PDA

View Full Version : Corsair Q/suggestion & Zero bug.



VMF215_Shadow
03-29-2006, 11:53 PM
S! all,

Q/suggestion:
I just wanted to know if there are going to be anymore Corsairs added to the game?
I would love to see an F4U-4, F4U-2 something like that maybe?

Bug:
Why is it that the Corsair in the game cant dive away from the zero?
I have hit the Corsairs Max speed in a dive to the point that the controls rip off & the Zero would be right on my tail the whole way.

S! & Thanks,
Shadow

JG53Frankyboy
03-30-2006, 03:10 AM
AI or human controlled Zero ?

because a lot of peopel here around are saying that the AI doesnt have a divelimit.
i cant tell, i dont fly offline. and that i flew COOPs is also long time ago- actually i fly very seldom in the moment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stansdds
03-30-2006, 04:02 AM
Question 1: No.

Question 2: Not a bug, it's a feature, be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

horseback
03-30-2006, 09:07 AM
I wouldn't expect any more late-war USN fighters or torpedo bombers to be modelled for this sim. There was a bit of a legal dustup with certain US companies who now hold the brand names for most of them, and Oleg is apparently not interested in being jerked around again.

As regards the Zero keeping up with your Corsair in a dive, I am assuming that you were playing offline, in QMB or in a campaign, which means that your opponent was AI(artificial intelligence).

AI cheat. While the Party Line is that they have the same FMs as the players' flyable aircraft, the fact is that in the most current patch versions, they have no structural limits, no overheat, no G-effects (blackout or redout), and apparently, no noticeable loss of power or control when they should be damaged or wounded, in addition to perfect situational awareness, flying the aircraft to its maximum performance and in always perfect trim. Some people also feel that there is no apparent E-loss after AI make abrupt maneuvers in the current patch version (4.04).

But other than that, they are flying with the same flight model and damage model as flyable version of that same aircraft type that you can fly.

I don't expect that to be remedied for a few months, if at all, so you will have to adjust your tactics accordingly for offline play.

cheers

horseback

smatchimo
03-30-2006, 09:42 AM
Unfortunately horseback is dead on, There is no way to use proper tactics against a zeke. I just dont understand how a game titled "Pacific Fighters" could have such a horrible representation of a zero. I know its better online, but guess what, the overall online play sucks ( seriously, have you ever once seen a large formation online? ) so we are stuck w/ a less than acceptable representation of the Pacific war. The game is amazing in a lot of respects, just not this particular one.

-Cheers!

VMF215_Shadow
03-30-2006, 09:56 AM
I was talking about online play, not off.

JG53Frankyboy
03-30-2006, 10:02 AM
the best diving Zeros, the A6M7s, have a max dive speed of a little bit over 750km/h IAS.
the A6M2 is reaching its limit already at 650km/h.

the F4U is around 840km/h IAS.................

horseback
03-30-2006, 02:10 PM
If your Corsair is breaking up online while a Zero is following right behind you in one piece, it may be because he's shooting pieces off you, or because you are making control inputs that 'overstress' your airframe while slowing you down. You didn't quote the speed you were going when you started losing control surfaces, so it may have been a bit lower than the Corsair's rated maximum terminal velocity.

From what I understand, dive accelleration is not modelled, so you don't actually 'run away' from the lighter birds so much as you eventually are able to reach a higher speed than they can. Up to that point, he's able to keep pace with you. However, you may actually be reaching your terminal speed slower than you should, if you are leaving your prop pitch at 100%, the default setting in-game.

In a US bird, prop pitch is critical, because the constant speed props were set for engine rpm rather than airspeed. Often, 100% is not going to get you the best speed for your throttle setting, and I think this may be particularly true in a dive, where your prop pitch may be causing your prop to act as a brake.

I don't fly the F4U much, so I'm no expert, but you might ask on the Pacific Fighters or General Discussion forums to see what the experts think.

cheers

horseback

VW-IceFire
03-30-2006, 03:25 PM
One of the popular myths about this games dive modeling is that the accelerations are off. Some pretty lengthy testing shows that diving away is quite possible. The problem is the pilots mostly...

When a WWII pilot talked about diving away there were several things in play that we don't have to worry about and one thing in particular that they did frequently and we don't do right away.

1) In the typical WWII airbattle...pilots may have flown for an hour to get to their position. They are pretty concerned about their fuel state. Burning it all up in a fight is fine...but if you can't fly home and bunk with your squadmates when its done then thats no good. So often times when one side dove away and everyones fuel state was low...let them go. This is true of Spitfire VS FW190 fights. The FW190's would often dive away and while Spitfire V's couldn't follow very well...the Spitfire IX could follow (not well but enough to potentially catch them at the bottom). The problem was that by this point in the fight, do you really want to waste your precious fuel that is starting to run dry just on the off chance that you do manage to get close enough to get a FW? Probably not.

2) When they talk about diving away...it was often done in flight or squadron strength. Everyone would be fighting...and the order would be given to dive away and get home. And they would dive. P-47 pilot accounts, Spitfire and FW190 pilot accounts, P-40 Pilot accounts...this is how it was done.

3) The Zero's breakup speed in this game is fairly close to accurate from what I've read. Please tell me if this is wrong according to the numbers (keep in mind that A6M5's and later sacrificed some performance to strengthen and make the aircraft heavier to be more competitive in diving matches) but it is right in general terms. But one consideration to make in a high speed dive with an aircraft like the Zero...you *might* be able to catch a diving American fighter in a short diving match but the stresses on your plane may mean that its airframe is warped and ultimately useless after you land it. A useless plane you want to avoid as often as possible.

4) Most virtual pilots dive away at the last moment. A lightweight aircraft is going to have the initial advantage in acceleration purely by engine power...so if you dive away with a Zero on your six shooting at you...you've waited too long. A heavier aircraft...you need to give it time to build its speed and then it will be uncatchable.

These points I consider to be one of those things that you cannot properly simulate in a game like they talk about it in the books because even if the physics are right for the most part pilot survival and long range fuel considerations don't factor in the average fly 2 minutes to meet the enemy dogfight servers. The motivations are different so the behaviors and tactics have to be modified to match. Even if they do model airframe warping and other fatigue related issues...you can bet that unless you have a system where that actually matters in a dogfight server (heck you get a new plane right away anyways) then its going to be a non-issue.

Nimits
03-30-2006, 04:59 PM
Alot of Wildcat pilots talked about diving away into clouds (the weather, not the dive, was the primary defensive element, unfortunately not modelled with the AI) or diving away as soon as a favorable position was lost (when the Zero started to turn onto your six, not after it had been sitting in weapons range for 20 seconds).

The AI cheats, but if you are preemptive about surving (as most pilots were), you can generally get away from a Zero in a Wildcat.

Remember, getting a single kill in combat was considered worthwhile accomplishment. Guys with 3 or 4 kills were great combat pilots, and the guys with 5 or more were the special top 5 or 10 percent in a squadron. Killing 3 or 4 planes in a mission was generally a rarity, and 5 at a time was a once in a lifetime experiance. People in the sim often seem to feel cheated (and I'll admit at times to being one of them) if they don't single handedly knock down a shotai or two of Zeros every time up, and in up in situations that normally got real people killed. Fight like your life depends on it, and you'll generally be able to beat the AI, no matter how it cheats.

p1ngu666
04-02-2006, 09:08 AM
try a shallow dive to pick up speed then a level extension.

u can dogfight surprisingly well against zeros and other japanease planes too.

the last time i tested zeros have NO apricable margin of error on divespeed, the number in the manual for max safe dive speed is when it falls apart on you

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2006, 01:42 PM
AVG pilots that fought in the Pacific (later) testify to diving away from Zeroes by using
the ability to roll much quicker than the Zeroes. That is a spiralling dive where the
lead plane can exit while the trailing plane has not ability to turn onto the exit
direction quick enough. It can leave the trailing plane unaware of where the lead went
and therefore vulnerable.

I have yet to read of diving escapes by just zooming straight down like some drag race.
Yeah fine if you've got the lead. How many seconds to get beyond possible guns range?
600kph is like 166 m/s and that has to be 600kph faster than the other in that direction.

Outroll him and use your lift to change direction, gravity is less than that.
Do feint rolls if that's what it takes.

Why did the greats keep saying it's the pilot, not the plane? Here we get gamers keep
saying it's the planes.

TSmoke
04-02-2006, 04:12 PM
Well Shadow is a squad. mate, and yes the zero will stick with a corsair in a dive. The zeke and 38 are my main rides.

It makes little if no difference if he dives out with the zeke in gun range or not. We have done this innumerable times on-line.

The zeke will stick with the sair in a 60* dive or a shallow 20-25* dive makes no difference. The only time the sair gets seperation is it will hold the enegry gained in the dive longer than the zeke.

The best way that I have found to lose the zeke is a slow rolling spiral turn down to the right with at least 250 to 300mph. I find the zeke loses its roll advantage at high speeds, just as it should.

As a personal note with this last patch the zekes dive capabilites are enhanced to prior patches. I usually fly M5b or M5c.

VW-IceFire
04-02-2006, 04:55 PM
Keep in mind that the entire A6M5 series had a strengthened wing that was partially redesigned to allow for a higher dive velocity. Also keep in mind that the Zero and Corsair have different safe dive speeds...the Corsair has about 150kph extra to play with so it can definately pull away. But it won't do so right away. The best dive is to make it a shallow dive with full power.

Try the same engagement with a A6M2-21 vs a F4U-1A Corsair (which is also heavier than the 1D). The P-38 definately dives away...but its dangerous to do so with control lock...again a shallow dive followed by extending and climbing back up is the best technique in the P-38. I remember in a COOP running rings around a flight of A6M3's in a 38J. It took about 15 minutes but I eventually shot three of four down.

Treetop64
04-03-2006, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The P-38 definately dives away...but its dangerous to do so with control lock...again a shallow dive followed by extending and climbing back up is the best technique in the P-38. I remember in a COOP running rings around a flight of A6M3's in a 38J. It took about 15 minutes but I eventually shot three of four down.

This is why I personally love the 38 so much, other than it is just plain beautiful to look at.

When flying the 38, the pilot has very good oods of surviving the fight - as long as she's flown correctly. As long as your initial positioning is favorable, you can zoom down and take pot-shots virtually at will (considering the skill required in high-speed deflection shooting), then zoom away with the particularly high climbing speed the 38 posesses.

You wont't win any style points fighting in the 38, but if you fly it the way she's meant to be flown, you will rarely be shot down.

PikeBishop
04-10-2006, 07:07 AM
Dear All,
Now let's just look at this logically.
In level flight the F4u is about 15% faster than the A6M5 (346mph v 415mph)......not sure about the altitudes. In a dive this is only 11% (450mph v 500mph). So what can be said is that as at max speed the thrust must equal the drag, this is boosted by the acceleration of gravity in the dive, but as the difference is much less then the thrust from the engine plus the effect of gravity is not enough to overcome the drag to maintain the difference in percentage speed. If the zero has less drag ( clearly less weight/mass but this would seem to have minimal effect as it is acted on by gravity....a constant) then it might initially gain from acceleration. As someone has already said, any gain after the Zero has reached terminal would probably take several seconds, so it may seem that one has not gained as much in the dive as the F4u pilot thinks they should.
Best regards,
SLP

Slickun
04-10-2006, 01:59 PM
Saburo Sakai flew a Mustang and was very, very impressed by its high dive speed, and the ability to roll and turn, still, at the very high speeds he reached.

(keep in mind that A6M5's and later sacrificed some performance to strengthen and make the aircraft heavier to be more competitive in diving matches)

Why bother if dive speed was so unimportant?

Truth be told, dropping the nose and gaining speed was a hugh part of an A/C's abilities in WW2. Dive speed, acceleration, and very high speed maneuverability were probably MORE important in the ETO, where so many combats started really high, but still important in the PTO.

Just dropping the nose and running flat out, pulling out in a screaming g-load disaster a few hundred feet above the ground....not necessarily why it was important.

Dropping the nose, gaining speed and E quickly, while rolling or turning to spoil a gun solution, and returning to the fight with more E than the other guy got following you, there was the value.

Big, fat, American planes accelerated well in the dive, and had high top ends, for the most part. They could also follow that split S, with plenty of fuel reserves to continue the fight.

PikeBishop
04-11-2006, 05:11 AM
Dear Slickum,
I would agree that with a laminar flow wing acceleration would be fast in the dive but as mass does not really make any difference in terms of terminal dive but drag does, then reducing the drag would seem to be the important factor here. US aircraft might be heavy but big means lots of drag. Consider that twice the horsepower does not mean double the maximum speed.....because of the DRAG factor(notwithstanding the effect of compression.
regards,
SLP

p1ngu666
04-11-2006, 10:52 AM
the zero is a pretty sleek aircraft. the 5b was considered the peak of the zero's, had clipped thicker skinned wings, individual exhaust stacks for extra thrust.

it was engine power the zero was lacking, espcialy as the war goes on...

WOLFMondo
04-11-2006, 11:53 AM
One thing to consider with the Corsair, it requirs allot of trim on the rudder all the way from take off speed to top speed in a dive. If your rudder trim is out when your diving you'll be side slipping pretty badly so will take allot longer to accelerate.

3.JG51_BigBear
04-11-2006, 12:21 PM
If you cut your prop pitch and nose over into a steep dive, allowing yourself to build up at least 300 knots of air speed (the faster the better but you risk blacking out), you can pull hard back on the stick and zoom climb. This will give you a significant alt advantage. If you do it right you can flip back down on the Zeke while he's still trying to recover from the dive. Works well for me.

GR142-Pipper
04-14-2006, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by VMF215_Shadow:
Bug:
Why is it that the Corsair in the game cant dive away from the zero?
I have hit the Corsairs Max speed in a dive to the point that the controls rip off & the Zero would be right on my tail the whole way. The companion question is why does the Zero accelerate with the F4U until the F4U just about reaches its max speed? It's the RATE of acceleration that's at issue here.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
04-14-2006, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
From what I understand, dive accelleration is not modelled, so you don't actually 'run away' from the lighter birds so much as you eventually are able to reach a higher speed than they can. Up to that point, he's able to keep pace with you. However, you may actually be reaching your terminal speed slower than you should, if you are leaving your prop pitch at 100%, the default setting in-game. The problem is that the power of the F4U is undermodeled relative to the Zero. In real life, the F4U should walk straight away from a Zero. This appears to be the result of having either incorrect Ps data or incorrect modeling of Ps.


In a US bird, prop pitch is critical, because the constant speed props were set for engine rpm rather than airspeed. Often, 100% is not going to get you the best speed for your throttle setting, and I think this may be particularly true in a dive, where your prop pitch may be causing your prop to act as a brake. In combat situations (as in take off and landing), the prop goes to 100% in order to allow the pilot free use of the throttle while minimizing the opportunity to overboost the engine.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
04-14-2006, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by PikeBishop:
I would agree that with a laminar flow wing acceleration would be fast in the dive but as mass does not really make any difference in terms of terminal dive but drag does,

You really think mass makes no difference at terminal speed?
You need to learn more physics if so.

WWMaxGunz
04-14-2006, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
In combat situations (as in take off and landing), the prop goes to 100% in order to allow the pilot free use of the throttle while minimizing the opportunity to overboost the engine.

GR142-Pipper

At very high speed in the sim trying to keep 100% RPM generally results in the prop creating
drag as if the prop is driving the engine. Any time you don't have the power to keep the
revs up it comes down to the prop driving the engine. Try running at 90% power and see what
'pitch' gets you the most top end even though 100% 'pitch' will accelerate you best on the
way up, but not all the way possible.

Funny but I've seen quoted here P-51 and P-47 pilots stating that they set the power and then
vary the prop for speed control. I do know that there is a two-stage operation when changing;
which is first, power or pitch, depends on things like if you are climbing or diving, approach
or changing speed much. But that is normal flight regimins while combat... is that turning
combat as opposed to BnZ?

GR142-Pipper
04-14-2006, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
In combat situations (as in take off and landing), the prop goes to 100% in order to allow the pilot free use of the throttle while minimizing the opportunity to overboost the engine.

GR142-Pipper

At very high speed in the sim trying to keep 100% RPM generally results in the prop creating
drag as if the prop is driving the engine. Any time you don't have the power to keep the
revs up it comes down to the prop driving the engine. Try running at 90% power and see what
'pitch' gets you the most top end even though 100% 'pitch' will accelerate you best on the
way up, but not all the way possible.

Funny but I've seen quoted here P-51 and P-47 pilots stating that they set the power and then
vary the prop for speed control. I do know that there is a two-stage operation when changing;
which is first, power or pitch, depends on things like if you are climbing or diving, approach
or changing speed much. But that is normal flight regimins while combat... is that turning
combat as opposed to BnZ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>When accelerating, prop gets set first and manifold pressure (engine) gets set second. When slowing down, the reverse is true...pulling the throttle comes first and then the prop gets set second. Usually in combat, the pilot would select 100% on the prop and then do what needs doing. For the most part, the only time prop pitch was less than 100% would be for normal climb, enroute descent or cruise situations.

GR142-Pipper

TSmoke
04-16-2006, 07:07 PM
Thanks for the information fellas much appreciated.

However after reading what you fellas have posted I am in agreement with what GR142-Pipper and WWMaxGunz have said.

I feel each is right in their points and it comes down to mass, acceleration, and pee poor flight modeling.

Seems to me if it's USN and painted blue it's porked. Not being nasty but all USN planes have very nasty sway of varying degrees on pulling the trigger.

Just an opinion, but it seems the more that is added to this sim, some aircraft seem to suffer in varing amounts. Just seems to me the USN planes bore the brunt of it.

I suppose you can only dilute the soup so much before it becomes dishwater.

I don't fly USN much, only when I have to.. give me Japanese planes and I'm happy.

Kuna_
04-16-2006, 08:20 PM
Ai has limits but I don't know exactly where they are. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Gotta love those "Ai has same FM as we do, they just manage their planes better ie. beyond players ability". Yeah right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

A6M2 Ai test (http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/tracks/offline/404__structuretest.zip)


Originally posted by TSmoke:
I don't fly USN much, only when I have to.. give me Japanese planes and I'm happy.

Online the game is structured in following order: you either turn *or* have big guns. If you lack both, be prepared to deal with your share of frustration. I had mine long ago so I play offline most of the time. Offline I don't feel such problems vs. Ai so game is in most cases more enjoyable. With upcoming improved Ai more so. I create amusing enviroment for myself thru DGen tweaking etc.
Take planes that'll make you happy that'd be my suggestion too so I see that we agree on that one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

p1ngu666
04-16-2006, 10:40 PM
most of the japanease planes leave me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif because of what ive read about them....

WWMaxGunz
04-17-2006, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by TSmoke:
The best way that I have found to lose the zeke is a slow rolling spiral turn down to the right with at least 250 to 300mph. I find the zeke loses its roll advantage at high speeds, just as it should.

When I read detailed accounts of diving away from Zeroes there is *always* the rolling element
and always the 250mph minimum. The rolling part starts with the initial roll to split-S which
at speed the Zero can't match so it starts later.

But I keep reading people say correct tactic is some kind of straight drag race where the "Sair"
should just pull away in how many seconds? We've only had several threads where the math has
shown that for this expectation to occur the faster plane would need to be like F-16 on after-
burner. You would need 180kph --average difference-- in speed to open up 500m in 10 seconds.
Long before that you will be dead meat if you fly straight and the enemy is a decent shot.

If you spiral then you don't get your best speed.
What is the difference in terminal speeds? I really doubt it is over 300kph between planes
of the same year, Corsair and Zero.

Please someone post an account with detail, not just a sound byte "We pulled away fast" with
no qualifications. Of course they did if they used the standard US tactic of slashing attack,
you boom the target with 60mph to 100mph or better speed advantage and dive away. Not a stupid
drag race that only can the expectations be duplicated with an arcade game.

And please don't post here that you hit with 100+kph speed advantage and the Zero just caught
up unless you have a track of that, in which case be prepared to find out where you f-d up!
Really, I do expect someone to troll that up and 3 others to swear to it.....
I run devicelink on tracks and unless the piloting is bad there's no way it happens.

Don't fly co-E with the Zero and expect to dive off like nothing, that itself is unhistoric.

BigKahuna_GS
04-22-2006, 04:02 AM
S!


Pipper--The companion question is why does the Zero accelerate with the F4U until the F4U just about reaches its max speed? It's the RATE of acceleration that's at issue here.

Pipper is right on here. You have to go back to version 3.0 to find the P47/P51 dive acceleration faster than the 109/190. There is not enough seperation between the Zeke and Corsair in dive acceleration or in top end speed for the Corsair(structeral break up). IL2 Compare has the structeral break up speed at 800kph.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Pipper-The problem is that the power of the F4U is undermodeled relative to the Zero. In real life, the F4U should walk straight away from a Zero. This appears to be the result of having either incorrect Ps data or incorrect modeling of Ps.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________


Double ace in Korea (F-86) & WW2 Corsair pilot-John Bolt VMF214 said of the Corsair and Zero--"We had complete confidence in the Corsair. Imagine going into battle knowing your fighter (Corsair)had twice the horsepower of your opponet(Zero)and a 80mph speed advantage. The Corsair simply over powered the Zero."

A couple of other things that would help is the correct sea level speed of the Corsair--should be 366mph TAS (10mph too slow) and the emergency take off setting of 2800rpm. Both the Hellcat and Corsair are anemic during take off and really cant take off with much of a payload.

__

Kocur_
04-22-2006, 05:04 AM
Perhaps the missing point here is speed, that was to be/was maintained by pilots, when in combat zone. AFAIK German F-4 pilots are tought today NEVER to fall below 700kmh - wouldnt it be because of medicore acceleration from lower speed? And wouldnt that be explanation of problems of F4U vs. A6M in the game? Did USN pilots let themselves fall below, say 400kmh when in fight against Japanese fighters? Or rather kept their speed high in order to use A6M disadvantaes at higher speeds against it and not let A6M use its advantages over USN fighters? Keeping speed always high would also make 'shorter distance' to diving terminal speeds area, where F4U was naturally better.
About twice power advatage of F4U vs. Zero naturally gave advantage in top speed, but I doubt ,that it also gave advatage in acceleration from lower speeds. I mean F4U was also ~twice heavier.

WWMaxGunz
04-22-2006, 02:01 PM
Right.
How do you make a slashing attack without starting with much higher speed? And then there
is the unmatched dive or don't the stories say that? I guess the comic books don't... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

But jets are a different story, more thrust with high speed to some point, power curve not like
props at all.

I've made a lot of dive tables from devicelink data and one thing is the rate of acceleration
numbers. The differences between numbers just do not point out to quick large seperation from
same speed close position starts. To get that you have to posit thrust able to overshadow
gravity as a factor or one plane massing 1/4 another yet having almost as much drag kind of
things.

Do some dives, get the numbers on speed every second and spreadsheet the difference in speed
second to second from 500kph on. Notice that the margin there is not terribly wide when your
acceleration is in the 10 m/s/s range or less. No matter you have 12 m/s/s at some point and
the other has only 6, unless you started the second at greatly better speed then you will
not be putting 100m seperation between you this second. You have to be going 360kph average
faster than the other guy to get 100m open-up and your accel difference is going to add 6
entire meters to that for this second. Next 4 seconds his plane way well gain 2 m/s while
you are fast enough for the extra drag and only get 1 m/s gain, do you see that the accel
values are small compared to the speed differences -possible- and the distances?

9.8 m/s/s is gravity and that dwarfs the thrusts available. Only thing more powerful these
planes have is lift, you can use lift in a split-S to gain speed like a simple dive won't.
It's short lived but IMO starting speed difference is a worthwhile goal.

JG4_Helofly
04-22-2006, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
One of the popular myths about this games dive modeling is that the accelerations are off. Some pretty lengthy testing shows that diving away is quite possible. The problem is the pilots mostly...

When a WWII pilot talked about diving away there were several things in play that we don't have to worry about and one thing in particular that they did frequently and we don't do right away.

1) In the typical WWII airbattle...pilots may have flown for an hour to get to their position. They are pretty concerned about their fuel state. Burning it all up in a fight is fine...but if you can't fly home and bunk with your squadmates when its done then thats no good. So often times when one side dove away and everyones fuel state was low...let them go. This is true of Spitfire VS FW190 fights. The FW190's would often dive away and while Spitfire V's couldn't follow very well...the Spitfire IX could follow (not well but enough to potentially catch them at the bottom). The problem was that by this point in the fight, do you really want to waste your precious fuel that is starting to run dry just on the off chance that you do manage to get close enough to get a FW? Probably not.

2) When they talk about diving away...it was often done in flight or squadron strength. Everyone would be fighting...and the order would be given to dive away and get home. And they would dive. P-47 pilot accounts, Spitfire and FW190 pilot accounts, P-40 Pilot accounts...this is how it was done.

3) The Zero's breakup speed in this game is fairly close to accurate from what I've read. Please tell me if this is wrong according to the numbers (keep in mind that A6M5's and later sacrificed some performance to strengthen and make the aircraft heavier to be more competitive in diving matches) but it is right in general terms. But one consideration to make in a high speed dive with an aircraft like the Zero...you *might* be able to catch a diving American fighter in a short diving match but the stresses on your plane may mean that its airframe is warped and ultimately useless after you land it. A useless plane you want to avoid as often as possible.

4) Most virtual pilots dive away at the last moment. A lightweight aircraft is going to have the initial advantage in acceleration purely by engine power...so if you dive away with a Zero on your six shooting at you...you've waited too long. A heavier aircraft...you need to give it time to build its speed and then it will be uncatchable.

These points I consider to be one of those things that you cannot properly simulate in a game like they talk about it in the books because even if the physics are right for the most part pilot survival and long range fuel considerations don't factor in the average fly 2 minutes to meet the enemy dogfight servers. The motivations are different so the behaviors and tactics have to be modified to match. Even if they do model airframe warping and other fatigue related issues...you can bet that unless you have a system where that actually matters in a dogfight server (heck you get a new plane right away anyways) then its going to be a non-issue.

First thing, this is not a myth but reality

Probably the pilots would not follow a diving plane if they can not close the range fast enough because of the fuel problem. You support your idea of the diving myth by showing us the RL combat operation conditions, but you maybe missed that there are some RL comparative tests 1 vs 1. In these tests they don't have to worry about fuel problems or such things. look at this: http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm
If this results are myth than I don't know...

I don't want to attack you, but I try to show you that the dive acceleration is not a myth.

An other thing is that the lighter aircraft will not accelerate faster because of it's, maybe, better powerloading. As soon as you drop the nose down the most important factors are mass and drag.