Matrix Games Forums

Well, actually, as you will see in this thread, and two preceeding threads on the same subject, we do understand what maneuverability is. I got to study aircraft maneuvering early in life as an anti-air warfare specialist in the USN,
and I also got to learn to fly in a Navy flying club - which helps one have some perspective. Later I worked as a resident computer engineer at a USAF Software Integration Laboratory at Boeing. So aside from some personal interest in these matters, I have also had some formal exposure to them.

The basic problem with the simple WITP system is that we must give each aircraft a single rating, regardless of altitude, speed, flight regime, instantenious loading, etc. for both horizontal and vertical maneuvering. We have elected to go with a composite rating system. And we simply do not permit a plane to reach its service ceiling - where its rate of climb (by definition) is 100 feet per minute. [RHS uses an operational ceiling which is halfway between optimum operating altitude and service ceiling - so our planes never are completely at their worst for maneuverability].

The problem with your approach is that we do not have turn rate data. You cannot look this up in a standard reference for most types, and it was not even measured for more than a few types in our data set. Nor is there an easy way to calculate it. We elected to use values which were either directly available in source materials or able to be derived from it. It is present here mainly as a function of wing loading, modified by power loading, and greatly modified by the number of engines (or 1 if the engines are on axis). The goal was to achieve a single, openly defined, objective system permitting anyone to calculate (or verify the calculation of) maneuverability - so we don't have to depend on the game designer's classic seat of the pants guess ("it is not quite as good as a Zero so make it 2 points less"). If one does not expect too much of such a simple rating system - and if one does not place too much weight on a single factor (when several define a plane) - this system seems to be rather good at indicating the average differences betweeen aircraft. Not only does it clearly distinguish between the maneuverability of gigantic 4 engine aircraft and tiny single engine jobs, it usually indicates the relative differences between similar planes correctly. Until we have more fields - and a more sophisticated air combat model to use them - it may be as good as we can do? What might change is the constant K - if we can show a statistical skew we might be able to compensate for it by adding a constant.

In Re this question posted long ago:

I can understand your rationale regarding 2-engine fighter types before the use of PL and WL. By using these in the calculation, are you sure that you are not penalizing 2-engine fighter types twice? If not, what is inherently unmanueverable about them when combining speed, ROC, PL and WL? I understand reduction added to 4-engine planes as they were not built to withstand excessive G forces. This would impact many 2-engine bombers as well. Are you also saying that 2-engine planes designed as interceptors could not handle the G forces that a single engine plane could?



With the qualifier that this is a simplification of reality, seeking an approximate truth for simulation purposes:

It is not a matter of handling G-forces per se - I am not worried about the wings falling off for example.
It is a matter of angular momentum. Engine(s) on the centerline have a wholly different impact on roll than
engines offset do. Ideally thrust should occur on the centerline of the aircraft, not out on its wings. To
the extent this is not the case, there is a penalty to pay in maneuverability. This gets worse as the number
of engines increases. And note a twin engine aircraft with BOTH engines on the centerline does NOT pay
the penalty. This occurs two ways - when extension shafts permit two engines at the nose - or when
there are nose and tail propellers. That is why those designes were done that way - vice putting the
engines out on the wings.