A6M

[SmokinLoon]

The chart that Luschey pointd out is hardly something I'd watch too seriously, I've studied that thing for hours now and applied many different formuli and it simply doesnt make sense and numerous occasions.  It groups the Lancaster's ability to carry 14,000lbs of ord together with the P40E's ability to dive bomb w/ single 500lb eggo.  Likewise, it compares the Lancaster's range with the range of the Spitfire I  .  I'd seperate the level bombers from the fighter/attack for purposes of rating.  We're talking about two completely different monsters.  Motorcycles receive different safety standards and engine capability ratings than 4x4 trucks so for us to group a hvy bomber with a fighter or fighter/attacker for rating/scoring purposes is a bit odd, imo.  The Lancaster would be at the top and would earn the highest ENY capable (probably), butif compared directly to a Spit16 it would receive the lowest.  Quite absurd, really. 

Also, taking or not taking an airplane based on the rear view is something I've yet to hear about, so the planes that have a great rear view but otherwie are sub par in performance... are getting a boost in score, and planes with a not so good rear view are getting brought down.  The most obvious case would be the F6F5, the rear view in that is hardly forthcoming, but yet the aircraft ranks well in speed, turning, firepower, ords, etc, and it quite popular.  Applying scores that are not needed and not really taken into consideration when selecting an aircraft is scewering the ratings, IMO.  I'd remove the rating/scoring for cockpit views, deceleration, energy retention, fuel efficiency, and dive acceleration ***based on the methods there were used in testing*** (read up and you'll see why).  I'd also score the ords a bit differently as well.  For the fighter/attack aircraft, being able to drop a single 1000lb bomb on a target is not worth that same as an aircraft being able to drop 3 bombs equaling to 1000lbs.  A Spit16 is able to drop 1k on a single target or is able to spread those 2/250lb and 1/500lb bomb over 3 gv's or on a single hanger.  That P47D-11 is only able to drop on a single target.  The Spit16 would get a better score under my system.  To be honest, I have yet to really nail it down as to how I would score that but there would be a modifier to increase the value of teh Spit16 because it can in fact do MORE with its 1k ord than the P47D-11 (or F4U-1, 190A-8, etc)   

I understand the arguement and agree to a certian extent that guaging aircraft solely on stats is not the most accurate way of rating.  However, that is where I would only begin.  Of course I'd leave room for aircraft server server stats: popularity (P51D), k/d ratios, etc.  I'd also leave room for the "judges" to make adjustments for "extreme" performance envelopes like the Spit14 and P47N ability to perform at 27,000 ft and higher, the Me262's ability to move far faster than anything else (save for the 5min sprinting Me163), and the Lancaster's ability to carry %45 more ord than the nearest other bomber.  In a sim-game setting, there always has to be some ability to adjust for what the stats wont or *cant* accurately rate. 

Multiple things I'd change about those stats.  First, I'd average out the roll rate between both with and against the torque of the engine.  Being able to roll in both directions quickly is not something many aircraft can do.  Those that can do it one way but not the other are still handicapped.  Ditto for turning, although I wouldnt average out the two turning scores equally, I'd slant it toward the better turn rate by %25.  By averaging the roll rate, the 190's (and Spit16) would get an obvious boost over other aircraft that can roll good one way and not the other.  Likewise, aircraft that have one direction of turn that is aweful and the other that is average (Tiff is perfect example: turns right well, but turns left like an oil tanker) wont be penalized by the lopsided turn score if they are averaged out.  The second big thing I'd change is how is speed is scored, I'd average out 5k, 15k, and 25k and rate it as one speed rate.  Thridly, I'd also average the climb rate at the same altitudes.

*whew*, I'm going to take a break from all this.  I've been mullin' those stats and comparing them to what I've got brewing and I'm a bit bored at the moment.     I'm sure you guys are too of reading me long posts.   

     

[BnZs]

You said any ranking according to plane performance would be *completely* subjective. That is different than what you are now saying, that it could not be completely objective, which is of course true.

Which doesn't bother me, I mean, come on, the peanut butter is not COMPLETELY free of grasshopper parts, but, hey, pass me a sandwich anyway. 

That isn't my argument.  My argument is that you cannot create a completely objective system.  You claimed it could be done.  If Lusche's numbers are right, your system puts the Bf109K-4 as the best fighter in AH and the Ki-84 as the second best.  They are both very good, no doubt, but first and second best?  I don't think you can reasonably place those aircraft above the F4U-4 or Me262.

I did sorts that didn't include bombers or perk rides, because they are, well, already perked.

Then there is the highly organic nature of WWII aircraft performance.  We get huge changes in an aircraft's handling based on the speed and altitude.  Factoring that in accurately would be very hard, yet it is a major part of the equation as to which aircraft is better.  In the case of the Bf109K-4 and Ki-84 that alone drops them a number of places.  Does the A6M5 out turn the F6F-5?  Yes and no.  Depends entirely on the speed at which they are tested.

I imagine it would be doable to figure out the alt band where the majority of people are flying in AHII. We all know that 0-15K is most of us, with some at 20K being the extreme, and that if you go 25K or more, you will be alone most of the time.

[SmokinLoon]

You said any ranking according to plane performance would be *completely* subjective. That is different than what you are now saying, that it could not be completely objective, which is of course true.

Which doesn't bother me, I mean, come on, the peanut butter is not COMPLETELY free of grasshopper parts, but, hey, pass me a sandwich anyway. 

I apoogize, I did make a poor choice of words and it is my fault for not proofing properly prior to posting.

In the actual ranking and scoring of the stats, yes.  In the final application of ENY points... no.  There always has to be room to grade somethings not based on stats in a sim-game such as this.  For instance, if there was some long lost and forgotten film footage of Bf109F-4's that suddenly appeared from the vaults that showed it to be a true killer of P51D's (dream with me here) and the History Channel or the Military Channel started to play that film non-stop... the popularity and success of the 109F-4 would increase (it is one of the best kept secrets in AH2m ya know).  Likewise, the ENY of the plane would increase accordingly even though it isnt fast, its guns are average, it can turn average, and it climbs only marginally better than average.  Point being, if the formula scores a plane at 30 and it is showing itself to be popular and successful as 25 ENY planes, there would be room to change the rating based on the circumstance.     

[Karnak]

I imagine it would be doable to figure out the alt band where the majority of people are flying in AHII. We all know that 0-15K is most of us, with some at 20K being the extreme, and that if you go 25K or more, you will be alone most of the time.

The changing maneuverability with changing speeds is a larger issue.

[BnZs]

The changing maneuverability with changing speeds is a larger issue.

Is it even much of a problem/difference for the majority of aircraft?

Let me see, you have the Zero, P-38, Ki-84, 109 with various troubles in the elevator and/or aileron at high speeds, non CW Spits have a highly diminished roll-rates at pretty high IAS...most of the other fighters it seems to me are safe this side of the trans-sonic.

It perhaps SHOULD be a bigger issue. Honestly, I think issues of control stiffness are somewhat under-modeled in the game. For example, the A6M that started this thread. I took an A6M2 up offline just now. IIRC, the test on the captured Zero said it became impossible to roll right at ~290mph IAS. I dove this thing to 300 mph IAS and it was still rolling decently in both directions. I dove it to 450mph IAS, not only was there no structural failure, the controls STILL weren't locked up...roll rate and pitch authority was pretty darn low, but still there. The same proved to be true of the A6M5b, AND both airplanes survived a dive to 500mph IAS without damage. But I digress...

[Karnak]

All aircraft in AH have changing performance as speed changes.  The degree to which they change varies, but every single one of them does so.

[BnZs]

All aircraft in AH have changing performance as speed changes.  The degree to which they change varies, but every single one of them does so.

Hrrmmm? Most aircraft seem to have decent elevator and aileron authority at better than 400mph IAS or so, which is pretty darned faster, you don't get there in a prop job without opening the throttle and pointing the nose earthward. I named the exceptions I'm personally familiar with. For most planes in AH the limiting factor on maneuvering at most any practical airspeed is blackout at the high end, which of course occurs at the same Gs for everyone, regardless of what they are flying.

[Karnak]

Yes, but a lot suffer from stiff ailerons and very few have elevators like the Spitfire that seem immune to speed changing their effectiveness.  I know I've locked up P-47s due to speed.

There is also the issue of flaps, e.g. different levels of effectiveness and different speeds at which they can be deployed and how that changes an aircraft's value.

[BnZs]

You have to be trying to break the sound barrier to lock up the controls in a Jug. Like I say, in most AHII planes the blackout becomes a limit on hard maneuvering long before the controls do.

It would be reasonable to measure an airplane's turn performance clean, with one notch of flaps, and with full flaps. That would usually give you a nice snapshot of how much the flaps help maneuvering. Or one could even evaluate at all flap settings if one wishes to be especially thorough.

There are a few odd situations with flaps to consider. First of, you have some airplanes, like the P-51D, that can deploy some flaps waaaaay above corner speed, where additional lift is not needed, thus their only real use is as something of a speed brake. In the real world, the fact that they can be deployed at such high speeds is a safety margin, but since the flaps auto-retract that is no factor and little advantage in AHII.

Then let us consider the Fw-190. The flaps on an Fw come out at speeds so far *below* corner speed that they are almost useless for anything except landing or helping you over a loop. Therefore, one would have to strongly consider giving the 190 a "N/A" for the one notch of flaps turn performance and almost certainly give it that grade for full flaps.

Then you have the Spitfires, which have only two flap positions, fully extended and fully retracted, who would thus rate an N/A for "one notch of flaps" performance.

I see no problems that a little reason and consideration cannot overcome.

[Karnak]

You can describe them like that, but putting a numeric value to them is harder.

Spitfire flaps rate a 1, F4U flaps rate a 10, where do Ki-84, Bf109 or P-38 flaps rate in there?

[BnZs]

You can describe them like that, but putting a numeric value to them is harder.

Spitfire flaps rate a 1, F4U flaps rate a 10, where do Ki-84, Bf109 or P-38 flaps rate in there?

Numerically, you can describe them in terms of turn rate and radius you can sustain with each setting.

Now, going  back to some of the issues I discussed, since flaps are of so little use in the Fw-190, I'd make the judgment call to simply use the no-flaps numbers all three times to arrive at a numerical value for the Fw-190 in the turning category.

[Karnak]

Numerically, you can describe them in terms of turn rate and radius you can sustain with each setting.

That over simplifies them.  For example, that would make the Ki-84's flaps out to be better than the P-38's and I don't think one can reasonably claim that is true.

[SmokinLoon]

If the use of flaps do not vault the aircraft into a much higher perfromance envelope, then there is no use in scoring them, IMO.

The only aircraft that has flaps that really change the way it handles is the F4U.  Otherwise, the benefits are minimal and inconsequential for most other planes, imo.  Sure, the P51D can deploy one notch of flaps at 350mph (?), but does it turn as well as any Spitfire at any speed with any flaps?  Nope.  Those flaps make the P51D turn better, but not enough to score them as advantageous, imo.

The "dive recovery flaps" on aP38L do nothing but allow it (hopefully) to pull up from a high speed dive from high to low altitudes.  It does not make the plane any better, it brings it up to par with other dive bombers for those pilots lucky enough to get the dive recovery flaps to work. 

A notch of flaps on the P40E allow it a bit more ability to remain stable at slower speeds, even then it doesnt sail like the other planes.

Also, imo, it takes that much more "skill" when flying a plane heavily affected by flaps like the F4U.  It isnt easy, I see many guys trying todo it and instead of holding steady or floating... they are going belly up and/or nose down.  It isnt like WEP when we can just hit a button and fly, there is much bigger learning curve to learn those flaps and to be able to use them effective.

Again... I'm not sure how flaps would be rated/scored because they dont really effect any aircraft other than the F4U.  I'm guessing it would fall into the gray area, OR... have an actual category for flaps and rate the effectiveness of their usage on the plane on a lower scale comparitively.  Aircraft like the 190, Spits, zekes, and a whole host of others probably have their flaps deployed only when landing and many times not even then.  They are otherwise worthless.   

[BnZs]

That over simplifies them.  For example, that would make the Ki-84's flaps out to be better than the P-38's and I don't think one can reasonably claim that is true.

The issue of how "good" the flaps are is unimportant, their effects on what the plane can do are the thing. The Fowler flaps on the P-38 are no doubt well designed, efficient, and may indeed improve the turning ability of the Lighting proportionally more than do the flaps of of the Ki-84, but the important point is the relative performance between the two planes.

[BnZs]

This is patently untrue Loon. Virtually every plane in the game can employ flaps advantageously in when angles fighting slow. Even the nigh useless flaps on the Fw-190,which don't help all that much fighting other planes, will come into play in close duels between two good sticks in 190s.

BTW, the instability problems with full flaps are entirely caused by auto-trim. The system attempts to trim the aircraft to fly straight and level at the airspeed you are doing in *clean* configuration. The extra lift of the flaps causes alot of nose-up pitch under those conditions. So either manually trim, or, if when entering flaps-heaving maneuvering, hold down the "I" key to turn off auto-trim and input alot of nose-down trim. (It is easier by several orders of magnitude to fight and shoot holding a little back pressure when the airplane is trimmed somewhat nose-heavy is to have to push the stick forward constantly when the trim tendency is to nose up.)

If the use of flaps do not vault the aircraft into a much higher perfromance envelope, then there is no use in scoring them, IMO.

The only aircraft that has flaps that really change the way it handles is the F4U.  Otherwise, the benefits are minimal and inconsequential for most other planes, imo.  Sure, the P51D can deploy one notch of flaps at 350mph (?), but does it turn as well as any Spitfire at any speed with any flaps?  Nope.  Those flaps make the P51D turn better, but not enough to score them as advantageous, imo.

The "dive recovery flaps" on aP38L do nothing but allow it (hopefully) to pull up from a high speed dive from high to low altitudes.  It does not make the plane any better, it brings it up to par with other dive bombers for those pilots lucky enough to get the dive recovery flaps to work. 

A notch of flaps on the P40E allow it a bit more ability to remain stable at slower speeds, even then it doesnt sail like the other planes.

Also, imo, it takes that much more "skill" when flying a plane heavily affected by flaps like the F4U.  It isnt easy, I see many guys trying todo it and instead of holding steady or floating... they are going belly up and/or nose down.  It isnt like WEP when we can just hit a button and fly, there is much bigger learning curve to learn those flaps and to be able to use them effective.

Again... I'm not sure how flaps would be rated/scored because they dont really effect any aircraft other than the F4U.  I'm guessing it would fall into the gray area, OR... have an actual category for flaps and rate the effectiveness of their usage on the plane on a lower scale comparitively.  Aircraft like the 190, Spits, zekes, and a whole host of others probably have their flaps deployed only when landing and many times not even then.  They are otherwise worthless.