Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6385358" data-attributes="member: 4937">Without knowing what the numbers are supposed to mean just at first glance and using my instincts regarding vehicular movement simulation, then well, "No."One glaring example to me is that you have helicopters listed as having lower maneuverability than fixed swept wing monoplanes like jet fighters.  That fundamentally seems to misunderstand aerodynamics and the basic meaning of maneuverability.   In general, helicopters have many disadvantages compared to fixed wing aircraft - higher fuel use, slower speeds, and with that reduced range.  The reason we actually make helicopters is that they are highly maneuverable.   They can hover.  They can move in any direction including straight up and backwards.  They can change direction at will and do not need to face in the direction that they are moving.  That's normally how aerial maneuverability is defined.  They go up at the high end of the table along with angels and hummingbirds.  Just below helicopters would probably be directed thrust aircraft like the F-22 and SU-27.Just below them would be something like WWI era bi-planes and tri-planes which were built for maximum maneuverability before the advantages of speed in aerial combat were really realized.   They have excellent turn and climb rates, and are still used in specialized applications like crop dusting for that reason.  Just below that would be small monoplanes built specifically for aerobatics, aerial racing and flight combat training.  DHC-1 Chipmonks, ZIN-50Ms, Yak-55, SU-26, etc.   Below that is probably small prop fighters like the Japanese Zero, Spitfire, etc.Just below that would be small fighters like the F-5, F-16, Mig.21, etc.   After that, large jet fighters like the F-4, F-14, etc.   Note that just because the F-15 is built as an air superiority fighter doesn't mean that it was meant to excel at gun range dog fighting.  Modern air superiority fighters are all about winning the electronic war with superior radar and missile ranges.  That means heavy planes that, sans thrust vectoring, aren't necessarily that maneuverable (though still much more maneuverable than a 727, for example).  The small 'multi-role' fighters are typically better dogfighters.But really, some of this depends on what your actual rules are, and if you are trying to capture the maneuverability of aircraft from a wide range of technologies you are going to need special rules.   For example, big jet fighters are typically less maneuverable in terms of turn rates than small prop planes, but they do typically have tremendous thrust to weight ratios allowing them to stand on their tail and climb straight up in a way that a Sopwith Camel couldn't.</blockquote>

Verification