Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results

[Mister Fork]

P40B - I thought so too but it really took over 100 seconds to accelerate to 250mph.

I did the test on this bird twice just to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong.

There have been a few questions why not test with 50% or 100% fuel and at a higher altitude.

I was after the core acceleration rate of every aircraft. Some birds have HUGE fuel tanks because they are long patrol aircraft while others are designed for short flight's.   The fuel load would of given incorrect results. Same for ammo load - I chose the minimum for ever plane.  I'm after CORE acceleration results.

[oboe]

I don't doubt your methods or results, re the P-40B, but it indicates to me you've discovered a potential FM error.  

How could it accelerate at less than half the rate of its contemporaries?   Look at the distribution there - the P-40B is way, way off by itself.   I don't see how it possibly could have been that bad in RL.   No wonder it falls out of the sky after a couple tight turns.

Look at the difference between the P-40E and B.   The B is 900 lbs lighter and has about 100 less hp.   How could its acceleration have dropped so far?   I think your testing has uncovered something significant here.

[wetrat]

udet, the P-40B sucks in here, just as it sucked in WW2. Maybe the engine of the P-40B had very little torque compared to the E. I'm not sure if that effects acceleration of aircraft, but I know that it does with cars.

[Mister Fork]

As someone pointed out in the A/C and Vehicles forum, it's because the P-40B's top speed is 275mph.  Seeing how most aircraft reach 75% of their top speed in a short time, it could explain some of the results I got were longer than expected for sea-level acceleration.

When I test all the aircraft at 18'000 ft this weekend, I'm sure the order will change.

[Commander rialbh]

The messirshmiddt 109g10 is growsely undermodeled !!!