PDA

View Full Version : WWII veteran FW-190A pilot opinion of Il-2's FW-190A series...



Pages : [1] 2

Gaston444
11-20-2009, 02:04 PM
I've just had an idea I thought I would throw out there...

Given how fictional, and completely opposite to reality, Il-2's FW-190A series is: That is, from what I am hearing of this game; bleeds speed in low-speed turns, poor handling at low speeds, very good handling at high speeds (roughly the same as it is apparently for all the other computer simulations; roll eyes...), I was wondering about a simple thing:

-Has ANY WWII FW-190A combat veteran examined, play tested and vouched for the IL-2 FW-190A's flight model?

-What were his comments?

All that is needed is his name and unit...

Simple question.

Gaston


P.S. On "Aces High" five-six years ago, an actual FW-190A Western Front ace DID weight in, through the intermission of a relative (I'm sure the thread can still be found)... To say that there was some surprise, and also some somewhat indirect hostility, would be an understatement... Amusingly enough, the game's top designer was nowhere to be heard from during the entire thread... I know from my own threads he is not usually so scarce...

G.

Gaston444
11-20-2009, 02:04 PM
I've just had an idea I thought I would throw out there...

Given how fictional, and completely opposite to reality, Il-2's FW-190A series is: That is, from what I am hearing of this game; bleeds speed in low-speed turns, poor handling at low speeds, very good handling at high speeds (roughly the same as it is apparently for all the other computer simulations; roll eyes...), I was wondering about a simple thing:

-Has ANY WWII FW-190A combat veteran examined, play tested and vouched for the IL-2 FW-190A's flight model?

-What were his comments?

All that is needed is his name and unit...

Simple question.

Gaston


P.S. On "Aces High" five-six years ago, an actual FW-190A Western Front ace DID weight in, through the intermission of a relative (I'm sure the thread can still be found)... To say that there was some surprise, and also some somewhat indirect hostility, would be an understatement... Amusingly enough, the game's top designer was nowhere to be heard from during the entire thread... I know from my own threads he is not usually so scarce...

G.

DKoor
11-20-2009, 02:32 PM
Crash posted interview with German pilot Nicolas Achtog some time ago http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

HayateAce
11-20-2009, 02:43 PM
Most aircraft are off in some form or another. IMO, the best that flight sim creators can do is try to keep the hierarchy of its aircraft lineup intact, while being as true to the numbers as possible.

Here's what the US Navy found about the Fw190 in context of the F4U and F6F:

http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/index1.html (http://home.comcast.net/%7Emarkw4/index1.html)

rnzoli
11-20-2009, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Given how fictional, and completely opposite to reality, Il-2's FW-190A series is </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You apparently have such a strong opinion on this issue as if you were a real Fw-190 pilot... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

rettungferris
11-20-2009, 03:40 PM
if this helps with BOB SOW's development or Team D doing ac improvements, that'd be cool.

If its to stir the pot, IBTL or before 22 pages.

Didn't the same thing happened when they had a actual grumman person / Hellcat pilot say the same thing about Il-2's Hellcat?



Also anyone have any links to F8F bearcat being influenced by FW 190's evaluation. There's this dude at work who says Grumman liked the FW 190 they used alot of it to develop the Bearcat.

berg417448
11-20-2009, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rettungferris:



Also anyone have any links to F8F bearcat being influenced by FW 190's evaluation. There's this dude at work who says Grumman liked the FW 190 they used alot of it to develop the Bearcat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"In early 1943, Grumman officials were invited to England to see the captured fighters of the Axis powers and to fly some of them. The test team included: Leroy Grumman, president of Grumman and test pilot during and after WW I; Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations and a test pilot current in all American airplanes at that time; and Bob Hall, chief engineerexperimental, a famous test pilot of Grumman and other airplanes of the Gee Bee era.
Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.

The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. This would give our naval aviators a big performance increase over the newer Japanese fighters and would still retain the proven performance of the P&W R-2800 series production engines installed in the Hellcat. "

http://www.findarticles.com/p/...s_199808/ai_n8826530 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530)

TS_Sancho
11-20-2009, 04:39 PM
Gaston, as has already been pointed out to you, aerodynamics is not subject to anecdotal interpretation. I have to question your objectivity in your analysis of the FW190 as you either refuse or are unable to present any hard data to support your proposition. You were given the formula required to estimate aircraft turn performance on page 7 of this thread http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...051027108#3051027108 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8301074997?r=3051027108#3051027108) The same guy who gave you the formula is the owner of and in the process of restoring to flight worthy status an FW190F.

You seem articulate and generally interested in the subject, why not take a step back, digest the information being presented and then reevaluate the evidence.

The reason the FW190 was such a dangerous opponent was because it was designed to do everything fast and it did that very well. As gets pointed out in this forum quite often, aircraft are flown at their V-speeds and the FW190 was not in its performance envelope trying to turn more slowly than its contemporaries. This is a hard, inarguable fact.

Being able to argue your point to success at the Aces High forum through a bunch of cut and paste internet stuff with tidbits such as the Gunther Rall quote we are all so fond of doesn't give your argument legitimacy, it only demonstrate that your audience doesn't understand. You need real stuff if you want to be taken seriously here, this is a lot different crowd than over at AH. I mean for gods sake, another recent thread is at 25 pages and people are creating 3d models of the armoring on the FW190 A8/R8 ammunition magazines to prove whether or not sympathetic ammunition detonation is responsible for allied gun camera wing offs.



This is from the naval combat evaluation report Hayate linked above ( you can find a scan of the original document here.. http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...g/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf) )



J. General characteristics in mock combat

The Fw190 is a very simple airplane to fly in combat and seems to be designed for pilot convenience.<span class="ev_code_RED"> It has a no warning stall which tends to reduce its efficiency in combat against airplanes which can force it to fly near its stalling speed. In general it is considered to be an excellent interceptor type airplane which is at a dis-advantage against airplanes designed for the purpose of "infighting".</span>


I. Suggested tactics to be used against the FW 190 by the Hellcat and Corsair.

In view of the fact that the FW190 can outrun the F4U-1D and F6F-3 in a 160 knot or faster climb, <span class="ev_code_RED">the best solution for offense is for the Hellcat and Corsair to close with the FW190 in combat so that advantage can be taken of their superior maneuverability</span>, provided , of course that any initial advantage in altitude is not sacrificed merely for the sake of closing. When being attacked from astern the FW190 can be expected to roll and dive out from the attack. <span class="ev_code_RED">If attacked by the FW190, the Hellcat and Corsair can evade by the use of tight turns. When followed by the FW190 the Hellcat and Corsair can evade by the useof tight loops. If the FW190 attempts to follow the Hellcat and Corsair it stalls out. </span> In general, whenever hit and run techniques cannot be employed the Hellcat and Corsair should make every effort to close with the FW190 in both offense and defense.

Im assuming your vaguely familiar with the performance reputations of both the Corsair and Hellcat, and the USN report is legitimate.

FockeWulf was not a Spitfire nor was it intended to be as its design shows.

Edit , sorry about the red highlighting. Yellow next time.

bracknell1989
11-20-2009, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rettungferris:
if this helps with BOB SOW's development or Team D doing ac improvements, that'd be cool.

If its to stir the pot, IBTL or before 22 pages.

Didn't the same thing happened when they had a actual grumman person / Hellcat pilot say the same thing about Il-2's Hellcat?



Also anyone have any links to F8F bearcat being influenced by FW 190's evaluation. There's this dude at work who says Grumman liked the FW 190 they used alot of it to develop the Bearcat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I would be interested to know what he said, can you offer a summary. Or if anyone knows where the thread is?

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most aircraft are off in some form or another. IMO, the best that flight sim creators can do is try to keep the hierarchy of its aircraft lineup intact, while being as true to the numbers as possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

My impression is that folks do not understand effects of the middle of the envelope aircraft performance characteristics.

They attach way too much importance upon what is really insignificant performance figures. Shaw's book is very good at defining just how large performance difference need to be in order to be noticeable in the air.

Real pilots tend to think in terms of position while gamers tend to think in terms of performance.

Gaston444
11-20-2009, 08:42 PM
Quote DKoor: "Crash posted interview with German pilot Nicolas Achtog some time ago"


-OK. Who was he and what did he say about IL-2's FW-190A?


As for those US Navy FW-190A-5 tests, of which there is another very similar version with the short-nose A-4, this with IDENTICAL conclusions against earlier versions of the same Navy fighters: BOTH these US Navy tests say the FW-190A rolls no faster than the F4U, even though the 190's roll rate is actually nearly twice that in reality...

How many WWII tests have you heard of being officially contested during wartime? The British did speak up against these obviously nonsensical tests, and did so during wartime... The roll rate authority affected the low speed turn handling, as catching the stall on the ailerons at low speed was a standard procedure at low speed (ask a real FW-190A pilot, like the one whose relative posted on AH). Poor ailerons on the FW-190A meant poor low-speed turning... Even then, the Navy's FW-190As still managed to match the P-51D (by correlating with the A6M5 tests)...

The British, on the other hand, rated the FW-190A as superior or equal in horizontal turns to the P-38F or G, except at 140 MPH!...

The P-38 is always described as superior in sustained low-speed turns to the Me-109G...

Very curious to hear what Mr. Achtog said...

Gaston

PS. By the way, that FW-190A ace on AH said he typically DOWNTHROTTLED and popped the flaps long before the merge, and used mostly low-speed turn-fighting against Merlin P-51s, practically to the exclusion of anything else... That might explain why a certain somebody was unusually scarce on that thread...

G.

Buzzsaw-
11-20-2009, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most aircraft are off in some form or another. IMO, the best that flight sim creators can do is try to keep the hierarchy of its aircraft lineup intact, while being as true to the numbers as possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

My impression is that folks do not understand effects of the middle of the envelope aircraft performance characteristics.

They attach way too much importance upon what is really insignificant performance figures. Shaw's book is very good at defining just how large performance difference need to be in order to be noticeable in the air.

Real pilots tend to think in terms of position while gamers tend to think in terms of performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not the case. Anyone who is any good in IL-2 understands that energy and altitude advantages are far more important than the small percentage advantage a particular aircraft may give you in one aspect of flight or another.

Oleg has created a Sim which provides perhaps not an exact replication of the real thing, but one which is close enough to reward those who fly their virtual aircraft in an intelligent fashion.

A IL-2 190 flown to the historical aircraft's performance parameters is very competitive. In fact, anyone who looks at the online servers, will note that the 190's usually are at the top of the kill/death scoresheet.

But then, you don't play this game, so your mistaken assumption is understandable.

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 09:02 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...Type=1&search=Search (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=Performance&exactPhrase=&optWords=&notWords=&f=23110283&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=Buzzsaw-&sortType=0&ptyp_poll=Y&ptyp_album=Y&ptyp_msg=Y&ptyp_count=3&x_display_post_details=1&groupType=1&search=Search)

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-20-2009, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
I've just had an idea I thought I would throw out there...

Given how fictional, and completely opposite to reality, Il-2's FW-190A series is: That is, from what I am hearing of this game; bleeds speed in low-speed turns, poor handling at low speeds, very good handling at high speeds (roughly the same as it is apparently for all the other computer simulations; roll eyes...), I was wondering about a simple thing:

-Has ANY WWII FW-190A combat veteran examined, play tested and vouched for the IL-2 FW-190A's flight model?

-What were his comments?

All that is needed is his name and unit...

Simple question.

Gaston


P.S. On "Aces High" five-six years ago, an actual FW-190A Western Front ace DID weight in, through the intermission of a relative (I'm sure the thread can still be found)... To say that there was some surprise, and also some somewhat indirect hostility, would be an understatement... Amusingly enough, the game's top designer was nowhere to be heard from during the entire thread... I know from my own threads he is not usually so scarce...

G. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW-190 is as close to the real thing as any other plane in IL-2. An absolute killer and joy to fly. There is nothing critically wrong with the FW-190 in the game. Finding it hard to comprehend why you feel different and not quite sure where your getting your facts from. Lack of experience is what I am leaning towards.

S!

Waldo.Pepper
11-20-2009, 11:02 PM
I remember seeing video of a wartime FW-190 pilot playing il-2 from a long time ago. He flew into the ground iirc. (but who hasn't eh?)

rnzoli
11-21-2009, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Crash posted interview with German pilot Nicolas Achtog some time ago http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>OK, maybe you should quote from that interview without giving away it's location, before telling the full truth about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
11-21-2009, 12:18 AM
I would think that even if it was an accurate virtual model in every way, a real fw190 pilot might not be impressed because it is only a simulation to be played and enjoyed on your computer.

Expecting an exact replication would be near impossible given the age of the sim.

The same could be said for any plane in Il2.



Bill

rnzoli
11-21-2009, 12:20 AM
FWIW, Norbert Hannig's books gives a good overview of the real Fw-190A. He loved that aircraft (he thought it was way better than Bf-109, which he also flew in the beginning). He even dogfighted a bunch of Bf-109s over Germany for a few minutes, and his squadron got away with ease. If you read his memoirs with a purpose of proving how badly Fw-190 is modelled, you will be able to pick a lot of things out of context (e.g., not recognizing that the Bf-109s which he dogfigted were piloted by complete rookies on a bomber intercept mission). On the other hand, if you read with open mind, you will find a lot of intererding patterns resembling the IL-2 model. In one of the last sentences in the book, he looks over the Alps and he desires to be up there in the air, one more time, among the clouds, up and down,up and down. (typical B&Z)

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you read his memoirs with a purpose of proving how badly Fw-190 is modelled, you will be able to pick a lot of things out of context (e.g., not recognizing that the Bf-109s which he dogfigted were piloted by complete rookies on a bomber intercept mission). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, Sounds like the most common thing these get used for around here!

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../combat-reports.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...counter-reports.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html)

TS_Sancho
11-21-2009, 11:50 AM
Gaston, your still falling into the trap of relying on 2nd hand anecdotes and conjecture.

What you are saying is akin to saying that Apples and oranges are both round and they are a fruit therefore onions are a fruit because they are round as well.


If your seriously interested in predicting and evaluating real historical aircraft performance making an attempt to understand the principals and methodologies used to determine these things is important, wouldn't you agree?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">that FW-190A ace on AH said he typically DOWNTHROTTLED and popped the flaps long before the merge </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All you are demonstrating here is that the pilot slowed the aircraft down, which he would do if traveling faster than his optimal turn speed. Remember the bit about aircraft V speeds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds

I think its great you got a Luftwaffe FW vet to comment on the AH forums, but your interpretations of his comments are incorrect. While he may have used his flaps to help bleed speed or to force his nose around a few degrees I assure you he's not manuevering with his flaps hanging out the whole time.

An FW190A6 finds its best sustained turn somewhere around 375 kmh IAS without flaps ( The EAS conversion still has me a little stymied so we'll keep the plane near sea level for arguments sake) The same plane is going to turn quite a few degrees a second slower at a much lower velocity with flaps deployed, why would any pilot choose such a configuration to try and win a fight?

I am curious about your board game you've mentioned. Is it a strategic or tactical simulation? I remember a book based ACM game in the early 80's called Ace of Aces. Both you and your opponent had a playbook depicting your relative views, you each picked a maneuver from a menu of a couple dozen at the bottom of the page and then there was some way you referenced the two to see the outcome. I thought it was pretty neat.

Xiolablu3
11-21-2009, 12:29 PM
You must get the tactics right for the aircraft.

As has been mentioned already, the Fw190 was not a close-in turnfighter, and nor was it meant to be.

It was an intercepter style aircraft, which was at its best at high speeds.

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All you are demonstrating here is that the pilot slowed the aircraft down, which he would do if traveling faster than his optimal turn speed. Remember the bit about aircraft V speeds? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.

The slowing down is going to help improve instantaneous turn performance until he gets to best turn speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was an intercepter style aircraft, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it was an air superiority fighter, Even the AFDU rated it as a very good dog fighter and clear weather day fighter. The USN had some issues with their example but as did most captured aircraft from any side.

I think this obvious fact has been covered before as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You must get the tactics right for the aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/889/dogfighty.jpg (http://img513.imageshack.us/i/dogfighty.jpg/)

A well done fan plot will explain the physics behind why such dog fighting occurred.

Xiolablu3
11-21-2009, 01:02 PM
SO its OK to use anecdotes if you post them? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thats Eric Browns quote you have underlined.

Not that I dont agree with it though. Its definitely an excellent description of the fighting between the Spit and the Fw190.

Just such a fight occurs in IL2 between the Spitfire Vb and the Fw190A4, which shows how good the modelling is. The Fw190A4 can zoom around at will and the Spit Vb has no chance of catching it unless the Fw190 pilot makes a mistake and gets below his V-Speeds by turning too hard and bleeding speed. If he keeps things fast and uses the rolling plane, he is pretty much untouchable.

In one sentence - 'He can dictate the fight and bug out in a dive if things go wrong.'

Things get tougher for the Fw190 once the SPitfire IX arives on the scene however, as it can out climb the later Fw190's (but not out-zoom), and this makes quite a large difference. The Fw190 is still faster at the usual altitude fights online however. Also the Fw190A can always escape the Spitfire IX in a dive, but you are in his guns range for a few seconds before you get away.

Battles online never really go up to the Spitfire's best speed height, so the Fw190 has an advantage here.

Heres a good one. 'Why did the Russians rate the Bf109 higher than the Fw190 yet the Allies rated the Fw190 higher?'

IMHO The Russians seemed to value turn rate more and 'classic' close-in dogfighting qualities.

M_Gunz
11-21-2009, 01:15 PM
I can turn a FW at low speed without losing any speed at all. I can even gain speed in a turn with it.
OTOH I pull it past stall then it bleeds just like any other plane, simple as that.

FW did not have invisible magic fairy wings that only special anecdotal insight can reveal.

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SO its OK to use anecdotes if you post them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a serious question, do you know how to read a fanplot or sustained turn rate graph Xio?

For example, TS_Sancho gave me a utility called IL2 compare. Here is a turn rate graph of the FW-190 and Spitfire:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5418/curiousformoffighting.jpg (http://img183.imageshack.us/i/curiousformoffighting.jpg/)

That crossover point is the reason that "curious form of dog fighting" occurs. That is physics not speculation.

Can you dump the self righteous indignation every time I post, please. If not I will go back to ignoring you.

Xiolablu3
11-21-2009, 01:17 PM
I have no idea mate. I really dont know much about the science or physics of it all.


"Can you dump the self righteous indignation every time I post, please. If not I will go back to ignoring you."
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I will drop it if you will admit that you dont know everything about everything and you can be wrong sometimes.

Not once have I ever seen you admit you learned something from someone else, or that you have ever made a mistake. It really grates after a while.

Noone knows everything, its nothing to be ashamed of...

Also there are some really knowledgable people here. When you insult or put down gamers on a gamers website, its really not on. You did it in this very thread in fact.

M_Gunz
11-21-2009, 01:23 PM
I thought that Xio was joking about the anecdotes. He didn't go into it past the short line.

Xiolablu3
11-21-2009, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Real pilots tend to think in terms of position while gamers tend to think in terms of performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You can ignore me if you like, it really doesnt bother me at all, but I would prefer you not too of course. I would prefer us to get on.

Why it might seem that I am getting at you is sometimes your posts are just your opinion, but you try to make them out as fact. Just 'In my opinion' in front of posts once in a while would help you seem less 'know it all'.

I hope you can take this constructive criticism without holding it against me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 01:39 PM
It is very evident that RAF pilots did not think the FW-190 was such a big deal when first appeared.

Fighter Commands crisis of self confidence was not the result of the Focke Wulf or any German aircraft IMHO.

The invasion of Russia put a small cadre of experienced and well trained pilots up against some motivated but not as well trained RAF pilots. This put the German pilots in a target rich environment.

It is about pilot skill and not airplane performance.

There is no real case that can be made for any aircrafts performance having a decisive outcome on the conduct of the war. The margins required for dissimilar performance are just too wide for most WWII fighers to have any real noticeable performance differences in the air.

Any claim of the Spitfire Mk IX's or the FW-190's introduction as having an effect is hard to reconcile in my mind when you consider the fact the training levels of the forces. Once again, while the Spitfire Mk IX went along way towards bolstering the confidence of Fighter Command, its introduction was not even noticed by the Jadgwaffe.

Once again, it was the pilots and not the aircraft.

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/2062/gafrafaaffightertrainin.jpg (http://img183.imageshack.us/i/gafrafaaffightertrainin.jpg/)

Xiolablu3
11-21-2009, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
IMHO.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks mate http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I really do appreciate you passing your knowledge on to some of us.

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also there are some really knowledgable people here. When you insult or put down gamers on a gamers website, its really not on. You did it in this very thread in fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a BBS and it is very difficult to judge emotions or get those subtle meanings face to face communications allow. I am not trying to put down gamers, so please don't take it that way. These games represent a large portion of the folks interested in WWII aviation and many of aviation's future greats will get their start right here playing such games.

Understand though playing these games alters your perspectives and they are limited in what they simulate in actual aircraft.

That is all I am saying, Xio.

Xiolablu3
11-21-2009, 01:47 PM
My ambition is to fly one day.

I wish I had thought of flying as a career at school. It never even crossed my mind at that time. One of my friends is now an airline pilot and I am soooo jealous.

One day I aim to get up in the sky my self http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I realise its incredibly expensive, but its just something I HAVE to do before I die.

Just to keep it on topic, I want a Spit, Bf109F4 and a *Fw190A6*. Not much really http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
11-21-2009, 01:55 PM
what that chart does not show is how many LW pilots that were still flying month after month year after year without being rotated out of service, unlike the RAF or USAF/AC/AF

not that it made a huge difference, but it must have made some....

TS_Sancho
11-21-2009, 02:08 PM
<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 Kettenhunde:
Real pilots tend to think in terms of position while gamers tend to think in terms of performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You can ignore me if you like, it really doesnt bother me at all, but I would prefer you not too of course. I would prefer us to get on.

Why it might seem that I am getting at you is sometimes your posts are just your opinion, but you try to make them out as fact. Just 'In my opinion' in front of posts once in a while would help you seem less 'know it all'.

I hope you can take this constructive criticism without holding it against me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xio, you cant dispute that quite a few of us have learned to stop throwing terms like "energy" around so freely in air combat discussions. We are fortunate to have a few different people with the education and experience to make such solid contributions.
If the free education comes with a bit of light sarcasm aimed at my ignorance on a subject, I don't have a problem with that.

I've certainly learned that a lot of what I had thought were facts about what makes an airplane perform differently from another were wrong. I don't pretend to understand everything that gets tossed around in these discussions but I do make an honest attempt to try rather than arguing a point just because I read a quote on the internet which was made in a context I'm incapable of understanding because I haven't made the effort to learn the basics.

Xiolablu3
11-21-2009, 02:16 PM
Aircraft performance certainly made quite a large difference. otherwise there wouldnt have been such a race to improve the models.

Nor would each side be 'rushing out improvements' to counter the other side.

The SPitfire IX was rushed out because the RAF needed something to counter the FW190. The RAF certainly noticed the difference in performance.

The Me262 was rushed out to try and counter the USAAF bombing offensive and gave a massive performce advantage to the germans for the few that got to fly them.

The Hellcat made a large difference when facing the Zero.

The P51's fuel load and range made a massive difference vs the Luftwaffe in 1944.

Many of these factors (better climb, dive, turn, roll) made the difference between life and death for the pilots in the fight. How many Luftwaffe pilots escaped being shot down thanks to the Bf109's better roll? or the Fw190's better roll? Same with the Spitfire for the turn?

I think you are downplaying important advances in aircraft design, Crumpp, when actually they were very important and had an effect on the outcome of battles. Almost every Spitfire piltos biography tells of how the Spitfires manouverability or turn rate saved their life more than once.

'The "109" tried to turn inside me, but at that height his short
wings got insufficient grip on the rarefied atmosphere and he stalled
and went into a spin. Once again the Spitfires superior manouverability had got me out of the woods' - Pierre Clostermann 'The Big Show'

(^just an example, it could be the BF109's dive, or the Fw190's roll)

*All just IMHO and written in the hope to get a response as to why I am right or wrong.*

Xiolablu3
11-21-2009, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<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 Kettenhunde:
Real pilots tend to think in terms of position while gamers tend to think in terms of performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You can ignore me if you like, it really doesnt bother me at all, but I would prefer you not too of course. I would prefer us to get on.

Why it might seem that I am getting at you is sometimes your posts are just your opinion, but you try to make them out as fact. Just 'In my opinion' in front of posts once in a while would help you seem less 'know it all'.

I hope you can take this constructive criticism without holding it against me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xio, you cant dispute that quite a few of us have learned to stop throwing terms like "energy" around so freely in air combat discussions. We are fortunate to have a few different people with the education and experience to make such solid contributions.
If the free education comes with a bit of light sarcasm aimed at my ignorance on a subject, I don't have a problem with that.

I've certainly learned that a lot of what I had thought were facts about what makes an airplane perform differently from another were wrong. I don't pretend to understand everything that gets tossed around in these discussions but I do make an honest attempt to try rather than arguing a point just because I read a quote on the internet which was made in a context I'm incapable of understanding because I haven't made the effort to learn the basics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely, Sancho.

But just because an individual is very knowledgeable on a subject, its doesnt make their opinions fact. Thats all I was trying to get across.

For example, the West loved the Fw190 and thought it was a far better aircraft than the BF109.

The Russians loved the Bf109 and thought it far more dangerous than the Fw190.

Both have their opinion, and both are right in their experience. Just because one person or side doesnt think turn rate on an aircraft is useful, it doesnt mean everyone has that opinion.

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but it must have made some.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It made a huge difference. Most of them died without being able to pass on any experience gained to the upcoming pilot cadets.

Many of the remainder realized they were on the bad side of a very brutal survival equation. They had no "25 missions" to look forward too, only the possibility of more years of combat with dwindling odds of survival. Some simply refused to do much of anything, many used the new pilots sort of like aerial sandbags as a way of increasing their own chances of survival, and most did their perceived duty until the bitter end despite the odds.

Daiichidoku
11-21-2009, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The P51's fuel load and range made a massive difference vs the Luftwaffe in 1944.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the 38 had very nearly the range of the 51 for years before it arrived (and would have had even more, if Lindbergh's engine management techniques were applied)

in this case, it was more the 51s numbers, the attrition of LW's experienced pilots and reducion of new pilot training, and the changing escort tactics/dotrine that made the difference


IMO...and im an expert in "feelings" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
11-21-2009, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The P51's fuel load and range made a massive difference vs the Luftwaffe in 1944.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the 38 had very nearly the range of the 51 for years before it arrived (and would have had even more, if Lindbergh's engine management techniques were applied)

in this case, it was more the 51s numbers, the attrition of LW's experienced pilots and reducion of new pilot training, and the changing escort tactics/dotrine that made the difference


IMO...and im an expert in "feelings" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol me too.

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But just because an individual is very knowledgeable on a subject, its doesnt make their opinions fact. Thats all I was trying to get across. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Often Xio, you dispute facts thinking they are opinion and that ends up putting us at odds.

The comment on Brown's anecdote is good example. Yes it is anecdote generalizing the dogfights that occurred between the FW-190 series and the Spitfire series. It is also a fact that this generalization is easily verified by the physics of the sustained performance envelope of these airplanes.

This for example is not my opinion, it is a verifiable fact which is why I posted it.

Can we agree that the FW-190A3 and the Spitfire Mk V had a large performance gap in the mind of most gamers?

Look in Shaw's excellent book on page 98 it defines similar performance is within 10%. That means in order for their to be any noticeable difference our speeds have to be greater than a 10% inequality.

The fastest Focke Wulf data for the FW-190A3 shows us ~365mph EAS at sea level.

365-36.5 = 328.5 mph


Brief handling trials of Spitfire Mk V X4922 list's 337 mph at sea level.....

Top speed is listed as 375...the fastest Focke Wulf 415mph - 41.5 = 373.5mph.....

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/x4922.html

You get what I am saying? You understand the reason for this statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Real pilots tend to think in terms of position while gamers tend to think in terms of performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not an attack on gamers and there is no need to be defensive, it is just passing on insight as to what is really important.

In perspective of the topic, the general dynamics of that "curious form of dog fighting" never changed throughout the war. The Spitfire and FW-190, like the vast majority of WWII fighters exhibited no practical differences in the air but the pilot skill level dramatically changed.

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just because one person or side doesnt think turn rate on an aircraft is useful, it doesnt mean everyone has that opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not opinion either. Our modern physics model is not perfect but is definitely advanced enough to describe this situation with a high degree of accuracy.


The exact numbers are not cut and dry but the relative performance is definitely a fact.

For example, A P40 cannot out turn a Zeke at the Zeke's best turn speed but it definitely sustain a higher load factor at a high speed than the Zeke.

The P40/Zeke dogfight will progress to that same "curious form of dog fighting" naturally if both pilots fly their airplanes by their V-speeds. The P-40 sustained V-speeds are faster than the Zekes, so it can out zoom the Zeke at will in that situation.

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Almost every Spitfire piltos biography tells of how the Spitfires manouverability or turn rate saved their life more than once. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the same exact phrase is repeated by the guys who flew Focke Wulfs, Bf-109's, P-51's, P-47's, P-38's, Yaks, Laggs, Zeke's, and every other fighter that flew in WWII.

You think they are all wrong or right or maybe both depending on luck and situation?

Xiolablu3
11-21-2009, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Almost every Spitfire piltos biography tells of how the Spitfires manouverability or turn rate saved their life more than once. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the same exact phrase is repeated by the guys who flew Focke Wulfs, Bf-109's, P-51's, P-47's, P-38's, Yaks, Laggs, Zeke's, and every other fighter that flew in WWII.

You think they are all wrong or right or maybe both depending on luck and situation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point I was trying to make is that the Fw190 pilots are more likely to have their roll rate save them,

The Bf109 could make a dive away from Spitfires becasue of its superior dive.

What I mean is that each plane has its advantages over the other, and **I think** you are playing down these advantages a little too much.

The Bf109 pilots for example usually used the dive manouver to escape Spitfires. The Spit usually used its turn. and so on.

If a Fw190 tried to outurn the Spitfire in the horizontal, then it usually ended up dead, as it mentioned in the quote you posted.

If the SPitfire tried to dive away, it would often be caught and shot down by the FW190.

Do you get the point I am trying to make?

Bremspropeller
11-21-2009, 04:03 PM
Xio, the problem is that you're oversimplifying the whole subject.

Sure, a 190 will get caught and it's a** handed on a plate while trying to turn with a Spit at low speeds, but at it's corner-speed or above, it's very likely gonna turn just as well.
Don't forget there is Va - manevering speed.
That's the speed at which the aircraft's aoa-margin exceeds it's structural limit-load-margin.

What you're always assuming is that all fighting takes place at the left-hand edge of the flight-envelope.
http://hsc.csu.edu.au/engineering_studies/aero_eng/3057/images/figure3.gif
Real dogfights, however, also take place in the more centerly portions of the flight envelope.

Note how the flight-envelope changes with altitude (and also weight):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/F-104A_flight_envelope.jpg


It would really be nice to have the flight-envelopes of the real 190 and Spitfire superimposed for a couple of altitudes and weights.
That would certainly shed some light onto the whole discussion.

julian265
11-21-2009, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Often Xio, you dispute facts thinking they are opinion and that ends up putting us at odds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh dear. I'm going to have to rant.

Facts are all very well, but they've got to be relevant to the precise situation that the quoted post is either discussing, or asking about. If someone asks for clarification or questions your reasoning, you should either explain your position or step out of the discussion. However you often start the school-yard bull#### instead.

And if someone makes a point, noting that it's restricted to certain situations (relevant to an open topic), you shouldn't say they're wrong because it doesn't apply to all situations.

The fact that I edited a post to add a minor detail or name, and you posted that the edit was less abusive, shows that you're not posting to have a good discussion, or to teach, or to learn. You were trying to alter other's perception of me.

When other thread participants have more input that simply asking you a question, you seem to try to degrade them.

But I'm already on your "ignore list", so I'm just ranting to myself.

julian265
11-21-2009, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
It would really be nice to have the flight-envelopes of the real 190 and Spitfire superimposed for a couple of altitudes and weights.
That would certainly shed some light onto the whole discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It certainly would be, but I suspect if they were available and comparable we would have already seen them here!

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">save them, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless their pilot got himself in a bad position, why would any of them need to be saved?

Spitfires, Bf-109's, and FW-190's all fought each other and in the process where both the killed and killer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Bf109 pilots for example usually used the dive manouver to escape Spitfires. The Spit usually used its turn. and so on.[/quoted]

If a Fw190 tried to outurn the Spitfire in the horizontal, then it usually ended up dead, as it mentioned in the quote you posted.

If the SPitfire tried to dive away, it would often be caught and shot down by the FW190.

Do you get the point I am trying to make? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You oversimplify quite a bit, Xio. Bremspropeller has a good post on why.

All of these designs with rare exception for variant or configuration can use their sustained turn performance to gain advantage on each other. It is a matter of the pilot flying the correct speed.

That is how the physics works.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you should either explain your position </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In all fairness julian265, I patiently tried for several pages to explain things to you. You did not get it and became abusive.

You asked me to explain some pretty complicated physics to you over a BBS and then proceeded to argue every little point. It is not my job to correct errors on the internet. If you insist on going down the wrong path, it is your path to take.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...361016397#2361016397 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9931068097?r=2361016397#2361016397)

julian265
11-21-2009, 06:04 PM
If that's your version of "trying to explain things" then you should stay well clear of any teaching position. Simply repeating a broad statement is not trying to explain things anyway.

You made very few points after your initial one (which I was ASKING about), so I don't see how I could have "argued over every little point".

Your motives for posting here are not straight, as evidenced by your lie about my edit, let alone the fact you have zero involvement with the subject of this forum.

TheGrunch
11-21-2009, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">save them, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless their pilot got himself in a bad position, why would any of them need to be saved?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No pilot would choose to get his flight into a low altitude furball with multiple opponents that started with an altitude and speed advantage, but regardless of whether you think that is a bad position and that it is unwise for the pilot to be in that position, those compromises had to be made in war for various reasons. At times they couldn't operate at their best altitude or speeds for various reasons that were quite beyond their control such as being ordered to make a low level attack with plenty of ordnance and being caught short halfway through their attack, having to go in at low altitude to avoid being detected on radar, being tied to bombers as a close escort due to orders from their superiors, or in the simplest scenario, doing what their flight leader told them to do whether they wanted to or not, or face a court martial! Orders are orders. Simplest case, maybe they just didn't spot the enemy in time.
In those situations, the characteristics of an aircraft's performance that were better than its opponents in those specific and commonly-repeated conditions, say a Spit having to out-turn 190s on real short notice due to them attacking out of a low cloud-base halfway through the Spit's low-level attack, or indeed a 190 using its better diving characteristics to avoid an early 38 while attacking US bombers.
Those characteristics WERE important and DID make the difference between life or death whether your V-speeds graph says that the pilot was supposed to be flying like that or not.
In situations like that, which were repeated throughout the war, these advantages mean that difference over and over again if you're caught in that situation over and over again due to the characteristics of the air-war as a whole. I *think* that is what Xio is trying to say.
Seems to me that you're approaching this from the position that both sides are always going to be fighting in their ideal conditions and that both parties are ALWAYS going to make the correct decisions in every situation.
If you have the kind of advantage that Xio mentions, you might be able to afford that one critical mistake or survive that less-than-ideal order that would have killed you in another aircraft.
That's just my interpretation, anyway.

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Seems to me that you're approaching this from the position that both sides are always going to be fighting in their ideal conditions </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see how you would think that.

My position is that airplanes are flown a certain way because of certain characteristics that are fixed by the design.

Bear with me as this is an attempt to explain quite a bit at once. Some of the specifics are not explained exactly right in detail but only in principle. For example, I am not explain velocity ratios.

For example, cruise speeds are result of the L/D ratio and fixed by the design of the aircraft. Based on this relationship, aircraft will fly at a specific speeds for that airplane. Drag and lift are connect by design. You cannot increase one or reduce one without doing the same to the other.

As I tried to explain to Julian, it is a system and not one characteristics.

Airplanes that need higher dynamic pressure to fly generally get this by flying at a faster velocity. The most common reason airplanes need a higher dynamic is a smaller wing area. That smaller area generally translates into lower form or parasitic component of drag. They do everything faster than the same design would with more wing area.

Airplanes that don't need a higher dynamic pressure achieve this by slower velocity. The most common way to get a lower dynamic is to increase the wing area which again translates into higher form or parasitic component of drag.

As the power of drag due to lift varies with the inverse of velocity to the first power but the power of form or parasitic drag varies with velocity cubed.

That means the slower we go the more induced drag we experience. That power is ONE for ONE. If we reduce speed 1 unit, we experience 1 unit of drag.

Parasitic or form drag works like this....

The faster we go the more parasitic drag we experience. The power of that drag increases with velocity by the amount of drag CUBED. For every unit of speed we increase our drag unit cubed.

Since parasitic drag is increasing at a cubed rate, generally speaking, the smaller wing area has more excess power at velocity to sustain a higher load factor. This is not CLmax turns either which most people get confused on thinking every turn is a Clmax turn.

The general rule is that any airplane that can go faster at a given altitude will have more excess power at high speed. It can sustain a higher load factor at a higher velocity.

The basic relationship for all aircraft performance is power/thrust available to power/thurst required. Thrust, drag, power, and lift are all connected in the system.

So I am not looking at it in terms of any particular airplane, I just know how they work. It is because of these relationships that an FW-190 will in all likelihood be cruising along at a faster velocity than a Spitfire if they meet co-altitude. It has to do everything faster than the Spitfire. Just as that trait gives the Spitfire advantages, it also gives some to the FW-190.

With the exception of the most rudimentary of pilot training, pilots understood these facts.

Gaston444
11-21-2009, 07:15 PM
Quote Xiolablu3: " For example, the West loved the Fw190 and thought it was a far better aircraft than the BF109.

The Russians loved the Bf109 and thought it far more dangerous than the Fw190."





-The Me-109 on the Eastern front could often get the altitude advantage to dive and zoom on Russian fighters tied to ground-attack roles or low-altitude tactical bombers escort...

If you read Hartmann, or most Eastern Front Me-109 aces, you will find only a minority would attempt to mix it in horizontal turn fighting, the La-5 and Yak-3 being especially feared in this type of combat.

A few, very few, Fin Me-109 aces seemed to have found that downthrottling the Me-109 with the slats deployed at extremely low speeds (160-180 MPH: 250km-h) would give them a slight advantage against some of the Yaks they typically encountered... But it is an exception rather than the rule: Me-109Gs typically avoided turning combat, and usually enjoyed a dive speed performance, and a height advantage, that they could not get against the higher-flying, faster-diving American fighters.

So in the East, the Me-109G was primarily a boom and Zoom, hit-and-run fighter...


In the West, the FW-190A, like the Me-109G, had usually no opportunity for an altitude advantage, since Combat Air Patrols (CAP) over major targets were impossible with the available fuel situation...

Fighting from below, as it were, meant meeting head-on diving fighters with the only remaining ressources of turn-fighting and head-on firepower... The result was that by late 1944 the FW-190A represented 70% of the Western Front fighter strenght. This is because the Germans themselves knew it was better suited to NON-boom and zoom tactics, these other types of tactics being the main, if not the only, things made available to them on the Western front...

With 3X 20 mm guns, the Me-109G in theory could perform at least equally well at high altitude bomber interceptions than the slow-climbing FW-190A could... (I would argue BETTER, given the smaller frontal cross-section offered to bomber fire, leveling things out a bit from a fragility point of view, and the better climb rate resulting in a faster diving attack from above...)

However the escort figthers, for a long time now, had been fanning ahead of the bombers, and you usually had to survive through them first... The FW-190A survived better FIGHTER combat diving on it from above, and that mattered more in the end than having one more 20mm gun than a gongola Gustav... (So much so that FW-190A-8 pilots often had two of theirs removed, and this obviously not with boom and zoom or bomber-busting in mind...)

So it is accurate to say the Me-109G was a better Eastern Front aircraft, but NOT because it was more of a turn-fighter than the FW-190A, but on the contrary because it was more of a hit-and-run type in almost all respects.

Can anyone find or quote what Nicolas Achtog said?

Gaston

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(So much so that FW-190A-8 pilots often had two of theirs removed, and this obviously not with boom and zoom or bomber-busting in mind...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I highly doubt this is a fact. It just was not an authorized load out in the ladeplan after the FW-190A4 series.

megalopsuche
11-21-2009, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by julian265:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Often Xio, you dispute facts thinking they are opinion and that ends up putting us at odds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh dear. I'm going to have to rant.

Facts are all very well, but they've got to be relevant to the precise situation that the quoted post is either discussing, or asking about. If someone asks for clarification or questions your reasoning, you should either explain your position or step out of the discussion. However you often start the school-yard bull#### instead.

And if someone makes a point, noting that it's restricted to certain situations (relevant to an open topic), you shouldn't say they're wrong because it doesn't apply to all situations.

The fact that I edited a post to add a minor detail or name, and you posted that the edit was less abusive, shows that you're not posting to have a good discussion, or to teach, or to learn. You were trying to alter other's perception of me.

When other thread participants have more input that simply asking you a question, you seem to try to degrade them.

But I'm already on your "ignore list", so I'm just ranting to myself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like to think of it as belonging to an exclusive club. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I like to think of it as belonging to an exclusive club. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

There you go julian265...that is a healthy attitude to have about it!

yuuppers
11-21-2009, 08:28 PM
The 190 often had it auxiliary tank behind the cockpit removed to save weight.

Buzzsaw-
11-21-2009, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Seems to me that you're approaching this from the position that both sides are always going to be fighting in their ideal conditions </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see how you would think that.

My position is that airplanes are flown a certain way because of certain characteristics that are fixed by the design.

Bear with me as this is an attempt to explain quite a bit at once. Some of the specifics are not explained exactly right in detail but only in principle. For example, I am not explain velocity ratios.

For example, cruise speeds are result of the L/D ratio and fixed by the design of the aircraft. Based on this relationship, aircraft will fly at a specific speeds for that airplane. Drag and lift are connect by design. You cannot increase one or reduce one without doing the same to the other.

As I tried to explain to Julian, it is a system and not one characteristics.

Airplanes that need higher dynamic pressure to fly generally get this by flying at a faster velocity. The most common reason airplanes need a higher dynamic is a smaller wing area. That smaller area generally translates into lower form or parasitic component of drag. They do everything faster than the same design would with more wing area.

Airplanes that don't need a higher dynamic pressure achieve this by slower velocity. The most common way to get a lower dynamic is to increase the wing area which again translates into higher form or parasitic component of drag.

As the power of drag due to lift varies with the inverse of velocity to the first power but the power of form or parasitic drag varies with velocity cubed.

That means the slower we go the more induced drag we experience. That power is ONE for ONE. If we reduce speed 1 unit, we experience 1 unit of drag.

Parasitic or form drag works like this....

The faster we go the more parasitic drag we experience. The power of that drag increases with velocity by the amount of drag CUBED. For every unit of speed we increase our drag unit cubed.

Since parasitic drag is increasing at a cubed rate, generally speaking, the smaller wing area has more excess power at velocity to sustain a higher load factor. This is not CLmax turns either which most people get confused on thinking every turn is a Clmax turn.

The general rule is that any airplane that can go faster at a given altitude will have more excess power at high speed. It can sustain a higher load factor at a higher velocity.

The basic relationship for all aircraft performance is power/thrust available to power/thurst required. Thrust, drag, power, and lift are all connected in the system.

So I am not looking at it in terms of any particular airplane, I just know how they work. It is because of these relationships that an FW-190 will in all likelihood be cruising along at a faster velocity than a Spitfire if they meet co-altitude. It has to do everything faster than the Spitfire. Just as that trait gives the Spitfire advantages, it also gives some to the FW-190.

With the exception of the most rudimentary of pilot training, pilots understood these facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute

Crumpp makes some valid points here, notably the fact that an aircraft with a top speed of 350mph is going to have more acceleration at 325mph than an aircraft with a top speed of 327mph, which is also travelling at 325mph, even if the slower aircraft has better powerloading. Of course that applies to the P-47/P-51 vs 190/109 as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This is something which is not modelled properly in IL-2, but AFAIK, it will be in BoB.

However, in his all out advocacy for the 190, and its small wing, he does skirt around the fact that higher wingloaded aircraft have to pull a higher angle of attack to generate the same lift as a lower wingloaded aircraft, and in doing so, that produces additional drag.

I also have to laugh at this post, in that in his advocacy for the superiority of aircraft which maneuver at a higher Va, he is arguing in a diametrically opposite direction from the usual stance he takes when the subject of P-51 vs 190 comes up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

julian265
11-21-2009, 08:46 PM
He did a good job of explaining his reasoning, however. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

TheGrunch
11-21-2009, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
...With the exception of the most rudimentary of pilot training, pilots understood these facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm, that's quite a lot to digest, although I am quite happy with the great majority of it already. I'll get back to you once I've turned it over in my head a few times if I still don't think you've got my point. That may well fail to occur. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Also, it seems to me that my point actually was completely different to Xio's on closer inspection.



Gaston, just out of curiosity, what's your opinion on Hans-Joachim Marseille's style of fighting in the 109F in the desert?

M_Gunz
11-21-2009, 11:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Crumpp makes some valid points here, notably the fact that an aircraft with a top speed of 350mph is going to have more acceleration at 325mph than an aircraft with a top speed of 327mph, which is also travelling at 325mph, even if the slower aircraft has better powerloading. Of course that applies to the P-47/P-51 vs 190/109 as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This is something which is not modelled properly in IL-2, but AFAIK, it will be in BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh? Like gravity supposedly isn't modeled properly? As in how is this known?

JtD
11-22-2009, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Xio, the problem is that you're oversimplifying the whole subject.

Sure, a 190 will get caught and it's a** handed on a plate while trying to turn with a Spit at low speeds, but at it's corner-speed or above, it's very likely gonna turn just as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with that assessment. The Spitfire can match the Fw's turn for a large portion of the speed range, the exception being the very high speed part at altitudes where the Fw has a speed advantage. However, in this envelope it can hardly be described as a turn fight and the Spitfire can still maintain a position inside the Fw, though at a lower speed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Don't forget there is Va - manevering speed.
That's the speed at which the aircraft's aoa-margin exceeds it's structural limit-load-margin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turns at that speed could not be maintained in level flight by any WW2 fighter I know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What you're always assuming is that all fighting takes place at the left-hand edge of the flight-envelope. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because that is where classic turn fights between equally skilled pilots will be decided.

Now I know that this is about il-2 Fw compared to real Fw, but imho you can very well take the il-2 compare data for a good quick reference. You will see that the Spit IX will outturn the Fw even at the Fws corner speed.

JtD
11-22-2009, 04:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Crumpp makes some valid points here, notably the fact that an aircraft with a top speed of 350mph is going to have more acceleration at 325mph than an aircraft with a top speed of 327mph, which is also travelling at 325mph, even if the slower aircraft has better powerloading. Of course that applies to the P-47/P-51 vs 190/109 as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This is something which is not modelled properly in IL-2, but AFAIK, it will be in BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is modeled properly in Il-2. The fast plane has the better high speed acceleration, it has been tested and confirmed many many times. I do not recall a single test where this could have been questioned.

What is not modeled properly in il-2 is behaviour at high Mach numbers, but this is only relevant in high speed dives.

Bremspropeller
11-22-2009, 05:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, in his all out advocacy for the 190, and its small wing, he does skirt around the fact that higher wingloaded aircraft have to pull a higher angle of attack to generate the same lift as a lower wingloaded aircraft, and in doing so, that produces additional drag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if we're considering the wing an even plate - true.

Unfortunately, this ain't the case.
Wings tend to have a wing-profile with different CLmax/alpha-curves for different profiles.

Maybe you should refresh your knowledge of basic aerodynamics before trying to make a point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I disagree with that assessment. The Spitfire can match the Fw's turn for a large portion of the speed range, the exception being the very high speed part at altitudes where the Fw has a speed advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unlikely.
IIRC the 190 has a better excessive-thrust curve, thus making it the better sustained turner from it's Va onwards.
BTW: I'm talking of sustained turn-capability only.
The Spit will be able to turn tighter at the expense of speed, but that will get the 190's E-advantage up.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Turns at that speed could not be maintained in level flight by any WW2 fighter I know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your statement misses the G-value.
The sustained G-value is dependant on the excessive thrust.
The higher the excessive thrust, the more G you can pull at speed (depends on your overall drag as well).
Your statement assumes a turnfight at max G.
That didn't happen most of the time.
Particulary because maintaining 6g for more than a couple of seconds quickly leads to tiredness.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You will see that the Spit IX will outturn the Fw even at the Fws corner speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which isn't quite a surprise, regarding the 190's lack of thrust in-game and the Spitfire's sqirrely energy-retention at high speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Now I know that this is about il-2 Fw compared to real Fw, but imho you can very well take the il-2 compare data for a good quick reference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno.
I wouldn't trust game-data more than trusting an old gypsy and her crystal-ball.
Flight-models are made to roughly match certain real-life data gathered during tests.

But you can't correctly model a flight-model around 5 or six 6 raw values.

JtD
11-22-2009, 06:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Unlikely.
IIRC the 190 has a better excessive-thrust curve, thus making it the better sustained turner from it's Va onwards.
BTW: I'm talking of sustained turn-capability only.
The Spit will be able to turn tighter at the expense of speed, but that will get the 190's E-advantage up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a sustained turn there is no excessive thrust. I can still see where you are heading, like I said, I disagree, but can't support it by performance figures. If we were to continue, it would also be necessary to clarify which models we're talking about.
Almost any turn the Fw makes and is matched by the Spitfire by turn rate will reduce the E advantage. It simply is biggest in level flight. The speed advantage may be 40 km/h in level flight, but then it's down to 20 km/h in a 10 deg/sec turn, the E advantage going down with it.
If you think you can use high speed turn advantages to outturn a better slow speed turner in a sustained turn fight, I'd like to see a demonstration. If you manage a sustained turning maneuvre that allows you to fire at me without me being able to fire at you, you've proven your point.

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hmmm, that's quite a lot to digest, although I am quite happy with the great majority of it already. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is quite a bit to digest and you can already see from the replies not everyone understands it.

It is easy to verify that aircraft are flown by according to their design curves by looking at any POH. It will list a power setting to achieve any desired performance or an airspeed such as Vx, Vref, Vy, or Vs. These are all ways of finding a specific spot on the design L/D curve for that aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Your statement assumes a turnfight at max G. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Bremspropeller,

You are absolutely correct. We have two boundaries that define the sustained performance for any aircraft, the lift boundary and the thrust limited performance boundary.

In propeller aircraft, the lift boundary is point our wing reaches CLmax. At some point, the engine can no longer bring the wing to CLmax and our performance is no longer aerodynamically limited but becomes limited by thrust. This is the top line you see in many plots and our wing is not anywhere near CLmax once our velocity moves to the right of the lift line even in an Nzmax turn.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5610/envelopei.jpg (http://img19.imageshack.us/i/envelopei.jpg/)

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4549/bf109g2142ata.jpg (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/bf109g2142ata.jpg/)


All the best,

Crumpp

yuuppers
11-22-2009, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(So much so that FW-190A-8 pilots often had two of theirs removed, and this obviously not with boom and zoom or bomber-busting in mind...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I highly doubt this is a fact. It just was not an authorized load out in the ladeplan after the FW-190A4 series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It was still done. Bär and Priller

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/tango35/PrillerA6-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/tango35/BrA7.jpg

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was still done. Bär and Priller </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only as part of the R6 kit as those aircraft are set up for....

The rockets used the outboard cannon electrical plugs for firing. That is not a unit modification either but a factory modification to mount and fire the rockets. The airplane was delivered to the unit mounting that kit.

The FW-190A8 eliminated this requirement with the universal wiring harness allowing it to mount both the outboard cannon and the rockets.

Some FW-190A7's also were given the universal wiring harness and a supplemental ladeplan was issued for that type.

Gaston's claim is false:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> (So much so that FW-190A-8 pilots often had two of theirs removed, and this obviously not with boom and zoom or bomber-busting in mind...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Removing the outboard weapons was not authorized maintenance at the unit level for the FW-190A series after the introduction of the FW-190A5.

M_Gunz
11-22-2009, 07:12 AM
Brems, if the FW lacks thrust then how does it go so fast?

Xiolablu3
11-22-2009, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Xio, the problem is that you're oversimplifying the whole subject.

Sure, a 190 will get caught and it's a** handed on a plate while trying to turn with a Spit at low speeds, but at it's corner-speed or above, it's very likely gonna turn just as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with that assessment. The Spitfire can match the Fw's turn for a large portion of the speed range, the exception being the very high speed part at altitudes where the Fw has a speed advantage. However, in this envelope it can hardly be described as a turn fight and the Spitfire can still maintain a position inside the Fw, though at a lower speed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Don't forget there is Va - manevering speed.
That's the speed at which the aircraft's aoa-margin exceeds it's structural limit-load-margin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turns at that speed could not be maintained in level flight by any WW2 fighter I know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What you're always assuming is that all fighting takes place at the left-hand edge of the flight-envelope. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because that is where classic turn fights between equally skilled pilots will be decided.

Now I know that this is about il-2 Fw compared to real Fw, but imho you can very well take the il-2 compare data for a good quick reference. You will see that the Spit IX will outturn the Fw even at the Fws corner speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is what I mean, but written better than I could ever write it.

I would think the Spitfires low wing loading makes a large difference in horizontal turning ability.

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, in this envelope it can hardly be described as a turn fight and the Spitfire can still maintain a position inside the Fw, though at a lower speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If it is not a turn fight, then what is it?

Both aircraft are using their sustained turn performance to gain superior position and gun solution.

One has to slow its velocity to continue the fight and the other has to convert the energy advantage gained in the turn fight to altitude.

I would agree that one design must continue to turn hoping for advantage and the other design must abandon the level turn hoping for advantage.

The fight diverges from both aircraft entering a sustained turn fight into Brown's "curious form of dog-fighting". That form develops as a result of the physics for any aircraft that exhibits these general characteristics as neither design can match the others sustained performance at the same velocity.

I would like to keep the specific comparisons to an absolute minimum. By all means you can make specific comparisons to your games data as that is pretty cut and dry based on Maddox games assumptions. I am sure doing that will be useful when you play it.

Those assumptions I am sure are also valid but are not the only valid assumptions one can make in predicting aircraft performance. One of the reasons why I am sure you have noticed your FM change over the years with each version being the "realistic" one.

Making absolute declarations of the real aircraft is a silly thing to do as we can only predict trends and not specific performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
11-22-2009, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

This is what I mean, but written better than I could ever write it.

I would think the Spitfires low wing loading makes a large difference in horizontal turning ability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Regarding wingloading, this certainly is one aspect, but it probably isn't the most important one. If you were to compare the Fw 190A and a Merlin 66 powered Spitfire, you'd find similar engine power at 80% the planes weight, and that imho is much more important.

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you were to compare the Fw 190A and a Merlin 66 powered Spitfire, you'd find similar engine power at 80% the planes weight, and that imho is much more important. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Comparing similar engine power at 80% weight is absolutely meaningless in terms of aircraft performance. Can you rephrase that into something that makes sense? Simple is better.


Thrust opposes drag not weight....basic force alignment. Sure drag due to lift is factor but the characteristics of it have already been discussed.

I think you are trying to reconcile the fact that our thrust limited performance is also velocity dependent.

So while many aircraft can sustain a higher over all load factor at a lower velocity, it does not necessarily translate into sustaining a higher load factor at the SAME velocity.

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you think you can use high speed turn advantages to outturn a better slow speed turner in a sustained turn fight, I'd like to see a demonstration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go:

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/889/dogfighty.jpg (http://img339.imageshack.us/i/dogfighty.jpg/)

TheGrunch
11-22-2009, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Here you go:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting that we see one of Gaston's favourite quotes in its proper context, that of conserving speed in the pullout, not difficulty with achieving the pullout itself.

Gaston444
11-22-2009, 02:21 PM
Quote, "TheGrunch": "Interesting that we see one of Gaston's favourite quotes in its proper context, that of conserving speed in the pullout, not difficulty with achieving the pullout itself."

-Yes, Eric Brown, and his initial experience with the Mk IX's somewhat exceptional, in 1943, relative turn performance, is likely the unintentional source of all of this "The-FW-190A-is-not-a-turn-fighter" nonsense. Yet for pull-outs, his own experience in the FW-190A told him the light controls had to be used gently if the aircraft was not going to kill speed by "sinking", ruining what is obviously already something less than the sharpest possible pull-out...

What he glosses over however, is that the very fact that the aircraft is prone to "sinking" at high speed, when most other aircrafts are quite "tight" in the fast airflow, means the relative pitch maneuverability response of the Fw-190A at high speeds is actually very poor, despite the light elevator controls...

But since simulations do not appear to model "mushing" in pitch, often not even in roll, then "mushing" does not exist I suppose... An AH designer actually argued this with me at lenght on AH, which just shows how distant from reality are these simulations...

Also, I'd take Johnson's combat experience over Eric Brown's... It's not a close call...

Gaston

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 02:38 PM
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2559/aiaamushing.jpg (http://img214.imageshack.us/i/aiaamushing.jpg/)

Bremspropeller
11-22-2009, 02:46 PM
JtD, the 190 manages to sustain a given G-load at higher speeds than the Spit.

Same g-load at same speed leads to identical turning-circles and times.

Thus, the Spit won't be able to match the 190's sustained turn at high speeds.

The Spit may pull tighter and make it an instantaneous turn wih a higher rate.
That leaves the 190 with the option to discontinue and go vertical.

In short words: the 190 MAY not be in an advantage (turnrate) for the turn by it's higher sustainable G/speed, but it's always at the advantage of chosing whether to mix it up or go vertical.


Gaston, "sinking" rather implies an overly-responsive control, leading to excessive AoA and propable high-speed-stalls.

Daiichidoku
11-22-2009, 03:01 PM
i DO recall reading a British (pilot pr organisation, i cant recall) evaluation of the 190, noting that the 190 would tend to "mush" in pull outs from dives, and caution to keep extra large altitude margins to begin pullouts from dives

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">DO recall reading a British (pilot pr organisation, i cant recall) evaluation of the 190, noting that the 190 would tend to "mush" in pull outs from dives, and caution to keep extra large altitude margins to begin pullouts from dives </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What you are seeing beginning of a high speed stall.

The angle of attack has changed faster than the wing can maintain flight and the inboard portion of the wing is stalled. This reduces the co-efficient of lift and the wing can no longer meet the forces required.

Any airplane can do it under the right circumstances.

Daiichidoku
11-22-2009, 03:15 PM
noted and forgotten

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 03:18 PM
I edited my post for clarity Daiichidoku. Hope it makes more sense to you.

I know you are just passing on what you read.

M_Gunz
11-22-2009, 03:33 PM
Can't induced drag be mitigated somewhat by using higher aspect-ratio wings?

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Can't induced drag be mitigated somewhat by using higher aspect-ratio wings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, aircraft are a system and not one characteristic.

FatCat_99
11-22-2009, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
JtD, the 190 manages to sustain a given G-load at higher speeds than the Spit.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only at altitudes where it is faster than Spit but that advantage is marginal.

I used SpitIX and FW190A5 at SL for quick comparison.
Speed max.
Spit 535 kmh
FW 560 kmh

If FW turn at 535 kmh it will have only ~5deg/s RoT.

In case that Spit decide to turn at same RoT it could do it at ~520kmh so FW would have only 15kmh more speed than Spit and transforming such a small E advantage into kill is practically impossible.

FC

TheGrunch
11-22-2009, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
-Yes, Eric Brown, and his initial experience with the Mk IX's somewhat exceptional, in 1943, relative turn performance, is likely the unintentional source of all of this "The-FW-190A-is-not-a-turn-fighter" nonsense. Yet for pull-outs, his own experience in the FW-190A told him the light controls had to be used gently if the aircraft was not going to kill speed by "sinking", ruining what is obviously already something less than the sharpest possible pull-out...

What he glosses over however, is that the very fact that the aircraft is prone to "sinking" at high speed, when most other aircrafts are quite "tight" in the fast airflow, means the relative pitch maneuverability response of the Fw-190A at high speeds is actually very poor, despite the light elevator controls...

But since simulations do not appear to model "mushing" in pitch, often not even in roll, then "mushing" does not exist I suppose... An AH designer actually argued this with me at lenght on AH, which just shows how distant from reality are these simulations...

Also, I'd take Johnson's combat experience over Eric Brown's... It's not a close call...

Gaston </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd take Brown's experience in flying hundreds of different types of aircraft, particularly German ones of all shapes and sizes (including the 190), performing carrier landings in all kinds of unsuitable aircraft, and particularly his flight testing of aircraft in extreme conditions during the research at the RAE's Aerodynamic into transonic flight a lot more seriously than Johnnie Johnson's one anecdote when evaluating an aircraft's performance, particularly when Johnson never flew the 190 himself. Your assessments of information seem to be weighted toward anecdotes and to ignore important things like altitude.
Anyway, hang on, you said: "the light controls"? Haven't you decided that the 190 had terribly heavy controls above 250mph due to the report you posted in the other thread? To be honest all I take from Brown's quote is that a shallow climb to extend is preferable in the 190, which also seems to work in the game.
As for "mushing in pitch", which I take to mean "angle of attack", fly in no-cockpit view in IL-2 and look at the flight path indicator. You're wrong, simple as that. The 190 is more than likely to experience this effect in a dive due to the fact that it is a fairly heavy (and nose-heavy) aircraft and has a lot of momentum to fight in a pullout. But that goes for any aircraft. IL-2 is not AH, there's little point in using information about AH here.

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 04:38 PM
I assume you are referring to specific performance in your game, FatCat. Good to know stuff for the players and thanks for posting it.

As I said earlier, I would like to keep the specific comparisons for actual aircraft to an absolute minimum. By all means you can make specific comparisons to your games data as that is pretty cut and dry based on Maddox games assumptions. I am sure doing that will be useful when you play it.

Those assumptions I am sure are also valid but are not the only valid assumptions one can make in predicting aircraft performance. One of the reasons why I am sure you have noticed your FM change over the years with each version being the "realistic" one.

Making absolute declarations of the real aircraft is a silly thing to do as we can only predict trends and not specific performance.

TheGrunch
11-22-2009, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
One of the reasons why I am sure you have noticed your FM change over the years with each version being the "realistic" one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
From what I am given to believe, the IL-2 FM section for each aircraft is made up of a surprisingly short list of variables, as well. I find it very impressive that the relative performance of the aircraft that the sim presents is as good as it is.

Gaston444
11-22-2009, 05:00 PM
quote:
"I DO recall reading a British (pilot pr organisation, i cant recall) evaluation of the 190, noting that the 190 would tend to "mush" in pull outs from dives, and caution to keep extra large altitude margins to begin pullouts from dives"



What you are seeing beginning of a high speed stall.

The angle of attack has changed faster than the wing can maintain flight and the inboard portion of the wing is stalled. This reduces the co-efficient of lift and the wing can no longer meet the forces required.

Any airplane can do it under the right circumstances."


-Airplanes that have large or sudden pitch reactions can do it, but not so easily those with heavy controls that prevent exceeding rapidly the maximum angle of attack at high speeds.

One might say it is a feature common to overly light elevator controls at high speeds, as the Spitfire is limited in turn rate at high speed, to the extent that the pilot cannot move the stick top back more than 3/4 of an INCH (!!!) without going into a "stall". But since it is a "stall" with FULL three-axis control, pilots sometimes say "mushing".

Though this hurts the Spitfire's high speed turn ability (Turning diameter, at 400 MPH TAS, is 625 yds for a Spitfire Mk XIV vs 450 yds for the P-51D Mustang(!), it actually allows such fine pitch control that the Spitfire could use this "mushing" to shoot accross the circle inside its own turn. This, however was of no help defensively, which is why defensively the Spitfire does not seem to shake chasers so easily...

It goes without saying that the FW-190A's own high speed mushing was nowhere near as mild or controllable, resulting in abrupt and uncontrollable pitch-up, and thus heavy deceleration, hence the "tended to black out the pilot" described in this test, which no one has commented on because it doesn't fit with any simulation "science":

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

In high speed horizontal turns rather than vertical-axis pull-outs, this FW-190A mushing often manifested itself in a sudden, apparently "intentional", pitch-up, followed immediately by an abrupt wing drop. So horizontally, the "mushing" was often interrupted by the assymetrical nature of gravity's pull on horizontal turns. In vertical-axis pull-outs, however, the abrupt pitch-up "mushing" went on obviously for a much longer time in an "elongated" loop, with a strangely nose-up "sinking" attitude that created tremendous decelerative Gs on the pilot:

http://www.spitfireperformance...0-murrell-2dec44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/20-murrell-2dec44.jpg)

Note the "I turned inside him without any trouble", at 400 MPH throughout, despite the supposed excellence of the FW-190A in high speed turns... Doesn't this match perfectly the P-47D's massive superiority in high speed turns in the above test? Or the P-47D's "decidedly superior angle of dive pull-out" in the same test? Or the "will inevitably offer turning combat at minimum speed" and "coming OUT of a dive, the FW-190 will fall an extra 200 m(620 ft)" seen here?:

http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war...iences-fw-190-a.html (http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html)

I really wonder what it is going to take...

And that pitch "mushing" is an unfamiliar notion here just demonstrates how far from reality simulations are...

I heard one criticism of Il-2 that it doesn't capture roll direction reversal "mushing", but that CFS2 did. I really hope not many think these things are a perfect reflection of real flying, not to mention the flight models themselves!...

Gaston

ImpStarDuece
11-22-2009, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
quote:
(Turning diameter, at 400 MPH TAS, is 625 yds for a Spitfire Mk XIV vs 450 yds for the P-51D Mustang(!)

Gaston </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTH?

Got a reference?

You got called out on this BS on the Aces High site as well, IIRC.

TheGrunch
11-22-2009, 05:20 PM
The fact that it's an unfamiliar notion is just because of the terminology you're using, Gaston. I've talked about the P-51 in the other thread.
"this FW-190A mushing often manifested itself in a sudden, apparently "intentional", pitch-up, followed immediately by an abrupt wing drop." Doesn't this remind you of something? Oh, yeah, the 190's stall characteristics.
As for the Spit having difficulty losing pursuers at high speeds, this is due to a truly terrible roll rate at high speeds.

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I find it very impressive that the relative performance of the aircraft that the sim presents is as good as it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be very tough to get things "right" because it is almost impossible to define "right".

It's not unusual for normal aircraft performance to vary as much as 10%.

Through that fact in with all the different kinds of variants and it becomes a very muddied pond to determine exactly what should be "right".

In the analysis I have done, it very much depends on which Focke Wulf and which Spitfire variant are under discussion. That is of course with my assumptions which are actually quite simple, .85 Np and .85 e, as I just wanted relative performance possibilities with what is considered standard.

An interesting note is the FW-190A5 is one of the worst performing Antons in the Line up.

FatCat_99
11-22-2009, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I assume you are referring to specific performance in your game, FatCat. Good to know stuff for the players and thanks for posting it.

As I said earlier, I would like to keep the specific comparisons for actual aircraft to an absolute minimum. By all means you can make specific comparisons to your games data as that is pretty cut and dry based on Maddox games assumptions. I am sure doing that will be useful when you play it.

Those assumptions I am sure are also valid but are not the only valid assumptions one can make in predicting aircraft performance. One of the reasons why I am sure you have noticed your FM change over the years with each version being the "realistic" one.

Making absolute declarations of the real aircraft is a silly thing to do as we can only predict trends and not specific performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I compared RL planes, all air forces are doing that so I don't see any reason why shouldn't I do the same. Of course it is always possible find exceptions in RL and use it to prove any agenda one might have but if you compare average numbers you can get pretty good picture about performance.

"Realistic" FM is just marketing, every game have it. There is no simulator with realistic FM but they are not bad either. Even current PC games have very good FM. I can guarantee you that Il2 FM is more advanced than any of your spreadsheets and you use them quite often.

Weaknesses of modern flight simulations are not in basic aircraft performance. It is much harder to simulate "feel" than to get performance numbers right. For example I made experimental FM for FW190A4 in Il2 and compared Cl vs AoA in game and in DATCOM, results were almost identical.

FC

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I compared RL planes, all air forces are doing that so I don't see any reason why shouldn't I do the same. Of course it is always possible find exceptions in RL and use it to prove any agenda one might have but if you compare average numbers you can get pretty good picture about performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I compare RL data too, FatCat. I don't claim that I can prove anything other than relative performance trends though because I recognize the limits of the data and our expression of the physics.

I am confident in those trend prediction and could get a very good estimate given more resources and better data.

Do you claim to be able to predict specific performance at this level?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> average numbers </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that averages are the gold mine of data. However, what are the average numbers?

So far only POH's tend to list those and a few documents relating to contracting.

Compressibility corrections were very much in their infancy during WWII and not universal in application. They still is no standard today but at least we agree on the size of the correction now in subsonic incompressible theory. That is why I prefer to use IAS and convert speed myself with a PEC chart if possible.

My best data is the contractual kind listing the speed and the percentage variation the design team is willing to guarantee.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I can guarantee you that Il2 FM is more advanced than any of your spreadsheets and you use them quite often. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sure it more complicated. I keep mine pretty simple for reasons I already stated.

However complication does not ensure accuracy in aircraft performance prediction especially when playing CSI: Antique Airplane FM.


Now if you want to put some money down to pay me for my time, we can get into some much more complicated analysis.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
11-22-2009, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Only at altitudes where it is faster than Spit but that advantage is marginal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the version of the Spit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 06:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Depends on the version of the Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes it does.....

R_Target
11-22-2009, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rettungferris:

Also anyone have any links to F8F bearcat being influenced by FW 190's evaluation. There's this dude at work who says Grumman liked the FW 190 they used alot of it to develop the Bearcat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"In early 1943, Grumman officials were invited to England to see the captured fighters of the Axis powers and to fly some of them. The test team included: Leroy Grumman, president of Grumman and test pilot during and after WW I; Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations and a test pilot current in all American airplanes at that time; and Bob Hall, chief engineerexperimental, a famous test pilot of Grumman and other airplanes of the Gee Bee era.
Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.

The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. This would give our naval aviators a big performance increase over the newer Japanese fighters and would still retain the proven performance of the P&W R-2800 series production engines installed in the Hellcat. "

http://www.findarticles.com/p/...s_199808/ai_n8826530 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not quite the whole story. From Dr. Francillon's Grumman Aircraft Since 1929:

http://i50.tinypic.com/2nqfznl.gif

Additionally, Jimmy Thach's biography mentions Thach discussing the "then conceptual" Bearcat in 1942.

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 08:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is not quite the whole story. From Dr. Francillon's Grumman Aircraft Since 1929: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Can you be more specific and point out exactly what you are looking at R_Target?

I don't see anything in that passage that invalidates or changes the conclusions in the article referenced.

Not saying you are wrong, I just don't see what you're trying to say. What am I missing?

Thanks!

TheGrunch
11-22-2009, 08:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I don't see anything in that passage that invalidates or changes the conclusions in the article referenced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed, the fact that the memo went out in July '43 after the visit in 'early' '43 seems if anything to confirm those conclusions.
Isn't the Bearcat an incredible design? It's such a fantastic distillation of everything a piston-engined fighter should be, and capable of operating from a carrier to boot.

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 08:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Isn't the Bearcat an incredible design? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I love the Bearcat, what an cool airplane with unsurpassed performance.

I do have to admit, the breakable wing would scare the pants off me to fly it.

yuuppers
11-22-2009, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Isn't the Bearcat an incredible design? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I love the Bearcat, what an cool airplane with unsurpassed performance.

I do have to admit, the breakable wing would scare the pants off me to fly it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The breakaway wing tip was only on early models of the F8F.

TS_Sancho
11-22-2009, 09:03 PM
Heres a pretty good read on the Bearcat.

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...30/?tag=content;col1 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530/?tag=content;col1)

R_Target
11-22-2009, 09:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Can you be more specific and point out exactly what you are looking at R_Target?

I don't see anything in that passage that invalidates or changes the conclusions in the article referenced.

Not saying you are wrong, I just don't see what you're trying to say. What am I missing?

Thanks! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems to me that a lightweight fleet interceptor was going to happen regardless of whether or not Bob Hall went to the UK and flew an Fw190. Even when F6F development began, the plan was for a Wildcat-sized plane with a lot more power (Wright R-2600).

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The breakaway wing tip was only on early models of the F8F. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your ever present busy bodiness on my postings. Just to relieve your anxiety, it was not a dig on the Bearcat.

The thinking behind the breakaway tips was sound and it would have been a great concept if they could have gotten to work.

I personally would not want to fly an airplane that the wings fall off even if by design and no matter how sound the concept.

I think most pilots would agree....

One day, maybe you can order an airplane from the dealership and get that feature installed.

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It seems to me that a lightweight fleet interceptor was going to happen regardless of whether or not Bob Hall went to the UK and flew an Fw190. Even when F6F development began, the plan was for a Wildcat-sized plane with a lot more power (Wright R-2600).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely and I am sure a replacement for the F6F was in the works. That does not conflict with either article or mean Grumman did not see the FW-190 and like what they saw.

The article just says they liked the concept and thought the F6F's replacement should incorporate the same design philosophy. The time line in both articles lines up perfectly too with the memo sent after the trip.

I still don't understand the issue.

R_Target
11-22-2009, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Absolutely and I am sure a replacement for the F6F was in the works. That does not conflict with either article or mean Grumman did not see the FW-190 and like what they saw.

The article just says they liked the concept and thought the F6F's replacement should incorporate the same design philosophy. The time line in both articles lines up perfectly too with the memo sent after the trip.

I still don't understand the issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The tendency around here is to infer from Corky Meyer's article that the F8F is some kind of copy of the Fw190, as silly as that sounds.

Kettenhunde
11-22-2009, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The tendency around here is to infer from Corky Meyer's article that the F8F is some kind of copy of the Fw190, as silly as that sounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It just says they liked what they saw and decided to use the same philosophy and features.

Grumman did pay an obvious complement to Focke Wulf in doing so...

In fact they worked to improve on it. What is wrong with that?

R_Target
11-22-2009, 10:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
It just says they liked what they saw and decided to use the same philosophy and features. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you explain which features were used?

RSS-Martin
11-22-2009, 11:17 PM
Oh wow another thread that will be almost identical to:
footage, 50 cal punches wings off fw190s easily
and :Japanese explosive 12.7 ammo

Guess this is going to be another 30 pager on hot air?
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/forums/images/smilies/old_ubb_smilies/popcorn.gif

Gaston444
11-22-2009, 11:46 PM
Quote, TheGrunch: "Anyway, hang on, you said: "the light controls"? Haven't you decided that the 190 had terribly heavy controls above 250mph due to the report you posted in the other thread?"

-No, the heavyness or not of the elevator controls on the FW-190A at high speeds is not hugely relevant: It varied greatly depending on the elevator trim apparently. What does not change is that, regardless of the weight of these controls, the authority in pitch is typically adequate on the FW-190A at high speeds. What is not so good is the PROGRESSIVENESS of the pitch response at high speeds, AND especially near the limit, which limit when approached (a high-speed limit which, on the FW-190A, is not comparatively very high compared to a P-51D, by the way) creates brusquely and suddenly a vicious pitch-up (because the pitch stability is not so good at high Gs), and as a result of that instability, the maximum angle of attack is quickly exceeded without the pilot wanting it to be, resulting in a violently decelerating "mushing" or, more often, in horizontal turns, a violent wing drop. This abrupt pitch change is much less severe at low speeds on the FW-190A, and can be catched with a quick push, including the wing drop using the ailerons, fairly easily with experience (described as a mild push simultaneous with a quick lateral stick movement by the FW-190A ace).

Even in pull-outs, where assymetrical wing drop issues are less severe, the TRAJECTORY response to the abrupt high-speed pitch change is very poor on the 190A, the trajectory being very wide -"elongated"- resulting, instead of a sharp curve, in a wider curve were severe deceleration occurs throughout this wider curve. This is why Kurt Tank can claim x number of Gs for very little stick pressure, something that fooled me for years into thinking that the FW-190A had great elevator response at high speeds... Some of those 7Gs were expended in deceleration through "mushing" at a slight, or maybe even severe, tail-down angle compared to the trajectory: So Kurt Tank's 7G vertical axis pull-out figure may have been instead the equivalent, trajectory-wise, of only 5 Gs in another aircraft, with 2 Gs being deceleration through "mushing"...

This is what is meant by the "tended to black-out the pilot" in the P-47D test: It is a tendency to pitch-up abruptly and decelerate "wider" rather than turn. High-speed pitch instability in curves, basically:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

Even though the Me-109G is famously heavier in its controls, if trimmed tail-heavy I am sure it can perform 6 G pull-outs at 400 MPH quite easily. Though the FW-190A may inflict 7 Gs on its pilot, it doesn't mean its actual trajectory will not be wider, and thus result in an inferior "real" pull-out of around, say, 5 Gs based on the trajectory alone...

AND on top of that, you have to factor in that while the Me-109G's 6 G pull-out was an efficient trajectory change, with a good exit speed, the FW-190A was torturing its pilot while all the time DECELERATING in a slight tail-down nose-up attitude, burning level speed needed on the pull-out exit. Hence E. Brown's "Care must be taken not to kill speed by "sinking", or the FW-190 will be extremely vulnerable during the recovery".

Add to this the generally superior low-speed turn performance of the FW-190A, and you get a very clear notion of why Rall described the 109 as an edge-less "stabbing" sword, while the FW-190A was described as a curved-blade Saber...

Given the lack of altitude start advantage for the Germans on the Western Front, it is easy to see why the tight-turning, heavy head-to-head punch of the FW-190A was better there, while the low-flying, battlefield-oriented Russians feared the high-flying, hit-and-run Me-109G more...

Gaston

Xiolablu3
11-23-2009, 02:43 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Hawker_Sea_Fury.jpg

The Hawker Fury/Sea Fury was inspired by a lot of features of the Fw190 too.

Xiolablu3
11-23-2009, 02:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:

Add to this the generally superior low-speed turn performance of the FW-190A, and you get a very clear notion of why Rall described the 109 as an edge-less "stabbing" sword, while the FW-190A was described as a curved-blade Saber...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


IMHO you have TOTALLY misunderstood what he said.

He meant that the Bf109 was a light, close-in dogfighting type aircraft with lighter armament *like a light florrette* (a very thin, light sword used in fencing)

And that the Fw190 was a heavier, heavily armed, very fast aircraft. Used for bringing down hard, fast and then getting out to reassess the situation for the next heavy blow. *Like a heavy sabre*


The Bf109 was for dancing around the sky (light and manouverable in the turn, like a florrette), whereas the Fw190 was used for that hard punch and get out. (heavily armed, and very fast for that 'knockout blow' like a heavy sabre)

THAT was his point as far as I can see.

yuuppers
11-23-2009, 04:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The breakaway wing tip was only on early models of the F8F. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your ever present busy bodiness on my postings. Just to relieve your anxiety, it was not a dig on the Bearcat.

The thinking behind the breakaway tips was sound and it would have been a great concept if they could have gotten to work.

I personally would not want to fly an airplane that the wings fall off even if by design and no matter how sound the concept.

I think most pilots would agree....

One day, maybe you can order an airplane from the dealership and get that feature installed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Never said you thought it was a negative dig of the F8F, it was just a clarification for those gamers reading this thread that not all F8Fs had breakaway wing tips.

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 04:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Never said you thought it was a negative dig of the F8F, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is good to know and a refreshing change from your usual immaturity.

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 04:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Can you explain which features were used? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You will have to ask Giles and Hall the specifics, R_Target.

The article only says:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.

The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bremspropeller
11-23-2009, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I love the Bearcat, what an cool airplane with unsurpassed performance.

I do have to admit, the breakable wing would scare the pants off me to fly it.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two idiots, one thought http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'd have to rate the Sea Fury pretty much on par, though.



Edit:

One more thing:
Has anybody noticed that Brown kinda contradicts himself?
First (talking of Faber's A-3, which he never flew, though) he talks about "sinking" during high-speed recoveries.
Later, talking about the A-4 which hee flew himself, he talks about a noseheaviness that in turn leads to restrictions during high-speed pullouts.

Somebody propably messed with the trim.

Any ideas?

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 06:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Somebody propably messed with the trim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Or he did not trim it.

JtD
11-23-2009, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JtD, the 190 manages to sustain a given G-load at higher speeds than the Spit.

Same g-load at same speed leads to identical turning-circles and times.

Thus, the Spit won't be able to match the 190's sustained turn at high speeds.

The Spit may pull tighter and make it an instantaneous turn wih a higher rate.
That leaves the 190 with the option to discontinue and go vertical.

In short words: the 190 MAY not be in an advantage (turnrate) for the turn by it's higher sustainable G/speed, but it's always at the advantage of chosing whether to mix it up or go vertical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, a higher speed enables it to go vertical. The speed advantage is largest when the Fw pulls 1G and the Spit follows with 1G. This is straight (level) flight. In a turn, this advantage gets smaller until it turns into a disadvantage.

Eventually, you can no more out turn a superior sustained turner than you can out climb a superior sustained climber. The only difference would be that in a climb, the guy climbing at a smaller rate and higher speed would actually extend, while in a turn he'd just fly a larger circle while the relative positions remain the same.

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> you can no more out turn a superior sustained turner than you can out climb a superior sustained climber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. All that performance is based on a specific speed.

If you cannot sustain the angle of bank required at the speed required, you cannot out turn the other aircraft in his sustained envelope.

It does not matter if the speed is fast or slow. All that matters in turn performance is you must be able to sustain the angle of bank at the speed required to match performance.

Remember, all aircraft, at the same angle of bank and velocity, will make exactly the same turn!

You must then trade altitude for airspeed or reduce the angle of bank to maintain altitude.

This is why designers go for speed in fighter aircraft and NOT the ability to turn small circles at slow velocity.

You are getting it, JtD!

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
11-23-2009, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Eventually, you can no more out turn a superior sustained turner than you can out climb a superior sustained climber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends.
If your best sustained climbs are very off, but one plane cann still climb where the other can merely fly straight, he wins.

The old story of a P-47 climbing away at the Zero's level-top-speed.

TheGrunch
11-23-2009, 11:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Two idiots, one thought http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'd have to rate the Sea Fury pretty much on par, though.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You nasty man! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif You're right, the Sea Fury is up there. I like the de Havilland Hornet more than both, actually. Now there's an aircraft for fighting in comfort and style. Brown had a lot to say about it, actually:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Circumstances had conspired against the Sea Hornet in obtaining the recognition that it justly deserved as a truly outstanding warplane...in my book the Sea Hornet ranks second to none for harmony of control, performance characteristics and, perhaps most important, in inspiring confidence in its pilot. For sheer exhilarating flying enjoyment, no aircraft has ever made a deeper impression on me than did this outstanding filly from the de Havilland stable.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wonder what its load limits and diving characteristics were like, though, it was made out of wood after all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Has anybody noticed that Brown kinda contradicts himself?
Somebody probably messed with the trim.

Any ideas? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I imagine that Brown probably found the electrically operated trim quite off-putting and didn't get the best out of its use - I imagine it was the first time he'd encountered one.



Gaston, look, you're just describing the 190's stall characteristics - a quick-onset stall followed by a wing drop. This "trajectory" issue you keep mentioning is just angle of attack...you realise that angle of attack is the angle between the chord line of the wing and the flight path, right? So what you're wanting to say is that the 190 was unstable in pitch?
I don't understand what you're trying to say about the G forces, though. If the 190's flight path changed relatively slowly in response to a change in angle of attack by comparison to other fighters, why would a violent pitch-up be such an issue for the pilot? It would simply be a rapid change in the angle of attack. All the pilot would feel would be the sensation of the aircraft rotating from a slightly tail heavy to a very tail-heavy attitude and a less than corresponding change in the amount of G forces. If anything he'd also be in a better position to withstand G-forces due to being in a more reclined position relative to the action of the G-forces. To say that an aircraft inflicts more Gs on a pilot at the same speed while following a shallower flight path as the pilot is in a more reclined position is pretty bizarre.
Could you clarify?

M_Gunz
11-23-2009, 12:01 PM
Gaston reminds me of Josf except for the screenie montages and F-86 vs Mig-15 chart.
Same kind of rhetoric though, real big on misquotes.

JtD
11-23-2009, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

Depends.
If your best sustained climbs are very off, but one plane cann still climb where the other can merely fly straight, he wins.

The old story of a P-47 climbing away at the Zero's level-top-speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, maybe it depends. But if so then not on physics or plane performance, but on pilot dumbness. There is no speed a plane can merely fly straight at, it can always pull up and slow down. There's no physical law in this universe that forces the A6M to fly at the same speed as the P-47. It doesn't exist.

If you really believe that a P-47D10 can out climb an A6M3 by making use of it's superior speed, I'll gladly host a short il-2 session and prove you wrong. If you manage to get on top of me before we get to 8000m, you win.

TS_Sancho
11-23-2009, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Given the lack of altitude start advantage for the Germans on the Western Front </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not true at all. The Germans had hours warning to position their air defense.

BTW, are you familiar with the British modifying the spifires controls with bob weights?

Xiolablu3
11-23-2009, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:


This is why designers go for speed in fighter aircraft and NOT the ability to turn small circles at slow velocity.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No they go for both :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GdfnTLKcvM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9wLKvXMxZ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...E0ZE&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08qQOkXE0ZE&feature=related)


They spend *massive* amounts of money on thrust vectoring enabling tighter turns at dogfighting speeds. If what you are saying is true then this is all just money down the drain by the worlds top designers.

TS_Sancho
11-23-2009, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you really believe that a P-47D10 can out climb an A6M3 by making use of it's superior speed, I'll gladly host a short il-2 session and prove you wrong. If you manage to get on top of me before we get to 8000m, you win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JTD, I do it all the time. You might get to 8000 meters first but so what? If I can still climb at a speed where you cant you dont have a hope of engaging me. All I have to do is keep fast and take my time, sooner or later I'll take the advantage from you and if we are up high when that happens the fights over. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 12:29 PM
Fixed this for you, Xio.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Now they go for both :-

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JTD, I do it all the time. You might get to 8000 meters first but so what? If I can still climb at a speed where you cant you dont have a hope of engaging me. All I have to do is keep fast and take my time, sooner or later I'll take the advantage from you and if we are up high when that happens the fights over. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That is correct TS_Sancho. The faster airplane can also climb away from the slower one.

JtD
11-23-2009, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:

JTD, I do it all the time. You might get to 8000 meters first but so what? If I can still climb at a speed where you cant you dont have a hope of engaging me. All I have to do is keep fast and take my time, sooner or later I'll take the advantage from you and if we are up high when that happens the fights over. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that's a related to the higher ceiling the P-47D10 has. We can try the same thing with you in a P-51D20, which is even faster than the P-47D10. In this case I'd say if you EVER get on top of me you win (assuming that il-2 compare gives the proper climb rates) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
And in this case, you'll never engage me, because no matter how far or close you are, I'll always be higher than you.

However, who's to engage whom is not the point. The point is that speed does not allow you to out climb a better climber. Same way it doesn't allow you to outturn a better turner. We can try that with the P-51 vs. A6M as well, if you ever get onto my six using a sustained climbing or turning maneuvre, you win.

M_Gunz
11-23-2009, 12:41 PM
<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 Kettenhunde:


This is why designers go for speed in fighter aircraft and NOT the ability to turn small circles at slow velocity.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No they go for both :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GdfnTLKcvM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9wLKvXMxZ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...E0ZE&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08qQOkXE0ZE&feature=related)


They spend *massive* amounts of money on thrust vectoring enabling tighter turns at dogfighting speeds. If what you are saying is true then this is all just money down the drain by the worlds top designers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you have Mach 3 missiles you don't even have to be so fast do you? Isn't that why Harriers are effective?

Bremspropeller
11-23-2009, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There's no physical law in this universe that forces the A6M to fly at the same speed as the P-47. It doesn't exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who talks about physical laws?

The P-47 may outclimb the A6M or outdistance it.
It has the choice of either.

The Zero hasn't.
That's where the Zero loses the fight - if the Jug-Pilot ain't too dumb.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They spend *massive* amounts of money on thrust vectoring enabling tighter turns at dogfighting speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To no avail.
The new-generation heaters will out-turn any fighter, no matter if TVC is installed or not.
That's because the heater will out-G the fighter by a factor of 5.

What really counts today is the ability to quickly point your nose into the general direction of the enemy and squeeze off a missile before he has a chance to do the same.

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The point is that speed does not allow you to out climb a better climber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely wrong.

Just as a higher top speed allows you to have a better sustained turn ability at a faster speed it also dictates you have a higher climb rate at a higher velocity.

You can see this on your IL2 compare.

JtD
11-23-2009, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

Who talks about physical laws?

The P-47 may outclimb the A6M or outdistance it.
It has the choice of either.

The Zero hasn't.
That's where the Zero loses the fight - if the Jug-Pilot ain't too dumb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, the P-47 has the choice to outdistance or to not outdistance the A6M. The A6M has the choice to outclimb or to not outclimb the P-47.

You have my offer, if you in a P-47D10 manage to outclimb me in an A6M3 below 8000meters, you win.

Bremspropeller
11-23-2009, 12:53 PM
Not if the Zero flies at the same speed as the P-47.

The Zero can either fall back and climb/ zoom, or try to stay at the Jug's tail and see itself being outclimbed.

Fact.

TS_Sancho
11-23-2009, 12:58 PM
Speed does allow me to choose whether we fight or I run untill I can secure an advantage.

Towards the last of the Japanese ammo thread when you and Bill were discussing the merits of a P51/KI84 matchup. The Frank climbs better, turns better at any speed and hits harder but is slower.

You seemed to prefer the Mustang, saying the P51 is the good choice as its speed advantage makes it hard to beat.

Same principal here, just different airplanes.

Xiolablu3
11-23-2009, 01:03 PM
I understand that speed is extremely important in a fighter. but if you go for speed only then you end up with something like the F104 Starfighter, which was not really a success when you look at its career.

I think some of you guys are putting too much emphasis on speed. Handling qualities and climbing ability are extremely important too. Of course just my opinion as always.

Many times people declared the end of dogfighting and have deleted guns from aircraft, only to be proved wrong and hastily add them again.

JtD
11-23-2009, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Not if the Zero flies at the same speed as the P-47. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And WHY would it do that? You've just agreed that there's no physical law in this universe to make that happen.

Saying that a speed advantage can make you outclimb a plane is about as smart as suggesting that a climb advantage can make you outrun a plane. "If I climb at 340 you'll have to climb at 280 to match my climb, so I'll easily run away from you."
Outrunning a P-47 in a A6M is one of the very few things I haven't seen online yet.

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We can try that with the P-51 vs. A6M as well, if you ever get onto my six using a sustained climbing or turning maneuver, you win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He should be able to use his sustained turning ability to force you on the defensive at a lower energy state.

He can then use the energy advantage gained to kill you.

JtD
11-23-2009, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Speed does allow me to choose whether we fight or I run untill I can secure an advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb allows me to choose whether we fight or I climb until I can secure an advantage. Same thing.

I prefer speed because one happens to be a much harder target while running then while climbing. Running also tends to get you towards friendly lines a lot quicker than climbing. A speed advantage is much more useful in many vs. many situations.
But all this is tactics and pilot abilities, not plane performance.

Anyway, you guys have my offer, show me wrong. All you need to do is to outclimb a slow A6M.

Xiolablu3
11-23-2009, 01:12 PM
I know everyone hates pilot quotes, but just to back up what I am saying about climb rate, handling and manouverability...

Pierre Clostermann (French RAF Ace who flwe Spitfires and Tempests) flew both the Spitfire V and IX , and the much faster Tempest. But always preffered fighting in the slower Spitfire IX more, for its fast climb, handling and manueverability. (In fact he stated that the Spitfire was his 'beloved' aircraft.)

I am quite sure he never flew the Spitfire XIV, so hes definitely in a slower aircraft than the Tempest when using the Spit IX.

Or 101 squadron faster P51D vs slower Spitfire IX LF :-

"The Mustang was the fastest [...] Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. " [For fighting the Egyptians] Gordon Levett

Just trying to make the point that not everyone thinks speed is all important over climb, handling and manouverbility.

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">know everyone hates pilot quotes, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not at all, Xio.

Did I tell you about my friend who owns a Piper Cub?

He prefers flying it to the Supersonic B1 bomber he used to fly.

The cub is just more relaxing, less complex, and since everything happens at a slower speed, easier to fly.

Bremspropeller
11-23-2009, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I understand that speed is extremely important in a fighter. but if you go for speed only then you end up with something like the F104 Starfighter, which was not really a success when you look at its career. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really a success?
Maybe the air forces of
Canada
USA
Japan
Norway
Spain
Danmark
Taiwan
Netherlands
Italy
Greece
Turkey
Belgium and
Germany
don't know something you do.

BTW:
It you wanna make a reference at it's turning-capabilities...
It could sustain a 7g turn at 470kts which was pretty much state of the art in 1958 and still was in 1968 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You've just agreed that there's no physical law in this universe to make that happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's your obsession wich physical laws all about?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Saying that a speed advantage can make you outclimb a plane is about as smart as suggesting that a climb advantage can make you outrun a plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if you can ultimately sustain a higher altitude at the end.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"If I climb at 340 you'll have to climb at 280 to match my climb, so I'll easily run away from you." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Outrunning a P-47 in a A6M is one of the very few things I haven't seen online yet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what are you so surprised about?

BillSwagger
11-23-2009, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Anyway, you guys have my offer, show me wrong. All you need to do is to outclimb a slow A6M. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't think anyone here is in disagreement with you JtD, i think you are absolutely correct.

But in reference to the context of the quote that sparked this tangent:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The old story of a P-47 climbing away at the Zero's level-top-speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I took that to mean something a bit different than a race to altitude.

You also agree that speed is usually the better advantage.

In a P-47D-10, I know that i couldn't beat you to altitude per say, but i can get distance which buys more time to get to a place of advantage which might mean you are at your ceiling before i get to mine. All i need to do is guarantee that i have the distance to get above your ceiling.

The same thing plays out in offline scenarios even against dim witted AI.


Bill

JtD
11-23-2009, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

What's your obsession wich physical laws all about? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They define what aircraft can do.

Like I said, take up the challenge and show me how you outclimb a better climber in a faster plane. Probably takes less time in HL than typing in another post. You can then come back and state what happened. Either way, end of debate.

TS_Sancho
11-23-2009, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if you go for speed only then you end up with something like the F104 Starfighter, which was not really a success when you look at its career </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xio, I'm shocked! Smashing on the Zipper? The F104's bad rap is undeserved, it was an awesome point defense fighter.

I was just reading an ancedote over on F16.net where one of the old vets was describing a 2 on 2 with a couple F15's in the 70's. When I can find it I'll post it for you.

In the meantime if your interested here is a good read on what the F104 was really about...


http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm (http://www.dcr.net/%7Estickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm)

Xiolablu3
11-23-2009, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if you go for speed only then you end up with something like the F104 Starfighter, which was not really a success when you look at its career </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xio, I'm shocked! Smashing on the Zipper? The F104's bad rap is undeserved, it was an awesome point defense fighter.

I was just reading an ancedote over on F16.net where one of the old vets was describing a 2 on 2 with a couple F15's in the 70's. When I can find it I'll post it for you.

In the meantime if your interested here is a good read on what the F104 was really about...


http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm (http://www.dcr.net/%7Estickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Most definitely interested http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Thanks for the link. Somehow I got the impression that the F104 was a failure? Didnt Erich Hartmann hate it and the Luftwaffe had real problems with it?

Will do some more reading on it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 01:49 PM
At 21 degrees a second it takes 17 seconds to move through 360 degrees.....

At 3000 fpm climb rate you can get ~285 yards in altitude in 17 seconds....

Point being, you need an extremely large climb rate advantage for sustained climb to make any difference in a fight.

Xiolablu3
11-23-2009, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">know everyone hates pilot quotes, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not at all, Xio.

Did I tell you about my friend who owns a Piper Cub?

He prefers flying it to the Supersonic B1 bomber he used to fly.

The cub is just more relaxing, less complex, and since everything happens at a slower speed, easier to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But these guys are talking about fighting, not flying for pleasure.

Daiichidoku
11-23-2009, 02:04 PM
<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 TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if you go for speed only then you end up with something like the F104 Starfighter, which was not really a success when you look at its career </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xio, I'm shocked! Smashing on the Zipper? The F104's bad rap is undeserved, it was an awesome point defense fighter.

I was just reading an ancedote over on F16.net where one of the old vets was describing a 2 on 2 with a couple F15's in the 70's. When I can find it I'll post it for you.

In the meantime if your interested here is a good read on what the F104 was really about...


http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm (http://www.dcr.net/%7Estickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Most definitely interested http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Thanks for the link. Somehow I got the impression that the F104 was a failure? Didnt Erich Hartmann hate it and the Luftwaffe had real problems with it?

Will do some more reading on it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the only real problem 104s had was landing in crosswinds

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But these guys are talking about ..........flying </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the RAE puts it best...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling technique in combat. For this reason, Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIV's, and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would not be appreciated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...est/tempestafdu.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestafdu.html)

Xiolablu3
11-23-2009, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But these guys are talking about ..........flying </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the RAE puts it best...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling technique in combat. For this reason, Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIV's, and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would not be appreciated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...est/tempestafdu.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestafdu.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read the quote after from 101 Israelii squadron, they are specifically testing the combat qualities of a Spitfire LF IX, a P51D and an Avia S199 against each other to see the pros and cons of each in the battle against hte Egyptians.


http://101squadron.com/101/aircraft.html



Remember, I am not saying that you are wrong, just that I think you place a little too much value on speed and not enough on other aspects of a fighter. (in particular close-in dogfighting ability)

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">'for pleasure flying I prefer the Spitfire </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


With the exception of one opinion, they do relate they like flying the Spitfire Xio.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> During his air combat career, George Lichter spent extensive time in the P-47, the P-51D, the S-199, and the Spitfire LF9. He felt the S-199 flew like crap, saying "You really had to fly it all the time." He loved the Thunderbolt's power and armor and preferred it over the P-51 for combat duty. While he felt the P-51 was perhaps more maneuverable, it had an Achilles heel - its inline engine, which if hit would conk out quickly. The P-51's Merlin engine would give you 30 minutes at the absolute most after being hit. The P-47's radial could take enormous damage and still get you home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Like many other pilots, Lichter loved flying the Spitfire most of all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Giddy Lichtman, at least, preferred the Mustang, however </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Jack Cohen, too, enjoyed the Spitfire.

Well as far as the Spitfire was concerned, she was just the perfect aeroplane to fly. She had no vices - you did something wrong she'd turn around and say, you know, "don't do it again." Not like some of these American planes. I mean, you know they'd turn round and bite you the second you did something wrong. But the Spit really didn't have any faults - it was like flying a Tiger Moth. Very easy to fly. (Hyde 2000)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Cohen recalls that the Spitfire guns were harmonized to converge at 300 or 400 yards. He also had kind words for the Mustang:

She was fast. If anything slightly faster. But I think the Spit had the edge on her as far as manoeuvrability. Of course, the P-51 had the range. So that's why they could do the long trips even with the bomber boys. She was a very nice plane to fly, but that was only after they put a Merlin engine in it. (Hyde 2000)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://101squadron.com/101/aircraft.html

Honestly, I don't know what you are seeing because I do not see overwhelming claims of combat superiority of the Spitfire, only that the airplane was fun to fly when compared to the others.

Bremspropeller
11-23-2009, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Like I said, take up the challenge and show me how you outclimb a better climber in a faster plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't need to prove it - it's a no-brainer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Didnt Erich Hartmann hate it and the Luftwaffe had real problems with it?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hartmann never flew it.
The problems were solved fairly quickly after the real roots of the problems were uncovered.

They had nothing to do with the plane itself.

berg417448
11-23-2009, 03:27 PM
<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 TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if you go for speed only then you end up with something like the F104 Starfighter, which was not really a success when you look at its career </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xio, I'm shocked! Smashing on the Zipper? The F104's bad rap is undeserved, it was an awesome point defense fighter.

I was just reading an ancedote over on F16.net where one of the old vets was describing a 2 on 2 with a couple F15's in the 70's. When I can find it I'll post it for you.

In the meantime if your interested here is a good read on what the F104 was really about...


http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm (http://www.dcr.net/%7Estickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Most definitely interested http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Thanks for the link. Somehow I got the impression that the F104 was a failure? Didnt Erich Hartmann hate it and the Luftwaffe had real problems with it?

Will do some more reading on it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is some more reading on it:

http://users.bestweb.net/~kcoyne/f104story.htm (http://users.bestweb.net/%7Ekcoyne/f104story.htm)

stalkervision
11-23-2009, 03:35 PM
You will read in some references that the F-104 is not very maneuverable. Well, down low and going slow, it isn't. However, high and fast - which was how it was designed to operate - it is just about untouchable. The secret is energy maneuvering, repeatedly trading speed for altitude and vice versa. Pilots of other aircraft flying practice dogfights against a Starfighter get left behind when their opponent makes a vertical maneuver they can't match. While they are trying to relocate the tiny plane, it suddenly dives on them from behind. Repeated slashing maneuvers leave opponents riddled, while providing little opportunity for retaliation. (Members of one squadron of F-105 pilots participating in dissimilar aircraft exercises complained that the only reason they came in second was that the F-104s kept going up and down, instead of turning hard like real airplanes do. One F-8 pilot in another dissimilar aircraft exercise chased down what he thought was a lone F-4 - which also used the J-79 engine - only to see an F-104 break off from close formation, going into a vertical climb. He lost that match.)

I love playing that same game in the 109e against the early spit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Gaston444
11-23-2009, 06:13 PM
Quote, The Grunch: "If anything he'd also be in a better position to withstand G-forces due to being in a more reclined position relative to the action of the G-forces. To say that an aircraft inflicts more Gs on a pilot at the same speed while following a shallower flight path as the pilot is in a more reclined position is pretty bizarre.
Could you clarify?"


- It IS counter-intuitive, but what is the other interpretation possible for the mysterious "tended to black-out the pilot" in the P-47 test, given how poor the high speed maneuverability was, and the shallower angle of dive pull-out compared to the P-47?

I think the tail-down "mushing" was not acute enough to help the pilot: I think the deceleration had him doubling over a bit into his shoulder straps, and the reclining seat in this case might have made things worse given the unusual G force angle on deceleration.


Quote, TS_Sancho: "quote:
Given the lack of altitude start advantage for the Germans on the Western Front


That's not true at all. The Germans had hours warning to position their air defense.


- Not so true when Doolittle untied the escorts from the bombers to range ahead of the bomber stream... Also, they rarely had the altitude advantage against escort fighters, since their purpose was to engage the bombers anyway. Finally, their high altitude performance was much inferior to US fighters, even on some of the AS Me-109G models, so they had no incentive to fight them there anyway... The Me-109G had abruptly worsening handling above 30 000 ft.(which I hope Il-2 replicates...), so there was no point in being there...

Gaston

TS_Sancho
11-23-2009, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they had no incentive to fight them there anyway... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Finally, their high altitude performance was much inferior to US fighters, even on some of the AS Me-109G models, so they had no incentive to fight them there anyway... The Me-109G had abruptly worsening handling above 30 000 ft.(which I hope Il-2 replicates...), so there was no point in being there... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't understand your line of reasoning. The american bombers flew at operational altitudes of 24000+ and the Germans didn't have any choice but to go up after them to have a hope of defending their industry.

By mid 1943 the Luftwaffe gained practical experience in this type of warfare to coordinate more complex strategies and used the MW50 109's with their higher operational ceiling to engage the escorts while the FW190's utilized their heavier firepower to engage the bombers.

The airwar in the east was fought in tactical support of the ground forces, down low in the mud. The kind of environment that encourages WW1 style slow turnfights. Judging from the russian evaluations, they certainly didn't regard the FW's to be very well suited to the role.

On a side note, as an aircraft enthusiast if you haven't even tried IL2 yet you really need to. You can pick it up for $10 USD and it is known in the flight sim community as having one of the better flight models of the genre. The game engine itself has a lot of flexibility, there is an entire offshoot of the community that uses it for movie making and screenshot art and if you do like to fly online as some of us do its free.

yuuppers
11-23-2009, 07:58 PM
Shouldn't that be GM1 Sancho? MW50 gave a performance boost below the FTH.

Freiwillige
11-23-2009, 08:13 PM
While GM-1 was designed out rite to boost high alt performance MW-50 still produced boost above FTH. Up to what alt I am not sure but I have read of its usage up to 27k

R_Target
11-23-2009, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You will have to ask Giles and Hall the specifics, R_Target.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe Bud Gillies and Bob Hall, as well as Chief Designer Bill Schwendler and Roy Grumman himself, have long since left the building. The reason I asked for specifics was that I thought you might have had some information that I didn't already have. The article mentions no specific features.

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The reason I asked for specifics was that I thought you might have had some information that I didn't already have </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No problem, If I had specifics I would share it with you.

Buzzsaw-
11-23-2009, 09:36 PM
<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 read the quote after from 101 Israelii squadron, they are specifically testing the combat qualities of a Spitfire LF IX, a P51D and an Avia S199 against each other to see the pros and cons of each in the battle against hte Egyptians. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note:

The Israelis did not have access to 100/150 octane fuel, the Spitfire and P-51 were both limited to using lower octane fuel, in fact, they may have been limited to commercial fuel at 87 octane, which meant they would have been operating at less than even +18 boost. So this comparison is of Spitfires and Mustangs at minimum, pre-July 1944 power levels, and possible, pre-'43 power levels.

In addition:

The Avia did not handle like a late model 109, it was considerably heavier with the Jumo engine, although it was able to run at full boost with the fuel available.

Finally, it is clear the Israeli pilots prefer the Spitfire in combat:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the combat records for the Israelis show they had the most success in the Spitfires.

Kettenhunde
11-23-2009, 09:56 PM
MMMMMMM

You mean Gordan Levit represents the all the isreali pilots?

You quote his opinion you know....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disregard any other opinion that contradicts your own ....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Giddy Lichtman, at least, preferred the Mustang, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

....and morph comments that only talk about flying into declarations of combat preferences.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Well as far as the Spitfire was concerned, she was just the perfect aeroplane to fly. She had no vices - you did something wrong she'd turn around and say, you know, "don't do it again." Not like some of these American planes. I mean, you know they'd turn round and bite you the second you did something wrong. But the Spit really didn't have any faults - it was like flying a Tiger Moth. Very easy to fly. (Hyde 2000) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you have 3 guys and one mans opinion from this website whom the author admits he is not a historian nor is the site anything but a hobby....

Not a museum, archive, or official site...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I would love to turn this Web site into a study of the history of air operations in the Israeli War of Independence and of the Israel's aircraft acquisition in foreign lands during and previous to the war. Unfortunately, this is still a hobby, not a job, and I can only work on this in my spare time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://101squadron.com/101/101.html

You turn these few snippets into what you are sure is a factual generalization about the entire Isreali Air Force....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Buzzsaw says:
Finally, it is clear the Israeli pilots prefer the Spitfire in combat: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

TheGrunch
11-23-2009, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
It IS counter-intuitive, but what is the other interpretation possible for the mysterious "tended to black-out the pilot" in the P-47 test, given how poor the high speed maneuverability was, and the shallower angle of dive pull-out compared to the P-47?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If in doubt, adopt the simplest explanation - the pilot of the FW-190 was a different person and therefore had a different tolerance to G forces. The Navy report on the FW-190 doesn't mention any such behaviour in a dive, only mentions that it has a nasty no-warning stall in the turn and in loops, and also mentions that the aircraft is about equal to the Corsair and Hellcat in the zoom, both eminent BnZ aircraft. Don't talk to me about ailerons, in this context they're irrelevant. You don't get to pick and choose your sources like that.
It also mentions similar to the other report that the aircraft begins to vibrate and control forces become noticeable (but never objectionable) at high speed. However this report decides to actually mention that this is mainly above the diving restrictions for the aircraft.
A final thing to think about is that perhaps the P-47 pilot wore a G-suit and the 190 pilot didn't? G-suits were available to US pilots in '44.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
I think the tail-down "mushing" was not acute enough to help the pilot: I think the deceleration had him doubling over a bit into his shoulder straps, and the reclining seat in this case might have made things worse given the unusual G force angle on deceleration.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would have to be some absolutely fabulous deceleration to have him double over. At the end of the day the acting direction of the G-forces in a pullout and for the most part during a turn is still down through the pilot's body. Experiencing many less Gs momentarily isn't going to make you double over unless the aircraft literally starts to bunt opposite to the turn or pullout.
Experiencing many less G's in a given direction momentarily isn't really deceleration, either, it's just less acceleration. Deceleration would be experiencing G's opposite to the turn or pullout.
Simplest analogy is being fired into low-earth orbit in a rocket. You experience a huge amount of Gs during the launch, but as the acceleration stops abruptly when the first stage runs out of fuel, you're not going to fly up against your restraints, because gravity's still acting down against you. From a blackout point of view, it's going to be a momentary relief. Granted, the behaviour you describe would require the pilot to rapidly re-apply Gs, but the acceleration experienced there would be no more than during the initial pullout or during the initial turn.
Gs are about acceleration, not speed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Not so true when Doolittle untied the escorts from the bombers to range ahead of the bomber stream... Also, they rarely had the altitude advantage against escort fighters, since their purpose was to engage the bombers anyway. Finally, their high altitude performance was much inferior to US fighters, even on some of the AS Me-109G models, so they had no incentive to fight them there anyway... The Me-109G had abruptly worsening handling above 30 000 ft.(which I hope Il-2 replicates...), so there was no point in being there...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Saying "there was no point in being there" doesn't mean anything. They didn't have a choice...it was a choice of going up there and shooting down the bombers, or don't and watch their industry get blown to hell.
As a combat pilot, you still have to consider whether you want to get back and fight your next mission, though, so grabbing an altitude advantage is always going to be on the cards.
As for Doolittle's order, that still gave the Germans plenty of time to organise fighters. The fighter vanguard for the bomber stream didn't turn up too far in advance, and it took a LONG time for a bomber formation to join up and get moving. German radar coverage gave them easily enough time to get to altitude.

JtD
11-23-2009, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Like I said, take up the challenge and show me how you outclimb a better climber in a faster plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't need to prove it - it's a no-brainer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I totally agree on the no brainer part. Only that I use a different interpretation here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I offered a way to prove or disprove your point, you dodge it. Fine. I'll show you a track nonetheless.

Xiolablu3
11-24-2009, 01:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
MMMMMMM

You mean Gordan Levit represents the all the isreali pilots?

You quote his opinion you know....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disregard any other opinion that contradicts your own ....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Giddy Lichtman, at least, preferred the Mustang, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

....and morph comments that only talk about flying into declarations of combat preferences.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Well as far as the Spitfire was concerned, she was just the perfect aeroplane to fly. She had no vices - you did something wrong she'd turn around and say, you know, "don't do it again." Not like some of these American planes. I mean, you know they'd turn round and bite you the second you did something wrong. But the Spit really didn't have any faults - it was like flying a Tiger Moth. Very easy to fly. (Hyde 2000) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you have 3 guys and one mans opinion from this website whom the author admits he is not a historian nor is the site anything but a hobby....

Not a museum, archive, or official site...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I would love to turn this Web site into a study of the history of air operations in the Israeli War of Independence and of the Israel's aircraft acquisition in foreign lands during and previous to the war. Unfortunately, this is still a hobby, not a job, and I can only work on this in my spare time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://101squadron.com/101/101.html

You turn these few snippets into what you are sure is a factual generalization about the entire Isreali Air Force....

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, I said no such thing. I have read the whole site and more on the subject, there is extensive first hand sources from the guys that were there. You are not answering my point, but making your own up.

You are missing my point totally.

My point was that SOME pilots prefer the manouverbility of the SPitfire to the top speed of the P51. I said nothing about the whole Israeli airforce.

And - You are the one who is using one snippet from the website owner to back up your point. I am using first hand quotes from the pilots themselves, who were there. Whether the guy is a historian or not, the quotes are primary sources from real fighter pilots, many whom were aces with experience in many prop WW2 types. Only the part you quoted is written by the 'amatuer', as you put it.

Heres one that you cannot argue with :-



"Wonderful airplane. Great airplane. But for our situation there, not as good as the Spitfire. The reason? The Mustang was built for longer range, it was a heavier aircraft - it could not maneuver as tightly as the Spitfire. The Spitfire was designed and built as a short-range fighter. You gotta remember that all it had to was cross the English Channel and it was in a war zone. The Mustang was designed and built to escort long-range bombers and to defend them in the air. Consequently, it had to have more armament and more fuel capacity, so it was heavier and it couldn't maneuver anywhere near as good as the Spitfire. "

Syd Antin

Gammelpreusse
11-24-2009, 03:09 AM
<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 Kettenhunde:
MMMMMMM

You mean Gordan Levit represents the all the isreali pilots?

You quote his opinion you know....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disregard any other opinion that contradicts your own ....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Giddy Lichtman, at least, preferred the Mustang, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

....and morph comments that only talk about flying into declarations of combat preferences.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Well as far as the Spitfire was concerned, she was just the perfect aeroplane to fly. She had no vices - you did something wrong she'd turn around and say, you know, "don't do it again." Not like some of these American planes. I mean, you know they'd turn round and bite you the second you did something wrong. But the Spit really didn't have any faults - it was like flying a Tiger Moth. Very easy to fly. (Hyde 2000) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you have 3 guys and one mans opinion from this website whom the author admits he is not a historian nor is the site anything but a hobby....

Not a museum, archive, or official site...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I would love to turn this Web site into a study of the history of air operations in the Israeli War of Independence and of the Israel's aircraft acquisition in foreign lands during and previous to the war. Unfortunately, this is still a hobby, not a job, and I can only work on this in my spare time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://101squadron.com/101/101.html

You turn these few snippets into what you are sure is a factual generalization about the entire Isreali Air Force....

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, I said no such thing. I have read the whole site and more on the subject, there is extensive first hand sources from the guys that were there. You are not answering my point, but making your own up.

You are missing my point totally.

My point was that SOME pilots prefer the manouverbility of the SPitfire to the top speed of the P51. I said nothing about the whole Israeli airforce.

And - You are the one who is using one snippet from the website owner to back up your point. I am using first hand quotes from the pilots themselves, who were there. Whether the guy is a historian or not, the quotes are primary sources from real fighter pilots, many whom were aces with experience in many prop WW2 types. Only the part you quoted is written by the 'amatuer', as you put it.

Heres one that you cannot argue with :-



"Wonderful airplane. Great airplane. But for our situation there, not as good as the Spitfire. The reason? The Mustang was built for longer range, it was a heavier aircraft - it could not maneuver as tightly as the Spitfire. The Spitfire was designed and built as a short-range fighter. You gotta remember that all it had to was cross the English Channel and it was in a war zone. The Mustang was designed and built to escort long-range bombers and to defend them in the air. Consequently, it had to have more armament and more fuel capacity, so it was heavier and it couldn't maneuver anywhere near as good as the Spitfire. "

Syd Antin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. And there I thought the Mustang was a more maneuverable plane then the Spit, kinda similiar to the 190 being a more maneuverable plane. You are sure he did not mean "turning"?

BillSwagger
11-24-2009, 03:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Like I said, take up the challenge and show me how you outclimb a better climber in a faster plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't need to prove it - it's a no-brainer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I totally agree on the no brainer part. Only that I use a different interpretation here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I offered a way to prove or disprove your point, you dodge it. Fine. I'll show you a track nonetheless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I don't think anyone here is in disagreement with you JtD, i think you are absolutely correct.

But in reference to the context of the quote that sparked this tangent:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The old story of a P-47 climbing away at the Zero's level-top-speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I took that to mean something a bit different than a race to altitude.

You also agree that speed is usually the better advantage.

In a P-47D-10, I know that i couldn't beat you to altitude per say, but i can get distance which buys more time to get to a place of advantage which might mean you are at your ceiling before i get to mine. All i need to do is guarantee that i have the distance to get above your ceiling.

The same thing plays out in offline scenarios even against dim witted AI.

Tactically its better for the Zero to stay low where it has more power. There is also the looming fact that the P-47 could out dive it, not only to escape, but the Zero couldn't possibly dive fast enough to get away. Then at such speeds guess where those climb curves are at?

I think that is more in the context of what Brems was saying.


I've used these tactics in a P-40, and the margin between the two planes is much less in climb yet fights at higher speeds typically favor the P-40 for that reason. Its the turns where both, the 47 and 40 would run into trouble, and for that reason its still a challenging fight.





Bill

M_Gunz
11-24-2009, 06:15 AM
Which has the higher ceiling that the other cannot reach no matter how long it flies?

JtD
11-24-2009, 08:35 AM
Bill, the context was a bit larger than just what you quoted and the argument has evolved a bit.

By now it may just be people playing dumb or acting funny, as I really can't imagine that folks seriously claim that the better climber cannot outclimb the faster plane.

Fact is the better climber can make it a race to altitude and he determines who comes out on top.

horseback
11-24-2009, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Gammelpreusse wrote:

Interesting. And there I thought the Mustang was a more maneuverable plane then the Spit, kinda similiar to the 190 being a more maneuverable plane. You are sure he did not mean "turning"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Only in a curve, like a broadsword...

Seriously, I have heard some pilots' opinions that indicated that a 'lightly loaded' Mustang was close to the Spit, but I would assume that you would have to employ different tactics. We've all heard Bob Johnson's claims of besting Spits and Mustangs in mock combats (and NO ONE ever seemed to have contradicted him) in the paddlebladed Jug, so it must be possible that a good Mustang driver could force a Spitfire (or FW or 109) to react to his tactics too.

I have always believed that all the major late war fighters were actually fairly well matched and that the key to survival was the ability to pick your fights, use your aircraft's relative strengths, maintain the initiative, use good tactics and know when to leave the party.

cheers

horseback

BillSwagger
11-24-2009, 08:54 AM
I interpret ceiling to mean that the plane is no longer able to go upward, which in game it says the A6m3 is about 26k ft, IIRC. I think a pilot could still climb it to just above 30k ft but the rate of climb is nearly flat and keeping airspeed is difficult to hold to make climbing efficient.

This is why JtD said up to 8000m, but i wonder which plane could get to 10,000m sooner.

P-40E is out of the question here.


Bill

BillSwagger
11-24-2009, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Bill, the context was a bit larger than just what you quoted and the argument has evolved a bit.

By now it may just be people playing dumb or acting funny, as I really can't imagine that folks seriously claim that the better climber cannot outclimb the faster plane.

Fact is the better climber can make it a race to altitude and he determines who comes out on top. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to see the results, not that i'm trying to prove you wrong, i just want to see what happens in a climb scenario between those two birds.


Just give me time and place.


Bill

horseback
11-24-2009, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Bill, the context was a bit larger than just what you quoted and the argument has evolved a bit.

By now it may just be people playing dumb or acting funny, as I really can't imagine that folks seriously claim that the better climber cannot outclimb the faster plane.

Fact is the better climber can make it a race to altitude and he determines who comes out on top. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree here. You have to be able to follow your target at HIS rate of climb and climb angle. If you can't keep up at his best climb or if he can run away faster, slowly climb and stay out of your guns' elevation/range, he has the advantage.

If I'm flying a P-40, which has a cr@pulous climb in general, but is good bit faster than the Zero or Oscar, unless I have a ton of speed advantage, I'm not going to pull back on the stick a lot; I'm going to run away and make a slow climb to maintain my speed and simultaneously increase the distance and altitude between me and my pursuer. He can choose to climb faster, but the range will open up much more rapidly, or he can choose to match climb rates and still watch me pull away, or he can break off before I have obtained the separation and altitude to dictate the terms of the fight to him.

In real life, most pilots with limited ammo would not take a shot over 400m range at a single engined target; it was too hard to get effective strikes.

If I'm in a Zero or Oscar being chased by a Warhawk, I climb like a squirrel at an angle they can't match. Even against an aircraft with a similar or slightly better climb rate, if I can maintain an angle of climb that he cannot match, I can stay above his guns.

Dave McCampbell caught a Ki-27 over the Philippines in October 1944, and although his Hellcat was generally superior, the Nate could flutter up at a higher angle than McCampbell could match. McCampbell, in his after action report mentioned that the Ki 27 was thought to be used as a trainer at that point of the war, and that the pilot of this particular Nate, if he was a trainee, could be assumed to have passed the course.

cheers

horseback

JtD
11-24-2009, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Disagree here. You have to be able to follow your target at HIS rate of climb and climb angle... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who says I have to follow someone at all? That's not even the point here, though some may perceive it as such. Maybe I'm just more interested in not getting shot down than in trying to follow an enemy plane the same way a dog follows a rabbit.

Left out the rest, because there's no reason to argue that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
11-24-2009, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:

Just give me time and place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm in Hyperlobby on let's say stand by. Drop me a pager message there, if I'm still close to my computer I'll be hosting within a minute.

horseback
11-24-2009, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Disagree here. You have to be able to follow your target at HIS rate of climb and climb angle... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who says I have to follow someone at all? That's not even the point here, though some may perceive it as such. Maybe I'm just more interested in not getting shot down than in trying to follow an enemy plane the same way a dog follows a rabbit.

Left out the rest, because there's no reason to argue that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My point is that there's no point in following if you can't get a clear shot. If I can climb at a sharper angle than you can, you can't take a shot. If I can run away at a speed you can't match and add an element of climb that slows you down even further, you can't take a shot and you will disengage before I reach a distance and altitude advantage that allows me to dictate terms.

If I can climb at a speed and or angle the other guy can't follow and close the range to take a shot, it doesn't matter if he can climb faster at a higher speed and shallower angle or a lower speed and sharper angle when climbing at that speed and angle doesn't put me in his crosshairs. It doesn't necessarily follow that if you have a better 'best' climb rate at one speed and angle that it will allow you to match another aircraft at a different speed and angle.

Being at a higher altitude but five miles behind doesn't give you an advantage. The whole point of the exercise is to keep as much distance between my six and the other guy's guns.

I think on that point that we are in full agreement.

cheers

horseback

JtD
11-24-2009, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

...Being at a higher altitude but five miles behind doesn't give you an advantage... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still better than being below and five miles in front. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Well, yes to the rest.

---

Fun fight Bill, classic draw.

Bremspropeller
11-24-2009, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I offered a way to prove or disprove your point, you dodge it. Fine. I'll show you a track nonetheless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm certainly not gonna re-install the game just to prove you something.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fact is the better climber can make it a race to altitude and he determines who comes out on top. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To what avail?
Seeing the world from up there?

You still haven't understood the point.
Sure, the Zero can slow down and hang on it's prop (which I have now pointed out about three or four times...dunno where your trouble in understanding that lies), but that's gonna buy the Jug separation.


The Zero has the choice of being outclimbed or being outrun.
I just don't realize what's so hard to understand on this one.

JtD
11-24-2009, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The Zero has the choice of being outclimbed or being outrun.
I just don't realize what's so hard to understand on this one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the Zero has also the option of outclimbing the P-47.
It's not about understanding, but about you always omitting that option.
It may not help it to get on the P-47's tail, but it will very well help it to keep the P-47 off it's own tail. And this would be the whole point of a race to altitude. Don't try to tell me you really think the only point in high altitude is the great view. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
11-24-2009, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Because the Zero has also the option of outclimbing the P-47. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's what I've been writing now for about 4 posts.

And in doing so, the Zero is being outrun.

Buzzsaw-
11-24-2009, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I interpret ceiling to mean that the plane is no longer able to go upward </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, 'Ceiling' for the RAF and USAAF was usually defined as the point at which an aircraft's climb rate drops below 100 ft per minute.

Viper2005_
11-24-2009, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Even against an aircraft with a similar or slightly better climb rate, if I can maintain an angle of climb that he cannot match, I can stay above his guns.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if your opponent is foolish enough to try to stay behind you.

Given a climb rate advantage, all that he needs to do is turn away and climb at Vy. Given a few minutes he will then be above you.

Once he's got the altitude, his steady state Vx disadvantage doesn't count for much...

BillSwagger
11-24-2009, 01:48 PM
My take on it is more of tactical common sense.

The A6M really only has the capacity control the fight from above. I mean the A6M needs to be in position where he can bounce so that it can utilize a dive. That wasn't something we had time to test, but that's the only opening i could see from the climb we did and short fight we tried. Otherwise the P-47 controls the fight by just speeding away.
Interestingly, the margin between elevations didn't seem to be all that significant, IMO. I think JtD got to 8000m while i was at 6500m (22k ish) Yet we were miles apart.

We continued to climb to our ceilings, which turned out to be about 43000ft at 170ias for the P-47D10, and about 39,000 at 120ias for the a6m3.
Please clarify that JtD.

I will only say that by comparison it seemed like the a6m had quite a big jump in climb until about 32k ft, where it seemed like we were about even in height, although i don't think we made a direct comparison on that figure which would be useful to know.

The dogfight also revealed a few things to me. One thing is that at 8000m, the a6m needs to keep moving AND make circles or the P-47 is likely to make a circle around to get on the tail. In fact, that was immediately apparent, was it not JtD?
I think i made 3 circles, and attempted one firing solution, however this is likely always gonna be from the 10 or two clock position at the front of the airplane, because the Zero can dive and make a tighter turn as the P-47 closes in. Patience and coordinated turning is the key here.

I also was able to climb while making these circles which kept the fight in my favor.
Load out was 25% fuel, and default ammo. You really need to bring more fuel if you intend to climb and have any kind of reasonable fight above 25k in a P-47D-10. Another thing i learned http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Bill

JtD
11-24-2009, 02:07 PM
I think you've got the ceilings right.

Regarding the fight, for a long time I was able to keep on your inside at will, did so for the first part of the fight. However, due to the superior speed and climb you had, I could neither close the gap nor hope to ever be able to do so. Also, in the gentle turns you were pulling, you were slowly gaining altitude in relation to me. This lead nowhere.
So I tried to lure you into some maneuvering, which would benefit me, by changing from same directions turns into opposing direction turns. However, you proved to be pretty resistant to doing silly stuff, and since I had to dodge anything even coming close to a head on, this lead nowhere, too. Eventually, you ran out of fuel before any of us ran out of patience.
In the entire fight I had about two situations where I might have fired had I had 8x.50 available, but not with what I had.
In the first part we had gained approximately 1500 meters, in the second part we lost 1000 meters. At 8000-10000m you definitely had the initiative (no surprise here).
I recorded tracks of these flights, will be interesting to look at the E state of the plane during the fight. Did you record one, too?

TS_Sancho
11-24-2009, 02:16 PM
Am I right in reading that you guys went through all that trouble and nobody got shot down?

JtD
11-24-2009, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Am I right in reading that you guys went through all that trouble and nobody got shot down? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif Sorry to disappoint, but yes.

-----
If you have a track Bill, please send me, I think you have the mail address. I could be doing some fun charts with that.

BillSwagger
11-24-2009, 03:03 PM
I didn't record a track, i just made mental notes.

I'd be interested to see it again, but it doesn't sound like you have a track either, or do you?

Maybe we try again, and i take more fuel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . That seemed to be the biggest factor for me in the mock fight, not really a matter of gaining control over the Zero. Ultimately i lost because of it, you have to consider my fuel light was on at the start of the engagement which is just stupid given the tactics needed to win.

Tactically, it just makes more sense to keep the Zero lower where it can utilize more climb against the P-47D. Not that you didn't do a good job of flying it up there.

There were two occasions where i was circling above, and i thought i was gonna get shot at, but you either stalled out, or leveled out before you stalled. Looking down and watching the distance meter, the closest you got in turning tighter and attempting to zoom climb was 700+ meters.

I can't help but wonder the outcome of a similar maneuver made at 20,000ft instead of 32,000ft.

By forcing the fight lower i would think the climb advantage is in favor of the Zero again, and patience is still a big deciding factor.

I know you have reason for staying with the P-47D in the climb and maybe if it were actually a fight on a server you might have played a bit differently. We agreed to engage at 8000m, which seems high for a Zero but that's just my opinion.



Bill

M_Gunz
11-24-2009, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I really can't imagine that folks seriously claim that the better climber cannot outclimb the faster plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That wasn't the original claim. In the original claim both are moving at the top speed of the Zero.
The context was changed for sure.

horseback
11-24-2009, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Even against an aircraft with a similar or slightly better climb rate, if I can maintain an angle of climb that he cannot match, I can stay above his guns.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if your opponent is foolish enough to try to stay behind you.

Given a climb rate advantage, all that he needs to do is turn away and climb at Vy. Given a few minutes he will then be above you.

Once he's got the altitude, his steady state Vx disadvantage doesn't count for much... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The whole point of any defensive maneuver is to gain separation and stay out of the other guy's line of fire. My opponent turning away to climb at a 'better' angle gives me separation sooner. Being able to climb at a sharper sustained angle usually means that I have a lighter, more agile aircraft, which means that the slower the fight gets the better I will like it; if you stay close, I have a shot at you.

So if I'm fluttering above you and you cannot bring your guns to bear, you need to get separation from me quickly in order to gain a safe distance to make your more efficient climb before I can interfere. In that interval, I will have an opportunity to bug out or reverse the situation.

A real life engagement usually was over in a matter of seconds; you either had the shot and made it or you missed and moved on. The guy you missed is going in the opposite direction at a combined rate of 650kph or more, he's ducked into a cloud or he dived out of the fight and chasing him leaves you open to attack from one of his buddies.

Air combat is a dynamic thing and you use the tools available to you when you're in trouble. When you're being shot at, the best first move is the one that keeps you from being hit. After that, the goal is depriving your opponent of the initiative, and hopefully taking it for yourself.

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
11-24-2009, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My opponent turning away to climb at a 'better' angle gives me separation sooner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Exactly....

He just lost sight of you under his nose too. I would offset or reverse and zoom to gun solution.

There are very few fighter match ups that have a sustained performance disparity large enough to make any difference and in that scenario, he just gave up the fight.

gkll
11-24-2009, 04:56 PM
The context for the 47 vs zero on climb is interesting: what ARE these aircraft doing anyways? The lateral separation for the 47 leads to the 47 being 'somewhere else' altogether... if there was no reason to be one spot than another then fine, however if the spot for (say) the co-e merge had some kind of significance then lateral separation is not as useful as vertical.

In other words if the box of air you start out in is just like any other box, all interchangeable, then lateral or vertical separation are equal, who cares? However if your bombers are lumbering away in this box, then lateral separation is not equal to vertical. I bring this up because we have a lot of discussion of the zero 'following' the 47 and playing to a lateral separation advantage, this would not always have been the case. Maybe you are just trying to keep bandits out of your 'box', you don't have the option to fly 80 k somewhere else altogether....

M_Gunz
11-24-2009, 06:33 PM
1 vertical is worth about 10 horizontal just from an energy standpoint. It's also harder to shoot someone 200m
above you than 200m away.

Yeah the Zero can climb faster.. for a while. IRL the P-47 can still get above it and always outrun it including
chasing the Zero down if he does decide to run for it. The P-47 doesn't have to get far away, a wide spiral climb
works fine for keeping tabs on the Zero. In IL2 the air above 10km is hokey so the Zero gets extra height, not IRL.
So is climbing really an escape for the Zero? No, simply because at the ceiling for the Zero it's not going to turn
very well and not going to nose up much at all. The Zero pilot is better off down where he at least has his turns
and a chance the P-47 pilot will screw up where he can take advantage of it.

Kettenhunde
11-24-2009, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1 vertical is worth about 10 horizontal just from an energy standpoint. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Might want to rethink this one, M_Gunz.

First Energy does not care if you are vertical or horizontal it is just energy. You are not using it either, just converting it from Kinetic to Potential.

Potential Energy equals weight times height.....

The basic Kinetic Energy equations squares velocity, one half mass times velocity squared.

The equations that describe the motion of an aircraft converting speed to altitude in an unsteady airspeed also square velocity.

All the best,

Crumpp

gkll
11-24-2009, 10:12 PM
The relative value of vertical and lateral separation 'energies' is beyond pure physics

If you are a zero driver protecting bombers in a 'box', and you know of 47 drivers coming, maybe you go to max climb so as to attack when they show up. If the 47s enter your box they have to slash and run, they can't stay for more than one pass on the bombers. When they leave you go back to max climb so as to be above when they return, again. The lateral separation in this case is not useful to gain an advantage, the 47 driver has to 'spend' this lateral separation energy if he wishes to return to the attack....

So am suggesting that the goal of a given combat is crucial to assess relative value of different stores of e... so whereas if control of a discrete 'box' of air is important then height may be more important, if simply killing the opponent is the goal the relative value will change too. Depends.

JtD
11-24-2009, 10:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I really can't imagine that folks seriously claim that the better climber cannot outclimb the faster plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That wasn't the original claim. In the original claim both are moving at the top speed of the Zero.
The context was changed for sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The original statements were:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JtD:
Eventually, you can no more out turn a superior sustained turner than you can out climb a superior sustained climber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends.
If your best sustained climbs are very off, but one plane cann still climb where the other can merely fly straight, he wins.
The old story of a P-47 climbing away at the Zero's level-top-speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JtD:
Well, maybe it depends. But if so then not on physics or plane performance, but on pilot dumbness. There is no speed a plane can merely fly straight at, it can always pull up and slow down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that it matters, as the point has been clarified, but it's not that this A6M vs. P-47 was the entire point, it was just a part of it.

JtD
11-24-2009, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I didn't record a track, i just made mental notes.

I'd be interested to see it again, but it doesn't sound like you have a track either, or do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I made a track, force of habit. This means I can produce charts about E, heading, heading, turn rate, alt, g's etc of my plane. Would be neat to have a track from you too, because then one could compare.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tactically, it just makes more sense to keep the Zero lower where it can utilize more climb against the P-47D. Not that you didn't do a good job of flying it up there.

There were two occasions where i was circling above, and i thought i was gonna get shot at, but you either stalled out, or leveled out before you stalled. Looking down and watching the distance meter, the closest you got in turning tighter and attempting to zoom climb was 700+ meters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, lower would have been better. But lower would also have meant to completely forfeit the initiative. You be coming down at any speed you desire, that makes dodging attacks a lot harder. If you're a decent shot I won't be able to regain even a part of the initiative before getting shot down.

700m is about the maximum distance I can hit planes from, in particular with the .50ies. But, like I said, I didn't have them. So you were save throughout.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know you have reason for staying with the P-47D in the climb and maybe if it were actually a fight on a server you might have played a bit differently. We agreed to engage at 8000m, which seems high for a Zero but that's just my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Had we been on a server, I would have dived for base, counting on my teammates in case you chose to chase me.

Kettenhunde
11-25-2009, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The relative value of vertical and lateral separation 'energies' is beyond pure physics </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There is no vertical or lateral separation energies, only kinetic and potential energy.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you are a zero driver protecting bombers in a 'box', </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you leave by climbing out, the faster aircraft can simply attack the bombers and go home.

You are absolutely correct in the mission is important. The slower aircraft with a better climb rate has few options if it has to control a specific piece of airspace.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I didn't record a track, i just made mental notes.

I'd be interested to see it again, but it doesn't sound like you have a track either, or do you?

Maybe we try again, and i take more fuel Big Grin . That seemed to be the biggest factor for me in the mock fight, not really a matter of gaining control over the Zero. Ultimately i lost because of it, you have to consider my fuel light was on at the start of the engagement which is just stupid given the tactics needed to win.

Tactically, it just makes more sense to keep the Zero lower where it can utilize more climb against the P-47D. Not that you didn't do a good job of flying it up there.

There were two occasions where i was circling above, and i thought i was gonna get shot at, but you either stalled out, or leveled out before you stalled. Looking down and watching the distance meter, the closest you got in turning tighter and attempting to zoom climb was 700+ meters.

I can't help but wonder the outcome of a similar maneuver made at 20,000ft instead of 32,000ft.

By forcing the fight lower i would think the climb advantage is in favor of the Zero again, and patience is still a big deciding factor.

I know you have reason for staying with the P-47D in the climb and maybe if it were actually a fight on a server you might have played a bit differently. We agreed to engage at 8000m, which seems high for a Zero but that's just my opinion.

Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am confused as to what was concluded by the game match up. We proved the physics wrong by playing a session?

Looks like it was inconclusive.

My suggestion would be to try alternating each aircraft having to protect either a bomber or a building on the ground.

gkll
11-25-2009, 11:31 AM
Theres no use giving me a mini lecture on kinetic vs potential energy.. you did note I put 'energies' in quotes, didn't you? To most folks that means something, in general an acknowledgement of oversimplification or not entirely correct usage.... in honing in on kinetic vs potential you either miss or ignore the concept I was flogging, that energy 'stored' (see the quotes again?) as lateral separation is not 'stored' when it has to be 'spent' to return to the 'box'...

On the zero thing you are being too literal. The zeros would climb out of the 'box' if they went to max sustained climb for half an hour, what if it is only 5 minutes? Use a bit of imagination would be a good idea... Depending on circumstance a fighter which is slower and has better horizontal turn and sustained climb may well be significantly superior in terms of defending a specific 'box', your blanket statement is incorrect although in specific circumstance it may apply.

Crump you have never played the game? It is a great teacher of tactics and gives some sense of what was possible or reasonable. I mention this because sometimes your posts show some lack of sense concerning the hurly burly of air combat - what looks good in physics does not always apply in 3d. Try and push a spit out of a box with a 190 and you will quickly end up in ever widening circles and rinse and repeat Hit and Run. Unless the spit is above you on round three, climbing patiently away in his box. Then you just have to leave... context is very important.

Kettenhunde
11-25-2009, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> in honing in on kinetic vs potential you either miss or ignore the concept I was flogging, that energy 'stored' (see the quotes again?) as lateral separation is not 'stored' when it has to be 'spent' to return to the 'box'... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you have read to many charts on energy retention.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Crump you have never played the game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That is not true. We have members who play this game and were nice enough to talk me through installing and patching it to get online with them.

It was fun.

Let's be clear though, it is a game. It is not flying airplanes or being a pilot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Depending on circumstance a fighter which is slower and has better horizontal turn and sustained climb may well be significantly superior in terms of defending a specific 'box', your blanket statement is incorrect although in specific circumstance it may apply.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depending on the circumstances....what is that?

Is this one of those arguments where one exception invalidates a general concept??

BillSwagger
11-25-2009, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I made a track, force of habit. This means I can produce charts about E, heading, heading, turn rate, alt, g's etc of my plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you make comparison's of both planes using one track?
I also want to see the track. If you can send it to me.

thanks

Bill

BillSwagger
11-25-2009, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I am confused as to what was concluded by the game match up. We proved the physics wrong by playing a session?

Looks like it was inconclusive.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know for myself i wasn't trying to prove anything other than explore the differences between the two planes in climb and the altitude.
I was paying particular attention to the tactics of each plane, related to how they are designed to fly.
Not really important for the purpose of proving real life physics, but i will say the gaming models do represent the different tendencies of both planes.

In this test we were merely trying to show how the A6M3 could use its superior climb for advantage, while also showing how the P-47D-10 uses it superior speed.

In order for the A6M3 to have an attack it would need to be in position to bounce on the P-47. Other wise, horizontal separation is in favor of the P-47D, where the added time to climb and speed lets it get to an altitude advantage prior to engagement.

At the altitudes that advantage is likely to occur, the Zero is probably too slow and not as maneuverable as it would be at lower altitudes.

There is nothing we can conclude, but from a gaming standpoint you might learn how to focus your tactics in each of these planes.



Bill

gkll
11-25-2009, 12:31 PM
Are we getting nowhere fast? What e retention charts are you speaking of.. I know of no such charts. Kinetic vs potential e 'value' is dependent on the tactical need of the moment, that should be clear enough?

Are you triumphantly pointing out that the game is not reality? Am I being 'gently chided'? Pls reread my post where I suggest that the game "gives some sense of what was possible or reasonable" and then consider if repeating this in your own words (with your reply) is useful or just distracting.

For the circumstance thing, we are not talking a specific invalidates the general... we ARE disputing the general. I don't agree a defensive fighter or a defensive situation is 'generally' served best by a faster fighter, if the alternative is one with better sustained climb and turn. You seem to think different, that's OK

Kettenhunde
11-25-2009, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kinetic vs potential e 'value' is dependent on the tactical need of the moment, that should be clear enough? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clear enough for what?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the concept I was flogging, that energy 'stored' (see the quotes again?) as lateral separation is not 'stored' when it has to be 'spent' to return to the 'box'... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You understand this does not make any sense and I don't know how to respond to it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Are you triumphantly pointing out that the game is not reality? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that is self evident that the game is not reality. I am pointing out that you can learn as much about air combat and flying airplanes from IL2 as you can learn about Tennis from Pong. That is not a bad thing or a dig on Pong, it just a fact.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/spo...tuatennis/index.html (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sports/virtuatennis/index.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I don't agree a defensive fighter or a defensive situation is 'generally' served best by a faster fighter, if the alternative is one with better sustained climb and turn. You seem to think different, that's OK </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok! You don't agree and that is just fine. I can live with that all day long.

What is important to take away, is that the engineers who design real fighter airplanes and aircraft during WWII all the way to the advent of BVR All Aspect missiles disagree with that opinion.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7480/speedbj.jpg (http://img264.imageshack.us/i/speedbj.jpg/)


http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/1734/speedinaircraftdesign.jpg (http://img264.imageshack.us/i/speedinaircraftdesign.jpg/)


They disagree because of the physics that has already been explained!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There is nothing we can conclude, but from a gaming standpoint you might learn how to focus your tactics in each of these planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am all for that, too. I am not pointing out things to knock holes in your game or diminish its fun value. I just thought understanding the physics better might help to increase the fun factor and develop tactics in your game.

I know the airplanes in the game with the design philosophy that does not emphasize low velocity turn performance is probably frustrating for some.

Bottom line, have fun with what your doing. Who cares about anything else. If you get the chance, visit our gift shop or make a donation! We would like that.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, One of our members wrote an article for Kagero publishing's Aero magazine on our engine restoration.

All the Best,

Crumpp

JtD
11-25-2009, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Can you make comparison's of both planes using one track? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I can only read the data from the players aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also want to see the track. If you can send it to me.

thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got it.

JtD
11-25-2009, 01:10 PM
As for the charts, they could be looking something like this, but now they are missing half the info and are near meaningless.

You can still spot when I made a vertical zoom climb, though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/a6mhigh.JPG

gkll
11-25-2009, 02:36 PM
Well Crump it is fairly clear we are not so much debating as simply talking past one another

Clear enough for what? Clear enough to me... you and Neal (Gunz) started haggling over the physics of kinetic vs potential energy. I tried to point out (several times through the posts) that tactical requirements make the physics debate of less importance. Sometimes you want potential e and sometimes kinetic, so to speak, whether speed or altitude converts to more or less calculated energy is trumped by tactical needs.

Why I am really posting this time is however, that I think your pong/tennis analogy is nonsense. Of the purest sort. You can learn plenty about air combat and flying from this sim and others, including the defense department variants. If they'd have had il2 in ww2 you can bet they would have used it in place of little cardboard cutouts showing lead shooting.... I have direct experience in a closely related arena, where I will absolutely and through direct experience posit that racing sims improve real racing skills. To the point where I was able to get a car setup reflecting our actual car and determine a path forward on some RL handling issues. Pong vs tennis ain't in it.

Nice sweeping doc on the history of flight, what does the trend in increasing speed mean when we are in the era? Of course speed has increased, I seem to recollect some book or another where I noticed the planes went from funny little box kites with lawn mower engines to pointy things with jet motors stuffed in them... this is however not relevant to comparing two relatively equal planes from the same era, trying to do a job of work

M_Gunz
11-25-2009, 02:53 PM
Going up takes speed or acceleration away from you so I simply say that vertical is worth about 10:1 of horizontal.
As I wrote, it's harder to shoot someone 200m above you than 200m away. Is that tactical or not to anyone else here?
I'm not gonna try to explain it any better since I don't want to get into a ****ing match.

gkll
11-25-2009, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Going up takes speed or acceleration away from you so I simply say that vertical is worth about 10:1 of horizontal.
As I wrote, it's harder to shoot someone 200m above you than 200m away. Is that tactical or not to anyone else here?
I'm not gonna try to explain it any better since I don't want to get into a ****ing match. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rereading the posts makes it obvious that you and Crump hardly were debating kinetic vs potential, you made a tactical interpretation and Crump responded with some physics. Not exactly a debate as I described it. Just posting this as despite your prickliness Neal I do not recollect we have ever really disagreed on much

gkll
11-25-2009, 03:59 PM
Crump said: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know the airplanes in the game with the design philosophy that does not emphasize low velocity turn performance is probably frustrating for some. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No that is not frustrating. What is frustrating is the relentless slamming of turning, as in "well you were turning so there was your first mistake..." etc etc. Said by HnR specialists who think wandering around a virtual map looking for suckers is somehow consistent with typical tactical objectives for RL air combat, as it happened. This trend ('turning is for idiots, it means you made a mistake') has increased in last year or two and through repetition is taking on the trappings fo truth. You would think 'free hunt' where you could pick and choose the fight and the circumstance somehow represents the average historical mission objectives....

I don't resent run90's flying as they have to to survive, I DO resent this flying style held up as the one true ideal to represent RL. Great kill ratio, how are we doing on tight mission objectives? Not the same.

The above not really directed at you Crump, just I pop this in every so often wehn I get the chance

TS_Sancho
11-25-2009, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Said by HnR specialists who think wandering around a virtual map looking for suckers is somehow consistent with typical tactical objectives for RL air combat, as it happened. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The historical record does not seem to agree with your observation at all.....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Once committed to an attack, fly in at full speed. After scoring crippling or disabling hits, I would clear myself and then repeat the process. I never pursued the enemy once they had eluded me. Better to break off and set up again for a new assault. I always began my attacks from full strength, if possible, my ideal flying height being 22,000 ft because at that altitude I could best utilize the performance of my aircraft. Combat flying is based on the slashing attack and rough maneuvering. In combat flying, fancy precision aerobatic work is really not of much use. Instead, it is the rough maneuver which succeeds.

— Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann, GAF, aka Karaya One, worlds leading ace, with 352 victories in W.W.II.Jagdgeschwader 52
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Up there the world is divided into bastards and suckers. Make your choice.

— Derek Robinson, 'Piece of Cake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fighting in the air is not sport. It is scientific murder.

— Captain Edward V. 'Eddie' Rickenbacker, USAS, 'Fighting the Flying Circus.'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The first rule of all air combat is to see the opponent first. Like the hunter who stalks his prey and maneuvers himself unnoticed into the most favourable position for the kill, the fighter in the opening of a dogfight must detect the opponent as early as possible in order to attain a superior position for the attack.

— General Adolf Galland, Luftwaffe.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's just like being in a knife fight in a dirt-floor bar. If you want to fix a fella, the best way to do it is to get behind him and stick him in the back. It's the same in an air fight. If you want to kill that guy, the best thing to do is get around behind him where he can't see you . . . . and shoot him.

— Captain William O'Brian, 357th Fighter Group, USAAF.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I didn't turn with the enemy pilots as a rule. I might make one turn - to see what the situation was - but not often. It was too risky.

— General John C. Meyer, Vice-Chief of Staff, USAF. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The most important thing to a fighter pilot is speed; the faster an aircraft is moving when he spots an enemy aircraft, the sooner he will be able to take the bounce and get to the Hun. If you have any advantage on him, keep it and use it. When attacking, plan to overshoot him if possible, hold fire until within range, then shoot and clobber him down to the last instant before breaking away. It's like sneaking up behind someone and hitting them with a baseball bat.

— Duane W. Beeson, P-51 pilot, 4th Fighter Group. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

gkll
11-25-2009, 04:40 PM
So you take HnR with advantage only as the representative of typical ww2 combat? THese fellows survived to be quoted, their lives were very important to them. However defensive operations are not so easy, and these quotes have no tactical context, ie what are you doing up in the air anyways? I mean right now, not generally, are you free to wander around looking for that ideal bludgeon from behind? Or are you tied to a box and some specific objectives which make these ideals somewhat moot?

Better to ask these same folks how they would approach specific tasks than how the easiest and safest way to kill is. I don't maintain speed is useless, just for some objectives speed is not the number one fighter attribute.

I could probably go find a similar set of quotes suggesting different things, we both know that. Your guys are mostly speaking to 'fairness' and SA anyways.

EDIT falkland islands 1982 and the jumpjets did very well in defensive mode against faster opponents, would the brits have traded turn for speed in this case? Maybe... maybe not. I read some accounts and the turn in this case was actually pretty important to get a bead with the heat seekers.

I got a little offensive with 'run90's' but would you agree the pendulum has swung a little far the other way? Just curious

Kettenhunde
11-25-2009, 05:12 PM
gkll,

Your comment on the physics did not make sense because it was just not correct. I am not talking past anyone nor have I misunderstood.

In fact, the very maneuver you must complete on your commercial practical, the lazy eight, is designed to both teach the pilot this fact and have him demonstrate it. It is about precision control of the aircraft and extracting maximum performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why I am really posting this time is however, that I think your pong/tennis analogy is nonsense. Of the purest sort. You can learn plenty about air combat and flying from this sim and others, including the defense department variants. If they'd have had il2 in ww2 you can bet they would have used it in place of little cardboard cutouts showing lead shooting.... I have direct experience in a closely related arena, where I will absolutely and through direct experience posit that racing sims improve real racing skills. To the point where I was able to get a car setup reflecting our actual car and determine a path forward on some RL handling issues. Pong vs tennis ain't in it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again your opinion and you are entitled to it.

In my opinion, this is not racing cars.

Once again, it is the same opinion shared by others in the industry.

Call the FAA FSDO:

http://www.faa.gov/about/offic...ces/avs/offices/afs/ (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/)

Tell them you have so many hours flying IL2 Sturmovik and you want to log it for experience towards a pilot's license.

Ask him how much you can log.

You can explain to them why they are not correct in their response.

Or you can use the Pong analogy. You sit at your computer and play virtual Tennis all day long for a year.

Go to any Tennis club court after that year and play someone who just learned a year ago but has practiced regularly.

See who wins....I would be surprised if you could even complete a serve.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What is frustrating is the relentless slamming of turning, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not my issue, no need to mention me at all. This is for the folks you play with.

I will say, that if you had a faster airplane, you could catch them and force the defensive turn.


All the best,

Crumpp

TheGrunch
11-25-2009, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Or you can use the Pong analogy. You sit at your computer and play virtual Tennis all day long for a year.

Go to any Tennis club court after that year and play someone who just learned a year ago but has practiced regularly.

See who wins....I would be surprised if you could even complete a serve. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have to be honest, I think that analogy is terrible as well. Playing pong requires none of the skills or understanding associated with playing tennis. Playing IL-2, where your control input is fairly analogous to the control inputs used in flying an aircraft is completely different. The FAA won't log you any hours for it, but then, you don't have a certified instructor playing IL-2, do you? If you did, I'm not by any means going to recommend that those flying hours should mean anything toward a pilot's license, but in the same way, even if you had had many lessons in a simulator with a driving instructor and passed a virtual test, you still wouldn't qualify for a driving license. However, that doesn't mean that many of the manual skills and pieces of the knowledge you had acquired would not be USEFUL if you were to go on to take driving lessons.
Explain to me how pong, which is a two-dimensional game which requires only two actions to play, up or down, is even vaguely analogous to the skills required to play tennis, a game which occurs in 3 dimensions and requires a variety of different approaches even to a basic swing.
Pong to tennis, by comparison, is like drawing a picture of an aircraft and claiming you're a pilot.
By contrast, I recall a flying instructor on the 1C forums mentioning how easy it was to teach people who'd played IL-2 by comparison with people who'd never played a sim.

M_Gunz
11-25-2009, 05:49 PM
When the Spit V's met the FW's they found out how well lower speed and better mid to low speed turning worked
in relation to faster, less well turning enemies with much higher roll rate. The first change was in British
doctrine to keep their speed high when in areas of possible contact which did give them a better survival
rate even at cost to turn rate. The change that really made the difference was in faster Spitfires, the IX's.

Higher speed equals the ability to achieve higher vertical separation. In a guns-only fight where nobody has
the power to make even 1/2 G accelerations both speed and altitude are the gold. Sustained climb is good when
you have enough clear of threats time to build a meaningful lead but it's weak vs a good zoom and in best climb
you simply don't have the ability to jink as well.

I don't agree with that article Crumpp posted where it stated that WWI aircraft development was not about speed.
They didn't gain much difference but the top fighters at the end were certainly faster than their predecessors
with few exceptions. The SPADs and Pfalz SPAD copies were all about speed and roll at the expense of flat turn,
they were the first thoroughbred energy fighters, IMO, and work best in vertical maneuvers.

Kettenhunde
11-25-2009, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By contrast, I recall a flying instructor on the 1C forums mentioning how easy it was to teach people who'd played IL-2 by comparison with people who'd never played a sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sure. I have also heard many CFI's express the exact opposite opinion about flight sims.

IL2 is not anywhere close to meeting any of the requirements for FAA approval.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Simulators - what are they good for? If you ask a general aviation flight instructor this question the response is likely to be, "Not much!" If you query a professional airline, corporate, or military pilot with the same question, you'll probably hear, "They're great for playing 'you bet your job' every six months." An instrument-rated GA pilot would probably answer, "I don't know, I've never been in one." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://flighttraining.aopa.org...port_CFI_to_CFI.html (http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2009/September/200909_Instructor_Report_CFI_to_CFI.html)

TheGrunch
11-25-2009, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I am sure. I have also heard CFI's express the exact opposite opinion about flight sims. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that's more the people who think that the skills they have learnt are *directly* transferrable to real flying, rather than a decent guide.
Besides, combat flying is hardly comparable to civilian flying anyway.
Also, a lot of the people who fly this game are fine at flying the game in combat, but can barely do basic things like landing, even in the very best of conditions. If you go on a multiplayer server and just watch people land, it's quite funny how many people fail even in undamaged aircraft.

Kettenhunde
11-25-2009, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't agree with that article Crumpp posted where it stated that WWI aircraft development was not about speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think the article is just saying the major design trends not the importance of speed to a fighter. It was a very volatile period in airplane design and incorporating technological advancement or designing for mission outstripped designing for speed. Not that designing for speed did not occur!

At the beginning of the war airplanes had little military role but by the end of it, the airplane was a full fledged instrument of war.

By the end of the war, the value of speed was known by designers and the seeds planted for it to become the major design goal.

Purely my opinion, though.

Kettenhunde
11-25-2009, 06:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Besides, combat flying is hardly comparable to civilian flying anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You really think IL2 is comparable to combat flying?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you go on a multiplayer server and just watch people land, it's quite funny how many people fail even in undamaged aircraft.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I bet you are right.

DrHerb
11-25-2009, 06:40 PM
Physically no, but the same theories apply in this case

Viper2005_
11-25-2009, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't agree with that article Crumpp posted where it stated that WWI aircraft development was not about speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think the article is just saying the major design trends not the importance of speed to a fighter. It was a very volatile period in airplane design and incorporating technological advancement or designing for mission outstripped designing for speed. Not that designing for speed did not occur!

At the beginning of the war airplanes had little military role but by the end of it, the airplane was a full fledged instrument of war.

By the end of the war, the value of speed was known by designers and the seeds planted for it to become the major design goal.

Purely my opinion, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The answer is actually pretty simple.

KE/m = 0.5*v^2

PE/m = g*h

g ~ 9.81ms^-2

In the modern world we have become used to the expression "speed is life". However, this is shorthand.

The reality is that "energy is life".

If you are flying slow aeroplanes then this means that "height is life".

At roughly WWII speeds, you start to see the transition towards the modern reality that speed, rather than altitude, dominates.

But if I was designing a WWI aeroplane I'd be very much inclined to optimise around rate of climb, because you have to go quite fast before speed starts to win out.

TheGrunch
11-25-2009, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You really think IL2 is comparable to combat flying? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, but like I say, the grasp of tactics and manual hand-to-eye piloting skills you learn in playing IL-2 would have been useful to have if you were a combat pilot during the Second World War. It's like any game, as long as you're aware of its limitations it is a useful mental exercise.
It's nowhere near the same, but it's better than nothing, as long as you don't think you can treat real flying in exactly the same way.
People who come out of IL-2 or FSX straight into real flying expecting it to be the same will get so much stick from instructors because they expect to be able to throw their aircraft around all over the place without consequences, I'd bet on it.
By comparison, pong is NEVER going to be useful to someone who wants to play tennis, except if you don't know what the objective of tennis is first.

Kettenhunde
11-25-2009, 09:19 PM
Fixed it for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The answer is actually pretty simple.

KE/m = 0.5*v^2

PE/W = h

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I disagree, if you can do the math it is easy to see that speed is life.

My comment was my opinion on the authors intention not the design trends.

Kettenhunde
11-25-2009, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, but like I say, the grasp of tactics and manual hand-to-eye piloting skills you learn in playing IL-2 would have been useful to have if you were a combat pilot during the Second World War. It's like any game, as long as you're aware of its limitations it is a useful mental exercise.
It's nowhere near the same, but it's better than nothing, as long as you don't think you can treat real flying in exactly the same way.
People who come out of IL-2 or FSX straight into real flying expecting it to be the same will get so much stick from instructors because they expect to be able to throw their aircraft around all over the place without consequences, I'd bet on it.
By comparison, pong is NEVER going to be useful to someone who wants to play tennis, except if you don't know what the objective of tennis is first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will buy that!

It is fun too...

TheGrunch
11-25-2009, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I will buy that!

It is fun too... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yup! Personally I wonder how far simulators will go in our lifetimes. I don't think I'd dare to speculate.

DrHerb
11-25-2009, 09:56 PM
Well apparently, one could be type rated on just simulator time in real life. Or am I totally mistaken?

BillSwagger
11-25-2009, 10:31 PM
I think Il2 is good for grasping the tactics involved but well short of real flight.

I might think an instructor could find it easier to teach an Il2 desk pilot so long as this person looks a bit further into the gauges, what they mean, in relation to the function of the aircraft, as well as the wing designs and how they are intended to fly.

Teaching a desk pilot who merely looks at a gunsite, altitude and speed is not going to have anymore knowledge about flying a plane than driving a car.

I think what other poster's are getting at is that the sim does teach tactics. Knowing the geometry involved in the manuevers before even getting in the air, i would think puts you one step ahead of the enemy who might know what an Emmelman is, but not when to execute it or when not to.

Real combat piloting is 4 dimensions. I would consider kinesthetics and forces exerted on the body and the airplane, on top of the 3d enviornment. SA would be the same, except now you must be more conscience of your own fatigue and load factors, as well as the planes.
These forces are not simulated and require actual training to get familiar with.

JtD
11-25-2009, 10:44 PM
Regarding the importance of turn, the Soviets very much tried to improve the performance of their planes in the "combat turn" maneuvre throughout WW2. This upwards turn did benefit from a good speed, a good climb and a good turn. It could also be noted that the Soviet planes of the Yak and La(GG) families did improve upon their sustained turn times in the course of their WW2 development. Probably just a byproduct, but the VVS fighter planes could not neglect low speed maneuverability because of their use as low altitude, low speed escorts for Il-2 ground attack planes.
While I think that speed is the most important performance aspect in WW2 fighters, it's certainly true that turning and low speed maneuverability have their value, too.

Regarding simulators, they are an essential part of pilot training nowadays.

M_Gunz
11-26-2009, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrHerb:
Well apparently, one could be type rated on just simulator time in real life. Or am I totally mistaken? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those sim boxes are so far beyond a game running on a PC it isn't funny. There is also a special instructor in
control of conditions and lastly there are limits to what they will do in the way of plane attitudes.

They are a lot of some kind of fun but I never left one without sweaty hands back now over 20 years ago, they
must have really nice graphics by now and maybe even daytime flight. A cheap one then ran over 3 million and
used multiple DEC mainframes.

Xiolablu3
11-26-2009, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Regarding the importance of turn, the Soviets very much tried to improve the performance of their planes in the "combat turn" maneuvre throughout WW2. This upwards turn did benefit from a good speed, a good climb and a good turn. It could also be noted that the Soviet planes of the Yak and La(GG) families did improve upon their sustained turn times in the course of their WW2 development. Probably just a byproduct, but the VVS fighter planes could not neglect low speed maneuverability because of their use as low altitude, low speed escorts for Il-2 ground attack planes.
While I think that speed is the most important performance aspect in WW2 fighters, it's certainly true that turning and low speed maneuverability have their value, too.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly the point I was trying to put across.

Manu-6S
11-26-2009, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I think what other poster's are getting at is that the sim does teach tactics. Knowing the geometry involved in the manuevers before even getting in the air, i would think puts you one step ahead of the enemy who might know what an Emmelman is, but not when to execute it or when not to.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's funny that most of my comments about the Shaw's book the day I read it were "Oh! So this is the name of that manouvre".. the same comments of some of my teammates (infact we don't teach manouvres at all, we teach above all about energy concept and engagements).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Real combat piloting is 4 dimensions. I would consider kinesthetics and forces exerted on the body and the airplane, on top of the 3d enviornment. SA would be the same, except now you must be more conscience of your own fatigue and load factors, as well as the planes.
These forces are not simulated and require actual training to get familiar with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There will be a day when we'll have that too... 15 years ago nobody could think to move his head to change the visual on the monitor.

I would like to have those forces well showed on the monitor. Pilots could FEEL the plane is skidding direcly on their body... we must look at the ball.

A simple example of how can do this is a hud indicator of the forces. I remember Half Life shows by HUD the location where you are been hitted. If you insert it in a no invasive way (the way HL does) it can be really useful (for example at the margins of the monitor as long bars).

Anyway there are things easier in RL than in a sim (flying in formation, plane identification ect)

So Full Switch is different from Full Realism.. but is still more realistic than the WW servers.

Manu-6S
11-26-2009, 04:54 AM
<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 JtD:
Regarding the importance of turn, the Soviets very much tried to improve the performance of their planes in the "combat turn" maneuvre throughout WW2. This upwards turn did benefit from a good speed, a good climb and a good turn. It could also be noted that the Soviet planes of the Yak and La(GG) families did improve upon their sustained turn times in the course of their WW2 development. Probably just a byproduct, but the VVS fighter planes could not neglect low speed maneuverability because of their use as low altitude, low speed escorts for Il-2 ground attack planes.
While I think that speed is the most important performance aspect in WW2 fighters, it's certainly true that turning and low speed maneuverability have their value, too.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly the point I was trying to put across. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I could choose I would still take the faster plane... speed can take you home.

Kettenhunde
11-26-2009, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This upwards turn did benefit from a good speed, a good climb and a good turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Soviet combat turn is a far cry from a sustained level turn at low velocity.

Fixed this for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> While I think that speed is the most important performance aspect in WW2 fighters, it's certainly true that turning and maneuverability have their value, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is why during WWII sustained performance emphasis was on speed as well.

gkll
11-26-2009, 10:43 PM
Manu agree completely we need some feedback beyond the ball, WW has that lovely vector indicator would be perfect to add to the locked pit. La7 for eg and you cannot even see the ball, blocked by the stick...

This is because the raw flying part of this sim is brutally far away from flying a plane, in just the same way that hustling a stock car around the track is in no way like the racing game... there is an entire tactile, sensory and g force basis to the actual driving, the sim can never represent it. Agree with those who suggest tactics can be learned, and some of the basics of flight (eg most folks have no clue that hard turns happen with roll and then elevator, even). Some sense of how flight controls work and planes behave can be gained. However the tactile reality is something else.

However it is easier to control an aircraft than drive a racecar on the limit, of that I am very sure. Flight is complex in nature with more variables, however an 'on the limit' racecar is truly on the ragged edge where a minor error results in a large crash, in an aircraft such an error leads to a wider turn or a half spin, unless you whack the ground you can recover. A decade ir so back Car and Driver swapped some Hornet drivers with and indycar pilot, whereas with some basic instruction the indycar dude could pull some violent maneuvers there was no question, none whatever, of allowing the jet jockeys to actually honk on the indycar.... not close

Glad to see I am not entirely alone with my like of turn capability, I was thinking of the Russians myself. The spitfire had a great combination of turn speed and climb and did (the 'fable' as posted on these boards)have the best in class Russian combat turn of 17 seconds. Nice balance and good close in capability. The zero is too far down the road towards turn for me, by quite a bit.

The nature of the game (calm relaxed well practised pilots, well versed in all ACM, and no real difficulty with the effort and subtle skill required to wring out a real aircraft) leads to differences in plane performance taking on more importance (by quite a bit) than in RL. RL is wild and chaotic, hard to grasp, allied with puffing fear driven exertion betimes, and always the struggle to control the aircraft if you are on the limit... all many orders of magnitude beyond the game. TnB in the game is too easy by far, compared to RL. BnZ by contrast may be in the ballpark for difficulty since it involves (fewer or no) violent manuevers. So TnB gets a skew for the game, too attractive.

JtD
11-27-2009, 12:10 AM
The combat turn is turning zoom climb, the Soviets tested this at 1000m starting altitude. The result is given in meters of altitude gained, for instance, 1200m for a La-7.
The Spitfires best figure for a sustained turn I know is a Spitfire IX with 17.5s for a sustained level turn at 1000m. Best Soviet result I know for a modern WW2 fighter is 17s for a Yak-3.

Kettenhunde
11-27-2009, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However it is easier to control an aircraft than drive a racecar on the limit, of that I am very sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many airplanes have you flown as sole pilot in command? How many airplanes have flown "to the limit" as sole pilot in command?


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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Glad to see I am not entirely alone with my like of turn capability, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese love it too in the beginning of WWII.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> he combat turn is turning zoom climb </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a Chandelle, the same maneuver we use in your commercial practical. You can look at Page 46 of the La-5 POH.

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/fighters.shtml

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Today's training maneuver Chandelle is used TO EXACT MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE FROM THE PILOT, NOT THE AIRPLANE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.bridgesaviation.com/maxmaneuver2.htm

K_Freddie
11-27-2009, 10:49 AM
My opinion of the FW190A series... They're great aircraft which don't have great sustained turns compared to other aircraft, but this is more than compensated for by roll-rate, and hard hitting fire-power.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

R_Target
11-27-2009, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
My opinion of the FW190A series... They're great aircraft which don't have great sustained turns compared to other aircraft, but this is more than compensated for by roll-rate, and hard hitting fire-power.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It really is that simple. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

gkll
11-28-2009, 12:39 AM
When an aircraft being flown on the limit needs correction the deviation develops as a function of a heavy body moving through a very fluid medium. So the deviation develops relatively, slowly. Even for planes with a nasty stall and little warning I am guessing most situations a pilot would have on the order of a second or more to react.

A car on the limit is a heavy body but tied directly through frictional surfaces to a high grip surface. If a deviation develops the required reaction commonly and routinely is right on the limit of human reaction time say .2 sec. Depending on the track, this requirement may be operant for two thirds of the time.

Would also argue requirements for judging speed and distance are substantially higher for on the limit cars than planes

Mistakes for planes have less instantaneous consequences in general as well, unless the ground is nearby. Pilots may get several cracks at correcting a situation before they are out of tries.... indycar drivers eg get just the one reaction, and that 'window' is half a second (maybe)

fact is that when the two groups mixed and discussed each others disciplines there was no question of any hot pilot pressing an indycar, not going to work.



no i havent pushed a plane on the limit, I have plenty of hours in light planes and choppers but nary a control have I stirred... although I watch and observe. Otherwise my opinion counts as I have excellent ability in the control of all machinery I have ever tried and in the area of racing have deep skills and knowledge.

gkll
11-28-2009, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
When the Spit V's met the FW's they found out how well lower speed and better mid to low speed turning worked
in relation to faster, less well turning enemies with much higher roll rate. The first change was in British
doctrine to keep their speed high when in areas of possible contact which did give them a better survival
rate even at cost to turn rate. The change that really made the difference was in faster Spitfires, the IX's.

Higher speed equals the ability to achieve higher vertical separation. In a guns-only fight where nobody has
the power to make even 1/2 G accelerations both speed and altitude are the gold. Sustained climb is good when
you have enough clear of threats time to build a meaningful lead but it's weak vs a good zoom and in best climb
you simply don't have the ability to jink as well.

I don't agree with that article Crumpp posted where it stated that WWI aircraft development was not about speed.
They didn't gain much difference but the top fighters at the end were certainly faster than their predecessors
with few exceptions. The SPADs and Pfalz SPAD copies were all about speed and roll at the expense of flat turn,
they were the first thoroughbred energy fighters, IMO, and work best in vertical maneuvers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All good points. Me I tend to overstretch a concept to make sure i make the point...

However, considering the spit vs against 190s, weren't those rhubarbs around that time? fighter sweeps... therefore pure offensive operations against the enemy air, no 'box' at all...?? I hope people notice ive been speaking of defensive use of fighters, of course all fighters are offensive at all times... goes without saying... but as a defensive fighter trying to protect something... is the case not a little different? The Russians thought so.

Gonna grab shaw and see if there is any opinions there

Manu-6S
11-28-2009, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I don't agree with that article Crumpp posted where it stated that WWI aircraft development was not about speed.
They didn't gain much difference but the top fighters at the end were certainly faster than their predecessors
with few exceptions. The SPADs and Pfalz SPAD copies were all about speed and roll at the expense of flat turn,
they were the first thoroughbred energy fighters, IMO, and work best in vertical maneuvers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here playing at RoF can give you an hand.

The first time I played it I took the faster plane (the Spad) and realized tha you can't BnZ in WW1... bounce enemy, yes, but you can't dive and then climb in a safe way.

This is mainly because one factor: structure of the plane.
You can't build enought speed in a dive to be out of the enemy gunsight during the climb. WW2 planes can reach 300km/h more than their cruise speed, WW1 planes stop at 150Km/h (very dangerous). Plus the WW2 planes were heavier, and if you take the cleaner airframes and the engine power than they could go higher that the lighter WW1 planes...

This is why the Fokkers were famous for hanging at their prop during the fight... they did because they could still have a firing solution against the higher plane... you can hang to you Hurricane's prop all you want, but you can't fire against a good BnZ plane who bounced you since the separation is far greater.

Anyway I take the Spad, since it's the more safest plane to return home, but I can't talk about them as energy fighters... not yet.

yuuppers
11-28-2009, 04:03 AM
Able to maintain 123mph at 15,000ft the SE.5a was reverred by pilots for its continued performance at altitude and its structural soundness at speeds of up to 225mph in a dive. Unfortunately the Albatross DIII and subsequent DV designs displayed the disconcerting tendancy to lose the lower wing in a steep or prolonged dive.

That is over 200kph over the cruising speed of the enemy a/c. Since the e/a had warp drive and instantaneous pilot reaction, the e/a would be on the SE's tail in no time after recovering from an evasive maneuver from the bullets that were aimed at it.

The SPAD was even faster in a dive, 240mph.

M_Gunz
11-28-2009, 04:27 AM
A lot of WWI planes lost canvas in dives where the pilot did not take care. Nieuports were famous for it!
Why only mention Allieds as the good examples and Germans the bad unless those are all you know?

ADD: Manu, in WWI history there were many dive-hit-climb-and-return attacks verified by witnesses.
If you want to see some of what was possible by 1918 then get or see "Hell's Angels" that had the real planes
taken after the war used on film with stunt pilots, at least some who flew in that war.
Learn to exit the attack away from the front quadrant of your target or kill/cripple him in the first pass!

I can't run RoF without a major PC upgrade. Red Baron is the best WWI airwar sim I've been able to play.

yuuppers
11-28-2009, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
A lot of WWI planes lost canvas in dives where the pilot did not take care. Nieuports were famous for it!
Why only mention Allieds as the good examples and Germans the bad unless those are all you know? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have any German examples of dive speeds? If so, post them!!! instead of whining.

Lost canvas? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif They were not covered in canvas.

Anyways, the example posted went over your head but that is to be expected.

M_Gunz
11-28-2009, 04:45 AM
It's just the term used in the war by the men who flew it, Troll.

You got caught in your bias and again have to add a lie to build up your insult.
It's not over my head any more than the rest of your BS.

yuuppers
11-28-2009, 05:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It's just the term used in the war by the men who flew it, Troll.

You got caught in your bias and again have to add a lie to build up your insult.
It's not over my head any more than the rest of your BS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bias? In your dream world. If I could have found a German or A-H example, I would have included it as well.

Yes, it went miles over your head, be sure.

Now what lie would that be? Harassment is against the board rules.

Kettenhunde
11-28-2009, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> no i havent pushed a plane on the limit, I have plenty of hours in light planes and choppers but nary a control have I stirred... although I watch and observe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for answering my question and sharing your opinion.

Kettenhunde
11-28-2009, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yuppers...Luftluver...Milo...Kutscha says:

Harassment is against the board rules. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

M_Gunz
11-28-2009, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by yuuppers:
Yes, it went miles over your head, be sure.

Now what lie would that be? Harassment is against the board rules. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You repeat it, troll it more and don't call that harassment, or are you admitting you break that rule?
What do forum rules matter to you with all the logons you've run anyway?

PS, I know about the linen they stitched on and doped, like I wrote canvas is the term that was used.

Kettenhunde
11-28-2009, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Canvas Falcons: The Men & the Planes of World War </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.amazon.com/Canvas-F...-World/dp/0850524431 (http://www.amazon.com/Canvas-Falcons-Men-Planes-World/dp/0850524431)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There was a time when most aircraft were built by covering a wood framework with fabric. Perhaps the idea came, in part, from the canvas-covered canoe, which of course was already well established as the most efficient way to build a light weight craft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.stewartriver.com/images/Dacron.pdf

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Over 10,000 of these canvas-covered two-seat biplanes served as primary trainers for countless Army and Navy cadets during the War. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.warplanes.com/navy-...del-airplane-783.asp (http://www.warplanes.com/navy-n2s-stearman-model-airplane-783.asp)

While Airplanes were covered in linen, the term "canvas" was certainly used.

yuuppers
11-28-2009, 10:59 AM
Since you are a little slow, well maybe more than just a little, on the uptake Gunz, the post was in reply to Manu's post.

"You can't build enought speed in a dive to be out of the enemy gunsight during the climb."

The reply was to show that the attacking a/c would be a good distance away from the attacked a/c by the time the attacked a/c's pilot could react.

Now I know you are not very good with numbers.

1 sec after the attacking a/c is past the attacked a/c, it is around 180ft away from the attacked a/c which has just pulled some sort of evasive maneuver (usually a turn towards the attacking a/c) and is in no position to take a pot shot at the attacking a/c. The attacked a/c still has to accelerate and the attacking a/c in the mean time will be still further away from the attacked a/c (in 2 sec, over 360ft+). The attacking a/c will be well out of range and climbing before the attacked a/c can even react.

Not that hard to grasp for normal people Gunz.

Do I have to go into further detail or is that enough for you to understand Gunz?

Your 1st link Crumpp,

"Most error-filled WWI book I've ever read" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

As for the 2cd link Crumpp did you stop reading after the 1st sentence?

You are hilarious Crumpp, a link to a model site used as a reference. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif And you make comments about gamers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kettenhunde
11-28-2009, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by yuuppers:
Since you are a little slow, well maybe more than just a little, on the uptake Gunz, the post was in reply to Manu's post.

"You can't build enought speed in a dive to be out of the enemy gunsight during the climb."

The reply was to show that the attacking a/c would be a good distance away from the attacked a/c by the time the attacked a/c's pilot could react.

Now I know you are not very good with numbers.

1 sec after the attacking a/c is past the attacked a/c, it is around 180ft away from the attacked a/c which has just pulled some sort of evasive maneuver (usually a turn towards the attacking a/c) and is in no position to take a pot shot at the attacking a/c. The attacked a/c still has to accelerate and the attacking a/c in the mean time will be still further away from the attacked a/c (in 2 sec, over 360ft+). The attacking a/c will be well out of range and climbing before the attacked a/c can even react.

Not that hard to grasp for normal people Gunz.

Do I have to go into further detail or is that enough for you to understand Gunz?

Your 1st link Crumpp,

"Most error-filled WWI book I've ever read" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

As for the 2cd link Crumpp did you stop reading after the 1st sentence?

You are hilarious Crumpp, a link to a model site used as a reference. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif And you make comments about gamers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yuppers...Luftluver...Milo...Kutscha says:

Harassment is against the board rules. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

..........Point made