Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kweassa on June 26, 2003, 06:47:18 PM
-
This, you might find interesting.
These charts were made by my squad mate Kingcat.
There's a user-made AH film viewer(made by knob), which records lots of miscellaneous information such as speed, heading, rate of roll, relative 3D positions and etc. I bet some of you people might know about it.
Thus, these roll rate charts are not "analogue".
They were not made with a stop-watch. It was made from digitally recorded data of the game itself(all the data from AH films).
The results?
Some are as expected, some are as suspected.. and some are shocking.
........
The page these charts are located, is "Kingcat's Aces High", a Korean AH website.
*AH Speed Charts (http://kingcat.hihome.com/speedgraph.html)
(HTC official charts)
*AH Climbrate Charts (http://kingcat.hihome.com/climbgraph.html)
(HTC official charts)
*AH Rollrate Charts (http://kingcat.hihome.com/rollrate.html)
(Analyzed with AH game data)
The charts are easy to use - click the "ONN/OFF" buttons for the plane type chart to appear and disappear. Some of the roll rates among planes of simular types(ie. Fw190 series, P-47D series..), are in average numbers - Kingcat confirms that there were minor differences among those types with multiple trials, but the differences were relatively low, and thus, in consideration of the possibility of minor differences due to the pilot factor, the numbers were rounded out.
Tested altitude was 1000ft.
-
Note, some interesting points:
* the AH SpitI outrolls the Bf109E-4 in all speeds, at 1000ft.
* the F4U Corsairs, outrolls all P-47s
* the Ta152H rollrate is practically the same as Spitfires.
Perhaps the results may vary with different altitudes. Currently I'm requesting Kingcat to make a 18000ft version of this roll rate chart.
-
OUTSTANDING! :eek:
Great effort, two thumbs up ect.
As I always say; I'm a sucker for statistics.
-
wtg, that was a lot of work.
-
dang! realy nice! I drink to him/her who made this!
-
Interesting,
I did the same test on some of the AH Plane set recently with a digital stop watch and my test showed the rates to be somewhat different. I had the F4U and P-51 at almost a dead heat at the higher speed ranges.
Kweassa,
Why do youthink the P-47 should roll as well as an F4U? The only P-47 of the series that would come close would be the P-47N and that is not here yet.
I'm curious if you have any other charts that show a faster roll than what we have in AH?
-
I notice hog 1,C,D all have similar charts?
-
Thats a useful program, however from my point of view its a pity they dont have a version labelled in english :)
-
See my beloved Typhoon is the worst out the pile - even 110 and Mossie roll better!
I found some data on the Typhoon roll rate in this link http://www.angelfire.com/games2/spinsdoe/aircraft/typhoonstats.html
Haven't a clue how to accurately check it but does this data tally with the AH roll rate?
-
wtg nice work
but thought later models of spits rolled better.
tiffie kick bellybutton i think one of the best planes to fly good guns, speed, manouvers well. :) better than a 190 in a fight IMO comciderng it looks like one:)
-
S!
Gotta bump this one...
-
This user-made film viewer, is it only for recording statistical data, or is it also an improved film exporter?
-
Where would one get this User Made Film Viewer??
Thanks,
-
the p38s roll chart appears to be very strange. it gets faster and faster in roll? never slows again?
The 190s also appear to lose roll speed at the most severe rate of any aircraft in AH. They may well have the fastest roll overall but they appear to be hamstrung once speed approaches and exceeds 300.Id have to say this is what i suspected the AH 190 was doing and i find it hard to accept the aircraft was like this.
The 109E appears to be a terrible roller even at low speeds when in fact its often comented that it was a very maneuverable aircraft at low speeds and the stick only became 'set in concrette' at high speeds, at least this is what i recall from memory.
Im a little confused as to why the 190F8 is slower in roll too? did he test with bombs on the wings by any chance?
-
Originally posted by hazed-
the p38s roll chart appears to be very strange. it gets faster and faster in roll? never slows again?
It's not far off of the Lockheed data. Late model P-38s had hydraulic boosted ailerons. This meant that unlike any other WWII fighter, the pilot could obtain full deflection at any speed. Therefore, as speed increased, full deflection generated greater forces. Where the P-38 (and all other aircraft with engines out on the wings) suffered was in INITIAL roll rate. Getting those engines rotating around a central axis took some time. However, once it was rolling, it rolled very fast at high speed.
Here's another chart with very similar data:
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38rollchart.JPG)
My regards,
Widewing
-
That is what AH has set, but in real life the P-47 had the best roll rate of all american and european fighters. Fact!
-
Really? It could outroll a 190? ... I think not.
-
but in real life the P-47 had the best roll rate of all american and european fighters. Fact!
Prove it!!
-
I wouldnt say that too fast stegahorse, nothing wrong the jug rollrate, but fastest?
-
I heard the same thing, but it was on the Hx channel, so...go figure...heard the same from some jug pilots in St. paul a few years ago for a Jug convention.
Still, need the paper to back it up
Gainsie
-
Hi guys, sorry for the long no response.
These data were collected during a period of long time, and Kingcat admits that there could be possible errors over time. Thus, he's willing to do some more tests, and asks the community that what the objective test conditions of AH environment would be. :)
The current roll rate chart was tested at 10k, 100% fuel with no fuel burn, he says.
For the "interesting points" I've noted, well, I admit I bought the hype :). For some reason(probably accounts from P-47 pilot anecdotes...) that I always assumed that the P-47 was the fastest rolling American fighter.
Also, I always thought over about 400mph, the P-47 would outroll the Fw190.
..
As for the user-made film viewer, here's the link:
knob32's custom film viwer (http://ss-s.nu/~knob/archive/ahfilm0017.lzh)
Some of the texts are in Japanese, so there might be some trouble for those who may want to try it out.. but basically once you momorize what the buttons do, you'll get the hang of it ;) It's compressed in lzh format - is that a common format in the US, too? It seems to be preferred over zip formats in Japan.
This film view makes a simplified 3D presentation with all corresponding flight data displayed - sort of like a 3D black box, if you will.
-
Great job with the charts! The P38 seems a bit "interesting" to me as well. :)
Camo
-
Great job!!
I like that you can overlay as many planes as you would like to compare.
Thanks
-
in AH over 400 the Jug outrolls the 190 but the 190 outdives the Jug below 20k
-
very interesting................
I won't try to out roll Spits any more when I am in Russian planes below 250mph..........
-
Here's some more of Kingcat's goodies!
Acceleration rate comparison charts (http://kingcat.hihome.com/accel.html)
Test altitude is sea level(under 500ft), fuel load 50% no fuel burn
-
109G10 outaccelerating La7 at sea level ??
-
Some intersting comparisons..
* Damn, the Ta152, is about as good as the P-47 in acceleration.. I knew they weren't exactly drag racers, but never thought they'd suck that big.
* Also, I always thought P-51s didn't accelerate too good. Well, according to test comparison at sea level, the P-51B and D out-accelerates all 109s except the G-10, from about 225mph and upwards! Only from 0 to 225mph, the conventional 109s are better in acceleration!
* Hmm.. the long debate about acceleration comparisons between our 190A-5 and the Spit9. At sea level, the AH Spit9 out accelerates the 190A-5 from 0 to about 240mph. From 240mph onwards, the 190 has the advantage, but small enough to be negligable. These two planes have almost same accel. rates...
* Yup, the Spit14's a monster alright! Very close to the G-10..
* So which is the better plane? The N1K2 it seems. Almost same with the Spit9 in military power, but a considerable margin of acceleration advantage with WEP engaged! Oh, and they accelerate about as fast as 109s, too! Very simular to the G-6 and the F-4..
* From about 230mph to upwards, the unmatched king of accel, is the 262! Guess that's the speed range where those jets really begin to work up..!
-
109G10 outaccelerating La7 at sea level ??
Neat, ain't it? :D
From about 0 to 250mph, the G-10 has the adv it seems..
But since both of those two planes reach 250mph very fast.. the La-7 catches up with G-10 real fast, too... at least, that's my interpretation.
Man.. I guess that MW50 really is some powerful shi*!
-
Kweassa, these graphs show La7 and G10 with same acceleration on WEP at 310 mph sea level, and almost the same at 360 mph. 190D9 max roll rate is also equivalent to 190A5/A8 at any speed (and different than 190F8). At least these two graphs are way different than the results of my tests in DA at different heights and speeds.
-
You really should have read the first post, in this part where it says..
Some of the roll rates among planes of simular types(ie. Fw190 series, P-47D series..), are in average numbers - Kingcat confirms that there were minor differences among those types with multiple trials, but the differences were relatively low, and thus, in consideration of the possibility of minor differences due to the pilot factor, the numbers were rounded out.
Tested altitude was 1000ft.
And also, you might have answered your own suspicions :)
At least these two graphs are way different than the results of my tests in DA at different heights and speeds.
..
Different heights might have given different results. Also, the differences between the D-9, A-5, and A-8 are 'rounded up' into an average rate of roll.
Also, in case of the accel chart, there could be some trouble in understanding it - at leat for me, it took some time to realize the suggested data is not necessarily relevant with the time factor:
meaning, it is listed data of initial acceleration rates according to certain speeds, and will not actually tell you the time how fast a certain plane might reach certain speeds(I think the differences in time would equate to the area size of the zone between two different graphs..). There can be other factors contributing to the actual time a plane reach objective speed.
For one thing, I believe the test data is pretty much worthwhile in accuracy - as it is, no 'stopwatch/human eye' method here -> recordings and calculations of AH game data itself, as mentioned, were used.
I'll relay some of your skeptical conclusions to Kincat, though. Maybe I can ask him to retest the La-7 and the G-10.