PDA

View Full Version : 109 manual pitch super power output...with TRK



XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 12:50 AM
Just did a 109g2 climb test with v1.21, using manual pitch control to keep the RPM around 3100RPM, mark the time till 8000m, then did a compare test with auto pitch control @2800RPM. In both cases 100% fuel and default ammo.

MANU AUTO
1000m 0:40 0:46
2000m 1:17 1:29
3000m 1:52 2:12
4000m 2:28 2:58
5000m 3:06 3:41
6000m 3:47 4:31
7000m 4:28 5:19
8000m 5:06 6:17

It seems 109g2 pushes too much power out of its virtual DB605A engine @3100RPM, so much so it maintain its 26m/s average climb rate up to 8000m. Also in another horizontal turn time test at sea level, using manual pitch @3100RPM can make 109g2 turn 1-1.5 second faster in a complete circle.

Moreover @3100RPM manual pitch the engine only overheat slightly faster than when its at auto.

IMO this phenomenum has been in FB (including 1.2RC) for quite a while, it wasnt well noticed maybe because majority of us using auto pitch.

Bug report (1.2RC) sent to Oleg one night before 1.21 release, so it was too late to be evaluated for 1.21.

climb test TRK link bolow

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=26360



Message Edited on 12/04/0308:47AM by SerpentBlade

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 12:50 AM
Just did a 109g2 climb test with v1.21, using manual pitch control to keep the RPM around 3100RPM, mark the time till 8000m, then did a compare test with auto pitch control @2800RPM. In both cases 100% fuel and default ammo.

MANU AUTO
1000m 0:40 0:46
2000m 1:17 1:29
3000m 1:52 2:12
4000m 2:28 2:58
5000m 3:06 3:41
6000m 3:47 4:31
7000m 4:28 5:19
8000m 5:06 6:17

It seems 109g2 pushes too much power out of its virtual DB605A engine @3100RPM, so much so it maintain its 26m/s average climb rate up to 8000m. Also in another horizontal turn time test at sea level, using manual pitch @3100RPM can make 109g2 turn 1-1.5 second faster in a complete circle.

Moreover @3100RPM manual pitch the engine only overheat slightly faster than when its at auto.

IMO this phenomenum has been in FB (including 1.2RC) for quite a while, it wasnt well noticed maybe because majority of us using auto pitch.

Bug report (1.2RC) sent to Oleg one night before 1.21 release, so it was too late to be evaluated for 1.21.

climb test TRK link bolow

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=26360



Message Edited on 12/04/0308:47AM by SerpentBlade

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 01:46 AM
further tests with 109K4 in manual and auto pitch, plus a test of 109G2 with a 250KG bomb in manual

K4 G2

AUTO MANU MANU
1000m 0:40 0:36 0:49
2000m 1:18 1:06 1:32
3000m 1:53 1:40 2:17
4000m 2:30 2:08 3:00
5000m 3:06 2:41 3:51
6000m 3:48 3:16 4:40
7000m 4:41 3:58 5:27
8000m 5:42 4:48


TRK link below

http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=26362

I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 06:02 AM
...pushes too much power out of its
virtual DB605A engine @3100RPM,....


What is the horsepower peak for the respective DB in these birds? I've got more than passing experience with RL motors and would be curious to look at horsepower and torque curves at a couple of representative altitudes.

If its been posted where? - as usual the search function not working on the board...

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 03:33 AM
i dont know the DB engine peak...but using manual pitch control you can make a g2 climb even faster than a k4 in auto pitch control, the latter got a 2000hp engine and better super charger, how can that be?

In fact using manual pitch the g2 reached average 1569m/s or 5161ft/s climb speed up to 8000m, which I think a lit uber....



I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 09:59 AM
ohh.stop it, only bucuse ppl are playing with bfg2 and shots down russian planes, you want to make the g2 slower and even more underpowered, look at the Yak3 it flys like an Ufo (talk about zero)thats a plane that need to get abit underpowered! I cant understand why you want to underpower german planes, they are all ready underpowered!!
soon every on is going to fly USSR planes and USA

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 10:18 AM
BigganD wrote:
- ohh.stop it, only bucuse ppl are playing with bfg2
- and shots down russian planes, you want to make the
- g2 slower and even more underpowered, look at the
- Yak3 it flys like an Ufo (talk about zero)thats a
- plane that need to get abit underpowered! I cant
- understand why you want to underpower german planes,
- they are all ready underpowered!!
- soon every on is going to fly USSR planes and USA
-
You got me wrong, I fly almost exclusively 109s and 190s. I dont care what kind of plane shoot down what kind of plane, I care about historical performace, and right now 5:06 to 8000m is way more than historical performance of g2.

If you dont believe me I can take on your yak3 or zeke in my 109g2, seeing is better than listening





I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 02:43 PM
"and right now 5:06 to 8000m is way more than historical performance of g2."

That is because you are flying it in an ahistorical manner. If you are going to compare to historical flight tests then you need to use historical settings.

FW190 Antons also get a big boost from revving the engine higher than auto setting permits.

I think the problem is more a matter of engine durability than flight performance, and the inability of other planes to exceed their historically proscribed max RPM settings.

There will always be things that are done in the sim that weren't done irl, bit that doesn't mean they couldn't be done irl, or shouldn't be permitted in the sim.

The questions are:

-did other planes have the ability to rev their engines higher than the proscribed settings.

-is the performance increase from overreving the engine correct (probably no way to know as tests were only done at certain settings, though I seem to recall Hunter having some documents about bf109 performance with settings higher than was later officially allowed).

-are the consequences of overreving the engine properly modelled. Here it gets sticky, because if the consequences are long-term (reduced overall engine life) then noone will care in the sim, because there is no long term. Then we have a situation where planes that can run their engines "hot-rodded" have an advantage over those that can't (although this is fine with me so long as it is correct that the ones that can, could, and the ones that can't, couldn't).

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 03:36 PM
Well.....historically, hot rodded P-47s were common enough that one could venture to call them the "norm". But we can't recreate that in FB. Which really sucks. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 05:23 PM
As far as I've seen in historical documentation the 109 planes allowed the pilot to "Hot Rod" the diamler engine during operation with a few electrical switches.

One switch disconnected the prop governing system and the other switch could increase or decrease the prop pitch directly.

The 109 pilot could rev his engine over the normal designed specification and it is possible that this also over boosted the engine. In either case the engine could both produce more power and suffer higher stress.

If those switches did exist as described then the pilot could "hot rod" his engine anytime during the operation of the plane. He did not need a talented mechanic or executive order when emergency existed requiring more engine power. He also suffered the conseqences of his actions if the application of more power resulted in high engine wear or even failure.

If the choice was to suffer the rain of lead from 8 browning .50 caliber machine guns or climb away by pushing the diamler beyond it's normal limits then the pilot in the 109 who had that choice would tend to risk the engine damage, I think.


To say that P-47s should be modeled to Hot Rod status because Hot Rod evidence exists is a reasonable request by those who prefer the P-47 but such performance boosting should be possible for any plane that was documented with this extra capability, and what happens to those planes that had such capability but the documentation is not as prevelent?

If accuracy is the goal and Hot Rodding is acceptable in modeling then every plane should be considered for this advantage or dissadvantage.

I don't think it was often the case that P-47 pilots used the boost increase at the beginning of a mission into Germany.
















JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 05:32 PM
"- I don't think it was often the case that P-47 pilots
- used the boost increase at the beginning of a
- mission into Germany. "

Where you get that information from?


I personally think we should avoid this hot rodding for all aircraft, creates too much whining.

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP


http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


"What was truly obsolete happened to be the turning or dogfighting
combat that had been used during of WW I."

Erik Shilling - AVG - http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 05:44 PM
"whining" is a figment of the worshippers twisted fantasies. They should all get a dictionary.

What causes the problem is the "super-secret documentation". If the dev was more open with data and resoning, the problems wouldn't be as bad. Of course, extremism begets extremism, so the worshippers are partly to blame too.

If something was routine and well documented, why should it be prevented? *Many* Jugs were pushing a lot more MP than stock. With the help of factory reps no less. SkyChimp posted an official letter from someone high up in the USAAF asking why this wasn't done on *all* of them. Excess of 70" is the norm it seems for these hotrodding jobs (Bob Johnson had 74", IIRC). It was just a matter of adding more throttle too, so it wouldn't stress the engine all the time.

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 05:45 PM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- - I personally think we should avoid this hot rodding
- for all aircraft, creates too much whining.
-
- S!
- 609IAP_Recon
-
Agree !


:FI:Up-N-at'em

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_02.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 05:46 PM
Recon wrote:

"Where you get that information from?"


http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yviuv&tpage=1


Recon,

Which information?



JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 06:27 PM
If you can run at 3100 RPM with manual, it`s incorrect, the engine should be damaged soon... it`s should be corrected, BUT: the problem is that fine RPM control is not possible with manual pitch, and players would frequently ruin the engine.

Just a little addon, it`s also not possible to overboost allied planes, ie. using too low RPM for high boost. This should kill the engine in RL, but I guess for game purposes it`s modelled as it stays in safe zone automatically...

http://www.mit.bme.hu/~tade/ac-pict/Hung-AF/pre-1945/Bf-109/Bf109col.gif

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 07:41 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- If you can run at 3100 RPM with manual, it`s
- incorrect, the engine should be damaged soon... it`s
- should be corrected, BUT: the problem is that fine
- RPM control is not possible with manual pitch, and
- players would frequently ruin the engine.
-
- Just a little addon, it`s also not possible to
- overboost allied planes, ie. using too low RPM for
- high boost. This should kill the engine in RL, but I
- guess for game purposes it`s modelled as it stays in
- safe zone automatically...
-
If I be careful enough never push over 3200RPM, the engine can stay fine for quite a long period of time. It is possible if a player become "good enough" practicing it.

Once you master such skill, g2 will outclimb any allied plane (except Bi-1) by a large margine, and it even out turns yak3.

As a 109 flyer, I dont mind such capability if it is correct. But if such capability is not possible and incorrect, then I do mind it. It might be the final biggest performance issue of the almost perfect 1.21

I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 08:13 PM
"If the choice was to suffer the rain of lead from 8 browning .50 caliber machine guns or climb away by pushing the diamler beyond it's normal limits then the pilot in the 109 who had that choice would tend to risk the engine damage, I think."

Those are the choices in a sim, but irl there is more to it, which is why this was probably never done irl (I have never seen a pilot account of doing such a thing in a 109, but I havn't read many).

It gets into the realm of what we are simming. I have always fealt that the game is here to sim the machines, not neccesarily the conditions.

I understand Finnish 109s had the electricals allowing higher boosts removed so they could not use WEP, that would be nice to have in the game. It would also be nice to have more proper prop controls (a switch for increase a switch for decrease and have the rate of such modelled as per the operation of the electric control motor that they had).

Oleg mentioned something about BoB where overstressing the airframe in one mission would affect its performance in subsequent campaign missions. This sort of thing would be good for engine wear as well.

But in the meantime I think we are limited by what the current sim can and cannot model. If running a FW190A4 at 2700RPM or a 109G2 at 3200RPM would destroy the motor within minutes then it shoule either do that ingame, or not be permitted ingame, but if it would just reduce engine life from 50 or 100 hours to just 10 or even 5, and if it was possible to do then I see no reason not to allow it.

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 05:25 AM
Stupid question:

How do you manually control prop in a 109? I don't fly em much, and have always wondered how you do that?

Thanks.

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 10:13 AM
HORSEPOWER = TORQUE x RPM

HORSEPOWER resides in RPM

more RPM = opportunity for more HORSEPOWER



Fillmore wrote:
--is the performance increase from overreving the engine correct (probably no way to know


these planes were mechanical objects , they operate to certian laws

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 10:51 AM
only that you reduce that torque by turning that pitch to finer...

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 11:38 AM
Tried your test after seeing your track - alternating between 85% and 90% prop pitch on full throttle as you seemed to be doing - my engine kept blowing after a short while are you changing the fuel mixture? ot am I doing something wrong?

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 12:17 PM
I'm not surprised. 109 climb performance is porked since the first beta version of the first IL-2.

Enjoy the *game*, dont always try to match "in game" performances with historical data. Dont try to find something human or realistic respectively in the AI FM and behaviour as well.

BTW, the DB605A was allowed a maximum of 2600rpm till about mid '43 when Daimler-Benz finally allowed pilots to reach 2,800rpm during climb and combat.

Any other setting is simply gameish.







Message Edited on 12/06/0301:44PM by Saetta

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 01:07 PM
Fbuster wrote:
- Tried your test after seeing your track -
- alternating between 85% and 90% prop pitch on full
- throttle as you seemed to be doing - my engine kept
- blowing after a short while are you changing the
- fuel mixture? ot am I doing something wrong?
-
keep the RPM always below 3200

I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 06:22 PM
Saetta wrote:
- I'm not surprised. 109 climb performance is porked
- since the first beta version of the first IL-2.
-
LOL...was porked, now beefed up /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 08:23 PM
Budanova wrote:

"How do you manually control prop in a 109? I don't
fly em much, and have always wondered how you do
that?"


Auto pitch is toggled. I use the "A" key.

Pitch can be changed with analog or digital control.

The analog control does not simulate the switch as well as the digital control. In other words you can map the prop pitch to a slider but the pitch control is then low on one end and progressivly greater as the slider is moved and a pitch setting corresponds with a slider possition setting.

I use a rotary knob on my Thrustmaster cougar throttle as a three possition digital switch. Move the slider one way and it generates the digital command to increase pitch. Move the slider the other way to decrease pitch. Move the slider in the center and the pitch does not move.


If Auto pitch is toggled "on" with the "A" key then there is no manual change in the pitch, However the game does log changes made with the digital increase and decrease pitch command. In other words or for example:

Start the game, select a 109, on the runway; the game defaults to Auto pitch. Press A for manual pitch and the default manual starting setting is 100% pitch.
Press A again to turn the Auto pitch feature back on.
Now move the manual pitch switch to lower the pitch.
The prop pitch will not decrease since the Auto feature is turned on however once the Auto feature is turned off the manual pitch setting will be at a lower pitch setting.

This is not the way it is supposed to work in reality if I understand the 109 wiring diagram correctly.

Another problem:

While flying along on Auto pitch in a dive or even level flight the prop pitch will automatically go to a lower (coarse) setting. What should happen (again my understanding of the electrical circuit) when the pilot turns Auto pitch to manual with the Auto/Manual toggle switch is that the prop pitch setting should not change, not until the pilot changes the setting by activating the manual switch up or down.
However, in the game, the Manual pitch setting is remembered in the program and when the Auto/Manual switch is changed from Auto to Manual the prop pitch will jump to that last recorded manual pitch setting change.
The problems are:
1. There is no physical indicator showing the current manual pitch setting when in Auto mode.
2. If the manual pitch setting is too high (to fine) when the pilot switches from auto to manual then the engine will over rev instantly.

In reality the pilot was able to turn the Auto feature on and the electric motor would move the prop pitch to a designed setting. When the Auto feature was turned off the pilot was then able to directly control the electric motor that moved the prop pitch. There was no computer controled manual history setting. The prop was not capable of jumping to a higher or lower pitch.

The advantages are:

The 109 prop pitch movement should always be as slow as the electric motor is capable of moving the blades against the forces resisting the movement.
In some cased this slow movement is a dissadvantage; such as after a forced overshoot when the pilot wants to accelerate fast.
If the pilot reduces the throttle to force an overshoot and then increases the throttle to accelerate again the 109 should have prop pitch changes that lag the desired power changes and the game does this in Auto setting. In the game there is a prop pitch clock that shows the pitch changes winding down and then back up again. In the game the pilot can switch to manual and instantly have his engine back to full power.
However, this ability is not practical in many combat situations. It is unlikely that a condition will exist where the pilot can find an ideal manual pitch setting that works in all cases, a setting that is fast enough to gain the needed power but not to fast as to over rev the engine.
I use the manual pitch feature for take-off, landings, and climbing in combat. Auto for everything else.

http://www.bf109.com/frameset.html







JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 08:57 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- "whining" is a figment of the worshippers twisted
- fantasies. They should all get a dictionary.
-
- What causes the problem is the "super-secret
- documentation". If the dev was more open with data
- and resoning, the problems wouldn't be as bad. Of
- course, extremism begets extremism, so the
- worshippers are partly to blame too.
-
- If something was routine and well documented, why
- should it be prevented? *Many* Jugs were pushing a
- lot more MP than stock. With the help of factory
- reps no less. SkyChimp posted an official letter
- from someone high up in the USAAF asking why this
- wasn't done on *all* of them. Excess of 70" is the
- norm it seems for these hotrodding jobs (Bob Johnson
- had 74", IIRC). It was just a matter of adding more
- throttle too, so it wouldn't stress the engine all
- the time.

I think the key point to remember with the P-47 is that we don't have the USAAF version modeled. We have the ones the russians got and used in the navy.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-07-2003, 03:53 AM
There's always an easy out for the devs. lol

Ok, fair enough, but, why do the US P-47s get special skins, with the D-27 having an aluminum finish, something only used by the US?

Also, if US planes are to be based on "best" test results, then we would have the US versions.

I'm not b|tchin' about not having the boosted Jugs, but, would really like to have them, and, think it does make sense to include them. And, if the 109s are essentially "boostable", then, why not all planes that were possible to boost?

Besides, it'd be a good stop-gap to getting the M. lol

XyZspineZyX
12-07-2003, 04:04 AM
"more RPM = opportunity for more HORSEPOWER"

lol, key word "opportunity". The thing is that in every engine I have ever seen (including diesels which, like aero enignes, redline at lower RPM than gas engines, though they still rev much higher than aero engines) the max torque occurs at a much lower RPM than max HP, so if the factory puts the limit on these engines at 2800RPM then I would imagine the torque is already going down at that point and it becomes a matter of how much extra HP (if any) the increased RPM gets you with the decreasing torque. In particular there can be factors in the engine tune/design which could kill torque beyond a certain RPM (like the airflow capacity of the supercharger, etc, etc.).

XyZspineZyX
12-07-2003, 07:01 AM
SerpentBlade wrote:
- further tests with 109K4 in manual and auto pitch,
- plus a test of 109G2 with a 250KG bomb in manual
-
- K4 G2
-
-
- AUTO MANU MANU
-
- 1000m 0:40 0:36 0:49
- 2000m 1:18 1:06 1:32
- 3000m 1:53 1:40 2:17
- 4000m 2:30 2:08 3:00
- 5000m 3:06 2:41 3:51
- 6000m 3:48 3:16 4:40
- 7000m 4:41 3:58 5:27
- 8000m 5:42 4:48

That's funny, because even at maximum output, the K-4 is still 40sec. slower to 3000m than it should be. Interesting indeed.

XyZspineZyX
12-07-2003, 07:36 AM
filmore i tune engines myself , i would like to go thru it here but i dont spend that amount of time posting at digital forums

XyZspineZyX
12-07-2003, 02:38 PM
1:40 to 3000m is 40 sec slower than it should be?!

I would like to see what kind of prop plane would do 3000m in 1 minute!

I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
12-07-2003, 03:45 PM
Hehe, probably there is a misunderstanding between feets and meters. With an initial rate of climb of more than 4,500ft/sec the K-4 should get to 10,000ft (about 3,000mt) in a couple of minutes. Not in one minute.

The K-4 and G-10 family should get to 20,000ft in less than 5 minutes, whereas the G-2 should make it in something more than 5 minutes.

Ok, IL-2's 109s are beefed up, but not so beefed up /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Since the first IL-2 beta I've seen 109G jumping from 4-5 to 7-8 minutes to get to 20K. Call it fine tuning! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-07-2003, 06:57 PM
Saetta wrote:
- Hehe, probably there is a misunderstanding between
- feets and meters. With an initial rate of climb of
- more than 4,500ft/sec the K-4 should get to 10,000ft
- (about 3,000mt) in a couple of minutes. Not in one
- minute.
-
- The K-4 and G-10 family should get to 20,000ft in
- less than 5 minutes, whereas the G-2 should make it
- in something more than 5 minutes.
-
- Ok, IL-2's 109s are beefed up, but not so beefed up

Its meters, not feet. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I got the K4 to 3000m in 1:40, and 6000m (now thats 20,000ft) in 3:16, and g2 did the same in 3:47

I/JG54_SerpentBlade
http://www.jg54.net/

XyZspineZyX
12-07-2003, 07:26 PM
Definitely beefed up /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Those 109 look more like 163 as far as climb performance is concerned.
Jokes apart, they are about 1,5 minutes too fast to get to 20K.

I *definitely* gave up with climb tests. Every patch you have to start it all over again, it is tiring and frustrating /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Only WB and AH designers have the guts to make a climb/autopilot available in their sims. Knowing the best IAS/TAS at various altitudes you can test all the a/c on a consistent basis. Testing in IL-2 is extremely difficult, it *not* difficult to understand why ....

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 09:21 AM
I also only fly 109's
Its an interesting thread.
All I can add is that the K4 was much more armored than the G2 hence would be much heavier. This could affect climb rate even with a stronger engine.
Also the figures that are given surely cannot be taken as an absolute. there has to be a margin of error surely.
Also what effect does wind have in the game?
You can set wind on the maps but i have no clue if that would affect these figures you uys have posted.ie climbing into the wind as apposed to it, might be an interesting excercise.
I also tried to do what the original poster did.
I did not do it straight from take-off though but after I had been in flight for about 10 minutes or so. Leveled out on th deck and started to climb. I tried to stick to the same perameters as laid out in the first post but my engine boiled up very quickly.
One thing I did notice from v1.11 to v1.21 is that generally speaking the 109's dont seem to overheat as much (or am i just getting a bit better at this cem thing).
They seem a bit more stable in the sky at higher G turns at lower speeds as well.
My plane of choice is a G2 and always has been, in v1.11 with mg pods on its could turn nasty on you very quickly, seems easier in v1.21 now.

Try this though, take a Ki-84, put it in a 30 deg dive, airspeed 820kph and yank back on the stick, hehe, it turns like a gocart. You black out, but man the turn radius is good. If you fly 109s like me only attack that dude if he hasnt seen you.

Anyway, my 2 cents worth, this is still the best WW2 flgith game ever.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 10:28 AM
Sorry but I dont fly russian planes! I fly the G6. ANad i dont belive that you fly the g2, i think that you get shot down by g2s, thats why you want to make it more underpowered

XyZspineZyX
12-08-2003, 10:44 AM
no but..it is nice to see that ppl at LAST plays with the bfs! i starde playing BFs in v1.0, I was flying the bf1941emil, bucuse in 1.0 Bfs was nothing,after when 1.11 come out i started playig with g2 and g6 1943, but verly nice that you play german planes, Vist www.hell-hounds.de (http://www.hell-hounds.de) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif happy flying

SerpentBlade
12-19-2003, 05:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigganD:
Sorry but I dont fly russian planes! I fly the G6. ANad i dont belive that you fly the g2, i think that you get shot down by g2s, thats why you want to make it more underpowered<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I fly 109s almost exclusively since original IL2. If you have any doubt on my 109 skills I dont mind go one on one with you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BBB_Hyperion
12-19-2003, 06:58 AM
Original Tests for G2 by Richlin were done at what is represented 100 % throttle Auto pitch 100 % Fuel and 04:30 to 5000 m. You can test it that it is pretty much on that value . There is no doubt that 110 % will increase climb performance. And that Manual Pitch increases it again.HP output would be at upper Limits.
What we see here is a compelte non Historical usage of the Enginepower regardless to Lifetime. This Engine life would be reduced to hours and most likely engine would normaly die at rpms higher than 2800 if used for longer times. I still see no proof that it wasnt possible to do so but you would need a new engine every flight.

Regards,
Hyperion

12-19-2003, 11:26 AM
Hyperion brings up an important concept - maintenance issues and engine life time.

Usually the time limits/restraints on permittable RPM is concerned with premature engine overhaul issues, rather than the result of such actions directly damaging, or cooking the engine to pulp.

Engines are typically tested on high power output conditions for extreme lengths of time before it is deemed ready for actual service. Granted, that free testing on the ground is not the same thing as running on high output on an actual plane - in regards to cooling issues, but there is no reason to believe running the engine over permitted factory standards, is impossible.

However, in terms of gameplay, yes, it is an issue that must be looked upon.

Now, there is a fair argument in the fact that having the ability to control propeller pitch manually, is a trait that specifically belongs to the German planes - no different from the fact that most VVS/Allied planes have trim control over all flight axis, while the German planes do not.

However, since the penalties of such 'over-revving' is not present within the game, and the method can be used indefinately(though it may take certain levels of fine management), I would say it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Maybe some unrealistic, but necessary measures such as accelerating engine heating time when the RPM is over a certain level - say, 3000RPM? - can be adopted.

If the announced Battle of Britain indeed models maintenance issues, decreasing reliability, engine failure possibilities and such, then there's no reason to disallow it.

Hanni8
12-26-2003, 02:58 PM
Taken from the Pilotmanual of a std. 109 G-6 with DB 605 A-1
Climb times at Climbpower/Combatpower allowable for 30 minutes:

To 1000 m ca. 1 min.
To 2000 m ca.2 min.
To 3000 m ca. 3 min.
To 5000 m ca. 5 min. 15 s.
To 8000 m ca. 10 min.
To 11000 m ca.17 min.

Speed during climb ca. 270 - 280 km/h. (Indicated airspeed)
Cruising speed ca. 420 km/h.
Landing speed ca. 160 km/h.

Attainable speeds:

Speed at 0 m ca. 540 km/h
5000 m ca. 650 km/h
8000 m ca. 620 km/h

Dive speed limit 750 km/h

Diving time from 9000 m to 5000 m ca. 35 s.
7000 m to 2000 m ca. 40 s.
5000 m to 0 m ca. 40 s.

Turning times:

400 km/h. 180"a ca. 13 s.
450 km/h 100"a ca. 14 s.

Range:

Range at cruising speed ca. 550 km.
At max. speed (theor.) ca. 540 km.

Radius of operation:

Radius of operation without auxiliary tank at cruising speed ca. 260 km. At max. speed (theor.) ca. 250 km. Equipped with auxiliary fuel tank at cruising speed ca. 450 km. Max. speed (theor.) ca. 420 km.

CARBONFREEZE
12-28-2003, 02:56 AM
The performance for all Kommandgrat and automatic pitch system aircraft in manual pitch mode is off. It is not possible to reach rated speeds without disabling the Kommandgrat system with most aircraft (especially the Antons).

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby