RHS Maneuverability Review: Data [ALL Data Done]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 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?

I have hope - but no crystal ball.

I am going to release 4.46 with all problems found in 4.45 addressed - and some other lessons learned built into the programming of AI for Japan. It is suitable for medium term testing.

But the aircraft revisions are not done. Our volunteer got sick - and is finding the sheer number of Allied planes daunting. Almost done with Japanese planes, he has more than twice as many Allied ones left to do! So 5.00 is not coming out for around a week. I might fold in the aircraft ranges though- time allowing.

I want some human games into 1943 at least - to tell me IF 4.45 (or later) is OK. And I want to know the slightest trouble you have. RHS instantly addresses minor issues automatically in the next update. No reason not to.
But of course I really want to know about big problems. Anything not hard coded we will address. And we might be able to trick hard code - or work around it.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 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.

It probably will be the twin engine champion. Only the Ki-102 might be in its league - and I bet it isn't any better than the P-38J. The other possibility is F7F might be similar.

[Mifune]

Here is the RHS maneuver rating formula. (max speed/20) + (initial RoC/200) - ((empty weight/wing area)/25) - ((gross weight/take off horse power)/5) / number of engines. Rules of the math are to two decimal places throughout the calculations, until the final rating. The final figure is then rounded to nearest whole number since only whole number can be used by WitP. Sources of the numbers must be from one of the standard references such as Francillon or Weal. When calculating initial RoC I try to calculate from a source listing RoC 0 through 15-20k if possible. SO one must bear in mind what initial RoC represents. I did not use zoom RoC or optimal RoC with these calculations, the same considerations were given to max speed. It is quite difficult to find standard set of stats for all the aircraft, but a deliberate effort has been maintained so the overall numbers are not skewed by misleading numbers. In addition to further elaborate the loading factors within this formula the third set of calculations represent wing loading and the fourth set represents power loading. These loadings are weighted for use within this formula.

[Mifune]

Actually you are quite correct the Ki-102b=15 which is comparable to the P-38J.

[Mifune]

"finding the sheer number of Allied planes daunting." actually verifying that we are using a standardized set of stats is quite time consuming. But this needs to be done in this manner so the most valid database can be acheived.

[Mifune]

"Our volunteer got sick" Actually I was a bit unclear with Cid. My PC got the virus. which hampered my effort. Though I will admit that I could use a bit of a vacation from work.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Mifune,

Does this rating of 20 for the P-38L come from the forumula itself, or does it reflect the addition of a factor to account for the power aerilons?

Sid,

Do you plan to use the figure of 20 for the P-38L, or add an adjustment?

[el cid again]

That is the raw value without any modifier. We think it is probably much more interesting for that reason.

The P-38 will be an amazing plane. It has range like a Zero, but much greater durability and more punch.

In a dogfight it will tend to kill every time it gets a shot. But it will survive many times if shot at - particularly

if shot at by a light fighter. So its statistics should be very impressive - if we could somehow gather them

by plane type.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

That is the raw value without any modifier.

Okay - part two of the question: Do you plan to use it that way or bump it up to reflect the powered aerilons?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again

That is the raw value without any modifier.

Okay - part two of the question: Do you plan to use it that way or bump it up to reflect the powered aerilons?

Well - my numbers guy recommended we leave it alone. It is five points - 1/3 - better than P-38J - so he thinks (and I agree) that the performance reflects the machine. And P-38J is itself better than it is now. It is in a league of its own (unless F7F is up there too) - probably correct - and it will outperform any 1 engine plane in combat - because it will survive better and it has punch.

But this is a fine question: I solicit opinions. What does the forum think?

[m10bob]

Was the Oscar given a bonus for its' truly unique "butterfly flap"??

[ChezDaJez]

and it will outperform any 1 engine plane in combat - because it will survive better and it has punch.

Susvivability as compared to a single-engine US aircraft should be a wash. True, 2 engines allow significant redundancy in combat however the tail section was much weaker than on a comparable single-engine aircraft. It was very prone to failure after sustaining even relatively light damage, especially if that damage was not evenly distributed along the booms or horizontal stabilizer.

Chez

[witpqs]

If the figures reflect the plane's characteristics without the powered aerilons, then it should probably get an adjustment. However, I still suspect that the rule of 'diminishing returns' applies to this one. So, when it was 15 an adjustment of 6 or 7 was guessed. At 20, I would guess 4 or at most 5.

[el cid again]

Nope - no bonus in maneuverability for any plane. But there is a special bonus for a Russian bomber and a British bomber in durability. The Russian one has a cast armor forebody. The British one has geodesic construction.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

and it will outperform any 1 engine plane in combat - because it will survive better and it has punch.

Susvivability as compared to a single-engine US aircraft should be a wash. True, 2 engines allow significant redundancy in combat however the tail section was much weaker than on a comparable single-engine aircraft. It was very prone to failure after sustaining even relatively light damage, especially if that damage was not evenly distributed along the booms or horizontal stabilizer.

Chez

Doesen't matter. In RHS an extra engine counts. So does armor and all metal construction. P-38 has all three.
So it gets the rating for them. The extra engine point matters for lots of reasons - 1 E planes are less likely to return even on non-combat missions. So it is properly a durability contributer.

[witpqs]

Error - thought you were replying to me, I see now it was m10bob.

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

and it will outperform any 1 engine plane in combat - because it will survive better and it has punch.

Susvivability as compared to a single-engine US aircraft should be a wash. True, 2 engines allow significant redundancy in combat however the tail section was much weaker than on a comparable single-engine aircraft. It was very prone to failure after sustaining even relatively light damage, especially if that damage was not evenly distributed along the booms or horizontal stabilizer.

Chez

Doesen't matter. In RHS an extra engine counts. So does armor and all metal construction. P-38 has all three.
So it gets the rating for them. The extra engine point matters for lots of reasons - 1 E planes are less likely to return even on non-combat missions. So it is properly a durability contributer.

No problem. I would have done it a little different but its not my mod. You asked for input and I threw it out there for consideration. I do understand the point concerning 2 engines.

Chez

[el cid again]

If it was your mod - how would you do it?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Nope - no bonus in maneuverability for any plane. But there is a special bonus for a Russian bomber and a British bomber in durability. The Russian one has a cast armor forebody. The British one has geodesic construction.

The Sturmovik certainly deserves a "special" consideration..., even the Germans called it a flying tank. But I don't thing the Brits should get an "edge" for the Wellington/Lancaster/whatever. The geodesic construction was stronger, but the Brits used it to lighten the overall aircraft and increase bombload (show me another bomber that can carry an 11-ton "Grand Slam" bomb)......When the Germans could find them in the dark, British bombers went down at a depressing rate.

[Nemo121]

Well British and German wartime accounts do point to the geodesic construction as being particularly strong and giving the British bomber involved a greater ability to survive damage inflicted.