1. #1
    mortoma's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,567
    I have read posts already where some claim the Wildcat is too good. While I have not flown it yet, since I don't have PF yet, I'll venture to say that a lot of people are probably comparing it to AI controlled Zeroes. This is not a good comparison. I used to think the P-40s matched up pretty good to the Zeros in FB/AEP, until the time I tried flying the P-40 online for a day in HL. I went into a room called "Zeroes against P-40s" or something like that. Well, to be blunt, I found that the P-40 wasn't so hot against any halfway decent human pilot in a Zero. Please remember that ace AI do not turn any plane nearly as tight as it can be turned by a human. And Veteran, Average and Novice AI are even more pathetic. End of discussion.........
    Share this post

  2. #2
    BuzzU's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,795
    I've heard guys say the Wildcat turns with the zero, and they are flying against humans. I hope this isn't true for two reasons. For one the whining will be unbearable, and every noob will be flying the Wildcat. Both of those will degrade the Wildcat to a Yak.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    The wildcat was one of the best, if not the best, american turning plane...but the zeke should handily out turn it at slow speeds...

    I'm thinking a scissors or high speed, nose down turn should give the Wildcat and advantage over the zero.

    Don't have the game yet, but i'm real anxious to see.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Are we talking F4F-3 or F4F-4 here? Can make a lot of difference... the -4 was much heavier than the -3 with added pilot armor, self sealing fuel tanks, a folding wing mechanism an an extra pair of guns.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Chuck_Older's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,027
    I'm not even going to address the Wildcat FM. I can't comment, I don't have PF

    What I am gonna comment on is preconceived notions.

    Now, there has been all this talk "US fanboys R gunna B in for a shock with teh US planez in the PtO" and even some comments like that from folks WITH brains in their heads that warn us, "USN and USAAF planes aren't maneuverable. Get used to it, you're going to be rudely surprised."

    Well, this is like a broken record. I have heard and read "Never turn with a Zero" since I could read (Yes, two years ago now).

    The general consensus is that anyone expecting a USN or USAAF plane to turn with a "Zero" (or insert Axis plane here) is a noob or a fanboy, pick your perjorative (I took vocab in the dark ages). That is to say, the Prevailing Wisdom says that "We all thought before we Knew Better that a US plane could manuever, and we found out differently, so now we know the Truth: NO American plane can manuever"

    Well, great. But oh, if only it were true. Turns out the Zero had an Achilles Heel at high speeds. I've read the Navy evaluation for the Zero and it says that above a certain speed, it's maneuverability is seriously impaired. Then I find out more. That certain US planes could actually roll like something besides a beached whale.

    Now I read all this "UFOs exist and they are called the F6F or F4U or F4F". And I have to wonder:

    Have all these people done a complete 180* turn, and the prevailing wisdom is now: "Safely assume no US plane can ever out-turn anything" Or even better: "An Axis plane can always out-turn a US plane"?

    Let's even say it's true. Can anyone who says that these US planes are UFOs even present their arguments without acting like they have a chip on their shoulder or demanding that you take their word for it over anyones else's? I haven't read one about PF yet. It's all "US planes are too good". And the sims hasn't been out a week.

    If there are concerns about a plane being too good, specific examples with specific situations are called for to judge if a problem even exists. But if I do it, all I get is a reaction like a just called them a liar. Strange. All I want is some proof so we can get to the bottom of it, but I am the Enemy if I want to talk facts with some of these people
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Stiglr's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    695
    Well, I heard one guy level the charge that those US planes could make a max turn at low speeds with little energy loss and no stall.

    Meanwhile, Oleg's Zero has always had a bit of a snapstall that the real one is NOT reputed to have. I dunno, if but if that's the case, the Zero could lose a lot of the advantage it should have in a straight up stallfight.

    That specific enough for you? Sounds a bit like the Hurricane UFO from early FB; you remember, the one that could always stand on its nose long enough to get off a salvo of 20mm?
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Chuck_Older's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,027
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
    Well, I heard one guy level the charge that those US planes could make a max turn at low speeds with little energy loss and no stall.Well, I heard one guy level the charge that those US planes could make a max turn at low speeds with little energy loss and no stall.

    Meanwhile, Oleg's Zero has always had a bit of a snapstall that the real one is NOT reputed to have. I dunno, if but if that's the case, the Zero could lose a lot of the advantage it should have in a straight up stallfight.

    That specific enough for you? Sounds a bit like the Hurricane UFO from early FB; you remember, the one that could always stand on its nose long enough to get off a salvo of 20mm? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Stiglr, you know that you and I can see eye to eye on things.

    That said, no, it is not specific enough. In fact, it is almost as un-specific as you can get. I don't call this:

    "Well, I heard one guy level the charge that those US planes could make a max turn at low speeds with little energy loss and no stall."


    a very convincing argument. I'm supposed to beleive that the flight model is wrong based on this bit of hearsay? You know I can't call that specific. Specific is "The F4F-4 retains too much E in a sustained full bank turn with full elevator. I made the turn at 10,000 feet at 250 mph with 5* of flaps deployed, I lost no speed and only 200 feet of altitude in 12 complete 360* turns. I then split-essed and did 4 loops by holding full backpressure and holding full throttle before I stalled"

    That would be specific. And then you or I could try it out (if we had PF) and then see if we could replicate it and judge for ourselves and see if we could do that too. But I'm not going to take "some guy's" word about it, and I know you wouldn't either.
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Stiglr's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    695
    I didn't even say I was taking anyone's word for it, but you seemed to be saying that saying the Wildcat didn't lose energy in low speed turns was not as specific as a broad, "it's too maneuverable relative to the Zero".

    That's what I'm getting at. It does seem as if the person raising that flag did so based on more than just a cursory glance. He also brought up flight phenomenon that the sim system has had trouble with before: that's why I mentioned the UFOcane and the 109 that could safely complete loops just after taking off in FB 1.0

    Not having the sim in hand, I can't say one way or the other.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    I don't have the game yet but it looks like they model the F4F-3 which doesn't have the heavy wingfold mechanisms and a few other things added to make the heavier F4F-4. The Wildcat can turn pretty well so don't make mistakes about that but it still falls a little short when compared against the Zeke which is about as maneuverable an aircraft that you'll find during WW2. However, it's slower and can't climb as well which really hobbled it against the Zekes. Most Wildcat/Zeke comparisons are with the A6M2 which is lighter than later variants.

    Timely topic as I am reading "Zero." This is a big time publication introduced shortly after the war discussing the Japanese side of things. A quote:
    "Of the many American fighter planes we encountered in the Pacific, the Hellcat was the only aircraft which could acquit itself with distinction in a fighter-vs-fighter dogfight."
    This quote almost seems to then contradict itself in the end, if I read it correctly:
    "The stubby Grumman Wildcats featured performance characteristics generally similar to those of our Zero fighters, but the enemy plane proved inferior in almost every respect to the Zero. Because of the general similarity, however, dogfights between the Wildcats and Zeros were not uncommon." It sounds as though the Wildcat is close (similar), but no cigar (inferior.)
    They are probably comparing to the F4F-4 as well because just before Midway, F4F-3s were being replaced. And most dogfighting then occured Guadalcanal and Solomons, etc. Make of it what you will, but the Wildcat is prety danged maneuverable but unfortunately had to contend with the Zeke which is paper machet on steroids.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Chuck_Older's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,027
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
    I didn't even say I was taking anyone's word for it, but you seemed to be saying that saying the Wildcat didn't lose energy in low speed turns was not as specific as a broad, "it's too maneuverable relative to the Zero".

    That's what I'm getting at. It does seem as if the person raising that flag did so based on more than just a cursory glance. He also brought up flight phenomenon that the sim system has had trouble with before: that's why I mentioned the UFOcane and the 109 that could safely complete loops just after taking off in FB 1.0

    Not having the sim in hand, I can't say one way or the other. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Neither can I. For some planes in FB, I have reference. For these planes, I don't have so much. I do know that the F4F shouldn't manuevervlike a light, properly powered plane, but just how 'bad' or 'good' should it be? Where are the F4F experts? I haven't seen them comment yet. I am waiting for them to make an appearance...
    Share this post

Page 1 of 6 123 ... Last ►►