Jump to content

JtD

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    3389
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2168 Excellent

About JtD

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3924 profile views
  1. I received a quick resonse from the devs. I was away this week, so delay is due to me. It was that they went with the stall speed as given in the manual, taking into account the position error also given there. They are open to any sources giving more accurate or detailed data, in case anyone has them. Like I said, 1.75 go against my common sense, based on airfoil performance and other aircraft data, but I have no data concerning the Tempest directly, and I don't feel like debating this without. Best guy to contact would be Phenazepam, in case anyone wants to pick it up.
  2. Yes, recently re-occurred to me as well. I was reading through black cross red star volume 4, got to some passages with description of pilot training and abilities from when the VVS had to rush them into service, and then went to play a bit against AI novices. What I played against had absolutely nothing in common with what I just read about. I don't know if I'd say "toned down" if that gap is to be closed, I'd rather say needs to be "changed". They just don't fly like people who barely know how to operate their aircraft, and are pretty much scared senseless when an enemy tries to actually shoot them down.
  3. These lift coefficients don't seem realistic at all, the Hawker airfoil on the Tempest like pretty much any other airfoil used back then could not achieve these high lift coefficients. The devs should know that. So I didn't quite trust your findings, so I stalled the Tempest in game a couple of times and indeed, I'm getting 1.75 flaps up, power off and 2.15 flaps down, power off. You guys were right. Hm. WRT to the manual number of stalling speeds, there's too much unknown about them. We have an unclear position error, and we have unknown conditions. For instance, engine setting, which has a massive influence. There's a difference between gliding and idling already. The only stall speed test for the Tempest I've read gives 90 mph IAS in clean condition at 11500lb, already 5 mph more than what the manual says. Edit: Just sent a PM to the devs.
  4. Two Saturday matches cancelled due to a Typhoon approaching. Tough luck for the Italians.
  5. From a more serious perspective, I don't think the A6M will be very hard on the pilot, as it was most manoeuvrable at low speeds, without high g's. A split-s at 300km/h is not as hard as at 500km/h. I've seen historical footage of Ki-43's though, which will be interesting to reenact...
  6. It wasn't, the simple stuff really is calculating output of the guns, but it's far from easy to address damage effects of the rounds - which totally depends on type of target and type of hit.
  7. JtD

    Spit 25Lbs

    Thanks for doing that test, now I don't have to do it. Please keep in mind that the climb performance tested at 18lb boost on BS543 gave a time to 30k feet of 8.4 minutes - faster than JL165 by more than a minute at 18lb and still faster than JL165 at 25lb. Another Spitfire IX not closer described climbed from 1k to 30k in 8.3 minutes at 12lb boost. Also interesting is testing with the Spitfire VIII, which is pretty similar to a IX, but a bit heavier. 8.6 minutes to 30k. A comparison test 18lb to 25lb boost boosted climb in FS gear from around 4000 fpm to around 5000fpm, MS down low was 4600fpm to 5600fpm at sea level, so a 1000fpm gain. All these figures indicate, and that's also what the British state, that JL165 is not the best performing example, and may not be representative for a Spitfire IX in perfect condition which is supposed to be modelled in game. When we did the FM for the Il-2:1946 Spitfire IX we had our difficulties when we took the properly modelled 18lb and simply added the 400hp the extra boost gives. It didn't add up, also because JL165 was performing sub par. If you go with 3800fpm rads open as done on BS543 and add the extra 900-1000fpm as found in various tests for 4700-4800fpm, you're probably more realistic if you want to model a Spitfire IX in ideal condition than if you go with the 3400/4300fpm of JL165. The extra 400fpm would reduce time to 30k altitude from 540s to 482s. It therefore appears the guys in Moscow arrived at the same conclusions we did back then. I think it's the best compromise possible (if you want to model aircraft without production faults).
  8. The 0.50 API is not 600some grams, it's 42g, or 625 grains. As a simple rule of thumb, weight goes up with the cube of the calibre, so a 12.7mm (i.e. 0.50 cal) round cannot be five times as heavy as a 20mm round. Also in a wing installation, where it doesn't need to be syncronized to fire through the propeller, the rate of fire for the M2 .50 is more like 750 rpm, not just 525. There recently was a long discussion related to ground attack with both of these weapons, and the gun output in terms of mass and energy is significantly higher with 4x20 than it is with 6x.50. Depending on what figures you chose, it's roughly a factor of 1.5 to 2.0 in favour of the Hispano.
  9. Not necessarily so, there were simpler systems around. Or, to be precise, more complex systems that lowered the workload for the pilot. Plus, having only one engine and that ideally with a Kommandogerät helps with a lot of other things.
  10. JtD

    Spit 25Lbs

    Here you go. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165-rr-climb.jpg
  11. Right now I prefer the P-51, I like the sound of it better than that of the Tempest.
  12. This roll is about 4-5g over a duration of 5 seconds, with a rapid onset of acceleration. Watch the altimeter. It should result in a blackout, and it does.
  13. Well, they say the Germans discovered it and honestly, I am anti-gravity occasionally, but so far all my complaints went unanswered. I always had to pick up whatever I just dropped.
  14. Are you testing flaps and gear up or down? Personally, reviewing my tests from years ago using a similar approach made me think I overestimated clmax, because it was very hard to maintain 1g down to the split second where you stall. You only need to lose a couple of meters of altitude in the last seconds and that means +0.2 clmax. For what it's worth, I know of Messerschmitt figures ranging from 1.13 to 1.95 for clmax for the Bf109, depending on submodel, configuration, power and speed.
  15. Make that half that figure for both aircraft. Power to weight is not much different between the two, in all out mode the advantage is with the P-47, but total power is better with the P-38. All in all there isn't much to chose between the two. The P-47 is a high altitude fighter used at low altitude when it ran out of targets up high. It worked very well down low, but it cannot be expected to work miracles at low altitude. Personally I also find the P-38 and P-51 to be better, probably beyond the point that numbers would make me expect. But then I never really cared about low altitude fighting in the P-47, so it might be the pilot.
×
×
  • Create New...