Author Topic: combat envelope vs performance envelope??? (Read 398 times)

humble · « **on:** February 22, 2005, 11:55:29 AM »

I'd like some help from anyone we have with military aviation experience with regard to the difference. One thing thats come up alot as I read stuff (mostly focused on the 109 vs spitty stuff) is the difference between a planes performance "numbers" and the speed it was normally flown in combat. So far the most lucid comments have all come from russian pilots (alot relating to the P-39 vs 109). Basically they're trying to explain why the P-39 was so effective on the eastern front. They keep coming back to the speeds you actually fought at...one said you flew the plane at the speed that enabled "all options of manuever combat"...and that in the P-39 that was much closer to the planes top speed vs the 109 which while "faster" normally flew "slower" during manuever combat.....?

To a degree you see that alot in AH as planes like the Nikki (Ki-84 also) have no problem constantly catching "faster" planes....I always have simply chalked it up to "bad modeling" but the more I educate myself its pretty clear that the russians in particular focused much much more on this "combat envelope" than a planes performance envelope. amazingly they rated the P-39 as superior to not only 109G but also the SpitV's they got from GB....

Does anyone have any detailed info on this stuff....usually only way I can get a feel is where pilot summary on combat flight testing is included and he breaks down plane vs plane thoughts....as an example russians bounced P-39 (D-2)in captured 109 (E)....they found the 109 could get a weak snap shot at best and P-39 could catch it easily in a dive or in a turn fight would only take 2 cirlces to get on its tail...

GREENTENERAL · « **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2005, 10:07:46 AM »

Well, I don't have any info yet, but I like this question.
I think it is a shame that so much lit is focused on top end speed when there are many other factors to consider such as acceleration and performance brackets.
People will tend to overlook good planes for this reason.

I'll see what I can find, and hope that some other more knowlegable people will pitch in. It's funny that this sort of info is so easy to get when looking into race cars, yet so hard to find when comparing aircraft. Everyone knows that the car with the highest top end speed is not neccisarily the best for winning the race.

Urchin · « **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2005, 11:06:16 AM »

A lot of what makes a plane a "good fighter" isn't top speed.. it is acceleration. The Ki-84, Niki, Spitifre.. all of them have excellent acceleration to ~300 mph. That is how they catch "faster" planes.

GREENTENERAL · « **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2005, 01:18:49 PM »

Well, I have found some good info on energy management and tactic speed at http://www.combatsim.com and http://www.simhq.com but I am still looking for direct comparison charts in order to create a plane vs. plane optimum altitude and engagement chart that will give the best spread of performance. This should give Plane1 the best advantage over Plane2 in it's performance bracket of acceleration and E retention potential.

I just need to find more variables. I've seen examples of such charts that I need, but nothing complete.

Sikboy · « **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2005, 01:28:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GREENTENERAL
Well, I have found some good info on energy management and tactic speed at http://www.combatsim.com and http://www.simhq.com but I am still looking for direct comparison charts in order to create a plane vs. plane optimum altitude and engagement chart that will give the best spread of performance. This should give Plane1 the best advantage over Plane2 in it's performance bracket of acceleration and E retention potential.

I just need to find more variables. I've seen examples of such charts that I need, but nothing complete.

Check out Kingcat's charts that Kwessa posted in this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=144971

They are from AH1, but translate to some degree to AH2, with some exceptions (such as no WEP now on the Yak-9T)

-Sik

GREENTENERAL · « **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2005, 02:19:40 PM »

Very nice! Thanks alot!

I really like these, and they are all standardised, so I can flip and intersect them well. I should be able to pull some good spreads. May take a few days, but I'll catch those numbers!