PDA

View Full Version : 109G-K Stall Behaviour



Buzzsaw-
01-17-2005, 03:01 PM
Salute Crazy Ivan

While obviously we should respect the experiences of real pilots who flew in the war, at the same time, those pilot's experiences are not flown under controlled conditions and the status of an enemy aircraft's fuel, the pilot's own fuel, etc. etc. cannot be known

Anecdotes from real pilots are helpful, but they should be supported by empirical data, obtained under controlled conditions.

Your post seemed to be suggesting that the 109G was a turnfighter and was modelled correctly.

If you believe that, then please take the time to do a test. It will not take more than 15 minutes.

First of all, some facts: (which you no doubt are aware of)

The 109 models, from 109F to 109K, shared the same wing, with the exception of the wheel bulges added with the 109G4 and later, and which would tend to degrade the efficiency of the later model wings since it would add more drag.

For all these models, the wing area was the same, (16.05 Sq/M, or 172.73 Sq/ft) and the aerofoil design was the same, as were the slats.

Basic physics tells us that if we have two aircraft, one heavier, one lighter, sharing the same wing, that the aircraft which is heavier will suffer wing stall in level flight, no throttle, at a higher speed than the aircraft which is lighter.

Ok, on with the test:

Go to the Quick Mission builder, select a 109F4, full fuel load, Crimea map, altitude, 100 metres. Record a track.

Do a zero speed stall test, ie. throttle set to zero, no flaps deployed, hold altitude at 100 metres until the aircraft stalls. This takes about 20 seconds.

Go back and play the record at 1/4 speed and note the IAS stall speed from the cockpit speedometer and also from the visual display.

Now repeat the test with a 109K4, also full fuel. Record a track too, check it for stall speed.

I did these tests myself, and my results were to say the least, surprising.

Oleg lists the 109F4 with a takeoff weight fully loaded of 2750 kg's. The 109K4 is listed fully loaded as 3362 kg's. The K4's wing is carrying 22% more weight.

Logic tells us the K4 should stall at a higher speed than the F4, at zero throttle.

But the tests show that in fact, the K4 stalls at almost exactly the same speed as the F4, ie. 130 kph IAS.

And what's even stranger about the K4's performance, is that it seems to have a more gradual, gentle, easier to recover stall. If you watch the record in slow motion, in fact, it seems to just sink gradually, and when the wing does finally dip, it recovers on its own almost immediately after the initial stall and a good pilot can have the plane level with a minor loss of altitude. Whereas the F4 once, stalled, requires quite a bit of altitude to recover, 100 metres is definitely not enough, more like 300.

If you take the time to repeat these tests with the rest of the 109 models, you can see that all of them, (with the exception of the 109E's which had a different wing) seem to stall at the same speed. And the lighter, lower wingloaded models seem to have a more vicious stall, and the heavier, higher wingloaded models have a gentler stall.

Now all this is the opposite of what should be expected. And while I do not have the K4's stall speed available, I do have the earlier model 109's and they match the performance in the game. That suggests that the later model 109's are overly generously modelled in their stall behaviour. I would certainly be interested to see the actual historical stall speed of the K4. Something tells me it will be much higher than the speed the IL-2 K4 is stalling at.

Buzzsaw-
01-17-2005, 03:01 PM
Salute Crazy Ivan

While obviously we should respect the experiences of real pilots who flew in the war, at the same time, those pilot's experiences are not flown under controlled conditions and the status of an enemy aircraft's fuel, the pilot's own fuel, etc. etc. cannot be known

Anecdotes from real pilots are helpful, but they should be supported by empirical data, obtained under controlled conditions.

Your post seemed to be suggesting that the 109G was a turnfighter and was modelled correctly.

If you believe that, then please take the time to do a test. It will not take more than 15 minutes.

First of all, some facts: (which you no doubt are aware of)

The 109 models, from 109F to 109K, shared the same wing, with the exception of the wheel bulges added with the 109G4 and later, and which would tend to degrade the efficiency of the later model wings since it would add more drag.

For all these models, the wing area was the same, (16.05 Sq/M, or 172.73 Sq/ft) and the aerofoil design was the same, as were the slats.

Basic physics tells us that if we have two aircraft, one heavier, one lighter, sharing the same wing, that the aircraft which is heavier will suffer wing stall in level flight, no throttle, at a higher speed than the aircraft which is lighter.

Ok, on with the test:

Go to the Quick Mission builder, select a 109F4, full fuel load, Crimea map, altitude, 100 metres. Record a track.

Do a zero speed stall test, ie. throttle set to zero, no flaps deployed, hold altitude at 100 metres until the aircraft stalls. This takes about 20 seconds.

Go back and play the record at 1/4 speed and note the IAS stall speed from the cockpit speedometer and also from the visual display.

Now repeat the test with a 109K4, also full fuel. Record a track too, check it for stall speed.

I did these tests myself, and my results were to say the least, surprising.

Oleg lists the 109F4 with a takeoff weight fully loaded of 2750 kg's. The 109K4 is listed fully loaded as 3362 kg's. The K4's wing is carrying 22% more weight.

Logic tells us the K4 should stall at a higher speed than the F4, at zero throttle.

But the tests show that in fact, the K4 stalls at almost exactly the same speed as the F4, ie. 130 kph IAS.

And what's even stranger about the K4's performance, is that it seems to have a more gradual, gentle, easier to recover stall. If you watch the record in slow motion, in fact, it seems to just sink gradually, and when the wing does finally dip, it recovers on its own almost immediately after the initial stall and a good pilot can have the plane level with a minor loss of altitude. Whereas the F4 once, stalled, requires quite a bit of altitude to recover, 100 metres is definitely not enough, more like 300.

If you take the time to repeat these tests with the rest of the 109 models, you can see that all of them, (with the exception of the 109E's which had a different wing) seem to stall at the same speed. And the lighter, lower wingloaded models seem to have a more vicious stall, and the heavier, higher wingloaded models have a gentler stall.

Now all this is the opposite of what should be expected. And while I do not have the K4's stall speed available, I do have the earlier model 109's and they match the performance in the game. That suggests that the later model 109's are overly generously modelled in their stall behaviour. I would certainly be interested to see the actual historical stall speed of the K4. Something tells me it will be much higher than the speed the IL-2 K4 is stalling at.

Tvrdi
01-17-2005, 03:05 PM
then fly the foking F4..ill wait u in the spit...but hey u fly for the reds right?

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 04:18 PM
New name?

LBR_Rommel
01-17-2005, 04:38 PM
Well Ivan we have here a nNEW CLASS

Anecdotal posters

Xnomad
01-17-2005, 04:55 PM
People shouldn't over do it with testing it's still only a game. Absolutely no plane in this game flies exactly like it should in RL. If you read flight reports of landing and take off speeds in RL and try to stick to them in the game you will see they are usually wrong.

An example is that with a P-38 you wouldn't engage landing flaps until you knew the landing was 'in the bag' now that isn't necessary in this game is it? And that's just one example of many. And you don't need to set her down at 100 Mph in fact that can be too low (I haven't tested in recent patches if it has changed)

A failure of the engine in the P-38 created massive yaw and would kill many pilots who weren't trained to catch this. Of course with training it was easy to correct the adverse yaw and bring the plane back safetly. Shut down an engine in FB/PF and you won't be fighting for control.

Another is the P-51 and Bf 109. On take off both these planes tails needed to be kept hard on the ground until a speed was reached where the rudder would become effective then one could push the nose down and raise the tail. If you raised the tail too early you wouldn't have rudder control and you would lose control down the runway, is this modelled? No, etc etc you can go on with this all day.

The P-38 shouldn't be flown inverted for more than a few seconds or the oil pressure would drop and the engines would die. Etc.

Some planes had restrictions speeds for combat flaps or opening the cowling is this modelled? Nope http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

What about the Thunderbolt regarding dives?

"P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80. The P-47 had the lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."

Is it modelled?

Give me some time and I could write 10 or more pages of other examples but I'm sure we get the idea now.

With so many planes and an old engine we just have to live with what we have, when they tweak one aspect to fix the game another aspect goes off in the wrong direction.

All take a deep breath and look forward to BOB

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 05:19 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
*googles for k4 stall speed*

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 05:41 PM
pdf i got f4 and g1 (like g2 ingame?) have 130 landing speed

k4/r6 (lists arms as 2 mg 131, 1 mk103/108) has landing speed of 150

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 05:43 PM
http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/Bf109K4.htm

this too, but it is pretty dodgy too

faustnik
01-17-2005, 05:47 PM
I think Buzzsaw's question is about simple logic, not listed specifics. If you take an aircraft with a given wing area and add more weight, you increase wing loading and increase power off stall speed, right?

LEXX_Luthor
01-17-2005, 06:01 PM
Buzzsaw only Panicked when he/she read "turn."

The pilot only confirmed Bf~109's superior vertical maneuvering, not any superior horizontal twisting maneuvering--the horizontal twisting what we flight simmers call "turning" and get bent out of shape about.

The problem may have been the Interviewer, asking about "turning"....probably a flight simmer... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif just like us...

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 06:10 PM
tried it out, f4 50% fuel, k4 50% fuel default ammo

power off, both around 130ias, or 160tas i was fairely lowish

power on, the k4 is actully better by a smidge maybe, and its softer and easier on the stall too.k4 should be worse there, more torque....

yes faustnik, more weight to same wing = higher stall speed, thats why a5/6 feels nicer than a9, less weight, but wing the same.

k4 has worse wing that f4 too, wheel bump thingys

Buzzsaw-
01-17-2005, 06:16 PM
Salute

The issue is both the stall speed of the later 109's and their low speed turn, and controllability at low speeds.

For whatever reason, we have the anomaly of the later models, including the G's and K4, stalling at speeds which physics would have as impossible.

P.S. The stall speeds I have listed are with NO FLAPS.

Someone quoted a landing speed of 150 kph for the K4. But landing speeds would be with FULL FLAPS DOWN, and ENGINE ON, which would give the aircraft much better stall characteristics and therefore a lower stall speed.

The stall speed I am looking for is NO FLAPS, NO ENGINE.

carguy_
01-17-2005, 06:38 PM
Yeah tell me I didn`t see that coming.

Affraid someone might take this interview for granted?

Don`t get your head crazy man,you won`t see LW planes getting better at all.

It is just a pilot account,everyone knows that.Anyone taking this one for granted should do a reality check.

I stopped believeing every account word when I read a B17 rear gunner claimed that he downed a Me109 with his .44 magnum.

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 06:55 PM
i had engine at idle, not turned off.
might have been 1 or 3% power, my stick has been doing that last few days

ppl have mentioned it before too.

even if it was cos of what ivan posted, still happens ingame, try it out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Buzzsaw-
01-17-2005, 07:30 PM
Salute

For those who are interested, there are 109G2 and G6 translated manuals, (translated by Finnish enthusiasts) here:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-Manuals.html

They list the following speeds for the G2 and G6:

G2

Landing approach speed, flaps down: 180 kph

Emergency landing speed, flaps down, no engine: 200 kph

G6

Distant landing approach speed: 200-220 kph Flaps down.

Close landing approach speed: 180 kph Flaps down.

Landing speed: 160 kph Flaps down.

Emergency Landing, no engine Glide speed: 220-230 kph, Flaps down.

What was you source for the G1 and K4 landing speed Pingu? I'd be interested in seeing those if possible.

Buzzsaw-
01-17-2005, 07:52 PM
Salute Pingu

Actually I just found in my own documents the landing speed data for the K4.

Which is 150 kph with flaps down, engine on.

So if landing speed is 150 kph with flaps down, just above the stall speed, then the stall speed for no flaps, engine off should be much higher.

Certainly higher than the 130 kph stall speed we currently get, with no flaps, engine off.

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 08:10 PM
pm me your email addy ill send u them, some pdf's i got http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WUAF_Badsight
01-17-2005, 09:17 PM
Buzzsaw has posted these results before & got attacked for it

Heavier Spitfires stall different

heavier Bf109s should also stall different

ElAurens
01-17-2005, 10:09 PM
But..but..but...

The 109 is teh uber, and Germany really won the war.

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/ROFLMAO.gif

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 10:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
But..but..but...

The 109 is teh uber, and Germany really won the war.

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/ROFLMAO.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

earlier i had the thought of some luftaddict, holding his 109 model (in a aces paintscheme) rocking back and forth, mumbling over and over "it was only numbers, it was only numbers, it was only numbers wasnt it mummy?"

and later zeros stall worse too, cos they got heavy.

109 is a highly effective plane, almost as effective as a zero 5b with a 7.7mm gun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BBB_Hyperion
01-17-2005, 10:30 PM
Buzzsaw- be sure to test other planes stallspeed as well you will see the problem then .)

HayateAce
01-18-2005, 12:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Buzzsaw- be sure to test other planes stallspeed as well you will see the problem then .) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oops, time to throw up a smokescreen.

The reason it is important to get this right is the fact there are only 2 major LW ac types. No better place to start correcting the stall speeds.

csThor
01-18-2005, 01:11 AM
Your trolling is so obvious Hayate, I wonder why you're still allowed to post your baits. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-18-2005, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
Buzzsaw has posted these results before & got attacked for it

Heavier Spitfires stall different

heavier Bf109s should also stall different <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely wrong...
Or too simplified to be true!

Conversion of spits V to IX added more veight in the nose (different engine) and a displacement of the gravity center of the plane forward =&gt; modification of the stall conditions. (British pilots do't care of the stalling, they just wanted speed, only simmers cry about turning perfs).

109 gain weight but doesnt have this important modification of the gravity center.

JG5_UnKle
01-18-2005, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Buzzsaw- be sure to test other planes stallspeed as well you will see the problem then .) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beat me to it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I see HayateAce is as "entertaining" as ever http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

OldMan____
01-18-2005, 06:26 AM
If this is an answerd directed to Crazy Ivan.. it should not be in ORR. Maybe it should be in general disc?

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 07:06 AM
well im 90% certain its wrong, so it should be in ORR.

PLEASE tell me why a heavier, worse wing and airframe, and one with more torque, is better/equal to the same airframe and wing but much cleaner...

heavier plane will sink more and have a higher stall speed.

k4 should be worse than f4... its better tho, maybe they used recycled la7 parts in making the 109 k4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 07:07 AM
oh and k4 is most used 109 too, not like its a plane no one flies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 07:37 AM
ok maybe im abit baised, why we need correct stall speed for the hero's of the luftwaffes 109s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/sfcomic1.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/sfcomic2.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
ordinary men do extrodinary things in swordfish http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

KGr.HH-Sunburst
01-18-2005, 08:27 AM
this is just nitpicking BS IMO
out of somany things this comes up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

crazyivan1970
01-18-2005, 09:26 AM
I just want to make something clear, my 109G topic was just a food for taught and not my personal toughts, even that i agree with with alot that was said by the veteran. Even that this topic directed to me, i can only speak about aircraft performance in the game, because i am very familiar with 109 series, but CAN NOT speak for real aircraft, simply because i don`t know and not going to pretend that i do.
I believe that interview was rather interesting and i with all this 109 bashing that took place lately i decided to share it with everyone. To hear from someone that faced the **** thing on daily bases and was shot at not with packets of data. I think it was an interesting read for anyone. At least i hope it was.

Hetzer_II
01-18-2005, 09:29 AM
Shure it was!

Thanks again CI!

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 10:05 AM
yeah was nice post ci, stall is still suspect http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sig.Hirsch
01-18-2005, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yeah was nice post ci, stall is still suspect http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stall is suspect for all planes , not only 109 's , do some honest tests , you'll notice it .

P-51D20NA turns with 109G2 slow speed , Spit IX turns with Yak-9 , P47D27 with etc... .should not be.

IL-2 engine limitation , not Oleg or "leadspitter-like" conspiracy .

cheers,

falco_cz
01-18-2005, 10:51 AM
Famous Rechlin test of La5FN (1850 hp) and IMO I believe the test was done truly:
___________________________________________
Read 'Luftwaffe Test Pilot' by Hans Werner Lerche. He flew virtually all captured Allied aircraft and most German types, including experimental models. His book actually includes a detailed wartime test report prepared by him, on the La5FN. (He also describes in great detail what he thought of the Yak 3 incidentally).
There's too much to put here but I'll give you the flavour of it. He says he tested an La5FN powered by an M- 82FNV engine in September 1944 at Gross Schimanen, East Prussia.

"It was obvious from the start that this aircraft was no longer comparable with the earlier Soviet fighter types of rather primitive construction, and that it was a very serious opponent to our fighters below 3000m (10,000ft)."

He describes having been made giddy by carbon monoxide entering the cockpit during his first flight; thereafter he chose to always wear an oxygen mask when flying it. He also says the noise from its engine was deafening and that he had always to put cotton wool in his ears when aboard.

His report lists the following figures:

Max speed 403mph at 20,670 ft
Rate of climb, rated power, at 300m (984ft) 16.17 m/s
Rate of climb, rated power, at 4000m (13,120 ft) 13 m/s
Rate of climb, rated power, at 7000m (22,320 ft) 6 m/s
Climb to 16,400ft (5000m) in 4min 42 sec
Service Ceiling 31,170 ft (9500m)
Power Plant: Shvetsov M- 82FNV 1,850h.p
Armament: 2x 20mm cannon with 200 rounds each.
Armour protection 57mm armoured glass windscreen, 68mm rear armoured glass plate for head protection, 7mm rear armour plate.

The summary of his report (marked 'SECRET') was sent to Messerschmitt, Dornier, Heinkel and Junkers, as well as the RLM, and reads:

"The LA 5FN represents a great improvement in performance, flying characteristics and serviceability compared to earlier Russian fighters, and its performance below 3000m is particularly noteworthy. Maximum speed is below that of our fighters at all altitudes; best climbing speed near ground level lies between those of the 190 and 109. In the climb, and turns below 3000m, the La5FN is a worthy opponent, particularly for the 190. the type's manufacturing shortcomings would hardly affect the Russians who are used to inferior flying characteristics. Range is short, flight endurance at rated power being about 40 minutes."

The report detail goes into great depth about the machine's handling characteristics, so I'll just pull out a few bits:

"Full throttle altitudes are so low that full emergency power cannot be achieved in either climbing or horizontal flight."
"Surface finish, especially that of the wings (wood) is good; the sideways and forward extending slats fit very accurately."
"The pilot's sitting position is comfortable. In flight the strong exhaust fumes are troublesome. The oxygen system is a copy of the German diaphragm flow economiser system."
"Longitudinal stability at normal angles of attack with undercarriage and flaps retracted or extended, is surprisingly good, even in a full power climb. In steep turns elevator forces are fully positive and fairly high, so that nose trim is advisable in a sustained turn.
Yawing oscillations damp out slowly, nevertheless gun aiming is quite easy. Roll response to rudder is mild; the nose rises or falls in response to rudder, but this is not particularly disturbing."

He goes on to describe the forgiving stall characteristics which he ascribes to the extension of the slats.

"The smallest turning circle at rated power at 2400m is about 28/30 sec for a stable 360 degree turn at constant height. This implies a minimum time for a 360 degree turn at 1000m, with emergency power, of about 25 sec."

He then says the aircraft has a tendency to porpoise on landing because the elevators become immersed in the wing wake and the undercarriage is poorly damped.

The tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots are as follows:

"The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109.
In rate of climb the 190 is poorer until 3000m. Because of its greater weight the 190 accelerates less well than the La5FN, but by the same token is superior in the dive. It is basically right to dive away like an American Thunderbolt when flying a 190, thereafter to pull away in a high speed shallow climb to reach a new attacking position, not to let the speed drop and to avoid prolonged turning dogfights."
____________________________________________

According to the test Bf109 was better turnfigher the La5FN while Fw190 was worse.

Buzzsaw-
01-18-2005, 11:18 AM
Salute

Thanks for replies on this subject, with the exception of Hayate Ace. I would ask he refraim from posting here again unless he provides useful data.

In reply to the comments that the Spitfire IX stall was affected by more weight from the heavier engine in the nose:

The weight in the nose was counterbalanced by balance weights added aft of the wings.

And in any case, the G model and K 109's also had a heavier engine in the nose, the DB605 replaced the lighter DB601 of the F models. And ie. exactly the same effect, more weight in the nose, which in the 109's case, also had to be counterbalanced by weights aft of the wings.

So effect for stalling would be exactly the same.

And in the game the Spitfire IX and VIII, which both share the same wing with the Spit V, but which are heavier, have much higher stall speeds than the V. This is as it should be.

So the question remains, why are the later 109's seemingly exempt from what we should expect to see if the normal laws of physics were at work?

Crazy Ivan: Thanks for your comment. I was hoping you would respond to this thread either with some concrete facts to back up the existing FM, or a comment that you would check with Oleg on the issue.

I am quite willing to be proven wrong. But up to this point, there is nothing that has been presented which would justify the later model 109's stall behaviour.

To others such as Sig.Hirsch:

If there are issues with other aircraft, please bring forward proof to show they are modelled incorrectly. And do it in other threads.

Hirsch mentioned that the P-51D20 turns with the G2. Not on any server I have seen, not at low speeds with the P-51D-20 fully loaded with fuel. At high speeds, yes, but that was well known, the elevator effectiveness of the P-51 at high speeds was its strong point. (also its weak point, since the P-51 rips its wings off very easily at high speeds to its very effective elevator) Conversely the elevator effectiveness of the 109 was one of its weak points, that being noted in many tests.

The comment that the Spit IX turns with the Yak-9: Why shouldn't it? It has lower wingloading, better powerloading, better acceleration and climb.

As far as the P-47D27 turning better than anything... lol. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Please show me a track with a fully loaded P-47D27 turning better than anything at low speeds. (bombers don't count) Again, at high speeds, in an initial turn, the P-47 had a very effective elevator. However, the speed bleed from the aircraft's weight is such, that the P-47 pilot better be successful in that first turn, or he is going to be in real trouble as his speed bleeds off like he was stuck in molasses.

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-18-2005, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>According to the test Bf109 was better turnfigher the La5FN while Fw190 was worse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I Know he was not a bad turnfighter, not the best of course, but that ....

EEEEHHH ... You are shure ???

It seems so ... Surprising ...

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 01:18 PM
falco, nice post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

clint-ruin
01-18-2005, 01:48 PM
It's not in the Oleg compilation but in his responses at SimHQ I think he mentioned that this test of the La5FN was of an aircraft with a re-tooled engine from a Tu-2.

Finally found the thread on SimHQ where this came up: click (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=93;t=001566;p=3#000 094)




I have not time to comment it again... It was one year ago at AH site...

1. Be sure that Germans tested La-5F (not La-5FN) with M-82F engine. Not one Russian engine had designation M-82FNV

2. Germans were not able to use boost (F in name of engine means possibility to use boost).

3. Germans tested _used_ and crashed plane, repaired(!) and without some parts covering closed gear...

This "test report" cost many lives of German pilots. Be sure.

Need more?

When I will post on official ftp some development news again like in the past (sure soon), I can post there curves from the _troops_ trials of La-5, La-5F, La-5FN and La-7. For different gaz (70, 90, 95, 100)... You'll see how changes in performance each model....

Then look for the wins of Kozedub, which flew most time La-5FN, then in final La-7, wasn't shot down even once, etc.... Ratio Kills - battle sorties - all amount of sorties - he has higher than Hartmann


All like to show me theoretical performace of some German planes....
Be sure that russins test get better than official 109K-4 data (In Russian test reached 720 km/h) and D-9 data was worse than official D-9 manufacture data...
D-9 were (the whole squad of captured D-9s in Poland were in Soviet Airforce service) right from manufacture... In test used German specialists and pilots..., etc...

Hot in La-5 and La-5F cockpit(not the same in La-5FN and La-7!)? Better ask was or wasn't hot in 190A-3, A-4, A-5? there was almost the same problem decreased from model to model.

Propaganda? Ok... propaganda for 109s! isn't it? And be sure you'll get in future other many planes, including almost all 109s...

falco_cz
01-18-2005, 01:56 PM
Retooled or not, only ASh 82Fn had 1850 hp, 82F had 1700. So I thing the test is valid for La5FN...

clint-ruin
01-18-2005, 02:03 PM
Are you saying that aircraft should be modelled based on crashed, field repaired units, with different engines and aerodynamic profiles to the one they are supposed to be [F v FN]? Should be close enough?

What?

Sig.Hirsch
01-18-2005, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Hirsch mentioned that the P-51D20 turns with the G2. Not on any server I have seen, not at low speeds with the P-51D-20 fully loaded with fuel. At high speeds, yes, but that was well known, the elevator effectiveness of the P-51 at high speeds was its strong point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea , sorry with Pony 25% fuel and 109 with 100% (about 500 km autonomy for both) , combat flaps for both , slow speed , it does .

anyway , didn't know why i said that , my point was that dubious stall speeds is related to IL-2 engine ,not to purposed actions of developpers , and all planes are concerned (ie: IL-2 , 109 , P-51 , etc...)

regards ,

Sig.Hirsch
01-18-2005, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The comment that the Spit IX turns with the Yak-9: Why shouldn't it? It has lower wingloading, better powerloading, better acceleration and climb. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft2/avion2/568.html

http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/211.html

you see you are not correct here :

Yak-9 = 405 HP/ton
Spitfire IX E= 385 HP/ton

acceleration better i'm not sure , it's heavier that's for sure .
Yak-9 airframe is more aerodynamical and the plane itself know as an outstanding turner
at slow speed (1B modell is even better).
wingloading is not the only parameter for turning ability .

but anyway i'm satisfied of how is IL-2 FB currently , cause i'm aware of the limitations of the engine code , you cannot recreate exactly FM's , we have few datas ,and limited material resources , after all we have good compromise overall .
Bear in mind that the original Il-2 code was made for 1 plane : IL-2 Sturmovik , a low alt plane for ground attack ...
look now we have more than 150 planes ....

all the evolutions needed to tweak the original engine , that's why you have issue with Delta wood ,He rounds , stall speeds , dive speeds etc...

You cannot expect IL-2 FBAEPPF to simulate every FM as in reality , but after all , we have a dedicated developper who is not biased , and doing a great job http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .
BoB will handle far better stall speeds for those WWII birds for sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

cheers,

Buzzsaw-
01-18-2005, 03:15 PM
Salute Hirsch

That site you give for the Spitfire does not have correct data. It does not have any original documents or tests.

The weight of 4310 kgs listed on that site, for Spitfire IXe is completely wrong, not even close.

For a site with accurate tests, real documents from the RAF, etc. go here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

Spitfire IXe's in tests, most often weighed 7440 lbs fully fueled, and loaded with ammuntion. That is 3381 kgs.

So you can see that the Spitfire IX has much better powerloading than a Yak-9, even when restricted to +18 boost and 1660 hp. At +25 boost, the engine developed over 2000 hp, so it became even more of an advantage. But we do not have the +25 boost model in IL-2, even though it was the most common Spitfire IXE in 1945, and there were over 1000 operational, about the same as the total number of 109K4's made.

Buzzsaw-
01-18-2005, 03:18 PM
Salute

Those discussing La-5FN test, (which I am quite familiar with, I have the original documents) please take it to another thread. It is not relevant to the issue being discussed here, which is the later 109's stall speed.

TX-Zen
01-18-2005, 04:03 PM
I don't think power off stall speed can be used for claiming anything about accuracy in the sim, so I would use caution before I pointed the finger at that as the source of the 109's agility in this patch.

The game does a good job in many ways of simulating aircraft FM but its never been perfect...the power off stall discrepancy is one example. I can't think of a single patch where the in game power off stall matched real life documention for the 109 or any other plane...thats just one area that apparently little attempt has been made to simulate. I could be wrong, but I just don't remember this factor ever being totally right.



Buzzsaw if you are trying to say that there is something wrong with the 109 being too good (and there may be, but I don't have a solid opinion either way) I don't think the power off stall is the culprit. There are other forces at work that are more likely the cause of any abnormal behavior, trim being the #1 candidate in my mind.

You have to consider that (at least by my observations) since the introduction of carriers into the game certain modifications to the physics engine had to be made to accomodate them. Several things are noticably incorrect these days, the most obvious being the ability for many aircraft to meet or exceed their maximum climb rate at speeds far below optimal. When things like that are out of whack, energy modelling as a whole is distorted to some degree and I tend to believe factors like that are much more significant than incorrect power off stall behavior.

As far as I can tell the FW190 has a much lower power off stall in game than it did in RL, in game we have something around 140km/h compared to 160-170km/h for real life (IIRC). Does this mean that the 190 turns too well, bleeds too little E or climbs too well? I don't think so, I think its just another example of something thats not modelled significantly, just like lack of torque for counter rotating engines, debatable ground acceleration, compressibility modelling and other factors.

As I said you have to consider what the sim does well and what it does not, but in my mind without a doubt many things are out of whack since the introduction of the carriers and the changes to the global engine that allow them to exist. If you're claiming the 109 is too agile, you may very well have a point (I don't pretend to be the expert) but power off stall is unlikely to be the cause. As I also said if it's anything its probably the implementation of trim in the game which has never been very good. Likewise, power off stall has never seemed to be all that accurate in the game though it is probably less accurate than ever because of the carriers.

Hyperion had a point when he asked if you tested other aircraft. In my mind its not a good idea to single out the 109 for poweroff stall behavior, I think if you tested other aircraft you would begin to see a pattern that many other kinds of aircraft have the same level of inaccuracy as the 109.

Ultimately if something is wrong with an aircraft its better to get to the real issue of why and correct that, because by singling out something that many other aircraft are likely to share with it is not going to have anyone look at the 109 in particular and if the power off stall is not the issue anyway, then fixing its behavior there won't matter either.

Just my .02 rupees, I make no claim the 109 is overdone or that its spot on either, but if anything needs to be looked at in game its trim because trim affects more than just the 109.

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 04:13 PM
i didnt use trim in my tests i dont think, hmm i may have done both, probably helps a little but so low speed its not major.

power on (full) is softer on k4 tho, which is wrong im fairly certain http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

BigganD
01-18-2005, 04:48 PM
I really think that becuase of so meny american hero movies after the ww2 made the 109 a flying duck, the p51 "best plane ever" Pilots dream...Spitfire won the war blablabla...
So much fact about allied fighters then germans has been showed to the public. There are meny things we dont know about the german planes.
Thank god that oleg is trying to make it historical!

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 04:56 PM
yes, obviously because a plane that should be better, isnt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

f4 and k4 im talking about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 04:58 PM
oh and i think 109 is a good plane, p51 didnt win the war, the 7.7mm gun on the zero did http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Buzzsaw-
01-18-2005, 05:06 PM
Salute Tx Zen

I have tested most of the other major aircraft in the game.

And I am not sure what 190 you are referring to, but I do not get a 140 kph stall speed for the 190D, rather I get a 160-170kph stall speed. The 190A4, which is the lightest 190, and has a wingloading comparable to the K4, stalls at 150 kph.

Remember, full fuel and ammo, zero throttle, NO FLAPS, and MAINTAIN altitude. Take the speed reading off the speed bar, IAS. Do not take it off the no cockpit TAS speed.

Other examples, the Spitfire IX stalls at 130-140 kph, a similar or slightly higher speed than the K4. This despite the fact it should stall at quite a lower speed, since it has 40% better wingloading.

The P-47D10, the lightest Thunderbolt, comparable in wingloading to a 190A6, stalls at 170 kph.

The A6M2 Zero, stalls at 110 kph, only 18% better than the K4, yet the Zero has a wingloading 95% better, (nearly 1/2 the wingloading of the K4) on a very high lift, good low speed lift, wing design.

When you look at the results of these tests, it is clear there is something wrong with the way the later model 109's behave at low speeds.

As mentioned, the historical K4, in German documents, lists the landing speed as 150 kph, that with full flaps lowered, and engine on. How can it be then, that the K4 in the game stalls at 130 kph with no flaps and engine off?

Something obviously needs looking at.

TX-Zen
01-18-2005, 05:28 PM
I'm not here to test anything or to refute your points Buzz, just making my observations on other possible causes to something that may or may not be wrong with the 109 and just in the interest of sharing my perspective on things you may not be aware of. It seems this power off stall is the only factor that you think is relevant, so I'll leave it at that.

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 05:54 PM
theres power on stall too, k4 softer than f4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Buzzsaw-
01-18-2005, 06:21 PM
Salute Tx Zen

Power off stall is not the only factor I think is significant. There are any number of other elements which make up a good Flight Model.

From what I see, Oleg has done a pretty good job on most other issues, with the exception of dive acceleration, and very high altitude performance, but those are limitations of the Simulation engine, and it seems nothing can be done about them.

The issue of low speed maneuverability is one which can be addressed by the Game engine, and in fact, most aircraft are behaving as they were tested to do historically.

For example, the British tested an A6M3 in July 1943, and found it had a zero throttle stall speed of 100 kph, flaps down. That happens to be the exact speed at which it stalls in IL-2 PF with flaps all the way down.

I could quote you a number of other examples.

The game issues here are:

1) Later model, heavier 109's are stalling at the same speed as earlier model lighter ones.

2) Later model 109's are stalling at significantly lower speeds than other comparably wingloaded aircraft.

So far I haven't gotten a response which provides a scientific explanation for this behaviour.

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 07:18 PM
tested again, bizzare results

k4, same. tried k4 with landing flaps, and it stalls at the same time as without...

same with zero, later models stall slightly later than earlier ones, again flaps seem to effect stall little http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

zero is around the 90-100 ias (21) and 130ish on the a6m 63, which i think is the heaviest. i was using 25% as zero carries alot of fuel.

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 07:20 PM
iirec zero was supposed to have 60mph landing speed, in pf ud be right on the edge of stall at 60

Buzzsaw-
01-18-2005, 08:23 PM
Pingu

Correction:

55 KNOTS for A6M3 Zero Pingu. 63.5 mph. That is 101 kph.

Also, I did many tests with Zero, and lowering flaps, reduces the stall speed by 10 kph. Try again.

Also, do your tests at full fuel. That way the AUW of the test aircraft matches the normal loaded weight for takeoff. If you test at other fuel loads, you will not match historical data.

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 08:29 PM
ah oks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WUAF_Badsight
01-18-2005, 09:43 PM
Zen , would you think that the F4 model 109 would stall at the same speed as the K4 ?

wether or not the 109s turn too good or not isnt my beef , but im not out for over-performing A/C of any side either

that the late model 109's stall at the same speed as the F models just seems wrong

what i have read is that the LW pilots loved the handeling of the F models (especially coming from the Emils) , but the tad nastyer stall of the F4 over the K4 is evident for anyone to test

i mean , if there is a RL explanation for it , what would it be ?

TX-Zen
01-18-2005, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
Zen , would you think that the F4 model 109 would stall at the same speed as the K4 ?

wether or not the 109s turn too good or not isnt my beef , but im not out for over-performing A/C of _any_ side either

that the late model 109's stall at the same speed as the F models just seems wrong

what i have read is that the LW pilots loved the handeling of the F models (especially coming from the Emils) , but the tad nastyer stall of the F4 over the K4 is evident for anyone to test

i mean , if there is a RL explanation for it , what would it be ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do think its odd, no question about that. Call me jaded but I've realized now certain parts of the FM will never be accurate and so we get what we get. The power off stall is one area I think that about, but there are others as well. This sim is a compromise...and the power off stall characteristics appear to fall into the compromise category, so truthfully I don't expect them to be spot on.

I'm also not saying that the power off stall is not the root cause of the implication that the 109 is too agile...it very well could be the exact reason (assuming that the 109 really is too agile, as I said I have no strong opinion about it). All I am saying is that in my experience with the game pointing out a single part of the FM as being the source for error is probably too specific a focal point to draw conlusions from or to suggest that one aspect is the source of the 109's potential agility issue. The game engine is very dynamic and this can sometimes lead to unrealistic results after all things are factored in...a change here and a change there can add up to something very different than expected, and thats my point. It's rarely a single part of a planes FM that causes it to behave abnormally, its more often that certain parts of the physics engine combined with certain aspects of the FM lead to those results and thats why I spoke my opinion on the issue.

To pick a single attribute of a single plane feels too narrow to me...the problem is more likely a combination of other things, assuming there is a real problem in the first place. My 2 cents is centered more on trim than anything else, it seems to be a bigger factor than the power off stall handling because I feel it has never really been a big influence on the FMs of the planes in game, or at least not as big as things like trim, climb speeds or energy bleed. I could be totally wrong and I have no problem saying that, I just wanted to point out some other possible things to consider, nothing more and nothing less.

Von_Rat
01-18-2005, 11:33 PM
wait, im confused. ok lets say k4 has same power off stall speed as f4. does that make it better or equal to the f4 at low speed stall fighting. not in my experiance. and if the k4 isn't a better or equal low speed stall fighter than a f4, then who cares if the power off stall is wrong, if it doesn't make a differance in low speed stall fighting.

in my experiance the k4 is the worse low speed stall fighter of all the 09s, as it should be.

i admit i might be missing somthing, please explain.

GR142_Astro
01-19-2005, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Zen:
I feel it has never really been a big influence on the FMs of the planes in game, or at least not as big as things like trim... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zen,

Would you mind describing your theory how trim plays a part here? I see how trim is used to overcome the high speed handling issues, but what role does/would it play at low or stall speeds. I did read your posts thoroughly, but I don't see where you're going.

&lt;S&gt;

BBB_Hyperion
01-19-2005, 01:46 AM
I still think its correct for some reasons .) While digging deeper in the topic i maybe found an error in the argumentation. Landing speed is not stall speed, glide speed is not stall speed .

Stallspeed means IIRC not Stall its the minimum speed where the wings produce enough lift to hold it on the alt level. That means you can go lower in speed but you would loose alt and therefore gain speed . If the airflow is still consistent of course.

For testing conditions i used following setup.
Crimea radiator closed engine out pitch 0 100 % load and fly short over see and look at which speed the plane doesnt loose alt and try to maintain low aoa therefore results are not 100 % correct.

I tested F4 with IAS 150 km/H Stallspeed and K4 with IAS 180 km/H Stallspeed . These values have maybe a +- 10 km/h. Without flaps.

As the airdensity is important for stallspeed you need to fly very low for the test.

But that maybe a very wrong testing method how to determine stallspeed. When someone has a better idea post it.

Also about the claim that the wings are similar i have my doubts looking at this plans. Later wings look reenforced and more heavy. Inluence on Clmax i dont found yet but this wheels placements surely didnt help it.

G6/AS
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/drawings/g6as/G6_AS_top.jpg

K4 Wing
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/drawings/k4/k4_top.jpg

G14/AS
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/drawings/g14as_late/G14_AS_top.jpg

p1ngu666
01-19-2005, 04:39 AM
i think stall speed is when the plane stalls, be that at 100mph, then if u doing 100mph u will stall

also when i did my tests i had the plane sinking, i was trying to keep it level but couldnt...

i suppose the issue is, is stall speed (power off) used elsewhere in the sim for other calculations, it probably is.

only thing i can think of is weight is softening the stall, or making it wallow and seem softer, but that goes against every other plane, plus the k4 airframe is more dirty than f4

BBB_Hyperion
01-19-2005, 07:01 AM
Uhoh ok i give you a hind p1ngu666

Lift = CLmax Ӕ rV² Ӕ S = weight

CLmax = weight / (rV² Ӕ S)

Solve to V .) thats called Vs then . Its the point where this equitation delivers you the minimum speed for steady flight.

Vs1 (sometimes incorrectly shown as Vsi) €" stalling speed, or the minimum steady flight speed, in a specified flight configuration. For a simple aircraft Vs1 is normally measured in level flight with flaps up, at MTOW and 1g wing loading, with engine idling and following a gradual deceleration to that minimum flight speed. The bottom end of the ASI green arc, but it may be documented as IAS or CAS; if the former the quoted stall speed is probably inaccurate. Vs1 decreases as the aircraft weight decreases from MTOW, which also means that if the pilot can reduce the wing loading below 1g €" by an 'unloading' manoeuvre €" Vs1 is decreased. Stalling speed under a 2g vertical load, for instance, might be referred to as Vs2g.

But its to consider that a prop plane produces exhaust thrust even on idle engine so i turned it off dont know if its even modeled.

I found 2 different stall speeds for the early and late BFs where late BF had a higher stallspeed what was exspected.

The Values of the K4 i found +- 10 km/h for inaccurate testing method match almost the values of the G Series via Brown.

"I was particularly interested in the operation of the slats, the action of which gave rise to aileron snatching in any high-G manoeuvres such as loops or tigh turns so I did a series of stalls to check their functioning more accurately. The stall with the aircraft clean, with half fuel load and the engine throttled right back occurred at 105 MPH (168 km/h). This was preceded by elevator buffet and opening the slats about 20 mph (30 km/h) above the stall, these being accompanied by the unpleasant aileron snatching as the slats opened unevenly. The stall itself was fairly gentle with the nose dropping and the port wing simultaneously dropping about 10 degrees."
- Eric Brown

But i found something you might be intrested in the Spit IX clipped i had trouble to come close its stallspeed mentioned in the spit manual page 24 as i tried for comparison.

Buzzsaw-
01-19-2005, 12:20 PM
Salute Hyperion

Please clarify your post.

Are you saying you got test results which showed that the 109K4 was stalling at 168 kph??

I find that very hard to believe, if you followed the criteria which I had laid out, ie. Zero throttle, full full load, full ammunition, 100 meter height, Crimea Map, maintain altitude in level flight, take your reading from the speedbar in IAS. Do not take the result from the no-cockpit view, TAS speed, and do not take it from the aircraft's speedometer. Both these are not relevant to the historical tests which were measured in IAS.

Did you follow that criteria?

I have done over 40 tests of the K4 using my criteria, and everytime I get 130, or 130-140 kph stall speed. I do not see how there can be such a huge discrepancy between your tests and mine. (and Pingu's tests too)

I am willing to post my tests on this board to back up my results, I am assuming you also are?

Sig.Hirsch
01-19-2005, 12:28 PM
I get 140 kph with P-51 D5-NT 25% fuel , is that normal ?

It seems it's not , but anyway , for me it is clear that if stall speeds are not correct , that's for all planes .

Maybe someone should test other planes , i don't have time for that , or maybe post your track Buzzsaw , your nick is new , but you seem old to this forum , you prolly know the procedure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

regards,

BfHeFwMe
01-19-2005, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

"pilot's experiences are not flown under controlled conditions"

The game issues here are:

1) Later model, heavier 109's are stalling at the same speed as earlier model lighter ones.

2) Later model 109's are stalling at significantly lower speeds than other comparably wingloaded aircraft.

So far I haven't gotten a response which provides a scientific explanation for this behaviour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, not even a mention or hint of the control conditions in the declaration.

But hey, whats that smell...........

robban75
01-19-2005, 01:12 PM
Here's some stall test I've just made.

IAS, not TAS. All had full fuel. 100m alt.

D-9 -- 170
A-9 -- 170
P47 -- 170
Ta --- 160
A-4 -- 160
F-4U - 150
F-6 -- 150
I185 - 150
P51D - 150
Yak9U -140
F-4 -- 140
K-4 -- 140
G6AS - 140
G-10 - 140
P40C - 140
La-7 - 140
G-2 -- 130
IXc -- 130
LaGG - 130
Yak3 - 130
Vb --- 120
Zero - 110
IL2M - 110

TX-Zen
01-19-2005, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:

Zen,

Would you mind describing your theory how trim plays a part here? I see how trim is used to overcome the high speed handling issues, but what role does/would it play at low or stall speeds. I did read your posts thoroughly, but I don't see where you're going.

&lt;S&gt; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not specifically going anywhere, only saying that power off stall is something that IS part of the FM while trim is something that can be used to achieve results sometimes way beyond what the FM would otherwise allow. Remember IL2 original and the 109 bat turns? Power off stall might be an indication of low speed handling but trim is something that (depending on patch version) can override FM considerations and produce abnormal results. Even a few patches ago the 109 could swap ends at low speed if certain trim settings were used because trim appeared to expand the elevator range instead of relieve stick pressure. When using trim it was like having a stick that could travel twice as far instead of a stick that was more controllable, meaning that under some conditions you turn much better than without it. If one could control the stall then amazing turn results could be achieved because the aircraft was too slow to exceed blackout parameters during the move.

I may be wrong but it seems that Buzzsaw is saying that the 109 turns too well or is too agile and he thinks poweroff stall is the reason. It could be yes, but I use trim as an example of something that has a more obvious effect. One of them is part of the FM, the other is a game effect that works outside the FM and affects different aircraft in different ways.

If we are all in agreement that the 109 is fine and the power off stall is just something that needs to be corrected for accuracy's sake instead of to remove abnormal performance, then certainly there's no reason not to investigate it. The sim does well in many areas but not all of them are important to the FM. Power off stall might be important and it might not be, but it really depends on your motivitions for mentioning it when it comes to the 109. Using it as an example of what is wrong with the 109's agility is one thing, mentioning it because its an area that would be nice to see accurate is another.

BigKahuna_GS
01-19-2005, 06:45 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _______________________
Xnomad -----What about the Thunderbolt regarding dives?

"P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80. The P-47 had the lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Cpt Eric Brown has made several statements concerning the P47 & P51, that do not compare to US wartime test results especialy concerning dive speeds, so I'm not suprised to see the above.

Regarding the P-47 it had a 500mph IAS dive limit speed (601mph TAS) @ 25,000. 400mph IAS above 25,000ft. Reccomended pullout altitude from 25,000ft was 12,000ft Dive speed represented Mach 0.82

Not to mention the later addition of dive flaps, test pilots reported @ 400mph IAS they could let go the stick, & the P-47 would pull it'self out of the dive.

Then we have the countless P-47 pilot statements that no German fighter could stay with a P-47 in a dive. Ie, Our evasive action in combat was to dive until you saw 500mph IAS and you could be sure there was no one behind you any longer.


As far as the P-47 is concerned, the maximum dive speed with recovery tabs was 550 mph or 880 kph. The earlier models were also good structurally to this speed, only the onset of compressibility at higher altitudes restricted U.S. pilot's being ok'd to dive to these speeds.


Gunther Rall interview :


Read the whole interview : http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html


Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47?

A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! &lt;Laughter from both Mr. Rall and audience, applause&gt;

P-47 was not a big problem. The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, he was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know? And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster. But P-47 was a big ship, you know? No doubt.But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition.
By the way, ehh, this was &lt;## garbled: 06:5 tape 4&gt; thing talking about the P-47.


Maximum permissible dive speed for a P-51D was *505mph IAS below 9000ft, & 300mph IAS (539mph TAS) @ 35000ft. Maximum allowed engine overspeed in a dive was 3300 RPM (or 10% over normal maximum).

The P-51D was put thru extensive dive tests @ *Wright field in 1944 with 3 test pilots. The P-51s were equipped with a MACH meter to evaluate the effects of compressibility:, buffeting, vibration, control force changes etc. .

Tests were conducted from 35000ft, Initial dives, showed the onset of problems @ just under Mach.75, additional tests pushed the P-51 to Mach.77, .79, And finaly to Mach.83 (605mph TAS).

As mach increased compressibility effects became more violent, but the P-51 was still controlable, and able to pull out etc. @ Mach.83 the effects were so strong that tests were ended. The test P-51 @ Mach .83 pulled out but suffered extensive structural damage and was written off, after landing.

Not one instance of wing shedding in these tests.

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand pp.343 - 344.

Also if these wing shredding incidents were as common as some would have it with the P-51 in dives etc , then why; was it not present, on the the A-36? which was an P-51 used as a dive bomber, and not one incedent of longitudinally unstability or 'wing shredding' was reported, operationaly Ie, an single A-36 of the 27th FBG flew 150 missions with not one incident.

[All data from ]virtualpilots.fi ] From the Fin site.

Lawrence Thompson
=============
"I fired two very long bursts, probably five seconds each (P-51 has ammo for about 18 seconds of continuous bursts for four machine guns, the remaining two machine guns will shoot for about 24 seconds). I noticed that part of his engine cowling flew off and he immediately broke off his attack on the lead P-51. I check my rear view mirrors and there's nothing behind me now; somehow, I have managed to lose the Me109 following me, probably because the diving speed of the P-51 is sixty mph faster than the Me109.""

That is from the Virtual Fin site. Is the Mustang 60mph faster in the dive over the 109 in FB/AEP ? Interesting subject.


The 109K was not known for it's turning ability and maybe it is just a little on the plus side.

___

GR142_Astro
01-19-2005, 07:52 PM
Ok Zen,

I see what you are talking about now. Personally, I think the trim is something that should be looked into, since it can be exploited to overcome the 109's heavy high speed handling. You can do it on some other ac such as the P38, but not to the extent IMHO.

I suppose the only time you're apt to notice that the K4's stall speed is too low is in a 5o meter TB fest. You may not, but I happen to subscribe to the camp that believes the later, heavier 109s are a wee bit over the top.

Nothing's perfect, including this sim.

WUAF_Darkangel
01-19-2005, 08:06 PM
Refer to my post further down this page.

Gibbage1
01-19-2005, 09:26 PM
I did my own test's. Before anyone confirms or deny's anyones findings, I highly suggest you do your own. Its simple and fast. QMB.

Conditions. Crimera map, 100M start. All aircraft start at same speed and 100% fuel. 0 throttle. Flaps and landing gear UP. Forced the aircraft to stay at 100M till the stall. Here is what I found.

P-39 D-1 = 85MPH
P-39 Q-1 = 85MPH

P-47 D-10 = 100MPH
P-47 D-27 = 100MPH

P-51 B = 90MPH
P-51 D-20 = 90MPH

109 F2 = 80MPH
109 K4 = 90MPH

190 A4 = 100MPH
190 A9 = 100MPH.

OK. Apperantly the K4 is the only one in the bunch to have CORRECT stall speed in later models? All aircraft had the same stall charactoristics from early to late.

A few notes.

Almost all aircraft crashed in the same area but the 109 and 190's made it a LOT further then the allied birds.

The 190 and 109 were harder to stall. Requiring extreme nose up pitch, but still loosing altitude. 109 more then the 190. At first I attributed it to the 109's slats, but I found the same happened on the 190. Even with a very high nose up angle, they would just loose altitude and not stall.

All allied birds, when they stalled, rolled on there backs and hit the ground VERY quickly. No chance to recover at all. 109 and 190 BOTH stalled at there posted speeds by first doing a little "flick" but they both self recovered. Since I was still full back on the stick, they quickly stalled again and hit. Only the A9 got into an un-recoverable spin.

Please note. Im not posting my openion here. I thought this was an interesting thread, and did my own test's.

Again, I reccoment you do your own test's and come to your own conclusion. But as far as I can tell, the K4 is the only late war bird that has a higher stall speed then its lighter early war counterpart.

Gib

Von_Rat
01-19-2005, 09:36 PM
darkangel,,,maybe its the turn times on the f4 and e4 that are off, they should turn faster than a g2 shouldn't they. i don't know, but i seem to remember that the differant turn times beteewn g2 and f4 have been throughly gone over many times in forums.
i almost never fly f4. i guess i should of said late war 109s.

from your times k4 is slower than all other late war, except g6, and thats close enough to be a error. i know from experiance that the g6as is much better turn fighter than k4.

all i have to say is, of the late war 109s the k4 is the last one i would want in a low speed stall fight. or hi speed fight either, all it has is great climb, its a pig at handling, on the deck or anywhere else. have any of you guys ever tried to stall fight or turn fight with a k4?

i think hartman would be shocked how bad k4 is.

isn't the crimea map the accepted test map?

BBB_Hyperion
01-19-2005, 10:04 PM
Darkangel use proper testing conditions in crimea map its the only one that is valid for testings according to Oleg cause it has near ISA conditions and has a high alt model.

2nd use correct loadout for turns 100 % fuel is the standard all planes turn better with less weight and to note stallspeed is reduced with less weight cause the lift needed to hold alt is reduced.

What tells us that the K4 is worse than other 109s in turn ?

Only thing i noticed is the Emil turns far too well.

Crimea 100 % fuel sea level right turn with trim and full power and rudder

E4 23 s
F4 20 s
K4 21 s

As valid sources always tell turntime at 1000 m so turntime at sea level would be little better .

@Buzzaw- its all explained how i did the testing in the posts above and what conditions i used and the results i got and even the question after the correct testing method.

Here is a summary about stall that i googled for to have a half way usefull
article that shows how stall works without scanning books.

Intresting in this matter cause of the testing method i used compared to yours.
http://www.ultralighthomepage.com/STALL/stall.html

You can stall at any speed ! And when you avoid spinning the plane sinks !

Buzzsaw-
01-19-2005, 10:05 PM
Salute

I have to laugh... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Am I that much better a flyer of K4's than anybody else?

Well, Robban is closer but not quite there yet.

Not sure why it is no one else can get the same stall speed.

First of all, lets qualify stall as experienced in the game.

It is when one wing drops, usually the right one, sometimes the left, but either way, the aircraft semi-inverts and goes into a dive, usually accompanied by a spin. It is not recoverable in a short distance and time period, but takes quite a bit of altitude to recover.

A Stall is NOT when the aircraft shudders, shakes, or otherwise maintains level flight without displaying the wing drop. An aircraft can quite easily recover from that type of behaviour.

The interesting thing about the K4, is that it displays a lot of the shuddering and shaking before it actually finally stalls. It hangs in there very well. When it start to shudder and shake, don't relax on the stick, actually keep pulling back gently on the stick to maintain altitude and the aircraft will hang in there, right down to 130 kph, before it finally stalls. It's that last ability to hang in there which defines the anomaly which is the K4's low speed behaviour. Use of the trim also helps.

Most of the other aircraft do not stall nearly as gently, including the F model 109's.

Another thing Robban, if you have the time, check the stall speeds of the rest of the 109's, F-G. Compare the stall speed of the earliest F models, with the later aircraft.

WUAF_Darkangel
01-20-2005, 03:14 AM
In 3.04m

Test conditions:
CRIMEA map, test height all below 120m above the ocean, clear weather, unlimiteds fuel, 100% fuel, default weapon loadout, limited ammo but not a single shot was fired, radiator closed, flaps raised, torgue and gyro effects on,right hand turn, 4 revolutions.

For a sustainable horizontal right hand turn the best turn time that can be achieved from the various 109 models for 4 revolutions with altitude loss/gain of no more than 1 metres using near optimum turn radius r as followed (the smallest turn radius won't produce the best turn time, but it gets pretty close to it):

E4: between and excluding 91.0 and 92.0 seconds

F4: between and excluding 82.5 and 83.5 seconds

G2: between and excluding 75.0 and 76.0 seconds

G14: " 75.0 and 76.0 seconds

K4: " 77.5 and 78.5 seconds

Clearly the K4 is NOT the worst sustained turner in the 109 family on deck. It's even more manoeuvrable than the F4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif.

robban75
01-20-2005, 03:21 AM
I made some more stall tests with the K-4 and 140 was the absolute minimum speed I could reach when it stalled. All the other 109's except the G-2 stalled at the same speed.

Difference in turning ability between the G-2 and K-4 is quite different.

G-2

Left -- 18.1
Right - 18.0

K-4

Left -- 22.3
Right - 20.5

D-9

Left -- 23.3 sec
Right - 22.2 sec

IXc

Left -- 18.1 sec
Right - 17.8 sec

A left hand turn with the K-4 was much harder to do compared to the others. Perhaps someone else can do it better than me.

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2005, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Ok Zen,

I see what you are talking about now. Personally, I think the trim is something that should be looked into, since it can be exploited to overcome the 109's heavy high speed handling. You can do it on some other ac such as the P38, but not to the extent IMHO.

I suppose the only time you're apt to notice that the K4's stall speed is too low is in a 5o meter TB fest. You may not, but I happen to subscribe to the camp that believes the later, heavier 109s are a wee bit over the top.

Nothing's perfect, including this sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and the actual 109 pilots who used the trim to get out of extreme speed dives were
"cheating". Go shoot any survivors, they were supposed to die.

Believe it or not, real trim works. Planes that have lost hydraulic fluid have been flown
and landed just on electric trim. Real. There is an account of a pilot named Palmer who
took a rookie through takeoff, circle around and landing of a plane in WWII just using trim
because the rookie said something stupid about trim not being able to control a plane.

You can get in very real trouble playing with trim IRL but it is no guarantee at all.

Only trim exploit is the ability to hit one key and trim is instantly neutral.
THAT is the unreal exploit. Use of trim is an actual real exploit. Go read from Ace
Bud Anderson where he describes using trim.

Buzzsaw-
01-20-2005, 07:54 AM
Salute Hyperion

It's clear why your stall speed for the K4 is so radically different from what others are getting.

You are counting the slight sink, and shuddering of the K4 as a stall, when in fact the aircraft remains in controlled flight.

Stall is defined many ways in real life, depending on the type of aircraft being analysed, different behaviour is exhibited, varying from violent wing drop, to slight sinking of the nose. But the key element which is common to all stalls, is that the pilot loses control of the aircraft. A stall is "A departure from controlled flight".

In IL-2, the stall should be read as the point at which the aircraft departs controlled flight, not the point at which it starts to shudder or sink slightly. Because in the game, a pilot can still fire his guns, bank, or otherwise control the aircraft when it is shuddering at the edge of a stall.

Enofinu
01-20-2005, 08:37 AM
Does engine power count anything on turn rates?

BBB_Hyperion
01-20-2005, 08:51 AM
Well thats a definition problem as pointed out earlier. Doesnt really matter for relative performance of the BF Series. I doubt the accuracy for the point of no control that can be measured in the sim as it most likely is depending on deacceleration speed and therefore drag . When you change the aoa of the wings the lift factor is another and changing rudder condition has the same influence . So you ride the plane in the stall and further in it thats why i think its not that accurate testing method cause you rearrange aoa while in it. Would be easier to determine the airflow with some detectors on the wings .)

Something with all planes is wrong note robbans tests about high climb angle with 180 km/h possible with spit, k4 etc.

BBB_Hyperion
01-20-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
Does engine power count anything on turn rates? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Engine Power does influence TAS. The Bank angle above stall velocity in sustained level turn might be look good on the paper but if there is not enough power to hold it the plane decends.

For example effective induced power is doubled at 45 degrees bank , 4 times at 60 degrees.

Buzzsaw-
01-20-2005, 09:33 AM
Salute Hyperion

Second, when you present a test of the K4, use a radically different criteria for testing, without specifying how your test criteria is different from that which I laid out in my original post, then you are deliberately obscuring the facts and giving a false impression.

It is also clear that to get a 168 kph stall speed for the K4, you must be counting the very first buffet as a stall. Even though all aircraft in fact buffet, and buffeting in no way is a stall, but merely an indicator that an aircraft is approaching stall.

I can accept Robban's results, since he specifys he was using the same criteria as I had been, and his results are certainly within the range of error generated by a different computer or joystick.

GR142_Astro
01-20-2005, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Ok Zen,

I see what you are talking about now. Personally, I think the trim is something that should be looked into, since it can be exploited to overcome the 109's heavy high speed handling. You can do it on some other ac such as the P38, but not to the extent IMHO.

I suppose the only time you're apt to notice that the K4's stall speed is too low is in a 5o meter TB fest. You may not, but I happen to subscribe to the camp that believes the later, heavier 109s are a wee bit over the top.

Nothing's perfect, including this sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and the actual 109 pilots who used the trim to get out of extreme speed dives were
"cheating". Go shoot any survivors, they were supposed to die.

Believe it or not, real trim works. Planes that have lost hydraulic fluid have been flown
and landed just on electric trim. Real. There is an account of a pilot named Palmer who
took a rookie through takeoff, circle around and landing of a plane in WWII just using trim
because the rookie said something stupid about trim not being able to control a plane.

You can get in very real trouble playing with trim IRL but it is no guarantee at all.

Only trim exploit is the ability to hit one key and trim is instantly neutral.
THAT is the unreal exploit. Use of trim is an actual real exploit. Go read from Ace
Bud Anderson where he describes using trim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez dude, ease off.

I said "exploit" NOT cheat. Big difference. If it's in the game, then it's not a cheat. I have Andy's book and I know all about the use of trim in combat. Notice I did not specify HOW the trim is being manipulated and/or exploited.

Please read more carefully next time.

Thanks!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 10:48 AM
in fb trim is dodgy, basicaly u can trim nose down, and u can push the stick down from default trim, the difference is pf trimmed makes no drag from moved control surfaces (or way less..)

i did air racing for a while, and trim was used by all the regulars not as a exploit, but because it was faster/way easier, and the planes would stabilize more. but u can do bat turns with it in fb or pf, excede limits a plane would normly have. personaly i trim for level flight, climb, prolonged turning and battle damage, i also wish i could lose trim wires, or be able to sometimes trim when control cables where cut, like real life pilots, trim could also jam, bit of a pain when u trying to land your shot up bomber

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 10:56 AM
oh, i was going by when the wingtip went down, ie when the plane topstalled/rolled

buffet is sorta stall on some planes, but its where part of the wing is stalled, on spitfire i think its near the wing root. but stall is when the pilot loses control, so when it rolls over.

gib i think the 190 was easy to stall irl, but easy to recover too, had really good control authority, i might be wrong tho, i find it really easy to have the plane snap stall, spit and yak when i pull on elivator in particular http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

i use 10 20 etc on my stick, if u have a different curve, then u may "upset" the plane more somewhere along the stick travel, hence different speed.

gib, did the weight of p39 change much? offhand i cant remmber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 12:24 PM
Apperantly the Q is LIGHTER then the D. I did not realize that. I guess it explains why the Q stalled at around 83MPH and the D stalled at a little above 85MPH. Since I was going off the speed bar, I could not give exact figures on speed.

BBB_Hyperion
01-20-2005, 12:35 PM
I explained my testing method along with the datas and the 168 kph is from Eric Browns real test with a 109 G . My tests resulted(all requoted from my post) is 150 and 180 km/h with a given tolerance about 10 km/h cause of the inaccurate measure method i used. Engine was turned off duo propwash pitch to 0. So about 140-160 to 170-190 . Showing a difference in the stall behaviar between the 2 types of 109.

Seems Gibbage found that there is a difference too with a almost similar approach.

I still doubt your testing method as you cant know how far you are already in the stall. Thats why i asked for a more precise testing method as mine and as well as yours has room for errors you have to admit. Change of AoA and use of rudder influence the test.

I refered not to robbans test results concerning stall speeds i refered to the test results concerning high aoa and climb and how it looks in 3.04 check spit ix and climb at highest angle at low speed and tell its realistic. You can do the same on 109 and other planes in 3.04. With such high aoa and low speed i would like to know why there is no stall.

BTW can someone tell me if he gets the same curious behaviar that the k4 flys always up and down in this test ai setup ?

www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/test.zip (http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/test.zip)

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 01:19 PM
I measured the stall the moment the wing snapped or dipped. Like I said, in US birds in was apperant instantly when it stalled. Most wound up on there backs pointing down. 190 and 109 the left wing snapped down about 1/4 or 1/5th turn. I still call that a stall because the airfoil stalled causing the snap.

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 01:37 PM
yep thats a stall in my book, the severity (how bad) of the stall is less for 109, and trusting gib, 190 too.

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yep thats a stall in my book, the severity (how bad) of the stall is less for 109, and trusting gib, 190 too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said. Dont trust me. Try it yourself. Took me no more then 10 mins to test all these aircraft in QMB. All allied aircraft tested rolled on there back. 190 and 109 did a slight flick of the wing even though the wing was at a lot higher angle of attack.

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yep thats a stall in my book, the severity (how bad) of the stall is less for 109, and trusting gib, 190 too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said. Dont trust me. Try it yourself. Took me no more then 10 mins to test all these aircraft in QMB. All allied aircraft tested rolled on there back. 190 and 109 did a slight flick of the wing even though the wing was at a lot higher angle of attack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i agree from my general flying mate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2005, 06:24 PM
Weird. I've been told again and again that a stall can be flown through, that the
wing dropping is just farther into the stall... but that is with real airplanes.

Buzz ignores sinking as will as stall buffeting. Because the wing is beginning to
stall right then. The rest want that wing drop. Hey guys, the other wing hasn't
fully stalled yet!

Aren't you going to get a lower speed going for the full monte?

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2005, 06:34 PM
Astro, we get the quick "trim = exploit" so often it's become a trueism for some.
Trouble is that for them, almost any use of trim is wrong and then they make tests
or come back from online with observations that better piloting wouldn't get.

P1ngu ... that lack of drag from a trimmed surface is something I've seen and
emailed to Oleg right from early January 2002, IL-2 1.0. WWShadow sent in a
track. Some change was made to the sim but exactly what I don't know. Oleg
wrote to me a reply to a post here that the difference between trim and holding
the joystick in position is you can't hold the stick steady enough, control
surface movements account for the extra drag. Well, I guess he knows.

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 06:44 PM
sinking and buffet arent considered stall, but partly stalled. il2 only does near level stall for a few aircraft (il2, glad, go229 i think)

LeadSpitter_
01-20-2005, 08:07 PM
What I would personally like to see is all the ac take some time to recover from massive nose over stalls and stalls that flop the planes around in all directions with very minimal penalty and recover in 10m "the dredded insta stall flop recoveries" or stick yanking

one of the greatest things in il2 sturmovik was stall characteristics compaired to other games of its time like cfs2 which flopped all around then catched right away is similiar to what we have now.

The wildcat and p40b series in version PF3.0 had these stall characteristics of sturmovik so it is definatly possible to bring them back. They were takken away and givin the new instacatch recovery like all planes have now.

We should be able to prevent a wing dip preventing the starting of the stall but not instantly when the ac is flopping all about like we can do now in all aircraft some worse then others.

thats one thing in sturmovik that made the game really enjoyable there was severe penalities for putting your ac over its edge and took 500-1000m or more to recover from the flat spin and bleed off all airspeed something we dont see anymore at all in this game unless someones rudder cables have been shot out and then there is absolutely noway to recover. These are not ultra lights or carbonfiber modern ac like todays civilian ac or aerobatics ac designed for it but these are ac that weigh tons.

Please put the sturmovik stalls into fb aep pf oleg for all ac instead of these instant recovery flops if you get the chance to read this oleg.

PS. Never cry for just one aircraft.

Buzzsaw-
01-20-2005, 10:37 PM
Salute Gibbage

You are incorrect, the later Spitfires have a higher stall speed than the earlier lighter models.

Also, I see that people are only testing the latest model of the 109's, and the earliest model. The focus in not only on the K4. There is also the issue of the G's.

Try testing the 109G2 versus the 109F2.

G2 stalls at 120kph whereas the lighter F2 stalls at 130kph. Obviously something wrong there since they share exactly the same wing and the G2 is considerably heavier than the F2.

All the later G's, including G6, G10 and G14 also stall at the same speed as the F models. They are much heavier and share exactly the same wing as the F's, except that the later G models have the bulge for the large wheels, which adds drag and degrades lift and which would tend to worsen the stall characteristics.

Finally, Robban's 360 degree turn times clearly show that the K4 and G2 are overrated in their turn ability, and especially their low speed turn.

Historical tests, (see the PF OBJECT VIEWER) put the K4 at 22 seconds for a turn at 1000 meters, Robban is getting 20 seconds. The G2 is even more out of whack, it is rated at 20-22.6 seconds for a turn at 1000 meters, and ingame it is doing it in 18 seconds.

These planes are getting the better than historical rates because of their ability to turn tightly at low speeds without stalling.

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 11:11 PM
probably andor partly explains why i often find it really hard to stay in a turn with a 109 onwhine, i dont know if there using flaps or trim but...

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

These planes are getting the better than historical rates because of their ability to turn tightly at low speeds without stalling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This I agree with. But you dare mention this and you will have an instant flame war on your hands! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Lufties will fight to the last to keep there turning ability, BE SURE!!!!!

WUAF_Badsight
01-20-2005, 11:37 PM
if you dont use Flaps , theres no way a Bf109 will out-turn a Mustang , or any Spifire

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 11:45 PM
or trim...

Gibbage1
01-20-2005, 11:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
if you dont use Flaps , theres no way a Bf109 will out-turn a Mustang , or any Spifire <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the crucifiction starts!

[Gibbage stands back. He has learned from past experances not to get between the Luftwhiners and there 109's!]

WUAF_Badsight
01-20-2005, 11:51 PM
well Gibbage what was the real lift effect from flaps ?

they are used a lot online

no denying it

did they really help out stall riding at the limit in RL as they do in FB ?

because without flaps , its hard to agree with Buzzsaws post you quoted & agree with

Gibbage1
01-21-2005, 12:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
well Gibbage what was the real lift effect from flaps ?

they are used a lot online

no denying it

did they really help out stall riding at the limit in RL as they do in FB ?

because without flaps , its hard to agree with Buzzsaws post you quoted & agree with <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who cares about flaps? We were not talking about flaps. We are talking about clean stalls. The turn test's were without flaps and still exceeded the turn times in IL2's description. If we add flaps, it will exceet them even further. So were are you getting this flaps arguement from?

WUAF_Badsight
01-21-2005, 12:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
These planes are getting the better than historical rates because of their ability to turn tightly at low speeds without stalling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
if you dont use Flaps , theres no way a Bf109 will out-turn a Mustang , or any Spifire <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
because without flaps , its hard to agree with Buzzsaws post you quoted & agree with <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
flaps are what help at slow speed

without them , you dont see the excellent low speed stall riding performance that is being complained about

that is why flaps are now being raised by me

their contribution to this behaviour is consistently ignored when these discussions pop up

now , do you think flaps helped as much as they do in FB , in RL ?

WUAF_Darkangel
01-21-2005, 01:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
in fb trim is dodgy, basicaly u can trim nose down, and u can push the stick down from default trim, the difference is pf trimmed makes no drag from moved control surfaces (or way less..)

i did air racing for a while, and trim was used by all the regulars not as a exploit, but because it was faster/way easier, and the planes would stabilize more. but u can do bat turns with it in fb or pf, excede limits a plane would normly have. personaly i trim for level flight, climb, prolonged turning and battle damage, i also wish i could lose trim wires, or be able to sometimes trim when control cables where cut, like real life pilots, trim could also jam, bit of a pain when u trying to land your shot up bomber <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So... planes turn better in this sim using trim than using the stick because it prduces no or much less drag?

WUAF_Badsight
01-21-2005, 01:57 AM
trim for a set level attitude will cruise at a set power faster (slightly) rather than simply pushing the stick

trim will help achieve max elevator deflection at high speeds in many planes , due to the virtual pilot not being able to give full stick movement at that force level (helps planes with poor elevator authority)

wether it gives more deflection than is possible from full stick input is what many have thought was happening

Gibbage1
01-21-2005, 02:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
because without flaps , its hard to agree with Buzzsaws post you quoted & agree with
flaps are what help at slow speed
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, we are not talking about turning with flaps. We are not talking about out-turning P-51's, or Spitfires. We are talking about stall and how it effects turn WITHOUT flaps. So why are you trying to side track this conversation with smoke and mirrors? Bringing in flaps, and P-51's? Please. Dont try to side track.

Like I said. Lufties will try anything. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
01-21-2005, 04:15 AM
your agreeing with Buzzsaw here about Bf109s turning too good , at slow speed , but you want to ignore the reason why

even tho they get out-turned by Spits when you compare them in the same condition (flaps up)

& remember , we are ignoring what Flaps do here just as you want

so again , where is this "being out-turned" , or turning too good problem ?

im giving you reasons why Bf109s are competeing in turning fights here . . . the ability of flaps to seriously help stall riding ability , but you want to ignore this ?

Abbuzze
01-21-2005, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Darkangel:

So... planes turn better in this sim using trim than using the stick because it prduces no or much less drag? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm at least he 109 has a still used modern trim. the whole elevator is moved not just the steering surfaces. But if this reduces the drag in FB- I don´t know.

Buzzsaw-
01-21-2005, 08:05 AM
Salute

Remember please, I am not saying the 109F2 and F4 are turning too well.

From the data I have on these aircraft, it seems as if they are modelled correctly.

The issue is the G and later models.

As far as the use of flaps or not:

The aircraft are turning too well, whether or not they are using flaps, trim or whatever.

I happen to believe it is because their stall speed is too low.

Their stall speed with or without flaps is too low.

Abbuzze
01-21-2005, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Remember please, I am not saying the 109F2 and F4 are turning too well.

From the data I have on these aircraft, it seems as if they are modelled correctly.

The issue is the G and later models.

As far as the use of flaps or not:

The aircraft are turning too well, whether or not they are using flaps, trim or whatever.

I happen to believe it is because their stall speed is too low.

Their stall speed with or without flaps is too low. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was it what you had in mind after starting this thread? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don´t believe that in a virtual world the stallspeed is realy related to the turning ability, I think it´s just a weakness of the code!
Otherwise you should also believe that the FW190 it overmodelled in turning too, cause their stallspeed it also to less http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I always wonderd why there was so much diskussion about a senseless data like "no power-stallspeed" now I know why- lol I think if climb-max.speed-turning ablity is close to real live it´s enough- and the more planes we get the less percentage of correct FM we get...

Gibbage1
01-21-2005, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:

I don´t believe that in a virtual world the stallspeed is realy related to the turning ability, I think it´s just a weakness of the code! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stall speed is a critical factor of how HARD you can pull in the turn. If your stall speed is lower, you can pull harder. Its that simple. Since the stall speed on the 109 is lower, you can pull harder and bring it through the turn faster.

I think the stall speeds were globally lowered. It seams that others are testing and every aircraft has about 30KPH slower stall speed. If it is a global effect, then its not just the 109 thats turning too well. But it is a problem that the G and K series is turning tighter then the F series even though they are on the same wings and a big heavier. I think we need to all agree that is a big problem.

Von_Rat
01-21-2005, 11:56 AM
this subject about the differance beteewn the f4 and g2 or later turn times was already dicussed to death months ago.

since it hasn't been changed in all that time, i assume its correct, or at least oleg will never change it. much like the fw bar, mg151, etc. etc. etc.

Gibbage1
01-21-2005, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
this subject about the differance beteewn the f4 and g2 or later turn times was already dicussed to death months ago.

since it hasn't been changed in all that time, i assume its correct, or at least oleg will never change it. much like the fw bar, mg151, etc. etc. etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was there any good excuses for this in the last thread? Like the engine pulling it through the turn? Thats the only thing I can think that would effect the turn other then the wing.

BfHeFwMe
01-21-2005, 12:05 PM
Great, will have to remember this next time I run into a powered off Messer. If you fly one just select 0% fuel, you won't need it to out turn anyone.

I only have one question, got track?

p1ngu666
01-21-2005, 12:13 PM
stall speed is what will pop u out of a tight turn
and weight is effectivly increased with g, 2g = 2x the weight, thats why u dont fall out of a turn at 150kph or whatever, but 300 or so...

flaps can be used at any speed (combat) without jam, and will aid turn at highspeed...

i did have a thought that the front slats where working too well, for example i185 has nearly full length slats, and that thing can TURN, been outturned at low/med speed in zero and ki43 in that thing

TX-Zen
01-21-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Stall speed is a critical factor of how HARD you can pull in the turn. If your stall speed is lower, you can pull harder. Its that simple. Since the stall speed on the 109 is lower, you can pull harder and bring it through the turn faster.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats an oversimplification when power off stall is considered...one can't draw a direct correlation between abnormal power off stall characterstics and abnormal turning ability because the global physics engine is a bit too dynamic for that imho. There is a difference between power off stall and combat related wing stall...powerloading, G-forces etc etc. Its not a clear cut thing to pinpoint.

My only point is that if there is something that needs to be fixed in the 109, find out what the root cause is.


I still don't think power off stall is the issue but it looks like the term is being thrown about as the culprit and people are starting to take that as the gospel...not a good idea in my opinion. When we go to Oleg with things like this (assuming they are not the correct reason) we get dismissed and nothing changes, so if accuracy is really the intention here then try to have an open mind and find the source. I have no personal issue with people claiming the 109 turns too well, but if we think that, then we better find some kind of proof. Pointing at a narrow aspect of the FM as though that's the only thing that matters is probably not going to get the plane a fair review and if power off stall is not the reason for the problem, then the problem isn't going to change by singling that out. I hope I'm making sense.



Please, everyone, if you feel the 109 is incorrectly modelled then research to find out why, don't just hop on the bandwagon. If power off stall IS the issue, all well and good, but what if it's not? Nothing changes by zeroing in on it as the source.

Whiners aside, I think the majority of us want fair and accurately modelled aircraft, not some uber ride where we can fly unrealistically or unhistorically.

Von_Rat
01-21-2005, 12:22 PM
i seem to remember somthing about the reason for better g2 than f4 turn was the engine. im not sure, it was many months ago. it went on for weeks and was a very long thread.
i'll try a search.

Gibbage1
01-21-2005, 12:45 PM
The thing is, I dont think in IL2 there is a differance between powered stall and power off stall. Its just a stall. Take for instance the P-38.

P-38 did not dip its wing when in a stall in real life. This is because there was no torque (or, for those stiff people, the torque was cancled out), both wings would stall at the same time. The key to a wing drop was torque causing one wing to stall first over the other because the wing has more force down due to the torque of the engine. Correct?

Oleg said he can not simulate no torque on the P-38. So that means all aircraft have torque all the time. So every stall is a powered stall, idle or glide. Correct?

So in a powered turn, the 109 can turn tighter because stall is further away. But again, this may be global. The question now is, should the F series turn tighter then the later and heavier G and K's?

p1ngu666
01-21-2005, 01:13 PM
yeah i agree with gibbage, if the engine was turned off/at idle, u should get a softer, more balanced stall, if the aircraft is trimed/set level, so it flys dead straight, and no torque, and no other factors like wind, the aircraft will stall level. some aircraft would stall pretty much level, lancaster for example http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

maybe some of us should get together on HL and do a fly off and test stuff together

done stuff like that with gibbs, and icefire along with others i think

im on HL plenty, as p1ngu666, and i can put together a test map, just say what should be in there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

TX-Zen
01-21-2005, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The thing is, I dont think in IL2 there is a differance between powered stall and power off stall. Its just a stall. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I can't agree really, powered stall can happen at mostly any speed but especially mid to low range if the AoA of the wing is exceeded by applying excessive stick forces. While we're on for instances, look at the 190. When you apply rapid heavy elevator, it stalls at virtually any speed.

Pick a speed--- it happens if the controls are hamfisted, which is a common complaint of new pilots. Also when crossing 320km/h during turns, a snap stall is also common unless very controlled stick force is used. Many other planes in IL2 are like that, so my opinion is that logic would suggest that power on and power off stalls are two different things in game.

True or false? I can't say for sure, but I still caution against over simplifying.

p1ngu666
01-21-2005, 03:07 PM
i think u would be looking at a mixture of power off and power on, im thinking that at higher speeds, your nearing more power off, due to airflow from prop is probably not as fast relitive to the normal air, and the torque isnt such a issue at higher speeds?

zen u can do those stalls easily in a b25, the fast control movement http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif, maybe there is a damping setting on stick movemtent, 190 has like 0, he111 50

WUAF_Darkangel
01-21-2005, 07:30 PM
I think another major factor making the k4 outturn the E4 and F4 is powerloading. It appears the effect of powerloading on horizontal manoeuvrability is overmodeled.

Buzzsaw-
01-21-2005, 08:32 PM
Salute

All we have to do is to look at the object viewer for the 109's to see that the 109F4 should be easily outturning the K4.

Both their historical turn times are listed.

F4: 19.6 - 20.5 seconds for a 360 at 1000m

K4 22 seconds for 360 at 1000m

Obviously the aircraft in the game are not modelled correctly.

JG53Frankyboy
01-21-2005, 09:01 PM
maybe, but in general, i wouldnt take the object viewer to serious.

compare it about the Bf110G2 (read twice 110 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and look the game FM.
ore there was a time the OV stated the Fw190A8 would have MW50 , it never had http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

III-JG27_DV8
01-21-2005, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

All we have to do is to look at the object viewer for the 109's to see that the 109F4 should be easily outturning the K4.

Both their historical turn times are listed.

F4: 19.6 - 20.5 seconds for a 360 at 1000m

K4 22 seconds for 360 at 1000m

Obviously the aircraft in the game are not modelled correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I gotta ask since you're spitting out numbers.

Is that for ONE (1) 360 degree turn OR?

The 109F4 has what 1400hp engine?
The 109K4 has what 2000hp engine?

What about their weights?

Also, if you need a demonstration of a 109F4 out turning your 109K4, please let me know. I'll even run at 50% fuel while you can be a 25% fuel.

S!
DV8

WUAF_Darkangel
01-21-2005, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by III-JG27_DV8:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

All we have to do is to look at the object viewer for the 109's to see that the 109F4 should be easily outturning the K4.

Both their historical turn times are listed.

F4: 19.6 - 20.5 seconds for a 360 at 1000m

K4 22 seconds for 360 at 1000m

Obviously the aircraft in the game are not modelled correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I gotta ask since you're spitting out numbers.

Is that for ONE (1) 360 degree turn OR?

The 109F4 has what 1400hp engine?
The 109K4 has what 2000hp engine?

What about their weights?

Also, if you need a demonstration of a 109F4 out turning your 109K4, please let me know. I'll even run at 50% fuel while you can be a 25% fuel.

S!
DV8 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Darkangel:
In 3.04m

Test conditions:
CRIMEA map, test height all below 120m above the ocean, clear weather, unlimiteds fuel, 100% fuel, default weapon loadout, limited ammo but not a single shot was fired, radiator closed, flaps raised, torgue and gyro effects on,right hand turn, 4 revolutions.

For a sustainable horizontal right hand turn the best turn time that can be achieved from the various 109 models for 4 revolutions with altitude loss/gain of no more than 1 metres using near optimum turn radius r as followed (the smallest turn radius won't produce the best turn time, but it gets pretty close to it):

E4: between and excluding 91.0 and 92.0 seconds

F4: between and excluding 82.5 and 83.5 seconds

G2: between and excluding 75.0 and 76.0 seconds

G14: " 75.0 and 76.0 seconds

K4: " 77.5 and 78.5 seconds

Clearly the K4 is NOT the worst sustained turner in the 109 family on deck. It's even more manoeuvrable than the F4 . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i.e. for 1 revolution

K4: 19.375-19.625s
F4: 20.625-20.875s

i.e. difference in turn time:

1.0-1.5s

K4 outturn F4 Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

But then the F4 carries more fuel than the K4 (according to the fuel gauge)
so maybe if they were both carrying the same amount of fuel maybe the F4 will outturn the K4.

Gibbage1
01-22-2005, 12:07 AM
Dont dismiss the object viewer so quickly. Even if they are not historically correct, they are what Oleg things it should be. Oleg writes them. I helped him write the object viewer for the P-38. Oleg things that the F2/4 should out turn the K4. It does not. That means its a bug. The question now is weather its historical.

Can someone please find referance to both the K4's and F4's turn performance? I bet you also, the historical data shows the F4 winning. Power will help extend the turn, but weight is still a critical factor.

Abbuzze
01-22-2005, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:

I don´t believe that in a virtual world the stallspeed is realy related to the turning ability, I think it´s just a weakness of the code! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stall speed is a critical factor of how HARD you can pull in the turn. If your stall speed is lower, you can pull harder. Its that simple. Since the stall speed on the 109 is lower, you can pull harder and bring it through the turn faster.

I think the stall speeds were globally lowered. It seams that others are testing and every aircraft has about 30KPH slower stall speed. If it is a global effect, then its not just the 109 thats turning too well. But it is a problem that the G and K series is turning tighter then the F series even though they are on the same wings and a big heavier. I think we need to all agree that is a big problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct for RL, but without knowing the code of the sim it´s just an asumption!
So you are belive that the FW is turning to good cause their stallspeed is to less???

Kurfurst__
01-22-2005, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So in a powered turn, the 109 can turn tighter because stall is further away. But again, this may be global. The question now is, should the F series turn tighter then the later and heavier G and K's? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

_Tighter?_ Yes, most likely the 109Fs stall speed is lower than the 109Ks. Lower turn speed is possible with lower speed at the same G.

However...

Turn time is not neccesarily worser on the 109K, if worser at all. Spitfire comparison test showed the MUCH heavier MkIXs could outturn the lighter MkVs at high altitudes, where they had a lot more power available. Powerloading IS a factor.

Now the 109K has MASSIVE power-to-weight ratio (ca 15% heavier than the 109F, and 50% more power...), if not the best of all ww2 piston engined fighters. It produces massive acceleration, which means it can keep up higher speed during turn (against deceleration). Higher speed -&gt; more lift generated on the wings.. it can keep it`s speed eaier above it`s higher stall speed than the 109F. The turning circle will be larger, but not the turn time.

And if you need an analogy, *common wisdom* is the 109F outturned the 109 Emil... now wasnt the 109F a fair bit heavier and better powered than the Emil, huh ?

Besides the Object viewer gives turn times for gentle sustained turns, not max. G heard turns, so what are you comparing to what...?

p1ngu666
01-22-2005, 12:21 PM
kurfy i agree with u on turn time, doesnt matter how big a circle u do, just the time.

thought f4 had 1085 1350, to the k4's 1475 1850 2000

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//109fvk4.jpg

not the bastion of acurate data, but easy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Now the 109K has MASSIVE power-to-weight ratio (ca 15% heavier than the 109F, and 50% more power...), if not the best of all ww2 piston engined fighters. It produces massive acceleration, which means it can keep up higher speed during turn (against deceleration). Higher speed -&gt; more lift generated on the wings.. it can keep it`s speed eaier above it`s higher stall speed than the 109F. The turning circle will be larger, but not the turn time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

last point of that, IF k4 stalls at same speed as f4, but has more power, then it will be better in turn

WUAF_Badsight
01-22-2005, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Darkangel:
i.e. for 1 revolution

K4: 19.375-19.625s
F4: 20.625-20.875s

i.e. difference in turn time:

1.0-1.5s

K4 outturn F4 Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

But then the F4 carries more fuel than the K4 (according to the fuel gauge)
so maybe if they were both carrying the same amount of fuel maybe the F4 will outturn the K4. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
is that your time divided by your reveloutions ?

that is a sustained turn time no ?

a single hard turn time is different to a sustained turn time

WUAF_Darkangel
01-22-2005, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Darkangel:
In 3.04m

Test conditions:
CRIMEA map, test height all below 120m above the ocean, clear weather, unlimiteds fuel, 100% fuel, default weapon loadout, limited ammo but not a single shot was fired, radiator closed, flaps raised, torgue and gyro effects on,right hand turn, 4 revolutions.

For a sustainable horizontal right hand turn the best turn time that can be achieved from the various 109 models for 4 revolutions with altitude loss/gain of no more than 1 metres using near optimum turn radius r as followed (the smallest turn radius won't produce the best turn time, but it gets pretty close to it):

E4: between and excluding 91.0 and 92.0 seconds

F4: between and excluding 82.5 and 83.5 seconds

G2: between and excluding 75.0 and 76.0 seconds

G14: " 75.0 and 76.0 seconds

K4: " 77.5 and 78.5 seconds

Clearly the K4 is NOT the worst sustained turner in the 109 family on deck. It's even more manoeuvrable than the F4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It says "sustainable horizontal right hand turn". It kept turning until the sustainable TAS was achieved for the particualar turn radius i was testing. I know "HardBall's IL-2 Aircraft Viewer" shows that F-4 outturns K-4 but it doesn't say what sort turn TAS he was using for both aircrafts (the smallest turn radius won't produce the best turn time). Some of the other stats look a little off from what's actually possible in game, for example i've been able to get the K-4s max speed at sea level over 590km/h even Robban's stats show that it's possible to get the speed to over 590. But the stats from HarBall says that it can only go up to 582km/h at sea level. I'm not sure how they got those sorts of results.