Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Widewing on December 05, 2006, 01:21:39 PM
-
After the release of version 2.09, we discovered that some aircraft were demonstrating changes in acceleration from the previous version. It seemed that these changes were effecting acceleration above 300 mph TAS.
So, I elected to test several aircraft and compare the new data to that compiled and currently used on Dokgonzo's excellent interactive web page. Those numbers were accurate for the previous version of AH2.
My testing was done at 100 feet ASL. Only aircraft capable of attaining 350 mph at sea level were tested. This is not meant to be a comprehensive test, but to determine if there are changes and to what extent. Fuel was 25% with zero burn rate. Normal gun and ammo loads were used (no reduced ammo/guns).
Time was measured to accelerate from 150 mph TAS to 350 mph TAS.
Listed in order from fastest to slowest Second figure shows the difference from version 2.08 to version 2.09. If the difference between versions was less than 0.25 seconds, I considered it as no change.
Tempest: 1:00.38 No change
La-7: 1:06.75 +0.8 seconds (takes 0.8 seconds more to attain 350 mph)
F4U-4: 1:14.21 -2.8 seconds (takes 2.8 seconds less to attain 350 mph)
109K-4: 1:15.75 -0.8 seconds
190D-9: 1:17.21 -1.1 seconds
Typhoon: 1:25.78 No change
Spitfire14: 1:26.81 +1.3 seconds
La-5FN: 1:36.50 +1.8 seconds
F4U-1A: 1:37.17 New as of V2.09
P-51D: 1:38.31 -0.3 seconds
P-47N: 1:41.56 No Change
Ta 152H: 1:44.25 +0.9 seconds
Yak-9U: 1:47.37 +1.4 seconds
F4U-1D: 1:55.41 -22.5 seconds
F4U-1C: 2:00.25 -24.2 seconds
F4U-1: 2:01.61 -6.9 seconds
P-51B: 2:02.44 -3.7 seconds
You can see that most aircraft show minor changes or none at all. However, the F4Us all show improvement in acceleration, with the F4U-1C and -1D showing major gains. There was no previous version of the F4U-1A, but the newly added fighter displays very good acceleration over the whole speed range down on the deck.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Any chance of getting a similar breakdown for low-end acceleration. Great to know the overall accel to max level at sea level, but low-end would be more useful to know for combat.
-
When you factor in that the F4U-1A has 50% more fuel than the F4U-1D (90 gals vs 60 gals) that is impressive.
But the question is "How is this possible?". I thought that empty, both planes were about the same weight but the -1D had a more powerful engine.
Or is the -1D faster to 200, 250, etc, and the -1A faster to 350 because of its higher top speed? (I'm at work or I would test this myself).
-
Is anyone else suspicious about the insane jump the -1C and -1D made?
-
Yes. I think there are bugs yet to be worked out.
-
I thought 190A8 does 351mph at deck?
I does it with 1.65 ata so I don't know how much our A8 develops....
-C+
-
There was a discussion (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166210&highlight=F4U1D) about strange shape of the F6F and F4U curves in the past. Perhaps the power output is fixed now?
gripen
-
Charge, I don't think I've ever gotten a 190A8 in Aces High to 350 on the deck.
-
Widewing: I went and did your test in both 2.0803 and the current version.
Did the test on f4u1d.
V209 1:54
V208 1:55
I.E. both were in my margin of messering error.
So Im not sure where your error is comming from, but things have not changed.
-
"Charge, I don't think I've ever gotten a 190A8 in Aces High to 350 on the deck."
Well, then I'm glad the other planes fulfill the expectations. :p
-C+
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Is anyone else suspicious about the insane jump the -1C and -1D made?
no
-
Originally posted by hitech
Widewing: I went and did your test in both 2.0803 and the current version.
Did the test on f4u1d.
V209 1:54
V208 1:55
I.E. both were in my margin of messering error.
So Im not sure where your error is comming from, but things have not changed.
I used the data from DokGonzo's page for both the F4U-1C and the -1D. Also, Mosq tested the -1D immediately after V2.09 was released and posted his numbers in this thread. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=192317)
His numbers for both software versions were:
F4U-1D
2.08: 150 to 350: 137 secs (2:17)
2.09: 150 to 350: 121 secs.(2:01)
I no longer have V2.08 to retest aircraft, so I used the data compiled by Mosq.
My test method is as follows:
Establish a steady speed of 140 mph. Add enough power to increase speed by 1 mph per second. At 150 mph, throttle goes to full power and WEP is engaged. Stop watch is started at same time. Worst case error is 0.2 seconds. Typical error is less than that. At 350 mph all aircraft are accelerating very slowly, and error on the back side is no more than 0.1 seconds. Since the error is consistent from plane to plane, 0.2 seconds is deducted from time on watch to account for reaction time.
Perhaps Mosq can elaborate on his test method. Maybe he carried more fuel?
Note that the differences between Mosq's V2.08 data and my V2.09 data are generally close, with no difference greater than 4 seconds, except for 3 of the F4Us.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing:I assume you noticed your test and mine agree. Also I assume you used the E6B for speeds.
If you really want to validate that nothing has changed I can post a 20803 link for you.
HiTech
-
In general, wouldn't one want to use full fuel to test acceleration? It would take longer, yes, but it would be more representative of how it would function in-game, right?
-
Originally posted by hitech
Widewing:I assume you noticed your test and mine agree. Also I assume you used the E6B for speeds.
If you really want to validate that nothing has changed I can post a 20803 link for you.
HiTech
Yes, our times are with tenths of a second of each other. I'm a Project Engineer and I test a great deal of weapons hardware. Which, I suppose is why I test everything here as well, Not to validate per se, but to learn as much about each plane's flight envelope as is possible. For guys like me it's almost compulsive.. ;)
I appreciate your offer. However, I certainly believe what you say. I'm more curious as to how the 2:17 time was derived as it is vastly different from you times and mine. Perhaps Mosq will delve in and clear it up.
Thanks,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Krusty
In general, wouldn't one want to use full fuel to test acceleration? It would take longer, yes, but it would be more representative of how it would function in-game, right?
We test for best case within controllable factors. When you know that, you know that any increase in weight will reduce performance. What complicates the criterion is that there are infinite possible weight variations for any given aircraft within absolute minimum to absolute maximum. One could establish worst-case data, but defining worst-case is somewhat speculative as no one will actually be flying in that condition (you've burned off some fuel just getting off the runway). Within reasonable practicality, we cannot test many weight variations. So, we test that closest to best case where we have control of weight change, and that is with 25% gas, no burn.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Since I've spotted Widewing, I'd like to ask of his advice. I've encountered the #13 Mustang Ace in the MA and he says that the P-51 is better overall in terms of air superiority than all the Hogs. Now, I don't know whether he's right or wrong, but in order to truly tell, I'm going to need advice from both sides.
According to my research, the Hog (in real life) could slightly outturn the Stang and out maneuver it in most situations. However, the 4-Hog was a completely different story. Acceleration was better, turning, heck.. even bombload. The only thing that wasn't better was range and energy-retention.
But now he's got me thinking. :confused:
-
Meh up a 4hog and show em.
4hog is probably the best prop ac in game. IMHO
Bronk
-
Any F4U should have no problem handling the P-51.
She's more maneuverable and rolls better at virtually any airspeed (from what I've gathered on these boards the maneuverability of the F4U is NOT exaggerated in the MA, just that some of her departure characteristics are under-modeled). Top-end acceleration for both the -4 and 1A is superior (F4U-4 by a fairly significant margin, 1A by roughly a second). Energy retention is actually BETTER in the F4U than the P-51 (one of the recent threads around her shows that quite clearly). The F4U's flaps, as noted elsewhere, are probably among the best in the game. The zoom is also superior (a P-51 opening on a Corsair after a dive will be caught VERY quickly if he tries to zoom, something I've made more than a few Ponies pay for). Firepower is either the same or better (all five Hogs outgun the P-51B) and the F4U is more rugged (or at least should be. The F4U's engine here is made of glass, and I think parts of the airframe blow off much more easily than they should).
And to the F4Us notorious low-speed stall and departure, the P-51 proved to be FAR nastier when departing, and if the centerline fuel tank wasn't adequately drained while attempting combat maneuvers she was known to swap ends quite violently.
The P-51's main assets are range and high-altitude performance. She WILL out-distance the F4U, however this largely doesn't come into play on the MA. Her high-altitude performance is enough to balance out a fight at altitude, but not much more than that. Such situations are also rare in the MA. She's faster at altitude than the early-model Hogs, but that advantage largely disappears against the F4U-4.
Given equal pilots and starting conditions the F4U will beat the P-51 in the majority of duels.
-
Originally posted by Charge
I thought 190A8 does 351mph at deck?
I does it with 1.65 ata so I don't know how much our A8 develops....
-C+
190A-8 should do 350 at deck at 1.58 ata.
Our Fw-190A-5 is still has bugs. It's too fast at FTH (full-throttle-height) and too slow at deck.
If we managed to squeak THAT F4U-1A in AH lineup, then we should add the Fw-190A-3 and replace that Fw-190A-5 with Fw-190A-6.
-
It seems to me that the arrival of the 1A was less of a squeak, more of a boom. ;)
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Since I've spotted Widewing, I'd like to ask of his advice. I've encountered the #13 Mustang Ace in the MA and he says that the P-51 is better overall in terms of air superiority than all the Hogs. Now, I don't know whether he's right or wrong, but in order to truly tell, I'm going to need advice from both sides.
According to my research, the Hog (in real life) could slightly outturn the Stang and out maneuver it in most situations. However, the 4-Hog was a completely different story. Acceleration was better, turning, heck.. even bombload. The only thing that wasn't better was range and energy-retention.
But now he's got me thinking. :confused:
So who is the 13th Mustang ace? I'm not sure what that means.
Not that it matters much. While the P-51D is a great fighter, it has several areas where it does not excel. In every category except outward vision and maximum range, the F4U-4 out-performs the P-51D.
Let's compare the P-51D to the F4U-4. An * indicates the winner in the category. All data recorded offline with 25% fuel, zero burn.
Speed at 100 feet ASL.
P-51D: 367 mph
F4U-4: 376 mph*
Speed at 10,000 feet ASL.
P-51D: 406 mph*
F4U-4: 398 mph
Speed at 16,000 feet ASL.
P-51D: 407 mph
F4U-4: 425 mph*
Speed at 20,000 feet ASL.
P-51D: 425 mph
F4U-4: 440 mph*
Speed at 25,000 feet (best altitude for both types)
P-51D: 441 mph
F4U-4: 446 mph*
Acceleration from 150 to 250 mph at 100 feet ASL, measured in seconds.
P-51D: 25.11
F4U-4: 20.19*
Acceleration from 200 to 300 mph at 100 feet ASL, measured in seconds.
P-51D: 38.16
F4U-4: 29.91*
Acceleration from 150 to 350 mph at 100 feet ASL, in minutes:seconds.
P-51D: 1:38.31
F4U-4: 1:14.26*
Acceleration from 200 to 300 mph at 20,000 feet ASL measured in seconds.
P-51D: 36.04
F4U-4: 29.15*
Acceleration from 200 to 300 mph at 25,000 feet ASL measured in seconds.
P-51D: 43.53
F4U-4: 38.08*
Dive acceleration: Time to dive from 20,000 feet to 5,000 feet, starting at 350 mph.
P-51D: 21.60 seconds
F4U-4: 21.02 seconds*
Time to climb from 50 feet ASL to 10,000 feet ASL, starting at 180 mph with WEP.
P-51D: 2:45.36
F4U-4: 2:20.25*
Roll rate at 300 mph, average of 3 tests, 3 consecutive rolls per test.
P-51D: 93 degrees/second
F4U-4: 99 degrees/second*
Turn radius and rate, full flaps
P-51D: 623.6 feet @ 16.6 degrees/second
F4U-4: 424.8 feet @ 19.8 degrees/second*
Energy retention, full power. Starting 450 mph in WEP, speed retained after 30 seconds and 90 seconds. Level at 300 feet ASL.
P-51D: 404 mph/376 mph
F4U-4: 404 mph/383 mph*
Ordnance and ammunition loads:
P-51D: 2x1000 lb + 6 five-inch rockets, 1,880 rounds of .50 call ammo.
F4U-4: 2x1000 lb + 8 five-inch rockets, 2,400 rounds of .50 cal ammo.*
Given equal pilots, the P-51D is out-classed by the F4U-4 in virtually metric applying to fighter performance.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by 1K3
If we managed to squeak THAT F4U-1A in AH lineup, then we should add the Fw-190A-3 and replace that Fw-190A-5 with Fw-190A-6.
:aok
-
Ha.. I thoughts so. Thanks again, Widewing... Wow that Stang is vastly overrated. Even my workmates have got the Spamcan as their #1.
-
Yes but can the F4U do it over BERLIN! :aok
-
Oh, I'll concede the Mustang has superior range, but that's not as significant once the tanks are cut and the fight starts.
-
And to think that the Corsairs were still using fabric covered outer wings!
-
My tests go back to 2004 for the F4U1-C. In Oct 2004 it went 150-350 in 2:10.2, 300 to 350 in 81 secs.
I didn't test the F4U1-D until May 2006. It did 150-350 in 2:17.9; the 300 to 350 time was 89 secs.
The times were close enough between 2004 and 2006 to not raise any red flags.
It was only after the last patch that I went back and retested the planes and noticed the big changes to what we have now.
I was incorrect in the other thread when I said it was v2.08 times. The times I quote are from various tests over the years.
HTC if you can go back to whatever patch we were using in early May of this year you should duplicate my F4U1-D test.
My accel tests are slightly different from wWW's.
They are at 500 ft, not 100 ft like WW's, which may make a small difference. And my fuel burn is set to 2x, just like the MA. So I should have slightly faster times than WW because he sets his burn to nil.
And Krusty, I have the accel test for 25, 50, 75, and 99% tanks for all the planes I test.
-
Tested f4u1d in 20702 (version from march - may) and got the 1:54 same test as I did with 209 and 208 versions.
I.E. it has not changed
HiTech
-
10-4. I'll have to go back and figure out what happened.
Mosq