Analysis of real life 109E performance for CloD

[JG4_Helofly]

@ Camber. I understand that you want the game to be as close as possible to RL. But we don't have the data to do this. If you had several thousands of test data from production aircrafts, then it would be representativ. Since we don't have this amount of data everyone can pick one of the tests and say: "but plane X was 25 km/h slower in this test". People who like plane X will say: "But it was 25km/h faster in an other test".
And there will be arguments about production quality, fuel availability, maintenance problems etc.
And that's exactly what we have now. That's why we need a solid base. Data we can agree on. That's why the only realistic approache is to model the planes according to standard specifications and taking all other variables out of the equation. Otherwise we will continue to argue about every km/h and everyone will pull out the test result which fits the agenda.

IMO the only alternative would be to have a performance spread of +/- 5% for every plane. So every plane would have it's standard performance values it should reach, but you could get a plane with a few % worse or better performance.

I really don't see how you could do it otherwise without having arbitrary performance values.

[Crumpp]

I really dont understand this discussion, any 109 not meeting the guaranteed values from Messerschmitt was rejected by the Luftwaffe to be refurbished by Messerschmitt.

Each and every plane had a acception flight to prove it delivered the guaranteed values.
If there should be a deviation from the guaranteed values programmed in game, this deviation must be valid for ALL planes in this sim.

Exactly.

That is how airplanes work. Why anyone would think a customer would pay for something that does not work as advertised is beyond me.

[camber]

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

@ Camber. I understand that you want the game to be as close as possible to RL. But we don't have the data to do this. If you had several thousands of test data from production aircrafts, then it would be representativ. Since we don't have this amount of data everyone can pick one of the tests and say: "but plane X was 25 km/h slower in this test". People who like plane X will say: "But it was 25km/h faster in an other test".
And there will be arguments about production quality, fuel availability, maintenance problems etc.
And that's exactly what we have now. That's why we need a solid base. Data we can agree on. That's why the only realistic approache is to model the planes according to standard specifications and taking all other variables out of the equation. Otherwise we will continue to argue about every km/h and everyone will pull out the test result which fits the agenda.

IMO the only alternative would be to have a performance spread of +/- 5% for every plane. So every plane would have it's standard performance values it should reach, but you could get a plane with a few % worse or better performance.

I really don't see how you could do it otherwise without having arbitrary performance values.

Actually I pretty much agree with you. My original analysis was an attempt to get as close as I could (with the limited data available) to "typical" 109E performance for historical purposes as a starting point for FMs. But I actually don't believe CloD is best served by neccessarily served by setting such values as single "cloned" variants into the game. Personally I think the sim is best served by getting performance within into the range that is consistent for historical performance (which is imprecise!), then making some subjective judgements that (if possible) allows matchups that are rewarding for both red and blue. For example the current Spit II vs 109E matchup is good, it relatively approximates a Mk1a +12psi vs 109E (at around 30kmh too slow at SL for both!). Based on data I believe historically the Mk1a would have actually been a bit quicker on the deck, but having them exactly the same speed is arguably within historical range and makes for satisfying online experiences.

Your idea of using factory data with a "performance slider" would also work well for the same reason, but I am not sure if there is much likelyhood the devs would ever do this!

Cheers, camber

[5./JG27.Farber]

How much fuel was in the aircraft during any of these tests? That could be another factor that affects top speed. What if the German tests were with half a tank of Benzine and the Russian/UK/USA tests were with of full tank of there own grade of fuel? This would be a big difference. around 200kilos or 440lbs... Also is the aircraft clean and trimmed properly? Is the airframe bent from battle damage or crash landing?

[Crumpp]

Guys,

Airplanes also work as any other machine. They require break in periods, have an area where their performance will peak, and they lose performance if the engine/airframe is abused or aged.

Military aircraft in war are consistently abused. They operate from rough fields, suffer weather, and often poor piloting from inexperienced pilots.
The environment plays a huge role on their performance. Is that data corrected to standard? ALL OF IT? The engine is data is adjusted for a standard day while the engine is adjusted by a mechanic on the day he picks up the wrench. That means in some engines, depending on the design, you will not develop the calibrated manifold pressure/rpm depending on density altitude while others will meet or exceed that by a small percentage.

Airplanes also require an extraordinary amount of maintenance. Much of that maintenance is specialized specific knowledge to that design. That is why by convention, the manufacturer publishes a maintenance manual on every component and subcomponent as well a consolidated type specific instructions. These instructions are extremely detailed and specify exactly what the mechanic or maintenance personnel can do. The "How to" is compulsory and part of the airworthiness instructions of the aircraft. The "When to" is more flexible and up to the operator's as well maintenance personnel.

For example, a 10 hours service on break in requires you to change the mineral oil in the engine and examine the filter to ensure the engine is making the appropriate amount of metal as the parts settle in.

Most of the engines during WWII used what is today termed an "oil screen" not an oil filter. They called it a filter but don't confuse it with the spin off type found in your car. There are some important differences in reality that have no bearing on a game.

Each engine is a little different by on average you are going to change the oil at least twice and examine the filter during break in. When the rings seat and the amount of metal being made levels out you can tell because the oil consumption will stabilize. Then you can generally change to an ashless dispersant oil for normal use.

You don't have to the "10 hour" maintenance at exactly 10 hours. You can fit it in as operational demands require. You do have follow the "how to" instructions exactly to the letter when you decide to do it.

If you don't all of the required and specified maintenance instructions including the specific lubricants and fuels, it will generally not work properly.

For example, it is very easy to damage a propeller just lubricating it. When it starts spitting grease, it becomes unbalanced and further damage occurs. All of this effects the power the engine can produce and the performance one will get.

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Guys,

Airplanes also work as any other machine. They require break in periods, have an area where their performance will peak, and they lose performance if the engine/airframe is abused or aged.

exactly.
Just look at an F1 team
Two drivers (team mates) can be in just about as identical car as possible, both on the same track, under the same weather conditions. Yet you get all sorts of different performance, because so many other factors influence the system.

[5./JG27.Farber]

You might find German engines are run in at the factory. As for the rest of your post Crump, exactly! - With these aircraft being captured they are not going to be clean crisp factory models either. Their going to be thrashed work horses proberbly in poor condition due to shortages and desperate actions..

[camber]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

You might find German engines are run in at the factory. As for the rest of your post Crump, exactly! - With these aircraft being captured they are not going to be clean crisp factory models either. Their going to be thrashed work horses proberbly in poor condition due to shortages and desperate actions..

I agree. Except for the navigation error guys, imagine going on the reciprocal compass bearing, landing, quietly shutting everything down then looking up at the armed people around the plane.

But to clarify, you are quite right that comparing captured a/c tests against the official Me compliance tests (and going for captured) would be inappropriate. However the original thread post doesn't make that argument..it notes that what captured data there is agrees with two Messerchmitt tests and a Swiss export model, except for a Russian test which is very slow on the deck. Kurfurst has presented reasonable arguement against these tests..I don't necessarily agree but they are valid technical arguements.

My question to you would be, given the keys to CloD, what would you set the 109E performance to be? Within the 109 guaranteed spec, that +/-5% makes a difference with the close match between Spit and 109. And we don't have a lot of variants to work with here.

There is not many actual tests, what would really clinch the issue is the RLM compliance data for the 109E (which we don't have as far as I know). This is the equivalent of RAF RAE data, i.e taken not by the manufacturer but the (hopefully skeptical) client. 109G tolerance tests appear to show the pass (to service)/fail (back to the factory) performance being evaluated only for max speed (not sea level). The average top speed at altitude is a little under the average spec speed but still easily passing, which seems rather plausible.

So my current position (based on thread discussion above) is that the most appropriate (typical, historical) performance for 109Es if we must go with a single cloned aircraft in the simulation is low (but pass) spec at sea level and about average spec at height.

But despite this if you really gave me the keys to the Clod FMs, I would actually use the Messerchmitt guaranteed data. I would then set Spit I performance to RAE data, and with +12psi, which should give a nicely balanced Spit vs 109 matchup even on the deck. Single cloned aircraft are pretty unhistorical anyway, better to balance the simulation (once you are within the zone historical and aircraft-aircraft imprecision). People often hate the concept of balance, but what to do once you are within the historical imprecision zone, and you are giving everyone on each side exactly the same aircraft?

Cheers, camber

[robtek]

I believe the variable of the pilots is enough to simulate the factory tolerances.

Especially if wrong engine management gives feelable results, or engine temperatures acting more to the load of the engine instead of rpm.

If one is flying by the book he should have a fine performing machine, if one is riding rough he should have a short living advantage followed by a lame ride.

[notafinger!]

Originally Posted by camber

Personally I think the sim is best served by getting performance within into the range that is consistent for historical performance (which is imprecise!), then making some subjective judgements that (if possible) allows matchups that are rewarding for both red and blue. For example the current Spit II vs 109E matchup is good, it relatively approximates a Mk1a +12psi vs 109E (at around 30kmh too slow at SL for both!). Based on data I believe historically the Mk1a would have actually been a bit quicker on the deck, but having them exactly the same speed is arguably within historical range and makes for satisfying online experiences.

I agree 100%. I would prefer the devs give us FM's that fit the historical anecdote of the battle, yet are fun & challenging to fly online. The three major fighters should each have distinct advantages/disadvantages & be competitive when flown to their strengths. It will be impossible to get 100% realism so at least give us something that feels right and is fun to play for both sides.