PDA

View Full Version : Oleg: Can you fix the climb performance relationship between a/c?



Holtzauge
12-18-2004, 09:39 AM
Hi Oleg,

I really think you have done a great job on this sim series and I have always been astounded by it. No one comes close in accomplishment!

However, recently I became aware of what I think is a shortcoming in the climb modelling.

It seems that the relative climb performance of the aircraft needs to be addressed.

I did some tests and to me it seems that the relative climb rates between different aircraft in this sim does not reflect the performance that the aircraft had in real life.

I did some tests on my own and compared the climb performance for the P51D, P47D, Fw190D9 and Me109G6.

The results where somewhat disturbing since I found little difference between three of these (P51,P47 and G6) in climb performance as can be seen below:

Climb performance from 500m to 3000m at around 250 km/h IAS, WEP/MW50, average of 3 climb tests:

P51D: around 3825 ft/min
P47D: around 3870 ft/min
Fw190D9: around 4235 ft/min
Me106G6: around 3855 ft/min

Now what the real number should be can always be argued but here are some maximum climb performance numbers that I have seen:

P51D: around 3500 ft/min
P47D: around 3200 ft/min
Fw190D9: around 4200 ft/min
Me109G6: around 4560 ft/min

While the absolute climb performances in the sim can always be discussed, I think the main issue is that the relative climb ratio is off.

I think the relative climb rate is just as important as the relative turn rates. If one flies the Me109 one expects to climb better than the opposition in the same way as a Spitfire pilot will expect to out-turn his opponent.

We had a thread going under the GD forum where this was discussed and I belive there was some concensus on this issue. There were also some other test results posted in this thread by JG5_JaRa that seems to indicate that this was a general phenomena not limited to the aircraft I have listed above.

I think fixing this issue would make a great thing even better. Could you consider addressing this in a coming release please?

Best regards,

Holzauge

PS: If there are others out there who agree with what I posted here please give me a comment or a bump!

Holtzauge
12-18-2004, 09:39 AM
Hi Oleg,

I really think you have done a great job on this sim series and I have always been astounded by it. No one comes close in accomplishment!

However, recently I became aware of what I think is a shortcoming in the climb modelling.

It seems that the relative climb performance of the aircraft needs to be addressed.

I did some tests and to me it seems that the relative climb rates between different aircraft in this sim does not reflect the performance that the aircraft had in real life.

I did some tests on my own and compared the climb performance for the P51D, P47D, Fw190D9 and Me109G6.

The results where somewhat disturbing since I found little difference between three of these (P51,P47 and G6) in climb performance as can be seen below:

Climb performance from 500m to 3000m at around 250 km/h IAS, WEP/MW50, average of 3 climb tests:

P51D: around 3825 ft/min
P47D: around 3870 ft/min
Fw190D9: around 4235 ft/min
Me106G6: around 3855 ft/min

Now what the real number should be can always be argued but here are some maximum climb performance numbers that I have seen:

P51D: around 3500 ft/min
P47D: around 3200 ft/min
Fw190D9: around 4200 ft/min
Me109G6: around 4560 ft/min

While the absolute climb performances in the sim can always be discussed, I think the main issue is that the relative climb ratio is off.

I think the relative climb rate is just as important as the relative turn rates. If one flies the Me109 one expects to climb better than the opposition in the same way as a Spitfire pilot will expect to out-turn his opponent.

We had a thread going under the GD forum where this was discussed and I belive there was some concensus on this issue. There were also some other test results posted in this thread by JG5_JaRa that seems to indicate that this was a general phenomena not limited to the aircraft I have listed above.

I think fixing this issue would make a great thing even better. Could you consider addressing this in a coming release please?

Best regards,

Holzauge

PS: If there are others out there who agree with what I posted here please give me a comment or a bump!

Zen--
12-18-2004, 12:13 PM
Overall I agree the relative differences in climb rate are often too small to distinguish in game and don't feel like they have historical relativity. Imho most planes seem to have inflated climb rates but no one ever seems to mention it... though I really think this is a pretty big issue. Take care to note this is a global thing and is not country specific, so please avoid the usual whining about luft bias http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif, the only question here is not <span class="ev_code_red">if </span>your ride is overmodelled but <span class="ev_code_red">by how much</span>, and this applies to most every late war plane in the game.

I've never seen a chart that says the Ta152 climbs at 29m/s or the D9 at 26m/s, but thats about what we have in game now in this patch, both planes have slowly gotten higher climb rates as the game as evolved. For the D9 it's now climbing about 4m/s too fast (but has taken 1.5 years to get that, it used to be right on at 22m/s), for the Ta152 it seems to be about 7-9m/s too fast and thats all from this last patch really. The La7 is an old favorite to point at overmodelled climb rate along with its little brother the Yak3, both are off by about 5-10m/s or maybe more now. The K4 is also a big offender in this category often climbing at almost 30m/s...but since thats about the same as the ingame La7, it matches the relative performance the two had in real life (at least according to my understanding of what I've read).

Imho P51 and P47 both climb too fast, P38 climbs too slowly. I've never read where the P47 was a great climber in real life, but here in game it is very competitive in sustained climbs, so is the P51. Both types are (too) easily outclimbed by the 109's but stay very close with the 190D's. In real life the difference between the 190D and the 109 was not huge at all so both should be outclimbing the P51 and P47 but not by as much as the 109 does in game right now. It feels like the K4 in particular is a rocket but if you reduce the rate it throws the balance out of sync with the La7 and Yak3...since those planes never get reduced climb rates what are you supposed to do? Personally I really do think the K4 is overmodelled along with the La7/Yak3 and that tends to throw the rest of the game out of wack too. If you could drop the K4 and La7 to 24-25m/s SL climb speed the game would be doing a lot better for believability.

All planes can climb well at speeds far less than realistic best speeds...for example I can sustain 26m/s in the D9-44 at 240 to 300km/h, though in real life its best climb speed was right on about 280km/h. That means I can fly with a much higher AoA at lower speed and still achieve better than RL climb rates....if everyone can do it then I guess the <span class="ev_code_yellow">relative </span>accuracy is there, but it still hampers believability of the game as a whole and makes the sim feel more arcade. Definately in previous versions of the game you had to be very careful about flying right on the best speed, these days it's pretty open ended about how fast you climb and has taken away alot of the discipline it used to require to fly certain kinds of planes. In general one just points the nose to the sky and lets the engine do the rest...not very accurate imho.

For whatever reason it just seems like these days in the game almost no plane can meet it's published climb rates and speeds...they all blaze by at a much higher rate and can do it at very different speeds as well. I definately believe the worst offenders are the La7/K4 and everyone else tends to be oriented around those two. No track to prove it, just an observation based on years of watching the relationship between the 109 and the La series...keep in mind long before American planes appeared in the game and before any 190 from 1944+ appeared, those two series of planes defined the relationship between Luft and VVS fighters in game. After all this time I still think the 109 and Lavochkin's define the base point for relative climb rates in the game.



Interesting topic and one that I think sorely needs to be addressed, I for one don't enjoy climbing 50% faster than my real life plane would even if I <span class="ev_code_red">need</span> that extra rate to compete with the other guy who is overmodelled as well. I would much prefer just to read a book, know the best rate and then learn how to achieve that rate so that I could be confident about what happens when I meet the other guy. All this constant change in energy modelling and climb rates from patch to patch is a lot to keep track of and very often it leaves you wondering just what the heck is going on.

(Like I am now, in 3.02bm)


&lt;S&gt;

HayateAce
12-18-2004, 12:27 PM
Translation:

Oleg please trim the Allied aircraft back, and boost up performance in axis for the billionth time.



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

Sig.Hirsch
12-18-2004, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Translation:

Oleg please trim the Allied aircraft back, and boost up performance in axis for the billionth time.



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

**** , i'd smash the crapp out of ....

Zen has been careful not to be partial , and made an excellent post , are you ******ed or do you do it on purpose ?

ICDP
12-18-2004, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Translation:

Oleg please trim the Allied aircraft back, and boost up performance in axis for the billionth time.



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Moron

Zen--
12-18-2004, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Zen Said:
Take care to note this is a global thing and is not country specific, so please avoid the usual whining about luft bias http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif , the only question here is not if your ride is overmodelled but by how much, and this applies to most every late war plane in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


People like you really drag the forums down Hayate. No perspective, no sense of fairness, no willing to see the other guy's point. Troll, flame, troll, flame, lather+rinse+repeat is about all you seem to know how to do. Some people want accuracy, some people (apparently you) are just here to cause problems. I wish there was an ignore feature in the forum so I didn't have to read the things you post, kinda like a mute button.

Big hug for ya, after all your usual crying I think you need one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

robban75
12-18-2004, 12:46 PM
Your climbtests seems to correlate well with mine, although I start mine at sealevel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

However, you G-6 climbrate doesn't match mine. Below is the times that I got.

@Zen(great post, as always), correct me if I'm wrong, but are the climbrates you posted from the VSI? I find the VSI to be unreliable, as climbtests doesn't correlate at all with it. Just see below. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I used full fuel and full throttle(boost)for all planes.

Bf 109G-6 4192ft/min @ SL

P-51D 3937ft/min @ 3000m

P-47D 4015ft/min @ 2000m

D-9 4374ft/min @ SL (4429ft/min in real life pretty close eh!)

Bf 109G-6

1000 - :47 ~4192
2000 - 1:36 ~4015
3000 - 2:25 ~4015
4000 - 3:17 ~3779
5000 - 4:11 ~3641
6000 - 5:09 ~3385

P-51D

1000 - :55 ~3582
2000 - 1:46 ~3858
3000 - 2:36 ~3937
4000 - 3:31 ~3582
5000 - 4:37 ~2982
6000 - 5:56 ~2500

P-47D

1000 - :50 ~3937
2000 - 1:39 ~4015
3000 - 2:31 ~3785
4000 - 3:24 ~3714
5000 - 4:22 ~3393
6000 - 5:22 ~3280

Fw 190D-9 '45

1000 - :45 ~4374
2000 - 1:34 ~4015
3000 - 2:27 ~3714
4000 - 3:13 ~4279
5000 - 4:02 ~4015
6000 - 4:59 ~3453

WUAF_Badsight
12-18-2004, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Moron <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what else did you expecy . . . . its HayateHater

Hetzer_II
12-18-2004, 01:40 PM
Hayate is the clown of this forum.. i dont want to miss him! Everytime i read his threads i just think about how close someone can get close to an speaking toaster..

ZG77_Nagual
12-18-2004, 01:42 PM
My toaster resents that remark.

Holtzauge
12-18-2004, 02:02 PM
Do you think I am doing this because I want some kind of LW bias in the sim?

I want to fly something that is as close to the real thing as possible that's all.

I do not just fly the LW planes. I think the best plane that came out in numbers during WW2 was the Merlin Mustang. It broke new ground. While the GAF planes were using conventional US developed NACA profiles the Pony used a laminar profile with far superior aerodynamic qualities.

But that does not mean that the sim should take away about the only advantage a 109 jock has: climbrate. So to sum up: I think the Spit should turn well, the 190A to pack a hefty punch, the me109 climb well and the Jug to be good at high alt. Just like the real thing. Do you or have problem with that? Do you want an arcade game?

Maybe you would support a move to make the P47 turn better than a Fiesler Storch since this would introduce a pro-Allied bias?

Sorry if I got carried away, must be the wine I had with my dinner!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Translation:

Oleg please trim the Allied aircraft back, and boost up performance in axis for the billionth time.



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
12-18-2004, 02:47 PM
very few ppl use 100% in a mustang, think with low fuel it might outdo a 109 g6

i think k4 is overmodeled in climb at some alts (medium ones, i think)

and it wouldnt surprise me if p51 had overmodeled climb

Holtzauge
12-18-2004, 02:48 PM
How did you manage to get a good reading of the s/l climb rates without any zoom climb effects?

The reason I did the test from 500 to 3000m was because I wanted the climb to be stabilized when I clocked the rate. I started off at 100m, established correct climb angle and speed, and toggled the clock passing 500 and 3000m.

If you try this out I think you will not find much difference between the Pony, Jug and Beule.

While I'm sure we will all come up with slightly different numbers depending on the test set up, the disturbing fact is still that there seems to be little difference in the sim between planes that are usually quoted as achiving max climb rates of 3500, 2800-3200 and 4560 ft/min respectively in real life.

This does not seem to be the case in PF and means that some tactics that might be applicable in real life are not an option in the sim. For example: a 109 doing an extension from a Pony and then climbing out of trouble (assuming E parity).

Incidently, I have a climb chart for the 109G-2 done by the Finnish AF (based on flight tests) that actually shows a climb rate increase from 21 m/s at s/l going up to 24 m/s at 2000m and then decreasing to 19 m/s at 3000m. I was suprised it was this good (4737 ft/min max for the G-2!)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Your climbtests seems to correlate well with mine, although I start mine at sealevel.

However, you G-6 climbrate doesn't match mine. Below is the times that I got.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kwiatos
12-18-2004, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Your climbtests seems to correlate well with mine, although I start mine at sealevel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

However, you G-6 climbrate doesn't match mine. Below is the times that I got.

@Zen(great post, as always), correct me if I'm wrong, but are the climbrates you posted from the VSI? I find the VSI to be unreliable, as climbtests doesn't correlate at all with it. Just see below. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I used full fuel and full throttle(boost)for all planes.

Bf 109G-6 4192ft/min @ SL

P-51D 3937ft/min @ 3000m

P-47D 4015ft/min @ 2000m

D-9 4374ft/min @ SL (4429ft/min in real life pretty close eh!)

Bf 109G-6

1000 - :47 ~4192
2000 - 1:36 ~4015
3000 - 2:25 ~4015
4000 - 3:17 ~3779
5000 - 4:11 ~3641
6000 - 5:09 ~3385

P-51D

1000 - :55 ~3582
2000 - 1:46 ~3858
3000 - 2:36 ~3937
4000 - 3:31 ~3582
5000 - 4:37 ~2982
6000 - 5:56 ~2500

P-47D

1000 - :50 ~3937
2000 - 1:39 ~4015
3000 - 2:31 ~3785
4000 - 3:24 ~3714
5000 - 4:22 ~3393
6000 - 5:22 ~3280

Fw 190D-9 '45

1000 - :45 ~4374
2000 - 1:34 ~4015
3000 - 2:27 ~3714
4000 - 3:13 ~4279
5000 - 4:02 ~4015
6000 - 4:59 ~3453 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm i dont belive P-47 climb better than P-51 in PF. I fly often P-51 and P-47 and i know that P-51 is better climber than P-47.
P-51 should have time climb to 6 km ab 7 min but as i remebmer not al full power. 6 min to 6km in full power is possible when should be 7 min at climb power.

Kwiatos
12-18-2004, 03:38 PM
Of course still are very suspect good clibmber in FB/PF like Mig 3 AM-38, P-39 D-2, Spitfire MK V 1941, LA series which should be corrected.

robban75
12-18-2004, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holtzauge:
How did you manage to get a good reading of the s/l climb rates without any zoom climb effects?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The zoom effect is barely noticable. When I do climbtests I switch off realistic landings, it is then possible to T/O from the beaches. Taking off from a beach ensures a more precise altitude reading as their elevation is the same as that of the ocean. To minimise zoom effect, I choose to pull up gently some 10-20km/h before I reach best climb speed. I check the time for every 500m. For example the G-6 climbs from 0m to 1000m in 47 seconds, and from 500m to 1500m takes 48 seconds. A difference of just one second.

robban75
12-18-2004, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Hmm i dont belive P-47 climb better than P-51 in PF. I fly often P-51 and P-47 and i know that P-51 is better climber than P-47.
P-51 should have time climb to 6 km ab 7 min but as i remebmer not al full power. 6 min to 6km in full power is possible when should be 7 min at climb power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The test doesn't lie. The Jug outclimbs the Mustang, no doubt.

Here's a climb made at 380km/h.(with 50% fuel)

Type P-51D - P-47D-27

1000 - :55 - :51
2000 - 1:45 - 1:41
3000 - 2:33 - 2:32
4000 - 3:22 - 3:22
5000 - 4:22 - 4:13

The P-51 gains slightly at 3000m, but on a whole the P-47 is superior.

Here's how the D-9 and La-7 climbs at 380km/h.

1000 - :48 - :40
2000 - 1:42 - 1:24
3000 - 2:45 - 2:17
4000 - 3:32 - 3:13
5000 - 4:20 - 4:04

The D-9 is simply out of breath between 2000 and 3000m. This is probably due to the current speed bug.

BlitzPig_DDT
12-18-2004, 04:45 PM
Robban, just curious, but which P-51D and which P-47D? We have 2 of the former and 3 of the latter. And in the case of the P-47, the differences are pretty large (IRL anyway, all things considered).

Or....do they all behave the same? (like the corsairs we have)

robban75
12-18-2004, 05:13 PM
The P-51 tested is the D-20, and the P-47 is the D-27.
On the similarity between the models, I don't know, I haven't done any tests on the earlier models. The Corsairs all have very similar topspeeds, but this cannot be said about the P-51's, so perhaps their climbrates differ between the models. I wouldn't be surprised if they did. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
12-18-2004, 05:19 PM
i think there are differences,
p47 d27 is the best now, in the past it was the d10 (better roll, less weight, less drag)

Willey
12-18-2004, 05:31 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-18-2004, 07:47 PM
can anyone else confirm this ?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holtzauge:
Climb performance from 500m to 3000m at around 250 km/h IAS, WEP/MW50, average of 3 climb tests:

P51D: around 3825 ft/min
P47D: around 3870 ft/min
Fw190D9: around 4235 ft/min
Me106G6: around 3855 ft/min

Now what the real number should be can always be argued but here are some maximum climb performance numbers that I have seen:

P51D: around 3500 ft/min
P47D: around 3200 ft/min
Fw190D9: around 4200 ft/min
Me109G6: around 4560 ft/min <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
is this correct at the moment ?

the G6 climb rate is neutered by 700f/min ?

but the Mustang climbrate is overboosted by 350f/min ?

Aaron_GT
12-19-2004, 03:17 AM
I think it would be best to concentrate on absolute climb rates as these can be directly related to documentation. To determine relative rates you'd have to look at this documentation anyway and change some planes so you may as well just work on making them all match the documentation and then the relative performances will naturally fall into place. Seems like less work.

Holtzauge
12-19-2004, 04:13 AM
There was a post by JG5_JaRa in the GD induced drag thread which gave the following numbers for climb speeds of 260 km/ IAS (Climb rates in decreasing order):

Bf109K4 30.5 m/s
La7 27.2 m/s
Fw190D944' 26.5 m/s
Bf109G2 26.5 m7s
Spitfire9e 25.3 m/s
Yak3P 25.1 m/s
Mig3AM38 24.9 m/s
Bf109G6 22.8 m/s
P51D20NA 22.7 m/s
P47D27 21.6 m/s
Fw190A4 19.5 m/s
Fw190A8 18.4 m/s

Of course the different a/c had the max rates at different IAS but the tests we discussed in the GD forum induced drag thread showed that there seems to be little penality in the sim from deviating from these.

In addition, if we use the 109G6 as referenece, I believe the 260 km/h is pretty close to the correct IAS that you should try to target to get a good climb rate at s/l. So the numbers for the Pony and the Jug could possible be even a little better if you flew at the best climb speed IAS for these.

I agree with Aaron_GT that it would be best to get the absolute climb rates right (I think a LW jock would have sold his soul to get a K4 that climbed a whopping 6020 ft/m!) but even more disturbing is that the relative climb ratios is so wrong. If one look's at the list above and compare with the real life numbers one realizes that the list is scrambled.

Now concerning if the above really matters or not I think the post by Zen above does an excellent job explaining why this is so important.

I must say I found the information about the change in the FM that now allows a relative large leeway when selecting climb speeds without an climb rate penality was interesting. According to Zen, you apparently needed to keep a closer eye on the IAS before. I wonder what changed in the FM and why?

To me the scrambled figures above indicate a regression, not an improvement.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
can anyone else confirm this ?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holtzauge:
Climb performance from 500m to 3000m at around 250 km/h IAS, WEP/MW50, average of 3 climb tests:

P51D: around 3825 ft/min
P47D: around 3870 ft/min
Fw190D9: around 4235 ft/min
Me106G6: around 3855 ft/min

Now what the real number should be can always be argued but here are some maximum climb performance numbers that I have seen:

P51D: around 3500 ft/min
P47D: around 3200 ft/min
Fw190D9: around 4200 ft/min
Me109G6: around 4560 ft/min <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
is this correct at the moment ?

the G6 climb rate is neutered by 700f/min ?

but the Mustang climbrate is overboosted by 350f/min ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OldMan____
12-19-2004, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holtzauge:
There was a post by JG5_JaRa in the GD induced drag thread which gave the following numbers for climb speeds of 260 km/ IAS (Climb rates in decreasing order):

Bf109K4 30.5 m/s
La7 27.2 m/s
Fw190D944' 26.5 m/s
Bf109G2 26.5 m7s
Spitfire9e 25.3 m/s
Yak3P 25.1 m/s
Mig3AM38 24.9 m/s
Bf109G6 22.8 m/s
P51D20NA 22.7 m/s
P47D27 21.6 m/s
Fw190A4 19.5 m/s
Fw190A8 18.4 m/s

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

think would be very importatn to test and get the tru climb rates of these planes ate their correct speeds. Just example.. 190A8 can get 20m/s at 400 kph

robban75
12-19-2004, 06:50 AM
I don't know how the intire climb procedure was conducted, but getting that climbrate from the D-9 '44 is not possible in a sustained max climb. 26.5m/sec isn't even duable with 25% fuel, perhaps with 5% fuel remaining one could get a similar climbrate. But that is not the proper way to do climb a test.

The D-9 '44 best climbrate is at SL, and with full fuel climbing at 270-280km/h TAS 23.8m/sec is possible, and with 25% fuel the climbrate increases to 25.6m/sec.
I did another climb at 260km/h IAS and the result was even worse. 23.25m/sec. I can't see how he reached 26.5m/sec without any type of zoom effect involved.

Vipez-
12-19-2004, 07:12 AM
seems like almost half of the planes has boosted climbperfomances.. experience has shown it takes many many patches to generally get the values back in proper values (and I hope Oleg does find time to fix these..) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Holtzauge
12-19-2004, 08:14 AM
Unfortunately JG5_JaRa did not elaborate about the setup so I do not know how he did the test.

However, I think the tests done so far indicate that there is too little difference in climb rates between the planes and that in some cases the relative performance is even garbled and that a/c that in real life would not have a good climb rate have that in the sim.

I think we will all come up with slightly different values depending on how we do the test setup. But the fact seem to remain there seems to be something fishy about the relative climb peformance. I think the important issue is to bring this up and get it addressed in a coming release.

I heard a lot of good things about BoB and I really look forward to it. However, it seems we have to be patient and wait quite some time before it hits the shelves and I really think that until it does this is a top priority issue.

PF is such a good sim that it deserves this fix!

I think we should bump this and try to get a response from the developers.

That was my idea with this thread and I hope we can draw some attention to the issue. Since most people on this forum seem to be serious on accuracy, I think it will be in everyone's best interest to get the modelling done right.

I prefer to smoke a 109G6 because I flew the right tactics in my Jug not because the "Beule" was undermodelled!

If there are any others out there who agree let's push the issue!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I don't know how the intire climb procedure was conducted, but getting that climbrate from the D-9 '44 is not impossible in a sustained max climb. 26.5m/sec isn't even duable with 25% fuel, perhaps with 5% fuel remaining one could get a similar climbrate. But that is not the proper way to do climb a test.

The D-9 '44 best climbrate is at SL, and with full fuel climbing at 270-280km/h TAS 23.8m/sec is possible, and with 25% fuel the climbrate increases to 25.6m/sec.
I did another climb at 260km/h IAS and the result was even worse. 23.25m/sec. I can't see how he reached 26.5m/sec without any type of zoom effect involved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Col.Kurtz
12-19-2004, 08:18 AM
I get these Performance in my tests:

Crimea Map PF 3.02b
100%Fuel, full Power,timecount at liftoff with 220km/h IAS
Because of groundstart climbtime between 0-1000m is a little worser as in Combat
Time to alt in Game/ (Real Data)/ too fast or slow

FW190D9 44

3000m in 2:22min
5000m in 3:58min (~4:20min) 22sec to fast
6000m in 4:53min
7000m in 5:59min

M/sec
0-1k--21,7
1-2k--22,2
2-3k--19,6
3-4k--21,3
4-5k--20,4
5-6k--18,2
6-7k--15,2
------------------
La7

3000m in 2:17min
5000m in 4:03min (4:18min) 15sec to fast
------------------
Bf109 G6 Late

3000m in 2:35min
5000m in 4:30min
6000m in 5:32min (6min at 30min rating) maybe to slow for 1,42ata
7000m in 6:42min

M/sec
0-1k--18,9
1-2k--20,4
2-3k--18,9
3-4k--17,9
4-5k--16,9
5-6k--16,1
6-7k--14,3
------------------
P47D27

3000m in 2:44min
5000m in 4:42min
6100m in 5:53min (~6:30min@Combat repuplic data 2300HP) 2600HP modeled in game so maybe ok
7000m in 6:48min

M/sec
0-1k--18,9
1-2k--17,9
2-3k--18,2
3-4k--18,5
4-5k--15,6
5-6,1k--15,5
6-7k--16,4
------------------
P51B

3000m in 2:53min
5000m in 4:48min
6100m in 6:10min (6:36min) 26sec too fast
7000m in 7:21min

M/sec
0-1k--16,1
1-2k--17,9
2-3k--18,2
3-4k--18,2
4-5k--16,7
5-6,1k--13,4
6-7k--12,7
------------------
P51D20

3000m in 2:47min
5000m in 4:56min
6100m in 6:24min (7min @67HG) 36sec too fast,maybe ok for 21LB Boost
7000m in 7:43min

M/sec
0-1k--16,9
1-2k--18,5
2-3k--18,5
3-4k--17,5
4-5k--13,9
5-6,1k--12,5
6-7k--11,4


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


P51D: around 3500 ft/min
P47D: around 3200 ft/min
Fw190D9: around 4200 ft/min
Me109G6: around 4560 ft/min <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never saw such strong climb for the normal G6.
The climb of the G6 was ~2m/sec worser that that of the early G2 at same Power rating

KaRaYa-X
12-19-2004, 08:53 AM
Does anybody have accurate performance figures for the P39D-2? As it is right now it climbs a little bit slower than the G2 (very minor difference really) - and it is a 1941 birds (well at least FB says so)

Can someone fill me in on this aircraft!?

Zen--
12-19-2004, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:


@Zen,

correct me if I'm wrong, but are the climbrates you posted from the VSI? I find the VSI to be unreliable, as climbtests doesn't correlate at all with it. Just see below. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I definately use the VSI for climbing reference, but I don't do climb tests with it primarily because of your excellent testing. No need to reinvent the wheel, so I rely on your figures for sheer time to height, but use the VSI along with IAS to determine if I am zooming or sustain climbing and can use that as a reference for different climb speeds. For example I would assume that if the needle stays pegged at 26.5 m/s while km/h is steady then that indicates maximum sustained climb rate...but instruments in this game have been known to be incorrect, so I am always open to being shown otherwise.

Personally I haven't seen any reason why the VSI isn't accurate for climb tests but as I said I don't do them on a regular basis and so will trust your word on that...I only use the VSI as a relative indicator of climb performance and for that I feel comfortable with it.

&lt;S&gt;

BBB_Hyperion
12-19-2004, 10:54 AM
The VSI is inaccurate cause its delayed so you dont get correct climbrate vs alt data . You get alt - x m climbrate at the moment you note it. Its however possible to calculate average climbrate from time to alt for each segement m unit.

More precise is the use of devicelink .

Holtzauge
12-19-2004, 11:43 AM
Nice collection of climb test data Col.Kurtz.

Looking at your results I still think it seems kind of strange that the P47 climbs so well. You have the P47 and G6 at the same s/l climb rates of 18.9 m/s.

In addition, you have the P51D pegged 16.9 m/s. I never heard historical accounts that indicate that the Jug climbs better than the Pony...

Mike Spick's LW fighter aces pegs the P47 with 2300hp at 2780 ft/m so I think it would be strange if 300 hp more should give it parity with a 109G6. I've seen a 3200 ft/m historical figure for the Jug (attributed to the improved paddle prop). Mr Spick pegs the G6 at 4560 ft/m in the same book. Don't know how reliable this info is but again, I think the main issue is the relative climb rates and the way things stand now in the sim does not seeem to reflect the historical facts.

PS: To our P47 friends, I do not know who make this quote in the 40's but I think it's pretty good:

"The best way to take evasive action in a Jug is to undo the straps and run around in the cockpit"

Seriously, I have nothing against the Jug. I just used it as an example above. The relative climb ratio issue seems to be a general thing affecting at lot of a/c in this sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Col.Kurtz:

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


P51D: around 3500 ft/min
P47D: around 3200 ft/min
Fw190D9: around 4200 ft/min
Me109G6: around 4560 ft/min <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never saw such strong climb for the normal G6.
The climb of the G6 was ~2m/sec worser that that of the early G2 at same Power rating <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OldMan____
12-19-2004, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
seems like almost half of the planes has boosted climbperfomances.. experience has shown it takes many many patches to generally get the values back in proper values (and I hope Oleg does find time to fix these..) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

our virtual presence weights less than fat guys from 40's

Col.Kurtz
12-19-2004, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Looking at your results I still think it seems kind of strange that the P47 climbs so well. You have the P47 and G6 at the same s/l climb rates of 18.9 m/s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes is the performance of the P47 is really strange, and i dont undertstand this.
I only have those scans from AHT about the P47 and some climb data at normal power.
From technical data performance winner should be 109G6 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
G6
1475PS
3196kg
2,17kg/PS

P47D
2600HP
14500lb
2,53kg/HP

Kwiatos
12-19-2004, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
Does anybody have accurate performance figures for the P39D-2? As it is right now it climbs a little bit slower than the G2 (very minor difference really) - and it is a 1941 birds (well at least FB says so)

Can someone fill me in on this aircraft!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question. Cobra D-2 from 1941 have better performance (Climb and speed) than Cobra Q-10 from 1944. From some sources D-2 have engine with 1590 HP which was more HP than Q-10 with 1420 HP. Some source claim only ab.1300 HP for D-2. Now D-2 is amazing plane not only for 1941 much better than BF 109 F-4 and equal to G-2 in performance in climb. To me is hard to belive that D-2 was so good like in PF. The same situatation we have with Mig AM-38 with IL2 engine ab. 1500 HP. Am-38 climb even better than BF 109 G-2 at low alt. These bird are very big ridle (suprise) for me.

p1ngu666
12-19-2004, 07:51 PM
also p40 climb..
everything ive read said it had cr@p climb (but good dive)
seems to climb pretty well here

OldMan____
12-20-2004, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
Does anybody have accurate performance figures for the P39D-2? As it is right now it climbs a little bit slower than the G2 (very minor difference really) - and it is a 1941 birds (well at least FB says so)

Can someone fill me in on this aircraft!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question. Cobra D-2 from 1941 have better performance (Climb and speed) than Cobra Q-10 from 1944. From some sources D-2 have engine with 1590 HP which was more HP than Q-10 with 1420 HP. Some source claim only ab.1300 HP for D-2. Now D-2 is amazing plane not only for 1941 much better than BF 109 F-4 and equal to G-2 in performance in climb. To me is hard to belive that D-2 was so good like in PF. The same situatation we have with Mig AM-38 with IL2 engine ab. 1500 HP. Am-38 climb even better than BF 109 G-2 at low alt. These bird are very big ridle (suprise) for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

don't think is that strange.. specially the Mig3.. it was the fastes low alt plane of time and very advanced for its time so no big surprise it can make it well.

The p39 that everyone say it is uber .. strange.. I always treat P39 online as practice targets.. can't understand why people call it uber. Maybe in 1941 set it would be uber. But 42 on it is surpassed.

Diablo310th
12-20-2004, 09:55 AM
Geeez...I gotta talk to "Cheif" today. My Jug is a dog at climbing from seeing all these tests. Even my squaddies will tell ya I have a dog for a Jug. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Maybe new sparkplugs or a good tuneup. I know..it needs overboosting...where are those tech guys from Republic? oops..can i say Republic anymore without threat of suit or paying royalties?

Holtzauge
12-20-2004, 01:16 PM
That's a funny post.

But seriously, where do you stand in this? Do you have an opinion? Do you want the FM right or do you think that it does not matter and that we have to live with the way the sim models the planes and just fly the plane that we happens like best at the moment?

I think the facinating aspect of this sim not just the stunning graphics but that it tries to recreate things realisticly.

Now if something is not realistic it lessens my appreciation and I do not enjoy the sim as much. Mayby I'm to uptight about this, maybe one should just enjoy it for what it is...

However, I still think there are a lot of us out there who are into this for the realism.

I feel a strong bond to this sim series but my loyalty only stetches as far as the realism goes. If something more realistic came up I would be sorely tempted.

I do not think I am alone in this and that is why I think it is mutually beneficial for us and the developers to bring this up here.

If the climb ratio issue that has been discussed in this thread and maybe other issues involving speeds and turn rates are addressed in the FM, it's a win-win sitution, we get a better sim and 1C keeps the customer base.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Geeez...I gotta talk to "Cheif" today. My Jug is a dog at climbing from seeing all these tests. Even my squaddies will tell ya I have a dog for a Jug. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Maybe new sparkplugs or a good tuneup. I know..it needs overboosting...where are those tech guys from Republic? oops..can i say Republic anymore without threat of suit or paying royalties? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG5_UnKle
12-24-2004, 07:50 AM
BUMP Missed this 1st time round.

IIRC JaRa used these settings :
Flat out power, rad open, 50% fuel
Crimea map.

Looks like he even had overheat ON.

The tests were to compare low speed and higher speed climbrates to see the difference. They were not dedicated climbrate tests as such.

Anyway here is the table :
http://aa.1asphost.com/pinetrees/crd2.JPG

Diablo310th
12-24-2004, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holtzauge:
That's a funny post.

But seriously, where do you stand in this? Do you have an opinion? Do you want the FM right or do you think that it does not matter and that we have to live with the way the sim models the planes and just fly the plane that we happens like best at the moment?

I think the facinating aspect of this sim not just the stunning graphics but that it tries to recreate things realisticly.

Now if something is not realistic it lessens my appreciation and I do not enjoy the sim as much. Mayby I'm to uptight about this, maybe one should just enjoy it for what it is...

However, I still think there are a lot of us out there who are into this for the realism.

I feel a strong bond to this sim series but my loyalty only stetches as far as the realism goes. If something more realistic came up I would be sorely tempted.

I do not think I am alone in this and that is why I think it is mutually beneficial for us and the developers to bring this up here.

If the climb ratio issue that has been discussed in this thread and maybe other issues involving speeds and turn rates are addressed in the FM, it's a win-win sitution, we get a better sim and 1C keeps the customer base.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Geeez...I gotta talk to "Cheif" today. My Jug is a dog at climbing from seeing all these tests. Even my squaddies will tell ya I have a dog for a Jug. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Maybe new sparkplugs or a good tuneup. I know..it needs overboosting...where are those tech guys from Republic? oops..can i say Republic anymore without threat of suit or paying royalties? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seriously..I want all aspects of the FM's realistic. If that were true I could live with the performance of any ac. The thing about this game is that it approaches the most realistic....it could get better tho. The Jug has gone from being an absolute joke...to a little to light and nimble ...to what it is now. Which is right?? I have no idea..I have never flown one. But I'll take it fromn guys who have and from actual data as to what it can or cannot do. I don't want a uber Jug..just a realistic one. Just make it relative to all otehr ac.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-24-2004, 09:31 AM
Salute

When you talk about the climbrate of the various U.S. aircraft, it is important to remember that USAAF tests were usually done with MILITARY power, ie. 100% throttle, not COMBAT power, which is WEP. Please do not compare MILITARY power official test results with your own WEP tests.

robban75
12-24-2004, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:
Salute

When you talk about the climbrate of the various U.S. aircraft, it is important to remember that USAAF tests were usually done with MILITARY power, ie. 100% throttle, not COMBAT power, which is WEP. Please do not compare MILITARY power official test results with your own WEP tests. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did the P-47 and P-51 have 4000ft/min climbrates with full fuel and WEP in RL? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

AlmightyTallest
12-24-2004, 10:06 AM
Don't know about the P-47 and P-51, but the F4U-4 had a 4,000 ft/min climbrate!!

(buddump bump, *Cymbol crash*)

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

Seriously, I would like to see all the aircraft represented as realistically as possible as well in this sim. With enough testing and data from all sides, I'm sure Oleg and the team could get close. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
12-24-2004, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holtzauge:
Hi Oleg,

I really think you have done a great job on this sim series and I have always been astounded by it. No one comes close in accomplishment!

However, recently I became aware of what I think is a shortcoming in the climb modelling.

It seems that the relative climb performance of the aircraft needs to be addressed.

I did some tests and to me it seems that the relative climb rates between different aircraft in this sim does not reflect the performance that the aircraft had in real life.

I did some tests on my own and compared the climb performance for the P51D, P47D, Fw190D9 and Me109G6.

The results where somewhat disturbing since I found little difference between three of these (P51,P47 and G6) in climb performance as can be seen below:

Climb performance from 500m to 3000m at around 250 km/h IAS, WEP/MW50, average of 3 climb tests:

P51D: around 3825 ft/min
P47D: around 3870 ft/min
Fw190D9: around 4235 ft/min
Me106G6: around 3855 ft/min

Now what the real number should be can always be argued but here are some maximum climb performance numbers that I have seen:

P51D: around 3500 ft/min
P47D: around 3200 ft/min
Fw190D9: around 4200 ft/min
Me109G6: around 4560 ft/min

While the absolute climb performances in the sim can always be discussed, I think the main issue is that the relative climb ratio is off.

I think the relative climb rate is just as important as the relative turn rates. If one flies the Me109 one expects to climb better than the opposition in the same way as a Spitfire pilot will expect to out-turn his opponent.

We had a thread going under the GD forum where this was discussed and I belive there was some concensus on this issue. There were also some other test results posted in this thread by JG5_JaRa that seems to indicate that this was a general phenomena not limited to the aircraft I have listed above.

I think fixing this issue would make a great thing even better. Could you consider addressing this in a coming release please?

Best regards,

Holzauge

PS: If there are others out there who agree with what I posted here please give me a comment or a bump! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Track?

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-24-2004, 10:40 AM
Salute Robban

Please post a track where you get a 4000 ft/per min climbrate with P-47.

Include shots of the fuel gauge and make sure you fire the guns till they are empty, AFTER the test so we know it has ammo onboard. Load the 'extra ammunition' option, since this was standard load for tests.

Thanks Buzzsaw

P.S. Tagert The F4U-4 had a 4500 ft per min initial climbrate. But we will never see this plane, as we will never see the +25 boost 5000 ft/min Spitfire IX's, or the +25 boost RAF Mustang III's and IV's, both which were numerically the most common aircraft in use with the RAF during the second half of '44 and '45

TAGERT.
12-24-2004, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:
Please post a track where you get a 4000 ft/per min climbrate with P-47. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Like to see that one myself! aka *.ntrk

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:
Include shots of the fuel gauge and make sure you fire the guns till they are empty, AFTER the test so we know it has ammo onboard. Load the 'extra ammunition' option, since this was standard load for tests. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>From the track I can see what the fule levels are.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:
P.S. Tagert The F4U-4 had a 4500 ft per min initial climbrate. But we will never see this plane, as we will never see the +25 boost 5000 ft/min Spitfire IX's, or the +25 boost RAF Mustang III's and IV's, both which were numerically the most common aircraft in use with the RAF during the second half of '44 and '45 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sad but true.

robban75
12-24-2004, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:
Salute Robban

Please post a track where you get a 4000 ft/per min climbrate with P-47.

Include shots of the fuel gauge and make sure you fire the guns till they are empty, AFTER the test so we know it has ammo onboard. Load the 'extra ammunition' option, since this was standard load for tests.

Thanks Buzzsaw
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm far away from home right now, but I'll be home in a few days.

Here's a climbtest with the P-47D-27 100% fuel, full ammo, full power.

P-47D-27

1000 - :50 ~3937
2000 - 1:39 ~4015
3000 - 2:31 ~3785
4000 - 3:24 ~3714
5000 - 4:22 ~3393
6000 - 5:22 ~3280

It's a simple test, just take off from the beach(realistic landings off). Start a gentle pull-up at 280-290km/h TAS,(start timer at the pull-up). You should get the same results as above.

Here's another climb test, at 380km/h TAS.
Crimea map, full fuel for all except for the P-51/47 which uses 50%.

Type - F4U1 -- A6 --- D9 --- La7 -- VIII --- P51 -- P47

1000 - 1:00 -- :55 --- :48 -- :40 -- :54 --- :55 -- :51
2000 - 2:14 - 1:49 - 1:42 - 1:24 - 1:46 - 1:45 - 1:41
3000 - 3:22 - 2:46 - 2:45 - 2:17 - 2:37 - 2:33 - 2:32
4000 - 4:26 - 3:48 - 3:32 - 3:13 - 3:28 - 3:22 - 3:22
5000 - 5:25 - 4:49 - 4:20 - 4:04 - 4:28 - 4:22 - 4:13

GR142-Pipper
12-25-2004, 03:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Overall I agree the relative differences in climb rate are often too small to distinguish in game and don't feel like they have historical relativity. Imho most planes seem to have inflated climb rates but no one ever seems to mention it... though I really think this is a pretty big issue. (...snip...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. However, a much larger issue than climb rate is the modeling of rate of acceleration. This has an important impact on how aircraft are employed. Most of the U.S. planes' rates of acceleration are pathetic. Not so in real life.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CV8_Dudeness
12-25-2004, 09:02 AM
wow

in JaRa's test the P-51D & C have the most over-boosted climbrates out of all those planes he tested

with the Mig3& FW190-A4 having the least over-boosted climb performance in that group

MIGHAIL
12-26-2004, 01:31 PM
hi hartmans unde kozhedubs, many words waz say about climb and turn rait right this or no right left this or up this,, how test climb in real? fight mod motor, full load tank, and up in optimal, what we have in game? we use around 120-140% hors powers of real climb engine mod, what we get? more difrent of pressure under and at wing, this knew mr. bernulli and know we r, but,, this status quo ok if auer wing lost loading, or take square(4 bigest start criticaly aoa),, so thru beetwin,, aaaaand, torque, many props craft, has so big torque, what fall on wing was firstly of cause prop revolve befor stall,, so first model and now they no rights,, thru like other things in life is beetwin, so lets&gt; some more torque, some more stall speed and some more PATIENT AND THANKSGIVING 4 developments, thx 4 communityhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Holtzauge
01-01-2005, 12:03 PM
I had some luck and actually got hold of German Estelle test flight data for the Me 109 G1 from the Rechlin flight test facility dated 1943.

This gives the performance for the Me 109 G1 with the DB 605A engine.

Now the interesting thing is that the figures are given for "combat and climb" power setting (Kampf- und Steigleistung), not for "start and emergency" setting (Start- und Notleistung) which was not cleared for use at this time.

The "combat and climb" power setting is stated at 2600 U/m and Plade=1.3 ata.

With the "combat and climb" power setting as stated above the G1 had the follwing performance according to the Rechlin tests:

Altitude (km) Climb rate (m/s)

0 22
1 21
2 21
3 19.3
4 18.6
5 17.4

Now 22 m/s at s/l equates to 4342 ft/min without WEP which is pretty impressive.


I also have some test data from the Finnish AF for the Me 109 G2 at the same boost and revs. I read the following data from a graph:

Altitude (km) Climb rate (m/s)

0 21
1 22.5
2 24 (Yes, the graph acually says 24)
3 19
4 17.5
5 16.8

This I think indicates that climb rates for later Me 109 variants with the 605L engine ( 2800 U/min and Plade 1.75 ata) could be even higher. However, the added power would of course be offset by the increased weight in the later G's and K's. I have not found reliable data for these but perhaps someone out there who is privy can oblige?

Also, can anyone come up with similar test data for the P51 or P47? Or any other RL data for a/c modelled in this sim?

Would be interesting to compare....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:
Salute

When you talk about the climbrate of the various U.S. aircraft, it is important to remember that USAAF tests were usually done with MILITARY power, ie. 100% throttle, not COMBAT power, which is WEP. Please do not compare MILITARY power official test results with your own WEP tests. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-01-2005, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holtzauge:
Also, can anyone come up with similar test data for the P51 or P47? Or any other RL data for a/c modelled in this sim?

Would be interesting to compare....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's the Fw 190D-9 climbrate. From a real Rechlin climbchart compared to the in-game D-9 '45.

------real----game

0m --- 22.5 - 22.2
1000 - 22.3 - 22.2
2000 - 21.0 - 20.5
3000 - 20.8 - 20.8
4000 - 20.4 - 22.2
5000 - 17.8 - 20.4
6000 - 15.3 - 16.9
7000 - 12.8 - 13.5

So, according to this, the D-9 in-game is slightly undermodelled at low alts, and slightly overmodelled at the higher alts. But still pretty darn close to the real thing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Holtzauge
01-01-2005, 02:06 PM
Nice to see such a good correlation between RL and the sim!

Does this extend to other a/c or does the relative climb performance issue that we discussed earlier in this thread persist in 3.03?

The Rechlin data you refer to is it Kampf- Steig lesitung or Notleistung numbers? Which D9 variant? Jumo 213F, DB 603A or E?

I have a compilation of FW data dated 1/10/1944 that I suspect is pretty accurate since it is marked "Staatsgeheimnis!". Unfortunately it only pegs the climb number for "Sondernotleistung in volldrucksh√¬∂he" so that's all I have:

Fw 190 D-9:

engine alt(km) climb rate (m/s)
Jumo213A 4.8 18.5
DB603A 4.0 19.6
DB603E 5.9 16.5

I do not know how these numbers compare with the ones you quote for accuracy but if the Rechlin numbers are for Sondernotlestung too, then it all seems to be in the right ballpark.

Speaking of keeping things in the right ballpark, do we still see Jugs climbing at 4000 ft/min in 3.03?

I'd really love to see some RL data on a Jug supporting that....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:

Here's the Fw 190D-9 climbrate. From a real Rechlin climbchart compared to the in-game D-9 '45.

------real----game

0m --- 22.5 - 22.2
1000 - 22.3 - 22.2
2000 - 21.0 - 20.5
3000 - 20.8 - 20.8
4000 - 20.4 - 22.2
5000 - 17.8 - 20.4
6000 - 15.3 - 16.9
7000 - 12.8 - 13.5

So, according to this, the D-9 in-game is slightly undermodelled at low alts, and slightly overmodelled at the higher alts. But still pretty darn close to the real thing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
01-01-2005, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holtzauge:
Nice to see such a good correlation between RL and the sim!

Does this extend to other a/c or does the relative climb performance issue that we discussed earlier in this thread persist in 3.03? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have climbcharts for other planes than the Fw 190 family I'm afraid. But the D-9 '45 has always been one of the more correct ones in terms of climb and speed performance. I have climbtimes to 5000m for VVS fighters, and the Yak-3 and Yak-9U seems to correlate well with times from RL. Same goes for the La-5FN it appears to be modelled relatively accurate, the La-7 and I-185 on the otherhand are still very overmodelled in just about all performance aspects.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Rechlin data you refer to is it Kampf- Steig lesitung or Notleistung numbers? Which D9 variant? Jumo 213F, DB 603A or E? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The chart says that the climb is made using a Jumo 213A, 3000 rpm B4 fuel with Notleistung and MW50 and a flying weight of 4350kg.

On the P-47 subject, it seems like the P-47 has been tuned down somewhat. It now manages 3785ft/min at 2000m instead of 4015ft/min.

WWMaxGunz
01-01-2005, 02:58 PM
If Robbans' test was done at the same setting and way as the Rechlin test he quotes
then it should be no problem for that climb.

If other planes are out then don't ask for break the good ones, even if they can't
all be so good! Just identify the worst and get your favorite servers to leave them
out, would that work?

Wolf-Strike
01-01-2005, 03:16 PM
My goodness,after reading this whole thread I lose my immersion into IL2.So what is it now...does the Jug climb better or worse than a P51.Is the LA7's still a rocket and lets not forget the nasa approved K4.

Why Oleg,why.I just dont understand it. I know I am just complaining but it kinda makes me worry if the upcoming BOB will just bring more yrs of ever changing yet never hitting the mark FM's.

robban75
01-01-2005, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
My goodness,after reading this whole thread I lose my immersion into IL2.So what is it now...does the Jug climb better or worse than a P51.Is the LA7's still a rocket and lets not forget the nasa approved K4.

Why Oleg,why.I just dont understand it. I know I am just complaining but it kinda makes me worry if the upcoming BOB will just bring more yrs of ever changing yet never hitting the mark FM's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here are my latest testings.

I tested the P-47D-27 with extra ammo.

Type - P47 -- P51
1000 -- :55 -- :55
2000 - 1:51 - 1:47
3000 - 2:50 - 2:38
4000 - 3:51 - 3:33
5000 - 4:49 - 4:40
6000 - 6:09 - 5:58

As you can see the P-51 outclimbs the P-47. However, if the P-47 is flown without extra ammo, the outcome might become the opposite.

Wolf-Strike
01-01-2005, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
My goodness,after reading this whole thread I lose my immersion into IL2.So what is it now...does the Jug climb better or worse than a P51.Is the LA7's still a rocket and lets not forget the nasa approved K4.

Why Oleg,why.I just dont understand it. I know I am just complaining but it kinda makes me worry if the upcoming BOB will just bring more yrs of ever changing yet never hitting the mark FM's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here are my latest testings.

I tested the P-47D-27 with extra ammo.

Type - P47 -- P51
1000 -- :55 -- :55
2000 - 1:51 - 1:47
3000 - 2:50 - 2:38
4000 - 3:51 - 3:33
5000 - 4:49 - 4:40
6000 - 6:09 - 5:58

As you can see the P-51 outclimbs the P-47. However, if the P-47 is flown without extra ammo, the outcome might become the opposite. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok so now that Oleg has lowered the acceleration of the Jug we now have a more believable climb between th P51 and the P47.Robban,are these climb test close to real life data?

Also Robban,can you check the change in P$& top speeds from 302 to 303.

Thanks,
Dale