Damage from my guns on FW190

[NineLine]

Funny how one word amongst many can turn a discussion the wrong way... :doh:

 

Its climbing & turning abilities were better than many contemporary single-engine fighters, due to its excellent lift characteristics and the Fowler flaps. While its rolling abilities weren't as impressive, to say that the P-38 wasn't as maneuverable as the P-51 would be ignorant; the P-38 generally* had superior sustained turning abilities to the P-51, as well as to the P-47, FW 190, and others. Under some conditions, the P-38 was a better turner than even the Me 109--and the P-38 was approximately twice the weight as the 109. (Also had nearly twice the horsepower, however--and did I mention the Fowler flaps?)

[Echo38]

Funny how one word amongst many can turn a discussion the wrong way...

 

Ignorance is not an insult--I myself displayed ignorance (of stick forces for maximum control deflection) just a few days ago in another thread here. Ignorance by itself is the lack of proper knowledge--it is only when one perversely clings to ignorance that it becomes something reprehensible.

[Der_Fred]

I know where this is going.... :-)

 

The IL-2 game & its community shouldn't be a resource at all. The game is bogus, and almost all of the people who play it are incapable of understanding that.

Now that is downright snobbery... and I wouldn't be too hasty to say this as IL2 was more advanced in it's time than all WW2 combat flight sims. Maybe the same can be said for DCS at the moment.. until some other better sim appears that corrects DCS mistakes and lackings.

 

Leather is a bit tough to chew on... :-)

[Echo38]

IL2 was more advanced in it's time than all WW2 combat flight sims.

 

Old Aces High had much more accurate flight physics & aircraft specifications than IL-2, but I'll concede that AH did some things quite a bit worse than even IL-2. But, this isn't terribly relevant--whether or not IL-2 was advanced a dozen years ago has no bearing on its worth today. It's kind of like using an outdated, ineffective medical practice instead of the newer, effective one, citing as reason that the older one was so revolutionary when it first came out ... insane.

[Der_Fred]

Not that it's relevant to this topic..

Older medicinal methods are gaining ground on modern medicines as 'bugs' become more resistant to anti-biotics. Newer medicines are not always tomorrow's answer (without killing off your immune system).

 

Somethings from the 'older' are always better.... :-)

[Echo38]

Maybe the same can be said for DCS at the moment.. until some other better sim appears that corrects DCS mistakes and lackings.

 

As I've said so often, I would never call DCS "100% accurate," or complete, or whatever. But it is multiple times more accurate than IL-2--the fact alone that IL-2 did not model the majority of basic aircraft systems is enough to make it not a true sim. A true flight simulator will, as much as possible, teach someone how to use the real aircraft. DCS does that, as much as possible. IL-2 did not.

[Der_Fred]

citing as reason that the older one was so revolutionary when it first came out ... insane.

Move ahead a few years.. and tell me this about DCS....!!

[Der_Fred]

DCS does that, as much as possible. IL-2 did not

Agreed... DCS and IL2 teaches you how to fly, and then fly in combat.

[Echo38]

Somethings from the 'older' are always better...

 

There are almost no elements from IL-2 that are "better" (read: more true to the reality) in the simulation of the aircraft than those of DCS. Conversely, virtually every element thereof in DCS is better than in IL-2. It's simple madness to pretend, as you are, that IL-2 can hold a taper to DCS as a true flight sim. This is absurd.

 

Move ahead a few years.. and tell me this about DCS....!!

 

When (read: if) a more realistic Second World War fighter sim than DCS comes out, I'll move there. But I'll still look back fondly on DCS & its developers, because they tried their damnedest to do things right, and generally did a very good job. Can't say the same of IL-2 and Maddox--there was a lack of effort in their portrayal and a lack of intellectual honesty in their claims, and a big lack of care for the reality of aviation. IL-2's team didn't have a real love of flight--they spent far more effort on trying to convince people that the game was realistic than on trying to make it really realistic. DCS's team simply radiates a real love of flight. And this shows in the products.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Echo38

[Der_Fred]

and a big lack of care.

It's most probably UBI's hand that made this so... where as DCS looks independent of such interferences.

IL2 raised the bar wrt prop sims in 2000.. DCS, AFAIK, was nowhere to be seen. DCS is the next step.. but like everything wrt to games/sims.. DCS started out as a modern day sim, now trying to tap the WW2 market.

If they're wise (including yours truly) I'd look at the last best WW2 sim and learn the lessons.. instead of sticking my head in the sand.

:-)

[Echo38]

IL2 teaches you how to fly, and then fly in combat.

 

Old IL-2 teaches only a small portion of how to fly (and badly, at that--e.g. flap drag being so different than reality); DCS teaches, approximately as much as a P.C. simulator can, how to fly. IL-2 also doesn't teach much more about flying in real combat than it does about flying in general. IL-2 only teaches how to fly well within the normal envelope, after someone has already started up & configured the aircraft for you--and even then, you're surely going to break your engine in no time, in the real aircraft, because IL-2 omitted most of the stuff you need to do with a real warbird engine. I can't believe I'm actually writing this out--do you really not understand this, or are you just trolling me? (And why am I letting myself be so trolled?) o O

[Der_Fred]

When was the last time you played IL2..

 

I have Il2 V412.. and DCS124 and play them both for the same and different reasons. If you haven't done this already, you should do so... then you'll understand where I come from.

 

Not trolling.. just not backing down when a so called 'expert' tries to run me down.

[otto]

@Echo38

 

"to say that the P-38 wasn't as maneuverable as the P-51 would be ignorant"

P38L : wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (260.9 kg/m²)

P 51 D mustang: wing loading: 39 lb/sqft (192 kg/m²)

Me 109g wing loading: 196 kg/m² (40 lb/ft²)

Spitefire Mk V wing loading: 27.35 lb/ft2 (133.5 kg/m2)

 

 

Wing loading is a useful measure of the general maneuvering performance of an aircraft. Wings generate lift owing to the motion of air over the wing surface. Larger wings move more air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have more lift available at any given speed. Therefore, an aircraft with lower wing loading will be able to take-off and land at a lower speed (or be able to take off with a greater load). It will also be able to turn faster.

 

And about Fowler flaps. H.J.Marsaille wrote that he used flaps to be able to turn inside of Hurricane and P40s with his 109.

And the Hawker Huricane had a lower wing loading than a spitefire 29.8 lb/ft² (121.9 kg/m²).So the p38 with flaps turns slower than P51 or 109 that use flaps.

 

So flaps or no flaps a plane with a high wing loading has lower maneuvering performance than a plane with lower wing loading.

 

Plese don't call somebody ignorant when you are rong.

Edited July 5, 2013 by otto

[NineLine]

As far as the P-38, its strengths were power/speed wasnt it? it could out dive and climb most other fighters? Anyways... is the answer to the OP that someone needs to create a P-38? :D

[Der_Fred]

It'll be interesting to know where DCS developers base all their WW2 aircraft data from.. would this be an open book ?

[NineLine]

It'll be interesting to know where DCS developers base all their WW2 aircraft data from.. would this be an open book ?

 

 

As far as I know, they work off of historical flight and wind tunnel testing data among other things, obviously, to model systems and such...

 

Yo-Yo's least favorite word is : предполагать :D

Edited July 5, 2013 by NineLine

[Der_Fred]

No collective data from pilot reports ?

[NineLine]

No collective data from pilot reports ?

 

Flight tests cover that I think... I am only speaking from my limited knowledge, I did/do help research some things, but I am sure there are other sources and items I dont know of. I can say that they have more data on the 190 than is readily available on the internet...

 

In conversations with Yo-Yo, I only understand about 1/8th of what he says, not because of the Russian language but because he speaks in engineeringese :)

 

In the Russian Forums there is a War Thunder thread where he linked to a post he made about what goes into an AFM, that might explain what they use better? Google Translate... engage :)

[Der_Fred]

I can say that they have more data on the 190 than is readily available on the internet

Sounds good.. Testing is in the pudding.

Lets hope that change the FW190 AI routine to use it advantages.. :-)

[NineLine]

The way I understand it is the 190 is currently using SFM, it will get an AFM once it goes to flyable, I would imagine it will change things then... again, that's just the way I understand it...

 

Sounds good.. Testing is in the pudding.

Lets hope that change the FW190 AI routine to use it advantages.. :-)

[Der_Fred]

I'm new to the letters.. SFM, AFM - could you elaborate on this.. thanks

[Silver_Dragon]

SFM = Simplified Flight Model (Some FC3 aircraft)

AFM = Advanced Flight Model (BS-2/A-10C/ etc)

[Der_Fred]

Ah!.. thanks.. now I'm getting the development picture. Starting to make more sense now... cool

[NineLine]

Maybe if a dev sees this he can expand on this more as far as what it means for the 190, but in basic terms it means its still a work in progress...

 

Which brings us full circle to the OPer, and understanding that maybe the 190 damage model isnt there yet...

[Der_Fred]

True... :-)