PDA

View Full Version : Open letter to all spit lovers



Werre_Fsck
08-11-2004, 04:36 PM
Please, please. Everyone.

Let Oleg know we want a REAL spit in this game.
Not the one we have: the one that defies gravity and does not overheat, even on desert map.

P39 was like this once (in FB's adolescence) and its users were ridiculed left and right. La's were like this once (in IL2's youth), and ridiculed, and their masculinity questioned, but the planes were righteously corrected (... and supplanted with La-7 to keep the La aces from succumbing to realism).

Oleg, Oh Oleg, please fix this mighty butterfly-winged wonder to at least on some level represent an aircraft of the era.

Werre_Fsck
08-11-2004, 04:36 PM
Please, please. Everyone.

Let Oleg know we want a REAL spit in this game.
Not the one we have: the one that defies gravity and does not overheat, even on desert map.

P39 was like this once (in FB's adolescence) and its users were ridiculed left and right. La's were like this once (in IL2's youth), and ridiculed, and their masculinity questioned, but the planes were righteously corrected (... and supplanted with La-7 to keep the La aces from succumbing to realism).

Oleg, Oh Oleg, please fix this mighty butterfly-winged wonder to at least on some level represent an aircraft of the era.

Slechtvalk
08-11-2004, 04:40 PM
I guess you just got shot down in your beloved bf109 online..

Werre_Fsck
08-11-2004, 04:41 PM
Remember, we went through the same thing with the Hurri. N00bicane, it was called. Now that it's no longer the insta-kill vehicle, the jockeys who fly it successfully are revered in awe instead of being ridiculed.

carguy_
08-11-2004, 04:47 PM
Yeah,the Hurricane had been given a tremendous fix.
A plane with aa reputation like a Spitfire is another tale though.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

_VR_ScorpionWorm
08-11-2004, 04:51 PM
Will it ever end? Read a post from somewhere on the 400 pages about the I-153 being Uber. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

http://img55.photobucket.com/albums/v169/Scorpion08/Hurri-1.jpg

www.vultures-row.com (http://www.vultures-row.com)

gates123
08-11-2004, 04:57 PM
Its true tho I was on the desert map yesterday in a spit wide open rads, full throttle and wep and it didn't overheat for at least 10 mintues and cooled off instantly when I backed off. Lets just call it a slight tweak http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.fightingcolors.com/custompagestuff/b17visibility72.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

Nub_322Sqn
08-11-2004, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Werre_Fsck:
Remember, we went through the same thing with the Hurri. N00bicane, it was called. Now that it's no longer the insta-kill vehicle, the jockeys who fly it successfully are revered in awe instead of being ridiculed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't noticed that, even after the Hurricane was fixed they whined after I shot them down.
Several times I was called a Skill less 4 cannon newbie hurricrap driver by people flying in a FW190A. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The whining will never stop.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

_VR_ScorpionWorm
08-11-2004, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
Its true tho I was on the desert map yesterday in a spit wide open rads, full throttle and wep and it didn't overheat for at least 10 mintues and cooled off instantly when I backed off. Lets just call it a slight tweak http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.fightingcolors.com/custompagestuff/b17visibility72.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the overheating was changed for all aircraft on the desert map. I remember my 110 overheating really fast, but after the patches it takes a bit longer to overheat, same thing for Stukas, was on WarClouds carrying a BIG bomb under my Stuka and even at 95% throttle and radiator at 2 it didnt overheat, I flew up to 1500 meters. So as I have said maybe its the map thats changed and not the aircraft. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://img55.photobucket.com/albums/v169/Scorpion08/Hurri-1.jpg

www.vultures-row.com (http://www.vultures-row.com)

VR_Ace_
08-11-2004, 05:23 PM
Or we could just put up with these litle things and enjoy what we do have, from reading these forums i sometimes think im the only person who actually likes this game, next it will be "oleg can you get some strings attatched to my cheeks and 2 people stood behing me pulling on them when i go into a high G manouvre"

SeaFireLIV
08-11-2004, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Werre_Fsck:
Please, please. Everyone.

Let Oleg know we want a REAL spit in this game.
Not the one we have: the one that defies gravity and does not overheat, even on desert map.

Oleg, Oh Oleg, please fix this mighty butterfly-winged wonder to at least on some level represent an aircraft of the era.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Werre_Fsck, what are your motives? Are you a LW flyer? Also, the `antigrav` statement is rubbish. The 1.0 Hurricane was antigrav.

I`m a `fan boy` of the Spitfire and the 2.04 Spit gives me the same feeling that the 1.0 Hurricane did. Basically, while I`m flying about on full boost chasing a 109, I simply cannot help but feel slightly guilty. It felt similar to how the Hurri felt as if it was held up by wires, except in the Spit it is the lack of overheat. But it DOES eventually overheat, also some detailed documents were provided on ORR... so perhaps it`s correct.

I cannot know for sure, but the great difference from 2.01 to 2.04 is somewhat disconcerting.

But then again, the 109 G2 has always appeared to turn far too well against a spit since even 2.01... what about that?

LEXX_Luthor
08-11-2004, 05:49 PM
Werre_Fsck is only asking for 1940 Spit~1, the most important Spit of all, a real Spit as Werre_Fsck notes, the one we don't have http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif unless we use Yak~1, the Spitfire made from a wood.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

SUPERAEREO
08-11-2004, 06:32 PM
Yawn...!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Does anyone ever complain about Bf.109 G2's?

Spits ARE good, but so were they in RL.

S!

JG7_Rall
08-11-2004, 06:41 PM
Were spits immune to overheat in real life too? I don't think so.

G2 may need tweaking, but not nearly as much as the spit. And don't tell me I'm complaining just because I got shot down by a spit, because I havne't been shot down by a spit as far back as I can remember.

So instead of accusing people of being Luftwhinners because they point out innacuracies in your beloved plane and instead of saying "well x plane is slightly overmodelled in this field so we have the right to have an uberspit" why don't you just face the truth that the spit in its current state needs to be looked at. Sure, it was a great plane, and should kick major ***, but it shouldn't perform how it does now. I don't need charts or supercomputers to confirm this either-it's common sense.

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r5388/fw190sig.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

SeaFireLIV
08-11-2004, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Were spits immune to overheat in real life too? I don't think so.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit is NOT immune to overheat (the IXe version). It DOES overheat. It`s just that it takes a long time... a bit TOO long for reality in my not very knowledgeble view. I believe the overheat time, and ONLY the overheat, should be reduced to more than 2.01 obviously. And this is a Spitfire fan talking here!

How many of you LW fans will honestly admit that some LW planes that you love could do with a change that actually makes it NOT so good but MORE REALISTIC? Remember the G2? I felt since 2.01 that it turned WAY too well, but never complained about it, well now you pick on the Spit, be honest yourselves and work on YOUR fan planes UNREALISTIC ADVANTAGES too!

Don`t just turn on the plane you dearly want to shoot down.

Of course I`d get more honesty talking to a brick wall...

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Wed August 11 2004 at 06:12 PM.]

Werre_Fsck
08-11-2004, 07:26 PM
WTF turned this into another LW vs VVS debate? Spit is porked, period, and should be fixed.

As have been many other planes: I-16 (DM and FM), Lagg-3 (especially DM), La-5* (all nicely fixed), and so on and so on. I have a list from IL2 times somewhere - just remember what horrible cows the G6 models once upon the time.
Some planes still remain to be fixed but never will be completely fixed and I've lost all hope (190 series). Be sure.

Spit is and was an excellent plane, yes, but should it gain alt while constantly looping? (Try it! At different alts, use flaps as necessary). Should it run infinitely at WEP without overheating? (Try it! Even at desert map. Even online.)
I say no, and no.

Try to climb with spit to 7000 meters steadily, then try to climb to 7000 meters using a weird kangaroo jump: dive a little (it gets speed very fast) then pull up - it loses speed very slow. This way you can climb faster than normally.

This same bug affected the (in reality) excellent but (in virtual reality) laughable la-5fn in some IL2 patches too.

At some time during the patch-o-rama even some axis craft have been too good in some thing or another (neverheating b239 at rad2, neverheating 109 at throttle 103, and so on). Contrary to what the anti-LW-types would like us to believe, LW side players did report these, confirm these, and wanted these fixed (well, except for the 239 part ;-) I don't even want to get into what's wrong with MG17, or MG151-20 ammo belt, or muzzle flashes. We all want those fixed don't we?

It's not an LW thing. It has nothing to do with sides, but everything with realism.

bun-bun195333
08-11-2004, 07:47 PM
and I want a new Harley-Davidson.

http://home.comcast.net/~argylestransom/Pics/A10Bun.jpg (http://www.sluggy.com/)

p1ngu666
08-11-2004, 08:18 PM
well on HL, lufty boys moan alot about spit.
there main argument is because the overheat is so long, and think its wrong because german planes arent like that. but its long on fw190 also. So i think live in this fairy tale that germans planes where better, but where overcome by the massed ranks of america and russia. at certains, LW boys find themselves at a disadvantage, and they HATE that. in truth its not a big advantage in most situations. someone forwarded me a email from oleg, saying overheat and top speeds will be corrected... in PF.

I dont fly the spit often actully, i like a challenge more, and im more a coop bloke.

the spit was easy to fly, its great strength IRL

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

LEXX_Luthor
08-11-2004, 08:47 PM
just have server/serverette turn overheat off



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JG7_Rall
08-11-2004, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Were spits immune to overheat in real life too? I don't think so.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit is NOT immune to overheat (the IXe version). It DOES overheat. It`s just that it takes a long time... a bit TOO long for reality in my not very knowledgeble view. I believe the overheat time, and ONLY the overheat, should be reduced to more than 2.01 obviously. And this is a Spitfire fan talking here!

How many of you LW fans will honestly admit that some LW planes that you love could do with a change that actually makes it NOT so good but MORE REALISTIC? Remember the G2? I felt since 2.01 that it turned WAY too well, but never complained about it, well now you pick on the Spit, be honest yourselves and work on YOUR fan planes UNREALISTIC ADVANTAGES too!

Don`t just turn on the plane you dearly want to shoot down.

Of course I`d get more honesty talking to a brick wall...

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Wed August 11 2004 at 06:12 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't fly 109's very often and certainly not the G2 online. I've flown it before, but not much in aces, so I wouldn't be in a very good position to complain about it.

All I was saying is that spits take too long to overheat. You agree. It's as simple as that. SeaFire, I have no beef with you whatsoever and I do fly LW planes but that doesn't mean I'll keep quiet when something is overmodelled with them. Overmodelles are just very, very rare on our side http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Oh, and I'm not complaining about it just because I want to shoot it down...I already can http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif That's not the issue.

Sorry if I'm coming off like an a$$ to you, I'm not trying to be. But it seems like every time someone points out an innaccuracy against allied planes, we're immediatly labeled LW fans and such. So what? Yes, I like LW planes and I'm proud of it! The spit should be fixed and yes, the G2 should be too. Saying the spits overmodel is ok because of the G2's is like saying two wrongs make a right http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r5388/fw190sig.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

WUAF_Badsight
08-11-2004, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Werre_Fsck:
Please, please. Everyone.

Let Oleg know we want a REAL spit in this game.
Not the one we have: the one that defies gravity and does not overheat, even on desert map.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



i hate to burst your bubble . . . . . .

but after seeing the evidence , the Spit Mk9 in FB is correct up to 6K


the lack of overheat , its speed ....... both correct

& sorry to say to the LW dedicated . . . . . but the Spits were better handelers IRL , & they had less drag (hence better E retention)

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-11-2004, 10:18 PM
one thing totally wrong with the Spitfires in FB is . . . . .

their WEP ability

no more than 5 minutes IRL without engine damadge

its in-exaustable in FB , try doing that in any Bf109 that has WEP ....... they were rated for 10 minutes IRL constant WEP B4 engine damadge

in FB the Bf109s get loss of power & MP if you fly them longer that 10 minutes . . . . .

& eventually the motor kraps out

why not the Spits

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lbhskier37
08-11-2004, 10:50 PM
my main beef is the high alt speed of the spit, the dive (which is a problem with all planes not just spits), and the zoom ability. The spit seems to take a long time to lose speed in a steep climb. As for 109s I don't know how they fair right now becuase I am a FW man, and don't even try to tell me the FW is overmodeled (well maybe in overheat, but this to be a problem with a lot of planes). It does bother me how some people get offended when we point out the spit is way to fast at high altitude, it is very well documented and people have yet to show any evidence otherwise, whenever a 109 has been too it was jumped on and once real evidence was shown there seemed to be very little complaining on the LW side.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

Mike8686
08-12-2004, 12:43 AM
IRL the spit did lose speed fast during manuevers, its E-retention wasnt the best, way contrary to what it is in this sim. Also, on WEP it overheated WAY before 8*10^11 minutes passed. I also have beef with its high alt performance, its top speed is a bit much and because its E retention is overmodeled as well as its overheat, these 3 factors provide it with enough high alt uberness to be...well..uber. I'm not saying this just to say it, I'm saying it because I researched it, several books I have agree on that and I can scan the info and post it here if its necessary for it to be believable (Shouldnt be so hard to believe tho). I am a LW fan but my fav WWII aircraft were the 109 190 262 spitty and stang, I would fly the spitty more often in IL2 but its just way too good. It should be easier to fly than many aircraft, it was known for that, but it simply wasnt as good as whats portrayed in this sim, and thats fact. Its not about making things easier for LW fans, its about making the sim more of a sim than an arcrade game.

_Neveraine_
08-12-2004, 01:07 AM
Just for insight, The spit in my experience is now the most common allied fighter online hence the reason why people are complain about it, The bf109-G2 is flown (in my experience) considerably less online, hence why there is less complaints about its spirited turn times.

gkll
08-12-2004, 01:41 AM
Well it seems clear the top speed is a bit much. I wouldn't know about the e-bleed but maybe it is a bit uber.

The problem with the spit was the turnrate, not (that I noticed) with speed or climb. And the turnrate is not noticeably better. The spit had good wing loading compared to all its contemporaries, better than the La7 but just try and turn with a La you'll get your a** shot off in 1.5 circles....

So maybe Oleg+co found it easier to add speed and climb because the turnrate was too difficult to fix? Some funny things happened post patch where all the lightly wingloaded aircraft got hit for turnrate - my guess is that some basic FM characteristics were juggled and to balance things out he added some plane specific parameters. 51's and G2's should not be turning with a spit.

Anyhow the Spit we have is like a somewhat underpowered XIV IMO... the IX only weighed 5600 lbs empty and with a quarter tank of fuel should outturn everything short of a zero, more or less. Too bad - I'm still in a La.

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 01:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
i fly her 90% of the time online and dont see anybody else complaining about a super Spitfire<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

try playing with your monitor on . . . . that will solve this

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nub_322Sqn
08-12-2004, 01:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Werre_Fsck:
WTF turned this into another LW vs VVS debate? Spit is porked, period, and should be fixed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lot's of planes need tweaking, but those threads targetting one plane model turn into a flame war, especially when the topic starter is flying for the opposing side.

Nearly all planes have odd overheat times, even the LW planes can fly around at 102% throttle with radiator completely shut without overheating and if you fly with 110% or add WEP and the engine does overheat you don't even have to open the radiator to cool down the engine, simple throttle back to 102% is enough to cool down the engine, and the overheat message is gone instantly as well.

That doesn't sound very normal to me.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 02:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
whenever a 109 has been too it was jumped on and once real evidence was shown there seemed to be very little complaining on the LW side.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BS Alert !

i fly on the LW side in the VEF & VWF

the Bf109s (all G) have over-boosted turn ability at slow speeds

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 02:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:

even the LW planes can fly around at 102% throttle with radiator completely shut without overheating <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

under what conditions ? . . . . . flying level , MAYBE FOR A WHILE , but with rads shut it will overheat with over 100% Nub

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
and if you fly with 110% or add WEP and the engine does overheat you don't even have to open the radiator to cool down the engine, simple throttle back to 102% is enough to cool down the engine, and the overheat message is gone instantly as well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

err . . . . we are talking about FB are we ?!?!?!

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 02:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
LW boys find themselves at a disadvantage, and they HATE that. in truth its not a big advantage in most situations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

har har

what happens when you give a plane a little better than RL E Retention ?

what happens when you give a plane a little better than RL overheating ability ?

what happens when you give a plane a little better than RL engine termination times ?

what happens when you give a plane a little better than RL damadge moddeling ?

you get a V.V.S A/C !

& after 2 years of fighting these the Spitfire comes along ..... & the MG151/20 , while finally being decent in FB v1.22 gets the **** knocked out of it DM wise

do you think that every single LW loud mouth becomes that way for no reason p1ngu666 ?!?!?!

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nub_322Sqn
08-12-2004, 02:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:

even the LW planes can fly around at 102% throttle with radiator completely shut without overheating <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

under what conditions ? . . . . . flying level , MAYBE FOR A WHILE , but with rads shut it will overheat with over 100% Nub

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
and if you fly with 110% or add WEP and the engine does overheat you don't even have to open the radiator to cool down the engine, simple throttle back to 102% is enough to cool down the engine, and the overheat message is gone instantly as well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

err . . . . we are talking about FB are we ?!?!?!

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errrr, I tested all of them and send a mail with the test results to Oleg and he agreed it was not normal.

So yes, we are talking about FB.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
and if you fly with 110% or add WEP and the engine does overheat you don't even have to open the radiator to cool down the engine, simple throttle back to 102% is enough to cool down the engine, and the overheat message is gone instantly as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that description aint what happens with the FB Bf109s ....... thats why i asked is all . . . . .

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nub_322Sqn
08-12-2004, 02:25 AM
Not all of them, but some are.

But the ones that cannot fly at 102% throttle constantly can be cooled down flying 100% throttle and still leaving the radiator shut, it takes a little while but the overheat message is gone well before the engine takes damage.

Naturally you can cool then egine down even faster by going a bit below 100% throttle.
When I fly in a Bf109 I close the radiator before take off and leave it shut the entire mission because I never need it.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 02:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:

But the ones that cannot fly at 102% throttle constantly <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

they ALL (Bf109s) can be flowen at 102% constantly , BUT! with open Rads (ok , not the Emilys)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
can be cooled down flying 100% throttle and still leaving the radiator shut, it takes a little while but the overheat message is gone well before the engine takes damage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ooook ..... but you said :
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
and the overheat message is gone instantly as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so thats the first exageration , as is saying that WEP can be turned on without engine damadge at all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif , i mean who are you fooling here ?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
When I fly in a Bf109 I close the radiator before take off and leave it shut the entire mission because I never need it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok then ...... i bet you dont go over 100% throttle then . . . . .

. . . . or climb . . . .

cause if you do you will overheat in a Bf109

fact

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

repco
08-12-2004, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:

even the LW planes can fly around at 102% throttle with radiator completely shut without overheating <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

under what conditions ? . . . . . flying level , MAYBE FOR A WHILE , but with rads shut it will overheat with over 100% Nub <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless this has been changed in the latest patch (I've still not upgraded), then Nub is correct - at least that's how I've found the 109-Fs and the A5 in offline campaigns: when engaging, I close the rads and pretty much leave them at 102%.

If the spit's wrong ppl should provide documented proof rather than justing ranting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

My fav planes are the spit & 109, so I've no axe to grind either way http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MadBadVlad
08-12-2004, 03:30 AM
Good grief http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Could someobody just go away and do a bit of research and come back with some hard data on this. We all have pretty decent aviation libraries so it cannot be too difficult to find some info. on Spit. radiator cooling efficiency in both temperate and tropical situations. Simply basing your arguments on the handling and feel of a computer generated graphic rather than the real thing seems a bit pointless.

Nanuk66
08-12-2004, 04:21 AM
Anyone who flies the Spit in both 2.01 and 2.04 and doesnt think it is a completely uber plane is delusional.

I am neither a LW fanbwoy or an allied fanbwoy.

If thats the true modelling of the 1943 Spitfire then fair enough. I personally am not a 'plane nerd', but i can evaluate the performance of certain planes online and in the past few weeks, on certain maps pretty much everyone on red team will choose the Spit if it is available. And this has nothing to do with everyone loving the Spitfire cause its a Spitfire. Players online will show a trend towards certain aircraft because they are better (uber) than anything else. People aint stupid.

On the server that i play on in 2.01 on the desert map the vast majority of players would go LW, probably because of the annoying overheat problem. When people complained from the red side that the teams were unbalanced alot of LW players would claim 'im in a LW squad, we only fly LW planes'. Nowadays you will find them on the Red side all flying Spits. Ive even seen people flying Spits and constantly through the map length been remarking how good/easy/uber the Spit is but they still fly it nevertheless.

B4 2.04 i flew the Spit alot through all the **** turning and overheating problems. It was a challenge and still a very effective aircraft. After 2.04 i flew the spit and thought that its was unbelievably good. Shooting down planes left, right and centre. If u see them coming start turning, hit the WEP and then get on their tail. Coupled with the easiest aiming on any aircraft ive seen and we have a winner ladies and gents.

When they take the training wheels off the Spitfire again ill fly them again.

And before i get pounced on: Im English, i live 30 mins from Duxford, ive seen Spitfires all my life, i personally love the plane and they make me *****.
But the 2.04 Spitfire pisses meh off.

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
Anyone who flies the Spit in both 2.01 and 2.04 and doesnt think it is a completely uber plane is delusional.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

in what ways ?

sure it has way better E retention over the Bf109s (mebe too much so)

& sure it shouldnt be allowed over 5 Min WEP use (like Bfs are also limited too ten min)

but its speed & climb up to 6k have been showen to be correct

as s its lack of overheat , . . . . the mk9 Spitfire had rads that could handel what that Merlin put out

the data posted by Hop2002 show the Spit wouldnt overheat on full power all the way up to 5K & then it was only after a while at that alt

this was a British test , accuratly carried out

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nub_322Sqn
08-12-2004, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:

But the ones that cannot fly at 102% throttle constantly <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

they ALL (Bf109s) can be flowen at 102% _constantly_ , _BUT!_ with open Rads (ok , not the Emilys)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
can be cooled down flying 100% throttle and still leaving the radiator shut, _it takes a little while but_ the overheat message is gone well before the engine takes damage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ooook ..... but you said :
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
and the overheat message is gone instantly as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so thats the first exageration , as is saying that WEP can be turned on without engine damadge at all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif , i mean who are you fooling here ?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
When I fly in a Bf109 I close the radiator before take off and leave it shut the entire mission because I never need it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok then ...... i bet you dont go over 100% throttle then . . . . .

. . . . or climb . . . .

cause if you do you will overheat in a Bf109

fact

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why bother discussing it here again?
Been there, done that, someone even claimed that some LW planes could fly at max power input forever, lmao.
Tests where send to Oleg and he confirmed it wasn't normal.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:

But the 2.04 Spitfire pisses meh off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


eheheheh . . . .

we are still to get the Mk14 Spitfire

apparently it was close to the Mk9s handeling but could climb with K4s

faster on the deck

faster at Alt , why fly LW with that around lol

i know what you mean dude , & if the Mk9 Spitfire was this good IRL , then why be bothered with a Mk14 or 16 or XXxxx ! ! !

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Zayets
08-12-2004, 05:32 AM
What's that an uberplane?
I fly bombers and biplanes.Are they uber-planes?

Zayets out

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Zayets-sigIAR.jpg

WOLFMondo
08-12-2004, 05:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the data posted by Hop2002 show the Spit wouldnt overheat on full power all the way up to 5K & then it was only after a while at that alt

this was a British test , accuratly carried out
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im afraid its simply to much for some people to belive the RAF could possibly carry out an accurate test and reveal the results and for them to be correct.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

Nanuk66
08-12-2004, 05:56 AM
'in what ways ?

sure it has way better E retention over the Bf109s (mebe too much so)

& sure it shouldnt be allowed over 5 Min WEP use (like Bfs are also limited too ten min)

but its speed & climb up to 6k have been showen to be correct

as s its lack of overheat , . . . . the mk9 Spitfire had rads that could handel what that Merlin put out

the data posted by Hop2002 show the Spit wouldnt overheat on full power all the way up to 5K & then it was only after a while at that alt

this was a British test , accuratly carried out'
------------------------------------------------

U may have missed this part:

'If thats the true modelling of the 1943 Spitfire then fair enough'

To re-iterate, the technical details of the modelling of this plane in 2.04 may be spot on to what the plane was like back in 1943. But it is of my opinion that the plane is too good (only from my own impressions fighting in one and against one) than what it is supppose to be or the other planes that its fighting against are not up to par.

Either way the Spitfire rocks.

But Badsight, seeing that U've posted both against and for the spitfire depending what the last person has posted shows me that either ur bored at work or bored at home and are hanging for a good argument.

Im afraid you wont get one here because i'd rather stick a cactus up my **** than spend alot of time trying to find specific data to prove a point on this message board which will inevitably lead to nothing anyway. Ill leave that to the 'plane nerds'.

Ill leave you with a quote from another flyer from a UK forum that may brighten u up a little: (think he musta been playing on the desert map):

''So ill continue to dive down on Spitfires in a FW190 and then climb to altitude with 500+kph only to be followed by a Spitfire on my six that I had at least 2000+ alt on to begin with. He will begin to catch me as my engine starts to overheat. I cannot turn cause I wont have a chance so ill use the old trick of diving away cause my wings wont rip off and I can get good speed up, however the Spit will follow me at a greater speed and his wings wont rip off either. So I start into a rolling dive and lo and behold the Spitfire will over shoot me. So ill try to get a little more height as the Spit tries to figure out where I am ( I may take a pop shot when he passes me but as soon as he realises this he starts a tight turn which i know I cant follow him into). Then the Spitfire will turn on a dime without losing hardly any E and be on my six again. Now ill be down low with an overheating engine in a FW190 (death) with a spit on my six with his WEP on to catch me with no overheating going on knowing that im fooked.''

Wheres his wingman huh! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------

lbhskier37
08-12-2004, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
whenever a 109 has been too it was jumped on and once real evidence was shown there seemed to be very little complaining on the LW side.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BS Alert !

i fly on the LW side in the VEF & VWF

the Bf109s (all G) have over-boosted turn ability at slow speeds

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't mean turn time, that is pretty subjective and hard to prove. I mean top speed and climb. That is basically what we are talking about in here is top speed and climb, both of which are well documented but when it gets mentioned everyone gets called a Luftwhiner. And say "oh LW pilots want to have better aircraft than everyone else" well have you looked at any P51, P47, or P38 fans they are constantly asking for things, and sometimes they do provide data, sometimes its just a whine but they seem to get jumped on a lot less? Or how about the original Hurricane fans, they didn't want change, I remember coming on here when the first FB patch came out and heard all the whining about how the Hurricane sucked now LoL.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

Nanuk66
08-12-2004, 06:00 AM
'i know what you mean dude , & if the Mk9 Spitfire was this good IRL , then why be bothered with a Mk14 or 16 or XXxxx ! ! !'

Exactly !!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hehe!

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
But Badsight, seeing that U've posted both against and for the spitfire depending what the last person has posted shows me that either ur bored at work or bored at home and are hanging for a good argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so i guess you didnt read my posts , wether you did or didnt doesnt matter to me

but if you did , youll see i rasied specific points about specific areas in regard to it being either correct , or too good

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 06:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
''So ill continue to dive down on Spitfires in a FW190 and then climb to altitude with 500+kph <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so far so good !


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
only to be followed by a Spitfire on my six that I had at least 2000+ alt on to begin with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
wait i take that back ..... the dumbkopft didnt keep proper speed


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
He will begin to catch me as my engine starts to overheat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
n00b !


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
I cannot turn cause I wont have a chance <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
he should have . . . . . would have gotten his sortie over quicker



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
so ill use the old trick of diving away cause my wings wont rip off and I can get good speed up, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
double n00b ! . . . . anyone with experience knows about dives in FB



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
however the Spit will follow me at a greater speed and his wings wont rip off either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
damm stright


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
So I start into a rolling dive and lo and behold the Spitfire will over shoot me. So ill try to get a little more height as the Spit tries to figure out where I am <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
sounds like a plan to me !



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
( I may take a pop shot when he passes me but as soon as he realises this he starts a tight turn which i know I cant follow him into). Then the Spitfire will turn on a dime without losing hardly any E and be on my six again. Now ill be down low with an overheating engine in a FW190 (death) with a spit on my six with his WEP on to catch me with no overheating going on knowing that im fooked.'' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well if thats all he could do & was good for , he deserved it !

another n00bie FW driver bagged by our FB Spitfire

next this guy will come here & try to tell us how the A4 gets outclimbed by Mk5's

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

carguy_
08-12-2004, 06:35 AM
Lemme point something out.

FW190 has overheat problems just aswell as the Spit.It has a constsnt prop pitch and on 80p you can go 110% +WEP for slightly shorter time then Spit,but with radiator only on OPEN option - on closed it overheats in a matter of seconds.Even though open rad gives far better
cooling,fw can run 110+WEP too long.

Ahem...but that`s a "minor" bug cuz it can`t stand a chance against most enemies heheh.


Regearding Me109.Nubarus said at 102% it can go forever.Hmmm maybe so,but you didn`t say anything about prop pitch change after 2.04,Nubarus.At 110% throttle RPM goes up to 2700 whereas 102% pulls to 2500!You simply cannot have anything near max power with 2700RPM or 2500 for that matter.It doesn`t overheat becuz the engine is relatively close to cruising prop pitch which is 2200RPM.
Enabling WEP/MW50(mw50 at idle,then to 110%) makes Me109 go to 2800-2850RPM which after 2.04 became high,I repeat high risk RPM.On this rpm Me109 overheats very quickly and engine damage occures 10-20 secs after overheat message appears.

Another thing,you must be aware that any descending at this point kicks the rpm to 2900-3100 which means engine is going to be dead in 5 seconds no matter if the engine overheat message ever appeared.

Funny that before 2.04 max power rpm was 3100-3200.With rad pos 6 and 100% throttle one could go on for maybe 7 minutes,carefully managing prop pitch.
If you don`t believe then view ICAS competition trks where Viks was fighting duels.
Duel started for two planes by taking off from same AF and climbed to around 3000m(can`t remember exactly),then combat began.Viks managed to get there 15 seconds earlier than his counterpart and was at an advantage.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Xnomad
08-12-2004, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
lufty boys moan alot about spit.
there main argument is because the overheat is so long, and think its wrong because german planes arent like that. but its long on fw190 also. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pingu, I don't claim to be an expert in terms of Fw 190 or Spitfire IX overheating times but the Fw 190 uses a radial engine and the Spitfire uses an inline engine so I would expect the Spitfire to overheat much more quickly than a radial engined plane.

The real problem is that the Spit IX can fly at full speed with WEP engaged for ages, to keep up with a Bf 109 you have to use your MW 50 and overheat your plane by the time you are in a fight you have to leave because your engine is about to blow. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

dadada1
08-12-2004, 06:45 AM
I'm a Luft lover and would like the 109s addressed just as much as the Spits. Lots of aircraft need addressing in FB, these are the issues I'm aware of.

109K4 climbrate (too high) 29Ms
109G2 Turn and roll rate (too good, just compare to the lighter 109F 4) overheat suspect.
All Spit 9 speeds WEP and overheat over 6K.
LA 7s climbrate (too high) 27-28Ms
Dive rates on all aircraft (non existant in FB and a crucial part of aircombat)
My personal buggbear The Ta 152 gunsight and overheat time.

All these issues should be addressed , some of these have been around a long time but somehow in the beta testing never are never fixed. Please Oleg if you read this thread, review these issues. I'm sure people have others to add to the list.
Do this and I can quiet happily live with the view from the 190 which is only a minor hinderence as far as I'm concerned.

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 06:50 AM
heads up Nubarus , heres the words of a experienced LW player

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
Lemme point something out.

FW190 has overheat problems just aswell as the Spit.It has a constsnt prop pitch and on 80p you can go 110% +WEP for slightly shorter time then Spit,but with radiator only on OPEN option - on closed it overheats in a matter of seconds.Even though open rad gives far better
cooling,fw can run 110+WEP too long.

Ahem...but that`s a "minor" bug cuz it can`t stand a chance against most enemies heheh.


Regearding Me109.Nubarus said at 102% it can go forever.Hmmm maybe so,but you didn`t say anything about prop pitch change after 2.04,Nubarus.At 110% throttle RPM goes up to 2700 whereas 102% pulls to 2500!You simply cannot have anything near max power with 2700RPM or 2500 for that matter.It doesn`t overheat becuz the engine is relatively close to cruising prop pitch which is 2200RPM.
Enabling WEP/MW50(mw50 at idle,then to 110%) makes Me109 go to 2800-2850RPM which after 2.04 became high,I repeat high risk RPM.On this rpm Me109 overheats very quickly and engine damage occures 10-20 secs after overheat message appears.

Another thing,you must be aware that any descending at this point kicks the rpm to 2900-3100 which means engine is going to be dead in 5 seconds no matter if the engine overheat message ever appeared.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nexus2005
08-12-2004, 06:51 AM
I am getting sick of people complaining that a plane is "uber" just because it is good. The Spitfire IX was a very good plane in RL and was built to outperform the 190 when it came on the scene (which it did). To hear some people speak you would think they want a nerfed Spitfire just because it is more of a challenge to fly. In RL the Spitfire was easy to fly, that was one of it's best features (especially during BoB when new pilots really got minimal training).

Those who are complaining about dive ability, the wings will fall off on a Spitfire if you go much above 800kph. In RL Spitfires were dived in order to attempt to break the sound barrier and the wings never fell off, the prop did though but the pilot always managed to land it.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 06:53 AM
ok . . . . if im hearing you right , the FB Spitfire has a undermoddeled prop

it should simply "fall off "

glad that yet another thing wrong was able to be pointed out

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nexus2005
08-12-2004, 07:01 AM
Yup, the prop fell off when trying to break the sound barrier. It is probably a limitation of the FB engine that you can't make props and things fall off so they make the wings fall off at high speed instead. I do question whether the speed at which damage occurs to the Spitfire (and other planes?) is accurate though because the wings simply did not fall off at 500mph. And you people complain the Spitfire dives too well.

I also question the turn rate and am not entirely sure that it isn't still undermodelled. I am not sure if the current overheat characteristics are accurate or not, my first thought would be that it does take too long but there have been documents posted that suggest it is fairly accurate. The high altitude speed does indeed seem to be wrong, so I think that needs to be fixed.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

Nanuk66
08-12-2004, 07:22 AM
I knew that quote would amuse ya Badsight!
Ya see i can brighten anyones day up!!

I was wondering thou what the general advice was to LW 109 and 190 pilots during WW2 when they got a Spitfire on their tail?

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------

Zayets
08-12-2004, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
I was wondering thou what the general advice was to LW 109 and 190 pilots during WW2 when they got a Spitfire on their tail?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
None.
If you have a Spit behind your 109/190 that means you are doing something wrong.

Zayets out

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Zayets-sigIAR.jpg

Nanuk66
08-12-2004, 08:17 AM
'If you have a Spit behind your 109/190 that means you are doing something wrong.'

Sorry m8 but thats too easy to say.

That could apply to any aircraft of any era in any situation.

And i would have to say that thats one of the most pathetic answers that ive ever had the misfortune to read.

I can see it now...LW flight school:

'Sir, if a spit happens to get on my six what manuovers should i perform to try and shake the tommy scum off?'
'You should never have a spit on ur six leutnant!'
'Jawohl Herr Hauptmann, thank you'!

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------

CHDT
08-12-2004, 08:24 AM
Just bring back the energy option choosen for the first FB patch and it will solve many problems!

Zayets
08-12-2004, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
'If you have a Spit behind your 109/190 that means you are doing something wrong.'

Sorry m8 but thats too easy to say.

That could apply to any aircraft of any era in any situation.

And i would have to say that thats one of the most pathetic answers that ive ever had the misfortune to read.

I can see it now...LW flight school:

'Sir, if a spit happens to get on my six what manuovers should i perform to try and shake the tommy scum off?'
'You should never have a spit on ur six leutnant!'
'Jawohl Herr Hauptmann, thank you'!

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to burst your bubble but here it goes.I see that you're quite new around here.Ppl know me as a notorious vulcher(and proud one) in my beloved IL2 or P47.I could care less about fighters (well,I have to admit that sometimes I go in QMB spraying those jerries with my .50),but I do fly them once in a while,especially biplanes.
Lame answer?Could be.Could you prove it otherwise?Well,I figured out you couldn't.Simple fact that , as you said, it could apply to any fighter of the era,proves my point and invalidates yours.Being able to keep a clean six is based on too many factors which I can't discuss(basically because I am not the one to do so,remember,bombers and **** planes).Paying attention to whatever happens around you could guarantee to a minimum extend that you will not end like this http://www.geocities.com/jtarin47/images/eck13.gif when somebody sneaks at your six.
Other than that,I am amazed how limited humor this board gets nowaday even in LW vs allies debates,or call them flamewars.

PS: we write "it's gonna fall off" instead of its gonna fall off and "If I dive too vertically I will lose my wing",you know , capital "I".That would be English lesson 101b for you.You know,non-native English speaker http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Take care.

Zayets out

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Zayets-sigIAR.jpg

Nanuk66
08-12-2004, 09:10 AM
Sorry but you really have confused me.
Maybe its cause your not a natural english speaker?

I asked a simple question and you've given me 2 answers.
Besides telling me your a vulcher, that ur 'somebody' in the IL2 community and that i should have more situational awareness, you have not answered my question. So ill ask it in a different way just for you amigo.

Say your in a 109 and for a minute or so your not the Uber wicked situational awareness pro that you undoubtably are (lets say your boyfriend called you from the bedroom or something) and, heaven forbid, a spit got on your tail wot would u do?

So everything that u wrote in the paragraph above has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

Hope that makes it clearer.

'we write "it's gonna fall off" instead of its gonna fall off '

You mean failure to use speech marks? maybe he/i was thinking it...

'"If I dive too vertically I will lose my wing",you know , capital "I".

Yes ur right, i concede. Thats not the focus of my sig thou. Must be very hard to read when peeps write 'i' instead of'I'. Sorreh.

Take care now.

P.S. You dont have to actually answer the question zayets. It was more of a rhetorical question anyway. Trying to imply something that obviously u dont get.

CBA anymore.

Ive taken a shine to you thou sonny! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------

hop2002
08-12-2004, 09:21 AM
The fastest recorded dive I know of in a Spitfire was around 980 km/h, and the prop didn't fall off.

Several months later, whilst still carrying out high speed trials, the constant speed unit jammed and exploded, tearing the prop and part of the engine off.

But 975 kmh was reached, and recovered from, without the prop coming off.

Regarding the cooling of Spits, Neil Sterling posted the cooling report on the LF IX some time ago, and I've reposted it several times recently, but most people chose to ignore it, because it doesn't fit their preconcieved notions.

Here is the relevant section again:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090694499_climbcropped.jpg

These tests were conducted at 25 lbs boost, which puts out around 2000 hp. The Spit we have in game is limited to 18 lbs, which puts out around 400 hp less.

As you can see, after 10 mins at cruise, followed by 5 mins at full throttle, in tropical conditions, with radiators closed, at 25 lbs boost, the Spit is nowhere near overheating. And that's with radiators closed.

Regarding boost limits, the Spit had a guideline of 5 mins. At whatever boost pressure was authorised.

The Spit V came out at 9 lbs boost, rated for 5 minutes. That changed to 12 lbs, still at 5 minutes. Then 16 lbs, still for 5 minutes. All with the same engine, same radiators.

The Spit LF IX started with 18 lbs boost, which is what we have in game. That went up to 25 lbs boost, with the same 5 minute rating. No engine changes, no cooling changes.

If the Spit can safely run at 25 lbs, 2000 hp for 5 mins, why is it going to suffer damage at 18 lbs, 1600 hp?

Regarding overmoelling, the Spit IX is about 5% too fast above about 6,500m. The 109K4 climbs up to 50% too fast at all heights.

Here's a graph showing the actual climb rates for the Spit LF with Merlin 66.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092322765_spitclimb109k4.gif

The RED line is for a Spit like we have in game. The ORANGE line is for a Spit VIII at 25 lbs (the Spit VIII is almost identical to the IX, with some internal airframe improvements, a retracting tailwheel, and more fuel. It weighs slightly more than a IX, and typically had slightly lower rate of climb)

The PURPLE line is JL 165, an estimated reading for a Spit LF IX, that performed much worse than any comparable Spitfire on test. Naturally enough, it's Isegrim's favoured comparison, which is why I included it.

As you can see, at 18 lbs the Spit LF IX was superior to the 109K4 at 1.8ata, and similar to the 109K4 at 1.98 ata.

These are the figures IL2 Compare reports for the last patch:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092322815_il22.jpg

The Spitfire, which should be close to the 109 at all altitudes, ahead at some, is way behind at all altitudes.

As an example of just how overmodelled the 109 climb is, the figure for the Spit in the IL2 compare graph up to 2,500m is bang on. Compare it with the graph above to see just how overmodelled the K4 is.

JG5_UnKle
08-12-2004, 09:28 AM
WUAF_Badsight
The Spit VB does outclimb the A4 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Sustained climbrate is higher for the VB than the A4. ROC is higher for the A4 at high speed but so what? The Spit just needs to climb at a lower speed but a higher rate.

So Oleg was wrong on this one I'm afraid. Sustained rate is higher for the Spit so it does outclimb the A4. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

JG5_UnKle
08-12-2004, 09:40 AM
hop2002 I might be being thick but could you explain the Chart axis for me (the first one not the IL-2c one) I'm guessing there are measurements in feet and Metres?

I can't figure the rate (like m/s) - am I just being slow?

Cheers

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

faustnik
08-12-2004, 09:42 AM
Hop,

Where did you find IL2Compare with 2.04 data? Can you give me a link please.

Thanks,

faust

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

hop2002
08-12-2004, 09:43 AM
Sorry I left the labels off. It's height in feet, climb rate in feet per minute, as was the usual British and American practice.

Sorry Faustnik, I've been looking, and can't find it. The data is from IL 2 compare 2.4, which covers the previous patch, 2.01 or 2.02, iirc.

If you do find an up to date version, I'd be interested in it myself. I'd like to see if the climb figures have changed significantly for the Spit or 109.

SeaFireLIV
08-12-2004, 09:52 AM
ok, hop2002, you`ve convinced me. It took me a while deciphering the info, but I don`t feel guilty about the Spit overheat any more. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Thanx for the constant info. I`ve made a copy of this info too.

I wonder why it was so off in 2.01? Ah well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/bluespit.jpg
Ah, no overheat guilt... how nice.

repco
08-12-2004, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
Say your in a 109 and for a minute or so your not the Uber wicked situational awareness pro that you undoubtably are (lets say your boyfriend called you from the bedroom or something) and, heaven forbid, a spit got on your tail wot would u do?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Anyway...

Cool Hop2002, you're the first person to actually supply data... I suppose the whiners will complain about RAF propaganda now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

horseback
08-12-2004, 10:01 AM
Reading through all these posts, I perceive much heat but little light.

In RL, the Spitfire IX (and remember, the IX was steadily improved from the Spring of '42 until mid '44, so much so that the introduction of the XIV as a frontline fighter could be put off until the late fall/winter of '44) was very good in the climb, top speed and sustained turn compared to LW fighters.

It was not quite so good in accelleration, the roll or dive (which is not well modelled in FB for any fighter). The wing was remarkably strong, and quite effective at high speeds, and the Spit held its E pretty well. Its zoom climb was not notably good, but I understand that that is a function of weight/mass and aerodynamics, and the Spit is a lightweight fighter compared to the 109 and 190, which are both smaller and heavier in proportion to their size.

As for overheating: I don't recall a lot of comment about watching engine temps after getting airborne, even for operations in the Western Desert. It was more of an issue during taxiing, airflow to the radiators being somewhat obstructed by the landing gear, coupled with the air at sea level being warmer than that at 10,000 ft. Apparently, the Merlin and the cooling system used on the Spit were more than adequate, and I get the impression that the introduction of glycol in the mid-'30s (after initial design of the Merlin) as a coolant made a huge difference in the use of inline engines for fighters.

That aircraft and engines designed and tested in Northern Europe might be prone to overheat at lower alts in southern climes could be expected, but inline engines are less dependent on the temperature of the outside air for cooling than radials (as a former Arizona resident with a younger sibling who drove a VW Beetle with an 'air-cooled' engine, I have some firsthand experience with the difference-the little **** was constantly 'borrowing' my Capri for summer dates).

On the other hand, the radial engined FW was notorious for overheating at least in its earlier models, and it remained something that had to be monitored carefully throughout its operational career. I seem to recall there being a lot of problems with the lower cylinder heads getting 'cooked' due to poor oil distribution/cooling. It was certainly not as well cooled as the R-2800 installations in the P-47, F4U, or F6F. It therefoe makes a poor comparison point with the Spit's cooling issues.

I haven't played too much with the Spit IX in FB; my impression is that it is easy to fly, well suited to the turning fight, and it has some serious accelleration and firepower.

I am inclined to take issue with the accelleration and the punch of the cannon, at least compared to that of the mid-late model 190s, which have lost a lot of the hitting power I have always associated with four 20mm MG 151s. As for the accelleration, well, we know about the Il-2/FB 190's historical issues in that regard.

Given the number of a/c added (under some pressure, it might be noted) since the introduction of FB, it is no surprise that there are some inequities between some of the newer types and the older original cast members. There is plenty of time to patch again once the PF add-on comes out, and we'll have to adjust to the planes added with that.

I think that the Spit IX may be somewhat overmodelled in accelleration, the punch of its cannon, zoom climb, and the dive (like most of the lightweight fighters in this regard), particularly in comparison to the LW stalwarts, but there's plenty of time to readjust. I expect at least one or two more 'general' patches before BoB comes out, and the Spit will no doubt be one of the 'beneficiaries' unless the Luftwhining gets too offensively strident (i.e., the forward view from the 190).

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

JG14_Josf
08-12-2004, 10:05 AM
51. Climb - The climb of the FW-190 is superior to that of the Sptifire Vb at all heights. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg) The best speeds for climbing are approximatley the same, but the angle of the FW.190 is considerably steeper.

59. Climb - During comparative climbs at variouis heights up to 23,000 feet, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was foiund between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_5.jpg) Above 22,000 feet the climb of the FW.190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the FW.190 had a slight adantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft pulled up into a climb from a dive.


From Robert Shaw in his book Fighter combat:

page 141

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A fighters T/W is a fiarly good indicator of its energy performance. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and a representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading," the ratio of aircraft weight to brake horsepower (normally maximum seal-level power), is used rather than T/W. Both of these measures may be misleading, however, since operation conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways...

...A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent.
Obviously figthter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story. Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, was well as total familiarity by the pilot with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information.

Obviously figthter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story.

Those players that are happy with the current modeling of relative performance in our current "best" WWII combat flight simulator may be either easy to please or simply ignorant. I don't know which, but I do know that what is in the game is not what is recorded in history. I can read. I know words have meaning. If the words written in the reports on Ring's web page were meant to decieve rather than report facts then this piecie of evidence would be irrelevent.

However, it is rediculous to assume that the British fighter pilots were in the buisness of disinformation, their lives were literally on the line and dependent upon the information they gathered from testing these planes in mock combat as reported in those documents on Ring's web page and in the book written by Alfred Price titled:
Focke Wulf FW190 in Combat

Alfred Price wrote:

"Following initial flight trials at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke Wulf 190 flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford for tactical trials. The resultant report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain. In places the language was complimentary in the extreme. The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product, but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war."

And also in Prices book:

W.S. Douglas
Air Chief Marshal
17th July, 1942

"...There is however no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the Fw 190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

LilHorse
08-12-2004, 10:47 AM
Glad to see some actual data has found its way into this debate.

As for the G2 being overmodelled...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif whatever. I fly 109s (earlier ones, when available) most of the time. I have to say that when I DO fly a Spit on a rare occasion it feels like I'm cheating http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I think you guys who've adopted the Spit as your ride should try a good old 109G6 some time. I'd think by comparison it would have some shortcomings vs the Spit. And that's the beauty of it. It's actually a challenge to do well in it.

That said, I'm glad so many ppl out there choose the Spit as their ride. I certainly wouldn't want flying the 109s to be any easier. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DarthBane_
08-12-2004, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
Sorry but you really have confused me.
Maybe its cause your not a natural english speaker?

I asked a simple question and you've given me 2 answers.
Besides telling me your a vulcher, that ur 'somebody' in the IL2 community and that i should have more situational awareness, you have not answered my question. So ill ask it in a different way just for you amigo.

Say your in a 109 and for a minute or so your not the Uber wicked situational awareness pro that you undoubtably are (lets say your boyfriend called you from the bedroom or something) and, heaven forbid, a spit got on your tail wot would u do?

So everything that u wrote in the paragraph above has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

Hope that makes it clearer.

'we write "it's gonna fall off" instead of its gonna fall off '

You mean failure to use speech marks? maybe he/i was thinking it...

'"If I dive too vertically I will lose my wing",you know , capital "I".

Yes ur right, i concede. Thats not the focus of my sig thou. Must be very hard to read when peeps write 'i' instead of'I'. Sorreh.

Take care now.

P.S. You dont have to actually answer the question zayets. It was more of a rhetorical question anyway. Trying to imply something that obviously u dont get.

CBA anymore.

Ive taken a shine to you thou sonny! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

he he the best post on this boards so far.

LuftLuver
08-12-2004, 11:57 AM
Ahh,

Another LW attempt to neuter an Allied plane has been righteously dashed. Maybe they should try a new argument that the Spitfire's beautiful looks are overmodeled! Maybe you LW's are too busy staring at the spit instead of getting out of the way.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

Nexus2005
08-12-2004, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The fastest recorded dive I know of in a Spitfire was around 980 km/h, and the prop didn't fall off.

Several months later, whilst still carrying out high speed trials, the constant speed unit jammed and exploded, tearing the prop and part of the engine off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I stand corrected Hop, I just saw the story on TV and they didn't really go into a lot of detail about it (although it was a program about Concorde http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). I thought when I saw it "hang on, if they are diving Spits to try and break the sound barrier then our wings falling off at 500mph can't be right." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

Nub_322Sqn
08-12-2004, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
heads up Nubarus , heres the words of a experienced LW player

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
Lemme point something out.

FW190 has overheat problems just aswell as the Spit.It has a constsnt prop pitch and on 80p you can go 110% +WEP for slightly shorter time then Spit,but with radiator only on OPEN option - on closed it overheats in a matter of seconds.Even though open rad gives far better
cooling,fw can run 110+WEP too long.

Ahem...but that`s a "minor" bug cuz it can`t stand a chance against most enemies heheh.


Regearding Me109.Nubarus said at 102% it can go forever.Hmmm maybe so,but you didn`t say anything about prop pitch change after 2.04,Nubarus.At 110% throttle RPM goes up to 2700 whereas 102% pulls to 2500!You simply cannot have anything near max power with 2700RPM or 2500 for that matter.It doesn`t overheat becuz the engine is relatively close to cruising prop pitch which is 2200RPM.
Enabling WEP/MW50(mw50 at idle,then to 110%) makes Me109 go to 2800-2850RPM which after 2.04 became high,I repeat high risk RPM.On this rpm Me109 overheats very quickly and engine damage occures 10-20 secs after overheat message appears.

Another thing,you must be aware that any descending at this point kicks the rpm to 2900-3100 which means engine is going to be dead in 5 seconds no matter if the engine overheat message ever appeared.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, real experienced.
When I fly at 102% my RPM reads 2700RPM, not 2500RPM.
Bf109G2, auto pitch control.

Like I said, why bother to keep on discussing it here, tests have been performed, send and confirmed.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

[This message was edited by Nub_322Sqn on Thu August 12 2004 at 11:51 AM.]

robban75
08-12-2004, 12:58 PM
Just thought I'd toss this in here. Perhaps it can help solve something. The're fresh, right out of the oven. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Crimea map, full fuel, full boost. Time in minutes and seconds. M/sec in brackets.

Ta 152H

3000 - start timer
4000 - :44 - (22.7)
5000 - 1:33 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:31 - (17.2) Overheat warning
7000 - 3:43 - (13.9)
8000 - 5:48 - (13.3)
9000 - 6:22 - (11.9)
9800 - 8:01 - (8.1) engine toast after 5 minutes and 30 seconds from OH warning.

Spitfire MkIXc

3000 - start timer
4000 - :40 - (25)
5000 - 1:29 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:16 - (21.3)
7000 - 3:06 - (20)
8000 - 4:05 - (17)
9000 - 5:19 - (13.5)
10000 - 7:02 -(10.8)

(No overheat on the Spitfire)

P-47D-27

3000 - start timer
4000 - :54 -(18.5)
5000 - 1:54 - (16.7)
6000 - 2:52 - (17.2)
7000 - 4:05 - (13.7)
8000 - 5:33 - (11.4) Overheat warning
9000 - 7:26 - (8.8)
10000 - 9:52 - (6.8)

Engine toast after 12 minutes from OH warning.

La-7

3000 - start timer
4000 - :50 - (20)
5000 - 1:40 - (20)
6000 - 2:34 - (18.5)
7000 - 3:41 - (15) Overheat warning
8000 - 5:07 - (11.6)
9000 - 6:57 - (9.1) Engine Normal(?)
10000 - 9:30 - (6.5)

D-9 '45

3000 - start timer
4000 - :46 - (21.7)
5000 - 1:35 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:33 - (17.2) Overheat warning
7000 - 3:42 - (14.5)
8000 - 5:12 - (11.1)
9000 - 7:32 - (9.1)

Engine toast at 9050 meters, 6 minutes from OH warning

Fw 190A-6

3000 - start timer
4000 - 1:04 - (15.6)
5000 - 2:08 - (15.6) Overheat warning
6000 - 3:14 - (15.2)
7000 - 4:32 - (12.8)
8000 - 6:17 - (9.5)
8450 - 7:30 - (6.2) Engine damaged by overheating, unable to climb further.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

Xnomad
08-12-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
Those who are complaining about dive ability, the wings will fall off on a Spitfire if you go much above 800kph. In RL Spitfires were dived in order to attempt to break the sound barrier and the wings never fell off, the prop did though but the pilot always managed to land it.
http://www.bobcs.co.uk<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Pierre Clostermann's "Big Show" the author talks about Spit's trying to catch LW jets and that one guy dove so hard that his wings twisted and the paint came off them, needless to say his plane was fit for the scrap heap.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

Monty_Thrud
08-12-2004, 04:24 PM
robban75...ive just tested the Spitfire IXC on the crimea...100%fuel...100% throttle...wep...start @ 3000 climbing to 10000...qmb...overheat warning starts after 6m 40 sec...engine inoperable @ 12m 54sec....Spit has automatic rads so i cant adjust

Tested the FW190D9...same map height start and climb...100%fuel....110% throttle...wep...got pretty much the same as you ...ohw after 3min 12 sec...engine inoperable after 9min 25sec so yes 6 mins after ohw rads were closed

I have saved the trks..give email if people want them

http://premium.uploadit.org/bsamania/HurricaneIVD_cartoon2-copyns11.jpg
"I won't let go of that youthful soul despite body and mind
my youth will never die" - CREED

SUPERAEREO
08-12-2004, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
ok, hop2002, you`ve convinced me. It took me a while deciphering the info, but I don`t feel guilty about the Spit overheat any more. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


AAAAAHHHHH...! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


I feel exactly the same: thank you hop2002!!!


S!



"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down." - Chuck Yaeger

"Ja, Hunde, wollt ihr denn ewig leben?" - Friedrich der Große

"Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes" - *neid

BaldieJr
08-12-2004, 04:47 PM
All I know is the spitfire was appropriately named as its as ugly as flaming spit.

<A HREF="http://officemax.secureportal.com/" TARGET=_blank>
Hey ya'll prepare yourselves
for the rubberband man!</A>
http://www.fighterjerks.com/rbman.png
http://www.fighterjerks.com

Hunde_3.JG51
08-12-2004, 07:54 PM
Nexus wrote:

"The Spitfire IX was a very good plane in RL and was built to outperform the 190 when it came on the scene (which it did)."

No, it didn't.

-FW-190 and Spitifre IX had similar speeds with advantages at different altitudes.

-Climb was similar to approx 22,000 feet and then the Spitifre became superior.

-Spitifre IX could out-turn the FW-190 at slow speeds while the FW-190 had excellent high speed handling.

-FW-190 was better in acceleration.

-FW-190 was superior in dive and zoom climb.

-FW-190 had superior roll-rate.

Not to mention FW-190 had heavier firepower and was more resistent to battle damage.

The bottom line: they each had their own strengths.

Now in game:

The Spitifre IX leaves the FW-190A FAR behind in climb (I suggest you look at Robbans climb test, the Spit IX was better than every plane in test to 8,000m by a full minute or more. It outclimbed all planes in test from 7,000m to 9,000m. Remember this is the LF.IX we are talking about)

-The speed of the Spitfire LF.IX's (all but HF.IX) in-game should stop increasing at 6,000m or so, instead they increase to 7,000-7,500m which gives them unrealistically high speeds at altitude (approx 422-425mph, should be 404mph at 6,000m).

-Speed of HF.IX is way too high (437mph, almost as fast as Dora and P-51D!), but I don't know where the error starts on this one.

-Spitifre IX in-game can dive with FW-190A since dive is not modelled. Same for zoom climb. *Note* I am not talking about critical dive limit, but about dive acceleration.

At least Spitifre out-turns the 190A at low speeds and the 190A has good high speed handling as in RL.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Thu August 12 2004 at 07:24 PM.]

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 10:19 PM
yea but the FW-190s in FB are ETO versions

they is heavier are they not ?

& less power ?!? (im sure about the heavier part . . . . . . i think)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
ok, hop2002, you`ve convinced me. It took me a while deciphering the info, but I don`t feel guilty about the Spit overheat any more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so how about the zoom climb then ?

or the top speed of the Spitfire at any Alt over 6K ?

or more to the point . . . . . the absence of engine damadge from constant WEP use ?!?!?!?!

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
.

Like I said, why bother to keep on discussing it here, tests have been performed, send and confirmed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

d00d ! . . . . your telling major porkies here

i fly the bf109s a bit too you know , who are you trying to kidd ?

your statements about the cooling & the overheating are bogus !

as for the forum member Carguy , hes a regular full real war participant . . . . & a long time FB player . . . . . & a long time Bf109 flyer

his opinion of the Bf109 far out-weighs your bogus , red herring , allied fanboy lies on how it performs !

so : P http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
08-12-2004, 10:24 PM
Badsight, like I said in another thread, Oleg said we do not have de-rated FW-190's in FB. I'm not sure what you mean when you say heavier ETO FW-190's, I have not heard of that before. The "F" variants were heavier than the "A", along with the "G", but I have not heard of heavier "A" variants dependent on theater.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 10:26 PM
basically the Spit is correct all the way up too 6K

& after 6K its too fast & has suspect E retention

as any experienced FB player knows , constant ROC is meaningless against overmoddelled E retention

cause , if all its got is 1600 Hp , then its a lot better than other 1600 hp A/C

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Badsight, like I said in another thread, Oleg said we do not have de-rated FW-190's in FB. I'm not sure what you mean when you say heavier ETO FW-190's, I have not heard of that before. The "F" variants were heavier than the "A", along with the "G", but I have not heard of heavier "A" variants dependent on theater.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


ok i might be 100% wrong here . . . . but i thought the ETO FW-190s were like 1000 pounds heavier from added armour over WTO FW-190s

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
08-12-2004, 10:32 PM
I have read a decent amount on the FW-190 and I have never heard of heavier FW-190's on Eastern front. Like I said, the FW-190F, which was used alot on the Eastern front, was heavier due to added armor and bomb-racks. At least those based on the A-4 and A-5 variants. The F-8 did not have extra armor IIRC because experience had shown that the armor on the FW-190A was sufficient.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Nub_322Sqn
08-13-2004, 02:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
.

Like I said, why bother to keep on discussing it here, tests have been performed, send and confirmed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

d00d ! . . . . your telling major porkies here

i fly the bf109s a bit too you know , who are you trying to kidd ?

your statements about the cooling & the overheating are bogus !

as for the forum member Carguy , hes a regular full real war participant . . . . & a long time FB player . . . . . & a long time Bf109 flyer

his opinion of the Bf109 far out-weighs your bogus , red herring , allied fanboy lies on how it performs !

so : P http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO, my readout of the RPM meter doesn't lie.
Carguy claimed it runs on 2500RPM at 102% but it doesn't, it runs on 2700RPM.

Okay, after another simular test with the G2 the level flight RPM is just below 2700RPM, my guess is between 2650RPM and 2680RPM.
During climbs and dives the RPM was between 2400RPM (very steep climb) and 2950RPM (90 degree dive) and only does it exceed 3000RPM (But just over 3000RPM) with 110% throttle in a dive.
Overheat occured a few times but a simple 2 to 5 seconds throttle down was all it took to get the overheat message away.
Radiator was closed the whole time.

But instead of wasting your time here I suggest you run your own tests and mail em to Oleg, just like I did.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

[This message was edited by Nub_322Sqn on Fri August 13 2004 at 02:08 AM.]

DarthBane_
08-13-2004, 04:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
.

Like I said, why bother to keep on discussing it here, tests have been performed, send and confirmed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

d00d ! . . . . your telling major porkies here

i fly the bf109s a bit too you know , who are you trying to kidd ?

your statements about the cooling & the overheating are bogus !

as for the forum member Carguy , hes a regular full real war participant . . . . & a long time FB player . . . . . & a long time Bf109 flyer

his opinion of the Bf109 far out-weighs your bogus , red herring , allied fanboy lies on how it performs !

so : P http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO, my readout of the RPM meter doesn't lie.
Carguy claimed it runs on 2500RPM at 102% but it doesn't, it runs on 2700RPM.

Okay, after another simular test with the G2 the level flight RPM is just below 2700RPM, my guess is between 2650RPM and 2680RPM.
During climbs and dives the RPM was between 2400RPM (very steep climb) and 2950RPM (90 degree dive) and only does it exceed 3000RPM (But just over 3000RPM) with 110% throttle in a dive.
Overheat occured a few times but a simple 2 to 5 seconds throttle down was all it took to get the overheat message away.
Radiator was closed the whole time.

But instead of wasting your time here I suggest you run your own tests and mail em to Oleg, just like I did.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

[This message was edited by Nub_322Sqn on Fri August 13 2004 at 02:08 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It scares me to think that fun boys like you have contact with developers. I mean spit is great for people flying this sim first time, but to claim anything about proofs regarding this plane as it is now is realy funy.
Im not much of a flyer but still dangerous in this plane online. Thats its place now, his FM is for average players. I dont even think of flying FW on warclouds. G2 is on much lower margin user frendly + you dont see anything to the rear.

Nub_322Sqn
08-13-2004, 04:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
It scares me to think that fun boys like you have contact with developers. I mean spit is great for people flying this sim first time, but to claim anything about proofs regarding this plane as it is now is realy funy.
Im not much of a flyer but still dangerous in this plane online. Thats its place now, his FM is for average players. I dont even think of flying FW on warclouds. G2 is on much lower margin user frendly + you dont see anything to the rear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please point out where I said the Spitfire was correctly modelled?
If you cannot read what was actually posted why bother to reply at all?
What I said was that nearly all planes have strange overheat issues, including the Spitfire.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

269GA-Veltro
08-13-2004, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Nexus wrote:

"The Spitfire IX was a very good plane in RL and was built to outperform the 190 when it came on the scene (which it did)."

No, it didn't.

-FW-190 and Spitifre IX had similar speeds with advantages at different altitudes.

-Climb was similar to approx 22,000 feet and then the Spitifre became superior.

-Spitifre IX could out-turn the FW-190 at slow speeds while the FW-190 had excellent high speed handling.

-FW-190 was better in acceleration.

-FW-190 was superior in dive and zoom climb.

-FW-190 had superior roll-rate.

Not to mention FW-190 had heavier firepower and was more resistent to battle damage.

The bottom line: they each had their own strengths.

Now in game:

The Spitifre IX leaves the FW-190A FAR behind in climb (I suggest you look at Robbans climb test, the Spit IX was better than every plane in test to 8,000m by a full minute or more. It outclimbed all planes in test from 7,000m to 9,000m. Remember this is the LF.IX we are talking about)

-The speed of the Spitfire LF.IX's (all but HF.IX) in-game should stop increasing at 6,000m or so, instead they increase to 7,000-7,500m which gives them unrealistically high speeds at altitude (approx 422-425mph, should be 404mph at 6,000m).

-Speed of HF.IX is way too high (437mph, almost as fast as Dora and P-51D!), but I don't know where the error starts on this one.

-Spitifre IX in-game can dive with FW-190A since dive is not modelled. Same for zoom climb. *Note* I am not talking about critical dive limit, but about dive acceleration.

At least Spitifre out-turns the 190A at low speeds and the 190A has good high speed handling as in RL.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Thu August 12 2004 at 07:24 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bump.

FW 190 has been one of the most important project of the aeronautical engineering history......i don't know what have we got in AEP....for sure, not a FW 190.

2.04 is a ridicoulous patch, we had to bun it...at least in the VOW competition, waiting for the real patch.

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

DarthBane_
08-13-2004, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
It scares me to think that fun boys like you have contact with developers. I mean spit is great for people flying this sim first time, but to claim anything about proofs regarding this plane as it is now is realy funy.
Im not much of a flyer but still dangerous in this plane online. Thats its place now, his FM is for average players. I dont even think of flying FW on warclouds. G2 is on much lower margin user frendly + you dont see anything to the rear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please point out where I said the Spitfire was correctly modelled?
If you cannot read what was actually posted why bother to reply at all?
What I said was that nearly _all_ planes have strange overheat issues, _including the Spitfire_.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is strange about overheat, look at Robbans tests, the spit doesnt overheat at all. His climbtest was eye opener, playing bad guys in this game is like choosing nightmare difficulty, while gud side is on easy setting. I enjoy online, and love this game, bought 6800ultra and x45 only because il2, but sides are not matched at all. From average player point of view.
Online: Mephisto_

DarthBane_
08-13-2004, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Nexus wrote:

"The Spitfire IX was a very good plane in RL and was built to outperform the 190 when it came on the scene (which it did)."

No, it didn't.

-FW-190 and Spitifre IX had similar speeds with advantages at different altitudes.

-Climb was similar to approx 22,000 feet and then the Spitifre became superior.

-Spitifre IX could out-turn the FW-190 at slow speeds while the FW-190 had excellent high speed handling.

-FW-190 was better in acceleration.

-FW-190 was superior in dive and zoom climb.

-FW-190 had superior roll-rate.

Not to mention FW-190 had heavier firepower and was more resistent to battle damage.

The bottom line: they each had their own strengths.

Now in game:

The Spitifre IX leaves the FW-190A FAR behind in climb (I suggest you look at Robbans climb test, the Spit IX was better than every plane in test to 8,000m by a full minute or more. It outclimbed all planes in test from 7,000m to 9,000m. Remember this is the LF.IX we are talking about)

-The speed of the Spitfire LF.IX's (all but HF.IX) in-game should stop increasing at 6,000m or so, instead they increase to 7,000-7,500m which gives them unrealistically high speeds at altitude (approx 422-425mph, should be 404mph at 6,000m).

-Speed of HF.IX is way too high (437mph, almost as fast as Dora and P-51D!), but I don't know where the error starts on this one.

-Spitifre IX in-game can dive with FW-190A since dive is not modelled. Same for zoom climb. *Note* I am not talking about critical dive limit, but about dive acceleration.

At least Spitifre out-turns the 190A at low speeds and the 190A has good high speed handling as in RL.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Thu August 12 2004 at 07:24 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bump.

FW 190 has been one of the most important project of the aeronautical engineering history......i don't know what have we got in AEP....for sure, not a FW 190.

2.04 is a ridicoulous patch, we had to bun it...at least in the VOW competition, waiting for the real patch.

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
http://www.269ga.it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bump, no more no less.

hop2002
08-13-2004, 05:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>-Climb was similar to approx 22,000 feet and then the Spitifre became superior.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's for an early test of a Spit F IX, running at it's climb rating, against a 190 A3 running at WEP.

WEP on the A3 was 1.35 ata, which is what they ran it at on that test.

On the A4 and later 1.35 ata became the climb rating, but the weight increased slightly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now in game:
The Spitifre IX leaves the FW-190A FAR behind in climb<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire IXs we have in game have the Merlin 66 and 70, not the Merlin 61 used in the test against the 190. The Merlin 66 and 70 added 700 - 900ft/min to the climb rate.

The Spitfire LF IX should outclimb any of the 190s, by a long way. It's climb rate was similar to the 109K4.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It outclimbed all planes in test from 7,000m to 9,000m. Remember this is the LF.IX we are talking about<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The LF IX was designed for best performance at around 6,000m, which is higher than many German fighters. At high altitude the climb rate should be similar to the 109 K4.

hop2002
08-13-2004, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What is strange about overheat, look at Robbans tests, the spit doesnt overheat at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is there a rolleyes smiley?

Halfway through the last page I posted the actual cooling trials for the Spit LF IX, running at higher boost than we have in game.

It involved a climb from 600m to 9750m, with radiators open or closed.

In temperate summer conditions (which is what the Crimea map models) the Spitfire just began to overheat at the end of the climb, with radiators closed

Read it again. At higher boost than in game, in a longer climb than Robban carried out, with radiators closed, it just began to overheat at the end of the climb.

With radiators open, as the game models for climb, it didn't overheat at all. In a climb at a higher power setting than we have in game, and over a greater distance.

Nub_322Sqn
08-13-2004, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
It scares me to think that fun boys like you have contact with developers. I mean spit is great for people flying this sim first time, but to claim anything about proofs regarding this plane as it is now is realy funy.
Im not much of a flyer but still dangerous in this plane online. Thats its place now, his FM is for average players. I dont even think of flying FW on warclouds. G2 is on much lower margin user frendly + you dont see anything to the rear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please point out where I said the Spitfire was correctly modelled?
If you cannot read what was actually posted why bother to reply at all?
What I said was that nearly _all_ planes have strange overheat issues, _including the Spitfire_.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is strange about overheat, look at Robbans tests, the spit doesnt overheat at all. His climbtest was eye opener, playing bad guys in this game is like choosing nightmare difficulty, while gud side is on easy setting. I enjoy online, and love this game, bought 6800ultra and x45 only because il2, but sides are not matched at all. From average player point of view.
Online: Mephisto_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is also what I mailed to Oleg in my tests, that the Spitfire doesn't overheat unless you climb above 3000 meters and even then it takes a long time to get there.

All I said here is that nearly all planes have odd overheating on Allied and Axis planes alike.
But somehow people only want to complain about the Spitfire and when other planes are added to the list (Axis ones) they get all defensive and start flaming.

To me that sounds like bias, especially since they have no idea what I actually send into that mail and what planes are on the list.

Calling me names and saying I am a fun boy and that I should have no contact with the developer because I know squat is pushing it.

But to each his own, I don't care either way since nobody here can actually influence this sim or the overheat report I send.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

JG5_UnKle
08-13-2004, 06:39 AM
Nub - if you have an allied aircraft in your Sig you are a SpitWhiner - or Amiwhiner or whateverwhiner http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

If you have a 109/190 in your sig you are a Luftwhiner.... I wouldn't let it piss you off too much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Few people even bother doing any tests, never mind e-mail Oleg or try to influence the development of the sim. They would much rather come here and flame, rant and ***** about their favourite ride out of some sense of gaming honour to a 3D model in a game or dubious nationalism http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Pretty much missing the point that some of us want a historical planeset in an environment where we can practice real-world tactics and techniques. Not some AirQuake session where the game has to be "balanced" or some **** like it's a dammned FPS with wings.

Bah! I'm ranting now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

WUAF_Badsight
08-13-2004, 07:19 AM
the BS about Bf109s not overheating that has been posted by Nub_322Sqn is just that . . . . BS

they dont majically cool down only by going down to 102% power & they absolutly do overheat with Rads closed over 100% power

doubly so with WEP

that the Bf109 can be kept cool by not going at 110% power is in no way similer to the Spitfire being able to hadle max power + Wep whilst Climbing & Looping

trying to compare is utter fantasy & is a poor , poor attempt to show similarity between the two

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nub_322Sqn
08-13-2004, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the BS about Bf109s not overheating that has been posted by Nub_322Sqn is just that . . . . BS

they dont majically cool down only by going down to 102% power & they absolutly do overheat with Rads closed over 100% power

doubly so with WEP

that the Bf109 can be kept cool by not going at 110% power is in no way similer to the Spitfire being able to hadle max power + Wep whilst _Climbing & Looping_

trying to compare is utter fantasy & is a poor , poor attempt to show similarity between the two

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not comparing, all I said was that many other planes have odd overheat issues as well

Clearly you have a serious lack of reading skills.

What you basicly say is: "Your plane has a more serious bug then mine so you can't talk about mine on this forum or else I will flame you and call you names"

What a joke, lol. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Maybe it's time you put some more effort in this and do some tests and send in the results to those who can actually do anything about it.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

LilHorse
08-13-2004, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
It scares me to think that fun boys like you have contact with developers. I mean spit is great for people flying this sim first time, but to claim anything about proofs regarding this plane as it is now is realy funy.
Im not much of a flyer but still dangerous in this plane online. Thats its place now, his FM is for average players. I dont even think of flying FW on warclouds. G2 is on much lower margin user frendly + you dont see anything to the rear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but I had to jump in on this point. It's nauseating that anyone should think any plane in this sim should have it's FM modelled for "people new to the game" or for "average players". Questions of overheat, ROC, etc. aside. What people want in this sim is the most accurately modelled planes they can get. Not "easy flying" planes. If you want easy flying then there are settings built into the game that automatically pork the FM for you. Planes hard to fly? Learn to fly 'em (afterall, we have the luxury of not actually dying). This sim, for all it's flaws is just too damned good to cater to an arcade mentality. If I've mis-understood you, then I'm sorry. But God forbid that any plane be seen as "the easy plane". Certainly, some were easier to handle than others. But none of them were arcade toys.

DarthBane_
08-13-2004, 08:18 AM
Now i see, bf109 is on medium difficulty, FW on nightmare and allied planes (except p47 and p38) on easy, spitfire even has overheating set to off in game for extra easy. Yust to make one thing clear: i like beeing bad, so i fly spit online. There is too much problem with some people online even in overmodeled planes. S for those.

DarthBane_
08-13-2004, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
It scares me to think that fun boys like you have contact with developers. I mean spit is great for people flying this sim first time, but to claim anything about proofs regarding this plane as it is now is realy funy.
Im not much of a flyer but still dangerous in this plane online. Thats its place now, his FM is for average players. I dont even think of flying FW on warclouds. G2 is on much lower margin user frendly + you dont see anything to the rear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but I had to jump in on this point. It's nauseating that anyone should think any plane in this sim should have it's FM modelled for "people new to the game" or for "average players". Questions of overheat, ROC, etc. aside. What people want in this sim is the most accurately modelled planes they can get. Not "easy flying" planes. If you want easy flying then there are settings built into the game that automatically pork the FM for you. Planes hard to fly? Learn to fly 'em (afterall, we have the luxury of not actually dying). This sim, for all it's flaws is just too damned good to cater to an arcade mentality. If I've mis-understood you, then I'm sorry. But God forbid that any plane be seen as "the easy plane". Certainly, some were easier to handle than others. But none of them were arcade toys.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you did understand me, but we disagree completly, some planes are avoiding server settings (overheat is on for rest), and FM is begginers frendly and they DO handle as arcade toys unlike others. God has nothing to do with some planes beeing extra easy in this sim. Not a metter of view.

WOLFMondo
08-13-2004, 08:48 AM
Wasn't there a while ago when AEP came out a real spitfire pilot who tested some of the planes including the Spitfire VB and he said it was very much real life apart from the torque?

It was posted in these forums but I can't remember the title of the thread.

I guess since he's not an armchair expert his option doesn't count. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

JG5_UnKle
08-13-2004, 09:02 AM
Unfortunately Mondo pilots have said that since the very early days of simming. It was said about CFS, Janes WW2 fighters etc. Doesn't count for much I'm afraid.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

LilHorse
08-13-2004, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Now i see, bf109 is on medium difficulty, FW on nightmare and allied planes (except p47 and p38) on easy, spitfire even has overheating set to off in game for extra easy. Yust to make one thing clear: i like beeing bad, so i fly spit online. There is too much problem with some people online even in overmodeled planes. S for those.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me get this straight. What you're saying is that you WANT there to be planes that are easier even if that means they're modelled wrong?

IV_JG51_Prien
08-13-2004, 10:17 AM
One little fun point..

Josf posted a good little article taken from testing done of the real aircraft by the brits..

Nobody's bothered to really touch on what he wrote.. Everybody's been bickering over the same theroys developed from playing the game, and using a program that displays the GAME performance of the A/C.. not the real things.

Maybe some of you should read Josf's post again.

http://www.jg51.net/downloads/squadbanner.bmp

WOLFMondo
08-13-2004, 10:28 AM
Bah! We don't do real stats round these parts. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

hop2002
08-13-2004, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One little fun point..

Josf posted a good little article taken from testing done of the real aircraft by the brits..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only problem is none of the aircraft in that test are present in FB, so it's a bit difficult to relate their performance to the models we have in the game.

faustnik
08-13-2004, 10:42 AM
Hop,

Can you make a seperate topic explaining the Spit IXs including Merlin versions currently modeled in FB. I was confused at first until you straightened me out on it. Most people don't understand the difference between the Merlin 61 and 66. I think it would clear up some issues.

thanks,

faust

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

JG14_Josf
08-13-2004, 11:22 AM
hop2002,

On the off chance that you may actually be honest about this I am going to reply.

I am sorry if my perspective is in error, but reading your posts are like reading a politicians speech. That is my perscpetive right or wrong.

The situation described by W.S. Douglas in his Most Secret letter to Fighter Command HQ was dated July 17th, 1942.

"In several respects the Fw 190 is superior to the Spitifre IX, e.g. in climb and acceleration at ceratain critical altitudes and in negative G carburation."

Alfred Price notes:
"Time would reveal that Sir Sholto Douglas had been over-pessimistic in his view that improved versions of the Fw 190 would '...outstrip the Merlin Spitfire in performance'. In fact the Sptifre IX would be a worthy opponent for most version of the Fw 190, and the Mark XIV would prove superior. Nevertheless, the letter reveals clearly that in the summer of 1942 the German fighter was a matter of considerable concern to the RAF commander."

Anyone can go back to Rings web page to review the nitty gritty concerning the tests done by the British pilots during the war when they tried to figure out what could be done in their despirate situation at the hands of the 'best all-round fighter in the world'.

Rings valuable resource page (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/)

or get this book:

Focke Wulf by Alfred Price (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0750916346/qid=1092416467/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-0114504-1088959?v=glance&s=books)

While you are at it you may want to pick up this book too:

Wings fo the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1853104132/qid=1092416547/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0114504-1088959?v=glance&s=books)

Captain Eric Brown flew these planes during the war and his oppinion (formed during the war) means something, and he makes a clear evaluation of just how the FW190 was used in Combat, the techniques used by the German pilots that maximized the FW's strengths against the weaknesses of the Spitfires.

Get this book to see clearly how to energy fight:

Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0870210599/qid=1092416688/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-0114504-1088959)

Now, if a game is going to simulate history then history should resemble the simulation. If while on-line in the game a host is trying to simulate 1942 what choices are available?

The bottom line here is:
Can any combination of plane variations in the game simulate the situation described by the above linked resources where the Fw190s dominated the Spitfires?

I can here the politician gears turning as I write this:
"Fw190s do dominate in the game"
and
"It is an eastern front game not a western front game"
etc.

Obfuscation is a politicians tool.


The bottom line, from my perspective of careful study is that energy fighting requires a capacity to gain relative energy in acceleration and keep that relative energy in zoom climbs. This is a simplification of course but it serves to illustrate the problem with the game and the lack of ability to simulate 'real' historical air combat. When all the planes modeled in the game accelarate in a dive at the same rate and when all the planes in the game zoom climb at the same rate in the game then to the extent that the planes really had different rates of energy gain and loss the "Energy Fighting" game is not simulated.
Based upon the combat test results done by British during the war the FW190 was a poster child example of an Energy Fighter.
1.Extraordinary initial acceleration.
2.Steep climb angle at higher climb rates
3.Greater zoom climb.
4.Faster roll rate.
5.Greater gunsight view for deflection shooting.
6.Massive firepower.
7.Rugged

The only weak area the FW had in 1942 was slow speed turn rate. At high speed turns the German FW pilots could pull more g force (due to sitting possition) higher turn rates and lower turn radius (due to higher g load capability) and require less physical arm strength to accomplish high g, maximumm turn rate, and almost minimum turn radius corner speed turns.

The only area where the Spitfires used by the real British pilots in the summer of 1942 had an advantage is if the German FW190 pilots lost their minds and slowed down into a stalling turn fight.

Play the game and read the history and you will see the glaring contradictions.

To explain away this massive contadiction with one or two manufacturers prototype flight test report is rediculous and intelectually dishonest in my (trying to be) humble oppinion.

Brotrob
08-13-2004, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

...
Regarding overmoelling, the Spit IX is about 5% too fast above about 6,500m. The 109K4 climbs up to 50% too fast at all heights.
...
Here's a graph showing the actual climb rates for the Spit LF with Merlin 66.
...
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092322765_spitclimb109k4.gif
...
The RED line is for a Spit like we have in game. The ORANGE line is for a Spit VIII at 25 lbs (the Spit VIII is almost identical to the IX, with some internal airframe improvements, a retracting tailwheel, and more fuel. It weighs slightly more than a IX, and typically had slightly lower rate of climb)
...
The PURPLE line is JL 165, an estimated reading for a Spit LF IX, that performed much worse than any comparable Spitfire on test. Naturally enough, it's Isegrim's favoured comparison, which is why I included it.
...
As you can see, at 18 lbs the Spit LF IX was superior to the 109K4 at 1.8ata, and similar to the 109K4 at 1.98 ata.


As an example of just how overmodelled the 109 climb is, the figure for the Spit in the IL2 compare graph up to 2,500m is bang on. Compare it with the graph above to see just how overmodelled the K4 is.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello hop2002,

I respect you as an expert on the Spitfire, and you can post any climbchart of it as you want, I won't doubt it couse I don't know better.

But PLEASE stop posting that nonsense on the Me 109 K4. As already discussed in ths

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=176107735&p=2

topic in ORR, your charts for the Kurfürst are for a climb WITHOUT MW50 !!! So for gods sake please stop posting self-made Ecxel-Charts that let people believe the best RoC for a K4 was 4850 ft/min (24,6 m/s ).

When people have a problem with the climb of the K4, I recomend some history books . Or the simulation-fans should just remember the other games with K4 included, in every game its the best climber. As it should be.


Intercessional Greetings,

Brotrob

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/brotrob/DD.jpg

Achdung! Kombjuderraum

D¤r Raum is vull bis under die Deggn mit die dollsdn und deiersdn elegdrischn und vullelegdronischn Abbarade. Stauna und glodzn derf dou jeder, obber umananderworschdln und an die Gn¶bfler rumdriggn des derfn blouß mir, die EGGSBERDEN!

hop2002
08-13-2004, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am sorry if my perspective is in error, but reading your posts are like reading a politicians speech.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been insulted many times, but calling me a politician, that's just low. I thought the forum had a filter to remove offensive words like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The situation described by W.S. Douglas in his Most Secret letter to Fighter Command HQ was dated July 17th, 1942.

"In several respects the Fw 190 is superior to the Spitifre IX, e.g. in climb and acceleration at ceratain critical altitudes and in negative G carburation."

Alfred Price notes:
"Time would reveal that Sir Sholto Douglas had been over-pessimistic in his view that improved versions of the Fw 190 would '...outstrip the Merlin Spitfire in performance'. In fact the Sptifre IX would be a worthy opponent for most version of the Fw 190, and the Mark XIV would prove superior. Nevertheless, the letter reveals clearly that in the summer of 1942 the German fighter was a matter of considerable concern to the RAF commander."

Anyone can go back to Rings web page to review the nitty gritty concerning the tests done by the British pilots during the war when they tried to figure out what could be done in their despirate situation at the hands of the 'best all-round fighter in the world'.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

&lt;Snip lots of books&gt;

In the summer of 1942, the RAF was just introducing the Spitfire F IX.

It had a Merlin 61 engine, running at 15 lbs, 3000 rpm

This Spitfire F IX did 312 mph at sea level, it's climb rate peaked at 3,860 ft/min. At 20,000ft it's maximum speed was 380 mph.

You can see the test report on it at http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html


We don't have this plane in the game. It was only produced for about 6 months, and around 350 were made in total.

Production soon switched to the Spitfire IX with Merlin 63, 66 or 70.

The vast majority (over 4,000) were Spitfire LF IX with Merlin 66.

With the Merlin 66, the Spitfire did 336 mph at sea level, 399 mph at 20,000 ft, and the climb rate peaked at 4,700 ft/min

Compare those figures. Within 6 months, the Spitfire they had tested against Arnim Faber's 190 was being replaced with one that was 20 - 25 mph faster at the altitudes where the 190 caused problems, and had a climb rate over 800 ft/min better.

The Spitfire LF IX was deliberately designed to perform better at low and medium altitudes, where the Fw 190 was a threat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The bottom line here is:
Can any combination of plane variations in the game simulate the situation described by the above linked resources where the Fw190s dominated the Spitfires?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw 190 did not dominate even the Spitfire F IX with Merlin 61.

The test against Faber's 190 concluded:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The general impression gained by the pilots was that the Spitfire IX compared favourably with the FW 190<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The bottom line, from my perspective of careful study is that energy fighting requires a capacity to gain relative energy in acceleration and keep that relative energy in zoom climbs. This is a simplification of course but it serves to illustrate the problem with the game and the lack of ability to simulate 'real' historical air combat. When all the planes modeled in the game accelarate in a dive at the same rate and when all the planes in the game zoom climb at the same rate in the game then to the extent that the planes really had different rates of energy gain and loss the "Energy Fighting" game is not simulated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think they do.

Testing zoom and dive is difficult to get exactly right, but I just tried some very quick tests, zooming from 500 km/h at sea level until speed dropped to 300 km/h.

The A6M5 got to 580m, the 1944 D9 got to 650m.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Based upon the combat test results done by British during the war the FW190 was a poster child example of an Energy Fighter.
1.Extraordinary initial acceleration.
2.Steep climb angle at higher climb rates<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 190 had a fairly poor climb rate. Anyone who thinks otherwise is conning themselves.

The report of the RAF test of Faber's 190 says it could easily outclimb the Spit V, yet the figures they provide compare with the Spit V at sea level, and at high altitude are about 200 - 300 ft/min better.

Against the Spitfire F IX, the RAF found the Spit was slightly better than the 190, against the Spit LF IX the Spit would be much, much better.

Do not pin all your expectations on a single RAF comparison test conducted in a few days against the first 190 they got their hands on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The only weak area the FW had in 1942 was slow speed turn rate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We do not have a 1942 Spitfire IX. We have 1943 Spitfire IXs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At high speed turns the German FW pilots could pull more g force (due to sitting possition)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think there was much difference. The RAF adopted raised rudder pedals for Spitfires in 1940, to raise the legs and thus improve G tolerance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>higher turn rates and lower turn radius (due to higher g load capability)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never seen anything to suggest this. The Spitfire was rated for higher G than pilots were capable of anyway, so it hardly matters.

Fact is, the 190 would bleed speed quicker in a turn, suffered badly from accelerated stalls, and suffered accelerated stalls at much higher speeds than the Spitfire due to it's high wing loading.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> and require less physical arm strength to accomplish high g, maximumm turn rate,and almost minimum turn radius corner speed turns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your facts are again wrong. The 190 had a relatively stiff elevator, the Spitfire amongst the lightest, if not the lightest of all fighters.

The Spitfire had heavy ailerons, the 190 light, so the Spitfire pilot would need more strength for high speed rolls.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The only area where the Spitfires used by the real British pilots in the summer of 1942 had an advantage is if the German FW190 pilots lost their minds and slowed down into a stalling turn fight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet the comparison report notes that the Spitfire IX compare favourably with the 190. Or is the report to be used when it favours you case, and ignored when it contradicts it?

Who exactly is the politican here?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Play the game and read the history and you will see the glaring contradictions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British tested an Fw 190A3 running at higher than maximum power against a Spitfire F IX. We have neither in game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To explain away this massive contadiction with one or two manufacturers prototype flight test report is rediculous and intelectually dishonest in my (trying to be) humble oppinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To try to compare a Spitfire F IX with Merlin 61, running at 15 lbs boost, to a Spitfire LF IX with Merlin 66 running 18 lbs boost shows either a total ignorance of the aircraft involved or a deliberate attempt to mislead people.

The Spitfire F IX and LF IX are not the same aircraft. The LF IX had a lot more horsepower, as much as 300 hp at many altitudes.

hop2002
08-13-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But PLEASE stop posting that nonsense on the Me 109 K4. As already discussed in ths

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=176107735&p=2

topic in ORR, your charts for the Kurfürst are for a climb WITHOUT MW50 !!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but they're not.

There are two lines for the K4 on my chart, the light blue line is for a K4 at 1.8 ata, which did not require MW 50, the dark blue line is for a 109K4 at 1.98 ata, which did require MW 50.

1.98 ata is the maximum rating used by the 109 K4 in service during the war.

It's represented on my chart as the dark blue line.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So for gods sake please stop posting self-made Ecxel-Charts that let people believe the best RoC for a K4 was 4850 ft/min (24,6 m/s ). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not from excel, but the chart is self made. The best rate of climb shown on tht chart is not 4850 ft/min, it's just over 4900 ft/min, which is just under 25 m/s, and is the maximum rate of climb achieved on the 109K4 at 1.98 ata, which is the maximum power it used in service during the war.

I'd like to see a source that says otherwise.

The source for 25 m/s being the highest figure is I believe the only original documentation for the 109K4 speed at combat that exists. It's from Butch2k, who passed it to Isegrim, who has reproduced part of it for us to see.

I'm fairly sure that if there was a higher figure for the K4, Isegrim would have used it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When people have a problem with the climb of the K4, I recomend some history books . Or the simulation-fans should just remember the other games with K4 included, in every game its the best climber. As it should be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I've said before, I've never seen a sim model the Spit LF IX. Always the F IC with the much less powerfull engine.

Perhaps they understood the whines it would generate?

WUAF_Badsight
08-13-2004, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
some load of waffle <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


dude your trying to preach to the wrong person

ive been testing planes in FB since the first patch

trying to say that the Bf109s have a "strange" or undermoddeled overheat ability is a load of BS

they overheat

they terminate their engine

& they do it faster than a crapload of other planes in FB

your the one trying to compare it to the spitfire

what a joke ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG14_Josf
08-13-2004, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Who exactly is the politican here?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have educated myself in politics. I know how do deal with politicians. I did not accuse anyone of being a politician. That "spin" is your construction.

As to the Facts:

I have presented words written by the people involved in and during WWII air combat. If you have a contention with their words then by all means refute their words. Use your own words, your own "spin".

Perhaps you are a politician wanabe. I don't know. I can't 'prove' it one way or the other, I can only form my opinion based upon what you write.

Politicians "spin", obfuscate, misdirect, missinform, whatever you want to call it. So do you, in my opinion.

I see no reason to continue responding to you.

You will imagine that I am insulting you. You will be offended. In reality my words are only my honest evaluation of your written words. I am being frank.

No, I am being Joe. Frank is a dentist.

Joe

WUAF_Badsight
08-13-2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

ive been insulted many times, but calling me a politician, that's just low. I thought the forum had a filter to remove offensive words like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Har Har http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

the thing thats great in combat is the abilty to keep speed . . . . . . or gain it back quick

if you can do that you can engage in any type of combat you want , your not limited to "keeping speed" . . . . . because if you are limited to keeping speed then engaging in a fight that gives you opportuinty becomes a exercise in far greater discipline , which if you do mistakes is punished far greater

the Mk9 Spitfire is a plane that tuns ok , but is hella fast & that can keep speed rather well

energy moddeling , its probably one of the hardest things to estimate correctly (along with accelleration rates)

the overall drag of the Spitfire , im guessing (& id put money on it) that it was less dragy than the FW-190 & any Bf109 . . . . . but id bet the Bf109 was close tho , they were small A/C as well

the overheat is apparently correct

the speeds are correct for the merlin 66 Spitfires . . . up to 6K

it might have only had 1600 Hp , but it sure feels like 2000 to me

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

faustnik
08-13-2004, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:


the overheat is apparently correct

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on what?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WUAF_Badsight
08-13-2004, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:

Based on what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hop2002s british test shows a higher boost Mk9 handeling tropical conditions & not overheating in the climb up to 5K

we got a lower boost Mk9 Merlin 66 in FB

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

faustnik
08-13-2004, 02:41 PM
The Spit IX handbook places a 5 minute limitation on WEP use and warns of engine failure at 10.

Hop's selected quotes are always interesting but, I think the subject deserves continued investigation.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WUAF_Badsight
08-13-2004, 02:53 PM
your confusing the issue ?

WEP use & overheat ..... 2 different things ?

that the Spitfire has this performance & unlimited Wep in FB is a joke ...... but the overheat or lack of it seems to be in-line with the info posted by hop2002

its Wep is just higher manifold pressure isnt it ? .. . . . . so in FB it should overheat quicker with Wep on ?

i know that the Bf109s with Wep get engine damadge if you fly w/ it on for longer than 10 minutes ........ which should happen (not too mention they overheat way B4 ten minutes ever get close to finishing with Wep on)

but with wep off it sure seems like the Mk9 shouldnt overheat ...... seems the rads on the Mk9 were enough to hAndel what that Merlin put out ?

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

faustnik
08-13-2004, 02:57 PM
The only limiting factor of WEP use is overheat. The two are connected. I'm not sure I follow you Badsight?

Oh, and I'm sure not trying to confuse the issue. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WUAF_Badsight
08-13-2004, 03:00 PM
Huge aint they . . . . . the Rads i mean

http://jpg.uploader.net/uploaded/DH13V02_clippa.jpg

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-13-2004, 03:05 PM
the limit of Wep was for engine damadge

i think i read that the Spits Wep was just higher manifold pressure (boost from the supercharger ? or just higher than normal RPMs ?)

the limit of Wep , if im taking it the right way wasnt overheat specifically , but the fact that the motor could be blowen (which would have been , maybe , preceeded by overheat ?)

i know you can blow a motor up without even overheating it tho Faust

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

faustnik
08-13-2004, 03:15 PM
Hmmm...I hadn't considered that. I figured engine damage would be the result of excessive heat but, maybe it was other stresses on parts.

Interesting idea Badsight.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WUAF_Badsight
08-13-2004, 03:31 PM
its a fact that . . . . . . the Spitfire Mk9s in FB have unlimited Wep

try it . . . . . . waaaaaaay longer than 5 minutes

now with their awesome performance , they also dont suffer any untowards from Wep use

realistic ?

fair ?

overmoddeled ?

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hop2002
08-13-2004, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have presented words written by the people involved in and during WWII air combat. If you have a contention with their words then by all means refute their words. Use your own words, your own "spin".

Perhaps you are a politician wanabe. I don't know. I can't 'prove' it one way or the other, I can only form my opinion based upon what you write.

Politicians "spin", obfuscate, misdirect, missinform, whatever you want to call it. So do you, in my opinion.

I see no reason to continue responding to you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't argue with their words.

I'm just pointing out that the situation their refering to, and the comparisons you are drawing, are between planes that are not in the game.

You constantly refer to the performance of the Spit F IX with Merlin 61, as if that's what the Spit IXs in game should do.

It isn't, we have a Spit IX with a different, much more powerful, engine.

I think, quite honestly, that it's dishonest of you not to admit that. Granted, you might not have known the difference before, but I have given you enough information, that it should be easy for you to verify, to make the true picture clear.

We do not have a Spitfire anything like the one tested by the RAF against Arnim Faber's 190.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Spit IX handbook places a 5 minute limitation on WEP use and warns of engine failure at 10.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does it? I've never seen any warning of failure at 10 mins.

Every Spitfire manual restricts WEP to 5 minutes, whatever Merlin is fitted, and whatevr it's WEP rating is.

5 minutes WEP was simply the RAF standard.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hop's selected quotes are always interesting<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Selected quotes?

I've presented the relevant section of the cooling trials, in full. Not selected quotes, but the only information I have, the only information I have ever seen on cooling for the Spit IX.

I'm sorry, but I have no more information available. Some anecdotes, perhaps, like Bob Goebbel who estimated he ran his Mustang at wep for 10 - 15 minutes, and burned off some of his exhaust stubs, with no real problems.

But no other information.

hop2002
08-13-2004, 03:44 PM
Engine damage is no more likely after 10 minutes than 5. To quote again from the Mustang pilot's notes:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is generally accepted that high-power operation of an engine results in increased wear and necessitates more frequent overhaul than low-power operation. However, it is apparent that a certain percentage of operating time must be at full power. The engine manufacturer allows for this in qualification tests in which much of the running is done at Take-off Power to prove ability to withstand the resulting loads. It is established in these runs that the engine will handle sustained high power without damage. Nevertheless, it is still the aim of the manufacturer and to the best interest of the pilot to keep within reasonable values the amount of high-power time accumulated in the field. The most satisfactory method for accomplishing this is to establish time limits that will keep pilots constantly aware of the desire to hold high-power periods to the shortest period that the flight plan will allow, so that the total accumulated time and resulting wear can be kept to a minimum. How the time at high power is accumulated is of secondary importance; i.e., it is no worse from the standpoint of engine wear to operate at Take-off Power for one hour straight than it is to operate in twelve 5-minute stretches, provided engine temperatures and pressures are within limits. In fact, the former procedure may even be preferable, as it eliminates temperature cycles which also promote engine wear. Thus if flight conditions occasionally require exceeding time limits, this should not cause concern so long as constant effort is made to keep the over-all time at Take-off Power to the minimum practicable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And bear in mind that exactly he same Merlin 66 that was initially rated at 18 lbs, later ran at 25 lbs for 5 minutes, safely.

faustnik
08-13-2004, 03:52 PM
Hop,

You keep posting this quote but, are you applying it specifically to the Merlin 66? This quote seems to be about aircraft engines in general. Are we to believe that all aircraft engines can be run at full throttle with no danger of damage?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

hop2002
08-13-2004, 04:13 PM
I'd say that quote was valid for all engines, under similar circumstances.

If a bearing, or con rod, or piston or any other metal part is under stress, that stress does not build up during use. It's under no more stress after 10 minutes than it is after 5, it has just been under the same stress for twice as long.

That doesn't take temperature into account, of course, and if the temperature is rising then that is a real limit on WEP time.

But running for 5 minutes on WEP twice and running for 10 minutes on wep once will not necessarily put more wear on the engine, and as the manual says, may put less due to the constant temperature.

JG14_Josf
08-13-2004, 04:15 PM
hop2002,

Are you being reasonable?

Am I wrong in my evaluation of your motives?

Do our perspectives simply not agree?

If so I am sorry about my error in judgment, however there is a need to inspect a little further into this line of thinking and communication.

You say:

"comparisons you are drawing"

What comparisions did I draw?

This:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now, if a game is going to simulate history then history should resemble the simulation. If while on-line in the game a host is trying to simulate 1942 what choices are available?

The bottom line here is:
Can any combination of plane variations in the game simulate the situation described by the above linked resources where the Fw190s dominated the Spitfires? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You say this:

"You constantly refer to the performance of the Spit F IX with Merlin 61, as if that's what the Spit IXs in game shoud do."

In fact I have not posted anything resembling what you describe. The above, from my perspective is a complete fabrication on your part, a straw dog.

My contention is explained in as few words as I can manage in the above quote.

You go on to say this:

"I think, quite honestly, that it's dishonest of you not to admit that."

If you are honest about your perception then all I can say is that you are wrong to think I have your percieved agenda (straw dog) and therefore there is no reason for me to admit to the error of it. How can I admit to being wrong about something that I don't think. How can I admit to something that isn't my doing, never mind admit to realizing the error of that which I have not done?

Why make something so complicated if the intent isn't obfuscation?

History reports that the FW190s were not only effective dog fighters, but they dominated the Spitfires in the summer of 1942.

Is that represented in the game?

If your contention is that it is not represented in the game because the game doesn't model the Spitfires the flew in the summer of 1942 nor the FW190s of 1942 then that argument is worth looking into, however, it is difficult for me to take your presentation of this argument as anything other than a direct effort to avoid the 'bottom line' i.e. error in the games flight model.

Trying to nail down "A" true representative flight model for one plane when many variations were produced that could be used as "A" true representative example just adds more value to these comparative combat test reports which represent the very conditions that we are trying to simulate in the game i.e. The planes actual relative performance capabilities.

What did those pilots have to face when they flew a Spitfire against and FW?

What do we have to face when we simulate flying a Spitfire against an FW?

What tactics were used by FW pilots against Spitfire pilots?

What tactics can we use when simulating combat with an FW against a Spitfire?

Perhaps my 'bottom line' is not yours. Perhaps you are more concerned with replicating a number on a piece of paper. I don't know. I am suspicious of people that seem to obfuscate. My perspective is as stated. Simulation should reflect that which it purorts to simulate.

Anyone playing the game can conduct what Robert Shaw describes as the best method to gather comparative performance information.

Once that is done the information gathered in playing the simulation game can be compared to whatever information is available in history.

If you choose to put value in test pilot reports made by test pilots with whatever planes they used for those tests and then try to apply that information to Simulated Air Combat they that is your business.

I prefer to use fighter pilot combat reports, I can identify with them. To me it is fun.

My opinion is that the game does not reflect history. I could care less which Spitfire is modeled in the game nor how close that one Spitfire matches the test data you have found.

Fighter Combat tactics and maneuvering is my interest.

When a more accurate simulation exists I am confident in my ability to recognize the improvement.

I just may be that you will also recognize the improvement and our perspectives will become more similar and less contentious.

I hope that occurs sooner rather than later.

Joe

CHDT
08-13-2004, 04:20 PM
Btw, rad cowls are very large. THey should in fact change the trimming when they're deployed!

faustnik
08-13-2004, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
I'd say that quote was valid for all engines, under similar circumstances.

If a bearing, or con rod, or piston or any other metal part is under stress, that stress does not build up during use. It's under no more stress after 10 minutes than it is after 5, it has just been under the same stress for twice as long.

That doesn't take temperature into account, of course, and if the temperature is rising then that is a real limit on WEP time.

But running for 5 minutes on WEP twice and running for 10 minutes on wep once will not necessarily put more wear on the engine, and as the manual says, may put less due to the constant temperature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An important question here is what does WEP represent for the Spit IX? You posted a chart the showed the Spit IX could run at full throttle for 5 minutes without overheating. How does the "full throttle" in the chart compare to 100% plus WEP in the sim? Would "full throttle" be more comparable to 100% throttle without WEP in the sim?

Your quote above states "it is no worse from the standpoint of engine wear to operate at Take-off Power for one hour straight than it is to operate in twelve 5-minute stretches, provided engine temperatures and pressures are within limits. In fact, the former procedure may even be preferable, as it eliminates temperature cycles which also promote engine wear." So, overheat could still be a problem.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Mike8686
08-13-2004, 04:46 PM
Truth is that allied pilots use to simply bail out as soon as they caught sight of FW190D9s, that includes late spitty pilots. According to historical records as well as accounts from pilots, and also testing, the D9 should be a REALLY MEAN flying machine, engine limitation in this sim doesnt allow it to be however, we FW pilots cope with it tho, and take advantage of the virtues that the game engine does grant it. Well that out of the way, the spt IS overmodelled on more than one of its characteristics, I mentioned them b4, and no I'm not saying it should suck at some of the things that its good at now, the spitty 9 was a great flying machine and was good a most of the things I mentioned, but this sim allows it to be TOO good at those things, better than it should be.

And before someone starts ranting about it, I'd like to mention that NO, I'm not implying that every allied fighter that ran into D9 bailed by default, but it did happen on more than one occasion.

Nexus2005
08-13-2004, 04:48 PM
Josf, if you took your head of your own **** long enough to read and digest what Hop is saying you may realise that you are being a prat. He is saying that the Spitfire IXs we have in FB are different variants to the one in your test and have much more powerful engines and so will perform better. This is a fact and a very important one which you seem to constantly ignore. The reason you don't get the FW 190 dominating Sptifre IXs as you claim they did in 1942 in game is because we have no 1942 Spitfire IXs in this game. They are all newer, better variants.

And I have to say, out of the two of you it is you that sound more like a politician who is overcomplicating things.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Trying to nail down "A" true representative flight model for one plane when many variations were produced that could be used as "A" true representative example just adds more value to these comparative combat test reports which represent the very conditions that we are trying to simulate in the game i.e. The planes actual relative performance capabilities. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This makes little sense. You don't seem to understand how this works. The different versions of the mk.IX are in fact different and you cannot class all mk.IXs as the same plane. We can take tests of Spitfire IXs that are the same versions of those simulated in game and compare them with the in game planes. But if you take performance reports of a version of the IX that is not modelled in game then you cannot compare it well with the version that are in game because they are different planes. It is, albeit to a lesser extent, like saying the Spitfire IX is wrong because it performs better than Spitfire V test reports.

If you want to dominate Spitfire IXs in 1942 then lobby to have 1942 Spitfire IXs included in game instead of trying to get the FM of the 1943 Spitfires porked to 1942 standards.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

[This message was edited by Nexus2005 on Fri August 13 2004 at 03:57 PM.]

[This message was edited by Nexus2005 on Fri August 13 2004 at 03:58 PM.]

hop2002
08-13-2004, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You say this:

"You constantly refer to the performance of the Spit F IX with Merlin 61, as if that's what the Spit IXs in game shoud do."

In fact I have not posted anything resembling what you describe. The above, from my perspective is a complete fabrication on your part, a straw dog.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you posted on page 4 of this thread, a discussion about the Spitfire IX in game perfomance, waas:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Describes the mood or content of the topic posted 12-08-04 09:05
51. Climb - The climb of the FW-190 is superior to that of the Sptifire Vb at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximatley the same, but the angle of the FW.190 is considerably steeper.

59. Climb - During comparative climbs at variouis heights up to 23,000 feet, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was foiund between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 feet the climb of the FW.190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the FW.190 had a slight adantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft pulled up into a climb from a dive.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was more, but no reference to these being 1942 performance figures only.

If what you are arguing is that the Spit IX in game isn't representitive of the 1942 Spit, fair enough, but nowhere did you say that in your initial post.

You then began addressing me with:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>hop2002,

On the off chance that you may actually be honest about this I am going to reply.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is hardly friendly, or suggestive that you genuinely want to debate the facts, rather than sling mud.

If you were complaining that you couldn't simulate 1942 Spit IXs, you should have made that clear, but you didn't, at least not until after you'd launched a personal attack on me.

There is no 1942 Spitfire IX in the game. I don't think the Spit IX is labelled as a 1942 plane in the game, is it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How can I admit to being wrong about something that I don't think. How can I admit to something that isn't my doing, never mind admit to realizing the error of that which I have not done?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could realise the error you made in posting a load of 1942 Spitfire performance comparisons in the middle of a thread about the performance of the 1943 Spitfire IXs we have in game, without making it clear you were talking about 1942 performance.

You could then have corrected your mistake by saying you meant 1942 Spitfires, rather than responding:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On the off chance that you may actually be honest about this<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why make something so complicated if the intent isn't obfuscation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't make it complex.

IV_JG51_Prien said:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Josf posted a good little article taken from testing done of the real aircraft by the brits..

Nobody's bothered to really touch on what he wrote.. Everybody's been bickering over the same theroys developed from playing the game, and using a program that displays the GAME performance of the A/C.. not the real things.

Maybe some of you should read Josf's post again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No mention of 1942 from him either, because he had interpreted your remarks to mean that's what the Spits we were discussing, ie the 1943 Spits, should behave like.

I responded with:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> One little fun point..

Josf posted a good little article taken from testing done of the real aircraft by the brits..



The only problem is none of the aircraft in that test are present in FB, so it's a bit difficult to relate their performance to the models we have in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was quite clear, I correctly said that the Spit IX you were talking about wasn't present in game. If you'd truly meant you were talikng about 1942, that would have been the point to come in and clarify it, instead you came in with a personal attack.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>History reports that the FW190s were not only effective dog fighters, but they dominated the Spitfires in the summer of 1942.

Is that represented in the game?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know, I havem't flown the Spit V much, and it has well known issues at high altitude.

There is no Spitfire IX from 1942 in the game, and I haven't seen anything to suggest the 190 A3, A4 and A5 "dominated" the Spit IX.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If your contention is that it is not represented in the game because the game doesn't model the Spitfires the flew in the summer of 1942 nor the FW190s of 1942 then that argument is worth looking into, however, it is difficult for me to take your presentation of this argument as anything other than a direct effort to avoid the 'bottom line' i.e. error in the games flight model.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What error in the flight model?

The one based on the performance of the Spit IX relative to your quotes about it?

The Spit IX you are talking about is not present in game, it doesn't have a flight model.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What did those pilots have to face when they flew a Spitfire against and FW?

What do we have to face when we simulate flying a Spitfire against an FW?

What tactics were used by FW pilots against Spitfire pilots?

What tactics can we use when simulating combat with an FW against a Spitfire?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were approaching 7,000 Spitfire IXs and XVIs (the XVI was a Spit IX with an American built Merlin) built, iirc.

350 of them had the performance of the one you are quoting tests of.

Around 6,500 of them had performance similar to the Spit IXs in game.

For the vast majority of Fw 190 pilots, they had to face a Spit IX far superior to the one you keep talking about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps my 'bottom line' is not yours. Perhaps you are more concerned with replicating a number on a piece of paper. I don't know. I am suspicious of people that seem to obfuscate. My perspective is as stated. Simulation should reflect that which it purorts to simulate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't purpote to simulate the Spit F IX with Merlin 61. It purpotes to simulate the Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 or 70.

It doesn't purpote to simulate the plane you quoted reports about, it purpotes to simulate it's far more widespread successor model.

If I kept quoting 109 E1 reports in a thread aboute the 109E4, without making clear that's what they were, what would you say? That's what you are doing, quoting reports about an earlier model than we have in game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My opinion is that the game does not reflect history. I could care less which Spitfire is modeled in the game nor how close that one Spitfire matches the test data you have found.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't you see the contradiction here? You want to model something out of a report from 1942, and apply it to the much different 1943 aircraft.

JG14_Josf
08-13-2004, 05:47 PM
Nexus2005,

Thanks for the reply and the concern.

It is not my intention to do as you describe.

What else can I say?

Would it make you feel better if I simply said "sorry, you are right"?

If you want to know the truth of the situation and not simply your perception of it than questions are required instead of statements.

I hope you feel better about your outburst.

The fact remains that the game does not simulate the historical accounts.

If you or anyone else is convinced as to the exact model of spitfire that is being represented in the game then may I ask what information confirms this understanding?

Please understand that at no time have I denied that the Spitfire IX in 1942 is not modeled in the game. That contention is not my buisness.

I really see no need to beat that dead horse but if you insist then by all means make your case. Keep in mind that I am aware of the fact that the game labels some of the Spitfires by Year, and that these labels have been wrong in the past.

If you insist upon indentifying the exact date of each Spitfire model then it may be appropriate to get a confirmation from the game producer. Again that is your business.

That is in my opinion your straw dog.

Your concern about which model spitfire is modeled in the game is not my concern.

I am concerned with accurate simulation of WWII air combat and the evidence I have presented is contrary to what is found in the game.

If you wish to discuss my concern it will require that you give up on your straw dog.

If you only wish to obfuscate my stated concern then it may be helpfull for you to use more insulting language and throw in some more hyperbole.

The game does not simulate historical information.

The game does not model fighters that historically could employ energy tactics in one on one dogfighting such as the FW190 vs Spitfire matchup and the P-47 vs FW190 matchup.

Where history records the FW190 outclimbing the Spitfire the opposite occurs.

Where history records one plane having a significant acceleration advantage no such advantage exists.

Where history records a superb dog fighter that was the best all-round fighter plane of the day the game models a plane that can only employ hit and run tactics or team tactics.

Where history records three distinct and separate fighter tactics i.e. Angles/Energy/ and hit and run. The game generates terms like Boom and Zoom which is either a gamers term for hit and run tactics, an excuse for the inferior modeled planes, or a confusion of 'real' combat terms.

The game does not model "energy" well, for lack of a better term. The planes that are most effected by this limitation is the Spitfire/FW190 1942 match-up.

It occurs to me to ask again:

What plane set choices are avialable if an on-line host wants to simulate summer in 1942 on the western front?

JG14_Josf
08-13-2004, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Can't you see the contradiction here? You want to model something out of a report from 1942, and apply it to the much different 1943 aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My initial concern is being realized. I've read many posts on this board and a few of the posters are the types that, in my opinion, are not worth the effort to communicate with, because they tend to obfuscate, get off topic, grind their own agenda, etc.

I see the contradiction, of course, you Hop have your own agenda.

I checked back on the original posters post and did not find any reference to 1943.

I saw this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let Oleg know we want a REAL spit in this game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and this

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>defies gravity <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well the thing is gentlemen; the Spits get just as much help from gravity as the FWs despite the fact that the FW's have a higher mass and therefore an increased ability to cut through the air.

If the Spits only had this anti-gravity material that allows them to climb and retain energy going up so well then the same anti-gravity stuff should be leaving them behind when gravity takes over in a dive.

That is not the case in the sim.

Is there any point in continuing this obvious lack of communiation?

Monty_Thrud
08-13-2004, 06:39 PM
JG14_Josf
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> History reports that the FW190s were not only effective dog fighters, but they dominated the Spitfires in the summer of 1942. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely your thinking of the Spitfire Vb?

http://premium.uploadit.org/bsamania/HurricaneIVD_cartoon2-copyns11.jpg
"I won't let go of that youthful soul despite body and mind
my youth will never die" - CREED

JG14_Josf
08-13-2004, 06:53 PM
Monty_Thrud,

I am refering to the Sptifres that fought against the FWs in the summer of 1942.

If I call them Spitfire VBs or Spitfire X911s does it change the fact of the matter?

And stop calling me Shirley. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Airborn_
08-13-2004, 07:57 PM
Well hop2002,

I think the chart that you posted is impressive. But there is still a shimmer of doubt in my mind as to what significance it really has for the performance with WEP of our Spitfires ingame.

You see, to the best of my knowledge, climbing tests in real-life like the one in the report you showed us were always done using full throttle, or 100% throttle, without WEP. For obvious reasons: it was known that climbing for a longer period with WEP was not advisable, since the engine would already be under maximum stress because of the climb and adding WEP to that would make it get dangerously close to the dangerzone very soon. In any case much sooner than it would when the aircraft would be following a more flat trajectory.

And so I agree with Faustnik that we need to have the fact established for certain, that this test was done while using WEP or war emergency power, and not combat-climbing power, which would relate to the 100% throttle setting. Since I'm afraid that if this proof cannot be delivered, this chart still does not justify the existence of a Spitfire ingame with the ability of an indefinite WEP-usage, without suffering from any engine-overheating/damage at some point.

Nevertheless it is a great piece of evidence that you came up with and I only wish we could find something similar for the FW190 or any other LW aircraft, for that matter. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS And let noone put me in the "Spittie-hater's" camp for I am and have always been a great fan of this machine and I only wish we *could* build that '42 setup of 190-A2's against those SpitV's. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

[This message was edited by Airborn_ on Fri August 13 2004 at 07:10 PM.]

hop2002
08-13-2004, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am concerned with accurate simulation of WWII air combat and the evidence I have presented is contrary to what is found in the game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does the evidence you presented say anything about the P-51D vs Fw190D9?

Does it say anything about the P-47 vs Zero?

Yak 3 vs 109K4?

No, and it doesn't say anything about the Spit IX or Fw 190 in game either. Your evidence is about planes that are not in this game.

As such, it has nothing to say about how the planes in this game should perform.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Where history records the FW190 outclimbing the Spitfire the opposite occurs.

Where history records one plane having a significant acceleration advantage no such advantage exists. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you are using a piece of history about two planes that do not exist in this game, and trying to suggest the planes that are in this game should be twisted to fit it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>f you or anyone else is convinced as to the exact model of spitfire that is being represented in the game then may I ask what information confirms this understanding?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The performance. The year designations.

The Spitfire in the reports you are refering to could do 312 mph at sea level. The Spitfire in game does around 330 - 340 mph at sea level. That matches the Merlin 66 engined Spitfire, which came out in 1943.

The speeds match the 1943 Spitfires (up to 6.5 km or so). The climb rate matches the 1943 Spits (or did until the latest patch, I haven't seen the figures for the latest patch)

There is nothing to suggest we have a 1942 Spitfire.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I checked back on the original posters post and did not find any reference to 1943.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thread is about the Spitfires in game, which are from 1943.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Is there any point in continuing this obvious lack of communiation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think so, no.

hop2002
08-13-2004, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You see, to the best of my knowledge, climbing tests in real-life like the one in the report you showed us were always done using full throttle, or 100% throttle, without WEP. For obvious reasons: it was known that climbing for a longer period with WEP was not advisable, since the engine would already be under maximum stress because of the climb and adding WEP to that would make it get dangerously close to the dangerzone very soon. In any case much sooner than it would when the aircraft would be following a more flat trajectory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The report is done at WEP.

It says on the previous page:

Combat climbing 3000 rpm 25 lbs

and

Observations were made by the pilot during combat rating performance climbs whilst an automatic observer gave time, ASI, boost and height.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And so I agree with Faustnik that we need to have the fact established for certain, that this test was done while using WEP or war emergency power, and not combat-climbing power, which would relate to the 100% throttle setting. Since I'm afraid that if this proof cannot be delivered, this chart still does not justify the existence of a Spitfire ingame with the ability of an indefinite WEP-usage, without suffering from any engine-overheating/damage at some point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The request for proof has forced me to post more pictures http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092449279_ratings1.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092449302_ratings2.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-13-2004, 08:12 PM
ok so was the WEP in the Spitfire Mk9 higher manifold pressure ?

was it from the supercharger alone (increased boost setting ?) .................. or was it just that the throttle was allowed to be pushed into a "red zone" that gave the Spit emergency power ?

i.e. increased RPM above what was recommended ?

cause the throttle in FB in the spit goes to 100% then you got wep which you can turn off & on at will & has an effect under 100% power (ie always boosting the power)

is the climb test that shows little overheat at all using this same Wep ?

or is that test just at 100% normal power (non Wep ?)

.

.

**EDIT** . . . . so that test was done at the max power the 25 pound boost Spitfire could put out . . . . & still had "within operating range" temperatures untill well into the test
.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hop2002
08-13-2004, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ok so was the WEP in the Spitfire Mk9 higher manifold pressure ?

was it from the supercharger alone (increased boost setting ?) .................. or was it just that the throttle was allowed to be pushed into a "red zone" that gave the Spit emergency power ?

i.e. increased RPM above what was recommended <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every Merlin had a maximum "normal" rpm of 2850, and a WEP rating of 3000.

Boost on the Merlin 66 was "normal" 12 lbs, 18 lbs or 25 lbs WEP.

So it was a slight RPM increase, a major boost increase.

WUAF_Badsight
08-13-2004, 08:21 PM
& i guess these were both set to the throttle ?

like a extra WEP end travel on throttle ? . . . . i mean that pushing the throttle to the max gave this increased boot as well as revving the motor past 2850 RPM ?

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

faustnik
08-13-2004, 08:50 PM
Hop,

Thanks for posting more data. Where does it show that the climbs were made at 3000 rpm the entire time? It looks to me like the 5 minute WEP guide was used???

*******

Hey Hop, I just wanted to say I appreciate you sticking with us through this discussion. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

JG14_Josf
08-13-2004, 11:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Again, you are using a piece of history about two planes that do not exist in this game, and trying to suggest the planes that are in this game should be twisted to fit it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am inclined to defend against this unwarranted comment.

In the first place the fact that this accusation is made says a whole lot about the integrity of the accuser.

I do not, and never have suggested that the planes in the game should be twisted in any way. My concern, as stated in plain words is accuracy.

If the exact spitfires used during the summer of 1942 are not modeled in the game, and if the exact FWs used during the summer of 1942 are not modeled in the game then the Farber tests should not exactly reflect the in game performance of an FW against a Spitfire.

What a load of ****.

Yes it was a mistake to try to communicate with you Hop.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now, if a game is going to simulate history then history should resemble the simulation. If while on-line in the game a host is trying to simulate 1942 what choices are available?

The bottom line here is:
Can any combination of plane variations in the game simulate the situation described by the above linked resources where the Fw190s dominated the Spitfires? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll take your "spin" on things as a no to my question.

If you insist upon making claims concerning my intent then I will be inclined to address any errors in your claims.

Hunde_3.JG51
08-14-2004, 12:07 AM
Without reading the whole thread:

Hop, you keep saying the Spitifre in the test was a Spitifre F.IX with Merlin-61 and that most had Merlin-66 which improved performance. From what I have seen I agree.

But please remember that the FW-190A in test (Faber's) mentioned was a FW-190A-3. The FW-190A also continued to improve in performance as seen in-game with difference between A-4 and A-5/A-6 (540 vs 570km/h at sea-level, and 648 vs. 670km/h top speed. A-5/A-6 also has better climb. I'm not pointing the finger at you or trying to be argumentative, but please keep in mind that the FW-190A also improved performance wise, just like the Spitfire.

Sorry if I am off-base here, just saying to keep this in mind in comparative tests between contemporary Spitifres and Fw-190A's. The Spitifre IX in test with Faber's 190A-3 may not have been as good as Spitifre IX with Merlin-66 (as we have in-game IMO), but nor was Faber's A-3 as good as the FW-190A5 and A-6.

Again, sorry if my comment is not relevant, its just may not be known to you. I have seen many books and such that simply say "top speed: 408mph" for every FW-190A variant when this was not the case, or that suggest that performance was generally the same for all 190A models when they weren't.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Fri August 13 2004 at 11:30 PM.]

JG14_Josf
08-14-2004, 12:49 AM
Hunde_3.JG51,

Please answer the following questions.

In your opinion is there any possible plane matchup within the game IL2 that best represents the Farber test situation in the summer of 1942 and how well does the game simulate that plane matchup?

Is the above question relevant?

It occurs to me that a few of us are concerned with the accuracy of simulating WWII air combat.

My opinion is that you share my concern.

My opinion is that you too would recognize a more accurate product if one came along.

If you are inclined please add what you think would make for a more accurate WWII combat flight simulation based upon any evidence that supports your opinion.

I am questioning my perception and could use some help, a little push one way or the other would help. Is my bull**** detector out of wack and in need of calibration?

If this 'Open letter to all spit lovers' topic manages to generate anything useful I imagine that you will be a part of that accomplishment.

Joe

Nub_322Sqn
08-14-2004, 01:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
some load of waffle <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


dude your trying to preach to the wrong person

ive been testing planes in FB since the first patch

trying to say that the Bf109s have a "strange" or undermoddeled overheat ability is a load of BS

they overheat

they terminate their engine

& they do it faster than a crapload of other planes in FB

your the one trying to compare it to the spitfire

what a joke ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO, that's all you can say?

LOL, I did not compare, nor did I say the overheating and modelling of the Spit IX is completely correct, you are the one who is comparing here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
The test list was full of planes from both sides.......oh what's the use, you cannot read nor understand what is actually posted anyway. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You cannot read correctly, all you do is see a post, hit the reply button and flame, LOL. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It's pretty obvious that you are just pissed because you have nothing to add of any value here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Tests where done, send to Oleg and confirmed by Oleg that something is not right here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

I will take Oleg's knowledge on the subject over your's badsight. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Maybe it's time you learn to understand English badsight, realy understand it so you can figure out what is actually posted here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

[This message was edited by Nub_322Sqn on Sat August 14 2004 at 12:49 AM.]

Nub_322Sqn
08-14-2004, 01:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike8686:
I'm not implying that every allied fighter that ran into D9 bailed by default, but it did happen on more than one occasion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That has more to do with the pilot's state of mind at that particular encounter then the plane he flew.
The plane is just a machine, the pilot made the choice to leave the fight by bailing out.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
08-14-2004, 01:53 AM
Josf, I would say that the FW-190A-4 vs. Spitifre Mk.Vb would be representative of the Faber test. As for how well it simulates the findings, well, it doesn't. While the 190A-4 can out-climb the Spitifre V at very high speeds, they are not very useful in combat situations in-game. The Spitifre V has a higher max rate of climb which does not agree with the test. Also, in test Fw-190A-3 has a relatively steep angle of climb during max climb. As far as I can tell speeds are fairly accurate. The other problem however is with dive and zoom climb, and as has been mentioned numerous times this is not modelled well, if at all, in FB.

As for Spitifre IX and Faber's FW-190A-3 from test, unfortunately we cannot accurately re-create that test. The Spitifre IX with Merlin-61 seemingly does not exist in FB, and hop is correct that Merlin-66 improved performance, especially in climb at lower altitudes. However I believe the Merlin-66 was used regularly in '43 and the contemporary of that Spitifre variant would be the FW-190A-5 or A-6. We could test these two planes against each-other in-game but the results would be pure speculation without much real-world backing. Both aircraft are improvements over their previous variants, and significantly so. Particularly at low to mid altitudes.

As for what would make for a more accurate sim, there are a few things where Spitifre and FW-190 are concerned. There is alot of data being thrown around and such, but I think it is over-complicating the problem. As I have said before, in short I think:

-The Spitfire F. and LF. IX are too fast at altitudes above 6,000m or so. This is assuming both variants are actually Merlin-66 LF. versions (which would explain Spitifre's excellent climb at low altitude). Top speed should be 404mph, not 422-425mph as it is now. The HF.IX is too fast as well, I'm just not sure where the problem starts. Currently it is capable of approx 437mph, which is almost as fast as P-51D and FW-190D-9! The proper top-speed should be 416mph. It seems everyone agrees on this.

-Energy retention. The FW-190 in-game bleeds energy very rapidly in turning maneuvers, and it should. The 190 was designed for high speed and some pilot reports state that the 190 bled energy quickly in horizontal maneuvers. The Spitifre on the other hand seems to bleed little to no energy at all. It should have good e-retention IMO but I have seen some ridiculous maneuvers that are questionable at best. I think this (e-retention) has always been a problem and it is not limited to the Spitfire. I think many planes simply do not bleed off enough speed when performing hard maneuvers at high speeds.

-Climb. Again, climb for Spitifre IX in-game should be outstanding at low-mid altitudes assuming we are talking about Merlin-66, and it should be markedly superior to FW-190A, whether it be the A-3 through the A-8. My concern is its ability to climb at higher altitudes (as Robban's test illustrates). It's climb is very strong even from 7,000m to 9,000m. The performance of the LF.IX should start falling off at around 6,000m, hence the LF. (low altitude) designation.

-Dive/dive acceleration/zoom. This is the biggest problem IMO, but it may be the only one that cannot be fixed due to engine limitations. To be honest, I don't care what anybody here says, the Fw-190A should out-dive the Spitifre V and IX. If nothing else, it should accelerate faster in-dive to the point that it is useable, tactically speaking. The funny thing is that offline this seems represented extremely well, yet online side by side comparisons done with squadmates show there is no difference at all, certainly not one that even remotely resembles one that is useable. I believe differences in wing-design supports this notion as well. Some have said the 190 did not have good acceleration. In test with Faber's A-3 it out-accelerated every plane in test in level flight, in initial dive, and in initial zoom climb. I have read in other sources about FW-190's strong acceleration, one pilot even stated that an escape maneuver was to point his FW-190 at a very steep angle and apply full-throttle as the acceleration was superb. This brings me to zoom climb, again this doesn't seem to be modelled at all.

I guess what I am saying is that there are problems with the game engine that IMHO benefit planes like the Spitfire, Yak, etc., and hinder planes like FW-190, P-51, etc. This isn't the Spitfire's fault however, but I do think it reaps the benefits and avoids the negatives. Still, IMO the Spitfire's FM needs to be examined from 6,000m and up and energy retention overall needs an overhaul. Unfortunately, I've given up hope concerning modelling of dive/dive acceleration/zoom climb.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Sat August 14 2004 at 01:14 AM.]

WUAF_Badsight
08-14-2004, 01:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
even more waffle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

look you & your squadmates might sit around chatting that the german planes in FB are unable to overheat but dont let your fantasy escape your own mind

flying a Bf109 with the Rad closed & the throttle set to over 100% power will result in overheat

fact

trying to say that he bf109 wont overheat when you are running wep & the throttle set to over 100% power IS A LIE

flying level over 2K & not making the engine strain is not combat use

your spreading BS dude , face it

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-14-2004, 01:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
and hop is correct that Merlin-66 improved performance, especially in climb at lower altitudes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sure the Spit has correct speeds up to 6K

but ingame its performance dont drop off after that . . . . .

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SUPERAEREO
08-14-2004, 02:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Hey Hop, I just wanted to say I appreciate you sticking with us through this discussion. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop,

Just to say that I appreciate reading someone having the maturity and the patience to stick to his guns while explaining himself clearly, providing documents and never letting the level of the conversation fall.

Well done and hats off to you !


S!



"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down." - Chuck Yaeger

"Ja, Hunde, wollt ihr denn ewig leben?" - Friedrich der Große

"Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes" - *neid

Hunde_3.JG51
08-14-2004, 02:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
and hop is correct that Merlin-66 improved performance, especially in climb at lower altitudes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sure the Spit has correct speeds up to 6K

but ingame its performance dont drop off after that . . . . .

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________



Which is exactly what I already said Badsight.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

WUAF_Badsight
08-14-2004, 02:16 AM
the data that hop posted showed the climb falling away over 6K

the model might be labelled "Low Flight" but the power was tuned for performance u even up too 6 kilometers

after this Alt , the FB Mk9 continues to power on

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG14_Josf
08-14-2004, 02:53 AM
Hunde_3.JG51

Thanks for answering my question.

I do appreciate your response.

However, I just checked and there are actually 4 different Spitfire VB versions in IL2/FB/AEP.

I've flown only against a few of these so far on-line with the current version and not against any FWs yet.

I hope to find the time soon to match these planes up to see if one of those 4 versions of Spitfire resemble the Spitfires in the Faber tests relative to the 190A-4 in the game.

Were you able to find any Spitfires VBs in the game that do a better job at simulating the Farber test experience?

I just want to be clear about this, for instance; one Spitfire in the game is labeled Spitfire VB 1941. Have you had a chance to fly that version of Spitfire against any FW190A series and be able to out climb it?
(my bull**** meter goes into the red when I hear someone say the 190 can outclimb the spitfire at higher speeds, talk about obfuscation)

If one of the Spitfire VBs can better simulate the farber experience than the others then it would be good to identify which one. A host could simulate the Farber test and the combat situation in the summer of 1942 a little better with the better, more accurate match-up.

Perhaps the Spitfire VB 1941 matches up more accurately with the FW190A-6 1943 or the FW190A-9 1944?

My guess is that it won't. I few one mission (no wingman) in the Greatergreen server against 2 Spitfire VB 1941s in a 109G2 (no FWs available) and found it very difficult to gain any energy advantage, in fact I made one shallow turn on one that allowed the other to get well above me. I don't think any FW will climb better than the 109G2 in the game.

We, in JG14, have not done any side by side testing, so I have to guess.

My IL2compare is also not up to date.

Please clear this Spitfire VB version matter up if possible. Reading Alfred Prices book and Wings of the luftwaffe was such a treat. It is too bad we cannot simulate that time in history with much accuracy.

Or can we?

Nub_322Sqn
08-14-2004, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
even more waffle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

look you & your squadmates might sit around chatting that the german planes in FB are unable to overheat but dont let your fantasy escape your own mind

flying a Bf109 with the Rad closed & the throttle set to over 100% power will result in overheat

fact

trying to say that he bf109 wont overheat when you are running wep & the throttle set to over 100% power _IS A LIE_

flying level over 2K & not making the engine strain is not combat use

your spreading BS dude , face it

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reading isn't your strong point I see.

Anyway, Oleg agreed, he saw the full test, in detail, all you got was a little detail about one plane I mentioned as an example.

You are passing judgement over a small portion of the entire test, so basicly you know nothing about the subject at hand, all you can do is flame away.

Clearly you are lost here since you can't even give straight answers anymore, just add more fuel to the fire instead of saying that you may have passed judgement too soon and your ego doesn't allow it to say you might have jumped to conclusions in this case.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

hop2002
08-14-2004, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But please remember that the FW-190A in test (Faber's) mentioned was a FW-190A-3. The FW-190A also continued to improve in performance as seen in-game with difference between A-4 and A-5/A-6 (540 vs 570km/h at sea-level, and 648 vs. 670km/h top speed. A-5/A-6 also has better climb. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure the A5 does have better climb.

The A3 should have been derated, but the British ignored that when they tested it. They ran it at 1.42 ata for speed runs, and 1.35 ata for climbs.

It was also quite light, 3890 kg.

The British got a climb rate of 16.5 m/s up to 4000 ft at 1.35 ata. 10,000 - 17,500ft they got 17.8 m/s.

Butch posted this climb chart for the 190 A5 at 1.35 ata some time ago:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092488785_fw190a5-climb.jpg

You can see that the figures the British got are way out of line at altitude. 17.8 m/s at around 5,000m doesn't fit that graph at all.

Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html and look for climb at normal rating without drop tank. AFAIK, and I haven't looked into it, there shouldn't be much difference between the Merlin 61 and 66 at normal rating, although the 66 should still be a bit better.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

has Spit V climb at normal rating.

Using these figures, the Spit V and IX should both outclimb the 190A at normal climb rating.

At combat rating, I don't think any 190 up to and including the A8 would come close to a Spit LF IX.

My problem is that people keep refering to the Faber test claiming that it shows the Fw 190 should easily outclimb the Spit V and climb with the Spit IX. Many extend this to mean any Spit IX.

But all the other test data tells us the the Fw 190 could barely keep up with the Spit V in climb, and indeed at most altitudes couldn't.

In speed, I'd agree. Faber's 190 seems fairly slow, though I think it's accurate for an A3. The A5 should be faster, but again there are widely varying speed claims for the 190. An FW chart for the A8 gives about 335 mph at sea level, almost exactly the same as the Spit LF IX, and 350 at sea level at 1.65 ata.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>-Energy retention. The FW-190 in-game bleeds energy very rapidly in turning maneuvers, and it should. The 190 was designed for high speed and some pilot reports state that the 190 bled energy quickly in horizontal maneuvers. The Spitifre on the other hand seems to bleed little to no energy at all. It should have good e-retention IMO but I have seen some ridiculous maneuvers that are questionable at best. I think this (e-retention) has always been a problem and it is not limited to the Spitfire. I think many planes simply do not bleed off enough speed when performing hard maneuvers at high speeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's interesting to me as a sim fan, who's progressed through EAW, FA, Warbirds, AH, is that the same arguments regarding the Spitfire come up in each game.

In every game it's claimed the Spitfire has too much E retention. In every game it's claimed it dives too well, particularly against the 190s.

And every previous one has only modelled the Spitfire F IX with Merlin 61.

Either there's some fault on the part of al the sim developers, or there's something about the actual data that doesn't meet people's perceptions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Climb. Again, climb for Spitifre IX in-game should be outstanding at low-mid altitudes assuming we are talking about Merlin-66, and it should be markedly superior to FW-190A, whether it be the A-3 through the A-8. My concern is its ability to climb at higher altitudes (as Robban's test illustrates). It's climb is very strong even from 7,000m to 9,000m. The performance of the LF.IX should start falling off at around 6,000m, hence the LF. (low altitude) designation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The climb for the LF IX should be falling off around 5,500m, but bear in mind that most fighters will suffer a rapid fall in climb rates even before that.

The Spitfire LF IX should have the best high alt climb rate in the game for a prop fighter, apart from the Ta 152 at very high altitudes, but very high altitude modelling in this game isn't right.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Dive/dive acceleration/zoom. This is the biggest problem IMO, but it may be the only one that cannot be fixed due to engine limitations. To be honest, I don't care what anybody here says, the Fw-190A should out-dive the Spitifre V and IX. If nothing else, it should accelerate faster in-dive to the point that it is useable, tactically speaking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a constant complaint on the AH boards as well as the other sims I mentioned. As I said, it's either a fault in the modelling of all of them, or something about the data doesn't fit in with what people believe.

Hunde_3.JG51
08-14-2004, 10:03 AM
335mph at sea-level for FW-190A-8???? As Oleg said, take this book/chart and never open it again. 355mph at SL is stated pretty consistently AFAIK. Even the fighter/bomber variants like 190F-3 and 190G-3 were faster than 335mph at SL, and they were based on A-5/A-6.

The FW-190A-3 was also quite light? Are you saying it is lighter than A-5 or are you suggesting that Faber's A-3 was lighter than normal for some reason? I really hope it is not the latter. The "loaded" weight of FW-190A-3 is listed as 3,978kg (compared to 3890kg in test). Not much difference at all.

Faber's A-3 also had fouled plugs early in test that caused rough running of engine throughout test. This was later cured by putting in plugs from downed Dornier with BMW radial.

As for chart there is conflicitng data so which is correct? This seems low as far as I am concerned and FW-190 performed well in climb, out-climbing Hellcat and Corsair at virtually all altitudes at speeds above 160knots (which isn't that fast). And this was a factory converted fighter/bomber variant of the A-5. Note that the Hellcat and Corsair were not the best climbers but still. Again I not saying the 190A should be on par in terms of climb with LF.IX with Merlin-66. But the A-5 did have boost that I will not try to spell here (see it in-game), and it did improve performance at low-mid altitudes but did not do much at higher altitudes. This would likely result in improved climb over previous variants and is supported in-game by the 2/m p/sec advantage the A-5 has over the A-4.

As for people extending the 190A's ability to out-climb the Spit V to the Spit IX, don't look here because I have already said that this is not the case. The Spit IX was a big improvement, especially those with Merlin-66.

As for e-retention, I said that I think it is a problem in FB in general and not specific to Spitfire. This is subjective, but I am not even close to being alone in perceiving energy retention as being too great in FB. I can close on a Spitfire or Yak at close range at full throttle and high speed, the Spit/Yak can do a 360 degree turn in a matter of seconds and be in firing range without losing much speed at all. I have seen things offline and online that nobody will ever convince me are possible IRL. A plane going 380mph shouldn't turn 360 degrees in a few seconds without losing much speed. Again, this is subjective but I will not change my opinion.

As for dive, test it yourself with some friends. Take a FW-190 and a Spitfire, fly side by side, and try various dives at full-throttle. You will notice that there is no difference at all and this holds true for almost every plane in FB. Again, I have seen too many tests and heard too many pilot accounts to accept this as real and to not believe the 190A had a dive/dive acceleration/zoom climb advantage over the Spitfire. Just like nobody could convince me that the 190 should out-turn Spitifre at anything but high speeds. Having every plane dive the same is indeed a "fault on the part of the developers" IMO.

While I agree that the Spitifre LF.IX should outclimb all 190A's, I find it hard to believe that the "LF (low altitude) Spitifre should "outclimb any other prop plane at high altitudes." Notice I did not say very high altitudes as in case of Ta-152H. For me this is not as big of a concern since I expect the Spitifre IX to out-climb me anyway. As for Spitifre V out-climbing FW-190A, again you will find MANY references that the FW-190A-3 out-performed the Spitifre V in all combat aspects except horizontal turn. I take climb to be included in this.

To reiterate, I think the Spitifre seems so "uber" to people because of poor dive/dive acceleration/zoom modelling and poor e-retention modelling. Again, it is the game engine, not the Spitifre IMO. The speeds at high altitude are certainly wrong however and I think we can all agree on this. Just my thoughts/opinions.

Josf, the Spitifre Vb (not LF. or clipped wing)would be the most accurate to compare witht the FW-190A-4. And no, you cannot out-climb the SpitifreV which is wrong IMHO. Note this is max rate of climb. I do believe the A-4 will out-climb the Spitfire at high speeds 400+km/h but this has limited use in-game. As you will see with some tests the 190A-3 actually used a pretty steep angle of climb to out-climb others. This need to fly at very high speed to even match or slightly exceed others in climb is bogus IMO.

Your inability to gain energy advantage is due to the fact that there is no dive/dive acceleration/zoom climb modelling in FB. Couple this with 190A's poor climb (or others exaggerated climb), and the 190's high energy bleed and gaining an accurate energy advantage becomes impossible. That is why 190 drivers know that it is restricted to hit and run. And I have tested side by side with squadmates and there is no difference in dive/dive acceleration/ or zoom climb. In fact, every time we pulled a 190A into a zoom climb it was quickly run down by the Spitfire. And you already know my opinion of energy bleed in FB. So what you are seeing is consistent with others, and yes I agree it is annoying reading numerous pilot accounts and being unable to utilize anything even resembling these tactics due to overmodelling of some aircraft, but mainly due to game engine limitations. Many talk about lack of dive and zoom as if it is a minor thing, but to FW-190 drivers it is huge and is what their tactics should be based around in reality (except when fighting P-51B/C/D and P-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), but it simply does not exist in FB. Maybe in BoB, god I hope so. Maybe then we can energy fight instead of simply doing hit and run.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Sat August 14 2004 at 01:27 PM.]

hop2002
08-14-2004, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>535mph at sea-level for FW-190A-8???? As Oleg said, take this book/chart and never open it again. 355mph at SL is stated pretty consistently AFAIK. Even the fighter/bomber variants like 190F-3 and 190G-3 were faster than 535mph at SL, and they were based on A-5/A-6.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

535 mph at sea level would be a little fast for anything prior to the Meteor IV, I'd have thought.

Seriously, 335 mph is on the FW charts for a 190A8 at 1.42 ata. 350 or so is at 1.65 ata.

see http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The FW-190A-3 was also quite light? Are you saying it is lighter than A-5 or are you suggesting that Faber's A-3 was lighter than normal for some reason? I really hope it is not the latter. The "loaded" weight of FW-190A-3 is listed as 3,978kg (compared to 3890kg in test). Not much difference at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

88 kg is a fair difference, but I really meant it's lighter than the A4, A5 and A6.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Faber's A-3 also had fouled plugs early in test that caused rough running of engine throughout test. This was later cured by putting in plugs from downed Dornier with BMW radial.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the sort of thing that worries me. According to the British, they got a climb rate far in excess of what the A5 could do (according to FW), and yet we are supposed to believe Faber's 190 was performing poorly?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for chart there is conflicitng data so which is correct? This seems low as far as I am concerned and FW-190 performed well in climb, out-climbing Hellcat and Corsair at virtually all altitudes at speeds above 160knots (which isn't that fast). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was another odd test. They climbed the fighters at the same speeds, ie they climbed all 3 at 140, then 160, 180, finally 200 knots.

The Fw 190 outclimbed them all at higher speeds, at 140 knots the Corsair was the winner. However, the report says the Corsair had a best climb speed of 135 knots, the Fw 190 160 knots.

In other words, it's a test of climbs at particular speeds, not a test of absolute rate of climb.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And this was a factory converted fighter/bomber variant of the A-5.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Converted into a fighter, though. Again it was on the light side, 3942 kg. iirc it didn't have outer wing guns.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This would likely result in improved climb over previous variants and is supported in-game by the 2/m p/sec advantage the A-5 has over the A-4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the A4 in game is derated to 1.35 ata, the A5 certainly won't be, running at 1.42 ata. Or does the A5 in game run at 1.65?

Faber's 190 was tested at 1.42 ata, even though it should have been derated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>While I agree that the Spitifre LF.IX should outclimb all 190A's, I find it hard to believe that the "LF (low altitude) Spitifre should "outclimb any other prop plane at high altitudes."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What plane would you say should climb best at high alts?

The Spit LF with Merlin 66 should outclimb, slightly, the best 109, the K4, above about 6 - 7km.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for Spitifre V out-climbing FW-190A, again you will find MANY references that the FW-190A-3 out-performed the Spitifre V in all combat aspects except horizontal turn. I take climb to be included in this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most references will quote the same tests.

We've got original test docs from the A&AEE on the Spitfire, and from FW on Fw 190, and they show that at normal rating, either Spit will outclimb the 190. We haven't got the WEP charts for the 190A5 and earlier, afaik, but the 190 went from 1.35 ata to 1.42, the Spit went from 23.7 lbs to 30.7 lbs, a much larger increase.

faustnik
08-14-2004, 02:33 PM
Hop,

I have a couple questions on the charts you posted:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitTempComposite.jpg

Does the "F.S." and "M.S." refer to supercharge settings? If so which is high altitude and which is low? Did the Merlin 45 also have two settings or just one?

Highlighted in red are the climb conditions of the test. Doesn't this indicate the 5 minute WEP limit rule was observed in the test climbs?

****************

We need 2 threads here as some are discussing the WEP and overheat issue and some are discussing E-modeling. Poor Hop is trying to answer both. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (and doing a good job of presenting his point of view)

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Hunde_3.JG51
08-14-2004, 02:36 PM
Hop, I give up. I've wasted too much time on this already and I know that no matter what I say it won't matter.

***** Like I said, it is mostly subjective as to what you want to believe ******.

There is so much contradictory material and tests with differing results out there as to make pinning things down impossible. Generally it comes down to people trying to pull out the best for their plane and the worst for others. I could counter-point what you are saying again and you would do the same. It gets old and boring so whats the point.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Fliegeroffizier
08-14-2004, 02:56 PM
Three days, 164 posts!!! None Pages of posts on one subject! WOW!!

hop2002
08-14-2004, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There is so much contradictory material and tests with differing results out there as to make pinning things down impossible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I am trying to pin things down as much as possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>enerally it comes down to people trying to pull out the best for their plane and the worst for others. I could counter-point what you are saying again and you would do the same. It gets old and boring so whats the point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is to try to understand when the data conflicts.

There are a lot of conflicts in the data we have, sometimes not for obvious reasons.

Until the full report of the test of Faber's plane was posted online, it was commonly believed it was derated. People talked of a derated 190 outclimbing a fully rated Spit V.

Then we saw the actual data, and the 190 was not derated, although it should have been, and the Spitfire was only running at 12 lbs, not the 16 lbs it began using almost immediately afterwards.

There is a lot of data out there, it's only by constantly picking it apart we know what to make of it.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not trying to minimise the 190. I'd really like to know why the British found it to climb so well on that test. I'm hoping someone will come up with a WEP climb chart of the A4 A5 or A6.

When Butch posted the 190 climb chart I resposted in this thread, he said:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At similar boost setting, 30 minutes rating for instance, the Spit V clearly outclimbed the 190A5. If we consider that the 1942 Mk V 30 minutes rating was 9 lb, and the A5 30 minutes was 1.32ata there is absolutly no doubt on the outcome.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not aware Butch is a Spitfire fan. I'm certain he wouldn't distort the data to favour any particular aircraft.

From what I've seen, and I'd say it holds true for what Butch had seen by that point as well, the Spit V should outclimb the 190 A, certainly until the increase to 1.65 ata.

The Faber test report says otherwise, but the rest the test reports don't agree, afaik.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Does the "F.S." and "M.S." refer to supercharge settings? If so which is high altitude and which is low? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FS is full speed, MS medium speed, so FS is the high alt stage, normally.

They're sometimes called M and S speeds, with M being low alt, S high.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Did the Merlin 45 also have two settings or just one?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just one on the Merlin 45. The single speed Merlins were the I, II, III, XII, and the 40 and 50 series.

The two speed Merlins were the 20, 60, 70 series, plus the late/post war 100+ numbers. (I may have missed a few, but those are the most common).

Note that the difference is the number of supercharger gears, or speeds, not the number of stages. In a two stage Merlin, both stages run at the same time, all the time. The differences with altitude are to do with the changes in gears or speeds. The Merlin II series were single stage, 2 speeds, and show the same sort of stepped graph as the rest of the 2 speeds Merlins. All the other 2 speeds Merlins are 2 stage, 2 speed.

A lot of people get confused by that, and talk of the second "stage" kicking in, when they mean second gear.

Normally they wouldn't change speed from MS to FS until much higher, around 7,000ft, but to achieve 25 lbs the supercharger had to be in FS at much lower altitudes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Highlighted in red are the climb conditions of the test. Doesn't this indicate the 5 minute WEP limit rule was observed in the test climbs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think so. An "automatic observer" was usually a camera photographing the instuments, or sometimes a plotter giving a paper readout, like in a seismograph.

It means the speed, height, boost pressure were automatically recorded, not automatically set.

As to the time limit, the A&AEE was allowed to exceed time limits on climbs, as noted on several of the tests:

* A concession has been granted to allow combat rating to be used continuously on the climb at this Establishment.
Spit 21

Combat rating is normally permitted for periods of five minutes only, but a concession for test purposes allowed full climbs to be made at this rating.
Spit XIV

Climbs to 35,000 ft. at the combat rating of para. 2.2. Combat rating is permitted for 5 minutes only, but for test purposes a concession was granted to permit full climbs to ceiling to be made.
Spit Vb

Combat rating is normally permitted for periods of five minutes only, but a concession for test purposes allowed complete climbs at this rating to be made.
Spit HF IX

Combat rating is normally permitted only for periods of 5 minutes, but a concession was allowed on this limitation for test purposes and the full climbs were made in this rating.
Spit F IX

Combat rating is normally permitted for periods of 5 minutes, but a concession for test purposes allowed complete climbs to be made at this rating.
Spit LF and HF IX

The engine oil inlet and coolant outlet temperatures were measured on two climbs to 24,000 ft. This takes considerably longer than the 3 minutes for which the combat power may be used, a concession for test purposes.
Spit Vc (The manual gives the time limit as 5 minutes)

faustnik
08-14-2004, 03:35 PM
Thanks Hop. Was the note of continous combat power use attached to the particular test from which the temp data chart posted is taken? How do we know if the 5 minutes WEP was used or continuous WEP?

If it is true that such extended use of WEP was possible, wouldn't it be likely that the overheat system in general for FB is suspect? The Spiut IXs cooling system was not much different from other liquid cooled systems.

Thanks for the explaination of the "two-speed" supercharger system. That explaination really helped. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


****************************

On the issue of dive and zoom acceleration, something might be gained from looking at the overall historical loss record suffered by the RAF Spit Vs when facing Fw190s. Spit V losses soared when the Fw190 was introduced. The Spit Vs had been able to cope with the Bf109F up to that point. The Fw190 certainly could not outclimb the Bf109F, yet the RAF pilots complained that they could not keep up with the Fw190s in climbing maneuvers. Superior zoom climb would explain the situation.

The Spit IX had more power and weight than the Spit V. It would not only have been able to beat the Fw190 in a sustained climb, but, would have closed the gap in zoom climb and dive.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Hunde_3.JG51
08-14-2004, 04:05 PM
Like I said hop, it's not a shot at you. It is subjective IMO, there are certain things you will never convince me of, and vice-versa. So for me there is no further use in continuing.

Faustnik, I agree the Spitfire IX would have closed the gap in dive and zoom, but I don't think it would have eliminated or reduced it enough to not be a viable tactic. As of now we have nothing at all in-game for any plane. How Oleg and crew could model a rolling pencil in an aircraft but not included differences in dive acceleration and zoom is beyond me. It must be a game engine limitation.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

WUAF_Badsight
08-14-2004, 04:12 PM
IL2 was started development in 98 wasnt it ?

IIRC it was based on a licensed Star Wars game engine

(X-wing vrs TiE fighter ?) dont laugh . . . . its true

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG14_Josf
08-14-2004, 04:52 PM
Reality check

For the competitive performance trials between the F.W. 190 and variaous British and American fighter aircraft (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_3.jpg) shown in this report (paras, 47 and 87, alll level speed runs were for two minutes at maximum emergency (3 minute ratings, and all sustained climbs were carried out at maximum continuous climbing conditions (30 minute rating). In the case of the F.W.190 The 30 minute rating was taken to be 2450 r.p.m. @ 1.35 ata.

Getting caught up in the numbers game often leads to errors in judgment.
I suspect that if the British were inspired to boost their engines higher as a result of an obvious position of inferiority then it is just as possible that the front line troops on the German side could have done the same.

Factory tests are a long way from combat conditions. Here is another reason why Shaw's statement that comparison testing is undeniably the best method holds true.
When a plane is taken right out of combat and then flown against planes currently flying combat the variables and errors are minimized.

The tests actually test what is important i.e. relative combat performance capabilities.

robban75
08-14-2004, 06:48 PM
FWIW, Lt, Karl Heinz Ossenkop, who was a technical officer, flew the D-9 with JG 26. Apparently they saw quite alot action with Spitfires at the end of the war, and he was infact also shot down by Spitfires, although he bailed out successfully and returned to the staffel 2 weeks later.

His impression was that the D-9 was better in level flight, climb and dive, and that it was slightly inferior in turns when compared to the Spitfire.

I know these pilot "tales" aren't popular, but they are still interesting, although they are quite fuzzy, since it doesn't say at what altitudes, or speeds, but Ossenkop's impression was that the D-9 still was a better climber than the Spitfire.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

hop2002
08-14-2004, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Thanks Hop. Was the note of continous combat power use attached to the particular test from which the temp data chart posted is taken? How do we know if the 5 minutes WEP was used or continuous WEP?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, there's no note on this one, afaik, but it shouldn't matter anyway.

Because of the rate of climb, I don't think they'd have exceeded the time at wep, before the drop in altitude forced things down to normal ratings.

To expand on that:

The climb was from 2,000ft to 32,000ft.

Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html which is the test of a Spit LF IX at 25 lbs.

Look at the FS gear climb.

They reached 2000ft after .42 minutes.

Five minutes after that (ie at 5.42 minutes in to the climb) they were at about 23,000ft, and boost had dropped to under 12 lbs.

12 lbs was the climb rating on the Merlin 66 that could be maintained for 30 mins or 1 hour.

Whilst the RPM would still be at 3,000, on some Merlins (and DB 605s) the higher rpm rating was allowed for extended periods at high altitudes.
(see for example http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ab320.html )

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If it is true that such extended use of WEP was possible, wouldn't it be likely that the overheat system in general for FB is suspect? The Spiut IXs cooling system was not much different from other liquid cooled systems.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. The Spit V, for example, did suffer from overheats a lot quicker than this, so it certainly doesn't hold true for all aircraft.

The Spit IX had very big radiators.

And remember here we're talking about a Spit running at 25 lbs boost, we only have 18 lbs in game.

AFAIK, the Spit IX is the only plane in game that has that sort of reduced power, down 400 hp from what it used in widespread service with little modification. (Not a whine, the 18 lbs boost level is a perfectly valid choice. It's just that the same plane, with no extensive modifications, ran with an extra 400 hp in large numbers)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On the issue of dive and zoom acceleration, something might be gained from looking at the overall historical loss record suffered by the RAF Spit Vs when facing Fw190s. Spit V losses soared when the Fw190 was introduced. The Spit Vs had been able to cope with the Bf109F up to that point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's hard to ignore the extra effort as well. The RAF increased the number of sorties, so did the Germans, and the Germans suffered more losses too, iirc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is subjective IMO, there are certain things you will never convince me of, and vice-versa.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree with that. Show me the evidence, and you will convince me.

I'm in this more for the historical facts than the gameplay.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Reality check

For the competitive performance trials between the F.W. 190 and variaous British and American fighter aircraft shown in this report (paras, 47 and 87, alll level speed runs were for two minutes at maximum emergency (3 minute ratings, and all sustained climbs were carried out at maximum continuous climbing conditions (30 minute rating). In the case of the F.W.190 The 30 minute rating was taken to be 2450 r.p.m. @ 1.35 ata.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read through my postings, you'll see I've already said that.

1.42 ata was used as a WEP rating, 1.35 ata as a climb rating.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Getting caught up in the numbers game often leads to errors in judgment.
I suspect that if the British were inspired to boost their engines higher as a result of an obvious position of inferiority then it is just as possible that the front line troops on the German side could have done the same. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're not talking about field mods, we're talking about official engine ratings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Factory tests are a long way from combat conditions. Here is another reason why Shaw's statement that comparison testing is undeniably the best method holds true.
When a plane is taken right out of combat and then flown against planes currently flying combat the variables and errors are minimized.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the variables are maximised. You have people unfamiliar with the captured plane, and a pilot unfamiliar with the captured plane.

That's why the British ran it at it's real 3 min rating for 30 minutes, and ran it at 1.42 ata, which had been banned outright.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>His impression was that the D-9 was better in level flight, climb and dive, and that it was slightly inferior in turns when compared to the Spitfire.

I know these pilot "tales" aren't popular, but they are still interesting, although they are quite fuzzy, since it doesn't say at what altitudes, or speeds, but Ossenkop's impression was that the D-9 still was a better climber than the Spitfire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And his impression was also that the Spitfire was a "slightly" better turner than the Dora?

Pilot impressions aren't popular because they are frequently contradictory. They are clouded by circumstances, they don't tell the states of the enemy aircraft, or the pilot's skill level. They don't even tell if the opponent was actually doing what the pilot thinks they were doing.

Did Tank really accelerate away from Mustangs that were trying to catch him, or did he accelerate from Mustangs who decided not to pursue because they were low on fuel, trying to find their flight leader, lost, confused, didn't see him, unwilling to engage wep because they were low on fuel, suspected it was a trap and looking for the top cover, etc.

Pilot anecdotes are one sided stories. Not only that, they are self selecting.

The pilot who outturns or outclimbs or outruns the enemy plane gets to talk about it. The pilot who was outturned, outrun or outclimbed gets shot down, and we don't get to hear his story.

robban75
08-14-2004, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

His impression was that the D-9 was better in level flight, climb and dive, and that it was slightly inferior in turns when compared to the Spitfire.

I know these pilot "tales" aren't popular, but they are still interesting, although they are quite fuzzy, since it doesn't say at what altitudes, or speeds, but Ossenkop's impression was that the D-9 still was a better climber than the Spitfire.

And his impression was also that the Spitfire was a "slightly" better turner than the Dora?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, he didn't say at which speeds, nor in which direction, he probably didn't mean a close in stall fight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Did Tank really accelerate away from Mustangs that were trying to catch him, or did he accelerate from Mustangs who decided not to pursue because they were low on fuel, trying to find their flight leader, lost, confused, didn't see him, unwilling to engage wep because they were low on fuel, suspected it was a trap and looking for the top cover, etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess he did since this was later reported in an American magazine, with the Americans at a loss to explain what German aircraft could have such reserves of power to be able to simply walk away from Mustangs as though they'd been standing still.

At least that's what it says in the book about Kurt Tank by Wolfgang Wagner.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

faustnik
08-14-2004, 10:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Thanks Hop. Was the note of continous combat power use attached to the particular test from which the temp data chart posted is taken? How do we know if the 5 minutes WEP was used or continuous WEP?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, there's no note on this one, afaik, but it shouldn't matter anyway.

Because of the rate of climb, I don't think they'd have exceeded the time at wep, before the drop in altitude forced things down to normal ratings.

To expand on that:

The climb was from 2,000ft to 32,000ft.

Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html which is the test of a Spit LF IX at 25 lbs.

Look at the FS gear climb.

They reached 2000ft after .42 minutes.

Five minutes after that (ie at 5.42 minutes in to the climb) they were at about 23,000ft, and boost had dropped to under 12 lbs.

12 lbs was the climb rating on the Merlin 66 that could be maintained for 30 mins or 1 hour.

Whilst the RPM would still be at 3,000, on some Merlins (and DB 605s) the higher rpm rating was allowed for extended periods at high altitudes.
(see for example http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ab320.html )

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If it is true that such extended use of WEP was possible, wouldn't it be likely that the overheat system in general for FB is suspect? The Spiut IXs cooling system was not much different from other liquid cooled systems.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. The Spit V, for example, did suffer from overheats a lot quicker than this, so it certainly doesn't hold true for all aircraft.

The Spit IX had very big radiators.

And remember here we're talking about a Spit running at 25 lbs boost, we only have 18 lbs in game.

AFAIK, the Spit IX is the only plane in game that has that sort of reduced power, down 400 hp from what it used in widespread service with little modification. (Not a whine, the 18 lbs boost level is a perfectly valid choice. It's just that the same plane, with no extensive modifications, ran with an extra 400 hp in large numbers)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a great point about the test duration. With a climbrate as high as the Spit IX's it does not take that long to reach great heights. So, this still leaves our original question, should the Spit IX be able to run full WEP at low altitude almost indefinately? There has really been no evidence to support that it should, and only a blanket RAF policy recommendation to say it should not.

As to the dives and zooms, well I guess that is up to an indivual's acceptance of the RAF test pilot reports and combat reports from pilots of both sides. I tend to believe the early Fw190s held a great advantage over the Spit V which was significantly reduced with the introduction of the Spit IX.

To say that the introduction of the Fw190 did not put the Spit V at a disadvantage is to ignore the opinions of the RAF pilots who faced it. Increases in RAF loses were attributed in large part to the Fw190. The Fw190 fought the Spit specifically by using dives and zoom climbs. I am surprised that anyone would deny that the Fw190A did not have a great advantage over the Spit V in this area.

Except for the unlimited WEP issue I have no problem with the modeling of the Spit IX in FB. I expected it to be one the toughest oponents the virtual LW would face. The patch finally brought the Spit IX climb rate up to the appropriate level. The Fw190A6 and later still have a low altitude speed advantage over all the Spitfires and of course a superior roll rate.

I still have issue with the matchup of the Fw190A4 and the Spit Vb. The Spit Vb climbs way to fast and the Fw 190 slightly too slow. The Fw190A4's dive and zoom advantage is not apparent in the FB model. In addition the Fw190A4 is too slow. So, while many people are bothered by the performance of the Spit IX, I have a bigger problem with the Spit Vb (only relative to the Fw190A4).

Anyway, what started as a questionable thread sure has turned out to be interesting. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

hop2002
08-15-2004, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, this still leaves our original question, should the Spit IX be able to run full WEP at low altitude almost indefinately?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends what you are doing. If you spend 5 minutes in constant turn at full power, maybe not. Though even then, with the rads open, I don't know if you would overheat.

After 5 minutes of level flight at 25 lbs, radiators closed, you should be nowhere near overheating.

With automatic rads on the Spitfire, how long until overheat when the rads are open? I don't know, but I'd say a lot more than 5 minutes. Certainly at 18 lbs.

This cooling report is for 25 lbs. Going down to 18 lbs is like running the 109K4 at about 1.5 or 1.6 ata. How long should the K4 last at that lower setting?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As to the dives and zooms, well I guess that is up to an indivual's acceptance of the RAF test pilot reports and combat reports from pilots of both sides. I tend to believe the early Fw190s held a great advantage over the Spit V which was significantly reduced with the introduction of the Spit IX.

To say that the introduction of the Fw190 did not put the Spit V at a disadvantage is to ignore the opinions of the RAF pilots who faced it. Increases in RAF loses were attributed in large part to the Fw190. The Fw190 fought the Spit specifically by using dives and zoom climbs. I am surprised that anyone would deny that the Fw190A did not have a great advantage over the Spit V in this area.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not denying the advantage the 190 had in dives and zooms over the Spit V, or that it inflicted heavy losses.

The losses though were a large part to do with the tactical situation, and you can't read that much into the 190s performance from them.

What I am denying is that the 190 had a climb advantage over most Spit Vs.

The Spit V, at normal rating, should outclimb the 190 at normal rating.

At combat power, I'd expect the Spit V to win again, in the correct timeframe.

The Spit V started at 9 lbs boost. The 190 had to be derated to 1.35 ata. The Spit should win that matchup.

The 190 was rerated to 1.42 ata, but by that time the Spit V had increased frist to 12 lbs, then 16 lbs. The Spit should win that as well.

I'll repost this from another thread, giving power to weight ratios for the 190s and Spits:

The weights I have are:

190 A3 8770 lbs
Faber's 190 A3 8580 lbs (Faber's 190 was weighed, this was the figure found. Whether it was missing some equipment, I don't know)

190 A5 8800 lbs

Spit Vb 6525 lbs (we have a Vb in game)

Spit IX 7480 lbs (The F and LF IX both weigh the same)


Power. All powers are unrammed

190 A3 1530 sea level, 1210 at 20,000ft (This is at 1.32 ata)
Faber's 190 1800 sl, 1400 20k (This is at 1.42 ata, which is what Faber's 190 was run at)

190 A5 1800 sl, 1400 20k (again at 1.42 ata, I don't think 1.65 ata was allowed until summer 44)

Spit V This is more complex, as the Spit V had 3 seperate ratings at different times. It start at 9 lbs, went to 12 lbs, then after the test against Faber's plane, 16 lbs)

Spit V @
9 lbs 1010 hp at sea level, 1120 at 20,000ft

12 lbs 1190 sl, 1120 20k

16 lbs 1380 sl, 1120 20k

Spit IX There are 2 relevant Spit IXs, the F IX tested against Faber's plane at 15 lbs, and the LF IX which ran at 18 lbs that we have in game

F IX 15 lbs 1350 at sea level, 1260 at 20k
LF IX 18 lbs 1650 sl, 1480 20k


That's the raw data. If you like, you can work out the wing loadings, the Spit's wings were 242 sq ft, the 190s 197 sq ft (iirc). The Spit obviously wins the wing loading hands down

The power loadings I get from the above figures are:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Plane SeaLevel 20,000ft
190 A3 5.7 7.2
FaberA3 4.8 6.1
190 A5 4.9 6.3

Spit V
9 lbs 6.5 5.8
12 lbs 5.5 5.8
16 lbs 4.7 5.8

F IX 5.5 5.9
LF IX 4.5 5.0
</pre>

The figures are in lbs per hp, so lower is better.

Please feel free to check these, with so many numbers I might have made a mistake somewhere, and as I said aI welcome any different data on weight or HP.

As far as I can see, the 190s are worse than all the Spits in power to weight at 20,000ft. They are better than the Spit V at 9 lbs and 12 lbs at sea level, worse than the Spit V at 16 lbs at sea level.

In game, we have a Spit V with the speed of 9 lbs, the climb rate of 16 lbs, so take your pick which one it's supposed to be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I still have issue with the matchup of the Fw190A4 and the Spit Vb. The Spit Vb climbs way to fast and the Fw 190 slightly too slow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit V in game climbs too slowly at low altitudes, far too fast at others

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1080402859_spitclimb.gif

The only test I've seen that would suggest a 190 should outclimb the Spit V was the Faber comparison, but the figures they give compared to the Spit IX would suggest they tested a Spit Vc with 4 20mm cannon, which weighed 4 - 500 lbs more than the Spit Vb we have in game. The report says it was a Vb though, but doesn't give any details.

But the increased weight is the only way to get the climb of the Spit V correct relative to the 190 and Spit IX. That or a Spit V with engine/prop troubles.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I guess he did since this was later reported in an American magazine, with the Americans at a loss to explain what German aircraft could have such reserves of power to be able to simply walk away from Mustangs as though they'd been standing still.

At least that's what it says in the book about Kurt Tank by Wolfgang Wagner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the point, though, all we have is one man's impression. One side of the story, so to speak.

Atomic_Marten
08-15-2004, 07:54 AM
I have seen a lot open latters lately. I think they should be adressed to Oleg&CO. and not "Spit lovers" or whoever else. They don't make A/C's for IL-2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And one other thing: if early Spits can catch up with late Bf109 and Fw190 models (for that matter they can catch up with everything that is bearing label 'fighter A/C' in this game - no matter early or late in the war), imagine what would happen if we by any chance have an actually late (in the war) model Spits? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif

Yeah Britania rules the seas... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
08-15-2004, 09:56 AM
Hop,

Your findings on sustained climb only lend more weight to the idea that the Fw190 enjoyed a large advantage in zoom climb over the Spit V. The Fw190A was superior to the Spit V in vertical maneuvering, that is historical fact. If this advantage was not achieved through sustained climb, zoom climb and dive would have to be the explaination.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Nubarus
08-15-2004, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
And one other thing: if early Spits can catch up with late Bf109 and Fw190 models.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They can't, the Spit Vb's are no match against the mid/late war LW planes in this sim.

The Spit IX's that are in this sim are not the early versions with the Merlin 61 engine.
The Spit IX's in this sim are late 1943 early 1944 planes.

There are a few bugs that need worked on. (Max speed at alt and overheat with WEP engaged) to name the most important one's.
Other then that the Spit IX's with the Merlin 66 and 70 engines should be able to take on the late war LW planes.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

robban75
08-15-2004, 11:10 AM
The effectiveness of the Spitfire in vertical manouvers can be explained by that it has no torque modelled whatsoever. Try and do the same with a Yak-3, you'll see that vertical manouvers are really tough to do when flying at near stall speeds due to torque. The Spitfire and several other fighters has a good edge without suffering from it.

For now, the only planes that I've flown in this sim that has some kind of torque modelled is the Yak's, Ta 152 and the Fw 190. Especially the Fw 190D-9.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 12:48 PM
Hop wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Spit V, at normal rating, should outclimb the 190 at normal rating.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which Spit V, with what power setting, under what conditions, should (did or did not) outclimb (climb angle, climb rate, climb speed) which 190 again at what power setting?

How many variables exist when basing any performance comparision on separate factory test results?

In the real world during the very time in history when Spitfire VB's were fighting FW190A-3s tests were conducted side by side and the conclusions were that the FWs not only outclimbed the Spitfires but they had a steeper climb angle and the advantage was measured to be: 450ft/mn. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg)

Assuming that those tests linked above have absolutely no validity at all then Please be more specific with evidence supporting the claim that the Spitfire VB should outclimb the FW190.

Meanwhile I'll try to look back into this thread to see if I can find the documents supporting that claim.

Atomic_Marten
08-15-2004, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
They can't, the Spit Vb's are no match against the mid/late war LW planes in this sim.

The Spit IX's that are in this sim are not the early versions with the Merlin 61 engine.
The Spit IX's in this sim are late 1943 early 1944 planes.

There are a few bugs that need worked on. (Max speed at alt and overheat with WEP engaged) to name the most important one's.
Other then that the Spit IX's with the Merlin 66 and 70 engines should be able to take on the late war LW planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tend to agree. They can't catch up ONLY in speed. But u make just one mistake when flying Bf109 or Fw190 and guess what happens.

I have no problems shooting down 4xACE Spits in QMB with Bf109K4, but try that online... when flying late Messer's or Fw's you are clearly limited only to hit and run strategy. Even repeated BnZ is very questionable. On the other hand u can then imagine urself in Bf109 and u have Spit above u on distance 1.00 BnZing u. Again...crash http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. And that is the fact online. If that was the case in real life, I dunno.

Conclusion: if u find urself on same alt as someone flying Spit (no advantage on either side), he must be a big time rookie not to shot u down if u engage him. Your only option is to engage MW50 and get a hell outta there. U can take whatever LW plane you like outcome will be the same. And that will happen to you after u make a few succesful BnZ's. Guy in Spit just said to himself: What the heck, I can take some alt and then u'll see who's the boss buddy... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Sadly. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nubarus
08-15-2004, 01:03 PM
The SpitVb can't climb and dive with the late war LW planes either.
It's severely limited at high speed so I see no real advantage other then turning in the Spit Vb, and only at slow speed.

And if you make a mistake you can to be shot down, that is also how it was in RL, make a mistake and you can get killed.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 01:24 PM
Hop,

Please be more specific on the Spitfire VB and FW190 climb performance conclusions you have made and presented in this thread.

I could not find anything indicating information on an FW190A-3 or FW190A-4 climb performance. Nothing about the conditions of the tests, the location of the tests, the pilots experience, climb speed, engine settings, climb angle. Purpose of the test. No background, nothing at all.

I did find in this thread a chart on the 190A-5. I cannot read German.

What is your best case (most accurate relative to the climb performance comparision) example of a document supporting an FW190A-3 or 190A-4 climb performance and your best case Spitfire VB climb performance documents.

How do your best case documents compare in relevant variable factors such as time, place, conditions, purpose of the test, condition of the planes (including the planes opperational status such as combat ready example or prototype example etc.), pilot experience, climb speed of test (did the pilots know what was the best climb speed?)?

You seem so very confident in your conclusions. I would very much like to know what makes you so confident.

Variables are minimized in side by side comparision testing. Variables like atmospheric conditions and the general purpose of the test. If a test pilot is recording data the purpose is to record data. One variable may be involved in just how precise that data is collected. Of course it may be very precise. Or it could be not very precise. That is a variable. When one plane is flown next to another it is rather obvious which plane out climbs the other, in such a test the purpose is to see which plane outclimbs the other.

Even so, it is an interest to compare factory test results, such information contains value.

The more that is known about that information the more valuable that information becomes so can you be more specific concerning the information you use to arrive at your claims concerning the Spitfire VB's that fought FW190A-3s or FW190A-4s? That is if you have anymore specific information.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From what I've seen, and I'd say it holds true for what Butch had seen by that point as well, the Spit V should outclimb the 190 A, certainly until the increase to 1.65 ata. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What have you seen?

The German FW190A-5 report?

Where was it conducted (atmospheric conditions; tempurature density etc.)

What climb speed?

What was the purpose of the test?

What was the condition of the Airplane?

Did this airplane ever fly anywhere near a Spitfire VB?

If you think I am attacking you personally please confirm this perception and I will refrain from mentioning you. Please however post as much specific information as possible as to why you make your claims concerning Spitfire VB and FW190A relative climb performance. Somehow you have managed to develop a confident perspective on that subject and I would like to know what exactly inspires this confidence you have found.

faustnik
08-15-2004, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
The SpitVb can't climb and dive with the late war LW planes either.
It's severely limited at high speed so I see no real advantage other then turning in the Spit Vb, and only at slow speed.

And if you make a mistake you can to be shot down, that is also how it was in RL, make a mistake and you can get killed.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true against late war LW a/c, but, not agtainst the Spit Vb's main oponents, the Bf109F4 and the Fw190A4. The seriously overmodeled climb of the Spit Vb and lack of dive and zoom advantage of the Fw190A4 gives the Spit Vb big advantages that it did not have historically. If you question the claim of overmodeling in climb, please check Hop's historical vs. FB climb chart. Why would you compare the Spit Vb to late war LW planes?

All the Spit versions were great fighters for their time but, during late 1941 and 1942 the Spit Vb was a big disadvantage against the Fw190As. Of course the story changed with the introduction of the Spit IX. As you mentioned, the Spit IX should be able to hold its own against all challengers.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

KGr.HH-Sunburst
08-15-2004, 02:17 PM
i just did 720kph TAS at 7800 meter in a spit HF MkIX is that normal ?
i just want to know whats the listed topspeed for HF spitIX ?

i think its the fastest plane right now at that alt
Dora didnt even come close

emagine the luft guys are gonna fight up high
and ofcource without a 262 because that would be to easy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/FW190A6sigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

Airborn_
08-15-2004, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

I did find in this thread a chart on the 190A-5. I cannot read German.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Josf,

On the German climbchart posted by Hop, coming from Butch2k, it says the A5 had a max climbrate of approx 16 meters/sec at around 1000 meters, which drops slowly but surely above that height.
But this too is one of the many German climbtests that have been conducted without the use of WEP. And this is where the main problem is, imo: the tests hop has presented and the comparative FW190 climbtests we can find are all done with different WEP-usages: the Spit results are with WEP, whereas the FW190 figures were achieved without WEP. Can we really compare these tests just like that? It is a known fact that the A5 had WEP but it was a standard procedure for the LW to do climbtests without it. So there lies the biggest problem, afa I can see.

Some figures I have concerning the A3 are:

- Climrate from 0 - 2000 meters: 16.6 meters/sec
- "..."........ 2000 - 4000 meters: 12.8 "......./"
- "..."........ 4000 - 6000 meters: 12.8 "......../"

Max speed at:

.....0 meters: 565 km/h
1300 meters: 600 km/h
3200 meters: 585 km/h
6500 meters: 680 km/h

All speedfigures &gt;&gt;with&lt;&lt; WEP or boost, "NOT-Leistung" in German. And as mentioned before: climbfigures without WEP or boost. (only "Steig- und Kampfleistung", which means Clim- and Combat power)

(A3 having a : 1700 PS, n=2700 rpm at zero alt, C3/97 Oktan BMW 801 D2 engine. Total take-off weight: 3850 kg.)

I hope this helps.

Atomic_Marten
08-15-2004, 03:17 PM
Hmmm... just found some interesting (?) data. In Hardballs Aircraft Viewer for IL-2 Aces I just discover something rather weird(IMO): Bf-109K4 will infact outturn every Spit in ACES except Vb series (infact K4 will also outturn even Spit LF.Mk.Vb (Merlin 50) 1944). That is what I found... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and yes, turning take place of course on 1000m alt.

Also climb time to 6700m for Spit LF.MkIXc is 5,4 min, while for K4 5,6 min to 6400m.

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 03:34 PM
Airborn,

How is it possible to judge your climb figures toward an evaluation of relative climb performance between a contemporary (historical matchup) Spitfire VB and FW190A?

This is a rhetorical question since you seem already to get the point.

The Farber document states:

"...all sustained climbs were carried out at maximum continuous climbing conditions (30 minute rating)"

The practice of climbing on less than maximum power settings is normal it seems.

If imagination is allowed in thinking, as I think it is in fact essential then what can be thought about concerning the British tests conducted with that captured FW?

We are left with the words printed on documents, however, the real pilots flew that plane and formed their own opinions on relative combat performance. No longer did they have to guess based upon figures, numbers, estimates, and opinions. They had a working example of the opponents plane and they conducted comparision combat trials with it.
Is anyone else at least a little curious just how those tests were conducted?

Here is an example:

Flight in FW.190. PN.999 (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_c_3.jpg)

That FW is refered to in Wings of the Luftwaffe:

"... an FW190A-4, which, assigned the serial PE882, had landed in error at RAF West Malling during the early hours of 17 April 1943. Two other examples of the A-4 sub-type of the Focke-Wulf fighter were to fall into our hands at around this time, incidentally, both landing in error at RAF Manston during night operations, one on 20 May and the other on 20 June 1943, these acquiring the serials PM679 and PN999."

Eric Brown flew PE882 which "was, in fact, an Fw 190A-4/U8 Jabo with provision for two bomb carriers beneath the wings...a third carrier beneath the fuselage...reduced to a pair of 20mm...13mm head and shoulder armour...8-mm plates disposed above and below the seat-back and on each side."

I found no other information on the FW190A-4 PN.999 flown by the pilot describing his flight that reads:

"When I was about 8 miles south of base 2 Mustangs saw me and made attacks, dummy or real I don't know, I did not give those aircraft any chance, but owing to their insistence I let them see my RAF markings and they formated on me, and then tried to play. In the resulting steep turns at max crusing boost and revs I found no diffiuclty in getting on the tail of these aircraft, and could have easily have shot them down."

"The rate of climb of the FW.190 was greatly superior to the Mustangs but inferior to the Spitfire IX.LH.Merlin.66. I should imagine that at lower than 22,000ft the FW.190 would be slightly better than the Spitfire IX.H.Merlin.61 engine aircraft. When the Mustangs sheered off I tried rolls and general defensive flying. The FW. 190 is remarkable, and really beautiful to acrobat in the rolling plane, but in the looping plane it is greatly inferior to the Spitfire."

That last quote is, perhaps, relevant to Eric Browns quote:
"The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking""

So, the British fighter pilots had a few FWs and my guess is they made the best of their new found toy.

They formed opinions and how much of their opinions, the opinions of the British fighter pilots, who were involved in the comparative testing contributed toward the statement made by Air Chief Marshal
W.S. Douglas

"There is however no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the Fw 190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today..."

Dated 17th July, 1942

My imagination constructs a situation where the Air Chief Marshal is not simply reading papers, instead he talks to 'his' fighter pilots. Douglas may be asking "Are you sure about what the FW can do?" Douglas is in the business of making sure something is done about the situation. Douglas has to convince the higher ups to address the situation. The higher ups may be reluctant.

Also in the Secret Letter to HQ Douglas says:

"I seem to detect a spirit of complacency in the Ministry of Aircraft Production."

If in fact the IL2/FB/AEP version of the SpitfireVB/FW190A-4 matchup is accurate then what could be the British concern? A need to teach their pilots how to fly?

OldMan____
08-15-2004, 03:36 PM
yeap.. but in order to do so it looses 3 times more speed than spit. so it is not a sustained turn.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

hop2002
08-15-2004, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your findings on sustained climb only lend more weight to the idea that the Fw190 enjoyed a large advantage in zoom climb over the Spit V.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 190 should certainly have a zoom climb and dive advantage over the Spit V. To a much lesser extent over the LF IX as well.

In a quick test I did offline, it did. All planes pulled up from the same speed at sea level (iirc 500 km/h) and held in a vertical climb until speed dropped to 300 km/h. The 190A6 reached 980m, the Spit V 760, the Spit IX 940, the Dora 1030, the A6M5 720.

I had difficulty holding the dives vertical, though, so I don't know how accurate these figures are, but it definately seemed to me there were real differences.

I haven't done much testing though, so I can't say if the game is correct or not, and if someone does some comprehensive testing that says otherwise, I'd certainly be prepared to believe it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The effectiveness of the Spitfire in vertical manouvers can be explained by that it has no torque modelled whatsoever. Try and do the same with a Yak-3, you'll see that vertical manouvers are really tough to do when flying at near stall speeds due to torque.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All planes should suffer from torque effects, but larger wingarea would tend to reduced their severity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Which Spit V, with what power setting, under what conditions, should (did or did not) outclimb (climb angle, climb rate, climb speed) which 190 again at what power setting?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit Vb (which is what we have in game) should outclimb any of the early A series (up to the A8) at normal power for both of them.

In 1941, the 190 was restricted to 1.32 ata, the Spit V (at least initially) to 9 lbs. At these ratings, the Spit should have a slightly greater climb advantage over the 190 than it enjoys at normal power.

In 1942, the Spit V flew at 12 lbs wep, and the 190 was still restricted to 1.32 ata. The Spit should have a larger climb rate advantage.

In the second half of 1942, the 190 was allowed to use 1.42 ata, the Spit V 16 lbs, and the Spit should still have a climb rate advantage.

If the Spitfire was changed to a Spit Vc, with 4 20mm cannon, and 4 times the ammo, then I would expect the 190 to have a climb rate advantage, at least at most settings.

If the Spit was changed to a Vc with 2 20mm cannon, and twice the ammo capacity we have in game, the climb rates would be closer, but the Spit should still havce the edge, particularly in WEP.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How many variables exist when basing any performance comparision on separate factory test results?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Less than on a comparison test.

You are at least assured of mechanics who know something about the engine, a pilot who knows something about the plane, and opportunity for more tests.

It's worth noting that the comparison against Faber's aircraft had to abandoned because it wasn't running properly, which has to be at least partly down to the fact the British were overboosting it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the real world during the very time in history when Spitfire VB's were fighting FW190A-3s tests were conducted side by side and the conclusions were that the FWs not only outclimbed the Spitfires but they had a steeper climb angle and the advantage was measured to be: 450ft/mn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The report says the Fw 190 climbed 450 ft/min better than the Spit V.

It says the 190 climbed slightly worse than the Spit IX.

We know what the climb rate of a Spit IX was at normal power, 3200 ft/min up to 14,000ft
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html

That means the Spit V must have been about 500 ft/min worse than the Spit IX, or about 2700 ft/min.

Yet the Spit V test at: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

shows that the Spit V was actually slightly better than the Spit IX, at 3250 ft/min.

However, a Spit Vc with 4 20 mm cannon, weighing 400 lbs more than the Spit Vb, did do close to the 2700 ft/min the report leads us to expect:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa873.html

Another one with 4 20 mm cannon also did close to 2700 ft/min http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

That would suggest the Spit V in the test was a Vc, but the report says it was a Vb.

However, yet another type of Spit V climbed at close to 2700 ft/min, a fully tropicalised Vb http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ab320.html

So we've got figures that show the Vb as represented in the game should climb as well as a Spit IX (all climbs in the report were done at climbing power, not wep).

We've also got figures to show that with the extra weight of 4 20mms and ammo, the Spit V would climb about 500 ft/min worse than the Spit IX. Or with the tropical filter. But nothing to suggest a Spit V like the one we have in the game should be worse than the Spit IX.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Assuming that those tests linked above have absolutely no validity at all <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not "no validity at all". They are one piece of evidence. They contradict all the other pieces of evidence I've seen.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Please be more specific with evidence supporting the claim that the Spitfire VB should outclimb the FW190.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've posted links to several Spit climb tests above, here's one for the 190 A5:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092488785_fw190a5-climb.jpg

Please note that if you don't believe this Fw 190 chart, you still have to account for the fact that the Spit V and Spit IX figures do not match up either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I could not find anything indicating information on an FW190A-3 or FW190A-4 climb performance. Nothing about the conditions of the tests, the location of the tests, the pilots experience, climb speed, engine settings, climb angle. Purpose of the test. No background, nothing at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb speed is chosen to achieve maximum climb rate. Climb angle is held to maintain the best climbing speed, which gives the best climb rate.

Reports don't generally give climb angle, but they do usually give climb rate and climb speed.

The most important things to know are the manifold pressure and rpm, from which you get the engine settings, and the weight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I did find in this thread a chart on the 190A-5. I cannot read German. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The chart is very easy to read.

The scale on the left verticle is height in kilometres. The main scale along the bottom, running from 0 to 25, is rate of climb in metres per second.

The minor scale along the bottom, running 200 - 250 - 300 is the speed in km/h.

The main scale along the bottom also doubles as the time in minutes.

If you look at the lines on the chart, the one begining bottom left is the time to reach an altitude, in minutes. So 5 km would be reached in 6.4 minutes.

The second line along the bottom is the climbing speed, which decrease gradually with altitude, and begins at about 280 km/h. This will be IAS.

The third line is the rate of climb, which begins at a shade over 15 m/s.

The power settings are aln=ong the top, 1.32 ata, 2400 rpm, C3 fuel. The weight is 4000 kg.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How do your best case documents compare in relevant variable factors such as time, place, conditions, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any test done by any of the standard testing orginisations will be done using "standard atmosphere". That is, the raw results will be adjusted to match a standard definition of temperature, pressure, 0 wind etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>purpose of the test,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The purpose of testing is to establish the performance of an aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>condition of the planes<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the biggest problem with the Faber test. Some claim his plane was underperforming, but the British were actually overboostin it beyond safe limits.

What if the Spit V they had that day was performing poorly? What if it had a faulty boost control, or prop pitch mechanism, or sticking throttle?

the report notes the Spit V was taken from an operational squadron. Can you say for sure it was performing well, or could it have been faulty? We don't know, we don't even know much about the condition it was in, because it isn't mentioned.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(including the planes opperational status such as combat ready example or prototype example etc.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good test will tell you the weight and equipment fitted to the aircraft, so you can know such things. Note there is a huge difference between a prototype fitted out with all equipment to operational standard, and a manufacturers prototype that is used in early stages testing, that is usually much lighter than the service aircraft, and not operationally equipped.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>climb speed of test (did the pilots know what was the best climb speed?)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's another problem with a comparison. The British pilot had very little knowledge of the 190.

The Faber comparison was conducted very quickly, shortly after the plane was captured. Later in the war, when the RAF had several 190s to test, I'd expect them to have far more knowledge of the captured planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You seem so very confident in your conclusions. I would very much like to know what makes you so confident. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot of research. The opinion of someone like Butch, who said that the 190 on continuous climb (the conditions in the Faber test) should not climb as well as the Spit Vb.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Variables are minimized in side by side comparision testing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are maximised in the Faber test. The RAF spent 1 day testing several aircraft, without having time to understand what they had fully. Such a short testing schedule doesn't leave time to check the condition of everything.

The tests were abandoned before completion because the 190 started running poorly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Variables like atmospheric conditions<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, atmospheric conditions should be taken care of in any proper report.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One variable may be involved in just how precise that data is collected. Of course it may be very precise. Or it could be not very precise. That is a variable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usually very precise. The British had 3 main testing agencies.

The Aircraft and Armaments Experimental Establishment, A&AEE, made prescise recordings of speed, climb rate, range etc.

The Royal Aircraft Establishment, RAE, evaluated things from an engineering viewpoint, anylizing engines, airframes etc for new design features, airworthiness etc.

The Air Fighting Development Unit, AFDU, did comparison testing. They did not make exact measurements of speed, climb rates etc, afaik they used only the normal cockpit instruments and their eyes, to report what they percieved as advantages or disadvantages.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you think I am attacking you personally please confirm this perception and I will refrain from mentioning you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the first post you have addressed to me where you haven't attacked me. You have questioned the data, rather than me, or my reasons for posting it. I wish you had done that from the start.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On the German climbchart posted by Hop, coming from Butch2k, it says the A5 had a max climbrate of approx 16 meters/sec at around 1000 meters, which drops slowly but surely above that height.
But this too is one of the many German climbtests that have been conducted without the use of WEP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One proviso on that. 1.32 ata is climbing power on the 190 A4, A5 and A6 (I think on later 190s too, but it may be higher)

On 190A3 and early A4s, 1.32 ata was WEP, the climb rating was 1.28 ata, iirc.

But here I have used 1.32 (or 1.35) ata as climbing power, unless noted otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>. And this is where the main problem is, imo: the tests hop has presented and the comparative FW190 climbtests we can find are all done with different WEP-usages: the Spit results are with WEP, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit results I have pointed above are without WEP, they are "normal" rating, which could be maintained for 30 - 60 minutes.

On the Spit tests I linked to, look for the explanation above the climb charts which will either read "normal" or "combat". Combat = WEP.

The ROC of the Spit Vb at normal rating (ie not WEP) was up to 3250 ft/min, which is 16.5 m/s. That could be held up to over 4,000m. The rate for the Spit IX at normal rating was 3200 ft/min, slightly less. The rate for a Spit Vc or Spit Vb with tropical gear was around 2700 ft/min, 13.7 m/s.

[uote]Some figures I have concerning the A3 are:

- Climrate from 0 - 2000 meters: 16.6 meters/sec
- "..."........ 2000 - 4000 meters: 12.8 "......./"
- "..."........ 4000 - 6000 meters: 12.8 "......../"[/quote]

Can I ask the source for those? Againthey prove myu contention, with a Spit Vb doing 16.5 m/s without WEP up to 4000m+, and doing 16.5 - 12.4 m/s at 4 - 6000m.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(A3 having a : 1700 PS, n=2700 rpm at zero alt, C3/97 Oktan BMW 801 D2 engine. Total take-off weight: 3850 kg.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are for an A3 using 1.32 ata then? That was WEP on the A3, which were all derated in service.

faustnik
08-15-2004, 04:37 PM
Hop,

Everything you have posted makes a lot of sense to me. The point we should not ignore however is the current climb comparison between the Spit Vb and the Fw190A4.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/A4vsSpitV.jpg


Here is a simplistic (sorry http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ) historic vs. AEP climb comparison for the Spit Vb.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitVclimb.jpg

So, even if you ignore the Farnborough comparison test, the situation if FB is far from realistic. If climb rates for the Spit Vb +9 boost (which is what we have in the sim so, please stick to that version) were brought down to historic levels, we would have a much better representation of this historic matchup. The climb rate of the Spit Vb is too high and needs to be adjusted.

Saying that however, I have to qualify it by noting that climb rates for the 109 series must be looked at also, and brought down to historic levels.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

hop2002
08-15-2004, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If climb rates for the Spit Vb +9 boost (which is what we have in the sim so, please stick to that version) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have something very weird calling itself the Spit V in FB.

It's speed at low altitude is low for a 9 lbs boost Spit V. That would suggest it has 9 lbs.

It's climb rate is clearly modelled on 16 lbs.

It has WEP, which the 9 lbs version should not. It's labelled 1941 (and 1943), but Oleg said he made a mistake, and it was really the 1942 version, so that would imply 16 lbs as well.

The boost gauge with WEP on shows 16 lbs.

I think it's meant to be running at 16 lbs, but it's far too slow at low level (about 40 - 50 km/h at sea level, and far too fast at high alt

You've got the "historical" line too high at high alt. It should start declining at 5,000m, and be at just under 10 m/s by 7000m.

There's no question the Spit V has far too high a climb rate at high altitude in game.

Airborn_
08-15-2004, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

If imagination is allowed in thinking, as I think it is in fact essential then what can be thought about concerning the British tests conducted with that captured FW?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Josf,

Excellent reading material there once again, thanks. As to your quote above: Good point and I think we might arrive at a point at which we come to the conclusion that at some point the British decided to test that A3 in the climb with the 1.42 ATA because they wanted to see what this machine had in store while climbing and speeding with this amount of boost on. They were certainly not dense in any way, they always made sure throughout the war they got to see the bigger picture and, if possible, in detail and they wanted to determine exactly what of a challenge this A3 could pose to their pilots. I know I would have tested it with the boost on, beit the official boost or an in-the-field boost which in a case of urgency could be tapped into. One might consider the WEP, the boost at 3000 rpm which was used for the Spit IX in Hop's test also an "urgency" boost. Yes, it could hold this higher power setting pretty well and possible rather long, but it was still not available *officially* for more then 5 minutes max. beit in 5 consecutive minutes or a sum of 5 min. achieved in several cycles. This was at least, as I understand it, the official doctrine of the RAF which was only "loosened" for the specific purpose of conducting this test.

The Faber test could even very well be the *only* climbtest of an A3 with WEP usage which can be found anywhere. I wouldn't be surprised at all if so. So using this test might be the only way in which we could make a valid comparison between the two airplanes of the time and the only way to actually compare apples with apples, instead of apples with oranges, as in a way of speaking.

@ hop2002:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

Can I ask the source for those?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You certainly can, hop. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Here they are:

They are from the book (in German):

"Focke-Wulf Fw190A, Die ersten Baureihen." (about the first series of the Fw190 A's)

Dietmar Hermann, Ulrich Leverenz, Eberhard Weber.
Aviatic Verlag, 2001.
ISBN 3-925505-72-5

and can be found on page 202.

Dietmar Hermann is one of the better known experts on the Fw's/Dora's/Ta's in Germany.

I am afraid though that I cannot tell you if this A3, described in this "Kennblatt" (Summary of Characteristics?) on page 202 flew with the 1.31 or 1.42 Ata setting, since it doesn't mention any Ata values. There is a difference mentioned however (again.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif how I wish they would stop doing that lol) between the "Steig und Kampfleistung" (translates to Climb and Combat power), which was used during the climb, and the "Start und Notleistung" (Takeoff and Emergency power) which was used during (don't tell me you guessed it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) the speedtests.

So they were capable of maintaining two different powersettings at least, it seems. But please don't ask me for which Ata's these settings stand for. Maybe someone else could enlighten us here? Let's hope so. &gt;If&lt; 1.31 was the normal max setting, then this could relate to the mentioned climb and combat power and the 1.42 could then relate to the Emergency powersetting. That would be my best guesstimation, however. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EDIT

Ah, my guesstimation seems to have been correct: "In this configuration (A3), the D-2 reached a Takeoff-powersetting of 1770 PS at 2700 Rpm and 1.42 ata at sealevel." (0 meter altitude) is what it says on page 201. So, in this volume at least, it says the highest powersetting of the A3, or WEP, would refer to an ata of 1.42. Right after this, some topspeeds are mentioned at the 1.42 Ata setting which are exactly the same speeds, reached in the A3 at the (in)famous Takeoff and Emergency power on the "Kennblatt". And those are the values for topspeeds I listed above. So that matches up.



[This message was edited by Airborn_ on Sun August 15 2004 at 04:35 PM.]

[This message was edited by Airborn_ on Sun August 15 2004 at 04:55 PM.]

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 05:24 PM
Hop,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In 1941, the 190 was restricted to 1.32 ata, the Spit V (at least initially) to 9 lbs. At these ratings, the Spit should have a slightly greater climb advantage over the 190 than it enjoys at normal power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above is being supported by what evidence exactly. I am at a loss.

Are you basing that claim on the FW190A-5 chart?

And this evidence is better and less subject to uncontrolable variables then flying one plane against the other in comparative tests?

I do want to nail down just exactly how you arrive at your conclusion so as to find just exactly where you are inspired to be so confident in your judgement.

So far I fail to see anything specific.

Which chart on the Fourth fighter group page do you use for the above stated claim?

Again, are you basing your claim on the FW190A-5 climb data?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The 190 should certainly have a zoom climb and dive advantage over the Spit V. To a much lesser extent over the LF IX as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above would only be true if the FW has a T/W advantage and or an advantage in total drag.

The indentification of true values for thrust and drag, like the true values for T/W are not known. Do you know them?

So, how is that claim supported?

How do you arrive at such a confident understanding of relative zoom and dive performance between the 190, the Spitfire VB and even the Spitfire IX.?

Do you have factory test to inspire such confidence in your judgement for zoom climb?

Do you have mathematical calculations?

Powered Zoom climbs are often missunderstood.

Fighter Combat
by Robert Shaw:

Page 395
"The amount of energy gained or lost in the zoom depends on the average value of Ps during this period. To illustrate this concept, assume two fighters are identical in all respects, except one is heavier (maybe it is carrying more internal fuel). If they begin zooms at the same speed and altitude (i.e., same Es), Equation 4 shows that the lighter fighter will have greater Ps, will therefore add more energy during the zoom, and will ultimately zoom higher than the heavy fighter. Ps as well as energy state must, therefore, be taken into account when calculating the zoom capability, or "true energy height," of a fighter."

I am pretty sure that the above quote is saying that the higher T/W fighter will zoom better.

I think that means that you are saying that the FW190 has a higher T/W than the Spitfires.

Of course, as usual, I could be wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In a quick test I did offline, it did. All planes pulled up from the same speed at sea level (iirc 500 km/h) and held in a vertical climb until speed dropped to 300 km/h. The 190A6 reached 980m, the Spit V 760, the Spit IX 940, the Dora 1030, the A6M5 720. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to see those track files. What does iirc mean?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Spit Vb (which is what we have in game) should outclimb any of the early A series (up to the A8) at normal power for both of them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have 4 different Spit VB models. What exactly do you use as evidence to back up that claim? Which, in game, spitfire, which factory tests, etc.?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's worth noting that the comparison against Faber's aircraft had to abandoned because it wasn't running properly, which has to be at least partly down to the fact the British were overboosting it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The so called 'overboosting' was done according to the documents for speed tests limited to 3 minutes duration.

The assumtion, I guess, remains that the British were able to get more out of the BMW engine than what the Germans managed, and somehow after testing this plane in an overboosted condition against 5 or so planes it finally blew up in the end.

Alfred Prices book reports:

"Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly...
[Later it was discovered that the roughness was due to fouling of the Bosch sparking plugs after a short period of running. The fault was cured by fitting Siemens tyupe plugs taken from the BMW801A engine of a crashed Do 217 bomber.]"

The fault was cured after it was running rough throughout the trials; according to that source.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We know what the climb rate of a Spit IX was at normal power <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We do not know that, you are confident of this as a fact. I read "maximum continuous" power. Is it you who states that a Spitfire can run wep without damage and is it then possible that during the Farber tests "maximum continuous" power means that the Spitfire IX was running on wep during the climb tests?

Debating in this manner is very difficult.

I am reminded of a saying my Dad used to say:
"All over the Map"

I'd rather nail things down to something specific.

I hear the dinner bell.

Later.

No time to spell check

OldMan____
08-15-2004, 05:45 PM
You guys spend too much time trying to diminsh enemy plane.. and too few learning how to defeat them.


Both 109 and Spitfire are not uber in current FB.

of course both have its inperfections (109 turns a little bit too much) while spitfire has doubtful speed at some altidudes.

But overal they are NORMAL.. and beatable! (does this word exists? )


Of course fighting a spit in turn and burn is almost impossible.. but if you are doing it.. you are dumb at least!!

If that 109 is turning inside you for a snap shot.. your failture on forgeting it needs to loose all its speed in order to do it so.

I would say that if you play alone.. lone wolf.. then Spit if by far the best plane (followed by p51).. but if you play by team. It is nothing more than a good plane.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

hop2002
08-15-2004, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Excellent reading material there once again, thanks. As to your quote above: Good point and I think we might arrive at a point at which we come to the conclusion that at some point the British decided to test that A3 in the climb with the 1.42 ATA because they wanted to see what this machine had in store while climbing and speeding with this amount of boost on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think Faber's 190 was tested at 1.42 ata in climbs.

At least, not for the report I've seen.

According to the report, all speed runs were done at 3 minute rating, which the report notes was 12 lbs 3000 rpm for the Spit V, 1.42 ata 2700 rpm for the A3.

All climbs were done at what the report calls "maximum continuous climbing power", which the report says "in the case of the Fw 190 the 30 minute rating was taken to be 1.35 ata 2450 rpm"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They are from the book (in German):

"Focke-Wulf Fw190A, Die ersten Baureihen." (about the first series of the Fw190 A's)

Dietmar Hermann, Ulrich Leverenz, Eberhard Weber.
Aviatic Verlag, 2001.
ISBN 3-925505-72-5

and can be found on page 202.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. I can't read German, but it's nice to know the source is something very reputable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am afraid though that I cannot tell you if this A3, described in this "Kennblatt" (Summary of Characteristics?) on page 202 flew with the 1.31 or 1.42 Ata setting, since it doesn't mention any Ata values. There is a difference mentioned however (again.. Confused how I wish they would stop doing that lol) between the "Steig und Kampfleistung" (translates to Climb and Combat power), which was used during the climb, and the "Start und Notleistung" (Takeoff and Emergency power) which was used during (don't tell me you guessed it Big Grin ) the speedtests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am afraid though that I cannot tell you if this A3, described in this "Kennblatt" (Summary of Characteristics?) on page 202 flew with the 1.31 or 1.42 Ata setting, since it doesn't mention any Ata values. There is a difference mentioned however (again.. Confused how I wish they would stop doing that lol) between the "Steig und Kampfleistung" (translates to Climb and Combat power), which was used during the climb, and the "Start und Notleistung" (Takeoff and Emergency power) which was used during (don't tell me you guessed it Big Grin ) the speedtests.

So they were capable of maintaining two different powersettings at least, it seems. But please don't ask me for which Ata's these settings stand for. Maybe someone else could enlighten us here? Let's hope so. &gt;If&lt; 1.31 was the normal max setting, then this could relate to the mentioned climb and combat power and the 1.42 could then relate to the Emergency powersetting. That would be my best guesstimation, however.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WEP on the A3 was supposed to be 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm, climb and combat 1.32 ata, 2450 rpm. You said the book says 2700 rpm, which would be WEP, and quotes 1700 ps, which would be close to the (rammed) power for the BMW 801D at sea level at 1.42 ata. (The chart I have shows 1730 ps at sea level at 1.42 ata). There were some changes to the supercharger on the BMW 801 though, which could account for the differences.

So looks like they are not using the derated figures, but the original intended rating of 1.42 ata 2700 rpm as wep, 1.32 ata 2450 rpm as climb and combat.

Those climb figures fit the A5 chart I posted earlier pretty well, which again suggests 1.32 ata for the climb and combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In 1941, the 190 was restricted to 1.32 ata, the Spit V (at least initially) to 9 lbs. At these ratings, the Spit should have a slightly greater climb advantage over the 190 than it enjoys at normal power.



The above is being supported by what evidence exactly. I am at a loss.

Are you basing that claim on the FW190A-5 chart?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, nothing to do with the A5 chart. The A5 would not have been derated in service. In fact, the A5 may have been able to use an even higher rating, 1.58/1.65 ata. (I'm not sure whether that was authorised on the A5, or only on the A6)

The derating of the A3 is based on several things. Firstly, the opinion of several people who know far more about these aircraft than I do, like Butch, Phillipe Willaume (who has unearthed much of the 190 stuff that now circulates the web), HoHun etc.

None of them are in any doubt that the A3 was derated. In fact, if you do a search on the word on these boards, you will see several quotes from Butch about it.

Here's one:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The A4 as modeled in game is the derated version, it is normal to get only 1.35ata@2450rpm. The BMW 801 as mounted until mid 1942 did not have chromed exhaust pipe and suffered from excessive overheating especialy in the short nosed A3-A4.
When the A5 was introduced with a slighter better airflow and modified 801D-2, the ban on 1.42ata@2700rpm was lifted.
Yet on the A4 the 1.35ata@2450rpm was only authorized for 3 minutes maximum, same goes for the 1.42ata@2700rpm on the A5 and up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=88310543&r=93410543#93410543

Secondly, you could read the Faber test report. IIRC it says something like "there are indications this aircraft was derated". They promise to look into it futher.

The British later got the correct rating, and provided figures for the 190 ata 1.35 ata wep, 1.28 ata climb and combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> he 190 should certainly have a zoom climb and dive advantage over the Spit V. To a much lesser extent over the LF IX as well.



The above would only be true if the FW has a T/W advantage and or an advantage in total drag.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be true if the Fw 190 had a drag/weight ratio advantage over the Spitfire, which it certainly did.

Total drag on the 190 and Spit should be fairly close, the speeds/powers indicate that.

In a zoom or dive, you are relying on momentum, which is restricted by drag, therefore the heavier plane with the same drag will have better dive/zoom. You are also not generating as much lift, or any lift, in a dive, and therefore the induced drag component of total drag is reduced/removed, which is going to advantage the 190 more than the Spit, because the 190 will have more induced drag (of course, if total drag is the same, and the 190 has more induced drag, then the 190 has to have less parasitic drag)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The indentification of true values for thrust and drag, like the true values for T/W are not known. Do you know them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thrust no. Power yes. Thrust is just power multiplied by prop efficiency, and at similar speeds the props should have fairly similar efficencies.

Drag is more difficult, but I do have an RAE evaluation, which estimates total profile drag (ie excluding induced drag) at 100 ft/sec as 65 lbs for the 190, 63 lbs for the Spit V, 66 for the Spit IX. I don't know what radiator/cowl flap settings these are for, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How do you arrive at such a confident understanding of relative zoom and dive performance between the 190, the Spitfire VB and even the Spitfire IX.?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because all the data I have seen suggests it, and the testing accounts support it. I couldn't even begin to quantify it though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Do you have factory test to inspire such confidence in your judgement for zoom climb?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but we do have the AFDU test of the Spit XIV. They found the Spit XIV was slightly better than the Spit IX, the Fw 190 gained a slight initial advantage over the Spit XIV, after which the Spit XIV closed the gap.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Do you have mathematical calculations?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I've never seen the dive and zoom capabilities of any aircraft calculated mathematically.

The only results I've seen quantified are the TAIC tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The amount of energy gained or lost in the zoom depends on the average value of Ps during this period. To illustrate this concept, assume two fighters are identical in all respects, except one is heavier (maybe it is carrying more internal fuel). If they begin zooms at the same speed and altitude (i.e., same Es), Equation 4 shows that the lighter fighter will have greater Ps, will therefore add more energy during the zoom, and will ultimately zoom higher than the heavy fighter. Ps as well as energy state must, therefore, be taken into account when calculating the zoom capability, or "true energy height," of a fighter."

I am pretty sure that the above quote is saying that the higher T/W fighter will zoom better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's talking about jets. A modern (ie from the 50s onwards) jet will have thrust approaching it's weight. That means thrust is the major component of height gained.

A WW2 prop fighter will have thrust equalling about 10 - 20% of it's weight. That means it's momentum is the major componnt of height gained.

Note that if you don't accept this, and apply Shaw's quote to WW2 fighters as well, you are ineffect saying the Spit IX and Spit XIV will far outzoom the 190. Indeed, the Spit IX, Spit XIV and 109K4 would be the best zooming prop planes of the war (possible exceptions like the Bearcat).

If you are suggesting the 190 had a higher thrust to weight ratio than the Spit IX then I don't think many will agree with you. The Spit IX had almost as much power, far lighter weight than the 190s. At higher altitudes, it actually had more power than the 190.

It would require British propellers to be hopelessly inept for the 190 to have a higher thrust/weight ratio than the Spit IX.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think that means that you are saying that the FW190 has a higher T/W than the Spitfires.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's the weight/thrust ratios I worked out earlier. They're not 100% accurate, but they are a good idea of what I'm claiming were the relative thrust/weight ratios. Because it's lbs/hp, the lower the number, the better the thrust/weight ratio.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Plane SeaLevel 20,000ft
190 A3 5.7 7.2
FaberA3 4.8 6.1
190 A5 4.9 6.3

Spit V
9 lbs 6.5 5.8
12 lbs 5.5 5.8
16 lbs 4.7 5.8

F IX 5.5 5.9
LF IX 4.5 5.0
</pre>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'd like to see those track files. What does iirc mean?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I recall correctly.

I didn't record tracks, I did some quick tests to see if there was a difference in zooms in FB. As I said, it's not something I have that strong an opinion about, I haven't flown online much, and the game performance is secondary to the historical data for me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We have 4 different Spit VB models. What exactly do you use as evidence to back up that claim? Which, in game, spitfire, which factory tests, etc.?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All apart from the LF V are identical in performance, as far as I know.

No factory tests, but the A&AEE tests I linked to in my post.

Climb tests for the Spit Vb at 9 lbs showed approx 3200 ft/min.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The so called 'overboosting' was done according to the documents for speed tests limited to 3 minutes duration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. they also used 1.35 ata as a 30 minute rating, for climbs, when the Germans restricted that to 3 mins.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The assumtion, I guess, remains that the British were able to get more out of the BMW engine than what the Germans managed, and somehow after testing this plane in an overboosted condition against 5 or so planes it finally blew up in the end. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not than the Germans managed, the British ran it at a rating the Germans knew would cause engine failure sooner or later.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fault was cured after it was running rough throughout the trials; according to that source.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly, but the British also adopted the true German ratings later on, which would also have helped.

I can't help but feel that the fouled plugs were something to do with the British running at a banned rating, and using the 3 minute rating for 30 minutes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We do not know that, you are confident of this as a fact. I read "maximum continuous" power. Is it you who states that a Spitfire can run wep without damage and is it then possible that during the Farber tests "maximum continuous" power means that the Spitfire IX was running on wep during the climb tests?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, nothing like. The test report says "all climbs were carried out at maximum continuous climbing conditions, 30 minute rating)

There's no concievable way to get 30 minute rating to mean wep.

Airborn_
08-15-2004, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

I don't think Faber's 190 was tested at 1.42 ata in climbs.

At least, not for the report I've seen.

According to the report, all speed runs were done at 3 minute rating, which the report notes was 12 lbs 3000 rpm for the Spit V, 1.42 ata 2700 rpm for the A3.

All climbs were done at what the report calls "maximum continuous climbing power", which the report says "in the case of the Fw 190 the 30 minute rating was taken to be 1.35 ata 2450 rpm"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hop,

Thanks for clearing that up. In that case I think it might be difficult to compare the Spitfire IX climbtest of which the results you posted with the one done in the A3 in Faber's test since the latter was according to standard practice not done with the use of 1.42 ata, or WEP, during climb. Unless we would want to know how an early Spitfire IX from late '42 would stack up against an 'early' (more or less) A3 dating from the summer of '42 (or earlier) of course. But in my opinion the more realistic opponent of this Spitfire IX would then have to be the 190-A4 as Hunde_3.JG51 already pointed out earlier in this thread.

In any case, I didn't find the facts you posted obfuscating in any way but they certainly were very educative from my point of view, thanks. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-15-2004, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
the book says 2700 rpm, which would be WEP, and quotes 1700 ps, which would be close to the (rammed) power for the BMW 801D at sea level at 1.42 ata. (The chart I have shows 1730 ps at sea level at 1.42 ata). There were some changes to the supercharger on the BMW 801 though, which could account for the differences.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


a loss of 30 Hp on a 1700 Hp motor is miniscule

that kind of defecit could eaisly be placed on a cylinder running rough or a set of de-tensioned rings or foul plugs , or even a poor assembly of the motor

when you get around 10% less power (that would be 170 Hp) on a motor that highly boosted , then that would be a sign of something wrong

multi-cylinder motors require carefull assembly to be at their max power & stay running smooth

even something simple like a more carefully carried out valve lap can boost cylinder filling/leakage & Hp on such a high Hp motor

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 10:26 PM
Hop,

If Airborn is right and I am wrong, if you are stating facts, instead of what I see as avoiding questions concerning what you use to back up your opinion, then it occurs to me to stick to one simple question at a time.

What is the the difference in climb rate of a Spitfire VB and an FW190 during the Summer of 1942?

Please back up your answer with documented information.

I claim that the best representative historical documentation shows that the difference was 450ft/min in favor of the FW190A-3

My source of information is the Farber combat test trial documents.

Here is a link that shows the 450ft/min climb advantage held by the FW190A-3

450ft/min (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg)

Here is a picture of the document:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg

If you insist upon questioning the credibility of the tests that show the superior climb rate of the FW190 then it seems reasonable to expose your sources to the same scrutiny.

faustnik
08-15-2004, 10:32 PM
Josf,

Does it list the boost pressure used for the Spit Vb in that test?


I notice that the Fw190 pulls away "very rapidly" in a zoom climb, which implies a significant advantage.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 10:40 PM
Hop,

Your ego is amazing.

You know more than the Air Chief Marshal, the British fighter pilots, Eric Brown, Alfred Price, and now you even expose the error of Robert Shaw's math calculations.

I am not good in math but I think most of it works like clock work. One plus one equals 2 every time I do it.

I use my fingers and it works.

I use my toes and it works.

I've never been good in math.

Maybe some day Robert Shaw will right a zoom calculation for prop fighters.

I sure hope so.

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 10:43 PM
Faustnik,

Look here:

2450 r.p.m @ 1.35 ata (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_3.jpg)

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_3.jpg

faustnik
08-15-2004, 11:14 PM
OK, so it is the early '42 Spit Vb at +12 boost. So, the later +16 boost version would be much closer in climb rate.

The confusion over which version we have in FB sure is a problem. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Nanuk66
08-16-2004, 05:21 AM
The bottom line from a GAMING perspective is if you wanna go online and shoot down alot of planes with very little effort and be 1337 :

Fly the IX Spitfire.

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------

hop2002
08-16-2004, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>OK, so it is the early '42 Spit Vb at +12 boost. So, the later +16 boost version would be much closer in climb rate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the climbs in the Faber test were done at climb ratings, not WEP.

WEP was not used for any plane.

You can read it in the report page Josf posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and all sustained climbs were carried out at maximum continuous climbing conditions (30 minute rating) In the case of the Fw 190, the 30 minute rating was taken to be 2450 rpm @ 1.35ata<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It then goes on to give the ratings used during the speed runs.

Adding increased WEP to the Spit V won't make a difference, because it didn't use wep during the climb.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What is the the difference in climb rate of a Spitfire VB and an FW190 during the Summer of 1942?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At normal rating, for a Spitfire Vb as modelled in game (ie not a tropical version, or with 4 20mm cannon), the climb rate should be:

0ft 3240ft/min
15,000ft 3250 ft/min
20,000ft 2440 ft/min
30,000ft 1170 ft/min
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

These figures were achieved at 2850 rpm, 9 lbs boost, which is the 30 minute rating in the Spit V.

The climb chart has alreay been posted for the 190 A5, and Airborn has quoted the figures from Focke-Wulf Fw190A, Die ersten Baureihen.

Dieter Harman isn't just Germany's best expert on the Fw 190, he is the best expert published on the 190.

- Climrate from 0 - 2000 meters: 16.6 meters/sec
- "..."........ 2000 - 4000 meters: 12.8 "......./"
- "..."........ 4000 - 6000 meters: 12.8 "......../"

It's from the Kenblatt as well, which are the "official" performance figures for a German fighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your ego is amazing.

You know more than the Air Chief Marshal, the British fighter pilots, Eric Brown, Alfred Price, and now you even expose the error of Robert Shaw's math calculations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh, here we go again.

There are no errors in Robert Shaw's maths. He just isn't saying what you think he is.

Are you really claiming that the fighter with the higher power to weight ratio will zoom climb better?

Note that the P-51D and Spitfire LF IX had hte same engine, and the Spitfire was around 2000 lbs lighter. So you are claiming the Spit IX had a much better zoom climb than the P-51D?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thanks for clearing that up. In that case I think it might be difficult to compare the Spitfire IX climbtest of which the results you posted with the one done in the A3 in Faber's test since the latter was according to standard practice not done with the use of 1.42 ata, or WEP, during climb<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It should be possible because we have normal power (ie not wep) climb ratings for the early Spits as well.

Without WEP, at normal climbing rating, the Spit F IX climbed at

0ft 3200 ft/min
13,500ft 3200ft/min
20,000ft 2540 ft/min
25,900ft 2540 ft/min
30,000ft 1950 ft/min

Like the 190 figures, these are without WEP.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>a loss of 30 Hp on a 1700 Hp motor is miniscule

that kind of defecit could eaisly be placed on a cylinder running rough or a set of de-tensioned rings or foul plugs , or even a poor assembly of the motor<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not suggesting 30 hp is a major difference. Both figures come from official engine ratin cards, I should think, and should therefore be the same, unless there was a minor design change in the engine. There was such a design change, the supercharger was modified some time druing the life of the 190A$ iirc, and therefore the two charts are probably before and after that.

JG14_Josf
08-16-2004, 06:49 AM
Hop,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sigh, here we go again.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I wrong about your ego or just your opinion?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Are you really claiming that the fighter with the higher power to weight ratio will zoom climb better?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will repeat the statement made by Shaw that you claim applies only to Jet fighters.

I am not good in math so this one is out of my league. My opinion remains that Robert Shaw's math applies to any powered object.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The amount of energy gained or lost in the zoom depends on the average value of Ps during this period. To illustrate this concept, assume two fighters are identical in all respects, except one is heavier (maybe it is carrying more internal fuel). If they begin zooms at the same speed and altitude (i.e., same Es), Equation 4 shows that the lighter fighter will have greater Ps, will therefore add more energy during the zoom, and will ultimately zoom higher than the heavy fighter. Ps as well as energy state must, therefore, be taken into account when calculating the zoom capability, or "true energy height," of a fighter." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll bet on that one. If you are right I will start everyone of my posts on this board addressed to you with "Hop, my superior intelect," http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If the above quote does not apply to any powered object I am wrong.

If it doesn't only apply to Jets then you are wrong.

Do we have a bet?


Moving on to the climb performance claims:

My claim is simple:

The FW190A-3 has a 450 ft/min advantage over the Spitfire VB in the summer of 1942.

My source is simple:

49. Climb - The climb of the FW.190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The test speeds for climbing are approximatley the same. But the angle of the FW.190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW.190 is about 450 ft/min. better up to 25,000 feet. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg)

Your claim is what?

The Spitfire modeled in the game climbs...OH god...more math!

Before moving onto the math I am inclined to look back at my request to see if I remember it correctly.

I thought the request was to nail things down to a specific question concerning the fighter planes in the summer of 1942.

That is what I asked and that is what you quoted.

We are on the same page, I think.

You did not mention that your climb information concerns a Spitfire used in the summer of 1942.

OK I checked the link and the date on your documented evidence for the difference in climb rate of a Spitfire VB and an FW190 during the Summer of 1942 is 18th June, 1941.

So here is the first variable.

This variable does not exist in my example of the best document supporting true relative climb performance between a Spitfire VB and an FW190 during the Summer of 1942.

My document uses a Spitfire VB that the British were flying in combat at very near the time of the test.
My document uses an FW190A-3 that the German pilot flying the plane just shot down a Spitfire before handing over his FW to the British.

Your document for the Spitfires performance that is supposed to represent the summer of 1942 is dated 1941

Is that the best you can do?

Am I again wrong in thinking that you are obfuscating the question?

You quoted my exact question.

I am trying to get to the facts, you know; apples to apples.

We can move on to the game if you want but first please let's start with your best example of what is the difference in climb rate of a Spitire VB and an FW190 during the Summer of 1942.

Mine remains at 450 ft/min in favor of the FW.

At about the same speed.

At a steeper angle.

At all heights.

Two planes flying side by side in real time comparative testing. Using real fighter pilots.

Side by side.

Same place

Same time

Apples and apples.

Minimized variables.

No 1941 plane.

A real 1942 plane.

Tested in the summer of 1942.

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Mon August 16 2004 at 06:04 AM.]

Nubarus
08-16-2004, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Why would you compare the Spit Vb to late war LW planes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
And one other thing: if early Spits can catch up with late Bf109 and Fw190 models."

I didn't, Atomic Marten did, my post was a reply to him.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

faustnik
08-16-2004, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Why would you compare the Spit Vb to late war LW planes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
And one other thing: if early Spits can catch up with late Bf109 and Fw190 models."

I didn't, Atomic Marten did, my post was a <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Nubarus, I missed that. I agree with you that there is no way an early Spit Vb can come close to any late war LW fighter in speed.

***********

Hop,

I did not see the "(3 minute rating)" above those boost figures. Was the 100& throttle (no WEP) boost of the Merlin 45 always +9? Was it just the WEP boost pressure that was increased over time?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Lord-Raptor
08-16-2004, 12:19 PM
I cant believe this topic has taken almost 12 pages http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

hop2002
08-16-2004, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Am I wrong about your ego or just your opinion?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to regard anyone with a different opinion as a liar who is trying to distort THE TRUTH.

In matters like this, you only arive at the truth by anylising all available evidence.

Your other thread, and your attitude to anyone posting contrary data in it, reads like you are concerned only with evidence that backs your already formed conclusions.

As the old line has it, "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I will repeat the statement made by Shaw that you claim applies only to Jet fighters.

I am not good in math so this one is out of my league. My opinion remains that Robert Shaw's math applies to any powered object.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does, to some extent. But Shaw's maths applies not just to zooms, but to a complete climb until stall.

Read again what he says:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Equation 4 shows that the lighter fighter will have greater PS, will therefore add more energy during the zoom, and will ultimately zoom higher than the heavy fighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The lighter fighter will add more PS during the zoom.

What if the zoom is very short?

For a WW2 fighter, it can maintain a zoom climb only until the normal climb rate has been reached. After that, you are no longer in a zoom, you are in sustained climb.

The amount of time in the zoom depends on the power added during the zoom, and on the power taken in to the zoom.

The heavier fighter takes more power into the zoom. It also has more weight, which cancels that out.

In effect, the extra power taken into the zoom is used simply to lift the heavier weight. If that was the only effect, the heavier fighter and the lighter would both zoom to the same height.

But as well as thrust, which gives an advantage to the higher thrust weight ratio aircraft, we have drag.

The higher weight/drag ratio fighter has an advantage, because it loses less of it's momentum to drag.

Imagine two shuttlecocks (the thing used in badmington) (Ping pong balls would probably do as well). They have high drag, low weight.

Throw them and they quickly lose speed.

Put a lead weight in one, and you can thow it futher. The heavier one has more momentum, the same drag.

Throw them both up, and they will use the same proportion of their momentum to overcome their weight. But the lighter one will need more of it's momentum to overcome drag, simply because it has the same drag and less momentum.

That means the lighter one runs out of energy before the heavier one, which goes higher.

If you fit engines to each, they get thrust, but they can only continue to climb as long as the energy they retain, and the thrust they recieve, are greater than the gravity pulling them down.

If the engines are powerfull, they will lose momentum slowly, and they might continue to climb for 10 secs. The energy put in by the engine will be considerable. It may well be greater than the momentum advantage the heavier shuttlecock has.

If the engines are not powerfull, the energy they recieve might only enable them to keep climbing for 3 secs. The energy they gain will be smaller than the advantage the heavier one recieves from it's greater momentum.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the above quote does not apply to any powered object I am wrong.

If it doesn't only apply to Jets then you are wrong.

Do we have a bet?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It applies to all objects, it just doesn't say what you think it does.

You seem to be arguing that the aircraft with the higher thrust to weight ratio will always outzoom an aircraft with a lower thrust to weight ratio. If that is what you are claiming, I will certainly accept a bet on that being wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My claim is simple:

The FW190A-3 has a 450 ft/min advantage over the Spitfire VB in the summer of 1942.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I've understood that's what you were claiming all along.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your claim is what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That the Spitfire Vb in the summer of 1942 climbed at least as well as, and in most cases better, than the Fw 190.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You did not mention that your climb information concerns a Spitfire used in the summer of 1942.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought I had, but I'll make it clear.

The Spitfire Vb had 4 possible ratings in the summer of 1942. Normal climbing rating was 9lbs 2850 rpm. 9 lbs 3000 rpm was wep, and was used sometime prior to summer 1942. 12 lbs 3000 rpm was wep, and was used in the summer of 1942. 16 lbs 3000 rpm was wep, and was used late summer 1942 onwards.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>OK I checked the link and the date on your documented evidence for the difference in climb rate of a Spitfire VB and an FW190 during the Summer of 1942 is 18th June, 1941.

So here is the first variable.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Date is hardly a variable if the aircraft condition remains the same.

Here is another Spitfire, this time a Spit Vc, tested in March 1942. Climb rate was 2900 ft/min, but with 4 20mm cannon. Tests on Spitfire Vs showed the 4 cannon armament reduced climb rate by 290 ft/min.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My document uses a Spitfire VB that the British were flying in combat at very near the time of the test.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At what condition? Do we know? Do we know the boost?

The reason I ask about the boost is because the Faber report says test were undertaken at "maximum continuous climbing power". They clearly mean climbing power, because they say "30 minute rating".

However, the Spit V manual shows climbing power and continuous power as 2 different things.

Climbing power, with a 30 minute rating, is shown as 9 lbs 2850 rpm. Maximum continuous power is shown as 2650 rpm 7 lbs.

Can you say for sure that the Spit V pilot didn't take "maximum continuous climbing power" to mean "maximum continuous power" rather than "maximum climbing power"?

Without knowing for sure, we can't say. There's a variable, and an enormous one, we can't say for sure what the condition of the Spit V was, or even at what power it was run.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your document for the Spitfires performance that is supposed to represent the summer of 1942 is dated 1941

Is that the best you can do?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You claim a test is invalid because it is a year old?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Am I again wrong in thinking that you are obfuscating the question?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm trying to make the facts clear.

Josf, you have one test, that doesn't match other tess, and it seems to me you are obfuscating by questioning everything, and I mean everything, even going so far as to claim weight plays no part in zoom climbs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am trying to get to the facts, you know; apples to apples.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So am I. You are comparing 1 single apple to 1 single apple, and claiming that holds true for all apples of that species.

I am trying to look at more apples to get a wider picture.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We can move on to the game if you want but first please let's start with your best example of what is the difference in climb rate of a Spitire VB and an FW190 during the Summer of 1942.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mine has been repeatedly stated.

Climb rate for a Spit V around 3200 ft/min up to around 14,000ft. Similar to the 190 at low altitude, better than the 190 as altitude increases.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Apples and apples.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apple to apple. It's important to note that it's singular, 1 single plane against 1 single plane, to represent all planes of that type. That's what you want us to accept.

It's important to bear in mind that in the summer of 1942 the 190 should have been restricted to 1.28 ata climb and combat, 1.32 ata WEP.

In the Faber test, the 190 was climbed at 1.35 ata, the Spitfires on climbing power. That means the 190 was on WEP for the summer of 42, the Spit on climbing power.

Here's what a Spit could do in the summer of 42:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

3,700 ft/min, and that's equipped with 4 20 mm cannon. Almost 4,000 ft/min with the same aramament as the Spit V we have in game.

Under the same conditions in the summer of 42, the Spit V should outclimb the 190 comfortably.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Was the 100& throttle (no WEP) boost of the Merlin 45 always +9? Was it just the WEP boost pressure that was increased over time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. 3000 rpm was always a WEP rating (apart from at high altitude, where it was allowed in some cases for up to 30 mins.

The 30 minute rating for the Merlin 45 was always 9 lbs. That was initially the wep rating as well, which climbed to 12 lbs then 16 lbs (and 18 lbs on the cropped engines).

Intruder_GP
08-16-2004, 01:49 PM
Uber or no Uber I will take the spits with my Yak and beat them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Airborn_
08-16-2004, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

It's important to bear in mind that in the summer of 1942 the 190 should have been restricted to 1.28 ata climb and combat, 1.32 ata WEP.

In the Faber test, the 190 was climbed at 1.35 ata, the Spitfires on climbing power. That means the 190 was on WEP for the summer of 42, the Spit on climbing power.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hop,

I think the main problem here is that we do not know what kind of an engine the A3 carried in this test. Was it the original BMW 801 D(1) or the BMW 801 D2? And, what were the WEP restrictions for each of these engines exactly? I only know the official WEP setting for the A3 with a BMW801 D2 was at 1.42 ata, but what about the first 801 D, with which the first A3's were fitted? I do not know. So until we find out the exact engine type and the accompanying official WEP restriction, it would still be impossible to say if the climbing part of the Faber test was entirely valid.

But in any case I think this test shows that the A3 was, certainly in the horizontal plane, more then a match for the Spitfire Vb and that it also held a significant advantage during zoomclimbs. And I do think that both of these advantages combined can explain why the Fw190 had such success in '42 during confrontations with it's most dangerous British adversary, the Spitfire.

Right at this point I don't see how we could draw any more solid/valid conclusions from this test, unless those last unknown facts are being discovered. But that is my personal opinion and both you, Josf and hop, can feel free to disagree.

It was never my intention anyway to say anybody was wrong or right, I just thought it was an interesting exchange of data, from which much could be learned. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Atomic_Marten
08-16-2004, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
"Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
And one other thing: if early Spits can catch up with late Bf109 and Fw190 models."

Sorry Nubarus, I missed that. I agree with you that there is no way an early Spit Vb can come close to any late war LW fighter in speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just point where I mention Spit V.b (Merlin 45). And if u look closely, u'll see that I don't even mention speed in my first topic in question. By "catching up" I was reffering to amazing early Spit abilities overall compared to late LW models.

Fly nice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

Nubarus
08-16-2004, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Just point where I mention Spit V.b (Merlin 45). And if u look closely, u'll see that I don't even mention speed in my first topic in question. By "catching up" I was reffering to amazing early Spit abilities overall compared to late LW models.

Fly nice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are no other early Spits in this sim then the Vb's, unless you think the Spit IX with the Merlin 66 and Merlin 70 engines are early war, then your error lies there.

Overall the early Spits in this sim (Those are the Vb's) cannot compare to the late war FW190's in any way except in low speed turn radius.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

JG14_Josf
08-16-2004, 06:14 PM
Hop,

Language can be precise and it can be manipulated precisely to deceive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You seem to regard anyone with a different opinion as a liar who is trying to distort THE TRUTH.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Name anyone other than you who has written anything that I have made a comment on expressing my disbelief of the meaning contained in those words.

For example your first sentence is a classic case of hyperbole. Absolute terms like 'anyone' exaggerate what contains some truth into non-truth. The intent behind this exaggeration moves the error from mistake to lie when as a matter of fact the words discredit the person being described.

If your claim was true. If in fact I regard anyone with a different oppinion as a liar then you would simply be telling the truth instead of either making a mistake or purposefully lying.
In either case the sentence is not accurate, the message is false, and your intent can only be known by you, therefore I can only form an opinion as to your intent. Mine remains firmly toward the idea that you do lie. Prove me wrong, please.

Now your second sentence.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In matters like this, you only arive at the truth by anylising all available evidence.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'You only arrive at the truth' is your problem not mine. I on the other hand recognize the truth as an existance having nothing to do with my ability to recognize it. If I am certain that I arrive at the truth I consider myself overconfident. So if you make statements using the word "you" then please understand that I may not be including in your definition of "you".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your other thread, and your attitude to anyone posting contrary data in it, reads like you are concerned only with evidence that backs your already formed conclusions.

As the old line has it, "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have made a judgment concering what I think is the most valuable, accurate, and valid evidence that I have seen to date concerning relative combat performance. Specifically how the Farber tests (not one test, the whole dynamic event surrounding the capture of a combat ready FW190A-3) relates to Robert Shaw's, Eric Brown's, and Mike Spick's description of energy tactics.

If my mind is to be adjusted it will require more valid information than what I presented in that post.

In that post, rather than this one which is all over the map, getting into too many varied topics all at once, in my other post I make an effort to keep the discussion on topic.

I make errors, however to come up with the comment "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts" and apply that to me is to me like the pot calling the kettle black.

Your next series of lectures on Shaw's Math I will only comment twice.

First I was not aware that math only works to 'some extent'.

and second I guess you will not take me up on my bet. I know what I bet, it was written in plain english.

The last thing I am going to post in reply is to say please nail down your best sources backing up your claim concerning the Spitfire VB climb advantage over the FW190 in the summer of 1942.

If you are using one best factory test result document, or if you are using 3 factory test documents, and if you are averaging them then make this clear.

There is no point in me picking one of your claims if you will then only move to another claim.

Give it your best shot and I will debate the validity, the accuracy, and the variables associated with your best shot just as you have done with my best shot.

OHHHH wait a minute I can't let this lie go by:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>even going so far as to claim weight plays no part in zoom climbs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am really interested in how you manufactured that one up in your brain.

Here are a few links to my thinking on the effects of weight on performance:

Acceleration experiments (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=924104234)

Ps=[T-D/W]V (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=130109744&r=714109744#714109744)

Sim HQ version of Ps[T-D/W]V (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=005442)

And I repeat, I am not very good at math.

But that last claim, Hop, is simply mind boggling.

Atomic_Marten
08-16-2004, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
There are no other early Spits in this sim then the Vb's, unless you think the Spit IX with the Merlin 66 and Merlin 70 engines are early war, then your error lies there.

Overall the early Spits in this sim (Those are the Vb's) cannot compare to the late war FW190's in any way except in low speed turn radius.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have right to quote me, with an expression of 'early' Spits majority can think of A/C's made 'till '41 and in some cases even '42. That term can be than clearly applyed to V.b series (at least in this game), with exclusion of V.b series fitted with Merlin 50 engine.

'43 year is 'early' compared to '45 models. If I must be precise, than that Spit models, if you really want me to put it that way, can really "catch up" literally with anything flying in the sim.

Gee... almost forgot jets... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nubarus
08-17-2004, 03:28 AM
Like I said before Martin, the Spit IX's in this sim are late 43 early 44, even so late 43 that it actually should be a 44 plane in the list.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-17-2004, 03:54 AM
same with the LA-5FN in FB tho

is a 43 A/C that is doing the speeds that LA-5FN's only achieved in 1944

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hop2002
08-17-2004, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Like I said before Martin, the Spit IX's in this sim are late 43 early 44, even so late 43 that it actually should be a 44 plane in the list.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit IXs in this game are fairly early 1943. Certainly they were in service before the summer of 43. The E armament is somewhat later, in 1944.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Name anyone other than you who has written anything that I have made a comment on expressing my disbelief of the meaning contained in those words.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's so convoluted it took me several goes to decipher it, but I think you're saying I am the only person you are calling a liar.

If that's what you meant, why not come out and say it? Obfuscation?

You posted, I think on this thread, part of the Faber tests. I reponded to someone who mentioned them that they weren't really valid, because none of the aircraft you mentioned are in this game.

You immediately launched into a personal attack.

I think you should work out why you are getting so annoyed by me pointing that out, especially as it's true.

Drop the attitude and the discussion can be much better for everyone.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have made a judgment concering what I think is the most valuable, accurate, and valid evidence that I have seen to date concerning relative combat performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In other words you have dismissed all the other evidence, and don't want to see it, or any new evidence that counters your current beliefs on the Fw 190.

How else do you explain your refusal to debate it, and your constant use of ad hominem attacks?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I make errors, however to come up with the comment "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts" and apply that to me is to me like the pot calling the kettle black.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I welcome debate. It's from debate that new facts and new understanding emerge.

When I tried to enter the debate in the other thread you started, you told me to go away, and not question things in your thread (although you took several hundred words to do it. Obfuscation again?)

I keep presenting facts, you keep attacking me and my motives and honesty in doing so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>our next series of lectures on Shaw's Math I will only comment twice.

First I was not aware that math only works to 'some extent'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maths works. Trying to mathematically describe something so complex as an aircraft entering into a zoom climb with 5 terms results in no more than an approximation.

Do you think that there would be a problem with the physics model in FB (if indeed there is) if it could be described with such a simple equation?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and second I guess you will not take me up on my bet. I know what I bet, it was written in plain english.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know what you bet too. You wanted a bet on wether it applied "only to jet fighters" which is not what I said at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The last thing I am going to post in reply is to say please nail down your best sources backing up your claim concerning the Spitfire VB climb advantage over the FW190 in the summer of 1942.

If you are using one best factory test result document, or if you are using 3 factory test documents, and if you are averaging them then make this clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am using several, and not strictly averaging them. None of them are factory test documents, apart from the ones for the FW190.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There is no point in me picking one of your claims if you will then only move to another claim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I answered your question fully.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Give it your best shot and I will debate the validity, the accuracy, and the variables associated with your best shot just as you have done with my best shot.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've given you my best shot. You've ignored it. You've filled half a page with yet more personal attack, sentences so convoluted it takes ages to read them, and not much else.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>OHHHH wait a minute I can't let this lie go by:

quote:even going so far as to claim weight plays no part in zoom climbs.



I am really interested in how you manufactured that one up in your brain.

Here are a few links to my thinking on the effects of weight on performance:

Acceleration experiments

Ps=[T-D/W]V

Sim HQ version of Ps[T-D/W]V
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll go futher, with the repeated posting of that equation to try to explain zoom climbm you aren't claiming weight has no effect on zooms, you are claiming weight reduces the height of a zoom.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And I repeat, I am not very good at math.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't have to be good at maths, you just have to look what the terms of the equation you keep repeating mean.

I've had a look at Shaw's desription of his equation. PS is "specific excess power". Where in the equation you keep repeating about zoom climbs is there a measure of altitude? Where does it show the height gained?

You've given an equations that says

Specific excess power = [(thrust - drag) / weight] x speed.

Where in that does it tell us how high you can climb in a zoom?

You really need to try to understand some of the things you keep repeating. You don't seem to have a firm grasp of the data, hence your unwillingness to debate it, hence the ad hominem attacks.

JG14_Josf
08-17-2004, 01:33 PM
Hop,

In defense of my original insult (my honest and frank opinion) I have been proven to be correct time and again.

You wrote this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That's for an early test of a Spit F IX, running at it's climb rating, against a 190 A3 running at WEP.

WEP on the A3 was 1.35 ata, which is what they ran it at on that test. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it true that 1.35 ata is WEP?

I wrote this in response:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On the off chance that you may actually be honest about this I am going to reply.

I am sorry if my perspective is in error, but reading your posts are like reading a politicians speech. That is my perscpetive right or wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I then gave the topic my best shot ending with this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To explain away this massive contadiction with one or two manufacturers prototype flight test report is rediculous and intelectually dishonest in my (trying to be) humble oppinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have yet to see a specific claim concerning relative climb performance between the FW190A-3 and it's rival Spitfire that is debatable from you.

For example the following is a specific debatable claim concerning relative performance:

In the summer of 1942 the FW190A-3 climbed 450ft/min faster than the Spitfire VB.

Here is the proof:

Farber (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg)

You have, from me, something specific to debate against.

What do I have?

Fill in the blank please:

In the summer of 1942 the FW190A-3 had a climb difference of BLANK against the Spitfire VB.

Is it possible to get the above BLANK filled with your version of the most accurate relative climb value for the FW vs Spitfire matchup in the summer of 1942?

If not then I will remain convinced that you are intelectually dishonest.

More evidence continues to pile up in this thread backing up my opinion.

You wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In other words you have dismissed all the other evidence, and don't want to see it, or any new evidence that counters your current beliefs on the Fw 190. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not expect to see from you anything specific, however, if you do manage to offer something specific then by all means let's inspect the specific claim. It is impossible for me to debate vapor.

What is the best representative performance value for the climb advantage held by the FW190 or Spitfire VB for the time frame corresponding to the Farber tests i.e. the summer of 1942?

If you present a value and the sources that backs up that specific value then I would actually have something to debate.

Meanwhile we have in this thread the garbage that has been succesfully removed from my thread by my diligent efforts and thankfully all those who have respected my requests including you.

Thank you very much for not cluttering up my other post. It is not possible for me to express my sincerity in that gratitude.

Is the following true?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When I tried to enter the debate in the other thread you started, you told me to go away, and not question things in your thread (although you took several hundred words to do it. Obfuscation again?)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thread inspiring the dubious claim (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=495105506&p=1)

I titled my thread "Grinding the accuracy axe: "Farber" for a reason. The reason was expressed in the opening post as follows:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>PLEASE, do not respond to this thread if you have your own agenda, your own axe to grind. Instead be considerate and start your own thread and champion your own cause.

If you do not do the considerate thing, if you instist upon polluting this thread with 'off topic' garbage then I can only say with certain knowledge and preventative intent that you will be exposing yourself for the low, base ingrate that you insist upon being.

Unfortunatley this type of warning is required on this board. A little preventative maintenance now may deter a whole lot of garbage later.

This topic is for discussion on the historical perspective presented by the combat test trials conducted in 1942 when the British captured a combat example of the FW190A-3 and to discuss how accurate the current best flight sim manages to capture that situation in the summer of 1942.

The captured FW190 was flown by the German pilot: Arnim Farber thus generating the test documents title: "Farber tests"

In order to police this topic as it hopefully moves along, (I appreciate any reasoned, on-topic, replies even those that are contrary to my assumtions, beliefs, guesstimates, and conclusions) in order to keep things on topic I will kindly suggest that 'off topic' responses be removed, even if it requires a note to the moderators.

In the event that 'off topic' responses continue or are not removable for whatever reason my hope is that this communication will at least open a few eyes to a very probable accurate assesment of the way it really was during the summer of 1942, and to expose the myth created by inaccurate flight simulation concerning the dog fighting capabilities of the FW190A series fighter planes.

My hope continues that if a few eyes are oppened to this perspective of accuracy then future flight sims will be more likely to move toward rather than away from accurate modeling.

One more note on 'off topic' responses concerns intent. This topic has an expressed intent. Grinding the accuracy axe. This is the stated agenda of this topic thread. Note too the further clarification "Farber". This topic concerns the "Farber" example as it stands as a source of information supporting a perspective of accuracy for WWII combat flight simulation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop, you then posted in my thread, proceeded to identify the Farber test results, dismissed them, and made claims concerning the fourth fighter group documents.

I could have spent the rest of my time in that thread trying to nail down something specific from you, Hop. I could have tried to debate something specific from you but we have that here, so I did what was neccessary in my thread I asked you to leave.

I have reason to be proud of my thread for it's content and for what it doesn't contain. That thread therefore is, in my opinion, a good thread because you, Hop, stayed out of it.

Thanks again.

The following are a few quotes from other contributors to my specific thread titled:
Grinding the accuracy axe: Farber

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There's a lot of insight to air combat here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Interesting read, thnx. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is one of the longest, most well written posts I have seen here in some time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Awsum stuff here and no Whines about your neat presentation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Wonderful post, Josf. Well structured, well reasoned, crystal clear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Brilliant analysis <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>very good written posts <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thank you for the tremendous work you did matching R.Shaw's work with RAF's comparison test of the FW-190 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On rare occasion I have the pleasure to open thread like this one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Good stuff Josf <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Could not agree more with you <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Again though an interesting debate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that thread was not the place to debate the claims made by you, Hop, and to debate the sources of information that you use to arrive at your claims then this thread could suffice to do that chore. You could even start your own thread for that purpose.

However, I still wait for something specific with which to debate. A starting point could be a number value for a specific planes ability to climb against a specific other plane, those planes being the closest you can get to the Farbert plane 190A-3 and the best representative example of the Spitfire that fought the Farber plane in the summer of 1942.

If you can come up with that relative climb value and the specific sources used by you to prove that value of that claim then I will be in a possition to begin debate on your claim and your information relative to mine.

Until then we can continue traveling the map.

hop2002
08-17-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Is it true that 1.35 ata is WEP?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

1.35 ata is a WEP rating on the 190 A3, limited to 3 minutes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have yet to see a specific claim concerning relative climb performance between the FW190A-3 and it's rival Spitfire that is debatable from you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have made specific claims of the climb performance of the 190 A3 and Spit V in many, if not most, of the posts in this thread.

Any time I quote figures in ft/min or m/s, I am quoting a climb figure. Go back and read them again.

If you still can't find a specific claim amongst them, then I don't know what to suggest. If I say the Spitfire Vb should climb at around 3200 ft/min up to about 14,000ft, how can I possibly be more clear than that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What do I have?

Fill in the blank please:

In the summer of 1942 the FW190A-3 had a climb difference of BLANK against the Spitfire VB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do I have?

Fill in the blank please: THE SPIT V WOULD BE SLIGHTLY SUPERIOR IF BOTH WERE RUN AT CLIMB RATING, THE SPIT Vb WOULD BE SUPERIOR WITH BOTH RUNNING AT WEP, ON THE ORDER OF 500 - 700 FT/MIN WITH THE SPIT Vb AT 16 LBS AND THE FW 190 A3 AT 1.35 ATA.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I do not expect to see from you anything specific, however, if you do manage to offer something specific then by all means let's inspect the specific claim. It is impossible for me to debate vapor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am honestly at a loss to understand this. Scroll to the top of this page. The previous page if this post appears on a new page. Page 11.

There will be 2 posts from you. 1 from Faustnik. 1 from NaNuK66.

Then one from me.

Are you honestly saying you cannot see any performance claims in that post?

I give figures for both the Spit V and Spit IX, at normal rating.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The following are a few quotes from other contributors to my specific thread titled:
Grinding the accuracy axe: Farber<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF do you expect in a thread where you told people you weren't interested in dissenting opinions, which you defined as "off topic".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>However, I still wait for something specific with which to debate. A starting point could be a number value for a specific planes ability to climb against a specific other plane, those planes being the closest you can get to the Farbert plane 190A-3 and the best representative example of the Spitfire that fought the Farber plane in the summer of 1942.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Already posted numerous times. IF you are incapable of understanding what I have written, ask, and I will happily try to rephrase it. Pick a post where I have given climb figures in ft/min and explain why you do not see any data in it.

faustnik
08-17-2004, 02:24 PM
Josf,

Here is the Farnborough A3 climb test showing the use of 1.35 atas WEP:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/A3climb.jpg

Notice the impressive climb rate between 10,000 and 17,500 feet! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

JG14_Josf
08-17-2004, 02:25 PM
Hop,

Thanks for being more specific. We are actually getting somewhere, thanks again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Fill in the blank please: THE SPIT V WOULD BE SLIGHTLY SUPERIOR IF BOTH WERE RUN AT CLIMB RATING, THE SPIT Vb WOULD BE SUPERIOR WITH BOTH RUNNING AT WEP, ON THE ORDER OF 500 - 700 FT/MIN WITH THE SPIT Vb AT 16 LBS AND THE FW 190 A3 AT 1.35 ATA. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it possible for you to be as specific as me?

Is it possible for you to nail this down as far as I have been able to do?

Here is what I have done:

The best, most accurate, representative relative climb difference between an FW190A-3 and the contemporary Spitfire VB in the summer of 1942 is:

450ft/min in favor of the FW190A-3

From your latest contribution I have a few options and I do not want to guess.

Tell me what is your version of the best, most accurate relative climb ability between the FW190A-3 and the Spitfire VB that actually was fighting during the Summer of 1942. I am asking for the BEST meaning the best the British had that fought the FW190A-3 and the most accurate meaning the most accurate figure you can come up with to represent the actual climb difference between those two planes.

Can you do it. I am cheering

Go Hop Go Hop If anyone can do it Hop can, Go Hop Go Hop.

You can do it.

PLEASE HOP we are sooooooooooo close to moving one step further.

EPP_Gibbs
08-17-2004, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
I am getting sick of people complaining that a plane is "uber" just because it is good. The Spitfire IX was a very good plane in RL and was built to outperform the 190 when it came on the scene (which it did). To hear some people speak you would think they want a nerfed Spitfire just because it is more of a challenge to fly. In RL the Spitfire was easy to fly, that was one of it's best features (especially during BoB when new pilots really got minimal training).

Those who are complaining about dive ability, the wings will fall off on a Spitfire if you go much above 800kph. In RL Spitfires were dived in order to attempt to break the sound barrier and the wings never fell off, the prop did though but the pilot always managed to land it.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's true..the Spitfire had the highest recorded diving speed for a piston engined aircraft. In an attempt to break the sound barrier the Prop plus reduction gear sheared off but the pilot managed to control the dive and land. The Spitfire was controllabe in a dive at speeds around .9 mach. In excess of even the jets of the day, and post war. In the IX's pilots handbook, the never exceed speeds quoted at various altitudes were often faster than the maximum tested diving speeds on many other aircraft, like the Mustang. And that was for a fully war-loaded aircraft with cannons in the wings, etc, not a stripped down test plane. The thin-ness of the Spit wing (thinner than a 109) enabled it to withstand those extreme (for the 40's) speeds and not fall apart.

JG14_Josf
08-17-2004, 03:06 PM
Thanks Faustnik,

I am sorry if it does appear as if I am obfuscating but I do not see the words WEP.

In order to nail things down precision is required.

My whole problem with this approach is expressed in my thread titled: Grinding the accuracy axe: Farber

I am more a big picture, the aces knew better, type guy.

However there seems to be a real desire for some people to get down to the nitty gritty.

You see; the way I think, is like this:

If I were a fighter pilot and my plane only revved up to 2100 rpm or whatever I would have a little talk with my mechanic. I would say:

"Some little ***** behind a desk in Berlin does not have a Spitfire on his 6. Give me the option."

Read: Graf & Grislaski by Christer Bergstrom for insight in the relationship between German Fighter Pilot/Officers/and mechanics

I find it hard to believe that the British conducted their combat test trials with anything other than their best assesment of the conditions they had to face at that time.

I find it very hard to believe that the British mechanics purposefully altered the captured FW's engine configuration from the original condition in which it was found.

There are reasons why the Farber test is much more valuable and accurate than comparing "A" test done in Germany and "A" test done in Britain. One, and not the least or greatest valid reason, is that the Farber plane was selected in a purely random manner unless one imagines that the Germans purposefully sent that plane to the British. If that was so then why send them a plane that was better than what they actually flew in combat?

Another reason why the comparative combat test trials are the most accurate (see also Figher Combat by Robert Shaw) involves the limiting of more variables like climb angle and climb speed. When flying side by side with the plane that will shoot you down if anyone other than a British fighter pilot is flying it inspires the test to be conducted in such a way as to find the best relative climb rate.

Am I being too imaginative? I can see clearly how one British fighter pilot would want to catch up to the damn FW as it motors on up, up, and away.


That chart is news to me. Is there any more information concerning how it was conducted or when? Are those Remarks taken from German documents?

I am interested.

Any source of infomation can be questioned for validity. Any source.

Contrary to a percieved belief, (can you imagine where I come up with this notion) I do not dismiss any information. It is not my nature. I do not form an absolute opinion. The truth remains 'as is' and is not subject to change based upon my opinion.

For all I know the best representative matchup in the game for the situation in the summer of 1942 is exactly accurate. For all I know the game is exactly accurate.

What must be true if the above statement is true however is that the Farber test experience (not just one test) must be a fabrication.

Eric Browns book: Wings of the Luftwaffe concerning that experience must also be a fabrication.

Alfred Prices book: Focke Wulf concerning that experience must also be a fabrication.

Mike Spicks book: Luftwaffe Fighter Aces would have to be wrong too.

These are simply the sources of information I have that form my opinion but these sources include the expressed opinions of the people who were involved in combat at that time and place.

I wonder if Hop has nailed down his version of the best representative accurate value for relative climb performance yet.

faustnik
08-17-2004, 03:22 PM
That report is from a summary of the RAF Farnborough tests (of Faber's 190A3) in Green's Focke-Wulf Fw190 . I am not trying to cloud any issue, just posting something for you to make it more clear. The "3 minute" rating would be considered the WEP rating.

I agree with you that side by side comparisons eliminate a lot of variables especially in test method.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

JG14_Josf
08-17-2004, 03:58 PM
Faustnik,

I do not think you are trying to cloud the issue. I am sorry if that appears to be the case.

Here is what is written on the Farber test document on rings page:

Speed Runs (Maximum 3 minute ratings used) (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_3.jpg)
F.W.190 ... ... 2700r.p.m. @ 1.42 ata.

There is again no mention of the term WEP

Terms are words. The concern of fighter pilots both real and simulated is actual relative performance.

The Farber document from rings page suggests that the actual FW190A-3 did in fact go to 2700r.p.m.

Read also on that document that the duration of the test at that engine setting was 2 minutes:

For the comparative performance trials between the F.W.190 and various British and American fighter aircraft shown in this report (paras,47 and 87), all level speed runs were for two minutes at maximum emergency (3 minute) ratings, and all sustained climbs were carried out at maximum continuous climbing conditions (30 minute rating). In the case of the F.W.190 the 30 minute rating was taken to be 2450 r.p.m. @ 1.35 ata.

Now for a moment lets imagine what kind of debate would be going on in reference to these documents if instead of the FW190 reported to be running rough on fouled spark plugs, instead the opposite was reported that all the British and American fighter aircraft tested in comparative performance trials had rough running engines with fouled spark plugs!

What if the report said this about the Spitfire VB used in the comparative performance trials against the FW190A-3:

"The rough running of the engine is much disliked by all the pilots and must be a great disadvantage, as lack of confidence in an engine makes flying over bad country of water most unpleasant"

or this about the Spitfire that was used to climb against the FW190

"Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly and as a result pilots flying the aircraft have little confidence in its reliability"

Here is a quote concerning the power rating:

"The all-round performance of the Fw190 is good. Only brief performance tests have been carried out and the figures obtained give a maximum speed of approximately 390 m.p.h. True at 1.42 atmospheres boost, 2,700 r.p.m. at the maximum power altitide of about 18,000 ft. All flights at maximum power were carried out for a duration of 2 minutes only"

faustnik
08-17-2004, 04:22 PM
Josf,

The data that I posted represents results for the de-rated maximum boost of 1.35 atas.

I assign the "WEP" term to the 3 minute boost rating because that would best approximate the 100%-110% power setting that we have with the Fw190A4 in FB. You are correct that a better term would be "maximum boost". I will try to more precise in my terminology in order to avoid obfuscating in the future. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Please check PM

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

hop2002
08-17-2004, 06:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Farber document from rings page suggests that the actual FW190A-3 did in fact go to 2700r.p.m. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the British ran it at 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm. They shouldn't have.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For the comparative performance trials between the F.W.190 and various British and American fighter aircraft shown in this report (paras,47 and 87), all level speed runs were for two minutes at maximum emergency (3 minute) ratings, and all sustained climbs were carried out at maximum continuous climbing conditions (30 minute rating). In the case of the F.W.190 the 30 minute rating was taken to be 2450 r.p.m. @ 1.35 ata.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they are quite clear in the ratings they used on the Fw 190.

They ran it at 1.42 ata 2700 as a wep rating, and used 1.35 ata 2450 rpm as a climb and combat rating, with a limit of 30 minutes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If I were a fighter pilot and my plane only revved up to 2100 rpm or whatever I would have a little talk with my mechanic. I would say:

"Some little ***** behind a desk in Berlin does not have a Spitfire on his 6. Give me the option."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please don't use 2100 rpm, no-one is suggesting that was the limit.

The limit on the A3 was supposed to 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm, but that was restricted to 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm.

Now, if you were a pilot you might ask your mechanic to increase the limits to what it should have been.

However, the limit was imposed because of severe engine problems the 190A3 suffered when they tried to run at 1.43 ata.

If you were a pilot, would you want a tiny bit more power, if it meant your engine could fail at any time?

If you still want to overboost your engine, do you think that should hold true for British pilots as well?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I find it hard to believe that the British conducted their combat test trials with anything other than their best assesment of the conditions they had to face at that time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They weren't certain what they had to face at the time.

From the Faber report:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is derated and this is supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit, and by information obtained from POWs. Futher performance tests and engine evaluation are to be carried out by the RAE, and more definite information will then be available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I find it very hard to believe that the British mechanics purposefully altered the captured FW's engine configuration from the original condition in which it was found.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above makes it fairly clear they did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There are reasons why the Farber test is much more valuable and accurate than comparing "A" test done in Germany and "A" test done in Britain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And there are reasons why it's much less so.

Amongst them, we don't have exact figures for any of the planes, just rough estimates of differences.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Another reason why the comparative combat test trials are the most accurate (see also Figher Combat by Robert Shaw) involves the limiting of more variables like climb angle and climb speed. When flying side by side with the plane that will shoot you down if anyone other than a British fighter pilot is flying it inspires the test to be conducted in such a way as to find the best relative climb rate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which actually brings up another problem.

The Spit V had a lower best climb speed than the 190.

Yet the report says they have approximately the same climb speed. If the Spit V pilot tried to follow the 190 pilot at the 190's best climb speed, he would most definately not climb as well. It's another facter we just don't know, because it simply wasn't recorded.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Am I being too imaginative? I can see clearly how one British fighter pilot would want to catch up to the damn FW as it motors on up, up, and away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So can I. Which would lead him to trying to maintain the same climb speed as the 190. At a lower climb speed the Spitfire does better, at a higher climb speed the 190.

Indeed, the report suggests the same climb speed was used in both, when it says the best climb speed for both was similar.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What must be true if the above statement is true however is that the Farber test experience (not just one test) must be a fabrication.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the same attitude I accused you of before. It's either true or a "fabrication". Ever hear the word "mistake"?

Ever think that rather than being 100% accurate, or 100% fake, it could be that mistakes were made during the brief tests carried out? Ever think that the Spit V pilot might have matched the 190s speed, thus meaning he had a much worse climb rate?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Is it possible for you to be as specific as me?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Tell me what is your version of the best, most accurate relative climb ability between the FW190A-3 and the Spitfire VB that actually was fighting during the Summer of 1942.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

THE 190 and THE Spit Vb?

AFAIK, there were a lot more than 1 of each flying in the summer of 1942, and the performance of each individual aircraft would be different.

However, as you won't be satisfied unless I give exact figures, of Several Spit Vb tests I've seen, up to 14,000ft the climbrate of the Spit V on normal climbing power should be around 3100 ft/min

The climb rate of the 190A3 on WEP should be around 3200 ft/min at sea level, falling to 2550 ft/min by 20,000ft.

The figures for the 190 are based not just on the book Airborn quoted, but on the 190 A5 climb chart I posted earlier.

They also closely match the BMW 801 D power chart.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Can you do it. I am cheering

Go Hop Go Hop If anyone can do it Hop can, Go Hop Go Hop.

You can do it.

PLEASE HOP we are sooooooooooo close to moving one step further.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tone down the attitude.

hop2002
08-17-2004, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Here is the Farnborough A3 climb test showing the use of 1.35 atas WEP:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of the big problems I have with the test of Faber's 190, that indicates it was behaving very oddly.

Look at the 1.35 ata climb rates.

0 - 1.2 km it maintained 16.5 m/s

3 - 5.3 km it maintained 17.8 m/s

It's the only fighter I've ever seen that has a higher climb rate at high altitude in high gear than it did at low altitude in low gear.

It contradicts the Fw 190 A5 figures wildly.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092488785_fw190a5-climb.jpg

As you can see, this is done at 1.35 ata as well. Now, the weights will be slightly different, and the drag, but rather than the absolute rate, look at the shape of the graph. It shows the climb rate dropping in high gear at high alt.

Go to the Spitfire testing site and look at the climb graphs for any of the two speed Spitfires (VIII onwards)

As you can see, they all follow the same pattern, climb rate is lower in high gear at altitude.

Here's a Spit VIII for example:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092510779_spitviiiclimb.jpg

The reason for this is in high gear the supercharger has to spin faster to compress more air. That means the supercharger requires more power, which leaves less to drive the prop.

Here's the power chart for the BMW 801D:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092787859_bmw801d.jpg

Notice how the power output is much lower at high altitude than at low.

If you look at the power chart, the changes in the output match the changes in climb rate of the 190A5 perfectly.

JG14_Josf
08-17-2004, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Tone down the attitude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK Hop you win.

You got me.

&lt;S&gt;

WTE_Galway
08-17-2004, 09:46 PM
well ..


there is a restored MK VIII flying at Temora NSW this weekend 21st/22nd August ... along with the only flyable Hudson bomber in the world and a heap of other stuff

http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/aircraft/