PDA

View Full Version : Seriously, what are the advatages of higher wingloading?



alert_1
12-28-2005, 01:17 AM
WWII fighters were evolving from relatively light planes with low wingloading into heavy beast with wingloading over 200 kg/m^2 (for ex. Fw190A8 with 235kg/m^2.
What were the advantages? Less wing area=lower drag, higher terminal speed, better acceleration or what exactly? I dont find too many of them in the sim present...

Taylortony
12-28-2005, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
WWII fighters were evolving from relatively light planes with low wingloading into heavy beast with wingloading over 200 kg/m^2 (for ex. Fw190A8 with 235kg/m^2.
What were the advantages? Less wing area=lower drag, higher terminal speed, better acceleration or what exactly? I dont find too many of them in the sim present...

It will be more manouverable, think of a glider and a fighter with smaller wings, the fighter will be able to roll at a far greater rate and that will also be the same in the turn, it will be able to turn tighter and harder than something with larger wings..

RocketDog
12-28-2005, 11:15 AM
As Alert says, for a given aircraft weight a higher wing loading often means smaller wings and so less drag and thus higher speeds. In WWII, speed was found to be far more important than turning ability, so this favoured the development of highly-loaded fighters.

A second advantage for low-flying aircraft is that with a higher wing loading they are thrown around less by turbulence - although this is not something that is modelled well in the game. Aircraft designed to fly fast at low level often have very high wing loadings (e.g. Tornado, Su-24, F-111).

I would guess that most WWII fighter bombers also had high wing loadings.

Cheers,

RocketDog.

Abbuzze
12-28-2005, 11:59 AM
Intereresting fact, there were two 190 prototypes with different wingsize. They choosed the bigger version. It was 15-20 km/h slower but offered a better handling.
So you can recognize the idea of Kurt Tank. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Waldo.Pepper
12-28-2005, 01:13 PM
Speed is the only thing that matters.

If you don't want to fight you can get away. You can run if in trouble.
If you do want to fight, YOU get to decide when and where.

chris455
12-28-2005, 03:14 PM
It will be more manouverable, think of a glider and a fighter with smaller wings, the fighter will be able to roll at a far greater rate and that will also be the same in the turn, it will be able to turn tighter and harder than something with larger wings..

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Generally speaking, higher wing loading= greater speed, less maneuverability (assuming a like power loading). Think of the J2M, or Ki-44 designed as interceptors, but lacking the maneuverabilty of other Japanes A/C. A quick look at the wing loading of these birds vs other Japanese planes will bear out what I am saying. A higher wing loading may result in superior roll, but generally poorer sustained turning rate.

Slickun
12-28-2005, 03:22 PM
Maneuverability as in g's available per speed.

A higher wing-loaded plane, generally, can pull fewer g's at the same speed as a lower wing loaded plane, if they are below corner velocity.

Generally, a higher wing loaded plane rolls better.

Badsight.
12-28-2005, 05:19 PM
wing size doesnt necessarily = fast or slow

a small thick wing can generates lots of drag & lift holding back its high speed potential

high wing loading means you have small wings relative to your planes weight

a high speed wing is one that generates a low amount of drag

MEGILE
12-28-2005, 05:38 PM
Having a high wingloading and low drag won't necessarily denote high speeds though, especialy at high altitude.
Here the engine plays an even more important role.

Take the P-51 vs. Spitfire XIV... there is little doubt a Spitfire XIV has more drag than a P-51, and at low altitude the P-51 can be faster, depending on the manifold pressure.
But at high altitude, the Supercharger in the griffon engined XIV allows it to out pace the P-51 as it is supplying more oxygen to the Engine, and thus the engine output is higher.

Unknown-Pilot
12-28-2005, 06:34 PM
Engine is the indeed the most important aspect of speed, however, with everything being equal, the plane with higher loading (but equal weight, say with shorter wings) will be faster.

This is a result of less flat plate, whetted area, and less induced drag from AoA changes (since smaller wings *tend* to (not always) have lower coefficients of lift, which factors heavily into coefficient of drag, which then also uses total wing area for total drag, so a double whammy to larger wings in a sense).

However, generally, planes are high or low wingloaded as a result of their intended mission. If you wanted to give a Jug the same loading as a Zero, the wings would be too big to have any real strength (plus making them that big would just raise the weight of the plane again).

So if you want to make a tough plane, or one with a large ordnance capacity, or one with a huge engine, you almost have to give it a higher wing loading to keep the wings reasonably strong. The upshot is that it is - fast and tough and can carry alot. Which a Zero, for example, isn't and can't.

Personally, I'd much rather venture into combat in a 190, or P-47 or F6F (or hell, even F4U, so long as it was land based - this "sim" lies), than a Zero.

And as noted, speed is more important, and since more speed often means a bigger engine, more weight. (bigger engine not only has more weight, but needs more fuel, and requires stronger framing to mount to in order to handle the same number if Gs, etc)

Don't let this sim influence you on which is "better". Each has a specific use and purpose to fulfull a specific mission. - Context is everything, and you will find that as your experience grows, your context changes, and your pespective right along with it.

And that being said - the game is still biased to turn fighting (overall). So it's really not the best representation.

Xiolablu3
12-28-2005, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

And that being said - the game is still biased to turn fighting (overall). So it's really not the best representation.

What a load of BS, a B&Z fighter can win out every time in this game, just like real life.

249th_Harrier
12-28-2005, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Engine is the indeed the most important aspect of speed, however, with everything being equal, the plane with higher loading (but equal weight, say with shorter wings) will be faster.

This is a result of less flat plate, whetted area, and less induced drag from AoA changes (since smaller wings *tend* to (not always) have lower coefficients of lift, which factors heavily into coefficient of drag, which then also uses total wing area for total drag, so a double whammy to larger wings in a sense).

However, generally, planes are high or low wingloaded as a result of their intended mission. If you wanted to give a Jug the same loading as a Zero, the wings would be too big to have any real strength (plus making them that big would just raise the weight of the plane again).

So if you want to make a tough plane, or one with a large ordnance capacity, or one with a huge engine, you almost have to give it a higher wing loading to keep the wings reasonably strong. The upshot is that it is - fast and tough and can carry alot. Which a Zero, for example, isn't and can't.

Personally, I'd much rather venture into combat in a 190, or P-47 or F6F (or hell, even F4U, so long as it was land based - this "sim" lies), than a Zero.

And as noted, speed is more important, and since more speed often means a bigger engine, more weight. (bigger engine not only has more weight, but needs more fuel, and requires stronger framing to mount to in order to handle the same number if Gs, etc)

Don't let this sim influence you on which is "better". Each has a specific use and purpose to fulfull a specific mission. - Context is everything, and you will find that as your experience grows, your context changes, and your pespective right along with it.

And that being said - the game is still biased to turn fighting (overall). So it's really not the best representation.

UP, I have some questions for you. If a plane uses shorter wings, turning radius will be worse, correct? Also, with shorter wings, there will be less lift. This means a longer takeoff roll. More intersting is: does it also mean less high altitude performance? If the air is thin and the engine is running out of air, at some point the lift from the wings does not equal the weight of the plane, right?

The-Pizza-Man
12-28-2005, 06:59 PM
It isn't wing loading that is important, but aspect ratio. High aspect ratio wings produce more lift for a given area and less induced drag. A high aspect ratio wing can have a higher wing loading because it doesn't have to fly at as high an AoA. A smaller AoA results in less induced drag. The Ta-152 is a good example of an aircraft with a high AR.

Slickun
12-28-2005, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
Having a high wingloading and low drag won't necessarily denote high speeds though, especialy at high altitude.
Here the engine plays an even more important role.

Take the P-51 vs. Spitfire XIV... there is little doubt a Spitfire XIV has more drag than a P-51, and at low altitude the P-51 can be faster, depending on the manifold pressure.
But at high altitude, the Supercharger in the griffon engined XIV allows it to out pace the P-51 as it is supplying more oxygen to the Engine, and thus the engine output is higher.

Just what altitude do you think the Spit was faster?

Use the Mustang III with the -3 engine, or the P-51B with the -3. Use the top speed the Brits felt the -3 Mustangs could attain - 450 mph.

There was really very little to choose between the various marks of the Mustang and Spit 14, speed wise. Some marks, some altitudes, went faster than the other.

Compare the P-51H, which had a closer match to the hp available to the Spit 14.

Slickun
12-28-2005, 07:04 PM
It isn't the wing length, is it guys? Isn't wing area what is used?

chris455
12-28-2005, 07:05 PM
What a load of BS, a B&Z fighter can win out every time in this game, just like real life.

Maybe he was referring to the AI?
I actually found his post on the whole to be quite accurate.

Make two lists, see which one is easier to populate:
1. Fighters which are slower compared to their contemporaries, and have a high wing loading; and
2. Fighters which are slower compared to their contemporaries and have a low wing loading.
( again, and I emphasize, assuming like power loading).

The "not necessariliy" comments in some of the above posts are citing one-offs and ignoring generalities, which are much as Unknown_Pilot stated when he wrote
with everything being equal, the plane with higher loading (but equal weight, say with shorter wings) will be faster.

Emphasis mine.

Unknown-Pilot
12-28-2005, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:
UP, I have some questions for you. If a plane uses shorter wings, turning radius will be worse, correct? Also, with shorter wings, there will be less lift. This means a longer takeoff roll. More intersting is: does it also mean less high altitude performance? If the air is thin and the engine is running out of air, at some point the lift from the wings does not equal the weight of the plane, right?

It can mean all those things, but not necessarily.

If the powerloading is sufficient, take off roll can be short since you accelerate more in less space. (IOW, if the plane needs to hit 120mph to lift off, but can reach that speed in 1000', it would be a shorter run than a plane that lifts at 100, but needs 1200' to reach it. <- just random numbers to get the point across)

It also depends on specifics when dealing with altitude performance as well. The P-47 was great at altitude despite high wing loading. Other factors come into play - s/c efficienct, critical alt of engine, wing section, total drag, etc.

Using the Jug as an example again, much higher wing loading and all around worse turn rate than a Yak3. But take them both up high enough and the Jug will run rings around the Yak. The wing loading doesn't change, and neither do the IAS stall speeds, but, the Yak has run out of breath so badly that it can't maintain it's cornering speed, but the Jug can stay much faster and have an easier time of it. Plus it would still be fighting in the vertical. Zooms are more effective up high since TAS increases for a given IAS (meaning you can zoom further at 400kph IAS at 4Km than you can at 1Km).

Jetbuff
12-28-2005, 07:12 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 Unknown-Pilot:

And that being said - the game is still biased to turn fighting (overall). So it's really not the best representation.

What a load of BS, a B&Z fighter can win out every time in this game, just like real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, he does have a point. No, not because a B&Z fighter can't win if flown properly. It's because:
(a) There is often little incentive to fly properly (for anyone) thanks to the ever-handy refly and focus on the dogfight as opposed to the mission.
(b) The biggest drawback/limitation of TnB fighting is the amount of effort required by the pilot, but since this is absent in-game, guess what? Everyone has their stick in their stomach 99% of the time with little ill-effect.
(c) Visibility issues complicate the BnZ fight with planes disappearing well within visual range.
(d) There is a lot less boredom/distractions for the ultimate B&Z weapon - the unobserved bounce; you don't get into your plane for a mission, you get into your plane for a dogfight, i.e. you are actively scanning from the get go.

The second point is very important. If you consider that most planes (even high wing-loaded aircraft) can induce more than enough G to black out a pilot, then it is obvious that high wing-loaded planes are not at as large a disadvantage in real life. i.e., So what if a Spitfire can pull 6 G's, how is that going to help a pilot who can only withstand 5?

Unknown-Pilot
12-28-2005, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
It isn't wing loading that is important, but aspect ratio. High aspect ratio wings produce more lift for a given area and less induced drag. A high aspect ratio wing can have a higher wing loading because it doesn't have to fly at as high an AoA. A smaller AoA results in less induced drag. The Ta-152 is a good example of an aircraft with a high AR.

AR is only one small part of it. Wing (aerofoil) section (shape) is a bigger contributor, as is lift distribution.

You could have a great AR, with a high lift wing and a poor lift distribution and still have high drag.

With the 152, it was probably easier to simply extend the wings than it was to try to design a whole new wing. Although keeping everything else the same, changing the AR can help (decrease) drag as well.

The-Pizza-Man
12-28-2005, 07:30 PM
Yes I know, but if all other things are kept the same, induced drag is inversely proportional to aspect ratio. The point I was making is that wing loading by itself means next to nothing. The actual factors involved being things like wing cross section and planform. A higher aspect ratio wing allows an aircraft to suffer less drag penalty from increasing weight, that means it can have a heavier and more powerful engine and get a greater increase in performance out of it

Badsight.
12-29-2005, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Here the engine plays an even more important role.. picky picky picky

this glider thread was going great . . . . ..

MEGILE
12-29-2005, 05:43 AM
Gliders are for Wussies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

womenfly
12-29-2005, 06:02 AM
A good read on ... Aircraft Wing Loading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading) ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

PikeBishop
12-29-2005, 06:38 AM
Dear all,
OK a lot of interesting stuff is emerging here. I would like to say that all in all, with all these factors comming into play it is clear that this is why aircraft in general look the same and depending on what job you want it for the design tries to cater for that job. Occasionally you get an aircraft who's figures balance in such a way that it becomes a good all-rounder. The Ki84 springs to mind or the Spitfire and perhapse the Fw or the P51. Now if you look at the weights and dimensions, power loadings and wing loadings they are prettymuch the same. I suppose that this is what is referred to as a 'thoroughbred'.
For me the important thing is a combination of excess power and wing loading. The result is basically climb and/or acceleration. Once an aircraft with a lower wing loading is behind one with a higher wing loading there is no way the victim will throw him off. If he can outrun before he is shot down thats good but risky, especially if his pursuer can out accelerate him before he can reach maximum speed. One very rarly reaches max speed in a whirling dogfight. If he can outdive that only lengthens the agony as his pursuer just holds the height gets a good position and attacks again. This will continue until the victim runs out of height to play with. A good point was raised about altitude performance and the engine P47 v Yak.....I will have to look into that.
On the other hand, if the victim can outclimb/accelerate or out-turn (or both as with lower wing loading/ high power loading aircraft e.g. the Ki84) the pursuer he will surely get away and even turn the tables.
Best regards,
SLP

Unknown-Pilot
12-29-2005, 02:07 PM
Pike, Who said anything about a "whirling dogfight"?

That's looking at it from a game perspective, and as mentioned (and corroborated), this game is biased toward turnfighters. One small part of why is the very nature of online servers (hard to get around that unfortunately).

But the question asked was more general - "what are the advantages of higher wingloading". Not "....in this game". That means we approached it from a 'real world' perspective and explained what some of it's advantages are, and why planes often end up that way (ie, in many cases it's dictated by the intended use, not a desired design element in it's own right).

However, when taking it from the game perspective, there are advantages that show up. Many of the real world advantages are lost, but others actually arise to somewhat compensate.

Often, people in turn fighters only turn. Human nature I think. Knowing that you don't bleed energy and that you can out turn your opponent (and that you can't dive quite as fast) will mean you'll spend your time in the weeds. It also gives the advantage of looking up and seeing targets above you. This matters more on a no-externals/cockpit on server.

So this actually lets the energy fighter get what it needs to operate. It can climb, wait for a furball, and pick off stragglers and the pre-occupied. Or simply chose not to fight until it feels like it. And while attacking, the speed is high from a dive, so even if someone swings around on you, it's pretty easy to extend and remain safe.

However, if you do end up at co-E low enough that the angles fighter is in it's prime, then you're right, it's all over but the shouting. But as many people would point out, you've also made glaring mistakes to end up at that point too (excepting a take-off bounce, of course).

Slickun
12-29-2005, 04:13 PM
But as many people would point out, you've also made glaring mistakes to end up at that point too (excepting a take-off bounce, of course).

Exactly. Only foolish energy fighters get into that situation. Just choose not to.

Meanwhile, the turn fighter has to hope his opponent makes a mistake to get him into his envelope. Meanwhile, he's defensive.

2/3 to 3/4, maybe more, of all aerial kills are of the unobserved bounce. Just as we can develop a set of things a "dogfighter" should be good at, there is also a set of attributes a "bouncer" should have. Controllable high speed, range, dive, firepower.

Now, what do you want to build your fleet to do? Dogfight, or roam and bounce?

Sergio_101
12-29-2005, 04:24 PM
Ok, the oroginal question can be answered
rather simply.

You want no more wing area than is needed for
the intended mission and safe takeoff and landings.

it's really that simple.

Generally speaking you need less lifting area as
you have more power. An aircraft is in it's basic
description an air pump. Newtons law, you got to
pump air down to lift the weight.
There is no magic in an airfoil.
Less wing area means you have to go faster
to pump enough air down.
The primary lifting effect is the "condoa effect"
The airfoil simply channels air flow across it's surface, around the wings structure and
in effect the wing "planes" on on the air, but in
truth it displaces air, nothing is for nothing.
To see the above graphicly demonstrated watch
a helicopter when it's near the ground.
The rotors are nothing more than rotary wings.
There is a whole lot of air getting displaced!
(Helicopter rotors and propellers are nothing
more than rotary wings.)

By the way, the "Brunelli effect" has little to do with lift.
Sorry, the airflow speed difference over the
wing has little or nothing to do with lift.
Bad highschool textbooks and bad web sites
continue to propagate the myth.

To sum it up, more power means more speed.
More speed means you can use a smaller wing
to get the required lift.
Smaller wing means less drag, and more speed.

Speed has proven itself the most important
aspect of air to air combat. Today
with effective horsepower in afterburning
jet engines reaching over 100,000 hp (yup hundreds of thousands of horsepower)
Turning and a bit more wing area have re-entered
the equasion, starting with the F-15 in 1973.

Most air to air combat in late WWII was hit and
run or the classic AVG style B&Z. Turning was
far less important than speed.
Wings got no smaller, but range became more important
than turning as well.
More fuel and power means more weight.

Higher wing loading has it's advantages.

Sergio

HellToupee
12-29-2005, 04:29 PM
speeds no longer that important, the new fighters eg f22 are acutally slower than even 1950s-60s era jets, range and steath are prime now, also planes like the f16 su27 have alot of focus on manoverability.

Also for wingloading compare the spitfire to the mustang, spits got more lift wings bigger less loaded vs mustangs lower drag laminar flow higher loaded, while mustang is faster the spitfire can climb far faster and has a higher cealing.

Slickun
12-30-2005, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
speeds no longer that important, the new fighters eg f22 are acutally slower than even 1950s-60s era jets, range and steath are prime now, also planes like the f16 su27 have alot of focus on manoverability.

Also for wingloading compare the spitfire to the mustang, spits got more lift wings bigger less loaded vs mustangs lower drag laminar flow higher loaded, while mustang is faster the spitfire can climb far faster and has a higher cealing.

Planes today have all the speed they need.

Unknown-Pilot
12-30-2005, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
speeds no longer that important, the new fighters eg f22 are acutally slower than even 1950s-60s era jets, range and steath are prime now, also planes like the f16 su27 have alot of focus on manoverability.

Also for wingloading compare the spitfire to the mustang, spits got more lift wings bigger less loaded vs mustangs lower drag laminar flow higher loaded, while mustang is faster the spitfire can climb far faster and has a higher cealing.

Planes today have all the speed they need. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And more than that, when your enemy can reach out and touch you, beyond visual range with something that travels faster than a bullet and can follow you, speed is less of an issue.

LStarosta
12-30-2005, 11:56 AM
By the way, the "Brunelli effect" has little to do with lift.
Sorry, the airflow speed difference over the
wing has little or nothing to do with lift.
Bad highschool textbooks and bad web sites
continue to propagate the myth.


Sure... I'll trust someone who can't even spell Bernoulli.

robban75
12-30-2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
speeds no longer that important, the new fighters eg f22 are acutally slower than even 1950s-60s era jets, range and steath are prime now, also planes like the f16 su27 have alot of focus on manoverability.



True, there's no need to go beyond Mach 2 when missiles can go Mach 4-5. It takes a long time to reach Mach 2, and one burnes alot of fuel in the process.
Looking at the single engined Mach 2 fighters that were designed in the 50's, designers had to sacrifice low speed handling in order to achieve extreme speeds at alt. The F-104 is a perfect example of that. Superb high speed performance, dangerous low speed handling. The Draken was the only fighter with fixed inlets, and was a little bit slower than the rest at alt. But it had a 30% larger wingarea compared to the Mirage III, twice the wing area compared to the MiG-21, and three times that of the F-104, so the Draken was still quite manouverable at the lower speeds.
Today, manouverability appears to be one of the most important factors in fighter designs, at low speeds as well as high speeds. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Unknown-Pilot
12-30-2005, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the way, the "Brunelli effect" has little to do with lift.
Sorry, the airflow speed difference over the
wing has little or nothing to do with lift.
Bad highschool textbooks and bad web sites
continue to propagate the myth.


Sure... I'll trust someone who can't even spell Bernoulli. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He screwed that spelling up, but was actually correct otherwise.

Kocur_
12-30-2005, 01:27 PM
Today, manouverability appears to be one of the most important factors in fighter designs, at low speeds as well as high speeds.

Well, in fact that just changed again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Good manouvering is no longer all that important since short range missiles aimed with helmet sights and able to do incredible manouvers are around. We have only one fighter with no roots in cold war, or developed when such missiles were around - its F-35 and there was no investing in things like vectored thrust.

Unknown-Pilot
12-30-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Today, manouverability appears to be one of the most important factors in fighter designs, at low speeds as well as high speeds.

Well, in fact that just changed again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Good manouvering is no longer all that important since short range missiles aimed with helmet sights and able to do incredible manouvers are around. We have only one fighter with no roots in cold war, or developed when such missiles were around - its F-35 and there was no investing in things like vectored thrust. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helmet mounted sites and off bore sight missile launches or no, there is still a limit. The missile won't pull 2 180s and who knows what-ever-else to hit the target, assuming the pilot can even look and lock on something directly behind him.

Best chances of a hit are still from close 6 (with short range weapons that is). And the best way to get and stay there is to outmanuever the other guy. (since you'd hit him from long(er) range if you were trying to take advantage of stealth)

A short range missile only has so much burn and maneuver time. And the best way to beat a missile, other than active countermeasures, is to force it to burn itself out turning and then just out E it.

Not saying anything is easy, just that manuverability is still an asset today, even with off-bore-sight locking and firing capability. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
12-30-2005, 02:30 PM
i wouldnt say the game favours turn fighters anymore tbh.

onwhine bnz pilots what tnb types to fly in straight lines, not czech there six, be easy to spot against the ground (ahistoricaly) and suffer the effects of g forces.

DONT want oleg to model the effects of high altitude flight. being cold, while the sun (much brighter up high) burns into u. lots of glar. oxygen mask getting stuck to your face, because u haveto have it on, if not ull be drunk very quickly. it might get so cold that your spit in your mask will freeze. rear gunners on bombers have been know to get iceilcles on them.

plus theres the disconcerting high speed dive on your target, which will look much steeper than it is, the pressure change to cope with. plus there could well be the high g pullout from the dive too, then u thunder up with the pressure change again.
lets ignore the effects of high speed on the airframe and stuff too. oh stuff is much more likely to not work at higher alts too.

theres other stuff too, which i cant remmber atm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Unknown-Pilot
12-30-2005, 02:55 PM
If you want to believe that, we're not going to change your mind.

But 5Km isn't exactly icicle height. And that's higher than many E-fighters fly online anyway. Not to mention cockpit heat.

If you call on that, why do you not call on the gaseous leaks of the La5 series, and the often overhot cockpits? (same reason you say it's not biased for tnb probably. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Visibility is limited. This can not be denied. Nobody said anything about wanting bright targets to stand out, you invented that. The fact that visibility range is limited affects one kind of fighting more than another. May not be intentional, but it's there none-the-less.

And we also have the very poor energy modeling where heavy planes can't hold it and light planes can keep it forever - while changing pitch. Doesn't matter how slight, the e-fighter will pop a drag chute the minute you try to move into the second phase of the attack.

Speaking of which, if you're doing it right, the high G load isn't a factor like it is with the turners. So that's a null counter-argument.

It's gotten better, but it still remains. Some of it can't be changed either as it's the nature of online. But much of it could be changed, but hasn't, and won't. I just hope that at a minimum BoB has corrected energy modeling. Anything else would be realism icing on the cake.

None of that means that an e-fighter can't be successful. Nor that a plane like that 190 can't be one of the better planes in the game. Don't mix plane vs plane with the nature of the game. They are 2 different arguments.

HellToupee
12-30-2005, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
If you want to believe that, we're not going to change your mind.

But 5Km isn't exactly icicle height. And that's higher than many E-fighters fly online anyway. Not to mention cockpit heat.

If you call on that, why do you not call on the gaseous leaks of the La5 series, and the often overhot cockpits? (same reason you say it's not biased for tnb probably. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Visibility is limited. This can not be denied. Nobody said anything about wanting bright targets to stand out, you invented that. The fact that visibility range is limited affects one kind of fighting more than another. May not be intentional, but it's there none-the-less.

And we also have the very poor energy modeling where heavy planes can't hold it and light planes can keep it forever - while changing pitch. Doesn't matter how slight, the e-fighter will pop a drag chute the minute you try to move into the second phase of the attack.

Speaking of which, if you're doing it right, the high G load isn't a factor like it is with the turners. So that's a null counter-argument.

It's gotten better, but it still remains. Some of it can't be changed either as it's the nature of online. But much of it could be changed, but hasn't, and won't. I just hope that at a minimum BoB has corrected energy modeling. Anything else would be realism icing on the cake.

None of that means that an e-fighter can't be successful. Nor that a plane like that 190 can't be one of the better planes in the game. Don't mix plane vs plane with the nature of the game. They are 2 different arguments.

Um the light planes do bleed speed in manovers the only difference is their acceleration and manoverability at lower speeds is better than that of the heavyer planes.

The 190 does not pop a drag chute it is probly one of the best in the game at holding E especially the D9, if you pull really tight turns well you burn speed as much as the others the guy on ur six dosnt lose less speed he just cuts the corner.

The 190 is one of the best planes in the game the D9 can mix it with every american type i can outturn the p51 the p47 and the p38 at most speeds, it wont outturn a spitfire but it can with ease pull inside one. You could argue its abilities in turn vs those types are overmodeled.

Unknown-Pilot
12-30-2005, 05:18 PM
Why are you immediately proceeding to mix plane vs plane with the nature of the game even after having it explained that they are not the same argument? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I love the 190. It's a hot plane and can be devestatingly effective. That has nothing to do with the fact that the game is biased for turn fighting.

All planes bleed E, eventually. You took an obvious use of conversational hyperbole and treated it as a literal comment to fabricate an argument against. You're not an idiot from what I've seen, so that implies that you did it on purpose. (it also happens to be human nature to do so as well)

E-fighters do not zoom as they should. Light planes zoom too well. Light planes can dance all day and lose E at a fraction of the rate of a heavy plane - even at minimal AoA, such as when pulling out of a dive. Some are worse than others (like the P-47). Some are better than others (like the 190). But they are all excessive in comparison.

It may be an inertial problem. It may be a drag or AoA problem. Or it could be both. But it's a problem regardless.

But that's 1 aspect. Even when ignoring that, the situation doesn't change.

Kocur_
12-31-2005, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Why are you immediately proceeding to mix plane vs plane with the nature of the game even after having it explained that they are not the same argument? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I love the 190. It's a hot plane and can be devestatingly effective. That has nothing to do with the fact that the game is biased for turn fighting.

All planes bleed E, eventually. You took an obvious use of conversational hyperbole and treated it as a literal comment to fabricate an argument against. You're not an idiot from what I've seen, so that implies that you did it on purpose. (it also happens to be human nature to do so as well)

E-fighters do not zoom as they should. Light planes zoom too well. Light planes can dance all day and lose E at a fraction of the rate of a heavy plane - even at minimal AoA, such as when pulling out of a dive. Some are worse than others (like the P-47). Some are better than others (like the 190). But they are all excessive in comparison.

It may be an inertial problem. It may be a drag or AoA problem. Or it could be both. But it's a problem regardless.

But that's 1 aspect. Even when ignoring that, the situation doesn't change.

SO agreed!

RocketDog
12-31-2005, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
-fighters do not zoom as they should. Light planes zoom too well. Light planes can dance all day and lose E at a fraction of the rate of a heavy plane - even at minimal AoA, such as when pulling out of a dive. Some are worse than others (like the P-47). Some are better than others (like the 190). But they are all excessive in comparison.

How do you know this? You might be right, but unless we have hard numerical data to back this up it's just more of the usual people claiming the aircraft "don't fly right".

Cheers,

RocketDog.

MC202zipper
12-31-2005, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the way, the "Brunelli effect" has little to do with lift.
Sorry, the airflow speed difference over the
wing has little or nothing to do with lift.
Bad highschool textbooks and bad web sites
continue to propagate the myth.


Sure... I'll trust someone who can't even spell Bernoulli. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He screwed that spelling up, but was actually correct otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually even the Condoa effect was mispelled (mispelling for mispelling, I was in fact wondering what birth prevention had to do with wingload.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

See Coanda effect here:
http://www.google.it/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=it&ie...D:it&q=coanda+effect (http://www.google.it/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-29,GGLD:it&q=coanda+effect)

He has a point in his post, IMHO (I am VERY amateurish in my knowledge of aerodynamics matters, tough...).

And, as an aftertought: HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!

MC202zipper

PikeBishop
12-31-2005, 08:55 AM
Dear unknown pilot,

Yes I must say that speed and power is an important combination and one that cannot be denied. I think that it depends on how one feels about aerial combat games. I personally would find it a little tedious alone in the sky looking for a target below, diving firing, zooming back up and then looking for a flaming wreck spiralling earthward. However I suppose this is one sure way to survive. So I do take your point of the whirling dogfight, but for me it is the adrenaline flow in a crowded sky that does it. Looking all around....trying to keep with your wingman....rolling turning banking diving. More towards WWI philosophy I suppose.
Even so the idea of a good all-rounder still applies and can often drag you out of trouble when you are dependent on it especially considering that it is all a case of spotting an opponent before he spots you.
Again I tend to think of the machine design rather than the pilot controlling it, even though it is clear that both are important such that one cannot do without the other.

Best regards,
SLP

Unknown-Pilot
12-31-2005, 09:24 AM
Pike, I started out turning too. I'm not saying you are a beginner, many people stay with turning and don't like anything else.

But for me, the plane was more important than the flying style. IOW, there was no way in hell I was going to fly commie ****, so I did what it took to get good with the plane I did like, the 109.

Actually, I never did "master" that in IL2, because the e modeling was soooo bad there, and because of it's (the 109's) peculiar nature of being a stall fighter, but *not* a turn fighter. I ended up switching to the 190 and becoming a really big fan of it, and flew it exclusively until FB, when I went back to the 109.

Then as we got the Mustang and Thunderbolt, and more jets, and now blue planes (<- USN, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), I kept getting more and more choice flexibility, but as you see, all are E-fighters.

Eventually, I ended up becoming a plane wh0re and will fly anything that the situation calls for and not really care. And can TnB or e-fight.

But, I actually prefer e-fighting. Not just because of the planes themselves, but because it's actually fun. It's a bit of a rush beating a plane that can handily outturn you, and imagining their frustration as you keep your E and make them bleed theirs, never letting them get a shot, or stand a chance. lol (It also helps keep discipline up. ultra-turners tend to spoil a person)

It's a personal preference thing, I know. I'm just saying that getting to alt isn't all that bad, and there is something of a rush to screaming down on an unsuspecting target, lighting them up, and being gone in an instant. Whehter you kill them or not. (Especially if you are on comms with them, and just as you pull the trigger you hear them scream - what the hell!? lol)