History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:54 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10916
Andy L wrote:
Why does the Spitfire Mk IX score higher than the Spitfire VIII? The Mk IX was the older Mk V airframe with the Merlin 60, the MK VIII was a new airframe designed for the Merlin 60.

Andy


As usual. there's no single reason - or even an easily discernable one. There are a series of small differences across the board, some of which favor the Mk.VIII, some the Mk.IX. The way it all balances out at the end puts the Mk.IX slightly ahead.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6361
Location: Cambs, UK
Stuart, did you ever crank out a value for the Miles M.20?

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10916
Craiglxviii wrote:
Stuart, did you ever crank out a value for the Miles M.20?

I did, although its a bit tough because the data is contradictory. However, given the most consistent information available, it came out as 78.8.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 1:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6361
Location: Cambs, UK
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Craiglxviii wrote:
Stuart, did you ever crank out a value for the Miles M.20?

I did, although its a bit tough because the data is contradictory. However, given the most consistent information available, it came out as 78.8.


Thank you, most interesting.

So looking at the combined data (I have all fighters organized on one list) the M.20 is competitive very roughly through to the end of the BoB then. Its peers (+/- 10%) are thus:

Spitfire I (38) 71.46
CW-21B 72.32
Me-110D-2 72.65
MB-152 73.37
P-36C 73.44
Arsenal VG-33 73.65
Dewoitine D.520 74.09
P-43 75.24
Polikarpov I-17 75.68
Me-109E-3 75.7
YaK-1 78.11
MB-155 79.28
P-36G 79.39
P-40B 79.88
P-39C 79.95
P-40A 80.2
YaK-7 80.83
Potez 671 80.97
Spitfire I (40) 81.46
Me-109E-4 82.1
P-43A 82.12
Spitfire II 82.18
LaAG-3 82.56
Me-109T-1 83.03
Me-110E 83.59
MiG-1 83.75
Me-109F-1 84.23
He-100D-0 84.36
Me-109E4/N 84.9
Do-217J-1 85.14
Me-109F-2 85.23
Polikarpov I-16M 85.36

The I-16M at 85.4? That surprised me! (You don't model aircraft for War Thunder do you? ;) )

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10916
Craiglxviii wrote:
The I-16M at 85.4? That surprised me!


It's not surprising; the aircraft was quite heavily armed by the standards applicable, and was a vicious, highly maneuverable fighter. It was also murderously dangerous to fly. I have memoirs of some Russian fighter pilots here and they are all agreed on that. The I-16 was difficult and dangerous to control on takeoff and had a bad tendency to go into a flat spin without warning. That made it lethal for inexperienced pilots (who were mostly put into I-15 biplanes who simply could not push the plane to its boundaries without killing themselves. This doesn't come out in our model because there is no way we can put numbers on that. I've tried to think of a way to include it but everything I've come up with doesn't work when pushed.

Quote:
You don't model aircraft for War Thunder do you?


Smile when you say that stranger . . . . . Seriously War Thunder is a pain in the ass. Try and do internet research on a given aircraft and War Thunder hits start to drown out everything else. On You-tube, nearly all the film clip hits are from War Thunder. Also, (and one of my pet hates - of which there are many :twisted: ) is people who claim they know something about a real aircraft because "they flew Aircraft X on War Thunder".

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6361
Location: Cambs, UK
I only asked because the I-16M in that game is ridiculously overpowered, it can take on Fw.190s with ease. I'm guessing it's the twin 23mm that give it the gravitas? And no, I wasn't seriously asking that question cowboy ;)

It is irritating, World of Tanks does the same thing for AFVs. With no Commie bias of course!

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10916
Craiglxviii wrote:
I only asked because the I-16M in that game is ridiculously overpowered, it can take on Fw.190s with ease. I'm guessing it's the twin 23mm that give it the gravitas? And no, I wasn't seriously asking that question cowboy ;)


The armament is good (the wing-mounted cannon were high-velocity guns that way outperformed the MG-FF on the 109E4 and it had a lot of power for its size and weight. It didn't bleed off speed and energy in a turning match the way the German fighters did. When it came to slash and zoom though it had no chance. Like most Soviet fighters, it was good at low altitude but its performance degraded very fats with altitude.

Its interesting that the I-16M (I must redo the I-16 figures to improve the differentiation) is pretty much on a par with other Soviet fighters of 1941 vintage. That's borne out by the way it hung around for so long despite production of newer aircraft.

I understand that War Thunder and WoT both gravely overrate Russian equipment. It's worth noting that the Russians do not have a high opinion of the FW-190. They thought the 109F/G were superior aircraft.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6361
Location: Cambs, UK
In that game my experience of the Fw.190 is a very low continued rate of climb, all German a/c except for the 109 suffer from this. It's actually rather well done, a lot of detail went into it... Remember that wing root fuel tank question on the 190? I got my response from the plane modelling screen in my hangar ;) and that was borne out by further discussion...

World of Tanks is interesting in that the paper or prototype designs nearly always smash actual service kit, really by quite a margin. The L7 105mm gun is very hit and miss against T-55 and -64s for instance using their modelling, and that doesn't quite match real life experience.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2016 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:51 am
Posts: 879
Francis Urquhart wrote:
It was also murderously dangerous to fly. I have memoirs of some Russian fighter pilots here and they are all agreed on that. The I-16 was difficult and dangerous to control on takeoff and had a bad tendency to go into a flat spin without warning. That made it lethal for inexperienced pilots (who were mostly put into I-15 biplanes who simply could not push the plane to its boundaries without killing themselves.


I recall reading Soviet flying instructors claimed "If you can fly an I-16, you can fly anything".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6361
Location: Cambs, UK
Ok, I freely admit to having just had my copy of British Secret Projects: Jet Fighters by Buttlervdelivered.

Stuart, do you have any idea where the B-P P.128 would end up?

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10916
Craiglxviii wrote:
Ok, I freely admit to having just had my copy of British Secret Projects: Jet Fighters by Buttlervdelivered. Stuart, do you have any idea where the B-P P.128 would end up?


We can't do a rating on it; since it never flew there's no available data. Its very like the proposed Russian and American ultra-high-speed research aircraft so perhaps it could have become the first British air-to-space aircraft? Although I don't know why they still fitted it with the quadruple machine gun turret . . .. .

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6361
Location: Cambs, UK
That might be a different P.128... this was an M2 interceptor from 1954.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10916
Do you mean this thing?

Image

The quadruple turret would have been fitted just behind the cockpit. . . . .

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6361
Location: Cambs, UK
That's it, I didn't see a reference to quad turrets though! Most interesting...

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10916
Craiglxviii wrote:
That's it, I didn't see a reference to quad turrets though! Most interesting...

The idea was that the interceptor would fly alongside and below the nuclear bomber and when the latter dropped its bombs, the interceptor would detonate it with machinegun fire. the Japanese were apparently very interested in the installation for their F-104J Starfighters but they decided it was too suicidal even for them.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7562
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Francis Urquhart wrote:
The idea was that the interceptor would fly alongside and below the nuclear bomber and when the latter dropped its bombs, the interceptor would detonate it with machinegun fire.


:shock: :? :o

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, say again, over?

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10916
The Bushranger wrote:
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, say again, over?


It was appreciated that atomic weapons were salvage-fused so that they would initiate when they reached a specific altitude. Therefore just shooting down the bomber over one's own territory was pointless. The British, because they were so close to the USSR realized that a very fast bomber would be over their territory before they could stop it. So, they had to destroy the nuclear device at high altitude. So, the idea was that the P.128 would fly out, take station underneath the inbound bomber and start firing into the bomb bay as soon as the doors started to open. You notice the curved belly on the P.128? That's so when the device started to initiate, the pilot could roll the aircraft over, thus protecting himself and his gunner from the blast.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5629
Location: Sweden
Francis Urquhart wrote:
The Bushranger wrote:
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, say again, over?


It was appreciated that atomic weapons were salvage-fused so that they would initiate when they reached a specific altitude. Therefore just shooting down the bomber over one's own territory was pointless. The British, because they were so close to the USSR realized that a very fast bomber would be over their territory before they could stop it. So, they had to destroy the nuclear device at high altitude. So, the idea was that the P.128 would fly out, take station underneath the inbound bomber and start firing into the bomb bay as soon as the doors started to open. You notice the curved belly on the P.128? That's so when the device started to initiate, the pilot could roll the aircraft over, thus protecting himself and his gunner from the blast.

That's one of the more insane ideas I've heard in a while.
And I'm surrounded by the semi-crazy.

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10916
Micael wrote:
That's one of the more insane ideas I've heard in a while. And I'm surrounded by the semi-crazy.

It was all quite sensible and very well thought-out. For example, the P.128 had a heat exchanger in its belly so that the crew could utilize the thermal flash to power their boiling vessel and thus make themselves a cup of tea while heading for the next target.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 5629
Location: Sweden
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Micael wrote:
That's one of the more insane ideas I've heard in a while. And I'm surrounded by the semi-crazy.

It was all quite sensible and very well thought-out. For example, the P.128 had a heat exchanger in its belly so that the crew could utilize the thermal flash to power their boiling vessel and thus make themselves a cup of tea while heading for the next target.

Image

_________________
The Night Watch - A Star Trek Story


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group