best thread ever

now i want to watch ww2 documentaries of the air battles!

Well, I've been scouring the web looking for more evidence of the practice of cutting power to one engine and using drag or torque to assist a turn, and I haven't turned anything up. However, I did see enough to remind me that, first, fighter vs. fighter debates arouse enormous passion; second, variation in performance between subtypes makes comparison extremely complex (P-38J/L are very different beasts in terms of maneuverability from the earlier models)Also, the P-38 was probably more maneuverable than it's generally given credit for. But the favorite thing I learned was

QuoteThe new Lightnings were operated by the US Army Eighth Air Force in Europe beginning in 1943 for long-range escort missions, but did not achieve great success in this role. This was partly because it was harder to fly than a single-engine aircraft and, since it had no engine in front of the pilot to keep him warm, was an "icebox" during high-altitude missions. [...]

Despite its mixed career in Europe, the Lightning remained an outstanding success in the Pacific. Freezing cockpits were not a problem in the warm tropics. In fact, since there was no way to open a window while in flight, as it caused buffeting by setting up turbulence through the tailplane, it was often too hot, and pilots would fly stripped down to shorts, tennis shoes, and parachute.

cool find, elliot!  if only i could convince my group to do a ww2 campaign

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, I've been scouring the web looking for more evidence of the practice of cutting power to one engine and using drag or torque to assist a turn, and I haven't turned anything up. However, I did see enough to remind me that, first, fighter vs. fighter debates arouse enormous passion; second, variation in performance between subtypes makes comparison extremely complex (P-38J/L are very different beasts in terms of maneuverability from the earlier models)Also, the P-38 was probably more maneuverable than it's generally given credit for. But the favorite thing I learned was

Yeah - the aircraft wonks can get pretty passionate about tiny little things... Reminds me of us...

Try googling for:

p-38 "turn inside"

as I found lots of people quoting that as fact, with no attribution. I also found someone who had apparently read the same things I had, also without attribution.

"Richard Bong, USA top ace and P-38 pilot, was able to turn inside of Japanese Zeros. No one can discount that achievement"

Here's anothe of those unattributed things!

"The Allies learned early on that their two main aerial foes, the Nazi's Me-109 and the Japanese Zero, were more maneuverable than most Allied aircraft.  To get into a dog fight with these nimble little airplanes would be to invite certain death to the Allied pilots.  The word came down that no Allied pilot should engage either of these Axis aircraft below 10,000 feet, where they were particularly maneuverable, and that dogfighting should be avoided in general with these aircraft.  They could turn inside most Allied fighters and then shoot them down.  Such was the standard approach.  Not with a P-38.

By using the thrust vectoring technique and extracting the unique advantage of being a twin engined fighter, a skilled P-38 pilot could engage in a turning dog fight with either a Me-109 or a Zero and come out ahead.  The P-38 pilot would simply pull into a sharp turn and begin climbing within it.  This is the most particularly difficult thing to do while turning.  Most aircraft lose speed in a turn and having to climb while turning kills that speed even faster.  Lose too much speed and your aircraft can't stay in the air.  It then stalls and loses falls back towards the ground.  A skilled P-38 pilot would suck an adversary into this type of turn and start climbing up.  With proper use of his throttles he could pull his turn ever tighter and climb ever more.  A few go 'rounds of this and the bad guy following him would have lost so much airspeed that he would have to break off or else stall his aircraft.  When he did then break off he would be in a perfect position for the P-38 pilot to reverse onto him and blow him out of the sky."

It also appears the same differential control was used in a snap roll as well as a turn.

-clash

Quote"Richard Bong, USA top ace and P-38 pilot, was able to turn inside of Japanese Zeros. No one can discount that achievement"

When used of flight sim whining to get 'my favorite fighter' upgraded threads, a common counter argument is 'are you saying you are as good as R'ichard Bong?' aka, 'look dude, we already pimped your ride. Its not our fault you get shot down so much in multiplayer'.

Basically, I reckon your best bet is just to figure out what your target audience wants and give them that. Closet Nazis will demand uber 190s and 109s, while if you intend to sell to the British market the Spitfire must pwn everything.

Quote from: Erik BoielleWhen used of flight sim whining to get 'my favorite fighter' upgraded threads, a common counter argument is 'are you saying you are as good as R'ichard Bong?' aka, 'look dude, we already pimped your ride. Its not our fault you get shot down so much in multiplayer'.

Basically, I reckon your best bet is just to figure out what your target audience wants and give them that. Closet Nazis will demand uber 190s and 109s, while if you intend to sell to the British market the Spitfire must pwn everything.

You are right. They are all whack-jobs. These sim jocks are interested in pushing an agenda. I'm just interested in finding the truth so I can model it.

-clash

Clash, best (as in most credible source) I could find was this archive of Flight Journal, an actual modern-day flight test:

http://web.archive.org/web/20061020145126/http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/p-38_lightning/p-38_lightning_3.asp

And it supports what you say. While there might be a lot of circular-referencing going on across the 'net, I find it credible that the Lightning's performance varied quite a bit more depending on pilot skill and familiarity than other types.

Awesome! Thanks, Elliot! I'll go ahead with confidence then!

-clash

Thought you folks might like to see the cover of AIS:WWII. I've been working on it for weeks. The original is much bigger!



-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIt was mentioned in several combat reports from PTO pilots, including Richard Bong. I read them, but don't have them with me. I'm looking for them feverishly...

-clash

If Dick Bong said it, that's good enough for me.

If you make a WW2 aircraft game that's fast, fun, accurate, and includes altitude, I will bear your children.

Quote from: Old GeezerIf Dick Bong said it, that's good enough for me.

If you make a WW2 aircraft game that's fast, fun, accurate, and includes altitude, I will bear your children.

I hope it's fast, fun and accurate, but it it certainly includes altitude! It's based on ACM.

-clash

I just got done modelling 40 fighter types for AIS:WWII. Sixteen American, and eight each UK, USSR, German, Italian, and Japanese. There are some extremely good aircraft in every group. This has been a very interesting excercise!

-clash

OK, I hit another problem. In Aces, damage was %d X number of guns X 10, and the planes' constitution (Hit Points) were loaded mass (in kg) * 3. Worked real well for WWI, and I was happy. Doesn't work in WWII at all! In WWI, all the plane's guns were light MGs, rifle caliber .30/7.2mm. In WWII you have planes with heavy MG (.50/12.7mm), Light Automatic Cannon (20mm-30mm), and Heavy Automatic Cannon (30+mm).

If we take the LMG=1, then HMG=~2, LAC=~10, and HAC=~20. These are the weapon factors I used.

Thus we have fighter armament ranging from early fighters with 2 LMG (X 2) to a P-61 with 4 HMG and 4 LAC (X 48). The average damages would range from (50*2)*10 = 1000 to (50*48)*10 = 24000. The spread is big, and needs calculators, and the heavy damage is too heavy, while the light damage is too light.

I decided to go with damage = (%d + armament factor) * 10, for simplicity and for scaling. Most folks can do that in their heads, and the endpoints aren't so far apart. That gives average damage spreads from (50+2)*10 = 520 to (50+48) * 10 = 980. A much better result!

The other end of the problem needs addressing too, now that I established damage endpoints! A P-38 is about 8000 kg, while a Zero is about 2400 kg. At Mass X 3, that gives 24000 to 7200 Constitution. For fun gaming, a high average damage, like from a P-61, should hammer a Zero and hurt a P-38. Neither happens!

I decided to go with Mass X 0.5, as that gave me the best results. A P-38 could take 4 average heavy hits before going down, and a Zero would be wiped. As for light hits, A P-38 could take 8 light hits, while a Zero could take about 2. That works nicely!

Comments?

-clash

whoa, just whoa.  i'm overwhelmed :what:

good to see what you do as a designer, the systems, etc.  cool that you can map out h.p. to kg.  seeing something like "constitution 7200" boggles my mind, tho.

i'd just have guesstimated hp vs gun damage and the like--but that would be in the middle of say, a CoC or MT adventure.  you're doing the grunt work, designing something this specific.

keep up the good work, sir!

Quote from: beeberwhoa, just whoa.  i'm overwhelmed :what:

good to see what you do as a designer, the systems, etc.  cool that you can map out h.p. to kg.  seeing something like "constitution 7200" boggles my mind, tho.

i'd just have guesstimated hp vs gun damage and the like--but that would be in the middle of say, a CoC or MT adventure.  you're doing the grunt work, designing something this specific.

keep up the good work, sir!

Thanks Beeber! I work as much as possible with real world stats. At a certain point, though, you start going the way of Phoeinix Command, and the more you push the realism, the less real it feels. So I do my best to make it feel right, which in a game is more important than being right.

-clash