WARNING: long post! ok here's what i did: rearranged the lift equation to say this: Cl = (9.81*G*m)/(.5*ro*A*v^2) 9.81 = acceleration due to gravity for anal folks (extra .01) G=number of g's m=aircraft mass in kg ro = air density (i used 1.2 kg/cubic meter) A = wing area in square meters v = true airspeed in meters/second no big surprises here ok, so then i figured, "hey, you can type .startlog xxx to log your flight data in a text file as you fly to keep track of true airspeed and g forces" then i figured, "hey, you can import that data into excel and use the splitting feature to place it in columns" and then i figured, "what would happen if you did power-off ditches after maximum-lift, minimum-speed glides... and logged it... and put it into excel... and plotted lift coefficient effortlessly twice a second?" i did just that for now, i've done tests on the a6m3 and la7, 20% fuel and no bombs for the calculations i used these weights: la7: 2638 kg (empty weight from wiki) a6m3: 1807 kg (empty weight from francillon) note here: the actual Cl values for both aircraft would be higher, because of the 20% fuel limitation and these wing areas: la7: 17.5 m^2 (from wiki) a6m: 21.53 m^2 (from francillon) and here's what i've found (vert. axis is Cl and hor. axis is timestamps): LA7 max=1.39 A6M3 max=1.04 you can see the gradual progression of Cl (and angle of attack) as the aircraft slows and needs to pitch more to stay airborne there's room for interpretation for the weights used, but this is a powerful tool these numbers are very suggestive, showing a lift coefficient deficiency with the a6m and an erroneously high one for the la7 what fuel loadings do you suggest i use to simulate known weights for these aircraft? 50 or 100% fuel to simulate the "loaded weight" in each case? i've attached my excel spreadsheets, just change it to .xls and open it with open office or google docs if you dont have MS office
just for fun i did the same thing with the visloa dogfight i posted, assuming a weight of 2733 kg and a density of 1 kg/m^3, wing area = 21.3 square meters
Yes fas---, I know that. At high alts, 4Km+, Bf-109K4 rules against LAs and Yaks (note that above that alt LA's WEP doesn't work anymore). But when u fight against them (especially LA) at low alts, 2km-, it's simply dead. Zeke turn radius even without flaps should be less than LA's radius. Thank u fas---, I know it was true! And thank you gandhi for all that research!
tested spitfire lf ix and applied weights given here (3162 kg for 20% fuel load) used 21.5 m^2 for wing area (clipped tips) 20% fuel: clmax = 1.46 100% fuel: clmax = 1.48 both of these are much higher than the cl value of 1.18 published by presslufthammer here (i assume his value is for the clmax, as he talks about calculating it, and one of the few ways to do that from real life data is to know the stall speed, altitude and weight, which yields clmax) remember, all these tests so far have been done power-off, landing gear up, with no flap use or external stores (bombs, etc) i've run the tests by taking off at f13 in the TA and keeping the engine on only to get airborne and turn around for a low speed ditch on the field at the slowest speed possible (using the rudder to keep the nose high and level until reaching the absolute lowest stall speed) power-on and/or flaps will only increase these values, so those who fly the spit in the MA are even better off than shown here so in layman's terms this means that in-game the spit's wing is much more efficient at producing lift than even the developers calculated it to be
for redant: you can see the initial stall and the short recovery before the death plunge p38L clmax = 1.38 100% fuel, WA=30.43 m^2, mass=7940 kg
did another test for the a6m3 at 100% fuel (2544 kg used as mass): clmax=1.28 higher than before, but then again it was a minimum value, since empty weight was used for a 20% fuel flight and it's still less than the la7 and spitfire: 2 airfoils it should be superior to weight is the most important factor in the calculation admins: there are many values out there for the a6m's weight, so what fuel level should i use and what weight would it represent?
for joseh: here's a track showing the test that i did with the mc202 i typed .startlog mc202 at the start of the final glide onto the runway, warbirds saved it to my fhlauncher folder and i changed it to a .txt file so i could read it and here's the excel spreadsheet of the results to get the data from your log you paste it into the spreadsheet and use the text to columns feature in the data menu in excel then use the formula on the right-most column to calculate the lift coefficient, using known weights and wing areas for now, the results (using the specs on this page, used "typical" loaded weight) clmax=1.32
I must disagree with u Gandhi, although i wanted to see what others find in zeke vs La battles. You r one of the greatest zero pilots on fh , but ur totally wrong person to post tracks, and u did post totally wrong IMHO. First ur not aggressive pilot, and u never used zero for turning as far as i have seen by now. You prefer some weird Climb-wait for stall- kill type of fighting in zero, and u have been doing it for a few years already. If u wanted to prove something about dynamics of La , would be better to post horizontal sustained turn fight or vertical sustained, than this . In this track one can be confused because this was more barrel roll type of fight , which as u know uses more of roll than anything else. So, in theory , if La had better roll, and i guess it had, u would have had hard times to kill it anyway. What i have seen in arena in duels f4fvs zero, some very good pilots in f4f could actually win zero if they used barrel rolling. Does that mean f4f has better thrust/weight ratio? Better dynamics than zero? Better climb? I dont think so. Your problem in this track and in overall thinking is that u will simply always try to fight in climb, or climbing before fight, trusting that ur zero can somehow outclimb everything , even those nasty zoom climbers. Actually, if u fly ki84, ull see how easy u can outturn and win la7 in very short time. And if u fly zero as TNB, u ll see how easy u will outturn ki84. Thus la7 as well. Note im not talking about la5, im talking about la7. And pls note im not denying la's capabalities, only saying track is wrong.
@Fas I agree , russian planes should be good in dogfight below 3km. Ok, i see u understood point. Tnx. For Gameplay we need 2 big maps plus 2 small , it is not ok to have all maps good only for low fight. Small maps not good for golds who must climb buffs and fighters higher alt. Plus if u want quality gameplay, many ppl want more realistic flights, so they want big maps.
We (i'm and Uncle) yesterday testing on TA new FM for La-5FN. La-5FN vs 1. 109G10 2. 190A-4/6/8 (all lite) 3. A6M5b 4. Yak-3 5. Ki84 (lite) La-5FN vs Germans - up to 2.6 km alt - La better vertical manevoures and turn, but 109g10 can just a run to high alt if have some distance (D5) 190 - not problem for La-5FN, only A8 can try run from La in dive, if have some alt. Zero - slowly (not surprise), but have better turn, and more expression in vertical manevour. La can run, turn and attack in HO, or make strong fight on vertical, use hight speed, but this very dangerous game... Yak-3... have better manevour at low speed, but at 400-450 km/h - La (IMHO) better. In stall-fight Yak better, of course. Ki84 vs La5-FN, IMHO - at low alt, both planes equal, may be Ki some better, all chances in pilot hands This La-5FN model is a great vertical-manevour fighter, but need more qualification for pilot. Turn rate (sustained turn) - 19-20 sec at 310-320 km/h speed (TAS) . Some more if compare tables data (18.5-19). If i must fly as gold on Germans planes - best decision - run away from La to alt 3 km or more Do not any long "dance", only hit-n-run tactic. Japanese can try make close combat, but La-5 can easy run-away if have some alt. But on short distanse (d3, d4) - zero can shot down la from six, before la take his speed. It's my personal opinion, but Uncle may be not confirm this results
for those who are confused about all this CL stuff, i'll explain it this way (and i'm trying to not be patronizing): the lift coefficient is a number that measures how well a wing makes the most out of its size, and the airflow around it (in short, how efficient an airfoil it is), the higher the number, the more efficient it is, though this doesnt necessarily translate into fuel efficiency if engineers were asked to upgrade a wing so it could lift more weight, it would be very easy to say: "make the wing bigger and fly faster," but in real life it is preferable to achieve the objective with a smaller wing, flying at the ideal speed (not always the fastest) it's also true that, generally speaking, wings with high lift coefficients create more drag (you can't get something for nothing) and conversely wings designed for high-speed generally have lower lift coefficients so what does all this mean? in a simple FH comparison from data i've gathered the spitfire ix's maximum lift coefficient is 1.46-1.48, while the a6m3 is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.28, remember the higher the lift coefficient the lift-ier it is the spitfire's wing was a good design, but it was primarily designed for speed, and the washout feature meant that while you could fly the wing root past the stalling point (and consequently have a good stall warning), the outer portions would generate less than their maximum lift the zero's wing, on the other hand, was designed primarily for lift (more lift, better turning). japanese pilots were comfortable sacrificing speed for agility my test results yield strong evidence that it's the other way around on FH - that not only is the spitfire's wing better suited for high speeds, it's more efficient at generating lift as well. it's even higher than the value the FH team says it should be: 1.18. i hope you take the comparison to heart, even if the numbers themselves mean nothing to you and @ demian: stall fighting and turn fighting have one thing in common: getting the maximum lift possible with your wings if you look at the chart i uploaded of the fight (with our friend the lift coefficient) you can see that it stayed around 1.4 for most of the fight (with the stall horn blaring accordingly), by comparison it was about .1 (one fourteenth the value) at the end of the fight when i chased visloa in a dive you must realize that planes need to turn even in stall fights, and a plane that would otherwise have more power and climb rate than the zero will simply fall out of the sky if it tries to follow a zero through climbing turns at low speeds the difference these days is that the gap between the zero and other fighters is the smallest ever in this department, even with the zero sometimes at a disadvantage this is what allows many to get lucky shots on the zero that they wouldnt have otherwise gotten and to go back to the tree falliing in the forest/nobody around riddle, consider this: if the a6m were a flying tank, but it were much more difficult to get into a firing solution, would there be as many complaints?
@fas, what do you make of my tests? and i know y'all are probably tired of seeing the familiar "zeke vs spit" engineering posts, so i'm open to discussing other things some folks in the MA today asked for a ki84 test
Great job on the research. Cabron rule #3....you should be able to sink an entire fleet with one B24 sortie.......and land it.
La5fn Loses E at maneuver faster. Time of turn has increased (a little). But has too good climb rate and speed for use against him hit-n-run tactic. Chances to drag La above than have 3 km only k4\g10... but they appear later. From all Japanese planes LA (except ki84) can escape and begin new attack. The done work has worsened characteristics, but not enough for balance occurrence in game. Probably, it is necessary to complicate control of plane... Somehow to depart from concept uber
cool thing with the logging: it records your x,y and z coordinates in addition to the angle your nose makes with the horizon you can therefore compute the angle of attack using pythagorean and tangent (as long as your wings are close to level, which they've been in my tests) and plot lift coefficient vs angle of attack like it's done here the plots should intercept the y-axis somewhere above the origin, but my logging was started when the aircraft was already slowing to its stall speed A6M3 clmax=1.28 Spit9 LF clmax=1.48 LA7 clmax=1.39 Ki84 clmax=1.29 these make sense to me: the a6m seems to lack the lift it needs, but its stall is "mushy," allowing you to continue to point the nose high at low speeds and the la7's stall is sudden, which means that while it is a great turn fighter it's not quite as good at knife-fight stall tactics. fortunately it's very good at retaining speed even while climbing, so it's not as much of an issue the spitfire and ki84 also have "mushy" stalls, allowing pilots to push the envelope in those aircraft. the spit has the advantage of having a higher lift coefficient as well
I promiced to Fas that ill write what i think about new la5fn after testing. Problem is , i didnt fly it at all, i dont have access to it, so i have no conclusion. What i think is somehow very close to Unlce's oppinion, whoever didnt like la5 before, wont like it in the future. I fought Fas in 109 g2, 109 g6, ki61, zero a6m5. Note: I didnt use bnz tactics, i tried pure dogfight. In ki61 , zero, i could outmaneuver la5fn easily. In 109 g6,g2, i could win mb once. On muscles. That was so hard for me , that i think i dont have any chance vs la5fn in 109. I can not say 109 has no chances, later models mb could run and bnz la5fn, mb could use attack from above 3km, but low on the deck in 109 g2, i almost had no chance. Only once i could follow it through turns, horizontal turns, with 2-3 notches of flaps, but that was very hard, and if i pulled flaps back only 1 notch i would lose. Earlier i wrote how i could stay in turn with zero in la5fn, well, Fas couldnt do it today, or mb he didnt want it, i dont know. I didnt fly lavockin, so i cant say what it was. Fas says hes working on lavockin, he says he added some seconds on its turn, but from my point of view, except from japanese planes, that la looked exactly the same . I can not judge, i do not consider myself competent enough to claim something can not be done, i have no conlusion since i didnt fly it. The worst part of it , i couldnt kill Fas in 109 g2 dogfight vs yak3, what i thought i will , to tell the truth conex is not good, shvak is too dangerous, mb i could win that yak , dunno, but i didnt. Anyway Fas says yak3 is old yak3, and that its better than g2 in dogfight, and i could kill fas if i flew yak3 vs la5fn, but in g2 vs yak3 i couldnt kill . And i remember that i was able sometime ago to kill yak3 even from g14 hvy with 30mm. So i promiced to Fas ill write what i think, but i said i have no oppinion until i try myself la5fn. Then ill know. Anyhow, i dont like it, i feel somehow sick in my stomach, and i have to agree with Uncle . Uncle nailed it imho. After this 1 hour test, i dont feel good at all, i dont like where this game is going. I dont like russian planes like these, i dont like idea of playing for gold on these small maps. I dont like to even think on next fh version. Why? Because i worked so hard to achive something as pilot last 3 years, and i feel today like beaten up, like everytime in new fh ill be burning dwn for flying wrong planes. And i can already see , every dweeb flying la5fn, yak3, and me trying to survive in g14. I dont like ki84, i dont like la5, la7, yak3, but if this continues, ill be just target in arena. Truth is with new changes or without, japanese and russian planes will be dominating below 3km, and on these maps every fight is below 3km. If u want any field to cap, ull be below 3km, and ull be target . I dont like easy settings, and this game has become very easy if u fly it in certain manner. Dweebs every day fly in easy planes, and there have never been so many easy planes like today imho. I prefered, oh , i loved la5 in 1.66, that was very hard plane to fly, had some nasty spin, and i just loved that lavockin. Today that is not hard plane, not even lagg is, and i must say i hate it. I blame admins for these changes, and im getting tired of pointing out what is wrong. Mb u all forgot what was hurri 12x7mm in 1.67 version, mb u all forgot how many times we wrote just to remove that fuckin plane. Now we have those las, yaks and im getting tired. Looks like we all learned different history, and even if we do read same things, we understand it differently. I leave for every one of u to judge about these planes by urselves, to judge about history and historic game by urselves. I'm slowly but surely getting tired of explaining, getting tired of all those group attacks on me , like those polish kids do, im getting tired of dweebs in arena and insults. I wanted and liked in this game different things, i liked to learn something, to make some effort in combat, bombing, cap or whatever. I wanted challenge , and there is no such imho , anymore. I dont want to be lonely p47 that will get banged by ki84 dweebs , i dotn want to be 109 that will get banged by noobish las. I dont want maps where i will climb 7km and stay there , not defending buffs, not defending cvs, just because there low will be bunch of idiots in super ultra easy planes. I dont want not to have choice, and to be forced to fly japanese planes just to fight russians. I leave that to noobs and for those 1 minute sortie furballers. I did learn something in this game, and i can perform very good in most roles, but i cant even help new players, because everything i learned has changed, and everything i knew i dont know anymore. I tnx to all who had nervs to read this biiiig post, and i ask dont be angry, i feel its my last here. I decided while i was writing to leave this forum to some new ppl, and to all those airfaxes,polish scum, seaungsheans or wehatever i cant even write his name, and to all other cancers ... Without support i cant fight anymore these dicks, i was here to try to improve our game, game that these idiots dont even play. And i know many ppl will know to recognize my effort. As for arena, i think ill stay for a little longer, but i know, this game is not game i liked, this game is changing into something i dont even want to see. I did what i felt i had to do, what i had to say, and now ill be free again. From all this scum, from all noobs that never bothered to make something, from all idiots, from propaganda and new history, from russian admins and their fucked up planes,from insults..... U can have ur forum, u can have ur easy game..
Russian planes are mb rly made good, as fas said, but then we need at least one map, where will be normal operation alt about 5-7 km. Just for P47, P38, Mig, 109...
