PDA

View Full Version : New climbtest/overheat time for the La-7 and D-9..



robban75
01-12-2004, 11:21 AM
Full throttle, 100% fuel, 270km/h climbspeed, radiator auto. time in minutes and seconds. I used Finland island map nr 11.

La-7

1000m - 0:39
2000m - 1:21
3000m - 2:08
4000m - 3:13
5000m - 4:11

D-9 ´45, same procedure as above.

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



Time till overheat warning(something not right here)

La-7 - 5:30
D-9 - 3:36


Climbtimes same procedure as above but with 50% fuel.

La-7

1000m - 0:36
2000m - 1:14
3000m - 2:01
4000m - 2:54
5000m - 3:58

D-9 ´45

1000m - 0:43
2000m - 1:34
3000m - 2:21
4000m - 3:05
5000m - 3:51

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

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

robban75
01-12-2004, 11:21 AM
Full throttle, 100% fuel, 270km/h climbspeed, radiator auto. time in minutes and seconds. I used Finland island map nr 11.

La-7

1000m - 0:39
2000m - 1:21
3000m - 2:08
4000m - 3:13
5000m - 4:11

D-9 ´45, same procedure as above.

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



Time till overheat warning(something not right here)

La-7 - 5:30
D-9 - 3:36


Climbtimes same procedure as above but with 50% fuel.

La-7

1000m - 0:36
2000m - 1:14
3000m - 2:01
4000m - 2:54
5000m - 3:58

D-9 ´45

1000m - 0:43
2000m - 1:34
3000m - 2:21
4000m - 3:05
5000m - 3:51

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

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

faustnik
01-12-2004, 11:28 AM
So, the La7 climbs better at low atitude but, the Dora overtakes it as altitude increases. Sounds correct to me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

S77th-brooks
01-12-2004, 11:53 AM
so there is just 7 sec between the two, WOW

VW-IceFire
01-12-2004, 01:27 PM
Did you use the MW50 boost for the FW190D-9 (setting the boost on with engine at low RPM)? Generally even at high power output it shouldn't overheat for several minutes.

It is interesting that they are very close. Was the La-7 comparitively that good?

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
01-12-2004, 01:40 PM
That's interesting - and nice to see the high alt climb diff - must be quite significant to make such a difference so quickly.

GoodKn1ght
01-12-2004, 01:43 PM
why didnt you just download il2compare. ;p
saves time and they did this for all planes.

Fennec_P
01-12-2004, 01:46 PM
IL2compare numbers are different from what actually happens ingame.

TX-Zen
01-12-2004, 01:51 PM
Both the La5 and the Yak 3 could outclimb most everything the Luftwaffe had up to 5000 meters...if memory serves the Yak 3 could make it in 4.3 minutes and the La5 in 4.7 minutes.

It might be surprising but the Luftwaffe didn't have the advantage in low level climb over the VVS...the advantage came past 5000 meters and in very high altitude flight, which was not a significant factor on the eastern front.

The 109K4 has the best climb rate of the Luftwaffe except for the TA152...it did outclimb the D9, though not by a large margin.

The Antons were actually outclimbed by the Yak3 and La5 fairly easily, but as always the advantage the VVS had could be marginalized or eliminated by having a reasonable E advantage.


I think the tests are accurate and reflect the relative climb rates of the planes involved...I'm no rocket scientist but the results seem 'reallistic' enough for me.

TX-Zen
Black 6
TX-Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM Only)
TX-OC3 Server 209.163.147.69:21000
http://www.txsquadron.com/library/20031218144359_Zensig2.jpg (http://www.txsquadron.com)

blabla0001
01-12-2004, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S77th-brooks:
so there is just 7 sec between the two, WOW<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You find that strange? LMAO.

robban75
01-12-2004, 11:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Did you use the MW50 boost for the FW190D-9 (setting the boost on with engine at low RPM)? Generally even at high power output it shouldn't overheat for several minutes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm very careful when engaging the MW50, I make sure the ata is low before I press the "W" key.
When I did the climbtest the D-9 overheated at around 3700m whereas the La-7 overheated above 6000m. I haven't tested how long it takes for the planes to overheat in full power level flight.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

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

robban75
01-12-2004, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
That's interesting - and nice to see the high alt climb diff - must be quite significant to make such a difference so quickly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It all happens when the Jumo engine shifts gear at around 2750m, it's really nice. For a Dora pilot this altitude is good to remember, especially when fighting against russian planes.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

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

kyrule2
01-13-2004, 06:37 PM
Robban or anyone else, is there any way you could do a climb test involving the 190A-9 (just remember 100% manual prop-pitch)? Maybe as compared to Dora '44 & P-51? The A-9 takes off very slowly, so maybe a test where they start with some speed at sea level.

And I agree, you gotta love that supercharger switching over. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

robban75
01-13-2004, 07:04 PM
I'm doing the nightshift currently but I'll see what I can do when I get home.
The Anton's all accelerate very slowly on take off, I wonder why that is? But it doesn't matter really, I perform my climbtests like this.
Take off, remain low, accelerate to climbspeed and then a gentle pull up, in the Fw 190 it's 280km/h whereas for the lighter La-7 and K-4 I climb at 270km/h.

BTW, how much does the 100% manual pitch do for the A's performance? Is it really significant?

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

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

kyrule2
01-13-2004, 07:33 PM
Robban, manual prop pitch adds rpm's and speed, significantly so IMO (especially in case of A-4). Not sure about effect on climb, kind of curious about that myself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm sure you are busy, and if you are unable to do the test I completely understand.

Thanks.

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

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

TX-Bomblast
01-13-2004, 08:49 PM
Well, here we go again, the La5-7 series aircraft were known to run very hot and overheat constantly. So much so as to make it very unconfortable for the pilot. Still, they were good dogfighters under 5000 meters.

TX-Bomblast
Red3

RayBanJockey
01-13-2004, 09:18 PM
Different planes climb better at different speeds.

And a plane's best climb speed changes with altitude. The higher you go the slower the best climb speed.


Just because a plane climbs better than another at the same speed doesn't necessarily mean it is a better climber overall

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/testsig.gif
To anyone who wants to take away my trim on a slider, "From My Cold Dead HANDS (http://www.talonse.com/supergreg.swf)."

BfHeFwMe
01-13-2004, 09:28 PM
I can get a Zero up to 5000m in five minutes and 20 seconds, but that's counting from entering the pit and engine starting on the ground, finland map. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

robban75
01-14-2004, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
Robban, manual prop pitch adds rpm's and speed, significantly so IMO (especially in case of A-4). Not sure about effect on climb, kind of curious about that myself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm sure you are busy, and if you are unable to do the test I completely understand.

Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go!http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I did one test with auto prop pitch and one manual with the A-9, but there were no difference in climb performance. I used the same procedure as before. climbspeed 280km/h for all planes except the Zero, I climbed at 240km/h for that one.

A-9

1000m - 0:55
2000m - 1:50
3000m - 2:53
4000m - 3:52
5000m - 4:51

A-5

1000m - 0:56
2000m - 1:52
3000m - 2:53
4000m - 3:55
5000m - 4:52

Zero

1000m - 0:52
2000m - 1:42
3000m - 2:38
4000m - 3:39
5000m - 4:37

(I probably could have bettered the time from 3000m to 5000m, cause I changed to stage 2 in the turbocharger way too late)


P-51D(25% fuel) I reckon nobody flies the P-51 with more fuel in the tank.

1000m - 0:49
2000m - 1:34
3000m - 2:26
4000m - 3:14
5000m - 4:12

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

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

Tipo_Man
01-14-2004, 02:10 AM
So definately there is something wrong with the A9. Since it has much more powerful engine and generally the same weight...

TX_Zen you wrote:
-Both the La5 and the Yak 3 could outclimb
-most everything the Luftwaffe had up to 5000
-meters...if memory serves the Yak 3 could make
-it in 4.3 minutes and the La5 in 4.7 minutes.

Are you sure?... Can you read russian? if you do, please visit this site:
http://www.23ag.sp.mk.ua/html/boy_s_istrebitelyami.html

Here russian experts say exactly the opposite :-)
And just to let you know: the 1942 Bf-109G2 climbed to 5000m for 4,4min according to soviet tests of captured aircraft. Faster than '44 La-7(4,7 using WEP) and comparable to Yak-3(4,1min )...
But in 44 Bf-109K4 appeared...

And another simple fact:
The power to weight ratio of '44 Yak-3 was similar to that of '41 Bf-109F4 (Check it yourself if you don't believe me).

So generally most soviet pilots agreed that if germans have any noticeable advantage during the whole war - it was exactly climb speed.

Kwiatos
01-14-2004, 04:20 AM
According to FB data:

A-5 climb to 5000m in 6,4 min

A-9 climb to 5000m in 5,45min

D-9 climb to 4800m in 5,8min

P-51D climb to 6000m in 7 min

As we see Fw 190 wasn't good climber and later models russian (Yak3, La5FN, LA7, Yak9) planes could outclimb it to 5 km Remember that Fw 190 A like russian planes wasn't good performance at high alt.

P-51D shouldn't be good in climb too. So now in Fb 1.21 it is strange that could climb to 5 km in 4:12 and are better than FW 190

I make climb test P-40 E as i remember i get him to 5000 km in 7 min - should be in 11 min - early version of P-40 (1 stage supercharger) had very weak climb rate.

So i think that climb rate of some planes in Fb needed reworked climb rate.

The same in turn rate - ex. Bf G2 now turn better than Bf F-4

Fillmore
01-14-2004, 05:32 AM
"According to FB data:

A-5 climb to 5000m in 6,4 min

A-9 climb to 5000m in 5,45min

D-9 climb to 4800m in 5,8min

P-51D climb to 6000m in 7 min"

Keep in mind that these times (as well as most others you see) are with climb power settings (100%) while the tests here were done with max power. I have noticed that on LW planes the difference in power between 100% and 110%+WEP is greater than in the Allied planes.

01-14-2004, 07:21 AM
Little surprise with the climb numbers, La-7 was 24,1 m/sec and 1945 Dora 22m/sec according to their tests specs (with WEP). So indeed the Lavochkin should produce a noticable climb rate advantage over the Dora, up to around 2000m, where the Lavochkin`s supercharger shows it`s lacking and the power/climb rate fells off, whereas the Dora can largely maintain it up to 5500m.

What is really annoying however is the WEP time, this had been critized for what? 3 years ? Why can`t they just fix it ? The 1944/45 La-5s/7s had 10 min WEP time, and so did the Dora if you read it`s manual. I can`t get why is it so hard to fix it accordingly... If you push it for 10 mins on late German planes with MW, you are bordering an engine failure, not nearly so in a Soviet plane... annoying.. just make things as they were, i.e. in this respect, WEP time, equal.

WooHooToYou
01-14-2004, 08:17 AM
One thing that has always puzzled me about the comparisons between the climb performances of the German and Russian planes.

This is a quote from http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm#supercharge:

"A note on MW-50.
MW-50 (water-methanol 50/50) was injected into the air-intake and served as an anti-detonant allowing higher boost to be used below normal rated altitude. The evaporating water also cooling the charge-air thus increasing the weight of the charge. Limited by the performance of the supercharger the MW-50 induced max. output began declining 1.5-2 km. below normal rated altitude until it became impotent at and above the normal rated altitude (compare for example DB 605A-1 and AM). Max. continous use: 5-10 minutes. Penalties: drasticly shortens flight endurance and spark-plug life, added weight of MW-50 tank and piping. Most Me 109 sub-types from 1944/45 were equiped to utilise MW-50."

Note it says that the effect of MW-50 begins declining at 1.5-2km and that it was no effect at and above normal rated altitude.

So at altitudes like 5000m the MW-50 power boost has all but disappeared.

So why are the MW-50 equipped German fighters supposed to be better climbers at these higher altitudes than the Russian planes?

robban75
01-14-2004, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VO101_Kurfurst:
Little surprise with the climb numbers, La-7 was 24,1 m/sec and 1945 Dora 22m/sec according to their tests specs (with WEP). So indeed the Lavochkin should produce a noticable climb rate advantage over the Dora, up to around 2000m, where the Lavochkin`s supercharger shows it`s lacking and the power/climb rate fells off, whereas the Dora can largely maintain it up to 5500m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so long ago the La-7 had a climbrate of 30m/sec, we've come a long way since then. Now it is 25.6/m/sec(24.1), still too fast but acceptable. The D-9 on the other hand climbs too slow at low altitude, 21.3m/sec(22.5) This gives the La-7 a climb rate advantage of over 4m/sec over the D-9 whereas it should be only 1.4m/sec. However, the D-9's advantage at high altitude makes up for this error.
The MW50 equipped D-9 was a very good climber, better than the Yak-3 and slightly worse than the La-7. I think it's well represented in FB.

Now the A-9 on the other hand shouldn't fall so far behind the D-9 as it does. IIRC it had a 2400hp engine. In FB it's really weak in a sustained climb, managing some 3000ft/min only. This appears to be incorrect, but I'll let someone else fill in here.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

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

ZG77_Lignite
01-14-2004, 12:08 PM
Woohootoyou, I believe it says 'output began declining 1.5-2 km. below normal rated altitude'. I believe 'normal rated altitude' refers to the point where the supercharger can no longer maintain its charge pressure (1.4 ata for example). This means that as the charge pressure (or is it suction?) lowers, the anti-detonate effect is no longer usefull (as the charge pressure is being lowered so that anti-detonate is unnecessary).

Though I could certainly be wrong, this is how I understand it. I also don't know the 'normal rated altitude' for the D-9, but for example I believe the A-5 is 6000m.

robban75
01-14-2004, 10:53 PM
Bumping this and at the same time asking for somebodys professional opinion on the Zero climbrate. Is it correct? 4:37 to 5000m?

Also is there any good site where one can find climbdata for russian planes? In english language preferably!http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

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

Tipo_Man
01-15-2004, 03:34 AM
Look here:

http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/Soviet_Planes_with_serial_numbers.htm

kyrule2
01-15-2004, 08:51 PM
Somehow I missed this Robban, thanks for your efforts. It's very disappointing to see the P-51 outclimb the A-9. The A-9 has been toned down with each of the last few patches, I guess thats what 20+ threads of whining will do even though nobody mentioned climb-rate. The A-9 had a 2,000hp engine (up from 1,700 of A-8), and a highly efficient prop specifically designed to improve climb. Those are significant changes that nobody seems to understand because the A-9 was not talked about much since it looked nearly identical to A-8. According to your results the A-9 climbs almost the same as the A-5, and I am wondering what exactly the more efficient prop is doing. I guess I'll have to live with it, I knew right away after 1.21 that something was off as Mustangs were catching me in climb at lower/medium altitudes, that wasn't the case before. I better get cracking on that Dora before the next patch comes out.

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

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Kwiatos
01-16-2004, 03:46 AM
Yea in beta patch 1.2 climb rate of P-51 seems to be ok, but in final 1.21 was improved and now is too good. P-51D wasn't good climber but now in FB he climbs nice.

robban75
01-16-2004, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kyrule2:
Somehow I missed this Robban, thanks for your efforts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, no problem! I'll be doing more climbtest for sure. There are alot of neglected planes in FB. Climbrate being one of the most important performance aspects in FB. I also think it's sad that people "forget" to report when planes are too good. And just leave them be.(VVS planes especially) IMHO of course!http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

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