Doing some heavy fighter performance tests, need Bf110 advice

[Karnak]

If you use Badboy's Bootstrap method at any load, it will compute rate and radius for you.  Its all about determining stall speed at that weight.  As far as rate of climb tests, you could do an extrapolated value based on altitude, if you can correct for power differences due to altitude.  P-47 might be a good one to test the method for, since it doesn't experience a change in engine power with altitude because its turbocharged.  Then once you can make the method work for the Jug, you could try and apply it to the supercharged aircraft by accounting for power changes due to altitude.  If you really want to get detailed, you could just perform some specific excess power analysis, although this would be pretty involved to get close to accurate.

Rate and radius I will work on.  I don't think climb rates at sea level are that critical.  Climb rates at 5000+ft give a good enough read I think.

[Stoney]

Rate and radius I will work on.  I don't think climb rates at sea level are that critical.  Climb rates at 5000+ft give a good enough read I think.

Time to climb to altitude may be a better metric, at least for game play purposes.  A little bit easier to test reliably.

[Krusty]

I disagree... Since the climb rate steadily drops, time to climb doesn't help you much. You have to guess too much. Knowing the climb rate is just that -- your climb rate (no guessing involved), and IMO much more useful as a comparison of "can I outclimb the other guy?"

[Stoney]

I disagree... Since the climb rate steadily drops, time to climb doesn't help you much. You have to guess too much. Knowing the climb rate is just that -- your climb rate (no guessing involved), and IMO much more useful as a comparison of "can I outclimb the other guy?"

Was just thinking of the comparative performance between the aircraft, since your climb rate is constantly changing as you climb.  Basically, instantaneous climb rates are incredibly difficult to compute, since they change as you get higher.

[Karnak]

I think both metrics are useful, depending on what one is looking for.  Time to altitude is more useful for planning sortie times whereas climb rate is more useful for knowing what fighter will outclimb/generate E faster in a fight.

[Tank-Ace]

Of course the climb rates at 1000ft aren't a huge factor in the "can I outclimb this guy" issues, as a few seconds of climbing can put you above that threshold, and allow you to use more precise numbers.

[Karnak]

Of course the climb rates at 1000ft aren't a huge factor in the "can I outclimb this guy" issues, as a few seconds of climbing can put you above that threshold, and allow you to use more precise numbers.

They aren't really for climbing, no.  They are a useful measure of E building capability.  I suppose I could do timed accelerations for that.

[Stoney]

They aren't really for climbing, no.  They are a useful measure of E building capability.  I suppose I could do timed accelerations for that.

The most useful measure of E-building would be specific excess power comparisons, but I understand that might be a bit much work for what you're trying to accomplish.

[Tank-Ace]

They're usefull, yes, but not THAT usefull. 1k of altitude doesn't translate to a whole lot of speed.

I don't even consider the energy I have stored in altitude untill I have at least 2k's worth. Below that, its insignificant, and you would do better to bleed a little E to dodge an attack rather than dive away in hopes of out-running someone.

Its less compromising to your situation in the long-run, as you aren't putting up a giant "out-matched, frightened aircraft here! Come get a free kill!!" sign, and you're better possitioned for a guns solution of your own if the enemy screws up.


Of course I fly a 109K, which has insane energy building properties, so who can say what that has done to my tactical thinking.

[Karnak]

Stoney,

Yes, that'd be a bit too much work.  I am going for much more basic stuff.

They're usefull, yes, but not THAT usefull. 1k of altitude doesn't translate to a whole lot of speed.

You misunderstand me.  What I mean by E building isn't converting altitude into speed, that is just E conversion.  I mean how rapidly does your Bf109K-4 build E after it has, say, had to turn hard to dodge an attack.  Climb and acceleration are closely related as they are both measures of the aircraft's excess thrust.

[Tank-Ace]

ah, I get ya Karnak. Didn't quite understand what you mant at first  .

[hitech]

The most useful measure of E-building would be specific excess power comparisons, but I understand that might be a bit much work for what you're trying to accomplish.

That is a fairly simple calculation since you already have the weights and climb rates and speeds.

Climb rate and the weight of the aircraft are the definition of excess power, you just need to covert to the power unit you wish to use.

HiTech

[Ruah]

i don't use the fuel cheats, 75 to 100%...dt's only for high alt long range buff hunting.

this sentiment makes me happy since I tend to agree.

[Karnak]

I am picking fuel loads for a 30 minute sortie, or as close to that as I can get.

I have now added the Hurricane Mk IIc, Ki-61-I-Tei, Ki-84-Ko and Spitfire Mk XVI to my testing schedule.  I won't add anything that can't carry at least 1,000lbs of bombs though.  I am also switching my testing priority to be based on destructive ability first rather than just hodgepodge, so Bf110G-2, P-38s and P-47s should be done first.  I'll do some hodgepodge testing now and then just to keep things interesting, but less than I was.

(P-40N is REALLY unhappy about carrying three 500lb bombs and 75% fuel.)