The Niki and possible answer to uberness? Real numbers.

[Vermillion]

Jimdandy, the problem with a "an agreed upon standard internal weapons load and fuel allocation" is that they can mean very different thing depending on the aircraft and what it was designed for.

If you decide your standard is %50 normal fuel loads, this can literally mean the difference in hundreds of gallons of fuel, depending on if the design of the aircraft is a long range fighter escort (ie P51's) and a short range air superiority fighter like a Yak-9U.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Jimdandy]

Verm the fact is as I showed above there has to be an agreed upon standard. A plane can and will perform differently with guns and fuel in it. It wouldn't reflect anything close to a combat power/wieght ratio if you look at empty weight. Planes don't fly with no guns, armor, fuel, and oil in them. The standard I gave above is what I think is used. Any combat analyst would be lax in his duty if he didn't look at some kind of "norm" that would be expected to be seen in combat. Look at Westys post on the F8F. They guy talks about how much better the plane performs in the stripped down "civilian" version.

[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 02-13-2001).]

[fscott]

Please don't sway away from the original data. If you load one plane with weapons and fuel, then you have to do that with all planes. When you do this you see that the Niki still maintains nearly the best lbs/hp.
A plane with lower lbs/hp will accelerate better in snap turns and climbs.

Ram, I don't see your point comparison? The Niki gets thrown around the sky because it has more horsepower per weight, does this not make sense? 2.9 lbs to 3.5 lbs will have a huge impact on handling.

Personally, I'm convinced when I did these numbers last night.  I *think* the general feeling among the whiners, is that the Niki is a big radial aircraft that should handle like a Hellcat, when the real truth is that it is a very light aircraft with a very powerful engine. I feel sad for them when the Ki84 comes to play.

fscott

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by fscott:

Ram, I don't see your point comparison? The Niki gets thrown around the sky because it has more horsepower per weight, does this not make sense? 2.9 lbs to 3.5 lbs will have a huge impact on handling.

Hehe, Fscott, I was simply posting the 190A5 and A8 comparison, the "UFO" part was only included to add a nice   to the "ACM challenged" comment by funked.

IMO the problem with the N1K2 is not so the good acceleration it has, but the lack of torque and the incredible E-retaining it has that allows it to turn 180º,zoom, and catch a plane that just bounced it. And dont tell me that this accounts for the acceleration ,because I have seen N1K2s doing it against 109G10s, and the powerloading of the 109G10 is the best of all the planes in this game.

other than that, I like this thread, its quite informative  



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 02-13-2001).]

[Jimdandy]

 

Originally posted by fscott:
Please don't sway away from the original data. If you load one plane with weapons and fuel, then you have to do that with all planes...
fscott

fscott I'll say it one more time. I'm not disputing your data. I'm sure the power to weight ratios are right. As I said it's the thrust to weight ratio that is the truer measure of performance. Even if you ONLY look at empty weight (and that's fine as long as we look at all of them empty) the thrust to weight will tell you more. I'll give one more example. Put a 4000 horse power dragster on Ice with slicks. It isn't going any place. All of that horsepower will just sit there because of the lack of friction and thus the lack of thrust. A more efficient prop will "grab" the air better and generate more thrust with the same engine. Look at it this way. Take the pop off of the plane. You can run that engine at max rpm all day long. It will still be capable of producing max horsepower but that plane isn't going any where because without the prop it can't generate thrust. Any way that's enough. You should be able to see what I mean. You are very close to being exactly right and if you find the thrust to weight ratios some place it may turn out that there is no denying the N1K. As it is now it appears you maybe right. Your on the right trail don't stop now.

[Vermillion]

Jim your looking at "civilan-ized" versions of the data then, because "empty weights" include armor, guns, and oil.

They only lack fuel and ammunition.

And as I pointed out, fuel loads, especially if you state it as a percentage of total regardless of type, is wildly inaccurate. Plus it changes both before and during the flight. Ammo is the same way.

Now if you want to state the fuel loads as a component of distance, ie X gals of fuel to fly a range of 500 miles, and calculate the required fuel and weight, then I might start to an agreed upon standard. But otherwise it is fatally flawed.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[funked]

Widewing you can also get a power estimate from the rate of climb.  (I get about 1800 hp).  If you say it only had 1400 hp then you are disputing the climb data as well as the power figure.

Be sure the drag figures you use weren't based on speed data in the first place.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-13-2001).]

[funked]

Jimdandy, no WW2 fighter had any where near 1:1 thrust:weight.  

Also you're going to have to show me a plane that had a big performance improvement just from a prop change.  There is a lot of talk but not much engineering data in this area.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-13-2001).]

[Jimdandy]

 

Originally posted by Vermillion:
Jim your looking at "civilan-ized" versions of the data then, because "empty weights" include armor, guns, and oil.

They only lack fuel and ammunition.

And as I pointed out, fuel loads, especially if you state it as a percentage of total regardless of type, is wildly inaccurate. Plus it changes both before and during the flight. Ammo is the same way.

Now if you want to state the fuel loads as a component of distance, ie X gals of fuel to fly a range of 500 miles, and calculate the required fuel and weight, then I might start to an agreed upon standard. But otherwise it is fatally flawed.

No Verm the civilized version was an example of one lacking the guns and ammo so it flies better.

Of course I'm talking about some kind of fuel load at a given range and alt that you you expect to encounter the aircraft. That is why I said "...Any combat analyst would be lax in his duty if he didn't look at some kind of "norm" that would be expected to be seen in combat..." Meaning that if your putting fighters up in a bomber escort mission for example what would you try to predict what you would encounter for enemy aircraft. The combat analyst job is to try to predict combat situations. So he would make some estimate of the type of aircraft, armament load, and fuel load they would have in the encounter for both sides. I assumed I will admit that empty weight was done as they do with a car and that means without fluids. It reflects a shipping weight. If you say that that isn't how they do it for aircraft I'll take your word for it. You can use the empty weights to evaluate the aircraft all you want. It still will not give an accurate account of the plane you will encounter. There is no way. But there are better ways than just looking at the empty weight. A plane has a radius of operation. You can assume it will limit itself to one that will return it home. Thus it will fly to it's "normal" operational alt and will have X amount of time for patrol or what ever. So you will more than likely encounter the plane with the fuel left in it to reach operational alt and a full load of ammo for a best case scenario for a clean aircraft. That will be the one that performs the best and the one you want to be most worried about. If it's loaded with bombs and rockets well... I would do my calculations based on what I said above on 50% fuel and a full load of ammo. No external weapons, bombs, or drop tanks. A plane loaded is a plane at a disadvantage in a dogfight. You could then evaluate it at all altitudes based on those criteria. If a P-51 holds more gallons of fuel than a 109F-4 at 50% fuel it's still a fair comparison. They both have the expected amount of fuel. This is only an example but you see what I'm getting at. All your doing is trying to get a better "feel" for what your opponent will be like. The only plane you will encounter with no ammo and fuel will more than likely be on the ground don't you think. And if he his very low on fuel and out of ammo it's not much of a threat now is it?

[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 02-13-2001).]

[Wilbus]

109 E7 (don't have weights for F, sorry)
Engine: 1,200 Hp
Weights: Empty 2014Kg (4,440 Lb); Max Take-off 2767 Kg (6.100 Lb).

This would make the HP per LB empty: 4,440/1,200 = 3.67

Less guns in the F4, 1x20mm and 2x7.99mm while the E7 had 1x20mm and 4x7.9mm and F version had a bigger engine. F probarly weighted a bit more.

 




------------------
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson
III/JG5 "EisMeer"

[Jimdandy]

One last time and then I will stop saying this. Thrust to weight ratio. Look at the thrust to weight ratio. That engine with 1000hp isn't doing a damned thing without a prop. The more efficient the prop the better the horsepower will be put to use. Any plane with a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1:1 will accelerate in the vertical. THRUST/WEIGHT (THRUST divided by WEIGHT). They didn't put those paddle bladed props on the P-47M and the P51H for no reason.

[funked]

Jimdandy the problem with your argument is that all of the planes in our sim had prop efficiencies that were in a pretty narrow range.  Thrust:weight comparisons boil down to power:weight.

And I still don't know why you are talking about 1:1 ratios in the context of WW2.  None of these planes were even close to that.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-13-2001).]

[Vermillion]

Jim, I would agree with you if the pilots in AH flew in a mission oriented or scenario environment, for instance P-51's always flew escort, or P-47's flew ground attack over the continent. Then yes, you could get a very good feel for the aircraft that way.

But thats not the way it works in AH, its a total free for all.

Pilots just go do what they want, with little regard for dying or completing a mission, as long as they feel they are hurting the enemy. For instance base defenders launching time and time again in minimum fuel N1K2's, fighting till they die or run out of fuel and launching again. They do this because they can, with little to no adverse effects. Why worry about possibly running out of fuel, if you can instantly respawn into the fight, and in the meantime you have shot down or damage two enemies who now have to fly another 10 minutes to attack your base.

My point is that the MA is not real life, and you can't accurately predict what fuel state or armament loadout an enemy is carrying at any time.

If regards to our discussions of weight, if you own AHT you can look at the weight breakdowns for "empty" or "loaded" weights, or you can also do the same at the naval aviation website to see flight test data that will explain the issue.

Here: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-8.htm

I do see your arguements, but neither way is perfect, and for a comparitive look at fighters I prefer the empty, because fuel loads have too great an influence on such numbers.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Jimdandy]

     

Originally posted by funked:

...And I still don't know why you are talking about 1:1 ratios in the context of WW2.  None of these planes were even close to that...

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-13-2001).]

What I understand is that the F8F was over that. A P-51H was getting close from what I understand. Give me a break. If you know that much about it than you know I'm still right. It is the thrust to weight ratio. If comparable to the power to weight ratio wonderful. But thrust moves the plane. You can generate all the damn horsepower you want with that engine but that plane isn't going anywhere without the thrust generated by the mass flow produced by the prop. On top of that it I was talking about what the numbers were telling you. It's important I think to give someone a feel for what the numbers are telling them. You can punch numbers in a calculator all day but do you know what they mean. Because I'm writing to a general audience here and not a bunch of engineers I try to put it as simply as I can. Understand? Thanks for you interjection.

[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 02-13-2001).]

[F4UDOA]

Gents,

We are all forgetting about one other huge factor affecting performance that is even more important than Thrust to weight.

DRAG

The NIK2 is a poor example because the performance, ie top speed is in doubt. But take two similar A/C and compare and you find out what the Thrust,weight and Drag ratio is and you get a better idea of how well an A/C could accelerate and pull UFO type maneuvers would be. Here is an example.

P51D
HP=1720 at sea level where air density is a constant.
Empty Weight= 7205lbs

Power to weight = 4.2 Rounded

Max speed at sea level = 370MPH

FW190A-5/U8
HP= 1755
Empty Weight= 6716lbs

Power to weight= 3.8 rounded

Max speed at sea level = 335MPH

So despite an edge in Power to weight ratio the Drag factor significantly reduces performance of the FW190A-5 relative to the P-51D. It is smaller and lighter, higher wing loading and more HP but still cannot come close to the performance envelope of the P-51D.

So take another hard look at the NIK2 before declaing it uber. It's top speed at sea level is no better than the F6F a very high drag airframe, even with less weight, better power loading and nearly a 2,000HP engine. It has a number of things that hold it back in performance numbers such as Fuel, lack of hyper-accurate data etc. however it cannot be said that this A/C exceeded the abilities of it's contemporaries based on what information is available.