Official 1C Company forum

Official 1C Company forum (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/forumdisplay.php?f=189)
-   -   Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31450)

Kurfürst 04-24-2012 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 414429)
Yup, could've read that in my first post pages ago though.......

It's 87 octane model as per bug #84 by klem, but unfortunately, and us RAF are all to blame for not picking this up really, the modelling of 87 octane is historically incorrect for the Battle of Britain.

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel. ;)

Insuber 04-24-2012 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo. (Post 414383)
Insuber, lots of us (what you call red pilots) did complain about it - the fact that Hurricane is faster than Spitfire anc climbs better is simply ridicilous and no virtual RAF pilot I know agreed on that.

It was a stupid joke and I apologize to the red pilots. Humor doesn't pass well on forums, I must remind it.

fruitbat 04-24-2012 09:28 PM

well, i guess i'll just keep on playing il2 and HSFX, and wait for Moscow, apart from the odd bimble.

fruitbat 04-24-2012 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414431)
Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel. ;)

Even if i agreed with you, the airfields on the CLOD map are those stations regardless......

Fenrir 04-24-2012 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414431)
Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel. ;)

Yes.

Well, if all of one half are belonging to Fighter Command and based in the south and south east England then well... you do the math.

Kurfürst 04-24-2012 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenrir (Post 414436)
Yes.

Well, if all of one half are belonging to Fighter Command and based in the south and south east England then well... you do the math.

According to whom..? Luftluuver? :D :D :D

Seriously, based on the availabe combat reports etc., such a list of "100octanened" fighter stations was put together a long time and many post ago. I see a lot of stations of 11 Group w/o 100 octane. See: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...8&postcount=43

GraveyardJimmy 04-24-2012 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchon (Post 414425)
It´s coming :

http://i49.tinypic.com/2nrmw0k.jpg

So yeah, that´s lower octane.

The thing is, surely they could just make two version of the spit and hurri flight model. Rather than model the effect of different grade fuel on the engine, have a spit 1a- 100 and a spit1a- 87 with different characteristics at different altitudes. If they can change aircraft individually (as they have for the new patch) then hopefully it is possible.

Or is it perhaps because it is tied into boost it might be that the change is not plane specific but (game) engine-wide?

41Sqn_Banks 04-24-2012 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy (Post 414445)
The thing is, surely they could just make two version of the spit and hurri flight model. Rather than model the effect of different grade fuel on the engine, have a spit 1a- 100 and a spit1a- 87 with different characteristics at different altitudes. If they can change aircraft individually (as they have for the new patch) then hopefully it is possible.

Actually it should be really easy. Simply disable the "boost control cut-out"-button on the 87 octane models.

Kurfürst 04-24-2012 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 414451)
Actually it should be really easy. Simply disable the "boost control cut-out"-button on the 87 octane models.

I am not sure if its workable. In all Il-2s, WEP and non-WEP performance were rather strangely related and not quite close to real world equivalents in my experience... dont get me wrong, I like the idea, just not sure if its compatible with how the Il-2 engine handles these things.

Buchon 04-24-2012 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy (Post 414445)
The thing is, surely they could just make two version of the spit and hurri flight model. Rather than model the effect of different grade fuel on the engine, have a spit 1a- 100 and a spit1a- 87 with different characteristics at different altitudes. If they can change aircraft individually (as they have for the new patch) then hopefully it is possible.

Or is it perhaps because it is tied into boost it might be that the change is not plane specific but (game) engine-wide?

A 100 octanes version could be a fix but guess that they plan to model a more complex FM that includes a better behavior of octane changes.

I think that is a matter of resources, is not a secret that they are writing a upgrade version of the FM with better high altitude behavior and features like propellers turbulence, along with better aerodynamics.

So now, the FM code is opened and the FM coder is immerse in change thousands of lines of code to add Boost behavior and all that.

SEE 04-24-2012 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 414427)
I don't have a lot of hours, but the number of hours playing the game does not change the 1940s test data. I'm not trying to debate this, I'd just like to know why everyone is angry when the test data appears to match game data. If the problem is octane used for testing, then they should model 100 octane in the game.

I don't see a lot of anger David or any reason to be 'shocked'. Of the many threads regards FM this is one is pretty reasonable (so far) and the responses to the graphs on the Russian forums have been similar from what I have heard.

I simply don't understand why the proposed FM (for the Spit Mk1a at altitudes below 6000m) has been changed given that it seems to be very close to the test flight graph as currently modelled in game.

Not 'whining' just asking a question. I fly at altitude but would still like to know the reason for that decision and one that I am unaware of.

SlipBall 04-24-2012 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414431)
Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel. ;)


That then would explain the development team's stance on this subject, they may have figures/charts/graphs/testimonials on fuel distribution of the 100oc .

Kurfürst 04-24-2012 10:27 PM

It's rather premature to draw any conclusions about the FM. The patch isn't out yet. If something is wrong with it, I am sure the developers will polish it further. It never will be perfect, depending on what source you are looking at, but consider this: they have shared some of the upcoming patches results to satisfy the community's curiousity; will they be inclined to do so in the future if it gets so much negative response before its even out as a result..? I doubt it.

41Sqn_Stormcrow 04-24-2012 10:31 PM

Twelve pages on something that nobody yet has tried out *sigh*

Fenrir 04-24-2012 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414438)
According to whom..? Luftluuver? :D :D :D

Seriously, based on the availabe combat reports etc., such a list of "100octanened" fighter stations was put together a long time and many post ago. I see a lot of stations of 11 Group w/o 100 octane. See: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...8&postcount=43

Precisely. the only 11 Group airfields I don't see on that list are Manston and Debden. Of those major fields and their primary satellites on the list, only 6 have not got 100 octane by the time of Adler Tag (and that assumes a worst case scenario that the August fields did not get it till the end of the month).

Some of those airfields you mention - e.g. Martlesham, Detling, West Malling - are barely that - they are at worst meadows which can support the landing and takeoff of aircraft or at best have minimal infrastructure and hangarage. Aircraft were generally not based at these fileds overnight but flown to and from the parent field at dawn and dusk. Smilarly the parent airfield was responsible for the supply and logistics of these smaller satellittes.

That looks like some good research btw. Still would need to see the source docs for proof of derived data.

fruitbat 04-24-2012 11:24 PM

in that thread that Kurfurst posted from, a later collated list from combat reports,

Quote:

The following Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons are known to have used 100 octane fuel before or during the BoB:
1, 17, 19, 41, 43, 54, 56, 64, 65, 66, 72, 73, 74, 79, 85, 87, 92, 141, 145, 151, 152, 222, 229, 234, 245, 249, 264, 303, 602, 603, 605, 609, 610, 611, 616

These squadrons were stationed at the following airfields (bold text) at sometime during the BoB.


11 Group

RAF Biggin Hill

- RAF West Malling

RAF Debden

- RAF Martlesham Heath

RAF Hornchurch

- RAF Hawkinge
- RAF Gravesend
- RAF Manston, night fighter base
- RAF Rochford

RAF Kenley

- RAF Croydon

RAF Northolt

RAF North Weald

- RAF Martlesham
- RAF Stapleford

RAF Tangmere

- RAF West Malling
- RAF Ford
- RAF Lee on Solent, RN airfield
- RAF Gosport, RN airfield
- RAF Thorney Island
- RAF Westhampnett


Not sure which Sector airfield these were assigned to but as all the sector airfields had 100 octane fuel, these to would need a stock of 100 octane fuel.

RAF Detling

RAF Eastchurch

RAF Hendon

RAF Lympne


In 10 Group, 5 of the 6 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel.

In 12 Group, 7 of the 8 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel.

In 13 Group, 7 of the 10 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel. Of the 3 that possible didn't have stocks of 100 octane fuel, one was based in the Shetland Is. and the other in the Orkney Is.

There is some really good info from all participants and from both sides in that thread amongst the arguing.

Bounder! 04-25-2012 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414471)
It's rather premature to draw any conclusions about the FM. The patch isn't out yet. If something is wrong with it, I am sure the developers will polish it further. It never will be perfect, depending on what source you are looking at, but consider this: they have shared some of the upcoming patches results to satisfy the community's curiousity; will they be inclined to do so in the future if it gets so much negative response before its even out as a result..? I doubt it.

Respectfully disagree. Blacksix has very kindly posted graphs detailing proposed / planned changes to the flight models of the Hurricane and Spit Ia on the CoD public forums where they are open to discussion. Surely if people have an opinion about these proposed changes it is appropriate to comment upon them now so that the devs are aware rather than ignorant of any problems / concerns e.g. we posted the proposed changes to the FM on the forums and no-one objected so what’s the problem...

So with that said, I have to say I am disappointed as others are - we seem to have Spits and Hurries modelled on 87 octane (only), and incidentally with performances lower than 87 let alone 100 octane. The most perplexing is the change to the Spits performance below 6000m, which is being reduced to a speed below that currently modelled in game and below the ‘historical’ valves currently presented in the graph.

Like most who post on the board and in this thread I want to see accurate and realistic modelling of all aircraft in the game, not for game play sake but because CoD is a WW2 combat flight simulator.

Bokononist 04-25-2012 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414471)
It's rather premature to draw any conclusions about the FM. The patch isn't out yet. If something is wrong with it, I am sure the developers will polish it further. It never will be perfect, depending on what source you are looking at, but consider this: they have shared some of the upcoming patches results to satisfy the community's curiousity; will they be inclined to do so in the future if it gets so much negative response before its even out as a result..? I doubt it.

Fair point, but as someone who tries to keep an open mind I'm finding it hard to make sense of the info from the devs. It does seem that even in comparison to the data that they're working from, that their flight models are consistently worse, and that's ignoring the fact that they're not even trying to model 100 octane, the fighters that fought this battle. It doesn't even make sense from a partisan point of view, the Germans screwed the soviets over during ww2 in the worst way posible, why would they be biased toward the luftwaffe?
All I can say is that is with all these changes is let's see how it works out after the patch is live, and that any servers that don't allow the spit IIa at the moment should let it back on and see how things play out. It may not turn out to be so bad as the red side think it will.
Before I sign off and order another pint, there is one other thing to bear in mind, the graphs provided only pertain to velocity at altitude, where the spit had the advantage was turn rates, the graphs we have been provided do not take this into account. Maybe 1C know what they're doing and we'll get an awesomely balanced mp after the patch, Maybe not, but I am going to reserve my full vitriol until after the patch is released.

zapatista 04-25-2012 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 414222)
I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

what a load of bollocks !

where have you ever read/heard anything like that about the historical BoB ? do you really think that allied command told their fighters "dont fly below 6000 meters guys, or the very superior performing 109's will make mince meat of you" or "let all bomber formations get through if they fly below 6000 meters, because we'd like to save your planes for later in the war and we'll try and avoid you engaging the 109's" ? you'r making poor excuses for major technical errors/bugs in the game and suggesting "gaming the game" is somehow a solution

the whole point of a SIMULATION of anything that claims to be a ww2 plane sim is that it should as close as possible SIMULATE the performance relationship between those main fighter aircraft. to willfully handicap the red side and then pretend "its the pilot that matters, not the plane" is a load of nonsense.



Blacksix,

extensive data has been provided to you and 1C for some time now that all hurricanes and spitfire squadrons were provided with 100 octane fuel AT THE START OF THE HISTORICAL BOB DATE, yet MG and 1C still dont seem to understand they have used older 87 octane fuel data and you thereby crippled the hurricanes and spitfires in their engagements with 109's

either cripple the 109 in speed to make both planes wrong (but both equally proportionally reduced in speed compared to historical data), which obviously would be silly, OR GIVE US 100 OCTANE FUEL FOR THE SPITFIRES AND HURRICANES !! frankly, i wouldnt bother bringing out the "post-beta patch" (once the gfx engine performance is fixed, and you are adding game bug fixes) without it, since we might as well all go back to using il2-1946 then

the single most important aspect of a ww2 FLIGHT SIMULATOR is to have the performance characteristics between those competitive fighter aircraft correct, if that isnt the case then dont bother wasting development time on making pretty houses, driving cars, or other elements that ENHANCE the core flightsim aspect of the game. please understand those priorities correctly :)

jibo 04-25-2012 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSix (Post 414113)
Yes

hopefully the adjustments needed on the rendering side is no a big deal

*fingers crossed* i'am with you

CWMV 04-25-2012 04:37 AM

I personally don't buy into the 100 octane argument, for the simple reason that neither side has been able to act like G.D. adults with the data. Every time its brought up both sides, blue and red pilots, fly off the handle and act worse than children-so you know what, for me default to 87.

Regardless of that, this kinda sucks. I'm a 109 driver, for now and for all time, but that doesn't mean I want to see everyone else cut off at the knees. I'm sure most of the blue pilots feel the same way.
Sadly the charts really don't match even 87 octane. I found that really hard to believe until I checked. Even Wiki has the MkI doing about 591kph at 18K feet...not in that graph. And that's just the first place I looked. I'm sure further searching would yield similar results.

Do I believe that the 109 was the best fighter of the period in question? Without a doubt. But I know that the Spit was a really, REALLY close second.
If these graphs are going to really be what we see in game, that will not be the case at all.

zapatista 04-25-2012 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pstyle (Post 414415)
Actually, not too far off ;) and I'm a red-mostly pilot.

Black 6's Figure for "the patch" - as I read them:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 350 mph (563 km/h)
@3000m / 9,850ft: 303 mph (489 km/h)

Figures from the weblinks posted:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 355 mph
@3000m / 9,850ft: 320-355 mph (depending on fuel 87/100)

So the patch is 1.4% on the low side at 6000m (I can live with that)
And the patch is 5% on the slow side at 3000m if you're assuming 87 octane, but a more significant 14% on the slow side if you're using 100 octane

I'd like to see sea-level Flight model information for the above, but it seems to me the model is very close to the 87 octane fuelled spit 1a. VERY CLOSE. And I am now happy to accept that.

The real question is - will/should they model 100 octane?

its like a perpetual ground hog day here

extensive information has been provided on this issue this from various sources in the last year in this forum, it is CONCLUSIVE AND BEYOND ANY DOUBT that hurricanes and spitfires had 100% octane fuel available, and just by your own quoted figures that would give them at least a 14% speed disadvantage

to quote but a few sources

Quote:

Gavin Bailey concluded that "The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year." (ref 33). As of 31 March 1940 220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel was held in stock. (ref 34)
and
Quote:

The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". (ref 35) The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons. (ref 36)
and
Quote:

Jeffrey Quill recalled: It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from 3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000 rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as the effect upon rate of climb. (ref 37)
and ........Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin":

Quote:

As it turned out, aviation spirit was to prove no worry for the R.A.F. By July 11th, 1940, the day after the Battle of Britain opened, stocks of 100 octane petrol used in the Merlin engine stood at 343,000 tons. On October 10th, twenty-one days before the battle closed, and after 22,000 tons had been issued, stocks had risen to 424,000 tons. With other grades of aviation spirit total stock available on October 10th, 1940, was 666,000 tons. Oil reserves were 34,000 tons. (ref 38.)
source: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

there is no excuse for still allowing these types of errors in CoD !!

zapatista 04-25-2012 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414431)
Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel.

you have been shown to be so unreliable and deliberately misleading in the past on numerous occasions, that anything you say on the ww2 era aircraft is meaningless

zapatista 04-25-2012 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414431)
Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414438)
Seriously, based on the availabe combat reports etc., such a list of "100octanened" fighter stations was put together a long time and many post ago. I see a lot of stations of 11 Group w/o 100 octane. See: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...8&postcount=43

you are yet again being deliberately misleading and misrepresent facts, to suit your own personal agenda, not really surprising given your track record in that regard

that list made by TheGrunch in that post is simply a list of direct reports from certain pilots in some specific squadrons stating they were using 100 octane fuel (which is entirely normal, since we already know it was being supplied extensively during that period). and a significant number of the pilots refer to it because compared to pre-BoB performance it is an important issue for most of them

what that list does NOT say is that there is somewhere an equal list of reports from all other 50% of squadrons and pilots that they were using 87 octane ! i challenge you directly here, and either put up or shut up ! you now go and try to provide proof of this misleading information you are trying to peddle here !! (no, and german war propaganda does not count). find it from brittish wartime sources (or extensive analyses from fuel samples taken by germans from many downed or captured brittish aircraft of that era), quote it directly, and give your specific sources. you cant , i know you cant, because it doesnt exist (except in the fictional reality you live in ) :)

numerous other posters in this forum, including me providing several in this thread, have on the other hand already provided our information that directly indicates 100 octane fuel was available to most fighter squadrons FROM THE START OF BoB, and that if any pilots didnt have it at one point or another THEY WOULD BE THE EXCEPTION. your deliberate misrepresentation and misleading posts do not change that or magically alter history !

get it ? the absence of direct quotes of 100 octane in the other 50% of squadrons he didnt list (provided by TheGrunch) is NOT evidence of the use of 87 octane fuel in the rest of them, simple really ? but of course comprehending it requires you to be intellectually honest and deal with known historical facts in a logical and impartial manner

bw_wolverine 04-25-2012 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 414581)
what a load of bollocks !

where have you ever read/heard anything like that about the historical BoB ? do you really think that allied command told their fighters "dont fly below 6000 meters guys, or the very superior performing 109's will make mince meat of you" or "let all bomber formations get through if they fly below 6000 meters, because we'd like to save your planes for later in the war and we'll try and avoid you engaging the 109's" ? you'r making poor excuses for major technical errors/bugs in the game and suggesting "gaming the game" is somehow a solution

the whole point of a SIMULATION of anything that claims to be a ww2 plane sim is that it should as close as possible SIMULATE the performance relationship between those main fighter aircraft. to willfully handicap the red side and then pretend "its the pilot that matters, not the plane" is a load of nonsense.

Relax! I'm on your side. I'm just tired of the whole thing. I've moved past the 'anger' stage of this whole debate and moved into 'acceptance'.

There is very little Battle of Britain in this Battle of Britain simulator. I was hoping it would get there. I'm now completely convinced that 1C guys are pretty much just tired of the whole debacle and are anxious to just move on.

After this patch is released, I'm pretty sure they're going to be full steam ahead on Battle of Moscow. I can't see them releasing another big patch for Cliffs of Dover before that game is out and they can marry the two titles together somehow.

So what we have after this patch is pretty much what we're going to have until the next game. I'm pretty much convinced of it. So we accept that this isn't a real Battle of Britain simulator and just get on with it. The game is still fun! With a patch that fixes the crashing (fingers crossed) it'll be even more fun. We might even be able to stage some real Battle of Britain type campaigns. But I'm sure that 1C is done with this theatre. I don't want to be sure, but I am.

So as much as I want to be optimistic and fired up about making changes to correct errorsand whatnot, I just can't see it happening. The direction that they've taken with the FM adjustments seem to suggest there's no interest in modelling the RAF aircraft with the same degree of fidelity as the German stuff. Possibly because they really honestly don't care that much about them. After all, the German planes are the ones that matter for Battle of Moscow, not the RAF ones.

It's our tough luck. And so, to deal with it, we have to make and use tactics that suit the aircraft we have, not the one we want. I'm pretty sure that the Blue players aren't using historical tactics for the most part. Why should we?

CWMV 04-25-2012 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 414588)
you have been shown to be so unreliable and deliberately misleading in the past on numerous occasions, that anything you say on the ww2 era aircraft is meaningless

And you have demonstrated at every possible opportunity that you are willing to go to any length to push an agenda.
Regardless of weather your right or wrong you come off sounding like a tool. You, and the people like you that go SO over the top when it comes to certain issues, discredit whatever point it is your trying to sell.
Christ, take a break eh? Calm down, go get laid or SOMETHING!

For the record, NZtyphoon actually did apologize and explained that he had a somewhat personal stake in the argument, but at least he recognized that things have gotten a little bit out of control.

Seriously Zap, if you want people to listen, be a little less zealous and let the fact speak for themselves.

Flanker35M 04-25-2012 06:06 AM

S!

Zapatista, please calm down. You are crying like a kid with a lollipop pulled out of mouth. Do you really think ANY player of this GAME want it to be handicapped in any way, be it their favorite plane or not. I for sure don't. But by judging your outburst it seems you need every single thing that would give an I-WIN button over the German planes and psuhing that agenda with foam spewing. Really does not help it as said above. Slam the facts on the table and the devs figure the rest. Not a single "thread hundred+ pages of foaming about an agenda" will help.

And even the game would simulate every single plane down to last rivet there would be someone to whine because they do not get same performance for some reason. So after all it is the pilot not the machine ;) After the patch is released will for sure do tests either offline or if enough people are interested online to gather data how things have changed rather than foaming here before the damn patch is even out. ;)

ATAG_Bliss 04-25-2012 06:29 AM

You guys can argue back and forth about the performance of the FMs but just remember this, when the patch comes out I'm going up in a G50 and going to shoot you all down ;)

ATAG_Snapper 04-25-2012 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss (Post 414614)
You guys can argue back and forth about the performance of the FMs but just remember this, when the patch comes out I'm going up in a G50 and going to shoot you all down ;)


What....the UBER - G50???? LOL

CWMV 04-25-2012 06:45 AM

Not this guy. I just want it to work offline!

zapatista 04-25-2012 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CWMV (Post 414599)
....... be a little less zealous and let the fact speak for themselves.

as in any other exchange where factual and accurate information is presented in a normal way, i am (and have been) happy to respond to any other poster with an exchange of information in a civilized fashion, and the interpretation and relevant meaning can then be debated in a reasonable manner

when however some have been repeatedly shown to be dishonest and to present deliberately misleading information to push their own one sided agenda, and they are doing so yet again in this thread on a topic that is at the heart of this product being a "simulator" (and most here are very concerned about), dont ask me to bring flowers

41Sqn_Banks 04-25-2012 07:11 AM

Will be interesting to see how the Spitfire performs below 3000m.

Some notes about the Bf 109 performance:

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachmen...3&d=1334842797

Anyone else noticed that the "reference graph" of the Bf 109 are factory/manual data? They were not achieved during the actual flight test because the Bf 109 in the test was under-performing.

The "reference graph" of the Spitfire is from a actual flight test, ironically again by a under-performing aircraft (speed dropped from 2800 RPM to 3000 RPM).

In addition WEP of the Bf 109 was only allowed (possible?) for take-off and up to 1-1.5km.

Kurfürst 04-25-2012 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 414627)
Some notes about the Bf 109 performance:

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachmen...3&d=1334842797

Anyone else noticed that the "reference graph" of the Bf 109 are factory/manual data? They were not achieved during the actual flight test because the Bf 109 in the test was under-performing.

The "reference graph" of the Spitfire is from a actual flight test, ironically again by a under-performing aircraft (speed dropped from 2800 RPM to 3000 RPM).

In addition WEP of the Bf 109 was only allowed (possible?) for take-off and up to 1-1.5km.

For comparison, the actual flight test (note the two lines, the bold one is the speed measured with the engine slightly down on power by about 50-60 PS, the thinner line is the measured performance re-calculated for nominal engine output guaranteed by engine manufacturer)

This has been achieved with 1.33/1.35 ata, which is our firewalled throttle setting in the game, without resorting to the 1-min WEP.

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...15a_blatt6.jpg

Condition of the airframe :

'The surface was painted after the serial production standard. The engine cowling was still rough, exhaust manifolds (DB-type, made at BFW) were lacking top cover.

2 Cowl- and wing-MGs were installed.
Antenna wire.
Undercarriage retracted, tailwheel out.
For air intake, see the reports drawings.

Radiator cooler flaps were 1/4 open. Coolant temperature observed as constant 90 degrees Celsius.
Oil cooler flaps were closed. Oil temperature observed as 62/82 degrees Celsius.'

IMHO the oil/coolant temperatures are also interesting. Coolant seems to boil rather too quickly in the sim.

The following paper is the official type specification for the Bf 109E. Manufacturer guaranteed these specs within +/- 5 % tolerance.

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_..._Bau_speed.png

zapatista 04-25-2012 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flanker35M (Post 414605)
judging your outburst it seems you need every single thing that would give an I-WIN button over the German planes and psuhing that agenda ............... Really does not help it

wrong

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapatista
i dont care if it is blue, red, green or black, what i am asking for is that the figures used to simulate aircraft behavior in CoD are openly provided (like they were in the il2 compare series), and that the correct historical strength/weakness of each aircraft is correctly represented so we can use historically accurate maneuvers and tactics.

the example i gave is for the spitfire, which currently have some significant problems in this regard, and has just been threatened to be neutered even further. there might be (? are) probably some similar issues with some of the blue planes, i have no idea. my CoD install runs very poorly on my mid end pc, so i mostly so far have only limited experience with the spitfire

the whole point is to have the individual planes be able to reproduce their historical weak/strong point, so that no matter what side we fly for we can SIMULATE as close as possible the encounter with our opponent, and can execute appropriate combat maneuvers. that is where the joy lies in a ww2 combat sim, it is why most of us are here ! if one plane rolled faster, let it do so, if another could dive at higher speed before structural failure, let it do so.....etc, that is what we are trying to replicate and simulate


Quote:

Originally Posted by Flanker35M (Post 414605)
Slam the facts on the table and the devs figure the rest. Not a single "thread hundred+ pages of foaming about an agenda" will help.

for me, and many other that have bought the game, it simply hasnt up-till now functioned well enough to be able to allow full comparisons on each plane performance and a direct comparison to its historical competitive opponent (eg 109 climb rate vs spit, or roll rate etc). what has however been obvious is that both the hurricane and spitfire have not been modeled with 100 octane fuel as they should be, giving for ex the spitfire a 15% speed performance cut, WITH NO SIGN THE DEVELOPERS ARE ABOUT TO EVEN LOOK AT THE ISSUE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flanker35M (Post 414605)
And even the game would simulate every single plane down to last rivet there would be someone to whine because they do not get same performance for some reason

taking a valid argument (lack of 100 octane) to a absurd extreme and compare it to some trivial cosmetic issue is silly and meaningless


Quote:

Originally Posted by Flanker35M (Post 414605)
So after all it is the pilot not the machine ;)

and that is exactly the type of irrelevant comment that makes it harder for normal posters to have a productive discussion on most technical topics. obviously you'd want to first have the instruments correctly represented and rightly modeled, and only after that make any comments about their use.

Kurfürst 04-25-2012 07:42 AM

It's always interesting to compare the actual sources with the way they are 'represented' on Mike William's website. Often text is 'rephrased' and relevant parts go 'missing'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 414587)
its like a perpetual ground hog day here

extensive information has been provided on this issue this from various sources in the last year in this forum, it is CONCLUSIVE AND BEYOND ANY DOUBT that hurricanes and spitfires had 100% octane fuel available, and just by your own quoted figures that would give them at least a 14% speed disadvantage

to quote but a few sources

Quote:

Gavin Bailey concluded that "The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year." (ref 33). As of 31 March 1940 220,000 tons of 100 octane fuel was held in stock. (ref 34)

The actual text in this source goes as:

'By the time war broke out, the available stocks of aviation fuel had risen to 153,000 tons of 100-octane and 323,000 tons of other grades (mostly 87-octane).35 The actual authorisation to change over to 100-octane came at the end of February 1940 and was made on the basis of the existing reserve and the estimated continuing rate of importation in the rest of the year.36 The available stock of 100-octane fuel at this point was about 220,000 tons. Actual use of the fuel began after 18 May 1940, when the fighter stations selected for the changeover had completed their deliveries of 100-octane and had consumed their existing stocks of 87-octane. While this was immediately before the intensive air combat associated with the Dunkirk evacuation, where Fighter Command units first directly engaged the Luftwaffe, this can only be regarded as a fortunate coincidence which was contingent upon much earlier decisions to establish, store and distribute sufficient supplies of 100-octane fuel.37

and

Quote:

The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel". (ref 35) The Committee recorded that actual consumption of 100 octane for the 2nd Quarter 1940 was 18,100 tons. (ref 36)
Note the very different phrasing used in the original paper.

It does not say that "Spitfire and Hurricane units had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel"

It says: "satisfaction was expressed that the Units concerned had now been stocked with the neccesary 100 octane fuel".

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/1...-100octane.jpg

I will let the dear readers draw their own conclusions.

Osprey 04-25-2012 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414431)
Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel. ;)

Don't even go there Barbi

Flanker35M 04-25-2012 09:08 AM

S!

Zapatista. It is still the man behind the stick pushing the plane to it's limits. Not everyone is capable for any reason(insert here) to fly a plane to the documented numbers no matter how. That is a fact. If you really want a game with plane speeds set in stone then try Aces High. Not a single plane goes a notch faster than documented values, nor climbs or turns better. All is hardcoded. Because AH and CoD are GAMES and there will always be complaint/debate/whinery on them as they are just a representation of something, not the real deal. Not a single game models systems EXACTLY as they work in real life as there are too many variables included. We get an average or estimate only that can be handled by our hardware.

You say 100oct gives 15% more speed. Looking at curves yes it does at 12lbs power setting, but this is not the 100% time setting you use. How much does the speed increase at NORMAL parameters, the real 100% power setting from 87oct for example? Spitfire at 6,25lbs on 100 or 87oct vs Bf109E at WEP or 1.31ata? Should be clear to distinguish emergency/overboost from normal parameters that can be used at all times, not only for a limited time. By all means please make the game historically accurate within it's inevitable constraits of being a game, but do not expect down to last digit accuracy.

If we can get something within let's say 5-15km/h I am more than happy as you can lose the same speed with inproper trim or power/mixture/whatever setting. What is more important that the FM itself is good enough to being able to handle more complex things in a reasonably resource friendly way. I remember Oleg saying at beginning of CoD announcements: You want more fidelity on things. Sure you will get that but do not expect it to be easy on the hardware. Remember that? So I think devs are having a hard time tweaking this game to be both playable and accurate enough. I think you can agree on that. This is not the copy/paste FM original IL-2 had ;)

So let's just hope the patch addresses right things and the rest we can test and report for further tweaking. Until then we should at least try refrain from mud sling contests :) I apologize for jumping the gun.

Glider 04-25-2012 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414642)

I will let the dear readers draw their own conclusions.

The interesting thing, is that you have never said what your definition of Units Concerned is.

My belief is that its the fighter units that had not already been converted as we know that a lot had already been converted with use starting in February as supported by the first combat reports and station reports.
We know that Fighter Units in France were using it by May, we know the units in Norway were using it. We know that before May the method of role out changes from using the 87 Octane in the station tanks and replacing it with 100 octane to actively taking it from the stations and replacing it. It also supports the reference to restocking as mentioned in the minutes. That I believe supports the view that Units Concerned where those that hadn't already converted

I know and understand that you disagree with this but you have never said what you believe 'Units Concerned' to be. Is it the 25% of fighter command as per Pips, is it the 16 Squadrons as believed by Pips or is it something else?

Why after May is there no mention of any further role out of 100 Octane at all, anywhere, ever.
If the theory of a reduced number of squadrons is true then when were the rest converted, or were they?

Your evidence depends on a view of one document and twisiting it to your point, not looking at the big picture and the other evidence that supports a view.

Osprey 04-25-2012 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CWMV (Post 414585)
I personally don't buy into the 100 octane argument.........................I'm a 109 driver, for now and for all time

I removed the BS so we can be clear about your position.

pstyle 04-25-2012 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 414680)
The interesting thing, is that you have never said what your definition of Units Concerned is

We need the notes of meeting six.
The agenda item from meeting 7 is following up an issue identified in meeting six, item two.

addman 04-25-2012 11:28 AM

On a side note, it's funny (and/or sad) how the discussions literally explodes around the topic of Spits/Hurries/109 FM's whilst really crippled planes like he G.50 (which is now closer to historical data) never gets neither flak or praise from the majority of the community members. Just a few of us enthusiasts of the lesser flown plane(s) have spoken up but in a constructive and helpful tone with minimal whining.

Remember, the G.50 is a flying brick , after roughly 3000 meters of altitude that thing sinks like a brick, 3000 meters! After 3000 meters is when the engine should start to perform better not degrade in to a 100 hp cessna engine. Also, getting it up to 350 km/h TAS in level flight is not easy when it should be doing around 400 km/h. Still, I and many others have flown the darned thing with love and without whining and I consider myself biased when it comes to the G.50. After telling the devs many times over it needs fixing and after supplying them with docs it is finally fixed, yaaay, I would still fly it happily even if they didn't fix it and struggle with it. Play with the cards given to you, stop whining.

The way some people behave and whine about the FM's tells me everything about them and why they are so "interested" in getting their favorite aircraft "fixed". I'm 100% for historical accuracy but I think most FM whiners have higher prioritized concerns, competitive edge online.

P.S Imagine if the Hurricane or Spit would degrade in to a barely flying brick after 3000 meters, would it even be possible to predict the magnitude of outcry on the forums then?

zapatista 04-25-2012 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by addman (Post 414706)
On a side note, it's funny (and/or sad) how the discussions literally explodes around the topic of Spits/Hurries/109 FM's whilst really crippled planes like he G.50 (which is now closer to historical data) never gets neither flak or praise from the majority of the community members.

since when has the G50 been in any way relevant to the outcome to the battle of brittain ?

it isnt and it wasnt

the reason the performance of the 109's, spitfires and hurricanes (and to a lesser extent the 110) is so important is because they were the main fighter aircraft involved, and the outcome of the conflict largely depends on the balance of those aircraft

with the current performance of competing fighter planes being so unrealistic, the outcome would have been rather different :)

camber 04-25-2012 11:42 AM

Hmm, I am worried as the next MP guy about how ATAG will make a MP server post-patch that is balanced enough for both red and blue to want to populate it. When I fly there is rarely more than 10 people on, I tried flying around 20 000 feet on red, I listened to educational podcasts at the same time to compensate for the problem I never saw anyone else up there. Ever.

But just to add to the angst, aren't beta patches optional? Last time you could download the betas and still fly online alongside the unpatched. So a red with the beta will be enjoying the increased FPS but gazing jealously at the unpatched uber-retro-Hurricane dancing above him. Blues will be freaked out wondering what kind of Hurricane just appeared co-alt ;)

Perhaps to get some kind of playable (I know, dirty word for co-opers :)) MP ATAG could go counterfactual. The whole stock of 100 octane was accidently destroyed by Barnes Wallis in a secret failed experiment, which also manages to suck the Castle Brommich shadow Spitfire factory into a singularity (after only 10 Spit IIs were made). Barbarossa starts a lot earlier, there is only one squadron of E4s available (led by Galland) on the Western front. Italy steps up and clouds of improved G50s swarm across the channel to take on the 87 Octane Spit 1s and Hurricanes, while the E4s smoke cigars above and confidently await the limited Spit IIs.

camber

ATAG_Septic 04-25-2012 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camber (Post 414713)
Hmm, I am worried as the next MP guy about how ATAG will make a MP server post-patch that is balanced enough for both red and blue to want to populate it. When I fly there is rarely more than 10 people on, I tried flying around 20 000 feet on red, I listened to educational podcasts at the same time to compensate for the problem I never saw anyone else up there ever :)

But just to add to the angst, aren't beta patches optional? Last time you could download the betas and still fly online alongside the unpatched. So a red with the beta will be enjoying the increased FPS but gazing jealously at the unpatched uber-retro-Hurricane dancing above him. Blues will be freaked out wondering what kind of Hurricane just appeared co-alt ;)

Perhaps to get some kind of playable (I know, dirty word for co-opers :)) MP ATAG could go counterfactual. The whole stock of 100 octane was accidently destroyed by Barnes Wallis in a secret failed experiment, which also manages to suck the Castle Brommich shadow Spitfire factory into a singularity (after only 10 Spit IIs were made). Barbarossa starts a lot earlier, there is only one squadron of E4s available (led by Galland) on the Western front. Italy steps up and clouds of improved G50s swarm across the channel to take on the 87 Octane Spit 1s and Hurricanes, while the E4s smoke cigars above and confidently await the limited Spit IIs.

:) camber

Hi Camber,

Welcome to the server! :-)

The server population fluctuates quite dramatically over the twenty-four hours. Subjectively, for me it's better in the early hours as that's when many of the ATAG chaps from across the pond log-on, there's often fifty-plus on at that hour. I often share your experience of lonely flights when there's twenty-odd on and teamspeak is quiet. I could go and find trouble low down but my skill-level demands defensive tactics and a height advantage if I am to survive.

ATAG typically runs the Beta patch as soon as its possible and you will need the same release version to join. It would provide hilarity and angst in equal measures if not. :-)

Your scenario made me smile, as likely a scenario as any that would lead to the feared outcome post the beta patch :-)

I can understand why people, including me, like to play a simulation as close to the generally understood historical facts. Which, as the battle was so closely fought, would perhaps provide the all important gameplay balance (although accurate depiction of the strategy and tactics that produced the outcome is unlikely). You rightly observe it is essential that balance is somehow provided by Cliff of Dover, if it is to succeed as a multiplayer game.

I have to remember its only a Beta patch.

Cheers

Osprey 04-25-2012 12:35 PM

I don't wish to take anything away from ATAG here but it's not the only server, and the missions aren't historically based (unless that has very recently changed). I like ATAG for what it offers when I'm in that type of mood but (no fault of theirs I am sure) it turns into a warpfest when 40-50+ get online - It would be nice if the love was shared about a bit to the other servers, quiet a few of which run historical missions with historical bases and offer something different.

@ATAG, this really is not an insult to your server or the work gone into it, but rather an observation (although OT)

SEE 04-25-2012 12:59 PM

On a positive note, if the patch brings the RAF fighters into their correct relative performance characteristics then that will at least address a major flaw with what we currently have in CloD. What remains after is the relative performance between the axis and allied ac. That will be determined after release.

Whether any glaring issues will be addressed at some point in the future is uncertain but Servers can at least help balance the 'play'. It may well be that the Spit2a, after revisions, is actually closer to the historical FM of the Spit Mk1a and thus server admins may remove any restrictions. Some of the AI Axis Bomber groups can be set to fly at higher altitudes, and escorts will thus be engaging interceptors at altitudes where the FM is 'less questionable'.

I agree with Wolverine, whatever the changes, in terms of MP - both player and server admins will have to adapt to what we are given irrespective of the correct historical facts - that is not their fault but something imposed upon them.

Ataros 04-25-2012 01:01 PM

Some interesting graphs and historical quotes and references were posted here. Please make sure they are available at the bugtracker for easier access.

41Sqn_Banks 04-25-2012 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEE (Post 414727)
It may well be that the Spit2a, after revisions, is actually closer to the historical FM of the Spit Mk1a and thus server admins may remove any restrictions.

Indeed. IMHO a 100 octane Spitfire I is not necessarily needed as we have the Spitfire II, which I assume is running at 100 octane and probably has +12 emergency boost* (boost and rpm might be wrong, but it's the performance that matters). So each server can decide to use 87 octane (Spitfire I) or 100 octane (Spitfire II).
Hurricane I has of course a problem ... a Hurricane II (sequel??) would solve it.

*historical cleared or not ... DB601 WEP is not historical as well

Of course all this would be sad from a historical point of view, as 25%-50%-100% (depending on believe) of the Spitfire would have to be Mk. II, which is of course much exaggerated.

klem 04-25-2012 01:30 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSix (Post 414147)
More correctly: we didn't have official flight tests for Spits and Hurris between 0 and 3000m for this test.
I don't know how our FM programmer made this planes for game in 2011.

BlackSix

This page gives sea level to 29,000 feet figures for the Spitfire with Merlin III @ 6.25lbs boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
and this gives it for the Hurricane:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html

I've placed your Patch Data on top of these and projected the sea level speeds (see attached) and both are looking too slow from sea level to 20k and 16k respectively. At sea level the Spitfire is looking to be 255mph instead of 283mph (28mph slow) and the Hurricane 240mph instead of 262mph (22mph slow).

Can you please confirm that the patch FM is still being adjusted to RL data (or that it will be)?

41Sqn_Banks 04-25-2012 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klem (Post 414740)
BlackSix

This page gives sea level to 29,000 feet figures for the Spitfire with Merlin III @ 6.25lbs boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
and this gives it for the Hurricane:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html

I've placed your Patch Data on top of these and projected the sea level speeds (see attached) and both are looking too slow from sea level to 20k and 16k respectively. At sea level the Spitfire is looking to be 255mph instead of 283mph (28mph slow) and the Hurricane 240mph instead of 262mph (22mph slow).

Can you please confirm that the patch FM is still being adjusted to RL data (or that it will be)?

Thank you klem. This is so far the best post in this thread.

Osprey 04-25-2012 02:53 PM

A useful post Banks but again referring to 6.25lbs boost (87 octane) in the rhetoric. As you know, 12lbs was available according to operating limits on the engine, this puts the Spitfire faster on the deck than the 109, not the 50kmph slower we are seeing here. That said, these graphs do plot the 12lbs boost speeds and it is these that require modelling, once cleared by the likes of those who 1C has an ear for.

Sven 04-25-2012 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414634)
For comparison, the actual flight test (note the two lines, the bold one is the speed measured with the engine slightly down on power by about 50-60 PS, the thinner line is the measured performance re-calculated for nominal engine output guaranteed by engine manufacturer)

This has been achieved with 1.33/1.35 ata, which is our firewalled throttle setting in the game, without resorting to the 1-min WEP.

Would you say that with the data from that flight test that ~500 kmh could be achieved on the deck for a longer period of time in the BF109E without risking overheating ( which would happen only with emergency power of the 1-min WEP? ). And is there a graph which shows us the maximum speed when the BF109E is using the 1-min WEP?

It seems the devs think that ~500 kmh on the deck ( 0m ) can only be achieved with use of this 1 min WEP, which is not what your German Data speed graph lets us believe, Kurfurst's 1.33/1.35 ATA versus 1C's WEP 1.4 ATA to achieve 500. Quite a difference in terms of aircraft modelling.

One last thing, is this also a 'firewalled throttle without WEP' graph?

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_..._Bau_speed.png

About the new Spitfire speed data, I don't want to see the SpitII replacing the Spit I on the servers, this should not be the solution. Dev team should look at 100 Octane SpitI speed figures which confirms that both the BF109E and SpitfireIa, if correctly modeled, are very close in terms of speed.

Flanker35M 04-25-2012 03:26 PM

S!

So the +12lbs boosted performance made Spitfire faster on the deck. What was the speed without the boost then? 5 minutes maximum is not a long time nor is the 1min or so for Bf109E.

ATAG_Dutch 04-25-2012 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 414746)
Thank you klem. This is so far the best post in this thread.

Banks, could you see PM please? Thx.

Kwiatek 04-25-2012 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flanker35M (Post 414783)
S!

So the +12lbs boosted performance made Spitfire faster on the deck. What was the speed without the boost then? 5 minutes maximum is not a long time nor is the 1min or so for Bf109E.

Flanker 1.4 Ata is 1 minut short emergency power and 1.3 Ata for 109 E is also only 5 minut emergency power. Nominal ( continous 30-minut) power is 1.23 Ata for DB601.

For Spitfire MK I maximum speed at nominal power - 6 1/2 lbs is 283-288 mph/455-463 kph ( everything is on charts poseted in these topic)

" The A.&A.E.E. trials of N.3171 resulted in level speeds of 283 mph at sea level and 354 mph at 18,900 feet with the Merlin engine operating at 6.25 lbs/sq.in., 3000 rpm. 1d For comparison, Spitfire Mk. I R.6774 equipped with de Haviland Constant Speed Airscrew and armoured windscreen achieved 288 mph at sea level and 355 mph at 17,800 using 6.25 lbs/sq.in., 3000 rpm. The similarly equipped Spitfire I R.6770, except fitted with 2 cannons and four Browning guns, reached 358 mph at 18,000 ft. The Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) obtained 314 mph at sea level and 359 mph at a full throttle height of 11,500 feet using +12 lbs/sq.in. boost"

Flanker35M 04-25-2012 03:54 PM

S!

Got it Kwiatek :) So looks like these planes were quite close match even with +12lbs enabled for the Spits and Hurricanes.

pstyle 04-25-2012 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flanker35M (Post 414783)
S!
So the +12lbs boosted performance made Spitfire faster on the deck. .

Yeah, and up to around 12 or 15,0000ft. And yes, only for a limited time.. enough time.

Insuber 04-25-2012 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klem (Post 414740)
BlackSix

This page gives sea level to 29,000 feet figures for the Spitfire with Merlin III @ 6.25lbs boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
and this gives it for the Hurricane:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html

I've placed your Patch Data on top of these and projected the sea level speeds (see attached) and both are looking too slow from sea level to 20k and 16k respectively. At sea level the Spitfire is looking to be 255mph instead of 283mph (28mph slow) and the Hurricane 240mph instead of 262mph (22mph slow).

Can you please confirm that the patch FM is still being adjusted to RL data (or that it will be)?

Yeah I did it by hand yesterday on top of the Kwiatek charts of the Hurricane, and wrote here the same ... Hurricane is penalized below 3000 m ... again, provided that the historical test data is reliable.

Cheers,
Ins

Buchon 04-25-2012 04:04 PM

This whole thing of Reds and Blues and the sides are getting my nerves :evil:

I´m a happy camper single-player of awesome historical custom missions made by the community mostly.

I don't care about Reds and Blues as I don't play online but I care about historical accuracy.

The B6 Spitfire graph (for example) is showing a really accurate performance line, Knowing a few things as the problems of the FM at high altitudes, the boost is not modeled well into the game (but will be later), and that it´s 87 octanes (obviously).

That´s pretty good results.

In fact is the most accurate performance line in-game now, because there planes with real problems there, the 109 performance line is a roller coaster compared to this for example.

But you guys are arguing and twisting this over for Red or blue sake ? really ?

Also ... conspiracy theory ? really ??!!

Get a grip for everyone's sake pls.


This is a really good post, providing performance data for historical sake, watch and learn :

Quote:

Originally Posted by klem (Post 414740)
BlackSix

This page gives sea level to 29,000 feet figures for the Spitfire with Merlin III @ 6.25lbs boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
and this gives it for the Hurricane:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html

I've placed your Patch Data on top of these and projected the sea level speeds (see attached) and both are looking too slow from sea level to 20k and 16k respectively. At sea level the Spitfire is looking to be 255mph instead of 283mph (28mph slow) and the Hurricane 240mph instead of 262mph (22mph slow).

Can you please confirm that the patch FM is still being adjusted to RL data (or that it will be)?


41Sqn_Banks 04-25-2012 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insuber (Post 414809)
Yeah I did it by hand yesterday on top of the Kwiatek charts of the Hurricane, and wrote here the same ... Hurricane is penalized below 3000 m ... again, provided that the historical test data is reliable.

Cheers,
Ins

This seems to be a common characteristic of the upcoming FM: Speeds at low altitudes are lower than the reference values.
The Bf 109 can compensate it by unhistorical WEP. Let's hope they will look at the Bf 109 FM for the final patch, the drop above FTH is significant. Looking at the graphs of G.50 and Blenheim it seems to be possible to limit take-off boost to certain altitudes, why isn't that done for the Bf 109?

Kwiatek 04-25-2012 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klem (Post 414740)
BlackSix

This page gives sea level to 29,000 feet figures for the Spitfire with Merlin III @ 6.25lbs boost:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
and this gives it for the Hurricane:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rricane-I.html

I've placed your Patch Data on top of these and projected the sea level speeds (see attached) and both are looking too slow from sea level to 20k and 16k respectively. At sea level the Spitfire is looking to be 255mph instead of 283mph (28mph slow) and the Hurricane 240mph instead of 262mph (22mph slow).

Can you please confirm that the patch FM is still being adjusted to RL data (or that it will be)?


Looks very bad for low altitude even only for 6 1/2 lbs performacne :(

Not mention of absense 100 Octan fuel performacne :(

So thats why we didn't get full altitude speed polars of British fighters on graph?

Comone 1C i belive you could do it much closier to RL data the same you could make +12 lbs boost implement for British fighters!

Idea with blocked/unblocked Boost Cut-Out depend of using type of fuel octan is really not bad. Try it before patch relase plz !!!

Osprey 04-25-2012 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchon (Post 414811)
This whole thing of Reds and Blues and the sides are getting my nerves :evil:

I´m a happy camper single-player of awesome historical custom missions made by the community mostly.

I don't care about Reds and Blues as I don't play online but I care about historical accuracy.

The B6 Spitfire graph (for example) is showing a really accurate performance line, Knowing a few things as the problems of the FM at high altitudes, the boost is not modeled well into the game (but will be later), and that it´s 87 octanes (obviously).

That´s pretty good results.

In fact is the most accurate performance line in-game now, because there planes with real problems there, the 109 performance line is a roller coaster compared to this for example.

But you guys are arguing and twisting this over for Red or blue sake ? really ?

Also ... conspiracy theory ? really ??!!

This is a really good post, providing performance data for historical sake, watch and learn :



Get a grip for everyone's sake pls.


This IS about being accurate. You can't say you want it accurate and then on the other hand imply that klem is being pedantic. 28mph is a lot of speed.

Buchon 04-25-2012 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 414838)
You can't say you want it accurate and then on the other hand imply that klem is being pedantic. 28mph is a lot of speed.

I did not, maybe you need read my post again.


Edit:

I did a edit for better compression.

Kurfürst 04-25-2012 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven (Post 414781)
Would you say that with the data from that flight test that ~500 kmh could be achieved on the deck for a longer period of time in the BF109E without risking overheating ( which would happen only with emergency power of the 1-min WEP? ).

This trial: http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...w_109V15a.html

certainly suggest that it is so. They were running the plane at 1,31-1,33ata, and radiators were only 1/4 open (streamline position), yet coolant temperature could be maintained at constant 90 degrees Celsius, an optimum for the engine., so in practice it means that the aircraft should not overheat with the coolant in level flight and max power. (though it may reach somewhat higher temps in climbs).

The oil cooler was also closed (in practice its slightly open as it physically cannot close completely IIRC), yet oil temp remained at 62/82 Celsius. Its maintainable indefinietely for the 601A.

Of course the outside temperature during the test was somewhat low, at 5 Celius, so at higher temps we get somewhat higher temps, but not by much, and probably well within limit. The DB 601A could maintain a bit over 100 degrees Celsius coolant temperature indefinietely.

Quote:

And is there a graph which shows us the maximum speed when the BF109E is using the 1-min WEP?
I have not seen one yet. But the performance is easily estimated with reasonable accuracy, as power requirements increase with the cube (ie. for 10% higher speed you need 33% more power). We know what the 109E did on the 5-min 1.35ata (497 km/h) and how much power 1.35 ata meant (1045 PS).

From that the 1-min 1.45ata (which gave 1175 PS, +12.44% power) is easy to calculate, that at +12.44% power the plane will be around 3.98% faster.

That's around 517 km/h at SL, on the 1-min WEP.

Quote:

It seems the devs think that ~500 kmh on the deck ( 0m ) can only be achieved with use of this 1 min WEP, which is not what your German Data speed graph lets us believe, Kurfurst's 1.33/1.35 ATA versus 1C's WEP 1.4 ATA to achieve 500. Quite a difference in terms of aircraft modelling.
Yes, the 109E even with the patch will be still a little bit slow, but I think its much better than previously, when it was 40 km/h slower than it should be... I hope the devs will eventually find some time to polish it further. OTOH the serial produced planes had a certain tolerance.

Quote:

One last thing, is this also a 'firewalled throttle without WEP' graph?

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_..._Bau_speed.png
The 109E type specification sheet (http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...chreibung.html) where is taken from does not say the power rating. However given the the results of the first test posted, which gave 497 km/h at 1.35ata, and this list 500 km/h, its 95% certain that this page is for the 5-min rating (1.35ata), and not including the boosted 1-min rating. Unless one wants to believe that +135 PS gave a speed boost of 3 km/h...

In short to make 'perfect' 109E model, it should make ~500 on the deck with 1.35, and ~515 with the 1-min WEP.

Coolant temperature should stay around 90 (indefinitely maintainable, ie. no overheat) at high speed flight with the radiator flaps 1/4 open, and oil temperature should stay around 60-80 Celsius with the oil cooler fully closed.

In addition, the radiator drag should be correctly modelled (I believe it does not given much if any drag on all planes in the current model). In reality fully opening it slowed down the plane by about 50 km/h - of course given the above, its a rather theoretical consideration, given that could perfectly maintain the aircraft cool in flight. The same was not the case on the ground however!

Quote:

About the new Spitfire speed data, I don't want to see the SpitII replacing the Spit I on the servers, this should not be the solution. Dev team should look at 100 Octane SpitI speed figures which confirms that both the BF109E and SpitfireIa, if correctly modeled, are very close in terms of speed.
I absolutely agree, we need a +12 lbs version of the Spit I next to the existing 87 octane version. The Spit II I am afraid is correct, the type was limited to +9 lbs during the BoB, even with 100 octane, which meant 460-470ish top speed at SL, and was considerably slower than the +12 Spit I version or the 109E.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks
The Bf 109 can compensate it by unhistorical WEP.

What is so 'unhistorical' about it?

Buchon 04-25-2012 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 414838)
28mph is a lot of speed.

28mph is a lot of speed, yes, but that´s with Boost.

The performance line posted by B6 is the base performance line, meaning without Boost.

If you make a base performance line with the performance of Boost line then you will have a aircraft with the Boost on all the time, and that´s obviously unrealistic.

You should make the base line performance and then model a Boost behavior that provides the performance of Boost performance line.

And that mean model a high altitude, overheating and damage behavior for Boost too, that´s not easy but they are on it.

I´m full for historic accuracy and for the correct Boost implementation, of course.

Osprey 04-25-2012 05:39 PM

I love how Kurfurst posts data with 'calculated' and 'estimate' figures but no actual flight tests. This would be fair enough but for the fact that it's the opposite stance he takes when dealing with RAF data.

Just thought I'd throw that out there before people start to actually believe this guy, just in case you aren't aware of his reputation.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchon (Post 414860)
28mph is a lot of speed, yes, but that´s with Boost.

The performance line posted by B6 is the base performance line, meaning without Boost.

If you make a base performance line with the performance of Boost line then you will have a aircraft with the Boost on all the time, and that´s obviously unrealistic.

You should make the base line performance and then model a Boost behavior that provides the performance of Boost performance line.

And that mean model a high altitude, overheating and damage behavior for Boost too, that´s not easy but they are on it.

I´m full for historic accuracy and for the correct Boost implementation, of course.

At present the 12lbs boost is simply not modeled, so even applying it is not possible. Nobody here is suggesting that 12lbs needs to be available for unlimited times, but for the historically accurate times. Please see bug 174 in my sig......and vote for it :)

fruitbat 04-25-2012 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchon (Post 414860)
28mph is a lot of speed, yes, but that´s with Boost.

The performance line posted by B6 is the base performance line, meaning without Boost.

That base performing line B6 posted is 28mph slower at sea level than it should be for a spit running on 87 octane fuel at max power ie 6 1/4 Lbs, there is no 'boost' to add to it with that fuel, let alone the extra 25 mph at sea level that running 100 octane fuel and 12Lbs boost would get you.

fruitbat 04-25-2012 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414858)
. The Spit II I am afraid is correct, the type was limited to +9 lbs during the BoB, even with 100 octane

I am genuinely intrigued by this, and not messing around, on what is that based?

I've seen this obviously, dated july 1940

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit2pnfs3.jpg

and as Crump has pointed out in the other thread that all Spit MkII's were using 100 octane fuel in June 1940.

So what have you got that proves they were only on 9Lbs boost during BoB?

Kwiatek 04-25-2012 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 414867)
I love how Kurfurst posts data with 'calculated' and 'estimate' figures but no actual flight tests. This would be fair enough but for the fact that it's the opposite stance he takes when dealing with RAF data.

Just thought I'd throw that out there before people start to actually believe this guy, just in case you aren't aware of his reputation.


Most know German data for test of serial production 109 E-1/E-3 claimed for 1.3 Ata (5-minutes emergency power) with 1/4 radiator open: 467-475 km/h.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...109e3-1792.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...109E1-1791.jpg

And serial Swiss 109 E-3 corensponded very well with German charts above:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...109E-Swiss.jpg

Hmm even with US test ( 290 mph at the deck)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...e-109E3-US.jpg


So for serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.3 Ata (5 minut emergency power) should be between 467-475 km/h

So i think 500 km/h would be really absolutly limit for serial 109 E version - if so it could be do at 1.45 Ata (1-minut emergency power) and radiator close for very short time ( below 1 minut).

Actually we will have it in incoming beta patch.

But looking at British fighters speed polars in beta patch there is not acurrate speed drop at lower alts even for 6 1/2 lbs power settings. Not mention there is lack of +12 lbs emergency boost which was significant adventage in low alts fights.

I read 303 Sqn pilots combat raports from Battle of Britain day's when they wrote about using +12 lbs boost in their Hurricanes MK1. It really make a difference at low alts fights.

Kurfürst 04-25-2012 06:02 PM

Life must have treated you so unfairly, Osprey.

Kurfürst 04-25-2012 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kwiatek (Post 414878)
Most know German data for test of serial production 109 E-1/E-3 claimed for 1.3 Ata (5-minutes emergency power) with 1/4 radiator open: 467-475 km/h.

Unfortunately, no. The papers you have posted clearly state that the results were not adjusted to the nominal engine outputs. They are not performance test but comparison flights with various installations (guns present/not present, slats sealed/unsealed).

And in all likelyhood, they are all done using the high altitude blower (FS gear in English terms) for the trial.

The flight test results. I see a trend here. The three test you have posted we know that they were done at a lower boost setting, with the results not having been corrected to guaranteed engine outputs, and we do not know if, during the tests, they used MS or FS gear.

We do know however that they all match the results obtained in the most detailed test, that was corrected for guaranteed output, and when during the trials the the supercharger in FS gear.

WNr. 1774
485 km/h at 1.31 ata at MS gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)
497 km/h at 1.35 ata at MS gear (corrected for guaranteed engine output)
460 km/h at 1.31 ata at FS gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)
470 km/h at 1.35 ata at FS gear(corrected for guaranteed engine output)


WNr. 1792
464 km/h at 1.30 ata at ? gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)

WNr. 1791
474 km/h at 1.30 ata at ? gear (uncorrected for guaranteed engine output)

In short, it just the usual Mike Williams BS.

J-347
464 km at 1.35? (detail not given) ata at ? gear

Quote:

Hmm even with US test ( 290 mph at the deck)
Can we see the testing details of the airframes? What Werknummer, airframe condition, what boost was used, were the radiator flaps open or closed etc...?

All I can see is that they did no actual testing below 10 000 feet / 3000 m.

Quote:

So for serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.3 Ata (5 minut emergency power) should be between 467-475 km/h
Yes. When operating the high altitude blower (FS gear) near SL, which occured in some tests, but never in real operations.

Serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.35 Ata was 500 km/h. Don't argue with me, argue with Willy Messerschmitt who sold these planes and guaranteed in the contract that each and every one of them will do within 5% tolerance of 500 km/h.

Quote:

So i think 500 km/h would be really absolutly limit for serial 109 E version - if so it could be do at 1.45 Ata (1-minut emergency power) and radiator close for very short time ( below 1 minut).
No, 500 km/h is the official specification for the serial produced Bf 109E.

My source, which I already posted, says the 109E could do 497 km/h at 1.35ata, with 1/4 open radiators, without overheating.

I'd like to see your source which contradicts that.

Osprey 04-25-2012 06:28 PM

I doubted your data based on biased approach between allied and axis over many posts of yours, you don't like this one bit although it's a logical deduction to make, quite normal.

From what I can see is that you have a projected graph that you made yourself from your own calculations vs multiple graphs which come from actual air tests from both allied and axis during the time. But it doesn't fit with your dreams so you shoot the messenger. We've been here before haven't we.......

Kurfürst 04-25-2012 06:34 PM

Well and I only doubt your mental and psychological well-being since I have observed a fracture between reality and your posts, and also a well-developed paranoia and tendency to believe/make up conspiracy theories in many posts of yours, you don't like this one bit although it's a logical deduction to make, quite normal.

So there's really no reason to complain. You express your opinion, I express mine in return. Isn't that how friendships are born?

Quote:

From what I can see is that you have a projected graph that you made yourself from your own calculations vs multiple graphs which come from actual air tests from both allied and axis during the time.
Oh, really, is that so. Would you kindly point me to this 'projected graph I made myself', please?

Kwiatek 04-25-2012 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414887)
The papers you have posted clearly state that the results were not adjusted to the nominal engine outputs. They are not performance test but comparison flights with various installations (guns present/not present, slats sealed/unsealed).

Where you find it that there is lower engine outputs???

In these documents - German documents there is clearly 1.3 Ata and 1/4 radiator open. And these is serial production planes.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414887)

And in all likelyhood, they are all done using the high altitude blower (FS gear in English terms) for the trial.


The flight test results. I see a trend here. The three test you have posted we know that they were done at a lower boost setting, with the results not having been corrected to guaranteed engine outputs, and we do not know if, during the tests, they used MS or FS gear.

From where you get these about MS or FS gear??? 109 E had hydraulic supercharger which surly was not used in V15 prototype nothing more.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414887)
Serial 109 E-1/ E-3 speed at the deck for 1.35 Ata was 500 km/h. Don't argue with me, argue with Willy Messerschmitt who sold these planes and guaranteed in the contract that each and every one of them will do within 5% tolerance of 500 km/h.



No, 500 km/h is the official specification for the serial produced Bf 109E.

I would really like to see your speed charts for SERIAL 109 E which confirm these beacuse until now i didnt saw any. But for contatry i saw many which show 467-475 km/h not more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414887)
My source, which I already posted, says the 109E could do 497 km/h at 1.35ata, with 1/4 open radiators, without overheating.

For prototype 109 V15 yes with no hydraulic supercharger. But next serial production 109 E tests speed didnt copy these.

Moreover other county (Swiss, French, US) speed test for serial 109 E confirmed German test for serial planes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414887)
I'd like to see your source which contradicts that.

You alreay saw it page before. German documents from test speed for SERIAL planes not from one prototype and german prospect.

Osprey 04-25-2012 06:41 PM

Yeah. As on the other threads you just turn to insulting anybody who doesn't agree with you 100%. It's all a bit mental really.

Kwaitek, save your breath in trying to convince him, he lives in this fantasy world where the 109 ruled the skies, he makes up anything he can to make the 109 out for better than it actually was. You are dealing with a guy permanently banned from 2 other forums and Wikipedia, he's not going to change his mind. The important thing is that everyone is aware of him so he doesn't get the space to destroy historic truth - work on that instead. It is that last part is why I am sticking my neck out on these forums, that everyone can see, because you just need to stay silent for him to triumph.

Kurfürst 04-25-2012 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kwiatek (Post 414894)
Where you find it that there is lower engine outputs???

It says there, right in the documents you have posted. Please translate, for all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kwiatek (Post 414894)
In these documents - German documents there is clearly 1.3 Ata and 1/4 radiator open. And these is serial production planes.

Actually, none of them are serial production planes. The two planes you have posted are pre-production planes for a batch of 14. And they are exactly identical to WNr. 1774.

Quote:

From where you get these about MS or FS gear???
It says right there, Bodenlader, Hohenlader. MS gear, FS gear.

Quote:

109 E had hydraulic supercharger which surly was not used in V15 prototype nothing more.
Source please.

BTW some G-6s tested at Rechlin show the same pattern. The 109s hydraulic supercharger could operate in MS or FS gear, if it is set so.

Quote:

I would really like to see your speed charts for SERIAL 109 E which confirm these beacuse until now i didnt saw any.
Here, again:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...15a_blatt6.jpg

And this is the official specification for 109E, guaranteed within +/- 5% by the manufacturer.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test..._Bau_speed.png

Quote:

But for contatry i saw many which show 467-475 km/h not more.
We have already discussed this. The tests you have posted are probably done in FS gear, which yields less performance than MS gear near SL.

Quote:

For prototype 109 V15 yes with no hydraulic supercharger.
Source for no hydraulic supercharger please.

Quote:

But next serial production 109 E tests speed didnt copy these.
Especially as there was never any DB 601 w/o a hydraulic supercharger..

Quote:

Moreover other county (Swiss, French, US) speed test for serial 109 E confirmed German test for serial planes.
We have discussed this. The Swiss trials, though no details are available, are comparing various propeller designs, and are again likely at FS gear.

The French tests actually closely agree with the nominal specs, the French themselves state it so.

The US test, of which's conditions we know absolutely nothing, did not test SL speed at all - they did not measure speed below 12 000 feet - there's no data point there marked... it's just a rough extrapolation. Oh, and just for the record, the US tests also seem to have measured both FS gear and MS gear. They measured ca. 335 mph at 12 000 feet (540 kph at 3657 m), that's pretty much the same the Germans measured in FS gear on WNr 1174 / V15a.

I am curious why you did not post the testing details though. Testing details are very important, an open radiator can chop off 50 km/h from top speed, for example.

Quote:

You alreay saw it page before. German documents from test speed for SERIAL planes not from one prototype and german prospect.
Oh. You mean the papers which are not corrected for guaranteed engine outputs, are likely done at the less optimal FS instead of MS gear, and were never meant to measure the absolute performance of serial produced aircraft but relative speed difference of various installations, and was not done on serial production aircraft if that's so important for you.

Kurfürst 04-25-2012 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 414898)
It is that last part is why I am sticking my neck out on these forums, that everyone can see, because you just need to stay silent for him to triumph.

... and I mistook you for a nutjob for a minute. My mistake! :D

Buchon 04-25-2012 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 414868)
That base performing line B6 posted is 28mph slower at sea level than it should be for a spit running on 87 octane fuel at max power ie 6 1/4 Lbs, there is no 'boost' to add to it with that fuel, let alone the extra 25 mph at sea level that running 100 octane fuel and 12Lbs boost would get you.

As I said you are comparing a base performance line and Boosted performance line,which is wrong.

Here a really good graph posted by Kwiatek where we can see a base performance line and Boost performance lines, pls watch it :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/s...-rae-12lbs.jpg

The red line is base performance line, without Boost, I know that is max weak mix and calculated but its a good reference, the real speed should be a slight better then.

So we have a 246mph of sea level without Boost and 283mph with Boost.

Now we can extrapolate that data to the graph made by Klem which contain the B6 data :

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/9...performanc.jpg

Obviously he is comparing base performance line with Boost line but that don't mean that its not a interesting graph because we have here the sea level speed of the base performance line posted by B6.

As you can see the B6 graph data shows a sea level speed of 255mph without Boost, considering that the 246mph mark of Kwiatek graph is weak mix calculated I can say that it´s pretty accurate.

So, what is wrong with the B6 graph ?

I can say nothing but we need the freaking Boost modeled :!:

Kwiatek 04-25-2012 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414907)
It says there, right in the documents you have posted. Please translate, for all.

I translated there is not information about confirmed lower power output but only about correct mainfold pressure, temperature and not guarantee engine power - nothing more. No info about lower power output.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414907)

It says right there, Bodenlader, Hohenlader. MS gear, FS gear.

Exacly that why it looks that V15 prototype didnt used variable hydraulic supercharget but only 2 position one. With variable supercharger speed polars will be much more smooth.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414907)

Source please.

Please - Your own site:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

" It appears that variable-speed hydraulic supercharger control was either not present or not engaged in the tests (ie. testing seperately with both supercharger gears) : low-altitude and high-altitude supercharger speeds were engaged at a given boost pressure, therefore the curves do not show the characteristic shape of the DB power curve - this would result in a more smooth,curved transition and improved in performance between the supercharger`s two critical altitudes (ca between 2200 and 4800m) in level flight."


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414907)
Here, again:

Again for prototype V15 and German prospect not FOR SERIAL PRODUCTION plane. Nothing knew. I would like to see such speeds for serial planes.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414907)

We have already discussed this. The tests you have posted are probably done in FS gear, which yields less performance than MS gear near SL.

Suorce? I dont see any information about these.

As we know serial production 109 E had variable hydraulic supercharger so how and for what would like to disable MS gear????

Maby Germans, Frenchs, Swiss and Americans made phone call and decided to blocked MS gear in their 109 for test?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414907)
We have discussed this. The Swiss trials, though no details are available, are comparing various propeller designs, and are again likely at FS gear.

Again totally bulshit for me and not confirmed anywhere.

Kwiatek 04-25-2012 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchon (Post 414927)

So, what is wrong with the B6 graph ?

I can say nothing but we need the freaking Boost modeled :!:

Beacuse it show maximum speed for Spitfire MK1 which mean for 87 octan - +6 1/2 mainfold pressure (boost) - so not red but blue line from RAE charts.

Red line is for maxium continous weak mixture power which mean +2 1/2 mainfold pressure ( boost) for economical flying.

macro 04-25-2012 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 414682)
I removed the BS so we can be clear about your position.

lmfao

i was gonna write that

is there a performance chart like the ones BS posted for the IIa?

all this arguments and the spit IIa may become the "default" red fighter for a more even fight on most servers?

bongodriver 04-25-2012 08:02 PM

until they pork that one too.

Kurfürst 04-25-2012 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kwiatek (Post 414936)
I translated there is not information about confirmed lower power output but only about correct mainfold pressure, temperature and not guarantee engine power - nothing more. No info about lower power output.

Ok, so we have established that your tests were not corrected for nominal engine outputs, and therefore, irrevelant as we do not know what powers were developed during the tests.

Hint: We know exactly in the case



Quote:

Exacly that why it looks that V15 prototype didnt used variable hydraulic supercharget but only 2 position one. With variable supercharger speed polars will be much more smooth.
Problem is, you do not seem to understand how the hydraulic coupling the DB 601 works. It has two oil pumps, one constant supply (fixed speed, MS, thats the first "straight" line up to around 2000 m in the power curves), one variable supply to set the amount of slip (speed of supercharger) via oil pressure. You can set the second one for full oil delivery, and voila, it operates exactly like a fixed speed supercharger with two fixed ratio gears.

Quote:

Please - Your own site:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

" It appears that variable-speed hydraulic supercharger control was either not present or not engaged in the tests (ie. testing seperately with both supercharger gears) : low-altitude and high-altitude supercharger speeds were engaged at a given boost pressure, therefore the curves do not show the characteristic shape of the DB power curve - this would result in a more smooth,curved transition and improved in performance between the supercharger`s two critical altitudes (ca between 2200 and 4800m) in level flight."
Well you just have to read it now I think... I have bolded it out for ya.

Quote:

Again for prototype V15 and German prospect not FOR SERIAL PRODUCTION plane. Nothing knew. I would like to see such speeds for serial planes.
Again I suggest you read the conditions of the airfame for the V15. Its the same as the serial production airplane.

As for the speeds for serial production planes, it can be read here. 500 km/h at SL.
http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...chreibung.html

Suorce? I dont see any information about these.

Quote:

As we know serial production 109 E had variable hydraulic supercharger so how and for what would like to disable MS gear????
I do not know. "Disabling" the MS gear is easy - you just have to set the barometric control so that the second oil pump in the hydraulic coupling operates at maximum delivery, and voila, the hydralic coupling operates now at minimum slip and maximum supercharger speed.

As noted, G-6 tested at Rechlin shows the same. I suppose more accurate figures can be collected.

Quote:

Maby Germans, Frenchs, Swiss and Americans made phone call and decided to blocked MS gear in their 109 for test?
The French definietely did not, but they got similar results to the V15 trials.

The rest is plainly in the files. Both V15 trial and the US trial show that they tested both in MS and FS gear. The Swiss is a bit of a guesswork, but then explain me:

a) Why did the Swiss get a straight curve instead of a curved one, ie. a characteristic feature of the DB's barometric control, *when engaged*
b) Why did the Swiss get a result exactly like the Germans in V15 trials while using the Hohenlader (FS gear).

Quote:

Again totally bulshit for me and not confirmed anywhere.
Well again the Swiss tests show exactly the same results as WNr 1774 tests in MS gear. Mere coincidence? I don't think so. No less than 35-40 km/h difference between planes? I do not think so either.

Please translate the text below, then explain how it is different from the "serial production" E-1. Especially the Motorhaube noch roh, Rückstoßer oben unverkleidet part.

An Bf 109 V 15 a, der Mustermachine für die E-1-Serie, wurden die Geschwindigkeitsleistungen erflogen. Aus Zeitmengel konnten nicht die günstigen Rückstoßer
und Ansaughutzen erflogen werden, sodaß evtl. noch Leistungssteigerungen möglich sind.

Zustand des Flugwerkes. Oberfläche : serienmäßiger Anstrich, Motorhaube noch roh, Rückstoßer oben unverkleidet. 2 Flügel- und 2 Hauben-MG eingebaut. Eindrahtantenne. Fahrwehr eingezogen, Sporn außen.

41Sqn_Banks 04-25-2012 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414858)
What is so 'unhistorical' about it?

According to the graph WEP is available in the game up to FTH, which is not correct. It was only authorized for take-off and up to 1-1.5km. So it's like the other take-off boosts which is shows in G50 or Blenheim graph, they should all only be available at low altitudes.
IIRC the DB601 manual also authorized the use only for overload conditions and short runways, not for regular take-off.

fruitbat 04-25-2012 08:06 PM

@Buchon,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kwiatek (Post 414944)
Beacuse it show maximum speed for Spitfire MK1 which mean for 87 octan - +6 1/2 mainfold pressure (boost) - so not red but blue line from RAE charts.

Red line is for maxium continous weak mixture power which mean +2 1/2 mainfold pressure ( boost) for economical flying.

^this.

fruitbat 04-25-2012 08:09 PM

@Kurfurst, still waiting for your proof that all MKII's were limited to 9lbs from my post earlier,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 414858)
. The Spit II I am afraid is correct, the type was limited to +9 lbs during the BoB, even with 100 octane

I am genuinely intrigued by this, and not messing around, on what is that based?

I've seen this obviously, dated july 1940

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit2pnfs3.jpg

and as Crump has pointed out in the other thread that all Spit MkII's were using 100 octane fuel in June 1940.

So what have you got that proves they were only on 9Lbs boost during BoB?

klem 04-25-2012 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchon (Post 414927)
As I said you are comparing a base performance line and Boosted performance line,which is wrong.

Here a really good graph posted by Kwiatek where we can see a base performance line and Boost performance lines, pls watch it :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/s...-rae-12lbs.jpg

The red line is base performance line, without Boost, I know that is max weak mix and calculated but its a good reference, the real speed should be a slight better then.

So we have a 246mph of sea level without Boost and 283mph with Boost.

Now we can extrapolate that data to the graph made by Klem which contain the B6 data :

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/9...performanc.jpg

Obviously he is comparing base performance line with Boost line but that don't mean that its not a interesting graph because we have here the sea level speed of the base performance line posted by B6.

As you can see the B6 graph data shows a sea level speed of 255mph without Boost, considering that the 246mph mark of Kwiatek graph is weak mix calculated I can say that it´s pretty accurate.

So, what is wrong with the B6 graph ?

I can say nothing but we need the freaking Boost modeled :!:

I'm not sure who is misunderstanding who but all the curves on the chart I posted, excluding the curve I overlaid from B6's data, are original data from tests made at the time and the first line (lowest speeds in pale blue) are for the boost at +6 1/4lbs Merlin III with 87 octane and a three bladed constant speed propeller. The higher boost curve at +12lbs with 100 octane is the next one listed and in a deeper blue.

My curve takes B6s data (orange line, which only went down to 3000m), projected down to 0 feet (yellow line). The projection may turn out to be not strictly accurate but is a fair basis for the question.

If you look at Kwiatek's chart you will see along the line that starts at 283mph @ 0 feet the words +6 1/4 lbs boost, i.e. the max with 87 octane. The red line is when running 'Max Weak mix' which would of course yield less power and the boost pressure is not given but the pilots notes state that at the weakest setting the max permitted are +2 1/4lbs boost and 2.600 rpm. These are probably the settings reptresented by the red line.

Kurfürst 04-25-2012 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks (Post 414951)
According to the graph WEP is available in the game up to FTH, which is not correct. It was only authorized for take-off and up to 1-1.5km. So it's like the other take-off boosts which is shows in G50 or Blenheim graph, they should all only be available at low altitudes.

I know an easy fix for that, since the graph WEP shows performance which was achiveable without WEP in real life, simply rewrite the WEP line to Nominal in the FM.

Then add a new WEP line in the FM which is only useable for 1 min / ca 1.5 km and boost performance even further.

Things would be perffect then, and very historical. :D ;)

Quote:

IIRC the DB601 manual also authorized the use only for overload conditions and short runways, not for regular take-off.
I don't remember seeing such restriction. It would be strange in the DB manual anyways.

Buchon 04-25-2012 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kwiatek (Post 414944)
Beacuse it show maximum speed for Spitfire MK1 which mean for 87 octan - +6 1/2 mainfold pressure (boost) - so not red but blue line from RAE charts.

Red line is for maxium continous weak mixture power which mean +2 1/2 mainfold pressure ( boost) for economical flying.

http://i45.tinypic.com/35be654.png

I have to say this again?

There no Boost performance modeled in the game, that´s why its in the Bugtraker, they are working to implement this.

The graph that B6 posted contain no Boost :

http://i47.tinypic.com/2lsw2ux.jpg

That´s why the Patch line is below of the Flight Tests from 3000 to 6000, once the boost is implemented it will raise.

We need the freaking Boost implemented correctly :!:

Kurfürst 04-25-2012 08:18 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 414957)
@Kurfurst, still waiting for your proof that all MKII's were limited to 9lbs from my post earlier,

I am genuinely intrigued by this, and not messing around, on what is that based?

I have posted this paper (and of course I got it from someone else). But others (I think 41 Banks) have pointed out that this page was amended, given the amendment no, likely in 1941 IIRC. So in short the +12 limit only appears in later manuals, but the 1940 ones.

The unamended (likely first or early) version from July 1940 shows the limit as +9 for 5 min Combat (+12 is enabled, but only for take off for a limited time/altitude).

Insuber 04-25-2012 08:19 PM

It is interesting to see the wide tolerance of the contractual performance of the Bf-109. The error of +/-5% on the top speed of 500 km/h translates into 10% or 50 km/h of allowed error in absolute figures. Add to that the wear of operations and you can easily have poor performers.
It would be equally interesting to know the tolerance of the British types, I would not be surprised to see higher tolerance values for the Spitfire, given the poor status of the Supermarine rigs and tools at the beginning of production (see the Leo McKinstry book on the Spitfire to have an idea about the mess of the Supermarine works in 1938-39).

PS: how nice if this variability is modeled ... it shouldn't be that difficult ...

camber 04-25-2012 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchon (Post 414965)
:!:

There no Boost performance modeled in the game, that´s why its in the Bugtraker, they are working to implement this.

The graph that B6 posted contain no Boost :

That´s why the Patch line is below of the Flight Tests from 3000 to 6000, once the boost is implemented it will raise.

We need the freaking Boost implemented correctly :!:

Hi Buchon,

I agree with you but with some terminology issues. The Brits are not using the term boost as something that is turned on and off. "Boost" is just manifold pressure with atmospheric pressure subtracted, so + 6 1/4 psi boost is 21 1/4 psi manifold pressure. I assume boost was used as a term as the supercharger is boosting manifold pressure above atmospheric. Maximum manifold pressure is set by the boost controller with a cutout that can be modified to give a higher manifold pressure (+12psi) on command.

So even with the economic weak mixture setting, there is still "boost" (+2 1/4 psi). The problem is as you say, that the boost setup is wrong. From the plots to me (thanks Klem et al.) it appears that post patch the boost will read +6 1/4 psi, but give performance approximately as for +2 1/4 psi with weak mixture.

camber

Buchon 04-25-2012 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camber (Post 414976)
Hi Buchon,

I agree with you but with some terminology issues. The Brits are not using the term boost as something that is turned on and off. "Boost" is just manifold pressure with atmospheric pressure subtracted, so + 6 1/4 psi boost is 21 1/4 psi manifold pressure. I assume boost was used as a term as the supercharger is boosting manifold pressure above atmospheric. Maximum manifold pressure is set by the boost controller with a cutout that can be modified to give a higher manifold pressure (+12psi) on command.

So even with the economic weak mixture setting, there is still "boost" (+2 1/4 psi). The problem is as you say, that the boost setup is wrong. From the plots to me (thanks Klem et al.) it appears that post patch the boost will read +6 1/4 psi, but give performance approximately as for +2 1/4 psi with weak mixture.

camber

Ohh, I see thanks :)

41Sqn_Banks 04-25-2012 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchon (Post 414965)
http://i45.tinypic.com/35be654.png

I have to say this again?

There no Boost performance modeled in the game, that´s why its in the Bugtraker, they are working to implement this.

The graph that B6 posted contain no Boost :

http://i47.tinypic.com/2lsw2ux.jpg

That´s why the Patch line is below of the Flight Tests from 3000 to 6000, once the boost is implemented it will raise.

We need the freaking Boost implemented correctly :!:

The Merlin III is a supercharged engine. So it always has "boost" by definition. What is not modelled is the "boost control cut-out" which enables to obtain more boost than regular. Regular boost is +6.25

Boost with "boost control cut-out" enabled is +12

Insuber 04-25-2012 08:53 PM

Look at the Spitfire II (a and b) Pilot Notes, page 13 (unbiased, first hand info):

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf

100 octanes appear as a standard, 87 as the exception, 12 lbs boost allowed up to 5 minutes, but effective only up to 10'500 ft. At least for the Spitfire IIa and IIb. The source doesn't indicate the revision date though.

I didn't find the Spifire I Pilot Notes, unfortunately. I'll check my CoD collector's edition ... :-)

fruitbat 04-25-2012 08:55 PM

Yeah i think Buchon was just having terminology/language misunderstanding.

Buchon 04-25-2012 08:57 PM

Yeah, I mean there no boost control modeled, or at least properly, in-game now.

I think that they are working on it, if they made that performance line below of the Flight Test I think is because the properly Boost Control is coming.

klem 04-25-2012 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchon (Post 414989)
Yeah, I mean there no boost control modeled, or at least properly, in-game now.

I think that they are working on it, if they made that performance line below of the Flight Test I think is because the properly Boost Control is coming.

They made that line I added from B6's data by incorrectly amending the Spitfire FM. They need to make the Patch boost line align with the 6 1/4 lbs (thin pale blue) line. Then it will be modelled correctly for 87 Octane, +6 1/4lbs, 3 blade constant speed propeller, i.e. the Spitfire MkI we have now.

Its the +12lbs line achieved using 100 octane and boost cutout override that we hope they are working on because without it we don't have the BoB. We have "thank god they didn't come in November 1939".

Buchon 04-25-2012 11:24 PM

Well, this is how I see the problem (in Brits terminology)

The main problem is that the game´s FM haven´t Boost pressure changes modeled in yet.

So if you made your plane performance line over the blue line to obtain the Boost +6 1/4lbs performance (as is in pre-patch) then you will be over it always, even if cut the throttle and the needle is showing +2 1/4 psi.

The correct way is at the inverse, you should make the economic performance curve (+2 1/4 psi) and then add Boost pressure changes to the FM.

Then you have both performance lines, economic +2 1/4 psi and +6 1/4 psi.

If you watch carefully the B6 graph you´ll discover that it´s a economic performance curve (+2 1/4 psi), so my guess is that they are planing to add Boost pressure changes to the FM.

fruitbat 04-25-2012 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchon (Post 415055)
Well, this is how I see the problem (in Brits terminology)

The main problem is that the game´s FM haven´t Boost pressure changes modeled in yet.

So if you made your plane performance line over the blue line to obtain the Boost +6 1/4lbs performance (as is in pre-patch) then you will be over it always, even if cut the throttle and the needle is showing +2 1/4 psi.

The correct way is at inverse, you should make the economic performance curve (+2 1/4 psi) and then add Boost pressure changes to the FM.

Then you have both performance lines, economic +2 1/4 psi and +6 1/4 psi.

Unfortunately not, think what in Brit terminology is boost = ata.

the line B6 showed us is full speed as it is with ALL the other graphs, in a spit 1 with 87 octane fuel which happens to be 6 1/4 boost, and thats that, there is no 'Boost button', no gate to push through, full speed is just the throttle pushed all the way forward. There is nothing to be added to it at a later date.

when we are talking about boost, in this sense we do not mean what the old il2 used to call WEP.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.