|
|
#31
08-30-2012, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. Last edited by 5./JG27.Farber; 08-30-2012 at 10:21 PM. 
|
|
#32
08-30-2012, 09:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As I remember it I use to fly with a much higher pitch setting to get speed. You need to increase the blade angle. At alt, it's much around 2k or 2.1k.
Otherwise you can't convert the power of the engine into speed. Maybe there is a need to tweak the game engine.
|
|
#33
08-30-2012, 10:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
 | AFBs of CloD 2[/URL] |www.pumaszallas.hu i7 7700K 4.8GHz, 32GB Ram 3GHz, MSI GTX 1070 8GB, 27' 1920x1080, W10/64, TrackIR 4Pro, G940 Cliffs of Dover Bugtracker site: share and vote issues here
|
|
#34
08-31-2012, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
http://www.rolfwolf.de/daten/E4/Emil.html Auszüge aus Flugzeugdatenblatt Bf 109 E-1, E-3 nach L.Dv.556/3 Motor DB601A mit Alter Lader "Old Supercharger" Höchstgeschwindigkeiten in Steig/Kampfleistung (Diagram) 2300 U/min 1.23 ata  Höchstgeschwindigkeiten in Steig/Kampfleistung (Tabelle) 2300 U/min 1.23 ata Code:
0km 460km/h 1km 480km/h 2km 500km/h 3km 520km/h 4km 540km/h 5km 555km/h 6km 555km/h 7km 550km/h
|
|
#35
08-31-2012, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
bugmenot,
So it would appear at sea level the 109 is too slow by at least 30kmh. However I felt that IL2:clod used the new supercharger as the Ata does not drop off untill higher altitudes which seems to match the new one. So essentially its even SLOWER than it actually should be! The new compressor gave the 109 a higher effective cieling before the Ata dropped off and therefore made it faster at a slightly higher altitude. Are your speeds in TAS? I also found this which was of worth: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/fli...mki-26994.html So we know all the aircraft are too slow and roughly by how much although I have not seen a through test (video) which shows values for RL and clod but I believe they have been done by some trust worthy people... Having this info here in this thread would be nice. However: What about climb, dive, turn and roll? Speeds are one thing and need addressing but are not these more fundamental? Especially from the perspective of a Hurricane pilot who are being overshadowed by the spits? Last edited by 5./JG27.Farber; 08-31-2012 at 05:50 PM.
|
|
#36
08-31-2012, 08:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This is not to say that you can not find any WWII testing of drive, turn and roll, only that they were not typically part of 'performance' testing in WWII. Thus most if not all flight sims have to 'calculate' these values.. That is to say you will be hard pressed to find real world data on these values, so they have to calcualte them. The two important performance values of WWII and thus the two you can typically find are climb (ROC) and speed (TSPA). There is a third, which is really just part of the ROC and that is the time to climb (TTC).
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
|
|
#37
08-31-2012, 09:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which from the minute amount of this information I followed before - I thought as much...
Shame. However hopefully we can come to some kind of accord and present the data to 1c:MG... This is the part where we must choose what I would call "Folklore" (eye witness accounts) and "facts" actual graphs... I dont see how you can truely have purley one or the other and I think this is where the real nitty gritty arguments break out... So with an open mind I am finding myself more in the "feeling" group than the facts but with a balance of both. We can have all the facts nailed on the head like ROC and TAS but as you say we are still guessing the rest which is where "folklore" fills the gap... However then we are down to the spit always out turns the 109 and vice versa... - from pilot accounts... So, its a mine field... Should we try to get 1c:MG nail the "fact" figures as close as possible and then the "pilot account" things like turn and roll? This is my first forray into a FM debate... So forgive the open mindedness and lack of direction. S!
|
|
#38
08-31-2012, 11:53 PM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Which is not the case with folklore! There are just too many unknowns associated with the folklore to make it useful. Some people think they can do some statistically analysis of all the folklore and come up with some sort of consensus.. But it is just not the case.. Or should I say that in the past 20 years of flight simming, I have seen many make that claim, but no one has yet do pull it off. Which is not surprising, in that we are NOT talking about gathering up folklore statements that somewhat agree.. For example, assume 3 WWII pilots said they could climb to 20kft in 9.2min, 10.2min, 9.8min.. And we say, hey that is great, we will just take the average of those three staments and call it good. NOPE! What we have is folklore that is many cases is 180 out! Fore example, there are WWII Spitfire pilots that said they could easily out turn or turn with a Bf109.. At the same time we have WWII Bf109 pilots who say they could easily out turn or turn with the Spitfire. What do we do in that case? Flip a coin? I think not! That is why most if not all folklore (pilot accounts, pilot action reports, etc) are so useless! In that they typically never provide enough information to even recreate the scenario in the game. For example, a P51 pilot reports says he got behind a Bf109, closed in on it, and shot it down. Ok.. Did he dive down from above to get on the 109s six? Or did he climb up to the Bf109? Or was he at co-alt and got in behind the 109? Did the 109 even know the P51 was behind him? Was the 109 pilot wounded and just trying to make it home, was the 109 engine damaged from a previous dog fight that just ended.. The list of un-knows is ENDLESS! Which is why most if not all folklore is useless when it comes to tweaking the FM! IMHO your better off relying on the math and leaving it at that! Long story short, typicall folkloare (pilot accounts and reports) tell us alot about the 'men' and thier 'tatics' but they tell us very little about the 'performance' of the planes. Quote:
The funny ones are the folks with double standards that will cast doubt on a test of a plane they don't like but at the same time accept lesser data for the planes they love as proof positive! It would be funny if it was not so sad! Quote:
There may be a handful of folklore accounts that are 'useful' But as noted above, most if not all folklore is useless! Just to many unknowns! Not to mention the fact that most if not all pilot reports are ONE SIDED STORIES! That and they typicall dont include enough info to re-produce the scenario in the game to see if the plane the pilot was flying can do what he said, let alone the fact that we have absolutely no idea of what the state of the other plane and pilot was! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 09-01-2012 at 12:06 AM.
|
|
#39
09-01-2012, 12:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The results of a calculation (what you call maths) is only as good as its data. Also there are equations and equations. Some are highly approxamtive and only thump rules for quick estimates, others may be closer to reality but also very complicated and requiring a lot of divers input data.
I would agree to use mathematical relationships to deduce aircraft behaviour if we had enough reliable data or data at all for input into the equation and some reliable data to verify the results. My guess is the data we would need to calculate it is not available. I mean what would be great if we had all the aerodynamic coefficients as a function of Mach number and angle of attack and the corresponding reference area for each plane. "Equations" deducing turn performance from the wing loading, sorry, this is far from anything near accurate. I would not like to have the fm built on this kind of thump rules. Then I'd rather prefer anecdotical evidence.
|
|
#40
09-01-2012, 12:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
AoA, you seem to agree with what I thought before... Folklore is fairly useless except from that particular pilots expericence... and the maths and graphs is what counts...
I am interested in what swift has to say... He makes good points. In these days, is there surely not computer models that could aid us? - as for 1c:MG doing the maths... they are surley not doing quite a good job?  I state somethings in argument... Like do we use the folklore, maths or combination? I agree with your statement on folklore... Adrenaline, fear and rapid actions can distort the memory... Unless it can be proved just by maths what else can you do?! Last edited by 5./JG27.Farber; 09-01-2012 at 12:59 AM.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
