|
|
#102
05-24-2013, 07:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
#103
05-24-2013, 09:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks again Horseback, this continues to be very interesting.
The results that surprise me and some other people are likely a result of us being unfamiliar with specific planes at specific altitudes. For example, at first glance it is very surprising that the Yak 9 and the LaGG3-66 do better than the La-5FN, but in-game the 5-FN is a scary monster only below 2000m, and that's where most La pilots fly it; the experienced ones because they know it's good there, the novice ones because they don't have the patience to climb. I suspect it's a similar situation with the P-38J vs the Mustang; without doing the kind of testing Horseback has done, I always felt the P-38J does really well on deck (that's where I go to if I need to run away from a 190), while the Mustang's worst altitudes are in the 3000m - 5000m range. I also always thought the 109G2 can outrun and outclimb the MkV Spit anywhere so I was surprised that he Spit did a bit better in this test, but then again I believe 3000m is the sweet-spot for the Spit's performance.
|
|
#104
05-24-2013, 10:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A shame about the performance of the F6F. The thing is a pig in the game, nothing at all like it was historically. Believe it or not, it was actually worse in previous versions of the game!
|
|
#105
05-24-2013, 11:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Regarding the P-38, it was faster accelerating than the Mustang (at least, any of the wartime versions) or the Thunderbolt at all altitudes, according to every reliable source I've found (and most of the unreliable ones as well; I'm tempted to make a clean sweep and hold a seance to get Martin Caiden's opinion). It makes sense; as I pointed out, it was designed for an exceptional rate of climb by the standards of the late 1930s, and after the advent of radar, climb rate became less important to the Allies than endurance/payload, speed and firepower. Nightfighters became the most important interceptors in the inventory after the Battle of Britain, and they didn't need to get to 20,000 ft in less than seven minutes. We tend to conflate acceleration with speed to some degree, but I like to call acceleration being quick in the way that NFL Hall of Famer Michael Irvin defines it: "Fast is fast. Quick is being able get fast right away." The Lightning and the Spitfire are quicker than the Mustang, but the Mustang is faster. cheers horseback
|
|
#106
05-27-2013, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Made another chart in Excel.
The P-40 and the FW-190 accelerates very poorly, is this realistic? Even more interesting, that the F4U-1A and the 109G2 have almost exactly the same acceleration! I added some missing data from the earliest tests, like 350-400 or 400-450, its just guesswork, but it fits nicely. You can see the added numbers if you drag the chart away, I highlighted them in red.
|
|
#107
05-27-2013, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I've started to notice that most of these aircraft have a range of speeds where they accelerate best, where the engine has overcome the initial weight and inertia to the point that a climb of 30 meters (that's over 60 feet, or the height of a four or five story building) seems not to affect the pace of acceleration much, if at all. Of course these are generally periods of six seconds or less, but if you or I were sitting in the cockpit of the real thing, we're going to feel that, and it's going to be like a really good roller coaster (or a really bad one, if your harness isn't snug). In any case, it's kind of hard to extrapolate or predict those bands. Some are at lower speeds and some are a good bit higher. I will try to highlight these later. With the exception of the water-injected Corsair, though, radial powered aircraft are usually more sluggish in the initial lower ranges. As they reach the upper ends of the acceleration tests where the drag has built up and the engine is starting to overheat, the slightest incline or decline is critical. Here the test is to see if it can maintain a speed in level flight for several seconds; if it can't, I will not count it. The P-40 is a big, heavy and relatively draggy airplane; if you build scale models, it becomes readily apparent when you place the US fighters of WWII next to German, Soviet or early Japanese fighters of the same scale. The P-40 is gigantic next to a FW 190A, and it just looks lumpy. Next to a P-51A, it's the same size, but it seems even more lumpy and crude, and the P-51A outperformed it at every height and measurement, from climb to acceleration to top speed; everyone agrees that the P-40 could turn a tighter circle, but any version of the real life P-51 was much less work for the pilot and easier to keep under control. Therefore if the pilot of the P-51 is as skilled as the P-40's pilot there would be no doubt about the outcome of a dogfight. It took a supremely skilled pilot to beat a merely good pilot in a P-51 or P-51A, and it took a supremely good and lucky P-40 pilot to beat an experienced Merlin P-51 driver. Which brings me to something that has become a critical factor in these tests: trim response and the accuracy/clarity of the instrument panel. Some aircraft I have tested are like driving a very well made car on a smooth road; you push the throttle and Prop Pitch forward and just go. There may be a little twist as the increased torque kicks in, but this is easily corrected, and you can compensate with rudder and hold the stick forward while you add trim, but it's all very smooth. The wings don't wobble back and forth like you're balancing on the head of a pin, the climb indicator doesn't bounce back and forth, the needle and ball are quick and accurate, the artificial horizon is easily interpreted for maintaining level flight, and they are all easy to see. The Ki-61 is an excellent example of what I'm describing here; the panel is well-laid out and the instruments are clear at my preferred Wide View setting and they are accurate. At the same time, the aircraft's FM itself is very predictable and smooth--it's not blazingly fast, but it is easier to keep straight and level at all speeds than the Macchi C.202 or the Bf 109E, and it gives better test results in part because of this quality. I never varied more than 12m from one interval from the next, which is vastly better than even much slower aircraft I have tested. It just responds beautifully to your commands, and I would expect it to be easier to keep on target because you're not fighting your stick and rudder all the time. The Ki-43 is similar, as is the P-38 (although the Lightning's instruments are on the tiny & fuzzy side in Wide View--you have to go with Normal View to see what's going on there). By contrast, the much faster FW is a pain to test because the instruments are literally out of focus in Wide View, they are still hard to read in Normal view, and the climb indicator is simply deceptive; a tiny (one division, which should mean something like 100m per minute) deflection up or down can result in a climb of 150m in less than 5 seconds. The combination Turn & bank/Artificial Horizon is next to useless because the little 'airplane' disappears into the horizon line, unless you're in Gunsight view, the needle barely moves (ever!) and the ball is again, out of focus in Wide View, and really not much better in Normal View. Add to that the tendency for the FW to outrun its elevator trim, which has you shoving the stick three quarters of the way forward, while you simultaneously struggle with the head-of-a-pin wing leveling exercise...and finally, once you do get trimmed for almost level flight, the aircraft will consistently swoop upwards or downwards without warning as it reaches certain specific speeds. When you're watching the track in Wonder Woman view, trying to concentrate on the speed changes, it looks like you are constantly jerking up and down, left and then right; a real-life pilot would be bruised and sore everywhere his harness touched him after only a couple of runs. To be fair, the FW's cockpit animation dates back to the original Il-2 Sturmovik game that I bought in March of 2002, so it is quite dated, and the original equipment may actually have been that vague, because the pilot had a full range of vision, his inner ear and the pressure on the seat of his pants to augment what the instruments told him. This was the heyday of Visual Flight Rules, the era when IFR usually meant "I Follow Railroads", so yeah, I get that reasoning. However, in a flight simulation that doesn't provide 180 degree fields of vision or attitude changes to the virtual pilot's chair, uniform clarity and accuracy for all aircraft's instruments would seem a desirable thing. Still distilling the data from my last series of tests. CW-21B, A6M2, Ki-61, Macchi C.202, plain FW 190A-5 and reruns of the 1A Corsair and the F6F-3 to my current data standards. cheers horseback Last edited by horseback; 05-27-2013 at 09:46 PM. Reason: clarity
|
|
#108
05-27-2013, 10:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Test Group #6: CW-21B, A6M2, F6F-3, F4U-1A, Ki-61 ('43), Macchi C.202 ('43), FW 190A-5 (Std) and FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata).
From 270 to 350 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 25 seconds; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 24 seconds; Ki-61 ('43), 21 seconds; CW-21B, 20 seconds; A6M2, 20 seconds; F6F-3, 20 seconds; Macchi C. 202 ('43), 18 seconds; F4U-1A, 16 seconds. To 370 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 30 seconds; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 30 seconds; Ki-61 ('43), 29 seconds; CW-21B, 30 seconds; A6M2, 30 seconds; F6F-3, 27 seconds; Macchi C. 202 ('43), 24 seconds; F4U-1A, 21 seconds. To 380 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 34 seconds; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 34 seconds; Ki-61 ('43), 34 seconds; CW-21B, 37 seconds; A6M2, 37 seconds; F6F-3, 33 seconds; Macchi C. 202 ('43), 27 seconds; F4U-1A, 24 seconds. To 390 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 39 seconds; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 38 seconds; Ki-61 ('43), 39 seconds; CW-21B, 37 seconds; A6M2, 47 seconds; F6F-3, 38 seconds; Macchi C. 202 ('43), 30 seconds; F4U-1A, 28 seconds. To 400 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 43 seconds; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 43 seconds; Ki-61 ('43), 45 seconds; CW-21B, 59 seconds; A6M2, 59 seconds (top speed achieved/487 TAS); F6F-3, 45 seconds; Macchi C. 202 ('43), 34 seconds; F4U-1A, 31 seconds. To 410 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 46 seconds; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 47 seconds; Ki-61 ('43), 52 seconds; CW-21B, 1 minute 49 seconds (top speed achieved/501 TAS); F6F-3, 51 seconds; Macchi C. 202 ('43), 40 seconds; F4U-1A, 35 seconds. To 420 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 51 seconds; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 53 seconds; Ki-61 ('43), 1 minute 2 seconds; F6F-3, 1 minute; Macchi C. 202 ('43), 45 seconds; F4U-1A, 39 seconds. To 430 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 58 seconds; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 57 seconds; Ki-61 ('43), 1 minute 16 seconds; F6F-3, 1 minute 12 seconds; Macchi C. 202 ('43), 52 seconds; F4U-1A, 44 seconds. To 440 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 1 minute 3 seconds; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 1 minute 3 seconds; Ki-61 ('43), 1 minute 41 seconds (top speed achieved/531 TAS); F6F-3, 1 minute 27 seconds; Macchi C. 202 ('43), 59 seconds; F4U-1A, 49 seconds. To 450 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 1 minute 10 seconds; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 1 minute 10 seconds; F6F-3, 1 minute 51 seconds (top speed achieved/549 TAS); Macchi C. 202 ('43), 1 minute 13 seconds seconds; F4U-1A, 54 seconds. To 460 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 1 minute 20 seconds; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 1 minute 18 seconds; Macchi C. 202 ('43), 1 minute 29 seconds (top speed achieved/556 TAS); F4U-1A, 1 minute 1 second. To 470 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 1 minute 29 seconds; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 1 minute 25 seconds; F4U-1A, 1 minute 9 seconds. To 480 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 2 minute 1 second; FW 190A-5 (1.62 ata), 1 minute 35 seconds (top speed achieved/590 TAS); F4U-1A, 1 minute 17 seconds. To 490 kph IAS: FW 190A-5 (Std), 2 minutes 36 seconds (top speed achieved/593 TAS); F4U-1A, 1 minute 29 seconds. To 500 kph IAS: F4U-1A, 1 minute 54 seconds (top speed achieved/608 TAS). NOTES: 1. CW-21B ran faster and much cooler at 120% Mixture; this is consistent with Navy and Marine pilot's accounts of high power settings when flying Wildcats and Buffalos which used a different model of the same engine, even though it doesn't appear to apply to those aircraft's FMs; while not actually quicker than the A6M2, it is modeled just a hair faster at 10,000 ft, and a lot easier to fly straight and level. 2. A6M2 Zero Type 21 is hamstrung by its very poor cockpit layout and the difficulty of tracking its instruments' readings; this is made more difficult by the inconsistent trim response. Actual performance might be better for someone who has gotten used to it and can keep it on the straight and level. I couldn't get out of it soon enough. 3. The early F6F-3 Hellcat is fairly sluggish without the water injection that the F4U in this test boasts; it is further limited by its tendency to go straight up the microsecond the pilot's attention shifts from the climb indicator which is at best very deceptive; a single division up or down results in a couple of hundred meters' difference in three to five seconds. Like the Focke-Wulf, the elevator trim is either miles behind or suddenly catches up and in either case, you are fighting your stick's springs. Rudder trim is almost as bad, but the rudder response is not so sensitive as the FW or the Corsair's. 4. Corsair is still the hot ship in this bunch; the water injection really makes up for minor errors in trim and rudder application; it just bangs through every interval from 350 to 450 kph indicated in 5 seconds or less, and just goes at a steadily decreasing rate until it hits the 'wall' at around 605 kph true airspeed. 5. Ki-61 is just a sweet ride; the cockpit is attractive, the instruments are clear and accurate and it responds beautifully. It is not as quick as it feels, but it is so easy to fly accurately that it will be superior to many aircraft with higher performance FMs, especially if you can sucker them into a low speed contest where their controls are not going to be as cooperative. 6. Macchi MC 202 is sneaky quick, but the cockpit feels a bit cramped, with your virtual face mashed up against the upper instruments. It's pretty, but it seems much too close, even in Wide View. Like the Hellcat, the Zero and the Focke-Wulf, the ailerons are constantly slipping off to one side or the other and you find yourself making constant microcorrections--it's like when you are half asleep, nodding off in your chair and fighting to keep your head upright. Still, after the initial 'twist' from pushing the throttle and prop pitch forward, it holds course and altitude better than most, and instruments are accurate, if poorly located IMHO. 7. There is very little difference between the plain 'vanilla' 190A-5 and the 'souped up' 1.62 ata version with its WEP. For all intents and purposes, they are identical in acceleration up to 460 kph indicated at this altitude, with the same faults. On the other hand, the 1.62 ata version sounds faster. The poorly animated and out of focus instruments (in Wide and Normal FOVs) are hard to read and inaccurate, if not dishonest. The climb and dive indicator has 100m per minute divisions up to 500m per minute, but if that needle rises or falls slightly higher or lower than one division, you can expect an increase or loss of 100m in 5 seconds or so. As mentioned above, the trim is inconsistent and is either not felt or will suddenly seem to show up all at once, driving your nose sharply up or down as you reach the low to middle 400 kph range; this doesn't match Western Allied test reports and evaluations that I am familiar with, which report the elevator trim as predictable and consistent. The rudder is touchy as well; very minor changes can drive the vector ball across the screen (well, at least across the sight circle), and you often find yourself with a three degree course change in a 5 second/10 kph interval. This may be partly the fault of the older cockpit paint, which makes it harder to keep up with the aircraft as it accelerates, but it is an enormous pain in the neck. cheers horseback
|
|
#110
05-28-2013, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interesting work, horseback. Is your feeling that acceleration is tied directly to, and only, drag? The reason I ask is because blade pitch was another major factor, in that as it increased more thrust was diverted from forward propulsion to resisting rotation. The result would then be a much faster drop off of acceleration at the top of the scale than the simple increase of drag. Curiosity only.
As for the 190, you're right, the trim in the real plane wasn't anywhere near twitchy and, bizarrely, the faster the plane went the less adjustment it needed for speed's sake. Above 260mph no adjustments in trim were needed at all if the only variable was speed. Sounds like you could use that characteristic - lol. As to its in game takeoff acceleration I've done standing start drag races between an absolutely empty (no ammo, 10% fuel) A8 closed cowl flaps (and auto prop) and an overloaded (1600lb, fully fueled) SBD with canopy and cowl flaps open and to 100mph it's practically a draw! lol. Fun times. --- Trivia: Lowest drag D9 cowl flap setting was 23% open. ---
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
