PDA

View Full Version : Inaccurate Tempest FM - calling Tempest experts



anarchy52
02-16-2006, 09:25 AM
Tempest flies pretty close to what one should expect from WWII docs and technical data, except one thing. Low speed turn!

When I first proposed that Tempest turns too good at low speed and that it in fact outturns 109G6 in horisontal turn at speeds as low as 220 km/h I certainly wasn't taken seriously. It does sound silly I have to admit.

Some people agreed to test this online being certain that Tempest "stall machine" can not outturn the 109, not even G6 (which is NOT the worst turning 109 contrary to popular opinion). Surprise was complete, conclusion unanimous: Tempest owns 109G6 in horisontal.

I have the data on 109, but I lack a reliable source of information on Tempest. What I assume is:
a) It was signifficantly heavier then 109G
b) It had laminar wing profile
c) Large propeller and very powerful engine
d) wingloading higher then 109
e) stall speed similar or higher then 109
f) similar or less favorable power to weight ratio

Plane characterized by those general characteristics doesn't strike me as a particulary good choice for stall fighting.

Could one of you guys provide accurate info on Tempest version we have in the game.

HayateAce
02-16-2006, 10:03 AM
Wow it's amazing how unashamed you types are, trading learning for whining. But hey, it worked to get the P51 nerfed so why not try it on every plane that happens to be flown by a better pilot than you.

Good luck with your lame quest.

VW-IceFire
02-16-2006, 10:35 AM
Anarchy...its interesting to bring this up but so far I have not observed out turning 109s at low speeds in the Tempest. I haven't specifically tested for it so I cannot say with absolute certainty that this is true, however, its not something that strikes me as immediately obvious.

I did a few test flights in the 109 yesterday night just to see what all the hubbub was about and they seem to be virtually unchanged...the variants that I normally fly anyways (F-2, F-4, G-2, and G-10).

So you have observed Tempests outturning 109 models consistently across the board or only certain versions?

One thing I can note about the Tempest and turning profile at the moment is that the Air Ministry ordered a trial of the Tempest against a variety of Allied and captured Axis fighters to evaluate the aircrafts performance.

Conducted in 1944, the trial was done with a very early production Tempest V Series I, with less refinements than the model we have, and it actually did quite well. With regards to the Bf109G-2 (trop) that they tested against:


Turning Circle
The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

I do not have full details of how they were testing against so things like speed, altitude, and condition of the 109 in question is somewhat unknown. I had initially assumed the 109 to have wing mounted 20mm cannon gondolas adding extra weight and decreasing performance, however, recently I was told that this is not the case and that the 109 they were testing was "clean".

The main comment to come out of this trial was the following (regarding fighting the 109):

Conclusions
In the attack, the Tempest can always follow the Bf.109 except in slow, steep climb. In the combat area the Tempest should maintain a high speed, and in defense may do anything except a climb at slow speed.

So what the Air Ministry had determined and was more or less passing along to Tempest pilots flying operationally was that conclusion. This proves nothing in terms of arguments over aerodynamics, wingloading, powerloading, and the rest...but it does tell us their thinking at the time.

The tactical trial has been reprinted several places but here's a good link:

http://www.hawkertempest.se/versus.htm

JG52Karaya-X
02-16-2006, 10:58 AM
The actual test aircraft in that trial was a G6/R6 (i.e. with 20mm gondolas).

Furthermore:

the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall
This shows us that they didnt push the plane to its limit. The test pilots would actually ease of the turn as soon as the slats came out resulting in a big loss of turn-rate!

VW-IceFire
02-16-2006, 11:06 AM
I just did some rudimentary testing to see if there was anything jumping out at me.

I used a Bf109G-6 and a Tempest Mark V. Both had 100% fuel and default armament. Crimea map, at 12:00 noon in clear skies.

I would dive from starting point of 500m down to 250m, build speed to 450kph, and then initiate a turn. I would go a full 360 twice and then stop the counter. This was not a perfectly scientific test as I just sort of eyeballed the start and end times and so someone who is more methodical may want to have a go at this as well.

My personal conclusion?

The turn times are very similar...about 19.5 seconds to do a single 360 degree turn (on average). The best turn speed seems to be about 350kph. You can go down to 320kph, however, if you go down to 280 kph you need alot of rudder and if you aren't careful the aircraft will flick out of the turn. So my recommendation for turning in the Tempest is to keep the speed around 350kph where the laminar flow wings are happiest and not to pull too hard...let the engine pull you around.

The Bf109G-6, which I feel is probably the worst turning of the 109 lineup except maybe the Bf109E-7, has a similar time of about 19.5 to 20 seconds. The difference here is that the Bf109G-6 at the Tempests turn time takes roughly 22 seconds to complete a 360 degree turn. However, if you drop your speed like is recommended for 109 pilots fighting Mustangs, you can complete the turn slightly faster at about 19.5 seconds.

Ultimately what I see is this. The Tempest turns fast at medium and high speeds. Turning at lower speeds usually means that the aircraft will flick out of the turn because of torque or the higher AoA stall speed of a laminar flow wing.

The Bf109 on the other hand is excellent at riding the stall right on the edge. Furthermore, despite the turn times being similar the actual radius of turn can be tightened in the 109 to a very incredible level. While this is mostly subjective...I felt that I was able to actually turn in a much smaller space (thus the lower speed) than I could with the Tempest.

If you are a in a 109 and you do manage to get a Tempest silly enough to turn with you...try and maintain a lower speed than him and pull around in a shorter space onto his tail. What is crucial here is that the Tempest turns far better at a higher speed so he's going to want to be fast and you are going to want to be slower. If you play his game than he wins and if he plays your game you win.

VW-IceFire
02-16-2006, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
The actual test aircraft in that trial was a G6/R6 (i.e. with 20mm gondolas).

Furthermore:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall
This shows us that they didnt push the plane to its limit. The test pilots would actually ease of the turn as soon as the slats came out resulting in a big loss of turn-rate! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats what I had been told before but someone else had come out and told me I was quite wrong on that whole thing and that it was a G-2 Tropical Filter model they were testing against. Any info?

No doubt the test pilot wasn't wanting to push it too hard. Still...this seems fairly consistent with what I have to say just above.

From what I understand from Bf109 pilot tactics...the method to engage a Mustang pilot would be to force him down in to a lower speed area where the 109 would out turn and out roll the Mustang (the Mustang having, similar to the Tempest and FW190, a better high speed turn). Against a Spitfire it was actually similar as well since the Spitfires best turn was at a slightly higher speed than the 109 and that the 109 had a wicked slower speed turn that could be completed rapidly and without difficulty. This seems to be like the way the one in the game does.

I'm not a big 109 pilot so I don't put these tactics to work that often against these types of aircraft (usually I fly the early 109s against Yak-1s and I-16s where BNZ rules the day). Maybe you can clear me up on a few pilots?

JG52Karaya-X
02-16-2006, 11:26 AM
In a Mustang vs Bf109 engagement I'd try to pounce the P51 with alt advantage in the first place and if he's not finished after the first pass I'd try to stay close to him and make him bleed energy by making evasive manoeuvers.

Against a Spitfire it's absolutely inadvisable to try and turnfight (especially in the late-war models) - your best bet is to stay vertical and get him to climb after you. After a Immelmann you might catch him at slow speed as he follows you up and get a good shot at him

Anyway from my experience the Tempest is not able to outturn a 109 ingame - however I havent flown it extensively either...

lrrp22
02-16-2006, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Thats what I had been told before but someone else had come out and told me I was quite wrong on that whole thing and that it was a G-2 Tropical Filter model they were testing against. Any info?

Correct, it was a clean G-2 Trop- the same G-2 currently restored in its original MTO 'Black 6' livery. The ADFU comparison was conducted during early 1944, well before the G-6 with gondolas was aquired.

LRRP

edit: Here's a pic...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/brentce/RN228.jpg

anarchy52
02-16-2006, 11:42 AM
Icefire, this inacuracy (call it overmodelling if you want) was discovered during my squad's test flight. We repeated it several times and came to the same conclusion.

I did an online test with one of the guys from 303 which had a hard time believing me, and I managed to convince him in online test http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. We did it at 25% fuel.

Now for the reasons above I doubt Tempest would be in the same league with 109 when it comes to low speed horizontal turns, much less be able to outturn it.

P.S. I was the one flying the Tempest.

WOLFMondo
02-16-2006, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Wow it's amazing how unashamed you types are, trading learning for whining. But hey, it worked to get the P51 nerfed so why not try it on every plane that happens to be flown by a better pilot than you.

Good luck with your lame quest.

If you knew anything about the Tempest you'd see he has a good point.

BfHeFwMe
02-16-2006, 11:59 AM
Let me guess, didn't record any tracks for the rest of us to see.

anarchy52
02-16-2006, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Let me guess, didn't record any tracks for the rest of us to see.

Test is easily repeatable, but first I'd like to see what the correct performance should be.

Here is an excerpt from allied test (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tempestafdu.html)

Test against FW-190A:
Turning Circles
41. There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest.

Comparison with Typhoon:
Turning Circle
18. Very Similar. Any difference appears to be in favour of the Typhoon. This is too slight to alter combat tactics.

Note: Typhoon had higher wingloading

One odd thing in the test is the turning circle comparison with unspecified Bf-109G:

Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

This particular result is quite unexpected, especially if we take into account the turning circle comparison with FW-190A.

Basically, Tempest wasn't built for turning circles especially not at low speed. It's strength was speed at lower altitude and weapons.

Another curiosity is zoom climb comparable to 109G and marked advantage in zoom climb to Spitfire Mk.XIV. So if Tempest > Spit XIV and Tempest = 109G => 109G > Spit XIV?

FatBoyHK
02-16-2006, 01:22 PM
I found that the tempest in-game is:

1. not much more durable
2. equal, or even worse in climbrate (despite of having a much more powerful engine)
3. much worse in zoom climb.
4. much worse in energy retenion in high speed (bleed off speed after a dive rather quickly)
5. much more troublesome CEM

compare with a Mustang, which is my usual ride.

I tried to fly a tempest just like what I do on a mustang (high alt BnZ), and I failed quite shamefully....

So is the FM accurate?

danjama
02-16-2006, 01:36 PM
I agree that in real life the Tempest was not amazing at horizontal turning, however, i thought it was modelled pretty well in game, cau i cant horizontal turn in the thing for nuffin!!!

Of course it could be argued that i have hardly any time in the Tempest and if i spent enough flying it i maybe would muster a great horizontal turn out of it. Im in no position to say if it turns too well or not, but i am fairly pleased with the Tempests turning and other characteristics (as far as my nowledge of the plane is concerned).

ploughman
02-16-2006, 01:38 PM
As far as I know the Tempest V was a below 15,000 ft (5,000m) creature where it's high cruise and top speed were king. Up high you'd be better off with the Spit IX 25lbs of boost. So far as I know. I could be wrong though HK.

HayateAce
02-16-2006, 01:46 PM
Well heaven forbid that the mighty 109 ever get out turned by any allied aircraft no matter what the starting circumstances. Heck, I out turned a 109 the other day using a P38J....we'd better rush some emails off to Oleg quick and make sure that doesn't happen again.

UFO9 is already behaving like an A6M as it is.....


I find it highly interesting that the new sobbing emoticon is blue.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

WOLFMondo
02-16-2006, 02:00 PM
The Tempest can go higher than 15,000, its top speed and most power in the 2nd stage isn't until 3000ft higher than that.




Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
I found that the tempest in-game is:

1. not much more durable
2. equal, or even worse in climbrate (despite of having a much more powerful engine)
3. much worse in zoom climb.
4. much worse in energy retenion in high speed (bleed off speed after a dive rather quickly)
5. much more troublesome CEM

compare with a Mustang, which is my usual ride.

I tried to fly a tempest just like what I do on a mustang (high alt BnZ), and I failed quite shamefully....

So is the FM accurate?

Did you remember the supercharer switch at 13,000ft?

Read the combat trials, it should beat the Mustang in several areas like zoom climb in it also claims the Tempest to be the best diver that unit has tested, but I do think the Tempest in this sim dives very well. It also beats the Spit XIV (which is superior itself vs the IX in all ways relevent in trials) in dive and zoom and both in speed by a good margin below 20,000ft. JN737 was also a series I so had protruding gun barrels.

ploughman
02-16-2006, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The Tempest can go higher than 15,000, its top speed and most power in the 2nd stage isn't until 3000ft higher than that.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
I found that the tempest in-game is:

1. not much more durable
2. equal, or even worse in climbrate (despite of having a much more powerful engine)
3. much worse in zoom climb.
4. much worse in energy retenion in high speed (bleed off speed after a dive rather quickly)
5. much more troublesome CEM

compare with a Mustang, which is my usual ride.

I tried to fly a tempest just like what I do on a mustang (high alt BnZ), and I failed quite shamefully....

So is the FM accurate?

Did you remember the supercharer switch at 13,000ft?

Read the combat trials, it should beat the Mustang in several areas like zoom climb in it also claims the Tempest to be the best diver that unit has tested, but I do think the Tempest in this sim dives very well. It also beats the Spit XIV (which is superior itself vs the IX in all ways relevent in trials) in dive and zoom and both in speed by a good margin below 20,000ft. JN737 was also a series I so had protruding gun barrels. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just vaguely remember reading something about Lufties trying to lure the thing over 16,000 ft where they stood a chance.

danjama
02-16-2006, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Well heaven forbid that the mighty 109 ever get out turned by any allied aircraft


Dude dont take the conversation that low, there could be a good point in here somewhere....

BerkshireHunt
02-16-2006, 02:13 PM
The Tempest wings were very large. In fact, in area, they were 1.74 times larger than those of a 109G6.
Now look at the normal loaded weights. A Tempest weighed only 1.64 times as much as a 109G6.
So the Tempest - although it's larger than a 109G6 and heavier - had a lower wing loading. Need I go on?
If the 109 is carrying wing-mounted cannon gondolas the Tempest comes out even more favourably.

anarchy52
02-16-2006, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
The Tempest wings were very large. In fact, in area, they were 1.74 times larger than those of a 109G6.
Now look at the normal loaded weights. A Tempest weighed only 1.64 times as much as a 109G6.
So the Tempest - although it's larger than a 109G6 and heavier - had a lower wing loading. Need I go on?
If the 109 is carrying wing-mounted cannon gondolas the Tempest comes out even more favourably.

Wingloading is a good indicator of turn performance, however in the test Typhoon with higher wingloading (and generaly less refined aircraft) had slightly better turning circle.

Tempest got the laminar profile wing - less drag at the expense of lift.

BSS_Vidar
02-16-2006, 02:25 PM
The Tempest was quite effective and made for high altitude. It had a pressurized cockpit, and had the nickname "Me-262 killer". It was an interceptor, not a dogfighter. And, it was a quite capable ground pounder.

To yank-n-bank with it is not the right way to fight it. You gotta turn-n-burn with it baby!

Unknown-Pilot
02-16-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
To yank-n-bank with it is not the right way to fight it. You gotta turn-n-burn with it baby!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Did you know that in the dictionary under redundant, it says "See Redundant"?

ImpStarDuece
02-16-2006, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
The Tempest was quite effective and made for high altitude. It had a pressurized cockpit, and had the nickname "Me-262 killer".


WHAT!?!


Are you serious?


If you have any inkling of Tempest design, performance and usage, you will never post anything like this again.

The Tempest was a low-medium altitude fighter. It never had a pressurized cockpit. It was a refinement of the Typhoon, which was originally intended as a fast bomber destroyer. The British already knew that the Tempest was going to be a low-medium altitude plane when they ordered it.

The supercharging on the Sabre meant that it couldn't be anything but a medium alt fighter. Power peaked at 14,500 feet. It was rare to see one above 20,000 feet.

It was a Me-262 killer because of its excellent LOW altitude performance and phenomenal dive acceleration.

VW-IceFire
02-16-2006, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Icefire, this inacuracy (call it overmodelling if you want) was discovered during my squad's test flight. We repeated it several times and came to the same conclusion.

I did an online test with one of the guys from 303 which had a hard time believing me, and I managed to convince him in online test http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. We did it at 25% fuel.

Now for the reasons above I doubt Tempest would be in the same league with 109 when it comes to low speed horizontal turns, much less be able to outturn it.

P.S. I was the one flying the Tempest.
Sounds interesting. I'm interested...and please understand that the inability to express genuine interest on the forums is sometimes difficult but I would like to point out that the onus for providing the necessary proof of this is now on your shoulders.

I've done my test and found the 109 to be what I would expect it to be. I don't discount your experience but I'd like to understand it better and see if for myself (seeing is believing?). So if you can post some turn tests or something of the sort that may be handy.

Or if another would like to have a go at it.

p1ngu666
02-16-2006, 04:29 PM
nope, 109 outturns tempest. admittidly 109 is buffeting in turn, but so does spit in a turn with 190.

about 250-60 the tempest will roll over.

VW-IceFire
02-16-2006, 05:11 PM
Pingu's done several tests with a few people...I just tested with Pingu online. Bf109K-4 vs Tempest V at 50% fuel, at 1000% meters on Crimea, and while the 109K-4 doesn't have much of an advantage he can hold and gain on me in a turn. Its a nasty and unpleasant experience for both pilots (much in the way of shuddering) but not a position I'd want to be in flying a Tempest.

The only time I was turning better was with him using his MK108 gunpods.

Kwiatos
02-16-2006, 06:08 PM
Tempest is flying pig in game:

- very slow acceleration
- not very good roll rate
- turn little better then 190 but worse then 109
- these version reach 600 km/h at the deck but very slowly gain speed due to its slow acceleration
- and constantly overheating engine
- its 4x20mm Hispano cannons are weak and **** dont know why (besides rarely lucky shots) - Dora9 even if has only 2x20mm kick much more deadly
- Tempest have big instability even at high speed - very weak gun platform in game
- rear view doesnt exist in these plane


Generally Fw190 and Bf109 are much better. Still at the aliance side only plane which could match LW planes are only Spitfire.

FatBoyHK
02-17-2006, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
- very slow acceleration
- Tempest have big instability even at high speed
- rear view doesnt exist in these plane


oh yes, I missed these 3 very important issues.... especially the high-speed instability..... it yaw very badly in a dive. worst than a 190 and is like heaven vs hell compare to a mustang.

FatBoyHK
02-17-2006, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Did you remember the supercharer switch at 13,000ft?


Yes I do.


Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Read the combat trials, it should beat the Mustang in several areas like zoom climb in it also claims the Tempest to be the best diver that unit has tested, but I do think the Tempest in this sim dives very well. It also beats the Spit XIV (which is superior itself vs the IX in all ways relevent in trials) in dive and zoom and both in speed by a good margin below 20,000ft. JN737 was also a series I so had protruding gun barrels.

Yes I heard that IRL tempest has a good Zoom amd dive. I don't think it is the case in the game.... true, it dive very good, but it can't keep the speed after leveling off. and its zoom climb is really weak compare to a mustang. I am not whining, I just wondering if I did something wrong.... or if the FM is bugged.

Badsight.
02-17-2006, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Wow it's amazing how unashamed you types are, trading learning for whining. But hey, it worked to get the P51 nerfed so why not try it on every plane that happens to be flown by a better pilot than you.

Good luck with your lame quest. coming from the biggest bullsh!t artist at this forum , the above quote is a joke

as HayateTard is , Hayatetard does

anarchy52
02-17-2006, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Tempest is flying pig in game:

- very slow acceleration

Worse then D9 but not really bad


- not very good roll rate

Historically correct, it's peak roll rate was 100 deg/sec


- turn little better then 190 but worse then 109

Turns MUCH better then 190, and slightly better then 109
Ask your squaddie Pinker if you don't believe me, he did the test with me.


- and constantly overheating engine

Overheat is similar to 109 with MW50. I think it overheats faster if it's
flying at slow speed.


- its 4x20mm Hispano cannons are weak and **** dont know why (besides rarely lucky shots) - Dora9 even if has only 2x20mm kick much more deadly

Hispano weak, that's a new one...


- Tempest have big instability even at high speed - very weak gun platform in game

I don't find it unstable, but yes - it does not like high AoA, similar to P-51 (laminar profile).


Generally Fw190 and Bf109 are much better. Still at the aliance side only plane which could match LW planes are only Spitfire.
I will not comment on Spit.

@IceFire: I tested with G6 and Tempest definitelly has the advantage, which is just plain wrong. Tempest had turning performance almost exactly like 190A (AFDU test confirms that although it does not specify the 190A version tested). Tempest going into slow speed stall fight against 109 should be punished for pilot's stupidity, not awarded with unrealistic turn advantage.

I admit, it requires a steady hand, but our in game Tempest can fly full power at 220km/h with combat flaps and outturn 109G6, 109 pilot can not do anything about it.

If you care about Tempest historicaly portraid in the game, you will agree that this is wrong. As it is Tempest can turn much better then it should at slow speed.

Badsight.
02-17-2006, 01:46 AM
be cool to test it against the Ta-152 , im sure everyone here has heard the story of the treetop DF between those two pilots flying a Ta-152 & a Tempest

WOLFMondo
02-17-2006, 03:22 AM
I have to disagree with several points:

I personally find the Tempest stable although I've had to give it a joystick profile of its own.

The rudder yaw issue as engines settings and speeds change is actually accurate.

Some tests last night with megile were revealing. The P47D will outclimb and out accelerate the Tempest in a sustained climb, the Tempests engine will actually burn out before it can reach 20,000ft at full power.

P47D out turns the Tempest.

At 18,000ft the Tempest will out accelerate the Ta152 by a very clear margin but by the time you've gained your advantage the engine is reading near 160 degrees and about to pop.

Tempest climbs best at 300kph indicated

Tempest leaks fuel from its wings, it doesn't have wing tanks.

Its very very weak vs .50 cal.

Tempest is beats P47, Ta and Dora in a dive.

Regardless of not having a 11lbs boosted Tempest , it should still have a much better zoom climb. The overheating is something we might just have to live with although finding accurate charts on it might be a good idea.


Originally posted by anarchy52:

Overheat is similar to 109 with MW50. I think it overheats faster if it's
flying at slow speed.


Fly it some more, speed and height has no effect on ithttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Its overheat is ridiculous but I think probably quite accurate but I do think theres a couple of bugs, The Tempest won't do a fast cruise without overheating, you have to keep the raditator open if you want to maintain a safe operating tempreture regardless of how fast or slow your cruise is, for those that don't know, the radiator flap is almost like an airbrake in effect.

anarchy52
02-17-2006, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Some tests last night with megile were revealing. The P47D will outclimb and out accelerate the Tempest in a sustained climb, the Tempests engine will actually burn out before it can reach 20,000ft at full power.

P47D out turns the Tempest.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Perhaps I should check out P-47D...Jug shouldn't be able to outturn anything really (except high speed).


At 18,000ft the Tempest will out accelerate the Ta152 by a very clear margin but by the time you've gained your advantage the engine is reading near 160 degrees and about to pop.

That's not right, Ta-152 has better powerloading, and Tempest's engine was tuned to low-mid alt.


Tempest is beats P47, Ta and Dora in a dive.

Real Tempest wasn't particulary good at initial stage of the dive, but caught up as the speed increased (similar to P-47)


Regardless of not having a 11lbs boosted Tempest , it should still have a much better zoom climb. The overheating is something we might just have to live with although finding accurate charts on it might be a good idea.

Similar to 109 if we're to trust AFDU, although there is something odd about the comparison to 109.


Fly it some more, speed and height has no effect on ithttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Its overheat is ridiculous but I think probably quite accurate but I do think theres a couple of bugs, The Tempest won't do a fast cruise without overheating, you have to keep the raditator open if you want to maintain a safe operating tempreture regardless of how fast or slow your cruise is, for those that don't know, the radiator flap is almost like an airbrake in effect.
Which power setting are you using for fast cruise?

WOLFMondo
02-17-2006, 04:00 AM
The out turning Jug thing, remember this is a 1944 lowest of the low spec Tempest vs a 1945 spec rare Jug spec. We didn't do vs a D27 but we did try D vs D27 and the D eats up the D27 easily.


Originally posted by anarchy52:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
At 18,000ft the Tempest will out accelerate the Ta152 by a very clear margin but by the time you've gained your advantage the engine is reading near 160 degrees and about to pop.

That's not right, Ta-152 has better powerloading, and Tempest's engine was tuned to low-mid alt.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that is correct. Its maxiumum speed and power was available at 18,000ft, check the engine power charts, the SabreIIB was slightly lower but only by 500ft in the 2nd stage but 3000ft in the first stage. This is correct. Power does fall of rapidly above this height though but according to trials was still competative at 20,000ft.



Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Tempest is beats P47, Ta and Dora in a dive.

Real Tempest wasn't particulary good at initial stage of the dive, but caught up as the speed increased (similar to P-47)



Your going to have to prove this with evidence. Everything in trials points to the Tempest being possibly the best diving prop plane in the allied inventory because of its HP/acceleration, weight and aerodynamics, apart from the chin radiator, its very clean plane.

Also Tempest pilots remarked that FW190's would try the old roll and dive trick but it didn't work as the Tempest would gain on them, remember this also this could have been as low as 3000ft when combat began.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by anarchy52:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


Fly it some more, speed and height has no effect on ithttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Its overheat is ridiculous but I think probably quite accurate but I do think theres a couple of bugs, The Tempest won't do a fast cruise without overheating, you have to keep the raditator open if you want to maintain a safe operating tempreture regardless of how fast or slow your cruise is, for those that don't know, the radiator flap is almost like an airbrake in effect.
Which power setting are you using for fast cruise? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tried it at 90% power/90% PP, 80/90, 80/80 but you need WEP on to make the RPM's match up to real life specs.

AustinPowers_
02-17-2006, 04:35 AM
Tempest turns too fast? hmmm maybe... it is quite stable at low speed. It doesn't snap over from torque.. but then what plane does.

It reminds me of the P-51... not a bad turner, but a competant BF-109 pilot will outturn you.

I think the Tempest is better at deuling than the Dora, but the Dora's roll rate and sea level speed mean its the better fighter.

PBNA-Boosher
02-17-2006, 05:00 AM
And your two complete mistakes are....

Originally posted by anarchy52:
I lack a reliable source of information on Tempest...

What I assume is...

You should be careful. When you assume, you make an a$$ out of U and me.

anarchy52
02-17-2006, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
And your two complete mistakes are....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I lack a reliable source of information on Tempest...

What I assume is...

You should be careful. When you assume, you make an a$$ out of U and me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A visit to spitfireperformance.com confirmed my assumptions. Instead of reliable, I should have used "precise".

Regardless of the red or blue thing, Tempest IS indeed overperforming in the area of low speed manuverability relative to real life data.

FatBoyHK
02-17-2006, 08:39 AM
Regardless of not having a 11lbs boosted Tempest , it should still have a much better zoom climb.

seem it is a clear bug in the FM, should we report it to ORR?

Mr_Nakajima
02-17-2006, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
be cool to test it against the Ta-152 , im sure everyone here has heard the story of the treetop DF between those two pilots flying a Ta-152 & a Tempest

Rocket Dog and I tried (very briefly) a turning match at low level between a Tempest and a Ta-152. The Tempest was able to turn slightly tighter but there was little in it. Rocket Dog was flying the Tempest though and he is a better pilot than I am, so hardly conclusive. Think we started at about 1,500m and had 50% fuel each.

WOLFMondo
02-17-2006, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Regardless of not having a 11lbs boosted Tempest , it should still have a much better zoom climb.

seem it is a clear bug in the FM, should we report it to ORR? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Other than the trials data which he must have already seen, we would need actual peformance data.

I'm going to e-mail BAe, who if anyone might have some data in thier records about the Tempest V. The other options are the IWM in London or RAF Hendon (both may require a small trip up the road to London) which both might have the needed data. I do intend to e-mail both of them but I'm away for a month as of next week (with any luck!) so won't see the replies until April.

Other than that, someone else could contact them or if someone has that data already they could mail it to Oleg. The trouble with the tactical trails though, there a bit vague on exact figures.

klemlao
02-17-2006, 05:33 PM
Avoiding the fner points of turn rates etc, I am very pleased to see the Tempest in the game but there is a fundamental error in simple straight line speed. My buddy witch has 'flown' it at sea level and 6600 feet with 100% fuel and then 25% fuel but no armament. I tried it at 500 feet (low as I could go on that terrain) and at 6600 feet with 50% fuel and default armament. The maximum speed we could get - under ALL of those conditions and it was the same under all of those conditions - was 311 KIAS. That included WEP and radiator closed.

The data on this site
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html
says that the speed at sea level should be 326 KIAS, 367 KIAS at 6600 feet and 318 KIAS at 18,400 feet (you have to translate the max TAS in MPH to KIAS at altitude).

So, pleased as 56 Sqdn is to have the Tempest, I hope OLEG will look at this problem.

Grey_Mouser67
02-17-2006, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Well heaven forbid that the mighty 109 ever get out turned by any allied aircraft


Dude dont take the conversation that low, there could be a good point in here somewhere.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, there probably is a good point somewhere, but I sure can't find it. Many folks seem to think the 109 was the king of turning....the Tempest wasn't, that is well documented and I don't think the Tempest should out turn the 109G low and slow either, but my experiences with both planes...I'm having a hard time believing that it is happening.

In fact, tonight, in my Spit MkIX, I was having little luck out turning the 109G...in fact I didn't! I was wondering if this was the "increased manueverability" because I never had that diffiuclty before...maybe the poster has the wobbles...planes with the wobbles don't turn as well as when they don't have the wobbles...be sure!

danjama
02-17-2006, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Well heaven forbid that the mighty 109 ever get out turned by any allied aircraft


Dude dont take the conversation that low, there could be a good point in here somewhere.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, there probably is a good point somewhere, but I sure can't find it. Many folks seem to think the 109 was the king of turning....the Tempest wasn't, that is well documented and I don't think the Tempest should out turn the 109G low and slow either, but my experiences with both planes...I'm having a hard time believing that it is happening.

In fact, tonight, in my Spit MkIX, I was having little luck out turning the 109G...in fact I didn't! I was wondering if this was the "increased manueverability" because I never had that diffiuclty before...maybe the poster has the wobbles...planes with the wobbles don't turn as well as when they don't have the wobbles...be sure! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i agree wholly

HellToupee
02-17-2006, 10:00 PM
yes on coms one experenced spit pilot was saying he had much more trouble outturning 109s especially instantious turning rates, i fly a tempest and i have trouble turning with those a6 and a5s, i can outturn them not too easily but it buffet and shakes the whole way and if i get slow its a pig, in a slow fight it in my experence cant hang with a 109, hell all the 109 has to do is change direction and the tempest will probly wobble out and stall trying to follow. What the problem is i expect is the pilots, if speed is kept pretty fast then tempest will quite easily pull inside 109 turns and show em the business end of 4 hispanos but at slow speed not a chance

Gibbage1
02-17-2006, 10:32 PM
I have yet to see anyone post any tracks showing a Tempest out-turning a 109. Without that 1 bit of proof, this is just a trolling thread.

klemlao
02-18-2006, 12:46 AM
I have yet to see anyone post any EM diagrams for the Tempest and compare them to EM diagrams for any of the discussed 109s/190s.

Badboy - where are you ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DIRTY-MAC
02-18-2006, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
[QUOTE]Regardless of not having a 11lbs boosted Tempest , it should still have a much better zoom climb.

seem it is a clear bug in the FM, should we report it to ORR? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Other than the trials data which he must have already seen, we would need actual peformance data.

I'm going to e-mail BAe, who if anyone might have some data in thier records about the Tempest V. The other options are the IWM in London or RAF Hendon (both may require a small trip up the road to London) which both might have the needed data. I do intend to e-mail both of them but I'm away for a month as of next week (with any luck!) so won't see the replies until April.

Awsome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif