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

[Dakpilot]

Luke replied to Wingers claim "There isnt even a response on this. They just ignore it."

 

You sidetrack the reply with argument

 

Many times it has been suggested that you should make your (backed up by evidence) claims as official FM report, yet you say there is no point, usually accompanied by an insult to Dev's. 

 

If you genuinely cared about the sim and historical accuracy you would do this in a reasonable, concise, understandable and factual manner backed up with the unarguable evidence you think you have

 

these FM threads are for discussion and have never been read/used as evidence for claims as you well know, for actionable claims a proper report is needed as has been done successfully before.

 

We would never have any new content if Dev's spend all their working hours reading through opinions/argument both here and on Russian side of forums from both the informed and misinformed

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Sgt_Joch]

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

not sure where that site got its data from, but some of those numbers are wrong and certain tests are missing. My data is from Khazanov&Gordon's "Soviet Combat Aircraft of WW2" .

 

@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?

 .

you mean around 2500 rpm? that would make sense.

[Tektolnes]

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.

Yes would be good if the devs would let us know what their reference is as the current situation looks a bit strange and not in line with what you would expect. Fixing this plus the top level Yak and F-4 speeds would remove most of the more obvious FM issues.

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

Was there any differences between the Fighter version and the Jabo version of the A3, I know the obvious things like the MGFF and the ETC bomb rack.

I mean Amor plates in the Airframe and so on?

 

[Holtzauge]

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.

 

 

Yes would be good if the devs would let us know what their reference is as the current situation looks a bit strange and not in line with what you would expect. Fixing this plus the top level Yak and F-4 speeds would remove most of the more obvious FM issues.

 

+1

 

Would be good to know the reference to understand the reason why climb performance is lower in BoS than in the IRL data in OP and the C++ simulation which both indicate a good agreement up to 2 Km but then the estimates diverge. My guess would be a difference in power estimate over 2 Km but without knowing the reference it's hard to tell.

[JG5_Schuck]

Kwiatek or Manu.

I would be curious as to what the results turned out like if you re-evaluated them with the HUD/Techno chat turned off,

Tried to climb at the highest  power settings you could but also to keep the max engine temp for all aircraft to 100-105 degrees by using radiator control, reducing the RPM, (for the Germans) or a combination of both.

i.e. tried to fly them as realistically as possible.

How much difference would this make I wonder, if any?

My point being, would using the ingame gauges, Temp, RPM, ATA, Manifold pressure, Prop Pitch (rather than max theoretical) also help reproduce RL performance figures?

Or maybe help to address the suggested imbalance?

 

I would be very interested indeed........

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Kwiatek or Manu.

I would be curious as to what the results turned out like if you re-evaluated them with the HUD/Techno chat turned off,

Tried to climb at the highest  power settings you could but also to keep the max engine temp for all aircraft to 100-105 degrees by using radiator control, reducing the RPM, (for the Germans) or a combination of both.

i.e. tried to fly them as realistically as possible.

How much difference would this make I wonder, if any?

My point being, would using the ingame gauges, Temp, RPM, ATA, Manifold pressure, Prop Pitch (rather than max theoretical) also help reproduce RL performance figures?

Or maybe help to address the suggested imbalance?

 

I would be very interested indeed........

 

Would change nothing mate. The 190 is completely automatic, the only lever you have to touch is the throttle. It doesn't have adjustable cowling flaps, this was introduced in the A4. 

And you don't climb with the highest power settings, you climb with 1.32ata, as it was done in real life. It climbs around 10m/s, maximum around 10,8 over 2500m, that's pretty ridiculous. Happy me i am not flying this bird in Stalingrad..fly the 190 every week in SeoW, and there it's fine. Superb fighter. It's kind of a insolence to charge money for this plane right now, in the broken condition it is.

When there is a new theatre coming, like Kuban or Kursk, and a new 190 (A4, A5) be sure, that i'll be throwing everything at them (Devs) i got, when it's also modeled wrong. But for know, i am done

[JG5_Schuck]

Ok mate,

Just wondered, as having to set all the Russian engine control parameters to achieve a max climb rate would be very difficult without the HUD.

As opposed to the German aircraft.

And I was curious if this did indeed slowed down the Russian aircraft at all, and help bring the aircraft performance more into line.

I'm not really a fan of all the personal insults that usually follow a well structured augment on these forums, mainly I would assume by people who don't, and probable never will fly full real without the help (cheat) text/techno chat to guide them along.

Many of whom I would think probably couldn't even get off the ground without them!

I certainly would not criticise anyone if they firmly believed the information they had and based the FM's on was correct.

So I was hoping I suppose to address the problem (if there is one) in game by using what we have, and also there by proving to the Devs a need to have a server option to turn off engine related techno chat, if the results proved a point.

I have to say, from a personal (mechanical engineers) point of view, the engine DM's concern me to a far greater extent than the actual flight performance figures, and I feel also have a far greater affect on game play.

After all i'm pretty sure a Russian liquid cooled engine would last about as long as a German liquid cooled engine without the coolant!!!

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by JG5_Schuck

[LukeFF]

Was there any differences between the Fighter version and the Jabo version of the A3, I know the obvious things like the MGFF and the ETC bomb rack.

I mean Amor plates in the Airframe and so on?

 

Not that I'm aware of. From what I have read, the additional armor plating for ground attack work was introduced with the F- and G-series planes.

[JtD]

Was there any differences between the Fighter version and the Jabo version of the A3, I know the obvious things like the MGFF and the ETC bomb rack.

I mean Amor plates in the Airframe and so on?

According to the Fw190A-3 loading plan, the fighter bomber version (equipped with a single 500kg bomb) had 49kg of extra equipment when compared to the standard fighter version (that is without the MGFF).

 

These 49kg are mostly the ETC and parts around it, plus the 7.5kg of equipment installed in the cockpit (bomb control panel) and another 4kg of wire connections between the cockpit and the bomb rack. That's it.

[Bearcat]

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

 

 

Just because a person does not agree with your agenda does not mean that they are not thinking rationally or freely.

[303_Kwiatek]

Just because a person does not agree with your agenda does not mean that they are not thinking rationally or freely.

 

My so-called "agenda" is just test in game comparing to RL data. If somone dont accept facts and beliving blind in some devs statments ( expecially based for not any proofs) for me these is not rationally or freely thinking person.

 

Backing to topic i made some time ago analog climb and speed test for BOS fighters in winter conditions and conlusion was that Fw 190 A-3 is underperforming in climb rate casue have no boost due to cold air where are other planes got.  Conslusion was that A-3 climb rate is underated.  The same person attack me in similar way.

 

Now i repeat such test in autumn map  ( ISA conditons)  which only confirm my previously test in winter.  A-3 climb rate expecially above 2 km is underated by 2 m/s which is huge error.   Also my previous test in winter showed that  109 F-4, Yak-1 and Lagg-3 overperforming at high alts expecially in maximum speeds. Some made similar test in ISA conditions which also confrirmed test made in winter. 

 

So i dont understand what is here so hard to belive here.  Beacuase of devs ignore these or say that it is no issue here i have to belive in these?  Nope im rationaly and freely thinking person and my thinking is based on facts ( test and RL data) not empty statments based someone says somethings without any proof.

 

Im virtual and real life pilot since many years, im interesting in WW2 aviations and read many books and collected many RL documents and data with performacne of most known WW2 fighters.  I got episode as FM modder in old il2 and tuned FM based on RL data. These need really rational and freely thinking expecially.  Pity that i dont see here such interest even from offical testers of these game. It is really shame.

Edited December 30, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Dakpilot]

^^^

 

unfortunately presenting facts is as much about how they are conveyed as much as the facts themselves, in this you have failed miserably from your very first complaint about BoS FM's

 

maybe it's a language thing but I doubt it

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

In all fairness, your first post in this topic was a personal attack against Kwiatek, and you were the second person to do so in this topic. This time Kwiateks opening post and several following were simple information sharing.

 

If you're interested in a more reasonable debate, why do you actively make it worse?

Edited December 30, 2015 by JtD

[CaK_Rumcajs]

^^^

 

unfortunately presenting facts is as much about how they are conveyed as much as the facts themselves, in this you have failed miserably from your very first complaint about BoS FM's

 

maybe it's a language thing but I doubt it

 

Cheers Dakpilot

What if you focused on commenting on the data provided? It would help the debate tremendously. There are the facts Kwiatek has collected. Do you have anything to say regarding the performance the FW can achieve in game? Do you have sources of real world performance of corresponding type that would contradict Kwiatek's claims? Can you comment on the method Kwiatek used to collect the in game data? Do you have anything to say to contribute? If not it's you who comes to talk about Kwiatek's language and agenda ... I would love to see you commenting from the perspective of data, not feelings or emotions.

[Dakpilot]

In all fairness, your first post in this topic was a personal attack against Kwiatek, and you were the second person to do so in this topic. This time Kwiateks opening post and several following were simple information sharing.

 

If you're interested in a more reasonable debate, why do you actively make it worse?

 

If you see my first post as a personal attack, well whatever, it was a general comment on his posting history and attitude, which is free for all to see.

 

It is interesting that Kwiateks tests showed that FW190 (level) performance is within 2% of R/L values. Some proper  investigation may shed some light on why and how its climb performance may be off from R/L figures (whichever may be quoted) considering it achieves the correct (+-2%) speeds

 

If every FM discussion was not peppered with foil hat conspiracy issues and just facts some of the small issues with FM would have been solved a long time ago

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[L3Pl4K]

Some proper investigation may shed some light on why and how its climb performance may be off from R/L figures (whichever may be quoted) considering it achieves the correct (+-2%) speeds

Maybe you can make some climbing test. If you able to climb in ~6 min to 5000m make a track and or video and post it in this topic. I have also make some climbing test with the A3, my times  are approximately at kwia time.

Edited December 30, 2015 by L3Pl4K

[Dakpilot]

How is a climb test performed?

 

What speed would you enter the climb? would it be done at Vy or Vx? what speeds were used in R/L tests, how was engine management performed in R/L climb tests? were conditions ISA all the way to 5000m

 

Which R/L data are being quoted in the tests from OP?

 

Initial climb rate is stated as accurate.. it is only when approaching supercharger gear change that issue seems to be, although IRL that is known to be when real A/C has a performance drop

 

all this points to a small issue with modelling  of supercharger gear change/2nd stage rather than the often insinuated/shouted Bias

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[L3Pl4K]

@ Darkpilot

You can use this: 

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

 

A3 early model 2350 u/min 1.28ata, you can also use 2400u/min 1.32 ata. This doc is from 30.07.1942

look at the tabel page 1. a) is figher with 100 percent fuel 3850kg

Höhe  m =altitude in m/   Angez. Geschw.= indicated airspeed/ Steigzeit min, climb time in minutes/ Kraftstoffverbrauch  +10% Sich.=fuel consumption +10% saftey tolerance/ horizontale Flugstrecke= horizontal flight path

or you can use this:

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

A3 improved model 2400u/min 1.32 ata 3850kg doc is from 26.11.42

x axis is first climbrate m/sec second climbtime in min.

scale is 0,4,8,12,16,20,24

y axis is altitude in m

left curve is climb time in min, right is climb performance in m/sec

scale is 2000,4000,6000,8000,10000

[Holtzauge]

In addition to the charts L3PI4K posted above (post #59) there is also the attached chart from the manufacturer which also shown 12.5 m/s climb rate from 2 to 5 Km altitude. These numbers are according to the text on the right not calculated but flown values without MGFF and a weight of 3850 Kg so they should be directly comparable to what we have in BoS without mods.

 

So these are two IRL sources that both indicate 12.5 m/s and if we have just 10.5 m/s in BoS is this unintentional and on the fix list or is it because the devs are basing the modeling on some other source? If so what is this reference? Since the difference is more than 15% it would be good to get their view on this.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I don't know if we have C3 fuel modeled in BoS.

[303_Kwiatek]

At sea level is also below spec but with less error cause rl data claim 16-16.5 m/s where in game is below 16 m/s but at higher alts underated is much bigger.

I don't know if we have C3 fuel modeled in BoS.

It couldnt be other way cause these engine need c3 fuel

[303_Kwiatek]

So these are two IRL sources that both indicate 12.5 m/s and if we have just 10.5 m/s in BoS is this unintentional and on the fix list or is it because the devs are basing the modeling on some other source? If so what is this reference? Since the difference is more than 15% it would be good to get their view on this.

Since relase A-3 in Bos was underated in climb rate with huge degree it was once time not so happily adjusted by devs but still not for accurate level comparing to rl data unfortunately

Edited December 30, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Holtzauge]

Ok, so now I did a test myself. Granted, it's only one test: I ran it at auto, full fuel load and tried maintaining 280 km/h IAS and 1.32 ata when possible.

 

Results: Started clock at 1:32 at treetop level Lapino autumn map passed 2 Km at 3:37 and 5 Km at 7:52.

 

So climb time to 5 Km roughly 6 min 20 s.

 

Average climb time to 2 Km: 16 m/s

 

Average climb time from 2 to 5 Km: 11.76 m/s

 

So these results are much closer to IRL: Up to 2 Km spot on, from 2 to 5 Km they deviate less than 1 m/s from the manufacturers data.

 

Granted, I just did one run but then I don't know if your figures are an average of many runs or the result of just one Kwiatek?

 

Anyway, while still a bit on the low side these values are not that far off from the real thing and really, it would be good to get some more runs done by some other forum members to get some statistics and correct for piloting issues.

 

Without that it's kind of hard to get a grip on how big an issue this really is......

Since relase A-3 in Bos was underated in climb rate with huge degree it was once time not so happily adjusted by devs but still not for accurate level comparing to rl data unfortunately

OK, but since JtD said they referred to a reference earlier what is it? Some German data, Russian or British evaluation etc.?

Edited December 30, 2015 by Holtzauge

[Dr_Molenbeek]

AFAIK devs are users of the rule "German datas for German planes, and Russian datas for Russian planes".

 

Some months ago they posted some datas they used to make Bf 109s, Yak-1, LaGG-3, La-5,... but nothing for the Fw 190A-3, sadly.

[Holtzauge]

AFAIK devs are users of the rule "German datas for German planes, and Russian datas for Russian planes".

 

Some months ago they posted some datas they used to make Bf 109s, Yak-1, LaGG-3, La-5,... but nothing for the Fw 190A-3, sadly.

OK, too bad about the Fw-190. I have seen some British test data with lower values but IIRC then this showed the opposite: Poorer climb rate at lower altitude and then better than the manufacturers data at high alt and even a higher ceiling.

 

Could you provide a link to the data for the Bf 109s, Yak-1, LaGG-3, La-5 data the devs posted?

[Sgt_Joch]

So climb time to 5 Km roughly 6 min 20 s

 

Without that it's kind of hard to get a grip on how big an issue this really is......

 

 

it might be no issue at all, climb testing is very difficult to get right, I did a lot in RoF and its very easy to fall short of RL results.

 

As other tests have shown, the level speeds of all planes matches up with RL results, so the aerodynamics, HP and power/weight ratios are correct, therefore no reason why the climb rate should be off.

 

Remember these planes are "built" by plugging in aerodynamic data and power output, so you cant substantially change the climb rate without also affecting acceleration and top speed.

 

The only way to know for sure is to get hold of the Devs own climb test data.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Sgt_Joch

[II./JG77_Manu*]

OK, too bad about the Fw-190. I have seen some British test data with lower values but IIRC then this showed the opposite: Poorer climb rate at lower altitude and then better than the manufacturers data at high alt and even a higher ceiling.

 

Could you provide a link to the data for the Bf 109s, Yak-1, LaGG-3, La-5 data the devs posted?

You are speaking about Faber. Forget that source, that's huge bollocks..something was seriously wrong with that, i read about it a while ago, but forget what it was in particular. If you want credible sources go for BMW or Rechlin test data.

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

Started clock at 1:32 at treetop level Lapino autumn map passed 2 Km at 3:37 and 5 Km at 7:52.

How fast was your plane? I start my climb test with 280 ias at treetop level.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Ok, so now I did a test myself. Granted, it's only one test: I ran it at auto, full fuel load and tried maintaining 280 km/h IAS and 1.32 ata when possible.

 

Results: Started clock at 1:32 at treetop level Lapino autumn map passed 2 Km at 3:37 and 5 Km at 7:52.

 

So climb time to 5 Km roughly 6 min 20 s.

 

Average climb time to 2 Km: 16 m/s

 

Average climb time from 2 to 5 Km: 11.76 m/s

 

So these results are much closer to IRL: Up to 2 Km spot on, from 2 to 5 Km they deviate less than 1 m/s from the manufacturers data.

 

Granted, I just did one run but then I don't know if your figures are an average of many runs or the result of just one Kwiatek?

 

Anyway, while still a bit on the low side these values are not that far off from the real thing and really, it would be good to get some more runs done by some other forum members to get some statistics and correct for piloting issues.

 

Without that it's kind of hard to get a grip on how big an issue this really is......

 

OK, but since JtD said they referred to a reference earlier what is it? Some German data, Russian or British evaluation etc.?

Normally you start a climb test right from takeoff. As soon as you wheels get of the ground, you start the clock. Did you do it this way? It seems like you started the test with a higher speed from ground level, but tell me if i am wrong, if i didn't get this correct

[Matt]

Tested with mouse control (no joystick at my current place, but then mouse control doesn't improve maximum climb rate).

 

1000-2000m = 71 s = 14,08 m/s

2000-3000m = 80 s = 12,50 m/s

3000-4000m = 85 s = 11,76 m/s

4000-5000m = 87 s = 11,49 m/s

5000-6000m = 98 s = 10,20 m/s

 

Total climb times :

 

1000 m = 1:03 (borrowed from Kwiatek and used as base, because i didn't begin the climb properly)

2000 m = 2:14

3000 m = 3:34

4000 m = 4:59

5000 m = 6:26

6000 m = 8:04

 

Might try again from 0 m and a different climb speed, but probably won't.

 

Track :

Tracks.zip

 

[Holtzauge]

@Manu&L3: I did it just like I said: Took off, retracted gear, flew at treetop level until I had stabilized speed which was 1:32 into the flight. I then maintained 280 Km/h IAS as close as I could up to 5Km while clocking when passing altitude. Average climb times calculated from delta times.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Holtzauge

[II./JG77_Manu*]

@Manu&L3: I did it just like I said: Took off, retracted gear, flew at treetop level until I had stabilized speed which was 1:32 into the flight. I then maintained 280 Km/h IAS as close as I could up to 5Km while clocking when passing altitude. Average climb times calculated from delta times.

ok, that's not the right way to do it. You start your clock as soon as your wheels leave the ground. I will do 5 tests with both the Yak and the 190, and then compare them to another. One have to assume, that the "error", if there is any, will be around the same

Edited December 30, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Holtzauge]

Tested with mouse control (no joystick at my current place, but then mouse control doesn't improve maximum climb rate).

 

1000-2000m = 71 s = 14,08 m/s

2000-3000m = 80 s = 12,50 m/s

3000-4000m = 85 s = 11,76 m/s

4000-5000m = 87 s = 11,49 m/s

5000-6000m = 98 s = 10,20 m/s

 

Total climb times :

 

1000 m = 1:03 (borrowed from Kwiatek and used as base, because i didn't begin the climb properly)

2000 m = 2:14

3000 m = 3:34

4000 m = 4:59

5000 m = 6:26

6000 m = 8:04

 

Might try again from 0 m and a different climb speed, but probably won't.

 

Track :

Tracks.zip

OK, remembering that the OP was primarily concerned with the 2 to 5 Km climb rate it looks like your results are quite close to mine because your average from 2 to 5 works out to 11.9 m/s which is even closer to the IRL 12.5 m/s. Really, if we see more results as close as that then it looks like the autumn map climb rate is not that far off really.......

ok, that's not the right way to do it. You start your clock as soon as your wheels leave the ground. I will do 5 tests with both the Yak and the 190, and then compare them to another. One have to assume, that the "error", if there is any, will be around the same

So where do you get the idea that that is the way to do it? You sure you don't mean that's the way I prefer to do it?

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Could you provide a link to the data for the Bf 109s, Yak-1, LaGG-3, La-5 data the devs posted?

 

It would give me a really hard time to refind the post... since it was on russian forum. 

 

EDIT: Done.

 

Bf 109s: http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2965-voprosy-razrabotchikam-2/?p=329653

 

Russian fighters: http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2965-voprosy-razrabotchikam-2/?p=330512

 

People asked for Fw 190A-3, but NOPE, totally sikret dokumjants.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Ze_Hairy

[III/JG2Gustav05]

It would give me a really hard time to refind the post... since it was on russian forum. 

 

EDIT: Done.

 

Bf 109s: http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2965-voprosy-razrabotchikam-2/?p=329653

 

Russian fighters: http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2965-voprosy-razrabotchikam-2/?p=330512

 

People asked for Fw 190A-3, but NOPE, totally sikret dokumjants.

Interesting, there must be some wrong if development team use "Rechlin E`Stelle Erprobungsnummer 1586" to model G2 

As I already posted in another thread,

My test result in Autumn map,                          climb time from 50m to 3050m --------- 2'35'' 

"Rechlin E`Stelle Erprobungsnummer 1586" climb time from 0m to 3000m -----------2'24''

11'' difference, 7% slower.

I dont believe this Rechlin result was achieved with very small radiator opening setting. If they did it like that engine will be dead before the test was finished.

Edited December 31, 2015 by III/JG2Gustav05

[JtD]

At what weight did Rechlin test, at what weight did you test?

[III/JG2Gustav05]

At what weight did Rechlin test, at what weight did you test?

don't know the weight in Rechlin test, my test was done with standard weapon setting and 100% fuel.

[JtD]

So we don't know if different climb performance is due to different weight.

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

I dont believe this Rechlin result was achieved with very small radiator opening setting. If they did it like that engine will be dead before the test was finished.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_MT215/109G2_MT215.html

German calculations typically assume a standard radiator flap position, referred to as Steigflugstellung (or climbing position), at which the radiator`s exit flaps (Kühlerklappen) are open 220 mm wide, or apprx. half-open, and 74mm at the variable the inlet (Einlaufflippen), in order to provide imcreased airflow during the slow-speed climbs. Such measures would keep the coolant temperature low at an optimum 85 ^○C value, but the engine itself would tolerate temperatures as much as 115 ^○C safely up to 10 minutes duration, and the automatic thermostat not interfere up to 100 ^○C temperature, which could be sustained indefinietely, as noted on page 4 of the DB 605 A-B Motoren-Karte, Ausgabe Oktober 1942 .