Mosq's Sustained Turn List 8-2013

[MOSQ]

I've updated my Sustained Turn list with the Ki-43II, Yak 3, Yak 7.
If there's another plane I missed in the updates let me know.

If you have questions about how I create the list there's other threads from previous postings that explain it all, but in a nutshell I use Badboy's bootstrap calculator.
Changes from previous formats:
I took out the tests with 50-75-99% fuel loads.
I added a ranking so you can see how much of a change a plane jumps (good or bad) between No Flaps and Full Flaps.

The new king of the turn fighter hill is the Ki-43II. Holy cow that plane not only has the tightest radius of all fighters, but it's sustained Turn Rate (arguably more important) blows away all the other planes.

Here's the link:http://sdrv.ms/130MjFD

When you get there you should be able to right click on the file and Download it.

 

[Lusche]

Thank you very much! 

[Slade]

MOSQ very nicely done sir.

Thanks! 

[Bludy]

Thank you Mosq! Very interesting! 

[moot]

MOSQ why not do these with remaining fuel time as standard, instead of % tankage?

[MOSQ]

MOSQ why not do these with remaining fuel time as standard, instead of % tankage?

I set the arena setting to fuel burn .001, which is effectively zero. Then start with 25%, which stays the same weight during the testing. I do a lot more than just turn rate, example acceleration, Zoom, ect. All the Accel test on DokGonzo's webpage are from data I gave him years ago. And sometimes it takes a LONG time with many attempts to get three sustained turns with no elevation/speed changes. If I don't set the arena to .001 fuel burn the tests would be wildly inaccurate as the fuel weights change.

If you know a way to set the time remaining fuel as an arena setting, I'd look at it, but that would mean retesting all the planes, not a project I'm up for now!

Thanks everyone for the kudos! 

[moot]

AFAIK there's no other way than draining to target amount. 

I'm not thinking you oughta redo em - agreed it's too late for that.  But I'm curious about reasons for preferring fuel volume rather than time.  IMO... Because all furballs are roughly the same, you ought to have (with some variance to accommodate your particular plane's need for more/less altitude to dive from and egress to, etc (eg a 190A8 would arguably need more play time than a XVI for equal amount of kills)) the same amount of play time for a "standard" furball as the benchmark. 
This all on the assumption that sustained turn performance is more informative to furball rather than strategic flying.. ?

[Widewing]

Mosq, is it correct to assume you test all planes turning to the left?

[Widewing]

AFAIK there's no other way than draining to target amount. 

I'm not thinking you oughta redo em - agreed it's too late for that.  But I'm curious about reasons for preferring fuel volume rather than time.  IMO... Because all furballs are roughly the same, you ought to have (with some variance to accommodate your particular plane's need for more/less altitude to dive from and egress to, etc (eg a 190A8 would arguably need more play time than a XVI for equal amount of kills)) the same amount of play time for a "standard" furball as the benchmark. 
This all on the assumption that sustained turn performance is more informative to furball rather than strategic flying.. ?

A common standard is required somewhere. Most pilots will be thinking about RTB when fuel gets down to 25% or less. Since we can't dial in a particular endurance, all you can do if pick the single standard that you can apply universally.

Granted, 25% in a P-51D is a significantly greater weight of fuel than 25% in a 109G-2. However, it's the only option we have that minimizes the fuel variance from plane to plane. I think that it works well enough for what MOSQ was trying to accomplish. You know that more fuel will increase turn radius and less fuel will shrink turn radius.

Unfortunately, there is no other viable solution at this time.

[MOSQ]

Mosq, is it correct to assume you test all planes turning to the left?

Hi WW,

Yes, all turning left. In the last thread where I posted up my Sustained Turns List some folks said I should test planes depending on their prop rotation. So I went back and did enough testing, (in fact I think all the planes with opposite prop rotation),  to come to the conclusion that prop rotation affects how EASY it is to control the turn, but ultimately did not make a whit's difference in how tight/fast it turned. It's just harder to control them, but doesn't actually turn any better.

Which explains why the Yaks were a handful trying to get three consistent, smooth, turns.  I'll go back and test the Yak 3 to see if I can do better turning right.

Of course YMMV!
Mosq

[MOSQ]

A common standard is required somewhere. Most pilots will be thinking about RTB when fuel gets down to 25% or less. Since we can't dial in a particular endurance, all you can do if pick the single standard that you can apply universally.

Granted, 25% in a P-51D is a significantly greater weight of fuel than 25% in a 109G-2. However, it's the only option we have that minimizes the fuel variance from plane to plane. I think that it works well enough for what MOSQ was trying to accomplish. You know that more fuel will increase turn radius and less fuel will shrink turn radius.

Unfortunately, there is no other viable solution at this time.

Moot,
^^^^^^^What WW said!^^^^^
Mosq

[MOSQ]

I re-tested the Yak 3 doing right turns. It was easier to make the turns, but the radius/rate change was so small as to be insignificant, within experimental error.

One note, on most planes you can fly well into the shakes and maintain control, with the Yak 3 it very quickly loses control as soon as the shaking starts.  It's best to stay out of the shakes with it.

Mosq

[RotBaron]

Thanks, just used the old link and noticed it was updated today! 

 

[FTJR]

Mosq, thank you for that.

Just FYI I notice under the Full flap list the, jugs and the p51 are listed as 1 stage flap.

[MOSQ]

Mosq, thank you for that.

Just FYI I notice under the Full flap list the, jugs and the p51 are listed as 1 stage flap.

Hi FTJR,
Yep, those planes are in with No Flaps, 1 Flap, and Full Flaps. Lots of folks want to know how they perform with the high speed maneuvering flaps. Good spot, I should have explained that.