109 elevator trim - Page 12

Al Schlageter · #**111** 04-15-2012, 01:34 PM

Please note the date on the document > Nov 14 1940, which is after the BoB had ended.

fruitbat · #**112** 04-15-2012, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Please note the date on the document > Nov 14 1940, which is after the BoB had ended.

lol

Robo. · #**113** 04-15-2012, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

(...)

Fair enough, what you wrote makes sense. I agree the changes should be systematic.

Just re 109 trim - I have mentioned it was quite different in both design and operation to the 'other' trims. That's why the 109 has been primarily spoken of.

Re ''now incorrect modelling of carburetors and dont have to deal with mechanical guages'' - could you perhaps explain further? I don't know what you mean and from my online experience I'd say the neg-G cutouts are quite harsh and unforgiving.

Osprey · #**114** 04-15-2012, 03:30 PM

I would agree with that Robo, especially the inability to restart the engine should it cut out, leaving you deadsticking it home.

This thread started as a personal investigation and I am not aware of a process by 1C to treat threads as bug reports.

irR4tiOn4L · #**115** 04-15-2012, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo.

Fair enough, what you wrote makes sense. I agree the changes should be systematic.

Just re 109 trim - I have mentioned it was quite different in both design and operation to the 'other' trims. That's why the 109 has been primarily spoken of.

Re ''now incorrect modelling of carburetors and dont have to deal with mechanical guages'' - could you perhaps explain further? I don't know what you mean and from my online experience I'd say the neg-G cutouts are quite harsh and unforgiving.

To be honest I'm not an expert on the realities and FM's of this sim, I repeat what I have read here and experienced myself ingame.

The carburetors and mechanical guages however, which mostly affect the RAF, were changed in a prior patch to more stable electric versions (apparently people didnt expect mechanical guages to bounce so much) and to a simplified/eased carburetor cut out model that allowed some negative g's, even negative g loops, and didn't swamp the engine if negative g's were sustained.

I'm not saying these are game changers, but I'm just saying that things can go backwards if people's feedback from online play is the metric used.

So often, people complain about online balance based on inadequacies in server setup or particular incidents they are angry about - and their views take on a veneer of objectivity with more and more discussion. Which is not to say their views lack all objectivity, but it does point toward the danger of using their views to set the patch agenda.

I mean hell, the beta patch out now looks to be the last for Clod, and i'd say there's a hell of a lot of things that i'd like to see changed above trim.

EDIT: Fair point Osprey, but many here talk with a view that seems to want far more than just personal investigation. But even if trim is not accurate as is, its probably about 1/2 the real time anyway and in my view isnt nearly as important as control heaviness, black out resistance modelling, etc, let alone the actual FM's which continue to display much more fundamental problems.

This discussion is interesting, but I wouldn't expect (or want really) it to lead to many changes until greater issues were remedied and adequate data on all planes was collated.

Kurfürst · #**116** 04-16-2012, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo.

Interesting, I always thought that FTH was the main obvious difference between A-1 and Aa versions.

I am not too sure about the develompemt of German superchargers but from what I remember the A-0 (not used in the sim or during the BoB in the 109s) has had FTH of 4000m, then improved supercharger of A-1 made it to 4500m. 601 Aa was at 4000m again with better low alt performance instead. I am bit confused here with what you're saying.

Still, early Merlins had higher FTH than any of the above engines, hence my assumption the RAF had slight advantage at high alt.

It's mind dazzling, I agree.

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB6...sheets_A1.html
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB6...sheets_Aa.html

I did check my references. It seems that that Aa had the new type of Lader, it just had higher boosts, which can be maintained to lower altitudes only of course, and so seemingly the high altitude performance is worse than A-1 with new Lader.

However checking the power curves show that the A-1/new Lader has very similiar, practically the same altitude performance.

ie. at SL

DB 601A-1 with old Lader: 990 PS (1.3 / 2400 rpm), 1100 PS (1.40 / 2500 rpm)
DB 601A-1 with new Lader: 990 PS (1.3 / 2400 rpm), 1100 PS (1.40 / 2500 rpm)
DB 601Aa: 1045 PS (1.35 / 2400 rpm), 1175 Ps (1.45 / 2500 rpm)
DB 601N: 1175 PS (1.35 / 2600 rpm)

Merlin III: 880 HP (+ 6 1/4 lbs / 3000 )
Merlin III: 1180 HP (+ 12 lbs / 3000 )
Merlin XII: 990 HP (+ 9 lbs / 3000 )
Merlin XII: 1165 HP (+ 12 lbs / 3000 )

So at SL the Aa is a bit more powerful, the Merlin can only keep up with 100 octane.

4.5 km - this is the FTH of the A-1/new Lader

DB 601A-1 with old Lader: 960 PS (1.3 / 2400 rpm)
DB 601A-1 with new Lader: 1020 PS (1.3 / 2400 rpm)
DB 601Aa: 1000 PS (1.35 / 2400 rpm)
601N, Emil version with lower FTH: 1050 PS

Merlin III: 1015 HP (+ 6 1/4 lbs / 3000 )
Merlin III: 1080 HP (+ 12 lbs / 3000 )
Merlin XII: 1140 HP (+ 9 lbs / 3000 )

Essentially there is very little difference between these engines at the most common BoB fighting height, the 601A with the old lader is a bit poorer, the others are essentially the same. The Merlin XII is the best for these altitudes.

at 7 km (23 000 feet)
DB 601A-1 with old Lader: 705 PS (1.3 / 2400 rpm)
DB 601A-1 with new Lader: 750 PS (1.3 / 2400 rpm)
DB 601Aa: 725 PS (1.35 / 2400)
601N, Emil version with lower FTH: 920 PS (1.35 / 2600)

Merlin III: 780 HP (+ 6 1/4 lbs / 3000 )
Merlin XII: 830 HP (+ 9 lbs / 3000 )

So if we go higher we find the 601A with the old Lader was not competitive, but the new one was practically the same as the Merlin III.

Te rare Merlin XII and 601N trump all the others, the 601N being the best engine at altitude by far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo.

DB 601Aa - this had increased boost pressures, which meant it developed about 10% more power than the 601A-1 below rated altitude, operating at 1.35/1.45ata instead of 1.30/1.40 ata, but similiar altitude performance. I believe this is the variant we have modelled.

The DB 601A we've got in game is appartently modelled at 1020PS so I suppose it's the A-1 version with FHT at 4500m.

We haven't got this one modelled (perhaps better to compare with Merlin XX at slightly later stage of the conflict), there are no E-4/N (or E-7/N) or Hurricane Mk.II in the sim.

I was going by the 1.35/1.45ata rating, which would point to the Aa. 1020 PS may well point to the A-1 however, its the A-1's rating at altitude.

I haven't seen the data files myself however, just one post on the board. Can you PM me how to extract these? Thx!

WTE_Galway · #**117** 04-17-2012, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

The carburetors and mechanical guages however, which mostly affect the RAF, were changed in a prior patch to more stable electric versions (apparently people didnt expect mechanical guages to bounce so much) and to a simplified/eased carburetor cut out model that allowed some negative g's, even negative g loops, and didn't swamp the engine if negative g's were sustained.

I'm not saying these are game changers, but I'm just saying that things can go backwards if people's feedback from online play is the metric used.

Unfortunately the more obsessive online types are also the most likely to appear on the forums and push their point of view doggedly. This seriously skews perceptions of how the community actually views the game and what it wants from it.