CT group forming...not a squadron

[Batz]

I think it would be better.

Brady and I have have "known" you for sometime and a few of your squaddies will be involved and I am sure they trust ya.

If anything you wont hear the cries of "bias" like you would if a Japcentric player were to assume the lead.

[Arlo]

*sigh*

My post wasn't intended to start a fight or to put others on the defensive (though it seems that it unfortunately did). My post was a sincere suggestion that the members of this group test (or re-test in some instances) the actual abilities and limitations of all the aircraft we intend to include in our planesets (which could very well mean every damned plane in the HTC inventory) ... so we can all be in agreement when it comes the designs. Granted, some setups may change in what planes are offered where due to one particular CT staffers opinions ... but I would hope not.

THAT is the reason for my suggestion. Let's get together and test theories ... or let others experience for themselves, firsthand, what others claim they KNOW to be true. That way when it comes to Brady's or Eddie's or Jester's or anyone's turn to run the setup, there's more of a chance of everyone running it the same way and less of a chance of players challenging changes that could be perceived as biased in nature.

An even better reason is to help newer members to get up to speed in learning the strengths and limitations of the AH planeset.

And as a side issue .... it could be fun.

Sure I mentioned the differences some of us feel about the F4U (oh damn .... he said the "F" word ... grrrrr .... woof .... hissssss ..... meow .... hisssss) - but that is just the most obvious (maybe the only evident) example of opinions of AH aircraft capabilities and balance that the group isn't in agreement over that I could think of. If there's others we should explore them as well - hence running tests on all sorts of model matchups. Don't trust the statistical information in the books or on the websites. Test them yourselves. Let's see what they do in AH!

So there ... if you wanna get all offended by this idea or get defensive ... that's your call. But don't do so on my account since I'm just working.

[Batz]

I wasnt aware I was being "defensive".

I was explaining how it "is". Theres no need to bring up the F4u thing until theres a clear set up or idea expressed. So far I havent read anything that would even have the f4u included.

Alutians, Panama, Hollywood etc....... How do you see f4us there?

If you think theres an "opportunity" to change the minds of the so called "anti-f4us" guys (which is only Brady and I) that aint gonna happen. We are as constant as the tide....

 If whatever comes out of this group isnt something a particular cm wont run then just move on to another. Because 1 wont run it that doesnt mean all the work gone into it is wasted as there are a number of other CMs.

I dont think the "f4u" issue needs to be discussed at all. Its old ground. Thats not gonna prevent me from helping in research, maps, skins etc... Those are seperate issues all together.

If you wanna test accellerations and speed etc of each plane go for it, but its been done. Look for whels speed tests and Forks accelleration tests. Lethality has been covered several times and Jazz is currently doing it again.

What I think is fun is having a few folks researching and sharing stuff. I not much on pac stuff but I like learning new things.

The players will always challenge the set ups. Everyone always thinks they know more then the guy who set it up.

I didnt offer to help so I can keep the "f4us out from the inside". I suggested this type of approach because I thought it would be fun.

I am having fun already......

[brady]

I think first off we nead a seperate forum to discuss this on, and I think Reschkey should ask Skuzzy if he can set it up for us and then have reschkey as the moderator of the forum, I have no problem with Reschkey heading the groupe, since I veiw my cpaacity on it as an advisor, provider of refrence data, and leasion between the Groupe and the CT Staff, who ultimately will run any set up created by this groupe.

 It should be noted right hear and now that any set up put forth will be aprovied by the entire CT Staff before it is run, it will be reviewed just like any setup we ourselfs run. Even Kanttories FinRuss set up's were not run compleatly as he put forth, some miniour changes were made by the staff, but his set up was so good it dident nead much tweaking.


 The Biggest Pluss hear is the learing experance that will be provided for one and all who partake in this endevor, and I think Reschkee should be comended for atempting to creat a process with the players whear it is posable for them as a grope to creat a map, a plane set and have some fun doing it.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Batz
So far I havent read anything that would even have the f4u included.

The really funny part is I think you're actually being serious.

[scJazz]

Originally posted by Batz
I wasnt aware I was being "defensive".
If you wanna test accellerations and speed etc of each plane go for it, but its been done. Look for whels speed tests and Forks accelleration tests. Lethality has been covered several times and Jazz is currently doing it again.

If it has already been done where is it?!?!? Searched high and low and have found nothing on the subject except some vague references. Please I'd love not to reinvent the wheel if possible. Where is the stuff?

[Batz]

Whels and forks stuff is in the A&V forum search their nics. The lethality stuff was done by guys who no longer play ah.

AH is 3 years + aint nothing that you are doing that aint been done.

Arlo I re-read the thread and the various setup suggestions and havent seen where in those an f4u would be included. If I missed something quote it for me.

That doesnt mean no f4us ever. The trick is as Reschke described, find a place for it as part of a setup. If you have a suggestion then why havent you posted it? Theres no sense in re-hashing why brady doesnt bend over for you. That just aint gonna happen.

The island hoping thing may be it but no one has put up anything solid.

[Reschke]

I have emailed Skuzzy about the forum and should know something soon. scJazz can you get me your email address...just drop me an email through my profile. Thanks!

Guys lets move off the F4U issue. It will come up again soon enough when ideas for setups start happening more.

[brady]

Fork's Deck Exceleration Chart:

 Accleration Rates: Test Results
Test Environment
Altitude: 150 ft
Winds: 0
Fuel Burn Rate: 0.01
Fuel: 25%
Vo: 150Mph
Vf: 250Mph
WEP: On

Description
All aircraft were loaded with 25% fuel and with minimal MG loads if available. Aircraft were auto-levelled at 150 feet and speed reduced to 125mph, except the Me 262* and Me 163*. 100% throttle was applied and WEP engaged (if available). At 150mph the timer was engaged to 250Mph. This was repeated five times for every aircraft. The average time was recorded to accelerate through 100 mph.

* Vo was 200, Vf was 300 due to stall conditions.

Forumla
Acceleration
a = (Vf - Vo) / t m/s^2
where
Vf - final velocity
Vo - initial velocity
t - time in seconds

Vf = 250mph = 111.8 m/s
Vo= 150mph = 67.1 m/s

a = (111.8m/s - 67.1m/s) / t
a = 44.7m/s / time

Results (in order of acceration)
Aircraft | Seconds | Acceleration
Me 163 | 7.7 | 5.8
Tempest V | 16.7 | 2.7
La-7 | 16.9 | 2.6
Spit XIV | 16.9 | 2.6
Bf 109G-10 | 17.1 | 2.6
La-5FN | 17.6 | 2.5
Me 262 | 19.5 | 2.3
Fw 190D-9 | 20.2 | 2.2
Bf 109G-2 | 20.5 | 2.2
F4U-4 | 20.8 | 2.1
Typhoon | 21.5 | 2.1
Bf 109G-6 | 21.8 | 2.1
P-38L | 22.0 | 2.0
Bf 109F-4 | 22.1 | 2.0
C205 | 22.2 | 2.0
Fw 190A-8 | 22.8 | 2.0
Fw 190A-5 | 23.0 | 1.9
P-51D | 23.3 | 1.9
NIK2-J | 23.4 | 1.9
Spit IX | 23.6 | 1.9
F4U-1D | 23.8 | 1.9
F4U-1C | 24.0 | 1.9
Ta-152H | 24.0 | 1.9
Yak-9U | 24.0 | 1.9
P-47D-30 | 24.5 | 1.8
F6F-5 | 24.6 | 1.8
Bf 110G-2 | 24.9 | 1.8
C202 | 24.9 | 1.8
Fw 190F-8 | 25.1 | 1.8
Spit V | 26.0 | 1.7
Mosq VI | 26.1 | 1.7
Yak-9T | 26.2 | 1.7
F4U-1 | 26.5 | 1.7
P-47D-11 | 26.9 | 1.7
Seafire IIC | 27.0 | 1.7
P-47D-25 | 27.1 | 1.6
A6M5b | 27.9 | 1.6
P-51B | 28.0 | 1.6
Hurr IIC | 29.1 | 1.5
FM2 | 29.9 | 1.5
Bf 110C-4b | 30.0 | 1.5
Ki-61-I-KAIc | 30.4 | 1.5
Bf 109E-4 | 33.2 | 1.3
Spit IA | 33.5 | 1.3
Hurr IID | 34.9 | 1.3
P-40E | 36.0 | 1.2
Hurr Mk 1 | 37.0 | 1.2
A6M2 | 40.3 | 1.1
F4F-4 | 40.9 | 1.1

[brady]

Updated OTD Speads from Whel's
Re: CORRECTED Updated OTD speeds for fighters with 1.10s

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by whels
MIL:
TEMPEST 372
LA-7 358
F4U-4 358
TYPHOON 355
YAK9-U 355
P-51D 354
F4U-1 350
P-51B 347
190D-9 346
F4U-1D 343
F4U-1C 342
109G-10 337
LA-5 336
P-38L 333
P-47D-11 333
SPIT-14 332
TA-152 332
P-47D-25 329
P-47D-30 329
190A-8 327
YAK9-T 327
190F-8 326
190A-5 326
MOSQ 325
C205 321
109G-2 320
F6F-5 320
109G-6 317
N1K2 313
109F-4 310
SPIT IX 310
C202 307
KI-61 305
110-G2 305
SEAFIRE 293
SPIT V 293
110-4b 290
FM2 290
A6M5 288
F4F 278
P40B 275
A6M2 275
P40E 276
HURR IIC 262
HURR IID 253
HURR I 253

WEP:
TEMPEST 386
LA-7 380
F4U-4 378
190D-9 375
TYPHOON 370
P-51D 367
109G-10 366
TA-152 361
SPIT-14 358
F4U-1 358
P-51B 358
F4U-1D 357
F4U-1C 356
LA-5 356
YAK9-U 355
190A-8 349
190F-8 349
P-38L 344
P-47D-11 344
P-47D-25 340
P-47D-30 340
109G-2 340
190A-5 339
MOSQ 338
YAK9-T 336
109G-6 336
109F-4 332
C205 331
F6F-5 330
N1K2 324
SPIT IX 319
110-G2 316
C202 315
KI-61 313
SEAFIRE 302
SPIT V 302
110-4B 300
FM2 297
P40E 297
109E-4 292
SPIT I 291
A6M5 288
F4F 275 no wep
A6M2 275 NO WEP
P40B 275
HURR IIC 273
HURR IID 265
HURR I 261

[brady]

Check this out:


 http://www.jannousiainen.net/online_sims/jg_4/index.htm

[Reschke]

Very nice Java applet charts there on that page.

[brady]

Ya, I use that chart alot.

[Arlo]

The charts and the java applets are nice. I don't think they reveal what you really want them to ... but nice. Thanks. Some of us may elect to go ahead and test things under different variables. It never hurts to try different things to gain a broader perspective.

[Karnak]

I can't assure my constant attention, but I'd like to give suggestions and feedback too.