Hello everyone, I'm Gaston Marty, the designer of an extensive re-vamp of the old Avalon Hill "Air Force" boardgame. It is called "Advanced Air Force", and you can see and print it for free at "Mike's Air Force Dauntless web site";
http://www.visi.com/~mrowles/Mike%27s_Air_Force_page.html This re-vamp of this old "outdated" game took place over about fifteen years, so although the original information in the original game was very poor, don't confuse your memory of this game with this version. Mine was finished in 2007, with 2007-current research...
Since much of the information I used in the color Data Cards came from this very forum, I thought it would be appropriate to chime in with some observations based on the discussions I read here, especially regarding the aircraft performances as described in AHWiki.
To begin with, although the performance increments in a boardgame are by necessity coarser, especially for the speed, there are general trends in performance that can be counter-intuitive, and I always made sure to keep an eye out for those. I don't play Aces High, so keep in mind my observations are based on six years of observing this forum, and recently reading AHWiki's performance descriptions.
One basic thing worth pointing out, is that maneuverability occasionally does improves dramatically, and continuously, with speed; the boosted-aileron P-38L, for instance, rolled faster and faster the higher the speed, to the point of nearing 100° per second at 440MPH TAS. At low speed it was a poor roller even with boosted ailerons. This is Lockeed data, and is absolutely unique in WWII, and not mentioned in the AHWiki profile...
The P-51B and Ds achieved their best turn radius above 350 MPH, from much worse at low speeds, but the heaviness of these responsive high-speed elevators caused serious problems to the pilot above 450 MPH, to the point where at these extreme speeds, above 420 MPH, a 109 correctly trimmed tail-heavy would fairly easily out-turn it, as the 109's flying tail was outstanding in this respect, a point also noted by the RAF. North American engineers recognized this as one of the few superior points of the 109, and thus adapted the flying tail concept to the Sabre...
My intended point is, there are few things in aircraft performance that are as non-linear, unpredictable, and full of myths, as maneuverability...
For instance, torque has an effect on roll in one direction at low speeds, BUT at higher speeds, it is the slipstream of the prop wash spiral that has an effect on roll, ALWAYS in the opposite direction to the low speed torque effect. From aircraft type to aircraft type, the magnitude of variation varies greatly for both effects.
I will point out a few oddities that I found in AHWiki's performance descriptions. These comments have NO bearing on the game itself...
FW-190A-8: In AHWiki, the emphasis on the 190's high speed maneuverability is probably based on a Kurt Tank comment of very light elevators producing x Gs for each pound of pulling effort on the stick. These Gs are probably of short duration, OR due to the aircraft DECELERATING nose-up while still going down. ALL combat anectotes and side-by-side comparisons demonstrate a good initial nose-up response followed by severe mushing at high speeds. Against U.S. aircraft, the FW-190A was a medium to low speed TURN fighter, and every displaced Eastern front ace was advised to ALWAYS turn against U.S. fighters, and to NEVER use the vertical. This applied to the 109 as well. With a broad wood prop and extended chord ailerons, the A-8 was the ultimate turn-fighting A-series 190; this I found out in this very forum, from someone who knew personally an actual 190 Western front ace... The wing-drop stall made it very assymetrical in turning ability, depending on whether the flaps were dropped or not; the "good turning side" was the same as the wing drop side, and reversed according to the flap position, up or down. Apparently, a low speed turn with down flaps would be better to the right, and the powerful ailerons could be used to "catch" the stall, making the FW-190A-8 a passable low-speed stall fighter!
Another point, worth emphasizing, is the supremely good high altitude dive performance of the 190, marred at low altitude by the necessity of beginning the pull-out extremely early (8000 ft.!)to avoid the consequences of the severe mushing-then-pancaking tendencies... NOT a high speed fighter this is, unless there is height to keep going...
Spit XIV: From the Mk IX onwards, the Spitfire's roll rate became less than two-thirds of what the Mk V could achieve, and this with the SAME early peak in the speed range, that is, of around 200 MPH TAS(!). The Mk V's highest roll was about 70-78° per second at this 200 MPH TAS point. The Mk IX was 2/3rds of that according to the Supermarine's factory test pilot, so about 50° per second, getting WORSE afterwards... The Mk XIV was slightly worse than this, with the SAME early peak, as is borne out by MK XII roll data, which indicates a peak of 35-40° per second at 200MPH TAS. Outlandishly, Farnborough's well-known side-by-side tests indicate a "generally" superior roll rate for the MK XIV versus the P-51... If you search VERY long on this absolutely bizarre claim, you will find a comment saying "The MK XIV's ailerons were defective but will be fixed in production". THIS is what besting the P-51's roll rate is based on; a test pilot's wishful thinking... A major feature of most Spitfires is in fact slow ailerons, leading to the Galland comment; "great for aerobatics, but ridiculous for fighting". Clipping the wings helped moderately at low altitudes mostly, and the MK V's 78°/sec. at 200 MPH could be the top Spitfire figure if clipped, as 60-70°/sec. seemed common. This would put the MK IX peak at a 40-45°... Obviously, the NACA 868 roll chart's Spitfire figures are not valid for any mass-produced wartime Spitfires...
Another feature of all Spitfires is a slow initial turn, getting worse at high speed, because a movement of the stick top of more than 3/4 of an inch will cause it to mush forward in a controlled stall. This could be used to gain a firing lead, mind you, but at a great loss of speed or at the risk of "bending" the aircraft at high speed. Though very useful offensively, this is not really an impressive feature of the turn for escaping a pursuing ennemy, and it demonstrates a remarkably poor lift for such a large wing... The high altitude dive speed mach number is outstanding, but at low altitude it is the rigidity of the wing against buffeting, not the mach number, that makes a good diver. The Spitfire does no better than the 109's fluttering ailerons below 20 000 ft..
ME-109G: AHWiki claims the best maneuverability is between 250 to 400 MPH; true for roll, but for the G and later variants, it is completely and utterly the opposite for turn and elevator response! Concerning the G, the pilot's manual warns the pilot of a more than DOUBLING of the turn time from 250 MPH TAS to 280 MPH TAS! This could be alleviated by trimming it very tail-heavy, but the nose-down "tuck" that causes the problem, as the aircraft crosses 250 MPH or so, takes an extra amount of downward tailplane drag to alleviate and improve the nose-up response; this in theory equals poorer speed retention in turns. Above 400 MPH, the tail-heavy trim starts working well again, because the volume of the faster air, or the increased wing or nose lift, allows crisper pulling on the "mushiness" of the 250-400 MPH nose-tuck tendency. At 450 to 500 MPH, the pull-out and turn performance of a tail-heavy trim 109 is superior to a P-51B or D(several combat anecdotes), but the P-51 can go to 550 MPH, something the 109 can't match.
Me-163B: No emphasis in AHWiki on the fact that the Me-163B climbs FASTER and FASTER as the altitude increases! At 40 000 ft the Me-163B's climb rate is almost DOUBLE what it is at 10 000 ft! This unique feature is due to the decreasing air density that does not affect the non-breathing rocket engine. I have heard the figure that, at this high altitude, the horsepower equivalent is 9000... The Me-163 had a good wingload EMPTY, but the turn performance varied in minutes as burning fuel halved the weight(!). Empty or not, the design had a lazy pitch response, like all tailless designs, but roll was optimized for high altitude and excellent, although it apparently became heavy and lazy at low altitude(this from a well-known P-38 combat account)...
P-47 Razorback: No AHWiki emphasis on turn and roll assymetries, which are a feature of the type, as well as on the importance of high speed for crisp maneuvers. Initial lazy response in the turn is a feature of the type, but less so at low altitude, high speeds, and to the left, if the pilot is gentle on pulling the stick. Like the Spitfire, overly light elevators at high speeds causes mushing if the pilot pulls too much.
While I am on this subject, stay away from Robert Jonhson's claims of 470 MPH TAS at 30.000 ft. for his "Hot Rod"...
In any case, maybe this will clarify some points, if you visit "Mike's Air Force Dauntless", and find the aircraft performance data of my "Advanced Air Force" variant to be strange and unexpected. I have found this forum to be by far the most useful of all in making this game, so I hope some of you will enjoy comparing the cards, even if you play in another medium!
Gaston.
