Plane vs Plane Tactics (Matchups)

[CAP1]

i am all up for fun, i got a different impression from the previous offer, and to my credit i did offer to test with him.

i think you'd find the fight with masher to be fun too. he's a good guy. he won't let his ego get in the way, although i've heard rumors he has a trailer custom made to transport it.  

 seriously....most of the guys in here talking to you will gladly fight with you, win or lose....and they'll also be glad to teach you.  

[Ack-Ack]

i got a different impression when i looked into it, and of course it will still enter "compression" at some point. 

It all depends what the mach threshold is for the altitude the P-38 is diving at.  Below 20,000ft where the air is thicker, the P-38 will not enter into compressability because the mach threshold is too high.  One of the reasons why in real life that P-38 pilots (before the dive flaps were introduced) were told not to initiate high speed dives above 20,000ft.  At high speed dives below 20,000ft, the P-38 would experiencing stiffening of controls due to the high speed aerodynamic forces but would not enter into a 'nose tuck' that signaled a compressability state.

On a side note, there were P-38 pilots like Robin Olds and Lowell that used to use their rudders to slow them down in dives (before dive flaps) to keep compressability at bay.  It's a trick that works like a charm in here too.


ack-ack

[thorsim]

i had always heard it described as a dive break, i looked into it and understand it better now, as to how much it slows the aircraft down, well i never offered an opinion on that that i recall.

it looks like a fair amount of surface area to me though, i think if you wanted it to it would probably help you slow down quite a bit in TRW.

The P-38's dive flaps didn't change the airflow to allow it to dive faster, nor did it act as an 'air brake' like you think it did.  Any drag that was associated with the dive flaps was minimul and did not slow the plane down in any appreciable fashion just by having them deployed.  As was explained to you, any speed loss from the dive flaps being deployed was a result of the nose pitching up from the change of the airflow and not the drag associated with the dive flaps.


ack-ack

[thorsim]

yes i agree cross control is quite useful ...

speaking of slowing down i think i like the coffin corner stories the best of the "fight fun" accounts from my pilot friends.

those playing with the "toys" the government lends you stories ...

i sometimes wonder at the shenanigans enemy pilots would have gotten to if there had not been a war just close  deployments ...  

It all depends what the mach threshold is for the altitude the P-38 is diving at.  Below 20,000ft where the air is thicker, the P-38 will not enter into compressability because the mach threshold is too high.  One of the reasons why in real life that P-38 pilots (before the dive flaps were introduced) were told not to initiate high speed dives above 20,000ft.  At high speed dives below 20,000ft, the P-38 would experiencing stiffening of controls due to the high speed aerodynamic forces but would not enter into a 'nose tuck' that signaled a compressability state.

On a side note, there were P-38 pilots like Robin Olds and Lowell that used to use their rudders to slow them down in dives (before dive flaps) to keep compressability at bay.  It's a trick that works like a charm in here too.


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

i had always heard it described as a dive break, i looked into it and understand it better now, as to how much it slows the aircraft down, well i never offered an opinion on that that i recall.

it looks like a fair amount of surface area to me though, i think if you wanted it to it would probably help you slow down quite a bit in TRW.

Illustration of the P-38 dive flaps


Frontal view of dive flaps deployed


Rear view


Another view just for the Hell of it.


As you can see, the surface area isn't as large as one might think but then considering it's intended purpose, it didn't need to be.  It just had to change the airflow.  It wouldn't slow you don't quite a bit if deployed in level flight, it's not what it was designed to do nor was it used as such by those that flew the P-38 with the dive flaps.


ack-ack

[Masherbrum]

......and this is about the 5th thread Thorsim has brought up those "Evil P-38 Fowler Flaps".     

[thorsim]

pretty sure ack ack brought them up

......and this is about the 5th thread Thorsim has brought up those "Evil P-38 Fowler Flaps".     

[Bear76]

note: if you shoot a so called ace down he will beach n yap, he will say the town or field ack got him, not your bullets. or he will accuse you of cheating or say it is lag. and he will put you down in the BBS. get other guys to gangbang you on the forums. and some more accusations, when it is your internet connection and there is nothing you can do about it. And you like to play the game too just like they do too, yet when you shoot a enemy down and it turns out to be the guy who despises you, be prepared to be accused some more and put down like you are cheating when you are not. <S> to all fellow aces highers who understands

[Masherbrum]

 

[greens]

[BnZs]

You are incorrect, and your "feeling" means nothing. It has been demonstrated to you time and time again, that according to proven physics, identical loadings will in fact result in identical performance. You have shown nothing to the contrary. You can show no physics to prove the contrary. You can show no examples to the contrary. On top of that, you have been shown copious examples where the larger aircraft clearly turns (or climbs, or accelerates) as well or better, due to identical/superior loadings. And do not try to wriggle out of this by bringing up roll rate or the like, because there are numerous cases where the larger aircraft rolls better as well. The 190 and the P-47 were larger than many stablemates/enemies and yet were the best rollers in the ETO. And the relatively massive F4U Corsair enjoyed a roll rate approximately as brisk as its R-2800 cousin the Jug.

"if all the loadings are similar imo the lighter smaller aircraft should have the edge in maneuverability"

i never suggested that other advantages would not come into play in my tendency to favor smaller lighter in the maneuver fight.  

per the beginning of this thread i feel that the 109 should have the maneuver advantage over the f4u not in the least part because of their relative size.

on page 15 of this thread under the realization that the real world proof i was asking for was so elusive, i expressed my desire to discontinue participation in this discussion for a while, many found that unacceptable so i am since have been addressing specific points and counter points.

    

[thorsim]

actually no one has produced an example of a loadings very similar, yet size and weight very different pair of aircraft for comparison.  

i am more than happy to re-think my instinct if a good example is provided.

on the other points i am also waiting for the real world opinions that share the ones like that of the f4u/109 match-up that started this whole 25 page mess in the first place.  

or ...

you can just let me look deeper on my own  and continue this discussion or not without me as i suggested 10 pages ago, i.e. do not address me anymore here.

as this is just as tedious for me as it is for any of you ...

You are incorrect, and your "feeling" means nothing. It has been demonstrated to you time and time again, that according to proven physics, identical loadings will in fact result in identical performance. You have shown nothing to the contrary. You can show no physics to prove the contrary. You can show no examples to the contrary. On top of that, you have been shown copious examples where the larger aircraft clearly turns (or climbs, or accelerates) as well or better, due to identical/superior loadings. And do not try to wriggle out of this by bringing up roll rate or the like, because there are numerous cases where the larger aircraft rolls better as well. The 190 and the P-47 were larger than many stablemates/enemies and yet were the best rollers in the ETO. And the relatively massive F4U Corsair enjoyed a roll rate approximately as brisk as its R-2800 cousin the Jug.

[Bronk]

BnZs
As much as I cant stand your constant complaints about the Mk XVI. You sir are doing one hell of a job in this thread.

[BnZs]

actually no one has produced an example of a loadings very similar, yet size and weight very different pair of aircraft for comparison.  

Ahem, have you noticed all the examples where an aircraft is larger, sometimes *literally* double the weight of another aircraft yet has *superior* maneuver performance through superior loading? That should tell you something.

[BnZs]

BnZs
As much as I cant stand your constant complaints about the Mk XVI. You sir are doing one hell of a job in this thread.

  The XVI is ridiculously superior to 90% of what it faces, outside of other Merlin Spits, because of the same physical principles I am outlining. In a war, I myself would have squeezed Goerrings fat-head until he gave me *multiple* squadrons of Spitfires. In a game, if you think it is healthy for gameplay for one tool to be ridiculously superior to another tool, then we must agree to disagree.