Jump to content
E69_geramos109

Turning with the P51and tempest vs 109s. Changed on last path??

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

The video clearly says the 109 is conceptually the slower aircraft and that it is clearly the better aircraft for flying slow. Now you want to make me bring even more data? My point is that this is much less cool than you might think, especially for the design limitations Willy accepted to achieve said performance.

 

and he was pointing out, that the 109 is in fact more maneuverable at slow speeds. And that is all that matters regarding the current topic. You started ermagherding about payload and such. I called you out on that because its not part of the debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Quinte said:

Hahaha. What kind of document is that. Guys, please, read your stuff before posting it. The 152 and the k-4 were the fastest and best turning aircrafts on the planet mid-44?

 

Come. On.

 

Yeah, this is a little out of left field. The K-4 turns 9 seconds faster than the Spitfire, outclimbs it by almost double at 20000 feet (even the XIV), and is fifty mph faster than the spitfires and the mustang at 20000 feet? The Tempest faster than the Mustang at that alt is also...questionable, right? Colour me skeptical.

Also, was the Ta-152 even around in mid-44? I thought only like 10 of them got operational before the end of the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Yeah, this is a little out of left field. The K-4 turns 9 seconds faster than the Spitfire, outclimbs it by almost double at 20000 feet (even the XIV), and is fifty mph faster than the spitfires and the mustang at 20000 feet? The Tempest faster than the Mustang at that alt is also...questionable, right? Colour me skeptical.

Also, was the Ta-152 even around in mid-44? I thought only like 10 of them got operational before the end of the war.

Yeah, I'd take that info with a large grain of salt, doesn't match the test/real data all that well, at least from what I've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Also, was the Ta-152 even around in mid-44? I thought only like 10 of them got operational before the end of the war.

 

No, it wasn't. None of the German aircraft listed there was around in "mid 1944". They are all late 1944 or even 1945 aircraft. Mid 1944 models would be the Bf109G-6 and Fw190A-8.

 

On the plus side, the table gave me a good laugh. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can sometimes see the bias from the presentation.  This is a good example. The eye naturally goes to the grey highlighted row to compare speeds: Oh look, how much faster is the K4!

 

But that is because the grey line has been chosen at the height that corresponds to the top speed of the K4 (as calculated by the author's source), shown in the row above. Compare the maximum value for the speeds from the top two rows and the differences are much less obvious. So different aircraft reach their top speeds at different heights: big deal. That is not to say that any of the data is actually wrong: I have no idea. But just looking at how it is presented exposes the agenda immediately.  

 

This kind of aggregate table is completely useless for the issue under discussion, even when you look past the presentation.   Greg's video, interesting as is is, is also of little help, since it should be obvious that a great deal will depend on the weight of the planes, especially of the P-51 which has a very wide weight range.  The F-4 he uses is also a fair bit lighter than a K.  At minimum operational weight our P51-D is lighter than a fully loaded K-4.  If both aircraft are flying around with low fuel states, in typical MP fashion, without bombs etc,  it is entirely conceivable that the P-51 could have induced drag only a little higher than the K4, not the three times higher as shown in Greg's video. It will probably be somewhat heavier, but it also has a wider wingspan. 

 

All of this just illustrates the complete futility of trying to second guess the FM from general sources: the only thing that will get changes, if such are indeed needed, are specific data points measured under known conditions. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

You can sometimes see the bias from the presentation.  This is a good example. The eye naturally goes to the grey highlighted row to compare speeds: Oh look, how much faster is the K4!

 

But that is because the grey line has been chosen at the height that corresponds to the top speed of the K4 (as calculated by the author's source), shown in the row above. Compare the maximum value for the speeds from the top two rows and the differences are much less obvious. So different aircraft reach their top speeds at different heights: big deal. That is not to say that any of the data is actually wrong: I have no idea. But just looking at how it is presented exposes the agenda immediately.  

 

This kind of aggregate table is completely useless for the issue under discussion, even when you look past the presentation.   Greg's video, interesting as is is, is also of little help, since it should be obvious that a great deal will depend on the weight of the planes, especially of the P-51 which has a very wide weight range.  The F-4 he uses is also a fair bit lighter than a K.  At minimum operational weight our P51-D is lighter than a fully loaded K-4.  If both aircraft are flying around with low fuel states, in typical MP fashion, without bombs etc,  it is entirely conceivable that the P-51 could have induced drag only a little higher than the K4, not the three times higher as shown in Greg's video. It will probably be somewhat heavier, but it also has a wider wingspan. 

 

All of this just illustrates the complete futility of trying to second guess the FM from general sources: the only thing that will get changes, if such are indeed needed, are specific data points measured under known conditions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have not checked all the numbers but that table fails a simple sanity check: Just look at the turn times given for the Me-109K4 and Spitfire Mk14 at 6000m:

 

The table lists the K4 at 31.2 and the Mk14 at 39.0 s, i.e. the K4's turn time according to the table in that book is 20% FASTER than the Mk14 when in fact it should be about 10 % SLOWER. 

 

As Oleg Maddox once said about another title: "Close that book and never open it again".........

 

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So bad data as well as misleading presentation: reminds me of my equity analysis days reading company reports. 

 

We seem to have reached an impasse with the Tempest unfortunately.  Looking at airfoils and other planes tells us that 1.75 seems implausible, but we cannot actually prove it.  I just cannot see how a plane with a 25% higher wing loading than the Spitfire MkIX and a lower critical AoA can end up with a virtually identical stall speed.  It sticks out like a sore thumb when you chart the planes in the game.

 

  823507254_CLmaxChart.thumb.JPG.0c01574984a3282dfd99838aeee38a26.JPG

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Quinte said:

Hahaha. What kind of document is that. Guys, please, read your stuff before posting it. The 152 and the k-4 were the fastest and best turning aircrafts on the planet mid-44?

 

Come. On.

 

 

This whole thread has been one big laugh. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh yes, the age old debate continues...

Just like back in the old days of Warbirds 2.xx thru 3.xx.

 

The pony pansies love the FM the way it is, whether it's porked or not.

And the lufwabbles insist it's all wrong.

 

 While I will say that I'm glad to not have the old Warbirds over the nose view in the 190 series that made me wish for an LA county phone book to sit on...

 

I have noted that none of the positive attributes of the Luftwaffe late war birds seem very effective against the new late war allied rigs.

The roll rate and speed capability of the 190D series should be a good set of tools to use against most anything when flown properly but I haven't really been able to prove that to be the case.

Also to 109K series with it's climb performance should reward a smartly flown Koenig with great success..

 

The Runstang, Lightning and Tempest all seem to be VERRRY stable gun platforms as compared to most of the main competition to those late war models.

 

 But  the more things change....well, you know.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

This whole thread has been one big laugh. 

 

Some of it has but there is a serious question mark about the Tempest's numbers. The developer's explanation to JtD about how they derived the CLmax is reasonable on the face of it, but the results are counter-intuitive.  It is not just the issue of slow speed turning: people are reporting blacking out and tearing wings off easily in the Tempest, I suspect because they are not realizing that the same stick movement - or change in AoA - is generating ~40% more lift/Gs than in other fighters they are used to. 

 

Crudely illustrated (imagine an S curve): it is not just that the CLmax is much higher, but the slope is also much steeper.

 

922492220_CLchart2.thumb.JPG.72cc82a52eb2594b54ae6795870f64b3.JPG       edit: added P51: you can see that it's "polar" is on almost the same slope as the 109K and P47.  

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flynvrtd said:

Ahhh yes, the age old debate continues...

Just like back in the old days of Warbirds 2.xx thru 3.xx.

 

The pony pansies love the FM the way it is, whether it's porked or not.

And the lufwabbles insist it's all wrong.

 

 While I will say that I'm glad to not have the old Warbirds over the nose view in the 190 series that made me wish for an LA county phone book to sit on...

 

I have noted that none of the positive attributes of the Luftwaffe late war birds seem very effective against the new late war allied rigs.

The roll rate and speed capability of the 190D series should be a good set of tools to use against most anything when flown properly but I haven't really been able to prove that to be the case.

Also to 109K series with it's climb performance should reward a smartly flown Koenig with great success..

 

The Runstang, Lightning and Tempest all seem to be VERRRY stable gun platforms as compared to most of the main competition to those late war models.

 

 But  the more things change....well, you know.


What’s a pony pansy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For "this out-turned that" anecdotes it's important to re-check if possible what kind of turns are talked about. There are quotes that "the P-40 out-turned Zeros" which sounds unbelievable but then you get the part that the out-turning took place in fast downward spirals thus it was possible as Zero's ailerons locked badly at faster speeds.

 

So if there is a claim that "this out-turned that" but nothing is told about speeds and what kind of turn it is (instantaneous or continuous or struggling for control in a stall fight perhaps) then the claim tells very little as any plane can out-maneuver another if the right parameters are met.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, flynvrtd said:

 Also to 109K series with it's climb performance should reward a smartly flown Koenig with great success..

Kurfurst. Koenig is a different nobility title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The developer's explanation to JtD about how they derived the CLmax is reasonable on the face of it, but the results are counter-intuitive. 

You know it makes me wonder if is not maybe related to the peculiarities of the Sabre engine. To me it seems almost as if it was producing a lot of thrust even at lower power settings, something that would relate to its very high rpm ratings. We know that power on stall Clmax figures go easily up to 2.0 for the Hellcat etc. Could it be that when the idle stall speed is measured that the prop significantly (we're talking about a 4 m diameter 4 blade helicopter) still empowers the wings lift, totally skewing a result that would be unobtainable if the Tempest would be stalled without a prop.

 

This would be something to be adressed for the P-47 as well. remember, we're talking here about a 2'000 hp class engines, not a 1'000 hp class engine like the Merlin. I would expect those engines differ significantly in practical power output at low MAP(!) settings. This would be something to be adressed about the P-47's incredible flaps performance.

 

I'm certain that PEC errors cannot explain what we're seeing.  The heavy, large propeller aircraft do just too well at the lift limited side of the graph. I mean, back then nobody would have ever dreamt of entering a slow speed contest with a skinny light plane like the 109 in a heavy aircraft, regardless of the power under the hood. At least not the ones that survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

You know it makes me wonder if is not maybe related to the peculiarities of the Sabre engine. To me it seems almost as if it was producing a lot of thrust even at lower power settings, something that would relate to its very high rpm ratings. We know that power on stall Clmax figures go easily up to 2.0 for the Hellcat etc. Could it be that when the idle stall speed is measured that the prop significantly (we're talking about a 4 m diameter 4 blade helicopter) still empowers the wings lift, totally skewing a result that would be unobtainable if the Tempest would be stalled without a prop.

 

This would be something to be adressed for the P-47 as well. remember, we're talking here about a 2'000 hp class engines, not a 1'000 hp class engine like the Merlin. I would expect those engines differ significantly in practical power output at low MAP(!) settings. This would be something to be adressed about the P-47's incredible flaps performance.

 

I'm certain that PEC errors cannot explain what we're seeing.  The heavy, large propeller aircraft do just too well at the lift limited side of the graph. I mean, back then nobody would have ever dreamt of entering a slow speed contest with a skinny light plane like the 109 in a heavy aircraft, regardless of the power under the hood. At least not the ones that survived.

I know people have tested the P-47's flaps at full power ratings. Anyone ever tried dropping the flaps with the engine off to see if this is modeled in game - i.e. the propeller +flaps combination giving crazy lift? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying correctly though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

I know people have tested the P-47's flaps at full power ratings. Anyone ever tried dropping the flaps with the engine off to see if this is modeled in game - i.e. the propeller +flaps combination giving crazy lift? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying correctly though.

If the prop is covering most of the "flapped area" it will energize that one with its idle power slipstream. The result translates into an increase in lift of that wing section, adding to the total life generated by the airframe. If you assume there was no prop, this effect translates directly into a Clmax increase of the total airfoil.

 

The stronger the slipstream is from an idle powered prop, the more that slipstream will energize the wing. The P-47 uses a tremendous lot of power to fly it safely into an approach. This means "idele power" does not equal "no power". The stronger the engine is at ide power, the more it will add lift to an airfoil, skewing the actual numbers of the airfoil alone.

 

My argument now is, the larger the engine (and the larger the prop), the more it will energize the wing (especially the flapped inner section), raising Clmax substancially. To prove my point I had to compare stall speed to an propless gliding Temoest that would be stalled. based on my argument I'd speculate that if you stalled a Tempest glider, it wouuld stall at considerably higher speed than a regular Tempest at idle power setting. As acorollary, I can say that the larger the engine, the lower idle power stall will be 8equating in ahigher Clmax).

 

Why I say larger and not more powerful: All Merlins, from Mk.II to 700 series differ in max. power. Idle power is the same, as those engines share the same displacement and are not further aspirated. At idle, the supercharger adds nothing. If you however up displacement, then things look differently. At the same MAP and rpm, a 40L engine will produce the double power than a 20 L engine, also at Idle power. You can make the 20L engine run at twice the rpm and it will nominally prodce the same power than the 40L engine, yet at the same 1200 rpm idle, it will only produce half as its big brother. This added power may explain the raise in lift by enegrizing the most sensible part of the aircraft, the flapped area.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

You know it makes me wonder if is not maybe related to the peculiarities of the Sabre engine.

 

Interesting idea: I suppose the test for that: in the game at least, where we can do it, is to turn the engine completely off and see what level stall speed you get. Need a more precise flier than me to test that for sure.

 

As to pitot errors: I agree the difference looks a bit large, but then again have you ever seen a PEC that is an exactly straight line except for the Tempest? I can imagine the Ministry of Aviation, Manuals, Drafting Dept nerds in 1944 saying " Look we have analysed 10,000 Spitfire sorties during the last year in which  only 100 used the PEC numbers, 90 of them made simple calculation errors, what with the typical RAF fighter pilot having the heart of a lion, the reflexes of a monkey and the intellect of a Labrador Retriever.  Let's just give them something that is more or less right, easier to calculate and saves on the testing required to establish what the real number should be. They never use it below cruise speed anyway. We have just saved ten thousand pounds in testing. After all, if they fail to return as a consequence of using the wrong number, who will ever know...." 

 

The devs are putting about a 7.5 mph PEC error extrapolating from the manual in a straight line at the manual's weight and IAS stall speed. To get the CLmax down into the pack you need about another 12 mph from somewhere.  Add in an imprecision of what is meant by "stall speed" and a bit of a curve in the PEC line and you are in with rest of the (non-slatted) pack.

 

The other difficulty with your theory is that the P47 also has a high HP engine but  in the game has a fairly low CLmax.  So whatever is happening, the treatment appears to be inconsistent.  

 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I suppose the test for that: in the game at least, where we can do it, is to turn the engine completely off and see what level stall speed you get. Need a more precise flier than me to test that for sure.

I shuold try that, but as you say, it would be difficult to do right. maybe turning on autolevel and and hit "e" and let it glide straight until it runs out of elevator. Maybe that gives a hint.

 

EDIT: it might be that this effect even skewed original results, meaning that original "power off" stall is in fact not at all power off, but the wing and flaps still energized to a relatively high degree. I could speculate that a Thunderbilt with flaps down as well as a real Tempest without a prop would give higher stall numbers as the ones measured and put in the PN. So we have the error at the source. The larger the engine, the larger the error. And both Tempest and Thunderbolt are about the very top of where you can achive in that regard.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Interesting idea: I suppose the test for that: in the game at least, where we can do it, is to turn the engine completely off and see what level stall speed you get. Need a more precise flier than me to test that for sure.

 

I tested my 1.75 with engine off, gliding.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2019 at 7:37 AM, unreasonable said:

1.39 - same using lowest stall speed and minimum operating weight or highest stall speed and max t/o weight. Not my measurements: just the game's tech specs numbers input to the lift equation. 

 

I see, that's rather low IMHO, unless it's power off. Power on is where the 109 should really shine compared to the slatless aircraft in terms of Clmax - that is at speeds where it's actually able to pull enough AoA have them come out.

 

 

21 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Have not checked all the numbers but that table fails a simple sanity check: Just look at the turn times given for the Me-109K4 and Spitfire Mk14 at 6000m:

 

The table lists the K4 at 31.2 and the Mk14 at 39.0 s, i.e. the K4's turn time according to the table in that book is 20% FASTER than the Mk14 when in fact it should be about 10 % SLOWER. 

 

As Oleg Maddox once said about another title: "Close that book and never open it again".........

 

 

Haha yeah, that is a pretty hilarious chart 😄

 

The Spitfire XIV should be above the rest in terms of turning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Some of it has but there is a serious question mark about the Tempest's numbers. The developer's explanation to JtD about how they derived the CLmax is reasonable on the face of it, but the results are counter-intuitive.  It is not just the issue of slow speed turning: people are reporting blacking out and tearing wings off easily in the Tempest, I suspect because they are not realizing that the same stick movement - or change in AoA - is generating ~40% more lift/Gs than in other fighters they are used to. 

 

Crudely illustrated (imagine an S curve): it is not just that the CLmax is much higher, but the slope is also much steeper.

 

922492220_CLchart2.thumb.JPG.72cc82a52eb2594b54ae6795870f64b3.JPG       edit: added P51: you can see that it's "polar" is on almost the same slope as the 109K and P47.  

 

Interesting, I still don't understand how the 109 is lower than the P-51, doesn't make much sence IMHO, the 109's power off CLmax should be slightly higher based on everything I've seen.  As for the Tempest it's obviously way off, 1.75 is what I'd expect at full power at very low speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Interesting, I still don't understand how the 109 is lower than the P-51, doesn't make much sence IMHO, the 109's power off CLmax should be slightly higher based on everything I've seen.  As for the Tempest it's obviously way off, 1.75 is what I'd expect at full power at very low speed.

 

The chart clearly shows that the 109K's CLmax is higher than that of the P-51, as does the bar chart I posted earlier. The slope is about the same: essentially within rounding error given how I graphed it.

 

You could make a more fine grained chart accurate to more decimal places if you want: all the data I have used is freely available to anyone.  The purpose of the chart is to show how far away the Tempest's "polar" is from the others. To reiterate: I am not testing anything: simply using the stall speeds, weights and wing areas from the tech spec pages on the assumption that the developer's testing methodology is consistent between planes.  

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Panthera said:

I see, that's rather low IMHO, unless it's power off. Power on is where the 109 should really shine compared to the slatless aircraft in terms of Clmax - that is at speeds where it's actually able to pull enough AoA have them come out.

 

For what I could test stalling the plane at idle I got around 1.7 across different 109 variants in game. That being said I might have errors so you could check it yourself ^^  Power on is difficult to test, the plane wants to climb a lot and you end up in a rather vertical position at low speed / high aoa trying to mantain altitude as the speed goes down, I think I got close to 2.0 values for the F-4 but it was a rather messy procedure.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

The chart clearly shows that the 109K's CLmax is higher than that of the P-51, as does the bar chart I posted earlier. The slope is about the same: essentially within rounding error given how I graphed it.

 

Ah ok, I read it abit differently, didn't notice the 109's Cl curve stretched further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a note in this patch that the Tempest stall speed was increased by 6 mph. Would be interesting to test this in-game and see how this impacts the low speed handling of the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plugging +6 mph into the stall speed for the Tempest as per the DD note, the chart now looks like this:

 

1964190036_CLchart3.thumb.JPG.6317981fbf6dc1c042646ec5b042635d.JPG

 

It would need another 6 mph to get it into the P51/Spitfire range. So you can see the problem: they can either stay consistent with the manuals as in the original numbers, with the other planes, or split the difference, which may be what they have now done.

 

Will it make a difference in flight? Speculating, yes, but it will still feel a little "not as other planes". It will be interesting to see if anyone actually notices any difference outside testing. 

 

1951087996_CLcompareslope.thumb.JPG.5e627c4232101e799185bea0ac3b16bd.JPG

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Venturi said:

I believe this is fixed now... how's it handle?

 

like a brick....with a rocket engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

like a brick....with a rocket engine.

So closer to reality then? I've read it was never the most maneuverable aircraft and when I flew it in-game it's maneuverability surprised me.

Still one of the best allied fighter in the game, thing is a monster down low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

So closer to reality then? I've read it was never the most maneuverable aircraft and when I flew it in-game it's maneuverability surprised me.

Still one of the best allied fighter in the game, thing is a monster down low.

 

What give you the impression it is not maneuverable? It got huge but thin low aspect ratio wings with big ailerons, huge tail and elevators. It has good weight to HP ratio and it packs punch. Far superior to FW's down low and only thing 109 does better down low is the things that directly benefits from low weight without looking at the HP available. Those are extreme low speed edge cases.  

Edited by Cpt_Siddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

What give you the impression it is not maneuverable? It got huge low aspect ratio wings, huge tail and elevators. It has good weight to HP ratio and it pack punch. Far superior to FW's down low and only thing 109 does better is the things that directly benefits from low weight without looking at the HP available. Those are extreme low speed edge cases.  

Just what I've read, I was picturing it being akin to a P-47 in terms of maneuverability but in-game I can do just about anything with the Tempest. Not saying what I read was correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

Just what I've read, I was picturing it being akin to a P-47 in terms of maneuverability but in-game I can do just about anything with the Tempest. Not saying what I read was correct.

 

Tempest is slightly thinner air frame (inline vs radial) with slightly bigger wing area and depending on configuration, 700-1000kg lighter plane. 

Sure you wont be doing aerobatics with it, but when it comes to air combat, Tempest is the La-5FN of the BoP. (with with bit worse roll but far bigger guns and better elevator) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isnt about legioneod specifically but I think all round the performance of alot of these planes surprises people for the following reasons:

 

-Anecdotal evidence that gives a different impression (ex: P-38 sometimes has  a poor reputation due to its combat record, which in actuality had more to do with it being the plane the US cut its teeth on then being a bad performer)

 

-Il2 1946  An extremely popular sim that alot of people think had good flight modeling but was in actuality pretty terrible from a simulation point of view. Its a bit like the browning automatic rifle, people swear by it but its actually trash.

 

-Assumptions made about performance made on overly general aerodynamic observations, such as not noting the P-38 and P-47 Fowler flaps, or assuming that partial span slats make a significant difference in turning (which they dont).

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

This isnt about legioneod specifically but I think all round the performance of alot of these planes surprises people for the following reasons:

 

-Anecdotal evidence that gives a different impression (ex: P-38 sometimes has  a poor reputation due to its combat record, which in actuality had more to do with it being the plane the US cut its teeth on then being a bad performer)

 

-Il2 1946  An extremely popular sim that alot of people think had good flight modeling but was in actuality pretty terrible from a simulation point of view. Its a bit like the browning automatic rifle, people swear by it but its actually trash.

 

-Assumptions made about performance made on overly general aerodynamic observations, such as not noting the P-38 and P-47 Fowler flaps, or assuming that partial span slats make a significant difference in turning (which they dont).

 

 

On the flip side, anecdotes and pilot accounts have really set a lot of people up for disappointment IMO. Some of the pilot accounts talk about things that were impossible, and some of the statements like "plane x out-performed plane y for the entire war" are very nearly propoganda. When this is pointed out, its seen as an attack on a beloved person or aircraft. People need to take a step back when dealing with history to get an honest evaluation of things in the context of their times. Its not slander to suggest that some pilot accounts may be inaccurate, its recognition of the limits of human beings to remember things perfectly or to objectively analyze things in the heat of combat.

I don't think 1946 was trash. It was just a 2001 era game that persisted for a loooonng time with some fairly severe  limitations in flight modeling, and very little competition in the sim genre. And its relatively simple flight modeling made modding in new aircraft much easier so it stuck around for the sheer breadth of content. Of course, with the less detailed flight modeling after a while a lot of the aircraft feel kind of samey, whereas in Il-2 GB I find that each aircraft has its own definite character and feel.

I will cop to the third note. The flaps modeling on the P-47 for example still confuse me...it seems to have been such a huge issue but in some recent discussions I saw some information that showed that the flap/turning maybe isn't so crazy (?), its just that the way the flaps worked meant they were never used in combat. I wish I had a better understanding of how a lot of the stuff works in detail. I know what the performance should be from manuals and documents but how they get there and the implications for extreme maneuvers leaves me high and dry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the third point, I took the P-47 for a spin at low weight flaps down and it's a joke. As are all twin engine planes I've tested - I can do the RedTailsFlip in a Ju88 flaps down. Horrible.

 

I've also read up on the subject and while I lack numerical data specific for the P-47, basic physics still apply to it and they don't add up. Given time, I'll be making a more detailed post on the subject of flaps. For practical application probably focussing on the Fw190, because there I've got the most detailed data (hard numbers), but there'll be enough general information on flaps to draw general conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JtD said:

On the third point, I took the P-47 for a spin at low weight flaps down and it's a joke. As are all twin engine planes I've tested - I can do the RedTailsFlip in a Ju88 flaps down. Horrible.

 

I've also read up on the subject and while I lack numerical data specific for the P-47, basic physics still apply to it and they don't add up. Given time, I'll be making a more detailed post on the subject of flaps. For practical application probably focussing on the Fw190, because there I've got the most detailed data (hard numbers), but there'll be enough general information on flaps to draw general conclusions.

I'm looking forward to it. I've seen a lot of piecemeal threads and videos about flaps being wonky/broken and such but I don't think I've seen an actual comparison to known data, so at the end of the day it was just people having a feeling it was wrong but with no way of saying why, or where the source of the problem might be. So a lightweight P-47 with full flaps going full throttle in game can turn on a dime (more or less) - It looks wonky, it feels like it would be wrong, but I haven't seen anyone putting up numbers to say why...quite possibly because no one ever did that with a real-life P-47 and documented it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...