![]() |
#91
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
It is a fact the RAE had no stability and control measured standards outside of opinion and feelings. I have all the reports that Gates submitted during the war trying to get the RAE on a measurable standard. Every one of them reports the early mark Spitfires as unacceptable by a measureable standard. The NACA had measured standards which the Spitfire did not meet. The stability and control characteristics are documented, measured, and reproducable for a game. There is also no question the stability and control characteristics are just as important as the standard subsonic aerodynamic formulation for determing the relative dogfighting ability of these aircraft. The Pilots notes ALSO say: ![]() ![]() Opinion was strong enough to include multiple warnings describing longitudinal instability and what would become in the post war, unacceptable stability and control characteristics.
__________________
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Due to the leading edge slats the 109 flown to the edge could turn with a spit pilot who does not fully go to the edge himself as turn performances are close albeit in favour to the spit. I am not familiar enough with CloD in order to tell if and how well this is implemented. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Wing loading is a tool to compare similar wings design. It's not valuable when in particular the thickness of the wing differs. For example comparing Hellcat, FW190, Bf109 or Corsair wing loading is relevant as all those plane have near 15% thickness. For example try to compare the D520 wing loading (with full mil eq.) with that of the Bf109E and you'll find that the 109 turn as better what we know is actually not true (the D520 had an 18% thickness ratio) Sadly a lot here put this argument frwd just because it looks like tecky (especially on IL2 arguing that the 51 was a poor turner) Edit : Hve a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading Last edited by TomcatViP; 07-09-2012 at 07:15 PM. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
hi!
This argument is repeated but for me the tactical situation does not allow conclusions about historical performance of individual aircraft: Quote:
Cheers! |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Thanks Last edited by Glider; 07-09-2012 at 07:53 PM. Reason: typo |
#96
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
lol, this is one of crumpps 'facts', therefore don't expect to much backing it up in the near future.....
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Its the Many that I am interested in. I know of one who believed that the 109 was as good given pilots of equal skill. So its the rest I am interested in.
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
well guys maybe one day you should open a real book...those things can be highly informative from time to time
![]() for example it is said often that the hurri turned inside the spit and not the contrary. How strange is that, humm ? Secondly reading combat story from BOTH side will give you a hint of how fact were blurred and not bright clear as in your belief. Last edited by TomcatViP; 07-09-2012 at 08:04 PM. |
#99
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
what like the books i have which have pilots talking about 100 octane fuel......
blah balah balah |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
well more accurately said... the book with no "S".
this is quite a diff btw us. thank you for that |
![]() |
|
|