How does the F4U-1A beat the Spit 16

[thorsim]

retract what ???

weight is no factor ?????????

funny it is such a primary concern then ...

tell me who does the wing loading, power loading, lift loading, lift, drag, AND SIZE AND WEIGHT favor in the spit vs. f4u?

as far as either being great turners neither would be near the top in their respective theaters spit 16/f4u4 ...

and i think you will find that size and weight may be the two most important factors determining maneuverability ...

in the real world that is ...

t 

"a big plane changing direction hard bleeds a lot of energy a lot more than a significantly smaller plane for the same change of direction ..."

Is the part that is misleading without reference to the wingloading, powerloading, and lift/drag of the A/C in question. You have a habit of implying that certain aircraft (P-38, Corsair, whatever) should not maneuver well as they do in AH because of absolute weight, which is no factor in and of itself, too late to retract it.

[BnZs]

retract what ???

weight is no factor ?????????

Correct. Weight by itself is no factor, but rather the ratio of weight (and drag) to lift and power. The Corsair possessed a rather heavy lift loading in comparison to Japanese aircraft and much greater speed than most opposition types, so it was very much best to keep it fast and boom and zoom in the PTO. In the AHII MA, the Corsair has a better lift loading than much of what it fights and is slower, so it becomes known as a turn fighter.

tell me who does the wing loading, power loading, lift loading, lift, drag, AND SIZE AND WEIGHT favor in the spit vs. f4u?

See, here you are making the same mistake again. You gave power loading, lift loading, and drag. These ratios define fighter turn, climb, and speed performance. Once again, the absolute size itself is irrelevant to performance. Since you ask, power loading obviously favors the SpitXVI. The F4U-1A is obviously the less draggy aircraft, since it goes faster despite having a lower power loading, this will primarily effect E retention in diving and zooming.  The ratio of lift/weight in various configurations can be determined by comparing 1G stall speeds. Lift loading clean obviously favors the Spit, lift loading with flaps is harder to determine, since I cannot find a good source for the SpitXVI's stall speed with flaps. However, spitfireperformance.org does list the flaps down stall speed of the SpitI as 68mph IAS. Since the SpitXVI was a more heavily loaded aircraft than the Mk.I, it is entirely plausible that the its stall speed with flaps would be higher than the 70-75 usually stated for the F4U, which in turn would imply a tighter minimum turn radius for the Corsair.

IOW, the performance of the Corsair relative the Spit in AHII is perfectly plausible from a physics standpoint.

as far as either being great turners neither would be near the top in their respective theaters spit 16/f4u4 ...

Huh...apparently Allied test pilots thought the Spit pretty much out-turned everything else in the Allied arsenal.

And of course the F4U was not know as a great turner in the PTO. Its primary opposition was designed specifically to be superlative in turn fighting. That's like claiming a Spad can't out-turn a P-51 because the Spad wasn't known as a great turner in its environment.

and i think you will find that size and weight may be the two most important factors determining maneuverability ...

in the real world that is ...

I think if you will do as many of us, especially Hitech himself, have done, and actually crack a book to learn something about aerodynamics, you will find the real world fails to conform to your preconceived notions and that Hitech is not deliberately ignoring physics and mis-modeling the planes to give you an apoplexy.

[thorsim]

no the mistakes are yours, and whomever convinced you that the f4u4 could compete well in a maneuver fight vs. a spit 16.

all your statements below are suspect imo.  

Correct. Weight by itself is no factor ...  

Once again, the absolute size itself is irrelevant to performance. ...  

The F4U-1A is obviously the less draggy aircraft,  

since it goes faster despite having a lower power loading,  

this will primarily effect E retention in diving and zooming.  

The ratio of lift/weight in various configurations can be determined by comparing 1G stall speeds.  

your picture is cute but you have left out quite a few aircraft many of which out turned the spit 16 ...
spits 1-5, 109s E&Fs, yak 3?, laggs?, prolly the maccis, the hurris, some others as well ...

you sure are intrigued with near stall speed performance, however equating that with maneuverability in a fighter is comical, just ask any fighter pilot ...

it is you who needs to read because the only way to get around newton is "virtually" no matter what you see here.

if that were not so then the extras and SUs would not dominate aerobatics ...

t

[BnZs]

no the mistakes are yours, and whomever convinced you that the f4u4 could compete well in a maneuver fight vs. a spit 16.

You are starting with your mind made up because of the relative "reps" of the Spitfire and Corsair, and damn the historical context or the physics.

all your statements below are suspect imo.  
 
your picture is cute but you have left out quite a few aircraft many of which out turned the spit 16 ...
spits 1-5, 109s E&Fs, yak 3?, laggs?, prolly the maccis, the hurris, some others as well ...

Did I leave out XVI's own predesscors, 109 variants which were largely on the way out,  and Allied stablemates from another theater of operations which the Spit likely never crossed swords with? Mea culpa. The SpitXVI's most typical opponents would be the 109G variants and 190s, which were for the most part energy fighters relative the Spit's abilities.

But, if it makes you feel any better, many of the planes you named on the list will indeed out-perform the SpitXVI in some aspect of turn performance in AHII. What is it in the modeling you are complaining about again?

you sure are intrigued with near stall speed performance, however equating that with maneuverability in a fighter is comical, just ask any fighter pilot ...

The 1g stall speed of an aircraft is irreducibly related to the ratio of available lift to weight. This ratio defines certain aspects of turn performance. The aircraft that stalls at 100mph at 1G will stall at 200mph at 4G, so on and so forth, in a mathematically definable way. This is not debatable.

As for real fighter pilots, what do you think the "ragged edge of the envelope" in fighter maneuvering refers to? You seem to be very pathologically hung up on the fact that AHII pilots push the envelope more than is usual in the r/w, because they have 0 chance of dying and often 10 times the amount of stick time in combat maneuvering that any real pilot has ever had. If you want to change the physics of the aircraft in game to try and force players to fly in what you deem a more "realistic" manner, why don't you just admit it?

Even in real combat, their are plenty of instances of maneuvering on the ragged edge being decisive, dangerous though it can be in a multi-bandit environment.

Speaking of real pilots, "Fighter Combat" by Shaw is considered definitive, and it explains enough flight physics for a layman to get a basic grasp of the performance factors.

it is you who needs to read because the only way to get around newton is "virtually" no matter what you see here.

if that were not so then the extras and SUs would not dominate aerobatics ...

Oh Christ, he brings up Newton. Its more like Galileo. And you're the one arguing from your intuition that a heavier object should fall faster...
 
I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you to understand.

You have an aircraft that is moving in one direction at some given speed. You want to be moving in the opposite direction, to turn. What force do you bring to bear to accomplish this? Lift.

It is the ratio of how much lift you have available in relation to weight of the aircraft that will be important here, not the absolute weight. This should be no harder to understand than the more intuitively graspable fact that thrust/weight, and not absolute weight, is the crucial factor in acceleration, all other factors being equal.


Extras and SU dominate aerobatics, because (among other things), their combination of power loading and wing loading. If for some perverse reason, you wanted to build an aircraft that was 10 times as heavy as an Extra 300, but also possessed an engine 10 times as powerful and a wing with 10 times the lift capacity, it would climb with, accelerate with, and be just as maneuverable as the Extra300. I wouldn't want to buy gas for the thing, however.

[Saxman]

no the mistakes are yours, and whomever convinced you that the f4u4 could compete well in a maneuver fight vs. a spit 16.

WTF? When did we go from the F4U-1A to the F4U-4? The -4 is an ENTIRELY different beast than the 1-series Hogs.

[thorsim]

hey quit projecting into my posts all i said was the spit should win the maneuver fight,
and that smaller lighter will win those fights ...

you seem to have a problem with that, so give a real world example where that is not he case.  

neither the hogs or the long nose spits are considered among the great turners of the war ...

you had a problem with that until i reminded you about that ...

and yes my mind is made up that the spit should win the maneuver fight over the hog, in the real world ...

they are both flying why don't you go ask the guys who are flying them what they think.

You are starting with your mind made up because of the relative "reps" of the Spitfire and Corsair, and damn the historical context or the physics.

Did I leave out XVI's own predesscors, 109 variants which were largely on the way out,  and Allied stablemates from another theater of operations which the Spit likely never crossed swords with? Mea culpa. The SpitXVI's most typical opponents would be the 109G variants and 190s, which were for the most part energy fighters relative the Spit's abilities.

But, if it makes you feel any better, many of the planes you named on the list will indeed out-perform the SpitXVI in some aspect of turn performance in AHII. What is it in the modeling you are complaining about again?


The 1g stall speed of an aircraft is irreducibly related to the ratio of available lift to weight. This ratio defines certain aspects of turn performance. The aircraft that stalls at 100mph at 1G will stall at 200mph at 4G, so on and so forth, in a mathematically definable way. This is not debatable.

As for real fighter pilots, what do you think the "ragged edge of the envelope" in fighter maneuvering refers to? You seem to be very pathologically hung up on the fact that AHII pilots push the envelope more than is usual in the r/w, because they have 0 chance of dying and often 10 times the amount of stick time in combat maneuvering that any real pilot has ever had. If you want to change the physics of the aircraft in game to try and force players to fly in what you deem a more "realistic" manner, why don't you just admit it?

Even in real combat, their are plenty of instances of maneuvering on the ragged edge being decisive, dangerous though it can be in a multi-bandit environment.

Speaking of real pilots, "Fighter Combat" by Shaw is considered definitive, and it explains enough flight physics for a layman to get a basic grasp of the performance factors.

Oh Christ, he brings up Newton. Its more like Galileo. And you're the one arguing from your intuition that a heavier object should fall faster...
 
I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you to understand.

You have an aircraft that is moving in one direction at some given speed. You want to be moving in the opposite direction, to turn. What force do you bring to bear to accomplish this? Lift.

It is the ratio of how much lift you have available in relation to weight of the aircraft that will be important here, not the absolute weight. This should be no harder to understand than the more intuitively graspable fact that thrust/weight, and not absolute weight, is the crucial factor in acceleration, all other factors being equal.


Extras and SU dominate aerobatics, because (among other things), their combination of power loading and wing loading. If for some perverse reason, you wanted to build an aircraft that was 10 times as heavy as an Extra 300, but also possessed an engine 10 times as powerful and a wing with 10 times the lift capacity, it would climb with, accelerate with, and be just as maneuverable as the Extra300. I wouldn't want to buy gas for the thing, however.

hog 4 hog 1 my statement stands but apologies for the type change ...

WTF? When did we go from the F4U-1A to the F4U-4? The -4 is an ENTIRELY different beast than the 1-series Hogs.

it amazes me that you guys sluff off a what 100% weight advantage of something like 3 tons as insignificant ...

the spit should dominate the maneuver fight "."

get over it.  

[BnZs]

hey quit projecting into my posts all i said was the spit should win the maneuver fight,
and that smaller lighter will win those fights ...

you seem to have a problem with that, so give a real world example where that is not he case.

The Fw-190 being easily out-turned by the bigger Hellcat and Corsair in Navy tests, despite being smaller, because of a decidedly heavier lift-loading The P-51 being out-turned by the Corsair for the same reason, despite being smaller. Just how many more examples do you want?

 

neither the hogs or the long nose spits are considered among the great turners of the war ...

It is irrelevant what a plane is "considered". The P-51 was considered a decent turner, and it was, compared to its ETO opposition, but the F4U can and did handily out-turn it. The Mig17 was considered a great turner in its own time, but that hardly means it would stack up to a Spitfire, now does it?

What the hell is a "long-nose" Spit? If you mean a Griffin-engine Spit, then we are not talking of that. We are talking of the Mk. XVI, which had a Merlin under the hood.

it amazes me that you guys sluff off a what 100% weight advantage of something like 3 tons as insignificant ...

It amazes me that you can't "get", once again,the simple fact that it is the ratio of lift and power to weight and not simply weight itself that is important.

I'll try to make this simple for you once again, once again. Plane A weighs 6000 lbs, has an engine capable of producing 1200 horsepower, and a wing that is capable of producing 24,000 lbs of lit at Clmax@200mph IAS. Plane B weighs 12,000 lbs, has an engine capable of producing 2,400hp, and a wing that is capable of producing 48,000 lbs of lift at Clmax@200mph. All other factors being equal, what possible reason can you give for thinking plane B should have worse climb, acceleration, or turn performance than plane A?

[AKDogg]

What some of u people don't understand is a spitfire has 1 flap setting, all or nothing.  A f4u has 5 settings if i remember correctly.  The F4u can start deploying flaps at 250 +/- mph.  Spit brings out its flap at what, 160-180?.  What that tells ya is the hog can maintain its lift with the use of flaps at slower speed without dropping off till real slow, while the spit loses its turning capability because there is no in between for flap setting at higher speeds.  When the fight gets down to 150 mph range, the spit wins.  get above the mph that flaps can be out for the spit and hog wins.

[Anaxogoras]

What some of u people don't understand is a spitfire has 1 flap setting, all or nothing.  A f4u has 5 settings if i remember correctly.  The F4u can start deploying flaps at 250 +/- mph.  Spit brings out its flap at what, 160-180?.  What that tells ya is the hog can maintain its lift with the use of flaps at slower speed without dropping off till real slow, while the spit loses its turning capability because there is no in between for flap setting at higher speeds.  When the fight gets down to 150 mph range, the spit wins.  get above the mph that flaps can be out for the spit and hog wins.

The Spitfire flaps degrade its turn rate.  They are only meant for landing.  I find the truth to be the opposite of what you say: extremely low speeds favor the F4U, medium speeds favor the XVI.

[mtnman]

What some of u people don't understand is a spitfire has 1 flap setting, all or nothing.  A f4u has 5 settings if i remember correctly.  The F4u can start deploying flaps at 250 +/- mph.  Spit brings out its flap at what, 160-180?.  What that tells ya is the hog can maintain its lift with the use of flaps at slower speed without dropping off till real slow, while the spit loses its turning capability because there is no in between for flap setting at higher speeds.  When the fight gets down to 150 mph range, the spit wins.  get above the mph that flaps can be out for the spit and hog wins.

I also think there's way too much emphasis on what one plane does at a certain speed vs what another does at that same speed.  While that knowledge is useful to a certain extent, it's very rare that I see that come into play in "regular" fights.

If I've got my F4U slow and flaps out on the deck, in a lufberry circle against a spit, I'm dead.  I can't compete with that.  However, I'm almost never in that situation.  It's much easier for me to survive if my opponent is faster OR slower than me, higher OR lower than me.  Each scenario gives me loads of options that I don't have in a simple stall-speed circle-fight.

If I'm on the deck slow with my flaps out against a spit doing the same thing, I've screwed up royally and will be in the tower soon, unless I'm fighting a rank amateur.  In this Spit16 vs F4U-1A scenario, regardless of the turn radius similarity, that 16 is coming around the circle on me with his higher turn rate.  Plus, toss in his greater acceleration, fast roll rate, etc, and I've got my hands full, planewise.  That doesn't mean I'll have my hands full pilot-wise, of course.  That's what it really comes down to in those situations.  It matters not if you have the advantage, if you don't know how or choose not to use it effectively.

[thorsim]

you need to look into that test, it is too flawed to be seriously considered. as far as the USNs opinion of the 190 the design principals used for the F8F is a better example than that test of the bomber fighter to which you refer.

the p51 was not considered a great turner ...

here is an opinion from a couple of guys guy who fly the escort and an interceptor that like the spit is not compromised in its design by things like the need to operate from a carrier, fly a long way, carry a bunch of bombs etc ...  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

so still waiting for just the one example, and btw maneuvering is much more than turning circles,
once again i refer you to any fighter pilot you want to ask.

The Fw-190 being easily out-turned by the bigger Hellcat and Corsair in Navy tests, despite being smaller, because of a decidedly heavier lift-loading The P-51 being out-turned by the Corsair for the same reason, despite being smaller. Just how many more examples do you want?

going to such extremes as the mig 17, i think the 20 years and a few other things would preclude those two planes as a good example, however yes the mig 17 was considered an excellent maneuver fighter vs. it's BIGGER HEAVIER contemporaries, thanks for the excellent example of my point.  

It is irrelevant what a plane is "considered". The P-51 was considered a decent turner, and it was, compared to its ETO opposition, but the F4U can and did handily out-turn it. The Mig17 was considered a great turner in its own time, but that hardly means it would stack up to a Spitfire, now does it?

spits after the 5 when they had to contend with the later axis aircraft by sacrificing some maneuverability for more power.

What the hell is a "long-nose" Spit? If you mean a Griffin-engine Spit, then we are not talking of that. We are talking of the Mk. XVI, which had a Merlin under the hood.

no i get that what you fail to "get" is that size and weight itself is a factor above and beyond what they do for the loading values, as is power.

once again i refer you to acrobatic aircraft and why they look a lot more like a small fw190 than a small p38.

It amazes me that you can't "get", once again,the simple fact that it is the ratio of lift and power to weight and not simply weight itself that is important.

once again i refer you to newton, and even though the numbers you quote below may give a very close match up in stable situations the maneuver fight is won in the transitions between those more stable situations, and the smaller lighter quicker aircraft wins those fights.  

I'll try to make this simple for you once again, once again. Plane A weighs 6000 lbs, has an engine capable of producing 1200 horsepower, and a wing that is capable of producing 24,000 lbs of lit at Clmax@200mph IAS. Plane B weighs 12,000 lbs, has an engine capable of producing 2,400hp, and a wing that is capable of producing 48,000 lbs of lift at Clmax@200mph. All other factors being equal, what possible reason can you give for thinking plane B should have worse climb, acceleration, or turn performance than plane A?

[Angus]

The Spitfire flaps degrade its turn rate.  They are only meant for landing.  I find the truth to be the opposite of what you say: extremely low speeds favor the F4U, medium speeds favor the XVI.

The Spit flaps were intended mostly as an air-brake since the aircraft was quite willing to fly and float, thereby overshooting.

[mtnman]

no i get that what you fail to "get" is that size and weight itself is a factor above and beyond what they do for the loading values, as is power.

once again i refer you to acrobatic aircraft and why they look a lot more like a small fw190 than a small p38.

Seriously?  You want to argue along those lines?  Looks?  What's next?  FW190 should fly like an aerobatic plane, cause it looks like one?

Compare a modern, high-performance specialty plane against a 70 year old warplane?  Design differences, materials, weights, are nothing alike...  Airfoil differences alone...  Fixed gear, no flaps...  Sheesh, not even close to an apples/apples comparison!

I'm with you on the size idea, BTW. 

BNZ has been careful to keep his argument to thrust/weight/lift, without including overall size.  Making a copy of a plane ten times larger (or smaller) would greatly change it's measured turn radius.  But he's not saying 10 times larger.  He's saying 10 times heavier, more thrust, more lift; overall size stays the same.  I'd tend to agree with his argument there...

And what's the overall point you're trying to make here?  Are you of the opinion that the F4U out-turns the spit16 in AH?

[mtnman]

the spit should dominate the maneuver fight "."

get over it.  

It does (if the pilot knows how to fly it effectively).

[thorsim]

i said "looks like" relative to the p38 ...

a general size weight advantage in maneuver example ...

the comparison was to the 38 not an extra or su31 ...

sorry it confused you

my argument is that spit should win the maneuver fight, that is all ...

oh and as far as your agreement with b and z then the hog 4 should by your logic should outmaneuver the hog 1 likewise the 190 a8 should outmaneuver the a5, is that the argument you are trying to make?

t

Seriously?  You want to argue along those lines?  Looks?  What's next?  FW190 should fly like an aerobatic plane, cause it looks like one?

Compare a modern, high-performance specialty plane against a 70 year old warplane?  Design differences, materials, weights, are nothing alike...  Airfoil differences alone...  Fixed gear, no flaps...  Sheesh, not even close to an apples/apples comparison!

I'm with you on the size idea, BTW.  

BNZ has been careful to keep his argument to thrust/weight/lift, without including overall size.  Making a copy of a plane ten times larger (or smaller) would greatly change it's measured turn radius.  But he's not saying 10 times larger.  He's saying 10 times heavier, more thrust, more lift; overall size stays the same.  I'd tend to agree with his argument there...

And what's the overall point you're trying to make here?  Are you of the opinion that the F4U out-turns the spit16 in AH?