Quote:
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.
11-29-2008, 02:08 AM
Hybrid Mode
