I don't know if many of you already have such a resource, but this website has the designation of almost every airfoil ever constructed, sorted by aircraft. Some comparisons for thickness of airfoils (sorted by thickness): Typhoon: 19% chord MC-202/205: 18% chord Ki-61: 16% chord LA-5/7: 16% chord P-38: 16% chord F6F: 15.6% chord P-51: 15.5% chord Fw-190: 15.3% chord A6M2: 15% chord F4F-3: 15% chord P-39: 15% chord P-40: 15% chord Me-109 (all): 14.2% chord Tempest: 14% chord Yak-3: 14% chord Spitfire (all versions): 13% chord There are many factors which affect roll rate, but the Typhoon's position on this chart below is largely due to its thick airfoil. Thicker airfoils compress easier. By contrast the Spitfire, with its thin airfoil, has excellent high speed aileron control. Some other good questions are these: Why is the Spitfire, with its inferior planform, able to win dogfights so easily? People often quote studies which show that elliptical wings are the most efficient when it comes to induced drag. There is, however, this effect as described on this site: "The other problem with elliptical wings is the stall characteristics. It is much safer to design an airplane so that the wing stalls first at the root, leaving the outer portion of the wing, (where the ailerons are) still flying. An elliptical wing however, will tend to stall uniformly all along the span (see the diagram below.) The "fix" for this situation is washout, but that will reduce the theoretical gains in induced drag. Therefore, we are unlikely to see a great resurgence in the use of elliptical wings, except in situations where appearance dictates." The Spitfire's thin wing should also contribute to sudden stalls. I would think that if one wishes to design an airplane with turning ability in mind, he should use a tapered wing of high aspect ratio (like the P-38 and Ki-61 wings). This would reduce induced drag like elliptical planforms do, but would have the benefit of superior stall characteristics. Why is the Spitfire, with its inferior wing thickness, able to win dogfights so easily? The thicker the wing is the greater the difference between the fluid speeds on the top and bottom of the wing. A greater difference in fluid speeds results in a greater pressure difference, creating more lift. Small changes in thickness result in large increases in lift, due to the exponential nature of the airspeed-lift relation. Even though the Spitfire has a wing loading which is lower than those of most planes listed, it does have a disadvantage in its thin wing. So the Spitfire's wing is ideal for high-speed combat, but not for low-speed combat. I do not know if the Spitfire's high-speed capabilities are undermodeled, but I do know that Spitfire pilots are correct in their belief that the Spitfire's ailerons should handle well at high speeds. The design traits which give the Spitfire good speed and control at those speeds have the disadvantage of reducing low-speed control and performance, however. Airplane designers compromise with speed and maneuverability. Even though an airplane can implement technology to redress some compromises, no airplane is truly fast and maneuverable. According to my research, the Spitfire is closer to the "fast" end of the scale, not the "maneuverable" end.
the spit win by pull ,not only roll. the stall progression is not the stall speed fonction of airfoil and weigh: where is the problem? the graphique at top was good for def manouvers, no for attack imo.
I simply do not understand why the Spitfire IX should turn as well as it does in FH dogfights. These comparisons show how well the Spitfire IXc performs in dogfights: A6M3 360 Time - 16.63 seconds at 255 kmh Ki-61-Ib 360 Time - 18.16 seconds at 285 kmh Spitfire IXc 360 Time - 16.49 seconds at 280 kmh A6M3 Turn Radius - 187.48 meters Ki-61-Ib Turn Radius - 228.81 meters Spitfire IXc Turn Radius - 204.13 meters A6M3 Turn Rate - 21.65 degrees/second Ki-61-Ib Turn Rate - 19.82 degrees/second Spitfire IXc Turn Rate - 21.83 degrees/second The information above comes from these tracks which use -exec-'s recommended test methods: A6M3 Sustained Turn 16.63 Seconds Ki-61 Sustained Turn 18.16 Seconds Spitfire IXc 360 Sustained Turn 16.49 Seconds I have the log files for these tracks too. What I find confusing is the Spitfire IXc's superior turn performance over the Ki-61-Ib: Spitfire IXc 360 Time - 16.49 seconds at 280 kmh Ki-61-Ib 360 Time - 18.16 seconds at 285 kmh Spitfire IXc Turn Radius - 204.13 meters Ki-61-Ib Turn Radius - 228.81 meters Both planes have almost identical wing loading (about 30.2 pounds of plane weight per square foot of wing area). One can not tell whether one plane is the superior turning aircraft by looking strictly at the wing loading. The Spitfire IXc's wing has a thickness which is 13% of the chord. The Ki-61-Ib has a thickness which is 16% of its chord. This means that, although the wings are different sizes, the Ki-61-Ib's wing appears to be thicker proportional to its width. The thicker a wing is proportional to its chord length, the more lift it creates. Lift's greatest component is the pressure difference created by a wing. High pressure on the bottom of the airfoil coupled with low pressure on the top creates a lifting force. Thicker airfoils produce a relatively fast stream of air on the top of the wing. The faster a fluid moves, the less pressure it exerts. Therefore it can be said that thicker wings have lower pressure on the upper surface and produce more lift than a similar-sized, thinner wing would. In a turn fight the wing's lift is increased to counter high g-forces. If the Ki-61-Ib's wing can produce more lift, then the Ki-61-Ib's pilot could pull more g's than the Spitfire IXc's pilot could. The thin wing of the Spitfire IXc also stalls more suddenly and violently than the Ki-61-Ib's thicker wing. This is due to the fact that airflow seperates much more rapidly at increased angles of attack on a thin wing. When one examines the planform (wing geometry) of the Spitfire IXc and Ki-61-Ib, he sees that the Spitfire IXc has an elliptical wing; the Ki-61-Ib has a tapered wing. Because the elliptical wing of the Spitfire IXc stalls uniformly, the designers added "washout" to its wing. This washout causes the root of the wing to stall before the tip does, giving the pilot a warning of an approaching stall. The disadvantage of this design feature is that the washout produces additional induced drag, reducing the advantage of using an elliptical wing in the first place. The Ki-61-Ib, on the other hand, has a tapered wing of high aspect ratio which stalls near the root first by nature, meaning that the wing needs no washout and can therefore take full advantage of its low induced drag. These are two reasons why the Ki-61-Ib should be a better dogfighting airplane than the Spitfire IXc is. However, when one examines these explanations in reverse, it becomes apparent that the Spitfire IXc should be superior with respect to top speed and high speed handling. For example, the same reasons why the Spitfire IXc should be inferior in dogfights are the reasons why it should excel at energy fighting. Low-lift airfoils make great high-speed airfoils. The reason why I have written on this subject is my belief that the Spitfire IXc and LF IX are currently superior in terms of FH dogfighting ability. The tracks confirm my beliefs. I also believe that the A6M is inferior to the Spitfire IXc and LF IX, but the reasons are for another discussion. Does this answer your question, tigrou?
Hi Squirl, >I simply do not understand why the Spitfire IX should turn as well as it does in FH dogfights. The Spitfire has a lot more power than the Ki-61 which helps to overcome its disadvantages. >A6M3 360 Time - 16.63 seconds at 255 kmh >Ki-61-Ib 360 Time - 18.16 seconds at 285 kmh >Spitfire IXc 360 Time - 16.49 seconds at 280 kmh >A6M3 Turn Rate - 21.65 degrees/second >Ki-61-Ib Turn Rate - 19.82 degrees/second >Spitfire IXc Turn Rate - 21.83 degrees/second For which altitude is that? From a preliminary analysis, I'd expect the Ki-61 to come out with a similar low turn speed as the A6M2, but a turn rate about as good as the Spitfire's if the Spitfire uses +15 lbs/sqin boost. (Preliminary because I didn't check the exact parameters for the Freehost planes, and because I simply guessed Clmax for the Japanese planes.) >The thin wing of the Spitfire IXc also stalls more suddenly and violently than the Ki-61-Ib's thicker wing. The Spitfire actually had very gradual stalling characteristics due to the washout applied to the wing. That's evident for example from NACA Advance Confidential Report "Stalling Characteristics of the Supermarine Spitfire VA Airplane" by Vensel/Phillips. (The report also points out that the Spitfire has an unusually low Clmax.) The key to this issue is finding Clmax data for the two Japanese planes. I believe they might be (slightly?) misrepresented on Freehost, but without this data, it will be hard to prove. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
I ran these tests using the software that can be found on this site. I simply input information which pertains to the wings of the aircraft, input speed, altitude, angle of attack, etc., and I received predictions about the lift created and the coefficients of lift. This software assumes that the wing remains at a constant thickness/chord ratio, when in fact all three airplanes tested taper to about a 9% chord at the wingtip. I think that, because all the wings tested taper to about 9% chord, it affects all planes equally. Although the software assumes that all the wings tested are rectangular in planform and do not taper on any dimension, I still am convinced that this is a good way of showing how one wing would perform relative to another. So I am not trying to present these numbers as proposed FH fixes. I am presenting these numbers to show that this software can still determine some differences between the airfoils tested. Spitfire IXc Wing Span: 36.8333 feet Mean Chord: 6.5773 feet Aspect Ratio: 5.6 Wing Area 242.4 square feet Altitude: 3280.8 feet (1000 meters) Speed: 174 mph (280 km/h) Camber: 2% chord Maximum Thickness: 13% chord Critical Angle of Attack: 9.96 degrees Coefficient of Lift at Critical AoA: 1.35 Lift: 22,967 pounds A6M3 Wing Span: 36.1875 feet Mean Chord: 6.4 feet Aspect Ratio: 5.65 Wing Area: 231.6 square feet Altitude: 3280.8 feet (1000 meters) Speed: 158.4 mph (255 km/h) Camber: 2% chord Maximum Thickness: 15% chord Critical Angle of Attack: 9.96 degrees Coefficient of Lift at Critical AoA: 1.37 Lift: 18,411 pounds Ki-61-Ib Wing Span: 39.33 feet Mean Chord: 5.46 feet Aspect Ratio: 7.20 Wing Area: 214.74 square feet Altitude: 3280.8 feet (1000 meters) Speed: 177.09 mph (285 km/h) Camber: 2% chord Maximum Thickness: 16% chord Critical Angle of Attack: 9.96 degrees Coefficient of Lift: 1.40 Lift: 21,814 pounds When one considers the weights of the planes, the Japanese planes could pull harder in these turns, but this assumes that all of the aircraft are at the speeds they were at in the tracks. What if they were all at the same speed in a dogfight? Here are the results for 150 mph: Spitfire IXc Lift: 17,068 pounds Coefficient of Lift: 1.35 The Spitfire IXc, at 7,300 pounds loaded, could pull 2.34 G's before stalling. A6M3 Lift: 16,510 pounds Coefficient of Lift: 1.37 The A6M3, at 5,609 pounds loaded, could pull 2.94 G's before stalling. Ki-61-Ib Lift: 15,651 pounds Coefficient of Lift: 1.40 The Ki-61-Ib, at 6,504 pounds loaded, could pull 2.41 G's before stalling. What about a dogfight beginning at 250 mph at 1000 meters? Spitfire IXc Lift: 47,411 Coefficient of Lift: 1.35 If its structure could sustain it, the Spitfire IXc could initially pull 6.49 G's before stalling. A6M3 Lift: 45,862 pounds Coefficient of Lift:1.37 If its structure could sustain it, the A6M3 could initially pull 8.18 G's before stalling. Ki-61-Ib Lift: 43,475 pounds Coefficient of Lift: 1.40 If its structure could sustain it, the Ki-61-Ib could initially pull 6.68 G's before stalling. It is hard to compare the 3 airplanes, though. With their higher Clmax potentials, the Japanese planes could fly at lower speeds and pull more G's than the Spitfire IXc could. The ability to pull harder in a turn and fly at a lower speed would allow the A6M3 and Ki-61-Ib to turn inside of the Spitfire IXc. With its high aspect ratio of 7.2, the Ki-61-Ib would also be able to retain energy better than the other two planes could. This energy could be converted into extra lift, if necessary. I know that the Spitfire IXc had an elliptical wing which reduced induced drag. However, the "washout," which was added to the Spitfire to warn of an approaching stall, actually reintroduced some of that induced drag. This may mean that, even though the Clmax of the Spitfire IXc was lower than those of the Japanese planes, the effects of its "washout" may have made it even lower. The tests I ran used the "Aspect Ratio Correction" which I assume recalculates the numbers using the effects that wingtip vortices would have on lift.
Hi Squrl, >I ran these tests using the software that can be found on this site. Highly interesting! Still, the results indicate that it's more a learning than an engineering tool as it fails to match the historical Spitfire data. You're right that the exact airfoils make a difference, but I think this difference is secondary to the much larger differences in power output. Clmax is important because it determines the geometry of the fight, and unfortunately, it's hard to find :-/ >When one considers the weights of the planes, the Japanese planes could pull harder in these turns, but this assumes that all of the aircraft are at the speeds they were at in the tracks. That's an important consideration. The same turn rate at a lower speed will create worse geometry problems for the opponent, and I expect the Japanese planes to have the lower speed of best turn rate. >With its high aspect ratio of 7.2, the Ki-61-Ib would also be able to retain energy better than the other two planes could. To be exact, it would dissipate less energy. However, its weaker engine would also generate less energy, so when talking about energy retention, the Spitfire has an advantage as well. The open question is which of the competing advantages has the greater effect. >This may mean that, even though the Clmax of the Spitfire IXc was lower than those of the Japanese planes, the effects of its "washout" may have made it even lower. The number I quoted is from actual flight tests, so it already includes all the real-life effects you're quoting. Fortunately, as it makes our analysis a bit easier No idea where we are going to get data for the Japanese planes, though :-( Regards, Henning (HoHun)
There is a question that may sound strange, but I feel that it needs to be asked. If there is almost no information for Japanese planes available, why were they changed in version 1.60? Is there some physical concept which we have overlooked? Was there some document that the FH team looked at and has now been forgotten? It seems that nobody has found detailed information about the Japanese planes' wings, turning circles and turn rates. I have written my analysis of why the A6M and Ki-61-Ib should turn better than the Spitfire IXc, but this is based upon an evaluation of flight concepts, not actual historical statistics. So if a lack of historical statistics is now an obstacle to get the Japanese flight models changed, then this shortage of information should have also prevented the changes in version 1.60. Perhaps you are not the correct person to ask this of, but what is the information which convinced the FH-team to make the changes which have made the Japanese airplanes inferior dogfighters for the past 5 versions?
Hi Squirl, We should look forward rather than back Maybe we can actually find data on the Japanese planes in order to justify an improvement? Stall speeds to approximate the Clmax from would already be a good beginning. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Well, to find the stall speed, first I looked at this website. I am very convinced of the validity of this source because this report was written by a pilot who actually flew a real A6M3. He quoted the stall speed of the A6M3 at 55 knots. He also said: "I did a couple of level approaches to stalls, light power and no power, but again only the point where the airplane started talking to me. I just wasn't interested in getting aggressive until the control problems were fixed. With full flaps, I was able to maintain well under 50 knots indicated, but who knows how accurate that is. We'll need to do a little formation work with a slow airplane to find that out." He says that the stall speed with flaps was under 50 knots indicated, but because indicated is almost always lower than true airspeed, I would be more inclined to believe the stall speed is 55 knots true airspeed. Like you said, we can approximate the Clmax based upon the stall speed. This is the function used to calculate the Clmax: In our case, we must re-arrange the equation to solve for Cl. So we have lift, divided by the quantity of .5*air density*feet per second, squared*square feet of the wing. To solve Clmax, we must know the input. Lift - must be 5,609 pounds (to match the weight of the plane) Air Density - 0.0023769 slugs / cubic foot (at sea level on a standard day) Velocity - 92.830 feet per second Wing Area - 231.746 square feet Sources: A6M3 loaded weight and wing area: from Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War by Rene J Francillon Air Density: this site Velocity (stall speed): this site The calculation looks like this: Cl=5609/(.5*.0023769*(92.830^2)*231.746) Cl=2.36 This coefficient may seem high, but it is the only coefficient that can match the data. If the coefficient were higher, the A6M3's stall speed would be lower than the information says it is. If the coefficient were lower, the wing would not be providing enough lift to support the A6M3 at 55 knots - which we know the A6M3 is capable of. I think I have an explanation for this high Clmax. The propwash from the propeller is providing additional lift. So, while much of the wing is actually flying at 55 knots relative wind, the wing root area is "cheating" and flying at a higher relative wind. This makes the amount of lift erroneously high for a wing which is assumed to be at 55 knots. But, when it is explained, it becomes much more believable.
Hi Squirl, >Well, to find the stall speed, first I looked at this website. Deakin's site is a good source He has also provided his weight & balance sheet in the article, showing that the Full up Weight of "his" Zero is actually 5877 lbs. 55 knots seems a fair assumption, lacking more accurate values. >I think I have an explanation for this high Clmax. The propwash from the propeller is providing additional lift. Fortunately, Deakin notes that it's for "light power" only, so the error is not as large as it might be The Clmax is valid for flaps fully down, too, so the "clean" Clmax would probably be in the "normal" range. On the A6M2, I have found the following information in the "Informational Intelligence Summary No. 85": "Weight of the airplane with a full military load -- 5555 lbs [...] The Navy reports the following indicated stalling speed. ... POWER ON ... POWER OFF Landing gear retracted ... 74 mph ... 78 mph Gear and flaps down ... 61 mph ... 69 mph" The power off, landing gear (and flaps) retracted case with 78 mph stall speed seems to be the most interesting one for us. Assumed instrument error: -00 mph => Clmax = 1.48 -10 mph => Clmax = 1.16 To compare with Deakin's value, here the power off, gear and flaps down case: -00 mph => Clmax = 1.89 -10 mph => Clmax = 1.44 My calculation for Deakin's value, using the weight he listed: 50 kts (about -00 mph) => Clmax = 2.88 55 kts (about -6.3 mph => Clmax = 2.38 Hm, these figures don't agree too well :-/ Still, even using the low-end Clmax = 1.16, I get a turn rate of 23.3 °/s at 1 km for the A6M2, while a quick estimate for the Spitfire IX yields just 20.8 °/s using the same methods. The A6M2 turn speed is about 70.8 m/s there, while the Spitfire IXc turns at 80.8 m/s, so the Zero also holds the turn radius advantage. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
That may be the flaps-down, gear-down stall speed, but I was referring to the section of the article where Deakin said: "If you have a Mustang with a stall speed of 80, and the Zero with a stall speed of 55, and the dogfight is at 140 knots, the Mustang can pull only 3g before stalling, and the Zero could pull 6.4g before the stall." In this case, with his loaded A6M3 weight of 5877 pounds at 6.4g, the Clmax is 2.46. Additionally, with this example at 140 knots, he is probably not calculating on the basis that flaps are deployed. I don't understand why you compare the two planes with the power-off, clean configuration. I think that a realistic dogfighting comparison between the two is a gear-up, flaps-up, power-on configuration. What did you use for the stall speed of the Spitfire IX? I found these numbers from this site: "Tests done on Spitfire K.9787 (a Spitfire II, squirl) at a weight of 5,819 lb. gave the stalling speeds as 64 m.p.h. A.S.I. with flaps and undercarriage up, and 58 m.p.h. with flaps and undercarriage down." These tests were done power-on, but no altitude is specified. We should be able to determine the Spitfire IX's Clmax and stall speed from this information because, other than wingtip modifications and cannon bulges, all Spitfires used the same wing design. But again, the lack of altitude information is an obstacle to this. What information did you use to find the Clmax and stall speed of the Spitfire IX? The A6M is described in every resource as an incredibly agile airplane. A6Ms came into contact with Australian Spitfire Vs and every time the Spitfire pilots learned to avoid dogfighting with the A6M and to instead use energy-fighting tactics. With this description in mind we should be able to infer two things: -whatever the Clmax of the Spitfire IX is, the A6M's should be higher -whatever the stall speed of the Spitfire IX is, the A6M's should be lower Can we agree on these? Shouldn't we use these assertions when we are finding the exact numbers? I guess I would like to see your analysis of how the Clmax and stall speed numbers of the A6M (preferably A6M3) match up with the Spitfire IX's numbers.
Hi Squirl, >Additionally, with this example at 140 knots, he is probably not calculating on the basis that flaps are deployed. I'm not so sure about that. His sentence starts with an "if". >I don't understand why you compare the two planes with the power-off, clean configuration. I think that a realistic dogfighting comparison between the two is a gear-up, flaps-up, power-on configuration. It is, but in a 1G stall, propeller slipstream plays an important role, while in a 3G stall, which occurrs at higher speed, the slipstream influence is only marginal. So when working with a 1G stall speed, the power-off configuration is closer to a high-G situation. >What did you use for the stall speed of the Spitfire IX? I got the Spitfire's Clmax of 1.21 directly from a NACA report. (According to the Pilot's Notes for the Spitfire, the airspeed indicator had a huge position error at stall speed.) >A6Ms came into contact with Australian Spitfire Vs and every time the Spitfire pilots learned to avoid dogfighting with the A6M and to instead use energy-fighting tactics. The Australien Spitfire Vs were considerably inferior to the Spitfire IX since they were tropicalized versions with higher weight and lower power than the normal Spitfire V, and probably running at just +12 lbs/sqin boost, too. Some even carried a heavy 4-cannon armament. >-whatever the Clmax of the Spitfire IX is, the A6M's should be higher That's no certain, though it might be more likely than the other case. >-whatever the stall speed of the Spitfire IX is, the A6M's should be lower That's certain. >I guess I would like to see your analysis of how the Clmax and stall speed numbers of the A6M (preferably A6M3) match up with the Spitfire IX's numbers. I haven't analyzed the A6M3 yet, but here is my calculation for the Spitfire IX: http://hometown.aol.de/WBHoHun/hru_aircraft_spitfire_ix_v11c.zip Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Thank you for your time and attention, HoHun. I have learned much more about the game in this forum than in any other forum. This is true for higher speed maneuvers. Low-speed handling (well below 200 km/h) is the most important part of the A6M's flight envelope, however. A good A6M pilot in pre-1.60 could use the A6M's superior low-speed handling, climbing and maneuver ability to defeat heavier fighters, including the Spitfire. Does the current flight model of the A6M use the lower Clmax, which is optimized for higher speeds, as the Clmax for the entire flight envelope? If this is the case, it would explain the fact that the A6M easily stalls in low-speed dogfights and often loses to the Spitfire.
Hi Squirl, >Thank you for your time and attention, HoHun. I have learned much more about the game in this forum than in any other forum. Glad you found this helpful! >Does the current flight model of the A6M use the lower Clmax, which is optimized for higher speeds, as the Clmax for the entire flight envelope? I don't know the flight model well enough to answer this question. I suspect if there's a deficiency, all aircraft are affected, so it doesn't really change the balance. >If this is the case, it would explain the fact that the A6M easily stalls in low-speed dogfights and often loses to the Spitfire. Well, according to my estimation, the A6M should in fact turn better even with the simplified model. It would be helpful to have a turn rate figure for the A6M2 at 1 km in the game - maybe you could test it using the same procedure as for the A6M3 and the Spitfire IXc? Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi again, I just found some information on the A6M turning capabilities in "Zero A6M" by H. P. Willmott (for the A6M2 Model 11/21): "Turning Circle Radius of turn at 230mph/370kph 1,118ft/340m Radius at slow combat speed 612ft/186m Diving 180° turn: entry speed 230 mph/270kph; exit speed 189mph/304kph Time taken 5.62 seconds" Loaded weight for the A6M2 is given as 2420 kg. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
I ran the test on the A6M2, again using the conditions described here. Test Track Test Log I calculated how the A6M2 test would match up to the earlier tests: A6M2 360 Time - 17.19 seconds at 250 km/h A6M3 360 Time - 16.63 seconds at 255 km/h Ki-61-Ib 360 Time - 18.16 seconds at 285 km/h Spitfire IXc 360 Time - 16.49 seconds at 280 km/h A6M2 Turn Radius - 189.94 meters A6M3 Turn Radius - 187.48 meters Ki-61-Ib Turn Radius - 228.81 meters Spitfire IXc Turn Radius - 204.13 meters A6M2 Turn Rate - 20.95 degrees/second A6M3 Turn Rate - 21.65 degrees/second Ki-61-Ib Turn Rate - 19.82 degrees/second Spitfire IXc Turn Rate - 21.83 degrees/second If we think of this in terms of two aircraft at the same speed then yes, they are both affected equally. In a dogfight, however, the A6M almost always flies at lower speeds than the Spitfire IX does. This means that, if the Clmax for all speeds is based upon the power-off clean stall speed, the A6M is being cheated out of its crucial propwash lift at a time when it needs it the most. The Spitfire IX, on the other hand, is flying at speeds which are better suited to the power-off clean Clmax. The weak elevator control (described for the A6M here and for the Spitfire here) also figures in the Spitfire IX's favor. Not only is the A6M's threshold of weak elevator control at a higher speed, it is also more likely to fly below that speed due to its lower speed in dogfights. All of these figures create a dogfighting situation where the A6M pilot can theoretically turn in a smaller circle, due to the A6M's lower speed, but is unable to go anywhere as a result of the A6M's nonexistent elevator control at those speeds. Even if the A6M's elevator control were excellent, it would stall if it attempted to match the turn rate of the Spitfire IX. All too often this leads the A6M to a "sitting duck" position at the top of a loop - unable to use the elevator to escape and unable to continue controlled flight because of the insufficient lift of the wing. While the A6M is a "sitting duck" the Spitfire climbs up very easily and destroys the A6M. If you get the time, fly the A6M through a couple loops; you will see what I mean. I propose, if it is possible, to define the Clmax of aircraft in the following way: Lower speeds will use a Clmax based upon the power-on stall speed. Higher speeds will use a Clmax based upon the power-off stall speed. I do not know how it would be done, but I am sure that a formula can be developed which reduces propwash lift as the airspeed increases. I think that this would have great advantages over using the power-off Clmax to define the Clmax at every airspeed.
Hi Squirl, Thanks for the data! >All of these figures create a dogfighting situation where the A6M pilot can theoretically turn in a smaller circle, due to the A6M's lower speed, but is unable to go anywhere as a result of the A6M's nonexistent elevator control at those speeds. Then it might be that we have a correct Clmax, but can't achieve it in sustained turns. Does trimming the aircraft tail-heavy make any difference? I know I had to use this for landings after one of the last few updates. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
It seems that there are two sections of reduced elevator control. The A6M3 encounters the first section when its speed drops below 200 km/h IAS at 5000 feet. This section stretches from 200 km/h down to 175 km/h indicated. In this airspeed range if one pulls all the way back on the joystick and uses elevator trim to assist, he still can not get enough elevator response to stall the airplane. Below 175 km/h, the elevator control is still reduced, but it is now possible to stall the A6M3, very easily I might add. The next section of reduced elevator control is at speeds below 50 km/h indicated at 5000 feet. I do not think that any plane modeled on the Free Host can fly at these speeds, but they should still be able to use their elevators, with the engine propwash, to nose-over and escape from this "sitting duck position." The A6M3 does not have this capability. These elevator shortcomings present obvious dangers in that the A6M3 pilot's ability to evade danger is limited. The weak elevator control also reduces the A6M3 pilot's offensive capability. I have noticed that, when flying a loop in an A6M3, if I am lucky enough to set up a Spitfire in such a way that I would be in position to fire upon him on the completion of my loop, the location of the 175-200 km/h elevator "deadband" is in the perfect position of the flight envelope to prevent this. For example, I am at the top of a loop in an A6M3 and I notice that a pursuing Spitfire is a "sitting duck" because of its inadequate airspeed. I maneuver down from the top of my loop, but just as I am about to bring my guns to bear on the Spitfire, the airspeed nudges above 175 km/h and I can do nothing but watch the Spitfire, and my chance of killing it, fly past as I dive. As I said, the 175-200 km/h elevator "deadband" for the A6M3 is in the ideal position to eliminate the possibility of killing Spitfires in this manner. The weak elevator control in the A6M3 does hamper its ability to dogfight, especially at low speeds. I do not think that this is the only contributing factor, however. For example, in the 50-175 km/h indicated airspeed range, the A6M3 has enough control authority maximize the lift of its wings i.e. flying on the very edge of a stall. This upper-limit is not very high, however. Even when it is getting the maximum amount of lift out of its wings at 50-175 km/h, the A6M3 is limited to very gentle and slow movements - which accomplish very little in a dogfight. Because of this, I believe that there is still a problem in the Clmax of the A6M3. This can be easily seen when a pilot tries to land an A6M3 on the deck of a moving CV. It can be done, but, in my opinion, it requires far too much attention from the pilot. Landing an A6M3 on the deck of a CV should seem almost effortless to the pilot. Did you experience this when flaps were deployed? I know that, in real life, flaps move the center of lift aft and therefore require some extra elevator back pressure to compensate. In Warbirds 1.64, however, deploying flaps can be almost suicidal! Not only does it pitch the nose downwards but it also reduces the elevator control to almost nothing. To land with full flaps, many planes require full back pressure on the joystick and a frantic striking of "k" on the keyboard. If these measures are not taken, the plane plows into the ground, killing the pilot.
You have to trim NOTHING with Spitfires at low speeds... Why the fuck Zeke pilot should trim in the same situation?!
