PDA

View Full Version : Climb result - Bf-Fw190-Spitfire



Kwiatos
03-08-2004, 06:51 AM
Hi!
I made climb test for Bf F-4, Fw190 A-4, Spitfire Mk VB 1941.

Terms: QMB, Smolensk map,100% fuel, radiator Bf-auto, rest position 6.

Alt. BF F-4 | Fw 190 A-4 | Spitfire 1941
100% 110% | 100% 110% | 100% 110%

1km. 1:08 0:55 | 1:03 0:56 | 1:10 0:59

2km. 2:20 1:50 | 2:14 1:56 | 2:24 1:55

3km. 3:31 2:47 | 3:35 3:06 | 3:36 2:50

4km. 4:51 3:42 | 5:05 4:22 | 4:47 3:45

5km. 6:02 4:53 | 6:27 5:38 | 5:56 4:40

6km. 7:33 6:13 | 7:50 6:49 | 7:04 5:37

6.1km. 7:37 6:20 | 7:55 7:03 | 7:08 5:43

During climbing At 110% power 4km Bf F-4 and Fw190 A-4 start overheat so i must radiator open and little cut throlle for cool engine.
Spitfire with WEP 110% power radiator 6 flown 15 minutes without overheat( i know that engine was cool when i start climb test)

So Everything is ok?
Post your opinion plese.

Kwiatos
03-08-2004, 06:51 AM
Hi!
I made climb test for Bf F-4, Fw190 A-4, Spitfire Mk VB 1941.

Terms: QMB, Smolensk map,100% fuel, radiator Bf-auto, rest position 6.

Alt. BF F-4 | Fw 190 A-4 | Spitfire 1941
100% 110% | 100% 110% | 100% 110%

1km. 1:08 0:55 | 1:03 0:56 | 1:10 0:59

2km. 2:20 1:50 | 2:14 1:56 | 2:24 1:55

3km. 3:31 2:47 | 3:35 3:06 | 3:36 2:50

4km. 4:51 3:42 | 5:05 4:22 | 4:47 3:45

5km. 6:02 4:53 | 6:27 5:38 | 5:56 4:40

6km. 7:33 6:13 | 7:50 6:49 | 7:04 5:37

6.1km. 7:37 6:20 | 7:55 7:03 | 7:08 5:43

During climbing At 110% power 4km Bf F-4 and Fw190 A-4 start overheat so i must radiator open and little cut throlle for cool engine.
Spitfire with WEP 110% power radiator 6 flown 15 minutes without overheat( i know that engine was cool when i start climb test)

So Everything is ok?
Post your opinion plese.

lindyman
03-08-2004, 06:57 AM
Speeds?
_
/Bjorn.

VW-IceFire
03-08-2004, 08:23 AM
Try the A-5. The A-4 we have is a downrated Eastern Front version.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Kwiatos
03-08-2004, 08:25 AM
Average climb speed:
Spitfire - 260km/h
Bf F-4 - 270 km/h
Fw 190 A-4 - 280km/h

From one of my book Mike Spike "Aces of the Luftwaffe":
Fw190 A-3 - 1250 m/min.
Spit VB - 1113 m/min.
Spit IX - 1265 m/min.
Bf F-3 - 1308 m/mi.

Another specification:
Bf 109 F-4 (DB 601 E)
- Take-off weight: 2900 kg
- Max horizontal speed (clim & combat power):
523 km/h @ 0 m (1165 PS)
572 km/h @ 2000 m (1250 PS)
611 km/h @ 4000 m (1250 PS)
635 km/h @ 6000 m (1185 PS) (VDH)
626 km/h @ 8000 m (940 PS)
- Climb times:
0'9 min @ 1 km
1'8 min @ 2 km
3'7 min @ 4 km
6'1 min @ 6 km
9'3 min @ 8 km

I wonder why in Fb Bf 109 F have so weak climb rate and why Spit have better climb??? I dont test Spit Vb from 1942 but i know that is better in climb than Spit 1941.

zugfuhrer
03-08-2004, 08:45 AM
Dont compare what you have read in books about wwII and the figures in IL2/FB.
Accept the games figures as they are and play with it.

faustnik
03-08-2004, 09:40 AM
Kwiatos,

Thanks for posting your test. It illustrates our problem with the 190A4 very well. According to historical data the 190A4 should easily outclimb the Spit VB Merlin 45 to 20,000 ft.

************

IceFire,

Have we heard a definative answer from Oleg on the "Eastern Front derated" 109A4? Is this a guess we are making, or is it a fact of FB?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

robban75
03-08-2004, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
Dont compare what you have read in books about wwII and the figures in IL2/FB.
Accept the games figures as they are and play with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some planes compare very well with the real thing in climbtime. The D-9 with MW50 climbed to 5000m in 4 minutes, and in game it is excactly the same! Looking at the real world graph it doesn't compare very well with the original, but the overall time is correct.
My numbers for the La-7 says that production planes climbed to 5000m in 5.1 minutes, but in-game it does it in 3.8 minutes. The object viewer says 4.7 minutes to 5000m, I don't know which is the correct one but it certainly isn't 3.8 minutes. I think this should be adressed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Below, D-9 climbgraph, the real aircraft compared to the FB D-9.

http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartD-9%20real+FB.JPG

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

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

Koohullin
03-08-2004, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:


Have we heard a definative answer from Oleg on the "Eastern Front derated" 109A4? Is this a guess we are making, or is it a fact of FB?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG26 recieved it A-4s in Aug-Sept 1942, while the first, at least for JGs(Jg 54, I./JG51 in Feb 1943), did not get theirs til Nov-Dec 1942. The Fws on the Channel Front not only did air defense but did low level bombing attacks on England.

In Kurt Tank's biography a passage says that due to an engine shortage (BMW 801D-2 engines), a small batch of A-4/U1s were produced with the older BMW 801C engine.

Are the EF Fws being based on this small batch?

The other question is, when did this 'shortage' occur? To me, this shortage would be at the beginning of production, not later, with the change over of models.

Can some answer definatively that the D motor was de-rated? The C motor was.

BuzzU
03-08-2004, 12:15 PM
You're not going to get an accurate test if you open the radiator and back off the throttle. Just let it overheat, and keep climbing. Then you know if the power is right or wrong, and maybe the overheat is the problem.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/eagles/4fg.jpg

PzKpfw
03-08-2004, 02:34 PM
Just note 1./JG 51 converted from Bf 109F to the Fw 190A-3.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Mon March 08 2004 at 01:42 PM.]

widgeon
03-08-2004, 02:57 PM
I second what BuzzU said.


You've introduced too many variables.
You can't be certain were the problem is now.



Widgeon

Willey
03-08-2004, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Try the A-5. The A-4 we have is a downrated Eastern Front version.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice try. A 190A-4, non-derated, could use the same power like A-5 (1780hp, 1,42ata @2700rpm) for just one minute, while the A-5 could use it 5mins long. The A-5 can get to 5k with that, the A-4 has to throttle back, and it wouldn't even use full power for climb.

Actually the Spit does 20m/s @6k. That can't be right. Even the Ta-152 doesn't do that.

PzKpfw
03-08-2004, 02:59 PM
Just a note 1./JG 51 converted from Bf 109F to the Fw 190A-3. Thats the reason I asked for a Fw 190A-3 model along time ago.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Mon March 08 2004 at 04:26 PM.]

Fillmore
03-08-2004, 03:01 PM
I think the only one that matters is the 100% throttle setting. Also in all cases I believe the radiator should be closed.

Use the Crimea map. Use the Crimea map.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=662104452

"Yes, you right. Becasue we have differennt physical conditions in different regions.

In measurements of real aircraft performance ussuall used realtive formulas that to get true things.
The map of crimea met these standards that are exactly to the things that do not use these formulas of recalculations.

This just show how deeep we try to model all things "

"Really we alredy told it - test on Crimea map. Especially Sea Level speeds"

Fillmore
03-08-2004, 03:09 PM
Also note that in that very frequently quoted british test where the FW outclimbs the Spit at all altitudes it says "The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, " which really isn't true (at least not in this sim).

I seem to recall that irl the Spitfire had no setting to force its radiator closed, so you may need to use auto for the Spitfire and closed for the FW190.

boohaa
03-08-2004, 03:26 PM
Why not just turn off overheating off

VW-IceFire
03-08-2004, 03:32 PM
No we don't have definitive answers on the extent of the modeling for the A-4 but I think the answer is in the excellent test results that have been compiled by Kwiatos here.

On 100% power the FW190A-4 has an advantage (although somewhat small) upto the 4-5k range which is where the Spitfire V starts winning which is roughly comparable to what it should be (and the two are very close on both sides of the climbing). At 110% power the Spitfire V is quite a bit better...and I think this is where our A-4 isn't as good.

Try the A-5 and put that into the test and see what happens...I wonder if the A-5 will have the marked advantage all the way along the line. If so then I feel pretty good that the A-4 is probably a Eastern Front modeled engine...this is just something that I remember from sometime earlier last year on the boards. Likely not anywhere around these days.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Kwiatos
03-08-2004, 05:12 PM
Much worse problem is that Spit outclimb Bf F-4 which was better than both Spit and Fw 190 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Heart_C
03-08-2004, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
Dont compare what you have read in books about wwII and the figures in IL2/FB.
Accept the games figures as they are and play with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, thanks for the heads up lol. So I guess Crimson Skies from Microsoft does just fine. Wonder why I bothered to get FB at all. Then again, I've never had Crimson Skies.

No worries, I know what you mean. However, FMs are changed back and forth by Oleg or "the men behind him, and NO ONE knew their name" (which is a good thing when you look back now - imho accuracy on the FMs has improved a lot over time, for most planes), so there is a chance to actually correct some errors http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I'm glad for everyone who comes up with his library and provides some facts to correct errors.

Regards
heartc

Kwiatos
03-09-2004, 05:21 AM
If you dont try you dont do anything lol

S77th-brooks
03-09-2004, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Much worse problem is that Spit outclimb Bf F-4 which was better than both Spit and Fw 190 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>noway should the spit out climb the BF http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif as for LA7 its all ways been like a god

[This message was edited by S77th-brooks on Tue March 09 2004 at 10:23 AM.]

S77th-brooks
03-09-2004, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Average climb speed:
Spitfire - 260km/h
Bf F-4 - 270 km/h
Fw 190 A-4 - 280km/h

From one of my book Mike Spike "Aces of the Luftwaffe":
Fw190 A-3 - 1250 m/min.
Spit VB - 1113 m/min.
Spit IX - 1265 m/min.
Bf F-3 - 1308 m/mi.

Another specification:
Bf 109 F-4 (DB 601 E)
- Take-off weight: 2900 kg
- Max horizontal speed (clim & combat power):
523 km/h @ 0 m (1165 PS)
572 km/h @ 2000 m (1250 PS)
611 km/h @ 4000 m (1250 PS)
635 km/h @ 6000 m (1185 PS) (VDH)
626 km/h @ 8000 m (940 PS)
- Climb times:
0'9 min @ 1 km
1'8 min @ 2 km
3'7 min @ 4 km
6'1 min @ 6 km
9'3 min @ 8 km

I wonder why in Fb Bf 109 F have so weak climb rate and why Spit have better climb??? I dont test Spit Vb from 1942 but i know that is better in climb than Spit 1941.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> rgr thats we all wood like to no http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Oleg_Maddox
03-09-2004, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Average climb speed:
Spitfire - 260km/h
Bf F-4 - 270 km/h
Fw 190 A-4 - 280km/h

From one of my book Mike Spike "Aces of the Luftwaffe":
Fw190 A-3 - 1250 m/min.
Spit VB - 1113 m/min.
Spit IX - 1265 m/min.
Bf F-3 - 1308 m/mi.

Another specification:
Bf 109 F-4 (DB 601 E)
- Take-off weight: 2900 kg
- Max horizontal speed (clim & combat power):
523 km/h @ 0 m (1165 PS)
572 km/h @ 2000 m (1250 PS)
611 km/h @ 4000 m (1250 PS)
635 km/h @ 6000 m (1185 PS) (VDH)
626 km/h @ 8000 m (940 PS)
- Climb times:
0'9 min @ 1 km
1'8 min @ 2 km
3'7 min @ 4 km
6'1 min @ 6 km
9'3 min @ 8 km

I wonder why in Fb Bf 109 F have so weak climb rate and why Spit have better climb??? I dont test Spit Vb from 1942 but i know that is better in climb than Spit 1941.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We model for FW the data that we got from Germany sources (German manufacture data!).
For Spit - from English tests.

Whats wrong? They doesn't match? I would suggest to check once more the original sources data.

faustnik
03-09-2004, 12:10 PM
Oleg,

I think many of the questions are coming from RAF tests and combat reports showing that the 190A4 easily outclimbed the SpitV(Merlin45) up to 7,000 meters. This is not the case in FB 2.0.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

JG53Frankyboy
03-09-2004, 12:20 PM
well you did a lot of tests, any one tested the Clipped wings vs normal wings ??

does they realy roll much faster , if anyway?

my feelings and short tests say no http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Kwiatos
03-09-2004, 04:27 PM
Next problem is why Spitfire 1941 could fly 15 minutes with 110% power and BOST (radiator 6). Max BOST in RL time was probably 3 or 5 minutes than engine should breake.

Kwiatos
03-09-2004, 04:28 PM
I found good souorce here:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spitv.html
I sugest FB testers to look there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

II_JG2_Roth
03-09-2004, 07:49 PM
Kwiatos - Kudos to that study data - I agree with you on the Fockes not being "right" - but to be unbiased, there are some American planes that need fixing too - once my wife Red Baroness finishes her research, she'll post the results on here - reading up on the Spitfire from actual pilot accounts, which is IMHO a fairly accurate source.

However I do know that in real life, you could not take the Spit or the BF off on cement runways due to the narrow undercarriage of the aircraft and the torque of the engine causing instability.

And there's the case of the indestructible La-7, but we won't go there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Take care

Roth

ElfunkoI
03-09-2004, 11:21 PM
Oleg: In the english tests A&gt;B. In FB A&lt;B. So, there appears to have been err. Just like a A6M has a better rate of turn than a P-40, it would be good if the Fw-190 had a better rate of climb than the Spitfire MkVb.

"A6?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Will be A6!"

Kwiatos
03-10-2004, 05:15 AM
According to the british test Merlin 45:

"2.2 Engine limitations relevant to tests. The engine operational limitations for the Merlin 45 applicable to these tests were:

1. Engine revolutions (R.P.M.)
(i) Max. for climbing (normal rating)(1 hr. limit) 2850
(ii) Max. for climbing (above 25,000 ft.) 3000
(iii) Max. for all-out level flight (normal rating)(5 minute limit) 3000
(iv) Max. for climb and level flight (combat rating) for
periods not exceeding 3 minutes 3000

2. Boost (lb/sq.in.)
(i) Max. for climbing (normal rating)(1 hr. limit) +9
(ii) Max. for all-out level flight (normal rating)(5 minute limit) +9
(iii) Max. for all-out level in special emergency (prior to increase to +16) +12
(iv) Max. for climb and level flight (combat rating)(3 min. limit) +16"

In FB :
- level flight with BOST 110% (+16,3000 RP) is ok
- 110% with BOST and radiator 6 (+16 lb/sq in,3000RP) SPIT could climb for 15 MINUTES!!!!
Spit could climb :
- +16 lb/sq in,3000 RP (110% power + WEP in FB) - only 3 minutes
- +12 lb/sq in,3000 RP (110% power in FB) - only 5 minutes

So i think these is a bug here.

hop2002
03-10-2004, 05:44 AM
Kwiatos, the boost guauge is not correct in game, from what I've heard.

16 lbs boost, 3000 rpm should give you a sea level speed of 510 km/h. According to the test Isegrim did, actual speed is 475 km/h. That's the real speed for 9 lbs boost.

Look at the data you posted, and you'll see 9 lbs boost had a 1 hour limit, although at 2850 rpm instead of 3000 rpm.

The Spit Vb can run longer on wep in the game because in the game it doesn't actualy have wep.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In FB :
- level flight with BOST 110% (+16,3000 RP) is ok<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's actually 35 km/h too slow. It might show 16 lbs on the guage, but the actual performance is the same as when run at 9 lbs in real life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- 110% with BOST and radiator 6 (+16 lb/sq in,3000RP) SPIT could climb for 15 MINUTES!!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the 16 lbs is actually 9 lbs, and the Spit could climb at 9 lbs 2850 rpm for 1 hour.

Kwiatos
03-10-2004, 05:53 AM
i didnt test max speed only overheat time with max power with bost

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 05:56 AM
I should say now that mistake isn't in climb... But in Year that used for Spitfire Mk.VB. Really should be 1942, but not 1941.

Russians received reworked Spits... There was greatr mix of them and all were marked as VB or LF.MK.VB

So we used RAF test of Spitfire VB for 1942 year. And in this case our values for climb corresponding to this this test.

This mistake will be easy corrected. We will rename Spitfire Mk.Vb 1941 to Spitfire Mk.Vb 1942 and then will add new Spitfire Mk.Vb 1941 with lower climb rate as it is in the same report of RAF for 1941 year.

But I think anyway these who fly really bad will have a trouble flying in FW190 against very easy flying Spit (what is stated a lot of pilots comparing to FW-190 or Bf-109, even FW-190 was easy controlable aircraft... Simply at critical values spit is better...then both of them... This is fact. Sometime its bette even than Yak-3 for critical situations in control). I personally have no trobles in FW -190A4 against Spit V of any modelled modification if to use right tactic.

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Kwiatos, the boost guauge is not correct in game, from what I've heard.

16 lbs boost, 3000 rpm should give you a sea level speed of 510 km/h. According to the test Isegrim did, actual speed is 475 km/h. That's the real speed for 9 lbs boost.

Look at the data you posted, and you'll see 9 lbs boost had a 1 hour limit, although at 2850 rpm instead of 3000 rpm.

The Spit Vb can run longer on wep in the game because in the game it doesn't actualy have wep.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In FB :
- level flight with BOST 110% (+16,3000 RP) is ok<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's actually 35 km/h too slow. It might show 16 lbs on the guage, but the actual performance is the same as when run at 9 lbs in real life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- 110% with BOST and radiator 6 (+16 lb/sq in,3000RP) SPIT could climb for 15 MINUTES!!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the 16 lbs is actually 9 lbs, and the Spit could climb at 9 lbs 2850 rpm for 1 hour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you doing? The boost values are modelled more or less preciselly only for maximl power of engines. It doesn't depends of which aircraft. Its fopr all. Except maximal values they different to real in some planes more, in some less and in some corresponding to real. So don't test it. We told it in the past for FB and now we need to repeat it?

hop2002
03-10-2004, 06:09 AM
Sorry Oleg I don't understand.

Firstly, I'm in the UK so I don't have AEP yet, but I asked in a thread for some tests and was told that the Spit Mk V (not the LF) shows 16 lbs boost, but does a maximum speed of 475 km/h at sea level.

The Spit V should do 475 with 9 lbs boost, which is what it was initially rated at.

By summer 1942, it was rerated to 16 lbs boost, which gave a speed at sea level of 510 km/h.

Somewhere between summer 42 and early 41, the boost went from 9 lbs to 12 lbs, and the speed at sea level should be around 500 km/h at 12 lbs boost.

Kwiatos
03-10-2004, 06:19 AM
I only want to prove that Spitfire MKV could fly(climb) only 3 minutes with max power (with BOST) but in FB Spit could climb 15 minute with full power (with BOST) and radiator 6 . These give him extra climb rate for long time. Bf F-4 with 110% power could climb only 3.5 minutes then overheat (fw 190 A-4 too). Something isn't good here.
I'm not luftwhiner my sqn 303 fly Spitfires but i dont like when something is wrong (non historical)
BTW i have no problem to shoot Spitfire 1941 in Fw190 A-4.

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 07:05 AM
http://web.archive.org/web/20030510130758/www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

Check with our Spit with merlin 45 please.

And lets finish.

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I only want to prove that Spitfire MKV could fly(climb) only 3 minutes with max power (with BOST) but in FB Spit could climb 15 minute with full power (with BOST) and radiator 6 . These give him extra climb rate for long time. Bf F-4 with 110% power could climb only 3.5 minutes then overheat (fw 190 A-4 too). Something isn't good here.
I'm not luftwhiner my sqn 303 fly Spitfires but i dont like when something is wrong (non historical)
BTW i have no problem to shoot Spitfire 1941 in Fw190 A-4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok we will look for this temperature issue.

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Sorry Oleg I don't understand.

Firstly, I'm in the UK so I don't have AEP yet, but I asked in a thread for some tests and was told that the Spit Mk V (not the LF) shows 16 lbs boost, but does a maximum speed of 475 km/h at sea level.

The Spit V should do 475 with 9 lbs boost, which is what it was initially rated at.

By summer 1942, it was rerated to 16 lbs boost, which gave a speed at sea level of 510 km/h.

Somewhere between summer 42 and early 41, the boost went from 9 lbs to 12 lbs, and the speed at sea level should be around 500 km/h at 12 lbs boost.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whait when you'll get it. Make own test and compare with my link above.

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I only want to prove that Spitfire MKV could fly(climb) only 3 minutes with max power (with BOST) but in FB Spit could climb 15 minute with full power (with BOST) and radiator 6 . These give him extra climb rate for long time. Bf F-4 with 110% power could climb only 3.5 minutes then overheat (fw 190 A-4 too). Something isn't good here.
I'm not luftwhiner my sqn 303 fly Spitfires but i dont like when something is wrong (non historical)
BTW i have no problem to shoot Spitfire 1941 in Fw190 A-4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Manual for Spitfire doesn't tell us that the engine will obverheats if radiator fully open at climb and used full power. Instead there is only notice to look for temperature thqt not goes critical. But no limts is described.

Functio
03-10-2004, 07:34 AM
Oleg - if that data isn't there, it must be elsewhere surely? It would be odd not to have engine limits described for a combat aircraft. As far as this is concerned with AEP, it means that at the moment the Spitfire's engine can easily outlast most other piston engines.

So far, it seems that most engines apart from the DB and BMW series (and a very few others) just don't overheat quickly - this depsite the fact that these German-made engines had advanced control and cooling systems. I find it odd that these seem so prone to overheating when other, less advanced and older designs just don't seem to suffer from the same stresses as they're modelled in FB and AEP. The DB and BMW engines seem to overheat quickly, take a long time to increase RPM during changes in throttle setting, and (in the case of the DB) are very fragile as far as sustaining damage is concerned.

blabla0001
03-10-2004, 07:37 AM
Since when is the Rolls Royce Merlin a less advanced engine?

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Functio:
Oleg - if that data isn't there, it must be elsewhere surely? It would be odd not to have engine limits described for a combat aircraft. As far as this is concerned with AEP, it means that at the moment the Spitfire's engine can easily outlast most other piston engines.

So far, it seems that most engines apart from the DB and BMW series (and a very few others) just don't overheat quickly - this depsite the fact that these German-made engines had advanced control and cooling systems. I find it odd that these seem so prone to overheating when other, less advanced and older designs just don't seem to suffer from the same stresses as they're modelled in FB and AEP. The DB and BMW engines seem to overheat quickly, take a long time to increase RPM during changes in throttle setting, and (in the case of the DB) are very fragile as far as sustaining damage is concerned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry... With open cowl("radiator") flaps BMW engines could work forever in our sim. So your statement here isn't valid.
Same for DB engines. They overheats only with closed or close to closed position of radiator. Same for Spitfires. Same for other engines. I don't think that you didi right tests of each aircraft in a sim and I don't think that you know behaviour of each aircraft in a sim.

I often receive the same messages like posted here. And then I send the track that show the flight of FW-190 on maximal power for more then 25 minutes and then strack we simply stop becasue there are no time to record for you more...... My time cost not small... After this track users usually stop whinning and begin to lear more himself...

I really suggest to lear more about each aircraft and how works their cooling systems in different modes.

And we have no forces to put the same info about each aircraft (name it really the "flight manual" of each aircaft modelled in a sim) as we put in code. This is sorry cost a lot of time for us, not only money. And we have not it, except to put it in a code.

Kwiatos
03-10-2004, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I only want to prove that Spitfire MKV could fly(climb) only 3 minutes with max power (with BOST) but in FB Spit could climb 15 minute with full power (with BOST) and radiator 6 . These give him extra climb rate for long time. Bf F-4 with 110% power could climb only 3.5 minutes then overheat (fw 190 A-4 too). Something isn't good here.
I'm not luftwhiner my sqn 303 fly Spitfires but i dont like when something is wrong (non historical)
BTW i have no problem to shoot Spitfire 1941 in Fw190 A-4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok we will look for this temperature issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok thx very much for yor interest Oleg M.
I tested that BF F-4 with 110% power and radiator auto could climb about 3-4 min and overheat, Fw190 110% power radiator 6 - nearly as F-4, and Spitfire 110%power with BOST radiator 6 - 15 minutes.

Cheers

Functio
03-10-2004, 08:59 AM
Oleg - I'm simply pointing out, as Kwiatos has done, that in AEP at the moment the Spitfires (and several other planes) can run for a very long time at max power and boost settings. 15 minutes in fact, as Kwiatos has said.

I too prefer flying VVS and Allied planes if I get the chance, but not at the expense of facing opposing aircraft that are limited by the realism constraints that my plane seem to not suffer from. (This is why I continue to wonder why the DB engines are so fragile - a few small-calibre MGs hits and they're out of action).

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Functio:
Oleg - I'm simply pointing out, as Kwiatos has done, that in AEP at the moment the Spitfires (and several other planes) can run for a very long time at max power and boost settings. 15 minutes in fact, as Kwiatos has said.

I too prefer flying VVS and Allied planes if I get the chance, but not at the expense of facing opposing aircraft that are limited by the realism constraints that my plane seem to not suffer from. (This is why I continue to wonder why the DB engines are so fragile - a few small-calibre MGs hits and they're out of action).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please read my answers before to post.

Bewolf
03-10-2004, 09:27 AM
I have to agree too Oleg here. The FW (my premier ride in FB) does "not" overheat when flying with open radiators (all A Versions). It even goes back to normal, still on full throttle, if you enter a dive and gain enough speed.
One can‚¬īt complain here i think.

Nevertheless, i have some real issues with the 190A4 concerning climb and performance compared to the SpitV. Ok, granted, i can‚¬īt back this up with hard data, so my point may be invalid...but testing the spit against a squadmate the FWA4 just didn‚¬īt "feel" anything like the accounts I read. With propper alt advantage its no problem to own the spit, but starting at at same alt and speed, the FW hardly has a chance against a well flown Spit. Your only advantage is speed. The Spit even manages to catch up in a dive. It is really hard work to get the advantage. No whining here..if this is what it was in real live, i won‚¬īt complian. But my impression was different from what I've read.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

blabla0001
03-10-2004, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
But my impression was different from what I've read.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never read tests regarding the 1942 and up Spitfire Vb's, only about the 1941 Spitfire Vb's and these where indeed outclassed by the FW190 A's except in turning.
As Oleg has stated the ones we have in the game now are beefed up and modified Spitfire Vb's.

Hunde_3.JG51
03-10-2004, 09:45 AM
Beowolf, that is one thing that bothers me, I thought I would at least be able to easily out-dive the Spitifre but it doesn't happen. You can't out-climb the Spitifre, it has better firepower (though much shorter firing time), 190 has no advantage in zoom climb, nor any advantage in dive, and it takes more, or an equal amount of damage than a 190 (except in engine). This is not what I have read either.

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

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

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
But my impression was different from what I've read.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never read tests regarding the 1942 and up Spitfire Vb's, only about the 1941 Spitfire Vb's and these where indeed outclassed by the FW190 A's except in turning.
As Oleg has stated the ones we have in the game now are beefed up and modified Spitfire Vb's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then look for this RAF data.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030510130758/www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

Not enough, look for other Spitfires V there.... All will have better climb rate that German data for FW-190A-4 or A-5....
So this wrong? or wrong the term in FW190 V Spit V test about climb values?

I think the test that you talk say wrong term about climb. Probaly they means climb from high speed - zoom climb. And then FW will be really better.

By simple school calculations with weight trust on propeller, wing loading we will get easy that Bf-109 is better than FW and Spitfire is also better....

So in all terms here are contradictions of one doc to many single trials of each aircraft.
Please try to think about it.

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Beowolf, that is one thing that bothers me, I thought I would at least be able to easily out-dive the Spitifre but it doesn't happen. You can't out-climb the Spitifre, it has better firepower (though much shorter firing time), 190 has no advantage in zoom climb, nor any advantage in dive, and it takes more, or an equal amount of damage than a 190 (except in engine). This is not what I have read either.

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

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

Please try to test it with you friend online, fly in parallel, close to each other. Record the track. The exchange the planes and do the the same test, write the track. Send me if you think it is wrong.

Bewolf
03-10-2004, 10:05 AM
*nods*

You may be right here. After all you are the aerodynamics engineer, not I.

Nevertheless, shouldn‚¬īt the 190 at least have advantages in zoom climb or/and dive? Or is this restricted by the FB engine?

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
With propper alt advantage its no problem to own the spit, but starting at at same alt and speed, the FW hardly has a chance against a well flown Spit. Your only advantage is speed. The Spit even manages to catch up in a dive. It is really hard work to get the advantage. No whining here..if this is what it was in real live, i won‚¬īt complian. But my impression was different from what I've read.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really you just repeated what some German pilots really told.

II_JG2_Roth
03-10-2004, 10:08 AM
Not only we as Aircraft Historians go by factory specs...but also test pilot,and of fighter pilot accounts. Galland himself stated that the FW-190 was very forgiving and did flat turns better than the Bf-109. He also stated in his last interview that the FW-190's made the Bf-109 obsolete. He stated that this was a fact before the K-4 and the K-14 were made. I do know that in IL2FB that the FW-190 flies WORSE...It's very Stall Happy! Sure, the 190s have the speed and climb OK, but over all the Fw needs much improvement. When ever the Allies made improvements to their aircraft Germany either did the same or were ahead of the pack, it was a constant case of "keeping up with the Joneses". Ask any Allied pilots who are still around who fought against the Luftwaffe and they will tell you how remarkable the German aircraft flew; especially near the end of '44-45. Germany's Air War was lost due to a number of factors: lack of good leadership (Goering's empty promises, Milich's lack of intelligence, the sheer numbers of Allied A/c (the RAF, RAAF, RCAF and USAAF figured that more meant better, regardless of acutal pilot skill) and the lack of experienced Luftwaffe pilots/supplies due to the massive daylight/nighttime bombing by the Allies of key German targets/refineries, NOT BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF THE GERMAN AIRCRAFT! I myself fly real airplanes and have over 186 hours in the air. In all my years of flying real aircraft and sim-craft; I have met many pilots that have flown against the Japs and Germans. Most all of the American pilots all have stated to me, "We almost lost the Air War against the Germans...their aircraft was rather advanced compared to ours." One P-51D pilot I met told me that the D-9, k-4 and the k-14 could "easily whip us if they had had the gas and good pilots!"
One question I do have is: Why is it LA7 is like a God...and the Spitfire's like the "SON of God" in this game...and the German planes are the Devil? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif Is it because the Victors are always right, like Napoleon once said "History is a fable agreed upon by the victors"? As an Aircraft historian and pilot...I doubt it! Also, don't forget that the majority of the Luftwaffe post-1941 was caught on the ground with no gas...not in the air. In the BOB the He-111s and the Stukas were nearly obsolete (The Stuka was obsolete by 1938 really) and the Spits were in their infancy. I don't think you can use single-engine fighter attacks against cumbersome twin-engine bombers and obsolete single-engine dive bombers as evidence of "Allied fighter superiority". If Goering had better fighter cover, Britain would have cracked. Don't believe me? Then why is it the British were begging America to get involved against Germany. The only reason Germany lost the Air War against the Russians was not because the the Russian planes were better, it was because there was a war on two fronts, and Goering could not get the required number of transport planes due to problems with workers sabotaging the planes and a breakdown in supply and command under him. Not to mention, not all of the transport planes could get through the winter weather and over an area where Russians had acquired fighter superiority. (again due to Hitler's two-front war system AND the fact that the Russian Front was seen as more of a less-important front than Britain in the beginning; which Hitler realized later on was not to be the case. Russia is a difficult country to invade on all fronts due to the Russian tactic of slash and burn and the mercenary Cossack hordes, which at the time were still on horseback and literally ran circles around the German Panzer divisions which were bogged in the sticky Russian mud of the season. General Winter again came to the aid of Mother Russia, like he had done at least twice in the past.

At any rate, to stop the accusations of "Luftwhining"; I would like to add that the p51 series could be highly improved, as it is not as maneuverable as it should be - should have the speed and maneuverability of the La-7, while the La-7 should be toned down a bit and the damage modelling improved - the plane was made of wood and metal and could not take that much of a beating. In the game, it seems to be made of the same material of a Timex watch - takes a lickin and keeps on tickin. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Best Regards and with all due Respect;

Roth

faustnik
03-10-2004, 10:13 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
I think the test that you talk say wrong term about climb. Probaly they means climb from high speed - zoom climb. And then FW will be really better.
QUOTE]

Oleg,

The tactical trials at Farnborough and the test made by Eric Brown invloved sustained climbs from take-off.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Bewolf
03-10-2004, 10:13 AM
Though i feel where you are coming from, Roth, i don‚¬īt think this kind of argumentation will bring us much further. I don‚¬īt believe in "this nations planes are better then those nations planes". It is all about they way you use your planes.

Nevertheless, this 190 vs. Spit debate interests me. I've already learned a lot here.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by II_JG2_Roth:
Not only we as Aircraft Historians go by factory specs...but also test pilot,and of fighter pilot accounts. Galland himself stated that the FW-190 was very forgiving and did flat turns better than the Bf-109. He also stated in his last interview that the FW-190's made the Bf-109 obsolete. He stated that this was a fact before the K-4 and the K-14 were made. I do know that in IL2FB that the FW-190 flies WORSE...It's very Stall Happy! Sure, the 190s have the speed and climb OK, but over all the Fw needs much improvement. When ever the Allies made improvements to their aircraft Germany either did the same or were ahead of the pack, it was a constant case of "keeping up with the Joneses". Ask any Allied pilots who are still around who fought against the Luftwaffe and they will tell you how remarkable the German aircraft flew; especially near the end of '44-45. Germany's Air War was lost due to a number of factors: lack of good leadership (Goering's empty promises, Milich's lack of intelligence, the sheer numbers of Allied A/c (the RAF, RAAF, RCAF and USAAF figured that more meant better, regardless of acutal pilot skill) and the lack of experienced Luftwaffe pilots/supplies due to the massive daylight/nighttime bombing by the Allies of key German targets/refineries, NOT BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF THE GERMAN AIRCRAFT! I myself fly real airplanes and have over 186 hours in the air. In all my years of flying real aircraft and sim-craft; I have met many pilots that have flown against the Japs and Germans. Most all of the American pilots all have stated to me, "We almost lost the Air War against the Germans...their aircraft was rather advanced compared to ours." One P-51D pilot I met told me that the D-9, k-4 and the k-14 could "easily whip us if they had had the gas and good pilots!"
One question I do have is: Why is it LA7 is like a God...and the Spitfire's like the "SON of God" in this game...and the German planes are the Devil? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif Is it because the Victors are always right, like Napoleon once said "History is a fable agreed upon by the victors"? As an Aircraft historian and pilot...I doubt it! Also, don't forget that the majority of the Luftwaffe post-1941 was caught on the ground with no gas...not in the air. In the BOB the He-111s and the Stukas were nearly obsolete (The Stuka was obsolete by 1938 really) and the Spits were in their infancy. I don't think you can use single-engine fighter attacks against cumbersome twin-engine bombers and obsolete single-engine dive bombers as evidence of "Allied fighter superiority". If Goering had better fighter cover, Britain would have cracked. Don't believe me? Then why is it the British were begging America to get involved against Germany. The only reason Germany lost the Air War against the Russians was not because the the Russian planes were better, it was because there was a war on two fronts, and Goering could not get the required number of transport planes due to problems with workers sabotaging the planes and a breakdown in supply and command under him. Not to mention, not all of the transport planes could get through the winter weather and over an area where Russians had acquired fighter superiority. (again due to Hitler's two-front war system AND the fact that the Russian Front was seen as more of a less-important front than Britain in the beginning; which Hitler realized later on was not to be the case. Russia is a difficult country to invade on all fronts due to the Russian tactic of slash and burn and the mercenary Cossack hordes, which at the time were still on horseback and literally ran circles around the German Panzer divisions which were bogged in the sticky Russian mud of the season. General Winter again came to the aid of Mother Russia, like he had done at least twice in the past.

At any rate, to stop the accusations of "Luftwhining"; I would like to add that the p51 series could be highly improved, as it is not as maneuverable as it should be - should have the speed and maneuverability of the La-7, while the La-7 should be toned down a bit and the damage modelling improved - the plane was made of wood and metal and could not take that much of a beating. In the game, it seems to be made of the same material of a Timex watch - takes a lickin and keeps on tickin. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Best Regards and with all due Respect;

Roth<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Galland said exactly other things whey he was asked by american pilot after the war. He said that Americans did right tests with FW-190s, but had wrong conclusion that it is better fighter than Bf-109. The he tell that he flew both and know what he said.

Don't tell me about flat turns with such weight and wing loading comparing to Bf-109... Imposible. And all tests FW-190 vs Bf-109 show exactly other things than you tell about turns... Even tests beween German pilots on a front line. I recommend to read more Germans.....

Flamin_Squirrel
03-10-2004, 10:26 AM
Ok so you give a figure of 3240fpm for the spit at sea level. That seems reasonable. However, since you're saying the 190 was worse than that, this would mean the 190 was well over 1000fpm slower in the climb that the 109. If the 190 really performed that badly it would never have been used. The Germans would have just stuck with the 109.

As for the zoom climb, thats suicide for a 190 with a spit on its tail in AEP. If you try and zoom straight away the spit will stay with you and you'll get shot down. Extending away from the spit after a dive will keep you alive due to the 190's higher top speed... but you have to live long enough to reach that speed. (This is because the 190's acceleration isnt significantly better, if at all, than the spits. Again, completely wrong. I defy anyone to find an objective source stating the spit V could out accelerate a 190 of the same year.)

If you extend, you have to fly for so long to gain enough seperation, the extra speed you gain in the dive for the zoom is gone. Then you're back to square 1 because you cant outclimb the spit, so you're only option is to hope the spit pilot gets bored.

Please, just fix the 190, you're not fooling anyone.

hop2002
03-10-2004, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> posted 10-03-04 06:05
http://web.archive.org/web/20030510130758/www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

Check with our Spit with merlin 45 please.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg, that's a test of a Spit V at 9lbs boost, done before the end of June 1941.

By summer 1942, the boost had been increased to 16 lbs, see http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

That increased speed to approx 510 km/h at sea level, for the normal Mk Vb, not the LF model.

The test also shows that the limit prior to 16 lbs being authorised was 12 lbs:

2. Boost (lb/sq.in.)

(i) Max. for climbing (normal rating)(1 hr. limit) +9
(ii) Max. for all-out level flight (normal rating)(5 minute limit) +9
(iii) Max. for all-out level in special emergency (prior to increase to +16) +12
(iv) Max. for climb and level flight (combat rating)(3 min. limit) +16

I don't know the exact date the limits were increased from 9 lbs to 12 lbs, but it was probably late 41 or early 42.

This test is dated Nov 42, but the period of tests is listed as July to September 42. Also, the test of Arnim Faber's Fw 190 A3 says that the Spitfire was tested at 12 lbs, but since the tests were conducted, this has increased to 16 lbs.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_282_1078596128.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-10-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Beowolf, that is one thing that bothers me, I thought I would at least be able to easily out-dive the Spitifre but it doesn't happen. You can't out-climb the Spitifre, it has better firepower (though much shorter firing time), 190 has no advantage in zoom climb, nor any advantage in dive, and it takes more, or an equal amount of damage than a 190 (except in engine). This is not what I have read either.

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

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please try to test it with you friend online, fly in parallel, close to each other. Record the track. The exchange the planes and do the the same test, write the track. Send me if you think it is wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I will do that Oleg, and if I am wrong I will glady apologize. Thanks for the response.

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

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

Kwiatos
03-10-2004, 10:36 AM
I confirm that Fw190 in FB hasn't adventage in ZOOM CLIMB compare it to Spitfire (Fw190 should be much better in dive and zoom climb). But the same is P-40 vs A6M, P-47 vs Bf109. It looks like zoom climb is not correctly modeled in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by II_JG2_Roth:
7, while the La-7 should be toned down a bit and the damage modelling improved - the plane was made of wood and metal and could not take that much of a beating. In the game, it seems to be made of the same material of a Timex watch - takes a lickin and keeps on tickin. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Best Regards and with all due Respect;

Roth<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can I tell you one secret thing about that wood tha named "delta-drevesina"?
This "wood" making the plane really more durable than metallic for your sure.
The technology of deltawood was copied by Germans in the end of the war making wings of Me-163 and He-162 when they had the same problems with metal like russians till 1943...
Don't you think that about 30% of UK aircraft had wooden details? Lets recall Mosquito? It seems that this plane wasn't easy to shot down not only because of speed isn't it?

Now back to delta-wood. It is technology that make wood like carbon. And all LaGG and La fighters of that period were made using this technology. Its why they had more weight than Yaks in general and why with the same engine as Yak, LaGG was worse then Yak of the same year.
Deltawood worse than carbon in followint case : weight. Carbon is lighter with the same durability.

So better to know more about technologies that to speak easy that if it is wooden then it is simply bad. For you sure fully mettalic Yak-3 with the same engine shown worse result than wooden... So?

Back to P-51 maneuverability.
Several trials on low-mid altitudes shown that even Yak-9DD (heaviest of Yaks) win the battle... However the picture changes from mid to high altitudes, where P-51D step by step became better and beter of any Russian aircraft of serial production of that time.
Its too different things isn' it?

Now about that some russian plane should be downed... Sorry we downed them already so much.... that they doesn't match mnufacture specifications and the performace is done like for nominal engine data... However all russian curves published are for nominal data. It is easy to read in a text of so-loved to show in the west pictures of book "Samoletostroenie v SSSR" . TsZAGI. All like to post curves but nobody like to translate the text on pages where is clearly ssaid on which modes (except La-5-La-7 series) of engines were taken this data. It is intersting fact and I hope that someone of western authors will traslate it correctly for sure. I don't post this text myself becasue I already tried... and then I got simply the flame that it isn't possible at all... From these like you. Sorry. Please don't offend.

Ok, need to go home. Enough said.

Sorry also to say, but my personal opinion about Mustang Vs Spitfire will be more in side of Spitfire... if to take the same years of production and the same engines inside.
And don't tell me about laminar airfoil... About this enough said how it works and where it gives advatage that almost never was achived on p-51 and even made bad for low speed maneuverability... Trust me it is pointed in USA docs about trials for P-51 and even for P-63..

Oleg_Maddox
03-10-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I confirm that Fw190 in FB hasn't adventage in ZOOM CLIMB compare it to Spitfire (Fw190 should be much better in dive and zoom climb). But the same is P-40 vs A6M, P-47 vs Bf109. It looks like zoom climb is not correctly modeled in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please make the same as asked above - test tracks with exchange of pilots (online).

CHDT
03-10-2004, 10:58 AM
"But the same is P-40 vs A6M, P-47 vs Bf109. It looks like zoom climb is not correctly modeled in FB"

Don't forget that IL-2 was at first developed as a sim only on a a single attack aircraft flying at low altitude.

As it is now sim FB/AEP is already very realistic. Surely the energy model will be even improved in Battle of Britain.

By the way, it sometimes hard to say correct things about dive and zoom climbs, because usually online players fly at lower altitudes, as a start for the boom and zooming manoeuvers, than the aircrafts did in real life. If you have enough altitude, nothing can beat in FB a 190 or in P-47 in a dive http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,

II_JG2_Roth
03-10-2004, 11:20 AM
Actually Oleg; my wife's cousin FLEW for the Luftwaffe in the war so I have some good sources in regards to books and "you were there" statements. You have the 110 allright in the game, that's no problem and I applaud you for it; it goes exactly to the specs that he had written about. The only problem with ANY plane in history is that you will get biased reviews on all sides; and an unbiased historical view of the plane is difficult to get. Looking at the Focke and the 109, the 109 is a more slender plane (looking at the G here), smaller control surfaces, shorter and wider prop blades (If my memory and the books serve me right, it had auto-prop-pitch and mixture along with liquid cooling) with smaller wing surfaces as well. The 109E (The F-4 Trop being the best in testing according to Matricardi and others, including Marseille and Neumann) effectively closed the era of biplane fighters; and the advent of Willy Messerschmidt's 109 was in effect the progenitor of ALL monoplane fighter aircraft (the qualitative standards sooner or later served as reference points for manufacturers throughout the world). In this role, the 109E had a fierce adversary in another "immortal", the Supermarine Spitfire, with which it participated in a continuous technological chase, aimed at gaining supremacy in the air and leading to the continuous strengthening and improvement of both aircraft. The E-1 had a much larger control surface as well:

Engine: DB 601D 12 cyl liquid cooled 1,050 hp
Wingspan: 9.87m
Length: 8.65m
Height 2.50 m
weight 2,010 kg loaded
Max speed 550 km/h at 4,000m
ceiling 10,500 m
range 660 km

The K4 and K-14, though smaller planes when compared to the early E and F series, were in fact the best aircraft of the series.

The K series were developed from the G series, and differed from them thusly: Altered shape of the engine housing, longer spinner, larger rudder-tail fin unit and a "Galland" canopy, which allowed for a larger field of vision. In the K-0 preproduction, the 30 mm nose cannon was replaced by a pair of 15 mm MG 151 in the fuselage. As for the engine, although the DB 605 D was going to be installed, the more powerful DB 605 ASCM was later adopted for the production series a/c. The engine was capable of generating 2,000 hp at takeoff and 1,800 hp at an altitude of 5,000 meters.

The Spit MK Vb's cockpit was pressurized , and in order to improve the aerodynamics at great altitudes, the wingspan was increased and the wingtips were rounded. In May 41 the first clashes with the ME109 took place, although the Spits always retained a slight overall advantage, except at altitudes over 6,000m

In comparison with German aircraft, the balance between Spit and Luftwaffe single-engine fighter was upset with the addition of the FockeWulf 190 A-3. During the first clashes with this adversary over France, it was obvious the Spit was inferior except for in the ability to make tighter turns. The response to this Luftwaffe threat was using the MkV airframe and the most powerful engine in the Merlin line of 1,565 hp; called the IX. Focke naturally rose to the challenge and made their new Focke A8 (1943), which though it was a larger a/c than the earlier versions, boasted a more powerful engine and larger control surfaces to compensate for the weight. These A8s were considered a "perfect match" to the IX and the P51Ds. (though in the game this is not the case, despite how good of a pilot one is.) The Spit could turn tighter than the Focke due to the large wing surface, but in the game the Focke is too stall-happy (wing stall) which does not correlate with the specifications of a very stable flight platform.

With the advent of the daylight bombing raids on Germany; however, the Focke was used more and more for light bombing and bomber intercept, hence the Ta-152 of Kurt Tank and its eventual metamorphosis into the deadly D-9. I would like to know why these new planes are so flat-stall happy when they weren't before the AEP patch.

The Yak was a very good plane and is so in the game; it is modelled perfectly.

The La-7 however, again I have issues with this. The La-5 could not be compared with the 109G aircraft; Lavochkin made some improvements to the airframe, going from all-wood to a mixture of metal and wood (metallic spars for the wings), added a larger engine and improved the control surfaces for better maneuverability, resulting in the La-5FN. But it had a max speed of only 647 km/h at 5,000m with the 1,700 hp Shvestov engine, so the 109G could easily make borscht out of it. The La-7 had further improvement with a larger engine and better control surfaces, but since it only came into the end of the war in 1944 it really does not figure well as a standard fighter for the VVS. I'm going to have to read further on this compared to the K-14 since both were considered the "best" of their respective countries before making any more claims to German a/c performance versus VVS or Allied - which means more reading those "useless paper thingies" known as books. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But the K-4 109 should be better than the G series in the game, which it is not. The G-2 seems to be the better of the two, which just does not add up. The F series were supposed to be the best in the early Emil/Franz/Gustav series and this too is not the case. Perhaps that and the torque issue (needs to be increased) can be addressed later in a patch if there's enough information to it. Even though the left wing tended to tip due to torque at slower speeds, the wingtip stall needs to be turned down on ALL aircraft, as flying on a good day like we usually do in the game does not make for large wind speeds. Battles in bad weather were usually avoided; though turbulence would be difficult in the mountain/shoreline maps due to differences in altitude and lee winds off the water.


Thank you for listening.

Roth

II_JG2_Roth
03-10-2004, 11:33 AM
Information on the LA series I found:

So if the LaGG series were good at 15,000 feet and lower; their performance at higher altitudes were sorely poor; despite the delta-wood construction (plastic-impregnated birch plywood as the article states below) they still when confronted with the heavier armament of the G series and the Fockes (when equipped) would splinter like a bakelite toy in a Russian winter.

So the trick to eating the La series in the game must be heavier armament. But then why is the La so maneuverable in the game at high altitudes over 15,000 feet then? That cannot be to specs as the article states.

Lavochkin's "Grand Pianos"
Born at Smolensk in 1900, Semyon A. Lavochkin could look forward to few opportunities for social or professional advancement in Csarist Russia because he was Jewish. Lavochkin was finishing school at the Kursk Gymnasium when the Bolshevik Revolution broke out in 1917. After three years of combat in the Red Army, he was accepted at the Moscow Aviation Institute in late 1920, and graduated with high honors.

Forming a design team with Vladimir P. Gorbunov and Mikhail I. Gudkov in May 1938, Lavochkin designed his first original airplane in response to a Soviet requirement for a new-generation fighter to replace the Polikarpov I-15 biplane and I-16 monoplane. The I-22 or LaGG-1 prototype was powered by a Klimov M-105P in-line, water-cooled engine. It flew on March 30, 1939, and entered service in 1940. With an improved M-105PF engine and some modifications, it entered full production as the I-301 or LaGG-3.

To circumvent shortages of steel tube and light alloy in the aircraft industry, the LaGG-3 was mainly constructed of delta drevesina (delta timber), a plastic-impregnated birch plywood, developed by L.I. Ryzhkov, that was fire-resistant and exceptionally strong. The appearance of these highly polished wooden fighters soon earned them the nickname of "Grand Pianos" from the pilots, but later nicknames for the LaGG-3 were to be less affectionate. Underpowered and overweight, the LaGG-3 also revealed a tendency to go into a sudden, vicious spin from a steep banking turn. Although a few experienced Soviet pilots had a measure of success in the LaGG-3, pilots in most outfits were inadequately prepared for its unforgiving characteristics. Many interpreted LaGG as an acronym for "Lakirovanny Garantirovanny Grob" (varnished, guaranteed coffin), and their lack of confidence in their aircraft stood them in poor stead against their highly skilled Luftwaffe opponents.

In October 1941, Gudkov began studies into the possibilities of replacing the water-cooled M-105 with the air-cooled Shvetsov M-82 14-cylinder engine. Lighter and generating 1,540 hp against the M-105's 1,100 hp, the M-82 had an almost miraculous effect on the performance, maneuverability and durability of the basic LaGG-3 airframe. Rushed into production in the summer of 1942, the LaG-5 radial-engine fighter was an interim improvisation that soon gave way to the La-5, a more refined version with the improved M-82F engine, a strengthened airframe, and the rear fuselage cut away to improve visibility. The single 20mm cannon and twin 7.62mm machine guns of the LaGG-3 were replaced by two 20mm cannon in the La-5.

The La-5FN, powered by a 1,650-hp M-82FN engine cooled by a distinctive air intake above the cowling, was a significant improvement. It had metal fuselage longerons, wings of greater span and narrower shord, and introduced automatic boundary layer control--suction-powered leading-edge slats.

Designed for combat below 15,000 feet, the La-5s generally outperformed their Luftwaffe opponents at the low altitudes dictated by the principally tactical war fought over Russia. At their best at higher altitudes, the Messerschmitt Bf-109G and Focke-Wulf Fw-190A fighters were also less durable than the Lavochkins when operating in the harsh field conditions of the Eastern Front.

The change from in-line to radial engines had as dramatic an effect on Semyon Lavochkin's career as it had on the aerodynamics of his fighter. Discredited for the LaGG-3's poor service record, he was awarded the Order of Lenin and the Gold Star of a Hero of Soviet Labor for the success of the La-5 series.

The ultimate wooden Lavochkin, the La-7, was another interim design, put into produciton late in 1943 pending development of the all-metal La-9. Its M-82 FNV engine generated 1,850 hp and, with the air intake moved under the fuselage, the cowling was one of the most streamlined ever to enclose a radial engine. Armament was increased to three 20mm ShVak or 23mm NS cannon, which could be supplemented by six RS-82 rockets or 331 pounds of bombs on underwing racks. The La-7 had a wingspan of 32 feet, 5 3/4 inches, and was 27 feet, 4 inches long. Maximum speed was 423 mph at 20,997 feet. Takeoff weight was 7,496 pounds. Reaching the front late in 1944, the La-7 was arguably the best Soviet low- and medium-altitude fighter of World War II.

Semyon Lavochkin continued to be active in the aviation field until his death in 1965, but never matched the success of his World War II designs. Those subsequently were eclipsed by the team of Artem I. Mikoyan and Mikhail I. Gurevich, whose MiG-1 and MiG-3 fighters had done poorly during the war years, but whose designs came brilliantly into their own in the jet age.

J.G

Need I mention that the K-4 ME 109 had a top speed of 451 mph at no less than 21,00 feet. and the standard Focke D9 had a top speed of 425mph at 21,000 feet. The Focke F-8 was slower at 21,000 with 393 mph. The K-14 was even better than the K-4, with outstanding performance at high altitudes (top speed 451 at 37,5000, with the 30 mm nose cannon and the 13mm MG131 machine guns in the fuselage, designed to shoot down the heavier aircraft. At high altitudes the delta-wood would snap due to temperature, making it as brittle as the aluminum constructed German planes in the cold.

I live in a region almost as cold as the Russian front in the winter. Plastic, and bakelite especially (my wife collects Bakelite) goes "snap" below -20 F, which would be experienced in higher altitudes.

Best Regards

Roth

[This message was edited by II_JG2_Roth on Wed March 10 2004 at 10:46 AM.]

dude_163
03-10-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I confirm that Fw190 in FB hasn't adventage in ZOOM CLIMB compare it to Spitfire (Fw190 should be much better in dive and zoom climb). But the same is P-40 vs A6M, P-47 vs Bf109. It looks like zoom climb is not correctly modeled in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

strange, i flew a spitfire and was able to zoom to 1100 metres, but in a 190A4 I could zoom to 1850
also the A4 was 110 KMH faster ina dive

JG26Red
03-10-2004, 12:02 PM
imagine what it will be like when the new spit comes? we luftwaffe pilots are all screwed then.. lol...

Zikky
03-10-2004, 12:22 PM
Good grief!

Why all this commotion about the Spitfire?
It's mediocre at best and you lot wanna make it worse.Don't make me laugh.

Not happy with convincing Oleg to degrade Soviet aircraft(La5FN,I-16 for examlple),the hordes now wish to cripple the Spit.

I say again,it is modelled as a mediocre performer in-game.
Just what are people scared of?I really fail to understand.

Both the 109 and 190 eat any model for breakfast currently.

JG26Red
03-10-2004, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zikky:
Good grief!

Why all this commotion about the Spitfire?
It's mediocre at best and you lot wanna make it worse.Don't make me laugh.

Not happy with convincing Oleg to degrade Soviet aircraft(La5FN,I-16 for examlple),the hordes now wish to cripple the Spit.

I say again,it is modelled as a mediocre performer in-game.
Just what are people scared of?I really fail to understand.

Both the 109 and 190 eat any model for breakfast currently.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

have you actually flown the 2 in a fight?

Zikky
03-10-2004, 12:32 PM
Yes,and also observed the online fighting between Spitfire's and German opposition.
The results were conclusively in favour of the FW and Messerschmitt.

I'm talking full difficulty settings.
The blues used historically accurate figher tactics and remained untouchable.
This was on at least half a dozen severs recently.

Just read the various forums and you will see that the experienced Blue fighters do not fear the Spit one little bit.

Flamin_Squirrel
03-10-2004, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zikky:
Good grief!

Why all this commotion about the Spitfire?
It's mediocre at best and you lot wanna make it worse.Don't make me laugh.

Not happy with convincing Oleg to degrade Soviet aircraft(La5FN,I-16 for examlple),the hordes now wish to cripple the Spit.

I say again,it is modelled as a mediocre performer in-game.
Just what are people scared of?I really fail to understand.

Both the 109 and 190 eat any model for breakfast currently.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The spit, imo is not over modeled. Its the 190 that is completely undermodeled.

As for the statement that the 190 eats other models for breakfast... well you clearly havnt played enough online.

Zikky
03-10-2004, 12:43 PM
We must frequent different servers then.
Generalising the FW190 series,they can totally dictate the fight on their own terms.
It climbs well,has superb firepower,speed,roll-rate and is hard to match in the vertical.
Listening to veteran Wurger pilot's it's worst vice is forward visibility.

What you say totally contradicts what I have witnessed online.
Then again,this is a thread of contradictions,so why differ now.

II_JG2_Roth
03-10-2004, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Not happy with convincing Oleg to degrade Soviet aircraft(La5FN,I-16 for examlple),the hordes now wish to cripple the Spit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Happy or not...emotion is not involved in this discussion, however we search for facts and learn from each other. We are not attempting to cripple anything...if anything but to only repair and patch up things that are crippled like a medical procedure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>have you actually flown the 2 in a fight?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said! JG26_Red http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Some people like the game aspects only to Il2FB [AE]...and some like the game closer to historical values, I like the latter.

keep it real!
II/JG2_Roth

JG26Red
03-10-2004, 01:05 PM
Anotons still need some work... i have said it before and will say it again,

either tone down the ufos.. LAYAK Spit?

or pep up the Anton, because eventhou the A4 and A5 should be faster and climb better than the spits, they DONT... A9 will be lucky to climb away lol...

heck if the current spits do this well now, the 9s will just eat us all for lunch, of course, iam sure they will still be a tad worse than the LAYAKUFO series...

Zikky
03-10-2004, 01:07 PM
You want historical accuracy?

If you have read Oleg's posts over the years,you will note that he has reduced the performance of Soviet fighters in-game as a direct result of petitioning of people in this forum.

This is not me making stuff up,it is written fact.


I see a pattern,do you?

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2004, 01:16 PM
On SimHQ I read a post with a FULL account of the FW190 vs Spit VB competition written by the guy who flew the Spit, a good friend of the guy who flew the FW. The guy who wrote it was going to fly the FW but he conceeded that the other pilot was better suited. Anyone who hasn't seen it should go and read the account.

One thing that stood to mind was when he described the climbing. The FW pilot did as he should and kept his speed in the climb to 400kph, IIRC. The Spit pilot tried following the FW and ended up low, very low. He could not maintain speed and gain the alt at the same time. That fits exactly with the quotes I've seen pulled from what seems to me to be another observer or observers to the same event. The Spit was more level while the FW flew at a higher angle and the FW climbed faster.
HOWEVER -- the Spit pilot said that they flew climbs again and when he climbed at 160mph, the Spit outclimbed the FW which was still going at best climb speed of, IIRC, 400kph. Please check that speed, it is IMPORTANT if you want to run any kind of good tests.

He also mentioned that in dives the FW pulled away but that was after 2000-3000 feet of dive. Not right away from the start. It has been shown here in understandable (at least to me and others who aren't afraid of some HS-JrHS algebra and physics) math that until near or at level max speed it will be power to weight that rules in a dive. Which plane had more of that?

Running your own tests:
I've never seen so many "experts" as on forums. Experts who nonetheless make mistakes left and right. Experts who make blanket statements about planes and then set up tests based on those.

Anybody can fly any plane poorly. It's easy. It doesn't prove the plane is not good, just the pilot isn't. Treat them all the same or nearly so, that's easy to do too. Want to get the most out of one? Well, spend 2 or 3 hours or -days- if you want to be *extra careful* and then come posting how PORKED it is!

What freaking sub-class amateurs! Spend your time and if you can't make the numbers then try this... ASK how it's done! If you can know so much so quickly then your time is wasted on Games. Good sim pilots are discovering things about the models they fly weeks into a good sim, and they still probably haven't got it all. Just because you're comfortable doesn't mean you can get the most out of a plane.

The 190 outturning the 109. Sure but you should mention the speed and alt in the same paragraph. Otherwise your knowlege is outweighed by your ignorance.

Examples are the Hurricane I vs the Bf109E and the P-40E vs the Zero of the same early Pacific War period. Which did better in those two cases?

Hurri vs 109: Answer is the 109 could outturn the Hurri ==and== the Hurri could outturn the 109 if you take altitude into consideration. So I could get and have quotes from the same pilot about the same fight against the same plane that could be taken to say the 109 was better in one sentence and that the Hurri was better in another, and BOTH are correct.

P-40E vs Zero: Answer is either could outturn the other is you take speed into consideration. That's from a former AVG pilot. Yes those guys fought Zeros, they were absorbed by the US forces and fought Zeroes. There were even a few Zeroes over China at one point but the AVG in China fought Japanese Army planes. Still, at high speed the P-40E turned better and at not high speed the Zero turned better. Both are correct.

How's that for History? I can pull contradictory quotes out all day and like farts, it stinks doing that. Or I can pick and choose just the ones I want to prove a false point. Or I can take the words of someone else who has done the same and call it history. It still STINKS of WRONG! Blanket statements should always raise flags to anyone with the ability to think. Just because someone can read history doesn't mean they know the truth. they're just usually good at piling up snow, brown stuff or both.


As Oleg says, Learn To Fly! And I think he means more than "just" being able to fly half decently.


Neal

lbhskier37
03-10-2004, 01:22 PM
Roth, I'm sorry, I dont know what all your sources are, but they are riddled with errors.

And about the spit being overmodeled and the Antons undermodeled, I tend to agree with Oleg. The Antons own the spits right now. In a full real server, and flown with correct tactics the spits can't touch a 190. I'm not that good, but I do employ descent tactics most of the time and in 190 vs. spits I have downed way more spits than have downed me so far.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

faustnik
03-10-2004, 01:29 PM
MaxGunz,

I agree with most of your statement but, I'm not sure about your intent. Do you think that we should not ask questions in ORR? Do you think that it is not possible for there to be a discrepency between FB and real-life data? Case in point the Hurricane in version 1.0. There was an issue with its FM which was later corrected.

As far as I understand it, this is a place to ask questions and make suggestions. If you can do that without being rude and have a supportable base for your claim, why not make it?

I hate the rants but, I hate the "shut up and don't question" line just as much.

Also, I see some mention of "sides" in this thread. There are a large number of forum members here that could care less about "sides" and only want historical realism.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

butch2k
03-10-2004, 01:35 PM
At similar boost setting, 30 minutes rating for instance, the Spit V clearly outclimbed the 190A5. If we consider that the 1942 Mk V 30 minutes rating was 9 lb, and the A5 30 minutes was 1.32ata there is absolutly no doubt on the outcome.

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/fw190a5-climb.jpg

I think figures speak for themselves.

butch2k
03-10-2004, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
At similar boost setting, 30 minutes rating for instance, the Spit V clearly outclimbed the 190A5. If we consider that the 1942 Mk V 30 minutes rating was 9 lb, and the A5 30 minutes was 1.32ata there is absolutly no doubt on the outcome.

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/fw190a5-climb.jpg

I think figures speak for themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2004, 01:41 PM
Zikky;

Some of these guys think that the FW should "Rule" at any altitude and speed. They fly down low at under 400pkh and can't hit a target they're not right freaking behind. And then they say the FW is the problem.
They climb the thing at 300kph or less and expect it to meet the charts in climb.
They run the engine at 110% and closed or near closed radiator and then b!tch about overheat. One has not read the FW Overheat threads and still thinks the Closed/Auto works. (Clueless Dude - hint: it doesn't even if the message says so.)
Running at full WEP till you see the overheat message and then counting on so many minutes is supposed to be the way to get the most isn't it? Not in real life. The oil begins breaking down and the engine performance degrades little by little by increasingly more as overheat is held. It does not regain full power just by cooling off in real life either. Oil must be changed and sometimes the engine overhauled at least to the valves level but rings should be checked and maybe more if the engine was abused badly. How much of that is in the sim I can't say but who among the whiners even thinks that maybe this could be? None of them. It is not easy to find in a book or on the web so it is not real to them.

That is who you're dealing with. They want only a sim that they can pick a side and have it go as they think with no need to do more than learn a few rules and quote some reports. If something is not working then whine like a dweeb because learning more is not to be considered.

Oh yeah... I'm about sick of it.


Neal

Zikky
03-10-2004, 01:46 PM
Faustnik,

I applaud your desire to champion people who want to critique Oleg's work and question his sources.

But,playing devil's advocate,I have to point out that these people often have their own agenda,knowing full well that Oleg does his best to please people('cept maybe in the case of the Focke-wulf forward view and P-47 roll-rate-but that's for another thread!).

It's been shown in the past that if enough people continue to harrangue him over certain issues,he will eventually give in or at least partially concede and change things,notwithstanding historical accuracy.
That's what worries me.


Neal-interesting read,thanks-should be a sticky hereabouts


I'll end with a quote from Oleg.

"Simply this user think that*blankety blank should be betrer all because it is his favorite aircrathttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Usual story". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


*blankety-blank added to avoid adding further fuel to the fire

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2004, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
MaxGunz,

I agree with most of your statement but, I'm not sure about your intent. Do you think that we should not ask questions in ORR? Do you think that it is not possible for there to be a discrepency between FB and real-life data? Case in point the Hurricane in version 1.0. There was an issue with its FM which was later corrected.

As far as I understand it, this is a place to ask questions and make suggestions. If you can do that without being rude and have a supportable base for your claim, why not make it?

I hate the rants but, I hate the "shut up and don't question" line just as much.

Also, I see some mention of "sides" in this thread. There are a large number of forum members here that could care less about "sides" and only want historical realism.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that questions are good. I think that pointing out what seems to be a problem is also good. But it is not so simple and not so black and white.

I think that insisting on something being a problem on the basis of a few quotes or poorly flown self tests is bad, very bad if for no other reason than it gets attention away from any real problems and worse...

You remember the whole thing about trim on a slider? And the "fix" that we're stuck with?

And how the FW's are not to front line specs but rather factory specs? And now it's not just the FW's?

But still the FW gunsight view is what it is?

I think these are what comes of not just poor but actually bad arguments and outright whining. I've seen what the same crap did to RB3D (I was a beta on that one and yiii what the whiners did there, the whole thing got dropped and wrapped as it was never to be worked on except as mods again) and can see the damage to this sim.
Fortunately Oleg is in better control than the makers of RB and fortunately he is staying that way. But there is still damage.


Neal

II_JG2_Roth
03-10-2004, 01:56 PM
[quote]You want historical accuracy?

If you have read Oleg's posts over the years,you will note that he has reduced the performance of Soviet fighters in-game as a direct result of petitioning of people in this forum.

This is not me making stuff up,it is written fact.


I see a pattern,do you?[quote]/


Yes, some people over do it and Oleg and I are discussing it. Oleg has read my write ups for the Expansion Pack and he's right on with quite a few aircraft. Like Oleg has said, bring the doc's to back up the claims. I was one of the "Freeware designer's" of CFS3. When I tried IL2FB I was impressed enough to quit CFS3 for it was a " Cartoon Simulation" compared to the Quality of IL2FB. As we continue to share notes about the flight model's, I know that Oleg has been reading and re-searching while he makes a point on correcting things. I'm greatful that he's listening...ask Microshaft to listen to facts.lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif I believe JG26_Red has a point ...he's been doing his homework. The Spitfire was a remarkable plane...so was the LA-7, however what I "And many others see," is that a few planes are still Over modeled. Some more than others. We can learn much from history if one side or another doesn't try to re-write it. As I write this, my wife and I are doing a more indepth study of the P-51D Mustang flight preformance...and to compare that to the games aircraft modeling. I'm a real pilot and I love All planes, no matter what nationality. I have seen for many years that German Iron hasn't got the respect that it deserves in any PC Flight Simulations that it has had in real life. If IL2FB was like CFS3...believe me I wouldn't care. I do for I believe that Oleg and his team are on something that other game designers have failed at...and that's realism.

Enough said...I'm tired and need some Zzzz's my spelling is getting worse and I'm far from perfect,just don't let my wife read that.lol
Please everyone don't take my words the wrong way, it wasn't ment to be that way.

Thanks again,
II/JG2_Roth aka LuftwaffeOberst CFS3

faustnik
03-10-2004, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zikky:
Faustnik,

I applaud your desire to champion people who want to critique Oleg's work and question his sources.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need to be a troll Zikky, although maybe that's what you are here for.

ORR is here to ask questions and make suggestions. So, you think it should be completely removed because a few people are rude in their posts? It looks like you might fall right in line with that lot so, maybe you are happy with the way things are?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

faustnik
03-10-2004, 02:01 PM
MazGunz,

thanks for the reply, I understand and agree with your point.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Zikky
03-10-2004, 02:18 PM
Ahh the old troll line.
Sadly,I misjudged you.


Oleg's Ready Room is here as an interface between developer and end user.

How this interaction occurs in reality,is that someone starts a topic off by telling Oleg he's got this wrong or that wrong.
A few other experts jump on the band wagon and set themselves up as the voice of the community.
Based on these few users,decisions affecting us all are made.

Yeah right.Still,don't recall howling for this place to be closed.

Just remember one thing-Oleg has only just started publicly posting again recently.

Wonder what caused him to keep away...

LEXX_Luthor
03-10-2004, 02:21 PM
This thread is not worth Oleg's time to respond here.

JG26Red:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...or pep up the Anton, because eventhou the A4 and A5 should be faster and climb better than the spits, they DONT...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>FB's A4 is ~80km faster at sea level than early Spit V.

Nobody gives climb speeds or altitude in their climb Whines.



__________________
"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
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
:
"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

faustnik
03-10-2004, 02:21 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zikky:
Ahh the old troll line.
Sadly,I misjudged you.
QUOTE]

If I misjudged the sarcasm in your post, I apologize.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Zikky
03-10-2004, 02:37 PM
No sarcasm was intended in my words.
I actually agreed with what you said in response to WWMaxGunz and was merely trying to highlight the potential downside.

faustnik
03-10-2004, 02:39 PM
Sometimes it's easy to misread intentions over the internet.

Sorry Zikky.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

II_JG2_Roth
03-10-2004, 02:50 PM
A real Aircraft Historian continues to learn as long as he or her remains "Open Minded".

Thanks for the chart Butch2k. That is real and I like that. Now for the people who don't care about my facts...If you read what I have written in the past Posts you will see where I got them from. My statements other than what I feel are my own. The figures and Historical Data aren't. I can't argue true facts especially factory specs and true pilot documentations from the Luftwaffe and Allied pilot statements. This Forum should not be a debate... mud slinging contest with one another, or one person knocking down another to make themselves look good. I believe that this forum is about sharing data from those " Useless Books and Data Charts and Test results".lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif Come on guys...I wouldn't blame Oleg to say FTS! Like many of us our intentions are to share our data for others to read..like it or not. If this continues I guess the best thing to do is private email Oleg with what findings I can gather. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Roth

Flamin_Squirrel
03-10-2004, 02:59 PM
Well ive just done some tests with a friend, A9 vs Spit LF V (CW). A steep dive to 700kph, followed by a an almost vertical climb. The spit follows the A9 all the way though the manover only slightly droping back. At the end of the climb to stall speed, the spit is only 0.3-0.4km away at the end. Well within effective gun range.

"Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

Thats the reality. A world away from the flight models in FB.

Ive never seen any other data or material to suggest the spit could compete with the 190 like this. So, can we have the 190 fixed now? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

faustnik
03-10-2004, 03:07 PM
Squirrel,

You need to note your altitude, starting speed, map, etc.

The Spit LF VB was a great performer at very low altitudes, the A9 in FB has a high-altitude prop. See if changing altitiudes changes your result.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

II_JG2_Roth
03-10-2004, 03:12 PM
I'm anxious to see your results too....tell us what you got?



Roth

Zikky
03-10-2004, 03:12 PM
Faustnik,
I'm pretty new to this forum malarkey and realise my 'style' is a bit formal and essayish,so no hard feelings I hope and no apology needed -just words on a screen at the end of the day-but cheers.

Zikky
03-10-2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by II_JG2_Roth:

Enough said...I'm tired and need some Zzzz's my spelling is getting worse...



Roth


Shouldn't you be asleep by now? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Flamin_Squirrel
03-10-2004, 03:45 PM
Oh, sorry yes, the test was done a few times starting at about 350kmh from 1500m and 4000m, Radiators closed, 110%. The spit was further back at 4000m but not by much.

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2004, 04:24 PM
How far did you dive? How steep? What start speed? What start alt?

When you climb in sustained climb, what start alt and what maintained airspeed for each plane?

Zoom climb in the FW190 has been noted by, IIRC, Eric Brown that you have to be very smooth on the transition or the FW will tend to sink. Are you losing a lot of speed going from down to up in the FW? How about the Spit?

You guys can swap places all day as someone suggested but if neither of you can fly one of the planes better than the other then that one will not do so well on your tests regardless of what can be done.


Neal

Flamin_Squirrel
03-10-2004, 05:09 PM
We did the test a few times as i say, different hights, different angles of climb, all producing similar results. We didnt do any sustained climb tests, only testing the zoom to try to and obtain a bigger performance gap as possible (hence using the A9 rather than the A5).

I understand what you're saying about how the aircraft is flow MaxGunz. Naturaly there are things you can do to make the results say what you want if you know how... but we tried to carry out the test as unbiasly as possible under several different conditions to try and find a way to make the 190 outperform the spit as much as we could... the results just dont show a difference that is as significant as accounts ive read seem to indicate. On each occasion the spit remained in a position to bring its guns to bare on the A9 towards the end of the manover instead of being left behind.

If someone can come up with a way to rapidly bring the 190 out of effective weapons range of a pursuing spit i'd be interested to know their methods, but as far as my experiences go in FB, it doesnt seem like you can dive the 190 and zoom climb to escape as effectively as the 190 could in reality.

[This message was edited by Flamin_Squirrel on Wed March 10 2004 at 04:21 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2004, 05:39 PM
Try a fast airspeed climb in the FW and see if the Spit can keep up and climb with you. 400+ kph. If the Spit cannot then turn the climb into a wide spiral climb so that the Spit can't get a lead for firing without dropping his nose. He should be losing in the climb race the whole time anyway. you may have to cut the spiral a bit tight in the beginning and if he really wants to and you've let him close enough before getting started then he'll get in one snapshot that will until the patch comes out, knock out your gunsight and hopefully not get your engine or PK you. Make sure your radiator is pretty much open, you're not trying for a speed record, just speed and you want all the endurance you can get.

He should not be able to go fast and outclimb you at high speed. At low speed you are duckmeat. Esp in a spiral turn and to one side you will torque yourself over at full power and spin out. No, I forget the side but if you climb straight with neutral trim the plane will roll that way.

I dunno about the zooms why they are not working. From a highspeed level start the FW190A5 (we seem to have a derated A4 from the Eastern Front so I'll say A5) should outzoom a 1941 Spit VB given a smooth but not too slow pull up and not too steep climb angle. Speed is crucial including not letting the plane get slow but levelling out with good maneuver speed to spare. Try rolling over and bringing the nose down to level as well.

If you've been testing against the LF Spits then hey, those things are special from SL up to 4 or 5 km alt. Wayyy up high the 41 Spit VB may also have the edge.

It's best to run tests offline one plane at a time (no AI's). Don't bother timing or checking the endings, just make a FULL track (Oleg wants full tracks, ntrks are missing start conditions or some other data) and then check timing and final alts, speeds, etc while viewing the track. Start speed and alt, keeping an eye on guages to make the runs right are enough to do while running the tests. And don't take what you get as teh best possible, please. If it's way off then post or submit the track and see what Oleg or someone else can tell you. If you are nice then things will probably work out better all the way around.


Neal

faustnik
03-10-2004, 05:43 PM
MaxGuns,

Have you tried that in Aces? Try to go into any form of spiral, even very wide and the Spit will be right on you. The Spit V will catch the 190 in any extended climb attempt.

Bst solution is short, quick vertical moves or escape in a shallow, horizontal climbing move.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2004, 06:29 PM
Which Spit V?

Are you talking AI?

Right lately I'm taking a lot of renal meds and don't feel up to much so I check planes out one at a time. The 1941 Spit doesn't seem all that fast to me. Haven't re-looked at the 190 except to do a little gunnery versus target drones and check damage and deflections shots. Don't like the gunsight view but that's nothing new.

So I need to time some spiral climbs and check speeds.

How fast you travelling in the climbs? And if it's an LF Spit under 5km alt then all bets are off except I'll put a sawbuck on the Spit.


Neal

faustnik
03-10-2004, 07:50 PM
Hope everything is well with you MaxGuns. Whatever you are taking does not sound fun.

We have been testing these matchups human vs. human:

SpitVB/VB Clipped vs. 190A4
or
Spit LF VB/LF Clipped vs. 190A5

The spiral climb is just a bad tactics for the 190 against the Spit V in FB. The Spit seems to sustain its rate of climb better than the 190, so the spiral just bleeds off energy and gives the Spit time to catch up. You say to keep your speed up with the 190 but, any turn including the spiral climb bleeds energy very quickly and throws your speed away. The maintaining of speed/energy in the climb is waht I think most people are referring to when they say they are "outclimbed" by the Spit.

If course the optimal position is a couple 1000M above the Spit, just dive in make a pass and your out, Spit has no chance. If you approach co-altitude, you need to do a long slow high speed straight climb to gain altitude while bleeding as little energy as possible.

BTW, the testing part is very fun! The Spit LF VB at under 3,000M is a MONSTER!

As for the "derated A4", is something Oleg stated or just a guess? If it is something Oleg said than all arguments for A4 climb against the Spit based on Western data are pointless.

Hope you are feeling better! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Fillmore
03-10-2004, 10:21 PM
"A steep dive to 700kph, followed by a an almost vertical climb"

I ran online comparative test between a 190A4 and 109G2, and I can assure you that the test you did will not go well for the 190. The 190 climbs well at high speed, you need to make the climb very shallow. The most important thing is that you need to taper the climb and never let the climb go below 350IAS (the Spit has an even lower optimal climbspeed than the 109, so maybe you can get away with lower than 350IAS, but I doubt it).

I think there may be some misinterpretaion of the subjective comments of pilots' tests. things like "pulls way easily" and "no hope of catching" don't mean it instantly warps out of gun range, nothing does and nothing can. 5m/s is a huge advantage in climbrate, but that only translates to 18kph, which isn't going to make any kind of big seperation out of gun range any time soon.

If you want immediate escape from guns range you split-S and extend horizontally. During the latter portion of the extension you can zoom climb (this means climb at high speed, not high angle).

Against L.F. models you simply stay above 4000m. I just got off a server where I was completely outturning and dominating the L.F.s at 4500m+ it's like fighting an La that didn't shift his supercharger or lean his mixture.

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2004, 11:27 PM
Faustnik, you might find the posts about the East front A4's I dunno. The Search here is not easy to work well without exact phrases, it yields too many or not the right stuff. I read refences to that and there was others confirmed it in the past week or less. Oleg was into the thread and didn't deny it. Another expert who I think does know, like Butch, said the A4 we have is like one rated to 1.35ata which is a derated A4 from before the overheat problems were historically fixed. Those planes were sent to the East front while the new ones were used against the bomber streams. That is the gist of what was posted.

Well is a relative term. It's not been good since 2000. I grow big kidney stones fast. They can only operate so many times, there is scar tissue each time. I had two holes punched into me in 2000 and 5 major times on the table. Right now we are trying blood and kidney changing pills that are rough but nothing compared to what I went through. But the diagnosis is good so far and I may get to keep the kidney more than 5 to 10 more years. Very happy, the other one is not in such good shape. Both had been damaged long years ago. So I only get to play when I'm feeling up to it which ain't as often as I like. I'm slow and need to keep getting up the rest of the time. Recovery has been 3 years and counting, I am getting skills back. Things just take longer than I want but I keep on with it. So I don't get to play online as much as I used to by far, and I was a junky about that. I don't even get to play offline a lot, 2-3 hours and I'm burnt for a day or two. Online you got to be sharper and can't hit pause when you need to.

Don't get hurt. Don't get sick. And you usually don't have a choice about old. Best of luck to you all, I wouldn't wish real trouble on anyone not making any, like terrorists for instance.

Take Care. Gimmie time and you'll see me online and shoot my poor six down!


Neal

faustnik
03-11-2004, 12:21 AM
Maxguns,

Glad to hear you're on the road to recovery! I appreciate that you are spending the time to discuss FB issues in here with us. I look forward to flying with you online in the future. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Kwiatos
03-11-2004, 03:14 AM
Speaking about Spitfire overheating i found 2 problems:
1. Spitfire climb with 110% power, Bost, radiator open about 15 min. (Bf 109F, Fw190 A-4 - about 3.5 min).
2. When Spitfire start overheat its hard to cool his engine compare it to Bf109 and fw190.

About zoom climb is anybody making tracks for Oleg M.?

I have reqest for Oleg M. about View Object-Aircraft . We don't have data in View Object about some important specification new planes(and all models in game)- for example Spitfire hasn't data about max sea level speed (only max speed at all) - i think its important.

[This message was edited by Kwiatos on Thu March 11 2004 at 02:33 AM.]

blabla0001
03-11-2004, 03:21 AM
Speaking of odd climb rates, anyone here ever tested the Italian new bi-plane?

This thing can climb like mad as well.

I don't know anything about it so I am not saying it's wrong or anything, I am just asking. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tully__
03-11-2004, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I have reqest for Oleg M. about View Object-Aircraft . We don't have data in View Object about some important specification new planes(and all models in game)- for example Spitfire hasn't data about max sea level speed (only max speed at all) - i think its important.

[This message was edited by Kwiatos on Thu March 11 2004 at 02:33 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This always lags a patch or two behind, as the development team tend to concentrate on completing the patch content, then only if they have time will update the object viewer.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg (http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

Tully__
03-11-2004, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel:
Well ive just done some tests with a friend, A9 vs Spit LF V (CW). A steep dive to 700kph, followed by a an almost vertical climb. The spit follows the A9 all the way though the manover only slightly droping back. At the end of the climb to stall speed, the spit is only 0.3-0.4km away at the end. Well within effective gun range.

"Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

Thats the reality. A world away from the flight models in FB.

Ive never seen any other data or material to suggest the spit could compete with the 190 like this. So, can we have the 190 fixed now? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The test you're trying to replicate was quoted earlier in this thread. The comparative climbs were done at high speed (400+km/h) and shallow climb angles. If you pull to near vertical, you will NOT get the results achieved in the real world test.

Interestingly, the Spitfire in that real world test did manage to outclimb the Fw, but only at the expense of slowing to ~330km/h and allowing the Fw to gain seperation. See the same post I referred to earlier.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg (http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

Flamin_Squirrel
03-11-2004, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel:
Well ive just done some tests with a friend, A9 vs Spit LF V (CW). A steep dive to 700kph, followed by a an almost vertical climb. The spit follows the A9 all the way though the manover only slightly droping back. At the end of the climb to stall speed, the spit is only 0.3-0.4km away at the end. Well within effective gun range.

"Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

Thats the reality. A world away from the flight models in FB.

Ive never seen any other data or material to suggest the spit could compete with the 190 like this. So, can we have the 190 fixed now? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The test you're trying to replicate was quoted earlier in this thread. The comparative climbs were done at high speed (400+km/h) and shallow climb angles. If you pull to near vertical, you will NOT get the results achieved in the real world test.

Interestingly, the Spitfire in that real world test did manage to outclimb the Fw, but only at the expense of slowing to ~330km/h and allowing the Fw to gain seperation. See the same post I referred to earlier.

=================================================


http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm

_IL2 Forums Moderator_
http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm

Salut
Tully<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im not sure i follow. From what i gather you're saying the spit can either maintain the same speed in the climb, or maintain the same climb rate as the 190, just not both at the same time. This results in the 190 ending up higher or further away, gaining either horizontal or vertical seperation. If this is the case then surely it doesnt matter how steep the climb is?

WWMaxGunz
03-11-2004, 09:07 AM
There is climb by holding airspeed and you don't worry about angle. If you look at il2compare charts you see performance curves, right? If you plane may have best performace for a maneuver like climb or turn then you can stick with that especially when you are alone or far from any enemy. But you can also know that the other plane has a performance curve that is dropping off rapidly in an area where your plane is still near best or very good whereas at your best he is still getting a good return. You fly at that speed and sacrifice some of your performance because if he tries to fly the same speed then he looses a lot of performance at the same task. So by climbing fast and more shallow than absolute best climb for the FW, you will put a Spit trying to close on you at a bigger disadvantage than you are giving up.

If he's right close and behind you then it's time for heavy evasion and diving. You're in a tight spot you shouldn't have been in anyway or wish you weren't. There is no solution to everything. A climbing escape takes having speed and a margin to begin with.


Neal

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 09:37 AM
Posted over at SimHQ by Snoozy101(hope he does not mind it bieing posted here)

Let's get this straight. The following figures and other data are cited in Alfred Price, The Spitfire Story, (Silverdale Books, Leicester, 1995), pp. 143-5, 154, 169 & 170; and M.C. Windrow, Aircraft Profile Focke-Wulf 190A (series ed. Charles W. Cain), (Profile Books, Berkshire, 1981), pp. 4, 12.

According to the tests done by the RAF at Boscombe Down in May 1941 on Spitfire VB W 3134, the rate of climb was:

Height in feet Rate of climb in feet / min
2,000 3,240
5,000 3,240
10,000 3,250
15,000 3,250
20,000 2,440
25,000 1,750
30,000 1,170

So maximum rate of climb was 3,250 ft/min between 10,000 and 15,000 feet. The aircraft tested (W 3134) was the first production MkVB. She was powered by the standard Merlin 45, had the external armoured glass and the large wing blisters for the Hispano MkII 20 mm cannon. This is what you would call an early Mk V, and it‚'s fair to characterise its max rate of climb as roughly 3,200 ft / min.

The following figures are for LF MkVB W 3228, powered by the Merlin 50M with the cropped supercharger impeller, tested at Boscombe Down in early 1943. This plane had the normal span wings, the external armoured glass and the rectangular rear vision mirror (these last two items cost roughly 6 mph and 3 mph respectively). The rates of climb were:

Height in feet Rate of climb in feet / min
2,000 4,720
5,900 -
8,000 4,100
12,000 3,500
18,000 2,610
24,000 1,740

So, the LF MkVB had a rate of climb somewhere in the vicinity of 4,500 ft / min below 5,000 ft and a RoC of 3,500 Ė 4,100 ft / min up to 10,000 ft. Note that this plane is an ‚ėold‚' MkVB with a low-rated engine.

Finally, what follows is from the comparative tests done with a Spitfire VB and the Fw-190A flown by the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford in July 1942. This Wurger was the Fw-190A-3 Wk. Nr. 313 landed at RAF Pembrey by mistake on 23 June 1942. This plane would have the same BMW 801-D motor as an A-4, but would be a fraction lighter, so the results are certainly comparable to those we‚'d expect from an A-4. The Spitfire was a ‚ėwhite bread‚' MkVB from an operational unit, so we don‚'t need to worry about its performance being enhanced by filling and polishing or whatever.

To the chase:

‚ėClimb: The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.‚' So far, so good. This coincides with Dude‚'s post.

‚ėUnder maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft / min better up to 25,000 feet.‚' OK. Using that as a guide, and adding the 450 ft / min to the early MkVB test, we get the following rough guide to the rate of climb of this Fw190 A-3:

Height Rate of climb
2,000 3,690
5,000 3,690
10,000 3,700
15,000 3,700
20,000 2,890
25,000 2,200
30,000 1,620

The figure at 30,000 ft is certainly debatable given the poor altitude performance of the early Wurgers, but the rest is probably not too bad an estimate (if anybody has direct, observed data for the Fw190 A-3 or A-4, please chip in‚...)

OK, to the analysis. These figures suggest to me that:

1. the Fw190 A should out climb the early model, white-bread Spitfire VBs at all altitudes;
2. the LF VBs should comfortably out climb the Fw-190 A (and the 109, for that matter) up to 10,000-12,000 ft; and
3. the Fw190 A has the climbing edge on the Spitfire LF VB between roughly 12,000 ft and 25,000.

I don‚'t have AEP yet, but I understand there is a clipped wing Spitfire and a normal Spitfire modelled, and that neither is meant to be powered by the M series Merlin. The Wurger should out climb them, but by how much depends on the versions modelled (early / late, ice guard / no ice guard on carburettor intake, mirror type, etc.). It could be a significant advantage, or it could reasonably be nearly bugger all depending on version. However, if the versions modelled include those powered by Merlin 50s, 55s, or 50Ms, the Wurger drivers are in for a nasty surprise. Whatever else we might say about the Spitfire VB, the statement ‚ėIt was definitely not a good climber‚' is stretching it, and the notion that its max rate of climb might be less than 3,000 ft / min is just false.

Regarding the Mk IX, it could out climb any of the Fw190A series at all altitudes. The first Mk IXs were powered by the Merlin 61 or 63 motors. These had full throttle altitudes of 28,000 ft, giving max speeds of 409 mph at those altitudes. The comparative tests done at Duxford in June 1942 were with such an aircraft, and the statement ‚ėAbove 22,000 ft the climb of the Fw 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing‚' tells the story. I don‚'t know about ‚ėbarely superior‚'.

A more meaningful comparison is the LF Mk IX (originally called Mk IXB, where ‚ėB‚' did not refer to the wing armament) powered by the Merlin 66. Rolls Royce tailored the Merlin 66 to give maximum performance at those altitudes where the Fw190A was strongest (i.e. 15,000-21,000 ft). LF Mk IXs were introduced in spring 1943. Performances quoted below are from tests of Spitfire LF MkIX (or MkIXB) BS 310 in early 1944:


Height RoC LF MkIX
2,000 4,725
4,000 4,730
6,000 4,735
10,000 4,745
13,800 4,350
20,000 3,450
30,000 1,950

The Fw 190 A is not in the hunt. In fact, I reckon the Gustav would get a run for its money. Has anyone got any comparable figures for the Bf 109G-2 and G-6?

But seriously, if Wurger drivers make the mistake of tangling with Spitfires, they will get killed: as they bloody-well should. Boom and zoom, people. Boom and zoom.

faustnik
03-11-2004, 09:45 AM
That's an interesting post thanks for bringing it here. So it might appear that we have an issue:

IL-2 Compare Fw190A4 vs. Spit V:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FBComp190A4MkV.jpg

BUT, according to many, the A3s and A4s tested by the RAF might have had higher rated engines than the model we have in FB. So, if that is the case, the Farnborough test is irrelevent to our discussion. It's an "apples and oranges" situation.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 10:01 AM
faustnik, do you realy think that a decrease in 0.1 ata will make that much of a difference. (1.3x from 1.4x)


What we need is a Spitfire V with one of the M motors.

faustnik
03-11-2004, 10:06 AM
Absolutely no idea Koohullin. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'm just interested in the discussion and learning more on the subject. The climb comparisons between the different Spit versions would lead me to believe it does make a big difference.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 10:14 AM
OK.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But all we have in AEP, now, is the standard Merlin engines, no M motors. That is when one sees an increase in Spitfire performance, especially at the lower altitudes. Their rated altidude was ~6000ft lower.

Have you looked at this site? (link posted before) http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

II_JG2_Roth
03-12-2004, 05:48 AM
After reading the charts that has been shown to us and reading everyone else's post, it seems that the FW-190s aren't too far off with the modeling. My questioning isn't so much the climb rates. My questions are regarding the flat turning and "manoverablity". ( I mis-spelled that). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif I also question the Bf-109F Airfiles...however that will be in another post later on. Its never been proven that the Fw-190s were stall happy. It has been proven that the "FW-190s" were a better over all fighter than the Bf-109s except for the K models. What I'm looking for is the info that the Fw-190s were better than just a " Boom and Zoom" aircraft. I believe that the proof is in the pudding. If the German planes were truly bad as some of what the folks here are saying, Germany would have lost the war much sooner. Also folks, it is proven that the German ground crews always modified the pilots aircraft...just like mechanics do with race cars. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif

Anyway, Oleg...I would love to read what info you have gathered up so far and what you think . And I wonder if the FW-190A3 will eventually be built for IL2fb AEP, since everyone does seem to agree that that model seemed to be the best model of the Kurt Tank designs.

I'm awake again http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif
Thanks,
Roth

Red_Baroness
03-12-2004, 06:32 AM
Hi Guys;

This is indeed turning into an interesting topic, with hardly any of the animosity that usually pervades these discussions.

I agree that the Focke was more of a B & Z aircraft and getting into a turning fight with a Spit was not in the pilot's best interest; but my main question is the apparently new issue of the flat-spin problem. Did the entire Focke series REALLY do that? I'd like to see the proof, with the bibliography to back it up. Roth and I are going away this weekend and we'll spend some time reading more of those useless paper thingies known as books. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif Roth will post any information he finds here; we're reading Spitfire accounts too, not just Luftwaffe accounts.

I would like to mention, Cappo, that the bipes DID climb like an SOB due to the top wing offering additional lift. What I love about the new bipes is the fact that they conk out if you fly 'em too fast in a dive or try to climb with anything less than 120% mix. That is spot on and I absolutely love the little planes.

I've flown Fockes in almost every sim and it does take a different method of flying to fly it well. If you don't put the combat flaps down (again, Oleg deserves applause for the flaps position variables - CFS3 did not have that and it makes the sim much more accurate and fun) the Focke flies in its traditional slight nose-down path.

When it comes to rapid climbing of the Focke in this particular sim (at least in FB 1.22 before the AEP - joystick died and it has to be replaced... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ) I had no trouble doing such online with the A8 in a shallow spiral with 10% or "combat" flaps. You really have to sit up high and POUNCE on your intended prey and get back to altitude quickly, keeping your top speed at 400 or more (I prefer 500 really), raise your flaps to climb though. Drop them to combat when you boom, raise em when you zoom. Make sure the climb in the sim is less than 45 degrees or you'll lose airspeed. That should be the norm for ALL planes, regardless of country. Perhaps less for the uber-heavy LaGG series. (well, with the exception of jets, doh.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif )

I would like to see if this discussion can continue in such a pleasant manner, with exchange of information, which really reflects nicely on everyone here.

You all have a wonderful weekend and we'll be back this Sunday to add more information, whatever we find, along with the name of the books we got it from.

Take care, all and thanks Oleg for the opportunity to chat with you here. I'd love to hear your opinion on this - perhaps making the LaGGs a bit more brittle at high altitudes?

Red

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

WWMaxGunz
03-12-2004, 07:25 AM
Books are not entirely useless. Just not the start and end of everything. People love to quote and then abstract from there to whatever they want and it's just more often not true than anything else. So pulling out books and saying German planes was better so I should win, well if that was solid I could sell it in bags to putting on fields and gardens, it is two kinds of fertilizer in one.

Take it however you will. Just tired of deulling quotations. I watched that crap utterly ruin RB3D and I've seen it damage IL2 and FB to a much lesser extent. German planes or at least FW's go by german manufacturers data and the best of that yet, according to Oleg. And now some others.

If there is a quote that plane A is better than plane B then there are some who want that to apply everywhere regardless of conditions. Sorry but it don't apply. If they do it right then using quotes and charts is good work but still you need the right ones and need to make redundant checks, not just work from one or two, and need to take adverse material into consideration. I see very little of that. I see multi-page flamefests where the cracks and holes in different arguements get exposed little by little and then some of that is wrong... it is like pulling teeth to get nearly the full story. All by a few guys with a nice shelf or five of books.

I'd have less problems with the whole scene if they weren't so quick and hard with the demands, too. Show the material and present conclusions but leave room for differences to be worked out. If there is a real problem it will be recognized sooner without the stubborness that sometimes ensures no solution will be attempted much less reached.


Neal

hop2002
03-12-2004, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>faustnik, do you realy think that a decrease in 0.1 ata will make that much of a difference. (1.3x from 1.4x)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not just a decrease of 0.1 ata, it's also a decrease of 300 rpm.

That amounted to a difference of 240 hp at lower levels, 140 hp at medium alts, and little difference above 20,000ft.

hop2002
03-12-2004, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But all we have in AEP, now, is the standard Merlin engines, no M motors. That is when one sees an increase in Spitfire performance, especially at the lower altitudes. Their rated altidude was ~6000ft lower.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Merlin in the Spit V (45, 46 etc) first appeared rated at 9lbs sq/in manifold pressure (labeled boost in British terms) and 3000 rpm. That produced a speed at sea level of 475 km/h

Some time between it's introduction in early 1941 and the tests against Arnim Faber's Fw190 in summer 42, the Merlin limits were increased to 12 lbs sq/in 3000 rpm. That produced an increase of several hundred HP, and increased the speed at sea level to 500 km/h

In the summer of 1942, the limits were increased again, to 16 lbs sq/in, 3000 rpm. That meant more hp, and an increase in the sealevel speed to 510 km/h.

All these changes were incoporated in the existing engines, with no, or minor, modifications. So a Merlin 45 Spitfire built in eary 41, provided it was still in combat service, would have gone from 9lbs sq/in manifold pressure to 12 lbs, then 16 lbs, and the aircraft would have gained 35 km/h at sea level as a result.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

This is a test of a Spit V at 9lbs, which is the rating that was available when the Spit V was introduced. Note that the climbing figures here are done at 9lbs, 2850 rpm, which was a 30 minute limit.


http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

This is a test of a Spit V at 16 lbs boost, as authorised in the summer of 42. Note the engine is still a Merlin 45. Speed is 510 km/h at sea level. There are two climb ratings, one at combat power (this is wep or maximum power, not a reduced rating like the German climb and combat) and one at climbing power 9lbs 2850 rpm.

The test gives the limit for 16 lbs 3000 rpm as 3 mins, but the Spit V manual gives the limit at 5 mins.

Speed at sea level in this test is 510 km/h, climb rate at combat power is 3700 ft/min, about 19 m/s.

The climb figures are achieved with radiators fully open, the speed figures radiators closed (although the Spit radiators were still partly open even when the lever was in the closed position.) Note that this aircraft was ballasted with extra weights to simulate the armament of 4 20mm cannon.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3228.html

This is a test of a Spit LF V, with M engine. Note that climb at combat power at low level is over 4700ft/min, about 24 m/s. Speed at sea level is 323 mph, 525 km/h.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
03-12-2004, 08:48 AM
hey guys i think it is important to check rate of climb for Spit vs 190 but.

have you guys EVER noticed that the 190 has the worst! acceleration in game ???

simple to check it, just take one, go for taxi and if you are on the runway just push the engine to 110% and see whats happening ..... (if you want you can count the secends till take off)

then take any other fighter (109 e.g.)
do the same and you will notice something.
the 109 will get airborne befor the 190 will have reached 150km/h.

i don't remember where but i read a bock which said that the 109 needs a shorter runway but 190 would take off befor 109 (in secends) because it's acceleration was much better!

(ok off topic, but it realy don't feels like 2300PS if you sit in an A9 and try to take off)[110%+Notleistung]

WWMaxGunz
03-12-2004, 01:11 PM
Which has the better power to weight ratio, to begin with? Takeoff speeds are low enough I don't think drag should be a big factor at least once the tail raises.... but power to weight for at least some 190's is pretty dismal compared to most any 109 I've ever heard of. It's one reason the 109's climb so well.


Neal

faustnik
03-12-2004, 01:47 PM
Fw190A3
loaded weight: 8770lb
HP: 1700
Power loading: 5.16 lb/hp

BF109F3
loaded weight: 6047
HP: 1300
Power Loading: 3.78 lb/hp

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
03-13-2004, 01:16 AM
ok i'll go with the data from the Database we have in IL-2FB cause i think the planes are modelled from the sources used there.

FW 190A-4:
loaded weight: 3989 kg
Max Power output on Take off was 1780hp (1min, still enought for lift of)

--so you get a 2,24hp/kg--

BF 109G-2:
loaded weight: 3100 kg
Power output during Take off was 1475hp

--you get a 2,10hp/kg--

the difference is only 0,14 hp/kg in advance for the 109G2!!
should be nearly no noticable difference.

Now lets add that you usually don't take 100% fuel in the Antons (exept A9) you will take off with about 50% then you should have about 150kg less weight (or even more; don't know how much the fuel of the A4 is in weight)

so let's take 150 kg (if any1 knows it please correct me)

this would cause 3839 kg take off weight.
and stil 1780 hp (1 min boost)

&gt;&gt;&gt; 2,15 hp/kg

this is now realy close to the G2 but the acceleration of the Antons seems pretty poor to me especialy if you use the Komandoger√¬§t (i still don't know why the Antons are faster with the CSP than Komandoger√¬§t)

if any1 has correct data please post it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Magister__Ludi
03-13-2004, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
At similar boost setting, 30 minutes rating for instance, the Spit V clearly outclimbed the 190A5. If we consider that the 1942 Mk V 30 minutes rating was 9 lb, and the A5 30 minutes was 1.32ata there is absolutly no doubt on the outcome.

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/tmp/fw190a5-climb.jpg

I think figures speak for themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is incorrect butch.
At 9 lb boost Spit V fitted with MGs at 6450lb loaded weight had the same climb rate with A5 at 1.32 ata, but you forget that Spit V fitted with cannons and MGs had at least 6700lb loaded weight, therefore a slower climb, probably around 2900 fpm. Also A5 was significantly heavier than A3, so it surelly had a better initial climb at 1.32ata, at least 3300fpm. Most probably this difference would have been kept up to altitude, Spit V did not have stellar high altitude performance either http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

hop2002
03-13-2004, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At 9 lb boost Spit V fitted with MGs at 6450lb loaded weight had the same climb rate with A5 at 1.32 ata, but you forget that Spit V fitted with cannons and MGs had at least 6700lb loaded weight, therefore a slower climb, probably around 2900 fpm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. w3134 was fitted with 2 20mm and 4 mgs, all up weight was 6525lbs, climb rate was over 3200 ft/min at 9 lbs, 2850 rpm, the 30 minute rating. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html


aa873.html was fitted with 4 20mm cannon, all up weight 6,917 lbs, climb rate 2,900 ft/min, again at 30 minute rating
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa873.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also A5 was significantly heavier than A3, so it surelly had a better initial climb at 1.32ata, at least 3300fpm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but 1.32ata was start and emergency for the A3, not climb and combat. So that 3,300 ft/min will be the emergency climb rate, and needs to be compared to a Spit V at 3000 rpm 12lbs.

WWMaxGunz
03-13-2004, 05:41 AM
"FW 190A-4:
loaded weight: 3989 kg
Max Power output on Take off was 1780hp (1min, still enought for lift of)

--so you get a 2,24hp/kg--"

Well my math must be bad. I get:

1780 hp / 3989 kg = .446 hp/kg rounded to 3 places


"BF 109G-2:
loaded weight: 3100 kg
Power output during Take off was 1475hp

--you get a 2,10hp/kg--"

1475 hp / 3100 kg = .476 hp/kg rounded to 3 places

"the difference is only 0,14 hp/kg in advance for the 109G2!!
should be nearly no noticable difference."

.476 / .446 gives me 6% more for the 109 in this case. It's not as much as I had thought but there should be a clear difference.

"Now lets add that you usually don't take 100% fuel in the Antons (exept A9) you will take off with about 50% then you should have about 150kg less weight (or even more; don't know how much the fuel of the A4 is in weight)

so let's take 150 kg (if any1 knows it please correct me)

this would cause 3839 kg take off weight.
and stil 1780 hp (1 min boost)

&gt;&gt;&gt; 2,15 hp/kg"

I get 1780 hp / 3839 kg = .464 hp/kg rounded to 3 places

.476 / .464 = 1.026 rounded to 3 places.

Why not use less fuel in the G6?
Is this the G6 early that's the well known worst performing 109 in the sim versus the best power to weight 190 in the game? Or would that be the A9, without me going to check?

Howabout compare power to weight 109F-4 to 190A-8 just for laughs? Or maybe the 109E-7?

"this is now realy close to the G2 but the acceleration of the Antons seems pretty poor to me especialy if you use the Komandoger√¬§t (i still don't know why the Antons are faster with the CSP than Komandoger√¬§t)

if any1 has correct data please post it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif"

I'd suggest that the A4 only characterizes the A4 and not the whole line of Antons for a start.

The thing is that as the war progressed the 109's and 190's underwent much evolution so it's not good to talk of any of these in a way that could be taken as interchangeable unless you are very, very careful.

I keep seeing books, shows and sites that mention FW-190 this and Bf-109 that with no hope of being specific. Worse, they follow the war years and apply the same statements to all of any line of planes! If they differentiate between FW-190A dn FW-190D then that is a sign of how accurate they are! It's not all like that, just a whole freaking lot! Garbage for the impressionable, to create lasting underlying beliefs in kids.
Good solid books on these topics often read like bricks and I guess that keeps many out but damn these lighter versions should explain about variations and how there are no simple wide range comparison rules.


neal

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
03-13-2004, 06:45 AM
hey dude i suggest you to read clearly.

i wrote BF109G2 !! (not G6)

and i wrote FW190A4 (not A9 or something)

The Power on the 190 is maximum (NOTLEISTUNG) for about 1minute, i'm just talking about acceleration during take off.

It is just the poor acceleration of the A4 compared to G2.
The date in the Object Viewer shows that both should be pretty similar during take-off, 190A4 need mor way but should accelerate as good as 109G2 (or not much less).

i said 50% fuel for the A4 caus i usually don't fly with 100%

this is not going to the performence or duration of the 109 it is just because of the bad acceleration during take-off.

BTW: ups i did a mistake i wrote HP/kg it should be kg/hp!!

so it is 2,1kg/hp (for G2)
and 2,24kg/hp (for Anton 4) / 2,15 with 50 fuel (the settings i fly it online)

btw: i tested with a friend i can let the A9!! behind with an 110!! G2 during take off!!

WWMaxGunz
03-13-2004, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToP_BlackSheep:
hey guys i think it is important to check rate of climb for Spit vs 190 but.

have you guys EVER noticed that the 190 has the worst! acceleration in game ???

simple to check it, just take one, go for taxi and if you are on the runway just push the engine to 110% and see whats happening ..... (if you want you can count the secends till take off)

then take any other fighter (109 e.g.)
do the same and you will notice something.
the 109 will get airborne befor the 190 will have reached 150km/h.

i don't remember where but i read a bock which said that the 109 needs a shorter runway but 190 would take off befor 109 (in secends) because it's acceleration was much better!

(ok off topic, but it realy don't feels like 2300PS if you sit in an A9 and try to take off)[110%+Notleistung]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I noticed what you said even two posts before as quoted above. THEN when I ask to compare power to weight you take worst 109 vs best 190 I think for power to weight.

If you were disproving something I would say good point but you made a wider claim in the post quoted above than you gave evidence for in the next. It is not personal. It is about if a point has validity and how much. Otherwise people go around saying unsupportable things that others repeat as truth. But then that we have a lot of and need to work things out. Each goes home with what they can understand except for the personal politics people who count people as votes in their pockets. No, I think you are not one of those.

Not personal. Can't have exchanges of thoughts if personalities get in the way. Can't arrive at anything but popularity contests otherwise.


Neal

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
03-13-2004, 09:58 AM
I compared Bf109 / 1942 and 190 / 42

&gt;&gt; G2 vs A4

but if you wish i can alsow use G10 vs A9

G10 is
3300 kg
and has 1800 hp

A9 is
4410 kg
and about 2300 hp

G10 = 1,833 kg/hp
A9 = 1,917 kg/hp

both are verry close.

so shouldnt both planes accelerate about equal ?
(they are even closer than G2 vs A4)

All "data" i used were take from FB-Object Viewer.

climb depends alsow a lot on the engines power output at altitude, but we are at 0 so engine has Full power http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW: we both know that dora is the best accelerating 190 during take off.

so here we go:
Dora 44
Weight: 4280 kg
Poweroutput: 1900 hp

&gt;&gt; 2,25 kg/hp for Dora 9 (44)

P51D
Weight: 3992 kg
Poweroutput: 1720 hp (WEP)

&gt;&gt; 2,32 kg/hp

P51C
Weight: 4450 kg
Power: 1450 hp

&gt;&gt; 3,06 kg/hp

Anton 5:
weight: 4000 kg
Power: 1800 hp

&gt;&gt; 2,22 kg/hp

Anton 8:
Weight: 4250 kg
Power: 2050 hp

&gt;&gt; 2,07 kg/hp

so now i am confused.

can any1 explain me the long time needed for take-off for the Antons ???

[This message was edited by ToP_BlackSheep on Sat March 13 2004 at 02:49 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
03-13-2004, 11:39 AM
Might I suggest doing a workup of your chart except that the lack of clipboard pasting in replies to this new format (who the hell makes these interfaces anyway, they don't seem to know how the boards are used and don't take time to find out!) means it's a lot of work.

Anywho, how about adding time from speed zero to speed 200kph and then maybe final speed before takeoff rotation or straight lift (for planes that fly themselves off the runway)? There may be further correlations.

If a plane sits tail down then until it comes up the wings are at a high AOA and should make a lot of induced drag. A wider wing would, I expect make more drag than a thinner wing. 109 wings in general, AFAIK, have a narrower profile that 190 wings in general though I can't say for the Ta. Tracking time to tail up as well as to 200kph may give correlations by plane type on this as well if the sim models it so.

Best way to run tests is to make short tracks that end at the takeoff or soon after. Don't bother taking down data until playback at reduced speed. It will save do-overs and be more accurate.

Be Sure that things like HP, weight and drag are in the sim. How much is in the ground movement, I don't know. it is possible that wheel friction and weight not only count but are different just for ground maneuvering? Are you using flaps in the takeoff runs? There's a good bit going on. And be sure to turn wind off for tests, just to be clean.

I dunno what else to say. How do you investigate a sim environment? With every thing you can do but first cut out all you can do without and matrix the rest you can. Task is large and in the end you can still only know so much. you think that is hard, try being a beta tester for months on end sometime, or even (and I haven't done this one) for a year or more!


Neal

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
03-13-2004, 03:45 PM
ok mate, let's see if i can do some test runs tomorow...

I just noticed the difference by testing A4 and 109G2 with combat flaps (don't have webspace http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif)

The G2 using Combat Flaps will need about 6-8sek to take off.
The A4 using Combat flaps will need about 12-15sek .

I usually try to get the tail up as soon as possible ["pushing" the plane down]

faustnik
03-13-2004, 04:23 PM
Wouldn't wing-loading have everything to do with take-off distance. Fw has very high wingloading.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

WWMaxGunz
03-13-2004, 04:39 PM
109's aren't low compared to a lot of other fighters, yet not really bad.

I thought the deal was about acceleration which is why I suggested time to 200 kph, however it can be reached. Also time to tail up and takeoff would be extras.

Important is to wait to get the timing by track playback because you can slow time in a track without affecting the FM and you don't have to be watching a clock and the speed while doing takeoff roll if you take care of that later on.

6 - 8 as opposed to 12 - 15... a fair # of trials? Hell of a lot more difference than I would have guessed. Can't say about wrong or right. Power to weight is a rough measure only, good place to start looking and maybe learning.

Learning is good for all of us! I'm kinda hoping an expert type with REAL EXPERIENCE steps in here rather than "I have a book that says...". Sorry guys but I'd much rather the guys who make things work and know why than anyone else to say what applies and how.


Neal

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
03-13-2004, 05:59 PM
Sorry maxguns can you explain your last post ?

Blacksheep is talking of 6-8 econds until lift off but you say 6-8 # (which is supposed to mean number afaik) trials ?

*confused ... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
03-13-2004, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Wouldn't wing-loading have everything to do with take-off distance. Fw has very high wingloading.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i'm not talkin about take-off distance.
I'm talking about acceleration, the time you need till you can take off.

boohaa
03-13-2004, 06:50 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gifhey between me and you....this finding stuff wrong in his sim is gonna drive Oleg to the looney farm fasthttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

I must say though that a year or two ago there was many here who would say"you guys suck trying to get Oleg to change the FM's....leave them as they are"and if we had listened to the many we would be stuck with FB 1.0 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gifImagine that now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
03-13-2004, 06:59 PM
ok first tests were made:

Conditions:
Default Guns
100% fuel.
110% if possible use of Sondernotleistung (WEP)
Cooling auto

Tested on Online Islands 8

the 109G2 needs 12sek for lift off.
the A4 needs about 20-21 sek.
same for A5.

the difference in power/weight is about 2,24/2,1 or 2,22/2,1 (A5 vs G2)

so 1,066 (A4 vs G2)
and 1,057 (A5 vs G2)

&gt;&gt; A4 is about 6,6% worse than G2
&gt;&gt; A5 about 5,7% (the difference should be noticable)

But the difference in Time is quite more, it's simly too much.

A4/5 20 sek vs G2 12 sek.
that is 75% worse than G2, but it "should" be about 6-7%
(don't know which other aspects i have to watch at)
with 6,6% worse in Powerloading than G2 the A4 should lift off at about 12,8 sek.

and for the A5 (5,7% worse than G2) should be 12,7sek.

BTW: sorry if i mixed something up right now, but it's late and i'm going to sleep now.

Magister__Ludi
03-13-2004, 07:13 PM
ToP_BlackSheep,

You cannot compare power to weight ratios of different aircrafts and expect the same relationship between climb rates of those aircrafts.

Climb rate is calculated from excess thrust to weight ratio multiplied with climb speed (also dependent on excess thrust). Using power to weight instead of excess thrust to weight does not bring correct results, unless you are interesting in finding out the climb rates of the same aircraft at different power settings and weights.

WWMaxGunz
03-13-2004, 08:05 PM
He's working out something about times from zero to takeoff. It's a thing about accel on the runway. Not climb. What is excess power on the runway? At speed zero, it's all excess.

Top. Are they taking off at the same speed each?
Are they holding that speed for any amount of time?
How long to 200kph for each? Use tracks. You don't have to post them, they just make checking the speeds and times easier.


Neal

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
03-14-2004, 01:31 AM
you can lift of both at aprox the same speed, 109 can go up at about 130-140, FW can lift at 150 minimum (Flap-TakeOff) but it's verry hard to get it airborne.

so i'm a bit wrong after 12,8sek the A4 should reach the take-off speed of G2....

i'm still testing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
03-14-2004, 04:06 PM
ok guys i tested the acceleration on ground up to 280 km/h.

Test was done at following settings:

Online Island 8
Wind & Turbulence off
100% Fuel
Default armament
Using 110% and WEP if available.
Prop-Pitch Auto, Radiators Auto

Did a test run from 0-300km/h and recorded it for each plane.
Tested 0-150km/h, 150-200km/h and 200-280km/h the gear was at ground all the time, no Flaps.
Watched the Track.

The test is not for Flight performence it is for acceleration on Take-off!


this is the outcome.

---

109G2:
Weight to Power: 2,10 kg/hp
time needed to reach 280km/h beginning with 0km/h: 25 secends
0-150km/h: 12 secends
150-200km/h: 3 secends
200-280km/h: 10 secends

compared to A4

Weight to Power: 2,24 kg/hp &gt;&gt; it has 6,67% worse powerloading than G2
time needed to reach 280km/h beginning with 0km/h: 38 secends &gt;&gt; but it needs 52% more time to reach the speed
0-150km/h: 21,7 secends &gt;&gt; loosing verry much during this part of take off.
150-200km/h: 5 secends
200-280km/h: 11,3 secends

---

109G6 (43)
Weight to Power: 2,03 kg/hp
time needed to reach 280km/h beginning with 0km/h: 27 secends
0-150km/h: 12 secends
150-200km/h: 4 secends
200-280km/h: 11 secends

compared to A5

Weight to Power: 2,22 kg/hp
time needed to reach 280km/h beginning with 0km/h: 35 secends
0-150km/h: 18,6 secends (strange i know)
150-200km/h: 4,7 secends
200-280km/h: 12 secends

---

109G6AS:
Weight to Power: 1,75 kg/hp
time needed to reach 280km/h beginning with 0km/h: 23 secends
0-150km/h: 12 secends
150-200km/h: 3 secends
200-280km/h: 8 secends

---

109G10:
Weight to power: 1,83 kg/hp
time needed to reach 280km/h beginning from 0km/h: 23 secends
0-150km/h: 12 secends
150-200km/h: 3 secends
200-280km/h: 8 secends

---

190A8
weight to power: 2,13 kg/hp
time needed to reach 280km/h beginning with 0km/h: 35 secends (much worse than a 109G6!!)
0-150km/h: 21 secends
150-200km/h: 4 secends
200-280km/h: 10 secends

---

190A9
weight to power: 1,92 kg/hp
time needed to reach 280km/h beginning with 0km/h: 36 secends (no comment)
0-150km/h: 21 secends (why the hell are they so bad ??)
150-200km/h: 5 secends (even worse than A8)
200-280km/h: 10 secends

---

and now lets come to the 190 with the worst Powerloading but best acceleration at ground :/

Dora 9 (44)
weight to power: 2,25 kg/hp
time needed to reach 280km/h beginning with 0km/h: 25 secends
0-150km/h: 12 secends
150-200km/h: 4 secends
200-280km/h: 9 secends

the MW50 dora is actually pretty good but the A9 should accelerat slightly better (at least at low speeds)

Dora 9 MW50
weight to power: 1,94 (worse than A9!)
time needed to reach 280km/h beginning with 0km/h: 25 secends
0-150km/h: 13 secends
150-200km/h: 4 secends
200-280km/h: 8 secends

something is rotten....


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;ok let's compare the first 2 directly and look at PL and Time/acceleration.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

A4 = 2,24 kg/hp
G2 = 2,10 kg/hp

&gt;&gt; G2 has 6,6% better powerloading than A4.

G2 needs 12 secends to accelerate to 150km/h starting at 0.
the A4 needs 21,7 secends to do the same.

Side Note: the G2 lifts the tail at about 40km/h, the A4 (and all other Antons) at 90!

&gt;&gt; the A4 is about 80% slower in acceleration, but only 6,6% worse in Powerloading. Why is this?
At 150km/h is not that much drag.
So can any1 explain this to me ?

same problem for all the other tested A/C none of them matches acceleration and Powerloading compared to others (G2 vs G6, G6AS, G10, A9 vs Dora 44 and so on..)



i used the Data from the Object Viewer because i think these are the ones which were used by oleg.



I realy hope that some of you guys can explain this to me.

faustnik
03-14-2004, 04:29 PM
I think that the idea the 190 power levels are modeled a little too low would explain a lot.

But, it's just an idea.

Lets see, if the 190A4 was modeled with lower than historical engine power it would.

1. Climb more slowly than historical data shows relative to other a/c.

2. Accelerate more slowly than it should relative to other a/c.

3. Have difficulty reaching its top historical speeds.

Hmmm, seems to fit.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

WWMaxGunz
03-14-2004, 06:52 PM
Speed for tail up surely makes a big difference but even after that the 150-200 times are very disparate. Until tail up the drag is more in real but we are in a sim that must have shortcuts in places like ground movement that are not a major focus of the sim itself.

I'm wondering if the ground friction is doing just what? Maybe the heavier the plane, the more ground friction but then there's that Dora with eth fast ground accel that throws that right out.

Are you using flaps, Top? I don't if I can help it. I usually get planes to 200-220 for takeoff but will use flaps on dirt strips for 180-190 takeoffs depending on plane weight, maybe 200.
Using flaps should make more drag but do they help get the tail up? I don't think so if they slow you down.

That one Dora with the same kinds of times as the 109's in general... these numbers do show things peculiar.

When the planes are moving well the P/W needs to be changed where power becomes excess power which is minus the power to keep the plane going as it is.

In DF play I think that time to get off the ground makes a difference in surviveability. A big difference when the nme is close by!

Have you been looking at accel in the air? Beware that at low speeds near stall with the wing AOA's so much there is high induced drag that reduces excess power compared to low cruise speeds.

I don't understand how if the 190's match the best German manufacturers data that they could be so bad? They don't seem bad to me but I am not so critical. I don't test planes by dogfight for example. I test each alone only against the clock and against the charts. Then I compare the tests and say that is how it is in this sim. From there I might post things look wrong but usually someone else is faster and has less definite findings, re "I feel that" and the other "this happened in DF" that I'm sure Oleg takes with a pound of salt if he takes them at all.

I have not been able to get the new IL2 Compare. The site times out so far. That program uses data from FB if I understand correct to make graphs within 5% of game performance, or it did last time. They migh have improved it by adding test data from flying the sim itself, I've seen posts that says the numbers are very close to what others get. You may want to compare you results to that program. Say something if you can do better by any more than 5% amount, I'm sure there will be interest!


Neal

Red_Baroness
03-14-2004, 07:43 PM
I knows you Neal - hope you are feeling better.

The thing that killed RB II 3d for me at any rate was the inability for it to work well on XP for MMP (that and the Eindecker..well... perhaps that was me not being used to the FM on that end. As for the Albatros? Muwhahahaa. 'nuff said http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif).

I found a few more books here and there, but I've got a doozy I'm looking at right now and it's from the "other" side - Accounts of Allied pilots against German Aircraft.

I only wish my grandfather's friend was up from Florida - he WAS a Spit pilot who did testing of the Fockes and his information would be a virtual goldmine.

As for takeoff speed, well, you know...I never really paid attention to it. I always dropped flaps to takeoff, opened the radiator, put mix at full, ditto with 100% prop pitch, turned on my "retro rockets" (aka the Boost power) and THEN gunned the engine. That way, I avoided burning out the radial and got to speed damn fast. I take her off at, oh, 150 or so, slap the stick forward to get the tail up and then up I go.

I have not yet had the chance to test the Spit out as I have to go get another stick but I would be glad to try Oleg's test methods as mentioned up in this thread and then make my conclusions.

I am very aware that not everything can be modelled to factory specs for a number of reasons: Too much time, Oleg would go nuts, you can't please everyone and it would possibly make the game platform too hard for certain gamers.

My MAIN question is - when I had my stick I tested the Focke in AEP and I thought there was some adjustment, as now the planes when brought into my usual gentle turn would go *whoop whoop whoop* and I would do a flat-stall-spin which was nearly impossible to get out of. Out of 10 times into the spin, only once did I get out of it successfully (and perhaps only because I was used to dealing with the Eindecker's "Leaf in Fall" stalls in RBII 3d? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif.)

Them ain't good odds for a sim-pilot, and most DEFINITELY NOT for a real one. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

and I bet YOU can't wait for KOE, eh Neal? Ah, yes, perhaps I can get Burberg to get Jasta B up again...muwhahaa.

Take care

the "other" Red

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

faustnik
03-14-2004, 08:41 PM
Neal here is the SpitVB (Merlin 45) and Fw190A4 climb chart from IL-2 Compare for you.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FBComp190A4MkV.jpg
Here is the same SpitVB (Merlin 45) and the Fw190A5.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Fw190A5vSpitVB.jpg

IL-2 Compare is a lot of fun. Its charts seem to hold up in the sim very well.


************************************
"I don't understand how if the 190's match the best German manufacturers data that they could be so bad?"

Robban tested all the climb rates of the 190s anf other a/c very thoroughly. He found the FB 190 performance to be very close to historical. Unfortunately, almost all the other a/c had performance specs much higher than historical.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

boohaa
03-14-2004, 09:29 PM
Yes... I remember reading where Oleg said that he doesnt understand how people complain about the FW when in reality its probably modeled closest to its real life counterpart compared to the other FB planeshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-14-2004, 09:53 PM
I don't see the charts or most pics on any of the forums and don't know what I shut off to get this way but it was months and months ago. Funny I see pics on sites just not on forums. But then I don't see sig pics and with dialup I still get decent page load times so it's not a total loss.

Still don't have the new IL2Compare either.

I'll have to take your word that all the other planes are much overmodelled. Oleg says not but what does he know? I can be sure of one thing and that is that if a planes can be flown better than spec it's not because of pilot error!

I saw Robbans' thread in the beginning and what Oleg posted in reply. I thought it was because Robban was getting less than spec results. now I see it's time to read that thread past when I left it. I thought it had completely devolved by page 3.

And if some planes are much better than they should be then you know the line... post tracks and send em to Oleg! I know, it's not like boxtops, you can't get a shirt or gym bag but what other way of presenting evidence of overmodelling is there, really? WOM isn't enough. There's too much FM politics. It's not this game alone either, it's all of them, it's the community. We have a good tool in the ability to record tracks and it needs to be used nore often. I will add that ntrks are useless to send in, they don't have full info so full tracks are the only real way about it.

If it's online performance then please, this sim and any other just don't stand up to close scrutiny online. I know about seriousness online. Been there, done it, learned to care for other than just how the thing runs online. My friends and fun is all I look or looked for there and when things got like a slideshow or the quake kids showed up, I went to another server. There's no point at all getting upset about online, either you like it or you don't.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
03-14-2004, 10:12 PM
Red Baroness. Texas Red?

Well as long as yer not vH in drag....

I went from RB3D to EAW a ways into 1999.

Funny but I have yet to spin an FW in AEP. I find that if I pull the stick to far the planes turn slower and lose speed but you can do that without stalling out. You're stalling at those times, just not stalling out if you get my drift (pun intended). If you stay from crossing that line then you'll turn the best the plane will given speed, power and attitude in general. With RB3D I have found anytime I've gone back that stick use is MUCH heavier than EAW, MA, Rowans BoB and IL2-IL2/FB. Funny bout that because I remember going from Dynamix Aces series to RB2 and needing to learn to use less stick. I think that 3D and some of the modded FM's are just plain more arcade. Climbing at 3/4 stick and doing best rate is just wayyyy off to me.

What works for me in the WWII sims from EAW to now is to pull stick but keep an eye on both speed and how fast the nose is coming around. If they drop, esp angle gain, then I ease up a bit on the stick and tend to turn best by rocking the stick slightly. There's also the whole nose down thing rather than the nose up turns that had been pointed out by cage and others like him as signs of a newb or a dweeb (not a newb but flies like one) before they left Delphi over the noise or maybe that S/D stopped showing signs of promise.

Wish I was as good now as I was then. Might recover more of it in time, at least I hope so.

You have a good one and I hope you make the transition nicely! Don't look back! We can all hope for KOE to turn out but when I looked on the site weeks ago and saw the last time it was updated, I didn't bother hitting the snooze button. I don't think they'll be on the target date they set or at least it don't look that way.


Neal

faustnik
03-14-2004, 10:45 PM
Neal, you are really starting to crack me up. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

You can't fly much because of illness, I hope you feel better. You can't fly at all now because od a broken stick. You can't see a graph because of (something???). BUT, you can make judgments of the posts of others who are actually running the sim. What's even better is you can flood every thread that questions 190 performance or weapons with posts that have very little relavence to the topic at hand.

I get it now. Keep up the crusade, you are the spam king! Happy Spitfire flying. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
03-15-2004, 01:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I think that the idea the 190 power levels are modeled a little too low would explain a lot.

But, it's just an idea.

Lets see, if the 190A4 was modeled with lower than historical engine power it would.

1. Climb more slowly than historical data shows relative to other a/c.

2. Accelerate more slowly than it should relative to other a/c.

3. Have difficulty reaching its top historical speeds.

Hmmm, seems to fit.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-15-2004, 07:07 AM
Faustnik I have a WORKING Logitech 3D stick. I do get some time to fly now and again. Not enough to check out every little thing. And I haven't spent a whole lot of time in the Spitfires, just about the same as the other new planes to get a taste of them so far. I'd like to be exploring the stall and spin behaviour more than making tracks trying to see about why the 151/20's are supposed to be singled out for porking.

FYI, I have for 4 years now a serious and been life threatening kidney problem that I take handfulls of f_cking pills for every day in an attempt to stave off more surgery. It don't leave me feeling too damn good most of the time. If you're too immature to understand then so be it.

None of that has ruined my ability to understand areas of the FM and I test things as able. I also don't call the maker of the sim a liar directly or indirectly... I take his word on the things he says definite and wonder at some edges or meanings at most.

I might agree with more of some complaints but I keep finding they're mostly exaggerated, off target, and often mistaken or just baseless whines and crass attempts to slant the product.

While I do respect actual finds and even honest mistakes there is much I do dislike. And hey a lot of the so-called reasoning here don't take playing the sim to point out the flaws. But why should that stop a good whine-fest? cry long and loud enough and maybe you babies get your candy. There's already been compromises in your favor, maybe with more pushing you get the whole bag and until then just don't stop or allow anyone to point out the holes in your arguments.

You want to fault me for illness maybe I should fault you for stupidity?


Neal

faustnik
03-15-2004, 09:40 AM
Of course I don't fault you for your illness Neal. I sincerely wish you all the best with that.

What I do fault you for is your spam campaign in any thread that questions 190 performance. Many have brought up legitimate points which you try to belittle as whines or insults when they are nothing if the sort. But, go ahead, try to put a negative spin on this post. You are very good at it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

PzKpfw
03-15-2004, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:

Lets see, if the 190A4 was modeled with lower than historical engine power it would.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would = a derated Fw 190. Problem is Oleg already answered that question in the past & again here very recently, and states it is not derated etc.

Ppl in the past here also used to claim the Fw 190 model in the game was actualy a U3 with all its armor etc, that didn't pan out either, but the rumor persisted for awhile.

Oleg has stated in the past that the German FMs includeing the Fw 190 were built useing Ideal German factory performance data, unlike the Soviet FMs that were derived from actual test data etc.

The Fw is undermodeled threads have existed since IL-2 was released, and no ammount of posts etc to date has chenged anything IIRC, and its doubtful they ever will; considering Olegs access to actual data compared to your average aviation history buff's limited resources.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Mon March 15 2004 at 01:42 PM.]

Red_Baroness
03-15-2004, 05:34 PM
Nope Neal, not Texas Red - I do remember seeing you in the WOH and WOV forums a while ago, if you're the same Neal. Did you also do some skins/terrains/patches for RB?

As for kidney disorders, yes, they CAN be touchy. You need to be very careful with them; as a registered and licensed Herbologist I treat quite a few illnesses, but kidney disorders I am very gentle with.

Anywho, that was totally off topic. LOL.

I just did a little test myself of Focke performance - now that I have a new stick *Faustnik....naughty boy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif *

What I found is this:

Takeoff strip: Berlin, pavement.
Conditions: Clear, no wind
Plane: Anton 8, MK108 wing cannons
Fuel: 75%

Test #1
Radiator: Open
Flaps: Take off
WEP: Nope
Time to Wheels off: 26.07 seconds
Flight handling: No stall, smooth accel, no prob getting up. Nosedown/tail up at about 150 or 20 seconds.

Test #2
Radiator: Open
Flaps: Take off
WEP: You betcha
Time to wheels off: 26.67 seconds.
Flight handling: Poor. Plane jumped around runway, did have trouble getting her in the air, stalled badly, fought all the way to gear up.

Now I am going to try the same with no flaps and see what I get. I saved the tracks too, will do so again so if they are needed, I can post them on my site for download.

Right now, all I'm testing is the ground to takeoff.

Last I knew, however, with flaps you get more lift and therefore less time to getting airborne http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif. Let me see if this is not to be with the sim.

Poor Oleg http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif he must be three sheets to the wind right about now.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Red

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

faustnik
03-15-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Baroness:
Poor Oleg http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif he must be three sheets to the wind right about now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think "Oleg has left the building" with regard to these 190FM discussions. The rest of us are just having fun debating the subject. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

WWMaxGunz
03-15-2004, 05:55 PM
Sorry Karena, my forums were Delphi FSF and SimHQ on occasion. And I never did skins or terrain, etc. Did a *lot* of online for a few months and then the start of the troubles began, the two unrelated. I doubt you were on Delphi back then since you don't seemta know who vH is!


Neal

Red_Baroness
03-16-2004, 08:44 AM
Nope, never been on Delphi or SimHQ; not fond of the format meself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

vH - von Helsing or Horton... I know I know the name but it escapes me a LEETLE bit - I left the RB communitah about as quick as I entered it - was only on for about three weeks or so last year in 2003. I know OF a vH but can't get the name perfectly - that would require thought and mornings ain't my time of day. (Roth asks me often WHEN that time is and I tell him... whenever I damn well feel like it! LOL)

My friend Lagunare and another one, the head of Jasta B (Otto von Burberg) were the ones that sent me onto the world of RB. I played mostly with the HA and the HARes packs on the computer offline. Thing drove me nuts though - I'd get this nice shot and go out of the game to get the pic saved and ....CTD faster than a holed Sopwith. Drove me batty.

Faustnik - If I understands what you said correctly, then we're all just wasting air on this FW issue, as per the usual. If game developers don't listen to everyone's needs, then WTF is the point of providing a forum for such? AND, why make the damn game in the first place for anything but a quick profit which can be translated into all the "cool stuff" the developers wanted when they were kids? Stupid. Simply stupid.

The issue of patches REALLY gets to me too. I'm of the "do it right the first time, ya moron" camp (which does NOT explain why I am on a PC instead of a Mac... ahem... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif ) so I can't for the life of me understand hastily producing a game for the community and then going - "Oh wait, we forgot some stuff..here, go download patch Version 365.04; I know it's about 300 kazillion megabytes and will take until Domesday to download on dial up, but that's yer punishment for living in the BOONDOCKS and being too much of a cow-tippin-chicken-screwin-tobacco-chewin-Ford-truck-drivin-country-music-lovin-cousint-marryin-navel-pickin-John-Deere-drivin-cheap-beer-drinkin PODUNK to realize that you shoulda not havent (heh) spent yer last bingo money on that new set of mud flaps for your truck and spent it on that there new-fangled "inernet" high speed system." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

It's the same thing that happened to the CFS series - CFS3 was SUPPOSED to be this "great improvement" to the CFS2 game platform, but instead, it was a TOTALLY DIFFERENT game platform, which was impossibly stupid to try to work with (and still is) and despite how new your computer is, you STILL had to go out and get new drivers, memory and video cards for them. Very aggravating for a lot of sim-pilots. I know of at least half of the CFS3 folks that have returned to CFS2 for their combat sim needs. The others have gone into IL2-FB, but they too are getting aggro at a lot of the game's little quirks.

*shrugs* But it is impossible to please everyone on everything, so I learned working in retail when I was younger and learned further in the medical community. You'll always get that one patient that comes back and no matter WHAT you put them on, you can't cure them of their "disease".

I don't want we who talk about the Fockes or any other plane to be that sort of "patient", though I am somewhat losing my patience at not getting an answer from Oleg unless we decide to bash his precious varnished plastic planes, the varnished guaranteed flying coffin, commonly known as the La series.

If an intellectual and moderately calm discussion could be had with Oleg about his planes/game platform/sounds and be done in a manner that's mature and that he will listen to; perhaps we ALL could be helpful and present just the facts and nothing BUT the facts so when there does come to be an issue with planes or anything else in the sim again, it can be treated with respect, self-control and a modicum of maturity on ALL sides so that the matter can be resolved and at least a compromise struck between the dissenting factions.

Ah, my three rubles' worth for the morning - you all have a reasonably sane day and get the kills you want!

KVR

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

WWMaxGunz
03-16-2004, 09:22 AM
Red, the original IL2 was 4 years in the making, IIRC, and in a more "finished" state when it came out than anything in many years. Also more advanced. Instead of stopping there, they took in complaints (which there will always be until perfection and even then some will still) and wishes to improve the thing. Change occurs partly because better computers allow more to be done that wasn't before. In the process they bit off a mean big hunk and the community proceeded to shove the rest at them then constantly demand what in development terms is miraculously fast output. So there's things not just so that can be but take more time than people have the patience for.
Finished games can be the norm. By now we'd be running RB2 or maybe RB3. M$ considers all their sims to be finished products. Crapple? Don't make me laugh too hard, they only look competitive compared to M$.

It was LaGG's that had the Varnished Coffin nickname. Different than La's. The GG is two other guys besides Lavochkin. The Varnish thing was only for a while until the plant that substituted the correct finish for cheap varnish was identified and the general manager either shot or imprisoned. Makes me wish we could do that here and not just Kenneth Lay either. Anyhow the problem got solved.
There were chronic gun jam problems with an early Mustang model due to ammunition belt path... do you think all Mustangs should be branded with that and modelled so?

Lots to learn. In the last week I found out that Tu-2's have the gear right behind the engines which makes them hard to damage from the six.

Relax, you really don't know vH (Baron vH, got papers from Germany -at cost- to prove it) more than a name in passing. I won't spell the name cause without the person the name means little. He formed the first squad I was in and was a friend of mine back years ago. He was also the 1992 founder of JG1 and did big things with RB, still does I hear. Quite a character.


Neal

faustnik
03-16-2004, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Baroness:

Faustnik - If I understands what you said correctly, then we're all just wasting air on this FW issue, as per the usual. If game developers don't listen to everyone's needs, then WTF is the point of providing a forum for such? AND, why make the damn game in the first place for anything but a quick profit which can be translated into all the "cool stuff" the developers wanted when they were kids? Stupid. Simply stupid.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Baroness,

Oleg listens to every subject brought up here, as far as I know. I think he has just had enough of this particular one.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

609IAP_Recon
03-17-2004, 06:01 AM
Baroness,

With a source code as complex as this - we have a choice:

1. go for perfection in which you will get a game once every 10 years or addons that take years to complete.

vs

2. Allow for some degree of error, realizing that you might not catch everything the first time, but you continue to greatly support your product.

Cut this team some slack , they are doing a fantastic job and offer more support than most gaming software companies. Furthermore, Oleg is very responsive to the needs of the community and listens very well.

Salute!

JG50_Recon

http://jg50.com/images/JG50_SIGG.gif
----
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com

Red_Baroness
03-17-2004, 02:15 PM
Recon, perhaps you misunderstood my post. I was being facetious and not altogether serious.

Neal: Crapple? Hee hee - yeh, but I still have my old '97 Crapple in the other room and I can make it WORK with this new-fangled one I got here for my gaming. To me, Apple reminds me of the fancy import cars. Looks about the same, works about the same, but you have to put a LOT more into it if it breaks down OR if you want it to do some things that the domestic ones can. I could, if I wanted to, build a nice double-processor G4 with all the bells and whistles, complete with a Virtual PC center installed so I can play all the games I want on the Mac, with usually better image quality, but.... I could also buy a new house for about the same price OR THREE top of the line PCs AND the T1 line to hook them all up to the internet. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

It's nuts, really.

I do say that Maddox/1C games does a hell of a lot better job in getting the games out in a more finished state AND they go the extra mile to support them too, unlike the CFS series from M$, which really requires more "community" effort to get going than anything I've ever worked with. I like how the patches that are produced here almost ALWAYS mean an improvement in the game structure/play. Imagine, oh imagine if Dynamix did the same for the RB series. I would simply not be here at all, but perhaps on THEIR forums lamenting the Eindecker's performance... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif - heh heh...(no, really.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Third party improvements are always great too; CFS3 would have died on the runway were it not for third-party work and RBII 3d is still going strong (at least partially) because of the 'new' packs like HA, HA-Res and FCJ to mention a few.

What I would like to see however, in all games, is more involvement with beta-testing and at least some consideration for those folks who do not have the "latest up-to-date" equipment. I've done some programming in my day and I can understand as things get more complex, the more problems there will be with the game itself.

It's kind of an oxymoron, but keeping things simple and at the same time complex enough to grab the attention of today's gamers is what is needed.

IL2 has almost a "plug and play" format - you install it and there you are. Right on the box it will give you the needed specs and there's no hidden surprise of "Oh, wait - you need to spend an additional $500 so your BRAND NEW computer can play this" (CFS3 did NOT mention this at all..)

Still have not got around to trying the zero-to-takeoff flights in the Focke with flaps raised; been busy elsewhere at the moment. I see now that the turn/stall issue is being addressed again, which is good - it's the wing stalls that bother me the most really, and for all planes.

That and I don't test on the Crimea map because of a few simple things.. I DON'T LIKE SHIPS SHOOTING AT ME WHEN I'M TRYING TO BLEEDING TEST THE PLANE!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gif

anywho, gotta run here - I have some web design that I should be getting to work on but I wanted to make myself a little bit clearer on where I stand on these things.

Take care, all

Red

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

WWMaxGunz
03-17-2004, 02:33 PM
Use the Full Mission Builder.
Don't put the ships in.

Neal

Ring-
03-17-2004, 03:18 PM
look threw this..

http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/planes/Vbwartimedata.doc

II_JG2_Roth
03-17-2004, 07:08 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Thanks Ring...I agree with Red Baroness on her statements on this topic. Even though the Fw-190 isn't my favorite plane, I do wish to see it improved. And yes....no-way can a LA-7 or later model Spit or P-51D can catch a FW-190D-9 in a level flight at full power in real life. I couldn't believe it when it happened to me last night in the gaming room. I was going so fast my wings were shaking like a bird...and A Spit, P-51 and LA7 were on my 6 and caught me. And no...I didn't have my Combat Flaps on. And yes I had the WEP on, and no, I didn't zig and zag knowing it would slow me down. I was going over 537 km at the time...and my enemies had to swing around from a turn to catch me. Oleg please take a look at the max speeds of these aircraft.
Thanks,
LuftwaffeOberst CFS3 aka Roth

Wick_IIJG2
03-22-2004, 04:42 PM
Hi all,

I am not normally one to comment on f/ms - I fly what I am given and use team work with my squad (II/JG2 - II/ZG26) to take down (perceived) overmodeled bandits.

The 190A and D are way too easy to stall. The 109s too to a degree but the 190s are terrible.
Mr Maddox - FB is a gift! A beautifully designed sim - the best yest! Please correct the stall tendency of the aforementioned planes and it will be perfect!

Salute!
II/JG2_Wick.

"As long as I can shoot down the enemy, adding to the honor of the Richthofen Geschwader and the success of the Fatherland, I will be a happy man." - Oberst Wick.

[This message was edited by Wick_IIJG2 on Mon March 22 2004 at 04:31 PM.]