Author Topic: Fighter-Bomber climb rates and time to target test results (Read 1564 times)

Karnak · « **on:** October 01, 2003, 12:47:39 AM »

I was curious how the various aircraft that make reasonable fighter-bombers perform. I haven’t seen any tests that give climb rates and level speeds while laden. Because I wanted results that were relevant to the MA I set the fuel load to 50% for all aircraft, as full fuel is not normally used for fighter-bomber missions.

Tests:

Time to Target: This is the most subjective test. I used my strike mission method and a fixed target point. The starting point was A24 on the ndisles map. The target point was the 12th parallel due north of A24 at an altitude of 10,000ft. This a about 37.5 miles from the take off location. I started the timer and the engine(s) simultaneously and immediately turned on WEP. After takeoff I set autospeed and kept WEP on until the needle was even with the second yellow marker on the temperature gauge, at which point I turned off WEP. I continued to climb on autospeed until the aircraft reached 10,000ft, at which point I adjusted the course to due north and autoleveled. I stopped the timer the moment the nose of the aircraft map icon touched the 12th parallel.

MIL Speed at 50ft: To get this I climbed the aircraft to 3,000ft and then dove to 50ft. I then autoleveled and waited five minutes before recording the speed.

MIL Speed at 10000ft: To get this I climbed the aircraft to 15,000ft and then dove to 10,000ft. I then autoleveled and waited five minutes before recording the speed.

MIL Climb: To get this I took off, leveled immediately and then set autospeed on. I then recorded the aircraft’s reported climb rate every 2,500ft, starting at 2,500ft.

WEP Climb: To get this I took off, leveled immediately and then set autospeed and WEP on. I then recorded the aircraft’s reported climb rate every 2,500ft, starting at 2,500ft.

Note 1: The instruments in AH are imprecise and all numbers here are my best guess.
Note 2: I am on the fence about including the N1K2-J, but have done so solely due to it’s tremendous 20mm load.
Note 3: I have ordered them in what I think/feel is from best (P-38L) to worst. This is subjective and not meant to final or absolute.
Note 4: In two cases the best loadout was not clear and in each case I tested both potential loadouts.

P-38L Lightning:
(two 1000lb bombs, ten rockets, 2000 .50, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 9:11
MIL Speed at 50ft: 315mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 340mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2500fpm | 5000ft: 2450fpm | 7500ft: 2400fpm | 10000ft: 2300fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2950fpm | 5000ft: 2900fpm | 7500ft: 2800fpm | 10000ft: 2700fpm

F4U-1C Corsair:
(two 1000lb bombs, four rockets, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 10:29
MIL Speed at 50ft: 310mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 320mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2100fpm | 5000ft: 1750fpm | 7500ft: 1650fpm | 10000ft: 1550fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2250fpm | 5000ft: 2200fpm | 7500ft: 2150fpm | 10000ft: 2100fpm

Typhoon Mk Ib:
(two 1000lb bombs, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 9:03
MIL Speed at 50ft: 340mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 360mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2400fpm | 5000ft: 2450fpm | 7500ft: 2050fpm | 10000ft: 1700fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2750fpm | 5000ft: 2450fpm | 7500ft: 2100fpm | 10000ft: 2000fpm

Mosquito Mk VI:
(four 500lb bombs, 700 20mm, 3120 .303, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 9:15
MIL Speed at 50ft: 325mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 360mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2300fpm | 5000ft: 2300fpm | 7500ft: 2350fpm | 10000ft: 2100fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2900fpm | 5000ft: 2750fpm | 7500ft: 2450fpm | 10000ft: 2200fpm
(two 500lb bombs, eight rockets, 50% fuel)
Time to Target: 9:08
MIL Speed at 50ft: 330mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 365mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2400fpm | 5000ft: 2400fpm | 7500ft: 2450fpm | 10000ft: 2200fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 3000fpm | 5000ft: 2900fpm | 7500ft: 2500fpm | 10000ft: 2250fpm

Bf110G-2:
(two 500kg bombs, four rockets, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 10:02
MIL Speed at 50ft: 305mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 330mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2150fpm | 5000ft: 2050fpm | 7500ft: 1950fpm | 10000ft: 1800fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2450fpm | 5000ft: 2400fpm | 7500ft: 2250fpm | 10000ft: 2000fpm
(two 500kg bombs, four 50kg bombs, 50% fuel)
Time to Target: 9:49
MIL Speed at 50ft: 310mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 335mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2250fpm | 5000ft: 2150fpm | 7500ft: 2050fpm | 10000ft: 1900fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2550fpm | 5000ft: 2500fpm | 7500ft: 2350fpm | 10000ft: 2150fpm

P-47D-30 Thunderbolt:
(two 1000lb bombs, one 500lb bomb, ten rockets, eight .50 cal guns, 3400 50 cal, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 11:01
MIL Speed at 50ft: 285mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 315mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 1450fpm | 5000ft: 1450fpm | 7500ft: 1400fpm | 10000ft: 1350fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2100fpm | 5000ft: 2150fpm | 7500ft: 2000fpm | 10000ft: 1950fpm

F6F-5 Hellcat:
(two 1000lb bombs, six rockets, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 10:20
MIL Speed at 50ft: 290mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 305mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2200fpm | 5000ft: 2000fpm | 7500ft: 1900fpm | 10000ft: 1850fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2550fpm | 5000ft: 2450fpm | 7500ft: 2400fpm | 10000ft: 2200fpm

P-51D Mustang:
(two 1000lb bombs, six rockets, six .50 cal guns, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 9:53
MIL Speed at 50ft: 310mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 340mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 1800fpm | 5000ft: 1850fpm | 7500ft: 1850fpm | 10000ft: 1850fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2150fpm | 5000ft: 2100fpm | 7500ft: 2150fpm | 10000ft: 1900fpm

Fw190F-8:
(one 500kg bomb, four 50kg bombs, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 9:56
MIL Speed at 50ft: 305mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 310mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2050fpm | 5000ft: 1800fpm | 7500ft: 1500fpm | 10000ft: 1400fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2550fpm |5000ft: 2250fpm | 7500ft: 2150fpm |10000ft: 2050fpm

N1K2-J Shiden-Kai:
(two 250kg bombs, 900 20mm, 50% fuel)[/u]
Time to Target: 8:52
MIL Speed at 50ft: 305mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 345mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 3000fpm | 5000ft: 3000fpm | 7500ft: 3000fpm | 10000ft: 2550fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 3550fpm | 5000ft: 3350fpm | 7500ft: 3000fpm |10000ft: 2550fpm

JB73 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2003, 01:23:42 AM »

what really confuses me is the 10,000 feet lvl speed of the n1k2j.

according to the AH performance charts it is not even close to the 190f8.

yet in your tests it is 35 mph faster @ 10,000 feet.

hmmm whats going on here>?

moot · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2003, 01:47:07 AM »

the film viewer gives exact speed.

Batz · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2003, 02:02:42 AM »

Quote

what really confuses me is the 10,000 feet lvl speed of the n1k2j.

according to the AH performance charts it is not even close to the 190f8.

yet in your tests it is 35 mph faster @ 10,000 feet.

hmmm whats going on here>?

Didja even read what Karnak posted?

Quote

Fw190F-8:
(one 500kg bomb, four 50kg bombs, 50% fuel)
Time to Target: 9:56
MIL Speed at 50ft: 305mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 310mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 2050fpm | 5000ft: 1800fpm | 7500ft: 1500fpm | 10000ft: 1400fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 2550fpm |5000ft: 2250fpm | 7500ft: 2150fpm |10000ft: 2050fpm

N1K2-J Shiden-Kai:
(two 250kg bombs, 900 20mm, 50% fuel)
Time to Target: 8:52
MIL Speed at 50ft: 305mph
MIL Speed at 10000ft: 345mph
MIL Climb: 2500ft: 3000fpm | 5000ft: 3000fpm | 7500ft: 3000fpm | 10000ft: 2550fpm
WEP Climb: 2500ft: 3550fpm | 5000ft: 3350fpm | 7500ft: 3000fpm |10000ft: 2550fpm

The f8 is heavier to begin with and is carrying 200kg more bombs then the niki in karnaks test.

Also, I dunno what charts you are reading but mil power @ 10k for the f8 is 335, for the niki its 355.

So it makes ya think, why a heavier slower plane is still a heavier slow plane in karnaks tests, doesnt it? Conspiracy?

Soda · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2003, 09:06:55 AM »

Interesting test Karnak.. I had done something similar a couple of months ago for the Typhoon and Mossie just to see what sort of impact different loads had on those aircraft flown in different profiles. I know I have the Mossie numbers around here somewhere comparing all types of combinations of fuel/ordinance and speeds and some different critical altitudes for the Mossie.

Karnak · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2003, 09:34:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
the film viewer gives exact speed.

Yes, it does. But this took me many hours to do as it was and exact speed numbers weren't that important to me. Filming in all and then checking the film was more work than I wanted to do.

Frankly, sustained MIL speeds had the lowest weighting in selecting which was best.

Soda · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2003, 10:15:07 AM »

Karnak,
If you are interested I could send you the Mossie configuration numbers from my testing. I have exact speeds (film viewer) in a bunch of configurations with different fuel loads/ammo loads, and at a couple of different altitudes just for comparison. Basically, your 325mph and 330mph are off a bit though, they should be more like 314mph and 318mph. The Mossie, clean, can only manage 325mph at sea-level at MIL, 338mph WEP.

If I remember correctly, 1K bombs add about 8mph drag each, 500lb's are 5mph at sea-level. Rockets vary slightly, drop tanks are like 500lbrs, fuel costs 1mph/25%, ammo load made no difference (I even shot away all the .303 to test). This tended to be the same for several aircraft I tested. I had similar test info for the Typhoon also but I can't seem to find it right now.

anyway, if you'd like the info, email me:
soda@hitechcreations.com

Reschke · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2003, 10:29:32 AM »

Interesting test subject here Karnak. Thanks and nicely done BTW.

JB73 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2003, 05:01:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
Didja even read what Karnak posted?

The f8 is heavier to begin with and is carrying 200kg more bombs then the niki in karnaks test.

Also, I dunno what charts you are reading but mil power @ 10k for the f8 is 335, for the niki its 355.

So it makes ya think, why a heavier slower plane is still a heavier slow plane in karnaks tests, doesnt it? Conspiracy?

hmmm i guess these:
http://www.jannousiainen.net/online_sims/jg_4/index.htm

charts are off then. i thought the data was right from HTC's site.

by using those you will see the discrepency.

my bad if the data is wrong.

Batz · « **Reply #9 on:** October 01, 2003, 05:22:20 PM »

No Jochen's charts are right if you look at wep.

mil power is the black lines on those charts.

ofcourse with no eng concerns in ah the only power setting that is limited is wep. Its limited by some random number.

So most folks would burn wep in the climb out, then level and let the eng cool, then make their attack and wep again to extend re grab. (avtually they would wep into the ground 80% of the time)

For the most part ah planes are max rpm max throttle till death or exit. Wep is cycled as fast asya can depending on eng cooling time.

So Karnaks tests are good info they really dont reflect real game behavior. Atleast imo.

Karnak · « **Reply #10 on:** October 01, 2003, 08:17:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
So Karnaks tests are good info they really dont reflect real game behavior. Atleast imo.

Heh. They reflect my real game behavior, which is all I really had to go on. Everything else is just conjecture and cynical interpetations of other peoples actions.

Except for, ironically given the data Soda is offering, the 50ft MIL speeds. I always climb.

Thanks for the offer Soda, but the deck speeds with ordinance isn't that important really.

Soda · « **Reply #11 on:** October 02, 2003, 09:15:58 AM »

I always climb to, the question for me was how much to climb, after which point any additional climbing is less productive. The deck speeds, at least to me, offer my escape option not my transit unless the attack is NOE. I don't just have deck speeds but I would have to dig around a bit for all my numbers.

For example, from some stats I have, the Mossie can pull 356mph (MIL) at 8.5K with 2 * 500lb. That's a pretty significant improvement over the deck equiv speed of 315mph (same config). Over 8.5K, performance actually deterorates until you get up to about 15K (377 clean). So, for me, I usually only climb to 8.5K and don't consider using WEP (only adds 3mph). Other aircraft, like the Typhoon, show similar performance points under 10K while aircraft like the P-38/P-47 generally show gradual improvements with each ft of alt added (up to a point).

I like the way you've looked at this though and tend to agree with your placement. Most people just look for "total ordinance potential" but I think you've tried to include other important factors (climb, speed, etc) in your ranking. Too many people just go for something like a P-47D30 because it can pack so much yet realistically when loaded like that it is a sitting duck until it enters the final dive.

Karnak · « **Reply #12 on:** October 02, 2003, 08:00:23 PM »

Thanks Soda. That is what I was trying to do as it seems to me that the choices people were making were not based on actual data, but just assumptions.

Like you I use deck speed only as a last ditch escape method. In that case though my aircraft is clean and on WEP. I included the deck speed with ordinance for the people who just take off and head right for the target without climbing.

The biggest surprise for me was how poorly the Bf110G-2 handled.

I make no attempt to hide my bias for the Mosquito, but truthfully I had taken the German fans assertions that the Bf110G-2 was a far better fighter and strike aircraft seriously and thought I was only protesting for the sake of protesting.

After running the Fighter-Bomber tests I ran some Fighter tests between the Mossie and 110G-2, including a theoretical test in which the Mossie's fuel consumption rate has been fixed.

As a fighter the Bf110G-2 is nearly parable with the Mosquito that has to take extra fuel. It climbs slightly better, but is still slower, poorer at diving, rolling, high speed conrolability and its guns are not as good for fighter killiing. If the Mosquito could limit its fuel and still have range it is a substantially better fighter than the 110G-2. In this case the Mosquito is better than the Bf110G-2 in all ways below 10,000ft.

Soda · « **Reply #13 on:** October 03, 2003, 09:23:24 AM »

I think people give the Bf110G2 the advantage based on: a little extra external loadout, slightly better acceleration, 9 min of WEP vs 5, those dinky little rear guns (at least they give something shooting backwards), and 30mm forward guns. Fuel duration between the two is about equiv right now if I remember correctly. Thing is, the Mossie can carry internal bombs (no penalty on drag) and hispanos are much more flexible in use than the 30mm's. I know I have a D1.2 marking on my gunsight for the hispanos incase someone decides they want to HO my Mossie.... good luck. The Mossie is certainly faster too, but unfortunately not quite quick enough to out-race a number of aircraft you are bound to meet (La7, P-51, 190D9) unless you get a bit of a head start.

Many of the medium jabo birds though are eclipsed by the heavy fighters who can, in AH, carry the same, or more, loadout and then revert to "fighter-mode" after they lighten up and drop their bombs. Understandable.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #14 on:** October 03, 2003, 09:55:16 AM »

Gents,

Has anybody noticed the fact that the Mossie and BF110 loose virtually no speed what so ever at sea level or 10K?? I think the 110 might be faster with bombs.

While at the same time the F4U-1C which is faster than both at all alts clean looses 50MPH+ at 10K and 50MPH at sea level. It also sustains a greater loss in climb rate while the Mossie appears to loose nothing.

In fact the Mossie seems to climb better than it's performance charts would indicate while carrying no ordinace. Are they Helium bombs on the Mossie?

Also the Tiffy doesn't seem to loose very much speed at all with 2 1K bombs relative to the F4U or P-51D. In fact it may only loose 10mph.

It seems that Brit and axis planes are fairing much better than American Iron in speed and climb.