PDA

View Full Version : Bf 109F-4 1942 & BF 109G-2 1943 w/increased boost



jagdmailer
04-15-2004, 02:20 PM
I guess that thread got terminated somehow....do not know why but this is still worthwile.

Kurfurst, can you restate the request ?

Thanks

JagdMailer

jagdmailer
04-15-2004, 02:20 PM
I guess that thread got terminated somehow....do not know why but this is still worthwile.

Kurfurst, can you restate the request ?

Thanks

JagdMailer

Kurfurst__
04-15-2004, 03:39 PM
Basically it`s about to represent F-4 and G-2 models with the increasded boost they received during service.

In brief : AEP displays both models with their initial boost rates.

Ie. Bf 109F-4 saw first service from mid 1941 onwards with 1.3ata boost, 1200 PS.
Bf 109 G-2 saw service first in mid 1942, with 1.3ata boost and 1310 PS.

This limited boost versions we have in the game.

Later both planes incresed boost to 1.42ata :

F-4 in the first months of 1942, raising to 1350 HP.
The G-2(and all others with DB 605A-1) raised it in June 1943, resuliting in 1475 HP available.

Performance of course was also increased significantly.

We would like to have these up-rated versions, as 109F-4 (1942) and 109G-2 (1943), to represent the improvements made, and also because there are very few planes to choose from on the Axis side, and the Allied side already has models for planes that represent only increasing boost and other upgrades with time for the same model.

The changes would only effect the FM engine, no 3D model modifications are needed, easy to be done.

If needed I can re-post the original about exact performance changes.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Tetrapharmakoi
04-15-2004, 04:23 PM
It would be great !
I hope that Oleg will see the message ,as it is not a lot of work as the planes are already here , just have to modify them to get a F4 of 1942 and a G2 of 1943 ( why not a G4 ?!! , it will be amazing.)
I heard we'll have the FW-190 A6 in the next patch , very good news indeed ,i hope we 'll have real MG151/20 20 mm , and dive accel fixed along with the problem of Revi gunsight falling systematically .

jagdmailer
04-17-2004, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tetrapharmakoi:
It would be great !
I hope that Oleg will see the message ,as it is not a lot of work as the planes are already here , just have to modify them to get a F4 of 1942 and a G2 of 1943 ( why not a G4 ?!! , it will be amazing.)
I heard we'll have the FW-190 A6 in the next patch , very good news indeed ,i hope we 'll have real MG151/20 20 mm , and dive accel fixed along with the problem of Revi gunsight falling systematically .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BUMP

Jagd

Willey
04-17-2004, 03:37 PM
Performance-wise we have F-4 '41 and G-2 '43 right now...

kubanloewe
04-18-2004, 02:14 AM
the F4 in FB need no more boost it need the correct Weight data and not 400kg to much !!!

"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherrr Manfred von Richthofen

Ugly_Kid
04-18-2004, 04:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
Performance-wise we have F-4 '41 and G-2 '43 right now...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I was just wondering the same...initially I did not understand the complete question. G-2 gets according to instrumentation 1.42 ata and 2600 U/min same for F-4.

G-2 performs quite accurately with 100% throttle compared to 1.3 ata known performance and there is a definitive increase with 110% (1.42 ata).

F-4 gets to 5km at about 4 min 50 s. I have only info for F-1/F-2 there the respective figure is 4.5 min with 1.42 ata and 5.4 min with 1.3 ata. I see no reason why F-4 should perform better than that.

What is not really o.k with F-4 is the turn performance. Thx to certain parties at around 1.1b times a rumour was started that Fs turns better than I-16, well this was "repaired" and indeed F does not come out anymore as a preferred choice for the very "dogfighter" of Bf series. IL 2 compare gives G-2 and F-4 quite identical turning performance. However, the real test from the game reveals F-4 with average three turns to turn 66 s whereas G-2 manages this in 64 s (should I add IMO here). (Full throttle no flaps, alt 1000 m, speed ~270 km/h maintaining altitude and speed). G-2 performance is correct F not. The handling of F is also more cumbersome than G.

F has about 0.49 HP/kg
G 0.48 HP/kg

F has only 166 kg/sq m wingloading
G has 186 kg/sq m

for comparison sake Yak-3
has 0.46 HP/kg and 181 kg/sq m and considerably worse wing planform for turning(small aspect ratio) and no Handley-page slats.

F should manage below 20 s with ease (not like I-16 but certainly in par with Yak).

This is a small mystery to me but not of big meaning, I rather have it like it is than experience another Bf FM change...more than this F would need loadout http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
04-18-2004, 04:58 AM
Historical data :

Bf 109 G-2

at 1.3ata, 2600/min : 525 km/h at 0m, 649 km/h at 7000m.

From mid-1943:
at 1.42ata, 2800/min : 540 km/h at 0m, 665 km/h at 7000m.

The last time I checked, the G-2 at 110% in game does only 648 km/h at ~7000m.


Bf 109 F-4

at 1.3ata, 2500/min : 523 km/h at 0m, 635 km/h at 6000m.

From early 1942:
at 1.42ata, 2800/min : ? km/h at 0m, 670 km/h at 6200m.

Again, the in-game performance is close to the 1.3ata setting, even at 110% power.

However it`s true the 109F was downrated in turn rate greatly with the last patches. Historically, and already in the first Il-2 version, the F-4 was a delight to fly, and very well suited to manouveirng fights... one could really feel the extra weight of the 109G-2 when it appeared, you could no longer go as far as in the Friedrich. This changed throughltly, the 109F is now very stall prone, IMO more than the Gustav series.. which should need a fix, really.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Kwiatos
04-18-2004, 05:42 AM
Yea something is wrong in FB with performance G-2 and F.
IN FB G-2 turn better that BF F which is incorrect. In old IL2 sturmovik turn performance between BF F and G-2 was correct. F turn slighty better than G-2.

In many books and manuals i read that BF F was the best manouevrbility of all bfs. As i read turn time of BF F was about 18s for F1/F2 and 19s for F-4. Bf G-2 should be worst about 1-2s. See ratio weight to wing area: F-4 - 159 kg/m2, G-2 -179 kg/m2. Power(max) to weight we have near the same: F-4 - 0,49 hp/kg G-2 - 0,47 hp/kg.

Other problem is climb rate of BF F.
Bf F with 110% power w FB climb like F with climb&combat throlle in RL (not max power). In FB F-4 has 17,5 m/s initial climb rate at 110% power but should have nearly 22 m/s. It is about 4 m/s worse.

kubanloewe
04-18-2004, 07:33 AM
Oleg have to took out the 400kg extraload which is on the F4 since a patch and we´ve got a F4 with good climbrate and better turnrate as it was in IL2 .


http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg

"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherrr Manfred von Richthofen

Ugly_Kid
04-18-2004, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Historical data :

Bf 109 G-2

at 1.3ata, 2600/min : 525 km/h at 0m, 649 km/h at 7000m.

From mid-1943:
at 1.42ata, 2800/min : 540 km/h at 0m, 665 km/h at 7000m.

The last time I checked, the G-2 at 110% in game does only 648 km/h at ~7000m.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, you speak about mismatch at top speed and at higher altitude where few things work as they should. However, this is not an indication of missing boost. Like I said instrumentation and climb performance support the position that both have indeed higher boost setting. If you address the stuff as top-speed issue it can be seen in a completely different light.

Does this apply to all altitudes or just high alt? AFAIRC they both reach SL higher boost velocities but I haven't checked this lately. Climb rate of Bf at around 7k is also not that accurate which supports idea of missing power at _that_ altitude area, not that the complete boost setting is missing...

Kwiatos
04-18-2004, 08:28 AM
i think oleg should replacement turn rate BF F with G-2 and slighty incrase climb rate BF F and everything will be ok http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cokol_88IAP
04-18-2004, 04:48 PM
I made a quick test in AEP, Islands, WEP.

0-5000m : 4:30min (opened rad from 4000m)
Vmas at SL: 531 km/h
Turn time for 360? after several turns:
sustained: 19s

So this one is clearly a F-4 with full WEP Power, usable from 41.
Giving the F-4 more power is simply impertinent.

WEP was disabled, and there is no prove that RLM allowed usage of WEP later.

Same with Bf-109 G-2:
There was a discussion between G¶ring, Milch and Eisenlohr in 9/43. It was found out, that testing the 605 at Full power lasts at least 4 weeks. Engine was not cleared for Start/Notleistung until this date. It was said, test are successfull, so they may give Clearence for "Startleistung" when tests finally prove it.This is for new engines. So you can not expect DB-605 with 1475 PS in frontservice till 11/43.
"Our" G-6 has it already.

So what do you actually want?


Yak-3 vs. Bf-109 F-4
Powerload and wingload are pretty even, if you use the right numbers. ( for UglyKid)
In fact Yak-3 is lighter and faster due better aerodynamics. (eg. wings, cowling...

[This message was edited by Cokol_88IAP on Sun April 18 2004 at 10:10 PM.]

Ugly_Kid
04-18-2004, 11:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Yak-3 vs. Bf-109 F-4
Powerload and wingload are pretty even, if you use the right numbers. ( for UglyKid)
In fact Yak-3 is lighter and faster due better aerodynamics. (eg. wings, cowling...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would you consider "right"? That better aerodynamics is relative. Yes, it is faster and cleaner but it has still short stubby wings and in turning we are talking about slow speed manouver with higher AoA and there wing planform and slats contribute a lot, Yak has neither. Yak has about 30% better flat plate efficiency but 14% worse aspect ratio. Roughly at 270 km/h 1 g Yak 3 has 16% higher induced drag and 23% lower profile drag, comparing the absolute forces, yak has 11% advantage (induced drag force is 41% of complete drag force). At 2 g Bf-109F has 2% advantage (induced drag is now 74% of the complete drag) and ever after (2 g is just 60? sustained turn http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - first the beginning of manouvering http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). Bf is also able to pull higher lift factor due to slats.

The figures are rough but there is nowhere a factor that sticks the eye for 2 seconds worth turning for Yak-3. The difference is that significant that it should come out from rough numbers. I can live with it in the game but I still don't have to swallow all East-European thruths. (that is to say these discussion won't change it to one direction or another and I don't give a sh!t AEP is still great for me - I just want a bloody bomb and tank on F and not a frickin' turn ability or boost)

GK.
04-18-2004, 11:22 PM
yes please to this.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

butch2k
04-18-2004, 11:43 PM
Cokol AFAIK the discussion taking place on 4.9.1943 covered the DB603 not the DB605.AFAIK the full boost was re-instated on early June 1943, manual, motorenkarte and other documents were updated to reflect this.
So maybe you are referring to another discussion, could you copy the original German text please ?

Kwiatos
04-19-2004, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
I made a quick test in AEP, Islands, WEP.

0-5000m : 4:30min (opened rad from 4000m)
Vmas at SL: 531 km/h
Turn time for 360? after several turns:
sustained: 19s

So this one is clearly a F-4 with full WEP Power, usable from 41.
Giving the F-4 more power is simply impertinent.

WEP was disabled, and there is no prove that RLM allowed usage of WEP later.

Same with Bf-109 G-2:
There was a discussion between G¶ring, Milch and Eisenlohr in 9/43. It was found out, that testing the 605 at Full power lasts at least 4 weeks. Engine was not cleared for Start/Notleistung until this date. It was said, test are successfull, so they may give Clearence for "Startleistung" when tests finally prove it.This is for new engines. So you can not expect DB-605 with 1475 PS in frontservice till 11/43.
"Our" G-6 has it already.

So what do you actually want?


Yak-3 vs. Bf-109 F-4
Powerload and wingload are pretty even, if you use the right numbers. ( for UglyKid)
In fact Yak-3 is lighter and faster due better aerodynamics. (eg. wings, cowling...

[This message was edited by Cokol_88IAP on Sun April 18 2004 at 10:10 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

4:30????? Perhaps with overheat off in options.
My climb time. Crimea, 100%fuel, radiator auto, 110% power, BF F-4
1km - 0:57
2km - 1:54
3km - 2:49(engine start overheat so must slighty coll engine)
4km - 3:46
5km - 4:49
These is 17,5 m/s initial climb rate at 110%power - should be 22 m/s.

About turn rate - i think G-2 turn too good comparing it to Bf F. Instaed BF F shoul be slighty better in turn than G-2. Speaking about turn rate i mean relative perfrmance between BFs
See ratio weight to wing area: F-4 - 159 kg/m2, G-2 -179 kg/m2. Power(max) to weight we have near the same: F-4 - 0,49 hp/kg G-2 - 0,47 hp/kg (data from FB)

WWMaxGunz
04-19-2004, 04:22 AM
There are different year models for LaGG-3's so why not 109F-4's?

Of course as Ugly_Kid pointed out the top speed at sea level is for the higher boost so the early model will not be so good as now down low, or maybe anywhere... but we can have more history!


Neal

Cokol_88IAP
04-19-2004, 04:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
Cokol AFAIK the discussion taking place on 4.9.1943 covered the DB603 not the DB605.AFAIK the full boost was re-instated on early June 1943, manual, motorenkarte and other documents were updated to reflect this.
So maybe you are referring to another discussion, could you copy the original German text please ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of cause! Source is: "Die geheimen Konferenzen des Generalluftzeugmeisters" p.113

DB and messerschidt are always under suspicion of giving inflated data to RLM, surely not without reason. The protocoll makes it clear that "Notleistung" must not be used until this date.

I lost your mail Adress: give me a mail to: sokol@88-iap.de, i will reply.

p.s. dont forget the DB-605 AM - 10 mins scan.

Thx.


@ugly kid: Wingloading for:
Yak-3 is 182 kg/m²
F-4: 180 kg/m²

powerload:
Yak-3 0,48 PS/kg
F-4 0,465 PS/kg

weight:
Yak-3: 2697 kg, 1290 PS at 0m (WK-105 PF-2), 19 s for sustained turn.
Bf-109 F-4: 2900kg, 1350 PS at 0 m (DB-601 E), 19s for sustained turn (in FB ;-)

You mixed the weigt of Bf-109 F-2 with the power of F-4.

We have common sense, that Yak-3 is faster, and with these numbers, the even turntimes are understandable.

[This message was edited by Cokol_88IAP on Mon April 19 2004 at 03:37 AM.]

butch2k
04-19-2004, 04:35 AM
Here is my email addy :
admin@allaboutwarfare.com

I remember that text (i own a copy of that book) but AFAIR it was mostly the DB603 which was under scrutiny at this moment not the DB605, i think the 605 was just mentionned once as an exemple of past troubles, but i might be wrong.

Cokol_88IAP
04-19-2004, 05:00 AM
07.09.43: Topic of this conference was the He-177, but they came pretty fast to the 605, because its engine probs are partially the same the 610.

I sent the doc via e-mail.

[This message was edited by Cokol_88IAP on Mon April 19 2004 at 04:25 AM.]

butch2k
04-19-2004, 06:17 AM
Thanks got your email, that's definitely not the document i had in mind, i thought this meeting took place earlier but it looks like i was wrong. that's odd

btw i sent you the MW-50 doc.

Willey
04-19-2004, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
@ugly kid: Wingloading for:
F-4: 180 kg/m²
weight:
Bf-109 F-4: 2900kg, 1350 PS at 0 m (DB-601 E), 19s for sustained turn (in FB ;-)

You mixed the weigt of Bf-109 F-2 with the power of F-4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you get 180kg/m²?? 2900/17,3 is 167,6kg/m³... ...alright... found a doc that sais 16,1m² http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. Look more serious than Oleg's database http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. But I wonder which 109 wings have 17,3m² then. 109F-4 turn rate is 19,6-20,5s, probably 1,3ata.

Kwiatos
04-19-2004, 10:54 AM
And G-2 should have little worse turn rate which we dont have in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Kurfurst__
04-19-2004, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
I made a quick test in AEP, Islands, WEP.

0-5000m : 4:30min (opened rad from 4000m)
Vmas at SL: 531 km/h
Turn time for 360? after several turns:
sustained: 19s

So this one is clearly a F-4 with full WEP Power, usable from 41.
Giving the F-4 more power is simply impertinent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, Cokol, but what makes it that clear? And how did you managed to achieve 531 km/h with WEP, in a slight dive perhaps? Il2 compare gives exactly 519.0 km/h for the F-4 at WEP. And that`s the best the plane can make, nothing more, its simply not possible. It`s direct decryption of the FM, Cokol. Please post a track where you can reach 531 to make the claim more believable. I certainly can`t go over 514 in level flight, taking into account the errors in my flying as well..

As was stated above, the official SL speed of the F-4 at 1.3ata was 523 km/h. With full WEP, I suppose 540 is easily possible with 150 extra HP. In AEP it reaches only 519. IT`s very clear that we only have the `41 F-4 performance, with only 1.3ata, regardless what the boost gauge shows.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
WEP was disabled, and there is no prove that RLM allowed usage of WEP later.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry again Cokol. What do you mean "no proof"? It`s printed in the manual that it CAN BE USED. PERIOD.

There are British intelligence docs, which you have seen already, that tells of British interrogation of captured German pilot, who states he used 1.42ata already in the F-4. There are an abundance of source that state the learing for 1.42ata, yet you state they are all wrong? All right, but then, prove it with something. So far what have you provided, Cokol? "Nhyema!"



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
Same with Bf-109 G-2:
There was a discussion between G¶ring, Milch and Eisenlohr in 9/43. It was found out, that testing the 605 at Full power lasts at least 4 weeks. Engine was not cleared for Start/Notleistung until this date. It was said, test are successfull, so they may give Clearence for "Startleistung" when tests finally prove it.This is for new engines. So you can not expect DB-605 with 1475 PS in frontservice till 11/43.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There`s again abundance of data that 1.42ata and 1475PS was enabled in June 1943 already.

Some of them :

G-3 flight manual, state as of August 1943. 1.42ata is listed as possibility.

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/manuals/109g/g3/g3-06.jpg

Previous manuals, like the Sept 1942 one for the DB 605A-1, or the Finnish flight manual for G-2, note in each case that the 1.42ata is recalled until further notice,

ie. in DB605A-1 Sept 1942 manual, page 3 : http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605A.pdf

More.
Radinger-Otto 109F-K book, page 23. Again states:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/p23-gustavserie.jpg

"Take-off and emergency power ("Start und Notleistung") of 1475 HP was achieved with 1.42ata at 2800 rpm. This output was initially banned by VT-Anw. 2206, and was not REINSTATED until 8th of June 1943, when Daimler-Benz issued a technical directive."

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/p23-gustavserie.jpg


Cokol, frankly I believe you just trolling here. You refer to some conference, and give your interpretation of it (which in fact is somewhat "suspicous", as butch tells it was about DB 603, not the 605, so to me it seems you blend things a bit into each other to serve the agenda), but nobody is allowed to see it. Why? I give you all possibility to prove yourself, but you were already shown several 109F docs by Ring about 1.42ata, yet you keep repeating in these threads that there`s "nothing that shows this". Obviously not true, you know this well, yet you keep repeating it. Why, I ask... and why we don`t see anything from you to back your words up..

Please provide some proof for your statements. Or just share the parts of discussions to others so that they don`t have to rely on your (questionable, as shown) interpretation of it. I doubt you couldn`t host those thing somewhere, but if you can`t, I bet many here can provide webspace for it. But so far it looks nothing else to me than just trolling, and trying your best to sabotage a fair request to have up-to-date performance for German fighter models in 1942 and 1943. And, as I seen your inquire about MW docs, you plane the same in regards of the 10min wep time of late 109s, which is finally to be corrected after years of flawed modelling..

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Ugly_Kid
04-19-2004, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
weight:
Yak-3: 2697 kg, 1290 PS at 0m (WK-105 PF-2), 19 s for sustained turn.
Bf-109 F-4: 2900kg, 1350 PS at 0 m (DB-601 E), 19s for sustained turn (in FB ;-)

You mixed the weigt of Bf-109 F-2 with the power of F-4.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

nope, I used weight from object viewer (F-4), which can be argued and wing area of 16.6 sq m, not 16.1 sq m, which is also given by some sources. 2900 kg is closer but already quite generous. (since butch2k is around he could kindly give an exact figure that can't be argued http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Additionally, this does not shift the figures about the manouvering and drag contributions to one direction or another. (F in the game turns defenately worse than yak-3 under all circumstances, if it did turn even equally good, every second n00b would be armed with 109, F does not even qualify as a prefered choice inside Bf-series) I manage below 18 s in yak-3 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif and I am not even very intimate with it...I am sure Jimmy G easily squeezes another sec or two out of it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[This message was edited by Ugly_Kid on Mon April 19 2004 at 11:26 AM.]

butch2k
04-19-2004, 03:15 PM
Checked various documents and it seems the DB605A was not completely cleared for 1.42ata boost until April 1944.

Cokol_88IAP
04-21-2004, 04:27 AM
Well, DB states 6 Jears for engine development, they may have done many things in hurry.

Any info of DB-601 E full clearance for frontline use?

I have only info about struggles with DB-601 N of Bf-109 F-2 in 9/42. They had serious problems to kept them running because of lack of spare parts for this obsolete engines.

butch2k
04-21-2004, 05:14 AM
Yep the 601N was really named DB601A/N, basically a soupped up DB601A which had difficulties standing the additional stress put on the original DB601A design. It suffered frequent breakdown and had to be rpm limited early on before cleared later on.

WWMaxGunz
04-21-2004, 06:35 AM
Just FYI Kurfust;

IL2Compare does or did use Parameters from the IL2 files with Approximate Formulaes to IL2 to come within about 5% of what you would get running the same Parameters with the IL2 Flight Engine. Nothing more. Not a decryption of absolute performance capabilities since there is no such value stored as a value or simple formula just as in real flying the only way to find out is to do. That has been clearly stated many times already.

Whoops, back to the drawing board and recheck those assumptions.


Neal

04-23-2004, 07:17 AM
A simple question:

What would've happen if 1942 DB.605A tried to be run on 1.42 ata 2800 rpm? Would it fail immedaetly or it would run ok for let's say 20 hours? Could some pilot try such conversion in field?

butch2k
04-23-2004, 07:46 AM
In 1942 the DB605A suffered from defect in main ball bearings, insuficient crown thickness and early ignition with B4... You could easily break the engine if 1.42ata boost was used, it was absolutly forbidden to use it.

Cokol_88IAP
04-23-2004, 08:16 AM
Marsaille died in on of those unforced errors according to RLM Milch.