A6M

[splitatom]

the ta defiantly needs a envy of about 15 not 5

[BnZs]

1. Speed:  Spitfire Mk XIV: 448mph at 27,000ft, 358mph on the deck, La-7: ~380mph at 27,000ft, 380mph on the deck.  Which one is higher rated?

Easy to answer! Simply determine the average distribution of "action" in the MA at various alts and weight performances at those alts accordingly.


Climb rates follow similar patterns.

P-51D handles fine at 437mph, Bf109K-4 is suffering heavy controls at 452mph.

No, no. The 109K's controls are fine percolating along at 452mph TAS at it's critical altitude. Now if you dive it past 400 mph IAS that is a different story...but that airspeed is far beyond what you can get except from a power dive and all maneuvers are profoundly limited by black-out there anyway.

One of the few false note in the AHII flight model IMO is the fact that even in planes that had a reputation for stiffening controls at high IAS, you have to push it to really unreasonable speeds to suffer ill effects. 

[dirt911]

because the f4 with a good pilot can rip a zero in half and the zero is weak and a piece of well im just gonna give it too ya straight up its a piece of crap

[Karnak]

Easy to answer! Simply determine the average distribution of "action" in the MA at various alts and weight performances at those alts accordingly.

Good luck with that.

And that still doesn't address the issue of the weighting of the values for climb, speed, turn, firepower, range and so on.  They aren't all of equal value and there would be lots of contention as to which would get favored.

because the f4 with a good pilot can rip a zero in half and the zero is weak and a piece of well im just gonna give it too ya straight up its a piece of crap

A skilled A6M pilot will eat an F4F-4 for lunch.

[SmokinLoon]

Speed and climb would be averaged at 5k, 15k, and 25k, just like I suggested.  The low, med, and high alts would all be averaged.

The thing is, currently, the ENY calues are pulled out of the air (or so it seems).  They is no apperant rating system at all other than "it is fast" or "it has 4 20mm guns", etc.  The stats that can be valued and applied to a scoring system should be, IMO.  Once values are applied to all the aircraft, THEN the attributes that are not rated can be brought into effect and the "judges" can apply whatever fuzzy logic they wish.  At least they would have a starting point as cold hard performance stats cant be denied (plane B can move X fast).  Thanks to Karnak for bringing to light a "category" I had over-looked: compression. 

Roll rate.  (190 vs Spit I, etc)
Dmg absorbtion. (Spit vs 190, etc)
Ease of Use (Spit16 vs P38, etc)
Compression problems. (109, P38, vs P47, 190, etc)

For instance, take the 60 or so fighter aircraft in AH2 and simply divide the list by 10 in each category.  I just happen have the turn list (no flaps) right in front of me so both zekes, Hurri I, Hurry IIc, Spit I, and Spit V would all get the best rate in turning: a "1".  The next six would get a "2" (Hurri IID, FM2, Seafire, Spit8, Spit9, Spit16).  The next six would get a "3" (Ki84, F4F, 190E4, Ki61, 110C-4, 109F4).  And so on.  This would be repeated with each and every category that is already established in a statistical manner.  Average speed (5k, 15k, 25k), guns, ord ability, average climb rate (5k, 15k, 25k), etc.  Oh, and what about acceleration???  That is well published.  Another category to rate. 

I've taken the liberty to just see how the planes score when compared to my very preliminary scoring system.  I didnt take into account any of the "un-scoreable" data such as roll rate, compression, etc.  Just the cold hard facts.  Of the four planes I scored (P38J/L, the P47D-40, and the Fw190F-8), all would receive a lower number ENY based on the values alone.  Those aircraft's speed, firepower, and ability to carry massed ord vaulted them up a few notches on the ENY scale.  The only thing those aircraft cant really do well is... turn.

A quick bit on the way I scored the ENY.  Since the ENY spread is 0-50, I simply converted the rating scale to 1-10 for scoring (Formula: 50 divided by 10 times scoring rate = ENY).  Something with an average scoring "rate" of 5.5 is going to receive a 27.5 ENY (28).  Something with a scoring "rate" of 7 will receive a 35 ENY.  Under my formula proposal, the scoring will be more dynamic and the ENY spread will be greater.  The C47 will get the 50 ENY, of course.  Aircraft like the lowly Hurricane I and P40B would probably get the 45 ENY... but I dunno, I have yet to score them.     Also, I'm not sure how the absence of ords for fighters would effect their ENY, that is something I'd have to brainstorm about.   Hmm.

Some hard stats would have to be recorded like range and massed ords.  I'd volunteer to up each and every fighter to determine the range on a full tank plus DT (if DT available) and convert to other than 1.0 burn rate if need be.   

[Karnak]

So you rate a A6M2 a 1 at turning and an La-7 a 1 at speed.  Which "1" is more valuable?  Turning and speed are not of equal value.

[Lusche]

I have the vague feeling nobody did look at & used the link I provided... Would be of particular interest especially for the "rating" proponents.

Planes have been assigned numeric values in following categories:

Speed Low
Speed High
Rate of Climb Low
Rate  of Climb High
Cockpit Visibility
Deceleration
Energy Retention
Dive Acceleration
Fuel Efficency
Fuel Range
Min Turn Radius
Max Turn Rate
Roll Rate
Gun Power
Killing Potential
Ordinance


Now if you do sort that list by simply goving each category the same weight you get following results:

1   Bf 109K-4    
2   Ki-84-la
3   Bf 109G-14  
4   Spitfire Mk XVI
5   F4U-4  
6   F4U-1C
7   Fw 190D-9
8   Fw 190A-8    
9   Me 262
10   Spitfire Mk VIII


FW 190A8 ENY 5? Hmmmm can't be right.... So of course you have to put different emphasis on different categories. And *bang* we are back at subjective judgments again, as now a big discussion will start which category is more important than another, and if yes, by how much?

You will get as many poposals on how to weigh the different categories as you are getting on changing ENY values "out if thin air".

[BnZs]

So you rate a A6M2 a 1 at turning and an La-7 a 1 at speed.  Which "1" is more valuable?  Turning and speed are not of equal value.

Turning ability and performance are widely considered to be the two most critical areas in comparing the ability of two fighters, and not just in sims either.

If you can out-run it, you are okay, if you can out-turn it, you are okay, it is double inferior situations that are bad and conversely double-superior conditions that are the best engaging condition possible.

[Karnak]

Turning ability and performance are widely considered to be the two most critical areas in comparing the ability of two fighters, and not just in sims either.

If you can out-run it, you are okay, if you can out-turn it, you are okay, it is double inferior situations that are bad and conversely double-superior conditions that are the best engaging condition possible.

That is why the A6M and Ki-43 dominated until the end.....oh wait...

[BnZs]

Touche. However, in this example, you are talking about airplanes that came to be inferior to their opponents in every single category EXCEPT turning, there were tactical mistakes on the Japanese part and a real lack of experienced pilots towards the end.

In a sim, turning should be equally weighted with top speed because we have different priorities.

[SmokinLoon]

So you rate a A6M2 a 1 at turning and an La-7 a 1 at speed.  Which "1" is more valuable?  Turning and speed are not of equal value.

You're exactly right, Karnak.  However, that is the reason each score is only one factor.  If the zeke scores 1 in turn and the La7 has a 1 in speed, but the zeke scores an 8 in speed and the La scored a 5 in turn.... average that out.  Oh, dont forget to bring into the mix climb rate, guns, range, etc.  There is more to rating a plane than just its dogfighting capability.  Surely,  most in MA are not going to take the La7 or A6M2 for bomber escort for any numerous of reasons (high alt perfomrance and range for the La7, speed and sustained firepower for the A6M2).

Oh.. and Lusche, you're right.  I didnt check out that link since I was too quick on the draw to answer Karnak's post.  However, I just spent a bit of time on that website browsing over the numbers... I have to say I question the conversion of some of the ratings.  In terms of logical transgretion, there seems to be number of inconsistancies even though they are based on "factual" numbers.  Roll rate, ords, and range in particular.  Also, the scale presented there incorperates ALL of the aircraft.  I make a very distinct division between the two types (bomber/fighter), and then in turn also seperate the true fighters from the multi-purpose attack/fighters (Spit 9/109F-4 vs Spit 16/109G6, etc).  That hasnt been updated since Nov of 2006, either. How much has changed?  

Something else has yet to be really established, or at least I have yet to see it, is what exactly the "ENY" or any score any of us is or are coming up with... what does that score denote?  Dogfighting (air to air) capability?  Versatility?  Raw destuctive power? I'm leaning more towards a split, really.  The fighters would be geared for the air to air and the multi-purpose/attack would be versatility.  Planes like the P51D would score quite well typically for the fighter/attack category.  Planes like the La7 would score very high in the fighter category.  Thing is, how would a singular score be applied to 2 different categories (or 3 when bombers are brought into the picture).      

[BnZs]

Furthermore, you speak of "those who want to rate the planes". Well, the planes are already rated by the ENY system, which I think most of us agree could be a tad more logical than it is. It is easy to criticize and find the problems with any given approach to rationalizing the system.

Playing with the plane comparison matrix though, I can tell you that virtually any sort that puts speed, turn, and climb at "low" altitudes-and we all know that 80% of MA fights take place below 15K-puts the 109K and the Yak9U high on the list.

[Lusche]

Oh.. and Lusche, you're right.  I didnt check out that link since I was too quick on the draw to answer Karnak's post.  However, I just spent a bit of time on that website browsing over the numbers... I have to say I question the conversion of some of the ratings.  In terms of logical transgretion, there seems to be number of inconsistancies even though they are based on "factual" numbers.  Roll rate, ords, and range in particular.  Also, the scale presented there incorperates ALL of the aircraft.  I make a very distinct division between the two types (bomber/fighter), and then in turn also seperate the true fighters from the multi-purpose attack/fighters (Spit 9/109F-4 vs Spit 16/109G6, etc).  That hasnt been updated since Nov of 2006, either. How much has changed?  
    

There has been no major FM change since nov 2006. Some minor changes have been made to the 262 and the La-7. Basically, there are just missing the planes that were added after nov 2006. And the fact that the scale includes every plane, not only fighters doesn't change the purpose I have posted that link for: To show not only how difficult but most importartanly: How subjective even this "objective" approach is, because you have to give the different categories a different weight.

[Lusche]

Furthermore, you speak of "those who want to rate the planes". Well, the planes are already rated by the ENY system, which I think most of us agree could be a tad more logical than it is. It is easy to criticize and find the problems with any given approach to rationalizing the system.
.

Well, you know what "those who want to rate the planes" really meant.

It's just that some seem to believe that you can come up with a fully rationale and objective ENY calculation method. I have even read something like "it's easy" in this thread. But it ain't.
I'm just trying to show that in the end, you will always come up with having to decide what kind of  performance is rated more important than another. Thus even such an approach like the plane comparison matrix shows (even when doing it in a different manner) will still end up with the same arguments about the individual plane's ENY values  as we do have now. That's my main point

All that do have followed my postings over the time know how much I am a numbercruncher, a stats freak, a bizarre proponent of being rationale and objective I am. If I would see any way to "get the ENY right" in a purely objective way, I would be all for it! 

[BnZs]

All that do have followed my postings over the time know how much I am a numbercruncher, a stats freak, a bizarre proponent of being rationale and objective I am. If I would see any way to "get the ENY right" in a purely objective way, I would be all for it! 

It is impossible for me to know EXACTLY how much hay my cows will need this winter. Therefore I should quit trying to apply any logic to the process whatsoever.