Preliminary Autumn map test of BoM figthers at low level

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Speed test at Sea Level,

Pretty much straighforward, full ammo, full fuel, radiators closed, boost mode / 5 minute / combat mode, stabilizers full nose down for german aircraft

 

MC.202: 509km/h

Bf109E-7: 484km/h (with german test conditions, which were with 25% water radiator it reaches 475)

P-40E-1: 473km/h

I-16 type 24 (ShVak): 451 (451)

 

 

Turn Times at Sea Level,

after a number of entry turns determining the best turn speed and open rads I flew 3 entire turns and took the average. Aircraft was in standard condion

 

MC.202: 20.3 @ 265 +/-1.5 seconds

Bf109E-7: 19 @ 240-250

P-40E-1: 27.3 @ 130mph (25.5 @ 130mph with 4x.50cal)                         (1 second is gained with 350 liters of fuel)

I-16 type 24 (ShVak): 18 @ 240 (19.5 @ 240)

 

 

Rate of Climb 500-1500m

 

MC.202: 16.6m/s @ 260

Bf109E-7: 15.5m/s @ 250

P-40E-1: 10.8 m/s @ 160 (11,7m/s @ 160 with 4x.50cal)                              (350ltr will add 0.65m/s)

I-16 type 24 (ShVak): 18.5m/s @ 250 (17.8m/s @ 250)

[indiaciki]

Don't be obsessed by numbers. I'm not trying to offend you. My father has a military pilots licence (as well as PPL and IFR). When in combat or training you try to stay within limits. You fly them as needed exceeding limits sometimes. They are built for that. You wreck them. You get aonther plane. Simpy said. No plane is the same. Same type, same series. Some take more stress, some don't. No single plane performs the same. They  are disposable weapons. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by indiaciki

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Don't be obsessed by numbers. I'm not trying to offend you. My father has a military pilots licence (as well as PPL and IFR). When in combat or training you try to stay within limits. You fly them as needed exceeding limits sometimes. They are built for that. You wreck them. You get aonther plane. Simpy said. No plane is the same. Same type, same series. Some take more stress, some don't. No single plane performs the same. They  are disposable weapons. 

It's more of a guideline.

I'm planning to perform and record a couple of Drag Races in the horizontal and climb.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Loving the research Klaus, keep it up

 

I didn't expect the Macchi to be such a stallion if compared to the rest, I'll be honest with you. From the literature that's thrown around, it looks like it will more or less match the MiG-3 at sea level. I'm curious to see what figures you can get with the -110.

[Finkeren]

Of the BoM planes, the Macchi should be second only to the Bf 109 F2 in overall performance, so that seems believable.

 

I'm a bit surprised, that the I-16 actually beats the Emil so handily in climb rate at low level (though I suspect it might be the other way around a bit higher up). Just goes to show, that the I-16 vs. E7 is an excellent matchup.

 

The turn time of the P-40E seems so horrendous that I can't help but wonder is something went wrong in the test. Sure, with such an low T/W ratio, you'd expect poor sustained turn, but the initial turn rate is so much higher, that I'd have expected the sustained turn to be better.

 

Good work in any case Klaus

Edited November 22, 2015 by Finkeren

[303_Kwiatek]

P-40 E tested by VVS  -  turn time 19,2 sec

 

P-40 E was not bad turner  - similar to 109 F-4.

Edited November 22, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

P-40 E tested by VVS  -  turn time 19,2 sec

 

P-40 E was not bad turner  - similar to 109 F-4.

I'll go again then.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Of the BoM planes, the Macchi should be second only to the Bf 109 F2 in overall performance, so that seems believable.

 

I'm a bit surprised, that the I-16 actually beats the Emil so handily in climb rate at low level (though I suspect it might be the other way around a bit higher up). Just goes to show, that the I-16 vs. E7 is an excellent matchup.

 

The turn time of the P-40E seems so horrendous that I can't help but wonder is something went wrong in the test. Sure, with such an low T/W ratio, you'd expect poor sustained turn, but the initial turn rate is so much higher, that I'd have expected the sustained turn to be better.

 

Good work in any case Klaus

The E-7 is the heaviest  of the Emils and with the DB601 A-1 it isn't really a low alt performer at all. The E-7 really only excels between 2500m and 6000m where I managed to reach 576 with 25% radiators or 585 at 0% radiators.

The DB601Aa would be a reasonable option in my opinion, boosting the Top Speed to just below 500 at SL and just below 570 at 5000m.

Bascially giving us a low altitude and a medium altitude option for the Bf109E.

 

I'm really sorry about the P-40, I simply can't get it to below 27.5 second. Maybe one of you try it.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

P-40 E tested by VVS  -  turn time 19,2 sec

 

P-40 E was not bad turner  - similar to 109 F-4.

 

Seems that the version tested even had the 6x.50cal. 

 

Does the test indicates how much fuel was on board at that time ? (even if it won't account for all of the 8 sec underperforming)

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Seems that the version tested even had the 6x.50cal. 

 

Does the test indicates how much fuel was on board at that time ? (even if it won't account for all of the 8 sec underperforming)

The Test was done with the combat power of the old update. With the new Update the P-40 is the fastest ingame aircraft with 570 at Sea Level, 18.5m/s climb, and roughly 20 seconds for a turn.

[303_Kwiatek]

18.5 m/s climb rate?  It looks quite high regarding P-40 E. 

 

BTW did you test maby Fw 190 A-3 climb rate in BOS?  RL German data claim 16-16.5 m/s  at 1.3 Ata 2400 RPMs. For comparison Yak-1 with PF engine got about 15 m/s at full power regarding VVS data.

Edited December 17, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Matt]

Climbrate is around 16 m/s on the Fw 190 in gear one and around 12 m/s in gear two (both times up to critical altitude). 

 

The P-40 can climb for 2 minutes with maximum power btw (can't say if the 18.5 m/s measurement is correct, i haven't actually tested it due to lack of reference with 70 "hg manifold pressure), then you're stuck with ~11 m/s.

 

That 15 m/s figure for the Yak-1 series 69 is not really believable imho. I know where it comes from, but that graph has a Yak-1 series 06 outclimbing it with ease at at all altitudes, with a M-105P engine (=160 HP less than series 69). In any case, the Yak-1 has around 16-17 m/s in BoS.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Very intersting result Klaus. I dont know how do you measure the climb speed of the AC in those test, out of curiousity I did a climb test for bf109G2 with 100% fuel in autumn map. from 50m to 3050m with 280kph and auto Rad, I got 2'35'', not bad but still has the gap to the Rechilin test result which is 2'24", seems develpment team does not use Rechilin data for modeling Bf109G2 at least in terms of climb performance.

Edited December 17, 2015 by III/JG2Gustav05

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Climbrate is around 16 m/s on the Fw 190 in gear one and around 12 m/s in gear two (both times up to critical altitude). 

 

Are you telling us that they've fixed 190 climb rate secretly, and recently ? It could barely reach 15m/s (climb power) in ISA conditions at 3970kg when i tested it, hundreds of time, months ago.

 

And the most important, it would be nice if someone could make a test at -15°C winter conditions, to see if 190 climb rate still dies slowly above 1200m (until it finally lack ~2,5m/s from 2600m).

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Very intersting result Klaus. I dont know how do you measure the climb speed of the AC in those test, out of curiousity I did a climb test for bf109G2 with 100% fuel in autumn map. from 50m to 3050m with 280kph and auto Rad, I got 2'35'', not bad but still has the gap to the Rechilin test result which is 2'24", seems develpment team does not use Rechilin data for modeling Bf109G2 at least in terms of climb performance.

The Problem is in the radiator dynamics. Apparently the Rechlin Tests were performed at different radiator settings. The Test in March 1943 was performed with 50% radiator opening, which then was already deemed excessively large and resulted in 54 seconds per 1000m until 4000. This is of course an averaged value, with a peak at roughly 2000m.

 

Ingame the Auto Radiator opens to exactly 50% in these low altitude climbs, and I get exactly 18.5m/s from 500-1500 and 1500-2500.

 

The Rechlin Standards were achieved with the equivalent of our 16% radiator settings. I only get 19.5-20m/s with radiators at that setting.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

The Problem is in the radiator dynamics. Apparently the Rechlin Tests were performed at different radiator settings. The Test in March 1943 was performed with 50% radiator opening, which then was already deemed excessively large and resulted in 54 seconds per 1000m until 4000. This is of course an averaged value, with a peak at roughly 2000m.

 

Ingame the Auto Radiator opens to exactly 50% in these low altitude climbs, and I get exactly 18.5m/s from 500-1500 and 1500-2500.

 

The Rechlin Standards were achieved with the equivalent of our 16% radiator settings. I only get 19.5-20m/s with radiators at that setting.

interesting, I wonder why Rechilin use this 16% Rad setting for climbe test if it can cause engine overheat? what's the point of such kind of test if it is not pratical? or the overheating model is overdone in this game?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

interesting, I wonder why Rechilin use this 16% Rad setting for climbe test if it can cause engine overheat? what's the point of such kind of test if it is not pratical? or the overheating model is overdone in this game?

The large openings were deemed too large so I guess your second statement is correct. They used an "African Reference" to determine the new Radiator thermostat AND settings. And that apparently means that they never go below 30% at combat power, even in level flight.

Before the introduction of the "African Reference" the Thermostat was keeping temperatures at too low temperatures 80-90°C with too small radiator settings.

Now it keeps it at 103°C and larger radiator settings.

 

What I think has happened is a Mix Up, and that the current curve may be for a lower thermostat temperature.

So basically the radiators are at the setting where they would keep the 80-90° from the old sources, but the temperatures it keeps are higher (103°C), so at the 30% setting in level flight we should have 80-90°C, and smaller to achieve 103°C, much smaller in fact.

So basically we went from one extremem with too low temperatures and radiator settings --> higher speeds on Auto Rads),

too another extreme with too larger settings for higher temperatures.

 

I think the current settings for Auto Rads would keep the water temperatures at 80-90°.

[303_Kwiatek]

I wonder how russian planes overheating. All of them Yak-1, LAgg3 and La5 got huge overheating problems IRL.  Expecially Yak-1 with M105 PF motor with higher HP got overheating issues which cause that pilots need to fly with constantly open radiators expecially in climb.

 

"

This afforded a simple means of improving the performance of all Yak-Is in service. Onlyminor changes to the M-I05PA were requiredto increase the boost, and these could made under field conditions, without the need to take the aircraft off operations. The servicedebut of the augmented engines brought some unpleasant surprises. In hot weather, flight with the radiator intake fully closed for maximum speed could be maintained for only two minutes, after which time the water

and oil temperatures exceeded the permitted limits. A boosted climb was also impossible because it was necessary to return to level flight to restore normal engine operating temperatures. Water and oil overheating was exacerbated by the radiator honeycomb cells becoming clogged with oil leaking through the breather and joints. At the behest of the WS Commandant, two of the seven modified Yak-l s were transferred to the NIl for tests. The trials revealed that increasing the boost at nominal rpm resulted in an increase in maximum level speed of some 12.4 to 15.5mph (20 to 25km/h) at altitudes up to 11 ,500ft (3,500m), a one minute reduction in the time to climb to 16,400ft (5,000m), and a one second reduction in the time required to complete a 360 0 turn at 3,300ft (I,OOOm). Take-off performance also appeared to be improved. At the same time the augmented engine suffered from water and oil overheating. To keep the temperatures within permitted limits the nominal rpm had to be reduced from 2,700 to 2,400-2,500, which negated all the advantages of boost augmentation. In the light of these findings it was decided to revise the cooling system and take measures to prevent oil leakage from the breather and engine seals. Certain modifications had to be introduced in the engine; the crankcase and gudgeon pins were re-inforced, and the carburettor jets were increased in diameter. The boosted engine in series-production was designated M-I05PF. Augmentation of the M-l 05PA resulted in increased power and poorer performance at altitude. The altitude at which the supercharger's first stage engaged decreased from 6,500 to 2,300ft (2,000 to 700m), while power increased from 1,100 to 1,260hp (820 to 940kW). Where supercharger's second stage was engaged, 8,900ft (2,700m), the M-I05PF produced 1,180hp (880kW), compared with 1,050hp (783kW) at 13,200ft  (4,000m) of the MI05PA. At altitudes exceeding 13,200ft (4,000m) performances of the supercharged and and unsupercharged engines were practically the same. In June 1942 M-I05PF-powered Yak-l No.1569 with an enlarged oil radiator underwent flight trials at the NIl WS. The trials revealed that the temperature regime was still critical. Weighing 6,4301b (2,917kg), typical for a Yak-l without radio, the fighter attained maximum speeds of 316mph (510km/h) at sea level and 354mph (571km/h) at 12,000ft  (3,650m), climbed to 16,400ft (5,000m) in 6.4 minutes, completed a 360 0 turn at low altitude in 19 to 20 seconds and climbed to 3,200ft (980m) in an ascending turn. To provide optimum performance, the engine's nominal speed at low altitudes was lowered to 2,550rpm, and the superiority of the 8fl09F at these heights was reduced. A simulated combat between a Yak-l M-I05PF and a 8fl09F at the NIl WS revealed that the 8fl 09F had only marginally superior manoeuvrability at 3,300ft (I,OOOm), though the German fighter could gain substantial advantage over the Yak-l within four or five nose-to-tail turns. At 9,800ft (3,000m) the capabilities of both fighters were nearly equal, combat essentially being reduced to head-on attacks. As the Yak-l was more manoeuvrable at altitudes over 16,400ft (5,000m), it was advantageous for the Russian fighter to draw the 8f109F to higher altitudes. It should be noted that the supercharger of the Daimler-Benz DB601N engine did not provide a nominal boost in these tests. However, as it was flown under design operating conditions the DB601N ensured total superiority of the Messerschmitt over the Yak-l M-l 05PF at altitudes exceeding 16,400ft (5,000m) as well. Moreover, by the summer of 1942, while the NIl WS was testing the earlier Bfl09F-2, the Luftwaffe had converted to the 'F-4 with the more powerful D8601E engine, and this new variant completely outperformed the Yak-l M-I05PF

Edited December 18, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[LukeFF]

 

 

I wonder how russian planes overheating.

 

Load up the game, choose a summer map, and see for yourself. Is it really that hard for you?

[303_Kwiatek]

Last time i haven't  time for such test or play i got CPL(A) exam for pass

Edited December 18, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[LukeFF]

Last time i haven't  time for such test or play i got CPL(A) exam for pass

 

Great, then don't make unfounded claims. I know exactly what you're trying to do with the posts you've made here.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I see no "unfounded claims" here. He just posted an excerp and voiced a question.

 

But I guess this wasn't even the point.

 

Forum police at it's finest.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka