VVS Vs. RAF

[Nonskimmer]

Originally Posted by Soren

So what makes you think a game that doesn't even take wing-loading or slat-effects into account, is in any way accurate ?

It is however very easy to make a Flight sim 'seem' accurate, all you have to do is to try and follow popular believe

But yes, I have tried IL-2, my nephew showed it to me once(He's very into such things), and it is as arcade'ish as almost can be. I never play such games, as I know how inaccurate they are and that its just pure entertainment, nothing else.

You should post these comments about IL-2 on the Ubi.com forums. There would be an uproar like you wouldn't believe! I'd love to see it!

[cheddar cheese]

That would be hilarious

[plan_D]

It would be, I think someone should.

I don't need to read about the MiG-3 though, now, because I know it's dog. The unrealistic game showed me. And, del, you take those extra two .50s - it's still dog but at least you can actually get kills in it.

And I never stated that my opinion of aircraft come from Il-2...just my opinion of the MiG-3. Also, my opinion being well-founded can't be thrown away because I didn't spend £20 buying a book about the thing because it's dog, I'd rather go get drunk with that £20.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by nonskimmer

You should post these comments about IL-2 on the Ubi.com forums. There would be an uproar like you wouldn't believe! I'd love to see it!

Like those fantasy boys would listen anyway But I agree, it would be funny, as the only thing they would be able to say in defense would be something like: " eerrr.. errr.. your wrong ! your just wrong !.. viva la IL-2 !!!"

Fact is these 'Games' are pure "Entertainment", nothing else. Which is also why they differ so much from each other.

Originally Posted by plan_D

And I never stated that my opinion of aircraft come from IL-2...just my opinion of the MiG-3. Also, my opinion being well-founded can't be thrown away because I didn't spend £20 buying a book about the thing because it's dog, I'd rather go get drunk with that £20.

I respect your decision Plan_D !

[mosquitoman]

Sorry but the only way that someone an truly know that something is accurate is to fly a real one and compare the 2 experiences

[Soren]

Originally Posted by mosquitoman

Sorry but the only way that someone an truly know that something is accurate is to fly a real one and compare the 2 experiences

These Games are very inaccurate and thats a fact ! You don't have to fly a WW2 fighter to know that.

These games are constantly being upgraded as they don't rely on any aerodynamic data or facts, but just popular believe and user-satisfaction. As soon as enough complaints has come about something, an alteration will be made, nomatter if its 'correct' or not. Its business more than anything, in which the motto "All for satisfying the customer(s)" comes 1st.

[cheddar cheese]

Yeah thats true. I believe though that whilst their not realistic in terms of real life they are realistic within the game, for instance the Fw-190's have good roll rates, the Yak-3 accelerates pretty well etc...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

These Games are very inaccurate and thats a fact ! You don't have to fly a WW2 fighter to know that.

These games are constantly being upgraded as they don't rely on any aerodynamic data or facts, but just popular believe and user-satisfaction. As soon as enough complaints has come about something, an alteration will be made, nomatter if its 'correct' or not. Its business more than anything, in which the motto "All for satisfying the customer(s)" comes 1st.

I have to somewhat agree. The only thing you're missing is the feel of motion and the Gs as you fly these things. I had one of my former employers fly MiG Alley. This guy owned an F-86 and he couldn't believe how accuate that was, and we're talking about a game several years old!

When I was going for my instrument rating I continually flew on MS 2000 Flight Sim. It was 98% realistic for flying a light aircraft in instrument conditions. I passed my check ride with ease because of this.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I have to somewhat agree. The only thing you're missing is the feel of motion and the Gs as you fly these things. I had one of my former employers fly MiG Alley. This guy owned an F-86 and he couldn't believe how accuate that was, and we're talking about a game several years old!

When I was going for my instrument rating I continually flew on MS 2000 Flight Sim. It was 98% realistic for flying a light aircraft in instrument conditions. I passed my check ride with ease because of this.

MS 2000+ relies on a few aerodynamic facts, as its partly build of a real FS. Any fault in MS 2000+ can easely be corrected, as there's easy access to these planes and their technical and aerodynamic data. Microsoft tried to incorperate some of these aerodynamic data and facts into CFS3, and got some fairly realistic results out of it, but other things went wrong and it never reached full realism.

IL2 doesnt rely on aerodynamic data or facts at all.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

MS 2000+ relies on a few aerodynamic facts, as its partly build of a real FS. Any fault in MS 2000+ can easely be corrected, as there's easy access to these planes and their technical and aerodynamic data. Microsoft tried to incorperate some of these aerodynamic data and facts into CFS3, and got some fairly realistic results out of it, but other things went wrong and it never reached full realism.

IL2 doesnt rely on aerodynamic data or facts at all.

I could tell you as a pilot and as instrument pilot, it gets the job done. All the "numbers" (Vs, Vso) for smaller GA aircraft are right on the money. When flying instrument training only the numbers need to be realistic as you're not putting any real Gs on the aircraft.

[delcyros]

To disprove that the Mig has good maneuverability is not that easy. You may argue that the wing of the Mig-3 is placed more closer to the front, allowing a better AoA and the flaps of the Mig are great, fully deployed allowing an areodynamic lift coefficient of 1.51(!), making turning simple.The wingload is by far not bad. Compare it with the P-38L, or Fw-190A-8, its better:
Mig-3(1st serial block): 213,19 Kg/m², Mig-3 (2nd serial block): 192 Kg/ m², P-38L: 308 Kg/m² Fw-190A8: 226 Kg/m². The Bf-109 E/F and Spitfire V are slightly better, agreed. Nobody would seriously dispute that the P-38L could turn well. I found several turning datas, coming from testflights (Rechlin, 12.4. 1942, Oberammergau TA 1275 (1941)and from Gallais book (*). Datas give the best time for a sustainable turn at low altitude (TA 1275 gives 800 m. This is the worst performance altitude for the Mig, keep this in mind.
Bf-109 E-4: 253 Km/h / 157 mp/h and 22.5 sec. (slats not fully deployed)
Bf-109 F-4: 298 Km/h / 185 mp/h and 20.0 sec. (slats deployed)
Bf-109 G-6: 315 Km/h / 196 mp/h and 21.0 sec. (slats deployed)
Fw-190 A-4: 336 Km/h / 207 mp/h and 22.5 sec.
Spitfire Vc: 296 Km/h / 184 mp/h and 19.0 sec.
Mig-3 (1st serial block): 315 Km/h / 196 mp/h and 22.5 sec.
Mig-3 (2nd serial block)*:309 Km/h / 192 mp/h and 23.0 sec.
You can also calculate the turning radius with these datas. Following these datas the Mig keeps inside the turn of a Fw-190 A-4 but can be outturned at low altitudes by all other comparison planes. The difference is not that big (compare P-38 L: 355 Km/h / 220 mp/h and 25 sec., P-51B: 322 Km/h / 200 mp/h and 23.0 sec.) and it excludes the view that the Mig is kind of a dog in turning fights. keep in mind that the Mig gets better with the altitude in this competition.I read accounts from pilots who flew the Mig and some found it barely suitable, while others found this ´very precious. A friend of mine, who works in St. Petersburg explained that this may result from different tactics, used by them: Some used the plane in no other way as they did use the I-16 (which is a mistake for any high performance plane), while the pilots, like Prokryshkin, who developed energy tactics found this plane excellent.
According to german notes of late 1941, they have been in trouble fighting the Mig at high altitudes, esspeccially over Moscow, while many have been killed in lower altitude, dogfights. Reports quite often noticed the bad VVS tactics like 3 plane flights. This shouldn´t reduce the abilities of this particular plane in our discussion.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I could tell you as a pilot and as instrument pilot, it gets the job done. All the "numbers" (Vs, Vso) for smaller GA aircraft are right on the money. When flying instrument training only the numbers need to be realistic as you're not putting any real Gs on the aircraft.

Yes, I will definitely agree that for instrumental flying MS 2000+ is superb. Its the only game I ever played for a long period. Looking forward to flying the new Airbus in the next sequel

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

Yes, I will definitely agree that for instrumental flying MS 2000+ is superb. Its the only game I ever played for a long period. Looking forward to flying the new Airbus in the next sequel

If you could do approach procedures and holding patterns using MS 2000, you could almost fly intruments in a real aircraft

[Soren]

Originally Posted by delcyros

To disprove that the Mig has good maneuverability is not that easy. You may argue that the wing of the Mig-3 is placed more closer to the front, allowing a better AoA and the flaps of the Mig are great, fully deployed allowing an areodynamic lift coefficient of 1.51(!), making turning simple.The wingload is by far not bad. Compare it with the P-38L, or Fw-190A-8, its better:
Mig-3(1st serial block): 213,19 Kg/m², Mig-3 (2nd serial block): 192 Kg/ m², P-38L: 308 Kg/m² Fw-190A8: 226 Kg/m². The Bf-109 E/F and Spitfire V are slightly better, agreed. Nobody would seriously dispute that the P-38L could turn well. I found several turning datas, coming from testflights (Rechlin, 12.4. 1942, Oberammergau TA 1275 (1941)and from Gallais book (*). Datas give the best time for a sustainable turn at low altitude (TA 1275 gives 800 m. This is the worst performance altitude for the Mig, keep this in mind.
Bf-109 E-4: 253 Km/h / 157 mp/h and 22.5 sec. (slats not fully deployed)
Bf-109 F-4: 298 Km/h / 185 mp/h and 20.0 sec. (slats deployed)
Bf-109 G-6: 315 Km/h / 196 mp/h and 21.0 sec. (slats deployed)
Fw-190 A-4: 336 Km/h / 207 mp/h and 22.5 sec.
Spitfire Vc: 296 Km/h / 184 mp/h and 19.0 sec.
Mig-3 (1st serial block): 315 Km/h / 196 mp/h and 22.5 sec.
Mig-3 (2nd serial block)*:309 Km/h / 192 mp/h and 23.0 sec.
You can also calculate the turning radius with these datas. Following these datas the Mig keeps inside the turn of a Fw-190 A-4 but can be outturned at low altitudes by all other comparison planes. The difference is not that big (compare P-38 L: 355 Km/h / 220 mp/h and 25 sec., P-51B: 322 Km/h / 200 mp/h and 23.0 sec.) and it excludes the view that the Mig is kind of a dog in turning fights. keep in mind that the Mig gets better with the altitude in this competition.I read accounts from pilots who flew the Mig and some found it barely suitable, while others found this ´very precious. A friend of mine, who works in St. Petersburg explained that this may result from different tactics, used by them: Some used the plane in no other way as they did use the I-16 (which is a mistake for any high performance plane), while the pilots, like Prokryshkin, who developed energy tactics found this plane excellent.
According to german notes of late 1941, they have been in trouble fighting the Mig at high altitudes, esspeccially over Moscow, while many have been killed in lower altitude, dogfights. Reports quite often noticed the bad VVS tactics like 3 plane flights. This shouldn´t reduce the abilities of this particular plane in our discussion.

Del,

Those numbers are very wrong !

The E-4 had a much lower wing loading than the G-6, and would turn inside a Spit V ! And the Fw-190"A" would never turn that tightly at that low a speed !

Where is your info from ? And what is it based on ? It certainly isnt based on tests !

And the reason the 109 was such a capable T&B fighter:

The 109 had a conventional wing and was equipped with automatic leading edge slats. These opened out at low speed or at high speed under G loads, and restored the airflow (=lift) which would have been long separated otherwise due to turbulence.

The Slats extend up the range of AoA where the airflow stays attached to the wing. Without slats the wing would stall at certain AoA, the airflow turning turbulent at the same moment with sudden enormous increase in drag. With slats the airflow stays non-turbulent for some extra amount of AoA, and there will not be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall.

Here's a chart showing the difference of AoA achievable between a Wing fitted with slats and one without slats:


The slats on the 109 gave about 45-50% extra lift in banking maneuvers. (That's alot !)

Now add to this the 109's low wing-loading and excellent power-loading, and you've got one hell of T&B figther.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

If you could do approach procedures and holding patterns using MS 2000, you could almost fly intruments in a real aircraft

Most certainly.