Question about a P-51 maneuver

[Chalenge]

yes,as described in my first post to this thread.

actually,in the whole show of that particular video the actual pilot that was in that fight in the p51 was on the show explaining that move as it went along,now im sure it was not quite as dramatic as that and was probly not as quite a sharp turn as that but the real 51s were capable of making such moves.but in our game the 51 is not as agile as were the real life ones,not even close.some of you guys are just get way to technical about stuff to comprehend the difference between real life and in game

Not the way I read it Danny and technically speaking you were very much mistaken. Now if you have some 'empirical evidence' and not mere 'anecdotal evidence' then please share it because we 'P-51 fans' would love to have a better performing ride.

[Anaxogoras]

Sweet!  I love a good "the P-51 is under-modeled" thread.

[BnZs]

Sweet!  I love a good "the P-51 is under-modeled" thread.

P-51 *is* undermodeled...but not because it can't execute F-22 maneuvers!!! 

[Shuffler]

P-51 *is* undermodeled...but not because it can't execute F-22 maneuvers!!! 

If you think it is undermodeld or overmodeled just produce factual eveidence and they will change it.

Not long a go one of the SAPP guys noted a weight descepency on the 38G and brought it to the attention of HiTech. Once they reviewed the information they added 600 lbs to the 38G. All you have to do is a little leg work to gather information from reputable reports and they will act.

We can all help make the models as accurate as possible. Just saying something and proping it up as fact wont get it. Get your factual information together to show an adjustment is needed.

[Ack-Ack]

We get it, your all talk. There's only so many ways you can say it.

No offense, but all I've seen from you is nothing but "talk" with very little, if anything, to 'back it up'.


ack-ack

[saantana]

No offense, but all I've seen from you is nothing but "talk" with very little, if anything, to 'back it up'.


ack-ack

 

[BnZs]

If you think it is undermodeld or overmodeled just produce factual eveidence and they will change it.

Not long a go one of the SAPP guys noted a weight descepency on the 38G and brought it to the attention of HiTech. Once they reviewed the information they added 600 lbs to the 38G. All you have to do is a little leg work to gather information from reputable reports and they will act.

We can all help make the models as accurate as possible. Just saying something and proping it up as fact wont get it. Get your factual information together to show an adjustment is needed.

Why don't you just look up many of Widewing's fine posts about the results of side-by-side turning tests and then compare reality with the results of such tests in AHII? It will amuse me to see whether or not you decide to accuse someone of *his* experiences of being a crank. Same discrepancy seems to exist with the Ki-61's reported turn performance vs. in-game performance btw, so it is not an isolated bugaboo. The Mustang is not even close to being my favorite aircraft, but when test pilots report it turning a smaller circle than the P-47, Typhoon, and Tempest and the exact opposite phenomenon occurs in AHII, it is worth a look. Also, it is evident that the P-51D is running at '44 levels of performance. This is not inaccurate per se, but the fairness can be questioned considering it is competing in the MA with aircraft from the last 5 minutes or so of the war.

[thorsim]

which pony d is it?
 in game ?

[Shuffler]

Why don't you just look up many of Widewing's fine posts about the results of side-by-side turning tests and then compare reality with the results of such tests in AHII? It will amuse me to see whether or not you decide to accuse someone of *his* experiences of being a crank. Same discrepancy seems to exist with the Ki-61's reported turn performance vs. in-game performance btw, so it is not an isolated bugaboo. The Mustang is not even close to being my favorite aircraft, but when test pilots report it turning a smaller circle than the P-47, Typhoon, and Tempest and the exact opposite phenomenon occurs in AHII, it is worth a look. Also, it is evident that the P-51D is running at '44 levels of performance. This is not inaccurate per se, but the fairness can be questioned considering it is competing in the MA with aircraft from the last 5 minutes or so of the war.

Read my post..... take it to HiTech. I believe you'll find alot of Widewings tests are done in AHII. If your so sure take it to them. Posting here about it just makes you look bad.

[danny37]

Not the way I read it Danny and technically speaking you were very much mistaken. Now if you have some 'empirical evidence' and not mere 'anecdotal evidence' then please share it because we 'P-51 fans' would love to have a better performing ride.

the evidence is in our history,look it up,you do know how right?

[Chalenge]

Danny you are an argument looking for a place to happen and thats all.

Have a nice day.

[Kuhn]

Danny you are an argument looking for a place to happen and thats all.

Have a nice day.

 

[BnZs]

Read my post..... take it to HiTech. I believe you'll find alot of Widewings tests are done in AHII. If your so sure take it to them. Posting here about it just makes you look bad.

The issue has already been discussed. It will or will not be acted upon.

But if you are so interested in reading one good example:

One of the problems associated with modeling an aircraft, specifically a WWII fighter, is that there exists no real world quantitative testing that measured turning ability with flaps fully down. I have never seen any and I'll wager no one else has either. It was something that was not tested. Therefore, HTC has to make decisions based upon what they do know. No doubt, it's an imperfect art.

Likewise, I have not any testing of minimal turn radius clean. Most testing was done on a comparison basis.

There is flight testing of a P-51 (Allison) comparing maneuverability to the P-39D, P-40F (Merlin powered), P-38F and P-47C. We know the takeoff weight of the this P-51, 8,443 lb. We don't know how much of its 140 gallons was burned off prior to the actual "dog fights", but we can assume that it was proportional to the others. Note that this P-51 shares the same basic air frame with P-51B, including the wing and tail appendages, except that the rudder trim was changed and rigged as an anti-balance tab. This Allison P-51 is lighter by 440 lb in basic weight.

The text from the test describes the comparison as follows:

b. Maneuverability.    The subject aircraft was flown in "mock" combat against the P-38F, P-39D, P-40F, P-47B, and the Mitsubishi "00" type of aircraft.

 c. The following results were obtained:

(1) The subject aircraft was found to be superior in speed of the Mitsubishi "00", P-39D, P-47F at all altitudes and the P-47B and P-38F up to fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet.
 
(2) The subject aircraft was found to be superior in rate of climb to the P-39D, P-40F, and the P-47B up to fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet.
 
(3) The acceleration in dives and the maximum permissible diving speed of the subject aircraft is superior to all types tested.
 
(4) The turning characteristics of the subject aircraft are substantially the same as the P-40F and the P-39D. None of these appears to have any definite superior turning characteristics.
 
(5) In close "dog fighting" the subject aircraft has the very decided advantage of being able to engage or break off combat at will. However, if neither airplane attempts to leave the combat, the P-40F is considered to have a slight advantage.

Let's look at our P-51B... The minimum takeoff weight that can be produced in the game is 8,213 lb. This is obtained by shooting out all of the ammunition prior to takeoff. This weight is substantially less than the takeoff weight of the P51 in the above test. Even if the that P-51 had burned off 40 gallons of its fuel, it would weigh in at 8,195 lb, very close to the 8,213 lb for a light P-51B.

Let's compare our P-40E to the P-40F. Like the P-51B, this P-40 was fitted with a Merlin. This installation added nearly 400 lb to the airframe. So, if we compare the P-51B to the P-40E, we need to allow for an additional 400 lb of weight for the P-40E. Takeoff weight for a fully loaded P-40F is 8,678 lb. Let's reduce that by 40 gallons of gas. That comes out to 8,430 lb. With that figure in mind, I'll configure the P-40E to that weight. To get this, I load 75% internal fuel and a drop tank. I then have to shoot out a little ammo to get down to 8,430 lb. The drop tank adds drag, so the numbers will be skewed to reflect that.

With both fighters configured, I then do a minimum turn radius test, both clean and with full flaps.

So, in "close dog fighting", is the P-51B only "slightly" inferior to the P-40E at the weights defined above?

Minimum turn radius clean...

P-40E: 743.5 feet
P-51B: 770.6 feet

Minimum turn radius full flaps...

P-40E: 566.4 feet
P-51B: 601.1 feet

Remember now, the P-40E has 75% fuel and a 75 gallon drop tank, vs a P-51B with 25% fuel and no ammo.

The ratio between clean and full flaps is about the same between them.

However, I don't see this as a "slight" difference. It's roughly the same as the difference between a SpitV and a SpitIX, which is much more than "slight".

Moreover, the fact that a clean A-20G easily out-turns a clean P-51B should create a pause for thought, agree?


My regards,

Widewing


 

[Shuffler]

Personally I'm not interested in the pony. I do think it is a very fine bird. I have flown it in the past and it'll turn fight very well. I always preferred the B.

My intent posting was to push you to act upon your knowledge of the pony to correct modeling for the better or worse of the bird in AH. No matter if it helps or hinders the plane I think all should be modeled as close as possible to the real birds.

I'm sure HiTech feels the same and is open to all info you can muster.

[thorsim]

allison ponies would turn different than merlin powered aircraft so the test doesn't really show anything interesting at all.

what is interesting is the casual glazing over why there is no full flap deployment maneuver testing done, relative to why players here are curious about the performance of an aircraft in that configuration.

since you are looking for lift and speed for turn performance it seems to me that any flap setting higher than  your "normal" (i.e. not short take off settings) take off flap setting is likely to be adding more drag than the added lift would be worth.  

along with all the other problems you should encounter while trying to fight so close to your minimum stall speed.  

the problem/question is not ...

"why my plane doesn't turn better at full flaps"

it is ...

"why can i do all this silly stuff when my plane is so dirty, this can't be correct"

or rather that should be the burning question in peoples minds ...

imo.

+S+

t