Author Topic: Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results (Read 1872 times)

Batz · « **Reply #15 on:** April 04, 2003, 02:47:47 AM »

Quote

1/2 a sec can be enough. yet most of the errr whines about fw's revolve around the d9.

The tests have an error of +/- .2 s. Either way you wont last .1 sec in the sites of those hizookas.

The arguement that the a5 should accellerate better comes from the british a3 vrs the spit 9 tests.

The g10 is an alround better plane the the la 7. But the g10 we have in ah is the very best of the g10 variant and isnt the most common.

I dont remember seeing any d9s dont accelerate threads. There have been many about the poor accelleration (and its climbrate)on the ta152.

bozon · « **Reply #16 on:** April 04, 2003, 06:23:42 AM »

wtg for doing this test fork, but I must add two remerks about interpreting the results:

1. weight and fuel load -
as mentioned by some guys above (mandoble), testing with the same percentage of fuel is problematic. no one flies the p-51 with 100% fuel and 25% in the hurri, will barly get you to the end of the runway.
ammo load and gun options are also important. Local acceleration is proportional to the inverse of the mass "a=F/m".

2. averaged acceleration (not local acceleration) -
acceleration changes with speed dramaticly. Accelerating from 150 to 250 is not a small margin, so it really depends on what you want to get out of the test.
slower planes with a good powerloading will come out worse with this method. I'm sure the nik and zeke would have come much higher on the list if you averaged acceleration between 150-200 mph. the current test favours the faster planes (or the midrage actually, which might explain the 109G2 and la5).

good test, just treat the results with care.

Bozon

Wilbus · « **Reply #17 on:** April 04, 2003, 07:51:39 AM »

Should get your facts straight before opening yer mouth next time Shane, then again, this is what you're known for.

Noone has ever complained about the Dora but we have complained about the A5 and the Ta152.

Looking at the stats now, it kind of makes me wounder the why the TA152 was ever built.

Nice post btw.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #18 on:** April 04, 2003, 08:03:15 AM »

Look how the 109E4 is the slowest accelering plane of all the planes using DB601, even the 110 is faster... I think this suggests that 109E4 is porked.

Mister Fork · « **Reply #19 on:** April 04, 2003, 08:31:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hooligan
Nice work. Thanks for the effort.
It does seem odd to me that you chose to use minimum ammo loads and 25% fuel. 50% or 75% fuel would seem to be useful in making the results more relevant to typical MA conditions.
Hooligan

As they say, don't look a gifted horse in the mouth.

It's a Catch-22. Put in 100% fuel, and the results will be completely different than 75, 50, or 25%. Every aircraft carries different fuel ammounts.

I try to minimize all possible factors that can skew the results. I used scientific testing criteria to make sure my outcome is as accurate as possible and fuel was my only control. Reducing the fuel factor gives me more accurate readings. It would be nice to give every plane 20 gallons of fuel but that's not possible.

N.b.: At 18000ft, the P-51B/D accelerate faster than the La-7/La-5. I'll post those results later on once I'm done.

Frost · « **Reply #20 on:** April 04, 2003, 09:47:34 AM »

I don't think fuel matters at all since we can't make sure every plane has the same number of gallons on board. All we are looking for is the acceleration difference between aircraft, so without going through every plane and trying to match up percentages with number of gallons then having every plane at %25 is close enough.

It would be nice though to run every plane at the most common ammo load.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #21 on:** April 04, 2003, 10:50:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frost
then having every plane at %25 is close enough.

100% wrong. Fuel load matters a lot for acceleration, and fuel load depends on desired range. Just fix a range, calculate the needed fuel for each plane and then you will have much more accurate acceleration numbers. Add also a second critical factor, initial/final altitude. And then, add the most important factor: acceleration when diving? level flight? climbing? IMO, level flight acceleration (positive or negative) is the less important of the three by a wide marging when in combat, while climbing acceleration/decceleration is the most important of all.

J_A_B · « **Reply #22 on:** April 04, 2003, 12:10:06 PM »

You know, instead of complaining and claiming that this guy's testing is basically worthless (which it isn't), there's nothing stopping you people from taking the time to do it yourself if you don't like how he did it. He tested the planes in light condition, which is what he feels is most important.

Personally, I appreciate that he was willing to take the time.

J_A_B

Montezuma · « **Reply #23 on:** April 04, 2003, 01:31:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B
You know, instead of complaining and claiming that this guy's testing is basically worthless (which it isn't), there's nothing stopping you people from taking the time to do it yourself if you don't like how he did it.

J_A_B

Mandoble's idea of testing planes is watching them from the tower.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #24 on:** April 04, 2003, 01:34:18 PM »

great test thanks.

p.s.
the complaints about the d9 i am aware of were that is compresses or compressed ( i havent checked lately ) a good bit befor the a8 wich has the exact same wing and less leverage from the tail.

not to mention a quote from some dude name tank naming speeds and alts the plane was handeling well where the ah d9 was locked up like a brick.

now they may have fixed it dont jump on me but speed with the d9 was never a issue it moves.

Soda · « **Reply #25 on:** April 04, 2003, 01:47:06 PM »

Thanks for the tests, I know how long they take to complete since I've done a lot of them myself. Some notes from similar tests I ran:

- all AH planes struggle with they've reached about 75% of their top speed. That explains the P-40B in your tests (275mph top speed is near 250mph target for end of test).

- in sprint type tests, while a 10 second advantage may seem a lot, it really doesn't actually work out to a lot of separation in the scheme of things, certainly not enough to be in safety in most cases. I know I ran Mossie vs La7 tests, and until the 75% point in top speed, the Mossie hung in there and could have killed an accelerating La7 10 times over. That also wouldn't represent that the La7 would have to weave and not accelerate at full potential. Once the Mossie hit 75% of top speed, the La7 scooted away (since it had a much higher top speed).

-Soda
The Assassins.

HoHun · « **Reply #26 on:** April 04, 2003, 02:00:05 PM »

Hi Grünherz,

>Look how the 109E4 is the slowest accelering plane of all the planes using DB601, even the 110 is faster...

The Me 110C-4/B used the DB601N while the Me 109E-4 had the less powerful DB601A-1.

However, even at 25% fuel, I estimate the Me 110's mass as about 6140 kg, while the Me 109 weighs in at 2380 kg.

That gives the Me 110 a power-to-mass ratio of at best 0.38 HP/kg, while the Me 109 is considerably superior at about 0.43 HP/kg.

The Me 109 has the higher top speed, too, so it should accelerate better through the entire interval, increasing its superiority with speed.

Using the FM-2 (ca. 2935 kg at 1300 HP) for a sanity check, I get a power-to-mass ratio of 0.44 HP/kg, so it should indeed accelerate faster than the other two. However, I'd expect the Me 109 to be almost able to keep up while the Me 110 gets left behind, not vice versa.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Mister Fork · « **Reply #27 on:** April 04, 2003, 02:23:41 PM »

HoHuz - my thoughts exactly on the HP / weight ratio for linear acceleration. But a lot of aircraft don't really follow that model well. Weight balancing, aerodynamics, propeller design and even gearing of the prop shaft play a large role on 'well' an aircraft will accelerate to it's top speed.

I look at the Bf 110C4, and I'm thinking flying shoe box. I look at the 109E4, and I think, streamline design. Maybe it's the propeller design? I would like to see how Pryo and HiTech formulate the engine design in the AH environment.

Then the question comes into play, does propeller design have a play in the acceleration results or is the game designed strictly on horse power with an acceleration quotient? Dale? Doug? Does anyone know?

MANDOBLE: *** *** * ******* *****. * **** *** *** **** *** **** *** ******* *** **** ** *** **** **** * ****** ***** ** *** *****.

Frost · « **Reply #28 on:** April 05, 2003, 11:35:46 PM »

Ok Mandoble...go ahead and pick a range, calculate the fuel and load each plane individually with the exact percentage required. Oops, guess we can't do that. We can load %25, %50, %75, and %100 percent fuel for planes. So the for the purposes of these tests, it is perfectly fine to pick a percentage, load all planes and get a rough idea of acceleration. Your opinion of the importance of this test is completely irrelavant. Mister Fork tested what he wanted and choosing one fuel percentage for all planes gives a valid picture because of the limited fuel options we have.

Personally I think level flight acceleration comparisons are very useful. Well done Mister Fork.

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #29 on:** April 06, 2003, 12:03:48 AM »

LOL and the wabbles start whining.