PDA

View Full Version : IL2 FM



GregSM
03-21-2004, 12:11 PM
Hi,


At 110% power, radiator closed, I get around 440 KPH TAS at sea level for the IL2 M3. For the standard Type 3 model I get just around 410. Further testing I've done reveals that both models share the same climb to 5000 M: around 11 minuets at 100% power, radiator closed, default loadout, full pitch, full fuel. I cannot distinguish a difference in roll rates between the two. But shouldn't the extra weight and drag of the NS 37 pods degrade the M3's performance in relation to the standard Type 3?

Further, I'm unable to draw any distinction between the flight modeling of the standard Series 3 and the Series 3 Field Mod. However, according to the object viewer, while the standard Series 3 should make 433 KPS TAS at sea level, the two-seat Field Mod should make just 420. As well, the Field Mod version should not climb as well. Yet the tests I've done show that both models are able to go around 433 KPH TAS at sea level and that both are able to climb to 5000 M in around 8 1/2 minutes (full fuel, 100 percent pitch, radiator closed, 100 percent power, default loadout). Again, the two models seem to share the same roll rates.

Assuming the modeling is correct, I'm wondering if someone can say what modifications were made to the M3 and Type 3 Field Mod to achieve the performance as it stands.


Cheers,


Greg

[This message was edited by GregSM on Sun March 21 2004 at 12:35 PM.]

GregSM
03-21-2004, 12:11 PM
Hi,


At 110% power, radiator closed, I get around 440 KPH TAS at sea level for the IL2 M3. For the standard Type 3 model I get just around 410. Further testing I've done reveals that both models share the same climb to 5000 M: around 11 minuets at 100% power, radiator closed, default loadout, full pitch, full fuel. I cannot distinguish a difference in roll rates between the two. But shouldn't the extra weight and drag of the NS 37 pods degrade the M3's performance in relation to the standard Type 3?

Further, I'm unable to draw any distinction between the flight modeling of the standard Series 3 and the Series 3 Field Mod. However, according to the object viewer, while the standard Series 3 should make 433 KPS TAS at sea level, the two-seat Field Mod should make just 420. As well, the Field Mod version should not climb as well. Yet the tests I've done show that both models are able to go around 433 KPH TAS at sea level and that both are able to climb to 5000 M in around 8 1/2 minutes (full fuel, 100 percent pitch, radiator closed, 100 percent power, default loadout). Again, the two models seem to share the same roll rates.

Assuming the modeling is correct, I'm wondering if someone can say what modifications were made to the M3 and Type 3 Field Mod to achieve the performance as it stands.


Cheers,


Greg

[This message was edited by GregSM on Sun March 21 2004 at 12:35 PM.]

KG26_Alpha
03-22-2004, 02:48 AM
personally i agree theres some strange goings on with the M3, dont forget the spine shattering turn rates of the IL2 currently modelled, totally impossible for a heavily armoured fully laden aircraft to behave in such a manner.(IMHO)

GregSM
03-22-2004, 09:13 AM
"personally i agree theres some strange goings on with the M3, dont forget the spine shattering turn rates of the IL2 currently modelled, totally impossible for a heavily armoured fully laden aircraft to behave in such a manner.(IMHO)"


I don't know about its turn, but the IL2 looks like mostly wing to me. It's rather the impact of the NS 37 and the gunner station mod that interests me.


Cheers,


Greg

clint-ruin
03-22-2004, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GregSM:

I don't know about its turn, but the IL2 looks like mostly wing to me. It's rather the impact of the NS 37 and the gunner station mod that interests me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would be interested to see what FB is using for some of those Il-2 variants 'total weight'. The early-field mod version, as far as I know, had nothing done to it to accomodate the extra weight of another person + turret + 2x ShKAS. They just made a hole and stuck a guy in it.

The M3 variant .. as far as I know the NS-37 was about 150kg per gun, Vya 23mm is 68.5kg. Given that you get less than half the ammo for the NS-37 they might not end up being massively different in total weight, but I can't seem to find figures for shell weights on the net right now.

Would be good to see if the performance we get from the Il-2s is anything like their real life capabilities. I think they're practically one of the best early war low/slow dogfighting platforms at the moment :&gt;

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

GregSM
03-22-2004, 11:21 AM
Hi Clint,


"The M3 variant .. as far as I know the NS-37 was about 150kg per gun, Vya 23mm is 68.5kg. Given that you get less than half the ammo for the NS-37 they might not end up being massively different in total weight, but I can't seem to find figures for shell weights on the net right now."

http://internetelite.ru/aircrafts/ says that the NS 37 projectile weighed 735 g, that the gun itself weighed 150 kg, and that the 3M carried 40 rounds in each pod. Further, it says that the VYa projectile weighed 200 g, while the gun itself weighed 66-68.5 kg. It doesn't say how many rounds were carried.

"Would be interested to see what FB is using for some of those Il-2 variants 'total weight'. The early-field mod version, as far as I know, had nothing done to it to accomodate the extra weight of another person + turret + 2x ShKAS. They just made a hole and stuck a guy in it."

I don't know about the total weights, but it seems, all else being equal, that the "clean" performance of the 3M and the Field Mod variants shouldn't meet or exceed that of the standard models from which they derive. But I don't know that all else was equal. Maybe they dumped some armour or otherwise shed weight, increased boost, or changed the propeller.

To visit the library I'll have to get off the Internet.


Cheers,


Greg

GregSM
03-24-2004, 12:04 PM
Hi,


Squeaking the wheel, really:

I checked a bunch of web pages (whatever the worth) and found sea level speed for the NS 37 equipped model to be usually listed at 391 KPH. (Ours makes 440ish.) But takeoff power is reported variously between 1720hp and 1790hp, and again I wonder if this ambiguity reflects increases in permissible maximum boost over the production run of the AM 38F. Would 70 additional hp alone neutralize the weight and drag of the NS 37's?

Further to gun weights I found this,

NS 37 weight: 150kg x 2 units = 300kg
Projectile weight: 735g x 80 units = 58.5kg
Total weight: 358.5kg

VYs 23 weight: 68.5kg x 2 units = 137kg
Projectile weight: 200g x 150 units = 30kg
Total weight: 167kg

for a difference of 191.5kg.


Cheers,


Greg


edit: botched the math

[This message was edited by GregSM on Wed March 24 2004 at 02:21 PM.]

XyZspineZyX
03-24-2004, 05:41 PM
I've always suspected this, but due to a total lack of any printed information I've ever seen about how maneuverable the IL-2 was or wasn't, I haven't piped up about it.

Seems odd that a "steel bathtub", bristling with hardpoints, and with unspent weapons hanging from it, can maneuver like one can in this sim. Vals and SBDs were known to be fairly maneuverable divebombers, but they didn't carry anything near the weapons stations or the armor of the IL-2.

LLv34_Flanker
03-25-2004, 03:39 AM
S!

You guys haven't seen the light yet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If it is Russian/allied it can do anything, even with a wing missing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And the damned Russian deltawood is so hard that even their own weapons have problems penetrating it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Had to do this..I take this product purely as a game with nice set of planes, not a sim anymore. Very nice one if taken as game.

---------------------------

Flanker
1.Lentue p√¬§√¬§llikk√¬∂ / TO
Lentolaivue 34

"Let Chaos entvine on defenseless soil!"
~Dimmu Borgir~

Stalker58
03-26-2004, 02:51 AM
LOL Flanker, exactly!

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

WWMaxGunz
03-26-2004, 04:29 AM
Projectile weight is not cartridge weight, it is only the weight of the warhead. There is still the brass canister with the powder and primer to make a cartridge.

I am wondering if deltawood has a secret ingredient such as perhaps kryptonite. It would explain much if the Tunguska explosion netted glowing bits of green rock.


Neal

GregSM
03-26-2004, 08:55 AM
Hi Neal,


"Projectile weight is not cartridge weight, it is only the weight of the warhead. There is still the brass canister with the powder and primer to make a cartridge."

Interesting, thanks. The weights I posted above might be way off anyway as the "sources" behind them vary dramatically in reporting the amount of rounds carried by the NS 37 gunpods, 40 and 100 being extremes.


Cheers,


Greg

clint-ruin
03-26-2004, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>originally posted by clint-ruin:
So I think we should probably assume the lower 40rpg figure for the NS-37 -if- that site is correct. Might not be all that noticable in an aircraft as heavy as the Il-2 is to start with. Maybe enough to impact the climb rate slightly, but mightn't make a huge difference to top speed?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From battlefield.ru:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=ru_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.battlefield.ru%2Flibrary%2Fbo okshelf%2Fil2%2Fil2_4_r.html

Pilots didn't like the effect they had on handling at any rate :&gt;

[This message was edited by clint-ruin on Sat March 27 2004 at 08:34 PM.]

[This message was edited by clint-ruin on Sat March 27 2004 at 08:34 PM.]

clint-ruin
03-27-2004, 09:35 PM
Argh bugger. Edited message above rather than replying. Oh well - bump.

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

Aaron_GT
03-28-2004, 09:14 AM
stiglr wrote:
"Vals and SBDs were known to be fairly maneuverable divebombers, but they didn't carry anything near the weapons stations or the armor of the IL-2."

The SBD was about 70% of the weight of an IL2M3
unloaded, and had about 75% of the max horsepower,
and pretty similar unloaded performance. Doesn't
seem too unreasonable. Don't know about the Val.

GregSM
03-28-2004, 10:55 AM
Hi Clint,


Thanks for the great link, from which I conclude I'm drunker than usual, and that series 3M's were normally fitted with 50 shells per gun and restricted to ordinance comprised of 100kg bomb loads. They're said to attain 391 KPH at sea level. It's implied, I think, that this speed was measured with ordinance loaded, because it's said to be as high as it is only by virtue of reducing the load from 200kg.

I've measured our 3M under the reasonably least complimentary conditions I could devise:

FAB 100 x2
Radiator open
100 per cent throttle and pitch
Full fuel

I get 411 KPH "in the earth", that is just atop the Crimean waves. Perhaps this is reasonable, especially as I leave wind and turbulence engaged, and I am unusually drunk, but given the same conditions the standard Type 3 makes just 375 KHP.

So, it's still to wonder if there's a bug inflating the performance of the 3M. (And might it be that the modelling of the 3M and the standard Type 3 has been mistakenly exchanged?) Or, if not, what were the historical modifications made to enhance the performance of the 3M?

Probably those who are best able to comment would do so in Russian.


Cheers,


Greg