Jump to content

Holtzauge

Members
  • Content Count

    998
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

700 Excellent

1 Follower

About Holtzauge

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1068 profile views
  1. Good summary unreasonable and I agree it would be good to ask the devs to look into this but I'm AFK for a week now hunting Moose so I was hoping someone else could carry the torch!
  2. OK so this is in line with what I got as well in the C++ simulation with Clmax=1.75. Reducing Clmax to 1.35 gives 15.4 deg/s at 235 Km/h.
  3. It did not show in my simulations either (using 1.35 or 1.75) in terms of getting a better turn rate figure. What it did do was to extend the speed range in which I could get the max turn rate down to really low numbers. Have you tried going slower? Like at 250 Km/h IAS SL? What turn rate do you get at those speeds?
  4. At full fuel load I get sea level climb rates of 23.3 m/s for G14 at 1.7 ata and 27.7 m/s for Mk9 at +25 boost in the C++ simulation. At 50% fuel it goes up to 25.0 m/s and 29.9 m/s respectively. So to me Il-2 seems a bit optimistic but I can't see that the Mk9 stands out in any way. However, as I recall it this has always been the case with Il-2 but on the positive side most planes have higher than historical rates so the important issue of the relative performance is maintained to some extent anyway (Maybe with the exception of the G14 sea level climb rate which at 27.5 m/s looks rather optimistic).
  5. OK, so basically identical results. I use Clmax=1.35 for the Tempest in the C++ model. Well if that is the Clmax clean wing then 1.75 is way to high. With some angle on the flap then sure but clean wing no way. Probably has to do with the IAS position error just like on the P-40 and Spitfire and the manual stating what you would see in the cockpit and not the actual calibrated speed. I recall some rather heated forum discussions about this (position error being a thing or not at stall speeds) a while back......
  6. Tempest Mk5 turn performance simulated in my C++ program yields these results at +11 boost sea level +15 deg C standard atmospheric conditions: W=5221 Kg best turn speed 293 Km/h gives turn rate 19.8 deg/s W=4974 Kg (400 l fuel) best turn speed 299 Km/h gives turn rate 20.8 deg/s @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard, Do you think you could test the Tempest in-game like you did the other planes for a comparison? I think it was mentioned that the in-game Tempest currently has a Clmax of 1.75 modeled? Just out of curiosity and since the effect of Clmax has been discussed I did a run with this and while the best turn rate does not go up that much it turns out that you can keep a very high stationary turnrate down to very low speeds, all the way down to 230 Km/h in fact, which reduces the turn radius by a lot and gives you the option to cut a very tight corner inside someone's turn without loosing speed: W=4974 Kg (400 l fuel) and Clmax=1.75 best turnrate pretty flat at 21.7 deg/s from 290 Km/h all the way down to 230 Km/h.
  7. Sure, IIRC I have both +9 and +11 boost modeled so if you give me the weight I can do it after work today.
  8. OK, so here are the numbers for sea level I get in my C++ simulation. I use standard atmosphere 15 deg C and IIRC then you use the autumn map right? If that is so then we are comparing same conditions. I'm really surprised with how good Il-2 is: My C++ simulations run pretty quick (takes 5-10 s to get the numbers on i7 4 core 3.4 GHz) but in BoB all this is being done in real time so once again we can see what a good simulator this is! The level of accuracy is simply outstanding. When I started off doing these comparisons between my C++ models and the state of the art flight simulators more than 10 years ago the level of accuracy was nowhere near as good as this is. We can be very happy with what we are getting for our money. I post both the results for the speeds you tested at and also what the simulation thinks are the optimum speeds for best turnrate. For the K-4 at the same 3361 Kg, 1.8 ata: 280 Km/h 18.1 degrees/s, at 310 Km/h 19.3 degrees/s Bf 109 G-14 3266 Kg (400 liters of fuel) 1.7 ata: 280 Km/h 18,7 degrees/s, at 300 Km/h 20.0 degrees/s P-51D-15 4343 Kg (690 liters of fuel) at 67": 280 Km/h 17,2 degrees/s, at 273 Km/h 17.3 degrees/s P-51D-15 4170 Kg (450 liters of fuel) at 75": 280 Km/h 19,0 degrees/s, at 286 Km/h 19.2 degrees/s
  9. OK, thanks for the info. I can't run the numbers today but tomorrow evening after work CET I will do a simulation with those numbers and see how that pans out. I think the comparison I did was originally to compare the Dora and Pony and that the K4 was added later at full fuel load which is more like 296 Kg according to Kennblatt but without the MW50 which adds another 63 Kg for a total of 359 Kg which is close but not quite 388 Kg the rationale for which now escapes me 5 years later......
  10. OK, interesting that the P-51 is better. How much fuel (%) did you use in the test? Is there a way to get the exact weights you had in test (all up) because that is what I use in the simulation. Both Clmax and power can get you a higher sustained turnrate: If you take any of the figures I posted above, increasing Clmax translates the left hand part of the curve up to the left, i.e. better turnrate at lower speeds (right hand curve stays in place) while keeping Clmax constant and getting more power keeps the left hand part of the curve in place while the right hand part gets moved up to the right, i.e. higher turn rate at higher speed. So the plane is at Clmax at the apex of the curve.
  11. Gotta love the latest release and especially the P-51 which is absolutely lovely and my new favourite ride! Anyway, concerning the relative turn rate between the different planes it’s a lot to do about the assumed boost and weight of course and IMHO the Pony should not be penalized for a high internal fuel capacity so I assumed the same fuel load for the Me-109K4 and P-51D in the attached C++ simulation chart I did a few years back. As can be seen, even at full internal fuel and even at 1.8 ata the K4 beats a Pony with a similar amount of fuel. Also interesting is how much better the K4 is at 8 Km. IIRC then if you decrease the P-51 down to 67” boost (i.e. translate the right hand part of the P-51 curve down at bit) then the C++ simulation indicates that the Dora and Pony are pretty evenly matched in terms of turn rate but the P-51 will do it at a lower speed than the Dora. However, when it comes to the stationary turn rate the K4 should have a slight advantage even at 1.8 ata so at 1.98 ata the difference will be even bigger with the right hand part of the K4 curve translated up to the right.
  12. My hat is off to the developers! What a fantastic update! The Tempest and P-38 are really nice but the P-51 is my new favourite no question. And the new pilot physics: Have to admit I was sceptical at first when it was announced but it’s simply great. Especially taken in combination with the new AI behaviour (no more prop-hanging AI!) and that the AI are also affected by blackouts. Then, to top it off 150 octane options for the Pony and Spitfire Mk9! Absolutely fantastic release!!!
  13. Have no fear: I have it on good authority that both cows and moustaches will be modeled!
  14. I don't see a problem since you will always be able to disable the default weaker pilots by enabling the "Experten" or "Apparatchik" options under custom settings?
  15. One important aspect to model right in BOBP now that pilot strength and fatigue will become factors is the late war superior Allied pilot stamina: A pilot fed with bacon & eggs or steak & toast should have no problem tiring the opposition. Consequently, I foresee a large amount of K4's lawndarting since the poor Nachwuchs only had half a Brötchen and some watery Ersatz for breakfast.
×
×
  • Create New...