F86 A-5 vs MiG15bis

[kev2go]

9 hours ago, Joch said:

Well IMHO focusing on whether non-G suit behavior is properly modelled is a red herring, both the F86 and MIG15s are "Boom and Zoom" fighters made for quick hit-and-runs, not turn fighters. 

I have not tried MP yet, but have done a lot of 1v1 and 2v2 F86 vs MIG15 dogfights at 8000 meters+ and the relative performance of the fighters matches the historical accounts I have read.

The MIG15 has superior speed and climb rate and can dictate the fight, but it feels a bit like riding a rocket with limited maneuverability, hard to finesse turns and get onto a F86s tail. OTOH once you get properly lined up on a F86, the firepower from the cannon is impressive.

The F86 feels a lot easier to fly, seems more stable when close to a stall, has superior views with its large bubble canopy and even though on paper the MIG15 has an edge, it seems easier to outturn a MIG15 in an F86 and maneuver into its rear quarter. The two gunsights also seem more accurate and are great for quick snapshots.

In the fall of 1953, the US got its hand on a MIG15 and setup mock dogfights with a F86. Chuck Yeager piloted one against another top USAF pilot. Whether Yeager piloted the F86 or the MIG15, the result was the same, he quickly got on the other plane's tail and was impossible to shake off. Afterwards, he commented that both plane's relative performance was close enough that pilot skill was the deciding factor.

9 hours ago, Joch said:

just my two cents opinion...

Right now it seems the f86 is underperforming in its top speed. I have not been able to break mach 0.95 in steep dive yet but historical documents note in testing a pilot was able to hit mach 1.05 and pull out.

 

Even  if the F86A flight model was adjusted it still took until all flying tail for sabre pilots to have that infamous advantage of being to escape from migs by ramming throttle to max and entering a  steep dive. Without the all flying tail at altitude you mach tuck real fast and have to slow down and pull up sooner then you would be expected to if you were flying an F86E.

Edited 12 hours ago by kev2go

[Jaegermeister]

24 minutes ago, kev2go said:

I have not been able to break mach 0.95 in steep dive yet but historical documents note in testing a pilot was able to hit mach 1.05 and pull out.

Using Chuck Yeager's technique, I was able to hit Mach 9.7. At that point I got severe buffeting and the wings and tail broke off, leading to my early demise.

[Xtremist]

9 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I'm sorry, but it seems you have a shallow understanding of how science works. What you quote, is the exact reason that you don't use a single test (AKA anecdotal "evidence") but several and then apply statistics (e.g. averaging).

Oh you have the right to have an opinion. You may even share it, no problems whatsoever. But what you may explicitly not do, as described in the forum rules but IMO is also common etiquette, is present your opinion as fact without providing evidence. By doing so, you're effectively elevating your own opinion above all disagreeing ones, and that is IMHO a very egocentrical and entitled thing to do.

"you don't use a single test (AKA anecdotal "evidence") but several and then apply statistics (e.g. averaging" 

And exactly what data do you suppose to apply statistics to with your method, since there is no way to measure the exact onset of blackout and g-loc on the ai?

The only thing one can do without accessing game data is to simply go toe to toe with the AI on equal conditions, and see who is affected sooner by the g effects. I did that, and it doesn't need averaging, because the outcome is 10 out of 10 times is that the ai is affected much less.

It is not enough to call it evidence, but as i wrote before, it should be enough to show some discrepancy, and also should be enough for reporting a bug.

If repeating this test 10 times with the same outcome but without accessing measurable data makes it less "anecdotal evidence" and more scientific evidence" for you, than the problem is not with my understanding of how science works.

I would like to add that you already arrived at the point where instead of arguing the facts you started labeling the person you disagree with. What does your common etiqutte say about that? I think -quote- "that is IMHO a very egocentrical and entitled thing to do."

Edited 4 hours ago by Xtremist