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.
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)
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
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.
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
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.
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
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*
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.
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)
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* )
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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
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/
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.
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?
@@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
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.
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.
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)
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 have found that using manual radiators helps because the AI closes them during WEP automatically. Keeping them open a bit on a climb lets me WEP climb longer negating the effects of a little extra drag; seems to make a small difference on most fighters.
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.
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.
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.
But isn't the main problem (about the practical use) the horizontal distance you're travelling while climbing at maximum efficiency? There's no use if you climb at 450km/h in a 10 degrees angle because you'll find yourself below the enemy who decided to climb at a steeper angle and do not rush towards you. In the F-89B I always find myself in an uncomfortable situation if I climb at a high speed and meet the enemy at medium altitude because there's people above me who will see me because their teammates below me spotted me and will climb for me while I can't keep an eye on all of them.
Let's say you and the enemy both have the same planes (262). Climbing at 475 km/h will yield the best climb rate, so you'll be above the enemies who climbed at 350 at 15° even though you climbed at 475 at 12°. That's why it's the best speed for maximum climb rate that matters, not the horizontal distance. A high climb speed does mean you'll meet the enemy sooner and on their side of the map. If you don't want that, you can climb to the side.
@@AdamTheEnginerd You're right. I just realized that I did not consider the fact that a further horizontal distance travelled at higher speeds in a climb would also result in more altitude. I had the lower speed of a steeper climb, that I'm more used to, in mind when thinking about this.
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.
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.
It's called the "local host". How to access the "local host": You need to be running War Thunder or it won't work! Option 1: on the same computer that is running WT: -Type localhost:8111/ in the address bar and press enter and voila. Option 2 (which also works on the computer that runs WT): -Type Your_IP_Address:8111/ where you replace "Your_IP_Address" by your IP Address (192.168.X.XXX) in the address bar and press enter and voila, you can look at the characteristics on another device while flying.
It's called the "local host". How to access the "local host": You need to be running War Thunder or it won't work! Option 1: on the same computer that is running WT: -Type localhost:8111/ in the address bar and press enter and voila. Option 2 (which also works on the computer that runs WT): -Type Your_IP_Address:8111/ where you replace "Your_IP_Address" by your IP Address (192.168.X.XXX) in the address bar and press enter and voila, you can look at the characteristics on another device while flying.
Why does the optimal climb speed at 5:45 not drop with altitude? It is well documented that V_y tends to drop with altitude, even with identical engine power.
Special case where the Bf109's prop efficiency increases with speed to increase optimal climb speed exactly the same amount as the reduction in air density reduces optimal climb speed.
What is this simulation you do and use for these? I’d love to actually learn how to work and apply these formulas and the parts inside the formulas to do my own calculations on aircraft I love to fly in the game
It's the simulation I coded on Matlab haha. I can send the code if you ask me on Discord, but unless you have Matlab it won't work. Python is pretty similar though.
![Climb Gradient Explained - [All you need to know about your minimum rate of climb].](/img/n.gif)
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_
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
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
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
@@doch.8039 our 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 ;)
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.
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 :)
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.*
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!
*_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.
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!!!
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.
AAAAAH I FEEL GOOD...after realizing that I was climbing perfectly with my Me 262
Haha congrats!
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Really well done!
Thanks Greg! I'm a big fan of your channel if you hadn't noticed ;).
now need a spreadsheet for climb
Some exist, but they are a bit inaccurate in my opinion.
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!
Rewatching this after I learned more things.
It was already very clear, but now it's even better!
Nice glad to hear it!
this is why for me, you are the best wt air rb youtuber.
Thanks for the praise! Eventually best UA-camr all around eh?
Adam514 the skies the limit brother lmao
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.
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
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.
Another godly useful and perfact video
thank you, adam!
Thanks, and my pleasure!
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!
Without further ado, let’s *climb* right into it,
Hah, classic dad joke right here.
I had to.
The way you say thrust sounds so good, no idea why
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
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!
There was more math than expected..
Thanks!
My pleasure!
Finally I understood what SEP is! Thank you very much!
My pleasure!
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!
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.
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.
Thanks Adam, nice video and very helpful.
My pleasure!
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.
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!
Love the technical videos. Keep them coming.
Thanks! It's my plan!
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).
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.
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.
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
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
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 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/
thanks for sharing Adam, we really appreciate it!
My pleasure!
Excelent video!! I was searching for a video like this for a long time. Cheers mate.
Thanks mate!
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 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
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.
Great! I love that you made another graph video!
Thanks!
Love the best lasagna at the end
Good music.
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
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!
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/
I learn a lot with your videos,best WT channel.
Thanks mate!
Finally thank you man
My pleasure man!
this just a game of RoC paper scissors...
Not bad!
very intersting topic, nicely done
Thanks mate!
adam the war thunder einstein
That's the highest praise I've ever received.
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.
Adam is very unique thank you bro for sharing this knowledge its very educational
My pleasure bro!
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.
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.
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!
I have found that using manual radiators helps because the AI closes them during WEP automatically. Keeping them open a bit on a climb lets me WEP climb longer negating the effects of a little extra drag; seems to make a small difference on most fighters.
Yeah for sure. Radiator drag is pretty small during climb, extra WEP time more than offsets that.
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...
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.
TL;DR Aerodynamics for naval Aviators. Nah seriously well put Adam, and anyone remotely interested in this kind of things go read "The book"
Thanks mate!
"The book" is an approach from the pilot's point of view. I much prefer the engineering point of view.
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.
Ah yes finally! You even said the magic words.
Comrade?
"Hey hey people..."
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.
But isn't the main problem (about the practical use) the horizontal distance you're travelling while climbing at maximum efficiency?
There's no use if you climb at 450km/h in a 10 degrees angle because you'll find yourself below the enemy who decided to climb at a steeper angle and do not rush towards you.
In the F-89B I always find myself in an uncomfortable situation if I climb at a high speed and meet the enemy at medium altitude because there's people above me who will see me because their teammates below me spotted me and will climb for me while I can't keep an eye on all of them.
Let's say you and the enemy both have the same planes (262). Climbing at 475 km/h will yield the best climb rate, so you'll be above the enemies who climbed at 350 at 15° even though you climbed at 475 at 12°. That's why it's the best speed for maximum climb rate that matters, not the horizontal distance. A high climb speed does mean you'll meet the enemy sooner and on their side of the map. If you don't want that, you can climb to the side.
@@AdamTheEnginerd You're right. I just realized that I did not consider the fact that a further horizontal distance travelled at higher speeds in a climb would also result in more altitude. I had the lower speed of a steeper climb, that I'm more used to, in mind when thinking about this.
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.
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.
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.
i really enjoyed this video and it helped a lot, thanks!
My pleasure!
Would be nice if we could get a tested true max climb rate for all aircaft, because that Seafire FR47 stat card climb rate *feels like a lie*.
Stat cards always lie.
how do you get that black box in the top left?
It's called the "local host".
How to access the "local host":
You need to be running War Thunder or it won't work!
Option 1: on the same computer that is running WT:
-Type localhost:8111/ in the address bar and press enter and voila.
Option 2 (which also works on the computer that runs WT):
-Type Your_IP_Address:8111/ where you replace "Your_IP_Address" by your IP Address (192.168.X.XXX) in the address bar and press enter and voila, you can look at the characteristics on another device while flying.
Think you could make those graph calculators you use to plug in numbers/get a graph available or do you make it all piece by piece?
It would be possible, if prop efficiency didn't require going into test flight.
Wait... I remember jets gaining thrust from getting faster
Jets lose thrust from M0 to M0.5, and then start regaining thrust above M0.5.
"and W is for weight"
My dumbass: W for wumbo.
Lmao maybe one day.
@@AdamTheEnginerd Lol. Love your vids btw.
@@mewstiq Thanks for the support!
hell ya i learned something!
Glad to hear that!
“Let’s climb right into it”. Lolll. I see what you did there
Did you now?
Hey Adam! What program or plugin do you use to display the real time vehicle info?
It's called the "local host".
How to access the "local host":
You need to be running War Thunder or it won't work!
Option 1: on the same computer that is running WT:
-Type localhost:8111/ in the address bar and press enter and voila.
Option 2 (which also works on the computer that runs WT):
-Type Your_IP_Address:8111/ where you replace "Your_IP_Address" by your IP Address (192.168.X.XXX) in the address bar and press enter and voila, you can look at the characteristics on another device while flying.
@@AdamTheEnginerd wow that's pretty cool, didn't realize it was baked in to WT itself!
So it's not bannable!
Why does the optimal climb speed at 5:45 not drop with altitude? It is well documented that V_y tends to drop with altitude, even with identical engine power.
Special case where the Bf109's prop efficiency increases with speed to increase optimal climb speed exactly the same amount as the reduction in air density reduces optimal climb speed.
@@AdamTheEnginerd Wow! That's cool.
My mind =
BOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMM
Hahaha is that good?
So what you're saying is don't put my Bf-109 K-4 into WEP and set the climb to like 15-20°?
Not at all, WEP will help you climb for sure. Just climb by IAS, not angle.
What is this simulation you do and use for these? I’d love to actually learn how to work and apply these formulas and the parts inside the formulas to do my own calculations on aircraft I love to fly in the game
It's the simulation I coded on Matlab haha. I can send the code if you ask me on Discord, but unless you have Matlab it won't work. Python is pretty similar though.
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.
Very informative video
Thanks (:
My pleasure!
Attempt no.2 please make a video of the allison p 51 canonstang.
I already did! ua-cam.com/video/GPeQYCzHB24/v-deo.html
I enjoy this waay more than physics class
Same thing!