PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, Please correct the P-51.



Maple_Tiger
07-14-2004, 07:14 PM
The P-51 was known for its high speed manueverablity. I don't know what you did to it but, ever since 2.01 the wing comes off.

How can anyone use it's historical high speed manueverability if the wing just comes off without warning?

Didn't you say something about a 15G stress limit? Now ask your self how many Gs a human can take wothout blacking out. Then you can explain to me my the wing comes off without even blacking out.

I use to like flyign the P-51, although; i have not been flying it very often. 75% of the time the wing comes off while in flight.

I have never read anywhere stating that the P-51 pilots had to take it very easy on the stick becasue of wings ripping off lol.

Mayby while your at it, you can change the AI BF109 FM. There is know way the BF109 can out turn a P-47 at 700km/h + lol.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Maple_Tiger
07-14-2004, 07:14 PM
The P-51 was known for its high speed manueverablity. I don't know what you did to it but, ever since 2.01 the wing comes off.

How can anyone use it's historical high speed manueverability if the wing just comes off without warning?

Didn't you say something about a 15G stress limit? Now ask your self how many Gs a human can take wothout blacking out. Then you can explain to me my the wing comes off without even blacking out.

I use to like flyign the P-51, although; i have not been flying it very often. 75% of the time the wing comes off while in flight.

I have never read anywhere stating that the P-51 pilots had to take it very easy on the stick becasue of wings ripping off lol.

Mayby while your at it, you can change the AI BF109 FM. There is know way the BF109 can out turn a P-47 at 700km/h + lol.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

MEGILE
07-14-2004, 07:21 PM
Check the forums, I believe Oleg has already addressed this issue.. just be gentle with the stick 800 KPH +
As far as the P-47 goes.. I dunno, try trimming, seems to turn well for me...
There are reports of wings comming of Mustangs, I think it was caused by some door or compartment slamming open in high G situations...

EDIT: Found a quote...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> A particularly alarming problem, to say the least, was the occasional tendency of the wings to fall off during a high-speed dive. Ironically, Tommy Hitchcock, who had done much to promote the Merlin Mustang, was killed over England in a P-51B in this way in April 1944. These structural failures proved to be due to the tendency of wing ammunition doors or the main landing gear to open under high-gee conditions, producing excessive forces on the wing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Major Thomas Hitchcockas the US military attache in London during the war.

check your sources more thoroughly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

Countdown to 1337 post count = P minus 174

[This message was edited by MEGILE on Wed July 14 2004 at 06:30 PM.]

crazyivan1970
07-14-2004, 07:33 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

MEGILE
07-14-2004, 08:12 PM
LOL Ivan, im trying to interperate the look on your face...

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

Countdown to 1337 post count = P minus 174

lbhskier37
07-14-2004, 09:48 PM
lol, I think you best go online and let all the P51 pilots know so they quit flying them dangerous things http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

LEXX_Luthor
07-14-2004, 11:52 PM
Maple:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>75% of the time the wing comes off while in flight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WUAF_Badsight
07-15-2004, 12:02 AM
lol yea LEXX

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

FA_Whisky
07-15-2004, 12:59 AM
Last night i lost my wing at 650 kmph!! at this speed it is simply not possible to get to the 15g stress limit. The way this happened is like this. I got into a gentle dive till 700 kmph with a La7 on my 6. The La7 ofcourse gained speed mutch faster than i dit so i cut back on throttle with 100% pitch. The P51d slowerd down and at the same time i made a right turn with 15-20% flaps. And snap! There goes my right wing! Now as far as i know the safe G-limit for the P51d was about 9g's It is wel possible that the limit for the plane faling apart is about 15g's. I do not think that the way it is moddeled now is correct. But thats not the real problem. The issue here is that all the other planes do not suffer from this that mutch. The 109's do not suffer from this. The only plane i saw it happen too was the Ki84c. So Oleg, pls moddel this for all the planes with the correct G limit.(same goes for planes faling apart in dives)

Greetings, Whisky

LEXX_Luthor
07-15-2004, 01:03 AM
mmm, you may be correct, last I checked only some planes had Wing Snap. I am thinking cos Oleg just recently started modding The Snap (and none of our FM Experts here noticed until Oleg came out in pubic about it) and has only Snapped a few planes so far.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

BigKahuna_GS
07-15-2004, 01:57 AM
S!


P51 wing failures are due to excessive elevator response by the virtual pilot in AEP. Not a calculated landing gear latch failure at high speed, which by the way was found and fixed (IRL).

Utilize more nose down trim at high speed and do not pull as hard. What you will learn is that you have more elevator authority than the 109 or 190 at high speed--watch your manuevering. More nose down trim will help prevent overstressing the wings and those nasty blackouts during high speed runs.

At much slower speeds-trim nuetral or nose up if you are unfortunately caught in a turn fight. You will be really glad for the greater elevator response in this situation.


_____

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
07-15-2004, 02:10 AM
S!


By the way, I got into a very high speed dive chasing a Ta152 with my Pony almost straight down(4500m). I kept adding nose down trim as my speed increased and reduced my prop pitch to accelerate faster in the dive.

I was gettings some hits on the Ta152 on the way down but he was at max firing range and not much damage was occuring. Evidently I spooked him and he tried to manuever during the dive which ripped his wing off.

That is the first time ever that I have seen a Ta152 wing come off--it looked cool http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

___

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

DaBallz
07-15-2004, 03:10 AM
The wings falling off easily is the "isegrim effect".
Isssy and Huckster whined, cried and browbeat
Oleg into believing that P-51 wings had structural
problems. years of bad, misinforming posts have taken
their toll.

Early P-51Bs did have problems, especially with
landing gear and ammo doors opening under high
G force loadings. These were corrected and no
P-51D should loose the wings with such ease.

The wing failure issue is proof that propaganda
properly applied had a detremental effect.

Da...

HuninMunin
07-15-2004, 03:48 AM
DaBallz, I am seriously impressed by the amount of
counterproductiv "knowledge" you have to offer from time to time.

Would you please stop posting it in every single thread?
I have a suggestion: Save it for a month or two and open one huge compressed whine-thread.

If you did that, we all were happy most of the time and then we`d make fun of your bull once in a month.

Die Monsterkl├┬Âte

IIJG69_Kartofe
07-15-2004, 03:49 AM
Wings comes off on the Ki84 too ...

So the pony isn' the only "perscuted" plane in the game. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

alarmer
07-15-2004, 03:53 AM
Indeed.

I think its a new feature in the sim which just hasnt been applied to all planes. But this is how its been through the whole history if il2.

Little FM tweak there little FM tweak over there. Its just a fact that with all the planes in il2 its pretty much impossible to get everything spot on.

Not sure but somebody could test who flyes P51 alot. Does it lose wing in hard G turn if the wing is damaged? This one has been requested alot by people but dont know if its in the sim yet.

CHDT
07-15-2004, 03:53 AM
In the Ben Affleck's world:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The wing failure issue is proof that propaganda
properly applied had a detremental effect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In the real world:

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/16105/q.jpg


Chart showing a study made by the Swiss airforce and the Swiss polytechnics Z├╝rich institute about P-51 wing failures under high-G charge.

Conclusion of this accident report: Mustang pilots, be very gentle with the stick and the trim at high speed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CHDT
07-15-2004, 03:57 AM
Btw, you're very funny with your "15g" limit.

A Swiss Mustang (rather tired aircrafts) mainly used as attack aircrafts with bombs and rockets under the wings were limited....to 4g.

And in the USAAF, the limit was at 7.1g with a possible wing failure at 10,7g.

alarmer
07-15-2004, 03:58 AM
Guess that answers the original question.

Nice chart btw CHDT

JG5_JaRa
07-15-2004, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
Last night i lost my wing at 650 kmph!! at this speed it is simply not possible to get to the 15g stress limit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

650 km/h true airspeed?
How many g would you pull in a 47 dps turn at 650 km/h true airspeed?

Maple_Tiger
07-15-2004, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MEGILE:
Check the forums, I believe Oleg has already addressed this issue.. just be gentle with the stick 800 KPH +
As far as the P-47 goes.. I dunno, try trimming, seems to turn well for me...
There are reports of wings comming of Mustangs, I think it was caused by some door or compartment slamming open in high G situations...

EDIT: Found a quote...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> A particularly alarming problem, to say the least, was the occasional tendency of the wings to fall off during a high-speed dive. Ironically, Tommy Hitchcock, who had done much to promote the Merlin Mustang, was killed over England in a P-51B in this way in April 1944. These structural failures proved to be due to the tendency of wing ammunition doors or the main landing gear to open under high-gee conditions, producing excessive forces on the wing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Major Thomas Hitchcockas the US military attache in London during the war.

check your sources more thoroughly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

Countdown to _1337_ post count = P minus 174

[This message was edited by MEGILE on Wed July 14 2004 at 06:30 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



A particularly alarming problem, to say the least, was the occasional tendency of the wings to fall off during a high-speed dive.


Yes, mayby occasional. This happens too often. I think he went overbord on it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But Oleg did say that he ws modeling aircraft to there manufactures specifications or qualities. Is this for non American aircraft?

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

JG5_UnKle
07-15-2004, 04:23 AM
This happens on many a/c in the sim, not just the Mustang. I can tear the wings from a Bf-109 F2 at about 700Kph (IAS) at about sea level.

If you add rudder input AND elevator input you will lose wings in almost any a/c capable of higher speeds... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Be sure...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

Maple_Tiger
07-15-2004, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
Btw, you're very funny with your "15g" limit.

A Swiss Mustang (rather tired aircrafts) mainly used as attack aircrafts with bombs and rockets under the wings were limited....to 4g.

And in the USAAF, the limit was at 7.1g with a possible wing failure at 10,7g.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I am funny. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif



Are you Oleg? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif I don't think so.


Also, i got the i got the 15 G limit from one of Olegs posts a while back http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It could even be 16 or 17, but i forget now.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

alarmer
07-15-2004, 04:27 AM
"Oleg did say that he ws modeling aircraft to there manufactures specifications or qualities. Is this for non American aircraft?"

Actually Mapple.

Oleg modelled all other country planes according to factory data but US planes got the "best available data" threatment http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So you shouldnt be complaining about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maple_Tiger
07-15-2004, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by alarmer:
"Oleg did say that he ws modeling aircraft to there manufactures specifications or qualities. Is this for non American aircraft?"

Actually Mapple.

Oleg modelled all other country planes according to factory data but US planes got the "best available data" threatment http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So you shouldnt be complaining about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



US planes got the "best available data" threatment?

You are funny.

Also, you ar not Oleg. Mayby you need some medication? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
07-15-2004, 05:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Die Monsterkl├┬Âte<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bullenkl├┬Âten straight forward! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

KaRaYa-X
07-15-2004, 06:35 AM
As of right now there are various planes in-game which will loose their wings if treated the wrong way. Up to now I've found these planes:

-P51 series
-FW190A/D; Ta152
-Ki84
-all jets (Go229, Me262, He162, P80)
-Me163

The rest does not seem to be prone to loosing wings simply because they cannot pull sufficient Gs in a high speed dive. Especially the Bf109 did not suffer from this because it could hardly pull enough Gs to blackout the pilot...

The P51 simply looses its wings so "easily" in-game because it has by far the best high speed handling and elevator authority, so if you pull too little too hard at the wrong time you'll have to bear the consequences. I don't know what Maple is onto again...

Apply a little bit of trim at high speeds and off you go - and that you loose your wings 75% of the time: Well, seems to be the pilot and not the plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

[This message was edited by KaRaYa-X on Thu July 15 2004 at 08:20 AM.]

Black Sheep
07-15-2004, 06:39 AM
I would have thought that in real life a pilot would black out waaaaaay before he achieved 15g and structural failure. In fact, I'd be stunned if anyone actually managed to achive it.

I was watching a series on UK tv recently about RAF pilots going through training at RAF Valley, which included some time spent on them achieving a g-rating.

All current RAF fast jet pilots must be able to withstand a minimum of 6g, with the very best managing to get to 8 to 9g before loss of conciousness - and these are guys with speed jeans who have been taught to breath shallow under g loading.

To be honest, I find the idea of any WWII era fighter to be able to withstand 15g to be.... very optimistic at best, most modern jets are only rated to 10g before structural failure.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/ilsigs/Nachtjaeger.jpg

p1ngu666
07-15-2004, 06:57 AM
itll be the intial G, not sustained G.
u wouldnt black out instantly cos blood still in your head. u will get a lag effect
and btw go229 is easy to lose wing

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Black Sheep
07-15-2004, 09:27 AM
Sorry, yes; I was referring to sustained rather than instaneous g.

I would still have thought that exceeding an aircaft's g-rating even for a moment would risk structural failre though; simply that the risk would increase the longer the manouver was held in high g.

BigKahuna_GS
07-15-2004, 09:57 AM
S!

Oleg said the 15G structeral limit is the same for all aircraft.
__________________________________________________ _______________________
KaRaYa-X---The P51 simply looses its wings so "easily" in-game because it has by far the best high speed handling and elevator authority, so if you pull too little too hard at the wrong time you'll have to bear the consequences.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

True. But it was a shocker when first encountered. You just have to learn to fly the 51 differently at high speed 550-600kph and up. Without nose down trim, overstressing the wings is very simple to do with even slight stick inputs.

The more nose down trim you use during high speed is the insurance you need not to induce overstressing and sunsequent wing failure. What I do think might be suspect is the top speed at which the P51 sheds it wings without any movement.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-51/P-514GDIVE.gif



______

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

p1ngu666
07-15-2004, 11:05 AM
moo cow i was talking in general http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

objects can take stupid loads for VERY short time then they break.

its a shame wings cant bend and twist aswell

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

BigKahuna_GS
07-15-2004, 11:08 AM
S!

SPEED CONVERSION
600mph= Miles (statute) per hour equals 965.606 Kilometers per hour

In AEP as you approach 880-900kph (IAS)straight and level-low alt, parts just start flying off the P51. To hit these speeds without damage is not the norm and it should be. I have personally talked to many P51 pilots who have gone way over red line without losing airlerons or rudders such as AEP Mustangs do.


Walter Konantz 55th FG September 1944*:

I looked up just in time to see fifty or sixty ME-109s streaming through our formation in a forty-five degree dive with their guns fireing. Fortunately, none had picked me as a target but one crossed right in front of me fireing at a Mustang below and to my left.

These were the first enemy airplanes I had ever laid eyes on and buck fever and instinct caused me to roll over in a dive after the ME-109. He saw me comeing and steepened his dive to the vertical.

We both now headed straight down from 24,000 feet on a wide open power dive. Both airplanes were very skittish from extremely high speed and since I was not strapped in, the slightest movement of the stick caused me to leave the seat and hit the canopy above. I was in a neutral-G situation, just floating inside the cockpit.

We passed through a layer of slight turbulence and I felt like a basketball being dribbled down the court. The ME-109 was haveing as much trouble as me, his plane was bucking and skidding as both of us were nearing compressibility, the limiting speed at which the plane no longer responds to the controls.

At 10,000 feet, I initiated a steady four-G pullout and the ME-109 started to pull out about the same time. But before he had raised his nose more then thirty degrees, his right wing ripped off through the wheel well and he spun into the ground in a matter of seconds.

He had no time to get out and was still aboard when the 109 impacted and exploded in a wooded area. Just before I started my pull-out I glanced at the airspeed indicator and saw the needle on 600 miles an hour, ninety-five per hour over the red-line speed of 505.

*See: Astor Gerald. The Mighty Eighth p.365


__


Also dive acceleration should be modeled better:


In the artical about Eric Hartman,--it also says that the P51 had a 60mph speed advantage in a dive.

[All data from ]virtualpilots.fi ] From the Fin site.

SPEED CONVERSION
60 Miles (statute) per hour equals 96.5606 Kilometers per hour

Lawrence Thompson
=============
"I fired two very long bursts, probably five seconds each (P-51 has ammo for about 18 seconds of continuous bursts for four machine guns, the remaining two machine guns will shoot for about 24 seconds). I noticed that part of his engine cowling flew off and he immediately broke off his attack on the lead P-51. I check my rear view mirrors and there's nothing behind me now; somehow, I have managed to lose the Me109 following me, probably because the diving speed of the P-51 is sixty mph faster than the Me109."

In Shaws Fighter Combat Manuvering it also says US planes had dive superiority.



_____

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Black Sheep
07-15-2004, 11:10 AM
Yes, I was thinking about this on the way home from work, and you're quite right - objects can bear a lot of stress for short periods - the downside would be that fatigue would build up quickly in the material and would shorten it's useful lifespan.

In sims however, fatigue is irrelevant, so modelling planes that can bear high g loads for short periods would make complete sense http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG5_JaRa
07-15-2004, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Also dive acceleration should be modeled better:


In the artical about Eric Hartman,--it also says that the P51 had a 60mph speed advantage in a dive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First - even though this may again confuse a lot of comic book scientists here - let us please make a difference between speed and acceleration. Otherwise the one or other impatient reader may start believing "out-diving" would be a well-defined process, followed by ripping off quotes from veterans who got rid of a pursuing bandit by pushing the nose below the horizon as a clear proof of "this plane should always out-dive anything at will". Physics-free science fiction dreams will flood this forum again, like "Oleg I can't outdive XYZ in my P-47 even when I start from 5000m and everyone knows the P-47 outdived everything because it was so heavy" - or, since physical knowledge stops for some people as soon as nationalities get thrown in (NOT you of course, old mate Kahuna!), let me be politically correct towards the red vs blue paranoids here, "I can't outdive a Yak3 in my heavier 190Axyz".
Then, Shaw's book is more a methodical research and attributes different dive characterisitics to different performance characteristics rather than aircraft markings, so facts like "US planes had dive superiority" may be a bit difficult to program in a simulator.
Furthermore - maybe I'm already nit-picking - I heard there were different versions of the P-51 and even more different versions of the 109 with quite different performance characteristics, especially vs altitude, so the "the diving speed of the P51 is sixty mph faster than the Me109" quote is also a bit arbitrary. Me109 Emil?
However, I agree that dive acceleration differences appear to be very small in this game, yet difficult to verify thanks to only very few useful dive data available. Or at least an useful amount of aerodynamic measurments and power vs speed and alt data. The only limiting factor is the disintegration speed and I think modeling that is even more arbitrary than acceleration, thanks to even fewer data available (AFAIK).

VW-IceFire
07-15-2004, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by alarmer:
"Oleg did say that he ws modeling aircraft to there manufactures specifications or qualities. Is this for non American aircraft?"

Actually Mapple.

Oleg modelled all other country planes according to factory data but US planes got the "best available data" threatment http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So you shouldnt be complaining about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes he did say that...but I largely suspect that its the best data available that Oleg thinks is accurate. Of course, thats entirely prudent and I agree with the concept of filtering out the wheat from the chaff but sometimes things aren't always right and people get all worked up about it.

I don't know if the P-51 wing thing is a big error or not. I do know that you can do the same thing on the YP-80...at higher speeds. A sharp manuver and bammo...wings off. I always thought that the Mustang and others were doing crazy turns that weren't possible. Too bad the AI doesn't have trouble http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

BigKahuna_GS
07-15-2004, 10:01 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
JG5_JaRa---I heard there were different versions of the P-51 and even more different versions of the 109 with quite different performance characteristics, especially vs altitude, so the "the diving speed of the P51 is sixty mph faster than the Me109" quote is also a bit arbitrary. Me109 Emil?
__________________________________________________ _________________________

Wow different versions of planes ! When did this happen ?

All sarcasm aside, if you had read the Erik Hartman story fron the Fin site (axis pilot site mind you) you would have found that Hartman was flying a 109G-10 and it sounds like P51C's were involved. Hardley an emil friend.

Then you can read about dive acceleration in Shaws Fighter Combat Manuevering comparing different WW2 aircraft. This is a highly respected book and in there it says US planes had faster dive acceleration than axis planes.

I was at a WW2 Fighter pilots symposium where Gunther Rall said US planes had dive superiority, but hey what would Rall know compared to you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


You will notice in the story below that the 109s were already in a 45% dive coming at the P51. The P51 dove after the 109 and the 109 pilot knew the P51 was coming, so he had it firewalled to get away. The P51 caught him during the dive down :

Walter Konantz 55th FG September 1944*:

I looked up just in time to see fifty or sixty ME-109s streaming through our formation in a forty-five degree dive with their guns fireing. Fortunately, none had picked me as a target but one crossed right in front of me fireing at a Mustang below and to my left.

These were the first enemy airplanes I had ever laid eyes on and buck fever and instinct caused me to roll over in a dive after the ME-109. He saw me coming and steepened his dive to the vertical.

We both now headed straight down from 24,000 feet on a wide open power dive. Both airplanes were very skittish from extremely high speed and since I was not strapped in, the slightest movement of the stick caused me to leave the seat and hit the canopy above. I was in a neutral-G situation, just floating inside the cockpit.

_____


______

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

alarmer
07-15-2004, 11:45 PM
Kahuna, I think what he is referring to is that no matter how genuine the pilots story might be there are still way too many variables in works to state "this story is the absolute truth"

Sorry if I seem stupid but exactly what is that story suppose to prove? I dont think anybody here questions that US planes were good divers but rather that in which cases P51 wing could snap off under heavy G.

From what I read the BF109 reached its structural limit in dive and wing broke lose, or the pilot applied too much power to the stick causing a wing failure. Ofcourse I could interprite the story wrongly since Iam no expert on matter.

I dont think we should turn this into debate about diving performance since il2 engine lacks in that department, we would be just pouring salt into wounds for nothing.

I think CHDT chart is quite good in showing that P51 could snap its wing in high G:s. And that in sim you can do this because P51 has such good high speed manouverability just gotta be easy with the stick. Am I missing something here? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Red_Storm
07-16-2004, 05:33 AM
0Hhh!H1111 NOw owrr mut@ng pwnzzz all teh plens in t3h airr butt w3 st1ll wunt it b3tt3r becuz w3 st1ll g3t shut duwn wunze and 4g41n!111 LMFAO ROTFL WTF DUZ OLEG HEV AGAINT TEH P51 EVRYWUN KNEW IT WAZZ T3H B3ST PLENE EVR U NUBZ LMFAO!!!111~11"oneone

Seriously, if you still can't be successful in a Mustang like it is in FB now, I suggest you find another game to play.
---
http://www.albumsnaps.com/viewPhoto.php?id=42993

MEGILE
07-16-2004, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 0Hhh!H1111 NOw owrr mut@ng pwnzzz all teh plens in t3h airr butt w3 st1ll wunt it b3tt3r becuz w3 st1ll g3t shut duwn wunze and 4g41n!111 LMFAO ROTFL WTF DUZ OLEG HEV AGAINT TEH P51 EVRYWUN KNEW IT WAZZ T3H B3ST PLENE EVR U NUBZ LMFAO!!!111~11"oneone <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif LMAO, thanks for the laugh storm

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

Countdown to 1337 post count = P minus 174

Black Sheep
07-16-2004, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Storm:

0Hhh!H1111 NOw owrr mut@ng pwnzzz all teh plens in t3h airr butt w3 st1ll wunt it b3tt3r becuz w3 st1ll g3t shut duwn wunze and 4g41n!111 LMFAO ROTFL WTF DUZ OLEG HEV AGAINT TEH P51 EVRYWUN KNEW IT WAZZ T3H B3ST PLENE EVR U NUBZ LMFAO!!!111~11"oneone

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

JG5_JaRa
07-16-2004, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All sarcasm aside, if you had read the Erik Hartman story fron the Fin site (axis pilot site mind you) you would have found that Hartman was flying a 109G-10 and it sounds like P51C's were involved. Hardley an emil friend.

What does the site where a story gets posted have to do with its credibility? Do stories about superior aspects of US planes posted on an "axis" side have more credibility than those posted on an US side? Come on! We are talking physics here and the good thing is that they can be described in an objective manner, no guessing needed. However, to compare two situations, all variables must be known and this is hardly true for most veteran stories. Otherwise you'll always find stories of 109s outturning Spitfires, Spitfire Is outclimbing 109Es, P38s outturning Zeros - but what do such special situations prove? Was everything same in the beginning, fuel load, engine/airframe quality? Or to fix ideas, let's stick with your example. Konantz does not lose a single word on the relative dive acceleration of both planes, so what does his story tell us? No word about distance. Konantz says he was in a full power dive but does he know if the 109 pilot was? You already have to assume here and even though it is an acceptable assumption that he 109 was going full power in the beginning of the dive, even that doesn't matter at all because there is no word about the resulting dive acceleration. And are you sure the 109 was going full throttle all the time until the wing came off? Would you go full power in a 109 in a vertical dive if the speed was already so high that heavy controls kicked in? How many g's did the 109 pull when the wing came off? Do we have to assume he did also pull 4 g's only because Konantz did? Was the 109 in a good condition before the wing broke, in other words how representative was its condition? At what speed did the wing come off?
So what does this story tell? That P-51s always out-accelerated any 109 in any dive starting at any altitude and speed, that the P-51s could pull more g's and had a higher maximum (read: disintegration) speed than all 109s?
As a pilot flying online, you should know very well that the outcome of a maneuver depends very sensitively on the initial conditions and you can't always know them exactly. Never turned an 190A8 into a Yak3 yet? Does this then mean that in FB, the 190A8 outturns the Yak3? So when veterans describe the outcome of a fight this does not mean that this can necessarily be generalized like you did above. "Outdiving", what does that mean anyway? Diving is about slow speed acceleration, high speed acceleration and high speed maneuverability (recovery), three things which are not linked together directly! Someone posted a dive acceleration test between a captured 190A(4?) and a P-47(C?) and in this test, the conditions were already described clearer and the results analyzed in a more useful way. Result was that in this dive (I don't remember the starting altitude and dive angle), the 190 out-accelerated the P-47 in the beginning rather easily but once both aircraft got very fast, the P-47 out-accelerated the 190 to the point where it overtook it - but by that time, already a lot of altitude was lost. And this result is exactly what you expect when evaluating the situation from a physical standpoint, but it puts the "I simply outdived him" pilot accounts in another perspective. So what advantage does the "superior dive capability" of the P-47 help it when a 190 starts to dive away or after it from medium altitude with an acceleration advantage right down to the deck? Would you still say american planes have dive superiority then?

I was at a WW2 Fighter pilots symposium where Gunther Rall said US planes had dive superiority, but hey what would Rall know compared to you Wink

So what was Rall talking about? Slow speed acceleration, high speed acceleration, top speed, high speed maneuverability, high, medium or low altitude? What was the tactical situation?

And yes, I read Shaw's book. Where does it say that generally american planes had faster dive acceleration than axis planes? This quote would mean that an aircraft with higher thrust and lower mass - aerodynamics in the case of slow speed neglected - would have lower acceleration than a heavier aircraft with less thrust. And this violates a story written by Mr. Isaac Newton a while ago, who himself was no fighter pilot but I am very sure he would have been able to precisely predict WW2 aircraft performance under all conditions anyway.

WWMaxGunz
07-16-2004, 06:14 AM
1st demand more response, the plane doesn't respond well enough at low to mid speeds.
Then get upset because you can't just jerk the frigging stick around at high speed.

What is not real: Real pilots could not move the real stick at any speed as fast as
anyone can snap a joystick around. The strength modelling is a good step but it does
not automatically come with the full time of pull over distance against resistance,
does it? It seems not. It just moves the stick as fast as you do up to the force
limit of pilot strength set by your pull and the stick sensitivity settings.

What you can do is:
1) add in steps of Filter to you axis in the sensitivity settings.
2) quit being a stick jerking lamer, errr, gamer, expecting real results from unreal
actions.

Oleg HAD made direct mention of this in the Infamous Cheat Thread over in General
Discussion. Too bad so many dweebs can't take the time to read and think it through.
A real shame because when a real issue pops up, it gets ignored due to noise level
over asked-for-got-now-wtf-is-the-problem issues created by want-it-all whiners.

Easier to cry than to learn. Smarter to ask for a bit less elevator authority?
Don't jump for it by reflex... think what you lose as well as what you gain.
Maybe, just maybe instead try and treat the plane smoother?

Perhaps the same will happen to later 109 models as being demanded, then all can cry.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
07-16-2004, 06:22 AM
JaRa, isn't there some altitude where the heavier plane would also maybe have more excess
power to weight due to engine/supercharger/turbocherger than the lighter plane that might
be well above its' effective operating height, at least in some cases? If you include
speed in the scenario then excess power even in a zero-G dive will depend on speed of
each plane versus top speed of each plane and what may not be true at some heights for
some comparisons may become true in that particular corner of some chart?

But for blanket rules, anyone who makes those (not you, you did not!) is an idiot.


Neal

alarmer
07-16-2004, 06:30 AM
Redstorm:

Thats some funny stuff http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And I agree with your conclusion too.

Jara:

I dont want to sound like "jumping into the bandwagon" but I agree on this one much aswell. WWII stories dont tell us enough details to make something absolut truth. Just saying this since I couldnt put it into smart words like Jara.

JG5_JaRa
07-16-2004, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
JaRa, isn't there some altitude where the heavier plane would also maybe have more excess
power to weight due to engine/supercharger/turbocherger than the lighter plane that might
be well above its' effective operating height, at least in some cases?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. That's why the P-47D was such a good performer at high altitude; it had (IIRC - question for the table junkies) 2000hp or even more still at 10000m whereas many other planes typically dropped to something like half their maximum power at this altitude. 1475PS at rated altitude don't help a 109G6's power loading if at 10000m it only has 900PS left (guessed number). The P-47's charger gave it good dive acceleration up there, still producing enough power to offset the disadvantage of its high mass. But once it got down to where the 109s had their maximum power it looked old. That's why I was referring to thrust directly rather than assuming a constant power or thrust-to-weight ratio, which would be wrong. Another thing, just to repeat for the sake of completeness, would be the dive acceleration advantage of an heavier aircraft at very high speed (a bit higher than the particular level top speed at that altitude) since then weight lessens the drag &gt; thrust deceleration compared to free fall acceleration. Don't want to make you feel bored with that since I know this is already clear to you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you include speed in the scenario then excess power even in a zero-G dive will depend on speed of each plane versus top speed of each plane and what may not be true at some heights for some comparisons may become true in that particular corner of some chart?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, needless to say that a faster aircraft always out-accelerates the slower one in the range between their respective top speeds since there, the faster one gains energy while the slower one loses energy - full power, of course.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But for blanket rules, anyone who makes those (not you, you did not!) is an idiot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree. "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Some smart dude said this once, but even he was wrong at times.

p1ngu666
07-16-2004, 06:58 AM
yeah p47 turbo gave it full power across a wide height band. SL to something...
think u could also overspeed the turbo manualy, which might not be a good idea http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

in fb we have 2300hp jugs. hoping for 2800hp p47M http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

dadada1
07-16-2004, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
JG5_JaRa---I heard there were different versions of the P-51 and even more different versions of the 109 with quite different performance characteristics, especially vs altitude, so the "the diving speed of the P51 is sixty mph faster than the Me109" quote is also a bit arbitrary. Me109 Emil?
__________________________________________________ _________________________

Wow different versions of planes ! When did this happen ?

All sarcasm aside, if you had read the Erik Hartman story fron the Fin site (axis pilot site mind you) you would have found that Hartman was flying a 109G-10 and it sounds like P51C's were involved. Hardley an emil friend.

Then you can read about dive acceleration in Shaws Fighter Combat Manuevering comparing different WW2 aircraft. This is a highly respected book and in there it says US planes had faster dive acceleration than axis planes.

I was at a WW2 Fighter pilots symposium where Gunther Rall said US planes had dive superiority, but hey what would Rall know compared to you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


You will notice in the story below that the 109s were already in a 45% dive coming at the P51. The P51 dove after the 109 and the 109 pilot knew the P51 was coming, so he had it firewalled to get away. The P51 caught him during the dive down :

Walter Konantz 55th FG September 1944*:

I looked up just in time to see fifty or sixty ME-109s streaming through our formation in a forty-five degree dive with their guns fireing. Fortunately, none had picked me as a target but one crossed right in front of me fireing at a Mustang below and to my left.

These were the first enemy airplanes I had ever laid eyes on and buck fever and instinct caused me to roll over in a dive after the ME-109. He saw me coming and steepened his dive to the vertical.

We both now headed straight down from 24,000 feet on a wide open power dive. Both airplanes were very skittish from extremely high speed and since I was not strapped in, the slightest movement of the stick caused me to leave the seat and hit the canopy above. I was in a neutral-G situation, just floating inside the cockpit.

_____


______

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"


Where does it state that he was flying a 109G 10? I've never seen the model stated in any book regarding his encounters with Mustangs. Whats your source?




<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
07-16-2004, 07:22 AM
Funny how these 'help my P-51 doesn`t fly enough for me' threads by some coincidence always turn into 109-bashing by the all-US-is-very-superior-in-everything gang. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

109 envy, the effect of well-developed inferiority complexes, perhaps?

As for the P-51D wing failures, I think it`s pretty well recorded historical fact, even though I fully agree with those posters who state that it comes too early, which is accepted along with the fact that the P-51D had seroius dive integrity problems because of constructional changes, by even the die-hard US-booster types like pzkpw, the blutty guy and their co. A few zealots remain, like this daballz guy.

Now back to the P-51 falling apart issue, it is, as pointed out by others, a result of overapplied controls, putting the airframe to loads it could not sustain. And this being a direct consequence of the faulty modelling of Mustang flying controls at high speeds, the elevator being waaay too light in comparison to it`s historical counterpart which was known for it`s heavy elevator forces, especially compared to other US types (Mustang stickforce/G was 20 lbs/G, whereas the F4U and P-47 was in the order of 5lbs/G required). This allows easy overapplying of the elevator in the game, whereas this was kept in relatively safe limits, and was also more gradual in real life, the stickforce factor limiting the pilot from doing stupid things like applying full elevator at an 500 mph dive.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

dadada1
07-16-2004, 07:30 AM
Yeah I've also read that Mustangs controls heavy up with speed, particularly the elevator, so maybe it is now too light/too much deflection at speed. Goes to prove the old saying "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it."

BSS_CUDA
07-16-2004, 07:40 AM
Kurfurst, you wonder why alot of the US pilots whine about flight models here are some stats that I took off greater green last night that you might find interesting its the kill to death ratio of all german planes and all U.S. planes with 50 or more sorties

109's

E** 2.24-1
E-7** 1.34-1
G-14** 1.62-1
G-2** 1.30-1
G-6as** .87-1
k-4** 1.06-1

190's

A-4** 1.53-1
A-5** 2.02-1
A-6** 2.15-1
A-8** 1.71-1
A-9** 1.31-1
d-9** 1.11-1
TA 152** 1.33-1

thats an average kill ratio of 1.50-1
here are the american plane stats

38J .84-1
38L .42-1
40E 1.26-1
40-m-f 1.68-1
40M .98-1
47 d10 .36-1
47-d27 .40-1
P63 .73-1
51B 1.11-1
51c .87-1
51 n20 .97-1
51 n5 .94-1

thats an average of .88-1

I hear so many ppl say its not the plane its the Pilot. well the stats dont lie at almost a 2-1 ration the German planes will out gun a U.S. aircraft.
there are MANY pilots of the 51 that will out fly the German planes, so why is there such a huge discrepancy in the stats? FM? 50's? I for one would really like to know. these stats were takin of the greater green board and the average # of sorties was 400
http://greatergreen.com/il2/stats/index.php so you luft whiners can STFU about how uber the 51 is its total BS

*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
Black Sheep Tactical Officer
USN retired

http://img42.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/CUDA_.jpg
blacksheep214.com (http://blacksheep214.com)
That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun

Kurfurst__
07-16-2004, 08:39 AM
Cuda, from your stats it`s quite clear that`s it mostly ubcoordinated turnfight there what is going on - ealry good turners like the 109E and P-40 having the best scores whereas the late, fast powerful machines fairing worsers, the exception being the Fw 190, but it`s pilots are probably the most skilled E-tacticans, given the 190 can hardly beat anything in manouvering fight - which I also think a bit exxegarated, mostly it`s castrated by it`s too harsh stall model, which overstates it`s historical apetite for going into stall w/o much warning IMHO. But that`s just a sidenote.

And regardless of your stats, I belive the P-51 is way too good in it`s low speed handling and stall warning, also the elevator is too light. This latter thing is now causing problems for you in form of wing failures. It`s a tad bit overmodelled in ROC, but then again, so is many others. The .50s I find very effective on the receiving end, but they are inaccurate, that`s for sure.

PS : The P-51 must be in agreement with it`s own historical flight parameters, which are not neccesarily the same as people`s expectations.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

BBB_Hyperion
07-16-2004, 09:51 AM
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/p51g.jpg

Also a p51 g load chart.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

crazyivan1970
07-16-2004, 09:55 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
07-16-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
Kurfurst, you wonder why alot of the US pilots whine about flight models here are some stats that I took off greater green last night that you might find interesting its the kill to death ratio of all german planes and all U.S. planes with 50 or more sorties

109's

E** 2.24-1
E-7** 1.34-1
G-14** 1.62-1
G-2** 1.30-1
G-6as** .87-1
k-4** 1.06-1

190's

A-4** 1.53-1
A-5** 2.02-1
A-6** 2.15-1
A-8** 1.71-1
A-9** 1.31-1
d-9** 1.11-1
TA 152** 1.33-1

thats an average kill ratio of 1.50-1
here are the american plane stats

38J .84-1
38L .42-1
40E 1.26-1
40-m-f 1.68-1
40M .98-1
47 d10 .36-1
47-d27 .40-1
P63 .73-1
51B 1.11-1
51c .87-1
51 n20 .97-1
51 n5 .94-1

thats an average of .88-1

I hear so many ppl say its not the plane its the Pilot. well the stats dont lie at almost a 2-1 ration the German planes will out gun a U.S. aircraft.
there are MANY pilots of the 51 that will out fly the German planes, so why is there such a huge discrepancy in the stats? FM? 50's? I for one would really like to know. these stats were takin of the greater green board and the average # of sorties was 400
http://greatergreen.com/il2/stats/index.php so you luft whiners can STFU about how uber the 51 is its total BS

*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
Black Sheep Tactical Officer
USN retired

http://img42.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/CUDA_.jpg
http://blacksheep214.com
That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL yes cuda i remember you on greatergreen
dunno wich map but i was flying accross the frontline close to your base where i met 3 P47s and 2 P51s flying close together
ROFL i have it on track man what a good show you guys gave me
i shot 1 P47 down and dragged the rest in a turnfight they were turnfighting me and 2 of them stalled out and crashed LOL then you came up behind me and you overshoot you stalled right infront of my nose and i ripped you apart http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
i mean the stats and that event shows, if 5 fighters fail to down one G14 can only show pilot skill i guess or the use of wrong tactics maybe?
(dont jump me for it hehe i know your not a bad pilot maybe just unlucky)

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sunsigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

BSS_CUDA
07-16-2004, 11:29 AM
LOL ya been flyin in head up my rear mode all week, flown 17 straight sorties with out a kill WTF!!!!!!!!! hardly even hit anything. I usually get 3-4 kills a map but not this week. guess I'm just in a slump. good thing this aint real life, I would have used up all nine of my lives http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif

*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
Black Sheep Tactical Officer
USN retired

http://img42.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/CUDA_.jpg
blacksheep214.com (http://blacksheep214.com)
That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun

alarmer
07-16-2004, 03:28 PM
This thread actually rised up from the troll hell and delivered some good information. I salute you people http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Again I must jump the bandwagon on P51 wing braking issue. P51 got its great high speed talents that has been asked for it and now it is backfiring a bit. Indeed if the P51 wouldnt have such light elevator (as pointed in this thread it didint have) wings wouldnt come off so easily and the pilot wouldnt black so quickly.

I suggest something that is probably going to get my *** grilled with flamethrower.

1. Tone down some 109 variant turning ability (example G2 turns in some situations too well) but make its elevator bit more responsive (give its known B&Z ability back)

2. Tone down P51:s elevator lightness abit, so that wings cant be broken so easily even with excessive use of stick and make it little bit worse in low altitude dogfight.

Could we live with this? I know its more bad for P51 but surely everybody who has played the latest version of FB and knows the history must see these two things as "right"

In case this seems horrible to allied side I would throw in a little bit smaller 0.5cal dispersion too just as a compromise solution.

IMHO we would end up with more historical flight sim if all these changes would be applied to FB.

Luftcaca
07-16-2004, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Mayby while your at it, you can change the AI BF109 FM. There is know way the BF109 can out turn a P-47 at 700km/h + lol.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

cmon its been said to death already that EVERY plane in the game wasnt suffering from high speed compressibility when the AI flies it, same for redouts and blackouts. I saw a Mig3 pull up at 700 kmh in a dive as fast as if it was a I-153 at 350 kmh today... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Even if Im disappointed at the fact that the AI uses the easy flight mode (really disappointed) well better live with it I dont think this is ever gonna change. as well as the other main AI related flaws...

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

wants flyable:

early 110's
IL-10
Pe-3

Aaron_GT
07-16-2004, 04:23 PM
Are there ground targets to hit on the Greatergreen server? I notice that the prime fighter bombers - P38 and P47 - have poor kill ratios. This might be because they are being used as attack aircraft and are shot down when heavily laden, on attack runs or by AAA.

faustnik
07-16-2004, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
I took off greater green last night that you might find interesting its the kill to death ratio of all german planes and all U.S. planes with 50 or more sorties<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, that's a real eye opener Cuda. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I'm not quite sure how to interpret those stats but, it clearly shows that the American a/c are far from "uber" at least under Greater Green's conditions.

Looking at the stats more closely on the link you provided, it looks like the 190 scores can be explained by the fact that very few pilots use them. Kursfurst is probably correct in his assesment of the 190 kill ratio. 109s certainly do very well as do the Yaks and Spitfires. There is probably also something to be said for Kurfurst's opinion about the "easy turners" having an advantage.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

[This message was edited by faustnik on Fri July 16 2004 at 03:35 PM.]

JG5_JaRa
07-16-2004, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by alarmer:
1. Tone down some 109 variant turning ability (example G2 turns in some situations too well) but make its elevator bit more responsive (give its known B&Z ability back)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Throw in some overworked flaps as well. Flaps generally create a lot of lift for very little drag in the game but especially the turn performance you get when hanging the 109G2's flaps in the wind makes an arcadish impression. Of course there are many things involved in that, one being overall energy bleed which is still IMHO the main weakness of this game (namely a lack thereof in many situations), probably excessive thrust at slow speed, followed by the lack of any form of gyroscopic engine torque and side slip effects. The generic snap rolls instead of straight stalls regardless of engine power is not what I'm talking about here. Neglecting these slow speed effects is almost like neglecting stalls. And more to come, high control forces at low IAS and high alt (where in the world would heavy control forces come from at low IAS??!), a consistent engine overheat model, especially at high alt where it fails most at the moment. A lot of potential to fix and we know we won't see it fixed but maybe such things will be considered in BoB if not even more shiny water will be considered more important, hehe...
And I think it is worth considering what Neal mentioned above, namely that in the game you almost instantaneously get full maneuvering rates when moving the stick, as if it would be light as a feather until it reaches the maximum possible deflection the game thinks is appropriate.
It is getting boring when barely realistic moves become standard maneuvers and the wildest maneuvers are much easier than in RL with barely any (energy) penalty and every "fix" in the flight model is only about over and over adjusting some climb rates, top speeds or turn rates again.

WWMaxGunz
07-16-2004, 10:35 PM
Greater Green stats could be reflecting plane choices of different players.
I don't assume equal or near abilities even on average over plane choices,
so I can't see anything real about the planes in the shown data. I might
as well use WWII kill counts to tell plane quality or be "1337" and use
ratios of planes made to kills or even sorties flown. Still doesn't say
anything but exactly what the data is. Cases say more and those rest on
details. If a plane was truely substandard and a side had much to replace
it with, then it was retired. Those are the ones to call losers.


Neal

Ugly_Kid
07-16-2004, 11:14 PM
P-51 is probably the sweatest handling aircraft in the game, yet some clown pops up and has something to moan about it. Hey wait a minute it's always the same clowns, isn't it? I think the song is also the same one, isn't it?

P-51 looses it wings because of the best elevator authority in the game, AFAIK it really had a very good elevator allthough there are sources that claim quite the opposite. You are able to get the wings to tear of ONLY if you instantly pull the stick fully back - this is what a real pilot would never ever do in real life, so we have the game resembling reality -&gt; people go buuhaa.

Pilot doesn't blackout with 15g? He would if that manouver lasted longer than the fraction of second it takes to tear off the wing, once the wing is off the accelerations are instantly reduced. If there was a stress sound it might be easier to get a forewarning of what is going on in the airframe. It is possible to perform very snappy manouvers with blackout following later or not at all, late arcade pullups with excessive 20g, for example - both FW and P-51. The wing breakage surely took care of that, didn't it?

I would hate P-51 if the moaners got their will and the elevator was reduced what good would that aircraft be after that with reduced high speed handling, I don't like FW with its current dumbeddown elevator either. For God's sake how are you people flying that crate????You moan about excessive blackouts and wings coming off and all of this should be just discrimination of P-51????Defenately nothing wrong behind the stick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, only with the game which doesn't make you Maverick and Goose, take Oleg's words of wisdom:

"We give the best effience of elevator on High speed for P-51, but people say that we model incorrect G-loading.... But to think with the school physics experience that they are doing themselves greater loading just becasue of this effiency of elevator - they don't! "

If the elevator is too sensitive to you go and dumb down the stick sensitivities, you're probably not flying Bf-109 anyway where you need all you can get. But leave the bloody P-51 elevator alone for people who can use it and know to enjoy it. If you have flown a real aircraft you don't play the game with stick to the limits inputs either, you make slower trying inputs approaching the deflection you want to have in order to perform the manouver and if the game expects you to do this it's no good?

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

alarmer
07-17-2004, 01:29 AM
I was under the impression yesterday when I wrote my suggestions that P-51 wasnt able to pull so high G:s in high speeds.

Guess Iam showing my stupidity since there was even the CHDT:s chart which showed the point where wings would come of, so it must be possible to get enough high G:s in P51 to brake its wings too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

BTW Ugly it just occured me that Ive been using Olegs stick settings with Bf109 for years now. They are bit dumbed down , I should try changing em a bit. Ill throw you a message in HL today if your there, maybe you can give me tips.

Maple_Tiger
07-17-2004, 05:55 AM
I wonder what the FW lovers would think if in the next patch the FW would shred its wings with little stick input at 700+ while the P-51 wings did not?

That would be funny.

Why shouldn't i moan about not being able to turn with an FW at high speeds?

I never heard any pilot acounts that suggested the P-51 could not turn with an FW at higher speeds.


I would like to see the FW more prone for wing shreding. Funny thing is, i can't seem to shred an FW's wings. No matter how hard i pull on the stick, the wings stay on. I do get a nasty black out though

I don't care what some of you think. I beleave it's wronge period.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

alarmer
07-17-2004, 06:43 AM
Having a opinion about a matter isnt enought.

If you can provide information and FW190 stuctural limits etc I would be more than willing to back you up on this one.

FW190 is my favorite plane and the more historical it is the better. (allthough il2 engine cannot do FW190 ever justice)

Kwiatos
07-17-2004, 06:52 AM
Two P-51 shootdowns with three-cannon Messerschmitt 109 G-6/R6:
"I got both in a turning battle, out-turning them. We did several times 360 degrees until he became nervous, then pulled a little too much. His plane "warned", the pilot had to give way a little and I was able to get deflection. When I got to shoot at the other one, the entire left side was ripped off.
- So you did several full circles, you must have flown near stalling speed. Did you fly with "the seat of your pants" or kept eye on the dials? What was the optimum speed in such a situation, it was level flight?
It was level flight and flying by "the seat of your pants". What should I say, I should say I was doing 250kmh and the Mustang must have more than 300kmh. That is why I was able to hang on but did not get the deflection.
- And you was flying a three cannon plane?
Yes, but I did fly another one as mine was under maintenance. It was the experience that counted. Experience helped to decide when you had tried different things.
- In which altitude did these Mustang dogfights take place?
It must have been about 2000m."
Ky├┬Âsti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories

Ugly_Kid
07-17-2004, 07:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
I wonder what the FW lovers would think if in the next patch the FW would shred its wings with little stick input at 700+ while the P-51 wings did not?

That would be funny.

Why shouldn't i moan about not being able to turn with an FW at high speeds?

I never heard any pilot acounts that suggested the P-51 could not turn with an FW at higher speeds.


I would like to see the FW more prone for wing shreding. Funny thing is, i can't seem to shred an FW's wings. No matter how hard i pull on the stick, the wings stay on. I do get a nasty black out though
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FW breaks its wings too, here is a track:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/fw_sheds_its_wings.TRK

and if you're not able to turn better than FW in a stang you probably should spend more time training than moaning. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

[This message was edited by Ugly_Kid on Sat July 17 2004 at 08:14 AM.]

WUAF_Badsight
07-17-2004, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

I don't care what some of you think.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

& you dont care about history or data either

as long as its american it should be better

am i right , or am i right ?

dont look at me like that Ivan

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

KaRaYa-X
07-17-2004, 09:00 AM
Well if you weren't as biased as you are Maple_Tiger you would have seen that many other planes loose their wings in high speed dives

these are (one more time for you):
-P51
-FW190A & D + Ta152H
-Ki84
-all jets
-Me163

I would love to see you come up with some data that suggests that the P51 could make full stick pressure turns at lets say 700km/h IAS or more without loosing its wings...
I think you still haven't realized that there is a BIG BIG difference in high-speed handling between the P51 and most other planes in ACES...

I could be wrong but around 80% of the planes in the game suffer from compressibility (which IS indeed realistic!). Your beloved Mustang has a big advantage over them - but still you moan about it being undermodelled in this respect as you don't seem to be able of making use of it...

And about your conspiracy theories that the FW does not loose its wings... check out the track which was posted in here or just start a QMB - accelerate to 700IAS and then pull up as fast as you can... there you go!

But I can already see him jumping into this thread again, saying that the FW needs half a second more to loose its wings... LOL
Give me a break!!


Either come up with data or better STFU http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

Panelboy
07-17-2004, 10:35 AM
On a side note I recall reading an interesting story about implementing 'speed jeans' in mustang squadrons in WW2. Can't remember the source, but essentially the extra g or two a trained pilot can sustain in a turn was enough to bend the wings if you weren't carefull. Several aircraft returned after operational missions with a few degrees of annhedral (wings bent downward) from pulling too much instantaneous or sustained g. I would guess that too much sustained g for a 7.33 g rated airplane like the mustang might be 8-9, with instantaneous (from a quick stick 'pump') being a bit more.

Note that they didn't break, they 'bent'.

BigKahuna_GS
07-17-2004, 01:28 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
JG5_JaRa
--Someone posted a dive acceleration test between a captured 190A(4?) and a P-47(C?) and in this test, the conditions were already described clearer and the results analyzed in a more useful way.
__________________________________________________ _________________________

I have a copy of the original document but it will not post here.

The following is the USAAF test report from a comparison between a Fw190A5 (I believe this was an A5/U8 as it shows no outer wing Cannon or cowling Mg) and a P-47D-4. The A-5 had its two inner wing Cannon removed and equivalent weights substituted. The FW190 was described: "...as in exceptionally good condition for a captured airplane, and developed 42 inches manifold pressure on takeoff." The P-47 was equipped with Water Injection but no paddle blade propeller.

The tests were done between S.L. and 15,000ft. The pilot of the P-47 had 200 hours in P-40's and 5 hours in the P-47. The FW190 Pilot had 300 hours in twin engine, 500 hours in single engine and 5 hours in the FW190. Four separate flights of one hour each were conducted. All speeds were in IAS.


Part of the test-----

3) Diving

(a) 10,000-3,000ft, starting at 250mph diving at an angle of 65 degrees with constant throttle setting. The Fw190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning, but the P-47 passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out.



(b) Turning and handling below 250mph. Turns were made so rapidly that it was impossible for the aircraft to accelerate. In making the usual rather flat turns in a horizontal plane, the FW190 was able to hang onto its propeller and turn inside the P-47. The FW190 was also able to accelerate suddenly and change to a more favorable position during the turn.


However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute as series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190. The maneuver started with a a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep which again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point. The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher. The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver.
R.Johnson did this many times.




__________________________________________________ ________________________
JG5_JaRa
So what advantage does the "superior dive capability" of the P-47 help it when a 190 starts to dive away or after it from medium altitude with an acceleration advantage right down to the deck? Would you still say american planes have dive superiority then?
__________________________________________________ __________________________


I am not saying that under all tactical situations that US planes had dive superiority-that would depend on "E" state and altitude. In sustained dives though both german & allied pilots said the that the P47, P51 and P38 were superior in a dive.

You are mistaken----the 190 does not have an acceleration advantage all the way to the deck. The P47 not only catches the 190 but passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out.

The question is : What is much greater speed ? 50mph faster ? 100mph faster ? They dont say dang it.

A second document and dive test again P47 vs 190 from 6,000ft. Start speed is not given and the speed attained in the dive is not given-all we are told is that the 47 could still "draw away" from the 190. How fast is "draw away" ?

We have 2 low altitude dive tests from real life testing that show the P47 winning from 10,000ft and 6,000ft. The problem is that -- FB/AEP Does Not even come close to these tests. Try replicating the test with the 190 and the P47--the FB/AEP, the 190 smokes the P47 every time contrary to real world dive tests.


This is the result of that very short 7,000ft dive and how it would translate into a tactical advantage :

Offensive--(IRL)the 190 cannot escape from the P47 it is dead. In FB/AEP it can escape.

Defensive--If the 190 is in guns range the P47 is dead. If the P47 has some seperation it can use its greater speed and "E" to the vertical for the following scenario:

However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute as series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190. The maneuver started with a a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep which again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point. The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher. The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver.

The end result is a hammerhead back down onto the 190.

This is a real life result that cannot be replicated in FB/AEP.


The Gunther Rall's story matched the Konantz story almost to a tee. In both stories the 109s are already in a power dive attacking at high altitude-24,000ft to 30,000ft. Rall attacked and shot down Zemke's wing man, additional P47's rolled in behind Rall and gave chase in a long sustained dive where the P47's caught Rall and shot him down. I cant remember if this is the fight where Rall got his hand shot up badly. Rall says he had full power going during this time in an attempt to escape. Key point Rall is caught from behind and shot down.

The tactical similarities are that both 109s are already in a dive and have speed in their favor and both the P47 & P51 are able to catch the 109s in a long sustained dive. As speed increases when entering a power dive, things even get worse for axis planes because there is no brief period of accelerating away such as in the short dive test between the P47 and the 190 posted above.

The greater the starting speed and the longer dive, all favor US aircraft and that is not represented in FB/AEP.


From a JG26 Pilot :


Fw 190D9 pilot Lt Karl Heinz Ossenkop of JG 26 comparing their crate to the opposition.

Spitfire: the D-9 was better in level flight, climb and dive. It was slightly inferior in turns.

Tempest: almost equal in level flight, a lengthy pursuit was usually fruitless. The D-9 climbed and turned better, but was inferior in a dive.

Mustang: the two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers, which was an advantage to us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather faster in a dive.

Thunderbolt: with the Dora-9 we had advantages in level flight, climb and turn. We were hopelessly inferior in a dive.



________________________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

WWMaxGunz
07-17-2004, 01:57 PM
I run around offline with the planes just flying them to see how they fly.
I get a much clearer picture without adding combat. Then I add combat.

I run stick pitch at all 100's, but I run pitch Filter at 4 notches in.
It makes a big difference. Now my pilot is much smoother and IMHO much
more realistic in time to move the stick from one defection to the next.
Perhaps some people should try this using Filter setting out? Smoother
control is cleaner control. ;^) I do not believe the problem is best
stated as what stick pressure can be used, but how fast you can apply.
For those who can understand, you probably already know well that the
statement of the problem is crucial to finding actual solutions.


Neal

BigKahuna_GS
07-17-2004, 02:23 PM
S!


Since a major tactical componet of US planes is not repersented in FB/AEP-"dive superiority" which handicaps the P47/P38/P51 in all models. And since basically all FB/AEP US/German war planes dive the same.

How would you feel JG5_JaRa if basically all US/German planes in FB/AEP climbed the same ?

That would take away a major componet of tactical advantage from luftwaffe planes.

All planes should not climb the same nor should all planes dive the same. The P47,P51 and P38 were the best diving prop aircraft in WW2 and you would never know it in FB/AEP.

A major tactical componet is missing from these US aircraft and needs to be corrected. The P47/P38 are the most severly affected by this because they utilized their dive speed as a means of escape.

Just trying to put things into perspective for you.


____________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

JG5_JaRa
07-17-2004, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
dive comparison report
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's look at that report again. First it says that the 190 pulls away "rapidly" in the beginning, a bit later it says the P-47 would have had a "much greater diving acceleration" in this vertical "figure 8" maneuver. The description of that maneuver is very vague since it contains a lot of maneuvering which is not specified (turn/climb angles, pulled g's, time) and says not much about the 190's maneuvering, but the now suddenly much greater diving acceleration of the P-47 (did the 190 turn its engine off in the meantime?) seems to be at slow speed since it is mentioned at the point where the P-47 looped around above the 190. This contradiction aside, the report says that in this vertical maneuver, the P-47 gained an altitude advantage simply by diving to a higher speed than the 190 and converting this back to altitude. Nothing new here. And this is not a direct zoom climb comparison because the initial speeds are different.
When I was talking about a 190 out-accelerating a P-47 right down to the deck starting from med altitude, I was giving an example, no numbers yet. And no, I am not mistaken. The example I gave can always be fixed with numbers as long as one aircraft accelerates better at slow speed than another.
The summary from the JG26 pilot you posted is even more vague and open to many wild interpretations. "Thunderbolt: with the Dora-9 we had advantages in level flight, climb and turn. We were hopelessly inferior in a dive." Well, an aircraft which has a better climb at a certain speed and alt automatically also has a better acceleration, both level and in a dive - and zoom climb. Surprising? I can think of various combat situations where an initial dive acceleration advantage can be crucial and it does not necessarily have to boil down to the point where both aircraft throw away all their altitude in a race down to the deck at insane speed, where the P-47 was good. "Hopelessly inferior in a dive"... yes, an acceleration advantage in one part of the envelope is truly a hopeless disadvantage, truly a precise statement. What will be quoted next? Yak 3: "Absolute superiority in terms of combat features over latest German, English and American piston-engined planes at altitudes up to 5,000-6,000m". Oh yes, a 109K4 will put itself at an absolute disadvantage by outclimbing and B'n'Z'ing the Yak.
FB does not model dive acceleration right, I never said it would do that, actually I already did comparisons way back and was disappointed. But these quotes and their sometimes wild interpretations of what the game should reflect and what not are quite adventitious at times. "Dive superiority" contains many variables and those people who used it successfully knew exactly which of them to use and how because not all were necessarily in favor of their plane. However when I read posts about a lack of dive superiority in these forums, I can't help but feeling that the poster basically expects planes like a P-47 or P-51 out-rocketing everything once the nose gets anywhere below the horizon.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How would you feel JG5_JaRa if basically all US/German planes in FB/AEP climbed the same ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well first of all please accept that the fact that there's a "JG5"-tag in front of my callsign does not, did not and will never turn me into someone who dedicates his life to crippling the simulated performance of everything which has no balkan cross on the wings and my perspective of this game goes much farther than what you see out of a 109 or 190 cockpit. Then note that the by far most important thing I consider in a flight simulation is the flight model, followed by nothing for a long time. And there are many bugs or (missing) features I would like to see corrected in the game and I am not talking about performance parameters there but rather about a consequent model of the basic physics, one result being adequate dive mechanics. Simulations like Targetware already did certain things better than IL2, so it is not a question of being technically possible or not.

edit: but to answer your question: if that 109/190 would be supposed to outclimb the US plane but wouldn't do, then I'd probably think the same I do when I see LaLa7's looping and turning around constantly overheating 190D9's at 10000m: "Be sure!"

[This message was edited by JG5_JaRa on Sat July 17 2004 at 01:58 PM.]

[This message was edited by JG5_JaRa on Sat July 17 2004 at 01:59 PM.]

Aaron_GT
07-17-2004, 03:30 PM
"We have 2 low altitude dive tests from real life testing that show the P47 winning from 10,000ft and 6,000ft. The problem is that -- FB/AEP Does Not even come close to these tests. Try replicating the test with the 190 and the P47--the FB/AEP, the 190 smokes the P47 every time contrary to real world dive tests.


This is the result of that very short 7,000ft dive and how it would translate into a tactical advantage :

Offensive--(IRL)the 190 cannot escape from the P47 it is dead. In FB/AEP it can escape."

My reading would be that IRL if a P47 began a dive pursuit of a 190 at 10000ft the 190 would initially pull away rapidly. This would give the 190 tactical advantage in that it would have separation and the initiative.

If in IL2 the 190 initially pulls away then this would be correct. If the P47 doesn't later catch it, then that is a problem. Constant throttle is indicated in the test, but it doesn't indicate what setting or prop pitch as far as I can tell. Were the settings for 250mph IAS cruise? I've done a few IL2 dive tests and gone from cruise to max power, but maybe the IL2 FMs might match the test better with, say 50% throttle, 70% prop pitch (i.e. a cruise setting)

BigKahuna_GS
07-17-2004, 03:49 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ _________________________
AronGT--My reading would be that IRL if a P47 began a dive pursuit of a 190 at 10000ft the 190 would initially pull away rapidly. This would give the 190 tactical advantage in that it would have separation and the initiative.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


Yes you are correct the 190 initially pulls away but you have forgotten the second half of the equation---The P47 catches it before the 3,000ft mark.

And not only does the P47 catch it, but the P-47 passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out.

So there would be no ecape for the 190 (IRL) as there is in FB/AEP.


____

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
07-17-2004, 04:26 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ ________________________
JG5_JaRa---When I was talking about a 190 out-accelerating a P-47 right down to the deck starting from med altitude, I was giving an example, no numbers yet. And no, I am not mistaken. The example I gave can always be fixed with numbers as long as one aircraft accelerates better at slow speed than another.
__________________________________________________ __________________________


In black & white :

Part of the test-----

3) Diving

(a) 10,000-3,000ft, starting at 250mph diving at an angle of 65 degrees with constant throttle setting. The Fw190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning, but the P-47 passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out.



JG5_JaRa you are flirting with semantics and denial. Yes, you are wrong.

The 190A-5 DOES NOT out accelerate the P47 to the deck. The P47 caught and passed it at the 3000ft mark. It also had "much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out."

I dont know how that statement can be any clearer.

There is also a dive test from 6,000ft the the Jug wins also. That is even a shorter dive than from 10,000ft to 3,000ft.

Once again the real life test cannot be replicated in FB/AEP because the Jug accelerates so poorly in the dive and does not retain "E" like it should.

The Gunther Rall story matched the Konantz story almost to a tee. In both stories the 109s are already in a power dive attacking at high altitude-24,000ft to 30,000ft.

The tactical similarities are that both 109s are already in a dive and have speed in their favor and both the P47 & P51 are able to catch the 109s in a long sustained dive.

As speed increases when entering a power dive, things even get worse for axis planes because there is no brief period of accelerating away such as in the short dive test between the P47 and the 190 posted above.

The greater the starting speed and the longer dive, all favor US aircraft and that is not represented in FB/AEP.

You missed the point about the Erik Hartman story too. It was not about US planes at all. It was about how great a fighter pilot Hartman was. The dive speed quoted by the US P51 pilot just happened to be part of the story.

[All data from] [ virtualpilots.fi ] From the Fin site.

SPEED CONVERSION
60 Miles (statute) per hour equals 96.5606 Kilometers per hour
Lawrence Thompson
=============
"I fired two very long bursts, probably five seconds each (P-51 has ammo for about 18 seconds of continuous bursts for four machine guns, the remaining two machine guns will shoot for about 24 seconds). I noticed that part of his engine cowling flew off and he immediately broke off his attack on the lead P-51. I check my rear view mirrors and there's nothing behind me now; somehow, I have managed to lose the Me109 following me, probably because the diving speed of the P-51 is sixty mph faster than the Me109."


In Shaws Fighter Combat Manuvering it also says US planes had dive superiority. There is a fly off between Robert S. Johnson's P47 vs a Spit.
In the report, it says how the Jugs strengths of dive speed and zoom climb are utilized by Johnson in a similar fashion of a vertical figure 8 like in the dive report previously listed to get onto the tail of the Spit.

It goes on to say in Shaws book that these same superior dive and zoom strengths were utilized over axis aircraft.


______

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Aaron_GT
07-17-2004, 04:30 PM
"Yes you are correct the 190 initially pulls away but you have forgotten the second half of the equation---The P47 catches it before the 3,000ft mark."

No, I didn't forget this!

Aaron_GT
07-17-2004, 04:40 PM
"Yes you are correct the 190 initially pulls away but you have forgotten the second half of the equation---The P47 catches it before the 3,000ft mark."

I didn't forget this. If the 190 does nothing to take any further evasive action, then the P47 will catch it. If the 190 pulls away initially it has the initiative and has the option to stop the dive short of the altitude at which the P47 will have acquired enough speed to have a much better energy state. In other words it may have managed to get out of gun range, allowing the 190 pilot to decide on the next action. The P47 only gains the upper hand if the dive continues.

With regard to how it is in AEP I just did some quick tests with 70% prop pitch for both planes, and throttle required to hold 400 kph IAS level at 3000m (about 55-60% for the P47D27, 60-65% throttle for the 190A8). The angle of dive as probably closer to 45 degrees rather than the ideal 65 degrees based on the way I set up the start and end positions (I had to wait until I got steady level speeds). Total dive time from 3000m to 1000m was about 20 seconds.

Basically the dive performance is identical (to within experimental error - the P47 was 20 kph at the end of the run, but I'd have to repeat several times to be sure this is significant) for both planes under this regime. I don't know what the throttle settings in the USAAF test were, but if they were cruise settings for 250 IAS at 10,000ft then in AEP the 190 is initially disadvantaged in dive, and the P47 doesn't have its correct advantage at the end of the run down to 1000m. One thing to note is that the end speed for both is about 730 kph, and the 190 is suffering buffeting at this point, and the P47 is not.

Aaron_GT
07-17-2004, 04:44 PM
"There is also a dive test from 6,000ft the the Jug wins also. That is even a shorter dive than from 10,000ft to 3,000ft."

Yes - this is a bit confusing. From 10,000 feet it takes 7,000 feet for the P47 to win over the 190, but from 6,000 feet it takes less? The power-to-weight ratio (if full power was used, rather than settings for 250 IAS cruise at 10,000 feet were used) would favour the P47 more at the higher altitude. The circumstances or engine settings must be rather different in both cases for this to make sense.

Aaron_GT
07-17-2004, 04:51 PM
"As speed increases when entering a power dive, things even get worse for axis planes because there is no brief period of accelerating away such as in the short dive test between the P47 and the 190 posted above. "

If the dive is entered at less than maximum level speed and at medium or low altitude this would not be the case as the axis aircraft would have a power loading advantage. At high altitude then the P47 would have a considerable power loading advantage, however. The Tempest V trials note that the 109 is caught in a longer dive, but not initially, but the 190 is beaten initially at all altitudes, and the Tempest V is a bit better in a dive or zoom than the P47. This implies that the 109 should be at least as good as the P47 initially in a dive (although I'd still put my money on the P47 at altitude due to that superb turbosupercharger).

BigKahuna_GS
07-17-2004, 05:25 PM
S!


__________________________________________________ _________________________
Aaron_GT

posted 17-07-04 15:44
"There is also a dive test from 6,000ft the the Jug wins also. That is even a shorter dive than from 10,000ft to 3,000ft."

Yes - this is a bit confusing. From 10,000 feet it takes 7,000 feet for the P47 to win over the 190, but from 6,000 feet it takes less? The power-to-weight ratio (if full power was used, rather than settings for 250 IAS cruise at 10,000 feet were used) would favour the P47 more at the higher altitude. The circumstances or engine settings must be rather different in both cases for this to make sense.
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Why does this not make sense ? It didnt take the full 7000ft to catch the 190 in the first test starting at 250mph IAS. We also dont know what the starting speed of the 6000ft dive test was. The faster the starting speed the better for the Jug.


__________________________________________________ ________________________
I didn't forget this. If the 190 does nothing to take any further evasive action, then the P47 will catch it. If the 190 pulls away initially it has the initiative and has the option to stop the dive short of the altitude at which the P47 will have acquired enough speed to have a much better energy state. In other words it may have managed to get out of gun range, allowing the 190 pilot to decide on the next action. The P47 only gains the upper hand if the dive continues.
__________________________________________________ __________________________



How can you ever have the initiative with a plane chasing you unless you have a superior dive capability-which the 190 did not have. Even if the 190 cuts short its dive the Jug is coming hard and will have equal too or greater "E".

The best 190 could hope for would be for a hard break turn and an overshoot by the P47. A smart P47 driver would not try to turn with 190 but stay on the throttle and immelman back over the top with more altitude for greater pontential speed and "E" coming back down.

Robert S. Johnson would use a "vector turn" or "lead turn" when he got into a scissors fight with a 190. By utilizing a vector turn , Johnson was able to maintain his "E" through the scissors fight and fire at the 190 each time it passed in front of him while scissoring.

___

I have done this dive test between 30-40 times:

3) Diving

(a) 10,000-3,000ft, starting at 250mph diving at an angle of 65 degrees with constant throttle setting. The Fw190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning, but the P-47 passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out.

SPEED CONVERSION
400 Kilometers per hour equals 248.548 Miles (statute) per hour

I start 400kph IAS and split-s into a 65% dive in both P47D-10 and D-22. I reduce prop pitch and have a fixed aiming point. The best I'll do is a tie now and then. Most of the time the 190A-5 smokes the P47 and that is without reducing the prop pitch on the 190-just leaving it on (auto).

The P47 is the supposed to the plane that smokes the 190 in this dive test--not so in FB/AEP.


_____

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

KGr.HH-Sunburst
07-17-2004, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
I wonder what the FW lovers would think if in the next patch the FW would shred its wings with little stick input at 700+ while the P-51 wings did not?

That would be funny.

Why shouldn't i moan about not being able to turn with an FW at high speeds?

I never heard any pilot acounts that suggested the P-51 could not turn with an FW at higher speeds.


I would like to see the FW more prone for wing shreding. Funny thing is, i can't seem to shred an FW's wings. No matter how hard i pull on the stick, the wings stay on. I do get a nasty black out though

I don't care what some of you think. I beleave it's wronge period.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you really got poo in your eyes eerm...... ears now dont ya mr
the P51 got the best elevator outhority in teh game,AKA fly by wire DO I NEED TO SAY MORE ffs .........oh damn trolls dont got them ears http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sunsigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

JG5_JaRa
07-17-2004, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
JG5_JaRa you are flirting with semantics and denial. Yes, you are wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you call "flirting with semantics and denial" was rather an evaluation of mechanics of dive performance, not in too much detail since this was already discussed in detail here and over at SimHQ several times. Well, if you ignore everything in my posts which doesn't fit exactly to how you think it should be then it is no surprise that you see ghosts. I did not refer to details of your particular dive test, actually not to any as can be seen by the fact that I neither stated sub-variants, speeds or altitude and I posted that example before you posted your numbers, so how comes you think I was referring to the dive 190A5/P47D4 starting at 10,000 ft you posted later? I made a general statement: If an aircraft has a slow speed dive acceleration advantage over another then there will always be a (maximum) altitude so that it can out-accelerate the other down to the deck.

WWMaxGunz
07-17-2004, 11:59 PM
K: Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


__________________________________________________ ________________________
J: JG5_JaRa---When I was talking about a 190 out-accelerating a P-47 right down to the deck starting from med altitude, I was giving an example, no numbers yet. And no, I am not mistaken. The example I gave can always be fixed with numbers as long as one aircraft accelerates better at slow speed than another.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

N: Kahuna, JaRa wasn't the test you quote below so I hope you don't think he was.

K: In black & white :

Part of the test-----

3) Diving

(a) 10,000-3,000ft, starting at 250mph diving at an angle of 65 degrees with constant throttle setting. The Fw190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning, but the P-47 passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out.

N: Again I note that the P-47 did not pass the FW until AT 3,000ft which coincidentally is
THE BOTTOM OF THE DIVE AND PROBABLY INTO THE PULLOUT.

K: JG5_JaRa you are flirting with semantics and denial. Yes, you are wrong.

The 190A-5 DOES NOT out accelerate the P47 to the deck. The P47 caught and passed it at the 3000ft mark. It also had "much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out."

N: This is why I wrote above that I hope you don't mix his example up with that test. You did.

K: I dont know how that statement can be any clearer.

N: ROFL! It could be MUCH CLEARER! For starts, it could specify how MUCH greater the speed
was. It could specify where in the pullout the planes were when the P-47 passed the FW since
as noted, the bottom of the dive was at 3,000 feet. Or perhaps it's "obvious" that they didn't
pull out until after they hit 3,000 feet? Could anything be CLEARER? Well, how about it's not
so clear about that part either? It could specify the angles of pullout between the planes.
If the P-47 had a better angle of pullout (I do not dispute having read other texts in the FW.)
then it could have dived farther before pulling out unless they didn't start pullout till after
the 3,000 ft mark. Clearer? How about engine, prop and radiator settings?

This whole thing is like judging hotrods on seeing a couple pull out of a redlight one day.

K: There is also a dive test from 6,000ft the the Jug wins also. That is even a shorter dive than from 10,000ft to 3,000ft.

N: And here we have a puzzler, don't we? In a 7,000 ft dive, the P-47 catches up even if it
is going at some "greater" speed. Yet, when the dive is less than 6,000ft (or did they level
off right on the deck?), the P-47 still "wins"? I SMELL A FIXED RACE.

K: Once again the real life test cannot be replicated in FB/AEP because the Jug accelerates so poorly in the dive and does not retain "E" like it should.

The Gunther Rall story matched the Konantz story almost to a tee. In both stories the 109s are already in a power dive attacking at high altitude-24,000ft to 30,000ft.

The tactical similarities are that both 109s are already in a dive and have speed in their favor and both the P47 & P51 are able to catch the 109s in a long sustained dive.

N: The answer is not in acceleration but in TOP DIVE SPEED. My 4-banger 4-speed 68 VW could
out-accelerate any 18-wheeler but only so far down the highway that truck would pass my Type-3
running at a mere 75mph so fast the wind would shake my car.

K: As speed increases when entering a power dive, things even get worse for axis planes because there is no brief period of accelerating away such as in the short dive test between the P47 and the 190 posted above.

N: I can agree with everything but the brief part. How brief? In 1,000's of feet starting
from combat speed of 250mph? And what angle of dive?

I do not disagree about there should be an advantage but what kills me is when people try and
blanket the "dive advantage" business to cover everything they want without specifying any of
it tightly enough to run rigorous tests.

I see people write as FACT that acceleration is off in the sim.
Try as I might, the worst I see off is max dive speeds on some planes and even then, where are
the numbers because it's a bunch of "I think" over half the time.

Farnsworth test, the P-47 doesn't catch the FW UNTIL 7,000 feet down at a 65 degree dive angle.
How does that translate to some of the other things I've read here? The people who keep writing
"dive advantage" seem to expect to leave the FW behind long before any 7,000 feet! But we don't
get to see that as numbers even if it doesn't fit a dive-zoom-dive-zoom-dive-zoom-gotcha kind
of situation (ya think maybe the pullout and zoom might have a LITTLE to do with it?) that hey,
if those moves are supposed to be over 2,000 ft top to bottom, I don't believe it.

So how does it all fit and what's YOUR test of the sim? Oh yeah, please be CLEAR.


K: The greater the starting speed and the longer dive, all favor US aircraft and that is not represented in FB/AEP.

N: Errrrrr... top dive speeds of these planes are?

K: You missed the point about the Erik Hartman story too. It was not about US planes at all. It was about how great a fighter pilot Hartman was. The dive speed quoted by the US P51 pilot just happened to be part of the story.

[All data from] [ virtualpilots.fi ] From the Fin site.

SPEED CONVERSION
60 Miles (statute) per hour equals 96.5606 Kilometers per hour
Lawrence Thompson
=============
"I fired two very long bursts, probably five seconds each (P-51 has ammo for about 18 seconds of continuous bursts for four machine guns, the remaining two machine guns will shoot for about 24 seconds). I noticed that part of his engine cowling flew off and he immediately broke off his attack on the lead P-51. I check my rear view mirrors and there's nothing behind me now; somehow, I have managed to lose the Me109 following me, probably because the diving speed of the P-51 is sixty mph faster than the Me109."


In Shaws Fighter Combat Manuvering it also says US planes had dive superiority. There is a fly off between Robert S. Johnson's P47 vs a Spit.
In the report, it says how the Jugs strengths of dive speed and zoom climb are utilized by Johnson in a similar fashion of a vertical figure 8 like in the dive report previously listed to get onto the tail of the Spit.

It goes on to say in Shaws book that these same superior dive and zoom strengths were utilized over axis aircraft.

N: I've been over this one with Josf. READ THE STORY MORE CAREFULLY PLEASE. Johnson began
getting seperation using a series of rolls and turns. The seperation bought him distance that
translates to time. He began his dive in the same fashion, with a roll which the Spit was
slower in completing and so delayed in starting. Read the end where by the time the Spit was
going down, Johnson was coming up. His entire advantage was created by a series of edges
bought through maneuvers of which the dive and zoom was only the last part. Do you think you
can't do that in the sim? Well no if the other guy is wise to you from the start you can't or
at least you won't get as much or end up the same. But hey, that don't stop the siren does it?

When will people learn to read and evaulate complete accounts better?
These things come up AGAIN AND AGAIN. Everything not stated is not a hole to peg anything you
damn well want into and call facts.

If the sim has a problem in dives then at least get some actual real tests and NOT these half-
assed comparisons where 50% or less of the conditions are stated (again, fill in the blanks by
all means, gentlemen and call yourselves right or ignore half the text that doesn't fit what is
desired to make the rest that much more impressive) and somewhat rigged or at least not serious
on the level of actual aircraft testings. That was a captured and rough running FW in the
Farnsworth test, btw.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
07-18-2004, 12:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Yes you are correct the 190 initially pulls away but you have forgotten the second half of the equation---The P47 catches it before the 3,000ft mark."

No, I didn't forget this!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron, actually you did since in the report, the P-47 catches the FW AT 3,000 feet, not before.
Notice the shift direction in that misstatement there? I wonder how much "much greater" can be?

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

Here's the problem. There IS an issue of some kind. How much is user education, also an issue?
So there's threads with some large percentage of misquotes and what to someone like Oleg amounts
to total drivel. He looks at the thread with enough pages for a small book written in a lanuage
he is not familiar enough to skim in and starts to read. At some point, he writes the thread
off. At some point, he writes the whole issue off. At some point, we get no changes.

Most of these posts do not belong anywhere but the GD at best.


Neal

kubanloewe
07-18-2004, 01:02 AM
Quotation Oleg Maddox: _Users were crying for non-realistic and non-historical and finally they got it...(01.07.04)

Oleg, you will convert this in the Patch 2.04 ?, make the Fun-Game to a Flight-Sim

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

Aaron_GT
07-18-2004, 04:09 AM
Kahuna, it DOES take the P47 7000 ft to pass the 190. The test says:

"(a) 10,000-3,000ft, starting at 250mph diving at an angle of 65 degrees with constant throttle setting. The Fw190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning, but the P-47 passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out."

P-47 passed it at 3000ft - 10,000-3000 = 7000ft!

I'd agree that if the test was started at higher speed then the P47 should pass the 190 sooner.

"How can you ever have the initiative with a plane chasing you unless you have a superior dive capability-"

The dive performance is only superior if the dive is long enough. If the dive is short the pursued 190 has extended distance from the P47 (possibly putting it outside viable guns range) and increased its speed, giving it more maneouver options, and has the choice of which maneouver option to take next. To me that gives it the initiative. It's not as good as initiative as having high speed and several thousand feet of altitude advantage, of course! After a short dive the 190 could decide to stop diving before the P47 has the jump on it. We'd need more details before being able to work out what length of dive would be best for the 190, and at what point the P47 is moving faster than the 190. Ideally the 190 would want to break off the dive at or before the P47 has reached the same speed. In reality this will depend on relative starting speeds of each plane and so on - not simple.

Of course given the limitations of the game's reorting interface I was only to determine speeds (and they were basically the same for the 190 and P47), but it is possible to derive positions from that. But there isn't much point doing this analysis since the dive performance is the same for both planes in the game.

Aaron_GT
07-18-2004, 04:18 AM
MaxGunz wrote:
"Aaron, actually you did since in the report, the P-47 catches the FW AT 3,000 feet, not before.
Notice the shift direction in that misstatement there? I wonder how much "much greater" can be?"

Actually you are right - I missed the shift in language from the original quote of the report.

In any case, I tried doing some sort of replication of the test in FB (70% prop pitch, 60% or so throttle to replication a 250 IAS cruise at 3000m) and dived to 1000m, and the performance of the two planes was almost identical.

BigKahuna_GS
07-18-2004, 09:35 AM
S!~

__________________________________________________ ________________________
ArronGT, it DOES take the P47 7000 ft to pass the 190. The test says:
"(a) 10,000-3,000ft, starting at 250mph diving at an angle of 65 degrees with constant throttle setting. The Fw190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning, but the P-47 passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out."
P-47 passed it at 3000ft - 10,000-3000 = 7000ft!
I'd agree that if the test was started at higher speed then the P47 should pass the 190 sooner.
__________________________________________________ __________________________


Rgr that I agree. What I was trying to say it that it has to catch the 190 before it passes it. Obviously it catches 190 before the 7000ft dive and passes it at the 3000ft mark with greater speed and angle of pull out.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.


Like I said previously, I have done this test many times and the best I get is a tie and most of the time the 190 wins. That does not reflect real life tests.

If there is a tie, wheres does the P47 pass the 190 with much greater speed and angle of pull out ?

____



__________________________________________________ ______________________
WWMaxGunz
Aaron, actually you did since in the report, the P-47 catches the FW AT 3,000 feet, not before.
Notice the shift direction in that misstatement there? I wonder how much "much greater" can be?
__________________________________________________ _______________________


I hope I explained what I was trying to say above. The P47 passes the 190 at the 3000ft with much greater speed. In order to pass the 190 you have to catch it first.

Regarding the P-47 it had a 500mph IAS dive limit speed (601mph TAS) @ 25,000. 400mph IAS above 25,000ft. Reccomended pullout altitude from 25,000ft was 12,000ft Dive speed represented Mach 0.82.

Not to mention the later addition of dive flaps, test pilots reported @ 400mph IAS they could let go the stick, & the P-47 would pull it'self out of the dive.

Then we have the countless P-47 pilot statements that no German fighter could stay with a P-47 in a dive. Ie, Our evasive action in combat was to dive until you saw 500mph IAS and you could be sure there was no one behind you any longer.





__________________________________________________ ______________________
kubanloewe
posted 18-07-04 00:02
Quotation Oleg Maddox: _Users were crying for non-realistic and non-historical and finally they got it...(01.07.04)
__________________________________________________ _______________________


Stop quoting out of context. This refers to the .50cal issue and many feel that Oleg is flat out wrong on this issue and have documents to support it.



_____

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Aaron_GT
07-18-2004, 10:23 AM
"Rgr that I agree. What I was trying to say it that it has to catch the 190 before it passes it."

Hmm...I'd say that the pass happens at the smallest possible fraction of time after it catches it. I.e. the events are effectively coincident, so my reading is that it catches/passes the 190 at 3000ft altitude, or after 7000ft of dive.

Initially the 190 has greater acceleration and pulls away. To have the P47 catch the 190 yet not pass it would require it have greater acceleration at some speed V1 &gt; V0 and then have its acceleration and speed match the 190's for some period of time before its acceleration and speed outstrips that of the 190. It's not impossible that this could occur, but it doesn't seem very likely. It could happen if the 190 began to hit some high speed effects like airflow separation that dramatically increase drag at some critical speed.

For this to work we'd need something like:
190: a = p(V); V &lt; Vc, a=0; V &gt;= Vc
P47: a = q(V)

Since F=ma, and drag is proportional to v2
(T+kg-D)/m = a, where kg is the proportion
of gravity acting to accelerate (sin(theta))
and so a=(T+kg-z/v^2)/m where z is a constant related to the drag.

At the steady cruise T=z/v^2 and k=0.

In the dive, though, T/m becomes important. We'd expect the plane with better powerloading to accelerate fastest (all other things being equal), and the 190 does so. Over time we'd expect the plane that develops the least drag (lowest value of z) to win, and that occurs in real life too.

But if we go and solve for position we find that the P47 will have greater speed when s is the same (same position) unless we use something like the a=0; V&gt;=Vc term for the 190.

"Like I said previously, I have done this test many times and the best I get is a tie and most of the time the 190 wins. That does not reflect real life tests. "

On the single test I did the speed at any given time is pretty much identical whether it be the 190 or P47, so I'd agree with you on that.

Aaron_GT
07-18-2004, 10:28 AM
"Then we have the countless P-47 pilot statements that no German fighter could stay with a P-47 in a dive. Ie, Our evasive action in combat was to dive until you saw 500mph IAS and you could be sure there was no one behind you any longer.
"

You have to read that in context, though. According to the AFDU tests the 109 can initially stay with the Tempest V in a dive, and the Tempest V can dive better than the P47, which suggests that in the initial phases of the dive _under some circumstances_ the 109 should be able to outdive the 109.

However, in a sustained dive, or if the dive is entered at high speed, the superior aerodynamics of the P47 should mean the 109 will be caught.

With pilot reports we don't get often get detailed analyses of E conditions and so on, which means you have to be careful with them. You even have to be careful with the likes of the AFDU as the axis planes may not be in original condition, flown correctly and so on, but it is a more dispassionate environment better controlled for initial conditions.

Maple_Tiger
07-18-2004, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
I wonder what the FW lovers would think if in the next patch the FW would shred its wings with little stick input at 700+ while the P-51 wings did not?

That would be funny.

Why shouldn't i moan about not being able to turn with an FW at high speeds?

I never heard any pilot acounts that suggested the P-51 could not turn with an FW at higher speeds.


I would like to see the FW more prone for wing shreding. Funny thing is, i can't seem to shred an FW's wings. No matter how hard i pull on the stick, the wings stay on. I do get a nasty black out though
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FW breaks its wings too, here is a track:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/fw_sheds_its_wings.TRK

and if you're not able to turn better than FW in a stang you probably should spend more time training than moaning. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

[This message was edited by Ugly_Kid on Sat July 17 2004 at 08:14 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



"and if you're not able to turn better than FW in a stang you probably should spend more time training than moaning".


Sorry bud, but the FW turns better then the P-51 at high speeds becasue it doesn't lose a wing.

Once your ove 700km'/h TAS, the P-51 in AEP cant follow the FW in high speed manuveuers. I fly the Fw also sometimes, i know.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Maple_Tiger
07-18-2004, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

I don't care what some of you think.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

& you dont care about history or data either

as long as its american it should be better

am i right , or am i right ?

dont look at me like that Ivan

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



So your saying that it's hisorical that the P-51 shed its wings in high speed manuevers?

Did i say anything about "If it's american it should be better?" Answer is no.


Are you right? Answer again is no.


I bet you'l come back again saying that i'm biased against Germans. You have said before that I am biased against Japs.


Nices post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

BigKahuna_GS
07-18-2004, 10:46 AM
S!


Maple just use more nose down trim at high speed and you should be ok.

I have got into several high speed chases now and as long as I have trimmed properly no wing breakage.



______

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Maple_Tiger
07-18-2004, 10:52 AM
I just finished the P-47D27 BoE campaigne and have begun the P-51 campaigne.

I have dummied the Joy stick input by 2 points across the board and have used some negetive trim. I guess it seems to help some, i don't know. I realy haven't tride to turn much at high speeds lol, too scared to.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

WWMaxGunz
07-18-2004, 12:40 PM
The business with the P-47 and FW diving near enough identical in that test, Aaron and I
think I know the mission you refer to http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif unless it's not the .mis I posted but hey
it don't matter -- just that alone is all that 1C should need to either make a change or
to make a statement rather than leave us Customers that care enough to ask out hanging.

OTOH, I am very sure there's people on the MSCFS boards that know this one verrry well.
No, I don't have to look. A good answer or a change will mean a LOT for the reputation
of IL2/FB, 1C and Oleg. For some reason, I'm just not too damned optimistic we'll get
either


Neal

BigKahuna_GS
07-18-2004, 01:48 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ _______________________
Aaron_GT
Hmm...I'd say that the pass happens at the smallest possible fraction of time after it catches it. I.e. the events are effectively coincident, so my reading is that it catches/passes the 190 at 3000ft altitude, or after 7000ft of dive.
__________________________________________________ ________________________


Fair enough. The key point is that the P47 does pass the 190 and passes it with much greater speed and angle of pull out.

The question still remains -what is much greater speed ?
That could be anywhere from 50-100mph difference.



__________________________________________________ ________________________
ArronGT--The dive performance is only superior if the dive is long enough. If the dive is short the pursued 190 has extended distance from the P47 (possibly putting it outside viable guns range) and increased its speed, giving it more maneouver options, and has the choice of which maneouver option to take next. To me that gives it the initiative.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

Just because the 190 stops diving doesnt mean the Jug has to stop diving.
The 190 has already traded altitude for speed. The Jug can modify his dive and still pick up extra speed and "E" and go into a Low yo-yo and end up right on the tail of the 190.

I use to do this all the time in EAW and I have done it with a P51D in
FB/AEP.

_

__________________________________________________ ________________________
ArronGT---You have to read that in context, though. According to the AFDU tests the 109 can initially stay with the Tempest V in a dive, and the Tempest V can dive better than the P47, which suggests that in the initial phases of the dive _under some circumstances_ the 109 should be able to outdive the 109.

However, in a sustained dive, or if the dive is entered at high speed, the superior aerodynamics of the P47 should mean the 109 will be caught.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


The Tempest will only out dive the P47 under certain circumstances also.
The higher the altitude and the faster the dive is entered all favor the Jug.


The 2 storys I posted testified to the fact that in sustained dives the 109 could be caught from behind. Gunther Rall has talked about power diving away from P47s in his 109 only to be caught from behind and shot down.
____

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Aaron_GT
07-18-2004, 01:54 PM
"The Tempest will only out dive the P47 under certain circumstances also.
The higher the altitude and the faster the dive is entered all favor the Jug."

Higher altitude yes, higher speed, probably not, as the Tempest V is also a very clean design with excellent aerodynamics, just like the Jug. (The Tempest V has about 20% better power-to-weight ratio than the D27, with the same WEP engine power, but is very much faster at sea level). They are likely to be very similar in terms of high speed dive performance.

Aaron_GT
07-18-2004, 02:00 PM
"Fair enough. The key point is that the P47 does pass the 190 and passes it with much greater speed and angle of pull out. "

My point is that the initial dive performance is not unimportant.

"The question still remains -what is much greater speed ?
That could be anywhere from 50-100mph difference."

Based on the sort of language the AFDU reports use, it is likely to be more in the 50 range.


"Just because the 190 stops diving doesnt mean the Jug has to stop diving.
The 190 has already traded altitude for speed. The Jug can modify his dive and still pick up extra speed and "E" and go into a Low yo-yo and end up right on the tail of the 190."

It would have to trade more altitude for that. The question is is the zoom sufficiently good that it makes sense for it to do so. As it picks up speed by continuing to dive it will increase the total separation for a while. If the zoom is good enough then this might work. Hard to say without good figures as AEP seems to diverge from the real world performances and couldn't be used as a test. I am not sure how accurate EAW would be on this point either. I suppose another physics based sim like SDOE or Xplane might be useful, but it all depends on how well the planes have been modelled. Anyone got a P47 and 190 to hand in Real Life? :-)

BigKahuna_GS
07-18-2004, 03:33 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ _________________________
ArronGT--My point is that the initial dive performance is not unimportant.
Based on the sort of language the AFDU reports use, it is likely to be more in the 50 range.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


I never said the initial dive performance was unimportant. I am more concerned with the dive speed of the P47 as this plane has been chronicaly undermodeled since Day 1.

I have a copy of the AFDU Report. There is nothing in there to suggest exactly what speed they are talking about. Other than "much greater speed and angle of pull out". The Jug's size/speed from the dive would give it more energy in the vertical over the 190.

A 50mph speed advantage could very well be right, then again it could be even faster.


_
__________________________________________________ ______________________
ArronGT-It would have to trade more altitude for that. The question is is the zoom sufficiently good that it makes sense for it to do so. As it picks up speed by continuing to dive it will increase the total separation for a while. If the zoom is good enough then this might work. Hard to say without good figures as AEP seems to diverge from the real world performances and couldn't be used as a test. I am not sure how accurate EAW would be on this point either. I suppose another physics based sim like SDOE or Xplane might be useful, but it all depends on how well the planes have been modelled. Anyone got a P47 and 190 to hand in Real Life? :-)
__________________________________________________ _________________________


Have you read any of the books by P47 Fighter Pilots?
Thunderbolt by R.Johnson, Gabby Grebeski, Hub Zemke, Herky Green etc.
Like I said, you could modify your dive to give yourself the required speed/E for a Low yo-yo. The 47 would not have to dive all the way to 3000ft. Just as the 190 had cut short his dive, the 47 driver would only need to dive as far as the required energy need.

Basically you are converting "much greater speed and angle of pull out" from a tailored dive and a guns solution for the 47 on the 190. If you read any of these books by actual P47 Pilots you will understand the concept better and see that it is more than possible. Another routine move was to out zoom climb a bandit and hammerhead back down on top of it. Almost impossible in AEP because of the lack of dive accleration and poor zoom climb/E-bleed.

It's funny I dont ever remember theses arguments over F/M's in EAW. Just flying and enjoying it.


_____

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

BigKahuna_GS
07-18-2004, 04:28 PM
S!


S!

__________________________________________________ __________________________
MaxGuns-N: I've been over this one with Josf. READ THE STORY MORE CAREFULLY PLEASE. His entire advantage was created by a series of edges
bought through maneuvers of which the dive and zoom was only the last part.
__________________________________________________ __________________________


I know, I read your post at SimHQ and disagreed with it then and now. You act as though the most important features of dive and zoom didnt make the difference in this encounter when it put him over the top.

How else could a P47 compete with Spitfire if not through the vertical plane ?



__________________________________________________ __________________________
When will people learn to read and evaulate complete accounts better?
These things come up AGAIN AND AGAIN. Everything not stated is not a hole to peg anything you damn well want into and call facts.
If the sim has a problem in dives then at least get some actual real tests and NOT these half-assed comparisons where 50% or less of the conditions are stated (again, fill in the blanks by all means, gentlemen and call yourselves right or ignore half the text that doesn't fit what is
desired to make the rest that much more impressive) and somewhat rigged or at least not serious on the level of actual aircraft testings. That was a captured and rough running FW in the Farnsworth test, btw.
Neal
__________________________________________________ ________________________



Beleive me I wish these dive tests had complete factual documentation--that would hopefully remove any misinterpatations of actual data and fill in any and all blanks.

What we do have is enormous amounts of documentation by pilots on both sides stating US planes had sustained dive superiority over axis aircraft. I listened to Gunther Rall in person at the Santa Monica Air Museum talk about how while in a lengthy power dive in his 109, he was chased by P47s and shot down. Rall said he got the intial bounce on the 47's also.

What I am tired of is this half-assed aproach to throw all information out just because is does not answer every single detail. Every book I have read from both sides and every WW2 fighter pilot I have personally talked to has said the same thing--US planes had sustained dive superiority. So maybe with each side collaberating stories it just might be true.


You are incorrect the 190 was in good operational condition.

"The following is the USAAF test report from a comparison between a Fw190A5 (I believe this was an A5/U8 as it shows no outer wing Cannon or cowling Mg) and a P-47D-4. The A-5 had its two inner wing Cannon removed and equivalent weights substituted. The FW190 was described: "...as in exceptionally good condition for a captured airplane, and developed 42 inches manifold pressure on takeoff." The P-47 was equipped with Water Injection but no paddle blade propeller.

The tests were done between S.L. and 15,000ft. The pilot of the P-47 had 200 hours in P-40's and 5 hours in the P-47. The FW190 Pilot had 300 hours in twin engine, 500 hours in single engine and 5 hours in the FW190. Four separate flights of one hour each were conducted. All speeds were in IAS."


________

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Aaron_GT
07-19-2004, 12:25 AM
"Have you read any of the books by P47 Fighter Pilots?
Thunderbolt by R.Johnson, Gabby Grebeski, Hub Zemke, Herky Green etc.
Like I said, you could modify your dive to give yourself the required speed/E for a Low yo-yo. The 47 would not have to dive all the way to 3000ft. Just as the 190 had cut short his dive, the 47 driver would only need to dive as far as the required energy need."

Yes, but the devil is in the detail. There aren't enough controls to make them scientific tests so we're left with the likes of the dive test we are currently talking about.

What seems to be the case in IL2/FB/AEP is that all planes seem to have much the same dive characteristics. In all the tests I've done all planes have very similar (if not identical) speed profiles in the dive up to the onset of compressibility, whether the dive starts at max level speed or cruise, or at cruise powering up to full power. This seems to run counter to the testing done by the AFDU et al. and combat reports. The latter ar emore difficult to judge, of course, as they are not so controlled.