PDA

View Full Version : Brewster vs I-16



XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:20 AM
Hi Oleg! FB is truly a great game!

However, I am amazed by the performance of certain planes. For example I feel that, a 1 vs 1 dogfight between I-16 and Brewster is an impossible fight for the Brewster pilot, even with an initial energy advantage. Am I really so bad pilot? Or do other people feel the same? If I take I-16 I have no problems killing Brewster or another I-16.

So I ask you to try the fight yourself, and see the unbalance. And if possible try to find a balance in the FM:s of those planes so, that there would at least be a chance for the BW pilot.

I am not an expert, but I think that this correction would also be closer to the reality. After all, the Finnish pilots did score amazing kill ratio with Brewsters in WW2.

The problem could also be in the FM of I-16, for I find that it practically doesn't bleed energy at all in horizontal OR vertical maneuvers (at least compared to the energy bleeding of Brewster).

I think that this is a constructive argument. Thank you for considering it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:20 AM
Hi Oleg! FB is truly a great game!

However, I am amazed by the performance of certain planes. For example I feel that, a 1 vs 1 dogfight between I-16 and Brewster is an impossible fight for the Brewster pilot, even with an initial energy advantage. Am I really so bad pilot? Or do other people feel the same? If I take I-16 I have no problems killing Brewster or another I-16.

So I ask you to try the fight yourself, and see the unbalance. And if possible try to find a balance in the FM:s of those planes so, that there would at least be a chance for the BW pilot.

I am not an expert, but I think that this correction would also be closer to the reality. After all, the Finnish pilots did score amazing kill ratio with Brewsters in WW2.

The problem could also be in the FM of I-16, for I find that it practically doesn't bleed energy at all in horizontal OR vertical maneuvers (at least compared to the energy bleeding of Brewster).

I think that this is a constructive argument. Thank you for considering it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:25 AM
Same problem as T_Rom.

I'm mainly flying for VVS and Rata and knocking brewster out isn't so challenghing.

:Vladimir

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:37 AM
When you analyze both FMs you can see why this is.

For the I-16, the climb rate is too fast (4.7 min instead of 6 min), and turn rate is also too fast (14 seconds instead of 18 seconds). Not to mention concrete DM. Top speed is roughly correct.

For B-239 the climb rate and speed is roughly correct, and turn time is too long (by about 2 seconds).

So right now B-239 has no chance. When the errors are patched, it will be more realistic.

--

But even then, the I-16 will give B-239 a run for its money. I-16 turns better and climbs better, but B-239 is faster.





Message Edited on 06/18/0304:43AM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 01:37 PM
Balance between planes doesnt mean realims

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 02:05 PM
Yeah try to fight the I-16 in a HurricanemkI in mission 8 of the FAF campaign!!!

If you ever get a shot at them you will find out that they vurtaly indistructable with your MG (Same for the I-15), they on the other hand all have the type 24 20mm cannons that in history was only used for 17x I-16's!

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 02:12 PM
Also very incorrect maximum diving-speeds are trouble for Brewster pilots: Brewster seems to have the lowest diving-speeds in this game. These results are approximate values from online tests:

I-153 670km/h
I-16 740km/h
B-239 650km/h

Brester rips to pieces or blows up in this speed, when open cockpit -planes and especially I-153 just doesnt go any faster /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . In RL Brewster was able to escape in dive.

Quite poor values for plane which has the best kill-ratio in aviation history, but I have high hopes that after patch things will be different. I cannot believe that russian pilots were SO poor if they had such planes.

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 02:21 PM
S!
Yah its real, a brewster pilot just can win a fight against Rata and Chaika in hth, turning and diving = die.... /i/smilies/16x16_man-sad.gif
Kannaksen_hanu wrote:
- Also very incorrect maximum diving-speeds are
- trouble for Brewster pilots: Brewster seems to have
- the lowest diving-speeds in this game. These results
- are approximate values from online tests:
-
- I-153 670km/h
- I-16 740km/h
- B-239 650km/h
-
- Brester rips to pieces or blows up in this speed,
- when open cockpit -planes and especially I-153 just
- doesnt go any faster /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . In RL Brewster was able to
- escape in dive.
-
- Quite poor values for plane which has the best
- kill-ratio in aviation history, but I have high
- hopes that after patch things will be different. I
- cannot believe that russian pilots were SO poor if
- they had such planes.
-
-



-------------------------------------
Luftwaffe Brasil
Força e Honra!

]http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/newbo.gif (http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/newbo.gif[/img)

LBR=Hartmann in HL

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 02:28 PM
Flydutch wrote:
they on the other hand all have the
- type 24 20mm cannons that in history was only used
- for 17x I-16's!
-
-

Now this is intresting! Can you tell the refence for this info?

BTW: You can easilly tune their amounts down in DGen by editing those *.DB -files in DGen -directory. Just lower its value under [planes] -section.

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 03:42 PM
I don't have a big problem in a turnfight flying the Brewster against the I16.
Just my two-
S!
Chris



http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 06:34 PM
not to mention that the Brewster is a flying torch! lol
it dosnt take much to light one of those babies on fire.
i'm not knocking the DM, i just think that it's an easy aircraft to destroy. to be truthfull i have no knowlage of how much damage a b-239 could with stand in combat.

<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="LIGHT BLUE">~My at last i'm in compliance, Umm well Sorta Sig~
<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1053396877.jpg
<CENTER>Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<CENTER> <FONT COLOR="RED">

Bearcat99 said: "I sure hope a lot of us have to eat fun and suck enjoyment when this patch comes out because the way some are acting is hilarious.."


&lt;script>var avatar='http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1053887377.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=avatar</script>
&lt;script>a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor="#000000";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundPosition="center center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat"</script>

&lt;script>color="#000000";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=color;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 07:30 PM
chris455 wrote:
- I don't have a big problem in a turnfight flying the
- Brewster against the I16.
- Just my two-
- S!
- Chris
-

S!

Obviously you dont fly Brewster much, OR fly against opponents with same skill level because then I-16 has the edge practically on everything but ease of flight. First of all you shouldnt turn with I-16, but energy fight it as it was historically done. But thats not possible because of excessive energy bleeding COMPARED to I-16, neither diving away because of pitiful dive-performance again COMPARED to its main opponents I-16 and I-153. Maximum allowed dive speed in Finnish manuals was 620km/h (IAS) so Brewster breaking up in 650-670 sounds ok to me, but 750 for I-16 and 670 for I-153 are ridiculous.

What I'm saying is Brewster's values are quite ok, maybe even energy-bleed, but the problem is that its adversories are way too good and dont suffer from air resistance as much as BW. And when stalls arent as vicious in FB as they were in IL you dont have to keep as much "safe-marginal" when fighting in I-16 thus giving even more edge for I-16. Also I-16's and I-153's dont burn so easilly as I've read; ~75% of my kills are pilot kills, when in EVERY story I've read says "after my burst it started smoking and went down in flames".

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:43 PM
Hope this will be fixed in the patch togther with the killer AAA !

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:12 AM
As for energy bleed, we must realize that I~153, I~16, and Brewster all used basically the same USA Wright Cyclone engine, while Brewster was a *much* heavier aircraft.

The first two have the highest p/w of any aircraft in THE GAME, the Brewster one of the worst. There is a reason Polikarpov wrapped so little airframe around so much engine.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 10:49 AM
The figures shown by Kannaksen_hanu, clearly show us that the Polikarpov fighter is a litel to good /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:47 PM
I think the flight perfomance of Brewster is about right.. but couple of things, like I-16 taking a huge amount of 50cal fire before it is in flames is a joke.. and diving speed for them are too high..

<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez2.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:40 PM
I do hate not being able to dive away from an I-16 in a Buffalo, that's annoying. However, I've had great success against I-16s with energy tactics. You just need a little more energy than you think you do.

Both a Hurricane and a Buffalo have adequate firepower for handling the I-16, but very few planes can be killed by filling the tail section with .303 rounds. Get a little deflection and a Hurri can set a Rata on fire. A Buffalo just throws in a few cannon shells and pieces come off of the I-16.

Everyone thinks the I-16 should suck. It doesn't. Not completely. It has some advantages that an expert pilot can use. In the hands of a rookie, it's a mediocre plane, and put that rookie up against a Battle of Britain [1] veteran (in either a Hurri or 109) and he's toast.

But the Buffalo was no great shakes either. I suspect both planes need a little FM tweaking to properly balance. Maybe the I-16 climbs too fast, or dives too well compared to the Buffalo (among others). It'll get fixed.

And it should get fixed. Ratas are way to frelling dangerous right now.

Until then, I'll just consider the Axis '41-'42 campaigns to be the 'hard' settings. The Finns need me anyway :-)

[1] Or in my case, a Chuck Yeager Air Combat veteran - if you'll forgive the pun.

Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1993-1951.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:51 PM
Kanaksen,
I agree with everything you said.
I fly the Brewster against I-16 AI set on ace.
And i don't have a big problem shooting them down. I turn fight against the Rata.
You are mostly correct in your asessments. I-16, I-153 way overmodelled in the sim-
S!
Chris



http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:05 PM
I-16 and I-153 are very well modeled in the game. Except, may be, I-16 climb.
Also, early I-16 (with old M-25 engine) were very instable in turns and very hard to pilot due to planes being "tail heavy", but this problem was solved with installation of more powerful and slightly heavier M-63 engine. Pilots flying I-16 and I-153 in New Zealand provided Oleg with the data on those.
With %90 of the downed pilots never seeing hi attacker - it is mostly tactics which makes the difference. When forced in dogfighting vs. I-16 on a Brewster I usually stick with BnZ and high/low Yo-Yo - this will get me I-16 AI aces every time..

By the way - Finnish Brewsters didn't have any protection for the fuel tanks, but I belive Finns installed armor protection for pilot.
I-16 had both, armor from early on (from SCW).

Here guys, I have compiled a little bit of info for you.
Information been verified from different sources to the best of my ability (it is hard - often different sources show different data)..
I have some more data for early aircrafts in this format, if anyone is interested.

====================================

Finnish Brewster F2-A1 (Model 239)

Length: 8.05 m.
Wingspan: 10.67 m.
Wing Area: 19.40 sq m.
Wingload: 117.84 kg/sq. m.

Weights:
Empty: 1770 kg.
Gross: 2286 kg.
Max. take-off: 2640 kg.

Engine: Wright R-1820-G5 Cyclone 9-cylinder radial engine
Power: 950 hp.
Powerload: 2.40 kg/hp.

Top. Speed: 434 km/h @ SL
Top. Speed: 498 km/h @ 5490 m.

Initial Climb: 933 m/min.

Service Ceiling: 10,065 m.

Max.Range: 2,470 km.

Armament:
Two wing mounted 12.7mm (.50 caliber) machine guns
One 7.62mm (.30 caliber) and one 12.7mm (.50 caliber) fuselage mounted machine guns

========================================

Brewster Buffalo F2A-2 (Model 339)

Length: 8.00 m.
Wingspan: 10.67 m.
Wing Area: 19.40 sq m.
Wingload: 138.91 kg/sq. m.

Weights:
Empty: 2075 kg.
Gross: 2695 kg.
Max.Take-off: 3125 kg.

Engine: Pratt & Whitney R-1820-40 (G-205A) Cyclone 9-cylinder radial engine
Power: 1,200 hp.
Powerload: 2.246 kg/hp.

Top. Speed: 456 km/h @ SL
Top. Speed: 483 km/h @ 5030 m.
Top. Speed: 550 km/h @ 8083 m.

Initial Climb: 763 m/min.

Service Ceiling: 10,370 m.

Max. Range: 2560 km (1600 miles)

Armament:
Two wing mounted 12.7mm (.50 caliber)) Machine guns*
Two fuselage mounted 12.7mm (.50 caliber) Machine guns*
*Some models fitted with (.30 caliber) or 0.303 machine guns

****************************************

I-16 Type 24

Weight:
Empty: 1,383 kg.
Take-off: 1,882 kg.

Length: 6.13 m.
Wingspan: 9.00 m.
Wing area: 15.54 Sq. M.
Wingload: 121.10 kg/sq. m.

Engine: M-63.
Power: 900 hp.
Powerload: 2.09 kg/hp.

Max. Speed: 410 km/h @ SL
Max. Speed: 462 km/h @ 6,360 m.

Turn time at 1,000m: 17-18 sec.

Climb to 5,000m: 6 min.

Service ceiling: 9,700 m.

Range: 440 km.

Armament:
2x7.62mm MG (ShKAS).
2x20mm cannon (ShVAK)

Two 100 kg bombs.




AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 06/19/03â 12:06PM by Bogun

Message Edited on 06/19/0312:17PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 10:15 PM
Bogun::
---With %90 of the downed pilots never seeing his attacker,
---it is mostly tactics which makes the difference.

Yes! I remember that pilot who preferred the I~16 to the Hurricane.

---> http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm


USA was very conservative in fighter design in the 1930s, and the Brewster suffered for it. But not engines. USA engines were the best. Of course, the I~16 used them. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brewster/I~16 -- basically same (USA) engine, I~16 half the weight (well almost) . I am not surprised the I~16 could out accelerate a Brewster in a dive, at least for a while. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 12:06 AM
Kanuksun that info came from the Osprey book on Soviet Ace's My example is a Dutch version that was published by Del Prado

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:44 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Bogun::
----With %90 of the downed pilots never seeing his attacker,
----it is mostly tactics which makes the difference.
-
- Yes! I remember that pilot who preferred the I~16 to
- the Hurricane.
-
----> http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm
-
-
- USA was very conservative in fighter design in the
- 1930s, and the Brewster suffered for it. But not
- engines. USA engines were the best. Of course, the
- I~16 used them. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Brewster/I~16 -- basically same (USA) engine, I~16
- half the weight (well almost) . I am not surprised
- the I~16 could out accelerate a Brewster in a dive,
- at least for a while.

You are right - Russian M63 engine was farther development of American R-1820. In Spain there was a case of Republicans even using real US illegally smuggled to Spain to power I-16. That was high altitude version R-1820-F54 (not sure).
That was a nasty surprise for German Legion Condor pilots used to be flying higher then opponents - in one flight four out of eight bounced Messerschmitt planes were shot down.
Same engine (M63) power I-153 and Li-2.

AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:44 AM
You're wrong in quite many counts. I recommend:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zwinu

Brewster has _almost_ identical wing loading to I-16. I-16 has about 40% higher drag coefficient. Read that thread and look at the Theo's numbers for reference. B-239 turn almost identically with I-16 and is clearly superior to Hurricane with margin. Current B-239 turns about 22 seconds in the sim. It should be 4-5 seconds faster. The manual http://www.hut.fi/~ssipila/brewster/brewster-353.pdf
gives terminal velocity of 450 knots (>800 km/h) nowhere near 650 km/h.

Anybody claiming that an open cockpit aircraft went over 400 km/h with ease should take a reference ride on a cabrio on the autobahn doing 250 km/h. It is not very good for the coiffeur.

Mass works for Brewster in the dives. It is nevertheless not as meaningfull as the considerably lower drag coefficient of Brewster.

With these figures I-16 type 24 takes about 20.2 seconds from 250 km/h to 350 km/h on SL. Brewster needs 18.7 seconds.

After 350 km/h I-16 acceleration gets _very_ slow.

Brewster was known historically as a very tough aircraft that could take quite a lot of damage.

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];}</script>
&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/ratcat.jpg'</script>

<CENTER>http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/sigu.jpg </CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 11:47 AM
everything from climb rates to damage model are wrong on the rata as for the b239 the fm is almost identical to the real thing they had a b239 pilot fly the brewster and got it to fly like the real thing another thing is the weakness of the 50s

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter


&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];}</script>
&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/Leadsk1.gif'</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:19 PM
Hi Ugly_Kid,

I don't think Theo's numbers Cd0: 0.0265 are correct for Brewster. And this is a root of the errors in his calculations - it makes Brewster more aerodynamically efficient then Bf109. He should probably look at the source of his data and do cross-reference with other sources. Brewster's wingspan was 1.67 m larger then I-16 - it should have created more drag, plus fuselage as aerodynamically inefficient as I-16's fuselage.

From here probably - the wrong climb rate he calculated:
Theo - 16.2 m/s
Real life - 15.5 m/s (most optimistic Finnish data)

He is probably wrong about Cd0 of I-16 too. Also, I-16 was known to "walk after the throttle" - instantaneously accelerate - all Russian veteran pilots in their memoirs talk about that.

In the game climb for I-16 is definitely wrong, but it is wrong for all the planes (i.e. Fw109A-8, %100 fuel, %100 ammo - 5minutes to 5000m).

I guess we would need to wait for the patch.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:39 PM
Bogun wrote:
- Hi Ugly_Kid,
-
- I don't think Theo's numbers Cd0: 0.0265 are correct
- for Brewster. And this is a root of the errors in
- his calculations - it makes Brewster more
- aerodynamically efficient then Bf109.


You don't think? Well 1000 HP on SL and 428 km/h, with reasonable prop efficiency of 0.7 you get exactly there. I would estimate even lower CD0=0.0245. Bf CD0 (depends on model) is around 0.022. It doesn't change the fact about wing loading and turning performance.

He should
- probably look at the source of his data and do
- cross-reference with other sources. Brewster's
- wingspan was 1.67 m larger then I-16 - it should
- have created more drag, plus fuselage as
- aerodynamically inefficient as I-16's fuselage.
-

For your information P-47 has even more wingspan and even lower drag coeff. Please don't try to produce new theories here. Theo's AFAIK an aircraft engineer, so am I, your sentence tells me you're not. The wingarea is included in the drag force calculation because CD0 is dimensionless. It is the relationship between the wing area not span that makes it interesting (BW has only 25% larger wing) The drag _force_ in itself is then higher for a larger wing, so is the lift as well.

- From here probably - the wrong climb rate he
- calculated:
- Theo - 16.2 m/s
- Real life - 15.5 m/s (most optimistic Finnish data)
-
- He is probably wrong about Cd0 of I-16 too. Also,
- I-16 was known to "walk after the throttle" -
- instantaneously accelerate - all Russian veteran
- pilots in their memoirs talk about that.
-

Is there a figure for "walk after the throttle"? - he used 950 HP instead of 900 HP, I think, thus the drag coefficient would be a little bit lower. I myself come to about 0.0311, it's worse than BW and stays worse than BW. It is just as bad as Hurricane (or even worse).
If you relate that to wingarea you will have 0.48 m^2 for I-16 and 0.47 m^2 for Brewster.

Further I-16 has 0.478 HP/kg and BW 0.414 HP/kg - in the end the level flight acceleration at low speed is about identical, depending, I-16 may have an advantage. After 350 km/h or so it comes to a standstill compared with BW. Even at a slight dive it is no match.

The calculations are not even important they just confirm the curves that I gave for F2A-3, these are true data. Even at 13000 ft F2A-3 manages 20 s, in 1000 m if will be below 20 s and Finnish BW will be even below that. That's what matters. Current sustained turn is a joke, it makes a good competition in FW class. BW is turning tight only in a downward spiral.

In RL I-16 was marginally better in turning and inferior in diving. I-16 had also problems with its handling and stability (duly removed in FB) - which made taking out that performance somewhat more complicated than in BW. Both of these two were superior to Hurricane in all counts, except at high alt.

I can easily make a short work out of BW with I-16, vice versa I fall a victim before I can say so long sostakovich.

Sorry about my annoyed tone, nothing personal, I just don't feel comfortable with this forum anymore /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif and rather avoid posting. BW is my personal little disappointment and I get somewhat carried away by guys letting out the "it really feels right" - comments, without thinking too much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

- I guess we would need to wait for the patch.

indeed...

Leadspitter, I don't know who started this stuff about a vet _verifying_ BW flight model. AFAIK one vet shortly tested one FB beta. Maybe Flanker will step in and fill in the blanks, cause he was there. I haven't heard anything about his comments and certainly no appraisals for current model. I-16 and the others are also allegedly tested by real pilots, some NZ guys - so everything is just as right as always /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You guys disagree? Then put up some facts, because "feel" and "hearsay" has little meaning /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ZG77_Nagual
06-20-2003, 07:55 PM
Nice posts you guys - Ugly Kid - really very good - as you mentioned the tone is a bit edgy - but I personally enjoy well-informed posts.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 08:09 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- Nice posts you guys - Ugly Kid - really very good -
- as you mentioned the tone is a bit edgy - but I
- personally enjoy well-informed posts.
-
Yes thx, once more I am sorry about that, at the moment I can't help it so I try not to take part /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 08:43 PM
Ugly_Kid,
I respect your and Theo's opinion and expertise very much.
Just because I am NOT an aircraft engineer, as you noticed/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif and you are.
I don't even know the formula Cd0 is calculated by.

It just looked strange to me that the plane as aerodynamically inefficient as Brewster and have drag coefficient so much lower, that's it.

When people like you or Theo talk - I generally listen, but it didn't make me stop doing little primitive calculations of my own - so reading Theo talking about Brewster doing 360 degree sustained turn in 14.574 seconds I got naturally suspicious.
It is better then Zero! Hell, this is better then I-153.

You calculated powerload for I-16 and Brewster 0.478 HP/kg and BW 0.414 HP/kg respectively. It is full % 15 advantage for I-16. I would imagine it should have major impact on performance, at list some impact.

Also, max speed of I-16 type 24 was 462 km/h @ 6,360 m, not 350 km/h and pilot's were talking getting to 500 km/h in a slight dive routinely and "easy".

Anyway, please forgive me if I somehow offended you.



AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:07 PM
i need 6min to 5000m with a8 with 1,65ata

a4 4000kg 1580ps 2,53kg/ps 1780ps can she only 1min use

a8 4250kg 2050ps 2,07kg/ps

a8 should much better climb as a4

a4 need 6,8min to 5000m

but a8 has too "erhöhte notleistung" a4 not

less as 6min should possible

ok not belong to this threat



Bogun wrote:
- In the game climb for I-16 is definitely wrong, but
- it is wrong for all the planes (i.e. Fw109A-8, %100
- fuel, %100 ammo - 5minutes to 5000m).
-
- I guess we would need to wait for the patch.
-

- The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction
- has to make sense.
-
-- Tom Clancy
-
----------------
- Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into
- Paris."
- Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore
- grey, you wore blue."
- Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the
- Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."
-
-- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 06/20/0311:25PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:14 PM
---You calculated powerload for I-16 and Brewster 0.478
---HP/kg and BW 0.414 HP/kg respectively.

lol I caught that too. Like, wozop with that? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Without stating method, our "engineer" used 1000hp WEP for the FB Brewster, and the stock 900hp for the I~16~24. Max take~off weights for both.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:11 PM
Bogun wrote:
- It just looked strange to me that the plane as
- aerodynamically inefficient as Brewster and have
- drag coefficient so much lower, that's it.
-
Brewster wasn't inefficient (hell even P-47 wasn't inefficient, it just looks that way) but you might get a better parameter for comparison if you multiply CD0 with wing area.

- When people like you or Theo talk - I generally
- listen, but it didn't make me stop doing little
- primitive calculations of my own - so reading Theo
- talking about Brewster doing 360 degree sustained
- turn in 14.574 seconds I got naturally suspicious.
- It is better then Zero! Hell, this is better then
- I-153.
-

Yes 14 s is way too fast and it would be 13.7 s for I-16 but it puts one into picture about the relativity. Don't take the figures with face value. Just as he stated it would need more looking into but what's the point?

- You calculated powerload for I-16 and Brewster 0.478
- HP/kg and BW 0.414 HP/kg respectively. It is full %
- 15 advantage for I-16. I would imagine it should
- have major impact on performance, at list some
- impact.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The drag area would again work into another direction but yes I-16 has the advantage but it's still marginal and it's the one for level flight. In a dive the marginally heavier wingload shifts the balance.

That's a problem with a prop plane. Too many people get stuck to the absolute HP over weight. A prop plane thrust is defined as T=nyy*P/V, where T is thrust nyy is prop efficiency and P power, V is the airspeed where you calculate the thrust. You will very quickly see that an aircraft flying 25% slowlier has the same thrust as one with 25% more power. For this reason a light wingload is advantegous it allows slower speeds before stall. In case of I-16 and BW the wingloading quite the same, thus I-16 has a better THRUST to weight as well. However, comparing with Hurricane, Brewster manages to fly slowlier and thus compensates the absolute horsepower advantage of hurricane still in the terms of thrust.


-
- Also, max speed of I-16 type 24 was 462 km/h @ 6,360
- m, not 350 km/h and pilot's were talking getting to
- 500 km/h in a slight dive routinely and "easy".
-
- Anyway, please forgive me if I somehow offended you.
-

Object viewer says 410 km/h and it also says 900 HP, for Brewster it says 428 km/h and 1000 HP. I think it's somewhat justified to use these figures to make rudimentary checks, it's a sufficient basis for discussion. If this data is not correct then be it, who says what's in the game?

I think the main issue stands, Brewster is marginally inferior to I-16 on level flight starting to gain upper hand at higher speed. It is superior in terms of dive and zoomclimb. (if zoomclimb is really a term to use in connection with these two). Both I-16 and Brewster are superior to Hurricane Mk II on all accounts, Hurricane gaining advantage only at high alt thx to Merlin. I think this view is confirmed by veterans of both sides. IRC it was even a valid Fokker tactic to dive away from I-16.

I think I-16 seems to be quite acceptable in dive in FB. It is perhaps too fast in the terminal velocity. BW on the other hand is too slow and the terminal velocity lacks some 150-200 km/h. Hurricane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif - well I guess everybody knows by now.

No, I am not offended by you or anybody particular, I am just annoyed by general nitpicking and negative atmosphere. I am sorry that I am short of patience to explain some of these things, it's mostly not worth the effort because you will just end up going deeper and deeper, somebody still tries to find a hole and begs for an explanation.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:25 AM
Ugly_Kid,
I agree with every word you said above (and they collaborate with everything I have ever read from the memoirs of US, Finnish and Russian pilots) about flight characteristics of the planes in question in real life and in the game. Climb, dive speed etc. It is when someone starts "re-engineering" the FM to better suit his view of FM or DM (like many Fw lovers do here on the forum) - that's what gets me ticking. For the moment I thought that here we were witnessing an attempt to make BW turn better then I-16.

I just though, that having %15 advantage in HP/Weight ratio is equal, let say comparing Brewster we have in the game (with 1000HP engine) to identical Brewster (weight, drag, everything) except having 1150HP engine. But I never clamed that I am right, this was just what I thought.

Also, about CdO of P-47, I know and it been commented here on the forum including by Oleg - how efficient P-47 was. Nobody ever said anything like that about Brewster.
I also been reading a lot about the struggle during the development of La-5, La-7 lines to bring the speed of those planes up to the required level just by elimination of aerodynamic imperfections (incorrectly installed engine cowling, optimizing airflow in the engine compartment, etc.) Wings, fuselages, engines of those planes were identical, it was some minute (from my point of view) changes made major difference.

Agree - there are mistakes in the Object Viewer (like I-16 speed, etc.) but at list we know the rules of the game and have some base for the calculations for people knowledgeable in the matters discussed.

Please, be patient with the rest of us, the dilettantes /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif , how else are we going to learn if people like you would not explain?

By the way, thank you very much for the explanation of how thrust is calculated.
Were can I see more, to get me through the basics?

P.S. By the way, I am an engineer-metallurgist by education and I often laugh hard when some "experts" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif here talk about tank armor.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942


Message Edited on 06/20/0307:42PM by Bogun

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 09:42 AM
Bogun wrote:
-For the moment I thought that here we were
- witnessing an attempt to make BW turn better then
- I-16.
-
I hope not, I am also not immune to seeing the sides but I try to lie to myself that numbers don't have opinion /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- I just though, that having %15 advantage in
- HP/Weight ratio is equal, let say comparing Brewster
- we have in the game (with 1000HP engine) to
- identical Brewster (weight, drag, everything) except
- having 1150HP engine. But I never clamed that I am
- right, this was just what I thought.
-

Unfortunately, it's not that straight forward. If we were discussing jets it would be but a prop plane's thrust decreases linearly with the velocity. On the other hand drag increases in power of two with velocity. This is why you can't see the linear relationship drag-power, you have to look at a crossing of two curves. That is to say 15% increase in power does not mean 15% increase in top speed /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif - it's sometimes obvious if you look at the mumbo horsepower of latewar fighters but still minute gain in some parameters. Yak-3 for example does a whole lot better with a moderate power.

- Also, about CdO of P-47, I know and it been
- commented here on the forum including by Oleg - how
- efficient P-47 was. Nobody ever said anything
- like that about Brewster.

No, I just wanted to point out that P-47 hardly looks that streamlined, there is more than meets the eye /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- Agree - there are mistakes in the Object Viewer
- (like I-16 speed, etc.) but at list we know the
- rules of the game and have some base for the
- calculations for people knowledgeable in the matters
- discussed.
-
I think it provides a good common ground I hope they will fix it and make it really consistent with game's data. It would really sort some things out. I, however, think that top speed information has been always some what consistent with sim. 410 km/h was for sea level, I hope you did not think I was talking about absolute max. speed? SL is a good place for comparison because lots of parameters are easy to define, for example engine power does not need too much iterations, same for the air density etc.

- By the way, thank you very much for the explanation
- of how thrust is calculated.
- Were can I see more, to get me through the basics?
-
That's difficult to answer I suppose you'd like to have something like an overview. I think books for preliminary design of aircraft would do good but they make heavy reading.

- P.S. By the way, I am an engineer-metallurgist by
- education and I often laugh hard when some "experts"
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif here talk about tank armor.
-

I might belong to that category /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif , having served in the armoured infantry makes me want to assume I'd know something. Hope I haven't made a complete a$$ out of myself in those discussions.

Besides, I have the feeling that you have more statistical/historical knowledge of these particular aircraft (WW II era) and the actual figures. I try to get to know couple of them properly.



Message Edited on 06/21/0312:08PM by Ugly_Kid