Recently I have had the time to test the turn statistics of various planes in FH V1.30, 1.42, 1.50, 1.51, 1.61, 1.62, 1.63 and 1.64 (I have them all installed). I took the results of my tests into Excel and plotted them. The results are startling; yet I am not surprised at the results. Without further ado, the test results: -The first plot shows the turn time of the 3 planes tested. -The second plot shows the indicated airspeed of the 3 planes tested. The Spitfire information is different because of the two different possibilities of its turn information (with or without the new elevator defect). -The third plot shows the default turn IAS for the three planes. -The fourth plot displays the turning radius of the planes in question, as the two different entries for airspeed cause two possibilities for turning radius. -The fifth plot displays the default turn radius for the planes in question. As far as the conditions under which the planes were tested, they were as follows: -All tests were run at 50% fuel. -All tests were run at 5000 ft, offline. -All times are legitimate (I had to correct them from manual to actual by multiplying each number by the coefficient of my error in manual counting.) -The turn times were determined by flying 3 complete turns at sustained turn conditions and then by dividing this time by 3. -The turn radius was determined by finding the circumference of the circle by multiplying m/sec by seconds of turn. This circumference was divided by 2*pi to find the radius. Although this is not the official method (the official method requires bank angle), the numbers from these calculations are only +/- 1-2% off of the real numbers. They are accurate enough. As far as the interpretation of the data, there is much to say. It is interesting to note that the turn times have remained fairly constant for the Japanese planes; yet the turn radii of the Japanese planes have increased (worsened). This is due to the fact that recently, the sustained turn speed of the Japanese planes has increased. This change means that the Japanese planes fly a larger turn circle, putting them at a disadvantage. Over the same duration that the Japanese planes' turn performance has been decreased, the Spitfire IX's turn performance has increased. This increase is the result of a lower turn time and a turn speed that increased less than it increased for the Japanese planes. Under optimal flying conditions for each plane tested, the Spitfire has both the best turn time and the smallest turning circle. The Spitfire can fly in its turning circle at a slower speed (smaller circle) and at a higher rate (higher rate of turn). Again, the Japanese planes have lost their advantage because while the turn times have remained fairly constant (variations in data due to slight pilot inconsistency), the speed at which they turn has increased. The result is a larger turning circle and an inferior turn rate. In other words, three major changes have been made to the flight models of these planes in the past updates: -The Spitfire IX's turning circle has been made smaller. -The Spitfire IX's rate of turn has increased. -The A6M's (and Ki-61's) turning circles have been made larger. All three of those changes work to the disadantage of a Ki-61 or an A6M in a dogfight against a Spitfire IX. I have long stated that the A6M and the Ki-61 have been worsened and the Spitfire has been improved. I am not trying to alienate anybody here: many red pilots agree with me; as do I agree with many red petitions. What this is is the information behind the statement, the proof behind the claim.
And the sustained turn time of the Spit in the top chart has plummeted squirl... Did you forget to mention that? What exactly were you trying to prove/change with this data? I wish I had as much time on my hands as you.
-bw-: for 50%. squirl: RL tests were made with 100% minus fuel from take-off to test start. -bw-: 5, 50, 100% - не важно. интересно почему такой скачок между версиями 1.51 и 1.61, причём разнонаправленный. если по спитфайру можно предположить применение документов 4FG, то по хиену я таких данных не заметил. такие данные кто-то давал? squirl: anyways, e-loosing virage 90° data cannot be applied to sustained 75° turn. if you want to return to that topic. calculations of presslufthammer did not gave the time you require. i asked you both to find consensus (find truth ), but you did not it.
50% тоже неактуально. Все делается со 100%. И начиная с 1.61 в changes.htm пишется время виража для каждого самолета если оно менялось. И не надо ничего на 50% мерять. у нас вираж (скорости и время ) стали приводить к реалу начиная с 1.61. Там где данных нет - брались расчетные (это к Баджеру)
squirl: 1.version 1.61 was dedicated to correct virage times of all planes. 2.those planes that had not real reports got calculated time. i can ask badger about methodics, if you want. 3.50% tests cannot be used by developers. only for propaganda.
squirl, here's correct test conditions: ? fuel 100% (if lesser, say 90%, it must be proven that IRL it takes 10% to start tests). ? use .showdata for your convenience. ? establish altitude 1000m±10m and maintain it during entire test. ? use all the power engine can give ? don't use flaps ? after turn estabilised enter .startlog woodpecker.log ? make at least 3 circles ? stop log with .stoplog ? send woodpecker.log to me or -bw- if needed, admins can set up an airstart for you.
ah, btw. personal request from -bw-. repeat this test with 50% fuel just to compare it with your graphs you published at the top of the thread.
Squirl... in between the time you spent searching for official methods did you bother to check the data you acquired with a historical source? Why are you so certain that a Spit must be worse than a Ki61/Zero? There are no historical accounts of Spits later than maybe a lost Spit II or a Spit V engaging a later model Zero or a Hien... <Z>
Come on... squirl did a great job making tests to try to improve the wb, and you all almost ignore or criticise? When somebody come here and say bullshit complaining about flight models you all say "bring proof" or things like that. Now when he come here and show results of his tests you almost do the same??? "What do u do for living", "I wish a have the same free time", or something like that... If he has free time to do it, good for him! and good for us who play WB. Good because somebody can do something to improve the game! IMHO you should thank him for doing that, and if the tests have something wrong, try to help.
from: http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showthread.php?t=26784 The fact that a person can ask this question now shows just how long it has been since the A6M and Ki-61 have been good performers. The A6M and Ki-61 should turn better than the Spitfire because: -Lower wing loading -Higher thickness/chord ratio -Higher aspect ratio -Better wing planform (elliptical wing is less than ideal at low speeds in real life) Those concepts are just some of the many reasons why my statements have real proof behind them. This is old news, though. If you really care about real life analysis, go to This Thread.
I would be willing to do that, but there is one major problem. How am I to test versions 1.30-1.63 in the test arena? .showdata and .startlog are not available offline if I remember correctly. I am devising a primitive, yet effective method of getting precise data. If I have the opportunity to run these tests online, I will fly with the mouse and position boards around the mouse in such a way that I can hold the mouse in one position. With a little fine tuning this apparatus could hold perfect sustained turn conditions.
So... you can criticise anything, but we can't criticise you, is that it? What I asked, I asked from a historical point of view. I'm satisfied with the content of your reply, but I'm far from happy with the form in which you replied. <Z>
Then for a historicle point there is this- there are documents which i have posted "and others" and I could retreive again that acount how the ausie spitfires coultn dogfight with the a6m- and all reports acount for the a6m being the better low speed handler out of all of the planes mentioned. Even with planes like the f4u who could for short times match manoovers with a zeke- but in the low and slow when the f4u could no longer have a slight diving turn to keep speed the a6m could turn inside and make the kill. The a6m now has alot of higher speed handling- but very little authority in the slow speeds like it was IRL......
I'm very well aware of the Australians fighting the Zeros, hell I probably was one of the people that posted about it. <Z>