Myth: SpitXVI is "slow"

[Anaxogoras]

Zscore for dive acceleration = (time - average time) / standard deviation
150-400mph

[Anaxogoras]

Zscore for energy retention, 400-150mph:

[BnZs]

Zscore for energy retention, 400-150mph:

(Image removed from quote.)

Would this be with the engine switched off Anax?

[Kazaa]

The XVI isn't worth 5 perks. 2 at most.  I'd put it at 1 to start with.Why limit it when you can equalize.  Give each fighter family non or cheap perk late war variant for some parity.  They won't be exactly equal, but it'll be better than what we have now.  That's the point of the game isn't it?  Letting the players decide the gameplay, not the game's parameters ?  
The P47M, 51H or late 150 octane 51D, Spit XII and 21lbs-XVI and 24lbs-XIV (prolly wrong but you get the idea) and XXI, a 190A-9 and the D9 at 2+ ata that did 400 on the deck, an uncorked Mossie, etc.

150 grade fuel would really spice things up in the LWM arenas, better then another LWM hanger queen imo.

[Anaxogoras]

[Anaxogoras]

Yes BnZs.  To isolate energy retention from thrust I timed a power off glide, prop feathered on all aircraft (twin engine aircraft feather automatically).  I know you're not in love with this method, but aircraft that score poorly in Eg Retention but which still seem to hold energy well are well represented in categories like level acceleration and climb rate.

The point is the Hurricane and A6M are some of the worst diving aircraft in the game, but the Hurricane rolls ok at speed so that makes it seem to dive better than it really does.  People complain about Hurri IIC's that catch them in a dive, and I just shake my head, because if a Hurri IIC catches you in a dive it simply means you really screwed up.

[BnZs]

Yes BnZs.  To isolate energy retention from thrust I timed a power off glide, prop feathered on all aircraft (twin engine aircraft feather automatically).  I know you're not in love with this method, but aircraft that score poorly in Eg Retention but which still seem to hold energy well are well represented in categories like level acceleration and climb rate.

Well, then its rather meaningless then isn't it? Even if one combatant was seized by madness and switched his engine off, it is unlikely the same thing would happen to his antagonist at the same time.

I realize the problem is that different aircraft have different top-end speeds, perhaps measuring deceleration *only* in a range faster than any of them can sustain would be the way to get an apples to apples comparison I.E, from 500mph IAS to 400mph IAS at sea level.

[Anaxogoras]

No, it is not meaningless at all.  Just because the method used to test something is not practical for combat does not make what is tested impractical.

None of our prop aircraft can sustain 400mph ias.

----------------

Edit: Another thing to pay attention to is turn radius vs turn rate.  The Spitfire series in general has a great turn rate, but with a radius that is larger than others we consider less agile.  In other words, the Spitfire does not have to slow down in order to achieve a turn rate that others can only equal by decelerating an extra 20-40mph.  If it seems like Spits never slow down through hard maneuvering, your eyes do not deceive you. 

[BnZs]

Roll rate at 300 or 350mph IAS would be more interesting, it is a bit more of a realistic engaging speed overall. 400mph is more the territory of a well-established power-dive, 300-350 is more along the lines of a realistic maximum combat cruise speed when you get bounced.

(Image removed from quote.)

[BnZs]

None of our prop aircraft can sustain 400mph ias.

Correct, which is why the test will be valid if power-on deceleration is tested from a 500mph IAS dive down to 400mph IAS.

[Anaxogoras]

Correct, which is why the test will work if power-on deceleration is tested from a 500mph IAS dive down to 400mph IAS.

Sorry, I missed that.  That would be an interesting test.  The trouble is that the Ki-84 and some other aircraft will break apart long before I get them to 500mph ias.

[Kazaa]

Not, it is not relevant at all. What it shows is that at some point in the past some individual got the same numbers in a IX as he got in an XVI, numbers which involve many unknown and unknowable factors. It says nothing about the relative performance of the machines.  If you want to get real crazy, look at the way the P-38J k/d has been some tours...it has been at the top of non-perks, or very close. Going by your "logic", that would mean the P-38J is in fact superior to all non-perked planes. Including the almost identical but slightly better (boosted ailerons and dive flaps!) P-38L!!! Clearly this is not a logically sound argument, although it is an excellent use of any available excuse to strut about one's score.

Wow, sorry for this super late response. I missed it as I was too busy flexing in the mirror.

I’m just showing you cold hard facts that a Spitfire fanboi, like myself  doesn’t need the “best Spit in the hanger to compete in the MA”. Try to reply without an insult next time.

[Kazaa]

Not, it is not relevant at all. What it shows is that at some point in the past some individual got the same numbers in a IX as he got in an XVI, numbers which involve many unknown and unknowable factors. It says nothing about the relative performance of the machines.  If you want to get real crazy, look at the way the P-38J k/d has been some tours...it has been at the top of non-perks, or very close. Going by your "logic", that would mean the P-38J is in fact superior to all non-perked planes. Including the almost identical but slightly better (boosted ailerons and dive flaps!) P-38L!!! Clearly this is not a logically sound argument, although it is an excellent use of any available excuse to strut about one's score.

Wow, sorry for this super late response. I missed it as I was too busy flexing in the mirror.

I’m just showing you cold hard facts that a Spitfire fanboi, like myself  doesn’t need the “best Spit in the hanger to compete in the MA”.

[Anaxogoras]

[Kazaa]

.