"Any of the WWII sims" is now a little exaggerated. Though what you describe certainly stands true for most "older" sims, if you play, say, DCS
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Any of the WWII simns are just games, with flight models usually tweaked from some earlier sim. I seriously doubt if an average person with no flight training could get a P-51D off the ground. But EVERYONE can do it in a PC sim. What does that say for accuracy? People with no tailwheel training would also very likely never get one down and stopped without a groundloop but, again, everyone in a PC simulator can do it.
Get a WWII fighter at 250 mph, bank to ... say ...75°, and pull has hard as you can. Think you'll get a turn or a whip-stall / spin after a wind-up? The sims all get a pretty decent turn from that maneuver.
The 109,190 and Mustang were ok up to the ultimate 0.8 range, with the Spit being the king in 0.85+ range.
One thing that it is important to remember is that compressibility effects may start to be noticeable earlier but it is still possible to control (and even fight) the aircraft up to the ultimate limit. The Mustang was a good example, you could start to notice effects (in its case porpoising) before its maximum allowable limit, but it was still controllable (interestingly in certain flight regimes the Mustang could nose up, rather than the usual nose down). So there was a large margin for the pilot to work with.
I'm gently dipping my toe into the Il 2 world with the PS3 game....just wondering if I should buy the flight-stick for it or go the whole hog get the PC version stick etc.
Great game tho
When the P-38 was "fixed," the P-51 had begun to appear in the ETO and there was no reason to continue two supply lines for fighters to do the same job. So the P-38's were largely released to the MTO and PTO.
The generally-quoted tally for the P-51 usually includes about 50% or so ground kills. The P-38 was no slouch at ANY time during the war and really didn't need to dive at very high speed all that often, especially if they were staying with the bombers as escort. That from some pilots who flew it in the war and have spoken at the Planes of Fame Museum.
Ah, depends on what you quote as the 'generally quoted tally for the P-51. Based on the USAF VC tally, current and up to date the air to air tally is still higher than F6F.. 5921 (USAF tally) to 5168 (USN tally) - both far higher than P-38(3785) and P-47 (3661) USAF. Throw in 8th AF (only) air to ground scores of 3199.75 (P-51), 161(P-38 ) and 740 (P-47)
The reason the P-38 needed to be able to dive is that the pesky German fighters knew they COULDN'T dive and easily evaded P-38 combat if at disadvantage. Didn't get a partial solution until the J-25 which came just before D-Day and only the 479th FG got to really fight with them before all the P-38s were shipped to 9th AF.
We tend to speak in absoultes in here and the war wasn't very absolute. Many times an older, slower aircraft flown by a good pilot fought quite well against a newer, supposdely better-performing aircraft flown by an average pilot.
I only have the USAAF Statistical Digest numbers for the ETO for the P-51 and the USAAF acknowledged 4,950 air kills and 4,131 ground kills for a total of 9,081. That is from the USAAF itself, not my opinion. I have absolutely no stake in the numbers whether they be larger or smaller. I have 5,163 for the F6F. When I entered the data from US Navy Opnav-P-23V No. A129, dated 17 June 1946 into Excel, I found after many checks that the Navy had made a slight math error in the table, Excel doesn't usually come up with an error when adding numbers.
The USAAF Statistical Digest was superseded by the much more thorough USAF Victory Credits studies and published results
For the P-47 in the ETO the USAAF has 3,082 air kills and 3,202 ground kills. For the P-38 in the ETO the USAAF has 1,771 air kills and 749 ground kills. Given the fact that it wasn't operating in the ETO for half of the US involvement, that isn't too bad.
It isn't too bad because it is grossly overstated with respect to ETO air to air tally for both the P-47 and P-38. 2658 and 458 for P-38 and P-47 respectively is for ETO theatres.. 1771 is close to my current P-38/PTO total of 1726 preliminary roll up using USAFHRC tables. but preliminary only as I haven't crosschecked with USAF 85.
I tend to shy away from USAAF Staistical Digest because so far they are far out of synch with USAF studies just for air to air. 8th AF VCB was the sole foundation source for USAAF ground scores in fact because neither the 9th, 12th or 15th truly documented ground scores. So, the question arises - what is your source for ground scores other than 8th AF?
And as far as the dive limits are concerned, I believe the number of times a fighter wound up in a near vertical dive up to or near the critical Mach number was VERY low, whether or not they were fightiing a Bf 109 or Fw 190 of any sort. If you dive away, you exit the fight in pursuit of your target, leave your assigned unit, and take yourself out of the action by separation from the rest. I'm sure it happened, but am just as sure it was reasonably infrequent. If I were flying a plane with known issues in steep dives, I might just decide to let the diving bugger go and pursue other targets that were sticking around to fight my unit.
Curious - while probably correct, what is your metric for 'low' per say for published Encounter reports? In ETO the 'normal' modus operandi for LW fighters was to attack and dive away to escape... there were many pursuits in foces ranging from single to element to flight strength.. define 'many' you say? I would be guessing but from Encounter Reports for P-51 and P-47 perhaps 10 or more percent, for P-38 1-2%.
I've been listening to fighter pilots give talks once a month at the Planes of Fame for more than 8 years, usually 2 - 3 per event, and the number of times they describe vertical dives in combat has been 2 - 3 in all that time. Each one talks for anywhere from 25 minutes to an hour and describes many aspects of WWII air combat. Dives just aren't mentioned much. So, you might be right when saying the dive limits were a severe handicap in WWII combat, but I wouldn't know it to listen to the guys who were there and did it.
In every one of my father's 7 air to air victory credits save one, a diving chase ensued some from high to middle and some from high to low. The exception was the Stuka on the deck on D-Day that was at 500 feet. Take a random walk through Mike Williams published collection and see for yourself. His experience was not atypical for Mustang and Thunderbolt drivers. Take a look at Old's P-38 encounter reports... to name one Lightning pilot's experiences in ETO, Ditto John Landers..
Anyone who thinks the Japanese were less combat worthy than the German might remember that when Spitfires came up against Zeros, they didn't fare too well. Like all air forces (and Navy air arms), the Japanese had their expert pilots along with average pilots and raw recruits just out of flight school. Right to the end of the war the experts were a significant threat to anyone they encountered. There seems to a feeling in here that the Japanese pilots were meat on the table for the last two years of the war, but the guys who were there aren't the people saying it. To a man they respected the Japanese pilots and considered them worthy foes.
Like you, Bill, I'd LOVE to come across Soviet combat data for anything including P-39 / P-63's. If anyone knows where it can be found, please sing out.
i gather you are playing birds of steel on your ps3? you are way better off with PC and a stick ( and rudder pedals). you will have way more options...diffferent games...you can create games....etc.
So these effects are seperate from compression?
This "not excede speed", is this when the plane cannot handle effectively anymore, or is it only an issue for diving?
And any idea what the Japanese planes mach limits were?
Yes, that's the one.
I'm really just starting off on it (haven't tried on-line or anything outside of 'arcade' mode.
It's a fun game but being arcade mode means it is pretty far from any kind of accuracy/reality.
I had a look at pedals (my initial thought was a flight stick but saw people saying your really want the pedals), then I looked at the prices, phew!
Another expensive hobby lol
The usual sims don't tell you how they got their data ... it is just a game that must be dumb enough for most players to be able to win, or it doesn't sell very well. And that is the end objective ... to sell games.
'Compression' is what used to be called mach limit. Compression was an early term because they really had no idea what was going on. As the impacts of close to mach 1 effects became more understood then they changed terms.
Exactly how did they find the flight models?
That is an intersting question because various flight test reports wildly disagree with one another depending on manifold pressure used, fuel used, rpm used, and whether or not the aircraft used for the test was typical of combat planes in the theater of operations being looked at. A p-40 with tropical filters was not going to fly like an ETO P-40 with no air filter. The same can be said for various types and various conditions including finish, cleanlinesss, prop condition, mud on the airframe, bugs, dun port covers, etc.
Guys in China used 75 inches of MAP on some of their P-40's (that from General John R. "Davey" Allison ... not related to the Allison engine company. The Air Corps approved 57 inches. The difference in performance was astounding. That also from Allison, in person in 2010 . He apssed away in 2011.
The usual sims don't tell you how they got their data ... it is just a game that must be dumb enough for most players to be able to win, or it doesn't sell very well. And that is the end objective ... to sell games.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with realism. It is all marketing and the playability. They KNOW which fighters should win, and allow for player ability, not for realistic responses.
Get real.
Commerecial WWII sims are games, not representative of flight characteristics of WWII aircraft or people would crash often. Name ONE sim where they do. You can't. All sims available in the gaming world are very flyable by people who have never flown anything.
How real can that BE?
Answer ... go put a non-pilot into a Cessna or Piper, let him or her take off and then try to land. 97% would be dead or injured.
The percent in sims is WAY less, and the "skill" to survive is EASY to acquire within the games.
Not so in real Cessnas or Pipers, which are EASY to fly in real life. P-51's are NOT easy to fly unless you have proper training in a suitable aircraft. Mostly the AT-6. Find a sim where the AT-6 is well modeled and tell us.
If you have 250 hours in an AT-6 in the front seat, you can probably fly a Mustang without killing yourself.
Anyone can fly a typical WWII combat sim, wheter or not they can really fly anything.
Realistic? I think not. I have NEVER taken a SINGLE passenger aloft who could trim the plane on his or her first flight, much less find an airport and land without crashing. EVERYBODY can in a WWII combat sim.
not and cannot include g-forve and the active control sticks cannot mimick the feel of a real WWII aircraft.
They didn't HAVE inverted fuel and oil systems, and were NOT intended for negative maneuvers for the most part.
The unlimited ammo and fuel I don;t mind since you get to stay engaged but, if you set them off, it is simple
I think they should add some shaking when approaching a stall in the sims, and give warning like a real plane does.