I'm currently the busiest I've ever been in my life and I'll be very busy for the next few months, so some upload days may be skipped. GG, o7, and stay useful!
Weight/Drag Area Ratio, Power/Drag Area Ratio, and Top Speed... *_I swear, I didn’t edit this comment to look smart!... 6 points... damn I’m a beast!_*
u have missed the big picture , facing jets is the best early jets cant climb , so most of them will be near the ground , u can climb , early jets bleed speed fast and can't turn very well , while prop fighters can turn and keep energy , also early jets need time to generate thrust while prop fighters generate thrust easily
My bet is.... Thrust, drag, and mass. Given level flight above top speed, and assuming that the Thrust and Drag vectors are pointing exactly opposite of each other: Deceleration = (Thrust - Drag) / Mass (Using the vector magnitudes: ∥v∥) Thrust will be affected by: Engine power, TAS (correct me if it is IAS), propeller efficiency, and wave drag on the prop. Drag will be affected by: IAS, frontal area, surface area, and induced drag. Thrust-Drag = 0 at top speed. At any given speed, the difference between Thrust and Drag will tend to be lower for aircraft with a higher top speed. So as a general rule of thumb, look at top speed to compare the LER of aircraft. Although I believe that given a significant difference in prop performance above top speed (different in power or efficiency ), a slightly slower aircraft might have better LER.
Hi Adam, awesome work as always. Would you consider making a dedicated anti-109 video sometime? 109s are so common and so dominating in the RB meta, that I think it would benefit a lot of newer players to be shown how to take them down. I know you said you're busy so I wouldn't expect anything soon, but I'd love to see your thoughts. Lots of "how to play 109" guides out there but none on how to beat them. Thanks!
I think a low drag aircraft with a high mass will have the best linear energy retention, since drag is what is slowing the aircraft down, but with higher mass it doesn't produce as much deceleration. Yay I got 3 points!
Although I don't fully grasp the concept of all of the terminology used here, I do somewhat understand the summary of it. Thank you for making such detailed videos.
-Engine power -Top speed -Drag (all types) -Lift and Drag coefficients -Angle to maintain level flight -Frontal area Let’s see if I was right (continues watching)! Edit: It’s the P-47D-28 you saw in battle ~1 week ago. I said hi.
Good start, especially good with top speed. Angle not so much, and lift coefficient and drag coefficient are redundant when you already say drag. Oh I remember!
I can already smell the graphs! ;) Could you make an education video about throttle, fuel flow & engine efficiency? (I had a hard time researching this topic)
Hmm I cover the basics of the first 2 in my piston engine vs jet engine video. Engine efficiency can be quite complicated, but related to that is propeller efficiency which I might cover one day, perhaps during the summer.
Nice video dude! Will you consider doing a video on vertical speed retention in the future? Also, good luck on your IRL responsibilities! Remember to prioritize those first!
Thanks! There isn't much difference between VER and LER if the VER is at high speed, if it's at low speed than it's just climb. For sure, thanks and likewise!
My initial assumption was parasite drag and top speed were the two most important: achieving high speeds by low drag would probably lead to the proportional drag increases above top speed being lower than a plane which brute-forced its way to that high speed via more thrust, assuming all other factors are equal. Don't know why I didn't think of weight initially, since that affects acceleration (tougher to get a bowling ball up to speed compared to a tennis ball but it doesn't slow down as quickly either).
@@AdamTheEnginerd one time i chased an Fw 190 D-9 in a dive with my Tu-2S-59. the 190 was getting away until it started climbing again, where my medium bomber suddenly started gaining rapidly on the fighter. I'm guessing that's a weight/inertia thing
I must say, I appreciate these kinds of videos. Not only do they help me optimize my gameplay and ability to crush stock-flying plebians, but they are informative and provide insights into how flight and other vehicles work in the the real world. Thank you for creating these. Though I understand you may not have much time, I did want to ask about something. I saw in the video that you used acceleration at 700km/h, obviously because acceleration is partially a function of drag and power, which vary at speed and altitude. That said, I was wondering what the formula for acceleration in prop aircraft would be based on that. I was thinking it would be something along the lines of a = F/m*D, where drag and force are functions of airspeed, though not yet having taken physics, I could be very wrong. If I am about correct, what would those functions look like? Take it easy, and thanks in advance.
It just comes from F=ma rearranged to a=F/m, where F is the resultant force (F = Thrust - Drag). If Drag is higher than Thrust, it gives a negative acceleration. Drag = 0.5*density*speed*drag area Thrust = power/speed (for a piston engine. For more details regarding engine types, check out my video: th-cam.com/video/7i8WkXkODuM/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=AdamTheEnginerd ) Does that answer your questions?
Hmm already 7 planes was a lot in terms of graph comprehension. It would only have taken 10 minutes or so to add another aircraft to the graph, so time wasn't the issue.
3 ปีที่แล้ว +1
Wouldn't be better to use one plane for every nation? You could use the most iconic tier IV of every nation for example, so everyone can relate to your data
I'd guess high mass and low drag give you good LER. As this detemins how fast your plane decellerates. Edit: watched the vid now; I recognise I expected you to talk about relative LER "how long can a plane keep the energy above it's intrinsic max (ie how fast it can go) it has been given" but you talked about absolute LER "how much energy does my plane have after a certain amount of time above absolute max energy". But what you do, if you compare absolute LER is basically compairing top speeds, as you showed, since top speed is the relationship between mass and power to drag. The more massive planes tend to have the heftier engines, thus given a similar drag coefficient giving them the higher top speed, thus requiring them also to climb at higher speeds as the amount of acceleration the engine provides is not that great as well as for the planes with the lower top speeds having to climb slower since there, their high drag dosen't notice as much. Oh and screw jet engines in this comparison! They always want to be the special snowflake. Go ram yourself into a pole Mr-"I HAve a biGgeR eNeRGy OuTpUt aT hiGhEr sPEedS"!
This stat is why I can't fly anything traditionally labelled "energy fighter" in War Thunder. Just not enough linear energy retention for my usual playstyle.
Man this is awesome! Most of this I could already infer from in game experience, but it's so cool to see it solidified by graphs and tests. I wonder if you could somehow measure the effectiveness of stall fighting for each plane since they have different stall speeds, but also have different energy retention speed so they won't stall as fast. From what I've seen in game whenever I try to stall fight a zero we often have relatively the same energy at the start, but we both start stalling around the same time with the zero being able to last slightly longer. I wonder if this is because although the energy retention is worse in a zero, the P-51 reaches its stall speed since its much larger compared to the zero's. Do you think it's possible to make tests on that with different planes to see which ones are the best and worst stall fighters?
You say this correlates with top speed, so I’m assuming these graphs represent LER at sea level. Does this mean that at different altitudes different airplanes have better LER? Like would the spitfire have better LER than the tempest at 8,000M since it is much faster at that altitude? (Sidenote: bet the hornets LER is disgusting, especially higher up)
He didn't include the corsair either, I guess It is because he is really buisy, and he did lay the bases for us to kind of predict what has good LER and what doesn't
I can only include so many planes. Already 7 planes made a lot of dots, I think more would hamper comprehension. It only takes 10 minutes or so to add an aircraft to these graphs.
@@apoleonschneider Yeah, well like I said it should follow the top speed correlation very well. With a top speed of 581km/h, the Ta152H should be a bit worse than the K4 in LER.
@@AdamTheEnginerd nice! Would you say that planes with a good MER wont have a good LER? Can that be a correlation? In game balance, atleast. It would be interesting to find the best MER/LER ratio plane.
It would be instructive to redo the graphs at elevations above sea level. For extra credit you could graph in 3D, since each aircraft is a curved line;)
Basically it would follow the top speed trend at the altitude you want to measure it at. 3D graphs aren't quite necessary to illustrate and explain this concept to laymen ;).
"Stay useful" is exactly what Gaijin should be telling people instead of rewarding them for ground pounding in fighters and YOLOing to get a free kill on someone who is already gonna die.
Am I right to think that higher mass aircraft of the same shape then a lower mass one will in the end be the same speed? As speed is only based on thrust and drag, not weight. Acceleration will be different of course
Does reheat/afterburners take time to ramp up or is it instant in the game? I'm asking this question because I believe the Phantom FG has the engines designed in such a way that allows the reheat to ramp up quickly so it can spend less time throttling up while on the deck (and melting it) I wonder if that is modelled in war thunder?
Test LER with BTD-1 please. This plane saves its high speed very well. But it is a bomber. It does not have good drag/weight ration. But some magic happens. Can you explain it to me?
Hey Adam a bit off topic but what do you think of the F2G-1 going down to 6.3? Why isn't the P-51H 6.7 instead of the current F2G? Also why is the La-9 6.0 while the 109 K-4 is 5.7? I feel the 109 to be a much more capable plane especially considering it regularly faces jets (I rarely get downtiers at this tier) so you're fighting jets in a plane with an La-5FN engine. Granted it has laminar flow wings, better roll and can actually dive but comparing it to its counterparts (G.56, P-51H, Ta-152 and the Griffons) it just feels a bit weak. As always I trust in your knowledge and appreciate your opinion, thanks!
F2G at its current state going down in BR is good, can maybe even go to 6.0 from what I've heard and seen. P51H could maybe be 6.7, but I think it's reasonable at 6.3. La9 should be 5.7 in my opinion yeah.
@@AdamTheEnginerd F2G is very powerful at sea level but really struggles above like 4 or 5km. I enjoy the plane but at its current state it faces 7.3 (like MiG-9s which can fly circles around it) but at the same I am a bit afraid of it going down to 6.0 and having the (very rare) chance of fighting 5.0s. About the La-9 at 5.7 yeah I would love to but I guess it won't go beyond a wet dream... they really murdered my boy :(
When you will have some time for youtube, could you do a video explaining why some aircraft engines ( such as the F8F's one) tend to overheat in the game (or IRL, I don't know if the F8F's engine had overheating problems in real life) no matter what you do? Is it a game's issue or is it a mechanic? (Excuse me if the question is a bit dumb, I study Env.Eng. not anything close to what you study.)
Not a dumb question at all. IRL, some engines had overheating issues or overheated more than others, or weren't supposed to be run at max power for more than a few minutes continuously. Gaijin takes those facts and builds a model for engine overheat to try and replicate what they read in aircraft manual/historical documents. I do not know if it's accurate or not that the F8F behaves this way though.
With the F8F specifically, they seem to have modeled it so that max continuous power is at 82% AEC, and other parameters were taken from the flight manual. More information on that here www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/8qq87t/f8f11b_overheating_check_the_pilots_handbook/
nice video, BUT i wosh you did this test with pure Boom and Zoom planes, the ones that cant turn at all. For example twin mustan, p47, FW and such (i dont play other nations dont have experience with other BnZers)
Well the point was to see the correlation for different aircraft and aircraft types. Now we know that it works for every kind of fighter, not just BnZ ones.
Hey Ik this is gonna sound a lil selfish, but after ur a lil less busy can we play together some time, I feel like I understand ur videos but I can never do them in game, at the end of the day tho great vid
Hello Adam 514 did you know about difference between F4U-1A (USMC) and F4U-1D ? Both 3.3 BR but i think 1A are rank 2 and 1D are rank 3 and i look at stat-card the 1D is clearly better. What is really difference between them?
Is it fair to say that the linear energy retention is the result of low parasitic drag, and maneuvering energy retention is a result of low induced drag? (normalised for thrust and weight)
Honestly it seems like you went out of your way to make this more complicated than it needs to be. The "mystery graph" and flat plate to deceleration was unnecessary. Horizontal max speed is simply the stable result of thrust minus drag. Graph #2 is all you need to give a good impression of which plane has good linear energy retention.
Ok ok, I know I`m late, but I`ll give that guess a try. I`d say high engine power/ thrust, low drag and a small wingarea should give a plane good LER. Perfect example? F- 104. Accelerates and keeps speed like a boss, but can`t turn for shit. And if it does, it bleeds speed quick. Or maybe the Mig 21 with it`s high alpha bleed is even a better example? Hm, but maybe I`m wrong. Cuz my odd beloved Tiffy is bloody good at LER and in my opinion also good at MER.Hmmmmm... Aww well... Shit!. xD
KK, watched the complete video now and it makes sense. Which makes me eben more confused about the Tiffy. The Typhoon has a beast of an Engine, yeah. But she ain`t exactly a slick plane. A big radiator and a relatively thick wingfoil. Yet, in game she has a ridiculous good LER for her Br. I remember fights, when I engaged several enemys at once in a Bnz that transitioned into a vertical dogfight with very tight loops or even turns at rougly 1000 m. And still it was easy to regain 600 kph in a shallow dive and then keep that speed for a pretty long time on the deck, when I was extending away. I can remember very well, how surprised my spectating squadmate was about that sick energy retention in a streight line. Maybe the flightmodel is a bit off? Oh damn! Plz don`t tell Gaijin! xD
Pretty good! As for the Typhoon, its top speed is actually on the high side for its BR. Hardly any fighters it can face can outrun it. That's further proof that top speed is a very good indicator of LER.
@@AdamTheEnginerd Yeah, but there still is that paradox (in my opinion), that she can turn so well. Especially in the vertical it`s on La-9 level. Hm... You know, I was a glider pilote in my youth. Gliders don`t have any engine and an extremly large wing area. Main reason ofc is to provide a high lift coefficient and thus a good gliding performance. ( In my days, the average was at arround 1 to 40, theese days they are even better, some up to 1 to 70). Still, especially the competition oriented glider models are able to sustain a pretty high speed with relatively low altitude loss (for birds with no engine and very long flutterfriendly wings that is). And it`s all archieved due to aerodynamic drag reduction. So, with that in mind, when I look at the Typhoon, the flightmodel seems to be a paradox. Concerning the LER I mean. Thick wing profile, relatively large wingspan aswell and a huge dragfactor because of the radiator. And she`s heavy. That big engine shouldn`t be ably to make up for it, if you compare the HP to other planes. Maybe it`s the big prop, but that can`t be all.
Seeing the p59 in here I just know there are gonna be people complaining about it! NO, it is not OP and 5.3 is actually a very good battle rating for it.
What would be your definition of VER? If it's looping, then it's a mix of MER and climb. If it's going straight up starting at a high speed, then it's a mix of LER and climb.
How might I apply this in a match to, per se, climb optimally then? Should planes with good high speed acceleration build up speed before they pitch up or should I pitch up instantly?
Every aircraft has an optimal climb IAS, and you want to keep your IAS relatively constant, so this is not related to climb. Planes with better LER will generally have a higher optimal climb IAS, but it's not a strong enough correlation to predict optimal climb IAS.
Initial guess of factors affecting LER: wing area, parasitic and induced drag, aspect ratio Well never mind I forgot about mass of the aircraft.... I am dumb.
The overlay is high customizable! You can add sound alerts, color alerts, flashing alerts, etc, at custom ranges. You can also place the indicators anywhere you want, and modify their units using a conversion factor if you wish to do so.
high weight, low drag, high thrust. Gonna guess what the characteristic is before watching the rest of the video. thrust/drag ratio @ 700kph? Ah, it's just sea level top speed. Nice ;)
@@AdamTheEnginerd ah as expected I've grown an interest in how aircraft work and function but don't really know where to learn about that like even if I look it up it's so confusing but I'd still love to know do you know where I should look to find that kind of information or like any books to start reading that could give me a good bit of knowledge about aircraft
@@Raylen23 Hmm TH-cam is a good place to start. Start getting a feel for how and why aircraft are designed and made as they are. Formulas can come later.
@@AdamTheEnginerd alright thank you I'll do that should I look at like videos about multiple planes as a whole and about them or start with planes that peak my interest and then just keep watching videos about different planes and their purpose and how they were designed?
@@AdamTheEnginerd oh, well I just have one question. What do you think is the most underrated tech tree when it comes to prop planes? I personally think it's the Italian tech tree hbu?
@@AdamTheEnginerd Haha that makes sense considering it’s the only flying wing in game as of now. Would it end up as an outlier or simply a point very high up on the linear approximation?
I'm currently the busiest I've ever been in my life and I'll be very busy for the next few months, so some upload days may be skipped.
GG, o7, and stay useful!
o7 gl
o7 glhf
Great video Adam keep it up 👍
o7 will defend the base and attack the D point awaiting your return.
o7 gl and take care
5:05 you gave me a sudden emotional event
Hahahah ;).
Weight/Drag Area Ratio, Power/Drag Area Ratio, and Top Speed... *_I swear, I didn’t edit this comment to look smart!... 6 points... damn I’m a beast!_*
Woooow impressive!
So then there's a correlation to power/weight ratio, naturally?
@@brthibault Not quite to that ratio, because both high power and high weight is good for LER. It's better to separate power and weight.
g
Haha yes thank you Adam for making this video. I just watched this with my dad as he likes watching your educational videos.
My pleasure! Glad to make content he likes!
Watching! Im happy because i got the F2G Super Corsair... It is very fast, has good climb and turn but faces jets.... Nice video!
Nice, and thanks!
u have missed the big picture , facing jets is the best
early jets cant climb , so most of them will be near the ground , u can climb , early jets bleed speed fast and can't turn very well , while prop fighters can turn and keep energy , also early jets need time to generate thrust while prop fighters generate thrust easily
@@mouhibgh6928 its true byt the jets can outrun when i dive on them
Still overtiered
It would be nicer if it didn’t have at 18,000+ repair cost
you just take wt aviation battles to a whole new level
Thanks!
Now I'm tempted to see those graphs with the J7W1 and the F2G. Thanks for the video!
They should follow the correlation in the last graph very well.
5:06 *”Yeah, thats me. You may be wondering how I got in this situation. Well...”*
Haha!
My bet is....
Thrust, drag, and mass.
Given level flight above top speed, and assuming that the Thrust and Drag vectors are pointing exactly opposite of each other:
Deceleration = (Thrust - Drag) / Mass (Using the vector magnitudes: ∥v∥)
Thrust will be affected by: Engine power, TAS (correct me if it is IAS), propeller efficiency, and wave drag on the prop.
Drag will be affected by: IAS, frontal area, surface area, and induced drag.
Thrust-Drag = 0 at top speed. At any given speed, the difference between Thrust and Drag will tend to be lower for aircraft with a higher top speed.
So as a general rule of thumb, look at top speed to compare the LER of aircraft. Although I believe that given a significant difference in prop performance above top speed (different in power or efficiency ), a slightly slower aircraft might have better LER.
Pretty good! Induced drag is very small at these speeds though, I could have not taken it into account and the graphs would barely change.
@@AdamTheEnginerd I imagined it'd be rather low, but I wasn't sure it'd be that insignificant.
Hi Adam, awesome work as always. Would you consider making a dedicated anti-109 video sometime? 109s are so common and so dominating in the RB meta, that I think it would benefit a lot of newer players to be shown how to take them down. I know you said you're busy so I wouldn't expect anything soon, but I'd love to see your thoughts. Lots of "how to play 109" guides out there but none on how to beat them. Thanks!
Hmm maybe!
@@AdamTheEnginerd That would be awesome, thanks!
I think a low drag aircraft with a high mass will have the best linear energy retention, since drag is what is slowing the aircraft down, but with higher mass it doesn't produce as much deceleration.
Yay I got 3 points!
Good!
This really helps for Aerospace engineering course. Thanks for the vid bro.
My pleasure bro! And good luck!
Although I don't fully grasp the concept of all of the terminology used here, I do somewhat understand the summary of it. Thank you for making such detailed videos.
You're very welcome! You don't have to understand all the details just yet, getting the general idea is the first step.
the relation between power and drag is the first thing that comes to my mind
So, would drag queens have good energy retention?
@@JumpyWizardz more like high fat retention
Good start!
This video is one of the greatest until now,very useful comparation! Keep going!
Thanks, will do!
i'm learn something new, this was really educational
Glad to hear it!
Hi Adam! I did break my record of kills in one match!
6 kills and 1 assist with the Premium A6M2... I was grinding lions
Nice!
Please more videos comparing planes with graphs
Always more coming! They take a while to make though.
-Engine power
-Top speed
-Drag (all types)
-Lift and Drag coefficients
-Angle to maintain level flight
-Frontal area
Let’s see if I was right (continues watching)!
Edit: It’s the P-47D-28 you saw in battle ~1 week ago. I said hi.
Good start, especially good with top speed. Angle not so much, and lift coefficient and drag coefficient are redundant when you already say drag.
Oh I remember!
I can already smell the graphs! ;)
Could you make an education video about throttle, fuel flow & engine efficiency? (I had a hard time researching this topic)
Hmm I cover the basics of the first 2 in my piston engine vs jet engine video. Engine efficiency can be quite complicated, but related to that is propeller efficiency which I might cover one day, perhaps during the summer.
Nice video dude! Will you consider doing a video on vertical speed retention in the future? Also, good luck on your IRL responsibilities! Remember to prioritize those first!
Thanks! There isn't much difference between VER and LER if the VER is at high speed, if it's at low speed than it's just climb.
For sure, thanks and likewise!
we appreciate all you do! thank you Adam
My pleasure, thanks for the support!
My initial assumption was parasite drag and top speed were the two most important: achieving high speeds by low drag would probably lead to the proportional drag increases above top speed being lower than a plane which brute-forced its way to that high speed via more thrust, assuming all other factors are equal. Don't know why I didn't think of weight initially, since that affects acceleration (tougher to get a bowling ball up to speed compared to a tennis ball but it doesn't slow down as quickly either).
Even without weight, that's still very good!
@@AdamTheEnginerd one time i chased an Fw 190 D-9 in a dive with my Tu-2S-59. the 190 was getting away until it started climbing again, where my medium bomber suddenly started gaining rapidly on the fighter. I'm guessing that's a weight/inertia thing
@@Turk3YbAstEr Or engine overheat from the D9.
I must say, I appreciate these kinds of videos. Not only do they help me optimize my gameplay and ability to crush stock-flying plebians, but they are informative and provide insights into how flight and other vehicles work in the the real world. Thank you for creating these.
Though I understand you may not have much time, I did want to ask about something. I saw in the video that you used acceleration at 700km/h, obviously because acceleration is partially a function of drag and power, which vary at speed and altitude. That said, I was wondering what the formula for acceleration in prop aircraft would be based on that. I was thinking it would be something along the lines of a = F/m*D, where drag and force are functions of airspeed, though not yet having taken physics, I could be very wrong. If I am about correct, what would those functions look like?
Take it easy, and thanks in advance.
It just comes from F=ma rearranged to a=F/m, where F is the resultant force (F = Thrust - Drag). If Drag is higher than Thrust, it gives a negative acceleration.
Drag = 0.5*density*speed*drag area
Thrust = power/speed (for a piston engine. For more details regarding engine types, check out my video: th-cam.com/video/7i8WkXkODuM/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=AdamTheEnginerd )
Does that answer your questions?
@@AdamTheEnginerd Yes it does. Thank you very much.
Honestly a little surprised the P-47 wasn't tested, but I can understand if it would have taken too long.
Hmm already 7 planes was a lot in terms of graph comprehension. It would only have taken 10 minutes or so to add another aircraft to the graph, so time wasn't the issue.
Wouldn't be better to use one plane for every nation? You could use the most iconic tier IV of every nation for example, so everyone can relate to your data
The point was to show a wide variety of aircraft to make sure the correlation worked, not to compare aircraft between nations.
YOU ARE BRAZILLIAN YOU VIDEOS TOPPPPPPPPP !
Haha thanks!
I'd guess high mass and low drag give you good LER. As this detemins how fast your plane decellerates.
Edit: watched the vid now; I recognise I expected you to talk about relative LER "how long can a plane keep the energy above it's intrinsic max (ie how fast it can go) it has been given" but you talked about absolute LER "how much energy does my plane have after a certain amount of time above absolute max energy". But what you do, if you compare absolute LER is basically compairing top speeds, as you showed, since top speed is the relationship between mass and power to drag. The more massive planes tend to have the heftier engines, thus given a similar drag coefficient giving them the higher top speed, thus requiring them also to climb at higher speeds as the amount of acceleration the engine provides is not that great as well as for the planes with the lower top speeds having to climb slower since there, their high drag dosen't notice as much.
Oh and screw jet engines in this comparison! They always want to be the special snowflake. Go ram yourself into a pole Mr-"I HAve a biGgeR eNeRGy OuTpUt aT hiGhEr sPEedS"!
Good explanation!
adam can you make a quick video explaining the difference between the Yak-3 and Yak-9?
In performance?
@@AdamTheEnginerd Yes if it is significant enough
This stat is why I loved my mustang
Yup.
This stat is why I can't fly anything traditionally labelled "energy fighter" in War Thunder. Just not enough linear energy retention for my usual playstyle.
could you do an F2-G match? but facing F84s, I'm so curious how to fight these hard jets with an F2-G.
It's on my list!
Streak x3. Great video even though I don't know what it meant. Until after this video
That's the point of the video!
What do you mean by "streak x3"?
@@AdamTheEnginerd 3 times I've viewed the video within 1 minute of it being posted.
@@avidaviation67 Refresh? Why?
Correct me if I'm wrong but you said that you took Tier IV vehicles and if I remember correctly A7M2 is not a Tier IV it's tier III....
its just for examples,how zeros is lighter and affect with deceleration,but how about KI 84 and J6k1?
Oops if that is indeed the case. Easier to say tier 4 than "BR 5.0 and above".
Oh this is going to be great. Thanks for the absolutely useful vids Adam!
My pleasure Hans!
Great job, waiting for next 😎
Thanks!
I would argue that Wing Loading is basically right. A/m ~ CdA/m for similar Cd's
CDs aren't similar enough though, there are better metrics.
hot vid, adam
Tyty, Jooooe.
Man this is awesome! Most of this I could already infer from in game experience, but it's so cool to see it solidified by graphs and tests. I wonder if you could somehow measure the effectiveness of stall fighting for each plane since they have different stall speeds, but also have different energy retention speed so they won't stall as fast. From what I've seen in game whenever I try to stall fight a zero we often have relatively the same energy at the start, but we both start stalling around the same time with the zero being able to last slightly longer. I wonder if this is because although the energy retention is worse in a zero, the P-51 reaches its stall speed since its much larger compared to the zero's. Do you think it's possible to make tests on that with different planes to see which ones are the best and worst stall fighters?
Could you make a vid about A7M2? It flies so differently to Zeros
It's on my list!
1:49 The amount of hamburgers the planes has eaten
I refuse!
@@AdamTheEnginerd No!
How does the La-7s LER compare to the P-51 D-30? And the Yak-3 Vk-107 to the P-51H? Is the P-51H truly the best prop aircarft with the best LER?
Like I said, it follows the top speed order very well. P51H is indeed the prop with the best LER.
You say this correlates with top speed, so I’m assuming these graphs represent LER at sea level. Does this mean that at different altitudes different airplanes have better LER? Like would the spitfire have better LER than the tempest at 8,000M since it is much faster at that altitude? (Sidenote: bet the hornets LER is disgusting, especially higher up)
LER* at sea level yes, and yeah it depends on the top speed at the altitude you are at indeed!
include F8F too. those thing can catch up to early jets.
Less than the Tempest Mk 2 and the P51H. The point wasn't to show fast props, the point was to show a wide variety of aircraft.
Can you give us the "acceleration" of the fw 190? I dont get it why you didn't include to begin with.
Great job by the way. Legendary indeed!
He didn't include the corsair either, I guess It is because he is really buisy, and he did lay the bases for us to kind of predict what has good LER and what doesn't
I can only include so many planes. Already 7 planes made a lot of dots, I think more would hamper comprehension. It only takes 10 minutes or so to add an aircraft to these graphs.
@@AdamTheEnginerd great job man. You must have an idea about the ta 152, right? Your favorite plane. I saw the MER you did comparing with spitfire.
@@apoleonschneider Yeah, well like I said it should follow the top speed correlation very well. With a top speed of 581km/h, the Ta152H should be a bit worse than the K4 in LER.
@@AdamTheEnginerd nice! Would you say that planes with a good MER wont have a good LER? Can that be a correlation? In game balance, atleast. It would be interesting to find the best MER/LER ratio plane.
It would be instructive to redo the graphs at elevations above sea level. For extra credit you could graph in 3D, since each aircraft is a curved line;)
Basically it would follow the top speed trend at the altitude you want to measure it at. 3D graphs aren't quite necessary to illustrate and explain this concept to laymen ;).
"Stay useful" is exactly what Gaijin should be telling people instead of rewarding them for ground pounding in fighters and YOLOing to get a free kill on someone who is already gonna die.
Haha I suppose.
Am I right to think that higher mass aircraft of the same shape then a lower mass one will in the end be the same speed? As speed is only based on thrust and drag, not weight. Acceleration will be different of course
Nearly 100% right, the higher weight also increases lift induced drag, but it's very small at high speed.
finna study this :o
:).
Can you do a video on the 4.3 Spitfire Mk 9
I did one like 3 years ago, if I get an interesting match in it I'll make another one.
@@AdamTheEnginerd ok thanks
Does reheat/afterburners take time to ramp up or is it instant in the game?
I'm asking this question because I believe the Phantom FG has the engines designed in such a way that allows the reheat to ramp up quickly so it can spend less time throttling up while on the deck (and melting it)
I wonder if that is modelled in war thunder?
Takes a bit of time to ramp up, a few seconds depending on the engine.
Okay, cool
you should try designing an aircraft
Yeah I had plans for that, but the pandemic has changed my plans and I don't have time to get started on it.
Test LER with BTD-1 please. This plane saves its high speed very well. But it is a bomber. It does not have good drag/weight ration. But some magic happens. Can you explain it to me?
Like the sb2 and sbds
it's heavy
its heavy as fuck so just like a boulder rolling down a hill, though to get there but if it rolls it wont stop
Hmm I don't think the BTD is anything special here tbh. It's just that it fights other slow planes as well.
@@AdamTheEnginerd some people playing the BTD-1 vs fighters xD
Hey Adam a bit off topic but what do you think of the F2G-1 going down to 6.3? Why isn't the P-51H 6.7 instead of the current F2G?
Also why is the La-9 6.0 while the 109 K-4 is 5.7? I feel the 109 to be a much more capable plane especially considering it regularly faces jets (I rarely get downtiers at this tier) so you're fighting jets in a plane with an La-5FN engine. Granted it has laminar flow wings, better roll and can actually dive but comparing it to its counterparts (G.56, P-51H, Ta-152 and the Griffons) it just feels a bit weak.
As always I trust in your knowledge and appreciate your opinion, thanks!
F2G at its current state going down in BR is good, can maybe even go to 6.0 from what I've heard and seen. P51H could maybe be 6.7, but I think it's reasonable at 6.3.
La9 should be 5.7 in my opinion yeah.
@@AdamTheEnginerd F2G is very powerful at sea level but really struggles above like 4 or 5km. I enjoy the plane but at its current state it faces 7.3 (like MiG-9s which can fly circles around it) but at the same I am a bit afraid of it going down to 6.0 and having the (very rare) chance of fighting 5.0s.
About the La-9 at 5.7 yeah I would love to but I guess it won't go beyond a wet dream... they really murdered my boy :(
When you will have some time for youtube, could you do a video explaining why some aircraft engines ( such as the F8F's one) tend to overheat in the game (or IRL, I don't know if the F8F's engine had overheating problems in real life) no matter what you do? Is it a game's issue or is it a mechanic? (Excuse me if the question is a bit dumb, I study Env.Eng. not anything close to what you study.)
Not a dumb question at all. IRL, some engines had overheating issues or overheated more than others, or weren't supposed to be run at max power for more than a few minutes continuously. Gaijin takes those facts and builds a model for engine overheat to try and replicate what they read in aircraft manual/historical documents. I do not know if it's accurate or not that the F8F behaves this way though.
With the F8F specifically, they seem to have modeled it so that max continuous power is at 82% AEC, and other parameters were taken from the flight manual. More information on that here
www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/8qq87t/f8f11b_overheating_check_the_pilots_handbook/
Quality work here. =D
Thank you kindly!
nice video, BUT i wosh you did this test with pure Boom and Zoom planes, the ones that cant turn at all. For example twin mustan, p47, FW and such (i dont play other nations dont have experience with other BnZers)
Well the point was to see the correlation for different aircraft and aircraft types. Now we know that it works for every kind of fighter, not just BnZ ones.
hey adam, are you going to make videos playing on simulator mode one day?
Maybe one day.
Please play with f2g-1 Adam
It's on my list!
1:47
-Engine power
-Drag (the least,the better?)
-Weight?
i'll update later
i think it's :
-mass
-drag
that's it xd
oh, and engine power ngl thought you were gonna turn the engine off lol
Turning the engine off wouldn't be a good comparison of aircraft, it would only compare their weight and drag.
Good LER could be caused by:
High Weight/Drag ratio
High thrust/drag ratio (in other words top speed)
So low drag, high thrust and high weight
Perfect!
cheater
:'(
I wasn't i promise
I've seen top speed in another comment so i included it in the bracket - the only cheaty thing
Hey Ik this is gonna sound a lil selfish, but after ur a lil less busy can we play together some time, I feel like I understand ur videos but I can never do them in game, at the end of the day tho great vid
The Discord is a good place to find people to fly with and learn.
Hello Adam 514 did you know about difference between F4U-1A (USMC) and F4U-1D ?
Both 3.3 BR but i think 1A are rank 2 and 1D are rank 3 and i look at stat-card the 1D is clearly better.
What is really difference between them?
Essentially the same, just a bit of weight difference that's all.
@@AdamTheEnginerd Thank you!
USMC removed the tail hook since it's land based
Is it fair to say that the linear energy retention is the result of low parasitic drag, and maneuvering energy retention is a result of low induced drag? (normalised for thrust and weight)
Precisely!
@@AdamTheEnginerd thanks! atb with school work!
Another online class with adam
Haha indeed!
Hey Adam are you going to play Vb 10- 02 french
It's on my list.
So what would you say is the best prop in game for performance? The 152 h? P51H5? Or the mk24?
P51H while it still has WEP, Mk24 after that.
If im correct i played with you and dogeness yesterday 5.0 US. ! P51
Euh I didn't play yesterday haha.
Is aerospace engineering enjoyable? And is it difficult?
Depends on the person, and engineering in general is among the hardest studies.
F86F 35 Skyblazers pls
To do what with?
My answer is a high wing loading, high mass and low parasite drag
Good start!
@@AdamTheEnginerd Great educational video, I really enjoyed it!
@@kameni9156 Thanks!
Honestly it seems like you went out of your way to make this more complicated than it needs to be. The "mystery graph" and flat plate to deceleration was unnecessary.
Horizontal max speed is simply the stable result of thrust minus drag. Graph #2 is all you need to give a good impression of which plane has good linear energy retention.
Sure, but I like to go beyond just presenting facts, and the extra graphs are useful for understanding the concept.
Why did you not use a Soviet fighter in this comparison?
It's not a comparison, it's the definition of LER. It doesn't matter what nationality the aircraft are from.
hi Adam, can 190C outperform f4u4 and 4b in dogfight
No it would get shrecked.
I would like to see at least one soviet plane in your tests for comparison, thanks
Considered putting La9 in there.
Ok ok, I know I`m late, but I`ll give that guess a try. I`d say high engine power/ thrust, low drag and a small wingarea should give a plane good LER. Perfect example? F- 104. Accelerates and keeps speed like a boss, but can`t turn for shit. And if it does, it bleeds speed quick. Or maybe the Mig 21 with it`s high alpha bleed is even a better example? Hm, but maybe I`m wrong. Cuz my odd beloved Tiffy is bloody good at LER and in my opinion also good at MER.Hmmmmm... Aww well... Shit!. xD
KK, watched the complete video now and it makes sense. Which makes me eben more confused about the Tiffy. The Typhoon has a beast of an Engine, yeah. But she ain`t exactly a slick plane. A big radiator and a relatively thick wingfoil. Yet, in game she has a ridiculous good LER for her Br. I remember fights, when I engaged several enemys at once in a Bnz that transitioned into a vertical dogfight with very tight loops or even turns at rougly 1000 m. And still it was easy to regain 600 kph in a shallow dive and then keep that speed for a pretty long time on the deck, when I was extending away. I can remember very well, how surprised my spectating squadmate was about that sick energy retention in a streight line. Maybe the flightmodel is a bit off? Oh damn! Plz don`t tell Gaijin! xD
Pretty good! As for the Typhoon, its top speed is actually on the high side for its BR. Hardly any fighters it can face can outrun it. That's further proof that top speed is a very good indicator of LER.
@@AdamTheEnginerd Yeah, but there still is that paradox (in my opinion), that she can turn so well. Especially in the vertical it`s on La-9 level. Hm... You know, I was a glider pilote in my youth. Gliders don`t have any engine and an extremly large wing area. Main reason ofc is to provide a high lift coefficient and thus a good gliding performance. ( In my days, the average was at arround 1 to 40, theese days they are even better, some up to 1 to 70). Still, especially the competition oriented glider models are able to sustain a pretty high speed with relatively low altitude loss (for birds with no engine and very long flutterfriendly wings that is). And it`s all archieved due to aerodynamic drag reduction. So, with that in mind, when I look at the Typhoon, the flightmodel seems to be a paradox. Concerning the LER I mean. Thick wing profile, relatively large wingspan aswell and a huge dragfactor because of the radiator. And she`s heavy. That big engine shouldn`t be ably to make up for it, if you compare the HP to other planes. Maybe it`s the big prop, but that can`t be all.
Low drag and low wing area
It's a start!
@@AdamTheEnginerd Adam what happened to your twitch?
Seeing the p59 in here I just know there are gonna be people complaining about it! NO, it is not OP and 5.3 is actually a very good battle rating for it.
It can be 5.7 easily, great turn and speed.
Isn't there vertical energy retentiion?
What would be your definition of VER? If it's looping, then it's a mix of MER and climb. If it's going straight up starting at a high speed, then it's a mix of LER and climb.
How might I apply this in a match to, per se, climb optimally then? Should planes with good high speed acceleration build up speed before they pitch up or should I pitch up instantly?
Every aircraft has an optimal climb IAS, and you want to keep your IAS relatively constant, so this is not related to climb. Planes with better LER will generally have a higher optimal climb IAS, but it's not a strong enough correlation to predict optimal climb IAS.
G.56 VS F2G Super Corsair.
Maybe!
a = F(total)/m = (trust - drag)/m = (prop coefficient*power*something - drag coefficient*air density*v^2*A/2)/m
Yes!
Something = 1/velocity
@@brthibault Ah, of course.
Initial guess of factors affecting LER: wing area, parasitic and induced drag, aspect ratio
Well never mind I forgot about mass of the aircraft.... I am dumb.
Nono you had decent guesses. Induced drag and everything relating to that doesn't matter much at high speed and not pulling Gs.
hello, what is this for HUD on the left side? RPM, Climp and more
Overlay: forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/483838-warthunder-real-time-information/
The overlay is high customizable! You can add sound alerts, color alerts, flashing alerts, etc, at custom ranges. You can also place the indicators anywhere you want, and modify their units using a conversion factor if you wish to do so.
I cant make that overlay work.... Im quit sad, as It would make using MEC easy as a piece of cake, no more cockpit view to find out whats best etc....
Oof, it's relatively straightforward though.
@@AdamTheEnginerd i know, It just doesnt wants to work and making Sea of Thieves run was enough for me (It had corrupted files etc)
high weight, low drag, high thrust.
Gonna guess what the characteristic is before watching the rest of the video. thrust/drag ratio @ 700kph?
Ah, it's just sea level top speed. Nice ;)
Very close to the answer, considering the thrust/drag (power/drag) graph hadn't come up yet when you answered!
Is MER next?
I already did MER (a long time ago)! th-cam.com/video/wLA8cspXbbE/w-d-xo.html
@@AdamTheEnginerd Hey thanks! I saw that one. I meant, with the same planes. Great job!
Aerodynamics, mass, engine RPM & HP(?)
Good!
Stupid question, if you broke off flaps, wich advtange can you gain?
The advantage of going faster if u forget to raise ur flaps?
@@thesaltyhotdog3761 More drag when you don't want drag, and less drag when you need it to slow down.
None.
@@AdamTheEnginerd im gonna say de N word
@@AdamTheEnginerd nice
Did you use R for the graphs?
Matlab.
@@AdamTheEnginerd ok nerd
@@AdamTheEnginerd matlab do be lit tho
@@MorningGI0ry Haha.
Is bf 109 k4 still worth it?
Yeah.
Drag and top spedd
Good!
Okay so I have a random question I was just wondering you're in college right what career are you pursuing? If that question isn't to personal
Yup, I have a Bachelors of Aerospace Engineering, currently doing a Masters of Mechanical Engineering since Covid hit.
@@AdamTheEnginerd ah as expected I've grown an interest in how aircraft work and function but don't really know where to learn about that like even if I look it up it's so confusing but I'd still love to know do you know where I should look to find that kind of information or like any books to start reading that could give me a good bit of knowledge about aircraft
@@Raylen23 Hmm TH-cam is a good place to start. Start getting a feel for how and why aircraft are designed and made as they are. Formulas can come later.
@@AdamTheEnginerd alright thank you I'll do that should I look at like videos about multiple planes as a whole and about them or start with planes that peak my interest and then just keep watching videos about different planes and their purpose and how they were designed?
@@Raylen23 Peak your interest first!
Where do you get the info overlay to the left of your screen
Overlay: forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/483838-warthunder-real-time-information/
Can't watch this... it is too saddening to see a7m2 so low on the graphs
Lmao A7M2 lover?
As long as the aircraft are going straight. Forward.
Haha!
Quiz answer: bigger wing area?
Not quite! Actually a lower wing area would improve LER, everything else remaining equal.
So does that mean that a d-30 go both at 700km/h the d-30 can outrun the k-4?
Precisely.
INTERESTING, ONCE AGAIN THE MUSTANG SHOWS ITSELF SUPERIOR TO THE 109 MWAHAHA
@@Taffaff mw50 sais hi!
@@marinandrei1679 low drag and better turn says hello
@@Taffaff 2000hp engine and Oswald coefficient wants to know a thing or two
Could you fly the seafire mk xvii?
Hmm probably not tbh, never flown it before.
@@AdamTheEnginerd oh, well I just have one question. What do you think is the most underrated tech tree when it comes to prop planes? I personally think it's the Italian tech tree hbu?
@@seny4115 YEah prob Italians.
I would love to see Ho 229 in this vid tho
It would leave the rest of these aircraft in the dust.
@@AdamTheEnginerd Haha that makes sense considering it’s the only flying wing in game as of now. Would it end up as an outlier or simply a point very high up on the linear approximation?
Point very high, it wouldn't be an outlier compared to other early jets.
@@AdamTheEnginerd very interesting. Thx and keep up the good work!!
My pleasure!