Hummingbird Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) Then please take a pilots notes for Mustang III and calculate max lift coeff using the data for corrected IAS. Then take a look at the second report for the ideal 230xx wing. Generally I do not see a reason to discuss to your scholastic arguments. By the way, Miss Velma that was our test bench has no mirror-like polished wing. The stalls and g-s it can perform were compared to the FM regarding the actual gross-weight. So, all speculation about well hammered and deeply scratched wing of the Mustang we have to model vs Dora will be only speculation. We model planes in mint condition because we can refer to the measured in various tests parameters. See that's one of the problems reoccuring in this thread... Why on earth would I take pilots notes from the Mustang III POH when we're talking about the P-51D ? I'm obviously going to take notes from the P-51D POH, which is what I've been doing throughout this thread. As for a plane in mint condition (i.e. just arrived to the ETO), that refers to an aircraft with std. roughness wing surface, not one with a filled, polished & waxed wing. Seriously, why are we even arguing this? Also I've seen the report you posted for the ideal 23XXX wing, problem is you're ignoring all the rest, incl. the all important fact that under std. roughness conditions the laminar flow airfoils (ala NACA 66 etc) experienced a significant reduction in CLmax whilst the conventional airfoils did not. Now you can ignore it all you like, but seeing as the Fw190 features roughly the same stall speed as the P-51 then that also proves that it had to have a higher CLmax wing considering the higher wing loading. Hence why the British found that there basically was no difference in turn performance between a Fw190 Jabo and a P-51B Mustang. But I guess we're stuck with what we got until the real birds get to fly together again, which I'm sure will happen soon. Then we'll see who was closest with their estimations ;) Edited April 11, 2015 by Hummingbird
Hummingbird Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Im just going to point out again that there is precedent for Yo-Yo's FM in this regard. Pretty much every single issue that has been pointed out in this game and admitted later as a flaw (dora and 109 climb rates for example, damage modeling etc) had historical documentation to demonstrate that the game was wrong, or performance calculations from other sims or trained individuals to contradict it. Your taking issue with the turn performance he has modeled for no other reason than you---and you alone---have some cockamamie numbers youve assigned to these planes that every other person in this thread has shown you to be wrong----in two separate threads now. The Fw190D's performance in this game regarding turn is completely fine. It is perfectly consistent with its relative performance vs the P-51D in every other sim to date. Yo-Yo isnt doing anything different----funny how every other person to make FM's for these planes got the same basic turn performance. I guess they are all stupid and only Hummingbird knows the secrets of the FW-190D. Oh please, you really think I'm going to bite on such nonesense? :doh:
GrapeJam Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Now you can ignore it all you like, but seeing as the Fw190 features roughly the same stall speed as the P-51 then that also proves that it had to have a higher CLmax wing considering the higher wing loading. Sources? In case you didn't know, the Finns had a different landing speed for their 109s. Everything from you so far have been nothing more that mere speculation. Hence why the British found that there basically was no difference in turn performance;) between a Fw190 Jabo and a P-51B Mustang. Yeah, except that FW 190 Jabo weighted 3900 kg with full load.
Hummingbird Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Sources? In case you didn't know, the Finns had a different landing speed for their 109s. I do know, and I also know why = very different landing conditions. Everything from you so far have been nothing more that mere speculation. Simply false, I've provided nothing but primary sources, that you choose to ignore them is not on me. Yeah, except that FW 190 Jabo weighted 3900 kg with full load. And the P-51 it was pitted against was lighter than a P-51D as well. Also needs to be mentioned that it was actually recommended that captured aircraft weren't pushed to the limit due to the difficulty of acquiring spare parts for them, let alone maintaining them.
GrapeJam Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Simply false, I've provided nothing but primary sources, that you choose to ignore them is not on me. What you've provided is landing speed, and which is quite difference from stalling speed, and you used the landing speed to speculate the stalling speed. And so far you've not provided a stalling speed for the D9, at all. And the P-51 it was pitted against was lighter than a P-51D as well. Also needs to be mentioned that it was actually recommended that captured aircraft weren't pushed to the limit due to the difficulty of acquiring spare parts for them, let alone maintaining them.This P51B? I'd actually like a link to your test about P51B vs FW 190A in turning actually.
[DBS]TH0R Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 And so far you've not provided a stalling speed for the D9, at all. That. I am mostly interested in. P8Z68 | 2500k @ 4.5 | GTX 1080Ti | 2x8 GB @ 1600 | TM Hog (extended 7cm) & MFG Crosswind (S/N 007) | TIR v5 WWII bomber formations | DCS P-51D: [TEST] TO distance / gross weight / temperature
Hummingbird Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 This P51B? I'd actually like a link to your test about P51B vs FW 190A in turning actually. It was actually a P-51C, or Mustang III. It's on the same site you're qouting that Kit Carson chart from, which is ridiculously wrong btw lol
Hummingbird Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 What you've provided is landing speed, and which is quite difference from stalling speed, and you used the landing speed to speculate the stalling speed. And so far you've not provided a stalling speed for the D9, at all. The stalling speed for the D9 is sadly not available.
GrapeJam Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 It was actually a P-51C, or Mustang III. It's on the same site you're qouting that Kit Carson chart from, which is ridiculously wrong btw lol This chart is from wwiiaircraftperformance.org, and no it wasn't made by kit carson had no hand in making it, it was made by RAF fighter command ;) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html The 109G was probably fitted with gunpods, as the one the British captured was. And the P51C and B were identical, the difference was the factory where they were manufactured.
[DBS]TH0R Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) The stalling speed for the D9 is sadly not available. Interesting. Also, since TO distances were compared in this thread (F-51D GrapeJam posted shows ~1100ft and P-51D POH shows ~1400ft), it is worth noting that P-51s took off without flaps. As many veterans will confirm - unless absolutely required because of a very short airstrip. Edited April 12, 2015 by T}{OR 1100ft P8Z68 | 2500k @ 4.5 | GTX 1080Ti | 2x8 GB @ 1600 | TM Hog (extended 7cm) & MFG Crosswind (S/N 007) | TIR v5 WWII bomber formations | DCS P-51D: [TEST] TO distance / gross weight / temperature
GrapeJam Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) The stalling speed for the D9 is sadly not available. And the older and much lighter captured FW 190 As were tested and they all had stall speed much higher than the P51D(even at 10000lbs, and with bomb racks on) clean, so what do you think? Here's a captured FW 190A5 with no ammo and it had a stall speed of 118mph IAS clean and 105mph IAS dirty. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_Eng-47-1658-D.pdf Edited April 11, 2015 by GrapeJam
GrapeJam Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Interesting. Also, since TO distances were compared in this thread (F-51D GrapeJam posted shows ~1000ft and P-51D POH shows ~1400ft), it is worth noting that P-51s took off without flaps. As many veterans will confirm - unless absolutely required because of a very short airstrip. Actually the F51D in my pics took off with flaps, so was the 190 thought.
[DBS]TH0R Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) This is why I mentioned it: The manual refers to an emergency take off of absolute minimum distance at max power, the German & US chart I posted shows the normal distances. For example the German pilots handbook also lists a min take off distance to clear 20m of 640 m vs the regular 715 m in the German planning chart similar to the American one I just posted. By comparson the Dora-9 features a min take off distance of just over 310 meters. EDIT: Which means that unless Dora also took off without flaps normally, so called "normal distances" can be disregarded since they do not represent both planes in the same configuration. EDIT2: As if the first edit wasn't enough, it is interesting by what logic would one want to, in a thread where maximum performance is discussed, use values achieved with undefined variables such as power setting, pilot skill, flap position etc. It says so nicely in the POH that these values are "average estimates and safety margin should be used". The information I have is that P-51s usually took off at no more than 55" and often in formation. If we were to discuss TO distances here, then we should only compare the minimum values that were achieved in best possible configuration, i.e. flaps down and maximum power. Or flaps up and maximum power for the sake of Cl arguments. EDIT3: This source states P-51D TO ground run, at "Gross Weight - Take-Off 9611 lb" equals 1040 ft ~ 317m. How much is "just over 310m"? Source (and weight) if you will, please? EDIT4: In contrast to distance of 1100 ft (~ 335m) @ 10000 lb, this source on the other hand (which also uses F-51D data and clean stall speed of 101MPH @ 9000 lb Hummingbird originally claimed here) states 1000 ft (~ 305m) ground run distance @ 9000 lb. Edited April 12, 2015 by T}{OR P8Z68 | 2500k @ 4.5 | GTX 1080Ti | 2x8 GB @ 1600 | TM Hog (extended 7cm) & MFG Crosswind (S/N 007) | TIR v5 WWII bomber formations | DCS P-51D: [TEST] TO distance / gross weight / temperature
GrapeJam Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Well let me guess, you got the idea "why the British found that there basically was no difference in turn performance between a Fw190 Jabo and a P-51B Mustang." from this? https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=gztLnfyj0nIC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=fw+190+a+vs+p51+turning+little+to+choose+from&source=bl&ots=JB_dLnAdbk&sig=ZwIR3RDSzQbcG_nlD2LNlHsn264&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i7MpVeakIcz68QWl6oHoDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fw%20190%20a%20vs%20p51%20turning%20little%20to%20choose%20from&f=false And then we got this: https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=ccVUI85IcFoC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=march+1944+air+fighting+development+unit+report&source=bl&ots=lXI6ijLPOp&sig=lC9-Iu4Ehx4mmlcsBJYbgR2idVE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FLUpVfa5I8vv8gXtzYD4DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=march%201944%20air%20fighting%20development%20unit%20report&f=false And the question is: How much is "slight".
Hummingbird Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 This chart is from wwiiaircraftperformance.org, and no it wasn't made by kit carson had no hand in making it, it was made by RAF fighter command ;) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html The 109G was probably fitted with gunpods, as the one the British captured was. And the P51C and B were identical, the difference was the factory where they were manufactured. As I remember it Carson prepared it, but nomatter, it is ridiculously incorrect regardless. As for the 109 tested, it might or might not have been with gunpods, it didn't matter as the British didn't push the aircraft past slat deployment during testing anyway... something which becomes very clear upon reading the test reports, where the 109 is qouted as being "embarrased by the opening of its slots". Fact is real maneuvering didn't start until well after the slats had deployed, explaining the abysmal results in the British tests.
Hummingbird Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 And the older and much lighter captured FW 190 As were tested and they all had stall speed much higher than the P51D(even at 10000lbs, and with bomb racks on) clean, so what do you think? Here's a captured FW 190A5 with no ammo and it had a stall speed of 118mph IAS clean and 105mph IAS dirty. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_Eng-47-1658-D.pdf Again you shouldn't rely on captured IAS readings, instead rely on the official TAS figures. One good reason being that incorrect adjustment of the 190's ailerons, which was a reoccuring problem, would lead to premature stalls. Finally it wouldn't do much good if the Fw190A5 stalled out at 105 mph considering that its' landing speed was 165 km/h (102 mph), as pr. the manual. 1
GrapeJam Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 As I remember it Carson prepared it, but nomatter, it is ridiculously incorrect regardless. As for the 109 tested, it might or might not have been with gunpods, it didn't matter as the British didn't push the aircraft past slat deployment during testing anyway... something which becomes very clear upon reading the test reports, where the 109 is qouted as being "embarrased by the opening of its slots". Fact is real maneuvering didn't start until well after the slats had deployed, explaining the abysmal results in the British tests. So you use one test to invalidate all other british tests, even thought all other British test with the 109 all described and validate the use of slats on the 109 accurately? Ok.
GrapeJam Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Again you shouldn't rely on captured IAS readings, instead rely on the official TAS figures. One good reason being that incorrect adjustment of the 190's ailerons, which was a reoccuring problem, would lead to premature stalls. The A3 didn't have any problem, it had a weight of 3800kg and a stall speed of approximately 110mph clean and 105 mph IAS dirty. Finally it wouldn't do much good if the Fw190A5 stalled out at 105 mph considering that its' landing speed was 165 km/h (102 mph), as pr. the manual.Define landing, landing as approach or touch down? If touch down the P51D at 10000lbs was 90 mph IAS. Edited April 13, 2015 by GrapeJam
[DBS]TH0R Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 By comparson the Dora-9 features a min take off distance of just over 310 meters. Source if you will, please. P8Z68 | 2500k @ 4.5 | GTX 1080Ti | 2x8 GB @ 1600 | TM Hog (extended 7cm) & MFG Crosswind (S/N 007) | TIR v5 WWII bomber formations | DCS P-51D: [TEST] TO distance / gross weight / temperature
Teapot Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) So you use one test to invalidate all other british tests, even thought all other British test with the 109 all described and validate the use of slats on the 109 accurately? Ok. I reckon it's a fair call. The way emotions were after WWII and how the victors habitually dumped on the losers (bully syndrome with a pinch of justification propaganda I reckon) I'd tend to feel mighty suspicious of the accuracy of Allied *analysis reports* as well. It's not like they have a great track record for impartiality either ... but hang on a minit, we've never bent the *truth* about anything have we? :music_whistling: Oh yes we have ... can't verify about the airplane tests ('cause I ain't got the smarts), but an introspection into general modern history is full of the shite ... :lol: The more I read these threads, the more I'm moving away from Allied/U.S iron just on principle and to explore the *other side* ... I'm sorry Grandpa and my two great uncle Tom's, I know you'll understand ... hehe ... but you know that's the way I roll. Now .. how do you fly these flippin' birds .. What? The bloomin' cockpit's in German? I don't want to mention the war but sheesh ... I mean ... what does Auf mean? Blimey! No matter, it's got wings .. lets get this bird into the air ... I'll fly by the feel of my bum ... can't understand the manuals half the time anyhow ... :D. Edited April 14, 2015 by Teapot "A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft." Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!
Teapot Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) Hmm ... not too bad .. not too bad ... 'cepting I track down the runway like an old lady with the trots (no disrespect intended towards elderly female citizens sufferin' diarrhea). Cheers, Stabsfeldwebel Teekanne Edited April 14, 2015 by Teapot "A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft." Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!
msalama Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 suspicious of the accuracy of Allied *analysis reports* as well Yeah, except that the Allies wanted to know PRECISELY what they were fighting against. So what exactly would be their motive for purposeful inaccuracy and/or bias here, I wonder? The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.
Teapot Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) Yeah, except that the Allies wanted to know PRECISELY what they were fighting against. So what exactly would be their motive for purposeful inaccuracy and/or bias here, I wonder? Propaganda? Human nature being what it is ...what they *knew* and what they made available to the public could be two different things. E.g; On the one hand *they* told us that the Japanese forces were substandard soldiers who all had bad eyesight and couldn't shoot either ... :D ... on the other hand they said they were merciless killers. Alas my old friend, you've truncated my quote ... the full sentence implied my empathy for any existing suspicions. :smilewink: Edited April 14, 2015 by Teapot "A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft." Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!
ArkRoyal Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 Yeah, except that the Allies wanted to know PRECISELY what they were fighting against. So what exactly would be their motive for purposeful inaccuracy and/or bias here, I wonder? There wasnt one.
OutOnTheOP Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 I reckon it's a fair call. The way emotions were after WWII and how the victors habitually dumped on the losers (bully syndrome with a pinch of justification propaganda I reckon) I'd tend to feel mighty suspicious of the accuracy of Allied *analysis reports* as well. The truth was quite the opposite: with the Soviets and Western Allies facing off against each other in the cold war, *both* sides lionized the Germans as a propaganda tool. By making the Germans look stronger than they had actually been (in numbers, martial prowess, and quality of equipment), it made the forces that defeated the Germans look stronger, too. The idea seems to have been "we beat the Germans, and they were WAY stronger than those dirty reds/ filthy capitalists, so those guys will be pushovers". Why do you think there was such a spate of war movies in the 40s-50s? Unfortunately, the end result is now we have people that grossly over-rate German equipment
Recommended Posts