Another! Imagine if everyone properly understood these concepts and implemented them into their tactics in-game. It would certainly change the way the game is played. Luv the vids!
Statement "efficient" or "inefficient" in Adams vid, makes a video even more complete. Words that can describe so many things Good to have a confirmation that zoom climbing in a jet is inefficient
As far as I have understood the idea with zoom climbing isn't necessarily about climbing efficiently but about keeping your speed while climbing. In jet matches you rarely need to go over 3km in altitude so a decrease in efficiency doesn't matter as much when keeping your speed is more important. Also at top tier jets start being able to zoom climb so high that efficient climbing doesn't matter anymore.
I don't have an issue with people who think it's better in matches to zoom. I have a problem with people saying it's more efficient to zoom climb in jets to gain energy.
This is somewhat beyond me but it leads to a question I have had about props...The Ta-152 had a fat 3 blade prop, the P-47 D had a thin 4 blade prop and the Griffon powered Spitfire Mk XIV had a 5 blade prop...All 3 planes had similar HP ratings for take off, so why so many variations???
Propellers are indeed very important and there is a lot of confusion about them! Short answer: You want the least amount of blades possible, while having enough blades or blade area to effectively use the power of the engine (decent prop efficiency). If we take the Spitfire for example, it started off with 1000 HP and 3 blades. That 3-bladed prop was roughly ideal for that power and the landing gear height. With the Mk XIV, power doubled but the landing gear height didn't change. So they either had to increase the number of blades, or increase the "fatness" of the blades, or a combination of both, to effectively use 2000 HP.
@@AdamTheEnginerd Ah, so that is why they kept 4 blades on the Corsair but had to bend the wings in order to keep that giant prop...Wonder what a gull wing Griffon Spit would have been like...
Thank you for confirming the suspicion I've been having for a while now, that a constant high speed climb is more efficient than a zoom climb (at least for early jets)
It is worth noting that the climb equation is for specific excess power, which directly describes the gain/loss of specific energy (energy per unit of mass) (in air combat, specific energy is more important than energy). This equation describes any situation, including level flight, dives, turns, etc. Extracting useful information from this fact: + Aircraft with good climb rate will also have good *low speed* acceleration. They are basically the same metric. + As long as thrust is greater than drag, you will gain energy, even in a dive (common misconception that dives always drain energy). + Specific excess power = 0 when flying level at top speed. + A plot of specific excess power at all possible speeds is a good visualization on how the aircraft accelerates/decelerates in level flight, or shallow climbs at a given speed, etc. (P.S. I'd love to see a video that explores or compares SEP at a very wide range of speeds, not just climb speeds. I'm curious to see how fast aircraft like the P-51D-30 for example, fare in terms of SEP against Bf 109's, ranging from 0 km/h to rip speed.) I'll be exploring SEP at a wide range of speeds meanwhile.
@@AdamTheEnginerd I'm having lots of trouble figuring out what to do with the ocean of coefficients, but I'll experiment with it. It made me confused. But hey, confusion is the first step towards understanding. Every time I've gotten confused about aerodynamics, I learned a lot more. It helps get rid of misunderstandings, wrongful assumptions, and to gain good intuition.
Love that video, there is so much useful and technical stuff inside.👍 btw these small meme pics in the corner every once in a while are a great feature as well x)
my makeshift tactic for climbing was to put the plane on a certain angle, let it go up until i got a 5 degree AoA and maintain that speed. now that i have these data i will check to see if AoA is the same at the optimal speed for each of the planes in this video and use that as a reference
That's a really nice video ! It's a very complex topic , but you found a quick way to compute the climb rate. I'm surprised than lift does not influence climb rate that much
Thanks! It's more accurate to say that lift is just there to counter part of the weight, with the associated induced drag. Indeed lift isn't featured in the RoC equation.
Just found this channel For jets, if you assume thrust is always constant and ignore transonic drag, you can actually solve for the optimal climb speed exactly as a function of the jet's top speed. IIRC it's about 65% of the top speed, which for the Me-262 gives around 500km/h, as is commonly known. Similarly, if you assume prop efficiency is constant for props, then the optimal climb speed occurs when drag is minimized, which is typically the speed at which induced drag becomes negligeable. A good visual cue for this speed is that it is usually 10-20km/h faster than the speed at which the visible wingtip vortices disappear in-game. These two rules of thumb always get you within 5% of the optimal climb rate in my experience. It's interesting to know that this can be optimized even further by data mining, i might run some simulations of my own
You should add "specific excess power" to the title or description, I was trying to find a clear explanation without any luck, and stumbled upon this video by pure coincidence.
Soooo here’s one for you have you covered gun sights I was watching a video that explained how to use gun sights etc I’d like to know how warthunder has modelled the gun sights and if they reflect realistic gun sight usage and such The video I watched was from dcs and the guy had worked out angles and range rings etc angle off and all that good stuff I like to fly sim and would love to have your expertise put the warthunder gun sights through some data scrutiny For me this would be very interesting (Sorry if this don’t make sense as such I’ve been drinking lol )
Adam514 yeah it seems like the mic quality went up for that sentence. I really don't know how that was happening with the p47s... I didn't have any secondary loads and I was on 20 min fuel, spaded... I usually climb at around 260km/h ias... it ended with me constantly being on the run, especially having forgotten all aspects of prop defensive flying after playing jets for so long
DOH! I have been playing the 262 the wrong way the whole time! I literally thought zoom climbing was the best option, but no! I think that is the reason why I constantly get killed by American jets. Anyways nice vid! Thank you Adam. Thank you. (Also also: Re.2005 from the distance: *I A M C L I M B* )
I got 4 and a half hours of sleep last night. I was up at 8am and it is now 1:36am... This is what I watch to avoid sleep. Why am I like this? Seriously though, this is very interesting
I was hoping you would compare the k4 with the Spitfire lf mk9, they're very different but climb rates are simillar. Also, I'm learning a lot with these short videos, thank you
@@AdamTheEnginerd comparing optimal climb speed, basically that. I consider them short because I think these things are much complex and need more time but you make it very simple and easy to understand. I'm gonna compare it myself I'm curious about different climb speeds.
Jet thrust isn't constant in WT (they're usually considered constant for basic aeronautical knowledge but even irl they aren't efficient at all speeds due to stuff like ram air compression efficiency and exhaust nozzle expansion ratio for stuff like exhaust plume shape's relation to atmospheric pressure). If you recall the old thrust graphs on the old wiki before they were deleted, they gave some valuable information you would've missed.
Some jets though have massive thrust differences. The MiG-21 is one for example, upon release I tested the F-13's thrust at approximately sea level at varying airspeeds, and it basically only had 60% thrust or so available at about 100 knots (~50m/s) while its thrust was optimal around mach 0.95 or so. It was for a bug report because the F-13's engines are known for doing 3900 kgf dry and 5900 wet, but at the time the game only had 3390 dry and 4700 wet, which was a 15% reduction, which coincidentally relates to the old afterburner/dry ratio of 15% before what I presume gaijin realised adding this global afterburner coefficients wouldn't work out too well.
Explaining it as a WT player prevents it from being serious enough. People don’t need to know things like that to play the game. I came here for real scientific conclusions and i got it. But i wasn’t expecting you to explain this using War Thunder footage :D
This is so great. I wanted to do something similar but got stuck with thrust / power assumptions, thanks! (Also where do you get drag from? I managed to calculate CL, but have problems with drag).
I see you're a man of culture as well ;). I got the necessary coefficients to calculate drag by following the instructions here: www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/8nq70p/tutorial_how_to_datamine_or_how_i_learned_to_stop/
Out of topic thing, but legends have it The Soviets loved 50 cals and 37mm so much that there were 2 Soviet pilots on the P39 and P63. And they made a more bias edition by making the Yak 9T with less 50 cal ammo, worse climb and top speed.
In 1st person view you have a climbing reticle just below (usually) the targeting reticle... the closer they are together, the more efficient the climb/speed rate... The issue with being at optimum speed, is you will arrive at the battle sooner, therefore cutting down your climb/time rate
No there's an optimal angle, and it's not 0 (which is close to level flight). If you arrive at the battle sooner, the enemy also had less time to climb, so as long as your aircraft climbs better, whether you go directly towards climbing enemies or not, you will be higher.
Hey Adam you think you can, over time, put out more videos like this explaining other props' climbrates? It could be like a little series. You could start with... just a random thought... off the top of my head.... the ta152h and the f4u4b... 😉
Adam514 I guess you could make a spreadsheet... (have you...?) I cant speak for everyone and I'm no expert but spreadsheets are a bit impersonal imo... besides, if you don't let all the data out at a time, you keep demand high and you'll have requests like mine of people asking for specific aircraft 🤓. And you won't have to get in as much detail as this one, you can just link it and say "here's the explanation if you're curious." Just like how you take requests for particular aircraft (which by the way, I was NOT expecting you to keep up as your sub count went up and up. Just like I wasn't expecting quick responses like this). After all, that's what I, and I'm sure many people, like about you. The fact that we can directly ask for stuff and actually get it. It makes us feel more involved and closer to you as a creator (like when you made the yak3vk107 vid when I asked :P, which I don't think I'll ever forget)
The amount of time it takes to get an accurate climb rate chart is massive, hence why there's no spreadsheet. I might do this type of video again for supersonic aircraft, just to show how climbing near Mach 1 is inefficient. Interacting with the audience is my goal! No point to do TH-cam without that imo.
the general K4 players do 20deg climbs, which goes above 350 km/h up to whichever altitude until you start slowing down - a broadstroke approach that is "safe". But i've always found 270km/h climbs to be wholly insufficient simply by timing how far and how high i go from the point of take off. Always i've had a higher gain with 17-20deg climbs which is far above 270km/h.
First off, amazing video and thank you for what you do for the war thunder community. Second...I am a bit slow and although you explained everything pretty well I still struggle to keep up here and there. So basically my question is: does higher prop efficiency = higher climb rate? And if so, where can I get something that’ll show my prop efficiency
Thanks, and it's my pleasure! Yeah higher prop efficiency definitely means higher climb rate, everything else being equal. If you go from 40% prop efficiency to 80% prop efficiency, you double the thrust or power that can increase your aircraft's energy, so you double climb.
while zoom-climbing in the me-262 is not efficient, I'ts usually favoured since you will be traveling at high speeds for longer which make you a harder to kill target.
The only issue with your model is that you consider the velocity vector of the aircraft to be aligned with the thurst vector when they are not (especially when climbing). You could include an angle of attack that would be determined by the amount of lift needed to counter weight (lift varies linearly with angle of attack): that would make your model more accurate.
Angle of attack would barely change the results since the angle is so small (~1%). Already including the climb angle (theta in the image) is something many people don't do and it's a decent approximation. Angle of attack is even smaller than theta.
Ey, finally our nerdy pimp is back. Also, you maybe should do an advanced study of the Re-2005's rate of climb... Maybe UFO confirmed? Stopping joking now: Why do aircraft like the I-225 climb so well in Air RB, while aircraft like the Yak-9U don't really climb well? IIRC they have a similar PWR.
Always in and out ;). Yak9U climbs very well for the tier though. They might have similar PWR at sea level, but the I225's turbocharger allows it to conserve its engine power while other aircraft's power starts to drop. I225 probably has better aerodynamics too and prop.
Please can you give us a table with the right climbing speed for most common aircraft. I have no idea where to find that info. Many thanks :) Your videos are all really fantastic!
So in general, the lighter the aircraft the lower the optimum climbspeed, the heavier an aircraft, the higher the optimum climbspeed. So would the P-47D-28 be in the 300-310kph zone? And since everyone is not going to be able to manufacture their own simulation to figure out their optimum speed, I assume the best course of action is to get the WT information Viewer and adjust angle to find which climbrate is most efficient/sustainable?
Gaijin: *Let's use Mathematics to redo the entire speed, turn rate, climb rate of every plane the same way we did with our /SUCCESSFUL/ attempt last time with tanks shell penetration*
Maybe now I can actually do something about the piss-poor climb rates of my P-47D-25 and my F6F-5N even when upgraded. Even with the P-38G-1 and the P-39N-0 I used to grind and their their amazing climb rates, I usually climbed around 260-300 kph IAS. Even then, I always see German and Japanese planes above me and my teammates regardless of sideclimbing. I've seen your reversal tutorial vid, but right now, I always do BNZ/R, or, failing that, go for headon passes (with mixed results)
Just look at the gauge and see at which speeds can you keep the climb rate at a constant maximum. A bit harder to know in Spits since it maxes out, but it's completely doable in the FW190's.
Requires testing at multiple speeds for that. And it's also not only the rate of climb that you should consider, but also the acceleration of the aircraft as it climbs higher to keep IAS constant, and that can reduce the apparent optimal climb speed. The higher your climb speed, the more you need to put power into accelerating the aircraft instead of gaining altitude, reducing the apparent climb. What matters though is the energy gained, so the difference in TAS as well as the difference in altitude per second.
@@AdamTheEnginerd It's not "too" hard to test it on the fly. If you want maximum efficiency then you have to put in the work, but for instance I figured out the best option for FW-190D9 would be around 268-274km/h IAS - Elevator position combined with climb rate is a good starting point to figure out the AOA. At first I was using 340km/h IAS as it held a constant 20m/s climb with little to no elevator induced drag and it didn't work as I went too far too low. However starting off at this speed gave me room to test and by slowly pulling up and NOT maxing the climb indicator that only shows 30m/s, then when it started dropping I would gradually level off the plane and try to keep the climb as high as possible. By watching the elevators I knew where it started to "struggle" aerodynamically and kept decreasing pitch until it stopped decreasing climb. I would then get a reading of AOA and keep pitching down more agressively to see if an increase of IAS and thus reduction of AOA would grant a higher climb rate on the gauge. If you can accelerate to a higher climb rate in a short while, then you are on the right path and the AOA induced drag was too high, if not, test it in reverse by comparing it to the eyeballed position, but this time focusing on IAS and climb rate - not AOA and climb rate. When IAS starts dropping without any gain, its time to start levelling and you should be in the ballpark, probably no more than +-7km/h. I'm not a flight fanatic, just went by some physics and logic, trusting the game is atleast decently realistic. I could be completely off, but I can keep up with the BF109s at 5.7, so I take it as a win. :D
You should try zoom climbing vs steady climbing in top tier jets like mig 19 or CL13. I know mathematically zoom climbing should be less effective but Im pretty sure its more effective in war thunder
It is not more effective in WT. I guess only a test will convince some of you, but then you'll say that the speed was too high/low, that it works on this jet or that jet, etc.
ok so i did some testing for some jets, and i got a weird result. i tested the me 262 (not fully upgraded) by climbing from 100m to 3000m at different speeds and recording the time: at 475kph... TAS - 2:30 IAS - 2:46 at 500kph... TAS - 2:30 IAS - 2:50 520kph TAS - 2:31 IAS - 2:56 it seems like it's better to climb at a given TAS than IAS when it comes to jets.
That's because by climbing at a constant IAS, you're also increasing TAS as you climb! So some of the energy goes into increasing your kinetic energy in the case of a constant IAS climb because you're constantly accelerating to increase TAS to compensate for a drop in air density as you climb, while at constant TAS everything goes into converting your power into altitude! If you added up kinetic energy and potential energy gained, a constant IAS speed will be better than a constant TAS speed (though your test altitude difference is not that big, there wouldn't be a big difference).
@@AdamTheEnginerd Everything dude there isnt one thing you do that doesn't make sense and its all presented in a clear manner, I have not encountered anything in any of your videos I haven't understood. Its all around amazing IMO, But Im also not a picky guy and I just nerd out on these explanations
@@nodnerbhu Thanks for the praise! I've dealt with some complicated topics at times too, so congrats on understanding everything! I think I'm good at explaining things 1 on 1 when I know the other person, but that I'd be bad in the teaching role.
Adam514 no not exactly... but can’t we do sum of vertical forces, and solve for the net vertical acceleration, then integrate that to find our vertical velocity? It’s definitely not as easy as what you showed in the video... please correct me if I’m wrong
I swear you replied to me on another comment. Anyways, physics classes teach a baseline. The other guy was wondering why his physics teacher didn't teach him an application. It's because if you tried teaching every application of physics, you would waste too much time.
So when the performance specs sheet on an F-15 state maximum rate of climb at 50,000 ft. /min, that means an F-15 can go vertical into a zoom climb from sea level and literally reach 50,000 altitude in 60 seconds? That’s faster than the Saturn V.
It's the rate of climb it can do at sea level when already at optimal climbing speed. If it went vertical at that speed, it might actually reach 50000 ft before 60 seconds, but would be trading speed for altitude for most, if not all, of the flight time. Compare that to the Saturn V, which constantly gains speed vertically and starts from a standstill, it's not too fair a comparison.
yeah, but you forgot to mention the large induced drag that is created by wings when decreasing IAS to the stall speed and also when using jet, it is much more important, because its aerodynamics isnt built for low speeds...
I didn't specifically mention it indeed, but there are a lot of things I didn't mention. It's all included in the code though. Jets do indeed have higher wing loading which does increase the optimal climb speed, but it's not that far off the heavy prop wing loading. Main reason for higher jet climb rate is how jet engines produce thrust, like I said.
Hmm so for your K4 test the ~0.3 m/s deficit in climb rate at 300 kph represents about 2.9W/kg of lost power. I checked the acceleration required to maintain constant IAS while climbing (at sea level) and it should be about 9.5 W/kg at 300 kph and 6.4 W/kg at 250 kph. So the acceleration explains the difference between those two points, but if it were the only thing you'd expect all the tests to be a bit slower than the model right? It seems like something else is in the energy balance giving the aircraft ~6W/kg more than your model. Maybe that's also why the low speed tests ended climbing a little faster than your model?
Good observations. The main thing I see is that climb depends a lot on prop efficiency, and you can't get that in the files. Instead, I went in test flight and I fitted a curve to approximate prop efficiency as a function of speed to then be able to run the simulations. A small difference in prop efficiency has a big effect on climb. It is interesting that at low speed the tests are just a tad bit higher than the simulation, while it's the opposite at high speed. I think that's explained by the higher proportion of power that goes into keeping the climb at constant IAS when the speed is higher. What explains the higher test climb at low speeds, perhaps I over represented the drag due to the downforce of the tail, but I also didn't consider the higher wing and fuselage drag at higher AoA (not explicit in the files) so I considered that a wash.
Good Video, but I think you missed the point that the weight decrases with altitude what makes some planes more efficient at high altitudes (P 47, Fw 190 D 12/13, Ta 152) - not that important but it would've been a nice fun fact ^^
What do you mean weight decreases with altitude? If you mean that fuel is burnt and hence the weight of the plane becomes lower, that's true but also applies to every plane (to differing degrees, but not a significant difference in most cases).
In real life gravity is 99.9% of the gravity at sea level at like 15km. Gravity is considered a constant, and it's likely a constant in WT. The thinner air is considered because I gave climb speeds in IAS. 300 IAS provides the same aerodynamic forces at sea level and at 5000m, that's the definition of IAS.
Nice. Finally someone is putting some sense into the head of WT players. Climbrate is a function of speed and not AoA as most players seem to believe. Every time I ask I always get some answer in about 15° - 25° ...😜 Now, if we just get google doc with the optimum climbing speeds for any aircraft in the game, please.
@@AdamTheEnginerd yeah im trying to remember my flight pyhsics. Haven't really flown since my stroke 15 years ago. AoA is the Angle between airfoil centerline and direction of movement. The other ist where the nose is pointing.
This model of climbing forces is much simplified. When climbing at low speed, the Lift from wings is not enough to counter Weight, leading to increasing of AoA, sacrificing Thrust and producing Drug. Weight and Lift are not acting on the same point, and the effectiveness of stabilizer should not be ignored. The situation is more complex than a single formula can explain.
It's more that the climb angle increases at low speed, so some of the thrust helps the lift to counter weight, and this effect is included in the code. The stabilizer effect is also approximated in the code. The formula is simple, but what goes into it isn't ;).
@@AdamTheEnginerd just doesnt make any sense to disagree when you see the evidence. Maybe you could do another video showing the difference when you climb properly in different aircraft vs zoom climbing.
@@AdamTheEnginerd Would this be relevant for planes like the MiG-29 which possess (T-D)/W ratios above 1? Does the concept of an optimum climb angle still apply to these planes at all, since they can accelerate even when flying vertically upwards?
It still applies. Optimal climb is never 90° even if T/W > 1. For planes like that which are generally supersonic, they climb at constant Mach number (M0.9 for example).
I don't disagree that zoom climbing is inefficient. Though experience say that it is by far the best tactic (or atleast used to be, the meta is really weird now). It's a matter of gettin to altitude as fast as possible and in tg least amount of distance possible
Which topic would you like to see covered in my next technical video? Like the preferred topic below!
Battle of the Graphs: 7.0 Jets
Mythbusting: Do Heavy Aircraft Dive Better Than Light Aircraft?
Laminar flow and its effects on performance (P51 case study)
@@AdamTheEnginerd when I think about equations that I know weight doesn't have any effect but I might be wrong
Wanna see all 3 . But 7.0 jets first!
"Let's climb right into it"
Nice pun?
You've got to be pretty high to laugh at that joke
High as a Dutch Astronaut
@@141Zero XD
@141Zero you don't have to be such a _downer_
Did I just saw matlab in a warthunder vid? Omg dude you’re a living legend.
Hahaha thanks! I've used Matlab for most of my technical videos!
@@AdamTheEnginerd Lol. That's what I used for aero when I was at USAFA.
@@AdamTheEnginerd A fellow MATLAB connoisseur, I see
I have acquired
*K N O W L E D G E*
Knowledge is specific excess power.
İn Turkey we have excellent word : The pen is sharper than the sword
@@serdarcam99 and the AP ammo is sharper than the pen
Pen invented that technology
@@rn-zu5ld and the apdsfs the sharpest of all
We will watch your career with great interest, young Canadian
"Young" I don't think you know what that word means.
Adam514 How old are you?
Big Stud he’s my dad
Adam514 you’re an University student right? I think so.
Also: **WHY NO TEMPEST IN THE VIDEO**
you made me learn in 7 minutes what my physics teacher couldn't in 3 months
Hahaha I think your physics teacher would be sad to hear that.
Because this topic isn't the job of your physics teacher. Take aero engineering.
I love science and engineering a lot, and I am here just to enjoy some high quality science content that I never got fully in school. :)
Me: **has learned something**
Also me: **climbs completely vertical at 200km/h**
Lmao!
Reminds me of the time when the Gladiator and Ki-10-II actually could do that (in AB). They used to be the first Helicopters in the game ;)
*_Any thought about creating a google doc with this excellent data Adam? I would literally pay for it!_*
It would take many hours to make haha.
Adam514 The one if I’ve been using is obviously wrong! 😩 If you ever need help doing it, let me know. I’d be happy to help.
Adam514 just include the exact data points and stuff and I’ll put it in a google sheet (if I’m not feeling lazy).
@Nano Underdoge It's wrong, seems like you need to add something like 20 km/h as a rule of thumb, or that's at least my guess.
10-20km/h yeah.
Another!
Imagine if everyone properly understood these concepts and implemented them into their tactics in-game. It would certainly change the way the game is played.
Luv the vids!
Haha that'll never happen. Just people playing to win will never happen, and that's quite straightforward.
0:24 "Let's climb right into it!" Seriously? Again? The puns intensify...
I had to use it for this video though!
@@AdamTheEnginerd *That's what they all say, Adam.*
Statement "efficient" or "inefficient" in Adams vid, makes a video even more complete.
Words that can describe so many things
Good to have a confirmation that zoom climbing in a jet is inefficient
Hahaha I'll be sure to use them more often!
Some are still proponents of zoom climbing even after watching the video though.
As far as I have understood the idea with zoom climbing isn't necessarily about climbing efficiently but about keeping your speed while climbing. In jet matches you rarely need to go over 3km in altitude so a decrease in efficiency doesn't matter as much when keeping your speed is more important. Also at top tier jets start being able to zoom climb so high that efficient climbing doesn't matter anymore.
I don't have an issue with people who think it's better in matches to zoom. I have a problem with people saying it's more efficient to zoom climb in jets to gain energy.
We dont disagree on anything then :)
This is somewhat beyond me but it leads to a question I have had about props...The Ta-152 had a fat 3 blade prop, the P-47 D had a thin 4 blade prop and the Griffon powered Spitfire Mk XIV had a 5 blade prop...All 3 planes had similar HP ratings for take off, so why so many variations???
Propellers are indeed very important and there is a lot of confusion about them!
Short answer:
You want the least amount of blades possible, while having enough blades or blade area to effectively use the power of the engine (decent prop efficiency). If we take the Spitfire for example, it started off with 1000 HP and 3 blades. That 3-bladed prop was roughly ideal for that power and the landing gear height. With the Mk XIV, power doubled but the landing gear height didn't change. So they either had to increase the number of blades, or increase the "fatness" of the blades, or a combination of both, to effectively use 2000 HP.
@@AdamTheEnginerd Ah, so that is why they kept 4 blades on the Corsair but had to bend the wings in order to keep that giant prop...Wonder what a gull wing Griffon Spit would have been like...
@@HochgeborenKlown Gull wings on the Corsair was used mainly for a short and stronger landing gear, but the bigger prop is also a nice addition.
@@AdamTheEnginerd The 'short' answer seems a bit longer than expected but I don't think I'd be satisfied with anything less.
Thank you for confirming the suspicion I've been having for a while now, that a constant high speed climb is more efficient than a zoom climb (at least for early jets)
For sure, zoom climbing is inefficient!
Finally! An engineer explaining what a pilot needs to know. I was sick and tired of empty explanations about it.
Dude you have completely changed my gameplay, and this type of videos are my fav ty for putting this together for us
My pleasure mate!
Should've learnt this for my ground phase in flying school
Gotta climb E F F I C I E N T L Y.
@@AdamTheEnginerd even an infinitesimal deviation is unacceptable!!!
It is worth noting that the climb equation is for specific excess power, which directly describes the gain/loss of specific energy (energy per unit of mass) (in air combat, specific energy is more important than energy). This equation describes any situation, including level flight, dives, turns, etc.
Extracting useful information from this fact:
+ Aircraft with good climb rate will also have good *low speed* acceleration. They are basically the same metric.
+ As long as thrust is greater than drag, you will gain energy, even in a dive (common misconception that dives always drain energy).
+ Specific excess power = 0 when flying level at top speed.
+ A plot of specific excess power at all possible speeds is a good visualization on how the aircraft accelerates/decelerates in level flight, or shallow climbs at a given speed, etc.
(P.S. I'd love to see a video that explores or compares SEP at a very wide range of speeds, not just climb speeds. I'm curious to see how fast aircraft like the P-51D-30 for example, fare in terms of SEP against Bf 109's, ranging from 0 km/h to rip speed.)
I'll be exploring SEP at a wide range of speeds meanwhile.
Good project!
@@AdamTheEnginerd I'm having lots of trouble figuring out what to do with the ocean of coefficients, but I'll experiment with it. It made me confused.
But hey, confusion is the first step towards understanding. Every time I've gotten confused about aerodynamics, I learned a lot more. It helps get rid of misunderstandings, wrongful assumptions, and to gain good intuition.
Really well done!
Thanks Greg! I'm a big fan of your channel if you hadn't noticed ;).
Love that video, there is so much useful and technical stuff inside.👍
btw these small meme pics in the corner every once in a while are a great feature as well x)
Thanks!
Hahaha glad you like them!
Nice explanation. U could explain the relationship between prop pitch and altitude / speed in the next video.
Thanks!
Like prop blade angle?
@@AdamTheEnginerd exactly.
Wait till you start talking helicopters. There's a handful.
my makeshift tactic for climbing was to put the plane on a certain angle, let it go up until i got a 5 degree AoA and maintain that speed. now that i have these data i will check to see if AoA is the same at the optimal speed for each of the planes in this video and use that as a reference
I was doing something similar, but with 4 degrees of AoA. 4 degrees gets pretty close to optimal for most planes.
very useful video......thank you for all your hard work in testing and in making graphs
My pleasure!
Amazing gameplay and useful technical data, you're the best Warthunder youtuber Adam.
Thanks for the praise!
Another godly useful and perfact video
thank you, adam!
Thanks, and my pleasure!
That's a really nice video ! It's a very complex topic , but you found a quick way to compute the climb rate. I'm surprised than lift does not influence climb rate that much
Thanks!
It's more accurate to say that lift is just there to counter part of the weight, with the associated induced drag. Indeed lift isn't featured in the RoC equation.
Rewatching this after I learned more things.
It was already very clear, but now it's even better!
Nice glad to hear it!
Just found this channel
For jets, if you assume thrust is always constant and ignore transonic drag, you can actually solve for the optimal climb speed exactly as a function of the jet's top speed. IIRC it's about 65% of the top speed, which for the Me-262 gives around 500km/h, as is commonly known.
Similarly, if you assume prop efficiency is constant for props, then the optimal climb speed occurs when drag is minimized, which is typically the speed at which induced drag becomes negligeable. A good visual cue for this speed is that it is usually 10-20km/h faster than the speed at which the visible wingtip vortices disappear in-game.
These two rules of thumb always get you within 5% of the optimal climb rate in my experience. It's interesting to know that this can be optimized even further by data mining, i might run some simulations of my own
AAAAAH I FEEL GOOD...after realizing that I was climbing perfectly with my Me 262
Haha congrats!
Without further ado, let’s *climb* right into it,
Hah, classic dad joke right here.
I had to.
Love the technical videos. Keep them coming.
Thanks! It's my plan!
Thank U very much Adam i learned many think from this video, i think it was one of the best education vid about Wt ever👌
My pleasure!
I have been waiting for this for a while since to me the Japanese and British climb felt OP to me but wasn't sure about it.
They have high P/W and UK has good propellers.
The uk has poor control surfaces in SB rudder and elevator are horrendous lol 😂
Excelent video!! I was searching for a video like this for a long time. Cheers mate.
Thanks mate!
You should add "specific excess power" to the title or description, I was trying to find a clear explanation without any luck, and stumbled upon this video by pure coincidence.
Great! I love that you made another graph video!
Thanks!
Finally I understood what SEP is! Thank you very much!
My pleasure!
thanks for sharing Adam, we really appreciate it!
My pleasure!
Soooo here’s one for you have you covered gun sights I was watching a video that explained how to use gun sights etc I’d like to know how warthunder has modelled the gun sights and if they reflect realistic gun sight usage and such
The video I watched was from dcs and the guy had worked out angles and range rings etc angle off and all that good stuff I like to fly sim and would love to have your expertise put the warthunder gun sights through some data scrutiny
For me this would be very interesting
(Sorry if this don’t make sense as such I’ve been drinking lol )
I understand what you mean. It's not really my area of expertise though.
Ahhh ok bud just thought it would make an interesting vid
Just a question do you play sim at all
@@jonnotuckster8856 Very sparingly.
I’m new to SB as such just trying to get a grip of it tbh
this is why for me, you are the best wt air rb youtuber.
Thanks for the praise! Eventually best TH-camr all around eh?
Adam514 the skies the limit brother lmao
6:35 lol the voice change...
I really appreciate the effort for this video Adam! Maybe now I won't get outclimbed by p47s in my k4 anymore....
Good voice change?
You shouldn't get outclimbed by P47s in a K4 indeed haha.
Adam514 yeah it seems like the mic quality went up for that sentence.
I really don't know how that was happening with the p47s... I didn't have any secondary loads and I was on 20 min fuel, spaded... I usually climb at around 260km/h ias... it ended with me constantly being on the run, especially having forgotten all aspects of prop defensive flying after playing jets for so long
At 260 IAS in an airspawn map, I wouldn't be surprised if P47M loading min fuel outclimbed you.
Adam514 oh... heh... oops
Wow I just learned about this this week in my aerodynamics class. Nice video as always!
Thanks mate! Any corrections you'd like to add?
@@AdamTheEnginerd Nope this video is spot on. Especially with the explanation about how rate of climb is based on excess power.
This is what made me fall in love with the game.
Also, good work, I really love these types of videos.
Thanks mate! I make these kinds of videos from time to time.
@@AdamTheEnginerd always my fav because of the detailed info you bring
Thanks Adam, nice video and very helpful.
My pleasure!
DOH! I have been playing the 262 the wrong way the whole time! I literally thought zoom climbing was the best option, but no! I think that is the reason why I constantly get killed by American jets. Anyways nice vid!
Thank you Adam. Thank you.
(Also also:
Re.2005 from the distance: *I A M C L I M B* )
It's certainly inefficient!
Haha prelude to the ultimate climb video!
I was in your game last night and you rekt me. 4th game with you I love your videos and they really inspired me to grind planes.
Thanks for the support!
Not only You have proven once more that i'm more retarded than i actually think i am, but also that some planes should be removed from the game.
Used to
I got 4 and a half hours of sleep last night. I was up at 8am and it is now 1:36am... This is what I watch to avoid sleep. Why am I like this?
Seriously though, this is very interesting
Haha thanks! Sleep is somewhat important though ;).
The way you say thrust sounds so good, no idea why
I was hoping you would compare the k4 with the Spitfire lf mk9, they're very different but climb rates are simillar.
Also, I'm learning a lot with these short videos, thank you
Compare them in what way?
You consider nearly 8 min to be short (just asking)?
@@AdamTheEnginerd comparing optimal climb speed, basically that. I consider them short because I think these things are much complex and need more time but you make it very simple and easy to understand. I'm gonna compare it myself I'm curious about different climb speeds.
I'd approximate LF best climb speed at 275 km/h.
Jet thrust isn't constant in WT (they're usually considered constant for basic aeronautical knowledge but even irl they aren't efficient at all speeds due to stuff like ram air compression efficiency and exhaust nozzle expansion ratio for stuff like exhaust plume shape's relation to atmospheric pressure). If you recall the old thrust graphs on the old wiki before they were deleted, they gave some valuable information you would've missed.
I tested to get the thrust curve in test flight, so it was considered. At its worst, it was only a bit more than 10% less than the 0 speed value.
Some jets though have massive thrust differences. The MiG-21 is one for example, upon release I tested the F-13's thrust at approximately sea level at varying airspeeds, and it basically only had 60% thrust or so available at about 100 knots (~50m/s) while its thrust was optimal around mach 0.95 or so. It was for a bug report because the F-13's engines are known for doing 3900 kgf dry and 5900 wet, but at the time the game only had 3390 dry and 4700 wet, which was a 15% reduction, which coincidentally relates to the old afterburner/dry ratio of 15% before what I presume gaijin realised adding this global afterburner coefficients wouldn't work out too well.
@@ZdrytchX Afterburning jets are different indeed.
I learn a lot with your videos,best WT channel.
Thanks mate!
Mind is blown. I wish someone did a google graph with all the planes in the game and their perfect climb rates.
That's unfortunately days of work haha.
@@AdamTheEnginerd Welp, we can put hope into your fans!
On most planes it's too slow by 10-20 km/h.
Explaining it as a WT player prevents it from being serious enough. People don’t need to know things like that to play the game. I came here for real scientific conclusions and i got it. But i wasn’t expecting you to explain this using War Thunder footage :D
I think I manage to make it serious enough while useful for WT players.
This is so great.
I wanted to do something similar but got stuck with thrust / power assumptions, thanks!
(Also where do you get drag from? I managed to calculate CL, but have problems with drag).
I see you're a man of culture as well ;).
I got the necessary coefficients to calculate drag by following the instructions here: www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/8nq70p/tutorial_how_to_datamine_or_how_i_learned_to_stop/
Adam is very unique thank you bro for sharing this knowledge its very educational
My pleasure bro!
People playing games: just angle and side climbing
People watching this video: god I wish I shouldn't skip the Physics class *lmao*
And then they realize the true inefficiency, that is their life.
Out of topic thing, but legends have it The Soviets loved 50 cals and 37mm so much that there were 2 Soviet pilots on the P39 and P63. And they made a more bias edition by making the Yak 9T with less 50 cal ammo, worse climb and top speed.
More bias edition means worse?
@@AdamTheEnginerd Yes. The more slavic (worse) the more bias
In 1st person view you have a climbing reticle just below (usually) the targeting reticle... the closer they are together, the more efficient the climb/speed rate... The issue with being at optimum speed, is you will arrive at the battle sooner, therefore cutting down your climb/time rate
No there's an optimal angle, and it's not 0 (which is close to level flight). If you arrive at the battle sooner, the enemy also had less time to climb, so as long as your aircraft climbs better, whether you go directly towards climbing enemies or not, you will be higher.
Hey Adam you think you can, over time, put out more videos like this explaining other props' climbrates? It could be like a little series. You could start with... just a random thought... off the top of my head.... the ta152h and the f4u4b... 😉
Haha wouldn't it get repetitive? That's the kind of thing that a spreadsheet is for.
Adam514 I guess you could make a spreadsheet... (have you...?) I cant speak for everyone and I'm no expert but spreadsheets are a bit impersonal imo... besides, if you don't let all the data out at a time, you keep demand high and you'll have requests like mine of people asking for specific aircraft 🤓. And you won't have to get in as much detail as this one, you can just link it and say "here's the explanation if you're curious." Just like how you take requests for particular aircraft (which by the way, I was NOT expecting you to keep up as your sub count went up and up. Just like I wasn't expecting quick responses like this). After all, that's what I, and I'm sure many people, like about you. The fact that we can directly ask for stuff and actually get it. It makes us feel more involved and closer to you as a creator (like when you made the yak3vk107 vid when I asked :P, which I don't think I'll ever forget)
The amount of time it takes to get an accurate climb rate chart is massive, hence why there's no spreadsheet. I might do this type of video again for supersonic aircraft, just to show how climbing near Mach 1 is inefficient.
Interacting with the audience is my goal! No point to do TH-cam without that imo.
Love the best lasagna at the end
Good music.
Damn now I just need to figure out the optimal climb rate for the hs-129. Oh wait optimal descent
Lmao there is an optimal descent speed too.
i really enjoyed this video and it helped a lot, thanks!
My pleasure!
1:30 Roc= V*sin(theta)
T,w,d must obey another equation to provide constant velocity ie:
T-D=w *sen (theta )
L=W*cos(theta) for completeness
Yup, skipped the mathematical steps to not lose people.
@@AdamTheEnginerd u were right mi apologies for not developing the equation
Please can you make a video about how fast can Spit Mk.24 or P-47M-1-RE or Do-335 can go useing the prop pitch mechanic??
Wouldn't change anything for Spitfire and P47. For the Do335, it's quite complicated haha.
Adam514 Why complicated please try it
You're gonna kill both engines quickly if you do it wrong haha.
Love these kinds of topics, keep it up.👌🏻👌🏻
Thanks! That's my plan!
the general K4 players do 20deg climbs, which goes above 350 km/h up to whichever altitude until you start slowing down - a broadstroke approach that is "safe". But i've always found 270km/h climbs to be wholly insufficient simply by timing how far and how high i go from the point of take off. Always i've had a higher gain with 17-20deg climbs which is far above 270km/h.
270 IAS is more efficient than 350 IAS though.
First off, amazing video and thank you for what you do for the war thunder community.
Second...I am a bit slow and although you explained everything pretty well I still struggle to keep up here and there. So basically my question is: does higher prop efficiency = higher climb rate? And if so, where can I get something that’ll show my prop efficiency
Thanks, and it's my pleasure!
Yeah higher prop efficiency definitely means higher climb rate, everything else being equal. If you go from 40% prop efficiency to 80% prop efficiency, you double the thrust or power that can increase your aircraft's energy, so you double climb.
@@AdamTheEnginerd Awsome, so what can I do to see this information in game like you do?
Overlay: forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/483838-warthunder-real-time-information/
while zoom-climbing in the me-262 is not efficient, I'ts usually favoured since you will be traveling at high speeds for longer which make you a harder to kill target.
When already in the match yeah, but harder target isn't a factor during the initial climb.
now need a spreadsheet for climb
Some exist, but they are a bit inaccurate in my opinion.
The only issue with your model is that you consider the velocity vector of the aircraft to be aligned with the thurst vector when they are not (especially when climbing). You could include an angle of attack that would be determined by the amount of lift needed to counter weight (lift varies linearly with angle of attack): that would make your model more accurate.
Angle of attack would barely change the results since the angle is so small (~1%). Already including the climb angle (theta in the image) is something many people don't do and it's a decent approximation. Angle of attack is even smaller than theta.
@@AdamTheEnginerd When climbing at lower speeds (
@@DoubleA44 Even 10° is very small.
Ey, finally our nerdy pimp is back. Also, you maybe should do an advanced study of the Re-2005's rate of climb... Maybe UFO confirmed?
Stopping joking now: Why do aircraft like the I-225 climb so well in Air RB, while aircraft like the Yak-9U don't really climb well? IIRC they have a similar PWR.
Always in and out ;).
Yak9U climbs very well for the tier though. They might have similar PWR at sea level, but the I225's turbocharger allows it to conserve its engine power while other aircraft's power starts to drop. I225 probably has better aerodynamics too and prop.
@@AdamTheEnginerd makes sense, a shame that the I-225 has so many drawbacks...
Please can you give us a table with the right climbing speed for most common aircraft. I have no idea where to find that info. Many thanks :) Your videos are all really fantastic!
I myself don't have such a table haha, and putting one together would takes days of work unfortunately.
Thanks for the support!
So in general, the lighter the aircraft the lower the optimum climbspeed, the heavier an aircraft, the higher the optimum climbspeed.
So would the P-47D-28 be in the 300-310kph zone?
And since everyone is not going to be able to manufacture their own simulation to figure out their optimum speed, I assume the best course of action is to get the WT information Viewer and adjust angle to find which climbrate is most efficient/sustainable?
It depends more on wingloading than simply weight, but also on prop efficiency.
For D28, around 290 seems optimal.
Adam you helped me a lot to play with planes in war thunder I hope you will play with tanks
I've got 2 tank videos!
Vid on Ki-61-II please dad.
Yess
Haha plz no.
Adam514 Why? Isn’t it a better climber than the G6? Feels like it. Not that the G6 is amazing.
Wuh? G6 has great climb.
Adam514 Not as good as G2. Ki-61-II feels similar.
very intersting topic, nicely done
Thanks mate!
Gaijin: *Let's use Mathematics to redo the entire speed, turn rate, climb rate of every plane the same way we did with our /SUCCESSFUL/ attempt last time with tanks shell penetration*
Most planes aren't really based on a lot of real life data, especially the latest aircraft they've added.
They already use mathematics for aircraft performance haha.
All planes are based on real life data when available.
@@AdamTheEnginerd I'm not saying real life mathematics, I mean THEIR mathematics, just like how they did for the shell penetrations.
Maybe now I can actually do something about the piss-poor climb rates of my P-47D-25 and my F6F-5N even when upgraded. Even with the P-38G-1 and the P-39N-0 I used to grind and their their amazing climb rates, I usually climbed around 260-300 kph IAS. Even then, I always see German and Japanese planes above me and my teammates regardless of sideclimbing. I've seen your reversal tutorial vid, but right now, I always do BNZ/R, or, failing that, go for headon passes (with mixed results)
The first 2 planes you mention are poor climbers, not much you can do about that. Climbing efficiently always helps though.
Just look at the gauge and see at which speeds can you keep the climb rate at a constant maximum. A bit harder to know in Spits since it maxes out, but it's completely doable in the FW190's.
Requires testing at multiple speeds for that. And it's also not only the rate of climb that you should consider, but also the acceleration of the aircraft as it climbs higher to keep IAS constant, and that can reduce the apparent optimal climb speed. The higher your climb speed, the more you need to put power into accelerating the aircraft instead of gaining altitude, reducing the apparent climb. What matters though is the energy gained, so the difference in TAS as well as the difference in altitude per second.
@@AdamTheEnginerd It's not "too" hard to test it on the fly. If you want maximum efficiency then you have to put in the work, but for instance I figured out the best option for FW-190D9 would be around 268-274km/h IAS - Elevator position combined with climb rate is a good starting point to figure out the AOA. At first I was using 340km/h IAS as it held a constant 20m/s climb with little to no elevator induced drag and it didn't work as I went too far too low.
However starting off at this speed gave me room to test and by slowly pulling up and NOT maxing the climb indicator that only shows 30m/s, then when it started dropping I would gradually level off the plane and try to keep the climb as high as possible. By watching the elevators I knew where it started to "struggle" aerodynamically and kept decreasing pitch until it stopped decreasing climb. I would then get a reading of AOA and keep pitching down more agressively to see if an increase of IAS and thus reduction of AOA would grant a higher climb rate on the gauge. If you can accelerate to a higher climb rate in a short while, then you are on the right path and the AOA induced drag was too high, if not, test it in reverse by comparing it to the eyeballed position, but this time focusing on IAS and climb rate - not AOA and climb rate. When IAS starts dropping without any gain, its time to start levelling and you should be in the ballpark, probably no more than +-7km/h.
I'm not a flight fanatic, just went by some physics and logic, trusting the game is atleast decently realistic. I could be completely off, but I can keep up with the BF109s at 5.7, so I take it as a win. :D
There was more math than expected..
Thanks!
My pleasure!
Yo Adam, I have a video recommendation for you. Can you plz make a video about how to use MEC. How to use Mixture and Prop-Pitch?
I'll do a MEC video eventually.
Finally thank you man
My pleasure man!
You should try zoom climbing vs steady climbing in top tier jets like mig 19 or CL13. I know mathematically zoom climbing should be less effective but Im pretty sure its more effective in war thunder
It is not more effective in WT. I guess only a test will convince some of you, but then you'll say that the speed was too high/low, that it works on this jet or that jet, etc.
ok so i did some testing for some jets, and i got a weird result. i tested the me 262 (not fully upgraded) by climbing from 100m to 3000m at different speeds and recording the time:
at 475kph...
TAS - 2:30
IAS - 2:46
at 500kph...
TAS - 2:30
IAS - 2:50
520kph
TAS - 2:31
IAS - 2:56
it seems like it's better to climb at a given TAS than IAS when it comes to jets.
That's because by climbing at a constant IAS, you're also increasing TAS as you climb! So some of the energy goes into increasing your kinetic energy in the case of a constant IAS climb because you're constantly accelerating to increase TAS to compensate for a drop in air density as you climb, while at constant TAS everything goes into converting your power into altitude! If you added up kinetic energy and potential energy gained, a constant IAS speed will be better than a constant TAS speed (though your test altitude difference is not that big, there wouldn't be a big difference).
THESE ARE AMAZING!
Thanks! Could you explain what aspect of them make them amazing?
@@AdamTheEnginerd Everything dude there isnt one thing you do that doesn't make sense and its all presented in a clear manner, I have not encountered anything in any of your videos I haven't understood. Its all around amazing IMO, But Im also not a picky guy and I just nerd out on these explanations
@@nodnerbhu Thanks for the praise! I've dealt with some complicated topics at times too, so congrats on understanding everything!
I think I'm good at explaining things 1 on 1 when I know the other person, but that I'd be bad in the teaching role.
Hey Adam can you do a video on your controls and your set-up?
My controls are pretty much default, with MEC added.
Haha, 2 min into the vid and I recognize this stuff from the first week of ap physics. Thanks for the explanation
You did aircraft climb in AP physics?
Adam514 no not exactly... but can’t we do sum of vertical forces, and solve for the net vertical acceleration, then integrate that to find our vertical velocity?
It’s definitely not as easy as what you showed in the video... please correct me if I’m wrong
Aircraft climb is pretty much a bloc on an incline with friction being tugged by a string haha.
I swear you replied to me on another comment. Anyways, physics classes teach a baseline. The other guy was wondering why his physics teacher didn't teach him an application. It's because if you tried teaching every application of physics, you would waste too much time.
So when the performance specs sheet on an F-15 state maximum rate of climb at 50,000 ft. /min, that means an F-15 can go vertical into a zoom climb from sea level and literally reach 50,000 altitude in 60 seconds? That’s faster than the Saturn V.
It's the rate of climb it can do at sea level when already at optimal climbing speed. If it went vertical at that speed, it might actually reach 50000 ft before 60 seconds, but would be trading speed for altitude for most, if not all, of the flight time. Compare that to the Saturn V, which constantly gains speed vertically and starts from a standstill, it's not too fair a comparison.
Adam! When are you gonna play some Italian planes? Thoughts on them and the Italian jets?
Some are on my list!
Not that many unique jets.
Just to be sure of a thing, does your model neglect the aoa? If so, does it have any incidence on the thing we want to know, the optimal climb speed?
It does assume that AoA is small enough to be neglected, it would not make a noticeable difference except near stall speed.
yeah, but you forgot to mention the large induced drag that is created by wings when decreasing IAS to the stall speed and also when using jet, it is much more important, because its aerodynamics isnt built for low speeds...
I didn't specifically mention it indeed, but there are a lot of things I didn't mention. It's all included in the code though.
Jets do indeed have higher wing loading which does increase the optimal climb speed, but it's not that far off the heavy prop wing loading. Main reason for higher jet climb rate is how jet engines produce thrust, like I said.
Hmm so for your K4 test the ~0.3 m/s deficit in climb rate at 300 kph represents about 2.9W/kg of lost power.
I checked the acceleration required to maintain constant IAS while climbing (at sea level) and it should be about 9.5 W/kg at 300 kph and 6.4 W/kg at 250 kph. So the acceleration explains the difference between those two points, but if it were the only thing you'd expect all the tests to be a bit slower than the model right? It seems like something else is in the energy balance giving the aircraft ~6W/kg more than your model. Maybe that's also why the low speed tests ended climbing a little faster than your model?
Good observations. The main thing I see is that climb depends a lot on prop efficiency, and you can't get that in the files. Instead, I went in test flight and I fitted a curve to approximate prop efficiency as a function of speed to then be able to run the simulations. A small difference in prop efficiency has a big effect on climb.
It is interesting that at low speed the tests are just a tad bit higher than the simulation, while it's the opposite at high speed. I think that's explained by the higher proportion of power that goes into keeping the climb at constant IAS when the speed is higher. What explains the higher test climb at low speeds, perhaps I over represented the drag due to the downforce of the tail, but I also didn't consider the higher wing and fuselage drag at higher AoA (not explicit in the files) so I considered that a wash.
Bravoooo, well done , super , awesome
I am having so much trouble hitting with mig guns, any tutorial for settings, how to aim etc plz
Lmao thanks.
Not really. Only thing that could help is watching my Mig15Bis video.
Wing Commander Abhinandan also had problems with his mig :p
“Let’s climb right into it”. Lolll. I see what you did there
Did you now?
adam the war thunder einstein
That's the highest praise I've ever received.
Good Video, but I think you missed the point that the weight decrases with altitude what makes some planes more efficient at high altitudes (P 47, Fw 190 D 12/13, Ta 152) - not that important but it would've been a nice fun fact ^^
What do you mean weight decreases with altitude? If you mean that fuel is burnt and hence the weight of the plane becomes lower, that's true but also applies to every plane (to differing degrees, but not a significant difference in most cases).
@@AdamTheEnginerd No I mean the lower gravity (lower stall speed ect.) and the thinner air (more hp required to stay climb ect.)
In real life gravity is 99.9% of the gravity at sea level at like 15km. Gravity is considered a constant, and it's likely a constant in WT.
The thinner air is considered because I gave climb speeds in IAS. 300 IAS provides the same aerodynamic forces at sea level and at 5000m, that's the definition of IAS.
Nice. Finally someone is putting some sense into the head of WT players. Climbrate is a function of speed and not AoA as most players seem to believe. Every time I ask I always get some answer in about 15° - 25° ...😜
Now, if we just get google doc with the optimum climbing speeds for any aircraft in the game, please.
When they say "climb at 20 degrees", that's not AoA, it's just the angle over the horizon. But yeah climbing at constant IAS is the way to go.
@@AdamTheEnginerd yeah im trying to remember my flight pyhsics. Haven't really flown since my stroke 15 years ago. AoA is the Angle between airfoil centerline and direction of movement. The other ist where the nose is pointing.
Precisely!
This model of climbing forces is much simplified. When climbing at low speed, the Lift from wings is not enough to counter Weight, leading to increasing of AoA, sacrificing Thrust and producing Drug. Weight and Lift are not acting on the same point, and the effectiveness of stabilizer should not be ignored. The situation is more complex than a single formula can explain.
It's more that the climb angle increases at low speed, so some of the thrust helps the lift to counter weight, and this effect is included in the code. The stabilizer effect is also approximated in the code.
The formula is simple, but what goes into it isn't ;).
Never realized an aircraft produced drug if an angle of attack exceeds its effective aoa
All the advocates of the "zoom" climb should see this video.
I agree! Some have seen it and still disagree that zoom climbing isn't inefficient!
@@AdamTheEnginerd just doesnt make any sense to disagree when you see the evidence. Maybe you could do another video showing the difference when you climb properly in different aircraft vs zoom climbing.
@@AdamTheEnginerd Would this be relevant for planes like the MiG-29 which possess (T-D)/W ratios above 1? Does the concept of an optimum climb angle still apply to these planes at all, since they can accelerate even when flying vertically upwards?
It still applies. Optimal climb is never 90° even if T/W > 1. For planes like that which are generally supersonic, they climb at constant Mach number (M0.9 for example).
I don't disagree that zoom climbing is inefficient. Though experience say that it is by far the best tactic (or atleast used to be, the meta is really weird now). It's a matter of gettin to altitude as fast as possible and in tg least amount of distance possible
Ah yes finally! You even said the magic words.
Comrade?
"Hey hey people..."