PDA

View Full Version : 109G2 detuned for 4.07, so take a pill............



PFflyer
01-12-2007, 05:09 PM
The bf109G2 was detuned for 4.07. By the addition of wieght. You can easily test this yourself by measuring it's low speed acceleration over a fixed distance, the 4.05 109g2 will beat the 4.07 109g2 every time easily either when measuring speed attained or time for distance covered.

The top speed of the 109g2 did not change, so same horsepower to fight wind resistance and keep the same top speed but lower acceleration to that speed equals more mass.

So now you can all find the next thing to whine about.

Ready, set, go!

gx-warspite
01-12-2007, 05:10 PM
Umm, why?

Its acceleration and top speed were correct, weren't they? It was the climb that was the issue, and many airframes climb too well.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.doranine.com/images/juggernaut.jpg
Think he's bad? He's badder when he has eight fifty-caliber Browning M2 machine guns attached.

PFflyer
01-12-2007, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Umm, why?

Its acceleration and top speed were correct, weren't they? It was the climb that was the issue, and many airframes climb too well.

Who said the top speed and acceleration were correct? Did someone measure the acceleration of an actual 109G2? None exist any more to test!

All you can do is take the rated BHP and alleged wieght of aircraft in this sim, and much of this data is hearsay, contradicting from one text to the next, or simply non-existant and guesswork, and try to make them perform relatively to each other, and there are many that do not.

Also the same physics that applies to raising a weight higher a certain distance in a certain time applies to accelerating an object from one speed to another higher speed in a certain amount of time, so if you test the 109g2 climb in 4.07, you will see that since you are measuring the same thing as acceleration, it has also been chopped. Low speed acceleration is a better measure of mass than high speed, because aerodynamic drag increases exponentially with speed, so the higher the speed the less you are measuring mass difference and the more you are measuring wind resistance.

FritzGryphon
01-12-2007, 10:19 PM
Numbers, please? Like specifically, what was the accel before, and what is it now?

I've tested 109G2 turn time for 4.071, like I always do for every version, and it's still 19-20 seconds, like it always has been.

Were any sizable amount of weight added, I'd expect an increase in turn time.

GR142-Pipper
01-13-2007, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by PFflyer:
All you can do is take the rated BHP and alleged wieght of aircraft in this sim, and much of this data is hearsay, contradicting from one text to the next, or simply non-existant and guesswork, and try to make them perform relatively to each other, and there are many that do not. Agreed. This is especially true given that there are precious few REAL Ps charts to draw upon. It's pretty clear that they're made up given the big performance swings from 4.00 to the present 4.071.

GR142-Pipper

PFflyer
01-14-2007, 09:41 PM
FritzGryphon,

YOu can easily show yourself how the 109g2 has been detuned. Make a map in the FMB for yourself on one of the nice concrete airstrips. Set a 109G2 ready for takeoff on the airstrip.
Get in the plane, start it up, switch to open cockpit, hold on the brake and run her up to full throttle, release the brakes.

Get in the air around as soon as you can do it smoothly, but somewhere below 200km/hr and get the wheels up. Fly straight ahead right on the deck at about 10 meters alt. and get your finger on the "pause" button, default is capital P.
Right when you get to the end of the concrete, hit pause. Go to outside view and look at the 109g2 frozen there by the end of the concrete, if you are a bit shy, quickly hit Pause twice to move the plane ahead a notch so it is right over the end of the concrete, frozen there at 10m alt, and note the speed you have reached.

Do this in both 4.05 and in 4.07, and you will see you reach a lower speed at the end of the concrete in 4.071m.

If you test the top speed of both planes on the same map, on the deck, you will see that the 4.05 109g2, and 4.07 109g2 have the same top speed though. If power was decreased, both acceleration AND top speed would be down, but if top speed is the same, and only acceleration is down, then it is because of an increase in mass.

Just as your car would still go as fast on the top end with three fat women along for the ride, but it would just take longer to get there than it would with just you in the car.

Coefficient of drag limits top speed, mass limits acceleration. If the added weight alters the attitude of the aircraft in flight because it is not added right at the center of mass, then the change in the planes attack angle to the airstream may cause a slight alteration in top speed, but we will give Oleg and crew the benifit of the doubt on doing it correctly.

S!

Tully__
01-15-2007, 02:24 AM
Maybe it's propellor performance at low speed that's changed and not weight....
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

VFA-195 Snacky
01-15-2007, 03:02 AM
like any other plane I'll stay above it and be fine.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1918_16003860