Message text von_Drinkoften said:
Life is unfair. Stability B aircraft are just the norm, the average, when an aircraft has a different stability, it's for a damn good reason. It's no penalization, look at it the other way, a different stability rating reflects some unique flight characteristics in one way or the other.
You're sayng that "B" is the norm and "C" and "A" are favourable exceptions, aren't you? Put this way, I find it reasonable. But...
Stability C is highly neccessary to reflect the unique maneuverability of the Camel and the Fokker Dr 1
No, wait. The original purpose of the stability rule was to reflect the quality of ac's as _firing platforms_. If you ever played flight sims, you know what I mean: With a Camel or a Dr1 it's easy to get on your opponent's tail, but lining up a decent shot with the darn thing that keeps waving under you it's another matter. OTOH, with a SE5a you have to adopt different tactics (vertical turns, sweeps), but once you have him in your sights you punch hard.
The good/poor stability is in most cases balanced by poor/good manuverability. it makes sense.
Except for the Triplane, the Siemens and the Snipe. 
(snip on the DVIII example).
What I meant is that the stability rule in CE is a way to have bank creep in. Ok, lets's do it, but let's do it right.
Take frex, the "short" maneuvers serie: from 11L2 to 11R2 across 6/2/7S1. Now, the standard division is between "L", "S" and "R". And, for "A" and "C" ac's, it works perfectly well. But for "B"s, I'd suggest simply dividing the 180° turns from other maneuvers, so that a "B" that just did 11R2 could only do 10L2 and viceversa.
It's not much better, I admit, but IMO is in some way better. OTOH the only game I saw with a good handling of bank/turn rates was Air Force/Dauntless. There, you can appreciate the difference between (IIRC) a P38 (turns quite tight for its size, but rolls like a slug) and a Corsair (not so good at turning, but rolls 180° on a dime). |
|
|