PDA

View Full Version : Hawker Tempest and the P-51



Zeynex
03-30-2009, 05:37 PM
I'm trying to decide which plane to lean too, but it seems like a even tie for both planes.

Can someone list out the major differences between the two?

I know:

Mustang is faster than Tempest (and almost all the other planes)
Tempest has a better arnament than the Mustang.

Is it true that Tempest>Mustang in medium alt and that Mustang>Tempest (and all the other planes) in high alt?


P.S. Tempest also have rockets(haha bearcat) >.>

danjama
03-30-2009, 06:11 PM
I'd take the Tempest under 20,000ft as you say. Actually probably over that too. So, Tempest for me.

I predict this will be a 10 pager at least.

Hookecho
03-30-2009, 06:17 PM
oh lord.....

Where did I leave my flak vest......

Zeynex
03-30-2009, 06:20 PM
I'm sorry guys, but I'm not trying to flare anything, I was searching for a topic but fell short of one comparing the two planes in depth. The only posts I've found was obvious things like Mustang are faster and Tempest have a better armament.

HellToupee
03-30-2009, 06:35 PM
Tempest is faster than p51 belown 2000m and 5-7000meters and generally climbs better to 7k.

ElAurens
03-30-2009, 07:28 PM
The P51 should have the rockets that the Tempest never did have in WW2.

Daiichidoku
03-30-2009, 07:32 PM
both are cheater planes as they do not have critical mach modelled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

VW-IceFire
03-30-2009, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Zeynex:
I'm trying to decide which plane to lean too, but it seems like a even tie for both planes.

Can someone list out the major differences between the two?

I know:

Mustang is faster than Tempest (and almost all the other planes)
Tempest has a better arnament than the Mustang.

Is it true that Tempest>Mustang in medium alt and that Mustang>Tempest (and all the other planes) in high alt?


P.S. Tempest also have rockets(haha bearcat) >.>
Even our in-game version of the Tempest is a tiny bit faster at sea level and up to maybe 8000 feet than the P-51D. The Mustang III will pull away from almost anything mind you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I really like both planes although the Tempest is my absolute favourite. Depends on what you're looking for really. The Mustang is better in the high altitude, long range, air superiority role while the Tempest is considered a low to meidum altitude tactical fighter.

What sort of mission do you like the most? Hunting for the Luftwaffe in the deep blue sky or hunting for anything moves at tree top level ready to pounce on an unsuspecting fighter or truck convoy? For the first the Mustang is it...while for the second the Tempest is the better choice.

Buzzsaw-
03-30-2009, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Zeynex:
I'm trying to decide which plane to lean too, but it seems like a even tie for both planes.

Can someone list out the major differences between the two?

I know:

Mustang is faster than Tempest (and almost all the other planes)
Tempest has a better arnament than the Mustang.

Is it true that Tempest>Mustang in medium alt and that Mustang>Tempest (and all the other planes) in high alt?


P.S. Tempest also have rockets(haha bearcat) >.>

Differences are as noted by earlier posters.

Similarities are that neither the Mustang or Tempest as modelled in the game are the versions which were most common in late '44 or '45.

Ie. for the Mustang, there is no 72 inch MAP USAAF version, or +25 boost Mustang IV RAF version for the European theater, and no 81 inch MAP USAAF version for the Pacific theater.

The latest model USAAF Mustang we have now, ie. the P-51D20 at 67 inches MAP, was replaced with upboosted models after July '44. The RAF Mustang III at +25 boost which we have now, was replaced by the Mustang IV at +25 boost in March of '44. In the Pacific, Mustang units began to run 115/145 octane fuel and 81 inches MAP at the beginning of '45.

For the Tempest, the +9 boost model we have in the game, was out of service by July of 1944, replaced by +11 boost models, and later in March of '45, by the +13 boost models.

So while the question of which of these earlier models is better is relevant, a comparison between the later models might have significant differences.

ElAurens
03-30-2009, 09:25 PM
In the modded game the 11 and 13 lb. boost Tempests are available.

The higher boosted P51s are in the pipeline.

R_Target
03-30-2009, 09:31 PM
Do the new Tempest versions have the prop exploit that the stock IL2 one has?

DKoor
03-30-2009, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Do the new Tempest versions have the prop exploit that the stock IL2 one has? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

DKoor
03-30-2009, 11:25 PM
BTW Zeynex use Tempest online. Since chances are you are fairly new user and believe me Tempest will suit you better in many situations, notably those where you have to hit and destroy your target.
Tempest excel in that over many planes.
Later on as you progress, you can switch to P-51 and appreciate its strengths (and cope with “weaknesses”).

GH_Klingstroem
03-31-2009, 04:37 AM
Guys you are really forgetting something when u speak about top speeds...

Its very very rare that u will ever reach the max speed of any plane, unless you fly level for a couple of minutes. How often does that happen in dogfights...??
I never really understood why people keep bring that up. I mean how often do u have the time to accelerate to the max speed which by the way might be only 20km/h faster than ur opponent. Whats more important is how fast u bleed ur E after leveled out after a dive... And there the P51 is the best in the game. I even outrun Doras several times a day in the P51D.
Start at 2000m at co-speed with a Dora and and start diving. Assuming you trim the P51 in the dive, and close rads, you will start pulling away from the Dora and after level the P51D will maintain its speed muich much longer than the Dora and hence you are able to outrun him even if the Dora has a higher max speed if both planes start at a low speed and accelerate up to their max speed.
The Tempest, however, had no chance vs any of these planes when it comes to E-bleed. It simply just bleeds it too fast.
But sure go ahead and turnfight on the deck and then try to outrun ur opponent with ur 20km/h extra speed after 2-3 mins of acceleration! I promise ur opponents bullets are alot faster while u try to accelerate to ur max speed!

Its E-bleed that counts not max speed, unless u are being chased for 5-10 mins by an enemy that starts from far away and slowly is catching you... Then and only then does ur max speed count!

ElAurens
03-31-2009, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Do the new Tempest versions have the prop exploit that the stock IL2 one has?


Huh?

BTW, even though I like the Tempest if any enemy fighters are in the area you had better run away. I do much better in the air to air regime in the P47 than the Hawker Lorry, er, Tempest.

danjama
03-31-2009, 06:29 AM
That's a good point about E-bleed and recovery, the Tempest does suck bawls there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

That's why i've adopted a FW190 style of flying it!

crucislancer
03-31-2009, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
That's a good point about E-bleed and recovery, the Tempest does suck bawls there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

That's why i've adopted a FW190 style of flying it!

That's the way to fly it. I find it more maneuverable then the Fw190 Antons (except for roll rate), but you're tempting a high speed stall if you fly it like a Spitfire. Conservative control inputs are a must.

Like everyone else says, the Tempest is better at low to medium altitudes, P-51 has the advantage at higher altitudes. I'm not sure which one accelerates quicker, but I think the P-51 keeps energy better. The Tempest has more powerful armament. Both have vulnerable engines.

AnaK774
03-31-2009, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
Do the new Tempest versions have the prop exploit that the stock IL2 one has?


Huh?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prop pitch exploit, gains quite a lot

danjama
03-31-2009, 08:09 AM
AnaK, your sig made me laugh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

R_Target
03-31-2009, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
Do the new Tempest versions have the prop exploit that the stock IL2 one has?


Huh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can rapidly cycle between I think around 60% and 100% prop pitch and get about 30kph extra speed.

RPMcMurphy
03-31-2009, 01:23 PM
Tempest is really fun and powerful once you learn it, and that cockpit model is the best in the game I think.

Ba5tard5word
03-31-2009, 01:39 PM
Tempest is great but yeah it bleeds speed very quickly in any turn and takes a little while to regain it, much like the FW-190.

DKoor
03-31-2009, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Tempest is really fun and powerful once you learn it, and that cockpit model is the best in the game I think. One of the best pits!
I also like IL-10, I-185 and Bf-110 pits...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Tempest is great but yeah it bleeds speed very quickly in any turn and takes a little while to regain it, much like the FW-190. Yes... Tempest is however better in this regard even to FW-190D which is much much better in all regards to FW-190A. Oh I forgot, It doesn't have Mk108shttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Buzzsaw-
03-31-2009, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Tempest is great but yeah it bleeds speed very quickly in any turn and takes a little while to regain it, much like the FW-190.

Tempest had laminar flow wings, same as the Mustang, a low drag coefficient, with a huge engine, should maintain and regain speed very well. Unlike the game aircraft.

The cockpit is pretty, but one of the poorest modelled of any in the game. With the bubble canopy, this aircraft had the same visibility as the Mustang, much better than 109 or 190, or the Spitfire, but in the game, you can't see anything to the rear. Complete inversion of the real situation.

HuninMunin
03-31-2009, 07:13 PM
Low Cl and high wingloading ( true for both aircraft ) means high speed cost for any high AoA/G turn.
The statement that low Cx and high T/W ratio make good energy retention under G is amateurish.
There are many more factors in the equation that play a just as important role.

Buzzsaw-
03-31-2009, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Low Cl and high wingloading ( true for both aircraft ) means high speed cost for any high AoA/G turn.
The statement that low Cx and high T/W ratio make good energy retention under G is amateurish.
There are many more factors in the equation that play a just as important role.

Wrong again.

Tempest had only moderate wingloading, 37.7 lbs per sq/ft, far lower than the 48.7 lbs per sq/ft of the 190D, or 50+ lbs per sq/ft of the 190A9.

In fact the Tempest had lower wingloading than the 109G2.

With the lower wingloading, the Tempest didn't need to pull as high an AoA to get equivalent lift, most notably at higher speeds where the laminar flow wing generated more lift than a conventional wing.

Viper2005_
03-31-2009, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Tempest is great but yeah it bleeds speed very quickly in any turn and takes a little while to regain it, much like the FW-190.

Tempest had laminar flow wings, same as the Mustang </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Laminar flow was an almost entirely theoretical concept in the context of WWII combat aircraft in service.

The Mustang was fast because it had low cooling drag. The Tempest was fast because of vast quantities of sheer brute force!

Actually I think that the Tempest's stall model is rather closer to what the 190's stall should be like (i.e. violent and somewhat unpredictable). Whilst the Tempest certainly does bleed lots of energy if you pull hard, if you fly it gently then it retains energy reasonably well.

IMO the biggest problems with it are its awful rear view and +9/3700 engine rating, when +11/3700 or +11/3850 would have been more reasonable.

Combined with the 60 lb rocket installation which never saw service in WWII, I think that the evidence strongly points to the Tempest in game being intended for use not so much as a Tempest, but as a hybrid between the Tempest and the Typhoon, to cover the glaring omission of the latter from the western front planeset.

Buzzsaw-
03-31-2009, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Laminar flow was an almost entirely theoretical concept in the context of WWII combat aircraft in service.

The Mustang was fast because it had low cooling drag. The Tempest was fast because of vast quantities of sheer brute force!



If that is the case, please explain how it is that the Tempest was able to achieve 405mph at sea level on the same horsepower as the 190D9?

The fact is, the two laminar flow Allied aircraft were far faster than simple horsepower or cooling system refinements would provide.

Yes, there was no perfect laminar flow, but the drag of these early laminar aerofoils was far less at higher speeds than conventional types.

VW-IceFire
03-31-2009, 08:27 PM
From what I understand yes there was no true laminar flow wing (apparently in practical use there still isn't completely) but the laminar profile of wing still has low drag benefits over the more typical type used.

The Tempest and Mustang are both incredibly clean and streamlined aircraft. You'd think that the giant chin radiator on the Tempest is a massive source of drag and it probably is but the rest of the plane is very clean.

So combine that with a powerful engine that does superbly well at low altitude and you have a very fast plane on the deck. The Sabre II engine was also able to propell the Typhoon up to incredible speeds for the time as well and the Typhoon did not have the supebly streamlined wing.

So its probably more than just one factor. The overall design is good, the wing is good, its a big wing so the loading isn't too high, and the engine was extremely powerful.

Still to take things back on topic...both of these types do different things well as I had mentioned before. The original poster has probably gotten way more than hoped for in comparing these two superb fighters.

Zeynex
03-31-2009, 08:36 PM
Wow,

Thanks for the information guys.

Although initially it was one of Icefire's posts that made me consider the tempest, I think I'll stick with the way of the Mustang for a while and watch my fellow teammates fly their tempest and how they use it.

Once again thanks a buch.

HuninMunin
03-31-2009, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Low Cl and high wingloading ( true for both aircraft ) means high speed cost for any high AoA/G turn.
The statement that low Cx and high T/W ratio make good energy retention under G is amateurish.
There are many more factors in the equation that play a just as important role.

Wrong again.

Tempest had only moderate wingloading, 37.7 lbs per sq/ft, far lower than the 48.7 lbs per sq/ft of the 190D, or 50+ lbs per sq/ft of the 190A9.

In fact the Tempest had lower wingloading than the 109G2.

With the lower wingloading, the Tempest didn't need to pull as high an AoA to get equivalent lift, most notably at higher speeds where the laminar flow wing generated more lift than a conventional wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Besides the fact that you are arguing against a point I did not make your equation is again incomplete ( to put it politely ).
As if the wet area of a lifting body and the weight distributed over it would enable you to determine anything about the lift produced under whatever AoA.
You ignore the most important aspect; namely the amount of lift the wing produces relative to it's size.
A small wing with a ridiculously high Cl will produce more lift then a large wing with ridiculously low Cl.

Now to the specifics of laminar flow.
The positive drag characteristics are gained by a quite substantial loss in Cl.
In addition the physical nature of the profile limits the critical AoA.

"With the lower wingloading, the Tempest didn't need to pull as high an AoA to get equivalent lift" is a rather naive statement.
In fact the Tempest is both unable to match say a Spitfire's or 109's crit. AoA nor does it produce equal lift at any given angle (talking relative, not absolute).

"most notably at higher speeds where the laminar flow wing generated more lift than a conventional wing."
If you wanted to express that they have a higher corner velocity, you are correct.

Anyway I don't plan to get into a ****ing contest over relative plane performance.
You made a false statement and I pointed that out. Case closed.

Buzzsaw-
03-31-2009, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
You'd think that the giant chin radiator on the Tempest is a massive source of drag

There is actually less drag from this type of placement than having two radiators on the wings as in the case of the 109's or Spitfires.

In fact, there is not much more drag than the radiator system on a Dora, similar amounts of air are still required to flow through the Dora's front openings in order to cool its engine. Only when the radiator is closed does the Dora have a slight advantage.

The real issue is the flow of air which is not drawn into the cooling system openings. As long as this flows past in a smooth and continuous stream, the designer's goal is accomplished.

And tests show that the Tempest's design was highly efficient.

Buzzsaw-
03-31-2009, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Low Cl and high wingloading ( true for both aircraft ) means high speed cost for any high AoA/G turn.
The statement that low Cx and high T/W ratio make good energy retention under G is amateurish.
There are many more factors in the equation that play a just as important role.

Wrong again.

Tempest had only moderate wingloading, 37.7 lbs per sq/ft, far lower than the 48.7 lbs per sq/ft of the 190D, or 50+ lbs per sq/ft of the 190A9.

In fact the Tempest had lower wingloading than the 109G2.

With the lower wingloading, the Tempest didn't need to pull as high an AoA to get equivalent lift, most notably at higher speeds where the laminar flow wing generated more lift than a conventional wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Besides the fact that you are arguing against a point I did not make your equation is again incomplete ( to put it politely ).
As if the wet area of a lifting body and the weight distributed over it would enable you to determine anything about the lift produced under whatever AoA.
You ignore the most important aspect; namely the amount of lift the wing produces relative to it's size.
A small wing with a ridiculously high Cl will produce more lift then a large wing with ridiculously low Cl.

Now to the specifics of laminar flow.
The positive drag characteristics are gained by a quite substantial loss in Cl.
In addition the physical nature of the profile limits the critical AoA.

"With the lower wingloading, the Tempest didn't need to pull as high an AoA to get equivalent lift" is a rather naive statement.
In fact the Tempest is both unable to match say a Spitfire's or 109's crit. AoA nor does it produce equal lift at any given angle.

"most notably at higher speeds where the laminar flow wing generated more lift than a conventional wing."
If you wanted to express that they have a higher corner velocity, you are correct.

Anyway I don't plan to get into a ****ing contest over relative plane performance.
You made a false statement and I pointed that out. Case closed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have not pointed out anything but your ignorance of the Tempest and Mustang's specifications.

Despite your attempt to bluster your way out of what was actually your blantant falsehood.

I will quote you again:


Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Low Cl and high wingloading ( true for both aircraft ) means high speed cost for any high AoA/G turn.

This comment is clearly false. In both the case of the Mustang and Tempest, each had LOWER wing loading than a 190, or even a later model 109. Your claim to the contrary is clearly the false statement.

And NO, in reference to the Laminar flow aerofoil, I am not attempting "...to express that they have a higher corner velocity...", I am referring the FACT that at the lower AoA's typically used in high speed maneuver, a laminar flow aerofoil generates MORE lift, simply because there is less turbulence in the airflow moving over the wing.

Go do some research.

Of course the Tempest's aerofoil doesn't generate the same lift at max AoA as a Spitfire or 109, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. The plane is not designed to operate at 200 mph or less at high AoA's as the 109's airfoil might, it is a late war design, designed to operate at 350+ mph, at speeds which were not even in the realm of possibility in 1935.

HuninMunin
03-31-2009, 09:25 PM
I marvel at your ability to read "109s and 190s had lower wingloading then the Tempest/Mustang" into Low Cl and high wingloading ( true for both aircraft ) means high speed cost for any high AoA/G turn. .

I don't bluster anywhere, but you can hardly expect me to debate a statement I did not make.
It is a waste of energy to educate someone out of an already rock solid ( albeit uninformed or selective ) opinion.

I am referring the FACT that at the lower AoA's typically used in high speed maneuver, a laminar flow aerofoil generates MORE lift, simply because there is less turbulence in the airflow moving over the wing

Resulting in an increased corner velocity, among other things.
But I gladly paraphrase in favour of your personal convenience: laminar profiles give the edge at higher speed.

Of course the Tempest's aerofoil doesn't generate the same lift at max AoA as a Spitfire or 109, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. The plane is not designed to operate at 200 mph or less at high AoA's as the 109's airfoil might, it is a late war design, designed to operate at 350+ mph, at speeds which were not even in the realm of possibility in 1935.

Indeed correct.
Apart from sparing the information that neither the Tempest nor the Mustang have comparable lift coefficients at any AoA - not even in freeflow.
Both these "ancient" designs are capable of a higher sustained g-load at any speed.

Kettenhunde
03-31-2009, 10:15 PM
MORE lift, simply because there is less turbulence in the airflow moving over the wing.


Turbulent flow is high energy, high drag, and high lift flow.

Laminar flow is low energy, low drag, and therefore low lift flow. It occurs in what is termed the drag bucket for a specific and limited design CL range for an airfoil that is not anywhere near high AoA flight.

Coefficients of drag and lift have a relationship that is fixed by design. High coefficients of drag correspond to high coefficients of lift. The most efficient point is at the highest CL that occurs at the lowest Cd. L/Dmax is not high angle of attack flight and not anywhere near CLmax.


Lift-Drag Relationship

http://www.pilotsweb.com/http:...inciple/liftdrag.htm (http://www.pilotsweb.com/http://www.pilotsweb.com/principle/liftdrag.htmprinciple/liftdrag.htm)

All the best,

Crumpp

Buzzsaw-
03-31-2009, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> MORE lift, simply because there is less turbulence in the airflow moving over the wing.


Turbulent flow is high energy, high drag, and high lift flow.

Laminar flow is low energy, low drag, and therefore low lift flow. It occurs in what is termed the drag bucket for a specific and limited design CL range for an airfoil that is not anywhere near high AoA flight.

Coefficients of drag and lift have a relationship that is fixed by design. High coefficients of drag correspond to high coefficients of lift. The most efficient point is at the highest CL that occurs at the lowest Cd. L/Dmax is not high angle of attack flight and not anywhere near CLmax.


Lift-Drag Relationship

http://www.pilotsweb.com/http:...inciple/liftdrag.htm (http://www.pilotsweb.com/http://www.pilotsweb.com/principle/liftdrag.htmprinciple/liftdrag.htm)

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for reinforcing my argument Crumpp.

At high speed, the Tempest and Mustang aerofoils have high CL at low Cd when compared to other conventional aerofoils.

Conversely, at high speed, the excessive turbulence generated by conventional aerofoils such as those which equip the 109 give them low CL at high Cd.

All manner of convoluted reasoning on the part of Axis partisans doesn't change that.

HuninMunin
03-31-2009, 11:00 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
I must confess I did not expect you to roll over that quickly.
Even Tagert had more class and stamina.
A Troll changing arguments three times on one page and trying to drag it down to a personal level is a first methinks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kettenhunde
03-31-2009, 11:11 PM
Thanks for reinforcing my argument Crumpp.

Not sure how you gathered that from my post. In fact your contention that laminar flow is high lift flow is just wrong.

Typically Laminar flow airfoils will develop lower drag for the same lift when in the narrow range of the drag bucket. This gives them more power available which can translate to a higher sustained load factor. The minimum radius turn however is generally poor as CLmax is lower.

Outside of the drag bucket, generally speaking laminar flow airfoils have lower coefficients of lift for typical coefficients of drag.

Now these are general statements and I make no claims about any airplanes performance. Facts are you cannot examine one characteristic and make a sweeping judgement of a design. Those designers are much smarter about their own designs than you.

So you cannot make an assumption based on part of system without examining the entire system. Hunin Munin tries to help you with this fact.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
04-01-2009, 01:40 AM
Trying to reduce lift under varying circumstances to a coefficient or simple ratio is like basing performance on various
cherry-picked quotes. The result is worthless. The lift curve is more than just a slope and it is on part of the picture.

CloCloZ
04-01-2009, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
In the modded game the 11 and 13 lb. boost Tempests are available.


Yes, they are, but absolutely too fast over 6000 mt.
Being a Tempest fan I'm enjoying them (especially +13lbs! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) flying offline and at low-medium heights (I don't like high-alts dogfights anyhow ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ), but I think that at present they shouldn't be used on-line.
Hope that modders fix them sooner or later, but on AAA forum they aren't responding to appeals ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

HuninMunin
04-01-2009, 09:55 AM
Fixed the high alt problems months ago... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
Maybe something went wrong with the updating.
Will look into it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

CloCloZ
04-01-2009, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Fixed the high alt problems months ago... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
Maybe something went wrong with the updating.
Will look into it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Thanks Hunin! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

You'll find some recent +11 lbs user tests into the "[MOD] Tempest V 11Lbs & 13Lbs Boost Versions *NEW*" thread in AAA forum.
My personal tests show that +13lbs still has the problem at high altitudes, too.

Buzzsaw-
04-01-2009, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks for reinforcing my argument Crumpp.

Not sure how you gathered that from my post. In fact your contention that laminar flow is high lift flow is just wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't make that claim, don't try to put words in my mouth.

Let's look at my real claim, which I will state succinctly for those of you who have vocabulary and reading problems:

In low g maneuver at high speeds, the Tempest and Mustang should retain speed and energy better than conventional aerofoil equipped aircraft.

Now that I have clearly laid out my point, I will point out that you admit this is the case, although you do your best to denigrate that superiority... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Typically Laminar flow airfoils will develop lower drag for the same lift when in the narrow range of the drag bucket.


You confirm the point I made from the start, ie. that in low G maneuver at high speed, the laminar equipped Tempest and Mustang should bleed speed at a lower rate than conventional aircraft. Unfortunately in the game, that is not the case. No matter what the G input, how gentle it is, the Mustang and Tempest lose e faster than aircraft such as the 190 or 109.

This is a reversal of what should be the case.

The typical portrayal of a laminar flow aerofoil on this board, is that of a wing which is crippled by poor CL over the total maneuver range. Which is complete nonsense.

While these aerofoils definitely should show poorer lift characteristics at low speed/high AoA, the opposite applies to their characteristics at low AoA/high speed. The laminar flow model generates MORE lift at low AoA's in the higher speed ranges.

In real terms, the pilot of a Mustang or Tempest needs less elevator input to achieve the same lift/turn response, while at the same time, his aircraft's wing is generating less drag, and he is losing less speed than a conventional aerofoil equipped aircraft.

The laminar flow aerofoils which equipped the Mustang and Tempest showed clear advantages over conventional aerofoils in the low AoA, high speed, low G maneuver enviroment of the late war. That is why they were adopted by the British and Americans, (and later Soviets)

Kettenhunde
04-01-2009, 11:02 AM
Buzzsaw says:
I didn't make that claim, don't try to put words in my mouth.




Buzzsaw says:

I am referring the FACT that at the lower AoA's typically used in high speed maneuver, a laminar flow aerofoil generates MORE lift, simply because there is less turbulence in the airflow moving over the wing.


This is not correct and your assumption is false. Turbulent flow produces high lift not Laminar flow.


All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
04-01-2009, 11:54 AM
lol Buzzaw, your lack of aerodynamic principals is epic.

There isn't even any relation between Cl and speed, except that at higher speeds, Cl decreases as required AoA decreases http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Just for starters:

Lift = Cl x dynamic pressure x wing area

Buzzsaw-
04-01-2009, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Buzzsaw says:
I didn't make that claim, don't try to put words in my mouth.




Buzzsaw says:

I am referring the FACT that at the lower AoA's typically used in high speed maneuver, a laminar flow aerofoil generates MORE lift, simply because there is less turbulence in the airflow moving over the wing.


This is not correct and your assumption is false. Turbulent flow produces high lift not Laminar flow.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, you are attempting to put words into my mouth in the typical attempt to buttress the hackneyed and cliched, and failed argument that the P-51's aerofoil is handicapped over the entire range of AoA and speed.

I said:


Buzzsaw says:

...at the lower AoA's typically used in high speed maneuver, a laminar flow aerofoil generates MORE lift...

I DID NOT say "...laminar flow generates more lift..."

By dropping 'aerofoil' from the phrase I used, you change the issue from the discussion of a specific aerofoil to one of flow theoretics, conveniently making your argument, too bad it doesn't stick.

All of the comments on the part of the Luftwhiners here are typical attempts to put up a smokescreen to justify the game's incorrectly modelled Tempest and P-51.

This will be my last post on this thread, since I am not interested in indulging the Luftwhiner tendency to divert the subject away from the issues. However, I will be creating a post with some actual historical pilot reports on the behaviour of the P-51 and Tempest so players can compare those with the game's aircraft.

I will pose one question to Crumpp though, bring the subject back to the real issue. (lets see if he can wiggle out of it or resort to semantics... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)

Crumpp: Are you claiming that a FW-190 flying at 400 mph, which pulls a 2 G turn, will lose less speed than a P-51 at the same speed, and at the same G?

M_Gunz
04-01-2009, 06:41 PM
LO-ever-loving-L!

Hey Buzzsaw, read the words you quoted out of Crumpps post again!

Guess what? They're EXACTLY the same as you say they aren't!
"Aerofoil" (sp Airfoil) is in there directly from your own post, not removed as even your quote shows.

Yepper, someone has reading and vocabulary problems. In this case it ain't Crumpp.

LMAO!

Kettenhunde
04-01-2009, 11:31 PM
Are you claiming that a FW-190 flying at 400 mph, which pulls a 2 G turn, will lose less speed than a P-51 at the same speed, and at the same G?

Find someone knowledgeable whom you trust to explain it.

All the best,

Crumpp

SheerLuckHolmes
04-02-2009, 03:27 AM
Back to the original ... P-51 ot Tempest

I allways prefer P-51 IN FRONT OF MY GUNS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It can't stand as much punishment as Tempest

Xiolablu3
04-02-2009, 04:09 AM
ALthough the Tempest is still a little 'wobbly' for me, its not as critical as with the P51 because of its stronger cannon.

For the reason of the Stronger guns I would take the Tempest.

If the P51 had 4x20mm then the decision would be much harder.

Aaron_GT
04-02-2009, 11:32 AM
If we had the Mustang IA it would change things for the second half of 1942 and through 1943. It was an excellent performer in late 1942 up to about 18,000 ft (crossover point with the Spitfire V), and although the Typhoon was a tiny tad faster right on the deck and at about 8000ft at least the Mustang IA could roll and had a good range. At least the Tempest has reasonable roll, but it has issues with being a Typhoon stand in due to its good roll rate.

slipBall
04-03-2009, 03:04 AM
Here Jay is taking a look at an old razorback
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/...yer.shtml?vid=255306 (http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/video_player.shtml?vid=255306)

Sillius_Sodus
04-03-2009, 11:28 AM
Interesting, the fellow from the Collings Foundation says it's a P-51C but the markings on the side of the cockpit say it's a P-51B-10-NA.

slipBall
04-03-2009, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
Interesting, the fellow from the Collings Foundation says it's a P-51C but the markings on the side of the cockpit say it's a P-51B-10-NA.


Now that's a interesting observation, B or C. I don't have much knowledge of the P-51 and it's varients...a bit surprised that Jay wore no helmet, I would think that there was a high noise level in there. and a helmet would have helped.

idonno
04-03-2009, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Guys you are really forgetting something when u speak about top speeds...

Its very very rare that u will ever reach the max speed of any plane, unless you fly level for a couple of minutes. How often does that happen in dogfights...??
I never really understood why people keep bring that up. I mean how often do u have the time to accelerate to the max speed which by the way might be only 20km/h faster than ur opponent.


I frequently use my airplane's top speed. I can recognize early when the fight isn't going my way and begin extending out of his gun range BEFORE the enemy gets behind me. Then, that 20 (or more) km/h advantage lets me get far enough ahead, after a couple of minutes, to be able to turn around and reengage.

If you're letting the enemy get behind you within gun range then you're not using your airplane's strength.

I would say that E retention ranks third in importance behind top speed and acceleration, in that order.

VW-IceFire
04-03-2009, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Guys you are really forgetting something when u speak about top speeds...

Its very very rare that u will ever reach the max speed of any plane, unless you fly level for a couple of minutes. How often does that happen in dogfights...??
I never really understood why people keep bring that up. I mean how often do u have the time to accelerate to the max speed which by the way might be only 20km/h faster than ur opponent.


I frequently use my airplane's top speed. I can recognize early when the fight isn't going my way and begin extending out of his gun range BEFORE the enemy gets behind me. Then, that 20 (or more) km/h advantage lets me get far enough ahead, after a couple of minutes, to be able to turn around and reengage.

If you're letting the enemy get behind you within gun range then you're not using your airplane's strength.

I would say that E retention ranks third in importance behind top speed and acceleration, in that order. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely. Also its nice and easy with both the Mustang and the Tempest to use a short and shallow dive at maximum throttle to build up speed rapidly. Thanks to the streamlining on both types that speed is retained...even speeds above the types maximum rated top speed in level flight.

It'll bleed off slowly true...but it'll help get away from a fight enough to turn around.

I too spend allot of time at maximum speed or even higher entering or leaving the fight. No point in slowing down unless I have to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WOLFMondo
04-04-2009, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
The P51 should have the rockets that the Tempest never did have in WW2.

It was cleared for use with them. It should also have napalm as it was cleared for use with that too.

horseback
04-04-2009, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
Interesting, the fellow from the Collings Foundation says it's a P-51C but the markings on the side of the cockpit say it's a P-51B-10-NA. The data plate, like the serial number on the tail would be part of the replica paint job.

As for the difference between the B and C models, that's easy. B models are from LA (and therefore came with sunglasses, a map to the stars' homes and tanning lotion in the mapcase) and C models were built in Dallas (and had a special folding Stetson, a Colt revolver and a lariat in its mapcase).

cheers

horseback

Sillius_Sodus
04-04-2009, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
Interesting, the fellow from the Collings Foundation says it's a P-51C but the markings on the side of the cockpit say it's a P-51B-10-NA. The data plate, like the serial number on the tail would be part of the replica paint job.

As for the difference between the B and C models, that's easy. B models are from LA (and therefore came with sunglasses, a map to the stars' homes and tanning lotion in the mapcase) and C models were built in Dallas (and had a special folding Stetson, a Colt revolver and a lariat in its mapcase).

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for clearing that up for me Horseback http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BillSwagger
04-04-2009, 04:22 PM
i havent done much flying in the P-51 in this game, but it will turn better if you know how to use the 51's superior corner velocity. Its not necessarily the tightest turn, but the fasted circle around a compass. The 51 does this well at about 300IAS (mph)So when making a turn in a 51, try to keep the IAS at 300, and turn as tight as you can before you start to see the speed drop below that. The tempest has better straight line performance but it won't maintain the same corner velocity as a mustang.

I would learn both planes. The tempest being easier to handle, but try messing aorund with that aspect of the 51.

fordfan25
04-05-2009, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Zeynex:
I'm trying to decide which plane to lean too, but it seems like a even tie for both planes.

Can someone list out the major differences between the two?

I know:

Mustang is faster than Tempest (and almost all the other planes)
Tempest has a better arnament than the Mustang.

Is it true that Tempest>Mustang in medium alt and that Mustang>Tempest (and all the other planes) in high alt?


P.S. Tempest also have rockets(haha bearcat) >.> both are good planes and both have there draw backs. If you choose the temp i highly recommend adjusting your stick settings for that plane as it has very touchy controls. One thing i find that gets overlooked when talking about the temp in this sim is its DM. Its from my exp a very tough plane. in fact i have had better luck takeing hit in the temp than i have in the jug.Also its a lot more manuvrable than a p51. Plus the cockpit is very well done in this game. Its prob the most detailed cockpit in the game.

DKoor
04-06-2009, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
One thing i find that gets overlooked when talking about the temp in this sim is its DM. Its from my exp a very tough plane. in fact i have had better luck takeing hit in the temp than i have in the jug.Also its a lot more manuvrable than a p51. Plus the cockpit is very well done in this game. Its prob the most detailed cockpit in the game. All true... at some times I was joking about Tempest by nicknaming it a Tanktest... quite a bit time ago Brain32 posted a track where he shot Tempest with 7-8 Mk108 shells (online) and it was still flying.
It usually doesn't take so much, but sure it is very tough aircraft DM wise.
Looking overall easily the very best allied conventional piston aircraft in the IL-2 1946.

doogerie
04-06-2009, 01:19 AM
I have tryed both the P15 and the Tempest (in another game that i will edmit is not as good as IL2)but i found that the Tempest had a brutel cannon on it (on the other game)so if it is the same on il2 then uh yeah a prefer the tempest. by the way if anyone can tell me what aircrat carriest the most bullits that would be most helpfull

Lt_Letum
04-06-2009, 01:53 AM
if anyone can tell me what aircrat carriest the most bullits that would be most helpfull

I imagine the B29 carries the most rounds of ammunition.
The P47 with 'extra ammo' load out probably carries the most rounds of any fighter.

If we go by the total weight of all rounds carried, then I suspect one of the FW190s or IL2s might win.

DKoor
04-06-2009, 02:23 AM
Me-110 can carry (default load) as much as 6300 bullets & shells, which I presume makes it a winner in fighter plane category.
FW-190 on the other hand varies in ammo quantity... around 1500-2000 bullets & shells.
Also interesting fact is that I.A.R.81a carries 4700 bullets. P-47 carries 1600 bullets (up to 3400 bullets with overload), P-51B/C 1400, P-51D 2400 bullets.

Ju-87G on the other hand has to be the aircraft in the game with the least ammo quantity in one gun/cannon, it carries only 12 shells per its Bk-3.7cm cannon.
Bi-1 could be the aircraft with the least overall ammo, only 90 shells in two cannons (45 each).

GH_Klingstroem
04-06-2009, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Guys you are really forgetting something when u speak about top speeds...

Its very very rare that u will ever reach the max speed of any plane, unless you fly level for a couple of minutes. How often does that happen in dogfights...??
I never really understood why people keep bring that up. I mean how often do u have the time to accelerate to the max speed which by the way might be only 20km/h faster than ur opponent.


I frequently use my airplane's top speed. I can recognize early when the fight isn't going my way and begin extending out of his gun range BEFORE the enemy gets behind me. Then, that 20 (or more) km/h advantage lets me get far enough ahead, after a couple of minutes, to be able to turn around and reengage.

If you're letting the enemy get behind you within gun range then you're not using your airplane's strength.

I would say that E retention ranks third in importance behind top speed and acceleration, in that order. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In that case your enemy is a really really poor shot!! His bullets are alot faster than ur 20km/h advantage!
As Icefire says, after a shallow dive the P51s can maintain a 30-40km/h in excess of its topspeed due it being streamline. In fact it keeps its E alot better than the both the Dora and the Tempest which is why I can outrun even 2-3 mins ater I have leveled out on the deck even tho they should have a higher top speed!

idonno
04-06-2009, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Guys you are really forgetting something when u speak about top speeds...

Its very very rare that u will ever reach the max speed of any plane, unless you fly level for a couple of minutes. How often does that happen in dogfights...??
I never really understood why people keep bring that up. I mean how often do u have the time to accelerate to the max speed which by the way might be only 20km/h faster than ur opponent.


I frequently use my airplane's top speed. I can recognize early when the fight isn't going my way and begin extending out of his gun range BEFORE the enemy gets behind me. Then, that 20 (or more) km/h advantage lets me get far enough ahead, after a couple of minutes, to be able to turn around and reengage.

If you're letting the enemy get behind you within gun range then you're not using your airplane's strength.

I would say that E retention ranks third in importance behind top speed and acceleration, in that order. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In that case your enemy is a really really poor shot!! His bullets are alot faster than ur 20km/h advantage! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You missed my point completely. I don't let them get behind me within gun range, or at least I will be near the limit of their range and quickly pulling away, so I may see a few wild rounds go by the wing tips, but before long they're all falling short.

na85
04-06-2009, 10:40 AM
P51 is a much better energy fighter than the tempest, as other posters have noted already.

CloCloZ
04-08-2009, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
One thing i find that gets overlooked when talking about the temp in this sim is its DM. Its from my exp a very tough plane. in fact i have had better luck takeing hit in the temp than i have in the jug.Also its a lot more manuvrable than a p51. Plus the cockpit is very well done in this game. Its prob the most detailed cockpit in the game. All true... at some times I was joking about Tempest by nicknaming it a Tanktest... quite a bit time ago Brain32 posted a track where he shot Tempest with 7-8 Mk108 shells (online) and it was still flying.
It usually doesn't take so much, but sure it is very tough aircraft DM wise.
Looking overall easily the very best allied conventional piston aircraft in the IL-2 1946. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry but I have to fully disagree. Unluckily, Tempest DM is quite on the weak side.

In fact, it's quite easy to have a wing torn away by just a few shots or the engine damaged the same way.

It's not just an opinion or a sensation: some times ago I've found on the net (on the "Complete waste ..." forum) a spreadsheet listing FM,DM and other values for all the planes in 4.08, made using data extracted by modders (it was posted by a user named Fedya).
I really doubt it's a fake, the Excel spreadsheet has 260 rows and a lot of columns (until "IV" column) full of data! If it's a fake, it's a very good one ...

I don't know the exact use of the parameters, but column names are often quite self-explanatory.

From these data Tempest turns out to be, on the average, weaker than FW190D, P51D and others, like Ki-84 (as expected, P47D is exceptionally tough!).
Tempest seems to have, in game, some structural advantage on Bf-109K-4 (see tail toughness) but has a weaker engine. In fact, Sabre engine comes out to be really weakly modelled, value 120 (Bf-109K-4 has 150 and FW190D has 250).
P51D, on the contrary, is quite strong in many areas and unnaturally strong in engine (value 350, same value than P47D! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ).

After reading those data I've been able to understand a lot of things about some "unexpected" downing of me when flying the Tempest! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Adding that Tempest is a large plane, it's easy to understand why it's a quite easy target.
It's a great plane but it's easy to be hitten and shot down when flying it (in game, I suspect in RL it was tougher).

julian265
04-09-2009, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<snip> quite a bit time ago Brain32 posted a track where he shot Tempest with 7-8 Mk108 shells (online) and it was still flying.<snip>
Not a good demonstration. Playing a track back shows very different hits than happened at the time of recording. The only way to judge it is using the gunstat command, or watching cannon flashes at the time.

This is especially noticeable when you kill someone with only the 37mm in the P39, and watch the recording later.

I used to fly the tempest almost exclusively (online), and found it about average, except for its weak engine (like the 109's engine).