PDA

View Full Version : Issue with overmodeled climb of Bf109 family...



Bogun
12-20-2003, 10:33 AM
Is the issue with overmodeled climb of Bf109 family going to be addressesd?

Bf109G-2 in German tests climbed to 5000m in 4min 40 sec with %100 fuel and auto prop pitch.

In FB Bf109G-2 climbs to 5000m in 3 min 40 sec.

It gets only worst with later models of 109 (like K-4 climbing to 5000m under 3 min).

Oleg, is it going to be corrected?

Bogun
12-20-2003, 10:33 AM
Is the issue with overmodeled climb of Bf109 family going to be addressesd?

Bf109G-2 in German tests climbed to 5000m in 4min 40 sec with %100 fuel and auto prop pitch.

In FB Bf109G-2 climbs to 5000m in 3 min 40 sec.

It gets only worst with later models of 109 (like K-4 climbing to 5000m under 3 min).

Oleg, is it going to be corrected?

S77th-brooks
12-20-2003, 01:19 PM
one more joke post

BBB_Hyperion
12-20-2003, 01:56 PM
Most of this questions have been discussed here .

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=30810973

Regards,
Hyperion

Bogun
12-20-2003, 10:43 PM
Salute Hyperion!
Please don't pay attention to a troll, they are always around...

Thanks for the link, though it deals mostly with the manual vs. auto prop pitch issue there are some very interesting test numbers from IL-2:FB posted by SerpentBlade like

G-2 climbing to 5000m in
3:06 min with manual pitch and in
3:41 min on auto pitch

or K-4
2:41 min with manual pitch and in
3:06 min on auto pitch

My own testing of K-4 climb actually showed time to 5000m with MW-50 around 2:40 min. Anyone can replicate it.

Now, much been made out of claim that "Rechlin tests" were done with %100 power. I am not convinced. There so much test graphs German and Allied showing 109 climb performance and <u> none of them match what we have in FB.</u>
I am not even talking about ability to run G-2 engine at 3100RPM instead of early 2600RPM (1.30ATA) or later 2800RPM (1.42ATA).

Look in IL-2 Compare Bf109G-2 climbs at SL at
22m/sec with %100 power or
25m/sec with %110

Bf109K-4 climbs at 3000m at
19m/sec with %100 power or
30m/sec with %110 (MW-50)

Does it look right to anyone?
Is there any German charts showing those kind of climb rate anywhere?
109 is so overmodeled it is not even funny, but I don't see many people complaining...
Were are all those who were screaming for "historical accuracy" to tone down Russian birds?

SerpentBlade
12-20-2003, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:
Is the issue with overmodeled climb of Bf109 family going to be addressesd?

Bf109G-2 in German tests climbed to 5000m in 4min 40 sec with %100 fuel and auto prop pitch.

In FB Bf109G-2 climbs to 5000m in 3 min 40 sec.

It gets only worst with later models of 109 (like K-4 climbing to 5000m under 3 min).

Oleg, is it going to be corrected?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German test was done with power setting equivlent to 100% throttle in game, it seems you used 110% power in ur test.

IMO the performance of 109s are quite accurate now in auto pitch. Only performance issue maybe in manual pitch. See link mensioned by BBB_Hyperion

SkyChimp
12-20-2003, 11:58 PM
German test data usually specifies the boost used. Just saying it was always done at equivalent 100% throttle is wrong.

I agree with Bogun, the numbers look way high.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Willey
12-21-2003, 03:56 AM
Your whining is overmodelled. Wastel's tests clearly show, that the G-2 is even too bad in FB, just a little bit. And before looking at the climb of 109s, you should look at climb of P-39, Las, P-47 and 51.
The P-39Q-1 for axample climbs 20,5m/s at 3000m and 18m/s at 0m. WTF? We had a great thread about that issue in GD. Result was that the climb is about OK on the deck (a tad too good, 16-17m/s would be it), but it should decrease with altitude then. In FB it gets better. P-47 climbs 4000ft/min on the deck... with 100% fuel. That doesn't look right. Would be OK for 25% fuel IMHO. Just compare hp/kg to other planes that have similar climb rate like FW-190A-5, 109G-6 or La-5. P-51 is really funny. 21,5m/s on the deck and almost 24m/s at 3000m. That's almost 5000ft/min. Also, look at the power/weight ratio. It's worse with low fuel than a 109K's or 190D's with full fuel. That thing can't climb better than the FW then. The Las look about correct in compare. But in FB I still can get 28m/s out of the La-7 on the deck.
I took the 110% values of compare - BTW they are 100% fuel.
I also see that the K-4 does 28-30m/s up to 4500m. I know that it's a good tad too much, especially over the whole altitude range. It should start with 26m/s, getting up to 28m/s at 2000m and then dropping to 26m/s at 4000m. That with closed radiators. Open them, and climb will drop to 24,5 -25m/s on the deck and that's what we can read everywhere. The DB605 series produce most power at 2000m, that's why it's better there. But with all those opponents climbing better than they should, it's OK that the 109s do the same. The 109 climbed better IRL. The only planes that could catch up in EF were La-5FN and 7, up to ~3k and Yak-3 up to 5k. Think of G-6es, they were most common, even in '44. No wonder that they have a hard time climbing after K-4s.

BTW I often "whined" about climb rates in FB. I really must admit that 1.21 looks quite good in that manner..... had some very hard fights in K-4 vs La-7 which kept close to me up to 3000m, and even at 6000m it was a hard fight - but it was possible to win for me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. In 1.11 I couldn't climb away up to 5000m. The La-5 '42 climbed almost as good as a La-7 there. That was a real joke... I wonder why no red guy noticed that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VVS-Manuc
12-21-2003, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
German test data usually specifies the boost used. Just saying it was always done at equivalent 100% throttle is wrong.

I agree with Bogun, the numbers look way high.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It was clear that the monkey jumps on this topic....

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 06:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
It was clear that the monkey jumps on this topic....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Asserting that German tests were done at the equivalent of 100% throttle (thus Bogun MUST be wrong) IS wrong. They weren't, I pointed that out.

I also point out that the numbers Bogun presented look high. But I have't done any testing.

So, you just trolling, or do you have something to add?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Sun December 21 2003 at 05:52 AM.]

csThor
12-21-2003, 07:31 AM
Sky the german tests for stuff like that were ALWAYS made with "Steig- und Kampfleistung" (Climb and Combat Power). That setting wasn't named that way for nothing. The boost settings were displayed for documentation (since the power settings of say DB 605 changed through its career), but the setting used was always the max. continuous power output - not the emergency stuff that had to be switched off after a few minutes.

______________________________

http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg
Declared Fw 190 nut ...

SerpentBlade
12-21-2003, 07:37 AM
actually most planes in FB climbs 10% faster than in real life, but the simulation of relative performance between planes is very good in 1.21.

IMO its the relative performance that is most important in a combat sim, it allows the use of realistic tactics

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
Sky the german tests for stuff like that were ALWAYS made with "Steig- und Kampfleistung" (Climb and Combat Power). That setting wasn't named that way for nothing. The boost settings were displayed for documentation (since the power settings of say DB 605 changed through its career), but the setting used was always the max. continuous power output - not the emergency stuff that had to be switched off after a few minutes.

______________________________

http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg
Declared Fw 190 nut ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok, educate me here. Yes, German data sheets do show (at least the ones I've seen) do show "Climb and Combat Power" performance. But that is not the setting that produces the best performance. For instances, here is a climb chart on the Bf-109K-4.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/climb.jpg

"Climb and Combar Power" shows an initial climb rate of 15.5-16.5 m/s.

What is the power setting producing 20+ m/s?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Bogun
12-21-2003, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
Sky the german tests for stuff like that were ALWAYS made with "Steig- und Kampfleistung" (Climb and Combat Power). That setting wasn't named that way for nothing. The boost settings were displayed for documentation (since the power settings of say DB 605 changed through its career), but the setting used was always the max. continuous power output - not the emergency stuff that had to be switched off after a few minutes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would be nice it was true every time, but it is not the case look at well known chart of Fw190A-8 climb. There you clearly see climb rate at all the regimes "Take-off and emergency", "Climb and combat" and "Maximum endurance". Germans were testing their planes it under all regimes, were are Bf109 charts showing performance like in FB?

Willie, don't pile all planes in one pile.
There were a lot of posts on this forum and Sukhoi about old La being overmodeled obviously Oleg did pay attention. La family of planes performance been curt drastically and now it looks correct to me. The best climber - La-7 now climb at 23m/sec at SL and its performance start to deteriorate right here, like all performance of all La family of planes. If you need IL-2 Compare v2.2 drop me a PM with e-mail address.

I know Oleg has very high opinion about Wastel knowledge of German planes end his integrity, so I would want to see the charts confirming that in FB Bf109 family climbs the same as in real life.

Bogun
12-21-2003, 08:27 AM
Am I the only one experiencing problems with posting on the "new" forum?
The only mode of posting which works for me is "Quick reply".
Can we download and include link to the image on this forum or we still need to use external storage space for the images?

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 08:29 AM
Bogun,

Can you answer my question about that K-4 chart I posted? To me, it looks like there is indeed a "Climb and Combat Power" climb line. But there appears there is also a line for an even greater power setting.




Am I misinterpreting the chart - AND I ACKNOWLEDGE I MIGHT BE - since I don't read German?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Morbid_Jester
12-21-2003, 08:50 AM
Green lines:

Combat Power (Kampfleistung)

Yellow Lines:

Emergency Power (Notleistung)

Differing lines are due to different pressures (1.8/1,98 Ata)

I hope this helps...

Always remeber your 6 P's

Proper Preflight Planning Prevents Poor Performance-

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Morbid_Jester:

I hope this helps...

Always remeber your 6 P's

_P_roper _P_reflight _P_lanning _P_revents _P_oor _P_erformance-<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does, thank you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Bogun
12-21-2003, 09:20 AM
SkyChimp, your question is to chThor, not to me - he was trying to argue that all German climb tests were done at "Climb and Combat" settings. I also do not speak German.
Also look at the Fw190A-8 climb chart - "Start-Notleistung" is there as well.

It is very interesting to see your chart overlaying IL-2 Compare chart - there are so much difference. I know -IL-2 Compare disclaimer said it does not reflect "true" FB performance, but when I did my own climb testing - it is mighty close to what we have in FB currently. If you want I will email this "Real Life vs. FB" chart to you, to post here I still don't have space on the web.

Jester, thanks for the translation.

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 09:30 AM
Bogun,

I'd be happy to host it. Go to your "My Space" button, then select "Private Topics" for my e-mail. I'll post it as soon as I get it.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

csThor
12-21-2003, 09:30 AM
Interesting. I have five climb charts (2x for D-9, 1x Ta-152 H-1 and 109 F-2 and G-1 - all taken from this board) and none had the second graph for Start- und Notleistung.

But the other graph indicating the climb time to a certain altitude (the one you didn't mark) is definitely for Steig- und Kampfleistung.

So my interpretion of all of this:

The actual climb rates differ according to the Power settings, but the climb performance over a longer period of time (meaning climb to say 5km) was always measured with Steig- und Kampfleistung since Start- und Notleistung as limited to short periods of use.

PS: Saved that graph to my HDD - didn't have it yet. Thanks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

______________________________

http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg
Declared Fw 190 nut ...

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 09:36 AM
csThor:

I suspect at least SOME people are testing the Bf-109 by jamming the throttle all the way forward and engaging boost, and comparing it to a real chart that just shows "Climb and Combat Power." This would definately suggest the Bf-109 is overclimbing.

I suspect if the test was done at the power setting on the chart results would be closer. But I also suspect the Bf-109 is overclimbing at least some, like most other planes in this game.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

csThor
12-21-2003, 09:46 AM
Yup .. but as Serpentblade said the relative performance is (finally) good and that what matters most to me.

______________________________

http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg
Declared Fw 190 nut ...

Bogun
12-21-2003, 09:53 AM
SkyChimp the chart is on the way.

chThor this is definitely make sense.
As I understand from the book by Stepanets "Yak fighters of the Great Patriotic War period" Russian climb tests were done the same way one sustained climb from SL to practical ceiling with radiator open "po-potoku" something like "along the airflow".
If engine overheated and cooling was required it was specifically noted in every case as an explanation for the failure to maintain normal climb regime.

I need to leave now, but will definitely follow the thread once I will come back home.
Let's keep it clean.

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 09:59 AM
Ok Bogun, here is your chart:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/climb_2.jpg

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Jippo01
12-21-2003, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Ok, educate me here. Yes, German data sheets do show (at least the ones I've seen) do show "Climb and Combat Power" performance. But that is not the setting that produces the best performance. For instances, here is a climb chart on the Bf-109K-4. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Btw. Chimp, on your chart there is a line G=3400kg. Weight is 3400, and in the lower index there reads K4. That is the climb speed line, and it seems to reach 5km before 3 minutes has expired.

Interesting, huh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


-jippo

JG5_JaRa
12-21-2003, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Am I misinterpreting the chart - AND I ACKNOWLEDGE I MIGHT BE - since I don't read German?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The charts are clear, nothing to misinterpret there. But the circumstances may not be clear; there was a chart posted with late 109 climbrates here or on SimHQ a while ago and I think this chart is from there, so please post the first page as well. It namely mentioned that at the time the tests were taken, the examinations on the propeller were not finished yet, so the propeller effectiveness may be below that of serial aircraft and these tests may not be representative for them. I can translate that one again if it is the same test.

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Btw. Chimp, on your chart there is a line G=3400kg. Weight is 3400, and in the lower index there reads K4. That is the climb speed line, and it seems to reach 5km before 3 minutes has expired.

Interesting, huh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


-jippo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Seems that way. But you're wrong. Look again. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That line that you get the "3" from is the climb rate line in meters/second, not the time-to-climb in minutes.

A closer look and a comparison to the climb rate will reveal that the actual time-to-climb to 5000m is 6 minutes, not 3.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Jippo01
12-21-2003, 10:22 AM
So I looked again, and it still did. So what is the catch?

-jippo

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 10:23 AM
Sorry, I was editing my post. Check my last post.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Jippo01
12-21-2003, 10:28 AM
So according to this document K4 climbs worse than G2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 10:30 AM
Well, Jippo, I didn't make the chart. Perhaps if you have an issue with it, you should take it up with Messerschmitt. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And please, before claiming the chart is wrong because it doesn't fit whatever you've come to believe, make sure you are comparing climb times done under similar power settings.

That time-to-climb chart - what power setting was that done at? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Jippo01
12-21-2003, 10:37 AM
I'm not claiming anything.

But the G-2 does climb to 5km in slightly over 4 minutes with Kampf u. Steig, 1.3 ATA.


-jippo

JG5_JaRa
12-21-2003, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
So according to this document K4 climbs worse than G2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said, if this is from the tests with unfinished propeller research, then this is no surprise. Look at how much the paddle blade propeller alone improved the climb rate of the P47. Also keep in mind that the graph states that all these curves are without MW50 and MW50 was what boosted the climb rates nicely http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 10:45 AM
I'm not claiming anything either. I've presented a chart. Draw your own conclusions.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Col.Kurtz
12-21-2003, 11:30 AM
Hi

At the Top of this Chart you can read:

DB605DC/ASC o. MW für Grundeinstellung !!! o. is shortcut for "ohne"---> "without"

There also is PL=1.8 on both emergency power lines but behind is Grundeinstellung 1.8 and 1,98 Ata
1.8ata =1800PS
1.98ata=2000PS

But now look at the lines for 1,98 and 1,8 :P

The 1.8ata is faster in climb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
This Chart themes to be clearly out of context and shows strange things,special the climb to height line. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



Now this Chart shows a K4 with DB605L 2stage charger engine,with max output of 1700PS at Sealevel.

http://test.equitatura.de/BF109/K4DB605L_steig_kurtz.jpg

It Climbs to 5000m in 4min
I dont think that the 2000PS version is slower..

I think Butch2K once posted data for K4 with 2000PS and it was about 24m/sec intitial and going down to 20m/sec at 5000m.

So Climb of a MW50 109 themes to be between 3,5/4min to 5000m

-------
As far as i know the DB605A engine was locked to 1.3ata until spring 43.So G2 performance should be 4min at best to 5000m

VVS-Manuc
12-21-2003, 11:56 AM
anyone here who have charts of the P-39 climb performance?..overmodelled as well

hop2002
12-21-2003, 12:12 PM
Col Kurtz wrote:

"But now look at the lines for 1,98 and 1,8 :P

The 1.8ata is faster in climb
This Chart themes to be clearly out of context and shows strange things,special the climb to height line."


The chart shows climb speed at 1.45ata and 1.8ata.

The 1.8ata line is broken down into "basic settings" for 1.8 ata and 1.98ata. In other words, if the plane was set up to use a maximum of 1.98 ata, it would climb more slowly at 1.8ata than if it was set up to use a maximum of 1.8ata.

The same is true for the 1.45ata figures.

That chart shows only 1.45 ata and 1.8ata, there is no 1.98ata line there.

Jippo01 wrote:

"Btw. Chimp, on your chart there is a line G=3400kg. Weight is 3400, and in the lower index there reads K4. That is the climb speed line, and it seems to reach 5km before 3 minutes has expired."

The chart shows just under 6 mins to 5,000m. Each of the major grid lines on the chart shows 2 mins. If you notice, the major grid lines are split into two by faint lines, each of these is 1 minute.

If you don't believe this, calculate the figures from the rate of climb line.

Between 0 and 500m the 109 averages 15.3 m/s. 500m at 15.3m/s takes 32.5 secs.

Between 500m and 5km, it averages 14.2 m/s. 4.5km at 14.2 m/s takes 5 mins 17 secs. Add the two together and you get about 5 mins 50 secs, and the time to climb line shows just under 6 mins to 5km.

I went over this with Isegrim a lot a few years ago, and even he finally agreed it showed 6 mins to 5,000m, not 3 mins. This chart is probably the source William Green first used when giving the 109K4 a 3 min to 5,000m time, a figure which has been repeated in a lot of books since.

Col.Kurtz
12-21-2003, 12:18 PM
The Data in the P39Q1 handbook gives it these Climbtimes:
-----
with 8100lb (3675kg)(FB Data gives it 3714kg)with 44,5HG mainfold(1126HP)
6min to 15000Ft(4570m)
13min to 25000ft(7620m)
-----
with 7600lb(3448kg) at 44,5HG (1126PS)
4,9min.

This is what in German Test would be Steig und Kampf Leistung.

WEP of Q1 was 1420PS so climb should be much better with Emergency Power http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Climb of the Q10 in FB with WEP:
5000m/4:48min
Start from ground and time cout at liftoff with 220Km/H
I didnt testet with 100% that could be compared to the first data i Posted
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I hope my Data translation from Pounds/feet is correct http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Col.Kurtz
12-21-2003, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

If you don't believe this, calculate the figures from the rate of climb line.

Between 0 and 500m the 109 averages 15.3 m/s. 500m at 15.3m/s takes 32.5 secs.

Between 500m and 5km, it averages 14.2 m/s. 4.5km at 14.2 m/s takes 5 mins 17 secs. Add the two together and you get about 5 mins 50 secs, and the time to climb line shows just under 6 mins to 5km.

I went over this with Isegrim a lot a few years ago, and even he finally agreed it showed 6 mins to 5,000m, not 3 mins. This chart is probably the source William Green first used when giving the 109K4 a 3 min to 5,000m time, a figure which has been repeated in a lot of books since.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think you are right here!

Look at the chart it says at the Time to Alt line=
Steigzeit mit Drehzahlsteigerung für Grund einstellung 1,98

The Start u. Notleistung lines for M/sec are also marked=
Drehzahlsteigerung!

The Climb to alt line shows Notleistung.

Also if this should be for Steig und Kampf what time does the line count for 7000m...? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
This would only work if the first line is Split in three and after that in two parts LOL

hop2002
12-21-2003, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Look at the chart it says at the Time to Alt line=
Steigzeit mit Drehzahlsteigerung für Grund einstellung 1,98
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which translates via google to "Climbing time with number of revolutions increase for reason of attitude"

If you look at the chart, at 8,000m there is a line linking the two rate of climb lines, labelled Drehzahlsteigerung. In other words, at 8,000m the rpm was increased from the 1.45 seting to the 1.8ata setting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Start u. Notleistung lines for M/sec are also marked=
Drehzahlsteigerung!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above. The label refers to the rpm increase above 8,000m, in effect switching from 1.45ata to 1.8ata.

This was gone over on Butch's board, I think HoHun spotted what this meant, Butch agreed. As I said, even Isegrim agrees with this now.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Climb to alt line shows Notleistung.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you mean the time to climb line, where?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also if this should be for Steig und Kampf what time does the line count for 7000m...?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's quite easy. The line shows approx 8 mins 30 sec to 7,000m.

Working from the rate of climb line, you've got 5 mins 50 secs to 5,000m. From 5000m to 7000m the rate of climb averages just under 12.5m/s. 2000m at 12.5m/s takes 2 mins 40 secs. Add to the 5 mins 50 we already have, and you get 8 mins 20 secs, which fits pretty well with the approx 8 mins 30 secs shown on the time to climb line.

If you still don't believe, look at the time to climb line again. It crosses 8,000m almost at the fifth major grid line, the 10th minor grid line. I say that's 10 mins. Now look at the 10,000m mark. Thats a bit before the 7th major line, the 14th minor line. I say that's 13.5 mins to 10,000m.

If you assume I'm right, that gives a time between 8 and 10km as about 3.5 mins. 2,000m at 3.5 mins, ie 210 secs, is an average of 9.5 m/s at 9,000m. If you look at the rate of climb lines, that fits well with the 1.8ata line at 9,000m. Remember the Drehzahlsteigerung line means an increase in revs from the 1.45 ata setting to the 1.8ata setting at 8,000m


If you now assume I'm wrong, then the time to climb line shows 8km in 5 mins, 10km in 6.75 mins. That's 2000m in 1 min 45 secs, which averages 19 m/s, at 9,000m. Try plotting a climb rate of 19 m/s at 9000m and you'll see how far off the scale it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This would only work if the first line is Split in three and after that in two parts LOL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean here? Which line?

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Col.Kurtz:
The Data in the P39Q1 handbook gives it these Climbtimes:
-----
with 8100lb (3675kg)(FB Data gives it 3714kg)with 44,5HG mainfold(1126HP)
6min to 15000Ft(4570m)
13min to 25000ft(7620m)
-----
with 7600lb(3448kg) at 44,5HG (1126PS)
4,9min.

This is what in German Test would be Steig und Kampf Leistung.

WEP of Q1 was 1420PS so climb should be much better with Emergency Power http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Climb of the Q10 in FB with WEP:
5000m/4:48min
Start from ground and time cout at liftoff with 220Km/H
I didnt testet with 100% that could be compared to the first data i Posted
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I hope my Data translation from Pounds/feet is correct http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

44.5" hg/3000rpm in the V-1710-85 is Military Power. There are two settings above that - Take-Off (50.5" hg) and War Emergency Power (57.0" hg).

In order to correctly test the P-39Q, it needs a working manifold pressure guage. Simply slamming the throttle to 100% and assuming that is equal to military power is probably not correct.

To determine if the P-39Q in FB climbs consistently with the manual, then you would need to set the throttle so that 44.5" hg is being developed, and that manifold pressure would have to be mainatined throughout the climb. Last time I checked, it was impossible since the manifoild pressure gauge in the FB P-39Q does not work properly.

What the P-39Q in FB needs is a working manifold pressure guage. Until that happens, you have no way of knowing if you are climbing correctly or not.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Sun December 21 2003 at 12:19 PM.]

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Sun December 21 2003 at 12:24 PM.]

hop2002
12-21-2003, 01:08 PM
BTW, the key for the chart makes it quite clear the boost pressures being used. The two lines SkyChimp has marked range clearly say

P=1.8 Grundeinstllg 1.8

and

P=1.8 Grundeinstllg 1.98

Grundeinstllg is an abbreviation of Grundeinstellung which means (google again) Basic Adjustment, and which HoHun translated as Basic Setting.

Both are at 1.8 ata, one with an engine that had a max of 1.8ata, the other an engine that had a max of 1.98 ata.

The same is true for the green lines, both at 1.45 ata, but with engines that could run a max of 1.8 ata and 1.98 ata.

Col.Kurtz
12-21-2003, 01:08 PM
Yep your right my fault
seems like it is the Climb and Combat Power line
6min for 5000m
10min for 8000m

Col.Kurtz
12-21-2003, 01:48 PM
@Skychimp
Yes but you can be sure that in FB it is modelled like this=
100% is maximum regular Power (like Steig u Kampf for 30min with German Planes)
100-110% Maximum Power WEP
So this Takeoff Power would be something like 102%

there is also a chart with this data=
Critical alt for Military Power(44.5HG) is 15500ft and for WEP(57HG) 9000ft.
So above 9000ft performance decrease until 44.5HG is reached like with the LA5FN?

BBB_Hyperion
12-21-2003, 05:57 PM
As Skychimps test is from a Research Center in Oberammergau with 2 different airscrew types on the planes it seems. Climb is worst case 5:49 and best is 4:06 almost identical with 4:01 of Col.Kurtz chart.

We have timeline idicated there with Grundeinstellung 1.98 with some kind of steigerung i cant read. None of the Ladedruck pressures on the right is done at this value 1,45 and 1,8 is there ? Also weight is 3400 compared to 3330 kg in other same loadout / mod ? In this Timeline Chart we see it under 3 minutes to 5 k under this 1.98 settings maybe cause non of the climbdata charts is used for that but what reason it has to be there then ?

Regards,
Hyperion

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 07:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Col.Kurtz:
@Skychimp
Yes but you can be sure that in FB it is modelled like this=
100% is maximum regular Power (like Steig u Kampf for 30min with German Planes)
100-110% Maximum Power WEP
So this Takeoff Power would be something like 102%

there is also a chart with this data=
Critical alt for Military Power(44.5HG) is 15500ft and for WEP(57HG) 9000ft.
So above 9000ft performance decrease until 44.5HG is reached like with the LA5FN?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


"Maximum Regular Power." What's that? That's not American parlance. Do you mean Maximum Continuous Power? Or Military Power?
I take it you mean Military Power. If so, I don't really necessarily disagree with that.

100% throttle certainly does produce a reading on the manifold pressure gauges that is consistent with "Military Power."

Here's what I found:

I tested the P-39Q-1, P-40E, P-40M and P-51D to see what the manifold pressure gauge reads at 100% throttle (@ 500meters). Here is what I found.

P-39Q-1:
The P-39 Manifold Pressure Gauge rises with throttle input until 100% throttle is reached. After that, it doesn't work anymore. At 100% throttle and 3,000 rpm the Manifold Pressure Gauge is reading 41.5" hg - SLIGHTY less than Military Power (but close enough to say its Military Power).

P-40E:
The P-40E gauge is also screwed up. At 100% throttle and 3,000 rpm the gauge reads 45"hg - very close to Military Power. After 100% the gauge no longer goes up. It stays at 45" hg.

P-40M:
Also porked. Exactly the same as the P-40E.

P-51D:
The FB P-51D is the only plane in FB that I KNOW the manifold pressure gauge works reasonably correctly on. At 100% throttle and 3,000 rpm the gauge reads 61" hg (For the P-51D, this would be both Military Power AND Take-Off Power). At 101% and 3,000 rpm, the gauge jumps to 67" hg - Combat Power. I think this is very accurate.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Ugly_Kid
12-22-2003, 01:52 AM
In P-40s there is a bit more screwed than just the gauges.

Both E and M manage 7500 m in 9 min 55 s and 10 min 11 s respectively (100% so there is even more there).
That's whole 3 min faster than RL for M and God knows how much more for E with
single stage SC. Both are faster than P-51 to this point, which is reasonably well modeled only that 100%
produces combat power climb times. This is, however, more academic because overheating kicks in in FB and thus
100% is the reasonable continuous limit and I believe real P-51 would sustain combat power during such a climb.

However, as for the Bf-109, you guys are tearing your shirts apart for quite obscure reasons.
First G-2 I get 100% climb 4 min 25 s with 100% fuel and power and auto prop and rad, there are
real life tests that show even better climb. I am also aware that somebody can squeeze of a better climb
time. Surprise Bf-109 was probably the best climbing aircraft commonly in
use, it's as if you were complaing about turn times of I-153.

I get 3 min 16 s for K-4 with 110%+MW50, auto prop and auto rad

Here is what I believe a correct climb track for 100% with G-2 and 110%+MW50 for K-4:
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/records.zip

Couple of notes:
-if you use incorrect climb speed, let's say 210 km/h or incorrect power setting, let's say manual prop and 3000 rpm you
get other values. Now in order to say it climbs too well with manual pitch you'd better spill the beans and bring out a RL
chart that shows RL climb with 1.3 ata and 3000 rpm with manual, might be hard to find...That's a method of showing something incorrect. Otherwise this could be corrected easily by relating overheating limit to a lower rpm as well. Most of the Bf jocks rather had correct auto than manual at all. (Speaking of which how about having even remotely correct prop modeling for CSP, huh?)
-stop quoting that IL2 compare if you want to discuss exact performance values from the game, the bloody program can't even predict correct top speed vs. altitude, the very first estimate for aerodynamic calculations of an aircraft. Consequently getting first step wrong everything else after this point approaches raffinated nonsense.
-if you look at the excel charts of mine you will not that extracting real climb rate is very difficult, I tried it with even more takes over altitude and it did not come out any better so I stayed with 500 m integration intervals. However, there's no 30 m/s+ present there.

It would suprisingly seem that G-2 is rather correct if not spot on rather than wrong. K-4 is propably too fast with MW-50 then on the other hand you could also complain about unlimited usage of MW-50 etc. etc. etc., pick your choice

K-4 is the best climbing aircraft in the arsenal if it climbs even better it seems to approach nature catastrophe, then on the other hand aircraft such as Mig-3 and P-40 which in RL showed proudly almost non existing C172 like climb rate make some 50% more than they should and you come up with K-4? Game balance, playability, that's common labels for such cases. P-39 rolls like hell and people pick up the best rolling aircraft FW-190 to complain about overmodeled high speed roll.

Integrating climb rate from Chimp's chart produces 4 min 9 s for the best climb rate curve but this is not the final thruth because of what JaRa said...

I wonder where wastel is, he might have one or two things to say about this...

FW190fan
12-22-2003, 08:48 AM
Direct quote from butch2k on the 109K-4:

"K-4 in full WEP reached 6,000m in about 4min 30sec."


http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

Ugly_Kid
12-22-2003, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Direct quote from butch2k on the 109K-4:

"K-4 in full WEP reached 6,000m in about 4min 30sec."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then 3 and a half to 5000 m would not be impossible, hopefully butch2k himself will clarify this one.

JG14_Josf
12-22-2003, 10:53 AM
Thanks Ugly Kid,


Making high speed passes through bogey clounds with the 109F4 is risky business when P-40s are near. The P-40s can latch on and follow with amazing capabilities.

I thought it may just have been a fuel load issue the first time I saw it happen.

I also checked some specifications.

Source;

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/games_elts/fb_aircraft.php



P-40E,109F4,190A4
Weight 3629,2750,3989
Power 1150,1350,1780
Wing area 21.92,17.3,18.6

Power loading

Kg per Hp

3629/1150 = 3.16 P-40E
2750/1350 = 2.03 109F-4
3989/1780 = 2.24 190A-4

Wing loading
Kg per sq. m

3629/21.92 = 165.56 P-40E
2750/17.3 = 158.96 109F-4
3989/18.6 = 214.4 190A-4

According to those figures (ball park at best I hear) the Messerschmitt has a full kilogram per horsepower advantage in powerloading and 6 kilograms per square meter advantage in wingloading.

When flying on-line with the latest patch of IL2/FB the 109F4 vs P-40E fight is a very good match-up. The Messerschmitt pilot is advised to never give the P-40E pilot any advantage in energy. The option of climbing away is a very slim margin.

Relative performance does not seem to reflect historical reference nor the cursory performance specification check.



This too from Olegs airplane page:


P-40E

"Disadvantages: Despite the addition of the Addition of the Allison V-1710-39, it was too slow, lacked maneuverability, had a low climb rate, and was largely obsolescent by any standards even before it was ordered into production."

109F4

"Advantages: Excellent performance characteristics. High maneuverability and good armament. Simple and easily understood controls."

Zentaurus
12-22-2003, 11:12 AM
i am so sick of these discussions,
and of flightmodel changes btw.
If the flightmodell of FB is going to be changed again, especially if favoring one side too much i am going to quit and never buy Maddox stuff again...
Sorry for trolling,i know this is not a very constructive post but its just a sincere expression of feeling sick when i read posts like the starting one...after having read, discussed and tested all this stuff for at least two years now i feel "combat weary"...

Gimme a russian laserbeam and i shoot him...

II/JG54_Zent

12-22-2003, 12:07 PM
Naw, it ain't bad at all when it stays civil.

I'm learning a lot by just reading these stuff.

crazyivan1970
12-22-2003, 04:14 PM
Could we just leave 109`s alone for a change... i think it`s the most changed around plane in the game. Lets just sit back and enjoy 1.21 as is. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

SkyChimp
12-22-2003, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
According to those figures (ball park at best I hear) the Messerschmitt has a full kilogram per horsepower advantage in powerloading and 6 kilograms per square meter advantage in wingloading.

When flying on-line with the latest patch of IL2/FB the 109F4 vs P-40E fight is a very good match-up. The Messerschmitt pilot is advised to never give the P-40E pilot any advantage in energy. The option of climbing away is a very slim margin.

Relative performance does not seem to reflect historical reference nor the cursory performance specification check.



This too from Olegs airplane page:


P-40E

"Disadvantages: Despite the addition of the Addition of the Allison V-1710-39, it was too slow, lacked maneuverability, had a low climb rate, and was largely obsolescent by any standards even before it was ordered into production."

109F4

"Advantages: Excellent performance characteristics. High maneuverability and good armament. Simple and easily understood controls."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Good manueverability", "bad manueverability", it's totally subjective. Without context, describing a plane as "highly manueverable" or "having poor manueverability" is meaningless.

In fact, Oleg's description of the P-40E sounds like a verbatin pull from a book I have.

The P-40 DID have poor manueverability when compared to, say, the Zero at slow speed. The Bf-109F was highly manueverable when compared to, for instance, the older E model.

Historical reference does support that the Bf-109 had better climb and high altitude performance than the P-40. But that same reference supports that the P-40 was superior in terms of agility.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Bogun
12-22-2003, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
-stop quoting that IL2 compare if you want to discuss exact performance values from the game, the bloody program can't even predict correct top speed vs. altitude, the very first estimate for aerodynamic calculations of an aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kid,
I had my reservations about quoting IL-2Compare, knowing that old version was giving considerable errors in many areas.
With new version v2.2 I have calculated maximum K-4 climb to 5000m being 2 min 49 sec.
I have recorded the track of K-4 climbing to 5000m with MW-50, auto prop and auto radiator on a winter map <u>in less then 2 min 50 sec.</u> I think IL-2 Compare is peaty accurate now.
If you want I will email you the track.

JG14_Josf
12-22-2003, 06:02 PM
SkyChimp,


My source is linked.

The subject of this post is the climb rate of the 109.

Climb rates are relative.

I hope Cube does another one of his well researched relative climb comparison studies for the new version of IL2/FB.

I'd like to know how the P-40 actually compared in climb performance to the 109F4
The power to weight and wingloading data suggests that the P-40 should compare poorly. I'd like to know what design featured contributed to the relative climb capabilities. Perhaps the P-40 was aerodynamically cleaner than the 109F4. The wires, landing gear bulges, and the huge air duct on the P-40 tends to make me think otherwise. I don't know enough to be able to claim just how well these planes should compare.

It's a UBisoft game so I went to the UBIsoft web page.

On-line the P-40E and 109F4 is a good matchup even if it is not historically accurate.

It would be nice if everything in the game was more accurate including climb rates. It would also be nice to have the latest up to date information that is used to define accuracy. Having neither can result in a lot of confusion.

The UBI quote concerning the P40 says:
"had a low climb rate"

Relative performance is more important than absolute performance in a combat flight simulator.

For example if 10% error is acceptable to simulate relative performance capabilities between two planes then 10% error is not acceptable for absolute performance error. If one plane is 10% over modeled while another plane is 10% undermodeled then the relative performance error is 20%. If 20% error is not acceptable to qualify as being within relative performance accuracy then the absolute performance accuracy must be no less than 5%.

This is why anyone stating that one plane is over or undermodeled begs for the reply that any statement of over or undermodeling is relative to the accuracy of the other planes modeled in the sim.

Picking out one plane as being innacurate in a combat flight sim is, in my opinion, missing the point.

Is the 109 accurate in climb performance?

Who cares?

Is the 109 accurate in climb performance relative to the other planes in the sim?

Is the 109F4 accurate relative to the P-40E?

That is the point of my post. Agility is another matter, as is Specific Excess Energy loss, both being interesting and important subjects but off topic IMO.

Are the 109s overmodeled in climb rates?

Compared to what?

Col.Kurtz
12-22-2003, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:
[QUOTE]
5000m with MW-50, auto prop and auto radiator on a winter map <u>in less then 2 min 50 sec.</u> I think IL-2 Compare is peaty accurate now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Doesn´t we fly this Sim now long enought to know that wintermaps give a much higher performance?
Hell even the Krim Map gives a better performance as the Smolensk...
Try to find the Sealevel topspeed of the La7 at these two maps,and you will get 615 for the first and 605 for the later.

If i remember right it was said by IanBoy that Smolensk should be used for testing.
But befor you come again and say the K4 Climb is to high,on Smolensk you get 3:06min with groundstart.
As example in same condition La7 Climbs in 4:02min to 5000m,the Yak3 does it in 4:07(abolute Correct after my knowledge)

Sry about my poor english

SkyChimp
12-22-2003, 08:19 PM
JG, the problem lies in part on your reliance on the airplane stats in your link.

The first thing I notice is that when you compare power loading, you are comparing the P-40E at Military Power to a Bf-109F at Emergency Power. That's not a fair comparison.

The P-40E, at War Emergency Power, developed 1,490 horsepower, as opposed to 1,150 at Military Power. In contrast, the Bf-109F developed 1,350 hp at War Emergency Power.


Normal loaded weight of the P-40E - full fuel, ammo, etc - was 8,290 lbs - with a wing area of 235 sq ft. Normal loaded weight for the Bf-109F was 6,063 lbs - with a wing area of 172.75 sq ft. P-40E wing loading was 35.12 lbs/sq ft. Bf-109F wing loading was 36.69 lbs/sq ft.

The data viewer indicates the Bf-109F had a wing area of 186.22 sq ft (17.3 sq m). That's wrong. It had a wing area of 172.75 sq ft (16.05 sq m)

Power loading for the P-40E was 5.56lbs/hp. For the Bf-109F is was 4.67 lbs/sq ft.

If you use appropriate figures, things don't appear as disparate. It's good to check these things with reliable sources. The data viewer at this site is not a reliable source.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
12-22-2003, 08:41 PM
IL2 Compare Program uses AI flight model.


__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

Bogun
12-22-2003, 08:58 PM
Col.Kurtz,

I think the second line (%100) in IL2 Compare "ROC vs Altitude" represent the best achievable climb performance. My summer testing was done on Krimea map with "Turbulence Off" and I came up with the same number 3 min 5 sec for K-4 (best case).
What's interesting radiator on "Auto" of "Close" did not meter time was the same.

I am not hysterical about overmodeled Bf109 if there is a problem, I hope it will be fixed, if not I will leave with this plane as it is.

Sorry, my English is also bad.

SkyChimp
12-22-2003, 10:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
IL2 Compare Program uses AI flight model.


__________________
_RUSSIAN_ lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/
_Stanly is a _moron_, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex._<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does? The AI appear significantly different than the player's FMs. Don't need IL2 Compare to see that.

What good is IL2 Compare if it uses AI FMs.?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
12-22-2003, 10:58 PM
Well, Cube said the Compare program "probably contains some elements of AI model" or something like that. And Oleg has stated the Compare program is only for a general introductory survey for exploring relative aircraft performance, much like the purpose of Aircraft Viewer data.

Compare Program does not matter, as the only way to absolutely test the FM is through flight testing in the sim and presenting complete raw data, complete procedure, and calculations. Remember the hehe "dialogue" generated over the P~51 level speed that plane was first releaced? Its not a coincidence that extreme disagreements came with the sudden absence of horizontal stabilizer in The Patch, as we suddenly found flight testers complaining about not being able to test level speeds without stabilizer FM and time accelaration FM. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

Copperhead310th
12-22-2003, 11:35 PM
Wiley Wrote:
"Your whining is overmodelled. Wastel's tests clearly show, that the G-2 is even too bad in FB, just a little bit. And before looking at the climb of 109s, you should look at climb of P-39, Las, P-47 and 51."

*SMACKS WILEY UPSIDE HIS HEAD*
Have you flown the P-47 in FB? Even with the improvements made it's still a joke. As for the p-39 it's fine as it is...as are the p-51. The P-40 is close but it needs to be incresed just a tad in climb rate. (& it's top speed is still 20 kph to slow.)

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1091.gif

Ugly_Kid
12-22-2003, 11:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
The first thing I notice is that when you compare power loading, you are comparing the P-40E at Military Power to a Bf-109F at Emergency Power. That's not a fair comparison.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That P-40E still climbs in 9 min 55 s to 7500 m in the game with 100% power, not combat power or anything just plain and simple 100%.

That WEP of 1490 HP is missing from AHT and also from pilot's manual (also from the object viewer if that's any source), where do you have it from? What is not missing is an information P-40E combat power climb with 7500 lbs:

3000 ft 1.3 min
10000 ft 4.4 min
15000 ft 7.2 min
20000 ft 11.4 min
25000 ft 18.1 min

So AHT gives P-40M about 13 min to 25000 ft with military power E is not quite that hot.

Flying with 100% and comparing with that data is more than fair.

Oh minor 8 minutes mistake :O to 25000 ft for E, hmmm 20000 ft I'll make in 7 min 3 s (err 4 1/2 min) and for 10000 ft I'll get 3 min 21 s, just a minor 1 min mistake, but hey let's have an issue with Bf-109 (a plane that's supposed to climb, P-40 normally makes almost unnoticable progress upwards) - Great change for you to demonstrate that objectivity of yours you seem to know a lot about P-40 why stop getting roll rate upgrade, it's a two way road you forgot to complain about that climb boost.

12-23-2003, 12:22 AM
"Remember the hehe "dialogue" generated over the P~51 level speed that plane was first releaced? Its not a coincidence that extreme disagreements came with the sudden absence of horizontal stabilizer in The Patch, as we suddenly found flight testers complaining about not being able to test level speeds without stabilizer FM and time accelaration FM."

I'd be more careful about making things up.

What 'extreme disagreements'?

When I confirmed wastel's famous Bf109 testings the variance between his test results and mine were generally less than 3km/h difference in speed. The same speed could be achieved with level stabilizers and without them, as much as with and without time acceleration.

The only difference now is that it takes a helluva lot of time to test anything, and we have to keep convince the people that come up with abnormal speed relations and immediate accusations that 1C purposely porked their favorite planes, that their test was tampered by large errors.

Bear in mind even without level stabilizers, the generally more 'objective' people reached simular conclusions in their own testings, with variances between 5~10km/h.

Also bear in mind that the particular testing method using level stabilizers was accepted and approved by Oleg himself, which in many occasions became source of credible criticism which prompted the developers to fix things - the P-51D was flying too fast at its initial release, and the fact was officially confirmed and admitted.

The function was merely deleted as its nature of absolute neutral control locking provided the ability to override physical limits in stick inputs during extreme situations - that does not automatically mean the overriding nature is manifested everywhere it goes.

Also I must point out differences in FM between the AI and human piloting was never admitted by 1C - it stands as a mere claim even up to this date. The only perceivable instances of exceptional maneuvering that the AI can do which humans cannot, is concerned with most usually negative G stick inputs. Even the fishy overheat issues which people have so long presumed that the AI must not suffer, does not directly intervene with performance - "AI cheating" is a control issue, rather than a true "FM" issue.

Under circumstances where the human pilot can manage certain behavior of their planes, the "cheating" is not so visible.

Assuming that a difference in micro management of trims and control surfaces will bring out difference in performance that is large enough to slap on a 'cheat' sticker, is really saying the FB way of flight is totally screwed up fundamentally.

LEXX_Luthor
12-23-2003, 12:43 AM
Thank you Kweassa that was an informative post. When we present a claim we need to offer all data such as our use of stabilizer. That this was never done is what concerned me. Or was it implied? Newbies such as myself (at the time) would not know this. We do agree that flight testing takes alot of time and effort as in real life.

btw, the serial moderators might be able to activate the Kweassa registration. They helped me.


__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

Fehler
12-23-2003, 03:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

"Good manueverability", "bad manueverability", it's totally subjective. Without context, describing a plane as "highly manueverable" or "having poor manueverability" is meaningless.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, kind of like "Excessively heavy controls at high speeds." (As compared to what? What is excessive? What should it have been to make Mr. Carson feel like it was comfortable?) I think Kit Carson should have ate his wheaties, because most (Not ALL, but MOST) German pilots never complained about stiff controls. - You know I am playing Devil's advocate here, dont you? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Actually, I am kind of sick of FM changes to the German planes based on perception. The 109 is probably the most changed, tested, tweaked, tested, changed, tweaked and tested, changed, tweakingly changed and tested plane in FB. Do something different. Jump in a 109 from IL2 v1.0, and jump in one in FB 1.21. You will swear you are flying two different planes. That's the comical part!

Instead, I recommend concern be directed towards the FW 190's damage model. The concrete plane with paper wings. Give parity to that plane with a complex DM and leave the other German crates alone.

In some ways I am glad support for FB is going to be concluded soon. Then we can have a group of planes that we can learn and stick with instead of re-learning their weaknesses from patch to patch. (I bet there will end up being more flying and fighting than testing and whining when this happens)

The only problem I see is that as "Crunch time" comes, people are trying to get their little two cents in to bolster their favorite planes or lessen their adversaries.

Give the 190 a complex DM and let us fly.. that's what I say!

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehlersig.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

FW190fan
12-23-2003, 05:47 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

I'd like to know how the P-40 actually compared in climb performance to the 109F4
The power to weight and wingloading data suggests that the P-40 should compare poorly.


Josf:

I have a USAAF evaluation of the 109F-4 with the P-39D and P-40E. The basics:

- Top Speed -

109F-4 - 390mph @20,000ft.

P-40E - 361mph @15,000ft.

P-39D - 368mph @13,800ft.

- Climb to 15,000ft -

109F-4 - 4.8min

P-40E - 7.2min

P-39D - 6.0min

- Service Ceiling -

109F-4 - 39,000ft.

P-40E - 30,000ft.

P-39D - 32,100ft.

Hope this helps. If you would like more info, please let me know.


http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

Skalgrim
12-23-2003, 08:05 AM
g2 climb almost correct

rechlin and finns test say 4,1min with 1,3ata (without wep)

with wep 10% more power is 4,7min perhaps possible

p47 climb 17,5m/sec initial, that is almost same good as a9 (18,5m/sec) in fb, but a9 has over 2000kg less weigh by same power

a9 should much better climb as p47, but not in fb

p51d need too only 4,2min to 5000m seem too to good

and all lagg type climb much better as russia data say

109 climb are perhaps little to good, but most planes climb much to good like p47

a9 initial climb with 18,5m sec is certain to weak, she has same powerloading how 45 dora

funny a5,a8 and a9 has all same initialclimb, although differ powerloading, that is not possible

k4 climb perhaps little to good, but la-7 climb too 30sec better as russia data say,

k4 with 1700ps need 4min to 5000m, but with 300ps more is 3,3min probable possible

k4 has too use 9-12199 propeller, that was more effectively as the serie 9-12159 propeller

and k4 sealevel seed is to slow,

580km/h sealevel is for 1800ps k4 with serie 9-12159 propeller, with 9-12199 fly she 595km/h sealevel

and with 2000ps 611km/h, too russia have k4 test reach over 610km/h sealevel,

why is k4 undermodel by sealevel speed, sealevel speed is very important fb

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Tue December 23 2003 at 07:26 AM.]

Willey
12-23-2003, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Have you flown the P-47 in FB? Even with the improvements made it's still a joke. As for the p-39 it's fine as it is...as are the p-51. The P-40 is close but it needs to be incresed just a tad in climb rate. (& it's top speed is still 20 kph to slow.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-39s are a bit too good. I first thought they would climb 2300ft/min max but I learned better values. It's quite close - many planes have the similar phenomenon that climb doesn't decrease with alt. That's a problem with FB's basic engine. But it's interesting to see that P-39 has it's best climb at 3000m while the 109 has it's best climb on the deck - it should rather be the other way round (2000m best for 109). Also I can live with the P-47. It's having a hard time in FB because it's relatively slow at low-med alt. I don't have the manual of it but the climb also might be close. Same problem as above. P-51 is similar. I think climb rates given for them are for "100%" - they look quite OK in that state. But with WEP they get quite a boost. I also noticed that's there's much more then 11mins water in the Jug.
Now the P-40. It seems to climb too good for it's power/weight. I might be wrong. Many ppl say it climbs far too well. But in one point you're right. It's too damn slow! 20kph for the M model and 50kph @every alt for the E model. At least that's what I'm finding out when comparing it to the data given in the database. And that's how it feels. In other sims the Hawk flies 300mph on the deck easily but in FB it's hard to keep 250... that's really odd.

boohaa
12-23-2003, 09:33 AM
Wasnt it known that if you took your plane out of auto prop that you could get better performance.I like the fact that you can tweak more power by playing with prop pitch.Now instead of getting rid of this we should get this for all planes.This way the great pilots who know how to manage the prop pitch can get even more performance out of their rides.

faustnik
12-23-2003, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

The P-40E, at War Emergency Power, developed 1,490 horsepower, as opposed to 1,150 at Military Power. In contrast, the Bf-109F developed 1,350 hp at War Emergency Power.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp,

I can't find WEP for the P-40E all I have is 1150 for TO and 1150 for MIL, where did you find that?

"America's Hundred Thousand" for the P-40M/N lists MIL 1125hp, WEP 1360hp, with max climb only a sad 2300fpm.

As for the lack of maneuverability with the P-40, "Black Cross/Red Star" quotes Soviets pilots saying "The P-40 could turn on its tail". They found the P-40 an excellent maueuvering a/c, just very lacking in other performance areas relative to the P-39.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

JG14_Josf
12-23-2003, 10:15 AM
FW190Fan, SkyChimp, anyone else interested in this reply,

Thanks for the replies.

The best job anyone has ever done, on any sim forum I have had the pleasure to read is Cube on the SimHQ forum for comparing in game climb rates to historical evidence. He listed his sources and presented the data in graphical form with historical evidence superimposed upon in game evidence.

The only thing left to do with Cube's presentation was to determine the validity of his sources.

This post is a step backwards.

These posts will continue until such time as the community of World War 2 combat flight sim enthusiasts produce a industry standard measure of performance values.

It will happen and until such time there will continue to be wide spread ignorance on the subject of relative performance capabilities.

It is very important to name your sources.

Forgive my skepticism (suspended judgement)concerning what is known to be true.

Skepticism is important in any effort to find the truth.

According to what source does a P-40E climb to 15,000ft in 7.2 min? A BF109F-4 in 4.8 min?

The statement can then be made as true. i.e. according to this source this plane did this...

This is quite different than a statment declariing that a plane had this performance capability.

Each plane or each machine of any kind is unique to some degree and therefore any number of similar machines will perform to a range of capabilities from best case to worst case.

Example:

The War Diary of Helmut Lipfert
ISBN: 0-88740-446-4

page 48

"I cast a quick glance at the machine and then climbed up after the other enemy aircraft. Damn, could he turn! Finally I was sitting behind him. I turned so tightly that condensation trails formed behind both wingtips and my Me shuddered on the verge of a stall more than once. Fortunately the Messerschmitt I was flying turned extremely well."

page 163

"We started out at the same speed, then opened the throttles simultaneously and slowly but surely the "190" pulled ahead. I couldn't keep up, even though the aircraft I was flying certainly wasn't a poor one."

In any effort to determine what is true concerning how WWII planes compared in combat peformance; the best that is possible is to narrow down the possible range of performance capabilities each run of planes could achieve.

Many of us who could fall into the group called combat flight sim enthusiasts have formed our own judgements of what is generally true. It would be good to confirm our judgements in some universal form for all to see and compare.

I would like to say with confidence that the 109F4 family of fighter planes were capable of out climbing the P-40E family.

My reading suggests that this is true but I don't have much information on this particular matchup.

Where does one find a source for comparative performance capabilities?

Where, on the internet, can one find performance informaiton that compares these two planes that are modeled in the simulator IL2/FB?

I looked at the UBI site. All the planes are there to compare.

I looked in the latest version of IL2compare.

These are sources for this information.

These sources of information are huge steps in the right direction. They collect much of the relevant data and present it in a usable form.

These sources are not without error.

If for example the wing area is wrong for the 109F4 it stands to reason that either the source for the error is wrong or possibly the numbers were typed in wrong. This is why it is important to name sources.

One source may not agree with another source.

I can measure up a G-6 myself but then again I cannot be certain that during the restoring process the wing didn't suffer some adjustments.

When more data is compared from more sources the end result is a pool of information that indicates the possible range of capabilities these planes were able to perform.

I can imagine that the best example of the most well maintained P-40E during the whole of World War II was capable of climbing with the worst, and least maintained example of an Messerschmitt 109F-4.

That is an opinion.

My sources were named. The Ubi site isn't perfect but it is better than nothing IMO.

IL2comapare isn't perfect either but it sure is better than nothing.

Boandlgramer
12-23-2003, 10:44 AM
Josf,
maybe some guys have more datas about an plane, but post just these datas, where fit their own claims.

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

JG14_Josf
12-23-2003, 11:48 AM
Excuse me please.

FW190fan,

I would like more information on the USAAF evaluation source reference that compares the P-40E, P-39D and 109F-4 performance capablilities.

It does help.

A lot.

I failed to acknowledge the source reference in my earlier post. This was not an intentional oversight. The goal to know is very much assited by historical documentation. Considering what we would know without historical documentaion should illuminate the importance of these sources. I did want to point out however that these sources are only worth so much, that they can only prove that the source claims the results found.

Documents are pieces of paper. Planes are, or once were, objects flying through space and time.

To me it is important to know the difference.

An original USAAF document showing an evaluation of the planes in question can be as good a source as any that is possible.

It is one of hopefully many sources possible.

I am going to start a thread and ask for documentation of performance capabilities.

I can put these items in one file.

This is a start.

SkyChimp
12-23-2003, 08:50 PM
Well, Ugly. I present facts, not opinion, about the P-40, and there you go - again - making comments about my objectivity. Perhaps that's a horse you could walk for awhile - I'm sure it's tired. It's certainly taking you nowhere.

Do you have a different version of AHT than I do? My copy does not have the climb times listed for the P-40E, or the M for that matter. What it does have regarding climb is a chart showing the N, F and K performance at Military Power. Please tell me the page that I can find the data you listed.

Regarding the WEP horsepower, the 1,490 h.p. figure is available in a number of sources, among them in my copy of "Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947" (Peter M. Bowers, Putnam), as well as "Vee's For Victory: The Story of the Allison V-1710 Engine 1929 - 1948" (Daniel D. Whitney, Schiffer Books). As you may know, "Vee's" is an in-depth study of all Allison V-1710 models made.

Here is a chart that will give you some information on the P-40 you may not have:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/p40_allison.jpg

--

Lastly, I have to reiterate the point that when climb is tested, IT MUST be done consistently with the test it is compared too. If you want to test the climb at military power so that a comparison can be done with the figures in the P-40 manual, you MUST climb in the manner described. If you don't, you numbers should not match.

People seem fond of pointing to climb charts and assuming these are the absolute fastest numbers possible. They aren't necessarily. They represent climb under a specific condition. Rarely do charts represent "hell bent for leather maximum climb times." Angle of climb, starting speeds, climb speed, etc will all effect time to climb numbers.

I've never seen anyone on these boards show any evidence that they tested the P-40 (or the P-39 at that) in the exact manner described in the manuals. They simply state "I started to climb at 100% throttle and this is what I got - and it doesn't match the times in the manual." Nobody ever gives the details of their test - did they start at the end of the runway (SL)? Did they accelerate at Military Power to the starting climb speed? Did they pitch their plane to maintain the prescribed climb speed? None of that is EVER presented.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Tully__
12-23-2003, 09:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:
Am I the only one experiencing problems with posting on the "new" forum?
The only mode of posting which works for me is "Quick reply".
Can we download and include link to the image on this forum or we still need to use external storage space for the images?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some people are having problems with the normal replay button when copy/pasting their posts from a word processor to the reply window rather than typing the replies directly. Is that your issue?

AFAIK you have to host images/files remotely, the board is not set up to upload files.

Edit: I seem to be having the same problem as you posting, never happened before. I'll alert admin.

=================================================

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg (http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)


Salut
Tully

faustnik
12-23-2003, 11:20 PM
The figures that I have for the 109 are all for "take off" power. For instance the 601E is listed at 1300hp for "take off" power in "Messerschmitt 109", D.A. Londe. So is this comparable to the P-40E "take off" power in AHT (1150 hp)? The same source on the 109 lists the empty weight at 6,220 lbs. The loaded wieght numbers I have found for the P-40E range from 8,400 to 8,800 lbs.

So at "take off" power the power/weight ratios are:

109F4 - .209 hp/lbs.
P-40E - .137 hp/lbs.

The 109 SHOULD have a huge sustained climb advantage over the P-40, right?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2003, 03:02 AM
Chimp,

you are circling the fact now. The last figures I listed were for P-40E from its flight manual. As for the P-40M there is the chart for P-40N in the AHT that should be just as good for M. That curve is the best available data in that source.

Now as for the testing. I assume you want to refer to advancing the throttle towards critical alt etc., tell you what real P-40E had nothing to search in 7500 m at 10 min, never mind what you did with that throttle.

You may try to proove otherwise. In FB such a climb is easy to perform. You're talking about 8 minutes mistake, 80% to 7500 m. You can try and provide better climb data for P-40E (as i.e flight manual, however I doubt it), just do it. However, I seriously doubt you're not able to find any data, not even a NACA test where it was towed by Bf-109 K-4, which will support P-40E climbing to 25000 ft in 10 min.

You see there is difference between historical correct testing and the results but there is also a place to employ some consideration.

1) Flying Bf-109 with manual pitch and beating more rpm out of the engine <U>may</U> have provided more power and <U>may</U> have provided even better climb performance if the engine was able to take the trashing. There is maybe there.

2) Flying P-40E unhistorically with constant throttle position instead of advancing the throttle to maintain MP would provide 80% better climb performane, a mere benefit of 8 min in a climb to 7500 m is a bit unprobable.

Please show me wrong, show any test data for any P-40 model that comes even close to the performance in the game. I am ready to accept such a data but with my limited resources I haven't seen anything that would justify even half of it. This has a serious air of the legendary Hurricane FM emerging in another 3D model like a Fenix.

Merry Christmas

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2003, 04:55 AM
Summa summarum,

In auto mode G-2 performance seems to be rather correct, for climb to 5000 m with 1.3 ata anything between 4 min 11 s and 4 min 40 s can be justified with real-life test data. It is also correct for the takes with 1000 m interval, in this respect IL2 Compare allegations of momentary climbrate are not representative. As much was said about Cube's little investigations on SimHQ there and then.

As for K-4 4 min to 5000 m with 110% and MW-50 is minimum there are most probably better figures for this and hopefully butch2k or wastel clarifies this point. It is not completely unrealistic to assume that a little bit more powerful K-4 performs a little bit better than G-2.

As for the manual, this most certainly provides performance boost. This could be held in check by enforcing stricter overheating limits in respect to rpm.

I understand that concern from guys like Bogun is earnest and not meant as provocative trolling, so it would be better if somebody answered the K-4 point in a matter of fact tone.

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2003, 05:28 AM
Once more for Bogun about the performance and the throttle positions.

This is Rechlin test for Bf-109G-1

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/9759597.109G1_Rechlinpage3.jpg

Below the table it says:
"Die angegebenen Leistungen beziehen sich auf Kampf- und Steigleistung d.h. n=2600 U/min: Plade=1.3 ata. Start und Notleistung ist für DB 605/2 ist derzeit ´noch nicht freigegeben."

This means the values in the table refer to Combat and Climbpower, which means n=2600 U/min MP=1.3 ata. The Start and Emergency power setting is not allowed for DB605/2 at the moment.

Same for the finnish test with Bf-109G-2 MT-215:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/9759518.FinnishBf109G2MT215_Climb_Testat1.3ata.jpg

This shows clearly manifold pressure over altitude which is 1.3 ata before dropping at 5.5 km. With DB AFAIK the boost pressure was automated and did not require changes in throttle position, this means indeed that FB's 100% setting is exactly what this data corresponds to.

WUAF_Badsight
12-24-2003, 05:30 AM
`
OK WHATS THE CONCLUSION ??

THAT MANY FIGHTERS IN FB CLIMB TOO WELL

THAT BF109s ARE NOT THE MOST OVERMODDELED

.

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2003, 05:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
`
OK WHATS THE CONCLUSION ??

THAT MANY FIGHTERS IN FB CLIMB TOO WELL

THAT BF109s ARE NOT THE MOST OVERMODDELED

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly, if any http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Huckebein_FW
12-24-2003, 06:58 AM
Somebody asked at some point the climb times for Bf-109F. I have the data for F1/2 as tested in 1941:

0km 18.5m/s
1km 0.9min 18.5m/s
2km 1.8min 18.5m/s
3km 2.7min 18.5m/s
4km 3.6min 18.5m/s
5km 4.5min 15.8m/s

As you can see climb rate was constant up to 5000m. And this performance was achieved with only 1175PS. F4 had 1350PS and 21m/s initial climb.

Another thing you have to consider is that british and american give the max power at critical altitude (in lower supercharger gear) compared to germans that give the max power at sea level. Power rating increases from sea level to critical altitude (in lower supercharger gear) for engines with powerful superchargers, so be careful when computing powerloading (make sure is at the same altitude).

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

SkyChimp
12-24-2003, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Chimp,

you are circling the fact now. The last figures I listed were for P-40E from its flight manual. As for the P-40M there is the chart for P-40N in the AHT that should be just as good for M. That curve is the best available data in that source.

Now as for the testing. I assume you want to refer to advancing the throttle towards critical alt etc., tell you what real P-40E had nothing to search in 7500 m at 10 min, never mind what you did with that throttle.

You may try to proove otherwise. In FB such a climb is easy to perform. You're talking about 8 minutes mistake, 80% to 7500 m. You can try and provide better climb data for P-40E (as i.e flight manual, however I doubt it), just do it. However, I seriously doubt you're not able to find any data, not even a NACA test where it was towed by Bf-109 K-4, which will support P-40E climbing to 25000 ft in 10 min.

You see there is difference between historical correct testing and the results but there is also a place to employ some consideration.

1) Flying Bf-109 with manual pitch and beating more rpm out of the engine <U>may</U> have provided more power and <U>may</U> have provided even better climb performance if the engine was able to take the trashing. There is maybe there.

2) Flying P-40E unhistorically with constant throttle position instead of advancing the throttle to maintain MP would provide 80% better climb performane, a mere benefit of 8 min in a climb to 7500 m is a bit unprobable.

Please show me wrong, show any test data for any P-40 model that comes even close to the performance in the game. I am ready to accept such a data but with my limited resources I haven't seen anything that would justify even half of it. This has a serious air of the legendary Hurricane FM emerging in another 3D model like a Fenix.

Merry Christmas<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not "circling " anything, Ugly. All I've done is presented fact. I haven't stated any opinion in this thread. Why are you so intent on trying to draw me into an argument?

Also, I have't tried to "prove" anything. Again, All I have presented is fact.

Like I said, and reiterate now, is that just pushing the throttle to 100% and climbing and comparing the numbers to the flight manual numbers in a lot of hooey. And that's what a lot of people do.

I've seen people post test results they got by setting up a test in QMB. I mean, just how much of an alttude advantage did they give themselves when doing so? How much of a speed advantag?

Manuals give the power setting and the climb speeds that were used to generate the climb numbers therein. Who here has condcuted a test from sea level in the manner prescribed in the manual? I haven't seen a SINGLE test posted on these boards, or SimHQ's boards, that conducuted a test that would give a valid comparison to the numbers in the manual.

I'm not saying the P-40 climb figures are correct. They probably aren't. Just as Bogun has proved the Bf-109 climb times are absurbly high. But as for the P-40E, you have climb numbers from the manual. If you want to compare the climb times of the P-40E in the game to the times in the manual, you MUST conduct the test in the manner layed out in the manual. It's that simple.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2003, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I'm not saying the P-40 climb figures are correct. They probably aren't. Just as Bogun has proved the Bf-109 climb times are absurbly high. But as for the P-40E, you have climb numbers from the manual. If you want to compare the climb times of the P-40E in the game to the times in the manual, you MUST conduct the test in the manner layed out in the manual. It's that simple.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now this sounds a bit funny. First it is impossible to replicate a climb on P-40 but the figures presented for Bf-109 are to be taken seriously. Just like that? How do you know that they were obtained correctly we are discussing seconds here.

Secondly, the figures presented about G-2 in historically correct setup are yet to be shown incorrect. As for the K-4 I can't this with certainty 4 min is possible 3 min 30 s starts being rather stretched.

You are correct about the point of replicating <U>exact</U> results, for that you would need function instruments. You are incorrect about testing at all with the game as is and drawing any conclusion. Holding constant throttle position is not a method with which P-40E climbed 8 minutes faster in real-life in the pilot's manual given as a climb with combat power. The way I see it the climb with combat power is probably the best climb it can do. Furthermore the performance generally in a pilot's handbook is something that almost as a rule no serial aircraft could duplicate.

Is that supposed to be a joke?

I am not trying to draw you into anything I could not be less interested about these quality discussions. I wanted to point out that crying here especially about Bf series with quite shady ideas is relatively out of place. This particularly when there is something that is way off in the game not just a bit, not such a tiny bit that we would need to reproduce <U>exact</U> test - way off. In this respect it would be more constructive to concentrate on these ones, but do as you wish.

Not that a grossly overmodeled P-40 is a rocket or anything just trying to put things in perspective.

SkyChimp
12-24-2003, 09:31 AM
The difference, Ugly, in case it's lost on you (and I think it is) is that the manner in which the P-40E is to be tested is KNOWN.

Do a climb test starting from take-off at the power setting in the manual and at the speed in the manual. Maintain the power setting in the manual and the speed in the manual. Record the time-to-climb at every altitude increment set forth in the manual.

Once you have done this, present your results (you'll be the first to have done it right - thus the glory to you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). Then we will have some meaningul numbers.

To simply say "there is just no way the P-40E could climb like this - even though I can't prove it one way or the other" just ain't cutting it.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

faustnik
12-24-2003, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

To simply say "there is just no way the P-40E could climb like this - even though I can't prove it one way or the other" just ain't cutting it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same holds true for the 109 SkyChimp. How can you claim the 109 climb rates are "absurd"? Can you prove that? I'm not trying to argue here as you have made excellent points about climb tests in FB relating to real life tests. The same point applies to someone's inflated figures on an in-game 109 climb test.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

JG14_Josf
12-24-2003, 09:47 AM
SkyChimp wrote:

"Just as Bogun has proved the Bf-109 climb times are absurbly high."

Is the above intended to represent a fact?

SkyChimp
12-24-2003, 09:54 AM
I also wanted to commnet on this:
You are correct about the point of replicating exact results, for that you would need function instruments. You are incorrect about testing at all with the game as is and drawing any conclusion. Holding constant throttle position is not a method with which P-40E climbed 8 minutes faster in real-life in the pilot's manual given as a climb with combat power. The way I see it the climb with combat power is probably the best climb it can do. Furthermore the performance generally in a pilot's handbook is something that almost as a rule no serial aircraft could duplicate.
Is that supposed to be a joke?

This manner of thinking on your part may be due to the "limited resourses" you have access to.

All climb tests are done under prescribed conditions. Unless the test says that it is a demonstration of maximum climb abilities of a given aircraft, it's somewhat presumptuous to assume that it is. A Combat Power climb is done at Combat Power at a certain speed - just like the Military Power climb in the manual.

In all my readings and research, I've only seen TWO "all-out" climb tests done on any US aircraft. Both were on the F8F Bearcat, in 1946, and BOTH show that in an all out climb test the plane could FAR exceed the climb times in the manual - BY A HUGE MARGIN.

So to think that a Combat Power Climb test is the maximum under any cicumstance is wrong. It's only the maximum under the circumstances under which the test was conducted.


And BTW, Pilot Handbook power ratings are typically up to 50 HP less than the manufacturer's ratings. Manufacturer ratings are also extremely conservative.

The book "Vee's" referenced above refers to a US Army wartime report entitled "Allison Engines Under Wartime Conditions". The book says that while the report is complimentary with regards to the V-1710, the the report is critical as to the conservative ratings given to Allison engines.

Guessing as to actual performance, which is what you are doing, is invariably going to frustrate you.

Test the plane according to the manual. Then complain if its off. I'm still waiting for someone to do that.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
12-24-2003, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
SkyChimp wrote:

"Just as Bogun has proved the Bf-109 climb times are absurbly high."

Is the above intended to represent a fact?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey my friend, you don't understand what I mean.

IMO IL2Compare is pretty useless. But at least it compares planes in a consistent manner. It shows the P-40 has a climb rate higher than what some people think it ought to be. Ok, but it also shows the Bf-109 has a climb rate higher than what Bogun thinks it should be. That's fair.

I don't think there is any substitute for accurate testing. And I have'nt seen any accurate testing on this board, or any other, to date. Just a lot of biching, whining, guessing...

Test the friggin plane.

I'm not complaining about climb speeds. They may or may not be off. My bich all along was the P-47 roll rate, whisih I tested in the proper manner - and still find woefully lacking.

All I'm saying is that if you want to see if the climb rates are off, then test them historically. That's a lot of work and surely the reason some people would rather keep whining. But until that's done, its all specualtion.

But in lieu of that, if IL2Compare shows the P-40 is off, it surely shows the same for the Bf-109.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2003, 10:06 AM
LOL starting from SL and putting 100% and keeping it in that position is going to provide <U>less</U> power than compensating the dropping manifold pressure with the increase of the throttle. According to you it is not sufficient by climbing with this way to say it climbs better than it should? According to you it is quite possible to get much worse climb performance by actually using more power?

I am not sure whether a casual reader gets the hilarious part of that one.

I am not interested in exact figures I am just saying that your energy to complain about overperforming is misplaced. It's also not just climb that may be misplaced this has an effect on excessive thrust so it could be possible that it's also turning too good and certainly accelerating too good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
12-24-2003, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

To simply say "there is just no way the P-40E could climb like this - even though I can't prove it one way or the other" just ain't cutting it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same holds true for the 109 SkyChimp. How can you claim the 109 climb rates are "absurd"? Can you prove that? I'm not trying to argue here as you have made excellent points about climb tests in FB relating to real life tests. The same point applies to someone's inflated figures on an in-game 109 climb test.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Absolutely, no substitute for testing. My "absurd" comment relates to the reliance on the IL2Compare tool.

There is no substitute for accurate testing. The folks whining the loudest don't seem to want to conduct a proper test.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
12-24-2003, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
LOL starting from SL and putting 100% and keeping it in that position is going to provide <U>less</U> power than compensating the dropping manifold pressure with the increase of the throttle. According to you it is not sufficient by climbing with this way to say it climbs better than it should? According to you it is quite possible to get much worse climb performance by actually using more power?

I am not sure whether a casual reader gets the hilarious part of that one.

I am not interested in exact figures I am just saying that your energy to complain about overperforming is misplaced. It's also not just climb that may be misplaced this has an effect on excessive thrust so it could be possible that it's also turning too good and certainly accelerating too good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok, in other word you are not interesting in conducting a proper test? You've resigned yourself to whining.

Talk to me when you have something to back up your complaining.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

faustnik
12-24-2003, 10:17 AM
OK SkyChimp, I get your point now and agree. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Remember however, that this thread was originaly an whine about the 109 climb rate based on an "improper" test.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

JG14_Josf
12-24-2003, 10:21 AM
SkyChimp wrote:

"Hey my friend, you don't understand what I mean."


That is why I asked the question to which the answer remains unclear.

Was the statement meant to represent a fact?

Statement:
"Just as Bogun has proved the Bf-109 climb times are absurbly high."

Answer?:

"IMO IL2Compare is pretty useless...."

Bogun has not proven that the Bf-109 climb times are absurbly high?

This makes sense but I am inclined to make sure the message is clear.

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2003, 01:44 PM
Ok now the correct procedure would be maintaining 44.5 inHg from SL up to the critical altitude which your table gives as 11700 ft.

Right now this would mean advancing throttle linearly from 100% SL to 110 % in 11700 ft and then continueing ever after with 110%.

Speed should be 150 mph on SL and reduce to 130 mph in 25000 ft. This would be correct procedure and should require 18.1 min to 25000 ft.

This will not be possible in FB because of overheat as a consequence from 110% power.

Now Mr. Chimp here says that using 100% throttle from SL to 25000 ft does not proof anything nothing at all it can not be compared with the data, not at all. In fact doing so is whining. Very well, a question to an educated reader. What would you think would climb with 100% throttle setting a) be slower and produce a longer climb time or b) produce unhistorical manipulation of engine power and produce much better climb times 10 min instead of 18 min to 25000 ft.

At the same time it is comparable to say that clearly trashing engine of Bf-109K-4 by applying 3000 rpm on manual prop is quite historical and allowable to show gross overmodeling.

Very well just to be clear of the extent of the whining.

WUAF_Badsight
12-24-2003, 02:45 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Ok, in other word you are not interesting in conducting a proper test? You've resigned yourself to whining.

Talk to me when you have something to back up your complaining.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_


what is this thread about ?

that the BF109 climb too well

but you cant even get the great climb the G2 had IRL in FB

THATS UGLYKIDS POINT

DONT YOU GET IT ????????

with 100% power in FB its SLOWER THAN THE RL TESTS

so its climb ISNT OVERMODDELED

WUAF_Badsight
12-24-2003, 02:51 PM
how about the person accusing the BF 109s of having too good a climb get accused of "whining" then

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Test the plane according to the manual. Then complain if its off. I'm still waiting for someone to do that.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_

blabla0001
12-24-2003, 02:58 PM
How about removing the manual prop pitch for the BF109's to prevent people from using the exploit?

Or edit the engine overheat/damage when someone does use manual pitch control.

faustnik
12-24-2003, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
How about removing the manual prop pitch for the BF109's to prevent people from using the exploit?

Or edit the engine overheat/damage when someone does use manual pitch control.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF they didn't have it, get rid of it!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

SkyChimp
12-24-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Ok now the correct procedure would be maintaining 44.5 inHg from SL up to the critical altitude which your table gives as 11700 ft.

Right now this would mean advancing throttle linearly from 100% SL to 110 % in 11700 ft and then continueing ever after with 110%.

Speed should be 150 mph on SL and reduce to 130 mph in 25000 ft. This would be correct procedure and should require 18.1 min to 25000 ft.

This will not be possible in FB because of overheat as a consequence from 110% power.

Now Mr. Chimp here says that using 100% throttle from SL to 25000 ft does not proof anything nothing at all it can not be compared with the data, not at all. In fact doing so is whining. Very well, a question to an educated reader. What would you think would climb with 100% throttle setting a) be slower and produce a longer climb time or b) produce unhistorical manipulation of engine power and produce much better climb times 10 min instead of 18 min to 25000 ft.



Ugly, is this the best you can do? Are you playing Devil's Advocate, or do you really not understand what I am writing?

The point I've been making is this (and I'll type slowly for you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)...

The climb test MUST be done consistently with the manual.

Clear? Or is that still a little garbled?

The climb test MUST be done consistently with the manual.

If Military Power is 100% throttle in the game, then use 100% throttle. If Military Power has to be maintained by advancing the throttle, then do that. The point is, Military Power has to be maintained throughout the climb. Still not clear?

Military Power is maintained is irrelevant. The point is is that no matter how it is is done, it's important that it is done.


BUT

Just slamming the throttle to 100% (or increasing it to maintain Military Power (or whatever way you think can deflect people from seeing that you don't see to understand) and going up, as you seem to think is appropriate, IS NOT the proper procedure.

Not only does the plane have to climb from SEA LEVEL at Military Power, it has to do it at a particular speed. Clear? I seems to be to me.

If you are not performing the test according to the way the manual says to climb - YOU HAVE NO COMPLAINT. Is this clear? If you are, adn the numbers are off - THEN YOU DO. That's a sclear as I can write it.

I haven't seen a test performed to date that mirrors the climb method in the manual. Not one. Yet everyone seems VERY content to say their numbers are better than those in the manual.

Here you go Ugly, since YOU seem to be the main one convinced that the P-40E is so far off, I'm sure you won't mind conducting the first accurate climb test to prove it. The results won't bother me one way or the other, but please, save a track of your test so that we can be sure that you actually did perform the test properly.

When can we expect you to post the results?



Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
12-24-2003, 05:02 PM
Chimp::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That's a sclear as I can write it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
lol Chimp that was a good one.


How do we translate these hysterically correct Power settings to FB throttle settings? I dunno.


__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/stan.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

SkyChimp
12-24-2003, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Chimp::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That's a _sclear_ as I can write it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
lol Chimp that was a good one.


How do we translate these hysterically correct Power settings to FB throttle settings? I dunno.


__________________
_RUSSIAN_ lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/stan.shtml
_Stanly is a _moron_, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex._<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe sI'm snot a good stypist.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Bogun
12-24-2003, 06:42 PM
I am getting "Message Body is a mandatory field. You must enter a value for it." when I try to post my stuff.
What is going on?

[This message was edited by Bogun on Wed December 24 2003 at 06:00 PM.]

Bogun
12-24-2003, 07:20 PM
I absolutely hate this new forum software.

Bogun
12-24-2003, 07:40 PM
This #$%#ing forum softwareis getting to me...
Everything is so painful if one try to be accurate. Well, I have tried.
I took this two Bf109K-4 climb graphs presented by SkyChimp and Col.Kurtz, scaled them and superimposed on IL-2 Compare chart again.

Here is what I came up with:

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Bf109K-4_climb.gif

So far I have not seen any proof that Bf109K-4 could climb to 5000m in Real Life with MW-50 (%100 fuel, armament and radiator and prop on auto) in 2 min 50sec like I did on a winter map or in 3 min 5 sec on a Krimea map.
IL-2 Compare, by the way, shows about 2 min 50 sec I say it is pretty accurate.
Of course, PSD file, were I was doing all scaling, will be forwarded to anyone who want to verify that I didn't do any mistakes. There are German writings on original graphs, so if any German speaker can label the lines on my chart better I would truly appreciate.

So, JG14_Josf, did I say anything wrong?

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
12-24-2003, 08:32 PM
when you type this ~~~>

dont have a space after it , i mean after the end bracket ]

[img]http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Bf109K-4_climb.gif

JG14_Josf
12-24-2003, 08:46 PM
Cube's climb performance comparsion post on SimHQ (http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004181;p=1)

JG14_Josf
12-24-2003, 09:04 PM
test

JG14_Josf
12-24-2003, 09:05 PM
Message body test

I think using quotes with Ctrl c and Ctrl v causes problems - edit test

JG14_Josf
12-24-2003, 09:09 PM
Cube found the same problem with the K4.

Cube wrote:
This chart also reveals third anomaly - K4, but this time climbrates are hugely overmodelled.



Finding the error of one plane is like mashed potatoes without the gravy. Relative performance is my concern. How does the climb performance error for the K4 compare to the P-51, LA7, Yak 3, etc.

Thanks for the chart it is very well done and I now have it on file.

WUAF_Badsight
12-24-2003, 09:16 PM
Finding the error of one plane is like mashed potatoes without the gravy. Relative performance is my concern. How does the climb performance error for the K4 compare to the P-51, LA7, Yak 3, etc.


this is the MOST IMPORTANT thing to remember in this discussion

FB the game is more balanced now than at ANY OTHER time in flight performance

Bogun
12-24-2003, 10:45 PM
Thank you WUAF_Badsight.
JG14_Josf, I absolutely agree, relative performance meter more.
But some planes are closer to the RL, in my opinion, some right on the mark.
If they all been overmodeled to the same degree - it would have been different.
Here is Bg109G-2 graph:
http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Bf109G-2_climb.gif

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
12-25-2003, 12:49 AM
Il2compare values can vary up to 70 km/h to ingame performance. And they are only the first part of the data that goes into deeper calculation .
(Oleg posted something like this on a P51 Speed issue maybe someone can dig it out)
Comparing with Il2compare is surely not the right way to analyse these charts.

Actually i dont know a valid testing method that ensures 100 % reliable Data from FB. But how it would look like i can describe.

For the Time of the Test you can log all variables on the plane states.
For example some values that maybe needed
x,y,z position , rudder positions, engine situation , fuelstate , oilstate , pilotweight ,
airdensity , lift on different sections etc.

I suggested this idea quite a while ago on ORR but it will surely reveal that FB is not 100 % correct in all aspects. That it cant cause it is
a Simulation that deals with limited resources on a HomePC. When we have even values that are within 5% and 7 % it would still be remarkable for a HomePC simulation.

Most of the climb figures are quite on mark under this aspect same for topspeeds as this doesnt say much how they look detailed seperated in alt steps. As for the limitation on the game engine some tests cant be flown under original conditions cause of non correct working gauges or non existing gauges also no controll and data for air density. This leads to the point where more and more assumptions beeing made for example non normalised Winterperformance Charts compared vs counterpart Summerperformance Charts. Or Climbspeeds with Manual Pitch that would reduce Engine life drasticly but would only be used as last escape IRL but not for climbtests.

Regards,
Hyperion

WUAF_Co_Hero
12-25-2003, 02:33 AM
Kindof funny how the people who "know" what they're talking about, and say someone is "whining" often have the least important / relevant things to say, and are infact, just trolling... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

This being in reference to those saying this post was in an attempt to "whine".

Col.Kurtz
12-25-2003, 06:40 AM
--------
So far I have not seen any proof that Bf109K-4 could climb to 5000m in Real Life with MW-50 (%100 fuel, armament and radiator and prop on auto) in 2 min 50sec like I did on a winter map or in 3 min 5 sec on a Krimea map.
IL-2 Compare, by the way, shows about 2 min 50 sec I say it is pretty accurate.
-------

No Bogun you dont have any Proof that K4 didnt climbed that good!
The First Chart is Without MW50 and is clearly a test with diffrent settings and airsrews also the Aircraft is heavy with 3400KG.

The chart i Postet is a Prototype or even Calculatet data.
It has a DB605L Engine that was planned for the K14 highalt version.
It has 1700PS!!
It still Climbs in 4min!

So even the worsest with DB605DB and 1850PS K4 has 150PS more!
But we Speak about the king of the 109 serie the 2000PS Version that also is modeled in Game!
Dont you think that with +300PS it would climb much better than this 4min?

If Oleg would model it like you say it would have NO chance in Climb against against La and Yak latewar Fighters.
But the Powerloadings show much diffrent case!
There only the La5FN+7 can beat the MW50 109´s with 1800PS,but only until 2000m then 109 is better!

Also look at your G2 graph, as you see there it seems clearly overmodeled in relation to Rechlin test that was 4:10min for 5000m.
Isn´t it?
So try to climb with G2 with 100%in under 4min to 5000m on a summer map!!!

On Smolenks map this gives about 4:40min with cooler closed,but isnt it after IL2Compare suposed to be clearly overmodelled with 100%?
At 100% climb from 5000m to 7000m is in Game 2:11min the rechlin Chart shows 2:12min for this!!But IL2Compare show special after 5000m a huge overmodelling.
If there is anything wrong with G2 than it is that 110% is avaible,but Oleg sayed that Russian testet their captured G2 with 1.42ata

clint-ruin
12-25-2003, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Col.Kurtz:

If there is anything wrong with G2 than it is that 110% is avaible,but Oleg sayed that Russian testet their captured G2 with 1.42ata<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Some 6 pages later I think we can get to the basic points of fact.

Number 1: Il2Compare is a tool. Ian Boys and others have stated that it uses the "AI" flight model. Oleg and Youss have said that it uses "basic" flight data before "final tunes" are applied. Whether those two statements are effectively saying exactly the same thing, we don't know. What we do know is that quite often, the tested results in-game _do_ conform to 'real life' tests, while the curves shown in Il2Compare may not. Last infamous case of this was when people re-tested some of Cubes graphs in-game for the F2A1. It was found that while Il2Compare produced ridiculous figures for climb rates, in-game performance was within error margin of real life test data.

2. If you are going to do a test in-game, it is important that you are actually testing under the same conditions that the real life test was performed under if you're trying to match it. This is much harder to nail down to a precise figure since there are so many variables, only some of which we can replicate in FB. However, assuming that reasonable attention is paid to the original testing process the numbers produced in FB should be close, assuming you know what you're looking for the results to be close to :>

3. We lack a lot of the information Oleg has used as the basis for the 'average' flight model. At various times Oleg has stated that he uses either the highest performance data available [ie P-51], an average [ie VVS], and either/or [ie LW] for various planes. Many planes - particularly the LW planes - are modelled with engine power ratings that were rare or prohibited on active service machines on the eastern front. Precisely what _should_ be an expected result is hard to determine in the first place.

If you are looking at G2 climb graphs in Il2Compare and find that they exceed even the best test available, it might be an idea to plot what you can manage under the same test conditions in-game - and then post the track. At least then you might know if it's a real phenomenon or just an Il2Compare oddity.

I think these kinds of threads look totally ridiculous when they get to page 6 and noone has even attempted to submit a track file. People could be arguing about the results or methodology of a repeatable in-game test or comparing climb techniques instead of *****ing aimlessly. Nice thought.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Ugly_Kid
12-25-2003, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:
Thank you WUAF_Badsight.
JG14_Josf, I absolutely agree, relative performance meter more.
But some planes are closer to the RL, in my opinion, some right on the mark.
If they all been overmodeled to the same degree - it would have been different.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...that IL2 compare, it is not very difficult to show that it is not consistent with the game. Integrating the climb speed over time it would give 8 min 48 s to 10 km with 100% power. The discrepancy with RL would be greater above 6500 m - well, I got ~11 min 15 s to 10 km, which is slightly better than it should be but not even remotely as good as IL2 Compare claims. I used auto radiator with closed or position 2 it could be better.

About that relative performance, we were chasing Mig-3ud from 7000 m to 11000 m in VEF, we did not catch him with Bf-109G-2...

Remember that Oleg himself stated that G-2 climb is overmodeled and will be changed in the patch. I am pretty sure they had a look at it and this is the result.

But you see it is not climb alone. The climb curve reflects power output as well. Real one has a power increase up to 2000 m, this is visible in top speed as well. IL2 Compare would suggest no power increase and also linear top speed increase. It would suggest that G-2 is too slow all over the altitude.
Why no complaints, luftwhiners are not that shy, are they? Maybe IL2 Compare is not the whole thruth?

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/speed_g-2.jpg

As for the Chimp's request. Here is a track of P-40E making it below 10 min to 7500 m:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/P-40E_climb_121.rar

Couple of notes, FB engine management does not work as in reality. If I have understood correctly at least Allison did not have automatic boost control and this required pilot to apply more throttle to maintain MP up to critical alt. In FB Oleg has decided to give the aircraft more than its share selecting that 100% will provide military power and maintain boost 44.5 inHG automatically up to critical alt ~12000 ft. In real life there would be no more power than this at 12000 ft but in FB we still have that 10%.

Anyway what I did was a climb with ~140 mph and constant 100%. The MP remains 44.5 inHg up to 12000 ft and then starts dropping. The climb to 25000 ft is 8 minutes faster than the best performance figures I have seen for P-40E.

It's still not a rocket but it causes unhistorical difficulties fighting P-40 with Bf-109E-4, for example. IMO this is far more serious than having K-4 outclimb you this much or that much, it's going to do it anyway. Even this patch is not perfect but it's again a lot better than the previous ones. This is just my opinion but that complaining should be also done in respect to relative errors. Then on the other hand who cares this forum is for complaining not for reading them that's at least what 1C is wisely not doing.

Ugly_Kid
12-25-2003, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
I think these kinds of threads look totally ridiculous when they get to page 6 and noone has even attempted to submit a track file. People could be arguing about the results or methodology of a repeatable in-game test or comparing climb techniques instead of *****ing aimlessly. Nice thought.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have posted frigging 3 tracks and three graphs and additional two set of figures :P
Two of them show that Bf-109 might perform closer to reality as one thinks and one shows that the vigour for the witchhunting might have better targets.

This is of course mere whining according to baboon.

The only conclusion is that people get outclimbed by Bf-109 and find it suprising. This alone tells a whole world about this forum. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

clint-ruin
12-25-2003, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
I have posted frigging 3 tracks and three graphs and additional two set of figures :P
Two of them show that Bf-109 might perform closer to reality as one thinks and one shows that the vigour for the witchhunting might have better targets.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not aiming at you with that post - I know full well how annoying it is to try and prove a negative against unsupported arguments :>

Burden of proof should always be on the person claiming something's porked, IMHO.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Ugly_Kid
12-25-2003, 08:36 AM
Never mind that :P was meant for irony. You are right though, popular beliefs seldom require hard evidence. Also very common in the past luftwhining, luckily at least this party has little to complain at the moment. I just hope that preserving the current status quo does not require pre-emptive luftwhining http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG14_Josf
12-25-2003, 10:49 AM
If in fact the most important aspect of accuracy in modeling is to recreate the realtive strengths and weaknesses of the planes being modeled then the absolute best and most important comparision possible is energy maneuverability in the form of Altitude Mach and Turn performance charts.

I have loaned out my book "Boyd" and cannot quote it at this time. This book illuminates the real world application of energy maneuverability comparisons.

The most important factor in determining if one plane was capable of dominating another plane is energy bleed.

Two planes passing nose to nose at the same speed and same altitude in battle must turn to gain possition on the other or concede defeat.

The ability to turn at a faster rate, a smaller radius, climb higher, or dive faster does not necessarily make one plane better in combat than another. What happens to a planes energy state after each maneuver will determine which plane comes out on top.

The question the fighter pilot must answer when considering if his plane does have an edge over the other is to determine how much energy his plane will have relative to the enemies as the two planes maneuver.

This can be done in graphical form with E-M or H-M charts.

An edge in climb performance alone in combat will enable one fighter plane to out climb another. This edge alone is relatively meaningless in combat. Going back to the same two planes passing at the same altitdue and same speed. The better climbing plane can pitch up the nose and gain energy over the other plane at a steady rate. The better climbing plane can increase his advantage to combat the other plane. If however the other plane has a much better rate of energy loss in the turn then the advantage gained in the climb will be lost in any efforts to regain possition.

Climb advantage is then a defensive advantage.

Identifying a climb advantage that one plane has over another plane is one of many imporatant considerations in air combat. It does not tell the whole story. Not by a long shot.

Identifying energy maneuverability on the other hand will show specific combat effective advantages one plane will have over another, at which altitude, speed and g load.

With an energy manevuerability diagram of one plane superimposed over another planes diagram the pilot can know how much energy advantage he will have over the enemy after the application of a specific maneuver at a specific g load.

Back to the head on pass of two planes in combat at the same altitude and the same speed.

If the climb advantage is also an energy loss advantage then the pilot with the climb advantage will know that in 180 degrees of turn the climb advantage plane will have a greater abilitly to zoom up after the turn, or he will have a greater capacity to continue the turn without loss of altitude.

If both planes turn 180 degrees then one plane will have either a speed or an altitude advantage over the other plane and the H-M or E-M diagram will show this potential advantage.

The other very important factor concerning the combat fighter pilot is where both planes are possitioned relative to the other after the 180 degree turn and this information is available with turn performance charts.

If both planes turn 180 degrees at the same rate and the same radius they will be in a second head-on merge. The plane with the better capacity to retain energy will have the advantage.

The plane with the beter capacity to retain energy will increase this advantage as the fight continues.

Turn fighters turn and tend to turn slow, tight, continuous or stalling turns in the horizontal plane for the greatest advantage of possition.

Energy fighters turn with gravity assist or at corner speed in the vertical.

Some matchups are so close in capacity to turn and retain energy that it is very difficult to determine which tactics to employ effectively against the other.

Finding out how these planes matchup in the game is the greatest fun the game offers some of us and others find it interesting to find out if the game matches what history recorded as documented evidence showing how those planes actually did match-up in combat.

Time to make Christmas breadfast.

Later

hop2002
12-25-2003, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The chart i Postet is a Prototype or even Calculatet data.
It has a DB605L Engine that was planned for the K14 highalt version.
It has 1700PS!!
It still Climbs in 4min!

So even the worsest with DB605DB and 1850PS K4 has 150PS more!
But we Speak about the king of the 109 serie the 2000PS Version that also is modeled in Game!
Dont you think that with +300PS it would climb much better than this 4min?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It should certainly climb to 5000m in better than 4 mins.


However:

The DB605L was supposed to use a 4 bladed propeller, which may well have improved climb relative to the 3 bladed prop.

Also, we can compare the 1700ps 605L with the convential K4 SkyChimp posted the chart for.

The chart SkyChimp posted shows a K4 with 1800/1850 ps. That gave a peak climb rate of just under 22 m/s with 1850ps.

The chart for the K4 with 605L you posted also gives just under 22 m/s with 1700ps. It shows a slightly lighter plane, but I suspect much of the difference is down to the different props. At sea level, the planes are about equal with the K4 using only 1850 ps, so with the full 2000ps it should climb faster than the DB605L engined K4.

However, the Db605L also seems to lose less power with altitude. For example, by 4,000m, the DB605L engined plane is climbing about 0.8m/s faster. By 5,000m, the difference is about 1.6 m/s in the 605L engined plane's favour. Even the extra 150ps probably won't make up that much difference.

The 109K4 with 2000ps should undoubtedly be faster than 4 minutes to 5,000m. I believe when we had the discussion on Butch's board, the conclusion from Butch and a few others was about 3 mins 40 sec to 5,000m. That's an average of 22.7 m/s. If it's really doing it in 3 mins in the game, then that's an average of nearly 28 m/s, which is way over the top.

Even Isegrim, in his charts, is only claiming 3 mins 38 secs or so, which is an average of just under 23 m/s.

Bogun
12-25-2003, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Never mind that :P was meant for irony. You are right though, popular beliefs seldom require hard evidence. Also very common in the past luftwhining, luckily at least this party has little to complain at the moment. I just hope that preserving the current status quo does not require pre-emptive luftwhining http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Col.Kurtz, you either misunderstood me or doing this on purpose http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Never in any of my posts I have clamed that I know how good Bf109K-4 suppose to climb in the best case scenario. In fact, I was asking for a proof that it did climbed as good as it does in IL-2:FB.
So far we have two charts where K-4 climbs to 5000 in 4 minutes plus.
I have the original chart that you have posted, and there is nothing about 1700hp crippled engine. It does not meter, I assume that you are right and you know all about this particular Bf109K-4 test. It does not change anything.

Can you please, show any original German document were K-4 shown able to climb to 5000m under or around three minutes?
You mentioned that historical La-5FN and La-7 had advantage in climb over late Bf109 to 2000m. Can you say the same about our game now?

Now about G-2.
You are offering me to try to climb with %100. On a surface it sound correct, right?
In better part of Bf109G-2 useful life its engine was limited to about 1.3ATA (not sure) or effectively to Steig - u. Kampfleistung, which is also very punishing regime on the engine and could not been sustained for a long time.
Are you trying to tell me that Blue pilots in the game are constrained by the same limitations? Absolutely not, all G-2 drivers jam throttle to %110 and climb as well as it allows. And what performance do they get?
OK, Bf109G-2 test on summer map, auto pitch, auto rad, %110 power 5000m in 3 min 40 sec without killing the engine. Hell, without even engine overheating!!!!
Are you truing to tell me that this is correct? By the way, can you please show us any proof that G-2 with non-crippled engine could climb this well in real life?

If Oleg asked me, I would advised to have G-2_Early and G-2_Late with different engine performance, but we don't have it in the game now.

About your episode with MiG-3ud. MiGs had many drawbacks, especially at the beginning, but high altitude performance was not one of those drawbacks. Especially late -3ud or -3U series.Having said that, I would still think that G-2 should have outclimb -3ud unless MiG pilot was exceptionally clever and used his initial better energy state to disengage from you.

Now Ugly_Kid, about "vigor for the witch-hunting". I do not appresiate your irony. There have been much noise made on this forum about "Russian Uber planes" and Red planes performance been creeping down with every patch. But not Blue planes performance. I want the same people who were screaming for "Historical accuracy" continue to do so until at list relative performance will be established.
You said you want to "preserve the status quo"?
Sorry, I don't.

Now about tracks. I have been living without any space to post my stuff for a long-ling time. Not any longer.
Here are two tracks I have recorder to comply with Ugly_Kid's test methodology:
http://bogun.freewebpage.org/Bf109G-2&K-4_climb.zip

Bf109G-2 time to 5000m in 3 min 40 sec.
Bf109K-4 time to 5000m in 3 min 12 sec.

By the way, Fw190 climb charts are coming...

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

Ugly_Kid
12-25-2003, 03:02 PM
Bogun,

you have to take issues separately. I wrote that I understand that you mean your question earnestly and you're not trying to troll around here (some do though). For this reason I tried to answer G-2 part as well as I could and I would appreciate it if someone could do it for K-4. I agree more or less with what hop2002 wrote.

I watched that G-2 track and there is nothing wrong there, only that you're doing it with 110%, the documented performance both from finnish and Rechlin tests are for 100% equivalent - take it as a known fact, it is safe to assume that 110% provides further improvement. I don't have information about a) usability of this higher power setting b) performance gain. Sorry.

Now as for the 110%, 1.42 ata setting. I don't know where it was used, Finland did not have it and the engines of G-2 even with 1.3 ata limitation had a very short life-time. Oleg decided to include it - I don't know why but the relative performance for 100% is ~correct. The suggestion for early or late is justified, no problem with that either.

Bogun
12-25-2003, 03:54 PM
Kid,
In the game now nobody care about flying G-2 with %100 power setting. Everyone jums power to %110.
Here is a track of Bf-109G-2 flying for 42 min at %110 power:
http://bogun.freewebpage.org/Bf109G2_engine_NOT_owerheating_test.zip
Start und Notleistung (%110power) was suppose to be used only for very short period of time and how historical is what we have in the game now? Hope this is not a "status quo" you would want to preserve.

I hate luftwhiners, those m00rons who just whine to no end, but when one cames with the profs, with data, when one find an error in the game - it is not a Luftwhining, VVSwhining or any whining - it makes the game better.

And trols... there are many, I hope anyone who think can see I am not one of them.

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

hop2002
12-25-2003, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Start und Notleistung (%110power) was suppose to be used only for very short period of time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Start und Notleistung (1.42ata) was banned on the 109G series (DB605) from June 1942 until June 1943. On early 605s, 1.3ata was to be used only when operationaly essential.

Huckebein_FW
12-25-2003, 04:46 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>Start und Notleistung (%110power) was suppose to be used only for very short period of time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Start und Notleistung (1.42ata) was banned on the 109G series (DB605) from June 1942 until June 1943. On early 605s, 1.3ata was to be used only when operationaly essential.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does it mean it was banned? Who gave that order? Do you have it? How it was respected, if at all?

DB presentation of DB605A dated in October '42 does not mention a word about such restriction. Bf-109G captured by the russians in '42 did not have such restriction. Romanians who used Bf-109G2/G6 from January '43 never had such restriction. So what are you talking about?

Such temporary limitations were imposed at different times for many planes, because of the quality of fuel or spare parts available to certain squadrons. Now we have the P-39 and P-40 modelled with boost pressures for american 100 grade fuel, though such fuel type was rarely used in VVS. This was a real limitation and was in place for the whole duration of the war. Why not request this?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

SkyChimp
12-25-2003, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Now we have the P-39 and P-40 modelled with boost pressures for american 100 grade fuel, though such fuel type was rarely used in VVS. This was a real limitation and was in place for the whole duration of the war. Why not request this?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We've got them because the uS also supplied huge quantities of that fule to be used in the ALL aircraft. That's been discussed here before, you must have missed it.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

hop2002
12-25-2003, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What does it mean it was banned?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The engines were not allowed to use more than 1.3ata.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Who gave that order?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quartermaster general. There is a note at the end that says it superceeds RLM teleprinter message No 1374/42 of 12/06/42

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Do you have it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have a copy of the translation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How it was respected, if at all?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Finnish 109s seem to have obeyed it. I don't know of any German aircraft that disobeyed the insruction either.

Considering it was imposed because otherwise engine pistons were liable to burn out, then I should think it was widely obeyed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>DB presentation of DB605A dated in October '42 does not mention a word about such restriction. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What document is that? I only have the order banning 1.42 from June 42, it's Butch who said it wasn't lifted until June 43, and even Isegrim has on occasion said he order was lifted in 43.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Bf-109G captured by the russians in '42 did not have such restriction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure? Again, wha is the source? As an example, Arnim Faber's 190, captured by the British, was an A3. 190A3s were derated to 1.35 (or 1.3) ata. However, Faber's plane was tested by the British at 1.42ata (1.45?). Simply looking at the test of the 190 b the British would "prove" that the 190s weren' derated at the time, but of curse we know they were. What exactly do the Russians say that prove their captured 109 wasn't derated?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Romanians who used Bf-109G2/G6 from January '43 never had such restriction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, source?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So what are you talking about?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am talking about the instructions from the RLM/Quartermaster general banning 1.42ata in June 42, and Butch's assertion that it wasn't lifted until June 43, and Isegrim's admission it wasn't lifted until 1943.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now we have the P-39 and P-40 modelled with boost pressures for american 100 grade fuel, though such fuel type was rarely used in VVS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The figures I have seen show 50 - 60% of Soviet aviation fuel came from US and British supplies.

Huckebein_FW
12-26-2003, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The engines were not allowed to use more than 1.3ata.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is solely your opinion. You don't have a single proof that such restriction was in place for LW squadrons.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Finnish 109s seem to have obeyed it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That Finish squads had such order might be related to the quality of their fuel supplies. In any case Finish pilots were not under RLM command.

Occasionaly RLM gave such confusing recomendations, that nobody bothered with (like the order to put out of production the He-177). And when you say an order from RLM the source is still unclear. Is it from OKL or not?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't know of any German aircraft that disobeyed the insruction either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I don't know any LW squadron that obeyed the order either. This is what you have to prove.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What document is that? I only have the order banning 1.42 from June 42, it's Butch who said it wasn't lifted until June 43, and even Isegrim has on occasion said he order was lifted in 43.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the document. Take a look at the date and tell me where do you find any restriction to use 1.42ata:

http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605A.pdf


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Are you sure? Again, wha is the source? As an example, Arnim Faber's 190, captured by the British, was an A3. 190A3s were derated to 1.35 (or 1.3) ata. However, Faber's plane was tested by the British at 1.42ata (1.45?). Simply looking at the test of the 190 b the British would "prove" that the 190s weren' derated at the time, but of curse we know they were. What exactly do the Russians say that prove their captured 109 wasn't derated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the brits tested that A3 and found that it worked all right at 1.42ata. So did the 109. If you say it didn't why don't you tell us what were the significant differences between '42 and '43 variants of DB605 that allowed that use of 1.42ata in '43?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Romanians who used Bf-109G2/G6 from January '43 never had such restriction.Again, source?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not many know that Creditul Minier refinery at Brazi/Romania produced 0.6 million tones/year of high grade fuel (though bombarded in operation Tidal Wave, August '43, and not reconstructed -- the only Romanian refinery in which production suffered after that raid). So why not having Bf-109 with C3 fuel (1550PS) instead of the B4 fuel powered variant that we have now. With C3 DB605A certainly did not have any boost limitation, and C3 was used frequently for 109 before 190 were needed in numbers against american bombers.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now we have the P-39 and P-40 modelled with boost pressures for american 100 grade fuel, though such fuel type was rarely used in VVS.

Hop:
The figures I have seen show 50 - 60% of Soviet aviation fuel came from US and British supplies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What source are you using?? what is the USSR's total aviation fuel consumption in your source? what is the quantity of 100 octane fuel from the total quantity of aviation fuel the allies had delivered to the soviets?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Fri December 26 2003 at 05:12 AM.]

clint-ruin
12-26-2003, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Hop:
The figures I have seen show 50 - 60% of Soviet aviation fuel came from US and British supplies.
What source are you using?? what is the USSR's total aviation fuel consumption in your source? what is the quantity of 100 octane fuel from the total quantity of aviation fuel the allies had delivered to the soviets?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Huckles,

You can't imagine how much I'd love it if you would start your own thread on this topic, elsewhere. Preferably on a web board far, far away.

The source I have for the above [sorry to butt in on this] is listed as Sokolov, "Lend Lease" P570-81.

As used in Richard Overys "Russia's War", P197:

The list of other supplies, equally vital to the soviet supply effort, is impressive: 57.8 per cent of aviation fuel requirements, 53 per cent of all explosives, almost half the wartime supply of copper, aluminium and rubber tyres.

I have no breakdown of how much of it was 100oct fuel, however, assuming that it was fuel to be used with US equipment I would consider it unlikely that they would ship aviation supplies that would cause expensive airplanes to need to be de-rated or suffer other such problems.

Thankyou for your time.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

hop2002
12-26-2003, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That Finish squads had such order might be related to the quality of their fuel supplies. In any case Finish pilots were not under RLM command.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wether they were under RLM command or not is immaterial. The order was issued for safety reasons, because the engines were liable to lose a piston if run at 1.42ata. They'd have been as liable to lose a piston wether a Finn or a German was flying.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Occasionaly RLM gave such confusing recomendations, that nobody bothered with (like the order to put out of production the He-177).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's nothing much confusing about this. The first two paragraphs are:

"A number of cases of breakdown in the DB 605 engine as a result of pistons burning through have occured. The following must therefore be observed.

The take-off and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42ata may not at present be used." (In the translation, this is underlined)

Not very confusing, is it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And I don't know any LW squadron that obeyed the order either. This is what you have to prove.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok. We already have the RLM/Quartermastter General's order. We already know the Finnish 109s followed this restriction.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is the document. Take a look at the date and tell me where do you find any restriction to use 1.42ata:

http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605A.pdf
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you speak German? I don't, but it only took me a couple of miniutes to find this:

Start- und Notleistung ** U/min 2800 1.42 ata
Steig- und Kampfleistung U/min 2600 1.3 ata

Start und Notleistung is marked with two asterixs, as is the lavel underneath:

"** die start und notleistung ist bis auf widerruf gesperrt, es dürfen somit 2650 U/min (2600 U/min +- 2%) in keiner fluglage überschritten werden"

Google translation:


"the start and emergency achievement is closed up to revocation, it may thus 2650 U/min (2600 U/min + - 2%) in no flight attitude be exceeded"

Even the chart you have posted to prove me wrong says exactly the same thing, 1.42 ata was banned, 1.3ata could not be exceeded.

So we now have the RLM/Quartermaster General's order, the fact that the Finnish 109s were derated, and this document from "Der Reichminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe Technisches Amt"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So the brits tested that A3 and found that it worked all right at 1.42ata.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they report it ran very roughly, and suffered damage by the end of the trials.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you say it didn't why don't you tell us what were the significant differences between '42 and '43 variants of DB605 that allowed that use of 1.42ata in '43?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering the problem seems to have been pistons burning through, then it seems likely they strengthened or modified the pistons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So why not having Bf-109 with C3 fuel (1550PS) instead of the B4 fuel powered variant that we have now. With C3 DB605A certainly did not have any boost limitation, and C3 was used frequently for 109 before 190 were needed in numbers against american bombers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every engine has a boost limitation, no matter what the fuel. Which 109s do you mean should have 1550ps? This restriction from 1.42 ata to 1.3ata wouldn't have been changed, it's related to engine strength, not detonation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What source are you using?? what is the USSR's total aviation fuel consumption in your source? what is the quantity of 100 octane fuel from the total quantity of aviation fuel the allies had delivered to the soviets?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sources all seem to agree the USSR recieved between 50 and 60% of it's aviation fuel from the Western Allies. I'll try and dig out some exact references later.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is solely your opinion. You don't have a single proof that such restriction was in place for LW squadrons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to recap, the sources are the RLM/ Quartermaster General's order, the document you posted from "Der Reichminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe Technisches Amt", the fact that finnish 109s were banned from using 1.42ata.

Just to throw in one more, the 109G1 Reichlin test says Start und Notleistung is not yet approved ("Die angegebenen Leistungen beziehen sich auf kampf und steigleistung. n
- 2600 U/min :Plade - 1.3 ata. Start und notleistung ist für 605/A
zurzeit noch nicht freigegeben"
The figures indicated refer to combat and climbing power. n - 2600
U/min:Plade - 1,3 ata. Take-off and emergency power is not as yet
approved for the 605/A.)

Col.Kurtz
12-26-2003, 07:35 AM
@Huckebein
Please look at the Engine Card again that you had Posted!
Page4 below the Engine Performance

** Die Start und Notleistung ist bis auf Wideruf gespeert,es dürfen somit 2650Z/min nicht überschriten werden.

** Emergency Power is banned until it will disbanned again,its forbitten to exed 2650rpm under all conditions!

@Bogun
Read mypost again i didnt sayed G2 Performance is in Historic contex right or how good the K4 climb.
The sense of my Post was to show at the G2 that IL2Compare does not show Realclimb data!
IL2Compare sayes that even 100% in game gives much to high performance but the real thing is that it is even a little to weak under normal condition Climb.(No Winter,standart Clima Map plz note that every La5-7 can be called overmodelled on Wintermaps because they perform also better there)

Again to the 109

Lets take a look to this outstanding Spitfire Homepage:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/

It shows a Spit14 with Griffon65 engine
Climb with 18LB Boost to 5000m is=
3,9min!
Its weight is 3856Kg
Horse Power if i readed it right =
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/griffonhp_b.jpg

1800HP@Sealevel
2000HP@3900m
about 1700hp@5000m
This gives a HP/Wheight of=
2,14KG/HP@sealevel
1,93Kg/Hp@3900m

It Climbspeed is 280Km/H IAS like the 109
-----------------------
Now the 109K4 @3362kg
2000PS @sealevel
1850PS@5000m

1,68Kg/HP@sealevel!
1,81kg/HP@5000m (count this also for Standart MW50 109 as Sealevel performance)
-----------------------
Here a G6 Standart without MW50 @3196kg

1475PS@Sealevel
1550PS@2000m
1350PS@5000m

2,16Kg/PS@sealevel
2.06KG/PS@2000m
2,36Kg/PS@5000m

I Hope my translation of the Spit Data in metric is right


Now plz Compare the Power/Wheight Datas of these 3 Birds and you can see that even the G6 was not a flying brick!
Of Course better airscrews will maybe help the Spit.

Edited the Links
sry dont know why the links doesnt work even with the Link tool http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
now it works http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[This message was edited by Col.Kurtz on Fri December 26 2003 at 06:45 AM.]

Bogun
12-26-2003, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
....What source are you using?? what is the USSR's total aviation fuel consumption in your source? what is the quantity of 100 octane fuel from the total quantity of aviation fuel the allies had delivered to the soviets?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Huckebein,
Just curiouse, what sources do you have?
I sounds like you are very confident in your position and you should not be.
I have Russion numbers and they tottaly confirm what Hop and SkyChimp were saying.
I will just take a little time to translate. In mintime do you mind sharing yours?
But I somehow think you will not....

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

Bogun
12-26-2003, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The engines were not allowed to use more than 1.3ata.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is solely your opinion. You don't have a single proof that such restriction was in place for LW squadrons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Finnish 109s seem to have obeyed it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That Finish squads had such order might be related to the quality of their fuel supplies. In any case Finish pilots were not under RLM command.

Occasionaly RLM gave such confusing recomendations, that nobody bothered with (like the order to put out of production the He-177). And when you say an order from RLM the source is still unclear. Is it from OKL or not?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't know of any German aircraft that disobeyed the insruction either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I don't know any LW squadron that obeyed the order either. This is what you have to prove.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What document is that? I only have the order banning 1.42 from June 42, it's Butch who said it wasn't lifted until June 43, and even Isegrim has on occasion said he order was lifted in 43.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the document. Take a look at the date and tell me where do you find any restriction to use 1.42ata:

http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605A.pdf

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Romanians who used Bf-109G2/G6 from January '43 never had such restriction.Again, source?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/AbsentWEPSwitch.gif
Source:
Translated Bf109G-2 Flight and Maintenance manual
published in March 1943, Take-off prosedure, page 11.
So Hik how exactly Finnish, German and Rumanian pilots could "disobay the order"
when "Start -u. Notleistung" switch was removed?

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

[This message was edited by Bogun on Fri December 26 2003 at 07:28 AM.]

MiloMorai
12-26-2003, 09:17 AM
That is an interesting reference(ie. sw. removed) Bogun.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bogun
12-26-2003, 10:08 AM
Here is a link to the translated Finnish Bf109G-2 manual where the pic came from:
http://www.bf109.com/acrobat/bf109g2.pdf

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

Jippo01
12-26-2003, 11:32 AM
From what I have read the Finnish 109's were derated for longer engine life span, not because engines couldn't be used at higher pressure. Also they were (AFAIK) modified by Finns by Finnish iniative, not much to do with Germans.

So what ever reads in Finnish manual doesn't necessarily affect other nations at all. Document is translated from a Finnish copy, not a German one, it means it is already ´localised´.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Ugly_Kid
12-28-2003, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:
Kid,
In the game now nobody care about flying G-2 with %100 power setting. Everyone jums power to %110.
Here is a track of Bf-109G-2 flying for 42 min at %110 power:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since this discussion is taking a nice turn I'll post this one more time.

Here is a track with overheat and damage.
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/109G-2_overheat_121.zip

It seems to be a speed issue. It overheats much faster at ~300 km/h. In a constant climb somewhere around 5000 m you will get an overheat message. If you flew Bf as much as I do you'd know that overheating needs some consideration, not as much as previously but it is still not immune to it.

As for a 1.42 ata setting I assume 5 min would be normal limitation if it was given free to use. As for the possible performance expectations I can only refer to "Kennblatt für das Flugzeugmuster Bf109 Baureihe F-1 und F-2 mit DB601N Motor"
climb to 5000 m 5.4 min and 4.5 min with respective 1.3 ata, 2400 U/min and 1.42 ata and 2600 U/min. In this model the usage was limited to 3 min. So refering to this one the gain is considerable.

I have the similar document for G-model and it has 1.42 ata listed for it. However, it also has the same note, in the climbtime table, about 1.42 ata not being allowed at the time.

So in this respect the engine not overheating at speeds above 490 km/h is questionable, it seems that they overdid the improvements on radiator modeling. In this case you're speaking of Bf not overheating but you're not past the point of showing it overclimbing. If you really want to get that part fixed you might try another medium, not this forum.

My status-quo comment was not meant to claim game balance or such anything like that. It was meant to emphasize the simple fact that there is hardly any luftwhining that could be taken seriously at the moment, but you have also considerable problem to show something being totally wrong.

Furthermore, if you have a beef with the current state of the soviet fighters you should document your issues and use appropriate medium to communicate these issues with the dev. team. I don't know enough to say this or that and with my Russian knowledge I can hardly educate myself. I can only comment from general basis of what's possible or unlikely. My interest resides in the LW aircraft where I have much better access to data. However, it seems to me that ORR is not a place to share information, not even a place to exchange friendly words this even around the Christmas.

SkyChimp
12-28-2003, 04:35 PM
Anyone notice the roll rate on the P-47D-27 is wrong http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Bogun
12-28-2003, 04:47 PM
Development with Bf109G-2 not overheating.
I have re-run the tests again before submiting "bug-report" - there was a mistake in my original statement.
Bf109G-2 does overheat in about 11 min. while flying at 110% power (still takes too long in my opinion).
Bf109G-2 does NOT overheat while flying at 109% power (like on my track).
It is a bug.

SkyChimp,
I have tryed to document the roll rate of D-27 - it was just too hard for me to record correct roll performance of it in the game. Can you please help me to put together the "bug report" and I will submeet it to Oleg.

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

faustnik
12-28-2003, 04:51 PM
Just got out of a DF room. Had to go "red" and found the G2 anything but "uber". All the Soviet '42 birds out-turned it with ease. Sustained climb was good but, not exceptional. I think the whole G2 climb whine is just a witchhunt. I hope Oleg sees it for what it is.

I realize that "absolute" correctness in FMs is desired but, I can accept the relative correctness that 1.21 delivers.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

S77th-brooks
12-28-2003, 04:57 PM
B/S IT OVERHEATS WELL BE FOR THAT,TRY FLYING IT

S77th-brooks
12-28-2003, 08:16 PM
i got 5.04 mins in winter map on auto rad

Tully__
12-28-2003, 11:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S77th-brooks:
i got 5.04 mins in winter map on auto rad<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At what altitude, speed, angle of climb, throttle setting, fuel load, munitions load?

=================================================

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg (http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)


Salut
Tully

Tully__
12-28-2003, 11:57 PM
Some of you may note some missing posts. Please keep personal comments out of posts. If you have a problem, notify a mod and DON'T RESPOND. Responding almost always makes it worse.

=================================================

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg (http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)


Salut
Tully

S77th-brooks
12-29-2003, 12:42 AM
o stright up 260 speed at 110 speed ,50% fuel,standed load out,5.04 mins to over heat,winter map

C_FA
12-29-2003, 04:56 AM
Can`t say much on the G2 climb rate except that
there are some other planes that climb good!

But the numbers on the overheat are different.

Tested (G2,G6/AS,G10,G14,K-4) all on summer online DF map, sea level, default loadout, 50% fuel, Rad closed, straight-out speed run, 110%.

Got the overheat warning in 3:30.
Damage to engine between 4:00 to 5:00 minutes after the warning came on and doing nothing about it. Tried running throttle at the old 1.0 setting 103,107,109 etc. and didn`t see anything different except the speed. Slower!

Also seems about the same for La 7`s and Yak-3`s and Ki-84`s.

I only fly online (UBI) in the down and dirty furball fights and would say that there are some pro`s and con`s on both sides but in the end there about even now after 1.21.

The LW rides might climb better, but some the WS rides are hard as he11 to bring down! And before anyone says your not hitting them right! I`ll say yes I know about hitting the wing root and not trying the 6 o-clock tail shots! But sometimes there`s not a choice.

Also the fact of how good can everyone see a wing root at 200 to 300 meters in wide or normal view in a turn fight on a 17" screen?

Shoot a Yak, La, P-51 or Ki-84 with a 109 30mm in its a$$ and your going to have to put some rounds in it. Hit a 109 in the a$$ with the 20mm or 37mm from the La`s and Yaks and its going to blow it in half 7 out 10 times with just a few rounds. So I would say lets take the (good&bad) (pro`s&con`s) and let it ride.

Because in the end if you look on UBI 90% of the games have O/H and CEM OFF and unlimited ammo, there are some scrip servers up with hard settings, but if you look at the odd 10% that run CEM, O/H ,Spins etc. you`ll see 98% of the aircraft flown are La7`s, Yak 3-9T`s, Ki-84`s.

I`ve been in some games with a friend 10 players, 2 109`s me and him and 8 La7`s!!!!!!!!
We were lucky 3 of them were on our side! LOL!!!!!


My dollars worth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

~S~

S77th-brooks
12-29-2003, 12:05 PM
well said bro ,but come play at HL

kubanloewe
12-29-2003, 12:14 PM
The climbrate of this over 7tons fat JUG is overmodelled ! Also it´s over 5 hours flight with 100% fuel and 100% power LOL
God´s own cal.50 destroy a B17 from behind faster than 4x20mm from a Frontattack http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
cheers
http://mitglied.lycos.de/kubanskiloewe/loveponysig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

BfHeFwMe
12-29-2003, 01:55 PM
Big difference in how you go about overheating. A straight run without any G loading? Really, and your expecting it to just up and overheat quick, why should it? Your not straining the engine nearly as much as the guy actually putting one through some aggressive manouvers at lower power settings.

The balance is pretty good, at least we're actually seeing some 109's back on the servers, they were missed. I enjoy fighting against them, especially when they have some ability.