Acceleration comparisons

[gaunt1]

Originally Posted by JtD

Forsazh on the Ash-82 could only be used in first charger gear. The second gear could not handle the high boost. In game, there's no performance benefit due to the increased boost in second gear to mirror this, even though you can switch it on at all altitudes.

I dont agree. For example, @ 5000m, according to IL-2 compare, La-5FN can reach 612 km/h with WEP. Just tried it myself, I also reached 612 km/h at that altitude. (10km/h faster than the best serial La-5FN tested by NII VVS)

Originally Posted by IceFire

Also curious... La-5FN prototype... I know it was hand built but how different was it from a stock performance version from middle to late 1944? I was figuring that unless weight was substantially different (i.e. due to inclusion of standard equipment like guns, ammo, radio, etc.) it should be fairly similar to the later models that the game represents. The 1943 tag next to the La-5FN should probably be changed to 1944.

Check attached NII VVS test chart. The prototype is named La-5 M-82FN SN39210102 It is almost 200kg lighter than a serial production version. It is even better than an early La-7! Ingame, the performance is between this, and the best performing serial plane, but usually closer to the prototype (SN39210495).

[MaxGunz]

612/602 = 1.0166.....

1.66 percent.

Oh, the horror!

Does it compare to the whining over it?

[gaunt1]

620 vs 640 @ 6km....

[JtD]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

I dont agree.

That doesn't matter - it's a fact. You should have checked the boost gauge. There's no Forsazh (1180mm)in second supercharger gear. All power and speed increases are related to increasing rpm from 2400 to 2500, something that was not impossible or forbidden to do with the original engine. The increased rpm have the main effect of increasing full throttle altitude and performance at high altitude.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

620 vs 640 @ 6km....

You need help with that?

[SadoMarxist]

Originally Posted by horseback

As I've pointed out, the trim issue seems to be confined to a relatively small group of aircraft, and I've done extensive experimenting over the eleven years I've been playing this game and its predecessor with trimming methods and controllers. Button trim usually is the more accurate of the two, since it is input in quite tiny increments (about 160 clicks from one extreme to the other), and on most aircraft it is more than adequate, in the sense that you can get to a 'zone' where one more click up or down makes no discernible difference. However, on some aircraft the transition from one click down or one click up always seems to be excessive at any throttle/pp setting; you will either be climbing or losing altitude, in a slight skid or slide or rolling to one side or the other unless you hold your stick absolutely rock steady precisely at angle X/Y. On these same aircraft, I also notice that you need to trim precisely for very small changes in speed and power, or the penalties in performance and speed loss can be severe.

Since I've only ever used trim on a hatswitch this may not be helpful, while being aware that trim characteristics of some planes have become less benign, experimenting with the response curves of trimmers assigned to axes (polynomial curves of the second or third power, maybe even exponential) could yield good results. There are also four control profiles available to save one's configurations for different planes. Well, awfully sorry if this wasn't helpful.

Originally Posted by Gaunt1

Im not good at maths at all, so how is that working? Acceleration is proportional to excess power, or exponential?

While it would prove hazardous to claim the acceleration in level flight to be exponentially dependent on Ps, one could say that it is directly proportional to gravitational acceleration and inversely proportional to the airspeed at the same time, at the alt and airspeed for which the Ps value is known. MaxGunz and FatCat have explained things wonderfully.

Originally Posted by Gaunt1

Because if we take the factors above into account, I think it should have only about 15-20% better acceleration, for example 270 to 500 should take about 44-48 seconds, not 36.

Just going from IL-2 Compare graphs, at sea level, that's exactly what the difference is: about 20% without WEP on and 15,something% with it... admittedly, I haven't done any tests myself.

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

LOL, thanks for the comedy! I couldn't resist adding a line!

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

I dont agree. For example, @ 5000m, according to IL-2 compare, La-5FN can reach 612 km/h with WEP. Just tried it myself, I also reached 612 km/h at that altitude. (10km/h faster than the best serial La-5FN tested by NII VVS)



Check attached NII VVS test chart. The prototype is named La-5 M-82FN SN39210102 It is almost 200kg lighter than a serial production version. It is even better than an early La-7! Ingame, the performance is between this, and the best performing serial plane, but usually closer to the prototype (SN39210495).

200kg lighter would definitely be giving a different performance level. Certainly.

[horseback]

Here's the latest: Mustangs (all of them) at 100M. There's a clear difference between the razorback and the bubbletops at this alt; also, if you take another look at the FW 190A series chart, you'll see that between around 400-540kph, the Butcherbird is a bit quicker than the Mustang, although the D model Ponies (eventually) have a higher top speed.

In the works: Jugs & Lightnings, mid & early war Spitfires and 109s at 100m.

Now if you will all excuse me, I'm going to ice the thumb I use for trimming.

cheers

horseback

[Wea0versd]

I will be happy to answer questions or provide the charts showing direct comparisons of given types if I have tested them.

[gaunt1]

Thank you again Horseback!

Just going from IL-2 Compare graphs, at sea level, that's exactly what the difference is: about 20% without WEP on and 15,something% with it... admittedly, I haven't done any tests myself.

How can I check that? Is there an update/patch that adds acceleration graph? My version (4.11) has only summary, speed, rate of climb, ROC vs climb speed, turn time and fan plot.