PDA

View Full Version : climb performance 109G6 VS L5FN in 1.11



XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:26 AM
hello guys below is my test
condition: in QMB smolensk map ,start altitude 100m, initial speed 300km/h(ias) ,100%fuel ,climb speed 270km/h
la5fn complex engine manipulate set radiator position 4 use full throttle firstly after engine overheat throttle to 100%
from 100m climb to 3100 2'26" to 5100 5'00"
109g6 auto pitch ,auto radiator control ,use full throttle when start to climb after engin overheat pull throttle back to 105%(2600rpm) others same to l5fn
_________________from 100m to 3100m_____to5100m
109g6 early____________2'55"_____________5'27"
109g6 later____________2'50"_____________5'19"
but finnish data________3'_______________5'15"
(2600rpm)
from these tests we get:
1.109g6 can not match the finnish data to 5000m even using full throttel at the first half of the climb route(engine start overheat at 3500m)
2.in contast l5fn 109g6 is only little quicker than 3min using 110% throttle climb to 3000m
3.even from 3000m to 5000m 109g6 cannot overclimb l5fn yet in patch1.11
oleg how can you explain this ?maybe you have more authentic data source could you show it to us to explain why 109g6s climb performance should be this in 1.11.




Message Edited on 09/09/0310:10AM by HQ1

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:26 AM
hello guys below is my test
condition: in QMB smolensk map ,start altitude 100m, initial speed 300km/h(ias) ,100%fuel ,climb speed 270km/h
la5fn complex engine manipulate set radiator position 4 use full throttle firstly after engine overheat throttle to 100%
from 100m climb to 3100 2'26" to 5100 5'00"
109g6 auto pitch ,auto radiator control ,use full throttle when start to climb after engin overheat pull throttle back to 105%(2600rpm) others same to l5fn
_________________from 100m to 3100m_____to5100m
109g6 early____________2'55"_____________5'27"
109g6 later____________2'50"_____________5'19"
but finnish data________3'_______________5'15"
(2600rpm)
from these tests we get:
1.109g6 can not match the finnish data to 5000m even using full throttel at the first half of the climb route(engine start overheat at 3500m)
2.in contast l5fn 109g6 is only little quicker than 3min using 110% throttle climb to 3000m
3.even from 3000m to 5000m 109g6 cannot overclimb l5fn yet in patch1.11
oleg how can you explain this ?maybe you have more authentic data source could you show it to us to explain why 109g6s climb performance should be this in 1.11.




Message Edited on 09/09/0310:10AM by HQ1

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 03:37 AM
1. "the Finnish data" is hardly well described, climb speed? air temp? exact G6 type? Factory fresh or "broken in"?

2. The error you found between the Finn's data and FB is out by 3.8% and 1.27% on the G6 and G6 Late respectively. If the Finnish "data" is for the late model, I would hardly criticise that the figures were 1.27% out!!

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

Message Edited on 09/09/0312:37PM by hobnail

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 05:45 AM
See Wastel's post on G6 weights ... Seems Maddox Games accidently used a different weight as empty weight to calculate the FM.

---------------------------
http://home.t-online.de/home/340045970094-0001/lwskins_banner_gross.jpg (http://www.lwskins.de.vu)
Historical Skins for Luftwaffe-Fighters

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 07:54 AM
HQ1 wrote:
- _________________from 100m to 3100m_____to5100m
- 109g6 early____________2'55"_____________5'27"
- 109g6 later____________2'50"_____________5'19"
- but finnish data________3'_______________5'15"

Thanks for showing that FB is spot on!

As for your complaints.... ????

You complain that there is a 5 or 10 second difference between your measurements and RL measurements? - In a climb that lasts 3 minutes? (Not talking about the 5 minute climb, where the difference is even smaller)

Any tiny inaccuracy in your approximation to the maximum climb rate can explain the difference. Any deviation in the RL climb by the Finnish pilot too!

So, as I said, thanks for showing that FB is SPOT ON!

Freycinet
<center>
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/delfin/SD/2001/flight/spitbf109/ellehammer-crop-for-il2-forum-reduced.jpg</center>
<center>My Il-2 web-site:</center><center><BIG>"Za Rodinu!"</BIG> (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/delfin/SD/2001/flight/il-2/index.htm)</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 08:20 AM
I agree completely Frey!

If anything the plane may be overmoddelled unless the original poster is a highly elite virtual test pilot with the best stick and PC available, and I'm not talking about some kid with a "1337" (that means Leet as in Elite as in able to cookbook a hack or is arcade-hot) attitude either!

The sim don't run on tables so the LAST thing anyone should expect is within 1% to their own data behavior of the planes. Adjusting planes to meet climb, dive, speed and whatever other charts has in every physical formula sim I've ever seen screwed the handling and introduced "cracks" in the FM that can be exploited or just kill a plane or three or both (RB3D corp FM Albs, dogs unless exploited and then become half ubered).

Geez, people should be happy to have close performance in planes that FLY SO WELL. They should also have good data on the La5FN before complaining about it versus their personal FanPlane.

The ultimate whiners are FP-Whiners! They always have special charts, rhetoric (special logic), and excuses (special whining) for their Special Planes. They always want 100% the way they see things, and they never can get over anything different.


I can see by the forum that initially at least, things are pretty good. For those with fair minds there don't seem to be any big errors showing up soon. I am getting my patch now and I hope it makes FB make me a happy flieger again!


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 09:13 AM
Hobnail

Are you some kind of former NKVD agent, trying to critisis anything finnish on this forum!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 09:37 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- I agree completely Frey!
-
- If anything the plane may be overmoddelled unless
- the original poster is a highly elite virtual test
- pilot with the best stick and PC available, and I'm
- not talking about some kid with a "1337" (that means
- Leet as in Elite as in able to cookbook a hack or is
- arcade-hot) attitude either!
-
- The sim don't run on tables so the LAST thing anyone
- should expect is within 1% to their own data
- behavior of the planes. Adjusting planes to meet
- climb, dive, speed and whatever other charts has in
- every physical formula sim I've ever seen screwed
- the handling and introduced "cracks" in the FM that
- can be exploited or just kill a plane or three or
- both (RB3D corp FM Albs, dogs unless exploited and
- then become half ubered).
-
- Geez, people should be happy to have close
- performance in planes that FLY SO WELL. They should
- also have good data on the La5FN before complaining
- about it versus their personal FanPlane.
-
- The ultimate whiners are FP-Whiners! They always
- have special charts, rhetoric (special logic), and
- excuses (special whining) for their Special Planes.
- They always want 100% the way they see things, and
- they never can get over anything different.
-
-
- I can see by the forum that initially at least,
- things are pretty good. For those with fair minds
- there don't seem to be any big errors showing up
- soon. I am getting my patch now and I hope it makes
- FB make me a happy flieger again!
-
-
- Neal
-
-
-
-

i get these data by using max power before reaching 3500m
so this data is g6s the best climb performance in 1.11 ok you can see 2'50"-2'55"to 3000m but in fb objectview data 3min to 3000m is achieved by using 105% throttle (2600rpm)
finnish data also by using the same power output.so please shut up before read my post carefully.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 09:52 AM
170/175sec is only 2.8%/5.6% of 180sec > 3000m

Seems the G-6 is a touch over modelled./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 10:03 AM
Freycinet wrote:
-
- HQ1 wrote:
-- _________________from 100m to 3100m_____to5100m
-- 109g6 early____________2'55"_____________5'27"
-- 109g6 later____________2'50"_____________5'19"
-- but finnish data________3'_______________5'15"
-
- Thanks for showing that FB is spot on!

the comparance HQ1 did is a bit unlucky and difficult to understand
but you would agree the 110 = 100 is ~10% wrong

read the thread about the wrong weight for the G6

quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 10:14 AM
csThor wrote:
- See Wastel's post on G6 weights ... Seems Maddox
- Games accidently used a different weight as empty
- weight to calculate the FM.
-
----------------------------
- <a href="http://www.lwskins.de.vu"
- target="_blank"><img
- src="http://home.t-online.de/home/340045970094-000
- 1/lwskins_banner_gross.jpg" border=0></a>
- Historical Skins for Luftwaffe-Fighters


Hmm..accidently? or intentionally?

If it is accidently, it would be easy to excuse it andcorrect the wrong weights... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:33 PM
Freycinet and MaxGunz. You misunderstand what he is saying. The object viewer describes the climb of the 6 as 3.0 min to 3000m.

This is tested in the game with 100% power, not 110%, and 100% fuel load and full armament starting at SL at 300kph.

What he is saying is that he could not achieve those numbers in his test using 110% throttle until overheat.

The Finnish manual for the G6 says 3 min. to 3000m. at a speed of 270 kph, the best sustained climb speed for the G6.
My understanding from reading I've done is that the Finnish tests were done with full fuel and armament and 100% power, just the way the game model is tested. And I don't think the game developers have any problem with the Finnish data since the game's object viewer and the Finnish manual both say 3min to 3000 for the G6.

Now the question is how accurate was his test. I haven't done any since 1.11, but perhaps others should try and see what results they get.







Message Edited on 09/09/0309:36AM by Chadburn