PDA

View Full Version : Will climbrates for some fighters ever be fixed?



robban75
07-12-2004, 01:46 PM
I sure hope so.

Since the beginning of FB the La-7 has had a much exaggerated climbrate, this is something it shares with other planes. Perhaps this would be ok if all planes could enjoy the same benefit. This is not the case however.

The Fw 190(the A-9 especially) has suffered from an undermodelled climbrate since day one. This very important performance characterisitc cannot be denied.
So when fighters such as the VERY common La-7 and Bf 109K-4 have climbrates in excess of 27-29m/sec it really puts the 190(and many other fighters) to shame. From what I know the La-7 should manage 24m/sec at SL up to 2000m. In game it climbs 27.5m/sec from ground up to 1000m and 25m/sec to 2000m. And the fact that it can climb without ever risking ruining the engine by overheating it. Just open the cowl flaps fully and it will go on forever. At 7000m it can more or less climb with a D-9. Add a non-overheating engine to this and you'll understand what I mean.

The Bf 109K-4 is even worse. AFAIK 25m/sec was the K-4's maximum climbrate. An impressive number in itself.
The K-4 in FB/AEP maxes out at almost 29m/sec. It can maintain this climbrate up to 3000m and from there it can maintain 28-27m/sec to 5000m.
The K-4 suffers form overheavy elevators, so with this fixed perhaps the K-4 wont need to climb so fast.

From my testings, Yak's, P-51's, D-9, Zero, P-47, BF 109G-10, all climb close to what the real thing could manage.

So, non-overheating and overmodelled climbrates for some planes needs a serious looking into.
The I-185 and La-5 wont overheat either with cowlflaps open. It appears to be very much a VVS radial engine phenomena.

So, please Oleg, if you have time, take a look at these small but for the sake of game play serious errors.

Thank you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Everyone is welcome to comment on this!

No flaming please! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

robban75
07-12-2004, 01:46 PM
I sure hope so.

Since the beginning of FB the La-7 has had a much exaggerated climbrate, this is something it shares with other planes. Perhaps this would be ok if all planes could enjoy the same benefit. This is not the case however.

The Fw 190(the A-9 especially) has suffered from an undermodelled climbrate since day one. This very important performance characterisitc cannot be denied.
So when fighters such as the VERY common La-7 and Bf 109K-4 have climbrates in excess of 27-29m/sec it really puts the 190(and many other fighters) to shame. From what I know the La-7 should manage 24m/sec at SL up to 2000m. In game it climbs 27.5m/sec from ground up to 1000m and 25m/sec to 2000m. And the fact that it can climb without ever risking ruining the engine by overheating it. Just open the cowl flaps fully and it will go on forever. At 7000m it can more or less climb with a D-9. Add a non-overheating engine to this and you'll understand what I mean.

The Bf 109K-4 is even worse. AFAIK 25m/sec was the K-4's maximum climbrate. An impressive number in itself.
The K-4 in FB/AEP maxes out at almost 29m/sec. It can maintain this climbrate up to 3000m and from there it can maintain 28-27m/sec to 5000m.
The K-4 suffers form overheavy elevators, so with this fixed perhaps the K-4 wont need to climb so fast.

From my testings, Yak's, P-51's, D-9, Zero, P-47, BF 109G-10, all climb close to what the real thing could manage.

So, non-overheating and overmodelled climbrates for some planes needs a serious looking into.
The I-185 and La-5 wont overheat either with cowlflaps open. It appears to be very much a VVS radial engine phenomena.

So, please Oleg, if you have time, take a look at these small but for the sake of game play serious errors.

Thank you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Everyone is welcome to comment on this!

No flaming please! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

hop2002
07-12-2004, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Bf 109K-4 is even worse. AFAIK 25m/sec was the K-4's maximum climbrate. An impressive number in itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the climb rate for a K4 with MW 50 and C3 fuel, at 1.98ata, in 1945. As far as I understand it, the K4 in game is supposed to be running a max of 1.8 ata, as it did in 1944.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The K-4 in FB/AEP maxes out at almost 29m/sec. It can maintain this climbrate up to 3000m and from there it can maintain 28-27m/sec to 5000m. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The actual climbrate at 1.8 ata should be 20 m/s at 3,000m, and just over 18 m/s at 5000m.

faustnik
07-12-2004, 02:20 PM
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P51vA9climb.jpg

The 2300 hp of the MW50 boosted 190A9 doesn't seem to help it against the P-51 despite better powerloading. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Is the Fw190 climb undermodeled or are almost all other a/c overmodeled in climb? If so, the 190 should be lest alone. Fix the other a/c.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

LeadSpitter_
07-12-2004, 03:10 PM
I hope so, I also hope they fix dive speed accelaration. This one some of the aircrafts only advantages. PF without realistic dive speeds will be a disaster.

I hope they remove the flyby wire effectiveness of aircraft too slowing down stick movement and alieron and elevator effectiveness or simply lower the input rate, the best pilots use 100 100 100 100 100 100 for all inputs slowing the max input down to 65-75 calling it 100 would help alot give this game a more realistic feel

Oleg knows by all the real pilots who flown this sim and commented on thier stick settings to give it realistic movement. Or even some mode that the user can lock input rates when hosting to a certain ammount.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Skalgrim
07-12-2004, 06:23 PM
spain g10 3150kg 1680ps had initialclimb 28m/sec

24m/sec for the k4 db605dc, was sure make with 1,5ata 1550ps (climb and combat power) ,

because spain g10 climb with 1680ps already 28m/sec, so should k4 with 2000ps at least same good climb, calculate even too better

and too k4 with db605db 1800ps, has little better powerlaoding as spain g10


.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Mon July 12 2004 at 05:47 PM.]

hop2002
07-12-2004, 06:47 PM
Skalgrim, the German charts show the figures I gave above.

Note that Isegrim has some of these original documents, and even he only claims 25 m/s peak for a K4 with 1.98 ata. I don't Isegrim is likely to understate 109 performance, do you?

You can see Isegrim's graph in this thread: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=484109953&r=154109463#154109463

Here's the figure for the K4 at 1.8 ata and 1.45 ata. The Chart was first posted by Pyro on the Aces High board, and has been reposted by many people since, so I'll assume it's ok to repost it here:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1089679514_109kclimb2.jpg

Skalgrim
07-12-2004, 06:52 PM
this chart show, that k4 climb 8000m 5min with 1,98ata

see those curve, that begin at 0m and see at 8000m, only 5min to 8000m with 1,98ata

that are 26,3m/sec average



powerloading

spain g10 has 0,533

k4 has 0,597

k4 climb at least same good as spain g10





<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Skalgrim, the German charts show the figures I gave above.

Note that Isegrim has some of these original documents, and even he only claims 25 m/s peak for a K4 with 1.98 ata. I don't Isegrim is likely to understate 109 performance, do you?

You can see Isegrim's graph in this thread: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=484109953&r=154109463#154109463

Here's the figure for the K4 at 1.8 ata and 1.45 ata. The Chart was first posted by Pyro on the Aces High board, and has been reposted by many people since, so I'll assume it's ok to repost it here:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1089679514_109kclimb2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Mon July 12 2004 at 06:46 PM.]

hop2002
07-12-2004, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>look, this chart show, that k4 climb 8000m 5min with 1,98ata

see the curve that begin 0m and see 8000m, only 5min to 8000m with 1,98ata
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it doesn't. You're in good company for thinking it does, though, as it's probably what fooled William Green (and almost everyone who has first seen it on the net)

The time to climb chart shows 2 mins for each major grid line. If you look, the major grid lines are subdivided. Each of those subdivisions equals 1 minute.

Just to prove it, look at the time taken to reach 5000m.

If you're correct, it's just under 3 minutes. That's an average climb rate of 27.8. AVERAGE. It's way over what the 109 could climb at.

If I'm right, and those squares equal 2 minutes each, it's just under 6 mins. About 5 mins 50 sec. That's an average of 14.25 m/s to 5000m.

Look at 14.25 m/s at 2500 m (the average of height between 0 m and 5000m). It fits the lower (climb and combat power) line.

Take the time between 5000m and 8000m.

If you're right, it reaches 5000m in just under 3 mins, and 8000m in just under 5 minutes.

That's 2 minutes to climb between 5km and 8km.

That's an average of 25 m/s at 6.5km. That's way, way over what the 109 could do at that alt.

If I'm right, it's just under 4 minutes to climb from 5km to 8km.

That's an average of about 12.5 m/s at 6.5 km.

Again, it fits the climb and combat line perfectly.

The time to climb is on a scale of 2 mins per major grid line, and shows performance at climb and combat power (1.45 ata) not emergency power (1.8 or 1.98 ata)

1.98 ata is not represented on this chart at all.

Skalgrim
07-12-2004, 07:21 PM
With the 9-12159 broadblade propeller, is it not
so unusual,

to get very good climb at greater altitude,

because broadblade propeller has better
effectiveness at greater altitude as at lower altitude.

Not only p47, get advantage through broadblade propeller at greater altitude.



g2 3050kg 1300ps 21m/sec

spain g10 3150kg 1680ps 28m/sec

k4 3350kg 2000ps ?



powerloading

g2 0,426

spain g10 0,533

k4 0,597


at least, 28m/sec seem possible for the k4 db605dc, when you k4 powerloading compare with g2 or spain g10



.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Wed July 14 2004 at 05:46 AM.]

LEXX_Luthor
07-12-2004, 10:44 PM
Wellcome back robban http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

alarmer
07-12-2004, 11:48 PM
If you would add fix wish for muzzle flashes, cockpit issues and the way planes are spotted against the ground. I think this thread would nicely sum up all the major problems in FB at the moment.

Not forgetting DM issues too. I seriously lack belief on part that PF would fix diving either, it seems to be engine issue. But we will see http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IIJG69_Kartofe
07-13-2004, 02:37 AM
Why nobody mention the climbrate of the spits's IX who is the most overmoddeled in this game ??

Is that because the spit is a "sacred"http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif plane, like cows in india ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Or because it is a well known problem and must be fixed in the next patch ?

jurinko
07-13-2004, 02:38 AM
don´t forget the most overmodelled plane in climb - poor old IL-2. I take full load of bombs and rockets and have to trim it nose heavy 20 clicks, otherwise I am immediately at 2000m... the poor climb it had in old IL-2 1.04 patch was much closer to reality. It was a piece of iron with not very reliable engine..

---------------------
Letka_13/Liptow @ HL

LLv34_Flanker
07-13-2004, 05:18 AM
S!

We must be happy Oleg hasn't modelled engine/gun/other systems reliability. Oh the whine then! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

One pilot in our squad knows a guy who as been an IL-2 mechanic during WW2. He said the quality of the IL-2 was POOR and engines had to be changed every 2-3 flights, one could scrape metal from the cylinders after that! This was due the fact that the IL2 was so damn heavy and the engine had to be run at high RPM all the time to keep that beast airborne.

He also had mentioned the poor workmanship on the planes: poor fittings, leaking tubes, misfitting doors, poor paintjob finish etc.

So now we live in a perfect world without manufacture faults for either side, to some extent. Hopefully BoB will shake off the legacy of this game engine and use the lessons learned (hopefully) to make yet another benchmark in WW2 sim world.

About climb rates. They can't be measured very accurately in this game since there are so many ways to game the game etc. We can debate until the world ends and still not reach a solution http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

---------------------------

Flanker
1.Lentue p¤¤llikk¶ / TO
Lentolaivue 34

"Let Chaos entvine on defenseless soil!"
~Dimmu Borgir~

hop2002
07-13-2004, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why nobody mention the climbrate of the spits's IX who is the most overmoddeled in this game ??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Up to just over 2000m the Spit LF IX climb rate is almost spot on, about 0.5 m/s too high. Above that height, it reaches a peak of about 2 m/s too high, then drops off again until it is almost spot on at high altitude.

The Spit LF IX should outclimb the K4 on 1.8ata, it comes nowhere near it in the game.

NN_EnigmuS
07-13-2004, 07:36 AM
and why nobody speack about the spit Mk9 Hf at high altitude it heat a Ta152h at breackfeast in game lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

dadada1
07-13-2004, 07:38 AM
One of the interesting things about the Lagg series of fighters is that with both inline and radial engined versions, the pilot would often have to fly with the canopy open because of the heat generated in the cockpit. This suggests that engine cooling was'nt as efficient as perhaps desired. Bearing this in mind, its interesting that the FB version is difficult to overheat.

dadada1
07-13-2004, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
and why nobody speack about the spit Mk9 Hf at high altitude it heat a Ta152h at breackfeast in game lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the climb of the Spit at high altitude is a little overdone, but I'm not so shure about about manouverability. The FB engine does'nt really allow the Ta to outperform the Spit @ altitudes above 10,000m. I believe the speeds for the various Spits is being corrected in the patch. What is interesting is that when Hunde found the Mk IX HF had a top speed in game of 437mph there were'nt a clamour of Spit experts posting it's correct performance of 416mph. Spit fans stayed remarkably quiet, wonder why.

Jippo01
07-13-2004, 07:50 AM
LaGG -3 s. 35 climbed to 7000m with 100% power, 2600rpm & radiators fully open without overheating in Finnish tests.

Water temp was 80C and oil 98C. Outiside temp was -7C at the time of test. climb speed at sea level was 15.6m/s, and between 6km and 7km 3.9m/s. Practical ceiling was 7400m altitude and theoretical 7600m.

You might want to test how LaGG-3 s. 35 performs in the game. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Functio
07-13-2004, 08:10 AM
The main problem with the Ta-152 is that it's wings give none advantage they would have done at high altitude. Instead, it's like any other 190 at higher altitudes - very much unmanouverable and has problems climbing.

NN_EnigmuS
07-13-2004, 08:47 AM
whereas in game the spit Hf with no modified wings turn sharper lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

dadada1
07-13-2004, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Functio:
The main problem with the Ta-152 is that it's wings give none advantage they would have done at high altitude. Instead, it's like any other 190 at higher altitudes - very much unmanouverable and has problems climbing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If you refer to climrates for Ta, it's max climbrate is around 17m per second. I think I'm right in saying that in game its best climb is 20m per second. The problem comes from other aircraft such as Lagg 7 and 109K that climdb too well as stated by robban. Bring these down and you'll be able to do the same with others. I suppose proportionately they are not too bad, but thats not what we want. I think Ta does handle better than other FW s in game at altitude to say it's the same is just not true. I'm a big Ta fan, I've waited for years to have this in game, but I don't want it to perform better than it should do, the same goes for any other plane in FB.

NN_EnigmuS
07-13-2004, 09:00 AM
max isn't 17,5m/s,it's the average climb of rate for Ta152H and it's the same as fwD9 with Mw50 lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Functio
07-13-2004, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
If you refer to climrates for Ta, it's max climbrate is around 17m per second. I think I'm right in saying that in game its best climb is 20m per second. The problem comes from other aircraft such as Lagg 7 and 109K that climdb too well as stated by robban. Bring these down and you'll be able to do the same with others. I suppose proportionately they are not too bad, but thats not what we want. I think Ta does handle better than other FW s in game at altitude to say it's the same is just not true. I'm a big Ta fan, I've waited for years to have this in game, but I don't want it to perform better than it should do, the same goes for any other plane in FB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree - it high-altitude handling should be better. Those wings don't really add much to how it handles, despite the fact that they're there to help with combat at altitude.

Brotrob
07-13-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by hop2002:

The Spit LF IX should outclimb the K4 on 1.8ata, it comes nowhere near it in the game.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you all see that this climb-chart is without MW50
(DB 605 DC/ASC o. MW ===&gt; 0. means "ohne" means "without" ).

Please, we all know that most planes are overdone in climb ( as they are in roll-rate and so on ),
but as robban statet, it has only sense to reduce ALL of them. If you reduce the climbrates only
from some planes, the relation gets lost even more. I doupt that Oleg will fix it ever, so whining about one certan aircrafts climbing ability will result in only reduced climb of this one, and more whining is programmed.

And one last thing: In relation to ALL other planes, the Kurfürst ( of course with MW ) outclimbed them ALL. It is just the ultimate climber. As modelled in the game now. Look in any avitation book, the K was a Monster in climb, in Staffeln with Bf 109 K and old G subtypes the Kurfürst pilotes were stunned how they let their G comrades stay in the air. And shurely no Mark 9 could outclimb a K !

Respectfull greetings

Brotrob

KaRaYa-X
07-13-2004, 11:31 AM
As it ws already mentioned: That Bf109K4 climb chart only shows climbs WITHOUT the use of MW50 which is an A LOT DIFFERENT as when using MW50!

let's see:
Bf109K4 with DB605DB
110% without MW50: 1550PS
110% with MW50: 1800PS

Bf109K4 with DB605DC
110% without MW50: 1800PS
110% with MW50: 2000PS

However one thing I dont understand is that in this chart a plane with 1.8ata is faster(!!) than one running at 1.98ata... or is there anything I forgot about!?

Anyway as you can see a Bf109K running without MW50 can even reach a little bit more than 20m/s climb-rate (~21 - 21,5m/s)

I dont think any Spit IX can keep up with that...

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

Danschnell
07-13-2004, 11:41 AM
Ahhhh.... BUT.

The data is for the 109K without WM50 you say. But remember that in the game you can't actually use the WM50 on the 109K! (or the 190D!)

The 'w' button works OK, but it breaks the engine straight away.

hop2002
07-13-2004, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
However one thing I dont understand is that in this chart a plane with 1.8ata is faster(!!) than one running at 1.98ata... or is there anything I forgot about!?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That chart shows two power settings, 1.45 ata and 1.8 ata.

It doesn't show 1.98 ata at all.

However, what it does show is the performance for K4s that are set up to use 1.98 ata or 1.8 ata. In other words, if you set up the K4 so that it could run at 1.98 ata, it would run worse at 1.8 ata than one set up to use a max of 1.8 ata.

Why, I don't know, but Butch or Isegrim could probably tell you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As it ws already mentioned: That Bf109K4 climb chart only shows climbs WITHOUT the use of MW50 which is an A LOT DIFFERENT as when using MW50!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is. That's why I pointed it out when I posted the chart.

However, afaik, in game the K4 does not use 1.98 ata, only 1.8 ata, so should climb as shown on this chart.

According to Butch, 1.98 was tested in early 1945, and not cleared for use until Feb or March 1945, and then not for all K4s.

Likewise,the Spitfire IX only uses 18 lbs boost and 100/150 fuel, not the 25 lbs boost and 100/150 fuel they began switching to in late Spring 1944.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And one last thing: In relation to ALL other planes, the Kurfürst ( of course with MW ) outclimbed them ALL.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WITH mw50 at 1.98 ata the K4 should marginally outclimb the Spit LF IX running at 18 lbs boost. By the time the K4 was running 1.98 ata, the Spit LF IX in Britain and Western Europe was running on 100/150 octane fuel and 25 lbs boost. That will give the Spit LF IX better climb rates than the K4 at most altitudes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Look in any avitation book, the K was a Monster in climb, in Staffeln with Bf 109 K and old G subtypes the Kurfürst pilotes were stunned how they let their G comrades stay in the air. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the K4 was amongst the very best climbing prop planes. The only planes to see widespread service that could match it were the Spitfire VII, IX, XVI and XIV.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Anyway as you can see a Bf109K running without MW50 can even reach a little bit more than 20m/s climb-rate (~21 - 21,5m/s)

I dont think any Spit IX can keep up with that...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html

1000 ft/min is just under 5.1 m/s.
4610 ft/min is 23.41 m/s
5580 ft/min is 28.34 m/s
(These figures are probably rad flaps shut, which means radiators open figures will be somewhat lower)

Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html

4,700 ft/min is 23.876 m/s

Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/en524.html

4310 ft/min is 21.895 m/s

Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs310.html

4470 ft/min is 22.7 m/s

Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14climbchart.jpg

4700 ft/min is 23.876 m/s

[This message was edited by hop2002 on Tue July 13 2004 at 11:12 AM.]

Jippo01
07-13-2004, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop, please verify the history of this document, and the conditions of test. There are all sorts of scans floating around in the net.

We know for a fact (with also knowing exact conditions of test) the performance of G-2. That has climb of 24.7m/s between 1000m and 2000m altitude at 1.3ATA.

Keep in mind that K-4 is only marginally heavier, and has much greater power output. I haven't got the HP numbers here, but wasn't G-2 at 1.3ATA around the range of 1100-1300hp.

And yes, the K-4 was a stellar climber. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Really, I don't want another flame fest here, I just ask you to be a bit more specific with your information. If you don't have access to the Finnish test flights I will be happy to point you a way to get acquianted.


-jippo


LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Brotrob
07-13-2004, 03:05 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hop2002:

WITH mw50 at 1.98 ata the K4 should marginally outclimb the Spit LF IX running at 18 lbs boost. By the time the K4 was running 1.98 ata, the Spit LF IX in Britain and Western Europe was running on 100/150 octane fuel and 25 lbs boost. That will give the Spit LF IX better climb rates than the K4 at most altitudes.

Yes, the K4 was amongst the very best climbing prop planes. The only planes to see widespread service that could match it were the Spitfire VII, IX, XVI and XIV.

QUOTE]


Well, you are comparing the best datas of the Spit with the worst of the Kurfürst. Its true that the first K's were flown with constricted Power. But since we only have one Variant in the Game , and not a year behind it, we can also adopt that the K in the game reflects the one with non-constricted Power.

I hope I satisfy you when I summarise:

the contemporary variants of two of the gratest airplanes, the Spit and the Messer,
were the best climbers of WW2 and were improved during the war. Once the one got an advantage, the engeneers of the other type developed and picked up.
At the end of the war, the Kurfürst and the latest Spits both reached nearly 30 m/s ( 28 ) and were the ultimate prop-interceptors.

As it is modelled in the game now. Pls dont call for a 22 m/s Kurfürst, you know that would't be right. The K has not only advantages, but also some serious disatvantages ( elevator, muzzle flash ).

intercessional greetings,

Brotrob

Functio
07-13-2004, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
Ahhhh.... BUT.

The data is for the 109K without WM50 you say. But remember that in the game you can't actually use the WM50 on the 109K! (or the 190D!)

The 'w' button works OK, but it breaks the engine straight away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because you're engaging the MW-50 at high engine RPM. You need to switch it on at low RPM (i.e. before take-off), then you won't damage your engine. The system will then engage safely as soon as you push the throttle over 100%.

Willey
07-13-2004, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Skalgrim, the German charts show the figures I gave above.

Note that Isegrim has some of these original documents, and even he only claims 25 m/s peak for a K4 with 1.98 ata. I don't Isegrim is likely to understate 109 performance, do you?

You can see Isegrim's graph in this thread: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=484109953&r=154109463#154109463

Here's the figure for the K4 at 1.8 ata and 1.45 ata. The Chart was first posted by Pyro on the Aces High board, and has been reposted by many people since, so I'll assume it's ok to repost it here:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1089679514_109kclimb2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, that's the language thing then.

DB-605DC/ASC o. MW-50 für Grundeinstellung 1,98ata u. 1,8ata mit Schrb. 12199 u. 12159, Start-Notlstg, Steig-Kampflstg.

1. it says DB-605DC/ASC, so C3 variant with 2000hp, without (ohne) using MW-50.
2. No Sondernotleistung, another indicator for non-MW-50 flight.
3. I think Grundeistellung 1,98ata fits to Propeller 12199 which is the more efficient one for hight altitudes (The Russians had one of these which made 725km/h at 6000m and ~611 on the deck in their tests). But this doesn't matter that much.
4. PL=1,8 = Start-Notleistung http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif
5. PL=1,45 = Steig-Kampfleistung http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

C3 fuel http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif - something like 1550hp or so at 1,8ata boost.

On the climb time curve it says: "Steigzeit mit Drehzahlsteigerung für Grundeinstellung 1,98" which would mean with MW-50. 3 Minutes for 0-5000m http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif. BTW that's just 16m/s average...
one thing: The higher the altitude, the wronger the climb rate. Many planes like eg. Spitfires, 109K-4, P-39 keep up their initial climb rate at altitudes up to 6000m http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif. That's the error http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. The La-7 is one example, where the initial climb is too good though. Those planes weren't optimized for high altitudes (which also means climb), but for high speeds at low altitude. A La-7 reaches it's topspeed at 2 altitudes: ~2300m and somewhere around 5000m IIRC.

hop2002
07-13-2004, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hop, please verify the history of this document, and the conditions of test. There are all sorts of scans floating around in the net.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's no problem with the chart.

Have a look at the charts Isegrim has posted. There's one on the page I linked to earlier. Isegrim is basing these on the original test documents (I believe he recieved them from Butch).

They show, according to Isegrim, a max of 25 m/s for the K4 at 1.98 ata. In discussions I've seen with Butch, he seems to accept that as well.

In other words, the original documents show up to 25 m/s at 1.98 ata. I've never seen anything to suggest higher than that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We know for a fact (with also knowing exact conditions of test) the performance of G-2. That has climb of 24.7m/s between 1000m and 2000m altitude at 1.3ATA.

Keep in mind that K-4 is only marginally heavier, and has much greater power output. I haven't got the HP numbers here, but wasn't G-2 at 1.3ATA around the range of 1100-1300hp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the face of original documents, it's safer to trust the figures for the real life K4, rather than try an extrapolation from an earlier aircraft with a different engine and substantially changed airframe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And yes, the K-4 was a stellar climber. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it was. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Really, I don't want another flame fest here, I just ask you to be a bit more specific with your information. If you don't have access to the Finnish test flights I will be happy to point you a way to get acquianted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've got the graph from the Finnish tests, but no more. I distinctly remember reading a doc that laid out more info, but I haven't been able to find it again. If you can point me to that I'd be very happy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, you are comparing the best datas of the Spit with the worst of the Kurfürst.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I'm trying to compare like with like.

The Spitfire LF IX came out in the first half of 1943. It ran on 100/130 fuel at 18 lbs boost. That's the configuration that gave 23 m/s.

In the Spring of 1944, many of the Spitfire IXs based in the UK switched to 100/150 fuel and used 25 lbs boost. That's the configuration that would give up to 28 m/s. That fuel was limited to the UK until early 1945, when the Spitfire IXs in France, Belgium and the Netherlands began to use it as well.

The 109K4 was limited to 1.8 ata until early 1945, when some units were allowed to use 1.98 ata.

By the time the K4 was using 1.98 ata, there were large numbers of Spit IXs on 100/150 at 25lbs boost.

So, 1944 = Spit IX 18 lbs 23 - 24 m/s, 109K4 1.8 ata 22 m/s.

1945 Spit IX 25 lbs 28 m/s, 109K4 1.98 ata 25 m/s

(Many Spit IXs were actually using 25 lbs in mid 1944, before the K4 was in service)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But since we only have one Variant in the Game , and not a year behind it, we can also adopt that the K in the game reflects the one with non-constricted Power.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not arguing which K4 should be in the game, one way or the other. I just think that the one in game is supposed to be running at 1.8 ata, just like the Spit in game is supposed to be running at 18 lbs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I hope I satisfy you when I summarise:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. I'm not claiming the K4 was not a good climber, it was. It was one of the very best.

hop2002
07-13-2004, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>C3 fuel - something like 1550hp or so at 1,8ata boost.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it's around 1800 hp at 1.8 ata.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On the climb time curve it says: "Steigzeit mit Drehzahlsteigerung für Grundeinstellung 1,98" which would mean with MW-50. 3 Minutes for 0-5000m <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, "Steigzeit mit Drehzahlsteigerung für Grundeinstellung 1,98" means climb time with revs increase for basic setting 1.98 ata.

"Basic setting" 1.98 is the lower of each of the rate of climb lines, it means the plane is set up for 1.98 ata but is running at 1.8ata or 1.45 ata.

The revs increase means that above 8,000m you can increase rpm at climb and combat power up to the emergency power setting. You can see a line joining the two settings at 8,000m on the chart.

Why you can safely increase the rpm at altitude I don't know, but I've seen similar things in Spit V charts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> BTW that's just 16m/s average...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I made the exact same mistake working it out myself last night.

5000 m in 300 secs = 16.6 m/s But, 3 mins = 180 seconds, not 300 seconds.

5000 m in 3 mins (180 seconds) = 27.7 m/s. As I said, that's far too high an average to 5 km.

Trust me, the "time to climb" line shows 2 mins for every major grid line, ie it shows just under 6 mins to 5000 m at climb and combat power (1.45ata)

Just one more example, take the time from 10 - 12 km.

The line shows either just under 7 mins - 10 mins, or 13.5 mins - 20 mins.

If it's 7 - 10, that's 3 mins 10 secs, or 190 seconds, to climb 2 km. That's 10.5 m/s at 11 km.

If it's 13.5 to 20, it's 6.5 mins, or 390 seconds to climb 2 km. That's 5 m/s at 11km, which again fits the chart perfectly.

That line IS 2 mins per major grid line. Even Isegrim accepts that.

Nub_322Sqn
07-13-2004, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
whereas in game the spit Hf with no modified wings turn sharper lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sharper then what lol

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
07-14-2004, 02:11 AM
than Ta152 read all the post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Skalgrim
07-14-2004, 03:27 AM
g2 with 1300ps has initialclimb 21m/sec,

by finns test and rechlin test



g2 sealevel 1300ps 3050kg

k4 sealevel 2000ps 3350kg


powerload at sealevel

g2 0,426
k4 0,597


k4 has 40,1 % better powerload as g2 at sealevel,so are even 29m/sec possible

and interesting, than match it too the 28m/sec from spain g10, because k4 has too better powerload as spain g10



When you has climb from g2, can you calculate the climb from k4,

is proportional depent from powerload,

because g2 and k4 has same drag and same lift



.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Wed July 14 2004 at 05:43 AM.]

dadada1
07-14-2004, 05:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
max isn't 17,5m/s,it's the average climb of rate for Ta152H and it's the same as fwD9 with Mw50 lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes your right about the climbrate. I checked last night in my book on the Ta 152 that the max climbrate for the H-0 without MW 50 or GM 1 is 20m per second. Its roughly comparable with the Spitfire 14. What I would refer you to though is Capt Eric Browns test flight from "Wings of the Luftwaffe" He states that the Ta 152 climbs steeper albeit slower than the Spit 19(Un-armed reconaissance version of the 14, extra fuel though) up to 10,000m. After that the Ta and Spit are about the same, he then goes on to state that after 12,000m the Ta climbs better than the Spit. He felt that with regard to manouverability the story was similar, Ta better than Spit above 12,000m. Surley he was in a better position to make jugdments on these things than us. I feel with my best objective head on it is difficult to make an assessment when comparing to the Spits we have in game, they are Mk 9s. Probably they are slightly more manouverable than say the Mk 14 or 19, it's really hard to say. The main thing to bear in mind is that in FB we don't have accurate flight characteristics above 10,000m. So it's hard to say with 100% authority that the TA should really handle better between say 6000m and 10,000m. I agree with the feeling that because of it's wing, it should fly better, but without conclusive proof I think it's hard to say for definate.

mrs_esterhaus
07-14-2004, 05:27 AM
It's of my opinion that any chart data you can come up with doesn't accurately reflect atmospehric considitions, air density, fuel formula and the like. If you wanted to accurately model every single aspect of your favorite A/C, you'd have to have way more computing power than you currently have. My father was on the design team for the F16, specificaly the wing. In the later years he was fortunate to use a Cray 6 when working on the XL delta wing as the mathmatical computations to accurately model the flow of air over a wing we staggering as it is. Be happy you have a game that is as well modeled as it is. I can't see how 3 or 4 m/s can be a huge difference, but then again, I enjoy the game for it's wonderful scenery and modeling.

Nub_322Sqn
07-14-2004, 05:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
than Ta152 read all the post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not much for guessing lol
So I just ask since you where a bit vague lol
Just because you talk about other planes in other posts does not automaticly mean you are still talking about it lol

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

faustnik
07-14-2004, 09:58 AM
It's not just the late war fighters that need to be looked at. The Spit V, P-40 and P-39 all easily outclimb the 190A4/A5/A6 when all historical references (Western at least) say it should be the other way around.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Jippo01
07-14-2004, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We know for a fact (with also knowing exact conditions of test) the performance of G-2. That has climb of 24.7m/s between 1000m and 2000m altitude at 1.3ATA.

Keep in mind that K-4 is only marginally heavier, and has much greater power output. I haven't got the HP numbers here, but wasn't G-2 at 1.3ATA around the range of 1100-1300hp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the face of original documents, it's safer to trust the figures for the real life K4, rather than try an extrapolation from an earlier aircraft with a different engine and substantially changed airframe.

I've got the graph from the Finnish tests, but no more. I distinctly remember reading a doc that laid out more info, but I haven't been able to find it again. If you can point me to that I'd be very happy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, I see where you are coming from, but the problem with the page you show(and with all documents with no proper description of procedure and conditions of yesy) is that we don't know the nature of the test. Like when we had this scan showing very poor climbing performance K-4 and it later came up that the document was from propeller tests with unfit propeller.

I think here Skalgrim is on the right track. As far as I understand climb performance is linear function to power/weight ratio. It correlates well between different planes, but especially so when aircraft of the same origin are compared.


Best place to get documents regarding G-2 documents, and information on the other planes that served in FiAF is Finnish Virtualpilots association. Their document server unfortunately seems to be down at the moment though. IIRC they had translated quite a few Finnish documents into english there. I only have the Finnish versions. If you want to talk more about such documents maybe the best place is in private topics?


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Tvrdi
07-14-2004, 03:38 PM
It seams that almost all planes have rather the same climb rate (also dive speed and acc)..its funny....that puts Me109 and FW190 in funny position as those fighters arent good turners...so BnZ in FB is suicide in that case..

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/gnomisa-KroatienLegionJG1.jpg

LuftLuver
07-14-2004, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tvrdi:
Me109...in funny position as those fighters arent good turners...so BnZ in FB is suicide in that case..

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You MUST be joking!

Fb109 has been Luftwhined into one of the tightest turning arcade planes in this video game. All 109 series right up to the K are out-turned only by maybe zero, I-16/153 and maybe a few others such as P40.

Despite what the technical manuals and history books BOTH say.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

faustnik
07-14-2004, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tvrdi:
It seams that almost all planes have rather the same climb rate (also dive speed and acc)..its funny....that puts Me109 and FW190 in funny position as those fighters arent good turners...so BnZ in FB is suicide in that case..

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree on the dive speeds Tvrdi, but, on the climb thing you better check to make sure you have your gear up on your 109. That would be the only condition under which a 190 could keep up with you in climb.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Fw190A4vsG2.jpg

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Kurfurst__
07-14-2004, 04:26 PM
Well some comments...

First of things, some corrections to Hop`s interpretation of that chart.

As others pointed out, the chart does not show the effect of MW 50, which would boost the power output even at the same 1.8ata output by about 5%. In fact, the 1.8/1.98ata climb curve is for only 1725 PS, far lower than even the earliest, worst configuration the K-4 ever saw action. The 1.8/1.8ata curve is still only 1800 PS, as it does not use MW50. The most common 1.8ata w. MW50 would yield 1850 PS, and curiously enough, makes the 1.8ata K-4 a better performer at altitude than the 1.98ata one !It`s because it injects MW50 at a higher altitude, too. In other words, even the highest values on that chart slightly understate the climb performance of the 109K in the worst conditions it could be in RL..

Now the 1.98ata was cleared for the DB 605D engine (K-4s, G-10) in somewhere between December 1944 and March 1945, at least docs give this timeframe. The airplane we have in the game is curious mix of the performance of many others, worser and better aspects alike, so it`s hard to draw conclusions..

BTW, the description part to these K-4 charts basically says standard, fully loaded equipment condition, no special surface handling applied, with the performance values stated in the report are 'surely to be reached with well built serial planes'.

The greatest possible fault in comparing those test posted and the game results is due to the modelling of radiator on the Bf 109. The charts posted by Hop refer to radiators that are some 220mm open. Problem is, that closing and opening the radiators would effect the rate of climb - 3-5 m/sec better climb rate is a very likely gain if the radiators are more closely shut - of course this would lead to quicker boiling of the coolant as well. In fact, the coolant boils much faster on 109s in the game than in real life, so I guess they are modelled with less open, thus less draggy radiators than in real life, so the performance gain is, justified, at the cost of pilot control over the proccess. I would like it to be exactly as in real life, with me in control wheter I want long lasting cool engine, or a hotrod with high performance..Much would depend on in what state those radiators actually are, you see..

Regarding the comparisons Hop made with Mk IX Spitfires, we all know he would like the Spit to emerge as good as it can from such comparison, and that the 1943 Spit IX with 1650 HP should beat the late 1944 109K-4 at 1850-2000HP in rate of climb.. Take note, however, that the plane he choosed for these comparsion, serial no. BS.543, was a prototype, and rather different from the serial planes in many aspects, including propellor type and most likely, the engine it was used was still in development stage in the end of 1942 it was tested (Spit IX LF only appeared in service in March 1943). Later trials with serially produced plane of the same type yielded some 4200 or so fpm climb rate at SL, which to me seems a much more likely dataset. But it`s just a sidenote, and rather irrevelant to the discussion, what I will address below.

IMHO, the most overmodelled planes in climb rate are the K-4, LA-7, Spit V., and P-51. There could be others of course, I faintly remember the early 190D-9 we have was just too close to it`s more powerful brother with MW50 injecton . To a lesser extent, the 109G-2 and Spit IXLF also feel to be overstated somewhat in ROC.

Whereas the K-4 and LA-7 indeed have significantly higher ROC than their stats should enpower them to have, they don`t ruin gameplay much.
Even with their RL stats applied, they should just as well outclimb the others with ease at the altitutudes they outclimb them now. Their advantage, and disadvantage with the change of altitude (La-7 fells off quickly above 2000m, K-4 maintains it well up to 6000m) is effectively modelled and can be exploited.Thus, the relative strenght/weakness of planes in the game is conserved, even though I think it should be still fixed, it doesn`t ruins historical tactics to any real extent/

Much unlike in the case of the P-51D and Spit V. In case of the former, the problem is not as much that it`s a bit overmodelled in climb rate, but the fact that while the P-51 is overmodelled, the nemesis 109G-6 is very closely modelled to it`s historical ROC specs, which makes a nonsense situation that the P-51D actually outclimbs or climbs with a 109G-6 in a sustained climb, whereas it never could in real life. So either the P-51 should be taken back a little, or the G-6 improved. The former solution would be more logical IMHO, as it would be a step forward to make the planes more closely matching their actual performances, rather than just being well modelled relative to each other.

Definietely the *WORST CASE* is the UFO Spit V. with the high-altitude anti-gravity pods. Now, not only this plane of 1941 with a reputation of poor high altitude performance manage to climb with 1944 dedicated high-altitude fighters like the Bf 109G-10 or K-4 in the game, oddly enough it manage to climb with it`s very own high alt successor, the Mk IX Spits at altitude, which were JUST developed to cure the MkV`s lacking high altitude performance ! So not only the Mk V climbs no less than 100% (!!) better at altitudes like 6000m and over than it did in real life, it spoils any real life tactic that would want to take advantage of the MkV`s poor climb rate at altitude. As in the game, you have no chance to leave it behind in climb above 5000m in a K-4, G-10, or even Spit IXs... whereas in RL, the MkV was naturally outclimbed by all these, in fact even by earlier variants like the 109G-2s and I believe the 109Fs as well. Definietely something to be cured at last, though Oleg said something about a problem with the lack of coherence between values of climb rate and level speeds obtained in British tests he used as a basis.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

hop2002
07-14-2004, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think here Skalgrim is on the right track. As far as I understand climb performance is linear function to power/weight ratio. It correlates well between different planes, but especially so when aircraft of the same origin are compared.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can get large variations in the climb rate/power to weight ratio for subvariants of the same plane.

Take the Spit.

Spit V @ 16 lbs, 1500 hp at 10,000 ft, weight 6965 lbs, roc at 10k 3570 ft/min

Spit LF IX 18 @ 18lbs, 1650 hp at 10,000ft (probably slightly less, about 1640 or 1630), weight 7485 lbs, roc at 10k 4280 ft/min.

There is at most a 2% difference in powerloading, yet the Spit IX climbs 20% better.

The Spit XIV has a small powerloading advantage over the Spit LF IX at 10k, about 4 - 5%. It's climb rate is about 3% better at 10k. However, it's speed at 10k is much better, 406 compared to 380 mph. (And with the ise in drag with speed, the increased power should get only a tiny speed increase)

You can optimise props for speed or climb. The Spit LF IX clearly optimised for climb performance. I suspect the K4 concentrated more on speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Best place to get documents regarding G-2 documents, and information on the other planes that served in FiAF is Finnish Virtualpilots association. Their document server unfortunately seems to be down at the moment though. IIRC they had translated quite a few Finnish documents into english there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. I did have a quick look there, but I'll go back and have a proper dig around.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In fact, the 1.8/1.98ata climb curve is for only 1725 PS, far lower than even the earliest, worst configuration the K-4 ever saw action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I've used only the 1.8/1.8 curve.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The greatest possible fault in comparing those test posted and the game results is due to the modelling of radiator on the Bf 109. The charts posted by Hop refer to radiators that are some 220mm open. Problem is, that closing and opening the radiators would effect the rate of climb - 3-5 m/sec better climb rate is a very likely gain if the radiators are more closely shut - of course this would lead to quicker boiling of the coolant as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true of the Spitfire as well, although the Spitfire climb tests show results obtained with the radiators fully open, (apart from the Spit VIII figures)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Regarding the comparisons Hop made with Mk IX Spitfires, we all know he would like the Spit to emerge as good as it can from such comparison, and that the 1943 Spit IX with 1650 HP should beat the late 1944 109K-4 at 1850-2000HP in rate of climb..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say it would beat the K4 with 2000 hp. (unless we're talking about the Spit with 25 lbs boost)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Take note, however, that the plane he choosed for these comparsion, serial no. BS.543, was a prototype, and rather different from the serial planes in many aspects, including propellor type and most likely, the engine it was used was still in development stage in the end of 1942 it was tested (Spit IX LF only appeared in service in March 1943). Later trials with serially produced plane of the same type yielded some 4200 or so fpm climb rate at SL,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I linked to several different ones, as anyone can see above. And the later "serial" plane you refer to did a maximum of 388 mph, far slower than all the other Spit IXs tested.

Just to make it clear, here are the performance figures from various Spit IXs and a Spit VIII, all with the Merlin 66. The plane Isegrim refers to that "yielded" 4200 ft/min is marked in red, and is far slower than any of the other Spit IXs.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1082729993_spitixspeeds4.gif

Indeed, the Spit HF IX regularly did better than 4200 ft/min, despite being tuned for higher altitudes and having much less power lower down.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>IMHO, the most overmodelled planes in climb rate are the K-4, LA-7, Spit V., and P-51. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit V is certainly overmodelled in it's critical altitude.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1080402859_spitclimb.gif

The original figures are with radiators fully open, I don't know wether IL2 compare shows open or closed radiators.

The IL2 Spit climbs far too well above 15,000 ft under normal power, and far too well above 10,000 ft under WEP.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Whereas the K-4 and LA-7 indeed have significantly higher ROC than their stats should enpower them to have, they don`t ruin gameplay much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think even you'll agree that the Spit IX should climb in the same ballpark as the K4, (the 4200 ft/min figure you want to use is still over 21 m/s), yet in IL2 the Spit IX is 5 - 9 m/s below the K4.

At 3500 m, the K4 at 1.8 ata from that chart I posted does 19.5 m/s.

According to Isegrim's chart, at 1.98 ata it does 22.2 m/s

IL2 compare shows it doing 30.2 m/s

That's 8 - 10.7 m/s better than it should.

The figures for the Spit LF IX at the same altitude are 22.8 m/s, 19.3 (from the plane in red on the chart above) and 24.1 m/s (from the same plane at 25 lbs)

According to IL2 compare, the Spit LF IX does 21.5 m/s at 3.5 km.

That's 8.7 m/s worse than the K4.

Using Isegrims figures of the worst possible Spit LF IX against the best possible K4, the K4 should have an advantage of 2.9 m/s. (That;s a K4 in 1945 configuration, a Spit IX in 1943 configuration)

Using the best figures for the Spit, the worst for the K4, the Spit should have an 4.6 m/s advantage (that's a 1944/45 Spit, a 1944 K4)

Using the medium figure for the Spit, (1943 performance, but a plane that isn't 20 mph slower than other Spit IXs), and the best figure for the K4, the Spit should have a 0.6 m/s advantage

Using the best figures for both, (1944 /45 performance, but still using the very slow Spit in red in the chart above) the Spit should have a 1.9 m/s advantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thus, the relative strenght/weakness of planes in the game is conserved, even though I think it should be still fixed, it doesn`t ruins historical tactics to any real extent/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Under most conditions, the Spit should have a climb advantage over the K4 at 3.5 km. In game, it has an 8.7 m/s disadvantage. That's not preserving relative strengths.

Skalgrim
07-15-2004, 03:48 AM
g2 is probable the best testet 109, more need you not to calculate the k4 climb


1,45 ata should k4 reach 21m/sec,

with 1,45ata has k4 same powerload as
g2 with 1,3ata

with 1,5ata 1550ps almost 23m/sec possible.



This k4 chart is not provide with documentary evidence.

We know not the raditor employment etc, when the k4 had make sustain climb to 8000m,

had they perhaps use at begin full open radior, and at greater altitude, when engine power go down and the overheating proplem is less, had they close raditor,

who know?

therefore the relative good climb at great altitude in this chart compare low altitude.

We need document additionally,
all test have that.

k4 and g2 compare, indicate that this chart is crape,

as long as it not give document additionally.


k4 with 1,98ata has 40,1% better powerload as
g2 with 1,3ata , and that is fact.

even with 1650ps should k4 be able to reach
24,5m/sec



.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu July 15 2004 at 03:40 AM.]

hop2002
07-15-2004, 05:19 AM
Skalgrim, I believe Isegrim has the original documents. In fact, he's quoted the conditions above:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW, the description part to these K-4 charts basically says standard, fully loaded equipment condition, no special surface handling applied, with the performance values stated in the report are 'surely to be reached with well built serial planes'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Isegrim is quoting are the actual figures for the K4, not extrapolations from the G2.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>had they perhaps use at begin full open radior, and at greater altitude, when engine power go down and the overheating proplem is less, had they close raditor,

who know?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again according to Isegrim, who I think has the report:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The charts posted by Hop refer to radiators that are some 220mm open. Problem is, that closing and opening the radiators would effect the rate of climb - 3-5 m/sec better climb rate is a very likely gain if the radiators are more closely shut - of course this would lead to quicker boiling of the coolant as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jippo01
07-15-2004, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Skalgrim, I believe Isegrim has the original documents. In fact, he's quoted the conditions above.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But then we need to see the additional pages describing the conditions. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There should be 15-30 pages in addition to this one page describing the conditions.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Skalgrim
07-16-2004, 05:22 AM
109 propeller like 9-12087 or 9-12159 make differ by climb, but not so many,


g14 with 9-12087 prob. is only 8km/h faster as with 9-12159 prob. sealevel,

that mean the 9-12087 make only 1,4 % more speed

for 1,4% more speed, need you exponent of 2 more power,

that means 2% more trust supply the 9-12087 sealvel as the 9-12159

that means probable 1m/sec make the 9-12087 better climb at sealevel as 9-12159

When right remember, butch2k had say,
raditor half open and open make only 0,5-1m/sec differ and not 2-3m/sec

Too with radiator open and with some ineffective 9-12159 propeller at sealevel, are always still 27-27,5m/sec possible.

perhaps are 24,5m/sec right, but it seem,
alway still a little strange,

to bad, that we have not dokument additionally.




.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri July 16 2004 at 07:43 AM.]

faustnik
07-16-2004, 11:05 AM
How much of a factor is power loading on climb rate? Is it the most important factor?

Comparing two aircraft with almost identical weights the Fw190A4 and the P-40M:

190A4 hp 1700 empty wgt 2850kg = .60hp/kg
P-40M hp 1200 empty wgt 2896kg = .41hp/kg

The Fw190 A4 has a far superior power to weight ratio yet in FB we have a climb comparison that looks like this:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P40v190A4climb.jpg

What are the factors that would give the P-40 a superior ROC?


Hop2002 has already answered some of the quesions about the Spit V vs. Fw190A4 comparison by showing that the Spit VB is somewhat overmodeled in climb.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/A4vsSpitV.jpg

By all pilot accounts and RAF testing the Fw190A3/A4 was able to outclimb the Spit V. RAF Farnborough tests reported that:

"The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spirfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are appoximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,00 feet."

Even accounting for the Spit Vb being somewhat overmodeld in climb, the Fw190A4 seems to be far below its historical climb rate. The Fw190, as descibed above does not seem to require a higher speed than the Spit Vb to gain an advantage in continous climb. Am I missing something obvious here?

Simply lowering the climb of the SpitVb and P-40 would not solve the issue as this would put them at a serious disadvantage to the G2 which is modeled with an extremely high ROC:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Bf109G2vSpitV42.jpg

Thanks for any answers to these questions and I appreciate your patience as I have asked similar questions before. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

robban75
07-16-2004, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Wellcome back robban http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks LEXX! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I've been taking an unwanted timeoff from the forums because I moved to a new house a couple of months back. Unfortunatelly there was no internet avaliable in this new house. I'm writing this at my mom's place on a crappy 56k modem. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Soon, I'll be a more frequent visitor again.

The testing nevertheless continues! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Some very interesting inputs in this thread already!


And Faust,, keep on pushing for our beloved Wurger!! Appart from a more correct climbrate, imagine the 190 with its RL diveacceleration and zoom climb!!(same goes for the P-51) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Kwiatos
07-16-2004, 05:52 PM
Il2 Compare is not good to compare climb rate and turn rate because these is test of AI. But of course there are some bugs in realitive climb rates of planes

faustnik
07-16-2004, 06:00 PM
Kwaitos,

I have heard that too, but, everything I see in FB Compare holds up very well to side-by-side in-sim tests and comparisons. I think FB Compare is a good tool for comparing relative performance.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Kwiatos
07-17-2004, 06:01 AM
Dont think so Faustnik. Check for example turn rate between Bf F-4 and G-2? How is it in Il2compare and in game? Feel the difference?

faustnik
07-17-2004, 12:00 PM
Kwiatos,

I agree the in-sim side-by-side comparisons are the best test method. We have done those tests and came up with results similar to those I chose to represent with the FB Compare charts. Do you disagree with any of the relative climb rates shown in the charts?

I think you might be missing the fact that I am asking questions here, not making conclusions. The relative climb rates do not seem correct compared with some of the historical data I have read. Of course, all that historical data could be misleading or misinterperated.

Could a P-40E or M outclimb an Fw190A4? All the historical data says a general "no". Under certains conditions however, maybe it could, that's why I am asking these questions.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

VMF513_Sandman
07-18-2004, 07:53 PM
some1 explain what this ata gauge is on 109/190 is compared to manifold on allied. i still cant figure out how the 109's get their climb rate and high speed looking at the ata or what ata is the best. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-18-2004, 09:55 PM
Wing curve cross-section makes a difference in both climb and top speed.
Best curve for climb is worst for speed in general.


Neal

VulgarOne
07-19-2004, 11:15 AM
Oleg has 2 new releases to work on. Nothing in IL2 will be fixed.

You be sure history will repeat itself, once the products lifetime has been reached it is discontinued.

Vulgar

Jippo01
07-19-2004, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VulgarOne:
Oleg has 2 new releases to work on. Nothing in IL2 will be fixed.

You be sure history will repeat itself, once the products lifetime has been reached it is discontinued.

Vulgar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello there, new credible poster! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif :P


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

faustnik
07-19-2004, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Wing curve cross-section makes a difference in both climb and top speed.
Best curve for climb is worst for speed in general.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal,

I just got a very similar answer to this same question on another forum from someone with a lot of flight experience. I'm going to see what I can dig up on wing design specifics for the Fw-190, P-40 and Spit V. Maybe that will be the answer to a lot of my questions. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll post anything I come up with here, which will probably include a whole new set of questions. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WWMaxGunz
07-19-2004, 03:09 PM
It was true for the WWI planes. The Gottingen thick wings adopted by Fokker were
better for climbing and turning but not for the utmost speed. They handled higher
AOA better than the thin wings commonly used back then. From one site I had read
that the Gottingen wings came by far closer to the later modern wings like the
Clark-Y of around 1930 and later.

The Zero also had pretty high-camber wings which was part of its' climbrate as well
as the light construction (even to magnesium skin, maybe some structure as well) but
did not help with the top speed at all.

There is also the camber of the hydrofoils of the Trifoiler boat that lift nice but
he hit a speed barrier at 55mph last I read/saw, and Hobie uses his design but with
a different foil that limits speed to 35mph probably for insurance reasons. Yes,
there are and have been hydrofoil sailboats since at least the 40's.


Neal

DangerForward
08-01-2004, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P51vA9climb.jpg

The 2300 hp of the MW50 boosted 190A9 doesn't seem to help it against the P-51 despite better powerloading. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Is the Fw190 climb undermodeled or are almost all other a/c overmodeled in climb? If so, the 190 should be lest alone. Fix the other a/c.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's a little of both. In Mike Spick's book on fighters the P51D and 190A8 have an almost identical low level climbrate. His numbers match "America's Hundred Thousand" on the P51(66% fuel).

From that chart you had the Mustang was climbing like a Spit XIV or something. That's why I've wondered what the fuel state is in IL2Compare.

DangerForward