PDA

View Full Version : Testing....Turn performances.



Cyrano
05-27-2004, 01:35 AM
With all this talk on the forums recently stating one plane "abnormally" out-turning this or that airplane I figured I'd do some of these tests myself to see what's really going on. What I found out was something pretty surprising. Essentially most of the "top performers" turn the same. I tried the K4, La7, Yak3, P51D,SpitIX and G6/AS and within one second sometimes two of another they all took the same amount of time to do various turns. (don't take my word for it, try it yourselves).

K4, Starting at 500kph,level turns,clean configuration and 25% fuel,no flaps, Full power, 200m, Crimea map, I got it to turn 360 degrees in 13 Seconds! Wow, I thought the object viewer had something like 22.
So then I did the same tests for all those other planes at exactly the same starting speed and settings and got either 13 or 14 sometimes 15 seconds depending how I delt with the blackout.
I then decided to try to start out these tests at a slower speed. First 400 then 350; once again all planes turned at roughly 14/15 seconds.
I thought, ok perhaps I need to do more sustained turning. So then I timed these various planes doing a full 3 360 degree turns. Result? You guessed it, all the same.Starting once again at 500kph they all came within 1 or 2 seconds of one another at rougly 45 seconds for the full 3 X 360 degree turns! The only difference I really noted were the speeds at the end of these turns, with the La7 consistently having the highest speed at the end of the turns. All I did in all these tests was ride right at the edge of the stall and the blackout.
Now, the obvious question it seems to me is not whether or not for example a P51 out turns a 109 or vice versa but why do all these planes turn roughly the same?
Any ideas? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cyrano
05-27-2004, 01:35 AM
With all this talk on the forums recently stating one plane "abnormally" out-turning this or that airplane I figured I'd do some of these tests myself to see what's really going on. What I found out was something pretty surprising. Essentially most of the "top performers" turn the same. I tried the K4, La7, Yak3, P51D,SpitIX and G6/AS and within one second sometimes two of another they all took the same amount of time to do various turns. (don't take my word for it, try it yourselves).

K4, Starting at 500kph,level turns,clean configuration and 25% fuel,no flaps, Full power, 200m, Crimea map, I got it to turn 360 degrees in 13 Seconds! Wow, I thought the object viewer had something like 22.
So then I did the same tests for all those other planes at exactly the same starting speed and settings and got either 13 or 14 sometimes 15 seconds depending how I delt with the blackout.
I then decided to try to start out these tests at a slower speed. First 400 then 350; once again all planes turned at roughly 14/15 seconds.
I thought, ok perhaps I need to do more sustained turning. So then I timed these various planes doing a full 3 360 degree turns. Result? You guessed it, all the same.Starting once again at 500kph they all came within 1 or 2 seconds of one another at rougly 45 seconds for the full 3 X 360 degree turns! The only difference I really noted were the speeds at the end of these turns, with the La7 consistently having the highest speed at the end of the turns. All I did in all these tests was ride right at the edge of the stall and the blackout.
Now, the obvious question it seems to me is not whether or not for example a P51 out turns a 109 or vice versa but why do all these planes turn roughly the same?
Any ideas? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

k5054
05-27-2004, 02:07 AM
You're flying too fast. At high speeds any aircraft can pull any g, limited by blackout or structural limits, and the g/speed combination define the turn time and radius. What will vary is the speed lost in the turn (or altitude if you keep to the entry speed). The 20-22 sec time you read are for sustained turns probably in the 250km/h region, where aircraft will differ according to wing loading and max Cl. The best turners here will be the ones with the lowest stall speed, given enough power to sustain the turn, but this turn regime is not one which should be relevant in combat, because the guy who is losing ought to bug out ASAP.. If you want to compare at 500km/h you must note the speed or height lost in the 360, that will determine, in a combat situation, whether you are doing better or worse than your opponent

GR142-Pipper
05-27-2004, 02:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyrano:
(...snip...) Now, the obvious question it seems to me is not whether or not for example a P51 out turns a 109 or vice versa but why do all these planes turn roughly the same?
Any ideas? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>While I certainly enjoy playing FB, your observations further support my long-held contention that the game is being purposely crafted so that the airplanes fly the same. My view is that this is being done strictly for commercial game-selling reasons. It's really too bad to have the historical accuracy of the individual aircraft compromised so.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-27-2004, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
(...snip...) What will vary is the speed lost in the turn (or altitude if you keep to the entry speed). The 20-22 sec time you read are for sustained turns probably in the 250km/h region, where aircraft will differ according to wing loading and max Cl. The best turners here will be the ones with the lowest stall speed, given enough power to sustain the turn, but this turn regime is not one which should be relevant in combat, because the guy who is losing ought to bug out ASAP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What you're saying is by and large true. However, the point that Cyrano is making is that he observed almost NO difference in the individual aircraft turning performance in his tests. In real life the differences between the respective aircraft's turning capabilities were quite significant. This not reflected in the game.

GR142-Pipper

Skalgrim
05-27-2004, 03:55 AM
turn

g2 3030kg 20sec

g6 3150kg 21sec

g10 2250kg 22 sec

those sustain turn are with
"climb and combat power" 1,3ata

with mw50 1,8ata or wep 1,42ata are better sustain turn possible



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyrano:
With all this talk on the forums recently stating one plane "abnormally" out-turning this or that airplane I figured I'd do some of these tests myself to see what's really going on. What I found out was something pretty surprising. Essentially most of the "top performers" turn the same. I tried the K4, La7, Yak3, P51D,SpitIX and G6/AS and within one second sometimes two of another they all took the same amount of time to do various turns. (don't take my word for it, try it yourselves).

K4, Starting at 500kph,level turns,clean configuration and 25% fuel,no flaps, Full power, 200m, Crimea map, I got it to turn 360 degrees in 13 Seconds! Wow, I thought the object viewer had something like 22.
So then I did the same tests for all those other planes at exactly the same starting speed and settings and got either 13 or 14 sometimes 15 seconds depending how I delt with the blackout.
I then decided to try to start out these tests at a slower speed. First 400 then 350; once again all planes turned at roughly 14/15 seconds.
I thought, ok perhaps I need to do more sustained turning. So then I timed these various planes doing a full 3 360 degree turns. Result? You guessed it, all the same.Starting once again at 500kph they all came within 1 or 2 seconds of one another at rougly 45 seconds for the full 3 X 360 degree turns! The only difference I really noted were the speeds at the end of these turns, with the La7 consistently having the highest speed at the end of the turns. All I did in all these tests was ride right at the edge of the stall and the blackout.
Now, the obvious question it seems to me is not whether or not for example a P51 out turns a 109 or vice versa but why do all these planes turn roughly the same?
Any ideas? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu May 27 2004 at 09:21 AM.]

k5054
05-27-2004, 09:59 AM
"What you're saying is by and large true. However, the point that Cyrano is making is that he observed almost NO difference in the individual aircraft turning performance in his tests. In real life the differences between the respective aircraft's turning capabilities were quite significant. This not reflected in the game.
"

Well, not at speeds where they can all get blackout g, which means something like 400kph or maybe less depending on what Oleg uses for blackout. And if you hold the g and hold the height the only difference will be in the way the speed deteriorates, and the exit speed of the 360 is the most important point. At less than the blackout g, or lower than corner speed in modern terms, there ought to be differences, but the candidate aircraft here are all similar in turn ability, being around 35+ lb/sqft wing loading, except the allegedly porked Spitfire. Try a CR42, Hurricane, IAR and see how it works out.
Summary; above 400kph (or so) they ought to turn the same but may vary in speed loss. Below that speed they will increasingly be different, but sustained turn may depend more on power. And your plane set should be more varied.

Cyrano
05-27-2004, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
"What you're saying is by and large true. However, the point that Cyrano is making is that he observed almost NO difference in the individual aircraft turning performance in his tests. In real life the differences between the respective aircraft's turning capabilities were quite significant. This not reflected in the game.
"

Well, not at speeds where they can all get blackout g, which means something like 400kph or maybe less depending on what Oleg uses for blackout. And if you hold the g and hold the height the only difference will be in the way the speed deteriorates, and the exit speed of the 360 is the most important point. At less than the blackout g, or lower than corner speed in modern terms, there ought to be differences, but the candidate aircraft here are all similar in turn ability, being around 35+ lb/sqft wing loading, except the allegedly porked Spitfire. Try a CR42, Hurricane, IAR and see how it works out.
Summary; above 400kph (or so) they ought to turn the same but may vary in speed loss. Below that speed they will increasingly be different, but sustained turn may depend more on power. And your plane set should be more varied.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You make some good points in both your replies. Let me just quickly say that these tests were just to find out if there was any real basis for all this complaining we see throughout the forums about turn rates of various "top line fighters". The reason I chose such "high" entry speeds and those particular planes was precisely because they are both the most popular online and the speeds at which most players generally start their turn fighting.

GR142-Pipper
05-27-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
(...snip...)Summary; above 400kph (or so) they ought to turn the same but may vary in speed loss. Below that speed they will increasingly be different, but sustained turn may depend more on power. And your plane set should be more varied.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, that's the point that Cyrano is making. At these speeds there isn't much difference which is something I've observed as well in recent patches. This is simply historically inaccurate...and no accident either. The aircraft have been consciously programmed to achieve this result (IMHO).

GR142-Pipper

patch_adams
05-27-2004, 04:06 PM
The point this guy is making, is that he is clueless and so is anyone who agrees with him. The reason you got similar results was probably because you used trim. Fly a fockewulf at 550km and p39 and try to get the same turn rate. you cant. there is something called compression, and even if you cheat and use trim you still wont have the same maneuverability. The k4 also suffers from this but the p51 doesnt for some reason.

He said himself in the first post that the aircraft had different end speeds with the La7 consistently having the highest. So the point is moot. Yeah its a conspiricy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
or.. you are just naive.

LuftLuver
05-27-2004, 04:52 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1241.gif

Cyrano, I have an inkling who this adams character is, and he's not worth the typing effort. On the other hand, I actually read your post where you mentioned "top performers" where you obviously weren't talking about the 190 vs the La7 or the P47 vs the Yak3. These would be too obvious and even the beginning players would notice.

I agree with what's being said here. If you don't see that this game is being given the NASCAR treatment to make all things fair and equal, then you are blind.

Overall, gunnery is easier and with similar turn rates, turn fighting is getting easier. The separation between novice pilots and aces is being closed down to an acceptable gap. I believe someone from UBI marketing may now be sitting in on the patch/update meetings and their advice is having an impact on the sim. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

β"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Ά
"All your bases are belong to us."

faustnik
05-27-2004, 04:55 PM
Stop it Luftlover, you're depressing me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

LuftLuver
05-27-2004, 04:56 PM
Sorry Faust,

Please elaborate, your opinion = valued. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

β"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Ά
"All your bases are belong to us."

sugaki
05-27-2004, 05:21 PM
The game has a very cookie-cutter feel to the physics for planes--that is, each plane has similar characteristics with different thresholds.

Don't think it's Ubi, or the devs dumbing the game down to make it palatable for non-flight sim fans.

I think it's the engine of the game, and also the direction Forgotten Battles took from the original IL2.

The thing that sets apart FB from other sims like CFS3 is that it offers such a huge variety of planes. But with that it doesn't seem like they can put all the effort they can to make each plane real and believable.

Hence all these threads about plane X not doin Y right during instance Z.

So while you get a lot more planes to fly, the trade-off is that you can't get all the idiosyncracies you could from a sim that focuses on fewer planes, say CFS series.

So while the numerical stats may be accurate for a given situation (19 sec turn at 5000 ft or somethin), it doesn't model the actual characteristics from the physical structure of the plane, say a washout wing, etc.

It's still a great series, but to accomodate for more planes, it's a compromise that purists may find to be a thorn at their sides.

-Aki

faustnik
05-27-2004, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
Sorry Faust,

Please elaborate, your opinion = valued. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Luftlover.

To be honest I don't see this too much flying the 190. I can't turn with anything and never bother trying. I have noticed that stall characteristics for the 190 are much easier than before the patch. There is none of the nasty high and low speed stalls with the 190. This has me a little worried, as nasty stalls are a 190 trademark, right? The similar dive speeds of all the planes is an issue that has always existed in Il-2 & FB. Now, some tests are showing that turn rates have been made more similar. Your post scares me Luftlover because it might be true. That would be a huge loss for all of us.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Cyrano
05-27-2004, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patch_adams:
The point this guy is making, is that he is clueless and so is anyone who agrees with him. The reason you got similar results was probably because you used trim. Fly a fockewulf at 550km and p39 and try to get the same turn rate. you cant. there is something called compression, and even if you cheat and use trim you still wont have the same maneuverability. The k4 also suffers from this but the p51 doesnt for some reason.

He said himself in the first post that the aircraft had different end speeds with the La7 consistently having the highest. So the point is moot. Yeah its a conspiricy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
or.. you are just naive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my quest to become less cluelesshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I further tested the FW A9/A6/D9
I got 15s/14s/15s respectively.
With the P63 again same test as original I got 14s.
By the way, none of these turns required any trim whatsoever.
It seems to me that there are three ways to respond to these simple tests I did.
1-You can call me an idiot.
2-You can politely put forth reasons why my tests are inaccurate.
3-You can do the same tests youselves and then discuss your findings.

LuftLuver
05-27-2004, 05:58 PM
Faust, I had some doubts early about this concern, but looking at what has happened to the Zero and maybe the Spitfire it does warrant a second look.

I don't want to be able to turn with a Zero in a P40, but now I can. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif Lucky for us, it's just a game. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

β"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Ά
"All your bases are belong to us."

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2004, 09:19 PM
If the pilots blackout at 5 or 6 G's then any planes that can turn that hard will
only be able to turn that hard because it is the pilots that set the turn limit, not
the planes. Go fast, turn with full G's and wonder why you are not turning faster
than some other?

Is that unrealistic? No. It is a known tactic for fast not well turning planes to
keep the speed of battle high to where the opponent has no turn advantage. This is
well laid out and explained in a SimHQ article and yet here it is grounds for
b!tching when at highspeed the turn differences aren't matching those of fully
sustainable 360's. Sustainable is more than one 360, the G's the plane can keep
till fuel runs out or engine overheats and =also= depends on altitude which not one
'expert' here mentions once -- at least expert enough to condemn the FM as going
arcade.

K5054 has a point that few seem to be able to see.


Neal

BuzzU
05-28-2004, 12:35 AM
Just to test the blackout argument. Try your tests again with blackouts turned off.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

Cyrano
05-28-2004, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
Just to test the blackout argument. Try your tests again with blackouts turned off.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Max makes a good argument for the blackout particularly in the early part of the first test that starts at 500kph. But as the turn continues your riding the edge of the stall more so than the blackout.
Futhermore with the other tests that start at slower speeds, there the blackout is negligeable all the way thru.
If I get the time I'll try a few with blackout turned off. That's actually a good idea.

By the way, I'm pretty sure that the speeds that are quoted in the object viewer are at full fuel, corner speeds and 1000m. I also did a few tests at what IL2 Compare states are the Corner speeds at full fuel and 1000m and never got the times mentioned in the object viewer. All times were below, some by as much as 4 seconds for the full 360 degree turn. I will say however that in those conditions the differences between the planes were slighlty more pronounced.
Finally let me just say that in no way is this thread meant to be an indictment on this wonderfull sim. We all know that this is easily the best flight sim on the market and the designer and his crew deserve a big hand for "bringing" it to us. Perhaps there's been a managerial decision to balance things up between the top performing planes, I don't know. If anything these tests have proven to me that when it comes to "turn fighting" between the top performing aircraft, one's skill is much more important then the actual planes the participants are flying.

S!

LeadSpitter_
05-28-2004, 05:35 PM
i dont see what the sustained rate of turn has to do with this as many people post those timings.

Its the tighest turn people can make is totally different with 0 trottle 0 pitch flaps full trim, not a slow wide 90 degree sustained turn keeping the same speed.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

k5054
05-29-2004, 10:27 AM
If you are looking at 20 sec turns, then they are likely sustained turns. This figure was a standard in Soviet flight testing, but it does not really apply to combat, it's just a way to compare aircraft. And the times quoted are not likely to be at corner speed, no fighter of WW2, and few even to this day, could sustain a turn at 5 or 6 G, which is a corner speed turn pre g-suit. Corner speed max rate turns can be as quick as 8(!) seconds with WW2 fighters, the ones in the 1945 plane set probably more like 12-15 secs. As I said before, you really have got a very similar set of aircraft if you pick the late-war prop fighters. They all have around 2000hp(except yak3), 35-40 lb/sqft wing loadings and so on. Yes there are differences, but not big ones. They were refined by six years of darwinian natural selection. All of them were good by the standards of the day. To play at dissimilar air combat as described in Shaw, you need a/c a bit more dissimilar. Try a 1940-41 plane set.

GR142-Pipper
05-29-2004, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
(...snip...)As I said before, you really have got a very similar set of aircraft if you pick the late-war prop fighters. They all have around 2000hp(except yak3), 35-40 lb/sqft wing loadings and so on. Yes there are differences, but not big ones. They were refined by six years of darwinian natural selection. All of them were good by the standards of the day. To play at dissimilar air combat as described in Shaw, you need a/c a bit more dissimilar. Try a 1940-41 plane set.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not so. The TA-152 was optimized for high altitude performance while the Yak-3 was optimized for low altitude performance. The P-51 performed well at all altitudes and especially excelled up high. The later 109s (post F model) and 190s were never regarded as turning aircraft. When below 3k meters (10k feet), these aircraft should exhibit clear differences in both their sustained and instantaneous turn rates yet as currently modeled and as Cyrano's tests seem to indicate, they don't.

GR142-Pipper

k5054
05-30-2004, 03:16 AM
Yes but the test conditions could almost be designed to equalize the performances. The thicker the air the less difference wing shape makes. The lower down the more likely you will be able to pull max power. The faster you start the more likely blackout will be the limiting factor. This all makes for small differences. If you still get small differences at higher altitude and lower IAS, there may indeed be a problem.

You may believe that 109s later than f were not turing aircraft but there's a bunch of loonies round here who think they were!

Functio
05-30-2004, 05:27 AM
Another thing to bear in mind is that FB is pretty poor at modelling energy - sustained energy as well as energy bleeding. There is not much penalty for going round and round in circles for a long time, or making any agressive manouvers.

Bristolboy
05-30-2004, 06:18 PM
Interestingly this relates to the thread on using the high stick settings. Using these high sttings you can counteract the torque, weight and balance of an aircraft without using the throttle and control surfaces to manipulate the aircraft realistically. Using the settings suggested by Cpt Eric Brown or something similar you will find that each aircraft has a distinct individual character and does not perform identically at all. The only reason I can think that you would find this is because if you use the high settings you can pull many manoevres at whatever speed you want regardless of what you are flying.

GR142-Pipper
05-30-2004, 11:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Yes but the test conditions could almost be designed to equalize the performances. The thicker the air the less difference wing shape makes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where did you get that notion? The thicker air simply means that the aircraft will typically have lower true air speeds but all the other aspects of shape, power and lift still apply. Keep in mind that Cyrano tested the aircraft at various speeds.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The lower down the more likely you will be able to pull max power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If the aircraft is optimized for the low altitude environment, that's true...but only then. A good example of this would be to look at the differences between the P-51/51A/A-36 (low altitude-optimized) and the B/C/D/H models (higher altitude-optimized). Better yet, look at a Yak-3 and a TA-152. Now look at Cyrano's test results.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The faster you start the more likely blackout will be the limiting factor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But blackout has no bearing on turn RATE which is what this discussions is centering on.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This all makes for small differences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What matters is how much lift the aircraft is generating and sustaining which directly affects turn RATE.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you still get small differences at higher altitude and lower IAS, there may indeed be a problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, it depends how the individual aircraft are optimized. The same issues that apply down low, apply up high.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You may believe that 109s later than f were not turing aircraft but there's a bunch of loonies round here who think they were!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's pretty clear from the pilot reports that the 109 "post F" and 190s were simply not turners. The long and short of it is that the difference between aircraft turn performance should be MUCH more pronounced than it is currently...IMHO, of course.

GR142-Pipper

IDF_Baruchi
05-31-2004, 08:41 AM
If we call the amount of time it takes to fly a 360 degree circle 360t then t will represent the time it takes to turn one degree.

Since t = d/V(by definition) we can easily create the equation we need.

In our case the velocity (V) is the true airspeed, and the distance (d) is the circumference of a circle with radius r.



The equation for time (t) to turn one degree then is:


http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Lift/graphics/Rate2.GIF

taken from:
http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Lift/Page14.html

At the last equation it is clearly shown that rate of turn do not depend on lift or aircraft mass (as long as we talk about instant turn,where induced drag and max power are not an issue)
Parameters that we do see here are: G (which is depended on stractual airframe strength and pilot physiology)
and B -which is bank angle.
at instant turn situation the only limit is G

B.T.W : when british investigators tried to figure out how BF could beat Spits in turn rate they found that the only reason was the the pilot seat in BF was tilted back, the height betweeb the pilot's hurt (blood pump) and legs is smaller in a tilted seat than in a straight seat. so the pilot could sustained more G. That made all the difference in high speed instant turns!!!

As far as I know, in FB, blackout accures at 6 or 7G for all pilots in all aircrafts. This is the real reason why you get same turn rate when you scratch the G limit ...

k5054
05-31-2004, 04:01 PM
Describes the mood or content of the topic posted 30-05-04 22:53 Sun May 30 2004 10:53 PM
quote:Originally posted by k5054:
Yes but the test conditions could almost be designed to equalize the performances. The thicker the air the less difference wing shape makes.
Where did you get that notion?

*In thick air you don't need to pull as much AOA for any given g. Certainly this will be true of the same IAS at higher alt, but then the IAS speed to match the low level is not easily attainable, or sustainable.



quote:The lower down the more likely you will be able to pull max power. If the aircraft is optimized for the low altitude environment, that's true...but only then. A good example of this would be to look at the differences between the P-51/51A/A-36 (low altitude-optimized) and the B/C/D/H models (higher altitude-optimized). Better yet, look at a Yak-3 and a TA-152. Now look at Cyrano's test results.

What I mean is, by 1945, pretty much all fighters had WEP limited by boost. Boost is always available low down. There are no supe gear change holes. If you compared an allison P-51A using 70in WEP with the fatter P-51D low down you might get a surprise. They'd be similar, although the altitude optimization of the engines is completely different. Look at a yak-3 and a Ta at 25,000 ft, way different. Look at them low down, a lot closer together. (I wish we HAD a P-51A).



quote:The faster you start the more likely blackout will be the limiting factor.
But blackout has no bearing on turn RATE which is what this discussions is centering on.

Blackout depends on G, right? At any given speed and turn rate, the g is the same for everybody. Radius too. And everybody who can fly at say 3 times his stall speed can reach any g short of blackout, and maybe structural limiting g.



quote:This all makes for small differences.What matters is how much lift the aircraft is generating and sustaining which directly affects turn RATE.
quote:If you still get small differences at higher altitude and lower IAS, there may indeed be a problem.Again, it depends how the individual aircraft are optimized.

The same issues that apply down low, apply up high.

*That's true, but they apply more in thin air, induced drag is a higher proportion of the total, maybe you can't fly at three times the stall speed (indicated, always) because your max speed isn't high enough


quote:You may believe that 109s later than f were not turing aircraft but there's a bunch of loonies round here who think they were!
It's pretty clear from the pilot reports that the 109 "post F" and 190s were simply not turners. The long and short of it is that the difference between aircraft turn performance should be MUCH more pronounced than it is currently...IMHO, of course.



*Slow, yes. High, yes, fast and low, not so much.
I wish you'd go and tell the 109 freaks on the spitfire turning thread, they seem inclined to disregard 100 reports that don't agree with what they say, and support 1 or 2 which give room for doubt.

GR142-Pipper
05-31-2004, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Describes the mood or content of the topic posted 30-05-04 22:53 Sun May 30 2004 10:53 PM
quote:Originally posted by k5054:
Yes but the test conditions could almost be designed to equalize the performances. The thicker the air the less difference wing shape makes.
Where did you get that notion?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>*In thick air you don't need to pull as much AOA for any given g. Certainly this will be true of the same IAS at higher alt, but then the IAS speed to match the low level is not easily attainable, or sustainable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This has no bearing on our conversation as this is true for all aircraft. What we're talking about is sustained turn rate. What matters here is the lift available, the power available, and the drag characteristics of the aircraft itself.

quote:The lower down the more likely you will be able to pull max power. If the aircraft is optimized for the low altitude environment, that's true...but only then. A good example of this would be to look at the differences between the P-51/51A/A-36 (low altitude-optimized) and the B/C/D/H models (higher altitude-optimized). Better yet, look at a Yak-3 and a TA-152. Now look at Cyrano's test results.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What I mean is, by 1945, pretty much all fighters had WEP limited by boost. Boost is always available low down. There are no supe gear change holes. If you compared an allison P-51A using 70in WEP with the fatter P-51D low down you might get a surprise. They'd be similar, although the altitude optimization of the engines is completely different. Look at a yak-3 and a Ta at 25,000 ft, way different. Look at them low down, a lot closer together. (I wish we HAD a P-51A).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And they SHOULDN'T be. If an aircraft (both power and airframe) are optimized for a particular flight environment, they will (in the absence of variable geometry wings) excell in one are and suffer in another. It's just the way it works. No exceptions.


quote:The faster you start the more likely blackout will be the limiting factor.
But blackout has no bearing on turn RATE which is what this discussions is centering on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Blackout depends on G, right? At any given speed and turn rate, the g is the same for everybody. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I don't believe that this game models it that way. I think G tolerance is an individual aircraft parameter that can be tweaked. Is this right? No. Do I believe it's being done? Yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Radius too. And everybody who can fly at say 3 times his stall speed can reach any g short of blackout, and maybe structural limiting g.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, it doesn't matter. The differences in sustained turn characteristics will be present regardless if blackout is reached or not. As a matter of fact, they should be MORE evident the closer to max G is realized.

quote:This all makes for small differences.What matters is how much lift the aircraft is generating and sustaining which directly affects turn RATE.
quote:If you still get small differences at higher altitude and lower IAS, there may indeed be a problem.Again, it depends how the individual aircraft are optimized.

The same issues that apply down low, apply up high.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>*That's true, but they apply more in thin air, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's simply not ture whatsoever.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>induced drag is a higher proportion of the total, maybe you can't fly at three times the stall speed (indicated, always) because your max speed isn't high enough<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, it doesn't matter if the drag being experienced is induced or parasitic. What matters at the end of the day are the turning characteristics of the aircraft. They simply aren't modeled correctly if there is basically no (or negligible) differences between these aircraft.

quote:You may believe that 109s later than f were not turing aircraft but there's a bunch of loonies round here who think they were!
It's pretty clear from the pilot reports that the 109 "post F" and 190s were simply not turners. The long and short of it is that the difference between aircraft turn performance should be MUCH more pronounced than it is currently...IMHO, of course.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>*Slow, yes. High, yes, fast and low, not so much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Take an F-8 down low mixing it with a Mig-17 and then do the same thing up high and you'll recognize the differences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I wish you'd go and tell the 109 freaks on the spitfire turning thread, they seem inclined to disregard 100 reports that don't agree with what they say, and support 1 or 2 which give room for doubt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Spit could certainly out-turn the 109 and this situation got increasingly worse for the 109 as both aircraft continued to be developed. Again, this really isn't a matter of much debate. Anyway, I enjoyed our discussion.

GR142-Pipper