Author Topic: Plane Comparisons....  (Read 508 times)

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Plane Comparisons....
« on: October 12, 2009, 08:01:36 PM »
How do most of you compare planes with each other?

After a light hearted discussion in the DA about the how the Spit16 compares to the P-47M I am curious. My thought process compares two planes with nearly equal endurance not equal fuel percentage.  This differs from most statistical comparisons that have equal fuel loads for all planes. My reasoning for this your only going to get 10 minutes out of the Spit16 carrying 25%. The P-47M will go for around 30 minutes with only 25%. What good is the uber turn rate of a light Spitfire if your out of gas before you even get a sector? Personally I think the current method really over states the turn rate performance of the upper tier aircraft. I would really like to see some compare aircraft using the above method....

Thoughts?

Strip

Offline boomerlu

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1163
Re: Plane Comparisons....
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2009, 08:46:47 PM »
Umm... this is NOT WW2, as such range is a bit overrated. Rather, the fact we don't care as much about range is perfectly fine and in line with the game. Of course you're probably right that the current comparison methods overstate performance on short legged aircraft. Still, the difference is small enough not to matter too much unless the aircraft are exceptionally closely matched.

Probably the top performance factors for an aircraft (in no particular order):
Roll rate, turn rate/radius, acceleration/climb, top speed

Turn rate/radius is the "noob stat" - the better this stat is, the more "point and shoot" the plane is, and thus the more noob friendly it is. That isn't to say only noobs fly good turning planes, though.

Top speed is also another noob-esque stat - everybody knows how to run away...

On the other hand, not everybody knows how to use roll rate and accel/climb to win a fight...
boomerlu
JG11

Air Power rests at the apex of the first triad of victory, for it combines mobility, flexibility, and initiative.

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Plane Comparisons....
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2009, 09:05:34 PM »
Umm.....range is very important when you consider the La7 has just a tick more than 20 minutes of fuel. That's hardly enough to go a sector, fight for 10 minutes and go home. The P-47M can take 50% with no drop tanks and do the same thing. If your a furballer it might not matter but I dont fly that way. I try to land double digit kills every sortie, not really possible in ten minutes unless your an ace. Every plane I fly has great range compared to the typical rides in the MA (P series). Perhaps this is why I compare aircraft on equal endurance, a Spitfire would run out of gas halfway through a typical sortie for me.

Strip

Offline caldera

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6437
Re: Plane Comparisons....
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2009, 09:09:37 PM »
Double digit kills every sortie?  I try to land double digit kills every tour.  :cry
"Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the gate:
 To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late.
 And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds.
 For the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his Gods."

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Plane Comparisons....
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2009, 09:22:21 PM »
I try anyway....

Strip

Offline Gabriel

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 207
Re: Plane Comparisons....
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2009, 09:28:19 PM »
I think range is near the bottom of the list.

I don't think 'how long you can be over a sector/airfield and rack up kills' is as important to most as 'how well does this do 1 v1 against most aircraft' for most people.

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Plane Comparisons....
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2009, 09:41:40 PM »
I am talking one on ones and normal MA flying....

Example:

Player A takes off with 30 minutes of fuel in a Spit 16 (100% and DT)

Player B takes off with 30 minutes of fuel in a P-47M (50%)

What happens when they meet in the middle after five or ten minutes in between two fields? The P-47 is only 25% fuel over typical testing values while the Spitfire is significantly over percentage wise. Comparing 25% fuel in all planes significantly skews the results in my mind....

Strip

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Plane Comparisons....
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2009, 09:46:25 PM »
Who uses 25% for all tests?

For my personal tests I use the fuel load I'd use in the MA most of the time.  100% + DTs for Spits, 109s and such, 75% for the Ki-84 and 50% for things like the Mossie, P-41 and so on.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Plane Comparisons....
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2009, 09:53:11 PM »
Who uses 25% for all tests?

For my personal tests I use the fuel load I'd use in the MA most of the time.  100% + DTs for Spits, 109s and such, 75% for the Ki-84 and 50% for things like the Mossie, P-41 and so on.

Most of the charts I have seen were 25% fuel only, if they are out there I would love to see them.

Offline boomerlu

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1163
Re: Plane Comparisons....
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2009, 10:12:13 PM »
Umm.....range is very important when you consider the La7 has just a tick more than 20 minutes of fuel. That's hardly enough to go a sector, fight for 10 minutes and go home. I try to land double digit kills every sortie, not really possible in ten minutes unless your an ace.
Ok, keep in mind that I don't fly Spits or Las, so I don't have as acute of a fuel problem. Still, here's my point:

Do you really fly that conservatively? Enough that 10 minutes fight time isn't enough? Most people don't. If you do, fine, then of course your comparison should weight range heavily.

It's just like guns vs manueverability. What good are big guns if you can't bring them to bear? Similarly, what good is monster fuel range if you can't bring it home?

Yes, in theory, plane comparisons SHOULD be done at equal fuel time. Still, in practice, I don't think it matters nearly as much as you're making it out to. Only if it's close should it matter: no discrepancy of weight from fuel will make a 190 out turn a Zero.

If it IS close enough to matter, you then have to consider the context. If it's a 1v1 duel, most likely neither person is going to care about cruising home and most likely the fight time won't be long enough for fuel to matter. If you are flying as you describe, trying to land double digit kills, then of course it matters, but only inasmuch as you can get the kills.

For what it's worth, you have a good comparison system for YOUR style of flying.

As for me, the 25% comparison charts are good enough, though obviously not perfect.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2009, 10:13:45 PM by boomerlu »
boomerlu
JG11

Air Power rests at the apex of the first triad of victory, for it combines mobility, flexibility, and initiative.

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Re: Plane Comparisons....
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2009, 04:46:58 AM »
I am talking one on ones and normal MA flying....

Example:

Player A takes off with 30 minutes of fuel in a Spit 16 (100% and DT)

Player B takes off with 30 minutes of fuel in a P-47M (50%)

What happens when they meet in the middle after five or ten minutes in between two fields? The P-47 is only 25% fuel over typical testing values while the Spitfire is significantly over percentage wise. Comparing 25% fuel in all planes significantly skews the results in my mind....

Strip
If they meet 5 minutes and have fuel for 30 at full mil power than the P47 will be at 42% and spit depending on how he used the DT which he can loose immediately. If you consider absolute weights, 100% for spit 16 is 102 gallons (lets say he only used the DT) and 42% for P47 is 155 gallons. That is 53 gallons difference or about 400 lbs more on the P47. The earlier they meet the worse the P47 is because his fuel consumption is much much higher than the spit's.

Short legged planes like the La7 simply should not cruise at full throttle. It is easy to get at least 50% extra range by reducing throttle/RPM and cruising at 75-80% of your max speed. The La in particular is so fast that even at these settings it is really moving. High consumption planes like the P47 can also greatly benefit from cruise fuel management requiring a lower fuel load to begin with.
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline 1pLUs44

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3332
Re: Plane Comparisons....
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2009, 04:57:11 AM »
Plane don't make a difference when there's a good stick behind either one of them.

No one knows what the future may bring.