PDA

View Full Version : Test Me-FW/Spit-P47-Tempest



zugfuhrer
02-11-2006, 03:20 PM
The test is done twice and the mean value is shown.
Multiplayer and game type cooperative.
Settings: Crimea map 50% fuel and automatic pitch for German aircrafts and 100% pitch set for the Spitfire. Altitude 100-40 m
All tests radiator open. Pure plainflight no divespeed
Acceleration:
Started at 200 and stopped at max speed.
******ing
Started at top-speed and stopped at 200 km/h
Vertical climb
Started at 500 km/h made a vertical climb measured the highest position and clocked the time it took.

Spit I X c 1943

Acceleration
200-300 14s
300-400 23s
400-480 44s
top-speed 490 km/h 107s
******ing
470-400 6s
400-300 12s
300-200 19s

Vertical climb
500/1050 €"400/1410 5s
400/1410 €"300/1770 4s
300/1770-200/2280 5s
60km/h /2230m
Gives 1180m climb at 26s from initial point

P-47D 1944
200-300 11s
300-400 17s
400-500 31s
500-560 14s
top-speed 570 km/h
******ing
550-500 4s
500-400 11s
400-300 15s
300-200 22s

Vertical climb
500/1040 €"400/1400 5s
400/1400 €"300/1810 4s
300/1810-200/2150 5s
90/2450 1410m at 23s from initial climb

Tempest V 1944;
200-300 9s
300-400 21s
400-500 36s
500-530 26s
Top-speed
530 km/h

******ing
530-500 6s
500-400 13s
400-300 17s
300-200 19s

Vertical climb
500/1160 €"400/1590 4s
400/1590 €"300/1920 4s
300/1920-200/2270 5s
110/2530 1370m at 22s from initial climb

Me 109 G6 (Nose Gun)

220-300 9s
300-400 19s
400-480 41s
Top-speed 480
******ing
480-400 8s
400-300 17s
300-200 20s

Vertical climb
500/870 €"400/1110 4s
400/1110 €"300/1490 5s
300/1490-200/1790 4s
70/2060 1190m at 22s from initial climb

FW-A6

200-300 14s
300-400 20s
400-500 31s
Top-speed 520km/h

******ing
510-400 23s
400-300 18s
300-200 21s

Vertical climb
500/1120 €"400/1490 4s
400/1490 €"300/1860 5s
300/1860-200/2150 5s
60/2300 1180m at 23s from initial climb

FW-D9
200-300 12s
300-400 18s
400-500 53s
500-530 64s

Top-speed 530 km/h

******ing

520-400 21s
400-300 19s
300-200 15s

Vertical climb
500/870 €"400/1190 4s
400/1190 €"300/1490 5s
300/1490-200/1790 6s
70/2060 1190 at 25s from initial climb
Conclusion top-speed is not a significant difference, brake or climb vertical when you have a FW-Me on your six.
To survive in a Me or FW, be more than the enemy.

Jumoschwanz
02-11-2006, 04:22 PM
My sim installation must be corrupted, because on the Smolensk map with 25% fuel, I got the Tempest up to 580 km/hr easily, and on the Crimea map I got it up to 609 km/hr.

I also got the d-9 with 25% fuel up to 593 km/hr at sea level on the Crimea map, Time for a re-install i guess?

Jumoschwanz

zugfuhrer
02-11-2006, 04:45 PM
My attempt was to test aircrafts against each other, not to brake the world record at speed.
Curving, climbing etc is so hard to make the same test again and get the same result.

Please test these aircrafts under the same circumstanses I use, and send me the trackfiles.
The red planes are still much better than blue.

Xiolablu3
02-11-2006, 07:41 PM
Thanks for these tests.

One thing I think that is wrong at the moment is that the FW190A should be able to push over into a dive and outpace the normal Spit9c.

Right now the Spitfire gains on it for a while until the FW190 gets up to speed.

bolillo_loco
02-11-2006, 09:55 PM
I would try this, but I'm quite sure that my "******ing" speeds would be much faster than your average gamer.

VW-IceFire
02-12-2006, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Thanks for these tests.

One thing I think that is wrong at the moment is that the FW190A should be able to push over into a dive and outpace the normal Spit9c.

Right now the Spitfire gains on it for a while until the FW190 gets up to speed.
Actually thats consistent with RAF tactical trials with the Mark IXc and to some extent the Mark V as well.

The Spitfire's initial movement into the dive is about as good as the FW190s but the streamlining and weight factor in later. Like the P-47 too.

zugfuhrer
02-12-2006, 03:15 AM
Isnt it a aerodynamical contradiction that a a/c with almost the same topspeed and advantage in the vertical movement also looses speed much faster when the engine is cut?

An Soviet and an RAAF aircraft test spelled that the Spit IX and V got very bad acceleration compared to the 190 A3? and also "not much differed in climb up to 5k"
further "The FW was a better plane in all dimensions except the horizontal where the spits easily could come inside the FW"

Perhaps is it to much to demand for, that this game should mirror these tests, but it would be fun to have some defensive movements against a spit. Today the best advise is to dive away or be better at cooperation than the spit-flyers are.
I would say that a spit-pilot wins 9 out of 10 encounters with a FW in a fighter duell with no initial advantage for any part, and fleeing is the same thing as loose.

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 03:44 AM
Just wait a second. Spit IX was said to MATCH FW A3 (so A4 too) pretty well. But We should suppose that A6 should outfly the Spit 9( not 25 lbs). But we would need DATA to prove that.

Main problems I see now is that online most of timeplanes decide the upper hand on top of climbs with planes hanging on prop as much as they can. We do not have data about how much each planes was able to do that in RL! So we cannot try to proove that light planes like Spit and 109 are in too much advantage on this situation.

Also it seems hard to find any acceleratin tests from real life. So this way FW is doomed to be a poor accelerator (Dora is not a FW.. it is a machine from other world http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). Some people have tryed to proof that FW has a too low drag in fact, what brings it to have a too low thrust to make top speed match. IF that was true, this woudl explain poor initial acceleration.

FW A6 has rougly same power as a Spit 9. And weights 23% more. So it SHOUDL accelerate worse. But at a 23% rate. All acceleration tests we amke point atha its acceleration is more than 50% worse than Spit 9.

zugfuhrer
02-12-2006, 04:39 AM
Old man please clerify what you mean by A6 should outfly the Spit9.
There are two separate tests done one by Royal Australian Airforce, one by VVS, and they both described the poor accelaration of the Spit V and IX.
It was so devastating that there where orders given that any spit patrolling over France should fly at high speed.
Dont my DATA says anything to you?

robban75
02-12-2006, 04:46 AM
Not even the all powerful Mk XIV could catch a Fw 190G in a dive. I have never read anywhere that a Spitfire had an initial dive acceleration advantage over any Fw 190. I've read that the Fw 190's dive acceleration was superb, especially in the initial stages. In-game an Fw 190A-4 can only begin to outpace a Mk VIII at 740km/h.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

JG4_Helofly
02-12-2006, 05:41 AM
I totaly agree with Robban.

Look at this very interesting disscusion about energyfighting in il2. http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...opic&t=7876&start=30 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7876&start=30)

When you have no time, read only page 3 and 4 which are realy interessting.
You will soon see the problem.

achtung2004
02-12-2006, 06:13 AM
So can we conclude that the Dora is the most ******ed plane amongst the group?

Manuel29
02-12-2006, 06:27 AM
This is one of the many threads about the poor Anton's acceleration. The acceleration is that we have now and WILL always be.

Just look head on BOB and wish the things will be different.

Il-2 is no more an "historical" sim but ONLY a flight sim (the best for PC), so I shouldn't compare RL data with the game's ones.

Lets play this game and don't think about Antons acceleration, Spit performance or .50 effectiveness.

Maybe if the planes were named "Xfire" and "Fulf-Wocke 190" ecc...

Bye

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
Old man please clerify what you mean by A6 should outfly the Spit9.
There are two separate tests done one by Royal Australian Airforce, one by VVS, and they both described the poor accelaration of the Spit V and IX.
It was so devastating that there where orders given that any spit patrolling over France should fly at high speed.
Dont my DATA says anything to you?

It means that most reports point that Spit IX recovered most of the acceleration disadvantage due to a stronger engine. But Spit IX is not much more stronger than Spit V than the A6 is when compared to A3 (A6 as we think it should be, at 1.65 ata). So, although Spit IX probably hold better results when comapred to A3, it was probably still outpaced by A6 and later antons.

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
Not even the all powerful Mk XIV could catch a Fw 190G in a dive. I have never read anywhere that a Spitfire had an initial dive acceleration advantage over any Fw 190. I've read that the Fw 190's dive acceleration was superb, especially in the initial stages. In-game an Fw 190A-4 can only begin to outpace a Mk VIII at 740km/h.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

We should remake a side by side test. Last time we did it (me, pingu and Ice) we measured that A8 was able to outpace the Spit VIII in a 30 degrees dive even before 550 kph. But that was done at 3.04. We must remake that test.

zugfuhrer
02-12-2006, 10:18 AM
According to googling, the spit IX got 1735 hp on 4540 (Max?) kg
FW 190 A4 1760 hp on 3900 kg(normal).
If my figures are correct,
I dont think that the spit-engine was much stronger than the FW.

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
According to googling, the spit IX got 1735 hp on 4540 (Max?) kg
FW 190 A4 1760 hp on 3900 kg(normal).
If my figures are correct,
I dont think that the spit-engine was much stronger than the FW.

It depends on with A4 we are talkign about. The real WF A4 or the 1.32 ata we have in game. This data of yours are from the 1.42 ata.

zugfuhrer
02-12-2006, 12:31 PM
And how much power have the FW you are referring to.

faustnik
02-12-2006, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
According to googling, the spit IX got 1735 hp on 4540 (Max?) kg
FW 190 A4 1760 hp on 3900 kg(normal).
If my figures are correct,
I dont think that the spit-engine was much stronger than the FW.

It depends on with A4 we are talkign about. The real WF A4 or the 1.32 ata we have in game. This data of yours are from the 1.42 ata. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, to imitate a full power Fw190A4 the best thing we have in the sim is the Fw190A5 (Standard, not the new 1.65 jabo). Climb is somewhat lower but, speed is slightly higher.

Kocur_
02-12-2006, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
According to googling, the spit IX got 1735 hp on 4540 (Max?) kg
FW 190 A4 1760 hp on 3900 kg(normal).
If my figures are correct,
I dont think that the spit-engine was much stronger than the FW.

3.380 normal t/o of Spitfire F Mk.IXc. As far as powers are concerned, and any other data in fact I would recommend to ask ImpStarDuece.

p1ngu666
02-12-2006, 04:35 PM
theres stuff like props u guys forget, how effecient it is. the allies got better props with the 4 bladed ones (not just the extra blade, but shape etc)

the germans had the advantage 41 to 42ish, cant remmber what it was like BOB timeframe.

the germans stuck with 3 blades and made them bigger for the extra power. 109s where tested with 4 bladed prop and performed better.

its pretty well know the raf where doing tests with 5 blades (XIV used 5 blades) and 6 bladed contra rotating designs, never seen anything with contra props for lw apart from some truely mad luft46 stuff.

plus we have the LF IX's, or HF's. russian spits may have been running less power, and/or be tired airframes.

plus theres what heights they tested at, superchargers can produce alot of drag on the engine, look at the low alt merlin engines, alader dora's etc.

g6 and a6 outaccell spit above 300-400kph by your own testing

I would say that a spit-pilot wins 9 out of 10 encounters with a FW in a fighter duell with no initial advantage for any part, and fleeing is the same thing as loose.

if its IX/VIII vs 190 then the spit will outclimb the 190 and outturn it and if u dont wanna go home ull lose. funny enuff thats why in that il2 championship everyone used k4 despite la7's being avalible to them. roc means u can dominate duels. heck i did it vs 190s when PF first came out in ki43. slow speed climb it was better than 190 (maybe not anymore). i was bnz'in 190s in a ki43 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. they could leave anytime they wanted, assuming i didnt have enuff speed from dive to catch them.

if low speed handling is what u want fly a 109 or a japanease aircraft, in a 190 u just need to get above 350~kph or so, easily achiveable in a slight dive and ur acceling away.

in spits i get 190's who decide to try and shake me, or i bounce them.

190s a team plane, use it as such

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 04:41 PM
Proppellor technology is not that simple. When you get more blades you have a tradeoff. You may have proppelor that give better acceleration at slower speeeds others give better maximum speed etc. You can be pretty sure Allieds were not that more advanced on proppellor stuff. The P51 proppellor was a clasical exampleof a propellor that gave very good fuel consumption advantages (so that is used in several long range propeller planes today)

Kurfurst__
02-13-2006, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
theres stuff like props u guys forget, how effecient it is. the allies got better props with the 4 bladed ones (not just the extra blade, but shape etc)

the germans had the advantage 41 to 42ish, cant remmber what it was like BOB timeframe.

the germans stuck with 3 blades and made them bigger for the extra power. 109s where tested with 4 bladed prop and performed better.


I think the "4-bladed" 109prop you refer to was also 3bladed. Only shaped (thin blades) changed and it gave better speed, they were also experimenting with arrow shaped and sweptback propellos, the latter gave 741 kph on the 109k...

More blades are not "better", that's oversimplifying things. The Germans could get some 10kph extra just by making changes to the blade shape. I've seen British tests for 4 vs 5 bladed props on a Spit, it didn't give any more than that.

more blades you have, it also means more weight and torque. More blades also means more drag (props work pretty much work like wings), and the overall prop effiency constantly decreases as the air is more turbulant in the wake of each newly added blade. Think about it, the Spits started with 2 blades, towards to end of the war they had 5... did effectiveness become 250% percent...? I don't think so..

I'd say it's the typical simple minded, brute force approach that took the simplest way to increase blade area, add a new blade when powers rise. It's a simple way, and it IS effective, but not too refined and eventually, there's a limit how many can add, but there are drawbacks like ineffiency.

Siwarrior
02-13-2006, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
My sim installation must be corrupted, because on the Smolensk map with 25% fuel, I got the Tempest up to 580 km/hr easily, and on the Crimea map I got it up to 609 km/hr.

I also got the d-9 with 25% fuel up to 593 km/hr at sea level on the Crimea map, Time for a re-install i guess?



Jumoschwanz

I have gotten the Tempest up to 620kph online with boost 1000m :|