Zscores

[moot]

Is that E retention data from the off-throttle trials?  If it is, you need to make it clear.. It's not a real world figure.  No one zooms up with their throttle off.

[Anaxogoras]

Energy retention was tested by diving the aircraft to ~5k ft, using auto level, and when speed dropped to 400mph, I cut the engine (rpm's already pulled back so prop is feathered for glide).

Fwiw, for lethality we should also disclose that it was tested by taxiing to a hangar and firing at it nearly point blank, because that's also something impractical for combat.

Moral of the story:  the practicality of a test method doesn't always have bearing on the practicality of what it tests.

[shreck]

I thought you only flew the la7?

    Hush frog, I'll send piggy home when I'm finished

[Anaxogoras]

Btw, standard zoom climb is something I would like to test, but last time it came up we argued about how to conduct the test.  For instance, Saxman wanted to let auto-climb level the plane before it would stall, whereas I wanted to hold it nearly straight up, let it stall, and record that altitude.  Then Hitech came in and said that using auto-climb at all would skew the results because its behavior depends on the aircraft.  So, if anyone can tell me how to test zoom climb in a way that wouldn't lead to another argument, I'm all ears!

[BnZs]

Anax...use Widewings method's.

Set arena time to noon. Dive past 400mph to sea level, when the speed bleeds back to 400, use a 3g pull up into the straight vertical, nose at the sun, hold the plane up until you can't anymore and it falls off. Note the highest altitude obtained before this happens. Straight vertical is the most practical test for a plane's zoom ability. Note to those who will nitpick by saying this is not an unloaded zoom: An airplane going straight up *is* unloaded. The G-meter will be at zero, the wing is *not* generating lift. If the wing was generating any positive/negative lift, the plane would be looping over or nosing back down respectively...a pure vertical zoom is quite nessecarily an unloaded one.

This gives the most meaningful results for the usefulness of an aircraft's zoom in combat.

Btw, standard zoom climb is something I would like to test, but last time it came up we argued about how to conduct the test.  For instance, Saxman wanted to let auto-climb level the plane before it would stall, whereas I wanted to hold it nearly straight up, let it stall, and record that altitude.  Then Hitech came in and said that using auto-climb at all would skew the results because its behavior depends on the aircraft.  So, if anyone can tell me how to test zoom climb in a way that wouldn't lead to another argument, I'm all ears!

[Anaxogoras]

Alright, I'll give that a try sometime.

Btw, one of the interesting differences between Snailman's lethality ratings and mine is that I account for ROF.  Thus the Ki-84's 20mm shells are less lethal than Hispanos, but the Ki-84 fires them at ~27 rounds/sec while the Spitfire only fires ~22 rounds/sec.  So for a 1 second burst the Ki-84 is actually more lethal.

I don't know if this is historically correct or not.  I'm just taking the total number of rounds and dividing it by the time it takes to fire them.

[Lusche]

Alright, I'll give that a try sometime.

Btw, one of the interesting differences between Snailman's lethality ratings and mine is that I account for ROF. 

So do I. (Respectively Mr. Williams)

May I quote myself:

In a nutshell, firepower of a weapon is defined as (kinetic energy + chemical energy)*ROF, measured at the muzzle. 

Also it says on my chart "one second burst". 

Thus the Ki-84's 20mm shells are less lethal than Hispanos, but the Ki-84 fires them at ~27 rounds/sec while the Spitfire only fires ~22 rounds/sec.  So for a 1 second burst the Ki-84 is actually more lethal.

Which would be true if the individual shell of the Hispano weren't way more powerful than the Ho-5's.

BTW, latest version can be found here: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,264782.0.html

[Anaxogoras]

I should have said "difference in ROF between synchronized and unsynchronized weapons."  My bad.

[Saurdaukar]

Awesome work, thanks.

Has anyone ever done a study on bullet dispersion?  That might be interesting to see.

[moot]

Energy retention was tested by diving the aircraft to ~5k ft, using auto level, and when speed dropped to 400mph, I cut the engine (rpm's already pulled back so prop is feathered for glide).

Fwiw, for lethality we should also disclose that it was tested by taxiing to a hangar and firing at it nearly point blank, because that's also something impractical for combat.

Moral of the story:  the practicality of a test method doesn't always have bearing on the practicality of what it tests.

So you're putting that chart up for people to see which plane is the best, deadstick?  The other charts are good but that one's pretty useless compared to a shallow and vertical powered zoom comparison. 

[Anaxogoras]

So you're putting that chart up for people to see which plane is the best, deadstick?  The other charts are good but that one's pretty useless compared to a shallow and vertical powered zoom comparison. 

Let's agree to disagree.

[Brooke]

I tested it with a stopwatch and averaged 3 trials for each aircraft per category.

Excellent!

[moot]

Let's agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree that no one has more use for deadstick figures than powered ones?  Either way, you should tell people that that's what it is.  The ranks don't look like that in powered flight.

[Anaxogoras]

Agree to disagree that no one has more use for deadstick figures than powered ones?  Either way, you should tell people that that's what it is.  The ranks don't look like that in powered flight.

One of the counter suggestions I've heard is that "energy retention" should be a test of deceleration from 500mph to 400mph in powered, level flight.  The only problem is that some aircraft break apart long before they reach 500mph ias.

What the glide test tests is manifest in actual combat.  You've showed me as much yourself with the way you make use of the Ta-152's energy retention.  It's probably the most difficult performance trait to make use of in the whole game.

[BnZs]

One of the counter suggestions I've heard is that "energy retention" should be a test of deceleration from 500mph to 400mph in powered, level flight.  The only problem is that some aircraft break apart long before they reach 500mph ias.

What the glide test tests is manifest in actual combat.  You've showed me as much yourself with the way you make use of the Ta-152's energy retention.  It's probably the most difficult performance trait to make use of in the whole game.

Yeah, I realize difficulty getting to a top dive speed testably higher than the top deck speed of the fastest is a problem for some airplanes.

Just a thought:
In a practical sense I suppose the question we are testing is whether a an airplane with a lower top speed following another in a dive, lets say to the deck,  can hold position actually gain for long enough after leveling out to perhaps gain a firing position. Say an F4U vs. a P-51.

Or, another possibility, can the airplane with lower top speed but better E-retention gain significant separation after leveling out from the dive? Say a P-51 vs. a D9 with the drop-tank rail.

That idea should perhaps shape the tests.

EDIT: Another thing to keep in mind: Halve the available thrust for Moot's Ta-152 and the power-off efficiency of the airframe wouldn't mean much in combat. Double the thrust for a Hurricane and its draggy airframe wouldn't mean near as much either. So.......