Analysis of real life 109E performance for CloD

[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.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Historically, under 10,000 ft, the Hurricane I was superior to the Me109e due to its better turn radius, and with 12lb boost, better climb rate, and was only slightly slower. At very low altitudes, say under 5000ft the Me109e was at a severe disadvantage as it could no longer dive away to disengage, and it did not have a sufficient, if any, speed advantage when the Hurricane pilot "pulled the plug" and the Hurricane could easily turn inside the 109e.

It wasnt superior but with +12 lbs emergency boost it was also seriously opponent for 109 at low altitude. Polish Pilots from 303SQN proof these enough. Hurricane I with +12 lbs and CSP could be very close to 109 E speed at low level alt. Of course 109 was better plane these is not question about it but in some cases Hurricane could be fair opponent ( better turn at low to medium alts, comparable climb and speed at 12 lbs emergency power at low alts).

I read some interesting combat raports from Skalski who had fight with 109 E starting at higher alts when 109 attacked him and they made circles and 109 was very close in these to Hurricane but when fight drop to medium and low alts Hurricane could outturn and outmanouver 109 which was shoted down by Skalski.

[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.

[Kwiatek]

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

If they cut sea level speed for british fighters (and now they are way too slow) it would affected also for speed at higher alts. It looks that most British fighters are too slow about 40 km/h at all alts - and thats only for 87 octan fuel performacne. So how it could work????


"Hurricane MK 1 Rotol

238 mph /383 kph at the deck at +6 1/2 boost ------ should be 262-265 mph /420-426 kph !!!!

So it is 24-27mph/ 38-43 kph too slow at + 6 1/2 boost power !!!!

There is no WEP - so no 100 octan fuel performacne - which should give ab. 25 mph/ 40 kph extra speed at low alts

Spitfire MK1a

255 mph/410 kph at the deck at 6 1/2 boost ---------should be 283 mph/455 kph !!!!

So it is 28 mph/45 kph too slow at 6 1/2 boost.

No 100 Octan fuel performance at all - boost cut out doesnt rise power at all.

Spitfire MK II

268 mph/431 kph at deck at 6 1/2 lbs
285 mph/458 kph at deck at 9 lbs ------ should be 286-290 mph so it is quite accurate result!!!!

No emergency take off power +12 lbs included."


and

Originally Posted by camber

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

For 109 speed curve is much more close to RL data ( RL 467-475 km/h at 1.3 Ata at the deck and 570 km/h at 5 km). 109 is only about 20 km/h too slow at low level and deck.

Il2 CLOD is successor of IL2 1946 if some things could be possible to achive in old Il2 i dont belive it is not possible to achive in CLOD.