PDA

View Full Version : P-51B/C/D low speed turning and handling - overmodelled ?



Kurfurst__
05-15-2004, 06:14 AM
From what I have read in these boards, the P-51s turning abilities are seen by many as being - relative other planes - too good at lower speeds. People experiencing that FW 190s cannot turn with it at all, not even D-9s, and it roughly matches the turnrate of the better turning Bf 109s. This is also underlined by a quick testflight of P-51s offline, and my online experience. 190A-5s or D-9s simply cant turn with them.

Even as per the trials of AFDU, the FW 190A-4 and P-51B/C was closely matched, the P-51 having a little advantage, something I believe would fade away with if the comparision would be made the heavier P-51D .Relative vs. the heavier as well 190 A-8 would probably bring the P-51s advantage back). The trials can be read directly in the AFDU papers, or via Eric Brown`s Wings of the LW.


FW 190D-9 and P-51 D turn rates was seen as comparable by 190D9 pilot Lt Karl Heinz Ossenkop of JG 26 comparing their crate to the opposition, Spitfire, Tempest, Mustang and Thunderbolt :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mustang: the two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers, which was an advantage to us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather faster in a dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It appears to be a case of overmodelling at low speeds, perhaps the worser low-speed characterics of the high-speed laminar flow wings are not taken into account by the FM? Such generous turnrate modelling was in Il-2`s history with new planes, ie. La-7, Yak-3, Hurri etc.

I wthink that as opposed to the current FM, 190s and P-51s should be rather more closely matched in their turning abilities, and at the same time, keep to their RL reputation of relatively avarage turnfighters in comparison with others.

Thoughts ?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Kurfurst__
05-15-2004, 06:14 AM
From what I have read in these boards, the P-51s turning abilities are seen by many as being - relative other planes - too good at lower speeds. People experiencing that FW 190s cannot turn with it at all, not even D-9s, and it roughly matches the turnrate of the better turning Bf 109s. This is also underlined by a quick testflight of P-51s offline, and my online experience. 190A-5s or D-9s simply cant turn with them.

Even as per the trials of AFDU, the FW 190A-4 and P-51B/C was closely matched, the P-51 having a little advantage, something I believe would fade away with if the comparision would be made the heavier P-51D .Relative vs. the heavier as well 190 A-8 would probably bring the P-51s advantage back). The trials can be read directly in the AFDU papers, or via Eric Brown`s Wings of the LW.


FW 190D-9 and P-51 D turn rates was seen as comparable by 190D9 pilot Lt Karl Heinz Ossenkop of JG 26 comparing their crate to the opposition, Spitfire, Tempest, Mustang and Thunderbolt :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mustang: the two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers, which was an advantage to us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather faster in a dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It appears to be a case of overmodelling at low speeds, perhaps the worser low-speed characterics of the high-speed laminar flow wings are not taken into account by the FM? Such generous turnrate modelling was in Il-2`s history with new planes, ie. La-7, Yak-3, Hurri etc.

I wthink that as opposed to the current FM, 190s and P-51s should be rather more closely matched in their turning abilities, and at the same time, keep to their RL reputation of relatively avarage turnfighters in comparison with others.

Thoughts ?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Maple_Tiger
05-15-2004, 06:29 AM
So what you are saying is, that in real life the P-51 had poor turning ability?

That the P-47 was more manuverable then the P-51?



The turn rates where comparable? At mid to high speeds mayby lol.

Also the P-51 has less wing looading then the FW190 and BF109.. When you use combat flaps at low speeds it changes the amount of lift.


With only 25% fuel and less wing loading, i think the P-51 should be able to out turn any late BF109 at low speeds.


I actually think the P-47 and P-51's turning ablitiy is under modeled. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

VW-IceFire
05-15-2004, 06:45 AM
Just to add food for thought...the Tempest V tactical trials, although somewhat vague gives a relative indication of what the trial determined the Tempest V to be able to do in comparison to other types.

For the FW190A turn circle:
"There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest."

For the Mustang III turn circle:
"The Tempest is not quite as good as the Mustang III."

So while it doesn't really prove much at all it seems in this limited three way comparison (there is also a Spitfire XIV, a 109G, and the Typhoon 1B) it gives a bit of a relativistic idea.

So what it seems to me to be that the Mustang is the best of the three followed by the Tempest and then the FW190. The Tempest was said to be only a little bit better than the FW190 it was tested against and the Mustang to be only a bit better than the Tempest. So you may be right that its slow speed turn ability is off...but likely still further ahead of the FW190. The three all did have similar laminar flow wings so its not surprising they have similar characteristics.

In this test the test pilots also had trouble with the 109G's leading edge slats. Seems to me that with the 109 it took a more experienced pilot to be able to achieve an impressive turn rate as the Tempest was able to best the 109G they tested against.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

VW-IceFire
05-15-2004, 06:49 AM
Double post.

LEXX_Luthor
05-15-2004, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thoughts ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>slighty this
slighty that
slightly the other thing too<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a General Discussion subject. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

As Bearcat would say, you know Oleg got his sim FM spot on when this is all the Experts have left to Whine about. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Oleg, FM are all perfect just make new maps please thanks! (with winter maps too)

Please look at DM though, including P11c DM please don't forget P11c even if its never Featured on teh USA Dogfighter Channel http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
05-15-2004, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Thoughts ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you can't stand the fact the P-51 is a better plane overall in FB than the Bf-109, just like in real life.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

Giganoni
05-15-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Thoughts ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you can't stand the fact the P-51 is a better plane overall in FB than the Bf-109, just like in real life.

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats funny chimp, because he was complaining about facing the P-51 in the 190, not the 109, why should he care if it was better than the 109 or not? I tend to see American planes sometimes overrated on these boards anyway. Especially the P-51, its pretty easy to bag kills when your side has air superiority and better trained pilots, the plane mattered little. Oh I'm American and think the plane is alright. Certainly saved a lot of bomber crews, but I like every plane to have its day in the sun so to speak.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
05-15-2004, 05:57 PM
the P51D and the G10/K4 are pretty well matched

in some cases the P51 has an edge in other cases the 109

and yes the P51D on 25% outturns all late 109s including the G6/AS G14 ive done it and other P51 pilots have outturned me in a G10 on very low speeds
but the 109 has better power/weight ratio so you got lots of options in a DF i.e hammerhead
but you must know how to use it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


is the P51 a better overall plane ?
no i dont think so both got thier strengts and weakeness

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sig97th.jpg

Korolov
05-15-2004, 06:05 PM
Got pony threads up to the neck these days. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

SkyChimp
05-15-2004, 06:45 PM
I agree, and mostly they are attempts to try and convince someone the P-51 is overmodelled in this regard, or that. I've long been to the point where I can't take anything Kurfurst/Isegrim seriously regaridng anything he writes about the P-51, or Bf-109 for that matter.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

WWMaxGunz
05-15-2004, 07:26 PM
I'd expect much more solid data from Isegrim. It wouldn't necessarily apply to the true situation but there would be data. Instead I see a loose snip from an ADFU "comparison" (try and find out full details) and a blanket quote about combat maneuvers.

If that's the best he can do then he has data to show otherwise I bet.

Not saying the FM is just right but I'm beginning to think that Bearcat is onto something very real.


Neal

VW-IceFire
05-15-2004, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
the P51D and the G10/K4 are pretty well matched

in some cases the P51 has an edge in other cases the 109

and yes the P51D on 25% outturns all late 109s including the G6/AS G14 ive done it and other P51 pilots have outturned me in a G10 on very low speeds
but the 109 has better power/weight ratio so you got lots of options in a DF i.e hammerhead
but you must know how to use it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


is the P51 a better overall plane ?
no i dont think so both got thier strengts and weakeness

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sig97th.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And I also believe that a well flown Dora and a well flown P-51 are also a very competent match.

I remember Maple Tiger and another from his squadron went up against Zen and myself once on the 1.22 TX sever back a little while ago and we found the aircraft to be very evenly matched. The P-51 could do things we couldn't and we could do things they couldn't...I think we managed to damage one of their engines and that tipped the balance in our favour. It could have gone either way.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

LeadSpitter_
05-15-2004, 09:19 PM
The problem is the p51ds super effective elevator, the 190 had almost an identical elevator that was very effective at low and high speed just like the p51.

But then again look at the g2 f2 f4 which can out turn almost anything in the game besides the i16s i153s.

the me262 also has razor sharp elevator effectiveness with no simulated stick pressure at 900kmph+

this games all out of wack in roll rates, compressibilty, blackouts, dive speeds climbs I dont think it will ever be fixed and we have to deal with it

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

Maple_Tiger
05-15-2004, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sunburst-97th:
the P51D and the G10/K4 are pretty well matched

in some cases the P51 has an edge in other cases the 109

and yes the P51D on 25% outturns all late 109s including the G6/AS G14 ive done it and other P51 pilots have outturned me in a G10 on very low speeds
but the 109 has better power/weight ratio so you got lots of options in a DF i.e hammerhead
but you must know how to use it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


is the P51 a better overall plane ?
no i dont think so both got thier strengts and weakeness

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sig97th.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



One thing i have noticed is that if the Pony has 25% and the BF109k4 has 50% fuel, then thay both seem to have the same low speed turning ability.

I found from low speeds turning tests that the G-10 and 14 turn slightly better then the P-51D and K4. That is using 50% fuel for the 10 and 14 while using 25% for the P-51D.

Then the 6/AS is slightly better then the G-10 and G-14.


The only time i have been able to out turn and win against the BF10944 is when they have more then 50% fuel, or if they have a few holes in them.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

PzKpfw
05-16-2004, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:


I tend to see American planes sometimes overrated on these boards anyway. Especially the P-51, its pretty easy to bag kills when your side has air superiority and better trained pilots, the plane mattered little.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting Gig, so by your posts take, the USAAF pilots could have beaten the LW in WW2 useing Neuports or Spad's, because the plane didn't matter only the pilot.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

JtD
05-16-2004, 03:19 PM
From my point of view "little" is different from "not", but I am no native English speaker. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Giganoni
05-16-2004, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:


Interesting Gig, so by your posts take, the USAAF pilots could have beaten the LW in WW2 useing Neuports or Spad's, because the plane didn't matter only the pilot.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 44/45 when the P51-D came to dominance, the LW was already beaten. 70% of its fighters were already failing to cope with the bombing campaigns of the 8th AF and Bomber Command. Air superiority is everything, and the Allies had it by then. P-51 D was to escort bombers, did that fine, but the pilots it faced were usually outnumbered and had little training. Hardly earns the reputation it has in my mind then. Oh there were exceptions. Jagdverband 44 with Me 262s come to mind. There is a group that had a superior plane, and had good expericence yet I doubt they delayed the fall of Germany for even a day.

The point is that, other than protecting bombers (which some have argued had little impact on the war, but it probably had a decent impact.) the P-51 D was superfluous. It came out at a time when its enemies were already destined to lose. Its a good plane and should be respected for saving the lives of many bomber crews, but it should not be this "God among Men" in the aviation world that some people attribute it as.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-16-2004, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:


Interesting Gig, so by your posts take, the USAAF pilots could have beaten the LW in WW2 useing Neuports or Spad's, because the plane didn't matter only the pilot.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 44/45 when the P51-D came to dominance, the LW was already beaten. 70% of its fighters were already failing to cope with the bombing campaigns of the 8th AF and Bomber Command. Air superiority is everything, and the Allies had it by then. P-51 D was to escort bombers, did that fine, but the pilots it faced were usually outnumbered and had little training. Hardly earns the reputation it has in my mind then. Oh there were exceptions. Jagdverband 44 with Me 262s come to mind. There is a group that had a superior plane, and had good expericence yet I doubt they delayed the fall of Germany for even a day.

The point is that, other than protecting bombers (which some have argued had little impact on the war, but it probably had a decent impact.) the P-51 D was superfluous. It came out at a time when its enemies were already destined to lose. Its a good plane and should be respected for saving the lives of many bomber crews, but it should not be this "God among Men" in the aviation world that some people attribute it as.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

agreed 100%

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

PzKpfw
05-16-2004, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:



In 44/45 when the P51-D came to dominance, the LW was already beaten. 70% of its fighters were already failing to cope with the bombing campaigns of the 8th AF and Bomber Command. Air superiority is everything, and the Allies had it by then. P-51 D was to escort bombers, did that fine, but the pilots it faced were usually outnumbered and had little training. Hardly earns the reputation it has in my mind then. Oh there were exceptions. Jagdverband 44 with Me 262s come to mind. There is a group that had a superior plane, and had good expericence yet I doubt they delayed the fall of Germany for even a day.

The point is that, other than protecting bombers (which some have argued had little impact on the war, but it probably had a decent impact.) the P-51 D was superfluous. It came out at a time when its enemies were already destined to lose. Its a good plane and should be respected for saving the lives of many bomber crews, but it should not be this "God among Men" in the aviation world that some people attribute it as.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Gig again by your reasoning, their was no need for the P-51 at all. Problem is the P-47 & P-38 could not escort the bombers to and from the target. No US fighter had the range to do it, or to reach stategic targets in Germany.

Bomber lossess outside escort range were prohibitive as both Schweinfurt missions had shown. The appereance of the P-51B changed the air war over Europe and allowed Strategic bombing to continue anywhere in Germany.

W/o the P-51 the bombers would have been limited to P-47 escort range targets, nor would air superiority been achieved for D-day etc, Ie, the US gained AS in April 1944 primarily because of the appearence of the P-51B. The P-47s etc did the groundwork, but the P-51 finished the project. Another example of the effect, was if you look at bomber losses they steadily decrease, while LW fighter losses increase from the time the P-51B/C enters the theatre. From 1944 on the P-51 would score the majority of USAAF fighter air to air victories, due to its range capability. Chuck Yeager's comment concerning the P-51 are a prime example of how US pilots felt about the P-51:

I flew the P-47, P-38, Bf 109, Fw 190, Spitfire and several other lesser known types, and the P-51D was by far the best war machine; the Mustang would do for eight hours what the Spit would do for 45 minutes!..

Ppl can argue the impact of the Strategic bombing campaign all they want, the telling effect was the effect on the German synthetic fuel industtry which was reduced to an output of 10% by Nov 1944, as well as capping German production of tanks planes etc. Targets that again for the most part were outside P-47 etc range.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Mon May 17 2004 at 05:12 AM.]

Flash_ram
05-17-2004, 12:54 AM
Huh when F-4 F-2 Can outturn anything? a yak can outturn them, even a La7...
I dont know what to say about the Mustang turnrate but I know that the Fw190 turn bad than in raelity... I just cant belive even if I dont know anything about this reallife plaine that he turns so bad at low speed... many friends agree with me... I dont say it have to turn better than P-51 or La... but at least do turn... I can outturn a Fw190 at low speeds even with a rudder from another plaine lol

GR142-Pipper
05-17-2004, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(...snip...) Also the P-51 has less wing looading then the FW190 and BF109.. When you use combat flaps at low speeds it changes the amount of lift.


With only 25% fuel and less wing loading, i think the P-51 should be able to out turn any late BF109 at low speeds.


I actually think the P-47 and P-51's turning ablitiy is under modeled. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with you for exactly the reasons you cite.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-17-2004, 01:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
(...snip...) this games all out of wack in roll rates, compressibilty, blackouts, dive speeds climbs I dont think it will ever be fixed and we have to deal with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with you on a couple of topics you've raised, specifically blackouts and compressabilty. There seems to NOT be a common standard as to when the onset of blackout occurs but varies from plane type to plane type. I've pursued 109s and 190s co-speed where I was in the very last stages prior to pilot blackout only to see both of these aircraft continue to maneuver. THIS IS ENTIRELY BOGUS as G-forces are the same for co-speed aircraft scribing the same arc in the sky. Same holds true for the Zero and Ki-84 which also seem very unevenly non-blackout tolerant.

GR142-Pipper

Bremspropeller
05-17-2004, 07:53 AM
@ John:

But Yeager also said that the Dora-9 was better than the Mustang below 7000m.

---------------

The day before yestaerday I visited the ILA in Berlin and had the chance to look at the Mustang's profile one more time.
It's wings are certainly not developed for low-speed turn-fights (the hightest profole-thickness is reached after two thirds of the profile's deepness), rather for high-speed engagements. So are the Fw190s wings.

I still can't understand why you all whine about the low-speed handling of those two planes since IF got engaged at those speeds, you already have done a big mistake.

http://www.ccbirding.com/thw/id/peregrine2--hwi.JPG
Da B&Z bird !

http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Matz0r
05-17-2004, 08:06 AM
You guys will like this track. (http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/P-51weeeee.rar)

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.swipnet.se/hotascougar/pics/p51blamgreysmall.gif

geetarman
05-17-2004, 09:51 AM
I think all these TnB discussions only prove useful as guidelines for flying the planes in FB.

Stop for a minute and think about how our df's evolve in the game. Loops, tight turns, hammerheads, etc. all at 2000M and below.

No American (or for that matter, German) fighter pilot during the Second World War, would want to take his fighter into that type of engagement.

The P-51 was a truly great fighter because it had long range, was very fast at higher alts, and could manuever very well at high speeds.

It was more than capable against the German fighters and the kills are there to prove it.
Both the Americans and Germans realized as the war went on that speed was what allowed you to catch and kill an enemy plane and then get away.

I'm sure US pilots weren't losing sleep over the fact that a 109 with low fuel and an ace at the stick may be able to beat their turn radius by a bit or loop tighter.

I know the P-38 pilots in the Pacific understood that as they were clearing Japanese planes from the skies over the Solomons.

ZG77_Nagual
05-17-2004, 10:19 AM
Online in the 43 scenario - in the a5 - it's not the mustangs that bother me it's the spits! - they can stay with me in a dive until they start falling apart.

I suspect the Dora's turn is undermodeled - however - and that may be the whole problem.

BSS_Vidar
05-17-2004, 10:49 AM
I mostly fly the P-51. I find that I can not maintain the same turn rate as a 109 or 190 at the same speed and energy state. If I try to follow them in a flat horizontal turn, I induce too much angle of attack and bleed down conciderably. The result is the 109 / 190 gradually pulling around behind me in the turn. So, I never try to engage in that senerio. I have to Hi or Low Yo-Yo to maintain possition or get a shooting angle. With Virtual cockpit only servers, I find I have the advantage with this tactic. In a server that doesn't have Virt cockpit on,and arrows on, the manuever is almost useless.

But as far as the statment that the P-51 in FB out turns the German planes. I completely disagree. The German planes out turn the P-51 in a level turn radius, but they can still be out manuevered by a P-51 with sound tactics. That is without the big arrows pointing at you giving away your tactic. LOL

S!

BSS_Vidar

Ugly_Kid
05-17-2004, 11:24 AM
Please note that you can't know the g-level the pilot is experiencing. Very often there are complaints that P-51 pilot black-outs more easily as most of the others. This is not necessarily true. For example downward spiral P-51 looses speed much slower than an opponent. For this reason many slower opponents can choose a tight spiral downwards which results that P-51 starts having a much higher tangential acceleration and also velocity. In order to reach same turn radius now, P-51 has to pull much more g relatively. A tip in a case that you start blacking out in P-51, throttle back (completely if need be) and pull down the combat flaps. However, carefully since if overdone it slips very fast to a worse energy state as the opponent. The blacking out is not a sympton of there being some secret nationality endurance factor on pilots.

ZG77_Nagual
05-17-2004, 11:29 AM
There is reason to believe that 190 pilots should black out later - since they have a reclined seat. I'm not sure if this design feature was encorporated in teh 51 - I think they went to G suites instead.

Kwiatos
05-17-2004, 11:31 AM
I have no problem to stay in P-51 in flat turn with late Bfs 109 (above Bf G-2) even at slow speed. I put full power and combat flaps and in flat spin bf couldnt outturn me. Only in tigh climbing spiral Bf have some adventage. Fw190 of course dont have any chance.
If im remeber right in version 1.21 P-51 had worse slow speed turn rate and i think was more accurate (its turn rate at slow speed was beetween Bfs and Fw-190). The same climb rate.

I was in ILA Berlin 2004 and i asked Corsair's pilot about compare turn rate beetween P-51 and Corsair - he said tha Corsair was more manouverbility than P-51.

[This message was edited by Kwiatos on Mon May 17 2004 at 11:02 AM.]

[This message was edited by Kwiatos on Mon May 17 2004 at 11:05 AM.]

jurinko
05-17-2004, 11:33 AM
going straight from Fw to P-51 online, I would say P-51 feels like noob plane. In reality it turned worse at medium/low speeds than 109 and a bit better than 190, but in FB Pony compared with 190, Fw´s handling is terrible.
Sure it was aerodynamically very clean plane, but its E bleed compared with 190 is negligible.

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

ZG77_Nagual
05-17-2004, 12:32 PM
The relatively few circle fights I've been in in various 190s vs the p51 I was pretty much able to stay with them in turns - it's tricky - but with skill it can be done.

I don't fly the p51 much - too easy. But it should be very efficient aerodynamically.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-17-2004, 12:54 PM
actually it should have problems with high AoA.

NOT talking about Turnradius, just AoA.

I don't know if his is modelled, but it's a feature of the Laminar Wing.

Advantages are:
as long as AoA is not high the airflow is verry clear (laminar) and induce not much drag, thats one reason for P51's high top speed.

On the other hand:
if you go in with a high AoA the airflow will tear off much earlyer compared to a "standard-non-laminar" wing.

that's why 109 and 190A should be more forgiving in hard agressive manouvers than P51. (both had no laminar-airflow wing, FW's wing is something between i think)

but i don't fly P51 or 109 that much so i realy can't tell.

maybe some1 flying 190 109 and P51 quite often can compare and tell us.


Anyway my personal impression in ACE:
P51 feels verry forgiving i can turn with the Late 109's and 190s at SL verry well and mostly they don't surive it.
the only advantage the 190s have is it's higher RoR at slower speeds so you may can shake a p51, but it's verry hard because energy loss in turns is way higher for 190 than P51 so you may get rid of him, but won't be able to use this because your E-state is at 0.

and as i Said, just my impression. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

Magister__Ludi
05-17-2004, 02:06 PM
Well, compared with how overmodelled are the Soviet planes in turn and climb, the 1 second in plus that AEP Mustang has over it's real life counterpart comes like a breath of fresh air.

Yes Mustang D has 22 sec turn time instead of 23 sec. Fw-190 has 23-24 sec turn time, just like in real life, but the handling is just AWFUL. It spins with the lightest touch on the elevator and it bleeds speed in turns like a 4 engine bomber. Oleg and his team still tries to convince us that there is a direct link between wing loading and propensity of a plane to stall. This is, forgive me, absolute bulsh|t. If this would have been true then early jet fighters with 3 times the wing loading of a ww2 fighter and no stick feel (hydraulic controls) will be simply uncontrollable.

But this rule above applies only for Axis planes. If we fly Allied planes we can see how Mustang handles better than Ki-84, or the Jug handles better than the superlightweight IAR-80. In fact Mustang is the most forgiving plane in the whole planeset, which is completely different to the way wartime pilots described it. Not that Mustang should have worse handling, no. Axis plane instead should get their real life handling, not this hilarious representation. Especially those supersensitive elevators, with an extremely short travel, that plague almost all Axis planes, should dissapear entirely.

JtD
05-17-2004, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Yes Mustang D has 22 sec turn time instead of 23 sec. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which game do you play? In FB AEP the P-51 has a continous turn time of 20 seconds at 1000meters with 25% fuel. And that is easy.

JG14_Josf
05-17-2004, 02:30 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A tip in a case that you start blacking out in P-51, throttle back (completely if need be) and pull down the combat flaps. However, carefully since if overdone it slips very fast to a worse energy state as the opponent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


AT corner speed (minimum speed where the pilot can still black out) turn performance is maximized.

Piloting above or below that speed and G force will result in larger turn radii and slower turn rates.

In that spiral dive the capacity to maintian sustained turn performance at corner speed exists, one can ride corner speed in a continuous instantaneous turn and maximize turn performance all the way to the ground.

Allowing the plane to go over corner speed in the dive decreases turn performance and allowing the plane to slow down under corner speed also decreases turn performance. The dive is like having another engine. The joystick is the dive engine throttle lever.
The pilot can either pull back on the throttle or lessen the dive when speed exceeds corner speed. If the pilot has to ease off on the joystick to keep from blacking out then turn peformance decereases; the pilot allowed the plane to go too fast. If the pilot cannot black out no matter how hard he pulls back on the stick even pulling back to where the plane stalls then the pilot allowed the plane to get too slow and therefore turn performance is decreased because the plane does not have enough energy to pull enough g force to maximize turn performance.

Energy fighting dictates that relative energy be gained over the opponent but only so much as to be useful in converting that energy into possition for a killing shot. Understanding this fact leads to the understanding of the importance of corner speed.

Magister__Ludi
05-17-2004, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Yes Mustang D has 22 sec turn time instead of 23 sec. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which game do you play? In FB AEP the P-51 has a continous turn time of 20 seconds at 1000meters with 25% fuel. And that is easy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I test them at full internal fuel load and full internal ammo (gross weight - loaded weight, is the same thing), because that's how they were compared in real life (it's true that USAAF did sometimes climb tests at 60% fuel) and there is quite a lot of data for this loading on all major ww2 fighters. Of course that the improvement in turn rate from 100% to 25% fuel load will be slightly larger for Mustang than for other fighters because of larger internal fuel tanks.

Also testing them at 1000m is difficult, because you don't know if your turn is perfectly horizontal or is it slightly nose down. Because of this I test them at 10m above the sea (there was no way to do such tests in real life http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), there is virtually no difference in turn performance between 0 to 1000m (for a supercharged plane that is). I also watch the speed to be constant, turns with speed bleed give better results, but are not useful in comparisons.

Maple_Tiger
05-17-2004, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Yes Mustang D has 22 sec turn time instead of 23 sec. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which game do you play? In FB AEP the P-51 has a continous turn time of 20 seconds at 1000meters with 25% fuel. And that is easy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



lol JtD,

That is because you are using 25% fuel. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actualy testing was done with combat weight. That was about 70% fuel i beleave.


All planes in FB turn better and climb better with 25% fuel. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

GR142-Pipper
05-17-2004, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
(...snip...) AT corner speed (minimum speed where the pilot can still black out) turn performance is maximized.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As a small aside, corner speed is actually the SLOWEST speed at which maximum G can be SUSTAINED.

In other words, it's the slowest airspeed at which the smallest turn RADIUS can be achieved while producing the highest turn RATE.

Based on the rest of your comments, I realize that you know what you're talking about. This was just a small clarification.

Good post JG14_Josef!

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
05-17-2004, 08:16 PM
The 6G line of the doghouse charts is the last line because that is where pilots black out. Put the pilot in a G-suit and you can get harder turns at more G's.

There is Instantaneous Corner Speed and there is Sustained Flat Corner Speed. Above Sustained the plane will bleed energy which may be maintained by losing altitude.

JG14_Josf
05-17-2004, 09:39 PM
GR142-Pipper and Neal,

Thanks for the clarifications.

Consider one more observation concerning instantaeous turn performance maintained at the cost of altitude (this can be applied to Ugly_Kids' example):
Absolute minimum turn radius occurs at speeds close to the stall line, however this is made possible only at the expense of turn rate, and can only be sustained when altitude is traded for the required energy.

For example a plane diving to maintain the energy to minimize turn radius will scribe a tighter downward spiral at a slower speed and slower turn rate, while a plane maintaining the highest g force at the slowest speed will scribe a wider turn radius at a higher turn rate. The faster plane pulling more g force will get around each 360 degree turn faster.

When both downward spirals are observered as being superimposed over each other the application of geometry is made obvious.

If the faster plane reverses the turn to scribe a two circle or nose to tail turn the faster plane will then be in possition to shoot at the slower plane before the slower plane can shoot at the faster plane. If the turn is not reversed the faster plane will only be able to shoot at the slower plane at the expense of speed and energy and therefore at the expense of maximum turn rate at corner velocity. The faster plane scribing a downward spiral in the same direction as the slower plane will be outside the slower planes turn radius and the faster plane will overshoot the slower plane because the faster plane is turning at a higher turn rate.

If both plane are not inclined to utilize the energy of altitude the need to utilize turn geometry becomes even more significant. As both planes burn energy maintaining altitude the plane going for angles at a slower speed will turn inside the faster plane conserving energy. Here the faster plane had better reverse his turn to utilize the capacity to turn at a higher rate and the advantage of turn geometry.

One/two circle or nose to nose/nose to tail geometry is dictated by relative performance capabilities, relative energy levels, and relative position. Mistakes in applying the proper turn geometry can defeat an otherwise good setup and turn an advantage into a disadvantage in short order.

GR142-Pipper
05-17-2004, 10:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
GR142-Pipper and Neal,

Thanks for the clarifications.

Consider one more observation concerning instantaeous turn performance maintained at the cost of altitude (this can be applied to Ugly_Kids' example):
Absolute minimum turn radius occurs at speeds close to the stall line, however this is made possible only at the expense of turn rate, and can only be sustained when altitude is traded for the required energy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think your assuming that both aircraft have similar flight and power characteristics. As the POWER of each aircraft approachs a 1 to 1 thrust/weight ratio, the better is an aircraft's ability to utilize turn rate or turn radius to advantage without utilizing altitude loss to achieve it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For example a plane diving to maintain the energy to minimize turn radius will scribe a tighter downward spiral at a slower speed and slower turn rate, while a plane maintaining the highest g force at the slowest speed will scribe a wider turn radius at a higher turn rate.

The faster plane pulling more g force will get around each 360 degree turn faster.

When both downward spirals are observered as being superimposed over each other the application of geometry is made obvious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It depends on the characteristics of the aircraft. The more similiar the two engaging fighters are, the more I would agree with you. The problem arises when dissimilar types of aircraft engage (i.e. a Mig-17 vs F-4 or a Zero vs P-47). It's always the question, "Which is best to use now...turn rate, turn radius or simply try to achieve separation?". It's a question in which the answer changes back and forth as the three dimensional fight progresses.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the faster plane reverses the turn to scribe a two circle or nose to tail turn the faster plane will then be in possition to shoot at the slower plane before the slower plane can shoot at the faster plane. If the turn is not reversed the faster plane will only be able to shoot at the slower plane at the expense of speed and energy and therefore at the expense of maximum turn rate at corner velocity. The faster plane scribing a downward spiral in the same direction as the slower plane will be outside the slower planes turn radius and the faster plane will overshoot the slower plane because the faster plane is turning at a higher turn rate.

If both plane are not inclined to utilize the energy of altitude the need to utilize turn geometry becomes even more significant. As both planes burn energy maintaining altitude the plane going for angles at a slower speed will turn inside the faster plane conserving energy. Here the faster plane had better reverse his turn to utilize the capacity to turn at a higher rate and the advantage of turn geometry.

One/two circle or nose to nose/nose to tail geometry is dictated by relative performance capabilities, relative energy levels, and relative position. Mistakes in applying the proper turn geometry can defeat an otherwise good setup and turn an advantage into a disadvantage in short order.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that you're trying to say that turn rate, turn radius and separation are ingredients in the fight and one must recognize the appropriate circumstances in which to apply each to advantage. If that's what you were trying to say, you'd be right. :-)

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
05-17-2004, 11:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Absolute minimum turn radius occurs at speeds close to the stall line, however this is made possible only at the expense of turn rate, and can only be sustained when altitude is traded for the required energy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Josf, I think you need to look closer at them EM charts or get ones for prop planes and not jets.

I have an example linked to here, a typical type prop EM chart used in an EM based discussion:

www.simhq.com/_air/air_011g.html (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011g.html)

The stall line; that curve on the left that starts at about 105mph and 0 dps and goes up to the topr right point of the diagram, about 260mph and 28 dps. Dps is degrees per second.

How can I fly at better turn rate (dps) than I can at the stall line for any speed? How can I cut a smaller radius at any speed than by flying at the stall point?

The stall line rises smoothly from zero dps on up to maximum with no dips. The stall line crosses the turn radius lines from wider to tighter, evenly and steadily.

Perhaps you are thinking of a different EM line or set of EM lines? Like the Sustained Turn Lines? those are the ones with the +20, 0, -20, -40 and -60 labels with the 0 line being solid and the others being dashed. On those if you go faster on the same line you sacrifice turn rate. The + and - lines are + or - fps to sustain a turn rate at a speed.

For any given speed and turn rate you can see if it lies within the envelope of that plane *** for the alt of that chart, they change with alt *** and what climb (below the 0 line) or dive (above the 0 line) you'd need to maintain that energy and turn. Of course with enough climb or dive, you need the next chart.

And if you turn a smaller circle at any fixed speed, it's more G's. A wider turn at lower speed or even the same speed is less G's.

And no, I'm not picking on you. I'm just correcting some information that's presented wrong. You seem to have some ends right, just not the parts that lead up to them and ideas that those are used to support.


Neal

MOH_Cocktail
05-17-2004, 11:36 PM
I don't get it. You LuftWhiners have got the K-10, G-10, and the unbeatable Ki84. Even if the P-51 can out fly the 109 in the game, you have much superior firepower to most of the allied planes. You can empty the P-51's 50 cals on the 190's and Ki84's and they just fly on. Conversly, most if not all the allied planes that have the fire power cannot manuever with the later model axis planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Thoughts ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you can't stand the fact the P-51 is a better plane overall in FB than the Bf-109, just like in real life.

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats funny chimp, because he was complaining about facing the P-51 in the 190, not the 109, why should he care if it was better than the 109 or not? I tend to see American planes sometimes overrated on these boards anyway. Especially the P-51, its pretty easy to bag kills when your side has air superiority and better trained pilots, the plane mattered little. Oh I'm American and think the plane is alright. Certainly saved a lot of bomber crews, but I like every plane to have its day in the sun so to speak.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG14_Josf
05-17-2004, 11:58 PM
Neal,

Your presumtion is in error. I do not think you are picking on me when your posts do not contain a direct insult. Even when you do insult me directly I do not consider, in the slightest, that you are picking on me.

Your style is somtimes abrasive and when it is directed personally toward someone specific it then becomes personal. In my view it is unwarrented and destructive to communication. Personal attacks are simply wrong and your business. Not mine. I can choose to have no part in them.

In fact I am at a loss to define just what you mean by 'picking'. Is it nit picking? Who knows. Why even make that statement?

If you insult me then why not simply call it what it is; an insult.

You did not insult me. I have no problem with your posts that do not insult me directly.

However, on the subject of turn performance we seem to be at a loss to communicate effectively.

If you choose to use a game generated Fan Plot then you may be reporting game error.

I am inclined instead to refer to 'Fighter Combat' by Robert Shaw. He addresses your claim that prop planes are not the same as jets.

My reference, that you find in error, involves turn performance in a dive (not level), specifically my reference occurs when the pilot maintains instantaneous performance during a dive by maintaining the energy required to maximize turn performance by trading altitude energy into lift and g force.

Here is what Shaw says about turn peformance:

page 390

"There are very well defined physical relationships between the parameters of turn performance: n, TR, Rt, and V. Figure A-2 graphically depicts these relationships for level (constant-altitude) turns. These charts are applicable to any aircraft. Note that for a given turn, if any two of the four variables are known, the other two are fixed. For example if a fighter pulls 6 Gs at 400 knots, its turn radius will be about 2,400 ft and the corresponding rate of turn will be about 16o/sec....
From these proportionalities and Figure A-2 it can easily be seen that turn radius is minimized by high G at slow speed. Likewise, turn rate is maximized by high G at slow speed. Since the V-n diagram of a fighter specifies its G capabilities at various speeds, it is possible to determine turn-rate and -radius performance throughout the aircraft's speed range. Figure A-3 is a depiction of the way typical fighter turn-performance varies with airspeed.
In the case of turn rate, the rapid rise in G capability as speed increases above Vs (as shown by the lift boundary in the V-n diagram) leads to improved instantaneous-turn-rate performance. Typical fighter turn-radius performance also is degraded (i.e. Rt increases) at speeds above Vc. Although absolute minimum instantaneous turn radius is usually found at speeds considerably below Vc, little change can be expected in Rt at any speed between Vc and slightly greater than Vs. Very slow airspeeds, however, cause dramatic rises in level turn radius. The importance of corner speed in optimizing instantaneous turn performance is highlighted in Figure A-3.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Fighter%20Combat%20Fig%20A-3.jpg

As the chart shows and as Robert Shaw describes; the absolute minimum instantaneous turn radius is made at speeds considerably below corner velocity.

Instantaneous 'level' turn peformance is not sustainable, it is fleeting, it degrades as the plane burns energy.

My example, inspired by Ugly_Kids example, shows how instantaneous turn performance can be sustained in a dive. Call it: sustained instantaneous dive turn performance.

The proportionalities remain the same. A slight increase in turn radius is made when the plane slows down from corner velocity.

True or false?

If one plane is scribing a tigher turn it will be inside the turn of a plane scribing a wider turn.

True or false?

If the wider turning plane is scribing a faster rate turn outside of the tighter slower turning plane what will happen if the faster plane does not either slow down or reverse his turn?

Ugly_Kid, Did I understand your post?

JtD
05-18-2004, 02:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

I test them at full internal fuel load and full internal ammo (gross weight - loaded weight, is the same thing), because that's how they were compared in real life (it's true that USAAF did sometimes climb tests at 60% fuel) and there is quite a lot of data for this loading on all major ww2 fighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So do you happen to know where I can find one of these turnrate tests for a fully loaden P-51 on the internet? Couldn't find anything decent, so far.

GR142-Pipper
05-18-2004, 02:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
(...snip...)
Instantaneous 'level' turn peformance is not sustainable, it is fleeting, it degrades as the plane burns energy.

My example, inspired by Ugly_Kids example, shows how instantaneous turn performance can be sustained in a dive. Call it: sustained instantaneous dive turn performance.

The proportionalities remain the same. A slight increase in turn radius is made when the plane slows down from corner velocity.

True or false?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False. Turn RATE falls off AND turn RADIUS is smaller. The example being an aircraft going slowly with gear and flaps down can scribe a tighter circle (radius) than one turning at corner speed. Flying faster than corner speed can cause turn RATE to fall off AND have turn radius INCREASE. This is because the center of pressure is shifting aft on the wing as speed increases passed corner speed which reduces lift (effectively increasing wing loading due to speed).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If one plane is scribing a tigher turn it will be inside the turn of a plane scribing a wider turn.

True or false?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the wider turning plane is scribing a faster rate turn outside of the tighter slower turning plane what will happen if the faster plane does not either slow down or reverse his turn?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If the faster plane is maintaining a higher turn RATE and nothing changes, it will eventually pull for a shot on the plane on the inside of the circle.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
05-18-2004, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Neal,

Your presumtion is in error.

Neal: Okay.

If you choose to use a game generated Fan Plot then you may be reporting game error.

Neal: Well yes but the shape is about right as you will see below.

I am inclined instead to refer to 'Fighter Combat' by Robert Shaw. He addresses your claim that prop planes are not the same as jets.

My reference, that you find in error, involves turn performance in a dive (not level), specifically my reference occurs when the pilot maintains instantaneous performance during a dive by maintaining the energy required to maximize turn performance by trading altitude energy into lift and g force.

Neal: Well no. What I objected to was the exact line that I quoted and some mixup you made in the turns-G's-radius department below that.

Here is what Shaw says about turn peformance:

Neal: And here is where I'm happy to have my copy because I can see the 3 diagrams not shown in your post.

page 390

"There are very well defined physical relationships between the parameters of turn performance: n, TR, Rt, and V. Figure A-2 graphically depicts these relationships for level (constant-altitude) turns. These charts are _applicable to any aircraft._ Note that for a given turn, if any two of the four variables are known, the other two are fixed. For example if a fighter pulls 6 Gs at 400 knots, its turn radius will be about 2,400 ft and the corresponding rate of turn will be about 16o/sec....

---------
Neal: Or you can look at the charts. ;^) Says the same thing only much clearer to me.
A-2 top chart; same G's less speed, tighter radius (and vice-versa); same speed, more G's, tighter radius. It's the outcome of direct intro physics on turns and applies to planes that can hit the speeds and/or G's you want to reference.
A-2 bottom chart. Same situation except it looks at radius. Same G's, more speed, tighter radius (and vice-versa); same speed, more G's, tighter radius.
-----------

From these _proportionalities_ and Figure A-2 it can easily be seen that turn radius is minimized by high G at slow speed. Likewise, turn rate is maximized by high G at slow speed. Since the V-n diagram of a fighter specifies its G capabilities at various speeds, it is possible to determine turn-rate and -radius performance throughout the aircraft's speed range.

Neal: And the V-n diagram is Figure A-1 which shows Lift Limit as a curve of G force as a function of Speed rising from Speed=0 to the Corner Speed (Instantaneous) which is where Lift Limit has risen to the structural limit of the plane. Note that for WWII charts used the structural limit is not used but rather the pilot blackout taken to be 6 G's.

Figure A-3 is a depiction of the way typical fighter turn-performance varies with airspeed.
In the case of turn rate, the rapid rise in G capability as speed increases above Vs (as shown by the lift boundary in the V-n diagram) leads to improved instantaneous-turn-rate performance. Typical fighter turn-radius performance also is degraded (i.e. Rt increases) at speeds above Vc.

--------------
Neal: You may note that Figure A-3 is a direct result of Figure A-1 up to Vc and then the upper diagram of A-3 is from the upper diagram of A-2 and the lower of A-3 is from the lower of A-2.
And here is something cool for ya. The top diagram of A-3 between Vs (stall velocity) and Vc (corner velocity) is the stall line on the E-M chart, where it comes from in fact. From Vc on it's just a statement that higher speeds at the same G gets lower turn rates. BUT you HAVE to be beyond the stall line, above Vc for that to hold true. You cannot fly the stall line above Vc without structural failure or blackout depending on how you call the rules and draw the chart. Well, you CAN but not as a rule just as exceptions (my plane is strong/new, my pilot doesn't black out at so many G's maybe because he's strong and fresh -- as Shaw says "Never say never").

Your line that I quoted in the post above concerns absolute minimum turn radius at speeds close to the stall line. The absolute minimum radius is on the stall line for any speed below Vc. Above Vc you can fly the stall line and your radius will be bigger anyway. The E-M chart I had linked to has the top of A-3 with turn radii shown overlaid, combining the top of A-3 with data from the bottom.
-------------------

Although _absolute minimum instantaneous turn radius_ is usually found at speeds _considerably below Vc_, little change can be expected in Rt at any speed between Vc and slightly greater than Vs. Very slow airspeeds, however, cause dramatic rises in level turn radius.

Neal: Well that depends entirely on your Lift Limit line, doesn't it? The curve of the Stall Line is determined by that. Figure A-2 holds for all aircraft as well as weights on strings, wheels and any thing that turns. Figure A-1 is noted plainly as "Good only for one weight, altitude, configuration and power setting." which also means for one plane with those parameters, and the Stall Line of Figure A-3 is derived from Figure A-1. Using E-M charts, you have to take some things as givens and those have to match what you are flying and doing. Want to bet that about every Vn diagram and E-M chart you'll see is for full power?

The importance of corner speed in optimizing instantaneous turn performance is highlighted in Figure A-3.

Neal: Absolutely no argument there. Be at Vc or below to make a change in heading if you have to be quickest.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Fighter%20Combat%20Fig%20A-3.jpg

As the chart shows and as Robert Shaw describes; the absolute minimum instantaneous turn radius is made at speeds considerably below corner velocity.

Neal: For his example plane. Only the A-2 charts are noted as being applicable to any plane. But then, there are applicable direct physics and don't depend on wings, lift, power or any of that.

Instantaneous 'level' turn peformance is not sustainable, it is fleeting, it degrades as the plane burns energy.

My example, inspired by Ugly_Kids example, shows how instantaneous turn performance can be sustained in a dive. Call it: sustained instantaneous dive turn performance.

Neal: Your example depends on Figure A-3 being true for both planes. Can you count on that? If not then your statement is not good for general cases. And from Figure A-2 the highest G force at the slowest speed gets the smallest radius. Figure A-2 holds true in all cases.

The proportionalities remain the same. A slight increase in turn radius is made when the plane slows down from corner velocity.

True or false?

Neal: By the E-M chart I linked to that is true, but by Figure A-3 it is false. Different planes there? Now if you had written about slowing down TO corner velocity then for definite sure it would be false for any chart.

If one plane is scribing a tigher turn it will be inside the turn of a plane scribing a wider turn.

True or false?

Neal: True only if both turns are around the same center, or the centers are closer together than the differences in turn radii. I have nailed more than a few turn fighters in the past on that one, hehehe.

If the wider turning plane is scribing a faster rate turn outside of the tighter slower turning plane what will happen if the faster plane does not either slow down or reverse his turn?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal: He will come around in front of the inner turning plane, again if they fly concentric or closely so within radii differences. Of course the faster plane does not have to reverse at all. He can lift and cut inside the other who being slower may not be able to rise as much. But that is an energy flying tactic, or really part of one and I thought you can't do those in FB/AEP?
If you have the faster plane then don't flat turn even if you have the better rate. It will take you longer to nail the sucker unless you can't hit except by riding directly behind him which I assume you don't have that problem. Even if one does, it's still better to fly E and wear the other out while conserving all you can as he'll be dead slow when you do finish him and you'll be a bit harder to kill by someone else diving in.


Neal

JG14_Josf
05-18-2004, 10:51 AM
Pipper and Neal,

Thanks for pointing out my serious error. I used the word increase when it should have read decrease in the following sentence.

A slight increase in turn radius is made when the plane slows down from corner velocity.

My thinking at that time was definitely toward combat advantage i.e. increasing combat advantage or increasing angular advantage by trading energy of speed into lift and higher g force at slower speeds.

That one word error is a colossal mistake on my part. It really confounds any attempt on my part to convey an understanding. This subject is already difficult to grasp on the whole and errors like that really destroy communication.

Despite my error, however, my understanding remains that turn radius does decrease at speeds below corner velocity, if only slightly, for an instantaneous turn or for a turn where enough excess energy is available to power the plane around the tighter center.

Does it matter which form this excess energy is contained, i.e. Altitude, speed, or thrust?

Ugly_Kids example described a downward spiral situation where altitude and speed were being traded for turn performance. In his example the pilot flying the faster plane pulled back on the throttle to avoid blacking out and to increase relative possition utilizing turn performance. His example, although meant to
illustrate the reason why P-51's tend to black out, leads to the subject of turn performance in general.

I tried to explain how turn rate is maximized at corner speed while turn radius is not, how slow speed offers a marginal advantage in turn radius, while corner speed offers a significant advantage in turn rate. My error in wording has obviously rendered my efforts lacking success.

However I see concensus on this specific relationship where absolute turn rate and turn radius performance is found. Turn rate is maximized at corner speed, and turn radius is minimized at speeds under corner speed.

Now, since the subject is still open for discussion, and since there are points of contention remaining it is my intention to continue toward a better understanding.

This statment appears to be confusing:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Flying faster than corner speed can cause turn RATE to fall off AND have turn radius INCREASE. This is because the center of pressure is shifting aft on the wing as speed increases passed corner speed which reduces lift (effectively increasing wing loading due to speed).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding is that turn rate decreases and turn radius increased at speeds above corner velocity because the pilot can no longer endure the g force; he must ease up on the stick. As far as my understanding goes; fighter planes were capable of generating more g force that what the pilots flying them could stand.
Perhaps in this area my thinking is backwards.

Moving on to the situation where the faster plane is scribing a wider turn at a higher rate (Ugly_Kids example) in a dive; the question as to what would happen if this condition was allowed to continue we have more confusion.

Pipper says:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the faster plane is maintaining a higher turn RATE and nothing changes, it will eventually pull for a shot on the plane on the inside of the circle.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is the reason I posted the turn performance relationship. I can think of only a few exceptions where corner velocity is not the ideal speed to fly for getting in for a shot, because at corner speed the absolute maximum turn rate is found and turn radius is practically minimized. Corner speed would be the absolute best speed to fly if you wanted to turn your guns onto the target quickly, except for that word 'practically'. At the expense of turn rate, or degrees per second of turn, a small or practically insignificant decrease in turn radius is made at speeds under corner velocity.

I do not want to sound like a know it all. Quite the contrary. I've been ignorant and lacking in knowledge on this relationship for quite some time. It has taken me a lot of time and effort to be in a possition to understand this relatioinship and its application to our common form of entertainment; that being Simulated WWII air combat. It is obvious who understands this relationship when flying on-line but it is not so obvious when trying to use words to communicate this understanding. In the hope of helping others along, who do not quite see the relationship and its application, these words I type now are meant toward that end. That is it, except for, in my case, a selfish need to improve my writing skills.

In many combat situations; going slow makes the faster plane fly around and overshoot. In many combat situations; slowing down will allow the attacker to get in for a shot. These facts cloud the issue of turn performance and the importance of corner velocity, at least they did for me. A clear understanding of turn performance can drive tactics to advantage when the plane being flown does not have a slow speed turn advantage. In the past it was my mistake to fly a less capable slow turning plane at slow speeds. I used to try climbing turns against better turning planes. Once the understanding of the importance of maximizing turn performance at corner speed became clear to me my tactics became much more effective. The advantage in turn performance of a better turning plane increases as speeds go below corner speed, while the advantages in turn performance decrease as speeds near corner speed. This fact is a usable combat advantage i.e. minmizing the turn advantage held by the opponent.

OK so I may have lost any hope of being read, never mind being understood, such are the difficulties of typing; trying to communicate without using too many words and still find enough of the right ones to acomplish the task.

Slowing down works to minimize turn radius, but the cost is severe.

Corner speed maximizes turn rate. If you absolutely possitively have to turn the greatest number of degrees per second...

I have one more thing to clear up in this very long post.

Neal wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But that is an energy flying tactic, or really part of one and I thought you can't do those in FB/AEP?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal,

You thought wrong. Why? Am I simply incapable of conveying meaning with words?

WWMaxGunz
05-18-2004, 01:38 PM
You still have to deal with the Level Instantaneous Turn Rate Chart (Figure A-3). It is an E-M Chart outer envelope. And the Stall Line, the curve to the left of Vc comes directly from the Vn Chart which comes from how many G's at different speeds the plane can do for one fixed weight, alt, config and power setting (i.e. you get lots of these when you vary much or you live with "close"). The Vn properties of the plane determines if you can get a tighter radius at lower speed than Vc or not since it determines the shape of the Stall Line.

I still find it a LOT EASIER to refer to the diagrams. A picture is worth a load of words and generally less confusing. You have the book so I can refer to the Figures.

Corner speed is nice but unless you are willing to sacrifice alt it's not something you can hold. Sustained corner speed is a much more requested value by a lot of serious players from way back, the pay to play types many of who still do. They paid by the hour, literally, so only the serious ones stayed on.

Not only is Instant and Sustained Corner Speeds gonna get you around quicker, they're gonna let you keep more of your speed and speed is life. I can't think of a better reason to use them IF I was gonna turn flat. Sustained flat corner speed is a bit magic since it is the best speed and turn rate you can hold, you don't lose either one.

Here is a kick for ya. Turns with a vertical element put less G's on you to cross the same radius as seen from above. It's because you're actually travelling farther. A nose low turn inside a flat turner below where he is on the edge of blackout you can still avoid blackout in a tighter seen from above turn (because for you it is not) which puts you able to pull a lead.
If you need a picture then look at the stripe on a barberpole (or candy cane) and compare the length it takes to go completely around the pole versus the diameter of the pole. Follow the stripe around with one finger while tracing a flat diameter above with one finger of your other hand. Which is changing angle slower? The stripe.

If you start your turns nose low then you can get the nose coming around easier because you are pulling less G's and using gravity as a boost. Even a slight nose down helps. Getting the nose started coming around is crucial to developing a smooth and more efficient turn. Horsing the plane around is about guaranteed to bleed speed and that works much worse in the harder to turn planes as opposed to the ones labelled as Noob Planes. (They aren't Noob Planes when it comes to getting the most out of them, they're just easier not to F-U in with the limited skills of beginners. They still have traits, limits and tactics worth learning and developing, far beyond noobishness.)
It's a good idea to bring the nose up about halfway or less and you still get a savings in G's on a rising turn plus slowing down from raising alt will let you tighten the turn some more. Then combine that with the other parts....

And about the E-fighting; that was a joke. Some people seem to believe it because they list it in with their FB "complaints".


Neal

Ugly_Kid
05-18-2004, 02:24 PM
Now my example was very simple clarification to a dilemma that lots of folks seem to have about blacking out particularly in P-51. Whether the energy bleed is right or wrong the stuff is that P-51 tends to gain more speed in a downward spiral. Thus for example Bf riding a high angle of attack low speed will squeeze a low/medium g, small radius turn in a dive without still accelerating too much. It's still that wingloading plays a role and it is still so that Bf should be capable of pulling even higher max. lift factor as P-51, for example. It is so that Bf should have absolutely lower stall speed and should master anyway a tighter circle, never mind what you do. And max. turn rate does not mean min. radius. Radius = velocity/turn rate. In clear language this means that lower your velocity (throttle back) and you'll get a better turn radius. In the end your limit will be max. lift factor (stall limit) whether you choose to do it with high speed high g or low speed low g is up to you.00

This maybe a useful tool for a quick look:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/TurnRadiusCalculator.zip

Now 300 km/h 60? bank -&gt; 2 g, turn radius 409 meters
but 250 km/h 60? bank -&gt; still 2 g, turn radius 284 m

(adjust the weight data and consider limiting the lift coefficient to ~1.5 and you'll quickly see the difference)

Now try to squeeze into this radius with an aircraft that wants to accelerate and go faster and does not want to bleed even as a consequence of high AoA. You'll start blacking out. It's not sufficient to get a weapons solution just to continue with outer radius higher speed higher g turn, in fact you'll have to turn tighter than your opponent. Next thing you know is you start asking why did I blackout and why didn't he blackout? It's like Neal described, you want to turn tighter and you want to sink slower than you opponent, you'll quickly start seeing seriously more g than you opponent. That's classical g for brains situation and it has little to do with pilot endurance of plane A is off and B has unfair benefit or something...but maybe a classical conspiracy theory is easier to accept than physics...(again this is not meant as everything being honky-dory with AEP quite the opposite but I still believe gravity and stuff like that is shared by all aircraft http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the same way)

GR142-Pipper
05-19-2004, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Now my example was very simple clarification to a dilemma that lots of folks seem to have about blacking out particularly in P-51. Whether the energy bleed is right or wrong the stuff is that P-51 tends to gain more speed in a downward spiral. Thus for example Bf riding a high angle of attack low speed will squeeze a low/medium g, small radius turn in a dive without still accelerating too much. It's still that wingloading plays a role and it is still so that Bf should be capable of pulling even higher max. lift factor as P-51, for example. It is so that Bf should have absolutely lower stall speed and should master anyway a tighter circle, never mind what you do. And max. turn rate does not mean min. radius. Radius = velocity/turn rate. In clear language this means that lower your velocity (throttle back) and you'll get a better turn radius. In the end your limit will be max. lift factor (stall limit) whether you choose to do it with high speed high g or low speed low g is up to you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>(...snip...) I think we all agree that corner velocity produces the highest turn RATE at the lowest turn RADIUS. Your contention is that during a spiraling decending fight the 109 maintains a lower airspeed that the P-51 cannot do. My experience is that I can maintain the 109 in front of me in the P-51 (ie. I'm not accelerating in airspeed passed the 109) but blackout seem to occur sooner than the 109 which continues to maneuver. If I maintain position on the 109, then blackout should NOT occur any sooner (or later) for either of us. Given that it does, something's amiss in the programming department. This leads me directly to my belief in what is happening in this game, specifically that blackout (and other things too) can occur differently in each aircraft even though both are flying identical flight profiles. Why? Strictly for commercial reasons to make all the planes more or less equal when in reality, they weren't.

At 10,000 FEET (3k meters) and below, the Yak-3 should beat the pants off of anything in the game. Why? Because it was specifically designed to fly in this environment. It was more maneuverable and had excellent power characteristics. However, get into a horizontal scissors with a 109-G2 and watch what happens when the 109 cuts power. The engine and the flight regime change IMMEDIATELY. Do the same in a Yak-3/LA/P-51 and it takes about 6-8 seconds for the POWER to come off the engine. This is completely bogus and is an obvious programming technique to homogonize the aircraft. This, as well as the unevenness of the onset of blackout among the different aircraft, lead me to believe that this is by no means accidental but a conscious decision to artifically program characteristics into (and out of) aircraft. Another example: it's no accident that the P-47 can't take a hit well these days. Ever wonder why? Ever wonder why the 50 cal. machine guns in the P-51 and P-47 all of a sudden lacked hitting punch. It's no mystery. It was re-programmed that way.

I've played this game for about two years now (IL-2/IL-2FB/IL-2FB-AEP) and these attempts at "aircraft equalization" are obvious.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
05-19-2004, 01:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Radius = velocity/turn rate. In clear language this means that lower your velocity (throttle back) and you'll get a better turn radius. In the end your limit will be max. lift factor (stall limit) whether you choose to do it with high speed high g or low speed low g is up to you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Long days at work lately, Ugly?

I think that maybe you forget (or forget to say) that the slower you go, the less G's you can use to turn with which makes that max. lift factor. Depending on the plane you may or may not get smaller radius as speed lowers and for most the decrease is at a loss to turn rate, but we are concerned with radius.

Even with Shaws' example curve there was very little reduction in radius down to a certain speed and then somewhat near stall (perhaps 20% of speed up to Vc) the turn radius sharply increased as speed dropped.

At the same G's, faster is wider (now I must buy a Pontiac? LOL!) but for capability at or below Vc, faster is more G's to narrow that radius.

If the plane can pull 2G's at 250kph, how many can it pull at 300kph? Enough to match a 284m radius?


Neal

WWMaxGunz
05-19-2004, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
My experience is that I can maintain the 109 in front of me in the P-51 (ie. I'm not accelerating in airspeed passed the 109) but blackout seem to occur sooner than the 109 which continues to maneuver. If I maintain position on the 109, then blackout should NOT occur any sooner (or later) for either of us.
GR142-Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on what you mean by maintain the 109 in front and maintain position. You can do both and still be pulling more G's, I think. Only if you follow the same circle at the same speed can you be sure the G's are the same.

I have read long ago posts from fliers who kept their nose on or in close lag to others in pretty tight circles and wondered why they greyed or blacked out before the target. Simple to say they were turning tighter. They could be going slower at the same time and not catching up (circling slightly inside the other) and still have more G's.

In a tight turn situation especially, but in any turn an equal speed and turnrate path has to have a lag commensurate with the turn radius. If he is 1/2 turn away, he should stay exactly overhead. 1/4 turn and I think he should stay at 45 degrees up from your nose. In a very tight turn, 1/4 turn ahead is not that far is it?

So it depends on what you mean by maintain.
Funny, you have made an anecdote and I can't be entirely sure what you mean...


Neal

Ugly_Kid
05-19-2004, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Long days at work lately, Ugly?

I think that maybe you forget (or forget to say) that the slower you go, the less G's you can use to turn with which makes that max. lift factor. Depending on the plane you may or may not get smaller radius as speed lowers and for most the decrease is at a loss to turn rate, but we are concerned with radius.


If the plane can pull 2G's at 250kph, how many can it pull at 300kph? Enough to match a 284m radius?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I am quite busy at the time. Yes the max. lift coefficient relates to the stall line. So obviously the classical stall speed is 1.0 g and max. lift factor (there is no turn with 1.0 g). Now note I did not mention corner speed. If you can slow down your speed without stalling and still greying out it means you're above that speed.

I think the last one is exactly the point...a) how much can your aircraft pull and b) how much can you pull http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - as for the game balance you can only pull a constant turn with the verge of greying out and riding the stallline in Bf with labor, mostly you slip either direction, realistic or not. You see you don't have such a generous elevator authority for it.

Now you can ride a lag pursuit with higher speed and higher g and it would appear as if you flew the same turn. But instead you're driving ring road around Paris instead of taking the shortcut through the middle. If you don't know his air speed indicator you don't know this. You can also try to judge his bank angle but even a small difference makes a large difference, it takes 60? bank to reach 2 g but after this the load factor picks up more rapidly. So if the opponent is riding with wings more level than you are then he's going on the inside track.

The most obvious example is maybe gladiator, the guy flies a low speed, small radius and does not blackout, before you reach a turn where you can pull a lead on him with a faster aircraft you'll pull a very high temporary load factor and blackout. He'll be laughing with the tears in his eyes. Take a vertical offset and you can get potshots and sustain your manouver. The particular funny feature with Mustang is that it gives you always the gee you wish to have, fly it wrong and you blackout and it's not some game balance issue. I am much more deadly in Mustang than in most of the other aircraft, it's really a sweet ride but due to it's slippery characteristics and control effectiviness you have do some additional consideration to pilot's endurance. Oh, I would be really happy to have FW elevator couple of patches back, plenty of sweet blackouts available. Unfortunately, that got whined away as well among the other things but the bar remains http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

WWMaxGunz
05-19-2004, 04:19 AM
Yes the bar remains.
What're you drinking? I'll have 2!


Neal

Ugly_Kid
05-19-2004, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yes the bar remains.
What're you drinking? I'll have 2!


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - I'll have a bucket - no wait make it two buckets

Ugly_Kid
05-19-2004, 12:24 PM
This is what I meant (one picture says more than thousand words):

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/tightening.jpg

WWMaxGunz
05-19-2004, 03:01 PM
Yes, it shows exactly what you mean with no room for error!

Is that angle of straight climb the same as the sustained flat turn line?

And where is that chart from? It says 109 but labelled in english which is still not saying where the data is from.


2 buckets for you!

Neal

JG14_Josf
05-19-2004, 03:39 PM
Ugly_Kid,

On that chart you posted can be found the values for CLMax for Normal Acceleration. The highest value is noted at 1-0 g being 1-95 while the lowest value is 1.44 at 6.0 g.

This, if I am not mistaken, is why turn radius decreases slightly at speeds under corner speed.

Note also on that chart that a taper exist between the stall boundary line and the constant dotted line for R=900' where as the those lines move from left to right and up(increasing speed/increasing turn rate) the gap widens, or, in other words, the distance increases between the stall boundary line and the constant dotted line for turn radius. If anything that taper would indicate (The stall line is generated by plots while the dotted lines represent a mathematical calculation) a decrease in turn radius as speed increases.
Note that at 150mph the stall line is equal to the 900' radius line and at 250mph (5g is well within the range of g tolerance for fighter pilots) the stall line is to the left and further up from the 900' radius line indicating a smaller radius (perhaps 876' radius).

Therefore according to that chart the smallest radius remains at the highest g possible (farthest to the right and up) at the slowest speed (farthest to the left and up) at corner speed.

Where you plotted the red dot as the black out point (5g) that same g load continues up and to the left or slower and closer to the stall line and a smaller turn radius.

Where you plotted the smiley face the g load is in between the 4 and 5 g load lines @ approximately 4.3g.

If the pilot can sustain more than 4.3 g then according to that chart (there is no accurate dotted radius line on the stall line) the plane can scribe a smaller circle if the pilot doesn't slow down as much.

Which may indicate error in the chart because increases in g load cause reductions in lift.

Perhaps the stall line is not plotted accurately relative to the contant dotted lines of turn radius.

GR142-Pipper
05-20-2004, 02:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So it depends on what you mean by maintain.
Funny, you have made an anecdote and I can't be entirely sure what you mean...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To clarify, I'm maintaining a tracking position on the target and flying a slightly lag pursuit path, co-speed. Under these conditions, if I'm almost completely blacked out, the target aircraft certainly should be. (Unless, of course that blackout is different for the two respective aircraft as I contend it is due to a conscious programming decision to make it so.)

GR142-Pipper

Ugly_Kid
05-20-2004, 04:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Is that angle of straight climb the same as the sustained flat turn line?

And where is that chart from? It says 109 but labelled in english which is still not saying where the data is from.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes

I believe the chart is from old RAF test let it be wartime propaganda then but it goes hand in hand with spitfire chart. Here is the whole job with explanation:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/spitvsbf.jpg

Ugly_Kid
05-20-2004, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
clarify, I'm maintaining a tracking position on the target and flying a slightly lag pursuit path, co-speed. Under these conditions, if I'm almost completely blacked out, the target aircraft certainly should be. (Unless, of course that blackout is different for the two respective aircraft as I contend it is due to a conscious programming decision to make it so.)

GR142-Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The joke is you don't have to be co-speed and not even co-radius in a lag pursuit turn and you won't even note it. Look at the plot I posted, green dot and yellow dot represent two different turns but with the same turn rate.

Unless the gentleman for example puts wingstip smoke on and you fly in the smoke all the time you can make that conlusion.

WWMaxGunz
05-20-2004, 08:05 AM
I note from those charts that the 109 has a faster corner speed with a steeper rise of the stall line from about 15 dps on up at least at the conditions those charts were made at. Even with the top of the 109 diagram clipped off it is very obvious that in fast short turns the 109 is able (again, at those conditions) to out-angle the Spit.

Of course this can give rise to quotes, stories, whatever that seem to conflict but are both true (who out-turned who) within conditions unstated in the quotes or stories. Because we ALL know that a Spit will always out-turn a 109! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

S! Pipper! Yah I can see how what you describe is flying a different circle than the other. It depends on how far back you are and how much lag, in tight circles it usually takes more lag than you think to fly the same or nearly the same circle. Loosening up may get you going faster as well but what Ugly showed with using less power, you can close quicker and easier with much less worry about overheat. OTOH, you could have raised the nose and climbed which would have slowed you and tightened your turn with no loss of E and the ability to shortcut that circle. Or you could have done a low yoyo. Why follow in flat turns an enemy who is dumb enough to fly like that? Meat on the plate!


Neal

JG14_Josf
05-20-2004, 09:40 AM
Neal,

The Spitfire is well into the 700' radius fan, the 109 is barely into 800' radius.

If by 'out-angle' you are refering to the 109s possilbe (off the chart) advantage in turn rate then it may help to look at the numbers on the right side more closely.

The Spitfire is showing 13 seconds to turn 360 degrees at just above 5gs. At corner it would turn 360 degrees in less than 13 seconds.

The 109 is shown at 15 seconds turning 360 degrees (last turn rate time shown on the chart) so it would have to make up a whole lot of turn rate on the spit in that space not shown on the chart.

The Spit shows a much smaller turn radius (well under 800') and a faster turn rate (somewhere near 12 seconds to turn 360 degrees)at the 6g corner.

The 109 can't possibly match the spit in gaining angles based on what is on those charts.

k5054
05-20-2004, 10:05 AM
Neal, I think Josf is right, the numbers don't line up. It would be nice to see the charts superimposed.
I am going to compare the degrees of dive parameters with my own charts, it's a good reality check for me.
Note those Cl figures, some people hawk around a daft 1.12 for the Spit based on a NACA test but omit to say that the NACA test also shows 6g at 250mph just like here.
Very good charts, UglyKid, where did you find them?

GR142-Pipper
05-20-2004, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
clarify, I'm maintaining a tracking position on the target and flying a slightly lag pursuit path, co-speed. Under these conditions, if I'm almost completely blacked out, the target aircraft certainly should be. (Unless, of course that blackout is different for the two respective aircraft as I contend it is due to a conscious programming decision to make it so.)

GR142-Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The joke is you don't have to be co-speed and not even co-radius in a lag pursuit turn and you won't even note it. Look at the plot I posted, green dot and yellow dot represent two different turns but with the same turn rate.

Unless the gentleman for example puts wingstip smoke on and you fly in the smoke all the time you can make that conlusion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stating the obvious, if you're near the aircraft that you're tracking, it's safe to say that you're both at very near the same altitude. If you're also flying a lag pursuit path and are co-speed/co-altitude, then by definition you're pulling less G's then the aircraft being tracked. If the pilot of the pursuing aircraft is in blackout and the aircraft being tracked isn't, then the blackout criteris is different for the two. Simple as that.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
05-20-2004, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Neal,

The Spitfire is well into the 700' radius fan, the 109 is barely into 800' radius.

If by 'out-angle' you are refering to the 109s possilbe (off the chart) advantage in turn rate then it may help to look at the numbers on the right side more closely.

The Spitfire is showing 13 seconds to turn 360 degrees at just above 5gs. At corner it would turn 360 degrees in less than 13 seconds.

The 109 is shown at 15 seconds turning 360 degrees (last turn rate time shown on the chart) so it would have to make up a whole lot of turn rate on the spit in that space not shown on the chart.

The Spit shows a much smaller turn radius (well under 800') and a faster turn rate (somewhere near 12 seconds to turn 360 degrees)at the 6g corner.

The 109 can't possibly match the spit in gaining angles based on what is on those charts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest you look again at those charts.

Spitfire corner speed 250mph with 35 dps rate.

109 corner speed appx 275 mph (graph cut off) with over 35 dps rate. 109 hits 35 dps at a bit less than 260 mph while at the same speed the Spit is already back to 32-33 dps though with under 800 ft radius.

Somewhere over 250 mph and under 260 mph the 109 does turn faster, that is what turn rate is about. For a short time on level or a bit longer in dive, that is the speed where a 109 should be able to follow along with a Spitfire ==within the conditions of those charts==.

It is clear by the charts. There are no word games with the charts. They do not say "much", they say how much precisely over wide ranges of performance. They show the envelope of performance. You could write a book of quotes to make that much information and then get lost in it where the charts have it all right in front of you at once.

How can you not see the region where the 109 has better turn rates? How can you not see the advantage for the 109 to push the speed of the fight? 300 mph, the 109 is turning with almost 35 dps while at the same speed the Spit is turning with less than 25 dps. Spit at 240, 109 at 300 and the 109 turns faster than the Spit.

If you are not close behind a tighter radius plane and turn with him quickly then your wider radius will still give you the shot. The tangent of yuor circle is still inside the tangent of his. Draw a circle 1.5x as wide as a quarter. Draw a line tangent to one side. Place a quarter inside it. Place the quarter so the edge touches the bigger circle at the tangent line and then move it along the line outside the circle about 1/5 radius of the big circle. The edge of the quarter is the path of the tighter turning plane while the circle is the path of the wider turning plane. See where they meet and how many degrees each would have to turn. The wider circle plane would need to turn less.

Don't get caught up in words, you will only get confused. Draw and measure. Read the charts.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
05-20-2004, 08:51 PM
Ugly;

I also find interesting the differences in the 2nd derivatives of the angle of straight climb curves in the vicinities of the stall lines. That is why I asked if those are the same curves as best sustained turns at speed... the 109 is slighlty better at holding on to turn rate above stall than the Spitfire even if the Spit does have the much better rate and radii. It is about handling characteristics more than relative performance I know, but interesting nontheless.


Neal

JG14_Josf
05-20-2004, 09:06 PM
Neal,

The left side is not degrees per second.

Difference
between
Angle of
Climb in
Straight
Flight and
Angle of
Climb in a
Turn at the same
Airspeed


If you read the 'METHOD of USE:-" it will explain how to use the numbers on the left side.

"There are no word games with the charts"

It is clear that you are insulting me again. Claiming that I play word games.

"Don't get caught up in words, you will only get confused..."

Again with the insults.

Why?

What is the purpose of your continued attacks upon my credibility?

Why do you insinuate here that I am easily confused and prone to play word games when there is obviously no basis for these claims.

Again, you are wrong.

You are wrong about the charts, you are wrong to insult me, if anyone is playing word games it is you, if anyone is confused it is you, and if anyone has earned the labels you pin on me, it is you.

Please stop propagandizing.

You are injuring your own reputation as much as you obviously hope to injure mine.

k5054
05-21-2004, 03:10 AM
If you pull 6gs at 400mph, doesn't that define the radius and rate in itself? How is one a/c worse than another in that? However, the one whose wing must work harder will have to lose more height to maintain the G, and that's the degrees (of dive) on the left hand side. And it's the 109 in this case.

WWMaxGunz
05-21-2004, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Neal,

The left side is not degrees per second.

Difference
between
Angle of
Climb in
Straight
Flight and
Angle of
Climb in a
Turn at the same
Airspeed


If you read the 'METHOD of USE:-" it will explain how to use the numbers on the left side.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right. I missed that. The charts are not like every other one I have seen. I should have looked more carefully.

The 109 will not outturn the Spit even at high speed. The best it can do is get past corner speed for both and work on an equal basis.

OTOH I could just ignore what you wrote but I will not.


Neal

GR142-Pipper
05-22-2004, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
If you pull 6gs at 400mph, doesn't that define the radius and rate in itself? How is one a/c worse than another in that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's not the aircraft that's the issue, per se. What's at issue is that it seems (IMHO) that in this sim that pilot blackout occurs at different G levels depending on which type of aircraft is being flown even when the flight parameters are the same between the two planes in the engagement.

GR142-Pipper

Functio
05-22-2004, 04:05 AM
UglyKid - please note that those charts you provided are for the Bf109E, and not any later models (which were aerodynamically different). People should also note that some trials done with other Bf109s may have used a G-6/R6.

What's being discussed will still not get very far as IL-2/FB's way of modelling energy loss isn't spot on, and so you will find that various discrepancies will crop up from time to time.

FA_Maddog
05-22-2004, 07:04 AM
I don't know if this helps or not, but in "FIGHTER The True Story of the Battle of Britain", by Len Deighton on page 83. He lists a chart that gives:

Bf-109E Wing loading (half fuel weight) 25 lbs per sq. ft. Gravity 8.1 Turning radius 750 ft.

Hawker Hurricane I Wing loading (half fuel weight) 22 lbs per sq. ft. Gravity 7.5 Turning radius 800 ft.

Supermarine - Spitfire I Wing loading (half fuel weight) 24 lbs per sq. ft. Gravity 7.0 Turning radius 880 feet.

This was at 300 mph @ 10,000 ft.

[This message was edited by FA_Maddog on Sat May 22 2004 at 06:50 AM.]

k5054
05-22-2004, 11:25 AM
Deighton is not an aircraft engineer. The guys who prepared the chart (way) above are. He has used some g limits which really don't apply, apparently the structural limits of the a/c, to produce a radius. Nobody could fly to the structural limit of the aircraft exactly with no g meter (or g suit).
Len Deighton is a fine novelist and a good historian. But he is wrong in this case. Also, his 109 even at half fuel should have a wing loading of around 30, maybe a little below. Note that the 109 300mph/750ft is a 10 second turn. Impressive, if true. If you sort of guess a 8g line on Ugly's chart and take the 300mph line you get a point about half a page off the chart upwards. This would require a dive of say 50 degrees to sustain. This is a descending spiral more like a fast barrel roll than a turn, it's ludicrous to make this the measure of comparison between these three a/c.
Maddog, I understand that by posting this claim you are not endorsing it, it's just that some people believe what they read.

WWMaxGunz
05-22-2004, 04:24 PM
Just don't you diss the Easter Bunny, okay? Say what you want about Santa though...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Neal

FA_Maddog
05-22-2004, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Deighton is not an aircraft engineer. The guys who prepared the chart (way) above are. He has used some g limits which really don't apply, apparently the structural limits of the a/c, to produce a radius. Nobody could fly to the structural limit of the aircraft exactly with no g meter (or g suit).
Len Deighton is a fine novelist and a good historian. But he is wrong in this case. Also, his 109 even at half fuel should have a wing loading of around 30, maybe a little below. Note that the 109 300mph/750ft is a 10 second turn. Impressive, if true. If you sort of guess a 8g line on Ugly's chart and take the 300mph line you get a point about half a page off the chart upwards. This would require a dive of say 50 degrees to sustain. This is a descending spiral more like a fast barrel roll than a turn, it's ludicrous to make this the measure of comparison between these three a/c.
Maddog, I understand that by posting this claim you are not endorsing it, it's just that some people believe what they read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


What I didn't understand about it was the high G's. He said a pilot would blackout at 4 to 5 G's and the planes would more than likely break up at 9 G's in his own foot notes!! BUT what caught my eye was the Bf109 turning faster than the Spit. This was the first time I have read that. I was hoping someone could understand what he had posted in his chart.

No I don't say it is right or wrong, I just remembered reading it a few months back.

Thanks for the input.

[This message was edited by FA_Maddog on Sat May 22 2004 at 05:35 PM.]

Functio
05-23-2004, 06:47 AM
There was actually one technique used by some Bf109E pilots to out-turn the Spitfire - it basically took advantage of the leading edge slats, and the turning circle was egg-shaped rather than circular. So it could be done, but it need practice and experience of the Bf109 - which in all fairness is not what test pilots had in the UK had of that particular plane.

WWMaxGunz
05-23-2004, 07:37 AM
Yes, turn on a tilted circle with the smaller radius at the low side where you trade some of the extra speed for a few extra degrees. In progressive turns the pointed end of the egg is at different headings. This works in any faster than the other plane with a decent difference in my experience. Last I worked it hard was MiG-3 41 vs a 109-F2 or maybe F4 and in steady turns I would have been a goner. The tilted egg pattern has to be flown for efficiency with any gains made through patience. Get greedy and lose.


Neal