PDA

View Full Version : BF-109 god like climbing?



james8325
02-23-2004, 04:33 PM
did the bf-109 climb as well in real life as it does in the game? i know the p-51 isnt the best for climbing, but the 109s seem to just zoom past me even if i have altitude advantage. im a decent pilot, and get my share of kills, but the 109k4 climbing seems a lil much. ive read it has good climbing, but not like a rocket. anyone else feel this way?

james8325
02-23-2004, 04:33 PM
did the bf-109 climb as well in real life as it does in the game? i know the p-51 isnt the best for climbing, but the 109s seem to just zoom past me even if i have altitude advantage. im a decent pilot, and get my share of kills, but the 109k4 climbing seems a lil much. ive read it has good climbing, but not like a rocket. anyone else feel this way?

Zen--
02-23-2004, 04:38 PM
K4 has 28 m/s climb rate in FB, just a bit too high http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In real life K4's outclimbed mustangs, though not to the degree we see in game.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

Lixma
02-23-2004, 05:36 PM
Situation, situation, situation....

Covino
02-23-2004, 05:37 PM
With so many planes in a game with very intricate engine controls and whatnot having to be modeled, there's bound to be inaccuracies. I'm glad BoB will focus on quality rather than quantity. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[This message was edited by EvilBen on Mon February 23 2004 at 04:49 PM.]

DaBallz
02-23-2004, 06:59 PM
The Bf-109K4 has a bug that allows it to
be climbed and dived in such a way to give
it speeds faster than a Me-262 at any altitude.
I did not believe it until I tried it.
You can get where your going faster by going into
a zoom and dive cycle.
Totally unrealistic, definately a bug.
AND heavily exploited by dogmatic Boom and Zoom
squads such as the <AFJ> I might add.

da...

Magister__Ludi
02-23-2004, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
The Bf-109K4 has a bug that allows it to
be climbed and dived in such a way to give
it speeds faster than a Me-262 at any altitude.
I did not believe it until I tried it.
You can get where your going faster by going into
a zoom and dive cycle.
Totally unrealistic, definately a bug.
AND heavily exploited by dogmatic Boom and Zoom
squads such as the &lt;AFJ&gt; I might add.

da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dived at faster speeds than Me-262? I want to learn that. Any tracks?

Other than that Bf-109K4 should climb faster than Me-262, if both planes are at full fuel load. At 25% fuel load Me-262 should be faster. FB is correct in this regard.

Flamin_Squirrel
02-23-2004, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
K4 has 28 m/s climb rate in FB, just a bit too high http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In real life K4's outclimbed mustangs, though not to the degree we see in game.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

28 m/s ~ 5512fpm... Thats perfectly accurate from what Ive read. It matches a figure in some aircraft literature I have that gives a time to alt of 16,400 in 3 minutes.

SkyChimp
02-23-2004, 07:37 PM
16,400 ft in 3 minutes is now almost universally regarded as an error in the interpretation of a climb chart.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Flamin_Squirrel
02-23-2004, 07:46 PM
Re-read what i wrote. A figure i have in some independant literature puts the figure at the same as whats in the game. Doubt thats a coincidence.

In a book ive got it puts the climb rate of the much less powerful F-4 as 4700fpm. With the 50% extra HP the K-4 enjoys, 5512fpm (28m/s) isnt an unreasonable figure imo. Just thought id mention that for reference.

S77th-brooks
02-23-2004, 09:20 PM
never ask a monkey

adlabs6
02-24-2004, 12:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
The Bf-109K4 has a bug that allows it to
be climbed and dived in such a way to give
it speeds faster than a Me-262 at any altitude.
I did not believe it until I tried it.
You can get where your going faster by going into
a zoom and dive cycle.
Totally unrealistic, definately a bug.
AND heavily exploited by dogmatic Boom and Zoom
squads such as the &lt;AFJ&gt; I might add.

da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strange to see this, I had forgotten that I'd had an experience that made me wonder a few months back.

I was using a 109 to practice BnZ on a some AI bomber flights. There were maybe 8 to 12 bombers to hit, and I started my first vertical attack some 1000 meters above them. By diving at a shallow angle, firing at the bottom of my pull out, and then climbing back at vertical and rolling 180 to dive again, I could stay right with the flight picking them off.

The odd bit was that after some passes, I began to feel that I could climb higher after each pass than I started before. It was as though my plane had gained overall energy during the BnZ.

Now, I'm no pilot, but I had a hard time imagining that an aircraft would gain energy while doing that strict vertical manuvering repeatedly. In my mind, I should not have been able to climb higher on successive passes than I had started at with such ease. Is this correct?

Perhaps it was not really happening, I didn't save any track, so I can't be sure.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON (http://777avg.com/omegasquad/)

LEXX_Luthor
02-24-2004, 12:45 AM
Your engine is providing energy. It may be enough.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

RedDeth
02-24-2004, 02:14 AM
lol it always cracks me up. whenever someone gets beat they always seem to say ah it was those scummy AFJS~~~!!! they were above me see...and then i tried to get away see then i died see and like i said...it was those rotten A F J s !!! they never leave me alone~~~!!! QUACK!!! i guess we should all just jump in yak3s and do circles at 20 ft high so everyone will be happy. p.s. never climb a 262 away in a steep angle when a k4 is nearby doing 750

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of Now 12 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

Bamatt
02-24-2004, 02:38 AM
The key is, not to fly on the &lt;AFJ&gt; server with those kiddie magic crosshair settings. BnZ takes much more skill on a server with the cockpit on. I'm not saying FR servers, just servers with the pit on.


P.S. La's are for girls...

pinche_bolillo
02-24-2004, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bamatt:
The key is, not to fly on the &lt;AFJ&gt; server with those kiddie magic crosshair settings. BnZ takes much more skill on a server with the cockpit on. I'm not saying FR servers, just servers with the pit on.


P.S. La's are for girls...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not going to defend reddeth. if you would be on voice coms with him everyday you too would learn to develop a reddeth filter.

as far as full real servers go. I do not personally enjoy flying around for 30+ minutes with out seeing an aircraft. my computer is very old and I have to be with in 300 meters of an aircraft till I can identify it, beyond this range it is just a fuzzy blur.

I have played "full real servers" in other games in the past. but they ran on my computer well. btw, I am running the same computer for the past 5+ years. its old. I have played in full real servers here. the kills are a matter of who sees who first. thus your shooting somebody that doesnt even know that you were there. that is easier than attacking an enemy aircraft that knows you are close because he can see your arrow and he is in an external watching you drop on him. so which is truely harder? full real harder on your patients because all you do is fly around bored for what seems like forever w/o seeing the other aircraft. cockpit off and icons harder to get the other guy cause he knows you are attacking small percentage for element of supprise.

robban75
02-24-2004, 06:25 AM
The K-4 in FB climbs at 28.6m/sec, even at 4000m, that's 5629ft/min. And time to 5000m in FB is 3 minutes. That is with full fuel and MW50. I was under the impression that its max climbrate was somewhere around 24,5-25m/sec. 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!

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-24-2004, 06:56 AM
109 climbrate huh?

Try the La7...now that's a rocket ship! I hadn't flown one in ages and took one for a spin the other day online. I got 330 kph and pulled back on takeoff. The bloody thing climbed to 2000+m in a heartbeat and didn't (hardly) lose any "E" at all. Didn't get hot either.

Now if they would just do something about that stiff elevator at high speeds, I might fly it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

Skalgrim
02-24-2004, 07:23 AM
with half open radiator was 24,5-25m/sec reach,

believe 25m/sec initialclimb was 1000m,

little better as sealevel, db605d engine increase power little until 1000m.

i dont know, how many better the k4 climb with close radiator, but probable little better

and k4 was use with series 9-12159 propeller and 9-12199 propeller,

with 9-12199 propeller was k4 faster sealevel,

that means 9-12199 was more effectively propeller,

so had she too with the 9-12199 propeller a better initial climb as with series 9-12159 propeller

28m/sec is probable too with 9-12199 propeller little to high,

but many plane are much more overmodell by climb as k4

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Tue February 24 2004 at 07:10 AM.]

robban75
02-24-2004, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thunderbolt56:
109 climbrate huh?

Try the La7...now that's a rocket ship! I hadn't flown one in ages and took one for a spin the other day online. I got 330 kph and pulled back on takeoff. The bloody thing climbed to 2000+m in a heartbeat and didn't (hardly) lose any "E" at all. Didn't get hot either.

Now if they would just do something about that stiff elevator at high speeds, I might fly it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For La-7 climb comparison, click on the link below. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=131105732

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

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

Cajun76
02-24-2004, 09:51 AM
Hey Robban, could I ask a favor? If it's not too much trouble, adjust the climbrate chart for the US by adding 25% fuel load for the P-47D-10 and P-47D-22? The -22 seems to have a better climb, but seems to lack the -10's agility and top speed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifDid I just mention "agility" and the Jug in the same sentence? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

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

ouaouaron
02-24-2004, 09:57 AM
This issue has been identified several times before. Its not so much the ability of the K4 under auto engine settings, but rather the enhanced (and unrealistic) performance increase one gets by MANUALLY operating the engine controls (mainly prop pitch / rpm).

Some people tend exploit this (bug) while some don't. However, many other aircraft also gain benefit by this manual manipulation, but not to the extent of the 109s (K4 and G6AS in particular).

Many "exploiters" have the pitch setting on a slider (what normally would be used for your throttle). Many turn and burn exploiters put the trim on a slider instead.

Its the old saying "give them an inch and they take a mile". Just take note of who now flies the K4, and if they still are flying the K4 once this bug is corrected. You'll then know who the "exploiters" are.

Magister__Ludi
02-24-2004, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
with half open radiator was 24,5-25m/sec reach,

believe 25m/sec initialclimb was 1000m,

little better as sealevel, db605d engine increase power little until 1000m.

i dont know, how many better the k4 climb with close radiator, but probable little better

and k4 was use with series 9-12159 propeller and 9-12199 propeller,

with 9-12199 propeller was k4 faster sealevel,

that means 9-12199 was more effectively propeller,

so had she too with the 9-12199 propeller a better initial climb as with series 9-12159 propeller

28m/sec is probable too with 9-12199 propeller little to high,

but many plane are much more overmodell by climb as k4

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Tue February 24 2004 at 07:10 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hi Skalgrim,

You say:

"with 9-12199 propeller was k4 faster sealevel,

that means 9-12199 was more effectively propeller,"

This is not necessarely truth. It might mean that peak efficiency for the 9-12199 propeller is reached at higher speed than for 9-12159, but that also mean that 9-12159 is better for climb. K4 with over 600km/h at sea level had 24.5m/s initial climb, it is almost certain that the 9-12159 with larger blade chord would have improved climb performance.

Another point is that forcing the engine with manual pitch could bring 10% more HP, so at least 5% improvement in climb rate is perfectly possible. 5500fpm at full fuel load is not surprising at all for K4.

Magister__Ludi
02-24-2004, 10:14 AM
oops, I modified and lost an earlier post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The basic idea was that 600fpm more over normal climb performance of Bf-109K4 fitted with high speed prop is not at all unrealistic. Oleg says that he models a K4 that reaches 680km/h at sea level. That's 30km/h slower than the average K4 (that K4 is able to reach 580km/h at sea level in FB is another discussion http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif), which is most probably because FB models the larger blade prop. This prop gives around 300fpm more in climb, the other 300fpm are from manual pitch. I don't find here nothing surprising or unrealistic.

----

This pic shows how large is the prop blades chord on those late 109s, but this particular one is not the prop with the largest blade chord. I'll look more maybe I'll find a better one.

http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/pics-bf109k/bf109k4_020-swfoto.jpg

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Tue February 24 2004 at 09:32 AM.]

ShVAK
02-24-2004, 10:15 AM
Some good points there oua-oua, but you don't have to wait for a patch. Just put an enemy plane on external view and watch/listen for any porpoising in their climb.

Even my beloved Jug can be manually manipulated, but the gains are minimal to the extent that I'll still retain an abysmal climb and turn rate - lol.

And for master ludi - Its nice to see the better prop on the K4. Unfortunately, my P-47 lacks the low end performance gained from a Hamilton Standard or Curtiss Electric Paddle Prop that should be standard equipment on a D-22 or D-27.

Magister__Ludi
02-24-2004, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ShVAK:
Some good points there oua-oua, but you don't have to wait for a patch. Just put an enemy plane on external view and watch/listen for any porpoising in their climb.

Even my beloved Jug can be manually manipulated, but the gains are minimal to the extent that I'll still retain an abysmal climb and turn rate - lol.

And for master ludi - Its nice to see the better prop on the K4. Unfortunately, my P-47 lacks the low end performance gained from a Hamilton Standard or Curtiss Electric Paddle Prop that should be standard equipment on a D-22 or D-27.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-47 models have an average 4000fpm initial climb in the game. That's 25% more than real life P-47 fitted with paddle blade prop (lightest D-22, before the instalation of aux belly fuel tank, had a 3200fpm initial climb). Not even P-47M climbed that fast. There is nothing to worry about P-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here's another pic with large chord blades on a G-14 this time:

http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/pics-bf109g/bf109g14_020-swfoto.jpg

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Tue February 24 2004 at 10:18 AM.]

Maple_Tiger
02-24-2004, 11:34 AM
Magister_Ludi

You kind of forgot the fact that we who fly the P-47 do not use 100% fuel.

I mean the climb rate in real life would be for normal take off wheight. So if most people in FB dont take anymore then 50% ,then yes you will get a little better climb rate.

You have to look at the whole pic.

Im not going to say the BF109K4's climb rate is too good.

Why?

1.) I dont know lol

2.) Would the BF109K4 also climb a little better if it only had 50% fuel?


My point then is that i disagree with you Magisterhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

robban75
02-24-2004, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
Hey Robban, could I ask a favor? If it's not too much trouble, adjust the climbrate chart for the US by adding 25% fuel load for the P-47D-10 and P-47D-22? The -22 seems to have a better climb, but seems to lack the -10's agility and top speed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gifDid I just mention "agility" and the Jug in the same sentence? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll do it! But only because it's you! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Whatch out for an "updated" climbchart thread!

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

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

Cajun76
02-24-2004, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'll do it! But only because it's you! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Aaww shucks...... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A gentleman and a scholar, that's what you are. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Thank you!

Good hunting,
Cajun76

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

02-24-2004, 12:47 PM
Re, topic that come up :

1, The K-4s peak CR at SL is 24,5m/sec at SL. However this is for _half open_ radiators, ie. 4-6 rad setting in FB. People who try out and reach 28m/sec use with automatic or closed rads will get a lot better results. It is realistic to get 2-3-4 m/sec better climb rate by closing the rads. But it also means very quick engine overheating in real life due to reduced airflow. Again : if you want to try to compare to historical specs, use auto prop, 4-6 radiators, 270 km/h IAS, 100% fuel. It should be in the range of 24.5-25 m/sec at 0-1000m. Or roughly 40 sec climb time, which is what I get.

2, 109`s historically were very good in the vertical. Understandable : Low drag design, high power ratio, high wingloading - it will accelerate quickly in a dive, pick up speed quickly, maintain it well in the zoom and the high thrust/weight will literally allow it to "hang" on it`s propellor in the zoom`s top (I have seen modern Sukhoy sportplanes doing it.. those are high thrust/weight machines, too. Extras can`t beat them in that aspects, though they are more manouverable). In British tests, the 109G-6 w. gunpods vs. P-51B`s zoom climb, "there was little to choose between the two". Also I have read one US P-51 pilot`s description of his combat vs. Hartmann`s G-6. The G-6 outzoomed him, not really for his better E retantion or such, but because the 109`s better stall characteristics mean he will stall on the top of the zoom a half or a whole second later, giving the impression he outzooms you: he continues to climb at very slow speed when your plane already gave the nose down. But its simply his stall speed is lower, and he stalls a bit later only, until then the plane is controllable.

3, K-4s, AFAIK, did not use the VDM 9-12199 prop in RL. However, one climb curve I have states the climbs are same with either props. The "toothpick" props only gave better effiency as speed increased - in practice this meant a few km/h speed plus at SL, but 15-20 km/h by 6000m and over.

Cajun76
02-24-2004, 01:02 PM
Magister_Ludi,

The XP-47J had an initial climbrate of 4,900fpm. I can't find the climbrate for the P-47M at the moment, but as the biggest differance between the two is mainly aerodynamic for high top end speed, in favor of the XP-47J, the climbrate should not be very much less for the M. Time to 30,000 feet (9,144 m) for the XP-47J was 6:45, armed and carrying ballast equivelent to 267 rounds per gun.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

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

lrrp22
02-24-2004, 01:18 PM
Hey Kurfurst,

That supposed account of the combat with Hartmann is *very* suspect, to say the least.

At the same time, we have Bud Anderson's account of a very tight combat with a 109G in which he determines that his P-51B will hold the zoom longer, even at the stall.

I RL, I don't think any WWII fighter had anywhere near the thrust to weight ratio to allow for any meaningfull 'hanging on the prop'. Behavior at the stall, though, could vary widely between airframes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VO101_Kurfurst:
Re, topic that come up :

1, The K-4s peak CR at SL is 24,5m/sec at SL. However this is for _half open_ radiators, ie. 4-6 rad setting in FB. People who try out and reach 28m/sec use with automatic or closed rads will get a lot better results. It is realistic to get 2-3-4 m/sec better climb rate by closing the rads. But it also means very quick engine overheating in real life due to reduced airflow. Again : if you want to try to compare to historical specs, use auto prop, 4-6 radiators, 270 km/h IAS, 100% fuel. It should be in the range of 24.5-25 m/sec at 0-1000m. Or roughly 40 sec climb time, which is what I get.

2, 109`s historically were very good in the vertical. Understandable : Low drag design, high power ratio, high wingloading - it will accelerate quickly in a dive, pick up speed quickly, maintain it well in the zoom and the high thrust/weight will literally allow it to "hang" on it`s propellor in the zoom`s top (I have seen modern Sukhoy sportplanes doing it.. those are high thrust/weight machines, too. Extras can`t beat them in that aspects, though they are more manouverable). In British tests, the 109G-6 w. gunpods vs. P-51B`s zoom climb, "there was little to choose between the two". Also I have read one US P-51 pilot`s description of his combat vs. Hartmann`s G-6. The G-6 outzoomed him, not really for his better E retantion or such, but because the 109`s better stall characteristics mean he will stall on the top of the zoom a half or a whole second later, giving the impression he outzooms you: he continues to climb at very slow speed when your plane already gave the nose down. But its simply his stall speed is lower, and he stalls a bit later only, until then the plane is controllable.

3, K-4s, AFAIK, did not use the VDM 9-12199 prop in RL. However, one climb curve I have states the climbs are same with either props. The "toothpick" props only gave better effiency as speed increased - in practice this meant a few km/h speed plus at SL, but 15-20 km/h by 6000m and over.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ShVAK
02-24-2004, 01:21 PM
You tell 'em Cajun!

I think that the point here though is did the German pilots use auto or manual prop pitch in real life. It just seems too easy to use manual in this game and the benefit from thereof too great - like whoever bothers to look at manifold pressure, which should be one of the major gauges used in manual mode.

[This message was edited by ShVAK on Tue February 24 2004 at 02:17 PM.]

robban75
02-24-2004, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VO101_Kurfurst:
Re, topic that come up :

1, The K-4s peak CR at SL is 24,5m/sec at SL. However this is for _half open_ radiators, ie. 4-6 rad setting in FB. People who try out and reach 28m/sec use with automatic or closed rads will get a lot better results. It is realistic to get 2-3-4 m/sec better climb rate by closing the rads. But it also means very quick engine overheating in real life due to reduced airflow. Again : if you want to try to compare to historical specs, use auto prop, 4-6 radiators, 270 km/h IAS, 100% fuel. It should be in the range of 24.5-25 m/sec at 0-1000m. Or roughly 40 sec climb time, which is what I get.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry Kurfurst, but even with rads at "8" here's what I get.

@1000m - 27.0 m/sec
@2000m - 27.8 m/sec
@3000m - 28.6 m/sec
@4000m - 28.6 m/sec
@5000m - 26.3 m/sec

Time to 5000m didn't change at all, I got 3:01, with rads auto, and 3:01 with rads at "8".

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

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