Badboys Flight Test Centre Version 1.

03 Feb 20
Copyright Leon Badboy Smith 2007

Introduction
Aerodynamic theory can be used to predict an aircrafts performance characteristics, but the only way to
know for sure how that aircraft will perform, is to flight test it. In the real world, pilots who carry out such tests
are expected to have a strong background in academics, and military flying. With impeccable academic
credentials and extensive experience, they would attend one of a very limited number of military schools,
and for American or British pilots that would be either the US Air Force Test Pilot School, at Edwards AFB in
the Mojave desert, California, or the US Navy Test Pilot School at Patuxent River, Maryland, or the Empire
Test Pilots School, at Boscombe Down, England. These, already excellent and experienced pilots, would
then undergo a year of specialized and intensive training. Fortunately for us, testing the aircraft in a flight
simulation does not require such a rigorous approach. However, as the flight models become more
sophisticated, the methods we use in order for the resulting data to be of use, grows ever closer to those
used in the real world. Virtual test pilots still require a high degree of skill and in depth knowledge of the
simulation they are testing, and that makes it more difficult, more interesting, and for many, more fun.
The main advantage we have over real test pilots, is that safety doesnt matter for us! We can carry out tests
in a manner that no real test pilot would entertain for a moment. We can carry out hard turns with our
wingtips ploughing furrows in the waves, we can dive steeply until parts of our aircraft break off, we can do
things that would induce vomit, burst blood vessels, and strain the muscles of lesser mortals, and we can do
it with a smile!

Objectives
The objective of flight-testing is to gather the data required to accurately describe the capabilities of an
aircraft. In the real world, the situation is complicated by the myriad variations in parameters that culminate in
variations in results between tests carried out at different times and different establishments. Such things are
the result of variations in engine condition, the aircrafts condition, instrumentation, the weather and of
course pilot skill, and that all inevitably leads to contention. In a simulation, similar aircraft all perform in
exactly the same way under the same conditions, and since the atmosphere and instrumentation is identical
for every aircraft and every flight test, the work is easier for us than for our real world counterparts. However,
real test pilots have the advantage of a great deal of special instrumentation that is not available in
simulations, so our objective is simply to gather the data that is available, as accurately as possible, and
make the best possible use of it.

Outcomes
There are very few limits to what can be achieved in flight-testing flight simulations. However, because some
simulations allow greater or less resolution in their instruments and other features, there are always real
constraints. In Aces High it is possible to collect enough data to engineer a complete Energy Maneuverability
(EM) analysis for certain configurations. Such an analysis can be used to compare the performance of
different aircraft, like the comparison between the Aces High II Spitfire Mk IX and the NIK2-J shown below,
for example.
In order to carry out this type
of analysis various flight
tests need to be performed
as consistently as possible,
for the purpose of reverse
engineering some of the
unknown parameters and for
verifying and validating the
resulting diagrams.

AH2 Energy Maneuverability Diagram

dps

0 ft ASL - WEP - 25% fuel

45

Spit IX
NIK2

400ft
6g
500ft

40
5g

35

600ft

4g

700ft
800ft

30
25

The Tests

20

There are only three simple

flight tests required for each
configuration, one sustained
turn test, one climb test and
one speed test. However,
when you consider that the
number of different

15

900ft

3g

2g

10
5
0
50

75

100

Copyright Leon "Badboy" Smith 2004

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

mph

Badboys Flight Test Centre Version 1.03 Feb 20

Copyright Leon Badboy Smith 2007

configurations that need to be tested include the use of full military power and WEP, four different fuel loads,
and a multitude of different external stores including bombs, rockets and drop tanks, over a range of several
different altitudes. All of which leads to a large number of possible permutations. However, in my opinion this
work can be simplified, because I use the diagrams to exhibit an aircrafts best possible performance, and so
initially I work with the sort of clean configuration in which one might choose to enter a hard maneuvering
engagement. For example, 25% fuel and no external stores. That leaves us with a choice between only the
power and flap settings and a range of altitudes, say seal level, 10,000ft, 20,000ft and 30,000ft. With three
flight tests for sea level and one for each altitude, that still leads to quite a lot of flight testing if you wanted to
illustrate every possible configuration for each aircraft, even more for aircraft with several flap settings. That
is a great deal of work! These days I only bother with a complete analysis if I want to write an article for a
scenario. More often I do it to answer some specific question regarding two aircraft, for example, to resolve a
question regarding a normally more maneuverable fighter when burdened with external stores and full fuel
tanks, against a normally less maneuverable fighter in a clean configuration with low fuel. Or perhaps I notice
something in the arena that surprises me and I want to check it out.
So what are the tests? Basically there are only three flight tests required, a speed test, a climb rate test and
a sustained turn test. Lets consider all three.

Top Speed
The processing required from this test data is sensitive to error and so speed test results require an accuracy
of 1 mph. The aircraft should be flown to an altitude of about 2000ft above the altitude required for the test,
called the starting altitude, with the fuel burn rate set to the minimum value and the E6B calculator visible. If
the required altitude is sea level, the test should be conducted over water. At the starting altitude, fly straight
and level, preferably on autopilot. Once the speed has stabilized, shallow dive to the required altitude, so
that your speed increases to a value above the anticipated top speed, then wait while the speed decreases,
after perhaps ten or fifteen minutes, depending on the altitude, the speed becomes stable. It is better to do
the speed tests starting from a speed just above the anticipated top speed for that altitude, because the
aircraft will decelerate more quickly than it will accelerate and the test will be quicker. Once the speed has
stabilized, note the true airspeed value in the E6B calculator, then make a brief film for the records. Thats
the top speed test done.
Notes
This test is relatively easy to conduct and is generally undemanding for most pilots. Acceleration and
deceleration will be very slow close to the top speed and so great care should be taken to ensure that the
speed has remained constant for long enough to ensure that the flight conditions have completely stabilized.
A good way to judge if the speed is really stable is to use the auto-speed set at what you think is the current
top speed, and then watch the altitude. The reason is that the rate of climb or decent will be about 50ft/min
for just one mph above or below top speed. If the altitude doesn't change for a minute or so, then the speed
is going to be within one mph of the correct value. Generally though, if the speed hasnt changed for several
minutes, you will be ok.
Lastly, if you need to capture top speed values at a number of different altitudes, you can save some time by
starting at the highest altitude and shallow diving to each new altitude for each subsequent test. If you do the
test using WEP, you need to record the stable value, and not just the value you get when the WEP runs out,
and you can achieve that by only turning the WEP on close to the anticipated top speed value, thus giving
the speed time to stabilize before the WEP runs out.

Climb Rate & Speed

The processing required from this test data is not as sensitive to error and so test results only require an
accuracy of 10 ft/min, but you can get much better results with care. To find the climb rate at sea level, the
test should be conducted over water. The aircraft should be set to auto-climb (Alt X) and then throttled back
for level flight at sea level. Level flight will then be achieved close to the auto-climb speed. That is the speed
at which we want to determine the climb rate. When you are ready to conduct the test, apply full throttle (and
WEP if the test requires it) and allow the aircraft to climb until the speed stabilizes. Record the climb rate and
altitude from the E6B calculator (speed should stabilize by 1000ft) at that point and then take further climb
rate readings at intervals of 500ft. Knowing the climb rate at two or more evenly spaced altitudes just above
sea level allows the sea level climb rate to be estimated by extrapolation. To the find the climb rate at some
2

Badboys Flight Test Centre Version 1.03 Feb 20

Copyright Leon Badboy Smith 2007

altitude above sea level the process is much easier and only requires that you climb through the required
altitude in a steady state climb and read off the E6B climb rate as you pass through that altitude.
Notes
This test is not quite as easy to conduct consistently as the top speed test but with practice you can obtain
the climb rate to within 1 ft/min.

Sustained Turn
Before I explain how to conduct this test, I need to elaborate on stall fighting in general, and Im going to over
simplify a bit, and I hope that wont be too offensive for those of you aware of the liberties taken. So, stall
fighting is something specific to aircraft with propellers, because propellers produce more thrust at lower
speeds and so the best sustained turn performance occurs close to the accelerated stall, that is close to their
maximum angle of attack, unlike Jets, which produce less thrust at lower speeds and often have their best
sustained turn rates at a speed somewhere closer to their corner velocity, and in any case, at an angle of
attack well below their maximum. The objective of this test is to determine the shortest time for a 360 degree
level turn. For our propeller driven aircraft, this will occur close to the edge of the stall, when the aircraft is
developing maximum lift, but before the stall has spread over enough of the wing to reduce the lift, and thus
diminish the turn. Pyro has informed us that in Aces High this point occurs just at the moment that the stall
buffet begins.
This is an important point, because you need to think of the stall as a region, the best turn is now achieved
just on the edge of that region, and the edge is defined as the point when the stall buffet begins. Venture in
too deeply and the aircraft will begin to turn less effectively, because less and less of the wing will be
producing lift. So, to get the best sustained turn, you need to ride the edge of the stall buffet, but only just.
So, what has all that got to do with flight testing? Well, for the test to be of any value, we need to be sure we
find the optimum condition, and to do that, it helps to know whats happening So here goes.
This test needs to be carried out with the E6B calculator visible (zoomed so that it is small enough that it
does not hinder your view, yet still be readable) and a stop watch is required. This test will normally be
carried out at sea level with the fuel burn rate set to zero. At the required altitude, bank the aircraft into a
level turn making sure that the altitude is maintained within 200 ft. Do not use rudder to co-ordinate the
turn, adjust the bank angle in order to maintain horizontal flight! Increase the back pressure on the stick
gradually and increase the load factor (g) until the speed begins to drop. Maintain the turn as the speed
continues to fall while holding the aircraft just on the edge of the stall. Dont allow the speed to fall too quickly
as you get closer to the edge of the envelope, because this may cause an AoA overshoot more deeply into
the stall and possibly departure. Advice for avoiding departures at this stage would be to ensure only very
subtle lateral stick movements in order to maintain the level turn, and to only allow the speed to bleed off
very slowly until a state of equilibrium is reached. If you have difficulty avoiding wing drop, it is a good idea to
increase the stick damping in the roll axis as that will make it easier to avoid wing drop and wont invalidate
the test.
When the turn is stable, in speed and altitude, make a note of the speed and use a stopwatch to record the
time required for the compass heading to travel for at least three full turns. The cockpit compass is good for
that purpose. Holding the turn on the edge of the stall for that long will be difficult, but the good news is, it is
excellent practice for the Main Arenas. Divide your time by the number of complete turns you did to get the
time for a single 360 turn. Ideally, you should repeat the process as a check. The stable speed in the turn,
and the time are the only data required from this test.
Notes
This test requires a great deal of patience and skill. Establishing a stable turn where you are able to hold the
speed and altitude steady, during several 360 turns while watching the compass heading and using a stop
watch, is challenging. But you do get used to it! Some control damping can be very helpful in that respect,
and can allow you to fly very precise level turns on the edge, without stalling, but with a slightly increased
risk of pilot induced oscillations if you over compensate for errors in your flight path. Just dont forget to put
the settings back before going online. When you can hold the flight conditions stable while you obtain several
turn times that are within a tenth of a second of each other, you can be confident that your results are good.
But, as explained earlier, you need to careful you havent flown in deep stall and recorded less than optimum
conditions.

Badboys Flight Test Centre Version 1.03 Feb 20

Copyright Leon Badboy Smith 2007

Other things to be aware of are, beware of starting to time the test at a speed slightly above your intended
value, as the speed bleeds off, you get an artificially high turn rate. Similarly for changes in altitude, starting
at 400ft for example, and ending the test at 100ft will give an artificially high turn rate, and visa versa if you
gain altitude during the test. Small variations in altitude during the test are inevitable, and providing they are
small and you spend about as much time gaining altitude as losing and not all the same way, you should be
ok. One other important issue involved in reporting the test results are due to the difficulty in reading the E6B
calculator. For example, the speed will always oscillate up and down slightly even with acceptably small
changes in altitude, so I find that filming the test is still a good idea, because it allows you to more easily
judge what the average speed was during the test. I can often keep the speed stable within 2 mph anyway
so it is fairly easy to judge.
Lastly, if something happens during a flight test, say you push it too close to the edge and a wing drops, you
over compensate, and the altitude and airspeed all go outside of reasonable limits, just discard the test,
settle it down and go again. This flight test is certainly the most demanding, but it does have the benefit of
improving your control skills and giving you a feel for the aircraft handling characteristics, with the added
bonus of helping you to become a good stick

Flaps
Flaps have an important effect on turning performance, and it is not possible to use the normal testing
procedure for top speed with flaps extended because they auto-retract before that speed is reached.
However, it is possible to get to the same result by doing a climb test with the flaps extended, at a speed just
below the speed at which the flaps will auto-retract. You can do that by using the auto speed dot command.
So for example, if you are testing at full flaps and you notice that they auto-retract one notch at about
150mph then set the auto speed to 145mph by typing .speed 145 in the text buffer and then doing a climb
test as described earlier. That data will allow the top speed with flaps to be calculated so that the EM
diagram with flaps extended can be produced for each flap configuration required.

Flight Test Data

In order to produce a complete set of EM diagrams the table below needs to be loaded with data from the
tests and Ive shown a data set for a test carried out on an old version of Aces High
Aircraft
Spitfire Mk IX
NIK2-J

10,000ft

20,000ft

30,000ft

Top
Speed

Sustained
Turn speed

Sea Level
360
Time

Climb
rate

Climb
speed

Top
Speed

Top
Speed

Top
Speed

319
325

151
162

15.82
15.98

4123
4298

175
160

363
358

384
366

390
333

However, you need a similar set of data for every change in configuration, such as fuel load or armament. If
you are testing with flaps extended, the top speeds need to be replaced by climb rate data instead.
For example, I was curious to compare the full flap performance of the P-51B and the F4U1 at sea level with
WEP and in order to do that I obtained the following data.
Aircraft
P-51B
F4U-1

Sea Level
Top
Speed

Sustained
Turn speed

360
Time

Climb
rate

Climb
speed

123
99

21.69
19.32

1250
1106

155
130

10,000ft

20,000ft

30,000ft

Top
Speed

Top
Speed

Top
Speed

In this case you only need two flight tests for each aircraft because it isnt possible to get the top speeds with
the flaps fully extended but it is possible to estimate that from the climb and turn data resulting in the EM
diagram shown below. You can see from this EM diagram that the F4U-1 has a large area of superiority
(shaded green) where it can achieve higher turn rates and smaller turn circles.

How Big Are The Error Bars?

Anyone who has attempted to provide performance data for the flight simulation community will be aware
that they forever run the gauntlet between their fellow players credulity and cynicism. Criticism regarding
such data almost always relates to the procedures used to obtain it. The methods I use avoids this problem,
because the data collected from the flight tests is never presented directly, and wouldnt be very useful even
if it was. The tests are only used as a means of extracting secondary aerodynamic data and verifying other
data used in the flight model from which the graphs and charts that I publish are produced.
4

Badboys Flight Test Centre Version 1.03 Feb 20

Copyright Leon Badboy Smith 2007

The accuracy of the resulting energy maneuverability curves stand up by themselves, and as noted earlier,
provide a degree of accuracy with a finer resolution than the thickness of the lines used on the diagrams.

AH2 Energy Maneuverability Diagram

dps

Version 2.09 Patch 5

Sea Level, WEP, 25% fuel

40
4g

P51-B
F4U1

300ft

3.5g

35
3g

30

400ft

2.5g

500ft
600ft

2g

25

700ft
800ft

1.5g

20

15

10

0
50

70

90

Copyright Leon "Badboy" Smith 2007

110

130

150

170

190

210

mph

Of course players will always want to verify the graphs and diagrams they are being presented with, and the
credibility of these diagrams rests entirely on the test pilots ability to carry out accurate flight tests and
ensure that no discrepancies can be found. So far, after producing these diagrams myself for many years, I
have always succeeded. Rest assured that EM diagrams like the ones I publish have always been checked
and tested by the most cynical players, and they have never been found to be flawed in anyway, on the
contrary they have become valued for their accuracy. What this really means, in practical terms, is that the
error bars have so far been small enough that most players cant tell the difference between what they read
on the diagram and their own flight tests. The error bars are too small for them to find.
Of course, all measurement-based systems involve errors of some magnitude. The best we can ever hope
for is that the simulations true values agree well with our estimates of them. While we endeavor to achieve
a perfect fit, all the players really want is a simple, consistent and informative representation of it.
My strategy for discovering those true values has always been based upon repeated measurements. If those
measurements cluster tightly around some central value, we can safely assume that the central value of that
cluster is a suitable candidate for the true value. This may be unsatisfying to purists, but measurements
involve errors, and tight clustering is as good as it gets. There are ways to keep the error bars as small as
possible, ideally, so small that the players cannot find them! By using tests as described above that take a
couple of hours to fly, this can be done. With some mathematical/aerodynamic analysis, the final diagrams
can be calculated with a high degree of confidence.
Even after all that, in the past I still havent published results at that stage. I would also expect the results to
match closely with my experience of the aircraft in the arena, so I would still be looking for any obvious
anomalies that might inspire me to either re-test or look for factors that might influence any obvious
variations in performance. Credibility is so important, that when the diagrams show me an interesting result, I
then test it extensively during on-line combat. I dont rush to publish the information until I have verified it
online against some worthy opponents. Indeed, one of the major advantages of performing this type of
analysis is the ability to gain a tactical advantage from the resulting diagrams before they are made public,
its not just a safeguard, its a very worthwhile perk.