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

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Hello Han, good to see you online. You've stated the Fw190 in terms of climb performance is very close to your reference. We've been wondering what that reference is. Could you please name it so we can stop guessing?

 

The same day, Han answered this: Can answer after hollydays - after 11th Jan.

 

And today, so, more than a month later, this is what we get:

 

We providing referenses only in case of correclty reported claim on Flight Model.

So, you:

1. Finding your historical reference

2. Comparing game airplane in same conditions with historical references

3. Making analysis of compare

4. Providing your reference with highlighted parts which describing the issue, test methodics and results (plus flight records), conclusions and exact claim, using PM to me

After that we:

1. Investigating all your materials

2. Making our own tests and re-checking our own sources

3. In case if you're right - making fixes

4. In case it you're wrong - showing you correct (used) references.

 

(meanwhile, datas of others BoS fighter have been given since months: http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2965-voprosy-razrabotchikam-2/page-5?do=findComment&comment=329653 & http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2965-voprosy-razrabotchikam-2/page-5?do=findComment&comment=330512 )

 

But still, there will be some chicks who will tell me that this is only a "misunderstanding" of the question, isn't it ? 

Edited February 9, 2016 by Ze_Hairy

[LLv24_Zami]

The same day, Han answered this: Can answer after hollydays - after 11th Jan.

 

And today, so, more than a month later, this is what we get:

 

We providing referenses only in case of correclty reported claim on Flight Model.

So, you:

1. Finding your historical reference

2. Comparing game airplane in same conditions with historical references

3. Making analysis of compare

4. Providing your reference with highlighted parts which describing the issue, test methodics and results (plus flight records), conclusions and exact claim, using PM to me

After that we:

1. Investigating all your materials

2. Making our own tests and re-checking our own sources

3. In case if you're right - making fixes

4. In case it you're wrong - showing you correct (used) references.

 

(meanwhile, datas of others BoS fighter have been given since months: http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2965-voprosy-razrabotchikam-2/page-5?do=findComment&comment=329653 & http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2965-voprosy-razrabotchikam-2/page-5?do=findComment&comment=330512 )

 

But still, there will be some chicks who will tell me that this is only a "misunderstanding" of the question, isn't it ? 

Devs are doing great job in many way but that decision I can`t understand.

 

What positive thing can come out from hiding this? Only more speculation and bad blood, that can`t be good in any way. Bad call.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Zami

[Crump]

Definitely plausible, since the plane ingame at 3970kg and combat power reaches a "peak climb" of ~14,6m/s (if not less) iirc. Now look at the Soviet chart...

 

EDIT: Soviet test was made at 1.21 or 1.27 ata ?

 

 

1.27ata@ 2400U/min

 

Sorry I missed your question.

[JtD]

And today, so, more than a month later, this is what we get:

I'm not happy about this.

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

Or we go directly back to you are wrong

Have anyone still the source of the other fighters data in the RU forum? my Russian still bad thx.

Would be really helpful if they post such things here also not only in the RU forum.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Or we go directly back to you are wrong

Have anyone still the source of the other fighters data in the RU forum? my Russian still bad thx.

Would be really helpful if they post such things here also not only in the RU forum.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2965-voprosy-razrabotchikam-2/page-5?do=findComment&comment=329653

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2965-voprosy-razrabotchikam-2/page-5?do=findComment&comment=330512

[Holtzauge]

We providing referenses only in case of correclty reported claim on Flight Model.

So, you:

1. Finding your historical reference

2. Comparing game airplane in same conditions with historical references

3. Making analysis of compare

4. Providing your reference with highlighted parts which describing the issue, test methodics and results (plus flight records), conclusions and exact claim, using PM to me

After that we:

1. Investigating all your materials

2. Making our own tests and re-checking our own sources

3. In case if you're right - making fixes

4. In case it you're wrong - showing you correct (used) references.

I don't get it: The devs have given the references for the Russian planes without (AFAIK) beforehand requiring steps 1 to 4 above to be performed. Why is this needed for the Fw-190? Is this only applicable specifically to the Fw-190 or does it apply to other planes as well? If so which planes? German planes or radial engined planes. What are the criteria?

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

Thx Ze_Hairy

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I don't get it: The devs have given the references for the Russian planes without (AFAIK) beforehand requiring steps 1 to 4 above to be performed. Why is this needed for the Fw-190? Is this only applicable specifically to the Fw-190 or does it apply to other planes as well? If so which planes? German planes or radial engined planes. What are the criteria?

 

About climb rate...

 

-> Han says "Fw 190 has less than 5% errors according to our references".

 

-> Fw 190A-3 in BoS has more than 6% errors according to German and British datas.

 

-> Fw 190A-3 climb rate in BoS is, strangely, the same as the one in Soviet chart (which is running at 1.27 ata/ 2400 RPM).

 

-> Han says "We use German datas for German planes and Russian datas for Russian planes".

 

-> ?

 

Maybe i'm a little extreme here, but i see no other reason to refuse to show us their "references".

[Holtzauge]

About climb rate...

 

-> Han says "Fw 190 has less than 5% errors according to our references".

 

-> Fw 190A-3 in BoS has more than 6% errors according to German and British datas.

 

-> Fw 190A-3 climb rate in BoS is, strangely, the same as the one in Soviet chart (which is running at 1.27 ata/ 2400 RPM).

 

-> Han says "We use German datas for German planes and Russian datas for Russian planes".

 

-> ?

 

Maybe i'm a little extreme here, but i see no other reason to refuse to show us their "references".

I agree. If the references for the Russian planes were posted then why not post the sources they used for the Fw-190 as well? Sure, it's up to them if they do or not but since there are a number of sources that indicate higher values then it would for sure avoid a lot of unnecessary speculation in the forum if they did. I mean, the question is not likely to go away is it? My curiosity as to the nature of this as yet unnamed reference is for sure piqued anyway......

[SR-F_Winger]

 

About climb rate...

 

-> Han says "Fw 190 has less than 5% errors according to our references".

 

-> Fw 190A-3 in BoS has more than 6% errors according to German and British datas.

 

-> Fw 190A-3 climb rate in BoS is, strangely, the same as the one in Soviet chart (which is running at 1.27 ata/ 2400 RPM).

 

-> Han says "We use German datas for German planes and Russian datas for Russian planes".

 

-> ?

 

Maybe i'm a little extreme here, but i see no other reason to refuse to show us their "references".

 

*thumbsup* and agree

[Art]

 

About climb rate...

 

-> Han says "Fw 190 has less than 5% errors according to our references".

 

-> Fw 190A-3 in BoS has more than 6% errors according to German and British datas.

 

-> Fw 190A-3 climb rate in BoS is, strangely, the same as the one in Soviet chart (which is running at 1.27 ata/ 2400 RPM).

 

-> Han says "We use German datas for German planes and Russian datas for Russian planes".

 

-> ?

 

Maybe i'm a little extreme here, but i see no other reason to refuse to show us their "references".

 

Hm ... Do not give up! if the measurements are accurate .. Thanks Hairy

[Crump]

 

About climb rate...

 

-> Han says "Fw 190 has less than 5% errors according to our references".

 

-> Fw 190A-3 in BoS has more than 6% errors according to German and British datas.

 

-> Fw 190A-3 climb rate in BoS is, strangely, the same as the one in Soviet chart (which is running at 1.27 ata/ 2400 RPM).

 

-> Han says "We use German datas for German planes and Russian datas for Russian planes".

 

-> ?

 

Maybe i'm a little extreme here, but i see no other reason to refuse to show us their "references".

 

 

 

There is not any reason...at least not any that are good ones.

[MK_RED13]

Someone here is uncommunicative.... unlike russian forum.. hm.. 

[Kling]

True Airspeed is reduced but IAS is "improved". A pilot is happy looking at his airspeed indicator in the winter but sad when he looks at his ground speed. Now that is in a typical winter day were pressure is high and temperature is low. In BoS, you have a less typical winter environment of low pressure and low temperature. Since winter started I can count on one hand the number if days pressure has equaled or been below standard.

Funny you should say that... today the local QNH is 982 in Stockholm and freezing cold.

Saying that, I understand your point. Usually the "siberian high" is predominant in Europe between Nov-March.

However, I wouldnt say we airline pilots suffer cry when we fly at winter and look at the speeds. Low temp means more thrust for same fuel flow so we can actually increase thrust and get a higher IAS(and concequently a higher TAS) for the same fuel burn.

 

Otherwise your theory is correct of course.

[Crump]

Funny you should say that... today the local QNH is 982 in Stockholm and freezing cold.

Saying that, I understand your point. Usually the "siberian high" is predominant in Europe between Nov-March.

However, I wouldnt say we airline pilots suffer cry when we fly at winter and look at the speeds. Low temp means more thrust for same fuel flow so we can actually increase thrust and get a higher IAS(and concequently a higher TAS) for the same fuel burn.

 

Otherwise your theory is correct of course.

 

 

Thanks for joining the discussion.  I am also an airline pilot.

 

The "theory" is not mine but what I said is absolutely correct.

 

Low temperate and high pressure to the aircraft is simply a change in altitude to the aircraft.

 

Let's agree to the fact that at the same equivalent airspeed, our drag remains constant.  That is an aerodynamic fact.

 

As we know, True airspeed increases at the Standard means of evaluation or the inverse of the square root of the density ratio.

 

As we go up in altitude, our density ratio decrease and as we go down in altitude, it increases....

 

Let's run some grade school math and prove the point.

 

Density ratio of 1 = sea level

 

Density ratio of .5 = Altitude above sea level

 

Density ratio of 1.5 = altitude below sea level

 

An airplane traveling at 100 knots TAS:

 

At an altitude equal to sea level = 100 KEAS  / [sQRT(1)] = 100 KTAS

 

At an altitude above sea level using a Density ratio of .5 = 100 KEAS / [sQRT(.5)] = 141 KTAS 

 

Our True Airspeed is faster at high altitude than our KEAS, KCAS or KIAS.

 

Now lets look at what happens to our airspeed relationship to TAS as we descend in altitude:

 

At an altitude below sea level using a Density ratio of 1.5 = 100 KEAS / [sQRT(1.5)] = 82 KTAS

 

Our True Airspeed is slower at a lower than sea level altitude than our KEAS, KCAS or KIAS.

 

That is the effect of changing density altitude on an aircraft.

Kling, that is all I was pointing out.  You have to look at the specific conditions in order to determine specific performance.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

And another thing that pushes me to think that they used the Soviet chart (1.27 ata/ 2400 RPM)... when VikS told me, after that i showed him a German data that shows 16m/s, back in summer: "this graph is the only one which show such climbs - its the best ones known for A3, and its kinda too promising if to cross check it with other sources."

 

... while it's the result you will see on most sources (if not all).

 

Think what you want, but for me there is no more shadow of a doubt.

[303_Kwiatek]

There were 2 german data for A-3 about climb rate. First  A-3 without outter wing cannons ( 3885 kg)  - 16.5 m/s at 1.3 Ata.   Second A-3a for Turkish export version ( 4 mgs in wings )  - 16 m/s.

[Crump]

And another thing that pushes me to think that they used the Soviet chart (1.27 ata/ 2400 RPM)... when VikS told me, after that i showed him a German data that shows 16m/s, back in summer: "this graph is the only one which show such climbs - its the best ones known for A3, and its kinda too promising if to cross check it with other sources."

 

... while it's the result you will see on most sources (if not all).

 

Think what you want, but for me there is no more shadow of a doubt.

 

If they are using 1.32ata power to resolve a 1.27ata performance data point......

 

Then VikS is correct. None of the German data points will agree with the BoS results because the power available to power required relationship is not correct.

 

They have slipped the aerodynamic scale and their model requires more power to achieve the performance the Germans achieved.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

What's the latest regarding informations sent to the Devs?

Please everyone who sent stuff to the Devs lately regarding the 190 climb rate (and only climb rate), tell me. I made tests, and have a lot of documents (most in fact out of this topic), and i also made climb tests with the 190, including record files. So in case someone of you didn't send them a report lately, i would be willing to do so. I will wait 2 or 3 days, till anybody can possibly read this, and then i will compile a report to the Devs, in case no one else did it lately.

Btw: my climb with the 190 estimated around 6:40 to 5000m..so roughly the same like Kwiatek. Doublechecked with the Yak as well, meeting the historical climb rate pretty much spot on, so i guess i made nothing wrong.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

With the new patch making old tracks obsolete next week you probably should just go ahead. Hairys report is quite old from what I know.

 

You might also PM Viks. He usially posts dev sources on the russian forum and probably has a good overview of the materials regarding the 190.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Good luck Manu.

 

Use the charts posted in this thread and also others, to support your (our) claim.

 

 

 

 

And of course the Soviet chart where power used was 1.27 ata/ 2400 RPM, of which our BoS 190 climb rate is the same, at combat power.

 

[303_Kwiatek]

What's the latest regarding informations sent to the Devs?

Please everyone who sent stuff to the Devs lately regarding the 190 climb rate (and only climb rate), tell me. I made tests, and have a lot of documents (most in fact out of this topic), and i also made climb tests with the 190, including record files. So in case someone of you didn't send them a report lately, i would be willing to do so. I will wait 2 or 3 days, till anybody can possibly read this, and then i will compile a report to the Devs, in case no one else did it lately.

Btw: my climb with the 190 estimated around 6:40 to 5000m..so roughly the same like Kwiatek. Doublechecked with the Yak as well, meeting the historical climb rate pretty much spot on, so i guess i made nothing wrong.

I wish you good luck with your intension. A3 in bos got 2 main issues - too weak climb rate and pitch wooble behaviour similar like 109. Other problems belong to other bos planes like too good high alt performance ( yak1 lagg3 and 109 f4) and too good roll rates expecially at higher speed (la5 lagg3 109? ). If these things would be corrected then Fw190 would show its historical adventages and show why its deserwe to be called

real bucher bird.

[Art]

What's the latest regarding informations sent to the Devs?

Please everyone who sent stuff to the Devs lately regarding the 190 climb rate (and only climb rate), tell me. I made tests, and have a lot of documents (most in fact out of this topic), and i also made climb tests with the 190, including record files. So in case someone of you didn't send them a report lately, i would be willing to do so. I will wait 2 or 3 days, till anybody can possibly read this, and then i will compile a report to the Devs, in case no one else did it lately.

Btw: my climb with the 190 estimated around 6:40 to 5000m..so roughly the same like Kwiatek. Doublechecked with the Yak as well, meeting the historical climb rate pretty much spot on, so i guess i made nothing wrong.

Thanks Manu. I hope that it finally comes out 

[Dr_Molenbeek]

A last thing, Manu...

 

If you're going to send it to Han, make your report AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE, and i'm pretty serious.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Ze_Hairy

[II./JG77_Manu*]

A last thing, Manu...

 

If you're going to send it to Han, make your report AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE, and i'm pretty serious.

It's not my first report, so i know exactly what you are talking about but thanks 

[Tomsk]

We providing referenses only in case of correclty reported claim on Flight Model.

 

I honestly don't know whether the climb rate of the 190 is right in game or not, not my area of expertise. But I also can't understand this decision, why not say which references are being used? Refusing to say only breeds suspicion ...

[Livai]

Not sure what referenses was used but here are my.

 

The Fw-190 A-2 were identical to the Fw-190 A-3. The only changes what was made was better Fuel and Engine Power all others was the same.

 

Now here the Source a Fw-190 A-2 against the Bf-109 F-4.

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=24

 

The Devs have show us that they use data from newer planes to correct the current plane. That means we can use Fw-190 A-4 data and Fw-190 A-2 data to recreate the Fw-190 A-3.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Superghostboy

[303_Kwiatek]

But we have german data for A3 alreday so what is prupose to inerpolate data from other version? German data claim clearly 16-16.5 m/s and 6 min to 5 km.

 

A2 got lower power engine and different power settings.

Edited February 22, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[JtD]

In case it was missed - in the discussion thread about the last DD Han stated the reference for Fw190 climb figures that the in game version is matching, it's a Fw190A-2 to A-4 manual which lists climb times.

 

Imho, as a source this is pretty much as bad as it gets, but at least now we know why the Fw190 in game is lacking - the reference shows poor performance. Unfortunately I'm not at home and I can't check, but I'm willing to bet that the figures are for a BMW801C powered Fw190. It would make sense.

Edited March 1, 2016 by JtD

[Dakpilot]

What about post # 244

 

Nope, I see that climb time is corresponding with 

Baubeschreibung Nr.1060

and

Fw 190 A-2 bis A-4 Handbuch

 

That is enought.

 

Climb rate may have some kind of methodological mistakes (variometer is not very precise gauge) while climb time is much more strict measured parameter.

So we beleive to climb time much more that climb rate if they're controversal.

 

ALSO my dear MANU

9.5 - it's approximated (average) climb rate, strict values are:

sealevel (300m) : 15.92 m/s

6000m : 10.02 m/s

8000m : 6.79 m/s (even better than your sources - 6.45 m/s)

 

and 

 

post # 254

 

Dear Han, Manu

 

I have calculated climb time to 8000m from Manu's Climb-rate table.

From 0 to 1200m, 15.7m/s ---76.4s, and so on.

 

The result is...about 700s to climb 8000m.  I think this is not so far from Han's table.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Saurer]

In case it was missed - in the discussion thread about the last DD Han stated the reference for Fw190 climb figures that the in game version is matching, it's a Fw190A-2 to A-4 manual which lists climb times.

 

Imho, as a source this is pretty much as bad as it gets, but at least now we know why the Fw190 in game is lacking - the reference shows poor performance. Unfortunately I'm not at home and I can't check, but I'm willing to bet that the figures are for a BMW801C powered Fw190. It would make sense.

 

Its not realy clear if its the BMW C or D, on the same page there are Power Settings for both engines but at the climb times its not stated for which version 

 

If that is the manual in question, page 9

http://www.degnans.com/markd/Fw%20190%20A-2%20bis%20A-4%20Teil%2000.pdf

Edited March 1, 2016 by Saurer

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Its not realy clear if its the BMW C or D, on the same page there are Power Settings for both engines but at the climb times its not stated for which version

It's definetly supposed to be a D judging by the pwer settings alone (C had 1.32 ata max while ingame it's 1.42 ata).

[Matt]

Baubeschreibung 1060 is for a Aa-3 with 801D and thats about 3 % better to 6000 m than the source the devs are using. So it's a it unlikely, that the devs numbers are for the 801C. The difference would be bigger.

 

The devs sources might be on the lower end, but it's for the 801D. They fit a A-4 with six guns better than a A-3 with four guns though.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Matt

[LittleJP]

They are taking their % error from climb time, vs climb rate, so a 1 m/s average difference climb rate, which is a huge % in a 10 m/s climb rate will result in a smaller margin of error.

[JtD]

The figures in the manual don't make sense as far as speed is concerned (mix of D and C performance, maybe, or a lot of typos) and the figures are for an aicraft of 3900kg, 1.5% heavier than the game version should be. That's a 1.5% error to start with already. And it remains unclear if it's C or D engine performance, which are close enough to be both covered by the figures within some acceptable margin.

 

Thanks for posting the link as a quick reference.

[Monostripezebra]

Meanwhile, at the monthly P-40 Pilots' meeting...

 

104w8e.jpg

 

 

(Inb4 I get flamed...just a joke about the P-40, not trying to slam anybody )

 

I think it is a funny joke.. and it´s true. If anybody would ask me, I´d say while BoS does some really fine modeling some times, some things are off.. and it´s not the specific numbers like climb rate but rather a much finer and harder to track thing in the energy balances: a combination energy retention, drag modeling and high alpha behaviour at low wing loadings.

 

Like in RoF, heavier ladden planes benefit with a better (in the sense of realistic) FM while low weigth high alpha capable planes show odd behaviour. And it is the acceleration/deceleration rates that make things go a bit haywire. I think, just from the isolated numbers, like speed, the P40 is fine, but it is the rate at which it loses energy combined with the "wobbly" instability that makes things worse. When I look at the DD data, the planes that suffer most in those aspects are oddly enough those with the lower end AoA spectrum. For instance the FW190 and most of all the P40. I can do insane maneuvers in an empty yak and also in an empty MC202, albeit the YAK is most prominent of the fighters in "I can do weird stuff". And to me, the reason for that is energy recovery and the rate of which it flows away.

 

Like RoF, the FM has a "deadlock" point where, after stalling, you can control acceleration with the last bit pull of the elevator, while using the (maybe overmodeled) propwash to keep the nose up. Even though the planes angle doesn´t change, releasing a tiny bit of elevator will let the plane accelerate there while pulling harder keeps it sinking again and excerbates something like an overly strong increase in drag. It´s this point I call "Deadlock Point" If you play around with it and learn to sense that point, you can do those funny moves:

 

Where it startet with in RoF, the Fokker D7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV2-ehs5YpE

 

and how it looks in BoS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNy1XrRUGGQ

 

I haven´t done a Yak or MC202 vid yet, as I had no good "ending point" in where to fly or land or what to do in terms of "purpose" but anyone can test it for themselves: take one of said planes, empty it out to minimal fuel and no ammo and then fly it slow at 0 throttle, pull the nose up.. and just when it wants to drop, go full power and balance with the rudder while playing with the elvator in the "pull" region. Now, try that with a P40 and notice the difference at different weights: at minimum fuel with 2x Mg removed and no ammo it becommes an entirely different plane then at normal load.

 

to me, the question why the P40 and the FW190 are so often seen as "disapointing" lies in this energy behaviour, albeit the FW190 is otherwise top notch..if you ask me, while the P40 is hardly useable as a fighter.  The climbrate and it´s last meter is probably not the problem, I´d guess. I´d wagger a guess and say it is the way climbing or diving away works against fighters that are impossible to beat in slow turnfights

Edited March 2, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Meanwhile, at the monthly P-40 Pilots' meeting...

 

104w8e.jpg

 

 

(Inb4 I get flamed...just a joke about the P-40, not trying to slam anybody )

 

You made my day sir ! 

[Monostripezebra]

 I'll try messing around at lower weights like you suggest.

 

adding a tiny bit of input noise filter in the options also helps to reduce "wobble" a bit.  Well worth playing around with.

 

Just for comparision: my singleplayer "fighter" setting that works ok for me and makes the plane usable as fighter is 400l fuel or less, stock ammo and 2 guns removed with 0.02 input noise filter.

 

for "extreme" fun, try going to less then 100l of fuel, no ammo at all AND the 2 guns removed.. it then becomes a lot more stable and gets very stable high alpha states without flaps. With full flaps (which limit the atainable AoA) it becomes virtually unstallable with elevator alone and it can only get into unstable flight by veering the nose far out of the flightvector.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgdFeEa-EG8