Idea for figuring out Dogfight capability

[Major Tom]

In order to correctly configure the 'correct' Dogfight ability of aircraft I have come up with this method.

50% of the value SPEED
50% of the value MANUVERABILITY

The total (ie. maximum ability) would be 30.

up to 15 points for SPEED
up to 15 points for MANUVERABILITY

A6M2
9/15 = points SPEED
13/15 = points MANUVERABILITY
22/30 = points TOTAL

P-51D
15/15 = points SPEED
11/15 = points MANUVERABILITY
26/30 = points TOTAL

(Manuverability is not accurate, since I only added their value so that their totals would equal that of my current version).

I have been able to easily calculate speed (well documented), but manuverability has been tougher. Anyone have an idea on where/how manuverability vales can be found for each aircraft in Pac War?

[tiredoftryingnames]

I've been trying to figure out the same thing for a game idea I've been kicking around and doing research on. To come up with a value like that I figure it has to be a formula that takes into account speed, rate of climb, max dive speed and a value for an aircraft's turning ability (that's where I'm hung up, finding something realiable). And I figure there would have to be a modifier for if the aircraft is carrying it's bomb load when dogfighting in hopes of fighting through to the target. Or you would have to assume they jettison their bombs to dogfight, which would mean they can't attack their original target once the dogfight is over. I've been no help I know. But ideas unsaid are worthless. Ideas in the open might spark what you're looking for.

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: tiredoftryingnames ]</p>

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by Major Tom:
In order to correctly configure the 'correct' Dogfight ability of aircraft I have come up with this method.

50% of the value SPEED
50% of the value MANUVERABILITY

The total (ie. maximum ability) would be 30.

up to 15 points for SPEED
up to 15 points for MANUVERABILITY

A6M2
9/15 = points SPEED
13/15 = points MANUVERABILITY
22/30 = points TOTAL

P-51D
15/15 = points SPEED
11/15 = points MANUVERABILITY
26/30 = points TOTAL

(Manuverability is not accurate, since I only added their value so that their totals would equal that of my current version).

I have been able to easily calculate speed (well documented), but manuverability has been tougher. Anyone have an idea on where/how manuverability vales can be found for each aircraft in Pac War?

---

Where is Firpower? In theory a formula using power to weight ratios, wing loadings, Stall speed at various angles of attack, drag, roll rate, and P Factor should get you in the ball park. There is a book by Len Dieghton(sp?) called 'Fighters' that covers some of this. There is a book by an american col. Goodman (I think, it might be goodwood) about ACM. Don't forget that the most important part was pilot ability. The Bf-109 had a better wing then the Spitfire and would turn inside of a Spit with the right pilot. However the Spit was stable all the way up to stall, while the 109 would shake and quiver like a coon dog passing a peach pit. But the 109 would keep flying while it was quivering, so a Pilot that was good could turn inside the Spit untill it stalled out. Over Germany in late'44 and early '45 the old Gustave pilots found out that they could do a stall turn and leave a 'stang or 'bolt wondering where they went. But the pilot had to be real good. A screw up and he is sitting on a gas tank in the middle of the sky with zero airspeed.
Why speed? Dogfighters hardly ever get over 200 mph. The speed is needed to catch the enemy, but once in the furball, none of the piston-engined fighters had the energy to maintain High AS numbers at acute angles of attack. Accel is more important
T. (It's big, It's Blue, It's an F-4U. Best piston fighter ever)

[chanman]

Hmmmm. Not sure you're going to come up with a generic formula that will make everyone happy, MT. The short answer to your question about turning ability is an equation (lost waaaay back in the cobwebs of my brain) that relates wing loading and L/D ratio to turning ability. A lightly loaded fighter such as an A6M2 has a much better turning radius than a high wingload fighter such as an P47. I am not sure that I would get so hung up in the turning radius, though. A number based on wing loading modified by control type and power to weight ratio (determines acceleration). I have vague memories of a text claiming that the hydraulically boosted controls of the late war US fighters gave them a distinct high speed advantage over the 'cable and pulley' controls used in the Zero. Can't remember the reference, I have slept many times since then.

Tomanbeg, firepower is measured in the firepower category. Speed is very important, more so than acceleration IMO. Speed gets you in position to use your weapons or lets you pick up and go home when you want to. In any flight sim, fly a P38F against an A6M2. In a furball, the A6M2 rules, but the P38F controls the game unless surprised, being able to choose the time and manner of the encounter.

Pilot quality does rule, however. Richtoven said something along the lines of "it's not the crate..."

Chanman

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: chanman ]</p>

[Major Tom]

I decided to use their maximum abilities for both values because having their averages would result in most planes being equal. I see that they equal eachother out.

The A6M should have a VERY high manuverability rate, but a lower Speed rate, resulting in an above aberage Dogfight value.

The Ki-43 was just as manuverable as the A6M, but much slower.

The P-40 and Hurricane should have a good manuverability rate, and a good speed rate, resulging in an average dogfight value.

The P-51 was much faster than the Hurricane, but was out-turned by it. So its Speed would be much higher, but its manuverability rate slightly lower than the Hurricane, but be a much superior all-round aircraft.

Bombers will probably experience the greatest change, since they were fairly fast, but VERY unmanuverable. Most calculations of speed alone have resulted in increases of dogfight ability for most tactical bombers.

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by tiredoftryingnames:
I've been trying to figure out the same thing for a game idea I've been kicking around and doing research on. To come up with a value like that I figure it has to be a formula that takes into account speed, rate of climb, max dive speed and a value for an aircraft's turning ability (that's where I'm hung up, finding something realiable). And I figure there would have to be a modifier for if the aircraft is carrying it's bomb load when dogfighting in hopes of fighting through to the target. Or you would have to assume they jettison their bombs to dogfight, which would mean they can't attack their original target once the dogfight is over. I've been no help I know. But ideas unsaid are worthless. Ideas in the open might spark what you're looking for.

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: tiredoftryingnames ]

---

Try this site
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/acmintro.htm#Menu
He has some of the formulas used in Modern combat flight sims. If you are into air to air, this is a good read.
T.

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by chanman:
Hmmmm. Not sure you're going to come up with a generic formula that will make everyone happy, MT. The short answer to your question about turning ability is an equation (lost waaaay back in the cobwebs of my brain) that relates wing loading and L/D ratio to turning ability. A lightly loaded fighter such as an A6M2 has a much better turning radius than a high wingload fighter such as an P47. I am not sure that I would get so hung up in the turning radius, though. A number based on wing loading modified by control type and power to weight ratio (determines acceleration). I have vague memories of a text claiming that the hydraulically boosted controls of the late war US fighters gave them a distinct high speed advantage over the 'cable and pulley' controls used in the Zero. Can't remember the reference, I have slept many times since then.

Tomanbeg, firepower is measured in the firepower category. Speed is very important, more so than acceleration IMO. Speed gets you in position to use your weapons or lets you pick up and go home when you want to. In any flight sim, fly a P38F against an A6M2. In a furball, the A6M2 rules, but the P38F controls the game unless surprised, being able to choose the time and manner of the encounter.

Pilot quality does rule, however. Richtoven said something along the lines of "it's not the crate..."

Chanman

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: chanman ]

---

Exactly what I was saying. Each fighter has a critical speed that is the best trade off between how big the turning circle is and how fast the fighter can get around that circle. The Zero had a small(tight) circle, but the F6 and the F4-U could go around their larger circle faster then a Zero. Which meant that the zero could not pull enough lead to hit them. Boom and Zoom requires speed, but for dogfighting the critical speeds of all piston engine fighters are not that far apart. Ages ago when I was playing a lot of Air Warrior, one of the sites had a list of critical speeds for the aircraft modeled. While not comprehensive most of the major aircraft were represented. IIRC the range was from 180 knots to 240 knots. So I thought I was saying the same thing you did.
T.

[Ranger-75]

Another thing to consider is turn rate as a function of speed. At high speeds, the F4F Wildcat was actually more manueverable than the A6M Zero. Also the speed of a plane, especially in a dive makes it easier for a plane to break off combat, which helped many an allied polit escape when the going got too rough.

It's enough to make your head spin...

[Blackhorse]

My $0.02:
Whatever you do, please don't delay the release of the v2.3 patch while you search for a "Holy Grail" formula for maneuver and dogfight ability.

Merry Christmas!

[chanman]

Hi all,

MT I am with Blackhorse on the "don't delay 2.3" looking for the magic formula.

Tomanbeg, you and I are very close in what we are saying. There are some shades of difference though. You are talking about speed while maneuvering (that 'critical speed' you talk about) which I agree is important in modeling a flight sim along the lines of Air Warrior, but I am talking about top speed that the pilot in question can use to either close with the enemy or separate and fight another day. IMO, Air Warrior and its ilk teach us some bad habits (though they are tremendously fun) as they usually give us tools to enhance our Situational Awareness so we can get on with the business of dogfighting. As what I call 'power tactics' became the rule of the sky for US pilots in the pacific, many if not most of the Japanese pilots never got a chance to manuever before they were blown away. In the case of the F4U, the 400+mph top speed comes into play more (as it closes on an unsuspecting victim) than it's 250mph manuever speed, IMO.

The one rating for fighter effectiveness is the limiting factor here, since it must be used to model not only the ability of the aircraft to manuever but also its ability to attain the initiative.

All in fun, Chanman

[gdpsnake]

One of the most important aspects of aerial combat is performance envelopes.
For instance, one aircraft might out maneuver the onther at 10,000 feet but be a pig at 20,000 feet (F-4 versus Mig in Vietnam-never scissors with a mig!). Most pilots like to fly at the altitude that gives optimum maneuverability (Don't feel like going into the vg, vn diagrams and such).
Also, a loaded A/C is vastly different than an unloaded A/C so don't use range, you need combat radius. Many reference books will list a range which may seem large but that value is a slick stripped down version (A/C companies want to sell their product so they make it look good!). Combat radius may be 1/3 of the range. I remember the Fulcrum was like that. When it first came out, we fretted a little because it was a good performer on paper but then we learned the combat rasius was barely 1/3 of the range. Once it loaded with missles, pods, pylons, and bags; well it just wasn't any good any more. Another example: The F-16 is a neat little jet but to get any legs you need to put three bags of gas on and then you need a targeting pod, ecm pod, shoulder mounted Aim 9's or later AMRAMMS, and then you might squeeze a 1000lb bomb or two if your lucky. How far will you get? Not very without pre and post strike refueling. They would have needed 15 refuelings to get from England to Lybia with one 500lb bomb! Also an F-15 with conformal tanks will go farther on the same gas than one without because of drag.
And bombs give their own problems.
I could fly supersonic with a MK 84 2000lb bomb and a 904 tail fuse but would be limited to .83 mach with Mk82 500lb bombs and 903 nose fusing.
How many pylons do I have for hard points? What altitude profile? HLH HL? Lots of things go into performance.
So I would suggest looking for references on combat radius to determine the RANGE.
Measure cruise speeds at optimum altitudes for speed. Look at SUSTAINABLE turn rate and turn radius for maneverability (any one can rack it in for one last ditch save my ass jink. Sustainable is the key for measurement in this case.) Add or subtract points for unloaded Zero g acceleration value (And wag a bit for how long the engine could go before cavitating because of oil or fuel limits at zero G) Dive and climb values would add the last points. Simply list the A/c in each category and give a value. Total is the number for MAN.
CAN value should just be type/number of guns (Remember some are more reliable/deal more damage or whatever. Ammo limits should be added. Great guns with very few rounds aren't good very long. I seem to remember the F-15 could do about 2-3 seconds of one continous fire before ammo all gone! Most WW2 combats were short burts while flying by the target.
Bottom line The pilot is the key! In WW1, the best aces had two common traits. One, they were the best marksman and Two, they had the keenest eyesight.
The best WW2 pilots were smart. Hartman (352 kills) got most of his in Russia against unmanuevering targets (never knew he was there!). If he had to pull more that 3-4 G's he just said forget it and broke away to fight again the next day.
BOMB should be a value for optimum loads not maximum loads!
DUR is tougher. Pick a value and then go up or down based on armor, controlability at slow speeds/stall (Can a damaged A/C make it or does it have to be ditched?). Fudge for reputation? B-17 was legendary! Zero was terrible.
COST? Look at history of production problems, ease of machining parts and availability of parts. Easy to work on? Hard? ME-262 was a better jet but HE-162 was easy to build (Used wood if I remember and had a tendancy for the glue to give out.)
These are just some ideas for establishing values for game.
Sorry, I seem to be rambling but there's so much more I could say.

[Blackhorse]

Perhaps I can recommend a difference approach. We already have values for firepower and durability. We also have WWII history which indicates how well these planes performed against each other.

Instead of some mathematical formula, "maneuver" should be the variable that allows these aircraft to dogfight as well (or poorly)as they did historically.

Many of us, including Major Tom, have noticed that in the game the "Turkey Shoot" begins in 1943: even Zeros with far more experienced pilots can not hold their own against allied fighters. The maneuver ratings should be adjusted so that 90+ experience Zeros can fairly battle 70+ experience Hellcats and P38s.

As the most ubiquitous Japanese fighter, I'd recommend using the Zero as the "constant", and then adjusting the maneuver ratings of other aircraft until the game results of air-to-air combat recapture the historical "feel."

[Major Tom]

Cannon ratings have already been done. I recieved a VERY thourough list of weaponry used by all sides during the Pacific Conflict brilliantly transferred into Pacific War terms.

Range has yet to be solidified. Even using accounts sometimes they are inflated/deflated by pilots. Many pilots said that F2A Buffalo's were better than F4F's.

Manoeverability is a tough one.

(No, the 2.3 will not be delayed by the Dogfight modifications, a minor patch will probably follow soon with small corrections such as this one.)

As I am figuring things out, it appears like the OBC for manuverability will not be changed THAT much, however, those planes that will be changed will primarily be the later ones.

When one roughly looks at history of aircraft they might think that the later planes (P-51, Ki-84) should outstrip the earlier planes in all categories. However, my 'analysys' through many sources show that while these later planes were great, they were not substantially better than earlier planes in ALL categories. What made the P-51 great was its speed, range, firepower and durability, however, a Hurricane I could out manoever it at their repsective best speeds. The Manoever rating for the P-51 was not that great, as it relied on other tactics (climb, dive and speed) to dogfight instead of turning.

Since dogfighting takes into account BOTH speed and manoeverability (which includes turning, rotating, climbing and diving [what made the P-47 great was that it could dive like a mofo]).

What will this result in? Well, the earlier and later planes will experience less of a deficit in dogfighting than Pacific War shows.

What will the point in having new aircraft be? Well, where later aircraft were not as exceptional when it came to cannon rating, bomb load, range (usually) and durability. Sure, the P-51 will have better manoeverability than the P-40, but there will be less of a deficit. A lot of people forget that Cannon ratings and Durability play a VERY important part in air combat. An A6M2, no matter the experience, will have a hard time taking on B-17E's, purely because of the difference of Cannon and Durability.


I found many aircraft under-represented in Pac War. The P-39 was an average aircraft, not poor like Pac War. In order to make it more interesting, I am thinking about decreasing its cost (so that the US player will not automatically switch all production to P-40's).

The P-36 was a very good plane as well. It was relatively fast, but the equivalent of the USAAF Ki-43 (very manoeverable). The French were very successful with the P-36 (however, they used the Export Hawk 75-A which was better than the P-36A Hawk used by the USAAF). Its dogfighting rate (taking into account speed and manoeverability) should be equal, if not superior to the P-40.

What I did, was to take their maximum speed, as well as their best turing radius (at optimum speed), rotating (rotating also was important, as the slower you rotate the more sluggish in the air you are), climbing and diving (ever play any good air simulator? Diving and Climbing ARE critical to fighting, or getting out of a fight). This is a lot to include in one value, but it can be done.

[Major Tom]

Can anyone direct me to some online sources (ie. websites, not websites to order books [cash flow very low]) that deal with all aspects of aircraft used in the Pacific War? I have found stats for all of the "popular aircraft" (P-40, P-51, A6M, Hurricane IIC, etc..) but the less popular ones (P-35, P-36, Ki-61, Fulmar, etc...) are not to be found.

Thanks

[Warpup]

Speaking of flight sims, the new "IL2 Sturmovik" sim put out by Maddox Games and Ubi Soft is absolutely fantastic! I've finally gotten hooked on sims because of this one.

Of course, MS Combat Flight Simulator 2 is more relevant to PacWar. Maybe one should just fly in that one and get some subjective estimations of what the maneuver ratings should be. My personal favorite is the Shiden Kai (George), which is a dream to fly in a fight. My brother says the P-51 is almost as good as the George, but I haven't played the MSCFS (Europe), so I can't compare. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

[Blackhorse]

Major Tom,

Check out this link for early war fighter stats and comparisons. I found it on a discussion board for the Europa series of (mega) board games.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/pblmchil.html

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by Blackhorse:
Perhaps I can recommend a difference approach. We already have values for firepower and durability. We also have WWII history which indicates how well these planes performed against each other.

Instead of some mathematical formula, "maneuver" should be the variable that allows these aircraft to dogfight as well (or poorly)as they did historically.

Many of us, including Major Tom, have noticed that in the game the "Turkey Shoot" begins in 1943: even Zeros with far more experienced pilots can not hold their own against allied fighters. The maneuver ratings should be adjusted so that 90+ experience Zeros can fairly battle 70+ experience Hellcats and P38s.

Why? I'm setting here with "Zero fighter" by Martin Caidin and Saburo Sakai. "Then in 1943 the US Navy introduced into the Pacific the one fighter that could take on the Zero under any conditions; the Grumman F6F Hellcat. Like the Corsair the Hellcat had an engine of 2,000 horsepower. It carried six .50 caliber machine guns and an ammunition load twice as great as its forerunners. It could outclimb the Zero, it could dive faster then it's enemy, it carried heavy armored plating and self-sealing fuel tanks and it's construction was rugged and, most important of all, it could get into a tight turn with the zero and stay in there, the pilot pulling back on the on the stick and matching the tightness of turns or loops of his adversary". pg143.
Page 68. "The model 21 Zero had a radius of turn, in a steady turn, with entry speed at 230 mph, of 1,118 feet. At slow combat speed the fighter had a radius of turn of 612 feet. Entering a 180-degree steep (banked?) turn with an entry speed of 230 mph, the fighter could complete the turn in 5.62 seconds with an exit speed from the turn of 188.9 mph".
T.

As the most ubiquitous Japanese fighter, I'd recommend using the Zero as the "constant", and then adjusting the maneuver ratings of other aircraft until the game results of air-to-air combat recapture the historical "feel."

---

[Blackhorse]

I said:
The maneuver ratings should be adjusted so that 90+ experience Zeros can fairly battle 70+ experience Hellcats and P38s.

Tomanbeg said:
Why? I'm setting here with "Zero fighter" by Martin Caidin and Saburo Sakai . . . [snip] (performance data showing the superiority of the F4F and Corsair vs. the Zero).

Why? In order to be accurate, naturally. The whole purpose of the aircraft formulas are to accurately translate fighting abilities of the different planes. If planes perform unrealistically in the game, then the model is "off" in some way, and should be adjusted.

The US fighters of 1943 were of course superior to the Zero in many respects. But Zeros flown by experienced pilots put up a good fight, and the American pilots had a healthy respect for them. IRL, the wholesale massacres of Zeros did not take place until 1944, after the Japanese were bled dry of trained pilots during the "attrition air war" in the Solomons. But in the game, even crack Zero groups (90+ experience) get blown out of the sky in 1943.

The game results are unrealistic because the Japanese experience edge does not adequately balance the US aircraft performance advantage. There are any number of ways to correct this: lower the experience rating for newly-arriving US pilots; lessen the performance differential between US fighters and the Zero; or weigh pilot experience more heavily.

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by Blackhorse:

I said:
The maneuver ratings should be adjusted so that 90+ experience Zeros can fairly battle 70+ experience Hellcats and P38s.

Tomanbeg said:
Why? I'm setting here with "Zero fighter" by Martin Caidin and Saburo Sakai . . . [snip] (performance data showing the superiority of the F4F and Corsair vs. the Zero).

Why? In order to be accurate, naturally. The whole purpose of the aircraft formulas are to accurately translate fighting abilities of the different planes. If planes perform unrealistically in the game, then the model is "off" in some way, and should be adjusted.

The US fighters of 1943 were of course superior to the Zero in many respects. But Zeros flown by experienced pilots put up a good fight, and the American pilots had a healthy respect for them. IRL, the wholesale massacres of Zeros did not take place until 1944, after the Japanese were bled dry of trained pilots during the "attrition air war" in the Solomons. But in the game, even crack Zero groups (90+ experience) get blown out of the sky in 1943.

The game results are unrealistic because the Japanese experience edge does not adequately balance the US aircraft performance advantage. There are any number of ways to correct this: lower the experience rating for newly-arriving US pilots; lessen the performance differential between US fighters and the Zero; or weigh pilot experience more heavily.

---

What makes up pilot experience? The two most important things for fighter pilots were eyesight and knowing how to use it, and the ability to hold a fighter on the edge of stall without losing it. While Eyesight is a gift from god(or whoever you worship) seeing aircraft in the air can be learned. Learning to feel a stall comes from spending time in an aircraft type, and time in the air in general. The only other things that I can remember from Col Boyds book are air-to-air gunnery and handling(dealing with) emergencies. Studies done in the 50's indicated that a pilot with 250 training hours and 5 combat hours was more efficent then a pilot with 50 training hours and 50 combat hours. It seemed that once a well trained pilot lived through his first air-to-air combat, it took a few combat missions to reach peak proficancy, after which he didn't learn a lot until he got up into the 200-300 combat hour range. 200 combat hours is a lot. very few Americans got there, they were usually sent back to the states as instructors. A few brits and a lot of germans had that kind of combat air time. And a handfull of Japs. Which is why I question the statement that the Japs had a big experience edge over the US in '43. Maybe a small edge in Early '43 but they were equal by mid '43 and falling behind fast by the end of '43. Japanese pilot training was mostly physical. Lots of swimming, running, wrestling(judo) and what now days would be considered arobic training. IIRC they would get less then 20 hours of flight time before being sent to a unit. So Out of 24 pilots there might be 3 or 4 with 1,000+ hours and 12 with 100 to 400 hours and the rest would just be able to take off and land. Compare to an American unit with 24 pilots, all with a minumin of 300 hours, and half around a thousand. So who is the more experienced. The Japs depended on the vets taking the rookies under their wing long enough for the rookie to become effective. So When the vet gets the chop, there goes your training program. Plus that vet who is 4% of your force represents 25% of your experience. And is getting 33% of your kills. By the time Lamphier(SP?) shot down Yamamato the Japanese air power was dead. Like a chicken with it's head cut off, it was still running around and kicking, but it was dead. On November 11, 1943 when Rabaul was raided The Japs sent 67 Zekes, 27 Vals and 14 Kates after the retiring task force(Essex, Bunker Hill, and the Light Carrier Independence plus 10 DD's). 32 Zekes, 24 Vals, and 12 Kates were shot down. The reason for all the Air kills in '44 was the Japs would not commit any air forces to combat until then. They knew that any planes they sent up were dog meat, and they were saving their planes for the Final Battle. That is why the Turkey shoot happened when it did. Starting in about August of '43, when the Japs put up large numbers of planes, then they got large numbers shot down. So if that is what the games shows, don't fix it 'cause it ain't broke.
T.

[Warpup]

So, Tomanbeg, if what you are saying is right, there isn't any point in having a game of WW2 Pacific War that goes beyond mid-1943. Allies get hellcats and corsairs and thunderbolts, and we can just say "game over!" Uncommon Valor will be a fine game, but no need to make a game covering the full war playable by human players on each side, ... at least not unless there is a way to change the Japanese pilot training program and allow the Japanese to introduce their late war aircraft designs at least two and a half years early. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">