Don't make performances secret this time

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

Cannot disagree more.

Then dont

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Then dont

I won't.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Then don't

Example I mentioned here is my favorite plane being overmodelled in climb. ( See somewhere above) No plane in the game comes out of my nation, and I couldnt care less about the nations, anyway.
What you write about is then no answer to something you have read here, but your way of thinking.
BTW, sorry to say, your avatar is very ugly

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

Example I mentioned here is my favorite plane being overmodelled in climb. ( See somewhere above) No plane in the game comes out of my nation, and I couldnt care less about the nations, anyway.
What you write about is then no answer to something you have read here, but your way of thinking.
BTW, sorry to say, your avatar is very ugly

Yes I am

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Yes I am

Well, cannot be helped

[Furio]

Others things being equal, climb rate is determined by power loading (lb/hp, or kg/cv, the lower the better), and span loading (lb/ft or kg/m, the lower the better). I16 type 28 (M63 engine and cannons, which in my opinion is the type modelled in game as type 24) was far lighter than a Bf 109 E3. Numbers I have (others may differ, but not so much) tell the tale very well: the I16 has a power loading of 1.89 kg per hp; the Emil of 2.27 per hp. Span loading is 203 kg per m for the Polikarpov, and 254 kg per m for the Messerschmitt. Given these numbers, the I16 should climb much better than the 109 at low altitudes (at high altitude supercharger efficiency enters the picture, and the situation could be very different). The I16 should also be better in sustained turn rate.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Furio

Others things being equal, climb rate is determined by power loading (lb/hp, or kg/cv, the lower the better), and span loading (lb/ft or kg/m, the lower the better). I16 type 28 (M63 engine and cannons, which in my opinion is the type modelled in game as type 24) was far lighter than a Bf 109 E3. Numbers I have (others may differ, but not so much) tell the tale very well: the I16 has a power loading of 1.89 kg per hp; the Emil of 2.27 per hp. Span loading is 203 kg per m for the Polikarpov, and 254 kg per m for the Messerschmitt. Given these numbers, the I16 should climb much better than the 109 at low altitudes (at high altitude supercharger efficiency enters the picture, and the situation could be very different). The I16 should also be better in sustained turn rate.

I16 owes many of it's qualities to it's small dimensions. Lightning rate of roll and responsiveness to the controls have to do with that ( and the backward position of the CG, too). It says a lot about the game flight physics that these have been so nicely reproduced in the game-to the point of plane beeing difficult to fly, just like RL.
I16 had a very good rate of climb, too, for it's time, beeing small and light. The soviets are going to continue building small fighter planes after I16, on account of all that.

Span and wing loading are of minor importance for highly powered planes , like fighters.
AoA remains rather small in climb here, unlike by motor gliders, for example. What is important is power loading and parasite drag. Your Emil's power loading is approx. where you put it, (2,21 = 2600Kg/1175Hp) but for Polikarpov , the plane takeoff weight is ca. 2000kg and sea level power 930 HP.That makes for the W/P ratio of 2,15. (1100 HP could have been used only for a minute or two during the take-off; take -off power.)
As expected, I16 has a slightly better initial climb than 109E3/4. Emil climbs at 14-15 m/s and the type 28 at 14,7-15 m/s. The difference would be more in the I16 favor, but it was draggy with it's big radial.
Now, I read reports that the production standards lowered the power of the M62/63 as much as 100 HP sometimes - and what we just used is the prototype data. Same went for the airframe. So, real numbers were somewhat lower.
We could say , two planes climbed roughly at the same rate. I16 had a better turn rate- that is where the wing loading comes into play. Real numbers were 17-19 s , as TsAGI gives them, for the Type 28 and 20 s for the Emil (British test at 4000 m height, reduced to 1000m as used by Il2Compare). Game lets the I16 turn 360° in 17,5 s, and Emil in 23,4 s
Well, in-game I-16 climbs 21,25 m/s , and Emil-4 is overrated at 17,5 m/s. There are some reports Emil climbing at that rate, but i wouldnt take them seriously.
Another thing bugging Emil even more than the rest of the Bfs is a reduced maximum lift coefficient, from ca. 1.95 to 1.65, and that certainly doesnt help manoeuvring either.
Emil simply has no chance against an I16, not because of the climb superiority of the Ishak only, but because of the very bad turn rate, simillar to one of a two engined fighter or a FW190. 109E can hardly win against anything,actually, because of that.

Worse is that the F4 can hardly win a fight with an I16 - best it can normally do is a draw.
F was immensely superior in climb to I16 in reality, but the game turns this upside down, giving the Ishak a better climb up to 2000 m.

[Furio]

PE_Tihi,
Your reasoning makes sense to me. Where I disagree is about power (and power loading). In my opinion, max power time limitations have mainly to do with long term engine life. In combat situations, pilots used all they had, as long as the combat lasted (which usually was a very short time).
I agree with you that 21 m/s are way too much climb for the poor old I16. However, I have some doubt about the 109F having an “immensely” superior climb rate. According to my sources, its power loading was 2.11 kg/hp, not much better than the Emil’s 2.21 (or 2.27, according to my sources), and almost equal to a Type 28 at max continuous power (2.15, according to you). By comparison, an I16 type 24 (four gun model), weighing 1880 kg, had a power loading of 2,02 at maximum continuous power (930 hp), and an impressive 1,7 at max power for two minutes.
All of these numbers, anyway, should be regarded with some suspicion. Average operational planes, flown by average pilots, rarely reached peak performance.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Furio

PE_Tihi,
Your reasoning makes sense to me. Where I disagree is about power (and power loading). In my opinion, max power time limitations have mainly to do with long term engine life. In combat situations, pilots used all they had, as long as the combat lasted (which usually was a very short time).
I agree with you that 21 m/s are way too much climb for the poor old I16. However, I have some doubt about the 109F having an “immensely” superior climb rate. According to my sources, its power loading was 2.11 kg/hp, not much better than the Emil’s 2.21 (or 2.27, according to my sources), and almost equal to a Type 28 at max continuous power (2.15, according to you). By comparison, an I16 type 24 (four gun model), weighing 1880 kg, had a power loading of 2,02 at maximum continuous power (930 hp), and an impressive 1,7 at max power for two minutes.
All of these numbers, anyway, should be regarded with some suspicion. Average operational planes, flown by average pilots, rarely reached peak performance.

Lets simplify the climb performance factors like this:
Thrust (engine power), braked by the drag, lifts the plane weight high.
So talking about the power / weight ratio only, we are forgetting about the drag completely. Just how high the drag of the I16 was- plane flew a top speed of about 465 km/h while the similarily powered 109E flew at 555 km/h. Big difference- 90 km/h is due to the higher drag of the russian plane.
Btw, just found data that Emil could climb at over 16 m/s with the 5 min boost ( Russian tests ) and 16,7 m with 30 min boost is what the German plane manual says. So Oleg may be right with 17.5 m/s for the 5 min boost power.
So you see, in spite of its better power-to-weight, I16 climbs a nice bit slower with it's 14,5 m/s. That is due to drag.
109F not only had a more powerfull engine than emil, but is much refined aerodynamically at the same time- parasite drag has been reduced. It 's climb is quoted at 20 m/s , and this number has been used by Oleg, too.

[Furio]

Simplification must be accepted, but if you talk about drag during climb, you should not mention top speed. Climb happens at much lower speed, and much lower drag (the best climb speed for the I16 is 200 kpm only).
But this is not my main point. Overall, the BF109 was a more modern and effective combat type than the I16, nobody dispute this. More: the 109 still had development potential, while the Polikarpov had reached (and passed) its peak. My point is that numbers on a flight manual are written while testing a plane in ideal conditions, and that the same numbers were seldom if ever reached in operative environment. In my opinion, faster planes suffer more than slower ones. Think at the effect of dirt, mud or light surface damages on a fabric covered biplane compared to the same on a laminar flow Mustang or B24. So, in my opinion, an overall levelling of performances is not that unrealistic. Numbers alone cannot explain how the P39 was outclassed in the Pacific in 1942, and held its own against Luftwaffe in 1945. Or how the P38 fared badly against Luftwaffe and did so well in the Pacific.
In my opinion, the I16 suffered more for Luftwaffe superior tactics in the opening stages of Barbarossa than for superior BF109 performances, and that such tactical situation is very hard to replicate in a game.