PDA

View Full Version : Turn radius of USAAF fighters



Kurfurst__
09-04-2007, 11:44 AM
Hi,

I wonder if anyone has specific data (ie. not tactical comparisons) for the turn times and turn radiuses of USAAF fighters. It's a usually very vividly argued and controversial subject relative to other fighters of the time (and for this reason, I ask you to keep this kind of stuff out of this thread), so I wondered if anyone has any hard data to come by about P-38, P-39s, P-40s, P-47 and P-51s.

There are some Russian dataset to start with for Allison engined Mustangs (V 1710 39) and P-47 D-10 (R 2800 63). These give rather modest values for turn times at 1000 meter altitude, 23 secs for a complete turn for the Allison Mustang, and 26 seconds for the 'bolt.

P-39 turn radius under the same conditions is given as 253 - 280 meter (presumably the difference between lighter and heavier versions of the P-39 in use by the VVS).

Thx in advance!

general_kalle
09-04-2007, 01:14 PM
dunno in real world but in this game i think its a sharp contost between P40 and P39

DuxCorvan
09-04-2007, 01:17 PM
Fire in the hole!
http://i.pbase.com/o4/75/47975/1/56761539.FireInTheHole_30567.jpg

Bremspropeller
09-04-2007, 01:29 PM
http://mahopa.de/bilder/funny-forum-pictures/no-hope-for-this-thread.jpg

SlickStick
09-04-2007, 01:30 PM
Cynical View of this thread:

Easily a 20 pager within two days after the chart monkeys have had their say, with a mod lock once things get childish, redundant and pedantic, with no knowledge being gained.

Optimistic View of this thread:

We shall get to see some solid numbers and be able to compare one data versus the other and then versus in-game performance for our mutual benefit, curiosity, and knowledge.

stalkervision
09-04-2007, 03:51 PM
most US ww2 army air force planes were never ment to turn really well. They were designed just to fly the fastest possible in a straight line with turning as an after thought.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I compare them to the designs of Muscle cars era..

you know what they say.."If the hammer isn't big enough get a bigger hammer.." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

PBNA-Boosher
09-04-2007, 05:41 PM
Where did you read about US fighters that could turn? Close this book forever and never open again!

Seriously, I would recommend contacting the Smithsonian through e-mail. They're generally very thorough and would be delighted to send you some information.

M_Gunz
09-04-2007, 06:05 PM
There's a ton of NACA data being quoted out of, look at the stall speeds where faster makes
a wider radius at any G bank. The plane with the lower stall speed should always turn tighter,
-- up to the limits of power of the plane and altitude to lose.

Daiichidoku
09-04-2007, 06:08 PM
start only one engine on p 38 then give er max power....the 38 turns on a dime then!

Daiichidoku
09-04-2007, 06:10 PM
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/report-joint-...conference-3466.html (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/report-joint-fighter-conference-3466.html)

Akronnick
09-04-2007, 06:13 PM
Now where did I put that Popcorn Smiley...

stalkervision
09-04-2007, 06:13 PM
Here is an interesting site kurfurst..
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
http://www.aerial-combat.com

ElAurens
09-04-2007, 07:14 PM
I wish I had some hard data for this, but I have read several times that the P40 could out turn the Spitfire below 15,000 ft. Remember that the P40 and the P36 before it were older designs, that were still influenced by turn fight doctrine.

Copperhead311th
09-04-2007, 07:48 PM
Oh Brother. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Here we go again.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif "Zee German Aircraft are being out turned by B-25!" B-17 Turns like spitfire! Oleg make Luftwaffe uber again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Oleg get ready.... your in box is about to EXPLODE! Honestly Kurfy do you ever stop trying to re-write history? Never mind... i already know the asnwer to that question.

JG14_Josf
09-04-2007, 09:41 PM
I wonder if anyone has specific data (ie. not tactical comparisons) for the turn times and turn radiuses of USAAF fighters.

I can look again but so far there is not data.

FritzGryphon
09-04-2007, 09:49 PM
Consider the basic specs of power loading, wing loading, maximum lift, stall speed, among others.

Then come to a conclusion, and compare your answer to IL-2 to see where you went wrong.

Kurfurst__
09-05-2007, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Consider the basic specs of power loading, wing loading, maximum lift, stall speed, among others.

Then come to a conclusion, and compare your answer to IL-2 to see where you went wrong.

Frankly I am not interested too much how it is in Il-2, or wheter its right or wrong... for quite some time.

I posted this thread on some boards and hoping that it will turn up so real life hard data... perhaps useful to others, too..

JG52Karaya-X
09-05-2007, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
Oh Brother. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Here we go again.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif "Zee German Aircraft are being out turned by B-25!" B-17 Turns like spitfire! Oleg make Luftwaffe uber again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Oleg get ready.... your in box is about to EXPLODE! Honestly Kurfy do you ever stop trying to re-write history? Never mind... i already know the asnwer to that question.

Kurfürst simply requested turn data for the USAAF fighters, neither did he state anywere in his posts that they are over or undermodelled, it was actually just a simple request, whats wrong with that?

Keep your mental diarrhea to yourself

Bewolf
09-05-2007, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
Oh Brother. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Here we go again.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif "Zee German Aircraft are being out turned by B-25!" B-17 Turns like spitfire! Oleg make Luftwaffe uber again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Oleg get ready.... your in box is about to EXPLODE! Honestly Kurfy do you ever stop trying to re-write history? Never mind... i already know the asnwer to that question.

Man are you a ******ed git...

Kurfürst simply requested turn data for the USAAF fighters, neither did he state anywere in his posts that they are over or undermodelled, it was actually just a simple request, whats wrong with that?

Keep your mental diarrhea to yourself </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny how ppl yell at their own mirror, isn't it? Eh, ignore works best usually.

Brain32
09-05-2007, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
I wish I had some hard data for this, but I have read several times that the P40 could out turn the Spitfire below 15,000 ft. Remember that the P40 and the P36 before it were older designs, that were still influenced by turn fight doctrine.

I have http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, Russian TsAGI institute book on WW2 planes puts P40C at 18sec for 360 turn time while SpitIXLF and MkVb are at 18,5sec and 18,8sec, however P40E is at 19,2sec...

BBB_Hyperion
09-05-2007, 05:21 AM
Maybe good idea to search in naca reports for example.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19...91460_1993091460.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930091460_1993091460.pdf)

SUPERAEREO
09-05-2007, 05:22 AM
Hmmm...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg

From http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html


No hard data but makes you think...

ElAurens
09-05-2007, 05:30 AM
Thanks Brain32!

I knew I read that somewhere. Somehow I suspect the in game P40s fall well short of those numbers, but I have never tested it.

ImpStarDuece
09-05-2007, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I wish I had some hard data for this, but I have read several times that the P40 could out turn the Spitfire below 15,000 ft. Remember that the P40 and the P36 before it were older designs, that were still influenced by turn fight doctrine.

I have http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, Russian TsAGI institute book on WW2 planes puts P40C at 18sec for 360 turn time while SpitIXLF and MkVb are at 18,5sec and 18,8sec, however P40E is at 19,2sec... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire LF IX data is for a clipped wing version.

Brain32
09-05-2007, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Spitfire LF IX data is for a clipped wing version.
Yes it is, there's even a picture in the book http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
But anyway I have a hard time to believe in-game P40C comes close to 18sec...never tested though...just a feeling...

Kurfurst__
09-05-2007, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Hmmm...

From http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html


No hard data but makes you think...

I know this one for years. Supposed to be based on the opinion of the boss of AFDU, published immidiately post-war in a magazine as an article for the greater public (it shows) but it's even conflicting the AFDU's own reports (which themselves are self-contradictory, LOL). Pity he didn't gave turn radiuses instead, but I presume these were not measured in tactical trials. Thx for posting it, but that's not the kind of data I am looking for.

The dream would be if it would be detailed by precise type, power used and the radius in feet or meter, at given altitude. Altitude is critical because of low and high altitude engines and to a lesser extent, aspect ratios...

Xiolablu3
09-05-2007, 01:06 PM
I dont believe that the Bf109 could turn that badly, as in that diagram.

Didnt the Spitfire 21 have Laminar FLow wings?

I am extremely doubtful that the SPitfire 21 could outturn the Bf109G, unless we are talking at VERY high speeds where the Bf109G had very stiff controls.

Maybe the info in that diagram comes from that terrible British Bf109G with gunpods test, where it was outturned by a FW190? SOmething was obviously wrong with the aircraft. It goes against all other tests of the Bf109G.

At low speeds, IMO the Gustav should be somewhere close to the Spitfire IX at low stall speeds, maybe even beating the Spit at very low speeds. A bit worse than the Spit IX at mid speeds and getting worse as the more effective SPitfire elevator takes the advanatage at high speeds.

To place it on the outside of the ring with the Tempest and P47 is just wrong IMHO. UNLESS he was talking at very high speeds, which would be a bit silly and not very useful, to do a turning test with the speeds at 500+kph. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I am sure if this diagram was released to teh RAF, it would result in a lot of deaths of RAF pilots when they met Bf109's.

ImpStarDuece
09-05-2007, 07:48 PM
I'm at work and without my reference books, but from what I can recall the Spitfire Mk 21 didn't have laminar flow wings, the fitting of those had to wait until the Spiteful.

The Mk 21 wing was lowered on the airframe slightly and lost the classic eliptical profile, as well as being reinforced and stiffened with 'D' shaped wing torsion boxes from the rear of the spars.

Despite the early initial problems with yaw and shuddering when it went operational, the ADFU considered the Mk 21 to be just as maneouverable as the MK XIV and 10-12 mph faster at all heights.

What this actually means in terms of turning circle is open to conjecture.

I just got "Ultimate Spitfire" last week, and I'll post some excerpts from it if you want.

There are some really interesting pilot accounts about flying the MK XII, Mk XIV and Mk 21 in it (like Mk XII pilots reporting that they could out-turn Mk Vs with ease below 20,000 feet and Mk XIV pilots accelerating after and running down 190D9s at sea level)

Kurfurst__
09-06-2007, 02:29 AM
Gentlemen, this all interesting input, but let's leave the 109, 190, Spit and related debates and pilot accounts for other threads.

Let's try to focus here on hard turn radius and turn data on USAAF fighters, well heck, for other fighters as well if you must, but let'skeep this thread clean : no debates, no anecdotes.

Re : turn time and turn radius.

Turn radius is largely a factor of stall speed. The slower you can go without stalling, the tighter your turns will be. With even remotely similiar power outputs, there's no way to come around that. Any pilot who's claiming he can turn just as tight in 2000 lbs heavier variant of the same plane is out of his mind, or the other guy is not trying really hard, or they are at very thin air altitude, and the heavier plane has a lot more power, having a high altitude engine.

Turn times are however largely a race between the aircraft's thrust required (~drag) and thrust available. Due to this, it's basically governed by thrurst available since the other value is usually constant.
Increases in power will have strong positive effect on turn times, whereas turn radius will remain practically identical (since added power only has a small effect on power on stall speed).

Xiolablu3
09-06-2007, 03:11 AM
Apologies, I thought the Spitfire 21 had a Laminar FLow wing.

The post above was meant to be critique of that diagram above, saying dont place too much value in it for the German Aircraft, as IMO its wrong. I then got carried away going into why.

As for turn on US fighters, I have no hard data. Are there no real tests on Mike Williams site? He has lots of good docs.

SeaFireLIV
09-06-2007, 03:20 AM
I think by now that most veteran users of this board, including you kurfurst, know that there is never a definitive answer to this kind of question. We`ve seen it time and again.

Someone posts some data, someone else rubbishes it, rinse, repeat.

In the end it deteriorates into a flame-match where nobody agrees and oleg ends up being called a communist.

I`ll fall off my chair if after 5 pages everyone comes to a common amicable agreement about the turn rates of these aircraft without cajoling, bullying or constant repetition that forces others to just give up.

Kurfurst__
09-06-2007, 03:21 AM
NP at all and even less need for an apology, just attempting the impossible here, an informative thread at zoobi, which doesn't turns into a 20+ pager because somebody typed one of the magic words.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't think the MW site has much on turn radiuses. IIRC only one AFDU tests mentions something about a Mk V ***CENSORED*** turn radius with clipped wings..? Such data is hard to come by. So far my most 'talkative' source for such was the 'Tsagi' book.

ImpStarDuece
09-06-2007, 03:24 AM
The problem with the tests on the WWII Aircraft Performance site is that most of them are relative, side-by-side comparisons, and don't give numerical values.

HayateAce
09-06-2007, 07:55 AM
Awesome find, THANKS!

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

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg

M_Gunz
09-06-2007, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
I wish I had some hard data for this, but I have read several times that the P40 could out turn the Spitfire below 15,000 ft. Remember that the P40 and the P36 before it were older designs, that were still influenced by turn fight doctrine.

I've been told that the P-40 would outturn a P-51. I think that Erik Schilling says the same.

Yet I read that the way for a P-40 to outturn a 109 in Africa was in a dive, but they did.

Would the P-40 outturn a Hurricane at 4000 ft or less?

Well, P-51 came from the British wanting P-40's and got made a counter-offer. P-51A was a
nice plane just not up high. Maybe would have done well in Russian service? They had need
in Russia of planes that could intercept bombers in the early war. A lot of need.

faustnik
09-06-2007, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
P-51A was a
nice plane just not up high. Maybe would have done well in Russian service? They had need
in Russia of planes that could intercept bombers in the early war. A lot of need.

The version with the 4x20mm would have fit right in with the Soviets I bet.

luftluuver
09-06-2007, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
I wish I had some hard data for this, but I have read several times that the P40 could out turn the Spitfire below 15,000 ft. Remember that the P40 and the P36 before it were older designs, that were still influenced by turn fight doctrine.
You sure about that(bold)?

totalspoon
09-07-2007, 12:18 AM
I have a book called "Pacific Scrapbook" written by a New Zealand F4U1 pilot. Great book. After WW2 was over, his Squadron was sent to Japan as part of the Commonwealth occupation forces occupying Southern Japan. Also part of the Commonwealth forces was an Australian squadron with P51D Mustangs and a British squadron with Spitfire XIV's. If you know anything about Aussies and Kiwi's (New Zealanders), you know they have an intense but friendly rivalry, and it wasn't very long before the two squadrons were battling daily on their "no fly zone" patrols. Everybody soon agreed that the Corsair could easily out-turn the Mustang, but the Mustangs superior speed allow it to engage and disengage at will.
While the Australian and New Zealand squadrons were made up of experienced pilots, the British squadron mainly consisted of brand new pilots, and the British, fearful of losing inexperienced pilots though crashes, issued very strict instructions to their pilots no to engage the other allied pilots. This didn't stop the Mustangs and Corsairs bouncing the Spit's and trying to get them to fight but the result was always the same. The Spitfire XIV's, on seeing the other fighters would simply open their throttles and disappear up into the blue. No matter what the Aussies or Kiwi's did, they couldn't stay with the Spits awesome climb. One of the British pilots told the author that the Spits climb was so steep, it had to be done on instruments as the leading edge of the wing blocked out the horizon...

Totalspoon

Xiolablu3
09-07-2007, 05:26 AM
'Turning Circles

In circumstances where the ability to turn quickly or tightly are infinitely variable, and where two aircraft are nearly the same, such as the Tempest V and Thunderbolt II, a great deal depends on the ability of the pilots. Speed must be taken into account if the results are going to be of any real value.

For example, if a Tempest dives on a Thunderbolt with an overtaking speed of only 50 mph, the Thunderbolt will easily be able to avoid the attack by turning, although at the same speed in the hands of equally competent pilots, the Tempest will outmanoeuvre the Thunderbolt. This advantage, however, is no by any means so apparent at high altitudes, due to the greater engine efficiency of the Thunderbolt above 25,000ft.

Similarly, where low-altitude and high-altitude fighters are compared any advantage shown by the former will be reduced as the high-altitude fighter gets nearer to its best operational altitude. After taking all these considerations into account, the position of the aircraft relative to each other will be seen from the diagram.

Once again, the Spitfire maintains top place, followed by the Mustang, Meteor, Tempest and Thunderbolt. Too much regard to this order should not be paid, particularly by the individual who will angrily recall the occasion when he out-turned a Meteor when flying his Tempest. This sort of thing is inevitable, but we can only repeat that where the circumstances are common to both aircraft, these positions are not far wrong.

By Sqdn. Ldr. T.S. Wade, D.F.C, A.F.C, R.A.F.V.R'



WHat he says makes a lot of sense to me, for ALlied Aircraft.

He has probably flown every aircraft in the list, so maybe he is correct.

ElAurens
09-07-2007, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
You sure about that(bold)?

The P36 dates from the period 1934/1936, and USAAC doctrine at that time was still the turnfight.

Xiolablu3
09-07-2007, 06:42 AM
The first prototype Spitfire, K5054, flew for the first time on 5 March 1936 at Eastleigh. In later tests, it reached 349 mph



The first flight of a P-40 (Ser No 39-156) was on April 4, 1940. Maximum speed was 357 mph at 15,000 feet, service ceiling was 32,750 feet, and initial climb rate was 3080 feet per minute. An altitude of 15,000 feet could reached in 5.2 minutes. The length of the P-40 was 31 feet 8 3/4 inches, which became standard for all early models. Weights were 5376 pounds empty, 6787 pounds gross, and 7215 pounds maximum.

danjama
09-07-2007, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I think by now that most veteran users of this board, including you kurfurst, know that there is never a definitive answer to this kind of question. We`ve seen it time and again.

Someone posts some data, someone else rubbishes it, rinse, repeat.

In the end it deteriorates into a flame-match where nobody agrees and oleg ends up being called a communist.

I`ll fall off my chair if after 5 pages everyone comes to a common amicable agreement about the turn rates of these aircraft without cajoling, bullying or constant repetition that forces others to just give up.

i cant wait for page 6 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

M_Gunz
09-07-2007, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
P-51A was a
nice plane just not up high. Maybe would have done well in Russian service? They had need
in Russia of planes that could intercept bombers in the early war. A lot of need.

The version with the 4x20mm would have fit right in with the Soviets I bet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They would probably take 2 off just to improve performance in climb, turn and accelerate
cause one thing the early Russian planes I used had in common, pilot was expected to be
a good shot! Didn't they remove 2 MG's from some P-39's? Apache's going long distance
at 5-6km alt to intercept Ju-88's making a dash is a bit high up for that plane to make
speed isn't it? I guess he could run fast down lower and zoom up for the kill.

Xiolablu3
09-07-2007, 12:15 PM
The RUssians, like the Japanese appreciated super manouverability, taking out every bit of excess weight they could find in order to imrove performance/manouverability.



I am certain that is one of the reasons (if he did actually say it) that Oleg was once claimed to say 'The P47 is not a Fighter'.

It ISNT a fighter in the Russian sense of the word. I am sure they would say the same about the big heavy Tempest. In Russian service, these planes would be pushed in to ground attack. A fighter in the Russian sense of the word is light, has an incredible climb and turn rate, even at the expense of armament or armour.

Russian fighters have always stressed super manouverability, right up to todays latest Suhkoi fighters which perform the startling feats at airshows.

Cajun76
09-07-2007, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The first prototype Spitfire, K5054, flew for the first time on 5 March 1936 at Eastleigh. In later tests, it reached 349 mph



The first flight of a P-40 (Ser No 39-156) was on April 4, 1940. Maximum speed was 357 mph at 15,000 feet, service ceiling was 32,750 feet, and initial climb rate was 3080 feet per minute. An altitude of 15,000 feet could reached in 5.2 minutes. The length of the P-40 was 31 feet 8 3/4 inches, which became standard for all early models. Weights were 5376 pounds empty, 6787 pounds gross, and 7215 pounds maximum.

The P-40 was a inline development of the P-36....

faustnik
09-07-2007, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Russian fighters have always stressed super manouverability, right up to todays latest Suhkoi fighters which perform the startling feats at airshows.

Agreed, but, weight of fire was also a big consideration. The Soviets were always looking to increase effective firepower.



Originally posted by M_Gunz:
They would probably take 2 off just to improve performance in climb, turn and accelerate
cause one thing the early Russian planes I used had in common, pilot was expected to be
a good shot! Didn't they remove 2 MG's from some P-39's? Apache's going long distance
at 5-6km alt to intercept Ju-88's making a dash is a bit high up for that plane to make
speed isn't it? I guess he could run fast down lower and zoom up for the kill.

Makes sense to me, P-51A were very fast down at "Soviet-preferred" heights. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Soviets didn't appreciate the light MGs much, so, they did remove them from the Cobras. They also removed some armor but, added stiffeners in critical areas and balast to imrpove COG.

DustyBarrels77
09-07-2007, 09:57 PM
look at ac very similiar in sustained turn rates 190a hellcat corsair p47. then look at them in game nuff said, then look at the p39 which turned inside the all varients of the 109 then look in game as well as the ac that have a tighter sustained turn rate like the f2a wildcatcat hurricane spit p40 yak lagg mig etc

who cares its all wrong been wrong changes each patch out of our control. but turn rate is not everything theres rudder effectiveness and nose deflect to add into the equations which is so off in this game and i dont think even modeled or revised. Get all the ac to have stable rudders and nose deflection for a start.

in reality the lightweight ac are less stable then heavy weights in game thats the opposite.

Im hoping bob sow has a mode to give all sides the same exact dms fms hitting power etc it wont be realistic but would be fair for both sides and alot of fun especially in the tournement department. This game is all fm over true skill all you need is the slightest concept of bnz. Then the ufo ac p40+ field mod hurii fieldmod spit 109 190 yak la ki84 zeke ki43 george

games so off half the ac over performaing under 6000m by alot then the ones extremely over peforming under 6000m are killed above 6000+ for example to fw190a vs the yak or even lagg3

when the p39 lagg3 and p40 flew like the g2 does now the game i have to admit was alot more fun flying either side, now it feels like no challenge whatso ever in the g2 vs them its like the same as 2 zekes vs 10 corsairs or hellcats winning is so easy even vs energy fighters.

its is also very rare to see any fight in any server over 3000m these days, even in the aw leagues which are the higher alt type of servers seems like it dropped from 6-9000m to 3-5 as the norm

then theres the whole iron dm thing still and this last patch seems like snapped cables was reduced on so many ac i wont mention which while 1 hit anywhere on some looses all 3 control cables everytime even if hit on a wingtip. The the whole weakest bombers taking alot more hits then the supposed armored heavier bombers, then theres the whole gun station issue the view system simple does not work make it playable rather then wasting so many hours on the look which is unfunctional getting less then 20 degrees of shot deflection, ole can make all these heavy bombers flyable with just a cockpit 3d pit and for gunstations a simple flat tga file with a fixed site which would be function then can work on turrent speeds. functional less work and disable trackir and mouse look in gunstations except for the rotating ones yeah its nice but so much work for something not functional such a waste of time and effort which could have been used on many other early mid and late war using that effort for more single engine and double engine prop fighters which have excellent external models and still not flyable till this day which played important rolls in all fronts.

R_Target
09-07-2007, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The first prototype Spitfire, K5054, flew for the first time on 5 March 1936 at Eastleigh. In later tests, it reached 349 mph



The first flight of a P-40 (Ser No 39-156) was on April 4, 1940. Maximum speed was 357 mph at 15,000 feet, service ceiling was 32,750 feet, and initial climb rate was 3080 feet per minute. An altitude of 15,000 feet could reached in 5.2 minutes. The length of the P-40 was 31 feet 8 3/4 inches, which became standard for all early models. Weights were 5376 pounds empty, 6787 pounds gross, and 7215 pounds maximum.

The P-40 was a inline development of the P-36.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the prototype P-40 first flew in October 1938, with the first production models accepted in May 1940.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-07-2007, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
dunno in real world but in this game i think its a sharp contost between P40 and P39

Its not mentioned, but the Wildcat turns better then both.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-07-2007, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
Oh Brother. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Here we go again.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif "Zee German Aircraft are being out turned by B-25!" B-17 Turns like spitfire! Oleg make Luftwaffe uber again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Oleg get ready.... your in box is about to EXPLODE! Honestly Kurfy do you ever stop trying to re-write history? Never mind... i already know the asnwer to that question.

Kurfurst ask a valid question and did not imply anything above. You realize it comments such as this that turn threads south. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

S!