What happened to LW?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Based on what?  Your opinion contrary to common sense?

I was maintaining and repairing radial engines when you were in ditties, and that includes R-1820s (HU-16E, US-2B, S-2F and C-1A), R-2800s (C-118B and C-131F), R-3350s (SP-2H) as well as the Lycoming O-540 (U-11).

So, stow your pathetic know-it-all nonsense. Guys who have "been there and done that" aren't interested in wannabe diatribes.

Do yourself a favor and consult professional help.

Widewing

[Crumpp]

I was maintaining and repairing radial engines when you were in ditties, and that includes R-1820s (HU-16E, US-2B, S-2F and C-1A), R-2800s (C-118B and C-131F), R-3350s (SP-2H) as well as the Lycoming O-540 (U-11).

Yeah and ask any Marine about the "primative" conditions on board a carrier!

With all your experience you would think you would not make so many silly claims that just do not bear out in fact.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Widewing]

Originally posted by HoHun

The Patuxent River A6M5 (yellow plot) data came from Naval Air Tactical Note 106, distributed to Royal Navy F6F squadrons deployed to the Pacific. The tests were performed by TAIC at Patuxent River, which the RN used to generate NATN 106. As far as I know, only the Patuxent River facility used independent air speed measuring equipment. I seem to recall that field tests performed by TAIC in the war zone relied on aircraft instrumentation for speed data. However, my memory is vague on this. Do you have any info on test methodology?

My regards,

Widewing

[Karnak]

Widewing,

Yes, it did pull away, but as I recall the gain was about 200 yards after a pretty dang, long time.  People hear seem to thing that when the RAE says the Fw190 outdove the Spit IX it means the Fw190 should be 2000 yards ahead after a dive of, say, 10,000ft.  That is just silly.  The performance differences were not that great.

Originally posted by Crumpp
That is not true according to the results of flight-testing.  The greater the drag, the steeper the angle of climb and slower the best climb speed.

Both the P 51 and the FW 190 have less drag than the Spitfire. Yet the Spitfire out climbs them.

Both the P51 and the FW-190 climb at a faster best climb speed and shallower angle than the Spitfire.

Interesting phenomena with the FW-190 too.  The FW-190G8 has much higher drag than the FW-190A8 and is heavier.  The FW-190G8's climb rate is substantially greater.  It climbs at a slower speed but much steeper angle.  The FW-190G8 is also slower than the FW-190A8.  It has more drag.

In the climbing test of the FW-190A8 with Zustatzkraftstoffbehälter, the climb rate at low altitudes with the drop tank actually increases dramatically as well.  The angle steepens and best climb speed slows way down.

All the best,

Crumpp

Neat.  Of course it has absolutley nothing to do with what I posted and is information I already know.

Crump, stop thinking we're all morons and working overtime to misread whatever we say so as to make us wrong.  It is really damn irritating.

[Crumpp]

The performance differences were not that great.

No they were not when measured side by side.  However they made a huge difference in actual combat.

Crump, stop thinking we're all morons and working overtime to misread whatever we say so as to make us wrong.

That is not what I am trying to do Karnak.  I certainly do not think everyone is "morons" inspite of some obvious trolls. It is a BBS so sometimes things get misread or misunderstood from the writers intention.  That works both ways.

Combined with the insistance of some that allied physics works differently from axis physics.

As I said in the begining of this thread.  I see no anti Luftwaffe conspiracy, just a lack of data.

Facts are the science and the history do line up in reality.  They do not seem to be lining up in our "simulation".

All the best,

Crumpp

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Crumpp
No they were not when measured side by side.  However they made a huge difference in actual combat.

That isn't really my point though.  Some people seem to expect such massive differences that unless we see differences as massive as they imagine there were they will whine about it.  Of course the differences were important to combat and made a big difference in the outcome.

That is not what I am trying to do Karnak.  I certainly do not think everyone is "morons" inspite of some obvious trolls. It is a BBS so sometimes things get misread or misunderstood from the writers intention.  That works both ways.

Combined with the insistance of some that allied physics works differently from axis physics.

As I said in the begining of this thread.  I see no anti Luftwaffe conspiracy, just a lack of data.

Facts are the science and the history do line up in reality.  They do not seem to be lining up in our "simulation".

All the best,

Crumpp

I don't think there is either, but I do think there is distinctly room for improvement in the models.  Somethings are overmodeled such as the Bf110s and some things are undermodeled such as the Fw190s.  I doubt anything HTC does other than blatantly nerfing all Allied airfraft so that they simply cannot fight back will silence some people's opinions that there is an anti-Luftwaffe bias.

[Crumpp]

That isn't really my point though. Some people seem to expect such massive differences that unless we see differences as massive as they imagine there were they will whine about it. Of course the differences were important to combat and made a big difference in the outcome.

Agree 100% people do expect to see huge differences that did not exist.

I don't think there is either, but I do think there is distinctly room for improvement in the models. Somethings are overmodeled such as the Bf110s and some things are undermodeled such as the Fw190s. I doubt anything HTC does other than blatantly nerfing all Allied airfraft so that they simply cannot fight back will silence some people's opinions that there is an anti-Luftwaffe bias.

I certainly hope not.  I see no reason to "nerf" allied planes nor do I believe in an anti-Luftwaffe conspiracy.  Facts are the more fun the game is the better for HTC.  

Using correct data will IMHO go a long way to making things more competative.  Accurate modeling is enough.  Facts are the technology was pretty much the same on all sides.  People confuse a lack of strateagic materials or the pursuit of new technology with a lack of existing technology.  It is more about the engineering trade offs chosen than anything.

All the best,

Crumpp

[milian]

terminal velocity has everything to do with mass!

read carefully:

More massive objects will only fall faster if there is an appreciable amount of air resistance present.

an aircraft with a 5 sq ft plate area travelling at 400 mph at 10,000 ft will have 1,500 lbs of drag, you can't ignore air resistance.

Now consider two aircraft, one 12,000 lbs and one 6,000 lbs.  As f=ma, or f/m = a, where force = weight - drag, we get (w-d)/(w*32.2)=a, now at 1,500 lbs drag at 10,000 ft, we get an acceleration of 28 ft/sec^2 for the 12,000 lb aircraft and 24 ft/sec^2 for the 6,000 lb aircraft.  After 10 seconds under the same conditions, the 12,000 lb aircraft will be travelling at least 27mph faster.  

At terminal velocity, where weight = drag, the 12,000 lb aircraft will "theoretically" ignoring prop drag and (mach) compression effects based of a 5 sq ft plate area, will have a terminal velocity of 1130 mph at 10kft, the 6,000 lb aircraft will have a 800 mph terminal velocity.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Karnak
Widewing,

Yes, it did pull away, but as I recall the gain was about 200 yards after a pretty dang, long time.  People hear seem to thing that when the RAE says the Fw190 outdove the Spit IX it means the Fw190 should be 2000 yards ahead after a dive of, say, 10,000ft.  That is just silly.  The performance differences were not that great.

It sounds as if were much more than a 200 yard gain.

From NATN No.106:

"8. Initial dive accelerations of the Zeke 52 and the F6F-5 were about equal, after which the F6F-5 was far superior."

Perhaps you are thinking of another test.

My regards,

Widewing

[Crumpp]

"8. Initial dive accelerations of the Zeke 52 and the F6F-5 were about equal, after which the F6F-5 was far superior."

Yeah it says right here under the definition of "far superior" that it is at least a billion jillion light years......

Come on Widewing, what is your definition of "far superior"?

Hardly scientific.  All we know is that a Zeke in unknown condition was "at least" capable of out accellerating the F6F-5 in the initial portion of the dive.  After that the Hellcat wins.   By how much??  How would it do against one right off the flight deck serving in a IJNAF Sentai?  Probably not quite as "far superior" as this  Hellcat.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Waffle]

so...then everything said and posted about the fw190 being "far superior" to others planes is well.... really not that superior?

[Crumpp]

so...then everything said and posted about the fw190 being "far superior" to others planes is well.... really not that superior?

Sure.  Just as the Hellcat though it was enough to make a difference in a fight.

That is all I am saying.  I fully agree with Karnak.  Measured differences are not that great but should add up in combat.

We also see the "at least" performance of the FW190 in those test's just like TAIC Zeke testing.  Not top performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah it says right here under the definition of "far superior" that it is at least a billion jillion light years......

Come on Widewing, what is your definition of "far superior"?

 

Let's see...  A Spider Monkey's reasoning skills Vs. your reasoning skills. Now that's far superior! He might recognize you as a banana, but that mistake could be justified by the general resemblence.

Geez Einstein, I quoted the report verbatim. You surely own a dictionary, maybe even a thesaurus. The words "far superior" are self-evident. You know, as in much better, considerably better and so on. It's common knowledge that to shake off a Zero, all an F6F pilot had to do was execute a diving turn. In fact, the same NATN states to do exactly that.

Listen, rather than annoy everyone here, why not get to the root of the problem and sue the Priest?

Widewing

[Crumpp]

So put a number on "far superior"?

All the best,

Crumpp

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Crumpp
So put a number on "far superior"?

All the best,

Crumpp

Still trolling, huh? How does one put a number on something not quantified with a number?

Widewing