Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F1Bomber on September 16, 2003, 01:59:32 AM
-
Search accross the net and only could find Energy Maneuverability Digrams or EMD for the following ac.
Spitfire MKIX
F6F-5
Really looking for some EMD for the following ac, or any other type of ac for that matter that are in aces high.
Yak9U <-- Very Important!
Niki
P51B,D
P47D11,D25,D30
SpitV
109**
190**
Other question is, how do you perform and calculate EMD in the first place. Do you take a air craft out and push it to its limits and also record the data then make a graph?
But i find that after reading some tutorials, the EMD give a much more undetstanding of whats your ac advantages and disavantages against other air craft in the arena.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by F1Bomber
Search accross the net and only could find Energy Maneuverability Digrams or EMD for the following ac.
Spitfire MKIX
F6F-5
Really looking for some EMD for the following ac, or any other type of ac for that matter that are in aces high.
Yak9U <-- Very Important!
Niki
P51B,D
P47D11,D25,D30
SpitV
109**
190**
Other question is, how do you perform and calculate EMD in the first place. Do you take a air craft out and push it to its limits and also record the data then make a graph?
But i find that after reading some tutorials, the EMD give a much more undetstanding of whats your ac advantages and disavantages against other air craft in the arena.
Thanks.
Here is an article you might find interesting and it includes one or two EM diagrams for aircraft you have mentioned.
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html
Here is a thread with some more information and some links to a lot more EM diagrams.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=83992&referrerid=2314
Hope that helps.
Badboy
-
Thanks for the link, did help alot getting the data on the air craft.
But i am really intrested in the Yak9U EMD, against the la7,la5, and niki seeing they are the only aircraft i have to collect data for. :(
Thanks for the hard work that you have put into the EMD, its helps alot to know what your limits are within aces high coding that means the difference between virtual death and virtual life.
Thanks.
-
But i am really intrested in the Yak9U EMD, against the la7,la5, and niki
Please, me too :) I'd love to have a complete set of whatever diagrams are available. I have all the ones I've ever found off articles or simhq but there are some big gaps as compared to the list of diagrams you indicated were already completed.
soda_p@telus.net
F1Bomber, I've collected all the EM diagrams I've seen from Badboy and could send you the collection if you'd like. They do not include the aircraft you specifically mention though.
-
Soda ANy EMD diagrams are welcome. I will post them on a web site, with links and credit to Badboy so that we have one central location to find these diagrams.
Could you please send me the EMD at
Clion@homesat.com.au
Thanks.
-
Hi everyone,
Let me point out that most of what has been discussed here describes manoeuvrability regardless of energy status.
Badboy's diagrams are a step forward from that as they contain the Ps = 0 fps information - that's for flight without energy gain or loss.
A truely useful energy manoeuvrability diagram should contain more information than that - you won't win a fight just by flying nice and gentle energy conserving turns, after all.
For example, adding the +/- 1, 2, 4, 8 kfps graphs to one of Badboy's diagram would give us a pretty good overview over energy manoeuvrability for most of this fighter's envelope.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I have a bunch that were generated using the Air Warrior flight model. It's not clear that will help all that much in Aces.
-Blogs
-
I have a load of these for different A/C including
F4U-1/4/5
F7F-1
F8F-1/2
P-51D
And I think I have some for the early Spit and 109.
Here is the F4U-1/4
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/F4UG.jpg)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi everyone,
Let me point out that most of what has been discussed here describes manoeuvrability regardless of energy status.
Badboy's diagrams are a step forward from that as they contain the Ps = 0 fps information - that's for flight without energy gain or loss.
A truely useful energy manoeuvrability diagram should contain more information than that - you won't win a fight just by flying nice and gentle energy conserving turns, after all.
For example, adding the +/- 1, 2, 4, 8 kfps graphs to one of Badboy's diagram would give us a pretty good overview over energy manoeuvrability for most of this fighter's envelope.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
In the past I've considered adding additional Ps curves to those diagrams, and that is useful when they are used on a stand alone basis, but when they are overlaid one on the other, as I always do for comparison, I think they simply become too cluttered to make the additional information worthwhile.
Also, when they are overlaid, the relative position of the two Ps = 0 curves with the other curves allow folk to see which of the aircraft will gain or lose energy more quickly relative to each other, and in what part of the envelope. Of course, without additional Ps curves they can't quantify it, but they are still able to make the correct decisions.
That's why I have generally chosen to omit additional Ps curves, because when the diagrams are overlaid, very little is lost in terms of the ability to make decisions that correctly influence the air combat, and a great deal is gained in terms of clarity.
Of course, I'm always open to helpful suggestions.
Badboy
PS
Recently I've been producing EM diagrams for the WWII fighters of a different type. The ones we are used to seeing are an evolution from diagrams that were produced as far back as 1939. The advantage of producing them in that way is that they can be more readily compared with the real aircraft, the other advantage is that the additional Ps curves are simply not required and so all of the original diagrams were produced without them. The main disadvantage is that they can't be overlaid in the same way for such an easy comparison with each other, so in future I will probably publish both types side by side for the best of both worlds.
-
F4U, those curves of yours seem to show more like a sturcure G-load limits than EMDs... I think it`s supposed to tell the pilots how much Gs they are allowed to pull at various alts at given IAS speed, w/o the need to calculate TAS constantly...
-
Isegrim,
I think you are right on the max G limits but it is also an instantanious turn indicator.
For structural limitation only the 7G curve would be required. But the chart also tells you that you can pull 3G's at 140knots at 12,000lbs. That is not structural but instantanious data.
I have the same charts for many others including the P-38, P-51, F8F, F7F. The navy charts are always listed at Max loaded weight and the Army at the lowest weight. Not sure why.
-
In the past I've considered adding additional Ps curves to those diagrams, and that is useful when they are used on a stand alone basis, but when they are overlaid one on the other, as I always do for comparison, I think they simply become too cluttered to make the additional information worthwhile.
Also, when they are overlaid, the relative position of the two Ps = 0 curves with the other curves allow folk to see which of the aircraft will gain or lose energy more quickly relative to each other, and in what part of the envelope. Of course, without additional Ps curves they can't quantify it, but they are still able to make the correct decisions.
That's why I have generally chosen to omit additional Ps curves, because when the diagrams are overlaid, very little is lost in terms of the ability to make decisions that correctly influence the air combat, and a great deal is gained in terms of clarity.
Of course, I'm always open to helpful suggestions.
Badboy
PS
Recently I've been producing EM diagrams for the WWII fighters of a different type. The ones we are used to seeing are an evolution from diagrams that were produced as far back as 1939. The advantage of producing them in that way is that they can be more readily compared with the real aircraft, the other advantage is that the additional Ps curves are simply not required and so all of the original diagrams were produced without them. The main disadvantage is that they can't be overlaid in the same way for such an easy comparison with each other, so in future I will probably publish both types side by side for the best of both worlds.
I have been mostly working though the week and only had a chance to get in on the boards for about 10 minutes at a time. Though, i can relate to what badboy is saying. I for one, want to tell what my air craft advantages and E state is from the enemy in a quick Alt+tab and also a quick glance at the EMD to tell who will win if we go down and dirty. This really becomes important because i have recently been flying with these EMD diagrams on my wall and have found that my kill ratio have started to clime, knowning that there is a mathimatical limit to the air craft i fly in this virtual word.
Most importantly, I have to thank badboy for putting in all the work in the EM diagrams. It has really made my flying and also fun in the arena 10x better. to you badboy.
If you got the yak9U badboy, could you please post it, all diagrams that i have made, do tend to be 50% correct well testing.
-
Hi Badboy,
>Of course, without additional Ps curves they can't quantify it, but they are still able to make the correct decisions.
Well, not really. The interesting thing about specific excess power is that it's highly dependend on the flight condition. By your diagram, a Fw 190 would appear to be greatly inferior to a Spitfire V throughout the envelope (with the exception of its greater top speed). In reality, it has a considerable power advantage at 1 G at all speeds, and is no worse than the Spitfire at high speeds and moderate Gs either.
The conclusion from your diagram would be that the Focke-Wulf pilot should run away (from a co-energy fight). The conclusion from the excess power comparison is different: The Focke-Wulf pilot can climb, and should the Spitfire try to follow, he can still leave it behind while overclimbing it. Once armed with an energy advantage, fast dives with gentle pull-outs will leave the Spitfire without the means to close the energy gap again.
(As always, ignoring the inevitable errors in execution that make air combat so much fun ;-)
That's a different quality of conclusion than you'd get from your diagrams, and that's probably because your diagram type spends excess power for turn rate immediately.
>Of course, I'm always open to helpful suggestions.
Well, I don't have a solution, either :-) But I think we've got a great little problem here!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The conclusion from your diagram would be that the Focke-Wulf pilot should run away (from a co-energy fight). The conclusion from the excess power comparison is different: The Focke-Wulf pilot can climb, and should the Spitfire try to follow, he can still leave it behind while overclimbing it. Once armed with an energy advantage, fast dives with gentle pull-outs will leave the Spitfire without the means to close the energy gap again.
This is exactly what i see each day in the Ma. Every 109 and 190 that decides to turn fight with the spitfires are dead. Instead they opt for the BnZ tatic. THough i know how to counter them when they do this tatics so mainly they are dead in acouple of loops.
But i think Badboy could answer you question much better than I, seeing he designed the EMD for aces high.
badboy
-
Hi F1Bomber,
>THough i know how to counter them when they do this tatics so mainly they are dead in acouple of loops.
The lack of permanence of death in the arena tends to invite the use of interesting tactics ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Well, not really. The interesting thing about specific excess power is that it's highly dependend on the flight condition. By your diagram, a Fw 190 would appear to be greatly inferior to a Spitfire V throughout the envelope (with the exception of its greater top speed). In reality, it has a considerable power advantage at 1 G at all speeds, and is no worse than the Spitfire at high speeds and moderate Gs either.
EM diagrams do provide all of that information when the full range of Ps curves are included. Even when they aren’t, the same conclusions can be reached if you use an alternative source for 1g climb rate. Let me explain. The EM diagrams I have been posting look like the diagram below, which is an overlay of the Spit v 190 comparison you have used.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/AH Spit v 190.jpg)
This second diagram shows how it would look if I included incremental Ps curves, but just for the positive Ps so that the ability of each aircraft to climb while turning can be seen. If you compare the lowest set of positive Ps curves for each aircraft you notice that the 190 has a clear Ps advantage at very low turn rates, and thus at g values close to 1g. That positive Ps advantage means it can out climb the Spitfire at low G, and at a higher speed, which means it can gain altitude and separation at the same time, which of course leads to your conclusion.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/PositivePs.jpg)
However, even using the first diagram, and acknowledging the fact that it doesn’t contain the same amount of information, I think the same conclusion could be reached with knowledge of the aircraft’s climb rates, and those curves are already published on the HTC website. Indeed, An aircraft with a better climb rate at a higher speed, is always going to have that same option, providing it has the separation to use it safely. So the conclusion you made will be generally true in that case and you don’t need an EM diagram to tell you that, which is why the same conclusion was so quickly and easily reached by the Luftwaffe pilots who employed such tactics in the 40s.
The EM diagrams I produce, could easily provide that information, but they are primarily intended for the guys who want to know what happens when they use significantly more than 1g. So I think I’m fairly comfortable omitting the additional Ps curves for the improvement in clarity, since readers are still able to reach the proper conclusion and make the correct tactical decisions.
Badboy
-
BadBoy,
Question, I thought the line represented intentanious G's. I have done testing I AH where I can pull 3G's well under 200MPH.
Is this sustained or intentanious turns?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
BadBoy,
Is this sustained or intentanious turns?
Both. EM diagrams, give the instantaneous, and sustained turn rates, and depending on how far from the Zero Ps curve the instantaneous turn rate is, an indication of how an aircraft will sustain, gain or lose speed or altitude and thus energy.
On the diagrams I produce for AH, when two aircraft are overlaid, you can see both the instantaneous and sustained turn rates for each aircraft, and you can also see which aircraft will gain or lose energy more quickly during a turn at each point in the envelope. That's a lot of very valuable information.
If I included the additional Ps curves, and labelled them up, you could tell exactly what the instantaneous and sustained ability was, and make statements such as... At this point in the envelope Aircraft x has an instantaneous turn rate of xx but to sustain it, will need to lose altitude at xx ft every second, or lose speed at xx ft/sec every second. So, for every point in the envelope, you know exactly how an aircraft will turn, and if it can climb or needs to dive while doing so, and by how much. The way I draw the overlays, you can still see which aircraft has the best instantaneous ability, the best sustained ability, and you can see which aircraft will gain or lose energy more or less quickly, so if you know how to interpret it, you can still make the same good decisions.
Badboy
-
Hi Badboy,
>The EM diagrams I produce, could easily provide that information, but they are primarily intended for the guys who want to know what happens when they use significantly more than 1g. So I think I’m fairly comfortable omitting the additional Ps curves for the improvement in clarity, since readers are still able to reach the proper conclusion and make the correct tactical decisions.
If my conclusions are self-evident because everyone knows that the Fw 190A outclimbs the Spitfire V, your conclusions are just as self-evident because everyone knows that the Spitfire V outturns the Fw 190A :-)
If you "use significantly more than 1g", you're going to lose your energy quickly, and if that's your focus of interest you're probably not using energy tactics anyway.
Your diagrams with the positive Ps graphs added makes an important step from a mere manoeuvrability diagram to a true energy manoeuvrability diagram, though I've got to admit you're right they're hard to read.
That's why I think a different way of graphing the energy information might improve the usefulness of such diagrams, and we should be looking for a different form to present the same information.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
each Ps line = how many feet per climb? (or dive if u showed the negative Ps lines)
I love the Energy fight. Full EM charts are gold. Thnx for this great info.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Badboy,
If my conclusions are self-evident because everyone knows that the Fw 190A outclimbs the Spitfire V, your conclusions are just as self-evident because everyone knows that the Spitfire V outturns the Fw 190A :-)
Absoulutely, which is why I wouldn’t normally have bothered to overlay the diagrams for those two particular aircraft, it was your comparison not mine :-) There are many other comparisons that aren’t so obvious, and even I have been surprised and delighted by the results, particularly when other aircraft configurations including the use of bombs, gun pods and flaps etc, are compared.
Your diagrams with the positive Ps graphs added makes an important step from a mere manoeuvrability diagram to a true energy manoeuvrability diagram, though I've got to admit you're right they're hard to read.
Yep, and I’ve had similar discussions with real fighter pilots who take the use of that type of diagram far more seriously than I do, including a weapons school instructor, and the conclusion seems to be that the form of diagram I am using now is an acceptable compromise for usefulness and simplicity
That's why I think a different way of graphing the energy information might improve the usefulness of such diagrams, and we should be looking for a different form to present the same information.
Yep, take a look at the alternative type of EM diagram shown below. With this sort of EM diagram, you don’t need a multitude of Ps curves because the angle of descent or climb can be read directly off the left hand vertical axis.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/NewEM-02d.jpg )
From that sort of diagram, you can read off the left vertical axis what angle of climb or descent can be achieved for any flight condition (in terms of the speed, load factor and turn radius), while the time for a 360° turn under those conditions can be read from the right hand axis. For example, for that diagram, if you entered a 6g turn at 200mph, you could turn 360° in under ten seconds with a turn radius of about 450ft, but to sustain it you would need an angle of descent of about 34° which I think is too steep to be a viable option.
That was the sort of EM diagram available during WWII, and I now produce both types automatically for every new aircraft I do, but I haven’t published any yet.
Badboy
-
Originally posted by F1Bomber
Most importantly, I have to thank badboy for putting in all the work in the EM diagrams. It has really made my flying and also fun in the arena 10x better. to you badboy.
If you got the yak9U badboy, could you please post it, all diagrams that i have made, do tend to be 50% correct well testing.
Thanks F1Bomber, glad it was helpful.
I do have the EM diagrams for the Yak9U, and the La7 etc but I was planning to publish them in an article on the Russian front at SimHQ similar to this one I did for Il2 Forgotten Battles...
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html
So I'll let you know as soon as it is ready.
Badboy
-
NP Badboy, i have tried to make acouple of EM diagrams though some tools here and there. Have matched the data up against flying on aces high and i get mabe a 10% error rate with the real data to the calculated conclusion.
Though my inbox has been going wild with "YOU GOT MAIL" message scarying the crap out of me at 3 oclock in the morning here down under. But its been a intresting read these last couple of days on the bbs. Have learnt alot and still need to learn more about flight models ect.. ect..
Now that pizza map has turned its ugly head towards me, i have found other intrested instead of taking my yak up now and then. I normaly take up a long range P51 and do scouting missions at 30K behind enemy land and bomb there factories. Or i take a P47 and head up to 30K and kill all the spits and nikis, that somehow just dont turn good up at those alts.
P.S. Its werid, i have left aces high, about 20 times and still come back because the community here is 100% much better and more mature than other games i have tried.
Well is 5 oclock in the morning and i just got another email ( you got mail ) weeee, but thanks and a big Badboy. I cannot wait until you post those EM Diagrams, my family will never hear the end of it :)
-
Hi Badboy,
>Absoulutely, which is why I wouldn’t normally have bothered to overlay the diagrams for those two particular aircraft, it was your comparison not mine :-)
I could say it was chosen to demonstrate that your diagram doesn't even show the self-evident ;-) But of course, with the extra Ps lines your diagram was quite sufficient to reach the conclusion I pointed out.
The reason for my choice simply was that I needed an example where I could be sure everyone would agree on the conclusions.
>That was the sort of EM diagram available during WWII
I was surprised to see they even had these diagrams, but of course, the concept of energy manoeuvrability was undiscovered yet.
>Yep, and I’ve had similar discussions with real fighter pilots who take the use of that type of diagram far more seriously than I do, including a weapons school instructor, and the conclusion seems to be that the form of diagram I am using now is an acceptable compromise for usefulness and simplicity
I'd guess the reason is that jet fighters' energy manoeuvrability diagrams vary much more than propeller fighters'. Part of this is related to the fact that for propeller fighters, best turn rate and smallest turn radius coincede, while these are two different parameters for jets.
I still believe there should be some better way of comparing (and understanding) propeller fighters - I'll try to experiment a bit and post my results here :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Badboy,
I was surprised to see they even had these diagrams, but of course, the concept of energy manoeuvrability was undiscovered yet.
Yep, and although the approach is different, the original diagrams are every bit as informative and as deserving of the “energy maneuverability” title coined by Boyd & Christie in 1964 for their more recent evolution of the same idea.
I'd guess the reason is that jet fighters' energy manoeuvrability diagrams vary much more than propeller fighters'. Part of this is related to the fact that for propeller fighters, best turn rate and smallest turn radius coincede, while these are two different parameters for jets.
Strictly speaking, the best turn rate and turn radius for prop’ fighters don’t exactly coincide, they occur at different points in the envelope for exactly the same reason they do for Jet fighters. It is just that because the speeds are so much lower, the difference is not very significant, and for that reason almost never modelled in WWII flight sim’s.
I still believe there should be some better way of comparing (and understanding) propeller fighters - I'll try to experiment a bit and post my results here :-)
Good luck with that, I look forward to seeing your results.
Badboy