Because shooting a speeding aircraft from a fixed position is so easy. I wonder what manner of dumbed down, auto-aim, clown fused shells do you think they will use?

I frikken weep for the future of this series.

According to Wikepedia :-
"Bf 109 E-4/BN - drive catered DB 601 N engine power of 1175 hp. It was necessary to use stooktanové (?) fuel. Made 35 pieces. "

Which one of the 35 they built would you like? :D

Hahha yes!

I cant wait to see who will start the first online regiment of FLAK gunners. That would be funny. Maybe even a tank regiment!

Surely the suggestion of auto-aim is a bit of a wild assumption? I will say, though, that judging from the state of most computer simulations/games these days, it's not an unfair one mind. :D

I'd have thought shooting a speeding aircraft from a moving position (ie another aircraft) is much harder.... at least until the aircraft is out of range or exploiting a blind spot. Using AA, at least during ww2, was always a mix of skill and sheer luck.... if that was not so, I feel air combat would have been rejected as a strategy. No point flying a plane whatsoever if, the very minute you come up against AA, you are dead. On that note, I welcome the idea of playable AA.... though I can imagine it to be a somewhat frustrating experience. lol

I tend to agree. It's an arcadish, useless feature. Most of the pilots will spend five minutes on it and then go back to flying, maybe on RoF or WoP. Bah!

Not sure about that, Vulchers shot down can be very addictive :razz:

Also it makes the target bombing very tough, the true balance to level bombing :)

This is what I humbly think of the alleged uber and easy to use flak. The reason that it is easy for you fighter pilots (I primarily fly pinpoint strike, Jabo, or bombers, not many dedicated fighter flights) is because you guys have mastered the art of leading in the sky but the typical anti aircraft gunner isn't since they don't reactive much training. I think it was during the battle of midway that a Japanese fighter ace took control of a flak gun (he was grumbling on how poor the real crews were) and was successful in shooting down targets but I don't remember where I read that. I really hope we can use the legendary 88mm but it would be a little difficult.

Manning range finder for a battery might be interesting.

Yeah I read that too about the pilot kicking a gunner out of an AAA in Saburo Sakai - Samurai :D

Some spotty albino kid sitting on a bofors gun and blowing the crap out of every friendly aircraft that spawns is something you will have to get used to. Then you'll be wishing you had your vulchers back. ;)

albino????

Who knows?

Wonder what the symbols in the top left of the vid screen are all about?

its okay...give us a manned Flak, let us walk on the ground, after we are shot down and landed with chute on ground.
so we can kill the flak gunners with our Luger :p

The left one shows the cartridge: "He" by AA and "AP"? by the tank.
The right one shows direction and angle of the flak.
What the other 2 in the middle mean, I have no clue... maybe distance??

HE = High Explosive (AA) :

Type: MkIIIT
Mass: 0.93 kg
Projectile spec: HighExplosive 0.5 kg / Fragmentation 0.067 kg of TNT
MuzzleVelocity: 875 ms
Fuse type: Timeout
Projectile lifeSpan: 20 sec

AP = Armor Piercing (used against the panzer) :

Type: MkI
Mass: 0.88 kg
Projectile spec: ArmorPiercing 0.4 kg / Concussion 0.05 kg of TNT
MuzzleVelocity: 875 ms
Fuse type: Contact
Projectile lifeSpan: 20 sec

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29684

For years.. even before IL-2 itself there have been members of the flight simming community that have been asking for manable AAA.

Had 1C not added manable AAA..

All the post complaing about having it would be replaced by post complaing about not having it

Just another example of dammed if you do dammed if you don't

Personally, I would rather see 1C spent their time and money on plane oriented things

But maybe this is an example of what Luither recently talked about?

With regards to team members not being able to be pulled off what they are good at and put onto something else.

Assuming that is the case here, as in the team member(s) doing the AAA can not work on something else (say gun turrets in a bomber) than I would rather have them doing AAA than nothing at all.

It could be worse!

At least this is related to flight simming! Let's just hope they draw the line there and don't try to include a tank sim too! As much as I would love to see a good tank sim done by a company like 1C, the reality is (thus far based on 20+ years of gaming) that any game that tries to be all things end up doing no one thing very well. The only exception to this rule I have found is ARMA.. Which is still the most realistic FPS out there.. but at the same time has a vehicle and flight sim build into it. And anyone that has played ARMA knows the vehicle and flight aspects of ARMA are really dumbed down. So with that said, as long as 1C keeps the flight sim aspect the main focus, and all 'other' things added to it are the dumb downed aspects like ARMA than I would be happy. Assuming those 'other' things added are just because said team members have nothing flight sim oriented to work on at the moment.

Bingo!

As in no one is holding a BoFo to your head forcing you to use it! ;)

I agree. 100%

I don't care about manable AA in CoD and I don't care if they put it in for someone who does either. Its really no problem.

Just as long as they fix CoD's multiple major problems first, then its no issue at all.

Yep, they can put in manable rocking horses for all i care as long as they fix the major problems and bugs.

First?

Well that depends, I would agree if the team members doing the AAA could be working on the bugs..

But based on what Luther said, that is not allays the case.

Therefore if the team members who did the AAA can not help in fixing the bugs, and have no aircraft oriented things to work on, than I think it is a good idea to have them doing the AAA as opposed to doing nothing at all.

I noticed the He-59 skin...are we going to get this bird at last ?
Screenshots fron a couple of years ago:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...e-59C-2_01.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...e-59C-2_02.jpg
BTW - do we put these new skins in our Game /skins folder or are they only templates for skinners?

Thanks B6 and Team for this update. Its great to see the hard work.

I must say i cant wait for the update wich hopefully eliminates stutters and increases performance.


S!

Wow! I agree with your comment 100% and you still find a way to split haiirs in order to start an argument. Pathetic obsessed arguing deserves a ban.

I will clarify for those who need help. Replace "first" with ""as their first priority" T

S!

Really?

So, pointing out the facts oh what Luither said with regards to fixing bugs is spliting hairs and starting an argument?

You do have a strange view of the CoD world IMHO..

May I make a recomendation that you put me on ignore? Because you allways seem to get upset with anything I say.

More planes!

Yes REALLY! Dude read my clarification. It explains why your quote is unnecessary and irrelevent:

I will clarify for you. Replace "first" with ""as their first priority" It does not mean they can't do anything else as long as their first priority is fixing the multiple major problems with CoD. Sheesh!

Does anything give you the impression it's not their first priority?

Just to be clear, your clarification came after my initial response that you got so upset about.. Thus not relevant

As for my replies in response to your replies to me

It is quite simple..

Don't reply/respond to something I said if you are incapable of accepting my 'point of view' when I reply 'back' to you

Now since you refuse to put me on ignore..

And insist on trying to make this into something it is not..

Know that I for one am going to take the high road here and not muddy up this thread anymore by playing tit for tat with you in public..

From this point forward in this thread I will simply respond to you by saying 'see PM'

Will that make you happy?

In when the Sim's in the battle of England ? Lol !
In the battle of Moscow shall we have the possibility of interpreting the role of a Soviet farmer, his doubts and his fears at the approach of the period of the harvests?

Wow, I thought I was taking the high road agreeing with you 100%. Sorry for trying to agree with you and not arguing.

No do not PM me I do not want to take it to another level with you spamming my email with notifications.

Thanks BlackSix & 1C Team
as promissed, great update! CoD with it's potential is the best flightsim to me, not perfect yet, but a X-15 one day. Committed community, also. Go on!

I don't know how many times the phrase "Low flak over Manston" has been uttered on ATAG teamspeak but it is a lot! AA would be great but looking forward to the patch.

I don't look forward to wait hours for bandits behind a flak gun, without even the fun of flying. And don't tell me about Manston in ATAG, speaking by experience (CAP) you can spend a lot of time even there waiting for low level vulching attacks. Imo, if no flight sim had such a feature before, there must be a reason. Boredom, maybe? Maybe I'm wrong, but this one will be like the useless blond-girl-on-a-spit mission.

Well you wouldn't wait for hours. I imagine you would spawn in at Manston, see the flak and hop out of your Hurri and into the AAA.

IIRC the Shell refinery in Manama produced the 100 octane, benzene rich gasoline. Tankers would then bring it past South Africa to Britain.

Provided that you fly Red :-)

Exactly. I don't think there was ever the suggestion of waiting around for hours waiting for something to happen. You spawn and find your base under attack so you man the defences....I've seen my son doing precisely that in some online WWII game or other. It's not a major part of gameplay for sure but it does give you the chance to have a pop at them.

If it's designed well they'd let you jump from area to area to follow the action too.

Have you ever gone fishing? :) It may not be the sport for you?

Intermitant rewards can be more desirable than instant gratification!

Sometimes when spawning at LittleStone I've jumped straight to the turret and had a pot shot at the vulchers! I doubt I've actually done any damage but its all a bit of fun.

Now we just need the performance increase to enable trees so the gunners can get a bit of visual cover!

cheers!

Lol... Imagine a blue team mate arranging an attack at Manston and then switching sides! :razz:

I'm glad the dev team decided that this would be the most important feature to add. -_-

They're working on MULTIPLE things. Just because they posted something clearly just meant as a fun new feature that's more of a bonus than something crucial, it doesn't mean that they're not working on the other stuff.

All that sarcasm and negative posting isn't helping anyone. Come on, we're all on the same team. They're busy making the game that you want to play. Why pay them back with spiteful comments?

Remember: We asked for updates. We said, "anything, just give us something!"

We'll get the "hey guys, we fixed the AI, AI-comms, performance, etc." at some point, but hey, if we get some playable flak or some new ships in the meantime I'm cool with it. That doesn't deserve a reprimand.

Words carry weight. I'm assuming the PC flight sim crowd, one that's primarily past the teenager stage, understands this. Flaming and trolling belong on some Call Of Duty board, not here.

Stay positive! Yay! Happiness and rainbows! Shaking hands, smiling faces!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0KkLjABAzg

For heavens sake. Please just release a patch with improved AI.

At least then the game becomes slightly more enjoyable offline.

+1

This was (is?) a very popular opportunity in the MMPG Aces High. As you say, when you need it you can use it and its adds another dimension.

S!

In Aces High manned ack and AA vehicles are still a big part of base defence. The only problem I see with ack implemented is the too fast movement of it when player controlled. Aces High has it quite nicely done, you do not turn and aim in an instant as it should be. I tried to be the aimer on a 23mm Russian AA gun and boy was it hard :D

Next....

IL2: Panzer III vs T-34
IL2: Bismark vs Hood

Graphic motor has a great growing potential :rolleyes:

And I'd buy both titles in a heartbeat ; )

+2

with non collidable trees a tnak sim would be a winner

There will be a collision model for the trees long before the developers ever advance the series into combined operations sims.

source?

You don't need a source to know the devs will eventually be able to add a collision model for the trees. Its a must have and will be implemented after the sim is better optimized, the trees are optimized, computer systems upgrades allow it, or a combination of these fixes.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...859#post387859 check rule 18.

i will not report you this time tough

LMFAO, I could give a rats ass, you might as well shut down the forum, while your at it.

name calling? 10 more points to you sure.


ok ill stop it :grin:, i jsut love this new infraction sytem and how hard it is not to break it.

pretty sure im breaking rule 14 with the above comment, perhaps rule 5 ....

i wouldnt count the trees tough. im MY OPINION, no speculation, simply a mans opinion on computer game development, we wont see it in 5 years.

Personally I think we will see a tree collision model, by atleast sometime next year, sooner or later depending on how long its going to take to fix quite a few other must have features.

If they want to take it into combined operations territory, they will definitely have to do this... otherwise, my mind is filling with images of tanks driving through trees etc :D

I guess it will not be that much of a problem adding collision detection for all objects for the tanks (which naturally is a must). Then you only have to do collision detection for a rather small area around the tank as it's not travelling at 500 km/h over tens of thousands of trees per minute?

I did try a 40mm Bofors (they have one on Bornholm nearby left over since the war). I was amazed how fast it actually was to traverse it! Then of course, you control horizontal on one side and vertical on the other so it takes a good team to aim good ;)

I was wondering when this was going to come up. Nicely done! I couldn't help but notice either. :)

Chivas that made me LOL :)

CLOD released March 2011...

Working trees sometime maybe depending on other things getting done in 2013!

Classic! almost a new sig! In fact...mind if i use it?

Its been hinted a few times by the developer that the new game engine was intentionally designed to allow for combined forces sim at some point. You will probably see some features necessary for a combined forces sim be enabled slowly thru the aircombat series. When most of the theaters of the air war are completed then you will probably see a combined forces sim come out in say ten years or so. Alot of the work like the maps will already be complete.

Chivas i dont think the CLOD maps will be used in 10 years for combined arms, they would be so far behide the technology by then they would be useless. Just take a look at maps being used right now for ground sims ...now imagine 10 years from now.

Not a chance.

That is a good point..

Alot of people confuse what goes into the 3D mapping info (wire frames, elevation data points, etc) with the 3D graphics engines..

What with the detal going into these maps these days I would not be suprised that they are still around in 10 years. Oh sure the graphics engine will more than likly change greatly over the next 10 years, but the basic map info does not necessarly have to change at all. We use alot of gps data in our 3D too (RAGE) here at WSMR.. But we can scale how much of it we want to use on the fly.

As for a combined forces sim.. Emmmm if past experance means anything than I hope they dont! Because thus far every sim that tries to be all things to all people tends to do no 'one thing' very well.. I personally hope 1C sticks with the main focus on flight sims.

Excellent point. Compare the graphics and maps of the original Medal of Honor with the latest Call of Duty ie MOH releases. You will see that the earlier games are almost nonplayable, they simply no longer are visually convincing. I would imagine the same case will apply in 10-15 years with flight sims. Who knows also what tech advances will be made in the future we cant really imagine now?

Wow, I'm just going to shelve this game and fire it up in ten years and then I'll have the best flight sim in the world. Can't wait.

ROTFLMFAO

The new game engine was designed to be easily upgraded, much more so than the original Il-2 engine. Take the ocean and rivers for example, the engine is capable of improving water much like the water was improved in the original series. Also the new engine is capable of giving the rivers, riverbanks, which will make a huge difference in the overall look of the terrain.

All aspects of the terrain can be adjusted more realistically as resources allow. I have no doubt that the terrain will look much different as it evolves over the next ten years.

Personally I don't think we will lose flight sim quality as the sim slowly evolves into a combined forces sim. People building terrain vehicles, or ships arn't adversely affecting those people building the aircraft and other game play features in the sim. It will only add to the overall immersion of flying aircombat with a ground and sea war going on below. Maybe I feel that way as my flying as evolved into enjoying more ground attack missions over air to air. Although I do enjoy jabo runs and shooting a Spit down for something to do on the flight home. ;)

The original IL-2 in the last ten years evolved into IL-2 1946 plus Mods, one of the best combat flight sims ever, and I doubt anyone LTFAOOT.

I am LMAO. Ten years to make a sim is a joke. BTW, its been 6 yrs already for CoD add ten to that and its 16 years old. Technology will fly past CoD if it takes that long. Dream on.

Steam won't eve be here in ten years then what? Good luck with that.

Looking back on luthiers involvement in the il2 series, it is very much his habit to jump from one area to the next without finishing things completely. An all-forces gang bang that fails to represent any area fully would be the ultimate expression of his dilettante style of project management.

Wow, sometimes I don't know what the hell your talking about. I don't know how you figure its going to take another ten years for COD to evolve, I'm taking about the whole new series. Your not going to waste anymore of my time.

Not a fair comment. Luthier started building some Pacific maps and ships that evolved into Pacific Fighters that was never intended to include all aspects of the Pacific Theater. Never mind the copy write debacle, that had little to do with him. He then worked on some Eastern Theater addons. Its not his fault he and some of his crew were dragged away from the Korean War addon, to help Oleg's crew finish COD. What Olegs crew had developed so far was substantial but unfinished and still requires many manhours of rewrites.

Oh, sorry dude, I thought you meant CoD only. Because that would be crazy.

Ten years for a series is reasonable, however the kind of thing that Il-2 did over the last ten years is getting harder and harder to do. Series are becoming more and more separate games now because technology is evolving so fast. The days of running the same graphics engine etc. for ten years are over.

You made a great point and this scares me to no end about the new IL2 series! They are already moving along before things are straight in one theater.

Chivas, I wasn't thinking about the NG thing at all, more about trying to represent the entire pacific conflict from Pearl to the Home islands without fleshing out any particular area. Jumping later to the questionable content of 1946, then trying to give the Pacific Fighters treatment to Korea, before being reigned in to assume control of Cliffs, then zooming off on a tangent with the Moscow expansion. I just don't reckon that following through is one of his strengths. Maybe you feel that it is though.

Looks like you didn't read the article yourself....8-)

This implies (by the OP)that... yes the United States was shipping 100 octane fuel to Britain. I just implied that the US was shipping it to them not that we were the only supplier. I'm sure the History channel did their homework also... Oh wait isn't everything that we read on the internet true?? ;)



08-08-2009 07:02 PM #6
Glider
Glider is offline
Senior Member

Join Date
Apr 2005
Location
London
Posts
4,926

7th Meeting of the Oil Committee 18th May 1940

This you will have seen before but I add it for completion. The use of the Fuel has been made clear to Fighter Command and the distribution of the fuel has gone well.

What is interesting is what isn't in the file and its a big file. At no stage is any concern expressed about any shortage of 100 Octane Fuel the level of stocks or any lack of supply. There was never any mention of capping distribution or shipping stocks from one station to another or sector.

There was concern that the USA might embargo the shipping of 100 Octane Fuel but other sources of fuel had been identified and as a back up 35,000 tons of 100 Octane was to be produced in the UK to see if we could supply it from our own resources. This was done but the plant (Billingham) went back to the processing of 87 Octane when the test was completed. Cost was the reason, it was more expensive to produce 100 Octane in the UK.

Cost was a theme in all discussions even to the point where the committee was deciding if a team of workers at one refinery should be paid a weeks overtime. I wish our current leaders were as keen to save money.

I agree in some respects, but you have to draw a line at some point. It would have been almost impossible to complete a major portion of Pacific Theater, at some point you start losing money as the return won't cover the cost. The same happened to COD, and they are now trying to finish the game engine, finish COD, and build BOM. They're barely holding their heads above water atleast until the game engine is finished. I also agree that the development won't completely flesh out COD, but they will be providing the SDK, so we should see COD evolve in every imaginable way by talented people in the community, and third party groups.

Ok, no problem, although I don't think that running the same game/graphics engine is a problem if its easily expandable. Oleg talked about making the new game engine future proof, by making it modular. As in the graphic engine module could be rewritten to incorporate new tech, without overly effecting all the other game engine modules. In Olegs first IL-2 game engine everything was mixed together so much that changing one thing caused major bugs, and problems in other code, features etc. Although it made it much harder for modders to hack the code. That isn't applicable this time as the developer is releasing the SDK.

Regarding CLOD as I predicted some time ago the game is effectively dead, with no plans to add any more aircraft, no dynamic campaign or weather all we can hope for is a fix to finally make the game work without crashing. Maybe if the devs are feeling generous the FM and DM's will get a makeover but other than that the game is finished, to me Luthier as made it quite clear the future is BOM. CLOD was just a way to finance BOM.

Hi Kwiatek,
please can you provide the source of that information?

Regards Varrattu

I'm not a specialist in those topics but you can read it here for example...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

They state the following:

"German data of the Me-109E shows top level speed ranging from 342 to 348 mph. Russian charts show top speed of the Me 109E-3 was 342 mph. French tests of a captured Me 109 returned maximum speeds ranging from 342 to 354 mph. (Il en résulte une incertitude sur les résultats: from estimated position error). 2a 2b 2c Swiss full power horizontal flight speeds of a Me 109 with DB 601 Aa averaged 348 mph at 16,404 ft. 2d US flight tests of an Me 109 E-3 operating at 1.3 ata obtained 290 mph at sea level and 339 mph at 17,500 feet. 2e Some German documents suggest that mature Me 109Es having DB 601As with improved superchargers may have achieved 354 mph at 16,404 ft. All figures without armoured windscreen, excepting Russian where condition is unknown. "

Does this help?

The most interesting documents are here:

http://kurfurst.org/#Emil

It is need to read it carefully.

I found for sure that German tested serial 109 E with Db601A at 1.3 Ata (990 PS) reached at the deck 467 km/h. ( radiator 1/4 open)

So with emergency 1-minut power at 1.4 Ata (1100 PS) 109 E would be even faster - about 15-20 km/h faster ----> so about 485 km/h at the deck (1/4 radiator open)

According to German manual for 109 E with Db601Aa at 1.45 Ata (1175 PS) it reached at the deck 500 km/h ( probably radiator closed looking at other 109 test like French and British also looking at climb times).


Of course it would be very short time to keep that speed beacause 1.4(601A)/1.45Ata(601Aa) could be keep only for 1-minute. Also 1.3/1.35 Ata was allowed only for 5-minutes.

Other test - French and British cofirmed German manual claims that 109 E could reach 570 km/h at 5.0km but with closed radiators - position of radiators could change speed of these planes at about 20-30 km/h depend of altitude.

For comparision Spitfire MK1 at +6 1/2 lbs (1/2 hour limit) reached at deck 455 km/h (283 mph) but with emergency +12 lbs (5-minutes limit) it reached 505 km/h.

I agree. Project management, or lack thereof, was the real issue of this series along the last 7 or 8 years.

The value 500 km/h is presumably taken from a Yugoslavian translation of one BF109. I cannot find any German Document with such data.

Regards Varrattu

Here is link to some data from manual:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...chreibung.html

Here is data for V15a - German prototype of 109 E with Db601

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...15a_blatt6.jpg

Here is for German test of 109 E-3 Db601A at 1.3 Ata (1/4 radiator open)

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...MP16feb39.html

There may be factors for 1c that we have little information about. I read that Russia has funding and tax breaks available. For game developers who design games that can teach the population about Russian history. We all recall the photo of Dmitry Medvedev on the control stick...so bom, who knows what's at play here.:)

Bf 109E was rated at 500 km/h at 1,35 ata, 570 km/h at altitude. Production tolerance was +/- 5%. The data is from the official German specification sheet of 1939 for the Bf 109E type.
(the yugoslavian manual you have seen is a translation of this document)


BAUBESCHREIBUNG für das FLUGZEUGMUSTER MESSERSCHMITT ME 109 mit DAIMLER-BENZ-MOTOR DB 601

Transcription of Part V, Performance datasheets, are found here:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...chreibung.html

The relevant speed curve from the above document:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_..._Bau_speed.png

The current Bf 109E is way too slow, it does about 460 km/h at 1,35ata, and 470 or so at 1,45 ata. [/u]It should do 500 km/h at 1,35ata (1015 HP).[/u]

It should do more than 500 km/h at 1.45ata (1175 HP), obviously. Power requirements increase on the cube for speed, so that means with +15.7% power, you will get around +5% speed, or about 525 km/h at 1.45 ata.

In the below actual flight trial, 498 km/h was achieved with the Bf 109E-1 prototype, the was identical to the serial production airplane in equipment etc (the engine was not developing full power at the tests, and achieved 493 km/h. They have corrected the figures for full nominal power at 1.35ata)

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...w_109V15a.html

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...15a_blatt6.jpg

I really doubt Kurfust that any serial 109 E could do above 500 km/h at the deck - in such case it would be equal or faster then 109 F.

Most German data for serial 109 E Db 601 A at 1.3 Ata ( 1/4 radiator open) claim 460-467 km/h ( 5-minut combat power). I think it is very beliveable result (confirmed e.x. by Swiss test and other data). Of course 109 E at 1-minut emergency power 1.4/1.45 Ata will be faster at about 15-20 km/h (with radiator closed little more).

This.
BTW Anybody tested Spit Ia on the deck? It should go up to 583 kph and I think it doesnt. Usually, I have a hard time catching an Emils at full speed on the deck. Btw, Spit IIa should be a bit slower on the deck than Spit Ia (570kph) but with better climb rate. Is it in the game? I think its much faster than anything....But I agree that Emil should probably do about 550 on the deck.

Well it did 498 km/h at 1,35 ata, or 1018 HP measured in test.. why do you think, that at WEP (W button, 1,45ata, which produced 1175 PS on the 601Aa), that the extra 150 HP would yield no more than 2 km/h? Math simply suggest that an extra 150 HP will yield around 520-525.

Yes I agree that being as fast as the early F on the deck seems strange at first, but when you think it over, the F has a different (smaller diameter prop), that can easily result in +/-10 km difference alone. The G-14/AS, as per the book, was something like 8 km/h slower on the deck than the G-14 with the same horsepower (on the deck), but with a different prop.

On the other hand, on the E the 1.45ata rating of 1175 PS was really a short one minute burst, presumably intended for bombers taking off at heavy loads (He 111P!), while the 109F it was a full 5-minute rating. And of course the 109F is much faster at altitude, probably partially down to the new prop..

And of course the Spit I was also faster at the deck at than the early Spit V, so, I guess its just normal that "newer" just doesnt translate to "better" in every performance aspect.

Are you referring the Emil tests of the 17xx serial no. airplanes? In those case the point of the trial was to measure the difference if the MG FFs are mounted/not mounted, and if the slats are filled/not filled. The only relevant data to the tests makers was the relative difference in perfomance, because it probably allowed them to asses the invididual drag of these items (which turned out to be marginal).

And, in both trials it is noted that the speeds are not corrected for the nominal engine outputs (which they are in the tests I have posted), so they may understate the actual speeds if the engine was not running at its rated power (which was the case in the test I posted, where the E-1 did 493/498 km/h due to being down in power)

I strongly believe that the Swiss test show operation of the engine at the high altitude supercharger speed (ie. 2nd speed, bad for low level). If you compare to the E-1 trial I posted, you will notice the Swiss got very similiar results as the Germans using the Hoehenlader (2nd supercharger speed). So the Swiss tests IMO underline the validity of the 2 German trials I posted (showing 498-500 km/h).

It makes sense since the Swiss test is not a performance trial, in a sense they wanting to know what are the specs of the plane, but a comparison of top speed with three completely different propellers. Same reasoning as just above.

I think its beyond doubt that the correct low level rating for the 109E at 1.35ata is 500 km/h. This is what we have without the W button at full throttle.

There is the German test showing this, and btw, this is what is the OFFICIAL german spec for the plane, 500 km/h at SL.

Of course individual planes may have been slower - or faster, hence the +/- 5 % tolerance. Of course Hurris and Spits are neither modelled after the worst flight tests results either, so why would be 109s? They should be modelled after the nominal specs, like Spits and Hurris.

The 1.45 Ata speeds can be pondered on, but it seems we agree that the extra speed is worth about 15 - 25 km/h. Its a pretty good guess, becuase the math ruling it is simple. This should be simply added to the figure we know for certain, 500 km/h.

I'm sorry, I do not find any original German manual / document where a Bf 109E was rated at 500 km/h (1,35 ata) at Sea Level.

Are those 500km/h at Sea Level mean TRUE AIRSPEED or Indicated AIRSPEED?

Regards Varrattu

See post no. 287.

BAUBESCHREIBUNG für das FLUGZEUGMUSTER MESSERSCHMITT ME 109 mit DAIMLER-BENZ-MOTOR DB 601
/ Type sheet for the aircraft model Me 109 with DB 601 /


V. L E I S T U N G S B L Ä T T E R.

D a t e n b l a t t Me 109.


A b m e s s u n g e n: / dimensions /

Spannweite 9,90 m
Gesamtlänge 8,76 m
Grösste Höhe 2,45 m
Flügelfläche 16,40 m

G e w i c h t e:

Zelle 650 kg
Triebwerk 1075 "
Ständige Ausrüstung 85 "
Zusätliche Ausrüstung 200 "
Rüstgewicht 2010 kg
Zuladung 530 kg
Fluggewicht 2540 kg

Bem.: Bei den Gewichten ist eine Toleranz von +/- 3% vorzusehen.



B e t r i e b s s t o f f:


Kraftstoff 400 l = 303 kg
Öl 30 l = 27 kg



M o t o r l e i s t u n g: / engine performance /


1) Nennleistung 1100 PS in 3700 m Höhe
bei 2400 U/Min.
(5 min. Kurzleistung in 3700 m Höhe)

Erhöhte Dauerleistung 1050 PS in 4100 m Höhe
bei 2400 U/min
(30 Min.)

Dauerleistung 1000 PS in 4500 m Höhe

Sparsame Dauerleistung 970 PS in 3700 m Höhe
Bei 2250 U/Min.

2) Startleistung 1175 PS in 0 m Höhe
(zulässige Dauer 1 Min.)
bei 2500 U/Min.

3) Bodenleistung 1015 PS in 0 m Höhe
Kurzleistung (5 Min. Dauer)
bei 2400 U/Min.

Erhöhte Dauerleistung 950 PS in 0 m Höhe
(zulässige Dauer 30 Min.)
bei 2300 U/Min.

Dauerleistung 860 PS in 0 m Höhe
bei 2200 U/Min.

4) Schmierstoffverbrauch 5 - 8 g/PSh
je nach Drehzahl und Flughöhe

5) Kraftstoffverbrauch

Erhöhte Kurzleistung in 0 m Höhe = 250 g/PSh + 20 g/PSh
(zul. Dauer 1 Min.)

Kurzleistung in 0 m Höhe = 220 g/PSh + 12 g/PSh
(zul. Dauer 5 Min.)

Erhöhte Dauerleistung in 0 m Höhe = 220 g/PSh + 12 g/PSh
(zul. Dauer 30 Min.)

Dauerleistung in 0 m Höhe = 220 g/PSh + 12 g/PSh
(dauerend.)

Kurzleistung in 3700 m Höhe = 220 g/PSh + 12 g/PSh
(zul. Dauer 5 Min.)

Erhöhte Dauerleistung in 4100 m Höhe = 220 g/PSh + 12 g/PSh
(zul. Dauer 30 Min.)

Dauerleistung in 4500 m Höhe = 220 g/PSh + 12 g/PSh
(dauerend.)

Spars. Dauerflug in 3700 m Höhe = 210 g/PSh + 12 g/PSh
(dauerend.)



Flugdauer. / flight endurance /


Die Flugdauer bei Vollgasflug beträgt 1,1 h in 6000 m.
Bei entsprechender Drosselung erhöht sich die Flugzeit bis
auf zwei Stunden.


G e s c w i n d i g k e i t s - L e i s t u n g e n: / speed performance /


Höchtsgeschwindigeit in 0 m 500 km/h
in 1000 m 510 "
in 2000 m 530 "
in 3000 m 540 "
in 4000 m 555 "
in 5000 m 570 "
in 6000 m 565 km/h
in 7000 m 560 km/h

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_..._Bau_speed.png


Bei den Geschwindigkeiten ist eine Toleranz von +/- 5 % vor-
zusehen. Die Leistungen sind auf Cina-Temperatur gerechnet.



S t e i g z e i t e n. / climb times /


Steigzeit auf 1000 m 1,0 Minuten
auf 2000 m 1,9 "
auf 3000 m 3,0 "
auf 4000 m 3,8 "
auf 5000 m 4,9 "
auf 6000 m 6,3 "

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_..._Bau_climb.png

Bei den Steigzeiten ist eine Toleranz von +/- 8 % vorzusehen.
Leistungen sind auf Cine-Temperatur gerechnet.


Dienstgipfelhöhe. / service ceiling /

Die Dienstgipfelhöhe beträgt bei voller Ausrüstung 11 000 m.


Engste Kurvenradien. / tightest turn radius /


Im Luftkampf betragen die engsten Kurvenradien ohne
Ausschlag der Landeklappen / without flaps /

in 0 m Höhe 170 m.
in 6000 m Höhe 320 m.

Mit Klappenausschlag sind die engsten Kurvenradien / with flaps /

in 0 m Höhe 125 m.
in 6000 m Höhe 230 m.


Start- und Landestrecken. / take off-landing distance /


Bei dem vollen Fluggewicht von 2540 kg beträgt die Startstrecke
bis zu einer Höh von 20 m 420 m.

Die Landestrecke vom Aufsetzen bis zum Stillstand beträgt 300 m.

Die Landestrecke aus einer Höhe von 20 m bis zum Stillstand beträgt 485 m.

Die Landegeschwindigkeit beträgt 125 km/h.


True Air Speed.

French trials at ca. 980 Hgmm. Works out as ca. 1.3ata (we have 1.35ata engined model, which has a bit more power)

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...09EWNR1304.jpg

Its seems the French measured about 487 km/h at ca. 250 m with 1.3ata on a E-3.

Maybe I misunderstand your question, but TAS=IAS at s.l.

Cheers,
Ins

even the spitfireperformance.com says BF109E should do around 560 max at level :-)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

IAS and TAS almost the same at sea level.

@Kurfurst - I will test the Emils top level speed tonight and will post results here.....I doubt its only 470 kmh

I measured 460-470 near SL - as noted, it should be 500..

I did not test top speed (ie. at 5000m, where it should reach 570 kph TAS) because its impossible to test high altitude speed with reasonable accuracy. COD only shows IAS speed even in cocpit off mode, and the TAS/IAS conversion creates a too large margin of error to get accurate enough results, to draw any valid conclusions IMHO.

I fear you are right, but hope you are wrong. This update left me feeling they have moved on. Hope I'm wrong. If you are right they've lost me as a customer for good. There is no way I would trust a company that takes your money and doesn't finish their work (especially as unfinished as CoD is). Not in my home or online.

Only a sucker would buy BoM if CoD doesn't get fixed.

Except, in 5 years these already not so fantastic graphics are going to look really dated. There is no future proofing in technology unless you are satisfied with the outdated, and most simmers are not.

@Kurfürst

Thank you for the detailed message.

With a little patience it is possible to reach such horizontal speeds at sea level with the BF109E-iL2CoD ... ...

By the way: the BF109E-iL2CoD is fitted with a 1200 PS machine.

Regards Varrattu

Their decisions, their mistakes, their (possibile) bankrupt (although, russian sim "market" is big, *wink* *wink*)....btw, BOB theatre is well covered now with most (important) planes available (who participated in the BOB battle)...as onliner I dont care about offline campaigns but I feel your bitter....I hope they will optmise the graphics and to fine tune the FM and DM.