What happened to LW?

[Mime]

Maybe the LW planeset is accurate, and the Allies planes are wrong.... i see never see any critique of those snap rolling Spit8's and 16s that roll faster than a Fw 190X100.

[Crumpp]

Maybe the LW planeset is accurate, and the Allies planes are wrong....

Could be....

Something is off though.

All the best,

Crumpp

[JAWS2003]

Bias or not the FW 190 is not treated fair in this game, period. It was a fighter and had a fighting chance until the end of the war. Just look at A8  and TA-152 in this game. They have "target" written allover them.

[bozon]

The 190 and 109 canopy bars does seem a little exaggerated in thickness. It is really hard to tell from pictures. I'd be happy if they had a small diet.

Bozon

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Mime
i see never see any critique of those snap rolling Spit8's and 16s that roll faster than a Fw 190X100.

You won't see a critique of that because they don't roll faster than any Fw 190...

Spitfire roll rates in degrees per second, based upon one 360 degree roll.
Air speed: 300 mph
Altitude: 2,000 feet.
Fuel: 50%
Stopwatch used to measure. Average of three tests.

Mk.VIII
Right = 68 degrees
Left = 74 degrees

Mk.IX
Right = 78 degrees
Left = 81 degrees

Mk.XIV
Right = 78 degrees
Left = 82 degrees

Mk.XVI
Right = 112 degrees
Left = 116 degrees

For comparison:

Fw 190A-5
@300 mph
Right = 125 degrees
Left = 131 degrees

@290 mph
Right: 137 degrees
Left: 140 degrees

@280 mph
Right: 140 degrees
Left: 144 degrees

I tested the Spitfire Mk.VIII for roll at various speeds beginning at 150 mph and in increments of 50 mph up to 400 mph.

2,000 feet, 50% fuel

150 mph:
Right: 65 degrees
Left: 72 degrees

200 mph:
Right: 85 degrees
Left: 93 degrees

250 mph:
Right: 79 degrees
Left: 87 degrees

300 mph:
Right: 68 degrees
Left: 74 degrees

350 mph:
Right: 52 degrees
Left: 54 degrees

400 mph:
Right: 36 degrees
Left: 37 degrees

So, the standard wingspan Spitfires don't come anywhere near the 190s in roll rate. Moreover, while the Spit XVI rolls very fast, it still lags behind the 190s by a noteworthy margin.

My regards,

Widewing

[Mime]

noticed i said snap roll.  its a little different than just pulling your stick left.  that's a standard roll.  i'd be glad to show you what i mean in game.

[Crumpp]

What does that roll rate advantage get you in reality?

Agility.
 

That is why you see the FW190 labeled as "more manuverable" in all the tactical trials.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Karnak]

That is true Crump, however that page neglects to qualify that with the mention that the larger winged aircraft can pull into turns that the shorter winged aircraft cannot match without suffering a flight departure.

Also the diagram presents a rather exagerated difference in roll rate.


I do think you are right about the Fw190s being too heavy and suffering inordinantly in their turning capabilities for it tough.

[TDeacon]

THE absolute worst thing about the new LW planes is the thickness of the cockpit bars.  THE absolute best thing about the new 51s and Spits is that HTC did not make the same mistake with the cockpit bars.  Thanks HTC!!

Guys, please do not ask that the bars on the 51s and Spits be thickened.  Better to ask that the LW bars be made thinner, as they were before.  This way, people who want to do deflection shooting can do so (still not that easy, but at least possible).  

Because of the AH "fisheye lens" effect (needed because of the restricted field of view of a computer monitor), canopy framing will look thicker than in real life.  To compensate, we need to make the model framing a thinner than in real life (as in the 51s, and Spits).

[Krusty]

Yes part of it is perspective and camera, but I don't see HOW the p51 cockpit can "look" so narrow.. it's like there ISN'T a huge-arse honking engine in a long nose right in front of you, and you can "look out" the side windows forward of the sliding canopy, but still see "ahead" of the plane (when really you'd see more of what the spitfire sees now).

I think they're still perfecting it. It's more there (the angle) on the spits, less so on the p51, and less so (but for opposite end of the spectrum) on the 190s.

I liked the early Ki84. I felt it was a really wide, spacious view, much like the p51s we have now. It got closed up a little, to a more moderate (more accurate, I'd also say) view angle/position.

I think the 190 just needs to be opened, and the p51s closed a lot. The frames themselves aren't too much of an issue. Okay they ARE, but they're a separate issue.

[MOSQ]

As long as we're fixing cockpit bars, for my two cents I think the KI-84 ended up with overly thick bars. It was the first or one of the first planes built to the new standard and thus suffers from first version thick bars.

[gatt]

I dont have any problem with the new set of allied planes. They are beautifully modeled and above all allied pilots needed decent mid-late war Spitfires.

I dont have any problem with cockpit frames, I like the 109 cockpit. The 205 cockpit is still awful but finally they'll redo it, I hope.

All considered, this new plane set lowered the LW efficiency.

The G-14 is not and never will be the buff hunter the G-10 was.

The K-4 with the 30mm is not and never will be the dogfighter the G-10 with the 20mm in the nose was.

The final effect is we are less efficient and above all we are enjoying AH2 2.06 much less than before.

I hope HTC will fine tune the LW plane set togheter with the loadout ASAP.

[Angus]

This:
"You're all talking about a wheel instead of a lever which seems to be true from all the above links. Crump's and Milo's links both tell about trim wheels."

Yes, the 109's flaps were lowered by turning a wheel. I have not seen any data about it being hydraulic though, always thought it was a gearing issue. Same as the UC of the 109, and the Spitfire Mk I.

Don't know about the Mustang, it was just a lever, so it was definately not physical/geared. Rather electrical/hydraulical/pneumatic. Well, HiTech flew a P51, I am sure he can tell us!

[Charge]

"The 190 and 109 canopy bars does seem a little exaggerated in thickness. It is really hard to tell from pictures. I'd be happy if they had a small diet."

The 190 and 109 cockpits do look like that and that is how they should be modelled IMO. For ALL planes. Being a TIR user I understand that this is a bit unfair as for TIR users the frames do not present such obstruction for views as for hat view users. I think that what should be determined is the physical size of the actual windshield for all the planes and a desicion for the common "modelling distance" which guarantees that all aircraft would have their forward views exactly at right proportions. I know its a huge task but again members of this board could help a lot in this.

 ***

"noticed i said snap roll. its a little different than just pulling your stick left. that's a standard roll."

"however that page neglects to qualify that with the mention that the larger winged aircraft can pull into turns that the shorter winged aircraft cannot match without suffering a flight departure."

That has nothing to do with wingarea but with wing design. The way Spits do this "flick roll" IRL it would make them departure the normal flight totally. Their wing profile cannot handle such sudden and major changes in AoA and the elliptic planform is not stall friendly (I do remember the twist...). IMO in general the Spit can outturn the German counterparts in sustained turn contest and hold its E better due to larger wing but it probably cannot match the sudden high AoA maneuvers of 190 and especially not those of 109 (slat assisted) due to differences in wing profiles and their critical AoAs.

As was mentioned earlier the wing design is a compromise. There is no "jack of all trades" designs that would be optimal for all situations.

-C+

PS. Regarding criticism: I think its good to see that people are interested in this subject as they all aim to improve the gaming experience and improve the balance in game. People who don't give a shat would just troll around awhile, yell "NERF", walk away and play something else.

[Angus]

So, how do you explain Henshaw's quote if the flick roll is impossible?