PDA

View Full Version : Latest consensus on Hellcat FM?



|CoB|_Spectre
03-04-2005, 02:20 PM
What do you guys think of the Hellcat as it's modeled? This is an airplane I've tried to like, but I can't find much redeeming value in it. I was doing some QMB's and can only conclude it bears little resemblance to the Hellcat I've read about by people like Saburo Sakai. Flying the same basic tactics against A6M3 and A6M5 Zeros I've used in the Corsair, the Hellcat seems very inferior even for B&Z. I know collision modeling in many instances is nothing to write home about, but I was flying the A6M3 against an F6F-3 and had a very close head-on pass. I managed to squeeze off a short burst, but didn't see any rounds impact. When I pulled around, I was amazed to see the Hellcat's fuselage was in two pieces plunging toward the sea. I checked my external view and it seems my Zero's now missing left aileron had broken the Hellcat in two. Other than that, my A6M suffered no damage. I'm not basing my opinion on the Hellcat on one or two experiences. I'm very disappointed in it and hope it will be redressed in a future patch. Anyone else feel the Hellcat needs another look?

lbhskier37
03-04-2005, 02:49 PM
no

VW-IceFire
03-04-2005, 02:49 PM
It seems pretty good...good enough that I have an unreleased Hellcat F6F-5 campaign in the works detailing the Hellcat in the Marianas Turkey Shoot. I'm waiting for the patch so I can use the Jill instead of Kate and maybe add some more details (and play test it) so I have to say I like the plane.

Its a good BNZ machine but its not spectacular. The thing that people always say were the good features of the Hellcat were:
- Good handling for novice pilots
- Good handling at any speed
- Was tough and robust
- Had good firepower

In FB all of these things are true. The firepower is subjective but when you strike home with the .50cal the Zeros do disitigrate. The robustness is very true (its a solid contender for toughest plane to shoot down). Its handling really is excellent...it has a good roll and elevator response from essentially 90kph all the way through 600kph. Thats a very wide band for a very acceptable level of control...most planes have excellent control but in a smaller area of speed.

I say its a good plane. Its a bit slow, but looking at the numbers suggests that it was...but not in comparison to its opponents.

Take it online though in fly any plane dogfight servers and it gets cut up pretty nicely most of the time. Thats when you see why the USN eventually brought the Corsair into the fray.

HayateAce
03-04-2005, 03:21 PM
19:1 kill ratio in WW2.

No chance in Hades Oleg will ever allow the F6F series to perform at full potential.

G A M E P L A Y

|CoB|_Spectre
03-04-2005, 04:33 PM
The kill ratio figures stand on their own merit, but the reasons behind the figures are rather complex. Yes, the design was purposely intended to defeat the Zero series aircraft, but just as happened in Germany, the Japanese hierarchy pinned their hopes of rapid victory on a design that did not keep pace with advancing technology. Once time allowed the U.S. industrial might to reach a wartime footing, the end was inevitable, just as Yamamoto predicted. Attrition warfare was the name of the game and Japan could not hope to emerge victorious. Several key victories by Allied forces quickly put the Imperial Japanese forces on the defense and without the naval assets it possessed earlier in the war. Masatake Okumiya, IJN staff air operations officer, wrote in the book "Zero", the Japanese did not even have a strategy for recovering downed pilots. As in Germany, while aircraft could be replaced, experienced pilots could not. Allied victories gained momentum as their aviators gained experience against newer and less experienced opponents. Once B-29's could roam the length of the Japanese home islands, it was as much as finished. As originally stated, I feel the Hellcat doesn't perform in accordance with historical accounts. I also know such "anecdotal evidence" holds little sway with engineers and Oleg is a trained engineer. I do not know how such issues can be resolved or if they even can. You can see by my registration date that I've been with this series since IL-2 first hit the streets. Frankly, while I dearly love WWII air combat simulations and certainly feel 1C:Maddox has set the standard, I don't feel like fighting to make my point anymore. I made the point, the world will continue to rotate whether anyone agrees with me or not. Still, I would like to see some things tidied up before the series passes into software history, but maybe that's just wishful thinking.

3.JG51_BigBear
03-04-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
19:1 kill ratio in WW2.

No chance in Hades Oleg will ever allow the F6F series to perform at full potential.

G A M E P L A Y <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Finish B-239 had a kill to loss ratio of 26:1, the Focke Wulf had a kill to loss ratio of only 4:1, the Corsair had an 11:1 ratio, the Wildcat had a 9:1 ratio, just to name a few. The kill to loss ratio is dependent on a number of factors only one of which is flight performance.

Bull_dog_
03-04-2005, 06:05 PM
The Hellcat has puke on the windshield...that should definitely be fixed...as far as FM goes, I don't feel like it is a 19:1 kind of fighter but then again, I've never flown a fighter so how should it feel?

One thing that I've felt was that the rated speed of the aircraft is too slow compared to real life. There were tests done showing the airspeed indicator location caused low speed ratings and that its true top speed was like 405mph...there is a lot of data though that indicates otherwise...it wouldn't suprise me if the plane was a faster in real life than is modelled or slightly better in the turn....but really the plane is capable of being flown like it was historically and doing extremely well against historical opponents so if the FM is not touched, I won't be upset....I've never seen anything definitive saying the speed was off.

Now that wind screen needs cleaning for sure!

LEXX_Luthor
03-04-2005, 06:53 PM
||:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not basing my opinion on the Hellcat on one or two experiences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes you are, and only one experience, the collison you experienced. You may need to do some testing, or find more experience beyond colliding.

Collision model is not common sense. Its like, the faster aircraft is the one that falls to pieces, or something like that. Not sure.

3.JG51_BigBear
03-04-2005, 07:11 PM
Yeah I think the slower plane always wins in the collisions.

|CoB|_Spectre
03-04-2005, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
"I'm not basing my opinion on the Hellcat on one or two experiences."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes you are, and only one
experience... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have concluded, erroneously, that I based my judgement on the one example given even though I clearly stated otherwise. Bruce Lee said, "Don't take the finger pointing at the moon to be the moon". Likewise, don't take one example to be all examples. Either you don't understand what I wrote or you presume to know what I've experienced.

LEXX_Luthor
03-04-2005, 07:17 PM
Sad, this rules out historical Taran tactics...ramming with intent to survive or bail out.

ColoradoBBQ
03-04-2005, 07:44 PM
The plane is a Wildcat on steriods. Only thing I need is a shop to buy a mirror and install it.

p1ngu666
03-04-2005, 11:03 PM
depends on alt
at medium and high alt, its much better than zero

at low alt, zero can take it to the f6f for sure

flys way better than u would think, from the look of it, same with f4f

Blackdog5555
03-04-2005, 11:40 PM
Its true; Yes Bull dog..I read that report too. It was at the end of the war when the military was testing airspeed between the corsair and F6F. They discovered that the airspeed indicator on the F6F was not placed to give correct speed measurements. It's true top speed was over 400mph. (not modeled of course) need to find that article and email Oleg!////// Rule number 1...never dogfight a Zero! Stay fast and stay high and you will kill zeros like crazy. just never never turn to dogfight. All DM are goofy except the P11 is indestrucable. LOL

LEXX_Luthor
03-05-2005, 02:08 AM
||:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You have concluded, erroneously, that I based my judgement on the one example given even though I clearly stated otherwise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We clearly stated what? Our Collision report? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Badsight.
03-05-2005, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
The Finish B-239 had a kill to loss ratio of 26:1, the Focke Wulf had a kill to loss ratio of only 4:1, the Corsair had an 11:1 ratio, the Wildcat had a 9:1 ratio, just to name a few. The kill to loss ratio is dependent on a number of factors only one of which is flight performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>come on BigBear

you just wasted your precious time replying there

this guy here is less biased about african americans than Hayate_Hater is about FB

http://img17.exs.cx/img17/820/kkk8gm.jpg

|CoB|_Spectre
03-05-2005, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We clearly stated what? Our Collision report? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No sir, clearly stated my position regarding the Hellcat as-modeled was "...not basing my opinion on the Hellcat on one or two experiences".

You replied, "Yes you are, and only one experience, the collison you experienced".

Relating the collision was but a single example, but not the only example.

|CoB|_Spectre
03-05-2005, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:

this guy here is less biased about african americans than Hayate_Hater is about FB

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight, I don't know what personal issues you have with HayateAce, but I would've expected that post to come from someone name Badtaste. You have implied he is, among other things, a racist. At least his post had some relevence to the thread theme.

LEXX_Luthor
03-05-2005, 06:30 AM
||:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Relating the collision was but a single example, but not the only example. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Collision is the only thing we read of you having experience with. However, we do hope the collision modding is looked at, if not here, then for BoB and Beyond.

VW-IceFire
03-05-2005, 08:17 AM
I really have to laugh when the kill to loss ratio is brought out as the supporting factor for the performance of any aircraft.

Is there some secret? Do those two magical numbers suddenly represent the handling, top speed at various altitudes, and the toughness of the airframe? I must not have the secret decoder ring.

That 19:1 kill ratio was achieved on the backs of the Hellcats pilots, not because the Hellcat was some wonder weapon. Its not even a 400mph+ aircraft and to me that says its idealy a middle war aircraft only...the USN saw that too as the Corsair was slowly adopted for carrier service with a much higher speed.

I found in Zero VS Hellcat encounters that the Hellcat has to be treated very much like a FW190 except that the Hellcat retains energy through manuvers better. You need to dive on the Zero, follow him only as long as necessary to hit him with guns and return to altitude. This is proper fighter tactics for almost all planes anyways. In the actual conflict, when the Hellcat came up against the attackers say during the Marianas Turkey Shoot, you had experienced and well trained American vets in a very competent and reliable aircraft takling the A6M5 Zeros which were not as fast, similar in climb, and flown by eagar but inexperienced pilots who were not of the same calibre as those who were involved in Midway and Coral Sea. Not to mention the large numbers of Jill, Judy, and Kate torpedo and dive bombers that the Hellcats slaughtered enmass.

You want to talk about kill ratios? You talk about pilots and history...not about the aircrafts performance. Consult NACA charts and similar documents if you want to talk about that. But I'm sure thats too much effort...lets just blame Oleg for 'not allowing the F6F series to perform at full potential'. *sigh*

ElAurens
03-05-2005, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
Yes, the design was purposely intended to defeat the Zero series aircraft, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, not exactly...

The design of the F6F was iniatiated to overcome the deficiencies of the F4F.
And as I recall the prototype flew before we ever laid hands on a flyable Zero for testing. The F6F would have happened Zeros or not....

RedNeckerson
03-05-2005, 12:02 PM
It completely owns it's historical counterpart, the Zero.

Just like in real life.

Just don't expect it to dominate on a western front server.

Blackdog5555
03-05-2005, 12:52 PM
Actually the Navy ordered the F4U to take the place of the F4F before the Hellcat. The F4U took longer to develop though and when it was done, testing found it unsatisfactory for carrier duty, therefore Grumman got the contract. My point is the F6F was the Navy's second choice to replace the F4F. Thats my understanding. ///
/////BTW i was flying a P38 and ran into a Spitfire..My left engine and tail was knock off the plane was solit in half and the spit only lost one fabric elevator.. Collision modeling does need some work. LOL..Cheers
//////////////
Stay high and stay fast, get close and fire!!!

|CoB|_Spectre
03-05-2005, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
Yes, the design was purposely intended to defeat the Zero series aircraft, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, not _exactly..._

The design of the F6F was iniatiated to overcome the deficiencies of the F4F.
And as I recall the prototype flew before we ever laid hands on a flyable Zero for testing. The F6F would have happened Zeros or not.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The premise was founded upon Masatake Okumiya's "Zero", Chapter 1, "The Guadalcanal Campaign: Evaluation of American Warplanes" which reads:

"Our first reports on the new Grumman fighter stated that its design had been affected by a careful examination of a Zero fighter captured in the Aleutians in the spring of 1942. To some extent this appeared to be so, since the philosophy of weight-saving was carried throughout the Hellcat's structure to an extent without parallel in other American aircraft of the time.

"There is no doubt the new Hellcat was superior in every respect to the Zero except in the factors of maneuver-ability and range. It carried heavier armament, could outclimb and outdive the Zero, could fly at higher altitudes, and was well protected by self-sealing fuel tanks and armor plate. Like the Wildcat and Corsair, the new Grumman was armed with six 12.7-mm machine guns, but it carried a much greater load of ammunition than the other fighters.

"Of the many American fighter planes we encountered in the Pacific, the Hellcat was the only aircraft which could acquit itself with distinction in a fighter-vs-fighter dogfight...".

So, yes, the F6F was a replacement of the F4F, but logic dictates some aircraft would have succeeded the aging F4F whether a Grumman design or not. The very nature of technological advancement spurred-on by the wartime expedient is driven by the need to "overcome the deficiencies" of preceeding models. Another way to look at it is the desire to incorporate continuing advancements in the state of combat aircraft design. Considering the Zero reigned supreme in the PTO and CBI from prior to Pearl Harbor well into late 1942, a very real need to develop an aircraft capable of defeating it was the impetus for whatever aircraft was chosen to replace obsolescent naval assets. It happened that Grumman was an established designer/manufacturer of US Navy aircraft at the right time and place.

ElAurens
03-05-2005, 03:46 PM
Can't argue with that!

Here is a short chronology of early development of the F6F, from "America's Hundred Thousand".

June 1941, the US Navy requests Grumman to design an improved F4F Wildcat version as a backup to the Vought Corsair.

June 30 1941, Navy BuAer awards Grumman a contract for two XF6F-1 aircraft powered with the Wright R-2600 engine.

January 1942 the Navy awards Grumman a large contract for the F6F-2 version.

May 23 1942 A production order is approved for an F6F-3 version with the Pratt and Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine with two stage mechanical supercharger instead of the XF6F-1 arrangement.

Jun 26 1942 A 25 minute first flight of the prototype XF6F-1 Hellcat takes place piloted by Assistant Chief Engineer-Experimental, Bob Hall.

October 3 1942 The first production F6F-3 model makes a first flight piloted by Grumman test pilot seldon Converse.

December 31 1942 The first 10 production F6F-3 aircraft are accepted by the US Navy.

hawkmeister
03-05-2005, 07:29 PM
The PF Hellcat feels just about right. The only system inaccuracy I can think of is the flaps. The Hellcat flaps were either up or down, with no intermediate settings. Just like the Spitfire. But in PF we have the 4-position setup.

-Bill

Jettexas
03-06-2005, 01:29 AM
As was said when viewed in the context of its theatre , it a REAL good plane- way underrated- does what its supposed to do - owns zeros-takes a beating-lands on ship- hangs in there in turns too even though we all know we shouldnt- great plane, an all around plane, not great at any one thing but good enough at everything.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the PTO, no respect..
not exotic like the 38, or sexy like the Corsair,or famous like the early war AVG stuff...

And kill ratio may simply be a factor of the number produced, Someone can get the hard numbers but I got the idea reading somewhere(probably here) that many more hellcats were produced and placed in service than the other marks and were preferred for maintenance reasons? No?

Good thread-

Ratsack
03-06-2005, 02:36 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
...Yes, the design was purposely intended to defeat the Zero series aircraft...QUOTE]

No, it wasn't. Design work started well before the U.S. knew anything about the A6M.

Happy coincidence. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

Ratsack
03-06-2005, 02:49 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
...In the actual conflict, when the Hellcat came up against the attackers say during the Marianas Turkey Shoot, you had experienced and well trained American vets in a very competent and reliable aircraft takling the A6M5 Zeros which were not as fast, similar in climb, and flown by eagar but inexperienced pilots who were not of the same calibre as those who were involved in Midway and Coral Sea...QUOTE]

Absolutely. And let's not forget the numbers game either. Under the conditions you described above, you'd expect a fight between 40 Zeros and 40 Hellcats to end up favouring the Hellcats. But it wasn't 40 vs 40: it was more like 12-16 A6M5s escorting twice that number of bombers, up against the combined CAP of a major task force. Being at a disadvantage qualitatively and quantitatively, it€s not surprising the Japanese fighters were massacred.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

VW-IceFire
03-07-2005, 01:33 PM
For sure.

Also, nobody seems to remember, the comments made before PF was released by the development team that they fully expected to hear some whining from the masses as to the Hellcats FM because of all that had been written on the planes superb attributes. Some guys are surely convinced that, based on pilot accounts, that it was better in a turn than even a Zero which is flat wrong.

The FM model of the Hellcat seems quite good at the moment. It matches the numbers that I've seen. Its just the pilots...

bolillo_loco
03-07-2005, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hawkmeister:
The PF Hellcat feels just about right. The only system inaccuracy I can think of is the flaps. The Hellcat flaps were either up or down, with no intermediate settings. Just like the Spitfire. But in PF we have the 4-position setup.

-Bill <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this is a problem with over 80% of the a/c modeled in fb,aep, and pf. few wwII a/c actually had combat flaps. and few a/c could deploy any type of flaps at speeds above 150-200mph/240-320kph. puts the a/c that actually had maneouvering flaps at disadvantage.

rcocean
03-11-2005, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ratsack:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
...In the actual conflict, when the Hellcat came up against the attackers say during the Marianas Turkey Shoot, you had experienced and well trained American vets in a very competent and reliable aircraft takling the A6M5 Zeros which were not as fast, similar in climb, and flown by eagar but inexperienced pilots who were not of the same calibre as those who were involved in Midway and Coral Sea...QUOTE]

Absolutely. And let's not forget the numbers game either. Under the conditions you described above, you'd expect a fight between 40 Zeros and 40 Hellcats to end up favouring the Hellcats. But it wasn't 40 vs 40: it was more like 12-16 A6M5s escorting twice that number of bombers, up against the combined CAP of a major task force. Being at a disadvantage qualitatively and quantitatively, it€s not surprising the Japanese fighters were massacred.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another thing on the 19-1 ratio.
It includes bombers (against which the k/d ratio was 50-1), TBF, dive bombers, transports,and float planes. According, the navy aviation stats the K/D ratio vs. fighter only was about 12-1 and included in the 12-1 are Kamikaze Zero shot down in last 6 months of the war.

Adjust for that and assume a 50% overclaim the true K/D ratio of Hellcat vs. Nip Fighters was probably about 5-1. As been stated, alot of that was due to superior numbers, pilots, and tactics.

VW-IceFire
03-12-2005, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jettexas:
As was said when viewed in the context of its theatre , it a REAL good plane- way underrated- does what its supposed to do - owns zeros-takes a beating-lands on ship- hangs in there in turns too even though we all know we shouldnt- great plane, an all around plane, not great at any one thing but good enough at everything.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the PTO, no respect..
not exotic like the 38, or sexy like the Corsair,or famous like the early war AVG stuff...

And kill ratio may simply be a factor of the number produced, Someone can get the hard numbers but I got the idea reading somewhere(probably here) that many more hellcats were produced and placed in service than the other marks and were preferred for maintenance reasons? No?

Good thread- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't have the numbers infront but yeah...the Hellcat was produced in large numbers and was prefered over the Corsair in the mid-war period because of its superb landing on a carrier deck abilities.

Plus the Hellcat was up against increasingly poored trained pilots till it was just them against Kamikazis which barely had any flight training at all.

horseback
03-12-2005, 11:10 AM
The reasons so far listed for the Hellcat's primacy in the USN over the Corsair ignores two things:

1) Cockpit geometry. The Hellcat pilot sat higher up and his line of sight was improved by a forward fuselage which sloped downwards from the cockpit (not obvious in-game due to the Il-2 cockpit modelling rules, but particularly damaging to the Wildcat, Hellcat and P-38. I'd like to see the Toggle Gunsight command used to raise the player's viewpoint when not looking through the sight on planes like these. A difference of 10cm/4 inches can be critical for SA). As noted everywhere, the Corsair was hard to see out of, even in combat, but not nearly as bad as modelled.

2) It was very easy to fly and exceptionally forgiving. Extremely rare for a high performance fighter (don't kid yourselves, speed wienies. In combat, the Hellcat was fast enough to compete in any theater of the war up to 25,000ft). The airplane gave clear warning before you took it too far, and generally recovered easily when you persisted. Literally any good combat pilot could fly a Hellcat well in a fight once he learned where the controls were. This was critical for a carrier navy undergoing explosive expansion; carrier operations have generally been as hard, if not harder than, combat in terms of losses. Corsairs were nowhere near as easy to operate, even after the design was sufficiently refined to approach its potential.

I also think the aircraft as modelled is too slow and sluggish. The -5 model should be appreciably quicker off the mark and more maneuverable than the -3 (better engine, spring-tab ailerons, among other improvements. Grumman was almost unique for their ability to improve their fighter without penalizing it in another critical area).

cheers

horseback

chris455
03-12-2005, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Some guys are surely convinced that, based on pilot accounts, that it was better in a turn than even a Zero which is flat wrong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there is some truth to it. The Hellcat could outturn the Zero at high speed (250 mph+).

hawkmeister
03-13-2005, 12:34 AM
After putting more time in the Hellcat, I guess my only question about the FM would be the sim plane's tendency to snap roll. I don't know what the real plane was like in high-alpha conditions but if one went solely by the common documentaries the sim plane seems a little "snappier" than it should be.

Again - only a question. I know nothing. ;-)

-Bill

|CoB|_Spectre
03-13-2005, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Some guys are surely convinced that, based on pilot accounts, that it was better in a turn than even a Zero which is flat wrong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there is _some_ truth to it. The Hellcat _could _ outturn the Zero at high speed (250 mph+). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Therein lies one of the big problems in PF, the Zero doesn't seem to suffer maneuverability problems at high speeds. One of McGuire's axioms was to "keep your speed above 300 mph" when battling a Zeke because of its well known tendency for aileron forces to heavy-up at high speeds limiting its agility. The Zero seems equally agile at high and low speeds. It seems more of a problem with the Zero modeling than with the Hellcat.

quiet_man
03-13-2005, 06:25 AM
may I say FW190? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
my critics on IL2 is the virtual pilot.
we have elevator lock and black out, how does this effect the simulation?

Example: Controll of Turn
Turn I-16/Zero at speed were elevator locks just below blackout, turn 190/Hellcat at the same speed

what is different?

the example at reality:
I-16/Zero -> small area of stick movement requiring max strength for best turn
190/Hellcat -> wider stick movement with less control forces allow precise steering without exhausting pilot

the example at IL2:
stick movement is "pilot input force"
I-16/Zero -> you have full range of stick movement to control turn
190/Hellcat -> limited area of stick movement


Conclusion: were in realtity pilots had the worst controll in IL2 you get the best controll

anyone wonders why "slow speed" aircraft work so well in IL2?

quiet_man

ElAurens
03-13-2005, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
Therein lies one of the big problems in PF, the Zero doesn't seem to suffer maneuverability problems at high speeds... The Zero seems equally agile at high and low speeds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you fly the A6M much?

Hop in an A6M2 and fly around maybe do a QMB agianst an allied aircraft. Then, mount up in a later, faster, A6M5, and tell me that the controls don't stiffen up at speed.

They most certainly do.

The problem is that the F6F flyers simply do not stay above 300MPH. Not KPH... I honestly think most folks look down and see 300 on the speed bar and feel safe, well 300KPH is about 180MPH, right in the Zero's sweet spot.

VW-IceFire
03-13-2005, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Some guys are surely convinced that, based on pilot accounts, that it was better in a turn than even a Zero which is flat wrong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there is _some_ truth to it. The Hellcat _could _ outturn the Zero at high speed (250 mph+). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A fair point. I knew that as well but I'm focused on the behavior that you'll see from people where turning in horizontal circles is considered strategy in aircraft where its not particularly a good idea. Above 250mph sure the Hellcat is on par and then considerably better than the Zero. The key, however, is that this tends to favor diving in on the opponent or initiating a high speed pass, planting yourself on the other guy for a moment, firing, and then extending. You still don't get in close.

|CoB|_Spectre
03-13-2005, 08:31 AM
I have my speedbar setup to cycle from km/hr to KIAS to mph, I am factoring that in. Yes, I've flown all the A6M variants. While Oleg has attested there is no difference between the FM for humans or AI, humans must deal with limitations like G-LOC whereas the AI do not. This can make it seem the AI is playing by different physics. In actuality, they are playing by different physiology which allows them to do things not possible by human pilots.

I have found it no easy thing to get some of the US aircraft (ie F6F, F4U, and especially the P-38) above 300 mph unless you maintain straight-ahead flight at high power settings, maybe even a bit nose-low...the classic "let's-get-the-heck-out-of-here" flight profile. They bleed energy very quickly in the turn and don't seem to enjoy climb advantage to the degree written about by both Allie and Axis pilots. Of course there is also the fact that AI pilots will often expend ammunition, often with positive results, on targets at distances most human pilots would not. It might be noteworthy to mention the majority of my experience is drawn from online co-ops, often against AI enemy. Online and Offline flying experiences with the game are notoriously different.

Jetbuff
03-14-2005, 12:42 PM
Flying alone, I manage OK in a Hellcat. With a wingman or two, we dominate! If that ain't historical, I don't know what is. If we had the same quantity/quality of the Pacific theatre, I don't see why we wouldn't achieve a 19:1 kill ratio.

I agree though that the snap-stall seems a little too violent.

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-14-2005, 04:19 PM
Other then the top speed may be abit off It only has one major flaw. Here is a hint... http://www.windexglasscleaner.com/i/img_original.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
03-15-2005, 01:34 PM
S!

One of our virtual squadron mates was an actual F6F pilot. His opinon is that the stall flight modeling is off. Both entering a stall and recovering from a stall should be much gentler than it currently is.

No Navy plane captain would ever allow grease smears all over his canopy --see Havok. Second complaint from our F6F driver.

I also agree with horseback in that dive acceleration even with the nose past 30deg is very sluggish--too much so.


___

WWMaxGunz
03-15-2005, 03:34 PM
Try lowering your prop pitch setting. Just try it, don't ask.

BigKahuna_GS
03-16-2005, 01:14 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
WWMaxGunz posted Tue March 15 2005 14:34
Try lowering your prop pitch setting. Just try it, don't ask.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Thanks for the tip Max but most veteran sim pilots have already been doing this for a long time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It has been a long and consistant battle for US a/c to have one of their best attributes modeled correctly: Dive acceleration/dive speed.

For example the P47 went through many a hard time during it's flight model to present day. As it stands now the P47 should be the best diving prop plane in the sim--not so.

According to Oleg, 3 prop planes will catch it in a long dive. I know of 2; 109G-10 and 109K4.


Please consider what Gunther Rall stated in front of an audience from
Finland:

P47 Dive Speed (being caught from behind)

What is the difference of structural strength between a 109G6 and a 109g10/109K4 ? ---nothing but the engine and engine mountings.

Notice what Rall says about structural strength of the 109: ("You couldn't stand that you know?" 109)

Read the whole interview : http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47?

A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! <Laughter from both Mr. Rall and audience, applause>

P-47 was not a big problem. The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, he was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know? And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster. But P-47 was a big ship, you know? No doubt. But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition.



Keypoint--Rall--"But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition."


Regarding the P-47 it had a 500mph IAS dive limit speed (601mph TAS) @ 25,000. 400mph IAS above 25,000ft. Reccomended pullout altitude from 25,000ft was 12,000ft Dive speed represented Mach 0.82.

Not to mention the later addition of dive flaps, test pilots reported @ 400mph IAS they could let go the stick, & the P-47 would pull it'self out of the dive.

Then we have the countless P-47 pilot statements that no German fighter could stay with a P-47 in a dive. Ie, Our evasive action in combat was to dive until you saw 500mph IAS and you could be sure there was no one behind you any longer.


US radial fighters accelerate to slow in the dive and bleed energy too fast.

__


__

LLv34_Stafroty
03-16-2005, 02:09 PM
how does kill/death numbers say about the aircraft then? think about hartman, rall and others http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif hundreds of kills in one life, man, those planes what they flew must have been something really super, dont ya think Hayatebuttlover?

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-16-2005, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Some guys are surely convinced that, based on pilot accounts, that it was better in a turn than even a Zero which is flat wrong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there is _some_ truth to it. The Hellcat _could _ outturn the Zero at high speed (250 mph+). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say turn with not outturn. Which is indeed true in this sim the Wildcat does it quite well too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-16-2005, 06:27 PM
In his talk to the Finnish audience, Rall puts the P-47 top dive speed at 1400 kph and
the 109 he was flying (a G model, I don't remember which one, it is the one he got his
hand shot in) at 1000 kph.

Try out checking the speed of sound at different altitudes and work back from there to
take into consideration that airspeed guages give false high readings as they run towards
mach speed. It's not a large error at .5 mach but by .7 it's worse and depending on the
position of the pitot it can get worse one plane to the next.

Mr. Rall flew all those planes and gave those numbers still. Did he know? He also had
the experience of the chase which is not fooled yet, just how many times was he chased
down? I think there are factors that most people don't know or don't say, you take the
result of a story and apply it at will to other conditions and expect the same.

What he said about no equivalent condition -- I really wish there was a better picture
for Oleg and crew who use numbers. I don't doubt Mr. Rall or hundreds of pilots or the
tests I've read of but words like those don't have equivalent code statements to be used.
What they write and what a reader imagines it means when asked, "just how far should that
be?" .... how is that supposed to be coded? Because any sim runs code, not words.

The plane that should outdive P-47 in like a dive from 10000 ft to 3000 ft (because
you have to specify the dive or the compare is no good, you have to understand that in
every dive the conditions are changing during the dive) is the FW-190-A9. But try to
understand that the margin of speed is not ~supposed~ to be so great as was replied
to me from someone who is supposed to know. Still, that was in reply over the dive
stated from above, begun at 400 kph and no throttle adjustments which I find to be a
very loose statement on that test report when you try and reproduce what it was they
actually did. No problem, the results were similarly "tightly" specified which is to
say without actual quantification at all unless "much more" counts as a real number.

As before on the dive issues... it would be more helpful to have something solid to
give the company. There's enough weird about the FM to see there's problems but just
how much and where and why are things that have to be stated, "a lot" is not helping.

BigKahuna_GS
03-17-2005, 02:06 AM
S!

Hya Max,

You are refering to the P47D-4 vs FW-190 flight test report. The dive test was from 10,000ft to 3,000ft, a relatively short quick dive. That test was chewed on for months with many of the same questions you are stating now.


(c)Diving:

10,000ft to 3,000ft, starting at 250mph diving at an angle of 65degrees with constant throttle setting. The FW-190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning but the P47 passed it at the 3,000ft mark with much greater speed.



I sent this report to Oleg and he agreed with it. I also agree with what you are saying that it would be better to have hard numbers than just Rall's story. I am not sure of the speeds quoted from Rall as they are aproaching the sound barrier maybe just a faux-pah.

The reason I posted that story is that now the 109K4/G10 can catch the P47D-27 in a long dive. Rall says that structeraly that was not possible as the 109 could not handle the speed as well as the 47.

Oleg has told me many times he uses the best information possible to code/model the specific flight parameters-but also admitted that sometimes that information is flawed. What then ?

What is also interesting in Rall's story is that he talks about the germans having captured allied a/c; P51,P47,P38 and he test flew all three types to get an edge and know their strengths and weaknesess vs the 109.

So I would say since Rall flew on the Western Front against these aircraft in combat and he also test flew these planes that he would have good insight on their relative performance.

Now the question is if you have both allied and axis pilots in agreement on the P47 outdiving luftwaffe aircraft but the sim does not reflect that, what do you change ?

I heard Rall make a similar statement at a WW2 Fighter Pilot symposium and basically what he was saying is that in a power dive from the high altitudes they were operating from you were never going to catch the P47 in a 109 while conversely the P47 could catch the 109 during long dives.

Hard numbers would be better but this is history and not perfect. I just think this condition should occur in the sim how Oleg codes it is his buisness.

Keypoint--Rall--"But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition."


_______

WWMaxGunz
03-17-2005, 07:47 PM
Oh I agree with Mr. Rall's results. And there are many others who were there and tried
things out that also agreed in writing. What I don't know how to do is make it into terms
that Oleg can use and not dismiss. There is the why and how things were the ways they were
that are not matched by game players too, which I am certain Mr. Maddox keeps in mind more
of those than most of us, myself included, even know. Do players take things farther in
some ways and beyond real limits in others? I think so and I see it as small faults of the
sim that add up to these results being different from good accounts. Just what is done that
is wrong and how it makes the results... good luck saying well enough to justify the team
having to maybe rework some of the basic FM and then rebalance every behaviour afterward!
That I think is why the goofy lift:speed curves we are still seeing, it is too much work
and time to redo... but I can hope I am wrong! (OH! Do I hope that it is easier and done!)

At some point everything is of the best information. But it must also be the best they had
when the code was laid down and debug-cycled.

From my reading of that article, Mr. Rall flew the Allied captured's not just to find the
performance but he was an "Opfor Pilot" for the LW training school -- he flew Allied planes
against the advanced students to teach them some of what they would face. So not just take
the planes for test flying but actually copying and working out tactics in them then training
up and coming LW pilots about that. IMO, Mr. Rall had some very deep qualifications in the
planes of both sides and bears listening to. To be able to ask him more of the hows and
learn more about flying combat would be like a dream, I envy those groups that were there.

Also the speeds, the 1400 kph and 1000 kph. Those are 1+ mach, even the 1000 kph at the
right altitude! Even as TAS, not IAS. But it is easy to understand when you know as they
did not back in the war just how badly the guages misread as mach was approached and not
even very closely. 7/10's mach real and the overage was already high. The air going around
the plane is moving faster than the plane itself and if the pitot is in that flow, you can
see how one plane to the next the reading at the same high speed may vary widely? What I
don't know is when he says those speeds if he is talking calculated TAS or what IAS he had
read off the guages. Did the P-47 guage even go that high? And he doesn't say the alts.
So I don't think he really went into detail there but gave example numbers he remembered
for his own education from his own self-studies of the planes, measures to put on what he
knew well from experience. How much more did he need anyway?

BigKahuna_GS
03-17-2005, 11:00 PM
S!

I agree Max.

Right now the situation on Western Front Servers is that the P38 & P47 are hard pressed to compete with late model luftwaffe fighters. The P38J and P38L have the wrong WEP, Max climb rates and speed (P38L).

The best asset the P47 had was it's ability to dive away when in trouble and probably extend enough to survive. That is no longer true as the 109K4/G10 will tailgate it all the way down despite what Rall said.

There probably will not be any late model US fighters such as the P47M, P47N and F4U-4 due to copyright problems. So US aircraft on the Western Front are hurting a little.

Possibly one way to get around the copyright problem is to allow overboost ratings that the 8th AF did to the P47 squadrons from 43' on and is historically accurate. Maybe just call it a late model P47D-27 with a P47M rated engine. Maye that could help balance out the plane set.

__

WWMaxGunz
03-18-2005, 08:37 AM
I think we have to keep the tongues in cheek with the latest news.

I'm running AMD 2500+ but with 33 RAM the real clock is 1.833Gz.
Also 1G of the 333 RAM. I wonder with 4.0 FM on real just how many
planes I'll be able to have up at once? Only need one to enjoy just
to fly and check out what was made, at least until I can afford a
faster CPU... a much faster CPU, I fear. And maybe go to 400 memory.

Remember the end of last year and the testing of BoB FM with IL2
engine? I guess all this time they have been going down that track
as possibility instead of trying to play at adjusting the FB FM.

Time to see who in the great beyond still likes us? Or maybe is
just Oleg does?

Blackdog5555
03-20-2005, 03:44 PM
My hope is that the BoB will have high altitude FM corrected. You guys know The P47 was great at altitudes 27,000 to 35,000 ft. according to some P47 pilots the 190 couldnt go over 30,000 without stalling for denser air. Also the night arctic sky at 25,000 ft makes dogfighting very difficult up high. How are you going to do high altitude escort there is no atmosphere models over 30,000? Nearl;y all fighter planes fly like bombers up high but even the 47? and the FM are tweeked for low altitude only? And how about a correct Cockpit for the P47 for BoB. The Gunsight on the B is too low and the the hex glass and thickness, dang... voted worst cockpit in the series. LOL.. Still fun to fly. just wishing

VW-IceFire
03-20-2005, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
My hope is that the BoB will have high altitude FM corrected. You guys know The P47 was great at altitudes 27,000 to 35,000 ft. according to some P47 pilots the 190 couldnt go over 30,000 without stalling for denser air. Also the night arctic sky at 25,000 ft makes dogfighting very difficult up high. How are you going to do high altitude escort there is no atmosphere models over 30,000? Nearl;y all fighter planes fly like bombers up high but even the 47? and the FM are tweeked for low altitude only? And how about a correct Cockpit for the P47 for BoB. The Gunsight on the B is too low and the the hex glass and thickness, dang... voted worst cockpit in the series. LOL.. Still fun to fly. just wishing <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok...you probably shouldn't be expecting amazing performance from aircraft at that altitude. IAS drops on virtually all aircraft types at those altitudes. This isn't a failing of the FM modeling...as far as I know and as best I understand it...when you're up that high, fighting is entirely different.

From what I've read...most ETO bomber escorts ranged from 25,000 feet upto 30,000 feet. I'm sure sorties were flown at higher but once you start getting up there...few aircraft are able to perform properly.

Oleg tells us that no, the FMs are not just tweaked for low altitude only. Accurate altitude modeling he says goes from 0 to 10,000 meters (which I think is 32,000 feet). Above that, accuracy declines. Seeing as the engine was meant for the IL-2 as a flyable only...the 10,000 meters was added insurance. Its really not that big of a problem. There are some instances were an aircraft does not perform to spec up there (Ta-152H) but the P-47 itself isn't too bad unless things have changed recently. Its not a good dogfight altitude http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaNorris
03-20-2005, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
My hope is that the BoB will have high altitude FM corrected. You guys know The P47 was great at altitudes 27,000 to 35,000 ft. according to some P47 pilots the 190 couldnt go over 30,000 without stalling for denser air. Also the night arctic sky at 25,000 ft makes dogfighting very difficult up high. How are you going to do high altitude escort there is no atmosphere models over 30,000? Nearl;y all fighter planes fly like bombers up high but even the 47? and the FM are tweeked for low altitude only? And how about a correct Cockpit for the P47 for BoB. The Gunsight on the B is too low and the the hex glass and thickness, dang... voted worst cockpit in the series. LOL.. Still fun to fly. just wishing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By VW-IceFire

Ok...you probably shouldn't be expecting amazing performance from aircraft at that altitude. IAS drops on virtually all aircraft types at those altitudes. This isn't a failing of the FM modeling...as far as I know and as best I understand it...when you're up that high, fighting is entirely different.

From what I've read...most ETO bomber escorts ranged from 25,000 feet upto 30,000 feet. I'm sure sorties were flown at higher but once you start getting up there...few aircraft are able to perform properly.

Oleg tells us that no, the FMs are not just tweaked for low altitude only. Accurate altitude modeling he says goes from 0 to 10,000 meters (which I think is 32,000 feet). Above that, accuracy declines. Seeing as the engine was meant for the IL-2 as a flyable only...the 10,000 meters was added insurance. Its really not that big of a problem. There are some instances were an aircraft does not perform to spec up there (Ta-152H) but the P-47 itself isn't too bad unless things have changed recently. Its not a good dogfight altitude
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed

WWMaxGunz
03-20-2005, 08:41 PM
Atmosphere density can be modelled as a nice clean linear (really, it is close) up to
about 10 km alt... well you can fit a line that would go higher but it would be more
off halfway up. Look at the standard atmosphere curve for density on this page, you
might have to click Graphs under Menu ---

http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/index.htm

They might have used a curve formula (N/fn(X) variation) but something like that would
soak many more cycles and should cover to 15 or 16 km alt as should a table-driven
method, so I'm guessing they went linear formula which is really close if you stick to
reasonable limits, like 10 km alt.

Note particularly that density curve with alt, that the curve would return +higher+
density at beyond 10km alt than a line passing through .4 kg/m-cubed and 10 km alt at
the left and 1.2+ kg/m-cubed and 0 km alt at the right. For alts higher than 10 km,
the densities on line (not shown) and curve would be lower than .4 but the same lower
densities would be read off at higher alts on the curve than on the hypothetical line
(of a linear density equation). So if Oleg uses linear then expect that over 10 km
alt, the model is getting worse than reality! But until around 16 km or so, not much
worse anyway.

OTOH, he could be using something else than linear....

Blackdog5555
03-21-2005, 01:00 PM
Yes, makes sense. It looks linier to about/like about 1/3 the air density at 10,000m then goes hypebolic. Highest dogfight i read about (P47)occured at 35,000ft. very rare. Im probably biased but i would like the P47 to perform better at 10,000meters in a blue-gray rather than blue-black sky. But, close is ok for me. Cheers BD

BigKahuna_GS
03-24-2005, 11:17 AM
__________________________________________________ ______________________
VW-Icefire-From what I've read...most ETO bomber escorts ranged from 25,000 feet upto 30,000 feet. I'm sure sorties were flown at higher but once you start getting up there...few aircraft are able to perform properly.
__________________________________________________ ______________________



Hya Ice,

The farther the target the higher the bomber stream climbed out of England. Raids on Berlin, 1000 B-17s were at 30,000ft, their top cover was at 35,000ft. Certain planes did perform much better than others at high altitude. The P47 and P38 being turbo-supercharged had more availabe horsepower than almost any other prop fighter in WW2 at high altitude.

This means the P-38H would have close to 2500 horsepower (military power)
available at 25,000 ft and the J almost 2900 horsepower (military) at 30,000ft. The P38L would have almost 3200bhp at altitude. The P-47 would have 2000 hp [military] at 30,000 ft. The use of War Emergency Power would boost those figures.

The P-51D with its multi-stage mechanical supercharger saw horsepower
(military) peak at a bit less than 1700 at 8500 ft. At 13,500 ft., it was a bit over 1300 hp, then it jumped to about 1375 or so at 21,500 ft., after which it declined steadily. At 25,000 ft. it was down to 1200 hp and at 30,000 ft.power was only a little over 700 hp.

This engine performance deterioration was typical for any mechanically
supercharged aircraft engine, whether the P-51, Spitfire or Me 109.
The P-51D had only about a third the horsepower available to the P-38H at
30,000 ft. and only about a fourth of that available to the J.

Of course, the P-51 was a lot lighter than the P-38, but still, at a normal gross weight of 17,700 lbs or so for the P-38J/L (about 1,000 lbs less for the H) and 10,200 lbs for the P-51D, the power loading for the P-38J at 30,000 ft. was 6.2lbs/hp. (For the P-38H it would be a bit less than 6.7 lbs./hp.)

For the P-51D it was 10.6 lbs/hp. Even at 20,000 ft., where the P-51D was at its performance peak, power loading for the P-51D was about 7.5 lbs per hp, while the J was still 6.2 lbs./hp [6.7 for the H] (because the turbocharged power was operating at sea-level efficiency.)
P-47D power loading (military)at a gross wt. of about 14,500 lbs was 7.2
lbs./hp at all altitudes up to 30,000 ft.)

One of the big mistakes made concerning the P38 was not installing paddleblade type propellers. This would of increased climb at all ranges and performance at high altitude.



Escorting in the PTO:
While the P-38 escorted a lot of B-25s and A-20s, which flew on the deck, it also escorted plenty of B-24s flying at high altitudes. On one of the fall,1943, Rabaul raids, for example [and illustrating the versatility of the Lightning], the B-24s flew at 26-30,000 ft. and the P-38s had high cover above them at 30,-35,000ft.

The P-38 also did lots of high altitude interception work in the SWPA; during April, 1943 raids on Port Moresby, 45 G4M bombers came over at 30,000 ft., their A6M high escort at 33,000 ft. The P-38 CAP had to climb to 37-38,000ft for intercept and altitude advantage.

PTO P38s also routinely intercepted Dinah recon planes at 40,000 ft.



Per Buzzsaw:

I have done a series of analysises of the bombing heights of the B-17's and B-24's, and with the exception of a few targets in occupied France, where the flak was considerably less, and where the bombing height was 20,000 ft, the USAAF bombers operated between 25,000 and 32,000 ft. Average height was 27,000 ft.
Targets such as Berlin or further east in Germany or Czecheslovakia would see heights of 30,000 + for the bombers.
USAAF escorts would be between 3-5000 ft higher than the bombers, so on average, at least 30,000, and sometimes up as high as 37,000 ft.

_____

BigKahuna_GS
03-24-2005, 11:41 AM
S!

Just wanted to add that something has changed.

We are going through the dive acceleration debate again. Right now the 109G10 and 109K4 basically have the same dive speed as the P47D-27. The only difference is final dive speed.

There is no change in dive accleration during a long dive from 25-30,000ft between the 2 planes. There is no seperation or a point at which the P47 due to it's mass accelerates at a faster pace than the 109.

The only differnece is at the end of a long power dive is terminal velocity. The P47 can (if it started it's dive way early) have a brief moment of seperation on the deck at final dive speed until it's energy is rather quickly bleed off and the 109 reels him in.

Where is the historical seperation and greater dive acceleration that both allied and german pilots talked about ?



____

Blackdog5555
03-24-2005, 02:07 PM
As usually, Good post Kahuna, I agree with you 100%. Oleg has defended his FM program on the dive accelleration. Im not buying it. I dont blame him defending his game, after all its personal. but even the F4F v Zero. Ive done several in game test starting from 5000m @200mph, then dive straight down at time to 350mph TAS. Its almost identical accelleration between the Zero and F4F. Same with P47..The problem, im sure is combining the equation of Gravity 32ft/ss. with 0G or neg G accelleration with several different engine/ HP/ props/ . now add in the different and changing drag co-effiecint for the changing air density in the dive. then add in the inertia (weight) effects and effect of the change in the moment of ineria as the planes yaw or role. RL is very very complicated. Im sure its a very simple formula or table that Oleg uses for dive acceleration. It gives satisfactory gameplay for low level T&B. But not for the poor P47 or F4F...I think the Dev team is working on improving it..fingers crossed..BD

Blutarski2004
03-24-2005, 04:06 PM
My 2 cents - What Oleg may be omitting here is the fact that in a zoom or dive, an a/c assumes the aspect of a projectile. As such, its ballistic coefficient will determine the rate at which it gains or loses velocity as a function of ******ation (drag). For similarly shaped objects (and one could argue that single-engined fighter a/c are broadly speaking similarly shaped object) of similar volumetric density, the larger object will enjoy an advantage in this regard.

Aaron_GT
03-25-2005, 05:37 AM
I somehow doubt that Oleg has given all planes the same drag coefficient, Blutarski.

Blutarski2004
03-25-2005, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I somehow doubt that Oleg has given all planes the same drag coefficient, Blutarski. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Maybe not. We don't know. But it is nevertheless one possible explanation for the common dive behavior of the various different a/c. Yes?

BigKahuna_GS
03-25-2005, 12:47 PM
S!

I cant belive we are having this dive acceleration debate all over again. Back in AEP I recieved this information in June 2004:
This was for the P51--"Dive accelration is better than 109 (correct)"

In my most recent conversations with the man, I was told that the P47 and 109K4 dive speeds were "very close" except for final dive speed.

That means there is no historical seperation during dive acceleration until final dive speed is reached after a very long dive. This goes against the previous flight tests of a P47 having greater speed than the 190 from a 6,000ft dive and a 7,000ft dive.

In the 7,000ft dive, both planes started at 250mph TAS at 10,000ft without further advancement on the throttle. During this test the 190 pulled away at the start and the P47 catches and passes the 190 at the 3,000ft mark with much greater speed and pull out than the 190. During a 7,000ft dive from 10,000ft to 3,000ft the P47 is not going to reach it's final dive speed, yet it has much greater speed than the 190.


Part of the test-----

3) Diving

(a) 10,000-3,000ft, starting at 250mph diving at an angle of 65 degrees with constant throttle setting. The Fw190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning, but the P-47 passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out.


"However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute as series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190. The maneuver started with a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep which again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point.
The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher. The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver."

P47 Ace Robert S.Johnson did this many times.

The historical dive speed acceleration and seperation that the P47 and P51 had over the 109/190 needs to be restored--again--for a second time.

_______

WWMaxGunz
03-25-2005, 07:40 PM
That report again.

Okay. The P-47 caught the 190 at the 3,000 ft mark and had "much greater speed".

And at what height did they pull out? At what height did they bottom out?
It doesn't really say, does it?

Could it be that the P-47 caught the FW at the bottom of the dive in the actual transition?

What was emailed to me concerning that particular test and situations like it was that
the difference in speed is on the order of 20 to 30 kph. Stand on the side of a road and
watch a bicycle go by you at those speeds, it is not looking slow. Or a car. Or be in a
car running 90 mph on a highway and get passed by a car going 105 mph, he will appear to
to be going "much faster". When the difference is relative, total speed and fractions of
total speed don't come into it.

What if they both had gone full effort at the start? The FW has lower power loading and
the ratio of weight to drag isn't going to really favor the P-47 till speed gets nearer
top level speed while acceleration due to gravity will be the big factor. So at the start
the FW gets more lead and by the bottom it is what we so far have only guessed.

From the same report one thing is clear that the FW did not transition from going down to
going up (the angle of pullout) and in the subsequent zoom, the P-47 did "much better"
(I really love the precision of these reports people love to drag up, it is like they are
made of truth-putty to be shaped and stretched and used.) which in the email reply sent
to me said that that is exactly what happens in the sim. Or it did at the patch we had
then and probably still does.

But still I feel that something in the dives has not been so right. Terminal speeds or
the time it takes to reach them or prop drag or something....

BTW for anyone really wanting to measure dive acceleration: taking readings at so many
seconds of timing how long to so much speed misses much. Run a devicelink program and get
a proper log. I have a program that for simple straight dives will approximate distance
covered, given the right data (it expects a format). Speed at time can be read directly
from the log if you collect it, as can altitude. Run a set angle or close to it and check
speeds and alts at intervals if you need to... use a spreadsheet and have some fun. No
cockpit mode gives you a pitch ladder so you just need to make sure speed is steady and
altitude is right before the dive. And run prop pitch control on auto.

GR142-Pipper
03-25-2005, 10:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
What do you guys think of the Hellcat as it's modeled? This is an airplane I've tried to like, but I can't find much redeeming value in it. I was doing some QMB's and can only conclude it bears little resemblance to the Hellcat I've read about by people like Saburo Sakai. Flying the same basic tactics against A6M3 and A6M5 Zeros I've used in the Corsair, the Hellcat seems very inferior even for B&Z. I know collision modeling in many instances is nothing to write home about, but I was flying the A6M3 against an F6F-3 and had a very close head-on pass. I managed to squeeze off a short burst, but didn't see any rounds impact. When I pulled around, I was amazed to see the Hellcat's fuselage was in two pieces plunging toward the sea. I checked my external view and it seems my Zero's now missing left aileron had broken the Hellcat in two. Other than that, my A6M suffered no damage. I'm not basing my opinion on the Hellcat on one or two experiences. I'm very disappointed in it and hope it will be redressed in a future patch. Anyone else feel the Hellcat needs another look? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Hellcat was significantly downgraded after the 3.0 release and has never recovered. I felt the initial Pacific Fighters release represented a pretty good Hellcat. As an aside, American aircraft have been undermodeled consistently (to wit: P-51, P-47, F6F and F4U) as has the hitting power of their primary armament, the 50 cal. To be specific, my biggest criticisms rest in the low altitude top speeds and, most importantly, in the acceleration capabilities of these aircraft. They're pathetically undermodeled. When you have Zeros that can outclimb and nearly outdive Corsairs as well as consistently out accelerate them, something's amiss. Others may disagree but that's been my experience.

The new FM/DM engine that is being introduced with the upcoming 4.0 release will hopefully be a fresh opportunity to re-examine these issues and bring some better modeling in these areas.

...just my take.

GR142-Pipper

Blackdog5555
03-25-2005, 10:50 PM
The primary function Olegs now uses to limit dive accelleration IMO is terminal velocity. Wait for Olegs interia model to pass judgment on the Next gen FM. keeping the fingers crossed. Bd

Aaron_GT
03-26-2005, 02:06 AM
"..... Maybe not. We don't know. But it is nevertheless one possible explanation for the common dive behavior of the various different a/c. Yes?"

You can measure what the drag coefficients are by flying the planes at maximum level speed on the deck. We know the engine power (thrust) and the size of each plane so can calculate the drag coefficient. They seem to be different for different planes AFAIK.

The question is how Oleg and team have coded the equations of motion so that they are tractable on a PC. Presumably they use the drag coefficient, but are there other factors, bugs? Who knows.

BigKahuna_GS
03-26-2005, 11:12 AM
S!
__________________________________________________ _______________________
WWMaxGunz posted Fri March 25 2005 18:40
That report again.
Okay. The P-47 caught the 190 at the 3,000 ft mark and had "much greater speed".And at what height did they pull out? At what height did they bottom out?It doesn't really say, does it?
__________________________________________________ ________________________


There is not only this dive test but another from only 6,000ft that simply says the the P47 "drawed" away from the 190.

Beleive me I wish they used digits to finally put this to rest. But once you add the german side - Rall's comments :

Rall on 109 chasing a P47- "But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition".

Where is the historical separation and greater dive acceleration that both allied and german pilots talked about ?

Then there is this part of the test:

"However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute as series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190. The maneuver started with a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep which again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point.The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher. The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver."

P47 Ace Robert S.Johnson did this many times.

Then I recieved this info on June 3rd, 2004 :

"Ok.
BTW.
P-51 real vs in a sim
Horizontal acceleration of plane is worse than 109 (correct)
Dive accelration is better than 109 (correct)
loosing speed in smooth-mid turn is better than 109 (correct) (and its from where could be achived greater sustained peak level of overloading)
Turn rate radius and time is worse than 109 at low-mid altitudes (correct)
Structural durability for overloading is worse than 109G (we have the same.)

Finally P-51 may achive and catch the 109 in a dive with the same intial input on a long dive. And if it was beginning from low speed acceleration then it will be hard for 51 to catch 109G10 or K-4 or almost impossible. becasue initial acceleration of 109 is way better then 51. "

Why the change in dive acceleration from almost a year ago?

Right now the 109G10 and 109K4 basically have the same dive speed as the P47D-27. The only difference is final dive speed. Look what was written above and remember that the P47 dive acceleration was faster than the P51 due to it's mass.

There is no historical change in dive acceleration during a long dive from 25-30,000ft between the 2 planes. There is no separation or a point at which the P47 due to it's mass accelerates at a faster pace than the 109.


This almost makes the P47 completely obsolete against late model 109/190s.


____