PDA

View Full Version : Which aircraft is the most overmodeled?



arrowtalon
02-27-2007, 01:57 PM
There's been a lot of debate about some fighters being overmodeled (having unrealistically good flight characteristics). Some of these claims have merit.

WWMaxGunz
02-27-2007, 02:02 PM
I don't like your choices, one is missing: whatever "plane" you just lost to is the one!

stanford-ukded
02-27-2007, 02:15 PM
You forgot the Spitfire - guys on this forum can't have a good whine without slating the Spit.

JG4_Helofly
02-27-2007, 02:17 PM
FW 190 for sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

WWSpinDry
02-27-2007, 02:18 PM
Where's the MC200? talk about a UFO!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

faustnik
02-27-2007, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by arrowtalon:
Some of these claims have merit.

Based on what?

Just 'cause?????

FE_pilot
02-27-2007, 02:51 PM
U might want to take the Me-109 of the list. The Spitfire should also be on the list due to the fact that it could out turn the Zero's in level flight.


If you read "Augsburg Eagle" The history of the Messerschmitt 109, by William Green. You will see that some of the 109's in the game are in fact under modeled.

HayateAce
02-27-2007, 03:48 PM
http://www.robot-japan.com/Gallery/Takara/Transformers/G2/Dreadwing/Megatron-g2-box-bk.jpg
http://www.uncrate.com/men/images/pilot-g2-mini-pen.jpg
http://www.eatgolf.com/shopper/images/ping-g2-driver.jpg
http://www.aurumcantus.com/g2g3/images/g2-1.gif

crazyivan1970
02-27-2007, 03:48 PM
Interesting selection. I wonder if your choices are inspired by this forum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-27-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by arrowtalon:
There's been a lot of debate about some fighters being overmodeled (having unrealistically good flight characteristics). Some of these claims have merit. Ah, so that is how it works?

Just say it and it makes it true?

NICE!

Ok, my turn!

I am the best looking one here!

stalkervision
02-27-2007, 04:25 PM
The Lerche..

Hay does anyone on earth know how the hell this plane would really fly ? A complete "Guestimation" isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

arrowtalon
02-27-2007, 04:56 PM
I personally have found the fighters with good power/weight ratios to be the most overmodeled. Some think this is due to initial tendencies in the original IL-2 to make the game more playable.

Whether or not that's the reason, I think I agree with the result. American P-51 pilots swre by the power of their mustangs and would always talk about how they could only fight 109's in high-speed, power-turns at altitude.

But when you try to chase a 109 in a P-51, or anything heavy, you drop away faster than a drunken dobie falling off a barstool.

I also find the Yak-3P to be a bit too aerobatic. I base that on nothing...but it seems way too forgiving in a long climb to me.

I450IVex
02-28-2007, 01:49 AM
P-40 overmodelled are you HIGH?
the P-40 is not over modelled... it's under modelled. it's so under modelled, even the 3d model is ****.

Manu-6S
02-28-2007, 03:24 AM
Spitfires... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

And 109G2 of course.

With the latest patch I FEEL that bf109s have been tuned down, while P51 are stronger than before.

The Antons still remain OVER- undermodelled...

Don't know about P40 and La7... I have some minutes of flight in the P40, but I never tried the La7 in the last 4 years. Yak? What is it?

joeap
02-28-2007, 03:38 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Manu-6S
02-28-2007, 03:43 AM
I can't believe that 2 guys voted FW190.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Gitano1979
02-28-2007, 04:09 AM
La-7, no doubt... nearly impossible to stall: once i was at low speed, low alt, low throttle and then pulled up sharply. The effects were condensation trails from wingtips, nothing more.
Really, i was pulling at 100% and it didn't happened anything, just looping...

Brain32
02-28-2007, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
I can't believe that 2 guys voted FW190.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Why? This is like saying I can't believe there are ******s here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Look there is also 5 votes for BF109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif OMG we have even heavily ******ed people here.
I voted La7 although my pet plane is not in the list

joeap
02-28-2007, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
I can't believe that 2 guys voted FW190.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Why? This is like saying I can't believe there are ******s here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Look there is also 5 votes for BF109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif OMG we have even heavily ******ed people here.
I voted La7 although my pet plane is not in the list </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed, btw what pet plane would that be?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

anarchy52
02-28-2007, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
I can't believe that 2 guys voted FW190.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Why? This is like saying I can't believe there are ******s here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Look there is also 5 votes for BF109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif OMG we have even heavily ******ed people here.
I voted La7 although my pet plane is not in the list </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed, btw what pet plane would that be?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have teh feelin it's got sort of an eliptical wing shape...

Manu-6S
02-28-2007, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
I can't believe that 2 guys voted FW190.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Why? This is like saying I can't believe there are ******s here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Look there is also 5 votes for BF109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif OMG we have even heavily ******ed people here.
I voted La7 although my pet plane is not in the list </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed, btw what pet plane would that be?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have teh feelin it's got sort of an eliptical wing shape... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BUMP!!!
Please arrowtalon, edit the poll and put Spitfire too... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

@Brain: I really think the guys who voted 109 still think "BF109 performance = G2 performance": if they only know that the K4 is a flying truck at cruising speed at 8000m.

Or maybe is our friend Hayate and his other accounts... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Irish_Rogues
02-28-2007, 06:58 AM
I've learned that all blue planes are either perfectly correct or over modeled and all red planes are under modeled to some extent. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

hop2002
02-28-2007, 07:02 AM
If you read "Augsburg Eagle" The history of the Messerschmitt 109, by William Green. You will see that some of the 109's in the game are in fact under modeled.

If you read William Green you'll believe the 109 should have 15 mm guns in the cowling and climb to 5000m in 3 minutes.

Zoom2136
02-28-2007, 07:40 AM
Voted 109.... just to p_i_s_s some of you off... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

pacettid
02-28-2007, 07:46 AM
One of the guys in my squadron, who is a superb pilot, has a quote in his signature that I always think about when I read a thread like this. Thought many of you might enjoy it too.

"On your machine the plane seems to perform quite poorly. I think that there may be something nearby the machine that is causing this problem for you. You may need a mirror to find out what it is specifically."

alert_1
02-28-2007, 01:16 PM
Hmm, Spit not here, but La7 can eat any Spit at breakfast...

MEGILE
02-28-2007, 01:25 PM
FW-190

AVGWarhawk
02-28-2007, 01:36 PM
I think this forum is over modeled. All the planes are just fine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You can't handle the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

stalkervision
02-28-2007, 01:51 PM
just remember "it's not the dog in the fight but the fight in the dog."

I have quite frequently beaten Zero's with the lowly Brewster Buffalo and shot down spits in very lively dogfights with the me-110. You guys that can't win with much better planes just don't know what your doing yet.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Get yourself a "Buffalo" and go fight some Zeros or 109's or whatever for christ sakes and actually learn something about aircombat..

fordfan25
02-28-2007, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
There's been a lot of debate about some fighters being overmodeled (having unrealistically good flight characteristics). Some of these claims have merit. Ah, so that is how it works?

Just say it and it makes it true?

NICE!

Ok, my turn!

I am the best looking one here! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> after years of reading you post i also agree that nothing said on this forum could posably have merit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

fordfan25
02-28-2007, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Irish_Rogues:
I've learned that all blue planes are either perfectly correct or over modeled and all red planes are under modeled to some extent. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif agreed. on warclouds blue TS i have NEVER heard anything said about blue planes being porked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
02-28-2007, 02:09 PM
Please someone tell me what is over modeled on the FW-190. Nothing over modeled with the 109s either. Only the G2 but it has been toned down and accurately so. I dont see what is over modeled with the P-40 either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Silly thread I really hope it fades fast. Once again another fine example why nobody takes this forum seriously.

faustnik
02-28-2007, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Please someone tell me what is over modeled on the FW-190.

Bar height.

AVGWarhawk
02-28-2007, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Please someone tell me what is over modeled on the FW-190.

Bar height. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the paint scheme is somewhat over modeled. It could be the angle I'm looking at it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

arrowtalon
02-28-2007, 02:34 PM
I've posted a revised version of this thread in Oleg's Ready Room. By (un)popular demand, I added Spitfire as one of the poll choices.

JtD
02-28-2007, 02:40 PM
Lerche is a good answer already. I'd say the entire 1946 package instead, because I couldn't really decide which one specifically.

arrowtalon
02-28-2007, 02:50 PM
This poll has been revised and is now in the General Discussion section.

hop2002
02-28-2007, 03:30 PM
Nothing over modeled with the 109s either. Only the G2 but it has been toned down and accurately so.

Doesn't the 109K4 still have it's ridiculous climb rate?

Last time this came up it could still do 26 m/s at 5000m, when the real aircraft could do about 20.5 m/s at that altitude.

Badsight-
02-28-2007, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
The Lerche..

Hay does anyone on earth know how the hell this plane would really fly ? A complete "Guestimation" isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif flight dynamics is a science , so its a really good guess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by hop2002:
Doesn't the 109K4 still have it's ridiculous climb rate?

Last time this came up it could still do 26 m/s at 5000m, when the real aircraft could do about 20.5 m/s at that altitude. while the K4 has been altered repeatedly ever since PF , the La-7 is still putting the same over-performing climb rates away in v4.08 that it has been since v1.xx

arrowtalon
02-28-2007, 10:03 PM
So I tried editing the poll to include the Spitfire and an "Other" category. Apparently some of the moderators were unamused by this... and deleted the new thread twice.

So... I'm glad they're so helpful.

BBB_Hyperion
02-28-2007, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nothing over modeled with the 109s either. Only the G2 but it has been toned down and accurately so.

Doesn't the 109K4 still have it's ridiculous climb rate?

Last time this came up it could still do 26 m/s at 5000m, when the real aircraft could do about 20.5 m/s at that altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

26 m/s at 5000 m sure you didn't use initial climb ?

WOLFMondo
03-01-2007, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Please someone tell me what is over modeled on the FW-190.

Bar height. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

I450IVex
03-01-2007, 01:45 AM
i think the Phallus size of all 109 and 190 pilots is overmodelled.

POWER TO THE KITTYHAWK!

Charos
03-01-2007, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by arrowtalon:
Question:
Which fighter flight model do you feel is the most overmodeled and requires a tune-down?

Answer:

The RED One's.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Manu-6S
03-01-2007, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nothing over modeled with the 109s either. Only the G2 but it has been toned down and accurately so.

Doesn't the 109K4 still have it's ridiculous climb rate?

Last time this came up it could still do 26 m/s at 5000m, when the real aircraft could do about 20.5 m/s at that altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And after you've reached 5000m what do you do? Except flying straight I mean...

Fork-N-spoon
03-01-2007, 02:15 AM
I believe that this is a poll not a discussion...

stathem
03-01-2007, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nothing over modeled with the 109s either. Only the G2 but it has been toned down and accurately so.

Doesn't the 109K4 still have it's ridiculous climb rate?

Last time this came up it could still do 26 m/s at 5000m, when the real aircraft could do about 20.5 m/s at that altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Hop,

This was sorted when the K4 – C3 was introduced. It came out that the ˜original' K4 was modelled as 1.98ATA running on B4. Which, obviously, was an impossibility. All those years.

So, the 1.98ATA on C3 version was introduced, and the normal K4 set to it's correct 1.8ATA B4 performance.

Butch2k sorted Oleg out with the right stuff.

joeap
03-01-2007, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by Charos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
Question:
Which fighter flight model do you feel is the most overmodeled and requires a tune-down?

Answer:

The RED One's.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

BBB_Hyperion
03-01-2007, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nothing over modeled with the 109s either. Only the G2 but it has been toned down and accurately so.

Doesn't the 109K4 still have it's ridiculous climb rate?

Last time this came up it could still do 26 m/s at 5000m, when the real aircraft could do about 20.5 m/s at that altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Hop,

This was sorted when the K4 – C3 was introduced. It came out that the ˜original' K4 was modelled as 1.98ATA running on B4. Which, obviously, was an impossibility. All those years.

So, the 1.98ATA on C3 version was introduced, and the normal K4 set to it's correct 1.8ATA B4 performance.

Butch2k sorted Oleg out with the right stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhmm 1.98 ATA 26 m/s at 5k seems rather optimistic . Is there any plane at all that does have a 26 m/s climbrate at 5k (rockets , fantasy excluded)

Kurfurst__
03-03-2007, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:

Uhmm 1.98 ATA 26 m/s at 5k seems rather optimistic . Is there any plane at all that does have a 26 m/s climbrate at 5k (rockets , fantasy excluded)

Spitfire V used to outclimb me above 6000m in my 109G-10 and K-4. Quite a feat for such an old lady, with a single stage, singe speed engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Of course it all depends on what radiator position you`re having in your 109. This could result in as much as 60 km/h loss of speed when opened fully (the 109s radiators are in fact considerably bigger than the Spits, just their drag is much more scalable with variable inlet and outlet flaps) - it means quite a bit of drag. Most, but not all 109 test refer to the radiator being appx. in the middle position in climbs, but for example Finnish trials of a 109G-2 showed that the plane could match with 1310 PS the 109K's rate of climb at 2000 PS.

msalama
03-03-2007, 06:14 AM
The most overmodelled AC? Why, anything my enemies fly, of course, be they Red or Blue. And being the average online whiney idiot that I am, I naturally blame Oleg for that like everyone... because there just CANNOT be anything wrong with _ME_ 'cuz I r0XXoRz and U sUXX0rZ!!!!1111

AH_Gonzo
03-03-2007, 05:01 PM
The Spacefire, (25lbs Spit especially), gets my vote. I love the Spit (In real life) but flying against it in game.... That "Pull all the G you want without penelty to airpeed" thing gets trying after a whle.

msalama
03-04-2007, 01:26 AM
OK, OK, seriously this time: didn't Oleg once say that he's using the most optimistic performance data he can find when modelling the crates or something like that?

Manu-6S
03-04-2007, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by AH_Gonzo:
The Spacefire, (25lbs Spit especially), gets my vote. I love the Spit (In real life) but flying against it in game.... That "Pull all the G you want without penelty to airpeed" thing gets trying after a whle.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Bellator_1
03-04-2007, 04:13 AM
La-7 and Tempest takes the price 112% !

John_Wayne_
03-04-2007, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
OK, OK, seriously this time: didn't Oleg once say that he's using the most optimistic performance data he can find when modelling the crates or something like that?

Well he sure was optimistic with the Lerche.

msalama
03-04-2007, 04:21 AM
Lerche not included that is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bellator_1
03-04-2007, 04:27 AM
I still can't figure out why the Lerche was ever included, there are plenty other and obviously better designs.

Pierre_602
03-04-2007, 05:07 AM
Ill say that the russians planes do seem a but to forgiving but wit the last patch the rest of the planes seem to handle like the old vets have described.

the spit is not overdone, it cant catch a 109 or 190 unless in a turn and cant catch when their running away.

I think this Dicussion/Poll is filled with winny people who just dont know how to fly. you can expect to win unless your higher than someone and in real life there arn 20 millin dirrefent types of planes all flying at eachothers bases at 100m trying to turn fight.

In real life people had missions and flew at higher alttitude depending on plane and mssiona nd there wasnt 20 millin aircraft to shot down there was mabe4 or 5 or even 2 at a time on different missions of their own.

So stop whinning and get over it the planes are fine its al a mattter of how you fly.

John_Wayne_
03-04-2007, 05:09 AM
@ Bellator: For instance?

@ Pierre: Great first post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bellator_1
03-04-2007, 05:13 AM
Yeah I know, if you're not pro-US you're a whiner right ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

joeap
03-04-2007, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AH_Gonzo:
The Spacefire, (25lbs Spit especially), gets my vote. I love the Spit (In real life) but flying against it in game.... That "Pull all the G you want without penelty to airpeed" thing gets trying after a whle.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guys, to be clear about this, which Spits? I don't find the V versions or the Seafire overmodelled? The IX is not invincible either..oh and "flying against it" if you mean AI, then your statement is BS, online ok.

Not talking about the 25lb of course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Monty_Thrud
03-04-2007, 05:37 AM
This is sooo reasuring to know you real life pilots of WW2 aircraft can tell us exactly how these warbirds flew...its also strange how its always the onwhine flyers who complain...it wouldn't be anything to do with your stats now would it ...noooo! of course not, just have a good whine like Brain and Bellator_1...giving no evidence, other than...but, but teh lufties were my heroes.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bellator_1
03-04-2007, 05:42 AM
Only real whiners talk about other whiners.

AKA_TAGERT
03-04-2007, 07:33 AM
Poooooooor Nancy

Manu-6S
03-04-2007, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Pierre_602:
Ill say that the russians planes do seem a but to forgiving but wit the last patch the rest of the planes seem to handle like the old vets have described.

the spit is not overdone, it cant catch a 109 or 190 unless in a turn and cant catch when their running away.

I think this Dicussion/Poll is filled with winny people who just dont know how to fly. you can expect to win unless your higher than someone and in real life there arn 20 millin dirrefent types of planes all flying at eachothers bases at 100m trying to turn fight.

In real life people had missions and flew at higher alttitude depending on plane and mssiona nd there wasnt 20 millin aircraft to shot down there was mabe4 or 5 or even 2 at a time on different missions of their own.

So stop whinning and get over it the planes are fine its al a mattter of how you fly.

Russian plane are overmodelled only in the DM, not by Oleg's conspiracy, but because on an old DM inherited by FB. The famous delta wood, Yak1s who fly with more holes than a Swiss cheese... but their performances are not so uber (except for La5FN maybe): usually is the though "russian means ****" that some people use to have.

About Spits, it's their energy retention that is overmodelled: more than once I boomed with a F4 against a enemy 1000m under me at 750km/h... lets say that after I made my attack I was at 650km/h, I zoomed to only find a another spit that was dogfighting under me (I saw it but it was turning, how could his speed be more than 500Km/h?) that climbed and catched me. The famous "180? turn followed by a zoom" that I did several times fighting in a Spit (it's not a whine because they beat me... it's also because I can beat other in the same way).

IMO the thing are changed after the 4.08: before I had no problem fighting a SpitV with my F4 using bnz tactics, now I find some trouble. Some night ago with my teammates we there testing some dog between us and the SpitV team always won, maybe because we used energy tactics with them (and luckly for blue player not all spit's pilots know how to fly it except turning'n'turning) but I was surprised when, climbing with WEP ON, my speed was 150km/h and I was gaining at least 15m/s.

After the first pass, starting at same altitude and speed, spits were always higher.

And don't worry, many people here know how to fly and to stay alive: dogfight server are another affair (usually you find only some expert guys) then virtual war (but here you find lamers and noobs too... but at least you don't have to find trouble since there is a mission to complete).

For example yesterday in Warclouds I took a P47D (I have probably 1 hour of fly time experience in it) and I fought at 7000-8000m against bf109 and Dora without problems (with Coastie's P47 who was booming on the poor guys near to me flaming them... you know, .50cals are **** :P ): without difficulties I did 2,5 kills in less that 20 minutes.

BTW, why no Ta152H in Warclouds?

Just I pray god that not all the Spit's guy learn to fly so high, because if so blue can only escape (one , maybe twice times I found a HF SpitIXe so high and I tried to suprise him in my Anton but it was impossible since he keep turning like he was at low alt, while I could't turn at all): one of my squadmates, a guy who really don't whine easily about the game, tried that spit and said: "Spit at this alt really rules, maybe TOO much".

Sometimes I tried it but it was so boring without enemy at the same altitude that I found myself chasing bfs pretty low... only because in a dogserver I want to have fun and a lots of guy stay at 2000m.

Manu-6S
03-04-2007, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
Guys, to be clear about this, which Spits? I don't find the V versions or the Seafire overmodelled? The IX is not invincible either..oh and "flying against it" if you mean AI, then your statement is BS, online ok.

Not talking about the 25lb of course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

My post above... no AI... No problems in a FW190 against spits (IX25 too), it's only a energy retention matter, since in our FW you usually have to use different tactics than the BF (vertical manouvres are more difficult)

HellToupee
03-04-2007, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:

About Spits, it's their energy retention that is overmodelled: more than once I boomed with a F4 against a enemy 1000m under me at 750km/h... lets say that after I made my attack I was at 650km/h, I zoomed to only find a another spit that was dogfighting under me (I saw it but it was turning, how could his speed be more than 500Km/h?) that climbed and catched me. The famous "180? turn followed by a zoom" that I did several times fighting in a Spit (it's not a whine because they beat me... it's also because I can beat other in the same way).

Where a plane does a 180 and catches the other, is simply when u misjudge their E state even if spit were to lose no speed at all turning it would still have to have been faster in the first place, any plane can do it especially when they zoom as u dont even need to get close to shoot them. In testing spit dosnt have anything ub3r about its E retention just its better turn allows it to faster,



IMO the thing are changed after the 4.08: before I had no problem fighting a SpitV with my F4 using bnz tactics, now I find some trouble. Some night ago with my teammates we there testing some dog between us and the SpitV team always won, maybe because we used energy tactics with them (and luckly for blue player not all spit's pilots know how to fly it except turning'n'turning) but I was surprised when, climbing with WEP ON, my speed was 150km/h and I was gaining at least 15m/s.

After the first pass, starting at same altitude and speed, spits were always higher.


you should not lose in a f4 to a spit Vb, the spit Vb is even undermodeled, its performance is far inferior. If they always win, ur tactics are wrong, only advantage they have is turn. They do not outclimb a F4, so if they are higher again pilot error.



Anton but it was impossible since he keep turning like he was at low alt


but it simply dosnt turn like at low alt when high no plane does.

domenlovrec
03-04-2007, 01:38 PM
Bf109 on the list? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Manu-6S i agree. When spits are flying at 6000m and higher it's painful to fight them.

My vote goes for Tempest.

BuzzU
03-04-2007, 01:49 PM
I'm not biased to any planes. I like to fly them all.

With that said. I think the 109 is the easiest plane to fly. I can throw it around like an Extra 300, and it never stalls. Is that accurate?



We need one more poll. Is this community under or over modeled?

Manu-6S
03-05-2007, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
Where a plane does a 180 and catches the other, is simply when u misjudge their E state even if spit were to lose no speed at all turning it would still have to have been faster in the first place, any plane can do it especially when they zoom as u dont even need to get close to shoot them. In testing spit dosnt have anything ub3r about its E retention just its better turn allows it to faster,

I repeat: I was zooming at 650km/h while the spit was turning under me... sorry I don't have the track, I'm not used to record. He catched me at the top of the candle. I did it several times flying spit.


Originally posted by HellToupee:
you should not lose in a f4 to a spit Vb, the spit Vb is even undermodeled, its performance is far inferior. If they always win, ur tactics are wrong, only advantage they have is turn. They do not outclimb a F4, so if they are higher again pilot error.


We are used to energy fight all the time because we use above all bf109s and fw190s. I don't know what is a "turn" when I fly axis plane: I turn only in the spiral climbs.

We started at 30km of distance, 1500m, using the SAME tactic: we climbed for 10km and after we slighly dove to catch the minimal speed to do a little candle: with every plane this work and the better zooming plane is higher.

Here we find always the Spit to be equal altitude or sometimes a little higher: since the Spits have not slats they regain energy faster, when bf109 needs to close the slats to regain REAL speed. So the Spits were in advantage for score some hits and the bf109 must to use their diving skill to evade and with their speed they could extend. The problem is that the Spit's pilots remained high, they didn't chase the diving bf109s: so bf where in total disadvantage.


Originally posted by HellToupee:
but it simply dosnt turn like at low alt when high no plane does.

If I understand correctly that you mean, obvioulsy they can't turn like low altitude, but they could keep better control of the plane when you can't do quick manouvres with bf109 and fw190 without stalling. If you use the same amount of sensibility with the stick the Spit turn soooo better. Spits can easily loop at 8000.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't do: with those wings it's obvious to manouvre better in that thin air.
I only saying the many people don't know that Spits at that high are unstoppable.

Brain32
03-05-2007, 05:18 AM
Actually Spits at alt are not that hard to fight against, it's a nightmare if they are up high and you are not though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I fought many of them up there and only organized teams gave me trouble(I had to let them go), HF is pretty nasty but more like a little pest than a real threat. What gives me the creeps is the P47D_late, turns almost like a Spit outruns you, and outclimbs you, does not overheat and can take obscene amount of cannon rounds...

BBB_Hyperion
03-05-2007, 05:40 AM
Dive ability of viii is overmodeled cause they did catch me too often while in dive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bearcat99
03-05-2007, 05:55 AM
Since I have never flown a real warbird, am not an engineer, also know that often factory specs and actual specs are different.. just look at your car, and this is a simulation of WWII air combat... a good pone IMO but a simulation none the less.... I wont comment.

TheBandit_76
03-05-2007, 06:36 AM
Man Brian32, you really are a champion whiner.

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

Manu-6S
03-05-2007, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Actually Spits at alt are not that hard to fight against, it's a nightmare if they are up high and you are not though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I fought many of them up there and only organized teams gave me trouble(I had to let them go), HF is pretty nasty but more like a little pest than a real threat. What gives me the creeps is the P47D_late, turns almost like a Spit outruns you, and outclimbs you, does not overheat and can take obscene amount of cannon rounds...

Yes, Spit at alt are in safe position, they aren't a thread, but surely you can't hurt them.

As I said before, I tried P47D and really is a monster at alt... but it still works like a plane. I can't whine about it and P51. I really respect people who fly them.

The Spit's is the FM that I hate... If the game was based all on turn's and speed's performance I would not whine, but energy retention really drive me mad. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Brain32
03-05-2007, 06:39 AM
Hey, it's not a whine about those planes, that's just the way it is, if people like bandit76 can't make those planes to fly like that, that's not my problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DKoor
03-05-2007, 08:41 AM
He he Spitfire Mk.IX is just a target vs. D9 on 2-3k alt...
All I have to say.
Basically I can confirm what Brain said about this issue.

47 and Tempest those are ones I must worry about http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-05-2007, 11:01 AM
There's not one personality in these forums qualified to answer this question IMO. The opinions are based on charts, graphs, hear-say, and others' relative opinion.

I DO think that the most common matchups are as equitible as they've ever been (in 4.08) and it's the pilot's responsibility to get what he can out of his current ride.

I enjoy discussing the strengths and weaknesses of different aircraft and how best to put them to use. Discussing an "over" or "under" model is conjecture and opinion...period

This is a game...play it and have fun... Shooting and getting shot down.



TB

joeap
03-05-2007, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Actually Spits at alt are not that hard to fight against, it's a nightmare if they are up high and you are not though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I fought many of them up there and only organized teams gave me trouble(I had to let them go), HF is pretty nasty but more like a little pest than a real threat. What gives me the creeps is the P47D_late, turns almost like a Spit outruns you, and outclimbs you, does not overheat and can take obscene amount of cannon rounds...

Yes, Spit at alt are in safe position, they aren't a thread, but surely you can't hurt them.

As I said before, I tried P47D and really is a monster at alt... but it still works like a plane. I can't whine about it and P51. I really respect people who fly them.

The Spit's is the FM that I hate... If the game was based all on turn's and speed's performance I would not whine, but energy retention really drive me mad. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry guys, I don't feel the early spits (I mean in our context) Vs, and Seafires are overmodelled at all. I feel a real difference with the IXs yes.

Xiolablu3
03-05-2007, 11:57 AM
I cant believe that people are saying the early Spitfires ar overmodelled. The Spitfire Vb in the game is an awful plane compared to the ME109F4 and the FW190A4.

If you are having problems with energy retention vs these early Spitfires then you must be flinging your controls all over and losing far too much speed.

Both the 109F4 and Fw190A4 are far far faster and retain energy much better in a straight line than the Spitfire.

Trust me, if you think the SpitfireVb is superior in anything but turning circles, to the ingame 109F4 or FW190A4, then you badly need more practise at flying.

As for the overmodelled question, its impossible for anyone here to answer. Anyone saying anyhting about SPitfires, 109's etc is just their opibnon on HOW the plane should fly, when they have never actually dlown one.

The people claiming that X plane is overmodelled in this thread actually know absolutely nothing, first hand, about how the real plane flew. Its all based on other peoples thoughts and their very limited knowledge on the subject.

If you listen to any of them and believe them , then you are stupid.

Xiolablu3
03-05-2007, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
La-7 and Tempest takes the price 112% !

Oh what a big surprise...

I would never have guessed that Bellator would choose 2 Allied designs.

DUUURRRPPP http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Ya know theres 2 camps of folks here :

Those who pick the plane they like best, fly it and get the most out of it. <The guys I love to fly with.

AND Those 'Mr Durps' who fly only one side and constantly moan about how the other sides planes are too good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Which are you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bellator_1
03-05-2007, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
La-7 and Tempest takes the price 112% !

Oh what a big surprise...

I would never have guessed that Bellator would choose 2 Allied designs.

DUUURRRPPP http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Ya know theres 2 camps of folks here :

Those who pick the plane they like best, fly it and get the most out of it. <The guys I love to fly with.

AND Those 'Mr Durps' who fly only one side and constantly moan about how the other sides planes are too good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Which are you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whining again are we ?

Besides flying German and Japanese aircraft I fly US a/c alot as-well, however only in he pacific - the Corsair is a favorite of mine.

So no I'm not to one side, I just don't think any Axis fighter is over-modelled - most are infact undermodelled.

JtD
03-05-2007, 12:55 PM
No, they aren't. But if they are, please find my a source giving a 4 something ton Fw 190 a climbrate of 16m/s at 5000m.

DKoor
03-05-2007, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Actually Spits at alt are not that hard to fight against, it's a nightmare if they are up high and you are not though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I fought many of them up there and only organized teams gave me trouble(I had to let them go), HF is pretty nasty but more like a little pest than a real threat. What gives me the creeps is the P47D_late, turns almost like a Spit outruns you, and outclimbs you, does not overheat and can take obscene amount of cannon rounds...

Yes, Spit at alt are in safe position, they aren't a thread, but surely you can't hurt them.

As I said before, I tried P47D and really is a monster at alt... but it still works like a plane. I can't whine about it and P51. I really respect people who fly them.

The Spit's is the FM that I hate... If the game was based all on turn's and speed's performance I would not whine, but energy retention really drive me mad. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry guys, I don't feel the early spits (I mean in our context) Vs, and Seafires are overmodelled at all. I feel a real difference with the IXs yes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know if some aircraft is correctly/incorrectly modeled, but I know that I like them all... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Even if they are targets at the moment I play my mission.

Much lovin' here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Xiolablu3
03-05-2007, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
La-7 and Tempest takes the price 112% !

Oh what a big surprise...

I would never have guessed that Bellator would choose 2 Allied designs.

DUUURRRPPP http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Ya know theres 2 camps of folks here :

Those who pick the plane they like best, fly it and get the most out of it. <The guys I love to fly with.

AND Those 'Mr Durps' who fly only one side and constantly moan about how the other sides planes are too good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Which are you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whining again are we ?

Besides flying German and Japanese aircraft I fly US a/c alot as-well, however only in he pacific - the Corsair is a favorite of mine.

So no I'm not to one side, I just don't think any Axis fighter is over-modelled - most are infact undermodelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No not whining, just laughing.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You just confirmed exactly what I meant...

If you had ever flown a WW2 German fighter, then I might believe you. I am guessing you havent? But you can make such absolute statements? DUUURRRPPP

BigSilverHotdog
03-05-2007, 01:28 PM
Gonna have to agree with an earlier poster and say the Lerche. That thing is so unrealistic and so greater in strength than anything else in the game its like flying a UFO.

HellToupee
03-05-2007, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HellToupee:
Where a plane does a 180 and catches the other,

I repeat: I was zooming at 650km/h while the spit was turning under me... sorry I don't have the track, I'm not used to record. He catched me at the top of the candle. I did it several times flying spit.

and what was the spit doing? u simply dont know, if your going 650 and spits going 400 will it catch you not it wont. Ive killed spits who zoomed with superior energy while in a 190, in any plane vs any plane even.



We are used to energy fight all the time because we use above all bf109s and fw190s. I don't know what is a "turn" when I fly axis plane: I turn only in the spiral climbs.

not turning != energy fight anyone can fly in straight lines.



We started at 30km of distance, 1500m, using the SAME tactic: we climbed for 10km and after we slighly dove to catch the minimal speed to do a little candle: with every plane this work and the better zooming plane is higher.

Here we find always the Spit to be equal altitude or sometimes a little higher: since the Spits have not slats they regain energy faster, when bf109 needs to close the slats to regain REAL speed. So the Spits were in advantage for score some hits and the bf109 must to use their diving skill to evade and with their speed they could extend. The problem is that the Spit's pilots remained high, they didn't chase the diving bf109s: so bf where in total disadvantage.

Funny i find spit VB terrible at zoom climbs, it feels very underpowered. Just pointing ur nose up and expecting to leave everything behind is silly u must know exactly what the energy state of what u are trying to fight is in.

Spit Vb is simply horrible, the F4 is significantly better in all ways but turn.



If I understand correctly that you mean, obvioulsy they can't turn like low altitude, but they could keep better control of the plane when you can't do quick manouvres with bf109 and fw190 without stalling. If you use the same amount of sensibility with the stick the Spit turn soooo better. Spits can easily loop at 8000.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't do: with those wings it's obvious to manouvre better in that thin air.
I only saying the many people don't know that Spits at that high are unstoppable.

And what of the significant performance advantages of the F4? Dosnt that make it rather unstoppable from the spits POV.

LStarosta
03-05-2007, 01:36 PM
I think the Fw-190 A's are pretty overmodelled.

They retain E too much compared to the Spitfire and the dive is too ridiculous.

BuzzU
03-05-2007, 01:43 PM
I don't need a poll. This community is overmodeled.

Same arguments after 6 years.

JG4_Helofly
03-05-2007, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
I think the Fw-190 A's are pretty overmodelled.

They retain E too much compared to the Spitfire and the dive is too ridiculous.

Yes I agree 100%, the spit should be able to outdive the fw 190 like in RL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Manu-6S
03-06-2007, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
and what was the spit doing? u simply dont know, if your going 650 and spits going 400 will it catch you not it wont. Ive killed spits who zoomed with superior energy while in a 190, in any plane vs any plane even.

Dora or Anton? I would like to see it with an Anton...
The Spit was lower and not even direct vs me: his HDG was different from mine. as I said before I catched bf109s who boomed me flying spit simply jinking and following their zoom.
They simply don't lose speed in turn like other planes.


Originally posted by HellToupee:
not turning != energy fight anyone can fly in straight lines.
It's obvious, I know how to energy fight... but I really scared to try this against a Spit... he retains energy better and after 2 manouvres they can position themself in advantage position.


Originally posted by HellToupee:
And what of the significant performance advantages of the F4? Dosnt that make it rather unstoppable from the spits POV.

Ehmm.. I'm talking about SpitIX here...
But OBVIOUSLY you can always leave the fight in a faster plane

My complaint is not about "Spit kill me everytime", not at all. It's more about "How can they turn without losing speed".

Ok for tigher turns, ok for low stall speed and great lift... but why all this energy retention?

Can somebody explain me this? In technical way too.

mynameisroland
03-06-2007, 04:30 AM
The Hurricane IIC

At least thats the message Im getting when the map makers remove them from most 41/42 maps

Still even against planes like the G2 and the Mc 205 it still rocks.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Codex1971
03-06-2007, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Please someone tell me what is over modeled on the FW-190.

Bar height. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the paint scheme is somewhat over modeled. It could be the angle I'm looking at it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fuel leak...ETC Rack...oh and the glass canopy....http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HellToupee
03-06-2007, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Dora or Anton? I would like to see it with an Anton...
The Spit was lower and not even direct vs me: his HDG was different from mine. as I said before I catched bf109s who boomed me flying spit simply jinking and following their zoom.
They simply don't lose speed in turn like other planes.


doras antons ive done it with all of them, i ve caught 190s who boomed my tempest, ive caught tempests who boomed my 190, ive caught 109s who boomed my pllc. They do lose speed in turns, plus its possible to turn all the planes without much speed loss, hint its not when contrails are comming off the wings.



It's obvious, I know how to energy fight... but I really scared to try this against a Spit... he retains energy better and after 2 manouvres they can position themself in advantage position.


you should not be scared, u can make all the manovers u like and if he starts getting advantage position for some reason just fly away easy. If one knows how to energy fight they do not get advantage in 2 manouvres.



Ehmm.. I'm talking about SpitIX here...
But OBVIOUSLY you can always leave the fight in a faster plane

My complaint is not about "Spit kill me everytime", not at all. It's more about "How can they turn without losing speed".

Ok for tigher turns, ok for low stall speed and great lift... but why all this energy retention?

Can somebody explain me this? In technical way too.

Well ok for tighter turns ok for low speed speed then that leaves shallower turns at high speed, and spit is no better than that than 190 tempest 47 list goes on.

You have to rember in the mk9s case its climb rate is far superior to the 190.

Xiolablu3
03-06-2007, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:


Funny i find spit VB terrible at zoom climbs, it feels very underpowered. Just pointing ur nose up and expecting to leave everything behind is silly u must know exactly what the energy state of what u are trying to fight is in.

Spit Vb is simply horrible, the F4 is significantly better in all ways but turn.



Agreed 100%

I LOVE the ingame 109F4 in 1941, its a beatiful plane, and in my opinion it walks all over the Spitfire Vb 1941 if you use the corretc tactics.

You can be almost untouchable if you are careful.

BaronUnderpants
03-06-2007, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by AH_Gonzo:
The Spacefire, (25lbs Spit especially), gets my vote. I love the Spit (In real life) but flying against it in game.... That "Pull all the G you want without penelty to airpeed" thing gets trying after a while.


I like the spit to http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif but i still havent figured out why i in my 190 blackout in high speed turns...while the spitdriver doesnt...maby its because he turns inside me and gets of his 1 hit wonder gun. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

VFA-195 Snacky
03-06-2007, 02:50 PM
If the Spitfires were half as good in real life as they are in this game Britain should have wiped out Germany all by itself in a matter of days.

It is a video game and will never be completely accurate. Close enough is good enough.

HellToupee
03-06-2007, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
I like the spit to http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif but i still havent figured out why i in my 190 blackout in high speed turns...while the spitdriver doesnt...maby its because he turns inside me and gets of his 1 hit wonder gun. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Spit blacks out same as 190, worse even since it turns better u black out more often. All people comlain plane A dosnt black out while they in plane B do for almost every type. Its usually down to speed, faster plane blacks much more easily.


Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
If the Spitfires were half as good in real life as they are in this game Britain should have wiped out Germany all by itself in a matter of days.

It is a video game and will never be completely accurate. Close enough is good enough.

and if the spitfires were half as bad as people think they should be its puzzling why they built so many of them and pilots loved them so much.

faustnik
03-06-2007, 05:35 PM
I can understand the complaints of energy retention in the Spitfires in 4.04 or ealier, but, in 4.08, the heavy a/c seem to have more of their historical energy advantages.
The only area of overmodeling that could be claimed for Spits is turn for the Vb and maybe +25. Vb is modeled on the low end of speed tests and the high end of climb tests. IX is well modeled in all aspects. The wierd overheat on/off with maneuver issue in IXs is a bug, not overmodeling.

I'm not a flight expert but, I talk to a lot of people with a lot of knowledge. All of them think 4.08 is really good. People are stretching to look for "overmodeled" a/c.

Badsight-
03-06-2007, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
not turning != energy fight anyone can fly in straight lines.
^ a commen misconception ^

an energy fight is where you use your bandits momentum against him

hard turning can happen in a proper energy fight

Xiolablu3
03-06-2007, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
If the Spitfires were half as good in real life as they are in this game Britain should have wiped out Germany all by itself in a matter of days.


Sorry to say this, but if you think this ^ then you need more flying practice, fella.

A Spitfire IX is an amazing climber and an amazing turner, just like it was in history ...and in the game. Pilots from all countries who have flown the Spitfire usually say its the nicest WW2 warbird they have flown. So it should definitely be one of the top planes in the game for dogfighting, and it is if your opponent doesnt know how to handle it....

However its very easy to beat if you fly the faster German planes as if you were in them and not in a video game. Its about a year since any Spitfire has ever shot me down whilst I was in a FW190A6 (in fact any FW190 I think), and I have shot down at least 1000 Spitfires in that time.

If you fly it like a video game, then the Spitfire wins out very often.

Try flying vs Spitfires using different techniques, you will find them quite easy to beat once you are a good enough pilot. If you want some tip vs Spitfires on historical servers and not arcade servers, send me a PM Snacky.

Brain32
03-07-2007, 05:43 AM
Its about a year since any Spitfire has ever shot me down whilst I was in a FW190A6 (in fact any FW190 I think), and I have shot down at least 1000 Spitfires in that time.
Who are top Spitfire pilots where you fly? Members of the international paraplegic society? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I get your point about the Spits but ease of a little bit unless you really want to present Spitfire flying guys on the place you play like utter incompetent idiots http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG14_Josf
03-07-2007, 07:12 AM
Brian32,

Never mind X3; he is more bark than bite.

I'd really, really, really, like to see him teach you how he can beat you while you fly a Spitfire IX and he is in an Fw190A-6. I'd pay for it.

If you do this 'teaching', then, record the track file and send me a copy - PLEASE.

joeap
03-07-2007, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I can understand the complaints of energy retention in the Spitfires in 4.04 or ealier, but, in 4.08, the heavy a/c seem to have more of their historical energy advantages.
The only area of overmodeling that could be claimed for Spits is turn for the Vb and maybe +25. Vb is modeled on the low end of speed tests and the high end of climb tests. IX is well modeled in all aspects. The wierd overheat on/off with maneuver issue in IXs is a bug, not overmodeling.

I'm not a flight expert but, I talk to a lot of people with a lot of knowledge. All of them think 4.08 is really good. People are stretching to look for "overmodeled" a/c.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-07-2007, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Brian32,

Never mind X3; he is more bark than bite.

I'd really, really, really, like to see him teach you how he can beat you while you fly a Spitfire IX and he is in an Fw190A-6. I'd pay for it.

If you do this 'teaching', then, record the track file and send me a copy - PLEASE.

I agree totally with Josf. X3 if u can beat Spitfire IXE with Anton in dogfight, (i dont mean running away for 10 minutes, turning back for head on, and coming again) then u are my hero. Track pleasehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PBNA-Boosher
03-07-2007, 08:36 AM
That's the whole point of X3's argument. DO NOT DOGFIGHT. Dogfighting is idiocy and usually is the result of a failed first pass. Why did people like Erich Hartmann get so many kills? They DID NOT dogfight. They played on their own terms, went in when they had the advantage, and didn't when they couldn't win.

Some people may call it cowardly- but they're the ones sitting in a burned out crater while their enemy is still flying.

JtD
03-07-2007, 08:43 AM
Boosher, that's a totally wrong approach. You need to dogfight with any plane under any circumstances and if you don't win, come to the ubi-boards and whine. You can torture physics, abuse facts, ignore reality until everyone agrees that your plane should always win every dogfight. That's how it is supposed to work.

Brain32
03-07-2007, 08:49 AM
Back home again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Anyway guys you got me wrong, the point is not in dogfighting Spitfires here, the point is that in a objective based scenarious, you can not count on always having an advantage, Spitfire needs alt advantage to get the speed it's lacking in a dive. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying FW190 should be able to always escape a Spitfire even when the Spit dives on it, that would be pretty ridiculous http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
What I'm saying is that if nobody of the Spit pilots in the place he plays never used advantaged posiotion to catch him and blow his brain all over the cockpit - then he obviously never played against average Spit pilots, only very poor ones...

As for dogfighting Spitfires it is now(in v408) more possible than ever, if I start with decisive advantage I will most definitely engage a Spitfire in a dogfight, the trick is to recognize when he managed to even up the E-states and disengage before that happens, I usually end it way sooner with some kind of insane deflection shot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-07-2007, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
If the Spitfires were half as good in real life as they are in this game Britain should have wiped out Germany all by itself in a matter of days.


Sorry to say this, but if you think this ^ then you need more flying practice, fella.

A Spitfire IX is an amazing climber and an amazing turner, just like it was in history ...and in the game. Pilots from all countries who have flown the Spitfire usually say its the nicest WW2 warbird they have flown. So it should definitely be one of the top planes in the game for dogfighting, and it is if your opponent doesnt know how to handle it....

However its very easy to beat if you fly the faster German planes as if you were in them and not in a video game. Its about a year since any Spitfire has ever shot me down whilst I was in a FW190A6 (in fact any FW190 I think), and I have shot down at least 1000 Spitfires in that time.

If you fly it like a video game, then the Spitfire wins out very often.

Try flying vs Spitfires using different techniques, you will find them quite easy to beat once you are a good enough pilot. If you want some tip vs Spitfires on historical servers and not arcade servers, send me a PM Snacky. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry guys, but for me, he is clearly talking about dogfighting, not coming from behind, shooting a burst, and running away.

"Try flying vs Spitfires using different techniques, you will find them quite easy to beat once you are a good enough pilot."
sounds like dogfight tips

"However its very easy to beat if you fly the faster German planes as if you were in them and not in a video game. "
U can sneak with ANY plane, those doesnt have to be german, so it sounds like he would mean dogfight.

And no, I doesnt consider dogfight as pulling ur stick to ur belly, but nor dogfight nor energy fight arent slashing attacks(hit&run).

Answer me this question: If FW190 was so great, BF110 was so ****, so why do we have to fly both of them with the same technique? Whats the difference between hit&run on FW190 from BF110? BF110 the same amount of firepower, only a bit slower max speed, but it wasnt considered as a dog fighter. U might tell me : rate of roll. Oh really? So uber rate of roll FW190 allows u for different style of flying from BF110? NO, u are still doing hit& run, u can do that in spitfire,BF110,FW190,La7,la5 or A20. So im asking whats the difference between BF110 and FW190, its because of rate of roll, or because rl stories say that? Cause in this game difference is almost none.

JtD
03-07-2007, 10:38 AM
The Fw 190 outruns, outturns, outclimbs, outdives, outaccelerates and outrolls the 110 at all speeds at all heights. It's also the smaller target and has a better stability around the vertical axis.

I think this could give it an edge in a dogfight, but I am not sure.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-07-2007, 10:47 AM
Against Spitfire IX?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
03-07-2007, 01:00 PM
Compared to a 110.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-07-2007, 01:23 PM
But real FW190 didnt fight against BF110, lol. BF110 was known as non flyable, FW190 superb fighter. In game there is almost no difference in flying style on both of them.

JtD
03-07-2007, 01:35 PM
The difference is that the 110 gets shot down, while the 190 doesn't.

Also your opinion about the rl 110 reflects lack of knowledge.

Xiolablu3
03-07-2007, 03:02 PM
It is quite obvious that so many people are flying 1 Vs 1 trying to dogfight the Spitfire in the FW190. AKA a video game.

Just how often in WW2 did a lone FW190 fight a lone Spitfire? I am betting hardly ever. It was all squadrons meeting other Squadrons, ie big groups of planes. RAF 'rhubarbs' through 1941-43 usally comprised of 100+ SPitfires sweeping France, with squadrons of FW190's coming up to meet them.

If the enemy plane turns better than your plane then why would you get into a turnfighting contest? The Germans knew that the Spitfire easily outturned the FW190 and stayed away from turnfights.

Why do people call extending, 'running away'? - this demonstrates you flying like you are in a video game and not a simulation if you never going to extend and use your advantages in speed.

Stay with your teammates, the norm was for whole flights of FW190's to enter combat together, not singly.

If you cannot beat Spitfires in FW190's in a historical online scenario then change your tactics. If you are a good pilot and fly using historical Luftwafee tactics with your teamates, you can easily beat contemporary Spitfires in same year FW190's.

In some years ingame the FW190 is completely overwhelming the Spitfire, such as FW190A4 vs Spitfire Vb 1942.

Other years are harder such as 1943 with the FW190A6 vs Spitfire IX, but as I have said, Spitfires are one of the least dangerous planes to a good ingame FW190 pilot of any year. The Tempest, P51, P47 are much much more dangerous. Once you have the skills SPitfires are almost irrelevant unless they bounce you, and even then you can nose down and leave them in the dust providing he doesnt hit you quickly.

JG14_Josf
03-07-2007, 03:41 PM
Once you have the skills airplanes are almost irrelevant unless they bounce you, and even then you can nose down and leave them in the dust providing he doesnt hit you quickly.

You are funny dude.

Xiolablu3
03-07-2007, 05:54 PM
OK I will rephrase that...

*I* can leave Spitfires in the dust if I nose down in a FW190.

Of course I always make sure that I am cruising at high speed in the first place, if you are at only 100kph and nose down then he is going to keep up with you...

I cruise around at 400+kph and have no problem outdiving SPitfires. By the time you have rolled over and dived, he hasnt even finished his roll.

When I said 'nose down' I meant 'roll and dive'.

BUT: Obviously I am hit a lot too when I am bounced. Still the FW190 armour and good teamates have helped me survive vs attacking Spitfires for about a year now. In the time when I am bounced and fired upon (and hit), to the time that I half roll and escape through a hard dive, no Spitfire has managed to put enough lead on me to shoot me down.

I get shot down a lot by P47s,P51s and Tempests, but never Spitfires. I am not trying to be funny.

I think of flying the FW190 vs Spitfires more like a battle of brains than a battle of reactions. A bit like chess. Obviously reactions come into it too, but its much more a battle of wits.

Xiolablu3
03-07-2007, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Once you have the skills airplanes are almost irrelevant unless they bounce you, and even then you can nose down and leave them in the dust providing he doesnt hit you quickly.

You are funny dude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHy did you change the word 'Spitfires' to 'Airplanes'? in my quote? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

P47s, P51's and Tempests are very relevant to a FW190 in a dive, and very very dangerous.

JG14_Josf
03-07-2007, 06:12 PM
WHy did you change the word 'Spitfires' to 'Airplanes'? in my quote?

X3,

Are you talkin' to me?

I quoted me. Is that OK with you?

gkll
03-07-2007, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It is quite obvious that so many people are flying 1 Vs 1 trying to dogfight the Spitfire in the FW190. AKA a video game.

Just how often in WW2 did a lone FW190 fight a lone Spitfire? I am betting hardly ever. It was all squadrons meeting other Squadrons, ie big groups of planes. RAF 'rhubarbs' through 1941-43 usally comprised of 100+ SPitfires sweeping France, with squadrons of FW190's coming up to meet them.

If the enemy plane turns better than your plane then why would you get into a turnfighting contest? The Germans knew that the Spitfire easily outturned the FW190 and stayed away from turnfights.

Why do people call extending, 'running away'? - this demonstrates you flying like you are in a video game and not a simulation if you never going to extend and use your advantages in speed.

Stay with your teammates, the norm was for whole flights of FW190's to enter combat together, not singly.

If you cannot beat Spitfires in FW190's in a historical online scenario then change your tactics. If you are a good pilot and fly using historical Luftwafee tactics with your teamates, you can easily beat contemporary Spitfires in same year FW190's.

In some years ingame the FW190 is completely overwhelming the Spitfire, such as FW190A4 vs Spitfire Vb 1942.

Other years are harder such as 1943 with the FW190A6 vs Spitfire IX, but as I have said, Spitfires are one of the least dangerous planes to a good ingame FW190 pilot of any year. The Tempest, P51, P47 are much much more dangerous. Once you have the skills SPitfires are almost irrelevant unless they bounce you, and even then you can nose down and leave them in the dust providing he doesnt hit you quickly.

I believe calling a spit irrelevant is a bit much... it is pretty hard to push a spit off a spot if he doesn't want to go. If he really wants to stay in that 3d chunk of airspace he can... whereas the reverse, considering a 190, may not be true. Extending away is not the best means of protecting a given piece of territory? Picture 190s trying to protect a some bombers against co-e spits.... that would be tough. So for rhubarbs fair enough, but maybe if you are fond of some particular airspace for whatever reason the situation is a little different?

Brain32
03-07-2007, 06:44 PM
I cruise around at 400+kph and have no problem outdiving SPitfires. By the time you have rolled over and dived, he hasnt even finished his roll.
So you ALWAYS just fly in strait lines at not less than 400kmh and you always have a nice alt advantage to dive away, you take a whole grid to reverse a directon for 180deg. and you are always in situation where you and your team mates meet a lone Spitfire? Furthermore the Spitfires are not only not working together but they also failt to cooperate with other planes?
I'm sorry but if this is the case you are flying against AMAZINGLY poor Spitfire pilots while whole cooperation of the Allied team ranges from very poor to extremely poor, from my short expirience on uk2 I got an impression this is not like that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Now, although I fundamentally agree with what you say, I'm sorry but you have overdone it to ridiculous extent.

Also dogfighting a Spitfire with a FW190A is possible, ofcourse you have to engage from a position of advantage, but that should not be a problem because a smart pilot will not engage otherwise..

Manu-6S
03-08-2007, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If you cannot beat Spitfires in FW190's in a historical online scenario then change your tactics. If you are a good pilot and fly using historical Luftwafee tactics with your teamates, you can easily beat contemporary Spitfires in same year FW190's.

Again and again... people here are not talking about Spits as a "Danger": the Fw190 is the safest plane to fly (without P47 and P51 around you).

The problem (my problem with Spits) is their energy retention: I ask again (since nobody answered me)... Why Spit have this skill?

I mean, at co alt they are not so easy to fight, above 7000m they are unbeatable (not that they down you, but you can't hurt them)

Manu-6S
03-08-2007, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Also dogfighting a Spitfire with a FW190A is possible, ofcourse you have to engage from a position of advantage, but that should not be a problem because a smart pilot will not engage otherwise..

Me in my FW...

"Look, that dot ahead seems be higher than me; ok, lets change direction and gain some altitude again" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

JG14_Josf
03-08-2007, 05:23 AM
I believe calling a spit irrelevant is a bit much... it is pretty hard to push a spit off a spot if he doesn't want to go. If he really wants to stay in that 3d chunk of airspace he can... whereas the reverse, considering a 190, may not be true. Extending away is not the best means of protecting a given piece of territory? Picture 190s trying to protect a some bombers against co-e spits.... that would be tough. So for rhubarbs fair enough, but maybe if you are fond of some particular airspace for whatever reason the situation is a little different?

The above are words and I have no cause to criticize those words. They are words.

Here are links and words:

Douglas Bader (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfocke190.htm)


The Focke-Wulf 190 certainly gave the British a shock. 1941 had ended with the Me 109 with the Spitfire (two cannons and four machine-guns fighting it out on fairly even terms. Then, without warning from British intelligence sources, this startling aeroplane appeared in March 1942. A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots. Instantly Rolls and Supermarine retaliated with the Spitfire IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the spring of 1942 with the IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the end of 1942 with the IXb which outflew it in all respects. The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.

Douglas Bader may or may not have known how well an Fw 190 ˜out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire'. Bader may or may not have known how ˜the Germans were out-flying' British pilot's ˜for the first time' in ˜March 1942'. The quotes, from the web page, are quoted from Douglas Bader in his autobiography, Fight for the Sky.

One of my (I am a guy playing a game) practice routines in the game is to fight 4 IL2 airplanes with the Fw190A-8. The Fw190A-8 is almost as good at vertical maneuvering compared to the IL2 piloted by A.I. In the hands of a competent game pilot the IL2 must be handled with hit and run tactics when attacking with an Fw190A-8 from co altitude and co-speed. The 190A-8, in the game, must attack an Il2 from advantage and leave the fight before the energy advantage evaporates since the IL2 is the better at retaining energy. The IL2 has big wings.

Douglas Bader never had to fight IL2's with an Fw190A-8. Douglas Bader did have to fight the best of the Luftwaffe in 109s and the best of the Luftwaffe in the 190s.


The Focke-Wulf 190 certainly gave the British a shock. 1941 had ended with the Me 109 with the Spitfire (two cannons and four machine-guns fighting it out on fairly even terms. Then, without warning from British intelligence sources, this startling aeroplane appeared in March 1942. A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots. Instantly Rolls and Supermarine retaliated with the Spitfire IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the spring of 1942 with the IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the end of 1942 with the IXb which outflew it in all respects. The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


After the war the British fighter pilot Johnnie Johnson wrote about the merits of the Focke-Wulf 190

The Focke-Wulf 190 was undoubtedly, the best German fighter. We were puzzled by the unfamiliar silhouette, for these new German fighters seemed to have squarer wingtips and more tapering fuselages than the Messerschmitts we usually encountered. We saw that the new aircraft had radial engines and a mixed armament of cannons and machine-guns, all firing from wing positions.

Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.

Back at our fighter base and encouraged by our enthusiastic Intelligence Officers, we drew sketches and side views of this strange new aeroplane. We were all agreed that it was superior to the Me 109f and completely outclassed our Spitfire Vs. Our sketches disappeared into mysterious Intelligence channels and we heard no more of the matter,. But from then on, fighter pilots continually reported increasing numbers of these outstanding fighters over northern France.


The Fw190A-4 in the game cannot, at all, fight any light weight plane on equal terms – at all. The Fw190A-4, in the game, has poor initial acceleration (Ps) and any combat attitude where the nose is pointed above the horizon is a net-loss of relative energy when fighting any bigger winged plane – in the game – including bombers. The Fw190A-4, the earliest and lowest powered Fw190, in the game, can only utilize hit and run tactics against any other plane with the possible exception of the earliest P-47 which is a big winged plane, so that may not be possible, your mileage may vary. The P-47s may also have trouble dog-fighting bombers. The Fw and the early P-47s, due to higher speeds, can hit and run well; both are capable of utilizing hit and run tactics. Any turning in an Fw190 at co-altitude and co-energy (same altitude and same speed) will hand over altitude and speed to the opponent at a net loss in Ps. The Fw190A-4, due to its very poor initial acceleration, and it's ability to ˜sink' or ˜stall' or just plain ˜slow down' with any production of lift force (turn) completely eliminates any capability as an energy fighter against any bomber or fighter (with the possible exception of the early P-47) in a dog-fight from equal energy states. Any turning with the Fw190A-4, at all, hands an energy advantage to the opponent due to ˜energy bleed' and poor initial acceleration after the ˜energy bleed'. Nose high turning accelerates the energy loss rate. The Fw190A-4 cannot fight in the vertical – at all – except when starting at a higher energy state and even so the hit must be followed by a run before the energy state becomes precipitously lower than the opponent (inevitably); even against bombers like the IL2 and the A-20. Oddly; the Fw190 can decelerate quickly in a horizontal scissors fight and hang on the prop forcing the opponent to overshoot - now that is odd!


Alan Deere, Nine Lives (1959)


Savagely I hauled my reluctant Spitfire around to meet this new attack and the next moment I was engulfed in enemy fighters-above, below and on both sides, they crowded in on my section. Ahead and above, I caught a glimpse of a FW 190 as it poured cannon shells into the belly of an unsuspecting Spitfire. For a brief second the Spitfire seemed to stop in mid-air, and the next instant it folded inwards and broke in two, the two pieces plummeting earthwards; a terrifying demonstration of the punch of the FW 190s, four cannons and two machine-guns.

I twisted and turned my aircraft in an endeavour to avoid being jumped and at the same time to get myself into a favourable position for attack. Never had I seen the Huns stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing. In Messerschmitt 109s the Hun tactics had always followed the same pattern-a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires with their superior turning circle. Not so these FW 190 pilots, they were full of confidence.

There was no lack of targets, but precious few Spitfires to take them on. I could see my number two, Sergeant Murphy, still hanging grimly to my tail but it was impossible to tell how many Spitfires were in the area, or how many had survived the unexpected onslaught which had developed from both sides as the squadron turned to meet the threat from the rear. Break followed attack, attack followed break, and all the time the determined Murphy hung to my tail until finally, when I was just about short of ammunition and pumping what was left at a FW 190, I heard him call:

"Break right, Red One; I'll get him."

As I broke, I saw Murphy pull up after a FW 190 as it veered away from me, thwarted in its attack by his prompt action. My ammunition expended, I sought a means of retreat from a sky still generously sprinkled with hostile enemy fighters, but no Spitfires that I could see. In a series of turns and dives I made my way out until I was clear of the coast, and diving full throttle I headed for home


The lighter weight and lower powered Fw190A-4 is the slowest Fw190 and the poorest at initial acceleration – it doesn't ˜bleed energy' quite as bad as the higher powered and lower power-loaded (less weight per unit thrust) Fw190A-8 Fighter Plane – in the game. The poor energy fighting Fw190A-4 (a good hit and run plane) is progressively getting worse in the game as the Fw190A-4, in the game, becomes more and more powerful in thrust but less powerful as an energy fighter because the ˜energy bleed' factor increases. The corner speed increases from Fw190A-4 to Fw190A-8. In the game; the lower T/W Fw190A-8 with the greater power is a less capable energy fighter compared to the Fw190A-4, although, the Fw190A-8 continues to be a good hit and run plane due to its high speed (so long as it does not turn – at all – and is especially subjected to ˜sinking' when turning nose high).

Before the Spitfire VB gained weight and engine thrust (gaining wing-loading) the Fw190 was reported to be this:


A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots.

Before the Fw190A-4 gained weight and gained engine thrust (gaining wing-loading) the Fw 190 was reported to be this:


The Focke-Wulf 190 was undoubtedly, the best German fighter. We were puzzled by the unfamiliar silhouette, for these new German fighters seemed to have squarer wingtips and more tapering fuselages than the Messerschmitts we usually encountered. We saw that the new aircraft had radial engines and a mixed armament of cannons and machine-guns, all firing from wing positions.

Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.


Before the Spitfire turned into a better energy fighter in actual history i.e. before the Spitfire evolved from a very light weight, big wing, relatively under powered stall fighter (some British pilots say that the Spitfire VB was the last dog-fighting Spitfire), before the evolution to higher weight and higher thrust (stronger wings?) the Spitfire had no trouble fighting the lighter and more powerful Messerschmitt (with the smaller wing); according to the sources linked above.

In the game the Fw190A-4 (the lightest Fw190 in the game) cannot stay and fight against bombers; however the Fw190A-4 (due to its higher speed) can employ hit and run tactics against fighters and bombers. The Fw190A-4 in the game (and any bomber) can also attack from higher altitude and higher speed and press the attack for two passes depending upon how quickly the inevitable energy level favors the opponent (including bombers).

Focke-Wulf 190s Over Dieppe (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppe.htm)

"As we talked, the air almost at cliff-top height over our heads was suddenly full of fighters snarling, screaming and twisting in a dogfight ... I could see the heads of the Germans in their Focke-Wulf 190s, and of the R.A.F. pilots in their Spitfires".[9]



[9] A.B. Austin, We Landed At Dawn, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1943, p.103

The source above describes a situation whereby the Allies were tasked with Capping (combat air patrol) an Allied landing force "On Wednesday, 19 August 1942"

Much of the German air force (mostly 109s) was sent east leaving all Fighter Combat to the remaining forces (mostly 190s) to handle any kind of battle including the maintenance of local air superiority.


However, Allied numerical superiority did not prove enough to secure the skies over Dieppe on 19 August 1942.

In the game, if a collection of Spitfire Vs are tasked with maintaining local air superiority, there is an ability to do so without difficulty so long as the players do not fly straight and level as the Fw190A-4s attack with hit and run or team tactics. The players, I know this is hard to do sometimes, can't expect to follow Fw190's for five or six grids without having another blue player scrape you off the obvious drag, the players must have a clue about it. The actual history ˜about it' concerned the Best of the Best at the time.

From JG 26 (http://www.amazon.com/JG-26-Top-Guns-Luftwaffe/dp/0804110506) more data is found:

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/0804110506.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg


The Dieppe operation [Operation Jubilee] was the first major Allied amphibious assault of the war. Its motivation, planning, and execution have remained the subjects of dispute. Its aerial side, the only one of concern here, is no less controversial than its naval and ground aspects. Sholto Douglas saw the raid as an opportunity to force the elusive Jagdwaffe to do battle on the RAF's own terms. He assigned command responsibility to No. 11 Group's Leigh-Mallory, who was given control of fifty-six fighter squadrons – for the operation. There were only four Spitfire IX squadrons; the rest were equipped with the earlier Spitfire models and obsolete Hurricanes. Leigh-Mallory also had four squadrons of reconnaissance Mustnags, which were just entering service with the RAF. His bomber component comprised a paltry five squadrons of Blenheims and Bostons.
The German fighter units opposing this large force were the well-tried Kanalgeschwader JG 2 and JG 26, each with about 110 operational fighters. The struggle for air supremacy over the beachhead would thus find the German fighters outnumbered by more than three to one. The only German "day bombers" in the West were the twenty Fw 190s of the two Jabostaffeln. Around 220 night bombers, Do 217s and Ju 88s, were scattered on various bases in the Netherlands and northern France.


Before continuing with the quote from the book linked I am inclined to return to the quote that started my ˜diatribe' into complete and utter fantasy (letters from the joke himself):


I believe calling a spit irrelevant is a bit much... it is pretty hard to push a spit off a spot if he doesn't want to go. If he really wants to stay in that 3d chunk of airspace he can... whereas the reverse, considering a 190, may not be true. Extending away is not the best means of protecting a given piece of territory? Picture 190s trying to protect a some bombers against co-e spits.... that would be tough. So for rhubarbs fair enough, but maybe if you are fond of some particular airspace for whatever reason the situation is a little different?

I really like statements followed by question marks as if the writer was confident but not convinced of his knowledge. What do I know?


The Allied fleet reached the French coast without discovery by the Luftwaffe. The German controllers were not quite sure what they were dealing with, but at 0618, just as Sternberg's patrol Rotte was taking off, the first attack force was ordered up – ten Fw 190s of I/JG 26. Sixteen Focke-Wulfs from 2/JG 26 and 3/JG 26 soon followed them away from St. Omer-Arques, as did some Bf 109Gs from the newly operational 11th Stffel. The four Staffel formations soon broke up in individual combats with the Spitfire umbrella over Dieppe. Oblt. Schmidt's Messerschmitts were vectored over the sea six miles north of Dieppe. During a low-level dogfight, Schmidt attempted a split-S without sufficient recovery altitude and crashed into the Channel.

I didn't write "Individual combats" and "Spitfire Umbrella" so don't blame me for the perception that Fw-190s were fighting individual combats with Spitfires having the initial advantage. If you read into the text an idea that the Fw190A-2s and Fw190A-3s were Fighting Dog-fights at low level with Spitfire Vs and IXs during that air supremacy battle in August 1942, then, that is your idea. I happen to be quoting the words to point out that such an idea exists – perhaps? Note the question mark.


The next Luftwaffe formation to reach the beachhead was sent from Wevelghem by III/JG 26 at 0700. Its size and effect have not been determined. II/JG 26 at Abbeville and Amiens apparently supplied the first truly large-scale defensive reaction. The Gruppe took off at about 0750, reached Dieppe at altitude and in good formation, and hit the Spitfire formations hard. According to British radio intercepts, the average number of German fighters over the beachhead increased from twenty to thirty at 0830, and reached an estimated on hundred by 0930. All of these aircraft were from JG 26. Twenty-seven Spitfires were shot down by the Schlageter Geschwader prior to 1040, when the first formation from the Richthofen Geschwader reached the combat zone from Le Harve.

The source goes on to tally the day's total score. My point is to answer what appears to be the game perspective with what appears to be an accurate historical perspective.
The game tends to portray the 109 as the dog-fighter and the Fw 190 as the fighter/bomber that can stand in as a fighter plane when the 109 isn't available. The game tends to portray the Fw 190 as a fully capable hit and run fighter when team tactics are employed from positions, attitudes, altitudes, and speed advantages.

The game is one thing and the people who lived history like Johnnie Johnson, Al Deere, Douglas Bader, Peter Crump, Wutz Galland, Joachim Muenchenberg, and wrote history like Donald L. Caldwell, Eric Brown, Alfred Price, and Mike Spick is another thing.

Mike Spick:


Instead of telegraphing their intentions by forming up at high altitude in full view of the German radar, the British now took to crossing the Channel at low level, then climbing flat out just before they reached the coast. At the same time, increasing use was made of low-level penetrations by light bombers, which called for a different approach to the fighter escort mission. For the Jagdfleiger, the leisurely wait at cockpit readiness, followed by a calculated climb to altitude, was now eliminated: the Spitfires, rocketing skywards at full throttle, were often already above.
With the advent of the FW 190A, this was not as critical as it once had been. The aircraft was as superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of RAF pilots was that ˜Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, ˜Jerry' stayed and fought as never before.


I am not Al Deere. I am not Jonnie Johnson. I am not Douglas Bader. I am not Mike Spick. I did not make up a story about Fw 190's turning better that 109s (obviously at high speed and obviously not at slow speed). I did not make up a story about the Fw190 having better vertical maneuvering performance than the 109. I did not make up a story about the Fw190 staying and fighting while the 109 was better suited to be the ˜hit and run' plane. I'm reporting these "Stories".

As to the claim that "I" can't fly the FW 190 ˜correctly' in the game, well, I'm ready to make track files of anyone willing to teach me.

I can manage to kill all four energy fighting IL2s when I practice with the Fw190A-8. I stay and fight. I'd rather stay and fight with any 109 not because the 109 is the better turn fighter but because the 109 is the better energy fighter having better initial acceleration and better ˜energy retention'. The 109 does not slow down as fast as the Fw 190 despite the 109 being considerably lighter. I can manage to learn that the game models the 109 as the energy fighter and the 190 as the hit and run plane. If YOU think I am too stupid to be successful in the game, then, by all means prove how much better YOU are at the game; I'll record track files and make pictures like this:

http://4jg53.org/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_5x51.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
03-08-2007, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
..............
Douglas Bader did have to fight .............the best of the Luftwaffe in the 190s.

...............

Bader was captured 9. August 1941.............

few if ny chances to meet a Fw190A in combat.

JG14_Josf
03-08-2007, 06:52 AM
JG53Frankyboy,

Thanks for the update.

Perhaps Bader was writing his opinion based upon something other than his own flying experience.


The Focke-Wulf 190 certainly gave the British a shock. 1941 had ended with the Me 109 with the Spitfire (two cannons and four machine-guns fighting it out on fairly even terms. Then, without warning from British intelligence sources, this startling aeroplane appeared in March 1942. A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots. Instantly Rolls and Supermarine retaliated with the Spitfire IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the spring of 1942 with the IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the end of 1942 with the IXb which outflew it in all respects. The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


Douglas Bader wrote about the Focke-Wulf 190 in his autobiography, Fight for the Sky (1974)

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-08-2007, 07:03 AM
Well, I disagree with Josf that Spitfire V in game is too strong, but i totally agree that in game FW190 is hit&run plane, while BF109 is dogfighter, totally opposite to the rl things. Why? I may just suppose, that high speed energy retention isnt modelled well, the same with very low speeds.

JG14_Josf
03-08-2007, 07:27 AM
Well, I disagree with Josf that Spitfire V in game is too strong, but i totally agree that in game FW190 is hit&run plane, while BF109 is dogfighter, totally opposite to the rl things. Why? I may just suppose, that high speed energy retention isnt modelled well, the same with very low speeds.

CMHQ_Rikimaru,

It is probably a good thing to keep your distance from me as some of that stink might get on you; however – if you can find where the Spitfire V, in game, is too strong (so strong it even smells strong?), then, find that, please, link it, quote it, and then see how far away from that link, and quote, is someone with the name Josf. I'm going to have to have a talk with that imposter. Please find him and send him my way.

The Spitfire VB, in game, is a Spitfire VB, in game. The Spitfire VB, in reality, was a production run of Fighter Planes flown by human beings in a war.

I think that the game version and the reality version are similar in many respects.

I also think that the game version and the reality version are dissimilar in many respects.

I can go on...

My doubleganger may think the opposite. I can't speak for him.

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-08-2007, 07:39 AM
Not with a 10' pole. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Davinci..
03-08-2007, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
Not with a 10' pole. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

heh you know you want to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
just kidding

but to Josf: I have to go out right now, but will be back in a couple hours. I am a dedicated 190 pilot(I fly on Winds of War) and I will PM you later, so we can discuss tactics and how you "need" to fly the 190, and mabey do some tests vs spitfires if your up for it.

JG14_Josf
03-08-2007, 08:21 AM
Davinci...,

Heaven forbid we should clutter up this precise discussion on topic with our irrelevant exchanges! By all means go to PM; no problem – times and dates will clutter the forum data base we can go to e-mail too:

josf.kelley(at)verizon.net [thanks for the tip X3]

One of these day an SOP for ˜teaching' may arise out of the soup.

I'm up for it; thanks. Bring your camera.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-08-2007, 08:46 AM
Josf - sorry then mate, propably i missundestood uhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And no, im not afraid of anyone here, i always say what i think.

JG14_Josf
03-08-2007, 08:50 AM
NP

Thanks

leitmotiv
03-08-2007, 09:40 AM
The Po-2 is clearly grossly over-modeled. That biplane is just brutal against German fighters.

gkll
03-08-2007, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If you cannot beat Spitfires in FW190's in a historical online scenario then change your tactics. If you are a good pilot and fly using historical Luftwafee tactics with your teamates, you can easily beat contemporary Spitfires in same year FW190's.

Again and again... people here are not talking about Spits as a "Danger": the Fw190 is the safest plane to fly (without P47 and P51 around you).

The problem (my problem with Spits) is their energy retention: I ask again (since nobody answered me)... Why Spit have this skill?

I mean, at co alt they are not so easy to fight, above 7000m they are unbeatable (not that they down you, but you can't hurt them) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Manu there is a TON of information on this subject, on this forum. It is difficult to wade through threads such as the current '109 vs spit turning' thread... however if you read it through and try and sift through the large amount of info and opinion in that thread, the principles are there. And yes the search function can help too, this is an <old> topic.

People's opinions obviously vary greatly. My opinion is that because of low wing loading, oswald factor, and good power loading values the spit can turn hard with little AOA (and therefore low induced drag when manuvering). And the powerloading gives it excellent low to moderate speed acceleration. These factors also give excellent max climb values. Higher speed the rads hurt straightline drag, the spit is not particularly fast for eg. However get the ship in the speed range of 300 to say 450 k and the spit characteristics do suggest it should be best in class for 'e-retention'.

A lot of people don't like this, however it does seem that some of the cooler heads and more knowledgeable posters (with solid background in aerodynamics, ie not me) agree with what I have said, generally (it is not this simple..). Whereas the parameters of the spit as compared with the 109 suggest a <close> comparison, by the time you have gone to the more 'focused' 190 design with its more extreme wing loading and no better power loading it is over the top IMO to suggest it should be similar for hard manuevering 'e-retention'.

Whoever thinks for eg that the 190 should be the 'dogfighter' compared to the 109 is IMO simply not using their noggin, or they mean something strange when they use the admittedly poorly defined term 'dogfighting'...

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-08-2007, 11:44 AM
Whoever thinks for eg that the 190 should be the 'dogfighter' compared to the 109 is IMO simply not using their noggin, or they mean something strange when they use the admittedly poorly defined term 'dogfighting'...

Or uve simply never readed any rl statement about FW190 and BF109. What is dogfighting? Its everything else than hit&run. Its funny that some ppl here think that historical luftwaffe FW190 tactic was hit&run...

gkll
03-08-2007, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Whoever thinks for eg that the 190 should be the 'dogfighter' compared to the 109 is IMO simply not using their noggin, or they mean something strange when they use the admittedly poorly defined term 'dogfighting'...

Or uve simply never readed any rl statement about FW190 and BF109. What is dogfighting? Its everything else than hit&run. Its funny that some ppl here think that historical luftwaffe FW190 tactic was hit&run... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if 'dogfighting' is everything except HnR.... however there is still the little problem with the escape window, no amount of lag pursuit and rolling can keep this window from closing, if you are up against a fighter that turns better and has similar or superior power loading too... I followed this up with Andy Bush over on the SimHQ forum, trying to get a sense of how to 'e-fight' (ie stay in close, minimal extensions, contest directly and immediately the airspace in question... the e-fight 'definition' I think I see on these forums) a zero with a spit. His answer was 'well you can't lag a zero forever...'. Point is this 'e-fighting' stuff people are always on about... there is a binomial nature to aircombat where your escape window is paramount, depending what ship your opponent is in. 'Get out of Dodge' may need to be the rule if your opponent turns better and has equal or superior powerloading.... do you think you can manuever endlessly against a spit in RL or the game within say 1k.... or do you need some kind of real extension to make it work? E-fighting as discussed on these forums is not necessarily how the pros such as Shaw or Bush might see it.

Of course Ive read the quotes from the shocked and dismayed Brits when coming to grips with the 190... its been posted 40 or 50 times in the last week alone I expect, over in other threads. Who could miss it? However I also recall quotes from German pilots stating clearly that the 109 was the 'dogfighter' of the pair (109 vs 190). I am sure a search of this very forum will pop these quotes up too, if you don't believe me.

You draw me a line between 'e-fighting' and HnR and it would clarify what you see the issue as. Remember the e-fighter tactics as discussed by pros such as Andy Bush assume better powerloading and worse turn, not equal powerloading and worse turn, we are on the edge of Shaw's 'double inferior' when we compare Spits to 190s.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-08-2007, 12:33 PM
Under double inferior conditions only hit& run with 1-2 passes are available. So if FW190s were double inferior to spits, how the hell could they dogfight? How could they energy fight, if they didnt stand a chance nor in energy fight nor in turn and burn contest?

JtD
03-08-2007, 01:05 PM
Because dogfight irl didn't mean pulling the stick for 5 g over 10 minutes.

gkll
03-08-2007, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Under double inferior conditions only hit& run with 1-2 passes are available. So if FW190s were double inferior to spits, how the hell could they dogfight? How could they energy fight, if they didnt stand a chance nor in energy fight nor in turn and burn contest?

Well I didn't say double-inferior, I said 'on the edge', the powerloading is a wash between most contemporary spits and 190s. So not double inferior but getting there...

Anyways its no big deal really... but in your terms I guess I am trying to say that an 'e-fight' can slip to a 'TnB' pretty easy (what my babble about 'escape window' was pointed at...), and <that> fight is a no-win for the 190, we'd agree there?

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-08-2007, 01:11 PM
gkll: Well, maybe medium pilot would allow to turn it to TnB, but the thing is, no matter how good pilot u are, in FW190 u wont win energy fight against a Spitfire IXe. Its only possible against Spitfire V.

JTD : Learn to read.

JtD
03-08-2007, 01:36 PM
Instead of offending people, you should start to think. Just because you fail to understand me, doesn't mean I failed to understand you.

p.s. How many accounts do you have about Fw dogfighting Spit IXe's?

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-08-2007, 01:38 PM
Just because u can write, it doesnt mean that u can read.

JG14_Josf
03-08-2007, 01:41 PM
To Whom It May Concern:

To ignore drag loading when speaking about power-loading is to ignore the only force that is responsible for differences in "e-retention" and therefore the only factor that distinguishes between which plane "Burns" more energy – unless the idea is such that "Energy Bleed" is a gaming term used to describe something that happens in a game.

To assume that the Fw190 is inferior at anything concerning performance variables associated with the loosely defined T/W (power-loading) concept is to ignore extensive tests done by the British on a captured Fw190A-3.

To go on a generalize Spitfires as being something compared to a generalization concerning Focke-wulf's or Messerschmitts is to ignore the transformation that occurred with the Spitfire from the light weight turn fighter to the higher weight energy fighter which is as much a blind or myopic viewpoint as one that ignores the transformation of the Messerschmitt from the high drag E model to the much more efficient F model, and, to ignore all these developments is akin to ignoring the development from the Fw190A series into the higher altitude Focke-wulf TA-152 with the mid developed Dora.

A notion that since the Spitfire IX is a Spitfire and the Spitfire I is a Spitfire, therefore, the Spitfire VB/Fw190A-3 match-up is the same as the Spitfire IX cleared for 25 lb manifold pressure versus the Fw190F-8 match-up.

To say, for example, that the Spitfire versus Fw190 match-up is a fight between a light plane with high horsepower against a heavy plane with low horsepower and therefore the Spitfire (having better power loading) is always the better fighter at e-retention is ignoring much evidence to the contrary – on purpose. You can call that process of ignoring the actual historical data anything that you want and it remains a process of ignoring the actual historical data.

When the Fw190 and the Spitfire fought first the date was not 1944 and the match-up in 1944 between the latest model Fw190A (configured to shoot down heavy bombers) and the latest models of Spitfire series (configured to shoot down Fw 190s and 109s) was not the same as the first entanglements of Spitfire version versus Focke-Wulf version.

The first fights where Focke-wulf met Spitfire the Spitfire was configured to fight Messerschmitts. Why, one might wonder, did the very good turn fighter version of Spitfire grow into the very good energy fighter?

If the notion is such that a low weight to engine horsepower ratio determines ˜e-retention', then, the Spitfire VB would have been the consummate energy fighter.

Engine horse power divided by aircraft weight does not determine a fighter's capacity to retain energy. That is ridiculous. That is like saying the best swimmer is the person who eats the least/and farts the most.

But hey: I'm just an idiot.


Energy performance reflects a fighter's Ps under specified flight conditions.
...therefore a fighter may have higher T/W and better performance at slow speed but be inferior at faster speeds.
A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent.
Obviously fighter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story. Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilots with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information.


The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights
The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful in combat.


The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of a Focke-Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product [from 9 lbs to 12 perhaps], but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war.

The Spitfire, historically, did not have the best drag loading or D/W. This fact is easily proven with the Spitfire versus P-51 top speed using the same engine. If weight was such an incredible handicap for aircraft energy performance than the Mustang would have been a very poor fighter compared to the Spitfire. It was not.

To say that weight and even size is everything concerning ˜power loading', then, the P-47 would have never had a chance in hell against the Spitfire. In fact the P-47 was a much better energy fighter than the Spitfire despite the P-47s massive size, massive weight, and poor T/W ratio (engine power divided by aircraft weight).

When the notion is that ˜power-loading' and ˜wing-loading' determine performance rather than Power Available, Power Required, and Lift-loading determining performance, well, a bomber may show up as the better energy fighter compared to actual historically capable energy fighters like the Fw190s and the P-47.

In the game the Fw190 is a hit and run plane and a good one so long as it is faster than all the opponents. When it is not, then, the Fw190 is double inferior because the game calculates high deceleration and low acceleration for the Fw190A. That was not the case in actual reality.


The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights
The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful in combat.

Having poor acceleration under most conditions of flight coupled with a rate of deceleration during any imagined ˜sinking', where induced drag is not actually air mass being forced downwards, rather it must be parasite drag, turbulence caused by unusual angles of attack, or energy being used up in the process of heating air mass, or energy being used up compressing air mass, or some other odd calculation whereby a high mass low size and clean shape air plane somehow slows down faster than the low mass large size and bumpy shape air plane somehow ˜retains' energy must obviously be useful in simulating combat.

What is the purpose?

It is a game; of course.

History is history.


It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning [horizontal turns] was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent [when turning ˜sustained' horizontal turns]. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact [aware of a horizontal ˜sustained' turn performance ˜slow speed' turn performance disadvantage] and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavoured to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, [because the Fw 190 had the advantage in turning at high speed at high cruise from level flight into a zoom climb during the turning part and during the deceleration by gravity part and the Fw 190 had an even greater turn performance advantage in pulling out from a dive – turning from dive to climb – and continued to have a deceleration advantage after the turning part of the zoom climb) while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal [˜please Mr. Fw 190 my only advantage is a slow speed sustained turn performance advantage so please Mr. Fw 190 stop using your high speed turn performance vertical maneuvering energy advantages cause I'd rather fight you in a slow speed level altitude sustaining turn stall fight – please). If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire (duh), as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn (can't pull g and maintain altitude due to lower wing-loading) he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down (ahhhh – how does that happen without turning?) was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg (on turning Spitfires turning in the horizontal plane). The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive (the opposite in the game = backwards Ps performance) but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking" (pitch performance capability exceeding AOA capability since lift production at CLmax is measured in g force – meaning the plane is accelerated on the lift vector at a known rate when flying at a known speed and at a known maximum CLmax Angle of Attack so...the pilot has to fly carefully to maintain corner speed at the correct speed and at the correct AOA not more and not less, and, if the plane's pitch performance allows the pilot to exceed the CLmax AOA, then, pilot strength is not a limitation on pitch performance – end of that story.).

JtD
03-08-2007, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
Just because u can write, it doesnt mean that u can read.

Now that's a smart reply. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Looking forward to more of your high quality output.

gkll
03-08-2007, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
gkll: Well, maybe medium pilot would allow to turn it to TnB, but the thing is, no matter how good pilot u are, in FW190 u wont win energy fight against a Spitfire IXe. Its only possible against Spitfire V.
.

Sounds about right to me... is this a problem? Mk IX vs 190 and you have as I say similar powerloading and better turn at speeds less than say 400k for the spit. Keep the fight close and Mr Spit will follow you in the climb and then outturn you later... you (ie 190)have speed dive and roll advantage, likely high speed acceleration as well. These advantages do not help a ton in a 'close-in' efight, ie <not> HnR...

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-08-2007, 02:02 PM
And no, I dont consider dogfight as pulling stick to ur belly, but nor dogfight nor energy fight arent slashing attacks(hit&run). Page 6 my post.



Because dogfight irl didn't mean pulling the stick for 5 g over 10 minutes. Page 7, your post.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

gkll: thats true, but why FW190 got dive advantage only while exceeding maximum speed, not initial acceleration? That is very important.

gkll
03-08-2007, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The Spitfire, historically, did not have the best drag loading or D/W. This fact is easily proven with the Spitfire versus P-51 top speed using the same engine. If weight was such an incredible handicap for aircraft energy performance than the Mustang would have been a very poor fighter compared to the Spitfire. It was not.

Having poor acceleration under most conditions of flight coupled with a rate of deceleration during any imagined ˜sinking', where induced drag is not actually air mass being forced downwards, rather it must be parasite drag, turbulence caused by unusual angles of attack, or energy being used up in the process of heating air mass, or energy being used up compressing air mass, or some other odd calculation whereby a high mass low size and clean shape air plane somehow slows down faster than the low mass large size and bumpy shape air plane somehow ˜retains' energy must obviously be useful in simulating combat.

What is the purpose?

It is a game; of course.

]

Well not sure what point you are trying to make with your post here. However when diving in like this you should note the context of the posts in a particular thread I think. We were not discussing in detail, we were discussing in generalities. Power loading for eg is 'simplified' agreed, but it is still a valid concept. It is actually useful because when you parameterize planes by T/W you get a useful ranking which explains much of some kinds of aircraft behavior. Just like wing loading is simpliflied but also explains a lot regardless. You know I fit models to biological systems as part of my job, and usually when you start adding variables and testing how much variance is explained, you come up with several variables which explain the bulk of the relationship. From listening carefully to my betters on these forums I have concluded that to understand this ill-defined e-retention, if you have wing loading and T/W data you probably are 80% of the way towards explaining how quickly a plane will bleed down to the sustained turn line under various high g manuevers. Of course variation due to many other factors may confound this, but in general it remains true.

And for what you have above I am pointing out again what my betters have already stated repeatedly, during maneuvering, ie say pretty high g stuff, induced drag is dominant and swamps/dwarfs parasitic drag, and parasitic drag is what you describe above in your 51 vs spit paragraph above. So please stop mixing induced with parasitic drag when you talk e-bleed under dogfighting conditions.

For your second paragraph would it be your position then that the AOA required to pull g's does not vary between high wing loaded aircraft and low wing loaded? Because increases in AOA create increases in induced drag, regardless of whatever you are trying to say about sinking, turbulence or ham-fisted pilots.

I see my posts are getting pretty long.... I better be careful thats how reps are established around here.....

JG14_Josf
03-08-2007, 03:15 PM
gkll: thats true, but why FW190 got dive advantage only while exceeding maximum speed, not initial acceleration? That is very important.

Perhaps a description of energy fighting is in order?

If energy fighting can be described with words, then, Shaw's book is a good start; no?

I can offer a summary; to those with an interest in the subject. To others, well, you can use the mouse force.

The idea is to use less energy and gain more energy relative to the opponent during a series of maneuvers that are forced upon the opponent resulting in a final killing shot.

It helps to use the opponent's over confidence and over aggressiveness to gain the margin of advantage necessary for the final outcome.

It helps to have the ability to accurately judge relative energy states based upon relative closure rates and angular gains. It also helps to have a plane that is capable of gaining and retaining energy even if the slow speed ˜horizontal' turn rate isn't ˜all that'.

In essence the energy fight is a high speed chess match where both opponents are positioning (using geometry) to gain the decisive advantage in position with an adequate reserve of energy to accomplish a final guns solution – often a high deflection shot - often a high defection shot after a pitch/back vertical zoom climb.

In the game it becomes obvious soon into an engagement as to the nature of the ensuing battle once the energy fighting technique and the required relative energy judgment is gained. If, for example, the opponent is showing wing tip vapors at times when the energy fighter encourages such folly, then, the game is on, on the other hand, if the opponent does not exhibit the tell tale signs of over-aggressiveness, then, the energy miser must decide quickly if the fight is worth the risk. Once challenged the option of leaving will no longer be an option after the critical point when the energy fighter bets the farm. When fighting a similarly modeled energy fighter the farm bet may never arrive and both fighters go on to greener pastures.

The energy fight looks like a series of head-on passes at extreme angles off the nose. If the fight degrades into any type or form of tail chase, then, the energy fight part of the fight is more akin to a bounce or stall fight (when speeds degrade below corner speed and both fighters are close in range.

The energy fight is a series of separations and accelerations where each fighter is in each other's rear hemisphere followed by decelerations into forward hemisphere lead turn merges ending up with a new tallies of relative energy states at each new merge.

Another telltale sign of an over-eager and over-aggressive turn and burner is the tracers showing just before the merge. In order to gain the greater angles the turn and burner must burn more energy to gain the lead required for the shot. At those times it is important to judge when to jink and how to jink without dumping too much energy in the process. The sweat really starts to pour when the opponent holds fire when things look too close for comfort on a merge that arrives at an unexpected and definitely unwanted angle.

The nature of the energy fight, being a high speed turn fight, is a descending battle during the jousting phase leading to vertical dives and zooms as one opponent lures the other into trading too much speed and altitude into too little angular gains ultimately resulting into at least one purely vertical zoom climb (assuming that neither opponent was able to score on one high speed merge having gained just the right amount of angle off).

A note on those rare occasions: Sometimes the opponent energy fighter is over-confident in the ability gain the angles for a shot, well, the opponent is doing the same thing. What ends up happening is a race to a high 12 shot a very low angle off and at high speed where each fighter is at the limit of lift vector acceleration (stall or black out) approaching a mid air collision. If one gains the top down shot sooner without ending up too close, then, that shot is a real winner.

One thing I've learned in the energy game is how to collide. I don't suppose the real pilots were able to learn that lesson more than once.

Once in awhile a fight occurs on-line that is worth saving on a track file. It is unlikely that such a fight will occur where two fighters are severely mismatched in energy performance.

One of my best fights of this nature was a fight with a Yak1B against an Fw190A-4. That track file won't play on this version of the game. It was more running and returning on my part but the fight ended up being many nose to tail merges followed by vertical zoom climbs resembling vertical rolling scissors. It was a blast. The fight ended when other players showed up.

The Yak has a small wing no?

JG14_Josf
03-08-2007, 03:52 PM
And for what you have above I am pointing out again what my betters have already stated repeatedly, during maneuvering, ie say pretty high g stuff, induced drag is dominant and swamps/dwarfs parasitic drag, and parasitic drag is what you describe above in your 51 vs spit paragraph above. So please stop mixing induced with parasitic drag when you talk e-bleed under dogfighting conditions.

For your second paragraph would it be your position then that the AOA required to pull g's does not vary between high wing loaded aircraft and low wing loaded? Because increases in AOA create increases in induced drag, regardless of whatever you are trying to say about sinking, turbulence or ham-fisted pilots.

I see my posts are getting pretty long.... I better be careful thats how reps are established around here.....

gkll,

You may start stinking like me?

Use the mouse (with a ten foot pole).

That is soooooo funny.

Note: I've had some very good energy fights with TgD Thunderbolt56 so he can call me a ****** guy and I won't mind.

Anyway; at corner speed, at a specific g load, with a specific corner speed velocity, at that flight condition, the wing will be at the CLmax angle of attack not more and not less.

If the wing is over the CLmax angle of attack, then, the plane will not be at corner speed. It will be at a lower g because the wing is not thrusting as much air mass downward – end of that argument?

I see no reason to argue for the sake of argument and cherry picking generalities is a sure fire way to maintain argument like asking a politician to reduce taxes ˜generally speaking' while asking for a specific subsidy.

What is the point?

If the point is to produce the most acceleration on the lift vector at the slowest possible speed, then, the wing must be at the CLmax angle of attack – no more – no less.

Anything more or less is less.

This is illuminating:


So please stop mixing induced with parasitic drag when you talk e-bleed under dogfighting conditions.

At the Maximum angle of attack for corner speed where the highest rate of acceleration on the lift vector is generated at CLmax and this is occurring at the slowest speed possible, i.e. corner speed the introduction of any non-lift producing protrusions will reduce turn performance – what do YOU call those non-lift producing protrusions?

Example:

Take two specially built Fw190A-3s and Spitfire VBs and have both planes start out at 10,000 meters in a diving maximum performance turn at corner speed.

Got this? That above is a sustained corner speed turn until both planes have to ˜roll out' to avoid the big thing that creates the gravity required to make air mass dense enough to be carved up with air planes.

The Fw190A-3 has a specially designed canopy windshield that morphs into a Spitfire VB windshield i.e. it becomes very DRAGGY.

The FW190A-3 has a specially designed wing where a big bulky radiator drops down out of trap doors under each wing surface just past the wing root where most of the lift force is being generated.

The Fw190A-3 also deploys a previously hidden rear-view mirror.

What happens to the turn rate as all these fine protrusions protrude during the side by side flight test at corner speed?

The special Spitfire VB can also morph whereby the windshield becomes much less DRAGGY and the HUGE radiators retract; along with the retractable rear-view mirror.

What happens to the turn performance numbers?

Why not look out the DRAGGY window and see which plane is gaining or losing ground?


With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Davinci..
03-08-2007, 04:17 PM
Josf: i sent you a pm with some test results.
Basically the a4 has much better e retention(in a straight line) accelerates better, and zoom climbs better then the spit5b. I could not come up with a situation in which the a4 wasnt superior with energy management(note: i cant test e-retention in a turn). Even though as a dedicated 190 pilot I still feel more comfortable fighting a spitvb in a 109f4 then a a4.
You should have no problem pressing a fight with spitvb in an a4. Though you should not for any reason do the same with later spits, unless you are particularly fond of the "refly" button. Againt later spits, stay fast, use slashing attacks, and when your advantage is gone, you should be too.

gkll
03-08-2007, 04:29 PM
Geez Josf long answer for a simple question. Do you think the AOA to pull a given g changes between planes with different wing-loading? Yes, or no. I think it does. To pull a 4 or 5 g turn a 190 will be pulling more AOA than a spit. AOA generates induced drag. Induced drag is the major component to consider during turning. So bubbles bulges windshield etc whose effect is measured in straightlines, these drag factors become relatively less and less important as the g rises along with induced drag and AOA. Yes or no. I have no idea what you mean with most of the rest of your post, however as above you don't respond to my points at all. So there they are again, that ought to feel pretty familiar eh?

JG14_Josf
03-08-2007, 04:47 PM
Geez Josf long answer for a simple question. Do you think the AOA to pull a given g changes between planes with different wing-loading? Yes, or no. I think it does. To pull a 4 or 5 g turn a 190 will be pulling more AOA than a spit. AOA generates induced drag. Induced drag is the major component to consider during turning. So bubbles bulges windshield etc whose effect is measured in straightlines, these drag factors become relatively less and less important as the g rises along with induced drag and AOA. Yes or no. I have no idea what you mean with most of the rest of your post, however as above you don't respond to my points at all. So there they are again, that ought to feel pretty familiar eh?

gkll,

How about this:

You tell me the answers you want me to write and I can cut and paste those answers and sign at the bottom.

F19_Orheim
03-08-2007, 05:27 PM
http://kevinremde.members.winisp.net/images/beating_2Da_2Ddead_2Dhorse.gif

gkll
03-09-2007, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by F19_Orheim:
http://kevinremde.members.winisp.net/images/beating_2Da_2Ddead_2Dhorse.gif

Just so. Out here on the Great Plains of Canada we kick them as a rule. With steel toed cowboy boots.

MaxGunz pointed out that it is some sort of Russian parable originally, how appropriate and circular that is....

gkll
03-09-2007, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Geez Josf long answer for a simple question. Do you think the AOA to pull a given g changes between planes with different wing-loading? Yes, or no. I think it does. To pull a 4 or 5 g turn a 190 will be pulling more AOA than a spit. AOA generates induced drag. Induced drag is the major component to consider during turning. So bubbles bulges windshield etc whose effect is measured in straightlines, these drag factors become relatively less and less important as the g rises along with induced drag and AOA. Yes or no. I have no idea what you mean with most of the rest of your post, however as above you don't respond to my points at all. So there they are again, that ought to feel pretty familiar eh?

gkll,

How about this:

You tell me the answers you want me to write and I can cut and paste those answers and sign at the bottom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe you provoke bad responses from people because you see answering a question as being an agreement with how that question may 'frame' the issue... so instead of answering you point out how many other ways there might be to consider that issue... eg if a person asks your opinion on AOA they will likely get an answer that points out that the question is actually about corner speed... this frustrates people and, well, there you go. Have you noticed a pattern in how people respond to your posts? You have a strawman perched on your shoulder and whispering in your ear it seems... hes wrong its not all traps and deceit and yes you can answer a question directly and it doesn't mean you fully accept the frame that the question imposes... it is part of how we learn. Try a direct and succinct answer, if you didn't like the 'frame', pose a question back which changes the frame and puts the issue in a different light. Try it or not as you please...

JG14_Josf
03-09-2007, 08:16 AM
I believe you provoke bad responses from people because you see answering a question as being an agreement with how that question may 'frame' the issue... so instead of answering you point out how many other ways there might be to consider that issue... eg if a person asks your opinion on AOA they will likely get an answer that points out that the question is actually about corner speed... this frustrates people and, well, there you go. Have you noticed a pattern in how people respond to your posts? You have a strawman perched on your shoulder and whispering in your ear it seems... hes wrong its not all traps and deceit and yes you can answer a question directly and it doesn't mean you fully accept the frame that the question imposes... it is part of how we learn. Try a direct and succinct answer, if you didn't like the 'frame', pose a question back which changes the frame and puts the issue in a different light. Try it or not as you please...

gkll,

How often do you find cause to quote a whole paragraph due to its importance ˜as a whole' compared to one sentence that stands alone without need for props?


Have you noticed a pattern in how people respond to your posts?

How about letting me know how I can accomplish your task as you see it? Let me know what I should do according to you. If you can do this, then, all I have to do is cut and paste and sign at the bottom.

How about the topic?


Do you think the AOA to pull a given g changes between planes with different wing-loading? Yes, or no. I think it does.

Your stated sentence frames a question and provides an answer. Do you really need anyone else to answer your question? You already have the answer.

I personally don't see any point to the question. I can read on and try to find a point.


To pull a 4 or 5 g turn a 190 will be pulling more AOA than a spit.

The point appears to be a conclusion supporting an assumption. Is that the point? Can I diverge onto my viewpoint concerning the topic or should I play along with the conclusion leading to an assumption that appears to be a conclusion leading to a conclusion? The point, if I may, is to answer definitively, accurately, and scientifically – at what speed can a Spitfire begin to generate the lift force required to accelerate the plane at 4 times the acceleration of gravity on the lift vector?

If the question intends to find the minimum speed at which the wing can begin to force enough air mass opposite the acceleration vector, then, the question of angle of attack is moot. The angle of attack will be the maximum AOA required for CLmax; in other words – the most g force will be generated when the wing is angled to the position that forces the most air mass opposite the lift vector – at the slowest possible speed.

Did I diverge off topic too much? I can get back to your framed question.


AOA generates induced drag. Induced drag is the major component to consider during turning. So bubbles bulges windshield etc whose effect is measured in straightlines, these drag factors become relatively less and less important as the g rises along with induced drag and AOA. Yes or no.

The question you ask requires knowledge concerning the term ˜induced drag'?

Your command of that knowledge may exceed mine by a long margin; my brain may be induced into a tail spin by excess bumps and bulges of falsehood.

One of the best descriptions of lift I have yet to find illustrated how a steam of water will flow down the side of a ball as the water mass is accelerated down the side of the ball by gravity because the water is a fluid mass within the field of gravity and therefore it goes down. The water then curves around the surface of the ball and the water mass is thrust on a vector that is not straight down due to the shape of the ball surface.

Am I being uncouth by not answering your question with a yes or a no? Do you really need me to check the box that you want checked?

I can't honestly check the box in the box that you have framed just for me. The answer is not in that box. The answer must be found with an accurate measurement of the reality called ˜induced' drag.

If the question concerned an airplane that was a perfect example of a laminar flow wing having no fuselage, no guns, no radiators, no rivets, and no distortions of any kind from the ideal shape and surface quality, then, the term ˜induced' drag would be a total measurement of something. What would that total measurement of something be?

How about rephrasing the question into a yes or no multiple choice answer:

The total measurement of air mass being thrust downward (opposite the lift vector) is called ˜induced' drag; yes or no?

Please correct me if what I am about to say is wrong: The bottom surface of the wing slows down air mass and in doing so the top surface of the wing can thrust air mass downward because the flow of air mass is lesser - exiting the trailing edge - opposite the cord line or opposite the aircraft center line or engine thrust vector or a combination of the cord line, aircraft center line and engine thrust vector. The bottom wing slows air mass allowing the top wing to thrust air mass downward more efficiently.

The deceleration of the flow of air mass under the wing surface decreases the flow of air mass past the trailing edge going backwards and therefore the air mass traveling the curve of the top of the wing surface is allowed to be thrust downward opposite the lift vector – more efficiently.

If the total force required to decelerate the flow of air mass under the bottom surface of the wing is added to the total force required to thrust a quantity of air mass downward opposite the lift vector due to surface friction or tension or suction or whatever force does cause air mass to flow around the curve of the top surface and then be thrust downward opposite the lift vector, if those two forces are added up, then, those two forces measure something called ˜induced' drag: yes or no?

What was your point?


AOA generates induced drag. Induced drag is the major component to consider during turning. So bubbles bulges windshield etc whose effect is measured in straightlines, these drag factors become relatively less and less important as the g rises along with induced drag and AOA. Yes or no.

My guess is no. I think that a bump on the wing will be an insignificant factor destroying lift production in a low speed turn at the Clmax angle of attack compared to the significant factor a bump on the wing will be in a high speed turn at the CLmax angle of attack due to the fact that lift production increases square with velocity up to .3 Mach, 220 mph, or 355 km/h when energy begins to be used up in the process of compressing air and at speeds above .3 Mach, 220 mph, or 355 km/h those bumps will be burning more and more energy as speed increases becoming a much higher order impedance on the production of lift force.

Bumps are not protruding from competition sail planes. Few bumps protrude from F-16s; the F-16 however does have a whole lot of thrust to help in the process of compressing air and thrusting air mass on desirable vectors.

I am doing a good job writing now; yes or no?


I have no idea what you mean with most of the rest of your post, however as above you don't respond to my points at all. So there they are again, that ought to feel pretty familiar eh?


I'm watching the horse being beat now. I think the guy may go blind doing that to the poor horse.

You can learn at your pace. I can learn at my pace. I return to this forum because this forum is a good jumping off point on the road to learning. You can see it as you feel inclined to see it; yes or no?


I believe you provoke bad responses from people because you see answering a question as being an agreement with how that question may 'frame' the issue... so instead of answering you point out how many other ways there might be to consider that issue... eg if a person asks your opinion on AOA they will likely get an answer that points out that the question is actually about corner speed... this frustrates people and, well, there you go. Have you noticed a pattern in how people respond to your posts? You have a strawman perched on your shoulder and whispering in your ear it seems... hes wrong its not all traps and deceit and yes you can answer a question directly and it doesn't mean you fully accept the frame that the question imposes... it is part of how we learn. Try a direct and succinct answer, if you didn't like the 'frame', pose a question back which changes the frame and puts the issue in a different light. Try it or not as you please...

I really like the whole paragraph above; it is communicating well to me; I can feel it.



...you see answering a question as being an agreement with how that question may 'frame' the issue... so instead of answering you point out how many other ways there might be to consider that issue... eg if a person asks your opinion on AOA they will likely get an answer that points out that the question is actually about corner speed... this frustrates people and, well, there you go.

That is wrong in reference to me - false. If you want me to answer your questions in the way that you want me to answer your questions, then, I will do so gladly even if I think the answer is false; if it will make you happy. I have no problem agreeing to answer your questions with false answers – if that is your wish.

I, unlike some people, don't want to change the game. Oleg and company do a fine job and any effort to change their behavior is bound to result in undesirable results i.e. make the inaccuracies worse rather than better.

I wrote to Oleg on this forum once expressing this concern about his bending to the will of the whiners. The subject concerned the change in top speed of the Fw190 from his data to factory top speed data. My advice was to remain diligent in accuracy according to his own judgment because the effect of allowing one example of external control on the process of making the sim a simulation will open the flood gates once the camel's nose is in the tent. Is that a mixed metaphor; yes or no?

Oleg accused me of whining telling me ˜you is wrong' as if he though I wanted the higher top speed on the Fw190. That thread no longer exists in the archives; if it does it does not show up with a search for "An open letter to Oleg". That was the extent of my efforts to get Oleg to change the game.

I like the game the way it is; however – my interest is: WWII historical fighter combat accuracy simulation. When a better game is produced, then, I want to know this fact, as fact, and I will move to the better game because the better game will be more accurate to history according to my ability to know better at that time.

This is not a subject up for argument. I will simply move to the more accurate simulation of WWII Fighter Combat once one exists. So far, as far as I know, this is the most accurate WWII Fighter Combat simulation.
To me; accuracy includes tactical capabilities and visual accuracy. I can't stand icons, for example, and WWII on-line has those awful icons. I can't stand warping too.

The net code for IL2 must be a work of genius. Seeing an enemy plane arcing in and knowing that it can't shoot until the nose pulls lead is a product of careful design or luck and I don't really care; it is a great game.

You suggesting to me that I am this or I am that, well, you could be right. I'm the one who has to live with me each second so even if you are right about me and I am wrong about me, well, I guess I will continue to live in my own delusional world; to bad for me.

What is the point?



Try a direct and succinct answer, if you didn't like the 'frame', pose a question back which changes the frame and puts the issue in a different light.

A flight condition whereby the wing is producing enough lift force to accelerate the aircraft weight at 9.8 m/s^2 is a turn and it is also wings level maintaining the same altitude. The angle of attack at the slowest possible speed for that 1 g flight condition is the angle of attack that thrusts the most ˜induced' drag downward i.e. Clmax.

If the plane goes faster than the slowest possible speed for that 1 g flight condition, then, the angle of attack required to thrust enough ˜induced' drag downward will be less than the CLmax angle of attack. It will not be enough for a 2 g turn until the plane reaches the minimum 2 g turn speed and then the AOA will have to return to the CLmax AOA to turn a 2 g turn at the minimum speed for a 2 g turn.

The fastest turn rate and the smallest turn radius is at the highest g possible at the slowest speed possible.

If the plane goes fast enough to begin to thrust enough ˜induced' drag downward to accelerate the aircraft weight at a rate that is twice 9.8 m/s^2, then, the wing will have to return to the CLmax angle of attack at that slowest speed needed for the 2 g corner speed if the plane is going to be accelerated at twice the rate of gravitational acceleration.

Here is the question:

Will the Spitfire VB be able to accelerate to 6 times the rate of gravitational acceleration quicker than the Fw190A-3, inverted, with both planes pointing the lift vector at the earth?

Now; you can answer that question in your own way and it won't bother me that your answer is not my answer.

I answer that question with words from people who should know the answer:


Within six or seven months of its operational debut, the Fw 190 was causing widespread consternation among RAF fighter squadrons based in the south of England. The Tank-designed fighter could out-perform the contemporary Spitfire on every count with the exception of the turning circle – one leading RAF pilot is recorded as having commented acidly when this attribute was stressed during a pre-operations briefing. "Turning circles doesn't win battles!". By April 1942, RAF combat attrition on the Channel Front reached prohibitive levels primarily as a result of the activities of its redoubtable German adversary – more than a hundred Spitfires being lost on offensive operations over Occupied Europe during the course of the month – and the Merlin 61-engined Spitfire Mk IX was still two or three months away. But while going a long way towards redressing the balance and even offering an edge in climb and performance above 26,000 feet (7 925 m), the Spitfire Mk IX was still to be left standing by the Focke-Wulf's half roll and dive!

My question again:

Will the Spitfire VB be able to accelerate to 6 times the rate of gravitational acceleration quicker than the Fw190A-3, inverted, with both planes pointing the lift vector at the earth?

The answer should be: That depends upon which plane has the slower 6 g corner speed.


If the Fw190A-3 is flying below the Fw190A-3s 6 g corner speed, then, the Fw190A-3 will have to accelerate in the dive before reaching the 6 g corner speed required to generate enough air mass thrust opposite the lift vector to accelerate the aircraft weight 6 times the rate of gravitational acceleration inverted.

If the Spitfire VB (April 1942) is already flying at the Spitfire VB (April 1942) 6 g corner speed, then, the pilot can simply yank back on the stick, inverted, and force enough air mass opposite the lift vector to generate 6 times the rate of gravitational acceleration forcing the aircraft weight downward at that 6 g rate.

If both planes are flying above the 6 g corner speed, then, the winner will be the one who is more agile. The one with the faster rate of pitch change.

Once pointed straight down the winner will be the one that is denser and the one with more thrust.

At the bottom of the dive the winner will be the one that can ˜pull-out' faster.


With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

If both aircraft are flying above the 6 g corner speed, then, neither plane will be able to reach the CLmax angle of attack without exceeding 6 g. If both pilots black out at 6 g, then, Clmax is moot.

If both aircraft are then pointing straight up after the ˜pull-out', then, the denser plane will decelerate slower, and the plane with the greater engine produced thrust will decelerate slower. Both factors decrease the rate of deceleration.

Those types of Split S, vertical dive, pull out, and zooming up into vertical climbs ˜tactics' were a strange way to dog-fight. It did work.

One plane was better than another plane at it; the vertical maneuvering it.


In a straight or turning climb, the British ship had the advantage. But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or a German fighter that can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. Before the Spit pilot knew what had happened, I was high above him, the Thunderbolt hammering around. And that was it-for in the next few moments the Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less maneuverable, slower-climbing Thunderbolt rushing straight at him. eight guns pointed ominously at his cockpit." (Robert S. Johnson, Thunderbolt! pp. 148-49)

The 262 didn't have a stellar T/W or stellar wing-loading compared to the F-16?

The most over-modeled plane is relative to what – exactly?

If one plane can fight in the vertical yet is poor in the horizontal, then, that plane is inaccurate relative to history. Over-modeled is over-rated.

bazzaah2
03-09-2007, 08:21 AM
I see this thread is turning into another thread.

JtD
03-09-2007, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
... Page 6 my post.


... Page 7, your post.

Now try to spot the difference and you might finally understand my point.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-09-2007, 09:24 AM
Man im really sorry, but u have to be blind or u cant read Oo

gkll
03-09-2007, 01:53 PM
Josf - up to you if you want to follow my advice and try something different or not. It seems from your last post the answer is 'not'.

Succinct answers directly to the question posed, followed by a 'counter-proposal' via the form of a return question which 'frames' the issue in the way <you> see most important... this was the essence of what I suggested you try.

Eg gkll wants to know whether you think AOA increases as wingloading increases for a given speed and g of turn. So try saying yes, or no. If the question doesn't have enough info add your assumptions to your answer. If you think the question is irrelevant try asking a question back, succinctly, which frames the issue the way you see it. eg corner speed and ClMax. gkll may return like a lemming to AOA, you can give up on him then. See?

Clear thinking is required for short answers, and questions. Engagement in a debate or argument will not work if your answer or response is 3 pages and ignores the frame provided by whoever is on the other side. You don't like wingloading, powerloading, nevermind, try accepting the frame with its simplistic limitations and see where it goes anyways.

Try this question: Take a 190 and pull a 4 g turn at 400 k at x altitude. Then load it up with lead at the CG and double its weight. Then go pull the same turn. Is the AOA for the two turns the same? If the AOA increases when weight is added, how will that effect total drag?

Succinct. Answers. And questions.

JG14_Josf
03-09-2007, 06:04 PM
Succinct. Answers. And questions.

gkll,

I see how this works. You are smart with succinct answers and questions that anyone with a brain can read and understand while, on the other hand, I am the opposite and therefore there is no need to read or answer any of my questions – at all.

You know your answer to your question so why do you need me? Follow your own line or reasoning out to the end yourself.

What is the point?

Is this where you are leading me again: (Yes or NO)?

AOA generates induced drag. Induced drag is the major component to consider during turning. So bubbles bulges windshield etc whose effect is measured in straightlines, these drag factors become relatively less and less important as the g rises along with induced drag and AOA. Yes or no.

My guess is no – again. My reasons were stated already. You do not have to read my answers to your questions since I am sooooo stupid and you are sooooooo smart?


Try this question: Take a 190 and pull a 4 g turn at 400 k at x altitude. Then load it up with lead at the CG and double its weight. Then go pull the same turn. Is the AOA for the two turns the same? If the AOA increases when weight is added, how will that effect total drag?

The Fw190 ˜pulling' a 4 g turn at 400 km/h at 5000 meters altitude will not pull the same turn at 400 km/h at 5000 meters altitude at twice the weight. It is not possible. It won't be the same turn. At twice the weight the plane will probably stall trying to generate enough lift force to accelerate twice the weight to 4 times the rate of gravitational acceleration if speed is held constant. Even if the first 4 g turn at 400 km/h was accomplished at half the weight of a normal Fw 190 and therefore the ˜all up' weight was double the first 4 g turn at 400 km/h at 5000 meters altitude, even so, the wing can only generate a specific amount of lift force for a specific air speed through a specific density air mass, so, the light weight 400 km/h 4 g corner speed turn at 5000 meters will be turned at a lower angle of attack and therefore not the same turn – something else must change.

Your scenario assumes to be a level turn since your scenario pegs a fixed altitude.

Here is your return question (assuming that you have read this far):

What happens to the bank angle in your scenario?

gkll
03-09-2007, 10:38 PM
dont let paranoia get in the way of a dialogue

Ok fair enough, double the weight might push the heavy plane past corner. Lets just add 20% weight. So then at 4g we are definitely under 'corner' that was deliberate in the scenario. So at 20% extra weight and the same g turn the heavier plane can describe the same arc I think. Just needs more AOA right? Or do you say not?

The bank will have to decline is my guess on your question

JG14_Josf
03-10-2007, 09:20 AM
dont let paranoia get in the way of a dialogue

gkll,

I am not paranoid. Do you see how you are? If I were paranoid, then, why would I run for Congress after Waco in the effort to rally the troops against a government that has started murdering its own citizens (torturing women and babies – burning them to death on national television like some reality television show) when I could just sit at home and worry. You may be surprised with how many people understand the nature of a paralyzing unreasonable fear. No – I didn't win. I also communicated to people how involuntary taxation is a euphemism for extortion. Some people listened. The F.B.I. and the A.T.F. and the I.R.S didn't notice my radio broadcast, or if they did, there were bigger fish to fry or ˜ignore' like a dozen or so wannabe jet pilots. Things are top down for a reason. It may help to look up once in awhile – don't be scared.


The bank will have to decline is my guess on your question

If you are thinking about it, then, it isn't "MY" question anymore.

Why should we have to guess? How many people who post on this board have ˜credentials' (real or imagined) and therefore their ˜authority' suggests an official true answer to be possible from them to us.

I've looked this matter up myself and have found a few clues. I can look again.

Mass (http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Recreation/BSC/crclmotn.html)


NOTICE THAT THE RADIUS DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE MASS OF THE SAILPLANE.

Turn Radius (http://web.usna.navy.mil/%7Edfr/flying/turnwide.pdf)


Notice from Figure 2 that for a given TAS the turn radius decreases with increasing bank angle. Furthermore, for a given bank angle the turn radius decreases with decreasing true airspeed. From Figure 2 we conclude that to achieve the minimum turn radius we want to fly as close as comfortable to stall velocity, and at as high a bank angle as is comfortable.

Constant bank angle (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0146.shtml)

Any aircraft in a level turn and pulling a given number of g's must maintain a constant bank angle independent of its speed or its weight.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/turn/g-bank-angle.jpg

The question repeated:


The bank will have to decline is my guess on your question

That is a guess and here is the question again:


Try this question: Take a 190 and pull a 4 g turn at 400 k at x altitude. Then load it up with lead at the CG and double its weight. Then go pull the same turn. Is the AOA for the two turns the same? If the AOA increases when weight is added, how will that effect total drag?

Step one:

--------------------Half weight-------------˜all up weight'
radial g -------------- 4 g ------------------------ 4 g
TAS------------------ 400 ---------------------- 400
Altitude -------------- x --------------------------- x
Bank angle ----------- y --------------------------- y
AoA ------------------- s --------------------------- s (?)
Total Drag ------------ z --------------------------- z (?)

It does not compute. If the speed and g load are fixed, then, the bank angle is fixed – right? If the bank angle is fixed, then, the angle of attack on the wing is fixed no?


The bank will have to decline is my guess on your question

I think the most confusing aspect is this:


These last two equations tell us two very important properties about how to maximize the performance of an aircraft in maneuvering flight. Military fighters, in particular, need to be able to turn in as short a time and distance as possible. It is therefore desirable that the turn radius R be minimized and the rate of turn w be maximized. The two equations shown above tell us that in order to obtain both parameters at once, an aircraft must be designed to turn at

1. The highest possible load factor n, or pull as many g's as possible
2. The lowest possible velocity

We see these trends quantified in the following table that lists the turn radius (in thousands of feet) for different combinations of speed and load factor. Note that parts of the table are blank, indicating that this particular combination of speed and load factor results in a turn radius so small that it is unrealistic.

Having two of five measurements (not just four) is enough information to arrive at all 5 measurements?

1. Radial g
2. TAS (aircraft speed relative to air mass)
3. Turn rate
4. Turn radius
5. Bank angle
6. Angle of attack (?)

Where do angle of attack, weight, and Total Drag measurements fit in with those 5 physical measurements that are linked?

Note: Except for bank angle the other 4 measurements apply to any object including a child spinning around on a playground spinning wheel.

If turn radius and turn rate are known, then, the speed of the turn and g load are fixed.

If the g load and turn rate are known, then, the turn radius and speed are fixed.

Angle of attack (http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule1b.html)


From this we can see that if wing loading increases in a constant speed manoeuvre then CL , the angle of attack, must increase.

Step two:

--------------------Half weight-------------˜all up weight'
Radial g -------------- 4 g ------------------------ 4 g
TAS------------------ 400 ---------------------- 400
Altitude -------------- x --------------------------- x
Bank angle ----------- y --------------------------- y
AoA ------------------- s --------------------------- s (&gthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Total Drag ------------ z --------------------------- z (?)

Angle of attack must increase so what does that do to bank angle when the aircraft doubles weight in the same speed and g turn?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/turn/stall-speed.gif

Well...I've looked at this long enough again (like going down the same rabbit hole) and I can't find the link where bank angle, turn radius, and weight were inversely proportional i.e. at the same turn radius an increase in weight requires a steeper bank angle. On the other hand, and please correct me if what I am about to say is in error or omitting something important, if radius is fixed and weight increases then bank angle decreases.

My guess then is that the Fw 190 at double the weight (all up weight compared to the half weight turn at 400 km/h and 4 g) will have a steeper bank angle, a higher angle of attack, and a faster speed at 4 g.

Or

My guess is that the Fw 190 at double the weight will have a steeper bank angle and a higher angle of attack at 400 km/h with a lower rate of radial acceleration i.e. less than 4 g at 400 km/h.

Step three:

--------------------Half weight-------------˜all up weight'
Radial g -------------- 4 g ------------------------ 4 g
TAS------------------ 400 ---------------------- 400 (&gthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Altitude -------------- x --------------------------- x
Bank angle ----------- y --------------------------- y (&gthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
AoA ------------------- s --------------------------- s (&gthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Total Drag ------------ z --------------------------- z (&gthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Step four:

--------------------Half weight-------------˜all up weight'
Radial g -------------- 4 g ------------------------ 4 g (&lthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
TAS------------------ 400 ---------------------- 400
Altitude -------------- x --------------------------- x
Bank angle ----------- y --------------------------- y (?)
AoA ------------------- s --------------------------- s (?)
Total Drag ------------ z --------------------------- z (?)

Therefore; the increase in weight requires a higher angle of attack, a higher bank angle, and a higher speed to arrive at the same radial g in a level turn.

My question back to you is then:

Which plane arrives at the 9 g corner speed sooner - the half weight or the all up weight version?

I think another confusing aspect of this kind of thinking involves how a plane can have an ideal weight for specific performance variables. That last sentence is difficult to imagine since almost all fighter planes are too heavy and almost all fighter planes can use a measure of weight reduction; however – there are consequences to weight reduction that may not be easily understood until the minimal weight is exceeded by a large or extreme margin, at which point, the less obvious becomes more obvious.

What follows is my expression of making the less obvious more obvious by taking matters to the extreme:

Take two Fw 190 Fighter Plane copies and start both copies at 10,000 meters in a spiraling down turn at maximum g force and at minimum speed where the limit is 6 g maximum on radial g force. Minimum speed is limited by the stall boundary. The dive angle is the rate of energy loss.

Both aircraft are at the same weight at the start of the race to the bottom at 6 g and at, say, 450 km/h.

One copy is a special modern copy of the Fw 190 that is super duper light; made of all the modern metals but the copy retains all the same external sizes and shapes of the WWII (exact) copy.

The modern tech Fw 190 has a minimum weight of 100 kg (it is very modern).

Both planes are tested without engine power and the props are set to feather (not rotating) at minimum drag.

The modern Fw 190 copy has a drain plug that dumps the ballast it carries to get to the ˜all up' weight.

Both copies start out at 10,000 meters in the 6 g turn at 450 km/h and both planes start out scribing the same spiral diving turn.

This might help:

Help from glider dudes (http://home.att.net/%7Ejdburch/aerotow.htm)


If the glider is turning at a radius greater than the tow plane it must also be flying at a higher speed in order to complete each circle in the same time. Because its turn radius is a function of its speed squared the bank angle must be greater than that of the tow plane to compensate for the effect of higher speed. The reverse is true if the glider is flying inside the tow plane's flight path. Therefore, the only way that both aircraft can be flying coordinated at the same bank angle is if they are also flying at the same speed and on the same turn radius.

Both Fw 190 planes are on opposite sides of the same turn radius and both planes are connected by a small cable.

As both planes dive around the same radius at the same rate one plane begins to dump the ballast from 3,850 kg to 100 kg.

What happens to the bank angle of the lighter plane?

What happens to the angle of attack of the lighter plane?

What happens to the turn rate of the lighter plane?

What happens to the turn radius of the lighter plane?
What happens to the dive angle of the lighter plane?

What happens to the cable (it can be released by the lighter plane)?

Which plane wins the race to the bottom?

The limit of radial g remains at 6 g (no cheating).

Not inclination to edit at this point.

gkll
03-10-2007, 10:35 AM
Hey there. Is it true then that if I add 20% fuel to our hypothetical 190 that I can no longer follow the same arc in the sky at the same speed? We are under corner in our example, so we have excess power to play with and our g is distinctly under what is possible. So under this scenario you are suggesting or hinting that the same arc, same speed, is impossible if you add a little weight? I wouldn't have thought so.

gkll
03-10-2007, 11:01 AM
When you change the density by really large amounts it probably starts becoming a noticeable to dominant factor in plane behavior. Imagine a piece of kleenex tossed heavenwards against a lead ball of the same total mass.... I know you have. However in this context isn't it true that the differences between RL aircraft are slight (ie this density factor), and that being slight, the effect, given the RL range or difference between aircraft, is relatively insignificant? That lift loading and say T/W together would dwarf this effect. In other words we could leave this out of our calculations, and we might only (for eg) only add 2% unnaccounted variation to the scenario?

And this concept you promote, that changes in density is a large and controlling factor on RL aircraft, I believe this is behind your contention that a spitfire should lose speed (and therefore e) more quickly than say a 190, when the two begin manuevering hard. Another way to state this is that you feel the 'e-retention' of the spitfire should be worst in class. I think the exact opposite. Which is why I am posting, that is the direction my questions are pointed.

Your first paragraph.... 'are you paranoid enough', eh? However the paranoia I was pointing to was 'interpersonal' if you see what I mean.

JG14_Josf
03-10-2007, 07:25 PM
Your first paragraph.... 'are you paranoid enough', eh? However the paranoia I was pointing to was 'interpersonal' if you see what I mean.

gkll,

I just spent 3 weeks in the hospital with a series of unfortunate events that started at 4 am Christmas morning.

1. Pleurisy (hurts like hell as if a rib is broken)
2. Pneumonia (caused by the Pleurisy that doesn't allow pain free breathing)
3. Deep vein Thrombosis (a hydraulic check valve malfunction – blood clot).
4. Pulmonary Embolism

Lots of people succumb to the effects of number 4 – I didn't.

I've made my peace with the almighty more than once and there isn't a whole lot that worries me now. Concern is another matter – call it an objective interest – a disinterested point of view perhaps.

You don't know me and I do not know you. The subject matter interests us; at least one of us.

Allow me to offer a little story that you can pass on by and move on to more interesting things to read; as you see fit.

From a small ridge that starts out at about 25 meters A.G.L. and winds up in a hook to a mountain range approximately 200 meters A.G. L., with a severe back side shear drop into a canyon I took off on a summer day in the Mohave desert just south east of Calico Ghost town.

Just after launch a gust blew in that resembled a dust devil without the twisting; it was severe. My lift-loading was light but the new glider was the double surface variety so the wing cut through air well to a terminal velocity of about 50 mph. If I wore ballast the top speed may reach 60 mph. The wing climbs or pitches up for me with my skinny bones even when moving all my weight as forward as possible when the wing meets high speed air mass.

The gust, at that speed, causes the glider to fly backwards relative to the ground – all else being equal or ˜sustained'. The wing, with me flying it, is flying very fast at that moment on that ridge; the ground doesn't matter to the wing; until we meet it again.

A rotor is a turbulent flow of air mass occurring as the flow of air separates from a relatively stationary impendence to the flow of air. The air curls around the back side of the obstacle; in this case a shear cliff behind the launch site.

I could let the glider fly straight and level backwards with the nose pointing forward, nice and level, or I could do something less benign at first and quite hazardous not too much later. The gust helped me decide what to do about the gust. The nose went up and right making me climb up and right; much like stick forward and stick right or wheel forward and banked right. The problem with the gust and the turning situation right after launch isn't just the ground, the cliff, and the ground at the bottom of the cliff – down wind. The down wind part is about 15 mph less than the upwind part; more or less by the time things get turned around 180 degrees – in an instant.

What to do when rolling around heading for a cliff in a stall just above the ground going down wind in a gust?

It may not seem like a good idea but the nose has to come down while heading toward the peak of ground where I just took off from and there is a real need to get the ground coming up to meet me even faster before trying to complete the 360 or, rather, 290 so as to angle off the gust vector going down hill and down ridge – speed is life.

That's enough of that garbage.


When you change the density by really large amounts it probably starts becoming a noticeable to dominant factor in plane behavior. Imagine a piece of kleenex tossed heavenwards against a lead ball of the same total mass.... I know you have.

I've have flying in my bones. I know what flying is and I know what it feels like to crank a high g turn (not very high but certainly more than an elevator ride) at maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius; a must for small but fast thermals off the San-Bernardino mountains. I still don't quite understand the math. I know what happens in the air. If you want to go fast you must carry ballast. Too light is too light.


That lift loading and say T/W together would dwarf this effect.

I don't think it is a matter of degree as much as it is a go or no go situation.

Example:

Which plane slows down faster?

If the answer is that plane A slows down faster, then, that plane can employ an overshoot maneuver "all else being equal".

If the answer is A and you are flying plane B, then, you may not want to turn as much on plane A while it is doing the scissors in front of you because you are going to overshoot, you are going to overshoot, so it is a good idea to over shoot out of range and out of plane.

Did you read Boyd's Areial Attack Study (http://www.d-n-i.net/boyd/pdf/boydaerialattack.pdf) yet?

The section on the scissors is worth the effort to study it.


And this concept you promote, that changes in density is a large and controlling factor on RL aircraft, I believe this is behind your contention that a spitfire should lose speed (and therefore e) more quickly than say a 190, when the two begin manuevering hard. Another way to state this is that you feel the 'e-retention' of the spitfire should be worst in class. I think the exact opposite. Which is why I am posting, that is the direction my questions are pointed.

A Fighter Plane can be made to have both rapid deceleration and rapid acceleration. Fast transitions on all axis and all vectors is certainly the essence of a dominant fighter plane.

That was not the case with the early and very lightly loaded big winged Spitfire with the too steep windshield, the big draggy radiators, and the small high strung relatively low thrust producing engine. The low density combined with the poor thrust and poor aerodynamic clean up added up to low acceleration when compared to the Fw 190 that was denser, smaller, cleaner, and capable of producing a significantly greater amount of thrust. You can not trust me on this; I'm just a loser, a joke, a pitiful example of human scum; not worth the time and effort to set on fire and pee on - later.

I never flew those planes but people did and the results of their performance evaluations and combat tactical employments are a simple matter of recorded history. My opinion means nothing.

The Spitfire VB didn't accelerate as well as the Fw 190A-3 so the fast transient during decelerations is about it for that too light weight Fighter Plane compared to the Fw 190.

The Spitfire IX versus the 190A-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 is another story; however – it isn't a coincidence that the Spitfire gained density, gained thrust, and gained vertical maneuvering capabilities – nose down to pick up energy faster – nose up to take advantage of a lower deceleration rate – don't even try to turn a horizontal turn for more than half a turn from a higher speed in a hook turn, loaded deceleration or a wind-up-turn. Once the energy level is equal then it is time to gain more energy quicker in a dive.

People appear to take my writing as a slam on the game, absolutely, and that is not true. The game has gone from a very simple energy modeling where every plane had the same rate of acceleration in a dive, you can check back on many forums to see this, to what the game is now which manages to simulate the energy fights much better; very much better.

If the Spitfire VB versus Fw 190A-4 energy fight is right in the game now, then, it is right. It wasn't always right and now very few people host that type of match-up.

When I get around to simulating the Summer 42 match, then, I'll record track files – for my own entertainment.

I though we were getting somewhere with the bank angle – no?