[George Formby]

I don't know how the AI "pilots" work, but it seems that the AI are able to control these planes a lot better than any live pilot. I've followed AI in external view, and observed some very bizarre control movements, like full rudder in a gentle turn, yet the aircraft does not behave as it would if you did the same thing.

A good test to try would be to set up AI versus AI, Avenger versus A6M, and see how they fare.

Totally agree!! The AI is programmed to fly a plane, and adjust trim, fuel and the works on a dime, they don't have to think about it, where we do..Lets both do the AI test and compare notes...what do you say??

[F4U-1_Corsair]

Well, I hope this carries more weight then the previous speculation, I just calculated the wing loading for both A6M and TBM, and the difference is surprisingly small.

The A6M has a wing loading of 107.4 kg/m² without droptanks

The TBM has a wing loading of 129.5 kg/m² carrying only feul, no ordanance

For comparison, the P51 has a wing loading of 192 kg/m², and the P40 has a loading of 171.5 kg/m²

[8FS_Bulau]

Now that I think about it a bit more, George, the original poster was complaining about Avenger out turning A6M, with both pilots live, not AI versus live.

With two live pilots, we have the big variable of pilot skill, plus we really don't know fuel onboard of each aircraft.

Even a test of AI versus AI may not tell us much because, AI pilots do not "think" the same as live pilot. I think only test should be live pilot testing for max turn rate and turn radius, and see If the IL-2 Avenger does indeed out turn A6M.

That said, I would still fall back on my original point, that this is an AI Only aircraft, never intended for live pilots, and FM is incomplete or simplified. It's a bomber, not a fighter, so never intended to be used that way in online servers.

[Fireskull]

Yes, and I believe strongly that using actual official aircraft data and then using a systematic method of evaluating the FM in IL-2 would help dramatically at getting a better FM. This could be said of any aircraft in IL-2. of course.


The Stuka Example
Here is an example of an aircraft which many people think is no match for any fighter. I read the book by Hans Ulrich Rudell called "Stuka Pilot". He wrote that many people thought that the Ju-87 was no match for a fighter in a turn fight. Rudell personally shot down several Soviet fighters in dog fights and some in his squadron did the same thing. He wrote that when fuel was low, the Stuka would turn very tightly. When fuel was full, the Ju-87 was sluggish. This is why (including the need to conserve fuel), he wrote, they only took enough fuel for a mission plus one emergency.

Sure, there are slow planes that never have a chance to turn with a fighter, but we can sometimes be very surprised by the few that can.

Everyone who replied here had good points in the discussion.

[George Formby]

The fuel thing can be said about the Mustang too, pilots were quoted as saying they were a real kick in the pants until you got the main body fuel tank emptied, or was it the reserve?? oh well, you get my point.. :wink:

[piersyf]

Hi guys. I wouldn't take wing loading alone as a measure of maneuverability. The P51 may have a loading of 192 kg/msq, but the B17 had a wing loading of 190kg/msq. Does that make the B17 as maneuverable as a P51? . Short, high loaded wings have less drag and usually have a high rate of roll. Good pitch control will have a/c like that change vector very quickly. High a/c weight then has angular momentum to overcome. In short, a Zero with the shorter wingspan and the lighter airframe will easily over-match an a/c even if it has comparable wing loading. One area the TBF would have an advantage over other bombers is that the G loading would be higher than for normal "bombers" and would be inside the range for a fighter, as you would expect from any a/c capable of dive bombing.

Just an "off the cuff" reply as I cannot find any useful data on the TBF such as G load or rate of roll.

P

[WhoDatNotSayin]

If a low wing loading was all that was required to increase an aircraft's manoeuvrability why not just make the wing bigger? There is clearly more to it than that. For a start, there is the question of power-to-weight ratio, where an Avenger is going to lose out markedly to a fighter. You also have to decide at what altitude you want the plane to operate, it's desired range, and many other things. Aircraft design is a question of making compromises, and in the case of the Avenger, things like having to carry a bomb/torpedo load, defensive armament, and a crew of three (I think?) will inevitably have restricted some aspects of its performance. The idea that you could magically produce a bomber that could match turning performance with a fighter belongs in cloud-cuckoo land.

[George Formby]

Hi guys. I wouldn't take wing loading alone as a measure of maneuverability. The P51 may have a loading of 192 kg/msq, but the B17 had a wing loading of 190kg/msq. Does that make the B17 as maneuverable as a P51? . Short, high loaded wings have less drag and usually have a high rate of roll. Good pitch control will have a/c like that change vector very quickly. High a/c weight then has angular momentum to overcome. In short, a Zero with the shorter wingspan and the lighter airframe will easily over-match an a/c even if it has comparable wing loading. One area the TBF would have an advantage over other bombers is that the G loading would be higher than for normal "bombers" and would be inside the range for a fighter, as you would expect from any a/c capable of dive bombing.

Just an "off the cuff" reply as I cannot find any useful data on the TBF such as G load or rate of roll.

P

the effect of the fuel was more of a balance thing as opposed to the overall size and weight, which even todays craft have to maintain some sort of fuel balance to be able to fly and handle smoothly. The P-51 flight manual states : Cockpit Check - Fuel Supply The first thing you will want to consider is whether or not to fly with the aft fuselage tank filled. When even half-full, this tank had a severely adverse affect on the aircraft's handling. Only normal, conservative maneuvers were allowed with this tank full, as it moves the aircraft's center of gravity well aft. Unless you are planning a long-range ferry mission, it is recommended this tank be set to empty or nearly empty.
With the Avenger the statement of assessment from the War Dept. was : As with all US naval planes of pre-Guadacanal times, the US TBF is inferior to its counterpart, the B5N2 Kate in performance (except for speed on the deck). It climbs poorer, turns much worse, accelerates poorer, and carries poorer torpedos (something that should not be an issue in Warbirds as all torpedos perform the same). But it has the usual assets of the US Navy for the time: Durability, excellent defensive firepower compared to the opposition, and fragile opponents. And that is comparing it to the Kate..

[WhoDatNotSayin]

I think it has been more or less definitely shown that stock IL-2 doesn't model changes in CoG with fuel load.

I'm not sure this discussion of FMs is getting us very far though. From what I've seen there are only two sensible approaches to this: (a) apply general aerodynamic principles to data available for the aircraft under discussion, or (b) refer to actual flight-test data.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Now that I think about it a bit more, George, the original poster was complaining about Avenger out turning A6M, with both pilots live, not AI versus live.

With two live pilots, we have the big variable of pilot skill, plus we really don't know fuel onboard of each aircraft.

Bingo

Which is also the problem with most if not all combat pilot reports

In that combat pilot reports by their vary nature are only half of the story

Even if you were comfortable with ignoring half of the story, combat pilot reports hardly if ever contain enough information to recreate the scenario in-game to set up a test

Which is why I prefer the information from a test report done by a test pilot and crew

In that test pilot reports by their vary nature contain enough information to recreate the scenario in-game to set up a test

But I digress

Back to the topic at hand

Looking at IL2Compare to see what it says about the Avenger Turn Rate..

Best turn times at 1km in degrees per second (dps)

Avengers
17.70 dps TBF-1c
17.20 dps TBM-3

ZEROS
21.25 dps A6M2-21
18.50 dps A6M2N
22.25 dps A6M2
21.25 dps A6M3
21.25 dps A6M5a
21.00 dps A6M5b
18.50 dps A6M5c
18.65 dps A6M7 model 62
19.50 dps A6M7 model 63

Assuming the percent difference holds at all altitudes (which it typically does) it should be clear that the Avenger(s) can NOT turn with let alone out turn the ZERO

Therefore what the original poster is 'seeing' is the difference due to one if not all of the following; e-states, aircraft status, pilot skills and last but not least someone using a cheat

Which is not to imply that I think the Avenger turn rates are simulated correctly or incorrectly

To make such a call you would need real world data to compare to and/or apply general aerodynamic principles to come up with some values to compare to.

Without that your simply fooling yourself if you think the changes you or anyone else did makes the flight model more realistic/accurate

In that in such cases all they have manged to do is trade on mans, or one groups opinion of how it should fly for another man or groups opinion

And 'opinions' is not what flight model changes should be based on!

Nuff said?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Not to pick on or single out tater718 here..

In that there are plenty examples out there

But I just found these posts to be the classical examples of how an opinion can be confused with a fact..

With that said allow me to point out where this happens in tater718s post(s) to show just how easy it is for anyone to make the mistake of thinking thier opinion is fact

The FM for this bird is probably a mistake.

Maybe..

Maybe not..

The only thing we can be sure of here is that no one has provided any proooff to say one way or the other. .

That is to say the FM is iniocnet until proven guilty!

And in such cases I default to Oleg and his expertise over any of the 'opinons' provdied thus far..

In that in this very thread we have 'opinions' for and aginst the Avengers turn rate..

So which opinion are we to belive?

The answer is none..

Lets move on..

The Avenger was known as "the Turkey" and for good reason. By all accounts that I remember reading it was never described as a manouverable airplane.

By all accounts that you remember reading

But what if you had read just one more account?

What if you had read what F4U-1_Corsair had read, i.e.

I have been reading up on Pilot's accounts of Avengers in action, for a campaign I have been working on, and all of them speak highly of its performance, one passage saying that he "handled it like a fighter" in maneuvers (this being a pilot who had flown F4F-3 fighters before midway). Another (perhaps more relevant) reference was of a pilot, who after dropping his torpedo, spotted a zero diving on him, managed to avoid it by "turning sharply."

Now had you read that account you may have had a different opinion..

Hard to say..

The point I am making here is our opinions are really worthless when it comes to saying if something is simulated realistic or not..

Why?

Because we all have different life experiences and thus we all have different opinions due to those experiences..

And we should NOT fool ourselves into thinking that just because 10 people agree with our opinion and 1 person does not agree with our opinion that the 10 people who agree with you means you are correct and the one who does not agree with you is wrong.

Why?

In that it could be a simple statistical manifestation of the fact that the world tends to have more fools in it than non-fools

Long story short flight models based on majority rules does not result in a more accurate flight model.

It carried a heavy loadout and was very resistant to battle damage but the idea that in RL it was a "fighter in mufti" is a little hard to believe

Hard for you to belive

Based on what you have read

But not hard for others to belive

Based on what they have read

As I noted above, opinions are based on what you have read (life experances)..

Thus it should be clear to all that an opinion is not fact.

considering the published performance specifications. Oh well

Again, not to pick on tarter718

But simply stating you have read published performace specifications without provding the book referene and or web link does not impress me and does not give his statment any more validity..

And even if he had provided a book referne and or web link I would still NOT be impresed until I had a chance to read the book reference and or web link..

Why?

Becase I can not tell you how many times I have gone to the trouble of reading what someone provided only to find out that it says exactally th oposite of what that someone thought it said. It does not really mater if thier misinterptation and thus final conclusion is due to a pre-existing bias or reading comprehention problem, the point to be made here is that all things are open to interptation..

So it should be clear to all that even if you provid what you think is proof to support your statment, upon futher investigaion (ie someone else reading it) you may find out that you just proved yourself wrong. But I think we can all agree that provding no proof makes the statment worthelss and that when you do provide proof at least your allowing others the chance to review your proof to ensure that everyone is in agreement with the interptation of the data.

I have been to many airshows. I have never seen the Turkey behave anything like the game version.

And one should not expect a 65+ year old plane to be flown like it is flown in the game, let alone expect factory fresh plane to be flown like it is in the game 65+ years ago..

Why?

Because the behavior in this game in no whay shape or form reflects the behavior of the pilots in WWII

Henc the name game vs. reality

So the air show behavior vs. in game behavior say nothing with regards to the turn rate accuracy of the Avenger..

I casually knew one guy who flew them in several CAF displays and all he said about them was that they were heavy and steady. Made a lot of noise,too.

And ask another guy who has flown it and you would probally get another qualitative responce..

But just like the books you read or have not read, if you keep reading or keep asking your likly to get alot of conflicting statemnts..

Why?

Beause such statements are typically not from a qualified test pilot flying under strict test conditions with measurement equipment to record and thus validdate the pilots experances..

And take a look at the Ju-52. A loop on take off? Aw,c'mon! I have a lot of fun with it so I hope it stays "broken". Enjoy them while you can,Guys!

Just to drive this point home..

As with the Avenger..

I have seen no proof provided here that says the Ju-52 could or could not do such things..

The thing we have to keep in mind is..

No flightsim ever WAS, IS, or WILL BE perfect@

Why?

Well for one obvious fact is that it is a simulation and thus by its vary nature it will never be perfect (ie real)..

And secondly there is no one deinitions of 'perfect'..

That is to say there are as many 'opinion's out there as to what perfct means as there are 'opinions' on the turn rate of the Avenger..

Thus the the only thing that will put oposing opinions to rest is the in-game comparsion to real world data..

So yes until than enjoy them while you can..

Just dont fool yourself into thinking that you experance (read opinion) is the end all be all definition of what is right and wrong with regards to how realistic a flight model is..

In that even to this day for ever 'real' spitfire pilot that you can find that said he was able to out turn a 109 there is a real 109 pilot out there that says he was able to out turn a Spitfire

And if that does not give you pause to stop and consider that your experances (read opinion) may not be all that you think they are than nothing ever will!