PDA

View Full Version : Bf 109 4.02 climbrates.



robban75
02-01-2006, 04:07 AM
I was going to post this in Hayateace's 109 topic in ORR. But it was locked so I'm posting the climbrates here instead.

Crimea map, full fuel, full power and boost, default loadout, radiators auto, no wind & turbulence, climb speed 260-280km/h TAS, above 6000m ~310km/h TAS. In meters and m/sec.

Bf 109F-4

1000 - 18.2
2000 - 18.5
3000 - 18.5
4000 - 18.2
5000 - 17.5
6000 - 15.6
7000 - 12.7

Bf 109G-2

1000 - 25.0
2000 - 23.3
3000 - 23.3
4000 - 23.3
5000 - 21.7
6000 - 20.8
7000 - 18.5

Bf 109G-6 late

1000 - 20.8
2000 - 20.0
3000 - 19.2
4000 - 18.2
5000 - 17.2
6000 - 16.4
7000 - 14.5

Bf 109G-10

1000 - 25.6
2000 - 23.8
3000 - 25.0
4000 - 25.0
5000 - 23.3
6000 - 20.0
7000 - 16.1

Bf 109G-14

1000 - 25.6
2000 - 25.0
3000 - 22.7
4000 - 22.7
5000 - 21.7
6000 - 17.9
7000 - 14.5

Bf 109K-4

1000 - 27.8
2000 - 27.8
3000 - 27.0
4000 - 27.0
5000 - 25.6
6000 - 20.8
7000 - 17.5

LEXX_Luthor
02-01-2006, 04:21 AM
Sweet robban.

Can you extend the tests of G2 and K4 above 7km? A pattern may be developing that could be more explored above 7km. Or, you may wish to wait for 4.03. I hate that, finish testing just in time for the next Patch.

TheGozr
02-01-2006, 05:07 AM
I have a problem with that mesure, this will make a good paper data sheet but they do not reflect the real world fight climb for example the angle of climbs etc...
It's a good start. We should try to find a test were the weight ratio/Power enter more in effect. It is why sometime performance on papers are differents than real combat performances..

I hope i made my self clear ( i dought )

Kuna15
02-01-2006, 05:21 AM
Robban what allied aircraft is nearest to match K4 in climb up to 5000m? I know you are right person to ask this sort of questions.
Perhaps Yak-9U?

carguy_
02-01-2006, 05:24 AM
P63 would be close.

robban75
02-01-2006, 06:17 AM
I climbed to 8000m with 109's. Between 7000 and 8000m, the G-2 and K-4 has an average climbrate of 14.3 and 13.8m/sec.

P-63 is a good climber, but it cannot match the 109. Especially the K-4. In fact there's no prop in the game that comes close. The La-7 used to be a super climber, but it has been corrected.

Here's the P-63C climbrate. Same procedure as the 109's.

1000 - 23.3
2000 - 21.3
3000 - 20.4
4000 - 20.0
5000 - 17.9
6000 - 16.4
7000 - 12.8

robban75
02-01-2006, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
I have a problem with that mesure, this will make a good paper data sheet but they do not reflect the real world fight climb for example the angle of climbs etc...
It's a good start. We should try to find a test were the weight ratio/Power enter more in effect. It is why sometime performance on papers are differents than real combat performances..

I hope i made my self clear ( i dought )

Do you mean climbs at near stall speed?

hop2002
02-01-2006, 06:49 AM
Bf 109K-4

1000 - 27.8
2000 - 27.8
3000 - 27.0
4000 - 27.0
5000 - 25.6
6000 - 20.8
7000 - 17.5


Here are the real world figures, at 1.98 ata and 1.8 ata:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Bf 109K-4

Alt - Game - 1.98 - 1.8
1000 - 27.8 - 24.7 - 22.3
2000 - 27.8 - 23.6 - 21.4
3000 - 27.0 - 22.6 - 20.6
4000 - 27.0 - 21.5 - 19.7
5000 - 25.6 - 20.5 - 18.9
6000 - 20.8 - 18.6 - 18.1
7000 - 17.5 - 15.0 - 16.0
</pre>

The current K4 has a climb rate far higher than the real life 1.98 ata version, yet is supposed to be running at 1.8 ata. And a 1.98 ata version is supposed to be added. I hope the climb rate for both versions gets fixed at the same time.


Robban what allied aircraft is nearest to match K4 in climb up to 5000m?

The Spitfire LF IX should be, but I don't know what it is in game.

Real life figures at 18 lbs boost:

1000m - 23.6
2000m - 23.9
3000m - 21.8
4000m - 19.6
5000m - 19.6
6000m - 18.3
7000m - 15.1

And for the Spitfire LF VIII

1000m - 23.4
2000m - 22.4
3000m - 19.6
4000m - 21.3
5000m - 21.2
6000m - 18.8
7000m - 15.7

robban75
02-01-2006, 07:16 AM
Here's what the MkIXc is capable of in-game.

1000 - 23.3
2000 - 22.7
3000 - 21.7
4000 - 21.3
5000 - 18.9
6000 - 18.5
7000 - 17.2
8000 - 14.3

stathem
02-01-2006, 07:23 AM
That's surprising, I always thought that the argument was that all planes (climb rates) in game were overmodelled by a similar amount?

Robban, off the top of your head, how does the Dora fare against it's RL figures? (roughly, no need to test it on my account)

noace
02-01-2006, 07:34 AM
Thanks Robban for your work. Just one question for the comparison to RL data. You made the test at full power (110% + WEP I assmume), but AFAIK in RL only "Steig und Kampfleistung" (military power?) and not "Notleistung" (emergency power) was used. Have you ever done tests on lower power settings? Of course the question is what power setting "Steig und Kampfleistung" is in the game.

noace

Kurfurst__
02-01-2006, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
That's surprising, I always thought that the argument was that all planes (climb rates) in game were overmodelled by a similar amount?



If anyone takes some time to test the LA-7 and the P-51's climb rate for example, it's pretty much the case. P-51D we have at 67" boost did some 3400 fpm in real life or about 17 m/sec. In the game it does 22 m/sec, some 30% higher. And it's hardly the only offender. At one time the Mk V was climbing at 200% of the ROC it should have at altitude, I am not sure if the bug still exists or not.

Now as for the 109K data Hop has posted, I wonder what's the source for it because as far as I know Hop never seen a single of the original 109k performance doc in his life. What 'real life' MkIXLF data he posted seems to be an proto MkIX which had a experimental propellor mounted and the engine's supecharger gear ratio appear to be different as well from the final Merlin 66 to be serialized.

Regarding the climb data for 109s, it can be difficult to track down because of the many variables, the most important being the radiator position (shut or open). This is different for all tests and needs to be known for comparison. For example, there's a Finn test of a fully loaded Bf 109G-2 at 1.3ata (ours gauge shows it runs at 1.42ata), which was tested with a bit higher climb speed than what was suggested by the manual, but the radiators were still controlled by the automatics. The result was that the airflow through the rads was faster and cooled better, and the rad flaps didn't open for a while as temperature was kept low by this. Result.... 24.3 m/sec at 2000m altitude was achieved, with only 1.3ata and 1310 PS, whereas our *current* 109K has 1800 PS... I'd expect +500 horsepower to yield better result than that under equal conditions.

Xiolablu3
02-01-2006, 08:11 AM
Wow those Spitfire figures are real close to real world.

StG2_Schlachter
02-01-2006, 08:13 AM
How much heavier was the K-4 than the G2?

I think this could have negative impact on the ROC .

Kurfurst__
02-01-2006, 08:20 AM
K-4 weighted some 300kg more, but also had different aerodynamics, and more importantly, a new prop.

One may get an idea how much effect weight has on climb rate, if we can believe Hop's data for Spitfires.

He says it's for the MkIXLF and the MkVIIILF. Now, both aircraft were powered by the exactly same engine, the Merlin 66, and had exactly the same power.

The MkVIIILF, otoh, was some 300 lbs heavier, 7400 vs 7700 lbs takeoff weight.




Real life figures at 18 lbs boost:

1000m - 23.6
2000m - 23.9
3000m - 21.8
4000m - 19.6
5000m - 19.6
6000m - 18.3
7000m - 15.1

And for the Spitfire LF VIII

1000m - 23.4
2000m - 22.4
3000m - 19.6
4000m - 21.3
5000m - 21.2
6000m - 18.8
7000m - 15.7


ie.

IXLF, 7400 lbs
4000m - 19.6
7000m - 15.1

vs.

VIIILF, 7700 lbs =
4000m - 21.3
7000m - 15.7

As you can see, Hop's figures show that extra weight has actually positive effect on climb rate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2006, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
I was going to post this in Hayateace's 109 topic in ORR. But it was locked so I'm posting the climbrates here instead.

Crimea map, full fuel, full power and boost, default loadout, radiators auto, no wind & turbulence, climb speed 260-280km/h TAS, above 6000m ~310km/h TAS. In meters and m/sec.

Bf 109F-4

1000 - 18.2
2000 - 18.5
3000 - 18.5
4000 - 18.2
5000 - 17.5
6000 - 15.6
7000 - 12.7

Bf 109G-2

1000 - 25.0
2000 - 23.3
3000 - 23.3
4000 - 23.3
5000 - 21.7
6000 - 20.8
7000 - 18.5

Bf 109G-6 late

1000 - 20.8
2000 - 20.0
3000 - 19.2
4000 - 18.2
5000 - 17.2
6000 - 16.4
7000 - 14.5

Bf 109G-10

1000 - 25.6
2000 - 23.8
3000 - 25.0
4000 - 25.0
5000 - 23.3
6000 - 20.0
7000 - 16.1

Bf 109G-14

1000 - 25.6
2000 - 25.0
3000 - 22.7
4000 - 22.7
5000 - 21.7
6000 - 17.9
7000 - 14.5

Bf 109K-4

1000 - 27.8
2000 - 27.8
3000 - 27.0
4000 - 27.0
5000 - 25.6
6000 - 20.8
7000 - 17.5 Got Tracks? Bet you dont.

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2006, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
If anyone takes some time to test the LA-7 and the P-51's climb rate for example, it's pretty much the case. P-51D we have at 67" boost did some 3400 fpm in real life or about 17 m/sec. In the game it does 22 m/sec, some 30% higher. And it's hardly the only offender. Got Track? Bet you dont.

LEXX_Luthor
02-01-2006, 08:32 AM
Ya, tracks and TAGERT's graphs would be the best method here, and flight test tracks are recommended by Oleg the Person himself.

The classic "robban" method which I once used is a good start though. I once started testing ALL planes, made level speed tests for all planes, but only got climb tests up to the I-16/CR.42/I-153 level. I began all my tests with TB-3 -- as I am NOT a member of the bizzare flight model cult, I knew that the Bombers and Biplanes were the key to the Secrets of Oleg's flight models. But the next Patch was supposed to be around the corner (it wasn't) and I since moved on to other things.

The nice thing about tracks is they make it possible to get more consistent results from a collective community effort from many people testing different aircraft, and with less chance of fudging the tests. I may be wrong about this though (most likely).

Kurfurst__
02-01-2006, 08:33 AM
I think Oleg said the data for WESTERN types are all from 'optimum' manufacturer data (which was otoh guaranteed to be reached within a margin of error), whereas Russian data is more representative for the final product and not the firm's own official numbers.

The problem is that I think Hop's numbers are for a prototype that's configuration never saw service. They surely not put that propeller into actual production, and the engine was also clearly modified before it reached it's final form (it appears the prototype engine was built for a 2000 feet higher rated altitude then what was finalized for production).

It's kinda like having a 109K with a four bladed or other exotic prop. Sure, there was a prototype tested with it, it reached some 741 kph speed, but never made it into service in that way.

robban75
02-01-2006, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Got Tracks? Bet you dont.

How much do you want to bet?

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2006, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
How much do you want to bet? Ah, good, the bait worked.. Bring it!

naca_testing@yahoo.com

Kuna15
02-01-2006, 08:39 AM
OK I will repeat question because someone may know this. What allied piston type in game climbs best from deck up to the 5000m? Which one will get there first?

Kurfurst__
02-01-2006, 08:47 AM
Up to 2000m, it's La-7 I think. At least it used to be., haven't checked. Most choose to fly western planes... It climbs at some 28 m/sec I think, RL it did around 24.1 iirc...

LEXX_Luthor
02-01-2006, 08:51 AM
robban you and TAGERT may wish to hold off on creating new tracks and graphs until 4.03 releace, unless you wish to document the evolution of 4.xy New FM for BoB And Beyond -- recall this is "beta" FM for BoB+.

Rola's 9-39 website is missing, so maybe the Polish Addon Pack for BoB+ is dead. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif ~> http://www.9-1939.pl/

robban75
02-01-2006, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
That's surprising, I always thought that the argument was that all planes (climb rates) in game were overmodelled by a similar amount?

Robban, off the top of your head, how does the Dora fare against it's RL figures? (roughly, no need to test it on my account)

The D-9 is fairly accurate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Alt -- real - game

1000 - 22.3 - 22.7
2000 - 21.0 - 20.0
3000 - 20.9 - 21.3
4000 - 20.4 - 20.8
5000 - 17.9 - 19.2

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2006, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
robban you and TAGERT may wish to hold off on creating new tracks and graphs until 4.03 releace, unless you wish to document the evolution of 4.xy New FM for BoB And Beyond -- recall this is "beta" FM for BoB+.

Rola's 9-39 website is missing, so maybe the Polish Addon Pack for BoB+ is dead. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif ~> http://www.9-1939.pl/ It is not the data that Im looking for here, it is the mistakes made in the methods that will be comical, which in turn will debunk the numbers presented.

Jetbuff
02-01-2006, 09:01 AM
Robban, was it you that tested glide speeds a while back and found them to be much lower than expected? I ask because that would require testing each aircrat's climb at around its best glide speed. (best drag/lift ratio)

Cheers...

LEXX_Luthor
02-01-2006, 09:06 AM
TAGERT::
It is not the data that Im looking for here, it is the mistakes made in the methods that will be comical, which in turn will debunk the numbers presented.
Well, we hope you share any better methods, or we will have to do the best we can on our own, as we are looking for data.

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2006, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Ya, tracks and TAGERT's graphs would be the best method here, and flight test tracks are recommended by Oleg the Person himself.

The classic "robban" method which I once used is a good start though. I once started testing ALL planes, made level speed tests for all planes, but only got climb tests up to the I-16/CR.42/I-153 level. I began all my tests with TB-3 -- as I am NOT a member of the bizzare flight model cult, I knew that the Bombers and Biplanes were the key to the Secrets of Oleg's flight models. But the next Patch was supposed to be around the corner (it wasn't) and I since moved on to other things.

The nice thing about tracks is they make it possible to get more consistent results from a collective community effort from many people testing different aircraft, and with less chance of fudging the tests. I may be wrong about this though (most likely).
Exactly!

A table of numbers is neat and all, but it does not tell the real story.

Anyone can fudge the test method to make up numbers.. good or bad.. within reason.

Thus the need for tracks. Than you can see just what it is the pilot did to get those numbers.

Another source of error is in how the numbers are gathered, correct me if I am wrong by Robbin is just reading them off the screen in real time.

Very messy and introduces another whole layer of errors in the numbers!

For example, I was sent a track file that someone told me proved that such and such plane could not meet it's top speed rating.. The so called proof was based on a VISUAL reading of the WW guages (TAS)! But after processing the track file and looking at the DeviceLink data it was shown that it actually did meet it's top speed rating and the error was not in the sim but in the users VISION! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Im sure all that is going on in Robbins testing too.. But we wont know until he sends me his track files and I process them.

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2006, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
TAGERT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is not the data that Im looking for here, it is the mistakes made in the methods that will be comical, which in turn will debunk the numbers presented.
Well, we hope you share any better methods, or we will have to do the best we can on our own, as we are looking for data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Anytime your are serious about doing a test, PM me and I will be glad to work with you to make sure you dont waist your or my time by doing a test incorectly. I also work with Lw lovers, and helped in the proposed boost for the Fw190 that might make it in the next patch.

Xiolablu3
02-01-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
K-4 weighted some 300kg more, but also had different aerodynamics, and more importantly, a new prop.

One may get an idea how much effect weight has on climb rate, if we can believe Hop's data for Spitfires.

He says it's for the MkIXLF and the MkVIIILF. Now, both aircraft were powered by the exactly same engine, the Merlin 66, and had exactly the same power.

The MkVIIILF, otoh, was some 300 lbs heavier, 7400 vs 7700 lbs takeoff weight.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Real life figures at 18 lbs boost:

1000m - 23.6
2000m - 23.9
3000m - 21.8
4000m - 19.6
5000m - 19.6
6000m - 18.3
7000m - 15.1

And for the Spitfire LF VIII

1000m - 23.4
2000m - 22.4
3000m - 19.6
4000m - 21.3
5000m - 21.2
6000m - 18.8
7000m - 15.7


ie.

IXLF, 7400 lbs
4000m - 19.6
7000m - 15.1

vs.

VIIILF, 7700 lbs =
4000m - 21.3
7000m - 15.7

As you can see, Hop's figures show that extra weight has actually positive effect on climb rate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mk8 was a much more streamlined plane with retractable tail wheel, better tail fin etc.

Its comparing a mk8 and mk9, the Mk8 has a newer airframe with the same engine, its a later design.

LEXX_Luthor
02-01-2006, 09:24 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

TAGERT::
Anytime your are serious about doing a test, PM me and I will be glad to work with you...
I know! But I've moved along to StrikeFighters, I am becoming a .. um...a modder.. how odd.

Kurfurst__
02-01-2006, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Mk8 was a much more streamlined plane with retractable tail wheel, better tail fin etc.

Its comparing a mk8 and mk9, the Mk8 has a newer airframe with the same engine, its a later design.

Awfully close analog for the G-2 vs. K-4 don't you think? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CD_kp84yb
02-01-2006, 09:27 AM
Heya tagert.

I have a question for you.
In games name did you ever heard something (response from devolpmentteam) about the test you and others made by the rolling of the planes in this game, i lost track of it .

Cheers

HAHAHA my english is getting worse and worse, well its not my native language

Xiolablu3
02-01-2006, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Mk8 was a much more streamlined plane with retractable tail wheel, better tail fin etc.

Its comparing a mk8 and mk9, the Mk8 has a newer airframe with the same engine, its a later design.

Awfully close analog for the G-2 vs. K-4 don't you think? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh sorry, I thought you were saying that the figures were definitely wrong, I didnt realise you were using them as another example. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I should read posts more thoroughly :P

luftluuver
02-01-2006, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Mk8 was a much more streamlined plane with retractable tail wheel, better tail fin etc.

Its comparing a mk8 and mk9, the Mk8 has a newer airframe with the same engine, its a later design.

Awfully close analog for the G-2 vs. K-4 don't you think? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It is? The G-2 was much more streamlined than the K-4. No bulges for the wheels, no bulges for the fuselage mgs, smaller oil cooler, ....... The only thing the K-4 had that was better than the G-2 was the canopy.

Allied_Killer
02-01-2006, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Robban, was it you that tested glide speeds a while back and found them to be much lower than expected? I ask because that would require testing each aircrat's climb at around its best glide speed. (best drag/lift ratio)

Cheers...

Salut!

Hi Pritzl, I have tested it extensively when I presented the data back in the good 'ol days of II./JG1. According to my data, the best glide speed in game did not coincide with the Vx and Vy, which by the way was meticulously accquired through numerous flights, changing airspeed a few kph at a time.

But I haven't done another one sice the last a couple of patches. I'd probably do another one after 4.03 release since it looks like the last patch before BoB. I'll let you know when it's ready.

~S!~
Schaefer

Kurfurst__
02-01-2006, 09:37 AM
No wheel well covers or fully retractable, covered tailwheel on the G-2 either. These items had major effect on drag, the other - very little.

Jetbuff
02-01-2006, 09:44 AM
Thanks Schaefer and good to see you're still around. I look forward to your results!

Cheers...

BelaLvgosi
02-01-2006, 09:46 AM
I'm actually more shocked to see a g2 as good or better than a mw50 g10!

Blutarski2004
02-01-2006, 09:54 AM
Streamlining has little effect upon climb rate, as maximum climb occurs at modest horizontal speeds.


The differing Spitfire climb rates can easily be explained by the engine of one model having a slightly lower critical altitude. Even if both engines have the same maximum output, the one with the lower critical altitude will show a better initial climb rate, with the graph cross-over point somewhere between the critical altitudes of the two engines.

Abbuzze
02-01-2006, 09:56 AM
Very interesting, Thanks!

But this datas are not compareable to real world test.
All Planes in this sim are flying without troubles and overheat at WEP. The 109 is even the plane with the most problematic overheat not to compare with a spitfire, which has a risible overheat.

German climbrates are testet with "Steig- und Kampfleistung". That should be 100% Power in this game - not WEP!!
Roban if you like (and have the time!) redo the K4 test for example without MW50 enabled and 100% would be interesting if the K4 climbs well enough! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
02-01-2006, 09:57 AM
Both mk8 and mk9 LFhad the same engine, Merlin 66 with the same rated altitude.

LEXX_Luthor
02-01-2006, 09:59 AM
Abuzze and noace, Oleg used to post about the need to NOT test with "wep" or "boost" -- I don't know anything more than this, but if true, could have something to do with across the board climb rate uberness.

Blutarski2004
02-01-2006, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Both mk8 and mk9 LFhad the same engine, Merlin 66 with the same rated altitude.


True indeed (although I think you meant to say Merlin 61).

Hard to say what produced the difference in measured climb rates. Could have been small difference in mechanical condition of the two a/c, or differing meteorological conditions on the respective test days. This sort of empirical testing has limits to the degree of precision which can be achieved.

One conceivable possibility is differing armament outfits. The VIII was officially described as having either 2x20mm + 4x50cal OR 4x20mm; the IX was officially described as having only the 2x20mm + 4x50cal outfit.

hop2002
02-01-2006, 10:34 AM
Thanks Robban for your work. Just one question for the comparison to RL data. You made the test at full power (110% + WEP I assmume), but AFAIK in RL only "Steig und Kampfleistung" (military power?) and not "Notleistung" (emergency power) was used.

The real life K4 figures I posted were at WEP. Maximum RPM, 1.8 ata and 1.98 ata. The 109 did not have a higher power setting than that.


Here's what the MkIXc is capable of in-game.

1000 - 23.3
2000 - 22.7
3000 - 21.7
4000 - 21.3
5000 - 18.9
6000 - 18.5
7000 - 17.2
8000 - 14.3

It seems the Spit IX climb rate is pretty accurate. Unfourtunately, when flying against the K4, what should be rough parity in climb is actually a huge advantage to the 109.

For example, at 3000m the K4 at 1.8 ata (which is what's supposed to be in game) should have a climb rate slightly worse than the LF IX, and slightly better than the LF VIII (in reality, as the rate varies from plane to plane, all we can say is that the rates should be similar). In game, the K4 has a climb rate adavantage of 5.3 m/s.


Now as for the 109K data Hop has posted, I wonder what's the source for it because as far as I know Hop never seen a single of the original 109k performance doc in his life.

Oh, I seem to remember posting a link to the first one you'd ever seen, about 6 years ago. I also remember the discussion afterwards, when you claimed it showed 5000m could be reached in 3 minutes (it couldn't, of course)

But, Isegrim, are you claiming those climb figures for the real life K4 are wrong? You have the original documents, don't you? Do you claim they are wrong?


What 'real life' MkIXLF data he posted seems to be an proto MkIX which had a experimental propellor mounted and the engine's supecharger gear ratio appear to be different as well from the final Merlin 66 to be serialized.

He says it's for the MkIXLF and the MkVIIILF. Now, both aircraft were powered by the exactly same engine, the Merlin 66, and had exactly the same power.

The MkVIIILF, otoh, was some 300 lbs heavier, 7400 vs 7700 lbs takeoff weight.

As you can see, Hop's figures show that extra weight has actually positive effect on climb rate.

This, sadly, is typical Isegrim. First post he says the data for the LF IX is wrong, because it has a different prop and possibly different supercharger gearing.

Second post he says the data for the LF VIII must be wrong, because it is higher than that of the LF IX. (despite the fact it has a different prop, and according to Isegrim different supercharger gearing).

The truth is, the LF IX figures are for the prototype, with a different prop type. Isegrim claims the supercharger gearing was changed, but that's not supported by anything, and engines had a variation of a few thousand fett in critical altitude.

The LF VIII figures are for a production machine, shipped as part of a batch to serve in Australia, and tested by the Aussies on arrival.

The differences between the two are fairly minor. The engines changed gear at slightly different heights, which means performance will be slightly different at mid altitudes.

The gain at high alt for the LF VIII is probably down to the prop. Isegrim assumes that the non-standard prop on the LF IX was a huge improvement over the standard prop. In reality, it was probably worse (which might explain why it wasn't adopted). A slightly worse prop at altitude would explain why the LF VIII climbs a bit better, despite being a bit heavier.

Kwiatos
02-01-2006, 10:56 AM
Hop202 could you show your data and suorce about RL Bf109 K-4 climb rate?

Im very interesting in these.

If you couldnt put it here plz send it to my e -mail : kwiatos999@poczta.onet.pl

Kurfurst__
02-01-2006, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
But, Isegrim, are you claiming those climb figures for the real life K4 are wrong? You have the original documents, don't you? Do you claim they are wrong?

Nope, I just noted you renewed the habit of posting numbers 'from' documents you have not ever seen written in a language you dont even speak.

As for the K-4 specs, Oleg were supported with those and I am sure he knows how to read them.



This, sadly, is typical Isegrim. First post he says the data for the LF IX is wrong, because it has a different prop and possibly different supercharger gearing.

When in fact I said :


What 'real life' MkIXLF data he posted seems to be an proto MkIX which had a experimental propellor mounted and the engine's supecharger gear ratio appear to be different as well from the final Merlin 66 to be serialized.

I merely noted the true nature of the MkIXLF data you were selling as a serial plane.


Second post he says the data for the LF VIII must be wrong, because it is higher than that of the LF IX. (despite the fact it has a different prop, and according to Isegrim different supercharger gearing).

When in fact I said :


He says it's for the MkIXLF and the MkVIIILF. Now, both aircraft were powered by the exactly same engine, the Merlin 66, and had exactly the same power.The MkVIIILF, otoh, was some 300 lbs heavier, 7400 vs 7700 lbs takeoff weight.

As you can see, Hop's figures show that extra weight has actually positive effect on climb rate.

I can't see anywhere stating either figures are wrong. You have either massive reading comprehension problems or you are just massively dishonest presenting people's POV. But, after presenting numbers for the 109K you pulled out of nowhere, presenting numbers for the IXLF as 'real life' when in fact it was prototype, this surprise me not.


The truth is, the LF IX figures are for the prototype, with a different prop type.

Thank you for admitting. And now, serial production Mark IX LF figures please.


Isegrim claims the supercharger gearing was changed, but that's not supported by anything, and engines had a variation of a few thousand fett in critical altitude.

'Few thousend feet variation' eh? You mean a 109K peaking out at 8500m instead of 7500m would be perfectly normal? I don't think so, but you do.

It is supported by the bare fact that the prototype IXLF you posted had a rated altitude of 18000 feet in climb, and 22000 feet in level runs at 400mph.

The production Merlin 66's power curve shows otoh 2000 feet lower altitude, ie. 20000 feet rated altitude at 400mph.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66hpchart.jpg

All tests showing a _serial production_ Merlin 66 engined Spit show a rated altitude of ~16000 feet and ~19500 feet for in speed. The variation is a few hundred feet, at worst.

Change of supercharger gearing was common with development Spitfires, they toyed with a lot of settings, before they found out which is the most optimum for combat altitudes - like everyone else.

Here's an example of the prototype XIV, which's engine was first also differently geared than the production model.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jf319.html
Compare with final production rated alts : http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climbchart.jpg

Notice they refer to the development engine as "Griffon RG5SM engine". Notice this is the same case as the proto Spit 9 Hop posted as 'real life' in november 1942: "The RM-10 SM and the RM-11 SM were subsequently given mark numbers and are now known as the Merlin 66 and Merlin 70 respectively."

Obviously, the prototpye Merlin 66/R-10SM had a different supercharger ratio and a rated altitue of 18000 feet vs. 16000 feet of the final version. This is evident from the rated altitude during climbs. One can also see they were toying with 3 development engines in that tests, one of which was cancelled completely.

Abbuzze
02-01-2006, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:


The real life K4 figures I posted were at WEP. Maximum RPM, 1.8 ata and 1.98 ata. The 109 did not have a higher power setting than that.


Interesting, is it from an original document? Usually german documents show Steigleistung (climbing) and if WEP charts are shown, they are interpolated.
I even have a document of the F2 with a sentense that climbing to altitude is not possible cause it is just useable for 3 min.
Edit:
Here an example from this test:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/109F2%20climbrate.jpg
Values in () for 1.42atü@2600rpm

Kuna15
02-01-2006, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Abuzze and noace, Oleg used to post about the need to NOT test with "wep" or "boost" -- I don't know anything more than this, but if true, could have something to do with across the board climb rate uberness.

That is valid argument when we are comparing real life performances with game. It must be compared on the same sort of tests, on the same basis. That sort of things should not be mixed up.

TheGozr
02-01-2006, 12:16 PM
Test the planes in fight climb not cruise climb. This maybe the only way to make the weight/ratio jumpin more efficiently.
Calculate the weight/ratio/drag/engine power 100% and with boost.but mostly the distance and Altitude.
weight of the plane + fuel( same or very simular fuel quantity ) for example the P51 % fuel will be different than %50 in the 109's same with yak9D etc..
We did try something like this and the G2 blowed the Yak9U until 5k wich is not correct.

An other intersting way is to mesure it like a ladder the best climbing fighter will be a number 10( max ) than we aligne all other falowing it, degree and everything this will make a good schema. 100%/Boost Radiator Open/Closed. That would be probably near stall speed yes robban

Kuna15
02-01-2006, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Up to 2000m, it's La-7 I think. At least it used to be., haven't checked. Most choose to fly western planes... It climbs at some 28 m/sec I think, RL it did around 24.1 iirc...

I agree but it is most interesting to see which allied piston would came out victorious up to 5k. Yak-9U is slightly better than LA-7 (when I say slightly I mean 2 seconds) or something like that.

I had my hopes that someone actually did that test but I was wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

robban75
02-01-2006, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Up to 2000m, it's La-7 I think. At least it used to be., haven't checked. Most choose to fly western planes... It climbs at some 28 m/sec I think, RL it did around 24.1 iirc...

I agree but it is most interesting to see which allied piston would came out victorious up to 5k. Yak-9U is slightly better than LA-7 (when I say slightly I mean 2 seconds) or something like that.

I had my hopes that someone actually did that test but I was wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Kuna, I'll get on it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kuna15
02-01-2006, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Test the planes in fight climb not cruise climb. This maybe the only way to make the weight/ratio jumpin more efficiently.
Calculate the weight/ratio/drag/engine power 100% and with boost.but mostly the distance and Altitude.
weight of the plane + fuel( same or very simular fuel quantity ) for example the P51 % fuel will be different than %50 in the 109's same with yak9D etc..
We did try something like this and the G2 blowed the Yak9U until 5k wich is not correct.

An other intersting way is to mesure it like a ladder the best climbing fighter will be a number 10( max ) than we aligne all other falowing it, degree and everything this will make a good schema. 100%/Boost Radiator Open/Closed. That would be probably near stall speed yes robban

P-38L_LATE (25%) will eat everything except K4 (100%) and G10 (? assumption) from deck up to 5k (110% WEP, Crimea, default arm... you know the deal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Of course on 25% fuel which is more than enough since even with 25% it has range noticeable higher than G10 on 100% fuel. G6AS on 50% fuel has about the same overall RoC as P-38L_LATE.
Note that these conclusions are from v401.

But on 100% fuel... how things stands I don't know.

Kuna15
02-01-2006, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
Sorry Kuna, I'll get on it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Thank you mate but don't feel obliged. I thought perhaps some of you guys did it already.

But IMO this is the subject of most interest.

To paraphrase some of the guys; "best climb for teh win!" (little edit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

robban75
02-01-2006, 12:51 PM
Here you go.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

La-7

1000 - 27.0
2000 - 23.3
3000 - 20.0
4000 - 18.9
5000 - 19.2
6000 - 17.9

Yak-9U

1000 - 22.7
2000 - 23.3
3000 - 21.3
4000 - 22.2
5000 - 20.8

Kuna15
02-01-2006, 12:55 PM
You're the man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. I guess my suspicions were correct after all, Yak-9U is the winner (I think only Spitfire can come near that and since we are getting 25lb monster soon... perhaps things will change http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)

Thanks.

Kurfurst__
02-01-2006, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
Here you go.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

La-7

1000 - 27.0
2000 - 23.3
3000 - 20.0
4000 - 18.9
5000 - 19.2
6000 - 17.9

Yak-9U

1000 - 22.7
2000 - 23.3
3000 - 21.3
4000 - 22.2
5000 - 20.8


Just compare to the real thing, how many offenders we have accross the board compared to real stuff. Look at 5000m, how close they come to 20m/sec in real life...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/ae093cc5.jpg

Could you do a P-51D test as well?

Kuna15
02-01-2006, 01:06 PM
Huh... ME-262 is good fairly good climber according to the chart.

BTW Robban what FW-190D9 version did you tested on page 2, was that '45 or erh¶hte notleistung '44?

lrrp22
02-01-2006, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Could you do a P-51D test as well?

He did. Here they are:

P-51D20/NA

1000 - 17.0
2000 - 17.0
3000 - 16.7
4000 - 15.6
5000 - 12.7
6000 - 10.8
7000 - 10.6

Not overmodeled at all.

LRRP

Gibbage1
02-01-2006, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Bf 109K-4
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Alt - Game - 1.98 - 1.8
1000 - 27.8 - 24.7 - 22.3
2000 - 27.8 - 23.6 - 21.4
3000 - 27.0 - 22.6 - 20.6
4000 - 27.0 - 21.5 - 19.7
5000 - 25.6 - 20.5 - 18.9
6000 - 20.8 - 18.6 - 18.1
7000 - 17.5 - 15.0 - 16.0
</pre>


Does anyone see that Kurfurst is trying to distract everyone from the fact the K4 currently WAY WAY overclimbs?

ImpStarDuece
02-01-2006, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:



If anyone takes some time to test the LA-7 and the P-51's climb rate for example, it's pretty much the case. P-51D we have at 67" boost did some 3400 fpm in real life or about 17 m/sec. In the game it does 22 m/sec, some 30% higher. And it's hardly the only offender. At one time the Mk V was climbing at 200% of the ROC it should have at altitude, I am not sure if the bug still exists or not.

Now as for the 109K data Hop has posted, I wonder what's the source for it because as far as I know Hop never seen a single of the original 109k performance doc in his life. What 'real life' MkIXLF data he posted seems to be an proto MkIX which had a experimental propellor mounted and the engine's supecharger gear ratio appear to be different as well from the final Merlin 66 to be serialized.

Regarding the climb data for 109s, it can be difficult to track down because of the many variables, the most important being the radiator position (shut or open). This is different for all tests and needs to be known for comparison. For example, there's a Finn test of a fully loaded Bf 109G-2 at 1.3ata (ours gauge shows it runs at 1.42ata), which was tested with a bit higher climb speed than what was suggested by the manual, but the radiators were still controlled by the automatics. The result was that the airflow through the rads was faster and cooled better, and the rad flaps didn't open for a while as temperature was kept low by this. Result.... 24.3 m/sec at 2000m altitude was achieved, with only 1.3ata and 1310 PS, whereas our *current* 109K has 1800 PS... I'd expect +500 horsepower to yield better result than that under equal conditions.

This is the Spitfire 'prototype' where Robbans numbers came from, and that Kurfurst has a problem with:

"Note: BS.543 was built as a Mk V, converted to Mk IX (Merlin 61) at Rolls Royce, Hucknall. First flight 22-10-42. Transferred to AFDU, Duxford 8-11-42; AAEE, Boscombe Down 13-12-42 with Merlin 66 installed; Vickers Armstrong 22-2-43; 403 Sqdn. 9-6-43; 611 Sqdn. 10-6-43; 485 Sqdn. 6-7-43. Failed to return from operations 22-8-43."

So it was a converted Mk V, that then went ahead to be used and lost in combat.

anarchy52
02-01-2006, 02:44 PM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Alt - 110% - 1.98 - 1.8
1000 - 22.2 - 24.7 - 22.3
2000 - 18.9 - 23.6 - 21.4
3000 - 19.6 - 22.6 - 20.6
4000 - 18.5 - 21.5 - 19.7
5000 - 18.1 - 20.5 - 18.9
6000 - 20.0 - 18.6 - 18.1
7000 - N/A - 15.0 - 16.0
</pre>
The column titled 110% represents the results of the test I did in 4.02 110% without MW50, 100% fuel, rads auto. 1000 marks the average from 0 to 1000 m. Climb speed was between 260 and 270 km/h

Numbers are pretty close to hop's.

a) Where did hop's data come from?
b) Which power setting does 110% on 109 in game represent?
In game at 110% percent gauges display 2650 r/min and 1.42 ata

Abbuzze
02-01-2006, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:

Numbers are pretty close to hop's.

a) Where did hop's data come from?
b) Which power setting does 110% on 109 in game represent?
In game at 110% percent gauges display 2650 r/min and 1.42 ata

This should be similar to "Steig und Kampfleistung". If I remember correct 2600+/-2% and 1.5atü should be the right values. But I have to search to be sure about this.

lrrp22
02-01-2006, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Alt - 110% - 1.98 - 1.8
1000 - 22.2 - 24.7 - 22.3
2000 - 18.9 - 23.6 - 21.4
3000 - 19.6 - 22.6 - 20.6
4000 - 18.5 - 21.5 - 19.7
5000 - 18.1 - 20.5 - 18.9
6000 - 20.0 - 18.6 - 18.1
7000 - N/A - 15.0 - 16.0
</pre>
The column titled 110% represents the results of the test I did in 4.02 110% without MW50, 100% fuel, rads auto. 1000 marks the average from 0 to 1000 m. Climb speed was between 260 and 270 km/h

Numbers are pretty close to hop's.

a) Where did hop's data come from?
b) Which power setting does 110% on 109 in game represent?
In game at 110% percent gauges display 2650 r/min and 1.42 ata

The figures Hop posted for 1.98 and 1.8 ata are for sonder-notleistung (otherwise they would show a lower ata) and represent maximum performance. In-game testing should be done with MW-50 and 110% throttle which is how Robban conducted his.

LRRP

Abbuzze
02-01-2006, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:


The figures Hop posted for 1.98 and 1.8 ata are for sonder-notleistung (otherwise they would show a lower ata) and represent maximum performance. In-game testing should be done with MW-50 and 110% throttle which is how Robban conducted his.

LRRP

I would like to see the source, because I don´t believe that this datas are from flighttests. They are just interpolated, or be a caclulation, or been a summary from climbing test at "partial" altitudes.

lrrp22
02-01-2006, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:

I would like to see the source, because I don´t believe that this datas are from flighttests. They are just interpolated, or be a caclulation, or been a summary from climbing test at "partial" altitudes.

There are no actual flight tests available for the K-4 at either 1.8 or 1.98 ata. All the speed and climb performance numbers we see posted are estimates for a 'well built' example prepared by MTT.

LRRP

Unknown-Pilot
02-01-2006, 03:51 PM
Nevermind that that goes against what Oleg has said about testing (with no exceptions specified), AND standard practice.

No, the 109 (and indeed all LW planes), *must* be held down.

hop2002
02-01-2006, 03:53 PM
Alt - 110% - 1.98 - 1.8
1000 - 22.2 - 24.7 - 22.3
2000 - 18.9 - 23.6 - 21.4
3000 - 19.6 - 22.6 - 20.6
4000 - 18.5 - 21.5 - 19.7
5000 - 18.1 - 20.5 - 18.9
6000 - 20.0 - 18.6 - 18.1
7000 - N/A - 15.0 - 16.0


The column titled 110% represents the results of the test I did in 4.02 110% without MW50, 100% fuel, rads auto. 1000 marks the average from 0 to 1000 m. Climb speed was between 260 and 270 km/h

Numbers are pretty close to hop's.

a) Where did hop's data come from?

109K4 at 1.8 ata:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1138831365_109kclimb2.jpg

Note. This shows two power settings, 1.8 ata and 1.45 ata. Each branches into two, depending on whether the engine is set up to allow 1.98 ata. None of these figures was obtained at 1.98 ata, they were obtained at 1.8 and 1.45 ata, but with engines that were capable of 1.8 and 1.98 ata.

The 1.98 ata figures are not on this chart, but Isegrim has previously posted a graph with them on. I believe the source is Butch, and from the discussions I've seen, Butch seems to confirm Isegrim's figures for 1.98 ata to be correct.


b) Which power setting does 110% on 109 in game represent?
In game at 110% percent gauges display 2650 r/min and 1.42 ata

Then I suspect it represents climb and combat power. That's the 1.45 ata setting on this chart. As you can see, at this power setting peak climb rate should be under 17 m/s, you obtained over 22 m/s. The 109K4 in game climbs by more than 5 m/s too much.

Note these figures I posted earlier:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Bf 109K-4
Alt - Game - 1.98 - 1.8
1000 - 27.8 - 24.7 - 22.3
2000 - 27.8 - 23.6 - 21.4
3000 - 27.0 - 22.6 - 20.6
4000 - 27.0 - 21.5 - 19.7
5000 - 25.6 - 20.5 - 18.9
6000 - 20.8 - 18.6 - 18.1
7000 - 17.5 - 15.0 - 16.0
</pre>

The 1.98 ata figure is the absolute maximum power the 109 could have achieved in service, if you accept Isegrim's argument that 1.98 ata was used operationally. If not, the 1.8 figure is the maximum the K4 reached in service. These are the highest power settings the 109 used, and are comparable to WEP in game.


'Few thousend feet variation' eh? You mean a 109K peaking out at 8500m instead of 7500m would be perfectly normal? I don't think so, but you do.

I've no idea if that was the case with the 109, but 115 Spitfires were tested in 1943 to find variations in FTH, they found that Merlin 63s exhibited up to 3000 ft between min and max FTH, Merlin 66s 2700 ft and Griffons 1400 ft. And that's excluding the typical 1000 ft reduction caused by the tropical filters.


I would like to see the source, because I don´t believe that this datas are from flighttests. They are just interpolated, or be a caclulation, or been a summary from climbing test at "partial" altitudes.



You need to speak to Butch, because I believe the originals are from him. But does it really matter whether they are calculations or test results, or more likely both? Either way, they come nowhere near the figures achievable in game, and indeed the entire shape of the in game climb graph is wrong, with climb rate being maintained up to about 4000m, when it should begin to decline quite sharply from 1 km or less.

Kurfurst__
02-01-2006, 04:23 PM
I've no idea if that was the case with the 109, but 115 Spitfires were tested in 1943 to find variations in FTH, they found that Merlin 63s exhibited up to 3000 ft between min and max FTH, Merlin 66s 2700 ft and Griffons 1400 ft. And that's excluding the typical 1000 ft reduction caused by the tropical filters.

Can you give a reference or source to this so I can check out?


If you read Hop's chart carefully you will notice it says "o. MW". That's an abbrev for ohne MW, or without MW50. The DC set to 1.98ata but running on 1.8ata without MW50 injection would only develop 1725 HP, instead of the 1850 the 605DB would develop with 1.8/MW (which is what we have in the game), or 2000 PS if it would properly run on 1.98/1.98. The DC would also develop less power at 1.45ata (by about 80 PS) than the DB at 1.45ata. In short, it's the worst possible configuration, that was probably never used, ie. high boost without MW50. the chart shows for 1725 PS, which is not representative for either the in-game 1.8ata 605DB variant at 1850PS (1800?), nor the 1.98ata DC, in fact it shows some weird configuration when the engine was set to handle 1.98ata, but MW 50 injection was not used and in fact it would run on 1.8ata, for the lowest output possible.

One thing we should know is how much the radiator flap position effects the 109's ROC in the game. In real life it was considerably, difference between a half closed (usual standard) and almost closed radiator could mean 3-4 m/sec extra. I believe the chart posted shows at half closed radiator position, so if the radiators stayed close in the climb like they did in the real life finnish testing, which resulted 24.3m/sec climb rate with just 1.3ata, I guess we found why the 109K gets a similiar boost in the climb rate when climbing with automatic radiators (it should be noted that the /AS, G-10 and K-4 versions had larger radiators and MW 50 injection for better cooling, higher temp limits also).

Not to mention :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/ae093cc5.jpg

La-7
alt - ingame - real life
1000 - 27.0 - 23
2000 - 23.3 - 19.5
3000 - 20.0 - 17.5
4000 - 18.9 - 15
5000 - 19.2 - 14.5
6000 - 17.9 - 12.5

Yak-9U

alt - ingame - real life
1000 - 22.7 - 18.5
2000 - 23.3 - 18
3000 - 21.3 - 16
4000 - 22.2 - 16
5000 - 20.8 - 14

Hardly the 109s being the only offenders in overmodelled ROC, the LA-7 and Yak9U are similiar examples of how much off fighters are modelled in ROC. Curiously, Hop's is not concerned about that, which makes the agenda pretty clear : reduce the 109 ROC to historical levels, [i]but don't touch at all any of the overmodelled other fighters so their historical disadvantage would turn into the opposite.

Say, the 109s climb now around 28 m/sec, the La-7 at 27m/sec. The 109K beats the La by 1m/sec. Historically they climbed at 25m/sec and 23m/sec, ie. in real life the 109K beats the La-7 by 2m/sec. You can see in absolute figures the ROC is wrong, but relative to each other it's quite OK.

Now, reduce the 109K to the historical 25m/sec, and leave the LA7 where it stands.... VOILA, you just meneged to reverse the historical situation and make the LA-7 outclimb the 109K by 3m/sec.

It's either they fix all aircraft ROC, or touch none. There's no middle way that would not nerf all the corrected aircraft, and giving ahistorical advantage to the untouched ones.

Abbuzze
02-01-2006, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by robban75:


Bf 109F-4

1000 - 18.2
2000 - 18.5
3000 - 18.5
4000 - 18.2
5000 - 17.5
6000 - 15.6
7000 - 12.7

Bf 109G-2

1000 - 25.0
2000 - 23.3
3000 - 23.3
4000 - 23.3
5000 - 21.7
6000 - 20.8
7000 - 18.5

Bf 109G-10

1000 - 25.6
2000 - 23.8
3000 - 25.0
4000 - 25.0
5000 - 23.3
6000 - 20.0
7000 - 16.1


Hmm, ok but without real datas for the K4...

Here some testdatas

Bf 109F-2 Kennblatt:
- 1.3atü-1.42atü
1000 - 16 - 18.5
2000 - 16 - 18.5
3000 - 16 - 18.5
4000 - 16 - 18.5
5000 - 13.8 - 15.8
6000 - 11.2 - 14
7000 - 8.6 - 11
8000 - 6.4 - 8.8

If you compare this to our F4 which is also testet with 1.42 atü/WEP... and keep in mind the F2 is equiped with the old Emil engine! Thats the cause why perfomance is dropping much more after reaching the rated altitude at 5.2km.

Finnish G2 at 1.3atü (climbing power)
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/MT215_Climb_Test.jpg
- 1.3atü
1000 - 22,5
2000 - 24
3000 - 19
4000 - 17,5
5000 - 16,5
6000 - 16
7000 - 13
8000 - 11

climb time to rated alt of 5800m is a bit less than 4min 30 sec - so avarage: 22.5 m/s at 1.3atü!! We are not talking about a plane using 110% or WEP.

Power to weight ratio of the G2:
weight - 1.3atü - 1.42atü at SL
3050kg - 2,33 kg/HP - 2,07 kg/HP at SL
3050kg - 2,44 kg/HP - 2,26 kg/HP at rated alt - 5.8km


Power to weight ratio of the G10/K4
good old DB605DB
weight - 1.5atü (?) - 1.80atü at SL
3350kg - 2,34 kg/HP - 1,81 kg/HP at SL
3350kg - 2,61 kg/HP - 2,09 kg/HP at rated alt - 6,8km(climbing)- 6km(WEP)

Best DB605DB performance with climbing output, is 1000m higher than the engine of the G2, so at this alt (5,8km) it would performe somewhat better. And don´t forget what P47 pilots said about paddle blade propellers.

anarchy52
02-01-2006, 04:54 PM
Please review the track, there is obviously something wrong:
Track:

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/K4_110_without_MW50.ntrk (http://marvin.kset.org/%7Eriddler/K4_110_without_MW50.ntrk)

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/K4-comp.jpg

lrrp22
02-01-2006, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Please review the track, there is obviously something wrong:
Track:



Anarchy,

You don't have (virtual) C3 fuel, so you can't run 1.8 ata without MW-50! I'm suprised you didn't blow the (virtual) engine.

LRRP

hop2002
02-01-2006, 05:52 PM
Anarchy, earlier you said 110% gave figures of 2650 rpm, 1.42 ata. The figure I gave gave, that you are comparing it to, is the K4 at 2800 rpm, 1.8 ata.

In other words, your test at climb power gives a similar result to the real K4 at 1.8 ata wep.

Xiolablu3
02-01-2006, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


It's either they fix all aircraft ROC, or touch none. There's no middle way that would not nerf all the corrected aircraft, and giving ahistorical advantage to the untouched ones.

But the Spitfires rate of climb IS correct.

Should we boost this up so that its overmoddelled by the same rate as the 109? Or fix the 109 and all the other fighters?

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2006, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
Heya tagert.

I have a question for you.
In games name did you ever heard something (response from devolpmentteam) about the test you and others made by the rolling of the planes in this game, i lost track of it .

Cheers

HAHAHA my english is getting worse and worse, well its not my native language como?

SlickStick
02-01-2006, 10:16 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 CD_kp84yb:
Heya tagert.

I have a question for you.
In games name did you ever heard something (response from devolpmentteam) about the test you and others made by the rolling of the planes in this game, i lost track of it .

Cheers

HAHAHA my english is getting worse and worse, well its not my native language como? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Translated: What was 1C's response to your roll rate data? He lost track of the outcome, maybe?

That's what I saw and I'm sticking to it.

BaldieJr
02-01-2006, 10:19 PM
<i>Ignoratio elenchi!!!</i> Behold my proofs:

Chewbacca=Wookiee
Wookiee=8ft tall
Kashyyyk=planet of Wokiees, not home of: Ewoks or Chewbacca
Ewok=2ft tall
Endor=planet of Ewoks, home of: Chewbacca

Does this make sense? Shall I show you the monkey?

AKA_TAGERT
02-01-2006, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
Translated: What was 1C's response to your roll rate data? He lost track of the outcome, maybe? Ah! Ok, thanks for the tranlation!

The responce to the RR was the same as the one I got for the 100/150 octain fuel pictures of the P51.

Here is the message they left on my phone machine, I converted it to a wav file

1C's responce to 100/150 octain data (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/LuftwhinerNaysayerResponce.wav)

Targ
02-01-2006, 10:27 PM
Let me get this straight, you people are getting all excited about a beta that was leaked to people who come to these forums and post information they have been asked not to?
What a bunch of drama queens.
Next person that posts any information implied or otherwise on these forums about the leaked beta will be perma banned. If you do not see this warning than tough luck.

SlickStick
02-01-2006, 10:30 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Wow....not even a "you is wrong, be sure" email?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Actually, I thought that was going to prove to be quite useful data. There must be a reason why the roll rates are coded as such as compared to RL charts.

SlickStick
02-01-2006, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Targ:
Let me get this straight, you people are getting all excited about a beta that was leaked to people who come to these forums and post information they have been asked not to?
What a bunch of drama queens.
Next person that posts any information implied or otherwise on these forums about the leaked beta will be perma banned. If you do not see this warning than tough luck.

Where is anyone talking about a beta?!? I thought this was V4.02m data we were discussing?!? Hmmm...best I re-read. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Targ
02-01-2006, 10:40 PM
Post all the 4.02 data you want, but leave the mythical 4.03 k4 out of the discussion.

SlickStick
02-01-2006, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by BelaLvgosi:
I'm actually more shocked to see a g2 as good or better than a mw50 g10!

That's the 1942 secret weapon G2. Shhh, only three were available for wartime use. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Badsight.
02-01-2006, 11:06 PM
ok , first : ever since FB v1.0 came out i was told our K4 was moddeled at 1.80 ATA

as this was the most commen & representative setting

& i was also told that the best ever climb rate for a K4 was around 27 m/s

is that true , a K4 at some boost (1.98ATA ?) was able to climb at 27m/s ?

0 to 6K in around 4m & 35 s ?

i realise the K4 has been the worst overmoddeled climbing plane - but much of that was due to the manuel prop pitch which got neutered in v4.02
(with manuel pitch i could average 32 m/s up to 6K , better than a F2 Bearcat!)

TheGozr
02-01-2006, 11:55 PM
I think it's a missed anderstood subject i dought this is for the beta patch or what ever it is but more of the 4.02 planes and everyone want to give correct data for the futur patch. Nothing more and IMO it is fantastic and keep going.

Just wishing for the futur patches to get better and better. Thank you all for your researches and efforts. We always thanks teh Sim makers but never the poster and their works.. So Thank you all.

Abbuzze
02-02-2006, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

a) Where did hop's data come from?

109K4 at 1.8 ata:


Note. This shows two power settings, 1.8 ata and 1.45 ata. Each branches into two, depending on whether the engine is set up to allow 1.98 ata. None of these figures was obtained at 1.98 ata, they were obtained at 1.8 and 1.45 ata, but with engines that were capable of 1.8 and 1.98 ata.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you!!
Very interesting, but a thing that wonder me, the chart topic say "DB605 DC/ASC withtout MW50" with two different propellers, one of them is paddel blade the other one a thin blade propeller. Strange thing, no difference between this propellers in climb, just the engine preset is different.

Will seach a bit about this, its interesting that with much lower power/weight ration of the K4 at WEP it is climbing just as good as a G2 with climb/combat power.

Real strange ist this "without MW50", this would crack a normal DB605DB cause of thermal overstress nearly immediately - MW50 is nothing more than an intercooler, if you set up an engine with an intercoolerlayout, to run without this intercooler, you have lower the output to stay within the thermical limits...

So maybe this chart is just a special test to see the abilities of DC/ASC engines running without MW50?
But this is just an assumption, I will research a bit.

Thanks!

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Does anyone see that Kurfurst is trying to distract everyone from the fact the K4 currently WAY WAY overclimbs?
For some Gibb, but not all.

I took the liberty of processing anarchy52 track file from the previouse page, the one he did without using the MW50. The results were in-game v4.02 109K at 1.42ata is *besting* most of the real life ROC 109K 1.45ata ROC values and some of the 1.98ata values that hop2002 posted in that chart/graph.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/anarchy52/109K4_110_NO_MW50_TBL.JPG

Here is the ROC (in feet/min see table for coresponding meter/sec)

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/anarchy52/109K4_110_NO_MW50_ROC.JPG

Here is the full report

anarchy52 's test results (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/anarchy52/109K4_110_NO_MW50_summary.pdf)

So, Oleg didnt really have to add the 1.98ata, they allready had a one! I wonder how far above the v4.03 1.98ata 109K4 will be above the real life 1.98ata values?

As for the test, I don€t have any real world best IAS values to go by, that and anarchy52 test was a little.. shall we say shaky? Basically, I think the current in-game v4.02 109K4 could do even better than this with a few more practice runs.

luftluuver
02-02-2006, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I wonder how far above the v4.03 1.98ata 109K4 will be above the real life 1.98ata values? Considering the source.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Considering the source.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif bingo!

Abbuzze
02-02-2006, 12:48 AM
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1138831365_109kclimb2.jpg


Hello Hop2002,

It seems that this chart is real a trial of a DB605DC without(!) MW50 and 1.8 atü. This test weren´t succsessfull. I think several changes are necessary to run an engine under this condition, the missing intercooler is limiting cylinder charging, but increasing thermal stress, so the ingition have to set to "late" all this should limit the engine performance.

I have to say sorry, but this chart and it numbers is not realated to our, or a real live 109 with DC engine!

Source for the test without MW50:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

So this chart is not proving that the G10/K4 in FB is overdone!

I don´t know if they are wrong or not, but as long as we have no real source for this,...

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Please review the track, there is obviously something wrong:
Track:

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/K4_110_without_MW50.ntrk (http://marvin.kset.org/%7Eriddler/K4_110_without_MW50.ntrk)

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/K4-comp.jpg No, it is right. What you seeing is your RAW data vs. the real life best fit curve of real life RAW data. You have to apply a best fit curve to your data points.

Here is your test, with the RAW data in red and my best fit curve of it and the dx/dt of the TTA as a check of it

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/402/109/109K4/anarchy52/109K4_110_NO_MW50_ROC_AN_RAW.JPG

If your sample rate was higher, your data would look more like my red line, but, it looks like you have a very low sample rate, ie not enough data points, so, your only picking up a few of them off of the red line, thus it looks pretty jagged. As you can see, you were kind of bouncing around in pitch, thus getting high and low ROC values. Think of the best fit curve as the *average* of your data points.. i.e. a line down the middle of your data points.

There is a way to do a best fit in excel, and it will even give you the equation of that curve. If your interested, PM me and Ill tell you how to do it.

anarchy52
02-02-2006, 02:07 AM
1) @TAGERT: Yes, my test was a bit shaky (109 does not have aileron and rudder trim, and is extremely sensible to control imput at speeds used in my test). Touch of the rudded caused considerable oscilations.
The other problem was that I was using HUD IAS whics shows speed with 10km/h precision. So that sinal wave is in fact me correcting the climb rate: when speed drops I decrease the climb andgle, when speed gets higher I increase it.

Yes, I'm interested in your data sampling methods. I haven't used any of those UDP communication programs.

2) Most sources from the web quote K-4 1.8 ata peak climb rate at 4800+ fpm at unspecified power settings.

3) I have the pdf which I was told represents projected figures for K-4. Do we have any original TEST data on the 109 K-4 climb rates?

4) Are we absolutelly sure what power settings 110% without MW50 in game represents? Kurf?

5) An idea: community driven project which would emulate il-2 compare. Since we don't have access to code, we should do ingame testing, and compile data, perhaps on a web page or even client app.

6) What I really wouldn't like is to mess up relative performance between planes, as that is what really matters.

hop2002
02-02-2006, 03:56 AM
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1138877291_climb_spit9-g2-k4.jpg

This is one of the K4 wep charts Isegrim has posted in the past. Isegrim has the original of the test report on the K4 at 1.98 ata, I believe, but has been asked not to post the actual graph. From previous posts where this has been discussed by others who have the original report, it seems to be accurate (and is anyone seriously suggesting Isegrim would understate 109 performance?)

The Spitfire performance on the chart is of an aircraft estimated at 18 lbs boost, and far below performance achieved in others.

Once again, this is the K4 running at absolute maximum power. 1.98 ata, which is the highest boost pressure that was ever authorised (although there's some doubt about how often it was used) and maximum RPM. As such, it needs to be compared to the K4 in game at maximum possible power.

anarchy52
02-02-2006, 04:29 AM
Spitfire performance site is a valuable asset, but definitelly lacks objectivity.

Kurfurst__
02-02-2006, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But the Spitfires rate of climb IS correct.

Should we boost this up so that its overmoddelled by the same rate as the 109? Or fix the 109 and all the other fighters?

fix the 109 and all the other fighters of course.

Kurfurst__
02-02-2006, 06:39 AM
First I would say it's very premature to say anything about the climb rates. The new patch is to be out soon, test it THEN.

The biggest problem in comparing real life data and game data is the lack of compatibility between in game tests and real life tests.

First and most important, the in-game tests done so far are all done with automatic radiators, which would mean the radiators would be kept shut for most of the climb. The real life Mtt criteria was that the radiators were assumed to be a half-open position up to the rated alt, then gradually closing up the ceiling where they were almost shut (this was somewhat conservative as irl the rads would already close ca 1000m above rated altitude, and climb rate would improve, however this made perhaps calculations easier).
These add a LOT of drag and decrease climb rate quite a bit. Here's a Spitfire test - btw the only one for a serial production Spit9lf I know of - that shows the effect is worth closed/open radiators is, ie. 500 feet per min or 2.5 m/sec at least. I'd fully expect the effect being greater on the 109 because of it's radiator design, that creates very little drag if closed, but a lot when open, as opposed to the spitfire's where the radiator is a big source of drag even when closed. If you look at the curves, the original German values for the G-2 for example at 1.3ata is 21 m/sec at 2000m, but the Finns could get as much as 24.3 m/sec with the same plane and power just by keeping the rads operating at Auto.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165climb.gif


In brief the problem : for the most part, the in game tests done compare CLOSED radiators (higher figures naturally) to the real life data that is for half-OPEN radiators. Some tests whould be done with Radiator setting 6 up to rated altitude (6000m) vs. closed to see if the radiator drag effect is correct.


Now, as told before, the chart Hop posted shows the DC engine set for 1.98ata, but running at 1.8ata w/o MW50. This is a weird configuration, and develops far less power than any MW50d DB 605, only 1725 HP, the curve shape is also different because of the lack of MW injection, which alone without any increase in boost would yield 4% power increase, or about 50 PS at all altitudes it's used. Though real life manuals and curves take it into account (ie. see my old one that Hop posted, the horizontal line in hte curve shows when MW50 was shut off), and tell to pilots to shut off MW50 injectiong above a certain safe altitude, in-game pilots rarely do that and as such, they enjoy the benefits of MW50.

The other problem is the MW50 boost simulation is quite weird in the game, and I don't think the throttle positions have ANYTHING to do how it worked in real life. IRL, the 1.45ata/2600rpm value would equal 100% (not 110%) throttle and no MW50.

Kurfurst__
02-02-2006, 07:06 AM
I did a little comparison between the in-game ROC tests by robban75 ('ingame'), the SpitIXLF prototype Hop posted ('proto) with the experimental prop and higher rated engine, and the serial production JL 165 tests that Hop posted last.

Here are the results :

alt - ingame - proto - jl165 (serial production)

1000 - 23.3 - 23,6 - 20.9
2000 - 22.7 - 23,9 - 21
3000 - 21.7 - 21,8 - 18.5
4000 - 21.3 - 19,6 - 17,6
5000 - 18.9 - 19,6 - 17.8
6000 - 18.5 - 18.3 - 16
7000 - 17.2 - 15.1 - 13.9
8000 - 14.3 - n /a - 11.5

Difference between the in-game IXLF ROC and serial production JL 165 test (+ means the in game figures are better than RL)

1000 - 23.3 - 20.9 = +2.4
2000 - 22.7 - 21.0 = +1.7
3000 - 21.7 - 18.5 = +3.2
4000 - 21.3 - 17,6 = +3.7
5000 - 18.9 - 17.8 = +1.1
6000 - 18.5 - 16.0 = +2.5
7000 - 17.2 - 13.9 = +3.3
8000 - 14.3 - 11.5 = +2.8

It looks like the in game IXLF is modelled after a prototype, not the serial production plane tests. In both cases, wheter compared to the prototype (which matches the ingame fairly well at low alts), or the serial production aircraft, the high altitude performance seems to be exaggrevated in the game.

Ie. the ingame IXLF in Robban's tests did 17.2 m/sec at 7000m, the RL prototype did 15.1m/sec, the serial production plane did 13.9m/sec.

FluffyDucks
02-02-2006, 07:15 AM
Geez you guys need to get out more, posting graphs and charts for aircraft you havent even got yet...roflmao how sad is that???
Making assumptions and stating as facts stuff you know LITTLE about in reality, none of you have flown these aircraft, none of you will(rl) so shut up, put your stupid charts and graphs away and bloody wise up.
Failing that go for a walk outside and check out the REAL world.
For god sake take what we get (FREE) and bloody use it or not it is YOUR choice, me, I'll be to busy enjoying what we are getting, I dont give a stuff if plane B has two foot-pounds more power than it should, PLAY the bloody sim and ENJOY it you ubernerds .....sad gits. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kurfurst__
02-02-2006, 08:16 AM
I did two tests to check out if my suspicion about the radiator effect is correct. It seems to be the case.

There's VERY little, practically no difference between ROC with the radiator flaps fully closed and fully open in the game, which is probably the reason why we get so high climb rates. The 109K at least, makes practically the same ROC with fully closed and open rads. The overheating is also very little effected.

It seems the way to correct the FM is to correct the radiator drag resulting from opening the radiators.

Two tests were made, and NTRK files were created of them.

The conditions, 109K, crimea map at 12:00 time, 100% fuel and 100% ammo. ca 280kph IAS climb.

First test was done with Radiators fully closed ('Closed').

Results :

500m was crossed at 0:25
4min 0 secs to 6000m,
4min 50 secs to 7000m.
Overheat message appeared at 1:51


Second test was done with the radiator fully open ('Open'.

Results :

500m was crossed at 0:33
4min 11 secs to 6000m,
5min 07 secs to 7000m,
Overheat message appeared at 3:15

Note that the second test must be adjusted by some 10 secs get compatible results.

There's negligable difference ROC between fully open and fully closed rads, unlike in real life.
With open rads, the radiators generate too little drag, and they provide too little cooling compared to fully closed.

Tabulated :
alt - rClosed - rOpen
500 - 0m25 - 0m33 (8 seconds difference in start)
1000 - 0m43 - 0m53
1500 - 1m03 - 1m13
2000 - 1m21 - 1m30
2500 - 1m40 - 1m50
3000 - 1m58* - 2m08
3500 - 2m18 - 2m28
4000 - 2m37 - 2m47
4500 - 2m56 - 3m06
5000 - 3m16 - 3m15*
5500 - 3m36 - 3m50
6000 - 4m00 - 4m11
6500 - 4m21 - 4m40
7000 - 4m50 - 5m07

*Overheat message

in real life however, with Open radiators the climb rate was much reduced (see the Spitfire climb rates for this for example), but the engine coolant temperature was very steady and low. Ie. look at this 109G tests where the radiators are almost fully open (350mm), but the coolant temperature is a steady 85-90 degree celsius. Ie. compare that the maximum SUSTAINABLE coolant limit was (seen on graph) 115 celsius.


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


Compared to the 109G of course the 109K had more power and heat, but the coolant radiators were also of increased size and the flow rate was increased, as well as oil radiator size, capacity and flow rate, in short, more effective cooling.

IMHO the results are quite correct for closed radiators though. Trouble is the rads have little effect on cooling, and ROC.

The NTRKs are available if anyone interested, though they are far from the best flying.

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The NTRKs are available if anyone interested, though they are far from the best flying. naca_testing@yahoo.com

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
1) @TAGERT: Yes, my test was a bit shaky (109 does not have aileron and rudder trim, and is extremely sensible to control imput at speeds used in my test). Touch of the rudded caused considerable oscilations.
no trim does add to the pilot's work load, but there are ways around that. The aileron stuff, no bigge, just stick that.. but the rudder for planes that dont have rudder time, I map them to a slider for the test instead of using my rudder peddles. Than you can trim it with rudder and not have to keep your feet so steady. For example, if you only have a twistie stick with one slider, disable the TWIST as your rudder and use the slider for your rudder instead of your throttle. In that you not going to be making a whole lot of throttle changes during a TTA/ROC anyways.


Originally posted by anarchy52:
The other problem was that I was using HUD IAS whics shows speed with 10km/h precision. So that sinal wave is in fact me correcting the climb rate: when speed drops I decrease the climb andgle, when speed gets higher I increase it.

Yes, I'm interested in your data sampling methods. I haven't used any of those UDP communication programs.
Been there done that.. Which is why I used UPDGraph during the test. The resoltion is better than the HUD's 10km/h, more like 1km/hr. Here is a link to my UDPGraph I use with my config for ROC/TTA testing. note, I have conversion factors in my config to convert from Si to USA. Those are easy to remove, use the GUI to edit UPDGraph, it is a snap and much easier than tryig to manually edit the UDPGraph ini file.

Pre Configed UPDGraph (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/402/FUEL_LB_VS_GAL/TagertsUdpGraph.zip)

You just unzip it anywhere and double click on the exe and it will work. There are a few things you need to do in your IL2 config.ini file to get DeviceLink working so UDPGraph will work, But that is all discribed at the UDPGraph web sight here...

http://www.avcsite.ru/il2dl/graph_en.htm

You can use UDPGraph to log the data to a file too.


Originally posted by anarchy52:
2) Most sources from the web quote K-4 1.8 ata peak climb rate at 4800+ fpm at unspecified power settings.

3) I have the pdf which I was told represents projected figures for K-4. Do we have any original TEST data on the 109 K-4 climb rates?

4) Are we absolutelly sure what power settings 110% without MW50 in game represents? Kurf?
Ask Kurfty


Originally posted by anarchy52:
5) An idea: community driven project which would emulate il-2 compare. Since we don't have access to code, we should do ingame testing, and compile data, perhaps on a web page or even client app.
Agreed 100%


Originally posted by anarchy52:
6) What I really wouldn't like is to mess up relative performance between planes, as that is what really matters.
mess up? no need, they allready are! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Granted, they dont seem to be as messed up as the relitive roll rates are, i.e.

AIRWARFARE RR Testing (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=771)

But I digress.

PS I know you ment match up! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
02-02-2006, 08:53 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 Kurfurst__:
The NTRKs are available if anyone interested, though they are far from the best flying. naca_testing@yahoo.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sending them over now.

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Sending them over now. Roger, Im heading out the door on my way to work, so I wont be able to get to them for at least 8 hours, ie tonight. In the mean time I encouge all of you to goto the UDPGraph web sight.. logging data to a file and ploting it in excel is not that hard.. heck if I can do it anyone can! And if you cant, I can talk you through it!

As for 2.3 ata, all for it.. as long as I get the 75" P38.

Gibbage1
02-02-2006, 02:42 PM
Issy. Simple question. What SHOULD the K4's climb rate be?

Badsight.
02-02-2006, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Once again, this is the K4 running at absolute maximum power. 1.98 ata, which is the highest boost pressure that was ever authorised (although there's some doubt about how often it was used) and maximum RPM. As such, it needs to be compared to the K4 in game at maximum possible power.
wow - when FB was released it was often quoted that the K4 had a max ROC of 27m/s - which is obviously wrong

so the 24-25m/s climb-to-3K of the La-7 could entirely keep up with a K4 in climb at these alts - a highest ever HP K4 that is

AKA_TAGERT
02-02-2006, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Sending them over now. Got one done

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=2...571064704#1571064704 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=6071064704&r=1571064704#1571064704)

working on the 2nd

Xiolablu3
02-02-2006, 11:12 PM
This is excellent work guys.

After htis we should get on the case of the La7 if Kurfy thinks this is overmodelled too.

You cannont correct the 109K and leave its natural enemies overmodelled. (If they are)

anarchy52
02-03-2006, 08:06 AM
I tested a few other popular planes.
Stay tuned.

TheGozr
02-04-2006, 03:43 PM
The carried out during the State tests training-testing air battles (as always with the transplantation of pilots) between Yak-9 M-1sk and five-point Me -109G-2 (with three guns and two machine guns) showed that at the heights of 2000... 4500 m Yak-9 has the significant advantage on the maneuver in the horizontal plane: through 2... 3 turns it went in the tail. At the heights to 3000 m Yak-9 had an advantage on the maneuver and in the vertical plane: above Me, always proved to be on the hill and the chandelle. At the heights of 3000... 4500 m Yak-9 M-1sk had practically identical maneuverability in the vertical plane, and above 5000 m this advantage passed to Me -109G-2. It was established that during the air battle to pilot Me -109G-2 is considerably heavier; therefore Yak-9 had more than the possibilities to tie advantageous to it maneuver in combat. Survey on Me -109G-2 was considerably more badly. This deficiency led to the need for making superfluous evolutions in the air battle, tired pilot and it led to the unfavorable position with respect to the enemy.


=====

ПÑ€о²µ´µннÑ"µ ²о ²Ñ€µмя ³ос¸Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?н¸' уÑ"µбно-¸Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?Ñ"µлÑŒнÑ"µ ²оз´ÑƒÑˆнÑ"µ бо¸ (º?º ²Ñµ³´? с ¿µÑ€µÑ?´ºо' лµÑ"Ñ"¸ºо²) 쵶´Ñƒ ¯º-9 œ-106-1сº ¸ ¿ÑÑ"¸Ñ"оÑ"µÑ"нÑ"м Me-109G-2 (с Ñ"Ñ€µмя ¿ÑƒÑˆº?м¸ ¸ ´²Ñƒмя ¿ÑƒлµмµÑ"?м¸) ¿оº?з?л¸, Ñ"Ñ"о н? ²Ñ"соÑ"?Ñ... 2000...4500 м ¯º-9 ¸мµµÑ" зн?Ñ"¸Ñ"µлÑŒноµ ¿Ñ€µ¸муÑ"µÑÑ"²о ¿о м?нµ²Ñ€Ñƒ ² ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"?лÑŒно' ¿лосºосÑ"¸: Ñ"µÑ€µз 2...3 ²¸Ñ"º? з?Ñ...о´¸л ² Ñ...²осÑ". ? ²Ñ"соÑ"?Ñ... ´о 3000 м ¯º-9 ¸мµл ¿Ñ€µ¸муÑ"µÑÑ"²о н? м?нµ²Ñ€µ ¸ ² ²µÑ€Ñ"¸º?лÑŒно' ¿лосºосÑ"¸: н? ³оÑ€ºµ ¸ боµ²ом Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"µ ²Ñµ³´? оº?зÑ"²?лся ²Ñ"шµ Me-109G-2. ? ²Ñ"соÑ"?Ñ... 3000...4500 м ¯º-9 œ-105-1сº ¸мµл ¿Ñ€?ºÑ"¸Ñ"µÑº¸ о´¸н?ºо²ÑƒÑŽ м?нµ²Ñ€µнносÑ"ÑŒ ² ²µÑ€Ñ"¸º?лÑŒно' ¿лосºосÑ"¸, ? ²Ñ"шµ 5000 м эÑ"о ¿Ñ€µ¸муÑ"µÑÑ"²о ¿µÑ€µÑ...о´¸ло º Me-109G-2. ИÑ"ло усÑ"?но²лµно, Ñ"Ñ"о ²о ²Ñ€µмя ²оз´ÑƒÑˆно³о боя ¿¸лоÑ"¸Ñ€о²?Ñ"ÑŒ Me-109G-2 зн?Ñ"¸Ñ"µлÑŒно Ñ"я¶µлµµ, ¿оэÑ"ому ¯º-9 ¸мµл большµ ²озмо¶носÑ"µ' н?²ÑзÑ"²?Ñ"ÑŒ ²Ñ"³о´нÑ"' µму м?нµ²Ñ€ ² боÑŽ. žбзоÑ€ н? Me-109G-2 бÑ"л зн?Ñ"¸Ñ"µлÑŒно Ñ...у¶µ. *Ñ"оÑ" нµ´осÑ"?Ñ"оº ¿Ñ€¸²о´¸л º нµобÑ...о´¸мосÑ"¸ ´µл?Ñ"ÑŒ ¸зл¸Ñˆн¸µ э²олÑŽÑ"*¸¸ ² ²оз´ÑƒÑˆном боÑŽ, уÑ"омлял лµÑ"Ñ"¸º? ¸ ¿Ñ€¸²о´¸л º нµ²Ñ"³о´ному ¿олн¸ÑŽ ¿о оÑ"ношµн¸ÑŽ º ¿Ñ€оÑ"¸²н¸ºÑƒ.

anarchy52
02-04-2006, 03:49 PM
Five point messer is G2 with 20mm gunpods which is a bit heavier and signifficantly less manuverable both in horisontal and vertical then standard version.

However in game it does not have the advantage in horizontal regardless of altitude.

Nice find. Any more of similar tests?

TheGozr
02-04-2006, 04:04 PM
====

In the air battles with Fw-190a the aircraft Yak-9U showed total superiority. It easily overtook Fw-190a both in the level flight and on the climb and the dive. Superiority especially was manifested with conducting of battle on the vertical lines. The commander of 1 AE (air squadron) Senior Lieutenant Kharchenko in three air battles personally brought down four fw-190a. Lieutenant Petrov in three air battles brought down five aircraft of enemy, including four Fw-190a and one Me -109G-2. Lieutenant kapustin in combat one fought against two fw-190a and both it brought down.
Commander and technical flight composition of regiment gave Yak-9U VK -107A outstanding flying and operational estimations. They, in particular, noted that the mastery of the aircraft of difficulties does not represent completely accessibly for the young pilots and the technicians of average qualification, it is earlier than worked on the aircraft "yak" with the engine M-105PF. In the technology of aircraft handling of special differences from its predecessors does not have. In air it is simple and steady in all flight conditions, it possesses grow prettier horizontal and, especially, by vertical maneuverability. On the landing it pardons the blunder: high levelling off, "coachboxes" and removal. It is exceptionally reliable and simple in the operation: preparation for the combat mission with the work mechanics motor mechanic occupies, including the preflight inspection, not more than 25... 30 min

==

' ²оз´ÑƒÑˆнÑ"Ñ... бояÑ... с FW-190A с?молµÑ" ¯º-9У ¿оº?з?л ¿олноµ ¿Ñ€µ²осÑ...о´ÑÑ"²о. žн лµ³ºо ´о³онял FW-190A º?º ² ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"?лÑŒном ¿олµÑ"µ, Ñ"?º ¸ н? н?боÑ€µ ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ" ¸ ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸¸. ПÑ€µ²осÑ...о´ÑÑ"²о особµнно ¿Ñ€оя²лялось ¿Ñ€¸ ²µ´µн¸¸ боя н? ²µÑ€Ñ"¸º?ляÑ.... Ком?н´¸Ñ€ 1 ?э (?²¸?эсº?´Ñ€¸лÑŒ¸) сÑ"?рш¸' лµ'Ñ"µн?нÑ" ¥?Ñ€Ñ"µнºо ² Ñ"Ñ€µÑ... ²оз´ÑƒÑˆнÑ"Ñ... бояÑ... л¸Ñ"но сб¸л Ñ"µÑ"Ñ"Ñ€µ FW-190A. "µ'Ñ"µн?нÑ" ПµÑ"Ñ€о² ² Ñ"Ñ€µÑ... ²оз´ÑƒÑˆнÑ"Ñ... бояÑ... сб¸л ¿ÑÑ"ÑŒ с?молµÑ"о² ¿Ñ€оÑ"¸²н¸º?, ² Ñ"ом Ñ"¸Ñлµ Ñ"µÑ"Ñ"Ñ€µ FW-190A ¸ о´¸н Me-109G-2. "µ'Ñ"µн?нÑ" К?¿ÑƒÑÑ"¸н ² боÑŽ о´¸н ´Ñ€?лся ¿Ñ€оÑ"¸² ´²ÑƒÑ... FW-190 ¸ обо¸Ñ... сб¸л.
Ком?н´¸Ñ€ ¸ лµÑ"но-Ñ"µÑ...н¸Ñ"µÑº¸' сосÑ"?² ¿олº? ´?л¸ ¯º-9У 'К-107 оÑ"л¸Ñ"нÑ"µ лµÑ"ную ¸ эºÑ¿лу?Ñ"?Ñ"*¸онную оÑ"*µнº¸. žн¸, ² Ñ"?сÑ"носÑ"¸, оÑ"мµÑ"?л¸, Ñ"Ñ"о ос²оµн¸µ с?молµÑ"? Ñ"ру´носÑ"µ' нµ ¿Ñ€µ´ÑÑ"?²ляµÑ" ¸ ²¿олнµ ´осÑ"у¿но ´ля моло´Ñ"Ñ... лµÑ"Ñ"¸ºо² ¸ Ñ"µÑ...н¸ºо² ÑÑ€µ´нµ' º²?л¸Ñ"¸º?Ñ"*¸¸, Ñ€?нµµ Ñ€?боÑ"?²Ñˆ¸Ñ... н? с?молµÑ"?Ñ... "¯º" с ´²¸³?Ñ"µлµм œ-105П¤. По Ñ"µÑ...н¸ºµ ¿¸лоÑ"¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ с?молµÑ" особÑ"Ñ... оÑ"л¸Ñ"¸' оÑ" с²о¸Ñ... ¿Ñ€µ´ÑˆµÑÑ"²µнн¸ºо² нµ ¸мµµÑ". ' ²оз´ÑƒÑ...µ ¿Ñ€осÑ" ¸ усÑ"о'Ñ"¸² н? ²ÑµÑ... Ñ€µ¶¸м?Ñ... ¿олµÑ"?, обл?´?µÑ" Ñ...оÑ€ошµ' ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"?лÑŒно' ¸, особµнно, ²µÑ€Ñ"¸º?лÑŒно' м?нµ²Ñ€µнносÑ"ью. ? ¿ос?´ºµ ¿Ñ€оÑ"?µÑ" ³Ñ€ÑƒбÑ"µ ош¸бº¸: ²Ñ"соºоµ ²Ñ"Ñ€?²н¸²?н¸µ, "ºозлÑ"" ¸ снос. ˜ÑºлÑŽÑ"¸Ñ"µлÑŒно н?´µ¶µн ¸ ¿Ñ€осÑ" ² эºÑ¿лу?Ñ"?Ñ"*¸¸: ¿о´³оÑ"о²º? º боµ²ому ²Ñ"лµÑ"у ¿Ñ€¸ Ñ€?боÑ"µ мµÑ...?н¸º? ¸ моÑ"оÑ€¸ÑÑ"? з?н¸м?µÑ", ²ºлÑŽÑ"?я ¸ ¿Ñ€µ´¿олµÑ"нÑ"' осмоÑ"Ñ€, нµ большµ 25...30 м

Skalgrim
02-05-2006, 03:28 PM
k4 with 1,8ata has 28% better powerload as g2

she should 28% better climb as g2, because climb is proportional depent from powerload by same lift

27m/sec is than possible for 1,8ata, compare with rechlin g2 test 21m/sec

and even more, when you she compare with 24m/sec from finns g2 test.

sure was the 22m/sec not make with 1,8ata sure with lower ata

it would be very funny,with 500ps more power as g2 and than even only 1m/sec better climb,

and with 500ps more power 2m/sec weaker climb as g2 from finns test,

that was sure not make with 1,8ata 28% better powerload as the g2




Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bf 109K-4

1000 - 27.8
2000 - 27.8
3000 - 27.0
4000 - 27.0
5000 - 25.6
6000 - 20.8
7000 - 17.5


Here are the real world figures, at 1.98 ata and 1.8 ata:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Bf 109K-4

Alt - Game - 1.98 - 1.8
1000 - 27.8 - 24.7 - 22.3
2000 - 27.8 - 23.6 - 21.4
3000 - 27.0 - 22.6 - 20.6
4000 - 27.0 - 21.5 - 19.7
5000 - 25.6 - 20.5 - 18.9
6000 - 20.8 - 18.6 - 18.1
7000 - 17.5 - 15.0 - 16.0
</pre>

The current K4 has a climb rate far higher than the real life 1.98 ata version, yet is supposed to be running at 1.8 ata. And a 1.98 ata version is supposed to be added. I hope the climb rate for both versions gets fixed at the same time.


Robban what allied aircraft is nearest to match K4 in climb up to 5000m?

The Spitfire LF IX should be, but I don't know what it is in game.

Real life figures at 18 lbs boost:

1000m - 23.6
2000m - 23.9
3000m - 21.8
4000m - 19.6
5000m - 19.6
6000m - 18.3
7000m - 15.1

And for the Spitfire LF VIII

1000m - 23.4
2000m - 22.4
3000m - 19.6
4000m - 21.3
5000m - 21.2
6000m - 18.8
7000m - 15.7 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skalgrim
02-05-2006, 04:03 PM
with 1,45 ata has k4 same powerload as g2 with 1,3ata

g2 climb 21-22m/sec from rechlin/ finns test sealevel

so are 22m/sec for the k4 with 1,45ata possible,

because with same powerload like the g2,
has she same climb as g2 too




Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Alt - 110% - 1.98 - 1.8
1000 - 22.2 - 24.7 - 22.3
2000 - 18.9 - 23.6 - 21.4
3000 - 19.6 - 22.6 - 20.6
4000 - 18.5 - 21.5 - 19.7
5000 - 18.1 - 20.5 - 18.9
6000 - 20.0 - 18.6 - 18.1
7000 - N/A - 15.0 - 16.0


The column titled 110% represents the results of the test I did in 4.02 110% without MW50, 100% fuel, rads auto. 1000 marks the average from 0 to 1000 m. Climb speed was between 260 and 270 km/h

Numbers are pretty close to hop's.

a) Where did hop's data come from?

109K4 at 1.8 ata:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1138831365_109kclimb2.jpg

Note. This shows two power settings, 1.8 ata and 1.45 ata. Each branches into two, depending on whether the engine is set up to allow 1.98 ata. None of these figures was obtained at 1.98 ata, they were obtained at 1.8 and 1.45 ata, but with engines that were capable of 1.8 and 1.98 ata.

The 1.98 ata figures are not on this chart, but Isegrim has previously posted a graph with them on. I believe the source is Butch, and from the discussions I've seen, Butch seems to confirm Isegrim's figures for 1.98 ata to be correct.


b) Which power setting does 110% on 109 in game represent?
In game at 110% percent gauges display 2650 r/min and 1.42 ata

Then I suspect it represents climb and combat power. That's the 1.45 ata setting on this chart. As you can see, at this power setting peak climb rate should be under 17 m/s, you obtained over 22 m/s. The 109K4 in game climbs by more than 5 m/s too much.

Note these figures I posted earlier:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Bf 109K-4
Alt - Game - 1.98 - 1.8
1000 - 27.8 - 24.7 - 22.3
2000 - 27.8 - 23.6 - 21.4
3000 - 27.0 - 22.6 - 20.6
4000 - 27.0 - 21.5 - 19.7
5000 - 25.6 - 20.5 - 18.9
6000 - 20.8 - 18.6 - 18.1
7000 - 17.5 - 15.0 - 16.0
</pre>

The 1.98 ata figure is the absolute maximum power the 109 could have achieved in service, if you accept Isegrim's argument that 1.98 ata was used operationally. If not, the 1.8 figure is the maximum the K4 reached in service. These are the highest power settings the 109 used, and are comparable to WEP in game.


'Few thousend feet variation' eh? You mean a 109K peaking out at 8500m instead of 7500m would be perfectly normal? I don't think so, but you do.

I've no idea if that was the case with the 109, but 115 Spitfires were tested in 1943 to find variations in FTH, they found that Merlin 63s exhibited up to 3000 ft between min and max FTH, Merlin 66s 2700 ft and Griffons 1400 ft. And that's excluding the typical 1000 ft reduction caused by the tropical filters.


I would like to see the source, because I don´t believe that this datas are from flighttests. They are just interpolated, or be a caclulation, or been a summary from climbing test at "partial" altitudes.



You need to speak to Butch, because I believe the originals are from him. But does it really matter whether they are calculations or test results, or more likely both? Either way, they come nowhere near the figures achievable in game, and indeed the entire shape of the in game climb graph is wrong, with climb rate being maintained up to about 4000m, when it should begin to decline quite sharply from 1 km or less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TheGozr
02-05-2006, 11:22 PM
On the vertical velocity Yak-9T somewhat was inferior Me -109G-2 to the height of 2500... 3000 m and it is above 4000 m. In the range of the heights of 3000... 4000 m the vertical velocities Yak-9T and Me -109G-2 were practically identical.
On the horizontal maneuverability Yak-9T had explicit advantage over Me -109G-2 to the height of 5000 m due to smaller than the radius and time of turn.
In the vertical maneuver the advantage after Yak-9T remained to the height of 3000 m; the indices were identical at the heights of 3000... 4500 m, and above - advantage passed to Me -109G-2.
Me -109G-2 had heavy control and with pulling of knob fell down into the corkscrew. On the dive it somewhat departed from Yak-9T; however, at the pullout it required of the pilot of very large efforts, and therefore conclusion was slow, with that extended on the time and trajectory space. These circumstances contributed to the successful attack Me -109G-2 by our aircraft due to the prevention at the pullout and on the hill. Me -109G-2 had poor backward field of vision, and pilot did not see of the visited it into the tail aircraft. Moreover Yak-9T it could conduct offensive combat even on the turns.
Yak-9T is built OKB Of a.S.Yakovleva during January 1943 according to the decision GKO of 25 December, 1942, were passed weapons testings in NIPAV (scientific-experimental range of air armament) from 10 January through 12 February, 1943, and flight tests in NII - SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE VVS from 15 February through 4 March (pilot V.I.Khomyakov, the chief engineer along the aircraft Of a.T.Stepanets, on the armament - It l.I.Los').
In series Yak-9T were constructed at plant N153 from March 1943 through June 1945 in all released 2748 aircraft. Yak-9T it began to be exploited in the beginning of 1943. From the end of this year it successfully was used for dealing with the vessels of enemy in the Black sea. Troop tests for combat employment were conducted on 34- X aircraft Yak-9T from 5 July through 6 August, 1943, at the central Front in 16 VA. On Yak-9T the lethal factor of 80 pilots of six it is regimental, entered into the composition of 273 iad 6 iak (destructive air corps) and 1 gv. Stalingrad of iad. Were carry ouied 78 air it was combat (of them 31 successful), in which besides Yak-9T they participated Yak-1, Yak-7B and Yak-9 (428 aircraft departures, including 150 on Yak-9T). Are destroyed 110 aircraft of enemy, including: Fw-190 - 54, Me -109 - 4, Ju-87 - 31, Ju-88 - 14, He -111 - 7. From them on Yak-9T it is biased by 49 (44,5%). Its losses - 36 aircraft, including 12 Yak-9T. Average ammunition consumption for one downed aircraft: 147 projectiles of the caliber of 20 mm (aircraft Yak-1, Yak-7B, Yak-9), 31 projectiles of the caliber of 37 mm (Yak-9T), 123 projectiles of the caliber of 12,7 mm (all aircraft).
From 17 August through 18 September 1943. 12 aircraft Yak-9T underwent the troop tests together with by three Yak-9D into 18 gv.iap 1 VA at the Western Front. On the aircraft Yak-9T were executed 172 combat missions with general airfreighted 151 h 54 min, carry ouied by 47 it was combat, are biased by 9 and are hit 2 aircraft of enemy, including Fw-190 - 4, He -111 - 4, Ju-87 - 2, Fw-189 - 1. Are lost three Yak-9T.
Appearance at the front Yak-9T produced large moral effect on the enemy and significantly facilitated conducting air it was combat by our destroyers of other types, which interacted Yak-9T.
Thus far aircraft Fw-190, having sufficiently strong armament, willingly dispatch into the attack on the head-on courses in the air battles Yak-1. after appearance Yak-9T they they began to avoid the head-on attacks of aircraft "yak".


I hope you are taking notes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
02-06-2006, 01:37 AM
Kurfurst wrote:

If you read Hop's chart carefully you will notice it says "o. MW".

So this suggests that in the game, to compare climbs against the chart, they should be carried out at 110% throttle, no MW50. It would appear that the climb rate is more or less correct at 110%? So is there actually a problem with the K4 climb at 1.8 ata after all? Or were the real life tests with 110% and MW-50, to which in game performance should be compared? Or is Oleg's testing procedure (110% but no WEP) incorrect?

xTHRUDx
02-06-2006, 02:22 AM
before you guys did all your testing did you read this?

sorry i don't i have all the drawings

Determine your airplane's best climb rate and VY
Wouldn't it be nice to know your airplane's real climb performance before the need for this information, such as a stand of tall trees or a mountain range, is staring you in the face?
Ever wonder where that climb performance table in your airplane's pilot operating handbook (POH) comes from? If your airplane doesn't match these published climb rates, maybe you assumed it was your fault. Perhaps you've even pondered techno-philosophical issues such as "What if I change propellers?" or "How will removing the wheel pants affect climb performance?" or "How much will climb rate suffer if I fly a little faster for better engine cooling?"

Good questions.

Unfortunately, you won't find the answers in the POHs of small general aviation airplanes. The good news is you can find out the answers yourself. Finding your airplane's best climb rate and the airspeed at which it occurs is as simple as flying a series of climbs using different airspeeds and measuring the climb rates you achieve at each airspeed.

Why would you think about doing such a thing? How about accuracy for a reason? Wouldn't it be nice to know your airplane's real climb performance before the need for this information, such as a stand of tall trees or a mountain range, is staring you in the face?

Theory

Flying straight and level requires a certain amount of power. Your airplane's power requirement depends on its airspeed, and it should be obvious that to fly faster at a level altitude, you need more power than you do at a slower airspeed. As slow flight teaches, it also takes more power to fly level at just above stall speed.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the Power Available (Pa) from the engine and propeller and the Power Required (Pr) by the airplane. The Pa curve represents the power that the engine/propeller combination produces at full throttle. If a lesser throttle setting is used, the Pa curve looks the same, but it's lower on the plot.

The Pr curve shows the power the airplane needs for level flight at different airspeeds. Set the throttle to produce more power than that, and the airplane will accelerate if you maintain your altitude - or climb if you maintain your airspeed. Excess power is the difference between the Pa and Pr curves. Your airplane's maximum excess power airspeed is neither the maximum Pa nor minimum Pr airspeed. The speed where the maximum excess power exists is the speed that yields the airplane's maximum rate of climb, and it's called VY.

You don't have to know anything about the power curve to figure your airplane's climb performance. You can see, however, that an airplane has less excess power at speeds slower and faster than VY. Your climb test data should reflect this characteristic.

You can use any of several flight test techniques to find your airplane's climb performance. We'll use a modified check-climb technique. It's pretty straightforward. You climb at a constant indicated airspeed while you time how long it takes to climb through several altitude blocks, i.e. 1,250 feet, 1,750 feet, 3,250 feet, 3,750 feet, etc. You keep climbing and timing until you reach the highest altitude for which you want to know the airplane's climb performance. You repeat the test using different airspeeds each time. From the data you gather, you can calculate which airspeed produces the best climb rate and what that rate is for each altitude block.

There are a few factors you must take into account, but don't let them intimidate you. The basic test technique is simply a series of constant airspeed climbs, something every pilot learns to do. We'll discuss these factors and their effects later, but for now let's get right to the procedure.

Test Procedure

Load the airplane to represent the climb performance conditions you want. This may be maximum gross weight, half fuel with only the pilot aboard, or your typical flight lesson - full fuel and your flight instructor. Whatever loading you use, compute the aircraft's weight and balance and save the form.

Take off and, when you're ready to begin the test, set the altimeter to 29.92. This lets you record pressure altitude during the test, which you use with the outside air temperature (OAT) to determine density altitude. Your finished climb performance charts will be in density altitude. This way, you can use them anytime by knowing the density altitude. Otherwise your charts would be useful only on days when the barometric and temperature conditions match the test day exactly. Record the current altimeter setting so you can reset the altimeter after your test.

Fly several hundred feet below your first altitude block. Use good judgment. Your lowest block should be at least 1,000 feet above reasonably flat and obstruction-free terrain. Establish the climb speed in level flight. Advance the throttle while raising the nose to maintain the test airspeed until you are stabilized in a climb at full power at the test airspeed. Trim the airplane.

If you aren't stabilized as you climb through the bottom of the first altitude block, reduce power, descend, and set it up again. You may want to start at a lower altitude to give yourself more time to stabilize the airplane on the test condition before you reach the bottom of the first block.

With the plane stabilized, note the time or start a stopwatch as you pass through the bottom of the first block. Hold the airspeed constant through the test block and note the time or stop the stopwatch as you pass the top of the block. Record the time, altitude block, and any other data you think useful. Figure 2 shows a sample data card, which also serves as a worksheet for numbers you calculate after the flight. Continue climbing and repeat the procedure for every altitude block up to the highest block of interest.

Data Quality

The old computer adage - garbage in/garbage out - applies to all data. If you have any doubt about the quality of your data, repeat the test. Here are a few guidelines:

Airspeed control - Some of these results are very sensitive to airspeed variations. Traditional flight test parameters limit airspeed excursions to a maximum of one knot. This may sound unrealistic, but any pilot can do it with a little practice and a diligent trim effort.

Smoothness counts - Keeping your airspeed plus or minus one knot at the expense of large or abrupt flight control deflections will contaminate your data. Every time you move a flight control, you change the airplane's drag. The bigger and faster the control surface moves, the greater the drag change. Some small adjustments are expected, but make them smoothly.

Turbulence - To avoid thermal turbulence fly your test early in the morning or just before dusk. In a small airplane it only takes one bump to invalidate your airspeed or control deflection tolerance. Avoid flying near rapidly changing terrain that may produce thermal variations or up/down drafts. You shouldn't be anywhere near clouds.

Pitch attitude reference - As good as some attitude indicators are, their indications are generally too co**** for the fine airspeed control you need. Perform the test on a clear day with a distinct horizon, and use the horizon to maintain the proper pitch attitude for the climb. A grease pencil mark on the windscreen or side window may help you detect and correct tiny pitch changes before they affect the airspeed.

Straight climb - Perform the entire test on a reasonably constant heading. Substantial turns, even between altitude blocks, will affect fuel consumption/airplane weight and can introduce wind gradient effects.

Height of altitude block - Accurately timing your climb through a 100-foot altitude block will be difficult in an airplane climbing at 2,000 feet per minute (fpm). On the other hand, maintaining the climb speed tolerances through a 1,000-foot block in an airplane ascending at 300 fpm will be difficult also.

Choose block heights that make sense for your airplane. Make the block tall enough so a one or two second timing error won't make a substantial difference in the average rate of climb through the block. Make the block short enough to avoid any appreciable difference in climb rate or true airspeed between the bottom and top of the block. It's okay to have taller blocks at lower altitudes, where the climb rate is better, and smaller blocks at the higher altitudes.

Take a break - You don't need to maintain the precise test tolerances between the altitude blocks. You're not recording any data, so relax until you approach the bottom of the next block. But don't let the airspeed stray too far from the target speed, or you'll just have to work that much harder to re-establish the stabilized condition.

Don't trust the VSI - Feel free to record the vertical speed indicator reading within the test block, but use it only for correlation with your timed data. Most VSIs are just too inaccurate for this test.

Subjective assessment - Even if you've flown the test profile within the limits, you may want to make a qualitative comment about the test. You'll know whether you really nailed it right on the airspeed, with perfect timing and the pitch attitude set in granite - or whether you pushed the limits with airspeed going from one knot fast to one knot slow four times during the block, constantly searching for the exact pitch attitude, etc. Making such a note can help explain a wayward data point later.

After you complete your series of tests through the altitude blocks, relax. Make a 180-degree turn and descend. On the way down, fly level at the mid-point of each test block long enough for the OAT to stabilize, then record it. Some OAT gauges are too slow to react to the rapidly changing temperature during the climb, particularly if you're flying a high performance machine with an eye-watering climb rate.

You'll probably want to land at this point and review your data. Before you land, don't forget to reset your altimeter to the current barometric pressure. You now have one airspeed mapped. Re-load the airplane to the same condition it was before this flight, and repeat the climb test at a different airspeed. Re-load again and fly another different airspeed. Continue the process until you fly every airspeed of interest. Because you base your tests on density altitude, you don't have to fly all your tests on the same day.

Data Reduction

When you have a handful of data cards brimming with numbers, it's time to transform them into something you can use. Data reduction is a bit time-consuming but it's not difficult, and you don't need any math skills beyond those necessary to pass a private pilot knowledge test. The goal is to determine which airspeed yields the best climb rate, what that climb rate is, and how VY and climb rate vary with density altitude.

You'll reduce one set of data (one airspeed) at a time, and this data should be on one data card. Compute the height of each altitude block by subtracting the block's bottom altitude from its top altitude. Calculate the rate of climb (ROC) through each block by dividing the block height by the time it took to climb through it. If the block is in feet and the time is in seconds, multiply the result by 60 to get an answer in feet per minute.

Altitude blocks are necessary for timing, but they're cumbersome for flight planning. It's easier to use the block's mid-point altitude. This is consistent with using the average ROC through the block, although we know the airplane climbs marginally faster at the bottom and marginally slower at the top of the block. If the blocks are excessively large you will see an appreciable difference in ROC between bottom and top, so choose your block heights accordingly.

You already know the pressure altitude and OAT for each altitude block mid-point. Using a density altitude chart or flight computer, compute the density altitude (DA) for the midpoint of each altitude block.

It's time to draw, so get a sheet of graph paper. Plot ROC versus DA as shown in Figure 3a, then connect the dots. Repeat the data reduction for every airspeed tested. When you're finished, you should have a plot resembling Figure 3b.

When you're finished you know that airspeed V3 gives you the fastest ROC among the airspeeds you tested, but you don't know whether a speed between V2 and V3 or between V4 and V3 gives you an even better ROC. To find this intermediate speed, plot ROC versus airspeed for a particular DA. Draw a vertical line up from the DA axis in Figure 3b through the lines of different airspeeds. Draw horizontal lines from the intersection of the vertical line you just drew and each airspeed line it intersected to the ROC axis (Figure 3c). Now you can read the ROC for each airspeed at this DA.

On a clean sheet of graph paper plot ROC versus airspeed (Figure 4a), and include the corresponding values from Figure 3c. Fair a curve through these points. You can now see the maximum ROC occurs at the top of the curve at a speed between V2 and V3. Repeat this cross-plot procedure for several density altitudes, i.e. several vertical lines on the ROC versus DA plot. Your plot of ROC versus airspeed should now look like Figure 4b. The peaks of each curve represent the maximum ROC and VY for each density altitude.

Two more steps and you're finished. Figure 4b is nice, but it only shows VY and the corresponding ROC for the density altitudes plotted. To create a plot of VY for all density altitudes, you'll have to do another cross-plot. Draw vertical lines from the peaks of the DA curves down to the Airspeed axis of Figure 4b. Where the vertical lines cross the Airspeed axis is the VY for each DA. Use these VY/DA data pairs to create a new plot of VY versus DA (Figure 5a). Fair a line through the data points.

The final step is just labeling another vertical axis on Figure 5a. The dotted line connecting the peaks of the curves in Figure 5 shows the relationship between VY and ROC. Draw a series of vertical lines from the Airspeed axis to this dotted line. Then draw horizontal lines from the intersection of the vertical lines you just drew and the dotted line connecting the peaks to the ROC axis. Notice that for every VY there is only one ROC associated with it regardless of density altitude. Draw another vertical axis on the right side of Figure 5a so it looks like Figure 5b, and just annotate the ROCs associated with the VY directly across from it.

Now you have a handy, single-source plot that depicts your airplane's VY and ROC for a range of density altitudes. No longer will you have to look up tables, make percentage calculations for non-standard temperatures, or wonder about the applicability of POH figures to your tired/old/modified airplane.

These data are also useful for variations in climb schedules that POHs rarely address. Figure 5, for example, shows the ROC penalty you'll pay if you choose to perform a cruise-climb at a speed faster than VY for better engine cooling or outside view over the nose.

Ready to Do It Again?

Figure 5b applies to the airplane's weight, external configuration, and center of gravity during the tests. You can repeat the tests for a variety of these conditions to create a more complete reference. Because the final plot will have the same axes, you can simply add the curves pertaining to different weights, etc., but don't forget to label which is which.

If you'd rather spend your flying time some other way, you can test and plot the extremes and interpolate as needed. For example, your plot can contain a curve for maximum gross weight and minimum expected weight. All other weight conditions will fall somewhere between. This should be enough information for a conservative flight planning approach.

You can do the same thing for different configurations with a clean airplane curve and a gear-down, full-flaps airplane. Center of gravity location matters in theory, because it affects the airplane's trim drag. In reality, the effect on VY is probably small enough to ignore for the light general aviation airplanes most of us fly.

This procedure omits a few traditional data corrections. Altimeters are calibrated for standard day temperature gradients. If the air temperature is 20?F warmer or colder than standard on the day you fly your test, your timed climb rates could be as much as four percent lower or higher respectively than the airplane's actual climb rate.

Besides the temperature effects on engine power that we already compensated for in our density altitude calculations, there is another effect. This correction amounts to less than five fpm for most general aviation airplanes and is neglected. Finally, let's look at wind. A wind gradient (change in wind speed as the airplane climbs can affect the airplane's pitot/static instrument indications. To help avoid this complication, perform your climb tests perpendicular to the wind.

What if you go through all this and find your airplane's climb performance is exactly what the POH claims? You won't have wasted your time because the test technique motivates you to hone your piloting skills. You'll learn flight test techniques that can be used in any airplane. You'll see that you don't need a doctorate in rocket science to do performance flight testing. You'll know your airplane better. Most importantly, you'll have confidence in the operator's handbook climb performance tables.

The final point to emphasize is safety. The tests described necessitate a diligent instrument scan and potentially prolonged nose-high pitch attitudes. Both affect your ability to see and avoid other aircraft. Be careful. Don't perform these tests on a gorgeous Saturday morning near a busy airport. Having someone aboard to help share the visual responsibility is a good idea. Think about lowering the nose or performing a belly check between altitude blocks. Keep an eye on your engine. Low speed climbs at full power tax the engine and inhibit cooling. Remember to fly the airplane first - collect data second.




By Ed Kolano


this is for a real world application but the concepts should work for us

anarchy52
02-06-2006, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Kurfurst wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you read Hop's chart carefully you will notice it says "o. MW".

So this suggests that in the game, to compare climbs against the chart, they should be carried out at 110% throttle, no MW50. It would appear that the climb rate is more or less correct at 110%? So is there actually a problem with the K4 climb at 1.8 ata after all? Or were the real life tests with 110% and MW-50, to which in game performance should be compared? Or is Oleg's testing procedure (110% but no WEP) incorrect? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did the test with 110% without WEP, and climb rates were similar (a bit on the slow side).

@Ed : that's why we do all our testing on Crimea map, 12:00 hrs, over the water.