Aircraft Performance Comparison Test

[DogMD11]

Hello everyone! 

 

First time posting here, but I'm a long time player of the IL-2 series and am really enjoying the experience in VR.  I have always been interested in the different performance abilities of WWII aircraft, and thus decided to devise a little test to see how each of the aircraft in IL-2 measured up.  Please note that this is not a criticism of the performance of these aircraft in IL-2; I believe the devs have done their best and have made the performance of these aircraft as accurate as possible.  

 

 I flew each aircraft over a "course" I made up just based on different landmarks on the Kuban map and recorded the time it took for each aircraft to fly the "course".  Each aircraft was loaded with 50% fuel and empty (no ammunition or bombs).   I did not add or delete any guns/armor plate and took advantage of higher octane fuel and higher boost engines where available.  Each aircraft was left in full power for the duration of the test, and I let the IL-2 engine management system reduce power when time limits were reached.  The course was a "flying start" with each aircraft flying over the starting line at 150 MPH/240 Km/H at about 50 feet.  The rest of the course involved level acceleration at low level, two climbs at various points to 2000 feet (600 meters), and a high speed dive over the finish line.  I really enjoyed flying each aircraft, and had a lot of fun doing it.  Also, please understand that nobody is a perfect pilot, and that the times I recorded could easily be swayed by several seconds (one way or the other) depending on piloting technique.  

 

I do not have the Spitfire Mk V, Ju-52, or Po-2 in my inventory, so I don't have times for those aircraft.  I am looking forward to the Battle of Normandy aircraft and am eager to see how they rank in the performance test.  If anybody is interested, I will update the list when new aircraft become available.  Here's the list, enjoy!

 

 

lL-2 Aircraft Performance Test

Aircraft                                  Time

1.  Me-262                              2:36
2. Bf-109 K-4                          2:37
3. Tempest                              2:43
4. Tied:
    Spitfire Mk IXe                    2:45
    Bf-109 G-14                        2:45
    FW-190 D-9                        2:45
5. P-51D                                   2:49
6. P-47D-28                             2:53
7. FW-190 A-3                          2:54
8. Tied:
    FW-190 A-8                         2:55
    Bf-109 F-4                           2:55
9. La-5                                      2:59
10.Yak-9                                   3:01
11.Tied:
    Mig-3                                  3:04
    P-39 L-1                              3:04
    Yak-7B                                 3:04
12.Tied:
    Yak-1                                   3:09
    Bf-110 G-2                          3:09
13. MC-202                             3:14
14. Lagg-3                               3:15
15. Tied:
    P-40E                                  3:18
    Hurricane                            3:18
16. A-20                                  3:19
17. I-16                                     3:21
18. Bf-109 E-7                         3:24
19. Ju-88                                 3:35
20. Pe-2-87                             3:37
21. Il-2 1942                             3:49
22. Ju-87                                 4:03
23. Hs-129                               4:09        
24. He-111 H-16                       4:20

 

 

 

 

[Gambit21]

Where’s the Yak 1b?

[BlitzPig_EL]

Add increments of 5000 feet to your test till you get to 20,000, then tabulate the differences, then this may have some bearing on, well, something.

Not trying to be snarky, but putting these aircraft in a totally low level test regimen only discloses a tiny fraction of what they are about.

[CSW_606_Temp]

Fuel percentage Is nonsense. Half Fuel in Mustang Is for 1hour +. Half Fuel for Spitfire/bf is 20 min. U need same litres.

2000 feet Is toho little.

 

[DogMD11]

BlitzPig_EL,

Didn't take your comment as snarky, I agree with you.  I actually wanted to put some climb performance in my test, but the problem is that the indicated climb speeds for each aircraft are not published.  I even tried to find the proper climb speeds online, but it proved mostly futile.  Perhaps I should have named it Low Level Speed Test.  Besides, the climb rates, speeds, roll rates, etc. of these aircraft are well-known and documented and have been hotly discussed and debated over the past 80 years! 

 

CSW_606_Temp,

I'll have to politely disagree with you.  I used fuel percentage not as a matter of duration but as a matter of weight.  Weight is the single biggest factor in performance calculations; by giving every aircraft the same amount of fuel you are giving a big weight advantage to aircraft with a large fuel capacity and a disadvantage to those with a smaller capacity;  300 litres of fuel in a Bf-109 is almost full tanks, 300 litres in a P-47 is only about 25% full.  Fuel weight as a percentage of total weight is the only way to equalize the difference in fuel capacities in each aircraft.

 

I didn't want to stir up a hornets nest about aircraft performance; please understand that this was just a fun thing to do.  It was borne from a discussion with my friend about whether or not I could tell any big performance distinctions between the various aircraft.  I devised my little test just to see what the basic performance differences were.  I found the results interesting and I thought others would too.  Of course it is very limited in scope; it was meant to be.  I had a lot of fun doing it, and I thought others might enjoy seeing where their favorite airplane ranked.  

 

Gambit21, if you are still interested, I will run the Yak-1b through the test.

 

 

[CSW_606_Temp]

 But IRL or realistic server planes need Fuel. Your test with one plane Fuel capacity 20 min and second plane with capacity 1:30hod have no any value in comparison. Sorry.

What is meaning of this test?

Edited March 7, 2021 by CSW_606_Temp

[DogMD11]

My little test had nothing to do with duration, only about performance.  When talking about performance only, weight is everything.  Testing each aircraft at the same relative fuel weight is just a way of adjusting for the very different fuel capacities of each aircraft.  Of course, duration is very important, but my test wasn't concerned with that.  

 

The meaning of this test was to just have some fun and do a basic comparison of the various aircraft.  I thought it would generate some discussion and that people would enjoy the simple comparisons between each aircraft; maybe even come up with tests of their own.  It was challenging and fun to do and I thought it would be interesting to share the results.

[CSW_606_Temp]

If testing  performance, u need same weight of fuel. No 200kg on Spit and 500kg on mustang. But it is your time. Go make nonsense test ?

[DD_Arthur]

10 minutes ago, CSW_606_Temp said:

If testing  performance, u need same weight of fuel. No 200kg on Spit and 500kg on mustang.

 

Agreed. It is a rather strange test. Also, the “IL2 engine management system”??

[LColony_Kong]

Recommend redoing the test with each plane having the same fuel load in liters. For example, 200 liters for every plane. This is a much fairer comparison than 50%.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

To make it meaningful the fuel duration should be the same, like 40 Minutes of Fuel at max Continuous burn rate. For an I-16 that is full fuel, for a Mustang it is about 1/3rd. Giving them the same weight or Percentage doesn't make sense.