PDA

View Full Version : IL2 4.01 Turn and energy bleed test's



Gibbage1
07-18-2005, 05:14 PM
I changed the topid to better fit what the thread is turning into.

OK!!! The test's are in! First, a few things.

#1, it looks like I will be eating humble pie a bit. Yes, the K4 is not as overmodeled as I thought. I did the test wrong compaired to the listed times in IL2's description. I was wrong. At least I am man enough to admit when I am wrong.

#2, the turn times are not as skewed as I thought! In fact, with a few exceptions, seems right on.

Here is the turn test conditions.

QMB, Crimera no AAA on clear weather starting out at 1000M. I aligned the aircraft to this small panecula, and started my turn to the RIGHT at 400KPH TAS (Measured from the wonder woman dials). I contenued that turn till I compleated two 360% turns from the same point of referance trying my best to stay around 1000M, and on the edge of a stall. I saved the track and LATER timed the result. All aircraft have default loading, and 50% fuel.

Timing method. Using a Junghas Aristo 3 dial timer. Error on the watch is tested at 30 min = 0 error. 1 hour = .1 sec error. 2 hours 1.5 sec of error. So this watch is rather accurate. Considering that the longest test is just under 1 minut, there is no measureable error.

Human error +/- .5 sec since I can nail the exact moment the same point crosses.

ALL test's were done AT LEAST 2-3 times. First test was to push the aircraft beyond the limit to find its stall. 2nd test was to ride it as close as possible without stalling. 3rd test was sometimes needed if I rode a little to close to the edge http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

First number is the time in seconds it took to get 360 degrees, second number is the KPH I was flying at when I hit that 360degree mark. Thats to measure energy bleed.

So lets see the numbers!!!

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
109E4________33.6@223KPH____57.4@192KPH
109F2________16.4@360KPH____37.6@230KPH
109K4________17.0@289KPH____35.5@250KPH

NOTE: 109E4 is a pig. Very unstable in the turn. Lots LOTS of energy. F2 was very good in a turn and stable. Best initial turn. K4 was EXTREAMLY stable in the turn. Did not dip the nose much at all. Initial turn was slightly slower then the F2, but picked up and beat F2 once the HP of the K4 took over in the turn. From the pilot accounts, the F2 should be the best turning 109 since it was lighter and had the same wings. Should the engine make such a huge differance in turn?

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
FW190A4______19.3@324KPH____41.3@316KPH
FW190A9______21.0@333KPH____43.8@326KPH

NOTE: FW-190 was no uber turner, be sure! Very unstable and constantly wanting to drop its wing. Resisted a lot to being turned. Quite remarkable energy retention!

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
P-47D10______21.4@335KPH____44.5@333KPH
P-47D27______19.6@336KPH____41.4@332KPH

Note: Higher HP did not help the 190 A4/A9, but did help the P-47D10/D27. This is odd. I think the differant between the two FW models is 400HP and the two P-47 is 200HP. The extra HP should help the FW more then the P-47 if thats what is helping the 109K4 turn tighter. But please note, P-47 turn time is about equal of the Fw-190. They both had very similar wing loading. P-47 was more stable in the turn then the FW-190. Again, VERY good energy retention.

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
P-51B________19.4@313KPH____40.8@279KPH
P-51D20NA____20.1@326KPH____42.3@293KPH

Note. P-51B and P-51D20NA have ALMOST identical engines. The P-51B is quite a bit lighter then the D20NA, and has a better turn time. The thing that is wacky, is that the P-51D is retaining a bit more energy even though it weighs more? I think the P-51B even had better aerodynamics then the D? I dont think thats right. P-51D was VERY VERY unforgiving in the turn. I had to do the test 3 times due to stalling. P-51B was slightly more forgiving, but still very tough. Energy retention was still VERY good for its weight/HP ratio compaired to the 109. But the 109 F2 and K4 still own both Mustang models in turn by quite a bit.

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
P-38J________19.4@311KPH____46.0@300KPH
P-37L Late___20.3@363KPH____40.3@358KPH

NOTE: This is off. P-38J and L Late are almost identical in weight. With MAYBE 50-100lb between the two. With the L generating an extra 250HP over the J, it should have better initial turn then the J. It dont. It does have better 2nd turn time by the added HP, and also the energy retention is ASTONISHING! This baby does NOT bleed, and has the #1 highest energy retention of all aircraft in the test. Turn stability was good, but still got sloppy. That should not happen. NO TORQUE!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
A6M2_________12.2@281KPH____26.0@245KPH
A6M7_________14.6@264KPH____30.6@258KPH

NOTE: No big suprise. The thing turns like a Zero! Only questionable thing is the A6M2's better energy retention then the M7 on the 1st turn, but M7 is better on the 2nd turn?

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
Yak1_________17.7@318KPH____36.0@313
Yak3_________15.3@312KPH____30.6@278

NOTE: Yak's turn was definitly not porked in 4.01. Its difficult to keep a Yak in a turn (May be the #1 most unstable in the test) but if you have good hands, it will turn inside almost ANYTHING. Again, we see some odd energy retention. The Yak3 had a 1300HP engine and the Yak1 a 1180HP with almost identical weight! Why is it loosing power faster? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
Spit VB______13.2@282KPH____28.0@256KPH
Spit IX______15.0@302KPH____31.0@288KPH

NOTE: Well that solves the debate on weather the K4 can out-tun an IX! I was wrong! But was I? No test was done with combat flaps. Spits dont have combat flaps. This needs more investigation and I will do that later. Odd think is, the IX turning quite a bit slower then the VB even thought the IX in IL2 has quite a bit of HP over the VB! Why does the K4 benifit from the added HP and the IX does not?

Im going to run a few more test's. I hope that you find that I have been very fair in this. This test has raised a lot of questions and I hope you guys will help me with the questions. Im not leveling accusations, but asking questions. So please treat this as such.

Also, if you want X and Y aircraft to be tested, DO IT YOURSELF!!!!!! I have things to do and it would take me days to test every freaken aircraft. I have the test method all written up so you can do it yourself.

IF YOU CAN GET BETTER TURN RESULTS, PLEASE POST THEM! I am not a pro at all of these aircraft. Someone like Faustnic would be able to ride a FW-190's stall closer then me. But if you make a claim, please back it up with a track. I will post all my tracks later on.

Gib

EDIT
Something very odd is happening with the K4. It turns WORSE WITH combat flaps!

109K4 with Combat flaps. First turn, 19.4@317 2nd turn 39.7@281! Not only am I getting WORSE turning, but its retaining mo energy!!! I did this test TWICE and got the same results. I also re-tested my 109K4 time without flaps and got the same results.

For fun, I did 109K4 with combat flaps and Elivator trim ("trim cheat"). Turn #1, 17.7@282 Turn #2, 37.1@260. As you can see, trim helped, but its still not turning at the same pace as the K4 WITHOUT combat flaps!

WTF is going on? If your a 109 pilot, please do this test and check it out. Something very nasty may be happening to your ride!

LStarosta
07-18-2005, 05:15 PM
Can you leave this sh1t in ORR where people actually care?

Gibbage1
07-18-2005, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Can you leave this sh1t in ORR where people actually care?

I wish to collect some data and more proof before presenting my case on the ORR. Why waist his time with endless and pointless debate? We debate here, and turn in the results.

faustnik
07-18-2005, 05:33 PM
The problem I have when conducting turn tests is dropping or raising the nose. To get an accurate measure you would have to apply just enough rudder to keep the nose on a flat even plane, right?

I did test the Spit IX yesterday and came up with 15.3 seconds. (also P-51D 18.2, P-47 19.5, Fw190A8 21.1) I will try with the 109s tonight.

lbhskier37
07-18-2005, 05:35 PM
I'm just throwing this out there, but what are the turn times listed really measuring? Gibbage when you do those tests are you measuring the same thing that those test times measured?

Atomic_Marten
07-18-2005, 05:35 PM
Gibbage have you compared relative turn time between Bf-109K-4 and contemporary aircraft? I mean other than Spit?

Data from IL-2 Wingman

turn time 1000m
Spitfire MK.9E 21.0s
Spitfire HF_MK.9E 20.2s
Bf-109K-4 20.1s

Even clipped versions 9E & 9C are rated to be slightly worst turners than Kurfurst.
G10 should then outturn late Spitfires with no major problems.
About sustained turns.. it depends I guess, which aircraft preserves energy better in turn.. which one is more stabile on low speeds etc.

FritzGryphon
07-18-2005, 05:45 PM
On both test's, I entered the turn at 400KPH. Pulled as hard as I could without stalling. The clock stopped once my nose was pointed at the same point of referance as I started.

There's your problem, you're testing instantaneous turn, not sustained. Sustained turns are constant speed, constant altitude. Best turning speed is somewhere near best climb. This speed must be maintained for the entire test.

A 14 second instantaneous turn is not hard at all. The only limiting factors are control heavines (which you could counter with trim) and blackout. And you are right, you can do a full instantaneous turn in much less than 14 seconds, if you start at a higher speed.

For 109K it's not 19.9 seconds, either. It's more than 20. 109E 22-24, 109F 19.5, 109G 20, 109Glate-K 21 (in general).

I did test for the 109F, and the sustained turn time is something around 15 seconds, which is vastly incorrect. I'd expect the late 109s to be incorrect too.

Patch 4.01 has ruined turn times for many planes.

faustnik
07-18-2005, 05:52 PM
At the bottom of this page is an interesting instantaneous/sustained turn rate graph with many of our FB planes.

http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm

FritzGryphon
07-18-2005, 05:57 PM
That graph is for theoretical turn radius

Gibbage1
07-18-2005, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
I'm just throwing this out there, but what are the turn times listed really measuring? Gibbage when you do those tests are you measuring the same thing that those test times measured?

In IL2's listing, it says turn time for 360 degrees at 1000M.

Gibbage1
07-18-2005, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Gibbage have you compared relative turn time between Bf-109K-4 and contemporary aircraft? I mean other than Spit?


I only did K4 vs Spit to try to disprove someone who said the K4 could turn faster then a Spit. I have not done any sort of large scale test. But 14 seconds when IL2 list's it at 19 is a rather large gap. I will try to test some more, but its always helpfull to have more then 1 man testing it.

FritzGryphon
07-18-2005, 06:02 PM
I find 109K4 turn time to be 22 seconds. 110% power, Crimea, noon.

For 109F I get 20 seconds.

Gibbage1
07-18-2005, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On both test's, I entered the turn at 400KPH. Pulled as hard as I could without stalling. The clock stopped once my nose was pointed at the same point of referance as I started.

There's your problem, you're testing instantaneous turn, not sustained. Sustained turns are constant speed, constant altitude. Best turning speed is somewhere near best climb. This speed must be maintained for the entire test.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for clearing that part up. I will remember that.

ElAurens
07-18-2005, 06:14 PM
Obviously the speed at which the turn is initiated will drastically affect the outcome of the test.

How are we to determine proper speed at initiation of the turn? And, since all aircraft will more or less turn their best at different speeds (the A6M being the shining example of this...) How are we to accurately compare, or even determine best speeds?

AerialTarget
07-18-2005, 06:19 PM
The instantaneous turns are probably overmodelled, too! Still, sustained turns count for a lot when you're on the deck (and anyone who says that that didn't happen hasn't done enough reading).

Here's a proposal. Why don't we measure the sustained turn times for several aircraft in the game, then compare them with their real life counterparts? Whichever aircraft has the most difference between its real life and in game sustained turn time is not only unrealistic in of itself (which all ships are reported to be since the patch), but also has an unrealistic advantage over the airplane with less of a discrepancy between its real life and in game sustained turn times.

I suspect that this is the case with the Me-109. Not only does it turn better than its real life counterpart, like all of the other ships in the game, but it probably turns better than its real life counterpart in comparison to other aircraft - particularly American ships!

AerialTarget
07-18-2005, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
How are we to determine proper speed at initiation of the turn? And, since all aircraft will more or less turn their best at different speeds (the A6M being the shining example of this...) How are we to accurately compare, or even determine best speeds?

That's a very interesting question. On one hand, I want to say, "The slower the speed, the tighter the turning circle." On the other hand, there is such a thing as a best turning speed! I confess that I don't understand this matter.

FritzGryphon
07-18-2005, 06:23 PM
Best turn time seems to be a few klicks above best climb and best glide. The size of the turning circle doesn't matter in this case.

Does anyone know of turn time numbers for American ships?

p1ngu666
07-18-2005, 06:26 PM
turn time is doing a turn at constant speed and height, so your compairing with the wrong data. but if your testing the planes the same, its still a fair test.

a IX or VIII should be able to outturn a K4 easily...

JG7_Rall
07-18-2005, 06:38 PM
You people never give anything a rest.

Gibbage1
07-18-2005, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
You people never give anything a rest.

Right back at you!

Stigler_9_JG52
07-18-2005, 07:22 PM
When you do these tests, do them with a few models of Sturmoviks. Then you'll see what's really optimistically modelled.

MEGILE
07-18-2005, 07:27 PM
Heh yup them Sturmoviks are pretty uber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
Point taken though, and interesting idea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
07-18-2005, 07:36 PM
This is what I will do, for comparison only since we dont know how the 19 seconds was acheaved in Oleg's info.

I will do a 360 test with a smattering of aircraft. 1000M on chimera starting at 300KPH. I will do 2 consecutive 360's and post the time for #1 and #2. That way we can see how aircraft turn compair with each other. These will be riding the edge turns, not lazy "keep the speed" turns that NOBODY does in combat turn situations. I dont know why people would even bother recording that number. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

p1ngu666
07-18-2005, 07:39 PM
il2s are pretty dire now stiglr

FritzGryphon
07-18-2005, 08:06 PM
not lazy "keep the speed" turns that NOBODY does in combat turn situations. I dont know why people would even bother recording that number.

Hm... maybe because that's how the tests were performed?

How do you intend to verify the specs vs. reality if you make up a fictitious instantaneous test?

It doesn't matter if anyone does a sustained turn in combat. It will still tell you the point where induced drag equals thrust, which applies to all turns. In other words, planes with a correct turn time have correct 'energy bleed', as many people put it.

Your decelerating 2-turn scenario would tell the same thing, but just be harder to excecute, and more difficult to control variables. You'd also have no historical data to compare it to. Plus, slow, low loaded planes would get a boost on these criteria, as they would get more speed to dump before reaching their optimum angle of attack.

Testing sustained turn times vs. historical data is a ideal way to confirm/deny an aircraft's turning ability, in general (because planes with quick sustained turns also do quick instant turns, and bleed less speed while doing so; it's all related). And using this data with turn speed, you even get the turn radius, which is also useful to know.

Which is what I will do, just to put these cries of nationalist bias to rest. Which is why I need help with the turn times for American ships.

AerialTarget
07-18-2005, 08:37 PM
For starters, use the times from the object viewer. We can always debate those later!

I'd help, since I feel that American aircraft got especially nerfed in this area, but I just mailed my joystick off to CH Products for my annual repair or replacement.

Gibbage1
07-18-2005, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:

Hm... maybe because that's how the tests were performed?

How do you intend to verify the specs vs. reality if you make up a fictitious instantaneous test?


Well if you read my post, I spacifically said the test will just compair aircraft to each other and not the specs since I dont know the standards the specs are, we cant dupicate the test.

Dont you agree?

My 2 turn test will show simply what aircraft turn better in a combat situation, taking away instantanious turn. It will also show what aircraft is loosing the most energy.

Dont you agree?

Im not trying to point fingers. You corrected me, and I stand corrected. Lets get past that part. Now lets see how aircraft in general perform against each other. There are things from that we can tell if something is wrong. For instance, if a 109 out turns the Zero, there is sometihng wrong.

Dont you agree?

Im off to test. See yall in a few hours. I will post tracks and times.

Badsight.
07-18-2005, 10:21 PM
Gibbage , that kind of test can give a base knowledge of how planes in FB-PF are performing relative to each other yes

as long as the results are not mixed up with instant or sustained turn times

ElAurens
07-18-2005, 10:24 PM
We really need to know the actual test proceedure used by the governmental agencys involved with setting the original numbers.

Would the NASA database have that?

Badsight.
07-18-2005, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
il2s are pretty dire now stiglr theres nothing wrong with that

they were capable of DFing before , successfully too , totally over-the-top


Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
You people never give anything a rest. please , people are trying to have a serious discussion here

Gibbage1
07-18-2005, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
Gibbage , that kind of test can give a base knowledge of how planes in FB-PF are performing relative to each other yes

as long as the results are not mixed up with instant or sustained turn times

Thats the plan. Again, since I dont know the exact peramiters of the test that gave the K4 the 19.9 second 360, doing any test will be worthless. I would need to know the entry speed and optimum turn speed in order to compair it. These test's are ONLY to compair aircraft TO EACH OTHER and NOT TO ANY SPACIFIC TURN CHARTS.

Jeez. How many times must I repeat myself?

gkll
07-18-2005, 10:52 PM
A good way to test sustained turn posted a long time ago, just drop down to sea level and get cranking. Try flaps and different arcs and see how you can get the nose around fastest, with a simple stop watch. Close enough, and run 50 turns... some of you guys could probably get this exact prob... anyway you'll figure out how to rate the nose. Then look how fast you are going at best sustained rate and there you go... corner velocity (sort of... instantaneous is something else again....)

Wingtip smoke helps as you play with the arcs.

FM seems quite 'inertial' now, and this has confounded the 'established rankings'of turnfighting hence all the sniping red v blue. However really we are seeing the extra inertia countering wingloading someway. Its like a spit won't float anymore...
and something nice in the stocking for those planes with slats...

post-patch spit seems to turn as good or better instantaneous as it ever did, however at low speed a little trickier. sort it out? Put specialists in their favorite planes and let them vie for the best sustained turn time... like an indy record or something

New FM inertial feel is right on, somehow the mass of the thing seems easy to sense...

faustnik
07-18-2005, 10:56 PM
New FM inertial feel is right on, somehow the mass of the thing seems easy to sense...


Every FB pilot with a lot of real flying experience seems to say that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My question with the Bf109 series is how does the Bf109 maintain stability at such low speeds compared to an adversary with much better wingloading?

FritzGryphon
07-18-2005, 11:00 PM
Jeez. How many times must I repeat myself?


You can forgive us for being confused. Initialy you claimed the 109K was overmodeled, and now you are just interested in relative performance.

Also, the test conditions are known enough to do comparisons with RL. We know 1000m, full power, and turning at best turn speed (which is near or same as best climb). The only unknown quantity is fuel load, but most planes don't have enough to make a large difference in results (except maybe for P-47 and P-51).

I look forward to seeing your results.

Hetzer_II
07-18-2005, 11:03 PM
wrong post

gkll
07-18-2005, 11:22 PM
Every FB pilot with a lot of real flying experience seems to say that.

My question with the Bf109 series is how does the Bf109 maintain stability at such low speeds compared to an adversary with much better wingloading?

Maybe its the slats. Don't know just a guess based on a pretty thorough thread not long ago.

Also the basic physics as modelled (eg aero 'cg' vs mass cg in all the complexity that 1c might go to) might make it (109)inherently pretty stable despite the wingloading.

edit < also the 109 wing was reported to be better in high AOA due to chord, thickness and shape (compared to spit wing.. seemed a pretty thorough thread lotta graphs...) >

Hard to say. One thing seems fairly certain, to get similar performance while increasing inertial forces would need more power... that is new FM has increased thrust modelled to counter extra 'mass' - so power loading advantages might work in favor even for low speed turning. Under this scenario a spit xiv stays with or beats a mkv in a sustained turn fight... because of the powerloading. And pilots reported such. Fear the xiv, if the k4 is nearly with the g2.....

ElAurens
07-18-2005, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

My question with the Bf109 series is how does the Bf109 maintain stability at such low speeds compared to an adversary with much better wingloading?

Bingo! The crux of the matter.

HayateAce
07-19-2005, 12:40 AM
Bf109 pivots around on some strange gimbal, ALMOST no matter the velocity. Behaves like it has Apollo Capsule Thrusters. This explains stability and control as it seems to float in air.

Without much speed at all, it can push over the top instead of falling back. This is not about our turning discussio you say, oh but it is affecting the turn when a/c can be handled in such strange ways.

Maybe post 4.01 patch will finally bring 109 into realism again?

Gibbage1
07-19-2005, 01:07 AM
OK!!! The test's are in! First, a few things.

#1, it looks like I will be eating humble pie a bit. Yes, the K4 is not as overmodeled as I thought. I did the test wrong compaired to the listed times in IL2's description. I was wrong. At least I am man enough to admit when I am wrong.

#2, the turn times are not as skewed as I thought! In fact, with a few exceptions, seems right on.

Here is the turn test conditions.

QMB, Crimera no AAA on clear weather starting out at 1000M. I aligned the aircraft to this small panecula, and started my turn to the RIGHT at 400KPH TAS (Measured from the wonder woman dials). I contenued that turn till I compleated two 360% turns from the same point of referance trying my best to stay around 1000M, and on the edge of a stall. I saved the track and LATER timed the result. All aircraft have default loading, and 50% fuel.

Timing method. Using a Junghas Aristo 3 dial timer. Error on the watch is tested at 30 min = 0 error. 1 hour = .1 sec error. 2 hours 1.5 sec of error. So this watch is rather accurate. Considering that the longest test is just under 1 minut, there is no measureable error.

Human error +/- .5 sec since I can nail the exact moment the same point crosses.

ALL test's were done AT LEAST 2-3 times. First test was to push the aircraft beyond the limit to find its stall. 2nd test was to ride it as close as possible without stalling. 3rd test was sometimes needed if I rode a little to close to the edge http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

First number is the time in seconds it took to get 360 degrees, second number is the KPH I was flying at when I hit that 360degree mark. Thats to measure energy bleed.

So lets see the numbers!!!

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
109E4________33.6@223KPH____57.4@192KPH
109F2________16.4@360KPH____37.6@230KPH
109K4________17.0@289KPH____35.5@250KPH

NOTE: 109E4 is a pig. Very unstable in the turn. Lots LOTS of energy. F2 was very good in a turn and stable. Best initial turn. K4 was EXTREAMLY stable in the turn. Did not dip the nose much at all. Initial turn was slightly slower then the F2, but picked up and beat F2 once the HP of the K4 took over in the turn. From the pilot accounts, the F2 should be the best turning 109 since it was lighter and had the same wings. Should the engine make such a huge differance in turn?

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
FW190A4______19.3@324KPH____41.3@316KPH
FW190A9______21.0@333KPH____43.8@326KPH

NOTE: FW-190 was no uber turner, be sure! Very unstable and constantly wanting to drop its wing. Resisted a lot to being turned. Quite remarkable energy retention!

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
P-47D10______21.4@335KPH____44.5@333KPH
P-47D27______19.6@336KPH____41.4@332KPH

Note: Higher HP did not help the 190 A4/A9, but did help the P-47D10/D27. This is odd. I think the differant between the two FW models is 400HP and the two P-47 is 200HP. The extra HP should help the FW more then the P-47 if thats what is helping the 109K4 turn tighter. But please note, P-47 turn time is about equal of the Fw-190. They both had very similar wing loading. P-47 was more stable in the turn then the FW-190. Again, VERY good energy retention.

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
P-51B________19.4@313KPH____40.8@279KPH
P-51D20NA____20.1@326KPH____42.3@293KPH

Note. P-51B and P-51D20NA have ALMOST identical engines. The P-51B is quite a bit lighter then the D20NA, and has a better turn time. The thing that is wacky, is that the P-51D is retaining a bit more energy even though it weighs more? I think the P-51B even had better aerodynamics then the D? I dont think thats right. P-51D was VERY VERY unforgiving in the turn. I had to do the test 3 times due to stalling. P-51B was slightly more forgiving, but still very tough. Energy retention was still VERY good for its weight/HP ratio compaired to the 109. But the 109 F2 and K4 still own both Mustang models in turn by quite a bit.

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
P-38J________19.4@311KPH____46.0@300KPH
P-37L Late___20.3@363KPH____40.3@358KPH

NOTE: This is off. P-38J and L Late are almost identical in weight. With MAYBE 50-100lb between the two. With the L generating an extra 250HP over the J, it should have better initial turn then the J. It dont. It does have better 2nd turn time by the added HP, and also the energy retention is ASTONISHING! This baby does NOT bleed, and has the #1 highest energy retention of all aircraft in the test. Turn stability was good, but still got sloppy. That should not happen. NO TORQUE!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
A6M2_________12.2@281KPH____26.0@245KPH
A6M7_________14.6@264KPH____30.6@258KPH

NOTE: No big suprise. The thing turns like a Zero! Only questionable thing is the A6M2's better energy retention then the M7 on the 1st turn, but M7 is better on the 2nd turn?

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
Yak1_________17.7@318KPH____36.0@313
Yak3_________15.3@312KPH____30.6@278

NOTE: Yak's turn was definitly not porked in 4.01. Its difficult to keep a Yak in a turn (May be the #1 most unstable in the test) but if you have good hands, it will turn inside almost ANYTHING. Again, we see some odd energy retention. The Yak3 had a 1300HP engine and the Yak1 a 1180HP with almost identical weight! Why is it loosing power faster? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
Spit VB______13.2@282KPH____28.0@256KPH
Spit IX______15.0@302KPH____31.0@288KPH

NOTE: Well that solves the debate on weather the K4 can out-tun an IX! I was wrong! But was I? No test was done with combat flaps. Spits dont have combat flaps. This needs more investigation and I will do that later. Odd think is, the IX turning quite a bit slower then the VB even thought the IX in IL2 has quite a bit of HP over the VB! Why does the K4 benifit from the added HP and the IX does not?

Im going to run a few more test's. I hope that you find that I have been very fair in this. This test has raised a lot of questions and I hope you guys will help me with the questions. Im not leveling accusations, but asking questions. So please treat this as such.

Also, if you want X and Y aircraft to be tested, DO IT YOURSELF!!!!!! I have things to do and it would take me days to test every freaken aircraft. I have the test method all written up so you can do it yourself.

IF YOU CAN GET BETTER TURN RESULTS, PLEASE POST THEM! I am not a pro at all of these aircraft. Someone like Faustnic would be able to ride a FW-190's stall closer then me. But if you make a claim, please back it up with a track. I will post all my tracks later on.

Gib

EDIT
Something very odd is happening with the K4. It turns WORSE WITH combat flaps!

109K4 with Combat flaps. First turn, 19.4@317 2nd turn 39.7@281! Not only am I getting WORSE turning, but its retaining mo energy!!! I did this test TWICE and got the same results. I also re-tested my 109K4 time without flaps and got the same results.

For fun, I did 109K4 with combat flaps and Elivator trim ("trim cheat"). Turn #1, 17.7@282 Turn #2, 37.1@260. As you can see, trim helped, but its still not turning at the same pace as the K4 WITHOUT combat flaps!

WTF is going on? If your a 109 pilot, please do this test and check it out. Something very nasty may be happening to your ride!

Gibbage1
07-19-2005, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Bf109 pivots around on some strange gimbal, ALMOST no matter the velocity. Behaves like it has Apollo Capsule Thrusters. This explains stability and control as it seems to float in air.

Without much speed at all, it can push over the top instead of falling back. This is not about our turning discussio you say, oh but it is affecting the turn when a/c can be handled in such strange ways.

Maybe post 4.01 patch will finally bring 109 into realism again?

I have noticed that. I think its all about its ability to "hang on its prop". For years, people have called the 109 a helicopter with wings due to its ability to almost huver at the apex of a loop. That seems to also be helping it quite a bit in turns.

Jaws2002
07-19-2005, 01:54 AM
Nice work. Thanks.
About Spitfire and flaps: nothing stops you to put them on a slider in PF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif The flaps are one of the things in this game that got very little attention. You can drop combat flaps in all aircraft at very high speed. We all know not many aircraft were able to drop combat flaps at high speed in ww2. So I think flaps are not important, any plane that has flaps can have combat flaps and you can set them at any angle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Thanks for your time testing.

Kwiatos
07-19-2005, 03:27 AM
What else turn rate depends from? Stall speed some planes expecially Bs109 are wrong. Plane which have lower stall speed could turn better (small turn radius).

I testes in 4.01 stall speed of some planes and i must say that some planes are very good moddeled in stall speed (small margines of error) but there are planes which have big diffrence.


I made short test:
Default load:100% fuel, ammo, clean configuration, power 0%.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/1001015133/p/7

Spitfire MK VB - 130 km - too high stall speed comp. to RL (73mph=118 km/h)!!!
Spitfire MK IXC - 140 km/h - correct

Bf 109 F-4 - 140km/h - correct-------------------------------wing loading 158 kg/m2
G-2 - 130/140 km/h !!!!!!!!!????????--------------------------------------------179kg/m2
G-6 - 140 km/h !!!!!!!!!!!!???????????------------------------------------------182 kg/m2
G-10 - 140 km/h!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????------------------------------------------190 kg/m2
K-4 - 140 km/h!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????----------------------------------------209 kg/m2

LA5 - 150 km/h???
La5fn - 160 km/h
LA7 - 140 km/h ?????

P-51B - 160km/h
P-51D - 170 km/h
P-47D - 170/180km/h

Fw190 A-4 - 170km/h
A-8 - 180 km/h
D-9 -180/190 km/h


Some more about stall speed planes in RL and PF.


--------------------------PF 4.01---------------------RL

Fw 190 A-4-----------170 km/h-------177 km/h---7 km diffrence

Bf 109 G-2-----------130 km/h-------155 km/h---25 km to low stall speed !!!!!!!

La5---------------------150 km/h---------????????

Spitfire MKV---------130 km/h--------118 km/h---12 km to high

Spitfire MK IX-------140 km/h--------144 km/h---4 km


From tested planes the bigger error have Bf 109 familly. Only Bf 109 E and 109 F have correct stall speed. From Bf 109 G2 all later modells are incorrect and have error in stall speed which give them big adventage.
As i found Bf 109 G-2 in RL have 155 km/h stall speed-power off in clear configuration. In game it is ab. 130 km/h which is much to low. Bf 109 G-2 have slowier stall speed then Bf 109 F-4!!!!! Bf 109 F-4 have lower wingloading (158 kg/m2) then Bf 109 G-2 (179 kg/m2) and with the same wing area G-2 should have higher stall speed. The same with later models bf 109. Every next model of Bf should have higher stall speed. In game all later models have too low and the same stall speed - 140 km/h which is wrong.
Dont know about La series but LA5 to LA7 have very similar wingloading and probalby should have similar stall speed. La5 have 150 km/h stall speed, La5FN 160 km/h and LA7 140 km/h. I dont have completed english manual of these planes (only russian version) but 140 km/h for LA7 seemed to be too low. If we look at wingloadinf of La series - ab. 185 kg/m2 - stall speed proabably shoud be ab. 160 km/h.
If we comparing these to other planes which have correct stall speed in game ( or with small margines of error) much lower stall speed give for error planes big adventage which is incorrect.

For sure the big error is in stall speed of Bf 109 moddels from G-2 to K-4!!!!

Abbuzze
07-19-2005, 03:39 AM
Real nice test Gibbage! And a "S!" to your #1

The results looks good and realistic for a simulation.
You asked for the influance of HP for turning, I can´t give you a good answer, but an interesting plane should be the G50, very low wingload but also bad power/weight relation.


For the small difference between the spits. I think it´s a result of the weightincrease so both version have a similar powerloading. Aditional HP just help in turns if the weight is untouched, or at least the weightpenalty is not that big. Good example is tha La5F and FN, from a good fighter to an extraordanary cause the weight was the same, but the engine was much stronger.


Just a few adds for those which wonder about the first test.
Why do 109 turn "faster" if you go into a 360 degree turn with 400km/h?
Energybleed, it slows down faster than the E-saving Spit, so it reaches cornerspeed faster and made this first turn easier...
So try a 109 in such test with MW50 and 110% and a Spit with zero throttle in the same test. This should reduce the "disatvantage" of energysaving of the Spitfire.

F19_Ob
07-19-2005, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
When you do these tests, do them with a few models of Sturmoviks. Then you'll see what's really optimistically modelled.

What do U get for results then?

Gibbage1
07-19-2005, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:


For the small difference between the spits. I think it´s a result of the weightincrease so both version have a similar powerloading. Aditional HP just help in turns if the weight is untouched, or at least the weightpenalty is not that big.

K4 is some 2000lb more then the F2, yet it will out turn it. P-38L Late is the same weight as the J, but it wont out turn it initially. So from that I can only guess that the engine helps only some aircraft turn. Again, FW-190 A9 has a lot more HP then the A4 but it wont help it turn, but the HP of the P-47 does?

Its a mixed bag of results. The 109K4 performing poorly with combat flaps is a mystery. Seems like a big bug, but I am amazed the Lufties are not crying fowl about it?

Hristo_
07-19-2005, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:


Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
P-38J________19.4@311KPH____46.0@300KPH
P-37L Late___20.3@363KPH____40.3@358KPH

NOTE: This is off. P-38J and L Late are almost identical in weight. With MAYBE 50-100lb between the two. With the L generating an extra 250HP over the J, it should have better initial turn then the J. It dont. It does have better 2nd turn time by the added HP, and also the energy retention is ASTONISHING! This baby does NOT bleed, and has the #1 highest energy retention of all aircraft in the test. Turn stability was good, but still got sloppy. That should not happen. NO TORQUE!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



What do you think gives the "ASTONISHING" energy retention to the P-38L late over P-38J ? Shouldn't it be even draggier, given airbrake and all ?

Tvrdi
07-19-2005, 04:29 AM
Gib....lots of things should be fixed in this sim...for red and blue....its simply too many planes and BoB is closer and closer...btw, it would be nice for you ppl one-side flyers to gather your courage and to try one of the planes "from the other side"...you payed for the whole game..and heck, surprise for you, ull get more fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kwiatos
07-19-2005, 04:44 AM
Gibbage could you check STALL SPEED Power off for planes too. Expecially for late bf109 from G-2 to K-4 moddel. I think that it is important bug in FM which need to be fixed.

The same non exist accelerated stall in planes with slots ( Migs3, LAseries, LAgg3 serries, Bf109 series).

These 2 thing are very imoprtant and should be fixed.

OldMan____
07-19-2005, 04:45 AM
Gibagge. Do not compare FW190A4 with FW190A9 and expect to have direct engine effect on turn. FW190A4 was also SHORTER than other FW´s. Its weight balance was different. If you test FW190A5 vs FW190A9 would be better.


About turning and wingloading.

Total wing area means Nothing if you forget the wing profile and aspect ratio! An wing with 10 units of area and an aspect ratio of 7 will have more lift than a wing with 9 units of area but an aspect ratio of 5 for example. That given a same wing profile for both.

The big "fat" (when looking from above) wings do not help on lift. These help only on high AOA. Bf109 solved this problem with another approach... slats. Also the high aspect ratio wings of bf109 and FW190 have much lower drag than a P47 or Spitfire wing.

So just looking at wing loading data only, is worthless unless we pay attention in the other information about these wings.

Gibbage1
07-19-2005, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:

What do you think gives the "ASTONISHING" energy retention to the P-38L late over P-38J ? Shouldn't it be even draggier, given airbrake and all ?

You really dont know much about the P-38, do you? The air brake is almost flush with the underside of the wing when retracted. Very very little drag. Good try, but you still suck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here is a photo showing your "draggy" dive flap.

http://p-38online.com/images/p38s5.jpg

Its there. You can see the outlines, but its very flush to the wings. Prove me wrong.

Hristo_
07-19-2005, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:

What do you think gives the "ASTONISHING" energy retention to the P-38L late over P-38J ? Shouldn't it be even draggier, given airbrake and all ?

You really dont know much about the P-38, do you? The air brake is almost flush with the underside of the wing when retracted. Very very little drag. Good try, but you still suck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here is a photo showing your "draggy" dive flap.

http://p-38online.com/images/p38s5.jpg

Its there. You can see the outlines, but its very flush to the wings. Prove me wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stop with insults, please, and tell me where is the base for "ASTONISHING" energy retention difference between the two planes. Thanks.

The plane on the photo shows quite a number of lumps, bumps, intakes and vents. I'd be very careful before calling it aerodynamically clean. If such a monstrosity has best energy retention, something is definitely wrong.

Two propellers, but one fuselage + two booms along with mentioned lumps and bumps should not be cleaner than one propeller + one fuselage.

Gibbage1
07-19-2005, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:

So just looking at wing loading data only, is worthless unless we pay attention in the other information about these wings.

Im not looking at wing loading data. Wing shape has nothing to do with it if its the same wing. When compairing the early 109's (F2 and up) to the late 109's, they have the same wing, but drastically differant wing loading. P-38 J and L Late is the only aircraft I put up that did not have weight changes AND HP changes. But even with the additional HP, and no extra weight, it was still slower then the lesser HP P-38 in the initial turn.

None of the aircraft fit any sort of common sense pattern. Im not targeting anything spacific. If I was trying to bash 109 or 190's, I would not of shown the results of the combat flap bug on the 109K4. I would of kept my mouth shut if I was biest against the 109. I hate the 109, but I am not going to lie to prove a non-existant point.

But the big question is, how does the 109K4 get such a HUGE turn advantage over the lighter 109's? Can the engine in REAL LIFE pull an aircraft around and make up for such a large weight differance on the same wings?

Gibbage1
07-19-2005, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:

Stop with insults, please, and tell me where is the base for "ASTONISHING" energy retention difference between the two planes. Thanks.



I dont even know why I bother to reply. Your such a huge troll. #1, I am not justifying the energy retention. #2, we were not talking about it. We were talking about initial turn. You said that maybe its because of the "draggy" dive flaps. I said no and showed you proof.




The plane on the photo shows quite a number of lumps, bumps, intakes and vents. I'd be very careful before calling it aerodynamically clean. If such a monstrosity has best energy retention, something is definitely wrong.



Again, your trolling. Big time. #1, we were SPACIFICALLY talking about the dive flaps. Not all the little bumbs and blisters. If you wanna talk about draggy bumps and blisters, look at the 109G10-14 series. Lol. Even the pilots complained about all the bombs. On the P-38 L only had the flush dive flaps and 4 fuel pumb bumps. All of witch were clean and very minimal. Prove me wrong.




Two propellers, but one fuselage + two booms along with mentioned lumps and bumps should not be cleaner than one propeller + one fuselage.

Was I compairing the Co of the P-38 to single engine aircraft? Nope! Quote me. I dare you to find in this thread were I said the P-38 was more aerodynamic then single engine aircraft. You cant! Pure and simple. Your trolling again. Im trying to perform honest test's here, and your doing NOTHING BUT TROLLING. Unless you have something helpful to add to these test's, please leave. Im tired of trolls like you.

Hristo_
07-19-2005, 05:41 AM
http://img306.imageshack.us/img306/6163/drag0xk.jpg

Abbuzze
07-19-2005, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:


K4 is some 2000lb more then the F2, yet it will out turn it. P-38L Late is the same weight as the J, but it wont out turn it initially. So from that I can only guess that the engine helps only some aircraft turn. Again, FW-190 A9 has a lot more HP then the A4 but it wont help it turn, but the HP of the P-47 does?

Its a mixed bag of results. The 109K4 performing poorly with combat flaps is a mystery. Seems like a big bug, but I am amazed the Lufties are not crying fowl about it?

Maybe the answer for the missing crying is simple... K4 is a plane that is mostly flown by newbies, cause: strongest planes > fastest plane > best plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Most of the more experianced pilots take a G10, which is also more realistic, it was more used, it´s also my first choice.
On the other side, the K4 should fly very similar to a G10, nearly the same weight, but better aerodynamic (which is responsable for the small weight increase). I have no Idea why there should be a real difference between them!

For the non helping extra HP, you are right thats odd for some planes, for the Spitfire it seems ok (in my eyes) depending to the engine its 15% more power and nearly the same percentage weightpenalty.


Edit: just notice a thing you tested the F2, this planes is hmm, underpowered, it´s surly one of the worse turning 109´s in FB/PF it suffers from the old emil engine, usually a FB F4 flies circles around a F2! So it´s nearly the same problem like the Fiat G50 "low" wingload, but the powerload! Maybe a K4 will outturn a F2 but I will real doubt that F4 will be beaten by a Kurfürst.

For the K4/F4, without juding anything.
The 2000lbs are a bit high, usual TO-Weight for the F4(1350HP) was 2750kg/6062lbs for the K4 3350kg/7385lbs. So the weightincrease was 22% while with 1850hp for the K4 this means 37% more power and with a 2000HP - 48% more HP.
But how to judge this correct - difficult.

BBB_Hyperion
07-19-2005, 05:44 AM
A picture more than thousand words.

Hristo_ gained a level ?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

ClnlSandersLite
07-19-2005, 06:11 AM
Gibbage, just ignore the troll, he obviously has no clue what's going on.

Besides, how can anyone take seriously someone who says:


Originally posted by Hristo_:

this game is finally authentic

Stats on historical servers actually resemble historical record.
Especially knowing that anything you see on a DF server in any game is about as close to realistic air warfare as a apple is to a camel (oranges are at least fruit)...

LOL!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I really wish there was a way to filter/ignore certain people on these boards...

Kernow
07-19-2005, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Tvrdi:
...btw, it would be nice for you ppl one-side flyers to gather your courage and to try one of the planes "from the other side"...you payed for the whole game..and heck, surprise for you, ull get more fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What a novel concept: flying all the aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You used to be able to find best sustained turn speed from IL2C, but that was only good to v3.04. Not sure how much 4.01 has changed things. Sometimes knowing this can be vital.

At most speeds the 109G-2 can outturn the LaGG-3/29, but at the LaGG's best turn speed it just turns faster than the 109. What's more, at this speed the LaGG turns faster than the 109 can turn at any speed. The advantage is (was) not enough to get you out of trouble if a 109 was on your tail, but in an even turn where you start on opposite sides of the circle, the LaGG could beat the 109 IF you kept to 300 kph IAS. Succumb to the temptation to pull harder and you slow down and lose turn rate and the 109 wins. I think the 109s must have expected to win a turn fight against a LaGG-3, because they always entered into one when I was in the LaGG (they would win a slow fight, especially if they used their flaps). By the time they realized they were losing and bugged out I was always able to catch up and damage or destroy them. Exactly that happened 3-4 times when I used to regularly fly in Virtualpiolts_1. I don't recall seeing any LaGGs when I flew the 109.

Point on combat flap: above a certain speed they will hinder, not help, you. Again, IL2C showed this perfectly. Any chance of an updated version, Youss?

Covino
07-19-2005, 07:31 AM
From my understanding, a sustained turn is the turn time after all excess speed has bled off (this may take many 360's) and that the constant speed (and altitude!) is held throughout the whole turn. I would think the most standard conditions are 100% fuel, default ammo, no WEP, Crimea, and on the deck.

The tests Gibbage did (turning all planes with the same starting speed) is invalid until the planes speed settle into their own constant turn speed. For some planes, 400kmh may be their "constant" turn speed right off the bat, however with other planes, 400kmh may be much faster than their "constant" turn speed and may give them much faster turn times than historically recorded (as long as the extra speed doesn't cause compression).

zimbower1
07-19-2005, 07:47 AM
Why make these kind of tests when there are no energy fighting only a momentum energy in 4.01.
So why even care, performing tests from 4.01 its just waste of time..
No offence.

Pirschjaeger
07-19-2005, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:


For the small difference between the spits. I think it´s a result of the weightincrease so both version have a similar powerloading. Aditional HP just help in turns if the weight is untouched, or at least the weightpenalty is not that big.

K4 is some 2000lb more then the F2, yet it will out turn it. P-38L Late is the same weight as the J, but it wont out turn it initially. So from that I can only guess that the engine helps only some aircraft turn. Again, FW-190 A9 has a lot more HP then the A4 but it wont help it turn, but the HP of the P-47 does?

Its a mixed bag of results. The 109K4 performing poorly with combat flaps is a mystery. Seems like a big bug, but I am amazed the Lufties are not crying fowl about it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's simple Gib, everyone knows you now. You are second only to Hayate Ace. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif You whine more about "luftwhiners" than "luftwhiners" whine about anything. Besides, your not such a good fisherman. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif I think the "luftwhiners" fly more than they post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

p1ngu666
07-19-2005, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
http://img306.imageshack.us/img306/6163/drag0xk.jpg

well, the J p38 had all those lumps and bumps?

also the stability of a aircraft is effected by keel area, or side area.
if u look at the il2's which are unstable, u will see they are lacking side area. im dubuious they where that bad irl as the fix is chonicaly easy, add side area, extra rudder area and or add some strakes of fins. thats what they did on the p51 and p47, u can see a little finlet on the rudder.
the hurri and tempest have a little keel on the bottom aswell, to help stability and spin recoverly.

imo the slats on the wings would unsettle the amount of lift produced while in transition, a negative atribute but once u where out, ud be better...

i cant see why a k4 is really stable compaired to say a spitfire, similier side area...

p1ngu666
07-19-2005, 07:55 AM
oh, the p38 shouldnt need asmuch side area because its 2 engines cancel each other out, so u they wont make it skid and slide as much as a single engined or twin with props going same way.

faustnik
07-19-2005, 10:15 AM
Thanks for those test Gibbage, nice work! It looks like the turn times might not be that off but, the actual turn times don't surprise me. Again, it is the low speed stability in a turn with the Bf109s that I don't understand. ??????????

As for the poor turn of the Fw190As, I'm very happy with that. I can't find and reference to the Fw190 being a good turning aircraft. Certainly the simple measures of wing and lift loading would indicate that it should be ranked "worst" in sustained turn performance.

AerialTarget
07-19-2005, 01:29 PM
Ew... Did that picture come from your extensive private collection, Hristo?

Kurfurst__
07-19-2005, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Im not looking at wing loading data. Wing shape has nothing to do with it if its the same wing. When compairing the early 109's (F2 and up) to the late 109's, they have the same wing, but drastically differant wing loading.

It`s not drastically 'differant'. Just 23 percent. And the power increase...

109 F-2 : 2728 kg, 1175 HP
109 K-4 : 3362 kg (+23%), 1800-2000 HP (+55-70%)




But the big question is, how does the 109K4 get such a HUGE turn advantage over the lighter 109's? Can the engine in REAL LIFE pull an aircraft around and make up for such a large weight differance on the same wings?

Wingloading will determine stall speed... but if you have enough power to counter deceleration, you will reach the stall speed much more slowly. And you HAVE a LOT more power in the K-4.

faustnik
07-19-2005, 03:17 PM
Kurfurst,

What would give the Bf109 an advantage in low speed stability over, say, the P-40 or Spit Vb? What I mean is, the ability to continue turning at a lower speed than its oponent.

???

Kurfurst__
07-19-2005, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Kurfurst,

What would give the Bf109 an advantage in low speed stability over, say, the P-40 or Spit Vb? What I mean is, the ability to continue turning at a lower speed than its oponent.

???

I don`t quite get what 'stability' is... but I guess it`s coming from the very benign stall characteristics/behaviour of the 109s.. it`s more of an airfoil question (plus slats help a lot at high AoA) than wingloading.

It`s probably already stalling and loosing altitude, just it doesn`t do it so violently. Almost every account I have read is about how 'stupid-proof' the 109 was in stalls. Ie. Hanna`s :

"The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. "

So what I can think of :

a, airfoil
b, slats
c, high stick stability, ie. higher stickforces on the elevator, making overapplication of the elevator less likely

I ahve no idea for the P-40 stall characteristics, one similiarity it has with the 109 is high stickforces. The Spit is the opposite, VERY light and sensitive elevator, so I think the problem some may experince with it is not being able to treat the elevator gently enough... on the 109, you can yank it like mad, she loves it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Neither aircraft have slats, so they should stall at lower angles of attack than the 109s/Las, so one should stay within those margins and just keepin an optimum turn.

faustnik
07-19-2005, 03:45 PM
Thanks, that is exactly what I was asking. So, the slats basically give the Bf109 a lower stall speed?

Kurfurst__
07-19-2005, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Thanks, that is exactly what I was asking. So, the slats basically give the Bf109 a lower stall speed?

Not quite... slats allow for higher angles of attack on the wing.

Basically it`s like this.. lift coefficient increases with angle of attack. However there is a critical angle of attack for each wing where the wing will stall - the airflow seperates from the surface, becomes turbulent and lift coeffiecient rapidly drops. The slat only allows for higher critical angle, and thus higher maximum lift coefficent.

In turns, this means that in gentle turns, a slatted and normal wing may very easily provide the same lift, no difference. But in HARD turns, a normal wing may stall out earlier, regardless of wingloading, because the flow seperates as it exceeds it`s critical AoA; the wing with slat have a higher critical AoA where it will stall out. Ie. You can push that latter wing more severly into the extremes.

With slats, you can achieve the same lift and turn with smaller wings; it reduced drag normally. The downside, that you have to achieve that by flying at higher AoA at turns, and that means higher drag as well... you need a more powerful engine to make up for that, good power to weight ratio... see how Prof. Willy was thinking ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1113390159_th17g2.jpg

JG7_Rall
07-19-2005, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
You people never give anything a rest.

Right back at you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And where in this thread or anywhere for that matter have I incessantly claimed that one particular airplane is overmodelled?


I'll be waiting for your reply.


Oh, and by the way, before you go searching the forums for such threads because you have nothing better to do, be sure to enable your "sense of humor" option so you can tell when I'm joking and when I'm seriously complaining in the same manner as you. Good luck!

HayateAce
07-19-2005, 04:13 PM
Oleg's BogusFantasy is what allows this fake handling.

C'mon gang, it's VERY well known now that current Bs109 is the same klownwagon as original Hurri and Spit.

No skill required. Real aces fly 190.

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

Introducing the new "Fuller Cut" Luftwaffle Flight suit:

http://www.partypants.fsnet.co.uk/male/fd-clown.jpg

faustnik
07-19-2005, 04:17 PM
Interesting Kurfurst, thank you. The maneuvers that suprised me in 4.01 were high AoA turns.

Kurfurst__
07-19-2005, 04:20 PM
Your welcome. I hope I can get this stuff on the 109 into one site on the 109K one day...

bolillo_loco
07-19-2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
http://img306.imageshack.us/img306/6163/drag0xk.jpg

well, the J p38 had all those lumps and bumps?

also the stability of a aircraft is effected by keel area, or side area.
if u look at the il2's which are unstable, u will see they are lacking side area. im dubuious they where that bad irl as the fix is chonicaly easy, add side area, extra rudder area and or add some strakes of fins. thats what they did on the p51 and p47, u can see a little finlet on the rudder.
the hurri and tempest have a little keel on the bottom aswell, to help stability and spin recoverly.

imo the slats on the wings would unsettle the amount of lift produced while in transition, a negative atribute but once u where out, ud be better...

i cant see why a k4 is really stable compaired to say a spitfire, similier side area... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

whats interesting is how the cooling "lumps and bumps" while bigger with the J and L model actually had less drag than the H and earlier versions.


BTW gibbage you didnt test with manual prop pitch and trim on a slider which means the german a/c are much better than what your results show.


I think its time oleg too away this unrealistic boost from german a/c.

in the bf 109 at 103% throttle you can rev the prop to 3,500 rpm and get a rediculous performance increase, and for those of you who do not know how to use prop pitch or for those luftwaffe loving people dont try and imply that I am saying you can run 3,500 rpm for ever, you cycle it so that the engine sounds like a 2 cycle chain saw, rmmmmmmmmmm errrrrrrrrrrrr rmmmmmmmmm errrrrrrrrr you must let it rev up then drop prop pitch so the prop rpm drops back down to 2,700 rpm repeat cycle.

Oleg please drop the stupid prop pitch exploit that german a/c have in this game.

faustnik
07-19-2005, 04:25 PM
Oleg please drop the stupid prop pitch exploit that german a/c have in this game.

Yes, please eliminate any exploits and raise Fw190A performance levels on "auto" settings to historical levels.

Thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Aaron_GT
07-19-2005, 04:30 PM
in the bf 109 at 103% throttle you can rev the prop to 3,500 rpm and get a rediculous performance increase, and for those of you who do not know how to use prop pitch or for those luftwaffe loving people dont try and imply that I am saying you can run 3,500 rpm for ever, you cycle it so that the engine sounds like a 2 cycle chain saw, rmmmmmmmmmm errrrrrrrrrrrr rmmmmmmmmm errrrrrrrrr you must let it rev up then drop prop pitch so the prop rpm drops back down to 2,700 rpm repeat cycle.

Now being able to rev up to 3500 is correct, being able to do it backwards and forwards without damage indicates that the modelling may be too simplisitic and needs to be changed. The thing, then, to do is to submit a bug report to Oleg. The thing to do is not to use this as a tool to win arguments over some other plane. I can't say it's anything I've tried myself in a 109 as I fly red 95% of the time, and whenever I disengage auto prop pitch in a 109 or 190 I seem to lose the engine in a grinding sound within 30 seconds.

If there is a bug in plane A, report it.

If there is a bug in plane B, report it.

These are indepdendent things, and not to be linked.

If people suggest that the bug in plane A is not a bug, then provide the evidence to them and/or Oleg. Ditto with plane B.

Then we could get on with working out what the gaps in the modelling and bugs are, argue without flaming, refine our arguments via constructive criticism to a level which Oleg will accept, send it off, get the bugs fixed, and move onto the next.

Fehler
07-19-2005, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oleg please drop the stupid prop pitch exploit that german a/c have in this game.

Yes, please eliminate any exploits and raise Fw190A performance levels on "auto" settings to historical levels.

Thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I would LOVE a working Kommandoger¤t!!!

I would also love to see all the necessary things an allied plane had to do prior to going into a high speed dive.

Realism, baby.. plays both ways, ci??

BTW: I have not flown the 109 in at least a year. I stopped flying it when my virtual pilot became a woman and couldnt make the elevator work in dives any longer.

I know the switching pitch exploit once existed, but does it still exist? I thought Oleg fixed this a while back when it was noted that a few guys were using it during that international competition in China that Oleg went to watch...

Does it actually still exist? Do I need to go test it for myself? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Bf109 is a baby plane.. real men fly radials. (I know my sig is not a radial.. it's a JV44 plane, but I prefer the Antons)

Kwiatos
07-19-2005, 05:39 PM
STILL LATERS BF 109 FROM G-2 TO K-4 ARE OVERMODELLED IN STALL SPEED WHICH IS TOO LOW AND THE SAME FOR ALL THESE BF'S - G-2 HAVE 130 KM/H - REST HAVE 140 KM/H. THESE CAUSE THAT THESE BF'S CAN DO MANOUVERS AT VERY LOW SPEED WHICH SHOUDLN'T BE POSSIBLE WITH CORRECT STALL SPEED.

Gibbage1
07-19-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
It's simple Gib, everyone knows you now. You are second only to Hayate Ace. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif You whine more about "luftwhiners" than "luftwhiners" whine about anything. Besides, your not such a good fisherman. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif I think the "luftwhiners" fly more than they post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Aagin, why would I even post that combat flaps hinder the 109K4's turn? Seems like a rather big bug. I dont know why 109 pilots are not all over this one.

Gibbage1
07-19-2005, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
STILL LATERS BF 109 FROM G-2 TO K-4 ARE OVERMODELLED IN STALL SPEED WHICH IS TOO LOW AND THE SAME FOR ALL THESE BF'S - G-2 HAVE 130 KM/H - REST HAVE 140 KM/H. THESE CAUSE THAT THESE BF'S CAN DO MANOUVERS AT VERY LOW SPEED WHICH SHOUDLN'T BE POSSIBLE WITH CORRECT STALL SPEED.

Whats your sources on the 109's stall speeds? Also, what conditions were the stall speeds tested in? Clean? Weight? Power on/off? You may have something, but you need to weed out the variables as best you can.

Abbuzze
07-19-2005, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
STILL LATERS BF 109 FROM G-2 TO K-4 ARE OVERMODELLED IN STALL SPEED WHICH IS TOO LOW AND THE SAME FOR ALL THESE BF'S - G-2 HAVE 130 KM/H - REST HAVE 140 KM/H. THESE CAUSE THAT THESE BF'S CAN DO MANOUVERS AT VERY LOW SPEED WHICH SHOUDLN'T BE POSSIBLE WITH CORRECT STALL SPEED.

This is wrong!!!

If I remember correct it was done some time ago, maybe with an older patch.

First definition of stall, stall don´t mean that a plane go into a spin Stall beginns much earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall


In most light aircraft, as the stall is reached the aircraft will start to descend (because the wing is no longer producing enough lift to support the aeroplane's weight) and the nose will pitch down. Recovery from this stalled state usually involves the pilot decreasing the angle of attack and increasing the air speed, until smooth air flow over the wing is resumed. Normal flight can be resumed once recovery from the stall is complete. The maneuver is normally quite safe and if correctly handled leads to only a small loss in altitude. It is taught and practiced in order to help pilots recognize, avoid, and recover from stalling the airplane.


So please show me a late 109 flying till 140km/h stable without loss of alt.
I did just test it with a G10 5 min ago - with 100 and 25%. With 100% fuel stallspeed was around 160km/h and with 25% fuel aprox 150km/h


Its easy to test crimea map, no wind, go down to 10m, go to zero throttle and note the speed when you are not able to hold this 10m, or easier go to 5m an level and took the speed when you ditch.

p1ngu666
07-19-2005, 06:33 PM
they stall at pretty much the same speed despite weight increase, is rather odd. there should be some seporation.

kurfy's correct on teh slats, but im not sure if thats the stability oddness reason.

if u fly a spitfire, the plane seems to move about on its own, like its unstable, but its in a bucket of gooy stuff, kinda move like someones whos got jelly for bones.

109 seems to have less torqure than i expected, heck i nailed the throttle, and purposly fishtailed down the runway on my first takeoff with it in 4.01 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

think oleg may have gone with the number of propeller blades on torque in some areas, but its weight and size aswell...
(germans mostly had 3 bladed, but bigger blades, while allies went with 4 smaller blades (mostly)

Kurfurst__
07-19-2005, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Aagin, why would I even post that combat flaps hinder the 109K4's turn? Seems like a rather big bug. I dont know why 109 pilots are not all over this one.

Flaps would increase the lift of the aircraft, but also the drag, so I`d imagine using flaps is good for a momentary boost of turn rate, but may work against you on the long term. Somebody more aerodynamically educated could tell that perhaps, but I tend to think that the 109K, using brute force for turns rather than it`s wingloading, cannot profit from the combat flaps.

Besides, there`s a much greater problem with Bf 109s, and that`s namely the modelling of there radiators. It`s totally scrd up. In real life, varying the 109 radiators betweem fully closed and almost half meter open would give a very wide performance profile from extreme cooling capacity and high drag (given their size).

Ie. climb rates vary very little by opening the radiators. And overheating time is only minimally effected by them.. I own German flight tests with radiator opening vs. coolant temperature, these show that opening the rads to what would be rad6 in the game keeps them at constant 85 degrees all the time at 100% power... never works in the game. The drag is about right for speed, and totally wrong for climb.

Moreover, 109s speeds are historically given with slightly open radiators, about rad2 ingame... but in the sim, max level speeds are impossible to be reached at that rating... and at closed rads, it rapidly overheats.

In brief you can`t play even half as much to balance between speed/climb and coolant rate. The aircraft rapidly overheats no matter what (wrong), and performance is little effected by the radiators opening (wrong).

Kurfurst__
07-19-2005, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
they stall at pretty much the same speed despite weight increase, is rather odd. there should be some seporation.

Hmmmm... power on and power off stalls are rather different. When the engine is working at full output, it pumps a lot of air over the wings, and they have a lower stall speed than with the engine being off.

Basically... while the power off stall speeds of a say, 109F and 109K are more or less proportinal to their wingloading, the power on stall speeds also effected by powerloading... and there the huge powers of the 109K may compensate for the extra weigth by pushing more air over the wings at full 2000HP vs 1175HP... plus the 109K has much wider prop blades, they were designed to grab lots of thin air of high altitude.

p1ngu666
07-19-2005, 06:55 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 p1ngu666:
they stall at pretty much the same speed despite weight increase, is rather odd. there should be some seporation.

Hmmmm... power on and power off stalls are rather different. When the engine is working at full output, it pumps a lot of air over the wings, and they have a lower stall speed than with the engine being off.

Basically... while the power off stall speeds of a say, 109F and 109K are more or less proportinal to their wingloading, the power on stall speeds also effected by powerloading... and there the huge powers of the 109K may compensate for the extra weigth by pushing more air over the wings at full 2000HP vs 1175HP... plus the 109K has much wider prop blades, they were designed to grab lots of thin air of high altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i havent redone my tests since 3.x, but the f4 was worse in stall than k4, about same speed but f4 was noticeably more snappy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

power on, the thrust would help bigtime for sure... apart from the torque http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FritzGryphon
07-19-2005, 07:27 PM
Testing the 109F stall in 4.01, I cannot keep it flying at 130IAS. Not even close.

It starts dropping no later than 140 (with full stick deflection of course). The aircraft does not snap or spin, it simply deep stalls. If you hold he nose up, you will end up descending at about a 30 degree angle, speed pegged at 130.

In fact, a number of planes I have tried, can be deep-stalled with full stick deflection, so long as the ball is centered. Looks really goofy. One would expect a wing drop.

Tachyon1000
07-19-2005, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Can you leave this sh1t in ORR where people actually care?

Can this fool get banned? No excuse for such commentary. Adds nothing here and uses foul language which I believe is against board policy.

Gibbage1
07-19-2005, 07:45 PM
Kurf. Here is what I am trying to point out as wrong.

109K4________17.0@289KPH____35.5@250KPH
109K4 CF_____19.4@317KPH____39.7@281KPH

You said that combat flaps increased drag, but raises lift. Thats true. Thats the idea behind combat flaps. But note, that combat flaps did the opisit. It decreased lift and descreased drag! The 109K4 not only turns slower, but retained more energy. Plus, it was more stable so I was able to pull more on the stick.

This is so far and away from logic its mind boggling. How is it that combat flaps are killing turn rate and boosting energy retention? I did the test twice and got the same result. There is something wrong. Combat flaps should help turn and kill energy. Dont you agree?

FritzGryphon
07-19-2005, 07:53 PM
The 109K4 not only turns slower, but retained more energy

You also saw this with the Yaks, is perfectly normal.

If you complete the turn in more time, that means your average turn rate was lower. This means your AoA was lower, this means your lift was lower, and your induced drag was less.

Doing a rapid all-out turn has a high drag penalty, and will have to ending up with less speed (test 1). Doing a more gradual turn, though it takes more time to complete, will leave you with more speed at the end (test two).

If you took your time doing these turns, with a low enough rate, you might even end up with more speed than when you started. Not mind boggling. More turn rate=more AoA=more drag=less ending velocity, and vice versa.

I'd imagine you could do the same test over and over, and get wildly different time and speed results for each, depending on how much AoA you happened to use in each case, and when (since you're slowing down, it'd be constantly changing). Any effect the flaps may have had on drag is insignificant in comparison, and immeasurable in this case.

If you were to control all variables but one, you could draw a conclusion. Say, control time, and see how ending speed responds with flaps compared to no flaps. Letting end speed and time fluctuate at will makes the test pointless, since a decrease in one variable causes a corresponding decrease in the other, and therefore no comparison can be drawn between trials.

Pirschjaeger
07-19-2005, 08:05 PM
Gibbage, just an idea, I don't take test specs too seriously. I mean the real ones. My reasons is quite simple.

1) the quality of the test pilots; like planes, not all pilots are equal. Imagine a combat pilot, having flown a G2 for 3 years in combat, would run circles around a test pilot with only months or even weeks of experience testing the same plane.

2) how much flight-time did the test pilot have on the tested Aircraft; there's only so much time to test a plane before you lose the market

3) who was sponsoring the tests; there's financial gain, politics, and propaganda to consider. Has anyone ever compared, let's say, the purchaser's test results, the manufacturer's test results, and the enemy's test results on a same model? Could be interesting.

4) just guessing here but what about field modifications? I would imagine many pilots had their mechanics make small modifications to suite their flying styles.

Then there's the point someone made in a previous thread; The production line were not consistant with the specifications. There was a war going on and sometimes parts were substituted from one model to the next due to availability.

As for the K4, Kurfurst had a good point. Maybe positive and negative effects of using the flaps depended on the duration.

We can even look at your flying skills in comparison with others. As someone mentioned, he could not do the tests because he was unable to keep the nose consistantly level. Maybe you are an excellent pilot in regards to this. Maybe you have a better joystick. Not everyone testing has the same equipment or even the same stick settings. Some will use pedals while some use twisty sticks. What about the pc hardware?

There are so many details and variables to consider. How can anyone take real or virtual tests too seriously?

I'm not saying you shouldn't do the tests. I think it's good for the game as Oleg and his crew doesn't have as much time to test aircraft fm's as much as we do. Points 1, 2, and 3 above come too mind.

You asked why the "Luftwhiners" were not complaining. Well, like in real, flying the 109's or 190's takes more time to perfect than most other planes, especially the 190's. I believe it was like this in real also, yes, no? That means details and consistancy become very important. If you don't pay attention to these details you'll never be good at either plane I mentioned.

I think the aircraft choice suits the personality of the pilot and if the 190 and 109 pilots think the same way I do, then it's easy to see why we "Luftwhiners" don't complain. It's simple, we just don't take it seriously. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As I said, it's good that you conduct the tests but split hairs(virtual fm test results) with an axe(real test results). Too many variables.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
07-19-2005, 08:13 PM
Just another example Gib.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=231102...601077933#4601077933 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=7701067933&r=4601077933#4601077933)

Fritz

msalama
07-20-2005, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Can you leave this sh1t in ORR where people actually care?

Now what the F**K is _your_ problem??? Posting s**t like that in every other thread... what are you, menopausal?

But hey dear lady, I've got a better suggestion for you: why don't you just leave your c**p out altogether, because it only serves to prove what an a**ehole you are. Well of course if this is what you _want_ to prove in the 1st place then by all means continue, but otherwise I'd just STFU if I was you.

Now what say ma'am?

PS. Gibbage, thanks for a most interesting post...

AerialTarget
07-20-2005, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by Fehler:
I would also love to see all the necessary things an allied plane had to do prior to going into a high speed dive.

So would I! I would love to have to juggle with my controls. Dives aren't it, either.

Fehler
07-20-2005, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
I would also love to see all the necessary things an allied plane had to do prior to going into a high speed dive.

So would I! I would love to have to juggle with my controls. Dives aren't it, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the point AT. When 1C first announced that CEM would be introduced in FB, the blue camp said, "Hooray!" CEM should have given the blue side a clear historical advantage over earl VVS planes because of the KG. But instead, it has been the German planes that have always had to fiddle with the pitch. Then along came AEP, and the German planes received the ability to run away their props in a dive; Bf series, and the Jumo engined 190's...

Crumpp has posted a huge amount of information showing how advanced the KG was, but in game, it is a performance inhibitor, and there is no adverse problems when firewalling a CSP in a dive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

BBB_Hyperion
07-20-2005, 04:50 AM
Its good to see the original thread title and testing method have changed for the good. Still sustained turning is rare online. Most common is the combat turn in its various interpretations as well as high and low yoyo . The 109 for example does not get its best turntime in sustained turn but in an odd looking elliptical shape. This can be most likely improved when using a 3d oriented elliptical shape that performs an xyz manouever instead of 2d and that is what i see online mostly .

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/Elpsminr.png

So comparing sustained turn times can be little misleading. Up to today there is no usefull testing method for energy retention in this sim what would surely give away some intresting insights of the modeling.

ClnlSandersLite
07-20-2005, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by Fehler:

and there is no adverse problems when firewalling a CSP in a dive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

That's bull. In every allied plane I've flown, doing that seriously overrevs the engine. Do that for very long and you won't make it home.

Fehler
07-20-2005, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by ClnlSandersLite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:

and there is no adverse problems when firewalling a CSP in a dive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

That's bull. In every allied plane I've flown, doing that seriously overrevs the engine. Do that for very long and you won't make it home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, excuse me if I call your statement fictitious, but you will have to provide me a track of runaway prop in a CSP allied plane or FW-190 "Anton".

Im not talking about running your engine until heat damage, Im talking about over-reving in a dive, causing runaway prop and engine damage. Perhaps I wasnt clear what I was pointing out...

In a German plane, on manual pitch, you can over-rev the engine and it will start to grind almost immediately. That is over-reving. This only happens on the in-lines; DB and Jumo powerplants, and can actually be done at any time, but is very obvious in a dive. The BMW equipped Antons act just like the allied planes; 100% pitch, throttle to the wall, dive without worries. This kind of eliminates the advantage of the Kommandoger¤t, dont you think?

ClnlSandersLite
07-20-2005, 06:52 AM
Ok, it'll take me about 2 mins, if that. I'll check your profile for an e-mail address. If it's not there, please pt me and I'll send it.

Aaron_GT
07-20-2005, 07:02 AM
Crumpp has posted a huge amount of information showing how advanced the KG was, but in game, it is a performance inhibitor, and there is no adverse problems when firewalling a CSP in a dive.

You can pick up a bit of extra speed by reducing RPMs, so leaving it at 100% and firewalling it doesn't necessarily result in the best performance. I did once break a CSP in a dive, but only once. The risk of wrecking a CSP plane when going full throttle in a dive is more in overspeeding the plane, not the engine.

ClnlSandersLite
07-20-2005, 07:26 AM
Actually, you seem to be right. I can overrev it, but no immediate engine failure. At least in 4.01. I know for a FACT that I've done it at least twice in a p-38 J.

I need sleep though. I'll check out older versions of the game tomorrow. I have multiple installs set up so it shouldn't be a problem. It honestly wouldn't suprise me if it's a more recent bug.

Fehler
07-20-2005, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by ClnlSandersLite:
Actually, you seem to be right. I can overrev it, but no immediate engine failure. At least in 4.01. I know for a FACT that I've done it at least twice in a p-38 J.

I need sleep though. I'll check out older versions of the game tomorrow. I have multiple installs set up so it shouldn't be a problem. It honestly wouldn't suprise me if it's a more recent bug.

It may be.. What initially prompted me into checking this out was when it was first introduced in the 190 D-9. In manual mode I was once able to dive at 100%, but one of the patches (Cant remember which) introduced this over-rev thing into the CEM of the DB and Jumo engined planes. I initially thought, "Cool, runaway prop now! Great idea, and very immersive!"

Then I thought.. "Hmm, do different engines hold together longer? Like, shouldnt the R-2800 hold together longer? It was a massive engine, over-constructed.. something that a Texan would build!"

So I tried to dive with a P-47 at 100, 100, and no runaway... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Then I thought, "OK, maybe it is something for inlines only... I'll try a Merlin!"

So I tried the P-51 and the Spit. At 100, 100, nothing... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Ahh, so it's only a German engine.. so I tried the BMW equipped planes. Turn off the KG and dive for the dirt. 100, 100... nothing.

So then I just said, "WTF?" and no one has answered my question yet. CSP planes could over-rev (Runaway the prop) in real life. And it is possible to model this in the game, hense, the in-line German powerplants... why not All the planes? No one can answer this for me. But that is the way the game has been for several versions now.. way before PF.

Now, I will be happy to find that a P-38 can do this as well, but I havent tested it. I dont understand why a J would do it, yet a L wouldnt.. dont they have the same props and CSP mechanism?

Just another little oddity of the game, I suppose.

I, for one, would rather just get full performance out of the KG system on the Luft planes, and never have to fiddle with manual pitch settings (As it was in real life)

AerialTarget
07-20-2005, 01:55 PM
I've never, ever wrecked an engine of any sort in a dive. I've been playing this game since the original IL-2 Sturmovik, and only recently began lowering propeller pitch in a dive.

There's something I don't get, though. In the game, the best thing to do in a dive is to put the propeller pitch to zero while leaving the throttle firewalls. I thought that in real life, this was supposed to have bad effects on the Allisons, at least. I remember reading that you were to increase RPMs before firewalling the throttle, or experience engine failure of some sort.

FritzGryphon
07-20-2005, 02:04 PM
I thought that in real life, this was supposed to have bad effects on the Allisons, at least. I remember reading that you were to increase RPMs before firewalling the throttle, or experience engine failure of some sort.

Setting pitch to 0% would decrease RPM, not increase it.

And I have wrecked motors in dive in IL2-PF at various points. I don't know which ones will do it now, it keeps changing from patch to patch. FW-190 with manual pitch, B-239, P.11, and some others I forget.

Never in a mid-late war CSP plane, no. The engine will overrev, but not enough to cause damage.

Fehler
07-20-2005, 02:38 PM
Hey, AT.. try it.

Take a '44 Dora at 5000m turn off the KG (Go manual) and dive with full throttle at 100% pitch. See how long the engine lasts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Then do the same with a P-47.

Now, as far as engines go, I dont know the length of the connecting rods for the R-2800 vs. the Jumo 213, so I cant say how much more over-reving one engine can take over another. Typically (And this is a general rule of thumb) the longer the stroke, the lower the revs. Generally... This is also why some engines rev up faster than others. Less reciprocating weight. (Note) this is a very simplified statement; a lot of other things come into play as well... But my guess is that the Jump could take over-revving for a longer period of time than the R-2800; given the engines comparitive size... But that is merely a guess and probably has no weight to it.. hehe

BTW, AT.. do you like have a job or anything? You are on here all day and night! Man I wish I had the time to burn that some of you guys have!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AerialTarget
07-20-2005, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Fehler:
Hey, AT.. try it.

Take a '44 Dora at 5000m turn off the KG (Go manual) and dive with full throttle at 100% pitch. See how long the engine lasts.

Then do the same with a P-47.

Oh, you're talking about using manual with the German airplanes! I just let the automatic thingy do its work, as it should. My complaint is that the American aircraft engine management isn't complex enough - they should need a lot more management to avoid blowing the engines through the cowlings!

No, I've never tried (German) full pitch in a dive, but then (German) full pitch fries the engine whether you are diving or not, unless you constantly up and down every other second.[/quote]


Originally posted by Fehler:
BTW, AT.. do you like have a job or anything? You are on here all day and night! Man I wish I had the time to burn that some of you guys have!

Heh, yes, I have a job. Unfortunately, my joystick is broken and being mailed in to CH Products, so all of the time that I usually dedicate to virtual flying is spent here discussing flight models and such.

ClnlSandersLite
07-20-2005, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Fehler:
So then I just said, "WTF?" and no one has answered my question yet. CSP planes could over-rev (Runaway the prop) in real life. And it is possible to model this in the game, hense, the in-line German powerplants... why not All the planes? No one can answer this for me. But that is the way the game has been for several versions now.. way before PF.

Now, I will be happy to find that a P-38 can do this as well, but I havent tested it. I dont understand why a J would do it, yet a L wouldnt.. dont they have the same props and CSP mechanism?

You can overrev in all lightning variants. After I fried my engine that first time in a J I was just more carefull. I can also overrev in a spit Vb but I'm alot more carefull since I started mastering that plane.

I'll quickly tell you the circumstances so you'll see why I've only suffered that in a p-38J.

First time, I was doing some hardcore areobatics. you know, things like diving at 500 mph, swooping under a bridge, then doing a hard loop, all with the game's piss poor excuse for compressability going on. Somewhere in one of my dives, I forgot to roll the engine back a little, and my engine went dead. I wasn't out of fuel or overheating. That's where I learned to be carefull.

Second time was in a pacific campaign where I was mostly flying anti shiping strikes. One time we got bounced by zeros, and I did an emergency dive to evade. (bieng slow with ordanace in a lightning is a death sentance against zeros) kicked up the rpm's, pointed nose down, then firewalled the throttle. Once I picked up speed, I shallowed the dive to maintain a max speed dive to disengage. A short time later, my engine fried. Campaign over, captured behind enemy lines after a smooth belly landing.

So, since those 2 incidents I've been EXTREEMLY carefull not to overrev too much. I'm not sure what planes can do it now, or which planes will fail, or which patch took that abillity away from the lightning. I just assumed all planes could suffer engine failure from over revving since those 2 accidents and just made sure that it wouldn't happen again.

I'll do the promised testing tonight to see if I can reproduce.


Heh, yes, I have a job. Unfortunately, my joystick is broken and being mailed in to CH Products, so all of the time that I usually dedicate to virtual flying is spent here discussing flight models and such.

Why don't you just pick up a cheap stick to last until then? That way you have a spare too.

p1ngu666
07-20-2005, 10:19 PM
it depends on the systems ability to change the angle of the blades quickly enuff to stop it spinning too fast.

if u goto idle dive, then open throttle wide ull over rev.

109 pitch controls the angle of the blades, rather than the rpm u want (angle of blades is done from that) so thats why u fry engine, it isnt braked enuff or prop isnt transmitting or absorbing all that power, so it goes faster...

dora may have system between those two, for no apprent reason?.

ive oversped a spitfire in a dive, was at the end and i was going really quick, ran out of pitch on the blades, so they oversped...

Badsight.
07-20-2005, 10:45 PM
i have flowen FB since its release

i have dived any plane fast enough to do it to complete destruction

i have NEVER damadged any CSP plane's motor in a 100 % power dive

for one example , look at the Hurricanes , ive taken them past 650 kmh untold times fighting Bf-109s , the RPM extends slightly on the guage when at max power in a dive

i have NEVER hurt the motor doing this , not in ANY CSP plane

from overheat yes , that will cause gradual engine failure

sorry i dont believe its possible to from max rpm dives tho , not in CSP planes , im going to have to see a track

AerialTarget
07-20-2005, 11:19 PM
I'm with Badsight this time. I think ClnlSandersLite overheated without realizing it.

msalama
07-21-2005, 12:23 AM
I remember reading that you were to increase RPMs before firewalling the throttle, or experience engine failure of some sort.

That's true, because low RPMs -> high prop blade angle -> more prop drag / physical resistance -> more engine strain...

AerialTarget
07-21-2005, 02:18 AM
Well, I think it's more the engine trying to revolve faster but not having enough enough manifold pressure to keep up, and so "starving" itself of something (air, fuel, pressure?).

I don't think it would do any damage to the engine. I think it's simply necessary to avoid engine failure, as it is necessary to go to auto rich before adjusting power, or the engine may starve. That definitely doesn't hurt the engine, because the way you turn off the engines in real life is to cut the mixture. The way it is done in Pacific Fighters (turning off the ignition) is very dangerous and should never be done in real life. It leaves fuel in the engine, and you know what that means!

Yes, it's counter-productive, but I want to have to lower the RPM in dives, and increase RPM before increasing manifold pressure, and increase the mixture before adjusting manifold pressure. I want to be unable to fly inverted for more than ten seconds or so (the pilot's manual says ten, but I'll bet my hat that the figure is conservative) without suffering engine failure.

Currently, I have to limit myself by just not doing things that would cause engine failure and such in real life. The problem is that I am not exactly sure just what would cause what to happen in real life. For instance, if I forget to increase RPM before increasing manifold pressure and subsequently turn off my engines to simulate the engine failure which would result in real life, can I restart them again? Or is there permanent damage? Moreover, just how much of an error is acceptable? What if I exceed my RPM by only a few inches of manifold pressure?

The pilot's manual, believe it or not, doesn't go into detail on this. I assume that they assume that you already know this "basic" stuff from your training with the T-6.

ClnlSandersLite
07-21-2005, 02:37 AM
Well, I've been doing some testing. I haven't once been able to do it in any of the final versions of any of the games. I really don't feel like doing a reinstall and testing every **** patch, so I'm not going to test them.

It's possible it was due to overheat, but I'm 99% sure it wasn't.

<span class="ev_code_RED">However</span>, it is important to note that there is a <span class="ev_code_RED">MAJOR BUG</span> along that lines right now. I can easilly overrev the lightning's engines to the point where the sound engine freaks out, going WAY past redline. I'm talking to the point where your engine should probably suffer catastrophic failure on the spot. Even though I can do this, it does NOT break.

I'll be glad to send a track of this to anyone who pm's me their e-mail address.

AerialTarget
07-21-2005, 02:53 AM
It's a well known problem; although not exactly a bug, it's rather the lack of a feature. American aircraft engines have never been able to over-revolve in the game. That is one of the things I complained about not having in one of my previous post. I want complex engine managment, dash it all!

ClnlSandersLite
07-21-2005, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I remember reading that you were to increase RPMs before firewalling the throttle, or experience engine failure of some sort.

That's true, because low RPMs -> high prop blade angle -> more prop drag / physical resistance -> more engine strain... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but not in that way. It actually causes engine detonation. For a through read on that follow these links:

General engines:
http://www.streetrodstuff.com/Articles/Engine/Detonation/

Aviation specific:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182132-1.html

ClnlSandersLite
07-21-2005, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
It's a well known problem; although not exactly a bug, it's rather the lack of a feature. American aircraft engines have never been able to over-revolve in the game. That is one of the things I complained about not having in one of my previous post. I want complex engine managment, dash it all!

It does overrev, pm me your e-mail and I'll send the track. It's a bug because manual engines break when they overrev, these don't.

AerialTarget
07-21-2005, 03:46 AM
Er, yes, that it what I meant. American engines have never been able to be damaged from over-revolving. As I said, it's not really a bug so much as a lack of a feature, but it's still unrealistic.

Fehler
07-21-2005, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Er, yes, that it what I meant. American engines have never been able to be damaged from over-revolving. As I said, it's not really a bug so much as a lack of a feature, but it's still unrealistic.

OMG!! Dude, do you ever go to bed???

I have been at work now since 3:00 AM yesterday, and it is currently 5:00 AM today (26 hours now!). Since I am pretty bored, I have been watching the forum and reading, waiting for this operation to either be called off, or actually take place.

And the whole time that I am here, I see you posting!!! Get some sleep! Get a job! Get a TV! -OR- Get a girfriend!!

LOL!!! Seriously dude, you are HARD CORE!! ROFLMAO!

msalama
07-21-2005, 06:23 AM
For a through read on that follow these links...

Thank you Sir, will check them out! But anyway, I've always thought that it's roughly the same thing than trying to accelerate your car from 10mph to 100mph using 4th gear only (yep, that's a simplification but still).

But yeaaaah - gotta educate my ignorant a** a bit more it seems http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FA_Whisky
07-21-2005, 06:39 AM
Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
P-51B________19.4@313KPH____40.8@279KPH
P-51D20NA____20.1@326KPH____42.3@293KPH


I think i can turn both better. And a lot better in the second turn.....

BigganD
07-21-2005, 06:58 AM
There is no energy fightings in this game, the had it in beta 04 but removed it.

msalama
07-21-2005, 07:03 AM
American engines have never been able to be damaged from over-revolving.

Hmm...

Over-revving per se I don't know about, but an excessive RPM value for a too-low MAP setting will destroy a radial in certain flight conditions, because it produces a phenomenon called "backloading" or "backlashing". The term describes a situation where the _prop_ drives the engine instead of the engine driving the prop as usual (yes, it _can_ happen if you don't put out enough juice from the engine). This starves the engine main shaft of lubrication, and it WILL destroy, say, a Pratt & Whitney very thorougly if left unheeded!

Inline engines are not affected by this phenomenon, though, so dunno 'bout them...

lbhskier37
07-21-2005, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by BigganD:
There is no energy fightings in this game, the had it in beta 04 but removed it.

Can you just leave already? NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR YOUR BETA 04 WHINE!!! Can't you be banned for discussing unofficial things like betas? Mods? Please?

Gibbage1
07-21-2005, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
P-51B________19.4@313KPH____40.8@279KPH
P-51D20NA____20.1@326KPH____42.3@293KPH


I think i can turn both better. And a lot better in the second turn..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then do it, and post your time! Like I said, I am not a pro at all aircraft since I dont fly them alot. A pro can always swueez more out of it.

LeadSpitter_
07-21-2005, 12:48 PM
how are you doing the tests and can you provides tracks gibbage?

Are these perfect sustained alt, sustained turn rates with no trim no combat flaps and 100 fuel?

And what altitude are they performed at.

For example my k4 with trim 25 fuel i can complete a full turn touching wingtip smoke in less then 12 seconds at higher speeds with full trottle. see track below from above view and watch in quarter speed, track has wingtip smoke on.

Heres a useless track that will ammount to nothing so flame it away

But then again a sustained turn rate is not an aircrafts maximum turn rate, its extremely rare for people to use sustained turn rates online except in 190a 51s 47s etc which usually need at least 3000m alt advantage to make one pass then get away for a couple minutes.

anyone who flies the 109k4 knows in every turn in a fogfight we will chop the trottle back to 0 when turning as fast as we can and use full 100 trim, no need for combat flaps becuase they just make you bleed e now and will induce a stall when no flaps and full trim wont and turn tighter.

heres the k4 track i just took now.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/blah.zip

LeadSpitter_
07-21-2005, 01:19 PM
rgr gib thx for editing the first msg to make it more clear.

faustnik
07-21-2005, 01:34 PM
190a 51s 47s etc which usually need at least 3000m alt advantage to make one pass then get away for a couple minutes.

Well, what are you expecting there? The P-47 is a heavy a/c with high wing loading and the Fw190A is a flying brick. The P-51s turn should look a lot better if tests were made at higher speeds. It's hard to compare those to Spitfires and Bf109s.

LeadSpitter_
07-21-2005, 01:49 PM
of course fraust, but 9850 feet = 3000m is a huge alt to have but in game its needed just to pass and get away for only a few minutes.

Even 500-1000m should be a significant energy advantage over a lower aircraft which its not in game

btw did you dl the track and if you can comment on that, thats what i took it for.

AerialTarget
07-21-2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Fehler:
I have been at work now since 3:00 AM yesterday, and it is currently 5:00 AM today (26 hours now!). Since I am pretty bored, I have been watching the forum and reading, waiting for this operation to either be called off, or actually take place.

And the whole time that I am here, I see you posting!!!

Ha ha! That is pretty funny. Actually, I am awake for only sixteen hours at a time, then I sleep for eight, even on my off days. What makes it look like I am always on is the fact that I am on both before and after work. Plus, since my joystick is broken I am on here all day after work, posting while I wait for my friend to make a move in chess (I am very fond of chess). Anyway, yesterday was my day off, but today no hardcore postage for me. I am off to work now! Hooray! I do have a life (sort of).

AerialTarget
07-21-2005, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">American engines have never been able to be damaged from over-revolving.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant in the game. Real engines could over-revolve easily if you didn't take care of them.

People, Biggan D may be wrong about Beta Four. I don't know, since I didn't try it. But he's right that energy fighting is basically gone now. I used to boom and zoom until this patch. Now I don't, because when I do the Lufthelicopters blast me on my way out. Moreover, I never get boom and zoomed myself, either.

faustnik
07-21-2005, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
of course fraust, but 9850 feet = 3000m is a huge alt to have but in game its needed just to pass and get away for only a few minutes.

Even 500-1000m should be a significant energy advantage over a lower aircraft which its not in game

btw did you dl the track and if you can comment on that, thats what i took it for.

It's Faust, and no I didn't download the track, although I'd like to see it, I'm at work.

We've been through a lot of discussion here about acceleration. I might take a couple thousand meters for a heavier a/c to pull away according to some???

Fehler
07-21-2005, 03:47 PM
Never mind.. I was just tired.. LOL

FA_Whisky
07-22-2005, 01:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by FA_Whisky:

quote:
Aircraft_____Turn #1________Turn #2
P-51B________19.4@313KPH____40.8@279KPH
P-51D20NA____20.1@326KPH____42.3@293KPH



I think i can turn both better. And a lot better in the second turn.....


Then do it, and post your time! Like I said, I am not a pro at all aircraft since I dont fly them alot. A pro can always swueez more out of it.

Yes, I will. Do not have time now, but i think i can do it monday. Did you use any flaps, trim?

LeadSpitter_
07-24-2005, 05:14 PM
post a track and kill a thread

BigganD
07-25-2005, 04:36 AM
No I cant lbhskier37. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Cajun76
07-25-2005, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by BigganD:
There is no energy fightings in this game, the had it in beta 04 but removed it.

Your flying a differnet sim/game then (4.01), because E fighting is the only way to survive in a P-47 or Fw-190A. Sure there's BnZ, but that's not as fun.

BigganD
07-25-2005, 07:15 AM
Thats right Cajun76!

Cajun76
07-25-2005, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by BigganD:
Thats right Cajun76!

Perhaps I wasn't clear (rereading it I can see the confusion)

In 4.01 it's nesscary to use E fighting to survive in a P-47 or FW-190A. It wasn't "deleted" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

FA_Whisky
07-25-2005, 04:07 PM
tested the P51c a little, sustained turn at 270-280kph at about 22-23 seconds 25% fuel. It does not go over 25sec. Flaps do not seem to help at these speeds. I think combat flaps only help at higher speeds.

faustnik
07-25-2005, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:

In 4.01 it's nesscary to use E fighting to survive in a P-47 or FW-190A. It wasn't "deleted"

In fact, I think it works better in 4.01.

Badsight.
07-25-2005, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
how are you doing the tests and can you provides tracks gibbage? hey nice of you to post a track

yes planes , all planes , turn tighter with max trim starting at high speeds

you also black-out like a sob doing it

gibbages test method is out-lined in the first post in this thread