Re: Alternative Aircraft Ranking System

[Vendetta]

I was never a member on the old forum, but I was a frequent lurker, with a particular interest in the aircraft ranking system. It's a fascinating exercise, and a lot of time and thought went into producing it. But I was not always satisfied with the results. The system ranks a Beaufighter Mk X at 155.49, above a Spiteful (151.31) or a Meteor F.3 (151.83) - that in spite of it being over 150mph slower than either of them and completely outclassed in terms of agility, climb rate, and so on. Clearly, something was out of balance in how the system was weighting different factors - it seemed to be overvaluing range, firepower, bomb carrying ability, and sheer mass and durability. So how it could it be done better?

I began working on my own Excel sheets, building up a database and then trying out various iterations of my own formula. I found it pretty easy to create a system that would generate good results for your typical fighter of the period…but very hard to keep outliers from breaking the system. I spent a lot of time tinkering with the weights assigned to different values. No good. Fix one problem, and another would appear in its place.

What I realized the system needed was a way to account for diminishing returns. If I have a biplane with a 250mph top speed and 2 rifle-caliber guns, but a 10,000 mile range, do I have the best fighter of World War II? Obviously not, but if there's no factor that diminishes the value of range past a certain point, there's nothing stopping the system from telling me that my intercontinental biplane is better than a jet. Firepower is another case where this applies. Having four 20mm cannons on a fighter is a lot better than having one 20mm cannon. Four times better? Close enough. How about a fighter with sixteen 20mm cannons versus that fighter with four of them. Is that also four times better? Not really - those four 20mm cannons are already enough to shred almost any plane the fighter is going to come across, so most of the firepower from the extra twelve will just be redundant.

So mathematically, what will allow us to get the effect we want? Fractional exponents. Your standard square root is too blunt of a tool to work with. We need something that flattens the results more subtly. What happens when we take some data and raise it to the power of 0.95?

• 10: 8.91 (89%)
  50: 41.12 (82%)
  100: 79.43 (79%)
  150: 116.76 (78%)
  200: 153.45 (77%)
  250: 189.69 (76%)

A small but steady dropoff that squeezes the results closer. The difference between our bottom value and our top one shrinks from 240 to 180.78. What if we want to make things a little tighter than that? Let's try the power of 0.85:

• 10: 7.08 (71%)
  50: 27.81 (56%)
  100: 50.12 (50%)
  150: 70.74 (47%)
  200: 90.34 (45%)
  250: 109.21 (44%)

Now the spread has shrunk from 240 to 102.13. This method is the key to taming those wild outliers. Through a good deal of trial and error, I've incorporated this trick into my system and managed to get it producing results that, while still far from perfect, seem markedly improved over the ones assigned by the old system. My formula is still very much a work in progress, as you'll see when I break it down in detail.

Without further ado, here is the current equation I'm working with. In simplified form:
RATING = SPEED FACTOR + ALTITUDE FACTOR + RANGE FACTOR + AGILITY FACTOR + POWER FACTOR + ROLL FACTOR + DURABILITY FACTOR + GUN FACTOR + BOMB FACTOR - CREW PENALTY - ENGINE PENALTY - NORMING VALUE.

SPEED FACTOR is top speed of the aircraft in km/h, 1 point per 1 km/h. As with all other data in this project, I looked up each aircraft in a wide variety of sources. Since different sources often list different values for the same aircraft, the value I put into my database would be an average of each of the different figures I was able to find.

ALTITUDE FACTOR is the service ceiling of the aircraft in meters, divided by 100.

RANGE FACTOR is range of the plane in km, divided by 25, with the result raised to the power of 0.95. The range figure plugged into this equation is an average of combat radius with ferry range, and if found, combat range with drop tanks.

AGILITY FACTOR is derived from the wing loading in kg/sq meter. The equation is written as (50/((Average Weight/Wing Area)/1000))^0.8, with the average weight figure being the average of the plane's empty and normal loaded weights. The weird division going on produces a positive value that grows higher if the wing loading is lighter.

POWER FACTOR is our proxy for climb rate, calculated as 1000 times engine power (in kW) divided by average weight, with the result raised to the power of 0.85. The value for engine power averages the normal output of the engine with the maximum output possible using things like boost or WEP.

ROLL FACTOR is top speed of the aircraft of in km/h divided by its wingspan in meters. This is a pretty rough and sloppy way to approximate, but while the result is often questionable when comparing two specific aircraft, in general it tends to sort the slow rollers low and the fast rollers high.

DURABILITY FACTOR is empty weight in kg divided by the sum of the plane's length and height in meters, with the result divided by two. This one is another sloppy approximation. Due to the constraints of my own free time, and the desire to make a system that could be applied to less thoroughly documented aircraft, I have not yet tried to incorporate values for armor, bulletproof canopies, self-sealing tanks, etc. Using length plus height as a proxy for overall aircraft size seems questionable, but it worked better than multiplying them (the height figure is unreliable as a measure of fuselage diameter since it is generally the height with the landing gear down and often includes the tail). While the inputs are lazy and arbitrary, in practice the results tend to be satisfactory. The famously durable P-47, for example, scores significantly higher than the famously fragile G4M Betty bomber.

GUN FACTOR is the Offensive Armament value multiplied by two and raised to the power of 0.95, added to the Defensive Armament value ^ 0.95. Offensive armament consists of all fixed and forward firing guns; defensive armament of all turreted weapons. The actual values are placeholders for now, because I have not yet had the time to finish a rating system for different aircraft guns that I am fully satisfied with. For the time being, a 20mm cannon is 20 points, a .50 cal is 12.7 points, etc. Obviously, this is a shortcoming to be addressed by later updates, but actually, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem to make too big a difference in most cases.

BOMB FACTOR is the sum of the normal payload in kg, divided by 10, and the maximum payload, divided by 20. For all fighter-bomber aircraft, the normal payload is entered as 0, to reflect its use in a pure fighter mission. Maximum possible bomb load is valued only half as much as regular bomb load, since a plane will only be carrying that maximum load on a small fraction of its missions.

CREW PENALTY is a deduction of 10 points for every additional crewman beyond a single pilot. More bodies equals more weight and a small penalty on performance.

ENGINE PENALTY is a deduction of 25 points for every additional engine beyond the first one. This accounts for the additional drag that comes with multiple engines. There are a few exceptions to the rule, like the Do 335, with its tandem configuration, or the Avro Manchester and He 177, with their twinned engines, but the Manchester and He 177 had so many shortcomings, and the Do 335 has such outstanding performance anyway, that I felt comfortable leaving the penalty in place for them to keep things simple.

NORMING VALUE is a deduction of 650 applied to all aircraft. All these planes have at least a couple hundred km/h of speed, a few hundred kW of power, a few thousand meters of altitude, etc. This value accounts for all of those things; subtracting it thus accentuates the actual differences between them.

In Excelese, the formula thus looks like this: RATING=SPD+(RNG/25)^0.95+CLG/100+(50/((AVERAGE(EMW,LDW)/WNG)/1000))^0.8+((1000*PWR/AVERAGE(EMW,LDW))^0.85+SPD/SPN+(EMW/(LNG+HGT)/2)+(OFF*2)^0.95+DEF^0.95+BOM/10+MAX/20)-10*(CRW-1)-25*(ENG-1))-650. Hopefully those abbreviations are all straightforward to understand. But enough of the gibberish already. What do the results it spits out actually look like? I'm going to take a few samples next where I break down how many points are actually coming from each different factor so you can get a sense of how much weight each of them is given.

Let's start with a classic rivalry, the P-47D Thunderbolt versus the P-51D Mustang, the two best USAAF fighters. The P-47D comes out ahead by a small but not insignificant margin, 854.8 to 827.5 (if we wanted to, we could divide all results by 10 to have the ratings scale from around 10 to 100; for now they scale more from around 100 to 1000).

P-47D Thunderbolt [854.8]

• SPD: 702.0 | RNG: 48.4 | ALT: 128.0
  AGL: 86.8 | PWR: 129.2 | ROL: 56.4
  DUR: 150.3 | GUN: 155.8 | BOM: 56.8

P-51D Mustang [827.5]

• SPD: 707.0 | RNG: 89.4 | ALT: 127.6
  AGL: 90.5 | PWR: 129.9 | ROL: 62.7
  DUR: 124.7 | GUN: 118.5 | BOM: 45.4

In favor of the P-47:

• ALT: +0.4
  DUR: +25.6
  GUN: +37.3
  BOM: +11.4

In favor of the P-51

• SPD: +5.0
  RNG: +41.0
  AGL: +3.7
  ROL: +6.3
  PWR: +0.7

The P-51's main advantage is its much longer range. It's a little more nimble, but not enough to tip the scales by much - and those little edges in speed and maneuverability are outweighed massively by the P-47's brute firepower and mass. The P-51's range is the factor with the single largest spread between the two aircraft, followed closely by the P-47's gun power. I'm pretty satisfied with how that one turned out. Let's try out another pair of rivals: the Spitfire and the Fw 190. We'll go with the Mk IX and the A-8 versions.

Spitfire Mk IX [721.7]

• SPD: 663.0 | RNG: 22.0 | ALT: 122.3
  AGL: 117.0 | PWR: 170.4 | ROL: 66.9
  DUR: 87.6 | GUN: 102.5 | BOM: 22.7

Fw 190A-8 [743.1]

• SPD: 658.0 | RNG: 35.7 | ALT: 107.7
  AGL: 81.5 | PWR: 144.8 | ROL: 62.6
  DUR: 121.1 | GUN: 162.2 | BOM: 25.0

In favor of the Spitfire:

• SPD: +5.0
  ALT: +14.6
  AGL: +35.5
  ROL: +4.3
  PWR: +25.6

In favor of the Fw 190:

• RNG: +13.7
  DUR: +33.5
  GUN: +59.7
  BOM: +2.3

Another close match, with the Spitfire's superiority in agility and high altitude performance edged out just slightly by the 190's ability to deal and take damage. The Focke-Wulf's firepower is the single most influential difference between them. War is rarely fair of course, so let's look for more of a mismatch with this next one: the Hellcat versus the Zero.

F6F-5 Hellcat [729.1]

• SPD: 611.6 | RNG: 50.3 | ALT: 113.7
  AGL: 98.7 | PWR: 131.1 | ROL: 46.8
  DUR: 147.2 | GUN: 118.5 | BOM: 45.4

A6M5 [586.6]

• SPD: 565.0 | RNG: 70.0 | ALT: 117.4
  AGL: 137.8 | PWR: 144.5 | ROL: 51.4
  DUR: 70.4 | GUN: 87.6 | BOM: 6.0

In favor of the F6F-5

• SPD: +46.6
  DUR: +76.8
  GUN: +30.9
  BOM: +39.4

In favor of the A6M5

• RNG: +19.7
  ALT: +3.7
  AGL: +39.1
  PWR: +13.4
  ROL: +4.6

The Zero has the advantages we'd expect in maneuverability and range, but those are absolutely crushed by the Hellcat's superior speed and hitting power. The Zero's fragility versus the Hellcat's sturdiness is the most influential factor by far, with the F6F having more than double the Zero's score in that category. So far, we've seen 3 cases of the heavier plane with the heavier guns beating out the lighter and more agile opponent. Is my system perhaps a little too biased in their favor? What about earlier in the war, when turning fighters reigned supreme? Let's look at the Zero back in its glory days versus the Wildcat.

A6M2 [563.6]

• SPD: 532.0 | RNG: 79.0 | ALT: 100.0
  AGL: 153.1 | PWR: 139.6 | ROL: 44.3
  DUR: 72.0 | GUN: 87.6 | BOM: 6.0

F4F-4 Wildcat [538.0]

• SPD: 512.3 | RNG: 50.2 | ALT: 111.9
  AGL: 117.3 | PWR: 122.2 | ROL: 44.2
  DUR: 106.8 | GUN: 118.5 | BOM: 4.5

In favor of the A6M2

• SPD: +19.7
  RNG: +28.8
  AGL: +35.8
  PWR: +17.4
  ROL: +0.1
  BOM: +1.5

In favor of the F4F-4

• ALT: +11.9
  DUR: +34.8
  GUN: +30.9

The Wildcat still has a sizeable advantage over the Zero in durability and firepower - but this time the Zero's agility is the most decisive factor, and along with its superior speed and range adds up to a superior score. It's a much closer matchup than the Zero against the Hellcat, though. The A6M2 outscores the F4F by about 5%; but if you factor out range, the scores even out, making pilot skill the deciding factor in a fight between them - something that checks out well with wartime history. With the F6F versus the A6M5, the Hellcat's rating was 20% higher, a massive advantage.

There are still some cases here and there where I'm not quite satisfied with the system's results, but in general, I think it produces better results than the one the old aircraft ranking library used. Take for instance, the example I started with: the Beaufighter that beat the Spiteful and the Meteor. In the new system, that is not at all the case - the Beaufighter Mk X is rated at 705.9, while the Spiteful ranks at 904.0 and the Meteor at 1017.5 - not even close, just as it should be.

I'm not going to be able to upload the full Excel worksheet for the time being, because reasons. But I can copy over my values and give you score tables like the ones the old library had. I'm eager to hear your feedback, both on the results as they are, and how the system could be improved, or perhaps integrated with the old system, which I know covered some factors that mine overlooks.

[Vendetta]

Because this started as a project for my own personal interest, the data set I created also scored a lot of prototypes, draft designs, and even some fictitious aircraft that appeared in various alternate history sources (TBOverse, Drake's Drum, the Russian FAI alternate history forum, etc.) for which the quoted specifications may be unreliable or even just pure speculation. I've gone through and tagged those appropriately to distinguish them from aircraft that were actually built and flown operationally.

P-80C Shooting Star .......... 1352.6
P-80B Shooting Star .......... 1304.6
F9F-2 Panther .......... 1258.9
P-84B Thunderjet .......... 1252.9
P-80A Shooting Star .......... 1208.8
P-58C Chain Lightning .......... 1097.9 [Fictional]
P-61C Black Widow .......... 1050.2
FH-1 Phantom .......... 1026.8
P-72D Thunderstorm .......... 1021.1 [Fictional]
P-71A Stormbird .......... 1006.7 [Prototype/Fictional]
XF8B-1 Marlin .......... 994.3 [Prototype/Fictional]
P-51N Mustang .......... 984.4 [Fictional]
P-58A Chain Lightning .......... 983.6 [Prototype/Fictional]
P-72A Thunderstorm .......... 979.1 [Prototype/Fictional]
P-82B Twin Mustang .......... 975.8
P-47N Thunderbolt .......... 968.9
F7F-3 Tigercat .......... 967.3
P-59B Airacomet .......... 964.1
F4U-5 Corsair .......... 949.2
F7F-1 Tigercat .......... 935.1
P-51H Mustang .......... 930.7
F8F-2 Bearcat .......... 920.8
F4U-4 Corsair .......... 898.3
P-61B Black Widow .......... 878.5
P-75A Eagle .......... 872.3 [Prototype]
P-47D Thunderbolt .......... 854.8
P-38L Lightning .......... 848.3
F8F-1 Bearcat .......... 836.3
P-51D Mustang .......... 827.5
P-38J Lightning .......... 823.1
XF6F-6 Hellcat .......... 819.2 [Prototype]
P-63C Kingcobra .......... 799.3
P-38G Lightning .......... 787.4
P-51B Mustang .......... 786.8
F4U-1 Corsair .......... 786.6
P-47C Thunderbolt .......... 781.3
FR-1 Fireball .......... 760.2
P-63A Kingcobra .......... 756.2
F6F-5 Hellcat .......... 729.7
P-61A Black Widow .......... 711.4
XP-40Q Warhawk .......... 705.4 [Prototype]
F6F-3 Hellcat .......... 703.0
P-51A Mustang .......... 653.3
P-40F Warhawk .......... 652.0
P-38E Lightning .......... 648.5
P-39Q Airacobra .......... 648.2
P-40N Warhawk .......... 638.1
P-39D Airacobra .......... 622.2
P-39C Airacobra .......... 600.4
P-40E Warhawk .......... 576.6
P-43A Lancer .......... 556.9
FM-2 Wildcat .......... 549.8
F4F-4 Wildcat .......... 538.0
F4F-3 Wildcat .......... 535.6
P-40C Warhawk .......... 531.8
F2A-2 Buffalo .......... 526.7
F2A-3 Buffalo .......... 518.9
P-36G Hawk .......... 517.7
P-66A Vanguard .......... 492.2
F2A-1 Buffalo .......... 484.8
P-36C Hawk .......... 478.3
P-36A Hawk .......... 434.6
F3F-2 Bobcat .......... 422.3
P-35A Guardsman .......... 421.5
P-64B Torito .......... 396.3
P-64A Torito .......... 354.2
BF2C-1 Goshawk .......... 300.2
P-26A Peashooter .......... 264.3
F11C-2 Goshawk .......... 249.4

Meteor Mk IV .......... 1380.6
Attacker Mk I .......... 1363.4
Vampire Mk II .......... 1341.7 [Prototype]
Vampire Mk I .......... 1158.8
Meteor Mk III .......... 1017.5
Spiteful Mk XVI .......... 982.4 [Prototype]
Hornet Mk III .......... 972.6
Matador Mk IV / Miles M.22A .......... 934.4 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Hornet Mk I .......... 934.2
Raven Mk III / M.B.5 .......... 915.8 [Fictional]
Spiteful Mk XIV .......... 904.0 [Prototype]
Matador Mk III / Miles M.22A .......... 898.0 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Raven Mk II / M.B.5 .......... 882.6 [Fictional]
Seafang Mk 32 .......... 880.1 [Prototype]
Seafury Mk X .......... 871.4
Tempest Mk VI .......... 859.6
Tempest Mk II .......... 844.3
Raven Mk I / M.B.5 .......... 828.8 [Prototype/Fictional]
Tempest Mk V .......... 805.7
Spitfire Mk XIV .......... 794.3
Whirlwind Mk II .......... 750.9 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Mosquito Mk II .......... 744.8
Typhoon Mk I .......... 732.7
Mosquito Mk 30 .......... 731.9
Mosquito Mk XIX .......... 724.6
Spitfire Mk IX .......... 721.7
Welkin Mk I .......... 708.1
Seafire Mk XV .......... 690.7
Firefly Mk IV .......... 688.8
Beaufighter Mk VI .......... 661.7
Spitfire Mk V .......... 620.8
Seafire Mk III .......... 619.8
Beaufighter Mk I .......... 600.4
Whirlwind Mk I .......... 592.2
Seafire Mk II .......... 592.2
Spitfire Mk II .......... 584.8
Hurricane Mk II .......... 566.3
Cutlass Mk II .......... 566.0 [Fictional]
Spitfire Mk I .......... 563.9
Firefly Mk I .......... 544.6
Monsoon Mk I / Miles M.20 .......... 537.5 [Prototype/Fictional]
Hurricane Mk I .......... 495.8
Gannet Mk I / Gloster F.9/34 .......... 493.8 [Prototype/Fictional]
Gladiator Mk II .......... 396.8
Gladiator Mk I .......... 396.8
Defiant Mk II .......... 375.3
Fulmar Mk II .......... 354.9
Gauntlet Mk II .......... 338.2
Defiant Mk I .......... 319.9
Fulmar Mk I .......... 292.4
Roc Mk I .......... 165.3

D.740 .......... 1206.8 [Napkinwaffe]
D.700 / IAe.27 Pulqui .......... 1077.0 [Prototype]
SE.580 .......... 959.7 [Prototype]
MB.159 .......... 861.5 [Fictional]
VB.14 .......... 826.5 [Fictional]
VG.60 .......... 820.2 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
MB.158 .......... 818.6 [Fictional]
SE.105 .......... 784.0 [Fictional]
VB.12 .......... 777.2 [Fictional]
MB.157 .......... 731.3 [Prototype]
VG.52 .......... 731.3 [Fictional]
VB.10 .......... 727.8 [Prototype]
D.555 .......... 722.8 [Fictional]
D.551 .......... 683.8 [Prototype]
D.795 .......... 679.6 [Fictional]
VG.43 .......... 658.0 [Fictional]
D.525 .......... 648.3 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Bre.700 .......... 626.1 [Napkinwaffe]
VG.39 .......... 611.1 [Prototype]
SE.100 .......... 581.1 [Prototype]
VG.36 .......... 526.7 [Prototype]
NC.600 .......... 516.1 [Prototype]
MS.450 .......... 495.8 [Napkinwaffe]
D.520 .......... 490.3
VG.33 .......... 486.4
MB.155 .......... 485.3
Po.671 .......... 484.9 [Prototype]
D.790 .......... 456.2 [Napkinwaffe]
MB.152 .......... 448.7
MS.410 .......... 435.7
Po.631 .......... 389.9
MS.406 .......... 386.2
MB.151 .......... 354.0
S.510 .......... 344.3
D.510 .......... 329.6
C.714 .......... 308.6

Go 229A-1 .......... 1390.3 [Prototype]
Me 462A-1 / P.1101 .......... 1310.9 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Ta 183A-1 .......... 1287.3 [Napkinwaffe]
Me 263A-1 .......... 1276.2 [Prototype]
Me 163B-1 .......... 1262.9
Me 262C-1 .......... 1217.5 [Napkinwaffe]
Me 262A-1 .......... 1149.6
He 162A-8 .......... 1135.6 [Napkinwaffe]
He 351B-1 / P.1076 .......... 1082.6 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
He 162A-2 .......... 1037.4
He 280A-1 .......... 1030.6 [Prototype]
He 351A-3 / P.1076 .......... 985.3 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Do 335B-2 .......... 966.5 [Napkinwaffe]
Fw 303A-1 .......... 950.1 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Ju 388J-2 .......... 904.4 [Napkinwaffe]
Ar 397A-1 / E.556 .......... 893.0 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Ta 152J-2 .......... 883.5 [Napkinwaffe]
Ta 152C-3 .......... 864.0 [Napkinwaffe]
Do 335A-1 .......... 860.6
Ta 152C-1 .......... 856.5 [Prototype]
He 219B-1 .......... 826.1 [Napkinwaffe]
Ta 152H-1 .......... 822.0
Ju 388J-1 .......... 786.7 [Prototype]
Fw 281A-3 .......... 785.1 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
He 219A-7 .......... 766.8
BV 155B-1 .......... 762.3 [Prototype]
Fw 190D-13 .......... 755.2
Bf 109K-4 .......... 754.6
Fw 190A-8 .......... 743.1
Fw 190D-9 .......... 739.6
Ta 154A-1 .......... 727.7 [Prototype]
Fw 190A-5 .......... 720.2
Fw 190A-3 .......... 718.8
He 100F-1 .......... 715.2 [Fictional]
Me 410A-1 .......... 703.1
He 219A-2 .......... 703.0
Bf 110G-4 .......... 689.1
Bf 110G-2 .......... 683.1
Bf 109G-10 .......... 681.8
He 100E-3 .......... 648.9 [Fictional]
Bf 109G-6 .......... 645.0
Bf 110F-2 .......... 641.6
He 100D-1 .......... 633.6 [Prototype]
Ju 88G-6 .......... 632.4
Do 217N-2 .......... 632.3
Ju 88G-1 .......... 630.2
Bf 109G-2 .......... 624.5
Bf 109F-4 .......... 622.6
Me 210A-1 .......... 595.0
Bf 110D-3 .......... 591.7
Do 217J-1 .......... 568.7
Bf 109F-2 .......... 566.3
Bf 109E-7 .......... 565.1
Bf 109T-2 .......... 560.3 [Napkinwaffe]
Bf 109E-3 .......... 548.6
Bf 110C-4 .......... 546.6
Bf 109T-1 .......... 540.6
Bf 110C-1 .......... 533.9
Ju 88C-6 .......... 529.0
Bf 109E-1 .......... 482.5
He 112B-1 .......... 423.0
He 112A-1 .......... 419.2
Bf 109D-1 .......... 343.9
Bf 109B-2 .......... 331.7
He 51B-1 .......... 246.3
He 51C-1 .......... 239.4

Re.2008 .......... 1076.4 [Fictional/Napkinwaffe]
Re.2007 .......... 1043.2 [Fictional/Napkinwaffe]
CS.10 .......... 951.5 [Napkinwaffe]
Ca.183Bis .......... 946.4 [Prototype]
G.58 .......... 853.5 [Fictional]
Ca.380 .......... 849.4 [Napkinwaffe]
MC.207 .......... 786.0 [Napkinwaffe]
Re.2006 .......... 780.0 [Napkinwaffe]
G.56 .......... 779.5 [Prototype]
MB.902 .......... 771.9 [Prototype]
SM.92 .......... 753.7 [Prototype]
Re.2005 .......... 707.5
G.55 .......... 704.9
Ro.58 .......... 697.8 [Prototype]
P.119 .......... 696.7 [Prototype]
BZ.303 .......... 675.1 [Prototype]
SM.91 .......... 674.1 [Prototype]
MC.205V .......... 667.2
MC.205N .......... 655.8 [Prototype]
F.6Z .......... 602.0 [Prototype]
MC.202 .......... 558.3
F.6M .......... 556.9 [Prototype]
Re.2002 .......... 535.4
Re.2001 .......... 520.4
SAI.403 .......... 504.7 [Prototype]
Ca.331B .......... 484.3 [Prototype]
Ro.57Bis .......... 480.6
Re.2000 .......... 455.8
Ro.57 .......... 425.7
Ca.331A .......... 416.5 [Prototype]
MC.200 .......... 413.7
Ro.51 .......... 396.3 [Prototype]
Ca.165 .......... 382.0 [Prototype]
G.50 .......... 377.0
CR.42 .......... 368.1
Ca.114 .......... 283.2
CR.32 .......... 268.8
Ba.27 .......... 266.5

Ki-202 .......... 1346.1 [Napkinwaffe]
J8M1 .......... 1181.8 [Prototype]
J8M2 .......... 1174.0 [Prototype]
Ki-201 .......... 1120.7 [Napkinwaffe]
J7W2 .......... 1000.2 [Napkinwaffe]
J9N2 / Kikka .......... 967.3 [Napkinwaffe]
A8K2 .......... 927.7 [Fictional]
J6K1 .......... 918.3 [Napkinwaffe]
Ki-103 .......... 890.5 [Napkinwaffe]
J7W1 .......... 873.8 [Prototype]
Ki-94-II .......... 867.3 [Prototype]
Ki-83 .......... 856.3 [Prototype]
Ki-121 .......... 845.5 [Fictional]
J9N1 / Kikka .......... 844.0 [Prototype]
Ki-164 .......... 816.3 [Fictional]
Ki-84-Ib .......... 809.6
Ki-93a .......... 804.0 [Prototype]
Ki-98 .......... 802.7 [Prototype]
Ki-87 .......... 796.4 [Prototype]
N1K5-J .......... 788.9 [Napkinwaffe]
Ki-84-Ia .......... 787.0
A7M3 .......... 781.1 [Napkinwaffe]
Ki-44-III .......... 753.5 [Prototype]
S1A1 .......... 749.0 [Prototype]
N1K2-J .......... 740.8
J5N1 .......... 731.4 [Prototype]
Ki-64 .......... 730.8 [Prototype]
N1K1-J .......... 728.1
Ki-108-II .......... 718.3 [Prototype]
Ki-44-IIb .......... 703.1
A7M2 .......... 701.0 [Prototype]
Ki-102b .......... 696.9
J2M8 .......... 693.9 [Fictional]
Ki-108-I .......... 687.3 [Prototype]
J2M3 .......... 679.7
J2M5 .......... 670.4
Ki-102a .......... 667.8
Ki-100-II .......... 656.1 [Prototype]
Ki-102c .......... 645.5
J2M2 .......... 639.1
A7M1 .......... 638.1 [Prototype]
Ki-44-IIc .......... 629.4
Ki-100-I .......... 629.2
Ki-61-II .......... 624.9
A6M8 .......... 624.8 [Prototype]
Ki-44-IIa .......... 615.3
Ki-43-IIIb .......... 609.3
Ki-45d .......... 594.0
A6M5 .......... 586.6
Ki-43-IIIa .......... 585.8
Ki-61-Id .......... 580.6
Ki-61-Ic .......... 578.6
Ki-61-Ib .......... 571.3
Ki-61-Ia .......... 570.5
A6M3 .......... 566.9
A6M2 .......... 563.6
Ki-44-I .......... 562.3
Ki-45b .......... 555.9
Ki-45c .......... 554.1
Ki-43-IIb .......... 547.9
Ki-45a .......... 539.7
Ki-43-IIa .......... 532.5
Ki-43-Ic .......... 509.2
Ki-43-Ib .......... 503.0
Ki-43-Ia .......... 497.7
J1N1-S .......... 474.5
J1N1-Sa .......... 470.7
Ki-27a .......... 425.7
Ki-27b .......... 418.6
Ki-10-II .......... 396.8
A5M4 .......... 375.8
A5M2 .......... 329.3
A4N1 .......... 281.6

BI-1 .......... 1169.3 [Prototype]
MiG-9 .......... 1153.8
Yak-15 .......... 954.1
Tu-1 .......... 840.1 [Prototype]
MiG-7 / I-225 .......... 808.9 [Prototype]
La-9 .......... 800.7
MiG-5I .......... 769.7 [Prototype]
La-11 .......... 765.4
MiG-5 .......... 748.1 [Prototype]
La-7 .......... 724.3
I-185 .......... 717.6 [Prototype]
Yak-3U .......... 702.5 [Prototype]
Yak-9UT .......... 686.4
Ta-3Bis .......... 679.4 [Prototype]
Yak-9P .......... 679.0
MiG-3U .......... 676.2 [Prototype]
Yak-9U .......... 672.3
La-5FN .......... 659.9
Yak-3P .......... 636.1
Ta-3 .......... 633.9 [Prototype]
Yak-3 .......... 626.6
MiG-3 .......... 601.9
MiG-1 .......... 598.3
La-5F .......... 591.3
Pe-3M .......... 567.6
I-180 .......... 563.3 [Prototype]
La-5 .......... 562.3
Yak-9T .......... 552.6
Yak-7B .......... 551.5
Yak-9 .......... 541.2
Yak-9K .......... 537.6
Yak-9D .......... 532.4
Yak-1B .......... 530.9
Pe-3Bis .......... 529.3
Yak-9DD .......... 528.1
I-190 .......... 512.1 [Prototype]
Yak-9M .......... 508.4
Yak-9B .......... 504.9
Yak-1 .......... 504.7
Pe-3 .......... 495.7
Yak-7 .......... 483.1
LaGG-3 .......... 479.1
LaGG-1 .......... 468.4
I-153 .......... 451.7
I-16 Type 29 .......... 433.6
I-16 Type 10 .......... 384.9
I-16 Type 5 .......... 372.6
I-15Bis .......... 358.5
I-15 .......... 351.6
DI-6 .......... 279.6

IAe.30 .......... 833.4 [Prototype]
IAe.26 .......... 528.3 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]

Kangaroo Mk II .......... 919.9 [Fictional]
Kangaroo Mk I .......... 862.4 [Prototype]
Boomerang Mk I .......... 485.9

R.40 .......... 616.8 [Napkinwaffe]
R.37 .......... 486.5 [Prototype]
R.38 .......... 484.0 [Prototype]
R.36 .......... 480.5 [Prototype]
S.47 / Ca.335 .......... 406.9 [Prototype]

B-235 .......... 535.1 [Fictional]
B-135 .......... 439.7
B-634 .......... 359.1 [Prototype]
B-534 .......... 352.6

D.XXIV .......... 639.8 [Fictional]
S.21 .......... 622.5 [Napkinwaffe]
G.II .......... 530.5 [Napkinwaffe]
F.K.60 .......... 513.9 [Fictional]
G.I .......... 456.2
F.K.58 .......... 416.3
D.XXIII .......... 405.4 [Prototype]
D.XXI .......... 362.9
D.XVII .......... 276.2

Puuska I .......... 647.8 [Napkinwaffe]
Pyorremyrsky I .......... 637.5 [Prototype]
Myrsky II .......... 478.3
Humu I .......... 323.1 [Prototype]

RMI-11 .......... 711.8 [Fictional]
RMI-8 .......... 706.4 [Napkinwaffe]
WM-23 .......... 454.1 [Prototype]
Heja II .......... 426.0

VEF I-19 .......... 530.9 [Napkinwaffe]
VEF I-16 .......... 310.3 [Prototype]

PZL.62G .......... 795.0 [Fictional]
PZL.62F .......... 772.3 [Fictional]
PZL.54A .......... 721.6 [Napkinwaffe]
PZL.62A .......... 701.4 [Napkinwaffe]
PZL.56B .......... 667.7 [Napkinwaffe]
PZL.48B .......... 661.4 [Napkinwaffe]
PZL.50B .......... 554.7 [Napkinwaffe]
PZL.48A .......... 550.8 [Prototype]
PZL.45B .......... 462.4 [Napkinwaffe]
PZL.24H .......... 431.5 [Prototype]
PZL.24A .......... 391.1
PZL.45A .......... 379.5 [Prototype]
PZL.50A .......... 371.5 [Prototype]
PZL.38A .......... 358.8 [Prototype]
PZL.11G .......... 342.8 [Prototype]
PZL.11C .......... 267.4

IAR 83A .......... 762.9 [Fictional]
IAR 81C .......... 450.7
IAR 80B .......... 442.3
IAR 80A .......... 440.1
IAR 81B .......... 411.9
IAR 81A .......... 403.9

J 27A .......... 835.4 [Napkinwaffe]
J 24A .......... 745.1 [Napkinwaffe]
J 19D .......... 745.0 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
J 23B .......... 687.9 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
J 19A .......... 643.0 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
J 21A .......... 639.3
J 22B .......... 552.0
J 22A .......... 499.6
J 13B .......... 269.4 [Fictional]

D-3803 .......... 668.9 [Prototype]
D-3802 .......... 612.4
D-3801 .......... 462.1
D-3800 .......... 381.8

IK-7 .......... 682.9 [Fictional]
IK-5 .......... 593.8 [Napkinwaffe]
IK-3 .......... 435.2
IK-2 .......... 397.8

[Calder]

Could you add an in-service date for each aircraft? For WWII in particular a month and year would make it easier to compare aircraft. Outside of the war you only need the year.

[Vendetta]

Original list updated to include fighters from the minor nations as well.

Could you add an in-service date for each aircraft? For WWII in particular a month and year would make it easier to compare aircraft. Outside of the war you only need the year.

Good idea, I'll do some year by year comparison charts between nations in a follow-up post (decluttered of all the alt-history designs and dubious prototypes).

Before I get onto that though, it's time to talk about the bombers. The original aircraft rating library expanded to cover bombers and attack aircraft, and I intend for mine to do so as well. Now, the original library devised a whole separate formula to rate its bombers with, which is a good call, because they fulfilled a very different mission with very different requirements. However, this project has been very time consuming, and by the time I'd finished compiling the data, I needed a break from it to focus on other things. Out of laziness, and curiosity, however, I decided to see what would happen if I plugged in the same formula I used for the fighters. And the results were...not as bad as I expected them to be. I will be revisiting this part of the project again when I have more free time in the future, both to adjust the formula and to complete the dataset (many US bomber sub-variants, for example, are absent, though every major class has at least one representative). For those who are curious, here is how the same formula used on the fighters rated the bombers.

B-36B Peacemaker .......... 3050.2
B-45A Tornado .......... 1966.2
B-50A Superfortress .......... 1763.8
B-29A Superfortress .......... 1640.1
B-32A Dominator .......... 1572.3
B-43A Jetmaster / XB-43 .......... 1282.7 [Prototype/Fictional]
B-17G Flying Fortress .......... 1281.7
A-26D Invader / XA-26D .......... 1217.2 [Prototype]
B-24J Liberator .......... 1129.9
A-26B Invader .......... 1093.7
AM-1 Mauler .......... 1049.5
B-42B Mixmaster / XB-42 .......... 991.4 [Prototype/Fictional]
A-41A Viking / XA-41 .......... 979.2 [Prototype/Fictional]
B-33C Intruder / XB-33 .......... 971.5 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
AD-1 Skyraider .......... 959.1
A-38A Grizzly / XA-38 .......... 832.1 [Prototype/Fictional]
B-28C Patrick / XB-28 .......... 775.9 [Prototype/Fictional]
B-26G Marauder .......... 732.8
A-20H Havoc .......... 730.8
B-25J Mitchell .......... 724.8
A-20G Havoc .......... 717.8
BTD-1 Destroyer .......... 676.9
B-34A Lexington .......... 650.4
SB2C-4 Helldiver .......... 595.3
A-36A Apache .......... 593.7
SB2C-5 Helldiver .......... 591.5
SB2C-3 Helldiver .......... 587.0
A-20C Havoc .......... 578.9
A-20B Havoc .......... 578.5
TBY-2 Sea Wolf .......... 574.7
SB2C-1 Helldiver .......... 549.5
A-35B Vengeance .......... 528.2
TBM-3 Avenger .......... 516.7
A-30A Baltimore .......... 507.9
A-22A Maryland .......... 473.4
SBD-6 Dauntless .......... 456.9
TBF-1 Avenger .......... 443.7
SBD-5 Dauntless .......... 433.3
SB2A-4 Buccaneer .......... 420.3
A-29A Hudson .......... 412.8
B-18A Bolo .......... 390.2
SBD-4 Dauntless .......... 368.7
SBD-3 Dauntless .......... 365.4
SBD-2 Dauntless .......... 365.1
SBD-1 Dauntless .......... 358.9
SB2U-3 Vindicator .......... 313.7
A-17A Nomad .......... 257.3
TBD-1 Devastator .......... 229.9

Vindex Mk II / Victory Bomber .......... 2667.1 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Lincoln Mk I .......... 1222.0
Windsor Mk I .......... 1144.0 [Prototype]
Lancaster Mk III .......... 1040.3
Halifax Mk III .......... 1026.9
Lancaster Mk I .......... 1021.0
Stirling Mk III .......... 1002.1
Hereward Mk V / Hawker P.1005 .......... 976.7 [Prototype/Fictional]
Halifax Mk II .......... 968.7
Stirling Mk I .......... 968.0
Hereward Mk II / Hawker P.1005 .......... 899.1 [Prototype/Fictional]
Brigand Mk I .......... 845.6
Warwick Mk II .......... 832.5 [Prototype]
Mosquito Mk VI .......... 807.0
Mosquito Mk XVI .......... 778.9
Firebrand Mk VII .......... 722.5 [Fictional]
Warwick Mk I .......... 720.7
Mosquito Mk XVIII .......... 720.4
Mosquito Mk IV .......... 718.1
Beaufighter Mk X .......... 705.9
Firebrand Mk IV .......... 677.1
Goshawk Mk I / Gloster F.9/37 .......... 662.4 [Prototype/Fictional]
Spearfish Mk II .......... 593.6 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Wellington Mk X .......... 591.0
Whitley Mk V .......... 575.0
Cormorant Mk III .......... 574.0 [Fictional]
Cormorant Mk II .......... 546.3 [Fictional]
Wellington Mk III .......... 528.8
Spearfish Mk I .......... 514.1 [Prototype]
Wellington Mk I .......... 480.6
Hampden Mk I .......... 455.2
Beaufort Mk II .......... 449.9
Henley Mk IV .......... 439.2 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Beaufort Mk I .......... 395.0
Blenheim Mk IV .......... 391.3
Blenheim Mk V .......... 386.7
Barracuda Mk V .......... 383.6
Wellesley Mk I .......... 373.8
Blenheim Mk I .......... 365.1
Henley Mk III .......... 339.1
Barracuda Mk III .......... 331.3
Battle Mk III .......... 314.9
Barracuda Mk II .......... 314.6
Battle Mk II .......... 302.1
Battle Mk I .......... 296.3
Barracuda Mk I .......... 280.6
Albacore Mk I .......... 233.5
Skua Mk II .......... 226.3
Swordfish Mk II .......... 207.8
Swordfish Mk I .......... 192.5

Am.415 .......... 1895.1 [Fictional]
NC.270 .......... 1510.2 [Napkinwaffe]
MB.163 .......... 879.5 [Fictional]
Am.371 .......... 861.0 [Fictional]
MB.162 .......... 835.2 [Prototype]
NC.158 .......... 804.1 [Fictional]
NC.153 .......... 785.3 [Napkinwaffe]
CAO.710 .......... 783.1 [Napkinwaffe]
MB.178 .......... 774.0
Bre.482 .......... 747.8
CAO.700 .......... 740.8 [Prototype]
MB.176 .......... 721.3 [Prototype]
Bre.697 .......... 690.0 [Prototype]
F.223 .......... 656.4
LeO.458 .......... 645.4 [Napkinwaffe]
F.222 .......... 618.2
LN.425 .......... 613.1 [Fictional]
LeO.455 .......... 602.9 [Prototype]
NC.150 .......... 596.4 [Prototype]
Po.640 .......... 590.5 [Fictional]
LeO.451 .......... 564.5
MB.175 .......... 537.3
Bre.698 .......... 533.4 [Napkinwaffe]
Am.354 .......... 509.8
MB.174 .......... 502.1
Am.351 .......... 499.3
LN.430 .......... 457.7 [Napkinwaffe]
LN.420 .......... 439.2 [Prototype]
Bre.693 .......... 438.5
Bre.695 .......... 434.3
Bre.691 .......... 419.7
Late.299.5 .......... 404.5 [Fictional]
CAO.610 .......... 388.2 [Fictional]
Po.633 .......... 322.1
LN.401 .......... 318.4
MB.210 .......... 316.9
LN.411 .......... 312.8
Am.143 .......... 298.0
CAO.600 .......... 286.4 [Prototype]
D.750 .......... 259.8 [Prototype]
Late.299 .......... 248.8 [Prototype]
MB.200 .......... 220.2

Ta 400B-5 .......... 2830.7 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Ju 390A-1 .......... 2241.1 [Prototype]
Me 264B-2 .......... 1685.7 [Prototype]
He 274A-1 .......... 1432.1 [Prototype]
He 277B-5 .......... 1403.6 [Napkinwaffe]
Ju 287A-1 .......... 1246.6 [Prototype]
He 343A-1 .......... 1216.2 [Napkinwaffe]
He 177A-5 .......... 1192.5
Ar 234C-3 .......... 1152.3 [Prototype]
Ju 288C-1 .......... 1088.3 [Prototype]
Me 262A-2 .......... 995.1
Ju 388K-2 .......... 986.5 [Napkinwaffe]
Hs 130C-1 .......... 966.5 [Napkinwaffe]
Ju 388K-1 .......... 899.8
Ar 234B-2 .......... 898.3
Do 217M-1 .......... 862.3
Do 217K-1 .......... 828.6
Do 217E-2 .......... 818.5
Ju 188A-2 .......... 814.6
Ju 188E-1 .......... 774.4
He 273A-1 / P.1065 .......... 756.6 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Ar 340D-1 .......... 752.0 [Fictional]
Ar 340A-3 .......... 725.6 [Fictional]
Ju 88S-1 .......... 707.5
Hs 130E-1 .......... 678.9 [Prototype]
Ju 88A-4 .......... 676.9
He 111H-6 .......... 647.4
Fw 190F-8 .......... 637.7
Fw 190G-2 .......... 628.1
Ju 88A-1 .......... 584.0
Hs 129E-1 .......... 571.1 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Fw 200C-3 .......... 567.1
Ju 187A-2 .......... 502.9 [Napkinwaffe]
Ju 187A-1 .......... 479.7 [Napkinwaffe]
Do 215B-1 .......... 437.8
Ju 86R-2 .......... 430.7
Ju 87D-5 .......... 429.2
Ju 87D-1 .......... 408.6
Fi 169A-1 .......... 396.7 [Fictional]
Ju 87G-2 .......... 396.2
Hs 129B-3 .......... 392.6
Hs 129B-2 .......... 390.8
Do 17Z-2 .......... 332.6
Fi 167A-1 .......... 316.7
Ju 87R-2 .......... 304.0
Hs 123A-1 .......... 301.8
Ju 87B-1 .......... 295.4
Ju 86E-1 .......... 286.4
Do 17M-1 .......... 284.4
Ju 87C-1 .......... 269.1
Do 17E-1 .......... 212.0
Ju 86D-1 .......... 199.4
Ju 87A-1 .......... 171.3

P.133 .......... 1162.6 [Napkinwaffe]
CS.11 .......... 971.8 [Napkinwaffe]
P.108M .......... 799.6
BZ.301 .......... 734.3 [Napkinwaffe]
P.108B .......... 730.3
Ca.365 .......... 711.8 [Napkinwaffe]
SM.89 .......... 642.7 [Prototype]
Z.1018 .......... 640.3
SM.93 .......... 638.2 [Prototype]
G.57 .......... 609.4 [Napkinwaffe]
Z.1007Ter .......... 575.0
FC.20Quater .......... 557.7 [Napkinwaffe]
Ca.336 .......... 551.8 [Fictional]
BR.20Bis .......... 528.5 [Prototype]
Z.1007Bis .......... 522.9
SM.79Bis .......... 512.3
SM.84 .......... 485.7
BR.20M .......... 449.9
BR.20 .......... 449.4
SM.79 .......... 422.1
Ba.88 .......... 410.4
FC.20Bis .......... 407.8 [Prototype]
Ca.314 .......... 397.4
Ba.201 .......... 380.7 [Prototype]
SM.81 .......... 360.9
Z.1007 .......... 354.1
SM.86 .......... 343.6 [Prototype]
Ba.65Bis .......... 329.1
Ba.65 .......... 317.5
Ca.313 .......... 314.4
Ca.312 .......... 287.9
Ba.64 .......... 234.4
SM.85 .......... 222.9
Ca.311 .......... 203.7
Ca.310 .......... 203.4

G10N2 .......... 2833.2 [Napkinwaffe]
Ki-91 .......... 1731.0 [Napkinwaffe]
R2Y2-G .......... 1190.9 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
G8N1 .......... 1092.5 [Prototype]
R2Y1 .......... 930.0 [Prototype]
Ki-74-II .......... 845.5 [Napkinwaffe]
Ki-156 / Kogiken VI .......... 844.3 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Ki-93b .......... 818.6 [Prototype]
P1Y7 .......... 818.3 [Fictional]
Ki-74-I .......... 778.9
B7A3 .......... 765.8 [Napkinwaffe]
Ki-67-II .......... 751.0 [Prototype]
G5N2 .......... 724.8 [Prototype]
B7A2 .......... 722.4
B8Y1 .......... 708.4 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
B7A1 .......... 693.9
Ki-119-II .......... 654.4 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
G7M1 .......... 634.2 [Napkinwaffe]
P1Y1 .......... 632.3
Ki-49-III .......... 625.2 [Prototype]
Ki-119-I .......... 599.2 [Napkinwaffe]
D4Y3 .......... 587.1
D4Y2 .......... 565.1
Ki-67-Ib .......... 562.3
Ki-67-Ia .......... 556.1
D4Y4 .......... 544.6
D4Y5 .......... 543.5
D4Y1 .......... 540.4
Ki-66 .......... 533.5 [Prototype]
Ki-49-IIb .......... 528.2
G4M3 .......... 522.0
Ki-49-IIa .......... 509.6
Ki-48-IIc .......... 509.2
G4M2 .......... 508.7
Ki-48-IIb .......... 501.1
Ki-21-IIb .......... 499.0
Ki-21-IIa .......... 494.7
B6N2 .......... 487.3
Ki-48-IIa .......... 485.2
G3M3 .......... 483.2
G4M1 .......... 479.3
Ki-71 .......... 474.3 [Prototype]
Ki-49-I .......... 472.3
B6N1 .......... 468.1
Ki-48-I .......... 407.6
D3A2 .......... 398.8
G3M2 .......... 385.0
Ki-21-Ic .......... 384.7
Ki-21-Ia .......... 382.7
Ki-30 .......... 344.3
Ki-32 .......... 340.0
Ki-51 .......... 332.8
G3M1 .......... 326.6
D3A1 .......... 325.7
B5N2 .......... 310.9
B5N1 .......... 286.2
D1A2 .......... 237.8
B4Y1 .......... 228.5
D1A1 .......... 195.7

Tu-4 .......... 1586.6
Su-8 .......... 975.7 [Prototype]
Mya-2 / VB-109 .......... 908.4 [Prototype/Fictional]
Pe-8 .......... 906.2
Tu-2D .......... 905.2 [Prototype]
NB-2 .......... 862.1 [Prototype]
TB-7 .......... 830.4
Il-6 .......... 811.3 [Prototype]
Yer-2M .......... 810.1 [Prototype]
Pe-2M .......... 787.6 [Prototype]
Tu-2S .......... 784.9
Yer-2A .......... 768.2
Tu-2 .......... 739.0
Yer-2 .......... 697.9
VIT-2 .......... 655.4 [Prototype]
Che-4 / PT-1M .......... 646.8 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Il-4MF .......... 629.4 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Pe-2FT .......... 620.9
Il-10 .......... 583.7
Pe-2 .......... 577.7
Il-4 .......... 560.4
Su-6M .......... 554.8 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
Ar-2 .......... 551.7
DB-3B .......... 539.7
Su-6 .......... 511.6 [Prototype]
Yak-4 .......... 503.7
TB-3M .......... 468.5
SB-2M .......... 460.8
Yak-2 .......... 456.2
Su-4 .......... 454.5
TB-3 .......... 450.0
Il-2 .......... 395.3
Il-2M3 .......... 391.8
SB-2 .......... 389.5
Il-2M .......... 371.5
Su-2 .......... 362.6

IAe.24 .......... 515.7
AeMB.2 .......... 120.2

Woomera Mk II / CA-11 .......... 571.7 [Prototype]
Woomera Mk I / CA-4 .......... 491.0 [Prototype]

DAR 10F .......... 424.3 [Prototype]
DAR 10A .......... 343.1 [Prototype]

A-300 .......... 401.2 [Prototype]
B-71 .......... 363.9
B-158 .......... 358.6 [Prototype]

T.XI .......... 798.2 [Fictional]
T.IX .......... 559.7 [Prototype]
T.V .......... 393.6

RMI-1 .......... 603.9 [Napkinwaffe]

PZL.68A .......... 1128.8 [Fictional]
PZL.49D .......... 863.4 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
PZL.49B .......... 797.5 [Napkinwaffe]
PZL.64A .......... 737.8 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
PZL.37D .......... 602.0 [Napkinwaffe]
PZL.46F .......... 543.3 [Napkinwaffe/Fictional]
PZL.37B .......... 524.7
PZL.46B .......... 489.0 [Napkinwafffe]
PZL.46A .......... 420.8 [Prototype]
PZL.43B .......... 280.5
PZL.23B .......... 204.3
PZL.23A .......... 166.8

IAR 79B .......... 440.7

B 24B .......... 806.8 [Napkinwaffe]
B 18B .......... 688.7
B 18A .......... 507.4
B 17A .......... 409.9
B 17C .......... 399.1
B 17B .......... 329.8

C-3604 .......... 575.4
C-3603 .......... 393.0

R-1 .......... 540.9 [Prototype]
R-313 .......... 283.0 [Prototype]

[Johnnie Lyle]

Why not use a log transform? That’s standard methodology for transforming continuous data that’s skewed pretty hard.

[Vendetta]

I’ve got no smart answer for that. Just didn’t think of it. Obviously, I’m kind of an amateur at this. I might play around with that and see if it works better when I get back to tinkering around.

It’s a very fine exercise in balancing, hard to fix one thing without breaking another. My main benchmarks were cases where I have two planes and I know definitely that one was better than the other, it was a superior replacement for an earlier variant or those two planes fought each other and one of them dominated. If the system scores the wrong plane higher, something is wrong within the system and needs adjustment.

I’m not 100% happy with it yet (I don’t like how highly it scores the Komet, for instance, but that was also a problem in the original), but on the whole I’m pretty happy with where I’ve gotten it so far.

If I get more free time this weekend I’ll try and get started on some of those yearly charts.

[Johnnie Lyle]

I’ve got no smart answer for that. Just didn’t think of it. Obviously, I’m kind of an amateur at this. I might play around with that and see if it works better when I get back to tinkering around.

It’s a very fine exercise in balancing, hard to fix one thing without breaking another. My main benchmarks were cases where I have two planes and I know definitely that one was better than the other, it was a superior replacement for an earlier variant or those two planes fought each other and one of them dominated. If the system scores the wrong plane higher, something is wrong within the system and needs adjustment.

I’m not 100% happy with it yet (I don’t like how highly it scores the Komet, for instance, but that was also a problem in the original), but on the whole I’m pretty happy with where I’ve gotten it so far.

If I get more free time this weekend I’ll try and get started on some of those yearly charts.

Just be careful about which things do scale linearly, and which ones have diminishing returns. You also probably need to account for rate of fire and not just penetration/damage dealing in your firepower calculations. I’m not sure if you’re accounting for the differences in various guns of same nominal caliber either.

[Craiglxviii]

Can you mark or identify which universes/ works of fiction the fictional models come from, please?

[Vendetta]

Just be careful about which things do scale linearly, and which ones have diminishing returns. You also probably need to account for rate of fire and not just penetration/damage dealing in your firepower calculations. I’m not sure if you’re accounting for the differences in various guns of same nominal caliber either.

Yeah, like I said, guns haven't been properly rated yet. I expect a noticeable dip in the ratings for some big cannon toting planes like the Airacobra once that's done, and for some of those of those over-gunned twin engine fighters that seem a little overrated at the moment. But in many cases, it's not going to make that big of a difference. The differences between a 20mm Hispano cannon and an MG 151, while appreciable in isolation, are not going to sway the overall ratings of a Spitfire versus a 109 too much since so many other factors are in play.

Can you mark or identify which universes/ works of fiction the fictional models come from, please?

That is a good idea. It will take me a while to update all of them but I can give you a few of the main sources right away.

• TBO needs no introduction here, that's where some of the nicknames like the P-71 Stormbird and the P-72 Thunderstorm were borrowed from. The BV 155 and the Go 229 were both extent in this universe, so was the A-38 Grizzly.

• Nick Sumner's Drake's Drum trilogy is the source for many of them. His website has appendices listing the aircraft of various nations in their own sections (https://www.drakesdrum.co.uk/aircraft) and another one detailing the ahistorical engines that some of them use (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l3CNOG ... W5ha2/view). I marked the historical prototypes or draft designs they were derived from where available. Some didn't quite line up with a named historical project. The Boulton Paul Cutlass and Cormorant, for example, are a carrier fighter and dive bomber derived from a turretless Defiant, the Caproni Ca.336 is a torpedo bomber version of the Ca.335 prototype, and the Fw 281 and Fw 303 are carrier-based fighters derived from a Focke-Wulf sketch for a BMW 802 powered fighter. Some of the other planes operational in this universe:
  American: P-58 Chain Lightning, P-72 Thunderbolt, B-28 Patrick, B-33 Marauder, A-38 Grizzly, P-51N Mustang, BTD Destroyer
  British: Supermarine Spiteful, Martin-Baker Raven (the MB.5 - Mk I on the chart is the historical prototype, Mk II and III the more developed service versions in this universe), Vickers Vindex (the Victory Bomber concept brought into production), Fairey Spearfish, the Gloster Gannet (Gloster F5/34 built as a carrier fighter) and Goshawk (the 'Reaper' heavy fighter prototype repurposed as a ground attack plane), Hawker Henley (historically built but served as a target tug, operated in its intended role as a dive bomber here), the Australian CA-15 Kangaroo
  German: Heinkel He 100 (as a carrier based fighter), Junkers Ju 187, Arado Ar 340 (torpedo bomber derivative of the Ar 240), He 274, He 351, Ta 400
  Italian: Fiat G.56 and G.57, Breda Ba.201, Savoia-Marchetti SM.93, Caproni Ca.165 (as an early carrier-based fighter)
  Japanese: Ki-164 (derivative of the Ki-64), Ki-121 (derivative of the Ki-87), Ki-103 (improved Ki-83), Ki-156, the A7M, A8M (carrier-based derivative of the J6K), the G8N and G10N heavy bombers
  The books themselves were quite enjoyable, I highly recommend them.

• Schleicher's World is an alternate timeline found here (http://fai.org.ru/forum/forum/231-chern ... ki-po-miru) in which Poland survives throughout a very different World War II, it is the source for all the Polish aircraft. You'll need to be able to read Russian or use Google Translate on it.

• IFG or Peace of the French State is another timeline from the same forum (http://fai.org.ru/forum/topic/16844-avi ... osudarstva) in which Vichy France declares war on Britain after Operation Catapult and becomes a fully fledged Axis power. It is the source for many of the French aircraft on the list, including derivatives of the Arsenal VB.10 and VG.33 series fighters and the SNCAC NC.150 and Bloch MB.170 bombers.

• Many other French aircraft like the Potez 640 ground attack plane, Amiot 371 fast bomber and Amiot 415 six-engined bomber appear on Clausuchronia (http://www.clausuchronia.wordpress.com), in which a truce place takes in 1940 and lasts for most of the decade before the war resumes, with France managing to play a much stronger role. This blog is written in French and a bit of a beast to navigate. The German Fieseler Fi 169 torpedo plane also came from here.

• Mark Lewis' Japan Air War 1946 (https://www.amazon.com/PROJECT-AIR-WAR- ... 1453527206) series featured many of Japan's late war prototype aircraft as well as a few Allied ones, like the Boeing F8B (where it's given the Marlin nickname). They are also enjoyable reads - if a little lacking in polish and authorial discipline. There are several books in this series, but they are not direct sequels, rather expanded content for the original story - a lot of them have copycat chapters from one to another, and some are kludged together with unrelated short stories or essays. The main story, however, is still an enjoyable one, with the G10N Fugaku playing a starring role.

[Craiglxviii]

For guns, I would suggest taking the weight of fire of a one-second burst and scaling off that. Also add in muzzle velocity and ammunition storage per gun, and build a score around those factors. Example:

8 x .303”
1200rpm per gun = 9600rpm total / 60s = 160rps.
Projectile weight = 12g x 160 = 1920g/s.
Muzzle velocity = 783m/s.

6 x .50”
600rpm per gun = 3600rpm total / 60s = 60rps
Projectile weight = 42g x 60 = 2520g/s.
Muzzle velocity = 923m/s

4 x 20mm Hispano
700rpm per gun = 2800rpm total / 60s = 47rps
Projectile weight = 130g x 47 = 6110g/s.
Muzzle velocity = 840m/s.

4 x 30mm MK108 (Me-262)
600rpm per gun = 2400rpm total / 60s = 40rps
Projectile weight = 330g x 40 = 13,200g/s
Muzzle velocity 540m/s

4 x 30mm ADEN Mk.4 (Hunter)
1500rpm per gun = 6000rpm total / 60s = 100rps
Projectile weight = 220g x 100 = 22,000g/s
Muzzle velocity 800m/s

This gives weight of fire on target per burst + accuracy (higher MV results in lower ballistic droop).

I would suggest treating the MV as a handicap rather than a score. Between 600-700m/s is zero. Below 600 is a handicap- large ballistic arc makes for poor shooting. Above say 750 is a big plus- much flatter arc.

The reason I’m include MV here is, when talking about fighters, look at the 30mm on the Me-262. Huge round (330g!) but the ballistic drop off was crap. Ok for taking down bombers but, as reported heavily, very suboptimal against other fighters.

Thinking about this you should also factor in whether the guns were wing or nose/ belly mounted. Wing mounted guns should receive a penalty, say 0.7 of a nose/ belly mounted gun to offset the loss of weight of fire due to convergence issues within or without convergence range.

This also explains why the US kept the .50” in service into the early jet age. It had excellent ballistic performance and, packed into the nose of a Sabre with no convergence issues, allowed it to buzzsaw through opponents.

Edited to add. Overkill here is a good thing and shouldn’t be subject to diminishing returns. High weight of fire plus high MV give a higher chance of scoring a kill.

Further example

1 x 20mm M61A2
6600rpm = 110rps
Projectile weight = 99g x 110 = 10890g/s
Muzzle velocity = 1050m/s

So lower weight of fire than the Hunter’s ADEN belly pack, but 31% higher MV.

[Vendetta]

I appreciate the suggestion, I will take those ideas into consideration.

Assigning years of service to all aircraft will be rather time consuming. As a quicker stopgap, I've sorted through the table and made a common list for all countries by rating, dividing them into different tiers that are roughly on the same level. I'm pruning out many of the fictional entries and paper planes to reduce clutter, but leaving a few of the more well-documented prototypes.

First up, a list of single-engine, single-seat fighters.

[1300-1400]
Attacker Mk I …....... 1363.4
P-80C Shooting Star …....... 1352.6
Vampire Mk II …....... 1341.7
P-80B Shooting Star …....... 1304.6
Notes: Post-war jets. The Vampire F.2 was a Nene-powered prototype that never made it into series production.

[1200-1300]
Ta 183A-1 …....... 1287.3
Me 263A-1 …....... 1276.2
Me 163B-1 …....... 1262.9
F9F-2 Panther …....... 1258.9
P-84B Thunderjet …....... 1252.9
P-80A Shooting Star …....... 1208.8
Notes: The early US jets. The German rocket fighters also score here due to their massive speed and climb rates. They probably deserve to be lower. The Ta 183 is a draft plane whose engine never made it out of development hell. Included only for interest in where the German "napkinwaffen" might have placed had they performed as hoped.

[1100-1200]
J8M1 …....... 1181.8
J8M2 …....... 1174.0
Vampire Mk I …....... 1158.8
Notes: Japanese Komet knockoffs and the first edition Vampire.

[1000-1100]
He 162A-2 …....... 1037.4
Boeing XF8B-1 …....... 1022.8
Notes: The He 162 is like the Vampire, a very small, minimalist jet fighter, but with a worse engine. The XF8B was a great big monster of a prop plane, one that makes the Thunderbolt look modest. This rating was for a fit with six 20mm cannons.

[900-1000]
Spiteful Mk XVI …....... 982.4
Republic XP-72 …....... 979.1
P-47N Thunderbolt …....... 968.9
SE.580 …....... 959.7
Yak-15 …....... 954.1
F4U-5 Corsair …....... 949.2
P-51H Mustang …....... 930.7
F8F-2 Bearcat …....... 920.8
J6K1 …....... 918.3
Spiteful Mk XIV …....... 904.0
Notes: Here be the superprops, along with one lousy jet. The Kawanishi J6K is not on the same performance level as the rest and got in on account of its massive armament. It will probably fall out of this rank once the guns get re-rated.

[800-900]
F4U-4 Corsair …....... 898.3
Seafang Mk 32 …....... 880.1
J7W1 …....... 873.8
P-75A Eagle …....... 872.3
Seafury Mk X …....... 871.4
Ki-94-II …....... 867.3
Ta 152C-3 …....... 864.0
CA-15 Kangaroo …....... 862.4
Tempest Mk VI …....... 859.6
Spitfire Mk 24 …....... 859.1
Seafire Mk 47 …....... 858.4
Ta 152C-1 …....... 856.5
P-47D Thunderbolt …....... 854.8
Tempest Mk II …....... 844.3
F8F-1 Bearcat …....... 836.3
Martin-Baker M.B.5 …....... 828.8
P-51D Mustang …....... 827.5
Ta 152H-1 …....... 822.0
XF6F-6 Hellcat …....... 819.2
Ki-84-Ib …....... 809.6
Mikoyan-Gurevich I-225 …....... 808.9
Tempest Mk V …....... 805.7
Ki-98 …....... 802.7
La-9 …....... 800.7
Notes: More end of the war prop fighters. Fan favorites like the Mustang, Thunderbolt, and Tempest, as well as the last versions of the Spitfire. The Ki-84 was the only mass-produced Axis fighter that made it into this ranking. The La-9 is the only mass-produced Russian fighter at this tier, and only made it into service post-war. Germany's Ta 152s rate here as well.

[700-800]
P-63C Kingcobra …....... 799.3
Ki-87 …....... 796.4
Spitfire Mk XIV …....... 794.3
Ki-84-Ia …....... 787.0
P-51B Mustang …....... 786.8
F4U-1 Corsair …....... 786.6
P-47C Thunderbolt …....... 781.3
G.56 …....... 779.5
La-11 …....... 765.4
BV 155B-1 …....... 762.3
P-63A Kingcobra …....... 756.2
Fw 190D-13 …....... 755.2
Bf 109K-4 …....... 754.6
Ki-44-III …....... 753.5
Fw 190A-8 …....... 743.1
N1K2-J …....... 740.8
Fw 190D-9 …....... 739.6
Typhoon Mk I …....... 732.7
MB.157 …....... 731.3
Ki-64 …....... 730.8
F6F-5 Hellcat …....... 729.7
N1K1-J …....... 728.1
La-7 …....... 724.3
Spitfire Mk IX …....... 721.7
Fw 190A-5 …....... 720.2
Fw 190A-3 …....... 718.8
I-185 …....... 717.6
Re.2005 …....... 707.5
XP-40Q Warhawk …....... 705.4
G.55 …....... 704.9
Ki-44-IIb …....... 703.1
F6F-3 Hellcat …....... 703.0
Yak-3U …....... 702.5
A7M2 …....... 701.0
Notes: The tiers get more crowded from here on out. This one is the home of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, the late war Spitfires, the early editions of the best US fighters, the Italian series 5 fighters, Russia's best wartime fighter, the La-7, and Japan's best mass produced fighters, the Ki-84 and the Kawanishi N1K-J. You can see why the Russians liked the P-39 and its successor, the P-63 so much - they compare favorably with the best fighters Russia was producing when each was brought into service. The French MB.157, a prototype from 1940, is a wildcard, and I rated it by reduced figures, not the claimed 700 km/h top speed. However, like its neighbor the Hawker Typhoon, I believe there would have been lots of teething troubles to sort out with putting such a high-powered engine into such a small package, and so it might have taken until sometime in 1942 to actually bring it into service - by which time it would still be one of the best fighters around, but comparable to an Fw 190, not leagues above its competition.

[600-700]
P.119 …....... 696.7
Seafire Mk XV …....... 690.7
Yak-9UT …....... 686.4
D.551 …....... 683.8
Bf 109G-10 …....... 681.8
J2M3 …....... 679.7
Yak-9P …....... 679.0
Yak-9U …....... 672.3
J2M5 …....... 670.4
D-3803 …....... 668.9
MC.205V …....... 667.2
La-5FN …....... 659.9
Ki-100-II …....... 656.1
MC.205N …....... 655.8
P-51A Mustang …....... 653.3
P-40F Warhawk …....... 652.0
P-39Q Airacobra …....... 648.2
Bf 109G-6 …....... 645.0
J 21A …....... 639.3
J2M2 …....... 639.1
P-40N Warhawk …....... 638.1
A7M1 …....... 638.1
Pyorremyrsky I …....... 637.5
Yak-3P …....... 636.1
He 100D-1 …....... 633.6
Ki-44-IIc …....... 629.4
Ki-100-I …....... 629.2
Yak-3 …....... 626.6
Ki-61-II …....... 624.9
A6M8 …....... 624.8
Bf 109G-2 …....... 624.5
Bf 109F-4 …....... 622.6
P-39D Airacobra …....... 622.2
Spitfire Mk V …....... 620.8
Seafire Mk III …....... 619.8
Ki-44-IIa …....... 615.3
D-3802 …....... 612.4
VG.39 …....... 611.1
Ki-43-IIIb …....... 609.3
MiG-3 …....... 601.9
P-39C Airacobra …....... 600.4
Notes: Good mid-to-late war fighters. The best Yaks are all here (aside from the limited series Yak-3U with an ASh-82). So are most of the later Bf 109s, except for the boosted K-4. The best Airacobra and Warhawk rate alongside the worst P-51. Here is the Spitfire V that got clobbered when the Fw 190 first entered service, you can see how it's well-matched with contemporary 109's but absolutely outclassed by the Focke-Wulf. The Heinkel He 100 is another overperformer for its time, though like the MB.157 it would have been difficult to bring into service quickly with its complex technical issues. The MiG-3 also scores surprisingly high.

[500-600]
MiG-1 …....... 598.3
Seafire Mk II …....... 592.2
La-5F …....... 591.3
A6M5 …....... 586.6
Ki-43-IIIa …....... 585.8
Spitfire Mk II …....... 584.8
Ki-61-Id …....... 580.6
Ki-61-Ic …....... 578.6
P-40E Warhawk …....... 576.6
Ki-61-Ib …....... 571.3
Ki-61-Ia …....... 570.5
A6M3 …....... 566.9
Hurricane Mk II …....... 566.3
Bf 109F-2 …....... 566.3
Bf 109E-7 …....... 565.1
Spitfire Mk I …....... 563.9
A6M2 …....... 563.6
I-180 …....... 563.3
La-5 …....... 562.3
Ki-44-I …....... 562.3
MC.202 …....... 558.3
P-43A Lancer …....... 556.9
Yak-9T …....... 552.6
J 22B …....... 552.0
Yak-7B …....... 551.5
FM-2 Wildcat …....... 549.8
Bf 109E-3 …....... 548.6
Ki-43-IIb …....... 547.9
Yak-9 …....... 541.2
Bf 109T-1 …....... 540.6
F4F-4 Wildcat …....... 538.0
Yak-9K …....... 537.6
F4F-3 Wildcat …....... 535.6
Re.2002 …....... 535.4
Ki-43-IIa …....... 532.5
Yak-9D …....... 532.4
P-40C Warhawk …....... 531.8
Yak-1B …....... 530.9
Yak-9DD …....... 528.1
F2A-2 Buffalo …....... 526.7
VG.36 …....... 526.7
Re.2001 …....... 520.4
F2A-3 Buffalo …....... 518.9
P-36G Hawk …....... 517.7
Ki-43-Ic …....... 509.2
Yak-9M …....... 508.4
Yak-9B …....... 504.9
Yak-1 …....... 504.7
SAI.403 …....... 504.7
Ki-43-Ib …....... 503.0
Notes: The Zero is here. In the 1940-41 period, it has few rivals at this rating, only the latest Spitfires and 109's outscoring it. The Hurricane here is the Mark IIC and scores surprisingly high, probably due to its heavy armament. That may go down after guns are re-rated. The Buffalo scores pretty well; it's notable that the F2A-2 is better than the F2A-3 - this echoes real life feedback that the -3 added too much weight and reduced the plane's performance for little gain.

[400-500]
J 22A …....... 499.6
Ki-43-Ia …....... 497.7
Hurricane Mk I …....... 495.8
P-66 Vanguard …....... 492.2
D.520 …....... 490.3
VG.33 …....... 486.4
Boomerang Mk I …....... 485.9
MB.155 …....... 485.3
F2A-1 Buffalo …....... 484.8
Yak-7 …....... 483.1
Bf 109E-1 …....... 482.5
Renard R.36 …....... 480.5
LaGG-3 …....... 479.1
P-36C Hawk …....... 478.3
Myrsky II …....... 478.3
LaGG-1 …....... 468.4
D-3801 …....... 462.1
Re.2000 …....... 455.8
I-153 …....... 451.7
IAR 81C …....... 450.7
MB.152 …....... 448.7
IAR 80B …....... 442.3
IAR 80A …....... 440.1
B-135 …....... 439.7
MS.410 …....... 435.7
IK-3 …....... 435.2
P-36A Hawk …....... 434.6
I-16/29 …....... 433.6
PZL.24H …....... 431.5
Heja II …....... 426.0
Ki-27a …....... 425.7
He 112B-1 …....... 423.0
Grumman F3F-2 …....... 422.3
Seversky P-35A …....... 421.5
He 112A-1 …....... 419.2
Ki-27b …....... 418.6
F.K.58 …....... 416.3
MC.200 …....... 413.7
IAR 81B …....... 411.9
IAR 81A …....... 403.9
Notes: This is where a lot of minor countries (the Dutch, the Czechs, the Romanians, the Yugoslavs) top out. The Polikarpov I-153 is king of the biplanes. I expected the French D.520 to score a little better, I will have to look more into why it ended up lower than the Hurricane.

[300-400]
IK-2 …....... 397.8
Gladiator Mk II …....... 396.8
Ki-10-II …....... 396.8
Gladiator Mk I …....... 396.8
North American NA-68 …....... 396.3
PZL.24A …....... 391.1
MS.406 …....... 386.2
I-16/10 …....... 384.9
Ca.165 …....... 382.0
D-3800 …....... 381.8
G.50 …....... 377.0
A5M4 …....... 375.8
I-16/5 …....... 372.6
PZL.50A …....... 371.5
CR.42 …....... 368.1
D.XXI …....... 362.9
I-15Bis …....... 358.5
North American NA-50 …....... 354.2
MB.151 …....... 354.0
B-534 …....... 352.6
I-15 …....... 351.6
S.510 …....... 344.3
Bf 109D-1 …....... 343.9
PZL.11G …....... 342.8
Gauntlet Mk II …....... 338.2
Bf 109B-2 …....... 331.7
D.510 …....... 329.6
A5M2 …....... 329.3
VEF I-16 …....... 310.3
C.714 …....... 308.6
BF2C-1 Goshawk …....... 300.2
Notes: Fighters from the later 30s, along with several lousy and underperforming designs from the start of the war - the Morane-Saulnier MS.406, the Bloch MB.151, and the Caudron C.714 being a trio of lemons from France. What's remarkable is how high the later successors of the Swiss D-3800 series - licensed derivatives of the MS.406 - ended up scoring. The basic design was not unsalvageable, but the version that the French put into mass production was terribly unrefined.

[200-300]
Ca.114 …....... 283.2
A4N1 …....... 281.6
D.XVII …....... 276.2
CR.32 …....... 268.8
PZL.11C …....... 267.4
Ba.27 …....... 266.5
P-26A Peashooter …....... 264.3
F11C-2 Goshawk …....... 249.4
He 51B-1 …....... 246.3
He 51C-1 …....... 239.4
Notes: Fighters from the early 30s.

[Johnnie Lyle]

It might be worth posting these as a table, with your ranking, Stuart’s ranking, and the difference (numerical or percent), to look for outliers.

[Craiglxviii]

This is great work. Thank you! Agreed if you can get these in as a table, even better as a chart…

[Johnnie Lyle]

This is great work. Thank you! Agreed if you can get these in as a table, even better as a chart…

Charts would be useful for head-to-head comparisons, but before we get there, lets benchmark it against Stuart’s work to see if we’re missing something big.

[Craiglxviii]

This is great work. Thank you! Agreed if you can get these in as a table, even better as a chart…

Charts would be useful for head-to-head comparisons, but before we get there, lets benchmark it against Stuart’s work to see if we’re missing something big.

Column charts with a third axis. I like your style. To the Batcave!

[Vendetta]

Another great suggestion. I'm hesitant to spend a lot of time making charts right now since these ratings will change once the armament formula has been adjusted.

Here are the other half of the fighters, the twin-engined ones - and also the few single-engined multi-seaters, which are an awkward fit on either list.

[1300-1400]
Go 229A-1 …....... 1390.3
Meteor Mk IV …....... 1380.6
Notes: The Go 229's performance is a little questionable, flying wings are tricky and the prototype never got much flying time. The Meteor leaves the Me 262 in the dust once it's fitted with Derwents.

[1200-1300]
Me 262C-1 …....... 1217.5
Notes: A lonely rank populated by one prototype. Frustrated in developing a second-generation jet engine, the Germans planned on fitting the Me 262 with rocket boosters. It's not nearly as good as the Derwent-powered Meteor.

[1100-1200]
MiG-9 …....... 1153.8
Me 262A-1 …....... 1149.6
Ki-201 …....... 1120.7
Notes: The best jet fighter to actually see wartime service, the German Me 262, along with its Japanese knockoff and the first MiG jet, which flew on German engine clones.

[1000-1100]
P-61C Black Widow …....... 1050.2
He 280A-1 …....... 1030.6
FH-1 Phantom …....... 1026.8
Meteor Mk III …....... 1017.5
Curtiss XP-71 …....... 1006.7
Notes: Lower performing wartime jets and a couple of extraordinarily big and well-armed prop planes.

[900-1000]
XP-58 Chain Lightning …....... 983.6
P-82B Twin Mustang …....... 975.8
Hornet Mk III …....... 972.6
F7F-3 Tigercat …....... 967.3
Do 335B-2 …....... 966.5
P-59B Airacomet …....... 964.1
Ca.183Bis …....... 946.4
F7F-1 Tigercat …....... 935.1
Hornet Mk I …....... 934.2
Notes: High-performance twin props that just missed wartime service: the Tigercat, the Hornet, and the Merlin-powered version of the Twin Mustang, along with the improved drawing board version of the Do 335. The marginal Airacomet jet ranks with these planes, along with the very unconventional Caproni motorjet prototype.

[800-900]
P-61B Black Widow …....... 878.5
Do 335A-1 …....... 860.6
Ki-83 …....... 856.3
Ca.380 …....... 849.4
P-38L Lightning …....... 848.3
J9N1 …....... 844.0
Tu-1 …....... 840.1
IAe.30 …....... 833.4
He 219B-1 …....... 826.1
P-38J Lightning …....... 823.1
Ki-93a …....... 804.0
Notes: The best twin engine fighters that actually made it into wartime service are here, along with various prototypes and the very underpowered and unimpressive Nakajima Kikka jet.

[700-800]
P-38G Lightning …....... 787.4
Ju 388J-1 …....... 786.7
MB.902 …....... 771.9
MiG-5I …....... 769.7
He 219A-7 …....... 766.8
FR-1 Fireball …....... 760.2
SM.92 …....... 753.7
S1A1 …....... 749.0
MiG-5 …....... 748.1
Mosquito Mk II …....... 744.8
Mosquito Mk 30 …....... 731.9
J5N1 …....... 731.4
VB.10 …....... 727.8
Ta 154A-1 …....... 727.7
Mosquito Mk XIX …....... 724.6
Ki-108-II …....... 718.3
P-61A Black Widow …....... 711.4
Welkin Mk I …....... 708.1
Me 410A-1 …....... 703.1
He 219A-2 …....... 703.0
Notes: Earlier versions of the P-38 and the night fighter versions of the Mosquito. I think the Mark II outscores the later versions because it wasn't weighed down by radar, which my system hasn't awarded any points to (will probably have to change that). Good fighters from the mid-to-late war. The Germans had a few here as well, but the Japanese, Russian, and Italian ones are only prototypes. I'm very skeptical of how highly the MiG-5 (Mikoyan-Gurevich DIS) scored, but it flew on the temperamental Mikulin AM-37, which never made it out of development. A production version would have probably flown on something else and suffered lower performance. The mixed-power Ryan FR-1 Fireball is an oddball. Not a very successful idea, it's the lowest jet-powered plane on the list.

[600-700]
Ro.58 …....... 697.8
Ki-102b …....... 696.9
Bf 110G-4 …....... 689.1
Firefly Mk IV …....... 688.8
Ki-108-I …....... 687.3
Bf 110G-2 …....... 683.1
Ta-3Bis …....... 679.4
BZ.303 …....... 675.1
SM.91 …....... 674.1
Ki-102a …....... 667.8
Beaufighter Mk VI …....... 661.7
P-38E Lightning …....... 648.5
Ki-102c …....... 645.5
Bf 110F-2 …....... 641.6
Ta-3 …....... 633.9
Ju 88G-6 …....... 632.4
Do 217N-2 …....... 632.3
Ju 88G-1 …....... 630.2
Bre.700 …....... 626.1
Beaufighter Mk I …....... 600.4
Notes: This is where the big, slow gunships like the Beaufighter and the Do 217 and Ju 88 night fighters place. The Ki-102 is the best Japanese twin-engine fighter to actually reach squadron service. The first production edition of the Lightning is here, along with the final version of the Bf 110.

[500-600]
Me 210A-1 …....... 595.0
Ki-45d …....... 594.0
Whirlwind Mk I …....... 592.2
Bf 110D-3 …....... 591.7
SE.100 …....... 581.1
Do 217J-1 …....... 568.7
Pe-3M …....... 567.6
Ki-45b …....... 555.9
Ki-45c …....... 554.1
PZL.48A …....... 550.8
Bf 110C-4 …....... 546.6
Firefly Mk I …....... 544.6
Ki-45a …....... 539.7
Bf 110C-1 …....... 533.9
Pe-3Bis …....... 529.3
Ju 88C-6 …....... 529.0
NC.600 …....... 516.1
Notes: The Me 210 was a famous dog, you can see how far below the Bf 110F and G variants it ranks. Feels a little insulting to have it rank ahead of the Westland Whirlwind, but the Whirlwind entered service two years earlier. The early Bf 110s are all here, along with the Japanese Ki-45 Toryu and the early German attempts to build night fighters out of bombers.

[400-500]
Pe-3 …....... 495.7
Po.671 …....... 484.9
Ca.331B …....... 484.3
Ro.57Bis …....... 480.6
J1N1-S …....... 474.5
J1N1-Sa …....... 470.7
G.I …....... 456.2
Ro.57 …....... 425.7
Ca.331A …....... 416.5
SABCA S.47 …....... 406.9
D.XXIII …....... 405.4
Notes: Mostly marginal and underpowered planes. The Fokker G.I is noteworthy, however, as one of the first decently-performing twin-engine fighters to enter service - it's obvious why it attracted a lot of attention and export interest from abroad.

[300-400]
Po.631 …....... 389.9
Defiant Mk II …....... 375.3
PZL.38A …....... 358.8
Fulmar Mk II …....... 354.9
Defiant Mk I …....... 319.9
Notes: Even more underpowered and unimpressive planes. The Defiant and the Fulmar were both single engine planes with two crewmen. Neither were great designs, though they did offer some useful service. The Potez 631 was hopelessly slow, and the PZL.38 Wilk was a failed prototype.

[200-300]
Fulmar Mk I …....... 292.4
DI-6 …....... 279.6
Notes: The first edition Fulmar and the Kochyerigin DI-6, an unusual interwar Soviet fighter with a tail gunner that never went to Spain or did anything interesting.

[100-200]
Roc Mk I …....... 165.3
Notes: The Blackburn Roc is in a league of its own, by far the worst on either list. Complete and utter shit. It is incredible that this plane actually made it into serial production.

[Vendetta]

EDIT: double posted

[Vendetta]

I began going through the archive of Stuart's ranking system today. Apparently, his last update was a version 3.0, however, we only have the 3.0 ratings for a small number of aircraft (but a more complete set for version 2.0). I started with the 3.0 planes we had available and drew up a list of planes both our systems rated (I left off ones where it was unclear which variant Stuart was posting the stats for).

I also discovered that taking 15% of the rating my system gives will provide a score that scales very closely to Stuart's. I used that to make it easier to compare. Here's what I got. The number in parenthesis is how much the plane's rating rose or fell by in my system compared to Stuart's. A chart really would be a better way to present these, but I haven't found any built in table-making functions on the forum.

F4U-1 Corsair (+0.42%)
STU: 117.5
VEN: 118.0

P-40F Warhawk (-6.13%)
STU: 103.8
VEN: 97.8

Spitfire Mk V (-8.92%)
STU: 102.6
VEN: 94.2

A6M3 (-19.36%)
STU: 101.5
VEN: 85.0

F4F-4 Wildcat (-24.66%)
STU: 100.6
VEN: 80.7

CA-12 Boomerang (-31.71%)
STU: 96.0
VEN: 72.9

P-39D Airacobra (-2.75%)
STU: 95.9
VEN: 93.3

F2A-2 Buffalo (-12.02%)
STU: 88.5
VEN: 79.0

Spitfire Mk II (+1.38%)
STU: 86.6
VEN: 87.7

Spitfire Mk I (-1.32%)
STU: 85.7
VEN: 84.6

Bf 109E-3 (+5.21%)
STU: 78.0
VEN: 82.3

He 100D-1 (+18.24%)
STU: 77.7
VEN: 95.0

MB.152 (-13.22%)
STU: 76.2
VEN: 67.3

Hurricane Mk I (-0.85%)
STU: 75.0
VEN: 74.4

D.520 (-0.48%)
STU: 73.9
VEN: 73.5

Po.631 (-23.62%)
STU: 72.3
VEN: 58.5

Bf 110C-1 (+11.22%)
STU: 71.1
VEN: 80.1

MS.406 (-13.59%)
STU: 65.8
VEN: 57.9

Bf 109E-1 (+10.19%)
STU: 65.0
VEN: 72.4

D.XXI (-14.82%)
STU: 62.5
VEN: 54.4

Ki-27 (+6.77%)
STU: 58.6
VEN: 62.8

MB.151(-6.97%)
STU: 56.8
VEN: 53.1

C.714 (-21.41%)
STU: 56.2
VEN: 46.3

Defiant Mk I (-12.95%)
STU: 54.2
VEN: 48.0

Those were sorted by how highly they placed under Stuart's system. Now let's make comparing them a little easier. Here's a list of the planes that rated better under my system:
(+18.24%) He 100D-1
(+11.22%) Bf 110C-1
(+10.19%) Bf 109E-1
(+6.77%) Ki-27
(+5.21%) Bf 109E-3
(+1.38%) Spitfire Mk II
(+0.42%) F4U-1 Corsair

And here's a list of planes my system gave a worse score to:
(-0.48%) D.520
(-0.85%) Hurricane Mk I
(-1.32%) Spitfire Mk I
(-2.75%) P-39D Airacobra
(-6.13%) P-40F Warhawk
(-6.97%) MB.151
(-8.92%) Spitfire Mk V
(-12.02%) F2A-2 Buffalo
(-12.95%) Defiant Mk I
(-13.22%) MB.152
(-13.59%) MS.406
(-14.82%) D.XXI
(-19.36%) A6M3
(-21.41%) C.714
(-23.62%) Po.631
(-24.66%) F4F-4 Wildcat
(-31.71%) CA-12 Boomerang

The first thing I can tell at a glance is that my system punishes slow planes more harshly than Stuart's did. The biggest gainer from this small dataset is the He 100 - not coincidentally, the fastest plane on the list. The biggest losers are all relatively slow. I think my system is also punishing slow climb rates harder. Overall, I like what I see so far. Going through the ones my system penalized:

• CAC Boomerang: Deemed non-competitive as a fighter, used more for ground attack and training
• F4F-4 Wildcat: Many pilots preferred its predecessor, the F4F-3; the -4 added two more guns but no additional ammo, and was slower and a worse climber
• Potez 631: Proved almost useless as a heavy fighter, too slow to catch most German bombers
• Caudron C.714: Slow and a ridiculously poor climber, the French thought it was useless and gave it away to their allies, the Finns received a few and also thought it was useless, never put them into action
• A6M3: Shorter-ranged and less maneuverable than the A6M2 while not being much faster - not as popular with its pilots
• D.XXI: I'm actually wondering if Stuart used stats from a different subvariant than I did - some used a Bristol Mercury, others a Twin Wasp. Inconclusive.
• MS.406: Terrible climb rate, very poor combat record against the Bf 109 - in Stuart's system, the MS.406 outranks the Bf 109E-1 (65.8 to to 65.0), but in mine the 109 is decisively better (72.4 to 57.9). I think reality is on my side.
• MB.152: Per Michel Cristesco, according to the Wiki: "the MB 152 was the least successful in combat [in comparison to its French contemporaries] and suffered the highest losses."
• Defiant: Somewhat effective as a bomber destroyer but unable to contend with enemy fighters.

Overall, I think my system has done pretty well at assigning lower scores to the more poorly performing aircraft. When I have time, I will compile a larger data set using Stuart's 2.0 ratings and see what other patterns we can find.

[Vendetta]

I've completed a larger review of the changes between Stuart's scores and mine using Stuart's version 2.0 rankings. Regrettably, the one for the German fighters does not seem to have been recovered yet, so they are absent from this list. Once again, the percentage indicates how much the plane's score rose or fell from Stuart's system to mine; with the larger set of data inputs this time, I changed the conversion factor from 15% of my scores to 16.5% to put their overall average on par with Stuart's. So here's what I have

Massive Gain (>10%)
JAP: J8M1 (36.41%)
RUS: Yak-15 (24.02%)
USA: P-59B (22.41%)
JAP: Ki-43-Ia (22.37%)
USA: FH-1 (20.97%)
JAP: Ki-201 (19.57%)
RUS: MiG-1 (18.84%)
RUS: MiG-9 (17.99%)
USA: P-39C (17.80%)
ENG: Vampire Mk I (17.73%)
RUS: La-7 (17.26%)
RUS: I-153 (17.20%)
USA: P-80A (17.11%)
ENG: Meteor Mk IV (16.80%)
FRA: MB.157 (15.69%)
JAP: Ki-43-Ib (15.60%)
ENG: Attacker Mk I (15.30%)
RUS: La-5FN (14.82%)
USA: F9F-2 (14.27%)
USA: P-80C (14.11%)
RUS: I-15 (13.76%)
JAP: Ki-27 (13.48%)
RUS: MiG-3 (13.26%)
USA: P-80B (13.03%)
ENG: Spitfire Mk II (13.02%)
ITA: MC.202 (12.58%)
JAP: Ki-84-Ib (12.29%)
JAP: Ki-44-III (11.36%)
USA: P-43A (11.33%)
USA: F4U-4 (11.32%)
JAP: Ki-84-Ia (11.15%)
USA: P-84B (11.07%)
ITA: Re.2002 (10.52%)
ENG: Hurricane Mk I (10.17%)
RUS: Yak-9U (10.11%)

Notes: Every jet had big gains in my system - the only one you'll find outside of here is the Meteor F.3, which just missed it at +9.56%. The Mitsubishi J8M (Japanese Komet knockoff) figure is anomalous; Stuart had it rated at 124 points, while I can remember the Me 163 was somewhere in the 140s or 150s. There simply wasn't that big a difference between the two planes, so I'm not sure where Stuart got his data on them from. If I plug in 150.00 instead, the score only rises by 18% - on par with the gain from most of the jets. The jets are benefitting heavily from my higher emphasis on speed and power-to-weight ratio.

A number of piston engine fighters also made substantial gains. Under Stuart's system, Russia's La-7 and Yak-9U, the top wartime fighters, scored at 98.88 and 99.72 respectively, which is relatively pathetic - they are beaten by a Mark IIC Hurricane (117.92), which is 140 km/h slower than either of them and undoubtedly an inferior fighter to either. The La-7 is a 119.51 and the Yak-9U is a 110.93 by my reckoning, while the Hurricane II is now a 93.44. This is definitely a change for the better. The preceding La-5FN which used the same engine made similar gains. The MiG-1 and MiG-3 are both much higher (they had outstanding top speed for their service entry year), and the Polikarpov I-15 series biplanes also got a big boost.

Japan's Ki-84 was rated behind the Hurricane Mk II, the P-39Q Airacobra, and the P-40N Warhawk in Stuart's system; it's competitive with the P-51D Mustang, the Tempest Mk V, and the Spitfire Mk XIV in mine. That seems much more appropriate. Stuart rated the Ki-27 behind its biplane Ki-10 predecessor; in my system it's now slightly better. Stuart also rated the F4U-4 Corsair behind its F4U-1 predecessor; now it's substantially better than the F4U-1 in mine.

I also like seeing the Macchi C.202 where it is in mine. From wartime experience, British Hurricane and Curtiss Tomahawk fighters held the upper hand against Italy's Fiat G.50 and Macchi C.200, but the introduction of the C.202 turned the tables until the British were able to introduce better fighters. In Stuart's system, the C.202 is an 80.53 while the Hurricane II ranges from 92.18 to 117.92 depending on subvariant, and the early P-40 is at 84.10 to 103.55; the Macchi is much worse than either. By my scores, the C.202 is a 92.12 while the Hurricane IIC is a 93.44 and the P-40C is an 87.75; now it's a proper match for them.

Moderate Gain (5-10%)
ENG: Spitfire Mk I (9.96%)
ITA: Re.2001 (9.60%)
ENG: Meteor Mk III (9.56%)
JAP: Ki-61-Ia (9.24%)
ITA: MC.200 (8.95%)
USA: F8F-2 (8.91%)
USA: F4U-5 (8.73%)
ENG: Gladiator Mk II (8.46%)
RUS: Yak-1 (8.38%)
USA: F8F-1 (8.01%)
ENG: Seafire Mk XV ( 7.83%)
USA: XP-72 (6.67%)
ENG: Spiteful Mk XIV (6.65%)
ITA: MC.205 (6.21%)
RUS: La-5 (5.87%)
FRA: D.520 (5.87%)
RUS: Yak-3 (5.43%)

Notes: If there's a common thread here, it seems to be lightweight fighters with good performance but relatively lesser armament - the Bearcat, for example, only has four Brownings versus most American fighters' six, and the XP-72 has six versus the Thunderbolt's eight. I think Stuart's system put too many points into raw armament and not enough into speed and performance - extra guns are great, but if your plane is too slow to actually bring them to bear against your enemy, they're not going to be much help.

Minor Gain (0-5%)
FRA: VG.33 (4.98%)
RUS: La-9 (4.51%)
RUS: I-15Bis (4.43%)
USA: P-47N (4.30%)
RUS: La-11 (4.17%)
USA: P-40C (4.16%)
USA: P-47D (3.98%)
JAP: N1K2-J (3.55%)
ENG: Spitfire Mk XIV (3.40%)
USA: P-38E (3.06%)
USA: P-51H (2.99%)
RUS: Yak-3P (2.74%)
JAP: Ki-108 (2.73%)
JAP: Ki-102 (2.44%)
RUS: I-16 Type 5 (2.44%)
ITA: Re.2000 (2.20%)
JAP: Ki-61-Ib (2.16%)
RUS: Yak-7 (2.03%)
USA: F7F-3 (1.82%)
ITA: Re.2005 (1.70%)
JAP: A6M5 (1.58%)
ENG: Mosquito Mk VI (1.31%)
ENG: Hornet Mk I (1.29%)
USA: P-36G (1.23%)
USA: P-36C (1.13%)
ENG: Spitfire Mk 24 (0.97%)
ENG: Defiant Mk I (0.33%)
ENG: Tempest Mk II (0.23%)
JAP: Ki-10 (0.09%)
ENG: Gauntlet Mk II (0.04%)

Notes: Not too much to say here, many fighters saw little change in score from one system to the other, losses in one aspect being balanced by gains in another.

Minor Loss (0-5%)
ITA: Ca.114 (-0.67%)
RUS: LaGG-3 (-0.69%)
ENG: Typhoon Mk I (-0.80%)
ITA: CR.42 (-0.85%)
JAP: J2M3 (-0.88%)
FRA: MB.152 (-1.18%)
USA: P-47C (-1.53%)
ENG: Welkin Mk I (-1.71%)
ITA: G.55 (-1.72%)
FRA: MB.155 (-1.86%)
ITA: G.50 (-2.05%)
JAP: Ki-61-II (-2.07%)
USA: F3F-3 (-2.43%)
USA: P-35A (-2.49%)
USA: P-36A (-2.64%)
JAP: A6M3 (-2.65%)
USA: P-38L (-3.29%)
ENG: Seafire Mk II (-3.37%)
USA: P-51D (-3.74%)
JAP: Ki-44-II (-3.75%)
JAP: J2M2 (-4.04%)
ENG: Seafang Mk 32 (-4.20%)
JAP: Ki-61-Id (-4.20%)
USA: P-38G (-4.28%)
ENG: Seafire Mk 47 (-4.34%)
JAP: Ki-83 (-4.49%)
JAP: A5M4 (-4.65%)
USA: P-38J (-4.81%)
FRA: MB.151 (-4.85%)
USA: F7F-1 (-4.85%)
JAP: N1K1-J (-4.91%)

Notes: Same thing.

Moderate Loss (5-10%)
USA: P-51B (-5.22%)
ENG: Seafury Mk X (-5.63%)
USA: FR-1 (-5.90%)
ENG: Spitfire Mk IX (-5.94%)
USA: F4U-1 (-6.61%)
JAP: A7M1 (-7.13%)
FRA: S.510 (-7.13%)
JAP: Ki-44-I (-7.32%)
USA: F6F-3 (-7.69%)
JAP: Ki-100 (-8.17%)
JAP: A6M2 (-8.53%)
RUS: Yak-9B (-8.81%)
RUS: Yak-9D (-8.83%)
USA: P-61C (-8.83%)
USA: P-40E (-8.84%)
FRA: Po.671 (-9.19%)
JAP: A6M8 (-9.50%)
FRA: Po.631 (-9.69%)
JAP: Ki-43-III (-9.71%)
USA: P-63A (-9.82%)
USA: P-39Q (-9.89%)

Notes: My system rewarded long range less generously than Stuart's; consequently, many US and Japanese fighters took a hit. The Ryan FR-1 was a notable exception among the big gains posted by jets, having actually lost points. It's not really a jet plane at all, it's a prop fighter with an auxiliary jet that can be used for short periods as a booster. It's slower than a P-51D with the jet running, and much slower without it. All in all, a pretty lousy aircraft.

Massive Loss (>10%)
FRA: C.714 (-10.17%)
FRA: MS.406 (-10.43%)
USA: P-39D (-10.49%)
ENG: Fulmar Mk I (-10.60%)
ENG: Whirlwind Mk I (-10.67%)
ENG: Spitfire Mk V (-11.07%)
ENG: Defiant Mk II (-11.35%)
JAP: Ki-45a (-11.59%)
USA: F4F-3 (-11.79%)
USA: P-40F (-12.15%)
ENG: Mosquito Mk II (-12.23%)
ENG: Tempest Mk V (-12.41%)
JAP: Ki-43-II (-12.69%)
USA: F2A-2 (-12.93%)
USA: P-63C (-13.24%)
USA: P-40N (-13.54%)
USA: P-64 (-14.90%)
ITA: Ba.27 (-15.21%)
ENG: Fulmar Mk II (-16.16%)
JAP: A4N1 (-16.65%)
ITA: CR.32 (-16.73%)
FRA: D.510 (-16.91%)
RUS: I-16 Type 29 (-17.20%)
RUS: Yak-9T (-17.95%)
JAP: A5M1 (-18.30%)
USA: F2A-3 (-19.16%)
ENG: Firefly Mk I (-19.85%)
USA: P-51A (-20.36%)
USA: P-26A (-20.48%)
USA: P-61B (-20.94%)
JAP: Ki-45c (-22.29%)
USA: P-61A (-25.75%)
ENG: Hurricane Mk II (-26.20%)
USA: F4F-4 (-28.04%)
ENG: Mosquito Mk 30 (-29.29%)
ENG: Beaufighter Mk I (-31.23%)
ENG: Beaufighter Mk VI (-33.23%)
ENG: Beaufighter Mk X (-34.05%)
JAP: J1N1-S (-37.59%)
ENG: Roc Mk I (-39.80%)

Notes: The Blackburn Roc was by far the lowest scorer in Stuart's system as well (38.13); I'm glad to see it still managed to be the biggest loser anyway in relative terms, despite having so little lose. After that abomination, a clear pattern emerges: big, heavy twin engine bomber destroyers score much lower under my system than Stuart's: the Beaufighter, the P-61, the Mosquito, the Ki-45, and the J1N all take big hits (we're really missing out by the absence of the Germans here). I find this to be satisfactory - when they fought their contemporary single-engine brethren, they lost. Stuart ranks the big, lumbering Beaufighter from 130.00 to 156.13, depending on variant - outscoring just about any variant of the Spitfire. By my scores, they come in at 99.07 to 116.47 - still respectable, but now outscored by each of their Spitfire contemporaries. The P-38 is a notable exception to the pattern, with most taking only minor losses (and the P-38E even making a small gain), thanks to their excellent climb rates.

Among single engine fighters, the big losers tended to be fighters with a lot of range or a lot of firepower (or both), but poor speed and flight performance. Five seems to be an unlucky number, with both the Mark V Spitfire and Tempest having taken a big hit. I will have to look into those ones, as I can't think of an obvious reason for it; perhaps the specification figures I came across for them were just lowballs and there are higher ones out there.

[Johnnie Lyle]

How are you vs Stuart calculating range?

I am very leery about range differences not being properly accounted for, especially in a WWII context.