Don't make performances secret this time

[SG1_Gunkan]

Open data please, like Aces High. BoB is going to be the most complete air combat simulator in history por personal computers. Won't be complete without the planes performances.

[JoeA]

Originally Posted by Tvrdi

your dad is wrong, ramy...

Same crap Ramstein posted at the Zoo.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Furio

Simplification must be accepted, but if you talk about drag during climb, you should not mention top speed. Climb happens at much lower speed, and much lower drag (the best climb speed for the I16 is 200 kpm only).
But this is not my main point. Overall, the BF109 was a more modern and effective combat type than the I16, nobody dispute this. More: the 109 still had development potential, while the Polikarpov had reached (and passed) its peak. My point is that numbers on a flight manual are written while testing a plane in ideal conditions, and that the same numbers were seldom if ever reached in operative environment. In my opinion, faster planes suffer more than slower ones. Think at the effect of dirt, mud or light surface damages on a fabric covered biplane compared to the same on a laminar flow Mustang or B24. So, in my opinion, an overall levelling of performances is not that unrealistic. Numbers alone cannot explain how the P39 was outclassed in the Pacific in 1942, and held its own against Luftwaffe in 1945. Or how the P38 fared badly against Luftwaffe and did so well in the Pacific.
In my opinion, the I16 suffered more for Luftwaffe superior tactics in the opening stages of Barbarossa than for superior BF109 performances, and that such tactical situation is very hard to replicate in a game.

Everything you say is true. Production planes of all sides did rarely reach the prototype performances. BoB Hurricanes were , for example, something like 15 km/h slower than the prototypes; Soviet planes suffered even more from the production standards. Japanese planes, especially at the end of war, too, experienced workers having been drafted. As the germans begun using concentration camp labor, you can imagine the motivation of these people- there was sabotage, too.
US laminar wing planes you mention could never be even produced to the narrow tolerances needed for that kind of aerodynamics at that timepoint, nothing to say about repaired combat damage in field, etc. At last, an average pilot is not an expert test pilot, too- I bet same plane climbs better in such hands, for example.
Germans had tactics superior to that of all other combatants at the beginning of Barbarossa, and a long experience of using it in combat operations- beginning with Spain, and that is true, too.
It is true , too, that a plane at 400 km/h experiences four times the drag of a plane with 200 km/h. I simply ilustrated the point of the drag difference between two planes.
Let's make a small calculation of the power needed to lift the plane at certain speed thru the air.
Let's say I16 climbs at 15 m/s , and has a mass of 2000 kg; that makes it's weight approx. 20 000 N. Power used to lift the plane at the speed given is then 15m/s*20 000N= 300 000 W=300KW = (approx.) 300*1.3HP=400HP.
This is the so called Excess Power, which remains after the power needed to overcome all the other resistances has been deducted from the power available, in this case 930 HP.
That means even at 200 Km/h, 530 HP is absorbed by the parasite and (much less) induced drag of the I16. That explains , now, why 109F is such a good climber , with it's clean aerodynamic, and the stubby I16 less so, in spite of a very good power to weight.
Regarding the Lightning- well the germans had much more fighters performing well at height, and the radar, too.
P39 suffered because of its quite bad altitude performance- engine has been made for the low level work only, due to the political circumstances in the US before the war. Operations at the low level in the Soviet Union made that irrellevant- everywhere else not. The british had flatly refused the plane.
BTW. the plane is very badly overmodelled in game - where else- in climb. There are models that come to 7000 m 70 % faster than RL, and this has been almost 100% earlier in the game That makes people wonder- how on earth has this plane been unsucessful in the Pacific

[ramstein]

Originally Posted by JoeA

Same crap Ramstein posted at the Zoo.

wtf?? you want to pick a fight because you have your head up your arse? who died and made you god? anything I posted was based on fact.... Period. They are engineering and historical facts on the aircraft. And no, I am not going to gather up my posts and place them here because a STALKER like you comes after me. Yes, you are a stinking STALKER.

People like you make a civilized conversation impossible.

Here I am minding my own business and checking the forum, and see you pulling some $hit on me.

Flake off and go get a life and/or get back to work flipping burgers.

[Furio]

Originally posted by PE_thi
It is true , too, that a plane at 400 km/h experiences four times the drag of a plane with 200 km/h. I simply ilustrated the point of the drag difference between two planes.
Let's make a small calculation of the power needed to lift the plane at certain speed thru the air.
Let's say I16 climbs at 15 m/s , and has a mass of 2000 kg; that makes it's weight approx. 20 000 N. Power used to lift the plane at the speed given is then 15m/s*20 000N= 300 000 W=300KW = (approx.) 300*1.3HP=400HP.
This is the so called Excess Power, which remains after the power needed to overcome all the other resistances has been deducted from the power available, in this case 930 HP.
That means even at 200 Km/h, 530 HP is absorbed by the parasite and (much less) induced drag of the I16. That explains , now, why 109F is such a good climber , with it's clean aerodynamic, and the stubby I16 less so, in spite of a very good power to weight.


In my opinion, your calculation of drag should be revised a little, at least taking in account the drag produced by engine cooling, which is significant for piston engines. If really an I16 required 530 hp to just overcome its own parasite drag at 200 km/h, it would have been an airbrake, not an airplane, and I think it would have been incapable to reach 463 km/h top speed with the remaining 400 hp.
Anyway, I think we have bored enough everyone with math, so I stop here and leave you the last word.
We agree, I think, on the most important thing: all planes are more or less over modelled in game. But I see the solution in a general downgrading of speed and climb rates, not in the contrary. All this said, IL2 remains by far the best sim around, and I’m sure SOW will be the best for years to come. And people will continue to complain asking for more performance for their favourite plane.

P39 suffered because of its quite bad altitude performance- engine has been made for the low level work only, due to the political circumstances in the US before the war.

As for the Airacobra, in my opinion the real problem was not in performances at altitude. For what I know, air combat in the Pacific took place at altitudes generally comparable to Eastern Front: low to medium. American pilots were certainly as good as Russian ones, and Germans as good as Japanese. So, where it was the difference? In tactics, I think. Russians found the best tactics for a basically good machine. Accordingly to my sources, the P39 was at least 46 km/h slower than an FW190.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Furio

Originally posted by PE_thi



In my opinion, your calculation of drag should be revised a little, at least taking in account the drag produced by engine cooling, which is significant for piston engines. If really an I16 required 530 hp to just overcome its own parasite drag at 200 km/h, it would have been an airbrake, not an airplane, and I think it would have been incapable to reach 463 km/h top speed with the remaining 400 hp.
Anyway, I think we have bored enough everyone with math, so I stop here and left you the last word.
We agree, I think, on the most important thing: all planes are more or less over modelled in game. But I see the solution in a general downgrading of speed and climb rates, not in the contrary. All this said, IL2 remains by far the best sim around, and I’m sure SOW will be the best for years to come. And people will continue to complain asking for more performance for their favourite plane.


As for the Airacobra, in my opinion the real problem was not in performances at altitude. For what I know, air combat in the Pacific took place at altitudes generally comparable to Eastern Front: low to medium. American pilots were certainly as good as Russian ones, and Germans as good as Japanese. So, where it was the difference? In tactics, I think. Russians found the best tactics for a basically good machine. Accordingly to my sources, the P39 was at least 46 km/h slower than an FW190.

Well you really want precision We would then really be very boring, I suspect
Okay, taking the propeller efficiency of about 0.8, our I16 has about 750 HP left, minus 400; 350 are lost on the airframe, rest on the propeller )) Is it OK now?
The climb power calculation is quite correct; it s elementary physics. And I said parasite + induced drag

Air-sea battles in the Pacific, like everywhere else, did take part at low altitudes. Being no naval plane, Aircobra has mostly been used early in the Pacific war on the New Guinea theatre. With it's Owen Stanley range reaching over 4000m this was no low flying business.
The range had to be overflown by both sides in order to attack. The engine power started falling, from 2800 to 3500 m height, depending on the variant, but quite fast. The plane has been used with some success strafing ground targets on Guadalcanal. It was so hated by it's pilots that the cases of the deliberate plane destruction have been mentioned. USAAF pilots at the war begining often lacked experience, that is true. Soviets lighened their Cobras for about 300 kg, throwing out the wing armament and parts of armor. That certainly improved the overweight and undermotorised plane.

[II./JG1_Wilcke]

Regardless of what Oleg does with FM's and performance the same arguments that unfolded with IL-2 will arise with SOW. Its human nature. The complexities of realizing real flight in a sim is just daunting at this point in time. So again it will be an approximation and interpretation of what it was really like and the arguments will unfold as before.

[Al Schlageter]

With it's Owen Stanley range reaching over 4000m this was no low flying business.

I didn't know the Owen Stanley was like a fence with no breaks in it.

The Allison V-1710 was no different than the early versions of the Merlin.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by II./JG1_Wilcke

Regardless of what Oleg does with FM's and performance the same arguments that unfolded with IL-2 will arise with SOW. Its human nature. The complexities of realizing real flight in a sim is just daunting at this point in time. So again it will be an approximation and interpretation of what it was really like and the arguments will unfold as before.

If I see the performances as reasonably accurate, I wouldn't certainly take part in any argument. Differencies of 50% and 100% again - well, regerdless of what Oleg does,)) i won't fly such a sim once more. Giving a russian plane 50% or 100% more climb ... certainly is the human nature ))

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

I didn't know the Owen Stanley was like a fence with no breaks in it.

The Allison V-1710 was no different than the early versions of the Merlin.

It was very different. Allison had only a single stage supercharger, and after reaching critical height as low as 2800-3500 m, the power fell like a stone. Take a look at the climb performance of the P39D-2 here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...7320-chart.jpg

The climb (a bit different from what we have in the game is a direct function of the engine power.

Regarding the New Guinea operations of the P39, and Owen Stanley take a look here:
http://yarchive.net/mil/p39.html

Or take a look at the terrain between Moresby and Buna in Google Maps- look at the satellite pic.