PDA

View Full Version : Oleg: The 109 which you should add: G2 Early



Pages : [1] 2

Buzzsaw-
02-13-2006, 01:24 PM
Hello Oleg

One aircraft which would be good to have in the Sim, is the 109G2 at 1.31 ata., ie. the version of the G2 which debuted in July 1942.

The version we have now, rated at 1.42 ata, seems to be based on the Finnish tests, and more representative of the aircraft which flew in 1943.

No graphic changes would be required.

It would be nice to have this aircraft for 1942 scenarios.

Willey
02-13-2006, 01:29 PM
And a G-6 "early". 1,42ata was cleared from autumn 44 (yes, THAT late!) on - the G-6 came very early in that year. The same for the Bf-110G, it also has a DB-605B (just different transmission ratio compared to the A - lower RPMs).

faustnik
02-13-2006, 01:29 PM
A fully rated Fw190A4 would a MUCH more valuable use of resources.

carguy_
02-13-2006, 01:42 PM
Early planes for teh win!!!!!!1

JG52Karaya-X
02-13-2006, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Willey:
And a G-6 "early". 1,42ata was cleared from autumn 44 (yes, THAT late!) on - the G-6 came very early in that year.

We already have 1,3ata G6 planes when looking at performance - the ata gauge says 1,42ata but thats probably just an instrument bug

jagdmailer
02-13-2006, 02:53 PM
Exactly....

Jagd


Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Willey:
And a G-6 "early". 1,42ata was cleared from autumn 44 (yes, THAT late!) on - the G-6 came very early in that year.

We already have 1,3ata G6 planes when looking at performance - the ata gauge says 1,42ata but thats probably just an instrument bug </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jippo01
02-13-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Hello Oleg

One aircraft which would be good to have in the Sim, is the 109G2 at 1.31 ata., ie. the version of the G2 which debuted in July 1942.

The version we have now, rated at 1.42 ata, seems to be based on the Finnish tests, and more representative of the aircraft which flew in 1943.

No graphic changes would be required.

It would be nice to have this aircraft for 1942 scenarios.

This must be the joke of the year!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

So you didn't know that the so called Finnish tests were flown with 1.3ATA 109 G-2?????

Do you now think we should have a G-2 "late" with 1.42ATA and much higher performance than the current one, which actually is you G-2 early??

LOL!!


-jippo

WWMaxGunz
02-13-2006, 04:30 PM
9 percent more boost translates to how much faster? How much more climb?

Jetbuff
02-13-2006, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
A fully rated Fw190A4 would a MUCH more valuable use of resources.
... or a merlin 61 Spit IX.

faustnik
02-13-2006, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
9 percent more boost translates to how much faster? How much more climb?

That's an interesting question. There is good data for the Spit IX speed and climb increases with raising boost from +18 to +25. The power increase was roughly 20% at low level. The climb rate increse was 13% and the speed increase was 7%. I'm sure there a lot of contibuting factors.

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

Grey_Mouser67
02-13-2006, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
A fully rated Fw190A4 would a MUCH more valuable use of resources.
... or a merlin 61 Spit IX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that 1.42 ata Fw190A-4 is going to be without its contemporary enemy unless we hook up with the Merlin 61 Spit...I know there would be some Model change needed in the rudder, but I'd think it would only be necessary on the highest of LOD's and a good modeller could make those changes rather quickly.

In addition to said Spitfire, I think the current 43 Spit MkV aught to be converted to a +16lb version that was typical of the series and given some loadouts for its low altitude channel missions.

Then we could have a proper 42/43 channel scenario for all!

carguy_
02-13-2006, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
... or a merlin 61 Spit IX.


What?ANOTHER mark nine?Wouldn`t MkII or MkXIV be better?

faustnik
02-13-2006, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:

What?ANOTHER mark nine?Wouldn`t MkII or MkXIV be better?

Yes, a Merlin 61 Spit IX and a fully rated Fw190A4 would be a great package addition to the sim! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JG53Frankyboy
02-13-2006, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

Yes, a Merlin 61 Spit IX and a fully rated Fw190A4 would be a great package addition to the sim! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

perhaps this could wait till a BoB AdOn , ok ?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

for now we have a wonderfull channel match up for 1943:
Bf109G6, Bf110G2 , Fw190A5, P-47D10, P-38J , Merlin66 Spitfire MkIXc , Spitfire LF.MkVb , Mosquito FB.VI
- and even no map for it beside that Normandie one with Atlantis http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-13-2006, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
9 percent more boost translates to how much faster? How much more climb?

That's an interesting question. There is good data for the Spit IX speed and climb increases with raising boost from +18 to +25. The power increase was roughly 20% at low level. The climb rate increse was 13% and the speed increase was 7%. I'm sure there a lot of contibuting factors.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right along the lines I see as reason. The power increase less than the boost increase,
the climb increase less than that but pretty much linear while speed increases by a smaller
amount though I would expect no more than square root of thrust increase, from the flat plate
drag formula. Say 7% faster, 1.07 x 1.07 = 1.1449 (say 1.15) which is less than 1.20, the 20%
more boost.

If I could get more or equal it would have to be something else added otherwise perpetual
motion machine would be possible some way there.

VW-IceFire
02-13-2006, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

Yes, a Merlin 61 Spit IX and a fully rated Fw190A4 would be a great package addition to the sim! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

perhaps this could wait till a BoB AdOn , ok ?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

for now we have a wonderfull channel match up for 1943:
Bf109G6, Bf110G2 , Fw190A5, P-47D10, P-38J , Merlin66 Spitfire MkIXc , Spitfire LF.MkVb , Mosquito FB.VI
- and even no map for it beside that Normandie one with Atlantis http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL

Atlantis! Right on man...I wasn't ever sure what to call that place but I'm game with that!

Sank into the sea sometime around May 1945 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Buzzsaw-
02-13-2006, 05:48 PM
Salute Jippo

Sorry, you can't get away with that one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The climb tests for the Finnish plane were run at 1.31 because that was the non-'combat' rating of the plane. German aircraft climb tests were not done at "Combat" rating, they were done at the equivalent of maximum continuous, which in the case of the 1.42 ata G2, was 1.31.

In any case, as has been mentioned in many posts, the game G2 easily outperforms the results shown in the test of MT-215.

The Finnish G2's used 1.42 ata, as did all their 109's, including the G6 Lates they received. The mechanics were trained to maintain the two aircraft's engines similarly.

Feel free to post the entire Finnish test if you would like to discuss it.

ImpStarDuece
02-13-2006, 06:01 PM
I'd want 2 more Mk IXs:

A mid 1942 F. Mk. IX with a Merlin 61 at +15lbs and 1535 hp, of which about 400 were made. Represents the first squadrons of Mk IXs

A late 1942/early 1943 F. Mk. IX with a Merlin 63/63A at +18lbs, and 1710 hp, of which about 1200 were made. Represents the version that stayed in service until 1945 as high alt cover for the L.F. IXs with Merln 66s.

Jetbuff
02-13-2006, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
... or a merlin 61 Spit IX.
What?ANOTHER mark nine?Wouldn`t MkII or MkXIV be better? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
MkI/II have been reserved for BoB iirc, so it's pointless to ask for them. The MkXIV is a whole new aircraft whereas the early MkIX has little difference from the 1943 versions already in the game AFAIK.

I must admit though, I am biased towards earlier war planes. They seem to have a lot more character than the souped up late-war hot-rods.

p1ngu666
02-13-2006, 08:55 PM
yeah, the typhoon has more chacter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
02-13-2006, 08:56 PM
oh i dont see much point a g2 early cos we could just use the F anyways?

Jippo01
02-13-2006, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Jippo

Sorry, you can't get away with that one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The climb tests for the Finnish plane were run at 1.31 because that was the non-'combat' rating of the plane. German aircraft climb tests were not done at "Combat" rating, they were done at the equivalent of maximum continuous, which in the case of the 1.42 ata G2, was 1.31.

In any case, as has been mentioned in many posts, the game G2 easily outperforms the results shown in the test of MT-215.

The Finnish G2's used 1.42 ata, as did all their 109's, including the G6 Lates they received. The mechanics were trained to maintain the two aircraft's engines similarly.

Feel free to post the entire Finnish test if you would like to discuss it.

All the tests including climb were done 1.3ATA, and the game reflects the performance (110% power in game) results Finns achieved. This has been done ad nauseaum...


-jippo

Badsight.
02-13-2006, 11:46 PM
1.42 ATA DB605 operating in service in 1942 ?

there wasnt any

Kurfurst__
02-14-2006, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by Willey:
And a G-6 "early". 1,42ata was cleared from autumn 44 (yes, THAT late!) on - the G-6 came very early in that year. The same for the Bf-110G, it also has a DB-605B (just different transmission ratio compared to the A - lower RPMs).

1,42at was cleared in September-October 1943, automn 1944, what, more Mike Williams stories, LOL. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Besides, it's just the usual Buzzsaw-BS thread.

The current G-2 we have shows the gauge as 1.42ata, but all the speed/climb results refer to 1.3ata tests. As said, this was beaten to death already.

An 1.42 ata 109g-2 doesn't sound bad though, it was rated by the Germans at 685 kph max speed at 1.42ata. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seriously though, imho a 109G-1 implementation with GM-1 and a 1942 Merlin 61 SpitIX would be far more reasonable choice, for 1942 Western/Africa Front scenarios...

alert_1
02-14-2006, 05:28 AM
I want Me109F "Late" (1942) - faster then Me109G6 and more maneuvrable then G2

Gatt59
02-14-2006, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Willey:
1,42ata was cleared from autumn 44 (yes, THAT late!) on

Hmmm, so during summer 1944 when the new G-14 and the last series of the G-6 begun to mount the DB605AM, with MW50, 1.7ATA and an output of 1,800hp ... the DB605A was still limited to 2,600rpm and 1.3ATA? LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
The DB605A was cleared to 1.42ATA in summer/autumn 1943.

Buzzsaw-
02-14-2006, 09:50 AM
Salute

Willey in incorrect, 1.42 was cleared for use in autumn 1943.

Isegrim/Kurfurst: Don't try to label me for mistakes which other posters have made.

My original point stands. We need a 1.31 G2 for 1942 scenarios, expecially now since we have the Italian planes for that time period. To do a desert campaign for JG27 would require a 1.31 ata G2.

And yes, a 1.42 ata 190A4 would be higher on the list of priorities.

Buzzsaw-
02-14-2006, 10:12 AM
Salute

Hans Joachim M****ille, perhaps the most gifted fighter pilot ever to fly, was in a 1.31 ata 109G2 in September of 1942 when he experienced engine problems. He died after his parachute failed to open after he bailed out.

Jippo01
02-14-2006, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
My original point stands. We need a 1.31 G2 for 1942 scenarios, expecially now since we have the Italian planes for that time period. To do a desert campaign for JG27 would require a 1.31 ata G2.

The Bf 109 G2 in the game is the 1.3ATA G2 no matter what the gauge says! It has same performance...


-jippo

JtD
02-14-2006, 10:36 AM
So what would 1.42 ata performance be like? 700 kph top speed? 30m/s climb?

faustnik
02-14-2006, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
So what would 1.42 ata performance be like? 700 kph top speed? 30m/s climb?

That's what MaxGunz and I were discussing earlier. The horsepower increase going from 1.3ata to 1.42ata was roughly 13%. Judging by the gains by the Spitfire from power increases (yeah, I know it's different, but, I'm just ballparking here) the Bf109 might gain 5% to 7% in speed and climb.

???????

Buzzsaw-
02-14-2006, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Jippo01:

The Bf 109 G2 in the game is the 1.3ATA G2 no matter what the gauge says! It has same performance...

-jippo

You continue to miss the point completely Jippo and are wrong on this.

It's not the gauge on the game G2, its the reading on the Charts for the Finnish tests.

Look at the climb chart for the Finnish tests. They say 1.30 ata. Which means the aircraft was tested in the climb at 1.30 ata, which is the max. continuous rate for the 1.42 ata G2.

To repeat: Climb tests for the 109's were done at max. continuous, not WEP power. Which is why you see 1.30 instead of 1.42.

Even Isegrim/Kurfurst knows this. Ask Oleg.

And of course, the G2 can achieve better than the rate of climb listed for the G2 in the finnish tests.

Buzzsaw-
02-14-2006, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:

That's what MaxGunz and I were discussing earlier. The horsepower increase going from 1.3ata to 1.42ata was roughly 13%. Judging by the gains by the Spitfire from power increases (yeah, I know it's different, but, I'm just ballparking here) the Bf109 might gain 5% to 7% in speed and climb.

???????

See my post above.

JtD
02-14-2006, 11:21 AM
So it's more like 710 kph and 28m/s...wonder why they didn't keep that model until the end of war.

faustnik
02-14-2006, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


To repeat: Climb tests for the 109's were done at max. continuous, not WEP power. Which is why you see 1.30 instead of 1.42.





There is a small problem with your logic here Buzzsaw. Most LW climb tests were done at max continuous (30 minute) rating. That does not mean that Finnish tests were conducted in the same manner. Certainly the RAF made climb tests at WEP, why not the Finns? The LW also made climb tests at later dates on some aircraft at TAKEOFF/EMERGENCY. So, you can't always associate a particular aircraft with a particular climb test method.

faustnik
02-14-2006, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
So it's more like 710 kph and 28m/s...wonder why they didn't keep that model until the end of war.

Not enough firepower.

Buzzsaw-
02-14-2006, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
There is a small problem with your logic here Buzzsaw. Most LW climb tests were done at max continuous (30 minute) rating. That does not mean that Finnish tests were conducted in the same manner. Certainly the RAF made climb tests at WEP, why not the Finns? The LW also made climb tests at later dates on some aircraft at TAKEOFF/EMERGENCY. So, you can't always associate a particular aircraft with a particular climb test method.

The climbs done by the Luftwaffe at Rechlin, with early model G1's, rated at 1.31 ata max. show a MUCH lower climbrate than the Finnish tests. Those tests were also done at max. continuous, but not 1.31, since at that time, 1.31 was WEP boost level. That is why the Rechlin tests were less impressive.

Jippo01
02-14-2006, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jippo01:

The Bf 109 G2 in the game is the 1.3ATA G2 no matter what the gauge says! It has same performance...

-jippo

You continue to miss the point completely Jippo and are wrong on this.

It's not the gauge on the game G2, its the reading on the Charts for the Finnish tests.

Look at the climb chart for the Finnish tests. They say 1.30 ata. Which means the aircraft was tested in the climb at 1.30 ata, which is the max. continuous rate for the 1.42 ata G2.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, right.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

For the last time, following the Finnish test flight profile:

at 110% power the G-2 in game climbs as fast as the real Finnish G-2 with 1.3 ATA. Do you understand?

Finnish 109 used 1.3ATA only.

1.3ATA performance is replicated by the game.

Do you understand???

If you want 1.42ATA performance, ok, but 1.3 is already there!!!!!


-jippo

faustnik
02-14-2006, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


The climbs done by the Luftwaffe at Rechlin, with early model G1's, rated at 1.31 ata max. show a MUCH lower climbrate than the Finnish tests. Those tests were also done at max. continuous, but not 1.31, since at that time, 1.31 was WEP boost level. That is why the Rechlin tests were less impressive.

But again, how do you know the Finnish tests were at CLIMB/COMBAT rating?

Jippo01
02-14-2006, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
But again, how do you know the Finnish tests were at CLIMB/COMBAT rating?

Finns used 1.3ATA, which is 1.3ATA no matter what he calls it. Nor does it matter if the engine could have gone 2.0ATA or whatnot, power output at 1.3ATA is the same anyway it doesn't matter what you call it....


-jippo

Buzzsaw-
02-14-2006, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Jippo01:

Finns used 1.3ATA, which is 1.3ATA no matter what he calls it. Nor does it matter if the engine could have gone 2.0ATA or whatnot, power output at 1.3ATA is the same anyway it doesn't matter what you call it....

-jippo

Salute

Sorry Jippo go back and do the research.

Look at the Finnish manual for the G2:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-Manuals.html

You will clearly see that 1.42 ata is listed as their WEP power setting.

They used 1.42.

faustnik
02-14-2006, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
But again, how do you know the Finnish tests were at CLIMB/COMBAT rating?

Finns used 1.3ATA, which is 1.3ATA no matter what he calls it. Nor does it matter if the engine could have gone 2.0ATA or whatnot, power output at 1.3ATA is the same anyway it doesn't matter what you call it....


-jippo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, we undersand that Jippo, we were just on a tangent of power ratings and climb testing. Sorry. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
So what would 1.42 ata performance be like? 700 kph top speed? 30m/s climb?

That's what MaxGunz and I were discussing earlier. The horsepower increase going from 1.3ata to 1.42ata was roughly 13%. Judging by the gains by the Spitfire from power increases (yeah, I know it's different, but, I'm just ballparking here) the Bf109 might gain 5% to 7% in speed and climb.

??????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1.42 / 1.3 = 1.0923

That's 9% more. I dunno how to get 13% with those two numbers.

Ballparking using the 7% speed gain from 20% boost gain of the Spit... BALLPARK ONLY.

Spit:
20% gain = 1.2, square root is 1.0954 of which 7% more speed = 1.07 is 98% of that.

109:
9% gain = 1.0923, square root is 1.045, 98% of that is 1.024, for about 2.5% more speed.

Climb closer to linear, the Spit got 14% more climb from 20% more boost, 9% more boost at
same efficiency gives 6.3% more climb.

Worthy of doing but not huge differences.

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jippo01:

The Bf 109 G2 in the game is the 1.3ATA G2 no matter what the gauge says! It has same performance...

-jippo

You continue to miss the point completely Jippo and are wrong on this.

It's not the gauge on the game G2, its the reading on the Charts for the Finnish tests.

Look at the climb chart for the Finnish tests. They say 1.30 ata. Which means the aircraft was tested in the climb at 1.30 ata, which is the max. continuous rate for the 1.42 ata G2.

To repeat: Climb tests for the 109's were done at max. continuous, not WEP power. Which is why you see 1.30 instead of 1.42.

Even Isegrim/Kurfurst knows this. Ask Oleg.

And of course, the G2 can achieve better than the rate of climb listed for the G2 in the finnish tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the max continuous ATA for a 1.3ATA rated G-2?

faustnik
02-14-2006, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
That's 9% more. I dunno how to get 13% with those two numbers.

From the horsepower increase Neal.

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
But again, how do you know the Finnish tests were at CLIMB/COMBAT rating?

Finns used 1.3ATA, which is 1.3ATA no matter what he calls it. Nor does it matter if the engine could have gone 2.0ATA or whatnot, power output at 1.3ATA is the same anyway it doesn't matter what you call it....


-jippo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was the max ATA of the G-2's the Finns tested? Was it 1.3 or 1.42 or 1.31 or what?

Another way to ask; did the Finns climb test at WEP ATA?

If the plane is rated 1.3ATA Maximum and the climb tests were done at 1.3ATA then the PLANE
would be a 1.42ATA model, not a 1.3ATA model.

If the tests were made at WEP of 1.3ATA then the PLANE would be a 1.3ATA model.

So which is it? Else we have confusion leading to name calling.

faustnik
02-14-2006, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:


What is the max continuous ATA for a 1.3ATA rated G-2?

That's a good question. If the engine was designed for 1.42ata@2800rpm and then "derated" because of engine trouble to 1.3ata@2600rpm, does that mean that the 2600rpm rating becomes WEP? Maybe it just means that WEP can't be used? In that case CLIMB/COMBAT (not max continuous, that is really a cruise rating) would still be 1.3ata@2600rpm.

?????????????

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jippo01:

Finns used 1.3ATA, which is 1.3ATA no matter what he calls it. Nor does it matter if the engine could have gone 2.0ATA or whatnot, power output at 1.3ATA is the same anyway it doesn't matter what you call it....

-jippo

Salute

Sorry Jippo go back and do the research.

Look at the Finnish manual for the G2:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-Manuals.html

You will clearly see that 1.42 ata is listed as their WEP power setting.

They used 1.42. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But not for the climbs or you say for the climbs as well.

Easy enough to account for difference between Finnish test and Rechlin if the air at the
place and time of the Finnish test was colder and denser the engine will run better, the
wings will lift better.

faustnik
02-14-2006, 12:40 PM
Actually the manual Buzzsaw posted says "Takeoff and WEP setting must not be used. The particular switch has therefore been disconnected." (bottom page 12)

No 1.42ata@2800rpm.

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:


What is the max continuous ATA for a 1.3ATA rated G-2?

That's a good question. If the engine was designed for 1.42ata@2800rpm and then "derated" because of engine trouble to 1.3ata@2600rpm, does that mean that the 2600rpm rating becomes WEP? Maybe it just means that WEP can't be used? In that case CLIMB/COMBAT (not max continuous, that is really a cruise rating) would still be 1.3ata@2600rpm.

????????????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I read of Jippo and Buzz, Rechlin at least tested climb at the lower ATA.
Buzz says the Finns used 1.42ATA for the climbs, unlike Rechlin.

Whatever ATA the Finns used, the G-2 model we have matches that climb.

Jippo01
02-14-2006, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
You will clearly see that 1.42 ata is listed as their WEP power setting.

They used 1.42.

Are you an idiot???

Finnish test pilots used 1.3 ATA!!!!
http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/Ju88/ata.jpg

Finnish planes used 1.3ATA.

Manual is direct translation from Finnish manual which is translation from German manual, Germans used 1.42ATA.

Don't you get it? Do I have to draw a picture for you, because it is bloody clear that explaining doesn't do it for you since you do not bloody listen!


-jippo

Kurfurst__
02-14-2006, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
The climbs done by the Luftwaffe at Rechlin, with early model G1's, rated at 1.31 ata max. show a MUCH lower climbrate than the Finnish tests. Those tests were also done at max. continuous, but not 1.31, since at that time, 1.31 was WEP boost level. That is why the Rechlin tests were less impressive.

Jesus... I mean one would just have to READ those friggin papers, they very clearly tell they were both done at 1,3ata....

And of course 1,3ata was Kampfleistung all the way, good for 30mins of use. It was just that WEP, 1,42ata, was not to be used for some time. It didnt change anything in the designation or limits...

As for the finnish tests, there are two particularities about them. First, they were done with a late production plane from 1943, which had non-retractable tailwheel, like the G-6. This made the plane 10-15kph slower than most of the ones produced in 1942.

Second, the finns climbed at higher climb speed than prescribed, which meant more airflow through the radiators and better cooling; the radiator flaps thus remained closed during the first 2km of the climb, ie. less drag from them (German datasets usually assume ca1/2-2/3 open radiator flaps for the data). This resulted in 2-3m/sec higher ROC for the finnish test, but only between SL and 2000m, above that, it's very much the same as in other Bf 109G-1/G-2 test runs.

The official max speed for the 109G-2 was 685kph at 1.42ata, and 650-660kph at 1.3ata, with the retractable tailwheel. The later production and retroffited ones from 1943 did around 637-640kph at 1.3ata with the non-retractable tailwheel.

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Actually the manual Buzzsaw posted says "Takeoff and WEP setting must not be used. The particular switch has therefore been disconnected." (bottom page 12)

No 1.42ata@2800rpm.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Seems pretty clear to me. Plane able to go 1.42 was not used at that power, could not.

So perhaps atmospheric differences are to account for differences? There was not a
'standard atmosphere' then though I am sure there was awareness of differences. Would
Rechlin and the Finns have used the same temperature for their baselines?

EDIT: Ha! Difference is from Finnish pilots flying more for the climb than Rechlin!

Kurfurst__
02-14-2006, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If the plane is rated 1.3ATA Maximum and the climb tests were done at 1.3ATA then the PLANE
would be a 1.42ATA model, not a 1.3ATA model.

Uh.... OK. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

@Jippo,

Do you have the Finnish docs for this Gustav? I am looking for those. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jippo01
02-14-2006, 01:00 PM
I have the complete test flight report for MT-215, dated 6.5.1943 incl. atmospheric conditions etc... 37 pages altogether.

I have no right to distribute, but you can always ask at virtualpilots, it's theirs.


-jippo

faustnik
02-14-2006, 01:01 PM
Jippo,

TAKE IT EASY. There is no reason for name calling.

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If the plane is rated 1.3ATA Maximum and the climb tests were done at 1.3ATA then the PLANE
would be a 1.42ATA model, not a 1.3ATA model.

Uh.... OK. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

@Jippo,

Do you have the Finnish docs for this Gustav? I am looking for those. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, my error. Not if rated 1.3 Maximum but 1.42 Maximum yet climbed at 1.3ATA.
Typed in too fast. Not an indication of my diehard beliefs. All I want is to straighten
out what looked very much like two arguments directed not at the same point but really it
is worse than that.

@Jippo about that chart. I see 3 data curves and I think one relates to the ATA line
while the other two relate to speed? If so, that is the #2 line? I can't read the
labels.

Jippo01
02-14-2006, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
That's a good question. If the engine was designed for 1.42ata@2800rpm and then "derated" because of engine trouble to 1.3ata@2600rpm, does that mean that the 2600rpm rating becomes WEP? Maybe it just means that WEP can't be used? In that case CLIMB/COMBAT (not max continuous, that is really a cruise rating) would still be 1.3ata@2600rpm.

?????????????

I give an example of derating. Namely derating T-72 engines, which I have seen in real life. Engines are capable of 840hp, but they are derated to 780-800hp for longer life. Derating is a bolt underneath the gas pedal that prevents the pedal from being floored. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So the engine is the same exact one, and can be un-derated in seconds.

Same way, 1.42 engine can be run with 1.3, and it will perform the same as the 1.3 engine as they are essentially the same engine. Difference being only that the latter one is not allowed to reach the higher manifold pressure. If you would turn the screw in the compressor and make it go to 1.42, they would again produce the same power. with the latter one having maintenance problems in the long run...


-jippo

Jippo01
02-14-2006, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
@Jippo about that chart. I see 3 data curves and I think one relates to the ATA line
while the other two relate to speed? If so, that is the #2 line? I can't read the
labels.

1. maximum speed
2. manifold pressure
3. speed in climb

Speeds TAS, of course.


-jippo

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Jippo,

TAKE IT EASY. There is no reason for name calling.

I know how he feels. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Just this week I see stall speed discussed by Kwiatos. Speed at which plane cannot maintain
level flight listed and then wing drop speed listed. Then like inevitable, stall speed is
given as the wing drop speed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif So 109G stalls at 130kph in game that way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Reinvention of a basic of flight from interpretation of one single blurb of an article!
And it is STILL alive and used as a basis for b!tching! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Stall speed tests run at idle to get the clean and dirty (flaps and gear) standards, the
stall speed is the speed at which level flight is no longer maintainable. At idle. No
bringing up the power, no losing alt and watching the wings, no going by the speedbar to
say that drop doesn't happen until the 10m rounded off alt changes. Stay at idle with
speed falling and nose coming up slowly and either watch the VSI or use devicelink log.

Jippo01
02-14-2006, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Jippo,

TAKE IT EASY. There is no reason for name calling.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Of course you're right, but in my defense: at that point I had said seven times: "Finns used 1.3ATA". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

faustnik
02-14-2006, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Jippo01:
Same way, 1.42 engine can be run with 1.3, and it will perform the same as the 1.3 engine as they are essentially the same engine. Difference being only that the latter one is not allowed to reach the higher manifold pressure. If you would turn the screw in the compressor and make it go to 1.42, they would again produce the same power. with the latter one having maintenance problems in the long run...


-jippo

OK, thanks. So, basically 1.30ata@2600rpm would be the CLIMB (30 minute) rating on both the derated and fully rated versions? The fully rated verion would just ahve the additional capability to run 1.42ata@2800rpm for a short duration.

Right?

Sorry if I keep asking the same question, I just want to be clear on the issue.

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 01:39 PM
TY for the labels Jippo. Clearly 1.31 is the highest I see there, 1.3 for the most
part until 2nd stage critical at just under 6.5km alt.

Buzzsaw ... he is wrong!

Jippo01
02-14-2006, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Right?


Yes, for what I know about it.


-jippo

JtD
02-14-2006, 01:48 PM
In game, the G-2 flies about 544 at sea level, 661 at 6500 meters and 671 at 7000 meters. This is 25 kph faster until ft height is reached and 40 kph faster up high than the 1.3 ata chart provided by Jippo.

To my knowledge a tail wheel alone does not cost 10-15 kph. Not on a 109. When discussing the aerodynamic qualities of the 109 a lot of folks would also display that opinion. Do you happen to have more specific info on that, Kurfürst?

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 03:02 PM
This is like the Spit listed as 1941 that has both 41 and 42 characteristics?

Ratsack
02-14-2006, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Jippo,

TAKE IT EASY. There is no reason for name calling.

I know how he feels. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Just this week I see stall speed discussed by Kwiatos. Speed at which plane cannot maintain
level flight listed and then wing drop speed listed. Then like inevitable, stall speed is
given as the wing drop speed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif So 109G stalls at 130kph in game that way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Reinvention of a basic of flight from interpretation of one single blurb of an article!
And it is STILL alive and used as a basis for b!tching! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Stall speed tests run at idle to get the clean and dirty (flaps and gear) standards, the
stall speed is the speed at which level flight is no longer maintainable. At idle. No
bringing up the power, no losing alt and watching the wings, no going by the speedbar to
say that drop doesn't happen until the 10m rounded off alt changes. Stay at idle with
speed falling and nose coming up slowly and either watch the VSI or use devicelink log. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. I saw that little discussion start again and I just couldn't be bothered with the vitriol that a correction would attract.

These guys are like Goebbels: if you repeat an untruth often enough, it will become true.

Ratsack

PS - I've got a copy of that Finnish G-2 manual at work. I recall it saying that 1.42 ATA is not to be used. I'll check it and get back.

Willey
02-14-2006, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
In game, the G-2 flies about 544 at sea level, 661 at 6500 meters and 671 at 7000 meters. This is 25 kph faster until ft height is reached and 40 kph faster up high than the 1.3 ata chart provided by Jippo.

To my knowledge a tail wheel alone does not cost 10-15 kph. Not on a 109. When discussing the aerodynamic qualities of the 109 a lot of folks would also display that opinion. Do you happen to have more specific info on that, Kurfürst?

That's pretty much 1,42 speeds IMHO.

Yes, a 109 tailwheel costs 7km/h of topspeed at rated alt, and the G-6 bulges take 13km/h.

Buzzsaw-
02-14-2006, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Buzz says the Finns used 1.42ATA for the climbs, unlike Rechlin.



No I didn't, don't put words in my mouth.

I said the Finns had an aircraft rated at 1.42 ata, which was capable of 1.42 ata at max boost, ie. WEP, but during the climb tests, they used 1.30 ata because it was normal to use the max. continuous 30 min rating for climb tests. The 1.30 is clearly noted on the Finnish climb charts.

On other hand, the Germans when testing at Rechlin used a lower boost rating, because their G1 had a WEP rating of 1.30.
That is why their climbrate result was less.

Buzzsaw-
02-14-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Jippo01:

Don't you get it? Do I have to draw a picture for you, because it is bloody clear that explaining doesn't do it for you since you do not bloody listen!

-jippo

Putting aside Jippo's bad manners, he is also putting words in my mouth. I never said they used 1.42 ata for the climb, in fact I said several times that the Finns used 1.30 in the climb tests.

BECAUSE IT WAS STANDARD TO USE THE MAX. CONTINUOUS 30 MIN RATING FOR CLIMBTESTING. And the max. continuous 30 minute rating for the G2 was 1.30.

Abbuzze
02-14-2006, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
The climbs done by the Luftwaffe at Rechlin, with early model G1's, rated at 1.31 ata max. show a MUCH lower climbrate than the Finnish tests. Those tests were also done at max. continuous, but not 1.31, since at that time, 1.31 was WEP boost level. That is why the Rechlin tests were less impressive.

Negative, you are wrong, there was no 1.30ata WEP.
1.30ata was allways climb and combat power at the DB605A.
1.42ata as wep was forbidden to use, and 1.30 was continous for 30min.

EDIT: OK for the following post, should read the complete thread bofore posting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif sorry!

Buzzsaw-
02-14-2006, 04:12 PM
Salute Jippo

To refresh your memory:



Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

Look at the climb chart for the Finnish tests. They say 1.30 ata. Which means the aircraft was tested in the climb at 1.30 ata, which is the max. continuous rate for the 1.42 ata G2.

To repeat: Climb tests for the 109's were done at max. continuous, not WEP power. Which is why you see 1.30 instead of 1.42.

Buzzsaw-
02-14-2006, 04:28 PM
Salute

I guess I'm going to have to post a series of documents when I get home.

Bottom line:

Finns used 1.30 ata in their climbtests, but their G2's were rated for 1.42, after the initial restrictions were lifted. The plane we have in the game is the 1.42 version.

They used the same boost rating on the G2's as they did on their G6 lates. Of course... Why wouldn't they, the engines were both DB605A's, why anyone could conceive that they would use a lower rating when the higher boost level had been approved by the Luftwaffe.

Grey_Mouser67
02-14-2006, 05:59 PM
When you guys get this figured out, let me know if the current G2 is really a 43 or 44 plane...sounds like it might be which means I'll make more of my own home made missions with the F-4, which sounds like it might really be a 42 F series?

Thanks in advance...I learn so much when you all argue http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 06:54 PM
So if the G-2 in the game is run at WEP in climb and matches the Finnish climb then
it is climbing at 1.3ATA and the Finnish climb speeds?

Would that make it a 1.3ATA G-2?

But since the level speeds are 1.42ATA speeds it's really what?

Buzzsaw-
02-14-2006, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So if the G-2 in the game is run at WEP in climb and matches the Finnish climb then
it is climbing at 1.3ATA and the Finnish climb speeds?

Would that make it a 1.3ATA G-2?

But since the level speeds are 1.42ATA speeds it's really what?

Do some tests Max BY ALL MEANS.

I think you will find that in WEP game G2 easily gets better climbrate results than shown in the Finnish 1.3 ata test. If it doesn't then I will be happy to admit my mistake. (please post track)

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 08:56 PM
Let's see. Crimea map, summer, noon. What IAS should I try and keep Jippo?
Well I can re-look that chart or just see what works best?

Buzzsaw-
02-14-2006, 10:08 PM
Salute

Here to the best of my knowledge, are the facts re. the 109G1/G2 and the ata rating used by the Finns.

First of all, the Finns got their G2's in early '43.

The 109G2 aircraft first arrived in German service in June of 1942. At that point it was intended to operate at 1.42 ata, but because of mechanical unreliability, it was derated to 1.32-1.30 max.

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/1305/109g6not4au.jpg

The translated manual we have from the Finns is based on an original from the Messerschmitt factory.

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/9201/109man15tc.jpg

That Messerschmitt manual dated from July of 1942, when the aircraft had been derated, as you can see from the notes regarding the translation:

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4341/bf109g2030zo.jpg

The translation was published in March of 1943.

Of course, the copied manual, with the original dating from mid 1942, although it lists 1.42 as a power rating, forbids the use of it.

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/7479/bf109g2127nv.jpg

The tests done by the Finns were in March of 1943.

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/6595/g2speed20ip.jpg

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/1808/finnishbf109g2climb2gi.jpg

All the tests were done at 1.30-1.32ata.

However, by September of 1943, 1.42ata was approved.

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/154/db605a32iq.jpg

The Finns continued to use their DB605A engined G2's till the end of the war, and they undoubtably upgraded their boost level to 1.42 ata in the fall of 1943. They were continually replacing the engines in their G2's with new ones from the Messerschmitt factory.

"The first batch came directly from the factory. The second were used G-6's. The G-2 engine had no durability, it had to be changed even after only 30 hours. G-6 was better in that respect." - I wonder why? I'd imagine those made in '44 were poorer. "This was February '43, and they were G-2's. We got G-6's only later. The worst of them lasted only 30 hours. It was always guesswork if the engine would hold together. "
- Mauno Fr¤ntil¤, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories.

This is why we have the 1.42 ata G2 in the game.

Badsight.
02-14-2006, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

Do some tests Max BY ALL MEANS.

I think you will find that in WEP game G2 easily gets better climbrate results than shown in the Finnish 1.3 ata test. If it doesn't then I will be happy to admit my mistake. (please post track) what Jippo is saying is that 1.31 isnt considered WEP - they were not allowed to use WEP rating the motor was capable of

& that 1.31 wasnt considered the "new" WEP rating

how well does the G2 in FB climb at 1.31 ?

does it match the Finnish test in climb at that in-game Manifold Pressure reading ?

if it does & our G2 can pull more MP than 1.31 (which the guage says it can) , then its clear , we have a 1.42 capable 1942 Bf-109 G2

which is a fantasy plane

needs to be neutered , or called a 1943 plane

Jippo01
02-14-2006, 11:19 PM
Thank you badsight, I thought it must be in me that I cannot explain anything...

Yes Finns used 1.3ata for their G-2's, not 1.42ata. And I'm saying that as a Finnish plane enthusiast.

Buzzsaw, if you want to say that Finns used something else for G-2's, please find a Finnish document that says so. German documents in this matter are worth sh1t in this argument, for all I know and I have heard Finns used 1.3ata ONLY. <- this at least the tenth time, either believe it or prove me wrong, ok?


-jippo

Jippo01
02-14-2006, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Do some tests Max BY ALL MEANS.



I did. Climb exactly matches the Finnish profile, and the climb is the most important aspect in combat with 109. Only thing that is unrealistic is the cooking engine after climbing to 6km, which shouldn't happen....


-jippo

Jippo01
02-15-2006, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Willey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
In game, the G-2 flies about 544 at sea level, 661 at 6500 meters and 671 at 7000 meters. This is 25 kph faster until ft height is reached and 40 kph faster up high than the 1.3 ata chart provided by Jippo.

To my knowledge a tail wheel alone does not cost 10-15 kph. Not on a 109. When discussing the aerodynamic qualities of the 109 a lot of folks would also display that opinion. Do you happen to have more specific info on that, Kurfürst?

That's pretty much 1,42 speeds IMHO.

Yes, a 109 tailwheel costs 7km/h of topspeed at rated alt, and the G-6 bulges take 13km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also top speeds were measured with 1.3ata, just like everything else. From Buzzsaw table you can see this:

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/6595/g2speed20ip.jpg

Title is "speed tests"

V(1) is corrected TAS
V(a) is IAS
ata is ata


-jippo

Functio
02-15-2006, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Jippo01:
Only thing that is unrealistic is the cooking engine after climbing to 6km, which shouldn't happen...

Some overcooling at higher altitudes would be most welcome...

Buzzsaw-
02-15-2006, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Jippo01:

I did. Climb exactly matches the Finnish profile....

-jippo


Please post track. What throttle setting did you use?

Did you do the climb at full throttle WEP?

JtD
02-15-2006, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Jippo01:

Also top speeds were measured with 1.3ata, just like everything else.

Yes, it is pretty obvious from the charts. In game the G-2 is 25 kph faster and climbs 7% better using the climb speed of the Finnish test. Climb is 14% better if you use a slower climb speed.

Obviously the G-2 in game is a 1.42 ata machine.

guderian_ente
02-15-2006, 09:41 AM
Hahaha! So the G-2 in the game is better than the real thing? What will the Luftwhiners say now?


Some overcooling at higher altitudes would be most welcome...

Why does cooling improve at higher altitudes? Is it because the air is less dense = less friction = less heat?

The game doesn't model this, right?

Buzzsaw-
02-15-2006, 09:48 AM
Salute

Incidentally, the Germans rated the engine which equipped the 109G6 Early at 1475 hp, and the engine which equipped the 109G6 Late at 1550 hp, a 75 hp difference. Not a huge gain, nowhere near, for example, the difference between the G6 Late at 1550 hp and the 1.8 ata G10 at 1800 hp.

JtD
02-15-2006, 09:58 AM
The take-off power for the DB605A-1 was 1475 hp, the maximum pwoer at the same engine settings was achieved at about 2000 meters and was 1550 hp. I am fairly convinced that the G-6 and G-6late use the same engine and the ratings you provide or somewhat misinterpreted original data.

Buzzsaw-
02-15-2006, 11:48 AM
Salute JtD

Thanks for your comment. You may be correct. I had seen Secondary sources which rate the later model G6 at the higher hp rating. Perhaps this is another Secondary source which is mistaken.

There is a definite difference in the performance of the G6 early and late in the game, which had suggested to me that the first was running 1.30 ata and the latter 1.42.

I know there were supercharger changes for certain models of the non-MW-50 models, ie a larger diameter supercharger added to improve high altitude performance.

I will have to go back and look at my documents again and see if I can find what the difference was.

Jippo01
02-15-2006, 12:48 PM
I tested 110% crimea over sea, climbing from start speed 300km/h IAS dropping speed to 280 IAS by 6km. I got somewhat over 5 minutes in quick test.

pitch auto throttle auto, default load 100% fuel.

Finnish test was 5 minutes 6 seconds, so performance is same. You do the track using Finns specs and climb faster, usually when somebody wants to change status quo the burden of evidence is on their side. I found the performance matching already.


-jippo

Jippo01
02-15-2006, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by guderian_ente:
Hahaha! So the G-2 in the game is better than the real thing? What will the Luftwhiners say now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some overcooling at higher altitudes would be most welcome...

Why does cooling improve at higher altitudes? Is it because the air is less dense = less friction = less heat?

The game doesn't model this, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cold air for one thing: -50C versus +20.


You got the facts wrong way round on performance. I say performance of G2 is bad for 1.42ata G2, Buzz says it is correct. Nobody says it is too good, he just wants a model that performs worse than the current in addition.


-jippo

Jippo01
02-15-2006, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by JtD:

Yes, it is pretty obvious from the charts. In game the G-2 is 25 kph faster

Accros the board or at a certain altitude?


Originally posted by JtD: and climbs 7% better using the climb speed of the Finnish test. Climb is 14% better if you use a slower climb speed.

It is no point comparing other than tested speeds, since we do not know how the real one behaved on other speeds, just the one we tested.


-jippo

ps. You can also test the plane with 1.3ata and see if it performs like the finnish plane

WWMaxGunz
02-15-2006, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Jippo01:

It is no point comparing other than tested speeds, since we do not know how the real one behaved on other speeds, just the one we tested.


-jippo

ps. You can also test the plane with 1.3ata and see if it performs like the finnish plane

How about the speeds and climbs of the Rechlin tests?

Buzzsaw-
02-15-2006, 03:18 PM
Salute Jippo

Couple comments:

1) According to 109 manual, best climb speed is 270 kph, so testing at 300 is incorrect. In previous patchs, it is possible to get best times by climbing at approx. 250 kph.

2) I'd like to see your track, I haven't tested the G2 under 4.03, but since it supposedly hasn't changed, and should be the same, then your times are much less than I got. My times were easily under 5 minutes. That was with autopitch. With manual pitch, it is possible to get even better times. I will have to try a test myself with 4.03.

Grendel-B
02-15-2006, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

The Finns continued to use their DB605A engined G2's till the end of the war, and they undoubtably upgraded their boost level to 1.42 ata in the fall of 1943. They were continually replacing the engines in their G2's with new ones from the Messerschmitt factory.


That's rather incorrect. In reality there was always lack of engines, and there were very limited numbers of spare engines. German mechanics, who were helping the Finnish mechanics in maintenance, often wanted to take the engine off and replace it, and were amazed to hear that no, there are no spare engines - this one must be repaired.

Finnish 109s were never "upgraded" to 1.42 as far as I know. The planes even had mechanical limiter to make sure the engines cannot be run in full power. Reason: lack of spares, tools and spare engines.

Claim "they were continually replacing the engines" is fantasy. That did never happen. Spare parts and spare engines only came slowly through the Luftwaffe organization, with a good dose of bureaucracy. The engines had to be spares from hardest use, to make sure that were was planes that could actually fly.

"Use of full power (1475 hp) was completely forbidden to save the engines . At least the G-2 s had limiters to prevent use of full power."
- Jukka Raunio, Lent¤j¤n n¤k¶kulma, Messerschmitt 109

Finnish Air Force was *always* operating on a shoestring budged, with little spares and definitely very little replacement engines. Especially with 109 engines. It was thanks to the skill of the mechanics, who managed to keep the planes flying. The only reason Finnish 109s managed to fly until the 50s was because Finns managed to *steal* some 30 DB605 engines from the Germans before the Lappland War hostilities begun. Before that Finns had almost NO SPARE ENGINES AT ALL for the 109s.

One reason for that is political. Germany wanted to keep Finland dependant on their supply. Therefore: no spares, no replacement engines. Anything Finns needed, had to be asked from Germans, orders went through the bureauctic system, parts arrived slowly and so on. And Germans definitely did not just give new engines just like that, everything was very strict.

So you're completely on wrong grounds when *guessing* about that 1.42 ATA or " continually replacing the engines in their G2's".

Buzzsaw-
02-15-2006, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

How about the speeds and climbs of the Rechlin tests?



http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/7498/me109g1climbcurve4mi.jpg

Salute Max

You said you were going to test the aircraft. What times did you get? Please post track.

WWMaxGunz
02-15-2006, 03:36 PM
No. YOU said test it and I asked for conditions of testing as to speeds.
Then Jippo and another posted they've already done it at the Finnish conditions.
Good and well, Jippo said we can only fly it to those speeds so I asked about
the Reclin data which you give up this graph whith climb rate I see at 1.3ATA
or is that only for the max level speed runs? I also do not see climb condition
there, only climb rate but IIRC the climb may be closely tried at constant IAS
of 260 to 270 kph if that is acceptable?

At the same time since I have to set up a new homepage at my new ISP (IF I HAVE
USABLE WEBSPACE I DIDN'T CHECK FOR WHEN I SWITCHED SERVICES) then I might as
well take a shot at stall speed determination too as that and certain other things
are what I usually look at for changes in parts of the FM I'm most interested in.

Buzzsaw-
02-15-2006, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Grendel-B:

Finnish 109s were never "upgraded" to 1.42 as far as I know. The planes even had mechanical limiter to make sure the engines cannot be run in full power. Reason: lack of spares, tools and spare engines.



Salute Grendel

109G6 lates wouldn't have to be 'upgraded' in their boost, since they were cleared for 1.42 ata already. They were never at any time derated by the Luftwaffe, as the G2's were. They came from the factory approved to run at 1.42 ata.

So what you are telling me is that the Finnish Commanders voluntarily reduced the performance of their G2 (after the prohibition on 1.42 was removed) and G6 aircraft, even though that performance was approved as normal and ordinary for combat conditions?

I am a little surprised to hear this, since most pilots will tell you, that in life and death aerial combat situations, you look for any advantage you can get, whether it is diving to very high speeds, pulling high G turns etc. And worry about the consequences for the aircraft later.

For example, there are many accounts of Finnish pilots diving their 109's past the reccommended limits, even though that was theoretically not allowed.

Here is a section from an interview with the Finnish Ace Ky¶sti "K¶ssi" Karhila who flew 109G6's:

>>>

Q. How did the Messerschmitt and Curtiss react to rapid power setting change, was there any difference in reaction?

A. I seem to remember that the Messerschmitt reacted faster, having fuel injection. The Messerschmitt engine control has been praised in general and not in vain.

What about the boost pressure, it could be adjusted to above the allowed level even by accident?

Yes, there was no limiter and in different altitudes the boost pressure is different.

The Messerschmitt supercharger was powered over a liquid clutch which maintained even boost pressure....

...The differences between the G2 and G6 were small. It was the armament, just nothing else. The engine was the same.

<<<

I am not 100% disputing Finns may have restricted their boost to 1.30, but certainly it would be an odd way of fighting a war.

ICDP
02-15-2006, 05:18 PM
I conducted two climb tests in the 109G2. Crimea map, 12:00 noon, 100% fuel and ammo, radiators auto. I kept the speed at 260-270kph for best climb speed.

Test 1: 100% throttle. Climb to 6000m = 5m 24s

Test 2: 110% throttle. Climb to 6000m = 4m 32s

If PF the 109G2 is a 1942 1.3ata model then it should reach 1.3 ata climbrates at 110% throttle, correct? On the other hand if it is a 1.42ata 1943 model G2 then it should be running at 1.3ata at 100% throttle?

I dont know what to make of the results I got but it is certainly pulling more than 1.30ata at 110% throttle. It seems to be to 1.42ata climbrate to me, not sure about speeds.

I have traks that I can e-mail if anyone is interested.

carguy_
02-15-2006, 06:17 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


wow don`t tell me the G2 is a boosted `43 plane cuz I`ll just LMAO all those years http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

if it`s really like this plz don`t fiddle with it just change date to `43 and add another underboosted G2



That makes me wonder.....maybe someone made a mistake and made Antons weight in kg instead of lbs,that would be the biggest LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Badsight.
02-15-2006, 10:16 PM
so , the FB G2 can out-perform the 1.31 ATA Finnish test by doing the level speed runs & climb test at 110% throttle

its a 1.42 ATA performing G2

which was a total fantasy for 1942

CarGuy , we have the G6 for 1943 - we need a 1942 representative G2 . if it did have the lower power i bet much of the UFO accusations would dissapere with its lower performance

Jippo01
02-15-2006, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
I conducted two climb tests in the 109G2. Crimea map, 12:00 noon, 100% fuel and ammo, radiators auto. I kept the speed at 260-270kph for best climb speed.

Test 1: 100% throttle. Climb to 6000m = 5m 24s

Test 2: 110% throttle. Climb to 6000m = 4m 32s

If PF the 109G2 is a 1942 1.3ata model then it should reach 1.3 ata climbrates at 110% throttle, correct? On the other hand if it is a 1.42ata 1943 model G2 then it should be running at 1.3ata at 100% throttle?

I dont know what to make of the results I got but it is certainly pulling more than 1.30ata at 110% throttle. It seems to be to 1.42ata climbrate to me, not sure about speeds.

I have traks that I can e-mail if anyone is interested.

If you want to compare to Finnish test, use the same setup as they have used. Otherwise there is no possibility to compare the results. Not i.e. other speeds.

300km/h at start, then reduced as you go up reaching 280km/h at 6km.


-jippo

Jippo01
02-16-2006, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Jippo

Couple comments:

1) According to 109 manual, best climb speed is 270 kph, so testing at 300 is incorrect. In previous patchs, it is possible to get best times by climbing at approx. 250 kph.

You are definately not a scientist.

If Finns tested at a certain speed, the only way to compare is to REPRODUCE the test exactly. Scientific test must be always reproducable, otherwise they are worthless. In this case the test is very reproducable, since all the parametres are included in the test flight report to a level the sim cannot reproduce (the mentioned cooling effects). But main points of the test can be made identical, and they should, because otherwise you end up comparing apples and oranges.

Argument with you is very dissappointing because you make a lot of arguments, of which 80% are based on your own unresearched opinion. You do not really understand what is the basis of your claim, you just make it. Example being the "Finns used 1.42ATA" claim, for which your argument was "they must have".


-jippo

anarchy52
02-16-2006, 01:34 AM
So basically, we have the normal 1942 G2 according to it's performance. G2 late 1.42 ATA anyone? Would be a nice match for 1943 Spitfire IX don't you think?

carguy_
02-16-2006, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
CarGuy , we have the G6 for 1943 - we need a 1942 representative G2 . if it did have the lower power i bet much of the UFO accusations would dissapere with its lower performance

Yea,that`s why change this one to`43 and implement another 1.31ata as `42.Most would be satisfied with this.Not taking away boosted G2 from LW and reds can play against `42 G2 if they like.

Badsight.
02-16-2006, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
So basically, we have the normal 1942 G2 according to it's performance. NO , no we dont have a normal 1942 Bf-109 G2

our G2 matches the Finnish test (or close to it) when you only use 1.31ATA in game

our G2 tho isnt limited to running at 1.31 - but it should be

our G2 is running at a fantasy 1.42ATA & pushing our G2 to its max equals what the 1.42 rating should be achieving . no Daimler Benz 605 ran at 1.42 ATA during 1942

we have the G6 for 1943 - the G2 109 gets constantly accused of being an overmoddeled UFO . de-rating the FB G2 back to 1.31 would probably shut these people up as well as making the FB G2 accurate

because at the moment , we dont have a 1942 Bf-109

guderian_ente
02-16-2006, 04:26 AM
Cold air for one thing: -50C at altitude versus +20 at sea level.

Uh, that explains it of course. Kiitos Jippo. :)

So the difference in air temperature isn't modelled in the game? What temperature does the game use?



You got the facts wrong way round on performance. I say performance of G2 is bad for 1.42ata G2, Buzz says it is correct. Nobody says it is too good, he just wants a model that performs worse than the current in addition.

Ok, I get it.

It seems to me that air temperature is really a more important issue than this, but I guess there's no hope of fixing that until BoB.

WWMaxGunz
02-16-2006, 07:02 AM
The air gets colder directly as it gets thinner. Look up adiabatic cooling.
What you get in temperature you lose in density exactly because that is how it is colder.
Same amount of _heat_ per volume of air.

I am a bit mystified. Finnish climb tests were run at 300kph IAS sealevel and slowly lose
to 280kph IAS at 6km to get the 5 mins climb at 1.3ATA? With closed rads? And they were
faster climbs than Rechlin tests run with rads open to some degree but slower speeds and
yet if we go slower like Rechlin with rads at 2 and climb faster than Finnish tests it is
no good? Wouldn't that just point out something anyway?

Simpler to ask Oleg clearly what ATA is modelled, is the guage right and avoid all the
"it does this so it MUST be that" mess of assumptions.

Almost all climbs have been too much since FB almost every patch. It is a lift thing or
a thrust thing or a drag thing or a weight thing is undefineable by players and we have
tried and we have asked and there is the wall, go beat your head against it. That is why
there is so much soreness here, from beating heads on a stone wall.

It is really very simple. FM that handles like real will be almost impossible to match
the historic charts by plugging in real data. It is because there are not enough datum
to cover the total reality which besides the PC cannot run enough calcs for all the data
there is so no super good match. But people b!tch and cry and hang national pride on
those charts so the planes get made different to make up and by the time it comes out
there are places where you could feel that a bear rug is not the shape of a bear.

Other approach is make the sim match the charts how FM is modelled and the handling is
likewise distorted unreal which is less preferred by many who play this not CFS.

With time, lots and lots and lots of time, this sim we play can become closer but you
have to allow for that and hope that Maddox Games can afford to do it. Oleg has shown
for years now good effort but really the future moves too fast perhaps and things get
added and changed and needed work piles up. Maybe last year original IL2 could have
been completely polished done with I guess no more than 6 flyable planes. They would
also have gone broke long before that. So what people want? Must be always new or
sales drop. Must be always what you want or you post nasty, rude things?

Think of the alternative, what happened to so many sim makers now years ago are GONE.
It is because of too many perfectionists who have no appreciation what they ask for.

CD_kp84yb
02-16-2006, 07:32 AM
Im a noob about devicelink, but doesnt devicelink has some information about temp rad position boostpressure and so on???

Buzzsaw-
02-16-2006, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Jippo01:

If you want to compare to Finnish test, use the same setup as they have used. Otherwise there is no possibility to compare the results. Not i.e. other speeds.

300km/h at start, then reduced as you go up reaching 280km/h at 6km.

-jippo

Not really Jippo. The Finnish test was done at best possible climb speeds for the actual historical aircraft. Climbing at a slower speed would have resulted in poorer climbrate.

However, the game aircraft does not climb best at those speeds, most probably due to the fact that the game aircraft has a lower stall speed than historical, which allows it to keep its nose up at a higher angle and not suffer too high a penalty of induced drag. We should not deliberately cripple the game aircraft's performance by climbing at a higher speed just to pretend it is accurate. When flying the game aircraft in competitive situations, players do not deliberately use a higher climb speed to be historical, and thus reduce their performance, they use the speed which will get them the most altitude, the fastest.

As mentioned, the aircraft can be climbed at an even better rate in manual pitch.

Buzzsaw-
02-16-2006, 07:48 AM
Salute

By the way, I am not suggesting that the existing game G2's climb performance be reduced. It is probably pretty close to what a 1.42 ata DB505A equipped 109G2 should accomplish. (although stall speed is another matter) And we know that 1.42 ata G2's flew. (although there is some question as to whether they flew for the Finns) If the stall speed was adjusted, then Oleg might actually have to add more power to the equation in order to allow the plane to climb at the correct rate at a higher speed.

My orginal point was that I think Oleg should look at adding a 1.31 ata G2 for 1942 scenarios.

Of course that would not be as high a priority as adding a 1.42 ata 190A4, or a +11 Tempest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

anarchy52
02-16-2006, 08:05 AM
OK, I've had enough of this, I'll test it myself.

Jippo01
02-16-2006, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

Not really Jippo. The Finnish test was done at best possible climb speeds for the actual historical aircraft. Climbing at a slower speed would have resulted in poorer climbrate.

Why are you so bloody stupid that you argue with me without knowing ANYTHING??? Report specifically states: "higher than optimal speeds were used to improve engine cooling". How about that...




However, the game aircraft does not climb best at those speeds, most probably due to the fact that the game aircraft has a lower stall speed than historical, which allows it to keep its nose up at a higher angle and not suffer too high a penalty of induced drag. We should not deliberately cripple the game aircraft's performance by climbing at a higher speed just to pretend it is accurate. When flying the game aircraft in competitive situations, players do not deliberately use a higher climb speed to be historical, and thus reduce their performance, they use the speed which will get them the most altitude, the fastest.

Which again, the Finns didn't do when testing their craft, so why should we. You have a agenda you want to push with absolute disregard for scientific research and historical facts. Why don't you get over it???



As mentioned, the aircraft can be climbed at an even better rate in manual pitch.

So what??? Ask Oleg to get rid of the manual pitch next then... Automatic pitch was used in tests.

You keep inventing new reasons out of your head to show how you are right and I'm wrong, and this is really getting anal from your behalf.

-jippo

Ps. Wait a second for a real test with the settings of the finn test in FB, I'm tired of this gum flapping and BS so I did it. I will compile the results in a minute.

p1ngu666
02-16-2006, 08:48 AM
depending on who u belive depends on what g2 we have already http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

going off only il2c, the g2 outperforms the g6 and g6late, which aprently are 1.42ata

gauges arent always acurate, but they do give us some information.

like how teh old k4 was aprently 1.98ata, compairing it to other mw50 gauges revealed it reached 1.8ata at 71-3% throttle, while other alcholic 109s it was 101% or something.

im leaning more towards our g2 being a 1.42ata one, due to performance compaired to g6's, and these tests and pilot accounts. lower power would probably make g2 worse than F, just like real pilots said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SerpentBlade
02-16-2006, 09:22 AM
I've done a test using Jippo's parameters, 109G2 Crimea, 100% fuel ammo, auto pitch auto radiator, started at 300IAS, then graduately slow to 280IAS near 6000m, time to 6000m: 4m41s

translate to climb rate that is 8.9% faster than the Finnish test.

I was also able to run the same G2 544kph TAS at sea level with radiators closed, and 672kph at 7000m, or 4.5% and 5.7% faster respectively than the Finnish test.

Clearly the 109G2 in game is better than 1.31ata

Tracks provided:

http://jackly.cpgl.net:8080/bbs/attachment.php?attachmentid=7122

ICDP
02-16-2006, 09:35 AM
Jippo,

Did the Finnish test start timing at SL after take off or from when the AC started rolling on the ground? If it is the later then that would make all the difference.

Currently there can be no disputing that the 1942 G2 in PF overperforming by around 5% in speed. If the climbrates are correct (which testing seems to dispute) then we have hybrid G2.

Jippo01
02-16-2006, 10:16 AM
Ok. Here are my results.

Test setup is replicated as much as possible with exceptions.

Setup:
- default load G-2 100% fuel
- map crimea
- pitch AUTO (as Finns)
- radiators AUTO (as Finns)
- test execution: pull up at 300km/h from SL, trying to maintain level wings and speeds from the Finnish climb profile. (as Finns)


Two tests:
- throttle 110% testing claim that FB G-2 is 1.3ATA performer
- throttle 100% testing claim that FB G-2 is 1.42ATA performer. If FB is 1.42ATA plane, then 100% represents maximum continuos power which is 1.3ATA

Exemptions:
- climate effects is an unknown variable in FB
- ATA gauge shows values that do not match any profile, 100% power represents 1.4ATA.
- in FB engine overheats after 4500meters preventing continuos climbing with 110% throttle


Numbers from the Finnish test, and my tests in FB:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/Ju88/numbers.jpg

Graph same data:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/Ju88/graph.jpg


Results:
FB 4.03 G-2 with 110% power matches the climb times of the real 1.3ATA plane within 0-4km altitudes. Errors in the climb times are 9,7% too slow climb between 0-2km, and 6,7% too fast from 0-4km altitudes. After 4km altitude FB G-2 begins to climb too fast being 10,5% too fast in the 0-6km range and 14,5% in 0-7km. Difference seems to grow along with the altitude increase.

FB 4.03 G-2 with 100% power (representing the assumption that the plane in the game is actually 1.42ATA version) is seriously too slow in climb in the 0-2km range being 20% worse than 1.3ATA plane. After 2km the error margin becomes smaller, but remains at 11,8% at 0-5km range. Over 5km mark the gap is closed rapidly, but 0-7km still remains 5,3% too slow.


Conclusion:
Under 4km altitude FB closely models 1.3ATA plane, with the exemption that the engine can not be ran in the maximum power setting more than a few minutes, while in the real life it could have been used for the duration of the flight. Over 4km FB G-2 performance is overmodelled should it represent the 1.3ATA plane. Knowing that the game engine is designed for low altitude flying and that it has problems with representations of higher altitude performance(note check e.g. Russian plane performance), and that Oleg has the Finn tests as a refrence I make following assumptions:

- 109 G-2 is made to match Finnish test plane climb performance where 95% of the fights in FB happen, namely under 5km altitude.
- lack of sophisticated high altitude modelling causes a serious overperformance at high altitudes because of this (same on many planes)

Therefore I will keep my opinion that FB G-2 is 1.3ATA plane, and add a note to myself that the plane is overmodelled in the 5-7km range.

You draw your own conclusions.


-jippo

Ps. Tracks: http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/Ju88/g2records.zip

Stafroty
02-16-2006, 10:44 AM
Just as Sidenote. should we dig otherplane ratings as closely? not only one side?

lets get own thread for every plane, lets see how much they are off from specs, and lets have every plane thread one "Buzzaw" to fight alone agaisnt others, so there would be "discussion" in them as well..

JG52Karaya-X
02-16-2006, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
depending on who u belive depends on what g2 we have already http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

going off only il2c, the g2 outperforms the g6 and g6late, which aprently are 1.42ata

Yes our G2 GREATLY outperforms our G6early and late in speed, turn and climb - and btw our G6 actually have 1,3 performance so their ata gauge is inaccurate! I'm also guessing that our G2 is a 1,42ata plane...

JtD
02-16-2006, 10:53 AM
You shouldn't use rads auto. Rads and drag are not modelled correctly for any plane, i.e. on German planes usually a half open setting (about rad 4) would provide the least drag (less than rads closed) but allow decent cooling.

Totally possible that irl the auto-setting of the Finns would create minimum drag. However, the overall impact on your test is quite low.

I'd like to point out that FB speed performance is 25 kph above 1.3 ata rl speeds.

jagdmailer
02-16-2006, 10:56 AM
Thanks Jippo!

Some of the people that hang out around here either are juveniles, or can't make simple additions. We also have the 'tards that have multiple logins and answer their own ******* posts....

Thanks again and regards,

Jagd


Originally posted by Jippo01:
Ok. Here are my results.

Test setup is replicated as much as possible with exceptions.

Setup:
- default load G-2 100% fuel
- map crimea
- pitch AUTO (as Finns)
- radiators AUTO (as Finns)
- test execution: pull up at 300km/h from SL, trying to maintain level wings and speeds from the Finnish climb profile. (as Finns)


Two tests:
- throttle 110% testing claim that FB G-2 is 1.3ATA performer
- throttle 100% testing claim that FB G-2 is 1.42ATA performer. If FB is 1.42ATA plane, then 100% represents maximum continuos power which is 1.3ATA

Exemptions:
- climate effects is an unknown variable in FB
- ATA gauge shows values that do not match any profile, 100% power represents 1.4ATA.
- in FB engine overheats after 4500meters preventing continuos climbing with 110% throttle


Numbers from the Finnish test, and my tests in FB:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/Ju88/numbers.jpg

Graph same data:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/Ju88/graph.jpg


Results:
FB 4.03 G-2 with 110% power matches the climb times of the real 1.3ATA plane within 0-4km altitudes. Errors in the climb times are 9,7% too slow climb between 0-2km, and 6,7% too fast from 0-4km altitudes. After 4km altitude FB G-2 begins to climb too fast being 10,5% too fast in the 0-6km range and 14,5% in 0-7km. Difference seems to grow along with the altitude increase.

FB 4.03 G-2 with 100% power (representing the assumption that the plane in the game is actually 1.42ATA version) is seriously too slow in climb in the 0-2km range being 20% worse than 1.3ATA plane. After 2km the error margin becomes smaller, but remains at 11,8% at 0-5km range. Over 5km mark the gap is closed rapidly, but 0-7km still remains 5,3% too slow.


Conclusion:
Under 4km altitude FB closely models 1.3ATA plane, with the exemption that the engine can not be ran in the maximum power setting more than a few minutes, while in the real life it could have been used for the duration of the flight. Over 4km FB G-2 performance is overmodelled should it represent the 1.3ATA plane. Knowing that the game engine is designed for low altitude flying and that it has problems with representations of higher altitude performance(note check e.g. Russian plane performance), and that Oleg has the Finn tests as a refrence I make following assumptions:

- 109 G-2 is made to match Finnish test plane climb performance where 95% of the fights in FB happen, namely under 5km altitude.
- lack of sophisticated high altitude modelling causes a serious overperformance at high altitudes because of this (same on many planes)

Therefore I will keep my opinion that FB G-2 is 1.3ATA plane, and add a note to myself that the plane is overmodelled in the 5-7km range.

You draw your own conclusions.


-jippo

Ps. Tracks: http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/Ju88/g2records.zip

Jippo01
02-16-2006, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I'd like to point out that FB speed performance is 25 kph above 1.3 ata rl speeds.

Thanks. I only took the climb, because that is the aspect that affects dogfights the most when flying G-2. Other areas are not advantageous 109, so pilots with brains use the ability to climb against most adversaries. Also I didn't want to spend whole night testing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

ICDP
02-16-2006, 11:48 AM
Grest testing and presentation Jippo.

As I have stated before and you have also found (but with much better presentation) the G2 we have in PF is some sort of hybrid. Top speeds close to but not exactly the same as a 1.42ata (about 12-13kph to slow at alt) and Climb that is overall better than a 1.3ata.

Buzzsaw-
02-16-2006, 12:19 PM
Salute

It's nice to finally get an admission from Jippo that even with his skewed tests the game's 109G2 is not matching the Finnish tests of MT-215.

However...

Jippo's claim that we have to do the tests exactly at the climb speeds maintained by the Finns, no matter whether lower climb speeds produce better results in the game aircraft is frankly dishonest.

His claim is that the Finns climbed at "less than optimal angle", to improve cooling, ignores the fact that the results the Finns got were far better than the German tests at Rechlin which used a 270 kph climb speed. Ie. the Finnish "less than optimal' climb angle actually delivered better results.

Why then should we not point to the Finnish methodology as being incorrect? After all they are not following the German procedure for climb tests with this aircraft.

This is a German designed aircraft, not a Finnish one, why should we take the Finnish methodology as being the one to follow?

The fact is, the Finns used a method which they felt would deliver the best climbrate, and they were not hesitant to change procedure from the German standard.

For the same reason, we, who are examining a fantasy virtual aircraft, are no more bound by historical climb speeds, than the Finns were bound by German procedures.

Yes, we should use the same boost and throttle settings, yes we should load the aircraft to the same weights, etc.

But the virtual aircraft should be climbed at the speed which delivers the best climb rate, not at some artificially contrived one.

The task at hand is to determine how fast this game 109G2 can get to particular specified altitudes, not artificially hobble it so that someone's historical conceit can be satisfied.

Jippo has also consistently glossed over the speeds which the game G2 achieves, which are clearly far in excess of the results achieved by MT-215.

By the way, the speed tests with MT-215 were conducted with the radiator CLOSED COMPLETELY, not on auto setting.

Jippo01
02-16-2006, 12:33 PM
Blah blah blah...

And your point is?

Your comments on Finnish testing methodology are absolutely screwed and not worth commenting. You critisize something you have no knowledge about, simply because it doesn't produce results YOU WANT. Hello?

Finnish test are used now because they are much more complete than any available German test I have seen. I also know the test methodology very well. Btw. nearly all fighter types in FiAF achieved worse results in Finnish tests than in factory specs, the exceptions being Bf-109 and Brewster. It gives some idea about the credibility of the manufacturers.

And my "claim" about the use of climb speeds can be easily verified page 17 of the document two last lines on the page.

Do something useful for a change, will you?


-jippo

Buzzsaw-
02-16-2006, 12:48 PM
Salute Jippo


The Bf 109 G2 in the game is the 1.3ATA G2 no matter what the gauge says! It has same performance...

You started this thread off by insisting that the game G2 was a 1.30 version.


Climb exactly matches the Finnish profile, and the climb is the most important aspect in combat with 109. Only thing that is unrealistic is the cooking engine after climbing to 6km, which shouldn't happen....

Then you claimed your tests of the game G2 exactly matches up with the historical test.


Therefore I will keep my opinion that FB G-2 is 1.3ATA plane, and add a note to myself that the plane is overmodelled in the 5-7km range.

Finally after 7 pages you post a revised test and admit the climbtests of the plane do not match the Finnish 1.30 results.

And of course, you are avoiding looking at top speeds.

And you are questioning my credibility?

WWMaxGunz
02-16-2006, 12:52 PM
If I want to compare to Fnnish test results, I have to use Finnish test methods.

The Rechlin charts are done at 270 kph? That's the chart Buzzsaw posted a bit back?

Jippo you know that the G-2 is going to outperform that one at 110%? The official one.

Jippo01
02-16-2006, 01:08 PM
I first tested at 8x time and got 5min 10 seconds. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

True.

I verified my tests with more accurate flying and cross references and reported verified results. You on the other hand have provided false unsubstantiated claims all along. Let's have a look baby:


Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
The version we have now, rated at 1.42 ata, seems to be based on the Finnish tests, and more representative of the aircraft which flew in 1943.

False. Actually performance in climb (all 109 pilot is interested in) is identical to 1.3ATA below 5km. In average it is closer to 1.3 than 1.42. You are wrong baby...



The climb tests for the Finnish plane were run at 1.31 because that was the non-'combat' rating of the plane.


False. :P



In any case, as has been mentioned in many posts, the game G2 easily outperforms the results shown in the test of MT-215.


False again...



The Finnish G2's used 1.42 ata, as did all their 109's, including the G6 Lates they received. The mechanics were trained to maintain the two aircraft's engines similarly.


Guess what, false. You are teaching a Finn about Finnish airplanes, smart move man.



You will clearly see that 1.42 ata is listed as their WEP power setting.

They used 1.42.


Really a broken record. Hey man, that's German manual with German specs.



I said the Finns had an aircraft rated at 1.42 ata, which was capable of 1.42 ata at max boost, ie. WEP, but during the climb tests, they used 1.30 ata because it was normal to use the max. continuous 30 min rating for climb tests. The 1.30 is clearly noted on the Finnish climb charts.

You simply pull stories out of your hat and I and everyone are supposed to believe your word as the truth???

You haven't a clue about Finnish testing methods...



Finns used 1.30 ata in their climbtests, but their G2's were rated for 1.42, after the initial restrictions were lifted. The plane we have in the game is the 1.42 version.


And a source please....



I think you will find that in WEP game G2 easily gets better climbrate results than shown in the Finnish 1.3 ata test. If it doesn't then I will be happy to admit my mistake. (please post track)


Track posted, how about it? Much closer to 1.3 values than 1.42. Be my guest then and admit it...




The Finns continued to use their DB605A engined G2's till the end of the war, and they undoubtably upgraded their boost level to 1.42 ata in the fall of 1943. They were continually replacing the engines in their G2's with new ones from the Messerschmitt factory.

...


This is why we have the 1.42 ata G2 in the game.


Now do we?

Enough to make my point???


-jippo

Jippo01
02-16-2006, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If I want to compare to Fnnish test results, I have to use Finnish test methods.

The Rechlin charts are done at 270 kph? That's the chart Buzzsaw posted a bit back?

Jippo you know that the G-2 is going to outperform that one at 110%? The official one.

There are so many tests floating about that I do not know which one you talk about. But instead, I do know that many times German manuals had values theoretically derived from testflights which may give false information for better or for worse, depending.

In the case of Ju88, I found the values in the manual to be quite optimistic. Wouldn't know the case in the matter of Bf.

I rather take well documented testflight report over any manual, those are highly unreliable at worse cases (example Morane Saulnier 406 manual suggested the top speed to be 22% higher than it actually was when tested http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Jukka Raunio's book about FiAF fighters mentions that climb with 270km/h was 1m/s faster than 300km/h. Problem with Buzz's chart is that it lacks some 20-30 pages. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

JtD
02-16-2006, 01:48 PM
Jippo, your constant attacks against Buzzsaw spoil the discussion somewhat. He's not making up things and his point of view makes sense. It's his point of view, you don't have to share it, but it's not good to insult him for it.

Wrt to climb tests, the only altitude the FB G-2 does not exceed the 1.3 ata test performance is between 1000 and 2000 meters. Time to altitude you used for your presentation does show this very good. Average climbrate from test between 3000 and 5000 is well below 18m/s, in game you will get in the region of 21m/s. That is a considerable difference and by no means "identical".

To cut it short, the current situation does in no way warrant the way you deal with Buzzsaw.

HayateAce
02-16-2006, 01:53 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I am saddened by this displays of forum behavior. So we all are know the G2 is overblown, no addon news there.

Maybe UBI wants accurate playSIM and fix this?

UBI, hello?

Jippo01
02-16-2006, 02:07 PM
Maybe not.

But neither are his comments about myself in person being "skewed", "dishonest", and making only "claims". Every bit I have said has been as straight and honest as I am able to write. "Claims" I have made have always been documented unlike his.

He has been at his crusade against Axis stuff as long as I have been playing Il-2, and I'm really fed up with it. And I'm not even German. I find it extremely annoying how he keeps going on about the same very things year after year after year.

About the note on the climbs:
Times are from 0-x altitude, not 2-3km but 0-3km. The differences between 1-2km (-) and say 3-4 (+) are larger naturally. But I didn't feel comfortable posting the results between km's because I got a lot of fluctuation in speed as you can see from the tracks. Even the 7km result is absolutely too high in both tracks because I accidentally lost 20km/h of kinetic energy in the last kilometre (because I remembered the original speed incorrectly)

But please, if you wish to do so: repeat test 3-5 times, calculate then averages of the values and we will get very meaningful m/s figures for the actual climb speeds.


-jippo

jagdmailer
02-16-2006, 02:45 PM
And he is not the only one that I can think off either, although the number is hard to evaluate since many are using multiple handles and respond to their own posts....

Jagd


Originally posted by Jippo01:
Maybe not.

But neither are his comments about myself in person being "skewed", "dishonest", and making only "claims". Every bit I have said has been as straight and honest as I am able to write. "Claims" I have made have always been documented unlike his.

He has been at his crusade against Axis stuff as long as I have been playing Il-2, and I'm really fed up with it. And I'm not even German. I find it extremely annoying how he keeps going on about the same very things year after year after year.

About the note on the climbs:
Times are from 0-x altitude, not 2-3km but 0-3km. The differences between 1-2km (-) and say 3-4 (+) are larger naturally. But I didn't feel comfortable posting the results between km's because I got a lot of fluctuation in speed as you can see from the tracks. Even the 7km result is absolutely too high in both tracks because I accidentally lost 20km/h of kinetic energy in the last kilometre (because I remembered the original speed incorrectly)

But please, if you wish to do so: repeat test 3-5 times, calculate then averages of the values and we will get very meaningful m/s figures for the actual climb speeds.


-jippo

Grendel-B
02-16-2006, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grendel-B:

Finnish 109s even had mechanical limiter to make sure the engines cannot be run in full power. Reason: lack of spares, tools and spare engines.



So what you are telling me is that the Finnish Commanders voluntarily reduced the performance of their G2 (after the prohibition on 1.42 was removed) and G6 aircraft, even though that performance was approved as normal and ordinary for combat conditions?

I am a little surprised to hear this, since most pilots will tell you, that in life and death aerial combat situations, you look for any advantage you can get, whether it is diving to very high speeds, pulling high G turns etc. And worry about the consequences for the aircraft later.

...

I am not 100% disputing Finns may have restricted their boost to 1.30, but certainly it would be an odd way of fighting a war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<S> Buzz,

You are completely right with wondering about the limits, that " it would be an odd way of fighting a war". It was.

And it was unfortunate necessarity. I don't think it was the squadron commanders themselves, who ordered the limitations to engine power. Most likely the orders came in from highest brass and the technical command of FiAF.

As I mentioned, the reason was the lack of spares, which was result from the lone position of Finland in the political map. Finland depended on Germany for the parts and spares for the Me 109s, just as well for the Do17s and Ju88s. And Germans held the purse, and only opened it from time to time.

To give you the idea what the situation was, think this: for the first year of Messerschmitts in Finland, there was *only one set of tools* needed to replace the DB605 engine in the 109, in whole FiAF. Germans did not sell any more.

It was the German interest to keep Finland as dependant on them as possible. "We give them little spares, a few tools and replacements only when they beg for them, so they'll stay on the war and not make separate peace."

Politics. You see?

Whole FIAF was operating on shoestring budget. The 109s were the only modern, new planes. All others had been purchased and delivered between 1939-1940. All new planes acquired after that were mostly used, captured planes bought through Germany (French, Russian booty planes). Those planes were old, worn. No replacement parts for those either, from the original manufacturers. The Fiat squaron barely flew at all after 1942, their planes and engines were completely worn out. Curtisses and Moranes suffered from problems, and the State Aircraft Factory was trying to do all kinds of tricks to keep the Brewsters battleworthy. With remarkable success, but the situation was still very worrysome.

The planes HAD to be used very sparingly, so that we could HAVE a flying air force.

I'm currently actually working on doing interviews with FiAF wartime mechanics with another journalist, but haven't yet met factual 109 mechanics. Yet the story with the maintenance of the 109s is very clear: few tools, spares and miracles done by the mechanics.

Actually yesterday Colonel V¤in¶ Pokela, a wartime 109 pilot, ace and 109 chief trainer of FiAF, mentioned that the only reason the Finnish 109s kept flying was thanks to two German mechanics, who performed amazing tricks in the field and knew the planes from inside out. One was engine specialist, one fuselage expert. They taught the Finnish mechanics, too. Mr. Pokela was very clear when he said this, how it all was thanks to those two men.

And by coincidende, he did say it at the monthly meeting of Pilvenveikot, the association of the Finnish warpilots (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-Pilvenveikot25years.html) , the topic of their monthly meeting this time was *surprise surprise* the work of the mechanics in the war.

Nice coincidence? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, anyway. I'm not technical person myself. I don't know the difference between my bottom and ATA 1.42. But whatever the case, the Finnish G-2s had mechanical limiters to prevent the use of full power. I don't think the limits were loosened soon, because the spares situation didn't change at any time. I don't know if the G-6s had the mechanical limiter in place, but the order was to avoid stressing the engine.

The summer battles of 1944 might have been different with the limitations, but the spares situation did not change that quickly anyway. The flow of new planes kept the FiAF 109s flying, but many battle damaged planes did not return to service until after the end of the war. Look at MT-218 for example: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/mt-208/
It was under repairs from 16.04.1943 until summer 1944 - just because landing damage. That's how strecthed the FiAF was technically. And remember the one set of 109 specific tools that had to be shared by the whole squadron...

So I must say, until you show FiAF documents or clear quotes from books about this specific topic, I must disagree with you about this ATA question. Everything I know contradicts you, and take it from me, I know a bit after hearing things from the pilots and reading the books.

Unfortunately, these things tend to be too detailed and technical for me to go on asking from the pilots in my interviews. They're old men, and actually "us youngsters" tend to know these technical things much better than they. They were pilots, fliers, not engine mechanics, and often did not pay any attention to things we today would like to ask and know. Such as these fine details...

Buzzsaw-
02-16-2006, 04:21 PM
Salute Grendel

Thanks for your explanation. All this catfighting over a game must seem very silly to a historian but this game means a lot to people who play it and they get very defensive about their preferred virtual ride.

It may very well be that the Finnish G2's never used 1.42, certainly the facts are clear they didn't use it from the time they were acquired till at least September of 1943.

The question of whether the higher rating was used in the G2's equipping the Finnish Airforce after September of '43 is open to question, I am not sure of the facts.

All I can say is that my reading of the documents I have suggests any 109 flying for the Luftwaffe which was equipped with a DB605A engine, was cleared for 1.42 in the fall of '43.

The 109G6's in Finnish service seems even more likely to have used 1.42, since they were cleared for the rating when they were delivered, and the pilot account which I quoted earlier in the thread mentioned there was no limiter for the engine boost, unlike the comments re. the G2 which specifically mention boost limiters being in place at the time of their delivery to the Finns.

I guess it would take a lot of research into the number of aircraft engines delivered, what types were delivered and other data from the organizational records of the various LLv.

GR142-Pipper
02-17-2006, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Jippo01:
Therefore I will keep my opinion that FB G-2 is 1.3ATA plane, and add a note to myself that the plane is overmodelled in the 5-7km range.

You draw your own conclusions. The reason that the G2 is often the subject of being accused of being overmodeled is the fact that its IN-GAME performance RELATIVE to its opponents is simply too great (to wit: turn performance is far too good and its climb/accel/decel characteristics are eyewatering). The G2 in this game outturns an F4 which just about everyone concedes in incorrect and nearly matches that of Yak-1b/3 and does match that of LA-5FN's. Even against later war aircraft like the Yak-3 (again, as modeled in this game), the G2 is a good match where in real life a Yak-3 would eat the G2 alive (below 10k feet). Against the P-51, the G2 is completely superior...and so on and so on. So, the bottom line is if the G2 is accurately modeled, then it's a sure thing that many of its opponents are undermodeled. You can't have it both ways...except in Oleg-land. As you have aptly said, draw your own conclusions.

GR142-Pipper

JG52Karaya-X
02-17-2006, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The reason that the G2 is often the subject of being accused of being overmodeled is the fact that its IN-GAME performance RELATIVE to its opponents is simply too great (to wit: turn performance is far too good and its climb/accel/decel characteristics are eyewatering). The G2 in this game outturns an F4 which just about everyone concedes in incorrect and nearly matches that of Yak-1b/3 and does match that of LA-5FN's. Even against later war aircraft like the Yak-3 (again, as modeled in this game), the G2 is a good match where in real life a Yak-3 would eat the G2 alive (below 10k feet). Against the P-51, the G2 is completely superior...and so on and so on. So, the bottom line is if the G2 is accurately modeled, then it's a sure thing that many of its opponents are undermodeled. You can't have it both ways...except in Oleg-land. As you have aptly said, draw your own conclusions.

GR142-Pipper

The La5 series was nothing special until the FN - it was actually the first version to be superior to the LaGG3S66. The G2 turn time is given as 19,5-20,5 whereas the La5FNs is around 20-21 (heavy construction due to the usage of delta wood). About the Yak3 - people overestimate its manoeuvrability! It used to have a 16sec turntime in the original IL2 which was grandly overmodelled - in fact its turn rate is "just" 18-19sec so in one or the other situation it can be outmanoeuvered by a G2.
About the P51... what exactly are you moaning about? The fact that a plane that weights ~5t at takeoff is outturned and outclimbed by a 3,1t plane? How about using your 50km/h speed advantage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Badsight.
02-17-2006, 02:52 AM
wasting your breath

GR-142 Pipper has only ever been about having easy-to-kill Axis planes - he cares not for Historical accuracy - just quick DF room points

to him - the whole game is communist propaganda history revisionisim

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2006, 04:50 AM
I don't think that the G-2 Stall Speed is so far off at all.

From Finnish Report on 109G2 MT-215

1. Stall [in level flight]
In level flight with the engine on idle, the plane starts stalling at 240-250km/h speed,
deploying the slats at the same time. The plane holds its attitude and is controllable
during the stall. in landing condition the stall begins at 200-210km/h speed, the plane
is stable in this case as well.

--- Please note not anything about wing drop. The plane holds its attitude and is
controllable during the stall.

2. Pulling into a stall [using the elevator]
With the engine on idle, the plane can be pulled through into a stall at 175km/h. With
full throttle [1.31ata] the speed is 130-140km/h. In the latter case the plane is hanging
on its prop at an approximately 60 degree angle. the plane announces the approaching stall
by a slight tremble. If the pull [of the stick] is tightened, the left wing and nose start
to sink and the plane drops into a dive, shaking. If the pilot reduces the pull, the plane
is controllable again. In landing condition the speed is 155km/h.

--- Jippo please check, sense tells me the approximately 60 degree angle is 60 degrees from
vertical? Or perhaps it's a typo error?

So anyhow a quick few tries in the no-VSI G2 and a lack of patience for more, I can't at idle
get the thing to keep alt at 180kph doing the pull through stall at idle = zero power and auto
prop. At 180 by the speedbar I am losing alt which means I was already past the stall speed.

I tried again and again and no way to hold alt at 180. So why do I see posts about too low a
stall speed? Because like the "dives all the same" and "weight doesn't matter" trueisms, no
matter how the threads come out there's people who will SCREW UP ANY TEST AND MAKE STUPID CLAIMS
then NEVER EVER change those claims. They just wait a while and repeat.

FULL POWER IS NOT IDLE. Finns were able to hold alt even to 130-140kph.

JG5_UnKle
02-17-2006, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The reason that the G2 is often the subject of being accused of being overmodeled is the fact that its IN-GAME performance RELATIVE to its opponents is simply too great (to wit: turn performance is far too good and its climb/accel/decel characteristics are eyewatering). The G2 in this game outturns an F4 which just about everyone concedes in incorrect and nearly matches that of Yak-1b/3 and does match that of LA-5FN's. Even against later war aircraft like the Yak-3 (again, as modeled in this game), the G2 is a good match where in real life a Yak-3 would eat the G2 alive (below 10k feet). Against the P-51, the G2 is completely superior...and so on and so on. So, the bottom line is if the G2 is accurately modeled, then it's a sure thing that many of its opponents are undermodeled. You can't have it both ways...except in Oleg-land. As you have aptly said, draw your own conclusions.

GR142-Pipper

Not one line of that is accurate, not even the sim bits I'm afraid.

guderian_ente
02-17-2006, 07:05 AM
Great post Grendel. I hope you finish that article.

Jippo01
02-17-2006, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
--- Jippo please check, sense tells me the approximately 60 degree angle is 60 degrees from
vertical? Or perhaps it's a typo error?

That paragraph talks about "over pull" -situation, which to my opinion means self induced stall. "Pulling into stall" seems to describe it well.
My direct translation of the sentence:

"... when the engine is running on full power the over pull speed is 130-140km/h... ...the plane hangs from it's engine in ca. 60 degree angle downwards.
Plane signals over pull with a slight tremble; when the pull is tightened left wing and nose will drop..."

So the text means that MT-215 was able to keep control and altitude at 130-140km, hanging in the air by it's propeller tail towards gound. This quality is also often mentioned in Finnish pilots' combat descriptions, as their favourite tactic often was a tightening spiral climb. This would end in the following Russian planes trying to pull enough lead and stalling. This is how quite a few victories were gained, and also the reason why I think top speed is irrelevant quality in aircombat with 109. Climbing ability, dive, and slow speed handling are far more important!


-jippo

Kocur_
02-17-2006, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The reason that the G2 is often the subject of being accused of being overmodeled is the fact that its IN-GAME performance RELATIVE to its opponents is simply too great (to wit: turn performance is far too good and its climb/accel/decel characteristics are eyewatering). The G2 in this game outturns an F4 which just about everyone concedes in incorrect and nearly matches that of Yak-1b/3 and does match that of LA-5FN's. Even against later war aircraft like the Yak-3 (again, as modeled in this game), the G2 is a good match where in real life a Yak-3 would eat the G2 alive (below 10k feet). Against the P-51, the G2 is completely superior...and so on and so on. So, the bottom line is if the G2 is accurately modeled, then it's a sure thing that many of its opponents are undermodeled. You can't have it both ways...except in Oleg-land. As you have aptly said, draw your own conclusions.

GR142-Pipper

The La5 series was nothing special until the FN - it was actually the first version to be superior to the LaGG3S66. The G2 turn time is given as 19,5-20,5 whereas the La5FNs is around 20-21 (heavy construction due to the usage of delta wood). About the Yak3 - people overestimate its manoeuvrability! It used to have a 16sec turntime in the original IL2 which was grandly overmodelled - in fact its turn rate is "just" 18-19sec so in one or the other situation it can be outmanoeuvered by a G2.
About the P51... what exactly are you moaning about? The fact that a plane that weights ~5t at takeoff is outturned and outclimbed by a 3,1t plane? How about using your 50km/h speed advantage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And RL Yak-3 turn time was 21s. Also Yak-3 needed at least 4,5 minutes to get to 5km, while RL 1942 Finnish G-2 did that in 4,1 minute! The only advantage of Yak-3 over G-2 would be horizontal speed.
Btw: often quoted 18s is result of first Yak-1M, i.e. light Yak-1b prototype. Prob is that serial Yak-3 had wing not only shorter but also thinner - good for speed, bad for turning.



Originally posted by Badsight:

wasting your breath

GR-142 Pipper has only ever been about having easy-to-kill Axis planes - he cares not for Historical accuracy - just quick DF room points

to him - the whole game is communist propaganda history revisionisim


Oh that is not that simple! Pipper wants Yak-3 to dominate over anything, but he wants P-51 to be perfect in everything too - and Mustang is you know... imperialist plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Vipez-
02-17-2006, 08:09 AM
Nice work Jippo for all the hard work you've done with JU88 and so on..

OT: but if there is something I have learned, that is Buzzsaw's continous crusades against axis (german) planes, sometimes even making up facts only to get his will "through". Just makes me wonder, don't you really have anything more instructive to do? That is simply, sad... Kurfurst has sometimes the same problem with allied planes, but sometimes this is getting simply ridiculous..

aikuiset miehet, munat ja kaikki... :P

Stafroty
02-17-2006, 08:17 AM
In Finland, and mostly In Europe, 90 degree deflection is straight up, while 0 degree is level . In USA, its 0 degree to nose up, and 90 degree for level flight.

Buzzsaw-
02-17-2006, 09:16 AM
Salute

What we have here are some translations, by parties who clearly have already expressed a partisan viewpoint in this thread.

I would like to see the original Finnish language documents posted, so an objective translation can be made.

So far we haven't seen them. Jippo says he can't release them because Virtualpilots has to give permission, but in fact, but if this is the case, why has he already released both the climb and speed charts, (that is where I got my own copies) and liberally quoted from the documents with his own translations? Obviously because he felt doing this supported his arguments. But what is the difference between releasing part of the report and the whole?

As far as interpreting Jippo and Max's provided translations we have...

Part 1:


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

I don't think that the G-2 Stall Speed is so far off at all.

From Finnish Report on 109G2 MT-215

1. Stall [in level flight]
In level flight with the engine on idle, the plane starts stalling at 240-250km/h speed,
deploying the slats at the same time. The plane holds its attitude and is controllable
during the stall. in landing condition the stall begins at 200-210km/h speed, the plane
is stable in this case as well.



(landing condition is with full flaps deployed)

This is fairly simple. In level flight, zero throttle speed do the slats deploy at 240-250kph to prevent a stall?

We need tracks for this.

Part 2:


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

2. Pulling into a stall [using the elevator]
With the engine on idle, the plane can be pulled through into a stall at 175km/h.



Quite clearly the pilot is describing using the elevator to cause a stall, ie. the aircraft is proceeding in level flight at zero throttle, then, by pulling back on the stick, the pilot brings the aircraft nose up. When the airspeed reaches 175 kph, the aircraft then loses lift and control.

Again, we need tests and tracks. At zero throttle, when elevator is applied, and the plane is pulled nose up from level flight into a climb, does it then lose lift and control at 175 kph?

Part 3:


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

With full throttle [1.31ata] the speed is 130-140km/h. In the latter case the plane is hanging on its prop at an approximately 60 degree angle. the plane announces the approaching stall by a slight tremble. If the pull [of the stick] is tightened, the left wing and nose start to sink and the plane drops into a dive, shaking. If the pilot reduces the pull, the plane is controllable again. In landing condition the speed is 155km/h.



This is a continuation of Part 2. Again we are reading a description of an induced stall. This time from level flight at full throttle, by applying elevator, and pulling the aircraft up to a 60 degree angle, when the airspeed reaches 130/140 kph, the aircraft stalls and loses control.

Again, tests and tracks are nesseary, the question is, do the game results match the historical result?

According to the historical pilot's report, the tests were done at 100% fuel, full ammo.

A.K.Davis
02-17-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
wasting your breath

GR-142 Pipper has only ever been about having easy-to-kill Axis planes - he cares not for Historical accuracy - just quick DF room points

to him - the whole game is communist propaganda history revisionisim

That's a bit harsh. Pipper simply wants to fly Allied and wants to turn fight at low-level. All his arguments come from this position.


I would like to see the original Finnish language documents posted, so an objective translation can be made.


Lol, nice red herring.

Jippo01
02-17-2006, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Again, tests and tracks are nesseary, the question is, do the game results match the historical result?

What does this all have to do with the performance of the G-2 in the game and having a new underrated model?

Why bring this here, why not a new topic. Let's stay on this one instead.

And if you want something tested, why not do it yourself? You have asked everyone to produce tracks, but failed to produce a single one yourself so far.

What comes to showing one page versus whole book: first one is not, but the second IS a copyright felony.

What is your take on the ATA issue??


-jippo

Jippo01
02-17-2006, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
... munat ja kaikki... :P

Tuskinpa! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


-jippo

Kwiatos
02-17-2006, 10:28 AM
I read these topic and i must say that Jippo climb test are wrong and proves nothing. As every know planes have the best climb rate at their best climb speed. In game all planes have much lower their best climb speed that their RL representatives. In game G-2 have the best climb rate at ab.240-250 km/h (low alt) so making test with speed 290-300 km/h give much worse climb rates. So such test are not commensurate.

Stall speed in Bf 109 series ( besides Bf 109 E and F) are also too low. In 4.03 G-2 with clean configuration at idle enigne drop its nose and wing at 140 km/h IAS comparing to Finish test ab. 175 km/h and afterwar G-2 Black 6 ( lighter load - non combat weight) at 155 km/h.

ICDP
02-17-2006, 10:36 AM
Jippo,

Using the finnish test data as a guide I must conclude after further testing that the 109G2 we have in game is closer to 1.42 than 1.3ata. I am never slower and quite frequently getting better ROC than a 1.3ata G2 according to the test data.

I am all for historical accuracy in PF so I would like to see our current G2 either re-labeled as a 1943 variant or have its performance corrected.

There can be no dispute that the 1.3ata 109G2 is NOT what we have in PF. It is faster and climbs better (in my tests) than the Finnish test data.

arrow80
02-17-2006, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I read these topic and i must say that Jippo climb test are wrong and proves nothing. As every know planes have the best climb rate at their best climb speed. In game all planes have much lower their best climb speed that their RL representatives. In game G-2 have the best climb rate at ab.240-250 km/h (low alt) so making test with speed 290-300 km/h give much worse climb rates. So such test are not commensurate.

Stall speed in Bf 109 series ( besides Bf 109 E and F) are also too low. In 4.03 G-2 with clean configuration at idle enigne drop its nose and wing at 140 km/h IAS comparing to Finish test ab. 175 km/h and afterwar G-2 Black 6 ( lighter load - non combat weight) at 155 km/h.

Show me a track where your clean config G-2 with idle engine maintains alt and speed at 140 km/h. Because I cannot control mine at 170 km/h, because I have to maintain max pull on the stick with maximum trim and the plane keeps falling down like a rock (though no wing drop).

ICDP
02-17-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I read these topic and i must say that Jippo climb test are wrong and proves nothing. As every know planes have the best climb rate at their best climb speed. In game all planes have much lower their best climb speed that their RL representatives. In game G-2 have the best climb rate at ab.240-250 km/h (low alt) so making test with speed 290-300 km/h give much worse climb rates. So such test are not commensurate.

Stall speed in Bf 109 series ( besides Bf 109 E and F) are also too low. In 4.03 G-2 with clean configuration at idle enigne drop its nose and wing at 140 km/h IAS comparing to Finish test ab. 175 km/h and afterwar G-2 Black 6 ( lighter load - non combat weight) at 155 km/h.

Kwaitos,

the 4.03 G2 and 109F have very similar stall speeds and characteristics. They both start loosing alt at around 160-165kph and will drop a wing at around 140-145.

No amount of arguments can change the fact that a stall means unable to manitain level flight. Since it is impossible to maintain level flight in the 109F or G at 150kph the aircraft is therfore STALLED.

Stafroty
02-17-2006, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Arrow80:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I read these topic and i must say that Jippo climb test are wrong and proves nothing. As every know planes have the best climb rate at their best climb speed. In game all planes have much lower their best climb speed that their RL representatives. In game G-2 have the best climb rate at ab.240-250 km/h (low alt) so making test with speed 290-300 km/h give much worse climb rates. So such test are not commensurate.

Stall speed in Bf 109 series ( besides Bf 109 E and F) are also too low. In 4.03 G-2 with clean configuration at idle enigne drop its nose and wing at 140 km/h IAS comparing to Finish test ab. 175 km/h and afterwar G-2 Black 6 ( lighter load - non combat weight) at 155 km/h.

Show me a track where your clean config G-2 with idle engine maintains alt and speed at 140 km/h. Because I cannot control mine at 170 km/h, because I have to maintain max pull on the stick with maximum trim and the plane keeps falling down like a rock (though no wing drop). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm, how can you maintain alt and speed with engine idled? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

wasnt 109g2 stallin at idle power at quite high speeds, is what is wanted it to stall at full power speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif prollor itself does cause wind for the wings to keep control, and somehow lifts the plane in air (as we would think that we should be able to lift ourself in air draggin our own neck. what we could if we just have rope.

Kwiatos
02-17-2006, 11:02 AM
Glider generally all time losing alt during flying if dont work in term and dont stalling ( until reach stall speed of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Finish test from http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

"Other data: stall speed clean 170 km/h (could not be clearly defined). The nose sunk and the plane banked calmly to the right wing. At landing configuration the stall speed was 145 km/h. With full power the plane could be held hanging from the prop at 60? nose-up attitude ASI showing 130-140 km/h. Up to 350 km/h with a hard pull in the bank plane could be stalled (!) "

Afterwar pilot Dave S. flying G-2 Black 6 (with lighter weight - non combat) noticed the same behaviour of plane (nose sunk and wing drop) but at speed 155 km/h.

In game G-2 sink nose and left wing at ~140 km/h IAS which means tha plane beacame uncontrolable at these moment. SO "losing alt" really doesnt metter.

ICDP
02-17-2006, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I dont mean losing altitude i mean when plane is uncontrolable - when nose and wing drop.

Finish test from http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

"Other data: stall speed clean 170 km/h (could not be clearly defined). The nose sunk and the plane banked calmly to the right wing. At landing configuration the stall speed was 145 km/h. With full power the plane could be held hanging from the prop at 60? nose-up attitude ASI showing 130-140 km/h. Up to 350 km/h with a hard pull in the bank plane could be stalled (!) "

Afterwar pilot Dave S. flying G-2 Black 6 (with lighter weight - non combat) noticed the same behaviour of plane (nose sunk and wing drop) but at speed 155 km/h.

In game G-2 sink nose and left wing at ~140 km/h IAS.

Then you have very poor grasp of what a stall is Kwaitos. It is not when the nose or wing drops it is when the aircraft can no longer sustain level flight and starts to lose altitude. In the 109G2 and 109F I cannot maintain level flight at speeds lower than 155kph. They are therefore by ALL definition of the word STALLED.

Kwiatos
02-17-2006, 11:20 AM
Ok glider called "Junior" has stall speed ab. 65 km/h. Glider flying straight at speed 90 km/h and permanently losing alt ab. 1-2 m/s ( if not flying by termics).

Do YOu mean these thing is in stall?

arrow80
02-17-2006, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arrow80:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I read these topic and i must say that Jippo climb test are wrong and proves nothing. As every know planes have the best climb rate at their best climb speed. In game all planes have much lower their best climb speed that their RL representatives. In game G-2 have the best climb rate at ab.240-250 km/h (low alt) so making test with speed 290-300 km/h give much worse climb rates. So such test are not commensurate.

Stall speed in Bf 109 series ( besides Bf 109 E and F) are also too low. In 4.03 G-2 with clean configuration at idle enigne drop its nose and wing at 140 km/h IAS comparing to Finish test ab. 175 km/h and afterwar G-2 Black 6 ( lighter load - non combat weight) at 155 km/h.

Show me a track where your clean config G-2 with idle engine maintains alt and speed at 140 km/h. Because I cannot control mine at 170 km/h, because I have to maintain max pull on the stick with maximum trim and the plane keeps falling down like a rock (though no wing drop). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm, how can you maintain alt and speed with engine idled? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

wasnt 109g2 stallin at idle power at quite high speeds, is what is wanted it to stall at full power speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif prollor itself does cause wind for the wings to keep control, and somehow lifts the plane in air (as we would think that we should be able to lift ourself in air draggin our own neck. what we could if we just have rope. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just wrote a vague interpretation of what's going on. None plane can maintain alt and speed without power (or at idle). Every plane has a glide ratio (ratio the flown distance and ost) which is best at certain speed. If the speed falls down the ratio gets worse and if the ratio is lower than one, you lose more alt than you fly and your aircraft can be considered as stalled. In my tests mine G2 does this at 170 km/h...

Kwiatos
02-17-2006, 11:48 AM
Short test in game:
G-2 - full load - no metter map etc

Engine idle and gently pull up stick ---> when speed 190 km/h IAS remember alt ----> then gently pull up stick and raise plane nose ----> plane start holding alt and even get some alt ----> of course until speed drop to 120/130 km/h then plane start falling ---> repeat until you will be know what stall mean.
End of test thx.

ICDP
02-17-2006, 11:48 AM
Even at 90kph the glider can still fly straight and level if the pilot chose to. The problem is that the aircraft would eventually reach its stall speed of 65kph and stall. In other words the pilot is deliberately trading altitude for speed. The pilot has no choice as the aircraft is unpowered and has no means to provide direct thrust.

If I am flying at idle power in a 109G2 in a shallow dive and maintaining 200kph the aircraft is not in a stall. It is descending and is still completely controllable. If I level the aircraft out it will bleed speed and beging to descend at around 160kph IAS wether I like it or not. Try to fly straight and level in a 109G2 in PF at 150kph IAS at idle power. It is not possible you WILL lose altitude and this means the AC is stalled.

arrow80
02-17-2006, 11:53 AM
Kwiatos: you mess energy of the plane in the test together with high angle of AOA.Not a good way to test stall speed...because if you climb your speed is divided into two axes - horizontal and vertical, what of course makes the stall speed lower than it really is!

ICDP
02-17-2006, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Short test in game:
G-2 - full load - no metter map etc

Engine idle and gently pull up stick ---> when speed 190 km/h IAS remember alt ----> then gently pull up stick and raise plane nose ----> plane start holding alt and even get some alt ----> of course until speed drop to 120/130 km/h then plane start falling ---> repeat until you will be know what stall mean.
End of test thx.

LOL you are just using the planes admitedly very small inertia to gain altitude at idle power. Try the same test but at 150kph level the aircraft off and maintain level flight. Not possible is it, end of test thx!

arrow80
02-17-2006, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Short test in game:
G-2 - full load - no metter map etc

Engine idle and gently pull up stick ---> when speed 190 km/h IAS remember alt ----> then gently pull up stick and raise plane nose ----> plane start holding alt and even get some alt ----> of course until speed drop to 120/130 km/h then plane start falling ---> repeat until you will be know what stall mean.
End of test thx.

LOL you are just using the planes admitedly very small inertia to gain altitude at idle power. Try the same test but at 150kph level the aircraft off and maintain level flight. Not possible is it, end of test thx! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%

Jippo01
02-17-2006, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I read these topic and i must say that Jippo climb test are wrong and proves nothing. As every know planes have the best climb rate at their best climb speed. In game all planes have much lower their best climb speed that their RL representatives. In game G-2 have the best climb rate at ab.240-250 km/h (low alt) so making test with speed 290-300 km/h give much worse climb rates. So such test are not commensurate.

Two wrongs still doesn't make right, if we choose any other speeds, we will be equally mistaken.

There are limitations in game engine and computer power to make 1:1 presentation. We will have at best a very rough simulation of a infinite set of rather complex varitions done in a home computer in real time whilst running a game. Oleg is very good, but not miracle worker.

Many people forget this. No plane is right in the game, question is are they right enough.


-jippo

Jippo01
02-17-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Jippo,

Using the finnish test data as a guide I must conclude after further testing that the 109G2 we have in game is closer to 1.42 than 1.3ata. I am never slower and quite frequently getting better ROC than a 1.3ata G2 according to the test data.

Fair enough, it is a matter of opinion in the end anyway. Also I wouldn't mind getting exactly correct G-2's;

- 1.3ATA plane would be able to climb indefinately in the highest power setting and would match the current one in climb below 4km (the most important region IMO). It would actually be better between 1-2 km's. As I said, top speeds and reduction in them don't mean much.

- 1.42ATA would be better. It would perform just like the 1.3 one, but there would be WEP for tight situations in combat with better climb.


But here is something completely different to think about:

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."
- Marcus Aurelius


-jippo

Stafroty
02-17-2006, 01:38 PM
should we start to dig up information from other planes? which stall speed they had on which conf, how it is in game modelled? why is it always biased against 109:s and FW.s Buzzaw? why not dig information from those, and whine about those as much you do about 109:s, or is your whine just because you want and NEED us to get our noses point at 109:s while we forget the other planes here. I think, that 109 in this sim is MOST ACCURATELLY modeled game, right now, is that buggin you that your belowed plane is holding upper hand on something which havent been brought up in these forums?? and is that the thing you are trying to hide? you see, its not hard to test them, as well.

Jippo01
02-17-2006, 01:39 PM
It would be interesting enough to see Buzz having a go like this with, say, a Spitfire! Oh boy, that would be something!


-jippo

Buzzsaw-
02-17-2006, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Jippo01:

What comes to showing one page versus whole book: first one is not, but the second IS a copyright felony.



Ok, then just show the one or two pages which deals with the stall tests.


Originally posted by Jippo01:

What is your take on the ATA issue??

-jippo

The same as ICDP. Ie. the current G2 climbs better and is faster than the results we see in the Finnish tests, and far better then the results we see in the Rechlin tests. It is obviously modelled with 1.42 ata.

Which is fine as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a problem with the game having a 1.42 ata G2. (except for one which stalls as this one does) My original suggestion however, stands, which if Oleg has the time, he might consider modelling at 1.30 ata version.

Jippo01
02-17-2006, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Ie. the current G2 climbs better and is faster than the results we see in the Finnish tests, and far better then the results we see in the Rechlin tests. It is obviously modelled with 1.42 ata.

If you talk about this Rechlin test, you must show more information since I do not know what test you mean. Please post AT LEAST : test setup preferably with weather, serial no. of the plane in question, and climbs not as a curve as a table like in the the Finnish test.

The page with the stalls:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/Ju88/stall.jpg

And mind you, the 109 can stay in control 130-140 speeds hangin on the prop: only after pull is increased, the plane gives in. Otherwise it'd still be there.


-jippo

Buzzsaw-
02-17-2006, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:

If I am flying at idle power in a 109G2 in a shallow dive and maintaining 200kph the aircraft is not in a stall. It is descending and is still completely controllable. If I level the aircraft out it will bleed speed and beging to descend at around 160kph IAS wether I like it or not. Try to fly straight and level in a 109G2 in PF at 150kph IAS at idle power. It is not possible you WILL lose altitude and this means the AC is stalled.



Salute ICDP

Please clarify: Are you saying the game 109G2 stalls at 160 kph? Or 150 kph?

If you are pointing to either figure as a stall speed, then you must agree that the game aircraft is not matching up with the results we see with the Finnish test aircraft which entered a stall at 175 kph at zero throttle.

Jippo01
02-17-2006, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute ICDP

Please clarify: Are you saying the game 109G2 stalls at 160 kph? Or 150 kph?

If you are pointing to either figure as a stall speed, then you must agree that the game aircraft is not matching up with the results we see with the Finnish test aircraft which entered a stall at 175 kph at zero throttle.

Why don't you test it yourself? This isn't too difficult: stall develops somewhere around 170-160kmh. It is very hard to say if it starts 175 or 165 because it is very soft and plane looses a lot of speed at that point.

But what is the importance of this in 109 performance anyway??? If you will fly a plane under 200km/h in a fight you have already lost!

Really a waste of time.


-jippo

Routa
02-17-2006, 02:11 PM
Hello!

Quick stall testing in game: G2, 4.03m, 100% fuel, clean, neutral trim, power idle, auto prop, Crimea map at noon, altitude 0-500 m. My experiences:

When flying level, G2 started to lose altitude at 250-240 km/h (speed bar).

If the plane is kept level, it descends steadily at 190 km/h. Some nose lifting is needed to decrease speed below this.

If trying to maintain altitude by gently lifting the nose, wing drop (right wing) started at 180-170 km/h. Wing drop was smooth. At 150 km/h the nose dropped and the plane span into the sea.

If ailerons were used to resist the wing drop, the drop started at 140-130 km/h and happened fast.

Seems pretty ok to me.

Buzzsaw-
02-17-2006, 02:20 PM
Salute

Rechlin Climb and Speed Test tables:

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2064/109g1vcopy6es.jpg

Note: This test was done with a 109G1, not G2. The G1 had a pressurized cabin, so it was slightly heavier, due to the sealing required, although the difference should not have been enough to make the difference we see between the Rechlin tests and the Finnish tests. Top speed would not be affected.

I said that climb speed was 270 kph, that was an average, it varied between 280 kph and 255 kph.

Another test, not sure of the test aircraft type, although the weight listed is essentially that of a G2.

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/4329/messg2climb6xo.jpg

Badsight.
02-17-2006, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I read these topic and i must say that Jippo climb test are wrong and proves nothing. As every know planes have the best climb rate at their best climb speed. In game all planes have much lower their best climb speed that their RL representatives. In game G-2 have the best climb rate at ab.240-250 km/h (low alt) so making test with speed 290-300 km/h give much worse climb rates. So such test are not commensurate. RL tests are what we have to work with

planes in FB have to be able to replicate these tests . if they got "X" time by flying at "X" speed , so should we be able too

Jippo01
02-17-2006, 02:41 PM
Please also post:

Airplane weight in test setup
radiator setting
serial no of the plane tested
climb power setting ("1.3ATA is zurzeit noch nicht freigegeben"!)


-jippo

Badsight.
02-17-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
If I am flying at idle power in a 109G2 in a shallow dive and maintaining 200kph the aircraft is not in a stall. It is descending and is still completely controllable. If I level the aircraft out it will bleed speed and beging to descend at around 160kph IAS wether I like it or not. Try to fly straight and level in a 109G2 in PF at 150kph IAS at idle power. It is not possible you WILL lose altitude and this means the AC is stalled. this is what Kwiatos ignores everytime he wrongly complains about Bf-109 stall speeds in FB

stall speeds are correct , the extra slat stability probably isnt

not just Bf-109s have slats

Stafroty
02-17-2006, 03:45 PM
i myself dont even believe, that graphical SLATS have anything to do with numerical Flight model. Stick position moves the slats in this game like there would be control rod or such from the stick to them.

it has nothing to do with the FM code, every plane FM can be coded how ever they want to code them, withtout caring if there is graphical slats. what you see in Simulations isnt the same you see in real life.

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2006, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
--- Jippo please check, sense tells me the approximately 60 degree angle is 60 degrees from
vertical? Or perhaps it's a typo error?

That paragraph talks about "over pull" -situation, which to my opinion means self induced stall. "Pulling into stall" seems to describe it well.
My direct translation of the sentence:

"... when the engine is running on full power the over pull speed is 130-140km/h... ...the plane hangs from it's engine in ca. 60 degree angle downwards.
Plane signals over pull with a slight tremble; when the pull is tightened left wing and nose will drop..."

So the text means that MT-215 was able to keep control and altitude at 130-140km, hanging in the air by it's propeller tail towards gound. This quality is also often mentioned in Finnish pilots' combat descriptions, as their favourite tactic often was a tightening spiral climb. This would end in the following Russian planes trying to pull enough lead and stalling. This is how quite a few victories were gained, and also the reason why I think top speed is irrelevant quality in aircombat with 109. Climbing ability, dive, and slow speed handling are far more important!


-jippo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yah, the ca (approximate?) 60 deg angle downwards I take to mean nose pitch _ca_ 30 deg
above horizontal (flat).

IMO that at the stated 130-140kph the plane could not rise without somehow more power,
they were flying then on the back side of the level flight power curve and only nose down
and lose alt would be any way to get out of such a situation if power was at full, it was.
Also IMO there is no useful margin for banking a turn in that situation as lift upwards
would be lost, the plane would lose alt. Depends on how close to the edge you'd be, you're
already flying a stall with only the thrust and unbalanced propwash keeping it up.

And I remember many, many posts where just such a situation has been described as impossible
and therefore proof of FM error. Another false trueism that needs to die.

BTW, 109's go up a notch in my eyes. Maybe this I time I don't forget! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2006, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

What we have here are some translations, by parties who clearly have already expressed a partisan viewpoint in this thread.

I would like to see the original Finnish language documents posted, so an objective translation can be made.

So far we haven't seen them. Jippo says he can't release them because Virtualpilots has to give permission, but in fact, but if this is the case, why has he already released both the climb and speed charts, (that is where I got my own copies) and liberally quoted from the documents with his own translations? Obviously because he felt doing this supported his arguments. But what is the difference between releasing part of the report and the whole?

As far as interpreting Jippo and Max's provided translations we have...

LOL! LO-F___ing-L! Whooo-hoooo! ROTFLMAO!

I took those translations directly from an old BUZZSAW POST!

No tracks necessary for me! I DONE IT! Got slow, cut power to idle and kept pulling the
nose up but not enough to gain alt and I could NOT get down to 175kph before losing alt.
By 180kph I was already losing alt as that's when the 10m rounded off SPEEDBAR showed me
a drop.

Anyone with a FAIR MIND can do it, which lets you out Buzzsaw.

To test the idle stall at 240-250kph the slowdown rate of the plane must be very small
which means reducing power very slowly down to close to the target speed before cutting
to idle. The moment you lose alt, you've reached the stall speed.

Just in case you've forgotten, the second you cannot maintain level flight is Stall Speed.
There's many Stall Speeds when you specify condition which includes thrust and BTW, landing
config includes GEAR DOWN as well as flaps.

BTW, here's a link for ya to those theoretical-knowledge know-nothings at the FAA you couldn't
take the word of last time you screwed up on Stall Speed but I'm sure you will stick to your
own home-brewed definition based on your limited reading and even more limited comprehension.

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/handbook/

LOSS OF CONTROL IS NOT IN THE DEFINITION OF STALL SPEED REGARDLESS OF DAVE SOUTHWOOD MAKING
SUCH AN OBSERVATION. IT IS NOT A REQUIRED COMPONENT OR EVEN A COMPONENT AT ALL! STALL IS
NOT STALL SPEED!

Sorry ALL for the caps but I'm hoping it's just his ears are full of BS thoughts and maybe
if loud enough he might notice. I've linked to the actual regulations for determining
Stall Speed by actual airplane manufacturers and got told it's all only theory. Just as
Jippo has found so have I, Buzzsaw don't learn once he's got his own idea. But I'm silly
enough to hope.

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2006, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
And RL Yak-3 turn time was 21s. Also Yak-3 needed at least 4,5 minutes to get to 5km, while RL 1942 Finnish G-2 did that in 4,1 minute! The only advantage of Yak-3 over G-2 would be horizontal speed.
Btw: often quoted 18s is result of first Yak-1M, i.e. light Yak-1b prototype. Prob is that serial Yak-3 had wing not only shorter but also thinner - good for speed, bad for turning.


Yak-3 is then pretty close in climb. With higher speed the short term zoom will beat the
G-2. Or you can hold both to G-2 best speed figures and try to say that is how they always
will be?


- and Mustang is you know... imperialist plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If US was Imperialist then Germany would be 51st State, Japan 52nd. When was that?
It wasn't US that grabbed and kept most of Eastern Europe was it? Who was Imperialist?
I think you could ask in Poland, Chzeckoslovakia, Latvia, Estonia, and many etc.
Socialist claim of "Imperialist US" is total BS to brainwash and control citizens.
BTW, name one country ever that was real Communist as defined by Karl Marx.

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2006, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Short test in game:
G-2 - full load - no metter map etc

Engine idle and gently pull up stick ---> when speed 190 km/h IAS remember alt ----> then gently pull up stick and raise plane nose ----> plane start holding alt and even get some alt ----> of course until speed drop to 120/130 km/h then plane start falling ---> repeat until you will be know what stall mean.
End of test thx.

False test. Fly a hammerhead turn and tell me that Stall Speed is therefore zero.

FAA regs regarding Stall Speed determination are the same as EAA regs. Dave Southwood did
not bother defining them as pilots already know and would not make mistakes. He gave his
observations as additions, for him the wing dropped right at stall.

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2006, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I read these topic and i must say that Jippo climb test are wrong and proves nothing. As every know planes have the best climb rate at their best climb speed. In game all planes have much lower their best climb speed that their RL representatives. In game G-2 have the best climb rate at ab.240-250 km/h (low alt) so making test with speed 290-300 km/h give much worse climb rates. So such test are not commensurate.

Stall speed in Bf 109 series ( besides Bf 109 E and F) are also too low. In 4.03 G-2 with clean configuration at idle enigne drop its nose and wing at 140 km/h IAS comparing to Finish test ab. 175 km/h and afterwar G-2 Black 6 ( lighter load - non combat weight) at 155 km/h.

You fly the test wrong, you get wrong results. That includes your idea of how to get stall
speed.

Regardless of best climb speeds the Finnish tests were flown at the speeds they were and
complete data is available. Compared to what you have?

Jippo did a good analysis of test climbs and it's easy to see that in the sim, altitude
plays a big part in climb. At high alts the planes climb too well. Perhaps the engines
are not losing power completely historic. Who knows?

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2006, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Ok glider called "Junior" has stall speed ab. 65 km/h. Glider flying straight at speed 90 km/h and permanently losing alt ab. 1-2 m/s ( if not flying by termics).

Do YOu mean these thing is in stall?

If the stall speed is 65kph and he is losing alt at 90kph then he is losing alt by choice.

Is the 65kph stall speed in clean configuration?

You can fly a glider level without thermal assist. First start by diving to gain speed
beyond stall speed and then fly level until it slows down and won't anymore. Simple.

GR142-Pipper
02-17-2006, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The reason that the G2 is often the subject of being accused of being overmodeled is the fact that its IN-GAME performance RELATIVE to its opponents is simply too great (to wit: turn performance is far too good and its climb/accel/decel characteristics are eyewatering). The G2 in this game outturns an F4 which just about everyone concedes in incorrect and nearly matches that of Yak-1b/3 and does match that of LA-5FN's. Even against later war aircraft like the Yak-3 (again, as modeled in this game), the G2 is a good match where in real life a Yak-3 would eat the G2 alive (below 10k feet). Against the P-51, the G2 is completely superior...and so on and so on. So, the bottom line is if the G2 is accurately modeled, then it's a sure thing that many of its opponents are undermodeled. You can't have it both ways...except in Oleg-land. As you have aptly said, draw your own conclusions.

GR142-Pipper

The La5 series was nothing special until the FN - it was actually the first version to be superior to the LaGG3S66. The G2 turn time is given as 19,5-20,5 whereas the La5FNs is around 20-21 (heavy construction due to the usage of delta wood). About the Yak3 - people overestimate its manoeuvrability! It used to have a 16sec turntime in the original IL2 which was grandly overmodelled - in fact its turn rate is "just" 18-19sec so in one or the other situation it can be outmanoeuvered by a G2.
About the P51... what exactly are you moaning about? The fact that a plane that weights ~5t at takeoff is outturned and outclimbed by a 3,1t plane? How about using your 50km/h speed advantage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In real life, Yak-3's were specificially cited by the Luftwaffe to be avoided below 10k. This is so because they were superbly dangerous in this venue. So now the G2 is supposed to be at near-Yak-3 levels of maneuverablity even though the 109G series and subsequent were never regarded superior turners. Regarding the P-51 and G2, the G2 as modeled in this game simply has superior energy and turning characteristics and let's not forget guns that actually punch. That's why the P-51 is rarely flown by much of anyone these days. It's undermodeled relative to the competition, everyone knows it, and it's bypassed.

As an aside, I flew a G2 for several sorties a couple of nights ago. As modeled, it's just about the most gifted plane in the game...great turning and energy characteristics (accel/decel/climb), hits hard, can take punishment and it's guns tracking is as smooth as glass.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
02-17-2006, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
That's a bit harsh. Pipper simply wants to fly Allied and wants to turn fight at low-level. All his arguments come from this position. Actually AKD, all I'm interested in are accurate flight and damage models for all aircraft represented...no more, no less. We're not even close that that now and IMHO seem to be moving further afield.

Regarding Badsight, not to worry. He's completely harmless.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
02-17-2006, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Jippo01:
Many people forget this. No plane is right in the game, question is are they right enough. Indeed...both in absolute terms (the perfect world) or relative to their contemporaries (next best).

GR142-Pipper

Chadburn
02-17-2006, 09:29 PM
This discussion of stall speeds for 109s has been hashed over before.

NonWonderDog did some excellent tests using Devicelink to show the stall speeds of 109s. E and F models are too high. G2 model is nearly dead on and later models may be a bit low.

Some models of the Spit also have too low a stall speed. It's not just the 109s.

Unfortunately (or deliberately) the same erroroneous information is repeated by the same people. That's when they show they have a definite agenda, and it's not to get an accurate flight model.

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2006, 09:49 PM
It's only brought up because of the usual claims of special low stall speed for the 109
affect the climb.

Hashed out, concluded, and then the usual being the same old claims are trotted out later
like everyone is supposed to have forgotten. There is no trash bin. Note we've also had
resurrected that weight does not matter in dives and recently the all planes dive the same.

DaimonSyrius
02-17-2006, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Fly a hammerhead turn and tell me that Stall Speed is therefore zero.


MaxGunz,

Does what the plane is doing at the top of a hammerhead actually qualify as proper flying, strictly speaking?

Cheers,
S.

Buzzsaw-
02-17-2006, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

No tracks necessary for me!



No of course not Max. You have high SAT scores, we all need to fall down in admiration. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Anyone who has read this thread knows that you are the one hiding his head in the sand. Even Jippo has admitted the G2 has a higher than historical climbrate. But not you.

Max loves to be regarded as an 'objective' poster. But that is a veneer which quickly dissappears whenever the 109's performance is discussed.

So what's new?

Jippo01
02-18-2006, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Anyone who has read this thread knows that you are the one hiding his head in the sand. Even Jippo has admitted the G2 has a higher than historical climbrate. But not you.

Don't you dare to put words in my mouth!!!

I said G-2 is correctly modeled in climb for the 1.3ATA in the region Il-2 game engine is designed for. Above that engine is far from perfect, and that affects also all planes not just G-2.


-jippo

Jippo01
02-18-2006, 12:23 AM
Please stay on the topic:



Originally posted by Jippo01:
Please also post:

Airplane weight in test setup
radiator setting
serial no of the plane tested
climb power setting ("1.3ATA is zurzeit noch nicht freigegeben"!)


-jippo

Stafroty
02-18-2006, 12:36 AM
""In real life, Yak-3's were specificially cited by the Luftwaffe to be avoided below 10k. This is so because they were superbly dangerous in this venue. So now the G2 is supposed to be at near-Yak-3 levels of maneuverablity even though the 109G series and subsequent were never regarded superior turners.""


if its told to avoid YAK3 at low alts, under some 3km, why its told that should be AVOIDED. does it say anything else about plane charasterics etc? now we are up to assume everything just because there is WORD AVOIDED. its not the sama as FORBIDDEN. See the point?

Stafroty
02-18-2006, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
This discussion of stall speeds for 109s has been hashed over before.

NonWonderDog did some excellent tests using Devicelink to show the stall speeds of 109s. E and F models are too high. G2 model is nearly dead on and later models may be a bit low.

Some models of the Spit also have too low a stall speed. It's not just the 109s.

Unfortunately (or deliberately) the same erroroneous information is repeated by the same people. That's when they show they have a definite agenda, and it's not to get an accurate flight model.

well said.

GR142-Pipper
02-18-2006, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
""In real life, Yak-3's were specificially cited by the Luftwaffe to be avoided below 10k. This is so because they were superbly dangerous in this venue. So now the G2 is supposed to be at near-Yak-3 levels of maneuverablity even though the 109G series and subsequent were never regarded superior turners.""


if its told to avoid YAK3 at low alts, under some 3km, why its told that should be AVOIDED. does it say anything else about plane charasterics etc? It says that the Yaks were very dangerous to engage at 10k' and below. The only reference to plane characteristics is a physical reference to Yaks without undernose radiators (they were referring to Yak-3's)
now we are up to assume everything just because there is WORD AVOIDED. its not the sama as FORBIDDEN. See the point? Respectfully, I don't. It appears you're trying to draw a distinction without a difference. Yak-3's were optimized for fighting from the deck to about 10K feet and in this venue they were extremely effective. The warning was there for good reason. If I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make please clarify.

GR142-Pipper

Grendel-B
02-18-2006, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
I would like to see the original Finnish language documents posted, so an objective translation can be made.

So far we haven't seen them. Jippo says he can't release them because Virtualpilots has to give permission, but in fact, but if this is the case, why has he already released both the climb and speed charts, (that is where I got my own copies) and liberally quoted from the documents with his own translations? Obviously because he felt doing this supported his arguments. But what is the difference between releasing part of the report and the whole?


He can't, because he doesn't have permission to publish them. We have gained access to much documentations at archives with the price of having signed a contract, which gives us certain rights on the documents, and puts also some limitations.

One limitation is that we can not distribute the documents on the internet without consulting the original holders.

So far getting documents to larger distribution has been problematic, as the document holders are kinda old fashioned, slow moving organizations.

A few pages have been shown on net, which is ok, but those should have been at least the watermarked versions, but it is ok for me. But the original test *can not* be published on net, until we have the fully watermarked version ready AND the permission to publish it.

And another reason is actually, that we've been preparing the full translation of the MT-215 test flight reports into English language. It's been under work for over a year, slow and tedious job, when trying to make it perfect. Can't release it before, because there are a lot of possible places that could be understoof wrongly, if the English wording isn't good. Right now the translation is being checked at the Finnish Air Force Test Flight Centre, so it should be rather good when we get it out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So, shortly put, Jippo can't release the MT-215 Finnish language report as "look-a-like" version, because he doesn't have the association permission, and association cannot publish the materials to the large internet as we don't have the material holder's permission.

Sorry. I'd like to put a lot of stuff to the wide distribution. We *Are* able to offer stuff on closed distribution, to our members, but not yet to the wide public. It's a shame because there is a LOT of great stuff, in Finnish, English and German.

Cheers,
Grendel
Finnish Virtual Pilots Association
History project lead
Member of the board

Kocur_
02-18-2006, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
And RL Yak-3 turn time was 21s. Also Yak-3 needed at least 4,5 minutes to get to 5km, while RL 1942 Finnish G-2 did that in 4,1 minute! The only advantage of Yak-3 over G-2 would be horizontal speed.
Btw: often quoted 18s is result of first Yak-1M, i.e. light Yak-1b prototype. Prob is that serial Yak-3 had wing not only shorter but also thinner - good for speed, bad for turning.


Yak-3 is then pretty close in climb. With higher speed the short term zoom will beat the
G-2. Or you can hold both to G-2 best speed figures and try to say that is how they always
will be?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course Yak-3 would beat G2, simply because its faster. But unlike some think Yak-3 wasnt perfect in everything, especially not a brilliant turner, also its climb in 1944 was no better than G2 in 1942. What can one expect from summer 1944 plane with 1240PS...


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">- and Mustang is you know... imperialist plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If US was Imperialist then Germany would be 51st State, Japan 52nd. When was that?
It wasn't US that grabbed and kept most of Eastern Europe was it? Who was Imperialist?
I think you could ask in Poland, Chzeckoslovakia, Latvia, Estonia, and many etc.
Socialist claim of "Imperialist US" is total BS to brainwash and control citizens.
BTW, name one country ever that was real Communist as defined by Karl Marx. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Emm, I see one smiley wasnt enough to make it clear I was IRONIC. Simply: its impossible, that one can take his disappointment with some planes in this game as caused by "communist revisionism" if those two planes are: P-51, i.e. US plane and US in commies propaganda language, as you noted, were 'imperialists' AND soviet Yak-3. If "communist revisionism" was someones idea of what makes some planes worse than his expectations, those planes could not be BOTH P-51 and Yak-3.

Btw: If I were to ask what they think in Poland I would ask guy in the mirror http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Im Polish and spent half of my life in "Polish Peoples Republic". Of Rosevelts I definately prefer Teddy and uncomparably I prefer US president after 1980 than one before. Clear enough?

Kocur_
02-18-2006, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
In real life, Yak-3's were specificially cited by the Luftwaffe to be avoided below 10k.
Who signed that mythical order? Oh, and when? Umm, and at what level of chain command?


Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
This is so because they were superbly dangerous in this venue. So now the G2 is supposed to be at near-Yak-3 levels of maneuverablity even though the 109G series and subsequent were never regarded superior turners.

G2 is not "supposed to be at near-Yak-3 levels of maneuverablity" it simply WAS and not according to German but SOVIET data. Yak-3 is "regarded superior turner" only in soviet propaganda. You see: DATA vs PROPAGANDA. Choice is yours...


Regarding the P-51 and G2, the G2 as modeled in this game simply has superior energy and turning characteristics and let's not forget guns that actually punch. That's why the P-51 is rarely flown by much of anyone these days. It's undermodeled relative to the competition, everyone knows it, and it's bypassed.

Did you ever take time to check technical data of both? How in the world can you expect P-51 to be able to outturn any Bf-109 at mid-low speeds? P-51 is rarely flown in DF serves indeed. Both because it cant be turned around at tree top level by pulling stick to players stomach and .50 are not cannons, i.e. points from "almost-kills" are easily stolen by packs of Yak-3P/La-7/Spit players.


As an aside, I flew a G2 for several sorties a couple of nights ago. As modeled, it's just about the most gifted plane in the game...great turning and energy characteristics (accel/decel/climb), hits hard, can take punishment and it's guns tracking is as smooth as glass.

Yeah, thats strange... almost 2PS/kg, ~190kg/m^2, slats and good 20mm cannon in the nose. How can expect it be any useful!

ICDP
02-18-2006, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute ICDP

Please clarify: Are you saying the game 109G2 stalls at 160 kph? Or 150 kph?

If you are pointing to either figure as a stall speed, then you must agree that the game aircraft is not matching up with the results we see with the Finnish test aircraft which entered a stall at 175 kph at zero throttle.

S! Buzzsaw

My first post on the subject

"Kwaitos,

the 4.03 G2 and 109F have very similar stall speeds and characteristics. They both start loosing alt at around 160-165kph and will drop a wing at around 140-145.

No amount of arguments can change the fact that a stall means unable to manitain level flight. Since it is impossible to maintain level flight in the 109F or G at 150kph the aircraft is therfore STALLED.

So my initial claim is that the 109G2 will being to stall at 160-165kph IAS.

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2006, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

No tracks necessary for me!



No of course not Max. You have high SAT scores, we all need to fall down in admiration. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Anyone who has read this thread knows that you are the one hiding his head in the sand. Even Jippo has admitted the G2 has a higher than historical climbrate. But not you.

Max loves to be regarded as an 'objective' poster. But that is a veneer which quickly dissappears whenever the 109's performance is discussed.

So what's new? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The G-2 we have is a mixed bag. What ATA is the top speed showing? I believe 1.31?
Higher than historical over the total alt range but lower than normal in the 1st half.

The only true answer we can get of what ATA is modelled is from Oleg, not from player
tests complicated by places where the FM is off though not so far as Wannabe's would
have it.

Whenever the 109's performance is discussed I WHAT? Where were you when Kurfurst and
friends were pushing for increased turn performance for the 109K and the same subject
of elevator authority was the topic? Who was it who pointed out that the diagram they
showed had no information on stick force used, that FB (because that's how OLD the
discussion is BTW) has a force based stick interface and that we have 50 lbs of force
which was immediately jumped all over and no way to link to as the original archives
were lost along with all those posts Oleg made in the beginning?

The Blue Fringe says I'm a Red Whiner and the Red Fringe says I'm a Blue Whiner.
I must be doing something right.

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2006, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Fly a hammerhead turn and tell me that Stall Speed is therefore zero.


MaxGunz,

Does what the plane is doing at the top of a hammerhead actually qualify as proper flying, strictly speaking?

Cheers,
S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the very top of a true hammerhead the plane is ballistic. Maybe you are thinking of a
wingover done at speed?

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2006, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute ICDP

Please clarify: Are you saying the game 109G2 stalls at 160 kph? Or 150 kph?

If you are pointing to either figure as a stall speed, then you must agree that the game aircraft is not matching up with the results we see with the Finnish test aircraft which entered a stall at 175 kph at zero throttle.

S! Buzzsaw

My first post on the subject

"Kwaitos,

the 4.03 G2 and 109F have very similar stall speeds and characteristics. They both start loosing alt at around 160-165kph and will drop a wing at around 140-145.

No amount of arguments can change the fact that a stall means unable to manitain level flight. Since it is impossible to maintain level flight in the 109F or G at 150kph the aircraft is therfore STALLED.

So my initial claim is that the 109G2 will being to stall at 160-165kph IAS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clean and at idle? What speed did you cut the throttle? I cut from low to idle at 200kph
and by 180 have already been unable to maintain alt through steady nose pull. Done it
several times.

Why do we still have people who think that stalls must be uncontrollable? We have had
MANY pilots on these boards come up time and time again and state about flying through
stalls and not losing control. Professionals have. The full discussion is at General
Discussion, the thread name is "The planes don't stall" (for those who thought FM 3.x is
so great) and contains much from good pilots as well as the usual junk convictions of
"I know what I read" types out playing 'win the debate'. I'll take the word of people
who have DONE IT that stall does not mean automatic loss of control. I'll take the word
of flight schools that teach exactly that esp over someone who uses a poor translation
of a Russian document to English as some kind of counter. Right Buzz?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/790108504#790108504

ICDP
02-18-2006, 06:57 AM
Sorry,

I should have pointed out that this is with full flaps and gear down (dirty).

Jippo01
02-18-2006, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Sorry,

I should have pointed out that this is with full flaps and gear down (dirty).

According to Finns it should stall in that condition at 155km/h.


-jippo

ICDP
02-18-2006, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
Sorry,

I should have pointed out that this is with full flaps and gear down (dirty).

According to Finns it should stall in that condition at 155km/h.-jippo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am using the IAS speedbar so it could well be slightly lower (10kph increments). I simply look at the speedbar and altitude and at 160kph IAS I can no longer maintain altitude. If I use the no cockpit view it shows TAS which is even higher.

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2006, 07:29 AM
Reference Stall Speeds are given in IAS (or is it CAS? at low speed what's the diff?).
It's easy to know that as there isn't altitude conditions placed on them.

NonWonderDog
02-18-2006, 07:51 AM
Stall speed is almost always given in EAS (equivalent air speed). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EAS is equal to CAS (calibrated air speed) except at high altitude. EAS is simply CAS corrected for the increased compressibility of air at high altitudes.

CAS is equal to IAS (indicated air speed) corrected for installation error in the pitot tube. Most planes' airspeed indicators read too low at high angles of attack and too high at low angles of attack, but this is by no means universal. The only way to correct for this is to test it and record it in a chart. Such a chart is (should be) included in every plane's pilot's manual.

It's probably all the same in the sim.

arrow80
02-18-2006, 08:07 AM
Stalled G-2, clean config, 100% fuel,engine at idle,crimea map, nearly at SL. Stall begins at around 175 kp/h TAS, below that the aircraft is stalled as in the picture:
http://www.letka13.sk/~arrow/stall.jpg
Track is here:
www.letka13.sk/~arrow/stall.ntrk (http://www.letka13.sk/%7Earrow/stall.ntrk)

ICDP
02-18-2006, 08:17 AM
I just watched your trak Arrow. That is not a stall, you just can't maintain your altitude due to insufficient speed...

...Oh wait, silly me, that is a stall isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kwiatos
02-18-2006, 09:14 AM
There are many definitions of stall. But it doesnt really metter for these situation we have here.

Afterwar pilot of Bf 109 G-2 Black Six (non combat load) described detalied what happend with these plane when on idle engine clean configuration will pass-down speed 155 km/h - plane will drop its nose and wing and sink ( he named it stall speed for these plane)

Finish pilots describe the same situation with combat loaded Bf 109 G-2 but with higher speed - 170 km/h which is logical due to higher weight of these plane comparing to Black Six.

In game Bf 109 G-2 with idle engine and combat weight - drop its nose and wing when pass-down speed 140 km/h !!!

So its clearly that these plane lose control with 30 km/h lower speed then should.

and that's all.

carguy_
02-18-2006, 10:02 AM
Dunno what you guys talkin bout.I`m unable to control the plane at 175kph.

I can`t manage the plane to do this so if you wiseguys can I`m willing to SEE it.

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2006, 10:21 AM
Arrow80 provides a link to his ntrk file at the bottom of his post.

My dialup account does not give me homepage space. That's another $5/mo.
So no me host/post files as it never got that much use before when I did.

It takes rudder work to keep level at the edge and into a stall. For me, I noticed the
drop at 180 kph by speedbar. It's a bit of a pain with 109's as no VSI or I don't see one.

Buzzsaw-
02-18-2006, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Arrow80:

Stall begins at around 175 kp/h TAS, below that the aircraft is stalled as in the picture:



Stall speeds are tested in IAS, using the speedbar.

Do your test again, using IAS.

ICDP
02-18-2006, 11:50 AM
Kwaitos,

If you have involuntarily droped 60-100m in altitude going from 155kph to 140kph then you have already stalled before the wing drop.

It is obvious you have made your mind up on this matter. Judging from your posts you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHATSOEVER WHAT A STALL IS. You and people like you are not here to debate, you are here to get a paricular aircraft porked.

Buzzsaw-
02-18-2006, 01:20 PM
Salute

I have done a test of the 109G2 using the procedures which were noted in the Finnish tests.

Clean, with 100% fuel, full ammo, I get a loss of altitude, (stall under FAA definition) at 160 kph IAS, and a wingdrop at 140 kph IAS. This is lower speeds than noted in the Finnish test.

I also did a similar test with a P-51C as a comparison. Also loaded with full fuel and ammo. In this case, I get loss of altitude at 180-190 kph, and a wingdrop at 170 kph.

You already have the historical tests for the G2 posted on this thread, the following is the info on the P-51C. (British name, MUSTANG III)

http://img325.imageshack.us/img325/1424/must140of.jpg

You can see the stalling speed is noted as 90 mph IAS, or 144 kph. So obviously the aircraft under the FAA definition is stalling (involuntarily losing altitude) at much too high a speed.

However, if you read down the page below the listed stall speeds you get the comment that:

"(iii) The aircraft sinks rapidly as stalling speed is approached."

But how can it be sinking before stalling speed? Since a stall is noted by the FAA definition as being a loss of altitude, and obviously "sinking" is a loss of alt?

Obviously the British testers are not using the FAA definition of a stall in this instance.

In fact they seem to be linking the stall to the wingdrop:

"...at the stall, the right wing drops sharply..."

Even if we accept that the British testers are using wingdrop, the aircraft is still not performing at low speed as it should, as 170 kph for a wingdrop is not the 144 kph the testers noted.

But the whole page raises a question: Could the Finns also be using other than the FAA definition of a stall? Certainly they were not governed by the FAA.

Impossible to tell.

So we have a bit of a dilemma. If we adhere strictly to the FAA definition, then we need to do some serious adjustment of the stall speeds most of the aircraft in the game, with the exception of the slat equipped planes.

If we start using several different standards for designating what correct 'stall speed' is, then we are obviously creating a double standard.

As the game stands now, we do have a double standard, one for the slat equipped aircraft, the other for the non-slat varieties.

My tracks of 109G2 and P-51C;

http://s3.ultrashare.net/hosting/fs/21fdac2978fd35e2/

http://s0.ultrashare.net/hosting/fs/220647a53b5fbdf0/

ICDP
02-18-2006, 01:40 PM
Edited due to error by orginal poster.

Buzzsaw-
02-18-2006, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
S! Buzzsaw.

I tested the P51B...



My test was of the P-51C. That was the aircraft for which the British manual was written.


Originally posted by ICDP:

...and it does indeed begin to lose altitude at 160-170kph it then departs at 140kph.



Like to see a track, very surprised to see you getting such a different speed from me, especially the departure at 140 kph, never heard of anyone getting that result when testing the P-51. Are you "pulling your aircraft into the stall...", as the Finns described, ie. adding elevator to bring the nose up. Don't forget that in the historical power on test of the G2, the aircraft ended up nose up at a 60 degree angle at the moment of stall. The zero throttle test also saw the pilot bring the nose up. Did you look at my track?

ICDP
02-18-2006, 02:28 PM
I just tried it agina Buzzsaw,

I posted very wrong numbers in my previous post. The P51C/B starts to stall (lose alt) at 170-180kph and it snaps violently at 160kph. It does indeed seem that the P51B/D (havent tested others) has a very high stall speed.

It does need to be fixed and we should get an e-mail off to Oleg. The Bf109G2 is stalling at the correct speeds according to many peoples tests.

Buzzsaw-
02-18-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:

It does indeed seem that the P51B/D (havent tested others) has a very high stall speed.



The D model would have a higher stall speed than the C.

ICDP
02-18-2006, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:

It does indeed seem that the P51B/D (havent tested others) has a very high stall speed.



The D model would have a higher stall speed than the C. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah,

The manual I have states 95mph clean. I have even seen sources that state 114mph clean!

Kwiatos
02-18-2006, 03:10 PM
from manual of Spitfire MK I - stall section:

"... at minimum speed stall is the same as on most aeroplanes of similar type: one wing drop sharply and the aeroplane spins if not prevent by use of controls"

from manual Spitfire MK IX:

"... at the stall either wing and the nose drop gently "

from manual of P-40:

" ... stall develop very rapidly with consequent rapid dropping of the nose and rapid whipping or rolling movement (usually to the left) "


etc ,etc

Most manual say critical speed when stall occurs - when NOSE AND WING OF PLANE DROP.

ICDP
02-18-2006, 03:27 PM
In the Spitfire MkIX I can hold level flight until 140kph (87mph), then the wing drops at the stall. This matches exactly what the Spitfire MkIX manual reprots.

The P51 manual page as posted by Buzzsaw states the stallspeed as 90mph IAS with a rapid loss of altitude prior to reaching stall speed. By FAA stall definition the P51 stall speed would actually be from when level flight could no longer be maintained. Unfortunately the P51 in the game drops its wing 20kph to high.

NonWonderDog
02-18-2006, 05:09 PM
When we went over this however long ago, I said that everyone was testing stall speed incorrectly. I still hold that everyone is testing stall speed incorrectly. (It's better this time, though.)

Get yourself a program to output devicelink data onto the screen, first off (FB View+ works). When you test make every effort to fly with exactly 1 G on the "overload" readout and 0 m/s on the inclinometer. This requires you to put constantly more and more back pressure on the stick, so it's somewhat difficult. It's a bit easier if you add 20% throttle to counteract the drag (20% throttle doesn't skew the readings more than one km/hr or so).

If done correctly, the *exact* airspeed at which the aircraft departs is equal to stall speed -- it's just how the sim does it. When I did this for the 109G2 back in whatever patch it was, I got stall speeds within 2 km/hr of the actual. In fact, the G2 had the most accurate stall speed of all the 109s.

Note that most of this procedure is adapted for the sim, and is only based on real-life procedure. In the sim you're able to fly slat equipped planes at less than 1G (ACCELLERATING DOWNWARDS) and at speeds below stall speed with nearly full control. This isn't really a "stall," but it's certainly below "stall speed." This really skews stall speed readings. While this kind of maneuver isn't impossible in real life, it's rather harder -- and it's usually the kind of thing that kills people during landing.


Strictly speaking, "stall speed" is only superficially related to actually "stalling" the aircraft. Stall speed is defined as the minimum airspeed at which the wings are capable of creating enough lift -- at their maximum angle of attack -- to allow the plane to fly in 1G level flight. What happens below stall speed is inconsequential to the definition, as long as the plane is incapable of flying at 1G. The speed at which a plane actually departs depends on throttle setting, attitude, rate of climb, and most of all, G loading.

GR142-Pipper
02-18-2006, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:

It does indeed seem that the P51B/D (havent tested others) has a very high stall speed. The D model would have a higher stall speed than the C. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah,

The manual I have states 95mph clean. I have even seen sources that state 114mph clean! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The higher stall speed would probably indicate that the aircraft was heavier when tested.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2006, 06:49 PM
Kwiatos, Stall is NOT Stall Speed.

Stall is a whole region of flight between where the wing passes critical AOA to until the
plane departs from control and enters a spin. It can happen at any speed. You still have
lift and some control even though the ailerons may become useless.

Stall Speed as a reference term quoted by pilots is a single speed where at for given
conditions (clean, landing, power and AC weight) the plane is no longer able to maintain
level flight -- it the very beginning edge of a stall region with carefully specified
conditions.

Do not think that upon reaching stall speed the plane has to display every stall characteristic
you can find described or especially that you have to see that to be in a stall or at stall
speed. IT AIN'T SO. If it was the Aviation Administrations of entire world regions would
include that in the regulations and training materials WHICH THEY DON'T. They precisely
state how to determine Stall Speed.

Contact Dave Southwood and ask him.

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2006, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Get yourself a program to output devicelink data onto the screen, first off (FB View+ works). When you test make every effort to fly with exactly 1 G on the "overload" readout and 0 m/s on the inclinometer. This requires you to put constantly more and more back pressure on the stick, so it's somewhat difficult.

Somewhat difficult... an understatement to be sure. That's why most pilots can't be test
pilots, they don't have the patience let alone the training. I know I'm not that good!

Gee, devicelink and being precise? Then you can't fluff around inside the speedbar roundoff
and jerk the stick into a little extra final bleed on an incline to prove the plane is wrong.
What do you think, that finding the stall speed is the goal or proving a point anyway?

LOL! I'd like to get a track of a below 170kph stall speed test just to run playback with
devicelink and see how 'to the specs' that 'test' was run. MY G-2 is dropping at 180 every
time just trying the dirty slide in, hold level and pull back till stall. But maybe with
precise readouts I could milk an extra 10 kph out of it.

Stafroty
02-18-2006, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
""In real life, Yak-3's were specificially cited by the Luftwaffe to be avoided below 10k. This is so because they were superbly dangerous in this venue. So now the G2 is supposed to be at near-Yak-3 levels of maneuverablity even though the 109G series and subsequent were never regarded superior turners.""


if its told to avoid YAK3 at low alts, under some 3km, why its told that should be AVOIDED. does it say anything else about plane charasterics etc? It says that the Yaks were very dangerous to engage at 10k' and below. The only reference to plane characteristics is a physical reference to Yaks without undernose radiators (they were referring to Yak-3's)
now we are up to assume everything just because there is WORD AVOIDED. its not the sama as FORBIDDEN. See the point? Respectfully, I don't. It appears you're trying to draw a distinction without a difference. Yak-3's were optimized for fighting from the deck to about 10K feet and in this venue they were extremely effective. The warning was there for good reason. If I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make please clarify.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was lousier planes than that in air, right? there pilot skill wasnt the only factor, as it was greatly amount of 109 charasterics against others, against yak3, there wasnt anymore those advantages, as yak3 held bit better hand in both terms maybe? so if pilots entered in TnB with yak3 low alt, it meant suicide, if the enemy pilot was more experienced, while it didnt meant, if they had lets say, lagg3 or such as 109 was better in every aspect. and pilots could trust on it.

Buzzsaw-
02-18-2006, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:

When we went over this however long ago, I said that everyone was testing stall speed incorrectly.

If done correctly, the *exact* airspeed at which the aircraft departs is equal to stall speed -- it's just how the sim does it.



Salute Dog

I'd really like to see your track which has the 109G2 departing at 175 kph. Perhaps you could provide that one for our viewing.

Frankly, I have never seen a fairly done zero throttle test which has the aircraft departing at more than 140 kph.

Buzzsaw-
02-18-2006, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

I'd like to get a track of a below 170kph stall speed test just to run playback with
devicelink and see how 'to the specs' that 'test' was run.



My track showing the aircraft doing just that is posted on this thread just a while ago.

GR142-Pipper
02-18-2006, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
""In real life, Yak-3's were specificially cited by the Luftwaffe to be avoided below 10k. This is so because they were superbly dangerous in this venue. So now the G2 is supposed to be at near-Yak-3 levels of maneuverablity even though the 109G series and subsequent were never regarded superior turners.""


if its told to avoid YAK3 at low alts, under some 3km, why its told that should be AVOIDED. does it say anything else about plane charasterics etc? It says that the Yaks were very dangerous to engage at 10k' and below. The only reference to plane characteristics is a physical reference to Yaks without undernose radiators (they were referring to Yak-3's)
now we are up to assume everything just because there is WORD AVOIDED. its not the sama as FORBIDDEN. See the point? Respectfully, I don't. It appears you're trying to draw a distinction without a difference. Yak-3's were optimized for fighting from the deck to about 10K feet and in this venue they were extremely effective. The warning was there for good reason. If I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make please clarify.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was lousier planes than that in air, right? there pilot skill wasnt the only factor, as it was greatly amount of 109 charasterics against others, against yak3, there wasnt anymore those advantages, as yak3 held bit better hand in both terms maybe? so if pilots entered in TnB with yak3 low alt, it meant suicide, if the enemy pilot was more experienced, while it didnt meant, if they had lets say, lagg3 or such as 109 was better in every aspect. and pilots could trust on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>But that's what we're talking about...Yak-3's. We're not talking about LaGG's or any other type as this warning did not pertain to them.

GR142-Pipper

Buzzsaw-
02-18-2006, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

The D model would have a higher stall speed than the C.



Yeah,

The manual I have states 95mph clean. I have even seen sources that state 114mph clean!

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have seen the higher figures in USAAF manuals. Which may well be using the FAA definition of any loss of altitude to measure a stall.

The 119 mph figure is for a extra loaded aircraft with rockets.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9162/51dstall28wh.jpg

P.S. Does this look like an aircraft which would stall at a higher speed than a medium bomber??

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7749/p517as.jpg

lbhskier37
02-18-2006, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
""In real life, Yak-3's were specificially cited by the Luftwaffe to be avoided below 10k. This is so because they were superbly dangerous in this venue. So now the G2 is supposed to be at near-Yak-3 levels of maneuverablity even though the 109G series and subsequent were never regarded superior turners.""


if its told to avoid YAK3 at low alts, under some 3km, why its told that should be AVOIDED. does it say anything else about plane charasterics etc? It says that the Yaks were very dangerous to engage at 10k' and below. The only reference to plane characteristics is a physical reference to Yaks without undernose radiators (they were referring to Yak-3's)
now we are up to assume everything just because there is WORD AVOIDED. its not the sama as FORBIDDEN. See the point? Respectfully, I don't. It appears you're trying to draw a distinction without a difference. Yak-3's were optimized for fighting from the deck to about 10K feet and in this venue they were extremely effective. The warning was there for good reason. If I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make please clarify.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was lousier planes than that in air, right? there pilot skill wasnt the only factor, as it was greatly amount of 109 charasterics against others, against yak3, there wasnt anymore those advantages, as yak3 held bit better hand in both terms maybe? so if pilots entered in TnB with yak3 low alt, it meant suicide, if the enemy pilot was more experienced, while it didnt meant, if they had lets say, lagg3 or such as 109 was better in every aspect. and pilots could trust on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>But that's what we're talking about...Yak-3's. We're not talking about LaGG's or any other type as this warning did not pertain to them.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think his point is more that before the Yak-3 the LW pilots held an advantage over basically all VVS aircraft. It wasn't advised to engage Yak 3s because now the VVS finally had an aircraft they could fight on equal of better terms with. The way the LW worked on the eastern front was more like hunters, and it wouldn't be advisable to send your hunters hunting the most difficult prey. This is one of the reasons for such high scores on the LW side, they basically always chose when and where to fight in the east, so they were advised against chosing to fight equal adversaries when there were plenty of lesser ones to go around. Now whether this was good strategically, it probably wasnt, but it did make a lot of aces.

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2006, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

My tracks of 109G2 and P-51C;

http://s3.ultrashare.net/hosting/fs/21fdac2978fd35e2/

http://s0.ultrashare.net/hosting/fs/220647a53b5fbdf0/


Either that site doesn't like the FireFox Download Manager or the files have been deleted by poster.

GR142-Pipper
02-18-2006, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
I think his point is more that before the Yak-3 the LW pilots held an advantage over basically all VVS aircraft. It wasn't advised to engage Yak 3s because now the VVS finally had an aircraft they could fight on equal of better terms with. The way the LW worked on the eastern front was more like hunters, and it wouldn't be advisable to send your hunters hunting the most difficult prey. This is one of the reasons for such high scores on the LW side, they basically always chose when and where to fight in the east, so they were advised against chosing to fight equal adversaries when there were plenty of lesser ones to go around. Now whether this was good strategically, it probably wasnt, but it did make a lot of aces. I certainly understand this point and it makes sense. However, in this game, the G2 can maneuver nearly as well as the Yak-3's so if this were the case in real life there would have been no reason for the LW to have issued this warning of complete avoidance. I just find it difficult to believe the high command of the LW would issue a warning such as this unless there was absolutely no doubt that their aircraft were simply outclassed...not just on parity...which they were in the case of the Yak-3 at 10k' or below. That's just my take but I concede you make a reasonable case assuming the Germans still had the luxury of being effective while targeting only the lesser types by the time the Yak-3 was introduced in 1944.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2006, 10:40 PM
Speed is Life. Yak-3 is a bit faster.

Buzzsaw-
02-19-2006, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:Either that site doesn't like the FireFox Download Manager or the files have been deleted by poster.

The files have not been deleted, they are still there. And they have no problem with Firefox, although you would need to enable Javascript.

arrow80
02-19-2006, 01:52 AM
The stall speed of mustang in your sources is given with full fuel load? (I don't see it mentioned in the sources you posted)

NonWonderDog
02-19-2006, 02:05 AM
Hmmm..... the 109G2 might have gotten a bit floaty recently.

I'm getting a stall speed of almost exactly 145 km/hr. It used to be a bit more, IIRC. I seem to remember it being about 158 km/hr -- which people told me was correct at the time.


....Ah, the G6 stalls at 158. Perhaps I was remembering incorrectly. The K4s also stall at 158-160, but they stall like Cessnas now, completely wings level.

I think things might be a bit off. But hey, at least wings-level stalls are possible now, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Stafroty
02-19-2006, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
""In real life, Yak-3's were specificially cited by the Luftwaffe to be avoided below 10k. This is so because they were superbly dangerous in this venue. So now the G2 is supposed to be at near-Yak-3 levels of maneuverablity even though the 109G series and subsequent were never regarded superior turners.""


if its told to avoid YAK3 at low alts, under some 3km, why its told that should be AVOIDED. does it say anything else about plane charasterics etc? It says that the Yaks were very dangerous to engage at 10k' and below. The only reference to plane characteristics is a physical reference to Yaks without undernose radiators (they were referring to Yak-3's)
now we are up to assume everything just because there is WORD AVOIDED. its not the sama as FORBIDDEN. See the point? Respectfully, I don't. It appears you're trying to draw a distinction without a difference. Yak-3's were optimized for fighting from the deck to about 10K feet and in this venue they were extremely effective. The warning was there for good reason. If I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make please clarify.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was lousier planes than that in air, right? there pilot skill wasnt the only factor, as it was greatly amount of 109 charasterics against others, against yak3, there wasnt anymore those advantages, as yak3 held bit better hand in both terms maybe? so if pilots entered in TnB with yak3 low alt, it meant suicide, if the enemy pilot was more experienced, while it didnt meant, if they had lets say, lagg3 or such as 109 was better in every aspect. and pilots could trust on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>But that's what we're talking about...Yak-3's. We're not talking about LaGG's or any other type as this warning did not pertain to them.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

was it so uber if you look its information given compared to 109:s of those times? or was it very near the charasterics of the 109:s so no more "Plane Skill" was there the saving matter, where pilots were used to trust. Its the pilot not the plane matter when charasterics went close with planes of different sides, was this also why germans for the most preferred the ZnB tactics, as it wasnt war like it was in WW1, where quantity brought the victory, but experience on which way one could kill most big number of enemies without himself easily be killed. Just like nowadays its trust on technology and tactics, against some desert nations. they dont use own mens there just like in old wars in indepencense war, where both parties went in open field, stand still, started to shoot eachother. see? old tactics vs New tactics.

One would be stupid if he thinks he knows for sure how wars today are won, its not with those WW1 tactics, nor only with tactics. but with tactics, Strategy, intelligence and Technology. If otherside is useing same old rules in makin the war, he for sure is won by other who knows those rules as the other is able to ESPECT something to happen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif for other, it comes surprise, and im not talking the mens in field themself, but high commmand who dont have a glue, but want to control it all themselfs.

Was BoB won because of the miracle of turning the Attacks against Civilians from Industry/airfields/radar stations?? how was that change made??

It was Most needed for RAF, that London would become under attacks, because 109.s would not be able to defend bombers more than 10 minutes or not even that, before going home, letting bombers alone, that target was MOST needed for RAF, as bombers were above British airspace far longer time for to be intercepted.

What kind of "Molotov-Ribbentrop" pacts were made between Churchil and Molotov during that war?? Wasnt there Russian Forces Ready for attack when Germans took them by suprize?? Did England warn Russians, that they see with their intelligence, that there was no more danger of the amphibious assault against England,b ut, they for sure, noticed that there isnt anymore so much ground forces, no more that way of air attacks etc etc. Where did Germany go? Did Germany see danger on somewhere else place, which really was danger? ?
was it all washing the face of Hitler? or stupidy of Hitler to get Germany once again in 2 front war (i think there was more fronts in the end) or was that all explanations how HISTORY WRITERS wanted the things to be, like they "would been happening" by own cause...

If there is war, what we really protect?

"middleclass -highclass" citizens moneys and lands? their jobs, their positions, Politicians seats? Poor people rights?

Who goes there to defend or make those wars for "fatherland/motherland" and who got all that "credits" from it, not those poor ones, they give their life, legs, eyes, arms and guts, for just little or no retirement pension..
During war they are promised the wonders to them to get, after war, they only to notice, that Goverments are hiding that all, keeping not their words because all what goverments wanted was already happened,they can then make laws or not to be "believing" in examination and proofs with statictics how did Depleded Uranium affect those mens who made those politicians keep their seat.. its easy to Deny it just by denying it. this just as example as well.
if war was won or even lost, no need to care Vets anymore, there would be old politicians who promised all that nice life after war, or new ones, both of those dont much care about vets, but own intrests.



hehe

Kocur_
02-19-2006, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
I certainly understand this point and it makes sense. However, in this game, the G2 can maneuver nearly as well as the Yak-3's so if this were the case in real life there would have been no reason for the LW to have issued this warning of complete avoidance. I just find it difficult to believe the high command of the LW would issue a warning such as this unless there was absolutely no doubt that their aircraft were simply outclassed...not just on parity...which they were in the case of the Yak-3 at 10k' or below. That's just my take but I concede you make a reasonable case assuming the Germans still had the luxury of being effective while targeting only the lesser types by the time the Yak-3 was introduced in 1944.

GR142-Pipper

Oh Lord! Bf-109G2 DID manouver as good as Yak-3 IRL!!! Now IF that order was ever issued - and NOBODY was ever able to giude me to it, it is only just MENTIONED - it would be in summer 1944 when Yak-3 made first frontline appearance. Even if there were ANY G2s in Ostfront units, vast majority of Bf-109s were slower and heavier G6s!

GR142-Pipper
02-19-2006, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Oh Lord! Bf-109G2 DID manouver as good as Yak-3 IRL!!! That must be why NOBODY ever thought that the 109G and subsequent series were ever regarded as good turners but the Yak-3 was widely recognized as being one of the most lethal aircraft below 10k' as well as having superb maneuverability. Your little "G2 was really as good as a Yak-3 in real life" phoney revisionist fairy tale just isn't cutting it.

GR142-Pipper

Kocur_
02-19-2006, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Oh Lord! Bf-109G2 DID manouver as good as Yak-3 IRL!!! That must be why NOBODY ever thought that the 109G and subsequent series were ever regarded as good turners but the Yak-3 was widely recognized as being one of the most lethal aircraft below 10k' as well as having superb maneuverability. Your little "G2 was really as good as a Yak-3 in real life" phoney revisionist fairy tale just isn't cutting it.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Its not me being author of "phoney revisionist fairy tale"! Its the TsAGI itself, as it was them who published that data in "Samoletostroenie v SSSR (1917-1945), Moscow: TsAGI,1992". You are incredible Pipper, just amazing!

Stafroty
02-19-2006, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
I think his point is more that before the Yak-3 the LW pilots held an advantage over basically all VVS aircraft. It wasn't advised to engage Yak 3s because now the VVS finally had an aircraft they could fight on equal of better terms with. The way the LW worked on the eastern front was more like hunters, and it wouldn't be advisable to send your hunters hunting the most difficult prey. This is one of the reasons for such high scores on the LW side, they basically always chose when and where to fight in the east, so they were advised against chosing to fight equal adversaries when there were plenty of lesser ones to go around. Now whether this was good strategically, it probably wasnt, but it did make a lot of aces. I certainly understand this point and it makes sense. However, in this game, the G2 can maneuver nearly as well as the Yak-3's so if this were the case in real life there would have been no reason for the LW to have issued this warning of complete avoidance. I just find it difficult to believe the high command of the LW would issue a warning such as this unless there was absolutely no doubt that their aircraft were simply outclassed...not just on parity...which they were in the case of the Yak-3 at 10k' or below. That's just my take but I concede you make a reasonable case assuming the Germans still had the luxury of being effective while targeting only the lesser types by the time the Yak-3 was introduced in 1944.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

want to make you think this:

think that not all Lw pilots were experten and old timers, toll took those aces down as well, in form of accident because mechanical failures/tiredness, AAA casualties, situational awardness, enemy suprizes etc etc, so, there was new comers in Lw ranks as well, and, those for sure needed the information to survive, old timers know how to handle things, if those would only been 1 vs 1 fights, as, in russian ranks there was new comers much more than old timers, as they had perished in great amounts in the early war.

so, pilot factor cant always quarantee victory, even if otherside is having not only one front to fight with, so need of pilots were huge.

why not make it prohibition instead of warning, if yak3 had so much upper class in terms of combat aircraft?

It was equal or near 109, so, new timers and old timers would not anymore trust on their plane in maneuverability, as opponent would have even bit better turnin plane, horizontally/vertically, or climb even bit better at lower altitudes than own ride. so, no old tactics would anymore work against them, like Spiral climb, see?
and wasnt spiral climb the most trusted tactics 109 pilots used when enemy was in tail without window to open fire, as not having enought lead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stafroty
02-19-2006, 05:30 AM
Kocur wrote :

You are incredible Pipper, just amazing!

maybe because he used to trust what it is in sim, takin that as truth, as its been so for long time..

GR142-Pipper
02-19-2006, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Oh Lord! Bf-109G2 DID manouver as good as Yak-3 IRL!!! That must be why NOBODY ever thought that the 109G and subsequent series were ever regarded as good turners but the Yak-3 was widely recognized as being one of the most lethal aircraft below 10k' as well as having superb maneuverability. Your little "G2 was really as good as a Yak-3 in real life" phoney revisionist fairy tale just isn't cutting it.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Its not me being author of "phoney revisionist fairy tale"! Its the TsAGI itself, as it was them who published that data in "Samoletostroenie v SSSR (1917-1945), Moscow: TsAGI,1992". You are incredible Pipper, just amazing! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's really amusing to watch you actually try and peddle the nonsense that the 109G2 was as capable below 10k' as a Yak-3. No matter. Just don't fall off your little apple crate.

GR142-Pipper

Kocur_
02-19-2006, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Oh Lord! Bf-109G2 DID manouver as good as Yak-3 IRL!!! That must be why NOBODY ever thought that the 109G and subsequent series were ever regarded as good turners but the Yak-3 was widely recognized as being one of the most lethal aircraft below 10k' as well as having superb maneuverability. Your little "G2 was really as good as a Yak-3 in real life" phoney revisionist fairy tale just isn't cutting it.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Its not me being author of "phoney revisionist fairy tale"! Its the TsAGI itself, as it was them who published that data in "Samoletostroenie v SSSR (1917-1945), Moscow: TsAGI,1992". You are incredible Pipper, just amazing! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's really amusing to watch you actually try and peddle the nonsense that the 109G2 was as capable below 10k' as a Yak-3. No matter. Just don't fall off your little apple crate.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Yes Pipper, who cares about numbers, data from Russian themselves. What you belive is more meaningful. Sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jermin122
02-19-2006, 08:58 AM
There must be something wrong with you brain, Buzzsaw. I cant see any logic in you words. When you were proved totally wrong, you just keep on arguing with your own unresearched opinions, thinking they are certainly correct. Your behaviour is no other than regarding us idiots. Wanna castrate LW again just like that in K4 thread? Then you will be somewhat closer to an Allied Ace? Now you see how people treat you? Satisfied?

Some advice: Be practical and realistic€" Spend more time practising this sim instead of hanging out on the forum.

Stafroty
02-19-2006, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by jermin122:
There must be something wrong with you brain, Buzzsaw. I cant see any logic in you words. When you were proved totally wrong, you just keep on arguing with your own unresearched opinions, thinking they are certainly correct. Your behaviour is no other than regarding us idiots. Wanna castrate LW again just like that in K4 thread? Then you will be somewhat closer to an Allied Ace? Now you see how people treat you? Satisfied?

Some advice: Be practical and realistic€" Spend more time practising this sim instead of hanging out on the forum.

i understand the logic of him, really well, its just because, people dont want to admit to themselfs that they were wrong. People would die more than admit that they were wrong. you have seen people doing something really stupid way, in school, work, in their personal life at home, and will still continue doin it, even if you show them how stupidly they work. They dont see that others see how stupidly they work, they just CANT realize it. no way. see?

jermin122
02-19-2006, 10:03 AM
Exactly, They are always sensitive about their reputation.

WWMaxGunz
02-19-2006, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Hmmm..... the 109G2 might have gotten a bit floaty recently.

I'm getting a stall speed of almost exactly 145 km/hr. It used to be a bit more, IIRC. I seem to remember it being about 158 km/hr -- which people told me was correct at the time.


....Ah, the G6 stalls at 158. Perhaps I was remembering incorrectly. The K4s also stall at 158-160, but they stall like Cessnas now, completely wings level.

I think things might be a bit off. But hey, at least wings-level stalls are possible now, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

In the text about the Finnish tests it is noted that the 109 stalls tested were completely
stable. No wing drop. I have no trouble with this given the huge difference between time
and training in type between those Finnish test pilots and for example Dave Southwood. But
since Dave Southwood says wing drop then that's to be taken as THE Absolute characteristic.

There's too many agendas floating around here. When comparing two fighters it's real sense
to compare at speeds and altitudes at a minimum. What is the statement of basic tactics
between most planes as a general case? You want to get and keep the fight on the strengths
of your plane and the weaknesses of the other. And we have dweebs insisting that one is
always better than the other. Yes dweebs because for over a decade online airwars the dweeb
is the one who goes for the 'winner plane' and cries foul when he loses regardless of how
he loses and never, ever learns. Why learn when you can whine for changes?

109G-2 and Yak-3 were not so far apart but each has a best way to fight that is different.
Fight with either one the way that suits the other and you should be in trouble.