Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[5./JG27.Farber]

Well if we are using anecdotal and pilot accounts lets throw these into the fire:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

I stongley urge the red fliers especially to read this. Its a shed load of pilot accounts with sources, all about the 109 and what an Uber plane she really is!

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

I have done the tests using the values in the table for the DB 601 A and B manual. I believe the new compressor is modeled, so in the box "Flying Altitude" I used the left hand column, as there is significant drop off in Ata at 4.5 to 5km rather than 4 to 4.5km... I also performed the test on a multiplayer server in case FM's are different in single player.


Using ATAG_Keller's IAS TAS converter the results are:

Test 1 Sea level 1.3Ata 2400U/pm IAS 440 TAS 440 or 273 mph
Test 2 Sea level 1.23Ata 2300U/pm IAS 430 TAS 430 or 267 mph
Test 3 Sea level 1.15Ata 2200U/pm IAS 420 TAS 420 or 261 mph

Test 4 4500metres 1.3Ata 2400U/pm IAS 400 TAS 518 or 322 mph
Test 5 5000metres 1.23Ata 2400U/pm IAS 390 TAS 518 or 322 mph
Test 6 4900metres 1.15Ata 2200U/pm IAS 370 TAS 489 or 304 mph

http://youtu.be/O4jHSMyYdkg <---- Video of tests.

Now we need to dig out the real life tests and compare.


The effect of WEP also seems to have changed. I tried making it break the engine in the usual ways but could not manage it... It also seems to have effect at all altitudes now.

I found this:

http://www.rolfwolf.de/daten/E4/Emil.html



I assume these are full throttle speeds.

Höchstgeschwindigkeiten in Steig/Kampfleistung (Tabelle)
I assume this is TAS

0km 460km/h

1km 480km/h

2km 500km/h

3km 520km/h

4km 540km/h

5km 555km/h

6km 555km/h

7km 550km/h

[macro]

Yes farber the 109 is slower than it should be, i remember seeing this on aonther thread somewhere. I think if they can get the speed, climb rate, turn rate and acceleration of the planes sorted that would go along way to the realistic settings, then add plane specifics after, such as stalling in the spits in hard turns or aerliron snatching in the 109 with the slats etc. We'd be getting there.

Is the basic info available as fact? If so then the basics shouldnt be a problem for the devs to sort out, and in my opinion should have done already.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Yes macro, I think which ever way you look at it people would be happy either way if the figures added up for all aircraft - mathmatically or by accounts.

Thing is the devs dont come here. Only B6. If you want somethign doing you have to do the hard work then submit a bug report. We all know the phantom (ghost) formations were here from the start, people spoke of them on this forum but the devs did nothing because they didnt know, only after I got off my backside and submitted a bug report and evidence (ntrk) did they even know about it. The next patch is supposedly the steam official and after which no more changes specific to clod will be added - as I have read. So its vitally important we get it done now!

POST 19:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=32600&page=2

Posted by TNT
Take for instance the implementation of the view (I mean for owners TrackIR). Was she in the sequel gets like this? Where Igromir property shown on the Su-26? Then if Su-26 tucked back in CloD, then so much interesting start in virtual reality.

Posted by steam_
From what or whom depends the fate official CloD?
If CloD "will throw" the developers (no matter for what reasons) whether SDK to give modelers? Or the position of the publisher (as they say in Ukraine) "did not clutter and do not give the other"?
Again, mostly known facts:

Blacksix
1) All requests on views and TrackIR were collected and passed up, in the sequel, the case should move.
2) Su-26 and SDK are not canceled, but the priority they have is minimal. Deal with these issues now, no one. This is not the position of the publisher, it is a forced alignment tasks by priority because of the banal deficiency of resources.
3) At the moment, the main goal for CloD - to bring the current series of beta patches to the final status and publication on Steam. After that, the leadership will have take a decision on the future of the game.
4) We have a very tight schedule for a sequel. We are now focused with full strength on it, as of the success and timely appearance of a new game depends all of our future.

Now, regarding the further communication, if all of the CloD after the patch on the Steam will be phased out, we have a pause there, because on the sequel I have no right to tell absolutely nothing until its announcement. How is it to fill my mind right now.

[notafinger!]

I think the devs and the community would be best served by focusing on modeling the comparative differences between the fighters. Using historical documents, pilot testimonials, and any other sources available to create a flight model that feels historical. Let's ask ourselves some basic questions about the 3 major single seat fighters of BoB. In order how do the aircraft rank in _____ performance:

High Alt Speed:
Low Alt Speed:
Acceleration:
Climb:
Dive:
Roll:
Turn:

Maybe this should be a different thread as we, as a community, might come to some kind of agreement of what we would expect to see without focusing on absolute numbers.

[macro]

From what iv read in reports and such

High alt speed spit slightly faster
Low alt 109 slightly faster
Roll: spit rolls slower at high speeds but about same at slow speeds. The 109 more stable at slow speed roll due to slats.
Spit could catch 109 accell in dive with+12 boost. 109 Elevator very heavy and hard to pull out of dive at high speeds.
Iv read the common tactic of steep but rarher slow climb of 109 was actually used by 109 pilots to get away from spits. Sounds like this is realistic in game.

Turn rate in spit was better that 109 when pushed to the limit, would need some sort of stall characteristic in spit for game balance.

Am i right or well off the mark? Not read enough about hurri to comment my opinion

[Matt255]

High alt speed spit slightly faster
Low alt 109 slightly faster
Roll: spit rolls slower at high speeds but about same at slow speeds. The 109 more stable at slow speed roll due to slats.

I read exactly the opposite.

Spit faster at low level, 109 faster at very high altitude.
Spit rolling slower at very low speed, both Spit and 109 ailerons becoming very hard to move at speeds above ~ 600 km/h / 400 mph.

Spits controls overall slightly less heavy at high speed.

I also don't see what the 109 slats have to do with rolling or why the plane would be more stable because of them.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by macro

From what iv read in reports and such

High alt speed spit slightly faster
Low alt 109 slightly faster
Roll: spit rolls slower at high speeds but about same at slow speeds. The 109 more stable at slow speed roll due to slats.
Spit could catch 109 accell in dive with+12 boost. 109 Elevator very heavy and hard to pull out of dive at high speeds.
Iv read the common tactic of steep but rarher slow climb of 109 was actually used by 109 pilots to get away from spits. Sounds like this is realistic in game.

Turn rate in spit was better that 109 when pushed to the limit, would need some sort of stall characteristic in spit for game balance.

Am i right or well off the mark? Not read enough about hurri to comment my opinion

Originally Posted by Matt255

I read exactly the opposite.

Spit faster at low level, 109 faster at very high altitude.
Spit rolling slower at very low speed, both Spit and 109 ailerons becoming very hard to move at speeds above ~ 600 km/h / 400 mph.

Spits controls overall slightly less heavy at high speed.

I also don't see what the 109 slats have to do with rolling or why the plane would be more stable because of them.

Just make them the same then pilot skill will be the wild card

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

Just make them the same then pilot skill will be the wild card

We did that briefly in ATAG's Server #2 a couple of weeks ago. The Engine Temperature Management was temporarily switched off so we could evaluate the effects of radiator drag without overheating the engines. (Radiators are closed by default and cannot be opened). The 109 E4 and the Spitfire MK 1a 100 octane had the exact same speed at sea level at full WEP (109) and 11 lbs boost (Spitfire). Both aircraft would travel literally wingtip to wingtip for miles above the waves going full out - neither aircraft gaining an inch on the other. On cue (using Teamspeak) both aircraft were then pulled hard up into a vertical climb, engines remaining at full throttle WEP/11 lbs boost. Both aircraft climbed to the same height wingtip to wingtip, stalling out at precisely the same instant.

We did this online so we could easily do plane vs plane comparos, but you can test this easily offline with your favourite aircraft simply by unchecking Engine Temperature Management in your Realism Options. The flight models tested to be the same offline and online.

This was a very brief test on Server 2, it was soon put back to Full Switch. But for a brief time it was exhilarating to fly a Spit in equal terms with a 109. Makes for some very long -- and exciting -- dogfights between equal pilots. Once Engine Temperature Management is turned back on, the Spits are saddled with huge, no......make that HUGE.....radiator drag penalties in terms of square area, drag coefficients, and no apparent modelling of the Meredith Effect.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by winny

but you also need the combat reports.

Don't get me wrong..

I think combat reports are great for many things..

Just not great for validating a flight model!

Combat reports say more about the men and their mind set and their tactics..

But very little about the planes performance!

I will say this, you can gleam flying qualities from combat reports.. Stuff like

'I felt a slight buzz in the stick just before the stall while turning with the 109'..

But that description tells you nothing about the stall speed at which this occurred..

As I already pointed out..

Most combat reports don't include enough info to recreate the scenario in the game to see if you get the same results in-game..

Unlike real world data (test reports) that are performed using strict and repeatable methods..

For example..

I can recreate an ROC test in-game using the same real world methods to see if the real world results match the in-game results..

But how do I recreate a scenario to test from a combat report that says..

'In my Spitfire, I dove down on a 109, who spotted me at the last second and tried to evade me before I shot him down'

You cant!

There is not enough information there to recreate the scenario to see if the in-game results match the real world results..

That and the results depend more on the relative pilot experience..

That is to say assume you did try to re-create this scenario in the game..

Put a good pilot in the 109 and a Cherry in the Spitfire and there is a chance the 109 will NOT get shot down..

Does this test prove the 109 flight model is uber and the Spitfire flight model is broken?

NOT AT ALL!

All this proves is the relative experience of the sim pilots involved in the scenario affect the outcome more than the performance of the plane!

Same can be said wrt the orginal combat reports (anecdotical evidence), you don't know how much of 'it' was due to the relative experience of the pilots!

As in was the Spitfire pilot able to turn with the 109 because he was a better pilot?

All in all do we really want our flight models tweaked based on the results of some sim pilot's atempt re-create of a poorly documented WWII event?

I THINK NOT!

But I digress!

Combat reports are also useful to gain in site as to what was actually going in the trenches vs. what the generals thought was going on..

A good case in point is the whole 100 oct usage

Originally Posted by winny

As far as I know combat reports and pilot's recollections are the only record of the use of these aircraft in the role they were designed for, combat.

As noted

Combat reports are great for determining how the pilots used these aircraft and the tactics they used..

Just not good for validating a flight model

Like in the stick buzz example above..

We know it stalled (the event)
We know the pilot felt something in the stick before the stall (the useful flying quality info)
We DON'T know what the stall speed was (what is needed to validate the flight model)
We DON'T know what the throttle setting was (what is needed to validate the flight model)
We DON'T know what the flap setting was (what is needed to validate the flight model)
We DON'T know what the e state was (what is needed to validate the flight model)
We DON'T know what the altitude was (what is needed to validate the flight model)

This list goes on but you should be starting to see my point

TOO MANY UNKNOWNS!

Originally Posted by winny

and eventually if you read enough, you can build a picture of what happened. OK, there's no numbers, but it's foolish to disregard them.

Problem with that method is you can have two people read the same reports and draw two very different pictures of what happened

That is the problem with human nature

Where as with math

1 + 1 = 2

And nobody but raaaid could disagree with that!

Originally Posted by winny

read Gallands stories of diving down onto Spits and being able to engage and disengage at will.

A good example of tactics

But not a good example of how to validate a flight model

All that statement really proves is the plane with a better 'e' state will control the fight, until that pilot does something stupid to give up his 'e' advantage!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Matt255

I read exactly the opposite.

And here is a perfect example of what I was refering to, that being how two people can read the same 'accounts' and get different results

Where as 1 + 1 = 2 in real world test data and you would be hard pressed to find anyone to disagree with that!