I ran tests in the TA again and I got literally the identical turn time for the Ki-61-Ib sustained turn (17.87 seconds). The Spitfire IX LF under the same conditions got 14.86 seconds. I could have actually turned tighter and maintained altitude, but my test was the most stable I could get it. I conclude that the Ki-61 is still unchanged, and under these conditions a Spitfire IX would out turn it on the FH. The Spitfire IX should not be able to do that as I have solidly proven.
squirl this is in essence, Fh tennis they are playing. You are the ball and they are the rackets. and they do have quite a good racket......going on now don't they? Squirl you didn't expect different did you??
squirl, excuse me for my marasmus, but can you say where is that solid provement again? all i saw was discussion floating without any fixed statements and final conclusion. i don't yet understand wether hien should be improved or spitfire worsened. i demonstrated you with yak-9dd that 200-300kg on 3 ton fighter is a load influental enough to change turn time by 2-6 seconds.
beside flight models wont change untill next release. then favrite planes will be pigs and planes people hatted will be the new hot rod. and evryone will think its a consericy.
If they are putting the Beaufighter in the game, then I have a suggestion as well. The plane I have always wanted to fly on FH is the Ki-61-Ib. If sonar- needs only the above data to complete his Beaufighter, then I can provide all the necessary information for the Ki-61-Ib. I will go down the list: -Turn rate: 16 seconds with a radius of 765 feet (233 m), 331 km/h, bank angle 75 degrees. -Controllability/Stability: High aspect ratio wing gives good stability. Good, smooth elevator and rudder response, less than average roll rate. Armed with 4x12mm HO-103 MG. -Acceleration: Decent acceleration due to low drag airframe and low weight. Excellent acceleration in a dive (relative to light fighters) due to low drag wing. -Engine power on altitudes: Military 1030 HP at sea level, 1085 HP at 13,800 feet. 1100 HP WEP at 12,600 feet. 6' 30'' to 5000m with military power. -Composition: 199 US gallon maximum internal fuel with capacity for 100 more US gallons external. All fuel tanks are self-sealing, oil tanks are not self-sealing. I believe the 3-d model for the Ki-61-Ib is already in existence, so adding the Ki-61 to Warbirds should not be very difficult. I would appreciate -bw-'s cooperation on getting the Ki-61-Ib into Warbirds...
squirl: ? (1) please prove 360°/16s @ 75°bank 331km/h ? (2) does ki-61b has bad stability? ? (3) how "decent" is measured? which units? how your acceleration differs from game's one? what reports/calculations is your acceleration based upon? ? (4) TAIC? ? (5) DM effects too often fuel fires?
One of the rules of logic states that a system cannot be proved within itself. 1. Because you are asking for information, you must not have any yourself. 2. The change of the Ki-61 over time was therefore done without information. 3. If you are asking for information so that it may be used in a game that does not value real information, then your question is invalid. How can you stand by your modeling of the Ki-61 if you have no information? I have supplied information that no member of the development team has ever seen. You have clearly seen this: We resolved the following: -The turn time of the Ki-61-Ib should be 16 seconds at 206 mph with a radius of 765 feet. -The Ki-61-Ib should climb to 5000m in 6 minutes, 30 seconds with military power and 5 minutes, 30 seconds with WEP. You went as far to say that -bw- was going to make the change. Recently I have revived this topic because no change has been made. You have responded by saying that there existed no information in the first place. Also arising again is the subject of the paradox. One should not provide information unless he or she expects a change to take place. When one provides information he or she does not expect a change to take place. One does not have to look far to see how this has been demonstrated. Bearing the previous points in mind, I have a new suggestion. If we want the FH to discontinue inaccurate flight model changes, we should require that all changes to the FH must be cleared through -exec-.
Wrong. He is asking for your source of information. IMO they have modelled Ki-61 on their sources (I would assume). He is only asking you to remind him what were the sources you used to support the changes in characteristics.
Wrong again sorry. He doesnt always, and imo only does it when he feels necessary. His post was not an discussion about the merits of different sources, it was simply him asking for a reminder of exactly what was your argument (read: sources) for changing the characteristics.
Just to clarify. I think that sentence makes it pretty clear what exec was asking. No, his English isnt perfect. But personally I thought it was quite clear: 1. What characteristics were you wanting changed? Spit reduced or Ki increased. 2. What exactly was the sources you provided to support your request.
Clearly he knew I had information, he just didn't know where I had it... Nope, he wanted me to provide the information he thought I did not have. That is frequently what one does when encountered with a claim, ask for information that proves it.
I will address your #2 statement first. http://www.airwarfareforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2973 This is the forum which provided the greatest amount of information. It is also noteworthy that -exec- posted in this forum. For him to ask where I got my information when he had posted on that same thread is suspicious. The turn information came from http://j-aircraft.com/messageboards/mbmenu.htm , which is one of the websites -exec- recommended I look at for this sort of information: As per your #1 question, I provided what the turn of the Ki-61 should be, and what the turn of the Spitfire should be in Post 62 I have already resolved the arguments. I have already provided a mountain of information backing my statements. Enough of the red tape. Let's get this matter resolved!
Im not asking for the info, or disputing the info what you had provided. I was just pointing out that I felt you had misunderstood exec's post and what he was asking for.
well. in fact we have this: http://home.epix.net/~cap14/x7542.html also, we know that ? b1 has hercules11 instead of hercules6. ? http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/aircraftpage.php?ID=31 gives initial climb of 8.13m/s, instead of 11.76m/s of sixth. ? besides, url gives 515km/h@3048m instead of 526km/h. the method we are going to implement is to shift charts of b6 to meet known points of b1. we will check the output against calculations by hohun's method. you cannot make fm of b1 better way. our information is based on flight mathematics of ien. the same math that is used for all other planes. ien's math is checked with well reported planes, and the comparison demonstrated that the math is quite good, though not perftectly matchs irl performance. (those tests are all done without me, as i am not a fighter to "feel" performance mismatch and to be capricious about it). usually ac correction goes this way: fh-perf is verified with well known irl checkpoints, and ien math fills gaps between them. and this way is considered as sufficial, because we don't have a better one. this method was used for n1k1..2, ki-44 and all new fh planes. also this method was used for correction of some ien planes. well, considering ien's stallfight as not quite real, all planes were changed simultaneously, basing on low speed characteristics of some reports. i did not took part in it, again. probably developers found the idea, checked it on several irl-reported planes and applied the same idea for all planes. ok, let's be fair. take: entry speed = 206mph bank in turn = 90° speed loss is unknown. altitude loss is unknown (will you argue that without vertical lift plane will loose the altitude?!) please give us the best time for 360° in this maneuver of either rl spitfire ixc/61 or lf ixc/66. why we think that this is a forced maneuver? because 311km/h of sustained turn is almost speed of yak-3/16 (1944) in sustained turn. we don't believe that in 1942 japanese or any other nation can make a fighter with 313km/h in sustained turn. you can disprove us, if you find extact report on sustained turn with 313km/h dated by 1942. btw, what is sustained turn speed of spitfire ixc/61 and lf ixc/66? again, this formula is too primituve, because with 89° bank it will give 1 second for turn, and with 90° it must give 0 seconds (but actually it will fail to calculate tangent of 90°). i'd be very careful with this formula. unfair. Ki-61-I is measured in instant turn (reference from j-aircraft) Spitfire I is measured in sustained turn (data of 4fg site) negative. at least "i" am not amongst the people you named "we". having 16s with forced turn at 90° banked you are trying to make us (me, bw, and presslufthammer) think that sustained turn with 75° bank will take 16s too. you can disprove it with demostrating sustained turn with 90°bank either real or fh. make full 10 circles with constant speed and altitude with 90° bank in warbirds, please. and if you will manage this ever, measure the best time possible for this. send us tracks. we'd love to witness it, despite of "wrong fh time that is mismatching 16s". that is the thing i did not objected. either francillon or taic numbers, both are acceptable for me. i thought that climb question was solved in the direction of best numbers from two those sources can you look at nicae's faq? you can read the entire faq to read other interesting answers already given. fh developers are more competent in questions of performance and flight model than me. i know that someone from j-aircraft.com given 16s, stating that it is quoted from manual. manual was not demonstrated. you converted 16s of that 90° of energy loss maneuver into 16s of energy stable maneuvre. this is what exactly what i cannot understand. moreover, you don't trying to prove that 90°eloss-turn is 75°sust-turn. so i cannot relate 16s to sustained turn. i think that you have information not worth for proving 16s/360° of sustained turn. on the other hand i don't state that you don't have information on energy loosing 90°bank turn. yes. TAIC report gave top speed and climb rate. i answered about climb rate above. and i'm trying to make you find sustained turn time of RL ki-61-ib instead of time of 90°maneuver.
