Author Topic: question for wells,hooligan & scientist types about the tempest (Read 1274 times)

Fester' · « **on:** August 02, 2001, 12:29:00 AM »

im curious about e retention on the tempest in AH.

the ah tempest has no zoom or dive capability.

anything out of the horizontral plane removes all e from the tempest

if i remember right it was fitted with laminar flow semi eliptical thin wing which gave it great increase in speed and lot less drag.

yet with this loss of drag the tempest seems to bleed e just as fast or faster than typhoon.

how will tempest catch me262 like it was famous for doing if it is unable to hold speed after a dive?

tempest isn't even able to stay with p51 in a dive currently

is this accurate?

Angus · « **Reply #1 on:** August 02, 2001, 03:44:00 AM »

Totally agree with you.
Once spoke with an old Spitfire and P51 pilot, who had to chase V1's at the end of the war. I asked if he could catch a V1 in his Mustang, he replied: Only in a dive. I asked about the Tempest, he said: They could do it easily, it was MUCH faster than the P51. It was much faster than anything.
Reading tales from Tempest pilots gives the same results, such as "not having to worry about getting into a tight spot, because the Tempest would get you away whenever you wanted".
With this thin wing, 2200 HP's and some mass, I would think the Tempest would dive like a P47, and not be out-accelerated by a yak, La, 109, etc.
Bringing that into the spotlight, German ace Gunther Rall mentions only one occasion where he could not catch his Russian opponent in his 109G6, that happened to be a La-7. So thunder fast russkies seem to have been few and far apart....
For 70 perks the Tempest is too slow anyway.

gripen · « **Reply #2 on:** August 02, 2001, 04:11:00 AM »

Sometime ago (1999?) I picked up following comparisons: The Tempest II vs the Thunderbolt II (late P-47D, buble canopy and paddle blade prop) and the Tempest V vs the Mustang III (P-51B). I can't remember where did I found these but maybe from a web-site. Anyway here are some parts of the tests (note that the Tempest II and V with spring tab ailerons were equall at dive, turn, roll and zoom climb):

Tempest II vs Thunderbolt II:

Speeds: The Tempest is faster below 28k, above this height the Thunderbolt is faster.
Acceleration in straight and level flight: The Tempest has an advantage at all heights.
Climbs: The Tempest is better up to 21k, above this height the Thunderbolt is better.
Zoom Climbs: At low altitudes and equal power the Thunderbolt has a slight advantage, but at full power and at high altitudes the Tempest has a definite advantage.
Dive: The Tempest allways out-dives the Thunderbolt, the advantage being more marked at full throttle.
Turning Circles: The Tempest can always out-turn the Thunderbolt, the advantage being more marked to the left.
Rate of Roll: At speeds up to 300 IAS there is little to choose between the two, the Tempest having a slight advantage to the right and the Thunderbolt to the left. Above 300 IAS the tempest becomes increasingly superior.

Tempest V vs Mustang III

Speed: The tempest is faster up to 15k, planes are equal between 15k and 24k, above that height the Mustang is faster.
Climb: These compare directly with the results of the speed test.
Zoom Climb: At similar performance height, the tempest has the better zoom climb.
Dive: The Tempest tends to pull away.
Turning Circle: The Tempest is not quite as good.
Rate of Roll: The Tempest is not so good (note early Tempest V).

Gripen

Seeker · « **Reply #3 on:** August 02, 2001, 04:23:00 AM »

First the wierd Spit IX, now this....

It's a conspiracy....

HOW LONG CAN THE REAL RAF BE EXPECTED TO TOLERATE THIS!

(thanks, good stuff)

minus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 02, 2001, 09:50:00 AM »

i think the E retention is not only wing question , tempest should dive beter if not inaf the fenomenal dive aceleration , about tempest turn rate , the pilots vas instructed avoid fight with LW when above 12 k where lw planes turned same or beter !

in AH planes dont have inaf diferent turn rate on diferent altitude

globaly tempest if so not UFO seems joined the more precisely modeled planes in AH!!!!

Lw planes are not ufos some usaf planes also nice modeled , just the damn 50 caliber, tempest typhon then seems fit egaly

time to look in the La7 , YAk blitz roll and other things the fixing is needet on other planes i thinhg

minus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 02, 2001, 09:51:00 AM »

about ,,RAT hunting,, in ww2 me262 vas catched be tempest at landind fester !!

not enywhere but LANDING !

funkedup · « **Reply #6 on:** August 02, 2001, 10:56:00 AM »

Mustang III (P-51B) could turn tighter than Tempest??? Not in AH!

Hooligan · « **Reply #7 on:** August 02, 2001, 01:37:00 PM »

Since you asked, here is some advice about approaching this scientifically:

You wrote:

Quote

the ah tempest has no zoom or dive capability.

What utter roadkill! Try not to let your emotions overcome you. If there is a physical game modeling issue you want addressed, perhaps you should try to form your complaint in objective terms.

How about:

HTC: The Tempest seems to me to have terribly poor dive and zoom capabilities. Is this accurate?

Even at this, all we really have to go on is that the tempest "seems funny" to you. Well I haven't flown it much but it "seems" like a monster to me. Frankly neither of our opinions is worth crap.

Angus has been kind enough to provide some useful information about how the Tempest should perform compared to a P-51. The "scientific" thing to do is to following:

1) Contact Angus get a full copy of the report so that you have as much information as possible about how the tests were conducted.

2) Get some help from a friend and try to duplicate the tests in the Training arena as closely as possible (fuel loads, initial speeds/altitudes etc.).

Then after you actually have some real data you can post the comparative results with the reasonable expectation that HTC will consider the merits of your assertions.

Please consider the following: HTC does not just whip out an FM in 30 minutes worth of work. They collect and evaluate a lot of data (for years they have probably held on to every interesting piece of flight data that they have happened across), design a flight model and test it against expected performance for hours. The process takes a long time and lots of tweaking.

Suppose you had collected FM data for the Tempest for years, worked on an FM for 160 hours and were at the point where you probably knew as much about tempest flight characteristics as any other living person (how many real experts on Tempest flight characteristics are there in the world now? Possibly 5?). Then somebody posts nonsense such as:

Quote

the ah tempest has no zoom or dive capability.

What are you going to think?

a) Geez, I guess the Tempest immediately stalls out if you pull the nose 1 degree above horizontal. I wonder how that escaped my attention after all the research and work that went into the FM?
b) The guy who wrote that is full of toejam.

Obviously HTC is not perfect and they make mistakes. But when you make posts like this one you are begging them to dismiss your opinion.

Hooligan

Angus · « **Reply #8 on:** August 02, 2001, 02:43:00 PM »

Hello there again...
Gee, what a cool thread this has become. Great info about the comparison tests, - wish I had that on copy.
My own info just comes from an eye to eye conversation with an old RAF fighter pilot at the Bar of the Hendon Air Force Museum, where he was telling me about the V-1 chases he got involved with, flying a P51C actually.
So, there is no copy, just memory.....blurred by beer

However, I read some books of Tempest pilots, i.e. Closterman, "Rosie" Mackie, and from there I have a direct impression of the "speed monster" superiority of the Tempest.
What made me enter this discussion is that I spent all my perks on Tempests, just to find out that it is good, but so marginally better at speed/acceleration etc. that I keep getting caught by LW planes in a straight flight, and other planes in a dive or climb. I do not agree that it is useless, but I rather think it has not quite the power edge it should have.
HTC have by my opinion, done incredibly well in their flight modelling,- far better than MS-CFS by my opinion, - and perhaps partially because of the feedback the people give, folks like you and me. This is one of those points, "TEMPEST IS NOT MODELLED GOOD ENOUGH", and I hope it will be taken and reviewed.
Another thing is the perks. With a whole heap of perks (14 chogs worth) invested in a Tempest, one does not go tankbusting or ack-killing in such a precious bird. I completely confess, that when flying the Tempest, I am very cautious, and carry enough fuel to get me all the way home. Since there are more people like me, Tempests are mostly quite boring, vulching, b&z stalking and running opponents. Flying a bomber, I think I never got intercepted by a Tempest, and generally, I often fly for days without ever meeting one. (Sad for a plane that in R/L flew more than i.e. the Niks and Chogs...)
Still, I think this game would be off balance if Tempests were too cheap, so this is just one more thing to look into. But 70 perks...naaaaa, too much.
There is much more to come in AH, many planes and features, and I sure look forward to it all. Planes like the Tempest will always be causing debates and discussions, just wait for the UBER Spits yet to arrive

Hooligan · « **Reply #9 on:** August 02, 2001, 02:48:00 PM »

Opps: I meant the test info Gripen provided

.

Hooligan

wells · « **Reply #10 on:** August 02, 2001, 03:18:00 PM »

http://users.supernet.com/lecc/tempestafdu.html
http://users.supernet.com/lecc/tp.html
http://users.supernet.com/lecc/typhoon.html

niklas · « **Reply #11 on:** August 02, 2001, 04:24:00 PM »

"The Tempest is not quite as good as the Mustang III [in turning circles]"

to point it out again.
In AH it outturns even a La-7....

niklas

gripen · « **Reply #12 on:** August 02, 2001, 05:00:00 PM »

Actually as I said before, I just saw that data somewhere in the net (web-page or usenet, can't remember) and cut and pasted it to the text file where I collect this kind of data. Anyway, the data appears to be partially same as in the link wells posted. I know a person who appears to have some knowledge about the RAF test stuff and asked him if about this but so far he has not responded.

Gripen

Fester' · « **Reply #13 on:** August 02, 2001, 05:44:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fester':
im curious about e retention on the tempest in AH.

the ah tempest has (edit: terrible) zoom or dive capability.

anything out of the horizontral plane removes all e from the tempest

if i remember right it was fitted with laminar flow semi eliptical thin wing which gave it great increase in speed and lot less drag.

yet with this loss of drag the tempest seems to bleed e just as fast or faster than typhoon.

how will tempest catch me262 like it was famous for doing if it is unable to hold speed after a dive?

tempest isn't even able to stay with p51 in a dive currently

is this accurate?

funkedup · « **Reply #14 on:** August 02, 2001, 07:45:00 PM »

Gotta agree with Hooligan - Tempest in AH dives and zooms like a bat outta hell.

Several times I've killed/been killed by the following: Co-speed, co-alt start, Tempest in front of non-perk plane by less than 1k. Tempest dives to about 400 IAS then zooms. non-perk plane stalls out while Tempest is still climbing. Tempest reverses and ropes the dope, splat.