|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
07-01-2010, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I'll not be too critical of Gaston's post- we're striving to (within certain limits) recreate reality with our computer simulations. It's not unreasonable to expect that a good simulator would be capable of recreating reality. Put another way, if it worked in real life, it oughta work that way in game.
However, there are many factors working against the creation of a good simulator, not the least of which is a lack of usable data. This is further compounded by the effect of pilot ability on performance. Thus, while it is worthwhile and commendable to try and analyze all pertinent reports, and then compare them to the results in the simulator, we must remember that the FW190 WE fly exists as computer code in a program. We fly that airplane, and ingame pilots have found what tactics work well, with that 190. Gaston, if it makes you feel any better, I got outmaneuvered in my 109, in the horizontal by a P-47 the other day 
|
|
#2
07-01-2010, 06:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm pretty sure every pilot that flew these birds was way more qualified than some non-pilot simulator pilots some 60 years later. I know its confusing reading all the conflicting pilot reports (I would kill for a ride in one of the new Fw-190's from Flugwerk, as this seems to be the most mythical aircraft in terms of performance). All these variables depend on aircraft loadout, fuel, altitude (ex. density altitude at the time and season, field altitude of where the testing took place etc.) , possible damage from capture, fuel type etc., translation errors, unfamiliarity with the aircraft etc. Wayy too many factors. I can take one thing away from the quotes you stated: The Fw-190 (BMW) is a heavier low altitude fighter, and the 109 is a smaller lighter high-altitude fighter (which we all knew anyways). If Oleg took every pilot report of every plane the planes in IL2 would be a mess because its all qualitative information. Official flight tests, factory documents and talking with real pilots is the only way to get accurate information. I know your being facetious, but I would be careful about saying that these fellows were idiots
 . They were the real deal, and they get my respect.
Last edited by Tempest123; 07-01-2010 at 06:47 PM.
|
|
#3
07-02-2010, 08:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes pilots do make a difference: You only have to look at the disparities between front-line pilots accounts of the FW-190A, and test pilot accounts such as the two US Navy FW-190A tests, which, let's face it, only paint a picture that corresponds exactly to what anyone would have expected by looking at these heavy small-winged aircrats sitting on the ground...
The fact is that the intuitively "easy" picture of the FW-190A: A high-speed fighter that should compensate its lack of turning ability at low speed by high-speed dive and zoom maneuvers, is not only inaccurate, but is in fact the PERFECT opposite of what ALL front-line fighter pilots observed it to do in actual combat: -An actual FW-190A Western ace described his method of fighting P-51s on the forum of "Aces High" (thread appears to be long gone despite my appeals to those in charge of that site): Downthrottling to reduce speed well before the merge, popping the flaps and fighting exclusively by horizontal turns... NOTHING else... With reduced throttle he described out-turning a tailing P-51D in two horizontal right 360°s on the deck (from the slow merge starting speed since he had reduced his throttle)... A P-51D proved more competitive against the FW-190A by also reducing its throttle, though I think the FW-190A likely did not itself downthrottle in that instance, and thus lost the turn fight. The very fact that Karhila, in Me-109Gs, FW-190A pilots, and above all P-51D pilots (in at least a dozen detailed instances), ALL describe reducing the throttle, despite being from the start at low speed in sustained multiple 360° turns on the deck, and this in order to gain a huge and immediate advantage in sustained turn rate over prolonged periods, shows that even the most basic methods of fighting with these aircrafts are very poorly understood, probably because the available understanding is derived from jets which are propelled rather than tracted, not to mention their differences with prop/pistons in ability to sustain speed as power is reduced...: See this clearest of many examples of how downthrottling is the direct cause of winning the sustained low-speed dogfight on the deck, an example which has many other counterparts, for the P-51 mostly, but also other types as well (note how Johnny Johnson gets his ass kicked in a Spit V vs FW-190A horizontal turn fight by remaining at full throttle throughout): http://www.spitfireperformance.com/m...an-24may44.jpg Note how the pilot TWICE attributes his success in the prolonged on-the-deck turn fight to his action of downthrottling (it is prolonged because the German base fires AAA "every time" the circling got them close to it...)...: "He stopped cutting me off (from behind!)as I cut throttle" "I commenced turning inside of him as I decreased throttle settings" This is unambiguous, as is Karhila when he said, "most pilots increased throttle and then turned, I decreased throttle and found I could turn just as well" "Optimal sustained turn speed for the Me-109G was around 160 MPH(!)" The very fact that slow-speed turning was not an exception but the rule in most theathers of WWII (due I think to the weakness of a 2% gun striking rate, less pronounced perhaps with a centralized armament or a fragile Japanese target...) shows that typical WWII dogfighting and priorities are in fact very poorly understood, and heavily coloured by post-war jet experience... Furthermore, an exaustive 1989 test at METO power and 6 Gs (the only serious WWII fighter test in 60 years, made by the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots", with modern instruments), found the 6 G "Corner Speed" of a P-51D to be as high as 300 MPH IAS, or 64 MPH ABOVE the accepted "calculated" value 2.44 stall, or around 244 MPH IAS. This higher value means that, in theory, downthrottling is even less useful than anything previously assumed... Yet it was used to advantage in SUSTAINED turns... All this clearly indicates that predictive calculated methods are not only inaccurate, but the lack of knowledge about prolonged downthrottling in sustained horizontal turns, and of the actual WWII most-prevalent combat tactic (outside the peculiarities of the Pacific Theater): Horizontal turn-fighting, means our current assumed knowledge is in fact entirely fictitious... Even the two WWII doghouse charts of the Spitfire I and Me-109E have no late-war counterparts (because they were in fact useless): They were calculated from engine output variations with speed alone, most likely, and the 1989 P-51D/F6F/FG-1/P-47D test shows the "doghouse" shape itself is fictional for powerful prop-tracted WWII fighters: "Corner Speed for all were found to be very close to the maximum level speed" (At Meto this means 6 G for the P-51D at a minimum of 300 MPH IAS, and likely higher with more power in my opinion) Gaston Last edited by Gaston; 07-02-2010 at 08:55 AM. Reason: spelling
|
|
#5
07-02-2010, 09:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the people who flew these planes in real life, not in a test situation, are biased, even most of them couldn't know what the plane is really capable of, there's too many variables to take into account for them to know...
the factory specs are the closest things we have to an idea of what a plane could do, because the plane tested is perfectly built and tuned, and it being tested in a controlled environment, with tests specifically designed to push the plane to its limits. just a close idea... not the actual thing the plane can do, but the theoretical limits, assuming all the variables are right, it might be achievable, and that's a lot closer than what a few pilots here or there who were hopped up on adrenaline, fighting for their lives, without a geforce guage, and probly not paying too close attention to the speed of their plane could remember. as to how one plane should fight another... thats all situation dependant, you cant say throttling back is always nessisary to stay behind, but u can't say you'll stay behind your target if u don't... it depends on how fast your target is moving, how good of a pilot your target is, etc... just so many variables... Last edited by AKA_Tenn; 07-02-2010 at 09:57 AM.
|
|
#6
07-02-2010, 08:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Spiralling down for the pursued, in WWII, is also often a bad idea, since if he wins the turn contest like this, he will be far too low to raise his nose to fire above himself at the former pursuer... This is why WWII turning contests tend to be horizontal, and a pursued aircraft will spiral down only to compensate the fact that it can't compete in turns with the pursuer: This surrendering of the "high ground" by the pursued usually only delays the inevitable, unless he is lucky... None of this is of great importance to jets where only speed matters... It is very clear that "energy-management" tactics like high or low "yoyos" are very rare in WWII, quick short-term downthrottling being more common to avoid overunning... (This is clearly very different from what happens in the link below...) Second, it is clear that the P-51D in this case did not have excess speed: He was being gained on in the turn from behind!: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/m...an-24may44.jpg The purpose of downthrottling in this case is obviously to increase the sustained turn rate by reducing its turning radius... Or just reducing the turn radius... Unlike jets, props do not need more airspeed going into the intakes to generate more power at the rear: On prop/piston aircrafts, the slower they go the more power they have, and this acts as a "floor" that prevents stalling in sustained turns, but it tightens the radius a lot by relieving the traction power off the wings... The piston/prop "energy" is thus mostly dependent on the engine, and too much power on a powerful prop engine will pull you out of your tight sustained turn.... On a jet, the turn will be tighter with more speed until you reach the "Corner Speed". These WWII prop aircrafts tended to promote prolonged sustained level turn fighting, unless one side often had the height advantage (Me-109 Eastern Front), a centralised armament that could hit in a concentrated way over a great range of distances: A fast closure brings the target closer rapidly: Me-109 and P-38... Or a very flammable target, as the fast closure rate of Boom and Zoom allows only a brief hit: Japanese aircrafts... As the actual combat example I linked demonstrates (being on the deck over multiple 360°s, it elliminates all variables), Piston/prop traction power requires completely different thinking from what jets do: The combat knowledge in one area is utterly inapplicable to the other, which is something I am sure post-war theorists like Shaw failed to recognize... Gaston Last edited by Gaston; 07-02-2010 at 08:43 PM.
|
|
#7
07-02-2010, 11:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I won't enter the aircraft performace argument, but surely whether an aircraft is 'propelled' or 'tracted' is irrelevant. Newton's Third Law doesn't care whether the engine is located in front of, or aft of, the center of mass of the aircraft. I think. Unless you're referring to the difference propwash over the wings / fuselage makes.
|
|
#8
07-02-2010, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
FM whining -- posts that start 'objective' and 'mathematical' in the first 30% and finish in flaming and hatred in the last 70%. I have seen thousands of those in the last seven years. Thousands.
|
|
#9
07-02-2010, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sounds pretty anecdotal to me...
|
|
#10
07-02-2010, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
When confronted with an actual test made in 1989, by actual experimental test pilots (who were conditionned by jet experience to make dubious conclusions about the low-speed performance end, because they could not risk testing it on such valuable aircrafts), mathematics failed utterly to make an even ballpark prediction... (I mistakenly said the disparity was 64 MPH: It was 56 MPH: 300 MPH IAS was the actual P-51D "Corner Speed" vs the "math" of 2.44 X stall speed, which gives about 244 MPH IAS...) Maximum level speed of the P-51D at METO, at 10 000 ft. is about 315 MPH IAS... Thus 300 MPH IAS is "very close" to that... Math theory completely fails to account for power output from the propeller TRACTION to load up the wing's lift, and thus delay the "Corner Speed" 56 MPH higher at METO... The wing's lift is not significantly loaded up by PROPULSION thrust: I can link a crude graphic that explains why lifting a nose devoid of traction is obviously less taxing for the winglift than one loaded with traction... METO is equivalent in WWII to "Normal Power", or the maximum power without time limit. At WEP which is more often discussed for WWII fighters, It could very well be the "Corner Speed" would then be delayed up to 340-360 MPH IAS, or up to 120 MPH higher than math deductions say... Tractive power has leverage on the winglift, while winglift has leverage on propulsion... That this is ignored shows just how unstudied basic WWII fighter performance is by post-war math: This explains the importance of downthrottling to which post-war math theory is totally oblivious... Basically, more prop power means more wingloading in a turn... Hence a full power Spit is "heavier" on its wings than a downthrottled FW-190A: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/471...sononfw190.jpg Gaston
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
