P-39 n-0 vs yak 9

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hello pops-paolo,

Your initial question might have drawn a little less unfavourable attention if it had been posted in the Gaming / Simulation forums, though you would not have gotten nearly as much attention and probably not gotten the same quality of responses.

As others have already pointed out, War Thunder is basically an arcade game. It isn't really even remotely close to a historically accurate flight simulator. I personally don't play it, but from some of the videos I have watched, it is pretty obvious that for many of the aircraft, the equipment and armaments are not representative of the actual aircraft.

Consider that for game balance, War Thunder has to allow just about every nationality to have a "fighting chance". In reality, many nations didn't develop technology to be competitive late in the war.

I generally don't brag about it much in present company, but I have been involved in developing for flight sims as a hobby for about two decades. It is generally quite easy to achieve the quoted performance specifications for an aircraft. What is the difficult part is modelling the handling differences which made one aircraft easy to fly and another "tricky" and dangerous. How do the characteristics change with varying airspeed? The problem is that even when there is a pilot report, it is qualitative and requires a somewhat subjective interpretation.
I can tell you that the Airacobra was one of my projects from about two years ago and to get that flight model to where I was basically satisfied took most of a year of research and experiments to see what worked. Even when I was done, I can't claim it is any more than my interpretation. What exactly is the degree of instability when the ammunition is expended??? I still don't believe it is entirely correct but it is as close as I know how to tune it at this time.

If you want to continue this discussion, I would be glad to do it, but believe it belongs in the Combat Flight Simulator forum instead of here.

- Ivan.
 
A little perspective. This is a good snapshot of what is not replicated in the sim.

Cheers,
Biff

PS: I don't know this guy, but can relate to what he has written. I still remember the first time I shut down and could hear the clank of the fan blade. Just for chronological perspective, the current F-35 Demo Pilot is a Capt Beo Wolf. I flew Eagles in the same wing as her Dad, Lupus.
 

Attachments

  • AFCF6A16-832C-4968-A93A-632BFD6F1493.jpeg
    AFCF6A16-832C-4968-A93A-632BFD6F1493.jpeg
    105.5 KB · Views: 61
This might get a little long winded, so apologies in advance....

Hello pops-paolo,

One of the other serious problems with using a flight simulator as a basis for doing a comparison between actual historical aircraft is that you are very dependent on the quality of research and the very subjective opinions of the fellow doing the flight modelling. You are also counting on the skill of that fellow in knowing how to model any peculiar flight characteristics.

As one of our very knowledgeable members here pointed out a long time ago (I believe it was DerAdlerIstGelandet): A PC based desktop type flight simulator isn't really capable of faithfully modelling how real aeroplanes behave. The software and computing power are not there.
What is really being done is that there are numerous lookup tables of moments and graphs to approximate the "normal" conditions encountered by the typical aeroplane. Things are much less "accurate" when the aeroplane is not flying straight and level and tables are used to predict the movement based on no real aerodynamic information on the actual aircraft.
As an example, in order to MIMIC the instability of the Airacobra under certain conditions, I had to edit a table of Pitch Moments at various angles of attack from 0-360 degrees which wasn't actually all that granular and put in MY BEST ESTIMATE based on experimentation of how I as someone who has never actually flown a heavy iron warbird much less an Airacobra BELIEVED it should behave.
There was also a note from one pilot that the tumble was slightly easier to reproduce in one direction than the other. With that as the only information, one might alter a pitch moment in a particular direction, but how much is "slightly"? Would my compensation be off by 10% or 50%? How would that affect the overall handling?
This is just one factor particular to the Airacobra. There are numerous differences between different fighters and in a best case scenario, the author of the flight model has just a pilot's report.

In a worst case scenario, the author doesn't have the knowledge or skill to do proper tuning. One of my friends was also working on a P-39 at the same time as I was. His has no conditions of instability or odd handling. He also understood the Propeller Tables much less than I thought he did, and his version has a propeller that lugs in a very bad way and the engine will not reach maximum RPM until almost 200 MPH. That can't be good for low speed acceleration.

When you fly the Airacobra against the Yak-9, which Airacobra did you fly? Was the flight model done particularly well. I don't claim mine is done that well, but at least it reflects characteristics that are missing in my friend's flight model.

Even when you have two authors that are equally skilled and knowledgeable, there is still the subjective factor. Just about everyone can get the speed, climb rates, roll rates, turn performance, ceiling and other easily quantifiable characteristics correct. The handling though is a much tougher thing to get correct and different authors may not agree what "Good control harmony" means.

SO.... With all that in mind, how does one come up with any kind of definitive conclusion about different fighters based on having flown them in a flight simulator?

- Ivan.
 
A little perspective. This is a good snapshot of what is not replicated in the sim.

Cheers,
Biff

PS: I don't know this guy, but can relate to what he has written. I still remember the first time I shut down and could hear the clank of the fan blade. Just for chronological perspective, the current F-35 Demo Pilot is a Capt Beo Wolf. I flew Eagles in the same wing as her Dad, Lupus.
All true of course but the fly boys ( civil and the armed ones) also get trained with sims. And even navy guys get trained on sims entering ports. So it must have some value.
 
All true of course but the fly boys ( civil and the armed ones) also get trained with sims. And even navy guys get trained on sims entering ports. So it must have some value.

Snautzer01,

I really enjoy the sim, for certain things. And the airline sims are unbelievably real in some ways. The big thing is experience. The more a guy has, the less he needs the real jet most of the time. The less time a guy has the more benefit he will get from actual flying. The USAF is having some difficulties figuring this out, as it's trying to get its inexperienced pilots more "training" from the sim at the expense of seat time in the real thing. It costs less. At the moment. However, lose one jet and it becomes a lopsided expense, and I mean the expense of not having gained more experience in the jet. This is doubly important in fighters.

Cheers,
Biff
 
Thanks Biff

I only have very very limited experience on 1 engined trainers, How ever, i do think that sims and then the large professional at that ones do add. Not to your former job. Cant imagine it would. It perhaps learns one to find the cockpit tools a bit faster.
The games like il2 do add, but are not in any way ( i played the game like a religion) had i ever the idea it was anything but a game. A very good game but still a game.
Now i have met a few more professional simulations. Just for fun and on invites as a guest. I did not see really very much difference. And that is i think what is the crunch.
Nothing can change a real life seat in a plane to a cosy seat at home behind a computer. Nothing, period. Full stop, go home. Pull up your pants.
It is i think like trying to be Simone Biles the gymnast behind a keyboard. Fun until one tries it in real life. It will end very badly and most painfully.
Just as all off the keyboard jockeys will end egg planted on their face with a million dollar coffin wrapped around them.
But to end hopefully, perhaps a few will try to make it for real. Military or civil. The next gen has to come from somewhere.

I wish them well.
 
There has been a few cases of airplanes being saved by a person who had gaming time when the pilot became incapacitated.
 
Thanks Biff

I only have very very limited experience on 1 engined trainers, How ever, i do think that sims and then the large professional at that ones do add. Not to your former job. Cant imagine it would. It perhaps learns one to find the cockpit tools a bit faster.
The games like il2 do add, but are not in any way ( i played the game like a religion) had i ever the idea it was anything but a game. A very good game but still a game.
Now i have met a few more professional simulations. Just for fun and on invites as a guest. I did not see really very much difference. And that is i think what is the crunch.
Nothing can change a real life seat in a plane to a cosy seat at home behind a computer. Nothing, period. Full stop, go home. Pull up your pants.
It is i think like trying to be Simone Biles the gymnast behind a keyboard. Fun until one tries it in real life. It will end very badly and most painfully.
Just as all off the keyboard jockeys will end egg planted on their face with a million dollar coffin wrapped around them.
But to end hopefully, perhaps a few will try to make it for real. Military or civil. The next gen has to come from somewhere.

I wish them well.
Snautzer01,

There are many different types of sims. There are desk top trainers (PC type), fixed base sims and these vary greatly from a cheesy cockpit with tv type touch screens to dome type with a platform in the middle. Then there are full motion sims, which sit on hydraulic legs and are very accurate (your inner ear thinks you are in the plane and you can get spatial disorientation). The latest 737Max sims that my airline bought are upgraded such that the foundation of the building had to be cut out and reinforced where the legs bolt down.

All of them have a place in training, and are tailored to the experience level of the user. The dome sims were interesting as the platform you were seated on didn't move, but the visual inside the dome did. In the middle of a fight your bud would walk out onto the platform and talk to you, but he would have to hold on so as not to fall off. Your eyes would tell you that a turn was taking place, so you mind would tell your body to lean. Guys could have easily fallen off had there not been a rail.

Cheers,
Biff
 
The Russians somehow managed to get the Germans to fight at low to modest altitudes, where the P-39 wasn't disadvantaged. And the Russians used the advantages of the P-39, such as up close and personal with that 37mm cannon, decent low altitude speed and a decent turn radius. I'm sure some Germans knew to stay away from their opponents strengths, but maybe an overly enthusiastic command structure ordered their pilots to in affect throw away their planes' advantages.
Also it would greatly depend on how the aircraft were operated. The Russians operated the P-39 at full throttle plus. That made the engines only last 20 hours until overhaul. Alexander Pokryshkin, the top Airacobra ace, refused to change to any other plane including the Lavochkin La-7. The YAK-9 was faster but only up high at 20,000 ft. The Germans had to come down low to fight.
 
Last edited:
Also it would greatly depend on how the aircraft were operated. The Russians operated the P-39 at full throttle plus. That made the engines only last 20 hours until overhaul. Alexander Pokryshkin, the top Airacobra ace, refused to change to any other plane including the Lavochkin La-7. The YAK-9 was faster but only up high at 20,000 ft. The Germans had to come down low to fight.
Do you have a reference for that? I can tell you that 20 hours was not a hard number and it usually depended if the engine started "making metal." According to P-39 pilot Nikolay Golodnikov, up to 50 hours was seen, 10-15 sorties in combat, and this was on the initial deliveries of P-39s and their "early engines."

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back