109 F4 G2 vs Spitfire mk IX some maths.

Discussion in 'Warbirds International' started by -kopi-, Apr 24, 2006.

  1. -kopi-

    -kopi- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    370
    15:12:00 TC= 159094; X=-14304.57; Y=72672.55; A=1014.07; TAS=260.93; IAS=247.98; Accel= 0.03; AOA=4.70; Kr=74.30; Az=147.00; CS=1.22; RS=7.60; OG= 2.86
    15:12:17 TC= 176094; X=-14313.41; Y=72666.76; A=1000.66; TAS=271.57; IAS=258.26; Accel= 0.06; AOA=5.30; Kr=73.70; Az=150.60; CS=-0.30; RS=-2.00; OG= 3.05 turn time 17s

    15:12:20 TC= 179094; X=-14358.52; Y=72455.53; A=998.22; TAS=273.48; IAS=260.11; Accel=-0.15; AOA=5.00; Kr=72.80; Az=215.20; CS=-0.61; RS=-0.30; OG= 3.07
    15:12:36,5 TC= 195594; X=-14357.60; Y=72469.55; A=1007.97; TAS=269.95; IAS=256.63; Accel= 0.02; AOA=6.10; Kr=71.40; Az=211.60; CS=0.30; RS=0.00; OG= 3.00 turn time 16,5s

    15:12:40 TC= 199094; X=-14159.18; Y=72327.21; A=1011.63; TAS=267.87; IAS=254.60; Accel=-0.34; AOA=7.60; Kr=69.80; Az=287.20; CS=2.13; RS=-2.30; OG= 3.00
    15:12:57 TC= 216094; X=-14143.03; Y=72325.38; A=1012.24; TAS=269.82; IAS=256.45; Accel=-0.30; AOA=5.90; Kr=70.00; Az=291.00; CS=0.00; RS=-1.90; OG= 3.03 turn time 17s

    FIX THE GOD DAMN SPIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2007
  2. BarT

    BarT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    634
    no, but theyr sitting position was closer to lie than sit and that allowed them to withstand higher G's
     
  3. bizerk

    bizerk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2001
    Messages:
    2,394
    Also states the 109 couldn't shake the spit or the hurricane for that matter.
     
  4. RolandGarros

    RolandGarros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,867
    that agrees with what Jeffrey Quill wrote about emil & the way emil is in FH.
    seems hurri1 is a bit junkier than maybe it should be.
    long time ago i decided i was going to kill with every plane in FH in onew TOD.
    hurri1 is the only one i didn't get.
    anyone else think it is the worst FH plane?
     
  5. -frog-

    -frog- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,303
    I flew Hurri I on numerous occasions, because of it's sentimental value (at least for the Polish pilots) and scored a lot of kills in it.
    Helrza (when he was flying for the Texas Rattlesnakes) was also scoring a lot of kills on Hurri I prior to introduction of Hurri II.
    It's not a bad plane at all... it's a plane badly flown by most... and poorly gunned, too.

    Most of the kills I've scored using the Huri I was on Ju88's and Zekes who wanted to engage in DF... that is rather a point in discussion wheather or not the Zeke is still undermodelled here, rather than about Hurricane Mk.I.

    But back to the topic-
    how about those posted by kopi bw?

    FIX THE DAMN SPIT!
     
  6. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    sorry for late reading.

    that's weight of Friedrich-3.
    weight of Friedrich-4 is 2812.

    imho this is a principal error in calculations: you suppose 80° bank. why? why you did not suppose 65° bank? or 89°?
    actually the main question for this method is the bank angle of sustained turn.
    because having 89° input will give another numbers, irreal for all F-4, G-2, IX and all other stuff, including B-24, Concorde, Su-27 and Foo Fighter.

    this formula, tying bank, radius and velocity can be applied in counter direction: when you have velocity and radius, you can find out bank. but not the way you use it for extracting radius from bank-velocity.

    conclusion: calculations are based on wrong principle.

    sorry. nice try, though. i'm appreciated that you are indifferent to the our beloved game. really.
     
  7. -al---

    -al--- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,848
    Location:
    Poznań
    the great thing about equations is they work both ways
     
  8. -kopi-

    -kopi- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    370
    Sure bank angle may be wrong. But sin 65 degrees is 0.9 80 degrrees is 0,98 its not that big difrence anyway.

    This formula is far from perfect. Ill try to make it more precice. Still Spit mk9c is off so FIX THE GOD DAMN SPIT!!!!!!!!!!
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2006
  9. Saddan

    Saddan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    Messages:
    348
    Location:
    Olinda, Pernambuco, Brazil
    Give up.

    Developers and Admins fly red.

    End.
     
  10. bizerk

    bizerk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2001
    Messages:
    2,394
    Me thinks not! in fact this 1.65 version seems to be pretty decent and is a great improvement over 1.63/1.64/1.65 by far. Kopi's calculations come up as a second better turning time for the spit IX and you can cut a second off with improper bank etc. Again i must bring to mind while this sim isn't perfect a nano seconds + or - on the spit9's turning circle is a small problem compared to Sprinkler A6M's Okay the no self sealing fuel tanks have been addressed because they do leak and look like crop dusters but they continue to manuever much to well with megamultiple hits. but still since I know how the A6M takes battle damage better then say the IL-2 I never try to mix it up for to long with the zeke/zero. and saddans statement above of devs and admins being red biased well you could say the same in view of the A6M situation let alone other things. but again this aint a perfect world nor is FH.
     
  11. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    neg.
    input 90° to have fun with this equation, if you really think it could be implemented like kopi done in the first post.
     
  12. Saddan

    Saddan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    Messages:
    348
    Location:
    Olinda, Pernambuco, Brazil
    Bizerk, enter the arena now and look the ammount of red planes X the ammount of gold planes. The bias starts just there.

    I saw I6 turning with a zero, and keep speed to dive and flee, WTF, both had comparable engines and zeke was way lighter and had less wing loading, how can ?

    P39 was a iron dog, but in the arena its a uber plane, p-40 turns with zeke if in a small dive, but in real life p-40 pilots where dammed if tried to engage zeros on a turning fight.

    Beufighter is so small you cant see where to shoot. I-5 is impossible to hit too. And now ki-43 has a snap roll if too much bank + G is applied, but snap rolls are not described about factual history of ki-43. N1k1 autopilot keeps swinging up and down as if the autopilot is drunk. Me-262 is instable on the roll and rolls too fast, impossible for a two engined high wingloading low/midwinger with constante or small variation in wing chord...

    (stall induced snap rolls is generally attributed to aircrafts with variable chord wings, as in then the part of the wings with more pronunced chord angles stall before the part of the wing with less chord angles.)

    Summary :
    Me-262 needs wayyy more roll inertia and less bank inertia...
    N1K1 needs less wing loading and better power loading, theres something totally wrong with this bird for it be so instable on autopilot...
    Zero, Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-27 DONT SNAP ROLL UNDER UNTIL WAY INTO STALL SPEEDS And with a lot of G pulled.

    On the other side, I-5 was a dog, manouverable yes, but it had a tendency to snap roll and spin (They developed carefully timed procedures to try to recover this bird from a spin, because his spin was nasty).

    LaGG is a joke, real life LaGGs where bricks with wings.

    P-39 should nose up suddenly when near stall speeds.

    We can test all this data with FSBSIM, just needs carefull descriptions of the aircraft and some batch tests. Its possible even to include the pilot weight and position in the aircraft description, its a very detailed tool.
     
  13. bizerk

    bizerk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2001
    Messages:
    2,394
    I do enter the arena, and many times golds out number the reds. The thing is many fly both sides. Even some old elite pilots now fly gold and we were exclusively red fliers. We were the only totally red only squad so now many go gold too. What more do you want?

    on the I-16 the Rata was very manueverable too and even though the A6m2 is more manueverable Early SpitIA's have the same wing loading as A6m5a's (no armour protection and no self sealing fuel tanks) not until the A6M5b's came around were some armour added which meant even heavier. from many sources i have read the I-16 on up to type 24 were lighter than the A6M2's and all A6M's on up. I-153 were all very nimble bi-planes but slow so dive or run away when in a zero or anything else.

    The P-40 was faster then the zeke, but when fast it could roll well and the P-40's that are in the arena handle about right. the P-40B or E do not turn with a zeke. and if they do for more than 1 turn the zeke eats them up. the only saving grace for the P-40's than is to dive away (still difficult with a zeke) and pull away which is correct because it is faster. The P-40 could turn some but as with any other allied aircraft it was not a good thing to do. The Intial turn wasn't bad for the P-40 but sustained would get you killed easily.

    The P-39 American version is a dog! but this I can't really say anything about Because I never fly the P-39. But I do know the Russian versions had much better engines than the under powered Yank versions. Which made it a better plane over all. Agility wasn't as bad as you would think, but its lack of a good power plant didn't help it in early models in over all speed and climb and it was mainly a low to mid alt plane. the 37 mm gun made it well suited for mud moving and tank busting. Look up some history on it.

    I don'y fly the beufighter, so again I can't say how it flies but badmad does well in it. certain planes i just really havn't cared to try yet. Maybe soon. I have flown zekes though. and especially early on i have done great with it and i do turn inside most i fight includding I-16's P-40's the I-153 is difficult so i treat it as if i am in an allied plane against a zeke. The Ki-27 fairs better against the I-153. give it a try. Ki-43 is awesome in turn fighting as well just a tad under gunned but still very effective and again takes a bit to much damage, but in knowing this I try not to tangle in a turn fight for to long with it but keep speed up and move on for another pass with speed/E.

    If you are experiencing some problems bring it up to bw or exec in the game bugs section to have it fixed when ever they can get around to it. <S>

    bullet
     
  14. RolandGarros

    RolandGarros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,867
    ahh its hopelesss, every couple weeks another aerodynamics retard comes in here saying how his favorite plane should be changed because he sucks (commonly refered to as moideling is wrong). spouts a bunch of thoeries by an idiot to back it up. its my instinct to correct the mistakes, but i dont give it away for free.
    lol, cant even score in a 262.
     
  15. -al---

    -al--- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,848
    Location:
    Poznań
    yeah and input 999999999999 and you can have even more fun
    the thing is about imputing a probable value, the same for both planes
    then the results of the equation can be compared

    you can fuck up every equation if you input wrong data
     
  16. Saddan

    Saddan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    Messages:
    348
    Location:
    Olinda, Pernambuco, Brazil
    [We can test all this data with FSBSIM, just needs carefull descriptions of the aircraft and some batch tests. Its possible even to include the pilot weight and position in the aircraft description, its a very detailed tool.]

    I challenge anyone here to back actual FH models with FSBSIM results...
     
  17. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    the thing is that the proper formula can be fucked up just by the fact of absence of input rules.
    -kopi- did not explained input specs. so there is no rules for this formula which input is probable and which is not.

    therefore -kopi- has a wrong postulate that both planes will have sustained turn at selected bank of 80° and at selected velocity of 270km/h.

    if -kopi- tries to compare some turns at 45° or at 60°, it's ok. we all feel that such turns are possible. but he cannot prove that these are sustained turns.
     
  18. RolandGarros

    RolandGarros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,867
    these planes all have dihedral, so do the numbers different for each wing & tail surface
     
  19. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    scientese
     
  20. -kopi-

    -kopi- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    370
    Exec is right. Im changing speeds of turn to get some realistic time and turn radius. So its not since its fun with math. To make things better i would need stall speed. With it i could caculate CLmax.
    Pz=Q=0,5*Clmax*Ro*S*V^2 so Clmax=Q/(0,5*Ro*S*V^2) Q=m*g
    Best turn speed would be nice also.

    But exec can you finnaly agree that spit is fucked up?

    FIX THE GOD DAMN SPIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!