Plane vs Plane Tactics (Matchups)

[thorsim]

where did i say bias ...

? ? ?

here is a homework assignment, list all the commonalities of the flaps on the german fighters,

every possible one you can think of then post them ...

Yawn! what a load of bull the 109k4 is arguably the best fighter in the game! You think HTC has an anti German agenda here when they also give it huge wep time as well? What a load of clap trap if they were doing this for gain as Skip said about CRS in the video then their 'cash cow' to fiddle with would be the P-51D 'a plane that Hitech has actually flew btw' it would outturn everything in sight and generally be uber in every way in game thats NOT the case.
In a equal turning fight with f4 g2 g6 g14 k4 it will lose that fight where is the nationality bias here?? F4U is a lot closer but again it can easily be done in a 109. My guess is you've just been running into players who are better pilots than yourself, to delude yourself into thinking you are only losing because HTC are scupcakeing around a PC with their anti-luftwaffe agenda is sad. If you would spend more time with a trainer 'if your ego will allow that' and less time typing conspiracy theory on the bbs you might figure out how to beat these 'rigged' aircraft.

[thorsim]

are there a lot of real world guys who think the 38 outmaneuvers the p51?  
i would like to hear from them, please post.
btw what is the wing loading on the 38 as your numbers seem different than how i have seen them expressed before ...

Maneuverability:
1 a : to perform a movement in military or naval strategy in order to secure an advantage
   b : to make a series of changes in direction and position for a specific purpose
2 : to use stratagems

That would depend on the pilot skill... The standard spitfire would have better turning maneuverability and the clipped wing spit would have better rolling maneuverability. Both have an advantage in one mean of changing direction (standard spit has advantage in turn rate and clipped wing spit has advantage in roll rate).

In a fight based on maneuverability i would give the edge to the standard spitfire. It can turn sharper and has a lower stall speed. In a fight based on tactics however, I would give the edge to the clipped wing spit (Maneuvering vs Energy Fighting).


In aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing. The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading. Correspondingly, the landing and take-off speeds will be higher. The high wing loading also decreases maneuverability.

When discussing turn rate, that is why wing loading (which others have discussed before) is so important. The P38 may be a very large aircraft, but in turn it has very large wings. Not to mention its flap design further increases its wing size at no additional cost of weight.  This allows a larger P38 to out maneuver a smaller P51.

Change for thought:
The wing loading of a spit v is roughly 120
The wing loading of a C47 is roughly 123
The wing loading of a B-17 is roughly 190
The wing loading of a 109 is roughly 210

[WMLute]

Yawn! what a load of bull the 109k4 is arguably the best fighter in the game! You think HTC has an anti German agenda here when they also give it huge wep time as well? What a load of clap trap if they were doing this for gain as Skip said about CRS in the video then their 'cash cow' to fiddle with would be the P-51D 'a plane that Hitech has actually flew btw' it would outturn everything in sight and generally be uber in every way in game thats NOT the case.
In a equal turning fight with f4 g2 g6 g14 k4 it will lose that fight where is the nationality bias here?? F4U is a lot closer but again it can easily be done in a 109. My guess is you've just been running into players who are better pilots than yourself, to delude yourself into thinking you are only losing because HTC are scupcakeing around a PC with their anti-luftwaffe agenda is sad. If you would spend more time with a trainer 'if your ego will allow that' and less time typing conspiracy theory on the bbs you might figure out how to beat these 'rigged' aircraft.

I agree that the 109k is arguably in the top 2-3 planes in the game.  

I allready have stated that the main problem that Thorism has with flying and fighting the planes in AcesHigh is he isn't very good at it.  He wants to blame the plane modeling instead of his own lack of ability.


(edit: and who in the "real world" DOESN'T think that the P38 could out maneuver a Pony?  Anybody that will tell you the P51 is the more "over all" maneuverable bird is clueless on the subject)

[CAP1]

I agree that the 109k is arguably in the top 2-3 planes in the game.  

I allready have stated that the main problem that Thorism has with flying and fighting the planes in AcesHigh is he isn't very good at it.  He wants to blame the plane modeling instead of his own lack of ability.


(edit: and who in the "real world" DOESN'T think that the P38 could out maneuver a Pony?  Anybody that will tell you the P51 is the more "over all" maneuverable bird is clueless on the subject)

DOES THIS mean that the p-38's modeling is why i suck so badly in it? 

[Vinkman]

 

Re: Plane vs Plane Tactics (Matchups)
« Reply #285 on: Today at 08:56:21 AM » Quote  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
where did i say bias ...

maybe because it is a game where flap engineering is not determined by nationality ...

Thor, Isn't this an example of bias?

[thorsim]

no, it is not.  the criteria used in AH and until recently in WB is the POH for flap operation.  

these documents are not purely based on the manufacturers projected physical and aerodynamic limits of the the airframe, they are subject to editing by the Nations air forces and their operational preferences.

it is the easiest documentation to find but as you well know in many cases, such as the flap deployment speeds in the german planes, the engine operation procedures of the p-38, and the prohibited maneuvers in the p-51, often ignored to no ill effect for one reason or another.  they often do not reflect the historic reality in the air.

so since hitech has used the POH for all the flap deployment speeds it can not be called bias.  

however since we know that in this case the POH is more reflective of the air-force's official procedures than it is of the physical limits of the structure, and we know that pilots used the flaps in combat and that testers like the NACA tested the combat flaps of the types, we also know that although not bias the choice of the POH in this case is also not reflective of the historic reality either.  all the other games of this type are taking other sources into consideration as they are uncomfortable with the results when the POH is the single source in this matter.  

so no the below it is not a bias statement, or a statement about bias.

Thor, Isn't this an example of bias?

[BnZs]

are there a lot of real world guys who think the 38 outmaneuvers the p51?  
i would like to hear from them, please post.
btw what is the wing loading on the 38 as your numbers seem different than how i have seen them expressed before ...

EVERYBODY who flew both types and compared them in r/l considered the 38 the superior "dogfighter".

The 38 has a high-aspect ratio wing, large fowler flaps, and a superior power-loading as compared  the P-51. All of this still does not give it a turn *radius* superiority over the Mustang, but it does give it a healthy advantage in sustained turn rate. Furthermore, its torqueless design will always be far easier to fly right to the ragged edge than any single-engine prop job. All of which is in turn unimportant in a P-51 vs P-38 fight compared to what the 38's advantage in the vertical gives it.

 Basic wingloading will often give you a guess, but its not always accurate. Comparing power-off stall speeds in various configurations is the easiest sure way to find the true ratio of lift/weight. Despite its decidedly heavier wing-loading, the P-38s clean stall speed is usually given at 105, compared to the P-51's 100.  And when you bring flaps and the ability to much more easily control the airplane at low-speed and full power...

EDIT: I think full-flaps stall for the 38 is around 80. But not sure.

[ink]

EVERYBODY who flew both types and compared them in r/l considered the 38 the superior "dogfighter".

The 38 has a high-aspect ratio wing, large fowler flaps, and a superior power-loading as compared  the P-51. All of this still does not give it a turn *radius* superiority over the Mustang, but it does give it a healthy advantage in sustained turn rate. Furthermore, its torqueless design will always be far easier to fly right to the ragged edge than any single-engine prop job. All of which is in turn unimportant in a P-51 vs P-38 fight compared to what the 38's advantage in the vertical gives it.

 Basic wingloading will often give you a guess, but its not always accurate. Comparing power-off stall speeds in various configurations is the easiest sure way to find the true ratio of lift/weight. Despite its decidedly heavier wing-loading, the P-38s clean stall speed is usually given at 105, compared to the P-51's 100.  And when you bring flaps and the ability to much more easily control the airplane at low-speed and full power...

EDIT: I think full-flaps stall for the 38 is around 80. But not sure.

the 38 as far as I have ever read, was considered the "best" of ww2 by the American's, but it was not because it was the best "dog fighter" it could bring you home safely, and that is what mattered to them.

personally I think its a "one trick pony"


INK

[BnZs]

the 38 as far as I have ever read, was considered the "best" of ww2 by the American's, but it was not because it was the best "dog fighter" it could bring you home safely, and that is what mattered to them.

personally I think its a "one trick pony"


INK

Yet it was considered the best dogfighter of the "big 3" in the USAAF.

Yes, they liked two engines over the Pacific, but they also liked its maneuver and energy-building properties.

[thorsim]

i am pretty inclusive of maneuvers when i think of a maneuverable, pretty much anything that can be considered a maneuver across the entire envelope of the aircraft.  i include up, down, right, left, speed up, slow down, roll this way, that way, and back, all considered at all sorts of speeds.

 flat turn, yo yo, lag roll, 1/2 cuban, split-s, etc.

so i tend to consider much more than how tight a plane can turn near it's stall speed when i evaluate a planes maneuverability.  this approach to evaluation of a planes maneuverability comes from talking to fighter pilots about how they evaluate a plane.  

i think we differ in this regard, and it is at the root of some of our disagreements.  

not a bash, just noting that i think we have a different outlook.    

EVERYBODY who flew both types and compared them in r/l considered the 38 the superior "dogfighter".

The 38 has a high-aspect ratio wing, large fowler flaps, and a superior power-loading as compared  the P-51. All of this still does not give it a turn *radius* superiority over the Mustang, but it does give it a healthy advantage in sustained turn rate. Furthermore, its torqueless design will always be far easier to fly right to the ragged edge than any single-engine prop job. All of which is in turn unimportant in a P-51 vs P-38 fight compared to what the 38's advantage in the vertical gives it.

 Basic wingloading will often give you a guess, but its not always accurate. Comparing power-off stall speeds in various configurations is the easiest sure way to find the true ratio of lift/weight.

[BnZs]

Bollocks. You've been vainly trying to "prove" that the AH turn performance is wrong all this time, and now, having been firmly skewered by your own ignorance. Now you are wriggling, trying to bring all sorts of other "topics" into the mix.

There are 3, count them 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, but 3 axis of maneuver for an airplane. Pitch, roll, and yaw. All of them are defined by the same physical forces. There is no evidence that any of your "theories" are anymore true applied to issues of elevator authority, roll or yaw effectiveness than they are applied to turn rate and radius.

i am pretty inclusive of maneuvers when i think of a maneuverable, pretty much anything that can be considered a maneuver across the entire envelope of the aircraft.  i include up, down, right, left, speed up, slow down, roll this way, that way, and back, all considered at all sorts of speeds.

 flat turn, yo yo, lag roll, 1/2 cuban, split-s, etc.

so i tend to consider much more than how tight a plane can turn near it's stall speed when i evaluate a planes maneuverability.  this approach to evaluation of a planes maneuverability comes from talking to fighter pilots about how they evaluate a plane.  

i think we differ in this regard, and it is at the root of some of our disagreements.  

not a bash, just noting that i think we have a different outlook.    

[ink]

Yet it was considered the best dogfighter of the "big 3" in the USAAF.

Yes, they liked two engines over the Pacific, but they also liked its maneuver and energy-building properties.

I know you are not saying they "out maneuvered" the nme in the pacific, cuz that would be a fallacy, the climb rate and guns are what made the 38 so great, NOT it's maneuverability.

but you know that already.



INK

[BnZs]

so i tend to consider much more than how tight a plane can turn near it's stall speed when i evaluate a planes maneuverability.  

And here you burst out with willful ignorance again. Read this slowly and understand: An airplane's power-off 1G stall speed in a given configuration is important is *directly* proportional to both its sustained turn radius and most especially its best turn rate&radius at corner velocity in that configuration. It is possible for a plane with more power and/or a wing with more efficient lift/drag ratio to sustain a higher turn *rate* than the aircraft with the lower power off stall speed, but it will NOT be superior in instantaneous turn rate or radius, or sustained radius.

Accelerated stall speed is equal to the stall speed of an aircraft in a given configuration, multiplied by the square root of the G loading. An airplane that stalls at 100mph at 1G in a given configuration will stall at ~265mph at a nominal 7Gs "blackout" limit. An airplane that stalls at 127mph at 1G will enter an accelerated stall at those same 7Gs at approximately 336mph. The extra speed needed to achieve the same G-loading means increased turn radius and decreased turn rate. This is not even the slightest bit debatable.

And last time I checked, r/l pilots were *very* concerned with their plane's corner velocity.

[BnZs]

I know you are not saying they "out maneuvered" the nme in the pacific, cuz that would be a fallacy, the climb rate and guns are what made the 38 so great, NOT it's maneuverability.

but you know that already.



INK

Just because the Japanese fighters were much more maneuverable than the American fighters, does not mean maneuverability was not a concern. A Spitfire and a Fw190A8 are both turn worse than a Zero. Yet somehow it is easier to get guns on a Zero in a fight with one than the other...put an other way, you could bnz Zeros in a Jug, you could bnz them in a Hellcat or 38, I'm going to say the Hellcat or 38 was probably the better plane for the job because it had "plenty" speed advantage over the Zekes and more climb and maneuver to work with. Whereas over in the ETO, among other problems, at high alts the Germans were essentially disengaging from the 38s at will by diving, they couldn't do that against a Jug...

[CAP1]

the 38 as far as I have ever read, was considered the "best" of ww2 by the American's, but it was not because it was the best "dog fighter" it could bring you home safely, and that is what mattered to them.

personally I think its a "one trick pony"


INK

i would think that they liked it, because while it wasn't exceptional at any single thing, it was pretty good at just about everything.....making it more well balanced than most.

 also, although not widely know, the p-38 was also capable of going all the way into germany with the b-17's before the p-51.