Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[Kwiatek]

I moved it from another topic about FM issues in COD:

Originally Posted by IvanK

"So yor saying that normal full throttle boost in the mkII should be +9lb and +12lb when opening the boost gate? As of rigt now its only +9lb AFTER opening the boost gate...."

Exactly, correct terminology is selecting Boost Cut out to allow +12Lbs.



I am not sure if the devs are aware of Rotol versus DH spinner and blade profiles from 3D graphics point of view with respect the Spitfire. I will have a look myself and see.

Im not sure if power settings for 100 Octan fuel Merlin III which was used in SPitfire Mark 1 was +6 1/2 lbs ( nominal power ) and +12 lbs ( emergency power). It is possible that Merlin III with 100 octan fuel had different power settings - similar to Merlin XII ( Spitfire Mark II) and Merlin 45 early ( Spitfire Mark V)

Look at these document for Merlin III engine from 1940:



IT doesnt look similar to Merlin XII which used also 100 octan fuel?




Also developers really dont care too much RL performacne of BoB planes ( Spitfire, Hurricane and 109). It is another their fault in these game. I just check COD manual with peformacne data for Spitfire, Hurricane and 109 where is very wrong data for these planes ( climb rate, maximum speeds and turn rate).

Here are some RL data for these planes:


Spitfire Mark I from BOB period ( CS propeller, aditional armour and windshield)

Here is speed with old power settings - +6 1/2 lbs and with new emergency power - + 12 lbs.




Spitfire MK1 climb rate at 6 1/2 lbs:





Spitfire turn rate at 6 1/2 lbs CSP:





Hurricane MK1 from BOB peroid ( CS propeller, aditional armour, 100 octan fuel)




Climb rate for Hurricane MK1 but without aditional armour and armoured winshield



For comparison climb rate at 6 1/2 lbs Hurricane withou armour and with aditional armour




And the same with speed - Hurrciane MK1 without aditional armour



( Hurricane from BOB peroid with aditional armour/ armoured windshield would be slowier)



Bf 109 E-3 with DB 601 Aa engine - 1.45 Ata emergency power:

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

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

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


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

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.



Speed:

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



Climb rate:

S t e i g z e i t e n.


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 "





Turn rate :

These are, at Sea Level and at 6000 m, with and without deploying flaps to aid turning :

Without use of flaps :
at 0 m altitude - 170 m (557 feet), at 6000 m (19 685 feet) altitude - 320 m (1050 feet).

With use of flaps :
at 0 m altitude - 125 m (410 feet), at 6000 m (19 685 feet) altitude - 230 m (754 feet).


Similiar figures are given by a calculation by Messerschmitt AG on Bf 109E turn times and radius in an internal Messerschmitt report.

The calculation was based on a similiar set of data, but assumes the slightlly lower power output of the DB 601A-1 at 990 PS. Conditions in the calculation were 2540 kg weight, 990 PS output, an altitude of 0 m and no height loss. Under these conditions, the turning characteristics of the Bf 109E were as follows :

Turn time for 360 degrees: 18,92 seconds.
Turn radius for above turn: 203 m

Take note that the smallest turning radius and the best turning time do not occur at the same airspeed, which would

Further calculations were made for a diving turn of a descent rate of -50 m/sec, which would be equivalent translate to an overall power output

Turn time for 360 degrees in a -50m/sec diving turn : 11,5 seconds.
Turn radius for the -50m/sec diving turn above : 190 m



For comparison turn rate for Spitfire MK1, Hurricane MK1, 109 E-4


SPITFIRE Mk.I

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.2s 13.5s 14.7s -
Two 360s - 24.9s 28.2s 30.3s -

250mph
One 360 - 10.8s 12.8s 13.4s 14.1s
Two 360s - 24.4s 28.2s 29.9s 33.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 14.8s 16.0s 17.8s 20.8s
Full Flaps - 15.1s 16.4s 18.1s 21.8s
Best Flap - none none none none
Speed/best - 125mph 125mph 125mph 120mph


Hawker Hurricane Mk I

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.1s 12.4s 13.6s -
Two 360s - 24.2s 25.3s 30.0s -

250mph
One 360 - 10.2s 11.7s 12.9s 15.0s
Two 360s - 23.6s 26.2s 28.5s 33.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 14.8s 16.4s 18.5s 22.1s
Full Flaps - 14.8s 16.6s 18.4s 22.2s
Best Flap - full full full full
Speed/best 105mph 105mph 100mph 100mph


Bf-109E-4

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.9s 13.4s 15.4s -
Two 360s - 29.4s 31.2s 35.0s -

250mph
One 360 - 12.9s 13.7s 15.5s 16.7s
Two 360s - 31.0s 32.4s 36.5s 41.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 18.0s 19.3s 21.2s 24.1s
Full Flaps - 19.0s 19.8s 21.7s 24.8s
Best Flap - none none none none
Speed/best - 120mph 120mph 120mph 115mph





RL Data Speed for comparsion between Sptfire MK1 +12 lbs ( red) - Hurricane MK1 +12 lbs ( green) - 109 E-3 1.45 Ata ( black)






And now for comparson data from COD:











COD looks really off here. I think development team should really make better research in RL performacne of these birds and take care more about historical realism and accuracy like expect most IL2 fans.

[scorpac]

looks like it will be the same like the old il2... they hate AXIS!

[T}{OR]

I missed the thread where this was copied from.

So I have just one question: where is this data from? Sources and references?

[engarde]

Here.

We.

Go.

again.

[Matt255]

Did you actually check, if the ingame performance of those planes, matches the charts in the manual?

Or are you just assuming that this would be the case?

[Rickusty]

Fiat G.50 HAS NOT the overboost function - WEP (it was called "+100" and added 100 mmHg for the engine)
Engine power could be increased, for a short period of time, to 960 HP at 3.000 m.
The engine should be then running at 890 mmHg pressure.
In the game, manifold pressure at max throttle is 710 mmHg... A lot less than what it could achieve.

As it is now, the plane feels so underpowered.
It certainly wasn't. Power to weight ratio was 0,35 HP-KG... way better than Hurricane I for example (0,24 HP-KG).
I certainly doesn't feel like that in the game.

Whenever you start to make a shallow climb with a G.50, it stalls.
It wasn't fast, but... it could outclimb an Hurricane 1 so...

And it can just reach 350 km/h at sea level. IRL it could master about 40 km/h more.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Rickusty

Power to weight ratio was 0,35 HP-KG... way better than Hurricane I for example (0,24 HP-KG).
I certainly doesn't feel like that in the game.

Whenever you start to make a shallow climb with a G.50, it stalls.
It wasn't fast, but... it could outclimb an Hurricane 1 so...

And it can just reach 350 km/h at sea level. IRL it could master about 40 km/h more.

Hurricane Mk1 with MErlin III, CSP and aditional armour ( pilot armoured seat, fuel tanks and armoured windshield) had take off weight 3061 kg. With 100 octan fuel - power at 6 1/2 lbs was 1030 HP and at +12 lbs was 1310 HP so power to weight ratio was - 0.33 HP/Kg ( +6 1/2lbs) and 0.42 HP/kg ( +12 lbs).

Im not wonder that G50 had also wrong power settings in COD. Such problems have near all COD planes.

You could post here reliable data for G-50 also. Maby developers will be interesting in these.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by scorpac

looks like it will be the same like the old il2... they hate AXIS!

It is not about Axis or Allied or any side. It is just about inaccuracy which is in both side data. Just all.

Originally Posted by T}{OR

I missed the thread where this was copied from.

So I have just one question: where is this data from? Sources and references?

Data which i posted are mostly from these kown site about performacne WW2 planes where you can find scans of many RL documents and datas:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

and here about LW planes:

http://www.kurfurst.org/

Plus many data and scans, manuals, books etc. which i got from many years reaserching

Originally Posted by Matt255

Did you actually check, if the ingame performance of those planes, matches the charts in the manual?

Or are you just assuming that this would be the case?

I dont check it in game actually beacuse i dont have it yet. I just look at COD manual data for these planes and also read some topic where some other people write about FM issues in COD, like here in these topic:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19754

So i clearly see that there is a problem here and it would be good if developers would make it in right way in future patches. I see that they just have a problem with accurate data for these birds so i i think they need help here - if they want of course.

[JG4_Helofly]

Well, if the numbers in the manual match the actual performance of the plane in game, then it's way off (according to the data shown here)...

I wonder what source they used for the FM.