-2 now too. I'm loving the flight models because they are so smooth. The combat is great.
Why do I have to have undying faith and love for only one game?
AH rules.
IL-2 rules.
WW2OL rules.
Feel better?
-
S!
I know why FScott likes Oleg's game:
He likes flying an uber plane.
I was on the IL-2 servers tonite and fought FScott many times. He was in a 109G2, I was in a P-39.
The P-39 is a real handful in the Demo version, on the other hand the G2 is incredibly maneuverable. No real comparison.
Every time he would shoot someone down, (myself included) he would announce his current kill number with obvious pride.
I suggested he try out a P-39 and see how he did with, he refused, calling the P-39 a 'POS'. (I assume he meant 'Piece of Sh*t')
When I suggested the current IL-2 FM might be a little off, and the P-39 might be a little underrated, he was quick to disagree again calling the P-39 a 'POS'.
He had no idea that the #2 and #3 ranked Soviet Aces flew P-39's (Pokryshin had 59 kills)
He insisted the G2 should outturn the P-39. (as it does in IL-2)
So for his edification here is a some info from a British Air Fighting Developement Unit test of a P-39C. (British called it a P-400. It was an earlier and poorer performing model than the P-39 in IL-2)
>>>>>>>>>
The Air Fighting Development Unit received a British Airacobra I on July 30. They subjected it to tests and completed their report on September 22. They found the aircraft to be pleasant to fly and easy to takeoff and land. Controls were well balanced and although heavier than those of the Spitfire at normal speeds, did not increase appreciably in weight at high speeds as they did in the Spitfire. It was difficult to hold the aircraft in a dive at high speeds unless the aircraft was trimmed nose-heavy. During a turn, the Airacobra would give ample warning of a high-speed stall by severe vibration of the whole airframe. Handling in formation and formation attacks was good, although deceleration was poor because of the plane's aerodynamic cleanliness. Take-offs and landings in close formation were not considered safe, since there was considerable difficulty in bringing the aircraft back to its original path after a swing.
The Airacobra I was powered by an Allison V-1710-E4 twelve-cylinder V in-line engine rated at 1150 hp for takeoff. Weights were 5462 pounds empty and 7845 pounds normal gross. Maximum speeds were 326 mph at 6000 feet, 343 mph at 10,000 feet, 355 mph at 13, 000 feet, 341 mph at 20,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2040 feet per minute. With an internal fuel capacity of 100 Imp gal the Airacobra had an endurance of 1 hour 20 minutes at maximum continuous cruising speed at 6000 feet, 1 hour 5 minutes at 12,000 feet, and 1 hour 35 minutes at 20,000 feet. The true airspeeds at these altitudes were 287 mph, 327 mph, and 308 mph, respectively. Under most economical cruise conditions, the endurance increased to 3 hours 20 minutes, the relevant speeds being 183 mph at 6000 feet, 217 mph at 12,000 feet, and 215 mph at 20,000 feet. Under maximum continuous climb conditions, it took 15 minutes to reach 20,000 feet. The operational ceiling was considered to be about 24,000 feet, although there was a marked decrease in performance above 20,000 feet. At the Airacobra's rated altitude of 13,000 feet, it was 18 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. However, the speed fell off rapidly above that height, and the two planes were almost exactly matched at 15,000 feet. At 20,000 feet, the Spitfire VB was 35 mph faster and at 24,000 feet it was 55 mph faster. The ground run of the Airacobra during takeoff was 2250 feet, as compared with 1470 feet for the Hurrican II and 1590 feet for the Spitfire V.
The AFDU also did some comparative dog-fighting tests with the Airacobra against a Spitfire VB and a captured Messerschmitt BF 109E. The Airacobra and the Bf 109E carried out mock dog-fighting at 6000 feet and 15,000 feet. The Bf 109E had a height advantage of 1000 feet in each case. The Bf 109, using the normal German fighter tactics of diving and zooming, could usually only get in a fleeting shot. The Bf 109 could not compete with the Airacobra in a turn, and if the Bf 109 were behind the Airacobra at the start, the latter could usually shake him off and get in a burst before two complete turns were completed. If the Bf 109 were to dive on the Airacobra from above and continue the dive down to ground level after a short burst of fire, it was found that the Airacobra could follow and catch up to the Bf 109 after a dive of over 4000 feet. When fighting the Bf 109E below 20,000 feet, the Airacobra was superior on the same level and in a dive.
A similar trial was carried out against a Spitfire V. Although the Airacobra was faster than the Spitfire up to 15,000 feet, it was outclimbed and out-turned by the Spitfire. Unless it had a height advantage, the Airacobra could not compete with the Spitfire. If on the same level or below, at heights up to about 15,000 feet, the Airacobra would have to rely on its superior level and diving speeds and its ability to take negative "G" without the engine cutting out. Above 15,000 feet, the Airacobra lost its advantage in level speed.
The Airacobra was considered to be very suitable for low altitude operations because of the excellent view and controllability, and it was fully maneuverable at speeds above 160 mph. It was not difficult to fly at night, but the exhaust flames could be seen by another aircraft flying three miles to the rear. The flash from the nose guns was blinding, and could cause the pilot to lose not only his target but also his night vision. Firing of the nose guns caused the buildup of carbon monoxide contamination in the cockpit, and this could reach a lethal level very quickly. The guns were fairly inaccessible, and maintenance was troublesome.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Notice the comparison between the 109E and P-39C. The 109E had much lower wing loading than the 109G2 and a better turn circle. Yet the P-39C is able to outmaneuver it. The Soviet models of the P-39 were lighter than the British, since much of the armour was removed.
I'm not even going to get into the 109's roll rate at high speed in this thread. More on that later.
All I can say to the bozo's who are pointing to that pathetic video as proof is 'Get some facts'.
-
S!
By the way, that AFDU test was done in 1941.