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

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik > Daidalos Team discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-29-2012, 10:37 PM
Z1024 Z1024 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD View Post
Exactly, and that's why 1945 is the better choice.
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

Quote:
Лишь в июне - июле 1944 года в НИИ ВВС удалось провести первые испытания трех синхронных мушек Б-20. Они выявили, что при выбросе гильз в воздух из зализов крыла случались повреждения консолей крыла и хвостового оперения. Машину доработали, сделав выброс гильз под фюзеляж, и в сентябре вновь испытали в НИИ ВВС. В серийное производство трехпушечный вариант пошел летом 1945 г.
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...

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD View Post
Wikipedia figures aren't always the most reliable. For instance, 710 km/h at 11000m is not a figure any D-9 ever attained.
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:

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...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-30-2012, 05:05 AM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-30-2012, 09:56 AM
Z1024 Z1024 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD View Post
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.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JtD View Post
3250 rpm were allowed for 30 mins max., unless the engine exceeded temperature limits.
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?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 11:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.