Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

German And Allied Aces Ww2

GOTTHREAD

  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#21 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,248 posts
  • Joined 14 Years and 19 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 11 August 2015 - 10:43 PM

Thanks Jeff.

 

Been doing that for some time ... as I get the inclination. Once you accumulate so much data, the urge to spend a lot of time to increase it only incrementally diminishes somewhat. But I still do some looking every now and then and still do some additions to the data.

 

I also draw 3-views and have some very unusual ones done. That should not come as a surprise since I like obscure types .. otherwise where did the GOT topic come from?

 

Seriously, I appreciate your performance thread. It makes data a lot easier to collect. I am assuming your data are good. If the data lead me to unwarranted conclusions, I might start exploring that, but probably not until then.

 

Take care and thanks again,  - Greg



#22 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,611 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 2 Months
  • 184 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 11 August 2015 - 11:03 PM

Don't let go of it Greg. Hang on tight and finish it. Make it something of worth. I started looking over all the published books I could afford in 1968 and realized that with the information they gave you really could not compare their performance properly. It took me many, many years to figure out how to do it. AND if anyone enjoys what I have put together, then you all owe a big THANK YOU to Mr. Neil

Stirling and  Mr. Mike Williams for putting together www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org

 

 

Those two are the absolute best when it comes to WW2 aircraft performance, PERIOD!, Jeff


Edited by CORSNING, 12 August 2015 - 12:50 PM.


#23 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,248 posts
  • Joined 14 Years and 19 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 11 August 2015 - 11:46 PM

They have a really great website. I wonder where they got their documents? Wherever it is, I hope there are more.

 

I believe I could come up with a system for rating the aircraft and have actually put in some time to taht effect. The problem comes in when you throw in the pilots. I'd rate the rural guys higher than the urban pilots, but you nefver know who will be sitting in the cockpit, do you? A great test pilot is not necessarily a great combat pilot and vice versa. But they COULD be both.

 

The problem comes in getting the data for all the aircraft, not in evaluating it. I once came up witha  GREAT system for rating fighter aircraft. The problem came in when I discovered I couldn't get the data for all the main fighter types much less the lesser-known ones. The best system in the world without any data is ... useless. So I let that one go.

 

For a real comparison, you'd need to know the top speed at maybe three different altitudes, the absolute top speed and its altitude, the rate of climb at maybe three different altitudes, the rate of roll at maybe three different speeds, the armament factor would have to be worked out along with ammunition capacity, and the turn rate woudl ahve to be known at maybe three differetn speeds. You could then work out a rating system to generate a number taking all factors into account, and scale it to whatever range you want, from 0 - 10, 0 - 100, or whatever. It would ne nice to know acceleration, but those are data that are HARD to find, at least quantitatively.

 

So my problem came in getting the data for the required points. I could get it for a small handfull of US types, but not for a decent cross section of anyone else's fighter types. Ergo, not much of a system.

 

I'm thinking that taking your data and looking at it might help to develop a rating system, but I don't see any roll, turn, or ammament / ammunition data. The Soviet Union did a good jop of showing the time to make a 360° turn in seconds for some of their fighters, and from that you could get a sustained turn rate. Almost nobody esle shows those data normally, so it makes it tough to include roll and turn, which are vital to a fighter's combat worth ... at least in my opinion.

 

If we did our data in metric units, it might look somethign like a number related to

1) a factor times top speed divided by our base top speed. I'd choose a base top speed of 675 kph or so. More is better. I'd like to incorporate top speed at 3 different altitudes.

2) a factor related to the time in secoind required to complete a 360° circle. The factor would be in the denominator so a lower tunr time is better. You'd multiply it times the direct factors so more is better. We'd need to know the altitude.

3) a factor related to the figure or merit of the aggregate armament multiplied by the rate of fire factor multiplied by the ammo capacity factor. In all cases, more is better.

4) a factor related to the roll rate and I'd like to incorporate rool rate at three different speeds. More would be better.

5) a factor related to ceiling.

6) a factor related to range.

7) a factor related to rate of climb. I'd like to include rate of climb at three different altitudes. Maybe 2 altitudes at lilitary power and one at WER.

 

Mix the factors so more is better and use a weighting multiplier for each. Come up with the numbers and normalize them to a convenient scale, say 0 to 100, and look at ALL the fighters. Rank in order of score.

 

Of course, I would throw in another three factors and weight them heavily. I'd throw in a factor for 1) number of enemy aircraft shot down, 2) number of own losses due to comabt, and 3) number of own losses due to operations or accidents. These three factors would ... in MY system ... count about a third to a half, making it very difficult for great planes that never fought anything and weren't produced in any numbers to get ranked very high. Might have to throw in a production factor for number built. After all, 20,000 mediocre fighters would do a LOT more good than, say, 43 top-rate fighters could ever achieve, regardless of employment. 

 

So, for instance, the Ki-83 might be a great twin, but they only made 4 and they never got into combat. So it's score wouldn't rival; that of, say. the A6M5 Model 52 Zero by any stretch of the imagination, even though it technically might be better since 20,000 Zeros did a LOT more for Japan than 4 Ki-83s ever did.

 

I think we could work out a system. The problem then becomes finding all the data and getting into a computer-readable form.

 

Of course, when we got finished, we might never be able to convince anyone of the merits of the system, so it all might come to naught, except our own satisfaction.

 

If we come up with a  PERFECT system that nodoby much uses, then the system is a failure even if it gives relatively "correct" ratings.



#24 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,611 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 2 Months
  • 184 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 12 August 2015 - 01:09 PM

Thanks Jeff.

 

Seriously, I appreciate your performance thread. It makes data a lot easier to collect. I am assuming your data are good. If the data lead me to unwarranted conclusions, I might start exploring that, but probably not until then.

 

Take care and thanks again,  - Greg

Thank you Gregg. It is great to know that what I have taken years to formulate and then put together will be useful. I have put a significant amount of hours into researching the accuracy of what I have posted in the A/C PERFORMANCE section of this site. I figured the information is only as good as its accuracy. Otherwise, it is useless. I have tried to only use performance figures of actual production A/C whenever possible. Only using prototype performance where noted.

     You are right about the turning performance. An interesting note here. I studied the Russian listing of turn times. Aircraft 'A'  may complete a turn in 16 seconds where aircraft 'B' takes 17 seconds. However aircraft 'B's turning circle might be smaller and travels at a much slower speed in the turn.

     Roll rates is another problem. I have graphs on several US and some UK aircraft. I have couple on the Zero. I have nothing on the Russian types or the later Japanese types.

I am hoping there is still a lot of data out there to be uncovered. I recently purchased a few books now. So it is time for me to get back to studying them.

Jeff


Edited by CORSNING, 12 August 2015 - 01:09 PM.


#25 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,248 posts
  • Joined 14 Years and 19 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 13 August 2015 - 12:45 AM

Hi Jeff,

 

If you are interested, I have a good aerodynamics spreadsheet that allows you to calculate things like turning circle given the speed. It assumes, of course, a level turn for the calculations. It includes a LOT more about aerodynamics, too, from g-load ina  level turn to speed changes with power and drag, and more.

 

PM me your email address (I know, I SHOULD have it after the book thing, but that's been awhile) and I'll shoot it over to you along with a math spreadsheet that has more unit conversions than any sane person needs.

 

Regards, - Greg



#26 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,611 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 2 Months
  • 184 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 13 August 2015 - 08:56 PM

Hi Greg,

     I sent you a PM. All that stuff you are talking about is way too hard for me, but I'm still willing to give it a try. I say we include Paolo. And if you don't mind old boy, I'd like to bring Ricky along. I have become rather fond of him and his enthusiasm . You can't discount RT or Edgar either. And if you have a mind to it I rather like Keith and Kutscha. They seem to be able to add a good flavor to things also.

     I am quite sure I have missed someone quit important that needs to come along with us also so we must meditate on this.

 

Thoroughly enjoying all the great members on this sight, Jeff :)

 

PS: And don't you dare forget Armand. I'm taking him too. If he wasn't having such a hard time dealing with his parents being on TV, I'd stop by his house and pick him up personally. :)

 

I love this place, thanks to all you guys.



#27 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,248 posts
  • Joined 14 Years and 19 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 14 August 2015 - 06:15 AM

Hey, the more the merrier. What I'm after is a good place to get information about all our favorite aircraft, and we don't all have to like the same aircraft. I have a good database in Excel, lots of aerodynamics and unit conversion stuff, and you have a great start on a performance compilation, at least for speed and rate of climb. Most of the people you mention above are long time members. Armand is fairly new to me, but I've been sort of doing other things for awhile. I have no axe to grind with anybody, really.

 

So, I have a very good set of data, some pretty good 3-views, a decent spreadsheet on units conversion and boost transaltion, and a decent spreadsheet about WWII engines for aircraft and production numbers for most of the significant aircraft. I also have a VERY good start on aerical victories.

 

It's a good place to start. I'm not too sure if anyone has been collecting roll data or turn data (or if it even generally available) and anyone else is free to add whatver data they want.

 

Since we HAVE all this, what do we want to DO with it?

 

I don't have a problem with NIH ... not invented here (I didn't think of it so it can't be a good idea ... I know people like that ...). I'm not trying to start a collaboration where I'm the boss, either. I'll do it if elected, but my intent is to gather the data for access by interested parties, and I think it should be reasonably available to people and not stuck in some $100 book. Although that WOULD generate some revenue ... assuming anyone buys it, it isn't my intent. Excel is good for keeping lists, but isn't really a good choice for pics. One of the biggest choices is format. What looks like a good format for listing and maybe even comparing aircraft data? Maybe comparing up to ... say ... four at a time?

 

Anybody have any ideas or comments? Want to have a collaboration or write a book on it? Want to leave it where ee are and do nothing?

 

Paolo? My database is much better than the one I sent you many years past. Do you have anything to contibute here? Have you generated a database that is suitable for collecting all these data including pics and 3-views?

 

You started this with The Great Planes and it would be nice to be the premier site on the web to come if you are looking for information about planes. I'm a big WWII aviaiton fan, but some people are WWI fans, Korean War, etc. Nothing you haven't thought of before. Still, it would take a lot of work, but poerhaps if it were a group effort, it would be more mangeable.

 

Ricky? Any thoughts?

 

We don't HAVE to do anythinhg at all, but I'm willing to contribute some effort and some of the information I';ve been colelcting for 25 years.

 

Maybe this should be in a dedicated thread ... I'm rambling, so maybe its time to stop this evening ....



#28 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,974 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 7 Months and 2 Days
  • 138 topics

Posted 14 August 2015 - 07:15 AM

 

Ricky? Any thoughts?

 

 

Well the first thought is that about 5 or 6 years ago Paolo devised a rather neat database structure to hold all this kind of info (he sent me a copy of his plan). Hopefully he can dig it out and see if it is still fit for purpose, or if it can be used as a base to develop something good



#29 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,248 posts
  • Joined 14 Years and 19 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 14 August 2015 - 08:33 AM

I recall it was in work, but I never saw the end item or the plan. The TGPlanes went away and it changed to warbirdsforum.

 

Well, maybe some other folks have input, too.

 

Hopefully Paolo didn't erase his database and plan ... I suppose we'll see when we see ... would be good to collect all this great data, though.



#30 curmudgeon

curmudgeon

    Regular Member

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,054 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 8 Months and 2 Days
  • 28 topics

Posted 16 August 2015 - 10:13 AM

If you say so. I have as much faith in inventories as I have in claims, but to a lesser degree. Claims have often been said to be double or rtiple. I think loss/scrap lists are about 85 - 90% accurate and probably won;t be much persuaded otherwise.

 

You do realize that six He 219s were assembled from spares and their existence was witheld from the RLM? And that was a GAIN, not a loss. You won't convince me the loss lists were more accurate than 990% and I lean toward 80 - 85% after Jan  1944.

 

But that doesn't mean we disagree on everything. It means I don't belive the loss lists are 100% accurate and so would not take them against claims as verification. How do you know you got the real loss lists and not the ones intended for public dissemination to convince the people the war was going well?

 

As for vetting the losses, a study like that would take time and funding. Germany had the time. They didn't have the funding and were anxious to move past the Hitler era when the war ended. I seriously doubt the Luftwaffe ever funded a study of wartime losses. If the UK did, I've never been able to locate it. We all know how much information flowed out of the Soviet Union and the Japanese insist they never kept victory totals for their units. The victory lists we get from them are from private journals.

 

The USA is the only country I know of that funded WWII victory and statistics studies and has publised them ... and even THEY aren't easy to get into computer-readable form.

The intercepted (and captured) lists were from field units to base units ... they are likely to be accurate ... we lost two pilots (i.e. off the payroll) and require four replacement aircraft is pretty clearcut. Only the US had sufficient inventory to lose major bits.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: GOTTHREAD

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users