PDA

View Full Version : La5 series vs Fw 190 A series - break up speeds



mynameisroland
04-03-2007, 11:51 AM
Why do the La5 familiy show an incremental increase in break up speed while the Fw 190 A series remains stationary.

La5 = 700km/h
La5F = 710km/h
La5FN = 720km/h
La7 = 750km/h

Compared to Fw 190

Fw 190 A4 = 860km/h
Fw 190 A5 = 860km/h
Fw 190 A8 = 860km/h
Fw 190 A9 = 860km/h

The Fw 190 series gained weight, gained armour and gained a stronger wing design with the A6 model, howver their break up speed is static. Why does the La5's (109s, Spits, P39s and Yaks too for that matter) 'grow' ?

mynameisroland
04-03-2007, 11:51 AM
Why do the La5 familiy show an incremental increase in break up speed while the Fw 190 A series remains stationary.

La5 = 700km/h
La5F = 710km/h
La5FN = 720km/h
La7 = 750km/h

Compared to Fw 190

Fw 190 A4 = 860km/h
Fw 190 A5 = 860km/h
Fw 190 A8 = 860km/h
Fw 190 A9 = 860km/h

The Fw 190 series gained weight, gained armour and gained a stronger wing design with the A6 model, howver their break up speed is static. Why does the La5's (109s, Spits, P39s and Yaks too for that matter) 'grow' ?

M_Gunz
04-03-2007, 12:06 PM
Proximity to Mach Speed of critical speed. The wall gets harder as you approach it.

What altitudes are those speeds good at, just by the way? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif All the same I hope? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

tigertalon
04-03-2007, 12:07 PM
Because you have no tendency in improving those characteristics by which your planes already greatly outmatch the opponents, while opposing side does want to catch up with you in this regard.

Dunno, just guessing...

Same, real scenario: Zeros got their wing-skin thicker and thicker to increase their terminal dive velocity, while F6F remained basically the same through entire war (coz it was greatly superior in a dive - no need to improve it).

M_Gunz
04-03-2007, 12:09 PM
The F6F was around for the entire war?

JtD
04-03-2007, 12:33 PM
La-5FN and La-7 had a metal wing spar, the La-5 and La-5F a wooden wing spar.

mynameisroland
04-03-2007, 03:07 PM
But if the FN and the La7 had the same wing, it makes no sense for the slight increase?

Whereas the Fw 190 gains a completely new wing from A6 onwards yet retains the same break up speed?

For me its a way of 1C trying to level it incrementally, just a small improvement each time. So I can understand it from that perspective yet as far a reality goes it is illogical for the same rule not to be applied equally where relevant.

Its like arguing that the Fw 190 A has such a high break up speed we wont increase it, but we will artificially for aircraft will lower ones.

Bf 109 follows same pattern

E4 = 750km/h
F2 = 800km/h
G2 = 800km/h
G6 = 850km/h
G10 = 850km/h
K4 = 880km/h

VW-IceFire
04-03-2007, 03:14 PM
What about the D-9? We know that the D-9 behaves quite differently than the A series in a number of respects...

JtD
04-03-2007, 03:24 PM
Did the reworked wing do anything to improve dive limits?

I know the surface quality of Soviet birds got better as the war continued, which certainly is important when it comes to dive limits.

Anyway, dive limits in this game are not realistic in that they are the same for all aircraft of a type, in that they are constant IAS and also in that they matter so much.

I don't think it is unrealistic that the Soviets somewhat reduced the gap as the war progressed.

VW-IceFire
04-03-2007, 04:00 PM
I thought the re-worked wing was more for production and lightening purposes as the FW190 was starting to gain weight and they wanted to keep the weight down so they reworked some of the innards.

FritzGryphon
04-04-2007, 01:15 AM
It's also possible that aerodynamic refinements and modifications to control surfaces could improve the maximum speed in general.

After all, in real life, there is no single 'break apart' speed for a plane. Each part will fail under certain circumstances, and specific pieces may be upgraded from one version to the next.

Also, single part failures can cascade to other components in real life. For example, an aileron that flutters violently could rip the wingtip off. Installing a balanced aileron would strengthen the wing, even thought the wing itself didn't change.

The IL-2 method is relatively simplistic, and these break apart speeds are a best-guess amalgam of all an aircraft's parts combined.

Just some thoughts.

DKoor
04-04-2007, 01:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Why </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have a pretty good idea why.
I'm sure you have it too.

mynameisroland
04-04-2007, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Did the reworked wing do anything to improve dive limits?

I know the surface quality of Soviet birds got better as the war continued, which certainly is important when it comes to dive limits.

Anyway, dive limits in this game are not realistic in that they are the same for all aircraft of a type, in that they are constant IAS and also in that they matter so much.

I don't think it is unrealistic that the Soviets somewhat reduced the gap as the war progressed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you can see it doesnt just apply to Soviet designs, although I question how the basic Yak design can rise from around 640 km/h in the Yak one to 900 km/h in the penultimate Yak 3 in the 46 addon.

Basically the concept of 'narrowing the gap' should be universally applied. The introduction of heavier airframes in the Fw 190 A series should not differ from the introduction of heavier Bf 109s or La5s or P39s.

The Fw 190 D9 has a break up speed of 900km/h

The D9 uses the same wing as the A8 doesnt it ?

The P51 remains constant while the Spitfire progresses through the marques.

There is a strange process in IL2 where lighter 'turn' fighters dive speeds grow while heavier built energy fighters like the P51, Fw 190 and P47 have airframes which are stagnant in their structural limits. This to me seems pretty bogus.

mynameisroland
04-04-2007, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I thought the re-worked wing was more for production and lightening purposes as the FW190 was starting to gain weight and they wanted to keep the weight down so they reworked some of the innards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true, however the lightening of the wing brought about by the redesign would not necessarliy weaken it. Infact it was most likely done for strength reasons too. The A6/8/9/F8 series of Fw 190s were likely to carry as great if not greater loads than their predecessors.

Also if you apply the logic of lightening a structure = weakening it then how does the La5 and Yak series benefit from weight decrease yet strength gain ?

Surely there is a limit of basic structural strength for each design. Unless the design is completely recast how can this be altered ? The small increases found in some aircraft like the La5 and Bf 109 or the Yak series should logically be found in others like the Fw 190 or the P51.

mynameisroland
04-04-2007, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Why </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have a pretty good idea why.
I'm sure you have it too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that does feature in my thinking, however it appears to be a more general bias towards 'turn' fighters as the Spitfire and Bf 109 show this trend.

I simply dont see how the basic Yak or La5 can grow in structural strength while each successive model of P47 remains stagnant.

BBB_Hyperion
04-04-2007, 04:11 AM
Load factors are 15g for all(wing break) ,real planes 4-7g different for each plane . This does not favor high speed combat course plane limits do not restrict pilots far enough.

mynameisroland
04-04-2007, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Load factors are 15g for all(wing break) ,real planes 4-7g different for each plane . This does not favor high speed combat course plane limits do not restrict pilots far enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im talking about dive limits, not load factors Hyperion, They are viewable in IL2 Compare under the aircraft data.

Lazy312
04-04-2007, 05:55 AM
Dive limits did increase for La series IRL. I don't remember exact numbers but there are pilot's manuals available for La-5, La-5FN and La-7 on the web..

Talking about FW the dive limit (as noted in pilot's manual for A5 and Ta 152) was 750 km/h. I don't know if it was increased for some other versions..

mynameisroland
04-04-2007, 06:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
Dive limits did increase for La series IRL. I don't remember exact numbers but there are pilot's manuals available for La-5, La-5FN and La-7 on the web..

Talking about FW the dive limit (as noted in pilot's manual for A5 and Ta 152) was 750 km/h. I don't know if it was increased for some other versions.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAS or IAS, and at what altitude ?

I have a pilots quote stating that it was standard dive bombing tactic to release bombs at 1000 km/h and pull up below 1000m altitude. I also have a pilots quote which states there was no structrual dive limit on the Fw 190 A, the aircraft simply reached a point where it would go no faster in the dive. So there is some disparity between operational practice and your charts.

As for dive limits increasing for the La series, was it incremental from plane to plane? What structural differences are there between a La5 and a La5F, Or a Bf 109 G10 to a K4, that would allow a high break up speed?

JtD
04-04-2007, 11:01 AM
You ask a lot of questions, question any answers given in that they cannot possibly be correct, but do not come up with any arguments yourself other than

...it should be...
...it should not be...

Well, based on what? What exactly was changed on the A-series FW or the P-47 that should make them faster divers?
What was wrong with the construction of a new plane, say the Yak-3, or the frequent redesigns of other planes, say the La-5 or the 109, that it should not improve their dive limitations?

arrow80
04-04-2007, 02:36 PM
Roland: I think you are making too much unsupported generalizations. Break-up limit doesn't have much to do with heaviness of a plane. It's about construction and used materials. Why La-5 with heavier wooden wing spars wouldn't have lower break up speed than lighter all metal wing of La-7 that is better constructed? Fw's wings were always all metal and redesign of a wing doesn't necessarily mean it was redesigned to make it stronger. It is already a success to make a wing lighter by use of the same materials without loosing structural strength. But La's and Yak's were quite different matter as they went from more primitive wood construction to more advanced metal construction at the end of war. Fw was already a modern and advanced construction from the beginning. 109 was also an old construction design in the beginning, so the improvement seems logical. But all what I am saying are just assumptions and result just from my knowledge in this area...

JG14_Josf
04-04-2007, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, based on what? What exactly was changed on the A-series FW or the P-47 that should make them faster divers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Increases in mass (all else being equal) reduce the ability of air mass to slow down the plane.

That is a physical fact proven by anyone familiar with gliders. Gliders take on ballast as a means of increasing dive acceleration and top speed and there is no penalty in glide ratio associated with the increased mass.

The Spitfire VB (1941) with the odd (9lb boost) level flight top speed and the 12lb boost climb rate has a very low "Terminal Velocity" which appears to be a simplified method of reducing acceleration at higher speeds in the effort to model lower inertia.

Try flying the lightest version of Fw190A next to the heaviest version of Fw190A in a straight vertical dive from zero speed (after a hammerhead) with engine's off and see which plane accelerates faster in the dive.

Fw190A-4 with 25 % fuel (or less) versus an Fw190A-9 with full fuel in a straight down engine off dive should show how mass increase effects dive speed acceleration and terminal velocity in the game.

The increase in mass, for example, will increase the 1 g stall speed while the increase in mass will not change the maximum glide angle. The increased mass will raise the speed at which the plane will reach the maximum distance from a given height. The increased mass will not shorten the maximum distance; however – the more massive plane (all else being equal) will reach a higher terminal velocity because the L/D rate does not change because both the Lift and the Drag are affected by the increased mass.

For the same reason the corner speeds of the Fw190A-4 and the Fw190A-8 (loaded decelerations and wind up turns) should be the same (engine off in a diving turn or engine off in a decelerating turn).

The increased mass increases the aircrafts energy level at the same altitude and the same speed as the decreased mass object (all else being equal).

More drag force is required to accelerate (decelerate) the higher mass object (all else being equal).

If the game does, in fact, show how the lighter Fw190A-4 accelerates slower in an engine off straight down dive compared to the higher mass Fw190A-9 (all else being nearly equal), then, the engine on test should increase that dive acceleration advantage for the Fw190A-8 since the Fw190A-9 was capable of producing more engine thrust.

If both planes have the same terminal velocity, then, a physical fact (in reality) must account for that equal breakup speed for planes that do not have the same mass at that same terminal velocity speed and the higher mass plane at that same speed and at that same altitude will be at a higher energy state (more inertia) and therefore it will require more drag force to hold that higher energy state object to the same terminal velocity, or, the real planes were, in fact, designed to come apart at the same speed (not likely).

The probable ˜break apart' speed difference between any plane is most likely associated with physical loads at those higher speed which is not the same thing as ˜break apart' speeds associated with unaccelerated flight or ˜terminal velocity' which is "unaccelerated flight".

Terminal velocity is ˜unaccelerated flight'.

A plane has a ˜terminal velocity' at every attitude (if it can stand the physical loads of unaccelerated flight).

The ˜terminal velocity' or ˜unaccelerated flight' at best sink rate is the engine off limit of acceleration on the forward vector at that attitude where ˜top speed' is the best sink rate speed.

The ˜terminal velocity' or ˜unaccelerated flight' at best climb rate is the engine on limit of acceleration on the forward vector at that attitude where ˜top speed' is the best climb rate speed.

The ˜terminal velocity' or ˜unaccelerated flight' at best climb angle is the engine on limit of acceleration on the forward vector at that attitude where ˜top speed' is the best climb angle speed.

The ˜terminal velocity' of ˜unaccelerated flight' at the best glide angle is the engine off limit of acceleration on the forward vector at that attitude where ˜top speed' is the best glide angle speed.

The terminal velocity in level flight speed is the unaccelerated flight (engine on) at the level flight TOP SPEED for that attitude (angle off the gravity vector).

When the nose is lowered below the horizon the ˜terminal velocity' increases to a new ˜terminal velocity' and a new condition of unaccelerated flight on the velocity vector.

At some point the dive angle increases ˜terminal velocity' to a speed whereby the plane can no longer safely fly without subjecting the air frame to excessive loads due to accelerations caused by air force. If the plane experiences oscillations or ˜flutter', then, the excessive loads can occur while flying straight at 1 g on the lift vector (unaccelerated flight). The ˜terminal velocity' in that case is a design limitation rather than unaccelerated flight on the forward vector. In other words, for that plane, there is a dive angle where the plane cannot accelerate up to ˜terminal velocity' because the aircraft, at that dive angle, can accelerate beyond the structural design limitation for unaccelerated flight.

Example:

Top speed in level flight = 600 km/h
Terminal velocity = 800 km/h
Structural limit (flutter) = 700 km/h

If the plane can reach 710 km/h in a 30 degree nose low dive, then, the plane will not be able to reach ˜terminal velocity' in a 30 degree nose low dive if that production example of that plane does, in fact, flutter at 710 km/h. Flutter causes excessive loads that can cause parts to fail if the flutter loads cause part failure. Flutter also causes higher forces of drag. If one example of that model airplane which is known to experience flutter has no flutter at 710 km/h, then, that example of that model airplane will not experience flutter at 710 km/h. One plane in one production run may reach terminal velocity in a 30 degree dive of unaccelerated flight. Ten examples (and ten pilots) in one production run may not reach terminal velocity in the same dive to the same condition of unaccelerated flight. Once the plane comes apart it accelerates on many different vectors all at once and all of those vectors are dive angles eventually terminating on the earth surface (ballistic trajectories).

Test two:
Dive one Fw190A-9 (full fuel load) with the engine off and the prop stopped (least drag) against the Fw190A-4 (no fuel) with the engine at an idle and the prop set to maximum drag (should be manual prop flat pitch but the game doesn't model the Fw190 manual prop as manual and the game may be backwards concerning maximum CPS rpm drag setting).

Which plane has the lower ˜terminal velocity'?

The higher mass, engine off, prop at minimum prop drag, full fuel load, Fw190A-9 should be at a higher energy state, higher inertia, and less drag force compared to the Fw190A-4 with no fuel, lower mass, lower inertia, and suffering higher drag force due to the windmilling prop.

Try moving the dive angle up from a straight vertical dive to see if the game models a terminal velocity for those two planes under those flight conditions (best sink rate terminal velocity for example).

Test the best glide angle for those two planes under those flight conditions (one at higher mass and lower drag and the other at lower mass and higher drag).

If anyone is hung up on the variables between the size and shape (drag force) of the Fw190A-4 and the Fw190A-9, then, conduct the minimum fuel, maximum drag, Fw190A-4 compared to the maximum fuel, minimum drag Fw190A-4 where ˜all else IS equal'.

The higher mass, higher inertia, and higher energy state flight condition with the lower drag will accelerate faster to a higher terminal velocity at any given angle at or below best glide angle (diving into the test from a stall).

The initial rate of descent (from zero velocity after a hammerhead stall) between the lighter, higher drag flight condition (less fuel and windmilling prop) and the more massive, lower drag flight condition (more fuel and stopped prop) should be the same rate due to gravity; however – as soon as air force begins to decelerate the two planes the rate of (gravitational induced) acceleration will be forced to a lower rate for the lighter, higher drag flight condition plane compared to the more massive, higher inertia, lower drag flight condition plane. As soon as air force becomes a factor the lighter aircraft will slow down more than the higher inertial plane (all else being equal).

The rate of difference in net acceleration for the lighter aircraft with the higher drag compared to the heavier aircraft with the lower drag should increase as air force increases square with velocity up to .3 mach, 200 mph, 220 mph, or 355 km/h and then the difference in net acceleration for the lighter aircraft with the higher drag should increase even more than square with velocity past .3 mach, 200 mph, 220 mph, and 355 km/h (depending upon the onset of compressibility effect). The rate of acceleration for any object in a dive should decrease as the object reaches mach 1.

The rate of difference in net acceleration for the lighter aircraft with the higher drag should be a widening gap compared to the more massive, higher inertia, aircraft with the lower drag as speed increases and as the force of drag becomes a greater accelerating (decelerating the plane) force.

As computers become more capable of handling data faster the games will be capable of modeling physical forces more accurately and still look good doing it.

Go ahead and twist the words written to mean anything you wish.

VW-IceFire
04-04-2007, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I thought the re-worked wing was more for production and lightening purposes as the FW190 was starting to gain weight and they wanted to keep the weight down so they reworked some of the innards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true, however the lightening of the wing brought about by the redesign would not necessarliy weaken it. Infact it was most likely done for strength reasons too. The A6/8/9/F8 series of Fw 190s were likely to carry as great if not greater loads than their predecessors.

Also if you apply the logic of lightening a structure = weakening it then how does the La5 and Yak series benefit from weight decrease yet strength gain ?

Surely there is a limit of basic structural strength for each design. Unless the design is completely recast how can this be altered ? The small increases found in some aircraft like the La5 and Bf 109 or the Yak series should logically be found in others like the Fw 190 or the P51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My thought was just that the wing was lightened using a more efficient process and therefore it wasn't worse or better. Should have mentioned that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I just had never read anyone say that the new wing helped with strength or dive speed as the FW190 was already pretty good.

mynameisroland
04-05-2007, 04:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
You ask a lot of questions, question any answers given in that they cannot possibly be correct, but do not come up with any arguments yourself other than

...it should be...
...it should not be...

Well, based on what? What exactly was changed on the A-series FW or the P-47 that should make them faster divers?
What was wrong with the construction of a new plane, say the Yak-3, or the frequent redesigns of other planes, say the La-5 or the 109, that it should not improve their dive limitations? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

based on common sense. Redesigns are one thing, yet all fighter aircraft of WW2 were redesigned to one degree or another - yet only some show improvements in this area. That the designers of the Fw 190 or P47 felt that they had sufficient 'break up speeds' is like saying that Kurt Tank was satisfied with the HP produced by the BMW 801. Yes in 1941 it was sufficient yet it was attempted to improve upon its output until the Jumo 213 and DB 603 eventually were chosen instead. Design and production is a constant process especially in war time. Another example is the Spitfire. The Spitfire IX has a higher dive limit than the Spitfire Vb yet both are structuraly the same with the exception of a Merlin 66 series engine.

What differences were made to the La5F compared to the La5 which allowed the former a break up speed increase ?

I have not come across any data which states that the Bf 109s terminal dive speed was increased throughout its variants. Infact im pretty sure its wing skin was not reinforced after the F series and its various lumps and bumbs added and subtracted would either weaken or add strength to the surrounding skin depending on how they were added.

This concept of incremental break up speed increases is meant to represent something else in IL2. It is a creeping of performace spec , especially for the Russian aircraft, which were so low to begin with that they seriously inhibit the aircraft in later years as their max level speed began to reach their structural break up speed.

I am not arguing that it should remain constant at the lowest figure. I am arguing that in variants which show little or no structural changes this break up increase should not take effect and I am also arguing that the increase should be present in other contemporary designs.

The Fw 190 D9 as an example has a break up speed of 900km/h in game. Why is it higher than a Fw 190 A9's 860 km/h ?

How did the basic Yak design jump from 640km/h for the Yak 1 to 900km/h in the Yak3 VK-107 ? Yes there were structural changes but the airframe and the structural weight remained faily constant and the process of mass production wouldnt allow huge changes to occur without a penalty in delivery figures.

I think that the break up speeds are there to imitate other limiting factors, for example in some Western fighters the break up speed was rarely if ever reached in combat because the aerodynamics of the fighter stopped it from reaching its critical structural limit ie the P47 or Fw 190 or even the Spitfire. Yet ingame we do not have this invisible wall of drag which slows an aircraft to its limiting dive speed.

"The one feature of their new mount which seems to have impressed the young bloods of JG54 most of all was its ruggedness of construction, particularly the strength of its one-piece, through wing structure. This eventually led to an unofficial 'experiment' to find out just how much punishment the airframe could really take, Pushing his wallowing Focke-Wulf to its maximum ceiling, one of their number - who was, infact, a veteran Lufthansa pilot old enough to know better! - then proceeded deliberately to point the nose straight down. The speed built up alarmingly. And although the sound barrier remained inviolate that day, such was the rate of descent that the propellor arc itself began to act as a break."

Fw 190 Aces of the Russian Front, John Weal, pg 20

mynameisroland
04-05-2007, 04:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
My thought was just that the wing was lightened using a more efficient process and therefore it wasn't worse or better. Should have mentioned that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I just had never read anyone say that the new wing helped with strength or dive speed as the FW190 was already pretty good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The new wing was a redesign to reduce weight, it would seem however that this same basic wing when fitted to the Fw 190 D9 allows it to achieve a higher break up speed than the A6/8/9. It also seems odd that if Russian aircraft designers can increase structural strength while saving weight as in the Yak and La series the Germans could not/ would not with their wing redesigns.

Is IL2 trying to simulate aerodynamic breaking or just basic sturctural limitations. If it is the latter then this makes no sense. Likewise the Spitfire IX and Vb theoretically should have the same dive limit - they shared the ame airframe yet the IX has a higher limit in IL2.

Is this a mistake or is it meant to simulate the IX's greater dive acceleration compared to the Vb?

jermin122
04-05-2007, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arrow80:
Roland: I think you are making too much unsupported generalizations. Break-up limit doesn't have much to do with heaviness of a plane. It's about construction and used materials. Why La-5 with heavier wooden wing spars wouldn't have lower break up speed than lighter all metal wing of La-7 that is better constructed? Fw's wings were always all metal and redesign of a wing doesn't necessarily mean it was redesigned to make it stronger. It is already a success to make a wing lighter by use of the same materials without loosing structural strength. But La's and Yak's were quite different matter as they went from more primitive wood construction to more advanced metal construction at the end of war. Fw was already a modern and advanced construction from the beginning. 109 was also an old construction design in the beginning, so the improvement seems logical. But all what I am saying are just assumptions and result just from my knowledge in this area... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But all antons' break up speed is the same without any minor improvements or degradation. It is very likely that Oleg hasn't changed them from begginning.

jermin122
04-05-2007, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
You ask a lot of questions, question any answers given in that they cannot possibly be correct, but do not come up with any arguments yourself other than

...it should be...
...it should not be...

Well, based on what? What exactly was changed on the A-series FW or the P-47 that should make them faster divers?
What was wrong with the construction of a new plane, say the Yak-3, or the frequent redesigns of other planes, say the La-5 or the 109, that it should not improve their dive limitations?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
All icefire's posts are based on thoughts either.

JtD
04-05-2007, 08:33 AM
Roland, can you please confirm that you read and understood the following two statements as can be found on page one? Just want to make sure we have a common base of discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JtD:
Anyway, dive limits in this game are not realistic in that they are the same for all aircraft of a type, in that they are constant IAS and also in that they matter so much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FritzGryphon:
After all, in real life, there is no single 'break apart' speed for a plane. Each part will fail under certain circumstances, and specific pieces may be upgraded from one version to the next. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Essence is that the brake up speeds have no real life counterpart. You could, however, change my thinking by pointing me to a source that documents systematic brake up speed tests of any nation, say braking up 200 planes at various altitudes in various dives.

JtD
04-05-2007, 08:52 AM
Just some food for thought:

According to the handbooks, a La-5 had a higher dive limit than the Fw-190 at some altitudes, while the Fw had the advantage on others.

Now what do you make of that?

mynameisroland
04-05-2007, 01:38 PM
Perhaps we arent on the same track JtD.

It is known that aircraft lose controls and wings at set speeds in IL2.

There is no variation between the same plane in IL2- this goes without saying.

Some aircraft ie the La's and Yak's increase with each succesive version.

Some aircraft dont increase with each succesive variant but do increase over all ie Spitfire, Bf 109 and P38.

Some aircraft types do not seem to increase at all ie Fw 190 Antons and P47.

The question is what does this approximate: Is it aerodynamic refinement? Is it structural strength? Is is dive acceleration? Is it representative of an aircrafts maximum speed in general?

If as has been mentioned here that the La seres did infact strengthen and aerodynamically refine with each succesive production variant - I dont know what the difference between the La5F and the La5 is maybe you can tell me ? Then that would make sense. However I know that the Spitfire IX did not differ in structural strength from the Spitfire Vb, the only difference being the introduction of a longer heavier engine and the addition of another draggier oil cooler housing. The P38 J has a lower dive limit than the P38 L - what improvements were introduced other than the dive breaks in this comparison ?

What does the IL2 break up represent - is it 1 factor : Structural strength. Or is it an amalgamation of 2,3 or more factors ie aerodynamic efficieny, materials used in construction, weight, power, top speed ect

Also why does the Mosquito posses a low break up speed ? Is it because it has been 'approximated' as a wooden aircraft therefore it must be weaker than a metal airframe? ie Structural limitation being modelled.

What do you think, other than that I ask too many sweeping questions.

mynameisroland
04-05-2007, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I know the surface quality of Soviet birds got better as the war continued, which certainly is important when it comes to dive limits.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This again makes the Mosquito spring to mind. Wooden airframe and wings, very clean design with radiators buried in the leading edge of wing and so on. Yet the Pe 2 has a dive limit that exceeds the Mosquito's by 200km/h.

Yes the Pe2 was equipped to dive bomb and the Mossie was not but that brings us round full circle again and brings structural strength in to consideration.

Pe2 - IL2 break up dive speed 900 km/h
Mossie - IL2 break up dive speed 700 km/h

JtD
04-05-2007, 03:18 PM
My point is that there is no real life counterpart to the dive limit as in game.

The planes had different problems at high speed, some of them were so bad it threatened the structural integrity of the whole plane, for some of them it just meant they became a little unpleasant to fly. No plane irl had a high speed dive acceleration as we have in game, meaning in 99% of the cases they wouldn't even get close to the brake up speed we have in game. Appears to me that we agree here.

The whole problem of dive limits is not just limited to wing design or something. It is the whole plane. Vibrations are far more problematic than a high quasi static load on the aircrafts structure. And vibrations can caused by tiny details on the plane, pretty much impossible to find out for us now. A change of the aileron design can be a lot more effective than the reconstruction of the wing. And do you know in particular what measures were taken, sometimes in the field, to balance controls?

What is this figure good for in IL-2? IRL high speed diving was mostly about diving performance, not about dive limits. The heavier, less draggy plane would hit the wall later than the light, more draggy plane. This doesn't work. So the substitute we have to deal with seemingly take into account diving performance and dive limits.

So much for the general take.

Now to something more specific:
The Yak-3 and the Yak-1 have as much or little in common as a Typhoon and a Tempest. Maybe even as much or little as a Hurricane and a Tempest. It is a completely new construction. But you can compare the Yak-7A, Yak-7B, Yak-7 PF and Yak-9, Yak-9D, Yak-9T, Yak-9K, Yak-9M, they are pretty close construction wise.

The La-5F had a completely redesigned rear fuselage. I have no information on how this effected diving characteristics. It could also have a better surface finishing, since the production quality was improved as the war progressed. In a La-5 handbook I found 650 IAS to be the dive limit with no mention of the altitude.

The Fw 190D-9 had a different, elongated nose and a different, elongated fuselage. In general that is a good feature from a aerodynamic point of view. Dive limits on the Fw 190A series were 950 IAS decreasing by 50 for every 1000 meters.

The P-47D also received a new fuselage, bubble top. Which reportedly introduced some new high speed diving problems to the series. I have no information on any measures take to improve diving performance.

The 109's dive limit was 750 on the E-series. It got totally redesigned with the F. The later G series received a different rudder because it early version caused trouble at high speed. There certainly were aerodynamic refinements after the G-6 on to the K. The K also received a wooden tail. Coming from G-6, it again was pretty much a new plane. Little difference to the latest G-10 models, though.

Not much difference between Spit V and Spit IX, except for the IX being heavier and more powerful and actually capable of achieving considerable high speeds in a dive.

P-38L & J irl were as close as it can get. In game one of them has dive brakes, the other hasn't. IRL, this pretty much made the L a better diver, capable of recovering from higher speeds.

I do not know why a dive limit of 700 was chosen for the Mossie. But I assure you, it wasn't me who put it in the code. 700 is pretty good for a wooden 42 plane, can think of no Soviet SE fighter beating it.

Well, coming back to the original question. What's the problem with the dive limits of the La and the Fw? They have no real life relation, so they cannot be judged by wrong or right. Is the early La's speed too slow for your taste? The late La's too high? Is it too high or low in general? The Fw's too high? Or is it too low? But if you are just curious about the progress of the La and the stagnancy of the Fw:
The La-5/La-7 series was structurally and aerodynamically _considerably_ improved throughout the war. The Fw essentially was not.

La7_brook
04-05-2007, 05:37 PM
nice too see that Red and Blue agree on this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

mynameisroland
04-05-2007, 06:53 PM
I and a couple of others have been discussing this and the dive limit / break up speed is a representation of how well an aircraft dives in general. This includes factors such as strength, flutter and acceleration.

When you did your series of tests in 4.04 did you measure dive acceleration ? I wouldnt know how to do it with any accuracy. However I feel that the P47 was widely regarded as one of the best divers in WW2 - so in IL2 it has the highest break up limit 1000km/h. What IL2 fails to do is represent dive acceleration. So aircraft which accelerated quickly in the initial stages ie the Fw 190 ( which was better than the P47 in the initial stages iirc ) are stuck with a linear representation of their dive performance.

The aircraft that I feel should possess a great dive advantage only do so once their maximum speed is reached. So a Fw 190 and a La5 FN side by side accelerate pretty much in tandom until the dive limiting speed is reached for the La5FN. I think this is IL2 making a best 'guess' for dive acceleration and it cannot effectively calulate aircraft which accelerate fast in the horizontal and in climbing vertically ie the Spit IX and La5FN yet do not accelerate as quickly when diving.

Due to this limitation (imagined or not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) what we have as a substitute is dive break up speeds.

This isnt really all that useful, dive acceleration is more useful in evading an enemy on your 6 than ultimate break up speed.

As for P47s and P51s late models aerodynamically were inferior due to the bubble top causing more drag and stability problems, this reduced speed and would therefore presumably have an impact on their 'break up speed' in IL2?

With regards to the Mosquito, later variants than the one we have in game would be in grave danger of exceeding their maximum break up speed in level flight. If we were graced with a 25 lb boost variant then any nose down movement at max level speed below 3000m would result with break up immediately. This plane has no real aerodynamic or structural changes yet would have to benefit from a nudge in the break up speed department.

As it stands performing fast passes on targets is very difficult as it can exceed its control loss speed with little or no encouragment.

So in my eyes the matter is more clear, yet there are still contradictions to the norm if you look closely enough. For instance if were unlucky enough to fly in a Ta 152C and got in to a fight with a Yak 3 VK- 107 and you realised that you had no choice other than to dive away. Despite the fact that your aircraft weighs 2000kgs heavier and is pretty aerodynamically refined in its own right - you would have no hope what so ever to escape.

So the limitations of imitating dive and dive acceleration characteristics with one number is flawed and one which is hugely important in most fighter vs fighter match ups.

M_Gunz
04-05-2007, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I thought the re-worked wing was more for production and lightening purposes as the FW190 was starting to gain weight and they wanted to keep the weight down so they reworked some of the innards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true, however the lightening of the wing brought about by the redesign would not necessarliy weaken it. Infact it was most likely done for strength reasons too. The A6/8/9/F8 series of Fw 190s were likely to carry as great if not greater loads than their predecessors.

Also if you apply the logic of lightening a structure = weakening it then how does the La5 and Yak series benefit from weight decrease yet strength gain ?

Surely there is a limit of basic structural strength for each design. Unless the design is completely recast how can this be altered ? The small increases found in some aircraft like the La5 and Bf 109 or the Yak series should logically be found in others like the Fw 190 or the P51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By using more advanced design and possibly materials, you can lighten and strengthen at the
same time. Do the numbers of ribs in the wings change or the thicknesses of them? Is there
a change to the main spar? Or the foil?
Does this plane carry as much internal fuel and ammo weight?

I am pretty sure that the La-7 had streamlining improvements of the whole fuselage over FN.
The cowling alone makes a big difference. Some places they lightened the plane just by
cutting what was judged excess out. They kept the radio?

M_Gunz
04-05-2007, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, based on what? What exactly was changed on the A-series FW or the P-47 that should make them faster divers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Increases in mass (all else being equal) reduce the ability of air mass to slow down the plane.

That is a physical fact proven by anyone familiar with gliders. Gliders take on ballast as a means of increasing dive acceleration and top speed and there is no penalty in glide ratio associated with the increased mass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if you can keep speed up. The lighter the glider, the slower it can fly the same glide
ratio. A ballasted glider will stall at speeds an unballasted glider (with same weight of
pilot and carried besides the ballast.

So, no penalty? Not exactly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Go ahead and twist the words written to mean anything you wish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you say so, maestro.

I notice that you seem to think that engine off removes engine and prop from consideration?
They are still there and very much a part of the energy you attempt to diagram without them.

I guess it's not something hang glider pilots spend much time thinking about.

JtD
04-05-2007, 11:55 PM
I made a few simple dive tests and they suggested that low-medium speed dive acceleration is pretty reasonable in game. High speed dive acceleration is incorrect. Level acceleration is superimposed and errors in that will also effect dive acceleration.

The widely expected behaviour to leave other planes standing just as you push down the nose is exaggerated. All planes accelerate the same, which would be by one g at best. And gravity is constant for all planes. Mass and drag make a difference, but only at high speeds (and this is where FB is wrong the most).

I can suggest you do a test with the two fantasy planes you mentioned: Set up the standard mission builder, start at say 3km and look for a landmark 30 km away, point the nose down and watch the speed. I bet the Ta beats the Yak in the last two thirds of the flight.

JtD
04-06-2007, 12:16 AM
Made the test and the advantage exists only in the second half of the dive. After that point the heavy weight of the Ta overcomes the better level acceleration of the Yak.

mynameisroland
04-06-2007, 03:35 AM
What were the starting speeds and at what speed did the Ta 152 C begin to pull ahead - then finally at what distance was it out of guns ?

The P51 seems to be modelled farily well in this aspect. I can out run Ki 84s in shallow dives gaining quite a lot of seperation quickly - even though at low level the Ki 84s performance is close and its general acceleration is far superior.

mynameisroland
04-06-2007, 03:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I thought the re-worked wing was more for production and lightening purposes as the FW190 was starting to gain weight and they wanted to keep the weight down so they reworked some of the innards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true, however the lightening of the wing brought about by the redesign would not necessarliy weaken it. Infact it was most likely done for strength reasons too. The A6/8/9/F8 series of Fw 190s were likely to carry as great if not greater loads than their predecessors.

Also if you apply the logic of lightening a structure = weakening it then how does the La5 and Yak series benefit from weight decrease yet strength gain ?

Surely there is a limit of basic structural strength for each design. Unless the design is completely recast how can this be altered ? The small increases found in some aircraft like the La5 and Bf 109 or the Yak series should logically be found in others like the Fw 190 or the P51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By using more advanced design and possibly materials, you can lighten and strengthen at the
same time. Do the numbers of ribs in the wings change or the thicknesses of them? Is there
a change to the main spar? Or the foil?
Does this plane carry as much internal fuel and ammo weight?

I am pretty sure that the La-7 had streamlining improvements of the whole fuselage over FN.
The cowling alone makes a big difference. Some places they lightened the plane just by
cutting what was judged excess out. They kept the radio? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Max, the La7 was an aerodynamic improvement over the FN. The Fw 190 A6 was an aerodynamic improvement compared with the Fw 190 A8 which had a draggier fuselage and a higher gross weight. So imo the Fw 190 A8 should display lesser dive characteristics than the Fw 190A6 - yet both are the same. Perhaps a closer comparsion in terms of HP is the Fw 190 A5 1.65 and the Fw 190 A8 - both have similar HP but the A5 is lighter and cleaner but both have the same speed.

Logically - using IL2 logic - the Fw 190 A5 1.65 should perhaps have a small dive break up speed enhancment over the A8 if it followed the same set of FM rules as the La 5 series?

tigertalon
04-06-2007, 03:47 AM
Just a small point, P47s we have in the PF are by far not representing the whole jug family, they are all the D version with some minor changes (bombrack, canopy, and boost). Unlike La or Yak family, or Fw.

mynameisroland
04-06-2007, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Just a small point, P47s we have in the PF are by far not representing the whole jug family, they are all the D version with some minor changes (bombrack, canopy, and boost). Unlike La or Yak family, or Fw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you agree that there is as much change between a D10 and a D27 as the La5 and La5F ?

stathem
04-06-2007, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I know the surface quality of Soviet birds got better as the war continued, which certainly is important when it comes to dive limits.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This again makes the Mosquito spring to mind. Wooden airframe and wings, very clean design with radiators buried in the leading edge of wing and so on. Yet the Pe 2 has a dive limit that exceeds the Mosquito's by 200km/h.

Yes the Pe2 was equipped to dive bomb and the Mossie was not but that brings us round full circle again and brings structural strength in to consideration.

Pe2 - IL2 break up dive speed 900 km/h
Mossie - IL2 break up dive speed 700 km/h </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re. the Mossie.

There's no surprise why the Mossie's break up speed is so low. It matches exactly the post war pilot's notes Vne for the type, and there's a strong suspiscion that that is the info that is used for modelling it.

My contention would be that the 'safer limits' imposed for peace-time use are much lower than the 'pushing the envelope' risks that would be taking in wartime - for example the Pilot's Notes maximum loads are much lower than those used during the war.

The problem is of course proving that higher Vnes were used during the war, particularly for the FB VI variant.

At some point either Oleg or Luthier has expounded on the dive speed of the Pe-2. A forum search may turn it up.

tigertalon
04-06-2007, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Just a small point, P47s we have in the PF are by far not representing the whole jug family, they are all the D version with some minor changes (bombrack, canopy, and boost). Unlike La or Yak family, or Fw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you agree that there is as much change between a D10 and a D27 as the La5 and La5F ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have absolutely no clue, but like I said in my initial post in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if soviets tried to improve the dive limit from La5 to 5F (because they were considerably inferior in this regard), while there was probably no need to improve the dive limit of a P47 from D-10 to D-27 as it outdove everything with ease (save the latest 190s). Just guessing.

stathem
04-06-2007, 01:14 PM
Oleg on Pe-2 construction:

Post 16 on this page (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3231022815?r=9941079815#9941079815)

JG14_Josf
04-06-2007, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fw 190 A6 was an aerodynamic improvement compared with the Fw 190 A8 which had a draggier fuselage and a higher gross weight. So imo the Fw 190 A8 should display lesser dive characteristics than the Fw 190A6 - yet both are the same. Perhaps a closer comparsion in terms of HP is the Fw 190 A5 1.65 and the Fw 190 A8 - both have similar HP but the A5 is lighter and cleaner but both have the same speed.

Logically - using IL2 logic - the Fw 190 A5 1.65 should perhaps have a small dive break up speed enhancment over the A8 if it followed the same set of FM rules as the La 5 series? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Setting aside game logic,

If the real Fw190A-8 was capable of going faster than the Fw190A-5 in level flight, then, it is logical to assume that the Fw190A-8 will accelerate faster to Top Speed in level flight especially when considering acceleration, in level flight, past the point of minimum drag where induced drag is lessening and parasite drag is increasing.

If the real Fw190A-8 was capable of going faster than the Fw190A-5 in level flight, then, the Fw190A-8 (at the top speed of the Fw190A-5) was still capable of accelerating. In other words at the speed in level flight were the Fw190A-5 reached Ps = 0 or no excess power, or Power required was equal to Power available, or Trust equaled drag and lift equaled weight, where the Fw190A-5 (if it has a lower top speed in level flight) stopped accelerating in level flight, while, the Fw190A-8 can continue accelerating or the Fw190A-8 did not yet react Ps = 0, or the Fw190A-8 (at the Fw190A-5 top speed) has excess power to burn, or has more power available and/or less power required, or thrust is greater than drag and lift is equal to weight, where the Fw190A-8 (if it has a higher top speed in level flight) continued accelerating while the Fw190A-5 could accelerate NO MORE in level flight.

Therefore, if both planes were nosed over in a dive, the Fw190A-8, being denser, and having more thrust, more power available and/or less power required, will accelerate faster and reach a higher terminal velocity (assuming parts do not come off the plane).

If, on the other hand, the Fw190A-5 was compared to the Fw190A-8 in an acceleration race from speeds below the minimum drag point for both planes (the minimum drag point of the plane with the lowest minimum drag speed), then, the factor of induced drag would penalize the heavier plane more severely than the lighter plane (all else being nearly equal) and the Fw190A-5, even though it has a slower top speed (if a particular example of that model did, in fact, have a slower top speed than the other particular example of that other model plane @ a specific altitude in level flight where the example of Fw190A-5 did, in fact, have a slower top speed than a particular example of Fw190A-8), even if so, the Fw190A-5 could, quite conceivably, have a faster rate of acceleration on the back side of the drag curve until such time as the induced drag penalty reduces and until such time as the parasite drag penalty increases past the minimum drag point (for the plane with the higher minimum drag speed) and then the rate of acceleration for the lighter version (with the lower thrust) could, without any doubt, lose the advantage of acceleration to the denser version (with the higher thrust) because the denser version (with the higher thrust) has a higher top speed in level flight.

Pointing the nose down favors the denser version of airplane (all else, including thrust, being nearly equal).

The denser version of object (all else being nearly equal) will have a higher terminal velocity and it will accelerate faster to that higher terminal velocity especially when the factor of lift (induced drag) is removed from the total drag force penalty (such as a ballistic flight dive or a vertical dive going straight down).

Which brings up something that few people care to recognize and account for in any calculation of total drag force (power required) on WWII fighter planes i.e. Trim Drag.

Example:

The Spitfire and the 109 were known to require trim adjustments compared to, say, the Fw190 which, by comparison, did not require trim adjustments between level flight and high speed diving flight. Any change in trim will increase total drag force as Trim Drag increases.

The Spitfire pilot endeavoring to reach high speeds in a dive encountered a need to push the stick forward and this obligation required much effort on the part of the pilot (according to the data available that can be linked – again) unless the pilot trimmed the aircraft and even if the pilot trimmed the aircraft, for high speed flight, there were examples of the Spitfire's trim tabs bending out of adjustment due to the forces applied by high speed air (compressibility effect) causing more force required to push the stick forward in the effort to maintain a dive angle and thereby increasing dive speed above the shallower dive angle dive speed.

That force, the effort exerted by the pilot or by the trim tab changing the lift production on the horizontal tail surface is Trim Drag. Drag reduces acceleration and terminal velocity at any attitude and speed. Drag increases power required.

Some planes, such as the Fw190A series planes, were less inconvenienced by this Trim Drag effect – apparently (according to the British and the Germans who tested high speed dive speeds).

A plane has a main wing incidence angle where the wing is pointed relative to the thrust vector. The wing is pointed relative to an incidence of lift production whereby the angle of attack is zero. That zero angle of attack does not equate to NO LIFT production at all unless the wing is perfectly flat and that wing encounters no boundary layer separation on any part of the wing (top or bottom surface) at zero angle of attack. As it happens, in reality, a wing will produce some lift (induced drag) on the top surface at zero angle of attack and that lift (induced drag) is off-set by an equal production of lift on the bottom surface of the wing at Zero angle of attack. If everything on the plane is all lined up at the same incidence angle, then, there is no trim drag going straight down. As it happens the incidence angle, and please do correct me if what I am about to say is wrong, the incidence angle on the main wing is pitched at a different angle relative to the thrust vector and, on gliders, the incidence angle is pitched at a different angle relative to the minimum drag vector for the fuselage, in other words, the velocity vector.

Something must account for the heavy stick forces required on some planes whereby the pilot must push the stick forward to keep the plane from ˜pulling out' of the dive.

If that something in not accounted for, then, it isn't accounted for and yet is still exists.

A compromise for a specific speed in level flight where lift must equal weight is designed into the airplane as the main wing incidence angle and the elevator incidence angle can force the plane to pitch to a different angle of attack.

If the game IL2 were to model Trim Drag and/or Drag increases caused by uncoordinated flight with a higher degree of accuracy, then, the ability to accelerate faster could become both a pilot's ability and a particular plane model's design feature.

In your tests for any performance variable there will be a need to center the ball – otherwise the real effect of Total Drag will not be minimized.

M_Gunz
04-07-2007, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Yes Max, the La7 was an aerodynamic improvement over the FN. The Fw 190 A6 was an aerodynamic improvement compared with the Fw 190 A8 which had a draggier fuselage and a higher gross weight. So imo the Fw 190 A8 should display lesser dive characteristics than the Fw 190A6 - yet both are the same. Perhaps a closer comparsion in terms of HP is the Fw 190 A5 1.65 and the Fw 190 A8 - both have similar HP but the A5 is lighter and cleaner but both have the same speed.

Logically - using IL2 logic - the Fw 190 A5 1.65 should perhaps have a small dive break up speed enhancment over the A8 if it followed the same set of FM rules as the La 5 series? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OTOH the reason for 190 breakup speed limits may be some other factor you and I don't know.
It is not good to take what you can see and march along declaring conclusions drawn from that
as the only possible or even probable. You might as well tell me you know where the WMD's are.

M_Gunz
04-07-2007, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If the real Fw190A-8 was capable of going faster than the Fw190A-5 in level flight, then, it is logical to assume that the Fw190A-8 will accelerate faster to Top Speed in level flight especially when considering acceleration, in level flight, past the point of minimum drag where induced drag is lessening and parasite drag is increasing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Just based on top speeds it is not logical to make assumptions about acceleration except
when close to the top speed of the slower plane --obviously--.

When you can show excess power versus mass of each plane then you begin to get logical.

JG14_Josf
04-07-2007, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When you can show excess power versus mass of each plane then you begin to get logical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To whom it may concern (not the trolls),

The most obvious example of how the game fudges the acceleration rate is the P-47 versus the Spitfire IX as that game ˜feature' relates to the experience reported by Robert Shaw quoting Robert S. Johnson (I can requite from that source if needed).

The next most obvious example of how the game fudges the acceleration rate is the Fw190A versus the Spitfire VB. Where the Early Fw190A-3 was capable of out accelerating the Spitfire VB under all conditions of flight (according to the British no less) the Spitfire in the game hits a DRAG WALL at some odd ˜terminal velocity' and yet the same plane can climb as if the boost pressure works on some mercury switch he he he he he he he .

It's a great game; a work of genius. WWII air combat simulation can be improved by this producer or someone else – no sweat. Selling accuracy is another story.

"My views are often shared by my squad mates - go figure"

Kocur_
04-08-2007, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Oleg on Pe-2 construction:

Post 16 on this page (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3231022815?r=9941079815#9941079815) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As if static strenght of wings' spar had much to do with terminal speed...

M_Gunz
04-08-2007, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When you can show excess power versus mass of each plane then you begin to get logical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To whom it may concern (not the trolls),

The most obvious example of how the game fudges the acceleration rate is the P-47 versus the Spitfire IX as that game ˜feature' relates to the experience reported by Robert Shaw quoting Robert S. Johnson (I can requite from that source if needed).

The next most obvious example of how the game fudges the acceleration rate is the Fw190A versus the Spitfire VB. Where the Early Fw190A-3 was capable of out accelerating the Spitfire VB under all conditions of flight (according to the British no less) the Spitfire in the game hits a DRAG WALL at some odd ˜terminal velocity' and yet the same plane can climb as if the boost pressure works on some mercury switch he he he he he he he .

It's a great game; a work of genius. WWII air combat simulation can be improved by this producer or someone else – no sweat. Selling accuracy is another story.

"My views are often shared by my squad mates - go figure" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only the totally stupid or willfull trolls would try and use that story to prove that the P-47
had an acceleration advantage when it STATES that Johnson cranked his engine and was already
pulling away before the smoke from the Spitfire exhausts told him the other was giving chase.

Are you a MORON? Or do you just play at being one? With NO DATA about the Spitfire other
than it was a Spitfire, or the pilot, there is NO GROUND in that STORY to PROVE JACK JOKE.
Except of course that you really are a moron or a troll, take your pick Jokf.

JG14_Josf
04-08-2007, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(I can requite [sic] from that source if needed). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you tell if a troll is lying?

Answer: His fingers are typing.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">page 184
Double inferior conditions

Climbing extension/pitch-back tactics cannot be expected to work for the inferior fighter in this scenario, since the opponent has a Ps advantage. The other energy tactics discussed, which are intended to bleed the bogey's energy with a nose-to-tail turn...can still be effective against an inexperienced or careless opponent.
The following episode, found in Thunderbolt! by the World War II USAAF ace Robert S. Johnson, is one of the best examples available of the use of energy tactics (diving extension/pitch back) to defeat a double-superior opponent. The encounter described is a mock combat engagement over England between Johnson (P-47C) and an unidentified RAF pilot in a new Spitfire IX. The Spitfire had about a 25 percent better power loading and nearly a 25 percent lower wing loading. The Thunderbolt's only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in a dive (because of the P-47s heavier weight and higher density), and better roll performance. Johnson, undoubtedly one of the greatest natural fighter pilots of all time, used his roll performance defensively to allow himself the chance to build an energy advantage in a diving extension.

We flew together in formation, and then I decided to see just what this airplane had to its credit.
I opened the throttle full and the Thunderbolt forged ahead. A moment later exhaust smoke poured from the Spit as the pilot came after me. He couldn't make it; the Jug had a definite speed advantage. I grinned happily; I'd heard so much about this airplane that I really wanted to show off the Thunderbolt to her pilot. The Jug kept pulling away from the Spitfire; suddenly I hauled back on the stick and lifted the nose. The Thunderbolt zoomed upward; soaring into the cloud-flecked sky. I looked out and back: the Spit was straining to match me, and barely able to hold his position.
But my advantage was only the zoom-once in steady climb, he had me. I gaped as smoke poured from the exhausts and the Spitfire shot past me as if I were standing still. Could that plane climb! He tore upward in a climb I couldn't match in the Jug. Now it was his turn; the broad elliptical wings rolled, swung around, and the Spit screamed in, hell-bent on chewing me up.
This was going to be fun. I knew he could turn inside the heavy Thunderbolt; if I attempted to hold a tight turn the Spitfire would slip right inside me. First rule in this kind of fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best. No sharp turns; don't climb: keep him at your own level.
We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning: he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks, too.
The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The jug could out roll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could whirl. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right, around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I just refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our two planes.
Then I played the trump. The Spitfire was clawing wildly through the air, trying to follow me in a roll, when I dropped the nose. The Thunderbolt howled and ran for the earth. Barely had the Spitfire started to follow-and I was a long way ahead of him by now - when I jerked back on the stick and threw the Jug into a zoom climb. In a straight or turning climb, the British ship had the advantage. But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or a German fighter that can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. Before the Spit pilot knew what had happened, I was high above him, the Thunderbolt hammering around. And that was it - for in the next few moments the Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less maneuverable, slower-climbing Thunderbolt rushing straight at him, eight guns pointed ominously at his cockpit.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a physical fact (only to be ignored by the ignorant) that a higher top speed (at any attitude, up, down, straight up, straight down, 20 degrees up, 45 degrees down, IS, a higher Power available and or a lower power required. So...which of those two planes had the faster top speed: The P-47C (in that flight test) or the Spitfire IX?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We flew together in formation, and then I decided to see just what this airplane had to its credit.
I opened the throttle full and the Thunderbolt forged ahead. A moment later exhaust smoke poured from the Spit as the pilot came after me. He couldn't make it; the Jug had a definite speed advantage. I grinned happily; I'd heard so much about this airplane that I really wanted to show off the Thunderbolt to her pilot. The Jug kept pulling away from the Spitfire; suddenly I hauled back on the stick and lifted the nose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As both planes approach their Top Speed FROM MINIUMUM DRAG the parasite drag force (power required) increases, at least, square with velocity (assuming no energy loss due to compressibility effect) WHILE the power available is decreasing; therefore – a slight delay in the Spitfire pilot's reaction to the challenge to fight a Mock Combat begins a net range increase or decrease between the two planes that STARTED OUT IN FORMATION.

The rate of acceleration is greatest at the start of the acceleration test UNLESS both planes were flying at speeds below minimum drag where induced drag dominates the total drag force penalty (power required) AND at those slower speeds the engine thrust is greatest (Power available).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire had about a 25 percent better power loading and nearly a 25 percent lower wing loading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The specific reference from Shaw quoting Robert S. Johnson was "one of the best examples available of the use of energy tactics (diving extension/pitch back) to defeat a double-superior opponent" and if YOU read Shaw and understand what is being imparted to the reader, then, it becomes very clear that ONE OF THE BEST examples of the use of energy tactics happened DURING WWII in MOCK COMBAT between a SPITFIRE IX and a P-47C despite the ambiguous numbers for POWER LOADING and WING LOADING because those numbers do not tell the whole story: Excess power = Thrust divided by weight (power available) – Drag divided by weight (power required).

Those are only words. Robert S. Johnson spoke with his Jug.

The following are only words too:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Page 141
One-versus-one Maneuvering, Dissimilar Aircraft

Energy performance reflects a fighter's Ps under specified flight conditions. Ps at a given airspeed is a function of the ratio of excess thrust to aircraft weight...and is a measure of the aircraft's ability to climb or accelerate under those conditions. A fighter's T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy performance. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and a representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading", is used rather than T/W. Both these measures may be misleading, however, since operating conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways. For example, a fighter with a relatively powerful normally aspirated piston engine may have lower power loading and better performance than a turbocharged fighter at low altitudes; but the turbocharged fighter would retain its power better at altitude and could have superior energy performance at higher levels. Likewise with jet engines, performance can vary greatly with inlet design, therefore a fighter may have higher T/W and better performance at slow speed but be inferior at faster speeds.
A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent.
Obviously fighter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story. Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilots with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Examples abound in the historical record concerning the poor rate of acceleration for the Spitfire despite its high Power loading and despite its low Wing loading. In the game the Spitfires (except the "1941" versions with the strange low ˜break up' speed DRAG Wall energy fudge modeling) dominate in acceleration performance UNTIL they reach their modeled DRAG WALL.

Try this:

Take a Spitfire VB (1941) with full fuel and a Spitfire IX (25 lb) with minimum fuel and dive them from the same 10K meters altitude with engine off and see which plane reaches the higher terminal velocity at best glide angle.

Both planes should be very similar in size and shape aerodynamically and weight. I have no idea as to the results of this test. I'm just curious. I do know; however – that both planes can be pitched into a vertical dive to see which plane will break up first.

Explain away the difference in terminal velocity "break-up" speed.

Is this not the topic?

Do the same glide and vertical dive test between the Fw190A-4 and the Fw190A-8.

The ˜rationalization' used to explain away the disparity between the Spitfire's terminal speeds does not work ˜universally'.

What is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Terminal velocity, at any attitude of flight, is a Power Available/Power Required relationship and the only thing ˜relatively different' concerning the DENOMINATOR in that relationship is TOTAL DRAG FORCE DIVIDED BY WEIGHT to arrive at a measure of density.

Again:
An easy test to prove the relative POWER REQUIRED (density) variable is to conduct a similar test as that test in history conducted by Robert S. Johnson and the Spitfire IX pilot. Two planes side by side racing to see which plane accelerates faster in level flight. That part can be set aside for argumentation for the Trolls. Once at the level top speed of the slower plane, side by side, the two pilots race to see which plane decelerates faster in level flight. Where the acceleration race measured Excess Power (unequivocally) the deceleration race measured drag loading or D/W or density. The plane that decelerates faster (all else being equal – meaning – if identical planes perform this test where one plane has more internal fuel) will have less D divided by less W.

Why?

The plane with less internal fuel (same size and shape plane) will have less induced drag due to a lower angle of attack in this level flight deceleration rate test; therefore - the lower density (less fuel) plane will have less total drag: D.

The plane with less internal fuel, obviously, will have lower internal mass/weight: W.

Which plane will slow down faster?

The answer is obvious. The plane with the higher NET force measurable as FORCE (Pound Force or Newtons) will slow down faster because neither plane will have any Power Available OTHER THAN inertia = no engine thrust.

Therefore T/W – D/W = 0 – D/W

0 – D/W

The plane with the higher Power required will slow down faster.

These are just words. The plane that slows down faster in reality will slow down faster in reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In a straight or turning climb, the British ship had the advantage. But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or a German fighter that can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The players of this game who know enough about actual reality and have a particular affection for the P-47 know what I am talking about, these are just words, and those players (and me) have finally been presented with a P-47 (in the game) that acts like a P-47C in vertical maneuvering. Perhaps the maker of the game simply extended the DRAG WALL on the newest P-47D. I think there is more too it. An accurate (from stall to top speed) level acceleration test between the games earliest (Razorback) P-47 and the newest P-47 will generate accurate data to help define the actual difference between those two planes in the game AND a test of terminal dive speed will also add accurate information if an accurate test is done.

To say that Robert Shaw's example of Robert S. Johnson's Mock Combat TEST is anything but a valid test of relative ACTUAL WWII energy performance is to say (with authority?) that someone is lacking authority on the subject.

Is that a joke?

If so, well, I'm not falling for it.

Trolls have their ˜troll speak'. I'm inclined to credit those who actually flew the planes with ˜authority' on how those planes actually did stack up.

I don't claim to know better than Robert Shaw.

I don't claim to know better than Robert S. Johnson.

I have question to be answered by them (the one's still alive) or anyone with ACTUAL authority on the subject concerning actual reality. The game is nice.

The trolls are, ahhhh, a drag - a total drag.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Poor, poor, poor Nancy. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

M_Gunz
04-09-2007, 12:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(I can requite [sic] from that source if needed). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you tell if a troll is lying?

Answer: His fingers are typing.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I opened the throttle full and the Thunderbolt forged ahead. A moment later exhaust smoke poured from the Spit as the pilot came after me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Learn to read, Troll. Your fingers are the ones typing lies whether you know it or not.

And I can see you are confused enough to start taking on Tagert-traits. Forget it, *********.
You want to play at insults, I tell you what you are.

JtD
04-09-2007, 05:57 AM
Josf, please leave this forum.

JtD
04-09-2007, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
As if static strenght of wings' spar had much to do with terminal speed... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has to do with it, but it is just a factor out of many.

WRT the Pe-2, I just remembered I once read a pilot report of a Finnish pilot along the lines:

"The Pe-2 entered a shallow dive and suddenly started to fall apart."

My guess is you don't reach 900 in a shallow dive in a Pe-2. Otoh the Finnish pilot had just put a few rounds into the Pe-2. Who knows what he hit.

JG14_Josf
04-09-2007, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Josf, please leave this forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TtD,

I went down this road already. The moderators removed my thread where I ask the readership if my presence in this forum is intolerable. You want me to leave the forum for your own personal gain?

How much do you want me to leave this forum? I can make a special deal with you now. If you no longer post on this forum, then, I will no longer post on this forum. You have the power. What is your choice?

JtD
04-09-2007, 08:52 AM
I want you to leave this forum because your posts never fulfill the necessary requirements to be posted in ORR. Since you said you'd leave as soon as somebody wanted you to leave, I asked. Seems your words were as true as always.

JG14_Josf
04-09-2007, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I want you to leave this forum because your posts never fulfill the necessary requirements to be posted in ORR. Since you said you'd leave as soon as somebody wanted you to leave, I asked. Seems your words were as true as always. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JtD,

And your post on this forum is 'on topic' compared to mine?

As to your attempted character assassination concerning ˜my word':

I freely admit that my words often do not match my deeds; I am a human being.

If you honestly leave this forum and never post here again with any new user name, then, I will do the same. This avoids having some poor Nancy abusing my offer to reasonably leave a public area where I am not welcome.

If you feel strongly enough about ˜saving the forum from me', then, put up or shut up.

I read this forum even when I do not post. I can recognize your posts, perhaps, even when you change your user name. Well...punk...do you feel lucky?