Plane Maneuverabiltiy

[Zemke]

I see in the game that early Zero and later Zeke fighters have less maneuverabilty than F6Fs and F4Us. I think this is a terrible mistake. First I get my information from IL-2 Pacific Fighters and published plane data. The Zero/Zeke's wing loading is very light, and even later in the war should always out maneuver a F5, F6Fs and F4Us, which all have higher wing loading and are much heaver planes. The early Zeros should have the highest maneuverability not less. The early Zero's were the lightest and had less wing loading, thus were extremely maneuverable. The Ki-43s should be even more maneuverale than the Zero's. I think the game maneuverabilty ratings on these planes is wrong. The IL-2 PF data can be found in graph form using IL-2 Compare Program ves300. This same logic can be applied to some of the Allied planes, the Russian I-153 and I-16 are an example, both are extremely maneuverable.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

I see in the game that early Zero and later Zeke fighters have less maneuverabilty than F6Fs and F4Us. I think this is a terrible mistake. First I get my information from IL-2 Pacific Fighters and published plane data. The Zero/Zeke's wing loading is very light, and even later in the war should always out maneuver a F5, F6Fs and F4Us, which all have higher wing loading and are much heaver planes. The early Zeros should have the highest maneuverability not less. The early Zero's were the lightest and had less wing loading, thus were extremely maneuverable. The Ki-43s should be even more maneuverale than the Zero's. I think the game maneuverabilty ratings on these planes is wrong. The IL-2 PF data can be found in graph form using IL-2 Compare Program ves300. This same logic can be applied to some of the Allied planes, the Russian I-153 and I-16 are an example, both are extremely maneuverable.

Probably because by the time the F6F and F4U show up, the SPEED of combat had increased. Being "very light" in wing loading works great when the speed stays around 200 mph---works even better when the speed is lower, But if wing loading were the only consideration everyone would still be flying bi- and tri-planes. As speed increases, horsepower and structural strength become more important..., exactly what the Zero and the Oscar lacked.

[Zemke]

I agree that Speed is the single most important factor, as the tactics used by the US to counter the higher maneuverabiltiy of the Zero/Zeke/Ki-43 was speed and energy fighting. I also agree that in the game speed should be the most important factor for resolution of air to air combat.

Planes can turn a smaller circle going slow, but they cannot turn it as fast (rate of turn based on time). Every plane a "best speed" for turning, slower or faster than that speed they will execute a turn slower (measured in time to turn).
American Fighter pilots realized they could never turn with a Zero, and would always use boom and zoom tactics (energy fighting).

Your point about horsepower is directly related to also, but contrary to perhaps popular belief, what really matters is power to weight ratio. Below are some examples of power to weight ratios.......the first number is engine housepower and the second number is takeoff weight in kilos. The higher the number the better.
940hp/2410kg =.39 A6M2 Zero 1940 model
1100hp/2733kg=.40 A6M5a Zeke 1944 model
950hp/1580kg=.60 Ki-43-1a Oscar
1970hp/3602kg=.54 Ki-84-1a Frank
2250hp/5390kg=.41 F4U
1200hp/3170kg=.37 F4F3 Wildcat
2000hp/5750kg=.34 F6F-3 Hellcat

As you can see the only carrier based US plane that has a higher power to weight ratio is the F4U, and only a very small amount. Bottom line, if the numbers used in the game under "maneuverability" do represent maneuverability, then the numbers are wrong, and should be much higher. I do not know the inside workings of the air to air program, perhaps the numbers for maneuverablity are not really maneuverability, but if they are, they need to be fixed.

[bklooste]

Considering the game places a huge emphasis on speed anyway , i think manever should represent exactly that .

If the emphasis was not as much on speed , than you could use manuever to indicate maneuver at high speed only . But the game already gives a massive bonus based on speed ... look at tHe Tony vs the Zeros.



Regards,

Ben

[el cid again]

Note that the game uses confusing terminology. "Maneuverability" is not exactly maneuverability as used by pilots or aircraft engineers. Analysis of data in the stock data set indicates it is (for the single engine case) either

a) Entirely a function of speed (specifically speed divided by 10)

or

b) Mostly a function of speed - but with a fractoin of rate of climb added to it.

Neither of these is actually maneuverability - although ROC is rather related to it statistically speaking.

I wanted a consistent definition, so I worked long and hard on this, guided by recommendations by Joe - a mathmetician (I began professional life as an electronics technician and became an engineer). I ended up using a modified version of B -
modified in that I doubled the proportion of the function related to ROC.

The resultant values are published on the forum and the file set is in test - if you want to test it. This file set differs from stock and CHS mainly in giveing planes more maneuverability - although there are complaints from fans of twin engine planes - because I applied the engine modification to all planes (whereas the game pretends that a two engine plane playing fighter is somehow different from an identical plane not playing fighter - maneuverability wise). It has produced no radical difference in combat outcomes, but there are relative shifts - in favor of more maneuverable planes. At the same time, I recalculated weapons values and durability - based on a rational set of rules rather than "it is slightly better than a Zero" type guesses.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This file set differs from stock and CHS mainly in giveing planes more maneuverability - although there are complaints from fans of twin engine planes - because I applied the engine modification to all planes (whereas the game pretends that a two engine plane playing fighter is somehow different from an identical plane not playing fighter - maneuverability wise).

Man I almost left this alone, but what the heck. The P-38 was probably the best US fighter in the war. Its war record in the Pacific left absolutely no pretensions that in fact it was a fighter.

[el cid again]

Man I almost left this alone, but what the heck. The P-38 was probably the best US fighter in the war. Its war record in the Pacific left absolutely no pretensions that in fact it was a fighter.

Please allow me to agree with you. In PTO it holds the record for combat successes for US forces. So clearly it is a superb fighter plane. This is not an issue at all.

It is, however, incorrect to say that a superb fighter needs to be better at maneuverability than every other fighter - or even than most other fighters. The American desigh philosophy ended up focusing on other factors - weight of armament punch - durability of aircraft structure specifically including armor - and above all speed - which we could afford to achieve because we could build large power plants. In general, as this thread points out, the power to weight ratio of our fighters was INFERIOR to the Japanese - not that it mattered much.

One factor that made the P-38 so outstanding - something that its twin power plant made possible - was its great range. It could "reach out and touch someone" at a great distance - and so it was possible to engage when other fighters would not be in the picture at all. I would not trade the P-38 for a single engine fighter over vast distances - and if things went badly it was much more likely to return - something statistically represented in my durability rating (and listed by Joe as something that should be in the durability rating). IF the P-38 suffers statistically from its "extra" engine vs single engine fighters with respect to maneuverability - it has a corresponding ADVANTAGE vs the SAME single engine fighters in durability.

To evaluate the P-38 in air air combat in the game system properly, you must take into consideration ALL its factors - not just one. I bet it will do very well - and so far in my test game it is not doing badly.

Finally, while "a victory is a victory" - note that a P-38 is particularly of value exactly in the role it was designed for - hunting large enemy aircraft. It has the range to engage them where they have no fighter cover whatever. It has the punch to knock them down. And relative to other multi-engine aircraft it has a signficant maneuerability advantage.
Also, note that maneuverability as defined by WITP - and I am surprised to say this because I usually use much more complicated ratings - seems to work astonishingly well - because it is NOT mostly a function of maneuverability - although that counts. It is based on speed and maneuverability - things the P-38 really has. Engines are used as a divisor - it is true - but this does seem to model reality remarkably well - except in the case of tandem in line engines driving a single propeller (or a single hub dual counter rotating propeller) aircraft - which I would count as a single engine aircraft in this system. [We have no such aircraft, although Japan and the USA each designed one, and Germany fielded one].

I do not really understand this wounded pride on the part of P-38 fans: this plane need not have the best maneuverability rating to do well. It has what it needs to do well:

1) The range to get there - even to get where enemy fighters cannot be - in which case it will out perform everything it meets;

2) The punch to kill any time it gets a shot - something few Japanese planes have;

3) The durability of superior structure, armor and multiple engines, to survive if it gets hit - something light single engine Japanese planes will not have;

Do not cry for me Argentina (oops - America) - I have what I need.

P-38

[Zemke]

I agree Sid the P-38 is an excellent plane, and if used properly could always gain an advantage over a Zero. It could use its' great speed to extend, climb then attack or run. A Zero had no hope of ever catching a P-38 (or most American Planes for that matter). A Zero piloted by an excellent pilot is almost untouchable by other planes in a one on one engagement. The Zero may not be able to kill the other plane, but he has enough maneuverability to stay out of his sights, (the later takes excellent timing and skill). A Zero that is higher would have a marked advantage. It would be able to trade altitude for speed and could bounce the enemy. I would agrue that if pilot skill were equal in that situation, the Zero would have a "window of oppertunity" to win almost every time, but this would be short lived. After a Zero had "burned up" this energy advantage it would not be able to sustain a pursuit. Only if the American planes made the colossial mistake of turn fighting with a Zero, would the Zero win.