Analysis of real life 109E performance for CloD

[tools4fools]

when a level of accuracy has been reached that is acceptable to both red & blue.

That's where the problem starts - people that think 'blue' and 'red'.
It will never be acceptable to them.

Performance variable would a a plus/minus 5% power output from the specs for all planes, or something like that.
That would be realistic in the first place and challenging for the game too - nobody could rely on the performance of their planes.
But that's the last the 'red' and 'blue' thinkers would like.

[bw_wolverine]

I think a performance variance included in the sim would be great.

I also think PERSISTANT performance variance for your online aircraft would be great.

Par Examply: I take a Hurricane and it gives me +5% performance over the 'baseline' Hurricane. I'm very happy. I fly this aircraft until I crash it, or bail out of it, or quit the game while in the air. It's gone. Next time I load a Hurricane, it gives me a new aeroplane with a new +/- variance. Maybe this time I get -2.5%.

I guess the only problem would be that people would instantly attempt to crash the bad aircraft to get a better one. :/ Stupid gamers.

[von Brühl]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I guess the only problem would be that people would instantly attempt to crash the bad aircraft to get a better one. :/ Stupid gamers.

LOL, that was my first reaction, "I wonder how many you crashed to get the +5%?". There's always people gaming the system. What you shouldn't get is a report telling you the performance increase/decrease of your plane, it's simply your plane. You can figure out on your own what the limits are, if you are good enough to reach them.

[Kodoss]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I guess the only problem would be that people would instantly attempt to crash the bad aircraft to get a better one. :/ Stupid gamers.

Simple solution: If you crash too often (no enemy contact, no bullet holes) you only get bad planes. Why waste a good plane to a bad pilot?!

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I think a performance variance included in the sim would be great.

...

I guess the only problem would be that people would instantly attempt to crash the bad aircraft to get a better one. :/ Stupid gamers.

They could only do that if they instantly knew they had a bad one. If done right it wouldn't be readily apparent.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Given the keys to CloDo... was the question I was asked.

Well I would grant the reds the 100 octane performance data. I'd give the 109 the factory data. I would certainly adjust the roll rate of the padal winged spitfire.

Folklore and stuff in books by any pilot would be pretty much out of the window. Sorry Notafinger... However I would include the percularities of certain aircraft, like the 109's port wing stalls first near the stall etc.

As for random degress of performance in an aircraft, I'd say no...




The table in the OP only includes TAS, ingame I only have IAS. How do i know if the 109 is fast enough at 5k? According to the graph released by B6 its too slow at around 5k by 30 or was it 50 kmh?

[camber]

Originally Posted by CWMV

No no no no no!
Accuracy over all else. Arcade players be darned.

Well that's simple to say. But once the "rivet counters" (I seem to have become one lately ) have spent time analysing the historical record, then developed (valid) competing arguments which give a range of performance, what would you do? Pick your favorite rivet counter?

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Given the keys to CloDo... was the question I was asked.

Well I would grant the reds the 100 octane performance data. I'd give the 109 the factory data. I would certainly adjust the roll rate of the padal winged spitfire.

Folklore and stuff in books by any pilot would be pretty much out of the window. Sorry Notafinger... However I would include the percularities of certain aircraft, like the 109's port wing stalls first near the stall etc.

As for random degress of performance in an aircraft, I'd say no...

I agree with you on speed (haven't looked at roll issues). Would you give the factory average spec for 109s (it is +/-5%) though? My analysis suggested that would be OK for 5000m but a bit optimistic for sea level (Not that you have to use that )

I would think that period pilot reports would rank higher than folklore but lower than flight tests when considering historical sources.

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

The table in the OP only includes TAS, ingame I only have IAS. How do i know if the 109 is fast enough at 5k? According to the graph released by B6 its too slow at around 5k by 30 or was it 50 kmh?

I calculate TAS as 2% greater than IAS per 1000ft altitude using this link (http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html), there may be a more accurate calculation out there.

I just did some altitude speed tests offline (beta patch), they are OK for 109 but a bit horrifying for the RAF as they are below the B6 patch curves. I tested for full Throttle height (above which boost declines at full throttle). My assumption was that top TAS should be around FTH.

109E4 (prop pitch control on)

FTH: 5000m (boost has dropped a bit to 1.32ata, declines rapidly above 5000m)

425kmh IAS@5000m = 569kmh TAS, exactly right for Messerchmitt official average spec.

Spit Ia

FTH = 16500 ft
at 6.25psi, 2750rpm (rad open) engine fails after about 3 minutes. Just enough time to get stable 245mph IAS (with 3000rpm couldn't get this alt without engine death)

245mph IAS@16500ft = 323mph TAS = 520 kmh TAS

Oh dear, this is under even B6 plot speed (560kmh TAS at 16500ft).

Spit IIa

FTH = 13500 ft (?!)
at 6.25psi, 2750rpm (rad open) engine fails after about 3 mins

260mph IAS@13500 = 328mph TAS = 528 kmh TAS

I really hope I making some kind of testing error here. Tried online and got same values. I wouldn't feel confident taking any Spit against 109s at alt with these values.

camber

[Kwiatek]

If you results are correct speed performacne of both Spitfire version is way off for sea level (low level) but also at higher alts. Actually in beta patch british fighters performance doesnt match even historical performacne at 87 Octan fuel. So just after betapatch these British fighters are way too slow.

I wonder what you get with Hurricane MK1 Rotol beacsue at sea level it is also much too slow comparing to RL data?

I wonder why 1C cant do it correctly? Even in old Il2 146 when i was making FM tuning for Ultr@pack i could achived very accurate results from 0 to 10 km in speed and climb for all these planes????

[robtek]

I believe there is a general error in the game engine with the calculation of the athmospheric density or something like that, causing the problems above 7000 m and MG is now trying to fix that with FM changes.

That will never work, imo

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by robtek

I believe there is a general error in the game engine with the calculation of the athmospheric density or something like that, causing the problems above 7000 m and MG is now trying to fix that with FM changes.

That will never work, imo

This.