Hawker Hurricane IIb Trop

[oldman45]

I figured there were many more variables at play when they assigned the MVR ratings. Thanks

[Shark7]

Treespider, would you mind sharing the formula you use to figure MVR? Would be useful to those of us that are adding in new aircraft with something to go on that's better than a SWAG.

[Shark7]

Odd, I posted in a different thread and it ended up here. [&:]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Treespider, would you mind sharing the formula you use to figure MVR? Would be useful to those of us that are adding in new aircraft with something to go on that's better than a SWAG.

Sorry for the delay...been busy remodeling a kitchen and pluncking in orders for a 1st turn redux with witpqs.

But to answer you question I'm not really at liberty to give out formulas...

However if you want you could look at a function involving HP, Weight in Pounds ,and Wing Area in Sq Feet with a constant thrown in as well.

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Treespider, would you mind sharing the formula you use to figure MVR? Would be useful to those of us that are adding in new aircraft with something to go on that's better than a SWAG.

Sorry for the delay...been busy remodeling a kitchen and pluncking in orders for a 1st turn redux with witpqs.

But to answer you question I'm not really at liberty to give out formulas...

However if you want you could look at a function involving HP, Weight in Pounds ,and Wing Area in Sq Feet with a constant thrown in as well.

Have you considered factoring also(on +- basis) the wing slats, CS/fixed/2-speed/auto-PP propeller, etc. things outside of just horsepower and wingload... IRL the early P-38s required minutes from even a good pilot to drop the drop tanks and adjust engine, radiator etc. settings from cruise to combat, which was severe disadvantage against more automatized fighters, especially when the combat came as surprise. Just to give an example. [:)]

What I might try to fix is how well, against Zeroes and Hayabusas, the various models of P-39, Hurricane and Brewster Buffalo do in relation to each other. Despite being faster than them both the P-39/P-400 gets just slaughtered, together with the nimble Buffalo, while Hurries have no problems in achieving 2:1 or better.

It could also be argued that in big enough scale, out of 1 on 1, the rate of roll through different air speeds is more important factor than the rate or radius of turn, unsustainable or sustainable. Zero had horrible roll and aileron speed even before it dived beyond its top level speed. Like MVRs of Buffalo and Zero are 17 and 33 - without knowing how the game deals with the values, I would say the maneuverability difference is not 2:1! Buffalo enjoys rate of roll and advantage through all speeds, and it didnt lose that much to the Zero in rate of turn, MVRs 1.25-1.5 to 1, after counting in the Zero's powerload and wingload advantages?

EDIT, Lentolaivue 24, LeLv24, flew mainly the B-239 in the Continuation War. Heres a list of their victories and losses:

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luettelo_L ... tappioista

The list only has confirmed kills(wreck or 2 confirming pilots required), I counted 54 Hurricanes. [:D] The squad's leading ace Hans Wind considered it the easiest foe of them all. Even I-16 and I-153 were greater threats.

[dwg]

It could also be argued that in big enough scale, out of 1 on 1, the rate of roll through different air speeds is more important factor than the rate or radius of turn, unsustainable or sustainable.

Ultimately the issue is pointing your nose at where the other guy will be when your bullets get there. That's a combination of multiple factors: instantaneous nose-pointing ability, sustained turn rate, roll-rate, dive-rate, climb-rate, wing-loading, stability, gyro or other gunsight, rigidity of the gun mounting, muzzle velocity and so on, and some of those are both positive and negative factors at the same time (greater stability, better gun platform, lesser stability, better instantaneous nose pointing). And all of them are varying with altitude, temperature, pressure, and fuel burn.

We can only approximate the factors, and we can't approximate the fact that they're varying (beyond the five altitude bands for fighters). You can plug some of these into a formula, but there are always going to be aircraft that break the formula because it over- or under-emphasises some element of their performance. You can use a formula as a start, but ultimately I'd tend to go with handling information from the pilots who actually flew the aircraft.

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Erkki
I counted 54 Hurricanes. The squad's leading ace Hans Wind considered it the easiest foe of them all. Even I-16 and I-153 were greater threats.

Which raises the issue that we're not dealing with a linear scale, A is better than B which is better than C, but with individual pairings, A is better than B which is better than C, but C is better than A.

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
This leads me to wonder if:

1. The Hurricane (like the P-40) should have a lower maintenance level than other, more complex allied fighters

There's several different factors at work: nature of the airframe, complexity and reliability of instruments and complexity and reliability of the engine. The Hurricane and Spitfire, at least when considering variants in production at the same time, shared similar engines and instrumentation, but the Spitfire had a largely stressed skin, while the Hurricane still had considerable fabric covering. At least in the early years of the war maintenance personnel were more familiar with fabric skinning, but as time progressed that difference faded, particularly as the maintenance personnel switched over to new recruits who'd only every worked with the newer technology. I'm not sure I'd rate the Hurricane and Spitfire as that different, but when you're talking about larger aircraft, aircraft with more engines, or engines with lower reliability or greater complexity, or advanced technology such as radar, then I think there's a measurable difference.

3. ROC should be adjusted considering the added weight of the extra guns of the IIb Trop version?

The weight is a factor, but then we're not considering reduction in rate of climb with heavier fuel or bomb loads, or as they vary during a mission. OTOH, I think the greater effect may not come from the guns, but from the limitations the Vokes filter imposes on the engine performance.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Treespider, would you mind sharing the formula you use to figure MVR? Would be useful to those of us that are adding in new aircraft with something to go on that's better than a SWAG.

Sorry for the delay...been busy remodeling a kitchen and pluncking in orders for a 1st turn redux with witpqs.

But to answer you question I'm not really at liberty to give out formulas...

However if you want you could look at a function involving HP, Weight in Pounds ,and Wing Area in Sq Feet with a constant thrown in as well.

OK, I played with some figures and came up with something that works for me, and that I like. What I'm using boosts the numbers slightly higher than your formula, but the numbers are consistant (given the data I'm using is correct...for the purpose these examples I just took data from wikipedia...so it could be inaccurate).

MVR = ((HP * Wingspan)/Full Load Weight)) * (Constant + Power to Mass Ratio) * (Max Altitude / Rate of Climb / Wing Loading * variable)

1 is the constant for fighters, when I start comparing to TB/DB/LB/HB I will adjust if needed.

Variables: Low Altitude 1.75, Medium Altitude 1.3, High Altitude 1

So for the Zero I used ((950*241.5/5313)) * (1 + .18) * (33000/3100/22 * Variable) and ended up with High = 24, Medium = 33, and Low = 43
For the Hellcat I get ((334*2000/15415)) * (1 + .16) * (37300/3500/37.7 * Variable) = high = 14, Medium = 18, Low = 25

Does this seem like a decent or workable formula for figuring the MVR ratings for adding my aircraft (also I understand I will have to adjust every plane's MVR rating using my formula so they are consistant)?