Rating system for AH fighters

[Buzzbait]

S! all

I notice everyone here, (with 1 exception) is not dealing with two crucial elements of aircraft performance:

1) Initial Dive Acceleration

2) Zoom climb

These have to be considered as equally important as the other aspects discussed.

Aircraft with good initial dive acceleration are able to get a jump on their opponents, either being able to depart contact, or close the gap quickly.  The Tempest V had a tremendous dive acceleration, and was rated as the best aircraft ever tested the British Air Fighting Developement Unit in this regard.  No matter how fast a P-47 may be able to dive, a Tempest with the jump would be on it before it could get up to speed.  The Focke Wulf 190A3-5 held this advantage over it's opposing Allied counterparts until the P-51 arrived on the scene.

Zoom climb is more relevant to combat maneuvering than steady state climb.  That is why the P-51, which has a mediocre steady state climb, can be so effective using B&Z tactics.  As everyone knows, the P-51 loses speed very slowly in a zoom and can regain almost all the altitude it may have lost gaining speed in a dive.

[LLv34_Snefens]

RAM, I gotta disagree with your range figures. This is for the planes in AH only. I didn't check RL data.

Of the planes in AH the 205, Yak and La-5 is the one with the lowest range overall (because of no DT), yet you give the G-10 a 1 while the 205 gets a 3?

Even the low spit marks got lower range than a DT-equipped 109, but I can maybe understand its 2 if also the 109 gets a 2 since the spit have a larger range on internal fuel.

190A-5 have better fuel endurance than the 109 on internal, but with DT it is just a little worse. (A5 given a low 3, G10 1)

P38 have better range overall over the P47.

[This message has been edited by LLv34_Snefens (edited 01-15-2001).]

[Jigster]

 

Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S! all

I notice everyone here, (with 1 exception) is not dealing with two crucial elements of aircraft performance:

1) Initial Dive Acceleration

2) Zoom climb

These have to be considered as equally important as the other aspects discussed.

Aircraft with good initial dive acceleration are able to get a jump on their opponents, either being able to depart contact, or close the gap quickly.  The Tempest V had a tremendous dive acceleration, and was rated as the best aircraft ever tested the British Air Fighting Developement Unit in this regard.  No matter how fast a P-47 may be able to dive, a Tempest with the jump would be on it before it could get up to speed.  The Focke Wulf 190A3-5 held this advantage over it's opposing Allied counterparts until the P-51 arrived on the scene.

Zoom climb is more relevant to combat maneuvering than steady state climb.  That is why the P-51, which has a mediocre steady state climb, can be so effective using B&Z tactics.  As everyone knows, the P-51 loses speed very slowly in a zoom and can regain almost all the altitude it may have lost gaining speed in a dive.

P-47's weren't known for their max power diving speed, but for dive acceleration   Same with the P-38. Both suffered compression effects but because of their  mass they accelerated extremely fast.

[RAM]

   

Originally posted by LLv34_Snefens:
RAM, I gotta disagree with your range figures. This is for the planes in AH only. I didn't check RL data.

Of the planes in AH the 205, Yak and La-5 is the one with the lowest range overall (because of no DT), yet you give the G-10 a 1 while the 205 gets a 3?

Even the low spit marks got lower range than a DT-equipped 109, but I can maybe understand its 2 if also the 109 gets a 2 since the spit have a larger range on internal fuel.

190A-5 have better fuel endurance than the 109 on internal, but with DT it is just a little worse. (A5 given a low 3, G10 1)

P38 have better range overall over the P47.

[This message has been edited by LLv34_Snefens (edited 01-15-2001).]

You are right, Snefens. When I posted the 109G10 and 190A5/A8 numbers I didnt have in account the DT, only internal fuel.

 Its a bit of a compromise to give puntuations, because DT-equipped ranges dont say it all. DTs are to be dropped as soon as a fight is to happen, and that means that your range can be effectively cut in half if you are jumped immediatly after take off.

 For instance you say that a P38 had better range than a P47 with DT...but without DT didnt the P47 have more range that the P38?. Still I gave a P38 a 5 and the P47 a 4.

Things like this is what makes range puntuation a bit difficult...the DT gives a fair advantage, true, but still, if I take off in a 50% fuel+DT 109G10 my sorties tend to be shorter than in a Yak9U with 100% internal fuel.

Anyway I'm editing the range number of the 109G10 to take in account the DT tactical advantage    .


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Buzzbait:
The Focke Wulf 190A3-5 held this advantage over it's opposing Allied counterparts until the P-51 arrived on the scene.
.

Buzzbait, I have to disagree. One of the best diver planes of WWII was the Spitfire. It could reach speeds on excess of Mach 0.90 IIRC.

The problem was that the Fw190A had a way better high speed control than the early-medium war spitfires, and still hold that advantage (though much less marked) up to the end of the war.

 So a 190 in a dive could roll and pull out of the dive in any direction he wanted, as fast as he wanted to do it. THe spitfire with its high stick forces, had a very hard time trying to follow the fleeing 190. I'ts not the same "dive qualities" than "hispeed evasives". In a pure dive, the Spitfire will catch always the 190. The problem is that the 190 will get out the fire line very fast and the spit wont be able to follow  

But in the inverse papers (190 following a SPitfire), the 190 will NEVER catch the fleeing Spitfire in the dive. That is the reason I rate the Spit with a 5. It didnt had the best dive acceleration, but for sure it had the best dive speed.

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]

[Dinger]

Seriously RAM, how can you give the 205 such high range marks when it's on a par with the Lavochkin as the shortest-legged fighter in the set. Moreover, how can you give it such a good armament score, when it boasts two MG 151/20s and two breda 12.7s -- by far (in ROF and shell weight) the worst MGs of that caliber in the game?  And yet, you give it 3.5 armament compared to the 3.0 of the A5, which has MGFFs -- alright they suck, but not as bad as the breda 12.7s.
While you may not agree with hooligan, I have to give him this credit: when he sets out to evaluate A/C, he establishes some scientific principles by which the planes can be compared.  This way, as wrong as his methodology may be, he can't be accused of having his numbers reflect a personal bias.

[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 01-15-2001).]

[RAM]

   

Originally posted by Dinger:
Seriously RAM, how can you give the 205 such high range marks when it's on a par with the Lavochkin as the shortest-legged fighter in the set.

Well, its been a long time since I last flew a C205 for a long sortie, but I got the feeling that it had more endurance than the Fw190A5 with no DT. Maybe I am wrong and if I am, then I will correct the number    

Moreover, how can you give it such a good armament score, when it boasts two MG 151/20s and two breda 12.7s -- by far (in ROF and shell weight) the worst MGs of that caliber in the game?  And yet, you give it 3.5 armament compared to the 3.0 of the A5, which has MGFFs -- alright they suck, but not as bad as the breda 12.7s.

No. I gave 3 to the Fw190A5 --WITHOUT-- the MGFFs. I said clearly that the MGFF is worthless,maybe I didnt explain that I was giving the puntuation without them.

I gave the 3 without the MGFF That is the reason I put a 3 on "low speed performance". With MGFF there is a noticeable effect on the low speed maneouverability of the A5. With MGFF I'd give the plane a 3.5 in weapons and a 2.5 in low speed maneouverability.

PLease note that I gave the La5 a 3 in weapons,too, and this plane has no 7.92mm MGs. I think of the Fw190A5 as a two cannon armed bird regardless those friggin inutile MGs. The C205 has two mausers, and two 12.7mm. The 12.7mm can be worse than the american M2s, but still they can do SOME harm (the 7.92mm can't do any). So, overall puntuation: 3.5 in my book.

While you may not agree with hooligan, I have to give him this credit: when he sets out to evaluate A/C, he establishes some scientific principles by which the planes can be compared.  This way, as wrong as his methodology may be, he can't be accused of having his numbers reflect a personal bias.


I dont accuse of him of anything short of what he is. If his methodology is cientifical, then explain me how he gives a Fw190A5 the best rating in climbrate, arguing only that the 190 is very good under 5K. Its downright ridiculous, excuse me, to rate a 190 along a 109G10 or a Yak9, because at 5K it climbs at 4000 fpm (wich at 7K is already less than 3300 fpm, go figure, in 30 seconds you've lost almost 20% of your climbrate).

My methodology is very simple: I take the best plane/s in each category and I rate them as 5. I take the worse, and rate them as 1. (or 0 in multi-role puntuations). then I proceed to establish where does each other plane fits, taking in consideration its overall quality.

 You can agree on some puntuations, but sorry you can't say that its more scientific to take the 190A5, say that under 5K it climbs very well, and then rate it as a 4 (the highest puntuation) in climbrate regardless that over that altitude the plane climbs under the average.

And much less you can jump on someone who doesnt agree with your puntuation and yell him that he is an idiot. In fact Hooligan lives up to his name's sense in Soccer.

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]

[Buzzbait]

S! RAM

I'm going to quote from the British Air Fighting Development Unit's comparison of the dive of a FW190A4 and a Spitfire IXF:

"Dive:  The Fw190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage.  This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB."

What you are getting confused about is the Spitfire's high compressibility threshold.  The very thin wing of Spitfire allowed it to be dived up to very high speeds without going into compressibility.  A FW190 could dive just as fast, in fact dive faster, but it would go into compressibility much sooner.  It takes the Spitfire much longer to reach those kinds of extremely high speeds.  By that time a FW190 or a P-47 or a P-51 will have long since caught up and passed it.

[Tony Williams]

An interesting thread.  A short while ago I put together some analyses of WW2 aircraft gun range and effectiveness, which you can find on: http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages

I don't rate the MG-FF as useless; with M-Geschoss shells it had considerable destructive power and the velocity was higher as well.  The destructive effect of the 30mm MK 108 was far greater than any 20mm, though; each shell had about four times the quantity of HE.

I think Vermillion criticised the Yak-9U (also 9T) for only having a single cannon; but boy, that NS-37 was dynamite!  Heavy shell, very high velocity and reasonable rate of fire.  Their kill rate against the Luftwaffe was excellent and the German pilots feared that plane.

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm

[Buzzbait]

S! Jigster

You need to read my post again.  I didn't suggest the P-47 had poor dive acceleration, I suggested the Tempest had the BEST.  And as far as allowable dive speed before compressibility, the P-47 could maintain a dive up to higher speeds than either the P-38 or P-51, into the 550mph range.  And even when into compressiblity, the later D models had trim tabs which could be used to pull it out of a dive intact with the airframe undamaged due to its immense strength.  These electrically operated trim tabs were installed after factory tests revealed the fact the aircraft could get into compressiblity quickly with its acceleration.

[straffo]

 

Originally posted by Tony Williams:

I think Vermillion criticised the Yak-9U (also 9T) for only having a single cannon; but boy, that NS-37 was dynamite!  Heavy shell, very high velocity and reasonable rate of fire.  Their kill rate against the Luftwaffe was excellent and the German pilots feared that plane.

But here (in AH) we only have the 20mm version  

[StSanta]

F4UDOA wrote:

Here is my FW190A5

Speed = 3 Not bad, but definitely not a speed demon.

Compared to other b&z'ers, it's quite slow. I'd give it a 2.5 on speed, especially as alt increases. Some t&b'ers can catch it.

Climb = 4 Not elite but fast to 20K. Under 7 minutes

4 is *way* too much - above 4k, climb rate drops off *dramatically*. I'd say 2-3 in climb rate all in all, because of the higher altitude performance (or lack thereof).


Dive = 4 Not the fastest, but maneuvers and holds e well.

Yep, agreed. Then again, all planes hold e well in a dive  .

Durability = 4 Radial engine, better than CP-51, 109, spit. A5/U8 was used for ground attack for this reason.

Unfortunately, in AH we will find that the engine of the P-51 will take more of a beating than that of any LW bird. So while in theory you're right, in practise I'd give it a 3.


Range = 3 good range for German fighter.

Yes, it's ok with a drop tank. Bad performance on internal tanks limit its time in a combat environment, and this must also be taken into account. 3.

Armament = 4 heavy cannon + MG, second behind only hispano.

I give it a 3. MG's are worthless, and outer cannons have little ammo and relatively low ROF. German cannons are inferior to allied ones in all respects, which furthe advocates a 3 here.


Ordinance load = 3 good ammo supply, used for Jabo missions heavily.

Limited number of bombs give it a 2. Striking bases where there are ostwinds and you need all the eggs you can carry.


High speed handling = 4 Slightly inferior to American iron at 400MPH. Otherwise excellent.

Above 350 it becomes noticeable. Otherwise excellent, but since we're talking high speed handling, a 3.

Low Speed Handling = 2 despite being able to roll at extreme speed at 200mph it's performance at or near high stall speed was nasty.
Yes, the only plane with worse low speed handling is the 190A8 I think.


Multi purpose = 4 Were there any radar equipped 190's? How about photo recon?

The 190 series contained a very large variety of aircraft. In AH, quite limited however. 2

Total= 27

On to the next plane; the G10

Speed = 5. It's very fast up high and also performs well at low altitude.

Climb = 5. A rocket with a propeller.

Dive = 1. The G10 handles terribly in a dive, with lockups of controls  coming rapidly. Add to that that even at moderate speeds, elevator control in the G10 is quite limited.

Durability = 3. Prone to engine outs, engine oil (which results in engine out after 5-10 seconds) and general engine failure. Next to impossible to land with wingtip shot off.
Nearly impossible to rip wings, which is good.

Range = 2. Compared to other DT capable aircraft, it's not good. On internals only, it's also near the bottom.

Armament = 2. Low ammo load, low ROF cannon, low velocity cannon. 30mm add killing power but is wildly inaccurate and requires substantial lead. Very limited ammo loadout as well.

Ordinance load = 2. Very poor.

High speed handling = 1. Terrible. Absolutely horrible. Worst there is.

Low Speed Handling = 3. The G10 is relatively gentle at low speed, even though it ain't much of a turner.
                 
Multi purpose = 2. The 109 is basically an interceptor, and nothing else. The limits on the airframe makes it ill suited for other purposes.

Total: 26. This does NOT reflect how good the G10 is for 1v1's/2v2's - at that it's the best there is together with the YAK.

190A8:

Speed = 2.5. Quite slow for a b&z'er.

Climb = 1. It's about the worst in the game, closely followed by the P-47.

Dive = 4. Excellent roll rate and elevator response makes the A8 a dream to dive in.

Durability = 3. It's a bit prone to engine outs for no apparent reason, but can land with wingtips missing.

Range = 3.5. For a LW fighter, the A8 has a very good range, even without droptank.

Armament = 4. Plenty of ammo, good ROF and MG's that actually can do some damage. Still suffers from low ROF and muzzle velocity.

Ordinance load = 3. 30mm option makes it an excellent JABO plane, although it has a relatively poor bombload capability.

High speed handling = 3.5 Loses roll rate and performance to a larger extent than its American/allied counterparts.

Low Speed Handling = 1. This baby will bite you in the bellybutton if you take her too slow. She's a roller coaster lover; take her up, dive with her and keep speed up. Little pre-stall warning and quick snap rolls make low level scissors a quite dangerous move. She bleeds e like a pig as well.

Multi purpose = 4. The A8 can be gotten as a G8 or F8 which greatly enhances its JABO capability

Total = 29.5

I've taken the F4U-C and P-51 to compare with:


F4U-C

Speed = 3.5. It's reasonably fast.

Climb = 2. The F4U-C does not have an impressive climb rate.

Dive = 4. In a dive, the F4U-C handles very well.

Durability = 4. The F4U-C can take a lot of damage, run long on a smoking engine and *fight* with a missing wingtip. Not bad at all.

Range = 4. With DT's, range is excellent. Without, it's good.

Armament = 5. Plenty of ammo, 4 cannons with good ROF, very big punch, plenty of ammo, great range and all concentrated in the smallest cone in Ah makes the gun package on this bord very impressive.

Ordinance load = 4. Like most other American planes, it has extensive fighter-bomber capabilities and can carry a heavy bombload, with additional rockets just for good measure.

High speed handling = 4. Handles better at high speeds than say the 190; or rather, it does not lose as much performance.

Low Speed Handling = 3. For a b&z'er, she got very good low speed handling. probably born oputta the need to be carrier capable.

Multi purpose = 5. This plane can do just about anything you ask of it, and do it well.

Total: 41.5


P-51:

Speed = 5. Very good speed at all altitudes.

Climb = 2. Definitely not a rocket

Dive = 4. The P-51 handles like a quality aircraft in a dive, with quick responses even as speed builds.

Durability = 3. Would have given it a 2.5 had it not been for it's ability to run for more than 10 minutes with an oil leak.

Range = 5. With and without DT's, it's great. One can engage, disengage, engage, disengage several times. Compared to the 190 that only allows you time for maybe one more climbout, it's outstanding.

Armament = 3. Good range, good ROF, good amount, but lacks the killing punch of cannons.

Ordinance load = 4. Like most other American planes, it has extensive fighter-bomber capabilities. Excellent loadout options.

High speed handling = 4. Excellent hi speed handling; roll rate surpasses even the 190 as speed builds.

Low Speed Handling = 3. With flaps popped, she does very well. Stalls are relatively gentle and easy to predict.

Multi purpose = 3. Good all around aircraft.

Total: 34.

You might wonder why I rate the LW birds comparatively bad - actually it has nothing to do with "we are superior pilots". It's just that the LW birds, like they were in RL, suffered from not being properly developed as the war progressed and were limited in some ways. They're *very* capable aircraft when flown properly, but with this particular rating system they didn't score too well.

And I know that yank POS iron is not good for anything but scrap metal. HMPFH.



------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

"I am the light at the end of your sorry little tunnel." - A. Eldricht

[Tony Williams]

 

Originally posted by straffo:

Originally posted by Tony Williams:

I think Vermillion criticised the Yak-9U (also 9T) for only having a single cannon; but boy, that NS-37 was dynamite!  Heavy shell, very high velocity and reasonable rate of fire.  Their kill rate against the Luftwaffe was excellent and the German pilots feared that plane.

But here (in AH) we only have the 20mm version   (Image removed from quote.)

[/B]

I'd start a campaign up if I were you - the NS-37 armed Yak-9s were very common, with several thousand being built.

As a bonus, it was the only fighter capable of knocking out a Tiger tank with its standard gun armament!

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm  

[LLv34_Snefens]

RAM said:
"For instance you say that a P38 had better range than a P47 with DT...but without DT didnt the P47 have more range that the P38?. Still I gave a P38 a 5 and the P47 a 4."

Ups I switched them there, I meant to say that the P47 is better both with and without DT than the P38, and thus the numbers should be switched, or both put to 4 since the 51 is clearly superior

As for the yak vs 109 with only 50% fuel and DT I think this is wrong comparison. Yak (, La5 and 205) have 27-28min fuel at full power in MA, a 109 have about 25min with 100%. The DT adds about 18 min to that. It HAS better range.

[Jimdandy]

 

Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S! Jigster

You need to read my post again.  I didn't suggest the P-47 had poor dive acceleration, I suggested the Tempest had the BEST.  And as far as allowable dive speed before compressibility, the P-47 could maintain a dive up to higher speeds than either the P-38 or P-51, into the 550mph range.  And even when into compressiblity, the later D models had trim tabs which could be used to pull it out of a dive intact with the airframe undamaged due to its immense strength.  These electrically operated trim tabs were installed after factory tests revealed the fact the aircraft could get into compressiblity quickly with its acceleration.

BTW be careful out there in the MA. If you really think a P-38 isn't going to get you in a dive that guy that knows how to fly it will sneak up on ya. It has trim tabs that will work the same way. I'm not trying to say that the P-47 is inferior so don't anyone start off on a tangent. I'm saying that what most people talk about when they discuss the problems with the P-38 is actually their lack of experience with the plane. What most people see in the P-38 is how the average pilot flies it. Beware of the guy that has figured out how to work that P-38. The misconceptions will come back to bite ya.