Climb test Yak-1 vs F-4 vs Fw 190

[303_Kwiatek]

I made climb test for check how accurate are some fighters in ISA conditions ( autumn map). All standart equimpent, 100 % fuel.

 

------Yak-1 open radiators ------ F-4 auto 1.3 Ata-----  Fw 190 1.3 Ata ---- RL data for A-3 (3850 kg)

 

1km.---- 1:01----------------------------0:50----------------------1:03-----------------------

 

2km.-----2:02---------------------------1:40-----------------------2:18-------------------2:00--2:18 ( depend of suorce)

 

3km-----3:13----------------------------2:36-----------------------3:40

 

4km-----4:28----------------------------3:38----------------------5:10-------------------4:36-4:48

 

5km-----5:57----------------------------4:50----------------------6:44-------------------6:00

 

 

Comparing with RL data  109 F-4 is very accurate,  Yak-1 hard to say casue only one RL test ( series 69 ) say 15 m/s from sea level where in game we got ab. 16,5 m/s so ab. 1 m/s better.

 

Fw 190 up to 2 km is quite accurate but above is definitly wrong.  From 2 to 5 km it is about 44 sec too slow in climb. 

 

 

[SR-F_Winger]

I made climb test for check how accurate are some fighters in ISA conditions ( autumn map). All standart equimpent, 100 % fuel.

 

------Yak-1 open radiators ------ F-4 auto 1.3 Ata-----  Fw 190 1.3 Ata ---- RL data for A-3 (3850 kg)

 

1km.---- 1:01----------------------------0:50----------------------1:03-----------------------

 

2km.-----2:02---------------------------1:40-----------------------2:18-------------------2:00--2:18 ( depend of suorce)

 

3km-----3:13----------------------------2:36-----------------------3:40

 

4km-----4:28----------------------------3:38----------------------5:10-------------------4:36-4:48

 

5km-----5:57----------------------------4:50----------------------6:44-------------------6:00

 

 

Comparing with RL data  109 F-4 is very accurate,  Yak-1 hard to say casue only one RL test ( series 69 ) say 15 m/s from sea level where in game we got ab. 16,5 m/s so ab. 1 m/s better.

 

Fw 190 up to 2 km is quite accurate but above is definitly wrong.  From 2 to 5 km it is about 44 sec too slow in climb. 

Everything how its supposed to be by the devs.

[L3Pl4K]

This document speaks of 5,5 min to 5000m at 2400 U/min ata 1.3 Ata

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-a3-glctt-30july42.pdf

this one looks equal

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-climb-speed-26-11-42.jpg

Maybe someone is able to fly the 5.5min with 1.32 ata?

[Holtzauge]

Over the years I have developed a C++ simulation program that has proven fairly accurate at predicting a/c performance. Since I recently got BoS I added the Yak-1 as well to the a/c I can model and I also get a somewhat higher than 15 m/s climb rate for the Yak.

 

I added three figures for climb performance and times from sea level to 5 Km at 15 deg C ambient temperature for 109F4, Yak-1 and 190A3 (Figures are in that order from left to right).

 

What stands out is the Fw-190A3: My simulation seems to tab quite well with the historic data in general and I agree that it for sure looks like the Fw-190A3 climbs too slowly in BoS right now.....

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Funny thing is, that IRL the 190 climbed better then the Yak (16m/s compared to 15m/s from the Yak), even at only 1.32 power settings...

Now watch, how this is translated in this game

[Holtzauge]

Funny thing is, that IRL the 190 climbed better then the Yak (16m/s compared to 15m/s from the Yak), even at only 1.32 power settings...

Now watch, how this is translated in this game

Well and that is also what the C++ simulation shows: Fw-190A3 climb time up to 2 Km is close to the results in Kwiatek's OP but from 2 to 5 Km BoS has a way lower climb rate than both in my C++ sim and IRL. Concerning the Yak, 15 m/s seems low to me given the P/W ratio, relatively clean design and wing loading but may be correct. However the main takeaway from this comparison is that the A3 seems to perform much worse than it should. Anyway, IIRC this has already been brought up by Ze Hairy so it should come as no surprise to the devs. Just wanted to add my $0.02.........

[SR-F_Winger]

and i dont get why the devs just dont fix it.

There isnt even a response on this. They just ignore it.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Fw 190A-3 climb rate is underperforming as you know but the biggest and most shameful issue is in winter where this plane climbs "correctly" (well you understood, with the same lacks it has in ISA conditions) only below 1200m before that manifold pressure starts to decrease... It benefits from the correct amount of cold boost below 1200m only. Above this altitude, it's xxxx and the higher you go, the higher the chances to get outclimbed by everything, even at full power.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[Dakpilot]

Maybe it's a language thing but is it really "shameful" ?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Holtzauge your programm seams pretty neat!..Mind if i use that sheets for a compendium to send to the Devs? That would finally be some hard data, they so desperately want. Could be nothing better in this game then a fixed 190. Could you maybe make a chart out of this data, with climbrate on x-axis, and altitude at y-axis? would be awesome to visually compare to RL data

Edited December 28, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Holtzauge]

Holtzauge your programm seams pretty neat!..Mind if i use that sheets for a compendium to send to the Devs? That would finally be some hard data, they so desperately want. Could be nothing better in this game then a fixed 190

Nope, that would be fine and I would welcome a dialogue with the devs. The two-way dialogue is one of the strong points with DCS and one which I am hoping to see here as well.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Maybe it's a language thing but is it really "shameful" ?

 

Yes, shameful.

 

When IL-2 1946 has a correct winter transition of kommandogerät modelised, when even War Thunder does it correctly, and that Fw 190s climb as they should at all altitudes regardless the atmospheric conditions.

 

Yes shameful when you report the issue and the FM designer says "it must be because Fw 190A-3 does not possess radiators shutters".

[Sgt_Joch]

Well and that is also what the C++ simulation shows: Fw-190A3 climb time up to 2 Km is close to the results in Kwiatek's OP but from 2 to 5 Km BoS has a way lower climb rate than both in my C++ sim and IRL. Concerning the Yak, 15 m/s seems low to me given the P/W ratio, relatively clean design and wing loading but may be correct. However the main takeaway from this comparison is that the A3 seems to perform much worse than it should. Anyway, IIRC this has already been brought up by Ze Hairy so it should come as no surprise to the devs. Just wanted to add my $0.02.........

 

-time for the Yak-1 is low, 6 min to 5 km is a conservative figure. The early 42 Yak-1 with the weaker M-105PA engine could do 5 km in 5.9 minutes and later series of the Yak-1 with the M-105PF engine could do it in 5.4-5.6 minutes. In game, the Yak 1 should be able to do 5km in 5.5 minutes if you are willing to risk overheating.

 

-time for the F4 is high, 4:50 min to 5 km is from the Messerschmitt factory test of the F4 prototype. Doubtful that production aircraft would do as well.

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F4_Datenblatts/109F4_dblatt_flown.html

 

 

obvious evidence of the pro-German bias of the developers.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Sgt_Joch

[II./JG77_Manu*]

-time for the Yak-1 is low, 6 min to 5 km is a conservative figure. The early 42 Yak-1 with the weaker M-105PA engine could do 5 km in 5.9 minutes and later series of the Yak-1 with the M-105PF engine could do it in 5.4-5.6 minutes. In game, the Yak 1 should be able to do 5km in 5.5 minutes if you are willing to risk overheating.

 

-time for the F4 is high, 4:50 min to 5 km is from the Messerschmitt factory test of the F4 prototype. Doubtful that production aircraft would do as well.

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F4_Datenblatts/109F4_dblatt_flown.html

 

 

obvious evidence of the pro-German bias of the developers.

 nah that's not right, 6min for 5km is perfectly right. http://wio.ru/tacftr/yak.htm Yak with PA engine was way worse. Yak with P-engine was slightly better in climb!

 

 

 

Nope, that would be fine and I would welcome a dialogue with the devs. The two-way dialogue is one of the strong points with DCS and one which I am hoping to see here as well.

Just compared the 190 climb rate to some RL charts..it seems pretty accurate. Only between 1500 and 2500 it's a little underperforming..over that alt it matches the historic climb rate. Seems it's "only" borked at winter..where we fly it most of the time so far (Velikie Luki...)

Edited December 28, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*

[303_Kwiatek]

Just compared the 190 climb rate to some RL charts..it seems pretty accurate. Only between 1500 and 2500 it's a little underperforming..over that alt it matches the historic climb rate. Seems it's "only" borked at winter..where we fly it most of the time so far (Velikie Luki...)

 

 

No match cause from 3 to 5 km A-3 climb rate was 12.5 m/s where in Bos is only 10,5 m/s.  2 m/s worse is way off match to RL data.

 

Other hand we got F-4, Yak-1 and Lagg-3 which were overperformes at high alts above 3-4 km.

 

 

BTW Holtzauge programs looks promising. Yak-1 and A-3 program data looks accurate comparing to RL data.  Only F-4 looks little off casue calculating climb rate from RL data  give me 18.5 m/s average climb rate from 0 to 2 km  ( from 0 to 4 km -  18 m/s)  for example where program calculated only 17.5 m/s from 0 to 2 km.

 

IRL F-4 was way overperformer in climb rate even at 1.3 Ata power  - average 18 m/s up to 4 km where Yak-1 only 14.8 m/s average. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[II./JG77_Manu*]

No match cause from 3 to 5 km A-3 climb rate was 12.5 m/s where in Bos is only 10,5 m/s.  2 m/s worse is way off match to RL data.

 

Other hand we got F-4, Yak-1 and Lagg-3 which were overperformes at high alts above 3-4 km.

I thought Holtzauges chart has been taken out of BoS, or did i understand something wrong?

[Holtzauge]

@303_Kwiatek: Yep, if the measured climb time to 5 Km in BoS was 6 min 44 s then the extra 44 s must come from somewhere and if its only 10.5 m/s from 3 to 5 km in the autumn map then this seems low seeing my calculated values are around 2 m/s higher for the same ambient temperature of 15 deg C.

 

@Sgt_Joch: My climb time estimate for the Yak is based on military not WEP power so that may explain the difference and why its closer to what II./JG77_Manu* posted?

 

@II/JG77_Manu: No, all my figures are from calculation in a C++ program I have delveloped so they should be compared to BoS and the IRL data we have for 15 deg C conditions.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Holtzauge

[II./JG77_Manu*]

@303_Kwiatek: Yep, if the measured climb time to 5 Km in BoS was 6 min 44 s then the extra 44 s must come from somewhere and if its only 10.5 m/s from 3 to 5 km in the autumn map then this seems low seeing my calculated values are around 2 m/s higher for the same ambient temperature of 15 deg C.

 

@Sgt_Joch: My climb time estimate for the Yak is based on military not WEP power so that may explain the difference and why its closer to what II./JG77_Manu* posted?

 

@II/JG77_Manu: No, all my figures are from calculation in a C++ program I have delveloped so they should be compared to BoS and the IRL data we have for 15 deg C conditions.

 

Ah ok, completely misunderstood that. okay. I'll do the same climb tests myself then, and compare to your sheets.

The Yak time of 6 min to 5km is at full power, as fast as possible. The Yak doesn't have boost, can fly full power indefinitely. 6min is right though.

If the climb rate of the 190 is really only 10,5 above 3, then it's really badly borked.

Edited December 28, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*

[303_Kwiatek]

Yes it is easy to calculate from climb test in BOS from 3-5 km based on climb times reached.  RL says  constant 12,5 m/s in these case at 1.3 Ata power.

[LukeFF]

and i dont get why the devs just dont fix it.

There isnt even a response on this. They just ignore it.

 

Han has answered this exact question about the 190. 

[303_Kwiatek]

Han has answered this exact question about the 190. 

 

And becasue of that you think everything is right?

Edited December 28, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[LukeFF]

And becasue of that you think everything is right?

Yes, I trust his judgement far, far more than yours.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Yes, I trust his judgement far, far more than yours.

 

Yeah there's no secret here.

 

All these guys who give their time for better FMs, are there only because they want to destroy the game.

[DD_Arthur]

 

Yeah there's no secret here.

 

All these guys who give their time for better FMs, are there only because they want to destroy the game.

 

 

In Kwiatek's case that's exactly why he's here.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

In Kwiatek's case that's exactly why he's here.

 

If you say so... 

[BraveSirRobin]

Yes, I trust his judgement far, far more than yours.

 

 

Yeah there's no secret here.

 

All these guys who give their time for better FMs, are there only because they want to destroy the game.

 

 

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing the logic that connects these posts.

[[GOAT]Spoutpout]

Enough.

Kwiatek took some of his time by doing tests and sharing the results, with the will of improving this sim. (because nobody do tests for pleasure)

 

He, and other forumers provided in-game facts, as well as some sources about the climb rate of Fw-190A IRL. And instead of thanking them for doing so, some of you just basically said "Han said it's correct so you're wrong" or "He's here to destroy the game".

 

Maybe instead of making useless posts, you should do you own tests if you don't believe him or think he does something wrong.

 

Act like adults for once.

[DD_Arthur]

If you say so... 

 

It's a Cliffs thing.........

[LukeFF]

 

All these guys who give their time for better FMs, are there only because they want to destroy the game.

 

 

Your words (and rhetoric), not mine. 

[Askania]

[303_Kwiatek]

Yes, I trust his judgement far, far more than yours.

And you are not be able to make own judgment?

 

But what is a problem to make own test and compare it with official known data instead follow blinding belives?

Edited December 29, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[303_Kwiatek]

In Kwiatek's case that's exactly why he's here.

I dunno why you make such stupid statments? I made test and compared it with rl data conlusions just confirmed what previous test in winter showed but now was done in ISA conditions.

 

I see that no all want these sim to be more historical accurate and realistic just prefer to insult people and spam topics. Grow up at least and try to use brains if you have still some.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

As far as I'm aware the British tested a damaged Fw 190. They acknowloged that in their report and had to calculate some performence figures because the state of the aircraft did not allow them to reach maximum performence.

 

It's better to resort to german test data incase of the Fw-190.

[LukeFF]

And you are not be able to make own judgment?

 

But what is a problem to make own test and compare it with official known data instead follow blinding belives?

 

Of course I am able to make my own judgements. I do that every time I load up the game. As for your second question, there's nothing wrong with making tests, but by this point I have read plenty of your posts to know what your agenda is, and you prove it practically every time you make a comment about the game.

Edited December 29, 2015 by LukeFF

[MK_RED13]

LukeFF, please, can you show us your test about climb of Yak vs FW?

 

Thank you.

[303_Kwiatek]

As far as I'm aware the British tested a damaged Fw 190. They acknowloged that in their report and had to calculate some performence figures because the state of the aircraft did not allow them to reach maximum performence.

 

It's better to resort to german test data incase of the Fw-190.

It was not damaged but derated for lower power settings. Some A-3 was initialy derated (probably with fresh new engines) and such plane was captured and tested by RAF. It got power setting 1.28/2350 rpm and emergency 1.35 2450 rpms.

[JtD]

Han said the Fw190 is within 5% of their reference. I have no doubt it is. Their chosen reference however was not named. It certainly wasn't one performing up to factory specification, even though there are plenty around.

[303_Kwiatek]

Of course I am able to make my own judgements. I do that every time I load up the game. As for your second question, there's nothing wrong with making tests, but by this point I have read plenty of your posts to know what your agenda is, and you prove it practically every time you make a comment about the game.

My agenda is to get realistic flight model simulator with historical performance of planes not balanced game. Wonder of your agenda cause in most cases you behave like blind fanboy not objective free thinking person

[Dakpilot]

My agenda is to get realistic flight model simulator with historical performance of planes not balanced game. Wonder of your agenda cause in most cases you behave like blind fanboy not objective free thinking person

 

The trouble is you always resort to insults and rather poor argument whenever your point of view is questioned, and you have a rather long history of this behaviour

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[303_Kwiatek]

What poor arguments you see here regarding climb rate ex. Fw A-3 in Bos comparing to known rl data?