PDA

View Full Version : (Updated)I've made some climbcharts! Hope you find them interesting!



robban75
02-19-2004, 02:06 PM
I've updated some of the charts, and I've made a new one!
Planes in the update includes the P-47D-10/27 and D-9 '45 with 25% fuel, MiG-3AM-38, I-153P, Yak-9T, P-40M and LaGG-3IT!

This is how planes in FB climb, and perhaps these charts can give some spice to discussions about the perfomance of certain planes! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

All climbs were performed over online Finnish map 11. Full fuel were used unless otherwise stated. Full power and boost.

There quite big, and I appologize for that! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

New VVS climbchart, just click on the link below!

http://members.chello.se/unni/StigkartaVVS-2.JPG

First VVS fighters.

http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartVVS.JPG


Second LW climbs

http://members.chello.se/unni/StigkartaLW-2.JPG

US planes next!

http://members.chello.se/unni/StigkartaUS-2.JPG

Japanese fighters

http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartJapan.JPG

And a last one for some RL comparison!

FB D-9 vs RL D-9!

http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartD-9%20real+FB.JPG

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

[This message was edited by robban75 on Tue February 24 2004 at 02:41 PM.]

robban75
02-19-2004, 02:06 PM
I've updated some of the charts, and I've made a new one!
Planes in the update includes the P-47D-10/27 and D-9 '45 with 25% fuel, MiG-3AM-38, I-153P, Yak-9T, P-40M and LaGG-3IT!

This is how planes in FB climb, and perhaps these charts can give some spice to discussions about the perfomance of certain planes! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

All climbs were performed over online Finnish map 11. Full fuel were used unless otherwise stated. Full power and boost.

There quite big, and I appologize for that! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

New VVS climbchart, just click on the link below!

http://members.chello.se/unni/StigkartaVVS-2.JPG

First VVS fighters.

http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartVVS.JPG


Second LW climbs

http://members.chello.se/unni/StigkartaLW-2.JPG

US planes next!

http://members.chello.se/unni/StigkartaUS-2.JPG

Japanese fighters

http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartJapan.JPG

And a last one for some RL comparison!

FB D-9 vs RL D-9!

http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartD-9%20real+FB.JPG

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

[This message was edited by robban75 on Tue February 24 2004 at 02:41 PM.]

BlitzPig_Ritter
02-19-2004, 02:17 PM
Interesting, how long did it take yo to test all those? What was the angle of climb

______________________________
Formerly Known as: Die_Ritterkreuz
http://ritterkreuz.freewebspace.com/images/sig2ubi.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Ritterkreuz&ts=1067024271&comefrom=credits)

georgeo76
02-19-2004, 02:20 PM
hey, thanks Robban. Please give details of your testing procedure.

http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/buck2.gif
"I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up. "
Fiend's Wings (http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend)

robban75
02-19-2004, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_Ritter:
Interesting, how long did it take yo to test all those? What was the angle of climb
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These climbs are made with the latest patch, so all are current. The angle of climb varied for all planes, so I climbed at speeds between 260-290km/h. Or, the lighter the plane, the lower the climbspeed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

robban75
02-19-2004, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
hey, thanks Robban. Please give details of your testing procedure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Procedure is as follows.

Take off, retract the gear and at the same time remain as low as possible, accelerate to climb speed, (in the D-9 for example, it is 280km/h.) pull up into a steady climb and maintain the speed. Starting the timer at the pull-up.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

kyrule2
02-19-2004, 02:40 PM
My poor A-9! It took all of 2 minutes of flying the A-9 after the 1.21 patch to know something had changed. I'm sure the A-9's climb-rate was higher before, and it should be much higher according to Oleg's own data.

I hope that Oleg/1C get wind of this somehow.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by kyrule2 on Thu February 19 2004 at 01:52 PM.]

lindyman
02-19-2004, 02:48 PM
Unfortunately, Robban, the graphs mean very little if the airspeeds at the different altitudes aren't known for each aircraft. For all we know, you can be 100km/h off from best climb speed. Likewise prop RPM at the different altitudes. Also worth knowing is if the setting of the radiator cooling flaps.

Some have already seen these graphs as proof of whatever they want to see proven, while in fact they prove little to nothing at all.

I'm sorry to say this, since I understand that you must've spent an awful lot of time doing the mesurement flights.
_
/Bjorn.

Zen--
02-19-2004, 02:51 PM
Ouch on the A9

Whats up with the G2 and K4? Seems to be on the excessive side imho.


Thanks for doing the testing Robban, I know you must have spent a lot of time on this. S!!

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

robban75
02-19-2004, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Unfortunately, Robban, the graphs mean very little if the airspeeds at the different altitudes aren't known for each aircraft. For all we know, you can be 100km/h off from best climb speed. Likewise prop RPM at the different altitudes. Also worth knowing is if the setting of the radiator cooling flaps.
Some have already seen these graphs as proof of whatever they want to see proven, while in fact they prove little to nothing at all.

I'm sorry to say this, since I understand that you must've spent an awful lot of time doing the mesurement flights.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Well, I've tested back and forth when it comes to just climbspeed, and the difference is close to non existent. In real life, I'm sure it would have made a big difference. But in FB, it really doesn't. For instance, climbing the Fw 190 at 270km/h, or 280 or even 290km/h doesn't change the overall time much at all, if at all. So these climbrates are very much valid for what you will get froma a certain aircraft in FB. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Capt._Tenneal
02-19-2004, 03:01 PM
Interesting charts, thanks.

If I'm reading this right, the "uber" LA-7 finishes dead last among the VVS planes. Are you later going to expand this to include the early war planes (Polikarpovs, Emils, Freidrichs, Brewster, Hurris) ?

lbhskier37
02-19-2004, 03:04 PM
Nope, your reading something wrong, La7 finishes first.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

robban75
02-19-2004, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt._Tenneal:
Interesting charts, thanks.

If I'm reading this right, the "uber" LA-7 finishes dead last among the VVS planes. Are you later going to expand this to include the early war planes (Polikarpovs, Emils, Freidrichs, Brewster, Hurris) ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The La-7 outclimbs all the other russian planes up to around 2800m where it is bested by the Yak-3, and the Yak-9U isn't far behind. The La-7 finally gains the upperhand at 4700m.
AFAIK, the Yak's time to 5000m is pretty much spot on! They are only about 10 seconds too fast http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And yes, I'll do some climbtests with the early planes aswell, but probably after the AEP's release!

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Capt._Tenneal
02-19-2004, 03:08 PM
Thanks for pointing that out. It's funny then, that the P51D 25 % fuel climbs best of all the US planes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-19-2004, 05:28 PM
Hold on, comparing together at one time here in seperate windows... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Rus--&gt; http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartVVS.JPG

Ger--&gt; http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartLW.JPG

USA--&gt; http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartUS.JPG

Jap--&gt; http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartJapan.JPG

Yough robban, you may wish to link the pics like this, that way those who run 800x600 can
follow the Debate without mouse scrolling which could be interesting. Awsum work.

LEXX_Luthor
02-19-2004, 05:34 PM
Awsum, switching to 1024x768 to read the Debate!

WRONG...I was at 1024x768 now must switch to 1280x1024 now its too small to read...haha its like flying LW you can never win. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Still have to mouse scroll *ack*

Skalgrim
02-19-2004, 05:35 PM
p51d climb with 25% certain better, but the climb must parallel follow the climb line with 100%

funny is too, la-7 and la-5fn

la-7 climb little better real as la-5fn, but the climb line must too parallel follow the climb line from la5fn, because both have same engine

Bull_dog_
02-19-2004, 06:21 PM
Well whatever and however you did the test it backs up everything I've experienced in the game...109K, La-7 and Ki-84 are uber climbers. The G-2 was a suprise since I don't fly it or fight against it....I used to hear lots of stuff about the P-39 and its obvious that it has been toned down.

Now I'd be interested in seeing this against test results from real aircraft. I was suprised to see the Zero so far behind the Ki-84...I've never seen hard data but I've read that zekes outclimbed everything and I've never read that Ki's were particularly special in that catgegory...

WUAF_Badsight
02-19-2004, 09:45 PM
WOW i am SOOO Bumping this

thx a lot for the effort Robban

the climb tests should all be done on the same fuel except for the P-47 & P-51 as we all know they hold a lot more fuel than the rest

& default spawn prop pitch should be used for all planes as the climb test should simply test the performance of the individual planes

not the prop mnagement ability of the tester

& TY again Robban ...... saved all 4 : )

clint-ruin
02-19-2004, 09:52 PM
Thanks so much for doing these! It's so much nicer to people throwing data logs around than hysterical whines.

Some more information on your metholodgy/choice of methodology would be good to go with it, but you seem to be clearing that up as people ask.

Good work!

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

robban75
02-20-2004, 03:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Awsum, switching to 1024x768 to read the Debate!

WRONG...I was at 1024x768 now must switch to 1280x1024 now its too small to read...haha its like flying LW you can never win. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Still have to mouse scroll *ack*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for that LEXX, I use 1600x1200, and they are still very large, but they fit into the screen!
I'm glad you like them! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I'm gonna have to do it all over again after the AEP, but I enjoy doing them!

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Lazy312
02-20-2004, 05:07 AM
thx for the effort, robban!

wooden planes, iron men

KGr.HH-Sunburst
02-20-2004, 08:11 AM
thank you robban those are some great tests

http://www.warhawks.tk/
http://www.digital-d.nl/fotos/sunburstsig.jpg

Jaws2002
02-20-2004, 08:41 AM
Thanks Robban for your work.
Oh poor A4 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I think the il2 early can beat it to 5000m http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kwiatos
02-20-2004, 08:46 AM
good job robban. Maby you could make the same test with other planes too. than put all test on oleg ready room and compare it with real data? In the past i made some test with La7 and put it on rdy forum. I posted with Oleg and he made little change in climb rate of La7 from 30 m/s to 26 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

spiffalski
02-20-2004, 08:57 AM
Great work.

How did you work out the climb rates. Did you calculate it over each 1000m step or just the average for the hole distance?

i.e.
5km/(time taken to 5km)
Or
(1000)/over time taken to go from 5-4km

robban75
02-20-2004, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by spiffalski:
Great work.

How did you work out the climb rates. Did you calculate it over each 1000m step or just the average for the hole distance?

i.e.
5km/(time taken to 5km)
Or
(1000)/over time taken to go from 5-4km<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I start the timer when I pull up and after that I write down the time for every thousand meters.
Example below.

1000m - 0:47
2000m - 1:36
3000m - 2:28
4000m - 3:13
5000m - 4:01

First I take the time from 0 to 1000m which in this case is 47 seconds.

1000 / 47 = 21.27 and so on.

Then I take the time from 1000m to 2000m which is 49 seconds and so on and so on. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Hope this explains it!

And thanks everyone for the positive responses!
It'll be interesting to see if there will be any major difference in the climbs with the AEP! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

kyrule2
02-20-2004, 03:01 PM
I can't wait to see the Spitfire Mk.V. It should climb slower than the A-4 and the Spitifre Mk.IX should be similar until 20,000 feet. Ouch! That is, unless the 190's climb-rates are way too low http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I would like to see the P-40's climb compared to the 190. Man, I really hope climb-rates were re-examined.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

Capt._Tenneal
02-20-2004, 03:07 PM
I'd like to see the chart when Robben gets the AEP and tests the Komet. Whooooosh !! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kwiatos
02-21-2004, 02:15 AM
Yea in RL climb rate of fw190A was about 1000 m/min. and P-40 was about 650m/min (at 7km only 270 m/min). In FB P-40 climb too good. Still many planes needed revision in climb rate and some in turn rate(G-2).

IM VVS PILOT but like extremaly realism http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kwiatos
02-21-2004, 02:19 AM
But i doubt if FM will be tuned - there isn't any info about these. Besides Oleg M. said that change in FM is very difficult now because there is so complicated code-engine. For example he had to add some weight to La7 to change its climb rate http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ElfunkoI
02-21-2004, 06:12 AM
Climb the 190A at 290 kph and keep the motor just under a scream you'll get 20-21 m/sec.

carguy_
02-21-2004, 06:25 AM
Thank you for taking the time to do these.Best looking charts I`ve seen yet.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Skalgrim
02-21-2004, 06:38 AM
-Still many planes needed revision in climb
- rate and some in turn rate(G-2).

42 was g2 the best plane eastfront,too russia had say, she was the best of her breed.


oleg think g2 was more maneuver as f4,

keep in the mind, sustain turn was make with 1,3ata 1300ps for g2,

but we use 1,42 ata 1475ps ata, that 13% more power and powerloading is important for sustain turn,

109g has other advantage compare f4, she was better to recover from dive as f4,

that was too important advantage, especially bnz tatik.

so was she not only dogfighter, she was too good bnz plane, hartmann had 109g fly and he had use highspeed dive with success,

but sometime had he too dogfight and won,

too againt p39 ace with 27 victory, seem so bad dogfighter was 109g not.

hartmann memory, many 109g pilots was dogfighter, too lipfert was dogfigter,


mark hanna had say,

under 400km/h ias was 109g very maneuver plane, better turn and much better rollrate as p51b,
only spit could match 109g in dogfight speed,

above 500km/h ias is p51b more maneuver, but dogfight is most 300-400km/h ias

but no problem, p51b is much faster until mw50 109 came.

he had all those plane fly. think he had know the performance.

ok that are west ally plane.


la-5fn, la-7 and especially yak3 much more maneuver,

but many from this pilots are very bad and cry when she lose against good g2 pilots by dogfight,

but good la-5fn pilots has no problem against g2 under 3000m.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sat February 21 2004 at 06:56 AM.]

Kwiatos
02-21-2004, 08:20 AM
I dont agree that G2 was better turnfighter than f4. I read in many suorces that F4 was the best turn fighter from all type of BF. See reviews with Gunter Rall. In Il2 F4 was better in turn that G2 now in Fb is opposite. I like handlig bf's from Il2 and think it was close real. Now Bf G-K turn to good, like shouldn't - see FB info F4 - turn time 19 sec, G2 - 20-22, G6-10-14 - 22, K-4 - 22 sec. I would like see it FM.

hop2002
02-21-2004, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can't wait to see the Spitfire Mk.V. It should climb slower than the A-4<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit V should climb at about the same rate, or maybe faster, than the 190 A4.

The comparative test the British carried out used Arnim Faber's 190 A3. It was supposed to be derated to 1.35ata, but the British tested it at 1.42 ata (hence the engne troubles it developed)

For the climb tests, the British used what they thought was the 30 minute rating of each plane, 1.35at in the 190 (which was actually WEP), 9 lbs boost in the Spit V.

The early 190 A4s were also derated, later ones were not, but Spitfire Vs were uprated at the same time, to 16lbs boost.

So, the correct timeframe matchups would be

Fw190 1.35 ata WEP, Spit V 12lbs WEP

Fw190 1.42 ata WEP, Spit V 16lbs WEP

What the British actually tested the planes at was

Fw190 1.42 ata WEP, Spit V 12lbs WEP.

The British report notes the 190 climbs at about 450 ft/min faster than the Spit V. The increased boost added around 500 ft/min to the Spit V climb rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and the Spitifre Mk.IX should be similar until 20,000 feet<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The early Spit F IX should be similar up to 20,000ft, though it's worth noting that the same problem as above applies to this test, the Fw190 was being run at WEP, the Spit IX at it's 30 minute limit. However, the 190 would be upgraded soon after the introduction of the Spit IX.

The report does note that the Spit is slightly better than the 190 even up to 22,000ft. With both running on WEP, ie 1.42 ata for 190, 15lbs for the Spit IX, the Spitfire IX should open more of a gap.

FB is getting the Spit LF IX though, which came out in early 43. That has a climb rate of 4,700 ft a minute, about 1,000 ft/min better than the Spit IX used in the FW 190 comparison, and should comfortably outclimb any 190, including the Dora.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>oleg think g2 was more maneuver as f4,

keep in the mind, sustain turn was make with 1,3ata 1300ps for g2,

but we use 1,42 ata 1475ps ata, that 13% more power and powerloading is important for sustain turn,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FB shouldn't really be using that figure for the G2. The G2 was forbidden to exceed 1.3 ata until June 43, by which time it had been largely superceeded. I don't just mean Finnish G2s, but all G2s, an instruction from the RLM banned 1.42 ata in June 42 because of engine breakdowns at the higher setting.

robban75
02-21-2004, 08:32 AM
So, how about those 109 climbrates? 28.6m/sec for the K-4? That's 5629ft/min, wasn't 4820ft/min its RL max climb? Is the G-2 correct? It outclimbs the MW50 boosted D-9. Is this correct?
Any opinions? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

robban75
02-21-2004, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
FB is getting the Spit LF IX though, which came out in early 43. That has a climb rate of 4,700 ft a minute, about 1,000 ft/min better than the Spit IX used in the FW 190 comparison, and should comfortably outclimb any 190, including the Dora.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFIAK the Spit LF IX maxed 3950ft/min. With 4700ft/min it would almost equal the Bf 109K-4. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Skalgrim
02-21-2004, 09:32 AM
yes that is right, then must oleg model g2
for 42 with 1,3ata and 43 with 1,42 ata


and the cry is then out.

but too without wep, climb g2 very good,

4,1min 5000m finns test,

and too with 1,3ata is the turn almost same like 109f



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can't wait to see the Spitfire Mk.V. It should climb slower than the A-4<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit V should climb at about the same rate, or maybe faster, than the 190 A4.

The comparative test the British carried out used Arnim Faber's 190 A3. It was supposed to be derated to 1.35ata, but the British tested it at 1.42 ata (hence the engne troubles it developed)

For the climb tests, the British used what they thought was the 30 minute rating of each plane, 1.35at in the 190 (which was actually WEP), 9 lbs boost in the Spit V.

The early 190 A4s were also derated, later ones were not, but Spitfire Vs were uprated at the same time, to 16lbs boost.

So, the correct timeframe matchups would be

Fw190 1.35 ata WEP, Spit V 12lbs WEP

Fw190 1.42 ata WEP, Spit V 16lbs WEP

What the British actually tested the planes at was

Fw190 1.42 ata WEP, Spit V 12lbs WEP.

The British report notes the 190 climbs at about 450 ft/min faster than the Spit V. The increased boost added around 500 ft/min to the Spit V climb rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and the Spitifre Mk.IX should be similar until 20,000 feet<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The early Spit F IX should be similar up to 20,000ft, though it's worth noting that the same problem as above applies to this test, the Fw190 was being run at WEP, the Spit IX at it's 30 minute limit. However, the 190 would be upgraded soon after the introduction of the Spit IX.

The report does note that the Spit is slightly better than the 190 even up to 22,000ft. With both running on WEP, ie 1.42 ata for 190, 15lbs for the Spit IX, the Spitfire IX should open more of a gap.

FB is getting the Spit LF IX though, which came out in early 43. That has a climb rate of 4,700 ft a minute, about 1,000 ft/min better than the Spit IX used in the FW 190 comparison, and should comfortably outclimb any 190, including the Dora.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>oleg think g2 was more maneuver as f4,

keep in the mind, sustain turn was make with 1,3ata 1300ps for g2,

but we use 1,42 ata 1475ps ata, that 13% more power and powerloading is important for sustain turn,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FB shouldn't really be using that figure for the G2. The G2 was forbidden to exceed 1.3 ata until June 43, by which time it had been largely superceeded. I don't just mean Finnish G2s, but all G2s, an instruction from the RLM banned 1.42 ata in June 42 because of engine breakdowns at the higher setting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sat February 21 2004 at 08:43 AM.]

hop2002
02-21-2004, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, how about those 109 climbrates? 28.6m/sec for the K-4? That's 5629ft/min, wasn't 4820ft/min its RL max climb?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the K4 is way over. In fact, it's average rate is well over the real life aircraft's peak rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>AFIAK the Spit LF IX maxed 3950ft/min. With 4700ft/min it would almost equal the Bf 109K-4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit F IX, Merlin 61, max 15 lbs boost, had a max climbrate of 3,860 ft/min

The Spit LF IX, Merlin 66, introduced early 1943, had a max climb rate of 4,700 ft/min. The time to 20,000ft was 4.75 minutes, which should be close to the K4 on MW50 and C3 fuel.

In mid 1944, the Spit LF IXs based in Britain converted to 100/150 octane fuel, putting the climb rate up to around 5,500 ft/min at low altitudes, although it offered no benefits over about 20,000ft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>yes that is right, then must oleg model g2
for 42 with 1,3ata and 43 with 1,42 ata<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have figures on the numbers of G2s left in service in June 43 and onwards? If the G2 was still in widespread service, it would be worth having 2 variants, if the G2 had been largely replaced, there wouldn't be much point.

I have no idea how many were still in use from mid 43 onwards.

Skalgrim
02-21-2004, 09:49 AM
g2 turn 20sec and 109f 19,6sec, seem both turn almost same good

but objectdata has too mistake,

the 22,6sec for g2 is with gunpods,

g6 has too 22,6-22,8 sec that too with gundpods,

g6 turn little weaker as g2 real.

think finns had not use g6, when she turn
almost 3sec weaker as g2,

g6 suffer in all sim, because the sim use her turn time with gundpods



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I dont agree that G2 was better turnfighter than f4. I read in many suorces that F4 was the best turn fighter from all type of BF. See reviews with Gunter Rall. In Il2 F4 was better in turn that G2 now in Fb is opposite. I like handlig bf's from Il2 and think it was close real. Now Bf G-K turn to good, like shouldn't - see FB info F4 - turn time 19 sec, G2 - 20-22, G6-10-14 - 22, K-4 - 22 sec. I would like see it FM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sat February 21 2004 at 10:14 AM.]

Kwiatos
02-21-2004, 11:36 AM
Very interesting idea with turn bf G-K 22 sec with gunpods. Very interesting.

Insuber
02-22-2004, 04:02 AM
Great work, thanks, I appreciated them and will make use during the online fighting. I like very much this concept of experimenting and demonstrating, instead of plain pointless whining.

Anyway, I use to read these charts with a smile, because it is a game after all ...


Bye,
Insuber

Skalgrim
02-22-2004, 09:17 AM
it give some good source

http://www.ww2.dk/

but those page make no differ g6 or g2.

when right remember, oleg had say, g2 was too early 44 fly, at least eastfront



think the reason,

that 109f was count as better dogfighter as 109g,

is probable, that 41 was many russia plane not especially maneuver,

lagg,mig,yak7 have inferior turnime compare 109f,

so had the 109f pilots the feeling, 109f was better dogfighter g6,

but g6 was use against yak1b,yak9 and la5fn, those plane was more maneuver as mig and lagg


nt


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, how about those 109 climbrates? 28.6m/sec for the K-4? That's 5629ft/min, wasn't 4820ft/min its RL max climb?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the K4 is way over. In fact, it's average rate is well over the real life aircraft's peak rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>AFIAK the Spit LF IX maxed 3950ft/min. With 4700ft/min it would almost equal the Bf 109K-4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit F IX, Merlin 61, max 15 lbs boost, had a max climbrate of 3,860 ft/min

The Spit LF IX, Merlin 66, introduced early 1943, had a max climb rate of 4,700 ft/min. The time to 20,000ft was 4.75 minutes, which should be close to the K4 on MW50 and C3 fuel.

In mid 1944, the Spit LF IXs based in Britain converted to 100/150 octane fuel, putting the climb rate up to around 5,500 ft/min at low altitudes, although it offered no benefits over about 20,000ft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>yes that is right, then must oleg model g2
for 42 with 1,3ata and 43 with 1,42 ata<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have figures on the numbers of G2s left in service in June 43 and onwards? If the G2 was still in widespread service, it would be worth having 2 variants, if the G2 had been largely replaced, there wouldn't be much point.

I have no idea how many were still in use from mid 43 onwards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sun February 22 2004 at 08:46 AM.]

Insuber
02-22-2004, 05:49 PM
Robban,

WE WANT MORE CHARTS!

Thanks,
Insuber

02-23-2004, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
So, how about those 109 climbrates? 28.6m/sec for the K-4? That's 5629ft/min, wasn't 4820ft/min its RL max climb?

Yes, the K4 is way over. In fact, it's average rate is well over the real life aircraft's peak rate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont know how 28,6 m/sec he arrived in il-2FB, with the same settings as in RL, the K-4 does exactly its 24,5-25 m/sec climb rate in the game with half open radiatators, just like in real life. I believe the gentleman climbed with closed radiators, which gave him the 28+ m/sec climb rate. The manual operation of radiator flaps was a possibility on 109s, and the reducement of drag would enchance climb rate as well by a considerable margin. Test showed that early 109G opening radiators slowed the plane down by about 50 km/h - quite a bit of extra drag. So hardly is the K-4 is way over, its just happens to be in its full flower (except SL speed, which is by 20-25 km/h too slow).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In mid 1944, the Spit LF IXs based in Britain converted to 100/150 octane fuel, putting the climb rate up to around 5,500 ft/min at low altitudes, although it offered no benefits over about 20,000ft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But thats only true with closed radiators AFAIK, which is a theoretical setting, force-set by the British for that particular test. Spitfire radiators were fully automatic from the Mk IX onwards, and the pilot had no means to close them in a climb - thermostat opened them automatically to maintain airflow. With the usual open setting, climb rate was about 5080 ft/min, though only sustainable to no more than SL to 500 ft, as the supercharger could not provide enough air to maintain such high boost.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>yes that is right, then must oleg model g2
for 42 with 1,3ata and 43 with 1,42 ata

Do you have figures on the numbers of G2s left in service in June 43 and onwards? If the G2 was still in widespread service, it would be worth having 2 variants, if the G2 had been largely replaced, there wouldn't be much point. I have no idea how many were still in use from mid 43 onwards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

G-2s and similiar G-4s were very much in service even in late 1943 with many Gruppes. In fact, a handful of leftovers were in service as late as 1945. The G-6s entered service in February 1943, and I bet it took at least half a year when they effectively become the most numerous 109s. Just because they appeared it doesnt mean they become standard.

As for the two variants (1,3 and 1,42ata) of G-2, its not a bad idea to have an mid-1943 109G-2, too. The current 1942 one only have its boost gauge showing 1,42ata, but otherwise its performance is that of the 1,3ata variants. I would except the 1,42ata G-2 do 540-545 km/h at SL, 665 km/h at 7000m, and about 23 m/sec initial climb (roughly 10% better). A good choice for an anti fighter mission, however, I think I would still choose a G-6/U4 (or just simple G-6 with MG 151/20) with Galland panzer over it for an 1943 scenario. A mere 15 km/h doesnt counts as much as the extra firepower and great visibility. The acceleration etc. would still be very much the same.

robban75
02-23-2004, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I dont know how 28,6 m/sec he arrived in il-2FB, with the same settings as in RL, the K-4 does exactly its 24,5-25 m/sec climb rate in the game with half open radiatators, just like in real life. I believe the gentleman climbed with closed radiators,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I climbed the K-4 with radiator on auto, same with the G-2, A-4/9 and D-9. So the rads were open slightly on T/O and the opened more and more as time progressed. I climbed the K-4 at 260-270km/h TAS. The climb to 5000m took just 3 minutes.

And thanks for all the other info Kurfurst, it was interesting! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Insuber, I'll do more climbcharts after AEP is released! I promise! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

robban75
02-24-2004, 03:42 PM
Bumpity! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

tttiger
02-24-2004, 04:04 PM
Thanks for all the work, Robban, and, yes, they seem to reflect what I see subjectively in the planes I fly.

What would be truly useful would be the optimal climb speed for each plane. But that would mean testing each plane at different speeds to see what gets it upstairs the fastest.

It also would be interesting to compare the optimal climb speeeds in FB with the published data on the real planes or the available info from pilots' war stories.

For example, I've read several pilot accounts that say around 200 mph (not kph) in a P-47 (my current favorite) gave them the fastest climb while maintaining the best forward air speed. In other words: Optimal.

I don't know if that's what the poublished data says or if it's mirrored in FB, but that's what's in the pilot anecdotes.

That would truly take an enormous amount of testing.

What you've given us is an interesting snapshot of each plane and at least some sort of benchmark for comparing and contrasting . Whether you were using the best climb rates or not isn't clear.

Thanks again! S!

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

faustnik
02-24-2004, 04:11 PM
Thanks Robban, great charts.

There is going to be a lot of arguements when the SpitV and Fw190A4 performance is compared in FB.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Hunde_3.JG51
02-24-2004, 06:52 PM
Faustnik, be sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. And the Mk.IX as well. Like I've said before, I think Oleg has put himself in a tight spot. Either the Spitfire guys will be very disappointed, or the FW-190 guys will be pretty upset. I guess we will see, I just hope some things were adjusted so this isn't the case. And then there is the cockpit view but I don't even want to get into that.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Cajun76
02-24-2004, 09:04 PM
Thank you very much, Robban. Ask, and ye shall recieve.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Those seem to jive with my in-game experiance. I can compete with the Thunderslug against most planes, but the great climbers give me hell. Gotta fly extremely smart, and hope for mistakes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Real_35a.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

Achilles97
02-24-2004, 10:24 PM
What is up with the 109 G6? Did it really get outclimbed by the G2 and the FWs ???


Can you make some charts with the G10 and G14 included?

Thanks!

Hunde_3.JG51
02-25-2004, 01:11 AM
Achilles97, the 109G-6 is only out-climbed by the Dora. It easily outclimbs the 190A's (though it shouldn't out-climb the A-9 at low altitudes). The G-2 and later models should out-climb the G-6, and they do.

I would like to see the G-10 and G-14 also.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BBB_Hyperion
02-25-2004, 01:51 AM
Robban75 when you still using your Hotmail account plz check your mail maybe something of interest for ya. .)

Regards,
Hyperion

robban75
02-25-2004, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Robban75 when you still using your Hotmail account plz check your mail maybe something of interest for ya. .)

Regards,
Hyperion<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got it! Very interesting indeed! Thank you very much! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!