• Announcements

    • BLKHWK8

      Squad vs Squad Battle for Notre Dame Postponed   08/03/2018

      The event for this weekend will be postponed... We have not been able to get a solid commitment to run the event. I will be posting a poll to select a better date and time. Poll:    Welcome back our Squad vs Squad events. Please check out the forum post here   
Mosizlak

More bombers, same old AAA

117 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, bogol said:

 a certain 2b comes to mind? 

Having trouble shooting Noobs, cause only Noobs fly 2b's.

Your plane has twice the firepower and twice the speed yet you want to fix a noobish plane.

Right!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bus0 said:

 only Noobs fly 2b's.

Haha try again. Well, on second thought I agree, only n00bs fly it. :P

Share this post


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

 

FWIW, I checked out the DM for a few select a/c and found no anomalies.

Check again, under the 2b tab... Check deeper...

Share this post


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

 

Overstress is coming, which will put paid to high-G silliness and but a brake on stuff that people see as FM-related.

 

Good! I also think that Energy penalty free looping of a DB7 defies  physics and logic, but oh well. Lets put the overstress blanket on top of it and cover it, no worries. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Good! I also think that Energy penalty free looping of a DB7 defies  physics and logic, but oh well. Lets put the overstress blanket on top of it and cover it, no worries. 

I take it you haven't flown the DB7 a lot - ALL aircraft retain energy too well (possibly with the exception of the D.520) so it's not like you can single it out for getting preferential treatment. As for the rest, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2018 at 1:35 AM, bmbm said:

2. All I have is my perception and my expectation. For instance, I don’t expect a 109E to sustain several laps in a flat circle balls-out fight on the deck with a H75. Yet it happens.

 

You know the RaF didn't expect the 109 to stay on the spit either yet when they tested it "in a surprising number of instances" the 109 did just that. Now I seem to recall you personally being involved in the tests conducted years back that prompted the 109s to get the flopFM added. In that testing it was shown that the 109 and the spits were turning faster than their real world numbers suggest they should. i don't recall if the H75 was part of that testing. 

 

couple choices here. if all planes are X% over performing and that X is the same for all planes, do we really have a problem? if the 109s are within 1-2% of 'correct based on historical numbers' but the other planes all over perform ... do we have a problem? depends right.

 

The entire hawk series does need an audit though. last i researched i could find no evidence supporting the p36 or p40s controls compress locking up at high speeds. the best i could find was some pilot accounts comparing the P-47 to the P-40 where he stated the P-40 never compressed where as the P-47 compressed pretty quickly. in game at around 430mph the controls for the hawks just stop being effective, this is wrong and needs fixing. apart from that though, the hawks always suffered from power to weight problems. they're never going to turn all that well due to that poor thrust to weight ratio.

 

Moving on to stress modeling, how is this going to be done? will stated do not exceed limits be used as the guide? cause that would be stellar! can't wait to see spitfire wings ripping off from the grossly unbalanced controls and low top speed. For comparison sake a Spit9s do not exceed limits were:

SL>20K' -450MPH IAS

20K-25K -430MPH IAS

25K-30K -390MPH IAS

30K-35K -340MPH IAS

VS

1KM-5KM - 850KPH (528MPH) IAS

6KM-11KM - 800KPH (497MPH) IAS

 

... do note those are late war numbers for 109s. earlier in our time period the limits are much closer however the 109s ALWAYS have a higher do not exceed number here AND also don't have horribly unbalanced elevator controls which is the real problem in the spitfire. when it takes 60lbs of force to deflect the aileron 25% at high speeds (aka all your strength) it becomes very difficult to balance out the 10-12lbs of force required to completely deflect the elevator. this balance problem and the lower allowed maximum speeds are just a few more areas the game doesn't currently model well.

 

so will we use these do note exceed numbers and how binary is that threshold? it really shouldn't be binary per se.

Share this post


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

I take it you haven't flown the DB7 a lot - ALL aircraft retain energy too well 

I agree with this statement having flown in IL2 1946, IL2 BOS, and War thunder.  These planes all retain energy very well.

Share this post


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

I take it you haven't flown the DB7 a lot - ALL aircraft retain energy too well (possibly with the exception of the D.520) so it's not like you can single it out for getting preferential treatment. As for the rest, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. 

OK. so E retention is a problem in the general FM or not? Three posts ago you were arguing that FMs are not to blame at all. And I was giving the example of the DB7 because it is a bomber after all, and they do logic defying aerobatics with a full bomb load. Because, from my side of the fence, that is one of the most wtf LMAO, am I really playing this game moment. I am sure from the other side of the fence there are many similar instances. I wont deny it. I am not saying CRS is side biased. All I am saying is that a DB doing loops with a full bomb load defies logic and my intuition of the physics at work. I am not saying I have a perfect physics intuition, but trust me, it is a trained one. Yes, I have been shown wrong on occasion, and I would be happy to be shown wrong here as well. And, can we please forget about the stress damage model for the time being? 

 

And yes, I was sarcastic on the 2nd part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're complaining about perception not necessarily flawed physics modeling.

 

the reasons bombers shouldn't loop at all or with a payload are three fold.

1) that added stress likely rips off the wings (we dont have this modeled.)

2) your payload may move around on you making it not possible to drop ordnance. (not modeled)

3) you run a MUCH higher risk of dying and IRL there is no respawn. (actual death not modeled either)

747s can aileron roll, doesn't mean they should. I'd imagine with enough altitude you could loop a 747, doesn't mean you should. Your perception then states that bombers shouldn't loop in simulated combat experiences, correct?

 

I doubt anyone really disagrees with you, however, that isn't the same thing as is it possible to do. it should be possible to do, we just need to add more of the reasons for why you shouldn't do this. currently, there is no simulated reasons to NOT do it, so people do it. If there was just wing stress modeling, this behavior would disappear or you'd have empty spawn lists where db7s used to be.

Share this post


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

you're complaining about perception not necessarily flawed physics modeling.

 

the reasons bombers shouldn't loop at all or with a payload are three fold.

1) that added stress likely rips off the wings (we dont have this modeled.)

2) your payload may move around on you making it not possible to drop ordnance. (not modeled)

3) you run a MUCH higher risk of dying and IRL there is no respawn. (actual death not modeled either)

747s can aileron roll, doesn't mean they should. I'd imagine with enough altitude you could loop a 747, doesn't mean you should. Your perception then states that bombers shouldn't loop in simulated combat experiences, correct?

 

I doubt anyone really disagrees with you, however, that isn't the same thing as is it possible to do. it should be possible to do, we just need to add more of the reasons for why you shouldn't do this. currently, there is no simulated reasons to NOT do it, so people do it. If there was just wing stress modeling, this behavior would disappear or you'd have empty spawn lists where db7s used to be.

OMG funny. Can we agree that drag is proportional with wing area, before we debate any further rebel? And can we agree that this is how it is modeled in game? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bogol said:

OMG funny. Can we agree that drag is proportional with wing area, before we debate any further rebel? And can we agree that this is how it is modeled in game? 

What if the wing area is the same between these two examples.  A Spitfire wing and a brick?  would they have the same drag?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bogol said:

OMG funny. Can we agree that drag is proportional with wing area, before we debate any further rebel? And can we agree that this is how it is modeled in game? 

Those are not proportional.  The 109s wing has higher drag than planes of a similar wing size because of things like the wing radiator and it's slats (when extended).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, madrebel said:

Now I seem to recall you personally being involved in the tests conducted years back that prompted the 109s to get the flopFM added.

Nope, was not part of that. I was betatesting the rudder "nerf" that preceded it - and that issue was like choosing between plague and cholera. I did no programming, I was just part of the feedback loop. After that fix, the 109 got fixed again - and possibly one more time after that.

The bone of contention has always been the Spit vs 109 matchup, and I believe the 109 has gotten the best deal - more than it deserves according to my personal expectation. The H75 should run laps round the 109, yet it barely does so after all the tweaks to the 109 (again IMHO).

I can't say anything about compression without digging into references. I do believe it's accurate for the most part.

31 minutes ago, bogol said:

OK. so E retention is a problem in the general FM or not? Three posts ago you were arguing that FMs are not to blame at all.

I'm not saying that the FM is 100% accurate other than that it meets the criteria WRT NACA airfoils, control surface authority, roll rates. speeds etc. The discussion was whether the DB7 in particular has a golden FM - it has not. It shares the same FM with all AC. The alleged FM anomaly you're ascribing the DB7 is due to lack of overstress modelling, and no, there's no discussing the issue without making amends for that. 

Now if you excuse me I'll go back to creating more droolworthy content for the game.

Share this post


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

 

I'm not saying that the FM is 100% accurate other than that it meets the criteria WRT NACA airfoils, control surface authority, roll rates. speeds etc. The discussion was whether the DB7 in particular has a golden FM - it has not. It shares the same FM with all AC. The alleged FM anomaly you're ascribing the DB7 is due to lack of overstress modelling, and no, there's no discussing the issue without making amends for that. 

OK, can you please make me understand. Because it seems to you and a bunch of other posters here that there is minimal a problem with the FM if a a heavy full of bombs plane such as the DB7 can do sustained loops without really shedding altitude. Granted, I speak not from personal experience of flying the DB, but from my impressions, watching tons of DB7s do aerobatics that defy my less than informed logic and expectations. 

 Yes, we CAN and should be able to remove from the discussion the stress damage, UNTILL IT IS CODED. PERIOD. At least for this particular discussion. 

Now please make me understand how this works. In my less than informed mind, every maneuver one makes comes at the cost of losing E. The more drastic the maneuver is, the more E should be bleed. And a tight loop, at the verge of black-out, is a pretty drastic maneuver. So, I cannot see how a DB can do 3-4 sustained loops  and reach approximately the same altitude each time. (I might be wrong here, since, I only speak from my impressions of what is happening.)  Or are you telling me that its engines are so powerful that they act as jets and immediately compensate for the energy lost during the dive  and pull-put part? Or maybe they are just powerful enough?

Or is it that the E retention in the FM maybe is worth looking at overall across the board? For me it is the DB 7 that seems the strangest, because its fheavy, and my less than informed expectation is that gravity should take a toll on it, when it attempts to come back to the same altitude after performing a steep dive and sharp pull-out. My expectation is that Energy will be lost in this process, thus that the plane should not be able to reach the same initial hight. 

BMBM thanks for creating content for the game! S! I don't intent do antagonize you. I am trying to understand a simple physics problem. You seem to have it figured out, because it seems that from your end there is minimal anomaly (baring the stress damage which, for the love of god please ignore for now, the same way the game ignores). So please make me understand as well how comes your intuition is not baffled by the situation I am describing. Or is it that the situation I am describing is not really happening? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stankyus said:

What if the wing area is the same between these two examples.  A Spitfire wing and a brick?  would they have the same drag?

Well, maybe we can calculate the Reynolds number and figure it out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fufubear1f said:

Those are not proportional.  The 109s wing has higher drag than planes of a similar wing size because of things like the wing radiator and it's slats (when extended).

the 109 radiator setup has been shown to benefit from the meredith effect, the cooling setup isn't inherently worse than any other plane. its as good as or on par with the best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bmbm said:

The bone of contention has always been the Spit vs 109 matchup, and I believe the 109 has gotten the best deal - more than it deserves according to my personal expectation. The H75 should run laps round the 109, yet it barely does so after all the tweaks to the 109 (again IMHO).

What are you basing your perception on? The H75 isn't remarkably different than the P40 series and it was NEVER considered a good turn fighter. period. low wing loading in and of itself doesn't mean much when you're under G load. thrust to weight is as important if not more so when you're asking for everything the plane has to give and 109s just have great thrust to weight numbers - and those numbers only get better as the war progresses. its this fact that will allow contemporary 109s to easily out angle fight P47s and P51s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, bogol said:

a heavy full of bombs plane such as the DB7 can do sustained loops without really shedding altitude

It can't do sustained loops without losing energy. Try it yourself.

54 minutes ago, bogol said:

And a tight loop, at the verge of black-out, is a pretty drastic maneuver. So, I cannot see how a DB can do 3-4 sustained loops  and reach approximately the same altitude each time.

It cannot. Your perception is at fault.

Go fly the DB7 offline and try to replicate a perpetual loop with bombs loaded. From typical bombing altitude (1,5 km-ish) you will be able to pull 3-4 maybe 5 loops at moderate G but in the end you'lll stall out and auger in without smash. Pull harder and you'll auger in faster.

Then go try the He-111 with the same routine. 

Share this post


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

What are you basing your perception on? The H75 isn't remarkably different than the P40 series and it was NEVER considered a good turn fighter. period. low wing loading in and of itself doesn't mean much when you're under G load. thrust to weight is as important if not more so when you're asking for everything the plane has to give and 109s just have great thrust to weight numbers - and those numbers only get better as the war progresses. its this fact that will allow contemporary 109s to easily out angle fight P47s and P51s.

What are YOU basing your assertions on? The H75 is considerably more nimble than the P40 and has always been the turningest kite around. My perception stems from 18 years of flying the durn thing in here - I could always outturn a 109E4 inside one lap - a few months ago I fought jarve and had to go at least three laps before I waxed him. Flat on the deck NOTHING beats the Hawk 75.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about perceptions formed in this game, i care about realistic simulation.

 

find me H75 turn performance and then tell me how that maps to the game. feeling that something 'should' do something isn't the same as having numbers to point to so we can at least have a conversation. you're essentially appealing to tradition, which is fine but isn't something anyone can have a productive conversation around. 

 

*edit* here - http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/Curtiss_Hawk_75-A_Detail_Specifications.pdf

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36_Operation_and_Flight_Instruction.pdf

 

heaven't read it all yet idk if any of those have turn performance. (couldn't find turn anything)

Edited by madrebel

Share this post


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

the 109 radiator setup has been shown to benefit from the meredith effect, the cooling setup isn't inherently worse than any other plane. its as good as or on par with the best. 

Lol really not worse?  Is that why the 2 cleanest planes of ww2 (yak 3 and p51) both did not use the wing radiator and both used the same type of radiator in the same place?

 

Benefiting from the Meredith effect isn't special either.  Just because it benefits doesn't mean it's an efficient design. 

 

If the wing radiator was actually as good as you are making it seek then there would be no way a yak 1 could catch a bf 109.  The yak is bigger and has a lower powered engine.

 

24 minutes ago, madrebel said:

 

find me H75 turn performance and then tell me how that maps to the game. feeling that something 'should' do something isn't the same as having numbers to point to so we can at least have a conversation. you're essentially appealing to tradition, which is fine but isn't something anyone can have a productive conversation around. 

Hawk 75 was stated to be close in maneuverability with the Ki 43.  It should turn circles around any 109.

https://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/6689-curtiss-p-36-hawk-75-performance/

Yes it's a forum page but this guy (Corsning) only posts official documents.

 

Also this quote 

"Despite the loss of two Mohawk I've, both JAAF and RAF pilots felt that the curtiss was almost as maneuverable as the Ki-43"

- Ki 43 'Oscar's Aces of World War 2

 

I might also have a TAIC report about a test between a P36 and the captured A6M2.  Either way I think what I posted was enough.  The Ki 43 danced around the spitfire and Hurricane over Burma.  If the Hawk was close to this than the 109 stands no chance in turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you love to talk about feelings and unverifiable accounts without ever presenting data fufu. when you can post data let me know.

 

do note, at no point have i said the p36 shouldn't out turn the 109. i'm asking what its performance was. thus far i'm the only one to provide any actual data to discuss. you can continue to ... idk wtf you're doing but you can continue to do it or you can help find actual data so we all have something to go on. if no actual data can be found, then we look at what we know and try to compare it to, perhaps a Ki43.

 

For such a terrible plane, the 109 sure seemed to compete just fine against those wonders of physics like the P-51. What were the top speeds again of the K4 vs the P51D/K? The horse power difference ... what was it again? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to dig through literature but iirc H75s had a VERY positive K/D versus the 109 in BOF. Although that isn't performance numbers per se, it does tell a story. You can NOT convince me that the 109 was better or equal in turning against the H75.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didn't say it was but until we know what the H75 should do, all we can do is argue about feelings which is fairly pointless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.