Version 1.107 First Impressions

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The 109 was never meant to excell at low altitudes so was the Mig. The chart I posted says 487 km/h IAS for combat power (1.3 ata 2400 RPM) and 507 IAS for takeoff power (1.42 ata 2600 RPM). The test was likely performed at close to ISA conditions.

 

The problems we have ingame is 1. different atmospheric settings and 2. slightly different power settings (ingame its 1.3 ata 2500 RPM for combat and 1.42 ata 2800 RPM for Takeoff power).

 

It's hard to judge how both effect the final performence of the F-2 in summer conditions but it pretty much looks like one makes up for the other, so the F-2 should be a noticeably better performer at autum and winter settings.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[303_Kwiatek]

For speed test spring (or autumn?) map should be used in isa condition where ias=tas at sea level. I remember that i reached easly 515-520 ias kph in mig3 at deck.

Edited February 3, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Finkeren]

Do you mind to pursuit enemy at 508 for 3mins if you know your engine can sustain 4-5mins at this setting? 508 is IAS corresponding TAS should be about 516.

Just out of curiosity. Which map did you test on and under what atmospheric conditions?

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Just out of curiosity. Which map did you test on and under what atmospheric conditions?

Summer map, wind 0, turbulence 0.

BTW, I did one more test, MIG3 can run at IAS 500 w/o overheat with boost in summer map at 300m.

Edited February 7, 2016 by III/JG2Gustav05

[Shouwick_Junjun_Nikku]

Alright, Alright; 1C Devs when can bombed Moscow in the full release on BoM!  Pretty please it would be {Awesome!!!}.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

The 109 was never meant to excell at low altitudes so was the Mig. The chart I posted says 487 km/h IAS for combat power (1.3 ata 2400 RPM) and 507 IAS for takeoff power (1.42 ata 2600 RPM). The test was likely performed at close to ISA conditions.

 

The problems we have ingame is 1. different atmospheric settings and 2. slightly different power settings (ingame its 1.3 ata 2500 RPM for combat and 1.42 ata 2800 RPM for Takeoff power).

 

It's hard to judge how both effect the final performence of the F-2 in summer conditions but it pretty much looks like one makes up for the other, so the F-2 should be a noticeably better performer at autum and winter settings.

test summary in these 2 days

Max continuous speed, 60% fuel, for Bf109F2, it is actullay at Rpm a little bit <2500, 1.3Ata with auto prop pitch, coressponding throttle is 86%-87%, sure it can only last 30 mins,  but it's the best you can expect from German aircraft.

                         300m                                   300m                            3000m

                        Summer                              Autumn                        Autumn

                        IAS      TAS                       IAS       TAS                    IAS       TAS

 

Bf109F2        494      502                        507       515                   484       564

 

Mig3              500      508                        514       522                   489       570

 

Mig3 faster than Bf109F2 6-7kph on deck and at 3000m. So it's more than likely that Mig3 is faster than Bf109F2 at all altitudes. Any comment is welcome.

Edited February 5, 2016 by III/JG2Gustav05

[Dutchvdm]

Is it just me or does the F2 overheat very quickly? Even on the wintermap it overheats after just a couple of minutes of combat power.

 

Grt Martijn

[Trinkof]

test summary in these 2 days

Max continuous speed, 60% fuel

300m 300m 3000m

Summer Autumn Autumn

IAS TAS IAS TAS IAS TAS

 

Bf109F2 494 502 507 515 484 564

 

Mig3 500 508 514 522 489 570

 

Mig3 faster than Bf109F2 6-7kph on deck and at 3000m. So it's more than likely that Mig3 is faster than Bf109F2 at all altitudes. Any comment is welcome.

How long did you tested the mig?

 

Because those speed do not match the "max continuous power" : in summer max continuous power for the mig is achieved with 60-70% opened water rad, (unless it is assured overheat) which in my experience give lower top speed than yours.

 

Temperature on the mig is tricky, seem to stay low for some time, then rise quickly.

 

And radiator management is almost the same in autumn and summer for this plane.

Edited February 4, 2016 by =LAL=Trinkof

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Id retesz the f-2 with full fuel and than compare it to the Kennblatt with the exact same power settings. I cant believe you really gained those speeds with 1.15 ata.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Is it just me or does the F2 overheat very quickly? Even on the wintermap it overheats after just a couple of minutes of combat power.

 

Grt Martijn

Yeah, I look at the water temperature and its fine so it has to be the oil temperature (which isn't shown). It's as if the oil radiator doesn't work.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Ok so here's my restest of the F-2 performence ingame. Test conditions as following:

 

Stalingrad autum, 12 o'clock, no wind, no turbulence, takeoff from runway, full fuel (400l = 300kg), no additional weapons/upgrades

 

After taking off from the airfield with 1.42 ata (as per Kennblatt) I throttled back to 1.0 ata to prevent overheating and headed for my test course at 200m MSL. Than I opened throttle to 1.15 ata, trimmed the stabilizre fully down and accelerated to 485km/h level before going on with combat power as mentioned in the report (not you have to use manual prop pitch to replicate the 1.3 ata / 2400 RPM power setting).

 

Result: Max speed acchieved = 511 km/h, droping to 504 km/h after ~ 10 ingame minutes of use.

 

 

 

 

After measuring climb power I throttled back to 1.15 ata to spare the engine for a while before going directly for 1.42 ata (again manual prop pitch to hold 2600 RPM as per report is nessecary).

 

Result. Max reached speed = 525 km/h, droping of to < 520km/h as radiators began to open up constantly (managed to hold 525km/h with disabled thermostat).

 

 

 

I don't know if those results have anything to do with the new mod client posted by Han which I used for testing purpose but those speeds are definetly higher than the ones mentioned in the Kennblatt.

 

Maybe sby could reproduce this test in the same manner as me with the current client to confirm  my results.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[303_Kwiatek]

I think if F-2 at 1.42 Ata is faster then 515 kph cause probably 515 kph was at 1.35 Ata power not special emergency 1.42.  Still wonder why F-2 is overheating such fast even at 1.3 Ata power.

[Matt]

I only did my test with the first release candidate, but i doubt anything changed since then.

 

And in those tests, the F-2 is consistently ~10 km/h faster with Steig-/Kampfleistung (1.25 ATA) at all altitudes and with Start-/Notleistung (1.35 ATA) it's ~5 km/h too fast at ground-level. When you reach 3000 meters, it's spot on and at higher altitude, it's about 5 km/h too slow.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Matt

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Guys. Pls stop with this 1.25 / 1.35 ata speculation. The Kenblatt clearly says 1.3 ata 2400RPM / 1.42 ata / 2600 RPM. The bottom side note confirms this.

 

Also, Han confirmed the Kennblatt was used to model the F-2's speeds, so it's probably the only source we have to deal with performence wise.

[303_Kwiatek]

I pretty sure that 495 kph/ 515 kph is for 1.25 Ata 2400/1.35 Ata 2600 RPM.  1.42 Ata give more horsepower then 1175 at sea level and should give also more speed.

 

It is need to just compare data with engine power charts.

Edited February 4, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I can't say more than I already have.    The Kenblatt states it clearly. 1.3ata 2400RPM, 1.42ata 2600RPM.

[303_Kwiatek]

It also says that these settings was not cleared for used so i think speed and climb trials was for 1.25/1.35 Ata. It is enough to compare engine power settings which gave exacly 1175 HP for 1.35 Ata 2600 and 1020 HP for 1.25 2400.   1.42 Ata should give more engine power ( 1200 HP at deck? )  for 601N and also little more speed.

 

It looks that later in time 1.42 Ata/ 1.3 Ata was standart power settings for 601N  which give 1.42 Ata - 3 minutes emergency and 1.3 Ata 1/2 hour climb and combat settings.  At these power settings  F-2 should be little faster then  495/515 kph.

Edited February 4, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Askania]

fft

 

Bf 109F-4, max speed bei Steig u. Kampfleistung 1200 PS at SL - 523 km/h

 

 

 

Guys,  if you have ever seen DB 601N 1.42 ata Power chart, just let me know.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Askania

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

"Die Werte in der Flugleistungstabelle wurden mit ,,Steig und Kampfleistung", d.h. n=2400 U/min, (Plade = 1,3*) ata (bis Volldruckhöhe) erflogen.

 

Die geklammerten Werte (im Flugleistungsblatt gestrichelt gezeichnet) bezeichnen sich auf ,,Star- und Notleistung", d.h. n=2600 U/min, (Plade = 1,42*) ata (bis Volldruckhöhe)."

 

Translates into:

 

"The values in the flight performence table were flown with "Steig und Kampfleistung", mean n=2400 RPM (Pman= 1.3*) ata (until full pressure altitude).

 

The bracket values (drawn dashed in the flight performence table) relate to "STart und Notleistung", means n=2600 RPM, (Pman = 1.42*) ata (until full pressure altitude)."

 

I already translated the bottom note:

 

"The manifold pressure values are temporarily reduced to 1.25 ata for combat power and 1.35 ata for takeoff power. (Due to that) The combat power (performence) is reduced by 4.5% and takeoff power by 6%."

 

It can't be clearer than that really. Don't want to appear hostile towards your attempts to ressearch a possible flaw with the F-2 ingame, but pls don't misinterpret valuable data sources.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

How long did you tested the mig?

 

Because those speed do not match the "max continuous power" : in summer max continuous power for the mig is achieved with 60-70% opened water rad, (unless it is assured overheat) which in my experience give lower top speed than yours.

 

Temperature on the mig is tricky, seem to stay low for some time, then rise quickly.

 

And radiator management is almost the same in autumn and summer for this plane.

My test procedure for Mig3,

 

In quick mission, wind =0, turbulence =0, spawn from sky at altitude which you want to test at. auto level is on , throttle 100%, leave the mixture in default 1stly, acclerate the plane at max speed , then boost engine by increasing mixture to 100%, during whole test adjust water and oil radiator to keep the water temp less than 119C by this way you will not have the overheat warning shows up. wait the AC goes to the max speed. water and oil raidiaors are both at 45%-50% in autumn map when the AC gets the max speed shown above. I fly the plane at max speed with this radiaotrs setting about 20mins, no overheating.

 

Comment on 6 Feb 2016,

My claim 20 mins here is not accurate. actually it's whole test time, Mig3's boost time limit is 10 mins. Thx LAL_Trinkof for pointing it out.

Edited February 7, 2016 by III/JG2Gustav05

[Trinkof]

My test procedure for Mig3,

 

In quick mission, wind =0, turbulence =0, spawn from sky at altitude which you want to test at. auto level is on , throttle 100%, leave the mixture in default 1stly, acclerate the plane at max speed , then boost engine by increasing mixture to 100%, during whole test adjust water and oil radiator to keep the water temp less than 119C by this way you will not have the overheat warning shows up. wait the AC goes to the max speed. water and oil raidiaors are both at 45%-50% in autumn map when the AC gets the max speed shown above. I fly the plane at max speed with this radiaotrs setting about 20mins, no overheating.

OK, thx, just noticing : using boost is not continuous power, if I remember correctly 10 minutes limit.

 

Max. Continuous power I reach 500kmh usually level flight in autumn, which give a good margin of superiority to the F2, when comparing plane with "max continuous power serting"

[III/JG2Gustav05]

OK, thx, just noticing : using boost is not continuous power, if I remember correctly 10 minutes limit.

 

Max. Continuous power I reach 500kmh usually level flight in autumn, which give a good margin of superiority to the F2, when comparing plane with "max continuous power serting"

Thank you for the information.

I would like to say this is the wording game. even though it has 10 mins limit comparing F2's 1 mins limit, Mig3 can beat F2 on top speed easily.

[Trinkof]

Thank you for the information.

I would like to say this is the wording game. even though it has 10 mins limit comparing F2's 1 mins limit, Mig3 can beat F2 on top speed easily.

indeed , this is a little bit of wording game and yes, regarding the time limit of boost for mig 3 , it has an advantage over the F2. 

 

Keep in mind the mig 3 we have in game is not the "average death trap mig 3" we all heard about, but the latest and most refined version of the plane. Regarding performance of this specific late serie compared to the F2, I have no idea what it was IRL. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Keep in mind the mig 3 we have in game is not the "average death trap mig 3" we all heard about, but the latest and most refined version of the plane. Regarding performance of this specific late serie compared to the F2, I have no idea what it was IRL. 

The Mig we have in game has prototyp specs, there was no Mig on the frontlines to reach that performance even close IRL.

Quite the opposite, while the Mig-3"late" prototyp was clearly superior to the early one, the mass production Migs declined in performance over time. Here you can see 4 randomly taken frontline Migs, seeing a decline for the latter versions (of course the AM38 excluded), with especially the slats-Mig (we also have in game) having pretty bad performance. 

But i guess if the Mig (same as the Yak) would have historical accurate performance, no one would want to fly Soviet, and they would only get slaughtered. So i guess we have to accept it how it is. And as long as other aircraft are not severely underperforming in the end (P40 *cough*), it's okay with a little bit of imagination.

Edited February 6, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Trinkof]

The Mig we have in game has prototyp specs, there was no Mig on the frontlines to reach that performance even close IRL.

Quite the opposite, while the Mig-3"late" prototyp was clearly superior to the early one, the mass production Migs declined in performance over time. Here you can see 4 randomly taken frontline Migs, seeing a decline for the latter versions (of course the AM38 excluded), with especially the slats-Mig (we also have in game) having pretty bad performance.

But i guess if the Mig (same as the Yak) would have historical accurate performance, no one would want to fly Soviet, and they would only get slaughtered. So i guess we have to accept it how it is. And as long as other aircraft are not severely underperforming in the end (P40 *cough*), it's okay with a little bit of imagination.

Thanks, did not knew the quality decreased over time, I would have thought the opposite. Interesting to learn about it!

 

O7

[PatrickAWlson]

Then you have the question of what the developers modeled - factory fresh or combat worn.  I'm pretty sure that they model factory fresh.  While durability was a an issue in real life, if wear is not modeled in the sim then it is not a factor.

[Dakpilot]

The Mig we have in game has prototyp specs, there was no Mig on the frontlines to reach that performance even close IRL.

Quite the opposite, while the Mig-3"late" prototyp was clearly superior to the early one, the mass production Migs declined in performance over time. Here you can see 4 randomly taken frontline Migs, seeing a decline for the latter versions (of course the AM38 excluded), with especially the slats-Mig (we also have in game) having pretty bad performance. 

But i guess if the Mig (same as the Yak) would have historical accurate performance, no one would want to fly Soviet, and they would only get slaughtered. So i guess we have to accept it how it is. And as long as other aircraft are not severely underperforming in the end (P40 *cough*), it's okay with a little bit of imagination.

 

Surely by this logic one would have to compare  to four randomly selected frontline 109's...? cant have it both ways

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Matt]

 

 

Guys. Pls stop with this 1.25 / 1.35 ata speculation. The Kenblatt clearly says 1.3 ata 2400RPM / 1.42 ata / 2600 RPM. The bottom side note confirms this.

 

Which are figures you could only achieve by using manual prop pitch.

 

But whatever.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

 

Which are figures you could only achieve by using manual prop pitch.

 

But whatever.

1. The devs stated performence is based on the Kennblatt. If the Kennblatt uses those fixed power settings they should be used to reproduce prformence tests ingame if you want to look for a comparison.

 

2. I would be very interested in seeing  proof that those (1.3ata 2400RPM / 1.42ata 2600RPM) powersettings were not natively adjusted by the Kommandogerät because as far as my sources are concerned here's nothing contradicting it.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Brano]

To test the MiG-3 and compare the speed to known sources you are suppose to use these settings:

MP 1020 mmHg

RPM 2050

= max continuous power settings.

To keep coolants at bay,oil and water radiator flaps should be roughly at 50%.On Stalingrad autumn map you shoud reach about 480km/h at ground level.

 

AM35 engines were unmature and not very reliable engines,with resurs of 50h max. Those aircrafts mentioned in several sources with lower then serial producton etalon performance were not factory fresh.Those were field units machines.Unfortunately I havent found info about engine worn out status.In general,regularly flown MiG-3 could reach its engine liftime limit within 2 weeks.Even less when forshaz has been exploited more then necessary.

 

After all,if there is to be justice for all,you have to set some standards/rules.Devs have chosen those of factory fresh aircrafts for everyone.

As for me,I would have no problem with them implementing ''worn out'' factor.But I can imagine the doomsday jadajada on the forum from some people that their steed doesnt run at paper datas 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

One could argue that the german engine limitation handling "sticly after manual recommendation" is not quite the same considering the inclusion of not enough safety factors and that those recommendations served not mainly factory fresh but serving aircraft aiming for increased longlivety of their engines.