Reasons why i severely lowered my BoS flight time lately [from a BoS enthusiast]

[FlatSpinMan]

Not a requirement, Chief.

[Agilepig]

One question: why do you think planes in a flight sim must fly the way you expect it to?

 

 

Wow. This question is make me disappoint and frustrate. Han have same idea with you?

[=81FG=HellKitten]

One question: why do you think planes in a flight sim must fly the way you expect it to?

And why do you think planes in a flight sim must fly the way 'you' expect it to?

[Mac_Messer]

Just tactics. I generally didn't do 1vs1 at low altitude against La's or Yak's, and if I did, I left the fight when I still could. And with 10 year on the virtual aircraft, I keep saying that it wasn't the best fighter in game, but the best killer. And, on the bottom line, a kill is what counts, not the fight.

Online it was pretty much regardless of altitude. If you met them at coalt, you ran or you burned. And I said it already, the Focke was good when you had other aircraft in your crosshair, very bad if they got you in theirs. I`ve always ranked aircraft on how many times they can get you rtb safely. The 'gamey' 109 could get out of just about any defensive situation, the 190 just fell out of the sky when in absence of speed (and we know what is needed to get speed).

[Crump]

 

 

Not a requirement, Chief.

 

  

[JtD]

Online it was pretty much regardless of altitude. If you met them at coalt, you ran or you burned.

I always ran if it looked to be a fair fight, or worse. If a kill takes more than 10 seconds, you lose situational awareness, some other enemy sneaks up and blows you from the skies. No matter the awesomeness of your aircraft.

And I said it already, the Focke was good when you had other aircraft in your crosshair, very bad if they got you in theirs. I`ve always ranked aircraft on how many times they can get you rtb safely. The 'gamey' 109 could get out of just about any defensive situation, the 190 just fell out of the sky when in absence of speed (and we know what is needed to get speed).

Well then, don't get slow. I didn't feel it was very hard to get the Fw back to base, if you had the discipline to not fly tight turns. Edited February 7, 2015 by JtD

[EAF19_Marsh]

where you got that from? i find that hard to believe, given the fact that the Tempest is the advancement of the Typhoon, and has an even bigger wing surface, which restricts the roll rate.

 

 

Just to illustrate the danger of 'a little knowledge'; the Tempest had a complete different wing (very different aircraft from the Typhoon in a few ways, really) and one of the few British aircraft that rolled extremely well. The DAC testing suggests it rolled better than a Spitfire and 109 almost as well as a Mustang (though not as well as a 190): Alas, no testing vs Yaks or La's

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestafdu.html

 

I'm inclined to agree with the 2 sensible judgements already made on this Spits vs 190s vs Yaks debate, that:

 

1) missions flown in BoS or other sims bare very little resemblance to the actual aerial campaigns flown 1939 - 45

 

2) the cold performance stats of a combat aircraft are only a small clue as to how it will perform in differing circumstances (and one should be wary of using them in an argument)

 

I have never managed to fly the 190 as successfully as JG 26 / JG54 suggested that it could be flown; I am beginning to suspect that the blame may lie with me...

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Just to illustrate the danger of 'a little knowledge'; the Tempest had a complete different wing (very different aircraft from the Typhoon in a few ways, really) and one of the few British aircraft that rolled extremely well. The DAC testing suggests it rolled better than a Spitfire and 109 almost as well as a Mustang (though not as well as a 190): Alas, no testing vs Yaks or La's

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestafdu.html

 

I'm inclined to agree with the 2 sensible judgements already made on this Spits vs 190s vs Yaks debate, that:

 

1) missions flown in BoS or other sims bare very little resemblance to the actual aerial campaigns flown 1939 - 45

 

2) the cold performance stats of a combat aircraft are only a small clue as to how it will perform in differing circumstances (and one should be wary of using them in an argument)

 

I have never managed to fly the 190 as successfully as JG 26 / JG54 suggested that it could be flown; I am beginning to suspect that the blame may lie with me...

 

Didn't have the time before to look for Tempest sources, so thanks for proving me right

 

"Rate of Roll 

42. The Tempest V cannot compare with the FW 190. "

[ShamrockOneFive]

Didn't have the time before to look for Tempest sources, so thanks for proving me right

 

"Rate of Roll 

42. The Tempest V cannot compare with the FW 190. "

FYI... from the Tactical Trials information:

 

 

Tempest V Tactical Trials

 

In 1944 trials were made with the new Tempest Mk. V. The Tempest was fully compared with the nearest companion, the Typhoon IB. Tactical comparisons were also made with the Mustang III (P-51B), Spitfire XIV, Bf 109G and Fw 190. This is the report from the Air Fighting Development Unit at the R.A.F. station at Witter.

(Note: JN737, which was used for the tests, was a Tempest Mk. V Series I. version. I.e. without the spring-tab ailerons and the possibility to carry drop-tanks.)

Roll rate for the Tempest V increased dramatically in the Series II version (the version that fought most of the war in Europe). This version also featured flush mounted 20mm cannons (Hispano V). Very rare to see photos or combat notes from a Series I.

[ST_ami7b5]

Still on topic? LOL.

 

OK,ok,  guys, continue.

It's an interesting debate now...

.

[EAF19_Marsh]

 

Didn't have the time before to look for Tempest sources, so thanks for proving me right

 

"Rate of Roll 

42. The Tempest V cannot compare with the FW 190. "

 

 

You suggested it rolled as poorly as the Typhoon'; you are incorrect, I provided evidence of this from tactical trials (though not empirical data). I proved, if anything, that you should do your homework before making vague assumptions.

 

 

 

Roll rate for the Tempest V increased dramatically in the Series II version (the version that fought most of the war in Europe). This version also featured flush mounted 20mm cannons (Hispano V). Very rare to see photos or combat notes from a Series I.

Cannot find any equivalent trials, either, unfortunately.

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

You suggested it rolled as poorly as the Typhoon';

 

No i didn't, maybe you should go in an English class again, and learn to read properly 

[JtD]

"For example, the Tempest V is not so good as the Spitfire between two and three hundred miles an hour, but above this speed, in common with the Thunderbolt it will out-roll anything, including the Thunderbolt, particularly at over 400mph."

 

("Anything" refers to Allied aircraft. But it definitely rolled with the best above 400 mph.)

 

Edited February 7, 2015 by JtD

[303_Kwiatek]

These chart clearly show that Fw 190 got very good initial roll acceleration which is more important in combat then making series of full rolls.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

"For example, the Tempest V is not so good as the Spitfire between two and three hundred miles an hour, but above this speed, in common with the Thunderbolt it will out-roll anything, including the Thunderbolt, particularly at over 400mph."

 

("Anything" refers to Allied aircraft. But it definitely rolled with the best above 400 mph.)

 

And now compare the 109 and the 190 in game. You will see, it's nowhere near anything your picture shows

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

"For example, the Tempest V is not so good as the Spitfire between two and three hundred miles an hour, but above this speed, in common with the Thunderbolt it will out-roll anything, including the Thunderbolt, particularly at over 400mph."

 

("Anything" refers to Allied aircraft. But it definitely rolled with the best above 400 mph.)

 

I'm on my phone so the chart is difficult to interpret. Is this initial roll or sustained? I'm guessing the aircraft position is related to degrees over a specified time at the given speed? For instance: the Fw190 completes 180 degrees over the given timeframe?

 

Also, this chart will be important when the theater moves west. Anyone have data for the aircraft facing off over Stalingrad?

Edited February 7, 2015 by HerrMurf

[unreasonable]

These chart clearly show that Fw 190 got very good initial roll acceleration which is more important in combat then making series of full rolls.

 

I remember asking about that, thinking that it is the ability to change roll direction quickly that is the key tactically, but I was told by various wise men, that this could not be taken into account because it depended on ergonomic factors rather than purely aerodynamic factors. Yet these are taken into account in elevator effectiveness at high speed? Now I now longer know what BoS is actually trying to simulate, if anything.

 

Perhaps it is more of a flight-combat stimulator?

[JtD]

Sorry guys, no detailed information available on how these figures were obtained or are being presented. It's from a 1946 article discussing aircraft performance, based on some test data.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

("Anything" refers to Allied aircraft. But it definitely rolled with the best above 400 mph.)

There is a chart somewhere, that I shows the P38L with boosted ailerons out rolls them all at high speed

Found it

 

Which as far as I can tell, shows that at speeds above 350 P38L wins, and, if I remember correctly, this was at 10kft

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

with a capital E

 

[Descolada]

none of these have russian aircraft on them so who cares

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

who cares? Well if I had to guess, probally the people in this thread who were just talking about the Fw190 vs other Allied planes..

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

 

And the fact that was never fixed by 1C, one could argue they were German biased, not Russian biased.

[EAF19_Marsh]

 

No i didn't, maybe you should go in an English class again, and learn to read properly

 

Err, you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. You suggested:

 

 

i find that hard to believe, given the fact that the Tempest is the advancement of the Typhoon, and has an even bigger wing surface, which restricts the roll rate

 

And then posted a graph showing the Typhoon's poor rate of role. I merely corrected your erroneous assumption that the Tempest rolled in a similar manner to the Typhoon. It would seem, that the Tempest in question, was not one of the later version used over Europe in 1944 but belonged to the earlier anti-V1 stock.

 

I also never suggested anything definite about Hawker aircraft or indeed any other aircraft in terms of roll versus an Fw 190; all claims which are in any case fairly narrow given the realities of aerial engagements and numerous other factors affecting such base calculations.

 

EDIT: I see where we were at cross-purposes: I added the link about the Tempest's good roll rate, not to demonstrate it necessarily out-rolled a 190 (as difficult as it would be to 'prove' anything given the vagueries of such a statement)

Edited February 7, 2015 by EAF19_Marsh

[Crump]

 

 

Which as far as I can tell, shows that at speeds above 350 Indicated Airspeed at 10,000 feet P38L wins, and, if I remember correctly, this was at 10kft

 

 

Fixed it for you.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Fixed it for you.

Fixed it for me?

 

Really?

 

Well, lets take a look and see how you contributed to this thread and 'fixed' what I wrote..

 

Below is my original post

 

Which as far as I can tell, shows that at speeds above 350 P38L wins, and, if I remember correctly, this was at 10kft

Below is your 'fix' of my post

 

Which as far as I can tell, shows that at speeds above 350 Indicated Airspeed at 10,000 feet P38L wins, and, if I remember correctly, this was at 10kft

Comparing the two, we can see that you 'fixed' my post by adding/inserting Indicated Airspeed at 10,000 feet to my post..

• Even though I noted the altitude was 10Kft in my original post, you felt it needed to be said twice?
• Even though the graph clearly states the speeds are indicated, you felt it needed to be said twice?

   

  So, basically you didn't add anything, you simply repeated what was already said and clearly stated on the graph.. And this is your definition of fixing things?

   

  I find it hard to believe that you believe 10Kft and indicated had to be said twice..

   

  So, I think it is safe to assume that you simply didn't notice that I already said 10Kft and that the graph stated indicated airspeed..

   

  Basically here is another example of you hitting the reply button too quickly.. Crump, if I have asked you once, I have asked you a thousand times..

   

  Please read things more than once before you hit the reply button..

   

  In summary

   

  You added nothing to this thread, nor did you fix anything in my post

   

  So please, next time, please read twice, if not ten times before you reply!

   

  Thanks in advance!

[Crump]

Sure it does...especially when you realize a P-38L cannot do 350mph IAS at 10,000 feet in level flight......

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

DFTT

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Sure it does...especially when you realize a P-38L cannot do 350mph IAS at 10,000 feet in level flight......

Sure it does what?

 

Please, I beg you, read more than once, before you hit reply

 

And here is proof that you didn't read it more than once again

 

Note that no where in the graph does it say these tests 'started' with the planes in level flight!

[Chuck_Owl]

Err... do you guys want a room or what?

 

The level of agressivity in here has become over 9000 ft in level flight.

 

[LizLemon]

What is the origin of that chart with the p-38l on it?

 

Because naca report 868.1947 does not have the p-38l in that chart.

 

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report.php?NID=2597

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

So, in summary Crump..

 

With regards to you repeating what was already stated..

 

You did notice I said the tests were done at 10kft, and you did notice the graph stated indicated airspeed..

 

Which means your definition of 'fixing' someone's post is to..

 

Repeat what they already said (10kft) and Repeat what is already printed in text (indicated airspeed) on the graph..

 

Is that what your asking us to believe?

 

With regards to the P-38L not being able to do 350 IAS in level flight at 10kft..

 

Note the graph speed axis range is from 160 to 390.. And each plane shows a roll rate value at speeds above 350 IAS all the way up to 390 IAS.. Even though most if not all the planes on that graph can NOT do 350 IAS in level flight at 10kft.. So, the NACA faked all the roll rates values above the planes max level flight speed at 10kft..

 

Is that what your asking us to believe?

 

Or could it be something as simple as the planes started at a hight altitude and dove down to 10kft and levelled off before beginning the roll..

 

You know, a simple energy conversion, where they converted PE (alt) to KE (speed)..

 

Oh, wait, I forgot, you are still struggling with the whole TE=PE+KE+ME thing!

[LizLemon]

So, in summary Crump..

 

With regards to you repeating what was already stated..

 

You did notice I said the tests were done at 10kft, and you did notice the graph stated indicated airspeed..

 

Which means your definition of 'fixing' someone's post is to..

 

Repeat what they already said (10kft) and Repeat what is already printed in text (indicated airspeed) on the graph..

 

Is that what your asking us to believe?

 

With regards to the P-38L not being able to do 350 IAS in level flight at 10kft..

 

Note the graph speed axis range is from 160 to 390.. And each plane shows a roll rate value at speeds above 350 IAS all the way up to 390 IAS.. Even though most if not all the planes on that graph can NOT do 350 IAS in level flight at 10kft.. So, the NACA faked all the roll rates values above the planes max level flight speed at 10kft..

 

Is that what your asking us to believe?

 

Or could it be something as simple as the planes started at a hight altitude and dove down to 10kft and levelled off before beginning the roll..

 

You know, a simple energy conversion, where they converted PE (alt) to KE (speed)..

 

Oh, wait, I forgot, you are still struggling with the whole TE=PE+KE+ME thing!

Here is the chart taken straight from the naca report.

 

Note the lack of the p-38.

 

Where this chart with the p-38 added to it comes from is unknown to me, but it is not naca 868.1947 as it purports to be.

 

I am not taken sides in this debate. Just pointing out that it is important to verify the accuracy of data posted online.

Edited February 8, 2015 by LizLemon

[Crump]

What is the origin of that chart with the p-38l on it?

 

 

It is from the NACA summary of Lateral Control Research.  Some of it is transcribed from other reports including RAE stuff.  They label the graph Indicated Airspeed but it really Equivalent Airspeed.  Equivalent Airspeed is sometimes called "perfect indicated airspeed". 

 

IAS here:

 

 

EAS here (RAE report):

 

 

 

There is no debate, man.  It is not worth my time.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Here is the chart taken straight from the naca report.

 

Note the lack of the p-38.

 

Where this chart with the p-38 added to it comes from is unknown to me, but it is not naca 868.1947 as it purports to be.

 

I am not taken sides in this debate. Just pointing out that it is important to verify the accuracy of data posted online.

Roger LizLemon..

 

Your correct the P38L roll rate data was not part of the NACA 868 report.. I seem to recall someone a long time ago taking some P38L data from another report and adding it to the NACA 868 chart.. But, I don't remember who exactly, it was years ago. I simply found this graph via a google search.. I have seen a P-38L roll rate chart, but it was in TRUE airspeed, not IAS, so, one would have to convert it to compare it to the values listed in the 868 report

[Crump]

 

 

Where this chart with the p-38 added to it comes from is unknown to me, but it is not naca 868.1947 as it purports to be.

 

Yeah it is not.  I was going to post NACA 868 but the board is limited. 

Roger LizLemon..

Your correct the P38L roll rate data was not part of the NACA 868 report.. I seem to recall someone a long time ago taking some P38L data from another report and adding it to the NACA 868 chart.. But, I don't remember who exactly, it was years ago. I simply found this graph via a google search.. I have seen a P-38L roll rate chart, but it was in TRUE airspeed, not IAS, so, one would have to convert it to compare it to the values listed in the 868 report

 

Whoever did it did not understand what they were looking at....

 

Not surprising at all.  Common theme around here.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

There is no debate, man.  It is not worth my time.

Debate?

 

No one is debating IAS vs TAS

 

All I am doing is pointing out you feel the need to repeat what people said and what is shown on the graph and claim that repeating it equates to fixing it.

[Crump]

Ok you so posted some guys made up chart hoping to pass it along as fact. 

 

If that is TAS...you need to shift the curve about 30-40% to the left....

 

That makes the P-38L agility fall in world war II fighter terms somewhere just below......ahhh.... an old lady with osteoporosis who has fallen and broken her hip.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Whoever did it did not understand what they were looking at....

 

Not surprising at all.  Common theme around here.

Well the NACA did 'it'

 

Granted the P38L was not part of the orginal 868 chart..

 

But on the previous page you noted the P38L can NOT do 350 IAS at 10kft..

 

As if to imply the NACA test is invalid

 

Yet most of the planes on the 868 graph can NOT do 350 IAS at 10kft, let alone 390..

 

So, are you asking us to believe the NACA..

 

How did you say it?

 

Did not understand what they were looking at!

 

Is that what you would have us believe ?

If that is TAS...you need to shift the curve about 30-40% to the left....

Crump..

 

What part of me saying, i.e.

 

I have seen a P-38L roll rate chart, but it was in TRUE airspeed, not IAS, so, one would have to convert it to compare it to the values listed in the 868 report

Did you not understand?

 

Or is this just ONE MORE EXAMPLE of you not reading more than once and didn't realise I already said it, or is this just ONE MORE EXAMPLE of you feeling the need to repeat what others have already said and call it 'fixing'

 

PS I did not say the chart I saw was the same one imposed on the NACA 868, I simply noted that I have seen a P38L roll rate chart that was in TAS, I don't recall what the value were

[Crump]

Whatever you have to convince yourself of.....