Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Slade on July 08, 2016, 01:50:52 PM
-
Hello,
What non-perky planes would you say have the best E retention below 10k?
Thanks,
Slade :salute
-
Yak3
-
E retention is a myth. What you want is good low speed turning and a high climb rate.
-
Mustang CAN retain E (because it is slick) as long as you don't load it up. Put G on it and say goodbye--without altitude you'll take forever to get it back.
But for brute force I would say the Dora. Not having flown it much but having fought it plenty the La-7 comes to mind as well.
-
E retention is a myth. What you want is good low speed turning and a high climb rate.
Care to elaborate?
-
generally speed is the only factor, fast planes don't bleed as much E when going too fast.
if you want to conserve E you shouldn't be pulling Gs unless you have to, only turn when you are at low speeds to minimize speed loss (anything below corner velocity, use gravity to turn your nose if you can).
fast planes can "hold" more E as kinetic energy.
so look towards the speed demons.
-
P38, P51D, 152, Spit16, Spit8, Yak3, 109K, 190D. They all are able to rebound quickly from a position and gain E more quickly than other planes. A few planes up there have different styles. These are top performing planes and are very dangerous in the right hands.
-
I think that above 12k is another matter. What most people in AH do not realize is that WWII aviation was always an engineering push for higher and faster. That does not translate into better turning at low altitude and lower speeds. The concept that someone can magically fly a high-alt energy fighter as if it were a low-alt energy burner has always been a fantasy.
Know your aircraft's limitations and the limitations of your opponent. There is no shortcut.
-
Yak3
Yak3 is not an E plane. You might have dyslexia.
-
Care to elaborate?
The phrase E retention is usually used when people don't understand the difference in available g at a given speed between different aircraft. Good low speed turn performance, good acceleration/climb rate, and low drag are better descriptions of the characteristics lumped under E retention.
-
Hello,
What non-perky planes would you say have the best E retention below 10k?
Thanks,
Slade :salute
P-38 is one of the better E retainers in the game.
-
The planes with the best combination of top speed and climb rate are the E-monsters. 109s, Spits, Dora in general. Lavochkins down low. 38s and Ta up high. Everything else is mediocre or worse.
-
What non-perky planes would you say have the best E retention below 10k?
The Spits. All of them. It's what makes them so dangerous.
- oldman
-
Anyone know if Slade is looking for an E fighter or a turn fighter? :D
-
Yak3 is not an E plane. You might have dyslexia.
I can't think of a single better plane that can hold it's Energy better within the criteria mentioned in the OP.
-
I am surprised no one has mentioned the f4u1a. No the top but still good.
-
I am surprised no one has mentioned the f4u1a. No the top but still good.
Since the OP is looking for "E retention" the big surprise to me is that nobody mentioned the Brewster. I think all the complaints about E retention the last few years have been about the Brewster but maybe I missed one.
-
The even bigger myth of E "retention" is that fighters have different amounts of it when comparing how much is lost during a zoom. There is an entire cult that thinks bricks like the Jug somehow retain E better due to their mass. In a straight line, low drag and high mass do have this effect. But noone ever gets into a zoom by flying in a straight line. Generally speaking, if you take a plane like the Jug and something like a Zero or 109 and put them both into a zoom from the same starting speed and altitude, you will get the same zoom so long as the G pull was the same for both planes and was consistent. This is because the lighter plane expends less E in the transition, but loses it faster once straight due to inertia. By comparison, the fat plane loses more E in the transition, but makes up for it once unloaded.
The other myth is that E fighting is somehow mutually exclusive from turn fighting. As FLS's statements should already imply to everyone, these things are the same. All air combat is E fighting. All air combat is turn and burn. Etc.
-
A heavy plane with low wing loading and a ton of horse powers should be the best. Just hard to build a plane like that.
My vote go to Spit 14, lot of horses, reasonably low wing loading and not too light.
-
In theory, any plane in the game has the potential to be a reasonably good energy fighter. In fact, a good energy fighter is a description more suitable for the pilot than the plane. If a pilot can master the art of trading altitude for speed, and speed for altitude (in conjunction with ACM), then that pilot can have success in any plane.
To the OP, I recommend first asking yourself what style of fighting you like the most? Boom 'n Zoom, Turn n' Burn, or something in between?
If you're looking for Boom 'n Zoom, I suggest looking at the P51 or P47.
If you're looking for Turn 'n Burn, I suggest trying the Spitfires (except Mk. 14), Zekes, or Brewsters.
If you're looking for a flexible aircraft that can adapt to the flow of a dogfight, try the P38, Ki84, or F4U.
-
P-38 is one of the better E retainers in the game.
Especially when I am trying to slow down so I can land. ;)
-
In theory, any plane in the game has the potential to be a reasonably good energy fighter. In fact, a good energy fighter is a description more suitable for the pilot than the plane. If a pilot can master the art of trading altitude for speed, and speed for altitude (in conjunction with ACM), then that pilot can have success in any plane.
To the OP, I recommend first asking yourself what style of fighting you like the most? Boom 'n Zoom, Turn n' Burn, or something in between?
If you're looking for Boom 'n Zoom, I suggest looking at the P51 or P47.
If you're looking for Turn 'n Burn, I suggest trying the Spitfires (except Mk. 14), Zekes, or Brewsters.
If you're looking for a flexible aircraft that can adapt to the flow of a dogfight, try the P38, Ki84, or F4U.
^^^ Obviously not a Luftwaffe pilot ^^^
-
^^^ Obviously not a Luftwaffe pilot ^^^
The P47 and F4us are decent E birds, but I wouldn't call them the best E fighters.
-
I also forgot to mention the La7. Thats a great E bird.
I consider Lift and acceleration to be the 2 most important factors. Roll rate is also a great attribute. A plane like the Spit16 completely dominates a Brew on all levels and can easily out accel and retain E much better.
-
In theory, any plane in the game has the potential to be a reasonably good energy fighter. In fact, a good energy fighter is a description more suitable for the pilot than the plane. If a pilot can master the art of trading altitude for speed, and speed for altitude (in conjunction with ACM), then that pilot can have success in any plane.
Well put, and quite accurate. "Hamburger is still hamburger, regardless of what you wrap it in". :salute
-
Would that theory hold up in a P40 v Spit16 matchup :devil
-
152,
If you put the TA152 in as a good E bird under 10K then you have to put all the P47s to include the D11 in there since that is probably its closest comparison under 10 K without WEP...with WEP it's performance does climb but it still can't keep up with any of the planes you listed.
It's main advantage is it's ability to dive away at a quick speed, which has to be used as a last option since it won't beat most MA rides in a deck level flight (think the Spit 16 is actually faster on the deck)
F4U IMO is the best MA fighter in the game, you come in CO alt with the tallest enemy at full speed and your in business to do some damage....this includes the -1 which is a monster once it gets there.
^^^ Obviously not a Luftwaffe pilot ^^^
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl I saw that too :aok
-
the powered sailplane-152 is faster than the spit16, spit8, and also the yak 3, it does not accelerate that good level though.
I agree with Dolby on the Yak3, weight 2 tonnes, can do incredible stunts most planes cannot follow, and take more damage than a B17, not bad !
-
The 152 pretty much has to be flown with the BnZ style of fighting. This means it really has to be flown holding as much E as it can. Id consider it an E plane at any alt because it simply cannot perform well without it. It has a great lift ability to rope planes and get up higher using its conserved E. Compared to the P47, it zoom climbs and builds up E more quickly after a manuever. I feel as though it can rope a 47 given the E and situation in a vertical zoom climb. If the P47 gets slower than the 152, the 152 can use its conservative E to get over the top of the 47.
When you look at the 152 compared to the F4U, the 152 has to be able to escape from most planes with its speed and E, or out climb them or else it's pretty much dead meat. The F4U is much more versatile in the fight, but when you are talking about conserving E and utilizing it, the F4U actually doesn't hold it that well. I mean it's better than a lot of planes. But when you get slow with it, it's difficult to gain speed quickly, it doesn't really build up quick speed/ E like the 152 190D or la7 is capable of. If you are fighting low and slow on the deck against a BnZer in a F4u. You are going to have a hard time because it doesn't build up E well enough in some cases to make a good counter punch shot on the overshoot. The F4U and 47 also tend to get slow if you don't fly it in the BnZ style and it's difficult to build up speed. You tend to lose speed getting a shot while the Ta152 would fly off and regain it and try another pass. It doesn't regain its alt after a dive as well as the 152 or reagin the speed as quickly. I think when it comes to planes that can hold E well it really depends on how quickly they can accelerate, there ability to lift up and away with a strong engine where most planes wouldn't be able to pull up, and the ability to zoom climb better than most. The p38, 152, 190D, P51, and K4, are the types of planes I'm thinking about.
-
^^^ Obviously not a Luftwaffe pilot ^^^
I didn't mention any Luftwaffe planes because they don't qualify in any of the "roles" I mentioned above... Instead, they belong in this category:
(http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/attachments/aircraft/556726d1376956006-messerschmitt-bf-109-g-rote-sieben-red-seven-crash-airshow-von_werra_bf109_marsden_kent.jpg)
Scrap metal.
:devil :neener: :bolt:
-
In all fairness, the Me109F is a sexy looking bird:
(https://padresteve.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/me109f.jpg)
As is the Fw190A5:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tzQSOUtXkxk/TnE-iEDs2oI/AAAAAAAAAXw/UqwH5Eb3L0I/s1600/Diego%20Quijano%20Fw%20190%20A5%20Josef%20%E2%80%9CPips%E2%80%9D%20Priller%20003.jpg)
-
E-retention is what the OP asked for in non perked planes. It is how the OP defines E retention that matters.
I assume the OP is saying when I dive a plane from a given alt and a given speed, which plane can pull out and return back to the same alt and speed the best in the category of non perked planes. Drag and horsepower both included. Correct OP?
-
I believe E-retention discussions generally involved extended turning.
This thread is a good example of what happens when we don't use proper terminology. :D
-
There are some planes that utilize Energy fighting better than others. They are generally the late war planes because they have bigger engines and were designed better. I believe that their are planes that hold E better than other planes. This is not just a who can utilize E in their plane better, type of discussion. If you have a La7 Vs P47. The La7 will be able to out manuever and catch the P47 in any given circumstance. It is able to use its quick acceleration and engine performance to out fly the P47 in any circumstance. A plane like a 190D or 109K can retain E better than most planes, which makes them deadly in the verticle vs most heavier and older aircraft. There is simply a huge difference in planes that hold E well compared to ones that dont. A great example is the P51B vs a P51D. No matter what the circumstance is, the P51D should be able to out fly the P51B all day because it is much better at creating an E advantage in the fight.
-
What about above 33,000 feet?
-
There are some planes that utilize Energy fighting better than others. They are generally the late war planes because they have bigger engines and were designed better. I believe that their are planes that hold E better than other planes. This is not just a who can utilize E in their plane better, type of discussion. If you have a La7 Vs P47. The La7 will be able to out manuever and catch the P47 in any given circumstance. It is able to use its quick acceleration and engine performance to out fly the P47 in any circumstance. A plane like a 190D or 109K can retain E better than most planes, which makes them deadly in the verticle vs most heavier and older aircraft. There is simply a huge difference in planes that hold E well compared to ones that dont. A great example is the P51B vs a P51D. No matter what the circumstance is, the P51D should be able to out fly the P51B all day because it is much better at creating an E advantage in the fight.
E retention of all planes is more or less the same, presuming we are talking about sustaining E in a unloaded state after a loaded maneauver. Under constant G, the fighter with the better P/W will always have a higher sustained E state, but this isnt really "retention" any more than a fighter with a better sustained turn is has better turn "retention"
-
Which plane is the E fighter,the zero or the spit?
:salute
-
Either or. Any fighter can be a E fighter given the circumstances. Although relative to each other, the Spit is faster, and has a better climb rate. If they both started at the same speed and pulled the same G to get into a zoom, they'd stall out at around the same height. The dangerous thing about the zero though is that due to how light it is, it tends to retain alot of control when other fighters dont, so in relative terms, you can out-E and zero and still be screwed because he can still shoot you going 60mph. But the spit is faster and has better sustained climb, so in absolute tems, its the spit
-
I wasnt comparing ther agaist each other simply asked which was the "E" fighter,which you got correct ...BOTH.... It's not the plane as much as how the pilot flies said plane!
You are also correct in thinking the zero is a tough little E fighter do to it's low speed control authority! You can get on top and do a low speed luftberry and watch your enemy stall out below you trying to follow!
The spit with it's superior airspeed should be able to defeat the zero but again it depends on the pilot!
Who said hamburger is hamburger....... :devil
:salute
-
The spit with it's superior airspeed should be able to defeat the zero but again it depends on the pilot!
Who said hamburger is hamburger.......
That would be Puma44.
The AvA used to have Spits v Zekes periodically, ranging from Spit Vs (the old version) v. A6M2s to Spit 8s and 9s v. A6M5. Uniformly the Spits were toast.
- oldman
-
The early models of the Spitfire did everything well compared to its contemporaries. The Zeke as well if we limit the scope to the Pacific theater. Spit vs. Zeke however, the Spit is the better E-fighter. I mean, as late as 1944, tropicalized Spit V's, essentially 1941 vintage planes, were outperforming the latest Zekes.
Generalized, in terms of fighter performance: German > British > American > Soviet > Japanese.
IMHO of course.
-
Spit vs. Zeke however, the Spit is the better E-fighter.
Let me know when you're online, we can try it.
- oldman
-
Sure. Good luck... ;)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=17&p2=71&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=17&p2=71&pw=1>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
Just IMHO, but comparing performance using only the main models of planes (ie: models in large numbers in not post mid-44) Id put the nations in this order for the follow criteria.
USA, UK, Germany, Russia, Japan (for all round fighters, if you could only pick one)
Spitfire of course is the best pure fighter, when compared to any contemporary aircraft. Although If I had to pick one plane to equip my entire fighter arm, it would be the P-51.
Speaking purely game however (MA): the best fighter in the game is a contest between the Spit 14, F4U-4, and 109K4. You might add the 51 in there if "usability" characteristics are being considered, like stability in aiming during a dive, or cockpit visability.
-
Speaking purely game however (MA): the best fighter in the game is a contest between the Spit 14, F4U-4, and 109K4.
Speaking purely about the MA game, the Spit 14 has no place there (look how horribly it's actually performing in the MA stats). Replace it with the Tempest. Oddly, while being one of the biggest MA dominators since it was introduced, it's hardly ever mentioned.
-
Speaking purely about the MA game, the Spit 14 has no place there (look how horribly it's actually performing in the MA stats). Replace it with the Tempest. Oddly, while being one of the biggest MA dominators since it was introduced, it's hardly ever mentioned.
MA stats are irrelevant in large part. People fly planes for a ton of reasons that have more to do with their favored style of fight than anything else. Hence why you see so many Spit 9s, and 16's: 9 being plainly worse and the 16 having only a slight advantage in turn rate and being much slower with equal climb. You also see alot of zeros, c205s, and plenty of other planes that get used alot. Getting used means more kills. Notice I technically omitted the 51 from the list despite it being #1 all the time in the MA stats list. Kills are a poor indicator of performance. Kinematics are the only thing that matters. Not to mention that pilot skill has alot to do with that, and alot of planes that get alot of kills are gravitated towards because the suit turn-only fighting because the majority of the players in the MA only want to furball. Specifically, the Spit 14 has near 16 levels of turn and is much faster with the same range and climb characteristics. It is objectively a excellent plane. Essentially, its a short ranged plane that has P-51 Speed and Spit agility.
I agree with your tempest suggestion however, as it is extremely fast. It does deserve to be considered.
-
Notice I technically omitted the 51 from the list despite it being #1 all the time in the MA stats list.
I wasn't talking about how much it is used (51 only #1 in that), but about the combat performance as reflected in the stats (for example K/D). OF course, several factors have an impact, most notably if a plane is being used as a bomb truck. However, there are a few pure fighters which are almost exclusively used in air to air roles, and things like k/d (especially a2a K/D) get more significant then
The Spit 14 has a history of average to even bad k/d performance, even back when it was perked and players did fly it less and more careful to save their perks. This is a direct result of it's poor actual combat performance in AH. Good specs on paper, but a quirky plane, quite an unstable weapons platform that needs a very experienced hand and a lot of discipline to compete at standard MA combat altitudes where it has a great rate of climb, but not exactly a stellar top speed or maneuverability.
I remember quite clear when some of us campaigned for the unperking of the 14 and based this on the actual performance and capability of this plane which by no means deserved a perk status. We were told here that "you would get an arena full of spit 14s" and it would quickly dominate the opposition. Well, the reality turned out to be quite different... ;)
-
I wasn't talking about how much it is used (51 only #1 in that), but about the combat performance as reflected in the stats (for example K/D). OF course, several factors have an impact, most notably if a plane is being used as a bomb truck. However, there are a few pure fighters which are almost exclusively used in air to air roles, and things like k/d (especially a2a K/D) get more significant then
The Spit 14 has a history of average to even bad k/d performance, even back when it was perked and players did fly it less and more careful to save their perks. This is a direct result of it's poor actual combat performance in AH. Good specs on paper, but a quirky plane, quite an unstable weapons platform that needs a very experienced hand and a lot of discipline to compete at standard MA combat altitudes where it has a great rate of climb, but not exactly a stellar top speed or maneuverability.
I remember quite clear when some of us campaigned for the unperking of the 14 and based this on the actual performance and capability of this plane which by no means deserved a perk status. We were told here that "you would get an arena full of spit 14s" and it would quickly dominate the opposition. Well, the reality turned out to be quite different... ;)
Not sure how you think it doesnt have steller speed or even agility. It has a top speed that is withing a few mph of any of the speed demons in game, such as the P-51, 190D, f4u-4. It is in the general 440mph at altitude, 370mph class on the deck class broadly speaking. Its turn rate is only slightly worse than a Spit 16, with worse roll but still very good. The in its speed class the only thing that can turn with it is a -4. Outside it speed class, generally only other spits can best it. And anything more agile than that is stupid slow. So far a quirks are concerned, I did mention that the P-51 might warrant a spot for just such a reason, since it combines high end speed with a stable platform that has alot of other "ergonomic" advantages. But soft factors like that are secondary. The only quirk I can think of on the Spit 16 that is serious is the tendency to lose roll control at very high speeds, but that is something most of the spits have a issue with.
As for the MA usage, I think it is fair to say that the common flight sim plays gravitates to whatever is the easiest and most nimble thing they can get their hands on. After that there are alot people flying planes simply because they like them. Then on top of that there is what you are trying to achieve in a sortie. For example, you might take a G-14 over a K-4 simply because the 20mm means more kills, despite the K-4 being the objectively superior plane. These are just some of the reasons I dont take the k/d in the MA at face value. Also another aspect is range. Its one of the reasons spits in general, which crazy common in AH, are not the only thing anyone flys. If the spit had 51 range, it probably be the only think flying the game.
-
Just IMHO, but comparing performance using only the main models of planes (ie: models in large numbers in not post mid-44) Id put the nations in this order for the follow criteria.
USA, UK, Germany, Russia, Japan (for all round fighters, if you could only pick one)
Spitfire of course is the best pure fighter, when compared to any contemporary aircraft. Although If I had to pick one plane to equip my entire fighter arm, it would be the P-51.
Speaking purely game however (MA): the best fighter in the game is a contest between the Spit 14, F4U-4, and 109K4. You might add the 51 in there if "usability" characteristics are being considered, like stability in aiming during a dive, or cockpit visability.
NO LA7? speed demon, great turn rate, crazy climb -> low alt demon
-
Not sure how you think it doesnt have steller speed or even agility. It has a top speed that is withing a few mph of any of the speed demons in game, such as the P-51, 190D, f4u-4. It is in the general 440mph at altitude, 370mph class on the deck class broadly speaking.
The speed at high altitude is really great, but not very important for almost all battles in AH. Most fighter combat is happenign quite close to the deck, and very often ends up exactly there.
On the deck, the Spit 14 does just about 360mph, which is good, but not 'stellar', as there are 13 fighters which are even faster than the 14. It's just in the middle of a group consisting of F4U1-a, Ta 152 (faster) and F4U-1, P-51B, Yak-9U (slower). It's high speed/diving roll rate is almost non existent, and, as said before, it's a unstable weapons platform - which is what makes it 'quirky'
A good, experienced and disciplined pilot can have some very good success with that plane, no doubt. But that can be said of a lot of others. In the end, the Spit 14 is shot out of the sky in air to air combat astonishingly often, despite being a pure fighter and thus never being caught with tons of bombs on a suicide mission. No way it's in the top 3 of MA fighters, whatever way you are looking at it.
For reference:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/Fighter%20combat%20kD%202015_zps8uou039g.jpg)
These are just some of the reasons I dont take the k/d in the MA at face value.
Neither do I. I don't just look at the overall K/D and say how 'good' a plane is. But when a pure fighter ends up with a K/D less than 0.8, it can't be perfoming that well in the MA. And certainly not good enough to call it a "top 3 fighter" :)
-
The speed at high altitude is really great, but not very important for almost all battles in AH. Most fighter combat is happenign quite close to the deck, and very often ends up exactly there.
On the deck, the Spit 14 does just about 360mph, which is good, but not 'stellar', as there are 13 fighters which are even faster than the 14. It's just in the middle of a group consisting of F4U1-a, Ta 152 (faster) and F4U-1, P-51B, Yak-9U (slower). It's high speed/diving roll rate is almost non existent, and, as said before, it's a unstable weapons platform - which is what makes it 'quirky'
A good, experienced and disciplined pilot can have some very good success with that plane, no doubt. But that can be said of a lot of others. In the end, the Spit 14 is shot out of the sky in air to air combat astonishingly often, despite being a pure fighter and thus never being caught with tons of bombs on a suicide mission. No way it's in the top 3 of MA fighters, whatever way you are looking at it.
For reference:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/Fighter%20combat%20kD%202015_zps8uou039g.jpg)
Neither do I. I don't just look at the overall K/D and say how 'good' a plane is. But when a pure fighter ends up with a K/D less than 0.8, it can't be perfoming that well in the MA. And certainly not good enough to call it a "top 3 fighter" :)
360 mph puts in the the top end of the speed quadrant in the since that there are very fighters that are much faster than it. And it quite a bit faster at any alt that isnt the deck. For example, I discount russian plane almost entirely, since their inability to be effective higher up means they are always at the mercy of planes that can control the high ground. Maybe most players fight at low alt, but what most players do isnt always optimal. WW2 made it pretty clear, and so does the MA, the planes with the most speed and best altitude performance are overall better. This is because they can come in up high, win any fight up there, and then attack anyhting down low. Or in the case of AH, simply come in high, find nothing up there, and go to town on planes below them. A disciplined pilot can maintain at least 8000ft of altitude in zooms. I do it all the time. I dont dispute that there are some fighters that are a few mph faster than it, but that makes for a tiny margin of error in terms of extending form it. And it is much more agile than most of the planes that can barely catch it. Not to mention that it is faster at many altitudes that are not the deck. This is one of the reasons the mustang and tempest excel. They are faster at almost any altitude even if there are few planes that can catch them at some places. Sea level speed is one of the least important. Alot of people talk about how the la7 can catch the mustang, but in actual practice a good pony pilot knows he can get away at any alt that isnt below 8k. Perhaps my list wasnt big enough, as I do think the tempest and Ta152 should also merit consideration. But at the very least the spit 14 is a once of the "class A" fighters in the game. Ill try to list all of them off the top of my head: P-51, spit 14, ta 152, 109D, 109K4, La7, f4u-4, Yak-3. I am sure I missed something as Im not looking at the list right now. But excluding range, from a pure fighter standpoint the spit has advantages over all those planes (or is basically equal) in all the characteristics that allow it to determine what kind of fight is going to take place. IE: it is either faster everywhere, faster at altitude, or so similar that its agility would most likely be the deciding factor. Anyhow, I think a debate can certainly be had as to which of those fighters is "the best" but I think the 14 deserves serious consideration.
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=64&p2=24&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData
For the yak 9U, note this chart. This Spit is either much faster or has parity. And agility wise my bet is one the spit, since it has a 16 second turn time (closer to 16.5). I havent tested the Yak9U, but the yak3 is a 17 second turner...and if the spit uses the vertical....http://www.hitechcreations.com/component/ahplaneperf/?Itemid=139
-
The problem with the Spit14 is that the prop turns the wrong way. :D
-
That would be Puma44.
The AvA used to have Spits v Zekes periodically, ranging from Spit Vs (the old version) v. A6M2s to Spit 8s and 9s v. A6M5. Uniformly the Spits were toast.
- oldman
I knew it was Puma,I was trying to be funny but failed....... :furious
I'm sure the spits were toast,but I wouldnt say that was the planes fault...... :noid And the reason I slyly quoted Puma... :devil
I do think the zeros are underrated "E"fighter,because they turn so well!
YMMV!
:salute
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=64&p2=24&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData
For the yak 9U, note this chart. This Spit is either much faster or has parity. And agility wise my bet is one the spit, since it has a 16 second turn time (closer to 16.5). I havent tested the Yak9U, but the yak3 is a 17 second turner...and if the spit uses the vertical
Spit 14 climbs like the proverbial homesick angel, but it is extremely unstable. I consider it one of the two or three AH planes that are most difficult to fly well.
Oldman
-
Just IMHO, but comparing performance using only the main models of planes (ie: models in large numbers in not post mid-44) Id put the nations in this order for the follow criteria.
USA, UK, Germany, Russia, Japan (for all round fighters, if you could only pick one)
Spitfire of course is the best pure fighter, when compared to any contemporary aircraft. Although If I had to pick one plane to equip my entire fighter arm, it would be the P-51.
Speaking purely game however (MA): the best fighter in the game is a contest between the Spit 14, F4U-4, and 109K4. You might add the 51 in there if "usability" characteristics are being considered, like stability in aiming during a dive, or cockpit visability.
I'm speaking exclusively about real life, not in this game. In real life the Luftwaffe enjoyed a superiority or parity of fighter performance in five out of six war years. Of course, the one-year period they didn't is when they lost the air war over Europe, and the Luftwaffe was all but destroyed.
From the start of the war in 1939 until the Battle of Britain in 1940 the 109E and 110C ruled the skies of western Europe. When the RAF got Spitfires with the updated Rotol propeller they could match the 109E in performance. However, by the end of the BoB the Luftwaffe started receiving the first 109Fs, again achieving a performance advantage over the RAF. As Eric Brown would attest to after flying it, at this time the 109F was undoubtedly the best fighter in the world. The Luftwaffe would enjoy this advantage for more than a year with the advent of the Fw 190A. 1941 and 1942 was a bad time for the RAF and Commonwealth air forces in Africa, the Mediterranean and over the Channel. This is also the time "Jochen" Marseilles would amass his kills and certify his status as the "Star of Africa", flying the 109F.
This is also the time period where Japan and America entered the war. The best fighter in the Pacific at this time was the Zeke; the famous Mitsubishi A6M Type 0 Model 21. However, the 109, 190, and Spitfire were in a league of their own at this time in the war, with performance advantages that would be all but insurmountable to any Japanese, American or Soviet fighter in service. This is also the time when the numerically superior Red Air Force was all but destroyed by the Luftwaffe.
In the summer of 1942 the 404 mph Merlin 61/63 powered Spitfire IX achieved parity in performance with the 405 mph 109G and 408 mph 190A, ending the "twittler scourge". This parity would last for a year with the Luftwaffe scoring more kills over France and the Channel mostly because of tactical advantages, rather than a performance advantage. At this time there was little to choose between the three primary fighters in Europe, all having only slight advantages in some areas of performance at narrow altitude bands.
In the closing months of 1942 the Americans entered the war in Europe with their early models of the P-47C, but they fared poorly against the Luftwaffe. The P-47 would not become a mature weapon system until the D model.
This period of relative parity in performance would last until the fall of 1943 when the RAF got the excellent Merlin 66 powered Spitfire LF Mk IX (comparable to the Spitfire XVI in AH). The Americans had also started flying the P-47D. Although still a flawed design for high altitude combat, the P-47D would hold its own against the Luftwaffe using tactical advantages. This marked the end of Luftwaffe's superiority/parity in performance and the beginning of the end of the Luftwaffe itself. Still, the war-year 1943 would end with the Luftwaffe having won significant victories in the air war over Europe, destroying the American 8th Army Air Force three times over. Though it is arguable that this achievement would not have been possible without the insane American belief in the self escorting bomber concept.
With the advent of the excellent escort fighter P-51, and a completely revised Allied air war strategy the first half of 1944 saw the Luftwaffe swept from the skies of western Europe. Out performed, out trained, and most of all out produced, the Luftwaffe could not hope to win. The final nail in the coffin was when a desperate Luftwaffe closed down its pilot schools and sent the instructors to the front. By June 1944 the Allied air forces flew unopposed over western Europe.
Perhaps ironically, this moment in time also marks the end of the Allied superiority in fighter performance. Late spring, summer and fall of 1944 saw the introduction of several important German advances in fighter performance. The 109G-6/AS, 109G-14/AS, 190D-9, 109G-10, 109K-4, achieved performance parity with the Allied fighters roaming the skies over Europe. Some, like Eric Brown, would argue that the 190D-9 was the finest piston-engined fighter of the war.
Then there's this...
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/Me262.jpg)
The supreme fighter of the war. The ne plus ultra. The revolutionary fighter that on 26 July 1944 rendered every other fighter in service anywhere hopelessly obsolete. The fighter that was hand built in forest clearings and railway tunnels from the crude materials that were available in a war-torn Germany. The fighter that was flown by a handful of veterans against thousands, THOUSANDS of Allied aircraft. Those who survived getting airborne from their vulched and beleaguered airfields were untouchable. Untouchable! They ripped through Allied bomber formations at will. Leaving the escort fighters behind with "a tap of the throttle".
So yeah... As far as fighter performance goes I say German > British > American > Soviet > Japanese.
-
"twittler scourge" lol. The profanity filter is very indiscriminate. :rofl
-
But at the very least the spit 14 is a once of the "class A" fighters in the game.
Hi Shift, have you done any comparitive flight testing, especially flat turning with the Spit14 versus the 16 say? If you have and filmed it I'd love to see the results. While I agree on paper the 14 looks like a boss in practice for me at least just doesn't seem to translate. I have trouble turning it below corner speed, the pitch seems closely coupled to the yaw contibuting to the nose bounce so your boresight traces an elipse. Then there's the nasty uncommunicative nose-high-when-slow departure which leads to a very nast spin. Discounts the kind of tailstanding reversal antics the K-4 boys get away with, you just can't risk it in combat in the 14.
In testing I've even entered this departure engine off, so I've discounted the torque. My feeling (subjective feeling) is that the CofG is modelled incorrectly - too far aft. Not even the Spit historians I've asked know of any evidence of these handling issues in real life.
Also there's the WEP. Five minutes which is often one decent fight, after that rather feels like an overly-heavy Spit8 with that hobgoblin from the Twilight Zone fiddling with your surfaces. Very bad news because by then three LA7s have usually shown up :rofl
-
Sure. Good luck... ;)
Since the spitfire 1 came into service 1 month after the A6M2, shouldn't they be compared as well as the A6M3 vs the spitfire IX?
-
The 14 is a tough bird to be good at. It's wings rip off too easily. It doesn't manuever like the spit16 or 8s. It should be flown purely in the BnZ style, but most people try to turn fight with it anyway because it's a spit. As far as E goes, I wouldn't put it at the top but it would still he top 10 as far as it's engine performance. It's just difficult to be supremely successful in it.
-
Hi Shift, have you done any comparitive flight testing, especially flat turning with the Spit14 versus the 16 say? If you have and filmed it I'd love to see the results. While I agree on paper the 14 looks like a boss in practice for me at least just doesn't seem to translate. I have trouble turning it below corner speed, the pitch seems closely coupled to the yaw contibuting to the nose bounce so your boresight traces an elipse. Then there's the nasty uncommunicative nose-high-when-slow departure which leads to a very nast spin. Discounts the kind of tailstanding reversal antics the K-4 boys get away with, you just can't risk it in combat in the 14.
In testing I've even entered this departure engine off, so I've discounted the torque. My feeling (subjective feeling) is that the CofG is modelled incorrectly - too far aft. Not even the Spit historians I've asked know of any evidence of these handling issues in real life.
Also there's the WEP. Five minutes which is often one decent fight, after that rather feels like an overly-heavy Spit8 with that hobgoblin from the Twilight Zone fiddling with your surfaces. Very bad news because by then three LA7s have usually shown up :rofl
Yeah Ive compared the 14 and the 16. The 16 has a sixteen second turn, the 14 is closer to 16.5. This is for flat sea level turns with max wep. I cant say I have run into any of those issues when I fly the 14. To me it feels exactly like a faster 16 with a worse roll rate. In my experience alot of people who prefer the 16 like it due to its roll rate, since that makes it a much easier plane to furball in. I am usually in the Mustang in the MA, but I switch to the 14 which I'm in am impatient mood. I find that you can stay right with a 109 in any kind of fight with any contemporary spit. In fact I generally see the 109 as being easy meat when flying a spit. Especially at altitude. I dont have any footage of me in a Spit 14 unfortunately.
As for La's, I tend to stay on the periphery of the fight until the tactical situation permits otherwise. Any engagement bigger than 4 v 4 is more or less a crap shoot, unless you have a big altitude disparity you can exploit. Aside from that, once you get a big dogfight going it is usually decided solely by the accidental positioning of x fighter behing y fighter, and the incidental timing of reinforcements. This is one of the reasons I like the 14. If you keep fast, you can skirt the battle space and engage enemy fighters when the timing is right. In a 16 you can much more easily get caught in a no-win situation.
-
A few months ago I flew the Spit14 quite a bit.. the thing is a monster. It'll make K4's and La7's cry in the vertical, and has far better guns for range. There's no need to turn when your plane performs like a rocket ship & has the ability to hit accurately up to 600m. :airplane:
-
What kind of stick do you use Shift, is it an MS Sidewinder? Strange that we have such a polar experience of the same plane. Must depend a lot on fighting style and tactics a lot too. Do you typically ever get slower than sustained turn speed? Your flat turning, what fuel loads are those times for?
-
According to that one chart which I don't remember where to find. The spit14 clean has a larger sustained turn radius than a 109g6 with drop tank in aces high. No where near the turning circle as other spits in AH.
-
Since the spitfire 1 came into service 1 month after the A6M2, shouldn't they be compared as well as the A6M3 vs the spitfire IX?
Short answer: No... Just no.
Long answer: The Spitfire Mk I entered service in August 1938, two years before the Zeke, with more than 300 built before the war started in 1939. The Spitfire Mk V entered service in January 1941. About the same time the A6M2 Type 0 Model 21 entered production. The A6M2 Type 0 Model 11 entered service in July 1940 and saw combat in China in August... Or about in the middle of the Battle of Britain. But we're talking about few dozen aircraft total in 1940. After producing 65 Model 11s they switched to the Model 21 and by the end of 1941 they had made just over 400 of them. Barely enough to equip all their carrier squadrons before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
-
It was Mosq list that he made with badboy's bootstrap program. I tested the sustained turn rate and circle on the spit14 with bootstrap and got practically the same numbers as mosq did. Spit14 turn radius 665 to 670, turn rate 21 to 22. Worse than the tempest even.
-
You don't need your best sustained turn to compare turn rates, you can compare max radial g at a given speed. It won't tell you the radius and rate without computation but it will tell you which one turns faster and it's a much quicker and easier test.
We don't have turn rate or tun radius gauges in Aces High but we do have speed and accelerometer (radial g) gauges.
-
For rate I just time it against a landmark on a stopwatch. I've always wondered where the radius data came from.
-
I've always wondered where the radius data came from.
Math :P
-
Math :P
Anything but that (http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/scared9.gif)
Must be missing something. Obviously degrees per second is just 360 over t. Still none-the-wiser about the diameter covered over the ground.
(http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/5780/1053175781.gif)
-
Radius = (true airspeed squared) divided by (radial g multiplied by 32.2)
Edit: True airspeed is in ft/sec
-
Radius = (true airspeed squared) divided by (radial g multiplied by 32.2)
Ah the G, of course. Thank you.
-
What kind of stick do you use Shift, is it an MS Sidewinder? Strange that we have such a polar experience of the same plane. Must depend a lot on fighting style and tactics a lot too. Do you typically ever get slower than sustained turn speed? Your flat turning, what fuel loads are those times for?
The turn times are for each plane with a equal load of fuel in terms of time. Meaning that with that fuel they would be able to fly for about the same time. I use a X-55 Rhino, and before that a Logitech extreme 3d pro. I rarely turn fight unless extending is not an option. There are a few times I get very slow though. One is when stalling out at the top a zoom, or when doing a spiral climb. The other is when engaging in a one-circle geometry fight where radius is paramount, and the slower you get without stalling, the better the radius.
-
spit14 don't like to turn to the left, spit16 does.
-
A spit 14 that start with an advantage can be a very tough opponent, because it is impossible to drain its energy (assuming it has wep). On the other hand, without a head start it is the easiest spit to beat. Very volnerable in left hand turns, or if slowed to a stall.
In a mossie, a high spit 14 spells trouble. A co alt spit 14 is a 1 increment to your kill counter.
I like the 14. Take a a lot of skill to fly it well in a furball.
-
Spit 14 isnt that bad at turning compare to other LW rides but it has too much engine power so it doesnt bleed off speed fast enough to stay with other planes that slow down faster when turning. Sometimes you simply have to reduce or even cut the throttle. Too bad we don't have the 150 octane fuel, it would have turned the 14 to a monster..
-
It is indeed too bad. It would make a # of other planes into monsters as well.
-
Thanks for all the comments. I'd like to remind those saying "what about the LA7" that my request for was for: Top E Planes (non-perky)
As pointed out a P-40 will not have the same E retention as a Spit16 - no matter the pilot. ;)
This post is really asking how to get the most out of average planes and you guys have been giving great examples. I only fly perky planes when crazily outnumbered and getting desperate calls to save a base. You have to near force me.
I've seen guys optimize E retention in the C202s to P-51's. A lot IS up to the pilot. All things\pilots being equal though is the baseline of the post.
-
Thanks for all the comments. I'd like to remind those saying "what about the LA7" that my request for was for: Top E Planes (non-perky)
As pointed out a P-40 will not have the same E retention as a Spit16 - no matter the pilot. ;)
This post is really asking how to get the most out of average planes and you guys have been giving great examples. I only fly perky planes when crazily outnumbered and getting desperate calls to save a base. You have to near force me.
I've seen guys optimize E retention in the C202s to P-51's. A lot IS up to the pilot. All things\pilots being equal though is the baseline of the post.
The La-7 isn't a perk plane though..........
That being said, its not the most amazing E fighter either. Don't misunderstand, It's superb below 15k, especially below 10, but its lack of high altitude ability makes it a sub-par fighter in the grand scheme of things. Like all Russian planes, it amounts to basically being a super-hot P-40 or P-39. It's inability to fight up high renders it impotent because it is always at the mercy of planes that can come in higher and work their way down.
That isnt to say it doesnt have a few niche roles, like last ditch base defense or something.
-
People make that generic claim that the La-7 isn't good "up high" but don't really consider the stats. It may do "better" down low, but when the benchmark is so high you will find it is still a bully up at altitude as well. Its' "up high" is still better than many planes' "down low."
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=42&p2=85&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=42&p2=85&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
It does 410 mph at 20k. That's nothing to sneeze at.
It did take a hit to handling after its 3D model was updated and the airflow over the airframe was tweaked. Before then it was an utter UFO and flew more like an unstalling Spit than anything else. Now it's much more realistic (IMO) and still a good ride. Though the non-UFO nature of it now has make many pilots flock to easier-mode rides.
-
Spit 8 is also a low level fighter so its not surprising that it also lose performance at higher altitudes.
Compare with Spit 14:
(http://hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=64&p2=42&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
Or the dora:
(http://hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=44&p2=42&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
And you see that the LA is losing it's speed advantage rather quickly, above 8k both of them are faster with wep and above 15k both are faster non wep.
But have in mind that high altitudes usually means above 20-25k IRL but in AH anything above 10 is considered high altitude.
-
People make that generic claim that the La-7 isn't good "up high" but don't really consider the stats. It may do "better" down low, but when the benchmark is so high you will find it is still a bully up at altitude as well. Its' "up high" is still better than many planes' "down low."
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=42&p2=85&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=42&p2=85&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
It does 410 mph at 20k. That's nothing to sneeze at.
It did take a hit to handling after its 3D model was updated and the airflow over the airframe was tweaked. Before then it was an utter UFO and flew more like an unstalling Spit than anything else. Now it's much more realistic (IMO) and still a good ride. Though the non-UFO nature of it now has make many pilots flock to easier-mode rides.
Your comparing it to a really old spit dude. The La-7 is a September 44 plane. Also its speed at altitude isn't really indicative of its performance there. It starts to really gasp over 15k. I will grant you that there are some planes it does better than up there, but not versus its contemporaries.
-
I thought we were talking about the MA? All planes are "contemporaries" there :old:
-
Just about this maximum radial G business, if the accelerometer reads 1 in level flight, are you pulling 3 or 2 radial G in a flat turn when the guage reads 3? Does it depend on the lean angle of the aircraft? Is it something like the cosine of the bank angle? What about if the turn isn't flat, can you still measure the radius of an Immelmann or a Chandelle, accepting it will vary through the manoeuvre as the G varies?
-
Radial g is created by lift. The accelerometer reads the load factor for the wing. Gravity is added or subtracted depending on your attitude so vertical turns get complicated. Bank angle in a flat turn correlates to radial g. A flat 60 degree turn is a 2g turn.
Take a look at the energy egg.in this article.
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/89-tactics/advanced-flight-concepts/1076-turning
-
The La-7 everyone flies is a 1945 plane ( with 3 guns)
Your comparing it to a really old spit dude. The La-7 is a September 44 plane. Also its speed at altitude isn't really indicative of its performance there. It starts to really gasp over 15k. I will grant you that there are some planes it does better than up there, but not versus its contemporaries.
-
LA7 and Spit8 are two non perk planes that can turn better than most and can hold and retain E better than most. They are a couple of the best non perk planes in the game.
The 109K holds E very well, but you have to be skilled to aim it properly, so it does take some skill to fly and set up shots.
-
Although it's better to compare the LA-7 with the Spit 16. The spit has a slight edge on almost Everything except speed. As long as it has WEP.
-
LA7 and Spit8 are two non perk planes that can turn better than most and can hold and retain E better than most. They are a couple of the best non perk planes in the game.
The 109K holds E very well, but you have to be skilled to aim it properly, so it does take some skill to fly and set up shots.
A tour or two ago I took the 109k for a spin after many many tours (probably years) not flying it. Man, it felt completely invincible. After years of flying almost nothing other than mosquitoes, P47D11/25, or F6Fs, the 109k4 felt like I could get away with any thing. Could not hit a thing with the spud gun, but bagged 3 kills with the mg's while out numbered. Pipz laughed out laud on Teamspeak when he called my 6 about spits closing on me in the furball and I relplyed with a giggle "they cant touch me! I'm in a K4!".
Yes, the tater takes some skill, but otherwise it is at the top of the "easiest planes to be successful in". Energy management in the K4 means "dont build too much of it".
-
A tour or two ago I took the 109k for a spin after many many tours (probably years) not flying it. Man, it felt completely invincible.
EXACTLY ... EXACTLY!
If you cant avg. 3+ kills in an LA7, Spit16, 109k4 etc. you are doing something wrong (assuming you are flying when there are planes to shoot down). That is not fun to me. These are Tie fighters, i.e. planes that excel exponentially over the opponents planes.
Thus this message topic is functionally: getting the most out of non-perky rides. Non-perky in this context means basically average planes.
Granted if you are polarized on score you might need to fly perky planes. I'm just polarized on shooting down red things and helping my team. If I can do it in average planes it is more fun to me.
To each his own. Rock on! :salute
-
So would 24* R4m rockets on all late German planes. More Jets like He162 and Meteors would out-date all prop planes with or without 150 octane.
It is indeed too bad. It would make a # of other planes into monsters as well.
-
Imo Spit 14 can be an awesome plane if not flown like a spit. I Think that its the most common misstake people do, they use it like they use the other spits. Fly it like it was a K-4 instead, just be careful with the WEP.
-
EXACTLY ... EXACTLY!
If you cant avg. 3+ kills in an LA7, Spit16, 109k4 etc. you are doing something wrong (assuming you are flying when there are planes to shoot down). That is not fun to me. These are Tie fighters, i.e. planes that excel exponentially over the opponents planes.
Thus this message topic is functionally: getting the most out of non-perky rides. Non-perky in this context means basically average planes.
Granted if you are polarized on score you might need to fly perky planes. I'm just polarized on shooting down red things and helping my team. If I can do it in average planes it is more fun to me.
To each his own. Rock on! :salute
"Unperky" is sort of impossible to quantify. It isnt possible to define a average class of aircraft because you are essentially implying we disregard anything that is extremely good that isn't a true perk plane. But once you do that, the next tier of planes immediately becomes "perky" relative to everything else. Essentially there is always going to be a set of planes the exhibit "perky" characteristics relative to the rest of the list. All we would really accomplish by doing this would be eventually narrowing everything down to whatever the worst plane in the game is.
To gain some level of objectivity to the list, you may as well limit the conversation to the mid war area planes.
-
you may as well limit the conversation to the mid war area planes.
@shift8 I think you are over thinking this. If it helps in having posts then sure limit it to midwar planes.
OR
All perk planes including these non-perked planes: LA5, LA7, Spit16, Spit14, Spit8 and BF109 k4.
Given that list @shift8 can you share which planes you feel have the best E retention in your experience?
Thanks. :salute
-
If you cant avg. 3+ kills in an LA7, Spit16, 109k4 etc. you are doing something wrong
While this is technically true, there is only a small group of players which can actually pull that off, even in those planes mentioned. The average player struggles to get a 1.0k/d, no matter what plane he's flying in.
Yes, the tater takes some skill, but otherwise it is at the top of the "easiest planes to be successful in". Energy management in the K4 means "dont build too much of it".
I'd disagree, based on my own experience as a noob. Getting successful in the 109K was so much more difficult than in the La-7 or even the 190D. Granted, the 190D is far more limited in it's combat capabilities, but when using it as a kind of 'one trick pony' even a newer player can get relatively successful in it (though his style may offend his opponents ;) )
The big problems for any average (or worse) players are limited visibility due to the cockpit bars (TrackIR may help with that), the already mentioned taters ballistics and the high speed lockup.
I remember quite well stepping back from the 109K and flying LA-7/190D (and later Ki-84 and Spit 8 and then the Tempest). Only after a year (or two? have to look it up) I was ready to score in the 109K.
But you Sir, are a much about average player (yes, you really are. The level of 'average' is constantly being overestimated on the BBS ;) ). For someone like you the 109K is a 'super' plane indeed. :old:
-
The big problems for any average (or worse) players are limited visibility due to the cockpit bar
Lusche great point you hit on. :aok
I tend to fly the P-47-d25 over the d11 because of the increased visibility even though the d11 has some performance advantages. Same with other plane sets.
I think some pilots dont factor this in. I always felt with pilots being equal - better visibility made up (a little bit) for loss of: turn radius, climb rate etc. Loss of viz and correspondingly SA, can be a killer!
Though check-sixes hlp, if one puts them self in an aperture highly conducive to death (via loss of SA or just plain dumb decisions) then it is no surprise when it arrives.
-
Lusche great point you hit on. :aok
I tend to fly the P-47-d25 over the d11 because of the increased visibility even though the d11 has some performance advantages. Same with other plane sets.
I think some pilots dont factor this in. I always felt with pilots being equal - better visibility made up (a little bit) for loss of: turn radius, climb rate etc. Loss of viz and correspondingly SA, can be a killer!
Though check-sixes hlp, if one puts them self in an aperture highly conducive to death (via loss of SA or just plain dumb decisions) then it is no surprise when it arrives.
I can tell you that missing shots is the single most important reason why people don't get as many kills as they want. Missing shots carries on the fight, gives your opponent more chances to counter, makes you lose more E, and gets you picked more often than not. Missing shots is what kills the majority of players in this game. I actually use to the K4s bars to help me set up shots. But that's why the K4 isn't as easy as people think. They miss all their shots, don't know how to set up crossing shots, they lose all their E and position trying to make the shot, then they get picked. I use the G14 a lot just so I can get easier shots. Sometimes it doesn't matter how great of a plane you have. If you can't aim it, it's useless.
Lusche also mentioned the dive performance on the 109s and K4. It can't go faster than 490 without locking up, this creates a huge amount of loss of E that the plane could have gained. You actually have to slow down and use the throttle to control the plane so you can make the shot and still get away from the enemies watching you. It's not a BnZ style plane. While the plane does have a great engine and can turn fairly well. It's a more difficult plane because you have to know how the set up shots and utilitize your throttle to not lock up.
-
@shift8 I think you are over thinking this. If it helps in having posts then sure limit it to midwar planes.
OR
All perk planes including these non-perked planes: LA5, LA7, Spit16, Spit14, Spit8 and BF109 k4.
Given that list @shift8 can you share which planes you feel have the best E retention in your experience?
Thanks. :salute
My point was that the conversation will always be moot with the definition of "perky", since there is no such thing. A plane is either perked or it isn't. Perky is a subjective description only known to you.
But since you have spelled out which planes you want removed (the spit 16, La5, and Spit 8 being rather odd choices to omit....)....
All planes have more or less the same E "retention," for the reason I spelled out quite awhile ago. I think it needs to be defined what exactly "retention" is, because many people here are posting based on entirely different metrics.
Rentention is the capacity of the plane to maintain speed in a constant maneuver at a constant G. There are 3 main applications to this. The first is when you perform a single move and then hold a straight line. In this case the E retention of all fighters is for all intensive purposes the same, although some fighters may feel better due to other characteristics like control authority when slow. The second application is holding speed in any series of, or constant application of, G. In this case the planes that will do this the best are objectively the ones with better power to weight. So look for the planes with the best climb rates, period. The last application is holding speed in a straight line in level flight either out of a dive or when the power is shut off from a equal speed. In this case the planes with the most mass and least drag win.
Off the of my head, the 109G-14 would have the best E retention under constant G for the planes that are allowed. I am sure I have forgotten some plane though.
-
So look for the planes with the best climb rates, period.
This is the statement that you most need to pay attention to. Accept I'd change it to zoom climb. That's why the 190D, P51D, P38, 109K, Spit8, Spit16, Ta152, La7, and Yak3, are all the best E birds for their category, that are non perked.
Off the of my head, the 109G-14 would have the best E retention under constant G for the planes that are allowed. I am sure I have forgotten some plane though.
The K4 is actually a lot more powerful because of the engine and design, but the G14 can roll inside a K4, generally.
-
This is the statement that you most need to pay attention to. Accept I'd change it to zoom climb. That's why the 190D, P51D, P38, 109K, Spit8, Spit16, Ta152, La7, and Yak3, are all the best E birds for their category, that are non perked.
The K4 is actually a lot more powerful because of the engine and design, but the G14 can roll inside a K4, generally.
He discounted the K4 IIRC, thas why I didnt mention it. Also they have the same climb rate more or less, the K4 is far faster though.
I wouldn't change it to zoom climb really because all planes more or less have the same zoom climb. People seem to think that one plane or the other has significant zoom advantages but this is not the case. I tested this some time ago in AH and other flight sims and always got the same result. If you start two planes at the exact same speed and then pull a constant G until vertical, the planes will stop at more or less the same height. There were small differences between trials, but they were inconsistent and appeared to have more to do with my inability to hold a exactly perfect constant G turn. My theory on why this is is that the heavier planes lose more E during the transition, but retain it better once unloaded going straight up. On the other hand, lighter planes like the K4 or La7 Bleed less E in the transition but have less inertia once unloaded. Either way I found it difficult to detect any meaningful difference in zoom climb on various planes.
Caveat: some planes have much better characteristics at the top of the zoom than others, which may lead to a false impression of actually gaining more height. Extremely light planes like the zero, or super stable planes like the P-38, tend to be very easy to manipulate at the apex of the zoom. This can give them an edge in some circumstances.