Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on August 18, 2011, 03:31:41 PM
-
I am compiling some performance data for the light bom...er...heavy fighters in AH and I need some advice on the Bf110. One of the performance metrics I am getting is for clean, air-to-air loadouts and for the P-38 and Mossie that is pretty simple, heavy ammo load and what I consider the appropriate fuel load. The Bf110G-2 offers gun packs though and I am not sure if those should be included or not in a pure air-to-air loadout for it.
Bf110G-2 drivers, what say you? When you lift a Bf110G-2 for pure air-to-air, what loadout do you take?
-
Only default nose mounted armament and 75% fuel, no DTs. Haven't do it much for a long time though.
-
The gunpod is 250 lbs or so even after the ammo is gone, drops top speed, so if you're doing A2A "clean" tests definitely leave it off. I'll also take DTs and 50% sometimes, so that when I have to mix it up I'm not heavy with fuel. It has plenty of tankage. Ditching the DTs leaves no drag afterwards, I think (wing braces go with the tanks?) so there should be no loss after drop.
I'd say 50% internal for the testing to better represent a combat weight. That's just me, though.
-
DT's, 25% fuel, and the heavy gun package. One burst kills are better than not doing enough damage with the lighter gun package. Because you can't turn as well as most aircraft you might not get a second chance. Once the 30's are drained then you have less weight to deal with in the nose and turn performance is increased. I once had the opportunity to kill two 109's while flap fighting at a strat. I then killed one of the guys 6 times back to back with this configuration.
30 mins on target and I did run outta fuel though!
-
If his purpose is to gauge the air to air performance of the plane, he should not use the gunpod. He is not testing maximum firepower. I think 25% would be a little dishonest, as it doesn't leave all that much flight time, and I think 75% is sluggish and heavy, hence my suggestion for 50%.
-
for bomber hunting, heavy gun package, the extra 20mm's are great but you're not as maneuverable. going to a fight where there is a mix of low bombers and fighters, the light gun package.
i don't use the fuel cheats, 75 to 100%...dt's only for high alt long range buff hunting.
-
For fuel I am just doing whatever comes closest in endurance to what the Mossie gets on 50% fuel. For the P-38 that was 75%. I'll check the Bf110 when I work more on it tonight.
I'll probably do the A-20G too, because people insist on using it as a fighter so I'd like to have it in my matrix.
Hopefully I get to add things like the Me410, Beaufighter, Ki-45 and Ki-102 someday.
-
That would actually be a pretty cool resource, and is what I suspected after reading your first post.
:salute
-
What I am completely incapable of doing is turn tests. Every time I've tried has been a disaster.
The current performance data I am looking at will be speeds, climb rates and roll rates at various speeds. Right now I am just doing sea level, but I will want to do other altitudes as well.
-
I think it would be interesting to do FTH alt as well.
Maybe bullet-point the alts every 5K, plus FTH whatever it may be, so 0k, 5k, 10, 15k, 20, 22k (FTH), 25k, whatever.
-
I think it would be interesting to do FTH alt as well.
Maybe bullet-point the alts every 5K, plus FTH whatever it may be, so 0k, 5k, 10, 15k, 20, 22k (FTH), 25k, whatever.
Yes, something like that.
-
Karnak, just use Badboy's Bootstrap Method for the turning comparisons. Don't have the link available as I'm on vacation, but should come up in a search.
-
Karnak, just use Badboy's Bootstrap Method for the turning comparisons. Don't have the link available as I'm on vacation, but should come up in a search.
Thanks, I'll look into that.
For ground attack underwing armament, does the Bf110G-2 just use the four 50kg bombs or are the rocket mortars ever taken instead?
-
Tons use the WGrs against town buildings. I personally don't know they're any better than the 50kg for "boom" power, but the 50kg don't drag you down after you drop 'em.
This is historically correct, as well, as I have read that the WGR21s were used against gun positions and ground targets once it was realized how versatile they were. They were originally ground based rockets (either from the Nebelwerfer or something similar).
-
Ok then. I'll test it with both loadouts. Mossie is getting wing bomb and wing rocket tests too, so it is appropriate to test the Bf110 as well.
I expect dismal performance hits from both for the rocket launcher systems left behind.
-
It would be nice just to have a definitive "loss of speed" and "loss of climb rate" marker for the WGRs, vs bombs, vs DTs. You can find out yourself, but it's time consuming. Also the difference at 0K with WGR21s vs at 25K? (and so forth)
-
I'll test the WGRs at altitude due to their use against bombers, but I doubt I'll test ground attack packages above about 10k.
-
I use the 110G to intercept bombers up to 35,000 feet and I've found the best overall loadout for this is the extra guns but no rockets or drop tanks as they erode level speed far too much even after they have been fired/dropped.
I guess it might pick up a few mph with the gunpod not used as well as have better maneuvering but........if you're really concerned about getting the most agility out of the 110, I would up the 110c anyway.
That said, the 110G has enough instantaneous turn rate that it can get most any plane on the first pass if the 110 were diving from high altitude and it's high altitude dogfight ability is better than one would think.
-
110c performs too good in dives, can dive to incredible speeds, and can pull up without any problems.
-
Bf110G-2 drivers, what say you? When you lift a Bf110G-2 for pure air-to-air, what loadout do you take?
fighter: 50% fuel and DT, and 2 20mm's .
Fighter/bomber: 50%/DT, 2 20mm and 2 500kg bombs
multi-role: 50%/DT, 4 20mm, and 4 50kg bombs
You really won't ever need more than 50% and DT. If you're right next to your base, leave the DT's in the hanger.
As a note, ordnance and guns don't really seem to have any huge effect on the 110. with 50%, DT, and full bombs, you'll be faster than an F4U-D with full ordnance.
-
Tank I don't know what game you've been playing... the extra guns and ord slow the 110G down TONS. It certainly isn't faster than a laden Corsair.
Not in any sortie I've ever flown!
-
Probably should have made it clear: As compared to other fighters, the guns don't make as much of a difference, the 50kg bombs don't make as much of a difference, and the DT's don't make as much of a difference.
And IDK about the corsair thing. Maybe the ones I've flown with are throttled back to save fuel. If so then the 110 is still at an advantage in an extended raid since it can run full throttle and have no worries about fuel.
-
All three of the twins, laden, are faster than the P-47N, laden. The P-47 was the only single engined fighter that seemed to fall into the "heavy" fighter category I am working on. F4Us, F6Fs, P-51s, Typhoons and Fw190s were all much lighter and thus did not get added to my "to do" list.
My list is:
A-20G
Bf110C-4b
Bf110G-2
Mosquito Mk VI
P-38G
P-38J
P-38L
P-47D-25
P-47D-40
P-47N
-
http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php (http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php)
-
Very old data. I don't even think it has the new mossie FM data.
Also very limited. Doesn't present drag from DTs, gunpods, etc.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, it's useful, but what he's doing is a big step forward over Gonzo's.
-
110g at 20k altitude.
100% fuel
360.........no gunpod or any ord loaded.
367 with wep
355.........gunpod only
360 with wep
347.........two rockets and gunpod
353 with wep
341.........four rockets and gunpod
348 with wep
330.........gunpod, drop tanks, and rockets
336 with wep
320.........gunpod, big bombs, drop tanks, and four rockets
324 with wep
-
icepac,
Are those "Accelerate to" or "decelerate to" numbers? Also, how long did you wait for them to stabilize?
-
edit: never mind was looking at the wrong thing
-
icepac,
Are those "Accelerate to" or "decelerate to" numbers? Also, how long did you wait for them to stabilize?
Both
2 minutes...some for 3.....had to do it in the 1.0 fuel burn training arena.
I forgot to mention that firing off all the guns gives a 2mph advantage to the guns only configuration and that firing off the rear gun all the way out gives a boost of 4 or 5mph that takes 3 minutes to slowly taper off all 4mph
-
My spreadsheet is gradually having the fields filled in for the aircraft I see used as fighter-bombers. For this I am thinking of fighters that bring with them about 2,000lbs of damage that can be applied in short order.
List now looks like this:
A-20G
Bf110C-4b
Bf110G-2
F4U-1C
F4U-1C
F4U-4
F6F-5
Fw190A-8
Fw190F-8
Me410
Mosquito Mk VI
N1K2-J
P-38G
P-38J
P-38L
P-40N
P-47D-25
P-47D-40
P-47N
P-51D
Tempest Mk V
Typhoon Mk Ib
Progress is pretty slow though as it take a lot of time to finish off one aircraft, particularly the ones with lots of options of combinations of options. Other than planes which can carry some ordnance internally, I am assuming that if somebody wants to carry ordnance they want to maximize the ordnance.
-
What performance data are you looking for? (remember, I did the first acceleration tests for Aces High back in 2001).
-
Turn rate and radius under various load conditions is the bit I have the most trouble with. To be honest, I simply haven't worked on those numbers yet. Climb rates at sea level are also something that I am not sure how to test. Auto speed doesn't stabilize fast enough.
-
find the speed the plane wants to climb at, get upto that speed on the deck, and then hit auto-climb.
-
It's not that easy tank ace.. You're still accelerating upward and there is a spike. By the time the spike steadies out you're past 1k and going up... Getting that initial sea level rate of climb is a bit difficult.
-
It's not that easy tank ace.. You're still accelerating upward and there is a spike. By the time the spike steadies out you're past 1k and going up... Getting that initial sea level rate of climb is a bit difficult.
Exactly. Using that tactic the Mosquito VI will spike to well over 4,000ft/min and won't stabilize until nearly 3,000ft up.
-
Stabilize at stall speed on auto climb. Add power slowly. Should eliminate the spike and give you a better reading at low alts. For a sea level reading you'll have to ask HiTech to model Holland first. ;)
-
Stabilize at stall speed on auto climb. Add power slowly. Should eliminate the spike and give you a better reading at low alts. For a sea level reading you'll have to ask HiTech to model Holland first. ;)
The altitudes I have been testing at are 100ft, 5,000ft, 10,000ft, 15,000ft and best altitude for the aircraft in question. Only climb at 100ft presents a problem.
-
Best you can hope for is probably 1000 ft. Hit auto climb/speed and throttle back until you start losing altitude - stabilize as close to sea level as you can (using throttle only), and then add power slowly to avoid the spiking auto-climb usually does, you should get a reliable reading at perhaps 1000 ft.
-
It's been tried. It doesn't work that way, because as soon as you apply throttle when climbing you spike still.
-
You could apply throttle very slowly, but I bet you'd be well over 1000ft by the time you were at MIL. WEP would cause a spike regardless.
-
Then HiTech need to model Holland so you can start from below sea level... Though I cannot help but ponder how you can get past 1000 ft so fast in aircraft that climb 2000-3000 ft per minute.
-
Then HiTech need to model Holland so you can start from below sea level... Though I cannot help but ponder how you can get past 1000 ft so fast in aircraft that climb 2000-3000 ft per minute.
It doesn't stabilize fast at all. If trying via the slow throttle method you'd have to advance the throttle so slowly that you'd be over 1000ft before you were at MIL. WEP would be right out.
Keep in mind that many (most?) of these fighters have an initial climb rate of between 3,000 and 4,000ft/min. The Mosquito VI with 50% fuel and clean has an initial climb rate of about 3,600ft/min, and it is not seen as a particularly stellar climber.
-
How about a quick burst of WEP then throttle back and finally stabilize? Just brainstorming here...
-
Again, by the time you even remotely stabilize or can take an accurate reading you're well over 1000 feet.
For now, the best thing to do is guesstimate and mention that there can be errors near sea level. Although if you do every 1000 feet up to 5000, it takes a little more writing down but can give you a better realistic estimate of sea level.
I did some climb testing before and I'd just have the E6B up and a pre-written table on paper, ready for me to just glance at the E6b the second my altimeter touches "1000", "2000," 3000," etc... and I'd write down the value and watch that altimeter again.
Then if you have 1,2,3,4K and you know the lower ones are off, you can kind of predict how the climb rate would extrapolate.
For example, here's a chart I did that way:
(http://www.nakatomitower.com/71sqn/109g2_gondolaschart.jpg)
You can see how 1k and 2k don't match up, but if you draw a line from the others you can extrapolate where it would realistically end up.
-
Turn rate and radius under various load conditions is the bit I have the most trouble with. To be honest, I simply haven't worked on those numbers yet. Climb rates at sea level are also something that I am not sure how to test. Auto speed doesn't stabilize fast enough.
If you use Badboy's Bootstrap method at any load, it will compute rate and radius for you. Its all about determining stall speed at that weight. As far as rate of climb tests, you could do an extrapolated value based on altitude, if you can correct for power differences due to altitude. P-47 might be a good one to test the method for, since it doesn't experience a change in engine power with altitude because its turbocharged. Then once you can make the method work for the Jug, you could try and apply it to the supercharged aircraft by accounting for power changes due to altitude. If you really want to get detailed, you could just perform some specific excess power analysis, although this would be pretty involved to get close to accurate.
-
If you use Badboy's Bootstrap method at any load, it will compute rate and radius for you. Its all about determining stall speed at that weight. As far as rate of climb tests, you could do an extrapolated value based on altitude, if you can correct for power differences due to altitude. P-47 might be a good one to test the method for, since it doesn't experience a change in engine power with altitude because its turbocharged. Then once you can make the method work for the Jug, you could try and apply it to the supercharged aircraft by accounting for power changes due to altitude. If you really want to get detailed, you could just perform some specific excess power analysis, although this would be pretty involved to get close to accurate.
Rate and radius I will work on. I don't think climb rates at sea level are that critical. Climb rates at 5000+ft give a good enough read I think.
-
Rate and radius I will work on. I don't think climb rates at sea level are that critical. Climb rates at 5000+ft give a good enough read I think.
Time to climb to altitude may be a better metric, at least for game play purposes. A little bit easier to test reliably.
-
I disagree... Since the climb rate steadily drops, time to climb doesn't help you much. You have to guess too much. Knowing the climb rate is just that -- your climb rate (no guessing involved), and IMO much more useful as a comparison of "can I outclimb the other guy?"
-
I disagree... Since the climb rate steadily drops, time to climb doesn't help you much. You have to guess too much. Knowing the climb rate is just that -- your climb rate (no guessing involved), and IMO much more useful as a comparison of "can I outclimb the other guy?"
Was just thinking of the comparative performance between the aircraft, since your climb rate is constantly changing as you climb. Basically, instantaneous climb rates are incredibly difficult to compute, since they change as you get higher.
-
I think both metrics are useful, depending on what one is looking for. Time to altitude is more useful for planning sortie times whereas climb rate is more useful for knowing what fighter will outclimb/generate E faster in a fight.
-
Of course the climb rates at 1000ft aren't a huge factor in the "can I outclimb this guy" issues, as a few seconds of climbing can put you above that threshold, and allow you to use more precise numbers.
-
Of course the climb rates at 1000ft aren't a huge factor in the "can I outclimb this guy" issues, as a few seconds of climbing can put you above that threshold, and allow you to use more precise numbers.
They aren't really for climbing, no. They are a useful measure of E building capability. I suppose I could do timed accelerations for that.
-
They aren't really for climbing, no. They are a useful measure of E building capability. I suppose I could do timed accelerations for that.
The most useful measure of E-building would be specific excess power comparisons, but I understand that might be a bit much work for what you're trying to accomplish.
-
They're usefull, yes, but not THAT usefull. 1k of altitude doesn't translate to a whole lot of speed.
I don't even consider the energy I have stored in altitude untill I have at least 2k's worth. Below that, its insignificant, and you would do better to bleed a little E to dodge an attack rather than dive away in hopes of out-running someone.
Its less compromising to your situation in the long-run, as you aren't putting up a giant "out-matched, frightened aircraft here! Come get a free kill!!" sign, and you're better possitioned for a guns solution of your own if the enemy screws up.
Of course I fly a 109K, which has insane energy building properties, so who can say what that has done to my tactical thinking.
-
Stoney,
Yes, that'd be a bit too much work. I am going for much more basic stuff.
They're usefull, yes, but not THAT usefull. 1k of altitude doesn't translate to a whole lot of speed.
You misunderstand me. What I mean by E building isn't converting altitude into speed, that is just E conversion. I mean how rapidly does your Bf109K-4 build E after it has, say, had to turn hard to dodge an attack. Climb and acceleration are closely related as they are both measures of the aircraft's excess thrust.
-
ah, I get ya Karnak. Didn't quite understand what you mant at first :old:.
-
The most useful measure of E-building would be specific excess power comparisons, but I understand that might be a bit much work for what you're trying to accomplish.
That is a fairly simple calculation since you already have the weights and climb rates and speeds.
Climb rate and the weight of the aircraft are the definition of excess power, you just need to covert to the power unit you wish to use.
HiTech
-
i don't use the fuel cheats, 75 to 100%...dt's only for high alt long range buff hunting.
this sentiment makes me happy since I tend to agree.
-
I am picking fuel loads for a 30 minute sortie, or as close to that as I can get.
I have now added the Hurricane Mk IIc, Ki-61-I-Tei, Ki-84-Ko and Spitfire Mk XVI to my testing schedule. I won't add anything that can't carry at least 1,000lbs of bombs though. I am also switching my testing priority to be based on destructive ability first rather than just hodgepodge, so Bf110G-2, P-38s and P-47s should be done first. I'll do some hodgepodge testing now and then just to keep things interesting, but less than I was.
(P-40N is REALLY unhappy about carrying three 500lb bombs and 75% fuel.)