Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on January 15, 2001, 11:10:00 AM
-
Gents,
I was trying to come up with a way to rate a fighter plane as I have heard them rated by WW2 pilots. In other words as Tommy Blackburn would say, "That is a One Hundred Percent ship" base on X number of criteria.
So here is my rating system.
10 different categories rated 1 to 5. 5 is the best and would be for instance, range the Mustang gets a 5. This will total as the best A/C gets closest to 50. 50 being perfect. Kapish? Let's go.
F4U-1D
1. Speed = 4 Not the Fastest, but close to the top. Excellent at sea level or below 25K.
2. Climb = 3 Good not great climber. This rating is based on 3,400FPM initial and 7.1 to 20K.
3. Dive = 4 Very good, not the best though.
4. Durability = 5 You could argue the P-47 was better, but it is too close to call. It as good as it gets.
5. Range = 3 With drop tanks it is as good as the P-47 except the N. better than 109, 190, Spit, 202, 205, yak and La5 clearly.
6. Armament = 3 4 hispanos would be the best. Heavy cannons second.
7. Ordinance load = 5 Nobody carries as much 20mill or 50 cal to the battle. Not to mention bombs and rockets.
8. High speed handling = 5 If anybody does it better I am not aware.
9. Low speed handling = 3 Good. Better than P-51 or FW190. Hellcat/Spit would be a 4. Zeke a 5.
10. Multi-purpose = 5 Fighter, Bomber, Escort recon, night fighter and carrier takeoff.
Total= 40
Anybody care to try their favorite?
Argue the points?
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
I have done same thing for all planes in AH, scale was from 0 to 10 and there was many more parameters rated, low/med/high alt speed, climb, cocpit visibility, protection, bomb carryin capacity, range, turning ability, roll...
Score was calculated to all planes in different categories ie. air superiority, interceptor, ground attack, fighter bomber.
Results were quite interesting. Whereas Bf 109G-10 sucks as air superiority fighter it was clearly the best interceptor and same reversod for P-51 Mudstain.
Maybe I could post the results to my web page somday.
------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey I/SG 5
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
-
I had put something similar together when I first started AH. Before taking off in an aircraft I would look at the numbers and decide how to fly it.
The data came from all kinds of sources, not only AH numbers, but also some brand X numbers, plus anything else I could scratch together in actual testing offline.
The main problem for me was that the categories could too easily get divided as planes tended to get much different ratings at different alts/weights/speeds. Giving any specific rating for speed, for example, would only be good between alt X and Y, but above Y it could receive a much different rating.
-Soda
-
I just did a quick down and dirty for my criteria catagories.
But I think the 1 to 5 rating scale is the best. Because it make the ratings very tangable. For instance I think in range comparison the Mustang has to be a 5. Evrything else is easy then because you know how to judge. The A6M5 has the same range as a P-51. Next has to be the P-38/P-47. Then the Navy Birds F4U/F6F, then the FW190, 109 and Spitty followed probably by the C202 or Yak with the least internal fuel.
Lets try the 109G10. (Just my opinion folks)
1. Speed = 5 clearly one of the fastest
2. Climb = 5 One of the best as well
3. Dive = 3 Fast but no control at high speed
4. Durability = 2 Not very durable + liquid cooled engine
5. Range = 2 very range limited, probably cost Germans the Battle of Britian.
6. Armament = 3 Good hitting power . 4 hispano's best. FW190A8 is next at a 4.
7. Ordinance load = 3 enough, barely.
8. High speed handling = 2 Clearly not it's best feature.
9. Low speed handling = 3 Good, better than FW190. Not as good as spit.
10. Multi-purpose = 2 Not very adaptable to other roles. (if I'm wrong tell me)
Total = 30
Is this right, wrong??
-
Pretty good analysis F4UDOA. I would agree with you in most categories, and maybe one point in a few but overall I agree.
One significant cateogry you missed is acceleration. True climb rate and acceleration are directly related (ie linear), but It probably be a seperate category. Another I would probably add is E retention.
Here's Mine:
Yak-9U
1. Speed = 4 Not the Fastest, but close to the top. Excellent at sea level or below 25K. (very similar to the F4U, almost equivalent at most altitudes)
2. Climb = 4 (Maybe a 3, its borderline)
3. Dive = 4 Only the big heavy fighters like the F4U or P47 pull away, but dive handling remains good.
4. Durability = 3 Very average, middle of the pack, but no noticeable weaknesses (ie no glass rudder or other afflictions specific to some aircraft)
5. Range = 2 Sufficent range for most Air to Air missions, but definitely lacks any escort or deep strike capability.
6. Armament = 2 Barely a two, and only because it has a single cannon. Combined with its small clip, it requires a good tracking shot to be effective. Only the light MG only aircraft are worse.
7. Ordinance load = 1 Can it get any worse? No Ord and No drop tanks.
8. High speed handling = 4 Very good close to the best.
9. Low speed handling = 3
10. Multi-purpose = 2
Total= 29
However if you add the following two categories
11. Acceleration = 5 Tied for best with 109G10. Yak is better way down low, G10 is better up high.
12. E-Retention = 5 If not the best, its at least tied for the best. I've seen nothing that can out E fight a Yak.
And for me, its the last two categories that make the Yak shine! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Cool, I like it, let me try one (IMO that is)
N1K
1. Speed = 5 one of the fastest under 20k, N1K can out accelerate anything but the Spit, and at 350 mph on the deck, certainly can catch anything but the Tiffie ,Yak9 and P51D on the deck.
2. Climb = 4 One of the top 5 climbers, at roughly 3200 FPM up to 20k.
3. Dive = 4 Fast and good control at high speed.
4. Durability = 3 -about avg. for durability.
5. Range = 3 good range , not as bad as a 109, but not as good as the P47D.
6. Armament = 5-Good to Excellent hitting power. Guns better than German 20mm but not as good as Hispanos (and 4 of them, with excellent ammo loadout).
7. Ordinance load = 3 -enough to get the job done, the 2x250k bombs are equivelent to 2x500 lbers., with numbers, can take down a field with no problem.
8. High speed handling = 4 ,one of the best high speed handlers in the game, short of an excellent roll rate like the FW190.
9. Low speed handling = 4 one of the best again, overall in low and high speed handling. Can out turn all but about 2 A/C in the current planeset.
10. Multi-purpose = 4 -Excellent ATA and ATG aircraft.
Total = 39
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 01-15-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Looks good except the armament. I'd give it a 3 even without the gun pods and a 5 with them. Especially with the 30mm. On top of that any plane with the most of it's guns along the centerline of the plane has a real advantage. Also just having a cannon on here should rank the plane as above average IMO. Going with your system I'll try the P-38.
Speed 5
Climb 5
Dive 5 (if you know how to use it) 2 (if you don't)
Durability 4 (only because I'm taking into account it's a big target)
Range 5
Armament 4
Ordinance load 5
High speed handling 5
Low speed handling 4
Average 4.6
-
F4UDOA you should separate armament into two separate factors:
Lethality and effective range.
For example, 190A8 could have an above average lethality, but a pathetic effective range. IMO both factors are equally important, and, for example, Hispano armed planes will be on top in both.
-
Manoble, I think you can avg. that out, say, a 3 for effective range, a 5 for lethality within its effective range, so the average would be 4 for that A/C...something like that...
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Lets try the 109G10. (Just my opinion folks)
1. Speed = 5 clearly one of the fastest
2. Climb = 5 One of the best as well
3. Dive = 3 Fast but no control at high speed
4. Durability = 2 Not very durable + liquid cooled engine
5. Range = 2 very range limited, probably cost Germans the Battle of Britian.
6. Armament = 3 Good hitting power . 4 hispano's best. FW190A8 is next at a 4.
7. Ordinance load = 3 enough, barely.
8. High speed handling = 2 Clearly not it's best feature.
9. Low speed handling = 3 Good, better than FW190. Not as good as spit.
10. Multi-purpose = 2 Not very adaptable to other roles. (if I'm wrong tell me)
Total = 30
Is this right, wrong??
Wrong, its clear you dont fly G10 a lot (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). And you rate some "ones" as "twos" dont know why.
1. Speed = 5 ----Agree
2. Climb = 5 ----Agree
3. Dive = 1----Dive serves for nothing if you cant roll and pull out on a different direction. G10's hispeed handling is abysmal. So, a 1.
4. Durability = 1. Not durable, radiator and oil lines uberexposed,difficult to roll with one aileron and unable to maintain controlled flying with half wing gone. Not to mention that rudders and elevators are indispensable on this plane, so if they are hit, also it suffers a lot. This plane not only breaks up easily, but also takes very bad the damage. Its a 1 for me.
5. Range = 2 You rate this as a 2. Why? 109G10 is the plane with WORSE range in Aces High, if you rate this as a 2 ,then what will be 1? (edited to take in account the DT option)
6. Armament = 2 You rate it as a 3. With the Mauser cannon, has reasonable ammo load and decent accuracy, but very few hitting power. With 30mm it has impressive hitting power but almost no accuracy. IMO the 109s have the worse weapon configuration in AH after the C202.
7. Ordinance load = 2. Can't carry 500kg bombs, only 250Kg.
8. High speed handling = 1 again, you rate it as a two, when is the worse maneouverating plane over 400 IAS. Man, wich one will be the worse if this isnt'?
9. Low speed handling = 3 Not as good as a 190,and inferior to many planes, but still has some tricks to do.
10. Multi-purpose = 1 On Jabo role it is worthless. One 250kg bomb that barely can be launched on dive bombing (because the controls lock up on the dive). Two AA rockets,barely usable on A/G work that after launched, their launch pods remain attached to the wings.
Total: 23
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Fw190A5:
1. Speed = 2. One of the slower planes in this planeset.
2. Climb = 3 Decent under 7K. lower than average over it.
3. Dive = 4. Some planes outdive a 190, but this plane's highspeed handling and roll help a lot.
4. Durability = 3 Engine very prone to damage. Airframe resistant, and very able to fight with one aileron, or rudder, gone. Also, it can RTB with half wing gone.
5. Range = 3 lower than the average, but not so bad for a 2.
6. Armament = 3 Decent hitting power, but lacks long range accuracy. The MGFFs are worthless,as are the 7.9mm.
7. Ordinance load = 2. Only one 500kg bomb. No AG rockets.
8. High speed handling = 3. Over 400 IAS this plane is at a slight disadvantage compared with the allied Iron. Its not bad, but not outstanding.
9. Low speed handling = 3. Can roll very fast at low speeds, and when light it can pull a lot of awesome tricks.But the bad turning ability of this plane lowers the puntuation.
10. Multi-purpose = 3. With the good ammo load for the inner cannons, can straffe, and the 500Kg is a good bomb. Not a record breaker but enough to do the work.
Total: 29
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Fw190A8:
1. Speed = 3. fast plane low on the deck, but no roadrunner. other than that, a bit lower than the average.
2. Climb = 2. A nightmare.
3. Dive = 4. Some planes outdive a 190, but this plane's highspeed handling and roll help a lot.
4. Durability = 3 Engine very prone to damage. Airframe resistant, and very able to fight with one aileron, or rudder, gone. Also, it can RTB with half wing gone.
5. Range = 3 On the average.
6. Armament = 4 Good hitting power, but lacks long range accuracy. If decimals were allowed I'd put a 3.5 here ( for me the standard 4 would be the P47's eight 50 cals)
7. Ordinance load = 2. Only one 500kg bomb. No AG rockets.
8. High speed handling = 3. Over 400 IAS this plane is at a slight disadvantage compared with the allied Iron. Its not bad, but not outstanding.
9. Low speed handling = 2. Can roll very fast at low speeds, but that's about it. Its heavy and can't defend itself well when slow.
10. Multi-purpose = 3. With the good ammo load for the inner cannons, can straffe, and the 500Kg is a good bomb. Not a record breaker but enough to do the work.
Total: 29
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Manoble, I think you can avg. that out, say, a 3 for effective range, a 5 for lethality within its effective range, so the average would be 4 for that A/C...something like that...
5 for lethality? LOL!
4 and thanks. Mausers dont pack, by far, the same punch as hispano does (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Manoble, I think you can avg. that out, say, a 3 for effective range, a 5 for lethality within its effective range, so the average would be 4 for that A/C...something like that...
Ok, lets try:
Number of guns * Effective Range * Lethality
190A8 2x20 + 2x13 + 2x30
2 * 2 * 4 = 16
2 * 3 * 2 = 12
2 * 1 * 5 = 10
Armament: 38
190A8 4x20 + 2x13
4 * 2 * 4 = 32
2 * 3 * 2 = 12
Armament: 42
F4U1C 4x20
4 * 5 * 5 = 100
Armament: 100
P51D 6x50
6 * 5 * 3 = 90
Armament: 90
109G10 1x20 2x13
1 * 2 * 4 = 8
2 * 3 * 2 = 12
Armament: 20
Nikki 4x20
4 * 4 * 5 = 80
Armament: 80
Well, it seems my formula is an absolute disaster (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
We should take into account ammo load, ROF, etc, etc.
-
Heya's,
Great stuff. Just wanted a fun thread. Nothing to serious.
Vermillion, your right about the acceleration and E-retention. Adding a couple of categories probably will give the best overall rating of every bird. For instance I left out view. The Bubble birds will do well there.
RAM,
I am basing this on Real life only. I don't want AH numbers. AH is supposed to be simulating RL. Not the other way around. I'm surprised on your evaluation of the FW190A5. I would rate it much higher. Especially if you add E and acceleration to the mix. And I would definitely give it's guns a solid 4.
JimDandy,
It depends on which data your looking at for the P-38L. Some of Citabria's numbers make it 20mph faster than I have seen it listed. So I guess it depends.
Here is my FW190A5
Speed = 3 Not bad, but definitely not a speed demon.
Climb = 4 Not elite but fast to 20K. Under 7 minutes
Dive = 4 Not the fastest, but maneuvers and holds e well.
Durability = 4 Radial engine, better than CP-51, 109, spit. A5/U8 was used for ground attack for this reason.
Range = 3 good range for German fighter.
Armament = 4 heavy cannon + MG, second behind only hispano.
Ordinance load = 3 good ammo supply, used for Jabo missions heavily.
High speed handling = 4 Slightly inferior to American iron at 400MPH. Otherwise excellent.
Low Speed Handling = 2 despite being able to roll at extreme speed at 200mph it's performance at or near high stall speed was nasty.
Multi purpose = 4 Were there any radar equipped 190's? How about photo recon?
Total= 35
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-15-2001).]
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Ram: And the beat goes on....
For the rest:
The P47-D25/D30 in my not so humble opinion. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
1. Speed = 4 Not the Fastest, but close to the top. Not great at low altitudes, but over 15k it really shines.
2. Climb = 1 A rock thrown by a 6 year old will out-climb the Jug. Heck the Panzer will prolly out-climb it given a running start.
3. Dive = 4 It goes toward earth REAL well and it has the high-speed handling to deal with the strain. I'd put the Pony and the Hog right there with it though, and it's initial dive is not great due to slow accelleration.
4. Durability = 5 Robert S Johnson vs. a 190's MG's. 'nuff said.
5. Range = 4 With drop tanks it is as good as the Hog. Only the Pony will out-range it by much.
6. Armament = 4 Not cannons but 8 fifties. One of the best gun sets in the game, just not quite as leathal as the cannon birds.
7. Ordinance load = 4 Only the Hog has more. The overload ammo setting puts it up there with the Hog, but hurts performance a bit.
8. High speed handling = 4 Handles really well at speed, but not as maneuverable as a high speed Hog or Pony.
9. Low speed handling = 2 It's general low-speed turning capability stinks, but it's fairly stable and controleable. Not the worst, but pretty bad.
10. Multi-purpose = 3 Good for attack and high-altitude escort with decent range. Not a good choice for an interceptor or air superiority fighter.
Total= 35
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
Well, it seems my formula is an absolute disaster (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Muhahaha (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Needed a good laught after an awfull day THANKS (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by straffo:
Well, it seems my formula is an absolute disaster (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Muhahaha (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Needed a good laught after an awfull day THANKS (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) [/b]
Dont worry straffo, if you want I'm able to develop even uglier formulas (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Leph,, the P47D-30 with 50% internal vs F4U-1D 50% internal will outclimb the F4U-1D, I would rank it higher than 1, probably 3.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
RAM,
I am basing this on Real life only. I don't want AH numbers. AH is supposed to be simulating RL. Not the other way around. I'm surprised on your evaluation of the FW190A5. I would rate it much higher. Especially if you add E and acceleration to the mix. And I would definitely give it's guns a solid 4.
F4UDOA, I gave my puntuations only and exclusively on an AH environment, but without its numbers. In Real life Fw190A5 was the best fighter of its moment (early 1943) in the world. But here we fight with late 1944 planeset, and so I give the comparisons with other planes in AH.
For instance in speed I give a 5 to the P51D and 109G10, and a 1 to the C202. The 190A5 in that cathegory,and compared with the planes in this planeset, fits into a 2. and so I give Speed=2. Using real life numbers, or not, if you compare planes with planes, you get the numbers I give.
The weapons in fw190A5 definitely are far to be worth a 4.
The MGFF are not worth be loaded, and the 7.92mm are pure toejam.I you point 4 to the Fw190A8, I can agree (tho I think its a bit lower than 4), but surely not in a 190A5 especially if we dont have the HISTORICAL cannon selection switch.
Acceleration in fw190A5 under 7K is good, almost as good as a Spit IX's. Over it it turns into crap. I'd give it a 3.
E-keeping? Fw190A5? a 3. and I am generous.
BTW I'd like to see your evaluation on the Spitfire IX. Just curious and I'll tell you why after you post it.
Lepthurn, the beat what? if you have nothing to say why do you name me?...bah...nonsenses (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Okay. First of all, we are talking about the real world and not the MA correct? Different things matter in different environments. High altitude performance and long range matter a great deal in the real world and very little in the AH MA. Also the rating probably still needs to be contextual (i.e. a good aircraft in Western Europe may be a bad aircraft in the South Pacific).
Other factors:
Carrier Capability
Rough Airfield suitability (very important in Russia and the Pacific)
Cockpit visibility (the old bubble canopy metric)
Also there is wide variation at low and high altitude between speed, climb etc... performance ratings
Also rather than rating each aircraft feature on a scale of 1-5 I suggest the following:
-3 Horrible (severely compromises the aircraft's usefulness as a fighter)
0 Substandard
2 Average
3 Good
4 Excellent
Here is an example to illustrate the Horrible rating. Suppose that there was an F4U variant armed with 2 .30 cal machine guns. Using the 1-5 rating system from F4UDOA's example this gives us a rating of 40 for the F4U-1D, 38 for the 2x.30cal F4U, and 42 for the F4U-1C. Obviously this is inaccurate. According to this scheme there is little difference between a 1C, 1D and our theoretical poorly armed F4U. In reality the 2x.30 Cal armament would cripple an otherwise fine aircraft. Likewise the armament difference between the 1C and 1D makes a big difference in how often it is chosen in the arena.
For the AH MA I think the following is a good first cut at assigning aircraft Fighter (only) ratings. If these ratings work correctly then fighters that are attractive arena rides should receive a high rating while fighters that are not should receive a low rating.
We use the following ratings:
1. Speed
2. Climb
3. Dive
4. Durability
5. Turn Rate (counted twice because players really like this)
6. Roll Rate
7. Armament (counted twice because players really like this)
8. Range (doesn’t matter much in MA so rated only as a 0 or 1)
9. Cockpit Visibility (not much difference between aircraft so rated only as a 0 or 1)
10. Carrier Capable (with the current map carrier capability makes an aircraft attractive so rated as a 0 or 4)
Furthermore the majority of MA combat occurs at low level so we are considering low-level performance only. People don’t choose fighters for the MA based on their high-level performance.
Here are some aircraft Fighter ratings for the current AH MA (CV world):
F4U-1D
Speed - 4
Climb - 2
Dive - 3
Durability - 4
Turn Rate – 2 (doubled)
Roll Rate - 4
Armament – 2 (doubled)
Range - 1
Cockpit Visibility - 0
Carrier Capable - 4
Rating: 32 (28 non CV world)
F4U-1C
Same except
Armament – 4 (doubled)
Rating: 36 (32 non CV world)
Spit IX
Speed - 2
Climb - 4
Dive - 2
Durability - 2
Turn Rate – 3(doubled)
Roll Rate - 3
Armament – 3(doubled)
Range - 0
Cockpit Visibility - 0
Carrier Capable - 0
Rating: 25
Seafire
Speed - 0
Climb - 3
Dive - 2
Durability - 2
Turn Rate – 3 (doubled)
Roll Rate - 3
Armament – 3 (doubled)
Range - 0
Cockpit Visibility - 0
Carrier Capable - 4
Rating: 26 (22 non CV world)
P-51D
Speed - 4
Climb - 3
Dive - 4
Durability - 3
Turn Rate – 2 (doubled)
Roll Rate - 3
Armament – 2 (doubled)
Range - 1
Cockpit Visibility - 1
Carrier Capable - 0
Rating: 27
FW-190A5
Speed - 3
Climb - 4
Dive - 3
Durability - 3
Turn Rate – -3(doubled)
Roll Rate - 4
Armament – 3(doubled)
Range - 0
Cockpit Visibility - 1
Carrier Capable - 0
Rating: 17
P-47D
Speed - 3
Climb - 2
Dive - 4
Durability - 4
Turn Rate – -3(doubled)
Roll Rate - 3
Armament – 3(doubled)
Range - 1
Cockpit Visibility - 1
Carrier Capable - 0
Rating: 18
N1K2
Speed - 3
Climb - 4
Dive - 3
Durability - 2
Turn Rate – 3(doubled)
Roll Rate - 2
Armament – 4(doubled)
Range - 1
Cockpit Visibility - 0
Carrier Capable - 0
Rating: 29
F6F
Speed - 3
Climb - 2
Dive - 3
Durability - 4
Turn Rate – 3(doubled)
Roll Rate - 2
Armament – 2(doubled)
Range - 1
Cockpit Visibility - 0
Carrier Capable - 4
Rating: 29 (25 non CV world)
109G10
Speed - 4
Climb - 4
Dive - 3
Durability - 2
Turn Rate – 0(doubled)
Roll Rate - 3
Armament – 2(doubled)
Range - 0
Cockpit Visibility - 0
Carrier Capable - 0
Rating: 20
Hooligan
-
P51-D
Speed 5
Climb 2.5
Dive 5
Durability 2.5 - that rad is darned exposed
Range 5
Armament 3 - IMO 6 50s are damned lethal.
Ordinance load 3
High speed handling 5
Low speed handling 3 (low fuel and flaps it *can* turn well)
Total 34
[This message has been edited by Spatula (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Hooligan:
Spit IX
Speed - 2
FW-190A5
Speed - 3
PErfect. Care to tell me why does the spit IX have a 2 and the A5 a 3?...because they are MATCHED on speed (depending on altitude one is a bit faster than the other)
.
And A5 with a climb of 4?
ROFLMAO
-
RAM:
A spit IX goes about 320 on the deck and an a5 goes about 340. 20mph is nothing to laugh at and like I said in my post, the ratings are for low level.
As for you next piece of confusion: Everything that climbs about 4,000 fpm on the deck got a rating of 4. 3,500 = 3 and 3,000 = 2. Only 2 aircraft have a significant climb advantage over the a5 (the G10 and LA-5). Perhaps these should be given a climb rating of 5, or I could shift everything elses' climb rating down one level. But that would have the effect of pushing most of the US aircraft climb ratings down into the "punishment" ratings and frankly I don't think having a 3,000 fpm climb rate is that big a deal in the MA. Contrast this to the turn rates of the a5 and P-47. IMO their poor turn rates have a lot to do with why so few MA players choose them.
Hooligan
-
First of all, spit is slower low, under 15K, Fw190A5 is slower high, over 20K. You dont point a fast or slow at certain altitudes, if you point the overall quality of a plane, you do it taking in mind its performance at any altitude. So, in my book, Spit IX and Fw190A5 are equals in speed.
oh, and Fw190A5 doesnt reach 4000fpm at sea level, at full weight, It does at some 4K, and after passing over that altitude the climbrate, and acceleration, falls drastically. To point with a 4 a plane that at 9-10K climbs at less than 3000fpm, its a joke.So...are you putting in the same league and puntuation,a 109G10, a Yak9 and a Fw190A5?
ROFL!
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Just to do some comparations:
P51D
1.Speed = 5
2.Climb = 2.5
3. Dive = 5
4. Durability = 2
5. Range = 5
6. Armament = 3.
7. Ordinance load = 4
8. High speed handling = 5
9. Low speed handling = 2.5
10. Multi-purpose = 4
Total: 38
********************************
P47D30
1. Speed = 4
2. Climb = 1
3. Dive = 5
4. Durability = 5
5. Range = 4
6. Armament = 4
7. Ordinance load = 5
8. High speed handling = 4
9. Low speed handling = 1
10. Multi-purpose = 4
Total: 37
**************************
P38L
1. Speed = 3.5
2. Climb = 4
3. Dive = 4
4. Durability = 5.
5. Range = 5
6. Armament = 4
7. Ordinance load = 5
8. High speed handling = 3 (only because compression, if not I'd give it a 5)
9. Low speed handling = 3
10. Multi-purpose = 5
Total: 41.5 (lol citabria you're gona agree with me? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
*****************************
La5
1. Speed = 4 (tough call. Fast as hell at low altitudes, drops over 15K if it was as fast high as low, this would be a 5)
2. Climb = 3 (a four changed to 3 for the very same reason)
3. Dive = 4
4. Durability = 3
5. Range = 2
6. Armament = 3
7. Ordinance load = 1
8. High speed handling = 4
9. Low speed handling = 4
10. Multi-purpose = 0 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Total: 28
*************************
Yak9
1. Speed = 4
2. Climb = 4
3. Dive = 4
4. Durability = 2.5 (radiator VERY prone to damage)
5. Range = 1 (lack of DT makes this one go with the G10)
6. Armament = 2
7. Ordinance load = 1
8. High speed handling = 4
9. Low speed handling = 4.
10. Multi-purpose = 0
Total: 26.5
********************************
Spitfire IX
1. Speed = 2
2. Climb = 4
3. Dive = 5
4. Durability = 2
5. Range = 3
6. Armament = 4
7. Ordinance load = 3
8. High speed handling = 2
9. Low speed handling = 4.5
10. Multi-purpose = 3
Total: 32.5
*************************
Spit V
1. Speed = 1
2. Climb = 2.5
3. Dive = 4
4. Durability = 2
5. Range = 3
6. Armament = 4
7. Ordinance load = 2
8. High speed handling = 2
9. Low speed handling = 5
10. Multi-purpose = 1.5
Total: 27
***********************************
A6M5:
1. Speed = 1
2. Climb = 3
3. Dive = 2
4. Durability = 1
5. Range = 5
6. Armament = 3
7. Ordinance load = 2
8. High speed handling = 1
9. Low speed handling = 5
10. Multi-purpose = 1
Total: 24
***********************
N1K2:
1. Speed = 3
2. Climb = 3.5
3. Dive = 3
4. Durability = 4
5. Range = 4
6. Armament = 4.5
7. Ordinance load = 3.5
8. High speed handling = 3
9. Low speed handling = 4.5
10. Multi-Purpose= 3.5
Total:36.5
*******************************
F4U
1. Speed = 4
2. Climb = 2.5
3. Dive = 5
4. Durability = 4.5
5. Range = 4.5
6. Armament = 5 (Chog) 3 (Dhog)
7. Ordinance load = 4.5 (Chog) 5(Dhog)
8. High speed handling = 5
9. Low speed handling = 3.5
10. Multi-purpose = 5
Total: 43.5 (Chog) 42 (Dhog)
****************************
C205:
1. Speed = 3
2. Climb = 4
3. Dive = 3
4. Durability = 2.5
5. Range = 3
6. Armament = 3.5
7. Ordinance load = 1
8. High speed handling = 2
9. Low speed handling = 4
10. Multi-purpose = 0
Total: 26
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Lots of good numbers there.
I would say that the usefullness of a stat should be kept in mind. There is nothing wrong with the range of a drop tanked 109. If you take it full you will run out of ammo long befor fuel. So while all the 109s are short legged scoring them down so far for it inflates how important it is in the game.
-
RAM:
You're an idiot.
Performance over 15K matters hardly at all in the AH MA.
The A5 climbs about 4k per minute up to 5k which is where it matters in the MA. Check the charts if you don't believe me. At low altitude it is in the same class as the N1k2, Spit IX and all the other "good climbers" except for the Lag and G10, which should be one class above.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Hooligan:
RAM:
You're an idiot.
Hooligan
LOL! LOL! I think that comment says more about who you are Hooligan than what you think RAM knows about this game. Wow aren't we geared up about a GAME! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
-
Originally posted by Hooligan:
RAM:
You're an idiot.
Performance over 15K matters hardly at all in the AH MA.
Your first statement says everything about you
the second one means you dont know to read. F4UDOA classified the planes in their historical role. I put them in a scale comparing each plane with the others in AH, but I qualified them as they historically performed.
And not only I did that with the spit, I did that with the Yak9 (a 5 down,3 high) the La5 (a 5 low, 2 high) etc.
Next time you disagree with someone I sugest you to read the book called "to respect others' opinion".
The A5 climbs about 4k per minute up to 5k which is where it matters in the MA. Check the charts if you don't believe me. At low altitude it is in the same class as the N1k2, Spit IX and all the other "good climbers" except for the Lag and G10, which should be one class above.
Most fights in MA are done between 5K-15K.
I dont need to check any chart. I've flown A5 1000 times more than you. FYI N1K2 is faster than in the charts, Pyro stated it. FYI, the G2 G6 and F4 are "good climbers" too.
FYI, too, I've flown most of the fighter planes in AH, both offline, on H2H , Main arena and Scenarios. So I know all of them pretty well. And to put a 4 to a 190A5 is downright ridiculous.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
S! all
I notice everyone here, (with 1 exception) is not dealing with two crucial elements of aircraft performance:
1) Initial Dive Acceleration
2) Zoom climb
These have to be considered as equally important as the other aspects discussed.
Aircraft with good initial dive acceleration are able to get a jump on their opponents, either being able to depart contact, or close the gap quickly. The Tempest V had a tremendous dive acceleration, and was rated as the best aircraft ever tested the British Air Fighting Developement Unit in this regard. No matter how fast a P-47 may be able to dive, a Tempest with the jump would be on it before it could get up to speed. The Focke Wulf 190A3-5 held this advantage over it's opposing Allied counterparts until the P-51 arrived on the scene.
Zoom climb is more relevant to combat maneuvering than steady state climb. That is why the P-51, which has a mediocre steady state climb, can be so effective using B&Z tactics. As everyone knows, the P-51 loses speed very slowly in a zoom and can regain almost all the altitude it may have lost gaining speed in a dive.
-
RAM, I gotta disagree with your range figures. This is for the planes in AH only. I didn't check RL data.
Of the planes in AH the 205, Yak and La-5 is the one with the lowest range overall (because of no DT), yet you give the G-10 a 1 while the 205 gets a 3?
Even the low spit marks got lower range than a DT-equipped 109, but I can maybe understand its 2 if also the 109 gets a 2 since the spit have a larger range on internal fuel.
190A-5 have better fuel endurance than the 109 on internal, but with DT it is just a little worse. (A5 given a low 3, G10 1)
P38 have better range overall over the P47.
[This message has been edited by LLv34_Snefens (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S! all
I notice everyone here, (with 1 exception) is not dealing with two crucial elements of aircraft performance:
1) Initial Dive Acceleration
2) Zoom climb
These have to be considered as equally important as the other aspects discussed.
Aircraft with good initial dive acceleration are able to get a jump on their opponents, either being able to depart contact, or close the gap quickly. The Tempest V had a tremendous dive acceleration, and was rated as the best aircraft ever tested the British Air Fighting Developement Unit in this regard. No matter how fast a P-47 may be able to dive, a Tempest with the jump would be on it before it could get up to speed. The Focke Wulf 190A3-5 held this advantage over it's opposing Allied counterparts until the P-51 arrived on the scene.
Zoom climb is more relevant to combat maneuvering than steady state climb. That is why the P-51, which has a mediocre steady state climb, can be so effective using B&Z tactics. As everyone knows, the P-51 loses speed very slowly in a zoom and can regain almost all the altitude it may have lost gaining speed in a dive.
P-47's weren't known for their max power diving speed, but for dive acceleration (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Same with the P-38. Both suffered compression effects but because of their mass they accelerated extremely fast.
-
Originally posted by LLv34_Snefens:
RAM, I gotta disagree with your range figures. This is for the planes in AH only. I didn't check RL data.
Of the planes in AH the 205, Yak and La-5 is the one with the lowest range overall (because of no DT), yet you give the G-10 a 1 while the 205 gets a 3?
Even the low spit marks got lower range than a DT-equipped 109, but I can maybe understand its 2 if also the 109 gets a 2 since the spit have a larger range on internal fuel.
190A-5 have better fuel endurance than the 109 on internal, but with DT it is just a little worse. (A5 given a low 3, G10 1)
P38 have better range overall over the P47.
[This message has been edited by LLv34_Snefens (edited 01-15-2001).]
You are right, Snefens. When I posted the 109G10 and 190A5/A8 numbers I didnt have in account the DT, only internal fuel.
Its a bit of a compromise to give puntuations, because DT-equipped ranges dont say it all. DTs are to be dropped as soon as a fight is to happen, and that means that your range can be effectively cut in half if you are jumped immediatly after take off.
For instance you say that a P38 had better range than a P47 with DT...but without DT didnt the P47 have more range that the P38?. Still I gave a P38 a 5 and the P47 a 4.
Things like this is what makes range puntuation a bit difficult...the DT gives a fair advantage, true, but still, if I take off in a 50% fuel+DT 109G10 my sorties tend to be shorter than in a Yak9U with 100% internal fuel.
Anyway I'm editing the range number of the 109G10 to take in account the DT tactical advantage (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
The Focke Wulf 190A3-5 held this advantage over it's opposing Allied counterparts until the P-51 arrived on the scene.
.
Buzzbait, I have to disagree. One of the best diver planes of WWII was the Spitfire. It could reach speeds on excess of Mach 0.90 IIRC.
The problem was that the Fw190A had a way better high speed control than the early-medium war spitfires, and still hold that advantage (though much less marked) up to the end of the war.
So a 190 in a dive could roll and pull out of the dive in any direction he wanted, as fast as he wanted to do it. THe spitfire with its high stick forces, had a very hard time trying to follow the fleeing 190. I'ts not the same "dive qualities" than "hispeed evasives". In a pure dive, the Spitfire will catch always the 190. The problem is that the 190 will get out the fire line very fast and the spit wont be able to follow (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But in the inverse papers (190 following a SPitfire), the 190 will NEVER catch the fleeing Spitfire in the dive. That is the reason I rate the Spit with a 5. It didnt had the best dive acceleration, but for sure it had the best dive speed.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Seriously RAM, how can you give the 205 such high range marks when it's on a par with the Lavochkin as the shortest-legged fighter in the set. Moreover, how can you give it such a good armament score, when it boasts two MG 151/20s and two breda 12.7s -- by far (in ROF and shell weight) the worst MGs of that caliber in the game? And yet, you give it 3.5 armament compared to the 3.0 of the A5, which has MGFFs -- alright they suck, but not as bad as the breda 12.7s.
While you may not agree with hooligan, I have to give him this credit: when he sets out to evaluate A/C, he establishes some scientific principles by which the planes can be compared. This way, as wrong as his methodology may be, he can't be accused of having his numbers reflect a personal bias.
[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Dinger:
Seriously RAM, how can you give the 205 such high range marks when it's on a par with the Lavochkin as the shortest-legged fighter in the set.
Well, its been a long time since I last flew a C205 for a long sortie, but I got the feeling that it had more endurance than the Fw190A5 with no DT. Maybe I am wrong and if I am, then I will correct the number (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Moreover, how can you give it such a good armament score, when it boasts two MG 151/20s and two breda 12.7s -- by far (in ROF and shell weight) the worst MGs of that caliber in the game? And yet, you give it 3.5 armament compared to the 3.0 of the A5, which has MGFFs -- alright they suck, but not as bad as the breda 12.7s.
No. I gave 3 to the Fw190A5 --WITHOUT-- the MGFFs. I said clearly that the MGFF is worthless,maybe I didnt explain that I was giving the puntuation without them.
I gave the 3 without the MGFF That is the reason I put a 3 on "low speed performance". With MGFF there is a noticeable effect on the low speed maneouverability of the A5. With MGFF I'd give the plane a 3.5 in weapons and a 2.5 in low speed maneouverability.
PLease note that I gave the La5 a 3 in weapons,too, and this plane has no 7.92mm MGs. I think of the Fw190A5 as a two cannon armed bird regardless those friggin inutile MGs. The C205 has two mausers, and two 12.7mm. The 12.7mm can be worse than the american M2s, but still they can do SOME harm (the 7.92mm can't do any). So, overall puntuation: 3.5 in my book.
While you may not agree with hooligan, I have to give him this credit: when he sets out to evaluate A/C, he establishes some scientific principles by which the planes can be compared. This way, as wrong as his methodology may be, he can't be accused of having his numbers reflect a personal bias.
I dont accuse of him of anything short of what he is. If his methodology is cientifical, then explain me how he gives a Fw190A5 the best rating in climbrate, arguing only that the 190 is very good under 5K. Its downright ridiculous, excuse me, to rate a 190 along a 109G10 or a Yak9, because at 5K it climbs at 4000 fpm (wich at 7K is already less than 3300 fpm, go figure, in 30 seconds you've lost almost 20% of your climbrate).
My methodology is very simple: I take the best plane/s in each category and I rate them as 5. I take the worse, and rate them as 1. (or 0 in multi-role puntuations). then I proceed to establish where does each other plane fits, taking in consideration its overall quality.
You can agree on some puntuations, but sorry you can't say that its more scientific to take the 190A5, say that under 5K it climbs very well, and then rate it as a 4 (the highest puntuation) in climbrate regardless that over that altitude the plane climbs under the average.
And much less you can jump on someone who doesnt agree with your puntuation and yell him that he is an idiot. In fact Hooligan lives up to his name's sense in Soccer.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-15-2001).]
-
S! RAM
I'm going to quote from the British Air Fighting Development Unit's comparison of the dive of a FW190A4 and a Spitfire IXF:
"Dive: The Fw190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB."
What you are getting confused about is the Spitfire's high compressibility threshold. The very thin wing of Spitfire allowed it to be dived up to very high speeds without going into compressibility. A FW190 could dive just as fast, in fact dive faster, but it would go into compressibility much sooner. It takes the Spitfire much longer to reach those kinds of extremely high speeds. By that time a FW190 or a P-47 or a P-51 will have long since caught up and passed it.
-
An interesting thread. A short while ago I put together some analyses of WW2 aircraft gun range and effectiveness, which you can find on: http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages (http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages)
I don't rate the MG-FF as useless; with M-Geschoss shells it had considerable destructive power and the velocity was higher as well. The destructive effect of the 30mm MK 108 was far greater than any 20mm, though; each shell had about four times the quantity of HE.
I think Vermillion criticised the Yak-9U (also 9T) for only having a single cannon; but boy, that NS-37 was dynamite! Heavy shell, very high velocity and reasonable rate of fire. Their kill rate against the Luftwaffe was excellent and the German pilots feared that plane.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
S! Jigster
You need to read my post again. I didn't suggest the P-47 had poor dive acceleration, I suggested the Tempest had the BEST. And as far as allowable dive speed before compressibility, the P-47 could maintain a dive up to higher speeds than either the P-38 or P-51, into the 550mph range. And even when into compressiblity, the later D models had trim tabs which could be used to pull it out of a dive intact with the airframe undamaged due to its immense strength. These electrically operated trim tabs were installed after factory tests revealed the fact the aircraft could get into compressiblity quickly with its acceleration.
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams:
I think Vermillion criticised the Yak-9U (also 9T) for only having a single cannon; but boy, that NS-37 was dynamite! Heavy shell, very high velocity and reasonable rate of fire. Their kill rate against the Luftwaffe was excellent and the German pilots feared that plane.
But here (in AH) we only have the 20mm version (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
F4UDOA wrote:
Here is my FW190A5
Speed = 3 Not bad, but definitely not a speed demon.
Compared to other b&z'ers, it's quite slow. I'd give it a 2.5 on speed, especially as alt increases. Some t&b'ers can catch it.
Climb = 4 Not elite but fast to 20K. Under 7 minutes
4 is *way* too much - above 4k, climb rate drops off *dramatically*. I'd say 2-3 in climb rate all in all, because of the higher altitude performance (or lack thereof).
Dive = 4 Not the fastest, but maneuvers and holds e well.
Yep, agreed. Then again, all planes hold e well in a dive (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Durability = 4 Radial engine, better than CP-51, 109, spit. A5/U8 was used for ground attack for this reason.
Unfortunately, in AH we will find that the engine of the P-51 will take more of a beating than that of any LW bird. So while in theory you're right, in practise I'd give it a 3.
Range = 3 good range for German fighter.
Yes, it's ok with a drop tank. Bad performance on internal tanks limit its time in a combat environment, and this must also be taken into account. 3.
Armament = 4 heavy cannon + MG, second behind only hispano.
I give it a 3. MG's are worthless, and outer cannons have little ammo and relatively low ROF. German cannons are inferior to allied ones in all respects, which furthe advocates a 3 here.
Ordinance load = 3 good ammo supply, used for Jabo missions heavily.
Limited number of bombs give it a 2. Striking bases where there are ostwinds and you need all the eggs you can carry.
High speed handling = 4 Slightly inferior to American iron at 400MPH. Otherwise excellent.
Above 350 it becomes noticeable. Otherwise excellent, but since we're talking high speed handling, a 3.
Low Speed Handling = 2 despite being able to roll at extreme speed at 200mph it's performance at or near high stall speed was nasty.
Yes, the only plane with worse low speed handling is the 190A8 I think.
Multi purpose = 4 Were there any radar equipped 190's? How about photo recon?
The 190 series contained a very large variety of aircraft. In AH, quite limited however. 2
Total= 27
On to the next plane; the G10
Speed = 5. It's very fast up high and also performs well at low altitude.
Climb = 5. A rocket with a propeller.
Dive = 1. The G10 handles terribly in a dive, with lockups of controls coming rapidly. Add to that that even at moderate speeds, elevator control in the G10 is quite limited.
Durability = 3. Prone to engine outs, engine oil (which results in engine out after 5-10 seconds) and general engine failure. Next to impossible to land with wingtip shot off.
Nearly impossible to rip wings, which is good.
Range = 2. Compared to other DT capable aircraft, it's not good. On internals only, it's also near the bottom.
Armament = 2. Low ammo load, low ROF cannon, low velocity cannon. 30mm add killing power but is wildly inaccurate and requires substantial lead. Very limited ammo loadout as well.
Ordinance load = 2. Very poor.
High speed handling = 1. Terrible. Absolutely horrible. Worst there is.
Low Speed Handling = 3. The G10 is relatively gentle at low speed, even though it ain't much of a turner.
Multi purpose = 2. The 109 is basically an interceptor, and nothing else. The limits on the airframe makes it ill suited for other purposes.
Total: 26. This does NOT reflect how good the G10 is for 1v1's/2v2's - at that it's the best there is together with the YAK.
190A8:
Speed = 2.5. Quite slow for a b&z'er.
Climb = 1. It's about the worst in the game, closely followed by the P-47.
Dive = 4. Excellent roll rate and elevator response makes the A8 a dream to dive in.
Durability = 3. It's a bit prone to engine outs for no apparent reason, but can land with wingtips missing.
Range = 3.5. For a LW fighter, the A8 has a very good range, even without droptank.
Armament = 4. Plenty of ammo, good ROF and MG's that actually can do some damage. Still suffers from low ROF and muzzle velocity.
Ordinance load = 3. 30mm option makes it an excellent JABO plane, although it has a relatively poor bombload capability.
High speed handling = 3.5 Loses roll rate and performance to a larger extent than its American/allied counterparts.
Low Speed Handling = 1. This baby will bite you in the bellybutton if you take her too slow. She's a roller coaster lover; take her up, dive with her and keep speed up. Little pre-stall warning and quick snap rolls make low level scissors a quite dangerous move. She bleeds e like a pig as well.
Multi purpose = 4. The A8 can be gotten as a G8 or F8 which greatly enhances its JABO capability
Total = 29.5
I've taken the F4U-C and P-51 to compare with:
F4U-C
Speed = 3.5. It's reasonably fast.
Climb = 2. The F4U-C does not have an impressive climb rate.
Dive = 4. In a dive, the F4U-C handles very well.
Durability = 4. The F4U-C can take a lot of damage, run long on a smoking engine and *fight* with a missing wingtip. Not bad at all.
Range = 4. With DT's, range is excellent. Without, it's good.
Armament = 5. Plenty of ammo, 4 cannons with good ROF, very big punch, plenty of ammo, great range and all concentrated in the smallest cone in Ah makes the gun package on this bord very impressive.
Ordinance load = 4. Like most other American planes, it has extensive fighter-bomber capabilities and can carry a heavy bombload, with additional rockets just for good measure.
High speed handling = 4. Handles better at high speeds than say the 190; or rather, it does not lose as much performance.
Low Speed Handling = 3. For a b&z'er, she got very good low speed handling. probably born oputta the need to be carrier capable.
Multi purpose = 5. This plane can do just about anything you ask of it, and do it well.
Total: 41.5
P-51:
Speed = 5. Very good speed at all altitudes.
Climb = 2. Definitely not a rocket
Dive = 4. The P-51 handles like a quality aircraft in a dive, with quick responses even as speed builds.
Durability = 3. Would have given it a 2.5 had it not been for it's ability to run for more than 10 minutes with an oil leak.
Range = 5. With and without DT's, it's great. One can engage, disengage, engage, disengage several times. Compared to the 190 that only allows you time for maybe one more climbout, it's outstanding.
Armament = 3. Good range, good ROF, good amount, but lacks the killing punch of cannons.
Ordinance load = 4. Like most other American planes, it has extensive fighter-bomber capabilities. Excellent loadout options.
High speed handling = 4. Excellent hi speed handling; roll rate surpasses even the 190 as speed builds.
Low Speed Handling = 3. With flaps popped, she does very well. Stalls are relatively gentle and easy to predict.
Multi purpose = 3. Good all around aircraft.
Total: 34.
You might wonder why I rate the LW birds comparatively bad - actually it has nothing to do with "we are superior pilots". It's just that the LW birds, like they were in RL, suffered from not being properly developed as the war progressed and were limited in some ways. They're *very* capable aircraft when flown properly, but with this particular rating system they didn't score too well.
And I know that yank POS iron is not good for anything but scrap metal. HMPFH.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
"I am the light at the end of your sorry little tunnel." - A. Eldricht
-
Originally posted by straffo:
Originally posted by Tony Williams:
I think Vermillion criticised the Yak-9U (also 9T) for only having a single cannon; but boy, that NS-37 was dynamite! Heavy shell, very high velocity and reasonable rate of fire. Their kill rate against the Luftwaffe was excellent and the German pilots feared that plane.
But here (in AH) we only have the 20mm version (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
[/B]
I'd start a campaign up if I were you - the NS-37 armed Yak-9s were very common, with several thousand being built.
As a bonus, it was the only fighter capable of knocking out a Tiger tank with its standard gun armament!
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
RAM said:
"For instance you say that a P38 had better range than a P47 with DT...but without DT didnt the P47 have more range that the P38?. Still I gave a P38 a 5 and the P47 a 4."
Ups I switched them there, I meant to say that the P47 is better both with and without DT than the P38, and thus the numbers should be switched, or both put to 4 since the 51 is clearly superior
As for the yak vs 109 with only 50% fuel and DT I think this is wrong comparison. Yak (, La5 and 205) have 27-28min fuel at full power in MA, a 109 have about 25min with 100%. The DT adds about 18 min to that. It HAS better range.
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S! Jigster
You need to read my post again. I didn't suggest the P-47 had poor dive acceleration, I suggested the Tempest had the BEST. And as far as allowable dive speed before compressibility, the P-47 could maintain a dive up to higher speeds than either the P-38 or P-51, into the 550mph range. And even when into compressiblity, the later D models had trim tabs which could be used to pull it out of a dive intact with the airframe undamaged due to its immense strength. These electrically operated trim tabs were installed after factory tests revealed the fact the aircraft could get into compressiblity quickly with its acceleration.
BTW be careful out there in the MA. If you really think a P-38 isn't going to get you in a dive that guy that knows how to fly it will sneak up on ya. It has trim tabs that will work the same way. I'm not trying to say that the P-47 is inferior so don't anyone start off on a tangent. I'm saying that what most people talk about when they discuss the problems with the P-38 is actually their lack of experience with the plane. What most people see in the P-38 is how the average pilot flies it. Beware of the guy that has figured out how to work that P-38. The misconceptions will come back to bite ya.
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S! RAM
What you are getting confused about is the Spitfire's high compressibility threshold. The very thin wing of Spitfire allowed it to be dived up to very high speeds without going into compressibility. A FW190 could dive just as fast, in fact dive faster, but it would go into compressibility much sooner. It takes the Spitfire much longer to reach those kinds of extremely high speeds. By that time a FW190 or a P-47 or a P-51 will have long since caught up and passed it.
Buzzbait
No,I'm not confused about this (At least I think (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)). The Spit dive acceleration is not great...UNLESS you dive at 0G. Then its decent. And when I was saying that the spit was a great diver I was referring to its lack of compression at high speeds. THe spit could maintain controled dives at terrifying speeds, in excess of any other plane. That is what I am trying to point out (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Tony Williams said:
I don't rate the MG-FF as useless; with M-Geschoss shells it had considerable destructive power and the velocity was higher as well. The destructive effect of the 30mm MK 108 was far greater than any 20mm, though; each shell had about four times the quantity of HE.
The MGFF has very bad ballistics,low muzzle velocity and relatively low hitting power. Being on the extreme of the wings mean too that their dispersion is higher, and harder to hit with them. And last, but not less important, as we lack the switch to select individual cannon fire in the 190, you must fire all the cannons at the same time, and the MGFF screws my aim completely. (Same happens to me with the MGs, thats why I always only fire cannons, never MGs, in the 190)
The MGFFs are not worth the weight they mean so I simply dont load them in the Fw190A5.
The MK108,I agree,it is the hardest hitting weapon in aces high, by far. BUT, it is a weapon to be used only on the closest range (<150 yards). THat kills any advantage of hitting power that it may have.
Snefens:
huhm will have to look to my books again. I think that the P47D with DTs had less range than the P38L, but now that you affirm the opposite, I dont know for sure.
Regarding the 109G10 with DT and the Yak9, I know that the range of the 109 with DT is more than the yak with 100%. What I mean is that you can't rely in the DT, as you have to drop it as soon as you enter a combat, and then you are depending on your internal fuel. The DT its a valuable asset but believe me that less than most here can imagine (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Jimdandy:
when compressed, trim tabs do very very very slight effect, and in a P38 still less. It has dive flaps, tho ,and that can help to get it out of the dive. But once compressed, a plane can't rely on trimming to do anything but pull out of the dive.
Maybe you are confussing with the 109 at 400IAS. the 109 needed in real life very high stick forces, even more when the speed increased. The control lockup you feel over 400 IAS in a 109 is NOT compression (in fact 109 compresses at very high speeds), but control lockup due to very high stick forces. Trim tabs can overcome this effect, and so it is possible (but VERY difficult) to fly the 109 effectively over 400 IAS-but not to do combat maneouver in it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-16-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams:
I'd start a campaign up if I were you - the NS-37 armed Yak-9s were very common, with several thousand being built.
As a bonus, it was the only fighter capable of knocking out a Tiger tank with its standard gun armament!
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
Yep I know but I don't want to be jumped by whinner (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) I think it will be a perk plane.
But it would be a fine way to end the ostdweeb (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
from RAM
Regarding the 109G10 with DT and the Yak9, I know that the range of the 109 with DT is more than the yak with 100%. What I mean is that you can't rely in the DT, as you have to drop it as soon as you enter a combat, and then you are depending on your internal fuel. The DT its a valuable asset but believe me that less than most here can imagine
but at lest you have the choice to have one ...
-
Tony, as Straffo said, the Yak-9U in Aces High only has the standard armament of x2 12.7mm UBS MG's and the single ShVak 20mm cannon.
I have lobbied Pyro, long and hard, to add the Yak-9UT (T,TK,K) armament options to the Yak here.
From my discussions with him on this BBS on that issue, it seems that he wants to do it as a seperate varient so that he can control it better thru the perk point system (PPS? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
He also stated that its most likely that we would not recieve any varient with the 37mm or 45mm NS cannons. They're just that good. They would open up just about any armored vehicle like a tin can, and thereby removing the need for more traditional ground attack aircraft such as the IL-2, Stuka, or 40mm Hurricane.
But it is likely that we would see the x3 B-20 20mm cannon varient, and potentially the x2 B-20's and x1 NS-23 23mm.
I guess we can only wait and see, but I would love to see some of the big gun Yak's in the game, given that the planeset is heavily weighted towards "cannon-birds".
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
RAM said:
****************************
> C205:
> 1. Speed = 3
> 2. Climb = 4
> 3. Dive = 3
> 4. Durability = 2.5
> 5. Range = 3
> 6. Armament = 3.5
> 7. Ordinance load = 1
> 8. High speed handling = 2
> 9. Low speed handling = 4
> 10. Multi-purpose = 0
> Total: 26
It would seem that the historic record and this ranking don't match in four areas:
3. Dive = 3
"Moreover the Exceptionaly clean airframe permited a high diving speed to be reached quickly..."
4. Durability = 2.5
The M.C.202/205 was rated as strong or stronger airframe as the P-40's, and tougher
than Spits.
"As stated before the structure was quite strong, as were all fighters desigined by
Castoldi, and was able to take heavy punishment and perform violent aerobatic manoeuvres."
What game/real life change is there?
8. High speed handling = 2
I have read about "light and ballanced control forces at all speeds"(close but not exact
quote), so what game/real life change is there?
10. Multi-purpose = 0
Not great, but two bombs up to 330lbs were/could be fitted.
So how does the game plane vary from what was the historic perception? If charts of control forces are there, I will bow out... :-)
------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno
-
Originally posted by M.C.202:
It would seem that the historic record and this ranking don't match in four areas:
I dont know much about the historicar C205, so I used the AH's as a test bed to puntue it. I was tempted not to do it at all (thats the reason its the last one of the planes I put there), but well as I did, I explain my puntuations.
3. Dive = 3
"Moreover the Exceptionaly clean airframe permited a high diving speed to be reached quickly..."
Ah's C205 tends to drop one wing when accelerating fast. Plus, I've never had problems to follow one on a dive in my Fw190A5. So, a 3 for it.
4. Durability = 2.5
The M.C.202/205 was rated as strong or stronger airframe as the P-40's, and tougher
than Spits.
"As stated before the structure was quite strong, as were all fighters desigined by
Castoldi, and was able to take heavy punishment and perform violent aerobatic manoeuvres."
What game/real life change is there?]
In AH, the few times I've flown a C205 in the Main, most of them I've been sustained radiator damage with relative ease. 2.5 in my book, sorry.
8. High speed handling = 2
I have read about "light and ballanced control forces at all speeds"(close but not exact
quote), so what game/real life change is there?
In AH over 400mph the C205 feels mushy, and needs constant triming to adapt itself to the change of speeds. Maybe I'be been too hard with it, and a 2.5 would've been more fair.
10. Multi-purpose = 0
Not great, but two bombs up to 330lbs were/could be fitted.
in AH none. And I took the AH's plane as the base of my puntuation. Yak9s and La5s also carried in RL rockets and small bombs, and I gave them 0.
Straffo, I know that its better to have DT than not to have it. Is the reason why I edited my puntuation on the G10 and put a 2 when I had put a 1. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-16-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
Tony, as Straffo said, the Yak-9U in Aces High only has the standard armament of x2 12.7mm UBS MG's and the single ShVak 20mm cannon.
I have lobbied Pyro, long and hard, to add the Yak-9UT (T,TK,K) armament options to the Yak here.
From my discussions with him on this BBS on that issue, it seems that he wants to do it as a seperate varient so that he can control it better thru the perk point system (PPS? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
He also stated that its most likely that we would not recieve any varient with the 37mm or 45mm NS cannons. They're just that good. They would open up just about any armored vehicle like a tin can, and thereby removing the need for more traditional ground attack aircraft such as the IL-2, Stuka, or 40mm Hurricane.
Not really - the Yak-9 wasn't armoured against ground fire, so the Russians preferred to leave that job to the Il-2.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
Tony:
In this game, a lot of people don't care much if they die as long as they accomplish their goal, so sacrificing a few yak-9s to stop an armored attack is no big deal in AH (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Hooligan
-
RAM said: quote:
> I dont know much about the historicar C205, so I used the AH's as a test bed to puntue it
> I was tempted not to do it at all (thats the reason its the last one of the planes I put there), but well as I did, I explain my
> puntuations
Not a question on your scoreing of the M.C.205 in the game, but rather on the change from the
historic "buzz" on the aircraft to that in the game.
Thanks for the feedback. The trim thing is odd, as the M.C.200/202/205 were sort of self trimming.
------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno
-
Well we haven't had any comments yet from a Spit driver:
Spitfire F. Mk. IX
1. Speed = 3
Very good in a narrow altitude range near 25k. At other altitudes one of the slowest.
2. Climb = 3
The most common Spitfire IX variant could do 4500 fpm but ours won't reach 3800 fpm...
3. Dive = 3
Nothing special here.
4. Durability = 2
One of the most fragile in both the power plant and structure.
5. Range = 3
Drop tank is nice.
6. Armament = 3
20 mm are potent but have a tiny ammo load. MG's are useful only in an emergency.
7. Ordnance load = 2
3 bombs but not much tonnage.
8. High speed handling = 4
As is well known, it could be dived to very high speeds without losing control. However in AH we don't have aileron reversal so it rolls slightly too well.
9. Low speed handling = 5
A little sluggish sometimes but forgiving.
10. Multi-purpose = 2
Ordnance load limits usefulness against ground targets. Range makes bomber escort difficult.
Total= 30
-
Nice writeup funked.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
"I am the light at the end of your sorry little tunnel." - A. Eldricht
-
Lets take a look at one of my favorites, the F6F-5!
1. Speed = 2
Not a fast plane. One of the slower birds in the AH planeset.
2. Climb = 3
Climbs pretty well for a big beast, middle of the road.
3. Dive = 4
This beast can DIVE. Dive is it's best attribute. Although it doesn't do the high-speed dive quite as well as the Jug or Hog, it's low speed dive accelleration is great, and can catch "better diving" planes in the early stages.
4. Durability = 4
It's pretty much a tank. Right up there at the top, though not quite as legendarily tough as the Jug.
5. Range = 3
Drop tank is nice.
6. Armament = 3
6x .50's is a nice gun set, but lacks the hitting power of cannons. Nice ammo load.
7. Ordinance load = 3
Reasonable, but not as much or as flexible as the better Jabo planes.
8. High speed handling = 4
Great high speed handling and E holding ability. Not as good as a Pony or a Hog, but better than average for sure.
9. Low speed handling = 2
Although it has decent low speed turning capabilities, it has a NASTY stall. In AH at least, the Kitty's stall is sudden and severe. You don't ride the stall horn in the Kitty if you want to live.
10. Multi-purpose = 3
Although not excelling as an escort or an attack fighter, it can perform these roles. Not a great interceptor either, but a good air superiority or point defense fighter.
Total= 31
Interesting. Maybe we'll do another thread and rate the planes specifically in particular roles, such as air superiority or interceptors. Maybe it would make more sense to rate 'em for certain tactics such as E fighting, BnZ, or TnB.
Just as a note, I find the Kitty to be one of the best E fighters in the game. It can work an E advantage very well, and turns well enough to nail about anything if it has a bit of extra E to burn. A high F6F-5 is a very dangerous thing.
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
Funked, agree with most of your write up except one: Speed. when measuring speed, one must also measure acceleration since there is no measurement in this formula for it, so, I would give Spit9 a 5 in acceleration, a 3 in top end speed, therefore a 4 overall.
-
Rip, I included acceleration. It is a VERY slow plane below 20k.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-17-2001).]
-
Why, its the fastest accelerating plane in AH?!
-
No
-
Originally posted by RAM:
The MGFF has very bad ballistics,low muzzle velocity and relatively low hitting power. Being on the extreme of the wings mean too that their dispersion is higher, and harder to hit with them. And last, but not less important, as we lack the switch to select individual cannon fire in the 190, you must fire all the cannons at the same time, and the MGFF screws my aim completely. (Same happens to me with the MGs, thats why I always only fire cannons, never MGs, in the 190)
The MGFFs are not worth the weight they mean so I simply dont load them in the Fw190A5.
The MG-FFM fired a 92g M-Geschoss at 700m/s, at a rate of 9 per second. The MG 151/20 fired the same shell at 800m/s at 11 per second. The effect of a strike on a target would be the same, as the destructive effect of M-Geschoss depends on the HE content, not kinetic energy.
The MG 151 was clearly a better gun, but the MG-FFM was still useful.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
Tony, as Straffo said, the Yak-9U in Aces High only has the standard armament of x2 12.7mm UBS MG's and the single ShVak 20mm cannon.
Well, the UBS was as good as an M2, and the ShVAK about three times better, so the armament was equivalent in hitting power to five M2. Furthermore, it was possibly better than the six M2 armament of USAAF planes as all of the guns were centrally mounted, so you didn't get the harmonisation problem.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
Tony, just believe me. If we had the switch to fire individual cannons only, then I'd agree that the MGFF in AH is worth something.
As it is, it screws up the aiming bigtime. And while I dont doubt that it could fire the mine-shell, I can tell you that if in AH it is modelled, then I haven't noticed. In fact I get more kills with 2 cannons than with four. And the RoF of this weapon sux.
MGFFs are not worth the weight. I dont say they serve for no purpose (hell any 20mm can do good damage) as the 7.92mm does, but I say that its performance are not worth the aim screwing it produces,and the added weight it means.
Maybe with the selector switch to fire individual cannons in the 190 the aim screwing would be a thing of the past, and then maybe I'd load this cannon. But as it is now, no, I dont load it.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-18-2001).]
-
This rating system will not work as it does not ballance the relitive importance of the stat.
IE
Fire power should be rated from 1 to 15 and range should be rated 1 to 3
In the war range was increadibly important. But in AH it is not.
That would show why the Chog is selected so much. It has a 15 for firepower. The Typhoon has a 13 and the Niki a 12. The P51 gets an 7, the 2 cannon A5 gets a 7 the 2 Cannon A8 gets an 8. The P47 would be arround 10 the G6 would get a 5 with the G6 R6 getting a 10.