Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: -lazs- on June 01, 2000, 08:44:00 AM
-
Should they fix the turn rates in AH and speed up the game but take the chance of having the horrible warps of WB? Or would you rather have stability and pretend everything is ok?
lazs
-
Lazs, If you can provide one shred of evidence that the turn rates are inaccurate, I might consider it.
-
Wha?? Huh?
Is this a troll? I didnt know there was anything wrong with the turn rates. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/confused.gif)
-Ding
-
Lazs forgot to put his anty-slipery shoes when going in the bath this morning, meaning , I believe that the "Flush-O-matic" attached to his Toilet was still stuck to his mouth when he wrote this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Turn problem ?
Put that man in a FW 190 for a week and let him write this sentece again (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Should they fix the turn rates in AH and speed up the game but take the chance of having the horrible warps of WB? Or would you rather have stability and pretend everything is ok?
AH is different from WB, that's about all we know in this stage. Which one is more accurate, well, I can't honestly say I have enought data to make claims.
I don't think it has anything to do with warp prevention, roll rate causes most warps and I haven't seen any yet, even we have much faster rolling planes than in WB.
------------------
jochen Jagdflieger JG 2 'Richthofen' Aces High
jochen Geschwaderkommodore (on leave) Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' (http://personal.inet.fi/cool/jan.nousiainen/JG2) Warbirds
Thanks for the Fw 190A-5 HTC!
Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief
Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight
Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free
But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes
-
Here are some times it took fighters to turn 360 degrees. This information is off the Sturmovik BBS and some of it was posted by Oleg Maddox (designer of Sturmovik).
by Oleg Maddox:
The best circle times of German fighters had 109F-2,F-4 and G-2(3 guns) - others worse and some much worse.
At 1000 m altitude:
F-2 - left turn - 20,5 sec, right turn - 19,6 sec.
G-2(3 guns) - left turn - 20,0 sec, right turn - 21,5 sec.
La-5F - left turn - 19,0 sec, right turn - 19,5 sec.
La-5FN - left turn - 18,5 sec, right turn - 19,0 sec.
La-7 - left turn - 18,3 sec, right turn - 18,9 sec.
LaGG-3(M-105P, 1941) left turn - 22,5 sec, right turn - 23,0 sec.
LaGG-3(M-105PF2, 1944) left turn - 19,0 sec, right turn - 20,1 sec.
Here are sustained turns of Bf-109s from NII-VVS:
Bf-109B1 - 16,0 sec left; 15,9 sec right
Bf-109E3 - 26,5 sec left; 29,5 sec right
Bf-109F2 - 20,5 sec left; 19,6 sec right
Bf-109G2 - 20,0 sec left; 21,5 sec right
Bf-109G2/R6 - 22,6 sec left; 22,8 sec right
Data from NII-VVS (Russian aircrafts-research centre) tests.
There are also several interesting results on the turn radius of different fighters tested in NII-VVS.
(in metres)
SpitfireIX - 235m
P-40E - 242m
P-39 - 253m
Yak-1 - 275m
Yak-9D - 290m
Bf-109G2 - 290m
P-51A - 290m
La-5FN - 295m
La-5 - 310m
Bf-109G2/R6 - 315m
FW-190A4 - 340m
----------------------------
Wells recently posted the following:
For sustained turns at sea level with full internal fuel, I measured the following:
N1K2: ~24s @ 130 mph
SpitV: ~24s @ 105 mph
Spit IX: ~25s @ 125 mph
C202: ~25s @ 150 mph
C205: ~26s @ 175 mph
109f4 & La5: ~ 28s @ 150 mph
109G2 & G6: ~ 29s @ 160 mph
P-38L: ~29s @ 175 mph
109G10: ~30s @ 170 mph
P-51D: ~31s @ 150 mph
190A8: ~ 31s @ 175 mph
F4u-1C: ~32s @ 150 mph
F4u-1D: ~33s @ 140 mph
Typhoon: ~34s @ 130 mph
------------------------------
Lets compare the data for the 109g2 and La5.
AH 109g2 360 degree turn and radius 29s, 160mph, 330m
Real life measurements 20.75s, 195 mph, 290m
AH La5 28s, 150mph, 300m
Real Life 18.75s, 220 mph, 295m
------------------------------
Something seems a bit odd.
Hooligan
-
I guess I'll keep pretending. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Seriously, provide me with proof that the turnrates are porked (i.e., timed turns at sea level, both AH and published data, flap settings, fuel loads, etc.).
Not really intending to flame (not my style) but unless you can *prove* what you say in this matter, it is only an opinion, and one (at the moment) I don't share. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hooligan-
Your post happened immediately before mine; the three points I would make would be:- How do we know that the Il-2 programmer is an expert on flight data? Not saying he isn't, but he is a relative unknown to me.
- Wells's data is just that- Wells's data. You may find that you can tweak the turnrate a bit and get a little more out of any of the planes.
- What does actual, published flight data on each of the referenced aircraft specify for respective turnrates?
[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 06-01-2000).]
-
Hi -lazs-...
Fix the turn rate in relation to what?
If your comment is based upon comparing flying the WB's game software aircraft, then you've posted to the wrong BBS.
The software programming approaches of both games, specifically relating to the flight model you question, demonstrate the following:
WB v2.76
=======
System =Full force 6 degrees of freedom
Basic System = 2 point lift and drag model
Dynamic CofG Changes = Weapons ONLY
Moment of Inertia Changes = NONE
AH v1.02
======
System = Full force 6 degrees of freedom
Basic System = Sectional airfoil component model, covering all components of the airplane. Also uses CM,CP changes
Dynamic CofG Changes = All loaded components of the airplane.
Moment of Inertia Changes = All loaded components of the airplane.
Therefore, if one feeds the same empirical data specifications for any given aircraft into both programs, the AH software will produce a more accurate result, purely from a physics software modeling point of view. Simply put, it should fly more like the real world aircraft of the same type actually did.
If your conclusion is based upon someone having sufficient real world flight experience on any of these aircraft, nobody using any of these games has the "flight time" on the various aircraft types to support the presumption you have made. Again, in attempting to find real pilots, the closest I got to locating reasonable "air time" was a virtual pilot named AKNiteflyr who has logged 50 Hours second in command time of a B25. So, the conclusion must be that the rest of us are actually using mathematical manufacturer's flight test data fed into the software program code as variables, in order to draw conclusions about the validity and realism of these simulators.
Hope this helps clear any confusion you might have drawn using incorrect hypothesis or anecdotal information.
Regards,
Badger
-
Wow thanks Jay!
I don't think it's clear that the VVS turn rates belong to the radii.
Are the VVS figures sustained turn times or just one turn? Obviously if you start with a high speed you can do a circle above the sustained turn rate.
And do we have information on the fuel/ammo load used for the VVS tests?
Still need to answer these questions before going on a witch-hunt. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-01-2000).]
-
nm
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-01-2000).]
-
Funked-
You will note we posted virtually at the same time, and I did read it after I posted (when it first became available to me). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
My initial response was to Lazs, not Hooligan. Read my edit. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Hi funked....
Thanks for the feedback.
I did scroll up and read hooligan's post.
It's still changes nothing I had to say.
Unless one runs the data through programs that use exactly the same physics software modeling to simulate flight, it's an academic and irrelevant exercise.
It simply goes down the same mental and mathematical gymnastics road that creates huge threads arguing about a "false generalization" in the first place.
What a waste of energy and I for one, am tired of the professorial approach to what is simply a GAME that's supposed to be about camaraderie and fun.
Regards,
Badger
-
Well well another day and another person jumps on the bash Pyro,and AH bandwagon.
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds"
--Albert Einstein
[This message has been edited by Baddawg (edited 06-01-2000).]
-
I vote -lazs- to lose his UBB posting privileges for a week for posting this.
-Westy
-
Originally posted by Westy:
I vote -lazs- to lose his UBB posting privileges for a week for posting this.
-Westy
Nah, let him...he is funny. I laugh a lot reading his posts.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
I think Lazs should get a grip
-
Originally posted by Badger:
What a waste of energy and I for one, am tired of the professorial approach to what is simply a GAME that's supposed to be about camaraderie and fun.Regards,
Badger
That makes two of us Badger, I think poeple here tend to forget that...
Saw
-
I'd rather have stability and pretend everything is ok.
BTW the warps in WB are not because of turn rates. The warps are due to other things such as connections, poor servers, and the way the code is written.
Fury
-
C'mon Lazs, we all know that you're hiding your old "my plane is porked" message inside of a thread where you pretend that you actually care about other planes' turning radius.
You have always thought the F4U was porked in WB, and IMHO, you will always think it's porked no matter what the programmer's do to it's FM in AH.
Sheesh, where's the proof that every online flight sim has singled out the Corsair for porking?
Just once I'd like to see a thread from you other than a veiled complaint about your favorite plane's FM.
I'm sorry, I try to never criticize or attack someone personally on this BB, but I've had enough of yer crying about the F4U on here already. If you want a Corsair that turns like a Zeke, go build your own damn sim!
-
Here you go banana.
http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw/Forum3/HTML/012500.html (http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw/Forum3/HTML/012500.html)
------------------
Apache
The Blue Knights
-
Hi All,
I think we can afford to give lazs a little slack here. Lazs loves the, as he puts it, "the manly blue planes" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) and while his passion for the Corsair often overrides his manners I think his heart is in the right place.
Lazs,
I'm no expert on flight models but the thing that strikes me as odd, is the fact that the guy responsible for developing the flight model in both WB and AH is HiTech who is a huge fan of the F-4u.
I would think that he would ensure that one of his personnel favorite A/C would be modeled as correctly as it could be. I've always thought that the Corsair was the worst arena airplane in Warbirds. Other planes were faster, turned better, climbed better and had better visability. I'm not sure that the same isn't true in AH.
The problem comes, I think that the Corsair is more "out of it's element" in the free for all atmosphere of the Main Arena than any other plane in the line up. The Corsair was designed to compete in the Pacific Theater against mostly the zero at medium altitude.
From what I've read of the air war in the PTO, dogfighting was taboo. The planes of the Japanesse were just to manuverable to beat in a stained dogfight. As I understand it the idea with the Corsair was hit em hard a keep right on going.
Now in the ETO is was more common for the combat to evolve in to large dogfights with planes manuvering with each other to gain firing position. The reason for this IMHO was that the aircraft of the ETO were more closely matched in manuverability.
It seems to me that the Main Arenas in both Warbirds and Aces High seems to more emulate the ETO than the PTO. People tend to stay and fight a turning battle more than would be expected in real life.
The Corsair was not designed to fight this fight. It was designed to use vastly superiour speed and heavy firepower to win against the zeros. I have found that in arenas where the Corsair is pitted against it's historical adversairies it does extremely well.
So although the Corsair may or may not hit the numbers as posted in some flight test somewhere (do any of the planes in any of the sims?) I think the problem is that the Corsair just happened to work out to be the least suited (all around) to the style of fighting found in the "Main Arena"
IMHO
Sharky
-
If I thought there was something wrong with the turn rates of AH planes, I'd still be playing WB.
-
What the #*%*&!!!??
banana your tired of hearing someone complain about the F4U FM being porked? Have you noticed how many threads there are complaining about obscure details of FW-190 paint schemes and MW-50 boost weather it had it or not and Blah, blah, blah. As a matter of fact you have three times as many post in AH as Lazs. There are some here with 1000 to 2000 post. I don't know what the correct topic to wine about today is but i'm pretty sure the message dweeb squad doesn't get to pick it. Maybe you would like another ban F4U-1C thread to post in?
Anyway I'm not going to post anymore data on the message boards. I keep getting told that only the physics model is accurate and war time testing has become invalid. But I will say that a certain uneducated test pilot from West Virginia had to tell a bunch of engineers that there physics model was broken and if they wanted to stop killing test pilots all over Muroc AFB(now Edwards AFB)that they better use a flying tail on the X-1. So much for their FM.
OH, if anybody is interested I have a Grumman document from WW2 giving preflight data on how they thought the F6F-3 would perform based on their physics model. If they were right they would have never had to build F8F.
Flame away flamers
F4UDOA
-
Kieren wrote:
“How do we know that the Il-2 programmer is an expert on flight data? Not saying he isn't, but he is a relative unknown to me.
What does actual, published flight data on each of the referenced aircraft specify for respective turnrates?”
I don’t “know” that he is an expert, however the source for the data is listed: “NII-VVS” So that should qualify for “actual published flight data”.
Funked:
The original thread makes it clear that these numbers are for sustained turn rates, and yes the radius information is not necessarily tied to the times.
If you look at Iddon’s flight test department: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/6302/Perform/flight_test_department.htm, (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/6302/Perform/flight_test_department.htm,) the time it takes WB versions of these planes to make it around 360 degrees is much closer to the NII-VVS numbers (about 22s for the 109F4 and 109G6 for example).
The same guy made the FMs for both WB and AH but it seems to take everything just about 50% longer to do a 360 in AH. Like I said, something seems a bit odd. I’d love to hear what Wells makes of this.
Fury:
Other factors no doubt have their effects but if aircraft agility is reduced, micro-warps are reduced, that’s all there is to it. I see micro-warps in AH. They’re just not as bad as they are in WB. Any general increase in aircraft agility will increase micro-warps, although not necessarily to WB levels.
Hooligan
-
Precisely, Sharky. And why Lazs doesn't understand this is beyond me.
What disturbs me is that he probably does understand this, and yet he continues to fan the flames over and over again.
Look, the difference between Lazs, and say, Hooligan(and wells & funked) is the delivery. Those guys all use numbers and information as a basis for their discussion. Lazs just starts whining without providing any sort of specific data.
[This message has been edited by banana (edited 06-01-2000).]
-
Sharky....respectfully, I think you are wrong about the Corsair being "out of it's element" in these flight sims. i see what you mean but according to every bit of test data that does comparisson testing... the Hog should be a better arena plane acceleration and turn wise than either the 190A, A5 or the P51B and have better speed than the 190 at all alts and better speed than a 51 at a lot of arena alts. It should be an excellent arena plane with superior turn to most of the others, mid range acceleration ,excellent speed below 20K and lacking only a little in the climb dept.
But.......this was not about the corsair turn rate or even about comparing rates between AH planes.... that is a whole other subject.... I admit tho I had hoped that when all the turn rates were fixed the error in the corsair would be found to be greater comparitively.
Just seems to me that WB turn rates are 25-50% better than AH ones and that Wb rates seem to match "real" ac performance pretty closely. One of the sims is off by a substantial amount.
Funked.... didn't you tell me way back when that the WB turn was on the numbers? I don't believe they have changed.
lazs
-
Actually guys from what I have seen, Lazs has a point, and he's not said a thing about the F4U.
Wells is actually the one that brought the issue up on the board in another thread about a week ago. And Wells is not the "whine" type. He's pretty much "by the numbers" kinda guy.
The data they posted about turn times is about what I have seen in other information.
I don't know what the cause is, but we need to find out if our testing is flawed or something in the game is flawed.
Another source of data we can use to look at and compare is from the old AWII boxed set. Note this data is not the model output from AW, but the data they used to create the model. Now I'm not saying this data is gospel, but just posting it for comparison to the other data earlier in the thread. Also there is not indication in the data of the flap settings used.
Max Sustained Turning
At Sea Level (degree's/sec rounded to nearest degree) or (360 turn time rounded to nearest second)
P-51D 20 deg/sec or 18 secs
Spit IX 28 deg/sec or 13 secs
Bf109F4 24 deg/sec or 15 secs
Bf109G2 23 deg/sec or 16 secs
Bf109K4 21.5 deg/sec or 17 secs
Fw190A8 19 deg/sec or 19 secs
Fw190A4 21 deg/sec or 17 secs
La5fn 22 deg/sec or 16 secs
F4U-1 20 deg/sec or 18 secs
P-38J 27 deg/sec or 14 secs
N1K2-J 24 deg/sec or 15 secs
A6M5 28 deg/sec or 13 secs
Remember I rounded both numbers up to the nearest whole number.
So lets not jump on Lazs so quickly guys, he may have a point.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 06-01-2000).]
-
Funked:
NII VVS tests was full ammo, 50% fuel.
------------------
Nattulv
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
-
Sharky,
Do you really believe what you just said? The F4U was designed in 1939. It was not designed to combat the Zero. On the contrary the test pilots at vought examined a captured Bf-109 in 1940 before anyone in America new anything about a Zero. It was designed as a carrier fighter which means it has to have a lower wing loading IE. stalling speed and better low speed handling than it's land based counter parts and it did. No aircraft in WW2 could turn with the Zero and live, even the Spitfire V could not turn with a Zero or an Oscar. In the skys over Europe the Luftberry circle was used as a defensive tactic. In the Pacific it would have meant mass suicide to maneuver against a Zero that way. Had the Corsair seen action in Europe it would have been known as a turn and burn A/C instead of boom and zoom. It was tested repeatedly against the P-51B and D, P-47 and FW-190A-5 and could out maneuver them all. You have to read a little bit more than the first paragraph of the cereal box when reading about an F4U. Butch O'Hare was a Hellcat pilot but if you read his memoirs he states that the F4U-1 could outclimb his Hellcats easily and everyone knew it. Donald Engen wrote "Wings and Warriors". He was a F4U pilot, world speed record holder in a F8U Crusader and former Captain of the Aircraft carrier USS America, he then went on to become the directer of the National Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian. He writes how his Squadrons FG-1D Corsairs (F4U-1D) were able to defeat a rival squads F8F-1 Bearcats in 1948 with the use of their maneuvering flaps. So please don't tell me that a Corsair cannot turn fight with the best. Above 25K I will concede USAF A/C are more suited for operations until the F4U-4 model. But not below 25K.
I reccomend you read "Report of Joint Fighter Conferance" to find out more accurate information about stalling and maneuevering. http://www.schifferbooks.com/military/aviationwwii/0764304046.html (http://www.schifferbooks.com/military/aviationwwii/0764304046.html)
Thanks F4UDOA
-
I have never flown any plane in real life. I have very little stick time in AH, none in WB, AW etc.
The only thing I know is that improving the turn rates would make things easier for newcomers, as well as for experts.
I think a few tweaks in this direction, and more G tolerance etc and there wouldn't be a need for easy mode.
Please no flames, I am not asking for better turning capability, I love AH as it is.
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All of out flight models are nerfed again!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, I've got that off of my shoulders now. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Lazs does seem to have a general, across the board point having to do with turn rates not matching their historical numbers. If so, I hope that HiTechCreations takes a look at it to see if there's been a mistake anywhere. If there has, it seems that this would very significantly favor the boom and zoom fighters, and I don't want to see anything that changes the balance between angles and energies. Kiitos.
Sisu
-
Thanks Nattulv and Hoolgn.
Everybody - YOU CANNOT COMPARE 50% FUEL REAL LIFE TESTS TO 100% FUEL ACES HIGH TESTS.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-01-2000).]
-
A little more data from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the second ww" volume 1 by Gordon and Khazanov... turn time in seconds for a Lag 5, 20sec. for a Yak 9U, 20 sec. German planes were slightly worse. U.S. planes better as a rule. These numbers match WB numbers very closely.
The new guy has a point. More realistic turn rates would help the newbie and add new blood. The poor turn rates are designed to benefit the experianced B&Z sim vet.
As to the corsair not being a good arena plane... truth is, in an arena setting with it's small map, it is the LW planes that are at a disadvantage. Artificially low turn rates help them more than any other ac. since they were the worst "turners" of the war in any case. Any sim that de-emphisises the turn only helps these planes.
Badger... Very impressive grasp of how the FM's of both sims are done. I admit that I understood only a fraction but..... Would you explain to me, as simply as you can, how WB flight model causes the planes to unrealisticly lose control and 'spin' into the ground rather than continue to fly for several minutes and then land simply because they lose a (1)wing?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs:
Just seems to me that WB turn rates are 25-50% better than AH ones and that Wb rates seem to match "real" ac performance pretty closely. One of the sims is off by a substantial amount.
lazs
lazs.....and anyone else who pauses long enough to read carefully the following:
The software programming approaches of both games, specifically relating to the flight model you question, demonstrate the following:
WB v2.76
=======
System =Full force 6 degrees of freedom
Basic System = 2 point lift and drag model
Dynamic CofG Changes = Weapons ONLY
Moment of Inertia Changes = NONE
AH v1.02
======
System = Full force 6 degrees of freedom
Basic System = Sectional airfoil component model, covering all components of the airplane. Also uses CM,CP changes
Dynamic CofG Changes = All loaded components of the airplane.
Moment of Inertia Changes = All loaded components of the airplane.
Therefore, if one feeds the same empirical data specifications for any given aircraft into both programs, the AH software will produce a more accurate result, purely from a physics software modeling point of view. Simply put, it should fly more like the real world aircraft of the same type actually did. The ONLY unknown here is what flight data specifications did Pyro or Hitech supply the program code as variables.
Given the actually program code limitations on flight modeling listed above, how can anyone seriously be using WB v2.76 as an element of any argument to make a case that it's more valid for its turn rate?
I'm just a country boy and open to any kind of explanation that resolves the obvious ramifications of the above data, so perhaps I've missed something.
Regards,
Badger
[This message has been edited by Badger (edited 06-01-2000).]
-
Funked:
Are you trying to tell me that a 4% weight addition due to an additional 50% fuel load in a 109g2 is going to increase the time to complete a 360 by 50%? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I just ran the test for g2 for 50% fuel (WEP on) and I got 26s/150mph average for both right and left hand 360 degree turns.
Hooligan
-
I just did the test for two planes:
50% fuel, WEP on, as close as I could get to sea level without scraping. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Me 109G-2
1:08 for 3 turns right or 22.7 seconds per turn.
44 seconds for 2 turns left or 22 seconds per turn.
Speed was about 150 mph, giving radius of 233 to 241 meters.
La-5FN
46 seconds for two turns left or 23 seconds per turn.
47 seconds for two turns right or 23.5 seconds per turn.
Speed was 155 mph giving radius of 252 to 258 meters.
Times plus/minus 0.5 second.
Looks like there may be some discrepancy with NII-VVS data, but doesn't look like much.
Where's the beef?
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
I'm gonna get a piece of this action, too. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
Badger... Very impressive grasp of how the FM's of both sims are done. I admit that I understood only a fraction but..... Would you explain to me, as simply as you can, how WB flight model causes the planes to unrealisticly lose control and 'spin' into the ground rather than continue to fly for several minutes and then land simply because they lose a (1)wing?
lazs
I'm not Badger but it sounds to me like the WB flight model is in no way "unrealistic" if it causes your plane to spin into the ground after losing only one of your two wings. I'm not a pilot either, but my simple grasp of physics (granted it's now almost 20 years old) or possibly my "common sense" tells me that there is no way a one-winged craft could fly straight and level for several minutes and then land. As a matter of fact, this one-winged spin and crash has happened to me many times in AH and even in FA. I'd quit any sim that allowed you to fly with one wing, especially if it was shown (via film) to the makers of the sim and they would not fix it.
Fury
-
funked... i aint no hot stick but i think you know I can turn. I got 28sec and 27sec. for the G2 with 50% fuel on the deck, best of three tries. I couldn't keep a real steady 150mph. With just some hasty testing the lag doesn't seem to be much different.
badger.. don't get me wrong. I like the AH flight model better in allmost all cases but the "wingless" flight model and sluggish turn model are...... odd.
lazs
-
All of this turning is making me dizzy.
The only POV I can offer to this discussion is my own comparision between the 2 sims. In WB reversals are much quicker than that in AH. In WB you can reverse on a co-alt tracking bogey as close as 2.0/2.5 and still maintain some E and stay agressive in the fight(depending on the AC of course). In AH however the same ACM is not as easy, and you have to be defensive and evade the the other AC, and attempt to deplete his E state to become the agressor. In other words the fight is not the same between the 2 sims. Which is closer to RL...who knows for sure.
IMHO WB knife fighting is more enjoyable and rewarding, the rest of the qualities I enjoy are in AH.
The one element of playability is always going to determine its success with the masses. Lets face it there will always be a plethora of furballers in both.
wizzer
-
Lazs, I filmed it if you really want to see it.
-
BTW I've landed planes in WB with one wing. A6M is really easy to fly with one wing.
-
The new guy has a point. More realistic turn rates would help the newbie and add new blood. The poor turn rates are designed to benefit the experianced B&Z sim vet.
Could the roadkill get any deeper on this thread?
-
It is good to ponder these things. Afterall, I want the virtual aircraft to perform as close as possible to their real life inspirations.
That is the whole point of having 190s and 51s and F4Us and LA5s. To test myself in these differing FMs in a manner close to the actual performers.
That being said, I always considered the WBs FMs to be too responsive. Too much like a shark fin through water. Here in AHs I mush into the ground frequently where in WBs I could slice my way out of death pretty easily. Too easily. I can also feel momentum pulling me past the angle of my turn. I like this as it tells me my 5000 pounds of killing machine tends to go where momentum wants it to go. I never felt this in WBs (v2.7 something as of sept 99 at least).....
Turn performance. I dont know. Overall the 190 seems underpowered to me. The F4U seems too unstable. The 109 too powerful in the engine. I have not taken the time to purchase detailed and proven flight data to perform my own analysis. Ive been too busy flying and having a blast (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Someday I will check these things out I am sure.
Yeager
-
turn rates? yeah, fix turn rate of Spitfire.. someone has put zekes turn rate for it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (if thats how spitfrie turns, I wonder if zeke turns in top of needle)
Yeager, I can agree with 190, but 109 overpowered?
Torque has been too great in some versions and also it has lack some speed too, but its pretty much accurate now.. (its also nice monkey bird, climbing that is)
(guess who did notice lack of 109's speed in one version .. *complains complains*)
-
I just got my hands on the 'Report of Joint Fighter Conference' and I've had a little time to study some of the results, especially the 3g turn data that was compiled. Firstly, I guess the most important thing that I notice is the wide range of data that the different pilots recorded on the same aircraft. For example, the F4u-1C/D had power on stall speeds in the range of 60-83 knts. That's a HUGE range! The average value being 76 knts. The 3G stall speeds were flight tested (and not calculated) with accelerometers installed in the aircraft. Again, the F4u had a range of 130-190 knts, with the average being 150.
Now, one could take the power on stall or the 3G stall and reverse calculate the other figure to see how close to 'theoretical' the test results were. For the F4u example (just for lazs), I'd get the following:
Using the average power on stall speed of 76 knts, the 3G stall works out to 132 knts (much less than the average tested value). One could take the 3G stall of 150 knts and get a power on stall of about 87 knts.
Another interesting point is the FG-1 (with clipped wingtips, although the area that is clipped looks very insignificant to me) got these results...
Power on stall of 82 knts (80-83 range), 3G speed of 130 (average values). Using the power on speed of 82 knts, the 3G speed works out to 142 and using the 3G speed of 130, the power on level stall works out to 75 knts.
I would consider this to be a very good source of data (what else is there, really?) along with AHT and pilot's manuals and any computational fluid dynamics analysis of airfoils that one can dig up. It becomes pretty clear that multiple sources of equally valuable data are required to get an accurate picture.
The turn radius for the F4u based on the report could be anywhere from 160-350m with an average of 200m. This is a prime example of why flight test data is not necessarily gospel. The flight sim designer must make a choice as to what is a reasonable stall speed or max lift coefficient to use in the model, based on all the information available. It may end up that the model matches none of the flight tests, but is rather more of an average.
Overall, I think the AH models have rather large turn radii that are at the high end of flight tested ranges. I would tend to think that even average values would be too high, I mean, if someone gets a lower stall speed than you do in a flight test, you'd wanna try it again to make sure you really got it as slow as you possibly could, wouldn't you?
But in the case of the F4u, someone recorded a 60 knts clean stall speed where the lowest recorded in the landing configuration was 63, so something ain't right there either....
-
P.S. If anybody wants to meet me in training, I can crank out 22 second G-2 turns on demand. You can ride as observer and run the stopwatch.
If you trim the plane right it's easy. I'm like Ron Jeremy with wings.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-01-2000).]
-
I'm wondering if the inclusion of propdrag will change turn stats in AH at all? (You can bet if you chop the engine at high speeds it will. )
I have nothing new that hasn't already been said, so I'll end my post here. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
woooops double post
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
banana your tired of hearing someone complain about the F4U FM being porked? Have you noticed how many threads there are complaining about obscure details of FW-190 paint schemes and MW-50 boost weather it had it or not and Blah, blah, blah.
F4UDOA...this is the (excuse me this is going to restart the flame,but I'll do it anyway) Stupidest thing said in this thread. If you dont know about what you write, then stop your fingers. Because:
1-MW50 could have been a real possibility in Fw190A in WWII
2-People are interested in MW50 Fw190's performance boost (Myself only to know it).
3-PEople DID WANT TO KNOW how many Fw190As were fitted with MW50. And Funked brought us some unvaluable data on Fw190A performance, that said clearly that MW50 never existed as a standard in A series.
4-As MW50 wasnt fitted,then People isnt asking for it anymore. (GM1 is other thing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)).
5-You have an aircraft that outperforms Fw190A in ALL aspects...except on level acceleration. You have turbolasers. You have combat flaps. If you thing that your FM is porked come and fly 190 for a couple of nights. I assure you that when you come back to F4U, then you'll think it is a Spitfire.
6-For the record, i never said "Fw190A8 FM is porked". I said "Fw190A8 is a bomber killer, not good at close fighting". Quite a difference.
7-The farthest we have gone between LW nuts in asking a booster is to put it as an option in hangar. And if I am given the choice between a GM1 for Fw190A, or the AUX fuel tank, then I go with the AUX, as I never climb over 18K in 190.
8-You have a plane that even the dweebest dweeb can take off, fly, kill 4 enemas, and land with no problem. I was one of the dweebest dweebs 4 months ago,and I used to do that. It is supposed that the F4U was the ensign eliminator...well the ensings must have been 8 year old.
9-we,fw190 nuts,can complain about paint schemes (and I dare you to give a link with me complaining about that)because Fw190A had a lot of them. Maybe you are pissed because your beloved F4U was only painted in blue?...what's up then,do you miss complaining about this matter, too?.
10-....well I could follow for years better for me to stop here.
Sorry for the flames...but I cant let some things like that pass without an adequate answer.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
i vote no
------------------
"Stupids are like flies. they are everywere, but are easy to kill"
RAM
-
Wells makes an interesting point about the variation in aircraft performance due to pilot proficiency.
Just because Pilot 'A' says an aircraft has a 3g stall speed of x mph don't necessarily make it so.
Anyone who has read the book 'Yeager' may remember his mention of the XF-92 delta-wing prototype. The aircraft had already been test flown by Convair, and the lowest landing speed ever attained had been 170mph.
So C.E. Yeager comes along, jumps in the XF-92 and promptly lands it at 67 mph.
Different pilot - different skill level - different aircraft performance.
Go up one time with a squaddie in identical aircraft and enter a turning fight. You'll never get identical aircraft performance because both pilots have different skill levels.
-
THE HEDGEHOG!!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
If you trim the plane right it's easy. I'm like Ron Jeremy with wings.
ROFL! Ron Jeremy rules! Hehe, funniest thing I've seen all week, Funked. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Things never to bring into a conversation with those you don't personally know:
Religion
Politics
And now...Flight models.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by funked:
If you trim the plane right it's easy. I'm like Ron Jeremy with wings.
Ummm...I may appear as a dweeb...but Who the hell is Ron Jeremy?
-
http://www.ronjeremy.com (http://www.ronjeremy.com)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
LAZS, NO SOUP FOR YOU!
------------------
Soup Nazi
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
(http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/soup.jpg)
[This message has been edited by Soup Nazi (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
RAM,
First thanks for taking a post personally that was addressed to banana. If I'm so stupid why can't you read? My email was pointing out to banana that there are only a limited amount of people that are interested in the FM of the F4U and other Naval A/C. There is only one USN A/C in the game albeit two versions. You see RAM you have over 750 post on this message board which means you run your mouth non-stop about the Luftwaffe and how great it would be to start the third reich again right here in AH. Well my friend not everybody has a picture of Herman Goreing hanging in their living room. So why don't back off about what other people post.
This thread is about turn radius comparisions. Until you and your buddy banana decided that wasn't a good enough topic to post anyway. I know the Nazi's painted pretty airplanes, I just don't give a rat's ass. I know the MW-50 probably existed in some 190 versions. I just don't want to talk about it again. There are 4 versions of the 109 and the second 190 coming out soon. I don't think 2 versions of the F4U will kill you althought you LW boys have been crying in you laderhosen since the 1C came out. If you want it gone so bad do some offline testing and prove it's porked. There is plenty of data in this thread about turn radius comparisons but I know your not interested. By the way, the FW-190A8 is porked because the Nazies porked it. It was too heavy to turn or climb. The A-5 is better but not by much. It still has one of the highest wing loadings in the game. I guess you can cry about that too. Who knows. Maybe you can make a thousand post by the end of this thread?
WAAAAAHWAAAAAWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
F4UDOA
-
funked... don't get so westy er, testy. Perhaps the Emperor is wearing flesh colored clothes?
Ok... some of the slower turning planes may only be off 20% or so in the best pilots hands. guess that would make the worst ac off by 40% or so. Something is wrong. My guess is that whatever it is that is off.... Affects different planes differently and that is why they also perform badly on a comparisson basis. What speed were you using in your test? I know you have studied WB a great deal... What is the difference in WB turn times as oppossed to AH in %/average and which sim do you now feel is correct turn rate wise? If you have the time, I would be interested in what you get for turn times for all the AH ac. Please start at the bottom as I (and others) believe that these ones are off the worst.
lazs
[This message has been edited by -lazs- (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
Erm, F4UDOA, RAM, banana and everbody else, I'm pretty sure this was a general thread about something that may be affecting ALL aircraft in AH. So lets discuss all aircraft vs their documented performance, not one AH FM against another AH FM. OK?
Sisu
-
Wells,
You the man. Remember my turn radius post? The data I was quoting you was from the "Report Of Joint Fighter Conferance". It is exactly why I said I thought the turn radius were porked a long time ago. The 3G stall speeds are way too high for most A/C and the straight ahead stall speeds are also too high with flaps. Thats why I am dying to know, as I have requested from Pyro many times what they are using for lift coeficients for their FM's
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000443.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000443.html) remember this post?
I have been seeking the anwswers too this question for a long time. Flight test data may not be consistant but it is closer too gospel than anything else we have. Even in a perfect test envirement like a computer simm(AH) you will get varied results. The goal should be to get the simm to fly like the airplane did not like a physics model. I wouldn't pay $30 a month to fly a calculation. I have a Grumman report on the design of the F6F. Their physics model was very different from how the A/C actually performed in air. They no doubt used the same technique to calculate the A/C performance as you are using. So you see the physics model may be in error as well. I would rather base at least part of the FM on actual flight test data than leave it completely to a desktop calculation on how we think it should have flown. Especially when the testing of these A/C is so available.
Lazs, read my previous post. I have been looking at the same thing for a long time.
Thanks F4UDOA
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
RAM,
First thanks for taking a post personally that was addressed to banana. If I'm so stupid why can't you read? My email was pointing out to banana that there are only a limited amount of people that are interested in the FM of the F4U and other Naval A/C. There is only one USN A/C in the game albeit two versions. You see RAM you have over 750 post on this message board which means you run your mouth non-stop about the Luftwaffe and how great it would be to start the third reich again right here in AH. Well my friend not everybody has a picture of Herman Goreing hanging in their living room. So why don't back off about what other people post.
This thread is about turn radius comparisions. Until you and your buddy banana decided that wasn't a good enough topic to post anyway. I know the Nazi's painted pretty airplanes, I just don't give a rat's ass. I know the MW-50 probably existed in some 190 versions. I just don't want to talk about it again. There are 4 versions of the 109 and the second 190 coming out soon. I don't think 2 versions of the F4U will kill you althought you LW boys have been crying in you laderhosen since the 1C came out. If you want it gone so bad do some offline testing and prove it's porked. There is plenty of data in this thread about turn radius comparisons but I know your not interested. By the way, the FW-190A8 is porked because the Nazies porked it. It was too heavy to turn or climb. The A-5 is better but not by much. It still has one of the highest wing loadings in the game. I guess you can cry about that too. Who knows. Maybe you can make a thousand post by the end of this thread?
WAAAAAHWAAAAAWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
F4UDOA
I regard this guy as a fly. or is a McFLY? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
"Stupids are like flies. They are everywhere but are easy to kill".
You say you didnt a personal attack for me. True you did to ALL 190 fans...
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
banana your tired of hearing someone complain about the F4U FM being porked? Have you noticed how many threads there are complaining about obscure details of FW-190 paint schemes and MW-50 boost weather it had it or not and Blah, blah, blah.
Humm...that sounds quite generical.
Ah, BTW if you go to Off topic,Help and training and Jg2's forums you will learn why do I have so many posts. McFLY! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I will forget your mention to nazi relations. I will because I want to laugh, and I wont let myself foul by a stupid like you.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
Ah, BTW, McFly...learn to read (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif). Or quote me if you find this;
1-Where do I say that Fw190A8 is porked?
2-Where do I say that F4U is overmodelled?
I DO say that Hispanos are turbolasers. But the plane itself is OK. Maybe a little easier than it should be, yes. But in essence OK.
So, buddy, go to school and learn the alphabet. Maybe someday you'll learn to read.
-
Now ram... You know what the doctor said about all that head butting!
lazs
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
Now ram... You know what the doctor said about all that head butting!
lazs
Oh...hello,Mr. Spammer. Have a nice day.
-
Lazs, I haven't found very much sustained turn data. The only thing I have is the NII-VVS stuff that Oleg posted and that is in the books by Gordon & Khazanov. I took my best crack at a flight test of the two planes that are in our set and I got the figures I posted above, which show 10-20% variation from the alleged NII figures. These two aircraft do not exist in WB so I have no way of comparing the two sims.
IMHO 10-20% is pretty damn close. Considering how much variability we have seen in historical and sim flight test data, I don't think it's worth arguing about, and certainly not worth starting a player revolt.
If someone produces evidence that other aircraft have more severe errors my opinion might change. Haven't seen that yet.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
RAM, Ron Jeremy was an actor who was known for his ability to "perform" consistently and on cue.
-
F4UDOA, why all the hostility towards me?
The truth is that Lazs loves the F4U(nothing wrong with that), and he will climb any mountain and posts as many threads as it takes until the F4U performs the way he wants it to.
Don't be fooled by him. He really doesn't care about the turning radius of the other planes. He's just using that as a springboard for getting his beloved F4U "fixed".
You seem to be under the notion that I have something against the F4U or their drivers. That couldn't be farther from the truth, my friend. I like flying every aircraft in the AH planeset, and you'll never hear me crying about the Cannon-Hawg.
When people like Hooligan, Vermillion, FunkedUp and Wells have discussions about aircraft performance, the discussions stay civil and very "geeky". But when Lazs starts to walk that same walk, instead of facts & figures, he uses sarcasm and hyberbole.
So, yeah, I'm a banana. But at least I don't spend my AH BB time constantly second-guessing HTC and crying about everything that I don't like about a particular plane.
-
Originally posted by funked:
P.S. If anybody wants to meet me in training, I can crank out 22 second G-2 turns on demand. You can ride as observer and run the stopwatch.
If you trim the plane right it's easy. I'm like Ron Jeremy with wings.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-01-2000).]
Sort of an inside loop version of the midguard serpent!
------------------
"Stupids are like flies. they are everywere, but are easy to kill"
RAM
-
Why cant I be as smart as you guys? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Just signing in and saying that I read all threads and sitting in backseat and watching the whole thing. Keep it up guys its free country express your feelings and ideas.
AirWolves
Bash
hoowwwwwwwwwwllllllll
http://fly.to/airwolves (http://fly.to/airwolves)
-
WTF? Why do I always get to the BBQ too damn late??
As for turn rates... we are all flyin the same AC filght models.. I mean if I run into Sox in his stang, me in mine; we got the same FM; yes?? Wanna bet if I can get the plane to outperform the MFG's (in this case; Pyro's) specs?? Same goes fer Sox.. he's got some moves... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Yah can take the reams of data and MFG and field objective/subjective observations & tests and toss 'em in the crapper. What it comes down to is the pilot... and he don't give a DAMN what the MFG said the 'top speed' was; or what the 'best sustained turn speed or rate' was.. he cares about the guy he's workin on; and NOTHIN else.. and will do WHATEVER he thinks he's gotta do to get to a solution... and if he knows his AC he WILL outperform the MFG's data. MFG 'limits and restrictions and specifications' be damned!
So; the real question is "Are the RELATIVE performance charteristics for the planes in this sim good enuff to emulate their real life counterparts??"
Hell yes!
Hang
-
Good point, Hang.
-
Well said Hang......now give Hairball back the keyboard and flight controls!
<walks away wondering how the hell that cat taught Hang so much, and wishes he had that cat>
Cobra
-
Hangtime, that would be true if all aircraft used the same tactics. If there is a problem with turn times, then that would affect planes like the A6M5b and Spitfire a whole lote more than planes like the F4U and Mustang, which use boom and zoom. That creates a relative imbalance in performance. Planes should all perform as close as possible to their historical counterparts.
If there is a turn problem, it would favor the boom and zoom fighters which don't rely on turning. Imagine if the P-51 could only get 15Mph over the Spit instead of the proper 30Mph? That would really hurt its ability to fight in its boom and zoom style. The reverse is also true, if the Spit isn't as agile as it should be, then it is at a non-historical disadvantage when it comes to avoiding the boom and zoom.
Sisu
-
I tested these numbers posted on IL2 forum in AH.
I noticed that Aces High comes up with exact numbers for those by using an initial turn from level speed pulling through a full 360 with the buzzer going.
best circle time of 20 sec left for g2 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
even at sustained 3g pull I get 22 seconds almost every time
perhaps there in lies the interpretation by AH designers interpreting these AHT numbers as initial 360 best circle times from level speed?
btw the individual turn rates and radius is not plugged into the FM if I remember right. it is all a product of the horizontal component of lift, weight etc.
by the way at sea level ground effect could have been a factor in turn rate on those tests.
AH has no ground effect.
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
--- Funked: ---
IMHO 10-20% is pretty damn close. Considering how much variability we have seen in historical and sim flight test data, I don't think it's worth arguing about, and certainly not worth starting a player revolt.
--- end ---
I think Shaw said something that a 10% difference in a performance gategory ( hmm well I mean speed and such ) makes two aircraft distinct enough to call one having an advantage. Now this doesn't apply directly perhaps to the sittuation at hand, if all a/c are off 10% to the same direction, their relative performance will still be off by that 10%. Now if one was minus 10% and the other plus 10% it's a different story.
OTOH, something that causes a plane to turn 20% less, could it make the plane loop 20% less or could it affect looping even more - say 30%? What I am getting at, that something that has one effect on one type of move might have different effect for some other move. If a plane needs that move more than the other planes - then in sense it is penalized more than the others because of this error.
Oh and the above paragraph is a real nice on for any sorta conspiracy theory too.
//fats
FWIW, historical note: WB P-51's top speed was off by 7mph and caused perhaps the most posted thread in flite-sim usenet group, thread that was about CK/WB anyhow.
-
Sisu..
Your point is valid.. but it sidesteps the question:
"So; the real question is "Are the RELATIVE performance charteristics for the planes in this sim good enuff to emulate their real life counterparts??"
And I have NOT seen as of yet any FM is this sim that is out of place relative to it's counterparts.
<S!>
Hang
-
Hangtime,
The problem is that if all aircraft have the correct speed, acceleration, climb and dive characteristics (I'm not saying they do, but lets say they do for the sake of the arguement) but turn worse than they should, that is not a neutral difference. Its not neutral because some planes, particularly the upcoming Zero, rely completely on turning, whereas some other aircraft rely completely on speed and climb. If the turn is not correct but the speed and climb are correct the Zero is adversely affected whereas the F4U is not.
That is why this would be a problem. I don't know if there is an error with turning or not, but I'd like it to be looked into in order to verify that it is correct, or in order to pinpoint the problem and fix it. Its not so much the matter of how a Spitfire turns with a Fw190, but rather is the Spitfire's turning/speed ratio correct as it stands alone. The same goes for every other plane.
BTW, Sisu is my sign off. It is a Finnish word that translates, roughly as "What must be done, will be done, regardless of the cost". Karnak is my handle and what I fly under. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Sisu
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
Fats, sure 10% is enough to make a difference. But if you consider the variation in flight test data of this sort (look at Wells' comments about stall speeds) as well as the variation in the flight test data from users (look at my results vs. those of Lazs and Hoolgn), 10% is nothing. You can model the plane perfectly and still see this 10% difference due to measurement variation!
Like I said before, if someone comes up with data showing that all the planes are off, and off by a large amount, then I might get interested.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
hey funked I tested circle times of the P-38L...
25% fuel light ammo load: 20sec 360 riding deep into stall horn w flaps (18 deg/sec)
100% fuel full ammo load: 22sec 360 riding the stall horn with flaps ( 16.4 deg/sec)
and the p51d left turn...
25% fuel 4 guns: 23 seconds 360 w flaps (15.6 deg/sec)
75% fuel(aux empty) 6 guns: 26 seconds 360 w flaps (13.8 deg/sec)
and the n1k2j left turn...
25% fuel: 17sec! w flaps (21.2 deg/sec)
100% fuel: 20 seconds with flaps (18 deg/sec)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I achieved these times by riding the stall as hard as possible (slowest controlable speed)and recorded the third turn after 2 complete 360's at sea level. e was blown completely... these were the sustained turn times. the initial 360 turn times with E were FASTER! than these sustained 360 turn times (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
after killing so many of you guys I just dont think your pulling hard enough with those 28 sec 360 turn rates (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
zero turn performance: A6m2b
Revolution
[Radius(m)/(sec)]
usual=186/9.33
quick=341/5.62
I dont understand that exactly but I believe the top figure is sustained and the bottom is initial 360 with speed time judging from the radii.
if I'm reading it right it looks like the spitfire is gonna be in deep cocka. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
http://home.interlink.or.jp/~katoh00/ (http://home.interlink.or.jp/~katoh00/)
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
Citabria, thanks for the tests of the other planes.
About the A6M2: To do a 341 meter circle in 5.62 seconds requires a speed of 858 mph pulling 43g! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
ROFL!!
I knew those numbers looked funny but I still think the zeke will be king of T&b and unseat that dang spitfire (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Yeah it should be great. And don't forget that A6M5 initial climb is about 3600 fpm which is better than the Spit V!
-
anyways.. back to the topic... I did a further comparison of the time it took for a bf109f4 from AH and a bf109 from wb to complete a full 360 riding the edge of a stall. here is what I found
Warbirds Bf109f4:
25% fuel 360 w flaps: 16 sec
50% fuel 360 w flaps: 17 sec
100% fuel 360 w flaps: 17 sec
Aces High Bf109F4:
25% fuel 360 w flaps: 19 sec
50% fuel bf109 w flaps: 20 sec
100% fuel bf109 w flaps: 23 sec
this comparison was done by timing the aircraft after the 3 consecutive 360s and then timing every other 360 for a couple turns with each different fuel loading thus giving a good indication of the turn ability in a classic 1v1 dogfight after all E has been blown. as always initial 360turn rates from level speed were faster. the results were quite consistant except for 1 360 in the AH 109 w 50% fuel which timed at 19 seconds while the others were hitting 20 seconds.
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
someone asked me about the spit 5 sustained turn so I did one with only 50% fuel... here it is.
spitV 50% fuel: 19sec
I waited until 3 full circles before I began timing every other one. I hit 19sec 3 times in a row before I gave up trying to get a better circle from it. however speed was about 85-90mph... very small radius if anyone wants to calculate it out
-
Hmm looks like for Bf 109F at least, WB overestimates turn rate. AH seems to be right on the VVS figures. Must be part of the vast Luftwaffe conspiracy behind all WB flight models. Let's go to AGW and start a "fix the turn rates" campaign.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-02-2000).]
-
Lets go to AGW? I dont think so. They have enough grief over there.
I will admit the erge to post pyro,s screenshot over there almost got the best of me (pays to advertise), but out of respect for the mac guys I fought it back.
[This message has been edited by easymo (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
Where did the AGW part become relevant Funked? Lazs plays AH as much as WB these days you know.
It's stuff like that which drives the growing animosity (even when it's joking) between the communities.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
So far only karnak and DOA have gotten the point... If all the turn rates were an even 20% low across the board all that would do would be to slow down the game and give an advantage to one type of "style'. This is fine as the limited planeset of AH favors one style anyway But.... Some planes are off by a much larger margin, in the 30-40% range, and others like the 109's are only off 10-15%. The biggest advantage to this slow and lopsided model goes to the LW planes and you end up with a 109G's outturning soviet fighters and the pig of a A8 turning allmost equally or better than P51's and Hogs. Check the -1D and 190A8. I don't know much about the Typhoon but it is hard to believe that a "real" A8 could outturn it.... Outturn anything actually.
How will they model the 190A5?? It will have to turn better than an A8 and "real" A5's lost 1 turn in three to Planes like the Hog and P51. Even those amongst us with too many head butts can see what a mess that will be... And they don't have to be karnak either.
lazs
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
The biggest advantage to this slow and lopsided model goes to the LW planes
Of course...we all know that HTC are all german planeset nuts, and those who arent karnak and F4UDOA are all a bunch of stupids that we dont bite your bait. Oh,well.
and you end up with a 109G's outturning soviet fighters and the pig of a A8 turning allmost equally or better than P51's and Hogs. Check the -1D and 190A8. I don't know much about the Typhoon but it is hard to believe that a "real" A8 could outturn it.... Outturn anything actually.
Lazs. Again. if you say that A8 outturns P51, or F4U ,is because one of this:
1-)You dont know to ride a P51 or F4U
2-)You are fighting against a top fw190 driver
3-)1 and 2
4-)1 and 2 and 3.
OR---YOU ARE TURNING AT MORE THAN 300MPH!. And,excuse me, initial turn of Fw190A8 fast is the best in this sim...as it was in fact.
You are proving time after time that never in your life you have put a hand over a 190 in Aces High.
How will they model the 190A5?? It will have to turn better than an A8 and "real" A5's lost 1 turn in three to Planes like the Hog and P51. Even those amongst us with too many head butts can see what a mess that will be... And they don't have to be karnak either.
lazs
Heh..you have real Luftwaffephobia. go to a psiquiatric, bud. First you come here and tell us that all the turning rates suck. Now we hear that all suck except the ones on Me109G and Fw190A?...go and take your phobia pills, bud. If we kill your little bellybutton is because we know to fly your iron. If you dont know to do the same in your planes then is your problem, not ours.
I drive Fw190. Lower than 225 mph even a B26 outturns it (I have seen that). If you cant do it with a F4U is because you need to fly CFS and let AH forever.
OF course there is the chance that you dont know that rollrate in Fw190 is really impressive, and that the plane does really incredible things on the vertical...if you start the climb fast.It can do a funny maneouver called "High yoyo", too ...and other called "sliceback"...you know...or you dont?.
I wont flat turn in my FW190 ever if I am drunk. So if you find that we fly smart...dont whine about it.
lazs you NEVER flew Fw190A8online. NEVER![/i] . I have just checked it. You flew on Tour4, and there is NO kill nor death recorded under your handle in FW190A8...nor in ANY 109. no G10, no G6,no G2,no F4.
I have flown ALL and EVERY plane here. I know how does a hog performs. I know how a P51 performs. I do know how a P38 performs.
You have no F"·$"·ing idea on how a Fw or a ME performs. So dont DARE to say they are overmodelled.
You are a good spammer, bud. But you wont foul us.
Have a nice spamming day. But please,not here.
-
LOL
Lazs you spammer you
quit fouling around
LOL
sorry guys, but couldn't resist
LOL
-
I ain't gonna say that Lazs is necessarily right (I'm not an aeronautics expert and don't claim to be), but RAM you've got no idea what you're talking about. The 190A8's cornering speed might be at 300 IAS, but the P-51 is still going to handily outturn the A8 at this speed.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Lazs, you've still not made any kind of case based on flight test data, or even a physical analysis!
Read the AFDU flyoff of Fw 190A against the Mustang. Even against the Mustang I (which turned a LOT better than the Merlin version), Fw 190A could give it problems in a turning battle.
With flaps down in AH, P-51D eats the Fw 190A-8 for breakfast!
Same for the F4U! Hell a good F4U pilot can give a Spit 9 a problem if he uses his flaps.
If you are having trouble out turning the Fw 190A in these planes, you need to work on your flying, not complain about the FM.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
SnakeEyes, I'm kidding. Lazs has just as much proof that WB turn rates are off as he has proof that AH turn rates are off, so I'm wondering why he chose this forum.
And both you and RAM are both wrong about 300 IAS turn rate. In this game both planes are limited by blackout and structural limitations at this speed. If you are at the same speed and pulling the same gees... you have identical turn rate and radius.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
Yeah, that would be true, 'cept I have a higher G tolerance than Ram... but that isn't modeled properly. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
I think this is canceled by the effect of the brilliantly-designed reclining pilot's seat in the Fw 190. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by funked:
And both you and RAM are both wrong about 300 IAS turn rate. In this game both planes are limited by blackout and structural limitations at this speed. If you are at the same speed and pulling the same gees... you have identical turn rate and radius.
Yes...and no. What I mean by better turning means that when I pull high Gs at high speed Fw190 keeps speed up easily, while the rest of the planes burns it faster.
P51 is near Fw190, tho...but when I fighted in P51s I never felt that I had the same snapturn as in 190.maybe only my impression,but I fly by feelings not by numbers.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
More turn data...
F4u-1C/D:
3G stall speed: 150 knts IAS (176 mph CAS, +3 knts)
Turn radius: 224m (70 degree bank)
Tested in AH: 30s @ 130 mph = 278m
3G radius corrected to 130mph/1.64G/52 degree bank = 266m
Error = 5%
P-51D:
3G stall speed: 159 mph IAS (162 mph CAS)
Turn radius: 190m (70 degree bank)
Tested in AH (75% fuel, no fuse tank):
27s @ 150 mph = 288m
3G radius corrected for 150mph/2.57G/67 bank = 194m
Error = 48%
P-38L:
3G stall speed: 170 mph IAS (175 mph CAS)
Turn radius: 221m (70 degree bank)
Tested in AH: 26s @ 160 mph = 296m
3G radius corrected for 160 mph/2.51G/66 bank = 226m
Error = 31%
-
Huh? What figures come from where? How can you predict 194 m for P-51D when P-51A did 290m with VVS? Not sure "% Error" is the right term here, maybe "% Variation".
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
Funked,
All 3G stall speeds come from the report of Joing Fighter Conference. I've used the respective manuals to get instrument error where possible. They are 'average' values obtained from reports of 28 pilots (38 in the case of the P-51). I figured the radius from that data (sea level) and then compared to my own test flights in AH. I was able to improve my turn performance somewhat from previous tests! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Feel free and try to get better results...
Does someone have those VVS tests handy? How many pilots were involved and how were those radii obtained? Are they sea level radii or 10k or what?
-
OK, so you get max. lift coefficient from the Fighter Conference 3g stall speed (IAS converted to CAS) then figure out what g/radius that gives you for a turn at the AH sustained turn speed? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I doubt I will get much different AH test results than you. Remember I did mine at 50% fuel because that's the alleged load for the NII-VVS tests.
Wish we had more stuff on the NII-VVS tests. Reading the Gordon/Khazanov book, it seems they did a really good job of measuring dogfighting performance parameters, instead of doing subjective comparisons like US and RAF.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
wells I hope everyone is using your numbers when flying in the arena...
between starting my turns from 300mph and turns from stallfighting into the buzzer... when I'm turning I'm never turning as slow as those numbers.
I guess everyone else is. maybe thats why they are so easy to kill.
-
Good post Frenchy, very true. There are so many factors involved, that all you can hope for is a good general degree of accuracy. Even in test reports you see this. I used to be wowed by seemingly conclusive evidence and thought I had the answers. You get one good report and think you have the answers. Get two good reports on the same plane and suddenly your answers have become questions again.
But without knowing specifics, things can vary tremendously just based on a few details. Planes are different, pilots are different, weights and power settings need to be known, is atmospheric conditions corrected to standard atmosphere, is indicated airspeed corrected to CAS, etc.
Planes also have personalities as I'm sure you know. Some are hangar queens, always breaking down, can barely make power, etc. and some are the complete opposite.
-Pyro
-
Citabria,
I only used those numbers to figure out a turn radius in which to compare to some data. I'm not telling anyone they should turn like that in combat! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Funked,
The numbers in the fighter conference are all over the map and I'm not sure that using the average value even represents accuracy. As far as I can tell, nothing is corrected to any kind of standard, just numbers scribbled on a piece of paper on a given day. They aren't all that consistent within themselves, nevermind any other potential sources of data. Nonetheless, I thought I'd see how things compared.
-
Roger Wells, I hear you.
-
ok wells (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I just don't see why HTC would change the turn rate between WB and AH making Aces High slower in the full 360 department unless they had logical reasons to interpret their performance that way.
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
Citabria, I don't think Wells is arguing any particular position here. He was just adding to our comparison of AH with historical sources.
I think any implication that HTC has some kind of preference for certain aircraft is ludicrous.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
Well's I think your trying to compair 2 different things. The 3g stall is basicly messureing max lco. Sustatained turn rate is also a function of power and drag where 3g stall is not.
Unless Im confused on your numbers compairison.
HiTech
-
Hitech,
I have been asking for the maximum lift coefficient being used in AH for the various A/C for a while. If it is not to much trouble for HTC to post them in the aircraft and vehicle section I would appreciate it. I think it would stop allot of the guessing taking place in this post. Here is a link to a NACA doc. discussing just that subject. http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/naca-report-829.pdf (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/naca-report-829.pdf)
Thanks F4UDOA
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
I know what ur thinking Hitech. I know that most of the planes can't sustain a 3g turn, but any kind of turn using CLmax can be used to determine a radius, no? I only used sustained turn in the sim because then everything is constant in order to figure the radius. In any case, Funked is right, I'm not saying AH is really bad or anything. Personally, I would think it to be very difficult to measure the 3g stall speed of an airplane. You have to watch 2 instruments at the same time while flying on the edge of stall. I dunno what method they used to do that? Maybe each pilot did it his own way...There's 2 methods that I can think of.
1. Try and hold a constant 3G's. This is probably the hardest one cause as speed falls, you have to pull more and more to maintain that 3g's.
2. Pull to impending stall and watch the acclerometer drop to 3 and then note the speed.
For a simulation, I would think using the poweroff/poweron level stall speeds would be more reliable and then everything else relates to that. What do you think HT?
-
wasn´t a finnish pilot able to fly a sustained(!!) 3G turn in a 109G2 @ ~320kmh/ 200mph??
Is it possible that the wing-factor K (from induced drag K*cl*cl) is very high for each plane here? A 109 glides with -2000ft/min, imo that´s a lot!
So or so, with these turnrates of AH no plane can fly a 180° "break turn", coming out with same speed 400yards behind you and shooting you down with spray and pray. Turnrates are ok imo
-
Wells.
Method 2 would be much easyer.
I Agree CLMax can be used to get an instantainious turn radius. The other forces are minor under normal cg/cl conditions unless below a 2g stall speed where motor forces start becoming a factor helping the turn.
Am still wondering what numbers your trying to validate wells?
BTW From you post a few weeks back,I did discover somthing I had never considered before. Any interesting number on a plane is whats the max speed at which a plane can maintain max AOA at full power.
HiTech
-
We're talking about turn radius. I think most would just like to know why there's a discrepency between Warbirds and Aces High in this particular area of performance and then which one might be more 'realistic'? Was it intentional (ie, more complex physics modelling?) or is there some kind of bug (ie, the P-39 bug from 1.xx WB?)
BTW From you post a few weeks back,I did discover somthing I had never
considered before. Any interesting number on a plane is whats the max speed
at which a plane can maintain max AOA at full power.
That would be the sustained maximum turning speed, eh? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Anyways, WTG lazs on another lengthy controversial thread...hehehe
-
RGR well's i.e. max sustained turn rate is just as much a function of drag/hp as lift. Thats why im wondering why your aproching it from purly a lift stand point.
I had just never thought about the turn rate in purly drag/hp max aoa terms before.
HiTech
-
RGR well's i.e. max sustained turn rate is just as much a function of drag/hp as
lift. Thats why im wondering why your aproching it from purly a lift stand point.
Because, I'm talking about radius, not rate.
-
Ok.. ram, I don't have problems with turning with 190's. I have no problem against any LW plane or jg2 in general if "score" is your criteria. I am only going by what I get for turn times in sec. offline. Perhaps offline is different than online? Oh... The roll rate on a corsair should be equal to a 190 BTW. It's ailerons were mechanicaly boosted. As for the turn performance....
funked... do you really feel that the 109's should turn better than the Soviet planes? Should the 190A8 turn very close or better than the Hog, 51, and typhoon and come kissing close to the 38L? Oh, BYW, A comparisson test of a 51B and a -1 Hog showed the -1 to be "superior" in the turn. So... How will they model the 190A5? They can't make it turn worse than an A8 and if they make it just 20% better then it will be in the 109 and Soviet range and far outclass 51's and Hogs. Very odd for a plane that in "real" tests lost one turn in three to a Hog and allmost as much to a 51B.
On the Zeke.... That "initial" climb must be very initial cause according to the T.A.I.U. the Zeke was outclimbed by the Hog at all altitudes. They list 2800 fpm for the zeke and they tested dozens of em. Course I never seen "initial" rates for a Hog before.
lazs
Oops, forgot.. Wells, were u testing the 1d or C. oddly the C seems to turn better than the D. There was something odd about the Hog at the joint conference no?
[This message has been edited by -lazs- (edited 06-04-2000).]
-
Reading thread and getting a little confused since I'm not an aeronautical engineer and can't quite understand all the rocket science in some of the posts. I'm just wondering if HTC actually uses specific formulas taken from some commonly available public source e.g. Library of Congress or published test data why can't they post that data to eliminate or at least reduce these no-win ping pong contests? I'm not asking that they post the program that puts all this data together into AH, just the basic elements e.g. P-51 turn data at 5K, 10K, 15K etc., standard atmospheric conditions, turn rate at 10, 20, 30, 40, 60 degrees of bank, resulting in 2,4,6,8 G's whatever = 10/20/30 degrees per sec. therefore it would take 19/20/21 secs to complete turn taken from Official Rockwell Publication No. 12345 dated XX/XX/4?. Just the facts Ma'am!
Beeg
(http://www.user.shentel.net/vonz/bee.jpg)
[This message has been edited by Beegerite (edited 06-04-2000).]
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
Ok.. ram, I don't have problems with turning with 190's. I have no problem against any LW plane or jg2 in general if "score" is your criteria. I am only going by what I get for turn times in sec. offline. Perhaps offline is different than online? Oh... The roll rate on a corsair should be equal to a 190 BTW. It's ailerons were mechanicaly boosted. As for the turn performance....
Who said anything about F4U's rollrate?...who said it was wrong?. I didnt.And F4U's rollrate equals Fw190's. NO problems here.
funked... do you really feel that the 109's should turn better than the Soviet planes? Should the 190A8 turn very close or better than the Hog, 51, and typhoon and come kissing close to the 38L?
Here we go again. 190 TURNS WORSE THAN p51 and F4U without flaps!!!!! and with flaps they eat the wuerger alive.
Damnit I've flown 3 types a lot and I KNOW how do they work!!! and 190 isnt NEAR f4U nor P51!!!!...and compare it with a P38...well is other universe.
190 turns like a 16-wheeled-truck. f4U and P51 much better ,but still not very well (they never went turners). P38 turns VERY well for its size...but if you are looking of a turning rate/radius of a spitfire you are going to be very annoyed.
Wich fuel loadouts do you use?...wich weapons? 4x20mm on 190 or 2x20mm?. 4mgs on P51 or 6?...D hawg or C hawg?...
Remember that a 50% fuel load in P51 is way more weight than 50% fuel loaded fw190 weight. And that weight MAKES a difference.And a BIG one. You asky why D hawgt turns worse than C. And it is easy. D hawg is HEAVIER than C, as was a ground attack adaptation from F4U1-A. What I dont understand is why the F4U1-C, being a development from A version, has the same ground attack ordnance than D version.
Weird isnt it? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-04-2000).]
-
This thread was much more interesting and a whole lot easier to understand when Ron Jeremy was the center of attention. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
[This message has been edited by banana (edited 06-04-2000).]
-
One of the few photos I could find of Ron with his clothes on:
(http://www.ronjeremy.com/new/roncomp.jpg)
www.ronjeremy.com (http://www.ronjeremy.com)
-
ram, u were saying that the 190 A (LOL) 8 had such a good initial turn rate because of the roll. I am just saying that the Hog should have the same. When I check offline the 190 and the Hog both turn allmost identical with 100% fuel loads with the 190 edging out the Hog until full flaps are used in the Hog. In real world testing a 12,900 lb hog gained one turn in three on a 190A5.... It should do a lot better even than that against a (LOL) A8. I don't really care what you see in fights against other planes in the arena since the conditions are unknown.
Again.. if the A8 turns this well where will the much better A5 fit in? How will they model a P47? I don't say that anything is being consiously done but... Something is off in the Fm and it affects different planes differently. It causes 109's to outurn Lags and A8's to turn with Hogs and 51's.
Oh... all water injected hogs at full fighter weight weighed within 150 lbs or so of each other unless you feel that the 4 cannon and their ammo were much lighter than 6 .50's and their ammo?
lazs
-
I say that A8 has a good initial TURN (dont know where did you read that the roll has anything to do with that) if faster than 300mph. If slower than 250, the Hog outturns it easily. In fact it can play hula-hop around the wuerger.
Hispeed 190 turning is very good because it doesnt bleed a lot of speed in the forst 2-3 seconds, thats why hispeed 190 jinking is a good move to make the enemy burn E.
A8 turns WORSE than a F4U if slower than 250 because at those speeds 190's E retention is much lower while F4U's is good. The result is that while F4U has more E the 190 will get slow...and slow 190 is dead 190.
Regarding C and D hawgs...It has NOTHING to do with 20mm cannons, but from the fact that C was developed from A as a air to air plane.
D version was a HEAVIER plane as it had more bomb racks and hard points for rockets (I think that AH models this bad ,as F4UC has exactly the same AG load than D...and that isnt correct AFAIK).
-
ram... I am saying that the 190A8 and the Hog 1D turn within 5% of each other even under 250mph.... I say the -1 should turn 30% better than an A8 at the least. What do you say?
Any -1 with wep weighs within 100-180 lbs of any other -1 with wep so long as the loadout is the same. The extra pilons and related equipment are insignificant weight wise.
-1("a") with wep,fighter, no drop tank = 12,039lbs.
-1D fighter weight same equipment loadout = 11,962lbs.
Earlier Corsairs had wing tanks (about 700 extra lbs when full) and some confusion about "internal fuel" exists. When -1's use only the 237 gallon center tank they all weigh about the same.
lazs
-
I was watching a medium sized black bird(crow?)
Zoom and boom a larger black bird(Raven?) while i was drinking beer and watching the little pongos have it out in the sprinkler on Sunday instead of playing AH.
Those crows know how to hold E.
<S> crows.
------------------
"Stupids are like flies. they are everywere, but are easy to kill"
RAM
-
Personally, there's only so much reality that I'd like to see. I've got more than a few hundred hours in bug smashers myself and I can tell you one thing. Some things are a pain in the bellybutton to deal with every time you change attitude or power.
Ever do a bunch of pattern work, or claw your way up on a very long assent? My friggen right leg starts to shake from the constant rudder input required. Oh, btw, in most air planes, the rudder trim is down under the glare shield or seat. (not easy to get to.)
So, I'll be quite happy as long as my NIK doesn't get out turned by a B17!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-Arrow
P.S. course.. even if he don't out turn me, it don't mean I ain't gonna auger
-
lags should outturn 109F's and easily outurn G's. 190A (LOL)8's should turn at least 30% or so worse than any model corsair. Corsair should turn slightly better than P51. dunno, did those Machi's really turn with Spits? I still think all of the planes turn too poorly but comparitively, these seem off the most.
lazs
-
Hiya!
Err im no expert, but HTC said something about the reduced energy-drain, not the turn rate. Therefor it could now be possible that the planes can now keep their corner-speed longer and therefor do a 360° turn faster.
So i dont know why this whole thread is about turn-rates because, theyre not to changed i think...
OK, then
------------------
CU
Purzel
-
Look what the dog dug up in the backyard.