Acceleration comparisons

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

According to that formula, La-5FN acceleration is 55.555...% better than La-5F. I think 15-20, maybe even 30% would be acceptable for a meager 150hp more powerful engine + a tiny little less drag (but 60-100kg higher weight). If you check NII VVS tests, you can see maximum 20-25% improvement in other performance charts, (speed, climb, turn time) nowhere near the 55%. Obviously prototype performance. If you still think this isnt suspicious...

I really don't see where your 55% come from, from il2compare I get climb at sea level La-5F: 17.5 (21.5 with boost) and La-5FN 21.2 (25.3), which both is around 20% better acceleration for La-5FN

[SadoMarxist]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

I really don't see where your 55% come from, from il2compare I get climb at sea level La-5F: 17.5 (21.5 with boost) and La-5FN 21.2 (25.3), which both is around 20% better acceleration for La-5FN

Beat me to it

[MaxGunz]

Ps is for both altitude and speed.

There is no one ratio at any height that expresses La5 vs La5FN.
Even worse is trying to nail one number as the complete plane vs plane comparison.

I have IL2Compare 4.07m. I never bothered to upgrade since because why?

La5 at 0m alt ROC at TAS 280 kph is about 18 m/s and La5FN about 22.
La5 at 0m alt ROC at TAS 400 kph is about 12 m/s and La5FN about 16.
La5 at 0m alt ROC at TAS 500 kph is about 2 m/s and La5FN about 7.

La5FN to La5 Ps ratios?

At 280 kph, 122%. At 400 kph, 133%. At 500 kph, 350%.

FWIW, playing on performance margins is and has been part of aerial combat since fighter pilots noticed such margins in WWI.

And once you get over the charts (some never do) you might realize that what Pilot A can do in Plane X vs what Pilot B can do in Plane Y is -part- of the real difference with start conditions able to overturn that which is why aerial combat tactics always begins with initial positioning and speed.

IL2 has high realism. History tells of whining fighter pilots, at least in the USAAF where they wouldn't get shot for it.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

At 280 kph, 122%. At 400 kph, 133%. At 500 kph, 350%.

Highlighted for importance.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by JtD

Highlighted for importance.

La5FN to La5 Ps ratios?
At 280 kph, 122%. At 400 kph, 133%. At 500 kph, 350%.

Keep in mind that the last ratio is between La5 being near to zero climb at 2 m/s and La5FN at 7 m/s. The absolute differences all down the curves run La5FN as from 4/ms to 5 m/s more even though the ratios change so greatly.

Besides, the real shock is when the La5FN can still climb while the La5 has to fly a shallow dive to keep the same speed.

Compare a FW190A-3 to a contemporary Spit VB. Tactic for the 190 is to force the Spit to higher speeds. Tactic for the Spit is to force the FW to turn.

[SadoMarxist]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Ps is for both altitude and speed.

There is no one ratio at any height that expresses La5 vs La5FN.
Even worse is trying to nail one number as the complete plane vs plane comparison.

I have IL2Compare 4.07m. I never bothered to upgrade since because why?

La5 at 0m alt ROC at TAS 280 kph is about 18 m/s and La5FN about 22.
La5 at 0m alt ROC at TAS 400 kph is about 12 m/s and La5FN about 16.
La5 at 0m alt ROC at TAS 500 kph is about 2 m/s and La5FN about 7.

La5FN to La5 Ps ratios?

At 280 kph, 122%. At 400 kph, 133%. At 500 kph, 350%.

FWIW, playing on performance margins is and has been part of aerial combat since fighter pilots noticed such margins in WWI.

And once you get over the charts (some never do) you might realize that what Pilot A can do in Plane X vs what Pilot B can do in Plane Y is -part- of the real difference with start conditions able to overturn that which is why aerial combat tactics always begins with initial positioning and speed.

IL2 has high realism. History tells of whining fighter pilots, at least in the USAAF where they wouldn't get shot for it.

I guess I still prefer to have some idea where one fighter can outperform the other, but I guess that's why I'll never get over the charts. Off course, nothing beats experience .

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by SadoMarxist

I guess I still prefer to have some idea where one fighter can outperform the other, but I guess that's why I'll never get over the charts. Off course, nothing beats experience .

Having that knowledge gets you started I feel. It's good to know your opponents potential... but if that potential is exploited is another story altogether, isn't it?

[MaxGunz]

Back when I first started getting online plus about a year this new game came out, Red Baron 2. I got it in Feb 1998 and while searching for info I found the Flight Sim Forum at Delphi and so began my entry into the Flight Sim Community that had been going on for years already.

One of the old terms in the community was "Spit Dweeb". I think it originated in either the Air Warrior or Aces High, or both, community.

A Spit Dweeb is a player that grabs the "best plane" and expects to always have the upper hand. Then when they get out-flown or out-anything especially if they get shot down, they go up on a forum and say the game is wrong.

Charts are great. I love them. But I don't have steady enough hands or the 'flying skills' to make them so that leaves me knowing that plane X under my control is not going to do as well as a better flier in plane X.

[Cloyd]

Hey Horseback,

Thanks for your work on this. As a crap plane enthusiast, your exercise for me is academic at best - I'm always going to end up in the slower, lower airplane. But I do appreciate your work on actual in game data.

Cloyd

[horseback]

Okay, here's the final installment in the 100m series: late war USAAF, Mid war Spitfires and the Mid war Bf 109 series.

I added the Mustang III and the P-47D (Late)to the USAAF fighters out of curiosity; I normally avoid the 'pumped up' stuff unless I feel that the original offering was less than accurate. I must say that the rankings of the US fighters seems a bit off; the P-38 should be the champion at all altitudes, at least from start (170mph) to about 350 mph indicated, so the L (Late) sort of restores the natural order. Every resource I have says that this was the case, and that the P-47 and the Mustang were neck-and-neck once the Jug finally got a propeller worthy of the R-2800. The P-47M was supposed to be faster to accelerate than the D/K Mustangs (when it worked). Bear in mind that both the Lightning and the Jug used turbosuperchargers, which allowed them to use every bit of the engines' horsepower from the ground right up to around 30,000 ft, so their performance in terms of IAS was fairly consistent.

Note also that the D model Mustangs are significantly superior to the razorback versions (less the Mustang III) at low levels; this is consistent with the fact that the earlier models were optimized for high altitude, so if you're going to take it down in the weeds, a bubbletop is the better choice.

As for the Bf 109s, I should point out that for the G-2 I experimented with closing the rads once I reached about 400 kph indicated but left them in Auto for the G-6. The G-6 rarely overheated, but the G-2 would overheat pretty quickly once the rads were closed--the payoff is that you will get faster sooner. Note that in every case, the automatic transmission of the LW fighters makes them initially slower to accelerate than their Allied counterparts, but once the transition is made, the speed can pick up quickly.

One of the things this project has helped me with is to identify not only which aircraft have the better response in terms of power (and where), but which ones handle better, i.e., which ones require less trim or have the more reliable instrument displays (critical for flying level or in proper trim). Being aware that the 'ball' has to be offset a bit to one side or the other in some aircraft in order to be properly trimmed is a handy thing to know. I'm probably a much more effective pilot as a result.

Next stop: 5000 feet or around 1500m.

cheers

horseback