Author Topic: Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results (Read 848 times)

Mister Fork · « **on:** April 03, 2003, 10:49:06 AM »

I've posted the results of my acceleration tests of all fighter aircraft in Aces High. Some results are surprising, others are expected. Goto the post here:Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results

The top ten accelerating aircraft are:
Aircraft | Seconds | Acceleration
Me 163 | 7.7 | 5.8
Tempest V    |    16.7    |    2.7
La-7    |    16.9    |    2.6
Spit XIV    |    16.9    |    2.6
Bf 109G-10    |    17.1    |    2.6
La-5FN    |    17.6    |    2.5
Me 262    |    19.5    |    2.3
Fw 190D-9    |    20.2    |    2.2
Bf 109G-2    |    20.5    |    2.2
F4U-4    |    20.8    |    2.1

Results are available in an Excel spreadsheet. If you like, email me at mr.fork@shaw.ca and I'll send you the results.

Octavius · « **Reply #1 on:** April 03, 2003, 10:53:26 AM »

wow, nice work Fork!

----------------------------------------
-=octavius=-
VMF-323 Death Rattlers Website
MAG-33 Information
octavius@wi.rr.com[/color]

"If the U.S. were to start jailing people just for being stupid, the number of posts in this forum would drop by 90%"

-Mini D

wetrat · « **Reply #2 on:** April 03, 2003, 11:01:58 AM »

Always thought the tempest was the best accelerating prop plane we've got in here... good job fork(the jg2 one, or someone else?)

sourkraut · « **Reply #3 on:** April 03, 2003, 11:41:19 AM »

Perk the LA7!

Said it first!

~~Sour~~

Shane · « **Reply #4 on:** April 03, 2003, 11:56:47 AM »

lol, this should shut up the "the fw190d9 can't accelerate very well" crowd and point out how easily they can and *do* run.

interesting how the a8 and a5 rank in that list as well. lol.

would be nice to have the same kind of data for say 15,000 or 18,000. ah well... good work anyway, and thx.

ccvi · « **Reply #5 on:** April 03, 2003, 12:40:05 PM »

Isn't acceleration just a function of climb rate?

gofaster · « **Reply #6 on:** April 03, 2003, 12:48:45 PM »

Nice job Fork.

Perk the LA-7!

Unperk the F4U-C!

wetrat · « **Reply #7 on:** April 03, 2003, 01:03:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ccvi
Isn't acceleration just a function of climb rate?

No, but the two are very closely related. The LA-7 accelerates slightly better than the G-10, but the G-10's maximum climb rate at sea level is about 250-300ft/min higher. Whereas the typhoon accelerates quite a bit better than the 190-A5, but the A5's max. climb rate at sea level is a good 600ft/min higher.

wetrat · « **Reply #8 on:** April 03, 2003, 01:04:42 PM »

Just looked at the full list... I'm amazed at how low the yak9u is on that list. To me, that thing feels like it accelerates incredibly well. The reverse with the 109G2.. doesn't feel to me like it accelerates as well as it ranks on that list.

udet · « **Reply #9 on:** April 03, 2003, 01:23:27 PM »

I think under certian conditions, the La7 accelerates noticeably better than the Tempest.

Blue Mako · « **Reply #10 on:** April 03, 2003, 05:07:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shane
lol, this should shut up the "the fw190d9 can't accelerate very well" crowd and point out how easily they can and *do* run.

Since when did facts ever figure in a complaint about the dora?

Mister Fork · « **Reply #11 on:** April 03, 2003, 06:04:34 PM »

Udet: what I find even more interesting is that the La-5 is right up there too.

I calculated a +/- error of .2 so the La-7 could be as fast as a Tempest or faster. Same for the G10.

Interesting to note that only 5 out of the top ten birds are perked. The Bf 109G-2 was the biggest surprise. When it's light, it's a FAST bird. Other surprise was the La-5 - fast bird on the deck too.

I have tested a few birds at 18'000ft. The 51 is faster accelerating than the La-7. The Dora is the same as the 51. I'll post my results on the 18'000 ft tomorrow.

oboe · « **Reply #12 on:** April 03, 2003, 06:13:41 PM »

What is wrong with the P-40B? How could anything be so far down from the rest of the list? Really looks like an error, doesn't it?

hazed- · « **Reply #13 on:** April 03, 2003, 07:09:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
What is wrong with the P-40B? How could anything be so far down from the rest of the list? Really looks like an error, doesn't it?

the only error would seem to be building it in the first place

wetrat · « **Reply #14 on:** April 03, 2003, 08:10:18 PM »

lol hazed.. agreed