G-2 vs F-4 rough testing.

[pixelshader]

I find the G-2 at 2600rpm is a little slower in level flight top speeds than the F-4 at 2500rpm both on the deck and at 4km. Is it unfinished?

 

Also, a very simple test anyone can do in one minute, start a solo quick mission then set the trim / throttle and measure acceleration while keeping the autopilot on. I used 1200m start, +2 trim on both, full fuel, etc. and found the G-2 at 2600rpm and F-4 at 2500rpm to both take around ~22-23sec to go 400 to 500kph, reading off the hud because the cockpit instrument is slightly different in each. Then, the F-4 at 2600rpm takes only ~19sec, and at 2700rpm ~17sec.

 

And finally, measuring the energy retention it seems the extra weight of the G-2 is not enough to help out with the difference in engine power. I did an accurate test counting the frames of video recording, and after a dive to the deck the G-2 (2600rpm) slowed from 600kph down to 570 in 32.5s, while the F-4 took 51.8s to slow down the same amount while running at 2500.

 

I am forced to see that right now the G-2 is inferior in probably every way, unless I am mistaken.

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Remember that the G-2 is the better high altitude performer and with the early de-rated engine I would guess is slower than the F-4 on the deck. The two should trade places at mid altitude and the G-2 should have the advantage at high altitude. I don't know the numbers but I remember the generalities of the differences between the two types.

[bivalov]

i very interested too, in comparision and performances of these planes...

a bit more correct conditions, i think, for turn tests of mainly G (it's how finns tested their plane) - "At 1000m altitude 180° turn required 10 s (G-2), starting speed 450 km/h, final speed 380 km/h. Full circle 18 s with final speed 330 km/h. Full 360° bank required 22 s with 360 km/h, bank angle 70° acceleration 3 g." - maybe, correctly will be something like 320-330 kph (for full 360 bank = "устоявшийся вираж"), plus full fuel load (personally i prefer see around ~95-99% of weight, because climb to 1 km and other similar things, but not sure) and without any loads (r6, bombs etc), of course... i can't remember better description of tests, even description of russian tests...

btw, russians results is 20/21.5 and 20.5/21, finnish above, 22 sec... and i can't remember any other results (except german test for emil), only results of f-2 at unknown settings (1.25 or 1.35), in link...

for f-4, exactly, all tests with "steig- und kampfleistung" (SuK 1.3/2500), because it's main power setting, plus something like 1.35/2600 - looks like, have sense, especially because limit for SuN is incorrect - plus additional 1.42/2700...

speed test, exactly, need to do exactly at 0-50 meters, even 300 meters it's + ~5 kph... sorry, if...

and btw, 560 kph (g-2) and 563 (f-4 at 1.3/2500) it's not bad results...

- ~25-30 kph (if i not mistaken) = ~533 and 536 kph... but, if for gustav it's correctly, in total, for f-4 it's a bit much (docs show ~523-525 at 1.3/2500)... so, maybe, - ~35 kph = 525 (like finnish gustav) and 528 (a bit much)... something wrong, somewhere...

moreover, other results here around, are different (there speed of f-4 correct, g-2 too slow)...

[bivalov]

i remembered another link, with several turntimes, including for - e-4 (20.5, what in good agreement with german ~18.9 at 0 meters, i think, but source is unknown), f-4 (20, source is unknown) and g-6 (21, source is unknown, but i think it's could be from attached table, which originally from very very old article about yaks-7, and there written "results is based on report NII VVS about old captured g-6")...

 

plus have mentions about 18 sec for f-2, at unknown settings, i think, in old translation of old books on english...

[pixelshader]

Remember that the G-2 is the better high altitude performer and with the early de-rated engine I would guess is slower than the F-4 on the deck. The two should trade places at mid altitude and the G-2 should have the advantage at high altitude. I don't know the numbers but I remember the generalities of the differences between the two types.

 

@6km, G-2 reaches 478, or 638 tas. F-4 running 2500rpm reaches 484, or 646 tas.

 

I don't know history, but I know the G-2 is not good in the game, unless there is something wrong with my testing method.

[StG2_xgitarrist]

the G-2 didnt have a derated motor. Actually the motor was even stronger than the F4-motor and could do i think about 1.42 ata.

first models of G2 and G6 could be flown with max ata.

 

the g-model faced some engine problems on full-throttle thats why it was limited during mid-war (1943). But it was still the same engine, just the throttle was mechanical limited so you couldnt push it to fullthrottle. After they fixed  the issues with the engine they removed the limitation.

 

i hope there will be a 1.42 version later (or as an unlockeable).

Frankly, i dont understand this choice of giving us a limited g2, because right now it makes no sense for Luftwaffe pilots to fly with a g2, since the VVS has the lagg3 and yak1 with better motors.....kinda odd.

[sturmkraehe]

the Lagg3 and Yak1 with better motor... mh. Interesting. Didn't occur to me during online play...

[StG2_xgitarrist]

they have better motors, the early version was weaker... i think the devs said it also in one of the updates.

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

the G-2 didnt have a derated motor. Actually the motor was even stronger than the F4-motor and could do i think about 1.42 ata.

first models of G2 and G6 could be flown with max ata.

 

the g-model faced some engine problems on full-throttle thats why it was limited during mid-war (1943). But it was still the same engine, just the throttle was mechanical limited so you couldnt push it to fullthrottle. After they fixed  the issues with the engine they removed the limitation.

 

i hope there will be a 1.42 version later (or as an unlockeable).

Frankly, i dont understand this choice of giving us a limited g2, because right now it makes no sense for Luftwaffe pilots to fly with a g2, since the VVS has the lagg3 and yak1 with better motors.....kinda odd.

Thats not TRUE!

The 109 G-2 came only derated into service.

 

 

Technical Sheet issued by

the Quartermaster General

(Air Equipment)

Berlin, 18th June 1942.

 

Subject:      DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G.

 

via http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/

                A number of cases of breakdown in the DB 605 engine as

a result of pistons burning through occured. The following must be therefore observed.

 

                The take-off and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42 atm. and 2800 revs. may not at present be used. The climbing and combat output with 1.3 atm. and 2600 revs. may, in the case of the older engines (for works numbers see below), be used when operationally essential.

via http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/

                If, in spite of these regulations, a piston does burn through, this is indicated by a strong regular vibration of the engine.

It is still possible to reach the nearest friendly base if the stress is immidiately reduced to about 1600 revs. and the lowest possible boost pressure. The vibration of the engine as a result of piston damage

remains unchanged when both magneto 1 and magneto 2 are switched on, so

that it is possible to confuse it with the a damaged sparking plug. On

the bench, bursts of blue vapour are emitted from the housing ventillator

when a piston is damaged.

 

                In engines with reinforced pistons the danger of their

burning through is not so great as in the older version of the piston, but the take-off and emergency output may still not be used. The following engines are fitted with reinforced pistong headsÉ

 

                Works numbers 25796, 35706 and 77731 and upwards. Also

the engines with the following works numbers:

 

 

76 352

76 566

76 616-811

76 813-819

76 821

76 824

76 827

76 828

76 831

76 834-836

76 839 76 840

76 852-871

76 873-890

76 893

76 895-898

76 900-77 250

77 258

77 306

77 308

77 314

77 330 77 331

77 333

77 334

77 337

77 339

77 340

77 343-700

77 705

77 711

77 728

77 731-750

 

               The pistons of older engines (before above-mentioned works

numbers) will be replaced by reinforced pistons during the first partial overhaul.

 

               Older engines mst be partially overhauled after 50 hours,

engines with reinforced pistons after 100 hours.

 

               Partial overhauls of the DB 605 are at present carried out only by the industry (home or front-line repair works).

 

               To prevent damage due to overheating of the ignition harness, the engines are at present being fitted with bakelite plugs and the engine cowlings with sparking plug ventilators. (Modifications to be carried out by troops in the case of aircraft already supplied).

 

               Teleprinter message R.L.M. GL/C-TT No.1374/42 of 12.6.42 is hereby cancelled.

 

We had this discussion some time ago, and there are some problems we encountered because it looked like some 109 G-2's were cleared for 1.42 ata.

 

BUT in fact the clearance for 1.42 ata was in 1943 after the Me 209 tests.

Look at my post there are two pictures about that:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/4708-open-oil-radiator-flaps-109/page-3?do=findComment&comment=100508

[Volkoff]

 

Frankly, i dont understand this choice of giving us a limited g2, because right now it makes no sense for Luftwaffe pilots to fly with a g2, since the VVS has the lagg3 and yak1 with better motors.....kinda odd.

I don't know why they did it, but I would do it to ensure that the exceptionally experienced BF-109 specialists, unwilling to sim fly for red, have a chance to enjoy a relatively moderate challenge. For instance, I really like the Phantom F-4. If one were to model the absurdly unreliable missiles of the Vietnam War time period, a Phantom F-4C, without an internal gun or gun pods, would have a heck of a time downing a well sim- flown Mig-17F.  

 

In a flight sim based on the Vietnam War, I think that a Phantom F-4C would be a great multiplayer ride for a highly experienced Phantom specialist sim pilot. The Phantom F4E would be a better introductory Phantom, for someone just getting into the Phantom. Likewise, I think it would be more exciting, and more of a challenge, for a Mig specialist to take on the American rides with a Mig-17 or Mig-19, as opposed to a Mig-21. 

 

The BF-109 F4 seems like a great introductory BF-109. If there is more challenge in sim-flying the G2 than the F4, I think that is a good thing, especially for highly experienced BF-109 specialists, since the F4 is not exactly an underdog on this particular map. The added challenge carries added prestige in multiplayer, for all those Axis sim pilots willing to switch from the F4 to the early G2. This is just how I see it, anyway.

 

    MJ

Edited May 2, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[Matt]

they have better motors, the early version was weaker... i think the devs said it also in one of the updates.

The LaGG and Yak currently have the M-105PF, which is basically the 1942 version of the M-105 engine. So while it's true that they have better engine than the early 1940/1941 LaGG and Yak, they do have the engine appropiate for the BoS in 1942.

 

Same for all other planes basically. The early F series 109 also had a worse engine than the F-4 has in BoS (but again, the engine in the F-4 in BoS is of course correct).

 

But yes, the F-4 is currently better at everything, except for rear visibility compared to the G-2 with Galland armor. Now of course, there's still some debate about the fragility of the F-4s engine in BoS, so if the devs decide to make it a bit more sturdy for 1.42 ATA use (no idea if they plan to do that), this would amplify the performance advantage of the F-4 even further.

[StG2_xgitarrist]

 

The 109 G-2 came only derated into service.

 

 

 

 

BUT in fact the clearance for 1.42 ata was in 1943 after the Me 209 tests.

well maybe for series production...

But my point was that the DB 605A was not a derated version, its just that the throttle was limited. you couldnt push the throttle to the last position until Notleistung. the endine itself was still the same, with which the Notleistung tests were made.

i just hope in future addons we will get a G-model with Notleistung (possibly in a 1943 map/scenario).

 

I kind of agree with MIKHA....the G2 being used on maps as a balancing option, for example by limiting the numbers of available F4s, because if you have the possibillity using a F4 i think most pilots will choose it.

[Volkoff]

well maybe for series production...

But my point was that the DB 605A was not a derated version, its just that the throttle was limited. you couldnt push the throttle to the last position until Notleistung. the endine itself was still the same, with which the Notleistung tests were made.

i just hope in future addons we will get a G-model with Notleistung (possibly in a 1943 map/scenario).

 

I kind of agree with MIKHA....the G2 being used on maps as a balancing option, for example by limiting the numbers of available F4s, because if you have the possibillity using a F4 i think most pilots will choose it.

I don't really want to balance things, per se. I would like to participate in multiplayer missions with the Bf-109 F4 vs the LaGG-3 and I-16. I would also like to see missions with the Bf-109 G2 vs the Yak-1 and La-5, and Fw-190 vs the La-5, etc. In all instances, I see the blue team holding the upper hand, but I think that such a happenstance goes with the territory of simming this battle. I think that there is more challenge and prestige in using a G2 than a F4, particularly if one is a Bf-190 specialist. I think it is a good thing to provide this moderate challenge option for Axis or Bf-109 specialists.    MJ

Edited May 2, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[FuriousMeow]

Early G2 was limited to 1.3ATA, Kurfurst has said that on other forums related to the previous Il-2 series. The restriction was later removed in 1943 G-2s, but no idea on the date. This title only covers the winter of '42/'43, so the 1943 G-2 that allowed higher ATA 99% likely wasn't present in the time period represented by BoS.

 

So its not balancing, its trying to model the aircraft present at the time of the battle - with exception being the 190A-3 that may or may not have been present.

[IVJG4-Knight]

In the manual page posted by AUVA :

 

Notleistung(Emergency power) 1475 Hp  2800 rpm  1.42 ata - Darf nicht benutzt werden , ist blockiert (Can't be used. Is blocked ) .So it's realistic that you can't push the throttle to 1.42.

 

But will the la-5 limitations be present  ?:

 

In the summer of 1943, a brand-new La-5 made a forced landing on a German airfield providing the Luftwaffe with an opportunity to test-fly the newest Soviet fighter. Test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche wrote a detailed report of his experience.^[1] He particularly noted that the La-5FN excelled at altitudes below 3,000 m (9,843 ft) but suffered from short range and flight time of only 40 minutes at cruise engine power. All of the engine controls (throttle, mixture, propeller pitch, radiator and cowl flaps, and supercharger gearbox) had separate levers which served to distract the pilot during combat to make constant adjustments or risk suboptimal performance. For example, rapid acceleration required moving no less than six levers. In contrast, contemporary German aircraft, especially the BMW 801radial-engined variants of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 front line fighter, had largely automatic engine controls with the pilot operating a single lever and electromechanical devices, like the Kommandogerät pioneering engine computer on the radial-engined Fw 190s, making the appropriate adjustments. Due to airflow limitations, the engine boost system (Forsazh) could not be used above 2,000 m (6,562 ft). Stability in all axes was generally good. The authority of the ailerons was deemed exceptional but the rudder was insufficiently powerful at lower speeds. At speeds in excess of 600 km/h (370 mph), the forces on control surfaces became excessive. Horizontal turn time at 1,000 m (3,281 ft) and maximum engine power was 25 seconds.

In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. In comparison with the Bf 109 the La-5FN possessed a slightly higher roll rate, however the Bf-109 was slightly faster and had the advantages of a smaller turn radius and higher rate of climb.^[2] In comparison with the Fw 190A-8 the La-5FN had a slightly better climb rate and smaller turn radius, however the Fw-190A-8 was faster at all altitudes and had significantly better dive performance. As a result Lerche's recommendations for Fw190 pilots were to attempt to draw the La-5FN to higher altitudes, to escape attacks in a dive followed by a high-speed shallow climb, and to avoid prolonged turning engagements. Utilizing MW 50 both German fighters had superior performance at all altitudes.

 

I want the advantage of kommandogerät for FW 190 not to be pointless like in old Il2  1946.

 

source wikipedia.

Edited May 3, 2014 by IVJG4-Knight

[Volkoff]

In the manual page posted by AUVA :

 

Notleistung(Emergency power) 1475 Hp  2800 rpm  1.42 ata - Darf nicht benutzt werden , ist blockiert (Can't be used. Is blocked ) .So it's realistic that you can't push the throttle to 1.42.

 

But will the la-5 limitations be present  ?:

 

In the summer of 1943, a brand-new La-5 made a forced landing on a German airfield providing the Luftwaffe with an opportunity to test-fly the newest Soviet fighter. Test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche wrote a detailed report of his experience.^[1] He particularly noted that the La-5FN excelled at altitudes below 3,000 m (9,843 ft) but suffered from short range and flight time of only 40 minutes at cruise engine power. All of the engine controls (throttle, mixture, propeller pitch, radiator and cowl flaps, and supercharger gearbox) had separate levers which served to distract the pilot during combat to make constant adjustments or risk suboptimal performance. For example, rapid acceleration required moving no less than six levers. In contrast, contemporary German aircraft, especially the BMW 801radial-engined variants of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 front line fighter, had largely automatic engine controls with the pilot operating a single lever and electromechanical devices, like the Kommandogerät pioneering engine computer on the radial-engined Fw 190s, making the appropriate adjustments. Due to airflow limitations, the engine boost system (Forsazh) could not be used above 2,000 m (6,562 ft). Stability in all axes was generally good. The authority of the ailerons was deemed exceptional but the rudder was insufficiently powerful at lower speeds. At speeds in excess of 600 km/h (370 mph), the forces on control surfaces became excessive. Horizontal turn time at 1,000 m (3,281 ft) and maximum engine power was 25 seconds.

In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. In comparison with the Bf 109 the La-5FN possessed a slightly higher roll rate, however the Bf-109 was slightly faster and had the advantages of a smaller turn radius and higher rate of climb.^[2] In comparison with the Fw 190A-8 the La-5FN had a slightly better climb rate and smaller turn radius, however the Fw-190A-8 was faster at all altitudes and had significantly better dive performance. As a result Lerche's recommendations for Fw190 pilots were to attempt to draw the La-5FN to higher altitudes, to escape attacks in a dive followed by a high-speed shallow climb, and to avoid prolonged turning engagements. Utilizing MW 50 both German fighters had superior performance at all altitudes.

 

I want the advantage of kommandogerät for FW 190 not to be pointless like in old Il2  1946.

 

source wikipedia.

That is how the LaGG-3 is, minus the cowl flaps.  MJ

Edited May 3, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[FuriousMeow]

In the manual page posted by AUVA :

 

Notleistung(Emergency power) 1475 Hp 2800 rpm 1.42 ata - Darf nicht benutzt werden , ist blockiert (Can't be used. Is blocked ) .So it's realistic that you can't push the throttle to 1.42.

 

But will the la-5 limitations be present ?:

In the summer of 1943, a brand-new La-5 made a forced landing on a German airfield providing the Luftwaffe with an opportunity to test-fly the newest Soviet fighter. Test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche wrote a detailed report of his experience.^[1] He particularly noted that the La-5FN excelled at altitudes below 3,000 m (9,843 ft) but suffered from short range and flight time of only 40 minutes at cruise engine power. All of the engine controls (throttle, mixture, propeller pitch, radiator and cowl flaps, and supercharger gearbox) had separate levers which served to distract the pilot during combat to make constant adjustments or risk suboptimal performance. For example, rapid acceleration required moving no less than six levers. In contrast, contemporary German aircraft, especially the BMW 801radial-engined variants of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 front line fighter, had largely automatic engine controls with the pilot operating a single lever and electromechanical devices, like the Kommandogerät pioneering engine computer on the radial-engined Fw 190s, making the appropriate adjustments. Due to airflow limitations, the engine boost system (Forsazh) could not be used above 2,000 m (6,562 ft). Stability in all axes was generally good. The authority of the ailerons was deemed exceptional but the rudder was insufficiently powerful at lower speeds. At speeds in excess of 600 km/h (370 mph), the forces on control surfaces became excessive. Horizontal turn time at 1,000 m (3,281 ft) and maximum engine power was 25 seconds.

In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. In comparison with the Bf 109 the La-5FN possessed a slightly higher roll rate, however the Bf-109 was slightly faster and had the advantages of a smaller turn radius and higher rate of climb.^[2] In comparison with the Fw 190A-8 the La-5FN had a slightly better climb rate and smaller turn radius, however the Fw-190A-8 was faster at all altitudes and had significantly better dive performance. As a result Lerche's recommendations for Fw190 pilots were to attempt to draw the La-5FN to higher altitudes, to escape attacks in a dive followed by a high-speed shallow climb, and to avoid prolonged turning engagements. Utilizing MW 50 both German fighters had superior performance at all altitudes.

 

I want the advantage of kommandogerät for FW 190 not to be pointless like in old Il2 1946.

 

source wikipedia.

Considering that's for the la5fn and not the la5, does that data apply? Edited May 3, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Volkoff]

Considering that's for the la5fn and not the la5f, does that data apply?

I am pretty sure we are getting an La-5 Series 8 and not an La-5F, which is cool, because we get to see what our future La-5FN evolved from and it is all underdog neat-o. I am willing to bet that the La-5 will have a similar sim pilot workload as the in game LaGG-3 or Yak-1.   MJ

 

P.S. I really like your kitten avatar.  I am a big fan of cats, myself. 

Edited May 3, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[FuriousMeow]

Yeah, I dunn goofed on the model but edited it.

 

Thanks for the avatar compliment. That's my little rescue trying to paw down a couple planes in RoF. Its pretty adorable when she does that. She loves watching planes flying across the screen and batting at them usually at inopportune times for me.

[Volkoff]

Yeah, I dunn goofed on the model but edited it.

 

Thanks for the avatar compliment. That's my little rescue trying to paw down a couple planes in RoF. Its pretty adorable when she does that. She loves watching planes flying across the screen and batting at them usually at inopportune times for me.

 

Don't feel bad, FuriousMeow. I mentioned a Bf-190, earlier in this thread.   As for your friend, I bet your pal is very adorable. I have a cat and she is my sidekick. I bet your pal really gets involved in the game!   Cats love flight sims at least as much as we do. 

 

MJ

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I wonder if this WEP limitation is in BoS as well. Even later models like La-5FN and even La-7 have their speed curves drawn so, that above 2km the WEP is not doing anything. Ages ago in IL-2 someone even posted tidbits of a La-5FN manual where it was not allowed to use Forszah above 2km. So a low altitude boost. Now back to the La-5 Series 8..The early versions/Series, according to NII VVS, were barely able to reach 508km/h with WEP. And when you compare to La-5F which was able to 520km/h and subsequently La-5FN at 546km/h and La-7 582km/h with WEP. From what I gathered the WEP limitation was 2km but they managed to increase it from 3-5min to 10min in latest marks of La. 

 

 It would be interesting to discuss the contsruction of the La-fighters as for me it far more interesting as an aircraft maintainer/mechanic than perfromance numbers. The construction and other related things have far more bigger impact on performance than just turn times and whatnot. And because these sometimes adverse effects are not modeled in a game we only get partial performance. Many fail to see that, but again we are playing a game

Edited May 3, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Bivalov, there can be quality expectations and orders how it should be to the world's end, the truth and real life is different. You simply do not get top quality when pooping out planes from a mass production plant in rudimentary conditions etc. Those planes were not built like Germans built their Bf109E and F models, nearly like peacetime. The debate or discussion could go on forever and never settle   I have seen first hand the "Russian quality control" in my work and civil life and can not praise it.  If they can not produce something that really is of good quality today in peacetime how could they do it during the war and in mass production  Just food for thought. Standards do not tell how well you make something but how crap you are allowed to make.

 

Levers/rollers are fast to use if they are well located. But every time you have to do some adjustments it always detracts from the flying and that is where German designs did better. You did not have to worry about finding the lever or roller to do something, you could keep hand on throttle/stick and fly. This means a lot in a situation where your life is at stake and you need everything taken out of the plane. Sure automated settings do not make you a better pilot, but it helps the pilot to concentrate more on situational awareness rather than fiddling with some levers and rollers.

 

 Anyways, it will be interesting to see how the game forms up before release. Even I might sound critical, I am pretty pleased with BoS and not regretting the investment on Founder package or the key I bought to a friend. Devs have in their hands a real benchmark if they play their cards right. 

[sturmkraehe]

S!

 

 Bivalov, there can be quality expectations and orders how it should be to the world's end, the truth and real life is different. You simply do not get top quality when pooping out planes from a mass production plant in rudimentary conditions etc. Those planes were not built like Germans built their Bf109E and F models, nearly like peacetime. The debate or discussion could go on forever and never settle   I have seen first hand the "Russian quality control" in my work and civil life and can not praise it.  If they can not produce something that really is of good quality today in peacetime how could they do it during the war and in mass production  Just food for thought. Standards do not tell how well you make something but how crap you are allowed to make.

 

 

Now this paragraph is a bit condescending imho. Maybe the quality is not the same and never has been the same as in Western countries but that does say nothing about performance. It is fact for instance that Russian rocket engines are about the most powerful there is. Even American companies produce a Russian engine in license because they could not find anything similar at home. 

 

Quality is above all a matter of reliability and in particular long term reliability. For the short lives of a fighter plane long term reliability is only of minor importance. Furthermore: The major part of the Soviet Union was NEVER occupied nor did it have to endure hardship of close frontlines. In fact Russians transfered whole factories from the West to the East where they could produce in good safety.

[bivalov]

ohhh, no, i deleted first post, with attached picture, instead second... pity... pls, moderators - post could be restored? and next post it's last offtop, of course...


although, btw, series like 8-9, already can be better in quality, so, performance almost like prototype it's can be almost correctly, in total...

and i again checked TD for type 37, "forsazh" mentioned exactly as separate operation, but and blinds not mentioned as separate operation, although, looks like blinds really could be tuned separately - ie 7 operations in TD (7th it's flaps and blinds), including "forsazh" and it's correctly for m-82a and for early series, like 8-9, i think - and in game has separate operation "forsazh" too, so, in game could be 7-8 operations...

looks like, something like this and all could be very correctly... plus, for example, need to check flight manual'42... and, really, for example -  "При встрече с противником для достижения максимальной скорости полета необходимо:

1. Убрать сектор высотного корректора.
2. При высоте полета больше 3500 м включить вторую скорость нагнетателя.
3. Дать полный газ, при этом число оборотов в минуту должно быть равно 2400.
4. Закрыть фонарь кабины, что увеличит скорость на 10 км/час.
5. Прикрыть створки капотов и заслонку маслорадиатора до положения „по потоку" (при полном их открытии максимальная скорость снижается на 30—35 км/час).
6. Включить форсаж (непрерывно пользоваться форсажем при рк, равном 1140 мм рт. ст., разрешается не более 5 мин.).
7. Следить за показаниями термометров, не допуская повышения температуры головок цилиндров выше 215° Ц, а температуры масла выше 125° Ц. "
 
ie, when you see enemy, for reach of best speed - 1 correct mixture (if i not mistaken)... 2 supercharger (if above 3500 m)... 3 full throttle with 2400 revs... 4 close canopy (+10 kph)... 5 don't open side flaps and flap for oil cooler, too much... 6 enable "forsazh" (5 min.) 7 watch T of... etc...
 

...the truth and real life is different. You simply do not get top quality when pooping out planes from a mass production plant in rudimentary conditions etc. Those planes were not built like Germans built their Bf109E and F models, nearly like peacetime.

and i many times told you how it was in USSR, with FACTS... not just talk about "these ... russkies and their bears" (instead ... anything you want), which i know too, but a concrete facts about concrete things in USSR during ww2 (specificity of industry, control and other similar organisations - you think it's just for fun, huh? - typical problems, periods of bad quality, what bad influence on performance etc etc etc)...

and i told you - of course, prototype of la-7 showed ~630 kph at sl, some part of planes can have ~620-625 kph (it's a facts, from documents, and mainly planes preserves this or almost this performance in field conditions, in total, but this depending on several things, of course), but mainly it's ~610-615 and of course NOT defective planes with 582/508... which could be repaired even in IAPs, btw, and that's worldwide practice...

and 44-45 for ussr it's almost EXACTLY like 42-43 for germany, and 44-45 for germany it's almost EXACTLY like 42-43 for USSR... in total, and with accent on specific problems of USSR, of course...
 

If they can not produce something that really is of good quality today in peacetime how could they do it during the war and in mass production

again? sorry me, but that you again talking about? WHERE i said that russian quality - "best"? quality during 44-45 (during 43 were different situations) was sufficient, in total, for victory...
 

Levers/rollers are fast to use if they are well located. But every time you have to do some adjustments it always detracts from the flying...

of course, and i showed this... and i mean, at least, it's not so hard to use flaps and blinds, as someone can think... why adequate automation it's very good, i clearly understand, even during flights, but we not about this...

[ShamrockOneFive]

Early G2 was limited to 1.3ATA, Kurfurst has said that on other forums related to the previous Il-2 series. The restriction was later removed in 1943 G-2s, but no idea on the date. This title only covers the winter of '42/'43, so the 1943 G-2 that allowed higher ATA 99% likely wasn't present in the time period represented by BoS.

 

So its not balancing, its trying to model the aircraft present at the time of the battle - with exception being the 190A-3 that may or may not have been present.

Completely agree! The devs chose a specific time period to represent and they are giving us aircraft that fit within that time period right down to the engine specifications. If the Yak should have a VK-105PF engine then it should. If the 109G-2s engine would have been rated at 1.3ATA during this time then it should.

 

The FW190A-3 is a bit of an odd-ball to the list but it fits perfectly with the other new map being developed.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

Sturmkraehe, it is not like putting down their achievements, but based on first hand experience with ex-Soviet hardware. And you already pointed it out there, not made for longevity. And it shows in many places in Soviet hardware. Quality of the finish is nowhere near western standards, for example parts are not interchangeable without excessive work or as the most extreme case where a door of an aircraft had to be changed. The new door was not complete but had to be riveted together on our depot to fit that particular plane as none of them were similar. You just could not just swap stuff across that easily. They are for sure relatively easy to manufacture en masse and operate, but maintaining them is a pain in the rear end. Where Russians really excel is metallurgy and especially with titanium. They simply do whatever they want with it and have the world's largest deposits of it as well. 

 

Anyways as we have perfect samples of planes in BoS every discussion of quality or lack of it is pretty much useless. Everything in BoS is modelled after a good sample without manufacturing defects and "flown" by virtual pilots who have more training and virtual flt hrs than real veterans had, if you have been "flying" online sims since their dawn at second half of 1990's   And as a last note, we speak about hardware, not people of this country, as it would be against froum rules and other things. I am only interested in the technical side of things.

[sturmkraehe]

The thing is this quality discussion we had on several occasions but I don't see a pratical way to implement it without randomly punishing players who will then just use this "oh I must have been attributed a low quality unit" as an excuse for bad flying or start to complain about such a feature. I think if devs use test data from original sources this data already includes issues with quality anyway so no need to add extra things. AFAIK they do not use some target values issued during the call for offer.

Edited May 3, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Whatever data they use would be nice to know as none of it is classified anymore I think, not even the one from our Eastern neighbour     As said I am quite happy with the product at the moment and Mr Bivalov has posted nice tidbits all along. 

[LukeFF]

Now this paragraph is a bit condescending imho. Maybe the quality is not the same and never has been the same as in Western countries but that does say nothing about performance. It is fact for instance that Russian rocket engines are about the most powerful there is. Even American companies produce a Russian engine in license because they could not find anything similar at home. 

 

Quality is above all a matter of reliability and in particular long term reliability. For the short lives of a fighter plane long term reliability is only of minor importance. Furthermore: The major part of the Soviet Union was NEVER occupied nor did it have to endure hardship of close frontlines. In fact Russians transfered whole factories from the West to the East where they could produce in good safety.

 

The fact remains that the Soviet Union had severe quality control issues with its aircraft production, and it wasn't just in aircraft, either. T-34s were also known to be of questionable build quality from time to time.

[Eldur]

I was looking for more detailed information about the 601E and found the following link which is quite interesting. I just knew, at sea level the 605A does 1475PS (1,42ata @ 2800rpm) respectively 1310PS (1,30ata @ 2600rpm) while the 601E does 1350PS (1,42ata @ 2700rpm). I was looking for the 601E's 1,30 ata rating... still didn't find it though, but now look at this:

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G1_messung601e605a/messung109g601e605a.html

 

Basically, this is a test report from Sep 1942 that compared the 109G performance with both the new 605A and the old 601E, both engines were ran at 1,3ata Steig- und Kampfleistung. At sea level, the 601E equipped one is 7km/h faster than the 605A equipped one, while at VDH the latter one does 4km/h more. Albeit stronger, the 605A obvioulsy hardly improves the plane's performance, probably due to the extra weight. Now take into account the 109F-4 is a tad lighter because of some structual changes that came with the G series which made them heavier (most obvious are the wind screen armor and larger oil cooler) - plus we can cun the F at 1,42ata and the G not.

[SR-F_Winger]

I did level flight speedtests comparing the G2 and the F4. When the F4 is flown at 2300 rpm the G2 can outspeed the F4 for around 5-15 km/h IAS (the digital gauge down left on the screen). Only at 4km and 6 km the F4 wins. As soon as the F4 uses 2500 revs (possible for around 25 minutes in my test flying straight at 1000m height) the F4 can outspeed the G2 in any height.

For me personally there currently is absolutely no point in using the G2 at all. Heavier, blackout seems to come earlier and cant turn as well as the F4.

For now the Friedrich my my choice of plane. And once the temperature gauges become truly operational frying an engine will be hardly any issue anymore.

Edited May 3, 2014 by VSG1_Winger

[SR-F_Winger]

For everyone thats interested here are my results:

 

F4 6km heiight 2500 u/min 486 km/h IAS

G2 6km heiight 2550 u/min 475 km/h IAS

 

F4 5km heiight 2300 u/min 480 km/h IAS

G2 5km heiight 2550 u/min 489 km/h IAS

 

F4 4km heiight 2300 u/min 518 km/h IAS

G2 4km heiight 2550 u/min 507 km/h IAS

 

F4 3km heiight 2300 u/min 505 km/h IAS

G2 3km heiight 2550 u/min 522 km/h IAS

 

F4 2km heiight 2300 u/min 526 km/h IAS

G2 2km heiight 2550 u/min 538 km/h IAS

 

F4 1km heiight 2300 u/min 523 km/h IAS

G2 1km heiight 2550 u/min 544 km/h IAS

 

As mentioned we flew straight using autopilot and didnt touch the stick.

[bivalov]

 For everyone thats interested here are my results:

 

F4 6km heiight 2500 u/min 486 km/h IAS

G2 6km heiight 2550 u/min 475 km/h IAS

 

F4 1km heiight 2300 u/min 523 km/h IAS

G2 1km heiight 2550 u/min 544 km/h IAS

ok...

 

1 km for f-4 (instead 0-50 m) = plus ~23 kph, 1 km for g-2 = plus ~19 kph... so, we have ~500 (1.3 = ~523, 1.42 = ~546, not bad) and ~525... ie definitely, performance of gustav is based on second link, speed at 6 km, clearly confirmed this...

 

maybe, +50 revs can give a bit more speed, for gustav, but not so much, if really can give... so, not bad, but personally i expected ~530-535 and, what i can more say? but...

 

in this context - especially, because EXACTLY and ONLY during november'42-januar'43, was cleared 1.42, but almost no one can't correctly say (it's very hard) about planes which fought in BOS, and 525 + ~20-25 it's not so much (almost ideal la-5 is ~540, i guess) - plus, LOFT many times said on russian side about realistic GAME, plus all these semi-historical or not historical, interesting things (vya, rockets for fighters/pe-2 etc), moreover, i think that DB 605 modeled with full power, initially, all this shows that 1 minute@1.42 ata it's will be almost correct and definately interesting addition for game...

 

just personally my opinion, at this moment, and at least personally i very grateful to Kurfurst, for his documents and explanations...

 

Albeit stronger, the 605A obvioulsy hardly improves the plane's performance, probably due to the extra weight.

extra weight almost not affects horisontal speed (at least, at sl), if i not mistaken, ~400-500 kg = minus only ~3-5 kph...

 

ie main differences here is - small worsening aerodynamics of g-2, and 1310 ps (but 2600 revs) instead 1350... that gives ~7-9 kph, by my simple calculations, so, will be ~545-550 for fritz and ~537 for gustav (like official calculations for f-4/g-1)... but, looks like there were other aerodynamical differences, like bigger "schnellflug" etc, as said Kurfurst...

 

well, something like this... 525 is not bad, in total, for ALPHA version...

 

The thing is this quality discussion we had on several occasions but I don't see a pratical way to implement it...

it's not a problem, definitely, if you really want to do this (inc. have time, money etc)... looks like, after successful release.........

 

I think if devs use test data from original sources this data already includes issues with quality anyway so no need to add extra things.

even has lot of mentions, in popular literature, which sometimes is based on strictly docs... has several free docs exactly about specific of soviet planes, reports (like tests of la-7 with 582 kph) etc...

 

and, of course, be sure that devs have lot of original documents (f.e. la-5 it's new type and reports contains list of problems, inc. quality problems)... so, just need to read, do conclusions and do it in game... it's could be something like "historical mode", or list of "затруднения пилоту", in options (as said LOFT, really will be some things, in release, like already footy glass for lagg etc)...

 

and dont confuse overall quality of assembly, dangerous or just defects, some problems etc... of course, first step it's just different performances (3% tolerance, in fact, in ideal need to do aging of plane/engine) mainly for USSR, for example, next, SOME things which will do game more interesting and historical ("heavy" aircraft control, sometimes footy bulletproof glass, that's problem of il-2s, for example, well, i not going to list of all possible things)...

 

and i think, some things not possible, in this game, is flammability covering of yaks... handling of some soviet types, athough, like you see, in game has almost all or all options for correct handling of la-5 type 37... and, for example and if i understood correctly, will be distortion through spherical glases (problem of lagg, la-5, yak-7 etc)...

 

etc etc etc, i think that you understood me...

[SR-F_Winger]

I am almost certain that the devs will take weaknesses like unrealiabilitys that are were historically documented in to account and model them in some way.

At least they did so in ROF with the Fokker DR1. There they modeled the upper wing weakness thats historically documented and was an issue that even cost valuable pilots their lives.

In ROF, when flying the DR1 you really have to take care of your upper wing in certain maneuvers or it will be the first part of the plane that breaks.

!!!  I  !!! take that DR1 "winthing" as intended modeling of a known weakness. If it wasnt so please correct me someone!

Now they show they do take such things into account by derating the G2 to 1.3 ata. So other unreliabilitys will most likely also be taken into account.

They are devs of a SIM. Not a game. So thats their obligation and they have my full thrust!

Edited May 4, 2014 by VSG1_Winger

[Crump]

Quote

 

 

Technical Sheet issued by

the Quartermaster General

(Air Equipment)

Berlin, 18th June 1942.

Subject:      DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G.

via http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/

                A number of cases of breakdown in the DB 605 engine as
a result of pistons burning through occured. The following must be therefore observed.

                The take-off and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42 atm. and 2800 revs. may not at present be used. The climbing and combat output with 1.3 atm. and 2600 revs. may, in the case of the older engines (for works numbers see below), be used when operationally essential.

via http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/

                If, in spite of these regulations, a piston does burn through, this is indicated by a strong regular vibration of the engine.
It is still possible to reach the nearest friendly base if the stress is immidiately reduced to about 1600 revs. and the lowest possible boost pressure. The vibration of the engine as a result of piston damage
remains unchanged when both magneto 1 and magneto 2 are switched on, so
that it is possible to confuse it with the a damaged sparking plug. On
the bench, bursts of blue vapour are emitted from the housing ventillator
when a piston is damaged.

                In engines with reinforced pistons the danger of their
burning through is not so great as in the older version of the piston, but the take-off and emergency output may still not be used. The following engines are fitted with reinforced pistong headsÉ

                Works numbers 25796, 35706 and 77731 and upwards. Also
the engines with the following works numbers:

 

76 352
76 566
76 616-811
76 813-819
76 821
76 824
76 827
76 828
76 831
76 834-836
76 839 76 840
76 852-871
76 873-890
76 893
76 895-898
76 900-77 250
77 258
77 306
77 308
77 314
77 330 77 331
77 333
77 334
77 337
77 339
77 340
77 343-700
77 705
77 711
77 728
77 731-750

               The pistons of older engines (before above-mentioned works
numbers) will be replaced by reinforced pistons during the first partial overhaul.

               Older engines mst be partially overhauled after 50 hours,
engines with reinforced pistons after 100 hours.

               Partial overhauls of the DB 605 are at present carried out only by the industry (home or front-line repair works).

               To prevent damage due to overheating of the ignition harness, the engines are at present being fitted with bakelite plugs and the engine cowlings with sparking plug ventilators. (Modifications to be carried out by troops in the case of aircraft already supplied).

               Teleprinter message R.L.M. GL/C-TT No.1374/42 of 12.6.42 is hereby cancelled.

 

 

Great stuff.

 

I think StG2xgitarrist is right.

 

The document specifically withdraws the clearance of 1.42 ata:

 

 The take-off and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42 atm. and 2800 revs. may not at present be used

 

This shows is the initial Bf-109G2's were not de-rated because they did not know the pistons needed to be reinforced. 

 

When they started burning thru pistons (detonation or weak piston design) the 1.42ata was withdrawn. 

 

At some point it was reauthorized to use 1.42ata because betriebsdatentafeln authorizing its use were in the cockpits.

 

The serial numbered engines listed in the document are already in service and most likely came off the production line with reinforced pistons.  The new plugs, ignition harnesses, and reinforced pistons sounds like a fix to the issue.  I suspect Daimler Benz thought so too but had not had sufficient time to fully test to confirm it was the fix so there maybe more to the story.

 

Like the RAF Fighter Command 100 Octane use upgrades to the Merlin engine, the DB605 engines already in service that did not come from the factory with reinforced pistons had to be upgraded.

 

Be nice to see the original German document.  The translation is confusing on who is authorized to do the upgrade.  That information can give us a rate at which the changes occurred. Industry level means the factory is doing the upgrade.  It does not mean it must necessarily return to the production line but that factory maintenance personnel are going to do it.  IIRC, the Luftwaffe had several depots and they all had factory maintenance teams that performed some of maintenance.  I do know the end of lifecycle overhauls were done at the factories.  The factory is only one who can reset the logbook times to zero.

 

Changing pistons is a big deal in a liquid cooled blocked engine.  It is not a air cooled engine with cylinder jugs.

 

Anyway, it looks like they did the same thing the RAF did with the cylinder head spigot depth modification to the Merlin cylinder heads (machining cylinder heads is also a big deal) incorporating it into the normal inspection cycle of the aircraft.  When it returned to depot level maintenance for a regular overhaul, the overhaul included replacing the pistons with the new reinforced pistons.

 

I will look in the DB605 manual for the overhaul schedule if somebody does not have it available. 

Thats not TRUE!

The 109 G-2 came only derated into service.

 

We had this discussion some time ago, and there are some problems we encountered because it looked like some 109 G-2's were cleared for 1.42 ata.

 

BUT in fact the clearance for 1.42 ata was in 1943 after the Me 209 tests.

Look at my post there are two pictures about that:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/4708-open-oil-radiator-flaps-109/page-3?do=findComment&comment=100508

 

 

The Operating Instructions pages posted fall after the document StG2xgitarrist posted so the timeline does not add up to claim 1.42 ata was not initially cleared.  The clearance for 1.42 ata appears to have been withdrawn in June 1942 due to burning thru pistons.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Crump

[bivalov]

agree, in total, after this reminder of Auva, i also checked this old page and found that 1.42 was used during spring'42, apparently, but personally i still not sure...

[JG1_Pragr]

...

and 44-45 for ussr it's almost EXACTLY like 42-43 for germany, and 44-45 for germany it's almost EXACTLY like 42-43 for USSR... in total, and with accent on specific problems of USSR, of course...

 

Actually this is not exactly true. While the acceptance tolerance for serial planes in Germany was 3 % from the performance of the template (official numbers got during the RLM test performance), the same tolerance in USSR was lowered to 7-10 % for all war years. Btw, is it one of the main reasons why Soviet Union could reached such a huge numbers of productions. 

 

On the other hand it meant that while single plane could reached 600 km/h at sea level the other plane which was produced on the same production line, the same day could be like 50 km/h slower. Theoretically of course. 

 

Btw. According to memoirs of Czechoslovak pilots flew in USSR under the 1st. Czechoslovak fighter regiment, no two La-5FN were the same when the unit got them in 1944.

Edited May 5, 2014 by II./JG1_Pragr

[bivalov]

Actually this is not exactly true.

and i know it, and showed it (plus sometimes it's not only tolerance)... but...

 

While the acceptance tolerance for serial planes in Germany was 3 % from the performance of the template (official numbers got during the RLM test performance)...

what about 5% of messerschmitt? for emil, and 262 (ie end of war)? and if about concrete organisations, i think, looks like soviet "военприёмка" = german BAL...

 

...the same tolerance in USSR was lowered to 7-10 % for all war years.

your source, about official 7-10%, and these numbers for all years? you have statistic of performances, of all planes of all plants, during all war? and by my experience (i seen much more information, at least, just because i russian), you understand reality of soviet aircraft industry and history, not really well...

[JG1_Pragr]

If I remember it right I saw the up to 10 % tolerance in the books about the CAGI, but I read it like 10 years ago. Actually I can see nothing wrong there. While USSR considered the average service time of planes during the war time is about 18 combat hours or six months, they could lower the tolerances. The expected service time of the 109G frame was 50 combat hours. That's why the smaller tolerance was held in Germany. Btw, one think needs to be cleared. 10 % tolerance doesn't mean that the performance of production planes will be uniformly spread across these tolerance. In fact 3/4 of production will be in some 5 % of template performance while only 1/4 will be worse.

 

You right about the Emils. It was my fault, I made mistake and checked the 3 % for the weight.

 

One notice only a bit OT. We have many experience with quality of Soviet planes here in Czech republic. The story of how one specially chosen best produced MiG-15 should served as a template for starting the license production of this plane and about 90 % of all parts of that single plane was off tolerance of the official documentation supported by Soviets so all blueprints had to be drawn from the beginning is very famous here

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 When was briefly working on Mig-12bis, every plane had their own set of chosen drop tanks because none of them were built the same nor did they fit other planes. It was always taking a batch of droptanks and then when good ones for certain plane were found, marked to that plane. That is more than a few % error to me   An old WW2 veteran who had served with VVS on IL-2 as a mechanic told to my friend that it was easier to just dump the planes after a few sorties or when damaged, as new ones came in so fast in late war. Then it was just to pick the best ones for sorties and leave not so good planes for familiarising the new pilots. Engines wore out very quickly as well. But he said they never ran out of  planes though, due fast production. So maybe quantity in itself is quality, as a certain CCCP leader said during the war..  

 

 As Pragr said the Soviets had different view on equipment. Was not worth to build anything like a Swiss watch when it would be lost statistically within a short time frame. Mass production vs German "overengineering", like Soviet tanks which were of simple design and fast & cheap to manufacture compared to Panthers or Tigers, for example. What they lacked in some finesse German tanks had, like better optics or radios, they made up with sheer numbers deployed. You either retreat fighting or die without ammo, while being overrun. Same with the planes, men and artillery. With the vast pool of human resources they could put a lot more equipment out to the battlefield and take losses whereas Germans when losing planes/tanks/crew had very little to replenish their losses with. Soviets simply put so much stuff(planes, tanks, men, artillery) on breakthrough points that it was next to impossible for Germans to cause too severe losses that would prevent the attacks from succeeding. But even then it does not tell anything about the quality of the equipment used, just the fact that victory can be achieved with simply overwhelming the enemy.