PDA

View Full Version : Allied early war inlines



Arm_slinger
10-26-2004, 06:54 PM
Is it me or is the Hawks and P39 D's manoeuverable buggers? they can roll and turn rather well and have a rather good turn of speed to. I'd like to hear peoples opinions on this if I may, as to me, for some reason, all the allied fighters seem to feel the same in terms of manoeuverability to me.

Many thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Arm_slinger
10-26-2004, 06:54 PM
Is it me or is the Hawks and P39 D's manoeuverable buggers? they can roll and turn rather well and have a rather good turn of speed to. I'd like to hear peoples opinions on this if I may, as to me, for some reason, all the allied fighters seem to feel the same in terms of manoeuverability to me.

Many thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
10-26-2004, 08:49 PM
The P39, and P40 in particular were quite maneuverable. Not as nimble as the Japanese fighters they faced in the Pacific, but still very good in the turn. In fact the early models of the P40 were at least as maneuverable as the Spitfire Mk.I, and by some accounts better than it under 15,000ft.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

berg417448
10-26-2004, 09:57 PM
"In a 1995 interview with World War II magazine, expatriate Czech pilot Frantisek Perina recalled the Hawk's 75's outstanding maneuverability. It could "outmaneuver any German aircraft. If one got on your tail in one 360-degree turn you were behind him." Perina regarded the Hawk as superior to the Hurricane, which he felt was heavier on the controls."

Arm_slinger
10-27-2004, 03:53 PM
There we go then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It will be intersting to see what happens in the patch though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
10-27-2004, 04:25 PM
All of this stuff is coming from the same sources and the same generalizations have become inbred into all of us.

When I came here, I came essentially after many years of not paying attention to sims (my last sim was Aces Over Europe). The manuals themselves for both AOTP and AOE spouted some of the same information that rightly and wrongly has made massive generalizations on the performance of aircraft that they covered.

The P-40 is always considered "slow, obsolete, bad turn fighter" and that the Zero is always its superior. Unfortunately, there's a whole bunch of facts and factors that get missed by this generalization. How does the fighter dive, whats its high speed manuverability like, what tactics did the pilots use, why was the P-40 replaced by later planes, what was the planes specific roll rate, what was its speed in comparison to its opponents at a variety of altitudes.

If you look at the P-40 and the Zero and you compare every major facet of these planes and then get to choose which plane you are going to fly...the P-40 is my choice. USAAF, AVG, and the RNZAF demonstrated the P-40's robust construction, the roll rate, the high speed hit and run attack abilities, and the competent ability of the P-40 to fight its opponents in an operational capacity.

If you look at the P-39, there's many reasons to conclude (and the USAAF did intially too) that it was the most advanced fighter the USAAF had at the time. In many ways it was indeed quite advanced and had many attributes that made it an excellent aircraft. The short list of problems ranged from maitenence in the field, the center of gravity issues, and ultimately the skill of the pilots and the fact that P-39's were being forced to fight Zero's at the Zero's best altitude and above the P-39's unsupercharged altitude (partly forced by geography).

I'm no aviation expert and I'm not an aerospace engineer but having read lots of reports, read into reports based on some very logical and well aruged individuals on this board, other boards, and the opinion of academics and experts in the field you quickly learn that there are many more factors coming into play than these basic generalizations.

My general view: The early war Allied aircraft were easily comparable with their axis opposition and that situation, operational use, pilot skill, and non-aircraft related factors had more to do with how the aircraft were branded than their actual performance. Therefore, experience in the sim will varry...since those factors are not recreatable.

Oleg and his team can simulate the aircraft...but it would take a miracle and a half to simulate the war and all of its nuances.

rodion_zero
10-27-2004, 07:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Oleg and his team can simulate the aircraft...but it would take a miracle and a half to simulate the war and all of its nuances. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. In meteorological circles, it's said that the miniscule vortices produced when a butterfly flaps its tiny wings is ALREADY a factor (yes, it may be a small effect, but it does contribute to the big picture...after all, one only needs to split ONE tiny atom to start a chain reaction) to the overall weather that an area 100 miles from the butterfly will have in the next 24 hours. If that is the case, then it's crazy to say that we will have a realistic and accurate weather system in any flight simulation within the next 10 years or so, and thus combat flight simming isn't really that realistic as long as there are no butterflies in the game hahahahaha! Err, just kidding http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

-RODION