RHS Maneuverability Review: Data [ALL Data Done]

[JeffroK]

The SWAG, based on the formula used previously, would be the best system.
 
To look at US/British 2E fighters only: (Assuming a 12-15 average??)
The Blenheim 1F, was a bomber, good arguement for the standard 2E treatment
The Mosquito VI, had superior MV to a bomber, not agile but better than the Blenheim, worth 4-5 extra points of MV
Beaufighter, better than the Blenheim, not to the Mossie level, 2-4 points above the formula.
P-38 Lightning, as mentioned above, was a fighter and with its twin boom layout showed many times in action its ability to hold its own in combat, worth the 50% or 6-7 point MV bonus.
P-70 Havoc, like the Blenheim a light bomber, it was a good one though so an extra point.
P-61 Black Widow, I've never heard of it being out of the ordinary , but I'd rate it as similar to the Beaufighter.
dh103 Hornet, Dreaming.....
F7F Tigercat, ?, somewhere between the Mossie & P-38
 
Some of the extra combat ability of these, and all aircraft, would be covered by the increased experience of the pilots through learning how to make the best out of their Aircraft, which would be covered in the Pilot experience component of the Air Combat equation.

[ChezDaJez]

I suggest adding '7' to the P-38J and L models, making their maneuverability values 21 and 22 respectively.

I would probably recommend adding a bit more to the P-38L as it had boosted ailerons and its roll rate was excellent at all speeds. The L model could do a 360 roll in about 2.5 seconds at 300 knots which is right up there with the Corsair. The J model took well over 6 seconds to do the same. Maybe ratings of 22 for the J and 25 for L model would be appropriate (assuming that the Zeke is rated at 28).

The L model was only slightly inferior to the Zeke in overall maneuvering as the A6M5 Zeke cold easily stay with a P-38J/L model in a tight turn, even when the P-38 used 8 degrees of flap (combat flaps). On the other hand, the P-38J/L models struggled to stay with the A6M5 Zeke in a tight turn. They could but they were always on the verge of stalling as the P-38s lost speed far quicker than the Zeke when turning tightly. It took a very experienced pilot to stay with a Zeke in this manner. But no P-38 model could stay with the Zeke in a tight climbing turn.

Just throwing my .02 cents in.

Chez

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mifune

"German Pfiel - or a B-34" I believe you mean the Do-335

Correct. Senior moment, I forgot its official designation. It really is a two engine plane, but the engines
are not on the wings. They are fore and aft, in Navy talk. A different solution was adopted for B-34 (if I remember
the number right) - a contingency plane - an ultra long range medium bomber in case we got thrown back across
both oceans - it had two engines burried in the body driving contra rotating propellers. So did a cousin of the Ki-61 - it had an engine behind the pilot and another in front - but they drove contra rotating airscrews. And a different German plane was exported to Japan with a similar arrangement - a recon plane ultimately not proceeded with. In these cases, if they were in RHS, we would not count the engines for maneuverability.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again
The question is: what is the special case effect? Add a point or two to the
maneuverability? Or multiply it times 1.5? Or something else?

Sid,

Here's my best guess. Considering my lack of expertise in this area, somebody with real knowledge please shoot it down if it's all wet.

I hesitate to say 'multiply it times 1.5' because some plane you find might bust the range limit (up to 30) that you've set. Furthermore, the true modification might be non-linear. Maybe a plane with a higher intrinsic value gets less added-value from the power aerilons?

I suggest adding '7' to the P-38J and L models, making their maneuverability values 21 and 22 respectively.

That is about a 1.5 multiple, but I would be cautious about using that as a general rule. I think 'black magic' is appropriate here.

Thanks. I don't do black magic. I do do exceptions for cause. This may be one of them. Since it is a judgement call I prefer to get a sense of what the forum likes rather than make one up and impose it.

[el cid again]

The newest version of our system has the P-38 scoring better - and I was thinking of adding a bonus only for the powered aleron version - L I believe. So that is the focus of this discussion. There is some question if this also would apply to the Ki-44 - although it does not have two engines - it suffered from high wing loading and it was solved by some kind of aleron modification - still checking. There may be other cases on either side - and the only reason we will have one exception is if there is only one. I am prepared to deal with planes not in the set when appropriate - so I design explicit criteria - even for exceptions.

Looks like adding weight to ROC is a really good way to separate dogs from hot planes of all kinds - and for two engine planes in particular.

[el cid again]

The new system seems to be working better than expected. For statistical reasons the P-38L turned out to be much better than any other twin engine aircraft WITHOUT any special modifier added. The focus on ROC as the second
most dominant factor after speed - and P-38 being great at both - does the job.

We will now define all types - and issue 5.00.

This brings up the question of range. Comments indicate we should depart from the WITP tradition of "get ferry range right and let code pick operational ranges" and go over to "set ferry range so operational ranges are right, on
the average"

specifically that means most types add 7% to ferry range

but fighters (true fighters) do not

and that transports subtract a value from ferry range.

Originally I proposed using 20% - but if we use 42% as range for bombers - that would correspond to a 16% subtraction (because ferry range is twice radius).

I wish anyone who does NOT want to tamper with ranges to get operational ranges right to comment - otherwise I will assume this isn't controversial.

Note I am a manager of RHS - not the owner. I don't care about the feelings of those who won't use the mod - but if you DO use it - your voice matters to me.

[Bliztk]

Operational Range is better to be accurate at expense of the other.

99% of times is the one in use in games

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Operational Range is better to be accurate at expense of the other.
99% of times is the one in use in games

DEFINATELY AGREE! It's a WAR game, so the most important aspect has to be the modeling of the "combat radii" under various circumstances----extended, normal, fighter-bomber, etc

[Mifune]

"Looks like adding weight to ROC is a really good way to separate dogs from hot planes of all kinds - and for two engine planes in particular." I am glad that it worked out with the maneuver ratings after one looks at the overall numbers.

[Herrbear]

I agree that operational range is most important. Let the ferry range adjust so that the operational range of the planes is correct.

[el cid again]

Lacking dissenters, a rare thing in this club, I regard consensus as reached. The only problem is calculating
hundreds of endurance ratings!

4.45 is about to upload for extended human testing. This is in an hour.

5.00 will be 4.45 with any additional eratta or cosmetics folded in - plus the new plane durability and endurance
ratings - when ever they are done. I don't think it will be too long - but it is 249 types of planes.

[Zemke]

Well I am using the plane date from a program called IL-2 Compare.  It is a program that has charts to show top speed at all altitudes, manueverbiltiy by speed and degrees of turn per second, and rate of climb from sealevel to ceiling.  Granted it is from another game IL-2 Forgotten Battles / Pacific Pacific Fighters, which is considered the very best combat flight simulation out there today.  This program was made from plane data in the game.  You can find the program here in the downloads section  http://334theaglesquadron.com/portal/ . 
 
The technique I was using was take each plane's max level speed rating and max manueverability rating, and use each planes best rate of climb.  I have re-done all the planes in a mod I am working on already.  For manueverability, I took the rate of turn in degrees per second and doubled the number.  The problem I have run into is most of the Dutch planes are not in IL-2, so I sort of extrapolated the data by comparing planes and using the game data.
 
I think the data fits very well with historical plane data so far.  Japanese plane manueverability has increased a lot, while late war Allied planes have increased in speed.  The Soviet planes went up in several areas as well.  I will post a few examples of the new plane data using IL-2 Compare.
         Speed           Man             Climb
A6M2   320              44               2790
A6M3   340              42               2900
A6M5   350              42               3282
J2M     402              34               3952
Ki-43Ib 305              48               3180
Ki-44    340              36               3832
Ki-84Ia  411              38              2850
F2A      286              36              2598
F4F-3   315              36               2585
F6F      369              34               3040
F4U-1   407              32               3080
P-39D    376             36               2516
P-40E    345             34               2070
P-38G    395             26               3037
P-38L    415             30                3143
P-47D    420             29                2661
P-51D    426             29                2646
I-153c    253            53                3023
I-16c     270             40               3050
Yak-3    389             37                3608
La-7      407             40                4127
SpitVb    345            42                2550
SpitXIV   402            40                3700
Now I know these numbers will raise a few issues, but the thing to remember is this is the max speed at the ideal altitude for that plane, and best turn rate in degrees per second, and each are not the same.  In other words, every plane has a certain speed at which it can turn best, and a F4U can out turn a Zero at high speed, but not at lower speed.  But the maneuverability rating is the best a certain plane can turn at its best turning speed.  Of note is the Spit, far better maneuverability and good speed.  I found max range for a Spit to be 668K Vb and 698K XIV, which if you shave 20-30% off for combat time, that means about four hexs in the game for range, with internal fuel. 

[el cid again]

4.45 is posted.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

Well I am using the plane date from a program called IL-2 Compare.  It is a program that has charts to show top speed at all altitudes, manueverbiltiy by speed and degrees of turn per second, and rate of climb from sealevel to ceiling.  Granted it is from another game IL-2 Forgotten Battles / Pacific Pacific Fighters, which is considered the very best combat flight simulation out there today.  This program was made from plane data in the game.  You can find the program here in the downloads section  http://334theaglesquadron.com/portal/ . 

The technique I was using was take each plane's max level speed rating and max manueverability rating, and use each planes best rate of climb.  I have re-done all the planes in a mod I am working on already.  For manueverability, I took the rate of turn in degrees per second and doubled the number.  The problem I have run into is most of the Dutch planes are not in IL-2, so I sort of extrapolated the data by comparing planes and using the game data.

I think the data fits very well with historical plane data so far.  Japanese plane manueverability has increased a lot, while late war Allied planes have increased in speed.  The Soviet planes went up in several areas as well.  I will post a few examples of the new plane data using IL-2 Compare.
        Speed           Man             Climb
A6M2   320              44               2790
A6M3   340              42               2900
A6M5   350              42               3282
J2M     402              34               3952
Ki-43Ib 305              48               3180
Ki-44    340              36               3832
Ki-84Ia  411              38              2850
F2A      286              36              2598
F4F-3   315              36               2585
F6F      369              34               3040
F4U-1   407              32               3080
P-39D    376             36               2516
P-40E    345             34               2070
P-38G    395             26               3037
P-38L    415             30                3143
P-47D    420             29                2661
P-51D    426             29                2646
I-153c    253            53                3023
I-16c     270             40               3050
Yak-3    389             37                3608
La-7      407             40                4127
SpitVb    345            42                2550
SpitXIV   402            40                3700
Now I know these numbers will raise a few issues, but the thing to remember is this is the max speed at the ideal altitude for that plane, and best turn rate in degrees per second, and each are not the same.  In other words, every plane has a certain speed at which it can turn best, and a F4U can out turn a Zero at high speed, but not at lower speed.  But the maneuverability rating is the best a certain plane can turn at its best turning speed.  Of note is the Spit, far better maneuverability and good speed.  I found max range for a Spit to be 668K Vb and 698K XIV, which if you shave 20-30% off for combat time, that means about four hexs in the game for range, with internal fuel. 

REPLY: This is interesting, but not germane to our situation. We do not get to rate planes at different altitudes - which I would prefer - nor to separate maneuverability in a turn sense from maneuverability in a speed/climb/dive sense.
Also, in technical terms, I don't like numbers in this range, because of the impact on air combat lethality in our engine.
But we might divide them by two - if of course the model permitted a maneuverability rating of this sort - which it doesn't at the moment.

We have found a better composite system than we had - or than existed anywhere else so far. So we will go with it - and hope for a better model with more fields some day. This discussion has turned out better than seemed likely - having failed twice along the way to produce anything useful - we finally have something.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

Well I am using the plane date from a program called IL-2 Compare.  It is a program that has charts to show top speed at all altitudes, manueverbiltiy by speed and degrees of turn per second, and rate of climb from sealevel to ceiling.  Granted it is from another game IL-2 Forgotten Battles / Pacific Pacific Fighters, which is considered the very best combat flight simulation out there today.  This program was made from plane data in the game.  You can find the program here in the downloads section  http://334theaglesquadron.com/portal/ . 

The technique I was using was take each plane's max level speed rating and max manueverability rating, and use each planes best rate of climb.  I have re-done all the planes in a mod I am working on already.  For manueverability, I took the rate of turn in degrees per second and doubled the number.  The problem I have run into is most of the Dutch planes are not in IL-2, so I sort of extrapolated the data by comparing planes and using the game data.

I think the data fits very well with historical plane data so far.  Japanese plane manueverability has increased a lot, while late war Allied planes have increased in speed.  The Soviet planes went up in several areas as well.  I will post a few examples of the new plane data using IL-2 Compare.
        Speed           Man             Climb
A6M2   320              44               2790
A6M3   340              42               2900
A6M5   350              42               3282
J2M     402              34               3952
Ki-43Ib 305              48               3180
Ki-44    340              36               3832
Ki-84Ia  411              38              2850
F2A      286              36              2598
F4F-3   315              36               2585
F6F      369              34               3040
F4U-1   407              32               3080
P-39D    376             36               2516
P-40E    345             34               2070
P-38G    395             26               3037
P-38L    415             30                3143
P-47D    420             29                2661
P-51D    426             29                2646
I-153c    253            53                3023
I-16c     270             40               3050
Yak-3    389             37                3608
La-7      407             40                4127
SpitVb    345            42                2550
SpitXIV   402            40                3700
Now I know these numbers will raise a few issues, but the thing to remember is this is the max speed at the ideal altitude for that plane, and best turn rate in degrees per second, and each are not the same.  In other words, every plane has a certain speed at which it can turn best, and a F4U can out turn a Zero at high speed, but not at lower speed.  But the maneuverability rating is the best a certain plane can turn at its best turning speed.  Of note is the Spit, far better maneuverability and good speed.  I found max range for a Spit to be 668K Vb and 698K XIV, which if you shave 20-30% off for combat time, that means about four hexs in the game for range, with internal fuel. 

REPLY: This is interesting, but not germane to our situation. We do not get to rate planes at different altitudes - which I would prefer - nor to separate maneuverability in a turn sense from maneuverability in a speed/climb/dive sense.
Also, in technical terms, I don't like numbers in this range, because of the impact on air combat lethality in our engine.
But we might divide them by two - if of course the model permitted a maneuverability rating of this sort - which it doesn't at the moment.

We have found a better composite system than we had - or than existed anywhere else so far. So we will go with it - and hope for a better model with more fields some day. This discussion has turned out better than seemed likely - having failed twice along the way to produce anything useful - we finally have something.

It IS germane in one sense. What A/C does it list as by far the best in "Manueverability"? The I-153. And if you think about it, what A/C would you LEAST like to be caught flying in a combat situation? That's the basic answer to the folks who keep screaming that the Zero is the greatest thing since sliced bread because of it's turning radius..., and the basic reason you are engaged in hammering out a more realistic A-to-A combat system.

[el cid again]

Well, actually, I do think the Zero is almost the greatest thing since sliced bread, but NOT because it could
outmaneuver a biplane - or even a fine monoplane like the Ki-27. I am not a deciple of "turning rates are
all that matters in air combat" - and the history of US fighter operations in PTO would read very differently if
it were.

The Zero was fabulous because of what it could do when it could do it. It wasn't the fastest fighter in the world, nor the most maneuverable. It had severe (if deliberate) weakness in the form of no armor or self sealing tanks. This was done on purpose so that, with a limited power plant, it could achieve superb range - probably the greatest in the world at the time. It also had a relatively powerful armament - in an age where first line fighter planes almost universally used machine guns it used mixed cannon and machine guns. Add to that it was a carrier plane. Certainly it was a very useful plane - and - with the Ki-43 Hayabusa (which Rene Francillon says "was almost as great a technical surprise as the Zero") it dominated the early PTO skies. What makes a plane great is usually not that it is the very best at anything, but the sum of a number of factors - and how that matters at a particular point in time.
At a different time the same plane is not impressive - as happened to the Zero. The Corsair may have been as great a carrier fighter for its era - but it is no longer used even as a second line fighter. What matters is not some abstract statistics - although here the Corsair can claim still to be setting speed records - but a useful combination of factors at a particular moment in history.

I would be very suspicious if the Ki-10, Ki-27, and other fine planes were not rated as more maneuverable than a Zero.
Maneuverable it was - but not the most maneuverable. The quest for maneuverability in JAAF was a mistake - and IJN was wise not to make it the main thing.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Well, actually, I do think the Zero is almost the greatest thing since sliced bread, but NOT because it could
outmaneuver a biplane - or even a fine monoplane like the Ki-27. I am not a deciple of "turning rates are
all that matters in air combat" - and the history of US fighter operations in PTO would read very differently if
it were.

The Zero was fabulous because of what it could do when it could do it. It wasn't the fastest fighter in the world, nor the most maneuverable. It had severe (if deliberate) weakness in the form of no armor or self sealing tanks. This was done on purpose so that, with a limited power plant, it could achieve superb range - probably the greatest in the world at the time. It also had a relatively powerful armament - in an age where first line fighter planes almost universally used machine guns it used mixed cannon and machine guns. Add to that it was a carrier plane. Certainly it was a very useful plane - and - with the Ki-43 Hayabusa (which Rene Francillon says "was almost as great a technical surprise as the Zero") it dominated the early PTO skies. What makes a plane great is usually not that it is the very best at anything, but the sum of a number of factors - and how that matters at a particular point in time.
At a different time the same plane is not impressive - as happened to the Zero. The Corsair may have been as great a carrier fighter for its era - but it is no longer used even as a second line fighter. What matters is not some abstract statistics - although here the Corsair can claim still to be setting speed records - but a useful combination of factors at a particular moment in history.

I would be very suspicious if the Ki-10, Ki-27, and other fine planes were not rated as more maneuverable than a Zero.
Maneuverable it was - but not the most maneuverable. The quest for maneuverability in JAAF was a mistake - and IJN was wise not to make it the main thing.

Cid. Certainly won't argue with you that the Zero was an outstanding design, and that it's RANGE was it's true "secret edge"..... Talk about a Force Multiplier......I'm not as impressed with it's armament (though it was certainly superior to what the Japanese considered "normal" for a fighter aircraft)..... It's 20mm's were rather slow-firing, and had a short looping trajectory (which is why they used a 7.7 MG as a sighting aid). Had the ballistics and R-O-F been better (requiring a .50 cal as an aiming aid) I'd agree with you.

As for longevity, I'd have to give the Spitfire and the Me-109 the "edge". Both were "top dog" when the war began in 1939, and in their latest versions were still quite competative in 1945. But the Zero stayed in the hunt better than any US design in major service at the beginning of the war.

My point was that "manueverability" (as the Japanese defined it) turned out NOT to be the factor their airmen thought it would be at the beginning of the war---and in fact was a "dead end" that pulled their designs into a "blind alley" that took them too long to back out of. Hence your search for a more "realistic" air-to-air combat model which emphasizes the factors that WERE important in the Second World War.

[el cid again]

It appears, then, that we are in fundamental agreement. For I cannot argue - nit picker that I am - with your analysis as restated. The Japanese - and they were not by any means unique in this - were students of classical fighters in the WWI mold - and they used them successfully in China - and also against the Russians in campaigns we rarely study.
[The Ki-48 was inspired by the Il-2 - which impressed the Japanese. A fast two engine bomber seemed very smart to them. But it only carried 50 kg bombs!] And yes, I have not been willing to forsake the value of speed and rate of climb even when adding wing loading to the maneuverability calculation. Because you are indeed correct.

[goodboyladdie]

Have you had any more results back from the tests of the new improved aircraft, please? I am interested to know how the P-38 is comparing to it's historical results. From what I have read here since my last post it sounds like you and the other contributors are happier with the ratings. I get the feeling that all work done here is leading to a greater purpose (WitP 2!), so thanks for all your hard work and your openness. I was initially not that interested in RHS, but having seen the way it is being continually refined may have to take the plunge once a relatively stable "no more major tweaks" version is released. Do you have any idea when that might be?

[Mifune]

Here are some initial P-38 ratings of which you can see its improvement. P-38J=15 which represents a fine twin engined aircraft. P-38L=20 which is an outstanding rating for a twin engine and reflects its technological advances.