PDA

View Full Version : 4.02 sustained turn rate tests



wojtek_m
12-02-2005, 08:33 AM
I posted some of those tests in the €œOleg. Me 109 vs Spitfire slow speed turning€ thread, but because I tested new planes later I decided to make a new thread of it... It€s a comparison of SUSTAINED turn rates, some planes will have better instantaneous turn rates than others of course (e.g. Yak3, Spit V). I only took planes I would start a turn fight with, so everybody is free to add more planes to this list, but please use the same procedure, so the results are comparable.

Conditions:
- version 4.02
- altitude: 0-50 m
- no trim used
- fuel 100%
- map: Okinawa
- no flaps used
- speed is around 280 kph


Results:

109F4:
5 turns, 102sec => 20.4 sec/turn

109G2:
4 turns, 78sec => 19.5 sec/turn

Spitfire IXe:
4 turns, 74sec => 18.5 sec/turn

Spitfire Vb:
4 turns, 74sec => 18.5 sec/turn (exception here as speed is around 250 kph, someone could repeat it at 280kph, but it looses speed very quickly)

Yak3:
4 turns, 69sec => 17.2 sec/turn

Spitfire VIII:
7 turns, 118sec => 16.9 sec/turn

La7:
6 turns, 101sec => 16.8 sec/turn

A6M3:
8 turns, 128sec => 16.0 sec/turn


Additional test:

109 G2 with combat flaps:
5 turns, 99sec => 19.8 sec/turn


Conclusion:

1) The numbers match the turn rates found in the literature very good for the most part.
2) Flaps don€t help in sustained turning (as it should be).
3) The 109G2 is turning a bit too good compared to Bf109F4, which should be a better turner.
4) The Yak3 should probably turn better than La7 (again literature).


P.S. I can send the tracks if someone wishes.

cueceleches
12-02-2005, 09:53 AM
Excellent and useful info. Thanks a lot for it!

Kwiatos
12-02-2005, 10:38 AM
Yea La7, Yak3 and 109 G-2 turn times are too good in game.

wojtek_m
12-02-2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Yea La7, Yak3 and 109 G-2 turn times are too good in game.

Well, AFAIK the Yak3 needed around 17-18 sec for a 360? turn, so I don't think it's too good in game, but you're right, La7 should be about 0.5-1 sec worse than the Yak and the Bf109G2 and Bf109F4 turn times should be probably swapped...

Kurfurst__
12-02-2005, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by wojtek_m:
I posted some of those tests in the €œOleg. Me 109 vs Spitfire slow speed turning€ thread, but because I tested new planes later I decided to make a new thread of it... It€s a comparison of SUSTAINED turn rates, some planes will have better instantaneous turn rates than others of course (e.g. Yak3, Spit V). I only took planes I would start a turn fight with, so everybody is free to add more planes to this list, but please use the same procedure, so the results are comparable.

Conditions:
- version 4.02
- altitude: 0-50 m
- no trim used
- fuel 100%
- map: Okinawa
- no flaps used
- speed is around 280 kph


Results:

109F4:
5 turns, 102sec => 20.4 sec/turn

109G2:
4 turns, 78sec => 19.5 sec/turn

Spitfire IXe:
4 turns, 74sec => 18.5 sec/turn

Spitfire Vb:
4 turns, 74sec => 18.5 sec/turn (exception here as speed is around 250 kph, someone could repeat it at 280kph, but it looses speed very quickly)

Yak3:
4 turns, 69sec => 17.2 sec/turn

Spitfire VIII:
7 turns, 118sec => 16.9 sec/turn

La7:
6 turns, 101sec => 16.8 sec/turn

A6M3:
8 turns, 128sec => 16.0 sec/turn


Additional test:

109 G2 with combat flaps:
5 turns, 99sec => 19.8 sec/turn


Conclusion:

3) The 109G2 is turning a bit too good compared to Bf109F4, which should be a better turner.


Someone explain me then why the same is OK in relation of the Spitfires.

How can the much heavier MkIX match the MkV's sustained turn time? Or is it only a problem when the slightly heavier, higher powered 109G-2 does pretty much the same turn time as the 109F-4?

And why does the MkVIII turn a LOT better than both MkV and MKIX, given it's the heavier variant, 300 lbs heavier than the MkIX and has the same engine and power???!

It seems that there are some issues with turn times as well, but it's only complained about in the 109 series.

Badsight.
12-02-2005, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by wojtek_m:
4) The Yak3 should probably turn better than La7 (again literature). first of all TY for posting your results here

the La-7 had a advantage in turn time over the Yak-3 , much much higher power load

those Spitfire times (Mk8) definantly need to be fixed - cause that aint right

agree with the F4 & G2 turn performance needing to be swopped

wojtek_m
12-02-2005, 12:18 PM
How can the much heavier MkIX match the MkV's sustained turn time?

The Spit V was tested under somewhat different condition, namely at 250 kph (I wrote a comment about that) and still had the same turn rate as the IX. At 250 kph it should have a smaller turn radius, so it would turn inside the IX and get a firing solution...



Or is it only a problem when the slightly heavier, higher powered 109G-2 does pretty much the same turn time as the 109F-4?

The F variant is widely considered the most maneuverable of the 109 series, but the G2 in game has a 1 sec better 360? sustained turn rate, so I found it odd. G2 was much heavier than F4...


And why does the MkVIII turn a LOT better than both MkV and MKIX, given it's the heavier variant, 300 lbs heavier than the MkIX and has the same engine and power???!

This is odd indeed. Hardball's aircraft viewer mislead me as it lists MKVIII about 300 kg lighter than the MKIX. I checked it and the MKVIII was heavier in real life. Could be a bug.

Kuna15
12-02-2005, 12:56 PM
Lavochkin is superior http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

LeadSpitter_
12-02-2005, 01:07 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/4thfg/kurfurstsource.jpg

Kurfurst__
12-02-2005, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by wojtek_m:
The F variant is widely considered the most maneuverable of the 109 series, but the G2 in game has a 1 sec better 360? sustained turn rate, so I found it odd. G2 was much heavier than F4...

The 109G-2 wasn't much heavier, about 5% or less. The F-4 weighted 2890 kg at takeoff, the 109G-2 : 3037 kg. Actually 140 kg heavier, but it also has a stronger engine, ie. F-4 has 1200/1350 PS, the G-2 1310/1475 PS. Aerodynamically, the G-2 is as good as the F-4, if not better - it has internal armor glass, the 109f-4 has a draggy external one.

I think it's the 109F that is too bad, not the 109G-2 too good (maybe a little). The 109G-2 was able to do 360 turns in 20-21sec as tested by the Russians, but that was at 1000m, so 19.5 sounds quite right at SL.

109F4:
5 turns, 102sec => 20.4 sec/turn

109G2:
4 turns, 78sec => 19.5 sec/turn

Dunno for the 109F. David Baker's Adolph Galland Biography only notes that the 109F did the full circle in 18 secs as opposed to 24 secs of the Emil. Indeed it seemed to me that the 109F suddenly got heavier after one patch, I don't know which one, until then it was better than the Gustav...

danjama
12-02-2005, 01:23 PM
I find it interesting that flaps you say have no affect on turn circle. If you watch the AI use flaps in turn, it is clearly helping them to turn tighter! Go and watch them. You''ll see.

AI is so uber it's unbelievable.

Nice testing though. I agree the Spitfire's are broken, in more aspects than just turn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

faustnik
12-02-2005, 01:29 PM
If you fly an Fw190 or P-47, you never worry about turn rate, life if easier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WWSensei
12-02-2005, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
I find it interesting that flaps you say have no affect on turn circle. If you watch the AI use flaps in turn, it is clearly helping them to turn tighter! Go and watch them. You''ll see.

AI is so uber it's unbelievable.

Nice testing though. I agree the Spitfire's are broken, in more aspects than just turn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Flaps will help in turn rate, but at a cost for speed. So they may help the turn rate for a 1/4 turn but if speed drops off considerably then they hurt. How much they help and for how long will vary per aircraft.

danjama
12-02-2005, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
I find it interesting that flaps you say have no affect on turn circle. If you watch the AI use flaps in turn, it is clearly helping them to turn tighter! Go and watch them. You''ll see.

AI is so uber it's unbelievable.

Nice testing though. I agree the Spitfire's are broken, in more aspects than just turn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Flaps will help in turn rate, but at a cost for speed. So they may help the turn rate for a 1/4 turn but if speed drops off considerably then they hurt. How much they help and for how long will vary per aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the tester said and i quote -

"Flaps don€t help in sustained turning (as it should be)."

Im just going by the dudes find...

stathem
12-02-2005, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by wojtek_m:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
How can the much heavier MkIX match the MkV's sustained turn time?

The Spit V was tested under somewhat different condition, namely at 250 kph (I wrote a comment about that) and still had the same turn rate as the IX. At 250 kph it should have a smaller turn radius, so it would turn inside the IX and get a firing solution...



Or is it only a problem when the slightly heavier, higher powered 109G-2 does pretty much the same turn time as the 109F-4?

The F variant is widely considered the most maneuverable of the 109 series, but the G2 in game has a 1 sec better 360? sustained turn rate, so I found it odd. G2 was much heavier than F4...


And why does the MkVIII turn a LOT better than both MkV and MKIX, given it's the heavier variant, 300 lbs heavier than the MkIX and has the same engine and power???!

This is odd indeed. Hardball's aircraft viewer mislead me as it lists MKVIII about 300 kg lighter than the MKIX. I checked it and the MKVIII was heavier in real life. Could be a bug. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before calling bug on that Mk VIII turn time, it could really do with re-testing, probably independtley. I note it's averaged over 7 turns whilst the other Spits are averaged over 4.

wojtek_m
12-02-2005, 02:29 PM
Before calling bug on that Mk VIII turn time, it could really do with re-testing, probably independtley. I note it's averaged over 7 turns whilst the other Spits are averaged over 4.

You (and everybody) are free to test it, but I'm pretty sure it won't make a big difference if you do 7 turns or 4 - more turns is just a bit more precise.

Chadburn
12-02-2005, 02:35 PM
One reason that the F model 109 may not be turning as well as G is because the F model's in-game stall speed is higher than historical (so is the Emil's for that matter.)

wojtek_m
12-02-2005, 02:40 PM
BTW, flaps add lift, but even more drag, so if you're fast you can increase the turn rate or turn tighter by adding flaps, but in sustained turning the drag factor outweights the additional lift and your turnrate should decrease.

Kuna15
12-02-2005, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/4thfg/kurfurstsource.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

wojtek_m
12-02-2005, 03:01 PM
Before calling bug on that Mk VIII turn time, it could really do with re-testing, probably independtley. I note it's averaged over 7 turns whilst the other Spits are averaged over 4.

One more thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I noted the time after each turn and still have it on paper in front of me. A single time will not be very precise - about 1 sec deviation, because I used the track time (lower right corner), which only shows whole seconds. But with every turn it gets more precise - I would say even 3 turns would produce enough precision - 7 turns is just overkill http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The 7 turns of the Spit MK VIII were as follows:
17, 17, 16, 17, 17, 17, 17
all together 118 sec for 7 turns => 16.9 sec/turn
if you would take the first 4 it would be 67sec/4 turns = 16.75 sec/turn
=> basically the same, but we have a difference of 1.6 sec/turn between MKVIII and MKIX, you can't explain that difference with averaging errors...

mortoma
12-02-2005, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by wojtek_m:
BTW, flaps add lift, but even more drag, so if you're fast you can increase the turn rate or turn tighter by adding flaps, but in sustained turning the drag factor outweights the additional lift and your turnrate should decrease. BTW, you are oversimplfying things a bit. Don't ya think?? In general, a small flap deflection adds more lift than it does drag. A large one adds more drag than lift. A moderate deflection adds about equal amounts of both. It varies a little due to different wing types, aspect ratios and what type of flap it is. Whether it's a plain flap, a split flap, slotted or fowler. Or even a slotted-fowler. And there are single slotted fowlers, double and triple slotted fowlers too. So before you go acting like an aeronautical engineer, think again.

Kwiatos
12-02-2005, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
One reason that the F model 109 may not be turning as well as G is because the F model's in-game stall speed is higher than historical (so is the Emil's for that matter.)

Rather G-2 have too low stall speed. F-4 have probalby accurate stall speed. Emil have little to high but G-2 for surly have too low.

16.9 turn time for SPit MK VIII looks strange. Probably sth wrong with test.
From my experience MK V clearly turn better then any later moddels and is the best turner from all spits in PF. SPit MK VIII turn little better (and handling better) then MK IX but is worse then MK V.

polak5
12-02-2005, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
I find it interesting that flaps you say have no affect on turn circle. If you watch the AI use flaps in turn, it is clearly helping them to turn tighter! Go and watch them. You''ll see.

AI is so uber it's unbelievable.

Nice testing though. I agree the Spitfire's are broken, in more aspects than just turn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Flaps help me turn as they should, cost u E dough as it should

ImpStarDuece
12-02-2005, 06:35 PM
May be the refinements that went into the VII/VIII but not the Mk. IX airframe had something to do with it?
It had adjustments to the ejector exhausts, shorter span alierons, revised nose, new aerial fittings, symetrical radiators, pointed tail, retractable tailwheel and a slightly shifted centre of gravity due to the new fuel tanks in the wings. Little things add up together making a difference. A fully tropicalised LF MK VIII weighed 5,930 lbs tare, while a LF Mk IX weighted 5,750. Thats only 180 lbs, or a 3% difference.

Wasn't the VIII widely regarded as the pinnacle of Merlin engined Spitfire development, including being the best handling?

LeadSpitter_
12-02-2005, 06:46 PM
thing is the 109s can turn so tight not being in a sustained turn but trottle back manuevers spit cant hang with them or will go flopping. The other plane like them is the lagg3 66 but at least thier controls lock up in the elevator very low speed but still its way arcadish the way some of the planes can anuever especially with forward stick movement which seems the same as back pressure on the stick.

I wish oleg would make all ac stall out and be difficult to recover when under thier manufacturor slowest sustained turn speed time.

The planes in this game especially slatted perform like modern aerobatics air show ac in rl there is noway they can manuever like that, closest one to the is the i153 but not as agile and not as light or aerodynamic.

this is heavy 1940s technology and todays aerobatics ac are 1/3rd the lightest fighters in games weight with much higher accelaration and modern engines which have much higher power to weight ratios

Theres not 1 ac even remotely correct in game

1. a good start would be adding heavy stick pressures to all ac in game 650-850kmh where you can not move the elevator depending on ac type, then only trim and flaps can make a very slow recovery forcing us into high speed unrecoverable dives.

2. all aircraft should stall easier, once under thier lowest sustained turn time they should wing dip if not corrected go into a hard spinning and flopping stall lossing all energy, talking 1000-3000m to recover. Make it a severe penalty for going over the edge.

3. get rid of these wobbling rudder bs, make the heavy ac more stable in the elevator then the light turn fighters, also that would make them much more stable gunplatforms, compaired to the turn fighters.

adjust some of the drag profiles of certain ac bleeding off E way to fast even when extending after a 3000-5000m dive. p47 p51 corsair hellcat which can bleed thier 950-800kmph off to 540-560 in 1-2 minutes when extending nose slightly down

then other ac like the lagg and la 190 for example doing 540-560kmh gain an additional 100-200kmph in a 200-300m dive and can maintain that top speed for 5-7 minutes with nose slightly trimmed down and extending.

to me that would at least be a step in the right direction

wojtek_m
12-02-2005, 09:02 PM
BTW, you are oversimplfying things a bit. Don't ya think?? In general, a small flap deflection adds more lift than it does drag. A large one adds more drag than lift. A moderate deflection adds about equal amounts of both. It varies a little due to different wing types, aspect ratios and what type of flap it is. Whether it's a plain flap, a split flap, slotted or fowler. Or even a slotted-fowler. And there are single slotted fowlers, double and triple slotted fowlers too.

I agree with what you said in geneal, but as you can see I tested the G2 with flaps at 'combat setting' and it didn't help the sustained turn rate. So my explanation is perfectly valid for this case, namely that 'combat setting' adds more drag than lift on the G2.


So before you go acting like an aeronautical engineer, think again.

Did I??? Does every discussion have to turn personal after page 1 in this forum?

VW-IceFire
12-02-2005, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
May be the refinements that went into the VII/VIII but not the Mk. IX airframe had something to do with it?
It had adjustments to the ejector exhausts, shorter span alierons, revised nose, new aerial fittings, symetrical radiators, pointed tail, retractable tailwheel and a slightly shifted centre of gravity due to the new fuel tanks in the wings. Little things add up together making a difference. A fully tropicalised LF MK VIII weighed 5,930 lbs tare, while a LF Mk IX weighted 5,750. Thats only 180 lbs, or a 3% difference.

Wasn't the VIII widely regarded as the pinnacle of Merlin engined Spitfire development, including being the best handling?
The test may show that the FM took this a bit too far but you are right. The VIII is considered by many to be the best of the Spitfires for overall handling as it had a refined airframe and a sufficiently powerful engine.

The VIII is slightly less draggy than the IX. I think maybe the time itself is perhaps a bit much...but probably not far off. Overall this chart says that most things are right in the world and we should all go and take a coffee break http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

chris455
12-02-2005, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
If you fly an Fw190 or P-47, you never worry about turn rate, life if easier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

What does "turn" mean?

CaptAce
12-03-2005, 12:57 AM
Thanks wojtek_m for the data. I hope the people in ORR and even Oleg himself are aware of your findings.


Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
thing is the 109s can turn so tight not being in a sustained turn but trottle back manuevers spit cant hang with them or will go flopping. The other plane like them is the lagg3 66 but at least thier controls lock up in the elevator very low speed but still its way arcadish the way some of the planes can anuever especially with forward stick movement which seems the same as back pressure on the stick.

I wish oleg would make all ac stall out and be difficult to recover when under thier manufacturor slowest sustained turn speed time.

The planes in this game especially slatted perform like modern aerobatics air show ac in rl there is noway they can manuever like that, closest one to the is the i153 but not as agile and not as light or aerodynamic.

this is heavy 1940s technology and todays aerobatics ac are 1/3rd the lightest fighters in games weight with much higher accelaration and modern engines which have much higher power to weight ratios

Theres not 1 ac even remotely correct in game

1. a good start would be adding heavy stick pressures to all ac in game 650-850kmh where you can not move the elevator depending on ac type, then only trim and flaps can make a very slow recovery forcing us into high speed unrecoverable dives.

2. all aircraft should stall easier, once under thier lowest sustained turn time they should wing dip if not corrected go into a hard spinning and flopping stall lossing all energy, talking 1000-3000m to recover. Make it a severe penalty for going over the edge.

3. get rid of these wobbling rudder bs, make the heavy ac more stable in the elevator then the light turn fighters, also that would make them much more stable gunplatforms, compaired to the turn fighters.

adjust some of the drag profiles of certain ac bleeding off E way to fast even when extending after a 3000-5000m dive. p47 p51 corsair hellcat which can bleed thier 950-800kmph off to 540-560 in 1-2 minutes when extending nose slightly down

then other ac like the lagg and la 190 for example doing 540-560kmh gain an additional 100-200kmph in a 200-300m dive and can maintain that top speed for 5-7 minutes with nose slightly trimmed down and extending.

to me that would at least be a step in the right direction

These ideas sound great to me. I'd love to see them implemented.

stathem
12-03-2005, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by wojtek_m:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Before calling bug on that Mk VIII turn time, it could really do with re-testing, probably independtley. I note it's averaged over 7 turns whilst the other Spits are averaged over 4.

One more thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I noted the time after each turn and still have it on paper in front of me. A single time will not be very precise - about 1 sec deviation, because I used the track time (lower right corner), which only shows whole seconds. But with every turn it gets more precise - I would say even 3 turns would produce enough precision - 7 turns is just overkill http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The 7 turns of the Spit MK VIII were as follows:
17, 17, 16, 17, 17, 17, 17
all together 118 sec for 7 turns => 16.9 sec/turn
if you would take the first 4 it would be 67sec/4 turns = 16.75 sec/turn
=> basically the same, but we have a difference of 1.6 sec/turn between MKVIII and MKIX, you can't explain that difference with averaging errors... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apologies for being curt in my first post; I didn't mean to imply that your testing is not appreciated. Yes I will have a go at testing it, but it may be a little while before I find the time.

Sorry, I work in industrial R+D, and the first thing I do when I see an anomalous or unexpected test result is to re-test. I learnt that the hard way many years ago.

faustnik
12-03-2005, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
adjust some of the drag profiles of certain ac bleeding off E way to fast even when extending after a 3000-5000m dive. p47 p51 corsair hellcat which can bleed thier 950-800kmph off to 540-560 in 1-2 minutes when extending nose slightly down

then other ac like the lagg and la 190 for example doing 540-560kmh gain an additional 100-200kmph in a 200-300m dive and can maintain that top speed for 5-7 minutes with nose slightly trimmed down and extending.

I just tested this and the P-51 maintains its speed better than the Fw190A.

ImpStarDuece
12-03-2005, 03:33 AM
I don't have any comparsion, but here is a post war chart showing the decceleration profile of a P-47D-30.

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/4493/divecharp47d30re4en.th.jpg (http://img370.imageshack.us/my.php?image=divecharp47d30re4en.jpg)

BigKahuna_GS
12-03-2005, 07:14 AM
S!

Interesting P47 Chart.

Is there any written report describing how the test was performed ?


__

Chadburn
12-04-2005, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
One reason that the F model 109 may not be turning as well as G is because the F model's in-game stall speed is higher than historical (so is the Emil's for that matter.)

Rather G-2 have too low stall speed. F-4 have probalby accurate stall speed. Emil have little to high but G-2 for surly have too low.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you're still repeating the same errors you've made in previous threads.

The R/L stall speed of the 109E from British test was 130kph, flaps and gear up.
The tested in-game stall speed of 109E in same configuration using device link is 150kph.

That's not a "little too high"; that's 20kph too high.

The F4 should stall closer to 140kph, not 152khp as it currently does, so its stall speed is probably 10 to 12 kph too high.

That's why the G2 seems to go against the trend of a heavier aircraft having a lower stall speed. It's because the E and F models' stall speeds are much too high.

Monty_Thrud
12-04-2005, 04:51 PM
G2 turns too well..swap it with the F turn time...but pu-lease short the Hurricane turn time...its wrong...they out turned the 109...be sure

BuzzU
12-04-2005, 06:32 PM
Turn..turn..turn...Bah humbug!

Dive on the feckers. Blast them to hel--l, and be on your merry way.

Fight smart and live a long life.

Xiolablu3
12-04-2005, 06:38 PM
Interesting stuff, thanks.

Badsight.
12-04-2005, 08:19 PM
Chadburn will have to repeat his message again . . . . . after kwiatos keeps on with the re-hash at the next round . . . .

VW-IceFire
12-04-2005, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
adjust some of the drag profiles of certain ac bleeding off E way to fast even when extending after a 3000-5000m dive. p47 p51 corsair hellcat which can bleed thier 950-800kmph off to 540-560 in 1-2 minutes when extending nose slightly down

then other ac like the lagg and la 190 for example doing 540-560kmh gain an additional 100-200kmph in a 200-300m dive and can maintain that top speed for 5-7 minutes with nose slightly trimmed down and extending.

I just tested this and the P-51 maintains its speed better than the Fw190A. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Intersting...what about the D-9? D-9s and all 109s make the P-51 look like its standing still. Maybe its the acceleration...

faustnik
12-04-2005, 09:57 PM
I tested the Fw190A8 and the P-51D-20 after a dive from 3K meters to see level.

I can try the same with the Dora. The point is that the P-51 does not have some abnormal slow down factor.

EDIT:

IceFire,

I tested the Dora '44 and the P-51D-20 divig from #k to a fixed point and leveling out at SL. I used 100% (no WEP) power. Both hit 750kph indicated and decelerated to 600kph at almost identical rates. What is interesting is how close they are. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

wojtek_m
12-05-2005, 02:22 AM
Some additional tests:

Spit VIII at around 250 kph:
6 turns, 110sec => 18,3 sec/turn

Because I'm pretty lazy I tested 2 things with this single test:
Is there a dropoff in turning performance at slower speeds? => The answer is yes, the Spit VIII at 250 kph is more than a sec slower in 360? sustained turning than at 280 kph, which is probably pretty much its corner speed.
Was the (questioned) test of the Spit VIII at 280 kph valid? Yes it was, because even at 250 kph it has a better sustained turn than the Spit IX at 280 kph...

So which Spit is the better ride?

Comparable speed tests:

sea level:
Spit VIII: 538 kph
Spit IXe: 538 kph

4000m:
Spit VIII: 600 kph
Spit IXe: 607 kph

7000m:
Spit VIII: 646 kph
Spit IXe: 655 kph

All tests with WEP enabled. Speed is probably TAS, it was taken from the "no cocpit view indicator".

Against german planes the Spit IX is probably the better choice, as it is a bit quicker at altitude + it is better armed (0.50 instead of 0.303 guns + more than twice tha ammo for the hispanos). Both planes will outturn any german plane.

EDIT: BTW, I read in one of the Osprey books, that the Spit VIII was considered the best handling Spit, so the turn performance could well be realistic.

ImpStarDuece
12-05-2005, 03:13 AM
Spitfire VIIIs universally had the type 'C' wing fitted, with 120 rpg for the Hispanos and 350 rpg for the .303 Brownings.

The 'E' wing on the Mk IX has 140 rpg for the Hispanos, although it is sometime erronously listed as 120 rpg, depending on what literature you read. It also carried 250 rpg for the .50 cal Brownings.

So the IXe has about 20 rpg extra over the VIII .

The RAF conducted a comparison between a Spitfire VIII and a Spitfire IX, both with Merlin 63 engines. The Spitfire VIII had extended wing tips for the duration of the trials.

The RAF concluded that there was "nothing to choose from" in terms of speed between the IX and VIII from 0-20,000 feet, even with extended wingtips. Above 30,000 feet the Spitfire VIII was noted to be slightly faster, and at 36,000 feet the difference was slightly larger, again in favour of the VIII. The Spitfire VIII was worse in sustained climb below 10,000 feet, even from 10,000 to 20,000 and better from 20,000-40,000 feet.

Speeds with a Merlin 66 should be roughly similar for the two aircraft. The RAF aircraft data sheets for both give 404 mph at 21,000 feet as best speed with full tanks. Time to 20,00 feet was 6.4 min for the IX and 6.7 min for the VIII, but the loaded weight of the VIII is some 270 lbs heavier.

The RAF did fit better fuel pumps into some of its Spitfire IXs later in the war (end of 1944), raising the critical altitude of the Merlin 66 and giving a commesurate bost in speed by 6-7mph at best altitudes.

A Mk VIII was responsible for the fastest level speed of a Merlin engined Spitfire during the war. In trails of the Merlin 66 at +25 lbs a Mk VIII did 362 mph (582 kph) at sea level and 409 mph (659 kph) at 14,000 feet. Later testing of another similarly equipped Mk. VIII got it to 445 mph (715 kph) at 25,000 feet (7600 m). Not representative for sure, but the potential was there for the airframe/engine combination.

wojtek_m
12-05-2005, 03:28 AM
You are right about the armament. I was again mislead by Hardball's aircraft viewer, as it lists it at 60 rpg against 140 rpg for the hispanos (VIII vs. IX).

But the speed tests indicate that the IX is clearly faster at altitude in game... possibly the late IX with the new fuel pump is modelled...

mynameisroland
12-05-2005, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wojtek_m:
I posted some of those tests in the €œOleg. Me 109 vs Spitfire slow speed turning€ thread, but because I tested new planes later I decided to make a new thread of it... It€s a comparison of SUSTAINED turn rates, some planes will have better instantaneous turn rates than others of course (e.g. Yak3, Spit V). I only took planes I would start a turn fight with, so everybody is free to add more planes to this list, but please use the same procedure, so the results are comparable.

Conditions:
- version 4.02
- altitude: 0-50 m
- no trim used
- fuel 100%
- map: Okinawa
- no flaps used
- speed is around 280 kph


Results:

109F4:
5 turns, 102sec => 20.4 sec/turn

109G2:
4 turns, 78sec => 19.5 sec/turn

Spitfire IXe:
4 turns, 74sec => 18.5 sec/turn

Spitfire Vb:
4 turns, 74sec => 18.5 sec/turn (exception here as speed is around 250 kph, someone could repeat it at 280kph, but it looses speed very quickly)

Yak3:
4 turns, 69sec => 17.2 sec/turn

Spitfire VIII:
7 turns, 118sec => 16.9 sec/turn

La7:
6 turns, 101sec => 16.8 sec/turn

A6M3:
8 turns, 128sec => 16.0 sec/turn


Additional test:

109 G2 with combat flaps:
5 turns, 99sec => 19.8 sec/turn


Conclusion:

3) The 109G2 is turning a bit too good compared to Bf109F4, which should be a better turner.


Someone explain me then why the same is OK in relation of the Spitfires.

How can the much heavier MkIX match the MkV's sustained turn time? Or is it only a problem when the slightly heavier, higher powered 109G-2 does pretty much the same turn time as the 109F-4?

And why does the MkVIII turn a LOT better than both MkV and MKIX, given it's the heavier variant, 300 lbs heavier than the MkIX and has the same engine and power???!

It seems that there are some issues with turn times as well, but it's only complained about in the 109 series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit VIII had a raised wing leading edge when compared with the Spit IX maybe thats why.

ImpStarDuece
12-05-2005, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by wojtek_m:
You are right about the armament. I was again mislead by Hardball's aircraft viewer, as it lists it at 60 rpg against 140 rpg for the hispanos (VIII vs. IX).

But the speed tests indicate that the IX is clearly faster at altitude in game... possibly the late IX with the new fuel pump is modelled...

I don't think it is actually. The Mk VIII is just a few MPH slower than it should be. The Mk IX appears to have the correct speeds.

Spitfires fitted with the S.U. injector unit did about 410-412 mph (663 kph) at 25,000 feet (7600 m). The main benefit of the new pump was to sustain the full throttle height over a broarder range of altitudes. The Mk IX we have in the game do about 405-406 mph at 21,000 feet (6400 m). British testing generally gives top speed for the Merlin 66 engined LF Mk IX as between 404 mph and 409 mph at this height. So it seems about right.

If anything, the Mk VIII is a little too slow, particularly above 25,000 feet, but it turns considerably better than it should.

LEXX_Luthor
12-05-2005, 05:43 PM
Thanks for the tests wojtek.

Butterfly flaps on the -43 should help turning. I know its not a Euro Dogfight plane, but these were combat flaps. -84 has them too, but I never flew that much.

I suggest 50% fuel for ALL tests. Testing with Full 100% fuel may not offer Justice for some planes...P-51 for example which burned almost half fuel before the combats over Berlin. Short range planes with small fuel load (-109, -3, etc...) should not notice fuel load as much (not much fuel to begin with), but planes with huge fuel load (-47) should be effected by 100% fuel.

Test all with 50% in the future. I'd love to see standardized testing procedures developed by the community for the community.

wojtek_m
12-06-2005, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I suggest 50% fuel for ALL tests. Testing with Full 100% fuel may not offer Justice for some planes...P-51 for example which burned almost half fuel before the combats over Berlin. Short range planes with small fuel load (-109, -3, etc...) should not notice fuel load as much (not much fuel to begin with), but planes with huge fuel load (-47) should be effected by 100% fuel.

Test all with 50% in the future. I'd love to see standardized testing procedures developed by the community for the community.

You are right about the fuel load, but in this particular case all the planes I tested have pretty similar range (+ I always take 100% when flying), so the results are comparable.

The best testing method would be taking the fuel load, which would guarantee all the planes the same range when testing (e.g. 200 km). This would do justice to the long range american planes. Unfortunately it isn't possible in game. I would even prefer to take lhe least fuel (25%) for testing in future, as this fuel load affects the performance the least. I'm all for a sticky thread with standarized testing procedures. With a community that big, we could easily make a il2 compare by ourselves. It isn't that much work if anyone would test one plane (e.g. his favorite).

The test procedure could be for example:

1) max speed (3 altitudes - SL, 4000m, 7000m)
2) climb from SL to 8000 m (after analysing the track you could note the time to 1000m, 2000m,...) at a particular speed (e.g. 300 kph)
3) sustained turning performance ar a particular speed (e.g. 280 kph) and a particualr altitude (SL is best as you cannot trade altitude for angle)

It all would take about half an hour for one plane...

GR142-Pipper
12-06-2005, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by CaptAce:
Thanks wojtek_m for the data. I hope the people in ORR and even Oleg himself are aware of your findings. Indeed. However, it's one thing to be aware of findings and quite another to do anything about it. The issues that Wojtek has raised have been thoroughly discussed in the forums. Yet here we are one to two years later discussing the very similar results to the very same issues previously voiced. Go figure.

GR142-Pipper

mynameisroland
12-06-2005, 07:35 AM
Great thread thanks for the work!

AKA_TAGERT
12-06-2005, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by wojtek_m:
I posted some of those tests in the €œOleg. Me 109 vs Spitfire slow speed turning€ thread, but because I tested new planes later I decided to make a new thread of it... It€s a comparison of SUSTAINED turn rates, some planes will have better instantaneous turn rates than others of course (e.g. Yak3, Spit V). I only took planes I would start a turn fight with, so everybody is free to add more planes to this list, but please use the same procedure, so the results are comparable.

Conditions:
- version 4.02
- altitude: 0-50 m
- no trim used
- fuel 100%
- map: Okinawa
- no flaps used
- speed is around 280 kph


Results:

109F4:
5 turns, 102sec => 20.4 sec/turn

109G2:
4 turns, 78sec => 19.5 sec/turn

Spitfire IXe:
4 turns, 74sec => 18.5 sec/turn

Spitfire Vb:
4 turns, 74sec => 18.5 sec/turn (exception here as speed is around 250 kph, someone could repeat it at 280kph, but it looses speed very quickly)

Yak3:
4 turns, 69sec => 17.2 sec/turn

Spitfire VIII:
7 turns, 118sec => 16.9 sec/turn

La7:
6 turns, 101sec => 16.8 sec/turn

A6M3:
8 turns, 128sec => 16.0 sec/turn


Additional test:

109 G2 with combat flaps:
5 turns, 99sec => 19.8 sec/turn


Conclusion:

1) The numbers match the turn rates found in the literature very good for the most part.
2) Flaps don€t help in sustained turning (as it should be).
3) The 109G2 is turning a bit too good compared to Bf109F4, which should be a better turner.
4) The Yak3 should probably turn better than La7 (again literature).


P.S. I can send the tracks if someone wishes. I *wishes* you to send the *.ntrk files to naca_testing@yahoo.com

PS If the file format is *.trk and not *.ntrk dont bother sending them, but remember you can create a *.ntrk file from a *.trk file by simply playing back the *.trk file and recording a *.ntrk file while the *.trk file is playing.

SlickStick
12-06-2005, 10:36 AM
I know this link has been posted before, but after reviewing Hardball's Viewer while comparing Spitfires, I was curious about the huge disparity in climb rates listed in his viewer.

I realize that the Mk.VIII was heavier, but to create this much difference?!?

From Hardball's Viewer:

Spifire Mk. VIII CW time in minutes to 6,095m = 7 with a Merlin 66

Spitfire Mk. IXc LF CW time in minutes to 6,700m = 5.4 and is listed with a Merlin 61???

Some good comparison date here:

Spitfire Performance Testing (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html)

Also, could anyone list for me, each Spitfire's engine type (Merlin 63, 66...etc) that we currently have in-game?!? I always confuse what is modeled in the game and real life, if they are indeed different. Thanks to anyone who can help. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

wojtek_m
12-06-2005, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I *wishes* you to send the *.ntrk files to naca_testing@yahoo.com

PS If the file format is *.trk and not *.ntrk dont bother sending them, but remember you can create a *.ntrk file from a *.trk file by simply playing back the *.trk file and recording a *.ntrk file while the *.trk file is playing.

You will get the .ntrk's within 1 or 2 days as I'm currently not at home...


*wishes*

My english goes crazy sometimes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Sorry, not a native speaker here.

ImpStarDuece
12-06-2005, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
I know this link has been posted before, but after reviewing Hardball's Viewer while comparing Spitfires, I was curious about the huge disparity in climb rates listed in his viewer.

I realize that the Mk.VIII was heavier, but to create this much difference?!?

From Hardball's Viewer:

Spifire Mk. VIII CW time in minutes to 6,095m = 7 with a Merlin 66

Spitfire Mk. IXc LF CW time in minutes to 6,700m = 5.4 and is listed with a Merlin 61???

Some good comparison date here:

Spitfire Performance Testing (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html)

Also, could anyone list for me, each Spitfire's engine type (Merlin 63, 66...etc) that we currently have in-game?!? I always confuse what is modeled in the game and real life, if they are indeed different. Thanks to anyone who can help. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

All "LF" Mk IX or VIII Spitfires were either fitted with the Merlin 63a, or far more commonly, a Merlin 66.

The Merlin 63a/66 had dropped blower heights campared to the Merlin 61, producting about 5-15 mph extra speed below 20,000 feet. The best altitude for the Merlin 63a/66 was about 21,000 feet (6,400 m) where it pushed the LF marks to about 404-407 mph. The Merlin 61 engined IX/VIII Spitfires did about 408-9 mph at 25,000 feet, but held their speed significantly better above this height than the Merlin 66 engined variants. The LF variants had greatly improved power and climb below 18,000 feet. The LF variants had a maximum sustained climb of 4700 feet/minute compared to the Merlin 61 engined variants which did about 3850 feet/minute

The Merlins we have in the game are;

Merlin 66: Spitfire IXc, IXe, LF IXc (CW), LF IXe (CW), Spitfire VIII, Spitfire VIII (CW)
Merlin 70: Spitfire HF IXe

All engines are rated to a maximum of +18lbs boost.

We are missing the Merlin 61 engined Spitfire IX/VIII variants (about 1,500 produced) rated at +15lbs, which was the engine for the first 12-14 months of Spitfire IX service and the first 3-6 months of VIII service. The little produced Merlin 63 came next, upping the maximum allowable boost pressure to +18lbs and increasing the horsepower form 1,565 hp to 1,710 hp, but keeping the same blower configuration. It would of been a touch faster at all altitudes below 25,000 feet. The Merlin 63a was a Merlin 63 with dropped supercharger ratios, producing more power in the denser air below 18,000 feet, but not holding horsepower as well over 25,000 feet as the Merlin 61 or a normal Merlin 63.

So, really we are missing the engine that served with the Spitfire IX for the first 12 months of its deployment.

SlickStick
12-06-2005, 03:37 PM
Thanks for the 411, ImpStarDuece. Much appreciated. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

My personal preference is the Mk. VIII CW. I just wish we could carry bombs with it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

When I want to bomb, I take the IXe, but since I always have to fight my way back, I find that the IXs do not handle the La7s and Yak-3Ps like the Mk. VIII does.

Although, the H.F model climbs like a starved monkey up a banana tree, when in the VIII, I usually run the Yaks out of E and cause the La7s to perform many scissors, so that I can take advantage of the Spit's superior roll rate at low speeds.

The IXc and IXe are not as adept at downing La7s and Yak-3Ps and I find that the La7 holds more E than the IXc or IXe, but is equal to or a little short of the Mk. VIII.

ploughman
12-06-2005, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
Thanks for the 411, ImpStarDuece. Much appreciated. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

My personal preference is the Mk. VIII CW. I just wish we could carry bombs with it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

When I want to bomb, I take the IXe, but since I always have to fight my way back, I find that the IXs do not handle the La7s and Yak-3Ps like the Mk. VIII does.

Although, the H.F model climbs like a starved monkey up a banana tree, when in the VIII, I usually run the Yaks out of E and cause the La7s to perform many scissors, so that I can take advantage of the Spit's superior roll rate at low speeds.

The IXc and IXe are not as adept at downing La7s and Yak-3Ps and I find that the La7 holds more E than the IXc or IXe, but is equal to or a little short of the Mk. VIII.

What convergence do you prefer? I go for as near to infinity as possible. The Hispanos are sniper rifles with their high velocity and correspondingly flat trajectories.

p1ngu666
12-06-2005, 04:35 PM
for what its worth, i use 275 for mg and cannon

fire only very briefly at fighter sized targets with one set mostly

faustnik
12-06-2005, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
So, really we are missing the engine that served with the Spitfire IX for the first 12 months of its deployment.

Thanks Impstar, nice explaination!

Yeah, we have a big gap there without the Spit IX 1942 (Merlin 61) and then another big gap without the Merlin 66 +25 boost for late 1944 on.

The Spit IX Merlin 61 and a fully rated Fw190A4 would be a great combo to add!!! Late '42 through mid '43 would be covered nicely. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ImpStarDuece
12-06-2005, 06:23 PM
The Merlin 61 is not just a 1942-1943 thing, either. It was a front line engine in Spitfires for around 2 1/2 years.

Spitfire IX were still using the engine in service until the end of 1944. The ADGD and 2TAF OoB for July 1st, 1944 lists 12 squadrons operating Spitfire IXs with Merlin 61s. That is some 20% of the frontline Spitfire strenght. The January 1st, 1945 OoB lists 8 squadrons operating Merlin 61 engined Spitfires. So they were still there in significant numbers even into 1945.

It would also give us a good substitute for the 3 high altitude Spitfire VII squadrons operating at the time as well.

faustnik
12-06-2005, 06:35 PM
ImpStar,

What is your source for that info? That's great stuff!

SlickStick
12-06-2005, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
What convergence do you prefer?

I'm currently set at 400/400. I like a wide convergence with wing armament. I've found that I like to hit my opponent from as far as possible, so that I may be ready to set-up more quickly for the next inbounder.

Landing a few hispanos and .303s (or .50s) at 400m is still quite effective enough to take down the "not-so-weirdly" damage-modelled planes in this game.

It used to be said that you needed to let the enemy's six "fill your windscreen", but with today's explosion modelling of planes, you can't get that close anymore and risk detonating the fuel tank, thus destroying/severly damaging yourself in the process, hehe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
12-06-2005, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
ImpStar,

What is your source for that info? That's great stuff!

I just bought Volume 4 and 5 of John Foreman's "Fighter Command War Diaries". It is a chronological, day-by-day list of all ADGB/Fighter Command, 2TAF and 100 Group claims and casualties, mixed with pilot accounts and historical recreations of various actions and combat reports. Day fighters, night fighters and diver kills are all listed. It also lists USAAF claims and casualties, but in less detail. It also provides an excellent monthly summary of the course of the air war for the RAF in Europe.

It also has a rolling Fighter Command/ADGB, 2TAF and 100 Group Order of Battle lists, giving when certain squadrons shifted to certain types. It gives very comprehensive RAF OoBs every 6 months or so.

Its a fascinating and sometimes horrifying serise of volumes at the same time. Most of the daily activity reports in 1944-1945 seem to read something like this; "Strikes on German MET and trains in the XXX area by Typhoons and Spitfires of XXX squadrons. 6 Typhoons lost to Flak at XXX, 1 Spitfire lost to engine malfunctions. XXX squadron engaged Fw-190s near XXX, 3 destroyed claims, 2 Probably destroyed, 2 damaged. RAF losses 2 Spitfires destroyed, 1 damaged, 2 Cat E on landing, 3 pilots killed"

faustnik
12-06-2005, 10:14 PM
Thanks ImpStar, I'll look for those. I'm reading the Jg26 War Diaries right now. It sounds similar. Caldwell does a great job of trying to compare claims to actual enemy losses. It's amazing how far apart the two can be.

wojtek_m
12-07-2005, 03:05 AM
TAGERT, you've got an email.

AKA_TAGERT
12-07-2005, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by wojtek_m:
TAGERT, you've got an email. Cool, thanks! Ill take a look at it this weekend!

SlickStick
12-09-2005, 09:15 AM
ImpStarDuece,

Would you be so kind as to list the engines for the rest of the Spitfires we have in-game?

I'm curious about the Vb CWs and others as to exactly what engines were modelled. Thank you very much for considering my request. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SlickStick
12-10-2005, 09:59 AM
*bump*