Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Mister Fork on April 03, 2003, 10:41:18 AM
-
Test Environment
Altitude: 150 ft
Winds: 0
Fuel Burn Rate: 0.01
Fuel: 25%
Vo: 150Mph
Vf: 250Mph
WEP: On
Description
All aircraft were loaded with 25% fuel and with minimal MG loads if available. Aircraft were auto-levelled at 150 feet and speed reduced to 125mph, except the Me 262* and Me 163*. 100% throttle was applied and WEP engaged (if available). At 150mph the timer was engaged to 250Mph. This was repeated five times for every aircraft. The average time was recorded to accelerate through 100 mph.
* Vo was 200 and Vf was 300 due to stall conditions.
Forumla
Acceleration
a = (Vf - Vo) / t m/s^2
where
Vf - final velocity
Vo - initial velocity
t - time in seconds
Vf = 250mph = 111.8 m/s
Vo= 150mph = 67.1 m/s
a = (111.8m/s - 67.1m/s) / t
a = 44.7m/s / time
% accuracy: +/- .2 s
Results (in order of acceration)
Aircraft | Seconds | Acceleration
Me 163 | 7.7 | 5.8
Tempest V | 16.7 | 2.7
La-7 | 16.9 | 2.6
Spit XIV | 16.9 | 2.6
Bf 109G-10 | 17.1 | 2.6
La-5FN | 17.6 | 2.5
Me 262 | 19.5 | 2.3
Fw 190D-9 | 20.2 | 2.2
Bf 109G-2 | 20.5 | 2.2
F4U-4 | 20.8 | 2.1
Typhoon | 21.5 | 2.1
Bf 109G-6 | 21.8 | 2.1
P-38L | 22.0 | 2.0
Bf 109F-4 | 22.1 | 2.0
C205 | 22.2 | 2.0
Fw 190A-8 | 22.8 | 2.0
Fw 190A-5 | 23.0 | 1.9
P-51D | 23.3 | 1.9
NIK2-J | 23.4 | 1.9
Spit IX | 23.6 | 1.9
F4U-1D | 23.8 | 1.9
F4U-1C | 24.0 | 1.9
Ta-152H | 24.0 | 1.9
Yak-9U | 24.0 | 1.9
P-47D-30 | 24.5 | 1.8
F6F-5 | 24.6 | 1.8
Bf 110G-2 | 24.9 | 1.8
C202 | 24.9 | 1.8
Fw 190F-8 | 25.1 | 1.8
Spit V | 26.0 | 1.7
Mosq VI | 26.1 | 1.7
Yak-9T | 26.2 | 1.7
F4U-1 | 26.5 | 1.7
P-47D-11 | 26.9 | 1.7
Seafire IIC | 27.0 | 1.7
P-47D-25 | 27.1 | 1.6
A6M5b | 27.9 | 1.6
P-51B | 28.0 | 1.6
Hurr IIC | 29.1 | 1.5
FM2 | 29.9 | 1.5
Bf 110C-4b | 30.0 | 1.5
Ki-61-I-KAIc | 30.4 | 1.5
Bf 109E-4 | 33.2 | 1.3
Spit IA | 33.5 | 1.3
Hurr IID | 34.9 | 1.3
P-40E | 36.0 | 1.2
Hurr Mk 1 | 37.0 | 1.2
A6M2 | 40.3 | 1.1
F4F-4 | 40.9 | 1.1
P-40B | 101.8 | 0.4
Results are available in an Excel spreadsheet. If you like, email me at mr.fork@shaw.ca and I'll send you the results.
-
Nice work. I did the same type of thing for AWIII. Maybe some of the experts will step in and point out any discrepencies.
-
lol, this should shut up the "the fw190d9 can't accelerate very well" crowd and point out how easily they can and *do* run.
i know it'd be time consuming, but the same test at say 15,000 feet would be good.. or maybe 18,000.
-
WTFG!!
Excellent post!
The only suprise for me is the LA-5.
Is the power to weight ratio that great??
-
Who says that shane? The 190s should accelerate well. The point never was the d9 but the 190a5 vrs the spit. You can see its only .6 sec faster.
Hell the a8 beats the a5.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
WTFG!!
Excellent post!
The only suprise for me is the LA-5.
Is the power to weight ratio that great??
The LA-5 and LA-7 use the same engine... the LA-7 is just "cleaner" aerodynamically. So to answer your question.. yes.
-
WTG fork, you know I basically did the same tests for all AH aircraft except at 50% fuel and at 1k, 5k and 9k. I timed 150-250 as well as 200-300 mph. I'll try and post some of the results soon if I can.
Just from scanning it offhand my results were very similar, except for the A8 was just a hair faster than the f4u1d in my tests. Also I don't think the 190f4 did as well, but I think that is due to the fact that I take max guns and most likely tested that way.
One real interesting thing I can see right off is that fuel load makes a *much* bigger difference that I thought it would. Using twice the fuel in my tests as you did in yours (also at 1k vs 150 ft.) the accel times I came up with were on the order of 8-15 seconds longer for the 150-250mph range.
Side note, Lazerus and I are trying to reform the "old" JG 2 somewhat -- you are more than welcome to join us Fork .
-
P-40B | 101.8 | 0.4
Ow...
-
Big difference between P-51B and P-51D.
-
The difference between the P-51's would be reversed at altitude. Low altitude is the worst possible place for the version of the P-51B we have in AH to be.
J_A_B
-
P-40B | 101.8 | 0.4
I think my car accelerates faster. Nobody is gonna wanna fly these after reading this lol.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Who says that shane? The 190s should accelerate well. The point never was the d9 but the 190a5 vrs the spit. You can see its only .6 sec faster.
Hell the a8 beats the a5.
1/2 a sec can be enough. yet most of the errr whines about fw's revolve around the d9.
the g10 is almost the same as the la7... yet...
perk the g10!!!
:D
-
Nice work. Thanks for the effort.
It does seem odd to me that you chose to use minimum ammo loads and 25% fuel. 50% or 75% fuel would seem to be useful in making the results more relevant to typical MA conditions.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
50% or 75% fuel
Agree, I woud say with enough fuel to fly 75 miles (quadrant and half, climbing to 15k and with RTB included), that is, some planes with 25% (Ta152), some others with 100% (C205) and so on. In any case, good work.
-
Two things that suprised me: I thought that the 202 would accelerate faster because of how light it is and how well it climbs, and the difference between the p51b and p51d .
-
1/2 a sec can be enough. yet most of the errr whines about fw's revolve around the d9.
The tests have an error of +/- .2 s. Either way you wont last .1 sec in the sites of those hizookas.
The arguement that the a5 should accellerate better comes from the british a3 vrs the spit 9 tests.
The g10 is an alround better plane the the la 7. But the g10 we have in ah is the very best of the g10 variant and isnt the most common.
I dont remember seeing any d9s dont accelerate threads. There have been many about the poor accelleration (and its climbrate)on the ta152.
-
wtg for doing this test fork, but I must add two remerks about interpreting the results:
1. weight and fuel load -
as mentioned by some guys above (mandoble), testing with the same percentage of fuel is problematic. no one flies the p-51 with 100% fuel and 25% in the hurri, will barly get you to the end of the runway.
ammo load and gun options are also important. Local acceleration is proportional to the inverse of the mass "a=F/m".
2. averaged acceleration (not local acceleration) -
acceleration changes with speed dramaticly. Accelerating from 150 to 250 is not a small margin, so it really depends on what you want to get out of the test.
slower planes with a good powerloading will come out worse with this method. I'm sure the nik and zeke would have come much higher on the list if you averaged acceleration between 150-200 mph. the current test favours the faster planes (or the midrage actually, which might explain the 109G2 and la5).
good test, just treat the results with care.
Bozon
-
Should get your facts straight before opening yer mouth next time Shane, then again, this is what you're known for.
Noone has ever complained about the Dora but we have complained about the A5 and the Ta152.
Looking at the stats now, it kind of makes me wounder the why the TA152 was ever built.
Nice post btw.
-
Look how the 109E4 is the slowest accelering plane of all the planes using DB601, even the 110 is faster... I think this suggests that 109E4 is porked. :D
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Nice work. Thanks for the effort.
It does seem odd to me that you chose to use minimum ammo loads and 25% fuel. 50% or 75% fuel would seem to be useful in making the results more relevant to typical MA conditions.
Hooligan
As they say, don't look a gifted horse in the mouth. ;)
It's a Catch-22. Put in 100% fuel, and the results will be completely different than 75, 50, or 25%. Every aircraft carries different fuel ammounts. :(
I try to minimize all possible factors that can skew the results. I used scientific testing criteria to make sure my outcome is as accurate as possible and fuel was my only control. Reducing the fuel factor gives me more accurate readings. It would be nice to give every plane 20 gallons of fuel but that's not possible.
N.b.: At 18000ft, the P-51B/D accelerate faster than the La-7/La-5. I'll post those results later on once I'm done.
-
I don't think fuel matters at all since we can't make sure every plane has the same number of gallons on board. All we are looking for is the acceleration difference between aircraft, so without going through every plane and trying to match up percentages with number of gallons then having every plane at %25 is close enough.
It would be nice though to run every plane at the most common ammo load.
-
Originally posted by Frost
then having every plane at %25 is close enough.
100% wrong. Fuel load matters a lot for acceleration, and fuel load depends on desired range. Just fix a range, calculate the needed fuel for each plane and then you will have much more accurate acceleration numbers. Add also a second critical factor, initial/final altitude. And then, add the most important factor: acceleration when diving? level flight? climbing? IMO, level flight acceleration (positive or negative) is the less important of the three by a wide marging when in combat, while climbing acceleration/decceleration is the most important of all.
-
You know, instead of complaining and claiming that this guy's testing is basically worthless (which it isn't), there's nothing stopping you people from taking the time to do it yourself if you don't like how he did it. He tested the planes in light condition, which is what he feels is most important.
Personally, I appreciate that he was willing to take the time.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
You know, instead of complaining and claiming that this guy's testing is basically worthless (which it isn't), there's nothing stopping you people from taking the time to do it yourself if you don't like how he did it.
J_A_B
Mandoble's idea of testing planes is watching them from the tower.
-
great test thanks.
p.s.
the complaints about the d9 i am aware of were that is compresses or compressed ( i havent checked lately ) a good bit befor the a8 wich has the exact same wing and less leverage from the tail.
not to mention a quote from some dude name tank naming speeds and alts the plane was handeling well where the ah d9 was locked up like a brick.
now they may have fixed it dont jump on me but speed with the d9 was never a issue it moves.
-
Thanks for the tests, I know how long they take to complete since I've done a lot of them myself. Some notes from similar tests I ran:
- all AH planes struggle with they've reached about 75% of their top speed. That explains the P-40B in your tests (275mph top speed is near 250mph target for end of test).
- in sprint type tests, while a 10 second advantage may seem a lot, it really doesn't actually work out to a lot of separation in the scheme of things, certainly not enough to be in safety in most cases. I know I ran Mossie vs La7 tests, and until the 75% point in top speed, the Mossie hung in there and could have killed an accelerating La7 10 times over. That also wouldn't represent that the La7 would have to weave and not accelerate at full potential. Once the Mossie hit 75% of top speed, the La7 scooted away (since it had a much higher top speed).
-Soda
The Assassins.
-
Hi Grünherz,
>Look how the 109E4 is the slowest accelering plane of all the planes using DB601, even the 110 is faster...
The Me 110C-4/B used the DB601N while the Me 109E-4 had the less powerful DB601A-1.
However, even at 25% fuel, I estimate the Me 110's mass as about 6140 kg, while the Me 109 weighs in at 2380 kg.
That gives the Me 110 a power-to-mass ratio of at best 0.38 HP/kg, while the Me 109 is considerably superior at about 0.43 HP/kg.
The Me 109 has the higher top speed, too, so it should accelerate better through the entire interval, increasing its superiority with speed.
Using the FM-2 (ca. 2935 kg at 1300 HP) for a sanity check, I get a power-to-mass ratio of 0.44 HP/kg, so it should indeed accelerate faster than the other two. However, I'd expect the Me 109 to be almost able to keep up while the Me 110 gets left behind, not vice versa.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHuz - my thoughts exactly on the HP / weight ratio for linear acceleration. But a lot of aircraft don't really follow that model well. Weight balancing, aerodynamics, propeller design and even gearing of the prop shaft play a large role on 'well' an aircraft will accelerate to it's top speed.
I look at the Bf 110C4, and I'm thinking flying shoe box. I look at the 109E4, and I think, streamline design. Maybe it's the propeller design? I would like to see how Pryo and HiTech formulate the engine design in the AH environment.
Then the question comes into play, does propeller design have a play in the acceleration results or is the game designed strictly on horse power with an acceleration quotient? Dale? Doug? Does anyone know?
MANDOBLE: *** *** * ******* *****. * **** *** *** **** *** **** *** ******* *** **** ** *** **** **** * ****** ***** ** *** *****. :rolleyes:
-
Ok Mandoble...go ahead and pick a range, calculate the fuel and load each plane individually with the exact percentage required. Oops, guess we can't do that. We can load %25, %50, %75, and %100 percent fuel for planes. So the for the purposes of these tests, it is perfectly fine to pick a percentage, load all planes and get a rough idea of acceleration. Your opinion of the importance of this test is completely irrelavant. Mister Fork tested what he wanted and choosing one fuel percentage for all planes gives a valid picture because of the limited fuel options we have.
Personally I think level flight acceleration comparisons are very useful. Well done Mister Fork.
-
LOL and the wabbles start whining.
-
Hi Mister Fork,
>Then the question comes into play, does propeller design have a play in the acceleration results or is the game designed strictly on horse power with an acceleration quotient? Dale? Doug? Does anyone know?
You could try to compare Me 109E-4 and Me 110C-4/B climb rates at 200 mph and 300 mph. Climb rate ist proportional to acceleration at the same speed.
If the Me 110C-4/B out-accelerates the Me 109E-4, it should out-climb it at at least one of these speeds, too, which would seem off to me.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
What could be the reason for the Ta152H-1 scoring so low in the tests?
Compared to the 190D-9, I can't find any reason why the 152 is so drastically inferior in acceleration..
Does the Jumo213E suck that bad at low alts?
Something to do with internal fuel load?
-
Hi Kweassa,
The Ta 152H-1 carried 904 kg of fuel/MW50/GM-1 internally (plus 55 kg of lubricants).
With 25% fuel, it would weigh in at 4313 kg, compared to the 3950 kg of the Fw 190D-9.
Without MW50 injection, the Jumo 213E was good for 1730 HP (varying with source), compared to the 2100 HP of the Jumo 213A with MW50, so the Ta 152H-1 would have a clearly inferior power loading of 0.40 HP/kg compared to 0.53 HP/kg for the Fw 190D-9.
The Ta 152H-1 did actually have MW50 injection available, though, but I'm not sure how much power that gave at low altitude. I'm certain it still stayed the aircraft with less power and more mass, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
400-450 Hp HoHun.
Gm1 gave out around 400 extra at a normal consumption of 100 g/s, it could also be run at less and more then that.
So with MW50 the Jumo 213E-1 as the Ta152H-1 used would actually have as much HP as the Jumo 213A. It is heavier though but it's also got refined aerodynamics. But no real use discussing it anymore...
-
JUMO213E has power output of 2050PS with MW50 injection according to FW documents.
Also it has the VS9 airscrew which is slighly better than the VS111 on the D9.
Also the airscrew thrust is a little bit larger i think, but have to review that at home.
But the D12, which has same airscrew, same power and therefor same engine thrust (as i said not totaly sure here) as TA152H, fell behind the D9 at low altittudes, not much just a slight tad. This was due to weight increase of 120kg.
The TA152H adds even more weight compared to D9, as you see in HoHuns post.
Therefore the TA152H fell behind both the D9 and D12 at low altittude.
Nothing mystical here, just a matter of facts.