Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on October 09, 2001, 10:34:00 AM
-
Did some testing to see which was the best climber from a standing start on the runway to 20,000FT. Gives a pretty good indication of best sustained climbers in the game. Some suprises but not many. Didn't test them all but got enough for a pretty good idea.
Test conditions: 50% fuel, full ammo, no external ord. or DT's. Standing start on runway, apply full throttle, start stopwatch, hit WEP. Auto takeoff and climb.
Best to worst.
1.ME109-G10 5.02<==In a class by itself.
2.FW190D9 5.55<== Second best. Surprising to me considering it should have a pretty long takeoff run.
3.SpitIX 6.02 Is there any question why this bird see's so much use in the MA? From a standing start no less? And I here people compain it is under modeled? WTF? What is this thing supposed to reach 20K in?
4.Tempest 6.17<==Surpised it did not do better considering rocket like climb under 10K. Really drops off above 15K.
5. F4U-4 6.18<==Not that great under 10K but holds up well at higher alt where Tempest and La-7 start to slow.
6. TIE 6.19
La-7<==Rocket to 10K with G10 and D9, slows to 20K.
P-38L<==Starting to think it should be perked. Excellent the whole way up. In some pretty elite company. As easy as it gains alt you should never see it under 10K.
8. NIK2 6.55<==Really drops off over 15K. If you see one up there he's probably shouting "kill me, kill me".
9.F6F-5 6.56<==A NIK2 in sheeps clothes. Does everything a George can do and more. Very underrated A/C in AH. Cannon Bias is only thing keeping it from dominating low alt combat in AH.
10.P-51D 7.19<==Just shows what speed and tactics can do in the right A/C. Actually a good climber 5K to 15K and steady if unspectacular up high.
11. F4U-1D 7.23<==Can you say, keep it fast? A good zoomer and a better sustained climber than the NIK2 above 15K.
12. ME-262 7.28<==When your climing at 380MPH does it make any differance?
13. F4U-1 8.29<==Fast, turns and rolls well. Ehh did I mention it's fast? :rolleyes:
Note: All American and British A/C ran out of WEP in exactly 5min. Gave it one min to cool and engaged it again. lasted 30seconds. German A/C IE. G10 and 190D9 did not run out of WEP adding to there impressive results.
Did not test any others for now. Will do the P-47 series for kicks and post soon. Hope to do sea level acceleration test and post them as well.
Later<S>
-
Do the 205... :)
xBAT
-
3.SpitIX 6.02 Is there any question why this bird see's so much use in the MA? From a standing start no less? And I here people compain it is under modeled? WTF? What is this thing supposed to reach 20K in?
4.75 mins to 20K (100% fuel at start)
See here (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html)
-
LOL MW beat me.
Yes the Mk. IX is undermodelled. :)
[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Just tested P-47D-30 and D11 both with 6 gun 267RPG 50% fuel. Same as the rest.
D30= 6.54<== Beat the Damn NIK2 by a second!!
D-11= 7.19<== Beat both F4U-1 and 1D :mad: from a standing start on the runway. Never mind F4U has a takeoff run of about half of the P-47, I really don't get it.
I thought they would be slower but they both did well.
Noticed that some A/C in AH benifit very well from the reduction in fuel or ammo load and others gain almost nothing? Very strange.
Will test the 205 next.
-
F4UDOA
Plese repeat that test with at least 75% fuel. If you take a 109G10 with 50% fuel it will be doen to less than 25% when you get to 20K.
Its not useful with only 20-25% gas as this runs out very fast in combat and especially in climbing over buffs at alt.
[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
-
I dont know if real tests were done from the rwy. I usually test climb performance from level flight, say 250mph TAS-IAS.
Real tests were done with 100% fuel and ammo.
Anyway, the Me262A1 (normally loaded) should get to 20K in 6.8 minutes. As far as our Spit IX is concerned, she is modeled as a Merlin 61 engined one, if I'm not wrong. The 4.75 and 4.85 times to 20K are from Merlin 66 and 70 engined Spitfires. Yes, we should get those LF models and not only the stoopid-early (very few built) model we have. But then, Spitfires should not roll so well at 400-450mph TAS and even above. Actually, you can use a Spitfire IX for Boom&Zoom. Everytime I use it this way I find it a very lethal weapon.
[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: gatt ]
-
Did you use the speed trim, and never altering the speed it tries to trim to? As I recall the default speed trim setting is optimal for sea level, don't know for what load out though.
How much difference would it make to try and follow published climb speeds at various alts? Would all planes be affected the same, or others would gain more?
// fats
-
"Just tested P-47D-30 and D11 both with 6 gun 267RPG 50% fuel. Same as the rest."
That's a quite low weight P-47. I believe the ammo alone is over 500lbs saved and it's probably approaching the weight of the F4U and got more grunt up high.
What was the 15k time?.
Daff
-
Nice testing. Interesting results, too, thank you.
-
Tested the C205.
6.07
This A/C has always given me trouble. Don't know weather to turn or use B&Z against it. Handles better at 400MPH than a NIK2 or 109. And as you can see it climbs like a rocket.
Tested Me109G-10 with 75% fuel. Not much difference, 5.10. Still the best in the game by a mile and had more than 50% fuel when it got up there as well as WEP to spare.
Daff,
Looked up loaded weight of P-47D-11. Looks like 13,500+LBS at 2300HP combat. F4U-1D has 2250HP at 12,000LBS and the -1 has 2135HP at roughly 12,000LBS depending on fuel load. Plus the F4U-1D had a paddle prop. Both F4U's have 314Sq ft of wing area and 300sq ft for the P-47's.
I will test again in multiple loading conditions.
-
The reason the 38 and the 47's do well is their turbocharging systems. These planes lose less power at altitude compared to their supercharged competition. Run the test up to 30k and you would see both turbocharged planes jump higher up the list for sure.
Also interesting is comparative fuel loads. Most folks would be likely to take 100% in a 109G10 I would think, where as Pony or Jug pilots would stick to 75% or 50% and a drop. In that respect, it would be interesting to compare 100% in the planes with shorter ranges to 75% in the planes with greater ones.
BTW, keep the numbers coming guys. Fill 'em all in here and I'll make some fancy graphs and post 'em on my web page for all to see. :)
[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Lephturn ]
-
Actually Lephturn I think the F4U in AH is sold a bit short. And yes I know my opinion is biased.
However I just did a couple of more test for giggles with the F4U-1D, F4U-1, P-47D11 and Mossie with full fuel and max WEP.
F4U-1D 8.10<==not bad, even respectable considering 100% fuel from standing start on runway.
P-47D-11 9.03<==sluggish as expected, but within the realm of reality for a 2300HP fighter weighing 14,000+lbs full fuel and max guns/ammo.
Mossie 9.39<==Again slow but max fuel and ammo. Not an A/C that was needed to climb or was expected too.
F4U-1 9.58<==10 minutes!! Full fuel, 12,700lbs, 2,135HP?
What I really think is strange is this. During the test the Mossie never averaged better than 2,500FPM and dropped to 2K rather quickly. In fact slightly below above 15K without WEP. The F4U was averaging a higher rate of climb the whole way through however came up slower. Is this a malfunction in the gauge? WTF?
BTW, I can duplicate these test +/- 1 second every time so I am sure of my results. Very strange indeed.
-
>>D-11= 7.19<== Beat both F4U-1 and 1D from a standing start on the runway. Never
mind F4U has a takeoff run of about half of the P-47, I really don't get it.
F4UDOA:
As you recommended I read your post in here, haven't yet gone back 2 years to review your concerns about the F4U's poor climb rate.
For those who didnt read my Bug report posted earlier. I think that the F4U may be buggy ought to merit a look.
I did a test the other night in the F4U variants, fully loaded (except the F4U-4) and set the .speed command using auto climb for 130 kias; 140 kias and 150 kias. These speeds ALL yeilded roc rates of 2.0 on the button. The F4U-4 I loaded 100% fuel and no ordnance and its roc was 3.0 at 130 kias; 140 kias and 150 kias.
The P-47 and P-51 both have a better roc than the F4Us excepting the F4u-4.
I fly the F4U a lot, and can say that it hasn't mattered how much fuel I load, when use of autoclimb is engaged, the roc is a steady 2.0. I somehow don't think this is correct.
-
I dont think auto climb equates to max climb rate. someone posted once that auto climb sets optimal climb fer sea level.
try not using auto climb also i've noticed using man trim i can get better climb rate.
-
[QUOTE... from a standing start on the runway...[/QUOTE]
This is not a good climb test. I recommend to fly at 20feet over water, already with autospeed, and adjust power for level flight. Start the clock when you push the throttle full forward.
niklas
-
Originally posted by niklas:
This is not a good climb test. I recommend to fly at 20feet over water, already with autospeed, and adjust power for level flight. Start the clock when you push the throttle full forward.
niklas
This is a perfectly legitimate way to test for scramble times, which is what F4UDOA set out to do.
I have done a lot of flight testing IRL and the established method for climb testing is to fly level then start climbing, trimming for your desired speed. The data is recorded from the time the aircraft stops zooming and is in a stable climb at the trim speed.
F4UDOA, one question, were the tests conducted with the same wind layers as the MA?
[edited to clean up quote and add IRL to comments]
[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Blue Mako ]
-
Blue Mako,
I conducted the test under the default offline conditions. All from the same field in the same direction. No noticable wind was present during the test.
Niklas,
The reason for conducting the test from a standing start was to eliminate any benifit of zoom climb or to remove any scatter from the results caused by different speed or altitude variation at the start of the test. If anything I would think that the F4U would benifit greatly from this since it was a carrier A/C and had the second shortest takeoff roll next to the Hellcat. Half of the P-47D series. Even with this percieved advatage it fell miserably short of expectations. Even at normal power in the climb charts at 100% internal fuel it reached 20,000FT in 12Min.
Wotan,
Auto climb is supposed to utilize best climb speed through out the climb range. In the MA I typically use a low G zoom climb for best results. However this is not the same as sustained climb rate.
-
Auto climb is supposed to utilize best climb speed through out the climb range. In the MA I typically use a low G zoom climb for best results. However this is not the same as sustained climb rate.
That is not correct F4UDOA. There really isn't an "auto climb" setting. What we have is an auto-trim for speed. For convenience, AH sets that default auto-trim speed at the approximate best climb speed for sea level. Pyro has stated this before... although I don't have a link/reference handy. I'm sure this is the case. You'll notice that your air speed won't change one bit from the ground to 35k if you leave it in auto-trim for speed all the way.
That said, what we really need here is a simple and easily repeatable method for testing which approximates how we actually use the planes in the game. I think your scramble climb test fits that need very well. These tests may not be comparable to real-life test data, but they do give us valuable information about the game.
-
Originally posted by Blue Mako:
The data is recorded from the time the aircraft stops zooming and is in a stable climb at the trim speed.
This is exactly the reason why i sometimes have doubts about climbrate claims which are called "initial climbrate". Sometimes i have the impression that those claims refer to the climbrate of the little zoom at the beginning.
niklas
-
Climbspeed should have minor overall effect on the times, as long as they start out with the best speed.
For the P-47 it's 165mph to 15k, 155mph above.
Daff