How accurate is this...

[bridav58]

website...It seems like a pretty good idea but I wonder about sites like this accuracy...Of course it can get down to what sources that site uses.

http://www.gonzoville.com/charts/index.php

[Ed Rotondaro]

website...It seems like a pretty good idea but I wonder about sites like this accuracy...Of course it can get down to what sources that site uses.

http://www.gonzoville.com/charts/index.php


Interesting, but questionable at times.

[Kyle Holgate]

Hmm, well spot checking on some of the numbers that I have indicates that - at least in those places - the data here is accurate. I do know that the flight models most of these WW2 flight sim's work toward are as accurate as they can be. I think I would take it with a bit of a grain of salt, but on the flip side wouldn't toss it out either.

Just some quick comparisons I did: ME-109F, Spitfire V and FW-190A-8. I can see why the RAF was feeling a bit low over France in 1942!

Look at the progression of the ME-109 from E, F, G-8 to K.
Same with the Spitfire - I, V, IV, XIV

Intersting.

[bridav58]

Hmm, well spot checking on some of the numbers that I have indicates that - at least in those places - the data here is accurate. I do know that the flight models most of these WW2 flight sim's work toward are as accurate as they can be. I think I would take it with a bit of a grain of salt, but on the flip side wouldn't toss it out either.

Just some quick comparisons I did: ME-109F, Spitfire V and FW-190A-8. I can see why the RAF was feeling a bit low over France in 1942!

Look at the progression of the ME-109 from E, F, G-8 to K.
Same with the Spitfire - I, V, IV, XIV

Intersting.

I dispute some of the findings like the F6F-5 ..the graphs seem to show this version at only achieving 375 MPH..I've seen alot of data showing the F6F-3 hitting 390 MPH ,give or take a few MPH and the uprated(water injection) F6F-5 hitting 409 MPH. Alas different sources different data.
However that's beside the point ..they if even if just roughly accurate show that just looking at top speeds or initial climb or time to climb may not tell the whole story. Different planes do differently at different altitudes.

[Kyle Holgate]

The graphs tell the data they are using pretty well - in that you can see how the climb rates and maximum speeds of various aircraft change with altitude. From what I've been able to spot-check with my books - this stuff isn't bad by any means and is probably fair to use in comparing aircraft. Of course you have to keep in mind exactly what's being compared and take it for what it's worth - there are plenty of things about a good fighter that aren't listed or compared.
Even if the info isn't exactly right - being able to compare so many aircraft side by side is certainly nice.

[bridav58]

The graphs tell the data they are using pretty well - in that you can see how the climb rates and maximum speeds of various aircraft change with altitude. From what I've been able to spot-check with my books - this stuff isn't bad by any means and is probably fair to use in comparing aircraft. Of course you have to keep in mind exactly what's being compared and take it for what it's worth - there are plenty of things about a good fighter that aren't listed or compared.
Even if the info isn't exactly right - being able to compare so many aircraft side by side is certainly nice.


pretty decent...I was surprised when I ran the FM-2, F4U-1D,and F6F-5 compared to the Spitfire IX . In that according to those graphs in things like acceleration the F4U-1D is superior while the F6F-5 is equal to the Spitfire IX while in turning with no flaps the F4U-1D is inferior ,the F6F-5 competitive and the FM-2 actually outturns the Spitifre IX . With fiull flaps the F4U-1D is actually superior while the F6F-5 is extremely competitive. Needless to say the turning results make me very skeptical.
But all in all it can give you a ball park comparison.

[Kyle Holgate]

pretty decent...I was surprised when I ran the FM-2, F4U-1D,and F6F-5 compared to the Spitfire IX . In that according to those graphs in things like acceleration the F4U-1D is superior while the F6F-5 is equal to the Spitfire IX while in turning with no flaps the F4U-1D is inferior ,the F6F-5 competitive and the FM-2 actually outturns the Spitifre IX . With fiull flaps the F4U-1D is actually superior while the F6F-5 is extremely competitive. Needless to say the turning results make me very skeptical.
But all in all it can give you a ball park comparison.

It's too bad they don't graph more. I'm sure that the data for roll rate at various speeds and other data has to be input to the simluation models for them to fly accurately. I don't know about this simulator in particular, but I do know that some have had actual pilots of the aircraft fly the simulators and help tweak the models and what not to as close to wartime accuracy as possible. If the data is out there, I have little doubt that a simulator could be built and be VERY accurate -we'd just not know for sure.
It'd be a kick to have one of the early jets (or more than one) in the mix to "play with".

[bridav58]

It's too bad they don't graph more. I'm sure that the data for roll rate at various speeds and other data has to be input to the simluation models for them to fly accurately. I don't know about this simulator in particular, but I do know that some have had actual pilots of the aircraft fly the simulators and help tweak the models and what not to as close to wartime accuracy as possible. If the data is out there, I have little doubt that a simulator could be built and be VERY accurate -we'd just not know for sure.
It'd be a kick to have one of the early jets (or more than one) in the mix to "play with".


Well after running through a few comparisons I feel I can tell a couple of people I debate with that both the F6F & F4U could compete with European fighters like the Spitifre ,'109, and '190 .

[old_pop2000]

I tried a comparison of the A6M2 to the F4F-4 and it showed that up to 3000 to 4000 ft. , the F4F-4 had a higher speed. Yet, on the climb rate charts at full military and war emergency, the A6M2 far outclimbed the F4F-4. How does does occur? The F4F-4 on takeoff, was limited to a climb angle of 20 degrees or less, or it would stall, the A6M2 could literally, stand on it prop at up to 40 degrees, and accelerate upward. Yet, that chart shows that up to 3000 ft, the F4F-4 was moving faster. Sorry guys, in my world of Newtonian physics, that probably isn't going to happen.

[old_pop2000]

Well after running through a few comparisons I feel I can tell a couple of people I debate with that both the F6F & F4U could compete with European fighters like the Spitifre ,'109, and '190 .

Based on what parameters? Climb rate, roll rate, max speed at normal, full military or WEP? How about zoom climb? There is no standardized parameters for zoom climb, the climb rate on that type of maneuver is related to the initial entry speed of the aircraft into the dive, duration of the dive, and the throttle settings during the dive. In fact, most dive performance is related to forward level speed and throttle settings, along with inertia due to weight. Efficiency of the design in streamlining is important. The lesser drag figures of well streamlined aircraft gives them an advantage in acceleration, which relates to terminal speed.

Roll rates are a real important characteristic of a good airplane, probably more so, than turn rate. Roll rates are greatly influenced by the forward speed and to a lessor degree, altitude.

Turning circles are another hard to define quality. In many instances, an aircraft flying straight and level, could easily out turn a diving aircraft, when in fact, based on their regular flight performance data, that wasn't possible.

Flight parameters are constantly changes as an aircraft moves through the air. Air temperature and density are related, you can fly from one air mass that is warmer, into another colder air mass and your lift vector can now change due to air density.

flight performance figures are snapshots in time, not constantly changing variables.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Based on what parameters? Climb rate, roll rate, max speed at normal, full military or WEP? How about zoom climb? There is no standardized parameters for zoom climb, the climb rate on that type of maneuver is related to the initial entry speed of the aircraft into the dive, duration of the dive, and the throttle settings during the dive. In fact, most dive performance is related to forward level speed and throttle settings, along with inertia due to weight. Efficiency of the design in streamlining is important. The lesser drag figures of well streamlined aircraft gives them an advantage in acceleration, which relates to terminal speed.

Roll rates are a real important characteristic of a good airplane, probably more so, than turn rate. Roll rates are greatly influenced by the forward speed and to a lessor degree, altitude.

Turning circles are another hard to define quality. In many instances, an aircraft flying straight and level, could easily out turn a diving aircraft, when in fact, based on their regular flight performance data, that wasn't possible.

Flight parameters are constantly changes as an aircraft moves through the air. Air temperature and density are related, you can fly from one air mass that is warmer, into another colder air mass and your lift vector can now change due to air density.

flight performance figures are snapshots in time, not constantly changing variables.

Dennis:

Doesn't the wing design play a major factor in the roll rate? I believe the IJN introduced a clipped wing in later Zero models in an effort to improve its roll rate. Yet the P-47 had a rounded wing and it rolled pretty good as I recall. Any information here?

[Kyle Holgate]

I tried a comparison of the A6M2 to the F4F-4 and it showed that up to 3000 to 4000 ft. , the F4F-4 had a higher speed. Yet, on the climb rate charts at full military and war emergency, the A6M2 far outclimbed the F4F-4. How does does occur? The F4F-4 on takeoff, was limited to a climb angle of 20 degrees or less, or it would stall, the A6M2 could literally, stand on it prop at up to 40 degrees, and accelerate upward. Yet, that chart shows that up to 3000 ft, the F4F-4 was moving faster. Sorry guys, in my world of Newtonian physics, that probably isn't going to happen.

Math...ugh...

I wonder how they measure speed first. Second, if you're comparing a plane climbing vs a plane traveling at the same altitude - that math thing comes into play again to determine which is actually going "faster". If a Wildcat is going 325 knots at 5000 feet and a zero is climbing at 3200 FPM - you'd have to convert to the same numbers (either knots or FPM) then figure out how to compare the two fairly. I hate math.. I hate it so very, very much. I wish I had a good math teacher that had been able to get me to to like it - I'd probably be a research Scientist or geologist or something now. Still, not sure I see the paradox here.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Doesn't the wing design play a major factor in the roll rate? I believe the IJN introduced a clipped wing in later Zero models in an effort to improve its roll rate. Yet the P-47 had a rounded wing and it rolled pretty good as I recall. Any information here?

Of Course it does. A roll is accomplished by increasing the lift on one wing and decreasing it on the other. The ailerons control this function. They provide a torque on the aerodynamic center of the wing section, which is a certain distance from the center of gravity. It is similar to a see-saw. Since the wing shape affects the lift and the aerodynamic center of the wing, then of course, it would have an effect on the roll rate of the aircraft.

However, it is a complicated subject. Dihedral on the wings tends to dampen the roll motion of an aircraft to give it stability in level flight, and this will work against the roll. Anyway, the short answer is that wing design does play a difference.

[bridav58]

Based on what parameters? Climb rate, roll rate, max speed at normal, full military or WEP? How about zoom climb? There is no standardized parameters for zoom climb, the climb rate on that type of maneuver is related to the initial entry speed of the aircraft into the dive, duration of the dive, and the throttle settings during the dive. In fact, most dive performance is related to forward level speed and throttle settings, along with inertia due to weight. Efficiency of the design in streamlining is important. The lesser drag figures of well streamlined aircraft gives them an advantage in acceleration, which relates to terminal speed.

Roll rates are a real important characteristic of a good airplane, probably more so, than turn rate. Roll rates are greatly influenced by the forward speed and to a lessor degree, altitude.

Turning circles are another hard to define quality. In many instances, an aircraft flying straight and level, could easily out turn a diving aircraft, when in fact, based on their regular flight performance data, that wasn't possible.

Flight parameters are constantly changes as an aircraft moves through the air. Air temperature and density are related, you can fly from one air mass that is warmer, into another colder air mass and your lift vector can now change due to air density.

flight performance figures are snapshots in time, not constantly changing variables.

necessarily inferior.

[Kyle Holgate]

Well after running through a few comparisons I feel I can tell a couple of people I debate with that both the F6F & F4U could compete with European fighters like the Spitifre ,'109, and '190 .

Not that "Duels in the sky" by Captain Eric M. Brown is a be all and end all of aircraft comparisons, it IS about the only text out there. Here's what he thinks in his summary:

F6F-3 Hellcat Vs Me-109G-6: "The Hellcat had a distinct edge over the Me-109 but would not be able to overcome it without a lot of pilot sweat."

F6F-3 Hellcat vs FW-190A-4
The German had a speed advantage, the American had a slight advantage in climb. Both were manuverable and had heavy firepower.
Verdict: "this was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would probably be the deciding factor".

So at least in the opinion of one test pilot (not a fighter pilot mind you) - the Hellcat and Coursair (not mentioned here, but generally a bit better than the Hellcat) would hold their own in the air over Germany. By the time the FW-190D showed up though the Hellcat maybe pretty outclassed - the 190 had fairly similar performance to the Mustang D - which would give even the latest version of the Corsair a run for its money.

[old_pop2000]

Not that "Duels in the sky" by Captain Eric M. Brown is a be all and end all of aircraft comparisons, it IS about the only text out there. Here's what he thinks in his summary:

F6F-3 Hellcat Vs Me-109G-6: "The Hellcat had a distinct edge over the Me-109 but would not be able to overcome it without a lot of pilot sweat."

F6F-3 Hellcat vs FW-190A-4
The German had a speed advantage, the American had a slight advantage in climb. Both were manuverable and had heavy firepower.
Verdict: "this was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would probably be the deciding factor".

So at least in the opinion of one test pilot (not a fighter pilot mind you) - the Hellcat and Coursair (not mentioned here, but generally a bit better than the Hellcat) would hold their own in the air over Germany. By the time the FW-190D showed up though the Hellcat maybe pretty outclassed - the 190 had fairly similar performance to the Mustang D - which would give even the latest version of the Corsair a run for its money.
It comes down to the same components for success; He who sees the other first, with a height advantage, will probably win the fight.