WGS Maximum Altitudes and Climb Rates

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Hello all,

After taking delivery of the latest edition of the rules in the form of the WGS Rules and Accessories Pack I took the opportunity to bring togther about three years worth of tinkering with the formula for identifying WGS maximum altitudes and climb rates. I have used reference books from my own library and online resources to identify ‘real world’ recorded climb rates and operational ceilings for all the official WGS aircraft makes and models. In all cases I have gone to more than one source to identify the recorded statistics that are most likely to be correct.

Some of the references I used include:
Jane’s Fighting Aircraft of WW2
Hitler’s Luftwaffe (Woods/Gunston)
Concise Guide to Axis Aircraft of WW2 (Mondey)
Aircraft of the Aces (Osprey)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
http://www.catalystwwiifacts.com/
http://acepilots.com/
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/
http://ww2total.com/WW2/
http://www.j-aircraft.com/
http://www.jplanes.com/
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/
http://www.warbirdsforum.com/
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/i16_5.shtml


I then compared these statistics to the ‘official’ WGS statistics for these same aircraft. After spending many hours crunching the WGS climb rate and altitude numbers, to say the results have many inconsistencies is an understatement.

MAXIMUM ALTITUDES

This was the easy part. After examination of the official WGS aircraft I found the following formula to be generally true:

('Real world' operational ceiling in metres rounded up to next 1000 divided by 1000) + 1 = Maximum Altitude

The additional +1 has only been included since the lowest altitude band changed from '0' to '1'.

For example: The Supermarine Seafire Mk.IIC has a 'real world' ceiling of 11700 metres. The formula is therefore 11700 rounded to 12000/1000 = 12 +1 = 13

Out of the 43 official WGS aircraft types only 12 are not consistent with this formula. Many of these inconsistencies can be simply explained by the use of slightly different ceiling limits published in different resources, or the use of statistics for versions using different power plants, etc.

I have tabluated the official WGS 'maximum altitudes', real world ceilings (in metres), and the 'consistent' maximum altitudes. Yellow indicates the altitude is one too high, and green that it is one too low:



Posted for information and comments.

Again I will make the disclaimer that I have made efforts to ensure the 'real world' recorded statistics are the most accurate I could locate in the literature available to me, however there will be conflicting data that may or may not be more accurate.

I will also post the results of my climb rate enquiries on this thread tomorrow.

Cheers,

Carl.

[Baldrick62]

An impressive, and comprehensive, piece of research. The dilemma now is whether to go 'official' or 'accurate' for the sake of 1 height level!

[Carl_Brisgamer]

As I said Baldrick, this is the easy part. One level at maximum altitude is not likely to make much difference to most games.

The Climb Rates are the messy part, and I'll be addressing that in tomorrow's post.

Cheers,

Carl

[Doug]

Thanks for that Carl a very fine and useful peice of research which I for one will be useing

[Jager]

Certainly metric makes more sense (in more than one way) given the designers' nationality.
And thanks for the bibliography (is there a different term for on-line sources??). I will be making use of them as well.
Karl

[calm]

Veru usefull !

Thanks !

[Kermit]

I was trying to compare my notes on planes but found the unalphabetical list a bit difficult to look stuff up. So here is Carl's list in order...


I'll check my numbers and get back to you on this.

[Kermit]

This is what I came out with...

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Thanks for your contribution Kermit.

A few minor differences, but as I stated in the first post many sources have different numbers. The Seafire Mk.IIc is a great example. Your max altitude is 9753 metres (32,000 feet), which is the number published on wiki and many flight sim websites. However trials conducted at Boscombe Down Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment in October 1942 established the Seafire Mk.IIc's service ceiling (the maximum altitude where the aircraft can maintain a climb rate of at least 1,000 ft/m) was 37,500 feet (11430 metres) and an absolute altitude of 38,400 feet (11700 metres). Where possible I go back to primary sources for information like this - the internet is a great tool for research but there are a lot of dodgy numbers out there that get replicated across many websites until they become accepted as fact.

Have a look at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ - a concentrated goldmine of primary sources which I use regularly for WGS research, in addition to others included in the post above.

I also noticed you separated some aircraft types (B-17E, B17F/G for example). I left them together on purpose to replicate the altitude chart in the WGS RAP.

Even given the variances in climb rates from different sources, the formula still proved consistent with the majority of official WGS aircraft types, and where there are differences most are only one level up or down. This is the result I was seeking with the formula (operational ceiling in metres rounded up to next 1000 divided by 1000) + 1 = Maximum Altitude.

Cheers,

Carl.

[Kermit]

Funny story about the Seafire IIC. I was very tired when I was gathering info last night or the night before and I got frustrated because I couldn't find Spitfire IIC stats anywhere. Took me awhile to realize it was Seafire not Spitfire. I didn't notice wiki stats but the figure is the same as my source of [World War II Airplanes Volume 1, Enzo Angelucci, Paolo Matricardi, 1976].

I separated them because the figures I had for B-17E were different than B-17F/G. In [Aircraft of WWII, Stewart Wilson, 1998] it lists B-17E at the number I put down.

I don't seem to have any official numbers of WGS climb/altitude for the newest planes. The most current one is 48 pages but all I have found online and from my sets are around 32/34 pages.

I was trying to calculate climb rates but nothing matches up. Partly worried some of my data might not be correct which is causing problems. Since a game turn isn't defined by a set period of time, one cannot use that as a gauge to determine a starting point. Plus climbing isn't consistent to begin with. Some climb faster at higher elevations, some have a sharper angle of climb, density of air, etc.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Hi Kermit,

I will post my findings on climb rates with sources soon - but it's not something I want to do at midnight after a 16 hour day.

Again my goal will be a formula consistent enough with the RAW to allow official and unofficial aircraft to 'co-exist' on the table without too much trouble. And I'm hoping once I'm done no one else will have to spend days churning through the same research!

I have three days off from Wednesday, that might be a suitable time.

Cheers,

Carl