Game Hurricane is 534 lbs overweight

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

I was following my usual practice of flying CoD and testing the planes whenever a new patch comes out when I decided to change my usual practice of flying with 100% fuel, and seeing how the aircraft perform with less fuel. In the process of adjusting the fuel, I noticed how the figures listed for weights of the Hurricane changed with fuel load. Then I did a double take, even though Kilograms is not my usual currency, I am more at home with pounds, it was clear there was something wrong with the figures listed.

I quickly checked the historical documents, did some quick calculations and it was clear. The games Rotol Hurricane (100 oct) fully loaded is 534 lbs or 243 kgs heavier than it should be.

This is no surprise to those who like to fly the Hurricane, the game aircraft handles more like a beached whale than the historical aircraft. It is almost impossible to outturn the 109 in it, unlike the historical aircraft, which Werner Molders, the leading German Ace and the father of the Jagdflieger's tactical doctrine, flew personally in a test with included both the Hurricane, Spitfire and Curtiss Hawk against the 109E. Molders said:

"The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons."

and

"Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times...".

In the 'Loadout' screen of the game, the Hurricane Rotol (100 oct) is listed as 3311 kgs fully loaded, that is 7284 lbs. But the actual Hurricane IA with Rotol propellor, Bullet proof glass and Armour plating is 6750 lbs or 3068 kgs.

Below is a document, (courtesy Mike Williams WWII Aircraft site) from a test of a Rotol equipped Hurricane IA. There are two weight figures listed, one for without Bullet proof glass and Armour plate, (6311 lbs) the other for weight with. (6750 lbs)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/l2026-climb.jpg

For more details on this test, see this page:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/l2026.html

The weight the game lists, 3311 kgs/7284 lbs is closer to what a Hurricane IIB weighs, an aircraft which had 12 MGs, as well as the heavier Merlin XX engine with its two stage supercharger. Here is a document from a Hurricane IIB test:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-II-raechart-climb.jpg

You can see weight listed is 7330 lbs.

I also checked the Spitfire IA to see if its weight is off. And yes, it is, by 107 lbs, or 49 kgs. The game Spitfire IA with Rotol prop and 100 octane is 2799 kgs, or 6157 lbs. It should weigh 2750 kgs, or 6050 lbs. You can see the weight listed in this document, which shows the weight of a Spit IA with Rotol prop, bullet proof glass and armour plating:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171climb-c.jpg

More details of this test can be seen here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html

By the way I checked the weight listed on the Loadout page and compared it to the figure listed in the files Feathered_IV had extracted from the game files to see if the figure in the loadout was the same. It is, and therefore this over-weight is being used by the game files.

(Feathered_IV's post here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34705&page=2 )

I would urge Luthier and the development team to correct the weights of both aircraft, perhaps this will provide some of the performance both aircraft have been missing.

By the way, I also checked the weight of the 109's. By my sources, the 109E3 seems to be correct at 2580 kgs. However, it is odd that the 109E4, with different equipment, weighs exactly the same as the E3, and more strangely, considering its lack of the Cannon armament, the E1 is also the same 2580 kgs.

[IvanK]

For those that delve into the FM code what weight is referenced in there ?

[*Buzzsaw*]

For those that delve into the FM code what weight is referenced in there ?

Salute Ivan

As I mentioned in my post, Feathered_IV extracted the files and the figure listed in them is also 3311 kgs for weight.

Post here: (scroll down)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34705&page=2

[IvanK]

Doh should have read more intently :)

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Haven't seen extracted Spitfire files to confirm the weight listed in the Loadout screen is the same as used in the files.

[IvanK]

Here is the weight summary from the ROTOL Performance trials. Passed on to the devs.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Hurriwts.jpg

[JtD]

Official maximum weight taken from the RAF data card of the Hurricane I, dated 6th of August 1941, is 6793 lb. Testing was hardly ever done with the fully loaded plane, you can see in the quoted tests that for instance fuel capacity (94 gallons) wasn't used to maximum.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Official maximum weight taken from the RAF data card of the Hurricane I, dated 6th of August 1941, is 6793 lb. Testing was hardly ever done with the fully loaded plane, you can see in the quoted tests that for instance fuel capacity (94 gallons) wasn't used to maximum.

As I mentioned in my post, what Ivan has shown above, ie. 6311 lbs is the figure without the bulletproof windscreen and armour plating. 6750 lbs is the figure used in the test with windscreen and armour and that is what the max. weight should be close to in my opinion.

I haven't seen your data card JtD, but it is a lot later in the war, much equipment could have been added by August of 1941, I think the plane was not used except as a recon by then, and in any case, 6793 lbs is still a long way under the 7284 lbs which the game is showing as the maximum.

[RAF74_Winger]

Besides which, the empty weight is still 500lbf too heavy.

W.

[JtD]

I haven't seen your data card JtD, but it is a lot later in the war, much equipment could have been added by August of 1941, I think the plane was not used except as a recon by then, and in any case, 6793 lbs is still a long way under the 7284 lbs which the game is showing as the maximum.I agree. I would consider 6793lb the absolute upper limit and also only applicable if the in game variant has got the armour. About 300lb lighter appear reasonable for earlier variants, which corresponds to the weights listed for the test plus ~130lb for full fuel and oil. The date on the card does not mean it is supposed to represent service condition of Hurricanes as in 1941, the plane's still listed with 8 guns. The tare weight increase when compared to the test is 250lb.

The data sheet is available for everyone here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-ads.jpg).

[trademe900]

Respect and very nice find.

The game Hurricane handles like a fricken whale and can't out-turn spitfire or 109. It is not nice natured either. Needs MAJOR attention please!!!

[*Buzzsaw*]

I agree. I would consider 6793lb the absolute upper limit and also only applicable if the in game variant has got the armour. About 300lb lighter appear reasonable for earlier variants, which corresponds to the weights listed for the test plus ~130lb for full fuel and oil. The date on the card does not mean it is supposed to represent service condition of Hurricanes as in 1941, the plane's still listed with 8 guns. The tare weight increase when compared to the test is 250lb.

The data sheet is available for everyone here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-ads.jpg).

The extracted game files shows 427 liters or 94 gallons as max. fuel load, so your data card's figure of 97 gallons is not being used.

The TARE weight of the Hurricane IA Rotol with bullet proof windshield and armour plate used in the RAF test was 4982 lbs/2265 kgs, which is 744 lbs less than the TARE weight of the game aircraft which is listed as 2603 kgs/ 5726 lbs.

RAF Test link again:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/l2026.html

Scroll down for weights of 'overload' aircraft. (6750 lbs)

[trademe900]

Also, real hurricane rotol takes 8 minutes to get to 17,000, in game it takes 12 minutes! the real hurricane in 12 minutes can get to 22,000 ft. Also the climb rate above 17,000 is shocking.

In addition, the dh5-20 is faster than the rotol to climb, which should be the complete opposite.

This is all totally unacceptable in my opinion.

[klem]

I can't disagree with the perfomance issues. I can't see the weight of the pilot's seat armour and IFF included anywhere (73lbs) not that it would answer all the questions.

EDIT: IvanK, when I do my tests I adjust the fuel load to get the same weight as the historical data tests.

EDIT2: to avoid confusion I meant I can't see the pilot armour weight and IIF equipment in the Buzzsaw/game data. I'm sure it would have been in JtDs figures.

[IvanK]

Here is the second weight summary for the Hurri report.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Hurruwt22.jpg

[Kurfürst]

I also checked the Spitfire IA to see if its weight is off. And yes, it is, by 107 lbs, or 49 kgs. The game Spitfire IA with Rotol prop and 100 octane is 2799 kgs, or 6157 lbs. It should weigh 2750 kgs, or 6050 lbs. You can see the weight listed in this document, which shows the weight of a Spit IA with Rotol prop, bullet proof glass and armour plating:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html

No, the Spitfire is all right, ours have armour plates modelled, which weighted about as much, the test you have shown simply does not have armor plates installed (which no Spitfire had prior to the end of May 1940). The so-called "armor plating over the tank" is in fact just a very slightly thicker aluminium plate over the fuel tank (its more like a deflector plate since it can really stop bullets unless they come in a shallow angle), but the aircraft lacks the pilot's back steel armor plates etc.

So the Spit weight is quite OK.

The Hurricane is well off, good spot.

[JtD]

The extracted game files shows 427 liters or 94 gallons as max. fuel load, so your data card's figure of 97 gallons is not being used.97 gallons is the fuel tank capacity, of which 94 gallons are useable. Usually the 3 unusable gallons are included in the tare weight.The TARE weight of the Hurricane IA Rotol with bullet proof windshield and armour plate used in the RAF test was 4982 lbs/2265 kgs, which is 744 lbs less than the TARE weight of the game aircraft which is listed as 2603 kgs/ 5726 lbs. 4982lbs is the weight of the aircraft without bullet proof windshield and armor. These items were not actually fitted, but the plane was ballasted instead and the extra weight is included in the service load.

[NZtyphoon]

I also checked the Spitfire IA to see if its weight is off. And yes, it is, by 107 lbs, or 49 kgs. The game Spitfire IA with Rotol prop and 100 octane is 2799 kgs, or 6157 lbs. It should weigh 2750 kgs, or 6050 lbs. You can see the weight listed in this document, which shows the weight of a Spit IA with Rotol prop, bullet proof glass and armour plating:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171climb-c.jpg

More details of this test can be seen here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html

Good work on this Buzzsaw. Note too that the Rotol propeller unit used on N3171 was heavier than the de H unit; the de H 2 speed unit weighed 345 lbs

For comparison tare weights are given here (Spitfire I w/de H unit 4,599lb, no armour or IFF):

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/l1007.html

Spitfire I w/Rotol 4,713 lbs a difference of 174 lbs:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html

With armour plating and IFF equipment fitted the standard de H propeller Spitfire I would have been slightly lighter than the Rotol equipped versions without armour and IFF, not forgetting the conversion to de H CS propeller, which would have added some weight to the propeller unit.

[flyingblind]

Very interesting. One point which might be worth considering is whether the real life weight includes a pilot. If not then the game weight would need to be a little heavier to allow for this although you would be unlikely to have a 700lb guy sat in the seat!

[winny]

Just for reference - 1 gallon of British fuel weighed 7.2lb (Spitfire - The History)

[Catseye]

Whew, gotta cut down on the beer and sausage!

Good find guys. The devil certainly is in the details. 1C have indicated in the past that they model on real specs. Hopefully they will get to them before the final patch.

Cheers

[JtD]

Very interesting. One point which might be worth considering is whether the real life weight includes a pilot. If not then the game weight would need to be a little heavier to allow for this although you would be unlikely to have a 700lb guy sat in the seat!Pilot is part of service load and included. It should still be noted that wartime tare figures and in game tare figure have little in common, what one has to look for is that fully loaded planes in game and real life have the same weight, and that usables like fuel and ammo correspond to historical figures. Empty weight historically, depending on air force and time, sometimes does not include guns, radio, armour and other things like survival gear, flares, gunsights, guncams, oxygen equipment etc., while in game it does.

[zapatista]

Pilot is part of service load and included. It should still be noted that wartime tare figures and in game tare figure have little in common, what one has to look for is that fully loaded planes in game and real life have the same weight, and that usables like fuel and ammo correspond to historical figures. Empty weight historically, depending on air force and time, sometimes does not include guns, radio, armour and other things like survival gear, flares, gunsights, guncams, oxygen equipment etc., while in game it does.

but that logic should then similarly apply to the spitfire and 109, yet neither of those has the "overweight problem" that the hurricane indicates according to Buzzsaw's OP

[csThor]

All 109s were too heavy when I last checked. Haven't noticed that this has been corrected, yet, either.

[Kwiatek]

FM and performace still need a lot of correction in CLOD:

- wrong weight of planes - overweight

- wrong maximum speed - all fighters are too slow

- wrong climb rate - too slow climb rate at medium to high alts

- wrong maximum service celling - way to low service celling

I know ( beacuse i was FM modder in old Il2) that such things was possible to make in il2 1946 i wonder what stops 1C to make it correct and more acccurate in CLOD???

[zapatista]

All 109s were too heavy when I last checked. Haven't noticed that this has been corrected, yet, either.

but by only about less then a 1/10th the amount we are now discussing for the hurricane, so not really relevant

if buzzsaw is correct, and by all indications so far he is, then this is a massive problem for the hurricane which needs to be resolved quickly

[Kurfürst]

but by only about 1/10th the amount

if buzzsaw is correct, and by all indications so far he is, then this is a massive problem for the hurricane which needs to be resolved quickly

It doesn't matter so much because how the FM is set up. The basic performance data seems to be set in stone (speed, climb, turn), and the engine just works out the results for different speeds/angles of attack/altitudes. More weight just not effects the raw performance so much as in real life, though it may well effect the handling/behaviour.

For example, since power and max speed are set, the engine may work out the acceleration from this, for which it also takes account weight. In the end, acceleration for example may be less due to increased weight, even though the plane reaches the same speed and turns just as well. OTOH it may well dive better than it should due to increased cross sectional densitity.

In short the effects are secondary, not primary.

[*Buzzsaw*]

The so-called "armor plating over the tank" is in fact just a very slightly thicker aluminium plate over the fuel tank (its more like a deflector plate since it can really stop bullets unless they come in a shallow angle)

Maybe you'd like to provide some proof for this assertion?

The weight added for the cockpit bullet proof glass and over tank armour is a total of 434 lbs, seems excessive if the armour plating was simply a thin sheet of aluminum. My understanding it was actual steel plate. I will be checking further references.

[JtD]

but that logic should then similarly apply to the spitfire and 109, yet neither of those has the "overweight problem" that the hurricane indicates according to Buzzsaw's OPThat logic indeed applies to Spitfire and 109 as well, and so it does to all other planes. If they aren't overweight or less overweight, they are simply not done as wrongly.

It doesn't matter so much because how the FM is set up. The basic performance data seems to be set in stone (speed, climb, turn), and the engine just works out the results for different speeds/angles of attack/altitudes. More weight just not effects the raw performance so much as in real life, though it may well effect the handling/behaviour.That's not quite right. Of course it is possible to reach correct performance with totally wrong input numbers in game, but once you have your parameters set, and then change weight, there'll be the associated loss in performance just like it would be in real life. But be this as it may, imo a simulation game should have both, input and output correct. Otherwise the term simulation is just an empty phrase. Proper weights are one of the foundations for this.

Like I've said before, the FM of the Hurricane as listed in that other topic is essentially the same which was used in il-2 1946. Same fundamental flaws. It's a nasty surprise it was carried over 1:1.

[JtD]

The weight added for the cockpit bullet proof glass and over tank armour is a total of 434 lbs, seems excessive if the armour plating was simply a thin sheet of aluminum. My understanding it was actual steel plate. I will be checking further references.Maybe you guys are talking about something different? The aircraft tested had so called fuel tank armour fitted already, and the overload condition was still on top of this.

[*Buzzsaw*]

All 109s were too heavy when I last checked. Haven't noticed that this has been corrected, yet, either.

Salute

After further investigation, it seems to me your assertion is actually incorrect.

The game lists all the 109E's at a max. weight of 2580 kgs.

According to this document, the 109E1 is close:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Me109e1-ladeplanes.jpg

But the 109E3 seems to be underweight.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Me109e3-ladeplanes.jpg

Above puts the 109E3 at 2608 kgs, or 28 kgs/62 lbs over the game weight.

In addition, there is another question.

I don't read German well so am unsure if armour plating is included in the list of weights for the two above documents, it doesn't seem to be and many 109's did not have it when the Battle started. If it isn't included, then the 109's weight deficit is worse than I thought.

And here's a later Luftwaffe document which lists a '109E', (no type specified), with the weight at 2665 kgs.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Me109e-flugzeug-daten.jpg

That would be 85 kgs/187 lbs over the game listed weight, not an inconsiderable amount.

Thanks to Mike Williams WWII Aircraft site for these documents:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

[*Buzzsaw*]

Maybe you guys are talking about something different? The aircraft tested had so called fuel tank armour fitted already, and the overload condition was still on top of this.

I realize the test aircraft L-2026 was equipped with the glass and plate. Kurfurst was making reference to the nature of the armour plate over the tank, suggesting it was just thin aluminum and not capable of providing much protection. My question was where his sources for that were, and why the weight was as much as 434 lbs if it was just aluminum.

[JtD]

We're not on the same page here.

L 2026 was equipped with a early production windscreen and armour plating over the fuselage fuel tank. In this configuration it was tested at a flying weight of 6316 lb.

In addition to this, the aircraft was ballasted an extra 434 lb in accordance with an Air Ministry letter, to be tested at overload condition of 6750 lb.

So, no - armoured glass was not fitted on the aircraft. Some sort of fuel tank protection was, but this has nothing to do with the extra 434 lb, as it already was installed.
Question - why do you think 434 lb is meant to simulate armour upgrades? Is that an assumption or do you have more background information?

[JtD]

I don't read German well so am unsure if armour plating is included in the list of weights for the two above documents, it doesn't seem to be and many 109's did not have it when the Battle started. If it isn't included, then the 109's weight deficit is worse than I thoughtIt says below the table that this represents a fully equipped aircraft without armour plate.

[NZtyphoon]

Maybe you'd like to provide some proof for this assertion?

The weight added for the cockpit bullet proof glass and over tank armour is a total of 434 lbs, seems excessive if the armour plating was simply a thin sheet of aluminum. My understanding it was actual steel plate. I will be checking further references.

A number of books on the Spitfire detail the modification to the fuel tank plating; viz 3mm thick alloy, not steel plate, which provided some degree of protection from small calibre bullets and shrapnel:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/SpitfireIarmour-page-0012.jpg

The weight of the armour plate behind and under the seat and behind the headrest was 73 lbs, so where the figure of 434 lbs comes from I have no idea.

[Kurfürst]

Maybe you'd like to provide some proof for this assertion?

The weight added for the cockpit bullet proof glass and over tank armour is a total of 434 lbs, seems excessive if the armour plating was simply a thin sheet of aluminum. My understanding it was actual steel plate. I will be checking further references.

The Spitfire I carried a total of 51 kg armor. The said thicker (3.5mm)plating over the fuel top of the fuel tank was just 12.1 kg, the armored glass only 9 kg. Most of weight thus came from the numerous, bulky steel plates, most of which were however not terribly effective as they were rather thin.

109E armor weight was iirc 46 kg, that's essentially the weight of the large 8 mm thick armored bulkhead in the rear fuselage.

[*Buzzsaw*]

We're not on the same page here.

L 2026 was equipped with a early production windscreen and armour plating over the fuselage fuel tank. In this configuration it was tested at a flying weight of 6316 lb.

In addition to this, the aircraft was ballasted an extra 434 lb in accordance with an Air Ministry letter, to be tested at overload condition of 6750 lb.

So, no - armoured glass was not fitted on the aircraft. Some sort of fuel tank protection was, but this has nothing to do with the extra 434 lb, as it already was installed.
Question - why do you think 434 lb is meant to simulate armour upgrades? Is that an assumption or do you have more background information?

Salute

Just trying to determine facts here JtD... :)

I am not sure if you have more information, not suggesting you are incorrect, I had assumed the reference to the windscreen was to an bulletproof glass one, why else would they mention it, and the fact it was flush? The original bulletproof windscreens were fitted to the outside and protruded.

Not sure about the 434 lbs, did make the assumption it had to do with the armour planned to be added, not sure your assumption the aircraft weighed 6316 with the armour is correct, the weigh chart listed on Mike Williams site, (his adaption of the original) is not clear.

I am going to consult a copy of Morgan and Shacklady's book in next day or so to see if they can shed some light on the situation.

[*Buzzsaw*]

It says below the table that this represents a fully equipped aircraft without armour plate.

Salute

So the 109 weight deficit grows...

If according to the posted Luftwaffe chart, the max. weight of the 109E3 was 2608 kgs without armour, and since, according to Kurfurst, the armour was 46 kgs, then we should see a weight of 2654 kgs with armour, 74 kgs/162 lbs over the weight of the game aircraft.

The 109E3 is 74 kgs light.

The 109E4 is at least that, and likely more, since it had additional equipment.

[Kurfürst]

Salute

So the 109 weight deficit grows...

If according to the posted Luftwaffe chart, the max. weight of the 109E3 was 2608 kgs without armour, and since, according to Kurfurst, the armour was 46 kgs, then we should see a weight of 2654 kgs with armour, 74 kgs/162 lbs over the weight of the game aircraft.

The 109E3 is 74 kgs light.

Yes, IF they have a functional armored bulkhead modelled. And it seems to me they do not...

The 109E4 is at least that, and likely more, since it had additional equipment.

Like?

[NZtyphoon]

The Spitfire I carried a total of 51 kg armor. The said thicker (3.5mm)plating over the fuel top of the fuel tank was just 12.1 kg, the armored glass only 9 kg. Most of weight thus came from the numerous, bulky steel plates, most of which were however not terribly effective as they were rather thin.

109E armor weight was iirc 46 kg, that's essentially the weight of the large 8 mm thick armored bulkhead in the rear fuselage.

And where did a weight of 12.1 kg for the light alloy plating come from?

That the 8mm thick 109E "armour" weighed only 46 kg indicates that it was not armour plate, which would have weighed considerably more, but probably a toughened alloy of some kind, or a sandwich of armour and alloy. Then we have the usual assertion of how bad British methods were cf the uber German...:grin:

[Friendly_flyer]

I'm amazed at the research Gents, do go on!

[JtD]

I am not sure if you have more information, not suggesting you are incorrect, I had assumed the reference to the windscreen was to an bulletproof glass one, why else would they mention it, and the fact it was flush? The original bulletproof windscreens were fitted to the outside and protruded.And I think because these bullet proof windshields were around, they found it necessary to mention that this was not installed on this aircraft. They also state that it is only the fuel tank armour that is different to L1547, which they tested earlier, and L1547 definitely had no armoured windscreen, as can be seen in the picture on the site (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-header.jpg). Also, the "early production" type windscreen as such was not armoured, and flush. To my knowledge, the Hurricane was never equipped with flush armoured windscreens, but then I might just not have seen it, yet.

[Kurfürst]

And where did a weight of 12.1 kg for the light alloy plating come from?

From a detailed report.

That the 8mm thick 109E "armour" weighed only 46 kg indicates that it was not armour plate, which would have weighed considerably more, but probably a toughened alloy of some kind, or a sandwich of armour and alloy.

You are simply wrong.

Then we have the usual assertion of how bad British methods were cf the uber German...:grin:

Well the British method was to put relatively low thickness armor plates in a lot of places, which were useful when you were shooted at with non-AP munition or by German bombers. Unfortunately the thickness used on British fighters (4.5 mm back plate, 6.2mm head plate) was only marginally effective when shot at by even 7.92mm AP munition.

[NZtyphoon]

From a detailed report.



You are simply wrong.



Well the British method was to put relatively low thickness armor plates in a lot of places, which were useful when you were shooted at with non-AP munition or by German bombers. Unfortunately the thickness used on British fighters (4.5 mm back plate, 6.2mm head plate) was only marginally effective when shot at by even 7.92mm AP munition.

Which report?

Prove it - show us the evidence this was armour plate.

Prove it.

[Kurfürst]

For you? :D :D :D

[Hood]

Messerschmitt - Aircraft & Legend - Nowarra

E1 - 2010kg empty, 2505kg All-up weight

E3 - 2060kg empty, 2610 All-up weight


Nothing to do with the Hurri weight though.

Hood

[JG52Uther]

So this is a bug yes? Has it been reported in the relevent thread?

[NZtyphoon]

For you? :D :D :D

Clearly Kf has no evidence for his assertions, so they can be discounted, as per usual. :grin::grin: :grin:

In the meantime the Hurricane is seriously overweight.

[JG52Uther]

So, some of you have decided to take a perfectly acceptable thread, about a possible bug in the game, and turn it in to the usual back and forth point scoring arguments.
On that note, if its a bug, put it in the the bug thread.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Please limit the discussion to the Overweight/Underweight issues raised.

JG52_Uther has kindly unlocked the thread at my request after locking it previously.

Please feel free to contribute information on the accurate weights of these aircraft.

In particular, anyone with information on 109E4 weights.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Messerschmitt - Aircraft & Legend - Nowarra

E1 - 2010kg empty, 2505kg All-up weight

E3 - 2060kg empty, 2610 All-up weight


Nothing to do with the Hurri weight though.

Hood

Nowarra's information is considered to be quite inaccurate and dated.

We should try to rely on original German or British documents or secondarily, original documents on captured aircraft.

[*Buzzsaw*]

And I think because these bullet proof windshields were around, they found it necessary to mention that this was not installed on this aircraft. They also state that it is only the fuel tank armour that is different to L1547, which they tested earlier, and L1547 definitely had no armoured windscreen, as can be seen in the picture on the site (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-header.jpg). Also, the "early production" type windscreen as such was not armoured, and flush. To my knowledge, the Hurricane was never equipped with flush armoured windscreens, but then I might just not have seen it, yet.

If the 434 lbs additional weight added has nothing to do with the actual weights of bullet proof glass and armour plate over the fuel tanks and behind the pilot, then what is the actual weight we should be looking at for a Rotol equipped Hurricane IA? You mentioned 6793 lbs as an upper end for a Hurricane I, but for a BoB aircraft, any info?

[klem]

And where did a weight of 12.1 kg for the light alloy plating come from?

That the 8mm thick 109E "armour" weighed only 46 kg indicates that it was not armour plate, which would have weighed considerably more, but probably a toughened alloy of some kind, or a sandwich of armour and alloy. Then we have the usual assertion of how bad British methods were cf the uber German...:grin:

Hmmmm well at the risk of 'switching sides':

8 mm x 0.75m x 1m Carbon Steel weighs 46KG
http://www.ralingroup.co.uk/weights.html
Does that help?

If steel plate behind the Hurricane pilot was said to be 1/4 inch thick. At 2.5 ft x 3 ft thats 75.6lbs and it was said to weigh 73lbs.

[Kurfürst]

Salute

Please limit the discussion to the Overweight/Underweight issues raised.

JG52_Uther has kindly unlocked the thread at my request after locking it previously.

Please feel free to contribute information on the accurate weights of these aircraft.

In particular, anyone with information on 109E4 weights.

E-4 = same as E-3 plus armor weight.

Merric writes 40 kg for the amored bulkhead (now that I have checked the source :D )

The armored headrest weighted 13 kg which we do not have in the game, and if fact, its somewhat uncommon to be seen on BoB era 109E.

In fact I seriously doubt that any of the 109E variants has any kind of armor modelled in CLOD. Because if we would have, rear fuselage shots at the 109E from direct astern should be completely ineffective against the pilot and fuel tank..

[ramstein]

I have no clue what the sheild behind the pilot seat weighs in a hurricane,, but a real P-40 pilot (who is a Flying Tiger) told me the sheild behind the seat weighed 60 lbs. They used to take them out to save 60 lbs, which increased aircraft performance. Every pound saved is precious. As it also had alot to do with balance and placement.

[JtD]

If the 434 lbs additional weight added has nothing to do with the actual weights of bullet proof glass and armour plate over the fuel tanks and behind the pilot, then what is the actual weight we should be looking at for a Rotol equipped Hurricane IA? You mentioned 6793 lbs as an upper end for a Hurricane I, but for a BoB aircraft, any info?I don't know what the 6750 lb are meant to represent, but it is not completely out of the way as later figures show.

I think the L 2026 is representative for BoB condition without bullet proof windscreen and rear armour plate, i.e. an early BoB version with constant speed prop, and when it's fully fueled up, you're at 6445 lb. Addition of armour and other minor equipment might have added maybe ~150 lb over the course of the year. So I perceive 6445 lb as the lower limit and 6600lb as the upper limit for that period, which puts 3311 kg from in game well out of the reasonable range, no matter which service condition it is meant to represent.

Thanks klem for posting figures on the Hurricane armour plate. Where did you find this info?

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

For the second time, please keep the posts to the issue at hand, ie. the weights of the aircraft.

[Kwiatek]

Here is Hurricane MK1 data. Max take of weight is 6793 lbs (3081 kg). So everything above these in CLOD is just wrong.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-ads.jpg


I checked difference between SPit MK1 (without pilot armour plate) and MK II (with pilot armour plate):

P.7280 ( MK II) - 6172 lb. (2800 kg)
N.3171 ( MK I) - 6050 lb. (2744kg)

..This aeroplane ( MK II) was fitted with a bullet-proof windscreen, armour plating over the petrol tank and externally, apart from the radiator, was similar to the Rotol Spitfire I, N.3171, previously tested at this establishment. The radiator of P.7280 is of the Morris type and tests were called for to determine the suitability of this radiator under tropical conditions. Internally, one difference between this aeroplane and N.3171 has been the fitting of armour plating behind the pilot in the Spitfire II. Generally, any change in performance or handling can be attributed to the change in engine and radiator alone. "

So Spitfire MK1 with aditional pilot armour should have take off weight ab. 6123 lbs ( + 73 lbs armour) - 2777kg

[TomcatViP]

You guys are incorrigible.

Hurri had a complete wing re-skin from fabric to aluminium. After the expeditionary corps experience, rear armor plating was fitted to many hurri/ Structurally it was made also stronger. Also, most of the props were de-havilland wich was more effective but heavier.

Stop trowing apples when CoD is made out of fine grapes.

[Kwiatek]

If you could read correctly data which i posted for Hurricane MK I is from 6.8.1941 and maximum take off weight is listed as 6793 lbs / 3081 kg not 3300 kg like in CLOD.

[TomcatViP]

Where is your source coming from ?

Do you think that all early mkI were eradicated in 1941 ? There was still plenty in Asia, Africa, flight school etc..

I trust the books written by historian.

[Kwiatek]

I trust the books written by historian.

Well if you trus books written by historican you live in big mist of history. I read many books where was huge errors in data for aeroplanes. I trust more primary or orignal sources then books writeen by historican

Well have you any data claimed 3311 kg for Hurricane MK1?? Casue i havent seen any. I wonder from where 1C got it? MAby russian books where Spitfires had wodden wings and russian planes outperform anything on the earth including UFO?

Backing to topic take off weight 6793 lbs ( 3081 kg) is the highest weight listed for Hurricane MK1 ( non tropical version) i have seen. Most data clamied much less take off wegiht ( probably without aditional armour)

[JtD]

Hurri had a complete wing re-skin from fabric to aluminium.Which is already referenced in 1939 manuals. The skin stressed type wings were strength tested in 1940 for a 6700lb load.Also, most of the props were de-havilland wich was more effective but heavier.25lb.

A fully equipped MkIIa was 6998lb, according to the weight and balance chart in the manual. It essentially had all modifications that were included in the Mk.I, plus a few extras, and a heavier XX engine installation.

[klem]

I don't know what the 6750 lb are meant to represent, but it is not completely out of the way as later figures show.

I think the L 2026 is representative for BoB condition without bullet proof windscreen and rear armour plate, i.e. an early BoB version with constant speed prop, and when it's fully fueled up, you're at 6445 lb. Addition of armour and other minor equipment might have added maybe ~150 lb over the course of the year. So I perceive 6445 lb as the lower limit and 6600lb as the upper limit for that period, which puts 3311 kg from in game well out of the reasonable range, no matter which service condition it is meant to represent.

Thanks klem for posting figures on the Hurricane armour plate. Where did you find this info?

Not the best of sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane_variants
"From about May 1940 70 pounds of armour plate protection was added in the form of head and back armour."

Actually I think the specific 73lbs was the Spitfire armour
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html
"N.3171 weighed in at 6,050 lbs. The 73 lb. pilot's armour found on more mature Spitfire Is was lacking."
But they would have been very similar. Some of the armour plate appears to be present in the Hurricane MkI we have in the Museum and which was recovered from a hole in the ground in Hove (near Brighton). Flown by Dennis Noble out of Tangmere, 30th August 1940.

[Friendly_flyer]

A fully equipped MkIIa was 6998lb, according to the weight and balance chart in the manual. It essentially had all modifications that were included in the Mk.I, plus a few extras, and a heavier XX engine installation.

The Mk.II not only had a larger engine, it also had a supercharger. This meant the motor house had to be exanded by 4 inches, changing the COG a bit. As long as armament and fuel is acounted for, there's no way a Mk.II could be lighter than a late Mk.I.