Zscores

[Karnak]

I don't know how you tested the Mossie's climb rate, but if it was from the AH charts, that was a Mossie with 100% fuel and 2,000lbs of bombs.  It climbs better than quite a few aircraft at lower alts.

[Ruah]

I get sad when I see this. . .

[Anaxogoras]

I don't know how you tested the Mossie's climb rate, but if it was from the AH charts, that was a Mossie with 100% fuel and 2,000lbs of bombs.  It climbs better than quite a few aircraft at lower alts.

Thanks for the tip.  I will retest its climb myself.

[moot]

All I'm saying is that the "E retention" graphic needs a less misleading title.  I don't fly around on the 152 with the power off.  The mossie is pretty awful at E retention in light maneuvers or extremely conservative BNZ alike.

[FiLtH]

 Nice work. Have you made a master chart that accounts for each one you made and give overall ranking?

[Anaxogoras]

All I'm saying is that the "E retention" graphic needs a less misleading title.  I don't fly around on the 152 with the power off.  The mossie is pretty awful at E retention in light maneuvers or extremely conservative BNZ alike.

It would be misleading if kinetic energy retention were not the precise property that was tested.  I remember having this discussion with you before.  You were of the opinion that because the AH community mostly uses the phrase "e-retention" to mean a bundle of properties like induced-drag, power-loading, and others along with true kinetic energy, we should only use the term the way the unwashed masses use it, imprecise though it may be.  The trouble is that my method is to tease out these individual properties and test them independently.  You can't look at any data set in isolation and say "this tells me what to expect."  Rather, you have to look at numerous data sets and see what their combination means for performance in game.  Nothing shows this so well as comparing turn rate data to turn radius data.  Both tell you something important about how the aircraft performs in a turn-fight, but neither is sufficient alone.  In the same way, looking at the data for energy retention in isolation will also tell you nothing.  It only becomes meaningful when you also look at dive acceleration and top speed, among other categories.

Ultimately, if I were to adopt your suggestion and use the term "energy retention" to mean a bundle of things, then energy retention would be untestable because it would mean different things in different circumstances.  What I give you is the abstract; but it is universal and unequivocal.

[moot]

So you plot up some charts showing various performances for the plane set, and for energy retention you pick its one manifestation that people rarely use, over one that's by far got the most practical importance?  Just add "dead stick" to the chart title.  That's less misleading than a chart that shows the mossie as the one best model at "energy retention", when in fact it's one of the worst, or at least nowhere near contention for top spot.

[Anaxogoras]

So you plot up some charts showing various performances for the plane set, and for energy retention you pick its one manifestation that people rarely use, over one that's by far got the most practical importance?

Which is that?

[moot]

Zooming, man.  What else?  Full power zooms (vertical and shallower, how shallow's an arbitrary left to the investigator) and retention of speed during maneuvering are the two things that "unwashed" players actually need to know (as far as energy retention goes) for air combat.  What exactly is the use of dead stick slipperiness?  Nothing that I can think of makes my point more evident than the fact that in practice the Mossie is a mediocre boom and zoomer. 

In other words, this way we can meaningfully compare top speed to firepower, relative to the whole planeset.

And here anyone can see that there's little sense in choosing dead stick "energy retention" before performance in zooming and maneuvering, for this insight.  Comparing planes based on their paired dead stick energy retention and firepower?  Is the point to show how the planes rank for the purpose of shooting things down while dead stick?

I'm arguing this the same way I'd expect to be corrected if I ranked the planes for zoomability and never specified that the excellent P51 and Ta152 zoomers are dead meat to the crappy zero if the zoom starts at low enough speed.

[Anaxogoras]

Zooming, man.  What else?  Full power zooms (vertical and shallower, how shallow's an arbitrary left to the investigator) and retention of speed during maneuvering are the two things that "unwashed" players actually need to know (as far as energy retention goes) for air combat.

Zoom climb ability is a combination of energy retention and power loading.  I do intend to test that at some point if Widewing's method is acceptable.

What exactly is the use of dead stick slipperiness?  Nothing that I can think of makes my point more evident than the fact that in practice the Mossie is a mediocre boom and zoomer.

Did you notice that the Mossie has one of the worst sustained climb rates?  That's a big part of the equation for boom 'n zoom.  So I don't agree that the Mossie's mediocre boom 'n zoom ability invalidates the data.

And here anyone can see that there's little sense in choosing dead stick "energy retention" before performance in zooming and maneuvering, for this insight.  Comparing planes based on their paired dead stick energy retention and firepower?  Is the point to show how the planes rank for the purpose of shooting things down while dead stick?

Ok, I get the point that you don't like that testing for energy retention in isolation has to be done power off.

[moot]

Ok, I get the point that you don't like that testing for energy retention in isolation has to be done power off.

That's not the point.  You picked the one aspect of energy retention that's barely of any real, practical use.  Anyone without a clue will look at that collection of charts and figure that the mossie is a competitive model as far as energy retention goes during combat (which is like, 95% of what the planes are used in).  It's wrong and I'm telling you you ought to at least clue-in the reader about that subtlety.  "These figures are for off-power energy retention."

[FiLtH]

    I found these graphs really interesting and decided to tally up the plus and minuses of a few planes. The number I came up with is the result,where zero was the middle of the road on each catagory. Some planes may have a +2 on lethality but a -1 on sustained turn. When finished I saw where they lay compared to zero.

  The 110G ended a -2 plane. Which in my computations (Im no math whiz bare with me) is just a tad tougher to fly in the LW MA than the most average plane (zero, which I have yet to find). So if in the LW MA the 110G has an ENY of 10, I decided to call the average ENY, the middle of the road plane a 12 ENY. This would adjust the -2 I figured for it from these graphs. So then since the average zero plane is a 12 ENY in the LWMA, a -2 rating would assign it a 14 adjusted ENY.

   The figured the following planes. I put the number I figured from the graphs, followed by the actual LW MA
number for that plane, and lastly the number I feel th LW MA should actually be for the plane.


............................. ............................. ............................. ....
Plane--------Graph Tally----LWMA ENY----Adjusted LWMA ENY
............................. ............................. ............................. ....

190D9-_______ +7 ___________15_____________ 5

P47D-40-______+4___________ 20_____________ 8

A6M5-_________ -9__________ 20_____________ 20 

P40E-__________-6 __________30______________18

P51D-__________+5___________8______________7

P38L-__________+7____________20____________5

Ki61-___________-7___________25_____________19

109K-___________+7__________20_____________5

110G2-__________-2__________10_____________14

F6F-____________+3__________15_____________9

SpitXVI-_________+15_________5______________-3

La7-____________+6__________5_______________6

Tempest-________+10_________5_______________2

SpitIX-__________+3__________20______________9

F4U1D-__________+9__________15______________3

Hurri1-__________-16__________40_____________28


  Some of the planes are real close in the end result, like the A6m5 and P51, where some are way off. The Spit16 as guessed came out totally whacked, and in my opinion should be perked. Just too many plusses.
Perhaps with this setup, rather than denying planes with low enys, simply perk any ride less than 5 ENY, and for score, use the eny as a mutiplier.

Say a Tempest shot down 5 planes, he would get a landed score of 10 points since his ENY is 2.

If a Hurri1 shot down 5 planes his landed score would be 140.

  Of course the cost of perk planes would have to be cheapened a bit to make it worthwhile.

   I like what Gav did with these and it kinda creates an overall value when you tally them up.

Whether or not its science or not..ok not...it does show the Spit16 is way too much plane not to be perked,among others.

[Karnak]

Whether or not its science or not..ok not...it does show the Spit16 is way too much plane not to be perked,among others.

Not all performance aspects are equal.  Weighting them equally may produce an rating that is too low or two high depending on the strengths of a given aircraft.

The ultimate ratings review, usage, says the Spitfire Mk XVI is not overpowering.

[Lusche]

Not all performance aspects are equal.  Weighting them equally may produce an rating that is too low or two high depending on the strengths of a given aircraft.

I wonder how the 262 would rate when being included in those tables. Perhaps we would see that, being outperformed in all but 2 categories, it should be unperked and get a midrange ENY value?

[BnZs]

I wonder how the 262 would rate when being included in those tables. Perhaps we would see that, being outperformed in all but 2 categories, it should be unperked and get a midrange ENY value?

If it could not cruise around at speeds that were literally above the critical mach number of the prop planes around it, you would actually be right!!! And I do think its perk price should be lowered. Just not worth it for what you get, especially since forwards view was ruined.