PDA

View Full Version : P51 climb rate and il2compare



3ra_DSLam
05-22-2004, 10:17 AM
I've seen il2compare rate of climb of p51d20 and suspected that it was too much. There it says for 100% setting (combat/climb) about 20m/s at 1500m (so aprox 3900 feet/min). Typical web sites says something about 17m/s or 3300feet/m at about 1500m (aprox 5000feet) and about 7 minutes and 10-20 seconds to reach 6000 meters so il2compare seems too much.

Then I've tested climb rate using 100% fuel, radiator fully opened and 270IAS at low altitude and going progressive to 250IAS at about 6000 meters. Take off included of course. All at 100% power (combat setting). The gauge read a bit more than 3000feet/min at 5000feet and reached 6000 meters in 7:11. Ok seems to be quite correct. Why il2compare says those excessive perfomance then?

I've tried same but with 25% fuel. And at 5000 feet the gauge displayed something like 3900-4000 feet/m like il2compare (man the fuel weights a lot!)...

So, my question is: does il2compare use 25% fuel or something like that in all planes?
Is p51 well modeled at rate of climb? (it seems ok to me but maybe I made some mistake in the tests)

Salute!

http://www.sarriacity.net/dslam/imagenes/DSLam2.jpg

3ra_DSLam
05-22-2004, 10:17 AM
I've seen il2compare rate of climb of p51d20 and suspected that it was too much. There it says for 100% setting (combat/climb) about 20m/s at 1500m (so aprox 3900 feet/min). Typical web sites says something about 17m/s or 3300feet/m at about 1500m (aprox 5000feet) and about 7 minutes and 10-20 seconds to reach 6000 meters so il2compare seems too much.

Then I've tested climb rate using 100% fuel, radiator fully opened and 270IAS at low altitude and going progressive to 250IAS at about 6000 meters. Take off included of course. All at 100% power (combat setting). The gauge read a bit more than 3000feet/min at 5000feet and reached 6000 meters in 7:11. Ok seems to be quite correct. Why il2compare says those excessive perfomance then?

I've tried same but with 25% fuel. And at 5000 feet the gauge displayed something like 3900-4000 feet/m like il2compare (man the fuel weights a lot!)...

So, my question is: does il2compare use 25% fuel or something like that in all planes?
Is p51 well modeled at rate of climb? (it seems ok to me but maybe I made some mistake in the tests)

Salute!

http://www.sarriacity.net/dslam/imagenes/DSLam2.jpg

LeadSpitter_
05-22-2004, 10:24 AM
Im guessing ross_youss used 25 fuel, Maybe he will stop by and answer the question himself. Great sig btw I have that skin of hammereds and its great I wish they would replace NNavirex's ones from in game with hammered work.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

3ra_DSLam
05-22-2004, 11:43 AM
thx for the sig http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif it's made by my squadmate CN_Corto.
BTW I've tested the FW190A4: climbs at 15m/s at low altitude 100% fuel, climb/combat power, etc in game and in il2compare...
why the p51 at 25%???

http://www.sarriacity.net/dslam/imagenes/DSLam2.jpg

CANTOS_VLC
05-22-2004, 01:15 PM
Hi all.

I just talked with Youss, Compare shows planes at 100% fuel.

<S>

3ra_DSLam
05-22-2004, 01:21 PM
And the arguments? Cantos I'm here to discuss not to say "p51 climbs ok, bye" or "p51 climbs too much, bye".
Salute.

http://www.sarriacity.net/dslam/imagenes/DSLam2.jpg

Covino
05-22-2004, 01:23 PM
How are these results for IL-2 Compare obtained anyway? He couldn't possibly have gone out and tested all those stats for 200 or so planes by hand.

Kwiatos
05-22-2004, 01:44 PM
Don't use IL2 Compare to check climb rate and turn rate of planes. These data are not accurate with plane performance in game. Example? See in il2 compare turn rate BF F-4 and G-2 - see that F is slighty better yes? But in game G-2 is much better in turn than F-4. Other example see climb rate for Lagg 3 43 and Bf F-4 - F-4 should climb better yes? But these is not true in game Lagg 43 climb better. As i know data in Il2 Copare came from testing plane controlled by AI not HUMAN. There is special program which make these test using AI and save result.
Thats all.

CANTOS_VLC
05-22-2004, 02:00 PM
Im here to say "il2 compare uses 100% fuel". Just to answer Leadspitter.

If the climb i correct or no, who knows http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

3ra_DSLam
05-22-2004, 02:07 PM
Kwiatos you are probably right but see that people start infinite threads just by seeing il2compare and post in the forum. il2compare is just the television, you see and you accept, no argue. There is no more work with a clock a paper and a pencil and test, test ,test. If it's more or less "acurrate" it's ok just because you can guess perfomance but imagine I'm not wrong(probabliy I am wrong) and p51d20 loads only 25% fuel then il2compare, from an orientating tool, becomes a dis-orientating tool.

http://www.sarriacity.net/dslam/imagenes/DSLam2.jpg

3ra_DSLam
05-22-2004, 02:29 PM
ok....p51d20, 100%fuel 110% throttle(emergency power) this time, other settings and conditions as first post (25% fuel).
Time to get to 5000m is 5:05, an average of 16,5m/s. In il2compare average at 110% to 5k is about 20-21m/s.
At 1500m, climbing at 3900feet/m (il2compare 5400f/min or 27.5m/s). At 4500m climbing at 3500feet/min (il2compare 3940f/min or 20m/s).
And, as I explained in the first post, ikl2compare matches my test with 25% fuel.
so...p51 in il2compare definitely is not with 100% fuel or I'm doing something wrong.

http://www.sarriacity.net/dslam/imagenes/DSLam2.jpg

Kwiatos
05-22-2004, 06:45 PM
As i said Il2 Compare is a AI data test and it's no accurate with human test. So dont use it for check climb rate and turn rate. Oleg M said that data from IL2 compare is close to performance planes in game but these is simple not true. Just do some own test and compare it to IL2 Compare you will see the BIG DIFFERENCE.