Aircraft Rate Of Climb Explained

Get cool MERCH and support the channel at: teespring.com/stores/adamthee...
Manual Engine Control settings:
Bf109K4 (20 min fuel):
-20% radiators
P51D30 (31 min fuel):
-100% prop pitch
-60% radiators
Ki43 (20 min fuel):
-100 prop pitch
-30% radiators
Me262A1 (20 min fuel)
In this video, I explain how aircraft climb and the factors that go into climb, and I run simulations (with my very efficient code) and compare the results with climb tests.
Try to find the reason why at higher speeds the simulation climb is higher than the test climb, while the difference is much smaller at low speed. I think I've figured it out.
Special thanks to Sinani210 for climb discussions.
End screen music:
Bitch Lasagna by PewDiePie x Party In Backyard
• Bitch Lasagna (INSTRUM...
New video every Friday!
Like and Subscribe for more!
%----------------------------------------------------------------------%
Useful links:
Maneuvering Energy Retention spreadsheet:
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Sea level speed spreadsheet:
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Link to the Discord of my squadron:
/ discord
Follow me on Twitter:
/ adam5143

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Which topic would you like to see covered in my next technical video? Like the preferred topic below!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Battle of the Graphs: 7.0 Jets

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Mythbusting: Do Heavy Aircraft Dive Better Than Light Aircraft?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Laminar flow and its effects on performance (P51 case study)

[@thevenomguy1215]

@@AdamTheEnginerd when I think about equations that I know weight doesn't have any effect but I might be wrong

[@user-ox3ss3he9c]

Wanna see all 3 . But 7.0 jets first!

[@andrewaviles7970]

"Let's climb right into it"

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Nice pun?

[@141Zero]

You've got to be pretty high to laugh at that joke

[@Kay_213_]

High as a Dutch Astronaut

[@muhammadshayanusman5540]

@@141Zero XD

[@zerron2156]

​@141Zero you don't have to be such a _downer_

[@charliec8434]

Did I just saw matlab in a warthunder vid? Omg dude you’re a living legend.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Hahaha thanks! I've used Matlab for most of my technical videos!

[@user-do5zk6jh1k]

@@AdamTheEnginerd Lol. That's what I used for aero when I was at USAFA.

[@jilezka]

@@AdamTheEnginerd A fellow MATLAB connoisseur, I see

[@mr.abrams9885]

I have acquired *K N O W L E D G E*

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Knowledge is specific excess power.

[@serdarcam99]

İn Turkey we have excellent word : The pen is sharper than the sword

[@rn-zu5ld]

@@serdarcam99 and the AP ammo is sharper than the pen

[@serdarcam99]

Pen invented that technology

[@tugalord]

@@rn-zu5ld and the apdsfs the sharpest of all

[@doch.8039]

We will watch your career with great interest, young Canadian

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

"Young" I don't think you know what that word means.

[@MasterChief773]

Adam514 How old are you?

[@doch.8039]

Big Stud he’s my dad

[@jaiell2049]

@@doch.8039 our Dad

[@left_ventricle]

Adam514 you’re an University student right? I think so. Also: **WHY NO TEMPEST IN THE VIDEO**

[@onyourkilllist6880]

*_Any thought about creating a google doc with this excellent data Adam? I would literally pay for it!_*

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It would take many hours to make haha.

[@onyourkilllist6880]

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.

[@NvrchFotia]

Adam514 just include the exact data points and stuff and I’ll put it in a google sheet (if I’m not feeling lazy).

[@martijn9568]

@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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

10-20km/h yeah.

[@lemonzest8650]

Me: **has learned something** Also me: **climbs completely vertical at 200km/h**

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Lmao!

[@EyMannMachHin]

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 ;)

[@vicsaucey]

0:24 "Let's climb right into it!" Seriously? Again? The puns intensify...

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I had to use it for this video though!

[@vicsaucey]

@@AdamTheEnginerd *That's what they all say, Adam.*

[@darioortiz74]

Excelent video!! I was searching for a video like this for a long time. Cheers mate.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks mate!

[@theozonloch]

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)

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks! Hahaha glad you like them!

[@JuanLopez-tn4my]

you made me learn in 7 minutes what my physics teacher couldn't in 3 months

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Hahaha I think your physics teacher would be sad to hear that.

[@user-do5zk6jh1k]

Because this topic isn't the job of your physics teacher. Take aero engineering.

[@thatguyalex2835]

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. :)

[@SM-ce9ce]

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!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Haha that'll never happen. Just people playing to win will never happen, and that's quite straightforward.

[@DoctorDeadly1207]

very useful video......thank you for all your hard work in testing and in making graphs

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure!

[@just-another-being]

Dude you have completely changed my gameplay, and this type of videos are my fav ty for putting this together for us

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure mate!

[@6995adam]

Thanks Adam, nice video and very helpful.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure!

[@major_kukri2430]

Love the technical videos. Keep them coming.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks! It's my plan!

[@141Zero]

Amazing gameplay and useful technical data, you're the best Warthunder youtuber Adam.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks for the praise!

[@SpookyPilot]

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👌

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure!

[@sungyunkim7450]

Another godly useful and perfact video thank you, adam!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks, and my pleasure!

[@HochgeborenKlown]

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???

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

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.

[@HochgeborenKlown]

@@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...

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

@@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.

[@playerguy2]

@@AdamTheEnginerd The 'short' answer seems a bit longer than expected but I don't think I'd be satisfied with anything less.

[@mrdisher163]

Love these kinds of topics, keep it up.👌🏻👌🏻

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks! That's my plan!

[@Kartushka69]

Great! I love that you made another graph video!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks!

[@Alpakinator]

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

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Hahaha I'll be sure to use them more often! Some are still proponents of zoom climbing even after watching the video though.

[@paskovalokki6589]

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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

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.

[@paskovalokki6589]

We dont disagree on anything then :)

[@osmanr85]

thanks for sharing Adam, we really appreciate it!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure!

[@mtanewyorkcitytransit6707]

i really enjoyed this video and it helped a lot, thanks!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure!

[@isni1946]

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

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Really well done!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks Greg! I'm a big fan of your channel if you hadn't noticed ;).

[@meatticus992]

Wow I just learned about this this week in my aerodynamics class. Nice video as always!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks mate! Any corrections you'd like to add?

[@meatticus992]

@@AdamTheEnginerd Nope this video is spot on. Especially with the explanation about how rate of climb is based on excess power.

[@brazilian3578]

I learn a lot with your videos,best WT channel.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks mate!

[@VoceNaLinhaAerea]

Finally! An engineer explaining what a pilot needs to know. I was sick and tired of empty explanations about it.

[@dasflieger3103]

This is what made me fall in love with the game. Also, good work, I really love these types of videos.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks mate! I make these kinds of videos from time to time.

[@Howdy762]

@@AdamTheEnginerd always my fav because of the detailed info you bring

[@theraindog4269]

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)

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

For sure, zoom climbing is inefficient!

[@victorgondry8797]

very intersting topic, nicely done

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks mate!

[@silience4095]

Rewatching this after I learned more things. It was already very clear, but now it's even better!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Nice glad to hear it!

[@britishfalcon9239]

Very informative video Thanks (:

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure!

[@kurtdizon_1104]

Adam is very unique thank you bro for sharing this knowledge its very educational

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure bro!

[@silience4095]

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]

Good project!

[@silience4095]

@@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.

[@IvanBaturaChannel]

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.

[@fulcrum2951]

Should've learnt this for my ground phase in flying school

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Gotta climb E F F I C I E N T L Y.

[@silience4095]

@@AdamTheEnginerd even an infinitesimal deviation is unacceptable!!!

[@Lemure_Noah]

Finally I understood what SEP is! Thank you very much!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure!

[@o_sch]

The way you say thrust sounds so good, no idea why

[@dallarian8687]

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).

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

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/

[@IHoowin]

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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks for the support!

[@FocusFrameMediaLLC]

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....

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Good voice change? You shouldn't get outclimbed by P47s in a K4 indeed haha.

[@FocusFrameMediaLLC]

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

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

At 260 IAS in an airspawn map, I wouldn't be surprised if P47M loading min fuel outclimbed you.

[@FocusFrameMediaLLC]

Adam514 oh... heh... oops

[@teeno91]

Without further ado, let’s *climb* right into it, Hah, classic dad joke right here.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I had to.

[@craigveurr452]

AAAAAH I FEEL GOOD...after realizing that I was climbing perfectly with my Me 262

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Haha congrats!

[@nando_br]

Nice explanation. U could explain the relationship between prop pitch and altitude / speed in the next video.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks! Like prop blade angle?

[@nando_br]

@@AdamTheEnginerd exactly.

[@willieo6025]

Wait till you start talking helicopters. There's a handful.

[@jpteknoman]

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

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I was doing something similar, but with 4 degrees of AoA. 4 degrees gets pretty close to optimal for most planes.

[@nodnerbhu]

THESE ARE AMAZING!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks! Could you explain what aspect of them make them amazing?

[@nodnerbhu]

@@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

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

@@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.

[@thunderousavenger7437]

Finally thank you man

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure man!

[@FocusFrameMediaLLC]

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... 😉

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Haha wouldn't it get repetitive? That's the kind of thing that a spreadsheet is for.

[@FocusFrameMediaLLC]

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)

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

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 KZbin without that imo.

[@mega-750]

thank you so much!!!!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure!

[@ConjointVR]

this is why for me, you are the best wt air rb youtuber.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks for the praise! Eventually best KZbinr all around eh?

[@ConjointVR]

Adam514 the skies the limit brother lmao

[@ynwafanmrks1817]

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?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I'll do a MEC video eventually.

[@ivan_talivan]

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!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I myself don't have such a table haha, and putting one together would takes days of work unfortunately. Thanks for the support!

[@MrAleksander99]

Hey Adam can you do a video on your controls and your set-up?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My controls are pretty much default, with MEC added.

[@FreedomForAll2013]

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

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

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.

[@radius507]

hell ya i learned something!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Glad to hear that!

[@mistysurge491]

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* )

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It's certainly inefficient! Haha prelude to the ultimate climb video!

[@fattyMcGee97]

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

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Haha thanks! Sleep is somewhat important though ;).

[@VJai]

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]

Compare them in what way? You consider nearly 8 min to be short (just asking)?

[@VJai]

@@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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I'd approximate LF best climb speed at 275 km/h.

[@AbhishekSingh-gy1zn]

Bravoooo, well done , super , awesome I am having so much trouble hitting with mig guns, any tutorial for settings, how to aim etc plz

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Lmao thanks. Not really. Only thing that could help is watching my Mig15Bis video.

[@asiftalpur3758]

Wing Commander Abhinandan also had problems with his mig :p

[@S4LeagueTBKing]

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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

They have high P/W and UK has good propellers.

[@jonnotuckster8856]

The uk has poor control surfaces in SB rudder and elevator are horrendous lol 😂

[@ynwafanmrks1817]

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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

More bias edition means worse?

[@ynwafanmrks1817]

@@AdamTheEnginerd Yes. The more slavic (worse) the more bias

[@ariefrachmansaleh8088]

adam, i think you need an intro for your videos...btw thank you for the informartion, you are always teach us how to be good at air rb 👍

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

What kind of intro? That's my goal, and my pleasure!

[@r-saint]

Mind is blown. I wish someone did a google graph with all the planes in the game and their perfect climb rates.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

That's unfortunately days of work haha.

[@r-saint]

@@AdamTheEnginerd Welp, we can put hope into your fans!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

On most planes it's too slow by 10-20 km/h.

[@19flick87]

Hi Adam, have you modeled air density in you simulation? Can this explain the difference between your simulation and test data with jet engine planes? Nice tech video anyway!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I did! So it doesn't explain the difference. Thanks!

[@DShazin]

Damn dude u are legend

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Haha thank you!

[@alienoftt4665]

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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

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 ;).

[@fulcrum2951]

Never realized an aircraft produced drug if an angle of attack exceeds its effective aoa

[@LazOyuncu61]

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

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I think I manage to make it serious enough while useful for WT players.

[@jonnotuckster8856]

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 )

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I understand what you mean. It's not really my area of expertise though.

[@jonnotuckster8856]

Ahhh ok bud just thought it would make an interesting vid Just a question do you play sim at all

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

@@jonnotuckster8856 Very sparingly.

[@jonnotuckster8856]

I’m new to SB as such just trying to get a grip of it tbh

[@LuizBarros99]

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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

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.

[@LuizBarros99]

@@AdamTheEnginerd makes sense, a shame that the I-225 has so many drawbacks...

[@bigbumrp671]

Adam you helped me a lot to play with planes in war thunder I hope you will play with tanks

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I've got 2 tank videos!

[@redluckog7008]

Haha, 2 min into the vid and I recognize this stuff from the first week of ap physics. Thanks for the explanation

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

You did aircraft climb in AP physics?

[@redluckog7008]

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

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Aircraft climb is pretty much a bloc on an incline with friction being tugged by a string haha.

[@user-do5zk6jh1k]

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.

[@huycan9518]

People playing games: just angle and side climbing People watching this video: god I wish I shouldn't skip the Physics class *lmao*

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

And then they realize the true inefficiency, that is their life.

[@diskring9564]

Yooo Adam, I have a question for you. What do you think of the Mig-19s? is it better than the Mig19pt? I would love to see you play it haha

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It's good. It's on my list!

[@skyscall]

I was hoping to see some info on how this changes when talking about supersonic aircraft. So far I found that zoom climbing in my F-104 was *almost always* quicker to altitude than IAS climbing

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It changes a bit. You should climb at constant IAS until you reach a certain Mach (around M0.9), and then climb at constant Mach for a bit. Then you level out and accelerate to Mach 1.25-1.5, and resume climbing. That climb profile would suit an aircraft like the F104. Be careful, it's not strictly about altitude. Energy is altitude and speed, so when you zoom climb you trade speed for altitude, so of course you reach higher altitudes earlier, but you'll still be lower on energy compared to an efficient gradual climb.

[@gnrl0]

Bit late of a response, but: You have to adapt your climbing technique to a mix of optimal climb with maximum Specific Exess Power (as shown in the video) and overcoming the drag at Mach numbers from ~0.9 to ~1.2. You might mant to look up the "Kaiser climb technique" or "Rutowski profile". Kaiser and Rutowski did research mid 20th century and describe the minimum time to reach a certain altitude. The optimum profile depends on the specific aircraft that is being flown

[@arleed1617]

Love the best lasagna at the end

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Good music.

[@anxietydisorders5917]

now need a spreadsheet for climb

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Some exist, but they are a bit inaccurate in my opinion.

[@joeg2293]

“Let’s climb right into it”. Lolll. I see what you did there

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Did you now?

[@ZdrytchX]

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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

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.

[@ZdrytchX]

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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

@@ZdrytchX Afterburning jets are different indeed.

[@cowboyforadalei4415]

My teachers May had learned this for me, cool

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Your teachers taught you this?

[@vincea1830]

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?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It would be possible, if prop efficiency didn't require going into test flight.

[@jdreyes3745]

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)

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

The first 2 planes you mention are poor climbers, not much you can do about that. Climbing efficiently always helps though.

[@sanderyolobuzeta4917]

Ty for the links bruh 😱😙

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Haha which links?

[@sanderyolobuzeta4917]

@@AdamTheEnginerd those with MER and Climb rates 😇

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure! Though the climb rate doesn't sound like mine.

[@bertibert6656]

It can speak?! Very Interesting Observation, but we have to continue Research. Jokes apart. Very Nice and Informative Video would love to see more. And my suggestion would be Rollrate. (If you need more Ideas) And never forget KZbin loves #educationalcontent

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

That's a quote? It's like my 15th voiced video! There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding roll rate as well. Thanks for the feedback!

[@bertibert6656]

@@AdamTheEnginerd All you need to know for now. www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/8e4hmb/hitlerbolt_spam/

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Lol good times.

[@bertibert6656]

@@AdamTheEnginerd I dont have it but i loved watching the slaughter. www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/8jpwm8/how_it_feels_to_play_the_hitlerbolt/

[@mayonotes9849]

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*

[@martijn9568]

Most planes aren't really based on a lot of real life data, especially the latest aircraft they've added.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

They already use mathematics for aircraft performance haha. All planes are based on real life data when available.

[@mayonotes9849]

@@AdamTheEnginerd I'm not saying real life mathematics, I mean THEIR mathematics, just like how they did for the shell penetrations.

[@Kpx7dude]

Attempt no.2 please make a video of the allison p 51 canonstang.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I already did! kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYHIgox5r611aJY

[@playerguy2]

There was more math than expected.. Thanks!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure!

[@siratthebox]

In regards to the 109K4's prop efficiency, can MEC improve this? If so, by how much?

[@bluthammer1442]

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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

270 IAS is more efficient than 350 IAS though.

[@MausOfTheHouse]

Hey Adam, can you make a detailed video about how SRAAM missiles work? I have been using them for a month and know how to use them, but some technical data would be nice coming from you.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Hmm maybe one day I'll make a video on missiles!

[@MausOfTheHouse]

@@AdamTheEnginerd in general? That's even better.

[@Arnechk]

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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

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.

[@Arnechk]

@@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

[@silverfortytwo9506]

Please could you fly out one of the 5.7 Griffon Spitfires or the Fw190 C? I'd love to hear your opinions

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I did a 5.7 Griffon in the past!

[@silverfortytwo9506]

@@AdamTheEnginerd Oh, I best take a look o7

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

@@silverfortytwo9506 Here it is! kzbin.info/www/bejne/epDRmmmwrtKVgbs

[@johnnybestjojo7789]

hey i might have asked before but i think you should do a vid on the spaded j2m3

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It's on my list!

[@johnnybestjojo7789]

Adam514 that’s great to hear! I’ve gotten 8 kills in it as only a moderately skilled player, I can’t wait to see what someone at your skill level can do with it.

[@icetheking4310]

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

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

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.

[@ryangawer6785]

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

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

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.

[@mememaster42O]

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.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

When already in the match yeah, but harder target isn't a factor during the initial climb.

[@stefanmichaelsenzegarra5688]

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.

[@stefanmichaelsenzegarra5688]

Used to

[@MiSt3300]

Thanks for a thorough explanation Adam, but if I want to know what is the optimal climbing speed of a particular aircraft of mine, what should I do? I am neither as skilled a programmer as you are nor good with graphs, so is there any easy way to count it without resorting to long and tedious tests? -Thanks a lot, Nick

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Only recourse is testing then. Do climb tests spaced 10-15 IAS apart and see which one gives the best climb rate. If there were an easier way, everyone would use it.

[@MiSt3300]

@@AdamTheEnginerd ok, thanks Adam!