http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...%28s%29-Forums

MG151/20 ballistics for different shell types. Notice the gun isnt a factory fresh one but already seen some use.

1) I agree with the new FW 190 FM. ;), Thanks Great Work.

But..
Y lose my boost, and lose speed . ( I like the new 190 FM I must repeat thats )

2)But... The speed corresponds to the tests of luftwaffe ?-
Is only a question.

3)With the new overheat system ..the radiator setting, is a big problem.


4)***The FW 190 Have build a enclosed engine + radiator oil system enclosed too + Cooling Fan , ( For extra cooling :... I AM a genius :P )
I open full radiator and I lose 20 Kms/H.
Like luftwaffe test is correct !

5)**** In the La 5 FN I open full the radiator and I lose only 10 -15 Kms/H
I think must be 45 / 50 Kms/H - (La 5 FN manual)

Sorry but.
If that is true my FW maybe can run out from LA s 5.

From La 5 FN Manual

My apologies if I'm wrong ...

?




http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...co1/img042.jpg

.

Dora issues
 

There are several problems with d9:

1) Both initial and MW50 versions are late 1944 (September and November respectively), so their titles or captions should be adjusted.
1945 Doras were the D11 and D13

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fw190 :
2) They do overheat very quickly and badly at 100% with boost at any altitude and speed even with the fully opened radiator,even in a 750-800km/h shallow dive between 5 and 2km which doesn't feel right.
They overheat much faster than Antons, Mustangs, p47s, LAs, and just about any other plane except for late Spits and 109s.

3) D9 45's engine after about 15-20 min of flying quickly overheats and dies in a matter of 10-15 sec. Even if you didn't use MW50 most of the time.

4) MW50 Dora's top speed is indeed lower than in any source I was able to find (about 710km/h) by about 20km/h

I'm all for realism, but if you alter(or should I say cripple?) one plane, please do the same to the competition.

According to many sources even La7s had some difficulties catching same age Antons(let alone Doras) in a shallow dive. But in the game it's a piece of cake. Even in d9 45 it is difficult to get away from La7s and even from i185m71 joke-plane, because they don't overheat as badly as Dora does, so while D9 45 is slightly faster, with all other things equal it will overheat much faster than la7 so you won't be able to maintain or increase separation, and since La7s also happens to be more maneuverable - there is nothing you can do (well maybe bail).

The D-9 with MW50 has been labelled 1945 since ages, and as it is a plane representative for D-9's in 45 there's little reason to change it. The MW50 kit was a rare item at best by late 1944.

If you have a problem with overheating, I suggest you try not to use WEP all the time, or fly the plane at higher altitudes where the lower outside temperatures help it to cool the engine. Diving at full throttle is a bad thing too, it was outright forbidden in the pilot manual. You're over-revving the engine. 3300 was the absolute limit, check how your rpm's are in the dive.

How much data do you have on the D-9 with MW50?

Sorry but that's doesn't mean it can't be corrected. Many server owners use these dates/years to compile planesets.

The problem is that not only it overheats quickly, but that it just dies after about 10 min of flying (radiator always fully opened) in a usual busy open pit server mode.
As an experiment I flew a mission mostly @ 80% using full throttle only in climbs, Didn't engage MW50 whatsoever and yet after ~10 min I got an overheat warning (while going full throttle) an in a matter of seconds (maybe 10) the engine started squeaking. If at this stage you don't drop below 70% or something - the engine will die completely within maybe another 30sec.
If you reduce to 50-70% you can still make it to the field if its not too far and you don't get shot down by some uber la7.

No other plane behaves like that. Usually you don't have to act immediately to prevent engine failure. It shouldn't be hard to replicate, I get this every time I use Dora, especially the MW50 version (and survive 10-15 min, which is most of the time). So this makes d9 barely flyable. And that was one of the most popular 1944+ planes.

Only what's in Wikipedia, but most websites mentioning Dora list the same specs and data.

Exactly, and that's why 1945 is the better choice.

I just flew a fuel tank empty with the D-9 1945. No troubles. Keeping radiator open and air speed up, I only once overheated at around 4000m when climbing from sea level to 8000m at 110% power throughout. So I'm still guessing you're over-revving the engine. If you can provide a track, it would help.

Wikipedia figures aren't always the most reliable. For instance, 710 km/h at 11000m is not a figure any D-9 ever attained.

I think there's a lot of pilot error (lack of education) involved here.

a) I fly the anton 9s vs spitIX+25lbs (all '44) with reasonable difficulty and almost at full power = 50/50 outcome
b) Then again with the dora9 vs spitIX+25lbs (all '44) with little or no difficulty mostly at full power = 25/75 in my favour.

All scenarios < 1000m, never had and overheat... I mean not one ??
All Difficulty = Full Real ;)
:cool:

Sorry, I'm not following you here? How is it a better choice to put a 1944 German plane in 1945 if the war ended for them after only 4 months of 1945?

And then this late 1944 is pitted against mid/late 1945 planes?

For instance according to this Russian resource:
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/la7.html

The 3 cannon version of La-7 went into production in summer of 1945, but in the game it is available in 1944!
By the way the the max speed for La-7 according to Il2 Compare is 682km/h - that is the result achieved by the prototype "Эталон" plane (actually 680), and I doubt that average new plane coming off the factory lines would show the same performance. Wikipedia article for La-7 lists a more realistic figure of 661km/h @6000m for the 1945 production model.

So given all that I can't help but notice the performance specs look somewhat biased towards soviet planes...

Try Crimea, between 100 to 300m , just fly straight, MW50 + 110% radiator fully open. I get the "overheat" message in ~1:50min.

Well okay, The top speed figure for D9 is varies between 680 and 705 km/h @~6000m depending on the source. So that's close to 710 albeit not at 11k, and I agree that figure did look a bit strange - could be some experimental model with GM-1 boost?

Speaking of speeds and reliable sources, according to Il2 compare the top speed for D9 is pretty close in the game(~692km/h @ 5500m), however sea level figures look a bit low:

This article has some authentically looking reports and figures:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...190d9test.html

So if you have a loot at this figure from that article:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...omp-metric.jpg
You can see that its sea level speed should be around 610km/h and in I2 Compare it is ~610km/h.
By the way, during my tests I could't make it go faster than 575km/h (normally like 560) without making a very shallow dive, but in a La-7 I managed to reach ~600 (605 in IL2 Compare)...
Anyway. back to the graph, between 0 and 1500m IL2Compare figures are 10-20km/h lower than on this graph. Furthermore, between 1500 and 2300m in Il2Copmare the speed drops, while on the report diagram it stays between 645 and 655km/h. At 3000m the difference between the report and il2 compare is 20-25km/h (640 vs ~660-665)
These graphs are given for 3250rpm - and this was allowed for 30 min.
Measured results of these captured planes show for example that D9 should be able to go at least 665km/h @6150m for at least 30min. I'm pretty sure you can't do that in the game without blowing the engine.I'm saying at least, because they were not in the perfect shape, not just off the production line with the brand new engine. And if you are using "Эталон" figures for La-7, Why not use the FockeWulf figures on that graph with the engine gap sealed, no ETC504 rack? I'm not even suggesting using the one with C3 fuel ;) BTW that C3 one - that's with the ETC 504 thingy. Drop it and you probably can expect 710km/h @ 6k...

Vanilla I2 upped to patch 4.11.* - the latest?
Full power + MW50? Like I said - I create a quick mission, fly straight MW50+max power with open radiator and get an overheat under 2min. Full real as well (well, at least engine wise). What am I possibly doing wrong here?
I'd love to see a track of you managing to maintain 110%+MW50 at sea level for more than say 5min and not get an overheat with some notes on how you achieve that?

To measure the time to overheat, you should really start from take-off when the "virtual" engine of the D-9 is cold with rad open, then see how long it takes. Not when the engine is already warm. Also keep in mind each map is modeled different temperature, effects of cooling from airspeed.

Think about it. 3250 is very high rpms even today for piston engine. This isn't even water cooled! High rpms creates more heat and that will break down the oil/lubricant chemical bonds and then the engine damage. Learn to use force of gravity in combination with your engine, this will get you your speed in any plane. Use the high rpms to get torque at your low speeds for acceleration, then lower the rpms and atas to keep it cool when your moving fast.

Regarding the speed figures from ww2aircraftperformance. You'll see the effect of the engine gap. This was not sealed in real life. In performance calculations it was assumed sealed, because the model wasn't exact enough. So tests with gap sealed as well as Fw performance calculation show higher speeds than were attainable with the real D-9. So for reasonable real life performance, take the green line (Fw Flugmechanik, 15.12.44), and subtract 10-15 km/h for the effect of the engine gap.

3250 rpm were allowed for 30 mins max., unless the engine exceeded temperature limits.

If you are basing your La7 FM on the "эталон"(prototype) La7, why not use the FW's figures with the sealed engine gap?
The real life La7s that saw combat would surely be noticeably slower than the prototype?

So if you choose top stats for FMs that green line would be a good model for the 44 Dora, and the C3 line would be a good model for D9 45.

In reality, the Il2 compare figure @2000m is 625km/h and FW data shows at least 650km/h. Even the captured D9 (sealed gap) shows 645km/h.
And finally, even the captured 190 with the gap not sealed shows 630km/h.

So across the board FW190D9 MW50 figures are (often way)lower than it was in reality, while La7s(for example) is represented by the prototype model (so it was in the perfect shape for those trials when they got 680km/h) or even slightly better (Il2 Compare shows 682km/h). Many Russian sources(not just Wikipedia) state La7s top speed was 661km/h. So why 682km/h? That's even more than the prototype's figure!

Is it just me of this does indeed look biased?

If 3250 was allowed for 30 min max that kinda gives a ballpark estimate of the engine endurance, doesn't it? Why would they allow it for 30 min if engine overheated in under 2min and died in 5 even with the open radiator while going ~600 km/h? That doesn't make any sense.

And what about the 1944 vs 1945 issue - why the 1944 D9MW50 is in 1945 plane set but 1945 La7(3 cannon version) is in 1944?

There is no ground take off in QMB. It always starts mid-air. Are you sure quick missions start with the warm engine?
Either way, in my tests(on the Crimea map, 100m alt) D9 MW50 overheats in 1:05m, La7 in 1:30 and Spit 25lbs in 1:55m. (all closed/auto radiator)

So 4.11 Dora is seriously crippled not only top speed wise, but also engine endurance wise as well.

Another interesting observation - the spit flew full 19 mins @110% before the engine died and it didn't show any signs of damage until maybe 12min into flight. D9 died in ~3:30 and La7 in 4:30. I understand that the time to failure is not fixed in this new patch, but still, these are the figures I got.

Sorry but Jumo213A IS liquid cooled and it was rated for 30 min at that rpm.
Now that might look high, but Junkers engineers allowed that, so they probably knew their engine better and knew what they were doing.

I just leave pitch at auto and control in with the throttle.
My problem is not that it overheats, but that water cooled Dora overheats faster than air cooled La7 and much faster than water cooled Spitfire 25lbs.
This is not correct, besides, MW50 should actually cool the engine, and increase its efficiency.

*Cough* Select "Scramble" in QMB and you get your take-off. ;)

Where is that? I can't see anything called "Scramble" in the QMB

There must be a dropdown menu to choose the type of mission. That list includes a scramble type mission.

Oh, the "Target" menu. Not very intuitive :) Thank you, much appreciated :)

- you can always use full mission builder to make your own mission and take off from the ground.

- okay, so it's water cooled. whatever. 30 minutes, whatever. it's virtual. there is no water, there is no air, there is no plane. it is all pretend.;)

- iirc, the 213 is modified/beefed up 211. the 211 had much lower rpm power band. the point is 3250 is a high rpm for piston engine, creates a lot of heat no matter water cooled or not, and you can't expect to cruise around in your plane like that. that's not what the high rpm part of the power band is for.

- even if there is a cooling effect from mw50 and the engine is water cooled, it is not enough to overcome the additional heat caused by running the engine at 3250 rpms! eventually, there is no more heat exchange with the oil, radiator water and outside air. The engine just keeps getting hotter and bad things start to happen to the engine.

-i forgot to mention, to engage the mw50, your supposed to reduce your throttle first or you get engine damage. unless they changed that in 4.11. but I fly up3 rc4 based on 4.10.

Il-2 compare date is not corrected to standard conditions, full throttle altitudes are lower than they are in real life data corrected to standard conditions. This effects speeds.

I have no intention of discussing the La-7 in a Fw 190 flight model topic.

Time limits and temperature limits are separate limits, they are about as related as dive and load limits.

You should install 4.11.1.

What are the standard conditions then and what is the value of IL2Compare if they are not indicative of the il2 plane specs?

I can't achieve even the il2 compare speeds in a FW - usually 25-30kmh slower. In a La-7 the it is only 5kmh slower.

Fine, I might create a new topic.

I am using 4.11.1m

I made a few tests of the Fw-190A-9 in the Smolensk map (that's where the flight data from Il2Compare applies, so I just flew a QMB mission there), and with rad closed, full power, a little rudder to compensate, elevator trim + a little joystick, and manual pitch to get between 2600-2700 RPM, I got a TAS (I know what you see inside the cockpit is IAS) of ~605 Kmph at ~1500m (and I'm not a very good pilot so someone with a better touch and knowledge can surely do better). So the numbers in Il2Compare can be achieved IMHO.

Wether some planes reach max speed faster, or can do it without so much manhandling is a different subject and I'm not qualified to have an opinion there.

Anyway, the Fw-190 feels quite different from previous versions of the game, and I'm having a blast flying it (and suffering it greatly when it's on my 6).

That's good but I was mainly talking about D9 Late @ sea level. According to IL2 Compare A9 should go 610km/h at 1500 so you're pretty close. Not sure if manual pitch should be required given that German planes had a komnandaggregat or something - basically a controller or governor - some difficult German word.
Anyway, try the same with D9 Late at sea level. I couldn't achieve more than 570km/h (should be ~600). In La-7 however I was able to reach ~600 pretty easily (Il2Cmp figure is 605)

I tested it but going down to sea level was a little difficult in Smolensk. I just followed a river that went fairly straight on, and found that in Fw-190D_Late, with rad closed, pitch auto, WEP on, no cockpit (to see TAS), I got a sustained ~590Kmph speed. Still short of the figures in Il2Compare, but better than the 570 you mentioned.

Reaching that speed was, however, really painful in level flight, and the overheat message appeared quite fast. The engine went on for several minutes without losing AtA or RPMs, so maybe the message comes in too quickly. I never fly in this conditions when in combat, so I have hardly seen the overheat message before, and have no idea about it's accuracy.

About the La, I didn't have the time to test it in the same manner. Maybe I can today after work.

Dear Z1024
 

I apologise for my 5000+ hrs of combat flying experience..
Non the less I have real life stuff to attend to

It looks like when you take off from the ground it does not overheat very quickly. I could climb for at least 3-4 min with 110% + MW50 without getting an overheat message.
Haven't tested other planes.
However if I fly QMB or on a server with airstart - it does overheat very quickly - quicker than most other planes (actually all I've tested). And this doesn't look right because Germans allowed 3250rpm for 30min and MW50 for 10 min at a time, which is longer than La7's WEP mode (5min) for example, yet Dora overheats sooner in the game. Liquid cooled engines (such as D9s Jumo213A) enjoy more uniform cooling than the radial engines (such as La7s ASh-82FN) It is more difficult to arrange the airflow to cool both the front and back sets of cylinders. The back one overheats more. And yet in the game D9 overheats faster than La7 which did have these problems with quick overheating in the WEP mode.

But my main problem with D9, like I said earlier - is that its engine dies after ~10-15 min of intense/combat mode flight. This happens ONLY to D9s - at some point it displays the overheat message and then quickly dies. This is not a MW50/boost related issue as I flew a mission without engaging it even once and it still died the same way. I don't think I over-rev the engine because I use auto pitch and even in a full powered dive when the plane approaches 900km/h the RPM indicator still shows around 3200 (maybe 3250) - and I never exceed maybe 850 in a dive, and usually reduce the throttle to zero when diving faster than 750.
This behavior is new in 4.11 (and still exists in 4.11.1). It only happens to D9s - Antons, 109s, Spit, Ki84 - I fly them all in the same way and never have this problem with those planes.
Something was changed in the D9s FM or the bigger change to engine overheat model affected only Doras in this way.

:eek:...
I never push them beyond 600... and never had an overheat.
You're probably pushing too hard ;)

This track (vanilla 4.11.1) might give you an idea.. You'll notice that the Temps gauges hardly move ! (excuse the slip.. have no pedals at the mo)

Thanks for the track, but what was it supposed to prove? That you can fly a D9 without going into overheat if you fly mostly under 80% and never use boost? But I already know that.
BTW that tactics might work with rookie-level AI but try that vs semi-competent online pilot in a spit and you'll get shot down in no time. There is no way you can dogfight a co-E spit in a d9. And it gets worse in an open pit environment because it removes SA issues - all these visual clues, and 360degree view help immensely.

PS. what was wrong with the right ammo counter?:)

As far as I remember those were Ace AI... although I found it strange that the 1 and 2 went off on a tangent. I never fly offline with anything other than Ace AI as there's no challenge.

As for online, the same type a/c management still applies as you have to keep 'cool' :grin:.

One thing a lot of people get wrong with this game, is that you don't have to be at top speeds/revs 100% of the time to win a fight, you just have to have a better brain and flying capabilities. Once you get that right you'll never have an overheat, or very few of them, and will lose a lot less online DFs even when the odds are stacked against you.

Also flying on anything else other than a 100% server is a waste of time for the FW, as all the usable advantages are negated.

;)

Dogfighting Spits in a Fw-190? If you fly like that online, you'll be dead in less than 1 minute.

BTW, even Ace AI are 10 times more inferior than an experienced human player.

This KI should have outperformed me in a A9, of all things - This plane's a deadweight compared to a Dora.. but what you see on paper is not the same in the air. Results could have been better thanks to the p38 :grin:

I had a similar spit track but seemed to have conveniently lost it, but this old track makes the point. ;)

The main issue for top speed of German plane is that you need several mins to get thesepeed which is 20-30km/h lower than il2compare top speed value. But for Las they are very easily and very quickly to get top speed.this game is dying.

Yep, exactly. And by the time you reach that speed your'e in the serious overheat territory...

The whole game is dying, because two of the racer planes do not feel the way, that you imagine. Yep, understood.

That´s the attitude, Casper!!!
Great effort.

In a way Casper is correct.
There was a lull in activity with the great expectations of Clod, but this has not proven to be what it's worth.
There should have been a larger swing back to IL2 and TD's updates, but this has not been as much as expected, probably for numerous reasons, but I'd say these are tops..

- Age ... Time has moved on (profound statement :grin: )
- Modding... IL2 lost it's standard 'baseline' that everyone could trust online. While extras, effects and maps are a great help. Interfering with the FMs and DMs in an uncontrolled way simply reduced that online atmosphere of competition, which was the main draw-card of IL2.

I thought Casper was being sarcastic to the comment made by another poster. Maybe he is sick & tired of all of the bs.

After all if you contribute your time to a passion & sombody takes a very -ve approach to that most people generally crack the sh@ts

The sense of indignant entitlement that seems to hang round any Il-2 forum like a bad smell is really starting to grate.

Caspar has every right to be sarcastic - his and his teams efforts are done for no financial gain and a massive amount of hard graft, and what thanks do they get? Criticism, insults and belittlement of their toil.

You think they pull flight model data from thin air? Make it up as they go along? They use sources that have documentable historical authenticity - now if these were cherry picked at the time by the people who compiled the report and the data does not truly represent an aircraft of the line then that is not their fault; it certainly does not mean that gut reaction, estimated opinion or some highly subjective feeling should be used to 'correct' it. After all, in that situation, whose opinion is correct?

And remember a lot of the figures being quoted come from secondary sources, books whose authors are no doubt thorough researchers but often who have pulled figures from other secondary sources. Unreliable at best.

Find a verifably original document of a tested front-line VVS aircraft in fighting trim with all the figures you desire and THEN present your opions to the TD chaps. Otherwise all your typing is nothing but mere conjecture.

If we want a constructive discussion, sarcasm won´t get us nowhere.
Sad enough to have flaming forum trolls, but flaming developers is not acceptable.

I want to believe you are correct, I would be sure if sources were presented, which is not the case. As long as this is not presented it is thin air.
Asking questions must legitimate and is scinetific method.
Flaming about is ruining the work of the developers team.

So my plea to everyone on the forum is -if cannot say anything construcive, don´t say anything.

Of course it was sarcasm. It one way to tell people, that they said something stupid, without being to honest about it.

Most FM discussions are about late war uberplanes, again and again. That shows me, what kind of spirit that is, where the attitude is, and that tells me where the oppinions come from and that tells me, how I can judge it.

I didn't say, the stock FMs are holy and correct - and especially not in case of the La's (Haha!). But its not only the late war planes, its everywhere in the game, lots of planes need to be revised and more over: reseached with care!
FM's are gonna be looked at, one after another. There are some quite good informations about La-7 over at one or two other threads in this forum. Thats a good thing - so no sarcasm there. But 'the game is dying' because of what? Sorry, that won't get something different from me.

And how do you know all that exactly? Are you affiliated with 1C/the original Maddox team or TD or know what their processes are? Or you just believe in that without any factual evidence?

I'm sure for some aircraft no test data is available or it is incomplete so they just had to do their own modelling, and/or use estimated/predicted performance figures or even plausible guesstimating (and nobody blames them for that). (Lershe, Ta183? they were never built, let alone tested)
We do appreciate their work and we are grateful for it. Personally I find the 6DOF support fantastic.
I would't say the game is dying either. It is still the best WW2 Air Sim.
But there is always room for improvement - including the FM department.

This is not gut reaction/feeling, we give figures to support our observations, and use very basic and general logic (the "if a>b and b>c then a>c" kind). For example we've established that in the game FW190D9 MW50 overheats and its engine fails faster than La7s even though Junkers allowed max power setting for 30min and MW50 for 10min at a time and La7 pilots were allowed to use max power for 5min. So you'd kinda expect D9 should take longer to overheat than La7 but this is not the case in the game.
If you believe some source is unreliable - you need to specify which one, and why. Otherwise this sentence is meaningless and has no substance.

In case you were addressing me - see my earlier posts comparing the data pulled from test reports and FW figures with the Il2 compare figures.
And I am using sources that at least look reliable: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...326#post434326

Reliable sources or not.. One thing that can be more or less factual and is represented in the game (and improving over time) is the relative performances of each aircraft, it's advantages and disadvantages - this has always seemed to fit the bill, and quality control of these features are important, if you do not want to destroy the online game.

Sure minor hiccups here and there, but essentially it has taught those who have taken the time to know their favourite a/c, how to fly it to it's max. In this, IL2 has been more satisfying than any other flight sim.

:grin:

A legitimate question. We choose those sources, that - as we do think - have the best documentable historical authenticity. But we never tested such planes ourself, of course, so we cannot be sure 100%. Telling so would be a lie.
Sometimes we very eagerly discuss internally, which source is the best. Sometimes we even have to do reasonable estimations, if sources are impossible to get. We are normal people, we are 'also cooking only with water' - as we say in germany.
But we are very careful with what we use as source and what not - be assured.

Excellent.
It would be great to reference these sources or even better to quote them.
Then the endless discussions will most likely stop.

I'd love to see a furious argument about the Avia B.534, J8A, or Cr.42 :)

I bet, they would rise up instead. Talking about FMs is one thing, talking about sources the next. They would be questioned anyway. It would be like opening a can of worms. In the end we would have to deliver proving stuff for all we change - order to stop discussions - as long as the change doesn't please anyone.

However, thats not up to me, as I do not own the references about FMs (I'm a cockpitmaker guy). :(

LOL, me too! :grin:

This, by multiple orders of magnitude.

The early war aircraft are so fascinating, and the interwar designs more so.

The last of the biplanes were very competitive with the early monoplanes at their time of introduction, and some of the early monoplane designs were simply brilliant in their day (as short as it was). For instance you can make a very valid argument that the PZL P11 was the best fighter in the world when it was introduced, the same for the I 16 as well. If the world economy had been better in the mid 30's, my beloved Curtiss Hawk 75 could have been flying in numbers in 1935.

It was an amazing era of innovation in aviation, all over the globe, and focusing on 1944 blinds you to some great aircraft designs that set the standards for what was to come.

Well said.

References 1
References 2
References 3
References 4
References 5

Going through just 100000 pages of the above sources should give anyone a fairly accurate impression of the Fw 190. While the discussions would hardly stop, they at least become interesting and useful.

How do you afford all those documents and books? Do you actually have to spend hundreds of bugs to get good data?

I'd gladly spend some of my free time studying the technical specs and performance data of fighter aircraft, but I'm a student and I can't afford all the reference data.

It's expensive but even more time consuming. Someone has to go through the pages and find out what's useful and what's not. But I guess for the TD members who do the research, it is a hobby anyway. There's also good support from a few community members.

Imho, it never hurts to read something. In the worst case it is junk, but then one at least knows where some folks get their funny ideas from.

you not right...

m-82a have 5-7 min "forsazh" (in fact, sometimes, pilots used forsazh 10 and more min if this was need and sometimes kill engine, of course:))...

forsazh for m-82a = nominal power m-82f, so la-5f's have good perfomance with 550-560 km/h at SL for good plane and without any really hard time limits (in tests F have some problems with cooling cylinders, but if you see "problems", this not mean problems not solved)...

m-82fn can work on forsazh 10-15 min - this have in ALL la-5fn and la-7 manuals and you can see this here - "Взлетный режим - не более 10 мин" and "Температура головок цилиндров - 250° (не более 15 мин)"...


EDIT

after all i read FN-manual again, some things remembered, do some little research and what can say now - m-82fn, like m-82f, can work on forsazh all time of flight if aircraft have good cooling of engine (like with full or just open all "radiators" or in winter)... all veterans talk about this too...

10 min max for critical oil T and 15 min max for critical cylinders T from manual, with or without some cooling, this is limits for one use without serious after-effects...

and phrase "Взлетный режим - не более 10 мин" - maybe this is what i write about temperatures, maybe it's + and next thing - resource of m-82fn was 100 hours (or something like this), and engine only 6 hours from 100 can work on forsazh... of course, can more, but in this case engine need to be repaired or he not work good all 100 hours... so, this is cautions for long life of engine and cautions for one sort of pilots ("культура эксплуатации двигателя")...

so, something like this... maybe i somewhere little wrong, maybe no (i think no), sorry for mistake if what...

In response to several posts concerning the new drag profile of the FW190 and the suggestion that a test be carried out, I have produced the following results of deceleration rates and ROD's in the landing config. versus the Bf109

They are in no way scientific, but do show that there may be an issue with the current coefficient of drag setting applying to the whole flight envelope including rates of descent in the landing config.

I do believe that the current settings provide a good dogfighting FM and in no way would it be necessary to change that. However, some tweaking of the drag coefficient to produce more drag in the landing config. may add to realism as currently it does seem to be a little in error.

Nicholaiovitch:-)

Here are the results of the suggested tests:-

Please note error in ROD:- Should be "mpm" (metres per minute) not "mps" (metres per second)

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/n...190_drag01.jpg

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/n...190_drag02.jpg

Thanks for going the length to do the testing and preparing the results in an attractive way.

It appears that compared to real life procedures for the 109, the 109 is totally off the mark, the 190 being more reasonable. We get a glide ratio of ~1/3 for the 109 and ~1/5 for the 190.

start-Notleistung= emergency combat power (1/42ATA)
steig/kampfleistung= climb/continous max power (1/32ATA)

now about the REAL boost on A5 and forward:

The following text has been copied from a private Forum several years ago but it seems i fracked up the file and only have a part of the whole text.:evil:
Source

801D boost or C3-Einspritzung
Increasing Knock Limited Performance in the BMW801D2
Part 1
Throughout the war, the BMW801D2 was continually developed to keep
pace with the performance of the allied fighters faced by the FW-190
equipped Geschwaders. The engine became a reliable workhorse and made
the FW-190 one of the best performing low altitude fighters of the war.
It began its design lifecycle with a top shaft output of 1670PS at
Start u Notleistung at 1st Gear supercharger full throttle height and
gained 150 PS by wars end at the same settings. Additional boost systems
raised this power output to over 2100PS. The BMW801D2 was developed to
the limits of its potential and even beyond a point when other motors
such as the BMW802 showed greater promise for a similar effort.
The Achilles heel however continued to be high altitude performance.
This article in two parts will discuss the 4 major systems used to
increase knock-limited performance in the BMW801D2 above the engines
normal Start u Notleistung rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June of 1942 BMW completed a theoretical investigation in the potential
development of the motor. Without any major change to the motor it was
possible to increase shaft power output at full throttle height by 40PS
at Start u Notleistung and 110PS at Steig u Kampfleistung. With some major
changes it was possible to get a shaft output of 2000PS without additional
knock limiting performance enhancements. It was determined that the motor
had the potential for developing between 2000PS-2200PS by injection of
knock limiting agents such as water or alcohol water mixtures.
Work began immediately on putting the theory into practice.
Prototype motors were constructed and work began on improving the power
output of the motor at all levels. By July 1942 BMW had constructed several
prototype motors to begin laboratory bench testing. BMW801D2V15 achieved
1950PS shaft output without ram or knock limiting performance enhancements
during this phase. In the quest for attaining the full potential of the
BMW801D2 three knock limiting agent injection systems and one method of
oxygen enrichment of the charge were shown to be practical or worthy of
further investigation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3-Einspritzung, The Bomber and Attack Pilots Insurance
The first system to see operational adoption was the injection of C3 fuel
as a knock limiting agent directly into the left side of the supercharger
intake.
Motors were modified with stronger pistons adopted from the BMW801E/S
development. These new pistons became the production standard on all
BMW801D series motors in June 1943.

On the 10th of April 1943 the first flight testing of the new system began
with a 25-minute flight in the low altitude portion of the 1st gear
supercharger and resulted in 8 minutes of the systems use.
By the 22nd of April 1943 test flights were using the system as long as 15
minutes and at manifold pressures as high as 1.8ata between 3.5km and
7km altitude.
Initial flight-testing was completed on the 17th of May 1943.
The flight test results concluded however that the system produced 2050PS
in the 1st Gear Supercharger and that a manifold pressure of 1.65ata could
be used reliably. As the pressure fell off with altitude however,
the standard fuel pump was not able to provide sufficient quantities of fuel
to allow the system to develop additional power in the 2nd Gear Supercharger.
The engine cooling was also not sufficient enough for the system to be used in
climbing flight. The fuel pump could not deliver enough fuel to the left hand
supercharger intake to keep cylinder temperatures within operational limits at
climbing speeds. It was felt that a further 50PS of thrust power could be
gained by changing the propeller reduction gearing to a more suitable ratio
in order to fully exploit the new power gains of the motor. The initial
testing was completed and the findings compiled by the 19th of July 1943.
It is interesting to note that JG54 begins reporting experience with the
new system in 23 July 1943. This point..(text missing)



So, there are actually 2 different versions
Phase1: Low alt 1.58ATA (1000m max with standard fuel-pump) from june43 to end 43
Phase2: Full 1.65ATA on both Charger's gears from End 43.
And this system was as it seems used on all versions afterwards;)

Tests of Glide ratio (clean) of the BF109G2 are well within published criteria.

- Stable flight, 260-270kph (best L/D speed), radiator closed, engine "Off" gives 1minute 42sec to lose 1000m (same conditions as in previous test)

- This gives the Bf109G2 FM a glide ratio of 12.78:1 (as published on the net)

- Test of the Fw190A4 with 4.11 FM (same L/D speed quoted) and same conditions gives 1minute 56sec to lose 1000m.

- This gives the Fw190A4 new FM a glide ratio of 16.52:1.......Is that correct?

Nicholaiovitch:)

Wait - 270 km/h = 75m/s.
Bf 109 - 102 seconds to lose 1000m - 7650m distance / 1000m altitude = 7.7
Fw 190 - 116 seconds to lose 1000m - 8700m distance / 1000m altitude = 8.7

You had me scared there for a minute, 16.5 would be way too high. Even 12.8 sound like a very good figure for a plane like the 109.

Oops....sorry JtD...I was still calculating ROD and got my sums mixed up....however....have a look at this:-

http://www.adlerhorst-hangar.com/emil-91.html

Nicholaiovitch:)

Certainly an interesting account. Messerschmitt polars for the 109 E show a optimum L/D of about 10, at a Cl of around 0.5. I'm more inclined to stick with that figure than with Bob's. Focke Wulf gives L/D max of around 11 for the Fw 190A. Unfortunately I couldn't find polars for the flaps down configuration.

Both figures show a bit of a variance, so +- 1 is easily possible, but at any rate, I guess we can agree that the in game glide ratio as measured by you is (way) too low. I'll try to do my own test soon and will see if I can confirm your findings, it might help to reduce speed a bit.

Basically I can confirm your findings. I'm getting the 109 to about 1:8, the 190 to about 1:9. I think one difference between the real plane and the in game representation is the lack of a fully featherable propeller, this could improve glide ratio quite a bit.

Anyway, what does it tell us about the realism of the landing characteristics, or more specifically the glide characteristics with flaps and gear down? Personally I see no reason to consider the STOL characteristics of the 109 more realistic than the 4.11 190.

Your point about the fully featherable prop. not being available in game is a very worthy comment. (wish it was!)

There are other reports of glide ratios being as high as 1:12 for the Bf109, but thinking about it, all these reports were from BoB pilots attempting to glide across the Channel after engine problems. This would have meant heading SE and with the prevailing wind being from the west in UK, it is conceivable that a tail wind (especially from 4000m as quoted) would have given the impression of a superior glide performance.

It has been an interesting exercise flying these profiles and the conclusions are more or less what has been stated already:-

- The deceleration characteristics of the FW190 with the new FM from speeds above 400Kph to circuit speeds is heavily influenced by the prop behaviour in auto pitch.
- By ensuring radiator is fully open before decelerating and additionally selecting manual pitch (set 100%), the deceleration rate can be very considerably reduced.
- Descent rates (at idle and/or engine shut down)in the landing config. may/may not be truly realistic as no information seems available.

Nicholaiovitch:)

I enjoy threads like this, where level heads prevail, actual data, both in game and real world is discussed and valid conclusions are made in an adult manner.

Thanks gents.

I think everyone should check out my new thread regarding the 190. Well at least the A8. It comes with a 190A8 Handbook that has ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING you could imagine about the A8, where and how thick the armour was, HP with all settings and altitudes, fuel consumption, more than you could ever imagine. The complete package.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...193#post488193