PDA

View Full Version : Kurfurst's Bf109K4 4.02 ROC/TTA test results



Pages : [1] 2

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 10:45 PM
From the Bf 109 4.02 climbrates (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6891076604/p/6) thread I asked Kurfurst to send me his 109K4 climb tests, where he said..


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Sending them over now.

He sent me two track files, one with rad open and one with rad closed. Here is the results of the rad closed test.

summary table
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/Kurfurst/radclosed/Kurfurst_109K4_radclosed_TBL.JPG

ROC chart
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/Kurfurst/radclosed/Kurfurst_109K4_radclosed_SI_ROC.JPG

Looking at hop2002's chart

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1138877291_climb_spit9-g2-k4.jpg

We can see that the current v4.02 1.80ata K4 allready has 1.98ata performance.. So, I really dont understand why the 1.98ata K4 had to be added when the current 1.80ata K4 allready does (actully exceeds?) what a 1.98ata K4 was estimated to do?

Unless the 1.98ata is going to be given this current FM, and the current 1.80ata K4 is going to have it's FM tonned down a bit?

I guess only Oleg knows for sure. Very strange.. to say the least.

Here is a link to the full report in pdf format
Kurfurst's rad closed v4.02 109K4 ROC/TTA test (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/Kurfurst/radclosed/Kurfurst_109K4_radclosed_summary.pdf)

Here is a link to the track file
rad closed track file (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/Kurfurst/radclosed/Kurfurst_109K4_radclosed.ntrk)

Ill update this post once I finish the open rad test.

kidsmoke1959
02-02-2006, 10:49 PM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/0utlier/Avitars/crybaby.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by kidsmoke1959:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/0utlier/Avitars/crybaby.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
LOL! Hey, smack-tard.. note that Kurfurst__ *asked* me to do this for him.

Pirschjaeger
02-02-2006, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
what a 1.98 K4 was estimated to do?


Geeezuss H kryst! Can´t you guyz even wait until you have the patch? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

You are sheitting on this forum.

Fritz

Badsight.
02-02-2006, 11:06 PM
not really Fritz - this is more about bringing to attention what the K4 was capable of & what the K4 in FB is capable of right now - its all fair

its true isnt it that when recording a NTRK for testing - it helps to set the "NETSPEED" to the highest setting ?

for higher data points recorded

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
what a 1.98 K4 was estimated to do?


Geeezuss H kryst! Can´t you guyz even wait until you have the patch? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

You are sheitting on this forum.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Hey, smack-tard.. note that Kurfurst__ *asked* me to do this for him.

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
its true isnt it that when recording a NTRK for testing - it helps to set the "NETSPEED" to the highest setting ?

for higher data points recorded You know, I dont know for sure.. Never even messed with the NETSPEED. The UPDGraph has a *timmer* in it that will take samples as often as you what it to.. I think the min is like 1/msec, I dont read it that fast for this testing, I use 1/sec.

Badsight.
02-02-2006, 11:10 PM
Tolwyn once mentioned this - WRT recording NTRK's

Pirschjaeger
02-02-2006, 11:12 PM
Ok, I have to trust you guyz. I´m a little on edge from all this patch whining that´s been going on.

I apologize. But if someone whines I´m gonna either leave for weeks, months, or years, or else virtually kick someone in the virtual ******.

Sorry to AKA Tagert, Kurfurst, or anyone else.

TBH, those charts look like the map for the Tokyo subway to me.

Fritz

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Ok, I have to trust you guyz. I´m a little on edge from all this patch whining that´s been going on.

I apologize. But if someone whines I´m gonna either leave for weeks, months, or years, or else virtually kick someone in the virtual ******.

Sorry to AKA Tagert, Kurfurst, or anyone else.

TBH, those charts look like the map for the Tokyo subway to me.

Fritz NP, been there done that myself! We all have our moments! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
Tolwyn once mentioned this - WRT recording NTRK's Make since that it would help when doing fast data sampling.. but at 1read/sec you problly wouldnt even notice it.. At leas I havnt! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Texan...
02-02-2006, 11:17 PM
I guess with so many flyables these types of errors slip through. From memory, a typo caused the Jug to be missing around 200-300 horsepower, and perhaps a typo allowed the LaGG to battle all this time minus, what 300kg? This one, I dunno.

Seems like we may have had a 1.98ata K4 all this time. I thought that thing was awfully goot. Not sure why some folks call this whining. Numbers are numbers. Check the La7 too, I say.

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

Pirschjaeger
02-02-2006, 11:38 PM
You know, you guyz know a lot about this stuff and probably have a good argument. But what is the good of an argument if you don´t have a following?

What I mean is that like most of the posters in here, I haven´t the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.

Now, imagine I was a pilot in WW2 and you were my mechanic. we´re supposed to be best friends! I fly your work and your work is my survival. You need to teach us pilots how to care for your babies.

You´ve posted your point in expert terms but remember, there are few experts here. Please, just once in a while, post something we can all understand. Then you will have your following.

No one here is stupid but many have not invested the time you guyz have to learn. Share the knowledge.

Then I won´t post dumba posts such as the one I posted earlier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You guyz would make great mechanics but you´d fail miserably as politicians. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Layman´s terms wins the laymen.

Fritz

Texan...
02-02-2006, 11:43 PM
You can say *** now Pirsch.

Pirschjaeger
02-02-2006, 11:47 PM
Woo Hoo! ***, ***, ***, um, ***, a little more ***, and of course ***.

I feel much better now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
You know, you guyz know a lot about this stuff and probably have a good argument. But what is the good of an argument if you don´t have a following?

What I mean is that like most of the posters in here, I haven´t the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.

Now, imagine I was a pilot in WW2 and you were my mechanic. we´re supposed to be best friends! I fly your work and your work is my survival. You need to teach us pilots how to care for your babies.

You´ve posted your point in expert terms but remember, there are few experts here. Please, just once in a while, post something we can all understand. Then you will have your following.

No one here is stupid but many have not invested the time you guyz have to learn. Share the knowledge.

Then I won´t post dumba posts such as the one I posted earlier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You guyz would make great mechanics but you´d fail miserably as politicians. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Layman´s terms wins the laymen.

Fritz It is pretty basic Fritz.. that chart says it all. All you need to do is take a moment and get a *feel* for what the chart is telling you. Note

on the left hand side, the side that is running up/down it has the altitude.

on the bottom side, the side that is running left/right it has the rate of climb.

Now say you were a pilot and you wanted to know what the BEST climb speed is at 6000m?

Simply find the 6000m mark on the left hand side, the up/down side.. put your finger on it and now drag your finger to the right until it hits the purple or blue line. Now stop moving your finger to the right, and move it down until you hit that rate of climb line, the line running left/right. Your finger should hit that line at about the number 21.

What that is telling you is that at 6000m altitude your 109K4 will climb at about 21meters per second.

summary

pick and alt
drag finger to the right until you hit the blue or purple line
drag finger down until you hit the rate of climb number.

Gives you the "best climb rate" at (per) "altitude"

Pirschjaeger
02-02-2006, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
You know, you guyz know a lot about this stuff and probably have a good argument. But what is the good of an argument if you don´t have a following?

What I mean is that like most of the posters in here, I haven´t the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.

Now, imagine I was a pilot in WW2 and you were my mechanic. we´re supposed to be best friends! I fly your work and your work is my survival. You need to teach us pilots how to care for your babies.

You´ve posted your point in expert terms but remember, there are few experts here. Please, just once in a while, post something we can all understand. Then you will have your following.

No one here is stupid but many have not invested the time you guyz have to learn. Share the knowledge.

Then I won´t post dumba posts such as the one I posted earlier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You guyz would make great mechanics but you´d fail miserably as politicians. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Layman´s terms wins the laymen.

Fritz It is pretty basic Fritz.. that chart says it all. All you need to do is take a moment and get a *feel* for what the chart is telling you. Note

on the left hand side, the side that is running up/down it has the altitude.

on the bottom side, the side that is running left/right it has the rate of climb.

Now say you were a pilot and you wanted to know what the BEST climb speed is at 6000m?

Simply find the 6000m mark on the left hand side, the up/down side.. put your finger on it and now drag your finger to the right until it hits the purple or blue line. Now stop moving your finger to the right, and move it down until you hit that rate of climb line, the line running left/right. Your finger should hit that line at about the number 21.

What that is telling you is that at 6000m altitude your 109K4 will climb at about 21meters per second.

summary

pick and alt
drag finger to the right until you hit the blue or purple line
drag finger down until you hit the rate of climb number. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, now how do I clean the nutella off my monitor? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Ha ha ha, just kidding of course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And what about "ata" ?

Fritz

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Ok, now how do I clean the nutella off my monitor? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Ha ha ha, just kidding of course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And what about "ata" ?

Fritz ata is a unit of measure.. it is how the Germans measured the pressure. For example, the US used mercury as a unit of measure of the pressure in the manafold. Think of it as how hard the motor is working.. kind of sort of.. and note that it changes with altitude.

Pirschjaeger
02-02-2006, 11:58 PM
Seems simple enough. So, what is changing the pressure? Is it the cumbustibility of the fuel? The pressure produced by the supercharger? Or a higher compression ratio?

Fritz

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Seems simple enough. So, what is changing the pressure? Is it the cumbustibility of the fuel? The pressure produced by the supercharger? Or a higher compression ratio?

Fritz Man.. I could lie to yah! But, to be honest.. I dont know all the ins and outs.. just the basics

and basiclly there are alot of factors.. but mostly due to alt.. The higher you go, the less pressure, thus the less air flowing into the pistons.. thus less air fuel mixture.. thus less power.

Thus

They came up with blowers and super chargers and turbos to force more air into the pistons so they can keep the power up at high alt

Pirschjaeger
02-03-2006, 12:11 AM
But what is the deciding factor between a 1.80ata and 1.98ata? It must have something to do with compression. Compression is power.

There are, what immediately comes to mind, three deciding factors. Those are the ones I mentioned. All have to do with increasing cumbustibility in the cylinder.

TBH, I´ve never thought of the effects of low pressure. At ground level we have ambiant pressure(14.3 to 15.5 lbs). I´ve always considered increasing this. But, what is the pressure, lets say, at 10,000 m?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
But what is the deciding factor between a 1.80ata and 1.98ata? It must have something to do with compression. Compression is power.

There are, what immediately comes to mind, three deciding factors. Those are the ones I mentioned. All have to do with increasing cumbustibility in the cylinder.

TBH, I´ve never thought of the effects of low pressure. At ground level we have ambiant pressure(14.3 to 15.5 lbs). I´ve always considered increasing this. But, what is the pressure, lets say, at 10,000 m? Not 100% sure.. but.. from what I can tell the blowers, super-chargers, turbos could be adj to *limit* the amount of pressure they could produce.

So when they talk about the derating of some of the German engines.. I *think* that is what they were doing is adj those things or maybe even the fule mistures to limit he ammout of pressure. They were not changing pistons to change compression ratios.. they could, but, that would be a mess. Turbos got waste gates.. blowers and superchargers are harder.. they got gear ratios to contend with.. but I think they have a sort of pressure release valve too.. All in all, best to ask a real gear head on this one. Im just guessing at it.

All in all the limit was kind of like a *govener* on a rental car that will only allow you to go 70mph max.

Pirschjaeger
02-03-2006, 12:24 AM
The charts provided in the first post; are they from the game models or real life?

I have to question their accuracy whether real or not.

How were the tests done?

Were they done by multiple testers? How many?

If from the sim, were they tested on different computers?

Sorry, I love details.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
The charts provided in the first post; are they from the game models or real life? I have to question their accuracy whether real or not. The top one is from in-game. The red jumpy line is the raw data.. the blue and the purple is the best fit (read average) of the red jumpy line.

The 2nd one is from hop2002 which is from real world data.


Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
How were the tests done? Kurfurst started at sea level at about 180mph level, then pulls the nose up into a climb and keeps climbing at about 180mph


Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Were they done by multiple testers? How many? Just one in this chart, this is from Kurfurt's track file he sent me


Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
If from the sim, were they tested on different computers? No, just one, thus just one computer.


Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Sorry, I love details. NP, my pleasure

Gibbage1
02-03-2006, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

Geeezuss H kryst! Can´t you guyz even wait until you have the patch? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

You are sheitting on this forum.

Fritz

THis is backwards thinking. We want this fixed BEFORE the patch is out, not after. Whats the point of patching things if we dont tell them whats wrong?

Wait, I guess you want to have a few more months of over-performing Axis aircraft.

Gibbage1
02-03-2006, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
But what is the deciding factor between a 1.80ata and 1.98ata? It must have something to do with compression.

The differance is how much air is being forced into the carb. 1.98 is more compression then 1.8. Yes, more air the better. Also the more air the more likley your engine will explode. If you force too much air in without the proper fuel, the fuel air mixture will detonate before the piston reaches the top of the cylinder. This is very very bad. Engine goes BOOM.

Badsight.
02-03-2006, 01:03 AM
Pirschjaeger , what self respecting LW plane fan doesnt know the explanation behind the ATA engine rating ? to the corner with y0u !

its just boost , supplied by the supercharger , the english & americans had different terms for it - all accurate for their own measument standards

the LW ran their planes at the highest boost their fuel could allow - be sure , for example - a 1.42ATA G2 running in 1942 is a myth . Daimler Benz didnt clear the DB605 for 1.42ATA untill 43 when sparkplugs that could handel it had been developed .

TheGozr
02-03-2006, 01:18 AM
late 44/45 Yak9U -4,920 ft/min
Yak1m and 3 - 4,265 ft/min
Bf-109 K - 4,823 ft/min
Spitfire Mark XVI -4,580 ft/min
Spitfire Mark IX -4,100 ft/min
P-47D 25.. -2,780 ft/min
Yak-9 & Yak9M Oct-43 -3,800 ft/min

Pirschjaeger
02-03-2006, 01:40 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 Pirschjaeger:

Geeezuss H kryst! Can´t you guyz even wait until you have the patch? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

You are sheitting on this forum.

Fritz

THis is backwards thinking. We want this fixed BEFORE the patch is out, not after. Whats the point of patching things if we dont tell them whats wrong?

Wait, I guess you want to have a few more months of over-performing Axis aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice one Gib http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I guess you posted before reading just a little further.

BTW, you got bias on your chin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Pirschjaeger
02-03-2006, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
Pirschjaeger , what self respecting LW plane fan doesnt know the explanation behind the ATA engine rating ? to the corner with y0u !

its just boost , supplied by the supercharger , the english & americans had different terms for it - all accurate for their own measument standards

the LW ran their planes at the highest boost their fuel could allow - be sure , for example - a 1.42ATA G2 running in 1942 is a myth . Daimler Benz didnt clear the DB605 for 1.42ATA untill 43 when sparkplugs that could handel it had been developed .

I fly'em, I don´t build'em http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I tend to take whatever Oleg hands me and do the best I can.

It´s the pilot, not the plane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anarchy52
02-03-2006, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
The 2nd one is from hop2002 which is from real world data.


AFAIK 109K-4 data comes from projected performance for K-4 by Messerschmitt factory. It is not a real test. I have not been able to find real flight test data for K-4. Still, it's the ultimate climber.

Gibbage1
02-03-2006, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
The 2nd one is from hop2002 which is from real world data.


AFAIK 109K-4 data comes from projected performance for K-4 by Messerschmitt factory. It is not a real test. I have not been able to find real flight test data for K-4. Still, it's the ultimate climber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst supposidly has the real flight test, but wont post it. Im guessing its because its not as favorable as he wants. He only post's little snippits of data on it. Hand picked for quality, be sure!

bolillo_loco
02-03-2006, 04:25 AM
Rather than bicker back and forth over Kurfurst's data provided in the form of Tagert's charts using Kurfurst's data, why don't some people collect some climb data of their own? If several people can duplicate Kurfurst's data, then we have an argument in favor of the Bf-109K4's current climb being above popular data. On the other hand if several people cannot duplicate Kurfurst's data and it is much lower, then we have an argument in favor of the 1.98 ATA Bf-109K4.

Those of you involved in the P-38 dicussion I generated several months ago should remember that several people challenged my data by testing the P-38 themselves. After a few days, we all came up with similar data and then we had a valid base to charge that the P-38's climb, speed, rates of roll, etc. were either low, on target, or too high. Sadly the Fw-190 thread I generated about a week later turned into a tit for tat discussion much like this one. With out the efforts of several people this thread will go on for several pages and in the end we will still be at the same place..

While I'm sure some people simply like to bicker, I'm also sure that there are those of us who only wish to see X aircraft's performance meet popular data.

At this time I am not available to test the aircraft due to a lack of time. Those of you familiar with this know that it can take a few hours to collect data on only one aircraft, but we are only discussing the Bf-109K4 and its climbing ability.

F16_Svanen
02-03-2006, 05:40 AM
So if you look on the solid blue line at 3500m, is it where the second stage supercharger kicks in?

Unknown-Pilot
02-03-2006, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
Those of you involved in the P-38 dicussion I generated several months ago should remember that several people challenged my data by testing the P-38 themselves. After a few days, we all came up with similar data and then we had a valid base to charge that the P-38's climb, speed, rates of roll, etc. were either low, on target, or too high. Sadly the Fw-190 thread I generated about a week later turned into a tit for tat discussion much like this one. With out the efforts of several people this thread will go on for several pages and in the end we will still be at the same place..

You've aptly described the population of this forum. Red whiners. Only interested in getting max performance out of allied aircraft, and in ruining any attempt to get accuracy out of anything LW.

Clearly, that's not a category that each and every single person visiting this forum falls into, but as you can see by how the threads always turn out, it IS the majority of people here.

ICDP
02-03-2006, 07:53 AM
What are the testing critera for LW tests. What power, radiator did they use. Did timing start from when the AC started rolling or from lift off?

I will gladly test the 109K4 for climb to time compared to real life but I obviously need all the above info for it to be valid.

Thanks in advance.

ploughman
02-03-2006, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
Rather than bicker back and forth over Kurfurst's data provided in the form of Tagert's charts using Kurfurst's data, why don't some people collect some climb data of their own? If several people can duplicate Kurfurst's data, then we have an argument in favor of the Bf-109K4's current climb being above popular data. On the other hand if several people cannot duplicate Kurfurst's data and it is much lower, then we have an argument in favor of the 1.98 ATA Bf-109K4.

Those of you involved in the P-38 dicussion I generated several months ago should remember that several people challenged my data by testing the P-38 themselves. After a few days, we all came up with similar data and then we had a valid base to charge that the P-38's climb, speed, rates of roll, etc. were either low, on target, or too high. Sadly the Fw-190 thread I generated about a week later turned into a tit for tat discussion much like this one. With out the efforts of several people this thread will go on for several pages and in the end we will still be at the same place..

While I'm sure some people simply like to bicker, I'm also sure that there are those of us who only wish to see X aircraft's performance meet popular data.

At this time I am not available to test the aircraft due to a lack of time. Those of you familiar with this know that it can take a few hours to collect data on only one aircraft, but we are only discussing the Bf-109K4 and its climbing ability.

Did you even read the thread? Most of it is Tag explaining to Fritz how to interprete the data and what ata is and how it works.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
AFAIK 109K-4 data comes from projected performance for K-4 by Messerschmitt factory. It is not a real test. I have not been able to find real flight test data for K-4. Ah, ok thanks for the info


Originally posted by anarchy52:
Still, it's the ultimate climber. I would trade it for a F4u-4 any day of the week! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brain32
02-03-2006, 08:03 AM
All I'm going to ask in this thread is: Does anybody of you 109 haters got FINAL v4.03 track?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
What are the testing critera for LW tests. What power, radiator did they use. Did timing start from when the AC started rolling or from lift off?
Not 100% sure. But if anyone would know.. it would be Kurfurst! Since this test (track file) is from Kurfurst and his testing I would have to assume he applied what he knew.

The US starting timing the TTA/ROC from the ground at a dead stop, once the plane started rolling they started the timer. Not sure if that is how Jerry did it? The alternative is an air start, where the climb begins at an airspeed near the best IAS speed. That is to say starts at a slow speed, not a zoom climb where you start at 300mph and jerk it into a zoom climb converting speed into alt. The difference between the two methods can account for about 30 to 40 seconds, depending on how fast the pilot can get her off the ground, wheels up, stable at inital IAS. Kurfurst did the airstart method.

So, if you wanted to know the TTA times for this test had it started from a ground start you could simply subtrack about 30 to 40 seconds for each and every TTA data point in the TTA chart.

As for the ROC chart, the only difference between the two methods is the way the ground start ROC *looks* at zero alt. Due to the start from a stop, the ROC is initally 0, thus the ROC curve kind of tucks back in at low alt. Where as an air starts inital ROC is not zero. Typically the guys hand ploting the data to a curve would ignore those zero ROC data points and NOT draw the tuck in part. But I leave that in, otherwise someone would accuse me of cheating or trying to fake the data.


Originally posted by ICDP:
I will gladly test the 109K4 for climb to time compared to real life but I obviously need all the above info for it to be valid.

Thanks in advance.
Ask Kurfurst.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
All I'm going to ask in this thread is: Does anybody of you 109 haters got FINAL v4.03 track? I wouldnt call the person that asked me to do this a 109 hater!

Brain32
02-03-2006, 08:20 AM
Don't get "109 hater" calling too serious http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
BTW guys what I wanted to point out to you is that when v4.03 comes out(maybe even this evening http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) all your work will become useless and you will have to do it all over again...

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Don't get "109 hater" calling too serious http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Sure, say that now.. Now that you know Kurfurst requested it.


Originally posted by Brain32:
BTW guys what I wanted to point out to you is that when v4.03 comes out(maybe even this evening http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) all your work will become useless Not true, in that for a long time many have felt the 109K TTA/ROC was over modled since it came out. Now we have proof that it *is*. In that the v4.02 1.80ata is allready performing like a 1.98ata (actually better than) so why add the 1.98ata? Could prove interesting.. trend wise.


Originally posted by Brain32:
and you will have to do it all over again... No biggie, planned on doing that anyways. You know, to see the trend. Will the next step (ie v4.03) be..

1) the 1.80ata gets toned down, and the 1.98ata simply takes the old 1.80ata FM
2) the 1.80ata stays the same and performs like a 1.98ata, and the new 1.98ata performs even better than this

Only time will tell.. the next 109K4 data point will speak volumes.. trend wise.

Brain32
02-03-2006, 08:39 AM
Not true, in that for a long time many have felt the 109K TTA/ROC was over modled. Now we have proof that it was. The current 1.80ata was allready performing like a 1.98ata, so why add the 1.98ata? Could prove interesting.. trend wise.
But whats the point of looking back, what trend; are you implying that there is a global trend of LW planes being overmodelled is that it, if it is why don't you just say it?

No biggie, planned on doing that anyways.
Cool looking foward to see the result...

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
But whats the point of looking back, what trend; are you implying that there is a global trend of LW planes being overmodelled is that it, if it is why don't you just say it? WOW! Someone is a little paranoid! No, trends are interesting to engineers, and me being one, I find it interesting. Nothing more nothing less.


Originally posted by Brain32:
Cool looking foward to see the result... Bet

darkhorizon11
02-03-2006, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Seems simple enough. So, what is changing the pressure? Is it the cumbustibility of the fuel? The pressure produced by the supercharger? Or a higher compression ratio?

Fritz Man.. I could lie to yah! But, to be honest.. I dont know all the ins and outs.. just the basics

and basiclly there are alot of factors.. but mostly due to alt.. The higher you go, the less pressure, thus the less air flowing into the pistons.. thus less air fuel mixture.. thus less power.

Thus

They came up with blowers and super chargers and turbos to force more air into the pistons so they can keep the power up at high alt </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert man... you guys go through all this effort fighting back n forth about boost pressure and you don't even know how a supercharger or a turbo works? Com'n now!

p1ngu666
02-03-2006, 09:54 AM
k4's had overmodeled climb for *years*

even kurfy has admitted as much, several times.

if kurfy says 109 is TOO GOOD at something, well certainly grabs your attention http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
02-03-2006, 10:10 AM
oh and turbo/superchargers, or forced induction (like on f1 cars) compress air so u can fit more into the engine, along with more fuel, so theres more energy, more bang.

ofcourse compressing stuff makes it hotter, so u have intercoolers (like on later merlins) and/or water injection to cool down the air.

mw50 is for that, the methanol is for antifreeze, not for any performance boost (but there is a very slight one)

EN cooling on 190s uses fuel instead of water

ploughman
02-03-2006, 10:12 AM
Interestingly, the Harrier Jump Jet, or AV-8B, injects water into the engine during hover to give additional thrust and, happily, cool the engine a wee bit too.

Bremspropeller
02-03-2006, 10:15 AM
Maybe Oleg took the current K-4 and labelled it "C3" while he made another K-4 (actually weaker)...

We'll see.
But thanks for the tests TAG http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Brain32
02-03-2006, 10:24 AM
Maybe Oleg took the current K-4 and labelled it "C3" while he made another K-4 (actually weaker)...
My thoughts exactly, it would probably be most logical and simplest way to do...probably...

Kurfurst__
02-03-2006, 11:22 AM
It's quite weird results. I did TWO tests with rads fully closed and fully open, and noticed that there were almost no difference between them, they dont effect climb rate, nor cooling significantly.

Of course this is wrong.

In real life, there was a massive difference, the tests I have show that the climb rate was improved at least by 3 m/sec if the rads were nearly closed instead of half open, ie. Finnish test of MT 215, a G-2 resulted 24.3m/sec instead of ca 21m/sec when the rads were almost closed. And we have here no real diffo between FULLY closed and FULLY open rads. Spitfire climb tests show similiar trend.

The other weird thing, the engine temperature. The real life 109G-2 tests I have show that with ca 3/4 open radiators the temperature was EXTREMELY steady in climb, between an optimum of 85-90 degree celsius. This is at 1.3ata. The 109K and /AS G-10 had better cooling and more power.
Compared to that in the game the temp rises very quickly, radiator position has very little effect on it.

I asked tagert to include the engine temp into the chart to show this, but he seems to have forgotten.

The most important thing about when comparing the ingame tests with the real life docs, is that the above game test posted was done with CLOSED radiators, but the real life tests are with half-OPEN radiators (up to the rated alt), so the real life tests results should and do show lower results beceause of the increased drag from the radiators.


Considering the finn test showed at least +3m/sec gain when the radiators were near-closed vs. half closed, ie. the same difference between the RL and gametest data, it doesn't seem the climb rate is off _for closed radiators and 1.8ata (ie_. ie 22m/sec at 5000ft in RL w. 1.8ata with open rads, vs. 26m/sec in the game w. 1.98(??) with closed rads and less drag) The engine overheats also very quickly.

The other flaw in the model is the boost pressure. It shows 1.98ata near SL, but the engine can't hold it longer than about 4000m; in real life however, 1.98ata was kept up until 4900m in climb, and 1.8ata up to 6000m or 20kf feet (vs. we hava in the game just 1.6ata at 20k feet)

JuHa-
02-03-2006, 12:07 PM
Kurfurst,

For what it's worth, I had/have a serious problem with Bf109s with MW50 regarding
cooling. They overheated if over 85% throttle, and no effect from the radiators
that I could see.

Noticed that if I started the il2.exe instead of the il2fb.exe this weirdness
disappeared, now cooling works and Bf109s can be flown normally. Don't know
if this is the case with your installation, but might be worth trying out.
I don't know why this happened, as normally people don't have this kind of
problems!

fordfan25
02-03-2006, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Not true, in that for a long time many have felt the 109K TTA/ROC was over modled. Now we have proof that it was. The current 1.80ata was allready performing like a 1.98ata, so why add the 1.98ata? Could prove interesting.. trend wise.
But whats the point of looking back, what trend; are you implying that there is a global trend of LW planes being overmodelled is that it, if it is why don't you just say it?

No biggie, planned on doing that anyways.
Cool looking foward to see the result... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



im saying it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

fordfan25
02-03-2006, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
k4's had overmodeled climb for *years*

even kurfy has admitted as much, several times.

if kurfy says 109 is TOO GOOD at something, well certainly grabs your attention http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Scen
02-03-2006, 12:52 PM
It's a function of a few things. Altitude temp and atmospheric pressure.

I think you guys are approaching it in the right way. High level is good enough.

Gibbage1
02-03-2006, 01:12 PM
Kurf. Do you think the K4's climb is overmodeled at 27M/s at 3000M?

anarchy52
02-03-2006, 03:01 PM
I have uploaded the a few test tracks

http:/marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing_tracks.zip

Second attempt with La-7, a bit better:

http:/marvin.kset.org/~riddler/La7-2.ntrk

I think you'll find them interesting TAGERT.

Looks like we already have a +25lbs Spit in the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It's quite weird results. I did TWO tests with rads fully closed and fully open, and noticed that there were almost no difference between them, they dont effect climb rate, nor cooling significantly.

Of course this is wrong.

In real life, there was a massive difference, the tests I have show that the climb rate was improved at least by 3 m/sec if the rads were nearly closed instead of half open, ie. Finnish test of MT 215, a G-2 resulted 24.3m/sec instead of ca 21m/sec when the rads were almost closed. And we have here no real diffo between FULLY closed and FULLY open rads. Spitfire climb tests show similiar trend. Well also remember, in REAL LIFE those test pilots were most likly alot beter and testing than you are I are.. Look at how much your raw data jumped around.. the nosie of that alone would eat up your 3.0m/s difference to the point it was not noticable, where as a good test pilot, with a steady hand would have done a better job of reducing the variance, thus making the small difference more noticable. Last but not least, keep in mind that this simulation is NOT simulating air flow over the 3D body of the aircraft.. the drag due to the rad is just some number that adds a bigger number to the total drag when open, and a smaller one when closed. That is to say, it is a flight sim not a heat transfer sim.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The other weird thing, the engine temperature. The real life 109G-2 tests I have show that with ca 3/4 open radiators the temperature was EXTREMELY steady in climb, between an optimum of 85-90 degree celsius. This is at 1.3ata. The 109K and /AS G-10 had better cooling and more power. Compared to that in the game the temp rises very quickly, radiator position has very little effect on it. Again, not a heat tranfer sim, a flight sim. The engine simulation with heat like things is probally a very simple thing math wise. Just be glad you dont have the P38 heat modeling that causes the engines to be totally burned up and destroyed by the time you get to 21kft at 110%


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I asked tagert to include the engine temp into the chart to show this, but he seems to have forgotten. Nope, you just did NOT click on the short cut to the full report. It is in the full report, just click on it, it is in a pdf format.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The most important thing about when comparing the ingame tests with the real life docs, is that the above game test posted was done with CLOSED radiators, but the real life tests are with half-OPEN radiators (up to the rated alt), so the real life tests results should and do show lower results beceause of the increased drag from the radiators. Which in turn means the in-game 109K4 is NOT overheating like it should than.



Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The other flaw in the model is the boost pressure. It shows 1.98ata near SL, but the engine can't hold it longer than about 4000m; in real life however, 1.98ata was kept up until 4900m in climb, and 1.8ata up to 6000m or 20kf feet (vs. we hava in the game just 1.6ata at 20k feet) But, this is the 1.80ata 109K4, it should NOT be obtaining 1.98ata at all! If he P38J was showing 65"MP instead of 60"MP imagie all the whining we would hear about that! No body seems to be upset that the currnet v4.02 1.80ata 109K4 is allready running at 1.98ata. But, as with the temp, the MP is just a dummy variable.. it really does not effect anything. The only thing that really means anything is the TTA/ROC. And from what I can tell, the current 1.80ata is allready performing like a 1.98ata so why add the 1.98ata?

kidsmoke1959
02-03-2006, 03:45 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Grey_Mouser67
02-03-2006, 03:50 PM
While I'm no engineer...one thing I have read is that parasitic drag increases with increased airspeed.

Not sure if radiator open is considered parasitic drag, but I think that the affect of the radiator would be less while climbing and at high altitudes due to slower and thinner air.

In game, seems most planes get a stock 20km/hr penalty for radiator open, but I've never tested it at 180mph.

The note about "test" data as opposed to actual data is interesting...on all fronts, "test" data seems to be overstated...compared to real life battlefield conditions...same way with lab results vs. actual results in manufactuing environments....much harder to control variables so the end result is always lower than the mathmatically calculated version...never higher

arjisme
02-03-2006, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Seems simple enough. So, what is changing the pressure? Is it the cumbustibility of the fuel? The pressure produced by the supercharger? Or a higher compression ratio?
Sorry for reaching back to the 1st page of the thread, but I thought folks might find this site interesting if they want to know more about manifold pressure: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html

Unknown-Pilot
02-03-2006, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The other flaw in the model is the boost pressure. It shows 1.98ata near SL, but the engine can't hold it longer than about 4000m; in real life however, 1.98ata was kept up until 4900m in climb, and 1.8ata up to 6000m or 20kf feet (vs. we hava in the game just 1.6ata at 20k feet) But, this is the 1.80ata 109K4, it should NOT be obtaining 1.98ata at all! If he P38J was showing 65"MP instead of 60"MP imagie all the whining we would hear about that! No body seems to be upset that the currnet v4.02 1.80ata 109K4 is allready running at 1.98ata. But, as with the temp, the MP is just a dummy variable.. it really does not effect anything. The only thing that really means anything is the TTA/ROC. And from what I can tell, the current 1.80ata is allready performing like a 1.98ata so why add the 1.98ata? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not what he said, and not what was found.

Read his post. Since there is no real effect on climb rate w/r/t rad settings, we are getting the closed rad performance but the real tests were done with open rads. That's the discrepancy.

That means that the 1.98 should climb better than what we have now with it's rad's closed. And by about the same margin.

The problem is not the climb rate or power, it's the radiator drag.

Which, as he said, shows that it's acutally NOT overmodeled in climb as it stands, since it should do that if you do it with the rads closed - and it does.

ploughman
02-03-2006, 04:08 PM
No, he definately says 1.98 ata.

"The other flaw in the model is the boost pressure. It shows 1.98ata near SL, but the engine can't hold it longer than about 4000m; in real life however, 1.98ata was kept up until 4900m in climb, and 1.8ata up to 6000m or 20kf feet (vs. we hava in the game just 1.6ata at 20k feet)"

Unknown-Pilot
02-03-2006, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
No, he definately says 1.98 ata.

"The other flaw in the model is the boost pressure. It shows 1.98ata near SL, but the engine can't hold it longer than about 4000m; in real life however, 1.98ata was kept up until 4900m in climb, and 1.8ata up to 6000m or 20kf feet (vs. we hava in the game just 1.6ata at 20k feet)"

"It shows" reads like he was talking about on the guage.

But I just checked and 1.8 is the highest it shows. My bad.

ploughman
02-03-2006, 04:18 PM
Really, maybe it's a typo, or the beta and not 4.02 or something.

p1ngu666
02-03-2006, 04:32 PM
u can get the MP from from devicelink cant u?

1.8ata maybe highest on the dial, but that might not be what its REALLY pulling.

ofcourse we want the ingame to match the irl.

if kurfy can list
power setting, rad setting, climbspeed, fuel load and any addiitional critiria from the real test, then we can replicate it

the biggist issue isnt the peak intial roc, its that it doesnt deacrease its rate of climb as it should as the air things

p1ngu666
02-03-2006, 04:37 PM
quick test, with wep enabled i need "only" 73-76%throttle to get 1.8ata

Sergio_101
02-03-2006, 04:41 PM
In the game all radiators open are parasitic drag.
This is mostly a real life thing, more or less accurate.
In the case of the P-51 is is very inaccurate
and in fact should improve the drag issue with
the radiator open when the engine is hot.
Perhaps this is a limitation of the game engine?

Cowl flaps (Same key as radiators) also usualy
cost heavily in parasitic drag.

Sergio

ploughman
02-03-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
quick test, with wep enabled i need "only" 73-76%throttle to get 1.8ata

Eh? So more throttle =>1.8 ata.

p1ngu666
02-03-2006, 04:50 PM
ok
took the much whined about spit ixe, cw

pulling into a steep climb (same for all of the following, to reduce ram air effect)

18lb's requires 100%throttle(plus wep), or close too ie 99,98%

g6late, same, MP/Boost/ata is linked closely with throttle, 110% needed for full power.

g6as, is similer to k4, but u need 101% for 1.8ata i think (sorry im rather tired)

ploughman
02-03-2006, 05:11 PM
I just had a waz on the 4.02m Bf 109 K4, 100m, Crimea map. 71% throttle and WEP tips up to 1.8 ata on the dial.

You seem to have preceded me there Pinggu, as I was about to say that there's a bit of throttle play on most boosts though, but 29% is, er, generous.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 05:21 PM
Correct me if I am wrong.. but last I head Oleg said he is going to ADD a 1.98ata 109K4 to the game.

The test I processed for Kurfurst was for v4.02, the current version, which does NOT have the so called 1.98ata in it, it only has the 1.80ata, otherwise WHY would Oleg be adding a 1.98ata?

Now, with that cleared up.. the current 1.80ata 109K4 has the performace of a 1.98ata. So, why add a 1.98ata?

Unless..

Unless Oleg realised his current 1.80ata is performing like a 1.98ata. So, in reality he is not adding a new more powerful 109K4. He is simply going to rename the current 1.80ata to 1.98ata and give it a new skin. Than ADD a real 1.80ata which will have LESS POWER than the current 1.80ata.

Which in essance kind of F's the Lw boy because alot of the servers allready said they are going to BAN the 1.98ata. Thus all they will be able to fly is the NEW 1.80ata with less power than it had.

Just a theory, but, a pretty good one imho.

If that is the case.. how many Lw guys are going to be lining up to thank Kurfurst for bringing this to Oleg's att? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ploughman
02-03-2006, 05:23 PM
Well yeah, but where's Kurfy got 1.98 ata from? It's not a dial reading, but it's on the test. Is there another way that is not visible but is apparrent through your testing that reveals 1.98 ata?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Well yeah, but where's Kurfy got 1.98 ata from? That is just it.. the current 1.80ata from v4.02 is allready running at 1.98ata. Which is the version he made the track file from. The 1.98ata has not even been included in the beta patch yet.


Originally posted by Ploughman:
It's not a dial reading, but it's on the test. Is there another way that is not visible but is apparrent through your testing that reveals 1.98 ata? It comes from the devicelink data.. But.. Oleg has allready stated that the MP readings mean nothing.. They are not what he goes by.. What he goes by is the performance. It just so happens that in both cases the 1.80ata match the 1.98ata. Only thing Oleg will say is 100% is MIL and 110% is WEP.

Tachyon1000
02-03-2006, 05:29 PM
Are there comparable TTCs for the ROC chart that the in-game performance is being compared to as well as corresponding speeds? The check climbs look very noisy.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Are there comparable TTCs for the ROC chart that the in-game performance is being compared to Yes, see page one.


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
as well as corresponding speeds? No, there is no best IAS data.


Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
The check climbs look very noisy. Not really, he actully did a pretty good job. Not great, but pretty good. It could be beter, which in turn would produce an even higher ROC value.

That is to say, even with the semi noisy check climb he was able to out preform most of the 1.98ata real world data in a so called 1.80ata 109

PS how is your P38 re-tesing going? Did you fix all the errors in your enery analysis? Let me know if you need any help!

ploughman
02-03-2006, 05:39 PM
Ah. Nice. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p1ngu666
02-03-2006, 05:43 PM
ploughman, theres 29% too 100%, then a extra 10%, so 39% ingame.

its reasonable to assume i think, that with that amount of play, the k4 may well be reaching over 1.8ata.

i think our current k4 climbs too well, but has 1.8ata speed. like our spit vb infact, tho k4 was ingame long before the spit.

oh kurfy also mentioned better cooling, but i think that was the oil cooler only, the wingrads remained basicaly the same as the F series far as i know.

ploughman
02-03-2006, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ploughman, theres 29% too 100%, then a extra 10%, so 39% ingame.

its reasonable to assume i think, that with that amount of play, the k4 may well be reaching over 1.8ata.

i think our current k4 climbs too well, but has 1.8ata speed. like our spit vb infact, tho k4 was ingame long before the spit.

oh kurfy also mentioned better cooling, but i think that was the oil cooler only, the wingrads remained basicaly the same as the F series far as i know.


Sure, but I was wondering how Tagert quantified the extra 39% (not 29%, doh!) on the throttle in the context of the test he processed for Kurfurst. Flying the thing the difference betwix 71% at 1.8ata and 110% at 1.8ata was phenomenal.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Sure, but I was wondering how Tagert quantified the extra 39% (not 29%, doh!) on the throttle in the context of the test he processed for Kurfurst. Flying the thing the difference betwix 71% at 1.8ata and 110% at 1.8ata was phenomenal. Which is why Oleg said dont go by the MP guages.. they do not match up to throttle settings! The only thing Oleg will go by is

100% = MIL
110% = WEP

Everything else is just for looks.. For the most part, they are pretty good, but not allways.

ploughman
02-03-2006, 05:56 PM
Quite. So looks like Kurfy's hung with his own petard.

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Quite. So looks like Kurfy's hung with his own petard. Maybe.. maybe not.. Only Oleg knows for sure. It is all just a theory.

TheGozr
02-03-2006, 06:16 PM
The main thing to look at is the Climb in"Chandelle" i don't know if this make sens in English but you have to take the most considiration for this type of climb mostly in combat value.

I realy want to see those test remake.

Unknown-Pilot
02-03-2006, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Quite. So looks like Kurfy's hung with his own petard.

IDK. I think we need him to come back and untangle his post because it does seem to contradict itself, as you ended up inadvertently pointing out.

I can't help but think it shows that it's right as it stands in game, if we consider lack of radiator drag, and that that is what the problem is.

I've re-read his post, and the last paragraph causes the confusion, but his bolded part is what I think he was trying to convey -

Considering the finn test showed at least +3m/sec gain when the radiators were near-closed vs. half closed, ie. the same difference between the RL and gametest data, it doesn't seem the climb rate is off _for closed radiators and 1.8ata (ie_. ie 22m/sec at 5000ft in RL w. 1.8ata with open rads, vs. 26m/sec in the game w. 1.98(??) with closed rads and less drag) The engine overheats also very quickly.

(quoted and bolded exactly as he typed it)

He seems to be saying that closing the rads is worth about 3m/s in climb rate. And we are seeing about 4m/s above what people are thinking we should see. And that the Germans acquired their test results with the rads open.

It's somewhat a supposition, but, if it is true that closing rads is worth about 3m/s, *and* that in game there is no real difference between open or closed (in resulting climb speed), then it would seem that what we have is correct for 1.8ATA with rads closed.

However, as noted, his very next paragraph adds confusion.

Gibbage1
02-03-2006, 09:08 PM
Unknown-Pilot. Your under the asumption that opening the rads is not slowing down the aircraft. What if its the other way around? What if closing them is not speeding it up? That invalidates the speculation that 3M/s over is fine. But we cant know for sure if thats the case or not. Kurf is only asuming it.

Also, he has not posted a climb chart of what the 109K4 at 1.8 or 1.98 should climb like. From the chart Hop has, 1.8ATA should get just over 20M/s. Kurf's test got just under 27M/s. Thats 7m/s more! That BLOWS away the "possible" lack of drag from the Rads. Agreed?

Badsight.
02-03-2006, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
In the game all radiators open are parasitic drag.
This is mostly a real life thing, more or less accurate.
In the case of the P-51 is is very inaccurate
and in fact should improve the drag issue with
the radiator open when the engine is hot.
Perhaps this is a limitation of the game engine?

Cowl flaps (Same key as radiators) also usualy
cost heavily in parasitic drag.

Sergio this was discussed heavily - & FB is showen to be working correctly - the meredith effect worked on a very slight rad opening

FB's P-51 is working as it should in this regard

Gibbage1
02-03-2006, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

FB's P-51 is working as it should in this regard

How so? Last I tested in 4.01, it killed 20-30MPH from my top speed vs Rad closed. It should not effect speed much if at all.

lrrp22
02-03-2006, 10:41 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 Badsight.:

FB's P-51 is working as it should in this regard

How so? Last I tested in 4.01, it killed 20-30MPH from my top speed vs Rad closed. It should not effect speed much if at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Fully open radiators could kill up to 35 mph IAS from the Mustang's top speed, so I think the speed penalty in-game is actually a little low for fully open. However, all listed top speeds for the Mustang were attained with radiators set to 'automatic' which typically resulted in the larger coolant flap opening to between 6-8". Temperatures were stable and did not exceed normal limits in level flight or climb, even at 75" Hg (or 81" Hg, IIRC).

LRRP

Gibbage1
02-03-2006, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Badsight.:

FB's P-51 is working as it should in this regard

How so? Last I tested in 4.01, it killed 20-30MPH from my top speed vs Rad closed. It should not effect speed much if at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Fully open radiators could kill up to 35 mph IAS from the Mustang's top speed, so I think the speed penalty in-game is actually a little low for fully open. However, all listed top speeds for the Mustang were attained with radiators set to 'automatic' which typically resulted in the larger coolant flap opening to between 6-8". Temperatures were stable and did not exceed normal limits in level flight or climb, even at 75" Hg (or 81" Hg, IIRC).

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if I set my rad too auto, it should not effect my speed? Does it happen that way in-game?

AKA_TAGERT
02-03-2006, 11:36 PM
Well, I thought I would give it a go.

100% FUEL
MW50 ON
110% THROTTLE
RAD OPEN

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN_TBL.JPG

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN_ROC_TTA.JPG

As you can see, I held 27.5ms up to ~3,500m than it started to taper off. I tried a climb schedule of ~160mph where Krufurst was ~180mph, I think the best is in-between the two? But, would need to do a few more tests or a full up saw tooth run to be sure.

All in all this v4.02 109K4 @ 1.80ata sure seems to be acting like the real life 109K4 @ 1.98ata data shown in hop2002's TTA/ROC graphs.

As a mater of fact, this 1.80ata is not only performing better than the real life 1.80ata, but better than the real life 1.98ata in hop2002's TTA/ROC graphs!

In that the peak at 500m is only 25m/s in that graph and quickly drops off.. Where as the in-game 1.80ata has a peak of 27+m/s and holds it all the way up to 3000m, where as in hop2002s graphs the ROC is only 23m/s.

Now, if we compare the real life 1.80ata data to this 1.80ata we have real life of 21m/s at 3000m vs. in-game 27+m/s

I wish the in-game P38J was this *wrong* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here is the full report
My test (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN_summary.pdf)

Here is the track file
My track file (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN.ntrk)

bolillo_loco
02-04-2006, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by "Unknown-Pilot"

"You've aptly described the population of this forum. Red whiners. Only interested in getting max performance out of allied aircraft, and in ruining any attempt to get accuracy out of anything LW.

Clearly, that's not a category that each and every single person visiting this forum falls into, but as you can see by how the threads always turn out, it IS the majority of people here." End of Unknown-Pilot's post

Quite frankly, I'm inclined to agree with the "red whiners." German aircraft have abilities that exceed even recent popular data. However, for me or anybody else to come in here and state that X German design exceeds this that and the other thing without providing in game data and real life data solves nothing and typically generates flame thread after flame thread running five six or more pages.

Kurfurst's and Tagert's in game data shows that the current Bf-109K4 1.80 ATA can exceed test documents for the Bf-109K4 while running 1.98 ATA. This is the type of data that is needed to prove that X aircraft meets, exceeds, or is right on the mark. Without data like this a thread is only a whine, but with the data it's an objective study of the game not to be confused with a whine. If three or four other people can duplicate Tagert's and Kurfurst's data, then I believe it is accurate enough to present to the game designer and ask for the appropriate corrections.

Originally posted by "Ploughman"

"Did you even read the thread? Most of it is Tag explaining to Fritz how to interpret the data and what ata is and how it works." End of Ploughman's post.

Yes I was reading through the thread and I noticed that people were beginning to bicker and nitpick. I felt that if a few other people duplicated the data presented it would be something solid to shut those up who were whining.

AKA_TAGERT
02-04-2006, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
If three or four other people can duplicate Tagert's and Kurfurst's data, then I believe it is accurate enough to present to the game designer and ask for the appropriate corrections. Here is the 3rd

Robban75 sent these too me

100% FUEL
MW50 ON
110% THROTTLE
RAD OPEN

Summary Table
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/Robban/Robban_100FUEL_110PWR_RAD_OPEN_USE_MW50_TBL.JPG

ROC graph
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/Robban/Robban_100FUEL_110PWR_RAD_OPEN_USE_MW50_ROC_TTA.JP G

As you can see, his test was shorter, but he got the same ~27m/s in the same altitude band. Pretty consistant

Full Report
Robban75's test report (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/Robban/Robban_100FUEL_110PWR_RAD_OPEN_USE_MW50_summary.pd f)

pourshot
02-04-2006, 03:01 AM
Good stuff mate, looks like I have my boosted K4 already http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Badsight.
02-04-2006, 03:15 AM
ever since 2003 Pourshot - all its been lacking is a little SL top speed

for fun try the manuel pitch on the K4 (or any Bf-109) in FB v1.0

Kufurst has seen me harp on about the K4's climb rate for over a year now - really it was Robban who posted the first decent climb-to-6K tests on this plane - back in 2004

with the old manuel pitch it managed to get 32m/s climbrate all the way up to 6K - apart from the P-39 (overboosted climb to hell during ONE patch) - its the single biggest offender for overmoddeled climb , ever since FB v1.0

bolillo_loco
02-04-2006, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
ever since 2003 Pourshot - all its been lacking is a little SL top speed

for fun try the manuel pitch on the K4 (or any Bf-109) in FB v1.0

Kufurst has seen me harp on about the K4's climb rate for over a year now - really it was Robban who posted the first decent climb-to-6K tests on this plane - back in 2004

with the old manuel pitch it managed to get 32m/s climbrate all the way up to 6K - apart from the P-39 (overboosted climb to hell during ONE patch) - its the single biggest offender for overmoddeled climb , ever since FB v1.0

I must be feeling ill because lately I find myself agreeing with people that I typically disagree with.

I couldn't have said it better myself Badsight, it's almost as if you took the words right from my mouth. :\/

Several patches ago I was able to obtain climb rates of 6,200 - 6,500 fpm in the Bf-109K4 while using manual prop pitch. Even though I exclusively used the Bf-109K4, I complained about the prop pitch exploit. Since December 2003, a certified Bf-109 whiner.

AFJ_Locust
02-04-2006, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:


What I mean is that like most of the posters in here, I haven´t the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.

Then I won´t post dumba posts such as the one I posted earlier. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Fritz

here let me explain it in Laymans terms.

Normaly if one dosent have any clue about the topic, one dosent post or stick his foot in his mouth over & over...

Altho I am guilty of the same at times.

Heres the main point, Oleg has said In the upcoming patch k4 with 1.98ata Boost will be introduced, turns out that weve had it all along LMAO!!!

OLEG IS A CHEATER BE SURE

AFJ_Locust
02-04-2006, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Seems simple enough. So, what is changing the pressure? Is it the cumbustibility of the fuel? The pressure produced by the supercharger? Or a higher compression ratio?

Fritz

This ******* is fishing!!!!!!!!!

Pirschjaeger, you know exzactaly what that chart means.

p1ngu666
02-04-2006, 05:00 AM
anyone know how much the top speed is off by?

ploughman
02-04-2006, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Quite. So looks like Kurfy's hung with his own petard.

***additional***

Apologies for that, t'was late and I don't really want to get involved in some kind of mud slinging over the K4.

robban75
02-04-2006, 05:07 AM
If the 1.98 ata K-4 could reach 611km/h at sealevel, than it is about 27km/h faster than what we have in-game.

AFJ_Locust
02-04-2006, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
All I'm going to ask in this thread is: Does anybody of you 109 haters got FINAL v4.03 track?

we/I dont hate the k4, I fly it alot, but when Im on allied I dont want people flying an overmodled ac against my ac wich I feal are slighted too some degree

AFJ_Locust
02-04-2006, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
quick test, with wep enabled i need "only" 73-76%throttle to get 1.8ata

That sayes it all

ploughman
02-04-2006, 05:39 AM
Tagert pointed out that this is misleading as it is only candy.

"Oleg has allready stated that the MP readings mean nothing.. They are not what he goes by.. What he goes by is the performance. It just so happens that in both cases the 1.80ata match the 1.98ata. Only thing Oleg will say is 100% is MIL and 110% is WEP."

Abbuzze
02-04-2006, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
quick test, with wep enabled i need "only" 73-76%throttle to get 1.8ata

That sayes it all </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, that say a lot, and means the following thing for a 109 driver in FB:

- You cant fly with WEP enabled with even less than 100% power, because MW50 heats your engine allready at 75%.

- You have to fly with WEP disabled to keep your engine cool, so if you spot an enemy plane you have to reduce power to idle, wait till RPM are decreasing, than switch WEP on, go to 110% to accelerate and go into fight.
In any other plane if you see an enemy you just went to 110%.

- It also means that if you disengage from enemy with overheating engine (that quite usuall) you have to do the same procedure, becaue reducing power to 90% don´t prevent your engine from further overheat and damage!

- And last, if MW50 is used up your engine will breake even at 80%.

Yes it realy says a lot.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-04-2006, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
If the 1.98 ata K-4 could reach 611km/h at sealevel, than it is about 27km/h faster than what we have in-game. I did a SL top speed test last night, I got 589 on the TAS display. I need to process that, because in the past there has been some differences between the WW TAS dispaly and the IAS values. But assuming that is true..

607 - 589 = 8
611 - 589 = 21

I did both, because I have seen some say 607 and you say 611.

Ill post it later, because right now I off to go watch a real life P38J taxi, take off, and fly out at chino.

AKA_TAGERT
02-04-2006, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
You are right, that say a lot, and means the following thing for a 109 driver in FB:

- You cant fly with WEP enabled with even less than 100% power, because MW50 heats your engine allready at 75%.
Disagree 100%!

If you take a look at the previous page you will see my ROC/TTA where I went from sea level to 30,000ft with MW50 enabled and 110% throttle and the overheat message did not come on until about 4min into the run, ~20,000ft. But, it never really overheated! That I found amazing becuase if you run the P38J at 110% all the way up to 20,000ft, by the time you get to 21,000ft the engine is squeaking and is for ever damaged. Even though the real life P38J had NO PROBLEMS WITH OVERHEAT in the real life test, and made it all the way to 35kft with no problems.

If you want to see something AMAZING! Take a look at the FULL REPORT link and note that the TEMP in the 109 actually starts to go back DOWN and thus never over heats to the point of damage.


Originally posted by Abbuzze:
- You have to fly with WEP disabled to keep your engine cool, so if you spot an enemy plane you have to reduce power to idle, wait till RPM are decreasing, than switch WEP on, go to 110% to accelerate and go into fight.
In any other plane if you see an enemy you just went to 110%.

- It also means that if you disengage from enemy with overheating engine (that quite usuall) you have to do the same procedure, becaue reducing power to 90% don´t prevent your engine from further overheat and damage!
Which is how it was with MW50, so I don€t see a problem there.


Originally posted by Abbuzze:
- And last, if MW50 is used up your engine will breake even at 80%.
Again, sound pretty realistic. The MW50 is how they got so much out of so little.


Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Yes it realy says a lot.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Agreed 100%! And what it says is we have and have had a 1.98ata for a long time. One that has much better ROC than a real 1.98ata but with slightly less top speed of a 1.98ata. With the biggest bug being they labed it 1.80ata instead of 1.98ata. At least that is what the *data* says to me and others.. but rose colored glasses may cause *your* mileage to vary. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Abbuzze
02-04-2006, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
You are right, that say a lot, and means the following thing for a 109 driver in FB:

- You cant fly with WEP enabled with even less than 100% power, because MW50 heats your engine allready at 75%.
Disagree 100%!

If you take a look at the previous page you will see my ROC/TTA where I went from sea level to 30,000ft with MW50 enabled and 110% throttle and the overheat message did not come on until about 4min into the run, ~20,000ft. But, it never really overheated! That I found amazing becuase if you run the P38J at 110% all the way up to 20,000ft, by the time you get to 21,000ft the engine is squeaking and is for ever damaged. Even though the real life P38J had NO PROBLEMS WITH OVERHEAT in the real life test, and made it all the way to 35kft with no problems.

If you want to see something AMAZING! Take a look at the FULL REPORT link and note that the TEMP in the 109 actually starts to go back DOWN and thus never over heats to the point of damage.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Checked it you are right this should be changed, I don´t fly the K4 usually, but the problem I described is there for all other MW50 equipt 109´s and it is a real problem.


Originally posted by Abbuzze:
- You have to fly with WEP disabled to keep your engine cool, so if you spot an enemy plane you have to reduce power to idle, wait till RPM are decreasing, than switch WEP on, go to 110% to accelerate and go into fight.
In any other plane if you see an enemy you just went to 110%.

- It also means that if you disengage from enemy with overheating engine (that quite usuall) you have to do the same procedure, becaue reducing power to 90% don´t prevent your engine from further overheat and damage!

Which is how it was with MW50, so I don€t see a problem there.
[/QUOTE]

Yes right, but in real live you "loaded" MW50 and it just started to work if more than 100% power was used, so crusing with less than 100% was not combinated with MW50 use. You could cruise with 90% and than firewall the power lever. This is not possible in a FB 109 (with the exception of the K4 it seems http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)


Originally posted by Abbuzze:
- And last, if MW50 is used up your engine will breake even at 80%.
Again, sound pretty realistic. The MW50 is how they got so much out of so little.
[/QUOTE]

No, it´s not realistic, because MW50 don´t work under 100% in real life! It was just a kind of charged, which means that the MW50 tank was set under pressure, and using more than 100% should press the fluid into the supercharger. If MW50 is used up it was not possible to use MW50 without enginedamaged, but at 80% there is no reason while the fact that pressured was put into an empty tank would let your engine overheat and break!


Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Yes it realy says a lot.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Agreed 100%! And what it says is we have and have had a 1.98ata for a long time. One that has much better ROC than a real 1.98ata but with slightly less top speed of a 1.98ata. With the biggest bug being they labed it 1.80ata instead of 1.98ata. At least that is what the *data* says to me and others.. but rose colored glasses may cause *your* mileage to vary. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/QUOTE]

ploughman
02-04-2006, 10:32 AM
I had a few wazzes with the K4 in QMB, Crimea map, empty, auto-prop pitch, 50% fuel, and couldn't get beyond 591kph with rads closed, 571kph rads fully open, altitude 5-20m. Maybe someone with some finesse on the prop pitch could get a bit more out but that's the best I could do and I flogged that horse for quite a while.

fordfan25
02-04-2006, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I had a few wazzes with the K4 in QMB, Crimea map, empty, auto-prop pitch, 50% fuel, and couldn't get beyond 591kph with rads closed, 571kph rads fully open, altitude 5-20m. Maybe someone with some finesse on the prop pitch could get a bit more out but that's the best I could do and I flogged that horse for quite a while.

i to got 590 to 592 50% fuel.rad closed full power and wep.

robban75
02-04-2006, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
If the 1.98 ata K-4 could reach 611km/h at sealevel, than it is about 27km/h faster than what we have in-game. I did a SL top speed test last night, I got 589 on the TAS display. I need to process that, because in the past there has been some differences between the WW TAS dispaly and the IAS values. But assuming that is true..

607 - 589 = 8
611 - 589 = 21

I did both, because I have seen some say 607 and you say 611.

Ill post it later, because right now I off to go watch a real life P38J taxi, take off, and fly out at chino. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have wind and turbulence enabled? For some reason TAS is affected by it. It seems TAS becomes GS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif For example, with the D-9 '45, I can reach 621km/h TAS at sealevel. If I switch off W/T, top speed drops to 612km/h TAS.

I don't know if all planes are affected by this though.

DmdSeeker
02-04-2006, 12:41 PM
Why would running out of MW50 damage the engine? Were there some other settings changed when the "boost switch" was hit which relied upon it's presence; such as ignition timing or waste gate release pressure?

ploughman
02-04-2006, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
If the 1.98 ata K-4 could reach 611km/h at sealevel, than it is about 27km/h faster than what we have in-game. I did a SL top speed test last night, I got 589 on the TAS display. I need to process that, because in the past there has been some differences between the WW TAS dispaly and the IAS values. But assuming that is true..

607 - 589 = 8
611 - 589 = 21

I did both, because I have seen some say 607 and you say 611.

Ill post it later, because right now I off to go watch a real life P38J taxi, take off, and fly out at chino. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have wind and turbulence enabled? For some reason TAS is affected by it. It seems TAS becomes GS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif For example, with the D-9 '45, I can reach 621km/h TAS at sealevel. If I switch off W/T, top speed drops to 612km/h TAS.

I don't know if all planes are affected by this though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll give it a go, I had W & T on.

ploughman
02-04-2006, 01:21 PM
Strange that. It knocked off about 5kph from the top speed. K4 4.02 with W & T off top speed was 586kph by my reckoning.

Badsight.
02-04-2006, 02:18 PM
Kufurst has repeatedly stated at this forum that the RL 1.98ATA K4 could reach 607 kmh

im getting nearly 590 kmh out of the v4.02 K4

being 17 kmh too slow is less than 3% undermoddeled - or within acceptable limits

we have to accept some variance considering how many planes are in the game & how close they all are to the figures they are supposed to be hitting

robban75
02-04-2006, 02:53 PM
Where did I get 611kph from? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

fordfan25
02-04-2006, 04:09 PM
why would you cut off wind and turbulence. could thay do that in real life when testing planes?

robban75
02-04-2006, 04:17 PM
In real life wind will only affect ground speed(GS), and it has no affect on TAS. But it does in-game for some reason. Therefore I think speed runs should be made with W/T turned off. Otherwise we seem to get ground speed, which will give erroneous speed results.

p1ngu666
02-04-2006, 04:38 PM
there isnt wind in PF, just terbulance, or constant crosswinds, which makes it even odder.

dmdseeker, if u ran out of mw50 while running at full power, or suffient ata that u needed the antidetontation of the mw50, then the engine would be taking u off the christmas card list, to say the least.

you, in turn could find yourself taking pistons out of your face.

theres 26mins of mw50 so thats a fairly long time of full power, guess the problem is uve gotta be pullin high ata to run out of mw50, because otherwise your arent using it..

i leave mw50 on all the time, unless ive badly overheated engine and wanna cool off quick, then i turn it off. dont think ive ever had a problem with it

ploughman
02-04-2006, 04:38 PM
I tried it with Wind & Turbulence on and off. W&T on was 5kph slower than W&T off. Off was 591kph. I have no idea why this might be.

AKA_TAGERT
02-04-2006, 05:42 PM
And four

Here is the results from FatCat

SUMMARY TABLE
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/FatCat/FatCatBf109Kclimb_TBL.JPG

ROC TTA
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/FatCat/FatCatBf109Kclimb_ROC_TTA.JPG

As you can see, FatCat was able to exceed the 27m/s too.

Out of four tests, all were able to exceed the values listed in hop2002's table for a 1.80ata and a 1.98ata.

Here is the FULL REPORT
Fat Cat's test results (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/FatCat/FatCatBf109Kclimb_summary.pdf)

Kurfurst__
02-04-2006, 06:19 PM
Unfortunately two people here only seem to be interested in making as much noise as they can instead of discussion of the RESULTs.

Coincidentally, the same people who made the most noise about the addon of 1,98ata 109K in the next patch, are the same people who now argue that everything is fine, we already have 1,98ata in the sim etc.

We don't. What we have here is a rather badly modelled 109K, which overheats too quickly, it's radiator position does not effect it's ROC at all, unlike in real life. And for a 1.98ata version, it does around 585 kph vs. 607 kph at SL. The 1.8ata one did 595kph. No comment. "-20kph is withing acceptable limits" LOL, sure. If it's not the plane YOU are flying.

Just too transparent, while diverts the attention from the real problem.

The two graph with open rads and closed rads tell it all. The radiators don't effect climb performance, unlike in real life, THAT's the problem we have.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/Kurfurst/radclosed/Kurfurst_109K4_radclosed_SI_ROC.JPG

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN_ROC_TTA.JPG

In both cases it peaks out rather the same, at 27m/sec, IRRESPECTIVE of radiator flap position.

Compare to real life tests with a plane with radiators open/closed*
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165climb.gif

Look at 2 and 3 graph with Open/closed.
With open rads, the plane does ~4250 fpm.
With (half-)closed rads, the plane does ~4750 fpm.
*half open actually, the Spits rads are never fully close, unline on the 109.

500 fpm difference, or 2.54 m/sec due to just closing the radiator half instead of fully open.
That's on a Spitfire, in which the radiators exit areas are smaller, and the drag doesn't vary as much. On the 109 the effect is more pronounced. RL life tests show that at around 500-550 kph, the aircraft is slowed down by 60 kph when opening the rads. They are a considerable source of drag, when opened, but in that case, they also provide good cooling. In the same they do neither.

On the rl 109 tests, the radiators were half-open, in middle position, that's what the figures relate for. Open the rads fully and the ROC is less, close them and the ROC goes up. As did in the finn tests which shows 21-24m/sec ROC in the first 2000m where the radiators were closed, about 3-4 m/sec higher than in other tests where the radiator is half open.

In brief, the rl aircraft did around 22 m/sec at 1.8ata with half closed rads.
The sim one does 27 m/sec with closed rads, that would be quite reasonable if in real life they would close the rads, they'd get similiar results.
The problem is when the rads are fully open, you still climb at 27m/sec, and overheat almost as quick..
2

In real life, the rads effected climb performance a lot :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109grads.jpg

I don't think I will repeat to this thread any longer. The problem is that tagert and gibbage is too busy with their agenda, and making too much noise that actual bug finding would be possible. They keep ingnoring the results, and keep saying the same, and keep ignoring that the RL results are for half open radiators,ie. lower ROC when with closed radiators, whereas in the game the closed radiator setting gives apprx. the same increase as it would give in real life, but the open rad position doesnt differ from it. If it would, half open would give the same as half open gave in RL. It seems to be a waste of time to post more on that.

Those who want to understand what's wrong with the FM will understand now, no need for further explanation, those who just want to keep pushing the agenda and suppress the test results with noise, and will keep doing the same, no need to waste time any longer. The problem is rooted in the radiators missing drag in climb when open.

AKA_TAGERT
02-04-2006, 06:29 PM
Lets try and stay focused on the real problem here. For what ever reason, be it rad drag not being molded correct or something else. The *real* problem here is the current in-game <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 far exceed the real life <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 time-to-climb (TTA) due to unrealistically high rate-of-climb (ROC).

The strange/funny part is not only does the current in-game <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 far exceed the real life <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4, it *also* far exceeds the <span class="ev_code_yellow">1.98ata</span> time-to-climb (TTA) due to unrealistically high rate-of-climb (ROC).

Which makes a person wonder why Oleg is talking about adding a <span class="ev_code_yellow">1.98ata</span>? In that the game already has one. Granted, the top speed of the current in-game <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 is only 590kph @ SL instead of the 607kph, but if Oleg usese that FM as a starting point for the new <span class="ev_code_yellow">1.98ata</span> it should be a simple thing for him to increase the top speed a little.

Hopefully while adding in the new <span class="ev_code_yellow">1.98ata</span> 109K4 Oleg will noticed that the current in-game <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 far exceeds the real life <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 and the <span class="ev_code_yellow">1.98ata</span> time-to-climb (TTA) due to unrealistically high rate-of-climb (ROC) and will fix the <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 by reducing the TTA/ROC and add a true <span class="ev_code_yellow">1.98ata</span> 109K4 that also has a reduced TTA/ROC but with a slightly higher top speed @ SL.

Brain32
02-04-2006, 06:57 PM
far exceeds the 1.98ata time-to-climb (TTA) due to unrealistically high rate-of-climb
Well Kurfurst explained that RL measuring was done with radiator half open, and the fact that game doesent modell drag of half-open rads correctly, do you have any evidence of that being wrong?

Hopefully while adding in the new 1.98ata 109K4 Oleg will noticed that the current in-game 1.80ata 109K4 far exceeds the real life 1.80ata 109K4 and the 1.98ata time-to-climb (TTA) due to unrealistically high rate-of-climb (ROC) and will fix the 1.80ata 109K4 by reducing the TTA/ROC and add a true 1.98ata 109K4 that also has a reduced TTA/ROC but with a slightly higher top speed @ SL.
I hope so too except the 1.98ata having reduced ROC unless someone can provide correct RL ROC with closed radiators http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Badsight.
02-04-2006, 07:01 PM
the overheat is bugged . . . . . so what - it has been on other planes as well , this proves nothing about the model we have right now

the Sea Level Top Speed - so what if its slightly undermoddeled , at altitude the top speed is fine for a 1.98ATA K4

plenty of planes have been underperforming at SL top speed , some a little , some a lot

whats important is that its within a percentage of being close , the v4.02 Bf-K4 is undermoddeled less than 3% to the 1.98ATA standard

this is more than made up for with its absolutly fantastic over-performing climbrate , overmoddeled by more than 12%

as anyone who knows how to DF can tell you , climb power is worth more than SL top speed when it comes to making kills

i know , & everybody else knows that Top Speed allows you to get away , but Climb Rate allows you to stay in the fight

<span class="ev_code_RED">we have the 1.98ATA Bf-K4 in FB already</span>

the new 109 K4 needs to be the 1.80ATA version , & the overheat bug needs to be checked for all 109's & fixed

AKA_TAGERT
02-04-2006, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Well Kurfurst explained that RL measuring was done with radiator half open, and the fact that game doesent modell drag of half-open rads correctly, do you have any evidence of that being wrong?
Lets try and stay focused on the real problem here. For what ever reason, be it rad drag not being molded correct or something else. The *real* problem here is the current in-game 1.80ata 109K4 far exceed the real life 1.80ata 109K4, it *also* far exceeds the 1.98ata time-to-climb (TTA) due to unrealistically high rate-of-climb (ROC).


Originally posted by Brain32:
I hope so too except the 1.98ata having reduced ROC unless someone can provide correct RL ROC with closed radiators http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
See hoop2002's chart, and note that the error in ROC is larger than the 3m/s.

Also note that the ROC is much larger over a much wider range of altitude. The real 1.98ata had a peak ROC at about 900m and fell off very quickly from there on up, where as the in-game 1.80ata not only has a higher ROC, but it maintains that higher ROC all the way up to 3000m.

At 3000m the real life 1.80ata had a ROC of about 20.5m/s, the ingame 1.80ata is 27.5m/s, that is about a <span class="ev_code_red">1,400ft/min error</span> (ie 7 meter/second = 1 377.95 foot/minute)

At 3000m the real life 1.98ata had a ROC of about 22.5m/s, the ingame 1.80ata is 27.5m/s, that is about a <span class="ev_code_yellow">1,000ft/min error</span> (ie 5 meter/second = 984.25 foot/minute)

Badsight.
02-04-2006, 07:15 PM
i would be happy with the Top Speed if it meant the climb rate stayed the same

the K4 is more deadly as it is , than if it became 17 Kmh faster but the climb ability was reduced as drastically as the RL figures suggest

i know this & so does every other person who tries to stick to E-fighting

Brain32
02-04-2006, 07:23 PM
Also note that the ROC is much larger over a much wider range of altitude. The real 1.98ata had a peak ROC at about 900m and fell off very quickly from there on up, where as the in-game 1.80ata not only has a higher ROC, but it maintains that higher ROC all the way up to 3000m. At 3000m the real life 1.98ata had a ROC of about 22.5m/s, the ingame is 27.5m/s, that is about a 1000ft/min error (ie 5 meter/second = 984.25 foot/minute)
Yes that is fine I saw it and I understand, but you missed one detail about hop's chart, was that RL test done with rads opened or closed, I mean ok at 3000m it's rather fishy but in 0-2000m range, extra 3m/s could be explained with rads position, since I know you know more about this topic than I it's a question: 3m/s reasonable enough to be explained by drag resistance due to rads or not?

AKA_TAGERT
02-04-2006, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Yes that is fine I saw it and I understand, Roger, your welcome!


Originally posted by Brain32:
but you missed one detail about hop's chart, was that RL test done with rads opened or closed, Nope, didnt miss that at all. But for the sake of the Lw 109K4 pilots they better hope hop's chart is with rad open. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Brain32:
I mean ok at 3000m it's rather fishy but in 0-2000m range, extra 3m/s could be explained with rads position, Maybe.. maybe not.. I dont claim to know what line of code in the FM is causing the problem, Ill leave that to the *guessers* out there. The only thing I do know is that at *most* altitudes the in-game 1.80ata exceeds the real 1.80ata and 1.98ata. That is all I know for sure, in some cases the error is smaller than others.


Originally posted by Brain32:
since I know you know more about this topic than I it's a question: 3m/s reasonable enough to be explained by drag resistance due to rads or not? Man, I dont know! Looking at Kurfurst's charts it does seem reasonable. The 109 did some some big draggie rads.. but.. at slow speeds as in climbs, I wouldnt expect it to be a big factor.

I have not looked at his 109F ROC rad open closed examples long and hard, in that the rad drag simulation not the problem! It might be the source of the problem, but the actual problem is the HIGH ROC values.

As to what line of code in the sim is causing this bug/error.. Your guess is as good as mine! But, I'm sure it could be do to alot of things or even a combination of things.

HayateAce
02-05-2006, 05:22 AM
.

WOLFMondo
02-05-2006, 05:34 AM
For once I agree with HayateAce.

Lets hope its not habit forming :P

ploughman
02-05-2006, 10:45 AM
RL life tests show that at around 500-550 kph, the aircraft is slowed down by 60 kph when opening the rads.

I did a few tests, Crimea map, empty, 50% fuel, auto-prop pitch. 5-15m ABSL. Radiators fully open/fully closed.

Bf 109 K4 - 571kph/591kph
Bf 109 G/14 - 558kph/576kph
Bf 109 G/10 - 562kph/581kph
Bf 109 G6/AS - 565kph/584kph

The penalty for fully open radiators over fully closed radiators appears to be 18-20kph or about 1/3 what it should be given what Kurfy said.

AKA_TAGERT
02-05-2006, 11:17 AM
There seems to be some confusion here. Note the v4.02 in-game 109K4 is a 1.80ata capable 109K4, not a 1.98ata capable. Looking at the real world data chart (posted by hop2002) shows what actual ROC values for a 1.80ata capable 109K4.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/109K4_MW50_ON_1.80ata_and_1.98ata.JPG

Now taking the 1.80ata values and comparing them to my in-game test

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN_ROC_TTA_2.JPG

As you can see the in-game 109K4 @ 1.80ata far exceeds the real life 109K4 @ 1.80ata ROC values.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
At 3000m the real life 1.80ata has a ROC of about 20.5m/s
At 3000m the in-game 1.80ata has a ROC of about 27.5m/s</pre>
That is about a <span class="ev_code_red">1,400ft/min error</span> (ie 7 meter/second = 1 377.95 foot/minute)

That is in-game 1.80ata vs. real 1.80ata!

The surprising part is the in-game 1.80ata not only far exceeds the real life 1.80ata values but it far exceeds the real life 1.98ata values.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
At 3000m the real life 1.98ata has a ROC of about 22.5m/s
At 3000m the in-game 1.80ata has a ROC of about 27.5m/s</pre>
That is about a <span class="ev_code_yellow">1,000ft/min error</span> (ie 5 meter/second = 984.25 foot/minute)

That is in-game 1.80ata vs. real 1.98ata

Here is a link to my updated full report
My full report (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN_summary.pdf)

HayateAce
02-05-2006, 11:40 AM
I wonder if this thread should be moved to ORR?

Seems like something they would want to fix before releasing a mistake in 4.03.

AKA_TAGERT
02-05-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
I wonder if this thread should be moved to ORR?

Seems like something they would want to fix before releasing a mistake in 4.03. S! No need, I just posted it in the bug reporting thred over in ORR and sent Oleg a copy via email at the bug reporting addr. Let's see how well this bug reporting method they set up works, in that the only way Oleg can miss this info is to poke his own eyes out! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Would be nice if the mod that passed on the 1.98ata info to Oleg would also pass this info along.. but.. my guess is only postive (read hand picked) 109K4 info makes it's way to the big O! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Abbuzze
02-05-2006, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:


Out of four tests, all were able to exceed the values listed in hop2002's table for a 1.80ata and a 1.98ata.



Did I miss something or is your discussion still refering to the table with the "prototype values" without MW50??
A usuall 109K4 will be better than this values, because the missing intercooler(MW50) is reducing power, while increasing thermal stress for the engine, 1.98atü was used with set ignitation to late and the loss of 50HP, using 1.8atü without(!) MW50 will be even worse in result.



The Projektbüro estimate from 19.1.45 assumes 9-12159 propeller, and a weight of 7,496 lbs. Documentation listed below demonstrates that newly delivered Me 109 K-4's were equipped with a DB 605 DB engine with 1.80 ata/2800 rpm engine limitations beginning approx. mid January 1945. The GL/C-E2 from 1.11.44 gives 360 mph at SL, 441 mph at 24,606 ft. with production 9-12159 propeller. Various engine and propeller configurations were experimented with. The 9-12159 propeller was the standard production propeller but various German curves are extant showing estimated performance of the 109 K4 with 9-12199.10 and 9-17018.10 thin blade (Dünnblatt) props and Projektschraube with 4 light-metal blades. The 452 mph figure often cited as the top speed of the Me 109 K-4 derives from an estimate assumming an experimental 9-12199 Dünnblatt propeller. The DB 605 DC at 1.8 ata without MW-50 was tried but did not find favour. (Die E-stelle hat Bedenken gegen den Betrieb mit 1,8 ata Aufladung ohne MW mit C 3 Kraftstoff.) The DB 605 DC at 1.98 ata with MW was tested but seems not to have made it into service (Nach Mitteilung der E'Stelle sind 1,98 ata gesperrt.)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

AKA_TAGERT
02-05-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Did I miss something Yes!


Originally posted by Abbuzze:
or is your discussion still refering to the table with the "prototype values" without MW50?? No!

Im using the chart that hop2002 posted, Which is a re-post of what Kurfurst posted, which is with MW50.

You *thinking* of this graph
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1138831365_109kclimb2.jpg

But Im using this graph
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/MY_109K4_100FUEL_MW50_RAD_OPEN/109K4_MW50_ON_1.80ata_and_1.98ata.JPG


Originally posted by Abbuzze:
A usuall 109K4 will be better than this values, because the missing intercooler(MW50) is reducing power, while increasing thermal stress for the engine, 1.98atü was used with set ignitation to late and the loss of 50HP, using 1.8atü without(!) MW50 will be even worse in result.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The Projektbüro estimate from 19.1.45 assumes 9-12159 propeller, and a weight of 7,496 lbs. Documentation listed below demonstrates that newly delivered Me 109 K-4's were equipped with a DB 605 DB engine with 1.80 ata/2800 rpm engine limitations beginning approx. mid January 1945. The GL/C-E2 from 1.11.44 gives 360 mph at SL, 441 mph at 24,606 ft. with production 9-12159 propeller. Various engine and propeller configurations were experimented with. The 9-12159 propeller was the standard production propeller but various German curves are extant showing estimated performance of the 109 K4 with 9-12199.10 and 9-17018.10 thin blade (Dünnblatt) props and Projektschraube with 4 light-metal blades. The 452 mph figure often cited as the top speed of the Me 109 K-4 derives from an estimate assumming an experimental 9-12199 Dünnblatt propeller. The DB 605 DC at 1.8 ata without MW-50 was tried but did not find favour. (Die E-stelle hat Bedenken gegen den Betrieb mit 1,8 ata Aufladung ohne MW mit C 3 Kraftstoff.) The DB 605 DC at 1.98 ata with MW was tested but seems not to have made it into service (Nach Mitteilung der E'Stelle sind 1,98 ata gesperrt.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neat, but you forgot the graph that goes with that text..

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109k-climb.jpg

Note, the ROC *peak* of 4,400fpm is ~ 22.4m/s which agrees with Kurfurst's chart and my chart based on Kurfurst's chart. Also note is says with MW.

Abbuzze
02-05-2006, 12:32 PM
Rgr, thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I was confused, because both were posted by Hop!

AKA_TAGERT
02-05-2006, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Rgr, thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I was confused, because both were posted by Hop! Roger! It had me going for a few min too.. They are very close.. one just under 22 and one just over 22. Hop posted the 2nd one in responce to you pointing out the first was not with MW.

fordfan25
02-05-2006, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
I wonder if this thread should be moved to ORR?

Seems like something they would want to fix before releasing a mistake in 4.03. agreed

Skalgrim
02-05-2006, 02:35 PM
k4 with 1,8 ata has better powerload as g2 with 1,3ata, even with more weigh

so you could calculate the climb, its proportional depent from powerload when you comapare plane with same wings (same lift)

k4 with 1,8ata has 28% better powerload as g2 1,3ata

g2 climb 21m/sec from rechlin test

that meas she should climb 26,8m/sec

when you use finns g2 climb test 24m/sec, even 30m/sec should possible with 1,8ata


22m/sec k4 1,8ata was sure not make with mw50 boost,

k4 with 1,8ata has 500ps more power as the g2, but only 1m/sec more climb, that is sure wrong.

The 22m/sec was probable make with 1,45ata,

AND than match it with 22m/sec and
and with g2 21m/sec



spain g10 with 1680ps had 28m/sec climb with merlin engine

k4 with 2000ps has better powerload as
spain g10, so should are even over 30m/sec possible with mw50

the k4 at pf has the climb from 1,98ata compare with spain g10 seem it too right,

but is to slow sealevel, with 1,98ata should k4 reach 611km/h sealvel from russian test.

Russian had capture at koenigsberg k4 with 1,98ata and test, had oleg say




Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Unknown-Pilot. Your under the asumption that opening the rads is not slowing down the aircraft. What if its the other way around? What if closing them is not speeding it up? That invalidates the speculation that 3M/s over is fine. But we cant know for sure if thats the case or not. Kurf is only asuming it.

Also, he has not posted a climb chart of what the 109K4 at 1.8 or 1.98 should climb like. From the chart Hop has, 1.8ATA should get just over 20M/s. Kurf's test got just under 27M/s. Thats 7m/s more! That BLOWS away the "possible" lack of drag from the Rads. Agreed?

anarchy52
02-05-2006, 03:03 PM
As the above poster said, something is fishy about this issue. K-4 was aerodynamically improved and had better powerloading...anyway:

I took the liberty of examining a few other planes.

I calculated the roc by tta. Real world figures for Russian aircrafts are from Tsagi. Spit data is from hop's chart with the difference. Test was made starting at <10m alt ih horizontal flying at what I guessed was the best climbing speed (240-260 km/h)

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/SpitIX.gif
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/La-5.gif
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/LaGG-3.gif

I guess they called it Lakirovani Garantovani Grob for a reason. Tsagi chart is says LaGG-3, 1941 M-105P engine so I used 1941 LaGG-3 s4 with M-105P (others have M-105PF).

P.S. yes, chart should say DELTA instead of d, but you get the picture. All of the aircrafts that I tested climb better (LaGG has almost DOUBLE roc compared to RL).

p1ngu666
02-05-2006, 03:47 PM
anarchy, your pics dont work http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

biggest problem imo isnt peak roc, its that it doesnt decay as it should at altitude goes up.

ploughman
02-05-2006, 03:49 PM
They work for me.

p1ngu666
02-05-2006, 03:50 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif pics work

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif @ lagg3, thats perfectly modeled.
at 4000metres only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-05-2006, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
I calculated the roc by tta. I do both, I use the dx/dt of TTA as a check, but the actul ROC (aka VAR) is a DeviceLink variable you can log.


Originally posted by anarchy52:
Test was made starting at <10m alt ih horizontal flying at what I guessed was the best climbing speed (240-260 km/h) That is on parr with what the rest of us are donig. What fuel load did you use?


Originally posted by anarchy52:
P.S. yes, chart should say DELTA instead of d, but you get the picture. All of the aircrafts that I tested climb better (LaGG has almost DOUBLE roc compared to RL). Then they should be fixxed too..

If all the planes had higher than normal/real ROC's that this would not be a big deal, in that it is all *relitive*

But..

Not all planes have higher than normal/real ROCs. Take the P38J and L for example, they can not get close to thier TTA due to unrealistily low ROC values, that and they over heat at 20kft so badly that you can not continued on up to 30kft as they did in real life testing.

PS got your track files? I would like to comp your excel resuts to mine. You are using DeviceLink right? Beause if your donig this visually.. The dx/dt can be very missleading.. taking a dx/dt is noisy as is, but doing it off of visually collected data can introduce alot of error.. Which would/could explain your lagg ROC being off by a factor of two.

joe3rd
02-05-2006, 04:51 PM
Take CrazyIvans advise,posted in the forums.
Quote-->"Repeat after me."
"This is a free add-on"
"This is a free add-on"
"This is a free add-on"
End Quote!!!
Note the word--->***Free*** meaning it hasn't cost you anything. Which since Pacific Fighters this Flightsimm has been had many Free add-ons
Get a clue!

Brain32
02-05-2006, 05:00 PM
This discussion is NOT about new addon, it's about climbing performance of certain planes, so I really don't understand your comment http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

anarchy52
02-05-2006, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Not all planes have higher than normal/real ROCs. Take the P38J and L for example, they can not get close to thier TTA due to unrealistily low ROC values, that and they over heat at 20kft so badly that you can not continued on up to 30kft as they did in real life testing.

PS got your track files? I would like to comp your excel resuts to mine. You are using DeviceLink right? Beause if your donig this visually.. The dx/dt can be very missleading.. taking a dx/dt is noisy as is, but doing it off of visually collected data can introduce alot of error.. Which would/could explain your lagg ROC being off by a factor of two.

Yes, I have tracks. I was climbing with devicelink on to help me and recorded the track.
I used devicelink to exasmine the track, but for these graphs I used a simpler method. I measured tta every 1000m, so climb = 1000/(t2-t1) to get average climb rates, so for example the climb rate 0 in my graph represents 1000/(time to 1000m). And margin of error is 1s max, which can not explain LaGG climb rate.

If LaGG went from 1k to 2k in 66 seconds it HAD to climb 15 m/s on average between 1k and 2k.

Track is here: http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/LaGG-3_climb.ntrk (http://marvin.kset.org/%7Eriddler/testing/LaGG-3_climb.ntrk)

Grey_Mouser67
02-05-2006, 06:09 PM
Just illustrates how aircraft that have accurate or sub par climb rates are at such a disadvantage in this game....the Lagg is definitely getting heavier in the patch but here is to holding my breath that the 1.98 K-4 doesn't climb at 40m/sec

HayateAce
02-05-2006, 07:29 PM
Exactly!

If all the german and russian planes are zooming around with bogus rates of climb, it puts US planes at even further disadvantages.

The game is a mess right now.

AKA_TAGERT
02-05-2006, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Yes, I have tracks. Cool!


Originally posted by anarchy52:
I was climbing with devicelink on to help me and recorded the track. Using UDPGraph? Nice isn€t it?!


Originally posted by anarchy52:
I used devicelink to exasmine the track, but for these graphs I used a simpler method. I measured tta every 1000m, so climb = 1000/(t2-t1) to get average climb rates, so for example the climb rate 0 in my graph represents 1000/(time to 1000m). And margin of error is 1s max, which can not explain LaGG climb rate. If LaGG went from 1k to 2k in 66 seconds it HAD to climb 15 m/s on average between 1k and 2k. Ah, ok, so your not using the device link VAR variable! That will work.. for a good ball park feel of what is going on, ie average. And, it is pretty close. My analysis tool got a little higher ROC at lower alts than you did, but a good fit between the two imho.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/LaGG3/anarchy52/LaGG-3_climb_ROC_TTA.JPG

If you send me a link to your real world data, Ill include the data points into my full report, along with the real world graph, and send it off to Oleg for him to take a look at.

faustnik
02-05-2006, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:


If all the german and russian planes are zooming around with bogus rates of climb.

That is untrue. The Fw190s tested run through the device link by Tagert tested low.

Badsight.
02-05-2006, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
here is to holding my breath that the 1.98 K-4 doesn't climb at 40m/sec im sure Kufurst is rubbing his hands in glee

anytime you bring up the worst overmoddeled climbing plane (Bf-109 K4) he goes into automatic damadge control mode - he isnt after accuracy

he never says a word about it being overmoddeled - rather he DOWNPLAYS that fact that its super boosted , this is part of why he pisses me off over this - he cant bring himeself to admit its a joke

the "new" K4 needs to be the ünter 1.80ATA version

the rads need fixing

the SL speed of the current K4 needs a slight boost

a 1.98ATA version is NOT needed . . . . . . and never has been

AKA_TAGERT
02-05-2006, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
That is untrue. The Fw190s tested run through the device link by Tagert tested low. Well, that was just one test. We should open that testing up for everyone to give it a go like we did with this 109K4 testing. I mean consider who the pilot was on that Fw190 test! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HayateAce
02-05-2006, 09:15 PM
Roger Faust, which is why I stated "IF."

I have never bought into this business of, "well ALL planes have too high ROC," because they don't.

Grey_Mouser67
02-05-2006, 09:18 PM
I've never spent time testing and certainly don't have the expertise or time to do what Target is doing but based on my experience with the game, if I were a betting man, I'd bet the following aircraft are climbing at or below rated speeds....

P47's
P51's
Corsair
Hellcat
Fw...Antons
Lightnings

Planes that are probably overacheiving...'
G and K series 109's
Dora
La series
Lagg series
Ki -84's
Beaufighter
Early MkV's, but late MkV's probably under
Spit MkIX's by a hair...maybe...

Maybe, just maybe, there is actually some logic to all this whining and it really doesn't have as much to do with one nation's fans, but rather actual modelling deficiencies! Now wouldn't that be a novel concept!

AKA_TAGERT
02-05-2006, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I've never spent time testing and certainly don't have the expertise or time to do what Target is doing but based on my experience with the game, if I were a betting man, I'd bet the following aircraft are climbing at or below rated speeds....

P47's
P51's
Corsair
Hellcat
Fw...Antons
Lightnings I can voutch for the 38s, they dont come close to their ROC/TTA, and I think someone tested the P47 and found the same.. or was just barly at its mark.. but nither were exceeding thier marks by the 20% to 50% more marks like we see with the non-us planes.


Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Planes that are probably overacheiving...'
G and K series 109's
Dora
La series
Lagg series
Ki -84's
Beaufighter
Early MkV's, but late MkV's probably under
Spit MkIX's by a hair...maybe... I, and many other can voutch to the fact that the current K4 is far exceeding it's ROC/TTA


Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Maybe, just maybe, there is actually some logic to all this whining and it really doesn't have as much to do with one nation's fans, but rather actual modelling deficiencies! Now wouldn't that be a novel concept! Could be.

anarchy52
02-06-2006, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I, and many other can voutch to the fact that the current K4 is far exceeding it's ROC/TTA


Careful TAGERT, we know that K-4 climb rates exceed certain data who's relevance is being disputed (unrealistically low climb rate, inferior to G2).

For calculating ROC I don't think that devicelink data is needed, all you need is tta and use Dy/Dt. You'd get the same result if you intergrated vy(t)dt/t from alt1 to alt2. I'm still having trouble with excell's trendlines. I'll contact you via PM.

My opinion is that aircraft data in FB mass, drag, power, lift, wing area does not reflect real world figures. Figures were obviously tinkered with in attempt to fit real world performance data which as a consequence left the behavior of some planes ...hmmm...unrealistic.

Some examples from my "blue" point of view:
MiG-3 with very high wingloading (and historically bad handling) is (out)turning 109s on the deck. That should not be the case.

LaGG-3 with wingloading and mass similar to G6 with signifficant powerloading disadvantage is outturning even G2s. It feels far too light and manuverable.

FW-190 acceleration makes me wonder that in game it really has 1800-2000+ HP engine.

From the "red" point of view people see K-4 climbrate *potentialy* exceeding real life figures by 12% (while being slower then it should) and scream bloody murder. On the other hand La-5 for example exceeds real life RUSSIAN data by <span class="ev_code_RED">23%</span> and LaGG-3 is climbing <span class="ev_code_RED">70%</span> better then it should.

Problems need to be addressed in coherent, systematic manner regardless of red/blue thing.

First step is collecting in-game data.

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Careful TAGERT, we know that K-4 climb rates exceed certain data who's relevance is being disputed (unrealistically low climb rate, inferior to G2).
No need for careful here.. in that their is no one disputing the relevance of the data.. The data is Kurfurst's data.. The data is from a real 109K4 @ 1.80ata with MW50.


Originally posted by anarchy52:
For calculating ROC I don't think that devicelink data is needed, all you need is tta and use Dy/Dt. You'd get the same result if you intergrated vy(t)dt/t from alt1 to alt2. I'm still having trouble with excell's trendlines. I'll contact you via PM.
It is not needed for ball park estimates, but I like to get a little more resolution than that. Also, if you going to take dx/dt of the TTA, best to do a curve fit of the TTA data and do the dx/dt of that equation. The TTA data is usally pretty stable, but, not allways, so via your method, if you happen to pick a data point where the raw data took a dip or had a spike you could get wacky results. In excel the trend line is the area you want to be in.. I put up a quick step by step in the forum.

Step by Step Tutorial: Plot your DeviceLink data in EXCEL (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2691037804)


Originally posted by anarchy52:
My opinion is that aircraft data in FB mass, drag, power, lift, wing area does not reflect real world figures. Figures were obviously tinkered with in attempt to fit real world performance data which as a consequence left the behavior of some planes ...hmmm...unrealistic.
Maybe, only Oleg knows for sure. But in light of the fact that alot of this data was never collected during WWII and most of what was collected was lost during or since the war it would be *unrealistic* to think there was not some tinkering (aka WAG) going on.


Originally posted by anarchy52:
Some examples from my "blue" point of view:
MiG-3 with very high wingloading (and historically bad handling) is (out)turning 109s on the deck. That should not be the case.

LaGG-3 with wingloading and mass similar to G6 with signifficant powerloading disadvantage is outturning even G2s. It feels far too light and manuverable.
Depends.. on the pilot and the initial e states of both planes. If you want to prove that, you need to do turn tests much like this ROC/TTA tests were are doing now.


Originally posted by anarchy52:
FW-190 acceleration makes me wonder that in game it really has 1800-2000+ HP engine.
Well, with no track and no real world data to compare to, all we can do is wonder.


Originally posted by anarchy52:
From the "red" point of view people see K-4 climbrate *potentialy* exceeding real life figures by 12% (while being slower then it should) and scream bloody murder.
Nothing *potentially* about it, unless your saying the real world data that Kurturst provided was *under* stating the real life 109K4's ROC values?


Originally posted by anarchy52:
On the other hand La-5 for example exceeds real life RUSSIAN data by <span class="ev_code_RED">23%</span> and LaGG-3 is climbing <span class="ev_code_RED">70%</span> better then it should.
If you say so, I have not seen the real life RUSSIAN data yet, but Ill take your word for it.


Originally posted by anarchy52:
Problems need to be addressed in coherent, systematic manner regardless of red/blue thing.
Welcome to the middle of 2004 when I started plotting DeviceLink Data! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by anarchy52:
First step is collecting in-game data.
Disagree 100%! The first step is collecting real world data! Without that, the tests don€t really say much, and it resorts back to things based on peoples feelings, thus back to square one, where the only difference is we now have a pretty picture.

PS no link to the real life LaGG-3 data? Be best if you did provide it, otherwise someone might come in here a few posts from now and refer to it as *disputed* or *potentially* wrong! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

anarchy52
02-06-2006, 08:49 AM
I will post TSAGI scan when I get home in about 1 hour, I didn't invent the numbers, no need to take my word for it, be sure.

I doubt those K-4 charts as they list pretty low climb rates for such a powerful aircraft. There must be a logical explanation. Unfortunatelly, I couldn't find any allied flight tests of 109K-4.

Collecting in game data is more important for people flying it. Thinking in terms of real world data will get you killed. Just try to disengage from LaGG by climbing in Emil and you'll see what I mean.

But yes, for the small minority of us who actually care about historical accuracy more then getting whatever uber ride pwnZ on Warclouds real world data is more important.

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
I will post TSAGI scan when I get home in about 1 hour, I didn't invent the numbers, no need to take my word for it, be sure.
Cool! Ill stick what ever you give me into the full reprot and send it off to Oleg.. On that note, is *this* LaGG-3 the one that Oleg said they found out it was like 300lb too light? And are planning on fixing it anyways?


Originally posted by anarchy52:
I doubt those K-4 charts as they list pretty low climb rates for such a powerful aircraft. There must be a logical explanation. Unfortunatelly, I couldn't find any allied flight tests of 109K-4.
Ok, let me see if I€m following you correctly here..

You would have me believe that Kurfurst would post 109K4 data that showed it climbing poorly?

Is that what you€re saying? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by anarchy52:
Collecting in game data is more important for people flying it. Thinking in terms of real world data will get you killed. Just try to disengage from LaGG by climbing in Emil and you'll see what I mean.
Ah, for game play puroses you right, it is useful.


Originally posted by anarchy52:
But yes, for the small minority of us who actually care about historical accuracy more then getting whatever uber ride pwnZ on Warclouds real world data is more important.
Agreed 100%

anarchy52
02-06-2006, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Cool! Ill stick what ever you give me into the full reprot and send it off to Oleg.. On that note, is *this* LaGG-3 the one that Oleg said they found out it was like 300lb too light? And are planning on fixing it anyways?

There you go:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/Aircraft-evaluation-17.jpg
Edit: Yak-1 (although I wobbled a lot, switched superchgarger too late, climbed with stall speed...screwed up and stalled just before reaching 6k mark which cost me 5-10 secs). I wonder what I will get if I repeat the test and NOT totally screw up?
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/Yak-1.gif


Originally posted by anarchy52:
I doubt those K-4 charts as they list pretty low climb rates for such a powerful aircraft. There must be a logical explanation. Unfortunatelly, I couldn't find any allied flight tests of 109K-4.


Ok, let me see if I€m following you correctly here..

You would have me believe that Kurfurst would post 109K4 data that showed it climbing poorly?

Is that what you€re saying? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst, UN General Secretary, Pope or Mother Teresa. Does not make a difference. Numbers are pretty pesimistic for a 2000HP aircraft with such a high powerloading. But I won't go into that.

So far none of the planes I tested were underperforming...quite the opposite.

P.S. I almost forgot. I did 503km/h with that LaGG on the deck. About 20km/h too fast.
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/Aircraft-evaluation-16.jpg

JuHa-
02-06-2006, 10:40 AM
From Valtonen's "Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan sotatalous (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German
war economy)", page 121.

Type:F-4
Engine: DB601 E
Takeoff power: 1350hp
Combat/climb power: 1200hp
Weight: 2890kg
Best climb: 16,9m/s (3327ft/min)

Type:K4
Engine: DB605 DCM
Takeoff power: 1800hp
Combat/climb power: 1250hp
Weight: 3362kg
Best climb: 14,1m/s (2776ft/min)

There's other Bf109 types listed too, but these two are useful for the discussion.
The explanation for the figures is simply the usage of climb&combat power. As always, full
data about used settings is critical.

ploughman
02-06-2006, 10:53 AM
You wouldn't mind expanding on what climb and combat power means and why they're so different as a function of maximum possible power for these two aircraft that would you JuHa?

faustnik
02-06-2006, 11:13 AM
Anarchy,

Are you sure of the power settings used on the Soviet a/c in those charts? Are the maximum power or similar to U.S. "military" or LW "climb & combat"?

anarchy52
02-06-2006, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Anarchy,

Are you sure of the power settings used on the Soviet a/c in those charts? Are the maximum power or similar to U.S. "military" or LW "climb & combat"?

If available, WEP or short term overboost is signified by "forsazh".

Abbuzze
02-06-2006, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by JuHa-:
From Valtonen's "Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan sotatalous (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German
war economy)", page 121.

Type:F-4
Engine: DB601 E
Takeoff power: 1350hp
Combat/climb power: 1200hp
Weight: 2890kg
Best climb: 16,9m/s (3327ft/min)

Type:K4
Engine: DB605 DCM
Takeoff power: 1800hp
Combat/climb power: 1250hp
Weight: 3362kg
Best climb: 14,1m/s (2776ft/min)

There's other Bf109 types listed too, but these two are useful for the discussion.
The explanation for the figures is simply the usage of climb&combat power. As always, full
data about used settings is critical.

First a DB605DC (I never heard of DCM) has 1370hp climbing power at sealevel and 1285 at 6800m.
And the numbers for the F4 are seems to be at combat power. I´m still not able to judge the K4 rate, but it seems to be a bit low..

here are values for a F2 with less HP than a F4, but also lighter(2728kg):

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/109F2%20climbrate.jpg

butch2k
02-06-2006, 11:55 AM
Here are some charts to ponder upon...
Not standard prop but the difference was not really that important. See first chart for speed influence between standard and new prop.

http://butch2k4.free.fr/109k4-perf1.jpg

http://butch2k4.free.fr/109k4-perf2.jpg

http://butch2k4.free.fr/109k4-perf3.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by butch2k:
Here are some charts to ponder upon...
Not standard prop but the difference was not really that important. See first chart for speed influence between standard and new prop. Thanks Butch2k! My German is not so great, do these charts state anything about the power setting or if MW50 was used? Again, thanks a million!

butch2k
02-06-2006, 12:05 PM
it's the DB605DC @ 1.98ata with MW-50 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif for best curves and @ 1.45ata (climb and combat setting) for the worst ones.
Note that it features calculated K-6 speed as well.

Abbuzze
02-06-2006, 12:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Thanks Butch,



From the text:

Test plane has no aerodynamical improvements, all things are standard (surface, oil and water cooler)

Performance are reachable by serial planes for sure.

Thin blade propeller improves max. speed at rated alt by 12km/h no difference in climbrate or speed at at sealevel.



They tested climbing with increased RPM (Drehzahlerh¶hung) at cimbing power, so 1.45atü but at 2800RPM´s, don´t know if they kontrolled it manual or if they changed the automatic.

13,88m/s average to 5000m

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by butch2k:
it's the DB605DC @ 1.98ata with MW-50 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif for best curves and @ 1.45ata (climb and combat setting) for the worst ones.
Note that it features calculated K-6 speed as well. Man.. I can not wait for your book to come out! Ill buy two copies! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Just to be clear, since they are *calculating* the K6 values, are these also *calculated* K4 values?

Also, want to make sure I understand..

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
1.98ata @ ?????? power setting with MW-50
1.45ata @ COMBAT power setting ???? MW-50</pre>
1) Is the 1.98ata power setting also combat?
2) Is the 1.45ata with or without MW-50?

OT, book stuff, have you ever heard of this self publishing online thing? Heard about it on Leo Laport, sounded interesting for guys who dont want to use a publishing house.

Here is the link

http://www.lulu.com/

Again many thanks!

Abbuzze
02-06-2006, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by butch2k:
it's the DB605DC @ 1.98ata with MW-50 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif for best curves and @ 1.45ata (climb and combat setting) for the worst ones.
Note that it features calculated K-6 speed as well. Man.. I can not wait for your book to come out! Ill buy two copies! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Just to be clear, since they are *calculating* the K6 values, are these also *calculated* K4 values?

Also, want to make sure I understand..

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
1.98ata @ ?????? power setting with MW-50
1.45ata @ COMBAT power setting ???? MW-50</pre>
1) Is the 1.98ata power setting also combat?
2) Is the 1.45ata with or without MW-50?

OT, book stuff, have you ever heard of this self publishing online thing? Heard about it on Leo Laport, sounded interesting for guys who dont want to use a publishing house.

Here is the link

http://www.lulu.com/

Again many thanks! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1.98ata is Sondernotleistung/WEP with MW50
1.45ata is climb and combat (Steig und Kampfleistung) without MW50.
No 109 with MW50 used it at climb and combat. It was enabled automaticly if more than "100%" Power was uses, or in real live, more than 1.45ata was used.

In fact I think the possibility of 110% power in MW50 equipt 109´s without MW50 enabled is not realistic in this game. Boost was controlled with the power lever, (linked to RPM´s in automatic) so if you go to 110% you should have 1.8ata with or without MW50, but with a real big chance to blow your engine if it was not activated before - maybe I´m wrong, but that´s the way MW50 should work, as far as I understand this.

Edit: to the posted test, I´m not sure if it was a flight test or a calculation.
-Both propellers were calculational equal.
-Increasement of RPM´s at 7.0km was without "Stau" / Ram-effect...
I think it is an calculation, but a "low" one, because they talked about "good" build serial planes wich could reach this for sure, without any further improvements like better surface finish.

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
1.98ata is Sondernotleistung/WEP with MW50
1.45ata is climb and combat (Steig und Kampfleistung) without MW50.
No 109 with MW50 used it at climb and combat. It was enabled automaticly if more than "100%" Power was uses, or in real live, more than 1.45ata was used. Ah! Thanks man! That makes since.. but.. now I am confused by the email I recived from *someone* else.. but still working that issue, might be a translation problem.. more later.


Originally posted by Abbuzze:
In fact I think the possibility of 110% power in MW50 equipt 109´s without MW50 enabled is not realistic in this game. Boost was controlled with the power lever, (linked to RPM´s in automatic) so if you go to 110% you should have 1.8ata with or without MW50, but with a real big chance to blow your engine if it was not activated before - maybe I´m wrong, but that´s the way MW50 should work, as far as I understand this. That is the impression I was getting too.. but.. well.. more later, I dont want to speak too soon.

update, ignor my confusion, *he* said WEP not MW-50. So, *he* is saying in-game testing should be done at 100% throttle (aka COMBAT) with MW-50 ON.

JuHa-
02-06-2006, 01:06 PM
First a DB605DC (I never heard of DCM) has 1370hp climbing power at sealevel and 1285 at 6800m.


Abbuzze,

Valtonen has the following opinion about the "DCM"

Quote:
" The importance of the fuel is shown (too) in the fact that it was marked into the type of the
engine, and that type was changed according the settings of the engine. F.Ex:

DB 605 ASB, is a DB605A with high altitude charger and use of B4 is possible.
DB 605 ASC, is a DB605A with high altitude charger and use of only C4 is possible.
DB 605 DCM, is a DB605D, with C4 and MW50"

Full stats of the quoted engine (according to _this_ book!)

Takeoff: 1800hp
Climb/combat(deck): 1250
Climb/combat(critical altitude): 1150
Continuos power (deck): 1050
Critical altitude: 8000m

I'm not saying that this is gospel; more likely author's opinion based upon archive searches. I do know there's
a multitude of different engine types and settings to them!

JG77Von_Hess
02-06-2006, 01:22 PM
Hello there, the topspeed difference for the 2 propellers is not proportinel for climb.

The first trails of K4 with the.159 prop.series as used also on production G10s
At 3450kg and 1.3ata for the basis D engine 1300PS at 0m, the climb rate peek 16.9 m/s

With those figures do some basic climb calculations for the given plane with 1850ps and 2000ps and see where you land.

so before any conclutions are made, Show us a climbchart for the K4 with DC+MW50 and the .159 prop if possible.

Regards.

VH.

Abbuzze
02-06-2006, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by JuHa-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">First a DB605DC (I never heard of DCM) has 1370hp climbing power at sealevel and 1285 at 6800m.


Abbuzze,

Valtonen has the following opinion about the "DCM"

Quote:
" The importance of the fuel is shown (too) in the fact that it was marked into the type of the
engine, and that type was changed according the settings of the engine. F.Ex:

DB 605 ASB, is a DB605A with high altitude charger and use of B4 is possible.
DB 605 ASC, is a DB605A with high altitude charger and use of only C4 is possible.
DB 605 DCM, is a DB605D, with C4 and MW50"

Full stats of the quoted engine (according to _this_ book!)

Takeoff: 1800hp
Climb/combat(deck): 1250
Climb/combat(critical altitude): 1150
Continuos power (deck): 1050
Critical altitude: 8000m

I'm not saying that this is gospel; more likely author's opinion based upon archive searches. I do know there's
a multitude of different engine types and settings to them! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, no doubt, but DCM is no official designation, and the performance figures are a bit odd because they are to low.
Take a look here. This are figures from official datasheets:
http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm

butch2k
02-06-2006, 01:31 PM
The M is kind of old school naming convention introduced when the DB605A and DB605AS were modified for use of MW-50 hence becoming DB605ASM and DB605AM. The DB605DCM is the very same as the DB605DC, the DB engineers seems to have dropped the "M" but the Mtt guys decided on keeping it.

As far as the increased rpm is concerned it happened at alt check both speed and climb graphs they both show a dent when 2800rpm kicks in at 1.45ata setting.
Actually the situation with MW-50 is a bit more complex, as for instance using SonderNotleistung for take off was not possible, and of course using the 110% w/o MW-50 was not permissible as engine damage could have happened as it meant 1.7 to 1.98ata (depends on the engine) w/o charge cooling of the MW-50.


As for the book i have already been contact by a classic publisher... but it's still far away. I recently achieved a better understanding of the Caesar vs Dora case, i.e. Why the worst performer was mass produced while the best producer just got out by the dozens.

butch2k
02-06-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by JG77Von_Hess:
Hello there, the topspeed difference for the 2 propellers is not proportinel for climb.

The first trails of K4 with the.159 prop.series as used also on production G10s
At 3450kg and 1.3ata for the basis D engine 1300PS at 0m, the climb rate peek 16.9 m/s

With those figures do some basic climb calculations for the given plane with 1850ps and 2000ps and see where you land.

so before any conclutions are made, Show us a climbchart for the K4 with DC+MW50 and the .159 prop if possible.

Regards.

VH.

The climb charts for DC605DC and DB605DB show no difference between 12199 and 12199, check for instance the well known climb chart posted here and there. You'll see : "Schrb 12199 u. 12159" written on the second line.

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 01:42 PM
update!

Just got some info from the man himself

Turns out the current in-game 109K4 is a 1.98ata, not a 1.80ata. That is to say the..

v4.02 109K4 @ 1.98ata using <span class="ev_code_red">B4</span> fuel

The K4 they are adding is a..

v4.03 109K4 @ 1.98ata using <span class="ev_code_yellow">C3</span> fuel

So, I was wrong to comp the current v4.02 109K4 to the 1.80ata values! But, we are still left with the fact that the current v4.02 K4 exceeds the 1.98ata ratings.. but.. it looks like they are looking into that and some of the russian stuff.

So, if I were to guess.. and this is just a guess.. the new 109K4 with C3 fuel will probally preform like the current 109K4 with B4, and the current 109K4 using B4 will have it's ROC adjusted down. That is to say..

v4.03 109K4 @ 1.98ata using <span class="ev_code_red">B4</span> fuel (lower ROC than v4.02)
v4.03 109K4 @ 1.98ata using <span class="ev_code_yellow">C3</span> fuel (about the same as the old v4.02 B4 FM)

ploughman
02-06-2006, 01:47 PM
Thanks for the info Tag. I should've noticed the "C3" in Bf-109K4 C3 1.98Ata on the new planes list. It's not as if he'd mentioned 100/130 fuel for the Spitfire.

butch2k
02-06-2006, 01:48 PM
I have better to check that with hime as DB605DC could not run on B4 due to the timing adjustement and different spak plugs. Only when transformed back to the DB605DB standard coud it run on B4+MW-50.
DB605DC could run on C3 only but at 1.8ata max.

JG77Von_Hess
02-06-2006, 01:52 PM
Hi butch, yes i have those docs. plus a few more,
The are a few problems with that chart tho.

Take the example i gave.

Im not a big fan of arguing on forums like this, if interrested PM me and we take it from there.

Regards.
VH.

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Thanks for the info Tag. I should've noticed the "C3" in Bf-109K4 C3 1.98Ata on the new planes list. It's not as if he'd mentioned 100/130 fuel for the Spitfire. Looking back.. it was staring me in the face the whole time but I didnt see it.. Even the MP readings were showing 1.98ata. I dont know how I got off onto the 1.80ata tangent? I just thought the 1.80ata was the more comon 109K4, thus it would be the one in the game, and that the addition of the 1.98ata was that un-comon (what Oleg likes to refer to as LATE) version.

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by butch2k:
I have better to check that with hime as DB605DC could not run on B4 due to the timing adjustement and different spak plugs. Only when transformed back to the DB605DB standard coud it run on B4+MW-50.
DB605DC could run on C3 only but at 1.8ata max. Really? Well, if you dont, let me know and Ill include that in my updated version and pass it along.

kidsmoke1959
02-06-2006, 02:03 PM
I'll be happy with that.

butch2k
02-06-2006, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by JG77Von_Hess:
Hi butch, yes i have those docs. plus a few more,
The are a few problems with that chart tho.

Take the example i gave.

Im not a big fan of arguing on forums like this, if interrested PM me and we take it from there.

Regards.
VH.
I would be one of the last to argue http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, i'm not known for arguing.
Check your PM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG77Von_Hess
02-06-2006, 02:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Ok will do.

Regards.

VH.

Pinker15
02-06-2006, 02:09 PM
I want to say we cant guess K4 performance by compare to less powered F4 or G2. Power is not everything because U need tranfer that power into thrust. K4 as they older versions F4/G2 has 3 blades propeler. Of course not the same and improved but still 3 blades one. With such powerfull late war engines is problem to transfer that power efficiently into thrust by proppeler so dont expect linear raise of climb or speed with raise of engine power. Because of that late U.S. RAF planes was have 4 and more blades propelers. Ofcourse more 4 or more blades propeler waste more power becasue "aerodynamic shadow after every blade of propeler" effect, but with verry powerfull engines it could overally give raise of performance. Problem is more complicated that it looks for a first look and thats why we cannot guess by comparing.

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by kidsmoke1959:
I'll be happy with that. Good to hear.. for you.. But I fear allot of LW pilots might be upset with Kurfurst now.. In that all this 1.98 C3 talk resulted in Oleg taking a 2nd look at his current 1.98ata and adj the ROC DOWN to make room for the C3 version.. Which most servers have already said they plan on banning. So, for the LW pilots not following this thread, all they will notice is their old K4 don€t climb like she use to.. But, in light of this being a 1.98 and not a 1.80 that means Oleg will have to adj the TOP SPEED UP from the current ~590kph to ~607kph. So there is a silver lining here.. When you cant out climb them like you use to, at least now you can run for you life! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Pinker15:
I want to say we cant guess K4 performance by compare to less powered F4 or G2. Power is not everything because U need tranfer that power into thrust. K4 as they older versions F4/G2 has 3 blades propeler. Of course not the same and improved but still 3 blades one. With such powerfull late war engines is problem to transfer that power efficiently into thrust by proppeler so dont expect linear raise of climb or speed with raise of engine power. Because of that late U.S. RAF planes was have 4 and more blades propelers. Ofcourse more 4 or more blades propeler waste more power becasue "aerodynamic shadow after every blade of propeler" effect, but with verry powerfull engines it could overally give raise of performance. Problem is more complicated that it looks for a first look and thats why we cannot guess by comparing. Agreed 100%

JuHa-
02-06-2006, 02:22 PM
Good to hear.. for you.. But I fear alot of LW pilots might be upset with Kurfurst now..

Why?

Bf109K4 is now fine tuned closer to historic values - ie. what's the problem here?

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by JuHa-:
Why? Loss of ROC


Originally posted by JuHa-:
Bf109K4 is now fine tuned closer to historic values - ie. what's the problem here? Key word *allot* not *all*

HayateAce
02-06-2006, 02:41 PM
Nice work, and a thank you from those of us who are graphically challenged.

http://www.challies.com/media/stupidchart.jpg

ploughman
02-06-2006, 02:47 PM
I know this was all about rate of climb, (with a dusting of top speed at SL) but any word on the under-modelled radiator drag?

Abbuzze
02-06-2006, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I know this was all about rate of climb, (with a dusting of top speed at SL) but any word on the under-modelled radiator drag?

Radiators and cooling are so bad simulated that at the end it doesn´t matter.
Planes are not reaching maximum speed with closed radiators like here in FB. For the 109 K4 for example max. speed at radiator 6,5cm of possible 22cm opend (if I remember correct). So maybe this is a kind of balance...

anarchy52
02-06-2006, 03:21 PM
Now that we might get K4 performing as it should...any chance of fixing planes that are horribly wrong?

Or was this just pork the LW plane thread in poor disguise?

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Nice work, and a thank you from those of us who are graphically challenged. Only graphically?

faustnik
02-06-2006, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:


Or was this just pork the LW plane thread in poor disguise?

I don't think that is the case.

anarchy52
02-06-2006, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:


Or was this just pork the LW plane thread in poor disguise?

I don't think that is the case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You think? I honestly want to believe that. I'll believe it the day TAGERT makes it his priority to get LaGG under control.

faustnik
02-06-2006, 03:57 PM
Tagert was happy to do some Fw190 climb evaluations for me.

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Now that we might get K4 performing as it should...any chance of fixing planes that are horribly wrong?
Horribly?
Got Track?
Got Data?


Originally posted by anarchy52:
Or was this just pork the LW plane thread in poor disguise?
Poor disguise?

I don€t know if I underst.. Oh wait, maybe I know what you mean.. For example, if someone were to test the current v4.02 LaGG-3 ROC and present the 2x ROC results as some kind of proof that all allied planes ROC's are too high too..

Even though Oleg has already said they found a 300kg weight bug in the LaGG FM and are going to fix it in v4.03..

Is that what you mean by poor disguise?

luftluuver
02-06-2006, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:


Or was this just pork the LW plane thread in poor disguise?

I don't think that is the case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You think? I honestly want to believe that. I'll believe it the day TAGERT makes it his priority to get LaGG under control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

I would say Tagert is more concerned with LW vs western Allied a/c than Soviet a/c. So you if you want the LaGGs fixed, you know what to do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Anyways, the LaGG in 4.02 is not what we have now. Hard to fix something that one can't test to RL data. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
You think? I honestly want to believe that. I'll believe it the day TAGERT makes it his priority to get LaGG under control. SIGH.. Like 3D artist.. I can not do them all.. Thus I do the ones I am interested in.

SAVVY?

Even if I was interested enough in them all, I wouldn€t have enough time to test them all.

SAVVY?

On top of that I think I have been more than forth coming in helping anyone who asks with their testing, by either telling them how to test them themselves or doing the tests for them.

SAVVY?

So, I don€t know what else or more I can do than that? Sorry if that is not enough for you, but that is all I got!

SAVVY?

Pirschjaeger
02-06-2006, 04:41 PM
The testers invest their time and energy and in doing so, help the sim and the comminity therein. There are too many planes to test. It would be nice if more members were doing this.

I´ll take this oppurtunity to thank those who have invested there time and efforts.

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

anarchy52
02-06-2006, 04:44 PM
So it was about pwning, not about historical accuracy or anything. I admit it, I was naive.
I'm still glad that K4 will have it's performance historically accurate, unlike many other planes in the "sim".

As for LaGG it's just an example. We have real world chart (RUSSIAN)I posted, we have in-game climb, we have the track (TM). Nobody disputed either of the 3. If LaGG-3 were a german plane exceeding it's climb rate by 70% and speed by 30kph and have duranium ablative armor it would interest you, right?

That is what I mean by poor disguise. I thank you for the effort to get K-4 historical performance in the game.

Pirschjaeger
02-06-2006, 04:47 PM
This thread is 11 pages and growing like weeds, so I don´t want to read it all. It seems there is finally a conclusion about the K4.

IIUC, the current K4 is overmodelled?

Fritz

Grey_Mouser67
02-06-2006, 04:54 PM
Ok...for the 109K challenged among us... If one of the experts would take a few minutes and confirm or deny the following...

In real life there were three versions?

1.8 ata B4
1.98 ata B4
1.98 ata C3

What were the service dates of those 3 aircraft and the current one we have is the middle one? The ROC on it is too good, but the speed is too slow?

Thanks in advance, GM

AKA_TAGERT
02-06-2006, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
So it was about pwning, not about historical accuracy or anything. I admit it, I was naive.
I'm still glad that K4 will have it's performance historically accurate, unlike many other planes in the "sim".

As for LaGG it's just an example. We have real world chart (RUSSIAN)I posted, we have in-game climb, we have the track (TM). Nobody disputed either of the 3. If LaGG-3 were a german plane exceeding it's climb rate by 70% and speed by 30kph and have duranium ablative armor it would interest you, right?

That is what I mean by poor disguise. I thank you for the effort to get K-4 historical performance in the game.
After reading that I realised I was wrong when I siad

"I don€t know what else or more I can do"

There is more I can do for you! I can feel pitty for you.

luftluuver
02-06-2006, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Ok...for the 109K challenged among us... If one of the experts would take a few minutes and confirm or deny the following...

In real life there were three versions?

1.8 ata B4 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">standard version from Oct 44 but should be 1.75ata</span>
1.98 ata B4 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">no is 1.80ata, B4+MW50 or C3</span>
1.98 ata C3 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">cleared from Mar 45, C3+MW50</span>

What were the service dates of those 3 aircraft and the current one we have is the middle one? The ROC on it is too good, but the speed is too slow?

Thanks in advance, GM

Gibbage1
02-06-2006, 11:06 PM
Not many people are gonna use the LAGG's climb too dominate anything on a server http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Nobody fly's that stinkin thing anyways.

fordfan25
02-06-2006, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Not many people are gonna use the LAGG's climb too dominate anything on a server http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Nobody fly's that stinkin thing anyways.

what are you talking about. i own ME262's in the LAGG. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

butch2k
02-07-2006, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Ok...for the 109K challenged among us... If one of the experts would take a few minutes and confirm or deny the following...

In real life there were three versions?

1.8 ata B4
1.98 ata B4
1.98 ata C3

What were the service dates of those 3 aircraft and the current one we have is the middle one? The ROC on it is too good, but the speed is too slow?

Thanks in advance, GM
At introduction the G-10 and K-4 used the DB605DM (C3+MW-50) @1.75ata, later on some adjustement were made to make it work on B4+MW-50.
On 14th January 1945 the DB605DB were cleared for service use @1.80ata. The DB605DC underwent testing at 1.90ata but it did not work as planned, on february orders were made to deliver all DB605DC set back to DB605DB configuration (the two engines being actually the same except for a few settings and parts) at 1.80ata until tests of 1.98ata are finished.
The DB605DC could run at either 1.8ata on C3 only or 1.98ata on C3+MW-50.

AKA_TAGERT
02-07-2006, 12:19 AM
Well it is late.. So not sure if I am thinking clearly.. But here is the jist of it.. I got a *message* stating that these ROC tests are suposed to be done at 100% not 110% in-game power settings. Now I thought, heck, I can not even get close to the real life ROC/TTA in the P38J at 110% let alone 100%. So I re-did my P38J test at 100%. As expected, it was worse than the 110%. Thus both cases were well below the real life ROC/TTA.

So, to be fair, I thought I better go back and redo the 109K4 test at 100%.

Also, was told that the current v4.02 109K4 is a 1.98ata, so I updated the real world ROC graph to comp to.

Here is the summary table
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/v402_BF109K4_100FUEL_100PWR_RAD_CLOSED_MW50_ON/v4.02_BF109K4_100FUEL_100PWR_RAD_CLOSED_MW50_ON_TB L.JPG

Here is the ROC table with the 1.98ata MW50 ON reference
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/v402_BF109K4_100FUEL_100PWR_RAD_CLOSED_MW50_ON/v4.02_BF109K4_100FUEL_100PWR_RAD_CLOSED_MW50_ON_RO C.JPG

As you can see.. the current v4.02 109K 1.98ata using B4 fuel ROC is falling short of the mark!

So, I dont know what to make of it.. Im pretty sure on the source wrt only using 100%. So, either I am missing somethig here.. or the current v4.02 109K4 1.98ata B4 fuel needs a ROC boost at higher altitudes.

Here is the full report
Full Report (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/MY/v402_BF109K4_100FUEL_100PWR_RAD_CLOSED_MW50_ON/v4.02_BF109K4_100FUEL_100PWR_RAD_CLOSED_MW50_ON_su mmary.pdf)

anarchy52
02-07-2006, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Not many people are gonna use the LAGG's climb too dominate anything on a server http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Nobody fly's that stinkin thing anyways.

This just ilustrates my point, you guys are obviously only into late war dogfights filled with rare overboosted, not so common variants. I fly online historical wars. I agree that LaGG would pretty much be toast in 1945, but in it's historical context (mid-late 1941) it's top dog. Together with it's lack of damage model, it's probably the most overrated aircraft modelled in the sim. But it's russian plane, and not in warclouds planeset, so who cares?

@TAGERT:
1)One more thing you can do: kiss me where the sun don't shine
2) now that we sorted that out, let's get back to the topic of 109K4 climb rate. Do you care to share with the rest of us your *message* and feedback from Oleg.

stathem
02-07-2006, 02:31 AM
but, from my reading of the various stuff posted by Butch, there was no such thing as a K-4 running at 1.98 ATA on B4; C3 with MW50 intercooling was a requirement to run at that boost level.

butch2k
02-07-2006, 02:55 AM
it'll be corrected in the patch.

luftluuver
02-07-2006, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by butch2k:
it'll be corrected in the patch. What is 'it' Butch?

AKA_TAGERT
02-07-2006, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
@TAGERT:
1) One more thing you can do: kiss me where the sun don't shine
2) now that we sorted that out, let's get back to the topic of 109K4 climb rate. Do you care to share with the rest of us your *message* and feedback from Oleg. What part of pitty is all I got for you did you not understand?

AKA_TAGERT
02-07-2006, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
but, from my reading of the various stuff posted by Butch, there was no such thing as a K-4 running at 1.98 ATA on B4; C3 with MW50 intercooling was a requirement to run at that boost level. Roger, I used MW50 during the test, but Oleg says that 100% is to be used not 110% throttle. So, I used 100% on the P38 it is only fair that I use 100% on the 109K4.

butch2k
02-07-2006, 08:08 AM
both 109K-4 models performances will be tweaked to historical values.

luftluuver
02-07-2006, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by butch2k:
both 109K-4 models performances will be tweaked to historical values. So the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">current</span> K-4 using 1.98ata will be slightly modified and a new K-4 will use the 1.80ata boost?

AKA_TAGERT
02-07-2006, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by butch2k:
it's the DB605DC @ 1.98ata with MW-50 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif for best curves and @ 1.45ata (climb and combat setting) for the worst ones.
Note that it features calculated K-6 speed as well.
S! Butch2k!

Thanks for all you help on this. One quick question. Those charts you posted, the calculated ones with the K6 in them too. Are those with C3 fuel or B4 fuel? My German is not so hot, but I saw that it said

DB605 D for C Kraftstaff mit MW

You said in another post that the "C" mark denotes C3 fuel required?

If so, than I should NOT be using these charts to comp to the current in-game 109K4, even though it is a 1.98ata, the current is running on B4 not C3.

If so, what ROC chart should I use to comp to the current in-game 109K4 @ 1.98ata @ B4?

stathem
02-07-2006, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
but, from my reading of the various stuff posted by Butch, there was no such thing as a K-4 running at 1.98 ATA on B4; C3 with MW50 intercooling was a requirement to run at that boost level. Roger, I used MW50 during the test, but Oleg says that 100% is to be used not 110% throttle. So, I used 100% on the P38 it is only fair that I use 100% on the 109K4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, sorry Tagert, that was an appro of nothing statement from me.

Butch has indicated that we (are likely to) have a result. It would seem to be in line with what you proposed a few pages ago - a slighty faster but basically similarly (to the current K4) performing K4 as the 'new' variant, and a lesser performing K4 as the 'original' variant. But that's just pure speculation on my part and in no way indicates that I have any knowledge or information whatsoever.

butch2k
02-07-2006, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by butch2k:
both 109K-4 models performances will be tweaked to historical values. So the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">current</span> K-4 using 1.98ata will be slightly modified and a new K-4 will use the 1.80ata boost? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
let's say that current 1944 K-4 will be set to 1944/early 1945 performances and 1945 K-4 will have the full performances expected from the DC @1.98ata.

butch2k
02-07-2006, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by butch2k:
it's the DB605DC @ 1.98ata with MW-50 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif for best curves and @ 1.45ata (climb and combat setting) for the worst ones.
Note that it features calculated K-6 speed as well.
S! Butch2k!

Thanks for all you help on this. One quick question. Those charts you posted, the calculated ones with the K6 in them too. Are those with C3 fuel or B4 fuel? My German is not so hot, but I saw that it said

DB605 D for C Kraftstaff mit MW

You said in another post that the "C" mark denotes C3 fuel required?

If so, than I should NOT be using these charts to comp to the current in-game 109K4, even though it is a 1.98ata, the current is running on B4 not C3.

If so, what ROC chart should I use to comp to the current in-game 109K4 @ 1.98ata @ B4? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

check your PM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-07-2006, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by butch2k:
check your PM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Got it! Thanks a mill!

anarchy52
02-07-2006, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
@TAGERT:
1) One more thing you can do: kiss me where the sun don't shine
2) now that we sorted that out, let's get back to the topic of 109K4 climb rate. Do you care to share with the rest of us your *message* and feedback from Oleg. What part of pitty is all I got for you did you not understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which part of kiss me where the sun don't shine did you not understand? I don't wan't to discuss this matter any further or engage in stupid forum pi$$ing contest.

AKA_TAGERT
02-07-2006, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Which part of kiss me where the sun don't shine did you not understand? I don't wan't to discuss this matter any further or engage in stupid forum pi$$ing contest.
Agreed 100%!

Because it just makes you look silly!

If you feel the need to vent on me. Please spare everyone else trying to have an adult conversation your display and take advantage of the PM system here at ubi.

It works great and is easy to use, I€m sure you can figure it out in no time. If not, let me know and I can put together a step by step tutorial for you like I did for you on those excel trend lines.

Brain32
02-07-2006, 09:46 AM
TAGERT, what I believe anarchy52 wants to say is that you were testing-eager only when it was necessary to tone down late LW plane, and that it seems that although your testing methods are fair and quite accurate and nicely presented, you have no real interest to make all planes behave historical, only those that can give some spanking to late Allied planes(P38 mostly).
So don't try to present anarchy52 as a luftwhiner, that makes you look silly...

AKA_TAGERT
02-07-2006, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
TAGERT, what I believe anarchy52 wants to say is that you were testing-eager only when it was necessary to tone down late LW plane, and that it seems that although your testing methods are fair and quite accurate and nicely presented, you have no real interest to make all planes behave historical, only those that can give some spanking to late Allied planes(P38 mostly).
That is the impression and or vibe I am getting from him too.. How he gets to that point, I have no idea?

Because there is nothing I have presented in this thread to suggest otherwise, heck, I even went as far as to help him get set up to test his own data and plot it in excel. I even re-tested one of his track files he posted showing the LaGG-3 to have a 2x higer ROC, where my analysis shows the ROC to be even larger (more error) that his analysis showed. Heck even faustnik pointed out that I help him by processing a Fw190 track file that was used by him to support the argument for the newer higher boost Fw190s that Oleg has said may be added. Does that sound like the actions of someone with no real interest in realism?

Strange thing is, this post, other than anarchy52's outbursts has been one of the best give and take informative threads I have ever seen in this forum. Who would ever guess that Kurfurst and I would be sharing info and track files all in the name or realism?

So, I pretty much just ignore people like anarchy52. No mater what you do, they are going to belive what they want to belive, they have thier minds made up, no amount of good will or data will change that. The good news is those people and what they belive does not mater anyways.


Originally posted by Brain32:
So don't try to present anarchy52 as a luftwhiner, that makes you look silly... Not trying too, and no need, he is doing a fine job all by himself!

AFJ_Locust
02-07-2006, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Lets try and stay focused on the real problem here. For what ever reason, be it rad drag not being molded correct or something else. The *real* problem here is the current in-game <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 far exceed the real life <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 time-to-climb (TTA) due to unrealistically high rate-of-climb (ROC).

The strange/funny part is not only does the current in-game <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 far exceed the real life <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4, it *also* far exceeds the <span class="ev_code_yellow">1.98ata</span> time-to-climb (TTA) due to unrealistically high rate-of-climb (ROC).

Which makes a person wonder why Oleg is talking about adding a <span class="ev_code_yellow">1.98ata</span>? In that the game already has one. Granted, the top speed of the current in-game <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 is only 590kph @ SL instead of the 607kph, but if Oleg usese that FM as a starting point for the new <span class="ev_code_yellow">1.98ata</span> it should be a simple thing for him to increase the top speed a little.

Hopefully while adding in the new <span class="ev_code_yellow">1.98ata</span> 109K4 Oleg will noticed that the current in-game <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 far exceeds the real life <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 and the <span class="ev_code_yellow">1.98ata</span> time-to-climb (TTA) due to unrealistically high rate-of-climb (ROC) and will fix the <span class="ev_code_red">1.80ata</span> 109K4 by reducing the TTA/ROC and add a true <span class="ev_code_yellow">1.98ata</span> 109K4 that also has a reduced TTA/ROC but with a slightly higher top speed @ SL.

AND hopefully model proper drag when rad is open, and proper overheat time...

Grey_Mouser67
02-07-2006, 11:33 AM
I don't know about you all, but I like to fly historical missions and build missions based on real life battles....what I really need for this is the original, most commonly used Bf109K...bring on the 1.98 ata if you must, but how about a 1.75 version?

AKA_TAGERT
02-07-2006, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I don't know about you all, but I like to fly historical missions and build missions based on real life battles....what I really need for this is the original, most commonly used Bf109K...bring on the 1.98 ata if you must, but how about a 1.75 version? Well, looking at Butch2k's post, i.e.


Originally posted by Butch2k pg 12:
Let's say that current 1944 K-4 will be set to 1944/early 1945 performances and 1945 K-4 will have the full performances expected from the DC @1.98ata.
A lot has transpired since the start of this thread, at this point in time it looks like your going to get your wish. Maybe not a 1.75, but defiantly a more common version than the 1.98ata, with the additon of a true 1.98ata on C3 fuel. Thus two to choose from, common, and not so common.

AFJ_Locust
02-07-2006, 11:57 AM
Good Job testers

I hope all other ac that need adjustment such as lag,p47,p38 among others get proper attention

It would be ashame too see only the k4 recive proper roc,sl,drag,overheat adjustments without geting same treatment for other ac in the sim

hats off to the testers

Gibbage1
02-07-2006, 02:06 PM
If people are so concerned about the LAGG, LA7 or whatevers performance, start a thread on it! Do some friggen testing and show your numbers! Dont use them to distract from the current topic. Its not going too work. Personally I dont care about the LAGG or LA's since I dont fly them or fly against them, so I am not going to waist my time in testing them. Yes, I do think ALL aircraft should be accurate, but I and Tagert cant test them ALL. We dont have that much free time in our life.

Skalgrim
02-07-2006, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by butch2k:
both 109K-4 models performances will be tweaked to historical values.

robban75 has test la-7,

this bird is overmodel by climb too,

climb over 27m/sec at sealvel insteat 23m/sec from russia sources, when that would not be fix,


than that would means,

la-7 climb than many better as k4 with 2000ps at sealvel by the next patch and la-5fn equally at sealevel.

russia sources that was post in this forum say la-7 climb little weaker as thé k4 at sealevel
and much weaker above 2000m and so should it be model.

when the k4 climb should tune right, please looking other plane too,

some plane climb to weak other to strong only few right

than must all plane with wrong clime tune right

not only k4



..

Pirschjaeger
02-07-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If people are so concerned about the LAGG, LA7 or whatevers performance, start a thread on it! Do some friggen testing and show your numbers! Dont use them to distract from the current topic. Its not going too work. Personally I dont care about the LAGG or LA's since I dont fly them or fly against them, so I am not going to waist my time in testing them. Yes, I do think ALL aircraft should be accurate, but I and Tagert cant test them ALL. We dont have that much free time in our life.

Gib! We agree! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Skalgrim
02-07-2006, 05:28 PM
la-7 and many other was test from robban75,

la-7 is strong overmdel by climb at sealevel etc

only few are right at climb




Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If people are so concerned about the LAGG, LA7 or whatevers performance, start a thread on it! Do some friggen testing and show your numbers! Dont use them to distract from the current topic. Its not going too work. Personally I dont care about the LAGG or LA's since I dont fly them or fly against them, so I am not going to waist my time in testing them. Yes, I do think ALL aircraft should be accurate, but I and Tagert cant test them ALL. We dont have that much free time in our life.

HayateAce
02-07-2006, 05:53 PM
Terrific.

Start a thead and post the charts to have the La7 adjusted for realistic ROC. Sounds like the uber birds have been slowly tweaked over the years in order to compete with one another-which has left us with a small mess.

If underperfomers like the P38 and P51 are corrected, we may just have ourselves a SIM!

Badsight.
02-07-2006, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
TAGERT, what I believe anarchy52 wants to say is that you were testing-eager only when it was necessary to tone down late LW plane, and that it seems that although your testing methods are fair and quite accurate and nicely presented, you have no real interest to make all planes behave historical, only those that can give some spanking to late Allied planes(P38 mostly). you may or may not like TAGERT , but the above is total BS , he has gotten behind proper testing for multiple planes for accuracy sakes in the past

BM357_Sniper
02-07-2006, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
Those of you involved in the P-38 dicussion I generated several months ago should remember that several people challenged my data by testing the P-38 themselves. After a few days, we all came up with similar data and then we had a valid base to charge that the P-38's climb, speed, rates of roll, etc. were either low, on target, or too high. Sadly the Fw-190 thread I generated about a week later turned into a tit for tat discussion much like this one. With out the efforts of several people this thread will go on for several pages and in the end we will still be at the same place..

You've aptly described the population of this forum. Red whiners. Only interested in getting max performance out of allied aircraft, and in ruining any attempt to get accuracy out of anything LW.

Clearly, that's not a category that each and every single person visiting this forum falls into, but as you can see by how the threads always turn out, it IS the majority of people here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You obviously never heard the term Luftwhiner! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Pirschjaeger
02-08-2006, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Terrific.

Start a thead and post the charts to have the La7 adjusted for realistic ROC. Sounds like the uber birds have been slowly tweaked over the years in order to compete with one another-which has left us with a small mess.

If underperfomers like the P38 and P51 are corrected, we may just have ourselves a SIM!

And, rather than jump at any chances to insult blue, 109, the LW, whine, and generally sheit on threads, you have started threads, made accurate testing involving others, and presented your findings in a constructive and objective way, thereby contributing to the accuracy of this sim.

Forget it dude, my money is still on the Easter Bunny.

Fritz

HayateAce
02-08-2006, 02:27 AM
Awesome dood, I'm glad you still believe in the bunny.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Kurfurst__
02-08-2006, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by butch2k:
let's say that current 1944 K-4 will be set to 1944/early 1945 performances and 1945 K-4 will have the full performances expected from the DC @1.98ata.

Excellent news, butch! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kurfurst__
02-08-2006, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
but, from my reading of the various stuff posted by Butch, there was no such thing as a K-4 running at 1.98 ATA on B4; C3 with MW50 intercooling was a requirement to run at that boost level.

Indeed. The limitations and combos of the DB/DC are complex.

DB would run at 1,8ata max. This would be possible with either B-4 and MW50 injection, or on C3 alone.

DC would run on C-3 alone. Multiple settings are possible:

a, DC Engine alllowed to operate on 1,98ata, but using only C-3 fuel and no MW50, actual boost being 1,8ata : yields 1725 PS. I suppose different timing is responsible for that, and it was hardly ever used. The only case I can think of if they used the MW50 tanks as a fuel tank for extended ferry range.

b, DC Engine alllowed to operate on 1,98ata, using only C-3 fuel and MW50, actual boost being 1,98ata : yields 2000 PS.

c, DC Engine allowed to operate on 1,8ata, using only C-3 fuel and no MW50, actual boost being 1,8ata : yields 1800 PS. I'd suppose running 1.8/1.8 but also with MW50 would give 1850 PS..

Hurricane_320
02-08-2006, 06:12 AM
*YAWN*

How does anyone stay awake reading this?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

butch2k
02-08-2006, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

DB would run at 1,8ata max. This would be possible with either B-4 and MW50 injection, or on C3 alone.

No, No, No....
No C3 on the DB !!!
DB605DB/DC is an evolution of the DM-o,it's the same engine but with two different base setting one for use with B4 fuel (DB) and one for use with C3 fuel (DC). The DC could be converted into a DB and the other way round, it was a matter of hours to convert one into the other.
but DB605DB = B4+MW-50 (max boost setting = 1.80ata), DB605DC = C3+MW-50 or C3 alone (max boost setting being either 1.80ata or 1.98ata).

DB605DB was unable to use C3 until being converted into a DC, and the DC unable to run on B4 until converted into a DB.

Kurfurst__
02-08-2006, 07:28 AM
I am not taking guesses here, thats straight from the 'Entwurf einer vorl¤ufige Motorenkarte 9-605 DB. u. DC', Ausgabe C (ie. 3rd edition), Stand 1. Dezember 1944.

The Motorenkarte tells the following differences on page 3:

"Baumuster-
Bezeichungen
u. Unterschiede :

9-605 DB
Grundeinstellung 1,80 ata
Kraftstoff B 4
(hierbei beachten, daß Sondernotleistung nur mit MW geflogen werden darf)
Kraftstoff C 3
(bei Sondernotleistung ohne MW I)

9-605 DC
Grundeinstellung 1,98 ata
wahlweise 1,80 ata Ladedruck
Kraftstoff C 3
(Sondernotleistung nur mit MW)"

It may been changed later, though....