So which one would it be in the game (vs IRL)?
My money is on P-51...

However I wouldn't be overly surprised if that privilege in IL2 goes for some 3rd aircraft... like FW-190D or better yet Spit25.

Somewhat related to this issue would be question which one dives best?
Regardless of structural stress damage (I think P-47 would be champion in top dive speed endurance)...?

Messing around in QMB vs 4 average AI's, I have noticed that by far easiest time I had in Spit25 by employing same tactic.
This tactic was pure energy use in vertical maneuvers, no messing with horizontal turns or any kind of weird twitching for that matter...

I had this setup; 4xaverage FW-190A8 loaded with 500SC and I flew P-38LATE, P-47D_LATE, P-51D, Spit25.
If I have to measure ease of the missions it would be;

1.Spit25
2.P-38
3.P-47D
4.P-51D

Hm.

I'll try that tonight in QMB. I'm surprised you rate the P-38 higher than P-47.

IRL of the prop planes the Tempest was rated very highly, possibly the highest (the RAF rated its dive performance as a little better than the P-47).

The jets should zoom better than the props in general, although that might not be the case for some that are straight conversions of prop planes.

quote:

I'll try that tonight in QMB. I'm surprised you rate the P-38 higher than P-47.

I the climb goes into non-zoom/sustained at lower altitudes the P-38 will win due to better power:weight. The rating of the Spifire so highly suggests this in the case. Zoom should be the portion where the conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy dominates the conversion of chemical energy (from the engine) to potential energy.


The only way that I know to take the engine power out of the equation to some extent is to turn the engine to the lowst setting and pitch to 100% at the instant the climb begins. Feathering would be better but not generally an option.

For a prop driven ac, and only within this sim, I would vote that the Bf109-F4 to be the best at zooming back to altitude. Although there are a few in game that climb like a bangy.

quote:

Originally posted by DKoor:
So which one would it be in the game (vs IRL)?
My money is on P-51...

However I wouldn't be overly surprised if that privilege in IL2 goes for some 3rd aircraft... like FW-190D or better yet Spit25.

Before you place such a bet..

You would be well advised to consider the following FACTS..

There is NOT a lot of real world data on zooms..

But..

Zoom depends allot on a planes ROC..

And thus how well that ROC is simulated..

I did some standard testing of the in-game planes and found the following..

4.08 E RETENTION & ZOOM ANALYSIS Bf-109K-4C3 15,763ft.


4.08 E RETENTION & ZOOM ANALYSIS Fw-190D-9 Late 14,428ft.


4.08 E RETENTION & ZOOM ANALYSIS Mustang Mk.III 13,888ft.


4.08 E RETENTION & ZOOM ANALYSIS P-47D 1944 12,886ft.


4.08 E RETENTION & ZOOM ANALYSIS Spitfire Mk.IX 25lbs 12,861ft.


4.08 E RETENTION & ZOOM ANALYSIS P-51D-20NA 12,859ft.


As you can see..

Of the planes you mentioned..

The 109K-4 is the king of zoom..

Which is in no small part due to it's highly over modeled ROC.

I have tested more planes than these..

I just pulled these few together in that they were the ones you mentioned..

The results of which can be found here..

airwarfare.com

To once again highlight the FACT that the Spit 25lb is NOT the in-game over modeled uber plane some would have us believe..

Where as the case for the 109K-4 being such (read true clown wagon) is self evident from these and other tests (read ROC testing)..

I would have said the T-Bolt hands down. You can zoom climb to 10,000 easily from sea level from a good dive. I am surprised by the data in your tests

Don't be..

In that your not alone..

In that is the FEELING allot of players have..

But as you can see from the standard testing above..

The T-Bolt is not all that..

If you ever wondered how that J2M5 managed to own your 47 in a ZOOM climb..

Well now you know

J2M5 was so looked forward to me, now i cant fly it, it's the da mn La7 of high alt

no doubt its data was taken from same source as US tests that gave us the ki84


hey TAGERT, while OT, did you ever get to check E ret./zoom of the Gotha?

quote:

Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
hey TAGERT, while OT, did you ever get to check E ret./zoom of the Gotha?

No..

Not yet..

Been too busy with the new job and moving into my new house the past few months to do anything fun on the weekends..

I barely have time to check this forum anymore..

To the dismay of some and joy of others!

quote:

Zoom depends allot on a planes ROC..

No, this is not correct.

ROC depends on the power:weight of the plane, the lift at low speed, and the drag at low speed.

Zoom describes the ability of the plane to efficiently convert kinetic energy to potential energy before sustained climb (i.e. before engine power dominates), and depends on the drag at relatively high speed, and lift at higher speeds, and the engine to a much lesser extent (there will still be some contribution from the engine but it will not be the dominant term.)

The factors in each will be derived from the same aerodynamics so the is some commonality of effect, but to say zoom depends on ROC is erroneous - ROC and Zoom depend on the aerodynamics and NOT on each other.

You can demonstrate this by looking at the real world ROC and reported zoom (from AFDU etc) of the late 109 (e.g. K4) and P51. Here we see the 109 has the better sustained ROC but poorer zoom.

No doubt I will now get flamed.

To test zoom at the very least the bottom of the zooms needs to be at the same velocity. There is no velocity noted on the graphs, so it is impossible to say whether zoom performance can be deduced or not. The best you can do from the graphs is deduce the angle of climb from the X/Y plot, which would allow deduction of zoom from the early part of the climb iff the bottom of the climb is done at the same velocity only. As it stands you cannot determine zoom performance from those graphs.

quote:

Where as the case for the 109K-4 being such (read true clown wagon) is self evident from these and other tests (read ROC testing)..

The 109K4 had a high ROC, which you have shown, and so the game would seem broadly correct. You have not shown that the 109K4 had a higher zoom than it should have as you have not correctly measure zoom climb.

Physics in game work as it should and consequently dives and zooms are reasonable correct.

Problem with zooms is in how you define zoom climb and how you perform the test. TAGERT's test was good attempt but there are some errors in test methodology mostly due to device link limitations.

Because of that it's hard to take these tests as definitive answer but they certainly have some value and gives useful info to those who can read the charts.

FC

I tested a zoom climb test a couple weeks ago in the QMB, though my test was somewhat different than Tagerts and most peoples ideas (and definatley not as accurate). I had all the planes start at 2000m and once i got to 400kph IAS I would start a dive to the deck. Some planes would want to break up before they got there and the dive would have to be less shallow and obviously there speed not as quick. Once the plane reaches sealevel I would start the zoom climb and note at what altitude it would reach before stall speed. This test was as much about how quickly the aircraft gains speed in a dives along with structural limits as well as how well it zoom climbs (at the max speed the aircrafts structure can handle no less).

I found out in a situation like this the P-51D was by far better than any other aircraft but I only did one good run in each aircraft, and it could certainly be wrong due to a number of factors..

I got to almost 3000m in the mustang.. The 109K I think was 2700 or 2800, P-38 was around 2500m and I think the 47 wasnt much behind. I think the Dora was around this mark as well but not the A model 190, I think that was at 2200 ? Spitfire was around this level as well. I forget most of the rest that were close to 2000m or didnt get all there altitude back but I remember being impressed with the A-20's dive and zoom climb abilities, it was better than alot of early-mid war aircraft. But as I stated, this involves a full dive into a zoom climb, I wanted to test this out mostly for if you had a guy on your 6 online who would try to follow you, where you could quickly reverse an energy advantage.

quote:

Originally posted by R_Target:
I'll try that tonight in QMB. I'm surprised you rate the P-38 higher than P-47.

Sorry that has something to do with me playing with the P-38 extensively for a long period .

I know... I was kinda subjective .

quote:

Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
J2M5 was so looked forward to me, now i cant fly it, it's the da mn La7 of high alt

>Heartily +1

After I witnessed what that fighter can do at high alt.

I thik what Tagert is talking about is 'Zoom' in the real world rather than theoretical Zoom.

IRL Zoom does not suddenly stop, it is a gradual process, the prop helping it along until gradually the prop takes over all togther and you are into powered climb.

If we stay completely with the thoerectial zoom, and dont include any power, then I would expect the heavyweights like the P47 to do the best.

However in real world Zoom climbs during combat, the lighter, better climbing planes, I would think, would catch up substantially.

Low drag should help in a zoom climb also, the Bf109 with its little wings zooms well.

All in all its such a complex subject, and there are so many factors involved, that the only totally accurate way to test a zoom climb is to test the real plane.

For example, Israeli pilots in 1948 concluded :-

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)

You would expect that the heavier P51 would zoom better, but these guys tested each plane against each other and found that the Avia S199 (A 109 airframe with a higher powered but heavier Jumo engine) outzoomed the P51.

Its such a complex subject, so many factors to include. Anyway, what I am trying to say is that IMO Tagerts statement 'Zoom climb depends a lot on climb rate' is true, if you are talking a real world zoom, and not a 'paper zoom'.

quote:

Originally posted by Stiletto-:
I tested a zoom climb test a couple weeks ago in the QMB, though my test was somewhat different than Tagerts and most peoples ideas (and definatley not as accurate). I had all the planes start at 2000m and once i got to 400kph IAS I would start a dive to the deck. Some planes would want to break up before they got there and the dive would have to be less shallow and obviously there speed not as quick. Once the plane reaches sealevel I would start the zoom climb and note at what altitude it would reach before stall speed. This test was as much about how quickly the aircraft gains speed in a dives along with structural limits as well as how well it zoom climbs (at the max speed the aircrafts structure can handle no less).

I found out in a situation like this the P-51D was by far better than any other aircraft but I only did one good run in each aircraft, and it could certainly be wrong due to a number of factors..

I got to almost 3000m in the mustang.. The 109K I think was 2700 or 2800, P-38 was around 2500m and I think the 47 wasnt much behind. I think the Dora was around this mark as well but not the A model 190, I think that was at 2200 ? Spitfire was around this level as well. I forget most of the rest that were close to 2000m or didnt get all there altitude back but I remember being impressed with the A-20's dive and zoom climb abilities, it was better than alot of early-mid war aircraft. But as I stated, this involves a full dive into a zoom climb, I wanted to test this out mostly for if you had a guy on your 6 online who would try to follow you, where you could quickly reverse an energy advantage.

This is not strictly zoom climb, as you are straying right into powered climb, which is what the guys have already been debating.

Yes you are testing what I have called 'a real world' zoom climb, but strictly a zoom climb test should be stopped before you get into powered climb.

Now just how you work this out is beyond me, I mean surely the engine is helping the plane in the zoom right from the very start? Surely its adding energy to the climb, right from the moment the zoom is started?

How about shutting the eninge off at the very start of the zoom upwards? This would measure the zoom capability of the airframe, but of course in real life planes do not switch off their engine when they start zoom in combat, so how useful would this test be? Not very.

So many factors and problems in the 'zoom climb test'.