RHS Maneuverability Review: Data [ALL Data Done]

[el cid again]

It is my intention to create a list - but this will be time consuming - showing all planes - former maneuverability - and new one - and maybe RHS and stock - side by side (like I did for ships and air units in the past).

At the moment I have NO data for Japan at all - although it was done first I do not have it.
And some Allied planes are missing. There are 224 of them - and list typing takes time. I am just brainstorming in this thread - and I don't propose to get too bogged down. We got something that should work - and I intend to release it about 12 hours after I get the Japanese data - whenever that may be? Mifune may be infected with a computer virus again.

I am pretty sure the proposals above will be acceptable - although I will look at any other concept suggested.
I like them because they preserve the vast majority of the rating system - and case by case data is very nice.
The new system is either

1) The same as the old one for some planes
2) Higher for some planes
3) Lower for some planes

and in every case but one (which may involve an engine count error) the changes all "feel" right.

[Ron Saueracker]

Cid. Hi there. Just wanted to ask if you were thinking of drastically reducing the pilot experience levels in your mods, including the named pilots ratings? I've done so in my experimental CHS test bed game and the results are extremely positive. As one can expect, pilots with more average ratings are not racking up quadruple ace status in a few weeks.

Well worth trying in yours given all the changes and massive effort you have put into it.

[Nemo121]

Actually Sid, on the topic of pilot experience....
 
In RHS EOS the Japanese get pilots of relatively high experience ( Army - 60, Navy - 70) while the Allies get low quality pilots ( 40s and 50s). This may be OK in 41 and 42 but  it certainly isn't in 43,44 and 45 when the Allied pilot quality should be, at least, in the 60s up to about 70 also.
 
Have you given this any thought? It must be possible to change pilot quality since the stock scenarios have it changing.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Actually Sid, on the topic of pilot experience....

In RHS EOS the Japanese get pilots of relatively high experience ( Army - 60, Navy - 70) while the Allies get low quality pilots ( 40s and 50s). This may be OK in 41 and 42 but  it certainly isn't in 43,44 and 45 when the Allied pilot quality should be, at least, in the 60s up to about 70 also.

Have you given this any thought? It must be possible to change pilot quality since the stock scenarios have it changing.

Not sure but I think the experience levels rise relative to the base replacement experience level. Eg, if one reduced the pilot exp accross the board by 25, the yearly increase will show a 25 relative reduction. Then again, nothing is documented so this is a reasonable guess only.

[Herrbear]

New pilot experience is based on the table established in the scenario editor when the scenario is first established. You get new pilots based on the monthly rate you created and if you go over that rate then the pilots come in at half the experience.

Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor or if 0 is entered for experience come in at the experience level that is based on the chart that is in the manual on pge 196. Section 15.2.3

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor

Any idea if that applies to the initial pilot complement only or to all pilots, incl later replacements, drawn for the sqd - ei is the XP set in editor an absolute override?

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor

Any idea if that applies to the initial pilot complement only or to all pilots, incl later replacements, drawn for the sqd - ei is the XP set in editor an absolute override?

I am assuming that it applies to the initial pilot complement for those squadrons that start on the map also. In a quick check of all the squadrons that start the game on map, all of them have an experience level set. That would, or should, mean that all the pilots in that group must average an experience level of the level set.

I know that the experience level can be set for every group in the editor or if left at 0 the game will provide an experience based on the table. The table gives the "0" experience level for each nation by year from 1941 - 1946.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Cid. Hi there. Just wanted to ask if you were thinking of drastically reducing the pilot experience levels in your mods, including the named pilots ratings? I've done so in my experimental CHS test bed game and the results are extremely positive. As one can expect, pilots with more average ratings are not racking up quadruple ace status in a few weeks.

Well worth trying in yours given all the changes and massive effort you have put into it.

I believe you suggested this before. So I looked at it and adopted it in a limited sense. RHS no longer uses CHS ratings - which seem to have been virtually identical to stock - and I thought about every case. This is not the same thing as saying I got them right - but I think we need to get some human tests to see how they are working before we think about further changes.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Actually Sid, on the topic of pilot experience....

In RHS EOS the Japanese get pilots of relatively high experience ( Army - 60, Navy - 70) while the Allies get low quality pilots ( 40s and 50s). This may be OK in 41 and 42 but  it certainly isn't in 43,44 and 45 when the Allied pilot quality should be, at least, in the 60s up to about 70 also.

Have you given this any thought? It must be possible to change pilot quality since the stock scenarios have it changing.

I can ONLY change the 1941 experience levels. Later years are built in to the code and are also pretty good - and just about what you think they ought to be.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Actually Sid, on the topic of pilot experience....

In RHS EOS the Japanese get pilots of relatively high experience ( Army - 60, Navy - 70) while the Allies get low quality pilots ( 40s and 50s). This may be OK in 41 and 42 but  it certainly isn't in 43,44 and 45 when the Allied pilot quality should be, at least, in the 60s up to about 70 also.

Have you given this any thought? It must be possible to change pilot quality since the stock scenarios have it changing.

Not sure but I think the experience levels rise relative to the base replacement experience level. Eg, if one reduced the pilot exp accross the board by 25, the yearly increase will show a 25 relative reduction. Then again, nothing is documented so this is a reasonable guess only.

I believe it is documented - and even published - and it is also on the forum somewhere - there is a table - in the manual I think - explaining the rating by nation and year built into the hard code. We ONLY progam the scenario start values.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor

Any idea if that applies to the initial pilot complement only or to all pilots, incl later replacements, drawn for the sqd - ei is the XP set in editor an absolute override?

I am assuming that it applies to the initial pilot complement for those squadrons that start on the map also. In a quick check of all the squadrons that start the game on map, all of them have an experience level set. That would, or should, mean that all the pilots in that group must average an experience level of the level set.

I know that the experience level can be set for every group in the editor or if left at 0 the game will provide an experience based on the table. The table gives the "0" experience level for each nation by year from 1941 - 1946.

This is correct: IF you bring in a new unit in a later year and do not define the experience level you will get the default table values. And in an exceptional case you can define it differently. Genda's Flying Circus is such a case I think. It hand picked pilots and it was the last truly effective JNAF fighter unit. When it set up a patrol line from Tokyo to Kyushu and brought down numbers of B-29s, the American prisoners were very impressed and said so.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor

Any idea if that applies to the initial pilot complement only or to all pilots, incl later replacements, drawn for the sqd - ei is the XP set in editor an absolute override?

I am assuming that it applies to the initial pilot complement for those squadrons that start on the map also. In a quick check of all the squadrons that start the game on map, all of them have an experience level set. That would, or should, mean that all the pilots in that group must average an experience level of the level set.

I know that the experience level can be set for every group in the editor or if left at 0 the game will provide an experience based on the table. The table gives the "0" experience level for each nation by year from 1941 - 1946.

I ran a test, which seems to confirm that subsequent replacements doesn't get the XP level of the sqd as defined in the editor. It is thus possible to put a sqd "in training" on the map as was the case with many US sqds on the west coast.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: timtom



Any idea if that applies to the initial pilot complement only or to all pilots, incl later replacements, drawn for the sqd - ei is the XP set in editor an absolute override?

I am assuming that it applies to the initial pilot complement for those squadrons that start on the map also. In a quick check of all the squadrons that start the game on map, all of them have an experience level set. That would, or should, mean that all the pilots in that group must average an experience level of the level set.

I know that the experience level can be set for every group in the editor or if left at 0 the game will provide an experience based on the table. The table gives the "0" experience level for each nation by year from 1941 - 1946.

I ran a test, which seems to confirm that subsequent replacements doesn't get the XP level of the sqd as defined in the editor. It is thus possible to put a sqd "in training" on the map as was the case with many US sqds on the west coast.

I guess I wasn't sure what you exactly meant. If you are saying that your test that a squadron listed as arriving on 1 Jan 43 comes in either at an experience level that was entered when the scenario was created or set at 0 and arrived with an experience level based on the table in the manual and a new replacement pilot was needed, it will not come in at that average experience level of the squadron you are absolutly correct.

The replacement pilot brought in would be based on the experience level of all new pilots based on the table that is established in the scenario via the scenario editor. If this pilot exceeds the number of pilots for the month, then his experience level will be around half of the original. For example: If the Dutch is allotted 5 pilots per month at experience of 40 and if you bring in a new pilot to a replacement squadron, or any squadron, the pilot will enter the squadron averaging 40 (this may vary between 31 and 49 IIRC). If this pilot was the 6th or later pilot for the Dutch that you requested during the month (whether it was the 6th for this squadron or the 1st for this squadron but the 6th overall), then the pilot would enter with an experience of approx 20 (11-29) and added to the squadron.

So if the squadron was showing an experience of 35, it would go up in the first case generally and would go down in the second case.

Does that help?

[timtom]

You understood the question just fine first time round - least going by your answer

Cheers!

[el cid again]

I have Japanese plane data. I should be able to do 5.10 on schedule - tomorrow.
I have folded in a lot of corrections until now - except for leader corrections - which remain elusive.

[Woos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
we say "every 2 points above 29 is needed to up the score by 1" -

so 41 (12 points above becomes 4) = 33; 42 (13 points above becomes 4.5 rounding up to 5) = 34

both acceptable.

OK, the post is already 3 days old, but still, it looks like a very strange way to compress things as you use a composite function (with special case above 29). So basically you use one "knee" to fight the other. How about using a simple polynom instead, i.e. f(x)=a*x^n ?
If you use a=1.1 and n=0.9 (so you use 1.1*point^0.9) you get 47 down to 35 and the first 'small' number which gets rounded down is the 7 (f(6) and f(7) are both rounded to 6).

Assuming that your original formula does produce real numbers anyway, an approach using a polynom is much more continuous (well actually continuously differentiable) than a composite function. Just follow the motto: Use non-linear functions if you want non-linear results.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Woos

ORIGINAL: el cid again
we say "every 2 points above 29 is needed to up the score by 1" -

so 41 (12 points above becomes 4) = 33; 42 (13 points above becomes 4.5 rounding up to 5) = 34

both acceptable.

OK, the post is already 3 days old, but still, it looks like a very strange way to compress things as you use a composite function (with special case above 29). So basically you use one "knee" to fight the other. How about using a simple polynom instead, i.e. f(x)=a*x^n ?
If you use a=1.1 and n=0.9 (so you use 1.1*point^0.9) you get 47 down to 35 and the first 'small' number which gets rounded down is the 7 (f(6) and f(7) are both rounded to 6).

Assuming that your original formula does produce real numbers anyway, an approach using a polynom is much more continuous (well actually continuously differentiable) than a composite function. Just follow the motto: Use non-linear functions if you want non-linear results.

\

Not a bad idea - altough I am opposed to including the one anomolous 47 in the set at all. If we disregard it, our set ends at 42 - a much better place to begin. The concept of treating jets different probably will be useful: we may run into it again. The problem here is time: it will take time to work this out and apply it to all cases. It is surely faster to just modify a few by a simple rule than to modify them all! Also - I am concerned - we have such nice values for way over 200 data sets that compressing them may cost us this nice relative evaluation scale. I would rather limit what we mess with to the few high end cases. Anyway - its fast - so we will try it first.

[el cid again]

Unit # RHSEOS Plane Set Armour Durability old RHS Manueverability new RHS Maneuverability Raw Formula
1 D4Y1-C Judy 0 10 21 20 20
2 A7M2 Reppu 1 14 26 30 31
3 A6M2/Ki-65 Zeke 0 10 22 28 28
4 A5M4 Claude 0 10 19 26 26
5 A6M5 Zeke 0 10 23 30 30
6 A6M7 Zeke 1 12 24 31 31
7 B5N2-Q Kate [ASW] 0 10 14 16 16
8 F1M2 Pete-FF 0 10 15 18 18
9 A6M2-N Rufe-FF 0 10 18 24 24
10 N1K1 Rex-FF 1 12 21 27 27
11 J2M2 Jack 1 12 26 34 34
12 N1K1-J George 1 14 23 29 29
13 J7W1/Ki-99 Shinden 1 14 29 31 33
14 G4M2m34-Q Betty 0 21 8 9 9
15 Ki-44III/A10N3 Tojo 1 12 28 34 38
16 C3N1 Kate 0 10 14 18 18
17 D3A2 Val/Ki-52 0 10 17 20 20
18 D4Y2/Ki-71 Judy 0 10 22 22 22
19 B4Y1 Jean 0 10 10 10 10
20 B5N2/Ki-47 Kate 0 10 14 16 16
21 B6N2 Jill 1 12 20 21 21
22 B7A2 Grace 1 12 21 25 25
23 C6N1/Ki-75a Myrt 0 12 24 29 29
24 C6N1-S/Ki-75b Myrt 0 12 12 29 29
25 G3M2/Ki-42 Nell 0 18 7 7 7
26 G4M1/Ki-50 Betty 0 18 8 9 9
27 G4M2m22 Betty 0 20 8 8 8
28 G4M2e&Okha Betty 0 20 7 7 7
29 P1Y1 Frances 1 20 5 16 16
30 G8N1/Ki-90 Rita 1 32 5 6 6
31 Me-264/G9M1 Marlina 1 32 4 5 5
32 J1N1-C Irving 0 14 11 13 13
33 H6K4 Mavis 0 28 3 4 4
34 H8K2 Emily 1 34 4 5 5
35 H6K2-L Mavis [Xpt] 0 28 3 5 5
36 H8K2-L Emily [Xpt] 1 32 4 4 4
37 Ki-74 I Patsy 0 24 10 11 11
38 L2D2/Ki-92 Tabby 0 18 6 6 6
39 L3Y1 Tina 0 16 6 7 7
40 G5N2-L/Ki-68 Liz 1 30 4 4 4
41 E8N2 Dave 0 10 12 15 15
42 E7K2 Alf 0 10 11 12 12
43 E13A1 Jake 0 12 15 18 18
44 E16A1 Paul 0 12 18 22 22
45 E14Y1 Glen 0 8 10 10 10
46 M6A1 Seiran 0 14 17 18 18
47 2xKu-8 Gander & Tug 1 38 4 4 4
48 Ki-27 Nate 0 10 21 28 28
49 Ki-43-I Oscar 0 12 21 29 29
50 Ki-43-II Oscar 1 12 22 29 29
51 Ki-44IIa Tojo 1 12 26 33 36
52 Ki-45 KAIa Nick 1 14 11 14 14
53 Ki-49Q Helen [ASW] 1 10 9 10 10
54 Ki-45 KAIc Nick-NF 1 14 11 13 13
55 Me-109E-4 Mike 1 12 23 30 30
56 Ki-91/G8K1 Sandy 1 32 5 4 4
57 Ki-83/J9M1 Stan 1 18 14 18 18
58 Ki-84 Frank 1 14 25 31 32
59 Ki-100 Tony 1 14 23 30 30
60 Ki-102b Randy 1 18 12 15 15
61 Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann 0 10 16 14 14
62 Ki-51 Sonia 1 12 17 20 20
63 Ki-48-I Lily 0 16 9 11 11
64 Ki-77/L9T1 Jane 0 20 10 9 9
65 Ki-21-II Sally 0 18 9 10 10
66 Ki-49 Helen 1 20 9 10 10
67 Ki-67/P2M1 Peggy 1 22 10 10 10
68 Ki-36 Ida 0 10 14 17 17
69 Ki-15II/C5M2 Babs 0 10 20 26 26
70 Ki-46-II/C7M2 Dinah 0 14 11 12 12
71 Ki-46III/C7M3 Dinah 0 14 13 14 14
72 J1N1-S Irving-NF 0 14 10 11 11
73 Ki-34/59/L1N1 Thora 0 8 7 8 8
74 Ki-56/LO Thalia 0 16 8 9 9
75 Ki-57/MC-21 Topsy 0 18 8 9 9
76 RN CARRIER AIRCRAFT 0 0 0 0 0
77 Albacore 0 12 10 10 10
78 Avenger I/II 1 12 16 18 18
79 Barracuda 1 14 13 13 13
80 Corsair III/IV 1 14 26 34 39
81 Firefly I 1 14 20 24 24
82 Fulmar 1 14 16 18 18
83 Hellcat II 1 16 25 35 41
84 Martlet II/III 1 12 20 24 24
85 Seafire I/II 1 12 26 34 38
86 Seafire III/XV 1 12 27 35 40
87 Sea Hurricane 1 12 20 24 24
88 Swordfish III 0 10 8 7 7
89 Wildcat/Martlet IV 1 14 20 23 23
90 USN CARRIER AIRCRAFT 0 0 0 0 0
91 F2A-3 Buffalo 1 12 21 25 25
92 F4F-3 Wildcat 0 10 21 26 26
93 F4F-4/FM-1 Wildcat 1 12 20 24 24
94 F4U1D/AU1D Corsair 1 14 26 30 31
95 F4U-2 Corsair-NF 1 14 26 36 42
96 F4U-4 Corsair 1 14 30 34 39
97 F6F-5 Hellcat 1 14 25 35 41
98 F6F-5N Hellcat-NF 1 14 24 35 40
99 F7F Tigercat 1 18 14 17 17
100 F8F-1 Bearcat 1 14 29 34 38
101 SB2C/SBF Helldiver 1 14 18 21 21
102 V-92C Corsair 0 10 12 14 14
103 A-20B Boston 0 16 11 12 12
104 A-20G Havoc 1 18 10 11 11
105 A-24 Dauntless 1 14 14 15 15
106 A-26B Invader 1 20 10 10 10
107 A-36A Apache 1 14 23 26 26
108 B-17D Fortress 1 32 4 5 5
109 B-17E/F Fortress 1 32 5 4 4
110 B-17G Fortress 1 32 4 4 4
111 B-18A/B-23 Bolo 1 20 6 6 6
112 B-24D Liberator 1 32 4 4 4
113 B-24J Liberator 1 32 4 4 4
114 B-25C/D Mitchell 1 22 8 8 8
115 B-25H Mitchell 1 20 8 7 7
116 B-25J Mitchell 1 20 8 7 7
117 B-26A Marauder 1 22 9 9 9
118 B-26G Marauder 1 22 8 8 8
119 B-29 Superfortress 1 36 5 4 4
120 C-46A/R5C Commando 0 20 8 8 8
121 C-47/C-53 Skytrain 0 18 7 7 7
122 C-54A Skymaster 0 26 4 3 3
123 C-60A/R5O Lodestar 0 16 8 9 9
124 C-87/LB-30 Liberator 1 28 4 4 4
125 2xCG-4 Glider & C-47 0 36 4 4 4
126 F-4 Lightning 1 18 12 14 14
127 F4U-1/AU-1 Corsair 1 14 27 31 33
128 F-5C Lightning 1 18 13 15 15
129 F-6A Mustang 1 14 24 27 27
130 F-6D Mustang 1 14 29 33 37
131 PB4Y-1P Liberator 1 32 4 4 4
132 P-26A 0 8 16 21 21
133 P-35A Hawk 0 10 19 24 24
134 P-36A Mohawk 0 10 22 30 30
135 P-38G Lightning 1 18 14 16 16
136 P-38J Lightning 1 18 14 15 15
137 P-38L Lightning 1 18 15 20 20
138 P-39D Airacobra 1 12 22 28 28
139 P-39Q Airacobra 2 12 26 32 34
140 P-40B Tomahawk 1 12 22 28 28
141 P-40E Warhawk 1 14 22 26 26
142 P-40N Warhawk 1 12 22 26 26
143 P-43A Lancer 0 10 23 28 28
144 P-47C Thunderbolt 1 14 27 30 30
145 P-47D Thunderbolt 1 14 28 32 34
146 P-47N Thunderbolt 1 14 28 32 34
147 P-400 Airacobra 1 12 22 26 26
148 P-51B Mustang 1 14 28 31 33
149 P-51D Mustang 1 14 27 30 31
150 P-61A BlackWdow 1 20 11 12 12
151 P-63A Kingcobra 1 14 27 32 35
152 P-66 Vanguard 0 10 22 27 27
153 P-70A Havoc-NF 1 18 10 11 11
154 P-80A Shooting Star 1 16 18 38 47
155 PBM Mariner 0 22 5 4 4
156 PBN/GST/PBY Nomad 0 18 6 4 4
157 PBY-5 Catalina 0 18 6 5 5
158 PB2Y-3 Coronado 1 32 3 2 2
159 PB4Y-1 Liberator 1 32 4 4 4
160 SOC/SO3C Seagull 0 10 10 10 10
161 OS2U-3 Kingfisher 0 8 9 7 7
162 PBJ-1J Mitchell 1 20 8 12 12
163 PV-1 Ventura 0 18 10 12 12
164 PV-1 Ventura-NF 1 18 10 12 12
165 R4D-5 Skytrain 0 18 7 6 6
166 R5D-1 Skymaster 0 13 8 3 3
167 Anson I 0 18 10 9 9
168 Beaufighter VIF-NF 1 18 10 12 12
169 Beaufighter Mk X 1 18 9 10 10
170 Beaufort VII 1 20 8 8 8
171 Blenheim I 0 14 8 9 9
172 Blenheim IF-NF 1 16 8 9 9
173 Blenheim IV 1 16 8 9 9
174 Boomerang II 1 12 21 28 28
175 Brewster 339D/F2A 0 10 21 26 26
176 Buffalo/F2A 1 12 20 26 26
177 Catalina/PBV/PBY 0 18 6 5 5
178 CIXV-W 0 8 9 10 10
179 Corsair I/F4U 1 14 27 31 33
180 CW-21B Demon 0 10 22 30 30
181 Dakota I/C-47 0 18 7 7 7
182 Do 24K-2 1 22 5 3 3
183 Empire (C Class) 1 24 5 5 5
184 F.K.51 0 8 9 10 10
185 Hawk 75/P-36 1 10 20 24 24
186 Hudson IV 0 16 9 10 10
187 Hurricane I 0 12 21 26 26
188 Hurricane IIc 1 12 22 27 27
189 Hurricane IV 2 12 19 23 23
190 Kittyhawk I/P-40 1 14 22 28 28
191 Kittyhawk III/P-40 1 14 22 26 26
192 Lancer/P-43 0 10 23 28 28
193 Lancaster III 1 32 4 3 3
194 Liberator IV/B-24 1 32 4 4 4
195 Lockheed 212 0 12 7 8 8
196 Lysander I 0 10 14 16 16
197 Martin 139/B-10 0 14 7 8 8
198 Mitchell III/B-25 1 20 8 7 7
199 Mohawk IV/P-36 0 12 22 30 30
200 Mosquito B.XVI 0 14 12 14 14
201 Mosquito FB.VI 1 14 12 13 13
202 Mosquito PR.XVI 0 14 12 15 15
203 Spitfire VB 1 14 24 30 30
204 Spitfire VIII 1 14 26 31 33
205 Spitfire XIVE 1 14 28 32 35
206 Sunderland III 1 32 3 3 3
207 Tempest V 2 14 31 36 36
208 T-IVa 0 12 10 5 5
209 Thunderbolt II 1 14 25 32 34
210 Vengeance I 1 12 17 18 18
211 Ventura V 0 18 10 12 12
212 Vildebeest IV 0 10 9 10 10
213 Walrus 0 10 9 10 10
214 Wellington IC 2 22 7 7 7
215 Wirraway CA-1 0 10 14 17 17
216 Spitfire PR.XI 1 14 24 30 31
217 RTAF B-10 0 14 7 8 8
218 RTAF Hawk II 0 10 19 23 23
219 RTAF Hawk III 1 10 20 24 24
220 I-153c 0 8 20 29 29
221 I-16 Type 4 0 10 17 20 20
222 I-16 Type 24 1 12 23 32 34
223 KOR-1 0 10 11 12 12
224 IL-2 Shturmovik 2 16 15 17 17
225 IL-2M Shturmovik 3 18 15 17 17
226 IL-4C/DB-3F 1 18 7 7 7
227 LaGG-3 0 11 23 28 28
228 La-5FN 1 12 27 33 37
229 La-7 1 12 28 33 37
230 Li-2VP/C-47 0 18 6 5 5
231 MiG-3 1 12 26 31 32
232 Pe-2 1 18 11 13 13
233 Pe-2R 1 18 11 13 13
234 R-12/Yak-4 1 10 11 14 14
235 SB-2 1 16 8 10 10
236 SB-2M 1 16 9 11 11
237 Tu-2S 1 20 10 12 12
238 Yak-1 1 12 25 32 34
239 Yak-3 1 12 28 34 38
240 Yak-9D 1 10 24 30 31
241 Yak-9UF 0 10 26 30 31
242 RTAF V-92C 0 10 12 14 14
243 PV-2 Harpoon 0 18 11 14 14
244 SB2U-2 Vindicator 1 12 15 17 17
245 SBD-3 Dauntless 1 14 14 16 16
246 SBD-5 Dauntless 1 14 15 16 16
247 TBD Devastator 0 12 12 11 11
248 TBF/TBM-1 Avenger 1 14 16 18 18
249 TBF/TBM-3 Avenger 1 14 18 21 21

[el cid again]

Note that ALLIED aircraft are identical to the EOS set above

RHSCVO Plane Set old RHS Manueverability new RHS Maneuverability Raw Formula
A5M4 Claude 19 26 26
A7M2 Reppu 26 30 31
A6M2 Zeke 22 28 28
A6M3 Zeke 22 28 28
A6M5 Zeke 23 30 30
A6M7 Zeke 24 31 31
A6M8 Zeke 24 30 30
F1M2 Pete-FF 15 18 18
A6M2-N Rufe-FF 18 24 24
N1K1 Rex-FF 21 27 27
J2M2 Jack 26 34 34
N1K1-J George 23 29 29
J7W1 Shinden 29 31 33
Q1W1 Lorna 4 4 4
Ki-44III Tojo 28 34 38
Ki-76 Stella 7 7 7
D3A2 Val 17 20 20
D4Y2 Judy 22 22 22
B4Y1 Jean 10 10 10
B5N2 Kate 14 16 16
B6N2 Jill 20 21 21
B7A2 Grace 21 25 25
C6N1 Myrt 24 29 29
C6N1-S Myrt 12 29 29
G3M2 Nell 7 7 7
G4M1 Betty 8 9 9
G4M2m22 Betty 8 8 8
G4M2e&Okha Betty 7 7 7
P1Y1 Frances 5 16 16
G8N1 Rita 5 6 6
C5M2 Babs 20 26 26
J1N1-C Irving 11 13 13
H6K4 Mavis 3 4 4
H8K2 Emily 4 5 5
H6K2-L Mavis [Xpt] 3 5 5
H8K2-L Emily [Xpt] 4 4 4
L1N1/AT-2 Thora 7 8 8
L2D2 Tabby 6 6 6
L3Y1 Tina 6 7 7
G5N2-L Liz 4 4 4
E8N2 Dave 12 15 15
E7K2 Alf 11 12 12
E13A1 Jake 15 18 18
E16A1 Paul 18 22 22
E14Y1 Glen 10 10 10
M6A1 Seiran 17 18 18
2xKu-8 Gander & Tug 4 4 4
Ki-27 Nate 21 28 28
Ki-43-I Oscar 21 29 29
Ki-43-II Oscar 22 29 29
Ki-44IIa Tojo 26 33 36
Ki-45 KAIa Nick 11 14 14
Ki-45 KAIb Nick 11 14 14
Ki-45 KAIc Nick-NF 11 14 14
Ki-61-I Tony 22 28 28
Ki-61-II Tony 24 30 30
Ki-83 Stan 14 18 18
Ki-84 Frank 25 31 32
Ki-100 Tony 23 30 30
Ki-102b Randy 12 15 15
Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann 16 14 14
Ki-51 Sonia 17 20 20
Ki-48-I Lily 9 11 11
Ki-48-II Lily 10 12 12
Ki-21-II Sally 9 10 10
Ki-49 Helen 9 10 10
Ki-67 Peggy 10 10 10
Ki-36 Ida 14 17 17
Ki-15 II Babs 21 26 26
Ki-46-II Dinah 11 12 12
Ki-46-III Dinah 13 14 14
J1N1-S Irving-NF 10 11 11
Ki-34/Ki-59 Thora 7 8 8
Ki-56/LO Thalia 8 9 9
Ki-57/MC-21 Topsy 8 9 9

[Zemke]

I missed this conversation back in August, I was sort of unable to respond, but reading the all this I decided to throw in my two cents worth.  I just completed a complete re-work of all plane maneuverability ratings.  I used the data from a flight sim game called "IL-2 Pacific Fighters", which of course has its own sub-culture like most games that develop after market tools and aids.  One of those "aids" is called IL-2 Compare, which has plane specific data, to include best speed at all altitudes to best turn rate.  (There are several versions of Compare, as it is updated each time the game is.  For this I used IL Compare 3.01.  The newest version is 3.04 which I did not have on my laptop.)  If you fly, you realise that manueverability is more than turning and never really constant, because as you turn you "bleed" off energy.  The Zero was so maneuverable because it was so light.  Anyway, as a compromise I used the best turn rate in degrees per second for each plane, then doubled the number and that was my constant.  My reasoning was what better source than the best World War II flight simulation.  I play the game IL-2, I have found that every plane has strenghts and weakness.  Anyway the results were most Japanese planes gain maneuverabilty, some Allied planes gained and some lost.  Of note, the Spit gained, La-7 gained, all bi-wing planes gained, the F4Fs gained, the F4U lost, as did the P-47, and P-38.  I also used the best speed rating for the "speed" and found the maxium speeds changed very little, with some exceptions.  The P-38s gained speed, and several of the Japanese late war planes gained speed also.