Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Mister Fork on April 03, 2003, 10:49:06 AM
-
I've posted the results of my acceleration tests of all fighter aircraft in Aces High. Some results are surprising, others are expected. Goto the post here:Fighter Aircraft Acceleration test results (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83705)
The top ten accelerating aircraft are:
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
Results are available in an Excel spreadsheet. If you like, email me at mr.fork@shaw.ca and I'll send you the results.
-
wow, nice work Fork!
----------------------------------------
-=octavius=-
VMF-323 Death Rattlers Website (http://home.cfl.rr.com/kutt/)
MAG-33 Information (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/M3.html)
octavius@wi.rr.com[/color]
"If the U.S. were to start jailing people just for being stupid, the number of posts in this forum would drop by 90%"
-Mini D
-
Always thought the tempest was the best accelerating prop plane we've got in here... good job fork(the jg2 one, or someone else?)
-
Perk the LA7!
Said it first!
Sour
-
lol, this should shut up the "the fw190d9 can't accelerate very well" crowd and point out how easily they can and *do* run.
interesting how the a8 and a5 rank in that list as well. lol.
would be nice to have the same kind of data for say 15,000 or 18,000. ah well... good work anyway, and thx.
-
Isn't acceleration just a function of climb rate?
-
Nice job Fork.
Perk the LA-7!
Unperk the F4U-C!
-
Originally posted by ccvi
Isn't acceleration just a function of climb rate?
No, but the two are very closely related. The LA-7 accelerates slightly better than the G-10, but the G-10's maximum climb rate at sea level is about 250-300ft/min higher. Whereas the typhoon accelerates quite a bit better than the 190-A5, but the A5's max. climb rate at sea level is a good 600ft/min higher.
-
Just looked at the full list... I'm amazed at how low the yak9u is on that list. To me, that thing feels like it accelerates incredibly well. The reverse with the 109G2.. doesn't feel to me like it accelerates as well as it ranks on that list.
-
I think under certian conditions, the La7 accelerates noticeably better than the Tempest.
-
Originally posted by Shane
lol, this should shut up the "the fw190d9 can't accelerate very well" crowd and point out how easily they can and *do* run.
Since when did facts ever figure in a complaint about the dora? ;)
-
Udet: what I find even more interesting is that the La-5 is right up there too.
I calculated a +/- error of .2 so the La-7 could be as fast as a Tempest or faster. Same for the G10.
Interesting to note that only 5 out of the top ten birds are perked. The Bf 109G-2 was the biggest surprise. When it's light, it's a FAST bird. Other surprise was the La-5 - fast bird on the deck too.
I have tested a few birds at 18'000ft. The 51 is faster accelerating than the La-7. The Dora is the same as the 51. I'll post my results on the 18'000 ft tomorrow.
-
What is wrong with the P-40B? How could anything be so far down from the rest of the list? Really looks like an error, doesn't it?
-
Originally posted by oboe
What is wrong with the P-40B? How could anything be so far down from the rest of the list? Really looks like an error, doesn't it?
the only error would seem to be building it in the first place :D
-
lol hazed.. agreed :D
-
P40B - I thought so too but it really took over 100 seconds to accelerate to 250mph.
I did the test on this bird twice just to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong.
There have been a few questions why not test with 50% or 100% fuel and at a higher altitude.
I was after the core acceleration rate of every aircraft. Some birds have HUGE fuel tanks because they are long patrol aircraft while others are designed for short flight's. The fuel load would of given incorrect results. Same for ammo load - I chose the minimum for ever plane. I'm after CORE acceleration results.
-
I don't doubt your methods or results, re the P-40B, but it indicates to me you've discovered a potential FM error.
How could it accelerate at less than half the rate of its contemporaries? Look at the distribution there - the P-40B is way, way off by itself. I don't see how it possibly could have been that bad in RL. No wonder it falls out of the sky after a couple tight turns.
Look at the difference between the P-40E and B. The B is 900 lbs lighter and has about 100 less hp. How could its acceleration have dropped so far? I think your testing has uncovered something significant here.
-
udet, the P-40B sucks in here, just as it sucked in WW2. Maybe the engine of the P-40B had very little torque compared to the E. I'm not sure if that effects acceleration of aircraft, but I know that it does with cars.
-
As someone pointed out in the A/C and Vehicles forum, it's because the P-40B's top speed is 275mph. Seeing how most aircraft reach 75% of their top speed in a short time, it could explain some of the results I got were longer than expected for sea-level acceleration.
When I test all the aircraft at 18'000 ft this weekend, I'm sure the order will change.
-
The messirshmiddt 109g10 is growsely undermodeled !!! :mad: :mad: :mad: