Announce: Aces Fight Figter Comparisons

[Lusche]

superb!

[Sakai]

That is sick nice.

Sakai

[TexMurphy]

fantastic!!!

[DoKGonZo]

"England" is now relabeled to "Britain"

[icemaw]

VERY VERY KEWL!

What would be really neat was to add airspeed for min turn radius

[Krusty]

Might want to check the primary/secondary label on some of your data. Firing time lists a 109E4 as having a VERY short primary but a long-as-hell secondary firing time. I think those are reversed.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I think all primary/secondary are reversed. I selected 4 and all 4 had really short "primary" firing times, but really long "secondary" firing times.

EDIT2: I just read the note under the graphic lol, that explains it. I think it's misleading, however, as AH has primary/secondary priority, and the chart has them reversed. Just my 2c.

[DoKGonZo]

Yeah ... I went with the logical primary/secondary as opposed to how its mapped on the joystick.

[Krusty]

Well I'm sure if you asked a pilot that flew, they didn't have "primary" or "secondary" -- they just had "guns".

But I see what ya mean.

P.S. bookmarked!

[DoKGonZo]

I kind of wanted that sort of number. More or less: "How long do my cannons shoot for?" Which is the first half of the chart. That's the number you really care about.

The second number is what you have to defend yourself with when you're RTB. So it seemed like a reasonable thing to include.

What's kind of interesting is comparing a 109G6 with a Yak-9U. The Russians pretty much have everything run out at once - shootsky or no-shootsky. The Luftwaffe plane has a pile of 13mm ammo to spare.

[Dead Man Flying]

Very nicely done.  That's some useful information there.  I didn't know, for example, that the Spit XVI outaccelerated the Tempest very slightly up to 200mph.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[MOSQ]

Dok,

Two items:

Firing times were compiled by Hammer, not me.

Can you add the 300 to 350 accel times? That's where you see significant differences between planes.

I'm glad you're getting great feedback on your charts!

[Krusty]

I don't think the 300-350 acceleration times are going to be very important, personally. Half the planeset can't do 350 at 5k anyways.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Krusty
I don't think the 300-350 acceleration times are going to be very important, personally. Half the planeset can't do 350 at 5k anyways.

I tend to agree.

If I did a chart like that I'd probably combine it with top speed. So there'd be 3 plots - top speed, 150-300, and 150-350. More or less representing the top-end characteristics, whereas the current chart represents the more typical manouever spectrum.

I was thinking of adding something for fuel duration this weekend, so maybe I'll add the top-end chart at the same time.

The site is getting good traffic. I think once it gets linked into the community links area and some of the more popular AH sites it'll get even better.

[MOSQ]

Dok,

The reason I think the 300 to 350 times are important is they really do make a difference in a fight as compared to the 150-200 times. Here's why:

If the difference between the attacker and the defender in a 150-200 or even 150-250 drag race is a couple of seconds, it's darn close to irrelevant. 2 seconds at 200 mph does not translate into enough distance for the defender to get out of guns range from his attacker.  And times of only a half second difference really are irrelevant in the fight.

But of the planes that can reach 350+, there is a significant difference in how long it takes them to get from 300 to 350. As in 20 or more seconds. 20 seconds at 300 to 350 mph translates into a large distance, well out of guns range. So although you know you have a plane that will go fast in top end, you may or may not be able to get the out of guns range distance you need right now.

Why can't you just add the data to the current accel charts as another layer? We already have planes in there that can't reach 300 mph and the charts seem to work when comparing them to planes that will go 300+.
Are you limited to three sets of data for each plane per chart?

My two cents from my experience doing the testing.

[DoKGonZo]

The biggest issue is that it'd add such a long top segment as it may make those below it unreadable. The 150-200 time block is often just tall enough to fit the text inside. So adding a bar which is likely to be as tall as all three below it will squeeze the rest down pretty badly. Compare a Spit 1 and Spit 16 and see what I mean.

But the accel times at the top end, as you point out, don't always map directly to the planes with the best top ends. Whcih is why I felt it would make more sense to put that figure in with the top end numbers.