Acceleration comparisons

[horseback]

Notes on USN/USMC Fighters tested @ 5K ft.

1. The early Wildcats seem to compare with what I know of their performance, not spectacular but stable; however, the FM-2, which was 500 lbs lighter & somewhat aerodynamically cleaner than the F4F-4, as well as enjoying a 160 hp power advantage at altitudes up to nearly 20,000 ft, is portrayed in-game as even more sluggish than its predecessors. I was so surprised by this, I ended up re-running the FM-2 to ensure that I hadn't left the landing gear hanging down or something, but it was just as sluggish and 'meh' as the first time. Historically, this was simply not the case. The FM-2 was widely acknowledged as the 'wilder' Wildcat; being lighter, cleaner and more powerful at low and medium altitudes, it had superior climb and acceleration, and a somewhat better top speed at low and medium altitudes. It was a much better match for the Zero, even the later models. Someone's got some 'splaining to do.

2. There is very little if any difference between the F4U-1/Corsair Mk I and the F4U-1A, which makes little sense, given the -1A's water injection and the fact that the runs made in the -1A were all much more level overall. The Dash 1A is ultimately faster once you reach 480 kph, but it should be no contest from the start. This just doesn't seem right. I also added the Dash 1D, and it has a noticeably better jump, but the same general top end.

3. Both models of Hellcat continue to be a huge letdown. With or without water injection, it is portrayed as a slug, and much slower than the official numbers I have found. A standard F6F-3 should be capable of 290 kts/330 mph true airspeed, or about 530 kph at this altitude. If the Wonder Woman 'speedometer' is correct, that would mean an IAS of about 470/480 kph in-game. The best level TAS I got from the F6F-3 was just over 510 kph, and the best level TAS on the F6F-5 was around 515 kph, or about 460 kph indicated for both. Again, there was very little difference in acceleration between the two, in spite of the extra 200 hp or so that the water injection of the Dash 5 is supposed to have. Again, I re-ran the Dash 5 to make sure that I hadn't done something wrong. The main difference is in top speed, but from 270 to 380 IAS indicated, there is no difference.

cheers

horseback

[JtD]

The problem with the F4F is twofold, first, the FM-2 appears to be indeed slightly undermodelled, and second, the F4F-3 and F4F-4 are modelled very generously, climb rates exceeding documented data in the region of 20%. This turn historical relations upside down.

Which charger gears were you using for the F6F and F4U?

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Yes, we as players are quite hampered, even with head tracking.

There is the monocular view issue with canopy spars blocking view that would not be blocked with stereo vision.

We don't get any feel sitting in stationary chairs. IRL you can feel slip or skid as a pull to the side kind of thing. IRL you know when you're pulling G's, rising or descending, tilt, G-forces and turbulence.

In sims you have only visual cues and instruments. One major sim skill is integrating those into 'feel' where changes in speed or VSI or The Ball mean something just through practice.

And yes, this is also something that used to come up for discussion. What you brought up is kind of a minefield of topics that it's probably good to bring up now and again.

I think it's clear that G-forces and the rest you mentioned are simply outside the scope of a sim, at least under armchair conditions. Still, they too can be transformed or translated into visual cues, something like as Wonder Woman View does (surely a bit too generously). WWV is a constructed image which makes a wide range of sensual information available in visual form, and in this sense it's more realistic than a faithful camera image which filters out all non-visual sensual input.

Now turning to the purely visual cues one might have in a RL cockpit, I feel that they too are rather compromised in the 'faithful' camera image we have. Even with a TIR you need several huge monitors to have everything relevant appear in a meaningful distance and a meaningful size (and with the use of huge monitors we have already left the realm of 'airmchair conditions', btw -- ask the wife ). The instruments are too close and the skies are too far, and the camera view with its zoom function can hardly replicate the ease the human eye and mind adjusts itself to the task IRL. My solution would be a third type of view with a split screen with fixed FOV for both the static lower instrument part and the dynamic upper combat part (with some zoom allowed when using gunsight view). Just an idea, don't kill me

[jameson]

Horseback, you should check the 109g6 if it's an ingame porked fm you're looking for. Real life figures according to Kurfurst's 109 site of 1.3 ata and 2600 rpm at 480m should give 530kph. At emergency power (110%) a g6 should do 590kph at sea level. Kurfurst believes that the 530kph @ 1.3ata on the deck (480m if we're nitpicking!) was the defacto acceptance test for the Luftwaffe of this aircraft, if it couldn't do it, it went back to the factory. The only performformance plot I seen, again on K's site, that comes near the ingame performance is of a g6 carring a full 300litre droptank. I live in hope that someday it's performance ingame will be "historical", but nobody seems all that bothered about fixing it.

[JtD]

There's a gazillion of tests showing 520-530 kph on the deck for G model 109's at combat power. Now if you were to use the emergency power (1 minute time limit) to increase that speed, you'd end up at around 540-550. Not that you'd get there within a minute. 590 is totally out of question, unless you're using MW50. You'd need about 1800-1900 hp to achieve that speed.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by horseback

Notes on USN/USMC Fighters tested @ 5K ft.

1. The early Wildcats seem to compare with what I know of their performance, not spectacular but stable; however, the FM-2, which was 500 lbs lighter & somewhat aerodynamically cleaner than the F4F-4, as well as enjoying a 160 hp power advantage at altitudes up to nearly 20,000 ft, is portrayed in-game as even more sluggish than its predecessors. I was so surprised by this, I ended up re-running the FM-2 to ensure that I hadn't left the landing gear hanging down or something, but it was just as sluggish and 'meh' as the first time. Historically, this was simply not the case. The FM-2 was widely acknowledged as the 'wilder' Wildcat; being lighter, cleaner and more powerful at low and medium altitudes, it had superior climb and acceleration, and a somewhat better top speed at low and medium altitudes. It was a much better match for the Zero, even the later models. Someone's got some 'splaining to do.

Again: Just because an an engine model does more hp at some alt, it does not mean it does more hp at any alt. 5kft is near FTH of first stage of F4F -good alt for it. Try at 5km alt - FM-2 will be better than F4F.

Originally Posted by horseback

3. Both models of Hellcat continue to be a huge letdown. With or without water injection, it is portrayed as a slug, and much slower than the official numbers I have found. A standard F6F-3 should be capable of 290 kts/330 mph true airspeed, or about 530 kph at this altitude. If the Wonder Woman 'speedometer' is correct, that would mean an IAS of about 470/480 kph in-game. The best level TAS I got from the F6F-3 was just over 510 kph, and the best level TAS on the F6F-5 was around 515 kph, or about 460 kph indicated for both. Again, there was very little difference in acceleration between the two, in spite of the extra 200 hp or so that the water injection of the Dash 5 is supposed to have. Again, I re-ran the Dash 5 to make sure that I hadn't done something wrong. The main difference is in top speed, but from 270 to 380 IAS indicated, there is no difference.

cheers

horseback

At http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f.html I can find only 315mph at 5kft for an F6F-3 without water injection. Other tests are either with water injection, do not cover that alt or are not fully loaded fighters.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...6f-3-02982.pdf
is interesting because it states that early F6Fs were problematic to rudder trim in a power climb.

[MaxGunz]

Water injection in game is with WEP?

[jameson]

"There's a gazillion of tests showing 520-530 kph on the deck for G model 109's at combat power."
JtD, lol. Try it ingame and let us know how fast you can get it, 480? if that? At 110% I get sometimes 520ish...
A minute of climb at 110% in a fight can be an awfully long time and would be even better if ingame matched RL "historical" peformance. If it did there'd also be more grunt throughout the power curve ingame. Takeoffs would start to get very interesting with correctly modelled torque. Forget to lock the tail wheel in RL and the rudder couldn't stop it making a left turn, with usually fatal results... Ingame?
Gunz I believe that WEP is water injection, it may be in the manual, been a while though since I read it.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by jameson

"There's a gazillion of tests showing 520-530 kph on the deck for G model 109's at combat power."
JtD, lol.

I was confirming what you said right there, but if you think you need to laugh about it, so be it.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by JtD

The problem with the F4F is twofold, first, the FM-2 appears to be indeed slightly undermodelled, and second, the F4F-3 and F4F-4 are modelled very generously, climb rates exceeding documented data in the region of 20%. This turn historical relations upside down.

Which charger gears were you using for the F6F and F4U?

I used the first stage (which should be analogous to 'Neutral' on the real things) blower for all the USN-USMC fighters; as I recall, the second stage shouldn't be engaged until about 8000 ft. Mixture was the standard 100%. While I have read that the superchargers had two gears for each stage, this doesn't seem to be modeled.

All of these aircraft seem to fall well short of generally accepted performance figures for speed at sea level and 5000 ft for military power (much less War Emergency Power), including the Wildcats, and the relationships seem a bit skewed. I would think that the Hellcat should initially be a good deal closer to the Corsair; the weight difference is not that great (with full internal fuel, some sources show the Corsair as the heavier of the two), they're using the same engines and drag shouldn't exert that great an influence until later in the speed range.

Interestingly, the top speed results I got for the F6F-5 are very close to numbers I have seen quoted for it carrying a drop tank and two 1000 lb bombs. Since the Corsair didn't 'officially' become equipped for bombs until the -1C/D models, I have no figures for a 'bombed up' Corsair until the we get to the -1C/D versions (and TBH, I haven't been looking).

Both models of the Hellcat and the later (-1A and later) Corsairs are recorded to have retained their drop tanks during combat on several occasions; their performance was sufficiently superior to the mid-war Japanese fighters that keeping the tanks was sometimes both possible and practical. I have to wonder if at least some of their numbers may be off because someone didn't notice the sets of numbers they were using included the belly tanks.

cheers

horseback