PDA

View Full Version : Newly made climbtests, including Ta, Spit IXc, D-9, A-6, P-47, and La-7.



robban75
08-12-2004, 01:14 PM
Same procedure as always. Crimea, full fuel, full boost. (m/sec in brackets)

Ta 152H

3000 - start timer
4000 - :44 - (22.7)
5000 - 1:33 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:31 - (17.2) Overheat warning
7000 - 3:43 - (13.9)
8000 - 5:48 - (13.3)
9000 - 6:22 - (11.9)
9800 - 8:01 - (8.1) engine toast after 5 minutes and 30 seconds from OH warning.

Spitfire MkIXc

3000 - start timer
4000 - :40 - (25)
5000 - 1:29 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:16 - (21.3)
7000 - 3:06 - (20)
8000 - 4:05 - (17)
9000 - 5:19 - (13.5)
10000 - 7:02 -(10.8)

(No overheat on the Spitfire)

P-47D-27

3000 - start timer
4000 - :54 -(18.5)
5000 - 1:54 - (16.7)
6000 - 2:52 - (17.2)
7000 - 4:05 - (13.7)
8000 - 5:33 - (11.4) Overheat warning
9000 - 7:26 - (8.8)
10000 - 9:52 - (6.8)

Engine toast after 12 minutes from OH warning.

La-7

3000 - start timer
4000 - :50 - (20)
5000 - 1:40 - (20)
6000 - 2:34 - (18.5)
7000 - 3:41 - (15) Overheat warning
8000 - 5:07 - (11.6)
9000 - 6:57 - (9.1) Engine Normal(?)
10000 - 9:30 - (6.5)

D-9 '45

3000 - start timer
4000 - :46 - (21.7)
5000 - 1:35 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:33 - (17.2) Overheat warning
7000 - 3:42 - (14.5)
8000 - 5:12 - (11.1)
9000 - 7:32 - (9.1)

Engine toast at 9050 meters, 6 minutes from OH warning

Fw 190A-6

3000 - start timer
4000 - 1:04 - (15.6)
5000 - 2:08 - (15.6) Overheat warning
6000 - 3:14 - (15.2)
7000 - 4:32 - (12.8)
8000 - 6:17 - (9.5)
8450 - 7:30 - (6.2) Engine damaged by overheating, unable to climb further.

What strikes me is that the A-6 can almost keep pace with the D-9 at the higher altitudes, and that the La-7 outclimbs the D-9 between 6000 and 9000m. The Spitfire IXc, outclimbs the Ta 152 at ALL altitudes. And the Ta 152 actually climbs too well at the lower alts. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

robban75
08-12-2004, 01:14 PM
Same procedure as always. Crimea, full fuel, full boost. (m/sec in brackets)

Ta 152H

3000 - start timer
4000 - :44 - (22.7)
5000 - 1:33 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:31 - (17.2) Overheat warning
7000 - 3:43 - (13.9)
8000 - 5:48 - (13.3)
9000 - 6:22 - (11.9)
9800 - 8:01 - (8.1) engine toast after 5 minutes and 30 seconds from OH warning.

Spitfire MkIXc

3000 - start timer
4000 - :40 - (25)
5000 - 1:29 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:16 - (21.3)
7000 - 3:06 - (20)
8000 - 4:05 - (17)
9000 - 5:19 - (13.5)
10000 - 7:02 -(10.8)

(No overheat on the Spitfire)

P-47D-27

3000 - start timer
4000 - :54 -(18.5)
5000 - 1:54 - (16.7)
6000 - 2:52 - (17.2)
7000 - 4:05 - (13.7)
8000 - 5:33 - (11.4) Overheat warning
9000 - 7:26 - (8.8)
10000 - 9:52 - (6.8)

Engine toast after 12 minutes from OH warning.

La-7

3000 - start timer
4000 - :50 - (20)
5000 - 1:40 - (20)
6000 - 2:34 - (18.5)
7000 - 3:41 - (15) Overheat warning
8000 - 5:07 - (11.6)
9000 - 6:57 - (9.1) Engine Normal(?)
10000 - 9:30 - (6.5)

D-9 '45

3000 - start timer
4000 - :46 - (21.7)
5000 - 1:35 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:33 - (17.2) Overheat warning
7000 - 3:42 - (14.5)
8000 - 5:12 - (11.1)
9000 - 7:32 - (9.1)

Engine toast at 9050 meters, 6 minutes from OH warning

Fw 190A-6

3000 - start timer
4000 - 1:04 - (15.6)
5000 - 2:08 - (15.6) Overheat warning
6000 - 3:14 - (15.2)
7000 - 4:32 - (12.8)
8000 - 6:17 - (9.5)
8450 - 7:30 - (6.2) Engine damaged by overheating, unable to climb further.

What strikes me is that the A-6 can almost keep pace with the D-9 at the higher altitudes, and that the La-7 outclimbs the D-9 between 6000 and 9000m. The Spitfire IXc, outclimbs the Ta 152 at ALL altitudes. And the Ta 152 actually climbs too well at the lower alts. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

VVS-Manuc
08-12-2004, 01:22 PM
a comment from Oleg to robban's test results would be nice now

Loki-PF
08-12-2004, 01:50 PM
robban75

Thanks for the great data! Your test (and others like it) are exactly what I'm talking about in other threads, i.e. The only "data" that we can all agree on is what the game engine provides us. This gives everyone a common metric to which we can all make up our own minds about the "Uber/non Uberness" of a particular FM.

Thanks again for the great work.... these types of data take a long time to do and no doubt are a labor of love.

Salute!
Loki

VW-IceFire
08-12-2004, 02:00 PM
Well done...gives us a very clear picture of actual results. This is so much better than the simple "<insert plane here> is overmodeled, fix it!" stuff that we see all the time that is supported entirely with anecdota evidence.

This is very scientific and very good from what I see. Well done.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Strange_361st
08-12-2004, 02:15 PM
Not to put down the testing of the TA-152, did you switch modes on the boost from MW50 to GM1? Or did you make the climb only on MW50?

Major "Strange"
Communications Officer, 361st vFG
http://www.361stvfg.com

robban75
08-12-2004, 02:28 PM
I switched to GM-1 at 9000m, but the engine was overheating badly after a couple of hundred meters and didn't perform as well as it normally would have.

And thanks for the kind words guys! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

[This message was edited by robban75 on Thu August 12 2004 at 01:54 PM.]

Luftcaca
08-12-2004, 02:46 PM
pretty interesting thx robban http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

makes me wonder again why we even need the Spit XIV http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

wants flyable:

early 110's
IL-10
Pe-3

Kurfurst__
08-12-2004, 03:34 PM
Conclusions :

- Overheat times are just ridiculus
- The climb rates needs a BIG TIME address


You know, that`s why I am worried about players asking for even more planes, when even the ones we have are complete mess.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

moksha
08-12-2004, 03:54 PM
Great Test Robban thanks.

And thanks for the conclusion Kurdfurst.

DarthBane_
08-12-2004, 05:12 PM
Why? People flying ta152h online made carnage?
Looks like that styling is pure evil not favored by large comunity and developers, i must learn to fly that bird http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif. Climbtests are eye opening. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
08-12-2004, 07:13 PM
The Spitfire IX beats every other plane to 8000m by a full minute and doesn't overheat http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif. And over 2 minutes and 12 seconds for FW-190A-6.

Speeds above 6,000m are way high for Spitifre LF.IX's (all but HF.). Top speed of HF.IX is way too high, period.

Energy bleed seems almost non-existent.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

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

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

LEXX_Luthor
08-12-2004, 07:26 PM
Thanks for the focus on high altitude tests robban http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif


-----------------------------new topic


I agree with Kurfurst that Oleg should take away all the Fw~190s so Oleg's one (1) FM programmer has more time to program FM for Fiats, Macchis, Ju~88, etc... Thanks Kurfurst. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif Awsum!

Spock! all


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Thu August 12 2004 at 06:49 PM.]

hop2002
08-12-2004, 07:29 PM
Robban, if it's not too much trouble could you add the K4 to that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Spitfire IX beats every other plane to 8000m by a full minute<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit IX should be the best climber out of that lot, by some margin.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and doesn't overheat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090694499_climbcropped.jpg

Crimea is standard temperate conditions.

This chart shows climb at 25 lbs boost, the Spit in game is limited to 18 lbs.

The Spit in game has auto radiators, so they'd open if it started to get too hot.

2000ft - 32,000ft is 610m - 9750m. ie a longer climb than Robban carried out.

p1ngu666
08-12-2004, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Thanks for the focus on high altitude tests robban http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif


-----------------------------new topic


I agree with Kurfurst that we should take away all the P~51s and Fw~190s so Oleg's one (1) FM programmer has more time to program FM for Fiats, Macchis, Ju~88, etc... Thanks Kurfurst. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif Awsum__!__

Spock__!__ all


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish _"Gladiator"_ listed as _J8A_ _...in Aces Expansion Pack_

_"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
:
_"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore_!_"_ ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

u forgot the 10whine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

out of interest, what radiator setting and what climb speed?

also if u got time could u test p39 and p40?

also many thanks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

LEXX_Luthor
08-12-2004, 07:50 PM
Well, I Edited Out the P~51, left in Fw~190 to make that poster look really flakey today. :wink:

Hunde_3.JG51
08-12-2004, 08:05 PM
Hop, I meant every other plane in the test. I think it is pretty obvious to all what I meant. And I agree about the climb of Spitfire being the best, but to 10,000m overall? Remember we are talking about the LF.IX.

-It easily out-climbs all others IN TEST http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, from 7,000m to 8,000m (59 seconds).

-And easily outclimbs all others in test from 7,000m to 9,000m (2 minutes, 13 seconds). The D-9 takes 3 minutes and 50 seconds. Come on.

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

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

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Thu August 12 2004 at 07:22 PM.]

Korolov
08-12-2004, 08:29 PM
Glad we don't see 'em that high in the first place.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

lbhskier37
08-12-2004, 08:54 PM
explains a lot thanks! I've been getting pretty frustrated trying to spiral climb away from spits at 6k+ in TAs.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 11:58 PM
as any experienced FB player knows . . . . . sustained ROC is one thing ........

E retention in DF climbs is another . . . . .

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LuftLuver
08-13-2004, 01:06 AM
Thanks Robban,

As another poster points out, can you add the K4?

Regarding fixing the climbrates for all planes, try considering that Oleg 1C may have bumped up climb rates on purpose to encourage high altitude fighting. Back in the original days of IL2, a high fight would be something like 2-3k. Everyone was fighting low. If this is in fact the case, I don't mind as long as we're all uber. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

This may also point to why a good RL climber like the K4 ends up looking silly.

β"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Ά
"All your bases are belong to us."

JG5_UnKle
08-13-2004, 02:37 AM
Climbrates are off (IMHO) because the FM is continually "fudged" to try and meet specs. Like for example in the La-7 when it was climbing waaay to fast (still does) so they added more weight - and then it didn't turn right and e-bleed went out the window and, well you get the idea. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Like badsight says it may be the case that aircraft meet some specs dead on but when they don't bleed E properly it's a moot point IMHO as the "real" fight aspect of it in FB isn't just climbrates and max speeds.

I don't think the climbrates were boosted just to make high-alt fights more common. In JG5 we have been fighting at 7000-9000M since day one and the high alt FM is even worse than the low alt one - be sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

And S! Robban thanks for the data
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

OldMan____
08-13-2004, 05:37 AM
That is not a good way of making people fight high. Giving the capability of going high does not reach good results. You need to give ADCANTGES of being high.. so that everyone wants to be high.. Advanatges..as Dive acceleration for certain fighters (funny uhhh good dive would improve climbing :P )


anyway.. how do I cahnge MW50 for GM-1?

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

lbhskier37
08-13-2004, 05:50 AM
Its kinda getting old that basically every plane climbs too good accept the 190. If they will never fix the other planes, why not give the 190 exagerated climb so at least it compares correctly with the rest of the planes.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

p1ngu666
08-13-2004, 06:51 AM
oldman, turn off wep at 9000m, then turn it back on http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
u prolly want todo that at idle revs, and i think after 5000metres it might be slower with mw50 on anyways

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Hunde_3.JG51
08-13-2004, 07:31 AM
Exactly Ibhskier, they must have forgot the 190 when giving all planes "unrealistic climb-rates." Couple that with poor to no modelling of dive zoom and the FW-190 is reduced to constant hit and run.

And like you said, it gets old. Especially when other aircraft seemingly improve with every patch.

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

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

Fillmore
08-13-2004, 08:02 AM
Keep in mind that Robban is doing these tests at full WEP, not climb settings, so do not compare with published climb data (unless you can find climb data specifically for the settings Robban is using).

He did not mention the radiator settings of the other planes, but also note that the Spit IX has an automatic radiator that cannot be manually closed, if you are going to compare other planes against it you should set their radiators open or auto.

Fillmore
08-13-2004, 08:06 AM
"And I agree about the climb of Spitfire being the best, but to 10,000m overall? Remember we are talking about the LF.IX."

We are? Robban just says "Spitfire MkIXc " does not specify HF or LF.

robban75
08-13-2004, 08:41 AM
It was the "regular" Spitfire IXc, no LF or HF version.

Radiators were on auto for the Ta 152, D-9, P-47 and Spitfire. Contrary to real life, open or closed radiators has little or no effect on climb performance in FB/AEP.

I'll probably do some more climbtests when I get home from work. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The K-4 is up next!

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

Monty_Thrud
08-13-2004, 11:46 AM
Ahh!..now i see, robban75...i thought you were testing how long it took to overheat http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif(in the other thread you posted this in), doing QMB starting at 3000 climbing to 10000, but its in FMB from takeoff, climb test...execellent work...now, can anyone give the equivalent historical performance data (got to abbreviate this) for these aircraft? please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://premium.uploadit.org/bsamania/HurricaneIVD_cartoon2-copyns11.jpg
"I won't let go of that youthful soul despite body and mind
my youth will never die" - CREED

robban75
08-13-2004, 11:59 AM
Ok, here's the K-4 and the HF Spit added.


Bf 109K-4

3000 - start timer
4000 - :35 - (28.6)
5000 - 1:13 - (26.3)
6000 - 1:56 - (23.3)
7000 - 2:49 - (18.9) Overheat warning
8000 - 3:57 - (14.7)
9000 - 5:22 - (11.8)
10000 - 7:34 - (7.6)

Spitfire MkIX HF

3000 - start timer
4000 - :42 - (23.8)
5000 - 1:28 - (21.7)
6000 - 2:17 - (20.4)
7000 - 3:06 - (20.4)
8000 - 3:58 - (19.2)
9000 - 5:03 - (15.4)
10000 - 6:34 - (10.9)

Ta 152H

3000 - start timer
4000 - :44 - (22.7)
5000 - 1:33 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:31 - (17.2) Overheat warning
7000 - 3:43 - (13.9)
8000 - 5:48 - (13.3)
9000 - 6:22 - (11.9)
9800 - 8:01 - (8.1) engine toast after 5 minutes and 30 seconds from OH warning.

Spitfire MkIXc

3000 - start timer
4000 - :40 - (25)
5000 - 1:29 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:16 - (21.3)
7000 - 3:06 - (20)
8000 - 4:05 - (17)
9000 - 5:19 - (13.5)
10000 - 7:02 -(10.8)

(No overheat on the Spitfire)

P-47D-27

3000 - start timer
4000 - :54 -(18.5)
5000 - 1:54 - (16.7)
6000 - 2:52 - (17.2)
7000 - 4:05 - (13.7)
8000 - 5:33 - (11.4) Overheat warning
9000 - 7:26 - (8.8)
10000 - 9:52 - (6.8)

Engine toast after 12 minutes from OH warning.

La-7

3000 - start timer
4000 - :50 - (20)
5000 - 1:40 - (20)
6000 - 2:34 - (18.5)
7000 - 3:41 - (15) Overheat warning
8000 - 5:07 - (11.6)
9000 - 6:57 - (9.1) Engine Normal(?)
10000 - 9:30 - (6.5)

D-9 '45

3000 - start timer
4000 - :46 - (21.7)
5000 - 1:35 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:33 - (17.2) Overheat warning
7000 - 3:42 - (14.5)
8000 - 5:12 - (11.1)
9000 - 7:32 - (9.1)

Engine toast at 9050 meters, 6 minutes from OH warning

Fw 190A-6

3000 - start timer
4000 - 1:04 - (15.6)
5000 - 2:08 - (15.6) Overheat warning
6000 - 3:14 - (15.2)
7000 - 4:32 - (12.8)
8000 - 6:17 - (9.5)
8450 - 7:30 - (6.2) Engine damaged by overheating, unable to climb further.

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

Matz0r
08-13-2004, 12:34 PM
I repeated robban's test and got similar results. Same method, crimea/wep on/100% fuel.

(Each plane was flown twice and the best result was picked.)

http://www.pfy.nu/tmp/climbto10k.jpg

Fillmore
08-13-2004, 02:13 PM
"now, can anyone give the equivalent historical performance data (got to abbreviate this) for these aircraft?"

Hard to find. IRL climb tests are performed at climb power setting, not WEP. There may be WEP tests for some planes, or more likely, calculated values based upon climb power tests and altered to account for additional WEP, but I don't recall ever seeing any such posted.

p1ngu666
08-13-2004, 02:14 PM
i think kurfy said the k4s climb at certain alts is higher than should be, intriging tho that a spit cant just climb away, whatever the alt, atm atleast

and thanks again guys http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

lbhskier37
08-13-2004, 04:43 PM
Whats going on with the La-7 and the question mark? Did the overheat message just go away after a while? If so I would think this is something to look at. On to the K-4, I dont fly this thing so I dont know, but it seems that after your overheat warning the climbrate drops off pretty quick. Is this because of the engine toasting? And with the spitfires, my main concern is the super high altitude climb. Were those things that fast climbing at 6k+? I was always under the impression that the K4 was the climb king (eventhough its supposed to be overmodeled in climb now) so if its overmodeled in climb now, how is the spits climb vs. reality? I don't have numbers, but it just seems a bit high for a 1943 plane to me. With those numbers I would hate to see what a mk22s time to 10k in this game would be (5 minutes anyone?)

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

hop2002
08-13-2004, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I was always under the impression that the K4 was the climb king (eventhough its supposed to be overmodeled in climb now) so if its overmodeled in climb now, how is the spits climb vs. reality?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are from tests of the actual aircraft:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092322765_spitclimb109k4.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ith those numbers I would hate to see what a mk22s time to 10k in this game would be (5 minutes anyone?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mk 22 was actually a fair bit worse than the Spit IX.

The best Spit of all would be a IX or XVI at 25 lbs boost, followed by an VIII at 25 lbs boost, followed by the XIV at 18 or 21 lbs, followed by the IX at 18 lbs.

LEXX_Luthor
08-13-2004, 07:46 PM
Matz0r:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I repeated robban's test...

(Each plane was flown twice and the best result was picked.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif Better in reliable testing or better in climb rate? You have guts to admit in pubic that you pick and choose the results.

You need to take the second set of measurements whether they give "better" climb or not. I practice first, at least once each plane, then take measurements and accept them if they are "better" or not. If you are not sure, repeat experiment from the beginning. Also good to take more than one measurment of each plane and average the results for each plane.

...and redo graf



They say testing FM is hard, but the difficult part (for computer flight simmers) does not come from test flying.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"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
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2004, 10:04 PM
Always interesting reading.

So [only] the La7 has an automatic "Engine normal" repair even when abusing the engine, eh? Superior Russian engineering I suppose.

Hehehe.

And this is the late war ueber trash. Imagine what goes on in the models of the early and mid-war stuff.

Hunde_3.JG51
08-13-2004, 10:57 PM
Fillmore and Robban, I'm just going by what Spitifre fans have said. From what I understand all of the Spitifre IX's in-game are actually LF.IX's with Merlin-66. The one exception is the HF.IX with Merlin-70. There is no F.IX with Merlin-61 in-game as far as I know.

If the F.IX variants are not actually LF. versions, then climb rates would seem to be too high down low for the F.IX's. The LF.IX though had a very strong climb down low. By looking at IL-2 compare it would seem to me that we have all LF. versions.

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

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

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Fri August 13 2004 at 10:20 PM.]

Fw-190D-9
08-14-2004, 12:39 AM
OK that doesn';t look right with hte A-6 and D-9, either the Dora needs a boost in climb, or the A-6 needs to be toned down. Those values aint right....

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-14-2004, 01:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MS_Fw190D9:
OK that doesn';t look right with hte A-6 and D-9, either the Dora needs a boost in climb, or the A-6 needs to be toned down. Those values aint right....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

are u soft in your head ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
D-9 '45

3000 - start timer
4000 - :46 - (21.7)
5000 - 1:35 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:33 - (17.2) Overheat warning
7000 - 3:42 - (14.5)
8000 - 5:12 - (11.1)
9000 - 7:32 - (9.1)

Engine toast at 9050 meters, 6 minutes from OH warning

Fw 190A-6

3000 - start timer
4000 - 1:04 - (15.6)
5000 - 2:08 - (15.6) Overheat warning
6000 - 3:14 - (15.2)
7000 - 4:32 - (12.8)
8000 - 6:17 - (9.5)
8450 - 7:30 - (6.2) Engine damaged by overheating, unable to climb further.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so A6 needs +20sek to get to 4k
it needs +30sek to get to 5k
it needs +50sek to 6k
it needs +50sek to 7k
it does need +1minute to get to 8k compared to Dora.

you wanna say these results do not mach?
WTF?!
have u ever flown this bird u asshat ?
ever ?
tryed ?
when u toon down the climb more i will quit that game because we already have:

- one of the toughest planes of WW2 &gt;&gt; 1hit with a small gun in one of your wings result in loos of 50-80kph topspeed, flight-performance drops emidiatly &gt;&gt; dogfightability drops to ZERO!
- a gread BnZ Plane in WW2 &gt;&gt; the A-Series do have a Zoomclimb of approximatly 1200m (on the deck, starting when topseed reached, WITHOUT stall-out) INCLUDING THE A9!!!
- a powerful armament &gt;&gt; CAl 0.50 a HMG is more effective than an CANNON (even at point blank range) deflection shooting is impossible.
A Spitfire with 2 Hispanos pack the same punch a a FW with 4!! 20mm.

so befor posting such bul**** you should try this bird on a FR server in 1944 or 43 vs. Spitfire, P47, P51, Yak3, La5FN/7.


http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/FB/Screens/Fw%20190A-4guns.JPG (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665)

WUAF_Badsight
08-14-2004, 02:41 AM
har har

there are some who know nothing about what its like to fly german stuff lol

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HomeboyWu
08-14-2004, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Matz0r:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I repeated robban's test...

(Each plane was flown twice and the best result was picked.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif Better in reliable testing or better in climb rate? You have guts to admit in pubic that you pick and choose the results.

You need to take the second set of measurements whether they give "better" climb or not. I practice first, at least once each plane, then take measurements and accept them if they are "better" or not. If you are not sure, repeat experiment from the beginning. Also good to take more than one measurment of each plane and average the results for each plane.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, for ordinary measurements I guess you're right. But climb time to a certain altitude has a lower limit, which the purpose of a climb test is to find. Thus whenever a lower time is achieved, it is definitely a more accurate number, and all higher times can be safely disregarded.

There's not much use averaging climb times because the lowest is always the most accurate, especially when computers make no mistakes.

Matz0r
08-14-2004, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Matz0r:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I repeated robban's test...

(Each plane was flown twice and the best result was picked.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif Better in reliable testing or better in climb rate? You have guts to admit in pubic that you pick and choose the results.

You need to take the second set of measurements whether they give "better" climb or not. I practice first, at least once each plane, then take measurements and accept them if they are "better" or not. If you are not sure, repeat experiment from the beginning. Also good to take more than one measurment of each plane and average the results for each plane.

...and redo graf



They say testing FM is hard, but the difficult part (for computer flight simmers) does not come from test flying.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I picked the best results in terms of climb. I a constant environment like a computer flight sim it's perfectly ok to pick the better result. The test has a lower limit and object is to reach the that limit. In fact if anyone can improve the numbers they are also submitable, given same test conditions were used.

What's wrong with my graph? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Chromatorg
08-14-2004, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Whats going on with the La-7 and the question mark? Did the overheat message just go away after a while? If so I would think this is something to look at.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think LA7 shouldnt overheat above 4000m at all. WEP on LA7 works only up to 3500m, so essentialy after 3500m you are flying at normal power setting. At 7000m you are flying like at 80% setting - why should LA7 overheat? The same logic should be applicably for most over AC's - if you see they climb drop by half from they best value they shouldnt overheat at that alt.

Kurfurst__
08-14-2004, 05:32 AM
<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 was always under the impression that the K4 was the climb king (eventhough its supposed to be overmodeled in climb now) so if its overmodeled in climb now, how is the spits climb vs. reality?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are from tests of the actual aircraft:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092322765_spitclimb109k4.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Fairly 'interesting' comparison from Hop 2002 as usual.

Just look at the Spit he listed :

- Mk IX 'BS 543' - the IXLF prototype with experimental airscrew type 'XH54D-RM-S5' (never serialised)
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html

- the Mk VIII JF 275, climb tests were done with closed radiators which would artificially increase climb rate by about 700 fpm compared to the normal (standard measurement in Britain, as well as all others, was with open or semi-open radiators). Radiators were fully automatic in the MkVIII/IX, and were open during climb, with no ability of the pilot to manually close them down.

The performance of JL 165 is apprx. correct for a tropicalised MkIX at +18lbs. It should be noted that in mid-44 +25lbs was cleared for the MkIXs as well, giving them 5080 fpm intial climb rate. However, due to the lack of performance of the supercharger, this could be only maintained up to 500 ft altitude, after which ROC sharply fell off to 4250fpm at 6000ft.


Neither test has any relevance to the MkVIII`s/MkIX`s typical climb performance under the normal conditions, they are choosen by Hop as they present - atypical - performances that suits his mindset 'Spitfire is best in everything'.

Just for the record, K-4 figures are with typical 1/2-1/3 open radiators (220mm open). It was possible to close them for reduced drag, and much increased climb rate (it can be expected to gain more than Spits, as the radiators are quite different from those) though with decreased cooling performance (sustainable for short periods, though).

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Kurfurst__
08-14-2004, 06:41 AM
Here`s a better comparison of sustain ROC.

All at 100% fuel and load, full power (WEP), realistic radiator settings (open,half-open).

Note that the A-5 on the graph is using only 1.42ata, but NOT it`s Erhohte Notleistung (IIRC the in-game one has it)!

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/ROC_K-4_IXLF_A5_D9_LA7.jpg

Maybe I will add the other planes as well, even though the graph is already rather 'dense'.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

DarthBane_
08-14-2004, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToP_BlackSheep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MS_Fw190D9:
OK that doesn';t look right with hte A-6 and D-9, either the Dora needs a boost in climb, or the A-6 needs to be toned down. Those values aint right....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

are u soft in your head ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
D-9 '45

3000 - start timer
4000 - :46 - (21.7)
5000 - 1:35 - (20.4)
6000 - 2:33 - (17.2) Overheat warning
7000 - 3:42 - (14.5)
8000 - 5:12 - (11.1)
9000 - 7:32 - (9.1)

Engine toast at 9050 meters, 6 minutes from OH warning

Fw 190A-6

3000 - start timer
4000 - 1:04 - (15.6)
5000 - 2:08 - (15.6) Overheat warning
6000 - 3:14 - (15.2)
7000 - 4:32 - (12.8)
8000 - 6:17 - (9.5)
8450 - 7:30 - (6.2) Engine damaged by overheating, unable to climb further.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so A6 needs +20sek to get to 4k
it needs +30sek to get to 5k
it needs +50sek to 6k
it needs +50sek to 7k
it does need +1minute to get to 8k compared to Dora.

you wanna say these results do not mach?
WTF?!
have u ever flown this bird u asshat ?
ever ?
tryed ?
when u toon down the climb more i will quit that game because we already have:

- one of the toughest planes of WW2 &gt;&gt; 1hit with a small gun in one of your wings result in loos of 50-80kph topspeed, flight-performance drops emidiatly &gt;&gt; dogfightability drops to ZERO!
- a gread BnZ Plane in WW2 &gt;&gt; the A-Series do have a Zoomclimb of approximatly 1200m (on the deck, starting when topseed reached, WITHOUT stall-out) INCLUDING THE A9!!!
- a powerful armament &gt;&gt; CAl 0.50 a HMG is more effective than an CANNON (even at point blank range) deflection shooting is impossible.
A Spitfire with 2 Hispanos pack the same punch a a FW with 4!! 20mm.

so befor posting such bul**** you should try this bird on a FR server in 1944 or 43 vs. Spitfire, P47, P51, Yak3, La5FN/7.


http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To try FR server against mantioned birds? I would put developers in FW and laugh my *** out. I heard FW is Olegs favorite, Sir please give your love to spit, pony, la, p39...
It is obvious what love does in this game. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif

BBB_Hyperion
08-14-2004, 07:39 AM
<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 was always under the impression that the K4 was the climb king (eventhough its supposed to be overmodeled in climb now) so if its overmodeled in climb now, how is the spits climb vs. reality?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are from tests of the actual aircraft:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092322765_spitclimb109k4.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ith those numbers I would hate to see what a mk22s time to 10k in this game would be (5 minutes anyone?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mk 22 was actually a fair bit worse than the Spit IX.

The best Spit of all would be a IX or XVI at 25 lbs boost, followed by an VIII at 25 lbs boost, followed by the XIV at 18 or 21 lbs, followed by the IX at 18 lbs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you post the chart you used for K4 ? when there Stands o. MW50 means without MW50. ALso when there is a special note for Prop types its a high alt prop for testing purposes.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

hop2002
08-14-2004, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>- Mk IX 'BS 543' - the IXLF prototype with experimental airscrew type 'XH54D-RM-S5' (never serialised)
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps I should have used Bs 310 instead, which got 4850 ft/min?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>- the Mk VIII JF 275, climb tests were done with closed radiators which would artificially increase climb rate by about 700 fpm compared to the normal (standard measurement in Britain, as well as all others, was with open or semi-open radiators). Radiators were fully automatic in the MkVIII/IX, and were open during climb, with no ability of the pilot to manually close them down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How are radiators open on climb if they're fully automatic? They will open and close depending on temperature. That means they're likely to be open part of the climb, closed part of the climb.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The performance of JL 165 is apprx. correct for a tropicalised MkIX at +18lbs. It should be noted that in mid-44 +25lbs was cleared for the MkIXs as well, giving them 5080 fpm intial climb rate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb rate was 5080 ft/min for JL 165, which was much slower than other Spit IXs tested, by around 15 - 20 mph. It had already been used by RR for trials, and had achieved much better figures some months earlier, some 300 ft/min more.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Neither test has any relevance to the MkVIII`s/MkIX`s typical climb performance under the normal conditions, they are choosen by Hop as they present - atypical - performances that suits his mindset 'Spitfire is best in everything'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're the most accurate I know.

JL 165, which you use, was far slower than comparable Spitfires. It had a far worse climb rate at low altitude than the high alt Merlin 70 HF IXs.

Isegrim, you are simply using the worst Spitfire performance data you can find.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Just for the record, K-4 figures are with typical 1/2-1/3 open radiators (220mm open). It was possible to close them for reduced drag, and much increased climb rate (it can be expected to gain more than Spits, as the radiators are quite different from those) though with decreased cooling performance (sustainable for short periods, though).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could the 109 climb from 2000ft to 32000ft with it's radiators closed at 1.98 ata? If not, it's closed setting is not the same as th Spits.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Here`s a better comparison of sustain ROC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better?

Here is the Spit IX Isegrim is using for his comparison, in RED:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1082729993_spitixspeeds4.gif

As you can see, it is far far slower than other tested Spits. It's performance compares to a Spit IX with the old pattern tropical intake, although it's much worse even than that.

Here is a Spit VIII, which had a worse climb rate than the IX because it was heavier:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html

4600 ft/min, and that's a serial production aircraft delivered to Australia. It's also got the original tropicall equipment, which hurts it's speed a fair bit, it's climb a little.

That's a serial Spit, Isegrim, unlike Jl 165 which had been used for various engine trials it's whole life, and which had been performing much better a few months earlier.

hop2002
08-14-2004, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Can you post the chart you used for K4 ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim has it. It's for climb at 1.98 ata with MW 50.

Look at Isegrim's chart. As you can see, he's using the worst possible figures he can find for the Spit IX, which should tell you something about the figures he's using for K4 (ie the best he can find)

Kurfurst__
08-14-2004, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:Perhaps I should have used Bs 310 instead, which got 4850 ft/min?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, Hop, whatever Spitfire data you can find that only exists in your own imagination. Sure, use BS 310 - post it, _along with the conditions_. I can add it to the chart as well.

(don`t hold your breath, Hop never posts anything to support his statements)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
How are radiators open on climb if they're fully automatic? They will open and close depending on temperature. That means they're likely to be open part of the climb, closed part of the climb.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes of course, Hop; everything is possible in your vivid imagination when it comes to Spitfires.

Still, I have to point out the fact that British themselves are disagreeing with you for some odd reason, listing sutstained climbs on Spit test with Open radiators as a rule.

Quite naturally, since in climb there`s less airflow through the radiators, and the flaps need to be opened to maintain the same cooling capacity.

Of course if you want to compare atypical closed rads spits on climb vs. open rad K-4s, that only tells about the amount of bias you have.

We should compare like with the like, open rads vs. open rads, and that`s what I did.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The performance of JL 165 is apprx. correct for a tropicalised MkIX at +18lbs. It should be noted that in mid-44 +25lbs was cleared for the MkIXs as well, giving them 5080 fpm intial climb rate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Climb rate was 5080 ft/min for JL 165, which was much slower than other Spit IXs tested, by around 15 - 20 mph. It had already been used by RR for trials, and had achieved much better figures some months earlier, some 300 ft/min more.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How sad and deeply moving story Hop. You should write dramas.

The 'normal Spitfire IX LF' JL 165 is slower than the Spitfire PROTOTYPES WITH EXPERIMENTAL AIRSCREWS which Hop is desperate to sell here?

How surprising, a serially produced plane is slower than a never-to-see-action prototype...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
They're the most accurate I know.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The simple fact is that you are feeding people with data obtained on atypical prototypes to push forward your little Spitfire-best-in-everything crusade.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
JL 165, which you use, was far slower than comparable Spitfires. It had a far worse climb rate at low altitude than the high alt Merlin 70 HF IXs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it still shows a 'normal spitifre IX LF' as the record says, with no external troubles and the typical boost and typical configuration of tropical filters.

You only cannot accept the fact posted in that report because they don`t fit the 'Spitfire is always better than anything in everything' mindset of yours.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Isegrim, you are simply using the worst Spitfire performance data you can find.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that`s the only data me, and also what you know about a serial production Spitfire IX LF. You choose to ignore it, because it`s worser than the prototypes. That`s sad but true. Worser than the K-4? Sad but true, also.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Could the 109 climb from 2000ft to 32000ft with it's radiators closed at 1.98 ata? If not, it's closed setting is not the same as th Spits.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it could at Schnellflugstellung, little doubt about that.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Better?

Here is the Spit IX Isegrim is using for his comparison, in RED:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1082729993_spitixspeeds4.gif

As you can see, it is far far slower than other tested Spits. It's performance compares to a Spit IX with the old pattern tropical intake, although it's much worse even than that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Far slower than what other Spitfires? Slower than two prototypes that never saw service? How surprising is that, really! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Old pattern intake, Hop?

You always has to be very vigilant with Hop`s statements and always cross-check it with the actual facts.

Compare with what the JL 165 report says :

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

......2.1. General. The aircraft was a normal Spitfire F.Mk.IX. The following were the chief external features:-
Two 20 mm. Hispano guns with sealed muzzles.
Two 20 mm. gun stubs with hemispherical fairings.
Four .303" Browning guns, ports sealed. Ejection chutes sealed.
Internal bullet-proof windscreen.
Circular rear view mirror, with hemispherical fairing.
Multi-ejector exhaust manifolds.
Aerial mast.
----&gt;&gt; New tropical pattern air intake without gauze, but blanking plate installed. &lt;&lt;----
No ice guard fitted in air intake.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

JL 165 got the latest tropical intake the Brits had at that time.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Here is a Spit VIII, which had a worse climb rate than the IX because it was heavier:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html

4600 ft/min, and that's a serial production aircraft delivered to Australia. It's also got the original tropicall equipment, which hurts it's speed a fair bit, it's climb a little.
That's a serial Spit, Isegrim, unlike Jl 165 which had been used for various engine trials it's whole life, and which had been performing much better a few months earlier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well later I can add that Mk VIII to the curve just as well when I have time. It still won`t please Hop, though, `cos it still can`t outperform the K-4.

Now, since JL 165 is the only serially built and tested Mk LF IX we know, that is what I will use for comparison, along with JF934 for the MkVIIIs. You can try fooling people with the prototypes, but I`ll be there, too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You should be thankful though I didn`t post two-staged K-4 ROC figures, as it holds no relevance to the tests Robban made.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

p1ngu666
08-14-2004, 12:23 PM
(don`t hold your breath, Hop never posts anything to support his statements)

erm, he does?

and, i think the forum would agree, u tend to push the 109 as better than everything http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

only figures i can add are a mk24, griffon git to 30,000ft in 9mins
spity mk1 too 16.5mins.
rate of climb and power nearly doubled http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gifps u need obscure and odd, hardly readable graphs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

dadada1
08-14-2004, 12:48 PM
Robban thanks for the climb tests, very interesting. Thanks.

hop2002
08-14-2004, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sure, Hop, whatever Spitfire data you can find that only exists in your own imagination.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Australian test of a production Spitfire VIII, with old pattern tropical intake, shipped to Australia as one of a batch for squadron service.

ie, a typical production plane.

Merlin 66, normal span wings.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092510779_spitviiiclimb.jpg

Climb rate is 4600 ft/min.

The Spitfire VIII had mainly internal airframe improvements, extra internal fuel tanks, and a retracting tailwheel. It weighed about 200 lbs more than the Spit IX, so climb was slightly worse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How sad and deeply moving story Hop. You should write dramas.

The 'normal Spitfire IX LF' JL 165 is slower than the Spitfire PROTOTYPES WITH EXPERIMENTAL AIRSCREWS which Hop is desperate to sell here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's slower than any comparable tested Spit.

Any of them.

Isegrim is trying to make out that the prop on BS 543 added about 20 mph at all altitudes, and at the same time increased climb rate by about 500 ft/min.

He's never come up with an explanation why this magic prop wasn't used, though.

He's either being silly, or he's in what Americans would call "denial"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well that`s the only data me, and also what you know about a serial production Spitfire IX LF. You choose to ignore it, because it`s worser than the prototypes. That`s sad but true. Worser than the K-4? Sad but true, also.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, look at the data on the Aussie climb chart. As you can see, it's about on par with the K4 at 1.98, and the K4 at 1.8 ata is much worser.

Fancy that, a standard 1943 production Spit VIII beating the climb rate of the K4 up until March 1945. And what happens when you add 150 octane fuel to the Spit, which many did in 1944?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Old pattern intake, Hop?

You always has to be very vigilant with Hop`s statements and always cross-check it with the actual facts.

Compare with what the JL 165 report says :

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

......2.1. General. The aircraft was a normal Spitfire F.Mk.IX. The following were the chief external features:-
Two 20 mm. Hispano guns with sealed muzzles.
Two 20 mm. gun stubs with hemispherical fairings.
Four .303" Browning guns, ports sealed. Ejection chutes sealed.
Internal bullet-proof windscreen.
Circular rear view mirror, with hemispherical fairing.
Multi-ejector exhaust manifolds.
Aerial mast.
----&gt;&gt; New tropical pattern air intake without gauze, but blanking plate installed. &lt;&lt;----
No ice guard fitted in air intake.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

JL 165 got the latest tropical intake the Brits had at that time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, because English isn't your first languauge, I won't attack you. You should not attack other people when the fault is with your comprehension of a foreign language, though.

What I said was:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As you can see, it is far far slower than other tested Spits. It's performance compares to a Spit IX with the old pattern tropical intake, although it's much worse even than that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't saying JL 165 had the old pattern tropical intake. The tropical intake didn't affect climb that much, or speed at lower altitudes, because it's main problem was that it interfered with RAM, which has much less effect at low alts and at climb speed.

I was saying the speed of JL 165 was comparable with an old type tropical intake, actually even worse.

JL 165 was a tired aircraft that had been built as a Mk 5 with Merlin 45, recieved a special Merlin 66 for testing of the SU fuel pump, was then used by RR for trials at 25 lbs, and then was passed to A&AEE for trials at 25 lbs. It had performed much better at RR before it was passed to A&AEE. It was a tired test machine, not the "serial production" aircraft you like to make it out to be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well later I can add that Mk VIII to the curve just as well when I have time. It still won`t please Hop, though, `cos it still can`t outperform the K-4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By my reckoning, it will handily outclimb the K4 at 1.8 ata, which is a rating the K4 was finally allowed to use almost 2 years after the Spit VIII came out, and it will outclimb the K4 at 1.98 ata at high altitudes.

Perhaps you can make a "mistake" on your chart again?

p1ngu666
08-14-2004, 02:09 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Hoarmurath
08-14-2004, 02:10 PM
for information :

http://img67.exs.cx/img67/1544/d9climb_1.jpg

http://img21.exs.cx/img21/4438/d9climb_2.jpg

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sigus.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hoarmurath
08-14-2004, 02:17 PM
for information :

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sigus.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TX-EcoDragon
08-14-2004, 05:06 PM
How was Vy determined for each aircraft at each altitude? I see no mention of IAS. Did you just look at the VSI going for the maximal value or use the same speed for each aircraft or what?

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Stop by our OC3 (and now OC192)servers on HL at: 69.56.198.2

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

Northern California Aerobatic Club
http://www.iac38.org/

First Slot Pilot Aircraft #4 of the Virtual Haute-Voltige Team
http://www.vhvt.com/

Learn to fly, learn aerobatics, learn to fly a tailwheel at LVK.
http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
08-14-2004, 05:22 PM
Someone know the drag value for etc 504 fitted on that dora ? Looks like the Bombrack only influences the Climbrate very little .

Also try to get to 12 k with 235 km/h ias .)

Finaly some Charts show up about time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

robban75
08-14-2004, 06:24 PM
Those climbtimes can be found here aswell http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/steigleistungen.htm

Here's a climb comparison(with MW50)between a real Fw 190D-9 and an FB Fw 190D-9 http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartD-9%20real+FB.JPG

Big differences, but the time to 5000m is the same for both.
http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

Cajun76
08-14-2004, 06:58 PM
One of the weirdest things I see is the P-47.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
P-47D-27

3000 - start timer
4000 - :54 -(18.5)
5000 - 1:54 - (16.7)
6000 - 2:52 - (17.2)
7000 - 4:05 - (13.7)
8000 - 5:33 - (11.4) Overheat warning
9000 - 7:26 - (8.8)
10000 - 9:52 - (6.8) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gaining a tiny bit of ROC at 6000m, but dropping way down at 7000m. Wouldn't the auto turbo-supercharger maintain a relitively linear drop in ROC, up to a certain piont? The only other a/c that has a drop of this sort is the Spit MkIXc. For the P-47, the rate of change is:

3000 - start timer
4000 - :54 -(18.5) 0
5000 - 1:54 - (16.7) -1.8
6000 - 2:52 - (17.2) +0.5
7000 - 4:05 - (13.7) -3.5
8000 - 5:33 - (11.4) -2.3 Overheat warning
9000 - 7:26 - (8.8) -2.6
10000 - 9:52 - (6.8) -2.0

I expect a drop in ROC, no problem, and we all know that near 10,000m and above there's problems with the game engine, but this just dosen't make much sense to me.

Btw, I apprieciate the time and effort that goes into a project of this sort. Thank you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif One note: The P-47 in game dosen't have auto rads. Just degrees of fully open or closed, like early Fw.

Good hunting,
(56th)*Cajun76
http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/p47nh.jpg
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory and a mime school. Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson

LEXX_Luthor
08-14-2004, 07:12 PM
I'm calm now.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In a constant environment like a computer flight sim it's perfectly ok to pick the better result.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Flight simmers are non constant, they are variable.

The use of "best number" may hide problems in the testing procedure. A best number may not be repeatable by either another simmer or yourself. Average of tests are more repeatable.

I hope Oleg ignores FM testing made by flight simmers with the possible exceptions of a very few here. mmm

Fw-190D-9
08-14-2004, 11:47 PM
Robban, pardon my ignorance, but from looking at that chart, which has the better performance, the FB Dora or the Real Dora?

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-15-2004, 02:04 AM
AFAIK ETC should influence climb rate not much.
The drag is there, but drag increases with increase of the speed(but much more than speed), at low speed the drag should be considerable smaller than at high-speed, and therefor the climb should be influenced only little, when climbing with 260kph or euqal low speed.

But well i do not have studied aerodynamics...

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/FB/Screens/Fw%20190A-4guns.JPG (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665)

NN_EnigmuS
08-15-2004, 03:42 AM
climb rate of ta152h must be the same as D9 but better than it with altitude lol

i m worried by the climb rate of spit at high altitude and manouevrability(spit9Hf with no enlarged wings like it was easily kill a Ta152H lol)

the d9 climb rate at high ltitude seems wrong vs real data as many plane in this game lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

NN_EnigmuS
08-15-2004, 03:44 AM
but d9 climb rate at low altitude must be better hehe

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

robban75
08-15-2004, 04:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MS_Fw190D9:
Robban, pardon my ignorance, but from looking at that chart, which has the better performance, the FB Dora or the Real Dora?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From ground and up to 4000m the RL D-9 appears to have the best climb performance. Above that I would guess that the FB D-9 is overmodelled by a couple of m/sec. However the RL climbtests were done with the ETC 504 bombrack, and the ones in FB are without, so how much overmodelled is hard to say.

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

dadada1
08-15-2004, 09:51 AM
The Ta 152 should reach 7000m in about 8 mins from the ground, it should get to 10,000 in 11.5 minutes. I'm going to test this because I'm not sure it'll reach 10,000 in that time with the overheat limits we have. Would you have a go at this to Robban ?

robban75
08-15-2004, 10:16 AM
I'll give it a go, but I'll have to switch of the OH, otherwise the Jumo will fry before it reaches 8000m.

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

robban75
08-15-2004, 10:56 AM
And here it is!

1000 - :43 - (23.3)
2000 - 1:29 - (21.7)
3000 - 2:33 - (18.5)
4000 - 3:07 - (22.7)
5000 - 3:56 - (20.4)
6000 - 4:52 - (17.9)
7000 - 6:01 - (14.5)
8000 - 7:14 - (13.7)
9000 - 8:30 - (13.2)
10000 - 10:08 - (10.2)

It's quite obvious that the Ta 152 is overmodelled in climb, especially at the lower alts. This test was done with full fuel, but the times more resembles a climb with 25%-35% fuel.

What is also interesting is that without OH, the Ta climbs somewhat better at the higher alts.

What do you think dadada1? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

Diablo310th
08-15-2004, 12:02 PM
Robban.......have you documented all this info and sent to Oleg as per the thread over dive accelerations thread? It would be great to get a response back from Oleg on the climb rates such as the one he sent back concerning dive acceleration.

http://img54.photobucket.com/albums/v166/310thDiablo/DiabloSig.gif

Kurfurst__
08-15-2004, 12:10 PM
A picture worths a thousend words!

Just took a bit of time and I compared his new pet Mk VIII which he posted vs. other Spitfires tested. It came to little surprise that Hop appearantly picked another questionable test report to serve the Holy Agenda. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/ROCAussieMkVIIIvsothers.jpg

In his eternal stalwart struggle against reality, Hop always triumphs ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Too bad this chart is too big to make a new SIG for me, hehe. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

dadada1
08-15-2004, 01:01 PM
Thanks robban, its interesting that you had to switch off the overheat (I still believe OH incorrect for TA).

Yes it appears the TA is overmodelled at lower altitude rather than where it should start to pull away from it's contempories and perform at it's best. The thing I find in combat is that the TA down low is a reasonably good climber, and I have little trouble dealing with most types of allied fighters. It's really only the LA 5FN and La 7 that can cause problems low, which you'd expect.

It's at altitude that the OH seems to degrade it's performance where others are not not penalized. I don't think it's as overmodelled as say the La 7 in climb (no OH issues), and probably in proportion to the rest of the sim.

Appreciate the work robban.

biggs222
08-15-2004, 01:34 PM
nt

hop2002
08-15-2004, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A picture worths a thousend words!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It certainly is.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092510779_spitviiiclimb.jpg

This is a seerial production Spit VIII with Merlin 66. It was built and shipped out to Australia, and tested by the Australians to establish the performance of the new Spit VIIIs they were getting.

Isegrim doesn't like this data either, like he doesn't like the data on Bs 543, but that's Isegrim's problem. He just doesn't like any data that shows a Spit outperforming a 109, especially the K4.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Just took a bit of time and I compared his new pet Mk VIII which he posted vs. other Spitfires tested. It came to little surprise that Hop appearantly picked another questionable test report to serve the Holy Agenda. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Another questionable test report".

Every test report that shows a Spitfire outperforming a 109 is questionable, according to Isegrim.

HE put the worst possible Spit IX on his charts with the 109K4. He claimed he chose it because it was a "serial production" machine, despite the fact it had been built as a Spit V, had at least two engine changes, and was used by RR as a test and development aircraft before A&AEE got their hands on it.

Now I've shown him test data on a true production machine, shipped out to see service in Australia, and tested by the Aussies to establish the performance of their new Spits.

And Isegrim rejects this data as well, because it doesn't show what he wants it to show.

How is anyone to take you seriously, Isegrim, when you reject all data that doesn't meet your preconceptions?

On his little caption, he claims this Spit VIII outclimbs BS 543. Of course, that's only at some altitudes, because BS 543 (another set of data Isegrim rejects) achieved 4,700 ft/min, this Spit VII a max of 4600 ft/min.

At high altitudes, the Aussie Spit VIII had a marginally higher rate of climb, 2160 ft/min at 30K, compared to 2120 ft/min for BS 543. But as Isegrim always points out, BS 543 had an experimental prop. Isegrim of course assumes that this prop was much better than standard, but if that had been the case, the RAF would have adopted it.

Experimental props were nearly always rejected as offering no advantages, or a reduction in performance. Whilst Isegrim has been happy to believe that the experimental prop could add 500 ft/min to the climb rate, and 20 mph to the speed, he finds it impossible to believe it could reduce the climb rate by around 100 ft/min.

He says it outclimbs BS 310 with high alt Merlin 70 and high altitudes, but ignores the fact that it doesn't outclimb BS 551 with Merlin 70 at high alts (indeed at 30,000ft this Spit VIII climbs at 2160 ft/min, Bs 551 at 2600 ft/min http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html

Presumably this is yet another test we're supposed to ignore.

He says it outclimbed the Spit XIV at altitude, but at 30,000ft the Spit XIV achieved 2390 ft/min, another production machine tested in 1946 at the same power achieved 2350 ft/min, this Aussie Spit VIII achieved 2160 ft/min.

As with all Isegrim figures, it all makes sense if you ignore every test that doesn't say what you want it to, and only include the ones that do.

I never thought he'd put the Aussie Spit VIII test on his graph with the 109K4, for the same reason he won't put the Spit XIV on there either.

BBB_Hyperion
08-15-2004, 05:45 PM
Were this australian tests done on ISA or calculated to ISA ?

We dont know much from the test conditions.
Airpressure , Temp is missing thats why i wouldnt take this chart too serious.

Experimental Props can increase or decrease performance for climb, speed at alt etc depends on the testing type.

Here a example of such kind have been posted here a while ago.
Did you use these Data for K4 performance ?

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/109kclimb.jpg

Main Problem is the reliable usefull Data.I found something where spit xiv outclimbs k4 over 6000 m under that they are pretty close about 1 m/s difference. But wouldnt claim that the estimated performance is reliable for both.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

hop2002
08-15-2004, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Were this australian tests done on ISA or calculated to ISA ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Calculated to ISA, I should think. It's hard to "find" standard atmosphere, because temperature varies so much with height.

Standard practice everywhere was to test and adjust the results to standard atmos.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We dont know much from the test conditions.
Airpressure , Temp is missing thats why i wouldnt take this chart too serious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It says at the top of the chart standard atmosphere.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Experimental Props can increase or decrease performance for climb, speed at alt etc depends on the testing type.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Isegrim has been claiming all along the experimental prop on the Spit IX gave it a huge boost, now we have an Aussie Spit VIII that did somewhat better, but he can't accept the experimental prop on the Spit IX might have made things worse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Here a example of such kind have been posted here a while ago.
Did you use these Data for K4 performance ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That data is used for the 1.8 ata line on my climb chart. The 1.98 ata setting produced a somewhat higher rate of climb, adding about 3 m/s sec at low altitude.

Kurfurst__
08-16-2004, 06:32 AM
<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>A picture worths a thousend words!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It certainly is.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092510779_spitviiiclimb.jpg

This is a seerial production Spit VIII with Merlin 66. It was built and shipped out to Australia, and tested by the Australians to establish the performance of the new Spit VIIIs they were getting.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, since we had made Hop to admit it was a production aircraft, and he is willing to accept that as a real one, it`s time to let him admit JL 165 wasn`t exactly 'slower than all other that were tested'.

Here`s the speed curve for this same Mk VIII:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jf934level.jpg

The maximum speed achieved at FTH was 391 mph at 18 500 ft. As Hop admits as well.

Yet he claims JL 165, that developed 389mph, was "underperforming".

JL 165, "a standard Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 engine"*, which Hop claims to be extraordinary slow, worst performer, the sorriest Spit, the worst Spit anything but that to choose, which according to him, had at least six engine changes, ten airframe overhauls and has to care for six hungry children etc. etc. etc., well, this aircraft had

a maximum speed achieved at FTH was 389 mph at 19 500 ft.. :

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165speed.gif

A whole 2 mph slower than Hop`s Mk VIII which he seems to accept as being an authentic Spitfire performance. Despite the fact the MkVIII had a retractable tailwheel, the MkIX didn`t have.
Appearantly, JL 165 wasn`t a bad performer at all. Among Spitfires, of course. The 109F-4 could do 416mph a year before the IX LF appeared, 109Gs were a bit faster than the F at altitude, and the K-4 did some 452mph, 63mph or 100 km/h faster than the MkIXs it faced.

Appearantly, speed differences between the 109K-4 and MkIX LF was at the magnitude as that of between the ME 262 and psiton engined fighters.

No wonder Hop is desperate. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



*
"..................Performance trials and a brief assessment of handling characteristics have been completed on a standard Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 engine, adjusted for maximum boost of +25 lb/sq.inch. 150 grade fuel to Specification RDE/F/253 was used through all tests. "



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Isegrim doesn't like this data either, like he doesn't like the data on Bs 543, but that's Isegrim's problem.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire IX BS. 543 = Prototype with experimental airscrew.

From BS 543 report:

..."It is a matter of interest that at sea level, Spitfire BS.354 with the RM-9SM engine, although nominally develping 50 B.H.P. more power than the Merlin 66 engines BS.543, is 7 m.p.h. slower, indicating either that the nominal powers were not realized and/or that there was a considerable difference between the drags of the two aircraft.

The powers of the RM-9SM and the Merlin 66 engines in F.S. gear should be identical, since the high speed supercharger gear ratio is the same. It will be seen that on the climb, the performance and boost pressures were similar, within the limits of experimental error, but in level flight above the full throttle height the Merlin 66 engine was developing about 1 lb/sq.inch higher boost pressure than the 9 SM engine, with a consequent higher full throttle height and improved performance. "


Hop suggest we accept a test report done on prototype, with experimental aircrew, with an engine developing +1lbs higher boost than normal, as an example of serial MkIXLF performance, even though if we have exact examples of the latter. Curiously enough, no other MkIX tested later could match the performance of the prototype.

Those should be ignored, the prototype data should be used, says Hop.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He just doesn't like any data that shows a Spit outperforming a 109, especially the K4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif Hop is really fixated on this Spitfire Supreme thing.


Well I have no problem with the Austrian data, really. Of course, it contains 'slightly unrealistic' dataset, ie. the heavier MkVIII is supposed to outclimb the lighter Mk IX with the same engine, it is supposed to climb with the lighter MKIX HF with a more powerful engine, or with the MkXIV with an even more powerful engine...

Zealots go there, thinkers come here.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"Another questionable test report".

Every test report that shows a Spitfire outperforming a 109 is questionable, according to Isegrim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Just look at Hop`s fixation on the "Spitfire outperforming a 109". He`s truly maniac about this (but you are wrong if you think it`s just vs. the 109. It`s against anything. I have seen Hop argueing with Americans on 14 pages about the Spitfire outdiving US planes, I have seen him arguing the Spit having the most suprame supercharger of the world, I have seen him arguing the Spit having the best wings on earth, I have seen him arguing the Spit was the longest ranged thing in the air, I have seen him arguing the Spit was the most heavily armed fighter of the war, I have seen him arguing just about anything, the only thing unchanged in his mind, that the Spit is better, in everything.)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
HE put the worst possible Spit IX on his charts with the 109K4. He claimed he chose it because it was a "serial production" machine, despite the fact it had been built as a Spit V, had at least two engine changes, and was used by RR as a test and development aircraft before A&AEE got their hands on it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unlike Hop, creators of the report on that Spit IX tended to believe nothing was especial about that Spit:

""..................Performance trials and a brief assessment of handling characteristics have been completed on a standard Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 engine, adjusted for maximum boost of +25 lb/sq.inch. 150 grade fuel to Specification RDE/F/253 was used through all tests. "



Now I've shown him test data on a true production machine, shipped out to see service in Australia, and tested by the Aussies to establish the performance of their new Spits.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
And Isegrim rejects this data as well, because it doesn't show what he wants it to show.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When Hop starts to loose, he gets desperete.
When Hop gets desperate, he starts to lie.

He says I rejected that report, yet nowhere there is a trace of that.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
How is anyone to take you seriously, Isegrim, when you reject all data that doesn't meet your preconceptions?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When Hop starts to loose, he gets desperete.
When Hop gets desperate, he starts to lie.

He enters a classic strawman arguement. He claims in the first place I doesn`t accept any data. Then he claims, since I don`t accept any data, then I am preconceptial, and people won`t take me seriously.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.


Appearantly Hop doesn`t believes 100% people won`t take me seriously, unless he tries to make them believe so with the above tricks. But then again, if Hop is right, why does he need such tricks to prove his point ?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
On his little caption, he claims this Spit VIII outclimbs BS 543. Of course, that's only at some altitudes, because BS 543 (another set of data Isegrim rejects) achieved 4,700 ft/min, this Spit VII a max of 4600 ft/min.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When Hop starts to loose, he gets desperete.
When Hop gets desperate, he starts to lie.

What I said: "... Hop`s new hand-picked Spit somehow easily outclimbs the some 300lbs lighter BS 543 with the same engine at altitude..."

Familiar?

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.



"only at some altitudes" = All the way up from ~3500m up to 13500m by up to 2.5-3m/sec. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Despite the Mk VIII weighted some 7700 lbs vs. 7400lbs on the Mk IX LF, and had the SAME Merlin 66 engine...

That`s logical though, Hop tries to make us believe (before he said :"it weighted about 200lbs more than the Mk IX, so climb was somewhat worse").


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
At high altitudes, the Aussie Spit VIII had a marginally higher rate of climb, 2160 ft/min at 30K, compared to 2120 ft/min for BS 543.[QUOTE]

Which isn`t any suspicious to Hop, even before that he said:

"it weighted about 200lbs more than the Mk IX, so climb was somewhat worse"

My experience with Hop is that he constantly changes his standpoint as it fits his momentary needs.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by hop2002:

But as Isegrim always points out, BS 543 had an experimental prop. Isegrim of course assumes that this prop was much better than standard, but if that had been the case, the RAF would have adopted it.
Experimental props were nearly always rejected as offering no advantages, or a reduction in performance. Whilst Isegrim has been happy to believe that the experimental prop could add 500 ft/min to the climb rate, and 20 mph to the speed, he finds it impossible to believe it could reduce the climb rate by around 100 ft/min.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When Hop starts to loose, he gets desperete.
When Hop gets desperate, he starts to lie.

Familiar?

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
He says it outclimbs BS 310 with high alt Merlin 70 and high altitudes, but ignores the fact that it doesn't outclimb BS 551 with Merlin 70 at high alts (indeed at 30,000ft this Spit VIII climbs at 2160 ft/min, Bs 551 at 2600 ft/min http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html

Presumably this is yet another test we're supposed to ignore.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


BS 551 = Mk IX HF prototype again. I don`t even have to comment on that, but the British have :

From BS 551 report :

"...Another point of note is that the performance of Spitfire IX BS.551, fitted with the improved high altitude Merlin 70 engine, has a lower ceiling by about 3000 feet than the standard Merlin 61 engined aircraft and subsequently the fall off in rate of climb and level speed is greater than would be anticipated. This rapid fall off is attributed to carburettor richness at altitude, and it is hoped that at a later date further tests with an adjusted carburettor may be made.


results from the BS 310 report I used:

"...It was stated in the report mentioned above that further tests were to be carried out with a modified carburettor setting as it was hoped to improve the performance of the Merlin 70 at altitude. It is understood that EN.524 incorporated this modification and a comparison of the two sets of results shows a considerable improvement has been made. The absolute ceiling is now about 2,500 feet higher than that obtained on BS.551, although the rate of climb below 37,000 ft. is less. "/i]


Some parts of the report are important, some are just so irrevelant to note, Hop believes.

So it`s a question of wheter it`s my data for the serially produced BS 310, or Hop`s data on the [i]prototype BS 551, which was ever since modified and the rate of climb below 37k ft was lessened.

Hop wants to use a prototype which by no means has the same configuration as the serial airplanes had.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
He says it outclimbed the Spit XIV at altitude, but at 30,000ft the Spit XIV achieved 2390 ft/min, another production machine tested in 1946 at the same power achieved 2350 ft/min, this Aussie Spit VIII achieved 2160 ft/min.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When Hop starts to loose, he gets desperete.
When Hop gets desperate, he starts to lie.

What I said: "...it can even climb with the latest Spitfire XIV at high altitude..."

Not that it`s not "it outclimbed the Spit XIV at altitude" as Hop claims.


Familiar?

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
As with all Isegrim figures, it all makes sense if you ignore every test that doesn't say what you want it to, and only include the ones that do.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Such as the ones Hop likes to use :

He chooses the use Spitfire prototypes, planes in experimental fuel pumps, that were never serialized, planes with experimental propellors, which were not serializerd, planes with caruburattor settings that were replaced by others ones in actual service.

These are ones Hop wants to present to us.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I never thought he'd put the Aussie Spit VIII test on his graph with the 109K4, for the same reason he won't put the Spit XIV on there either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frankly, I doubt you`d like to have the K-4s and MkXIV on the same charts, for reasons other people have pointed out before. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

p1ngu666
08-16-2004, 07:14 AM
wasnt the spit in question a tropical filter spit, hence slower topspeed

Just look at Hop`s fixation on the "Spitfire outperforming a 109". He`s truly maniac about this (but you are wrong if you think it`s just vs. the 109. It`s against anything. I have seen Hop argueing with Americans on 14 pages about the Spitfire outdiving US planes, I have seen him arguing the Spit having the most suprame supercharger of the world, I have seen him arguing the Spit having the best wings on earth, I have seen him arguing the Spit was the longest ranged thing in the air, I have seen him arguing the Spit was the most heavily armed fighter of the war, I have seen him arguing just about anything, the only thing unchanged in his mind, that the Spit is better, in everything.)

if u dived long enuff, thin wings means u went faster http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

PR spits had long range also http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif. also they could outrun most things in the air at the time. I read a pilot account, he sees 109's closing on him from behind, so he gives it more throttle and cruises away. he still had wep AND his 90gall (i think) slipper tank http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Kurfy, we've all seen u make dodgy stances, u thought p47M couldnt possibly do 475mph, and u rejected everyones evidence, producing none of your own.

AND ive NEVER met anyone who is a pro 109 as u.
im think im unlikely too in my entire life, and id say 90% certain i speak for most of the board on this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

1.98ata k4 is abit of a moot point aswell? march 45, end is close, naff all fuel (sidenote, imagine mr bush in german at that time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif) and dire quality 109's probably didnt help them get used.

PS, u are the master of discrediting tests, but everyone takes what u say with enuff salt to keep a american couch potato on his unknow quest to die a artery cloged death for a week or so http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Kurfurst__
08-16-2004, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
wasnt the spit in question a tropical filter spit, hence slower topspeed
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I believe so too, but that`s not the point.

The point is, Hop brought up the Australian MkVIII with tropical equipment. He says it`s fine. It does 391mph, compared to 389 mph on the JL 165 MkIX, with tropical equipment, which on the other hand, is 'not fine' as per Hop, and he says it`s massively slower than any other spit.

The trouble is, it does exactly as high speed as a Spit should do with tropical equipment. That was my point.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if u dived long enuff, thin wings means u went faster http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or at least that`s what Hop tells us. Hard to believe though, like it would all depend on 1% thinner wings..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>PR spits had long range also http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they did - they were unarmed and had a lot more fuel than fighter Spits. But what does this prove? PR 109s had long range, too. Fighter 109s had longer range than fighter Spits, though.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> also they could outrun most things in the air at the time. I read a pilot account, he sees 109's closing on him from behind, so he gives it more throttle and cruises away. he still had wep AND his 90gall (i think) slipper tank http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t doubt that either, usually they had the excellent Merlin 70, and as I said, were unarmed, and much cleaner than the normal ones. It undoubtaly made them faster than the armed interceptors that came for them, at least at high altitude. Though I doubt this would be true if we are speaking of a pressurized 109G-1 with GM-1, something that was meant exactly against PR Spits. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Kurfy, we've all seen u make dodgy stances, u thought p47M couldnt possibly do 475mph, and u rejected everyones evidence, producing none of your own.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess you mix me up with another forum member, I certainly can`t remember that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
AND ive NEVER met anyone who is a pro 109 as u.
im think im unlikely too in my entire life, and id say 90% certain i speak for most of the board on this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I am quite sure you met butch2k already. And there are others as well, far more knowladgable on the 109 then me. Even though I have more time for this now, and to work on my little site. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
1.98ata k4 is abit of a moot point aswell? march 45, end is close, naff all fuel (sidenote, imagine mr bush in german at that time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif) and dire quality 109's probably didnt help them get used.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not entirely conviced about that March 1945 thing anyway. I have seen references to 1.98ata already for early Dec 1944 as well, ie. the Motorenkarte on the DB/DC. BTW, it`s not quite correct the K-4 was the best climber, the G-10 was. It had the same engine and prop as the K-4, but was quite a bit lighter, at 3290 kg or so - I suppose this means about +1m/sec compared to the charts I have posted (K-6 is also at that charts I have, being +200kg to the K-4, and climbs -2m/sec worser).

Of course, the real life performance of the planes were different that the optimum - 1.98ata 109Ks were perhaps rare/late. MkXIV Spitfires were certainly very rare, less than the Me 262s around, actually. MkIX were not the mainstay of Spitfires until 1944 either. Mk VIII Spits never seen much of an action over Europe, most of them wend to the Med, and even more to the PTO, because they had longer range than the others. And so on. Real life was much less optimistic than what we have in the game, however we need to know how these planes performed for Robban`s test. That usually makes Hop mad. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
PS, u are the master of discrediting tests, but everyone takes what u say with enuff salt to keep a american couch potato on his unknow quest to die a artery cloged death for a week or so http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take it with a grain of salt, and think about it of course. My point was actually being about Hop`s ways: now he uses the Australian report (funny thing is that is a SAME report he desperately tried to descredit a week ago because it showed lower range than he wished for! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), but that report shows comparable performance to another report he doesn`t like (JL 165). And at the same time, this Aussie report also disproves his previous comments on how the mkVIII relates to the MkIX on climb performance, which fact he can only evade as long as he mispresents my words and uses a strawman arguement. He uses that November 1942 test of two MkIX prototypes, and conviniently keeps quit about those planes were in a condition that never applied to them in service... all why? Because the prototypes, of course, always show the best performance, and that`s what Hop needs to his private Spitfire Suprame Crusade.

I am quite certain people here have a lot more rational reason to doubt the truth in Mr. Hop2002`s statements than they do have to doubt mine.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

hop2002
08-16-2004, 11:07 AM
JL 165 was fitted with the "new type" tropical filter, which used blanking plates instead of filters.

That increased speed over the old tropical filter, so much so there was almost no difference between a Spit with the new tropical filter and one without any tropical filter.

JF 934 was fitted with the old style tropical filter, which greatly reduced maximum speed, with a greater effect the closer you got to FTH (in each gear)

Isegrim knows this, we went over it on the AH boards a few days ago, but he's desperate now, so he's trotting out the same argument again.

Here are more docs from the Aussie archives, showing the difference between the Spit VIII with and without tropical gear:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092089770_normalspitviii.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092089824_tropicalspitviii.jpg

As you can see, the normal Spit VIII had a speed in low gear of 379 mph, and 405 mph in high gear.

The tropical Spit VIII had a speed of 364 mph in low gear, 386 mph in high gear.

The old style tropical Spit VIII should be slower, JF 934 was. The new style tropical Spit shouldn't have been slower, JL 165 was. In fact, it was much much slower at lower alts than you would expect from even the old style tropical installation.

You can see for example that HF 934 did 330 mph at sea level, whilst JL 165 did less than 320, iirc.

Isegrim's just being silly again. Anything rather than face the fact the Spit could outclimb the 109K4.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>."It is a matter of interest that at sea level, Spitfire BS.354 with the RM-9SM engine, although nominally develping 50 B.H.P. more power than the Merlin 66 engines BS.543, is 7 m.p.h. slower, indicating either that the nominal powers were not realized and/or that there was a considerable difference between the drags of the two aircraft.

The powers of the RM-9SM and the Merlin 66 engines in F.S. gear should be identical, since the high speed supercharger gear ratio is the same. It will be seen that on the climb, the performance and boost pressures were similar, within the limits of experimental error, but in level flight above the full throttle height the Merlin 66 engine was developing about 1 lb/sq.inch higher boost pressure than the 9 SM engine, with a consequent higher full throttle height and improved performance. "<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the full test. Bs 551, the third aircraft on that test, had a Merlin 70, which provided less power at low altitudes, and still went faster than BS 354.

BS 354 had an experimental engine that was not put into production. And Isegrim wants to use it in performance comparisons?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hop suggest we accept a test report done on prototype, with experimental aircrew, with an engine developing +1lbs higher boost than normal, as an example of serial MkIXLF performance, even though if we have exact examples of the latter. Curiously enough, no other MkIX tested later could match the performance of the prototype.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Accept JF 934 then. Oh, sorry, you can't accept JF 934 either because it outclimbs the 109.

This is getting truly pathetic Isegrim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well I have no problem with the Austrian data, really. Of course, it contains 'slightly unrealistic' dataset, ie. the heavier MkVIII is supposed to outclimb the lighter Mk IX with the same engine, it is supposed to climb with the lighter MKIX HF with a more powerful engine, or with the MkXIV with an even more powerful engine...

Zealots go there, thinkers come here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See what I mean?

JF 934 climbed slightly worse than BS 543. We have to ignore Bs 543 because, according to Isegrim, it's not representitive.

We now have to ignore JF 934, for the simple reason it's too good.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He enters a classic strawman arguement.

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>posted by Isegrim
JL 165, "a standard Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 engine"*, which Hop claims to be extraordinary slow, worst performer, the sorriest Spit, the worst Spit anything but that to choose, which according to him, had at least six engine changes, ten airframe overhauls and has to care for six hungry children etc. etc. etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>posted by Isegrim
Just look at Hop`s fixation on the "Spitfire outperforming a 109". He`s truly maniac about this (but you are wrong if you think it`s just vs. the 109. It`s against anything. I have seen Hop argueing with Americans on 14 pages about the Spitfire outdiving US planes, I have seen him arguing the Spit having the most suprame supercharger of the world, I have seen him arguing the Spit having the best wings on earth, I have seen him arguing the Spit was the longest ranged thing in the air, I have seen him arguing the Spit was the most heavily armed fighter of the war, I have seen him arguing just about anything, the only thing unchanged in his mind, that the Spit is better, in everything.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be funny if it was't so sad.

Isegrim accuses me of a straw man argument in a post in which he claims I've said the Spit was the most heavily armed fighter in the war, had longer range than anything in the air, that JL 165 had 6 engine changes (I said 2), ten airframe overhauls (I didn't mention any).

All these are false, and are classic examples of a straw man argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yep, I believe so too, but that`s not the point.

The point is, Hop brought up the Australian MkVIII with tropical equipment. He says it`s fine. It does 391mph, compared to 389 mph on the JL 165 MkIX, with tropical equipment, which on the other hand, is 'not fine' as per Hop, and he says it`s massively slower than any other spit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, Jl 165 had the new style tropical filter. You know that, because you accused me of lying about it yesterday or the day before. Now you convenietly forget that wen trying to draw comparisons between Jl 165 and JF 934.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Take it with a grain of salt, and think about it of course. My point was actually being about Hop`s ways: now he uses the Australian report (funny thing is that is a SAME report he desperately tried to descredit a week ago because it showed lower range than he wished for!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Isegrim, it's you who tried to discredit it because it showed higher range than you wanted to accept.

You wanted to use a range summary published before range trials were carried. I wanted to use the test report.

Here are the figures for the range test, from the Australian archives:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1091830845_95bcropped.jpg

As you can see, at minimum speed you can reach 10 ampg in the Spit VIII.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-16-2004, 11:59 AM
just a side-note from me:

The P47 can climb from SL to 7k with overheat message straight from beginning, the engine will dy short after passing the 7K.

Radiator fully closed all the Time, overheated the engine down low (at LS) than went with the message in a verry slow climb: Take-off-Flaps and 170kph IAS, at 7,xk the engine failed, no damage before.

is this supposed to be like this ?

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/other%20Stuff/we%20rule%20your%20world3.jpg (http://www.hell-hounds.de)

p1ngu666
08-16-2004, 12:00 PM
oops, i got some facts wrong
heres the doc

http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/oopssorrykurfyXD.jpg

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

bazzaah2
08-16-2004, 12:23 PM
nice to see Isegrim back, even if he's using an alias.

Missed his sophistry http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about
twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be
anything up to eight hundred yards long.

KaRaYa-X
08-16-2004, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
oops, i got some facts wrong
heres the doc

http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/oopssorrykurfyXD.jpg

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice document pingu, but it doesn't say anything on what kind of Bf109 the pilot outclimbed. As this incident happened in early 1944 it could easily be the case that the encountered Bf109s were still Bf109G6 maybe even with gunpods (which were VERY often mounted on Bf109 aircraft at that stage of the war)...

Furthermore this Spitfire is a reconaissance version without armament, a higher max. speed and a better ROF than the pure fighter version


sorry to say

--= flying online as JG&lt;52Karaya-X =--

Kurfurst__
08-16-2004, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
JL 165 was fitted with the "new type" tropical filter, which used blanking plates instead of filters.

JF 934 was fitted with the old style tropical filter, which greatly reduced maximum speed, with a greater effect the closer you got to FTH (in each gear)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Says Hop.

Report says on condition of JF 934 :

a, "By passable Vokes air filter"

Same as on JL 165.

The report also says that at the time of test (turnover 30 Dec 43), the Mk VIII was brand new and fresh from the factory, surface condition very good.

JL 165 was tested at the same time, between 24th Nov 43 - 5th January 1944.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Isegrim knows this, we went over it on the AH boards a few days ago, but he's desperate now, so he's trotting out the same argument again.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop lies.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The old style tropical Spit VIII should be slower, JF 934 was.
The new style tropical Spit shouldn't have been slower, JL 165 was.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Claims w/o anything to back them up.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In fact, it was much much slower at lower alts than you would expect from even the old style tropical installation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Says Hop. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Isegrim's just being silly again. Anything rather than face the fact the Spit could outclimb the 109K4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop, nobody really cares if you want to believe that version.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>."It is a matter of interest that at sea level, Spitfire BS.354 with the RM-9SM engine, although nominally develping 50 B.H.P. more power than the Merlin 66 engines BS.543, is 7 m.p.h. slower, indicating either that the nominal powers were not realized and/or that there was a considerable difference between the drags of the two aircraft.

The powers of the RM-9SM and the Merlin 66 engines in F.S. gear should be identical, since the high speed supercharger gear ratio is the same. It will be seen that on the climb, the performance and boost pressures were similar, within the limits of experimental error, but in level flight above the full throttle height the Merlin 66 engine was developing about 1 lb/sq.inch higher boost pressure than the 9 SM engine, with a consequent higher full throttle height and improved performance. "<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the full test. Bs 551, the third aircraft on that test, had a Merlin 70, which provided less power at low altitudes, and still went faster than BS 354.

BS 354 had an experimental engine that was not put into production. And Isegrim wants to use it in performance comparisons? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I leave it without a comment, it`s just so nice to see another nice strawman arguement from Hop, while slipping along the details presented in the report he only wants to partly use.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Accept JF 934 then. Oh, sorry, you can't accept JF 934 either because it outclimbs the 109.

This is getting truly pathetic Isegrim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well I have no problem with the Austrian data, really. Of course, it contains 'slightly unrealistic' dataset, ie. the heavier MkVIII is supposed to outclimb the lighter Mk IX with the same engine, it is supposed to climb with the lighter MKIX HF with a more powerful engine, or with the MkXIV with an even more powerful engine...

Zealots go there, thinkers come here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See what I mean?

JF 934 climbed slightly worse than BS 543.

We have to ignore Bs 543 because, according to Isegrim, it's not representitive.
We now have to ignore JF 934, for the simple reason it's too good..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also known as Hop vs. Reality. Refer to the graph wheter JF 934 climbed worser than BS 543 or not.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/ROCAussieMkVIIIvsothers.jpg

Also known as Hop vs. Hop`s Previous statements, ie. what he said on the same just before:

"On his little caption, he claims this Spit VIII outclimbs BS 543. Of course, that's only at some altitudes, because BS 543 (another set of data Isegrim rejects) achieved 4,700 ft/min, this Spit VII a max of 4600 ft/min.
At high altitudes, the Aussie Spit VIII had a marginally higher rate of climb, 2160 ft/min at 30K, compared to 2120 ft/min for BS 543."

Now he says : JF 934 climbed slightly worse than BS 543.


Zealots go there, thinkers come here...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It would be funny if it was't so sad.

Isegrim accuses me of a straw man argument in a post in which he claims I've said the Spit was the most heavily armed fighter in the war, had longer range than anything in the air, that JL 165 had 6 engine changes (I said 2), ten airframe overhauls (I didn't mention any).

All these are false, and are classic examples of a straw man argument.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I was just making fun out of your blind zealotry. Other make fun of it, too, on other boards. Some Americans you argued over wheter the Spit-better-than-all subject actually referred to you as "Hop, the Fanatic Brit". IIRC one of them even made a funny Login name "Hop 3000", and was mimicing with posts your overboosted 'we brits are better in everything' style to the greater joy of the rest of the community, you excluded. I think he was called brokenclaw, and you really didn`t like him. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Isegrim, Jl 165 had the new style tropical filter. You know that, because you accused me of lying about it yesterday or the day before. Now you convenietly forget that wen trying to draw comparisons between Jl 165 and JF 934.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, Hop, you forgot to mention the part where JL 165 has the New Type Magic Air Filter With No Speed Loss At All..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
[QUOTE]Take it with a grain of salt, and think about it of course. My point was actually being about Hop`s ways: now he uses the Australian report (funny thing is that is a SAME report he desperately tried to descredit a week ago because it showed lower range than he wished for!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No Isegrim, it's you who tried to discredit it because it showed higher range than you wanted to accept. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes of course Hop, well let`s see, if one goes to the AH boards, what will he see?
Hop desperately pushing the 10 mpg value around alone in a thread, not anybody agreeing with him, not even the Spit fans at that board, not even Guppy, the guy who spent some 30 years on researching the Spit. Only you. (it was a histeric response to a thread solely about 109G range docs until Hop turned up. Hop worked himself up on that and wanted to prove the Spit is even better.)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Here are the figures for the range test, from the Australian archives:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1091830845_95bcropped.jpg
As you can see, at minimum speed you can reach 10 ampg in the Spit VIII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice. Here`s another one showing 740 miles range on internal 120 gallon fuel:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092089770_normalspitviii.jpg

Divide 740 miles with 120 gallon. You get 6.16 mpg mileage.Give it an allowance for 20 gallons, which is typical for reserve, and you get 7.4 mpg mileage.

Hop says it`s 10 mph, not any less, though.

The chart I showed put the Mk VIII`s range to just 740 miles as Hop`s own chart above :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109.jpg

Here`s another one stating far less mileage than the only one Hop wants to believe:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/182.jpg

He made pretty much noise about that page there, desperately trying to discredit it. He just couldn`t accept that 740 miles, he just couldn`t swallow it, he just could bear it..


"Also, the figures I've posted all state they are valid in standard atmosphere conditions. There is no note on what conditions the summary you would rather use is valid for, or whether it's based on tests, guess work, includes a large margin of error for safety, etc.

We have explicit tests under known conditions, we have a "brief summary" under unkown conditions, Isegrim chooses to rely on the latter.

I've just noticed that the figures Isegrim are relying on, in the "brief summary", are dated 24/10/43, the range tests that give higher figures are dated 28/03/44.

The figures Isegrim wants to use are not based on the tests, as they preceed the tests by many months. So not only don't we know the conditions they are relevant to (hot Australian conditions, perhaps, instead of standard atmosphere?), we have no idea if they are based on tests.

The doc in fact say wingspan is 40ft, which is the extended span, yet it claims it's fitted with a low altitude Merlin 66. "

BTW, to the last line, just note that Hop`s own pages he waves around, also show 40 feet wingspan just like the on he wished to discredit there.

Familiar? He does that ridiculus Spitfire better than anything mantra on every board.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Mon August 16 2004 at 11:45 AM.]

p1ngu666
08-16-2004, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
oops, i got some facts wrong
heres the doc

http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/oopssorrykurfyXD.jpg

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice document pingu, but it doesn't say anything on what kind of Bf109 the pilot outclimbed. As this incident happened in early 1944 it could easily be the case that the encountered Bf109s were still Bf109G6 maybe even with gunpods (which were VERY often mounted on Bf109 aircraft at that stage of the war)...

Furthermore this Spitfire is a reconaissance version without armament, a higher max. speed and a better ROF than the pure fighter version


sorry to say

--= flying online as JG&lt;52Karaya-X =--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

all true, just a interesting side note http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. not sure on the gunpods, for aircraft going after a recon, but it could happen

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

hop2002
08-16-2004, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Says Hop.

Report says on condition of JF 934 :

a, "By passable Vokes air filter"

Same as on JL 165. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Isegrim, there were several different types of filter. JF 934 didn't have a Volkes, it had the normal Spit VIII filter with a bypassable fliter element.

JL 165 had the same filter with blanking plates fitted.

Spitfire the History notes some tests with this new filter:

JL 163 had a max speed of 367 in ms gear with the old filter, 372 with the new, JF 767 went from 363 to 370.

JF 934 had a max speed in MS gear of 360 mph.

Regardless, JL 165, a test hack, is much slower at most altitudes, and has a much worse climb rate the JF 934.

If you managed to prove that JL 165 was slow because of it's tropical filter, what would that get you? How does that invalidate JF 934? What then of your claims to use a "serial production machine" when you have exactly that, JF 934, but continue to use JL 165, a development aircraft from RR passed on the A&EE after being used for various tests?

In the last few weeks, tests of a production Spit VIII have emerged which show a climb rate of 4600 ft/min, and you're trying to spin it into confirming JL 165's figures?

As I said before, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The report also says that at the time of test (turnover 30 Dec 43), the Mk VIII was brand new and fresh from the factory, surface condition very good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't say fresh from the factory, it was built much earlier, and spent a long time on a ship getting to Australia.

But yes, condition was as turned out by the factory.

Tell me, on Messerschmitts own tests and calculations on the 109K4, was the condition as found in a rough strip on the eastern front, or as maintained by Messerschmitt's factory crew?

Was it a "serial production plane"? What was the werknummer?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hop lies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Selective amnesia. I'm told it can happen after trauma, like finding out the Spit could outclimb the 109.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125882&pagenumber=2

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"On his little caption, he claims this Spit VIII outclimbs BS 543. Of course, that's only at some altitudes, because BS 543 (another set of data Isegrim rejects) achieved 4,700 ft/min, this Spit VII a max of 4600 ft/min.
At high altitudes, the Aussie Spit VIII had a marginally higher rate of climb, 2160 ft/min at 30K, compared to 2120 ft/min for BS 543."

Now he says : JF 934 climbed slightly worse than BS 543.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's see, Bs 543 did 4700 ft/min, JF 934 4600 ft/min. And apparantley I'm a liar for saying JF 934 was worse the BS 543.

Funny if it wasn't so sad.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hey, Hop, you forgot to mention the part where JL 165 has the New Type Magic Air Filter With No Speed Loss At All..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much less speed loss, certainly. It used blanking plates in the air intake, so when the air didn't need to be filtered, ie at most altitudes, the filter was completely bypassed, allowing virtually the same speed as the non-tropical Spit.

I gave you the 2 Spit VIIIs above that had their old filters changed to the new type, the speeds went up to 370 and 372 mph in MS gear. Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html

and you will see that JF 275 did 372 in MS gear.

That's exactly the same speed as BS 310 with Merlin 66, btw, and 10 mph faster than JL 165.

So we have 4 Merlin 66 engined planes with the new style tropical filter, or non tropical, all are 10 mph faster than JL 165 in MS gear.

Perhaps JL 165 didn't have the blanking plates at all? It still wouldn't explain the poor climb rate, or the speed at sea level. JL 165 was 12 mph slower at sea level than JF 934.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes of course Hop, well let`s see, if one goes to the AH boards, what will he see?
Hop desperately pushing the 10 mpg value around alone in a thread, not anybody agreeing with him, not even the Spit fans at that board, not even Guppy, the guy who spent some 30 years on researching the Spit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, nobody other than you doubted the validity of that test.

What everybody, including me, doubted, was the real world application. Only you wanted to accept that a cruising figure at 160 IAS was a valid range comparison, but you wanted to claim that because you had a 109 chart that showed it could achieve 9.1 IAS at 160 mph.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124164

For anyone who follows the link, I'm Nashwan on the AH boards.

The second thread Isegrim started on the subject is even funnier. For a start, it's where I pointed out he was using a straw man argument, and like a child with a new word, Isegrim will use it at every opportunity now. Secondly, he tries to prove the Spit has a 2100 mile range by ignoring things like starting the engine, warm up, climing, combat etc.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=126224

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Only you. (it was a histeric response to a thread solely about 109G range docs until Hop turned up. Hop worked himself up on that and wanted to prove the Spit is even better.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say anything of the sort, I merely posted the range chart of the Spitfire, to prove that it was indeed possible for the 109 to get 9.1 mpg.

9.1 and 10 mpg are interesting figures, but they're not significant, apart from ferrying. You don't cruise for hours over enemy territory at 160 mph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Here`s another one stating far less mileage than the only one Hop wants to believe:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you can see, Isegrim said on the very first part of his thread proving the 109 had a 1200 mile range:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I guess I share these range tables for the Bf 109G (G-2 to be exact), since there`s so many misunderstandings about that in the literature (most books state high-speed cruise ranges only). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone who's really ninterested in the range discussion should read the thread at AH, there's some good info in it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The doc in fact say wingspan is 40ft, which is the extended span, yet it claims it's fitted with a low altitude Merlin 66. "

BTW, to the last line, just note that Hop`s own pages he waves around, also show 40 feet wingspan just like the on he wished to discredit there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pages I have "waved around" show a 40 ft wingspan, which was fitted to high alt planes, an a Merlin 61 engined Spit VIII, some of which actually recieved the extended wings.

The doc Isegrim "waved around" gave figures for a Spit VIII with the high alt wings and the low alt engine, which were not fitted together.

Again, it's an interesting read at the AH board, and note I have posted the links to the threads, Isegrim gives you his version without wanting you to check the facts.

TX-EcoDragon
08-17-2004, 04:43 AM
I thought I asked this already, but, how can we talk about climbrates without a determination of Vy?? I only assume that there wasn't one since I haven't seen anything mentioned in regard to it, on the other hand, this data isn't correct unless it was determined and applied for the testing. I see lots of data and whatnot, but this critical component is missing. . . so. . . what values are being used for IAS in the climb for each aircraft, and how were these values determined?

If someone went through and determined this in each aircraft listed, in game, it would be great data to publish. . .or perhaps to keep secret ;-)

I did this for the P-39 Q-1 and 109 G6A/S back in early IL-2 days, but with every patch it changed so I ended up giving up.

So to the original poster, what value are you using? Is it the same one for each aircraft, or a manually calculated Vy?

If your point is simply that the ROC values are too high then that is one thing, but if you really want to determine the actual climb data in game, or relative climb performance, then this is another story.

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Stop by our OC3 (and now OC192)servers on HL at: 69.56.198.2

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

Northern California Aerobatic Club
http://www.iac38.org/

First Slot Pilot Aircraft #4 of the Virtual Haute-Voltige Team
http://www.vhvt.com/

Learn to fly, learn aerobatics, learn to fly a tailwheel at LVK.
http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

[This message was edited by TX-EcoDragon on Tue August 17 2004 at 03:55 AM.]

robban75
08-17-2004, 06:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
So to the original poster, what value are you using? Is it the same one for each aircraft, or a manually calculated Vy?

If your point is simply that the ROC values are too high then that is one thing, but if you really want to determine the actual climb data in game, or relative climb performance, then this is another story.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I use different climbspeeds for planes, the only one that I know is really correct is the one for the Fw 190 family, which is 280km/h. For the lighter planes I use 270km/h, I read somewhere that this was the best climbspeed for the 109, and this is the speed I use for all the VVS fighters and Spitfires. For the P-47 and Ta 152H I climb at 280-300km/h. The VVS fighters can still climb at 270-280km/h at very high altitudes, but the LW fighers and P-47 cannot. Climbspeed has little effect on how well the plane will climb, well, it does if use large variables in airspeed, but at speeds ranging from 260-300km/h the difference is minimal. Same goes for open/closed radiators. The make alot of difference when it comes to topspeeds of fighters, but little or nothing for climbtimes.

My aim is to see how well climbrates compare to real life data. Some planes are overmodelled, and some(read Fw 190A) are clearly undermodelled. I just want the climbrates to be as true to real life climbrates as possible. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

TX-EcoDragon
08-17-2004, 07:08 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by robban75:
My aim is to see how well climbrates compare to real life data. Some planes are overmodelled, and some(read Fw 190A) are clearly undermodelled. I just want the climbrates to be as true to real life climbrates as possible. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
QUOTE]

I agree, and to this end the speeds should be critical, as they are in the real world. In a perfect sim these climb rate values would not only be close to reality, but the speeds used to attain them would also be correct, and deviation from these speeds would not result in that climb rate being attainable. This is actually rather important in some aspects of the dogfight environment, as it is not relelvent if plane "A" climbs at 4,000 fpm while plane "B" climbs at 2,000 fpm if the flight is flown at a speed near Vy of plane "B" but perhaps well below Vy of plane "A". . . in this case, in a real world setting, plane "B" may very well outclimb the aircraft that has a higher book climb value.

I find this IS the case in the sim to some extent (though to a lesser extent in FB than in IL-2, sadly) and there are certainly airspeeds in the sim which turn the relative climb performances of various aircraft inside out when different speeds are used.

In any case, thanks for your reply. Those numbers for the 190s are within 50 kmh of what I had found, mine were faster.

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Stop by our OC3 (and now OC192)servers on HL at: 69.56.198.2

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

Northern California Aerobatic Club
http://www.iac38.org/

First Slot Pilot Aircraft #4 of the Virtual Haute-Voltige Team
http://www.vhvt.com/

Learn to fly, learn aerobatics, learn to fly a tailwheel at LVK.
http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

[This message was edited by TX-EcoDragon on Tue August 17 2004 at 03:40 PM.]

BigganD
08-19-2004, 04:30 PM
hop2002, spit should not be an better climber then the k4, and the spit is still abit to good. It turns at 8000meters on 160km/h like an g50 at low alt..

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann