Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: bigUC on September 25, 2002, 10:39:29 AM
-
Something is not quite right here. Spit V in AH has no problem diving, zooming or accelerating with a FW 190. The only way a fw 190 can escape is trough a prolonged dive (several tousand feet).
Especially zoom troubles me - spit V's outzoom 190's (A5) with ease, going from zoom to climb and hanging on the propeller for an eternity.
I have not made any tests (except 50+ encounters in AH). Is 190 acceleration and e-bleed off? Or is the Spit 5 porked? Does anyone have the know-how to test this?
-
SpitV's ailerons get stiff in dives, roll left, pull out a little, roll right, pull out a little, dive back down.
Leave him in the dust, but going in a near vertical dive will only leave him above you. You MUST dive away at an angle, this goes for any plane.
As for the zoom... initial speed, alt, angles, and how far away you extend in the zoom will determine whether you are doing it wrong, or if the 190 is broke.
-SW
-
Thanks for the reply, but i'm not asking how to escape a spit. I'm asking why the spit V is as fast as a FW 190 a5 in a dive, accellerating with it from the first few feets. It's historically uncorrect.
-
It isn't, initial speed of both planes is a big factor. Lag is a big factor. Distance between the two planes when the dive began is a big factor.
Besides, if you are going by pilot anecdotes, that won't help you get any semblence of historical accuracy.
Data and tests will.
-SW
-
thanks again, but thats why i'm asking for data and tests..
-
I see, I missed that sentence... carry on. :)
-SW
-
np, I just want a FW thread that does not end up in a LW bashing or a. Too many people here has obviously lost their girlfriends to Helmut Kohl. ;)
-
From what I've read ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL the 190 should outdive and out climb the SpitVb.
Here's a quote from "Focke Wulf: Fw190 In Combat" by Alfred Price. These are based on RAF tests done during the war from a captured 190A-3.
Against the SpitVb the RAF found that in regards to dive
"Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages"
and climb
"The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerable steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulled into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the spitfire has no hope of catching it."
Ok that's all fine and good but that doesn't of course prove anything. There are a ton of factors that come into play that can explain behavior we see while fighting in AH. "Slower" planes catch "faster" planes all the time in AH because they have more E, etc. etc. etc. To get anything changed my guess is you'd need documented tests done in AH and then supporting historical data (ie hard numbers). Careful testing in AH might also prove that nothing is amiss at all of course. :D
I'm curious about any results testing would reveal.
-
Well, that is what I suspected. I have read "historical" comparisons between Spit IX and FW a4 (Capt. Eric Brown) where the 190 has better acceleration, esp in a dive. I would suspect even bigger differences between Spit V and A5.
Does anyone know how to test initial dive and zoom acceleration/deceleration in AH?
-
The 190A-5 does out climb the Spit V in AH with comparative ease. Do the climb with a slight left turn to defeat the Hiszooka and to get the Spit turning against engine torque for best effect.
Not really sure about the dive though. I know I have used a dive to the deck to extend from Spits quite often before beginning the climb. I also have been surprised by Spits catching up with me while diving. I have assumed that they managed to unload for the dive while I did not. (I've also had Leviathn absolutly blow past me in a Spit V while I was going flat out in a Yak-9U. The man is a master.)
What I can say is that in the CT, where the opposition has been restricted to Spit V's from time to time, I don't fear the Spit V when in a 190A-5 because I always feel I can manage to run away when/if I loose the initiative.
-
Will have to do some testing on it. However, as for flying online, the spitfire, even if slower (say dive, pulling away, go level, pull up and zoom) have no trouble what so ever following a 190 A5.
The test data Soulyss posted was made between a Spitfire Mk V and a Fw 190 A3. the A5 was even a bit faster then the A3.
Will have to do some real testing of it in AH.
As for angles in climb, there is hardly any difference between any planes in AH.
Read a story by an RAF pilot, he said that the Spitfire Mk 1, above 25k had a very high angle of attack just to stay level, basicly flying as if it was climbing although it was only going level.
He was shot down at 30k once while flying level, can't remeber if the attack came from 12 oc or 6 oc though, the story is (I believe) in JG26 Diary.
Point of story, no plane, not even spit and hurri 1's have high angle of attack while flying level at 30k, in AH that is. Another story in real life.
-
Fighters, attack and bombers are not enough categories here, we need a new one for spits and simlilars: choppers.
-
The FW190A5 seems to dive away from Spitfire V well enough in my experience but the zoom climb is not quite as effortless like in that British wartime test.
-
all spits seem to zoom better then what I have read. The spit 9 dives with any plane in the game. The spit 5 in my experience doesnt dive nearly as well as the 9 (same airframe right?) but it will surprise you.
As for zoom climbs, Spray and prop hanging make any kinda of zoom with a plane that has similiar e a gamble. They will stall out before you but they can ping you out to 1.2k.
So if a guy is close and you dont have a clear superior e state expect to take hits in your zoom.
I usually dont zoom unless I have a 1k advantage and better e.
You can zoom to the left but even then expect a rain shower of bullets as the guy hangs on his prop. Or get a wingman. Its great hanging the types out to dry for a wingy.
-
Originally posted by Soulyss
and climb
"The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerable steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet.
450 ft/min is not a LARGE adventage by any streach of imagination. That's 150 METERS. Let's do this:
Spitfire is 50 yards behind the 190, they both climb for a MINUTE, now 190 is 200 meters away. Is this a huge adventage ? Minute later and still WELL WITHING THE GUN RANGE.
Superior climb is about 1500ft/min over the other plane. 450ft is dimes and nickels.
-
Awwwwww.....poor little luftweenies can't runaway from the uber spit V?:D :D
-
Since we all agree, can we then please have the spit v's zoom and acceleration tuned down a bit? Does anyone mind? :D
Jokes aside - what is wrong ? Spit V or FW 190 A? I find 190's zoom & acceleration lacking against any of it's historical adversaries, but it's most bleeding obvious against the Spit V. I agree that climbrate difference of 450 feet/min is not a huge advantage. That is however correct. I hope someone could do a few tests online and/or come up with original data for HT. Until then this is just a huge, looming suspicion.
-
Originally posted by thrila
Awwwwww.....poor little luftweenies can't runaway from the uber spit V?:D :D
Helmut Kohl ran off with your girlfriend? ;)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
all spits seem to zoom better then what I have read. The spit 9 dives with any plane in the game. The spit 5 in my experience doesnt dive nearly as well as the 9 (same airframe right?) but it will surprise you.
The spit 9 as more horsepower so it dives faster.
Dont forget that object, no matter their weight fall and accelerate at 9,8 meters per second.
-
Dont forget that object, no matter their weight fall and accelerate at 9,8 meters per second. [/B]
LOL :D :D :D
Someone please give this guy a real-life-phisics vs High-school-phisics lesson, because he BADLY needs it :P
P.S. Spit 9 more horsepower than Fw190A5?. Funny joke!. ;)
-
RAM, I think he is saying that the Spit 9 has more horsepower than the spit 5, therefore it dives better. Unless you see some thing I dont?? Is he comparing the spit9 to the 190A5??
-
If Spit Vs are giving you trouble in a FW-190, you need to start sucking less.
-
I bet ten to nothing that Montezuma just said a nother thing to prove his low IQ.
-
heres an excerpt from FW190 in combat' Alfred price.
a comparison between 190(a3 captured one)and spitVB(cannon version i believe). These are taken from RAF trials made during WW2 with the captured aircraft being flown by the Air Fighting Development Unit at duxford and farnborough in july 1942.
All aircraft are described as carrying a 'full war load'.
'The fw190 was compared with a spitfire VB from an operational squadron for speed and all-round manouverability at heights up to 25,000ft.The fw190 is superior in speed at all heights and the approximate differences are as follows:
2000ft fw190 is 25-30mph faster
3000ft fw190 is 30-35mph faster
5000ft fw190 is 25mph faster
9000ft fw190 is 25-30mph faster
15000ft fw190 is 20mph faster
18000ft fw190 is 20mph faster
21000ft fw190 is 20-25mph faster
CLIMB
The climb of the fw190 is superior to that of the spitfire VB at all heights.The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same,but the angle of the fw190 is considerably steeper.Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the fw190 is about 450feet/min better up to 25,000 feet.With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the fw190 is even more marked.When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive , the fw190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the spitfire has no hope of catching it.
DIVE
comaprative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the fw190 can leave the spitfie with ease, particularly during the initial stages.
MANOEUVRABILITY
The manoeuvrability of the fw190 is better that that of the spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the spitfire can quite easily out-turn it.The fw190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be usefull during combat.When the Fw190 was in a turn and was attacked by the spitfire, the superior roll rate enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the oppersite direction.The pilot of the spitfire found great difficulty in following this manooeuvre and even when prepared for it was seldom able to allow the correct deflection.A dive from this manoeuvre enabled the fw190 to draw away from the spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack.
Several flights were carried out to acertain the best evasive manoeuvres to adopt if 'bounced' .It was found that if the spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the fw190, it was easily caught even if the fw190 was sighted when well out of range, and the spitfire was then forced to take avoiding action by using its superiority in turning circles.If on the other hand the spitfire was flying at maximum continuous cruising and was 'bounced' under the same conditions it has a reasonable chance of avoiding being caught by opening the throttle and going into a shallow dive, provided the fw190 was seen in time.This forced the fw190 into a stern chase and although it eventually caught the spitfire, it took some time and as a result was drawn a considerable distance away from its base.This is a particularly useful method of evasion for the spitfire if it is 'bounced' when returning from a sweep.This manoeuvre has been carried out during recent operations and has been successful on several occations.
If the spitfire VB is 'bounced' it is thought unwise to evade by diving steeply, as the fw190 will have little difficulty in catching up owing to its superiority in the dive.
The above trials have shown that the spifire VB must cruise at high speed when in an area where enemy fighters can be expected.It will, then , in addition to lessening the chances of being successfully 'bounced', have a better chance of catching the fw190, particulary if it has the advantage of surprise.'
so there you have it straight from the horses mouth but of course as AKSW says this is all nonsense and the AH models prove these pilots didnt know what they were talking about :D joking :)
be aware this is the 190a3 i think that landed in wales and had some engine trouble in early tests which were resolved when spark plugs and ignition cables were salvaged from a downed dornier do bomber and used to replace the faulty ones in the fw190.The spitfire VB is armed with 4 20mm cannons and this would affect the performance vs our spitfire V (LF?) but i dont know by how much to be honest.4x303 brownings weigh as much as 2 x20mm? Essentially there isnt much difference between the 190a3 and a5 but as im sure others can tell you there are some.the A3 does have the same 2xmg17s 2xmg151/20mm and 2x20mm oerlikon MGFF .
theres also comparisons with spitfire IX , P51A, P38F, 4 cannon typhoon and prototype griffon spitfire.
what it basically ends up saying is you need to catch the fw190 'before it dives away' which it can do well in AH but i never get the feeling its really very superior to much do you?
-
Luckily, I had an opportunity to experience a lot of fights of this very exact kind on a regular basis(non-stop for a week): Fw190A-5s vs Spitfire MkVs in the CT(Tunisia).
The conclusion I have arrived to was that the Spit5, against the Fw190A-5, is literally "cannon fodder". Nothing the Allied put up in the air could compete with the Fw190A-5, and everytime equal numbers met over the deserts of Africa the SpitVs were literally slaughtered! The only thing that kept the situation "fair" was that there were always about 1.5 times more people in the Allied side
The Fw190A-5 accelerates, extends away, dives away, and climbs away from the Spit5 with ease[/B]. Therefore, the AH A-5 is superior against the AH Spit5.
...
However, there are some issues to address in that the fact that the 190A-5 is vastly superior over the Spit5 in AH does not necessarily mean it is advantageous in a historical manner.
The largest problem of them all is the ability to hit something easily at over 500~600 yards distance(gunnery), and the ability for some of the planes to zoom climb in an incredibly steep angle and keep doing it forever.
There is a thread in the Help forum that Daladyzmon posted:
How do these planes do this anyway?? (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60252)
As you can see from the thread, and test it yourself, certain planes like the Spitfire, N1K2, Typhoon, Tempest, Zero and etc can maintain a climb angle above 45 degrees, with the speed ranging 90~110mph and hold it there, maintaining at least 2500fpm climb rate and go all the way. To the extent of my knowledge, the discussion on this matter did not meet any satisfying results. All we could do was figure out which planes were able to do this, but we couldn't figure out how they do this nor if this is really, historically possible.
Planes like Bf109s can maintain a steep climb, but once the speed range drops near 100mph, the plane quickly destabilizes due to torque and low speed.. with quick deployment of full flaps the Bf109s can "hang" there for just about 3~5 more seconds as if it is in suspended motion, then it would stall out. In the case of the Fw190, holding that sort of steep angle is out of the question in the first place.
However, Spitfires maintain a 110mph climb, and N1K2s can maintain a 90~100mph climb. Zeros "flutter" at 80~90mph, and Typhoons and Tempests can also maintain a 100mph climb. Why? I have no idea. They just do that.
...
Therefore, due to this problem, any sort of zoom climb short of 80 degrees angle will be caught up if someone in a Spit or a N1K2 is determined to get you. He will track you up all the way like a Sidewinder missile and spray at 500~600 yards.
This means, unless you have E-superiority enough to lure him in an immediate straight vertical zoom, if you are gonna try to gradually lure him up vertical in a 190, its not gonna work. Even Zeros will catch up with you.
You will have to zoom straight 90 degrees, hold it there until 100mph, and Hammerhead downwards(and hope you don't fall into an inverted flat stall).
.. and that, is why the Spitfires seem to zoom so good. They climb forever in a 50~60 degrees angle at 100~110mph. I could do that in a Bf109 if I nurse it carefully, struggling to hold it from wobbling side to side.. but the Spits and N1K2s, they're stable. No problem whatsoever in aiming if the direction the nose was pointed at was good from the start.
-
Originally posted by RRAM
Dont forget that object, no matter their weight fall and accelerate at 9,8 meters per second.
LOL :D :D :D
Someone please give this guy a real-life-phisics vs High-school-phisics lesson, because he BADLY needs it :P
P.S. Spit 9 more horsepower than Fw190A5?. Funny joke!. ;)
that actually roughly correct for unpowered dense objects not near their teminal velocity nor sound speed - like a monoplane fighter...no idea what Vterminal would be for a Spit or 190 would be though...SE5a, powered had Vterm ~ 275 mph, so i would expect Vterm for Spit or 190 would be quite high...Spit might have a lower (faster) shape coefficient than 190, as 190 has that big flat nose, so it is quite possible that unpowered, Spit would out-dive 190...hey none of this has anything to do w/ this issue so i shut up now..o yeah, the point i was making - basic newtonian physics is accurate enough for most real world situations - NASA uses it for all their mission planning
-
Whgates, I think, not sure though, that Ram refered to the Spit 9 having more HP then the A5. While IMP, like Ammo said, refered to the spit having more HP then the Spit 5. :)
This forum is full of missunderstandings now :)
-
No, I was referring to the fact that in RL factors such as WEIGHT do count (and count a lot) when an object is falling thru the air. This is no high-school class of phisics where you solve a problem without drag, or assuming the object under study is in a vacuum environment. THis is RL, and in RL we have a nice atmosphere that changes the problem quite a bit from the theoretical, "perfect", solution we reach when we solve the same problem in a vacuum environment.
So, wanna try this to see it by your own eyes?: throw trhu your window a 2inchx1inch box made of paper. See it fall. Then throw trhu your window a 2inchx1inch box made of steel. See if fall.
If both fall the same way,with the same acceleration, and they reach the ground with the same terminal velocity, then I'm mickey mouse :D
then the comment about the spit 9, I thought he was talking about the spit compared with the 190, thats why I said "funny joke" :)
-
Originally posted by RRAM
LOL :D :D :D
Someone please give this guy a real-life-phisics vs High-school-phisics lesson, because he BADLY needs it :P
P.S. Spit 9 more horsepower than Fw190A5?. Funny joke!. ;)
I never said 190 had less horsepower than spit I said Spit 9 has more hp than spit 5 ;)
Drag would affect dive speed but thats obvious since it also affect level speed and climb speed so I did no mention the obvious
Didnt Galileo prove that objects fall at same speed no matter their weight? (feathers and paper dont count since air will slow them down)
-
Originally posted by Imp
(feathers and paper dont count since air will slow them down)
Planes aswell. Wings slow them down...kinda ;).
A plane with great mass and small wings (read 190) will dive better than light plane with huge wings (read Spitfire) ;). Engine power isn't to be neglected either.
Then again, Spit IX and 190A-3 are about the same weight and same power. All reports said 190 outdiived the Spit. Spit also has more aerodynamic fuselage. Only reason I could think of are the wings.
Seems analogy of steel ball vs feather applies to 190 vs Spit. If steel ball dives better than feather, it should also zoom better than feather, I believe ;).
-
That is drag of course the point I was trying to make was that a 1000Kg plane is pulled towards the earth by 1000Kg by gravity while a 2000Kg plane is pulled towards earth by 2000Kg by gravity. All at 1G of course in a dive you probly dont have 1G
affecting you.
Or am I still wrong RRAM or should I say mister know-it-all :p
P.S: How does negative Gs work?
-
Originally posted by Imp
That is drag of course the point I was trying to make was that a 1000Kg plane is pulled towards the earth by 1000Kg by gravity while a 2000Kg plane is pulled towards earth by 2000Kg by gravity.
Look, mate...fill your mouth of Galileo laws ,if you want to. THey're not appliable here because those laws only apply when the system has no friction coming from the air ,nor any external interference.
In real life there's air, you know. That air creates friction, and that friction causes that Galileo's laws stop applying automatically.
I repeat, atmosphere's not vacuum, and a heavier plane will dive better than a lighter one the other things being all equal (power, aerodynamics, etc).
In the case of the 190, we have every reason to think it will dive MUCH better than the spit:
1- 190 it's heavier
2- 190's got more engine power
3- 190's got higher wingloading
..etc
So stop the high-school phisics class, please. And,just FYI, "mister all-knowing" RAM is studying 4th grade of Phisics, so, well, I'm not speaking out of the blue here, young padawan :D
-
I've never been very good at advanced physics, however, I know Ram is right. The only times those laws are working is in Vacum, can try it in pipes by sucking out the air and then dropping a feather and a steel ball or something, both will fall the same speed. Drop them where there is air, the steel ball will win wihout trouble.
-
Vacuum has no resistance, and that's where the law applies.
In the air, a feather will not fall the same speed a bowling ball. It will in a vacuum.
Weight, drag, acceleration (both gravity AND from the object's own power source) will all combine into making one object fall faster than another.
RAM- are you sure wingloading will figure into a plane's diving acceleration properties? I don't think it would, but that's why I'm asking.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
I bet ten to nothing that Montezuma just said a nother thing to prove his low IQ.
I guess personal attacks which don't address the post are OK on this board?
I'll keep that in mind.
-
you do it all the time
read your first post
If Spit Vs are giving you trouble in a FW-190, you need to start sucking less
All the guy asked for was some tips. Thats typical of you. It shows your aw breeding.
-
for aerodynamics, it's not the weight of the A/C that counts, its the density & the shape coefficient...AFAIK Spit IX carried 1660 HP merlin, 190 A4 carried 1700 HP BMW 801D-2 and so did A8, so i would assume A5 did too..,
-
Originally posted by Wotan
you do it all the time
read your first post
All the guy asked for was some tips. Thats typical of you. It shows your aw breeding.
He didn't ask for a tip, he said 'something is not quite right' with the Spit V because he can't run away from them in a 190.
How typical of a Luftwhiner, like you, to rush to his defense.
-
Does anyone have the know-how to test this?
Thats was his question.
Find a post with whine by me about any plane....... Go ahead bet you wont find one.
But again heres is clear indication of your hypocracy.....
I guess personal attacks which don't address the post are OK on this board?
The only personnal attacks are coming from you.
-
Well RRAM I dont recall saying the drag of the aircraft would not affect speed because it will all I was saying was that Gravity would not make the plane go faster because of its weight wich is should still be true right?.
P.S.: Not everyone has a degree in physics so stop insulting me
-
Errr..... I thought the basics for physics remained the same.... its just that more variables have been added? The Co-eff of friction being one? Damn....its beeen a looong time.
xBAT
-
Originally posted by Wotan
That was his question.
This was also what he said:
"Thanks for the reply, but i'm not asking HOW to escape a spit. I'm asking WHY the spit V is as fast as a FW 190 a5 in a dive, accellerating with it from the first few feets. It's historically uncorrect."
Maybe training could help but it looks like a case of an unrepentant dweeb blaming the modeling.
I took up your offer Wotan and scanned some of your posts in this forum. Although we have disagreements, I no longer think you're a luftwhiner. It is unfortunate for you that the reasonable fans of German planes have Wilbus, RAM, et. al. acting as advocates.
You should be unbiased enough to realize that BigUC’s main problem with the Spit V is his own and there is probably nothing wrong with the model.
We might also agree that the 190A5 dominates the Spit V so much that AH could use a 190A4 or earlier to balance out some of the events and arena setups.
-
I am no protectoer of German planes, I know what they were good for and know what they were bad for, I know what planes could beat them and were better. I don't, in any way, think or say that the german planes are the best nor do I run around the BB and say they are undermodelled. The Ta152 has been proven undermodelled and that's all I say about any plane, The other 190's are not undermodelled AFAIK, and no eveidence have been posted that say they are.
We might also agree that the 190A5 dominates the Spit V so much that AH could use a 190A4 or earlier to balance out some of the events and arena setups.
That proves that you don't know much, or anything at all about the 190, even the 190 A1 dominated the Spit 5 (although A1 had lots of engine problems). The A3 was tested against the Spit 5 and domintated even more then the A1 did. We have an A5 and as it is in the MA it doesn't perform as good against the Spit 5 as combat reports say. But you've proven that you don't know much about this, and, in here, just as you did in the Ta152 thread I started, come in with another Jack bellybutton comment as you've been so well known of all over this board, by more then just some players.
As for personal insults, you started it by saying to a player, who had done nothing wrong, no whine what so ever, just a question and tell him to start "sucking less", that not only shows how wrong you are and how little you know, but all that you'll ever be good for is to make personal insults on players who question things.
-
Look at the answer Biguc recieved from the lwhiners. They basically told him what he needed to do to beat a spit 5.
No lwhining there.
Check BigUC scores going back a while hes relatively new to lw planes in general. You dont pop into the "f4u-4 is porked" threads or the "spit 14" is porked threads and insult those guys.
What you do is pop in these threads and insult folks.
I dont know what your deal is but theres lots of whining going about alot of things. Folks explained to Biguc what he needed to do. They posted real life test results and explained what he needs to do to deal with spit 5s in ah.
Ofcourse none of these planes are modelled 100% correct, they cant be be. But because someone raises a question based on his experience doesnt mean he deserves to be insulted.
Even if it is a whine, dont you think ht can recognize that? Or the rest of us?
You can do what you want, but dont take any high road.
I guess personal attacks which don't address the post are OK on this board?
Especially, when you are the one who starts it.
Just my .2 cents take it with a grain of salt .........
-
Montezuma do you even play AH as I cannot find any score info under that name.... Troll?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Montezuma do you even play AH as I cannot find any score info under that name.... Troll?
what does noodle size have to do with anything here?
:confused:
-
He flies ah as a knight which is here nor there lotsa folks post here that dont currently fly ah.
Unfortunately, the only time I notice him post is to insult someone.
-
"can maintain a climb angle above 45 degrees, "
Not for me they can't. Not the Spit, not the N1K2, not the 109, none of them. At most they do maybe 25-30 degrees. MAYBE. FYI a 3K/min climb at 80 MPH is something like a 25-degree climb. A climb in AH will SEEM a lot steeper than it actually IS, same as reality.
J_A_B
-
Thanks for the replies. I have no need to dwell on montezuemas posts.
What I seek is not advice on how to escape from Spit V's. What I'm looking for is opinions on spit V vs. fw 190 dive and zoom characteristics, and hopefully some tests in AH and comparisons with R/L flight tests. Ergo: Business as usual in the flight model whine o'rama.
[edit] Childish insults removed.[/edit]
-
I dunno what want but describe you think a zoom is and when you do it
If spit v in chasing at co e in a 190a5 you arent going to out zoom.
If hes anywhere from d500 and further he can follow your climb with out pull as many gs as you but cutting your angle. Thus conserving more e.
If you just jerk your stick back to go straight up you are going to burn even more e.
So a co e spit chasin you at d700 and you pull over 2-3 gs to go vert you bleed some e. The spit can cut your angle and pull far less gs and conserve more e.
The spit can spray out to d800 and kill you.
Unless you have a greater e state then you are not going to create enough seperation by zooming.
Theres no opinion, in some instances a 190a5 will out zoom a spit 5, in some instances the spit 5 will catch a 190 in the verticle.
Are you asking us to confirm your belief that the 190a5 is porked or the spit 5 is uber? Then no you are wrong on both accounts. The 190a5 flown correctly will whup a spit 5.
Theres a very narrow envelope on how you can "out anything" in any plane.
See the attached image. The 190 pulls hard up the 47 pulls less and catches the 190. The key is your e state verse the attacker.
-
So he actually is a HTC customer and AH player and isn't just here to post insults and be an ass... Ok good to know that!
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
I don't, in any way, think or say that the german planes are the best nor do I run around the BB and say they are undermodelled.
That is about as true as when you say that you have me on your 'ignore' list.
But since you are reading my posts now, I thought I might share some news that you might find interesting. I heard that HTC is going to add MW-50 to the FW-190A5.
HAHA not really!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So he actually is a HTC customer and AH player and isn't just here to post insults and be an ass... Ok good to know that!
All this entertainment is a bargain at $15 a month.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
If Spit Vs are giving you trouble in a FW-190, you need to start sucking less.
Spits are easy to get kills in. Focke-Wulfes are tough to get kills in. Thats why I always shoot the chute of a Spit pilot who cant fly anything else.
-
Yes, but Spits are relatively tough to LAND your kills in, whereas the 190 is quite a bit easier.
The A5 and A8 are a little tougher to land your kills in than the Dora though.
-
Yup, you'e on my ignore list, have read what you've said in this thread though.
-
Ph33R the spit.:) (http://dautremont.chez.tiscali.fr/Spit/Spitfire_c16.jpg)
Clipped wings +bubble canopy spit XVI.....mmmmmmmm.
it's a red X at the moment...so ph33r the X until i get another pic. :D
-
Leaving aside the usual crapping that starts each time that Montef**kma messes into a civil thread...
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
RAM- are you sure wingloading will figure into a plane's diving acceleration properties? I don't think it would, but that's why I'm asking.
-SW
Well, I'm not quite sure it does by itself, or if it is a side-effect of having a BIG wing creating great sustentation. PLanes with a big wing and a low weight have very high drag at high speeds, drag owed to the fact that at high speeds the wing creates a lot of sustentation and that creates a quite big ammount drag (Induced drag?...not sure how it is called in englihs).
Low wingloading planes have a lower induced drag, drag they don't have to beat at high speeds, thus they always dive better on the long run than big-winged planes.
Fw190's wing was made small on purpose just for that reason...to bless the plane (at the cost of slow-speed turning) with a very high top speed, a very low roll inertia...and because planes with small wings dive and zoom much better because the lower induced drag they create.
so, yes, high wingloading planes dive better than low wingloading ones :).
Originally posted by Imp
Well RRAM I dont recall saying the drag of the aircraft would not affect speed because it will all I was saying was that Gravity would not make the plane go faster because of its weight wich is should still be true right?.
Wrong. That is right in VACUUM. That is WRONG in a non-vacuum environment. Is the third time I repeat it to you...lets hope this one you get it at last.
P.S.: Not everyone has a degree in physics so stop insulting me
Insulting?...where did I insult you?. You answered my post with that "nice" paragraph:
Or am I still wrong RRAM or should I say mister know-it-all :p
I made a couple of ironical comments in my answer, but if anyone has insulted here ,is not me.
Anyway, if you feel insulted, is your problem, that wasn't my intention. Now follow this advice: next time don't talk so freely about something you don't know a toejam about, and much less poking jokes of the type of "hey this all-mighty-all-knowing guy" at people who DO know about the topic , because they are showing and explaning to you, why you are wrong.
First, is not smart ,and second, you get a sarcasting answer and then you cry like you did in that post :).
-
In the test report between the A4 and the Spitfire Mk 5 and Mk 9, the 190 outzoomed both when pulled up from level flight. It was even more superior when pulled out of a dive into a zoom.
Test report gives the reason for this that the 190 had much better acceleration, specially over the Spit 5. IN AH spit 5 has MUCH better acceleration then the A5 (and test were against an A3, A5 bigger strnger engine).
Ram, and all in here, check out my new thread. BigUC has seen it already.
Here is the new thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65551)
Tests made in AH, between A5 and Spit 5. Spit 9 will be posted later.
-
II understand what your saying but I dont understand how Galileo tested it in Vacuum in the 16th century????????????
So how does gravity work in non vacuum?
-
He sucked the air out of some sort of pipe or similair. Sucking the air out of things isn't something that we just found out how to do. Been around quite long.
Gravity works the same way, but as everything is affected by other forces aswell (drag, lift, pull, friction etc) it can't be used in the same way. A ping pong ball and a led ball of the same size won't fall as fast, or accelerate as fast or reach the same top speed.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
He sucked the air out of some sort of pipe or similair. Sucking the air out of things isn't something that we just found out how to do. Been around quite long.
Gravity works the same way, but as everything is affected by other forces aswell (drag, lift, pull, friction etc) it can't be used in the same way. A ping pong ball and a led ball of the same size won't fall as fast, or accelerate as fast or reach the same top speed.
i just dropped a ping-pong ball & my mouse roller ball (hard rubber) 18' - they fell at the same rate. galileo did his initial experiments rolling balls on inclined planes (slower accelerations were easier to time). proved the point to his many doubtful peers by dropping balls of varying weights and densities from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. any vaccum created by galileo in his time would have had a negligible difference to normal air with respect to aerodynamics. even today, the best vaccum man can create is several billion times denser than intergallactic space, which itself is not nearly a perfect vaccum (the average cubic meter of intergallactic space contains about 200 atomic mass units worth of matter). the roll played by friction with air in any falling body is negligible until it begins to approach it's terminal velocity
-
Originally posted by whgates3
galileo did his initial experiments rolling balls on inclined planes (slower accelerations were easier to time).
And he did it knowing that his tests wouldn't give a really accurate idea of what happens on vacuum, and that all he was going to get was an aproximation, at its best. Galileo wasn't exactly a pisspoor scientific, you know.
And about the rolling ball thing...
First of all: Rolling balls spend a good ammount of its energy on their rotation, rotation caused by the graze between the ball and the inclined plane. In other words, a ball rolling down a plane is losing energy in its rotation. Galileo laws (as he spelled them) aren't apliable here either.
Second of all: The ball rolled because the graze between the ball and the plane, graze that itself causes an external force opposed to the movement of the ball, and graze that means that Galileo laws aren't,again, appliable because of the presence of an external force.
Galileo did APROXIMATIONS on his laboratory tests and deduced from his tests that in vacuum, everything fell at the same rate.
If you still think that everything falls the same way in the atmosphere, check what I said. Get a 2x2cm box made of paper and throw it thru the window. Get a 2x2cm box, same shape, of iron, and throw it thru the window.
They fall the same way?.
There you go.
-
So do you all deny that F4F Wildcat outdived the A6M, cuz they had almost the same horsepower, almost the same speed, very similar wing area, the biggest difference was weight..
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So do you all deny that F4F Wildcat outdived the A6M, cuz they had almost the same horsepower, almost the same speed, very similar wing area, the biggest difference was weight..
I distinctly recall reading that the tests performed on the first captured Zero concluded that it was equal with the F4F-4 in dives except that the A6M's engine cut out in pushovers.
Pilot accounts from Lundstrom's The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign also seem to indicate that the F4F could not rely on outdistancing an A6M using pure dive acceleration. (The Zero's severe deficiencies in high-speed manoeuvrability may have been a more significant factor here.)
I'm definitely not suggesting that mass has no impact on dive acceleration... but how big a part does it play, compared to other aerodynamic factors?