PDA

View Full Version : Japanese explosive 12.7 ammo



Pages : [1] 2

Terrenceflynn
10-25-2009, 10:11 PM
Straight from Wiki:

The Ho-103 (Type 1) was a Japanese aircraft machine gun widely used during World War II. It was based on the American Model 1921 aircraft Browning machine gun but achieved a higher rate of fire by using a smaller, slower Breda (Vickers) cartridge . Because of this, the gun was frequently loaded with explosive or incendiary ammunition in an attempt to increase terminal effect on aircraft.

So to model ALL Japanese aircraft correctly that carried 12.7 guns every thrid round is explosive.

Again, according to British Ordanace testing the Japanese 12.7 explosive round hit almost as well as a20 mm explosive round. This would explain the HIGH rate of Oscar kills during WW2.

Terrenceflynn
10-25-2009, 10:11 PM
Straight from Wiki:

The Ho-103 (Type 1) was a Japanese aircraft machine gun widely used during World War II. It was based on the American Model 1921 aircraft Browning machine gun but achieved a higher rate of fire by using a smaller, slower Breda (Vickers) cartridge . Because of this, the gun was frequently loaded with explosive or incendiary ammunition in an attempt to increase terminal effect on aircraft.

So to model ALL Japanese aircraft correctly that carried 12.7 guns every thrid round is explosive.

Again, according to British Ordanace testing the Japanese 12.7 explosive round hit almost as well as a20 mm explosive round. This would explain the HIGH rate of Oscar kills during WW2.

Waldo.Pepper
10-25-2009, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again, according to British Ordanace testing the Japanese 12.7 explosive round hit almost as well as a20 mm explosive round. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Supply this article please.

Ba5tard5word
10-25-2009, 10:26 PM
This will end well.

na85
10-25-2009, 10:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Terrenceflynn:
Straight from Wiki: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This in and of itself says something about accuracy.

JtD
10-26-2009, 01:08 AM
Even if the Japanese had invented a miracle 12.7mm cartridge, which they did not, it would not be a good argument for the 50% kill ratio of the Ki-43, simply because that weapon was not unique to the Ki-43.

LEBillfish
10-26-2009, 01:30 AM
*K2...don't do it, walk away, just ignore it...go, now, stop, don't don'T DON'T!.....dang, too late*

Once again..... http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Okay first off let's compare specs or 5 types of ammunition.

The Japanese 12.7x81 Semi Rimless
The U.S. 12.7x99 Browning
The Japanese Army 20.0x94 from the Ho-5
The Japanese Navy 20.0x101RB from the Type99-2
The German 20.0x82 from the Mauser 151/20

ROund Destructiveness:
CARTRIDGE...TYPE...ROUND WEIGHT...MV M/SEC...PROJECTILE WEIGHT GM...% HEI CONTENT...DAMAGE...POWER
12.7x81SR...AP/HE...82...760/770...35.4/33...-/2.2...27/31...3
12.7x99...API...112...890...43...2...46...4.6
20x94...AP/HE...250/213...700/730...112/79...-/12...78/127...11
20x101RB...HE...222...750...128...6...154...15
20x82...API/HET/HE/(M)...205/183...720/720/800...117/115/92...3.1/3.2/22...110/109/236...16

Okay....That will start us off you can read the rest yourself......That said, I think from those numbers it is very obvious that the Japanese Ho-103 "round" had much less punch then the Ho-5, or Type99-2 let alone the 151/20. As to the weapon firepower you can find that as well on the charts.

Past that what they fail to mention is that the Japanese 12.7 explosive round had a VERY bad habit of exploding upon contact. Now that may sound good, yet in reality wherein most other explosive rounds had a split second delay which would allow them to enter a confined space enhancing the explosive effect, the Japanese round would explode on the surface of the skin of the aircraft actually causing the energy to work against the fragments pushing them back away from the target.

Think of it as having a firecracker go off in your closed fist vs. on your open palm. The first way it blows your hand apart, the second it does nothing.

Now, that may of been corrected as the war progressed, yet as far as this scenario goes relating to say 1942, it was not.

The Japanese round also did not have the ballistic energy of its U.S. counter, and at the ranges often fired at was ineffective due to its explosive response.

K2

TinyTim
10-26-2009, 05:45 AM
As currently modelled, every heavy machinegun in IL-2 (apart from the .50cals on some newly added mod planes) has explosive rounds in its belting.

JtD
10-26-2009, 09:24 AM
I have been looking for that table and could not find it, thanks LEBillfish.

Sillius_Sodus
10-26-2009, 01:13 PM
Yes, but can they destroy a Tiger? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEBillfish
10-26-2009, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
Yes, but can they destroy a Tiger? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A European Tiger or an African Tiger?

K2

Odirroh
10-26-2009, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
Yes, but can they destroy a Tiger? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A European Tiger or an African Tiger?

K2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Odirroh

F19_Orheim
10-26-2009, 02:55 PM
"Huh? I... I don't know that"??aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

EJGrOst_Caspar
10-26-2009, 05:17 PM
LOL! Great! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ImpStarDuece
10-26-2009, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again, according to British Ordanace testing the Japanese 12.7 explosive round hit almost as well as a20 mm explosive round. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Supply this article please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seconded.

I fail to see how an 82 gram HE round, with less than 2 g of HE filler, hits as well as a 200-250 gram round, with anywhere between 8 and 25 g of HE filler.

TinyTim
10-26-2009, 07:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
Yes, but can they destroy a Tiger? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny thing here is that .50cal in IL-2 can destroy a Tiger.

M_Gunz
10-26-2009, 09:01 PM
If a top hatch is open (like when operating an AAMG) then there isn't much to stop a bullet getting in is there?

Other than that... (http://www.worldwar2aces.com/tiger-tank/tiger-tank-images/tiger-tank-21.jpg)

LEBillfish
10-26-2009, 10:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If a top hatch is open (like when operating an AAMG) then there isn't much to stop a bullet getting in is there?

Other than that... (http://www.worldwar2aces.com/tiger-tank/tiger-tank-images/tiger-tank-21.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure there is.......The commanders head.....

K2

RSS-Martin
10-26-2009, 11:02 PM
Oh wow here we go onto that fairy tail again.
50cal destroying tigers yeah, but the 75mm shell of the Shermans bounced off, how does that fit?

Guess that is IL2 logic the smaller the shell the stronger and more effectiv especially when it is called .50cal it can do anything.

Just waiting for the stories of it taking out bunkers with over two meter thick steel concrete walls............ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Sillius_Sodus
10-26-2009, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Orheim:
"Huh? I... I don't know that"??aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You beat me to it!

Great comeback btw LB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

M_Gunz
10-27-2009, 02:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Oh wow here we go onto that fairy tail again.
50cal destroying tigers yeah, but the 75mm shell of the Shermans bounced off, how does that fit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shermans don't fly. Nor were they all armed with the 75/38. Nor did they all shoot the front hull or turret.
There is record of an M-8 engine-killing a Tiger from under 100 ft directly behind with a 37mm gun.

I wouldn't give credence to a plane killing a buttoned-up Tiger with 50 cals. If that could happen they wouldn't
have bothered with bombs and rockets. Even 20mm AP would be a stretch though those engine vents at the back....

KraljMatjaz
10-27-2009, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Funny thing here is that .50cal in IL-2 can destroy a Tiger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you smoking? Hell will freeze over long before you'll destroy a Tiger with 50cals in IL-2.

M_Gunz
10-27-2009, 06:32 AM
I think I smell a screenshot coming!

RSS-Martin
10-27-2009, 06:45 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 RSS-Martin:
Oh wow here we go onto that fairy tail again.
50cal destroying tigers yeah, but the 75mm shell of the Shermans bounced off, how does that fit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shermans don't fly. Nor were they all armed with the 75/38. Nor did they all shoot the front hull or turret.
There is record of an M-8 engine-killing a Tiger from under 100 ft directly behind with a 37mm gun.

I wouldn't give credence to a plane killing a buttoned-up Tiger with 50 cals. If that could happen they wouldn't
have bothered with bombs and rockets. Even 20mm AP would be a stretch though those engine vents at the back.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah yes first the talk was of .50cals in general killing Tiger tanks, now you are coming with exceptional situations and when I say Sherman, I don´t mean Fireflies or any other modified versions, I mean then the version that was most around in standard usage. Always love it when you try and nail someone for a flippant general comment, for certain some one comes along with some exception. If they where always nailed from the back, why where Tiger tanks then so feared? Maybe because they did not always make it to the back of a Tiger?

Ever hear of a guy called Michael Wittmann? Should read what he did with a whole bunch of tanks, which where up against his one tank.

A very good friend of my parents who took part in the battle of the Bulge as a tank driver, did mention how things where when they met Shermans.....and he survived the war. Guess his tank was over modeled and not correctly made. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

TinyTim
10-27-2009, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Funny thing here is that .50cal in IL-2 can destroy a Tiger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you smoking? Hell will freeze over long before you'll destroy a Tiger with 50cals in IL-2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it must be pretty cold down there.

http://www.shrani.si/f/1v/4/qpQYCkX/50calseattigersforbreakf.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I think I smell a screenshot coming! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You sir have a good nose!

LEBillfish
10-27-2009, 07:09 AM
Put enough rounds of any size into any target "here" and they will be destroyed. A good example being the Japanese fishing boats. Though Uber in their DM, it seeming as though they can't be killed with .50cal., they can with enough MG hits.

I'm just glad there are no American Tiger Tanks the Japanese .50 cal round has to take out.......You remember, the reason for the thread?

K2

JtD
10-27-2009, 11:39 AM
I think it is correct that the .50 can kill a Tiger in a setup like that. AP capabilities of the .50 are in the range of 25mm and that's the armor the Tiger has on top and bottom.

I wonder if it's possible with the original game or just with certain hacks.

I'd also would like to know how many hits it took, just a couple or a lot?

Not everything can be destroyed by all calibers here, some objects have minimum caliber requirement, for instance ships. So you can put as many small caliber rounds into a BB as you wish, it won't go down. I think BB require 5" guns at least.

RSS-Martin
10-27-2009, 12:24 PM
Then the battleships must be modeled wrong!
They should at least sink a CV
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Comics/psycho.gif http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Comics/crazy.gif

koivis
10-27-2009, 12:59 PM
Some truths:

Every thread which mentions the Eastern front but is not related to it in anyway otherwise, turns to a "nazi germany / soviet union / economic situtations back then etc."-thread.

Every thread started by raaaid features a heading with no capital letters followed by one-meter long post from raaaid, containing some creative pictures and even longer ones from a person who understands him (or pretends to). These posts do not include any capital letters either.

Every thread which mentions a weapon with a similar bore diameter as .50 BMG caliber turns to a "you know they used to kill Tiger tanks with .50 cals"-thread.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
10-27-2009, 01:14 PM
Boy, I am darn sick of people bashing these Japanese explosive rounds. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

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

RSS-Martin
10-27-2009, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by koivis:
Some truths:

Every thread which mentions the Eastern front but is not related to it in anyway otherwise, turns to a "nazi germany / soviet union / economic situtations back then etc."-thread.

Every thread started by raaaid features a heading with no capital letters followed by one-meter long post from raaaid, containing some creative pictures and even longer ones from a person who understands him (or pretends to). These posts do not include any capital letters either.

Every thread which mentions a weapon with a similar bore diameter as .50 BMG caliber turns to a "you know they used to kill Tiger tanks with .50 cals"-thread.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey stop spilling the beans! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
10-27-2009, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
<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 RSS-Martin:
Oh wow here we go onto that fairy tail again.
50cal destroying tigers yeah, but the 75mm shell of the Shermans bounced off, how does that fit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shermans don't fly. Nor were they all armed with the 75/38. Nor did they all shoot the front hull or turret.
There is record of an M-8 engine-killing a Tiger from under 100 ft directly behind with a 37mm gun.

I wouldn't give credence to a plane killing a buttoned-up Tiger with 50 cals. If that could happen they wouldn't
have bothered with bombs and rockets. Even 20mm AP would be a stretch though those engine vents at the back.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah yes first the talk was of .50cals in general killing Tiger tanks, now you are coming with exceptional situations and when I say Sherman, I don´t mean Fireflies or any other modified versions, I mean then the version that was most around in standard usage. Always love it when you try and nail someone for a flippant general comment, for certain some one comes along with some exception. If they where always nailed from the back, why where Tiger tanks then so feared? Maybe because they did not always make it to the back of a Tiger?

Ever hear of a guy called Michael Wittmann? Should read what he did with a whole bunch of tanks, which where up against his one tank.

A very good friend of my parents who took part in the battle of the Bulge as a tank driver, did mention how things where when they met Shermans.....and he survived the war. Guess his tank was over modeled and not correctly made. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See the part in your reply that's bolded? Now go take a look in the mirror and say FLIPPANT COMMENT.

Shermans did not fly and 50 cal carrying planes did not make frontal ground attacks on Tiger tanks.

Michael Wittman ran down a row of parked unmanned British tanks and shot each in turn through the side, is that
the incident you refer to? On many occasions Tigers would kill enemy after enemy from direct front as well.

I can read tank history too and I have since the later 1960's until not too long ago at all. Enough so that I
don't compare aerial attacks from above to frontal attacks attacks from the ground and try comparing the two as
if it's all from the latter position.

It was YOUR FLIPPANT COMMENT I WAS RESPONDING TOO. Note that I added the following or learn to read:
I wouldn't give credence to a plane killing a buttoned-up Tiger with 50 cals.

So Kettle, don't play that characterize the pot game cause you ain't clean at all.

RSS-Martin
10-27-2009, 02:25 PM
Well you seem to know every anwser to everything.
Stupid people that don´t consult YOU first.
As to YOUR FLIPPANT COMMENT...maybe think again.
90° to the top plate how long do you think a plane is going to dive to hit that area, and also the shells first really do damage at a certain distance too and not endless, so how about thinking Mr. Flippant.
As soon as there is a angel there are very good chances of glancing off.

I have seen that often enough in RL as I had to deal with all kinds of amunition during my time in the military. But maybe what I was trained and applied over many years was also only flippant.

I just love when seemingly amatures come along and tell you about stuff you did professionally.
Great show.
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/pillepalle.gif http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/blush2.gif


But looking at many of your posts, I guess this must be your motto?

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/wrong.jpg

M_Gunz
10-27-2009, 03:02 PM
I don't post funny pictures or big banners so you'll just have to imagine or get yourself a sig
with a TROLL PICTURE. Or maybe just call yourself Tagert.

Daiichidoku
10-27-2009, 03:27 PM
careful Martin, or he'll just put you on ignore list....

Blutarski2004
10-27-2009, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by koivis:
Some truths:

Every thread which mentions the Eastern front but is not related to it in anyway otherwise, turns to a "nazi germany / soviet union / economic situtations back then etc."-thread.

Every thread started by raaaid features a heading with no capital letters followed by one-meter long post from raaaid, containing some creative pictures and even longer ones from a person who understands him (or pretends to). These posts do not include any capital letters either.

Every thread which mentions a weapon with a similar bore diameter as .50 BMG caliber turns to a "you know they used to kill Tiger tanks with .50 cals"-thread.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Anyone who reads the Ubizoo forum rules knows this.

;-]

RSS-Martin
10-27-2009, 10:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
careful Martin, or he'll just put you on ignore list.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I could live with that very well!
I just hate it when someone tries to sell BS as facts, especially on a field where I used to work professionally.

From my point of view he could drown himself in a barrel.

Gunz-head take a look in the mirror. There you will see what you are talking about.

Silly kid.

Fehler
10-27-2009, 11:32 PM
This seems like a good time to remind everyone that the bar in the FW-190 is not correct.

Akronnick
10-28-2009, 12:01 AM
Don't forget that Mustang won Teh War.

No matter how much you beat it, that horse just isn't getting up.

Waldo.Pepper
10-28-2009, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
the bar in the FW-190 is not correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! (literally)

HarryVoyager
10-28-2009, 01:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Funny thing here is that .50cal in IL-2 can destroy a Tiger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you smoking? Hell will freeze over long before you'll destroy a Tiger with 50cals in IL-2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it must be pretty cold down there.

...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I think I smell a screenshot coming! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You sir have a good nose! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How... How did you do that??

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 02:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
I just hate it when someone tries to sell BS as facts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then quit trying to do just that or at least point out exactly what -I- posted that was BS.

I never said that 50 cals penetrated the armor of a Tiger tank. And I didn't post that Sherman tank shells did not bounce
off Tiger tanks, only posted that they didn't ALWAYS bounce off and that Sherman tanks don't FLY. You get the last part,
genius? Shots from above do not correspond to ground action hits on the front.

I suppose you drove Tiger tanks professionally? Are you also a space engineer?

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 02:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
This seems like a good time to remind everyone that the bar in the FW-190 is not correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Actually it's the no-refraction windshield! And I swear that armor glass won't stop bullets either.
Maybe there is no windshield?

RSS-Martin
10-28-2009, 03:53 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 RSS-Martin:
I just hate it when someone tries to sell BS as facts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then quit trying to do just that or at least point out exactly what -I- posted that was BS.

I never said that 50 cals penetrated the armor of a Tiger tank. And I didn't post that Sherman tank shells did not bounce
off Tiger tanks, only posted that they didn't ALWAYS bounce off and that Sherman tanks don't FLY. You get the last part,
genius? Shots from above do not correspond to ground action hits on the front.

I suppose you drove Tiger tanks professionally? Are you also a space engineer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah I love ignorant people, first I mentioned what veterans said that drove these vehiciles, guess you can´t read? Secondly I mentioned to get those hits a aircraft has to fly 90° to the top plate to get those kind of hits that are constantly mentioned, I guess you can´t read that either? I mentioned if the hits are not at 90° to the plate but at an angel they will glance off, I guess you can´t read that either.
I mentioned that to do such a feat the aircraft has to dive at 90° to the top of the tank, the range has to be below 3000m to have any effect at all, guess you missed that too.
So from 3000m to tank at 90° gives how much firing time and how many rounds are going to hit the same spot to get through?
Guess your pilots are superman?

In my eyes you are a ignorant and biased person.
So again shots through the top plate of a tank with small caliber amunition is BS.
No never said I was I tank driver or what ever silly stuff you might think of but I did have professionally to do with amunition but what does a former amunition mechanik know they are all stupid.

All you can argument is comming up with hot air, like you got a dope sig. I don´t give a fart what you think of my sig.

Be glad you can hide behind your computer, otherwise I would gladly give you a piece of mind. You are the kind that puts the Zoo into Ubi.

BillSwagger
10-28-2009, 04:28 AM
I'm not sure of the thickness of tiger tank armor, and whether 50 cal could or did penetrate their armor is benign because 50 cal was never considered efficient for neutralizing heavily armored targets.

I am certain that 50 cal can penetrate 20mm thick armor at closer ranges, and coupled with concentrated fire could actually be more significant on armored structures, but the key here is efficiency. If i have to spend over 900 rounds just to disable one tank then its going to require many more aircraft to stop dozens of tanks. This is what they did in some cases, but i've also read reports that when hitting tank convoys the P-47 pilots hit the fuel trailers which the tanks needed to keep running for any significant amount of time.

I read the title of the thread, as explosive ammo, which was not used on armored targets because they explode. Even 20mm HE rounds can't penetrate a light armor plate.

Thats my two cents, and hopefully clears up any misunderstandings.

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 08:12 AM
You won't put 50 cals through the top armor of a Tiger tank from the plane or get sustained concentrated fire either.
An open hatch and some luck... sure since open hatch is not armor and bullets inside tanks do bounce around until
stopped in various ways. A WWII tank running around buttoned up has severely less view than when the commander has
his head out the top hatch. Unless under fire the commander usually kept up for view and drivers had open hatches
also to see better and able to make the tank go faster more safely.

US doctrine vs projected Soviet attack in the later 70's included high burst artillery with aim to force the Russian
tanks and APCs to button up and slow the wave down. That was an indirect part of my job then. :-P

LEBillfish
10-28-2009, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
This will end well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, and you didn't think the original topic could get any more rediculous!....

K2

Blutarski2004
10-29-2009, 12:12 PM
..... Let's settle this once and for all. A P47 or P51 in a vertical dive and firing 50cal M2 AP at 2835 ft/sec initial velocity can penetrate the 25mm rolled homogeneous turret roof and rear deck armor of a Tiger I within 200 yards at 0 degrees obliquity. There is absolutely no question about it - it's scientifically certain.

. . . . .

On the other hand, there may be a small problem pulling out of the dive.


;-]

NetDaemon
10-29-2009, 01:19 PM
I hope it´s not too late to discuss the trim-on-a-slider exploit as well?

AndyJWest
10-29-2009, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Let's settle this once and for all. A P47 or P51 in a vertical dive and firing 50cal M2 AP at 2835 ft/sec initial velocity can penetrate the 25mm rolled homogeneous turret roof and rear deck armor of a Tiger I within 200 yards at 0 degrees obliquity. There is absolutely no question about it - it's scientifically certain.

. . . . .

On the other hand, there may be a small problem pulling out of the dive.


;-] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Gaston444
10-29-2009, 01:25 PM
Turret roof armor was increased to 40 mm on later Tiger Is and the King Tiger... The reason for this increase was not .50 cal aircraft fire vulnerability, but explosive artillery shell fire vulnerability... Surprisingly enough, Soviet emphasis on massive indirect-fire artillery made being hit on the roof by a slowly falling or exploding shell a common threat for German tanks...

Note however that the Tiger II, like all other German tanks, did not have the very special heat treatement of the armor exclusive to the Tiger I, which was very expensive, and gave protection far beyond what the thicknesses indicate...

Except for the thinner front hull plates and mantlet, the Tiger I had in fact far better all-around armor protection than any other German tank, including the Tiger II...

For all-around protection, it may even have been the best-protected of WWII, with only the JS II or Sherman Jumbo as contenders...

As for the Ki-43's 12.7 mm guns, I am willing to buy that the Japanese efforts did improve its hitting power on unarmored aircrafts parts, compared to other 50 cals individual rounds, but it should be noted this was largely offset by the poor synchronization of the Browning mechanism, which cut the rate of fire from 800-900 rds per minutes to less than 600...

Despite this, I still think that, for anything other than bomber interceptions, for which the Zero was a poor choice anyway, the Ki-43-II was a sounder combat aircraft overall, and was better armed for fighter-vs-fighter combat, than all but the last five-guns A6M5/7s... My main reason for saying this is that the convergence restriction imposed on wing-mounted guns requires them to have a much better rate of fire than the 350-400 rounds per minutes available to the A6M5...

Adding faster-firing medium Mgs to the Zero was badly needed, and they knew it, as many Zero pilots, including Saburo Sakai, bitterly complained about the Jack-of-all-trades/master of none set-up on the Zero...

Gaston

JtD
10-29-2009, 02:08 PM
The Tiger I we have in game has 25mm top armor. The rate of fire of the Type 99 cannons on the A6M is 520 rpm.

LEBillfish
10-29-2009, 02:54 PM
*Having stated the only applicable facts in a 3 page thread walks away shaking her head*....

....."mens is silly critters"...

K2

Kettenhunde
10-29-2009, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... Let's settle this once and for all. A P47 or P51 in a vertical dive and firing 50cal M2 AP at 2835 ft/sec initial velocity can penetrate the 25mm rolled homogeneous turret roof and rear deck armor of a Tiger I within 200 yards at 0 degrees obliquity. There is absolutely no question about it - it's scientifically certain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting...

I heard they bounced them off the pavement or nearby rocks to skip them underneath the tank. That is why foot wounds were the most common wound in Tiger tank crews....

Gaston444
10-29-2009, 04:23 PM
Quote: "Rate of fire of type 99 was 520 rpm"

That MAY be true, and if so would give it a rate of fire near-parity with the Oscar's armament, but it is still too slow for the more limited hit convergence "region" of wing-mounted guns. The Oscar's two guns will still score many more hits over a longer range and a longer period of time than what the A6M5's convergence could achieve. Even 750 rounds per minute was too little for the Me-109G's wing-mounted guns, and the FW-190A VERY often had the outboard 20 mms deleted for the same reason, the electrically synchronized inner guns not requiring convergence, and were being little slowed by synchronization.

In actual real-life practice, I heard that the rate of fire was often lower for these Oerlikon-based 20mm guns, especially the flexible-mount ones, whose rate of fire was, I am told, almost that of a puffing locomotive! An unfair comparison perhaps, but the same type of gun nonetheless...

Quote, Billyfish: "Past that what they fail to mention is that the Japanese 12.7 explosive round had a VERY bad habit of exploding upon contact. Now that may sound good, yet in reality wherein most other explosive rounds had a split second delay which would allow them to enter a confined space enhancing the explosive effect, the Japanese round would explode on the surface of the skin of the aircraft actually causing the energy to work against the fragments pushing them back away from the target.

Think of it as having a firecracker go off in your closed fist vs. on your open palm. The first way it blows your hand apart, the second it does nothing.

Now, that may of been corrected as the war progressed, yet as far as this scenario goes relating to say 1942, it was not."


-True, we don't know if it was corrected, but it seems very likely that it was, or we wouldn't hear of Oscar pilots being very satisfied with the Ki-43-II hitting power on fighters... Or of numerous P-47Ds going down after a single pass...

The simple fact is, if the Ki-61, Ki-84 and Ki-44 were dramatically more effective than the Ki-43-II against US fighters, the Oscar wouldn't have remained in production for two years past mid-1943, unless you assume the IJA was totally stupid. Note that the Ki-27 Nate was rapidly replaced by the Oscar, despite pilot preference for the the Nate's superior maneuverability, similar armament at first, and the Oscar-I's major early structural and armament troubles...

They were not close-minded to progress: Their more advanced fighters simply did not prove that much better than the Ki-43-II, except against bombers... Until the Ki-100 came along. It was not doctrinal rigidity either: There is little point in steadfastly applying enemy hit-and-run tactics if the fighters you have are still inferior in that mode...

If they have tactical surprise, of course they would hit-and-run whenever possible, but apparently that didn't happen often enough to make the Ki-43-II obsolete compared to the numerous other types they could choose from.

Gaston

Blutarski2004
10-29-2009, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... Let's settle this once and for all. A P47 or P51 in a vertical dive and firing 50cal M2 AP at 2835 ft/sec initial velocity can penetrate the 25mm rolled homogeneous turret roof and rear deck armor of a Tiger I within 200 yards at 0 degrees obliquity. There is absolutely no question about it - it's scientifically certain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting...

I heard they bounced them off the pavement or nearby rocks to skip them underneath the tank. That is why foot wounds were the most common wound in Tiger tank crews.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Despite having posted in jest, I'm open to the idea that it might perhaps be possible to set afire accumulated oil drippings, grease, etc, that accumulate beneath the engine compartment of an AFV by ricocheting incendiaries off the road surface. But I'd have to set a pretty high standard of proof before buying the notion as historical fact.

That having been said, it IS a recorded fact that Chinese and North Korean soldiers, when confronted by UN tanks during the Korean War, were encouraged to direct small arms fire at the muzzle of the tank gun in the hope of sending the odd bullet down the gun tube to either jam the projectile (which would cause the gun to burst when fired) or to pass through an open gun breech into the turret interior where it might ricochet around and cause havoc. There are recorded instances of USMC personnel being injured inside a tank turret by such tactics. It sounds quite as crazy as rococheting 50cal off the pavement, but it in this case it was actually practiced on the battlefield.

AndyJWest
10-29-2009, 06:55 PM
I suspect that Chinese and North Korean soldiers may have well have been told that you can disable a tank by shooting down the barrel, but this was most likely said to discourage them from doing the more sensible thing, and running like heck in a northerly direction.

Having said that, I vaguely remember seeing a photo of a German Flak gun with the barrel split open by an incoming cannon round. I believe the pilot responsible bailed out, and was taken to see his handiwork.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
10-29-2009, 07:21 PM
That was Robert Stanford-Tuck. Loosed off at the gun that brought him down as he came in for a forced landing nearby. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AndyJWest
10-29-2009, 07:40 PM
Yes, Robert Stanford Tuck. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stanford_Tuck)

This is what happened, according to the article here. (http://www.spitfirepilots.com/tuck.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The Germans finally nailed Tuck in January of 1942. Doing a low “Rhubarb” sweep over France, he and his wingman got into massive flak from both sides of a shallow valley when trying to hit a distillery and some trains. Tuck managed to crash land his Spitfire right in front of a squad of German soldiers standing beside a cannon. Tuck's Luck was with him once more when one of his last shots from the Spitfire had entered the German cannon, peeling it like a banana. Seeing this, the Germans couldn’t stop laughing, which probably saved Tuck's life. Even when picking up the dead German soldiers Tuck had just shoot up with his Spitfire, they didn’t stop laughing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly slightly exagerated, but pausible. RST was quite a character, by all accounts.

Kettenhunde
10-29-2009, 08:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> But I'd have to set a pretty high standard of proof before buying the notion as historical fact.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very high..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

ImpStarDuece
10-29-2009, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Turret roof armor was increased to 40 mm on later Tiger Is and the King Tiger...

Gaston </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only the last 185 production examples featured the heavier roof armour.

ImpStarDuece
10-29-2009, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Quote: "Rate of fire of type 99 was 520 rpm"

That MAY be true, and if so would give it a rate of fire near-parity with the Oscar's armament, but it is still too slow for the more limited hit convergence "region" of wing-mounted guns. The Oscar's two guns will still score many more hits over a longer range and a longer period of time than what the A6M5's convergence could achieve. Even 750 rounds per minute was too little for the Me-109G's wing-mounted guns, and the FW-190A VERY often had the outboard 20 mms deleted for the same reason, the electrically synchronized inner guns not requiring convergence, and were being little slowed by synchronization.

In actual real-life practice, I heard that the rate of fire was often lower for these Oerlikon-based 20mm guns, especially the flexible-mount ones, whose rate of fire was, I am told, almost that of a puffing locomotive! An unfair comparison perhaps, but the same type of gun nonetheless...

Quote, Billyfish: "Past that what they fail to mention is that the Japanese 12.7 explosive round had a VERY bad habit of exploding upon contact. Now that may sound good, yet in reality wherein most other explosive rounds had a split second delay which would allow them to enter a confined space enhancing the explosive effect, the Japanese round would explode on the surface of the skin of the aircraft actually causing the energy to work against the fragments pushing them back away from the target.

Think of it as having a firecracker go off in your closed fist vs. on your open palm. The first way it blows your hand apart, the second it does nothing.

Now, that may of been corrected as the war progressed, yet as far as this scenario goes relating to say 1942, it was not."


-True, we don't know if it was corrected, but it seems very likely that it was, or we wouldn't hear of Oscar pilots being very satisfied with the Ki-43-II hitting power on fighters... Or of numerous P-47Ds going down after a single pass...

The simple fact is, if the Ki-61, Ki-84 and Ki-44 were dramatically more effective than the Ki-43-II against US fighters, the Oscar wouldn't have remained in production for two years past mid-1943, unless you assume the IJA was totally stupid. Note that the Ki-27 Nate was rapidly replaced by the Oscar, despite pilot preference for the the Nate's superior maneuverability, similar armament at first, and the Oscar-I's major early structural and armament troubles...

They were not close-minded to progress: Their more advanced fighters simply did not prove that much better than the Ki-43-II, except against bombers... Until the Ki-100 came along. It was not doctrinal rigidity either: There is little point in steadfastly applying enemy hit-and-run tactics if the fighters you have are still inferior in that mode...

If they have tactical surprise, of course they would hit-and-run whenever possible, but apparently that didn't happen often enough to make the Ki-43-II obsolete compared to the numerous other types they could choose from.

Gaston </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to provide cites, or these are just unsubstantiated opinion.

Stuff like: "I heard that" and "or we wouldn't hear of" need concrete, citable historical examples.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant.

The Nate wasn't "rapidly" replaced by the Oscar. It was flown as a front line fighter until 1943, two years after the Oscar was introduced into frontline service.

Perhaps you should also dwell on why Hurricane and P-40 production remained so high until late into the war, when the Western Allies clearly had better fighters, even in 1941.

LEBillfish
10-29-2009, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:

-True, we don't know if it was corrected, but it seems very likely that it was, or we wouldn't hear of Oscar pilots being very satisfied with the Ki-43-II hitting power on fighters... Or of numerous P-47Ds going down after a single pass...

The simple fact is, if the Ki-61, Ki-84 and Ki-44 were dramatically more effective than the Ki-43-II against US fighters, the Oscar wouldn't have remained in production for two years past mid-1943, unless you assume the IJA was totally stupid. Note that the Ki-27 Nate was rapidly replaced by the Oscar, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Stunning how absolutly incorrect all of that is......

Enjoy your thread, such "opinions" with absolutly no basis in fact like what you just posted and contrary to EVERY known historical document and fact is exactly why I find such threads begun with rediculous "statements" a waste of time.

K2

My advice guys....Walk away from this one and any others.

Skoshi Tiger
10-29-2009, 10:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Let's settle this once and for all. A P47 or P51 in a vertical dive and firing 50cal M2 AP at 2835 ft/sec initial velocity can penetrate the 25mm rolled homogeneous turret roof and rear deck armor of a Tiger I within 200 yards at 0 degrees obliquity. There is absolutely no question about it - it's scientifically certain.

. . . . .

On the other hand, there may be a small problem pulling out of the dive.


;-] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this leaves open the question will a .50cal machine gun traveling at 700kph muzzle first penetrate 25mm of armour?

I expect a merlin engine at the same speed would have too greater surface area to penetrate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

doraemil
10-29-2009, 11:53 PM
WAIT!! This isn't complete until.

Enjoy!



Not without . . .



Defeating Face-Hardened Armor

And one all-round formula of tank kinetic rounds (long rod):

T * (1/cos@)^0.75 = (M/D^3) * (D/L)^0.3 *(v^2/U^2)

T = plate thickness (cm)
@ = angle
u = constant
L = penetrator length (cm)
M = penetrator mass (g)
D = penetrator diameter (cm)
v = penetrator velocity (m/s)



And the simpliest of course (kinetic energy)0,5 m*v^2

Which in fact tells nothing about penetration, but it's very simple way to
compare differences of impact energy (for instance bullets) and this shows the best impact of ammunition velocity compared to it's mass.

Another very very simple estimation for heat (shaped charge) ammunition is
penetration of 4-5x diameter of cone for older (example rpg-7) and 9-10 x diameter of cone to new atgm warheads.

Problem with all formulas and calculations is massive amount of different variables, which can alter the result so much that the formula itself it's not good for anything. These are always very rough estimates, as the most important variables as
-temperature of armor plate which it strikes and temperature tip of the penetrator (-30 C steel is very brittle compared to +30), what is the transition temperature of plate, what about tip ?
-hardness of armour plate, different heat treatments, multi-layered/spaced armor composiition, different alloys of armour plate
-density, ductility etc. of both materials (plate and penetrator)
-how rapidly penetrator losing velocity (penetrator velocity through armour falls when penetrating any thicker plate)
-Angle deviations during penetration
-detailed composition of materials and alloys and shape in warhead, tip form, alloys used)
-how penetrator penetrates the plate, there is abhasive wear on penetrator as it goes trough plate, it's dimesions will not be same through whole process
-manufacturing even batch differnces in ammunitions, differnces in gun ballistics and properties in general



http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-033.htm



and *evil grin*



To figure out the probable penetration of a HEAT round you take the warhead diameter times its generation modifier DxM=P

1st generation modifier 3.5
2nd generation modifier 7.5
3rd generation modifier 10

To figure out 120/125mm tank cannon APFSDS penetration you use the Ke (Ke=1/2MxV^2) formula and divide the result by 11,000 the number you end up with is penetration vs RHAe in milimeters So for any round you need to know 2 of the three factors (weight, velocity, or penetration) and you can workout the missing variable


ok


Originally Posted by smilingassassin
Hell I'm in the same boat here, probably worse.

T * (1/cos@)^0.75 = (M/D^3) * (D/L)^0.3 *(v^2/U^2)

What does *, ^ and / mean in the formula?
Whats the step by step process in the calculation for us math flunkies?

* is multiply
^ is to the nth power
/ is divide



Example:

1st generation HEAT

AT-3 sagger 125mm Diameter 400mm penetration 400/125=3.2

2nd generation HEAT

AT-15 152mm diameter 1200mm penetration 1200/152=7.8

Ke/11,000

Assuming published reports of the M829A3 are correct at 900mm penetration of RHAe from an 8kg round (-2 kg* from the listed 10 for the sabot) traveling at 1555m/s

4x1555^2=9,672,100 (9.7Mj) 9672100/11000=879mm

Russia claims the 3BM48M developed for the T80UM2 Black eagle can penetrate 900mm RHAe and we know APFSDS fired from the 2A46M4 travels at1750m/s

900x 11,000= 9,900,000 assuming a slightly lighter projectile (non-du) 6.5 kg traveling at 1750 3.25x1750^2= 9953125 (9.9mj)

They claim the 3BM42M developed for the T-90Vladimir can penetrate 600-650mm of RHAe.

650x 11000= 6,600,000 4.6kg penetrator 125MM APFSDS ROUNDS

2.3x1750^2= 6737500 /11000= 612.5


So as you see my formulas give me fairly reliable ballpark guesses for weapon performance

* 2kg is the listed weight for the Russian 3BM42 spool sabot. The only publicly available 120-125mm spool style sabot/boot weight I could find

M_Gunz
10-30-2009, 12:06 AM
I've got an M2 AP penetration chart for both 36 and 45 inch barrel guns vs Rolled Homogeneous Armor Plate.
It provides solving penetration ranges at various angles from 79 deg to flat-on 0 deg at least for the
bullets that hit straight with no tumble.. I have a multi-page document covering that not all shots are
the same, not every hit will get the same result -- the best results are the ones that flew most true.

Anywho the upshot is that from a 45 inch barrel M2 you won't penetrate 1 inch of -that armor- at any
range more than about over 250 yards given a direct hit from stationary gun to stationary target.

That leaves it to find out how the top armor material compares to the rolled armor used in the tests
to derive the gun, angle and penetration curves and what an additional 200 yards per second initial
velocity (about 7% extra for the 45 inch barrel gun) would add to range of penetration.

Even if the Tiger had identical armor you won't get close enough in any plane to make the penetrating
shot and avoid crashing, you might as well talk about Kamikaze P-47's, etc, destroying Tiger tanks.

Gaston444
10-30-2009, 12:13 AM
Quote, Billyfish: "quote:
Originally posted by Gaston444:

-True, we don't know if it was corrected, but it seems very likely that it was, or we wouldn't hear of Oscar pilots being very satisfied with the Ki-43-II hitting power on fighters... Or of numerous P-47Ds going down after a single pass...

The simple fact is, if the Ki-61, Ki-84 and Ki-44 were dramatically more effective than the Ki-43-II against US fighters, the Oscar wouldn't have remained in production for two years past mid-1943, unless you assume the IJA was totally stupid. Note that the Ki-27 Nate was rapidly replaced by the Oscar,



-Stunning how absolutly incorrect all of that is......

Enjoy your thread, such "opinions" with absolutly no basis in fact like what you just posted and contrary to EVERY known historical document and fact is exactly why I find such threads begun with rediculous "statements" a waste of time."




- Er...MY thread?

OK, maybe ammend the "very" satisfied in what I said, certainly they did not feel the firepower was sufficiently low to discontinue production...

You are the one not dealing with the historical facts: They had alternatives to the Ki-43-II/III, yet they CHOOSE to keep these in production to the END of the war in the Tachikawa army arsenal, to the tune of 2124 for that particular plant alone, this large total STARTING production in April of 1944(!), according to Wikipedia...

If you can explain to us why they felt compelled to keep this awful thing in production for so long and so late, improving it all the way to the end of the war, then feel free to enlighten us...

I am simply saying that this was likely a results-based choice, not a dogmatic adherence to unproven principles.

Supporting this, many US pilots rated the Oscar as a more difficult kill than most of the other more advanced Japanese fighters...

To adhere to something that does not work, and kills more of your pilots for years on end, with a better alternative already in production anyway, would imply the worst sort of stupidity on the part of the Japanese Army.

The fact is, short of calling them stupid, you have few reasons left to explain why they choose NOT to do what you think they should have done... And please give me a break, and don't tell me they just bowed to engine availability to continue production...

I don't know where you got the idea I started this thread, or that it's "mine"...

In any case, we are all ears as to why the the widespread and stereotypical notion that the Japanese Army didn't know what it was doing is a perfectly sound dogma...

Gaston

M_Gunz
10-30-2009, 12:41 AM
By the same sort of logic the Sherman tank was better than the Patton or any alternative that could have been produced.

OTOH it may have something to do with manufacturing processes, supply logistics and numbers produced as well as the
politics of doctrine far away from the front where shortages followed by disruptions due to attacks occurred.

The whole picture is too big to analyze on a piece by piece basis. If something doesn't make sense then the answer
is much more likely a lack of data than some new ground-breaking theory. One man in the right place can turn the
best answers into nothing as was done in Germany to the first successful jet program and halt all progress long
enough to make a crucial difference. In every major country the same thing happened in different ways and scales.

There are still people who will argue that the earth is flat based on what they see with their own eyes and little
or nothing else. Stick to those facts and sure enough the world is flat and the sun and moon go around it.

M_Gunz
10-30-2009, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To adhere to something that does not work, and kills more of your pilots for years on end, with a better alternative already in production anyway, would imply the worst sort of stupidity on the part of the Japanese Army. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, I just loved this line! kills more of your pilots for years on end -- yup, that's what happened all right!

Maybe by the time the message got through the pilot quality of the IJA was lacking to such an extent that better
planes wouldn't help much? Will a noob do better in a Spitfire than a FW?

Otherwise why the Kamikazes? And they started when?

LEBillfish
10-30-2009, 01:36 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">To adhere to something that does not work, and kills more of your pilots for years on end, with a better alternative already in production anyway, would imply the worst sort of stupidity on the part of the Japanese Army. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, I just loved this line! kills more of your pilots for years on end -- yup, that's what happened all right!

Maybe by the time the message got through the pilot quality of the IJA was lacking to such an extent that better
planes wouldn't help much? Will a noob do better in a Spitfire than a FW?

Otherwise why the Kamikazes? And they started when? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it boils down to all that it takes to develop a new aircraft, tool up for it, set up manufacturing, get it into production, work out the bugs...etc.. Add to that there was little to no cooperation between the Army and Navy, let alone manufacturing firms in that they even during the war were fierce competitors. In kind the Japanese simply did not have the resources be it materials, manufacturing equipment, engineers etc..

The end result, it takes much longer then most realize on average to take something from a napkin to full blown production......Remember too we're not just talking the aircraft, yet the technology to manufacture the parts, design and build the equipment.......The list endless.

So, add that all up, then consider the Japanese NEVER intended on the war lasting very long (this another of many reasons you hear often how they continually pushed for the "final battle"), plus what turned out in many cases to be irresponsible leadership (as there are many more procurement and logistics commanders then battlefield).....and in the end they made due with what they had.

Also, contrary to Wikpedia the source of all things incorrect....Nakajima, the source, the inventor, the developer, etc. of the Hayabusa, once they had set up production for the Ki-84, dropped ALL Ki-43 efforts. Tachikawa sticking to it making use of the tooling as more then anything, no matter how out dated......They needed aircraft in the air.

........and that is the ONLY reason the Ki-100 came into existance, simply due to the manufacturing failures of the Ki-61.

I however want to hear about these NUMEROUS single pass P-47 kills. Oh, they took out a small few, yet numerous? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

K2

NetDaemon
10-30-2009, 12:53 PM
Plus, Hayabusas were used as Kamikazes towards the end of the war and for that role they didn´t need top notch performance nor pilots.

So yeah, it makes sense to keep on building an old, cheap and simple to manufacture aircraft if you´re going to use it only for crashing into the enemy.

Gaston444
10-30-2009, 01:30 PM
Quote, M Gunz: "By the same sort of logic the Sherman tank was better than the Patton or any alternative that could have been produced."


-The difference here is that the Sherman's concept WAS based on a completely stupid doctrine, caused if I remember correctly by a misinterpretation of a 1942 excercise prior to any combat experience.

This pathetically absurd doctrine, for those who don't know, was that light and fast open-top M-10 tank destroyers would engage German armor FROM BEHIND the front line at long range, while the heavier-armored Shermans IN FRONT would engage troops at close range, protected from behind by the tank destroyers's wishful thinking I guess...

When faced with actual reality, the still-inadequate 76 mm Sherman was hurriedly introduced, with little support from US generals apparently, and even then they still had to borrow for a while their armor-piercing ammo from M-10 units...

In any case the embarrassing tank-destroyer concept was abandoned as quickly as was logistically possible, while the Ki-43-II/III was kept in production long after considerable combat experience would have made its comparative loss rate a well-established fact.

Quote, M Gunz: "OTOH it may have something to do with manufacturing processes, supply logistics and numbers produced as well as the
politics of doctrine far away from the front where shortages followed by disruptions due to attacks occurred."

-The first B-29 mainland attack, the first Japanese mainland attack since the Doolittle raid, occurred in June of 1944, and almost all but ONE of the B-29 attacks during 1944 had negligible effects on production because they tried to imitate 8th Air Force European bombing doctrine from high altitudes. (The ONE very successful 1944 attack resulted in the Ki-100 engine substitution, or the creation of what the Japanese considered their best fighter of the war...)


Since the Japanese could not match Allied aircraft speeds, they still considered maneuverability their most useful asset for lowering aircraft losses in fighter-vs-fighter combat, compared to the faster and less maneuverable fighters they DID build, and this after years of combat experience. While it may be fashionable sixty years after the facts to see this as a misguided doctrine, their experience evaluating their own aircrafts told them the Ki-100 could take on successfully 3 Ki-84s or two P-51Ds.

That they considered the Ki-100 so superior to their own much faster Ki-84 (a well-documented historical fact) doesn't fit currently accepted hit-and-run dogma, but it does shed light on why the Ki-43-II/III stayed in production for so long. They HAD a 690 km/h fighter in the Ki-84, and they STILL tought the Ki-100 was far superior. I wouldn't be surprised if the combat record of either proved them right...

Gaston

M_Gunz
10-30-2009, 01:40 PM
I don't know how long they expected the war to last but they started pretty early. If the attack on Pearl was to
knock the US out of the war then the idiots that decided on that got more war than they knew. They were high on
themselves just as badly in denial as any total drunk or junkie. It's a lesson often repeated, too much success
just like pride, leads to a fall.

GerritJ9
10-30-2009, 03:13 PM
The Ki.61's engine was simply too sophisticated for Japanese industry's production technology; although the basic castings (crankcase/cylinder block/heads) were generally sound, the crankshaft plus its roller bearings and parts for the injection system were of doubtful quality (to say the least). Add increasingly unskilled labour as the war progressed and the result: the original Ha-40 was unreliable, and the Ha-140 was even more so (Aichi's version of the engine, a licence-built Daimler-Benz, probably suffered from the same defects). And no matter how good the airframe, if the engine's a dud the whole plane is. The final nail in the Hien's coffin was the destruction of the plant producing the engine in early 1945, which left Kawasaki with an increasing stock of engineless planes which were desperately needed. Enter the Ki-100, surely one of the most successful, if not THE most successful, improvisations in aviation history- an airframe designed for an inline V-12 receiving a radial engine which WAS available.
Japanese industry simply did not have the resources to turn out new designs quickly enough and in the quantities required, which is why older designs had to remain in production- ANY plane, even a semi-obsolete one such as the Ki.43, was better than no plane at all. Stupidly, the armed forces added to industry's problems by calling up skilled workers, which had to be replaced by unskilled labour, including students, schoolchildren and POWs (a problem that was not unique to the aircraft industry- shipbuilders saw their skilled workers disappear in the same way). Add increasing material shortages thanks to shipping losses to Allied subs, almost total lack of cooperation between "Army" and "Navy" factories and later the effects of Allied bombing, is it surprising that under such circumstances, both production quantity and quality steadily dropped? And that new designs that DID fly, had little chance of being produced in the huge numbers Japan desperately needed- if they entered production at all?

ImpStarDuece
10-30-2009, 04:31 PM
[quote]their experience evaluating their own aircrafts told them the Ki-100 could take on successfully 3 Ki-84s or two P-51Ds.[/qoute]

I'd love to see a cite for this.

Back up your unsubstantiated opinions.

M_Gunz
10-30-2009, 08:07 PM
They didn't just run out of skilled workers, they ran out of skilled pilots. E-fighting takes a lot more training even
when you have the doctrine which they did not. Put the noobs in the turn-fighters but BTW they still didn't last.
If pilot survival was supposed to have proved the Ki-43.. the large majority of pilots got wiped out, IJA and IJN.
Did they achieve mission goals involving contact from mid-war onward? A bunch of Kamikazes did get through but that
wasn't about countering air superiority let alone achieving it, it proves what about their fighters?

LEBillfish
10-30-2009, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
They didn't just run out of skilled workers, they ran out of skilled pilots. E-fighting takes a lot more training even
when you have the doctrine which they did not. Put the noobs in the turn-fighters but BTW they still didn't last.
If pilot survival was supposed to have proved the Ki-43.. the large majority of pilots got wiped out, IJA and IJN.
Did they achieve mission goals involving contact from mid-war onward? A bunch of Kamikazes did get through but that
wasn't about countering air superiority let alone achieving it, it proves what about their fighters? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oddly enough, everyone was.....The only difference being that the U.S. had a much better training program and once to the lines tactics that supported novice pilots.

New Guinea is an awesome example of this.....Hard core aces of both sides around December began dropping like flies. Bong very likely would of as well, and for that reason is why he was pulled from combat.

It's a fascinating read how as the long experienced Ki-43 & Ki-61 aces fell, some very skilled pilots, well versed in combat, the type fighter pilots dream of being one by one even in groups began being shot down.....and quite often by novice pilots.

At the very same time, what were now the old Vets of the 5th Airforce also began to fall in great numbers...Men who made the P38 & P47 what we know them to be, led and trained, were the examples for all just like their Japanese counters were oddly almost tit for tat knocked down by again novice pilots.

It's an old law of living......Live by the sword, you die by it. Quite simply be it 6 years or 6 months these men of both sides were tired, stressed, and had become ripe pickings for beginners luck.....and the odds had simply caught up with most.

New Guinea is a great example for wanna-be heros.

K2

deepo_HP
10-30-2009, 09:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by koivis:
Some truths:

Every thread started by raaaid features a heading with no capital letters followed by one-meter long post from raaaid, containing some creative pictures and even longer ones from a person who understands him (or pretends to). These posts do not include any capital letters either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
it is a common misbelief, that capitals are needed to bring down a posting.
since the early internets, words without capitals have been proven sufficient even for the task of replying to serious topics. there is evidence in the threads you mentioned that progressive expressions with no capitals have the same explosive power than capital equipped ones.
capitals make more sense, sure - but a load of small bullshets can get rid of any meaning if they are properly aligned and concentrate on vulnerable spots.

it is the poster, not the word!

M_Gunz
10-30-2009, 09:50 PM
Well BF, the recent Viet vets I served with had a similar view of the chances to survive as a ground troop.
You can be as good as there is and still catch it while total sh-heads go home untouched. Ain't no justice.

Gaston444
11-01-2009, 12:12 AM
Quote, ImpStarDuece:

"[quote]their experience evaluating their own aircrafts told them the Ki-100 could take on successfully 3 Ki-84s or two P-51Ds.[/qoute]

I'd love to see a cite for this.

Back up your unsubstantiated opinions.

ImpStarDuece,"



-OK, how about this for substantiated?: "Aeroplane" November 2005, "Ki-100 fighter Database" p. 61-77. (16 full pages on nothing but the Ki-100, with remarkable details, including on the development of the projected high-altitude turbo-charged variant)

Textual quote : P. 76:

"At these schools, the cream of the IJAAF's instructors, all very experienced combat pilots, would give their opinion on the new fighter (Ki-100). Almost all the Akeno instructors were graduates of the 54th Class of the Army Air Academy and also highly-qualified sentai commanders in their own right.

During March and April they would fly the Ki-100 in comparison tests against the most capable Japanese fighter then in service, the Ki-84 "Frank". After extensive testing the conclusion drawn by the Akeno pilots left little to the imagination.

In short, it stated that given equally skilled pilots, the Ki-100 would ALWAYS win a fight with the Ki-84 in any one-to-one combat. They further added that in a combat situation with up to three Ki-84s, the Ki-100 pilot could still develop the battle to his advantage.

The results of the evaluations at the Hitachi school were just as clear-cut. Captain Yasuro Mazaki and captain Toyoshia Komatso,also both graduates of the 54th class, developed the combat evaluation situations for the new fighter, and in order to give an unbiaised opinion of the aircraft, they swapped aircraft after each engagements and attempted combat from the opposite standpoint.

In the first combat the Ki-100 was flown against a single Ki-84 with the Ki-100 winning outright.

Mazaki stated: "When we entered combat with the Ki-100 taking the height advantage, the Ki-100 won every time. Even with an altitude disadvantage the Ki-100 could hold down the Ki-84 in two or three climbs during the exercise"

He added that the Ki-84 was "only superior to the Ki-100 in diving speed. The Ki-100 was much better in the turn and while climbing."



-I could not locate this more precisely quoted claim that the Ki-100 -"was so superior in turns as to be able to take on two P-51s at the same time", but it came directly from an experienced Japanese commander.

Against the P-51: "Aeroplane" p.77: "I learned how to take my fighter out of the firing line of the P-51 when being chased. I might never be able to shoot it down, but I was sure I would never be downed!"

P. 77. "The Ki-100 could fight equally against the P-51D"

P. 77. "The maneuverability of the Ki-100 was the best of the Army's frontline fighters with the exception of the Ki-43... And it had a strong advantage in that even less experienced pilots could fly it easily and fight with it."



-Note the defensive turning and climbing emphasis on all the above evaluations and encounters: The Ki-84 had a top speed of 690 km/h versus the Ki-100's top speed of probably less than 600-610 km/h(!).(P.68: "The Ki-100 was as fast as the current Ki-61-Id.")

-Note how the Ki-84's superior dive speed apparently counts for very little. Why?

How could they evaluate the Ki-100 as so superior to the Ki-84? In the answer I would think could be found clues as to why the lowly Ki-43-II/IIIs remained in massive production all the way to the end of the war...

The answer is that the Japanese knew in advance that the enemy would usually have the altitude advantage: Like the Germans, they could never afford the fuel for Combat Air Patrols (CAP): On the defensive now, they had to rely on primitive, short-range warning systems, and so would usually come in from below to an enemy that inevitably enjoyed a well-established altitude advantage.

Add to this the lack of altitude performance of most of their fighters (even the Ki-84 was apparently very unpredictable-performing up high), and you get circumstances where boom-and-zoom high-speed theories simply do not do much good for the side starting below.

It did not matter that the Ki-84 was faster than the Ki-100 by perhaps 90 km/h: It would always be much slower than a diving P-51D no matter what its true level speed was, since it would be under the burden of climbing (note the pronounced emphasis on climbing in the evaluations). What matters in these disadvantaged circumstances is how easily can the climbing aircraft get out of the enemy's axis of fire WHILE climbing, or at least do so well enough to force a more even-handed head-to-head firing pass.

The Ki-84 was inferior at doing this and, incidently, its controls also got comparatively worse still with any speed above a fairly modest 250-300 MPH, as did those of the A6M5/7 Zero above 250 MPH. No real high speed incentive with these, even when compared to the Ki-43-II/III...

Hit-and-run means little when you are below the opponent and flying slower-diving aircrafts... Given the above evaluation of the 600 km/h Ki-100 versus the 690 km/h Ki-84, and given the fact that the Ki-100 was STILL considered less maneuverable than the 550-578 km/h Ki-43-II/III, it then becomes a little clearer why the Ki-43-II/IIIs were kept in production so massively and so late, despite the weakness of their armament.

Gaston

Blutarski2004
11-01-2009, 06:35 AM
Gaston,

You have carefully erected a gigantic house of intellectual cards here. I love the Ki-100, I really do, but major alarm bells should go off in your brain whenever you read a source arguing that any given weapon system "always" wins or "never" loses. The Ki-84 versus Ki-100 arguments put forward in your quotes imply that the P40B's flown by the AVG against the A6M2 early in the war should have been slaughtered wholesale, since the only advantages the P40 held were superior dive speed, a slight level speed advantage below 3,000 ft, and better maneuverability at high speed. But we know that they in fact performed quite adequately. As I've said before, aerial combat is a great deal more complex than stacking up performance statistics and running mock combats under controlled conditions.

M_Gunz
11-01-2009, 06:57 AM
Given the results of the Japanese teachers there should be no surprise that Japan did not develop different doctrines
nor planes to use with them. They just stayed with the turnfight mentality. Their tests only showed the suitability
of those pilots to the planes they compared, not what -could- be done with dissimilar planes to the old tried and true
turns-will-give-me-victory Ki-43 and Ki-100. It was left to the Allied pilots to show them how it's done and they did.

JtD
11-01-2009, 11:19 AM
Nice quotes Gaston, interesting read, but I agree with others in that IF the slower planes plane always wins, the faster plane is not flown properly.
So this either indicates that the Ki-84's used weren't faster than the Ki-100's used, or that they were improperly flown.

LEBillfish
11-01-2009, 12:32 PM
Well, Gaston's conclusions as you have all guessed are VERY incorrect.

The Ki-100 was a bandaid fix that worked out...In truth however it never came close to performing how a Ki-61-II could....Trouble is, they couldn't get engines in them past the very few they made due to production failings as Garret mentions.

The Ki-84 on the army side, and N1K2 & 3 on the navy were on par with allied aircraft and even noted as such by allied testing.......Unfortunately it was too little too late, as by that time they were knocking on the home islands door, and the navy having nothing to do with the army decided to hold back their forces for "the final battle".

The Ki-84 was the ONLY aircraft noted that the U.S. speed demon P-51 would not pursue (was something of an unwritten policy in that it was a waste of effort)....Quite simply though they may have been able to eventually catch them the Ki-84 was so fast, such a good climber, and could manuever so well, that it would take too much time to pursue so they let them go.

Oddly the Ki-84 was nothing more then a Ki-43 on steroids.

Ki-43-1 thru III were fodder by 1943. Ki-61 was fodder by 1943. Ki-61-II never happened. The Ki-100 was fodder since its inception. The Ki-84 had a chance...Just not that late in the game with so few, and so few experienced pilots.

Frankly the round and round baffle them with BS.....We're talking the Ho-103, and suddenly the Ki-100 is better then the Ki-84 (a more powerful Ki-43 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) YET the Ki-43 is better then both.....has become dull.

C'mon....this is tiring and rediculous....and I am taking my own advice and walking away.

K2

Gaston444
11-02-2009, 12:41 AM
Funny, this reminds me of this other thread on AH, where I mentioned that the Merlin P-51 could boost its very low-speed turn rate (around or below 200 MPH) with a special 3-step "trick" that was fairly widely used: Downthrottling the engine, increasing prop pitch and lowering the flaps. I knew of a dozen or so combat report examples, many of which can be found on the "WWII Aircraft Performance" site.

The result was usually a slow gain on some FW-190As, and a faster gain on the Me-109Gs. I think maybe the Me-109G could be equal to a Merlin P-51 doing this if it had MW-50, and surely later FW-190A-8 variants should still be somewhat superior to both at these low speeds, especially with the broad wood prop, but I disgress...

Surprisingly to me, this widely used 3-step P-51 low-speed trick did not fit accepted simulation dogma. Nobody seemed to be even aware of what I was talking about...

I produced a combat report, describing just this:


http://www.spitfireperformance...hanseman-24may44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg)



What was the reaction to this painfully clear, step-by-step situation reversal? Well...: That P-51 pilot just didn't know what he was doing!... You can't LOWER the power below the turn rate peak to improve the turn rate! The prop pitch doesn't work like that! He did a dumb thing and survived, etc... I tried to reason with them that it was widely taught and used, often with similar successful results, but to no avail...

So now you have dozens of the best Japanese pilots evaluating the slower Ki-100, and finding it inevitably superior in co-altitude, or near co-altitude, fighting to the much faster Ki-84 (April of 1945 testing can only mean the Ki-84 was at its best), and the argument now presented to me is that these experienced, active-service sentai commanders, many of them aces, don't know what they are doing or what they are talking about...

I have tried to let actual combat reality intrude here, and explained that if you know the enemy will usually have a massive altitude advantage, you WILL be flying the slower aircraft, regardless of what it is... And you cannot dive away from them, to zoom above them later, if they can out-dive and out-zoom you at dive speed by a wide margin... Japanese aircrafts are usually inferior-handling at these speeds.

For an on-the-defensive reacting force that is most often climbing from below, it is acceleration, climb and turn rate, and especially the retention of speed in turns or climbing turns, that defines true performance, not the near-irrelevant maximum speed under those circumstances... To which I would add firepower for head-on passes, but not a big plus for most Japanese aircrafts... The FW-190A was an example of a specialized low-speed turn fighter that had this critical firepower advantage, though it was saddled by a poor climb rate.

Note that contrary to mind-numbing simulation dogma, the retention of speed in turns is not linearly linked to the climb rate, as the differences in climb rates between the Ki-100 and Ki-84 are likely not very large, yet the difference of speed retention in turns, and in turning ability, obviously was...

Both the FW-190A-8 at low speeds, and the Merlin P-51 at many speeds, retain speed extremely well in turns, but don't have really good climb rates. The Me-109G has a very good climb rate, but bleeds speed like a pig in turns. This could explain the apparently strange turn-rate inferiority of the fairly fast-climbing Ki-84 to the Ki-100: See the thread on this message board "Flying the real 109E", started with this pilot report:



http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=1261&lang=en-CA

Quote: "Multiple maneuvers seemed to result in a notable decay in speed, particularly whenever the leading edge slats deployed; a stark contrast to the Spitfire, whose elliptical wings retain energy nicely under sustained ‘g’."

- Note the words: "a STARK contrast". This does not show up on the relative climb rates of these two, and please note it is clearly said this is NOT exclusive to the slats being out... This is also why the ungainly FW-190A out-turns the Me-109G in most variants before MW-50 appeared on the 109.

Of course the Japanese were not stupid, and would use hit-and-run tactics whenever the opportunity of a large altitude advantage presented itself. The problem is, their real combat experience was that this opportunity typically did not happen very often, as their aircrafts and engines were not competitive at very high altitudes, and fuel availability limited the patrols that could create these opportunities. In addition, many of their aircrafts were not very useable in fast dives, including the poor high-speed controls of the Ki-84. So their priorities in combat values reflected their actual combat experiences, which you would do well to assume were more informative than yours...

Gaston

M_Gunz
11-02-2009, 03:48 AM
LOL, combat reality!

Blutarski2004
11-02-2009, 07:05 AM
..... I was unaware that the FW190A was a specialized low-speed turn fighter.

Interesting.

Metatron_123
11-02-2009, 09:31 AM
Ok. Good climb and turn rate. How come the Zero wasn't considered a hot ride by 1945 if these two were the priorities?

LEBillfish
11-02-2009, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I was unaware that the FW190A was a specialized low-speed turn fighter.

Interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...shows what you know....noob... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

K2

Blutarski2004
11-02-2009, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I was unaware that the FW190A was a specialized low-speed turn fighter.

Interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...shows what you know....noob... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

K2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Ya just gotta love Ubizoo.

;-]

M_Gunz
11-02-2009, 12:22 PM
Where the trolls get fed at all hours day and night....

R_Target
11-02-2009, 12:58 PM
This thread is even crazier than the other Ki-43 thread.

Blutarski2004
11-02-2009, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Where the trolls get fed at all hours day and night.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... and the public is invited to watch!

Gaston444
11-03-2009, 04:58 AM
The FW-190A series was, barring bomber-destroyer versions, specialized in low-speed horizontal turn-fighting, and could fairly easily out-turn a non-MW-50 Me-109G. (It was much inferior to a Zero, but slightly below or equal, in sustained low-speed turns, to a Spitfire Mk IX, more so with the broader prop). Sorry to hear this is news to you, but this was widely known by all sides during the war...

Amusingly enough, it also happened to have truly terrible high-speed elevator response above around 250 MPH IAS, despite very light controls (the aircraft did pitch-up abruptly, but kept going straighter than its pitch attitude, with either a flick-out to one side or a massive G-intensive deceleration: "Take care not to kill speed by sinking" said Eric Brown about pull-outs). It also had a fairly poor ability to sustain speed in high speed turns. High-speed dive pull-out performance was among the worst. Word was, in 8th Air Force circles, that if the high-speed dive pull-out was not started at 8000 ft(!), it would result in a slightly nose-up pancaking Anton...

But, of course, they didn't know what they were talking about, right?

As far as I am aware, besides tests well above 21 000 ft, there is only ONE WWII statement that says the Me-109G out-turns the FW-190A at lower altitudes: A Rechlin La-5 evaluation involving a Me-109 with MW-50 against an unknown FW-190A variant at unknown speeds (sustained speeds higher than 250 MPH would favour the Me-109). Rest assured that, without MW-50, there would be ZERO statements to that effect, for the whole of WWII, concerning the Gustav series, especially at less than 250 MPH...

Gunther Rall, speaking of his Me-109F, said HE could out-turn the early FW-190As, but suggested this was not typical by saying "They told us the FW-190A could out-turn it (relating to the F series...)." In other words, a very narrow margin between those two, with a Me-109F that was 900 lbs lighter(!) than the Me-109G, which had only 10% more power but also more drag...

Rall also described the two as complementary: "The Me-109 was like a rapier, the FW-190 was like a broadsword". For those who need to brush-up on their medieval weapons knowledge, let's just say a rapier is a long narrow blade and is used to attack only in a straight-line, point-first thrust, while the broadsword is traditionally seen as being swung in a curving motion. A CURVE, get it?

And YES, the Me-109 DID bleed speed excessively in low-speed turns, until MW-50 compensated for that. Read detail of Walther Oseau's non-MW-50 G-6AS demise in "Jagdwaffe-Defending the Reich 1944-45": This quote is from an actual witness: "Each turn became tighter, and the Bf 109 slowed down, more so than his adversaries (Merlin P-51s). Oseau was later shot down near the ground"

Given the current abyssmal knowledge of the FW-190A's character, I'll just leave you with these two links to peruse:

http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war...iences-fw-190-a.html (http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html)

http://img30.imageshack.us/img.../jjohnsononfw190.jpg (http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg)

Quote, from condensed Russian opinion from months of combat vs FW-190As:

-"The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

-"The FW-190 pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers."

-"The FW-190 is more maneuverable in horizontal flight than the Me-109"

-"A fairly good horizontal maneuver [by Russian lightweight standards] permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin."

Not within this thread's main issue mind you, but like the P-51 low-speed "trick", it does show how delusional is the notion that math formulas can tackle the complexities of a real-life object churning air into a spiral...

But don't worry, all of the above is not clear at all, and these people, Jonhson and Rall included, are all nuts or confused anyway... Plus, words don't actually mean what they say: It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" -is you know...

Gaston


PS. To answer Metatron_123's quite valid point, I'll note that the A6M5 was far more fragile than the Ki-43-II/III (no pilot armor or fuel tank protection), and slightly inferior in combat ability to the Ki-43-III, at least until the heavily-armed A6M5c finally appeared. This was a massive improvement for the Zero, precisely in what it needed the most: The firepower density to hit faster opponents in a head-on or high-deflection snapshot, despite the obstacle of wing gun convergence. It then became clearly superior to the Oscar offensively, but was still probably inferior in survivability as the climb and turn rate were now much inferior to a Ki-43-III.

Despite this, the A6M5 Zero was considered hot enough by the Navy to serve as the mainstay fighter until the end of the war, even with the Spring of 1944 availability of the 650 km/h, but slower-climbing, N1K1-J.

I think the A6M5 Zero's ridiculous kill/loss ratio could have been easily helped by protecting the fuel tanks and pilot, and replacing the mixed armament with 5 or 6 medium mgs, as Saburo Sakai suggested... In the same vein, I think it is ridiculous that the Ki-43's fast-firing Ho-103 (800-900 rpm) was not exploited in an unsynchronized wing emplacement, given the 550 rpm it had synchronized...

There, I know better than them now...

G.

Kettenhunde
11-03-2009, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But, of course, they didn't know what they were talking about, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No they know what they are talking about. It is people who do not understand the physics, take anecdotes out of context, and erroneously draw generalized conclusion that don't know what they are talking about. This phenomenon is not limited by type, make, or nationality of airplane.

It is not hard to do the math and determine an aircrafts performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
11-03-2009, 05:40 AM
Mix and match; quotes without conditions then given conditions to suit an argument does not transfer authority
to the argument.

Gunther Rall tells that he could out turn the FW. Was he suggesting it wasn't typical when saying he was told
different? Did HE say that? is there anywhere mention of the speeds these events should occur?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Rall also described the two as complementary: "The Me-109 was like a rapier, the FW-190 was like a broadsword". For those who need to brush-up on their medieval weapons knowledge, let's just say a rapier is a long narrow blade and is used to attack only in a straight-line, point-first thrust, while the broadsword is traditionally seen as being swung in a curving motion. A CURVE, get it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Classic re-interpretation. "What Gunther Rall REALLY meant is..."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And YES, the Me-109 DID bleed speed excessively in low-speed turns, until MW-50 compensated for that. Read detail of Walther Oseau's non-MW-50 G-6AS demise in "Jagdwaffe-Defending the Reich 1944-45": This quote is from an actual witness: "Each turn became tighter, and the Bf 109 slowed down, more so than his adversaries (Merlin P-51s). Oseau was later shot down near the ground" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The quote doesn't say what speed, doesn't even say that any P-51 out-turned him BEFORE or AFTER he was slowed down.
ALL it says is he kept turning tighter and getting slower than his PLURAL adversaries.

Typical revisionist grab-and-morph quote usage. Do not adjust your TV set, it's beyond the outer limits all over,
one step to Raaaid.

JtD
11-03-2009, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As far as I am aware, besides tests well above 21 000 ft, there is only ONE WWII statement that says the Me-109G out-turns the FW-190A at lower altitudes: A Rechlin La-5 evaluation involving a Me-109 with MW-50 against an unknown FW-190A variant at unknown speeds (sustained speeds higher than 250 MPH would favour the Me-109). Rest assured that, without MW-50, there would be ZERO statements to that effect, for the whole of WWII, concerning the Gustav series, especially at less than 250 MPH... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are TSAGI tests that put the horizontal turn times at 1000m altitude of the
109F-4 at 19.6-20.5s
109G-2 at 20-21.5s
109G-4 at 21s
190A-4 at 22-23s
190A-5 at 22-23s
190A-8* at 21-22s
190D-9 at 22-23s

*: This Fw 190A-8 only had 2x20mm and a TO weight of 3986kg, 300kg lighter than normal.

and also
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It [the Fw 190A] was much inferior to a Zero, but slightly below or equal, in sustained low-speed turns, to a Spitfire Mk IX, more so with the broader prop </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire Vb at 18.8s
Spitfire IXc at 17.5s
Spitfire IXE at 18.5s

Kettenhunde
11-03-2009, 06:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This Fw 190A-8 only had 2x20mm and a TO weight of 3986kg, 300kg lighter than normal.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a fact there is no such thing in the Luftwaffe inventory as an FW-190A8 with only 2 X 20mm MG151's. The vast majority of FW-190F/G's were produced from pre-existing Anton airframes.

Keep in mind too that in any test flight, the performance greatly depends on the skill of the test pilot in the specific aircraft.

That is why insurance companies today base their rates off of a pilots experience "in type".

In the case of the VVS testing, the relative performance mirrors my own mathmatical analysis for relative performance. I would not take the specific numbers for either one as absolutes.

Given the physics of turning flight, I would suspect the margin of error is widest for a human flow test flight.

All the best,

Crumpp

RSS-Martin
11-03-2009, 08:30 AM
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/popcorm2.gif

Tipo_Man
11-03-2009, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Quote, from condensed Russian opinion from months of combat vs FW-190As:
-"The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."
-"The FW-190 pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers."
-"The FW-190 is more maneuverable in horizontal flight than the Me-109"
-"A fairly good horizontal maneuver [by Russian lightweight standards] permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin."
G. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow!
At first I thought these are some funny or ironic statements...

Here is the original report, in russian language:
http://www.airpages.ru/dc/docaf.shtml
This report also mentions He-113 and gives recommendations how to fight this unexisting plane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Keep in mind that these war-time sources contain many errors and wrong conclusions.
This "recommendation for aerial battles" was issued in early 1943, while fw-190 apperad on the russian front in late 1942, so russins didn't have much information about it.
Furthermore russian "recommendations" were notoriously wrong throughout the war.
In a similar document issued in 1941 the recommendation was to fight Bf-109F in vertical, since soviet fighters (Yak-1 and I-16) had better climb rates!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
So don't thrust every semi-propaganda source http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
In fact TsAGI tests are much more correct and reliable source.
Russians were kind of "obsesses" of turn-rates, so every captured plane was tested for turning.
And all these tests confirm that FW-190 is far inferior to bf-109 in turning...

Blutarski2004
11-03-2009, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Quote, from condensed Russian opinion from months of combat vs FW-190As:
-"The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."
-"The FW-190 pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers."
-"The FW-190 is more maneuverable in horizontal flight than the Me-109"
-"A fairly good horizontal maneuver [by Russian lightweight standards] permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin."
G. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow!
At first I thought these are some funny or ironic statements...

Here is the original report, in russian language:
http://www.airpages.ru/dc/docaf.shtml
This report also mentions He-113 and gives recommendations how to fight this unexisting plane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Keep in mind that these war-time sources contain many errors and wrong conclusions.
This "recommendation for aerial battles" was issued in early 1943, while fw-190 apperad on the russian front in late 1942, so russins didn't have much information about it.
Furthermore russian "recommendations" were notoriously wrong throughout the war.
In a similar document issued in 1941 the recommendation was to fight Bf-109F in vertical, since soviet fighters (Yak-1 and I-16) had better climb rates!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
So don't thrust every semi-propaganda source http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
In fact TsAGI tests are much more correct and reliable source.
Russians were kind of "obsesses" of turn-rates, so every captured plane was tested for turning.
And all these tests confirm that FW-190 is far inferior to bf-109 in turning... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Nice to hear from you, TM. Hope you are keeping well!

Kettenhunde
11-03-2009, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In fact TsAGI tests are much more correct and reliable source.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For realitive performance, I would agree.

For absolute performance....TsAGI is not even close.

All the report shows is information recorded under unknown conditions by a test pilot flying an unknown maintenance condition aircraft with very little experience in type.


All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
11-03-2009, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All the report shows is information recorded by a test pilot flying an unknown condition aircraft with very little experience in type. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if they took their time any evaluated each plane at it's respective corner-speed or if it was just some "do and see" fun-test.

You know, like the one they did with that funny propeller.

JtD
11-03-2009, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

For realitive performance, I would agree.

For absolute performance....TsAGI is not even close.

All the report shows is information recorded under unknown conditions by a test pilot flying an unknown maintenance condition aircraft with very little experience in type. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you are aware that the linked Russian test is not a TsAGI test. In fact, it's not even a test. If you are, could you please say which TsAGI test you are referring to?

JtD
11-03-2009, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

I wonder if they took their time any evaluated each plane at it's respective corner-speed or if it was just some "do and see" fun-test. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They usually managed to get a 5% accuracy from German planes when compared to German data. Not that bad, considering they were using captured aircraft.

Tipo_Man
11-03-2009, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:

They usually managed to get a 5% accuracy from German planes when compared to German data. Not that bad, considering they were using captured aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in fact russians hold the record for the best climb rate achieved in a Bf-109G2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
4,4min to 5000meters with a captured in Stalingrad plane !
So, please, don't underestimate their efforts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
11-03-2009, 11:46 AM
Well, maybe they just went for a test-flight on a really cold winter's day.

Kettenhunde
11-03-2009, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Well, in fact russians hold the record for the best climb rate achieved in a Bf-109G2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Under what conditions, Tipo-man?

I can take a screw driver, and in 1 turn increase the climb rate considerably on most any aircraft. It won't be correct by the maintenance manual and you are going to risk engine/propeller failure.

Set the blade stops to the wrong mark and you can increase climb rate AND get a reading on the tach that is within limits....

If the tach is not properly calibrated who knows what the rpm was on the climb....

Shed some weight and your climb goes up too. The difference between maximum performance in the summer and winter climb performance is extremely significant as well. My airplane sees 1800fpm in the summer and 3000fpm in the winter....

It is not a Russian thing, it is airplane thing. Nobody is saying anything about the competency of the Russians or anyone else.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
11-03-2009, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:

Well, in fact russians hold the record for the best climb rate achieved in a Bf-109G2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
4,4min to 5000meters with a captured in Stalingrad plane !
So, please, don't underestimate their efforts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was under the impression that the 4.1 minutes achieved by the Finn also came from a G-2?
A G-1 at Rechlin was tested at 4.2 minutes, which is a pretty good agreement.

M_Gunz
11-03-2009, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well, maybe they just went for a test-flight on a really cold winter's day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or a not-so-cold-for-Russia winter day? LOL!

horseback
11-03-2009, 01:19 PM
Gaston444 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Rall also described the two as complementary: "The Me-109 was like a rapier, the FW-190 was like a broadsword". For those who need to brush-up on their medieval weapons knowledge, let's just say a rapier is a long narrow blade and is used to attack only in a straight-line, point-first thrust, while the broadsword is traditionally seen as being swung in a curving motion. A CURVE, get it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> WOW. You don’t even really understand the difference between a broadsword and a rapier, or the styles of swordsmanship that they required. I have to wonder if you’ve ever even SEEN either type of weapon, given the way you’ve misrepresented Rall’s words.

A broadsword was a powerful heavy weapon, most often used with a two handed grip; it had a point and blades on both sides, and it was generally thought of as a kind of long, bladed club. It was more common before the invention of firearms, and was intended to be used against armored opponents. To use one, you had to be strong, and you definitely didn’t need to be subtle—you just hacked away at your opponent until you broke through his shield or armor.

A rapier was a much lighter sword used primarily with a one-handed grip, and became common after the development of firearms made heavy armor a liability. As a result, speed and reach allowed emphasis on the point rather than on hacking through armor plate or chain mail with a heavy blade; you didn’t need to be as strong. Some examples dispensed with a sharpened edge entirely. It was a weapon that required precision and great skill; any peasant oaf strong enough to swing a broadsword could be effective on the battlefields of its day, but the rapier was considered to be a gentleman’s weapon.

Rall compared the 190 to a broadsword in part because of its much heavier armament and partly because any peasant oaf could fly one and acquire the skill to be effective in it relatively quickly; a 109’s guns had to be aimed more carefully to take out an opposing fighter, much less an enemy bomber, and you had to know what you were doing to place yourself into position to make full use of your weapons.

I won't bother to comment on your other assertions, because you appear to belong to the "HEY!! I READ A WHOLE BOOK (or magazine article) AND NOW I HAVE THE TRUTH!!!" school of thought, and so far I see no evidence that you have ever made any effort to actually comprehend the information you've ingested.

cheers

horseback

TS_Sancho
11-03-2009, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not within this thread's main issue mind you, but like the P-51 low-speed "trick", it does show how delusional is the notion that math formulas can tackle the complexities of a real-life object churning air into a spiral... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgive me for being naive but what area of aircraft performance is too complex for mathematics to accurately predict and describe?

This isn't 1920, the physical laws which govern powered flight are well understood and thus aircraft performance is easily predicted and described with mathematical formulas.

Just so you know, Gunther Ralls quote comparing the BF109 to the FW190 as a rapier and a broadsword is repeated ad nauseum whenever the subject of relative performance between the two is brought up. Your interpretation is opposite to how most people read it but I have to give you points for creativity ( swung in a curving motion versus staight line thrust. Priceless.)

You are making an extraordinary claim which contradicts the conventional acceptance of the FW190's performance merits which requires validation beyond your personal interpretation of anecdotal evidence.

Get it?

TheGrunch
11-03-2009, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
A broadsword was a powerful heavy weapon, most often used with a two handed grip; it had a point and blades on both sides, and it was generally thought of as a kind of long, bladed club. It was more common before the invention of firearms, and was intended to be used against armored opponents. To use one, you had to be strong, and you definitely didn’t need to be subtle—you just hacked away at your opponent until you broke through his shield or armor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gotta be honest, I am not in disagreement with you about the relative performance of the 190 and 109, but this assessment is full of myth and misconception, not that I blame you given that these misconceptions are rife due to TV and film.
Broadsword has essentially come to mean any medieval sword, the word itself is a fairly modern invention and can refer to single-handed or two-handed weapons. No swords are particularly effective against armor, although the development of swords during the middle ages DID favour a movement from sharp, flattened-oval profiled, single-handed cutting weapons toward hollow-ground or diamond-profiled hand-and-a-half thrusting swords (little clubbing involved), sharpness of blade becoming less critical as armour became more effective. Rapiers are big, heavy weapons, often heavier than a medieval single-handed sword, a descendant of the broadswords intended for civilian duelling, have a read: http://swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php
Main thing I wanted to mention, though, is that swordsmanship with the longsword was every bit as developed as that of the smallsword fencing of the Renaissance and later - read up on I.33, Fiore Dei Liberi or any of the German masters like Talhoffer or Ringeck. Anyway, I could go on, but if you're going to rag on someone about not reading up properly, you could have been a better role-model. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If you want to lose a few misconceptions, though, have a look at the articles on www.myarmoury.com, (http://www.myarmoury.com,) excellent website.
Back on topic, it's like TS_Sancho says, Gaston...the burden of proof is on you since you're working against the current consensus, and if you want anyone to believe your assertions you'd have to provide actual test data under the conditions you describe and explain why this test data is more reliable than that currently accepted to provide the best picture of these aircrafts' performance, rather than cherry-picked anecdotes and blind disregard of any others' evidence.

horseback
11-03-2009, 06:28 PM
'Broadsword' and 'rapier' are general names given long after both types fell out of favor, and cover a wide range of weapons used over several centuries in the case of the broadsword, and at least two centuries in the case of the rapier.

I was using an image for each for each as appropriate to the Gunther Rall 'quote', and I assume that what he was picturing for a 'broadsword' (and bear in mind that the 'quote' is a translation of his original comments in German) may have been something along the lines of a two handed --I want to say great sword-- that was used in the late Middle Ages and well into the Renaissance, often by largish fellows with no pretensions to nobility.

'Rapier' in the context of the quote may actually have meant 'epee', but generally refers to the sorts of swords we see in movies about musketeers or Cyrano de Bergerac. I realize that some of these things were 1.5m long and little more than long steel spikes, but most popular images make them out to be more like the smaller gentleman's swords of the 1700s and later.

Both of these images are properly suited to Rall's comparison of the 190 and the 109, and that was why I used them.

Now run off and find an actual medieval weapons forum and nitpick someone else.

cheers

horseback

Blutarski2004
11-03-2009, 07:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
A broadsword was a powerful heavy weapon, most often used with a two handed grip; it had a point and blades on both sides, and it was generally thought of as a kind of long, bladed club. It was more common before the invention of firearms, and was intended to be used against armored opponents. To use one, you had to be strong, and you definitely didn’t need to be subtle—you just hacked away at your opponent until you broke through his shield or armor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gotta be honest, I am not in disagreement with you about the relative performance of the 190 and 109, but this assessment is full of myth and misconception, not that I blame you given that these misconceptions are rife due to TV and film.
Broadsword has essentially come to mean any medieval sword, the word itself is a fairly modern invention and can refer to single-handed or two-handed weapons. No swords are particularly effective against armor, although the development of swords during the middle ages DID favour a movement from sharp, flattened-oval profiled, single-handed cutting weapons toward hollow-ground or diamond-profiled hand-and-a-half thrusting swords (little clubbing involved), sharpness of blade becoming less critical as armour became more effective. Rapiers are big, heavy weapons, often heavier than a medieval single-handed sword, a descendant of the broadswords intended for civilian duelling, have a read: http://swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php
Main thing I wanted to mention, though, is that swordsmanship with the longsword was every bit as developed as that of the smallsword fencing of the Renaissance and later - read up on I.33, Fiore Dei Liberi or any of the German masters like Talhoffer or Ringeck. Anyway, I could go on, but if you're going to rag on someone about not reading up properly, you could have been a better role-model. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If you want to lose a few misconceptions, though, have a look at the articles on www.myarmoury.com, (http://www.myarmoury.com,) excellent website.
Back on topic, it's like TS_Sancho says, Gaston...the burden of proof is on you since you're working against the current consensus, and if you want anyone to believe your assertions you'd have to provide actual test data under the conditions you describe and explain why this test data is more reliable than that currently accepted to provide the best picture of these aircrafts' performance, rather than cherry-picked anecdotes and blind disregard of any others' evidence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Thanks, Grunch. It's always a good day when I learn something new and interesting. Excellent website as well.

Zeus-cat
11-03-2009, 07:58 PM
Six pages and once again the original poster has never replied to anything posted in this thread.

M_Gunz
11-03-2009, 11:06 PM
LOL! In something slightly reminiscent of sports play the thread got hijacked real fast on page 1 with a
rousing performance of the 50 cals vs Tigers song including the Yes-They-Can and That's-Ridiculous verses.
There was also, notable to mention, some new wordings of the same old verses or something very like them.

If the owner doesn't come to claim it after 30 days it belongs to???

M_Gunz
11-04-2009, 01:59 AM
Oh, BTW slowing the prop does cut into the gyroscopic force needing to be countered in the turn.
Not exactly rocket science is it?

You only need to drop the revs in the start of the turn. If you're running 110%+WEP then you might
want to throttle down first and then drop the revs.

Best way I was shown to initiate a quick turn is to combine slowing the prop/engine with a nose down
turn both accelerating the plane and unloading my wings significantly at the same time, which allows
me to turn harder than I can while holding alt.
Once the turn is established then you want to bring the nose and then the revs back up. You only need
to drop maybe 100m in perhaps 45 to 90 degrees of turn and then back up to make a bit-tighter and faster
turn.

Tipo_Man
11-04-2009, 02:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Well, in fact russians hold the record for the best climb rate achieved in a Bf-109G2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Under what conditions, Tipo-man?

I can take a screw driver, and in 1 turn increase the climb rate considerably on most any aircraft. It won't be correct by the maintenance manual and you are going to risk engine/propeller failure.

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you speak about DB-605 you are probably correct. It was limited to 1.3ATA at that time(late 1942) because of hardware problems of the engine. (crankshaft if I remember correctly). So increasing the boost to 1.42ATA would give you some nice 175hp...
In fact in combat units this restriction was done with a pin on the throttle lever, which possible russians removed while testing.
You are correct that they didn't have the operational manual, and there was no overheat message back then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On other aircraft engines, a simple increase of boost was not possible, unless a higher octane fuel was used.

Still results from russian tests are very close to german ones. And I don't see a reason not to trust them.
In fact, there is a huge difference between one model in tests of soviet aircrafts also.
The same applies for all countries throughout the war I think.

Oh... and that same Bf-109G2... It crashed in Mart 1943 in a test flight due to engine failure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

doraemil
11-04-2009, 03:32 AM
whats strange is Gunther's quote also fits in with Chinese (ancient) weaponry.

Example their straight sword (rapier), thin and with a point, generally took 1000 days to master (if trained every day) and used angles and stabs at weak points. Edged cuts were used, though rare compared to stabs straight or coming in from appropriate angles.

This required more study in swordplay and strategy, especially vs armored opponents, as it employed a balance of offense / defense. Generally favored as the champion's or general's weapon . . .

109 tactics seem to favor this, using angles.



Their saber (broadsword) was different, a curved single edged weapon, took 90 days to master, and it was cutting / chopping / circular attacks in a rapid fashion and constant offense. Since it was easier, it was usually the conscripts, citizen soldier, or worker turned soldier's weapon.

It was good for attacking and since it was the foot soldier's weapon, generally worked best if in pairs or groups. FW 190's like wings . . .

Kettenhunde
11-04-2009, 04:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you speak about DB-605 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am speaking about engines in General Tipo-Man.

We have a BMW801, Merlin V1650-7, Jumo-213, Jumo 211, and are the North American distributor for MotoBende who specializes in DB engines. All have variations of the same adjustments. It is not a matter of knowing just which screw to turn....that is easy to figure out for any mechanic.

You have to know which way to turn it and how far to turn it. That is not easy and is next to impossible without the specific information from the manufacturer.

This has absolutely nothing to do with metering. It takes a screwdriver and a few minutes.

I just spent 2 full days after annual dealing with propeller adjustments issues in my aircraft to get the rpm/manifold pressure right after a propeller overhaul.

For example a propeller generally has three adjustments, one at the control arm on the governor which must be safety wired after adjustment and two adjustments on the propeller. One to influence rpm and another to change the blade stops.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It crashed in Mart 1943 in a test flight due to engine failure </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not surprised it was being maintained by "hope this works".

That applies to any captured aircraft from any nation during the war.

Any flight test represents a very large increase in the chances for some pretty significant errors both from maintenance and the pilotage. These errors can be favorable or not. This is why all aircraft performance is a percentage range over a mean average under specific conditions.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gaston444
11-04-2009, 05:41 AM
Quote, JTD: "Spitfire Vb at 18.8s
Spitfire IXc at 17.5s
Spitfire IXE at 18.5s"

To put the reality of the difference between a Mk V and a Mk IX in perspective, consider this: A Spitfire Mk IX with twin-type FLOATS (let me re-iterate this; a FLOATPLANE Mk IX...) has the SAME top speed as a Spitfire Mk V... That's how much extra power it had... Do these figures seem to reflect some kind of plausible reality? Read a FEW British pilot anecdotes to see how similar the Mk IX was to the Mk V in performance...

I would say, in addition, that turn rate is too complex an issue to be displayed without pilot comments. There are many issues with getting the best turn rate performance, and just a series of raw numbers like this, with no handling comments, reflects to my mind: Wing area divided by weight multiplied (apparently not!) by thrust... Possibly with ONE Russian aircraft tested as a benchmark from which the whole thing derives... I was fooled by these tests for a long time too, but... Are there even German or British serial #s attached to these "tests"?

If there are, the Russian pilots needed Rechlin and RAE guidance badly...

Quote, Kettenhunde: "In the case of the VVS testing, the relative performance mirrors my own mathmatical analysis for relative performance. I would not take the specific numbers for either one as absolutes."


-I would bet not... This tends to confirm what I was suspecting all along about these turn rates...


Quote, Kettenhunde: "It is not hard to do the math and determine an aircrafts performance."


- OK, can you show me a turn rate calculation formula that includes, as a variable, the distance between the propeller and the leading edge of the wing (by consequence the sweep of that leading edge as a variable also)?


Here's a proper comparative test that show, again, that the FW-190A-5's handling stank at speeds above 250 MPH...:



http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg




Quote, Tipo_man: "This report also mentions He-113 and gives recommendations how to fight this unexisting plane.
Keep in mind that these war-time sources contain many errors and wrong conclusions.
This "recommendation for aerial battles" was issued in early 1943, while fw-190 apperad on the russian front in late 1942, so russins didn't have much information about it."


-Yeah, but did you notice that there are EIGHT text lines on the He-113, and over 100 lines concerning the FW-190? Now, your overlooking THAT couldn't possibly be due to a desire to hurt the credibility of the report, now could it?

As for the timeline, late '42 to early '43 still covers several months of front-line combat on a front several thousand miles long... Somehow I get the feeling that this exceeds your own combat experience against the FW-190A...


Quote, Horseback: "WOW. You don’t even really understand the difference between a broadsword and a rapier, or the styles of swordsmanship that they required. I have to wonder if you’ve ever even SEEN either type of weapon, given the way you’ve misrepresented Rall’s words."


-Oh, for Pete's sake! Can we agree even lordly Gunther Rall is your average Joe Shmoe when it comes to swords? Did you notice I said the Medieval broadsword is TRADITIONALLY seen as being swung in curve? I know damn well even a two-handed european sword was not taught to be swung like a darned Katana you know... Or did you? Since you failed to pick up on my "TRADITIONALLY" caveat that I cunningly concealed in my sentence... This makes me think you DID think a Two-hand or one-and-a-half hand sword WAS taught to be swung in a curve in Medieval times... And none of you sword "experts" seem to have picked up on it, even though it does DIRECTLY affect Gunther Rall's slightly inaccurate choice of metaphor...

So can we agree that Gunther Rall is your average moviegoing Shmoe? And that in MOVIES the Medieval broad-bladed double-edge sword is swung around in curves because it obviously has a useable edge, while the thin-bladed rapier is used in lunging straight-line extensions? Is that clear enough as a metaphor to you?

Quote, TS_Sancho: "Your interpretation is opposite to how most people read it but I have to give you points for creativity ( swung in a curving motion versus staight line thrust. Priceless."


-Creativity? Have you heard of the French words "D'Estoc et de Taille"? I'll bet you think there are thousands of named moves for blades. Can you tell me how come the French have only two? I'll tell you why: There ARE only two blade moves when it comes to blades: You thrust or you cut. Cutting is done in a curve, thrusting is done in straight line.

Broadswords CAN cut, rapiers mostly don't, if you exclude all that nonsense about how they evolved from being "big, heavy weapons"... Does "big and heavy" sound appropriate to comparing a Me-109 to a FW-190A? Jeeeezz...

Are we talking about a 20th Century fighter pilot's words, or are we talking about sword evolution throughout history?

I don't know where the room for interpretation lies in what Gunther Rall said... Lord knows he tried to be broad enough...

Quote M-Gunz: "Gunther Rall tells that he could out turn the FW. Was he suggesting it wasn't typical when saying he was told different?"

-His exact quote was: "They (Rechlin test facility) told us it could out-turn our me-109F. However, I (wry smile) could out-turn it..." Again, the Me-109F was 900 lbs lighter and cleaner aerodynamically than the 10% more powerful Me-109G-6... Even then, Rall clearly suggest IT WAS NOT ALL pilots that could do it... Let's call it close, shall we?

Quote, Kettenhunde: "It is a fact there is no such thing in the Luftwaffe inventory as an FW-190A8 with only 2 X 20mm MG151's. The vast majority of FW-190F/G's were produced from pre-existing Anton airframes."

-Isn't it widely known pilots concerned with low-speed fighter combat had the outer guns removed?

Just for fun, this Rechlin evaluation...:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk




&lt;object width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R0YLLBvIBFk&hl=en&fs=1&"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R0YLLBvIBFk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"&gt;&lt;/embed&gt;&lt;/object&gt;



In case the link doesn't work, a few quotes from the youtube video: Werner Steitz:

"I liked the 190 very much, it was a much better airplane than the 109. You could curve it, you could fly fast, high, you could do anything with it"

Rechlin voice-over evaluation: "In terms of maneuverability, it completely out-classed the 109"

"The Focke-Wulf could out-turn and out-roll the Messerschmitt at any speed"

The last comment might be a slight exaggeration for turns at speeds above 250 MPH, but then maybe the shorter-nosed early FW-190-As had better high-speed handling than evidenced later by the 6" longer-nosed FW-190A-5 in the above comparative test against a P-47D Razorback... This is quite a center-of-gravity change...


Quote: "it's like TS_Sancho says, Gaston...the burden of proof is on you since you're working against the current consensus"

-The consensus is against the Rechlin test facility's own opinion for non-MW-50 Me-109s... What does that make the consensus, do you think?

Quote, Horseback: "I won't bother to comment on your other assertions, because you appear to belong to the "HEY!! I READ A WHOLE BOOK (or magazine article) AND NOW I HAVE THE TRUTH!!!" school of thought, and so far I see no evidence that you have ever made any effort to actually comprehend the information you've ingested."

-I've spent 14 years researching these issues to re-create Avalon Hill's "Air Force" boardgame: You can get a free E-mailed copy of 10 full-color Data Cards and 6 pages of rules if you E-mail me at: Gaston1_01@hotmail.com

Have you made any WWII air combat simulation game?

Quote, TheGrunch: "you'd have to provide actual test data under the conditions you describe and explain why this test data is more reliable than that currently accepted to provide the best picture of these aircrafts' performance, rather than cherry-picked anecdotes and blind disregard of any others' evidence."

-What evidence? Those calculated turn rates that can't even distinguish between a Spitfire Mk V and a Mk IX? Or the total silence on all sides about non-MW-50 Me-109Gs out-turning the FW-190A below 21 000 ft?

I've produced tests, Rechlin test quotes, pilot quotes from Russian, British, US and German sources, and all paint exactly the same picture... You have produced a series of probably calculated figures that I bet could not be re-traced to a single serial # of a German airframe...

There IS a pair of Navy tests that rate the FW-190A-4 and A-5's turn rate as equal to the turn rate of a P-51D, but then they go on to say the FW-190's roll rate is EQUAL to the Corsair's, which the British RAE took the trouble to write them a letter, IN WARTIME, to tell them essentially how full crap this test result was... The Brits took back those 190s and fixed them to better than expected performance: The turn rate was equal to a P-38G, which is close to a Spitfire Mk XIV... Aileron authority on the FW-190A DID affect the low-speed turn rate...

This is the sustained turn rate correlation made from various comparative tests:

From a series of American real-life tests (most available on the Mike Williams WWII aircraft performance site), I made the following correlations in turn rates, all using the same A6M5 Zero as the "link" benchmark between many of the various tests:

If the A6M5 Zero turns 2000°:

-The F6F-5 turns 1550° (A6M5 gains 360° in 3.5 X 360°)

-The F4U-1D turns 1550° (same as F6F-5)

-The P-38L turns 1330° (A6M5 gains 360° in 2 X 360°)

-The P-51D turns 1100°-1190° (A6M5 gains 360° in LESS than 2 X 360°)

-The P-47D Bubbletop turns 997° (A6M5 gains 360° in 1.5 X 360°)

-The FW-190A-5 turns 1162° (F6F-5 gains 360° in 3 X 360°): Despite this being roughly equal to the P-51D, it is made using a fully disassembled and re-built captured machine, whose aileron performance in this US Navy test was then contested by British evaluators in an official wartime document: Aileron performance DID affect low-speed sustained turn performance on the FW-190A...

Official British test have the FW-190A-4 pegged as "equal" in sustained turn rate to the P-38G: closer to 1300°.

Note I consider the non-MW-50 Me-109G and the P-51D very closely matched (barring the low-speed Merlin P-51 "trick"!), so around 1100°, while the FW-190A-5 SHOULD be around 1300°+, so a 360° gain in low-speed sustained turns, against both the Me-109G and the P-51D, in about 5.5 X 360°, which is a significant advantage. The FW-190A-8 is considerably better and should be around 1500° from an actual Western ace anecdote, so a 360° gain on the P-51D in 2.7 X 360° or thereabouts, but maybe only with the broad wood prop...

By the way, the currently flying newly-built FW-190A-8N has been estimated by its owners as superior in turn rate to the P-51D but inferior to a currently flying Yak-3... Imagine that...

Trust me, I know very well what it is to be in denial on this issue: I have been in denial for decades myself, and for the sake of the research on my game I only managed recently to clear my head of all the calculated-figures nonsense. I know very well all the mental gymnastics required for Anton denial, the thousands of incomprehensible pilot quotes you have to clear your head of day after day after day... I know the drill, believe me.

I do not owe you "proof", whatever that thing could be, because you have no countering evidence of your own, while about 99% of wartime sources agree with me. There is so far not a single non-MW-50 Me-109G pilot on your side to offer support for low-altitude low-speed turns... What you do owe is to yourself to open your own eyes to the general gist of what thousands of pilots are saying, and ignore what the prejudice of simplistic calculations are telling you.

And if you are unwilling to do that, there's not much I can do about it is there?

Besides that, if you've created a WWII air combat simulation game of your own, with the persistence to research it for decades, send me yours, you know where to find mine.

Gaston

BillSwagger
11-04-2009, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Any flight test represents a very large increase in the chances for some pretty significant errors both from maintenance and the pilotage. These errors can be favorable or not. This is why all aircraft performance is a percentage range over a mean average under specific conditions.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Aside from historical data, which is always questionable, couldn't modern day pilots such as yourself fly the rebuilds or replicas and get a good indication of the performance for each aircraft.

It seems silly to go around and round over old data when flyable aircraft are available to make better conclusions from.


Bill



http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/2copy-1.jpg

M_Gunz
11-04-2009, 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 Tipo_Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Well, in fact russians hold the record for the best climb rate achieved in a Bf-109G2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Under what conditions, Tipo-man?

I can take a screw driver, and in 1 turn increase the climb rate considerably on most any aircraft. It won't be correct by the maintenance manual and you are going to risk engine/propeller failure.

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you speak about DB-605 you are probably correct. It was limited to 1.3ATA at that time(late 1942) because of hardware problems of the engine. (crankshaft if I remember correctly). So increasing the boost to 1.42ATA would give you some nice 175hp...
In fact in combat units this restriction was done with a pin on the throttle lever, which possible russians removed while testing.
You are correct that they didn't have the operational manual, and there was no overheat message back then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On other aircraft engines, a simple increase of boost was not possible, unless a higher octane fuel was used.

Still results from russian tests are very close to german ones. And I don't see a reason not to trust them.
In fact, there is a huge difference between one model in tests of soviet aircrafts also.
The same applies for all countries throughout the war I think.

Oh... and that same Bf-109G2... It crashed in Mart 1943 in a test flight due to engine failure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the British did to the Farber FW, only they put in British plugs if not also British fuel. I've only seen page 1
of that report posted once and not since, they explained just what they did to get full boost until the engine started
to run rough.

When people take a plane out to see what it can do what they really find out is what they can do with it.

TheGrunch
11-04-2009, 06:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
'Broadsword' and 'rapier' are general names given long after both types fell out of favor, and cover a wide range of weapons used over several centuries in the case of the broadsword, and at least two centuries in the case of the rapier.

I was using an image for each for each as appropriate to the Gunther Rall 'quote', and I assume that what he was picturing for a 'broadsword' (and bear in mind that the 'quote' is a translation of his original comments in German) may have been something along the lines of a two handed --I want to say great sword-- that was used in the late Middle Ages and well into the Renaissance, often by largish fellows with no pretensions to nobility.

'Rapier' in the context of the quote may actually have meant 'epee', but generally refers to the sorts of swords we see in movies about musketeers or Cyrano de Bergerac. I realize that some of these things were 1.5m long and little more than long steel spikes, but most popular images make them out to be more like the smaller gentleman's swords of the 1700s and later.

Both of these images are properly suited to Rall's comparison of the 190 and the 109, and that was why I used them.

Now run off and find an actual medieval weapons forum and nitpick someone else.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wouldn't say that was nitpicking, given that a good proportion of the things you posted were really quite wrong, including the comment that 'rapier' is a modern term. Read an original by George Silver - the man was dead by 1620-odd.
You have to expect that kind of criticism when you're insulting someone if you start with the words "You don’t even really understand the difference between a broadsword and a rapier, or the styles of swordsmanship that they required.", and then post a load of TV myth. It would have been just as easy for you to say, "I have to disagree with your interpretation" as to imply that the guy was a MASSIVE IDIOT for his interpretation. Personally, I kind of agree with him, but I don't think Rall was necessarily referring to turning circle, more likely he meant relative to their high-speed elevator authority.
Anyway, it doesn't matter particularly, I was just making the point that you're hardly innocent of what you accuse Gaston, so there's no point in getting so indignant or indeed offensive about it. I'm not saying I agree with him, just that at least he's not resorted to criticising your mental capacity.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And none of you sword "experts" seem to have picked up on it, even though it does DIRECTLY affect Gunther Rall's slightly inaccurate choice of metaphor... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, did I comment on your interpretation at all? Give me a bit more credit, personally I thought your wording was clear enough. On the topic of Rall's analogy, I'd say that loosely it sounds quite reasonable. A medieval single-handed sword is good at quick, sharp, punch-like strikes with the upper third of the blade. Imagine throwing a punch with more emphasis on the elbow - likewise the 190 is good at quick and frequent BnZ attacks with powerful and plentiful guns and has a phenomenal roll rate and better elevator authority at high speeds so it can follow a target through evasive maneuvering better - less of a requirement for firing accuracy and a good set-up but as much need for quick-thinking. If it hits a target there's little chance that the target will be able to continue the fight if indeed it survives. It it misses the target it is well suited to quick defense due to its rate of roll. It's a sharp, quick and well balanced cutting sword that causes massive bleeding.
The 109 is good at equally quick but more considered and hence less frequent straight-line attacks since there's a need to set up better due to poorer high-speed elevator authority, and is equipped with less weaponry that requires more precision, but it's easier to aim due to the central placement of the main weapon. It's capable of attacking just as persistently if necessary but the relative lack of firepower and a slower roll rate make such use as hazardous to the user as making a strike and failing to kill with a rapier. It's easy for someone to stab you back while your blade is caught in their ribs, if you will. Miss a vital spot and you may be in trouble, hit the right area, though, and it is just as deadly.

Tipo_Man
11-04-2009, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Any flight test represents a very large increase in the chances for some pretty significant errors both from maintenance and the pilotage. These errors can be favorable or not. This is why all aircraft performance is a percentage range over a mean average under specific conditions.
Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Both hands agree.
For example here are some soviet early-war tests. As one can see, there is quite a difference between aircrafts of one model.

http://tipoman.maddsites.com/f...h_serial_numbers.htm (http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/Soviet_Planes_with_serial_numbers.htm)

http://tipoman.maddsites.com/f...h_serial_numbers.htm (http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/Soviet_Planes_with_serial_numbers.htm)

M_Gunz
11-04-2009, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Curious. A partial page from a full document.

Hmmmmm. You know the full text of that document has been posted here before. Parts of it many times.
Quite often with special voodoo F-86 and MiG-15 doghouse charts and large screenie montage-bombs.

I'm not going to bother, I know that part of the show, it's a whole special class of trolling in itself.
Raaaid is totally the King of that class just like RBJ rulez trim-on-a-slider-land (get em while they're hot!).

stalkervision
11-04-2009, 08:46 AM
I'd never make a good troll. I'm not conniving enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Tipo_Man
11-04-2009, 08:48 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">http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Curious. A partial page from a full document.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is the full document:
http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21755

4) Turning (a) Turning and handling in excess of 250mph. The two airplanes alternately turned on each other's tail, holding in the turns as tightly as possible and alternating the turns first left then right. The P-47 easily outturned the Fw190 at 10,000ft and had to throttle back in order to keep from overrunning the FW190. The superiority of the P-47 in turning increased with altitude. The FW190 was very heavy in fore and aft control, vibrated excessively and tended to blackout the pilot.

So even one of the worst "turners" of the allies could outturn Fw-190? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gaston, please, you are getting pathetic with your efforts to prove your point. Instead of writing an essay based on excerpts from some dubious documents, do some research and post numbers

Just a hint for you.
A plane with generally high wingload and not so impressive power to weight ration is simply not supposed to turn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
11-04-2009, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:

To put the reality of the difference between a Mk V and a Mk IX in perspective, consider this: A Spitfire Mk IX with twin-type FLOATS (let me re-iterate this; a FLOATPLANE Mk IX...) has the SAME top speed as a Spitfire Mk V... That's how much extra power it had... Do these figures seem to reflect some kind of plausible reality? Read a FEW British pilot anecdotes to see how similar the Mk IX was to the Mk V in performance... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you possibly get more technical? Spitfire IX with floats is as fast as a V? Says what? Where's the test report showing a Spitfire MkIX with floats going as fast as a Mk V? What type of floats? WTF?

And for what British pilots said
"The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles ... at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft..."

Pretty much what the Soviets found in their tests, which were tests, not math based assumptions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Or the total silence on all sides about non-MW-50 Me-109Gs out-turning the FW-190A below 21000 ft </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if you hadn't forgotten the first half of the post you quoted me from you would have found turn times for the none MW50 109's and the 190A's from below 21000ft. So your perception of reality and reality itself differ a lot.

Günther Rall said
"I named the 109 a Florett and the 190 a Sabre. The 190 was a rugged aircraft, but the 190 had a very good setup of weapons."

Just so you know.

LEBillfish
11-04-2009, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Terrenceflynn:
Straight from Wiki:

The Ho-103 (Type 1) was a Japanese aircraft machine gun widely used during World War II. It was based on the American Model 1921 aircraft Browning machine gun but achieved a higher rate of fire by using a smaller, slower Breda (Vickers) cartridge . Because of this, the gun was frequently loaded with explosive or incendiary ammunition in an attempt to increase terminal effect on aircraft.

So to model ALL Japanese aircraft correctly that carried 12.7 guns every thrid round is explosive.

Again, according to British Ordanace testing the Japanese 12.7 explosive round hit almost as well as a20 mm explosive round. This would explain the HIGH rate of Oscar kills during WW2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski2004
11-04-2009, 10:43 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">http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Curious. A partial page from a full document.

Hmmmmm. You know the full text of that document has been posted here before. Parts of it many times.
Quite often with special voodoo F-86 and MiG-15 doghouse charts and large screenie montage-bombs.

I'm not going to bother, I know that part of the show, it's a whole special class of trolling in itself.
Raaaid is totally the King of that class just like RBJ rulez trim-on-a-slider-land (get em while they're hot!). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Dunno, Gunz. I always thought the Josf was kind of the Otto Preminger of this sort of stuff on Ubizoo. Seeing that Mig-15 vs F-86 Sabre energy chart at the beginning of each of his interminablly long posts always reminded me of the Roaring Lion at the beginning of each MGM movie.

TheGrunch
11-04-2009, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Quote, JTD: "Spitfire Vb at 18.8s
Spitfire IXc at 17.5s
Spitfire IXE at 18.5s"

To put the reality of the difference between a Mk V and a Mk IX in perspective, consider this: A Spitfire Mk IX with twin-type FLOATS (let me re-iterate this; a FLOATPLANE Mk IX...) has the SAME top speed as a Spitfire Mk V... That's how much extra power it had... Do these figures seem to reflect some kind of plausible reality? Read a FEW British pilot anecdotes to see how similar the Mk IX was to the Mk V in performance...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would be interested to know which of the aircraft (if any) had clipped wings, because if the IXe did, that might answer your question as to why the IXe is only slightly better than the Vb. A great many of them did, due to the fact that the use of the IX at low altitude, clipped wings and the e wing armament was the general pattern later in the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Here's a proper comparative test that show, again, that the FW-190A-5's handling stank at speeds above 250 MPH...:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really? Seems to me that it was outturned, not that its handling stank. There is a fairly important difference there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
This makes me think you DID think a Two-hand or one-and-a-half hand sword WAS taught to be swung in a curve in Medieval times... And none of you sword "experts" seem to have picked up on it, even though it does DIRECTLY affect Gunther Rall's slightly inaccurate choice of metaphor...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe that's because they were? Not exclusively, but usually. :S There's both a straight-line movement and a leveraging movement to a sword cut in order to build up speed. How did YOU think they were used?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
There ARE only two blade moves when it comes to blades: You thrust or you cut.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ever heard of the bind? Winden am Schwert? Mortschlag? Lots more to do than just cut and thrust. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Broadswords CAN cut, rapiers mostly don't, if you exclude all that nonsense about how they evolved from being "big, heavy weapons"... Does "big and heavy" sound appropriate to comparing a Me-109 to a FW-190A? Jeeeezz...

Are we talking about a 20th Century fighter pilot's words, or are we talking about sword evolution throughout history?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seems like we're talking about both. Did you READ the article I posted about rapiers? It's better not to call something nonsense when historical record (by which we mean average length and weight of museum specimens) disagrees with you AND the person who pointed that out has provided a fairly trustworthy source for that information. And in case you are wondering, yes, SFI is as trustworthy as it gets that is possible to link to on the Internet without scanning in a Ewart Oakeshott book or something.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
-The consensus is against the Rechlin test facility's own opinion for non-MW-50 Me-109s... What does that make the consensus, do you think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Can you provide us with a link to the actual text of the Rechlin test report? In any case, does it really matter? The difference is slight. What I disagree with is the idea that the 190 is ideal for low-speed sustained turning. I have little to no opinion on their relative merits as turn & burn aircraft, and what opinion I have is easily changed, since I have no knowledge of or interest in ever using them in that way. Sure, it might be better than the 109, but that's not exactly saying much, is it? The Soviet report you linked to on your first big rant about the FW-190 as a turner doesn't exactly seem to confirm what you're saying at all:

"If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail."
Seems to me they're saying that the 190 isn't as good as the La-5 at that game.

"When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver."
So here they're saying that the FW tries to make as many head-on passes as he thinks he can manage before being outturned too badly to get some decent separation in a dive (only two) and then runs away. Not exactly evidence that the FW-190 is best used that way. It's more properly evidence that German pilots had extreme confidence in their aircraft's armament, which was very justified. Also, when they say that the 190 pilot doesn't like to use vertical maneuvers, don't you think they're talking about the situation where the two aircraft are at a fairly similar E-state, given that they're talking about it specifically in the context of the 190 having a terrible climb rate (which of course it did)?
As for the Johnson story, what does it actually demonstrate? By the sounds of it Johson just pulled as tight a turn as he could and bled away too much speed. There's not even a guess at the relative speeds of the two aircraft given. Perhaps the 190 was faster to begin with, not unlikely given that it was a faster aircraft at that altitude. That's the kind of anecdote that's worth nothing to anyone apart from to demonstrate that Johnson could think quickly enough while in the middle of a fight to find an escape plan when things looked bad. Certainly nothing you can take from it in terms of relative performance, it doesn't even say how many full 360 turns they made, just that it was LIKE they were forming an ever decreasing circle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Quote, TheGrunch: "you'd have to provide actual test data under the conditions you describe and explain why this test data is more reliable than that currently accepted to provide the best picture of these aircrafts' performance, rather than cherry-picked anecdotes and blind disregard of any others' evidence."
I've produced tests, Rechlin test quotes, pilot quotes from Russian, British, US and German sources, and all paint exactly the same picture... You have produced a series of probably calculated figures that I bet could not be re-traced to a single serial # of a German airframe...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You remember that when I posted that you hadn't provided any test at all, right? I don't have a time machine, Gaston, unfortunately. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif In any case, you've still only produced an isolated page from a US test of unknown provenance that has nothing to do with the 109 vs 190 issue and only says that the 190 is a better low-speed turner than the -47 (which is not exactly an amazing feat), and the Rechlin evaluation. Everything else you have provided was from Russian combat reports. And like JtD said, you're ignoring the TSAGI tests. I'm not about to count anectodes, especially given that Rall claims the opposite. Mainly though, you've provided a lot of information that you present as fact without any sources, that we're supposed to accept as gospel truth. In any case, who cares? The difference is a second at best, and that doesn't by any stretch of the imagination make the FW-190 a turnfighter. Your initial assertion that the FW-190 could match the Spit IX in a turn is at best optimistic, and that's being fairly kind.
I just don't see how you can think that it's a master of the turn & burn, just because it might *possibly* be able to outturn a 109G based upon a small selection of questionably accurate pilot quotes and one test report which you can only link to via a documentary, especially given that the 109 was never considered a TnB fighter itself?
I also can't find a single test that mentions your oft-quoted terrible 190 elevator response at high speeds.
If you want people to believe that 99% of wartime sources agree with you, you have to provide more than:
- one Russian report whose relevance is extremely questionable
- one page of a completely irrelevant US report
- one unsourced test from an unspecified documentary
- one German pilot's quote which is contested by another
- one British pilot's quote which doesn't provide enough information
Sorry, but like I said, the burden of proof is on you, so it would be nice if you'd provide original reports rather than second-hand testimony. The only report that is relevant is the Rechlin, but I don't see you providing the actual text of the report or anything. If you show us something ELSE that mentions that section of the Rechlin report, fair enough.

JtD
11-04-2009, 01:26 PM
The SpitIXe in the TsAGI test was a clipped wing version. The V was not. Don't know about the IXc, but I'd figure it wasn't.

Thanks for pointing to the obvious.

TheGrunch
11-04-2009, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The SpitIXe in the TsAGI test was a clipped wing version. The V was not. Don't know about the IXc, but I'd figure it wasn't.

Thanks for pointing to the obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, if he was determined not to work it out himself, someone had to say it. :P

Kettenhunde
11-04-2009, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> OK, can you show me a turn rate calculation formula that includes, as a variable, the distance between the propeller and the leading edge of the wing (by consequence the sweep of that leading edge as a variable also)?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't show you some nonsense like your asking for but I can point in the right direction to calculate aircraft turning performance.

This is the basic steps to used determine aircraft turn performance.

First we need out thrust limited performance:

1. Construct drag polars for 1g level flight and seperate into zero lift drag and drag due to lift

2. Determine Thrust available

3. Thrust available - Total Drag = Excess Thrust

4. Excess thrust - Parasitic component of drag = Drag rise due to lift in the turn

5. (Drag rise due to Lift turn/Drag due lift in level flight ) * Weight of the aircraft squared = lift squared -&gt; take the Square root = Lift

6. Lift divided by weight = maximum load factor we can sustain

Lift line:

1. 1 G leve stall speed * SQRT (load factor) = Stall speed under load

2. Determine stall speed under load for multiple load factor until I have enough data points on the curve to fill out the lift line.

Where the lift line intersects is your minimum radius of turn and just off of that you should have best rate of turn.

Once you have your load factor, angle of bank (a) has a fixed relationship to load factor. For example, at 60 degrees angle of bank, all airplanes are pulling a 2G load factor.

Once we know the sustainable Angle of Bank, rate and radius become easy because all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn!

Rate = (1091 * tan "a")/ V
Radius = V^2 / (11.26* tan "a"

Hope that helps you.

All the Best,

Crumpp

koivis
11-04-2009, 06:38 PM
Let me add:

Every thread with topic related to any aspect of aircraft performance (armament, handling, speed etc.) turns slowly, but surely into a "you know that Fw 190 was a low-speed turn fighter"-thread. By page 5 the topic has completely changed and by page 7 no one remembers the original topic. Also propably by about page 4 the original poster is just eating popcorn and watching the show, not daring to ask anything again. Never.

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

Blutarski2004
11-09-2009, 08:12 AM
For sale on EBay -

Report on Japanese 12.7mm aircraft gun ammunition.

http://cgi.ebay.com/JAPANESE-1...TL091020203001r33713 (http://cgi.ebay.com/JAPANESE-12.7mm-AIRCRAFT-AMMO-INTELLIGENCE-REPORT-NEW_W0QQitemZ160371178251QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ2009 1020?IMSfp=TL091020203001r33713)

Insuber
11-11-2009, 06:16 PM
Noooo, RBJ nostalgy ! Give me back the good old RBJ, I want him now ! I still remember his "cascades of performance figures scrolling up in my mind at the sight of an enemy A/C, like in Terminator" ... Great !



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
(...) RBJ rulez trim-on-a-slider-land (get em while they're hot!). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M_Gunz
11-11-2009, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Once you have your load factor, angle of bank (a) has a fixed relationship to load factor. For example, at 60 degrees angle of bank, all airplanes are pulling a 2G load factor.

Once we know the sustainable Angle of Bank, rate and radius become easy because all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn!

Rate = (1091 * tan "a")/ V
Radius = V^2 / (11.26* tan "a"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but one plane will usually fly the same bank at a different speed than another, for whatever reasons.

Kettenhunde
11-11-2009, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yeah but one plane will usually fly the same bank at a different speed than another, for whatever reasons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If an airplane can match a velocity, it can achieve a matching angle of bank, it may or may not lose altitude in doing so. It can match angle of bank and altitude while changing velocity too. Or it can maintain altitude and velocity while changing angle of bank.....

Note that is over a very narrow portion of the performance envelope. The vast majority of the performance envelope, all airplanes can achieve the exact same turn performance. In other words, off the maximum sustained performance line things are even.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
11-11-2009, 10:05 PM
Yes if the better turning plane doesn't then the other may match it.

Kettenhunde
11-11-2009, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes if the better turning plane doesn't then the other may match it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't what???

It might be easier to just state your point that you are trying to make. Then we can discuss it and get it cleared up.


All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
11-12-2009, 12:45 AM
turn better, of course

Kettenhunde
11-12-2009, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">turn better, of course </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are several ways to "turn better". Which do you mean?

For example, one airplane can be capable of sustaining a higher load factor at a higher velocity than another but not capable of sustaining a higher load factor at a lower velocity.

In this case, the airplane which can sustain a higher load factor at a slower velocity can slow down to gain turn superiority.

Of course that aircraft has just given up the initiative and placed itself at a substantial tactical disadvantage in the fight.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
11-12-2009, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">turn better, of course </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are several ways to "turn better". Which do you mean? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't matter, I think. The statement is true for all types of "turning better" I can think of.

Kettenhunde
11-12-2009, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Doesn't matter, I think. The statement is true for all types of "turning better" I can think of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good.

I think you can place your thoughts with your theories of airplane energy retention and continue devising new methods of determining EAS.

M_Gunz, what do you mean by "turn better"?

Rate, radius, or load factor??

All the best,

Crumpp

Razor1uk-LMC01
11-17-2009, 12:19 PM
This thread posts = omg wtf was that (all)?

At least its started to cool off slightly. History is a funny thing, usually it is... written by victors, mishandled by acedemics, abused by & for the masses and generally ignored by politicians.

Certainly OMHO, there is some valid truths in here, sometimes eachside has valid points, even in the same direction on the same road of thought but with the sign posts in their own language (metaphorically speaking).

I await this thread to mature (or to be 'closed').

DrHerb
11-17-2009, 12:28 PM
Someone has in their sig a statement which rings true around here.

"Ubi Forums, re-writing history every day"

M_Gunz
11-17-2009, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Doesn't matter, I think. The statement is true for all types of "turning better" I can think of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good.

I think you can place your thoughts with your theories of airplane energy retention and continue devising new methods of determining EAS.

M_Gunz, what do you mean by "turn better"?

Rate, radius, or load factor??

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No really, if the pilot of the better turning plane doesn't turn beyond what the other can then both planes
will have the same bank +and+ speed and make the same turn.

The better turning plane -could- make a turn the other can't match, whether by flying a tighter radius at
the same G's or by running higher G's at the same radius or whatever -- the point being that the other plane
won't be -able- to follow. I guess it's mainly a war thing.

Kettenhunde
11-17-2009, 03:53 PM
Good! Now we can break down turn performance to see just what matters to a fighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">whether by flying a tighter radius at
the same G's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same G = same angle of bank...

He cannot fly a tighter radius at the same G without changing velocity. In this case, you must go slower if we want a tighter radius...

Radius = V^2 / (11.26* tan "a")

100KEAS^2 / (11.26* tan "60") = 512.7 ft

120KEAS^2 / (11.26* tan "60") = 738.3 ft

Now lets see the effect on rate...

Rate = (1091 * tan "a")/ V

(1091 * tan "60")/ 100KEAS = 18.89 deg/sec

Rate = (1091 * tan "60")/ 120KEAS = 15.75 deg/sec

~ 225 ft radius advantage by slowing down 20 mph at the same G. It only produces a 3.14 deg/sec rate advantage. I takes 57 seconds to move 180 degrees through the circle....

What do you think would happen if the airplane going 20 mph faster decided to zoom as soon as he saw himself losing the rate of turn fight?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> or by running higher G's at the same radius or whatever -- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh..good one! Let's see what happens if we increase our Angle of Bank to 65 degrees or a load factor of 2.37G's and keep the same radius of 512.7 feet.

V^2 / (11.26* tan "60") = 512.7 ft

V^2 = 12380.24 = sqrt 12380.24 = 111.3 KEAS

Our velocity has to increase!

And there is the crux....the airplane that can sustain the highest load factor at the highest relative velocity can dictate the fight.

Load factor is what wins the initiative by forcing an opponent to slower velocity.

Turn rate kills and radius is not very important to a fighter.

All the best,

Crumpp

robtek1957
11-17-2009, 04:32 PM
Could, please, somebody with influence tell everybody that "chart - jockeys" have no friends???

Or as Homer Simpson would say: Boooooring!!!

Kettenhunde
11-17-2009, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Could, please, somebody with influence tell everybody that "chart - jockeys" have no friends??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No but someday you will call them, "Boss" when they give out your paycheck.

Gaston444
11-17-2009, 05:21 PM
Quote Tipo_Man:"4) Turning (a) Turning and handling in excess of 250mph. The two airplanes alternately turned on each other's tail, holding in the turns as tightly as possible and alternating the turns first left then right. The P-47 easily outturned the Fw190 at 10,000ft and had to throttle back in order to keep from overrunning the FW190. The superiority of the P-47 in turning increased with altitude. The FW190 was very heavy in fore and aft control, vibrated excessively and tended to blackout the pilot.

So even one of the worst "turners" of the allies could outturn Fw-190?

Gaston, please, you are getting pathetic with your efforts to prove your point. Instead of writing an essay based on excerpts from some dubious documents, do some research and post numbers"


-Can someone clarify to this guy what my point was? 'Didn't seem complicated to me...


Quote, JTD: "Günther Rall actually said
"I named the 109 a Florett and the 190 a Sabre. The 190 was a rugged aircraft, but the 109 had a very good setup of weapons."


- Isn't that even clearer as to what I said about the FW-190A being used in a curve and the 109 in a straight line?


Quote, TheGrunch: "Sure, it might be better than the 109, but that's not exactly saying much, is it?"

- Well, since the Me-109G-6 is very close to a P-51D, if numerous endless turning circle contests are any guide (IF the P-51D doesn't use the low-speed drop throttle-high prop pitch-drop flaps "trick" below 200 MPH), then YES it does say quite a lot...

Note the British rated in their tests the FW-190A-4 as equal in sustained turn rate to the P-38G, which in turn was demonstrated as quite close to a Spitfire Mk XIV...

Note this combat of a P-38G against a Me-109G:

Lt. Royal Madden from the 370th FG, 9th AF, July 31, 1944

“Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left. I then made a vertical right turn and observed Blue Two below and close and Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me. I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.

We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet. This boy was good and he had me plenty worried as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection. I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst. There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off. He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.

Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight.” [!!!!]


-Well if a FW-190A is equal to THAT P-38G, then it does say quite a lot about HOW each aircraft should be used, does it not?

The significance of that FW-190A-5 vs P-47D test is that the FW-190A-5 is best used AVOIDING high speeds, since at those speeds, above 250 MPH, it gets creamed in turns by even the P-47. Note also the FW-190A-5's pathetic pull-out performance at high dive speeds: "The P-47 has a decidedly superior angle of pull-out"

Or the perfectly agreeing Russian evaluation...: "However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)." To which I add:[!!!!!!!!]

Also this: "A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy [by this they undoubtedly mean zooming at high speed], there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs"."

http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war...iences-fw-190-a.html (http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html)

-WOW! What a stunningly convenient Boom and Zoom aircraft the FW-190A is!

It sort of reminds me of Eric Brown unconvincing "see-saw" description, when he admonishes to do it, but then to watch out: "Care must be taken not to kill speed during pull-outs by "sinking"... -Doesn't sound great for "Boom and Zooming"... By the way, do you notice the repetitive trend here, or is it just me?

On the other hand, a Me-109G-6, IF TRIMMED TAIL-HEAVY, would sometimes surprise P-51D(!) pilots by pulling out better than a tailing P-51D at near terminal dive speeds of 490-520 MPH, even though the P-51D could reach 550 MPH safely while the Me-109G could not.

The FW-190A could reach 590 MPH, but had to pull-out by 8000 ft.(!!!!) or "it would inevitably pancake itself" (Nose-up, tail-down: doesn't THAT sound familiar? "convenient target" anyone?) in the words of an 8th Air Force pilot. The same pilot emphasized this did not happen with the Me-109...

Does that sound like great "Boom and Zooming" fun? Doesn't the Me-109G sound better for that purpose?

Doesn't that illuminate Gunther Rall's "Floret and sabre" analogy in some kind of sympathetic light?

Or do you prefer to remain with your fictional (given that it bleeds speed in turns like the proverbial pig... See illustrative Me-109E evaluation: http://www.vintagewings.ca/rsr...ies/109/109Title.jpg (http://www.vintagewings.ca/rsrc/vwc/img/Stories/109/109Title.jpg)
) "Turn and Burn" Me-109s, and patently ridiculous (except maybe for the first zoom) and unhistorical "Boom and Zoom" FW-190As?

Sorry guys, but few things are more blatantly described than the relative character of these two aircraft types...

Your confident attitude in your baseless knowledge is just a chilling example of how fragile history is... Also, many nation's school systems have put WAY too much emphasis on maths as a way of explaining everything. NO, you can't predict precisely, with math alone prior to actual testing, how a large complex object churning the air in a dense spiral will perform... And jets are PUSHED and not PULLED, which you would think makes a big difference also, and thus a whole slew of math assumptions do not work there either, especially with the available purchase area of props at low speeds, compared to the narrowly focused jet thrust...

Call it nonsense if you want, meanwhile I'll stick with reality...

Gaston

Daiichidoku
11-17-2009, 06:05 PM
yay UBI getting better everyday now, its like years ago

wheres my popcorn smiley?

M_Gunz
11-17-2009, 08:28 PM
The light sword is more agile and precise, the heavy sword swings slowly and is more brutal by comparison.

ImpStarDuece
11-17-2009, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Note the British rated in their tests the FW-190A-4 as equal in sustained turn rate to the P-38G, which in turn was demonstrated as quite close to a Spitfire Mk XIV... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that the British rated the Bf-109 as a better aircraft in the horizontal than the FW-190A. They also noted the 109A4 was more maneuverable the the Spitfire V in all planes except the horizontal.

They also rated the Spitfire XIV as a significantly better turner than the P-47D, FW-190A and the Tempest V.

And yet, the RAF also thought that the Tempest V was slightly inferior to the Bf-109 in turns, and equal (or slightly better) than the 109A.

Curious. How do you square your opinion that the 190A was a better horizontal slow-speed turner than its competitors. And, how does it square with these pilot accounts from Tempest pilots, which the RAF rated as decidedly inferior to the Spitfire XIV and slightly better than the FW-190A?

"We then had a turning match lasting 4 minutes, mainly at tree-top height, with the hun apparently anxious to go home. I found I was able to hold him in the turns" - D. E. Ness

"When the Squadron broke on the Fw.190s I climbed up to 10,000 ft. after 1 of 3 190’s who were slightly above the remainder of the formation. I got onto his tail & there then followed a diving & turning match which lasted for 3 minutes. The Fw.190 had a Yellow band on its fuselage just forward of the tail plane. It was extremely difficult for me to hold him & it was obvious that the pilot was very good." R. A. Melles

'Blue 1 (F/L Varley) turned to port after the first enemy aircraft and I pulled up over his starboard side to cover his tail against another FW190 which I observed to be following him. This enemy aircraft however then pulled up behind me and we started doing tight turns, gradually losing height. The advantage was at first, slightly with the FW190, which advantage he gradually lost through flicking near the ground which compelled him to slacken his rate of turn" - G.F.J. Jongbloed

"I closed the range to 600 yds at zero feet; the hun broke stbd. and I saw another 190 on my tail, closing the range gradually. I turned with the two of them for several minutes, eventually getting a burst at one from 200 yds angle off 10° to line astern."

Against the 190D:

"Using + 11 boost and 3,750 rpm, the Tempest would almost get into a position to fire after about 3 complete turns, when the Hun would throttle back completely and disobey the golden rule of not changing bank, by stall turning the opposite way, thus almost meeting the Tempest head-on or at least at a big angle...."

"The Tempest makes a bigger orbit than the FW 190 but at about 220 mph it completes the actual turn quicker. After each of these stall turns, the chase would start afresh, the Hun making several unsuccessful attempts to dive away. After about 10 minutes of this, a pair of Tempests appeared on the scene and distracted the Hun's attention sufficiently for a short burst to be given which finished him off. 97"


VS 109

"The 109 turned with me & in 3 complete turns I was not able to gain any advantage, although my A/C was on the verge of stalling at about 50’ above the ground."

"Two Me 109s were turning with me, all three at 120° to one another. I found the Tempest could hold the 109s in the turn, in fact gain slightly on the one ahead."


"I kept on reminding my pilots to keep their speed above 300 m.p.h., for "109's" could turn better than we could at low speed" - Pierre Closterman

JtD
11-18-2009, 12:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Gaston444
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JtD:
Günther Rall actually said
"I named the 109 a Florett and the 190 a Sabre. The 190 was a rugged aircraft, but the 109 (*) had a very good setup of weapons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

- Isn't that even clearer as to what I said about the FW-190A being used in a curve and the 109 in a straight line? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, actually I think it is absurd to derive that conclusion from that statement.

(*) I would also like to point out that in Rall's original statement and my original post, the 190 had a very good setup of weapons, and not as you misquote the 109.

JtD
11-18-2009, 12:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What do you think would happen if the airplane going 20 mph faster decided to zoom as soon as he saw himself losing the rate of turn fight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd have him off my 6.

M_Gunz
11-18-2009, 04:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What do you think would happen if the airplane going 20 mph faster decided to zoom as soon as he saw himself losing the rate of turn fight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd have him off my 6. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good one, LOL!

My answer is that that is tactics and not one plane unable to turn as tightly for whatever reason. I am more likely
to be the guy doing the yoyo.

However Crumpp, what about the times when the tighter turning plane is co-speed and behind? Not good for the one
up front at all who is not faster.

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However Crumpp, what about the times when the tighter turning plane is co-speed and behind? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as one airplane has altitude, they can match any other aircraft's turn ability.

This is why sustained turn performance at low velocity is not a characteristics designers sought. The trend moved towards sustained ability at high velocity.

The more agile aircraft can simply out maneuver the less agile one.

This is why pilots focus on position and do not blame their shortcoming on the airplane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'd have him off my 6. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a few seconds.....the reality the slower aircraft is on the defensive against an opponent with a much higher energy state.

The slower aircraft's problems just got much bigger.

JtD
11-18-2009, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'd have him off my 6. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a few seconds.....the reality the slower aircraft is on the defensive against an opponent with a much higher energy state.

The slower aircraft's problems just got much bigger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much smaller, actually. Being possibly subjected to another attack is a much better situation than being fired upon. This is the main reason combat pilots sometimes do take evasive action.

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Being possibly subjected to another attack is a much better situation than being fired upon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His problems just got much smaller? On what planet would that occur?

The slower aircraft is winning the turn fight. How can he be fired upon as long as the other aircraft stays in the turning circle???

Speed is the key characteristic and the reason why a break turn is an effective defensive maneuver for any aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Same G = same angle of bank...

He cannot fly a tighter radius at the same G without changing velocity. In this case, you must go slower if we want a tighter radius...

Radius = V^2 / (11.26* tan "a")

100KEAS^2 / (11.26* tan "60") = 512.7 ft

120KEAS^2 / (11.26* tan "60") = 738.3 ft

Now lets see the effect on rate...

Rate = (1091 * tan "a")/ V

(1091 * tan "60")/ 100KEAS = 18.89 deg/sec

Rate = (1091 * tan "60")/ 120KEAS = 15.75 deg/sec

~ 225 ft radius advantage by slowing down 20 mph at the same G. It only produces a 3.14 deg/sec rate advantage. I takes 57 seconds to move 180 degrees through the circle....

What do you think would happen if the airplane going 20 mph faster decided to zoom as soon as he saw himself losing the rate of turn fight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The faster aircraft would be out of danger with a zoom and hold a significant energy advantage.

This is why V-speeds are important.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
11-18-2009, 07:09 AM
Cool, you can turn even the most basic statements into an argument. You're reducing general performance into one particular situation and put in a bit of tactics so that everything fits your agenda. How did the worse turner get where it is in the first place? And what good would a zoom climb at a speed far below typical sustained climb speeds do?

If I was in the worse turning plane and had a moron who just keeps flying circles on my tail, I'd just have him lap me and shoot him from behind. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I find it interesting that you once more managed to convert KEAS into feet. It should be known even to you that it requires TAS to calculate accelerations in and diameters of turns.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How can he be fired upon as long as the other aircraft stays in the turning circle??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless the other aircraft is riding the stall, it can cut into the turn to gain a firing solution.
But the main point is that the turning got someone off my six, if he decides to climb up, ok, if he stays in the turn, even better. But since we were in a turn fight, which is where my plane is better, I'm sure the situation before that turn fight was worse for me than now whatever he does.

M_Gunz
11-18-2009, 07:14 AM
If the faster aircraft has enough higher speed and the slower is already at his sustained turn limit then the
faster plane might be able to burn speed for angle in an unsustainable turn -- but he'd be far wiser rising up
and starting to yoyo, to keep his energy even as the other wastes his.

Just what options does the slower turnfighter have? Not many really, does he? He has to dodge and try to dodge
just enough to keep from being hit while hoping the other won't pull a surprising angles move on him. He can
only try to sucker the other and hope for him (or her, right BF?) to make a mistake. Maybe then he can reverse
the situation or possibly R-U-N-N O-R-F (from Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?)!

We know which one holds the initiative barring a stupid mistake or intervention of some kind.

BillSwagger
11-18-2009, 07:49 AM
To me it just seems that the advantage goes to the plane that bleeds the least speed in turns.

Chasing a better turning plane (tighter turner) seems to be easily countered by lagging to the outside.
As the (tighter turner) works tighter, he also slows down, but if the other plane maintains speed better in the slightly wider turn it can still maintain the energy for that moment when the (tighter turner) has slowed so much that both its turn advantage and energy is diminished. The wider turning plane can use the energy held in the wider turn to now tighten his turn, and gain lead on his near stalling victim. I hope that made sense.

I don't think the tighter turning plane is with out its bag of tricks, which is why the Zero was so successful, and why it was eventually forbidden to dogfight with them. Maybe what made the Zero so dangerous was that not only could it make the tighter turns, but it could also maintain much of its speed. Its only weakness was G loads, so any way to have a chance was to keep the fight fast enough so the Zero couldn't utilize its tighter turns with out busting a wing.

I read an interesting article. It was beefing up the presence of the P-40, and basically was a professional rant on how under rated the P-40 has become over time since World War 2, in part because of its reputation in competing with the Zero. Interestingly, it also mentions that none of the planes built to replace the P-40 could turn with the Zero either. He mentions that the P-40 can actually out turn the Zero at higher speeds, which is part of the reason why the Japanese had considered the plane to be their most challenging adversary in a low altitude dog fight. He spouts on about statistics, but the long and the short of it is that he thinks the P-40 is the most under rated plane of the war, which has a lot do to with some of its successors not doing any better against the Japanese regiment. He also seems to think it could turn with Spits and dive with 109s, but its only draw back was in climb.


Bill

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I find it interesting that you once more managed to convert KEAS into feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly the faux pas you want it to be but I will be glad to go down that road with you. Maybe you will learn to keep your mouth shut when don't understand concepts.

Want to discuss EAS and it uses again? We can talk about its effects on determining relative performance.

You can also re-post your "calculations" on EAS again!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> that everything fits your agenda. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


My agenda?? What is that? Please explain, I would like to know about this master plan.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If the faster aircraft has enough higher speed and the slower is already at his sustained turn limit then the
faster plane might be able to burn speed for angle in an unsustainable turn -- but he'd be far wiser rising up
and starting to yoyo, to keep his energy even as the other wastes his.

Just what options does the slower turnfighter have? Not many really, does he? He has to dodge and try to dodge
just enough to keep from being hit while hoping the other won't pull a surprising angles move on him. He can
only try to sucker the other and hope for him (or her, right BF?) to make a mistake. Maybe then he can reverse
the situation or possibly R-U-N-N O-R-F (from Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?)!

We know which one holds the initiative barring a stupid mistake or intervention of some kind.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what the physics tells us!

It is important to break down turn performance into its components. Turn performance is connected by fixed relationships that apply to all aircraft. The basic foundation being all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn.

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">bleeds the least speed in turns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Please, tell us more....

I think you might be on to something!

JtD
11-18-2009, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

...[-No answers to my questions-]... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please answer.

Regarding your questions, 1st, I have no interest in "discussions" with you. You've managed to create a 1 page discussion by dissecting a casual remark "the better turner turns better" right here. It's about as much as I can take.

2nd, your agenda, as I perceive it, would be to prove that a slow speed turn advantage of whichever kind is meaningless in air combat.

LEBillfish
11-18-2009, 08:50 AM
Well I've reviewed all the posts in this thread and have generated a graph to better explain the results of what's being discussed....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/graph.jpg

K2

BillSwagger
11-18-2009, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">bleeds the least speed in turns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Please, tell us more....

I think you might be on to something! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

really?? seems like common sense, why are you still talking, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif


Bill

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2nd, your agenda, as I perceive it, would be to prove that a slow speed turn advantage of whichever kind is meaningless in air combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I demonstrate the physics and it becomes an agenda?

You are mad because I did not answer your questions. Sorry but they seem like rhetorical question but I would be glad to answer them for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> How did the worse turner get where it is in the first place? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe he did not know he was the worst turning airplane of the two? Maybe like a real pilot, he is flying his airplane by its V-speeds.

Maybe, he understands the physics of what he is doing and thereby knows that the other airplane MUST be traveling at a slower velocity in order to be out turning him at the same angle of bank.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And what good would a zoom climb at a speed far below typical sustained climb speeds do? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The speed used in the calculations is just an example and not meant to represent any WWII Aircraft's performance. It is just used to illustrate aircraft performance. In the calculation both airplanes are assumed to be operating at their best turn speed.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 09:13 AM
So the mathematically challenged can get in on the discussion....

http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">seems like common sense, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Work a few problems changing only the speed.

See if you can get a faster airplane to out turn a slower one!

Radius = V^2 / (11.26* tan "a")

Rate = (1091 * tan "60")/ 120KEAS = 15.75 deg/sec

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> bleeds the least speed in turns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You will find the opposite is true. Once you understand this, we can continue.

JtD
11-18-2009, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

I demonstrate the physics and it becomes an agenda? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You asked for a clarification, I answered. Can we leave it at that? I'm not interested in discussing you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> How did the worse turner get where it is in the first place? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe he did not know he was the worst turning airplane of the two? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So he came from a position that was better than he could achieve with a zoom climb after a turn fight, I guess. This doesn't really put the better turner into a worse situation then before.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe, he understands the physics of what he is doing and thereby knows that the other airplane MUST be traveling at a slower velocity in order to be out turning him at the same angle of bank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and at the same g.

If he's that good he'll probably also know that the angle of bank is one variable of many the pilot controls directly or indirectly and not a god given constant. He'll also know that any amount of slip will ruin this whole angle of bank equation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The speed used in the calculations is just an example and not meant to represent any WWII Aircraft's performance. It is just used to illustrate aircraft performance. In the calculation both airplanes are assumed to be operating at their best turn speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point taken.

At any rate, climbing out of a combat with a guy close to your 6 who has just managed to out turn you (which is as I understand your scenario), may be a very bad idea, as you, depending on the performance and the actual positions of the aircraft involved, are giving him a free shot at your aircraft.
Going with your numbers and assuming a 90° lead in the turn, it would take the slower plane about 5 seconds to get a firing solution from 250 meters away at a slow plane flying straight in a climb, less and closer if he pushes the plane a bit.
If the it's more than a 90° lead in the turn, the slower plane may very well break off the turn in order to climb, dive or simply run away from the other guy. The other guy may come out higher in a zoom climb, but still needs to turn around to resume fighting and doing so, he will lose both time and energy.
All in all, a 20% speed disadvantage in a slow speed environment does not mean certain doom and might be a price worth paying for out turning your opponent.

JtD
11-18-2009, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Work a few problems changing only the speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Moot point, since the plane bleeding less speed would usually be able to maintain higher g's.

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
Maybe, he understands the physics of what he is doing and thereby knows that the other airplane MUST be traveling at a slower velocity in order to be out turning him at the same angle of bank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JtD says:
...and at the same g.

If he's that good he'll probably also know that the angle of bank </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would you make a distinction between angle of bank and load factor??

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'm not interested in discussing you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't either at your level. You should probably disengage quickly before you look really stupid.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> JtD says:
All in all, a 20% speed disadvantage </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets look at the effect of a 20% speed advantage.

How high should my plane zoom????

Characteristics of our theoretical aircraft:

Weight 1000lbs
Thrust in lbs = 200lbs
Drag in lbs = 100lbs

Zoom climb from 100mph to Vy at a 45 degree angle:

100mph = 147fps
Zoom Angle 45 degrees
Vy = 60mph = 88.2fps

Zoom height:

Sum the forces on the flight path -

1000lbs * sin 45 = 707lbs
200lbs – 100lbs – 707lbs = 607lbs

a = F/m

m = 1000lbs/32.2 = 31.06lb-s^2/ft
a= 607lb/31.06lb-s^2/ft
a = 19.54 ft/s^2

s = (V1^2 – V2^2 ) / 2a

s = (147^2 – 88.2^2)/(2 * 19.54ft/s^2) = 354 ft

354* sin 45 = 250 ft

Characteristics of our theoretical aircraft:

Weight 1000lbs
Thrust in lbs = 200lbs
Drag in lbs = 100lbs

Zoom climb from 100mph to Vy at a 45 degree angle:

120mph = 176.4fps
Zoom Angle 45 degrees
Vy = 60mph = 88.2fps

Zoom height:

Sum the forces on the flight path -

1000lbs * sin 45 = 707lbs
200lbs – 100lbs – 707lbs = 607lbs

a = F/m

m = 1000lbs/32.2 = 31.06lb-s^2/ft
a= 607lb/31.06lb-s^2/ft
a = 19.54 ft/s^2

s = (V1^2 – V2^2 ) / 2a

s = (176.4^2 – 88.2^2)/(2 * 19.54ft/s^2) = 597 ft

597* sin 45 = 422 ft

A 20% increase in velocity equates to a 70% increase in climb….

No speculation, role play fantasy, or neat stories to tell.

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Moot point, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Parametric study is the standard way to separate the effects in applied physics.

Your turn to answer questions....

Why would you make a distinction between angle of bank and load factor??

Let me rephrase that....

If you understand the relationship, Why would you make a distinction between angle of bank and load factor??

JtD
11-18-2009, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JtD says:
...and at the same g. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would you make a distinction between angle of bank and load factor?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To make sure it's a level turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wouldn't either at your level. You should probably disengage quickly before you look really stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not interested in discussing me either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lets look at the effect of a 20% speed advantage
...

[Slow plane]354* sin 45 = 250 ft

[Fast plane] 597* sin 45 = 422 ft

A 20% increase in velocity equates to a 70% increase in climb….

No speculation, role play fantasy, or neat stories to tell. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're omitting that it takes the fast plane about 50% more time to reach the 422ft than it takes the slow plane to reach the 250ft. But even if you weren't it would be an about 60% altitude advantage - with the parameters you chose.
I can pick other parameters where the advantage becomes as large or as small as I like it to be, in particular when considering that the planes are not identical.

JtD
11-18-2009, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Moot point, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Parametric study is the standard way to separate the effects in applied physics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So change angle of bank and keep speed the same.

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To make sure it's a level turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Baloney.

The relationship is fixed. The amount an aircraft can sustain is a function of thrust and that relationship can change in non-level flight.

The relationship of angle of bank to load factor does not change. Very Basic concept....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So change angle of bank and keep speed the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Keeping speed fixed illustrates the effect of speed, how? Explain.....

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


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I can pick other parameters where the advantage becomes as large or as small as I like it to be, in particular when considering that the planes are not identical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Feel free to crunch numbers at your leisure.

I wait breathlessly for your mathematical rebuttal.

JtD
11-18-2009, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To make sure it's a level turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Baloney.

The relationship is fixed. The amount an aircraft can sustain is a function of thrust and that relationship can change in non-level flight.

The relationship of angle of bank to load factor does not change. Very Basic concept.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, so you're in level flight and pull up into a climb. You're experiencing 2g's while doing so. Your angle of bank is 0°. Doesn't fit your basic concept of g's = f(angle of bank only), does it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Keeping speed fixed illustrates the effect of speed, how? Explain..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The plane that bleeds less speed can pull more g's until it bleeds the same amount of speed, because, as you know but fail to apply, induced drag increases as you demand more lift.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Feel free to crunch numbers at your leisure.

I wait breathlessly for your mathematical rebuttal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I am concerned, you can wait forever. I said how it is, you know how it can be done if you're interested, but I'm not going to waste my time with posting simple math in a bad format boring every other reader this topic might still have. I'm not sure why you're waiting for a rebuttal anyway since I clearly said I agreed with your calculation.
Last time I posted math you lost it and the topic got locked.

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> k, so you're in level flight and pull up into a climb. You're experiencing 2g's while doing so </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb now is a turn???

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The plane that bleeds less speed can pull more g's until it bleeds the same amount of speed, because, as you know but fail to apply, induced drag increases as you demand more lift. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh! And I suppose load factor does not effect your induced drag production......

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

Whoever is teaching you this stuff is dead wrong, JtD. If lift increases, then our induced drag production increases as well...

Load Factor = Lift / Weight

In a turn our lift production must increase to offset both the gravity vector of weight and provide the centripetal force to maintain the turn.

They have confused the concept that our best rate of turn is conducted at the fastest speed we can hold the largest angle of bank with the effect of speed on turn performance.

In fact, it is a basic concept that lift and drag are connected by design. If you increase one, you must increase the other and vice versa....

Once again, do the math.

Only vary speed and you will see the effect of speed.....

It is called a parametric study.

You will discover the correct relationship is the slower aircraft will turn better....

The airplane that slows down the fastest can outturn the airplane that does not slow down.

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Last time I posted math you lost it and the topic got locked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did not post math, you posted lines of computer code.

I did not lock that topic at all. I am not a moderator nor was I complaining to anyone to get it locked. Lots of errors on the internet why would yours be that big of deal?

In fact I would be thrilled if you posted those EAS subroutine computer code again. You hid the math processes inside of computer code lines which I am not familiar with.

I know the correct math and theory but I am not a computer programmer.

Once I dissected the code and could figure what you where doing with the math it became evident that both you and your other friend who PM'd me, had gotten a formula for EAS off the internet but completely screwed up the concept.

I can highlight the text and point out your exact error for you.

You decided to vary the density ratio contained the formula for non-standard conditions over altitude. That is why you never reached a balance of forces at a constant EAS....

A great example of why an internet education is problematic!

Gaston444
11-18-2009, 03:22 PM
Quote, JTD: "Gaston444

quote:
JtD:
Günther Rall actually said
"I named the 109 a Florett and the 190 a Sabre. The 190 was a rugged aircraft, but the 109 (*) had a very good setup of weapons.


- Isn't that even clearer as to what I said about the FW-190A being used in a curve and the 109 in a straight line?


No, actually I think it is absurd to derive that conclusion from that statement.

(*) I would also like to point out that in Rall's original statement and my original post, the 190 had a very good setup of weapons, and not as you misquote the 109."


-NO Sir, THIS is your original statement as it originally appeared (you can check it out), sorry if I corrected Rall's statement wrong, as I thought the "good setup of weapons" meant centralized armament:

"Günther Rall said
"I named the 109 a Florett and the 190 a Sabre. The 190(????) was a rugged aircraft, but the 190(???) had a very good setup of weapons."

-This is why I always re-read my posts, and I wish you would fess up to your OWN mistakes rather than say, falsely, "and my original post says so"... No, it doesn't:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/8301074997/p/8 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8301074997/p/8)
As far as the specifics of Rall's quote, I definitely remember reading it at least once as involving broadswords and rapiers, but since it was on an internet forum, I'll take your word for it...

A Sabre is most often a Cavalry weapon in French, but more often refers to a close-quater ship-boarding assault weapon in the English language, and in EITHER case is almost always characterized by BEING CURVED and mostly meant to be used edge-first in a hacking curved motion, followed by a pulling stroke as it slices.

Unlike the broadsword, THE WEAPON ITSELF IS CURVED and mostly used IN CURVES, while the Floret CANNOT be used in a curve as it has basically NO edge, so would you point out to me which part of YOUR interpretation is not absurd?

The ruggedness is inherent to the weapon being used in a curved swing, and I don't see how Rall relates ruggedness to either the pencil-thin floret or the Me-109, especially as opposed to the FW-190A which didn't break up as easily... I think the second part of the quote you attribute to him came later or was not linearly related in his mind to the edged weapon comparison... I mean, the Me-109 MORE rugged than the FW-190A? Really?


Quote, ImpStarDuece: "They also rated the Spitfire XIV as a significantly better turner than the P-47D, FW-190A and the Tempest V."

-I never said otherwise, only that the FW-190A could be close in some variants, especially the A-8 which the British NEVER extensively tested in tactical trials. They NEVER even got close to testing an A-8 with the broad wood prop... THAT would have been some revelation, let me tell you...

Quote, ImpStarDuece: " They also noted the 109A4 was more maneuverable the the Spitfire V in all planes except the horizontal."

- I'm sure Johnny Johnson, one of the greatest Western aces, would get a chuckle at that: Based on his actual combat experience, very well detailed in this extensive account, which HE obviously felt was representative (he wouldn't want to mislead his fellow pilots, now would he?);

http://img30.imageshack.us/img.../jjohnsononfw190.jpg (http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg)


-Oh yeah, I forgot: "But dude, you don't get it... This is a HIGH SPEED account... HIGH SPEED get it? IT ALL right there... HIGH SPEED, they... You know... They... It's all right there dude... How can you not see it? It's like... Far out there man, you know?..."

OK, let's see those "HIGH SPEED" clues...:

INITIAL MERGE (NO PREVIOUS DIVING ON EITHER SIDE, LOW ALTITUDE)

-"He SNAKED towards me almost head-on..."

MERGE

-"We both whirled round on what seemed like opposite ends of an ever diminishing circle"

-"With wide-open throttle I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns" (WINGS vertical, just to ward off some of the previous ignorant nonsense about what this vintage lingo actually means: A 90° bank HORIZONTAL turn...)

-"I was GREYING out". NOT blacking out... Or maybe you think the Spitfire CAN'T blackout the pilot at high speed? Well, it DID carry bombs you know: Hey, that makes it a bomber!...

-"I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me-in ANOTHER COUPLE OF (360°) TURNS, he would have me in his sights"

By then, they would definitely be rocketing along at warp speed, you know... This must be why some consider dogfighting rocket science, and they break out the calculators...

-"I asked the Spitfire for ALL she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind me like a leech (This German idiot didn't even know he was being out-turned! Godammit! You meet some morons out there, I swear...)-IT COULD ONLY BE A MATTER OF TIME..."

Johnny Johnson said this last part, dude, because we all KNOW that fighters making continuous turns can't help but let things get FASTER and FASTER, dude. You know? They can't help it, it's like modern life you know? Things just keep speeding up, and the Kraut knew it, you know? He was like, Nostradamus or something... You know?...


Quote, ImpStarDuece: "Note that the British rated the Bf-109 as a better aircraft in the horizontal than the FW-190A."

-I have NEVER seen such a dumb mid-war quote relating to the Gustav in my life... Show it to me! I wanna see... I have seen ONE September '44 quote concerning the MW-50 Me-109Gs, probably against an earlier FW-190A... If you throw MW-50 into the mix there IS probably some overlap against the lesser narrow-prop FW-190As when the Me-109G's extra MW-50 power more than overcomes the Me-109's bleed-speed-in-turns tendencies... See? I'm not unreasonable about this...

Remember the P-38G out-turning at 1000 ft the Me-109G while carrying 1000 lbs of bombs? Here are two somewhat contradictory British quotes about this:

Tactical and technical trends, Nov. 5-11 1942:

-"Maneuverability--Except at lower speeds-around 140 MPH(!)- The FW-190 is superior and will out-turn the P-38" (A FW-190A-4)

-1943 British test: "The P-38G and FW-190A-4 are roughly similar in turning ability"


NOW, WHAT do those British tests tell us about the Me-109G vs the FW-190A?

Mk XIV Combat trials (Mike Williams WWII aircraft performance site):

Against the Me-109G: "Turning Circle
47. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Me.109G in either direction."

Against the FW-190A: "Turning Circle
41. Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced."

This is accurate for the FW-190A's right-hand preference with flaps down, as flaps-down shifts the wing drop to the right (E. Brown), which allows tighter low-speed turns to the right (reflected in my boardgame for both low-speed turns to right and high speed turns to left).

Flaps up, the wing drop is to the left, which creates a preference for left turns. This discrepancy is increased here vs the Mk XIV by the sligh preference of the Mk XIV for left turns compared to the more even-sided Mk IX or Me-109G, as described immediately above for the Mk IX:


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html

The FW-190A could not afford to drop its flaps at high speed (above 250 MPH), due to lesser engine acceleration at these speeds, which could not counter-act the drag of flap deployment during turns at these speeds. This is why when the FW-190A is going fast you often hear 8th Air Force pilots say "The FW-190 couldn't make turns to the RIGHT worth a damn..." Ie:




http://www.spitfireperformance...tanley-19april44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/357-stanley-19april44.jpg)

-This contradiction with the British report is ONLY apparent, and it all makes perfect sense if you take into account the shift of the wing drop side reported by E. Brown when lowering the flaps below 250 MPH vs NOT lowering the flaps above 250 MPH...

Remember what I said about the prop's airflow spiral being significant? I'll bet this doesn't show up on calculators or formulas...

Finally, let's remind ourselves how Schopenhauer identified the three stages of reception of a "new" idea by people in general:

-First stage: The idea is ridiculed.

-Second stage: The idea and the person presenting it are violently attacked.

-Third stage: The idea is accepted as self-evident.

Anyway, me, I just want to hear more explanations on how Johnny Johnson's account is HIGH SPEED...

Delusion is just too funny...

Gaston

BillSwagger
11-18-2009, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">seems like common sense, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Work a few problems changing only the speed.

See if you can get a faster airplane to out turn a slower one!

Radius = V^2 / (11.26* tan "a")

Rate = (1091 * tan "60")/ 120KEAS = 15.75 deg/sec

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> bleeds the least speed in turns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You will find the opposite is true. Once you understand this, we can continue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe my description was too wordy, but i wasn't saying the faster plane can turn tighter than the slower one. I know you know what lag is.
I think a simple illustration might be easier to show, although i think this is something you are already well aware of, so maybe you have misinterpreted what i've said.

Its not to scale, and i'm not being too critical with my descriptions. I haven't used any numbers to demonstrate speed but instead the darker and more red the line, the closer that plane is to its stall speed at a given load factor. This also assumes a flat turn with no changes in altitude.

http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/lessspeed.jpg

The faster plane bleeds less speed in its wider turn which allows it to strike with more energy as the tighter turner approaches a stall.



Bill

TheGrunch
11-18-2009, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
I'm sure Johnny Johnson, one of the greatest Western aces, would get a chuckle at that: Based on his actual combat experience, very well detailed in this extensive account, which HE obviously felt was representative (he wouldn't want to mislead his fellow pilots, now would he?); </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jesus Christ, Gaston, is it actually possible for you NOT to make a massive number of assumptions about everything you read, or taking one particular situation and generalising based upon that one event?
The most important one, to me, is your continuing use of a long chain of tests in differing conditions by different institutions with different pilots and different aircraft to establish some kind of turning hierarchy or something.
Seems to me that vertical turn means a turn with a vertical element, i.e. an oblique turn. I think that anyone else who didn't have some kind of insane devotion to some weird agenda (I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE MY BOARD GAME NOW!!) would agree. Otherwise he would have said 'horizontal turn'. Because that's what they're called. I wasn't aware that all flight maneuvers were named with reference to the alignment of the wings.
The fact that Johnson doesn't mention any previous diving or climbing by either participant doesn't mean there wasn't any. He also makes no reference to the initial altitude or initial speed difference between the two aircraft. PLEASE can you read things with at least the vaguest hint of an analysis before immediately jumping to a conclusion that suits you? Relying on a person's narrative ability to make a factual conclusion is about the most sketchy practise ever. Also, relying on Johnson's piloting ability is questionable. How do you know that he was good at getting the best turning performance out of his Spit? The man was clever and skilled, but as a combat pilot that's often as much about tactics as getting the best of every aspect of performance out of your aircraft. Johnson was renowned for being a leader as much as an individual pilot.
Also, the fact that he mentions going into "the tightest of vertical turns" and "asking the Spit for all she could give" kind of indicates that he just pulled back as hard as he could without considering whether he was achieving his best sustained turn rate. If the 190 pilot was doing the opposite, the conclusion is not so surprising.
Finally, the idea that the account is supposed to be representative is ridiculous, it's from an article written after the war, and it's just as likely that he mentions it because the particular incident struck him as remarkable.
Finally, being a sarcastic, insulting little c**t who can't understand that there are many other justifiable ways to interpret fairly ambiguous statements probably won't help your chances of being taken seriously...

JtD
11-18-2009, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JTD: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Gaston444<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JtD:
Günther Rall actually said
"I named the 109 a Florett and the 190 a Sabre. The 190 was a rugged aircraft, but the 109 (*) had a very good setup of weapons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


- Isn't that even clearer as to what I said about the FW-190A being used in a curve and the 109 in a straight line? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, actually I think it is absurd to derive that conclusion from that statement.

(*) I would also like to point out that in Rall's original statement and my original post, the 190 had a very good setup of weapons, and not as you misquote the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


-NO Sir, THIS is your original statement as it originally appeared (you can check it out)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I checked it out, feel free to do the same. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8301074997?r=3241016108#3241016108)

JtD
11-18-2009, 10:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> k, so you're in level flight and pull up into a climb. You're experiencing 2g's while doing so </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb now is a turn??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should be able to make the connection to the original statements without my explanation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The plane that bleeds less speed can pull more g's until it bleeds the same amount of speed, because, as you know but fail to apply, induced drag increases as you demand more lift. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh! And I suppose load factor does not effect your induced drag production......

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

Whoever is teaching you this stuff is dead wrong, JtD. If lift increases, then our induced drag production increases as well... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I just said.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Only vary speed and you will see the effect of speed..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd rather have them do max turn rate turns and see which one can sustain it for longer and who's going to end up on who's tail first.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You decided to vary the density ratio contained the formula for non-standard conditions over altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you make that an understandable sentence, please?
Or, maybe you don't need to, because there was no density ratio calculation as such anyway. Your analysis might be just a tad off.

M_Gunz
11-19-2009, 01:52 AM
http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/lessspeed.jpg

If both those planes are keeping constant alt then the one in the outer circle spends a lot of time in the
sights of the one in the inner circle.

BillSwagger
11-19-2009, 02:13 AM
for the sake of argument, not true..here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Its my drawing, so ...No.

Its difficult to tell with out labels or marks as far as where they would be in proportion to each other at certain times.
If the plane is properly lagging to the outside of the inside planes turn, he will always have the plane in front of him at his 10-11 o'clock.


If i were the inside plane, i would counter and roll the other way, right about where the line turns more orange, making it a scissor maneuver.

I wasn't intending to demonstrate more complex combat maneuvers, only that i think the plane that can hold its speed in turns will have the advantage regardless of the radius, unless of course the radius is so tight all the energy/speed is taken out of the fight.

The reality is that planes staying completely flat are rare. The outside plane is likely to yo yo, climbing into the turn, while decending out of it, while the inside plane will most likely point his nose downward to help hold speed through the tighter turn.

It probably isn't til both planes are on deck with no where to go until a situation like this might arise.


But on the other hand, now put those planes at 30,000ft. The outside plane holds close to its V speed, while the inside one banks and turns tighter to avoid the attack, however, now he's low on energy and unless he dives he won't be able to dodge the attack on the back end of the turn. In fact, even a dive may not be enough depending on the velocity of the attacker.

I know we could argue and nit pick the exceptions, but, it really was only intended to show what i think most of us already know.


Lets say these were jets, and the outside one is doing a higher mach speed, obviously the lines are now covering more ground, but the principals are the same.



a similar example is covered here, technically called a lag displacement roll, because it includes a roll to help with excess energy in the maneuver.

http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-1222/P-12220029im.jpg



Bill

M_Gunz
11-19-2009, 02:46 AM
I see Crumpp and JtD arguing about 2+ different things again. Unfortunately the things they argue, each has
chosen something different from the other to argue about except here and there they touch.

Look guys, take two of the same plane with one following the other co-alt and co-speed. The leader cuts into
a turn which bleeds his speed some though it will stabilize into a sustained turn speed. The pursuit instead
of following banks less while rising actually slows even more until his turn matches the leaders but from above
and behind (bank and speed determine the turn radius) and then goes into yoyos. The pursuit keeps his energy
converting it from speed to height back and forth, they can both reach a sustained average speed with the
pursuit having higher energy yet staying behind the leader. The harder the leader turns the greater the
difference in the energy states of the two with advantage to the pursuit. In a wide turn the yoyo height
will not be much at all and a pursuit running at lower power will have to cut across the arc most of the
time yet he can still get gun solutions fairly often if he's good at all. Flat turns are wasteful.

If that doesn't make sense then keep reading, if it does then skip what's below, it would insult you:

Do this online with a friend on a private "server" just by having one player host and the other join via address
if you don't understand. No hard turns, no shooting, just energy study without a load of distractions going on.
It should lead to the fundamental understanding that horizontal turns are wasteful if you didn't already know.
Just follow and see how much higher energy you can build, IF you can get someone to stay in the flat circle to
judge yourself against. It's rare enough to find someone who will do that and won't have to show how good he is,
if you have 2 PC's on a LAN I guess you could have one run a Lesnihu AI player making the sustained 360's.

Learning this is one of the first steps to understanding energy tactics. While you're at it being pursuit it
is good to notice that going up we only pull extra G's in the transition from level flight and that when turning
while rising or falling that the alignment of your direction with gravity assists you in turning. You get some
extra heading change merely through rolling onto the new heading as well, that is more true the more you align
with gravity (up or down) as well. Flat turns are wasteful.

Breaking out of the 2-D flight path habit is a big step up in combat flight simming. Don't just do it once in
a while to change something, understand what is going on through dedicated guns-off-w/o-distractions training.
All too few players seem able to do that last part, their learning is bits and pieces and it shows even in posts.
When you want to get serious you have to quit gaming for a while.

M_Gunz
11-19-2009, 03:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
for the sake of argument, not true..here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Its my drawing, so ...No.

http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-1222/P-12220029im.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's much better Bill. I bought my copy of that book back in 1998.

The thing with these WWII and WWI props is that you might have to rise and drop a few times or more while
circling even once, depending on the difference in speed of the planes and tightness of the turn. There
is less difference with the props than the jets in general just to begin with, if you have 100+ kph speed
advantage in the prop then sure it can be, down, boom-boom-boom.
OTOH impatience/Greed are the worst enemies of the hunter and the great hope (that the hunter has them) of
the pursued. If the fight's not over before you see enough to work on that level then IMO it's a good match.

Shaw is great but you have to adapt what he writes from jets to props, the details sometimes differ and
some of what he wrote only works for jets (the book is from modern jet combat) that have more power with
greater speed. For the greatest part though all but the missiles sections applies as he states in good
brick-dense general terms.

Kettenhunde
11-19-2009, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Can you make that an understandable sentence, please? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a perfectly understandable statement, Jtd.

The terminology is correct and the meaning is plain, you obviously just don't understand it.

That is why your EAS computer scrip was nonsense.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
You decided to vary the density ratio contained the formula for non-standard conditions over altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> M_Gunz says:

If both those planes are keeping constant alt then the one in the outer circle spends a lot of time in the sights of the one in the inner circle.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is only correct if the smaller radius aircraft has a faster rate of turn.

Rate of turn is what is important to a fighter.

M_Gunz
11-19-2009, 04:33 AM
With those curves, he does.

Kettenhunde
11-19-2009, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With those curves, he does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



You can have a much larger radius but if your rate of turn is faster, you will win the turn fight. The larger radius must be able to sustain a higher load factor at a higher velocity.

That is why rate is important to a fighter, not radius.

Radius = V^2 / (11.26* tan "a")

100KEAS^2 / (11.26* tan "60") = 512.7 ft

140KEAS^2 / (11.26* tan "70") = 633.5 ft

Now lets see the effect on rate...

Rate = (1091 * tan "a")/ V

(1091 * tan "60")/ 100KEAS = 18.89 deg/sec

Rate = (1091 * tan "70")/ 140KEAS = 21.4 deg/sec

This is not an effect of speed. This a property of load factor overcoming the effect of speed.

The faster an airplane goes, the larger its radius and slower the rate of turn. The slower airplane will win the turn fight.

Radius = V^2 / (11.26* tan "a")

100KEAS^2 / (11.26* tan "60") = 512.7 ft

120KEAS^2 / (11.26* tan "60") = 738.3 ft

Now lets see the effect on rate...

Rate = (1091 * tan "a")/ V

(1091 * tan "60")/ 100KEAS = 18.89 deg/sec

Rate = (1091 * tan "60")/ 120KEAS = 15.75 deg/sec

Thus the ability to sustain a higher load factor at the highest velocity possible is a major advantage in horizontal maneuvering.

Kettenhunde
11-19-2009, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">a similar example is covered here, technically called a lag displacement roll, because it includes a roll to help with excess energy in the maneuver. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The roll is energy neutral. It helps with the geometry.

JtD
11-19-2009, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Can you make that an understandable sentence, please? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a perfectly understandable statement, Jtd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there is one or more words missing, probably an "in". But I would like to be certain. You could be going for something completely different.

Kettenhunde
11-19-2009, 08:42 AM
That is your concern? A missing "in"???

There is not but one place you can put it.....

Sorry, but it does not detract from the meaning of the sentence I wrote or the fact your computer script was pure baloney.

Just PM me your script I will highlight your error so you don't look stupid in the future.

JtD
11-19-2009, 09:48 AM
Hi Bill, I took the liberty of making a quick computation comparing the turn performance of two planes, with one bleeding less speed than the other. The planes are identical, except for the wings aspect ratio, which is 8 on plane 1 and 10 on plane 2. This makes plane 2 bleeding less speed.

Now both planes are entering a level turn from fast level flight and pull as hard as they can, at first limited by the max g's the plane can take, later riding the stall.

As can be seen in the graph below, initially plane1, with the stronger loss in speed, gains in the turn, however, it soon cannot maintain this turn rate advantage, as its speed has dropped off and the plane is riding the stall. At that point plane2 makes up for what it has lost and maintains an advantage for the remainder of the turn fight.

The maximum relative advantage of plane1 in this example is 7.5° and thus irrelevant. Plane2 manages to outturn plane1 in about 8 turns.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/turnar.JPG

LEBillfish
11-19-2009, 09:52 AM
......easy.....

The answer for the OP was already made on page 1....and none of this other dealing with the topic. What say everyone step back and make new threads dealing with their specific issues so all the confusion can be negated vs. having to sort out 200 posts?



K2

JtD
11-19-2009, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
......easy.....

The answer for the OP was already made on page 1....and none of this other dealing with the topic. What say everyone step back and make new threads dealing with their specific issues so all the confusion can be negated vs. having to sort out 200 posts? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would love to do so, but last time I did I was threatened with a ban. Sorry. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Maybe someone else has the guts.

TS_Sancho
11-19-2009, 10:05 AM
The real shame is so much good info gets buried and lost when the threads become convoluted.

Kettenhunde
11-19-2009, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The real shame is so much good info gets buried and lost when the threads become convoluted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it does and Billfish put out some good information.

Kettenhunde
11-19-2009, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> plane1, with the stronger loss in speed, gains in the turn, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, the slower the speed , the better the turn all things being equal. You get in trouble with your computer scripts conclusions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">however, it soon cannot maintain this turn rate advantage, as its speed has dropped off and the plane is riding the stall. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anytime you bring any aircraft outside of its design V-Speeds, it will not perform.

I assume velocity is towards the origin....

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5125/jtdintrouble.jpg (http://img69.imageshack.us/i/jtdintrouble.jpg/)


You do know that pilots operate their airplanes IAW V-Speeds?

You do this quite a bit, JtD and for some reason like to think it's profound.

It is like proclaiming an Cargo Ship does not haul cargo well on the Santa Monica Freeway....

Remember, at the stall and at Vmax, the only thing any airplane can do is fly straight and level.

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/3240/bankangle.jpg (http://img252.imageshack.us/i/bankangle.jpg/)

Here is the Yak 3's sustainable angle of bank...

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5412/yak3bankangle.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/i/yak3bankangle.jpg/)

And finally here is a thrust producer &lt;jet&gt;. Little different but same basic characteristics:

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8246/minradius.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/i/minradius.jpg/)



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hi Bill, I took the liberty of making a quick computation comparing the turn performance of two planes, with one bleeding less speed than the other. The planes are identical, except for the wings aspect ratio, which is 8 on plane 1 and 10 on plane 2. This makes plane 2 bleeding less speed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have simply demonstrated the effect of aspect ratio. That effect is manifested through induced drag which as I pointed out to you, goes up both from aspect ratio and load factor production.

The higher drag slows the airplane down faster and that means it turns better....

It is a race to slow down and the airplane that slows down the fastest wins.

You demonstrate this nicely but then proudly proclaim, "this only works until we take the airplane outside of were it was designed to work!"

Quick, re-write the basics of aerodynamics..good job, JtD. You will make the cover of the AAIA Journal.

Here contact them and let em know your discovery!

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cf...22&lupubid=2&sItem=2 (http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=322&lupubid=2&sItem=2)

Let em know about your energy retention testing too. I am sure they would love to publish the results.

BillSwagger
11-19-2009, 06:22 PM
Am i wrong to say that of the two planes in the same exact turn, the one that bleeds the least speed will win?

Outside of math, and all the charting to show for it, i get in a simulated aircraft, and this seems to hold true. Which is why it seems like "common sense", to me.
Maybe it has more to do with the way its flown than actually comparing load factors, or drag.
It just seems like even a good turn fighter, will hit stall speeds, while i'm still circling at a much higher velocity and energy to spare to make an attack.

Thats in a simulation, so i have no doubt that actual flight might be slightly different.


Bill

Gaston444
11-19-2009, 06:28 PM
Quote, TheGrunch: "Seems to me that vertical turn means a turn with a vertical element, i.e. an oblique turn. I think that anyone else who didn't have some kind of insane devotion to some weird agenda (I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE MY BOARD GAME NOW!!) would agree. Otherwise he would have said 'horizontal turn'. Because that's what they're called. I wasn't aware that all flight maneuvers were named with reference to the alignment of the wings."



-I have discussed this very point in the past, and moderator Xiolablu3 has already explained why this is so... Once again, don't ram post-war language down the throat of WWII... This neatly encapsulates how jet-age theories and wording actually prevent us from understanding what was going on, OR re-creating it...

(By the way, in 14 years, I have changed my game tens of thousands of times over tens of thousands of issues, which is the one advantage my boardgame has over IL-2: Changes are cheap, and don't usually spread beyond intended areas...)

JTD, you did say "190" twice, my quote is direct from your text, which can still be read as such in your post... It's just a little typo you know... Nobody's going to kill you over it...


Quote, TheGrunch: "The fact that Johnson doesn't mention any previous diving or climbing by either participant doesn't mean there wasn't any."


-But he DOES mention diving after he gave up turning with the FW-190, IN 90° BANK TURNS...

So your reasoning is as follows: When it comes to backing my unsupported opinion of HIGH SPEED TURNS, the diving is not mentionned, but when it doesn't help my notion of high speed turns, it is?

Did anyone note that at the beginning of the text, Johnny Johnson says: "The 190 also turned better than the 109?"

But this is all out of context, of course!

Quote: TheGrunch: "Finally, being a sarcastic, insulting little c**t who can't understand that there are many other justifiable ways to interpret fairly ambiguous statements probably won't help your chances of being taken seriously..."

The problem is that there are NO ambiguities in that text, but for your utterly unsupported opinion there HAS to be, or the whole house of cards falls down... And it does, over and over...

I hope the complete rebuttal of your notion that there is a vertical "element" in a "wings vertical turn" will give someone out there a clue, because you are right about one thing: It is getting on sad rather than funny...

Gaston


PS. Hey ImpStarDuece, how about that British quote that the Me-109G out-turns the FW-190A? (Interesting quotes for the Tempest by the way, though I seem to remember the operational Tempest was more powerful than the one in the quoted tests vs the Mk XIV... Note also that all the turning battles go on for "several" minutes at a time, with the one clear turn gain success due to a FW-190A pilot repeatedly "flicking" his aircraft; a speed-bleeding sign of inexperience...

Note also that Summer of '44 Me-109Gs are very likely to have MW-50...

To put this in perspective, in the 1200 P-47/P-51 combat reports I have read on the Mike Williams site, the average turn fight to LEFT (low or high alt. no matter) between an early Paddle-blade P-47D Razorback and the Me-109G, gives the early '44 (non-MW-50) Me-109G-6 about 60 seconds of survival time, on AVERAGE, unless the spiral is steeply downward to compensate for the Me-109G's speed bleeding... Against the Merlin P-51, it usually goes on several minutes on the deck, up to 15(!)minutes to one side later in 1944, IF the P-51's very low-speed trick is not used: Reduced power/High prop pitch/Popped flaps...

As E. Hartmann said: "Without MW-50, the Me-109G could not compete in 1944 on the Western Front..."

G.

Kettenhunde
11-19-2009, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Am i wrong to say that of the two planes in the same exact turn, the one that bleeds the least speed will win? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes....it is a race to go slow. The airplane that loses speed the most speed the fastest will win.

Once you reach sustained performance then the aircraft can choose from the V-speeds the pilot wants for performance he is seeking. Generally this is best rate of turn.

M_Gunz
11-19-2009, 07:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Am i wrong to say that of the two planes in the same exact turn, the one that bleeds the least speed will win? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they bleed speed at different rates then they won't turn the same very long at all.

JtD
11-19-2009, 10:34 PM
<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 BillSwagger:
Am i wrong to say that of the two planes in the same exact turn, the one that bleeds the least speed will win? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they bleed speed at different rates then they won't turn the same very long at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, though the basic idea is right. It would be less debatable if you said same radius turn.

For practical purposes, my calculation as shown last page illustrates the effects of the lesser loss in speed perfectly. First you fall a little behind, then you'll catch up big time. At least with plane performances normally found in WW2 warbirds.

---
M_Gunz, regarding your long post a page back - if plane2 from my calculation would be doing the turning high yoyo, the initial disadvantage would be gone and the successive gain would be larger. It's a great way to cut corners.
Even though I knew that before, I did not feel insulted when I kept on reading. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
11-19-2009, 10:55 PM
okay, to clarify.

Both planes are turning at the same rate, same radius, same Gs.
The one that bleeds the most speed loses.

If the plane in pursuit bleeds more speed, he loses ground and falls behind from the lead.

If the lead plane loses more speed, the pursuit plane will gain on him easily.



I go back to the P-40 vs A6M example because I think it demonstrates some of these principals nicely.
In a tight turn, the A6M bleeds less speed than the P-40, so it will gain on the P-40. The P-40 also reaches its load factor + stall limits before the A6M, so in that situation the P-40 will lose.

If the P-40 stays fast and instead uses a lazy turn, the a6m will bleed more speed, and the P-40 can get away.

In pursuit, the P-40 is also better to keep the fight fast where the A6Ms tighter turn radius is taken out of the game. Its lighter wing loading meant that it could not sustain higher G loads, and risked structural failure attempting to turn tighter at higher speeds. This means the A6M was forced to make a lazier turn, where the P-40 bleeds less speed, so in that situation the P-40 wins.


Bill

deepo_HP
11-20-2009, 12:55 AM
just for the clarification...
how can the two planes turn with the same rate and radius, if they bleed speed differently?

BillSwagger
11-20-2009, 03:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
just for the clarification...
how can the two planes turn with the same rate and radius, if they bleed speed differently? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I guess they would be turning at different rates, but the same radius.
Its an oversimplification to demonstrate that the plane that bleeds the least speed wins.



Bill

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For practical purposes, my calculation as shown last page illustrates the effects of the lesser loss in speed perfectly. First you fall a little behind, then you'll catch up big time. At least with plane performances normally found in WW2 warbirds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here your lack of experience and internet education lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Once again, unless our Plane 1 pilot is an idiot who was never trained to fly an airplane, Plane 2 will never out turn Plane 1.

Plane 1's best turning velocity occurs at a higher speed than Plane 2's......

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This makes plane 2 bleeding less speed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/5733/jtdintrouble1.jpg (http://img690.imageshack.us/i/jtdintrouble1.jpg/)


Plane 1 would have to decide NOT to kill Plane 2 in the turning circle AND then decide to go way below his best turning velocity.

As long as Plane 1 stays at his best turn velocity, his rate is much higher than Plane 2 and he will hold the initiative.

If Plane 2 drops to his best turn velocity, then he is traveling at a much slower speed to match turn rates. The faster airplane can generally zoom out of reach if needed.

Even if these airplanes encountered each other co-altitude and energy state, Plane 2 with it's slower velocity best turn is most likely going to be on the defensive.

You should see now why designers sought to push that best rate of turn velocity faster and faster?

This is why fighters like the P47, P-51, Yak-3, F6F, and Yak 3 evolved and the emphasis on low speed turning ability fell out of favor.

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> how can the two planes turn with the same rate and radius, if they bleed speed differently? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously they cannot..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I guess they would be turning at different rates, but the same radius. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Bill, have you taken algebra in school yet?

Radius = V^2 / (11.26* tan "a")

Rate = (1091 * tan "a")/ V

If you are confused about the effect of velocity being squared on radius, work a few problems out. That is why you see such a dramatic difference in turn performance for a small reduction in speed in JtD's example.

JtD
11-20-2009, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I guess they would be turning at different rates, but the same radius. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and also at different g's.

JtD
11-20-2009, 07:14 AM
Kettenhunde, I wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not write "please misinterpret the chart and get abusive".

So if something is not clear to you, ask, I'll explain. If you chose to go on with what you've been doing so far, you'll just be talking to yourself.

Bremspropeller
11-20-2009, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As E. Hartmann said: "Without MW-50, the Me-109G could not compete in 1944 on the Western Front..." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



And as everybody knows:

Hartmann never flew on the western front.

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So if something is not clear to you, ask, I'll explain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is crystal clear JtD.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> JtD says:
For practical purposes, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, it is that simple.

It does require one edit:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here your lack of practical experience and internet education in aerodynamics lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Once again, unless our Plane 1 pilot is an idiot who was never trained to fly an airplane, Plane 2 will never out turn Plane 1.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two questions:

1. Are you a licensed pilot qualified to log hours as Pilot in Command at the controls of an airplane?

No is the correct answer, right? If you did then you would see the error in your "practical purposes" statement.

2. Do you have a degree in Aeronautical Science, Aeronautical Engineering, or have you ever attended an upper level college course in these areas?

No is the correct answer, right? If you did then you would know that the slower speed aircraft turns better is a general principle taught when you get to turning performance. You can see that just by looking at the math....

If you have any disputes of the facts by all means present them.

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">please misinterpret the chart and get abusive". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody is abusive to you JtD. Certainly not in the manner in which you have treated me in the past.

It is not abusive to point out you are a gamer who knows computer programming who has been taught to parrot some formulas by others such as Wurkeri on the internet.

It is no abusive to point out I fly, own, and help restore aircraft. I went to college to learn the science and engineering behind them.

It is not abusive to point out an error in application of a principle despite the fact that once again, you refuse to believe you could be wrong.

Let's see, engine chart fantasy lines, "Energy Retention" in airplanes, Fantasy airspeed calculations,.....and now "misguided principles of turn performance".

What's next expert?

All the best,

Crumpp

yuuppers
11-20-2009, 08:29 AM
Some quotes from another board. No need to say who they are talking about.

member,
He tends to belittle everyone and his arrogant and abusive method is non productive. My biggest complaint is that he snuffs out participation by abuse of those who are trying to participate in this site. There are many young participants who have only learned about aircraft from games. There is nothing wrong with this as long as those with experience can tell them the difference between modeled aircraft and the real thing, which I think has been done admirably by most participants. This should not be done in a debasing and humiliating way. They are the future of aerospace and their questions and misconceptions should be addressed in a mentoring and adult manner. Sure, there are some brats, but they quickly found out and dispensed with.

moderator,
He was banned by a moderator for specific reasons. He had a world of knowledge but he chose to belittle people of lesser knowledge and not listen to warnings about doing so.

BillSwagger
11-20-2009, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by yuuppers:
Some quotes from another board. No need to say who they are talking about.

member,
He tends to belittle everyone and his arrogant and abusive method is non productive. My biggest complaint is that he snuffs out participation by abuse of those who are trying to participate in this site. There are many young participants who have only learned about aircraft from games. There is nothing wrong with this as long as those with experience can tell them the difference between modeled aircraft and the real thing, which I think has been done admirably by most participants. This should not be done in a debasing and humiliating way. They are the future of aerospace and their questions and misconceptions should be addressed in a mentoring and adult manner. Sure, there are some brats, but they quickly found out and dispensed with.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hey man, this was a long time ago. I've since learned some tolerance when dealing with dumb, insignificant, stupider people.


http://prsnlty.s3.amazonaws.com/icons/cleavage_i.jpg


Bill

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hey man, this was a long time ago. I've since learned some tolerance when dealing with dumb, insignificant, stupider people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is funny.

People confuse disputing facts with respect.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> yuuppers </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


How did you get some many nicknames, Milo, Luftluver, Kutska, yuppers,.......?

JtD
11-20-2009, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I go back to the P-40 vs A6M example because I think it demonstrates some of these principals nicely.
In a tight turn, the A6M bleeds less speed than the P-40, so it will gain on the P-40. The P-40 also reaches its load factor + stall limits before the A6M, so in that situation the P-40 will lose.

If the P-40 stays fast and instead uses a lazy turn, the a6m will bleed more speed, and the P-40 can get away.

In pursuit, the P-40 is also better to keep the fight fast where the A6Ms tighter turn radius is taken out of the game. Its lighter wing loading meant that it could not sustain higher G loads, and risked structural failure attempting to turn tighter at higher speeds. This means the A6M was forced to make a lazier turn, where the P-40 bleeds less speed, so in that situation the P-40 wins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Bill, I prepared another graph for you, a sustained turn comparison between an A6M and a P-40. The upper one shows the rate of turn over speed, as you can see, the A6M out turns the P-40 at all speed below 110 m/s (400 km/h). This is exactly the point where the A6M can pull inside the P-40 maintaining the same speed. You can check the lower graph for that - the turn rate at 110m/s is about 10 deg/s, this means a turn radius of 650 meters, same for both. Below this speed, the A6M can dictate the fight at will.
At speeds above 400 km/h the A6M cannot maintain the same turn rate as the P-40 and the P-40 would in theory be able to pull inside of the A6M. However, this does not work in practice, because the A6M pilot will match the turn rate of the P-40 but will do so at a lower speed.
For instance, the P-40 turns with 5 deg/sec, at a speed of 126 m/s. At this speed the A6M can only fly straight. However, to match this turn rate, the A6M can slow down to 116 m/s. The P-40 will fly a radius of 1500 m, the A6M will fly a radius of 1300 m. So the A6M will still be inside of the P-40.
The P-40 can use the speed advantage for some energy fighting, however, his advantage is biggest when he's just flying straight.
Eventually, there is no sustained turn in which the P-40 can outturn the A6M.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/a6m2vsp40m.JPG

Now the instantaneous turn, with both planes coming from high speed level flight and going into a turn trying to get each others tail, the story is a bit different. It's the same chart as I posted yesterday, but with different data.
You can see here, that the P-40, due to it's superior load limit and higher bleed of speed, can initially cut into the A6M, building up a lead of more than 90° in the turn. However, it soon is out of speed and has to resort to using it's inferior sustained turning ability. It could also use a diving turn in order to keep it's speed up and make best use of it's superior maximum turn rate. It might be enough to gain a firing solution, but that would be more of a case of outflown, not outperformed.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/a6m2vsp40minst.JPG

Hope I'm clear, if not feel free to ask. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gaston444
11-20-2009, 10:00 AM
Quote, Bremspropeller: "And as everybody knows: Hartmann never flew on the western front."

-Hartmann's quote was in the context of MW-50 having been removed from his aircraft in very late 1944 (Likely because of the difficulties in procuring the necessary C-3 fuel for which the FW-190A had priority). He immediately got shot down on his first mission without it, and then made this revealing comment...

Didn't P-51Ds, P-38J/Ls and P-47Ds range all over Germany, and even Hungary, by late 1944? Maybe his comment was: The Me-109 can't compete ANYWHERE in 1944 without MW-50...

Note he apparently didn't feel the pressing need to add: "The Anton was no better"

Hmmmmm...

Gaston

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the story is a bit different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different example and that has nothing to do with examining the effect of velocity or the effect of drag.

Instead we are now attempting to compare type performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Eventually, there is no sustained turn in which the P-40 can outturn the A6M. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect.

The P40 can sustain a higher load factor at any turn 110m/s or faster than the Zeke. That means the P40 can dictate the fight as long as he does not go below his sustained turn performance at 110 m/s.

That is how airplane performance works!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> that the P-40, due to it's superior load limit and higher bleed of speed, can initially cut into the A6M, building up a lead of more than 90° in the turn </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. Your only error is the belief the P40 cannot sustain a higher load factor at 110 m/s than the Zeke.

He cannot sustain any instantaneous load factor but neither can the Zeke! The P40 slows down faster than the Zeke so he should continue to out turn the Zeke until he reaches a crossover point, in this case, 110 m/s!

As long as the P-40 pilot does not allow himself to go below 110 m/s or 246 mph EAS, he can out turn the Zeke.

In a game you cannot feel the acceleration which puts you a huge disadvantage but a real pilot only has to bank as hard as can, watch his instruments, relax or add back pressure to maintain altitude, and reduce his bank angle if his speed begins to drop.

I think this is the missing piece of the puzzle for most of you guys. You have never done it and because you miss so much sensory input believe there is something magical or impossible about holding a maximum performance turn at any velocity.

It is very easy to hold a specific speed at any altitude in a turn. Our P40 pilot simply pulls as hard as he can until his speed drops to 110m/s! He then relaxes his bank angle to maintain it.

Getting back to our planes, if the Zeke tries to match that turn performance at or above 110 m/s, he will lose the turn fight.

Now the Zeke can exchange velocity or altitude for better turn performance at any time but this leaves the Zeke on the defensive at a lower energy state.

If the P40 pilot does not fly his own numbers and attempts to match the lower velocity turning performance of the Zeke he will find himself out turned because he cannot sustain a higher load factor at the slower speed than the Zeke.

Remember that upside "U" for our bank angle? It works both ways as long as you have a top level speed advantage.

Claire Chennault knew this aspect of airplane performance and put it to very good use in the AVG.

This is one the more extreme examples but you can clearly see the principle that the slower aircraft turns the best.

You can also clearly see the airplane that can sustain the highest load factor at the highest speed dictates the fight.

M_Gunz
11-20-2009, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by yuuppers:
moderator,
He was banned by a moderator for specific reasons. He had a world of knowledge but he chose to belittle people of lesser knowledge and not listen to warnings about doing so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's pots, there's kettles and then there's plain dirty, greasy soot looking to smear whatever/whenever it can.
Why drag that out here except to try and get other members to 'organize' with an obvious leader with personal goals?
How many PM's will fly over this? How many sent already?

members who don't know already:
There are some mutual-hate groups that do span across forums and some do play politics by PM and in open posts.
Some have been around longer than IL2, much longer. Some use the multiple-logon strategy to appear as a group on
need, back themselves up, and just to replace the logons they lose to banning for all kinds of reasons. They will
recruit whenever possible and do so from names you won't associate with the BS they post under other names.

M_Gunz
11-20-2009, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I assume velocity is towards the origin....

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5125/jtdintrouble.jpg (http://img69.imageshack.us/i/jtdintrouble.jpg/) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Velocity is nowhere on that chart. The domain is time, not speed.

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Velocity is nowhere on that chart. The domain is time, not speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly...


As time advances, the velocity changes otherwise the fundamental question of the effect of speed on turn performance is just not addressed.

If our time starts at Zero at a given velocity, velocity actually decreases as we move away from the origin, correct, JtD??

M_Gunz
11-20-2009, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Exactly, though the basic idea is right. It would be less debatable if you said same radius turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's possible to make the same radius with more speed and bank.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For practical purposes, my calculation as shown last page illustrates the effects of the lesser loss in speed perfectly. First you fall a little behind, then you'll catch up big time. At least with plane performances normally found in WW2 warbirds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone can demonstrate this to themselves just trying to find the best sustained turn their plane can make. Pull too
hard and the nose doesn't come around so well anymore!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> M_Gunz, regarding your long post a page back - if plane2 from my calculation would be doing the turning high yoyo, the initial disadvantage would be gone and the successive gain would be larger. It's a great way to cut corners.
Even though I knew that before, I did not feel insulted when I kept on reading. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doing the exercise as practice (when not having to think of an ongoing fight) brings it right into the gut level and
may benefit those who are not so sure or might still advocate flat turn fighting, esp using flaps.

M_Gunz
11-20-2009, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If our time starts at Zero at a given velocity, velocity actually decreases as we move away from the origin, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It looks to be stabilized for both by about 60 seconds, the turn rates do.

TS_Sancho
11-20-2009, 12:34 PM
On a related note and speaking of charts graphing upside down U's, a quick reminder to the IL2ers in the crowd that the IL2 compare utility provides a fan plot detailing specific aircraft maximum sustained G force/airspeed to optimal turn rate measured in degrees a second.

As an added bonus for anyone wondering about the fidelity of Olegs flight models, a quick look at the A6M2 vs. P40B is spot on with Crumps analysis.

Lastly I would like to conclude by saying BillSwagger has nice breasts.

Japanese explosive 12.7 ammo, carry on...

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It looks to be stabilized for both by about 60 seconds, the turn rates do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes. JtD has posted a computer script and not an airplane performance calculation or parametric study.

He could have input any values or done anything he wants to it. The start and stop values could be anything he wants. You are correct in pointing out that fact the value over time is really quite meaningless.

Aircraft performance occurs at a given velocity.

The formulas I posted are the common ones in the industry used to determine turn performance. They are completely transparent in the effects of velocity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As an added bonus for anyone wondering about the fidelity of Olegs flight models, a quick look at the A6M2 vs. P40B is spot on with Crumps analysis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, where can you look at the FM data, TS_Sancho?

JtD
11-20-2009, 01:06 PM
<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 Kettenhunde:
If our time starts at Zero at a given velocity, velocity actually decreases as we move away from the origin, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It looks to be stabilized for both by about 60 seconds, the turn rates do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is how the speed in the the decelerated turn looks (A6M vs. P-40), speed is indeed about stabilized after half a minute, depending on the plane. As added bonus, the g load on the aircraft. I used 4g's max for the A6M, 6 for the P-40M. May not be entirely accurate.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/a6m2vsp40mva.JPG

TS_Sancho
11-20-2009, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Interesting, where can you look at the FM data, TS_Sancho? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can download it here...

http://war.by-airforce.com/dow...il2compare-4.07.html (http://war.by-airforce.com/downloads/il2compare-4.07.html)

At the top of the screen are individual chart tabs, click the arrow to the right to find the fan plots.

JtD
11-20-2009, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
On a related note and speaking of charts graphing upside down U's, a quick reminder to the IL2ers in the crowd that the IL2 compare utility provides a fan plot detailing specific aircraft maximum sustained G force/airspeed to optimal turn rate measured in degrees a second. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Il-2 is different in that the turn rate charts have no peaks.

I'll also consider Oleg's FM far superior to my calculations or any interpretations of them.

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is how the speed in the the decelerated turn looks (A6M vs. P-40), speed is indeed about stabilized after half a minute, depending on the plane. As added bonus, the g load on the aircraft. I used 4g's max for the A6M, 6 for the P-40M. May not be entirely accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL...got it.

In other words, you did not have a clue so you set some parameters, forced the planes to meet it with your computer script, and hoped for the best in making generalizations about airplane performance.

134mph EAS is far into the region of reversed command for the P40 series.

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You can download it here... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a cool little utility.

I hope this thread increases everyone's understanding of what that program is telling you!

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Il-2 is different in that the turn rate charts have no peaks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?

You must be looking at something completely different. That utility TS_Sancho posted clearly shows all of the airplanes V-speeds if you know how to read it.

I will be glad to help you understand it, seriously.

Maybe you will learn I am not the boogie man with some poppycock agenda.

JtD
11-20-2009, 03:31 PM
Re Il-2 compare fan plots:

Never looked at them in detail before, only at the other four. What strikes me as odd now are the high stall speeds one has to derive from them, for instance:

The P-51B had a stall speed clean and idle of 94 mph (as tested here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-6883.html)) . Power on, it was even less. So a turn with a radial acceleration of 1 g should be possible at 112 mph. According to the il-2 compare fan plot, it happens at 140 mph.
In other words, the stall speed is 118 mph, which is confirmed by tests in game.
Now the difference in regarding sustained turn performance at lower speeds is huge. The best turn time for 360° would be reduced by about 20%, turn times at low speed (180mph and slower) would be even more drastic. A little pic for illustration:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/p51stall.JPG

I've always been thinking that the turn performance in game is pretty much ok, but this seems to be a glaring error. OTOH, a P-51 reaching it's best turning performance on a speed as low as 160 mph does not seem right, either.

LEBillfish
11-20-2009, 03:57 PM
What's the point of all the rudeness and snide replies?

Are those doing so, so very desperate to prove that they know something, anything at all, that they utilize this tactic to try and fend off challenges before they come?

No matter how correct either of the parties may be in their comments, the ill manners shown demands their responses be doubted, and their credibility strongly questioned....

Time for some here to quickly rethink how to have a discussion.

K2

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So a turn with a radial acceleration of 1 g </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't have a turn with a radial acceleration of 1G. You might be confusing something. It looks to me like the plot has the Mustang being able to sustain ~1.1G at Vmc.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've always been thinking that the turn performance in game is pretty much ok, but this seems to be a glaring error. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Maybe...maybe not. What are the atmospheric conditions? If we know those, we can figure it out.

First of all, your looking at IAS and not converting it to EAS or TAS. Either one is acceptable to work in and EAS is preferred because it is much easier to convert for conditions.

In this case our PEC is +6 so 94mph IAS = 100mph CAS and since we have no compressibility correction and we are at sea level, CAS = EAS = TAS = 100mph TAS

I looked at the fan plot and guessed standard atmospheric conditions, the P-51B in the IL2 compare must weigh in the vicinity of ~10,569lbs. That is more involved to figure out and I can cover that if you want me too.

Now if the conditions are not standard atmospheric conditions, that weight could be pure nonsense.

The utility TS_Sancho linked shows the best rate of turn speed is ~217 mph IAS for the P-51B. That is just a tad fast at for the 197 mph TAS at 3200 ft that the POH gives but well within the ballpark.

The velocity for maximum load factor is ~243 mph IAS.

TS_Sancho
11-20-2009, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Re Il-2 compare fan plots:

Never looked at them in detail before, only at the other four. What strikes me as odd now are the high stall speeds one has to derive from them, for instance:

The P-51B had a stall speed clean and idle of 94 mph (as tested here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-6883.html)) . Power on, it was even less. So a turn with a radial acceleration of 1 g should be possible at 112 mph. According to the il-2 compare fan plot, it happens at 140 mph.
In other words, the stall speed is 118 mph, which is confirmed by tests in game.
Now the difference in regarding sustained turn performance at lower speeds is huge. The best turn time for 360° would be reduced by about 20%, turn times at low speed (180mph and slower) would be even more drastic. A little pic for illustration:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/p51stall.JPG

I've always been thinking that the turn performance in game is pretty much ok, but this seems to be a glaring error. OTOH, a P-51 reaching it's best turning performance on a speed as low as 160 mph does not seem right, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JTD, the chart isnt listing the stall speed as 240 KMH, thats only where the data began to start the curve.

The plot starts at 240 KMH IAS at 8 degrees a second and a little over 1G.

The plot ends at 530 kmh IAS at 8 degrees a second and about 2.5 G's.

VMAX for the P51B is listed in the same chart as 890 KMH IAS, the fan plot is just showing you where to fly the airplane and what you can expect to happen.

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The plot starts at 240 KMH IAS at 8 degrees a second and a little over 1G. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ROC climb chart actually shows 93.4mph TAS on the chart which is 88mph EAS stall speed! Far below the 100mph it should be...

On the fan plot, It looks like about 1.1G's is where it starts.

Again, I don't know the atmospheric conditions but I assume it is standard.

I get a Vs of 149mph TAS which equals a load factor of ~2G's.

The 10,569lbs seems kind of heavy to me for a P-51B.

It does not appear correct if conditions are standard.

TS_Sancho
11-20-2009, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It does not appear correct if conditions are standard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "map" which was used in the tests for the charts is intended to replicate standard test conditions.

The testing is also conducted with full internal fuel.

Spitfire performance.com search says the P51B has a normal takeoff weight of 9335 lbs
with full fuel (265 gallons)

http://www.spitfireperformance...ang/mustangtest.html (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html)

although a couple of other sites that werent sourced as well gave a takeoff weight closer to 9800 ibs.

Either way 10,569lbs is too heavy.

Edit: The test map is the Smolensk map set at 12:00 noon with clear conditions, for anyone interested.

BillSwagger
11-20-2009, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I go back to the P-40 vs A6M example because I think it demonstrates some of these principals nicely.
In a tight turn, the A6M bleeds less speed than the P-40, so it will gain on the P-40. The P-40 also reaches its load factor + stall limits before the A6M, so in that situation the P-40 will lose.

If the P-40 stays fast and instead uses a lazy turn, the a6m will bleed more speed, and the P-40 can get away.

In pursuit, the P-40 is also better to keep the fight fast where the A6Ms tighter turn radius is taken out of the game. Its lighter wing loading meant that it could not sustain higher G loads, and risked structural failure attempting to turn tighter at higher speeds. This means the A6M was forced to make a lazier turn, where the P-40 bleeds less speed, so in that situation the P-40 wins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Bill, I prepared another graph for you, a sustained turn comparison between an A6M and a P-40. The upper one shows the rate of turn over speed, as you can see, the A6M out turns the P-40 at all speed below 110 m/s (400 km/h). This is exactly the point where the A6M can pull inside the P-40 maintaining the same speed. You can check the lower graph for that - the turn rate at 110m/s is about 10 deg/s, this means a turn radius of 650 meters, same for both. Below this speed, the A6M can dictate the fight at will.
At speeds above 400 km/h the A6M cannot maintain the same turn rate as the P-40 and the P-40 would in theory be able to pull inside of the A6M. However, this does not work in practice, because the A6M pilot will match the turn rate of the P-40 but will do so at a lower speed.
For instance, the P-40 turns with 5 deg/sec, at a speed of 126 m/s. At this speed the A6M can only fly straight. However, to match this turn rate, the A6M can slow down to 116 m/s. The P-40 will fly a radius of 1500 m, the A6M will fly a radius of 1300 m. So the A6M will still be inside of the P-40.
The P-40 can use the speed advantage for some energy fighting, however, his advantage is biggest when he's just flying straight.
Eventually, there is no sustained turn in which the P-40 can outturn the A6M.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/a6m2vsp40m.JPG

Now the instantaneous turn, with both planes coming from high speed level flight and going into a turn trying to get each others tail, the story is a bit different. It's the same chart as I posted yesterday, but with different data.
You can see here, that the P-40, due to it's superior load limit and higher bleed of speed, can initially cut into the A6M, building up a lead of more than 90° in the turn. However, it soon is out of speed and has to resort to using it's inferior sustained turning ability. It could also use a diving turn in order to keep it's speed up and make best use of it's superior maximum turn rate. It might be enough to gain a firing solution, but that would be more of a case of outflown, not outperformed.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/a6m2vsp40minst.JPG

Hope I'm clear, if not feel free to ask. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


thanks for posting this, it gives me a better indication of what is going on. It also seems to be indicated in the sim, but i wonder sometimes if the Zero should lose a wing if its turning at too high of a load. It seems they can cut sharply even at high speeds.

Bill

M_Gunz
11-20-2009, 11:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
What's the point of all the rudeness and snide replies?

Are those doing so, so very desperate to prove that they know something, anything at all, that they utilize this tactic to try and fend off challenges before they come?

No matter how correct either of the parties may be in their comments, the ill manners shown demands their responses be doubted, and their credibility strongly questioned....

Time for some here to quickly rethink how to have a discussion.

K2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're just old buddies, BF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
11-20-2009, 11:30 PM
People should note that IL2Compare data was obtained with a special AI that can't handle near stall well at all.
Youss did put out the warnings in the notes that few bother reading, it's for comparison not absolute data.

Crumpp: radial acceleration of 1G, wouldn't that be a 1.4G turn seeing as how gravity would be 1G down as well?

And power-on stall.. isn't that less than power-off?

I think that JtD does have more than a clue but that you two rarely talk about the same things or seem to hear them.
What he tries to show isn't what you think is most important or the best way but is he totally wrong? I believe he
is showing what happens when someone tries to use the P-40 incorrectly and why/how that doesn't work is all.

JtD
11-20-2009, 11:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:

JTD, the chart isnt listing the stall speed as 240 KMH, thats only where the data began to start the curve.

The plot starts at 240 KMH IAS at 8 degrees a second and a little over 1G.

The plot ends at 530 kmh IAS at 8 degrees a second and about 2.5 G's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello TS_Sancho, part of the confusion may come from the fact that I'm using a later version of il-2 compare (http://lesnihu.wz.cz/daidalos/il2cdata409.zip) , I didn't notice you linked an older one. However, differences are small, a km/h here a degree/s there.
The data starts, as you point out at 240, in my version at 227 km/h at the 1g turn line. This is a 1g radial acceleration, so the aircraft flies at a bank angle of 45° and needs to pull 1.41 g's. It should be able to do so at 1.19 times it's stall speed. This means a stall speed of 191 km/h. What I missed yesterday is that the fan plot comes from 1000m altitude, same as the turn chart, so the TAS is not equal to the EAS, so the actual stall speed would be 182 km/h.

All that may be way too mathematical, you can simply take a P-51B in game, fly it at 5 m altitude at 25-30% throttle and see at which speed you cannot keep it airborne any more. It will give you the same result.

The 94 mph stall speed were flown with a 9100 lbs P-51, in game it's 9600 lbs. Corrected for weight, stall speed is 177 km/h in game. Not look as bad as yesterday anymore, but it still 17% higher than the real thing. The differences in low speed turning are still huge.

The "Standard" in game map is Crimea, not Smolensk.

JtD
11-21-2009, 12:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:

thanks for posting this, it gives me a better indication of what is going on. It also seems to be indicated in the sim, but i wonder sometimes if the Zero should lose a wing if its turning at too high of a load. It seems they can cut sharply even at high speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I've done in the calculation can be reproduced in game, but you'd have to start that out of a dive, with higher speeds, to actually gain anything in the P-40. It's still best flown as B'n'Z, in a zoom climb it can get away from the A6M, which is something that catches even experienced pilots by surprise. It has to be well executed, though.

All planes in game have a structural limit of 15g's. Which is really high for planes of the era. Imho, the A6M's major problem at high speed was control authority. It just could not be pulled really hard at high speeds, it's not even related the structural limits of the airframe. In game it does high speed pull outs at acceptable level, but I think if the players needed to actually apply the 30lbs of stick force modeled, it would be a somewhat different story.