Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MOSQ on August 07, 2013, 01:32:25 PM
-
I've updated my Sustained Turn list with the Ki-43II, Yak 3, Yak 7.
If there's another plane I missed in the updates let me know.
If you have questions about how I create the list there's other threads from previous postings that explain it all, but in a nutshell I use Badboy's bootstrap calculator.
Changes from previous formats:
I took out the tests with 50-75-99% fuel loads.
I added a ranking so you can see how much of a change a plane jumps (good or bad) between No Flaps and Full Flaps.
The new king of the turn fighter hill is the Ki-43II. Holy cow that plane not only has the tightest radius of all fighters, but it's sustained Turn Rate (arguably more important) blows away all the other planes.
Here's the link:http://sdrv.ms/130MjFD (http://sdrv.ms/130MjFD)
When you get there you should be able to right click on the file and Download it.
:)
-
Thank you very much! :salute
-
MOSQ very nicely done sir.
Thanks! :aok
-
Thank you Mosq! Very interesting! :aok
-
MOSQ why not do these with remaining fuel time as standard, instead of % tankage?
-
MOSQ why not do these with remaining fuel time as standard, instead of % tankage?
I set the arena setting to fuel burn .001, which is effectively zero. Then start with 25%, which stays the same weight during the testing. I do a lot more than just turn rate, example acceleration, Zoom, ect. All the Accel test on DokGonzo's webpage are from data I gave him years ago. And sometimes it takes a LONG time with many attempts to get three sustained turns with no elevation/speed changes. If I don't set the arena to .001 fuel burn the tests would be wildly inaccurate as the fuel weights change.
If you know a way to set the time remaining fuel as an arena setting, I'd look at it, but that would mean retesting all the planes, not a project I'm up for now!
Thanks everyone for the kudos! :aok
-
AFAIK there's no other way than draining to target amount.
I'm not thinking you oughta redo em - agreed it's too late for that. But I'm curious about reasons for preferring fuel volume rather than time. IMO... Because all furballs are roughly the same, you ought to have (with some variance to accommodate your particular plane's need for more/less altitude to dive from and egress to, etc (eg a 190A8 would arguably need more play time than a XVI for equal amount of kills)) the same amount of play time for a "standard" furball as the benchmark.
This all on the assumption that sustained turn performance is more informative to furball rather than strategic flying.. ?
-
Mosq, is it correct to assume you test all planes turning to the left?
-
AFAIK there's no other way than draining to target amount.
I'm not thinking you oughta redo em - agreed it's too late for that. But I'm curious about reasons for preferring fuel volume rather than time. IMO... Because all furballs are roughly the same, you ought to have (with some variance to accommodate your particular plane's need for more/less altitude to dive from and egress to, etc (eg a 190A8 would arguably need more play time than a XVI for equal amount of kills)) the same amount of play time for a "standard" furball as the benchmark.
This all on the assumption that sustained turn performance is more informative to furball rather than strategic flying.. ?
A common standard is required somewhere. Most pilots will be thinking about RTB when fuel gets down to 25% or less. Since we can't dial in a particular endurance, all you can do if pick the single standard that you can apply universally.
Granted, 25% in a P-51D is a significantly greater weight of fuel than 25% in a 109G-2. However, it's the only option we have that minimizes the fuel variance from plane to plane. I think that it works well enough for what MOSQ was trying to accomplish. You know that more fuel will increase turn radius and less fuel will shrink turn radius.
Unfortunately, there is no other viable solution at this time.
-
Mosq, is it correct to assume you test all planes turning to the left?
Hi WW,
Yes, all turning left. In the last thread where I posted up my Sustained Turns List some folks said I should test planes depending on their prop rotation. So I went back and did enough testing, (in fact I think all the planes with opposite prop rotation), to come to the conclusion that prop rotation affects how EASY it is to control the turn, but ultimately did not make a whit's difference in how tight/fast it turned. It's just harder to control them, but doesn't actually turn any better.
Which explains why the Yaks were a handful trying to get three consistent, smooth, turns. I'll go back and test the Yak 3 to see if I can do better turning right.
Of course YMMV!
Mosq
-
A common standard is required somewhere. Most pilots will be thinking about RTB when fuel gets down to 25% or less. Since we can't dial in a particular endurance, all you can do if pick the single standard that you can apply universally.
Granted, 25% in a P-51D is a significantly greater weight of fuel than 25% in a 109G-2. However, it's the only option we have that minimizes the fuel variance from plane to plane. I think that it works well enough for what MOSQ was trying to accomplish. You know that more fuel will increase turn radius and less fuel will shrink turn radius.
Unfortunately, there is no other viable solution at this time.
Moot,
^^^^^^^What WW said!^^^^^
Mosq
-
I re-tested the Yak 3 doing right turns. It was easier to make the turns, but the radius/rate change was so small as to be insignificant, within experimental error.
One note, on most planes you can fly well into the shakes and maintain control, with the Yak 3 it very quickly loses control as soon as the shaking starts. It's best to stay out of the shakes with it.
Mosq
-
Thanks, just used the old link and noticed it was updated today!
:salute
-
Mosq, thank you for that.
Just FYI I notice under the Full flap list the, jugs and the p51 are listed as 1 stage flap.
-
Mosq, thank you for that.
Just FYI I notice under the Full flap list the, jugs and the p51 are listed as 1 stage flap.
Hi FTJR,
Yep, those planes are in with No Flaps, 1 Flap, and Full Flaps. Lots of folks want to know how they perform with the high speed maneuvering flaps. Good spot, I should have explained that.
-
Mosq, you are a kingpin.
Having done a lot of this stuff myself, I know how time consuming it is. It also takes precision. Well done.
-
Mosq, you are a kingpin.
Having done a lot of this stuff myself, I know how time consuming it is. It also takes precision. Well done.
Thanks Brooke. Coming from the author of "How to Fly and Fight in Air Warrior" from 1997 that really means a lot to me! :salute :cheers:
If ya'll haven't read Brooke's tome, it's available here and a great deal of it is applicable to AH http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/air_warrior/awtaman.html (http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/air_warrior/awtaman.html) I love the warning about using a 14.4k modem! :airplane:
-
I love the warning about using a 14.4k modem! :airplane:
:rofl
-
Thank you for your efforts Mosq! Very informative.
I remember reading this back in the day! Heady stuff! :aok
Thanks Brooke. Coming from the author of "How to Fly and Fight in Air Warrior" from 1997 that really means a lot to me! :salute :cheers:
"A bandit on your six is better than no bandit at all"
-
I was surprised to see that spit16 has a smaller turning circle than spit9. But what really surprised me is how bad a turner spit14 is. According to that list tempest turns tighter than spit14. RAF test reports said that spit14 turned as well as spit9 and better than spit8 at any alt. I thank something is wrong with the spit14 in the game.
-
me410 :lol
-
I was surprised to see that spit16 has a smaller turning circle than spit9. But what really surprised me is how bad a turner spit14 is. According to that list tempest turns tighter than spit14. RAF test reports said that spit14 turned as well as spit9 and better than spit8 at any alt. I thank something is wrong with the spit14 in the game.
Turning performance can be measured in ways other than turning radius -- turn rate is another way. A plane that beats another in turn radius might lose to it in turn rate or vice versa. What were they measuring as turn performance in the tests you saw?
-
Yes I know. They used the term turning circle if irc.
-
Some Quotes from RAF tactical trials report of spitfire XIV june 1944.
vs. the spitfire IX
Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.
Comparing it to the spitfire VIII
Of the two aircraft the Spitfire VIII is preferable at all heights up to about 25,000 feet except for its turning capabilites. It is much lighter on the elevators and easier for the average pilot to fly. Its performance and fuel consumption are better. The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the Spitfire VIII. The difficulties of trimming will probably be reduced as pilots gain familiarity.
Which is interesting because according to Mosq's list the MkVIII turns tighter than the MkIX.
vs. Tempest V
Turning Circle
28. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Tempest.
According to Mosq's list the Tempest has a smaller sustained turn radius than spit14 even without flaps deployed.
Interesting quote regarding effects of fuel load weight. Comparing against 109g and fw190a with 90 gal. drop tank.
Turning Circle
55. The Spitfire XIV now has a definitely wider turning circle than before, but is still within those of the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and Me.109G.
Rate of Roll
56. Similar.
Conclusions
57. Even with the 90 gallon tank, the Spitfire XIV can equal or outclass the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G in every respect. Its main advantages remain the tight turn and maximum climb.
In AH with no drop tank and 25% fuel it still has a larger sustained turning circle than 109g6.
The entire document is here.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html
-
Not sure if it was me, but in the first 3-4 days of the Yak-3 (before the patch) I had around a 20-1 K/D and had little issue staying with La7s and Ki84s on the deck. In fact, at times I felt I had the clearly superior knife fighter so long as things stayed above 150, arguably comparable to the Spit16 for the first turn or two. Widewings 575 estimate for right hand turns seemed spot-on. Post-patch, having become accustomed to finishing kills with sustained turn, I immediately noticed a reduction in stability and turn rate/radius. K/D dropped to around 3-4 and I ended the tour with about a 6:1 k./d. Post-patch fights vs Hellcats were the most telling since the Hellcat went from clearly inferior to rough parity requiring much more time on edge of stall. I'm thinking 660-ish is spot on for current modeling.
Edit: Interestingly, Yak-3 K/D this tour is UP. I probably just got burned out and blamed my cartoon plane.
RIP awesome Yak...not sure if you ever existed but it was fun while it lasted. :rock
-
Regarding the Spit 14, that plane was last tested years ago. It's possible that with flight model changes it would be different now. However it's hardly ever flown so i probably won't go back and retest it myself. As I recall the massive engine is a bear to hold in a smooth sustained turn for testing.
However, I will be happy to incorporate anyone's data that is better than my tests in the list and clearly note it was from you! :aok
The only requirements are:
A) You do the calculations to be sure it really is a better number than mine. Badboy's bootstrap calculator is hosted under the same folder as the list.
B) You send me a film of the test so I can verify the speed/time you recorded.
If you need help using Badboy's BootStrap calculator there are threads in here by Badboy himself explaining the whole process.
Since 2006 no one has ever sent me a film. You'd think that folks who are experten in a particular aircraft who feel their favorite plane is being slighted would have sent me a film by now. Or maybe they like being further down the list for sandbagging purposes! :)
-
I'm not doubting the test data in your list, everybody whos flown the spit14 in AH knows that it turns about as well as a late war 109. The turning performance gap between the spit14 and the rest of the spitfires in AH has always seemed disproportionate to me.
-
I just tested the spit14 using bootstrap and I got numbers close but marginally worse than the figures in your list. I got a sustained turn radius of 670 and turn rate of 21. On your list it's 665 and 22. Abysmal compared to the rest of the spitfires, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me considering it has the same wing as the spit8. It's 700lbs heavier but it has what, 3,000 more hp?
-
I just tested the spit14 using bootstrap and I got numbers close but marginally worse than the figures in your list. I got a sustained turn radius of 670 and turn rate of 21. On your list it's 665 and 22. Abysmal compared to the rest of the spitfires, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me considering it has the same wing as the spit8. It's 700lbs heavier but it has what, 3,000 more hp?
The differences in our tests are within experimental error. Im glad we were close, and essentially the same.
I'll leave the comments on the Spitfire types to the true experts here, except I'm not sure what you mean by 3,000 more HP than the other types. I think the Spit 14 had 2,050 Hp total. I'm sure our Spit historians will chime in with the facts.
-
Lol. Typo, I meant 300. Spit8 had about 1700 hp.
-
Basically what you measure is best sustained turn rate at lowest speed (without stalling)
I would really like to see graphs like that - vs speed and vs altitude:
(http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/7035/f15str.png)
-
Basically what you measure is best sustained turn rate at lowest speed (without stalling)
Actually I'm measuring best sustained turn, period. It's the point on an EM diagram where the best radius and rate come together without losing altitude.
(http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_011a_4.jpg)
Regarding the data you seek, I think everything is there in BadBoy's EM Diagrams, except the altitude part. I don't believe altitude makes much difference since it affects both planes in the fight the same way. If you have a tight turning plane vs a slower turning plane, the end result will be the same whether you are fighting at 10 feet or 10,000 feet.
For those who are new to AH, there's a good primer on BadBoy's EM Diagrams here. http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html)
And a search of the AH Forum using Badboy and EM Diagram or Bootstrap will turn up many threads on the subject with the diagrams.