Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kweassa on December 11, 2005, 05:10:39 PM

Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Kweassa on December 11, 2005, 05:10:39 PM
The Complete Aces High2 Fighter Turn Performance
Revised for version 2.06




[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-14 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 higher SL setting necessary for testing may be translated as follows:

[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 planes that have "fighter" class were tested
2. All planes were turned according to their favored 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.

Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Kweassa on December 11, 2005, 05:14:04 PM
Results are as follows:

Quote
-Results Format-

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


*new/upgraded planes in 2.06 are highlighted in red[/color]


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)
- 19 seconds (139mph), 188.3m
- 18 seconds (134mph), 170.6m
- 18 seconds (110mph), 140.0m[/color]
old values
- 17 seconds (152mph), 183.9m
- 18 seconds (138mph), 176.8m
- 18 seconds (118mph), 151.1m

Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
- 18 seconds (156mph), 199.5m
- 17 seconds (148mph), 178.6m
- 17 seconds (139mph), 167.3m[/color]
old values
- 16 seconds (162mph), 184.5m
- 18 seconds (146mph), 187.1m
- 18 seconds (138mph), 175.5m

Bf109G-2 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
- 18 seconds (167mph), 214.0m
- 18 seconds (158mph), 202.7m
- 17 seconds (148mph), 178.6m[/color]
old values
- 17 seconds (167mph), 202.1m
- 18 seconds (160mph), 205.0m
- 17 seconds (148mph), 179.0m

Bf109G-6 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
- 19 seconds (162mph), 218.8m
- 19 seconds (158mph), 212.4m
- 19 seconds (135mph), 181.8m[/color]
old values
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-14 (1.0/1.2/1.2)  *NEW*
MG151/20
- 18 seconds (168mph), 214.0m
- 18 seconds (158mph), 202.7m
- 20 seconds (135mph), 191.5m
MK108
- 19 seconds (161mph), 217.2m
- 19 seconds (156mph), 210.8m
- 20 seconds (137mph), 194.7m[/color]

Bf109K-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2) *NEW*
- 18 seconds (183mph), 233.3m
- 19 seconds (163mph), 220.4m
- 19 seconds (142mph), 191.5m[/color]
old Bf109G-10 values (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

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

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)
2xShVAK
- 18 seconds (162mph), 207.5m
- 18 seconds (153mph), 196.0m
- 17 seconds (127mph), 153.6m
3xB-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

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 (122mph), 147.5m
- N/A
- 16 seconds (101mph), 114.2m[/color]
old values
- 17 seconds (117mph), 141.5m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (97mph) , 117.3m

Spitfire Mk.V (0.05)
- 16 seconds (138mph), 157.0m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (102mph), 123,2m[/color]
old values
- 16 seconds (137mph), 156.0m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (105mph), 134.5m

Seafire Mk.II (0.05)
- 18 seconds (134mph), 170.6m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (110mph), 140.0m
old values
- 16 seconds (140mph), 159.4m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (106mph), 135.8m

Spitfire Mk.IX (0.05)
- 17 seconds (144mph), 174.1m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (116mph), 140.3m
old values
4x30cal
- 16 seconds (144mph), 164.0m
- N/A
- 16 seconds (118mph), 134.3m
2x50cal
- 17 seconds (141mph), 170.6m
- N/A
- 17 seconds (121mph), 146.4m

Spitfire Mk.VIII (0.05) *NEW*
- 16 seconds (150mph), 170.7m
- N/A
- 16 seconds (125mph), 142.2m

Spitfire Mk.XVI (0.05) *NEW*
- 17 seconds (151mph), 182.6m
- N/A
- 16 seconds (119mph), 135.1m

Spitfire Mk.XIV (0.05)
- 17 seconds (168mph), 203.2m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (130mph), 166.5m
old values
4x30cal
- 16 seconds (165mph), 187.9m
- N/A
- 18 seconds (119mph), 152.4m
2x50cal
- 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

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

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




Quote

Notes:
* Tempest/Typhoon, cannot maintain turn tight/slow enough to use flaps with WEP use
* differences between old and new values are mostly insignificant at best, but curiously, almost all the new values are for the worse
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Kweassa on December 11, 2005, 05:55:02 PM
List by smallest turn radius - Normal flight


Type: Radius
------------------------------------------------------
A6M2: 122.3m
Hurricane Mk.I: 134.5m
A6M5: 138.7m
Hurricane Mk.IIc:         145.2m
[color=red]Spitfire Mk.I: 147.5m [/color]
[color=red]Spitfire Mk.V: 157.0m [/color]
Hurricane Mk.IId:         166.2m
FM-2: 170.4m
[color=red]Seafire Mk.II: 170.6m [/color]
[color=red]Spitfire Mk.VIII:           170.7m[/color]
[color=red]Spitfire Mk.IX:         174.1m[/color]
[color=red]Spitfire Mk.XVI:         182.6m[/color]
Ki-84-I-Ko (0.05):         185.1m
F4F-4: 186.8m
[color=red]Bf109E-4:         188.3m[/color]
Ki-61-I-Tei: 193.4m
Bf110C-4:         197.8m
[color=red]Bf109F-4:         199.5m[/color]
La-5FN: 199.8m
Spitfire Mk.XIV(50cal): 200.8m
N1K2-J: 202.0m
C.202: 202.1m
[color=red]Spitfire Mk.XIV:         203.2m[/color]
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
[color=red]Bf109G-2:         214.0m[/color]
[color=red]Bf109G-14(20mm): 214.0m[/color]
Tempest Mk.V: 215.2m
F4U-1D: 216.4m
[color=red]Bf109G-14(30mm): 217.2m[/color]
[color=red]Bf109G-6:         218.8m[/color]
F4U-1: 219.2m
Mosquito Mk.VI: 222.7m
Bf110G-2:         227.0m
C.205: 227.2m
F4U-4: 227.2m
F6F-5: 227.7m
[color=red]Bf109K-4:                  233.3m[/color]
Typhoon Mk.Ib: 232.0m
P-38G: 235.3m
P-51B:         237.6m
F4U-1C: 242.1m
P-47N(25%) 245.8m
P-51D:         248.1m
Me163B: 254.1m
P-47D-11:         254.5m
Ta152H-1:         261.9m
P-47D-40:         264.8m
Fw190A-5:         269.0m
P-47D-25:         269.9m
P-38J: 269.0m
P-38L: 275.0m
P-47N(75%) 275.8m
Fw190D-9:         283.4m
Fw190F-8:         293.0m
Fw190A-8:         296.3m
Fw190A-8(30mm): 296.3m
Me262A: 392.0m
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Kweassa on December 11, 2005, 05:57:45 PM
will post the list for one notch and full flaps later today.
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Kweassa on December 11, 2005, 05:58:24 PM
reserving this one more space for the lists.
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: moot on December 11, 2005, 07:55:07 PM
extra tabs don't mean anything, do they?
Thanks for the work.

- K4 and tiffie are switched, according to those numbers.
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Kweassa on December 12, 2005, 01:42:31 AM
Woops, my error. The Typhoon should be ahead of the K-4 in that list.

 
 Aww crap, when did they change the post editing time to 2hrs?
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Wolfala on December 12, 2005, 02:59:41 AM
Just out of curiosity, did you bust out the tape measure for all of these?
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: straffo on December 12, 2005, 03:12:25 AM
Just on question how do you make the measurement ?
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: TimRas on December 12, 2005, 05:04:49 AM
Kweassa,

The last decimal in the turn radius is rather meaningless, unless your measurement accuracy of time is in the order of 1/100th of a second. If the possible error of turn time is about 0.5s, the error in radius is around 5m.
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Kweassa on December 12, 2005, 06:00:42 AM
Used a stopwatch to measure the turns in recorded films, the cockpit compass was the reference to forming a full circle, and the speed was taken from the film viewer and averaged out.

 The measurements are simply using 2*pi*r formula. If the measured plane was clocked at stable X mph for Y seconds to finish a full circle with the tightest turn possible, the distance the plane traveled is the diameter of the circle; X*Y = 2*pi*r.

 So, using 3.14 as pi value,

  (X*Y)/6.28 = r  

 convert the radius to meters from miles, and that's how I got it.

 For a loose comparison on the credibility, Badboy's measurements on the Spit8 turn radius is 533ft with 25% fuel. My figures are 560ft with 75%. His figures for the Spit5 with 25% fuel is 516.0ft, mine is 515.1ft at 75% fuel.
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: straffo on December 12, 2005, 07:20:04 AM
Now the problem is how a math guy like me didn't figure how to calculate this.

Let say it was monday morning :D
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Furball on December 12, 2005, 12:22:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
Now the problem is how a math guy like me didn't figure how to calculate this.

Let say it was monday morning :D


it is okay, you are french. and no one expects anything remotely like help out of the french. ;)
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Crumpp on December 12, 2005, 02:14:27 PM
Quote
no one expects anything remotely like help out of the french.


:rofl
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: moot on March 03, 2008, 01:36:54 PM
Visual graph of the above rates.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2085/2307680173_fe1c3b0bd1_o.gif)

Kweassa, I'll trade you another graph like the above vs. 1 notch and full flap data.
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Krusty on March 03, 2008, 01:51:05 PM
Some of this just isn't born out in the game. Looking at that chart there are some large discrepencies that make me doubt it's capacity for describing the craft in-game.

As an aside: Also, I wonder how it matches up to historical performance charts? Has anybody tried comparing that yet?
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: moot on March 03, 2008, 01:53:44 PM
It all looks about right.  This is without any flaps.
The only real factor I'd like to have added is fuel loads.  I don't know the historical conventions for fuel loads during testing, but I do know that in AH the 25% increments don't fit all the planes.  Some planes were meant to maneuver only under a certain amount of fuel in certain fuel tanks, which probably doesn't coincide with 25% multiples...  Some planes are great turners only once you've drained volumes of fuel meant for endurance, not combat ACM.

Maybe ~20min of flight's worth of fuel, at MIL or WEP would be a good standard.
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Motherland on March 03, 2008, 02:17:20 PM
The 109G14 and 109G2 have the same turn radius? Thats odd...
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Krusty on March 03, 2008, 03:58:12 PM
No more odd than some others...

The Yak9U and Yak9T have identical radii in this chart. In-game the 9T turns tighter (without flaps) enough to be felt. I believe this is also true in historic performance charts (I could be wrong, but I think I've seen turn charts on these 2 before).

It would also have me believe the mosquito out-turned the 109k4, the f4u4, and the f6f. :huh


EDITED
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: trotter on March 03, 2008, 05:53:31 PM
Krusty, maybe some of the oddities you perceive come from the fact that this testing was all done with the stall limiter on. Some planes (even assuming equal pilot skill) will ride closer to the stall better than others, with or without flaps deployed. Stall limiter keeps them all above that point, but of course that's not what one sees in game.

Anyway Kweassa great job and thanks moot for the visual graph.
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: humble on March 03, 2008, 08:28:01 PM
how about an A-20:D
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on March 03, 2008, 08:50:13 PM
Same thing i asked to myself krusty, sadly its a  "bomber"


:|
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: cobia38 on March 03, 2008, 09:34:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by humble
how about an A-20:D


 just ran 2 runs at 0-500 alt
 first run was 15 seconds at 225 start speed no flaps 25% fuel
 second run was 15.5 seconds  at 250 start speed no flaps 25% fuel  :D
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: humble on March 03, 2008, 09:59:55 PM
:aok
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: moot on March 03, 2008, 10:15:12 PM
Cobia that amounts to about 350m radius, or right on the far end near the 262's radius, 50m wider than the second worst radius (190A8).  You might want to either redo them and watch what the end speed is, and/or post the film, and/or do extra runs with 1 notch of flap and full flaps.
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: cobia38 on March 03, 2008, 10:36:55 PM
ok i slowed it down this time avrage speed 172 at 17.4 seconds  no flaps
 i,m no math wiz so i have no clue what the radius is. lol
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: MOSQ on March 03, 2008, 10:51:39 PM
Cobia38,

When I did all my testing I tested the A-20. I'm not sure why DokGonZo didn't include on his comparison site, maybe becuase he only has fighters listed.

As you of all people know, the A-20 turns well for a while. With no flaps and 25% fuel it out turns these planes with no flaps:
These are in order of best to worst turning ability.

F4U-1D 50%
Mosquito Hvy. Ammo 25%
Bf 109-G14 1x30.2x20 25%
F4U-1C 25%
FW-190 A-5  2x 25%
F4U-1D 75%
P47 D-25  6x 267 25%
P47 D-40  6x 267 25%
P47 D-11  8x 425 25%
P38-G Hvy Ammo  25%
P51-B 25%
P-47N 6x 267 25%
P51 D  6x 25%
FW-190 A-5  4x 25%
TA-152-H1 25%
F4U-1D 99%
P47 D-40  8x 425 25%
P-47N 8x 425 25%
P38-J  Hvy Ammo  25%
P38-L Hvy Ammo 25%
P47 D-25  8x 425  25%
FW-190 A-5  2x 99%
FW-190 D-9 25%
FW-190 A-8  4x 20 25%
B-26
FW-190 F8 25%
B-25 H
Me 262

With full flaps 25% fuel it out turns these planes with full flaps:

P47 D-25  6x 267 25%
P38-L Hvy Ammo 25%
P-47N 8x 425 25%
P38-J  Hvy Ammo  25%
P47 D-25  8x 425  25%
P51 D  6x 25%
FW-190 D-9 25%
P51-B 25%
P47 D-40  8x 425 25%
FW-190 F8 25%
FW-190 A-8  4x 20 25%
B-26
Me 262
Title: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: moot on March 03, 2008, 11:12:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
(X*Y)/6.28 = r  

 convert the radius to meters from miles

So:
Speed x time / 6.28 = radius.
172 is in MPH, radius in Kweassa's table is in meters..
172mph = 276,807meters per hour
or
276,807/60 meters per minute
or
276,807/60/60 = 76.8 meters per second, so:
76.8m * 17.4s = 1,338m (circumference)
and back to the original circle circumference equation:
1,338m/6.28 = 213m radius, which would put it right in the middle of the chart, under the 109G2.

You should try it with 1 notch of flap.

p.s. I'm a bit drunk so the math may be completely off..
Title: Re: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Lumpy on March 07, 2008, 08:01:13 AM
Kweassa posted those numbers more than two years ago. Isn't that before the big drag/air flow FM change? If so then the numbers are worthless now.
Title: Re: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Krusty on March 07, 2008, 10:53:01 AM
I believe 2.06 (or right around that) is when the airflow was redone, and this says "revised 2.06" so I assume it's revised for the new numbers.

I think the flaw is in the method used to attain them. For one, it doesn't sound like he's equalized the speed (sustained vs instant turn rates), and for another the stall limiter itself does not level the playing field, and may make aircraft turn at a worse rate than they are capable of sustaining. The first point maybe he can clarify, but I don't agree that using the SL is the key, especially since it's giving results inconsistent with history and with how the game feels when you fly it. Not his fault, I just think he's got a flawed process.


I'm not saying I personally could do better, but I am saying I trust these numbers less than MOSQs (slightly less, mind you)
Title: Re: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Kweassa on March 07, 2008, 11:06:28 PM
Quote
Kweassa, I'll trade you another graph like the above vs. 1 notch and full flap data.

 I dunno what suddenly got you interested in the results of a bit outdated data,  but the results you want are right there, moot.

 This 2.06 revision of "The Complete Aces High2 Fighter Performance" does not include the results of the recent FM change. What it is, is that it includes the turn performance data for the revised roster of the Bf109 family and the Spitfires, due to addition of new variants such as the G-14, K-4, Spit8 and 16 and such. The second post in this whole thread, is the overall results that contain data for turn radius under; normal flight conditions, one-notch flaps, and full-flaps. The results are displayed under the following format:

Quote
Plane Type (Stall limiter angle used)
- time to complete turn under normal setting (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete turn under one notch of flap (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete turn under full flap (average turn speed), radius

*Individual Notes

 Therefore, all you have to do is take the 2nd and 3rd listed numbers for 1-notch and full-flaps, and then sort them around in numerical order to get the list.

 

Quote
The only real factor I'd like to have added is fuel loads.  I don't know the historical conventions for fuel loads during testing, but I do know that in AH the 25% increments don't fit all the planes.  Some planes were meant to maneuver only under a certain amount of fuel in certain fuel tanks, which probably doesn't coincide with 25% multiples...  Some planes are great turners only once you've drained volumes of fuel meant for endurance, not combat ACM.

 I've clarified the fuel settings under the "Test Parameters" section, which states:

Quote
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.
  (ie. The F4U-1 at 75% fuel, carries more fuel load than the F4U-1D at 75% fuel)[

 Mosq's data uses 25% fuel, which is a setting I do not agree with. My interest was in a bit more realistic condition which fighter aircraft would meet, were they on real duty. 25% fuel left in the tanks is not a combat fuel load - fighters would long be on the way returning home if they only had 25% fuel in their tanks. Thus, my reasoning was that a fuel load between 50~75% would be more realistic to consider, since this would be the condition the fighters would be in when they've reached the mission destination and started combat.

 Thus, 25% fuel and 100% fuel were omitted - and I chose 75% for the testing parameters.



 

 
Title: Re: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Kweassa on March 08, 2008, 01:30:53 AM
Quote
trotter: Krusty, maybe some of the oddities you perceive come from the fact that this testing was all done with the stall limiter on. Some planes (even assuming equal pilot skill) will ride closer to the stall better than others, with or without flaps deployed. Stall limiter keeps them all above that point, but of course that's not what one sees in game.

 trotter, the key concept in this testing is understanding the difference between a "turning method used in real combat" and a "pure physical turn".

 Real combat situation warrant different types of plane control and micro-management. Like you said, in many cases a plane can "ride closer to the stall", "mush through the stall", or even "tighten the turn using stall". These are all very practical methods of maximizing your plane's capability to turn, but unfortunately it does not give you an objective comparison on how your plane can turn.

 In testings done by pure hand, when you tighten a plane's turn there are moments in which your plane might buffets wallow around a bit, perhaps even starting wobble a bit on the roll axis, indicating an imminent stall. Any pilot will have to counter it by adjusting his flight controls. The problem is, every time a minute change is made, the test results are more and more botched, as the turn process is effected by pilot input. On the other hand, if the pilot tends to avoid this from happening in the first place, his grip on the plane might be unconsciously affected - he might be loosening his turn a bit. In this case the results are also botched since the plane may not actually be pushed to its extremes.

 In short, its the human factor. A good pilot may considerably better manage his plane during a turn, however, even the best of AH pilots aren't familiar with every plane there is... not to mention they are also prone to making mistakes in turning.


 Thus enters the stall limiter method.

 The stall limiter is basically a stick-pull limitation system which inhibits your plane to stop X degrees before the stalling AoA defined by the game. Every plane has its own AoA in which the plane would fall under a stall - and the stall limiter stops your stick effect at the set angle before that AoA. The beauty of the stall limiter(henceforth referred as "SL") testing method, is that the inhibition angle can be custom set.

 The reason people misunderstand my testing, is because they assume the SL setting I've used for my testings, would be the same as the SL setting currently experienced in MA - which, it is not. The SL setting I've used for the testings are all individually tested out in each plane to the lowest point possible, so that I may be able to just ham-fist pull back on my stick in a turn and yet the plane would not wobble or destabilize, experiencing stall effects. The figures I've used are also recorded, in which case most of them are 0.05 - this means, the SL inhibition effect casted upon the individual tested plane, is merely 0.05 degrees before the stall AoA. If I'd pull 0.05 degrees more on my stick, the plane would stall out. In comparison, the MA SL figures are around 2~5 degrees IIRC, 40~100 times higher than the setting I've used in my testings.

 In short, all the planes in my testings are mechanically geared to stop around 0.05 degrees before stall AoA by the system - which is practically about the lowest point a human pilot would also probably be able to stop the plane before it stalls. By all practical means, my tested planes are turning as about as well as any human pilot would turn his plane - except my testings are mistake-free, devoid of the human factor. They make no mistakes - the turns are constant, without worrying about the human factor in which case may sometimes pull harder, or weaker, than necessary. They don't "mush" through the stall, nor "ride" through the stall - all of them stop about 0.05 degrees before stall.

 


 
 
 

Title: Re: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Kweassa on March 08, 2008, 01:46:25 AM
Quote
Krusty: I believe 2.06 (or right around that) is when the airflow was redone, and this says "revised 2.06" so I assume it's revised for the new numbers...

 2.06 was the version which introduced the Bf109G-14, Spit8, and Spit16, and then redesignated the Bf109G-10 as a Bf109K-4.


Quote
I think the flaw is in the method used to attain them. For one, it doesn't sound like he's equalized the speed (sustained vs instant turn rates)...

 All turns have been timed/measured after the plane has stabilized into a steady altitude/speed after doing multiple 360 revolutions.


Quote
...and for another the stall limiter itself does not level the playing field, and may make aircraft turn at a worse rate than they are capable of sustaining.

 This is explained in the above post. SL is a not a singular system - its parameteres are customizable.


Quote
The first point maybe he can clarify, but I don't agree that using the SL is the key, especially since it's giving results inconsistent with history... and with how the game feels when you fly it.

 ...such as...?

 

Quote
Not his fault, I just think he's got a flawed process.

 Funny you should mention, since my "process" was approved by HT himself.

Title: Re: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: moot on March 08, 2008, 02:35:30 AM
Thanks Kweassa, I misread that. I'll do a chart for those too, unless you think it's not worth it.

I think the charts deserve another data series that's more adapted to AH's dogfighting condition, i.e. light fuel loads..  They aren't uncommon given the proximity of fields and furballs.  I think it's worth doing.. It just requires a few clicks in excel to give everyone a clear look at how the planes compare.
Title: Re: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Kweassa on March 08, 2008, 05:23:27 AM

 moot,


 These sort of testings and data is all I can offer to AH2 and its wonderful community. Whether the community thinks its worthy or not is entirely up to them. So feel free to use it as necessary, moot - I hold no objections to any kind of use or distribution of the testings whatsoever. If you think its worth something, then its all flattering to me :) .

 ...

 However, in perhaps a loose defense for myself my own data, the recent FM changes have been noted for making drastic changes for certain planes but I myself remain more or less skeptical to just how drastic it is. To be specific, I myself maintain that any sort of FM changes made by HTC would probably have a more global effect on most of the planes by its nature, and although it is possible that a few planes may be feeling the effects more or less, my assumption is the relative "scale" of performance is largely unchanged. The testings are of v2.05 and v2.06, but its not as if a recent version of a Spitfire is suddenly going to show drastic changes in relative turn performance when compared with 2.06 Spits.


 With utmost respect for Mosq and his testings as a premise, his and my testings have somewhat different parameters and level of tolerance, and like all would-be researchers might naturally be :) , I also tend to trust the objectivity of my own data then others.

 Likewise, the recent effect of "FM changes" are largely reported and propagated amongst the community through the efforts of one man - Widewing. Again, with my deepest respect to Widewing, I remain somewhat skeptical to some of his reportings and objectivity of testings, not to mention his reported facts on how the planes perform are not really validated or confirmed by others. People tend to just believe what Widewing says, and probably rightfully so. However, to really confirm just how much "FM" has been changed needs another global testing in the manner Mosq, or myself, have done in the past. This has never been done, and currently most people take WW's reports on 'P-51s, 109s, F4Us and their flaps' at face value. I myself, have doubts.

 Personally, I have a fleeting suspicion that another set of testings done under the same criteria as the previous two testings, will probably show that the reality of those individual planes might be different... but unfortunately laziness has kept me from doing another round of testings (that, and a broken stopwatch).


 Perhaps in the near future (maybe if I'm waylaid from my job again and have some free time :D ) I might try and update the results with a new round of global testings.. but for now, I leave this old junk to you moot :). I am very grateful you took the time to make it into a visible chart, since I don't know how to use such programs.


 - K out -

Title: Re: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Masherbrum on March 08, 2008, 09:04:44 AM
The Ki 61 turned with FM2's in WWII.   I hope this gets fixed by HTC soon.   
Title: Re: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Widewing on March 08, 2008, 11:30:40 AM
In short, its the human factor. A good pilot may considerably better manage his plane during a turn, however, even the best of AH pilots aren't familiar with every plane there is... not to mention they are also prone to making mistakes in turning.

I understand your purpose, and it's quite valid within the concept that most players do not know the actual limits of the various aircraft. It removes pilot skill from the equation, thus eliminates variables associated with skill. This is important in relation to the community in general. I will go back to this further down in this post.

As for me, I can easily turn smaller circles in any aircraft with Stall Limiter turned off. Then again, I enjoy flying on the ragged edge and have become quite adept at it.

When Mosq and I compare our turn data, we find that there is little difference. There are exceptions, simply because you can fly too deep into a stall and actually reduce the turn radius as the aircraft mushes in the turn. There is a fine line and you can find it with a little practice. Basically, when the aircraft enters a slight oscillation where the wings generate a very slight rhythmical wobble in the roll axis, that's the practical limit. If you can hold it there, you have attained the best possible sustained turn.

Another factor not usually considered is flight hardware. Simply stated, the higher quality hardware you have, the better the result will be. A caveat to that is stick set-up. Damping, deadband and scaling will influence the result. When you are flying at the limit of the flight modeling, differences in hardware, although very minor, have a bearing on the result. Spiking hardware will absolutely ruin any ability to fly at the limits. You get what you pay for. A $35 stick will give $35 results. That's why I use only CH Products hardware (having tried almost everything else over the years). Twisty sticks are imprecise and invite unintended rudder displacement. Rocker type rudder control is better than twisty types, but it's still crude when compared to a good set of pedals.

That leads us around the circle and back to the issue of pilot skill. Smooth application of stick and rudder are paramount to being able to fly at the limit. Harsh stick inputs will induce stalls (wing dipping, etc) and waste valuable energy. Excessive use of top rudder to offset wing dip kills E via cross controlling and tends to decrease bank angle. Both increase turn radius, sometimes dramatically so.

Taking everything into account, all turn radius data that does not reflect using Stall Limiter, is the result of factors that will vary widely from player to player. Thus, knowing that your Spitfire can out-turn a P-38 does not guarantee that an individual pilot can do so. It depends on factors defined above, and some factors not yet discussed.

Kweassa's data is the perfect baseline upon which pilots can build their plane handling skills. That's where its real value lies.

Oh, and Kweassa, thanks for taking the time to compile the data. I know how much time was involved.

My regards,

Widewing
Title: Re: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: Oldman731 on March 08, 2008, 12:01:38 PM
Kweassa's data is the perfect baseline upon which pilots can build their plane handling skills. That's where its real value lies.

Oh, and Kweassa, thanks for taking the time to compile the data. I know how much time was involved.

Agreed on both points.  This is great stuff, Kweassa, thanks very much.

- oldman
Title: Re: The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance (revised 2.06)
Post by: waystin2 on March 08, 2008, 03:44:37 PM
Thank you for the info and graph gentleman.

<Salute> :aok