1C Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official 1C Company forum > 1C Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-29-2012, 10:18 AM
camber camber is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 105
Default Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

Since there is a bit of current interest in FMs, I did some quick sea level tests for the current beta patch (1.08 ), and compared to generally accepted real life performance. As patches could change any time I didn't want to spend much time doing full speed vs alt tests.
These are the tests (with real life data):



My Spit CoD data is using 2700rpm (full boost) instead of 3000rpm to postpone engine failure and allow speed testing. This is not so much of a problem as there does not seem any speed increase from 2700-3000 rpm anyway. Rads full open, canopy closed (although speed effects from these are negligible to nonexistant). The 109E4 uses auto prop pitch, oil and water rads open.

For real life data, the RAE Spit I data is pretty well accepted (although speeds are a little high due to lack of pilot armour and IFF equipment). The real life 109 is a bit difficult, I started a thread on 109 performance a while back and argued that actual 109 performance at sea level was likely to be approximately on the pass/fail mark on the Messerschmitt official specification (475kmh) based on what flight tests were available. Kurfust disagreed and maintained that the appropriate value is 500kmh at sea level (average of Me official spec), which is a defensible position.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32259

I think for the sake of CoD using the 500kmh@SL for the 109 would be reasonable, might save a few arguments and work well in multiplayer if it was implemented.

For graphing purposes I plot both 475kmh@SL ("close pass") and 500kmh@SL ("average Me guaranteed") 109s.



From the real life data, the 87 octane Spit I (or 100 octane but not using "WEP") was slower than both the 475kmh and 500kmh 109Es. Using the 100 octane +12psi boost, the Spit was faster than the 475kmh 109 but about the same speed as the 500kmh 109E. So taking the 500kmh 109E as a good fit for CoD, we are looking at approximate speed parity for 100 octane Spits and 109s going all out on the deck.

Besides the fact that all speeds are around 50kmh low, the current CoD data is a bit dire in this respect when looking at relative 109/Spit speeds.
It's not too bad just looking at the Spit Ia at +12psi versus the 109 at 1.35ata (5 min limit), with both aircraft at about the same speed (similar to real life Spit + 12psi and "official spec" 500kmh 109). However, there are two big catches.

* First, the CoD 109 has access to it's historical 1 min takeoff only boost (1.45ata), and can use it (unhistorically) practically continuously with no engine problems. This allows it to go 20kmh faster than the CoD Spit all out at +12psi.

* Second, the CoD Spit has extremely time limited access to +12psi without blowing the engine. So very quickly, the Spit will have to turn off the boost cutout and drop back to around 400kmh. The CoD 109 is now 70kmh faster at SL if it continues to keep activating 1.45ata. However it doesn't need to bother as without it is still 50kmh faster than the CoD Spit stuck back at +6psi.

Some quick tests on turning off temp effects are interesting, this increases the SpitIa 100octane speeds by about 10mph/15kmh but doesn't affect the 109. Clearly the temperatures that the Spits run at decrease engine output even when the engine does not fail, which does not occur in the 109.

With temp effects off the Spit can maintain +12psi continuously at around 460kmh, against the 470kmh of the 109 using 1.45ata. It would be rather hard on the 109 driver having to continuously press his 1.45ata while the Spit driver can select +12psi and leave it on though! It would be closest match to historical performance we could get without FM revision though (at least at sea level!)

camber
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-29-2012, 10:40 AM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by camber View Post
Since there is a bit of current interest in FMs, I did some quick sea level tests for the current beta patch (1.08 ), and compared to generally accepted real life performance. As patches could change any time I didn't want to spend much time doing full speed vs alt tests.
These are the tests (with real life data):



My Spit CoD data is using 2700rpm (full boost) instead of 3000rpm to postpone engine failure and allow speed testing. This is not so much of a problem as there does not seem any speed increase from 2700-3000 rpm anyway. Rads full open, canopy closed (although speed effects from these are negligible to nonexistant). The 109E4 uses auto prop pitch, oil and water rads open.

For real life data, the RAE Spit I data is pretty well accepted (although speeds are a little high due to lack of pilot armour and IFF equipment). The real life 109 is a bit difficult, I started a thread on 109 performance a while back and argued that actual 109 performance at sea level was likely to be approximately on the pass/fail mark on the Messerschmitt official specification (475kmh) based on what flight tests were available. Kurfust disagreed and maintained that the appropriate value is 500kmh at sea level (average of Me official spec), which is a defensible position.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32259

I think for the sake of CoD using the 500kmh@SL for the 109 would be reasonable, might save a few arguments and work well in multiplayer if it was implemented.

For graphing purposes I plot both 475kmh@SL ("close pass") and 500kmh@SL ("average Me guaranteed") 109s.



From the real life data, the 87 octane Spit I (or 100 octane but not using "WEP") was slower than both the 475kmh and 500kmh 109Es. Using the 100 octane +12psi boost, the Spit was faster than the 475kmh 109 but about the same speed as the 500kmh 109E. So taking the 500kmh 109E as a good fit for CoD, we are looking at approximate speed parity for 100 octane Spits and 109s going all out on the deck.

Besides the fact that all speeds are around 50kmh low, the current CoD data is a bit dire in this respect when looking at relative 109/Spit speeds.
It's not too bad just looking at the Spit Ia at +12psi versus the 109 at 1.35ata (5 min limit), with both aircraft at about the same speed (similar to real life Spit + 12psi and "official spec" 500kmh 109). However, there are two big catches.

* First, the CoD 109 has access to it's historical 1 min takeoff only boost (1.45ata), and can use it (unhistorically) practically continuously with no engine problems. This allows it to go 20kmh faster than the CoD Spit all out at +12psi.

* Second, the CoD Spit has extremely time limited access to +12psi without blowing the engine. So very quickly, the Spit will have to turn off the boost cutout and drop back to around 400kmh. The CoD 109 is now 70kmh faster at SL if it continues to keep activating 1.45ata. However it doesn't need to bother as without it is still 50kmh faster than the CoD Spit stuck back at +6psi.

Some quick tests on turning off temp effects are interesting, this increases the SpitIa 100octane speeds by about 10mph/15kmh but doesn't affect the 109. Clearly the temperatures that the Spits run at decrease engine output even when the engine does not fail, which does not occur in the 109.

With temp effects off the Spit can maintain +12psi continuously at around 460kmh, against the 470kmh of the 109 using 1.45ata. It would be rather hard on the 109 driver having to continuously press his 1.45ata while the Spit driver can select +12psi and leave it on though! It would be closest match to historical performance we could get without FM revision though (at least at sea level!)

camber
Good work Camber - as you know we did have a thread dealing with the CLOD Spitfire I and II performance http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33942 and another one has been started http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34075.

1)As shown below, the Merlin was more than capable of running for extended periods at +12 lbs boost (paragraph 4 8 hrs at +12 lbs, terminated by a glycol leak, a problem which was solved by a redesign of the head): Merlin engines should not be overheating or failing almost as soon as the 5 minute limit is up, there needs to be far more leeway than has been given.

2)I have not yet tested the Defiant or Hurricane but, as shown by ACE-OF-Aces, and below, the CLOD Spitfire performance figures do not match real world performance.

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-29-2012, 10:50 AM
5./JG27.Farber 5./JG27.Farber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by camber View Post
* First, the CoD 109 has access to it's historical 1 min takeoff only boost (1.45ata), and can use it (unhistorically) practically continuously with no engine problems. This allows it to go 20kmh faster than the CoD Spit all out at +12psi.
Actually it can't just be used willy nilly. Activating it at the top of a "zoom" climb when pitch is at 12:00 and your hanging on the prop will blow the engine. I'd also like to add pressing wep at SL when already going all out throttle, pitch and speed at 460 (rarley 480) doesnt add any more speed. The wep seems to add more power at lower sppeds to me.


The graphs having different scales makes it very hard to compare, any chance of putting it all on one graph? - Or at least the same scaled graph?

FT = Full Throttle? I think nearly all the speed tests on the 109 were done at 1.3 or 1.35 Ata were they not? Not full throttle...

Last edited by 5./JG27.Farber; 08-29-2012 at 11:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-29-2012, 10:51 AM
Ze-Jamz Ze-Jamz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: On your six!!
Posts: 2,302
Default

Nice work OP... interesting
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-29-2012, 10:58 AM
Ze-Jamz Ze-Jamz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: On your six!!
Posts: 2,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber View Post
Actually it can't just be used willy nilly. Activating it at the top of a "zoom" climb when pitch is at 12:00 and your hanging on the prop will blow the engine. I'd also like to add pressing wep at SL when already going all out throttle, pitch and speed at 460 (rarley 480) doesnt add any more speed. The wep seems to add more power at lower sppeds to me.
Your correct on WEP having no effect at higher ALT IMO..

Climbing yes but all out power no.

And I agree also about boost being used as often as you like in the 109...not true and I think this cones from pilots that don't fly it, do it high Altitude continuously and see what happens, so it continuously on max pitch and full throttle with low speed and your kill it too..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-29-2012, 11:02 AM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NZtyphoon View Post
Merlin engines should not be overheating or failing almost as soon as the 5 minute limit is up, there needs to be far more leeway than has been given.
That would be an opinion. We need to see a cooling trial to see wheter it's a valid opinion or not. Preferably in a different thread.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-29-2012, 11:17 AM
bongodriver's Avatar
bongodriver bongodriver is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
That would be an opinion. We need to see a cooling trial to see wheter it's a valid opinion or not. Preferably in a different thread.

the 5 minute limit 'has' to be a guaranteed absolute minimum in order to be an allowed limit, the likelyhood of failure 'at' 5 minutes is low and increases proportionally with time beyond the 5 minutes, I don't care if the failure rate is 100% at 6 minutes it's just highly unrealistic to have guaranteed failure at 5:01.
__________________


Intel Q9550 @3.3ghz(OC), Asus rampage extreme MOBO, Nvidia GTX470 1.2Gb Vram, 8Gb DDR3 Ram, Win 7 64bit ultimate edition
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-29-2012, 11:28 AM
klem's Avatar
klem klem is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
That would be an opinion. We need to see a cooling trial to see wheter it's a valid opinion or not. Preferably in a different thread.
5 mins was the instruction in the pilots notes. It did not mean instant failure.

Given that combats usually last only a few minutes it should not be a problem too often. Its true though that information on the maximum time before failure needs to be found or, perhaps more correctly, information that will allow the devs to simulate properly the temperature effects of BCO and then, presumably, the temperature effects on the engine will already have been modelled....... ermmmm I say the latter with my tongue in my cheek.
__________________
klem
56 Squadron RAF "Firebirds"
http://firebirds.2ndtaf.org.uk/



ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 4GHz / 6Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / EVGA GTX570 GPU 1.28Gb superclocked / Crucial 128Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s, 355Mb-215Mb Read-Write / 850W PSU
Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium / Samsung 22" 226BW @ 1680 x 1050 / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro & Rudders
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-29-2012, 11:33 AM
5./JG27.Farber 5./JG27.Farber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz View Post
Your correct on WEP having no effect at higher ALT IMO..

Climbing yes but all out power no.

And I agree also about boost being used as often as you like in the 109...not true and I think this cones from pilots that don't fly it, do it high Altitude continuously and see what happens, so it continuously on max pitch and full throttle with low speed and your kill it too..
Yep and long periods over 1.3 and deffinatley over 1.4 (usually cos of wep) will destroy the engine even though temps and RPM are normal.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-29-2012, 11:41 AM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bongodriver View Post
the 5 minute limit 'has' to be a guaranteed absolute minimum in order to be an allowed limit, the likelyhood of failure 'at' 5 minutes is low and increases proportionally with time beyond the 5 minutes, I don't care if the failure rate is 100% at 6 minutes it's just highly unrealistic to have guaranteed failure at 5:01.
I agree, I am pretty sure the Merlin could operate well beyond 5 minutes at maximum power, if the prescribed temperature limits are also observed at the same time. After all these engines usually went through 100 hour tests before service approval, tested for many many hours at full power, but with controlled oil and coolant temperatures.

As I understand the reason for Merlin engine failures in CLOD are probably related to:

a, Exceeding oil and/or coolant operating temperatures of the Merlin. Obviously engine failure is a very obvious conseqence of too high temperatures, so the real question is IMHO
aa, how long the Spit / Hurri could be run at + 6 1/4
ab) how long the Spit / Hurri could be run at + 12, which is about 30% more power/heat load.

b, Fall of oil pressure during negative-g manouvers, resulting that the engine is insufficiently lubricated, which can and will destroy an engine in very short order, any engine, and should be correct for the 1940 neg-g sensitve Spit/Hurri (which's manual specifically warns against negative-g and low oil pressure conditions), so I sense that Red pilots not knowing/ignoring this limitation may be at the culprit.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45 AM.

Based on a design by: Miner Skinz.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.