German fighters speed testing-they seem pretty darn close!

[Original_Uwe]

Cut and pasted from Celestials FM thread.

 

I finished my testing of the German fighters just now.

Methodology was similar to the OP-a 40 kilometer straight track run at highest combat power rating, with a 30km run up prior to the track to get up to speed.

AI maintained level control of the aircraft with one exception (noted below). Player controlled throttle input.

Mission was assembled in FMB and is identical for each of the aircraft, only changing in altitude. Each aircraft was timed in its 40 kilometer run at 200 meters, 3000 meters and 6000 meters, all ASL as far as I know.

Conditions are set to game default, with zero wind and turbulence.

Fighters are fueled 100%, and all operational systems are left in their automatic default positions. No unlocks are used, even down to the game default skins.

Time was taken via a handheld stopwatch (My G-Shock 9400 Rangeman) at the cues given in game (see tracks)

 

AIRCRAFT@Powersetting

 altitude  time  airspeed

 

BF-109F-4@1.3ata

 200m    4:33.88   525 kph

 3000m  4:08.89   578 kph

 6000m  3:37.49   662 kph

 

BF-109G-2@1.3ata

 200m    4:34.21   525 kph

 3000m  4:06.16   584 kph NOTE: Aircraft would not maintain level flight under AI control, player took control of aircraft to best of abilities to keep level.

 6000m  3:42.11   648 kph

 

FW-190A-3@1.32ata 2450rpm

 200m    4:30.11   533 kph

 3000m  4:16.55   561 kph

 6000m  3:50.61   624 kph

 

Sources to measure by:

Unfortunatly OP didnt post sources, but I believe Ive seen them at Kurfurst.net. As this is my source I will post what I can. Of course these are all to be taken with grains of salt and Im  sure  documents countermanding them will be easily and quickly produced as our community is prone to do.

 

BF-109F-4

As usual there are some discrepancies in the reports, but at sea level in game we are dead on. Otherwise it seems to be in between the two sheets, closer at 3000m to the IV/78/42 calculations than the uncorrected test flight, but closer to the flight without compressability correction at 6000m. At 3000m our aircraft is right at the 3% performance margin garaunteed by Messerschmitt compared to IV/78/42, but we are at or above 5% over at 6000m. 

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F4_Datenblatts/109F4_dblatt_calculated.html

 

BF-109G-1 

Reichlein tests with a G-1 (no GM-1 use in tests) that is surmised to have a fixed tail wheel unlike our ride in game. Regardless the numbers are nearly identical between the test aircraft and in game.

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Rechlinkennblatt/rechlin_G1_blatt.html

 

FW-190A-3

Its not precise, but it sure looks like were in the ball park.

Quick conversions make our test aircraft 331 at S.L., 348 at 9842ft, and 387 at 19685ft.

I think the FW is the closest, its really shocking.

 

Comments are welcome, I will post the missions and tracks in one second...here it is!

 

Here are the zipped files containing my missions for testing. Simply drop entire webmissions folder into your data/missions.

Tracks just drop the whole file into your root/data folder.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/hkg5mubth0i6f60/webmissions.7z

http://www.mediafire.com/download/g8awfe9wwkgoln8/Tracks.7z

 

Edit: Of course I would like to test the soviet aircraft as well, but I dont really know how to pilot them that well. If someone wants to use the missions above but edit them for the Yak, Lagg, and LA to make the 9 necessary tests and post back here it would be brilliant.

Edited May 6, 2015 by forsale

[Original_Uwe]

It occurs to me to add that these tests were done in version 1.011.

[361fundahl]

Good stuff!

 

F-4 FTW!

[MK_RED13]

Super! Thanks.... and now ... hooray for test Russian aircraft

[Original_Uwe]

I think I'm going to give it a shot, time permitting.

[Original_Uwe]

So far no testing of the russian aircraft, Ive been looking at DB power output charts.

From the thread discussing de-rated G2 vs fully rated G2 I found two charts that I was able to find and verify online as being what they said they were, i.e. DB 601E and 605A power output charts.

For the 601E:

 

and for the 605A( notice it goes to full 1.42ata rating):

 

I was glad to find the charts but found them difficult to compare on the monitor. I fired up gimp and cut out the graph portion of each scan, sized them so that the PS (horsepower) and Km Flughohe (Km altitude) matched, then superimposed the 601E on top of the 605A, highlighted the graphs and made a much easier to read overlay:

 

Red=DB605A

Blue=DB601E

 

Its pretty plain to see that at only one point does the 601E outperform our derated 605A, and it is by a very slim margin.

Thus I have to ask why do we have the opposite occurring in game? I understand that the G weighs 300 kilos more than the F, but in a clean configuration would that truly have such an enormous effect on level max speed?

It would seem, given the above graphs, that our F-4 should only outperform our G2 by a small amount at max S. u N. setting, at Kampflestung settings for each the G2 should leave the F in the dust.

Id love to hear why Im wrong, but as it stands we have two aerodynamically nearly identical aircraft, with the G nearly 20kph slower at 6000 meters than the F yet the G makes 150 more PS. Hell at 6000m the 605A at 1.3 makes more power than the 601E makes at 1.42!

 

This all seems to make the results from the IV/78/42 graphic seem more plausible.

I never thought id say it but can we slow the F-4 down by 30kph at 6000m only?

Edited May 14, 2015 by forsale

[MK_RED13]

Any news about russian speed? 

[Original_Uwe]

Not yet.

Frankly I'm rather bored with the game and haven't played at all recently, I've been spending my sim time in RoF B-career and PWCG.

And with summer coming I doubt I'll get a whole lot more time.

I do believe I posted a link to download the test track, so if someone wants to use it to test the reds please feel free so that we can have a direct comparison. If you need help changing the plane types in mission let me know and I'll whip em up for ya.

[Original_Uwe]

Ok I got some spare time tonight and tested the Yak-1 under the same conditions as the German tests above.

I let the AI control the planes attitude/altitude as well as water and oil rads which kept it well within the operational range of temperatures.

 

 

Yak 1 Full throttle @ 2650 RPM

Altitude-distance traveled-time to travel said distance=True Air speed in Kph
@200Meters-40Km-4.43.09=508.83kph

 

@3000Meters 40Km=4.16.36=562.5kph

 

@6000Meters 40Km=4.09.97=578.3kph

 

I wont bother with the tracks and such, unless someone wants to see them, as unfortunately they do not show any of the data I see when I run the mission.

But if you really want to watch a Yak go all out in a 70Km straight line Ill make and post them.

Edited May 29, 2015 by forsale

[Finkeren]

The Yak doesn't look that far off tbh.

 

Definately not the '70km/h too fast at altitude' that I've seen quoted several times.

 

Thanks for your work forsale.

[Original_Uwe]

My pleasure.

The more I test these the more I think that of you get shot down in a 109 you did something wrong. It simply outclassed the Yak in nearly everything.

 

Although I understand there are some eccentricities with the FM of the YAK it's not outperforming the 109 in speed. Not even close.

EDIT: To be fair I suppose a competent pilot could extract some extra speed be overheating the motor and keeping the tears closed, but I could do the same with the 109 and it just doesn't seem right to intentionally damage the aircraft in order to make a few extra kph.

 

I'd love it if someone could post a reliable, western source for the Yaks performance numbers, perhaps a German test of the aircraft? I'm not well versed in soviet aircraft, but I'd be hesitant to take anything from soviet russia without a train load of salt.

Edited May 29, 2015 by forsale

[6./ZG26_Emil]

My pleasure.

The more I test these the more I think that of you get shot down in a 109 you did something wrong. It simply outclassed the Yak in nearly everything.

 

Although I understand there are some eccentricities with the FM of the YAK it's not outperforming the 109 in speed. Not even close.

EDIT: To be fair I suppose a competent pilot could extract some extra speed be overheating the motor and keeping the tears closed, but I could do the same with the 109 and it just doesn't seem right to intentionally damage the aircraft in order to make a few extra kph.

 

I'd love it if someone could post a reliable, western source for the Yaks performance numbers, perhaps a German test of the aircraft? I'm not well versed in soviet aircraft, but I'd be hesitant to take anything from soviet russia without a train load of salt.

 

I'd really be interested to see the la-5 test results especially at 6000m

[Original_Uwe]

I'm on vacation this next week, so I'll try to get the other fighters done between yoga and chores.

Figured I'd try to get the PE2 in the as well, but I need sources. All I can do is show in game results I have nothing to compare it to.

[Original_Uwe]

LA5 test.

 

Altitude-distance traveled-time to travel said distance=True Air speed in Kph
@200Meters-40Km-4.39.83=516.13kph

 

@3000Meters-40Km=4.30.04=533.33kph

 

@6000Meters-40Km=4.07.89=583.00kph

 

Edit: Again this is with the AI controlling the radiators. The AI does a fine job and keeps the aircraft within the recommended max operating temps for oil and water. Honestly it does a much better job than I ever would and I believe its a better method than running it at temps higher than advised in order to get a faster speed.

 

EDIT2: Again I have to wonder, if you got shot down by this in a 109 you did something wrong!

 

EDIT3: I need recomendations for recording software. The in game track recorder is useless, see my above tracks. You get none of the hud info showing the track, when the times start and end as I see when I run them. I need a program that WILL record this so I can re do the soviet aircraft and show the tracks.

Edited June 1, 2015 by forsale

[Original_Uwe]

Lagg3 test.

 

Altitude-distance traveled-time to travel said distance=True Air speed in Kph
@200Meters-40Km-4.50.08=496.55kph

 

@3000Meters-40Km=4.26.39=541.35kph

 

@6000Meters-40Km=4.14.92=566.93kph

 

And I say again...this is with the AI controlling the radiators. The AI does a fine job and keeps the aircraft within the recommended max operating temps for oil and water.

[[BTEAM]_Shifty_]

The AI does a fine job

For La5 it plays too safe imo. For a speed run I'd go with something like 100% intake, 15% cowls, 40% oil rad give or take, without long term overheat.

But as all planes were tested in automatic, it doesn't matter much.

Edited June 1, 2015 by [BTEAM]_Shifty_

[Original_Uwe]

It eliminates the human error factor, and makes tge tests more repeatable.

And honestly I'd blow them up if I didnt.

[Livai]

 

 

The more I test these the more I think that of you get shot down in a 109 you did something wrong. It simply outclassed the Yak in nearly everything.

 

+1

 

The Bf-109 G-2

 

+ Outclimb every VVS Fighter

+ Very good if you want to run away

+ faster than a Bf-109 F-4

+ best dive speed

- worse turn rate at low speed

 

The Bf-109 F-4

 

+ best turn fighter at low speed

-  worse if you want to run away

 

Your are right if you get shot down by VVS you did something wrong with the Bf-109. The FM from the both Bf-109 are very close. I love both plane but choose at the end if I want to do close combat or say hello and goodbye

[Finkeren]

True about the 109. If you have a plane that's faster, accellerates better, climbs better and is generally easier to fly than the opposition, it's pretty much your own fault, if you get shot down

 

Luckily players are humans and as such make a ton of errors and mistakes all the time and have limited situational awareness (even the very best of us), and as such flying the Bf 109 is at best an advantage, not a guaranteed win.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

True about the 109. If you have a plane that's faster, accellerates better, climbs better and is generally easier to fly than the opposition, it's pretty much your own fault, if you get shot down

 

Luckily players are humans and as such make a ton of errors and mistakes all the time and have limited situational awareness (even the very best of us), and as such flying the Bf 109 is at best an advantage, not a guaranteed win.

 

Comments like these make zero sense at all....Same for the two comments above.

 

It is all about advantage not the plane...if you have it you are in a better position to win but it's no guarantee...although you can argue if you make an aircraft run away you have won in the sense of air supremacy.

[Sgt_Joch]

Thus I have to ask why do we have the opposite occurring in game? I understand that the G weighs 300 kilos more than the F, but in a clean configuration would that truly have such an enormous effect on level max speed?

 

 

A bit late to this and can't really comment on the 109s, but yes a 300 kg (660 lbs)  weight difference can have a big impact on performance. I have looked at enough WW1/2 flight tests to see that given equivalent aerodynamics, power/weight ratio has a big impact.

 

For example, the Yak-1 in game, the s. 69 achieved 510 kmh max speed at sea level, climb rate of 6.4 minutes to 5km with a weight of 2917 kg. The original yak-1b, which was just a lighter s.69 weighed 2780 kg (a 137 kg difference), but achieved 526 kmh max speed at sl (+16 ) and a 4.7 min. climb rate to 5 km.

 

If the F-4 and G-2 in game have equivalent power, but one weighs 300 kg more, a 20 kmh speed difference is within the ballpark. You should check the power to weight ratio  to see if it is consistent.

Edited June 8, 2015 by 2Lt_Joch

[Sgt_Joch]

for example, this is quick and dirty, but Kurfust gives me test weights of 2890 kg for the F4 and 3174 kg for the G2. Assuming a 100 ps difference at ata 1.3 which seems fairly consistent up to 5 km, the G2 has a slightly worse power to weight ratio of 2.442 KG/HP (i.e. 3174kg/1300hp) than the F4 at 2.408 KG/HP (i.e. 2890kg/1200hp).

Edited June 8, 2015 by 2Lt_Joch

[Original_Uwe]

Glad you commented.

I'm not an expert by any stretch but I've always been told/read that in level max speed testing the weight of the aircraft makes less difference than it would in things like climb and dive.

 

If as you said the power to weight ratio was a major factor in level max speed testing we should see a 109F faster at all altitudes up to 6K, instead we see the opposite, where it is slower up to 6K where and then takes a large leap ahead of the G.

 

Further the German tests seem to show a 109F slower than the G at all altitudes if I recall correctly.

[MK_RED13]

for example, this is quick and dirty, but Kurfust gives me test weights of 2890 kg for the F4 and 3174 kg for the G2. Assuming a 100 ps difference at ata 1.3 which seems fairly consistent up to 5 km, the G2 has a slightly worse power to weight ratio of 2.442 KG/HP (i.e. 3174kg/1300hp) than the F4 at 2.408 KG/HP (i.e. 2890kg/1200hp).

Please.. where did you get info about weight/hp of BF109 G2?? On Kurfust page? 

[Matt]

For example, the Yak-1 in game, the s. 69 achieved 510 kmh max speed at sea level, climb rate of 6.4 minutes to 5km with a weight of 2917 kg. The original yak-1b, which was just a lighter s.69 weighed 2780 kg (a 137 kg difference), but achieved 526 kmh max speed at sl (+16 ) and a 4.7 min. climb rate to 5 km.

A 137 kg (~5%) weight difference will neither increase speed, nor climbrate by that much. Not even close.

 

 

 

Assuming a 100 ps difference at ata 1.3 which seems fairly consistent up to 5 km, the G2 has a slightly worse power to weight ratio of 2.442 KG/HP (i.e. 3174kg/1300hp) than the F4 at 2.408 KG/HP (i.e. 2890kg/1200hp).

The actual weight of the G-2 was 3045 kg, giving it a better power/weight ratio overall, Of course aerodynamics also comes into play and i have my doubts, that the bigger oil cooler of the G-2 made the plane less draggy than the F-4, but maybe the changes to the radiators also affected drag in some way.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

My test , several months ago.

 

[Original_Uwe]

How did you come by the numbers? We world love more details.

[Finkeren]

Interesting results. Most are consistent with what we already know, but there are a few thing worth noting:

 

The Fw 190 performance drop above 2000m is quite noticeable and when you compare it with the opposing planes speed at that altitude it really poses a problem for a Fw 190 pilot.

 

The La-5 seems to be very slow compared to what I'd expect. Even with boost at low altitude it's not even close to catching up to the 109s. Where these tests done with cowl flaps fully open? Maybe it'd be an idea to do a test with La-5 with overheating engine.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Agree the numbers for the La-5 look suspicious. I remember testing it myself some time ago and I could drive it to 565 km/h with Fortza at GL (with ~ 60% fuel). Maybe your cowl flap / mixtuer settings were a bit off.

 

The rest seems quite plausible, although I still think the Yak can go faster at 4-5km.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

How did you come by the numbers? We world love more details.

what do you mean, Forsale? you want the number table?

[Original_Uwe]

No I'm just mean the test methodology, how did you get your numbers and do you have any tracks of it?

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Agree the numbers for the La-5 look suspicious. I remember testing it myself some time ago and I could drive it to 565 km/h with Fortza at GL (with ~ 60% fuel). Maybe your cowl flap / mixtuer settings were a bit off.

 

The rest seems quite plausible, although I still think the Yak can go faster at 4-5km.

recheck again, La5 at 500m, 60% fuel, get 560 IAS with radiators tweaking and engine temperature is 105C. but this speed can not last very long because engine temperature still keeps increasing.

No I'm just mean the test methodology, how did you get your numbers and do you have any tracks of it?

I am sorry, no track. just enable the autolevel, no wind and no turbulence, Stalingrad map. 60% fuel. VVS A/C's Prop pitch and Mixture setting 100% at low altitude.mixture decreasing accordingly at altitude.

Edited June 27, 2015 by III/JG2Gustav05

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Interesting results. Most are consistent with what we already know, but there are a few thing worth noting:

 

The Fw 190 performance drop above 2000m is quite noticeable and when you compare it with the opposing planes speed at that altitude it really poses a problem for a Fw 190 pilot.

 

The La-5 seems to be very slow compared to what I'd expect. Even with boost at low altitude it's not even close to catching up to the 109s. Where these tests done with cowl flaps fully open? Maybe it'd be an idea to do a test with La-5 with overheating engine.

Agree, that is why I never fly 190 online. the speed drop between 2000m and 4000m is too much.

[Matt]

The Fw 190 graph looks like it's been tested before they fixed the performance drop. Better rerun the test with the current version.

[Original_Uwe]

recheck again, La5 at 500m, 60% fuel, get 560 IAS with radiators tweaking and engine temperature is 105C. but this speed can not last very long because engine temperature still keeps increasing.

 

I am sorry, no track. just enable the autolevel, no wind and no turbulence, Stalingrad map. 60% fuel. VVS A/C's Prop pitch and Mixture setting 100% at low altitude.mixture decreasing accordingly at altitude.

Well hell, that stinks.

We can't really compare or contrast our tests when the test parameters are different.

Good test none the less, you might get more attention if you started your own thread.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Weight shouldn't actually have much influrence in regard to max. level speed but I agree the conditions should be kept uniform. But I think he stated to have tested all aircraft with 60% fuel (assumed combat fuel level?).

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Well hell, that stinks.

We can't really compare or contrast our tests when the test parameters are different.

Good test none the less, you might get more attention if you started your own thread.

Why we cannot use in game cheater IAS meter to measure it? why you cannot record the IAS at same time when you measure TAS by stopwatch? I did not check your track, but seems what you measured is average speed. 

Weight shouldn't actually have much influrence in regard to max. level speed but I agree the conditions should be kept uniform. But I think he stated to have tested all aircraft with 60% fuel (assumed combat fuel level?).

yes I measure them all with 60% fuel. The IAS is the data we should trust in my test. TAS result is just transferred from IAS result by math.

Edited June 28, 2015 by III/JG2Gustav05

[Maxyman]

LA5 test.

 

Altitude-distance traveled-time to travel said distance=True Air speed in Kph

@200Meters-40Km-4.39.83=516.13kph

 

@3000Meters-40Km=4.30.04=533.33kph

 

@6000Meters-40Km=4.07.89=583.00kph

 

Edit: Again this is with the AI controlling the radiators. The AI does a fine job and keeps the aircraft within the recommended max operating temps for oil and water. Honestly it does a much better job than I ever would and I believe its a better method than running it at temps higher than advised in order to get a faster speed.

 

EDIT2: Again I have to wonder, if you got shot down by this in a 109 you did something wrong!

 

EDIT3: I need recomendations for recording software. The in game track recorder is useless, see my above tracks. You get none of the hud info showing the track, when the times start and end as I see when I run them. I need a program that WILL record this so I can re do the soviet aircraft and show the tracks.

 

Offtop: The official La-5 tests were performed with the cowls and the oil radiator fully closed. The altitudes were 0, 1000, 2000, 3200, 4000, 5000, 6000, 6450, 7000. In game La-5 top speeds (no boost) match the first prototype – LaGG 3 with M-82.

[Original_Uwe]

I can't comment on the rad settings, as I let the expert AI manipulate them.

Great source though thank you!

[Matt]

 

 

Fighters are fueled 100%, and all operational systems are left in their automatic default positions.

 

Just curious, this means radiators on the 109s have been left to auto as well right? If so, you can't compare them to the flight tests at Kurfürst, because the automatic radiators try to keep the temperature considerably below 103°C at most altitudes, meaning that the radiator flaps are opened way more (causing more drag) in BoS than they were during the flight tests.

 

Also "Conditions are set to game default" means -15 °C right? If so, that also can't be compared to the data, in fact, i'm not aware of any flight test for any WW2 plane using an outside temperature of -15°C. I would redo the tests using +15°C instead.

 

Of course, strictly speaking, the tests cannot be compared anyway, because those historical tests simply were not done using your method. Your method may be more exact, if you want to determine the actual speed in BoS, but if you have no real data using the same method, you still can't be sure that the speeds are correct or not.