Jump to content

JtD

Founders [premium]
  • Content count

    2834
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1537 Excellent

About JtD

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2810 profile views
  1. American perspective on the BF109 and FW190

    Well, maybe the guys at Pratt & Whitney would.
  2. Temperature limits are typically given for water/coolant and oil temperatures, however, the critical points in the engine are typically exhaust valves and spark plug - metal items that protrude into the hot gas during the combustion process. Even with water and oil temperatures well inside the limits you can still damage/destroy/melt highly stressed parts inside the engine at too high power settings. An overheated spark plug for instance can cause pre-ignition, which can kill the cylinder, which can kill the engine. An overheated exhaust valve might not be able to properly close any more, reducing compression for that cylinder, reducing power output or just mess up the engine in different ways, it may also get stuck, in which case compression is pretty much completely gone and mechanical damage will occur. You'll also send unburned fuel into the exhausts which at some point will be burned off, and you'll be spilling the fuel over the engine for fatal consequences... It's not reasonable to assume that a power setting like Notleistung, which was meant for shortest periods of time, for use in emergency situations, is to be run indefinitely, because the manual gives no time limit. It's no more reasonable than to assume the engine blows after one minute just because the manual gives a one minute time limit. We need to get rid of this entire line of argumentation, even if right now the game is modelled like this. In the end it's physics and technology which matter, not words on paper.
  3. American perspective on the BF109 and FW190

    Once you've read through all the criticism of the poor aerodynamics of the Bf109 ask yourself: Why did it need less power to achieve a particular speed than all contemporary British and American fighters except for the P-51 needed?
  4. What he means is that in this manual, 1.42ata is banned. The page is from a manual for the R3 version of the Bf109G, a recon version.
  5. Test roll rate fw 190A3 Bf109F4 La5 LaGG3

    I've seen historic footage of a Ki-43 rolling even faster than that...but it's all low speed. According to what I've read, it's Bf109 < Yak-1 < Yak-9 < La-5F < La-5FN < Fw190, as a conglomerate of various sources, partially of dubious nature and generalized. While the geometry of the La-5FN ailerons nominally allows higher rates of roll than those of the Fw190 (for instance, smaller wing span, longer stick travel), I've not seen anything to show them as efficient as the ones on the Fw190. I wish there were detailed sources available.
  6. P-40 vs P-39

    SkyCaptain chose the P-40, and so do I. There's nothing I like about the P-39, there's plenty I like about the P-40. Well, maybe there's one thing I like about the P-39: setting it ablaze with a couple of good hits.
  7. Another look at turn times

    As can be found for instance on wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_coefficient For Lift I used standard weight times g load as held in my sustained turn, density 1.225 (sea level atmosphere) and speed as given in the table. Please note - this is not the maximum lift coefficient of the aircraft. It is the lift coefficient I was turning at (i.e. - the highest lift coefficient I could confidently fly at.)
  8. Yak-7b - In case you didn't notice

    The P-40E-1 with full fuel is given with 3855kg in a British manual and a Soviet manual lists it at 3840kg, in game is modelled at 3819kg. Differences are largely due to ammo load differences. US figures are slightly heavier, 3855kg with the same ammo as in game standard. The P-39L-1 with full fuel is given with 3508kg in a US manual when equipped with 522 or 535 radio, in game is modelled at 3508kg, so that's obviously the devs source.
  9. I just recently started the 10 days of Autumn. You play as a German Bf109 pilot. I get the mission briefing, go here, go there, come back, and when I press start, I get to the loading screen - always showing a German aircraft getting shot to shreds. That's 100% pure terror!
  10. Another look at turn times

    Oh come on, we've had far more comments on Yak flaps or La roll rates. The Fw - in this regard - is clearly up in the same league. But what I wanted to ask, has anyone of you online pilots maybe taken the Fw into a sea level turn fight in the last couple of days to see if the the test results can be utilized in practice? It's still not best at climb or acceleration, it can only maintain great turning for about 3 minutes, so I wonder how useful it really is. Anyone to mix it with a couple of Lavochkins at sea level and came out on top? I only checked against AI, which went great, but it isn't that meaningful. Like I said, I never even thought about turn fighting in the Fw190. Now I've changed my style completely, and it works against pretty much anything except Spitfires, which turn too tightly.
  11. Another look at turn times

    Yes, thanks for the reminder. I started with difficulty fairly full to make sure I don't accidentally switch off something important. I also thought I'd want it to be relevant for playing, so testing a 109 at a 1 minute Notleistung would be somewhat misleading, as you couldn't really use it in game. Same thing about fuel consumption, you do use fuel when you do sustained turns. Well, the latter probably wasn't the best idea, because fuel consumption changes the condition of the aircraft somewhat. But now I wouldn't want to mix different ways of testing. Attached a track of a Fw190A-3 in a six turn run. I didn't quite manage 19.0 with a cold start today, got it to 19.3 in the second try. Hope that's still OK. While speed varies a bit as does altitude, starting conditions are (if instruments can be believed) about 12m higher and 2km/h slower than ending conditions, which is an about 300kJ error (additional energy available for turning). That translates to about 0.25% of total engine power output in favour of the Fw190. I hope my partially not so great flying makes up for it. Fw190.zip
  12. Another look at turn times

    You're welcome. One thing is of course, that the conditions the devs give the data for and the conditions I tested at are not the same. I'm testing as close to the stall as I can, the devs usually give figures for 270km/h, and often at lower lift coefficients. Also, the power is sometimes different. That's why I gave power, speed and cl of the devs figures and of mine. I also suspect that some of the figures from the devs are outdated, the P-40 figures for instance are still the ones we originally got, but the FM was reworked since then. The aircraft feels very different, it's possible some performance figures changed, and the devs did not update the numbers. Then the devs once said their figures were flown with a 'robot pilot'. I don't know how this works, what this is exactly. Maybe that thing is not as good at riding the edge as a dedicated human. Different methods produce different results. And finally, my figures are test figures. I've tested a couple of planes several times, to see how accurate I am and it was OK to about one tenth of a second. But I did not make repeated tests with all aircraft, and I probably even made simple mistakes. I also realized that getting used to a particular plane had an influence, second runs in the same plane typically producing better results if I didn't fly it often. So my numbers aren't the absolute truth, as you can see from from Fumes questions above. They are just test results. Thanks for your efforts as well. Always good to have someone check results. We don't do the tests exactly the same, but generally your figures should not be worse than mine, given the lower fuel load. Since I did 10 to 20 turns depending on how quick they were and how long the engine power was available (3 mins in the Fw190 for instance mean 10-11 turns until the engine blows), I'm sure little loss in speed or altitude did not matter much. I tried to keep it constant, and would estimate 5 km/h speed difference and 20m maximum between start and finish. When I started I wrote down the times for each turn in several 20 turn runs, and individual turns varied quite a bit (example: 18.5-22.5), but already the averages of 5 turns were fairly close (example: 19.7-20.2). I then went on and averaged at least 10 turns (example: 19.95 & 20.05, with the 20 turn average being 20s). So I'm positive that my figures are fairly reliable. I'll post a track later today, so you can take a look at what I did.
  13. Another look at turn times

    So, in game test continued, same procedure - standard loadout, sustained right turns near sea level (50m), standard conditions, close to stalling, but far enough away not be stressful. I think for the most part, the table below speaks for itself. Today, with one really unexpected result: I never thought about turnfighting in a Fw190 at sea level, but in game, it's one of the best there is at that. Please note - this is with stab trimmed all the way up. I checked also with stab all the way down, and the time got worse by about half a second. So it has some effect, but overall, the Fw is kind of the X-Wing to the Yak-7B TIE fighter. They are clearly following other FM's than most of the rest does. Not sure why I could push the A-3 further. I tested the A-5 first, so maybe it was a better feeling for the aircraft in the later test. I never really bothered with stabilizer trim with the other aircraft, I mostly tested with default settings. So it is quite possible that one can chop half a second off the Bf109 times as well, if one bothers to trim a lot. For me, it's just too slow to be useful. The Yak-1S69 clearly handles the worst of the three, I could not push it as much as I could push the other two, so I flew it at a lower Cl. The La-5FNS2 is a lot better than the early La-5, but in turns it's still just mediocre for a fighter of that size, weight and power. The Mc202 looks much better in game than devs stats suggest. Performance wise, that is, looks as such are great anyway. The I-16 is a real disappointment, not only does it handle poorly / stall early, you also feel as if it lacked several hundred of its 1100hp. Gotta say though, flying open cockpit made up for it. It's always a blast. I also had a look at two ground attack aircraft, noteworthy is the high lift coefficient achieved in the Hs129, which imho comes from strong propwash at these low speeds. Both of them are capable of flying really tight circles, but very slowly so. Might still be enough to dodge a 109 or a Yak. Anyway, outside of a look at in game efficiencies, we now have some performance numbers for comparison. Personally I still can't believe the 190, but I have since then tried to fly it more aggressively (against AI), and it worked out. Sorted by name: Sorted by efficiency:
  14. With biplanes you get four wings for the price of two. Total bargain, must have.
  15. Another look at turn times

    Well, the Spitfire by design is a great low speed turner. You can see that it doesn't need to trick physics to get to this performance. Turning at 270IAS is just nowhere near best performance turn for the SpitfireV, 240ish more so. That partially explains the large difference. If StarWars, then Yak-7B, from what it looks like so far. You're welcome. Since the weather outside is too good for outdoor activities, I guess I can post some more figures this afternoon.
×