Jump to content


Photo

Aircraft Performance Index


318 replies to this topic

#1 Reagalan

Reagalan

    Flight lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 916
  • 7 Thanks

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:12 AM

*
POPULAR

As requested, a central linkdump to all of the tests I've been doing with the aircraft of Warthunder. Here you can find relatively accurate performance stats for the aircraft in game, as they perform using Mouse Aim in Realistic Battles.

 

Any plane with a strikethrough is an outdated test, performed before any recent changes to it's flight model.

 

Tier I

M.C.202

He 112 A-0

He 112 B-0

 

Hurricane Mk II

 

A5M4

D3A1

 

Tier II

P-40E-1

P-38G

F6F-3

 

Ju 88 A-4

 

Spitfire Mk IIa

Beaufighter Mk VIc

 

Tier III

F4U-1d

B-17E/L

 

Me 410 A-1/U2

 

La-5FN

 

Spitfire Mk Vb

 

 

Tier IV

P-51D-5

F8F-1B

 

Fw 190 D-12

Ta 152 H-1

 

La-9

 

Spitfire F Mk XVI

 

Tier V

He 162 A-2

Me 163 B

 

Outdated tests have been hidden under this thing. As you can see, many FMs have been updated since this whole thing began 6 months ago. 

 

So, why spend all the time to make these?

 

There are literally hundreds of threads on this forum loaded with thousands of postulations and assumptions regarding the performance of various aircraft, but not that much documentation. Sure, the historical performance of these planes is pretty easy to google up, but after just a few games, it's apparent to many the planes in game do not behave historically, and the in-game stat cards can be notoriously inaccurate. 
 
I've played this game for a few hundred hours and yet, other than a vague idea, even I didn't know how these planes perform either, and seeing thread after thread with nothing but assumption, prejudice and hearsay, this plane UFO that plane OP, I found I'd rather know the truth of the matter than guess. I don't really consider myself very good at this game either, but I found after just a few performance tests that finding facts is a bit more fulfilling than getting shot down. So, might as well get started and get some good data out there. For science.
 
Now, onto the methodology of these tests.
 
Every test is done with Mouse Aim, Realistic Battle flight engine, unlimited fuel and ammo and Auto Engine controls. All units are in Metric and speeds are True Air Speed unless labled otherwise. 30min fuel options are chosen where possible, to provide more consistency.
 
All models, unless specified otherwise, are fully upgraded and using Current settings. , and not the Reference settings. The reason for this is personal experience. Not long after the 1.35 patch, a number of tests using the Bf 109 E-1 reference model showed it significantly underperforming vs the E-3, which should not be, since historically the E-1 and E-3 were extremely similar. In a QnA held shortly after the patch, the devs, in quite clear terms, stated that the E-1 was performing correctly. A short while later, a guy named Mattressi mentioned how one of his tests of the Spitfire Mk I demonstrated the reference model did not use the 100 octane fuel. Logically, then, other reference models might be missing upgrades. Sure enough, the fully upgraded model of E-1 performed nearly the same as the E-3, showing that the reference model's error was to blame.
 
Because of the potential of these errors, it's simply safer to use a fully upgraded model, a version representing the model players will actually be using in game, regardless of how historically accurate the setup might be.
 
The bug that has been affecting Reference flight models has been identified and a functioning workaround found. While I will still try to use a fully upgraded model where possible, any plane I have unlocked is now fair game through the Reference model.
 
Single Turn time tests are fairly straightforward, I aim the plane at a particular direction, at high alt I use the view cone on the minimap as reference and at low alt I use the red vehicle, slow down to 300 kmh IAS flying level and steady and I start a stopwatch. At 4 seconds i rev up to WEP and at 5 seconds I begin a level, clockwise, 360 degree turn, taking care to not gain or lose too much alt. At the end of the 360 when the plane hits the reference mark I glance over at the stopwatch and whatever is shown -5 seconds is recorded. If I have doubts of the accuracy, like if I gained or lost a lot of alt from start to finish, then I do it again.
 
Sustained Turn Time tests are similar. Start a stopwatch and do rings, keeping altitude level. With Mouse Aim it's just go in circles, note how many circles have been completed, and after 10 or so, note the time and divide by 10 and note the average speed at which the plane completed the turns. This gives the turn time that the plane can keep up indefinitely. This test is also done with Full Real controls, which I've finally learned a few things about, and involves the same procedure.
 
For climb tests, I slow down to the intended climbing speed, the default being 250 kmh IAS at 100m. I start a stopwatch, rev up the engine to WEP and climb at whatever angle necessary, with constant corrections, to maintain the intended climbing speed. Every 500m the time is noted. This continues for a maximum of 20 minutes. Previously, the climb rate was just calculated and graphed, but now the climb rate is normalized with a second set of climb data taken on a second climb test using the climb rate data shown on the browser map. It makes for much better looking and more accurate climb rate charts. The climb data is then extrapolated to determine the aircraft's Service Ceiling, sometimes listed on the charts as Max Alt.
 
Redline is found just by diving and finding the speed at which the speedometer turns red, signaling violent buffeting and potential breakup. Karaya_one tested the mechanics of breakup speeds a long time ago:
Spoiler

 

Breakup is the number listed as the "speed limit" when the plane breaks up due to overspeed, but as just noted, is well above the possible breakup speed. Tolerance is the maximum number of Gs that can be sustained when turning without the wings ripping off. This is usually found just by making a vertical dive and pulling up, with multiple tests to be absolutely sure of the correct number of sustainable Gs. WEP time is the duration WEP can be run until overheat messages appear. You can probably squeeze a bit more time in most cases but some won't want to take the risk.
 
The level speed tests are probably the most nuanced. To travel as level as possible at a sampling height, I use the Virtual Cockpit view and the directional indicator, zoomed in as far as possible. With Mouse Aim fully zoomed in, and the reference of the Virtual Cockpit's artificial horizon, the game reveals itself as having "notches" of direction in which the Mouse Aim reticle can fit. These notches limit ones ability to pitch the plane. All aircraft wings generate more lift at higher speeds, so with some aircraft, a level nose may produce climb, instead of level flight. One notch will produce slight climb, while another notch will produce slight descent, so, at times, perfectly level flight at full throttle is impossible. In some cases, the descending notch will increase speed, and lift, enough to enable nearly level flight, but this isn't always the case. Where absolutely level flight is impossible, the speed at the notch which produces the smallest rate of change is used.
 
An example: If a plane, at 4500m sampling altitude, travels 554 at one notch with a slight descent of 1m per 6 seconds, and travels 550 at another notch with a slight ascent of 1m per 3 seconds, then 554 will be listed as the speed at that altitude, as it results in the smallest rate of change, and the most level flight. By luck, or chance or just having done dozens of hours I've found a way around the notches involving rolling the plane and just moving the reticle left or right, thereby enabling a full range of pitch. All measurements for speed are now made in while flying as level as reasonably possible at the altitude measured.
 
These tests are done with with the intent of finding facts, how these aircraft perform in game, not to find which plane is OP or predicting the next FOTM (though i'm sure the data will be used to such an effect). As the past year has shown us, change takes a long time, and the flight models we have today might very well be the ones we still fly a year from now. Better to find out how they fly now, sooner than later.
 
I sincerely encourage you to replicate or repudiate these test results, find any flaws or errors, refine the methodology and obtain more precise data through the use of other testing methods. This whole thing is about finding facts, so if you do a test and it's better than mine, or you find something wrong with my tests, then let me know.
 
Other planes will be added to the list as I do them. Each test takes about 5 7 8-10 hours from first takeoff to posting, the majority of that spent accelerating to max level speed. I've been averaging at least 1 a day but that won't last for too long. and can probably keep this up for a couple more months. I'm doing them at a leisurely pace since stuff in the internet spaceship game has been taking my time.
 
As of 30 Oct 2013 I don't intend to add more data to the charts. I know level acceleration, dive tests, corner speed and such have all been requested but at some point it becomes so much information that a test would end up taking 8 hours! My first tests of planes only recorded just Speed at Height every 1000m, G-tolerance, and Redline, so the charts have evolved a bit. I'd like to think there's a balance struck in the current incarnation.
 
What you see now in the most recent tests is the final format. In the end, I found it worthwhile to add all this stuff, which ironically means the tests take about 8 hours each.
 
If you have questions just post them here and I'll check in every now and then to answer. Also, if you have a request for a plane to test, post that too and if I have it fully upgraded, or it's low enough level that I can get it upgraded in a couple games, then it will be put on the list. If it's not fully upgraded then just wait for it, I'll have it eventually. As of right now I have most planes unlocked and more than enough lions to just suicide into ground units all day for XP.
 
Alternatively, if you wish to join in with the testing, contact me via forum PM and we can work something out. 
 
Feel free to check out Nabutso's Turn Time Chart. His results are different than mine because of differing methodology, but the results are a fair bit more precise. Also laid out in a far more convenient fashion.
 
A more concise, but less detailed comparison of aircraft peformances has been compiled in Sarkiss1990's Comparison Sheet.
 
Special thanks to Slotter for doing bomber and dive bomber charts. Truely, he is a hero for tackling these. And to Popingheads for doing the Ta 152.
 
Also see Flying_pig2's Engine Temperature and Overheating tests.

Ralph63362 has an index too. Very detailed, and has some more up to-date tests than this one.

There's this too by Juliett_Six: http://forum.warthun...tmodel-testing/
 

  • 130

#2 DSRT888

DSRT888

    Air commodore

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,208
  • 20 Thanks

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:13 AM

Nice work! 

And thank you for your time.

These need to get pinned. 

Edit: Amazing work!


Edited by DSRT800, 09 October 2013 - 06:14 AM.

  • 0

7Br1r3Y.pngtascRbB.jpgR5BEi5u.jpg
(^Click the thunderbolt!^)


Thank from 1 User:

#3 Trilandian

Trilandian

    Chronic Malcontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,785
  • 208 Thanks

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:33 AM

These need to get pinned. 

 

Already handled. Y'all can thank Scarper for this one.


  • 2
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Thank from 1 User:

#4 Volsky

Volsky

    Squadron leader

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,178
  • 131 Thanks

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:39 AM

Hmm. Might I request the F6F-3 be your next project? I want to see how badly Gaijin has messed up my precious D:.

 

Fantastic test work!


  • 0

Glorious 'Priveliged' Thunder!

xaxa_final_zpsbf5c2bb1.jpg


#5 Maxrdt

Maxrdt

    Officer cadet

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 491
  • 0 Thanks

Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:39 AM

I'd like to see how the legendary Spitfire LF MK. IX holds up. Either that or the F8F.
  • 0

#6 Trilandian

Trilandian

    Chronic Malcontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,785
  • 208 Thanks

Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:41 AM

Just finished reading the elaboration and noticed this:

Each test takes about 5 hours

 

Dude, that's insane! Where do you find the time/patience?

 

Major props.


  • 0
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

#7 Cariocecus

Cariocecus

    The Flying Wild Boar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,875
  • 65 Thanks

Posted 09 October 2013 - 03:26 AM

Awesome!

Cheers!


  • 0

2h7jme8.jpg

Wo wir sind da geht's immer vorwärts,Und der Teufel der lacht nur dazu!

#8 Espada_2

Espada_2

    Marshal of the Air Force

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,002
  • 84 Thanks

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:32 AM

Good tests, you mind adding the A-5 to your list please?

Thanks for putting in the effort to.


  • 0

Also firepower is not part of the performance of the aircraft.


#9 ceating

ceating

    Ultra-pro1337C6Y37mmnoezskopz yolotoswegratioistoolow skrubcanas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,042
  • 120 Thanks

Posted 09 October 2013 - 03:23 PM

F6F please

 

it definitly has some kind of under-performing characteristics


Edited by ceating, 09 October 2013 - 03:24 PM.

  • 0

mJABtUl.jpg?3


#10 Danneskjold

Danneskjold

    Danneskjold Repossessions

  • Research Pilot
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,519
  • 153 Thanks

Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:07 PM

This guy needs a gift of Eagles.


  • 10

aoddannes.png

Mage: "Danneskjold is always, always right (82.5% of the time). The trick is to know if he is in the 17.5% region."

A full American Tree!  Click here!


#11 Reagalan

Reagalan

    Flight lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 916
  • 7 Thanks

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:01 PM

F6F-3 added.


  • 5

#12 PAKFA

PAKFA

    Pilot officer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 645
  • 0 Thanks

Posted 10 October 2013 - 12:03 AM

This guy needs a gift of Eagles.

I agree.


  • 0

#13 Reagalan

Reagalan

    Flight lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 916
  • 7 Thanks

Posted 10 October 2013 - 04:22 AM

LaGG-3-8 added.


  • 2

#14 ceating

ceating

    Ultra-pro1337C6Y37mmnoezskopz yolotoswegratioistoolow skrubcanas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,042
  • 120 Thanks

Posted 10 October 2013 - 05:32 AM

That reminds me.

 

A few months ago, Gaijin asked on the forums for FM testers....

 

They got them and there are a few (but un-recognized) people who joined...

 

They probably did stuff, but did they do any floral to show the community?   :beee:

 

They need to get some more people, people like you who can spend the time testing the planes in-game, rather than having historical knowledge of the plane and testing later...


  • 0

mJABtUl.jpg?3


#15 Trilandian

Trilandian

    Chronic Malcontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,785
  • 208 Thanks

Posted 10 October 2013 - 05:33 AM

They need to get some more people, people like you who can spend the time testing the planes in-game, rather than having historical knowledge of the plane and testing later...

 

One caveat, though: they require all testing be done with full controls and a joystick.


  • 0
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

#16 ceating

ceating

    Ultra-pro1337C6Y37mmnoezskopz yolotoswegratioistoolow skrubcanas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,042
  • 120 Thanks

Posted 10 October 2013 - 05:40 AM

One caveat, though: they require all testing be done with full controls and a joystick.

Then how do they solve problems with instructor in general?

 

(assuming they use realistic controls)


  • 0

mJABtUl.jpg?3


#17 tajj

tajj

    Marshal of the Air Force

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,107
  • 65 Thanks

Posted 10 October 2013 - 11:36 AM

P-47 please.


  • 0

WT_sig658_zpsaef465a1.jpgRF6jXOf.jpg

I whine in game, can't help it my competitive nature takes over and doesn't like loosing, calm me says sorry in advance.


#18 Bozo3

Bozo3

    Squadron leader

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,341
  • 41 Thanks

Posted 10 October 2013 - 04:46 PM

P-47 please.


I really hate to ask for more given how much you have already invested in this process, and I already asked for the spit xvi, but I had a couple more ideas :)

Firstly if you do do the p47, could you do some preliminary impression of the difference between the two (25,28) even if just in a qualitative manner to help people pick which one they should level up?

Second thing I just noticed you have a pretty nice set at tier 8, which if you added the La-5F (is yak-9t here too? I forget) and Spit Vb would give a good representation for all nations!

Thanks and kind regards,

A demanding customer. ;)
  • 0

#19 _13codyrex

_13codyrex

    212th Attack Battalion Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,517
  • 160 Thanks

Posted 10 October 2013 - 06:35 PM

You need a press account, so the tests can go on for all the aircraft. Can wait for more tests, could you do the n1ks? I want to see if it is flying correctly.
  • 0

usq0uzn.jpgdU9LIUm.jpg4bsAu0G.jpg

Signatures by Carrier_ (link)   War Thunder Index Page


#20 ichygov

ichygov

    Pilot officer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 605
  • 32 Thanks

Posted 10 October 2013 - 06:49 PM

   I want to thank you for your hard work. It is an impressive feat and helps us get a glimpse of what can a plane do. And hopefully put that to use in improving out game. Thanks you so much!


  • 0

xoeECIN.jpg

Check out other signatures made by Carrier here: http://forum.warthun...ature-workshop/




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users