Test Procedures and Some Initial Data

[xHaMmeRx]

Greetings all,

I've started collecting some data on the way the planes perform in the Aces High arena.  I am collecting info such as level and dive acceleration at various alts, level speed at alts, ROC at alts, time to alt, fuel and ammo duration, and "zoom" ability.  I've posted the data I've collected so far along with a page describing the test procedures and conditions I've used.  I would like to solicit comments on ways to improve the procedures, other tests that should be performed, or tests that I'm doing that I don't need to.  You can see what I have done at

Sample Data

Keep in mind that the format you will see here is very rough at this time.  The comparison charts are simply an Excel workbook saved as HTML.  The tabs at the bottom tell you what you are looking at.  Most numbers given are WEP/No-WEP.  

Appreciate any feedback.

HaMmeR

[batdog]

Gents... Hammer had one of the best AW3 info sites out there... if anybody can help him please come foward. He's doing what we've been wanting to see for awhile.

xBAT

[Karnak]

Looks like good data.  Particularly the speed and accelleration data.

Hopefully this will help reveal both the flaws od the FM as well as the myths about certain aircraft.

BTW, I would suggest adding sustained turn speed data as well.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by xHaMmeRx:
Greetings all,

I've started collecting some data on the way the planes perform in the Aces High arena.  I am collecting info such as level and dive acceleration at various alts, level speed at alts, ROC at alts, time to alt, fuel and ammo duration, and "zoom" ability.  I've posted the data I've collected so far along with a page describing the test procedures and conditions I've used.  I would like to solicit comments on ways to improve the procedures, other tests that should be performed, or tests that I'm doing that I don't need to.  You can see what I have done at

Sample Data

Keep in mind that the format you will see here is very rough at this time.  The comparison charts are simply an Excel workbook saved as HTML.  The tabs at the bottom tell you what you are looking at.  Most numbers given are WEP/No-WEP.  

Appreciate any feedback.

HaMmeR

I took a few minutes and visited your Air Warrior web site. When I looked over your facts and history of the P-40, I was horrified at the general inaccuracy.

Now, I'll grant you that the Air Warrior flight model is terrible, having tried their P-40E. If anything, I would expect that your page would expose this. Instead, in only reinforces and thereby compounds the problem.

If I may quote your page.....

"The Curtis P-40E was the first American fighter to be able to break 300kts but when the US entered WWII she was already considered outdated. Although well armed and armored, the P40 was inferior to the German Bf109 in maneuverability and speed."

In reality, the P-40E was well along the evolutionary path of the line. If you said that the XP-40 was the first American fighter to exceed 300 kts, you would a lot closer to being correct (actually, the YP-37
did it before the XP-40).

As to being outdated: This is myth. In 1940, the P-40B/Tomahawk IIA (H81) was superior to the Hawker Hurricane, and at least a match for the Spitfire Mk.I and the Bf-109E. Below 15,000 feet, it was superior to both European types. How so? To begin, it could easily match the Messerschmitt in turning ability, and give a Spitfire pilot fits. On top of that, it was a very fast rolling machine, superior to all but the Fw 190A. It was more than able to dive away from its British and German counterparts. Fitted with
two .50 cal and four .30 cal. MGs, the Curtiss carried comparible armament into battle. Speed was also comparible, except at higher altitudes where the Curtiss fell a bit behind.

With the arrival of the P-40D/Kittyhawk Mk.I,
(H87) armament was considerably improved with the six .50 cal. installation (although some early Ds were fitted with just four guns).

You further state:
"The P40 is probably the most famous for the "Flying Tigers" a.k.a. "Hell's Angels" who's squadron insignia art included a shark's toothed grin and eye on the nose of the plane."

There were three squadrons that comprised the AVG, or Flying Tigers. "Hell's Angels" was the 3rd squadron and the shark mouth was applied to all AVG aircraft. Each squadron had its own name and artwork. These were the Panda, Adam & Eve and Hell's Angels Squadrons.

You also wrote:
"The P40E's Merlin Engine lacked the high altitude performance required of a front line interceptor and even when the Allison engine was implemented, the Kittyhawk was regulated to the fighter-bomber role."

You won't find a Merlin engine in a P-40E. It was powered by the Allison V-1710. Packard built Merlins were used in the P-40F, with the hope that it would have better performance at high altitude. It didn't. Primarily because the Merlin selected was fitted with a two speed, single stage supercharger and was virtually identical to the engine installed in the early Spits and Hurricanes.

Finally, you wrote that the P-40 had
"durability equal to an A26."

Maybe in Air Warrior, but in the real world, no Prestone cooled fighter could hope to approach the durability of the P-47 and F4U, much less the A-26 Invader.

My suggestion to you is this: Consider using Joe Baugher's site as a source for data on WWII American aircraft. It won't cost you a penny and is reasonably accurate, and accuracy is important because it walks hand in hand with credibilty. You can find Baugher's pages at:
 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/

My regards,

Widewing

[wells]

One of the most useful tests you can do is to record the climb rate vs airspeed at different altitudes for each plane.  Pick a series of speeds, say 150, 200, 250, 300, 350 etc and then time a climb over a 1000 ft interval using a stopwatch.

From that, you will be able to find the best climbing speeds for the planes as well as be able to tell when the faster planes start to outclimb the slower ones.  

You can convert climb rates directly into instantaneous accelerations by first converting the IAS to TAS, then

acceleration (mph/s) = climb rate (ft/min) / (4 * speed_mph)

So, a climb rate of say 3000 ft/min at 150 mph TAS is 5 mph/s acceleration.

[xHaMmeRx]

Widewing...actually, I didn't write that.  You'll note a link to the author's page.  He gave me permission to use it since I had no desire to write anything up on the P-40.  However, while there are some discrepencies, in general it it more accurate than you give it credit for.  The design of the P-40 was obscelecent by the time the U.S. entered the war in December 1941 (not sure what it's performance in 1940 has to do with that).  The U.S. would have dearly liked to stop making it, but it was cheap and easy to produce and so was kept in production throughout most of the war.  Agree on the 3 squadrons of AVG, but they actually "borrowed" the idea of the shark mouth from British squadrons using P-40s in N Africa.  I also think you are confusing the description of the plane's performance and durability in Air Warrior with historical data... the historical data is only the first paragraph.  From then on, the writer is talking about how it works in the game which is, after all, more relevant to the purpose of my site.

HaMmeR

[xHaMmeRx]

Wells,

Ya, I considered trying to determine best climbing speed at various altitudes... may be a future test.

HaMmeR

[xHaMmeRx]

Karnak,

Frankly, I just don't have the ability to keep all of the variables within a given tolerance while starting and stopping a stopwatch!    If I can't repeat the test and get the same results, I'm not conducting a test but rather an event with a bunch of un-measured variables.  If someone out there can do a good sustained turn test and repeat the test and get the same results (and, just as important, describe the conditions used so others can repeat the results), please do them and send me the results.  I intend to have a new sight up and running sometime in the next few weeks.  Should have enough planes done then make it worth while.

HaMmeR

[Westy MOL]

Hiya Hammer! Long time no 'see'

 You haven't seen Widewings web site have you yet?

 

 -Westy

(wonders off while whistling Dixie...?)

[ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]

[Widewing]

Originally posted by xHaMmeRx:
Widewing...actually, I didn't write that.  You'll note a link to the author's page.  He gave me permission to use it since I had no desire to write anything up on the P-40.  However, while there are some discrepencies, in general it it more accurate than you give it credit for.  The design of the P-40 was obscelecent by the time the U.S. entered the war in December 1941 (not sure what it's performance in 1940 has to do with that).  The U.S. would have dearly liked to stop making it, but it was cheap and easy to produce and so was kept in production throughout most of the war.  Agree on the 3 squadrons of AVG, but they actually "borrowed" the idea of the shark mouth from British squadrons using P-40s in N Africa.  I also think you are confusing the description of the plane's performance and durability in Air Warrior with historical data... the historical data is only the first paragraph.  From then on, the writer is talking about how it works in the game which is, after all, more relevant to the purpose of my site.

HaMmeR

Okay, you didn't write it, but you thought enough of it to post it on your site.

As far as being accurate, it is not. It's bloody awful, worse than the stuff found on the outside of model airplane boxes.

Also, the P-40 page does not carry a link to the author. However, the P-38 page does, and I had a look. More of the same I'm afraid. I was somewhat surprised that "Twist" would suggest Warren Bodie's book on the P-38, and yet apparently has not bothered to read it himself.

Warren and I work together on a regular basis. To see our latest effort, pick up a copy of the August edition of Flight Journal magazine (due on the news stands this week). This issue carries our Lockheed XF-90 story.

Back to the P-40: I mention early war use of the P-40 because the page refers to British use, which began in 1940. June of 1940 to be specific, before the Battle of Britain was truly underway. Considering that the aircraft can trace it origins to the mid-1930s, it is not unreasonable to examine the fighter within that context.

As to being obsolescent, I must disagree. In December of 1941 the P-40 out-performed a considerable portion of the aircraft it would initially oppose. Typical of this was A6M2. The Zeke had but two tactical advantages, turn and climb rates. The P-40 was markedly faster, rolled much, much better (consider that any turn must begin with a roll), better dive acceleration and a much higher Vne. Likewise, the P-40 was vastly more resistant to battle damage and offered a better gun package. Even in climb rate, the P-40 could nullify the Zero's advantage with a shallow, high speed climb, which the A6M2 could not match.

When we examine the P-40, we should do with the knowledge that it was never expected to be a high altitude fighter. Below 15,000 ft, a well piloted P-40 could hold its own with anything it might encounter in 1941. As late as July of 1944, the P-40 was still maintaining a kill ratio of 6:1 over the best that Japan had to offer. Not too bad for being obsolescent since 1941.....

My last point is this: My experience with Air Warrior is that virtually every flight model is incorrect. Some folks rant about AH's flight models, but I can assure you that they are vastly better than AW's poor efforts.

Many decent aircraft suffer from the mythology of post war writings that lacked the input of the men who flew the aircraft. Even the Iron Dog (P-39) proved that if properly used, it could give as well as it took. Maybe AH will add the P-63A to its line up in the future. How good was the Kingcobra? Think of an La-7 on steroids.

My regards,

Widewing

[janneh]

Back to the subject, I think it's really great if we could have these kind of comparisons! AH really needs that.
Keep up good work xHaMmeRx !
<S!>

 

[batdog]

All I wanna see is HMR's hard data on the P-38 here...   The historical section is cool but the fact is there is alot of misleading info out there it seems. I mean I always read that the P-40 had its bellybutton handed to it in the Pacific... and was unuseable in europe as it couldnt fight at high alts...
 whats that song?
"Oh dont give me a peter four O
She'll gasp and she'll weeze
and head strieght for the trees
Oh dont give me a peter four O"
 
 WIdewing... good sites on P-38's or say Bong?

xBAT

[Widewing]

Originally posted by batdog:
All I wanna see is HMR's hard data on the P-38 here...     The historical section is cool but the fact is there is alot of misleading info out there it seems. I mean I always read that the P-40 had its bellybutton handed to it in the Pacific... and was unuseable in europe as it couldnt fight at high alts...
 whats that song?
"Oh dont give me a peter four O
She'll gasp and she'll weeze
and head strieght for the trees
Oh dont give me a peter four O"
 
 WIdewing... good sites on P-38's or say Bong?

xBAT

There are a few. However, the best piece on the P-38 anywhere on the web, resides on my site.... It was co-written by Dr. Carlo Kopp (a well known Australian defense expert) and myself, and was published in two installments in Airpower International magazine. Click on the link below to go to part one. Use the links at the end of each part to move on to the next.

Der Gabelschwanz Teufel

My regards,

Widewing

[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: Widewing ]

[JAG]

*War joke*

What kind of plane is the P-400?

A P-40 with a Zero on its tail...
 


JAG

P.S. P-400 Brits conversion of a p-39

[batdog]

Yep, read that one Widewing   I'm gonna look for yours. Is there a good read on P-38's out there... errr a BIGGGGGG BOOK!!!

 xBAT

P.S. HMR I of course wasnt pointing to your site as misleading... I was implying it is hard to get good "factual" info that hasnt been filtered and over colored so to speak
to use as reference material.