PDA

View Full Version : Sustained turn rates



FritzGryphon
07-18-2005, 11:09 PM
In an effort to dispel myths of overmodeled/undermodeled/national bias/alien conspiracy in turn rates, I have tested a number of planes, and compared to available data.

Planes tested in sustained turn at 1000m. Maximum power (+WEP) and full fuel. Values are compared to data in the object viewer.

Disclaimer: Values have margin of error of maybe +/-5%, or one second. Also, object viewer values are not necessarily correct, as they often conflict with other values I find (like 109E). Best turn speed is estimated, but close to real values. Finally, fuel load is not specified, which could make a difference +/- a second in planes with lots of tankage.

A sustained turn: A 360 degree turn completed with a constant speed, and a constant altitude.

A low sustained turn time indicates a plane with high power/weight, and low induced drag, or 'energy bleed'. High turn times indicate low power/weight, and high induced drag, or 'energy bleed'. As such, sustained turn times describe a planes turning ability well.

I'd appreciate any light you can shed on aircraft lacking turn times. Please tell me if you find any of my values to be wrong (possibly as a result of using the wrong turn speed).

--------------

Plane/ Ingame time / Object viewer / Speed used TAS (subtract ~10% for IAS) / notes


109E4: 25 / 26-29 / 250 / Object viewer conflicts with online sources (22-24 seconds)
109F2: 20 / 19.5-20.5 / 260
109G2: 20 / 20-22 / 300
109G6A/S: 20 / 22 / 300 / Object viewer probably uses value with pods. Also, aircraft not really a G6A/S.
109K4: 22 / 22 / 300
190A4: 23 / 23-24 / 300
190D9: 24 / ? / 300
Bf110G: 31 / ? / 300 / Far too high. Online source suggests 22-23 seconds.

JU87B: 22 / ? / 230
JU87D5: 24 / ? / 230
He111H6: 23 / ? / 270

CR42: 15 / ? / 220
G50: 18 / ? / 250 / Unconfirmed source indicates RL = 16 seconds

P39N1: 19 / 19 / 240
P40E : 19 / 19.5 / 230
P51D5: 24 / ? / 320 / 22s with 25% fuel
P51D20: 24 / ? / 320
P47D27: 25 / ? / 300
P38J: 25 / ? / 310
P38LLt 23 / ? / 320

SpVb : 17 / ? / 240
SpIXE : 18 / ? / 250
SpIXELF(CW): 19 / ? / 260
HurriI: 19 / 19 / 230
HurriIIb: 19 / 19 / 250

Yak9: 18 / 16-18 / 250
La5FN: 18 / 18.5 / 250
IL2S1: 22 / ? / 220
IL2S3: 23 / ? / 230
IL2M : 26 / ? / 210
IL2type3: 25 / ? / 230

A6M2 : 16 / 16 / 230

----------

Conlusion: Tested planes tend to match historical values, where available.

FritzGryphon
07-18-2005, 11:09 PM
In an effort to dispel myths of overmodeled/undermodeled/national bias/alien conspiracy in turn rates, I have tested a number of planes, and compared to available data.

Planes tested in sustained turn at 1000m. Maximum power (+WEP) and full fuel. Values are compared to data in the object viewer.

Disclaimer: Values have margin of error of maybe +/-5%, or one second. Also, object viewer values are not necessarily correct, as they often conflict with other values I find (like 109E). Best turn speed is estimated, but close to real values. Finally, fuel load is not specified, which could make a difference +/- a second in planes with lots of tankage.

A sustained turn: A 360 degree turn completed with a constant speed, and a constant altitude.

A low sustained turn time indicates a plane with high power/weight, and low induced drag, or 'energy bleed'. High turn times indicate low power/weight, and high induced drag, or 'energy bleed'. As such, sustained turn times describe a planes turning ability well.

I'd appreciate any light you can shed on aircraft lacking turn times. Please tell me if you find any of my values to be wrong (possibly as a result of using the wrong turn speed).

--------------

Plane/ Ingame time / Object viewer / Speed used TAS (subtract ~10% for IAS) / notes


109E4: 25 / 26-29 / 250 / Object viewer conflicts with online sources (22-24 seconds)
109F2: 20 / 19.5-20.5 / 260
109G2: 20 / 20-22 / 300
109G6A/S: 20 / 22 / 300 / Object viewer probably uses value with pods. Also, aircraft not really a G6A/S.
109K4: 22 / 22 / 300
190A4: 23 / 23-24 / 300
190D9: 24 / ? / 300
Bf110G: 31 / ? / 300 / Far too high. Online source suggests 22-23 seconds.

JU87B: 22 / ? / 230
JU87D5: 24 / ? / 230
He111H6: 23 / ? / 270

CR42: 15 / ? / 220
G50: 18 / ? / 250 / Unconfirmed source indicates RL = 16 seconds

P39N1: 19 / 19 / 240
P40E : 19 / 19.5 / 230
P51D5: 24 / ? / 320 / 22s with 25% fuel
P51D20: 24 / ? / 320
P47D27: 25 / ? / 300
P38J: 25 / ? / 310
P38LLt 23 / ? / 320

SpVb : 17 / ? / 240
SpIXE : 18 / ? / 250
SpIXELF(CW): 19 / ? / 260
HurriI: 19 / 19 / 230
HurriIIb: 19 / 19 / 250

Yak9: 18 / 16-18 / 250
La5FN: 18 / 18.5 / 250
IL2S1: 22 / ? / 220
IL2S3: 23 / ? / 230
IL2M : 26 / ? / 210
IL2type3: 25 / ? / 230

A6M2 : 16 / 16 / 230

----------

Conlusion: Tested planes tend to match historical values, where available.

BBB_Hyperion
07-18-2005, 11:16 PM
FritzGryphon your tests seem to match mine .

Would you mind inserting em in my Database ? I will PT the URL.

AerialTarget
07-18-2005, 11:17 PM
There are two problems. Firstly, the Wonder Woman true airspeed has been shown to be wrong. Also, best climb speed is indicated; shouldn't best turn speed be indicated as well?

Secondly, why did you not test the P-38 Lighnting?

FritzGryphon
07-18-2005, 11:22 PM
IAS was used for the test. What it comes out to in TAS doesn't really matter. Besides, I don't see why WW TAS would be incorrect.

I do not know best turn speed. I work on assumption that it's similar to best climb (which holds true for civilian planes).

This too, doesn't make much difference. I've found a 20kmh +/- in turn speed affects sustained turn time by less than half a second. The results, though not perfect, are close. For example, whether 240 or 260 IAS, the 109K does 22 seconds.

I did not do P-38 because the results would be so incredible, so shocking, as to shake our foundation of beliefs to the very core. Just kidding, I'll try it now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hyperion: Database? Yes show me plz http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BBB_Hyperion
07-18-2005, 11:23 PM
WW view is the only reliable source for TAS yet AerialTarget show me otherwise .) UDPSpeed Graph is wrong cause it just uses a simple equitation that doesnt fit to the ingame parameters.

FritzGryphon
07-19-2005, 01:08 AM
Seeing that the use of flaps is often described as part of manuevering in certain aircraft, I tested some late war planes.

1000m, Crimea, noon. 110% power and WEP. Full flap. 25% fuel is used to better reflect actual conditions.

----------

Time to complete sustained turn, and speed. In parentheses, the turn time without flaps, and with full fuel.

P38Llate: 19 seconds, 230km/h (23)
P51D20: 24 seconds, 230km/h (25)

109K4: 22 seconds, 230 km/h (22)
190D9: 22 seconds, 230 km/h (24)

---------

The P-38 clearly shows the advantage of it's fowler flaps, adding 4.5 dps to it's turn rate. You could successfully turn level with a clipped wing Spitfire, and have a smaller turn radius to boot (provided the Spit didn't have it's flaps down).

The FW also benefits from flap, though not as much. For 109K and P-51, little difference. In the case of the P-51, the improvement is more likely due to the reduced weight of fuel.

Also worth noting, all but the P-38 were nearing the stall, with a severe pull from torque and slipstream. The P-38 showed no adverse effects.

BBB_Hyperion
07-19-2005, 01:38 AM
CHECK PT Gryphon .)

msalama
07-19-2005, 02:34 AM
Thanks Gryphon! This is very interesting...

AerialTarget
07-19-2005, 02:54 AM
Fritzgryphon, there are two more problems. Firstly, both the pilot's manual and actual pilots recommended maneuver flaps, not full flaps. Apparently, the Fowler flaps on the P-38 on provided lift with minimal drag on that setting, and any further gave more drag than lift.

Secondly, twenty five percent fuel is a very optimistic figure. The aircraft should have a minimum of fifty percent fuel, because the fighting is likely to be done near or at the target area. And even if there weren't external tanks, you need at least fifty percent fuel to get back home. If there were external tanks and the range was longer, you would need more, perhaps seventy five.

But these aircraft tests were done in real life with a full combat load - maximum fuel (no drop tanks) and ammunition.

FritzGryphon
07-19-2005, 02:57 AM
I am not comparing this to any real life data. I simply wanted to know which had most efficient flaps.

You want to try combat flaps with 50% fuel, be my guest.

These tests you refer to, they sound interesting, especially since they specify loadout. Where are they?

AerialTarget
07-19-2005, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
These tests you refer to, they sound interesting, especially since they specify loadout. Where are they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're all over the place. I've not seen any turn tests which specify any configuration, but I don't see any reason that they would deviate from the standard testing method. Do you?

Do you actually believe that American turn tests were made with a bare minumum of fuel, perhaps so that they could look competitive with the German fighters?

FritzGryphon
07-19-2005, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you actually believe that American turn tests were made with a bare minumum of fuel, perhaps so that they could look competitive with the German fighters? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll repeat; I am not replicating a RL test. As far as the accusation, I'd appreciate you not making them.

And I'm not being sarcastic, either. I have not yet found turn data for any of the 'big 3' American planes.

But since you asked nicely, with full fuel.

------------

P38L late, sustained turn time with flaps.

Combat: 21s, 290km/h
Takeoff: 21s, 280km/h
Landing: 21s, 220km/h
DiveBrake: 24s, 260km/h

------------

As you suggested, more flap doesn't improve turn rate, but simply slows the plane down. It turns the same with Combat or Landing flaps, with turn radius of ~270m and ~205m respectively.

With combat flaps, the turn rate is better than the 109K4 and FW-190D9. The advantage grows with the less fuel you have, because the P-38 has a lot of it.

The dive recovery flaps are not effective for improving turn rate or radius.

F19_Ob
07-19-2005, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
In an effort to dispel myths of overmodeled/undermodeled/national bias/alien conspiracy in turn rates, I have tested a number of planes, and compared to available data.

Planes tested in sustained turn at 1000m. Maximum power (+WEP) and full fuel. Values are compared to data in the object viewer.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for testing and good post.
Many of the disputes on the forum originates from mixing data from instant turns and sustained turns, so it's good to discuss this.
I do lots of testing myself but....
Could U please do your turntest on these:

il-2 1941(3 series) Single seater
il-2 Type3 1943 doubleseater
bf110 G2

so I get the test your way. It would be most appreciated.

regards
--------------------------------------------

I often shoot down fighters in bf110's and doubleseater il-2's online, and sometimes get accused for cheating because I seemingly outmaneuver 109's.
The truth is I know the absolute limits of these planes and the opposition and I can do hard isntaneous turns by bleeding all my energy to be able to draw deflection.
To the enemy it may seem I have extraordinary maneuverability while I infact am a flying brick after my single hard maneuver.
I also know that if I was in the 109 an il-2 would never be able to outmaneuver me, and have not so far.

Just some background info. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
07-19-2005, 04:56 AM
The truth is some cant stand to get shoot down even more annoying getting shoot down by a bomber or ground attack plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I have not seen much dfs either where sustained turnrate did matter.

Did you once outturn a P51 with a Heinkel and shoot the P51 with the gunner down . You hear all kind of words and cheater is one of the harmless .)

Badsight.
07-19-2005, 06:12 AM
pre-concieved misconceptions & biased viewpoints from poor flying or a bad experience online do not stand up in the light of proper testing

excellent thread : ))

Badsight.
07-19-2005, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Secondly, twenty five percent fuel is a very optimistic figure. The aircraft should have a minimum of fifty percent fuel, because the fighting is likely to be done near or at the target area. And even if there weren't external tanks, you need at least fifty percent fuel to get back home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>personally , i feel planes should be tested for turning ability with 1% fuel

this nullifys the weight of fuel which differs from plane to plane & you then get the raw performance that plane can do

VW-IceFire
07-19-2005, 07:41 AM
Awesome testing...well done. It really shows why you shouldn't get into turn fights with certain aircraft.

FritzGryphon
07-19-2005, 03:37 PM
Updated with IL2s, He111 and Bf110. Turns out the He-111 could outturn a P51 in level circles.

I have also found my first major discrepancy, with the Bf-110G2.

I tried speeds of 340 (32s), 300 (31s) and 260 (35s). Without having a historical source, it's still safe to say that 31 seconds is far too long. Worse than IL-2, Stukas, Heinkels, everything by 25% or more.

Other games have the Bf-110G2 turning in the 22-23 second range at 1000m. This is probably closer to reality. If that is the case, the Bf-110G2 is severely undermodeled in this respect.

Monty_Thrud
07-19-2005, 03:56 PM
Any chance of the Hurricane MkI/IIb/IIc, Bf109G2/G6AS... please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FritzGryphon
07-19-2005, 10:12 PM
Updated.

109G6A/S does not match O.V. But, I hear the actual GA/S differs from the one in the game (no MW50, and different engine), so the data may not apply.

CR42 turn time much better than 3.04. Perhaps corrected.

AerialTarget
07-20-2005, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Turns out the He-111 could outturn a P51 in level circles.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean in real life or in the game?

FritzGryphon
07-20-2005, 12:51 AM
Game. I don't know IRL turn for P-51 or Heinkel.

AerialTarget
07-20-2005, 02:56 AM
While I was of the opinion that the P-51 turned too well before the patch, I do think that this latest development is quite ridiculous! Talk about overkill.

Aaron_GT
07-20-2005, 03:05 AM
The P51 is very competitive in high speed turns (this is correct) but it isn't so great at low speed turns (also correct). It's still worth checking against real world values to make sure it is correct, and if not, submit a bug report, but the general trend of the behaviour is fine. With regard to outturning it with an He111, I haven't tried it, but you can't get the He111 to high speed, so it would be comparing the turn of the He111 to the low speed turn of the P51. The low speed turn of some WW2 bombers was surprisingly good (e.g. Hampden, Stirling).

AerialTarget
07-20-2005, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
P38L late, sustained turn time with flaps.

Combat: 21s, 290km/h
Takeoff: 21s, 280km/h
Landing: 21s, 220km/h
DiveBrake: 24s, 260km/h

The dive recovery flaps are not effective for improving turn rate or radius. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While your last statement mirrors my experience (I only use dive recovery flaps for high speed, non-sustained turns or to stay behind someone), I wonder how you arrived at the conclusion about the turn radius (again, one which I share). How did you test that?

FritzGryphon
07-20-2005, 03:25 AM
I'd not say it's ridiculous until I have something to compare it to.

A 24 second turn time seems logical for the aircraft specs. It's no worse than a Dora, which seems to have similar power loading and wing loading.

But that's conjecture till I find some data. Would you believe my web search came up empty, save for some Aces High and Warbirds numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif You'd think it'd be easy to find this info.

If it means anything (which it doesn't), the P-51D in Aces High does a 20 second sustained turn with 25% fuel, at sea level. The P-51D5 in PF does the same turn in 22 seconds.

-----

You can get turn radius from the turn time and speed. That's why I recorded TAS rather than IAS.

(speed / 3.6)(turn time)
-------
(pi x 2)

So a 24s turn at 260km/h is 275m radius. A 21s turn at 290km/h is 270m radius (approx).

AerialTarget
07-20-2005, 03:53 AM
Aha! I did not do well at all in advanced mathematics.

However, that is the best sustained turn time, not necessarily the best turn radius. Are not smaller sustained circles possible at the expense of time taken to make them?

AerialTarget
07-20-2005, 03:55 AM
By the way, you are right; I owe you an apology. To my credit, I am overstressed attempting to deal with several dishonest people on this board whose goal is to cause the effectiveness of certain aircraft to be lowered by any means possible, honest or no, and hang the facts! I should have taken more time to analize your position. I apologize.

geetarman
07-20-2005, 10:24 AM
Thank you Fritz. Very nicely done. One question. Am I correct in interpreting your results to show that dropping combat flaps on a Mustang does not effect it's turn time? If so, would this be correct? Do you know how dropping them changed it's turn radius?

BBB_Hyperion
07-20-2005, 10:27 AM
Small Turn Radius does not mean best turntime.

FritzGryphon
07-20-2005, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Am I correct in interpreting your results to show that dropping combat flaps on a Mustang does not effect it's turn time? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It probably does, but the difference is too small to measure with my method, since I'm rounding to full seconds. It's a ballpark figure at best.

But flaps always reduce radius, simply cuz you can turn at a slower speed without stalling.

Reducing fuel does have a measurable difference. Quite a large one on the P-51, as it cuts 1-2 seconds off the time. On other planes, the difference is too small to see.