Evolution of Turn Performance

It seems that you still do not understand my transitive conclusions.

1. The Spitfire V was considered the most nimble of all the Spitfires (even more so than the Spitfire I). Source: This Post

2. The A6M5 was the least nimble of all A6M's produced in large numbers (A6M2, A6M3, A6M5). Reason: heavier than the A6M3 with the same wing lift capacity.

3. The A6M5 was capable of easily out turning a Seafire IIc (naval version of the Spitfire Vc). Source: This Post.

4. Conclusion: if the worst turning A6M was capable of easily out turning the best turning Spitfire, then any A6M should be able to out turn any Spitfire.

Do you understand now?

You must quote an insult or derogatory statement that I have made for your claim to have basis. If you say that "you had hidden insults in your words," then that is not much help for your case either. For example, the "it is what I thought you meant, not what you intended to mean" policy for verbal harassment/abuse has decreased the credibility of legitmate victims. You are not a "legitimate victim."

Keep in mind the undeniable fact that I write my "insults" only after comments are made about me.

 

Because it only shows how the earlier Spits stood up to the Zekelings, it shows pretty much nothing how the later variants were in relation to one another.

However, that was my scepticism, I'm glad Bizerk's source seems reliable enough to attach credibility to it, so then it would seem the Zeke shouldn't be outturned by a Spit.

@Squirl:

I knew all those things you said. I'm well aware of how the Spitfires should perform in relation to their other variants, same goes for the Zekelings. It was the connecting factor (Biz's source) I was unaware of.

I hope your "Do you understand now" snare wasn't meant derogatory, if so, you've managed to contradict yourself in one and the same post.

No, Squirl, you see, I'm not arguing here, you seem to be though. Already in a previous post I've said that I see your claimings of how they should be are backed by sufficient proof. You continue to hammer on it it seems though?

I had forgotten about the source Biz posted, but if what he posted is true, the Zeke should indeed have the upper-hand in turning.

I wasn't playing victim or anything, I was just saying that you've got quite the style of taking criticism to what people think to you personal. Or so I would judge from your replies, true, there's a tendency for the "what you mean rather than what you say", but up until a certain extent it is true. You can't deny that if someone's not liking something it will be visible in the way he posts a thing.

Anyway, I already believed you on that source the first time, it's not the real-life relation I'm doubting, it's your testing (don't take offense). Please, just conduct the tests again the way Exec proposed. Also, don't take what we're saying the wrong way, we appreciate constructive comments and posts that are helpful, but you must also understand that for the exact same things you criticise our work we can criticise your work. For every number you post here, you are in fact saying someone on the developer team did a bad job...

<Z>

 

I can only do the tests for 1.64. It is impossible to test in any other version; the test arena will not have it. I can not record tracks or logs offline. Under other circumstances I would run the tests promptly.

The most competent people can make mistakes. Every human makes mistakes. We hear that all the time, but it is true. Each person, you and I included, is not perfect. To be human one must be imperfect. For a person to claim that he is perfect proves in itself that he is not perfect.

My data indicates that the turning speed of the A6M needs to be reduced and the turn time of the Spitfire needs to be increased. These changes will, in my opinion, restore the accuracy of the flight models.

 

Exec, do you understand why I can not run the tests you have prescribed? I can test various versions offline, but I will not have logs or tracks to prove the numbers. I can provide logs and tracks of the tests of version 1.64 on the host, but that is the only version I can test there.

You must either trust my numbers or open the test arena to all versions of FH.

 

make it for 1.642 pls.

 

I am curious if presslufthammer's calculations show that the Spitfire should out turn an A6M, and if they do, are those the calculations programmed into the FH software?

I have a couple tests completed exactly under the conditions you have prescribed. Unfortunately I have not completed the Spitfire tests yet: the tests take a large amount of time to complete.

I do have these tests completed now, though:
A6M3 Sustained Turn 16.63 Seconds
Ki-61 Sustained Turn 18.16 Seconds

I think you will find that the tests satisfy your requirements.
? 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

The logs are also available but are too large to attach.

 

where have you been squirl buddy!? those soccer players are back in town- its time we start the potato throwing again!

 

Interesting to see how spit will compare. Nice work.


Squirl take the zeke for a spin in TR.
Nice slow speed turn.

There should soon be a Seafire too.

 

NO jap planes in WBFH have fair low speed handling, and thats a fact....the tests are just to rub snobby red bastard noses in.

 

Personally I wouldn't mind the Zeke handling much better a low speeds than it does now if it loses some of its high-speed handling in return. I think the Zekes, the various 109's and the P-38L all have too benign hi-speed handling characteristics.

 

I have finally finished the Spitfire IX test. It was much more difficult to complete the Spitfire test because, while it can turn very sharply, its elevator is sensitive. Eventually I found a stable sustained turn condition.

Using the numbers I can make the following conclusions:

A6M3 360 Time - 16.63 seconds at 255 kmh
Ki-61-Ib 360 Time - 18.16 seconds at 285 kmh
Spitfire IXc 360 Time - 16.49 seconds at 280 kmh

A6M3 Turn Radius - 187.48 meters
Ki-61-Ib Turn Radius - 228.81 meters
Spitfire IXc Turn Radius - 204.13 meters

A6M3 Turn Rate - 21.65 degrees/second
Ki-61-Ib Turn Rate - 19.82 degrees/second
Spitfire IXc Turn Rate - 21.83 degrees/second

A look at these numbers shows that an A6M can theoretically turn inside a Spitfire. It is highly unlikely that the A6M would win the dogfight, however. The A6M's weak elevator control with a higher "threshold of doom" (the A6M loses elevator effectiveness at 225 kmh, the Spitfire must slow to 160 kmh to experience the same effect) means that any vertical maneuver the Spitfire used would defeat the A6M.

In another note, the Ki-61 does not have a chance to defeat a Spitfire in a dogfight under any realistic circumstances.

 

afaik low speed handling is improved in 1.65.
probably zero32 would be able to match spit9/61 in turn.
_______________

how about spit lf9/66, zeke21, zeke52, zeke52b? did you tested them?

 

God bless you and developers.

I was horrified by spits IX that I stoped flying my ultralight favorite.

 

I do not mean to sound ungrateful, but the Zero 32 should be able to more than match the Spitfire IX in a turn. Here is what Hoof says on his Warbirds page:

All models of the A6M should be able to out turn any Spitfire (as addressed earlier). I tested the A6M3 because, out of all versions of the A6M, it should have the largest margin of supremacy over the Spitfire IX (see above). My tests show that the same model of A6M which most easily kills Spitfires in a turn fight in 2.76-.77 is easily killed by Spitfires in FH 1.64. Qualitative analysis would assume that the A6M model 21 and 52a/b would be even less effective against a Spitfire IX.

What I am saying is that all A6M's should easily defeat Spitfires in slow dogfights (below 400 kmh). The A6M3 should not match the Spitfire IX's turn rate, the Zero's turn rate should far exceed the Spitfire's. The other models of the A6M should have slightly less supremacy over the Spitfire in slow dogfights, but still enough of a supremacy to make experienced Spitfire pilots avoid slow dogfights at all costs.

I understand that the I-153 should realistically be the most agile plane in the game (with the Ki-27 in contention for that title). In Warbirds 2.76/.77 context, however, the A6M3 is the most agile plane in the game at low speeds. I still think it would be most efficient to reintroduce the original flight model for the A6M and Spitfire series. In my opinion, this change would result in more realistic modeling and as a relativity tool to see how the other aircraft flight models have changed (they would match up against the A6M and Spitfire differently than in previous versions).

 

Its my teoretical calculate tune A6M21 vs SpitIX LF
Alt 1000m
First picture tune_time Axis Y(time sec.) Axis X(speed kmph)
Second picture tune_radius Axis Y(radius m) Axis X(speed kmph)
SpitIX LF best tune at speed 330-340kmph time and radius

 

I don't mean to ignore your work, PressLuftHammer, but those airspeeds, turn times and radii seem high compared to those in the original Warbirds.

Best Turn Speed and Radius:
A6M2 PressLuftHammer: 171 meters at 259 kmh
A6M2* Original Warbirds: 103 meters at 177 kmh

Spitfire IX LF PressLuftHammer: 235 meters at 304 kmh
Spitfire IX* Original Warbirds: 186 meters at 257 kmh

360 Sustained Turn Time:
A6M2 PressLuftHammer: 14.9 seconds at 259 kmh
A6M2* Original Warbirds: 13.2 seconds at 177 kmh

Spitfire IX LF PressLuftHammer: 17.5 seconds at 304 kmh
Spitfire IX* Original Warbirds: 16.3 seconds at 257 kmh

*The original Warbirds information come from Hoof's tests, which were run at 1,000 feet (305 meters) in both tests and with the Spitfire IXe in the Spitfire test.

Could you explain to me what the reason is for such high turn speeds, turn radii and turn times? The power-on stall speed of the A6M2 has been listed as 55 knots (102 kmh), but it appears in your charts that the stall speed of the A6M2 is not far below 81 knots (150 kmh). Even though the linked article in the previous sentence covers an A6M3, its stall speed would not be far off of the A6M2's stall speed (it is a great article to read regardless).

It seems that all flight models have had their turn speeds, turn radii and turn times increased in the most recent versions of FH. Stall speeds have also increased. Is there some scientific justification for this?

 

squirl, hoof is cool guy and made an enourmous amount of wb-tests, but he explores the GAME, and his experiments have NOTHING with reality.
moreover, hoof's studies on WB2.0x don't have anything with WB2.77R3(changes.txt)+FHL1.62R2(Changes.htm).

also, i don't understand why A6M3 with clipped wing (model 32) must be the nimblest of all reisens.

 

Only one moment
Real test data was receiv for Spit IX LF test in NII VVS - radius 235m time 17,5 sec at alt 1000m.

 

The thought of a6ms "possibly" outurning spitfires is halarious. The austrailian pilots who flew spitfires even recount how turnfighting with a zeke was a quick way to die.

 

It may not relate directly to what we have been talking about, but I have made an assumption and tested it in the test arena.

While I was flying an A6M once, I had to dive out of trouble. An F4F was on my tail as I did this, so I was surprised when I began to pull away from the Wildcat in the dive.

I ran tests on the A6M2 and the F4F-3 to test their "evasion by dive" capabilities. The dives were initiated at 1000 meters and at 300 kmh in both aircraft. Both aircraft had 100% fuel. The dive was carried out by nosing the plane over to a 90-degree dive as quickly as possible.

Series 1 is the F4F-3; series 2 the A6M2.



Clearly the F4F-3 cannot evade an A6M by simply diving. The tracks and logs are attached so that you can see the statistics for yourself. Both dives were 11 seconds in length. The log files are especially useful. In the log files, the numbers on the left-hand side indicate the individual intervals, starting from the point where the angle of ascent first was negative. At the end of the dive (the point at which the plane slammed into the water) the climb speeds of both planes were -156.67 meters per second and the A6M was slightly faster than the F4F was.

So why did I test diving capabilities in a turning thread? To begin with, almost everyone knows that the F4F could easily out dive the A6M, as was frequently the case in Pacific Theater combat. The fact that the A6M can even stay with an F4F in a dive means that the A6M's flight model is "too heavy." What is more, the A6M2's engine cut out for a short duration during the negative g's in the entrance to the dive - the A6M still slightly exceed the F4F's dive rate. I know that weight does not exist in programming sense, but the A6M's super diving characteristics means that it has more "downward force." Downward force (g-force) is exactly what works against turning ability and low-speed agility.

The F4F's flight model is already "heavy" enough. You cannot say that the problem is that the F4F is too light. The problem is that the A6M is too heavy.