PDA

View Full Version : ? Ki and P-51 in RC01...Oleg? Anybody?



XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 10:47 PM
A bud and I was testing the speeds for the Ki and P-51. I was at 6000 meters in level flight in the P-51, he was at roughly 4000 meters level flight. The Ki climbed easily to me starting at 2km away, leveled off and caught me quickly.
The Ki had a top speed of about 360mph and a ceiling of 36,747 ft climbed at 3,250 ft/min. While the P-51 had a top speed of 437mph and a ceiling of 41,900 ft and a climb of 3,475 ft/min. So why is this? Wasnt so in the 1.2beta but is so in RC1. I know the Ki was a good plane but come on is this accurate? Any thoughts? Think it will remain in the final release?
This thread is a question not a whine so please no flame wars.
S~

http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 10:47 PM
A bud and I was testing the speeds for the Ki and P-51. I was at 6000 meters in level flight in the P-51, he was at roughly 4000 meters level flight. The Ki climbed easily to me starting at 2km away, leveled off and caught me quickly.
The Ki had a top speed of about 360mph and a ceiling of 36,747 ft climbed at 3,250 ft/min. While the P-51 had a top speed of 437mph and a ceiling of 41,900 ft and a climb of 3,475 ft/min. So why is this? Wasnt so in the 1.2beta but is so in RC1. I know the Ki was a good plane but come on is this accurate? Any thoughts? Think it will remain in the final release?
This thread is a question not a whine so please no flame wars.
S~

http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
11-08-2003, 10:56 PM
The ki84 is , generally, faster than the mustang. where you gain in the mustang is in shallow dives or zoom climbs. Putz along level and mid to low alts and your lunch.

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

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 11:21 PM
"The ki84 is , generally, faster than the mustang."


No, that's not true.

The Ki-84 has two main advantages: a low wingload and an excellent ratio weight/power, but in level flight it should not be faster than the Mustang.

But it is a king in climbing and acceleration, no doubts about it!

A very good resume here:

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ki84performanceaj_2.htm


Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 11:40 PM
Could be the cause of not having RC_02 also.

Cheers,
CD



I am the other Crop Duster, lol.

<center>http://www.il2airracing.com/images/IL2AirRacing.gif (http://www.il2airracing.com/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 11:44 PM
Well I felt 1.2 was more accuate then RC but maybe the final will prove to be different. The Ki should not be able to climb from 4000 meters and a catch a P-51 flying at 6000meters in level flight with 110% power. But it does..oh well I wait for the final release and see what its like then.
S~

http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
11-08-2003, 11:55 PM
I stand corrected!
However - these kinds of comparisons and stuff are hard to quantify. Have to wait for the whole rig before we really know.

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

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 12:00 AM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- I stand corrected!
- However - these kinds of comparisons and stuff are
- hard to quantify. Have to wait for the whole rig
- before we really know.

rgrt I just wanted it noted before the final. But your right its hard to tell right now.
S~


http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 12:16 AM
Noone has the full RC, only Part 1 of a 2-part "patch."

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 03:06 AM
It's one thing to claim, another to actually do.

With no disrespect, I really can't believe any of the conditions described.

Either you misjudged the E state, or alt of the Ki-84, or FB Ki-84 is overmodelled. And I really don't think it's the third explanation, especially when the FB P-51D is 60km/h faster than it should be at that altitudes. That would make the Ki-84 something like 100km/h faster than it should be.

Another reason might be, that you could have forgotten to switch the superchargers to the second stage.

-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:10 AM
ahem surprise the KI84 Hayate was one of the best Japanese planes ever.It could outrun and outclimb a Mustang.I'd say please read up on facts before coming and posting oh my Mustang got caught by a KI84 thingy.The KI84 was a very fast plane faster by 5 mph than a Mustang.

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

http://members.fortunecity.com/stg77/webpagegraphics/ju87c.jpg


JU87B2 of II/St.G77 , Smolensk July 1941

Stukageschwader77 soon divebombing an airbase near you.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 05:03 AM
Some are saying it was faster, some are saying it was slower.

Is everybody talking about the same plane here? If so, we need to clear the air a bit. Perhaps each side could present their documents (oh, here we go again, right? lol). Seems that some post war testing with better fuel produced amazing results. I wonder if that is the source of the confusion/conflict.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 05:35 AM
CHDT wrote:
- "The ki84 is , generally, faster than the mustang."
-
-
- No, that's not true.
-
- The Ki-84 has two main advantages: a low wingload
- and an excellent ratio weight/power, but in level
- flight it should not be faster than the Mustang.
-
- But it is a king in climbing and acceleration, no
- doubts about it!
-
- A very good resume here:
-
- <a
- href="http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ki84perfo
- rmanceaj_2.htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/k
- i84performanceaj_2.htm</a>
-
-
-
- Cheers,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

Yes, CHDT, what you posted is true. That is the reported data of Hayate even from Japs themselves. In the first flight test, they got the speed of 624km/h.
BUT, after war, American tested their captured Hayate, with their high octane fuel (at least 100 I think). At mid-altitude, about 6100m, the beast got 689km/h! Just slower than P51H and P47N.
My resouce shows that case: (it's in Chinese and I just translated them. i hope you can find the same resource in English.)
In 1946, US tested a captured Hayate in an airbase in Pennsylvania, and did the comparison with P51D Mustang and P47 Thunderbolt. Hayate reached 688km/h at 20000ft, faster than pony by 3.3km/h and than t-bolt by 35km/h.

So, to be a conclusion. The performance difference is from the fuel. Hayate in US is much faster than in Japan.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 06:02 AM
I think that your efforts at pointing out an overmodeled aircraft would be beter spent on the Zero...It is so far from reality in 1.2b that I am about to eliminate it from any server that I run.

It is truely incorrect.

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 06:21 AM
I posted to this BBS before about 4 mounths why Ki84's max speed was 624km/h in japan, and 689km/h in USA.

I post again.
--------------------------------------------------------------

TAIC report is right in Ki84's performance data.
But, this is famouse, Ki84's performance data in Japan is differs from TAIC report.
it's reason that, Ki84's performance data in Japan was maken by increase experimental model.
Increase experimental model have "Ha45-11" engine.
"Ha45-11" engine is 1800HP engine, it is not 2000HP.
But, TAIC had Mass-produced type.
Mass-produced type have "Ha45-21" Engien.
It is 2000HP engine.

But, "Ha45-21" Engien had limiter.
Limiter is 1800HP.
I think, TAIC released limiter from "Ha45-21"

Ki84-Ib scored 660km/h(Private score).
Because, IJA released limiter in part plane.

As mentioned above, it is by reference.
Sorry poor english.
------------------------------------------------------------

I could get Ki84's Operation manualB
It was written by this manual that Ki84 engine's max boost was 400mmHg.
But,H45-21 max boost was 500mmHg.

I think may be, many Ki84s coulnd not get 689km/h to@period war in Japan.

i already sent Ki84's Operation manual'data to Oleg.



P-kun
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
My friend question.
"If you fight to P51 by 1 vs 1, what air plane will you select?"

Ace said.
"I will select Ki43 model 3 than Ki84, I never lose!"

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 06:44 AM
StG77_Sturm wrote:
- ahem surprise the KI84 Hayate was one of the best
- Japanese planes ever.It could outrun and outclimb a
- Mustang.I'd say please read up on facts before
- coming and posting oh my Mustang got caught by a
- KI84 thingy.The KI84 was a very fast plane faster by
- 5 mph than a Mustang.
-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahem...Wrong P-51D topspeed 437, KI-84 topspeed 388...I sure would like to see where you got the KI84 was 5mph faster. (And where the deck? I wasnt talking about the deck.)

http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 06:48 AM
And if you data is from US source for captured KI84 then Im sure you know that we used a much better grade of fuel then that was available to Japan. And yes it made a big difference in performance.
S~

http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 09:33 AM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- And if you data is from US source for captured KI84
- then Im sure you know that we used a much better
- grade of fuel then that was available to Japan. And
- yes it made a big difference in performance.
- S~
-

And I'm sure you know that things like manufacturing defects and poor fuel quality are not modelled in FB.


--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 09:44 AM
To original poster:

That would be strange if that happened, but there are CEM factors that may have contributed. Was the supercharger switched over? Was fuel mixture proper? Was radiator fully opened (if so this will lower top speed considerably). Even the Mustang is slow if the engine isn't managed properly. I may be wrong though, just a thought.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 11:03 AM
Atm, the P-51 is rather heavily overmodeled in FB anyway, it can outturn the AI (!!!) Ki-84 on ace, it dives with the best of them, climbs faster or just as fast as the Bf-109K-4 and as I experienced it faster than the FW-190D-9. It's also much faster than in actual WWII test results.

And ofcourse this is how it will be with all new planes, as Oleg is taking the best known peformance data of all US and German planes and only mediocre performance data for Russian planes. And there are still a LOT of US planes coming and only a few Jerry ones! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>
---------------------------------------
Fokker G.I
http://www.defensie.nl:30280/home/pictures/7370.jpg
http://www.uvika.dn.ua/av/PLANE/HOLLAND/FOKKER_G-1/Fokker_G-1b_03a-n.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 12:26 PM
Red_Storm wrote:
- Atm, the P-51 is rather heavily overmodeled in FB
- anyway, it can outturn the AI (!!!) Ki-84 on ace, it
- dives with the best of them, climbs faster or just
- as fast as the Bf-109K-4 and as I experienced it
- faster than the FW-190D-9. It's also much faster
- than in actual WWII test results.

I can agree that the P-51 turns a little too well, it was only marginaly better than the Fw 190's, and pretty much equal to the D-9. It's dive is very well modelled, it should be able to outdive everything exept the P-47. It climb very well especially at high altitudes. I havent done any testings yet, but it was supposed to climb well at higher altitudes. I haven't tested speed yet either but it seems fast, and it should be./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 03:00 PM
robban75 wrote:
-
- Red_Storm wrote:
-- Atm, the P-51 is rather heavily overmodeled in FB
-- anyway, it can outturn the AI (!!!) Ki-84 on ace, it
-- dives with the best of them, climbs faster or just
-- as fast as the Bf-109K-4 and as I experienced it
-- faster than the FW-190D-9. It's also much faster
-- than in actual WWII test results.
-
- I can agree that the P-51 turns a little too well,
- it was only marginaly better than the Fw 190's, and
- pretty much equal to the D-9. It's dive is very well
- modelled, it should be able to outdive everything
- exept the P-47. It climb very well especially at
- high altitudes. I havent done any testings yet, but
- it was supposed to climb well at higher altitudes. I
- haven't tested speed yet either but it seems fast,
- and it should be.


Indeed P-51D turns too well.

In british tests P-51B turns somewhat poorer than Fw-190A, and that was the best turning Mustang. 51D being heavier should turn the same with Fw-190A8 (23 sec), 51B the same with Fw-190A4 and 190D9 (22 sec). Now 51D outturns Dora.

It also has 200-300fpm more in climb. But not as much as P-47 was overmodelled in climb, it had 800fpm more (4000fpm instead of 3200fpm).

But what really bugs me is the absolutelly benign flight characteristics for such a high wing loaded plane: no spins, no snap stalls, plenty of buffeting before stall, which Mustang notoriously didn't have. Practically it is the most forgiving aircraft now, much easier to fly that russian planes. The feel like the light japanese planes, which is completely incorrect.

Also the guns are way too strong. I cut the Dora's wings with just 2-3 rounds, if I don't shoot from point blank. I mean c'mon, shouldn't be 20 times more MG hits to cut the wing?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/09/0309:03AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 03:09 PM
As far as I tested both, the Ki-84 seems very accurate @ SL with ca.533kphTAS ===> Reality 525kph.

The Stang is the a/c that's missing some speed @ SL compared to the real one./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If anyone at my Funeral has a long face, I'll never speak to him again.
Stan Laurel



EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 03:22 PM
I find that is modelled fairly well.

It may be a little too fast up high, but it's too slow down low. But otherwise turn and climb is fine. Roll is fine, too.

And the nonsense about "benign" flight characteristics can only be arrived at by someone who wants the plane castrated, or hasn't flown it. I find it very sensitive in the longitudnal, not so much in the lateral. Just like it's supposed to be.

It should be able to outturn, outclimb and out dive A-8 by a good margin.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 03:36 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- A bud and I was testing the speeds for the Ki and
- P-51. I was at 6000 meters in level flight in the
- P-51, he was at roughly 4000 meters level flight.
- The Ki climbed easily to me starting at 2km away,
- leveled off and caught me quickly.
- The Ki had a top speed of about 360mph and a ceiling
- of 36,747 ft climbed at 3,250 ft/min. While the P-51
- had a top speed of 437mph and a ceiling of 41,900 ft
- and a climb of 3,475 ft/min. So why is this?

Whazz your source?? That isn't even 580 km/h for the Hayate.
Jap reports were 634 or so, but they had very bad constuction quality and bad fuel. THis isn't modelled in FB so it can do 690km/h, that's 430mph. Climb is a bit above 4000ft/min IIRC then. It's almost 2000PS and a 3600kg plane. It's ~the same data like I-185 which did 680km/h. Looks right to me.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:28 PM
Right now Mustang is the easiest plane to fly in the whole planeset, it rivals the light japanes planes very well. Even Zero spins nastier.

All this with fuselage tank full. If you read Mustang manual every maneuver has a special paragraph for restrictions that has to be met when flying with fuselage tank full. Obviously it could not be flown in combat with it. Right now, not only that there is no detrimental flight characteristic with tank full, but it actually flies better than all the planes.

In reality Mustang's handling was a nightmare. Pilots that flew first P-40 or even the lighter and less powerful P-51A thanked God that they did not flew a P-51D first. Due to laminar flow wing it had no buffeting before the stall, a shortcomming that threw Mustang pilots in nasty spins. Are there any nasty spins for FB Mustang. I wasn't able to reacreate one.

Mustang is now the most docile aircraft, which never was in reality. Only mediocre pilots will accept this Mustang model.


SkyChimp wrote:
- It should be able to outturn, outclimb and out dive
- A-8 by a good margin.


British tests found that P-51B turns worse than Fw-190A. P-51D turns worse than P-51B. So P-51D turns worse than Fw-190A. Is that simple Skychimp.

Is there any Mustang that had a better initial climb rate than Fw-190A8? Never heard about it. Enlighten us.

Outdive? A8 had much stronger airframe, and coulb outdive further. Mustangs often came home with popup rivets after hard pull ups from high speed dives - if they were lucky and did not lost the whole wing or controls. That did not happen in A8


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/09/0310:37AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:49 PM
think oleg will model with low quality fuel at a guess
and oil was the reason japan went to war with america btw
i find i cant get away from a zero/ki in mustang online, probably because im a bit crap /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


whineingu /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 05:52 PM
Huckels, STFU with your campaign of lies against anything US. The Ki84 is a killer and will anihilate a P-51 on even terms, you lying SOB. And the Zero is the biggest UFO around. It'll dive with a Ki84, zoom climb with almost anything and turn better than anything with a closed cockpit, and not stiffen up at high speeds. It has no weakneses. Only way to kill it is by bouncing it.

Here's another point for everyone to consider - performance is not the same for a plane on every load of the game.

Someone here did a K4 test and discovered that some numbers were mysteriously low. Others have noted that on somenights online, the planes just feel very different. There is some sort of variable at work here that affects the performance of every plane, and is independant of patch level.

The point is, if you got smacked down, don't think that it's improper modeling. Check the factors and try it again another night. See if it isn't different (and I'll bet you it is).

ZG77_Nagual
11-09-2003, 06:30 PM
I dunno about mustang vs 190 turn - I will say both the dora and KI seem more than a match for the mustang- which seems about right - the dora is actually closer in e retention and flat out speed - which both walk away from the '51 in a climb. Seems about right to me. The A series have more problems - being a bit less e efficient. Fuel modeling maybe off, I dunno - I fly the mustang at .25 - the others at .50. Dora seems better now - really a joy to fly and shoot down mustangs with /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Admittedly I've just been doing my offline 1 vs 4 ace thing - in a variety of planes - just to get a feel.

As for the zero - other than the roll at speed - and maybe holding together too long (I don't know that the reviews I've read refer to this later model - which was better in dives than the earlier one) I see no problem if you don't play by it's rules. On the mustang shedding it's wings - I seem to recall this was sort of a random structural fatigue thing - also caused by malfunctioning landing gear doors. I think it was corrected - and mustang was - at least sans any defects - able to sustain very fast dives - and recover. Since we've pretty much got a best of scenario across the board in this simm - so be it.

I was suprised to see zeros following my n1 in a 750kph dive - and rolling with me - but I was able to outturn them in a spiral and get away. They are crap e fighters - but need that fast roll and turn damped. Plus it a scratch with most anything and they fold.

That reminds me - I took up a k4 vs four mustangs the other day. They were catching me because of their superior e retention - in the vertical - a situ that normally spells doom. I broke my own mold and opted to go classical - chilling out into a slow, shallow spiral climb. Gues what! It worked!! quickly I saw the mustangs, one by one, dip a wing in a stall and have to level. After that I owned em.

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

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 07:18 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Huckels, STFU with your campaign of lies against
- anything US. The Ki84 is a killer and will anihilate
- a P-51 on even terms, you lying SOB. And the Zero is
- the biggest UFO around. It'll dive with a Ki84, zoom
- climb with almost anything and turn better than
- anything with a closed cockpit, and not stiffen up
- at high speeds. It has no weakneses. Only way to
- kill it is by bouncing it.

Uh, Private Lawndart here to report that the Zero's controls do stiffen up significantly at speed, and I've got the flaming carcass to prove it.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 09:02 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- British tests found that P-51B turns worse than
- Fw-190A. P-51D turns worse than P-51B. So P-51D
- turns worse than Fw-190A. Is that simple Skychimp.
-
- Is there any Mustang that had a better initial climb
- rate than Fw-190A8? Never heard about it. Enlighten
- us.

Post the whole test. I'd be interested in seeing it.

US tests found the Thunderbolt could out-turn the Fw-190A. And the Mustang could outturn the Thunderbolt.



- Outdive? A8 had much stronger airframe, and coulb
- outdive further.

Proof? You would be the only one around here that could possibly support that.



- Mustangs often came home with popup
- rivets after hard pull ups from high speed dives -

Yeah, in excess of 9.6 gs.



- if they were lucky and did not lost the whole wing
- or controls. That did not happen in A8

BS. The A-8 could dive well, but it had a very poor rate of pull-out. Even the Thunderbolt test proved that, if tons of anecdotal evidence did not already support it.



But lets see what a real German pilot thought:

Lt. Ossenkop, JG26
"[The Dora-9] the two aircraft were about equal in normal combat manuevers, which was an advantage for us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather faster in a dive."


Hmmm, that's one German pilot who flew both the A-8 and D-9 that states the A-8 was inferior in manueverability, and that the D-9 was only equal in most.


Face it, Huck. You want the Mustang castrated to fit your prejudiced views Your adivce it the last advice Oleg should take.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 12:01 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- British tests found that P-51B turns worse than
-- Fw-190A. P-51D turns worse than P-51B. So P-51D
-- turns worse than Fw-190A. Is that simple Skychimp.
--
-- Is there any Mustang that had a better initial climb
-- rate than Fw-190A8? Never heard about it. Enlighten
-- us.
-
- Post the whole test. I'd be interested in seeing
- it.

I'll post the report in a separate thread about Mustang handling.


- US tests found the Thunderbolt could out-turn the
- Fw-190A. And the Mustang could outturn the
- Thunderbolt.

That comparison is not a test but a comedy. The pilot that flew Fw-190A had exactly ZERO hours of flying fighters before. At least the pilot that flew P-47 had 200 hours in a P-40. The pilot that flew Fw-190 could not even turn because he could not stand the G-forces, even if the Fw-190 had the best seating among all fighters to counter the G-forces. Poor pilot was plane sick.



-- Outdive? A8 had much stronger airframe, and coulb
-- outdive further.
-
- Proof? You would be the only one around here that
- could possibly support that.

Fw-190 was dived to speeds from which Mustang could not pull up without tearing its wings off, one well known Mustang qualities.


-- Mustangs often came home with popup
-- rivets after hard pull ups from high speed dives -
-
- Yeah, in excess of 9.6 gs.
-
-
-
-- if they were lucky and did not lost the whole wing
-- or controls. That did not happen in A8
-
- BS. The A-8 could dive well, but it had a very poor
- rate of pull-out. Even the Thunderbolt test proved
- that, if tons of anecdotal evidence did not already
- support it.

Had a poor rate of pull-out? Where's the data, Skychimp? Post a test.


- But lets see what a real German pilot thought:
-
- Lt. Ossenkop, JG26
- "[The Dora-9] the two aircraft were about equal in
- normal combat manuevers, which was an advantage for
- us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather
- faster in a dive."

And this Ossenkop is who? Another newbie quoted in american books. Should I take the oppinion of every newbie that flew the plane as true? Once again post documents if you want somebody to believe you.


- Face it, Huck. You want the Mustang castrated to
- fit your prejudiced views Your adivce it the last
- advice Oleg should take.

No, I want a realistic model for Mustang. Not more not less.





<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 12:16 AM
I knew he would show..lmao. Where is the other UBER TWIN?


http://www.angelfire.com/ab4/airplanes/P47_Thunderbolt/P47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 12:48 AM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- I knew he would show..lmao. Where is the other UBER
- TWIN?


Havok, are you afraid that in the end you'll fly a correctly modelled Mustang? Scary thought isn't it?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 12:48 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- I'll post the report in a separate thread about
- Mustang handling.

Please do. And don't bother with the report of Hans Werner Lerche, who flew a P-51B that was so badly reconstructed that the best he got out of it was 670 km/h.



- That comparison is not a test but a comedy. The
- pilot that flew Fw-190A had exactly ZERO hours of
- flying fighters before. At least the pilot that flew
- P-47 had 200 hours in a P-40. The pilot that flew
- Fw-190 could not even turn because he could not
- stand the G-forces, even if the Fw-190 had the best
- seating among all fighters to counter the G-forces.
- Poor pilot was plane sick.

Of course it was Huck, because the results don't meet your prejudiced standards. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But you'll place all you faith in a Rechlin report on a beat up and reconstructed P-51B that couldn't even reach top speed.



- Fw-190 was dived to speeds from which Mustang could
- not pull up without tearing its wings off, one well
- known Mustang qualities.

Again, PROOF, Huck. You're keen on bravado, lousy at proof. Now post your proof, Huck.

And again, speed did not take off Mustang wing, high G pullouts did.



- Had a poor rate of pull-out? Where's the data,
- Skychimp? Post a test.

You've read the report.

Funny how you expect me to post "proof". Yet you either can't or won't post any of your own.



- And this Ossenkop is who? Another newbie quoted in
- american books. Should I take the oppinion of every
- newbie that flew the plane as true? Once again post
- documents if you want somebody to believe you.

Another newbie?

Lt. Karl Heinz Ossenkop, I Gruppe, JG26, was the Technical Officer of 2 Staffel. He fought with the Gruppe since before it was equipped with the A-8, though the time it flew the A-8, and then flew the D-9 until I/JG26 surrendered in Flensburg on May 5, 1945.

His evaluations are part of the book, "Focke-Wulf Fw 190 'Long Nose': And Illustrated History Of The Fw 190 D Series," by Dietmar Hermann (a German /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

But I anticipate your response: he was just full of it, huh? Just another Nazi scared for his life if he didn't please his American masters. That's how you've portrayed other Germans that give facts from experience that are contrary to your own beliefs.



- No, I want a realistic model for Mustang. Not more
- not less.

No, you want a castrated Mustang, one that flys consistently with your beliefs or desires, NOT a Mustang that flys as it historically should.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg



Message Edited on 11/10/0302:50AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 12:50 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Havok, are you afraid that in the end you'll fly a
- correctly modelled Mustang? Scary thought isn't it?


You're the one whining that your Fw's wings come off when they are hit with 2-3 bursts of machine gun fire.

You fly a tank, yet still complain.

BTW, the Bf-109 roll rate is still too high /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:28 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- I'll post the report in a separate thread about
-- Mustang handling.
-
- Please do. And don't bother with the report of Hans
- Werner Lerche, who flew a P-51B that was so badly
- reconstructed that the best he got out of it was 670
- km/h.


30km/h below the factory specs is normal for any captured fighter, most of them crashed and had repairs done in haste. 30km/h below the factory specs had the Fw-190 tested by the Navy. You quote this test very often, it didn't bother that Fw-190 could not reach it's factory performance.



-- That comparison is not a test but a comedy. The
-- pilot that flew Fw-190A had exactly ZERO hours of
-- flying fighters before. At least the pilot that flew
-- P-47 had 200 hours in a P-40. The pilot that flew
-- Fw-190 could not even turn because he could not
-- stand the G-forces, even if the Fw-190 had the best
-- seating among all fighters to counter the G-forces.
-- Poor pilot was plane sick.
-
- Of course it was Huck, because the results don't
- meet your prejudiced standards. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But you'll
- place all you faith in a Rechlin report on a beat up
- and reconstructed P-51B that couldn't even reach top
- speed.

P-51 could not reach its max speed factory specs most of the time. Without polished wings there was no laminar flow over the wings. Keep in mind that armament was serviced with a man on top of the wings, operation that leaved a lot of grease, dust or mud on the wings.

When NACA tried to find out Mustang's drag characteristics in high speed dives, they saw that the max dive speed varied very much. The reason they found was that in those flights with lower dive speed, the airplane exceded the cleaned runaway and collected some dust on wings and propeller spinner. This alone significantly affected Mustang dive speed.

Mustang could not reach max speed without polished wings, like they did in Japan, when they hired underpayed japanese to polish the wings before each flight. They did not have such "facilities" in ETO.



-- Fw-190 was dived to speeds from which Mustang could
-- not pull up without tearing its wings off, one well
-- known Mustang qualities.
-
- Again, PROOF, Huck. You're keen on bravado, lousy
- at proof. Now post your proof, Huck.
-
- And again, speed did not take off Mustang wing, high
- G pullouts did.

Fortunatelly high-G pullout did not do anything to Mustang. I won't invent defects that it did not have. But at high speed the G-limit is lower than at low speed. Mustang gained a reputation that in high speed high G pullouts it could loose wings or controls.
Fw-190 never suffered from such problems.



-- Had a poor rate of pull-out? Where's the data,
-- Skychimp? Post a test.
-
- You've read the report.

I never read such report, giving the max G in pullouts together with stick forces. I read subjective evaluations many times, like that one pretending that Bf-109 had slower pullout than russian planes. Russian planes and japanese planes had the most severe dive restrictions. I imagine how russian pilots that believed such poor instructions felt when 109 could follow them in dive and dive pullouts with ease.



-- And this Ossenkop is who? Another newbie quoted in
-- american books. Should I take the oppinion of every
-- newbie that flew the plane as true? Once again post
-- documents if you want somebody to believe you.
-
- Another newbie?
-
- Lt. Karl Heinz Ossenkop, I Gruppe, JG26, was the
- Technical Officer of 2 Staffel. He fought with the
- Gruppe since before it was equipped with the A-8,
- though the time it flew the A-8, and then flew the
- D-9 until I/JG26 surrendered in Flensburg on May 5,
- 1945.
-
- His evaluations are part of the book, "Focke-Wulf Fw
- 190 'Long Nose': And Illustrated History Of The Fw
- 190 D Series," by Dietmar Hermann (a German http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )
-
- But I anticipate your response: he was just full of
- it, huh? Just another Nazi scared for his life if
- he didn't please his American masters. That's how
- you've portrayed other Germans that give facts from
- experience that are contrary to your own beliefs.

Lt. Ossenkop is an anonymous pilot. Why should I take his oppinion when everybody agrees that Dora had one of the best accelerations among late war planes. Better acceleration in level flight always translates in better acceleration in dive up to max speed. Since Dora had a tougher airframe than Mustang, therefore it could dive up to higher speed than Mustang, and all pilots that dived Fw-190 praised the effortless pullout, I have zero reasons to believe that Mustang or Thunderbolt were better divers than Dora. Lt. Ossenkop was simply not experienced enough.


-- No, I want a realistic model for Mustang. Not more
-- not less.
-
- No, you want a castrated Mustang, one that flys
- consistently with your beliefs or desires, NOT a
- Mustang that flys as it historically should.


No I want realism you want arcade, heavy planes that fly like hummingbirds.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

ZG77_Nagual
11-10-2003, 01:32 AM
Huck - from everything I've read the mustang is very very close right now. You know I fly the 39 or 190s - the ki84 and dora are very close in terms of how they do vs the mustang - I'd say the dora is easier to fight mustangs in - but it could be I'm just used to the 190s - she zooms, dives and turns right with the mustang in it's best performance realm. The 109k is also quite good, and outdoes the mustang in climb, and medium/slow turns.

I thinking your barking up a tree that may not be there /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:33 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Havok, are you afraid that in the end you'll fly a
-- correctly modelled Mustang? Scary thought isn't it?
-
-
- You're the one whining that your Fw's wings come off
- when they are hit with 2-3 bursts of machine gun
- fire.
-
- You fly a tank, yet still complain.

I don't think that a plane that takes 2-3 MG hits and looses the wings can be considered a flying tank. I know the problems that Fw-190 had before the patch. But without 40 MG hits on a wing from less than 200m there is no reason for a wing to break. This is valid for any plane, not for tougher wing of Fw-190.



-
- BTW, the Bf-109 roll rate is still too high

What do you mean by that? Do you have hard data on Bf-109 high speed roll?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:46 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- I don't think that a plane that takes 2-3 MG hits
- and looses the wings can be considered a flying
- tank. I know the problems that Fw-190 had before the
- patch. But without 40 MG hits on a wing from less
- than 200m there is no reason for a wing to break.
- This is valid for any plane, not for tougher wing of
- Fw-190.

It doesn't, and you know it.



- What do you mean by that? Do you have hard data on
- Bf-109 high speed roll?

I know the best it should do is a 4.5 second roll at 450 km/h. That's the best it should do.

But gotta give Oleg credit, he did chop it signficantly, as he should.

New he needs to chop the Fw roll rate at high speeds.



BTW, no comment now on the Lt. Ossenkop excerpt?




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:51 AM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- Huck - from everything I've read the mustang is very
- very close right now. You know I fly the 39 or 190s
- - the ki84 and dora are very close in terms of how
- they do vs the mustang - I'd say the dora is easier
- to fight mustangs in - but it could be I'm just used
- to the 190s - she zooms, dives and turns right with
- the mustang in it's best performance realm. The
- 109k is also quite good, and outdoes the mustang in
- climb, and medium/slow turns.
-
- I thinking your barking up a tree that may not be
- there


Yes, I can down Mustang with ease using Dora, as it is now. But that's beside the point. Normal problems with high wing loaded high torque fighter should be modeled for Mustang too: spins, snap stalls, torque rolls and so on.
I'm not saying that it should be super touchy, but it should be less easy to fly than Bf-109. If 1C chooses to make the Mustang fly like 109 it will still be acceptable if Fw-190 will be adjusted to the same behaviour. There is no reason for which Fw-190 should have a more difficult handling than Mustang.


A side note: Dora has awful handling which it never did. It's completely unstable in yaw and pitch, you can hardly hit something because you can't use rudder to adjust the deflection on target. It flyies from one side to another. You hit with first burst then exagerated recoil pushes you off the target and you can't readjust because of the way sensitive rudder. The fire window is very small because I approach at high speed, you get very few hits in a pass. I never read about those problems for Fw-190. Compared to this russian planes seem to fly on tracks.
That does not mean that I suggest that Mustang should get this instability, is the Fw-190 that must be adjusted.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 02:17 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- 30km/h below the factory specs is normal for any
- captured fighter, most of them crashed and had
- repairs done in haste. 30km/h below the factory
- specs had the Fw-190 tested by the Navy. You quote
- this test very often, it didn't bother that Fw-190
- could not reach it's factory performance.

Thanks for proving your double standard. You want the P-51B test to be wholly valid, but discount completely the US Navy test.



- P-51 could not reach its max speed factory specs
- most of the time.

Oh, really. And your evidence is what? Or is this more fabrication on your part?

And BTW, the FACTORY is not the source of the published speed of the P-51D. The test from which that speed came was the "NAS Patuxent River Flight Test Report, FT44089, Jan/Feb 1944." Similar results were reached at Eglin Field.



- Without polished wings there was
- no laminar flow over the wings. Keep in mind that
- armament was serviced with a man on top of the
- wings, operation that leaved a lot of grease, dust
- or mud on the wings.
-
- When NACA tried to find out Mustang's drag
- characteristics in high speed dives, they saw that
- the max dive speed varied very much. The reason they
- found was that in those flights with lower dive
- speed, the airplane exceded the cleaned runaway and
- collected some dust on wings and propeller spinner.
- This alone significantly affected Mustang dive
- speed.

Hmmmm, that test was done with a P-51B with no propeller blades and engine off. The plane dove by gravity alone, and had to be topwed to the altitude from where it dove.

And BTW, that test was done over the desert. It's a wee bit dustier than norther Europe.



- Mustang could not reach max speed without polished
- wings, like they did in Japan, when they hired
- underpayed japanese to polish the wings before each
- flight. They did not have such "facilities" in ETO.

Oh yeah. This one is a doosey. Please name your source for this? I'm dying to see it.



- Fortunatelly high-G pullout did not do anything to
- Mustang.

Yes, it did. That's the reason for the structural failure.



- I won't invent defects that it did not
- have.

Yes, you will.



- But at high speed the G-limit is lower than at
- low speed.

That's a LIMIT, not a CAPABILITY. Do you know the difference?

The Mustang had extremely light elevators at high speeds which could lead to extreme accellerated condition if the pilot was not careful.




- Mustang gained a reputation that in high
- speed high G pullouts it could loose wings or
- controls.


9.6gs is the ultimate break load, lowered from 12g on earlier planes by the Material Air Command for this very reason.



- Fw-190 never suffered from such problems.

That's because stick forces were higher and 9.6gs couldn't be achieved in high speed dives.

Are you now going to say the Fw-190 could withstand 9.6 g?



- I never read such report, giving the max G in
- pullouts together with stick forces. I read
- subjective evaluations many times, like that one
- pretending that Bf-109 had slower pullout than
- russian planes. Russian planes and japanese planes
- had the most severe dive restrictions. I imagine how
- russian pilots that believed such poor instructions
- felt when 109 could follow them in dive and dive
- pullouts with ease.


I agree, Russian and German planes were poorer in dives than German planes. But German planes were poorer in dives than American planes.



- Lt. Ossenkop is an anonymous pilot.

Realy? So anonymous that he wrote evaluation reports for the aircraft JG26 received and flew?


- Why should I
- take his oppinion when everybody agrees that Dora
- had one of the best accelerations among late war
- planes.

Obviously, not everyone does agree.



- Better acceleration in level flight always
- translates in better acceleration in dive up to max
- speed.

Max speed is reached extremely quickly in a dive. That's why the German planes gained a few yards during the initial dive, then quickly lost ground.



- Since Dora had a tougher airframe than
- Mustang, therefore it could dive up to higher speed
- than Mustang,

But it couldn't. And there is no evidence the airframe was tougher. Do you have some proof of this, or more bravado on your part?



- and all pilots that dived Fw-190
- praised the effortless pullout,

Post a test.



- I have zero reasons
- to believe that Mustang or Thunderbolt were better
- divers than Dora. Lt. Ossenkop was simply not
- experienced enough.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Lt. Ossenkop fought with JG26 for years, AND SURVIVED the war. Yet he's not experienced enough to render an opinion?

One of your lamer statements.



- No I want realism you want arcade, heavy planes that
- fly like hummingbirds.

No, you want a German advantage that never exisited in real life. It pains you to no end that an American plane was competetive.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 02:22 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- Yes, I can down Mustang with ease using Dora, as it
- is now. But that's beside the point. Normal problems
- with high wing loaded high torque fighter should be
- modeled for Mustang too: spins, snap stalls, torque
- rolls and so on.
- I'm not saying that it should be super touchy, but
- it should be less easy to fly than Bf-109.

Why should it snap roll any easier than the Bf-109? It had less power, and was heavier. The Bf-109 should snap roll and torque roll much easier than the Mustang, just like it did in real life.



If 1C
- chooses to make the Mustang fly like 109 it will
- still be acceptable if Fw-190 will be adjusted to
- the same behaviour. There is no reason for which
- Fw-190 should have a more difficult handling than
- Mustang.

Of course there is. You are under some impression that there was NO FAULTS in handling for any German plane. I think you know that, but want people to believe otherwise.



- A side note: Dora has awful handling which it never
- did. It's completely unstable in yaw and pitch, you
- can hardly hit something because you can't use
- rudder to adjust the deflection on target. It flyies
- from one side to another. You hit with first burst
- then exagerated recoil pushes you off the target and
- you can't readjust because of the way sensitive
- rudder. The fire window is very small because I
- approach at high speed, you get very few hits in a
- pass. I never read about those problems for Fw-190.
- Compared to this russian planes seem to fly on
- tracks.
- That does not mean that I suggest that Mustang
- should get this instability, is the Fw-190 that must
- be adjusted.


The FW in FB handles too good right now. The plane had AWFUL stall characteristics, and could not sustain a right turn without snap rolling. That's not present in FB. On top of that, the Dora has a roll rate that is absurdly high at hgier speeds.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 03:22 AM
Do you know what an A-36 is Huck? It had a dive limit of 390mph with 2 500lb bomb attached to the wings. It should be noted that this a/c did not have the strengthened wing of the P-51D.

The Ju-87 was limited to a dive speed of 350mph and it could only carry 4 110lb bombs under the wings. The Fw190 could only carry 4 110lb bombs under its wings as well. That is less than 1/2 what the A-36 could carry. Seems the Fw190s wings were not structurally strong enough.




http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 11/09/0309:24PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 03:41 AM
The P-51D could carry a 500lb bomb and 3 5" HVAR rockets under each wing . 10 5" HVARS could be carried with no bombs were in place.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 07:21 AM
S!

>>>Atm, the P-51 is rather heavily overmodeled in FB anyway<<<<<<,"


Incorrect.

The FB P51D is one of the more accurately modeled planes accross the board.

____________

>>>>"it can outturn the AI (!!!) Ki-84 on ace, it dives with the best of them,<<<<<"


If the 51 outurns the AI Ki-84 offline that may just be a bug or the scenario of the fight. What matters is online---The Ki-84 is so manueverable that the 51 driver better have a speed advantage when attacking so as to hit and run--.
I have flown this scenario many times online Mustang vs Frank-- there is no way online that a 51 can turn with a Frank unless you have damaged it.

** The P47 & P51 could outdive any piston driven aircaft the germans had. This was one of the strongest attritubutes of the plane. The zoom climb back up was another.


____________



>>>>"climbs faster or just as fast as the Bf-109K-4 and as I experienced it faster than the FW-190D-9. It's also much faster than in actual WWII test results.<<<< "

Incorrect.

I have flown the Mustang vs 109K4 many times both online and offline. The 109K4 out climbs the Mustang everytime. Speeds of the 51 are pretty accurate. It is too slow on the deck and I have yet to reproduce any speed over 437mph @ 2500ft--but I have heard some have. I would like to see the track---I couldnt do it.


I attended a WW2 Fighter Pilot Symposium a few months ago. Fifteen Aces were present and I was fortunate enough to sit with Mustang Aces Bud Anderson & Bob Goebel.

Both these men were a pleasure to talk to and they readily compared the Mustang vs 109/190. Both men said they could out dive any german piston plane they flew against. Both said they outurned 190's on a regular basis. Both said that with 10% degrees of flap they could turn with a 109.

Because of the better dive of the Mustang, that translated to a better zoom climb back up ( laminar flow wings and a better drag coefficient was part of this.) As the heavy weight of the Mustangs fuel burned off, the Stang's performance grew proportinatly better than that of it's advisary.


The Mustang flown with speed and energy tactics was deadly !



_


Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 07:58 AM
Ahem.. to pull the discussion back to it's original place..



I've done a test and got interesting results on the Ki-84-Ia.

Oleg has previously mentioned, that the supercharger was not correctly modelled yet in 1.2b, which was the reason why the P-51D is some 60km/h faster than it should be. Interestingly, while no reason is given, the Ki-84-Ia in 1.2b is also 60km/h faster than it should be /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


The object viewer lists about 630km/h speed at 6120m - which makes it 390mph at about 19000ft.

The result I got, was that Ki-84-Ia, does 690km/h at 6700m(Radiators closed/MW50/110%). That's about 428mph, and compellingly simular to the test figures achieved from the testbed Ki-84 on higher octane US fuel. I doubt Oleg modelled it with that data, but just a reminder of strange coincidence /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 08:16 AM
I don't think the Dora handles nearly as well as the Mustang unless things changed by putting RC01 over 1.2beta.

I think I have proven to be fairly un-biased in the past so please don't call me a luftwhiner or USAAF basher when I say that I think the P-51 is overmodelled right now. I don't know about overheat, speed & climb, I'll leave that to the chart and graph guys but it certainly seems way to easy/pleasant to handle. It turns very sharply, way more than the 190 which doesn't seem accurate at all from what I have read over the years. And try doing a hard loop or split-s in the P-51 and 190. The 190 will buffet and stall quite easily whereas the P-51 will go over without any difficulty at all. It shouldn't be able to pull out of a 1000+km/h dive with complete ease as if you were going 400km/h either, the elevator response is just sick.

I like the Mustang alot and I know the USAAF guys maybe got a raw deal in some respects with the P-47 and P-40, but I really think the handling of the Mustang as it is in 1.2beta is simply too forgiving and pleasant. All of this may be pre-mature as we will see what RC02 brings (hopefully today). Just my opinion.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 11/10/0307:23AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:52 PM
robban75 wrote:
- I can agree that the P-51 turns a little too well,
- it was only marginaly better than the Fw 190's, and
- pretty much equal to the D-9. It's dive is very well
- modelled, it should be able to outdive everything
- exept the P-47.

Everything currently in FB, anyway. The Tempest V
should outdive the P-47 when it arrives.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:55 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-- if they were lucky and did not lost the whole wing
-- or controls. That did not happen in A8
-
- BS. The A-8 could dive well, but it had a very poor
- rate of pull-out. Even the Thunderbolt test proved
- that, if tons of anecdotal evidence did not already
- support it.

Chimp, the problem with the P51 shedding wings was
sporadic, but is well reported, and North American
even sent people to front line units to investigate.

- Face it, Huck. You want the Mustang castrated to
- fit your prejudiced views Your adivce it the last
- advice Oleg should take.

In the recent RCs it seems that it is a bit overmodelled
in terms of speed. Hopefully everything will be accurate
in the final patch.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 02:24 PM
SkyChimp wrote:

- The FW in FB handles too good right now. The plane
- had AWFUL stall characteristics, and could not
- sustain a right turn without snap rolling. That's
- not present in FB. On top of that, the Dora has a
- roll rate that is absurdly high at hgier speeds.

The Fw 190 had excellent stall characteristics. Even forcing it to spin was hard, and when a spin was managed a simple let go of the stick returned it to normal flight. Its high speed stall was vicious, but for an experienced Fw 190 driver this was no problem. Pilots that flew the D-9 said they could turn inside their adversaries. They couldn't match the diving capabilities of the P-47. From what I've read, a fight between a D-9 and a P-51 would be very even. And the high roll rate of the Fw 190 family must be toned down. Especially at higher speeds, since it actually spoils the aiming. The rudder also needs adjusting, it's just as swift as the roll inputs. This makes the 190 very hard to score kills in. The D-9 feels several tons lighter than the P-51, yet it's alot heavier in the turn.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>