Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10-05-2012, 07:33 PM
*Buzzsaw* *Buzzsaw* is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by csThor View Post
All 109s were too heavy when I last checked. Haven't noticed that this has been corrected, yet, either.
Salute

After further investigation, it seems to me your assertion is actually incorrect.

The game lists all the 109E's at a max. weight of 2580 kgs.

According to this document, the 109E1 is close:



But the 109E3 seems to be underweight.



Above puts the 109E3 at 2608 kgs, or 28 kgs/62 lbs over the game weight.

In addition, there is another question.

I don't read German well so am unsure if armour plating is included in the list of weights for the two above documents, it doesn't seem to be and many 109's did not have it when the Battle started. If it isn't included, then the 109's weight deficit is worse than I thought.

And here's a later Luftwaffe document which lists a '109E', (no type specified), with the weight at 2665 kgs.



That would be 85 kgs/187 lbs over the game listed weight, not an inconsiderable amount.

Thanks to Mike Williams WWII Aircraft site for these documents:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

Last edited by *Buzzsaw*; 10-05-2012 at 07:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-05-2012, 07:38 PM
*Buzzsaw* *Buzzsaw* is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD View Post
Maybe you guys are talking about something different? The aircraft tested had so called fuel tank armour fitted already, and the overload condition was still on top of this.
I realize the test aircraft L-2026 was equipped with the glass and plate. Kurfurst was making reference to the nature of the armour plate over the tank, suggesting it was just thin aluminum and not capable of providing much protection. My question was where his sources for that were, and why the weight was as much as 434 lbs if it was just aluminum.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-05-2012, 08:16 PM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

We're not on the same page here.

L 2026 was equipped with a early production windscreen and armour plating over the fuselage fuel tank. In this configuration it was tested at a flying weight of 6316 lb.

In addition to this, the aircraft was ballasted an extra 434 lb in accordance with an Air Ministry letter, to be tested at overload condition of 6750 lb.

So, no - armoured glass was not fitted on the aircraft. Some sort of fuel tank protection was, but this has nothing to do with the extra 434 lb, as it already was installed.
Question - why do you think 434 lb is meant to simulate armour upgrades? Is that an assumption or do you have more background information?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-05-2012, 08:21 PM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw* View Post
I don't read German well so am unsure if armour plating is included in the list of weights for the two above documents, it doesn't seem to be and many 109's did not have it when the Battle started. If it isn't included, then the 109's weight deficit is worse than I thought
It says below the table that this represents a fully equipped aircraft without armour plate.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-05-2012, 08:22 PM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw* View Post
Maybe you'd like to provide some proof for this assertion?

The weight added for the cockpit bullet proof glass and over tank armour is a total of 434 lbs, seems excessive if the armour plating was simply a thin sheet of aluminum. My understanding it was actual steel plate. I will be checking further references.
A number of books on the Spitfire detail the modification to the fuel tank plating; viz 3mm thick alloy, not steel plate, which provided some degree of protection from small calibre bullets and shrapnel:



The weight of the armour plate behind and under the seat and behind the headrest was 73 lbs, so where the figure of 434 lbs comes from I have no idea.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-05-2012, 08:36 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw* View Post
Maybe you'd like to provide some proof for this assertion?

The weight added for the cockpit bullet proof glass and over tank armour is a total of 434 lbs, seems excessive if the armour plating was simply a thin sheet of aluminum. My understanding it was actual steel plate. I will be checking further references.
The Spitfire I carried a total of 51 kg armor. The said thicker (3.5mm)plating over the fuel top of the fuel tank was just 12.1 kg, the armored glass only 9 kg. Most of weight thus came from the numerous, bulky steel plates, most of which were however not terribly effective as they were rather thin.

109E armor weight was iirc 46 kg, that's essentially the weight of the large 8 mm thick armored bulkhead in the rear fuselage.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org

Last edited by Kurfürst; 10-05-2012 at 08:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-05-2012, 08:46 PM
*Buzzsaw* *Buzzsaw* is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD View Post
We're not on the same page here.

L 2026 was equipped with a early production windscreen and armour plating over the fuselage fuel tank. In this configuration it was tested at a flying weight of 6316 lb.

In addition to this, the aircraft was ballasted an extra 434 lb in accordance with an Air Ministry letter, to be tested at overload condition of 6750 lb.

So, no - armoured glass was not fitted on the aircraft. Some sort of fuel tank protection was, but this has nothing to do with the extra 434 lb, as it already was installed.
Question - why do you think 434 lb is meant to simulate armour upgrades? Is that an assumption or do you have more background information?
Salute

Just trying to determine facts here JtD...

I am not sure if you have more information, not suggesting you are incorrect, I had assumed the reference to the windscreen was to an bulletproof glass one, why else would they mention it, and the fact it was flush? The original bulletproof windscreens were fitted to the outside and protruded.

Not sure about the 434 lbs, did make the assumption it had to do with the armour planned to be added, not sure your assumption the aircraft weighed 6316 with the armour is correct, the weigh chart listed on Mike Williams site, (his adaption of the original) is not clear.

I am going to consult a copy of Morgan and Shacklady's book in next day or so to see if they can shed some light on the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-05-2012, 08:54 PM
*Buzzsaw* *Buzzsaw* is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD View Post
It says below the table that this represents a fully equipped aircraft without armour plate.
Salute

So the 109 weight deficit grows...

If according to the posted Luftwaffe chart, the max. weight of the 109E3 was 2608 kgs without armour, and since, according to Kurfurst, the armour was 46 kgs, then we should see a weight of 2654 kgs with armour, 74 kgs/162 lbs over the weight of the game aircraft.

The 109E3 is 74 kgs light.

The 109E4 is at least that, and likely more, since it had additional equipment.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-05-2012, 09:04 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw* View Post
Salute

So the 109 weight deficit grows...

If according to the posted Luftwaffe chart, the max. weight of the 109E3 was 2608 kgs without armour, and since, according to Kurfurst, the armour was 46 kgs, then we should see a weight of 2654 kgs with armour, 74 kgs/162 lbs over the weight of the game aircraft.

The 109E3 is 74 kgs light.
Yes, IF they have a functional armored bulkhead modelled. And it seems to me they do not...

Quote:
The 109E4 is at least that, and likely more, since it had additional equipment.
Like?
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-05-2012, 09:17 PM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
The Spitfire I carried a total of 51 kg armor. The said thicker (3.5mm)plating over the fuel top of the fuel tank was just 12.1 kg, the armored glass only 9 kg. Most of weight thus came from the numerous, bulky steel plates, most of which were however not terribly effective as they were rather thin.

109E armor weight was iirc 46 kg, that's essentially the weight of the large 8 mm thick armored bulkhead in the rear fuselage.
And where did a weight of 12.1 kg for the light alloy plating come from?

That the 8mm thick 109E "armour" weighed only 46 kg indicates that it was not armour plate, which would have weighed considerably more, but probably a toughened alloy of some kind, or a sandwich of armour and alloy. Then we have the usual assertion of how bad British methods were cf the uber German...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.