Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BigCrate on April 05, 2002, 11:56:12 PM
-
Ok before I ask this ? would like to say this. I'm not trying to start fires or to really piss anyone off...
Ok my ? is
Is HTC biased against P-38s??? Was talking with a few people (not gonna name names) the other day about the P-38.
And we were saying that HTC doesn't really care about the P-38.
Thats why these only one and certain things are missed modeled .
And any info we have stated about the P-38 has been dismissed.
So s HTC biased against the P-38??
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
No.. they are only biased against LW planes.
AKDejaVu
-
No.. they are only biased against IJN planes. ;)
-
Was that a horse? :rolleyes:
-
No.. they are only biased against Zimbabwean planes. :P
-
Originally posted by BigCrate
Was talking with a few people (not gonna name names) the other day about the P-38.
Was any of the "people" from HTC or is just 2nd and 3rd hand information?
-
Nobody from HTC.. Just some people from around the MA.. One even got a WW2 airplane expert to email HTC about P-38 and em a few things about the P-38 but it fell to deaf hears. I don't remember the name of the guy. I posted some stuff about the P-38 with creditable soucres but that also fell to deaf hears. But people rarely listen to me. Widwing has said that certain things were wrong but that also fell to deaf hears. All these people were just trying to help and to improve the P-38 but no one was listening.
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
I tend to agree Big.
I love the 38 and I will always fly it as one of my main rides but it would be nice to see some of the other types in the MA. Plus I would like to have Dive Brakes and not the pretty light we have now.
Rush
-
?!?!
What's wrong with you people?!
The P38 was and still is a great plane under AH. It turns very well, climbs good and is top speed is far from ridiculous.
I never understood all the squeaking around this plane, could you please explain me so I have an idea of what I'm missing?
-
Frenchy the 38 is the best plane in AH right.. Tho there is some things missed modeled. And it always seems to take a back seat to other planes. And what your talking top speed I have no idea about. The P-38L could reach 444mph at 25,500ft on WEP. Will post source later to tired to mess with it now.
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
"The P-38L could reach 444mph at 25,500ft on WEP."
Just like the P-51D could do 460 and the P-47D could do 470....
There are inflated performance numbers available for ALL WW2 planes, not just the P-38 :)
There ARE questionable things with the P-38 in AH--in particular its dive flaps--but I'd say its speed and climb is spot on.
J_A_B
-
444mph:eek:
Where'd ya read that tripe?
The P-38L could make 414mph at best altitude. 30mph lower than the silly figure somebody fed you.
-
(http://www.somethingawful.com/features/classicads/turkish-shit.jpg)
-
"I smell dead people".........
Relax kid, its just a game
-
LOL Hang! That is SO saved :)
-
Ok I'm gonna post my source but yall gotta read it!!!!!
Really my beef is with the dive flaps everything is fine to me.
And the 444mph was a lockheed test not USAAF test.
And it was posted by a respected member of AH..http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html thats the site..
From: Jordan@worldwar2aviation.com (C.C. Jordan)
Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
Subject: Re: P-51/Merlin
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:22:53 GMT
On 18 Jul 1999 12:06:44 -0400, Gavin.Bailey@dial.pipex.com (Gavin Bailey) wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:00:40 GMT, dbsdesign@aol.com (DBSDESIGN) wrote:
>
>>Anyway, the Spitfire pilot was supposed to land after the
>>engagement to lecture on the excellence of his ship except
>>that he never landed. He returned to his base and was never
>>heard from again.
>
>Interesting, if true. However, most sources give the Spitfire XIV a
>better performance than this account would give credit for - e.g. the
>rate of climb for the P-38L and Spit XIV were similar. In fact the
>earlier, single-stage supercharge Griffon II-powered Spitfire XII had
>comparable (in fact slightly better) performance figures at low and
>mid-altitudes than the P-38L (372mph @ 5,700ft and 397mph @ 18,000ft).
The basic performance figures for the P-38L are as follows (from Lockheed
factory test logbooks):
Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.
>
>
>It might be worth restarting the relevant performance figures of the
>Spitfire XIV with the improved Griffon 65 at this point - climb to
>20,000ft in just over 5 mins, 40,000ft in 15 minutes and a maximum
>speed of 447mph @ 25,600ft (approx 370mph @ 2,000ft) and a service
>ceiling of 44,500ft.
The P-38L, continued
Max climb rate at sea level: 4,225 fpm (50% fuel, normal ammo)
Max climb rate at 23,400 ft: 3,940 fpm
Time to 23,400 ft: 5.94 minutes
Time to 30,000 ft: 8.86 minutes
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft.
Add to this the ability to carry up to 4,000 lbs of underwing ordnance
and an absolute maximum range of just over 3,000 miles, and one can
see that the P-38 is a superb fighter. By the way, the bomb max bomb
load and max range are, naturally, mutually exclusionary.
>
>So far as I am aware, all of these figures exceed the performance of
>the P-38L Lightning, although I would say that both aircraft were
>broadly in the same category in terms of performance. Too much
>attention tends to be paid to paper performance figures in this kind
>of debate, but then these debates are usually fuelled by
>(understandably) individual subjective prejudice more than anything
As you can see, the Spitfire Mk.XIV is in a virtual dead heat with the P-38L.
One of the major misconceptions to evolve since the war was that the P-38
was generally inferior to the other major American and British fighters. This
unfounded belief is difficult to overcome because of 54 years of status quo
aviation and history writing.
Great fighters have certain characteristics that if exploited, can be
overpowering to an enemy. Bob Johnson showed that the P-47D could
easily over-match the Spitfire IX if one avoided a turning engagement and
used the superior roll rate, dive acceleration, speed and zoom ability
of the Thunderbolt.
Remember this rule, it is the gospel (prior to missiles):
"The faster fighter determines the rules of engagement."
In the case of a P-38L vs a Spitfire Mk.XIV, the fighter carrying the
greater speed into the fight will likely win, pilot skill being equal.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
The Planes and Pilots of WWII Internet Magazine
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
Honor and remember the WWII veterans.
From: C.C.Jordan@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: U.S. 55th Fighter Group (was: something else)
Date: 11 Feb 1999 14:31:58 GMT
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:31:26 +0200, Yama wrote:
>C.C. Jordan wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 00:30:26 -0500, Bob Andrew wrote:
>> >
>> >The Merlin powered P-51 was faster than the P-38L at all altitudes.
>>
>> This is incorrect. The L was capable of 442 mph in WEP at 22,500 ft.
>> Futhermore, the L was still producing 1,320 hp per engine at 30,000 ft.
>> The Merlin was down to 1,090 hp at this height. The turbos were more
>> efficient than the Merlin's blower.
>
>All figures I've seen about top speed of P-38J/L are in the range of
>660-680km/h, that is 410-422mph. In what configuration L was
>supposed to break 710km/h (about same than P-51D)? Painted, guns
>loaded, all equipment onboard? How much fuel? Italian and French
>manufacturers, for example, almost always presented performance
>figures which were 5-10% better than in real life, because they used
>'Reno configuration'.
The most commonly printed max speed numbers for the P-38L state
414 mph. How interesting. Consider that the L was fitted with the -30
Allisons, as opposed to the -17 on the J. There is a big difference, and
I'll go into that a little later.
The typical numbers presented for the J are 421 mph IN WEP.
The typical numbers presented for the L are 414 mph IN METO.
This is one of the pitfalls of using commercially available data. It
usually isn't researched very well. The difference between METO and
WEP is 600 hp. The -30 produced a minimum of 1,725 hp in WEP.
As opposed to 1,425 hp in METO.
The -17 installed in the P-38J had the same METO rating as the -30
at 1,425 hp. However, the -17 only made 1,600 hp in WEP. The
additional power could push the L to speeds over 440 mph. Warren
Bodie concludes the maximum speed in WEP as 443 mph at altitudes
between 20,000 and 23,500 ft. Bodie obtained his data directly from
Lockheed, where he was employed as an engineer on the U-2 and
F-117 programs. Therefore, I tend to except Bodie as a more credible
source than Green and Swanborough et al.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
The Planes and Pilots of WWII online magazine
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/
A member of the WWII Web-ring.
Honor and remember the WWII veterans.
"In reality, there exists only fact and fiction. Opinions result from
a lack of the former and a reliance on the latter."
From: C.C.Jordan@Worldnet.att.net (C.C. Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: U.S. 55th Fighter Group (was: something else)
Date: 12 Feb 1999 03:54:38 GMT
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:35:16 -0500, Bob Andrew wrote:
>
>
>"C.C. Jordan" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The typical numbers presented for the J are 421 mph IN WEP.
>> The typical numbers presented for the L are 414 mph IN METO.
>> This is one of the pitfalls of using commercially available data. It
>> usually isn't researched very well. The difference between METO and
>> WEP is 600 hp. The -30 produced a minimum of 1,725 hp in WEP.
>
>>
>> The -17 installed in the P-38J had the same METO rating as the -30
>> at 1,425 hp. However, the -17 only made 1,600 hp in WEP. The
>> additional power could push the L to speeds over 440 mph. Warren
>> Bodie concludes the maximum speed in WEP as 443 mph at altitudes
>> between 20,000 and 23,500 ft. Bodie obtained his data directly from
>> Lockheed, where he was employed as an engineer on the U-2 and
>> F-117 programs. Therefore, I tend to except Bodie as a more credible
>> source than Green and Swanborough et al.
>
>If Lockheed was testing its own aircraft, I would call this commercially
>available data :)
It should be obvious that Lockheed would do exhaustive testing on their
own aircraft. Lockheed's internal test reports were not released publically.
Nor were Allison's.
>
>Without knowing how this plane was loaded or configured (ammo, bombracks,
>fuel load), or how its engines were tuned and prepped for the test, I
>would stick with the figures which at least claim to be measured 'under
>typical combat loads'.
The testing in question is always performed at combat weight with ballast
added for ammmunition. In other words, full load, clean configuration.
>
>I'm sure Lockheed could get a P-38L to hit 443 mph, but I wonder how fast North
>American could get a P-51D to go? :)
443 in WEP.... That means you have about 5 minutes of maximum horsepower.
The above speed is not sustainable. Nor, for that matter is METO sustainable.
Why? Overheating. Even for the Mustang, METO was not sustainable for long
periods.
>
>Also, the published WEP hp for the -30 is 1600, where does 1725 come from?
>The difference represents 9% of a power setting which is already supposed to
>be extremely high.
There's that word again: "Published". Published by who?
Allison spent a great deal of time and money on the "dash thirty" program.
They produced volumes of dynometer data for Lockheed and the AAF.
Lockheed did their own testing and confirmed the Allison numbers. Hence,
the installation of the -30 in the L model.
The following are the CORRECT stats for the Allison V-1710F-30.
Write 'em down somewhere....
Ratings [minutes] Power RPM Manifold [in.Hg] Altitude [ft]
Normal (no limit) 1,100 2,600 44 30,000
Take Off (5) 1,475 3,000 54 SL
Military (15) 1,475 3,000 54 30,000
WEP (5) 1,725 3,000 60 28,700
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
OK... Lazer has a fun game to play. Stop your biatching and learn to fly what we have ;) Too many people squeakin about small little things, when they could be flying and learning to deal with the defects =) The only acceptable time to whine is when you get killed by n1k/spitty/la7 dweebs :D
-
Widewing can think whatever he wants to about the P-38; that doesn't change the fact that the P-38 had lots of drag and crappy propellers. Those junky obsolete propellers in particular wasted most of the extra power that the P-38L had. Plus the P-38L was even dragger than the P-38J, so if you want to go on arguing about how fast the P-38's were it would be better to use a P-38J. Maybe, just maybe, if you added Hamilton Standard props to the P-38 it could reach that kind of speed (like the P-38K supposedly could).
Like I said, I've got no problem with having a 440 MPH P-38L....but only if we use the "optimistic" data for ALL planes. That way we get a 460 MPH P-51, a 470 MPH P-47, a 410 MPH F6F, a 450 MPH F4U-1D, a 435 MPH YAK-9U and faster top speeds for all the rest of the planes too.
Oh wait...the P-38 wouldn't be uber then either....
But yeah those dive flaps need to be looked at.
J_A_B
-
i don't wanna see those ugly spit and nik dweebs flying this plane
-
Hey Bigcrate :)
I don't think they are against the P38 any more then they are against most other planes. However, they wan't customers, and they get customers if they keep the realism down a bit. Not sure what things are broken on the P38 but I know dive flaps and flaps are. 109 Flaps are too, this (for both planes) is because the max speed of where you could lower the flaps, are also modelled as max speed where oyu can fly with them out. This was not the case in R/L, 109's could have theirs extended till 220 (+ more because of safety margin when you calculate on things). P38 too could have theirs out much longer, non of these planes had auto retract.
Not only flaps are tuned down but quite alot of things are.
The impression I've gotten from HTC during these years is that they make a game for the massess, which is both good and bad. This means they tune down quite many things so that modelling will go faster and learning curve won't be as steep. For me, and many others who have flown a long time, it's bad :(
Seems like they rather add planes, a ton of planes actually, then raise realism on some things :(
-
only the dive flaps and that BS auto retract flap thing needs to be fixed in the 38L. 440 MPH in a 38L? Yes, but at 25K+ . After flying level for a long time or diving from a higher alt to get that speed.. yes it will.
-
I like the P38 flight model in AH. And I'm sure if you look hard enough into the written history, you'll always find instances in typeset where plane x was as good or better than plane y and vice versa. Didn't mean they were all true.
-
You are all missing the point. HiTech hates everyone and thinks WWII era flight simulations are a total waste of time. He's just milking this for the bucks.
Sheesh. I'm not sure which aircraft he's going to introduce next that he hates, but I'm sure it will have a really crappy flight model.
HTH. HAND.
-
I never said make the 38 go 440mph at 25k.. I just stated what I have read. Only thing I see needs to be fixed is th dive flaps and adding a early war model of the 38. And the way I see things now the learning is very steep might as well make it steeper. and turn off the auto flap retract thingy. I'mmore of a sport pilot than i am a furballer. I take pride in what I fly anf how i fly it. And lazer if I could fly right now I would but seeing how I can't I bug people on the bbs :)
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
38 flaps are incredible unless you stick yourself to fighting in a low turn deckfight. In loops they are quite effective.
A lot of people are looking for the emergence of the AW 38, when the truth is, we've already got one that's far better. If people would just spend the time to learn this one, the same way they took the time to learn the other...there would be a lot less upset people.
-
So you think dive flaps should give you better than a 4 g pull out?
-
erm..ht, the current dive flaps dont pull the nose up. they let you pull the nose up a bit, which is the effect they should do if deployed before the dive (or high speeds).
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/wraithfleethq/diveflps3.jpg)
Take a look at the 2nd to last paragraph. From other sources you can find the dive flaps when extended after a dive (high speeds) would pull nose up at 4g's or so by itself. In AH you can powerdive (trimmed for the dive) from 25k until your controls lock up, let go off the stick and press the dive flap... and the 38 will not pull nose up. However, elevator trim will pull it (but that happens with or without dive flaps extended) at 2gs or so. Where is the 2nd effect? 4g nose up by itself when flaps deployed at high speed? (2 weeks? ;) ).
-
Hitech I can't really speak to what the dive flaps really did.. i have read that the dive stopped buffeting. Or they did a pitch up action. Or they helped maintain control in high speed dives. Hitech I have video footage of a test dive with a P-38 with dive flaps installed. Its from a Weekday Wings show and its really cool to watch the video and see how the dive flaps worked and the action they did in the dive. HiTech Maybe some day this week I can stop by and give yall a copy of it???
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
Only thing getting rid of auto retract would give us would be auto destroy at the same speed :(
-
neg wilbuz. the fowler flaps wouldnt "rip out", they would cause great structural damage to the wing. however, for AH, ripping out would be acceptable.
Also, the flaps would cause structural damage if they were still deployed when at 300 to 320 mph + . My gripe with the AH autoretracting isnt that it retracts on its own, its WHEN it does it. 250mph is a speed that is very, very easy to achieve with 1 or 2 flaps deployed on a fight, and when it retracts on its own and you're pulling on the stick (say, pulling the nose UP on bottom portion of a lag-persuit loop), it makes your plane spin instantly, effectively screwing you up. The real 38 did not do this.
If HTC would just make them autoretract at 320mph or 300mph it would be fine. Remember, the flaps cant be DEPLOYED when the plane's speed is higher than 250mph.. thats a feature the 38L had, "locks" which prevented the pilot from doing that. But once deployed, they would stay down until retracted.
Another alternative:
1) Flaps deployable at 250mph or less (this is set in stone)
2) 251mph start buffeting if flaps are still deployed.
3) 300mph flaps "JAM" in place. This would simulate structural damage on the wing and the 38 pilot would be in serious trouble.
4)320MPH have ONE of the flaps rip out. I say have one because if the other one is deployed and stuck in place and the other one missing, it will make the 38 very hard to fly, even less fight. This would simulate serious structural wing damage. It would also get rid of a way to abuse this by going to 320mph when the flaps are jammed just to rip them out and keep fighting (38 with both flaps ripped out flies very well).
-
Didn't mean they would rip off, 109 flaps wouldn't rip off either, probarly just blow back up.
109 has same problem, although speed difference is not as big, flaps auto retract in 165mph (a speed which is VERY hard to get down to in the first place).
We won't get it though, atleast not from what HT said.
-
you're right,
hispanos sux
50 cal.s sux
jabo load out sux
maneuvering flaps sux
climb sux
speed sux
endurance sux
durability sux
AH's P38 sux
:rolleyes:
-
lol.. I "HOPE" all we are complaining about are the dive flaps. I don't want a freeken speed increase or anything like that... You would see people like HISP, and any of your common n1ktards buzzin around in it, and that would take the fun out of blowing them to toejamteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee =)
-
Lazer you PUTTZ :) I started this post just to see why HTC hasn't added a early war model P-38 and why the dive flaps didn't do anything. I just posted those speed figures to see if were true or how people felt about em. I just want the dive flaps fixed and a P-38H with B-33 turbos and 1600hp Allisons :)
Cw
=Twin Engined Devils=
-
which brings lazer BACK to the point.. Dive flaps or FM? =) PUTTZ! :P
-
"Didn't mean they would rip off, 109 flaps wouldn't rip off either, probarly just blow back up"
Yes. Do you know at what speed were they supposed to "blow up"?
BTW, the 38 fowler flaps couldnt blow up. Thus, thats why they would cause wing structure damage (and jam).
:) lazerr, the 38 is well modelled except in the flap department. its the only little thing left. And as to why such simple thing as increasing the flap autoretract to 300mph and adding a 4g nose up pull when dive flaps are deployed at fast speeds (say, 350mph+?) havent been coded in in so long a time... well, its quite sad imo. :(
"you're right,
hispanos sux // lol.
50 cal.s sux // agree. Id rather have a fantasy loadout of 12 X303 in nose ;)
jabo load out sux // yes it does. 38 could load 2X2k bombs too. not modelled.
maneuvering flaps sux // no, just mismodelled in the autoretract area
climb sux // it rules
speed sux // it rules
endurance sux // it rules
durability sux // its on par with other fighters. And you can still shoot the tails out with a few hits.. you just have to hit them.
AH's P38 sux // until the flaps are fixed, it suxs 50% ;)
-
350Km/h Tac (219mph) was the limit that were tested for etc, of course, like the P38 and all other planes they had some safety margin. 218-220mph would make me a happy man though, it's a 40-50mph difference from now, not as much as the P38 has but it would make it possible to actually use flaps in the 109 during turn fights.
-
which brings lazer BACK AGAIN to point "A" -Stop your biatching- ;) Its a game, they are flaps...Before we look at that.. Lets take a peek at n1k "E" holding. Heres a situation. P38/n1k merge coalt/coE.. P38 goes into shallow climb.. Nik yanks "His stick" ;) and gets going in the same direction p38 is heading and proceeds to follow p38 up, and actually close the gap.. While the 38 just hangs there.. and when 38 noses down... Oh look, theres the n1k climbing away.. d200 from your p38 showing no stall characteristics. Hmmm.... =) Am I the only one that notices this "Interesting" Behavior from nik?
-
you are approximatly the 500th person to not this . on the bullitan board.
-
tac said
"the 38 is well modelled except in the flap department"
you think they have the dive flaps right ?
seems like they do verrrrry little in my book
-
Wilbus, why would you WANT to use the 109's flaps in a dogfight? They're split flaps that serve as little more than an airbrake. Even if you could deploy them at faster speeds, it'd be counter-productive to do so.
J_A_B
-
Might some of the variations in speed figures published be because instead of giving maximum achievable speed by a factory-fresh well-serviced plane they're giving typical maximum speeds for planes actually in service that are a bit worn, and operating in all kinds of weather?
Lots of the figures one sees for maximal performance of aircraft need to be treated carefully, for instance maximum altitude (particularly in bombers). Whilst a plane might well be capable of struggling up to the published altitude, in practice it would generally operate at much lower altitudes, for various reasons:
- time taken to get up there (and vulnerability whilst clmbing)
- aircraft loadout
- wear and tear on the aircraft
- temperature at altitude - it gets damned cold pretty quickly as one climbs, and at 25-30,000ft is WELL sub-zero, into double figures sub-zero IIRC. Think of the effects on the machine in terms of icing (which can coat the wing, making it perform ess well, and also increase drag dramatically), and on the pilot (in those planes without heated cockpits
As a by the by, the Ju88A4, which I fly a lot, has a published ceiling of 8-9 kilometres, but most raids flown by the LW seem to have gone in much lower than this, seldom being over 6km (20,000ft). As it happens, in my time in War Birds, I found that for general mission planning purposes, we simply did not need performance and climb data for the Ju88A4 for altitudes over 6km, as the time taken to climb higher, and thus greater fuel load that needed to be carried, didnt justify the time and effort. As in real life, we always planned to get the job done with the minimum load we needed, so as to obtain best performance, and traying to take a heavily laden Ju88 up to the limit of where she'll climb usually is simply not worth doing (assuming that the simulation reflects real life tolerably accurately, which RL the performance figures Ive seen seem to indicate s the case). I've also read a statement (apologies, cannot recall where) by a US WW2 fighter pilot that flew in Europe that he never flew any mssion that went much over 15,000ft - which surprised the heck out of me, but I'm not going to argue with someone who did the job for real!
Also, bear in mind that AH doesnt yet model engine wear and tear. If it did, you would NOT be able to run at 100% throttle all the time, as a lot of folk do, because your engine would overheat and sieze. Full throttle was generally only used on takeoff and initial climbout, and (in the case of fighters) when about to engage in combat. Even the 400mph+ fighters would often be doing nearer 300mph a lot of the time... - if the truckload of stuff Ive read over the years is anything to go by (I dont claim I am definitely correct; just that if I am not, then I've come across a great many incorrect sources (and there ARE quite a few such about).
Personally I like the P38, except for its poor downward visibility (be interesting to know what actual pilots of the plane thought on that subject). I fear P38s more than most other planes, if theyre on my tail. On the other hand if I'm on a P38 tail, it IS a rather nice big target! (being a lousy shot, I like all the help I can get! ):-} )
Agreed on those dive/manouvre flaps. We could do with better representation of them on all planes that had such things, AND modelling of engines siezing if used flat-out for too long, IMO...
Esme
-
Uhmmm Jab, they were used as combat flaps during the war, and the few times you mannage to get them down in AH they help pretty much.
What exactly do you mean with "split" flaps?
-
Vader: When I say flaps I mean both the dive flaps and the fowleer flaps :)
wilbus: cool, then they should autoretract (blow up) at that speed then. Though as pointed, why would you want to use them in a fight? I personally find the flaps in the 109 to make it extremely unstable on a turning fight.. my 109f4 becomes a flippingschmitt if I dare to lower those things. :p
"Also, bear in mind that AH doesnt yet model engine wear and tear. If it did, you would NOT be able to run at 100% throttle all the time, as a lot of folk do, because your engine would overheat and sieze. Full throttle was generally only used on takeoff and initial climbout, and (in the case of fighters) when about to engage in combat."
Aye, I would love to have engine overheat modelled. But that may come in the long term, right now its not a serious issue as everyone uses it and there is no downside to it in any plane.
Lazerr: check the n1k thread started in the other forum about that. N1k-2j does not have its auto-flaps modelled, if they did the n1k would be a very different ride (added drag and nose up pull from flaps).
Personally I find the flap issues on the 38 to be a major concern, as its the one and only plane that relies on its flaps almost completely. It would be as if the 190D9 or G10 were modelled without any WEP at all. Only in the 38's case, it would be as if the D9 and G10 had the wep modelled, but it would only work if the plane was below 250mph and it would stop working at speeds higher than that, and the WEP would kick in automatically when at slow speeds (imagine you turning a G10 at 120mph and having the WEP kick in all the sudden... spin!).
-
"What exactly do you mean with "split" flaps?"
Split flaps = flaps where only the lower half of the wing surface moves. This design creates much extra drag (good for landing) but only a small amount of extra lift.
In combat, split flaps should be useful only for keeping the plane under control in extreme low-speed maneuvers, like getting over the top of a slow loop--which you can already use them for in AH. At higher speeds it would serve little purpose except to cause you to bleed energy badly.
J_A_B
-
Was talking with a few people (not gonna name names) the other day about the P-38.
And we were saying that HTC doesn't really care about the P-38.
You were obviously talking to a bunch of whiners. HTC are definitely not biased against the P-38 or any plane. They are just biased against whiners.
-
Jab, the whole back of the wing moves on the 109, it's the 190 that uses the kind of flaps you're talking about.
or maybe I missunderstood you.
Tac, yes, it does make it unstable and stall very easy, just like the 190. However, it turns better (although hard to maintain in good turn).
But this is not just about using them in combat, they could be flown in speed up to 220, don't know if they blew up if you exeeded or if the just brake or something.
-
"Jab, the whole back of the wing moves on the 109, it's the 190 that uses the kind of flaps you're talking about. "
Yeah, I sort of was thinking about the 190 here. Oops. My mistake.
J_A_B
-
Rgr, the 190 flaps are somewhat usefull too actually, maybe they shouldn't be but it turns better with a anotch or two if you get slow enough. It's even more unstable though, snap stall really easy.
-
There needs to be more versions of the Fork-tailed devil... I agree.
however, if we need more representation, we need more of the Pacific War planes, both the allied and axis. There are too few of them... and HTC is coming up with the Boston...