PDA

View Full Version : Sealevel acceleration comparisons.



robban75
12-16-2005, 08:39 AM
Here are some acceleration comparisons between planes in the 4.02 patch. Crimea map, full fuel, rads closed, default loadout. Time in seconds.

The runs were recorded, and time taken during the playback. I didn't use a timer, instead I took the time from the track itself. So the numbers aren't 100% accurate. But they give an accurate enough representation of the differences in acceleration between the tested fighters.

Planes in this test are, Fw 190A-5, Fw 190A-8, Fw 190A-9, Yak-9U, Yak-3P, Spitfire MkVIII CW, Bf 109G-2.

SPD - A5 -- A8 -- A9 -- 9U -- 3P - VIII - G2

250 - ST - ST -- ST -- ST -- ST - ST - ST
300 - 6 --- 6 ---- 6 --- 4 --- 4 --- 5 -- 5
350 - 13 -- 12 -- 12 -- 10 -- 10 -- 11 - 10
400 - 21 -- 19 -- 19 -- 17 -- 17 -- 18 - 17
450 - 32 -- 30 -- 31 -- 26 -- 27 -- 30 - 27
500 - 49 -- 45 -- 46 -- 39 -- 41 -- 52 - 46
520 - 60 -- 54 -- 54 -- 47 -- 51 -- 72 - 63
540 - 74 -- 65 -- 65 -- 57 -- 64 -- NA - 83
550 - 85 -- 74 -- 72 -- 65 -- 74 -- NA - NA
560 - 101 - 84 -- 80 -- 73 -- 88 -- NA - NA
570 - 129 - 99 -- 93 -- 86 -- 116 - NA - NA
580 - NA -- 129 - 110 - 113 - NA -- NA - NA
590 - NA -- NA -- 148 - NA -- NA -- NA - NA

p1ngu666
12-16-2005, 08:55 AM
VII?
thats VIII i presume? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

robban75
12-16-2005, 09:21 AM
Planes are, Bf 109G-10, Bf 109K-4, P-47D-27, Ki-84-Ia, Fw 190D-9 '45, La-7, P-51D20/NA.

SPD - G10 - K4 - 47 -- 84 -- D9 -- La7 - 51

250 - ST - ST -- ST -- ST - ST -- ST - ST
300 - 4 --- 4 --- 5 --- 4 --- 4 ---- 3 --- 7
350 - 9 --- 9 --- 12 -- 10 -- 10 --- 8 - 14
400 - 15 -- 15 -- 20 -- 17 -- 17 -- 14 - 24
450 - 24 -- 22 -- 30 -- 26 -- 25 -- 21 - 35
500 - 36 -- 34 -- 46 -- 38 -- 37 -- 31 - 51
520 - 43 -- 41 -- 55 -- 45 -- 43 -- 37 - 60
540 - 53 -- 49 -- 69 -- 55 -- 50 -- 44 - 71
550 - 60 -- 54 -- 78 -- 62 -- 55 -- 48 - 78
560 - 69 -- 62 -- 93 -- 71 -- 60 -- 53 - 86
570 - 85 -- 74 -- 123 - 82 -- 66 -- 59 - 96
580 - 124 - 93 -- NA -- 102 - 74 -- 67 - 109
590 - NA -- NA -- NA -- NA -- 83 -- 77 - 135
600 - NA -- NA -- NA -- NA -- 96 -- 95 - 169
610 - NA -- NA -- NA -- NA -- 115 - 142 - NA
620 - NA -- NA -- NA -- NA -- 174 - NA -- NA

robban75
12-16-2005, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
VII?
thats VIII i presume? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Fixed! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Btw, I forgot to add, it's the CW VIII!

MEGILE
12-16-2005, 09:42 AM
Starring at those numbers made me go cross eyed.. sooo
The Yak 9U is king of acceleration.
The FW-190A9 starts to out pace the others at around 550KPH and finally the 9U at about 580

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4764/acceleration5bd.jpg

p1ngu666
12-16-2005, 09:45 AM
ive always found the yak3 faster accel in the past http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

robban75
12-16-2005, 09:51 AM
Mustang III, Fw 190D-9 '44, Ta 152H-1 and P-51D20/NA (P-51D20/NA with 25% fuel)

SPD - III - D-9 - Ta -- P51

250 - ST -- ST -- ST -- ST
300 - 5 --- 4 ---- 4 --- 5
350 - 11 -- 10 -- 10 -- 11
400 - 18 -- 17 -- 16 -- 19
450 - 26 -- 26 -- 25 -- 29
500 - 36 -- 37 -- 37 -- 43
520 - 42 -- 44 -- 44 -- 51
540 - 48 -- 51 -- 52 -- 61
550 - 51 -- 56 -- 58 -- 67
560 - 55 -- 62 -- 64 -- 73
570 - 59 -- 68 -- 71 -- 82
580 - 64 -- 76 -- 82 -- 93
590 - 69 -- 89 -- 99 -- 111
600 - 76 -- 104 - 141 - 145
610 - 83 -- 140 - N/A - N/A
620 - 93 -- N/A - N/A - N/A
630 - 105 - N/A - N/A - N/A
640 - 123 - N/A - N/A - N/A
650 - 159 - N/A - N/A - N/A
655 - 202 - N/A - N/A - N/A
657 - 236 - N/A - N/A - N/A

robban75
12-16-2005, 10:04 AM
Keep'em coming Megile! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
12-16-2005, 10:07 AM
Uber vs. Uber
Big graph so can see lines easier

LA7 for the win until about 575, where the Mustang III takes over and doesn't look back till 657KPH http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
YAK9 and K4 come off poorly. TA-152 over takes K4 around 565KPH.
D9 44 Next not doing too badly, with its younger brother D945 keeping an advantage. The LA7 holds the advantage against the D945 untill around 600 KPH.

I had forgotten just how fast the Mustang III was http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Still it must remain fast... its acceleration is poor to average below 540KPH.

http://img307.imageshack.us/img307/1531/acceleration0ot.jpg

stathem
12-16-2005, 11:23 AM
Megile, great graphs, but might be better if you put time on the X-axis. It's kind of a convention.

And thanks Robban, fantastic work.

robban75
12-16-2005, 11:42 AM
Thanks Stathem! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stathem
12-16-2005, 11:51 AM
I just realised what I suggested to Megile is pretty tricky. It is possible, but would be difficult to explain how to do.

Unfortunately I fup'd my copy of Excel here at home so I can't have go at it. I'm in work tomorrow so I'll try to give it a go then.

robban75
12-16-2005, 11:54 AM
Planes are, the Mustang III, P-47D-27(both with 25% fuel), P-63C, P-51B, D-9 '45(with 25% fuel), P-38L late and P-38L late with 25% fuel.

SPD - III - 47 -- 63 -- 51B - D-9 -- 38 - 38

250 - ST -- ST - ST -- ST -- ST -- ST -- ST
300 - 4 --- 4 --- 4 --- 6 ---- 5 --- 4 --- 4
350 - 9 --- 9 --- 9 --- 13 --- 9 --- 9 --- 8
400 - 15 -- 16 -- 16 -- 22 -- 16 -- 16 -- 14
450 - 22 -- 25 -- 25 -- 34 -- 24 -- 24 -- 21
500 - 31 -- 39 -- 38 -- 52 -- 35 -- 37 -- 32
520 - 35 -- 47 -- 45 -- 62 -- 40 -- 44 -- 38
540 - 41 -- 59 -- 55 -- 75 -- 47 -- 53 -- 46
550 - 44 -- 66 -- 61 -- 84 -- 51 -- 58 -- 51
560 - 47 -- 81 -- 68 -- 94 -- 56 -- 66 -- 58
570 - 51 -- 101 - 78 -- 110 - 61 -- 74 -- 65
580 - 55 -- N/A - 90 -- 135 - 68 -- 91 -- 78
590 - 60 -- N/A - 110 - 220 - 77 -- 125 - 102
600 - 65 -- N/A - 162 - N/A - 90 -- N/A - N/A
610 - 71 -- N/A - N/A - N/A - 107 - N/A - N/A
620 - 79 -- N/A - N/A - N/A - 167 - N/A - N/A
630 - 89 -- N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A
640 - 104 - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A
650 - 132 - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A
655 - 158 - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A
658 - 202 - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A

Kurfurst__
12-16-2005, 04:50 PM
Excellent work, well done! It looks quite OK to me..

Badsight.
12-16-2005, 09:13 PM
so we have a P-51 H in the game

& the other Mustangs are dogs . . . . . . totally

SPD - III - P63 -- 51B
590 - 60s - 110s - 220 seconds

robban75
12-17-2005, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
so we have a P-51 H in the game

& the other Mustangs are dogs . . . . . . totally

SPD - III - P63 -- 51B
590 - 60s - 110s - 220 seconds

The top speed for the P-51B in-game is 590km/h. The P-51D can reach 605km/h, and so it reaches 590 in 135 seconds. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I have no idea if the acceleration times for the Mustang is correct.

If we compare the P-51D at full power and boost with full fuel, and a Fw 190D-9 with full fuel, full power but no boost.
1780hp vs 1720hp, the Mustang weighs 4800kg, the Dora weighs 4300kg.

Here's a comparison in acceleration.

SPD - 51 - D9

250 - ST -- ST
300 - 7 --- 6
350 - 14 -- 13
400 - 24 -- 22
450 - 35 -- 35
500 - 51 -- 51
520 - 60 -- 61
540 - 71 -- 75
550 - 78 -- 84
560 - 86 -- 96
570 - 96 -- 117
580 - 109 - 168
590 - 135 - N/A
600 - 169 - N/A

stathem
12-17-2005, 06:03 AM
I've done some graphs, which I'll post when I get home, but in the meantime, here are some interesting figures.

Average acceleration from 250 km/h to 500 km/h, in metres/second^2


A5--------------1.42
A8--------------1.54
A9--------------1.51
Yak9U-----------1.78
Yak3P-----------1.69
SpitVIII--------1.34
G2--------------1.51

G10-------------1.93
K4--------------2.04
P47D27----------1.51
Ki84------------1.83
D9 '45----------1.88
La7-------------2.24
P51D20----------1.36

Mk III----------1.93
D9 44-----------1.88
Ta152-----------1.88
P51D(25%)-------1.61

MkIII(25%)------2.24
P47D27(25%)-----1.78
P63-------------1.83
P51B------------1.34
D9Late(25%)-----1.98
P38Late---------1.88
P38Late(25%)----2.17

EDIT - sorry, just realised that was the wrong part to sample. Edited figures are from 250 to 500 km/h.

robban75
12-17-2005, 06:31 AM
Those are very interesting! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Looking forward to the graphs! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stathem
12-17-2005, 08:15 AM
Yep, the above figures really need referencing to the graphs to make sense of them; some of the earlier models lose out because they are approaching their terminal velocity.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/AccelAll.JPG

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/All60Sec.JPG

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/LwVsUSAAF.JPG

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/LwVsUSAAF45sec.JPG

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/LwVsVVS.JPG

Sorry, the P63 is included in the USAAF graphs where it should be in the VVS; I realised to late to change it.

AKA_TAGERT
12-17-2005, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
Yep, the above figures really need referencing to the graphs to make sense of them Agreed 100%! Something I have been sayig for years now! The only thing missing now is the track files itself, for 2nd hand verfication of the numbers.

robban75
12-18-2005, 03:06 AM
There are a total of 26 tracks. I need somewhere to send them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

msalama
12-18-2005, 03:36 AM
Excellent & very interesting gents, muchos gracias for this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stathem
12-18-2005, 05:53 AM
De rien,

the credit is all Robban's

robban75
12-18-2005, 12:43 PM
I can't take all the credit Stathem! I didn't make those beautiful graphs! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

So, do we need more planes added to the tests? Or shall we proceed on dive acceleration comparisons? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stathem
12-18-2005, 01:21 PM
Dive acceleration sounds good; I was thinking about that whilst doing the graphs.

What do you think about measuring the decelaration back to teminal velocity after the dive? On the straight and level and/or in zoom. Relevant?

Buzzsaw-
12-19-2005, 11:20 AM
Salute

Good work on this Robban.

There is one thing which is missing, which should be included, and that is a powerloading comparison alongside it.

robban75
12-19-2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
Dive acceleration sounds good; I was thinking about that whilst doing the graphs.

What do you think about measuring the decelaration back to teminal velocity after the dive? On the straight and level and/or in zoom. Relevant?

I had already done these dive comparisons. But that decceleration bit sounds interesting. I'll give that a try as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Crimea map, 45 deg dive, full fuel, full power and boost if avaliable. Rads auto.

Planes are P-51D20/NA, Mustang III, P-47D-27, Fw 190A-4, Fw 190A-5 and Fw 190D-9 '44.

Alt -- P51D - III - P47D - A-4 - A-5 - D-9'44

5000 - 303 - 303 - 303 - 304 - 304 - 304
4500 - 495 - 505 - 497 - 490 - 492 - 500
4000 - 619 - 629 - 621 - 612 - 613 - 626
3500 - 717 - 728 - 714 - 702 - 706 - 721
3000 - 797 - 810 - 789 - 774 - 780 - 798
2500 - 864 - 878 - 851 - 833 - 844 - 861
2000 - 922 - 937 - 903 - 883 - 895 - 915
1500 - 972 - 989 - 947 - 924 - 939 - 962
1000 - N/A - N/A - 985 - 958 - 975 - 1002

robban75
12-19-2005, 02:41 PM
Planes are, Spitfire MkVb, Spitfire MkVIII, Ta 152H-1, Fw 190A-8, Fw 190D-9 '45 and Bf 109G-2.

Alt --- Vb - VIII - Ta -- A-8 - D-9 - G-2

5000 - 303 - 303 - 304 - 304 - 304 - 304
4500 - 493 - 499 - 500 - 497 - 501 - 505
4000 - 610 - 618 - 626 - 621 - 627 - 625
3500 - 698 - 709 - 720 - 713 - 722 - 709
3000 - 758 - 778 - 796 - 787 - 800 - 774
2500 - 808 - 836 - 858 - 848 - 863 - 825
2000 - 845 - 883 - 911 - 899 - 920 - 863
1500 - 873 - 920 - 956 - 944 - 968 - 895
1000 - 890 - 941 - 993 - 982 - 1007 - 914

robban75
12-19-2005, 02:51 PM
Planes are the Ki-84'Ia, P-40M, P-63C, A6M2, A6M7, Bf 109K-4 and La-7.

Alt -- 84 -- P40 - P63 - A6M - A6M - K-4 - La7

5000 - 304 - 304 - 304 - 304 - 304 - 304 - 304
4500 - 482 - 486 - 491 - 492 - 479 - 515 - 506
4000 - 604 - 603 - 615 - 604 - 593 - 639 - 627
3500 - 698 - 689 - 710 - 683 - 678 - 730 - 719
3000 - 773 - 757 - 789 - 742 - 744 - 802 - 793
2500 - 836 - 813 - 854 - 786 - 794 - 856 - 855
2000 - 888 - 858 - 908 - N/A - 833 - 901 - 906
1500 - 933 - 895 - 955 - N/A - N/A - 938 - N/A
1000 - N/A - N/A - 996 - N/A - N/A - 967 - N/A
500 - 1028 - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A - N/A

robban75
12-19-2005, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Good work on this Robban.

There is one thing which is missing, which should be included, and that is a powerloading comparison alongside it.

Thanks Buzzsaw! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'll leave the powerloading bit to someone more qualified than me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Slickun
12-19-2005, 03:11 PM
Thrust and weight are important in measuring acceleration.

Equally important is drag. An excell spreadsheet is easily made, using the formula in AHT to calculate level speed acceleration, 250 mph starting, sea level.

What we find is that the two fastest accelerating US planes are the P-38L (2x1725) hp, and the P-51D at 72" hg. If you go with the 80" hg P-51D operated from Iwo Jima, it is #1.

The Brit Mustang III at 25 pounds boost blows all US planes away, well over 5 ft/sec acceleration, mostly due to the lower weight than the D. It is roughly comparable to the P-51H at low levels.

Hard to put a handle on P-51 acceleration, as there were 10 different model and boost possibilities in Merlin Stangs:

P-51B, -3 engine, @ 67" hg.
P-51B, -7 engine, @ 67" hg.
P-51D, -7 engine, @ 67" hg.
P-51B, -3 engine, @ 72" hg
P-51B, -7 engine, @ 72" hg.
P-51D, -7 engine, @ 72" hg.
Mustang III, -3 engine, @ 81" hg.
Mustang III, -7 engine, @ 81" hg.
Mustang IV, -7 engine, @ 81" hg.
P-51D, -7 engine, @ 80" hg.

All had different HP's and weight combinations. All had different climb, dive, and level acceleration numbers. All were used operationally, in numbers, and all met and shot down enemy A/C. Obviously, the B/C/III models at higher boost performed better than the D/IV models at high boost.

It's interesting to note that virtually all comparisons to the P-51 use the version with the least performance, the P-51D @ 67" hg. Added HP meant a lot to the P-51, improved things a lot, due to that low drag.

stathem
12-20-2005, 04:11 AM
Thanks Robban, I'll set to work to put some graphs together for those dives.

@Buzzsaw, sorry, can you treat me as an imbecile for the moment - it's not to far from the truth http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif - and explain the powerloading issue. Do you mean power-to-weight ratio? Can we get some figures for power and weight ASL for some of the types tested?

Ratsack
12-20-2005, 05:09 AM
Thanks for the graphs, Stathem. I was just sitting down to do the transformations when I thought I might read the rest of the thread first...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


A suggestion to Robban or anyone else masochistic enough to record the data after some testing. To wit: rather than record the time it took to reach a certain speed, instead record the speed for each plane at particular intervals. This would make the tests (which've already been done) more useful for the purposes of comparison.

Thanks again for doing the graphs, Stathem, and you Robban for putting in the stick time on this chore.

Ratsack

stathem
12-20-2005, 05:15 AM
No problem, I spend a lot of my time doing graphs, might as well do some fun ones for a change. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Vipez-
12-20-2005, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ive always found the yak3 faster accel in the past http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Funny, i've allways found the yak9u to accelerate better than yak3 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Thanks for robban75 and stathem for the interesting graphs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Badsight.
12-20-2005, 01:09 PM
so best diving plane after 1000m of full power descent is :

Bf-109 K4 : 304 - 639 kmh

closely followed by :

Mustang MkIII : 304 - 629 kmh
FW-190 D9 : 304 - 627 kmh
Lavochkin La-7 : 304 - 627 kmh

stathem
12-21-2005, 01:12 PM
OK I made some graphs of the dive accelerations; they're not too spectacular but here goes

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/DiveAll.JPG

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/DiveConden.JPG

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/DiveLWVsSpits.JPG

Robban, are these 4.02?

I noticed that they exceed Vne for some planes. I know from testing and from bitter experience that the Mk VIII won't exceed ~820 km/h wihtout losing an aileron. I think the Antons are about 880 km/h?

I been trying to work out separation at altitude for pairs of planes, but work's been busy a bit busy to give it proper thought. If anyone knows offhand a formula for it, can they post it?

robban75
12-21-2005, 01:46 PM
Yeah, they're from 4.02. Sometimes planes manages to stay intact well beyond their normal breakpoint. The D-9 usually loses an aileron or elevator at around 910km/h IAS. Look at the screenshot below. It remained intact even at 1010km/h IAS! But it doesn't happen all too often. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/fast-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/fast-2.jpg

stathem
12-21-2005, 01:54 PM
Lol, nice shots, particularly that Dora!

Bet you can't pull 'em out though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

robban75
12-21-2005, 02:13 PM
Not with the 4.02 patch! There was a patch a couple of years ago that gave the Dora an insane elevator authority. Maybe then,,,,, hmm, maybe not. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stathem
12-21-2005, 02:19 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

If you still have the tracks, (and the time) is there any chance you could post some of the times to speeds alongside the altitudes for those dives?

robban75
12-21-2005, 02:24 PM
I'm working on it. Gibbage is kind enough to help me with this. He's offering me webspace on his site! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stathem
12-21-2005, 03:26 PM
Great stuff! If I can continue to be of assistance, just let me know; although I'm away most of Christmas.

robban75
12-21-2005, 03:31 PM
Sure! Graphs are much better than just looking at numbers! I'll leave that to you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'll be away for christmas too, probably wont be back till next year. Hopefully, this webspace thing will be finished before I leave. Which is tomorrow morning. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif