Speed kills

[Uriah]

and as I always seem to be slow I get killed!

I just want to focus on two planes and what I need to do to get top speed at say 2,000 meters.

From another post I get the idea in the summer map I can get 510 km/h with the 109 G.

And with the Yak I don't know. Best I could get was about 470 km/h.

 

So just keeping level meaning no energy from a dive just what do I need to do to get the best speed out of these two planes?

[Fern]

I had a Yak-1 catch up to me in a G2 today on the deck. He had no initial height advantage and managed to close the distance enough to land some hits. I'd imagine you have to close the radiators. I did it in the G2 trying to outrun, but I overheated the engine quickly on the summer map. My overheating did the rest of the work for him.

[Finkeren]

To be honest Uriah: I think you are getting the best out of the planes with those numbers in the summer heat.

[Y-29.Silky]

I had a Yak-1 catch up to me in a G2 today on the deck.

I had this happened to me as well. A Yak was lower than me, I put on auto-level, he caught up and shot my G-2 down, I was pissed off!

Another time, I actually had a Lagg take his time to over run my G-2 and tip my wing over causing me to crash which was pretty awesome due to his skill but the fact of the matter is that the effing LAGG made my G-2 look like a damn turtle!

At the same time when I'm flying a Yak, I end up in a lot of situations where I'm low speed in a Yak and I notice I'm not turning soon enough when a 109 is diving on me is where I get killed.

 

Having "Tech Chat On", I learned you can put the radiators at 40%, throttle at 95%, and rpm's at 95%. That is speed up the arse and it can go forever.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Y-29.Silky

[Wulf]

and as I always seem to be slow I get killed!

I just want to focus on two planes and what I need to do to get top speed at say 2,000 meters.

From another post I get the idea in the summer map I can get 510 km/h with the 109 G.

And with the Yak I don't know. Best I could get was about 470 km/h.

 

So just keeping level meaning no energy from a dive just what do I need to do to get the best speed out of these two planes?

 

 

The G2 does seem slow to me.  Why not give the 190 a go??  It does 545 km/h down on the deck.

[Reflected]

The G-2 seems extremely slow now. I can't get it past 500 kph....

[Matt]

Close the radiator manually. The automatic radiator is a bit off on the 109s.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I tested best speed achivable for short amounts of time by closing radiators flying over rivers at about 150m. I normally took the aircraft to about 95% Topspeed on Autolevel and open rads, then went manual and closed radiators to Topspeed.

 

Bf109G-2:  (Calibrates to 20° according to testing should do 535)

Autumn: 532

Summer 522

Winter: 562

 

Bf109F-4: (Calibrated Test results for 20° are 535 too at Combat Power)

Autumn: 532/556

Summer: 522/548

Winter: 562/590

 

Fw190 A-3

Autumn: 525/552

Summer: 515/545

Winter: 556/587

 

LaGG-3 20mm

Autumn: 513

Summer: 503

Winter: 543

 

La-5

Autumn: 547

Summer: 537

Winter: 578

 

Yak-1 (Overheats for 20 Seconds, continues without alerts, very wird behaviour indeed, engine damage after 5 minutes)

Autumn: 529    (tried 50% radiators, 516)

Summer: 518

Winter: 560

 

Can someone give me the Performance charts for the Yak-1? It does seem a good deal optimistic considering that the calibrated to 20° the Yak-1 would be in the region of 530kph, same as the 109 G-2.

 

 

 

 

[Reflected]

Very interesting tests! The G-2 is within 2 kph from the data I found. The F-4 seems 10 kph too fast in the summer at 1.42, but spot on at 1.3. And about 30 kph too fast in winter. The Russian fighters look way too fast...

 

I gathered different test results for the 109 series and the 190 and I'm planning to reproduce them in game and compare the outcomes. I will post the results.

[Reflected]

I looked up some Russian test results:

 

Yak-1: 480-490 at SL

La-5: 535 with WEP.

 

I don't know the time of year these tests were performed though. Nonetheless, their BoS performance is very, VERY optimistic.

[Finkeren]

I looked up some Russian test results:

 

Yak-1: 480-490 at SL

La-5: 535 with WEP.

 

I don't know the time of year these tests were performed though. Nonetheless, their BoS performance is very, VERY optimistic.

 

Which engine on the Yak in those tests?

[Reflected]

Which engine on the Yak in those tests?

 

Klimov M-106P: 1,100 hp. Which one does ours have, again?

[Finkeren]

Klimov M-105P: 1,100 hp. Which one does ours have, again?

 

M-105PF. There's your answer. The PF is optimised for low level performance and delivers a good 80hp more.

 

The Yak might still be a bit too fast, but it souldn't do as little as 490 on the deck.

[Reflected]

Fair enough, thanks for the info. Where could I get some flight tests with the same engines as ours? Also, with the date specified.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Run down of Yak-1 sea level speeds by type for a rough comparison. The table suggest that 500 kph would seem about fair with the M-105PF bu lower than this with the P variant .

 

http://wio.ru/tacftr/yak.htm

Edited October 29, 2015 by EAF19_Marsh

[Reflected]

Run down of Yak-1 sea level speeds by type for a rough comparison. The table suggest that 500 kph would seem about fair with the M-105PF bu lower than this with the P variant .

 

http://wio.ru/tacftr/yak.htm

 

500 with bomb load, 526 empty with only 1 gun. So about 520 is realistic for ours, in which case the test results above sound about right. Cool!

[EAF19_Marsh]

 

500 with bomb load, 526 empty with only 1 gun. So about 520 is realistic for ours, in which case the test results above sound about right. Cool!

 

Ah, I did not realise that meant load on test; I thought it was speaking of their potential carriage

 

The 1944 Yak-9M with a PF engine but no load managed 518kp/h at sea level and might be considered a good, somewhat rough substitute?

[Matt]

I'm not an expert on Russian flight test procedure, but iirc, test were usually done with radiators half open.

 

And for our Yak-1 variant, about 510 km/h would be right.

 

Also the F-4 usually has a lower speed than the G-2 at sea-level. Were does the 535 km/h with combat power for the F-4 come from?

Edited October 29, 2015 by Matt

[Reflected]

Also the F-4 usually has a lower speed than the G-2 at sea-level. Were does the 535 km/h with combat power for the F-4 come from?

 

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

 

 

 

Flight measurements performed in E-Stelle Rechlin with a Bf 109F-4 with DB 601 E using the full power (Start- u. Notleistung, 1,42 ata 2700 rpm, for 1350 PS at Sea Level), reported by a GL/A-Rü IA datesheet dated 1 June 1942, note the following level speed performance :

 

537 km/h at Sea Level,

670 km/h at 6200 m,

625 km/h at 10 000 m.

[Matt]

That's WEP, not combat power.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

That's WEP, not combat power.

The Test Results for Combat Power are the 526 SL and 660 at 6.2km. For 1.42ata it's 537 at SL and 670 at 6.2km.

 

Are you sure about the russian tests beinng performed with full Bombload?

[Finkeren]

Are you sure about the russian tests beinng performed with full Bombload?

I think that is highly unlikely. It makes no sense. The bombs noted on the chart is just the ordinance it could carry. No rockets are mentioned because 1942 fighters normally wasn't fitted with rocket rails.

 

Still, that 500 km/h figure seems out of place to me. If you look a bit further down the chart you'll see the Yak-7B with the PF engine is listed as doing 514 km/h at SL despite having pretty much the same airframe but being almost 200kg heavier. This would fit well with the Yak-1 S.69 doing some 10km/h more with the same engine.

 

Personally, I think the 500km/h for the PF-engined Yak-1 is an outlier. Perhaps they tested a poorly built aircraft?

Edited October 29, 2015 by Finkeren

[Uriah]

Klaus_Mann wrote "I normally took the aircraft to about 95% Top speed on Autolevel and open rads, then went manual and closed radiators to top speed."

I looked all over for an action labeled "autolevel" but could not find such a thing. Can some one point it out for me?

Edited October 30, 2015 by Uriah

[Wulf]

When you start a mission; you're in auto-level.  Just don't touch the stick and you stay there.

[Uriah]

If I fly for a long while I can get the Yak past 500 but can't seem to get the 109g that fast. Yet when playing multiplayer the 109g guys have no problem chasing me down in 'normal' mode servers.

[Uriah]

Doing some more testing by keeping the planes on 'autolevel' and spawning in at 500 meters high I could just the Yak to 500. And the 109g to 515 but with radiators closed and with boost on.

 

This was on a summer map.

 

While playing online I must wonder how much a difference this would make sense it took so long to creep up to the top speed. Maybe there is more of a difference on acceleration between the two at such low level and on the flat.

[Dakpilot]

I think autolevel is shift _A by default but you can bind to any key in settings, as you can have multiple keys for one action it is also handy to bind it to 'O' for the full screen map, so you don't nose in while looking at the map

 kind of like holding the stick between your knees 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited October 30, 2015 by Dakpilot

[LukeFF]

 

 

I looked all over for an action labeled "autolevel" but could not find such a thing. Can some one point it out for me?

 

It's referenced in the manual. 

[Dave]

I looked up some Russian test results:

 

Yak-1: 480-490 at SL

La-5: 535 with WEP.

 

I don't know the time of year these tests were performed though. Nonetheless, their BoS performance is very, VERY optimistic.

IIRC the Russian tests were done with 100 octane fuel. The Germans were using about 80 octane fuel.

[johncage]

i ry to push the throttle down to zero power when i descend with pe-2. it comes in too fast and its tail has a large surface area which catches the wind when you pull a sharp up turn it rips off. this was my first speed kill in the game

Edited October 30, 2015 by johncage

[Matt]

IIRC the Russian tests were done with 100 octane fuel. The Germans were using about 80 octane fuel.

Germans also used C-3 fuel, which is basically 96 octane, in flight tests, which is not necessary the fuel the planes used in combat though.

[Dave]

Much of the aviation fuel used by the Reich at this point in the war was 'ersatz' fuel produced by Brabag via the Bergius process (this is a large factor which led to Operation Barbarossa and Uranus in the first place). Using the best available technology at the time the RON of aviation gas produced by this process varied between 80 and 87 octane. Higher octane fuels were used during aircraft trials to provide a consistent baseline for comparison. The fuels used on the front were generally between 80 and 85 RON. At the same time the Russians were being supplied higher grade fuels with aircraft and other supplies via Iran. I don't really care if this is reflected in the modelling in game, but it is interesting to note, and also to consider when comparing results of aircraft measured performance in testing conditions with expected and actual performance in combat. I read comments by a German pilot on the Eastern Front once (forget where) that they never pushed beyond 1.2ATA except in dire circumstances due to the high risk of detonation with the low grade fuels they had to use.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Dave

[Dave]

This paper contains some good references to period and later documents:

 

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm#becker

[Dakpilot]

In 1942 13 new Bf109's were randomly chosen and tested, their speed difference varied by as much as 25mph

 

maybe someone has the actual document, I believe the 4 with the most outlying performance were discounted for the results

 

proves nothing...but just saying that relying on a single reference is never a good idea

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

In 1942 13 new Bf109's were randomly chosen and tested, their speed difference varied by as much as 25mph

 

maybe someone has the actual document, I believe the 4 with the most outlying performance were discounted for the results

 

proves nothing...but just saying that relying on a single reference is never a good idea

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Too bad they didn't have that high quality German VW-software back then. That always produces great test results

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

Too bad they didn't have that high quality German VW-software back then. That always produces great test results

Low fuel consumption?

[III/JG2Gustav05]

That's WEP, not combat power.

I just remeber someone mentioned that real luft pilot recalled that the engine actually can run at 1.42 ata about 5 mins even though the recommended time is 1 min on the engine manual. enigne will not be dead immediately as the 1min limit is exceeded.