Airplanes

[Symon]

Sort of at, not really a quandary, rather a speed bump. Climb numbers are all over the map. They are consistent with what’s in the mass-market stuff, but that’s what seems to be the source of the inconsistency. Publications often just report “Rate of Climb” without saying where it comes from. If it does say SL, it doesn’t give any hints as to the power regime.

So we looked at RoC, from the test reports, at several conditions. Initial RoC at SL (at both Military and WE Power), RoC at Critical Altitude (again at both Military and WE Power), and an Effective RoC to 20000’ (again at both Military and WE Power), for various aircraft. The results show up the inconsistencies very well.

What I propose is to use Eff RoC to 20000’ at Mil Power as the baseline for our F and FB tweaks. Some of these are better (for both sides), some are worse (for both sides). Some really interesting things crop up for those IJ planes that were later war bomber interceptors; their ERoC to 20k was … good!

These numbers don’t stand alone, they are folded into the new “operational” ceilings (combat ceilings in some references) which are the 1000 fpm points rather than the “gasping for air pressure, how high can I possibly go” 100 fpm points. RoC probably has more to do with available power than speed, so Climb critical altitudes determine the shape of the maneuver band cut-offs. Air Team knew this very well and I haven’t found but 2 planes that wanted a tweak in this regard.

So … Eff RoC to 20000’ at Mil Power as the baseline? That’s where we are going unless somebody says that dog don’t hunt … Ian, Tom, Brian?

[LoBaron]

Chiming in to say I highly apprechiate that the DaBabes team finally got wings. [:D]

The approach looks very sound, I will keep an eye on this. Thank you for enriching the game with your knowledge and dedication.



There is one thing where I would propose a discussion, and this is the Eff RoC to 20k, which I assume is averaged out RoC SL to 20k. The stat is used for scrambling fighters on intercept, and for ACM. Personally I would regard performance in A2A combat the more important aspect, as small discrepancies in scrambling RoC can be rationalized away more easily.

Averaged out RoC SL - 20k might favour the non-turbocharged fighters a bit too much for ACM, which usually happens between fighters already airborne and at some altitude.

This is just a random numbers, you guys will understand where to put the optimal RoC window much better than me, but what about 5k (or even 8k) - 25k as a baseline? This could lessen the negative effect on fighters whose RoC only begins to excell at or over 15-20k, which was of significant advantage in air combat, even if most of the fights took place at lower altitudes.

Just a humble suggestion.

[Dili]

In my lost post i said that time to altitude which are also avalable is better than climb rates.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
There is one thing where I would propose a discussion, and this is the Eff RoC to 20k, which I assume is averaged out RoC SL to 20k. The stat is used for scrambling fighters on intercept, and for ACM. Personally I would regard performance in A2A combat the more important aspect, as small discrepancies in scrambling RoC can be rationalized away more easily.

Averaged out RoC SL - 20k might favour the non-turbocharged fighters a bit too much for ACM, which usually happens between fighters already airborne and at some altitude.

This is just a random numbers, you guys will understand where to put the optimal RoC window much better than me, but what about 5k (or even 8k) - 25k as a baseline? This could lessen the negative effect on fighters whose RoC only begins to excell at or over 15-20k, which was of significant advantage in air combat, even if most of the fights took place at lower altitudes.

Just a humble suggestion.

Makes sense.

I'm out of town. Lunch break. Wi-fi is a wonderful thing isn’t it? One of the guys in the group used to fly A4Ds. Been picking his brain unmercifully. Showing him what I’m trying to accomplish and he’s nodding and then says “where’s your blower altitude breaks and what’s your power up there?” Whoah !!! Okey Dokey, then !!! Light bulbs go on like a flash-bang !!!

Don’t know what I can come up with but, as you say, something that weights critical altitude performance. I’ll keep plugging along. You keep thinking.

Thanks. Ciao. John

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Chiming in to say I highly apprechiate that the DaBabes team finally got wings. [:D]

We've had wings for a while. Just a different kind [:D][:D][:D]

[Big B]

Dog gonnit', somebody told me those were pilot wings![:D]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Chiming in to say I highly apprechiate that the DaBabes team finally got wings. [:D]

We've had wings for a while. Just a different kind [:D][:D][:D]

[Jorm]

goodo,

but it seems there will be some WWII a/c that the data you seem to refer to is not available to even the well resourced MODer ?
i.e. all French A/c etc

[Dili]

I have seldom seen french aircraft manuals, but they certainly exist, i have found almost all Italian aircraft manuals and it is a country not usually followed about in WW2.
It probably needs a research with French terms.

Concerning manueverabiliy for example Macchi 200 an 1940 production low altitude fighter was not faster and had difficulty to be stable at over 8000m altitude than a 4 engine bomber at over that level.

[Symon]

Hi LoBaron,

Think we have a decent way of figuring this out. Kinda painful, but does account for altitude performance. I'll put up a preview spreadsheet with climb at various altitudes along with the HP ratings at critical altitudes. Things are making a bit better sense now. Fun stuff. JWE

[LoBaron]

Looking forward to it JWE, I knew you´d find a good solution.

Thanks!

Edit: Although I doubt you need it with all the heavyweighters you can mine for knowledge, should you consider another brain helpful for a consistency check of the implementation method please PM, I am happy to help. I am equally happy to just profit from the results of your work though. [;)]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Dog gonnit', somebody told me those were pilot wings![:D]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Chiming in to say I highly apprechiate that the DaBabes team finally got wings. [:D]

We've had wings for a while. Just a different kind [:D][:D][:D]

It did not worry you that you could play not only Born to Be Wild but the whole Easy Rider movie before reaching VLOF? [:'(]

[Big B]

...you mean - that's NOT normal?? [:D]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Big B

Dog gonnit', somebody told me those were pilot wings![:D]

ORIGINAL: Symon



We've had wings for a while. Just a different kind [:D][:D][:D]

It did not worry you that you could play not only Born to Be Wild but the whole Easy Rider movie before reaching VLOF? [:'(]

[Symon]

Oh, woof!! Let the games begin.

Plane stats are from the tests at San Diego, Patuxent, Wright Pat, Brixham. Everything comes from test reports. Everything is normalized to test conditions. Test weight of planes is noted. Content of test and memorandum reports is noted and should be read for proper appreciation.

So, here some of them be.

[Symon]

Nice thingys about F4Us and F6Fs. Thing about the F4Us is just what mod the -1A represents. There was 4 of them. The stats are for the utter best: engine MAP tweaks, new prop, high cockpit, new faifing for arresters, slats/spoilers for torque recovery, woof !!!

Thing about the F6F was that it was a carrier plane. it was judged against it's opponents as a carrier plane.

Serious data for one or the other, woof !!

[PaxMondo]

On the Frank 1a - I would suggest using the lower set of numbers (1875hp line). IJA struggled with their Meth Inj system in terms of being able to supply enough true DI water for it. It was just a logistics issue, but it really hampered the plane performance outside the HI. Since the 1a comes early enough that most players are using it mostly out of the HI, I used a lower hp number (I actually use closer to 1800, but that's a minor point).

The later models, I went ahead and used the higher set assuming most of the flight ops would be from the HI, or larger bases, where they could better support the Meth Inj.

Just me, use however you see fit.

[Symon]

Hi Pax.

No, we won't use WEP. It has too many different meanings and too many different useable times. Just wanted to collect 'all' the data and see what's in the bucket.

Likely do weighted averages of military power, focusing on the critical altitudes. That should give a bit better performance score to planes with good high-altitude performance. Numbers are working out nicely. They are in the same ballpark with some planes being better, some not quite as good, but at least consistently calculated so the relative climb rates are smoother, even if the actual number goes up or down. [;)]

J

[Symon]

Ok, here’s a snapshot of some popular planes. Surprise, surprise !! Most are in the ballpark, but there’s some outstanding performers in the basket. Why is this so, you may ask. Good question.

Looking at things like HP/Wt, it’s quite apparent that both sides had very consistent views on the matter. IJ was consistently in the 16-18 range, while US was consistently in the 14-15 range. That doesn’t matter as much as it appears, since IJ performance fell off faster than US performance at higher altitudes. This artifact isn’t expressly incorporated into the Climb values, because it’s expressly subsumed in the Maneuver values.

But just look at the HP/Wt for the Frank, George, and the Tojo-II. Woof !!! Some of the apocryphal evidence is beginning to make more sense, assuming these bad boys were tuned and maintained right. Hard to reconcile reports of pilots standing Franks/Georges on their tails and going straight-up with the puny stats, in game. And the Tojo-II was a right good interceptor.

Once again, Climb values have to be judged in accord with Maneuver and Operational Ceiling. A great climber can be good against bombers, but totally suck against a high altitude configured escort with appropriate specs. It’s a four-way matrix of Speed, Climb, Op Ceiling, and relative Maneuver in the Band.

[Symon]

Ok, we're getting specs on some Army planes: P-40s, P-38s, P-47s, P-51s, on exactly the same basis. Thanks to Boscombe Down, we got some specs of Brit planes, both Land and RNN variants.

The Cd0 calcs are now smooth and very informative, so oddball and inter-species variants will flow smoothly from the main variants. More surprises await, obviously [8D]

J

[vettim89]

I am concerned about using post-war test data on IJNAF/IJAAF aircraft using superior USA produced 100 Octane AvGas vs the fuel those forces actually had available to them during the war. I understand the desire to try to distill the data into a only comparing apples to apples algorhythm but completely discarding historical realities of fuel quality seems to exclude a very important variable

[LoBaron]

Yeah! Keep it coming, great work!

Edited out: Stupid question.