-
The AH2 Compendium of Fighter Turn Performance
[b]Testing Parameters[/b]
Weapons/Ammunition
1. Standard weapons loadout was preferred
2. For planes with multiple choice of armament loadouts, the most preferred loadout was tested
[i](ie. 20mm options on the C.205)[/i]
3. Planes with alternate standard loadouts were tested accordingly
[i](ie. Bf109G with 20mms and 30mms were tested separately)[/i]
4. For planes with different ammunition options, the most preferred option was tested
[i](ie. 3400 rounds of M2 50cal for the P-47s)[/i]
5. External loadouts and rigs, were not used
[i](ie. rocket pods, gun pods, bomb racks)[/i]
Fuel
1. Fuel is set to 75% for all tested types
2. Individual fuel settings were not considered for the purpose of general comparisons for average
fighter performance. Therefore, some types have been slightly effected for worse.
[i](ie. The F4U-1 at 75% fuel, carries more fuel load than the F4U-1D at 75% fuel)[/i]
Throttle
1. Planes were tested at maximum possible throttle setting (WEP included)
Altitude
1. Test altitude is between 0~500ft
2. Variance in altitude during turns were contained to less than 100ft
Flaps
1. Turn performance was tested with;
Flaps up, one notch, full flaps
Stall Limiter
1. Turn performance was tested with the Stall Limiter method, intended to minimizing human errors
and disparities in individual skill level
2. Default SL angle is set to 0.05
3. For planes that cannot handle 0.05 due to various reasons (such as leading edge slats), an
appropriate SL angle was used
4. Having gigher SL setting required for test, translates to the following fact:
[b] "The higher the SL angle required for testing, the higher the tendency to destabilize
(particularly in the roll axis) when nearing the limits of performance." [/b]
Testing
1. All "fighter" class planes were tested
2. All planes were turned according to their favorable direction of turn
3. Tested area of performance is defined as follows;
[b] "Time required to turn one full circle (360 degrees), while maintaining
tightest turn possible, at maximum throttle setting"[/b]
4. Therefore, this test does not address the differences in turn performances caused by
alternate methods of turn control such as;
1) using lower throttle settings
2) using climbs/dives during turn
3) using stalls to change plane
... etc.
Results are as follows:
-Results Format-[/b]
Type (SL angle used)
- time to complete under normal setting (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete under one notch of flap (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete under full flap (average turn speed), radius
*Individual Notes
A6M2 (0.05)
- 14 seconds (123mph), 122.3m
- 14 seconds (115mph), 114.5m
- 14 seconds (105mph), 104.6m
A6M5b (0.05)
- 15 seconds (130mph), 138.7m
- 14 seconds (125mph), 124.5m
- 15 seconds (108mph), 115.3m
Bf109E-4 (1.0/1.1/1.2)
- 17 seconds (152mph), 183.9m
- 18 seconds (138mph), 176.8m
- 18 seconds (118mph), 151.1m
Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
- 16 seconds (162mph), 184.5m
- 18 seconds (146mph), 187.1m
- 18 seconds (138mph), 175.5m
Bf109G-2 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
- 17 seconds (167mph), 202.1m
- 18 seconds (160mph), 205.0m
- 17 seconds (148mph), 179.0m
Bf109G-6 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
MG151/20
- 18 seconds (163mph), 208.8m
- 18 seconds (160mph), 204.9m
- 18 seconds (134mph), 171.6m
MK108
- 18 seconds (168mph), 215.2m
- 19 seconds (158mph), 213.6m
- 18 seconds (137mph), 175.5m
Bf109G-10 (1.0/1.3/1.3)
MG151/20
- 18 seconds (176mph), 225.5m
- 19 seconds (163mph), 220.4m
- 19 seconds (142mph), 192.0m
MK108
- 18 seconds (179mph), 229.3m
- 19 seconds (167mph), 225.8m
- 19 seconds (149mph), 201.5m
Bf110C-4 (0.05)
- 20 seconds (139mph), 197.8m
- 19 seconds (119mph), 161.0m
- 16 seconds (100mph), 142.3m
Bf110G-2 (1.0)
- 22 seconds (145mph), 227.0m
- 22 seconds (131mph), 205.1m
- 20 seconds (105mph), 149.5m
C.202 (0.05)
- 20 seconds (142mph), 202.1m
- 18 seconds (146mph), 187.0m
- 18 seconds (129mph), 165.2m
C.205 (1.0)
- 19 seconds (168mph), 227.2m
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 20 seconds (136mph), 193.6m
F4F-4 (0.05)
- 21 seconds (125mph), 186.8m
- 20 seconds (118mph), 167.9m
- 20 seconds (98mph ), 139.5m
FM-2 (0.05)
- 18 seconds (133mph), 170.4m
- 16 seconds (129mph), 146.9m
- 18 seconds (100mph), 128.1m
F4U-1 (1.0)
- 20 seconds (154mph), 219.2m
- 21 seconds (138mph), 206.2m
- 20 seconds (106mph), 150.9m
F4U-1D (1.0)
- 19 seconds (160mph), 216.4m
- 19 seconds (149mph), 201.5m
- 19 seconds (110mph), 148.7m
F4U-1C (1.0)
- 21 seconds (162mph), 242.1m
- 20 seconds (150mph), 213.5m
- 20 seconds (110mph), 156.6m
F4U-4 (1.0)
- 19 seconds (168mph), 227.2m
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 18 seconds (113mph), 144.7m
F6F-5 (1.0)
- 20 seconds (160mph), 227.7m
- 19 seconds (145mph), 196.1m
- 19 seconds (118mph), 159.5m
Fw190A-5 (1.0/1.5)
- 21 seconds (180mph), 269.0m
- 21 seconds (162mph), 242.1m
- N/A
Fw190A-8 (1.0/1.5)
4xMG151/20
- 23 seconds (181mph), 296.3m
- 21 seconds (171mph), 255.6m
- N/A
2xMG151/20, 2xMK108
- 23 seconds (181mph), 296.3m
- 23 seconds (172mph), 281.6m
- N/A
Fw190D-9 (1.0/1.5)
- 22 seconds (181mph), 283.4m
- 21 seconds (172mph), 257.1m
- N/A
Fw190F-8 (1.0/1.5)
- 23 seconds (179mph), 293.0m
- 22 seconds (171mph), 267.8m
- N/A
* Fw190s cannot maintain a turn tight/slow enough for full flaps
Hurricane Mk.Ia (0.05)
- 15 seconds (126mph), 134.5m
- N/A
- 15 seconds (104mph), 111.0m
Hurricane Mk.IIc (0.05)
- 15 seconds (136mph), 145.2m
- N/A
- 15 seconds (116mph), 123.8m
Hurricane Mk.IId (0.05)
- 16 seconds (146mph), 166.2m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (116mph), 140.3m
* Hurricanes and Spitfires have only landing flap positions available
Ki-61-I-Tei (0.05)
- 18 seconds (151mph), 193.4m
- 18 seconds (146mph), 187.0m
- 19 seconds (131mph), 177.1m
Ki-84-I-Ko (0.05)
- 17 seconds (153mph), 185.1m
- 17 seconds (130mph), 157.3m
- 16 seconds (117mph), 133.2m
La-5FN (0.05)
- 18 seconds (156mph), 199.8m
- 17 seconds (150mph), 181.5m
- 17 seconds (126mph), 152.4m
La-7 (0.05)
ShVAK
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 18 seconds (153mph), 196.0m
- 17 seconds (127mph), 153.6m
B-20
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 17 seconds (151mph), 182.7m
- 17 seconds (126mph), 152.4m
Me163B (0.05)
- 17 seconds (210mph), 254.1m
- 17 seconds (196mph), 237.1m
- N/A
* Me163B flies too fast at full throttle turn, for full flaps to be used
Me262A (0.05)
- 27 seconds (204mph), 392.0m
- 28 seconds (190mph), 378.7m
- 31 seconds (153mph), 359.6m
Mosquito Mk.VI (0.05)
- 21 seconds (149mph), 222.7m
- 18 seconds (140mph), 179.3m
- 20 seconds (118mph), 167.9m
N1K2-J (0.05)
- 17 seconds (167mph), 202.0m
- 16 seconds (153mph), 174.2m
- 15 seconds (134mph), 143.0m
P-38G (0.05)
- 19 seconds (174mph), 235.3m
- 20 seconds (157mph), 223.5m
- 18 seconds (116mph), 148.6m
P-38J (0.05)
- 21 seconds (180mph), 269.0m
- 19 seconds (170mph), 229.9m
- 19 seconds (116mph), 156.8m
P-38L (0.05)
- 21 seconds (184mph), 275.0m
- 19 seconds (169mph), 228.5m
- 19 seconds (119mph), 160.9m
P-40B (1.0)
- 21 seconds (139mph), 207.7m
- 21 seconds (131mph), 195.8m
- 21 seconds (112mph), 167.4m
P-40E (1.0)
- 19 seconds (154mph), 208.2m
- 19 seconds (140mph), 189.3m
- 19 seconds (124mph), 167.7m
P-47D-11 (0.05)
- 23 seconds (153mph), 250.5m
- 23 seconds (136mph), 222.6m
- 22 seconds (120mph), 187.9m
P-47D-25 (0.05)
- 23 seconds (157mph), 257.0m
- 23 seconds (143mph), 234.1m
- 23 seconds (120mph), 196.4m
P-47D-40 (0.05)
- 24 seconds (159mph), 271.6m
- 22 seconds (151mph), 236.4m
- 23 seconds (124mph), 203.0m
P-51B (0.05)
- 23 seconds (149mph), 243.9m
- 21 seconds (143mph), 213.7m
- 23 seconds (118mph), 193.1m
P-51D (0.05)
- 23 seconds (158mph), 258.6m
- 21 seconds (150mph), 224.2m
- 22 seconds (121mph), 189.4m
Spitfire Mk.Ia (0.05)
- 17 seconds (117mph), 141.5m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (97mph) , 117.3m
Spitfire Mk.V
- 16 seconds (137mph), 156.0m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (105mph), 134.5m
Seafire Mk.II (0.05)
- 16 seconds (140mph), 159.4m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (106mph), 135.8m
Spitfire Mk.IX (0.05)
30cal
- 16 seconds (144mph), 164.0m
- N/A
- 16 seconds (118mph), 134.3m
50cal
- 17 seconds (141mph), 170.6m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (121mph), 146.4m
Spitfire Mk.XIV (0.05)
30cal
- 16 seconds (165mph), 187.9m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (119mph), 152.4m
50cal
- 17 seconds (166mph), 200.8m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (118mph), 151.1m
Ta152H-1 (1.0)
- 20 seconds (184mph), 261.9m
- 20 seconds (173mph), 246.2m
- N/A
* Ta152 cannot maintain a turn tight/slow enough for full flaps
Typhoon Mk.Ib (0.05)
- 20 seconds (163mph), 232.0m
- N/A
- N/A
Tempest Mk.V (0.05)
- 18 seconds (168mph), 215.2m
- N/A
- N/A
*Typhoon and Tempest flies too fast at full throttle turn, for flaps to be used
Yak-9T (0,05)
- 20 seconds (144mph), 205.0m
- 19 seconds (132mph), 178.5m
- 19 seconds (116mph), 156.8m
Yak-9U (0.05m)
- 19 seconds (152mph), 205.5m
- 18 seconds (144mph), 184.5m
- 19 seconds (129mph), 174.4m
[/code]
-
[b]List of planes in order of smallest Turn Radius at normal flight conditions[/b]
[b]Type: Radius [/b]
--------------------------------------
A6M2: 122.3m
Hurricane Mk.I: 134.5m
A6M5: 138.7m
Spitfire Mk.I: 141.5m
Hurricane Mk.IIc: 145.2m
Spitfire Mk.V: 156.0m
Seafire Mk.II: 159.4m
Spitfire Mk.IX: 164.0m
Hurricane Mk.IId: 166.2m
FM-2: 170.4m
Spitfire Mk.IX(50cal): 170.6m
Bf109E-4: 183.9m
Bf109F-4: 184.5m
Ki-84-I-Ko (0.05): 185.1m
F4F-4: 186.8m
Spitfire Mk.XIV: 187.9m
Ki-61-I-Tei: 193.4m
Bf110C-4: 197.8m
La-5FN: 199.8m
Spitfire Mk.XIV(50cal): 200.8m
N1K2-J: 202.0m
Bf109G-2: 202.1m
C.202: 202.1m
Yak-9T: 205.0m
Yak-9U: 205.5m
La-7: 207.5m
La-7(3x20mm): 207.5m
P-40B (1.0): 207.7m
P-40E: 208.2m
Bf109G-6: 208.8m
Bf109G-6(30mm): 215.2m
Tempest Mk.V: 215.2m
F4U-1D: 216.4m
F4U-1: 219.2m
Mosquito Mk.VI: 222.7m
Bf109G-10: 225.5m
Bf110G-2: 227.0m
C.205: 227.2m
F4U-4: 227.2m
F6F-5: 227.7m
Bf109G-10(30mm): 229.3m
Typhoon Mk.Ib: 232.0m
P-38G: 235.3m
F4U-1C: 242.1m
P-51B: 243.9m
P-47D-11: 250.5m
Me163B: 254.1m
P-47D-25: 257.0m
P-51D: 258.6m
Ta152H-1: 261.9m
Fw190A-5: 269.0m
P-38J: 269.0m
P-47D-40: 271.6m
P-38L: 275.0m
Fw190D-9: 283.4m
Fw190F-8: 293.0m
Fw190A-8: 296.3m
Fw190A-8(30mm): 296.3m
Me262A: 392.0m
-
[b]List of planes in order of smallest Turn Radius with one notch of flaps used[/b]
Planes that does not have intermediate flap settings use figures normal flight settings.
They are marked with *
[b]Type: Radius [/b]
--------------------------------------
A6M2: 114.5m
A6M5: 124.5m
*Hurricane Mk.I: 134.5m
*Spitfire Mk.I: 141.5m
*Hurricane Mk.IIc: 145.2m
FM-2: 146.9m
*Spitfire Mk.V: 156.0m
Ki-84-I-Ko: 157.3m
*Seafire Mk.II 159.4m
Bf110C-4: 161.0m
*Spitfire Mk.IX: 164.0m
*Hurricane Mk.IId: 166.2m
F4F-4: 167.9m
*Spitfire Mk.IX(50cal): 170.6m
N1K2-J: 174.2m
Bf109E-4: 176.8m
Yak-9T: 178.5m
Mosquito Mk.VI: 179.3m
La-5FN: 181.5m
La-7(3x20mm): 182.7m
Yak-9U: 184.5m
C.202: 187.0m
Ki-61-I-Tei: 187.0m
Bf109F-4: 187.1m
*Spitfire Mk.XIV: 187.9m
P-40E: 189.3m
P-40B: 195.8m
La-7: 196.0m
F6F-5: 196.1m
*Spitfire Mk.XIV(50cal): 200.8m
F4U-1D: 201.5m
Bf109G-6: 204.9m
Bf109G-2: 205.0m
Bf110G-2: 205.1m
F4U-1: 206.2m
C.205: 207.5m
F4U-4: 207.5m
F4U-1C: 213.5m
Bf109G-6(30mm): 213.6m
P-51B: 213.7m
*Tempest Mk.V: 215.2m
Bf109G-10: 220.4m
P-47D-11: 222.6m
P-38G: 223.5m
P-51D: 224.2m
Bf109G-10(30mm): 225.8m
P-38L: 228.5m
P-38J: 229.9m
P-47D-25: 234.1m
P-47D-40: 236.4m
*Typhoon Mk.Ib: 232.0m
Me163B: 237.1m
Fw190A-5: 242.1m
Ta152H-1: 246.2m
Fw190A-8: 255.6m
Fw190D-9: 257.1m
Fw190F-8: 267.8m
Fw190A-8(30mm): 281.6m
Me262A: 378.7m
-
[b]List of planes in order of smallest Turn Radius with full of flaps engaged[/b]
Planes that cannot use full flaps, use figures for one notch flap setting
Planes that cannot use full flaps & one notch setting, use figures for normal flight setting
They are marked with *
[b]Type: Radius [/b]
--------------------------------------
A6M2: 104.6m
Hurricane Mk.I: 111.0m
A6M5: 115.3m
Spitfire Mk.I: 117.3m
Hurricane Mk.IIc: 123.8m
FM-2: 128.1m
Ki-84-I-Ko: 133.2m
Spitfire Mk.IX: 134.3m
Spitfire Mk.V: 134.5m
Seafire Mk.II: 135.8m
F4F-4: 139.5m
Hurricane Mk.IId: 140.3m
Bf110C-4: 142.3m
N1K2-J: 143.0m
F4U-4: 144.7m
Spitfire Mk.IX(50cal): 146.4m
P-38G: 148.6m
F4U-1D: 148.7m
Bf110G-2: 149.5m
F4U-1: 150.9m
Bf109E-4: 151.1m
Spitfire Mk.XIV(50cal): 151.1m
Spitfire Mk.XIV: 152.4m
La-5FN 152.4m
La-7(3x20mm): 152.4m
La-7: 153.6m
F4U-1C: 156.6m
P-38J: 156.8m
Yak-9T: 156.8m
F6F-5: 159.5m
P-38L: 160.9m
C.202: 165.2m
P-40B: 167.4m
P-40E: 167.7m
Mosquito Mk.VI: 167.9m
Bf109F-4: 175.5m
Bf109G-6: 171.6m
Yak-9U: 174.4m
Bf109G-6(30mm): 175.5m
Ki-61-I-Tei: 177.1m
Bf109G-2: 179.0m
P-47D-11: 187.9m
P-51D: 189.4m
Bf109G-10: 192.0m
P-51B: 193.1m
C.205: 193.6m
P-47D-25: 196.4m
Bf109G-10(30mm): 201.5m
P-47D-40: 203.0m
*Tempest Mk.V: 215.2m
*Typhoon Mk.Ib: 232.0m
*Me163B: 237.1m
*Fw190A-5: 242.1m
*Ta152H-1: 246.2m
*Fw190A-8: 255.6m
*Fw190D-9: 257.1m
*Fw190F-8: 267.8m
*Fw190A-8(30mm): 281.6m
Me262A: 359.6m
-
Conclusions
While this test cannot be considered represantative of actual combat conditions, it provides helpful facts on relative turn performances between the fighter aircrafts of AH2.
Tthe term "TURNING" is comprised of many factors. Howeverm the key factor by which many pilots perceive in how planes "turn", is undoubtably the radius of the turn.
...
Overall 'turn rate' is in many ways, somewhat 'academic' when it comes to discussing turns.
Under certain circumstances, two planes may have to turn more than five, six, even ten circles to finally gain a decisive edge over the other. In such cases the management of efficient turns by maximizing the turn rate or turn speed may become more important than minimizing the turn radius.
However, in most cases, pilots are required to turn due to serious and immediate reasons - the most common of them being 'chasing' and 'evading' an enemy plane, depending on which of the combatants is on the attack.
In these situations, managing a good turn rate is meaningless in the fact that one may gain advantage after many turns, but still he may never get a chance to turn so many times in the first place, when the enemy blatantly "out-turns" him by tightening his radius, gaining a decisive gun solution.
Therefore, of the many factors involved in turning, the turn radius is of prime importance. Thus, the results of the turn radius testings will provide a general overview on which truly "out-turn" which.
...
However, that does not mean the listed performance figures above, is the only thing to consider when turning is required. Another factor which is particularly important is the stability of these planes when they turn. In a sense, the stability of the plane is almost as important as the pure turn radius of the plane itself.
For example;
By looking at the figures alone, the German Bf109s are quite competitive turners when it comes to turn radius.
However, it must pointed out that despite using a 'stall limiter' system which considerably lowers the difficulty of managing constant stick pressures, it was almost punitively difficult to measure the turn radius on the 109s.
A slightest change in plane conditions will cause an abrupt destabilization in the roll axis, which immediately changes the flight path in such a severe manner that constant maintenance of altitudes and speeds were almost impossible.
This means, in actual combat, a 109 pilot may never be able to reach the figures listed above, since it is quite likely that it would require an superhuman level of micro-management in stick/rudder controls.
In comparison, the test results for the P-38s are quite intriguing. Many AH pilots consider the P-38s as one of the best turning planes in the set. Some even go as far as to claiming that P-38s will out-turn Spitfires and N1K2s. However, actual tests say otherwise.
The turn radius of the P-38 is in fact, quite larger than most of the planes, even when flaps are utilized.
...
Then, how can we explain the discrepancies in the test figures, and the reality of AH combat? Again, as in the case of the Bf109s, 'stability' is the answer.
When testing the Bf109s for their turn radius with flaps lowered, I had to use very gradual changes in stick input to finally gain max stick deflection.
Stabilizing the plane for the turn was the difficult and time consuming, which required many revolutions and circles of turning to finally set the optimum, stable turn, to measure its time. However, in the case of the P-38, all I had to do was bank the plane to one side, yank the stick full deflection immediately, turn a couple of circles to stabilize speed, and it was ready for measurement.
This differences in stability between each planes, effects combat so profoundly that often a plane that is difficult to stabilize, will never reach the desired turn radius in time. It is another jey factor that should be considred when turn fighting.
...
Another thing to note, is that there are about three different types of stabilities when a plane is turning.
The first, is the stability of the plane during abrupt maneuvers. Planes like the P-38 or the Me262, are inherently resistant to accelerated stalls in that a violent maneuver will still be tolerated, and will rarely induce a spin. Planes with this type of stability, is more likely to be able to abruptly change the direction and the attitude of the plane.
The second, is the stability of the plane when it is nearing stall AoA, and the third is the stability to recover after a plane has fallen under stall conditions.
Some planes may have very gentle stall characteristics, but violent near-stall characteristics. Others may be opposite. The 109 is represantative of the former, and the Mosquito is of the latter.
For example, the Mosquito and Bf110s are noted for having violent and often fatal spins. However, the Mossie and the 110, according to test results, is also a surprisingly tight turner as well.
The difficulty met when turnin in these planes, is that the Mosquito and the 110 is very docile and gentle during turns, and it rarely has any difficulties in reaching the stalling point. This often mileads the pilot into thinking that he may be able to turn tighter. However, when the line is crossed, these two planes which were very easy manage, suddenly becomes incredibly violent and often near-fatal.
A simular case was found in the F4U Corsairs. As long as the plane stayed inside the critical stall angle, it was quite easy to "ride the edge of the envelope". However, once it was stepped over, the stall characteristics were harsh and violent. The Corsairs are excellent in near-stall stability, but violent when after being stalled.
...
-
Conclusions (continued)
One thing I have noticed, after looking at the results, is that many of the comments, perceptions, and circulated "popular facts", about comparative turn/maneuverability performance of WW2 fighter planes, correspond to the turn performance of the planes when they were not using any flap settings.
In other words, it can be said that most of the anecdotal evidence, or real-life test figures, correspond to AH plane performance when they are not using flaps.
For example, if I remember correctly, "America Hundred Thousand" lists the P-38s as having the largest turn radius of all American fighters.
While it may seem strange and perhaps 'wrong', since our AH experiences tell us that empirically, the P-38 is an exceptionally well maneuvering plane, when we look at the test results, AH P-38s also correspond to the fact "AHT" tells us.
Another example is the relative performance between the 109s and P-47s. These two planes have been adversaries over European skies since 1943, and many anecdotes, testimonies, and 'words of wisdom' clearly state that the P-47 was quite disadvantaged against the 109s when it comes to maneuverability.
...
The implications are clear: the portrayal of planes in Aces High, are in fact, farely correct and correspond very well to real life figures.
The factor which does not correspond to reality, which gives out the feeling that some planes in AH are 'undermodelled', is that in Aces High, people maneuver their planes over the limits most real life fighter pilots would rarely cross.
It is quite evident that use of flaps - even combat flaps - were not as common as one would like to think. If we look at the list of planes in order of smallest turn radius, under normal flight conditions posted above, we are able to realize that the turn performance of the planes matches the real life accounts quite accurately.
It is when we reach the list of planes and their turn performance with flap usage, that our perceptions on the comparative turn performance of the planes are totally shattered. Some planes are noted with an incredible rise in rank when flaps are engaged during turns. For example, the Ki-84-I-Ko boasts astounding rise in turn performance when flaps are used. The Corsairs are also one of the planes that benefit the most with flap use.
Thus, after testing all AH planes, I find it quite difficult to press any real arguments or complaints regarding turn performance of the planes.
The only real issue left, would be the factor discussed previously - "stability issues".
If I must use the example of the 109s again, it is now clear to me that the physical turn performance/radius of the plane has nothing wrong with it. If for any reason that the 109 does not seem to turn as well it should, it is about its instability during turns which might be subject to be fixed - serious instability will often force a plane to perform less than it is expected to. Perhaps, sometimes, too much lower than expected.
-
Kweassa!!
-
tell me again why the la7 needs to be perked - is it because it's such a monster that can barely turn with the p-40b?
:p
nice technical info; a lot of work just to prove that it does come down to pilot as often as not.
:aok
-
I think that information is very valuable for a lot of people, thanks for your hard work Kweassa.
Shane... to put the La- 7 in terms of "LW" performance... it combines the turning circle of the 109E-4 with the all-round performance of the G-10, while packing more than twice as much firepower. Not really sure where you got the "barely keeps up with the P-40B" turning... looked to me like it handily out-turned most of the planeset.
-
Lol i outturn about everything when im in a P38G.
i guess it means the turning radius when u are in the cockpit.
-
Just as a note, Kweassa messured sustained turn times . I.E. who wins once on the deck.
HiTech
-
There are planes that outturn the Spit V. Please correct this by improving its boost to, say, +25.
Thanks,
Todd/Leviathn
-
Just as a note, Kweassa messured sustained turn times . I.E. who wins once on the deck.
HiTech
Yes, HT is right.
For anyone who might think so, please do not consider these results as an absolute in turn fighting. I am just providing a beginning point, where turn performances may be compared with a lot of different factors involved.
Like HT says, the results are when planes are on the deck, and turning as tight as possible, without utilizing various methods to tighten or loosen turn radius or control turn speeds.
It is what would happen, if all planes start at one point, and just enter a fully flat turn as hard as they can.
-
Lol i outturn about everything when im in a P38G.
i guess it means the turning radius when u are in the cockpit.
I don't blame you for thinking that the P-38 results are something that has to do with my lacking skills. Frankly, I was quite shocked when I measured the P-38s, too.
However, while I cannot claim my method of testing is a fool-proof one, I can claim that it is a method which absolutely minimizes the differences in individual pilot skills, and pushes all the planes to about the same level of the 'edge' as a whole.
Most of the planes are pushed to 0.05 degrees before reaching stall AoA. Some that cannot handle such high AoA (or, in real combat, would require inhuman levels of micromanagement) , are pushed to 1~1.5 degrees before stall AoA.
Please remember that this test does not measure how a plane performs when meeting a stall, or, what kind of responsiveness in controls it shows when AFTER passing the stall AoA. There are methods a P-38 might be able to use to its advantage, even after meeting a stall AoA - but that was never a part of this test in the first place. Again, this is a test of planes turning to one direction, on a totally flat orbit, without any oscillations or throttle management whatsoever.
I believe I have adequately covered this area in the first part of the "Conclusions" post - when analyzing the importance of stability.
P-38s aren't anything special when it comes to turning radius. It is the ease of how they can reach the absolute limit, how they can maintain that limit, that makes them special, which allows them to outturn most planes.
The stability of the plane - how the plane allows the pilot to maintain a solid 'grip' when turning, without having to worry about wobbling, losing alt, increasing too much speed.. etc etc.. - is a factor as important as turn radius itself.
One interesting thought, is what the 110 or the Mosquite - both twin engine fighters - would have been like if they also used counter rotating props.
nice technical info; a lot of work just to prove that it does come down to pilot as often as not.
Actually, this is what I consider to be the point this test is proving;
It takes a good pilot to push the plane to the edge, but it is the plane which is inherently gifted, that allows a good pilot the opportunity to utilize it in the first place. Other planes, are denied that opportunity from the start.
Besides, pilot factor is of hardly any importance when it comes to comparisons. Ace pilots are like freak of nature - it is wrong to base a physical examination on them.
-
Well I am just a dweeb, but that data on the Ki-84 seems right to me. Its an "ok" turner in normal low furball situations, but whenever you get combat flaps deployed its becomes a huge difference.
Too bad you have to be 160 something air-speed to deploy them :(
-
I don't blame you for thinking that the P-38 results are something that has to do with my lacking skills. Frankly, I was quite shocked when I measured the P-38s, too.
sorry i was blaming i am shocked too but just forget the results.
coz im gonna fight em as i can.
-
kweassa for putting so much effort into this.
This clearly shows that in term of sustained flat turning P51 and P47 are the worst in the set (together with some 190 models) as expected, and not as some people claimed.
Stability IS an extremely important factor in a real life pilot's willing to push the plane to the limit. Only a few aces were confident enough to push their planes and that's why there was such a great difference between "aces" and cannon fodder. Not the plane - how much the pilot was able to take out of it was what's important.
With a spit or P38 most pilots were very confident with and felt they have superior preformance. 190/109 were experts planes where a talented few were vicious with and the rest could not / feared to use it to their full potential.
Robert Johnson states that he loved the jug from the 1st flight because he felt confident that the plane will stand to any abuse he submitted it to. P38s on the other hand CAN dive very well, but pilots were initially fearing the misterious compression, so most did not push it in dives, but DID push it in turns/stalls (even though we see it's not that great a turner).
Bozon
-
I just want to say that you are insane Kweassa.
Thanks for all the work.
-
Kweassa
Holy geekness ! :)
-
Bozon, what Kweassa is showing is a "Pull as hard on the stick as possible on the deck" chart.
A lot of planes perform differently at different speeds. I.E. A p51 will turn better then an A6m5 at 350.
So basically what this tells you is that you are a retard if you try to turn fight with a A6m2 if you're in a P51d.
But if you're in trouble you can try to turn fight with a P47d40.
But (no offense Kweassa), I believe these numbers really don't say anything. Every single plane carries different amount of fuels. A P47 on 100% is a lot different then an La7 on 100%.
The true equalizer (in my opinion) would have to either be "Distance able to be traveled" which itself would be hard to measure because of different speeds and fuel rates, or actual amount of fuel left.
-
thanks Kweassa! Good job!
now that the patch is out... gotta add the P47N :D
-
Kweassa, since you've been so meticulous in documenting these numbers -- could you comment on the relationship between the "average turn speed" and the optimal turn rate "corner speed"? Are they the same, within the test conditions as cited?
-
La7 with 3 guns turns better as one with 2 guns :)
-
Kweassa you have way to much time on your hands...
goog job all the same
-
Simaril, the average turn speed listed is the speeds which the plane will sustain while pulling the turns. I've measured about 5 revolutions each for every plane, and came up with the average of the speed that these planes will pull.
As about it's relationship with corner speeds.. I frankly have no idea. You'd better ask the real experts about that one. I'm just a guy who does the boring stuff.
-
Speaking of which..
looks like I'm back to testing...
after 1 day of rest, new version with new planes pop up.. I'll have to test the P-47s and P-51s all over again... arrrrrrrgh :D
-
Kweassa, any way to calculate/include some of the other key EM diagram points in your work? Best instantaneous turn/radius/speed, 6G (for AH2 limits) radius/speed? Not sure if you can extrapolate some of those or calculate them based on what results you have tested.
Awesome work though, I don't know that anyone has spent the time to put something together like that before. Appreciate your efforts because I know how long it must have taken you.
-
Soda: You could use kweasas numbers to extrapolate gs/speed (you have time around circle and speed at max aoa), then just extend them to 6g and speed.
HiTech
-
If anyone wishes to use my work as basis to calculate more useful stuff to share with people, please, feel free to do so.
I would have done it myself, but I'm a dunce in physics. All I remember from when I was a student is the Newtonian W=ma .. and maybe something like k=1/2 x mv^2...
:D
-
Originally posted by hitech
Soda: You could use kweasas numbers to extrapolate gs/speed (you have time around circle and speed at max aoa), then just extend them to 6g and speed.
HiTech
Any more specific hints or forumla :) Obviously Kweassa isn't the only non-physics major here.
I think I might have the right idea in my mind but an example would be great.
Thanks,
-
Nice work man !
On a second note i would love it if the ah2 helpfile would include EM diagram and performance curves for the aircraft that are up to date.
-
Nice work man.
Do you think you could do something similar for single and double immelman? That would be very usefull imho.
Tex.
-
Hi Kweassa,
One question, where did you find or generate the turn radius data in the trials? Is there some feature in the viewer that provides the info?
Thanks,
Best regards,
Cement
-
hacksaw, that comes from speed and time around circle.
The distance around the circle is just speed * time.
Circum. = 2 * pi * Radius.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Schutt
Nice work man !
On a second note i would love it if the ah2 helpfile would include EM diagram and performance curves for the aircraft that are up to date.
BTW, a confession: Although I'm vaguely familiar with the EM diagram concept, I dont have a workingknowledge of its implications. Any resources to suggest?
-
good work Kweassa
Why do we think the La5 should turn better than the La7?
It has identical lift surfaces and control surfaces..........
It is slightly heavier.....
It has less thrust via a smaller less efficient prop.....
It has more drag thru cowl and oil cooler ............
What of the above would contribute to better turn performance?
Less prop torque?
-
awesome job.
-
Nice work with some interesting (and surprising) results.
MiG
-
Originally posted by Simaril
BTW, a confession: Although I'm vaguely familiar with the EM diagram concept, I dont have a workingknowledge of its implications. Any resources to suggest?
Yes, the Appendix in Shaw's Fighter Combat has some detailed explinations of many of these concepts with formulas. Serious geek stuff in there.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
BTW, a confession: Although I'm vaguely familiar with the EM diagram concept, I dont have a workingknowledge of its implications. Any resources to suggest?
me neither... every time i see one my eyes glaze over.
besides, my flying is off the chart.
:p
-
Kweassa,
Great work!
Do you have this in a spreadsheet you could post for download?
It would be interesting to see if it makes a difference with the stall limiter off. I'd be glad to run a sample like that and let you know.
-
I'd love to see some historical evidence that would justify the near-stall instabilities of the 109 (and other aircraft). Also I'd like to see some historical evidence of the "Insta-Stable(tm)" flaps on the US planes.
-
Do you have this in a spreadsheet you could post for download?
It would be interesting to see if it makes a difference with the stall limiter off. I'd be glad to run a sample like that and let you know.
Sorry, Mosq.. I don't know how to use MS Exel or other spreadsheet generating tools. I wouldn't mind if some kind, philanthropic gentleman would take my numbers and do it themselves :D
....
As for the stall limiter, the answer to your question lies in the SL angle listed next to the plane type.
The lower the number is, the more likely you will get the same results when actually flying that type in combat. (Although, its not always like that everytime)
For example, look at the following figures:
Bf109G-6: 208.8m
P-47D-11: 250.5m
When turning without flaps, it seems that the results are quite natural. The Bf109G-6 handily outturns the P-47D-11 in radius.
However, for a long time, many people such as myself, were quite baffled by the seemingly superior turning capabilities of the P-47 during actual combat. Quite often a P-47 would outturn a contemporary 109 at deck so very easily, even without an E advantage, at a sustained turn contest.
For this reason, I and a few others have complained that the P-47s seemed to be turning too well... until this test finally truly confirmed an alternate possibility that I was suspicious about.
The P-47s use a setting of "0.05" for testing - which means, that this plane is stable enough to pull a very tight turn upto 0.05 degrees before critical AoA.
On the other hand, the Bf109 uses "1.0", which means this plane, is stable upto 1 degrees before critical AoA, but very unstable when it comes closer to stall than that.
It means that when tested with 0.05 before stall AoA, this plane was so unstable that it was impossible to maintain a turn steady enough to measure an obective, constant turn radius. It would wobble, destabilize, lose alt, gain alt, speed up, speed down.. etc etc.. constant measurement was impossible.
As a matter of fact, even with a 1.0 setting it was farely difficult to get the 109 to turn stable enough to get a real measurement. A slightest mistake would throw off the stability in roll axis, make the plane droop a wing, and ruin the turn.
When testing 1 notch of flaps, it was damn frustrating because every time a very small mistake was made, the plane wobbles, droops wing, loses alt, gain speed, and the flaps would retract. All this, at 1.0 setting. For a moment, I had even thought that perhaps I should increase the setting to 1.2 or 1.5 to get an objective data.
One must take into consideration that this was, with a stall limiter setting. SL is intended for "ham-fisted" beginner pilots who can't consciously maintain a constant stick pressure. That's why it was used in a turn test, to minimize human errors. All I had to do was pull max deflection on my joystick, and the SL would make sure that it was a constant pressure maintained near X degrees before stall.
And all that, and I still couldn't stabilize the 109 enough!
So in actual combat, it is more than likely to expect that the P-47 would easily reach its tightest turn radius and stay their - while the 109 would struggle to maintain such status. In many cases, keeping a turn tight and slow enough to maintain 1 notch of flaps, is itself a grossly difficult task - while a P-47 would easily pull down one, two, or even full flaps and literally run circles around 109s.
...
Thus, if the test was made with the stall limiter turned off, a plane that can handle a lower SL setting(0.05 default) will show figures that match more closely to this test.
However, a plane that cannot handle 0.05, and had to use higher numbers, will be highly likely to show a significantly larger turn radius than recorded in this testing.
-
Kweassa!
Outstanding job, I've always wanted to see stuff like this published. Hope you'll soon post data about new planes: no rest for pilot at test! :D
Simaril, Shane, if you do not have Shaw's book, but you want to know about EM diagrams, take a look at this great article by Leon "Badboy" Smith, at SimHq.com
Energy Management: Picking The Right Airplane For The Job (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html)
If you want a printer-friendly version, you may find an older .pdf of this article at Netace.org, here (http://www.netaces.org/genbadz/AH-DACT.pdf)
-
However, a plane that cannot handle 0.05, and had to use higher numbers, will be highly likely to show a significantly larger turn radius than recorded in this testing.
This is an incorect statment. Do to the fact that you adjusted the stall limiter to its max and still be stable on the edge of stall, both outcomes should be the same. In fact in testing the G10 I was able to slightly outperform your numbers when flying with out the stall limiter.
HiTech
-
This is an incorect statment. Do to the fact that you adjusted the stall limiter to its max and still be stable on the edge of stall, both outcomes should be the same. In fact in testing the G10 I was able to slightly outperform your numbers when flying with out the stall limiter.
I'm kinda guessing that's because you are skillful, HT. :)
Sometimes, it's easy to forget how much adjustments we are make during flying. It's like walking - us humans walk around pretty easily, but on a technical point of view it is incredibly difficult to create a machine that walks on two legs, and teach it to walk around obstacles and stuff. So many minute and spontaneous judgement and action is required to do such a simple thing as walk.
Simularlym shifting stick pressures, tightening and loosening radius.. slight oscillations in flight/turn path.. riding the edge of stall.. utilizing the stall momentum itself.. etc etc.. this is all parts and parcel of maneuvering techniques that can have an effect on the outcome, which is in many cases done unconsciously.
Compared to that, the method I used was a totally mechanical method intended to consciously try and remove all "human variations" as much as possible.
So I don't doubt you got better numbers when turning, but I'm betting that average grade of pilots like myself would hardly be able to do so well as you did! :)
-
Kweasa, Im just saying that any pilots out come would be the same for 109's or the other fighters. Just because you had to move the aoa limit to 1 does not change the real sustained turn rate. I.E. Your asumption that a given pilot would do worse with the 109's is what I belive is incorect.
-
Some questions:
1) Bf110 turn performance here is surprsingly good - even better sometimes than contemporary 109s. Why is that? The plane has high wingloading and no counter roating props.
2) Spitfire full flaps. I have been wondering aboit this for a while. Arent spit flaps only up and down with fuill flaps practically going down 90 degrees. Arent these more like airbrakes rather than lift devices?
-
Kweasa, Im just saying that any pilots out come would be the same for 109's or the other fighters. Just because you had to move the aoa limit to 1 does not change the real sustained turn rate. I.E. Your asumption that a given pilot would do worse with the 109's is what I belive is incorect.
Understood, HT!
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Simularlym shifting stick pressures, tightening and loosening radius.. slight oscillations in flight/turn path.. riding the edge of stall.. utilizing the stall momentum itself.. etc etc.. this is all parts and parcel of maneuvering techniques that can have an effect on the outcome, which is in many cases done unconsciously.
Compared to that, the method I used was a totally mechanical method intended to consciously try and remove all "human variations" as much as possible.
I certainly appreciate the massive amount of time that went into this effort.
I noticed that you used 75% fuel as a constant. I understand this reasoning. However, when I test I prefer to base my fuel loading on a combination of two factors; range and weight of fuel. My criteria reflects my methodology. I try to load fuel for a flight of 50 miles each way, with 10 minutes combat or 15 minutes of loiter time. I use E6B to determine this and then load what is required and even burn some off to get the load where I want it prior to testing. This is very time consuming and I certainly would not expect you to do something like that. However, it does provide me with results very close to what I can expect in the MA.
So, I might test some aircraft with considerably less than 75% fuel, and others at or even above 75% fuel.
Then there are the intangibles you describe above.
For example, it was easy to chop 3 seconds off the full flaps time on the P-51B using manual trim and rudder to prevent wing drop. I used 75% fuel.
Next up was the P-38G at 75% fuel. Manual trimming, no flaps, I recorded 18.57 seconds @ 170-173 mph. I didn't bother with one notch and went straight to full flaps. I recorded 16.11 seconds @ 121-123 mph. Speeds were taken from film.
Loading 50% fuel, the same test resulted in 15.72 seconds @ 122-124 mph.
Now, if I really reefed it in super tight, working the rudders hard to maintain attitude and altitude, I recorded 17.23 seconds @ 103-105 mph. This produced a tighter radius, but a lower turn rate than the previous run.
My normal load for the P-38G is 50% internal gas and a single drop tank to get me to the party.
I also tested the P-38J, 50% fuel. My best full flaps results were:
17.59 seconds @ 106-108 mph
16.22 seconds @ 114-115 mph
16.13 seconds @ 122-124 mph
Since I only ran one test cycle per aircraft, I have no doubts that these times could be improved ever-so slightly with practice.
So, using your baseline data, each pilot can establish his own numbers that will allow them to determine how close they fly to the edge and expose any inability to do so in any aircraft they elect to fly.
Therein lies the true value of your efforts. Pilots now know what every aircraft can do without pilot variables. From that they can learn if they are using their favorite aircraft to its capability and perhaps learn how to fly it beyond the baseline (and every aircraft can be, some more than others). They can also measure the effects of varying from your baseline load-out, which is valuable by itself.
Thanks for your time and work, Kweassa and thanks also for the terrific skins you have produced.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Yeah, looks like a lot of very tedious work on your part, thanks for the effort.
I'll send a link to this to the squad and see if one of the guys who has a little time can do some of the conversion you are looking for. I can do Excel, but I'm simply too strapped for time.
Thanks again for the work and sharing the results.
-
Revisal for Version 2.04[/b]
-Results Format-[/b]
Type (SL angle used)
- time to complete under normal setting (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete under one notch of flap (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete under full flap (average turn speed), radius
*Individual Notes
Revised stats are highlighted in bold
A6M2 (0.05)
- 14 seconds (123mph), 122.3m
- 14 seconds (115mph), 114.5m
- 14 seconds (105mph), 104.6m
A6M5b (0.05)
- 15 seconds (130mph), 138.7m
- 14 seconds (125mph), 124.5m
- 15 seconds (108mph), 115.3m
Bf109E-4 (1.0/1.1/1.2)
- 17 seconds (152mph), 183.9m
- 18 seconds (138mph), 176.8m
- 18 seconds (118mph), 151.1m
Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
- 16 seconds (162mph), 184.5m
- 18 seconds (146mph), 187.1m
- 18 seconds (138mph), 175.5m
Bf109G-2 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
- 17 seconds (167mph), 202.1m
- 18 seconds (160mph), 205.0m
- 17 seconds (148mph), 179.0m
Bf109G-6 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
MG151/20
- 18 seconds (163mph), 208.8m
- 18 seconds (160mph), 204.9m
- 18 seconds (134mph), 171.6m
MK108
- 18 seconds (168mph), 215.2m
- 19 seconds (158mph), 213.6m
- 18 seconds (137mph), 175.5m
Bf109G-10 (1.0/1.3/1.3)
MG151/20
- 18 seconds (176mph), 225.5m
- 19 seconds (163mph), 220.4m
- 19 seconds (142mph), 192.0m
MK108
- 18 seconds (179mph), 229.3m
- 19 seconds (167mph), 225.8m
- 19 seconds (149mph), 201.5m
Bf110C-4 (0.05)
- 20 seconds (139mph), 197.8m
- 19 seconds (119mph), 161.0m
- 16 seconds (100mph), 142.3m
Bf110G-2 (1.0)
- 22 seconds (145mph), 227.0m
- 22 seconds (131mph), 205.1m
- 20 seconds (105mph), 149.5m
C.202 (0.05)
- 20 seconds (142mph), 202.1m
- 18 seconds (146mph), 187.0m
- 18 seconds (129mph), 165.2m
C.205 (1.0)
- 19 seconds (168mph), 227.2m
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 20 seconds (136mph), 193.6m
F4F-4 (0.05)
- 21 seconds (125mph), 186.8m
- 20 seconds (118mph), 167.9m
- 20 seconds (98mph ), 139.5m
FM-2 (0.05)
- 18 seconds (133mph), 170.4m
- 16 seconds (129mph), 146.9m
- 18 seconds (100mph), 128.1m
F4U-1 (1.0)
- 20 seconds (154mph), 219.2m
- 21 seconds (138mph), 206.2m
- 20 seconds (106mph), 150.9m
F4U-1D (1.0)
- 19 seconds (160mph), 216.4m
- 19 seconds (149mph), 201.5m
- 19 seconds (110mph), 148.7m
F4U-1C (1.0)
- 21 seconds (162mph), 242.1m
- 20 seconds (150mph), 213.5m
- 20 seconds (110mph), 156.6m
F4U-4 (1.0)
- 19 seconds (168mph), 227.2m
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 18 seconds (113mph), 144.7m
F6F-5 (1.0)
- 20 seconds (160mph), 227.7m
- 19 seconds (145mph), 196.1m
- 19 seconds (118mph), 159.5m
Fw190A-5 (1.0/1.5)
- 21 seconds (180mph), 269.0m
- 21 seconds (162mph), 242.1m
- N/A
Fw190A-8 (1.0/1.5)
4xMG151/20
- 23 seconds (181mph), 296.3m
- 21 seconds (171mph), 255.6m
- N/A
2xMG151/20, 2xMK108
- 23 seconds (181mph), 296.3m
- 23 seconds (172mph), 281.6m
- N/A
Fw190D-9 (1.0/1.5)
- 22 seconds (181mph), 283.4m
- 21 seconds (172mph), 257.1m
- N/A
Fw190F-8 (1.0/1.5)
- 23 seconds (179mph), 293.0m
- 22 seconds (171mph), 267.8m
- N/A
* Fw190s cannot maintain a turn tight/slow enough for full flaps
Hurricane Mk.Ia (0.05)
- 15 seconds (126mph), 134.5m
- N/A
- 15 seconds (104mph), 111.0m
Hurricane Mk.IIc (0.05)
- 15 seconds (136mph), 145.2m
- N/A
- 15 seconds (116mph), 123.8m
Hurricane Mk.IId (0.05)
- 16 seconds (146mph), 166.2m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (116mph), 140.3m
* Hurricanes and Spitfires have only landing flap positions available
Ki-61-I-Tei (0.05)
- 18 seconds (151mph), 193.4m
- 18 seconds (146mph), 187.0m
- 19 seconds (131mph), 177.1m
Ki-84-I-Ko (0.05)
- 17 seconds (153mph), 185.1m
- 17 seconds (130mph), 157.3m
- 16 seconds (117mph), 133.2m
La-5FN (0.05)
- 18 seconds (156mph), 199.8m
- 17 seconds (150mph), 181.5m
- 17 seconds (126mph), 152.4m
La-7 (0.05)
ShVAK
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 18 seconds (153mph), 196.0m
- 17 seconds (127mph), 153.6m
B-20
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 17 seconds (151mph), 182.7m
- 17 seconds (126mph), 152.4m
Me163B (0.05)
- 17 seconds (210mph), 254.1m
- 17 seconds (196mph), 237.1m
- N/A
* Me163B flies too fast at full throttle turn, for full flaps to be used
Me262A (0.05)
- 27 seconds (204mph), 392.0m
- 28 seconds (190mph), 378.7m
- 31 seconds (153mph), 359.6m
Mosquito Mk.VI (0.05)
- 21 seconds (149mph), 222.7m
- 18 seconds (140mph), 179.3m
- 20 seconds (118mph), 167.9m
N1K2-J (0.05)
- 17 seconds (167mph), 202.0m
- 16 seconds (153mph), 174.2m
- 15 seconds (134mph), 143.0m
P-38G (0.05)
- 19 seconds (174mph), 235.3m
- 20 seconds (157mph), 223.5m
- 18 seconds (116mph), 148.6m
P-38J (0.05)
- 21 seconds (180mph), 269.0m
- 19 seconds (170mph), 229.9m
- 19 seconds (116mph), 156.8m
P-38L (0.05)
- 21 seconds (184mph), 275.0m
- 19 seconds (169mph), 228.5m
- 19 seconds (119mph), 160.9m
P-40B (1.0)
- 21 seconds (139mph), 207.7m
- 21 seconds (131mph), 195.8m
- 21 seconds (112mph), 167.4m
P-40E (1.0)
- 19 seconds (154mph), 208.2m
- 19 seconds (140mph), 189.3m
- 19 seconds (124mph), 167.7m
P-47D-11 (0.05)
- 24 seconds, (149mph), 254.5m (+4.0)
- 23 seconds, (137mph), 224.3m (+1.7)
- 23 seconds, (119mph), 194.8m (+6.9)
P-47D-25 (0.05)
- 24 seconds, (158mph), 269.9m (+12.9)
- 23 seconds, (147mph), 240.6m (+6.5)
- 25 seconds, (115mph), 204.6m (+8.2)
P-47D-40 (0.05)
- 24 seconds, (155mph), 264.8m (-6.8)
- 22 seconds, (148mph), 231.7m (-4.7)
- 25 seconds, (117mph), 208.2m (+5.2)
P-47N (0.05)
75%
- 25 seconds, (155mph), 275.8m
- 23 seconds, (147mph), 240.6m
- 27 seconds, (116mph), 222.9m
25%
- 22 seconds, (157mph), 245.8m
- 21 seconds, (147mph), 219.7m
- 23 seconds, (114mph), 186.6m
* New plane
* P-47N was specially tested with 25% fuel as well
P-51B (0.05)
- 21 seconds, (159mph), 237.6m (-6.3)
- 19 seconds, (145mph), 196.1m (-17.6)
- 22 seconds, (119mph), 186.3m (-6.8)
P-51D (0.05)
- 21 seconds, (166mph), 248.1m (-10.5)
- 20 seconds, (152mph), 216.4m (-8.8)
- 21 seconds, (125mph), 186.8m (-2.6)
Spitfire Mk.Ia (0.05)
- 17 seconds (117mph), 141.5m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (97mph) , 117.3m
Spitfire Mk.V
- 16 seconds (137mph), 156.0m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (105mph), 134.5m
Seafire Mk.II (0.05)
- 16 seconds (140mph), 159.4m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (106mph), 135.8m
Spitfire Mk.IX (0.05)
30cal
- 16 seconds (144mph), 164.0m
- N/A
- 16 seconds (118mph), 134.3m
50cal
- 17 seconds (141mph), 170.6m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (121mph), 146.4m
Spitfire Mk.XIV (0.05)
30cal
- 16 seconds (165mph), 187.9m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (119mph), 152.4m
50cal
- 17 seconds (166mph), 200.8m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (118mph), 151.1m
Ta152H-1 (1.0)
- 20 seconds (184mph), 261.9m
- 20 seconds (173mph), 246.2m
- N/A
* Ta152 cannot maintain a turn tight/slow enough for full flaps
Typhoon Mk.Ib (0.05)
- 20 seconds (163mph), 232.0m
- N/A
- N/A
Tempest Mk.V (0.05)
- 18 seconds (168mph), 215.2m
- N/A
- N/A
*Typhoon and Tempest flies too fast at full throttle turn, for flaps to be used
Yak-9T (0.05)
- 20 seconds (144mph), 205.0m
- 19 seconds (132mph), 178.5m
- 19 seconds (116mph), 156.8m
Yak-9U (0.05m)
- 19 seconds (152mph), 205.5m
- 18 seconds (144mph), 184.5m
- 19 seconds (129mph), 174.4m
[/code]
-
Flaps: Up
Type: Radius
----------------------------------------
A6M2: 122.3m
Hurricane Mk.I: 134.5m
A6M5: 138.7m
Spitfire Mk.I: 141.5m
Hurricane Mk.IIc: 145.2m
Spitfire Mk.V: 156.0m
Seafire Mk.II: 159.4m
Spitfire Mk.IX: 164.0m
Hurricane Mk.IId: 166.2m
FM-2: 170.4m
Spitfire Mk.IX(50cal): 170.6m
Bf109E-4: 183.9m
Bf109F-4: 184.5m
Ki-84-I-Ko (0.05): 185.1m
F4F-4: 186.8m
Spitfire Mk.XIV: 187.9m
Ki-61-I-Tei: 193.4m
Bf110C-4: 197.8m
La-5FN: 199.8m
Spitfire Mk.XIV(50cal): 200.8m
N1K2-J: 202.0m
Bf109G-2: 202.1m
C.202: 202.1m
Yak-9T: 205.0m
Yak-9U: 205.5m
La-7: 207.5m
La-7(3x20mm): 207.5m
P-40B (1.0): 207.7m
P-40E: 208.2m
Bf109G-6: 208.8m
Bf109G-6(30mm): 215.2m
Tempest Mk.V: 215.2m
F4U-1D: 216.4m
F4U-1: 219.2m
Mosquito Mk.VI: 222.7m
Bf109G-10: 225.5m
Bf110G-2: 227.0m
C.205: 227.2m
F4U-4: 227.2m
F6F-5: 227.7m
Bf109G-10(30mm): 229.3m
Typhoon Mk.Ib: 232.0m
P-38G: 235.3m
[b]P-51B: 237.6m [/b]
F4U-1C: 242.1m
[b]P-47N(25%): 245.8m[/b]
[b]P-51D: 248.1m[/b]
Me163B: 254.1m
[b]P-47D-11: 254.5m [/b]
Ta152H-1: 261.9m
[b]P-47D-40: 264.8m[/b]
Fw190A-5: 269.0m
[b]P-47D-25: 269.9m[/b]
P-38J: 269.0m
P-38L: 275.0m
[b]P-47N(75%): 275.8m[/b]
Fw190D-9: 283.4m
Fw190F-8: 293.0m
Fw190A-8: 296.3m
Fw190A-8(30mm): 296.3m
Me262A: 392.0m
-
Flaps: 1 notch
Type: Radius
--------------------------------------
A6M2: 114.5m
A6M5: 124.5m
*Hurricane Mk.I: 134.5m
*Spitfire Mk.I: 141.5m
*Hurricane Mk.IIc: 145.2m
FM-2: 146.9m
*Spitfire Mk.V: 156.0m
Ki-84-I-Ko: 157.3m
*Seafire Mk.II 159.4m
Bf110C-4: 161.0m
*Spitfire Mk.IX: 164.0m
*Hurricane Mk.IId: 166.2m
F4F-4: 167.9m
*Spitfire Mk.IX(50cal): 170.6m
N1K2-J: 174.2m
Bf109E-4: 176.8m
Yak-9T: 178.5m
Mosquito Mk.VI: 179.3m
La-5FN: 181.5m
La-7(3x20mm): 182.7m
Yak-9U: 184.5m
C.202: 187.0m
Ki-61-I-Tei: 187.0m
Bf109F-4: 187.1m
*Spitfire Mk.XIV: 187.9m
P-40E: 189.3m
P-40B: 195.8m
La-7: 196.0m
F6F-5: 196.1m
[b]P-51B: 196.1m [/b]
*Spitfire Mk.XIV(50cal): 200.8m
F4U-1D: 201.5m
Bf109G-6: 204.9m
Bf109G-2: 205.0m
Bf110G-2: 205.1m
F4U-1: 206.2m
C.205: 207.5m
F4U-4: 207.5m
F4U-1C: 213.5m
Bf109G-6(30mm): 213.6m
[b]P-51D: 216.4m[/b]
*Tempest Mk.V: 215.2m
[b]P-47N(25%): 219.7m[/b]
Bf109G-10: 220.4m
P-38G: 223.5m
[b]P-47D-11: 224.3m[/b]
Bf109G-10(30mm): 225.8m
P-38L: 228.5m
P-38J: 229.9m
[b]P-47D-40: 231.7m[/b]
*Typhoon Mk.Ib: 232.0m
Me163B: 237.1m
[b]P-47D-25: 240.6m[/b]
[b]P-47N(75%): 240.6m[/b]
Fw190A-5: 242.1m
Ta152H-1: 246.2m
Fw190A-8: 255.6m
Fw190D-9: 257.1m
Fw190F-8: 267.8m
Fw190A-8(30mm): 281.6m
Me262A: 378.7m
-
Flaps: Full
Type: Radius
--------------------------------------
A6M2: 104.6m
Hurricane Mk.I: 111.0m
A6M5: 115.3m
Spitfire Mk.I: 117.3m
Hurricane Mk.IIc: 123.8m
FM-2: 128.1m
Ki-84-I-Ko: 133.2m
Spitfire Mk.IX: 134.3m
Spitfire Mk.V: 134.5m
Seafire Mk.II: 135.8m
F4F-4: 139.5m
Hurricane Mk.IId: 140.3m
Bf110C-4: 142.3m
N1K2-J: 143.0m
F4U-4: 144.7m
Spitfire Mk.IX(50cal): 146.4m
P-38G: 148.6m
F4U-1D: 148.7m
Bf110G-2: 149.5m
F4U-1: 150.9m
Bf109E-4: 151.1m
Spitfire Mk.XIV(50cal): 151.1m
Spitfire Mk.XIV: 152.4m
La-5FN 152.4m
La-7(3x20mm): 152.4m
La-7: 153.6m
F4U-1C: 156.6m
P-38J: 156.8m
Yak-9T: 156.8m
F6F-5: 159.5m
P-38L: 160.9m
C.202: 165.2m
P-40B: 167.4m
P-40E: 167.7m
Mosquito Mk.VI: 167.9m
Bf109F-4: 175.5m
Bf109G-6: 171.6m
Yak-9U: 174.4m
Bf109G-6(30mm): 175.5m
Ki-61-I-Tei: 177.1m
Bf109G-2: 179.0m
[b]P-51B: 186.3m[/b]
[b]P-47N(25%): 186.6m[/b]
[b]P-51D: 186.8m[/b]
Bf109G-10: 192.0m
C.205: 193.6m
[b]P-47D-11: 194.8m[/b]
Bf109G-10(30mm): 201.5m
[b]P-47D-25: 204.6m[/b]
[b]P-47D-40: 208.2m[/b]
*Tempest Mk.V: 215.2m
[b]P-47N(75%): 222.9m[/b]
*Typhoon Mk.Ib: 232.0m
*Me163B: 237.1m
*Fw190A-5: 242.1m
*Ta152H-1: 246.2m
*Fw190A-8: 255.6m
*Fw190D-9: 257.1m
*Fw190F-8: 267.8m
*Fw190A-8(30mm): 281.6m
Me262A: 359.6m
-
dang Kweassa, you sure did put alot of time and effort into this testing & data recording. I have only 1 question.
since you used SL and a standard Fuel Load ie...75%. Do the figures for each plane show or do they not show the correct sustained turn rate of each individual aircraft?
I see a great starting point for new flyers ( and some old ) with all this data you provided for the community, but am unclear on if you are saying these numbers are the best sustained turn rate performance for each individual plane.
Thanks for all your hard work, the community appreciates it :aok
go take a rest, you got to be about bug eyed now, lol j/k
-
nice work kweassa
Reading your test setup i conclude that you turn one lap. I
recommend to turn next time at least 2 laps devide the time by the laps to minimize the error of clock watching, averaging deviations in turn technics and so on. Minimum altitude gain/drop can influence result. 100 ft deviation what you mention in your setup is too much! Stay also at least over 50ft to be away from ground effect what seems to give you in AH some kind of strange extra lift when banked.
niklas
-
.S Kweassa. Your time and effort are appreciated.
Kweassa's results are an accurate RELATIVE comparison for rate and radius. Different pilot techniques will produce slighty varied numbers, but his results aren't meant to be set in stone so cut him some slack.
Kweassa's results do bring FLAP usage in AH into focus.
The automatic retraction feature allows for flap abuse.
I would like to see a system similar to the overstressing of gear and wings instituted for flaps.
The easiest solution imo would be to just remove the flap (as tho it was shot off). Essentially forcing the plane to fly in a clean condition. A slight drag penalty could be applied or not. It would be important that NO drag benefit occur (allowing for a higher top speed).
This would bring plane performance closer to historic form. Combat flaps would be used as designed and there would be a conseqence to pushing flaps to the edge.
-
Reading your test setup i conclude that you turn one lap. I recommend to turn next time at least 2 laps devide the time by the laps to minimize the error of clock watching, averaging deviations in turn technics and so on.
I'll keep that in mind. :)
But in my testing I've turned as many circles as necessary until the speed was stabilized and showed no difference to the eye. Only after then the filming begins, multiple circles are made.
After the filming was complete, I reviewed the turns and chose the one with smallest speed/alt variance of them all, and used its figures.
Minimum altitude gain/drop can influence result. 100 ft deviation what you mention in your setup is too much!
Ofcourse. I'll also keep that in mind.
Although like I've mentioned, many revolutions were filmed once the speed was seemingly stabilized. And then, while reviewing the films I chose the one with smallest variances as possible. Typically less than 3~5mph change in speed during turning.
So I don't think you need to worry about the test figures being thrown off because some planes were losing alt and using more E... and others were gaining alt and losing more E.. and etc.
Stay also at least over 50ft to be away from ground effect what seems to give you in AH some kind of strange extra lift when banked.
Does AH have ground effect over water? All planes were tested over the water.
And if it does, how much would the ground effect throw off test results?
Let's hope HT can answer this one.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Soda: You could use kweasas numbers to extrapolate gs/speed (you have time around circle and speed at max aoa), then just extend them to 6g and speed.
HiTech
HT, I've taken a run at solving a couple of times but I'm not sure I'm getting it. You appear to suggest that G's/speed is linear so you could extend it but that isn't giving me reasonable numbers. I can calculate G, radius, circumference, turn-rate, etc but just haven't gotten the combination together to get best-instantaneous turn speed/rate type numbers.
Any other hints or an example of how it would work?
Thanks,
-Soda
-
Gs are not linear but vary with square of speed.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Does AH have ground effect over water? All planes were tested over the water.
Let's hope HT can answer this one.
I think it should have the same effect close to water as it does to ground. The principal is the same. I haven't really noticed as I don't try to land on the water much.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Gs are not linear but vary with square of speed.
HiTech
Hmmm... I think I had it right, I knew it would be the square of speed based on the forumla. Given Kweassas time and speed numbers, I calculated everything else out and got a sustained value of 122 mph 25.71deg/sec @ 2.5G. Sounds reasonable enough. For the best instantaneous I calculated 188mph, 42 deg/sec and 6G. That made one big assumption though, that radius did not change, you simply applied more speed until you hit 6G. Now, based on the EM diagrams I've seen, radius should decrease slightly (25-75ft) above the sustained radius, correct? Is there a way to calculate that component of variation out?
I have the whole thing in a spreadsheet, will try and clean it up a bit and see how it looks.
-
Is there not some sort of software that could do this with the variables ?
I wonder if there is anyone with contacts at the guys like Lockheed and Boeing etc ?
-
What is the max AoA of the 109 wing (F,G variants)?
Slats deployed.
PS. anybody know what is the comparable NACA profile to be used in calculations?
"A Me 109F/G/K had redesigned wings; they had rounded tips and a changed
profile:Roots NACA 2R1 14.2 Tips NACA 2R1 11.35"
What the heck is 2R1? NACA 23012 or similar is understandable, but 2R1?
-C+
-
Soda: That is do to the force required to over come gravity.
Don't have the math on top of my head on this calc. but basicly you need to calc the resultant force vec pointing inside the circle (i.e turn radius) and the force up force vec overcoming gravity.
The sum of these 2 vectors has to = your total lift vector whch is at an angle.
HiTech
-
I just found this thread. Kweassa, absolutely brilliant work, this has to be one of the most useful things I have seen on this board.
-
Anybody?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
Soda: That is do to the force required to over come gravity.
Don't have the math on top of my head on this calc. but basicly you need to calc the resultant force vec pointing inside the circle (i.e turn radius) and the force up force vec overcoming gravity.
The sum of these 2 vectors has to = your total lift vector whch is at an angle.
HiTech
Wow, I think I got it. There were actually a couple of steps, I had to calculate the bank angles for a flat turn at various G values. Then using that I could calculate what the "useful" G component to apply to the radial force vs. what is essentially wasted in lift. Once that is graphed I get what appears to be the correct curvature and I overlayed radius lines on it and it's a thing of beauty.
Thanks,
-
Wow, I think I got it. There were actually a couple of steps, I had to calculate the bank angles for a flat turn at various G values. Then using that I could calculate what the "useful" G component to apply to the radial force vs. what is essentially wasted in lift. Once that is graphed I get what appears to be the correct curvature and I overlayed radius lines on it and it's a thing of beauty.
Yes indeed, if we are doing a real flat turn, that is with our wings perpendicular to the force of gravity and nose to tail parallel, then we are also falling out of the sky at an accellerating rate up until terminal velocity I suppose. So the question is in a true flat turn as decribed above, where we know all the planes will actually turn tighter since they aren't wasting lift on fighting gravity, are the circles and times for each plane going to be comparatively similar and just an equal percentage smaller. In other words, the spit out-turns the jug in time around the circle by (arbitrary figure here) 30% in a level turn but in a true descending flat turn does that percentage change?
I'm guessing it doesn't. The times will obviously change, but the difference measured in percentage shouldn't
Magoo
-
In comparison, the test results for the P-38s are quite intriguing. Many AH pilots consider the P-38s as one of the best turning planes in the set. Some even go as far as to claiming that P-38s will out-turn Spitfires and N1K2s. However, actual tests say otherwise.
Not at all. At thos parameters, that would be the result I would expect. 75% fuel in a P-38 is a lot of weight, and is proportionately much more weight compaired with other fighters. Sustained flat turns fights are not a good idea with more than 50% internal fuel. Somewhere between 25%-35% is prefered when commiting to a turn fight in the MA enviroment.
Gross internal fuel weight at capacity:
C.205 - 684lbs
N1K2 - 1140lbs
F6f5 - 1500lbs
P51 - 1614lbs
P38G - 1836lbs
P47D - 2250lbs
P38L - 2460lbs
Interesting data Kweassa, looks very thorough.
-
I do like the results of the mossie.:) I've said it has a small radius, it just lacks the acceleration and bleeds E too readily to get into a sustained turn fight.
-
Bah.
The way you shoot, thrila, it's not surprising you never get into sustained turn fights.
"Hmmm, con kind of over that way, think I'll fire over here and ... yeah, there ya go."
:mad:
-
So in actual combat, it is more than likely to expect that the P-47 would easily reach its tightest turn radius and stay their - while the 109 would struggle to maintain such status. In many cases, keeping a turn tight and slow enough to maintain 1 notch of flaps, is itself a grossly difficult task - while a P-47 would easily pull down one, two, or even full flaps and literally run circles around 109s
I finally realize how good I am :D :D :D
-
Kweassa,
Any chance of updating with the new spits? I see badboy has posted new spit charts in the Help forum, maybe you could use the data off his charts.
-
The Spit VIII turns quite well, and better than the XVI - which I presume to be OK.
-
Originally posted by Angus
The Spit VIII turns quite well, and better than the XVI - which I presume to be OK.
Badboy tested both new Spitfires and posted this to the Training forum.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/AH2-SpitXVI-v-SpitVIII.jpg)
As you can see, the two have virtually the same turning ability.
You can read Badboy's Spitfire post and see his Energy Maneuverability Diagrams comparing the SpitV and the SpitVIII here. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164617&pagenumber=1)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Maybe within the next month Mosq... the recent upgrade added so many planes to test, and recently I am thinking about new methods or criterias to test the turns too, so it might take a bit of time.