Jump to content
JtD

Another look at turn times

Recommended Posts

but since WEP is 2500 rpm and mil 2400 that should improve critical altitude somewhat

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense in the chart. 1200mm@2500 go straight into 1000mm@2400...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a suspicion that the performance figures could be for laminar flow prototype, because IIRC the performance figures line up well with published La-9 performance.

 

The La-9 achieved 690 km/h at altitude with the same engine.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a suspicion that the performance figures could be for laminar flow prototype, because IIRC the performance figures line up well with published La-9 performance.

 

The La-9 achieved 690 km/h at altitude with the same engine.

 

Yes, I see what you mean: If you add the same delta of 60 Km/h to the 580 SL to make 640 Km/h and then do the same at altitude you get 700 Km/h but at that speed you probably begin to see some drag creep due to compressibility and 690 Km/h sounds reasonable. If you then consider this together with the 35-45 Km/h Dakpilot mentioned for the La-5FN to La-7 (putting the La-7 at 615-625 Km/h SL) then a figure of 640 Km/h for the La-9 at SL sounds plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I see what you mean: If you add the same delta of 60 Km/h to the 580 SL to make 640 Km/h and then do the same at altitude you get 700 Km/h but at that speed you probably begin to see some drag creep due to compressibility and 690 Km/h sounds reasonable. If you then consider this together with the 35-45 Km/h Dakpilot mentioned for the La-5FN to La-7 (putting the La-7 at 615-625 Km/h SL) then a figure of 640 Km/h for the La-9 at SL sounds plausible.

 

Yes, albeit 615 km/h at SL is still very impressive for 1850 hp and probably only attainable by a prestine example waxed & polished. 

 

The reason I'm so sceptical is that the example of the La-5FN captured by the Germans by all accounts was in great condition, and yet it only managed 520 km/h at SL at 1.60 ata. 

 

Do we have actual russian test flight data and not just performance calculations?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About that German test I think it would have to be a worn-out engine, because it wouldn't make much sense for it to be slower than the first version of the La-5, and in continuous mode the speed in that test was sub 500 km/h IIRC, slower than a 1942 LaGG-3.

There is the interview with this La-5FN and La-7 pilot, Dmitriy Alekseevich Alekseev (of which parts were already posted in the forums) and he talks about how his firsts combat missions were done with a repaired plane which had a damaged engine because of overheating, and that it had very little power.




A.S How did the new planes get supplied to the regiment?

D.A Part of the planes came with the pilots that came as "reinforcements", like it was in my case (the reinforcements arrived to the regiments with new planes). New planes were also brought by "transportists", but they also brought recovered, repaired planes. The recovered planes were painted in our regiment, sometimes completely repainted. Sometimes at the parking zone.

That plane I brought with myself, I never saw it again. Who flew it later? Was it in our regiment or in another one? I don't know.

I remember very well. They told me: "You have to go to the distribution zone. There you will find your plane". I got there, I see a man walking around the plane. He was already informed that a new crew commander was going to arrive, and when I approached him, he told me:

 

 

- Comrade commander, your plane is undergoing mantainance work, I am the engine technician, my name is... (I don't remember).
 

-Where is the mechanic?
 

-The mechanic is gone.

-And the aircraft technician?

 

-The technician is busy with another plane. But you don't worry, I will show you everything you want, better than the aircraft technician would.


I walked around the plane, it had clear signs of being a repaired plane, it was worn out. What a disappointment!. And it even lacked the sliding part of the canopy.

-Where is the sliding part?

 

-The ferry pilot dropped it accidentally, when he ferried the plane to the regiment.

(In the La-5[FN] the sliding canopy, in case of an emergency, was dropped relatively easy using a special lever. So it could be accidentally ejected).

 

The engine technician kept talking: "Comrade commander, don't worry. The ferry pilot told me the engine of this plane is very powerful. Don't even pay attention to the missing canopy, what's really important is the engine". Well what could I do, I had to test the plane. I took off. The ferry pilot said the thruth, the engine delivered a lot of power.

 

But look at what happened later. There are some people that in order to save their own skin are capable of doing unethical things. Even to their own friends. Not that I didn't know about this, but the fact is that I never encountered with this personally before.

Very foolishly, I said the engine of my plane was very powerful. From our "cadet octet" from Bataysk Academy, two pilots ended up in the 3rd squadron, a friend of mine and myself. My mate was one or two years older than myself.  He was a handsome guy, with an athletic body and an open look. We met with the squadron commander, Lobanov. I don't know how Lobanov read our personal files, but his decision was this: "You (he told me) will be the wingman of my second flight, and you (he told my friend) will be my wingman".

After making the flight to test our planes, we shared our impressions. That friend told me:

- My plane's engine doesn't have power

 

And I answered:

-But mine pulls as much as you want, though it's missing the canopy.

And what do you think it happened later? During the next meeting, the squadron commander told the squadron engineer: "Engineer, give Alekseev's plane to my wingman, and give my wingman's plane to Alekseev". It appears that my "buddy"  complained to Lobanov... what a friend... What could I do? Nothing. It was my fault. I should have kept my mouth shut from the beggining.

I went to see my "new" machine. When I closed in, the engine technician greeted me. I have to mention that air cooled engines have a pecuality: if you overheat the cylinder heads made of aluminum (overheating them wasn't hard). the compression decreased, and as a consequence power fell drastically.

The engine technician didn't hide anything from me. He told me:

-The engine is rubbish.

 

I replied to him:

-Why?

He said:

-Look up yourself.

And he shows me with the finger in the cowling, in which just in the cylinder area, the paint peeled off, forming popped bubbles. It was the symptom of engine overheating.

I tested my new "combat horse". What the technician said was true: the engine "didn't pull". I got depressed even more. I made my first five or six combat flights with this overheated engine. Luckily in neither of these flights I encountered German planes. Or else I wouldn't know how I would have ended... maybe I wouldn't be here talking with you. I perfomed the sixth or seventh flight with another plane. It was also a repaired one, but the engine was in good condition.






 

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is what kind of performance an earlier La-5 would've showned in German hands, because it might very well have been lower.

 

Lerche for example points out that the La-5FN was the fastest Russian plane they had yet tested, and AFAIK they had already tested the LaGG-3. 

19962120170_394963fd16_b.jpg

 

 In other words Soviet performance figures perhaps weren't calibrated for TAS, or maybe they were very optimistic calculations that simply didn't hold up with service aircraft?

 

It's an interesting discrepancy, and it makes you wonder how fast the average service condition Russian planes really were, esp. when we add in the fact that even in late 1944 there are no German reports about difficulties of catching up with Soviet fighters and the LW continued to cause disproportionate losses on the VVS even this late in the war - esp. the Dora wrecked havoc.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so about such flawed tests (that would give different results to such a high degree)... afaik the Tsagi had both experimental and production sample tests, and you can see how for example the early 1941 LaGG being faster than the late 1941 one, showing the production deficencies affecting the aircraft (from 495 km/h top speed at sea level, to 475 km/h).

Imho it's more likely that the captured FN was in a bad shape. In the interview I quoted earlier he mentions that the FN cought both 109s and 190s at low altitudes, and could catch the 109 in the climb, that the only option they had to disengage was diving. He also mentions that very late in the war there were new 109s that outclimbed their FNs and they were really surprised about that (I guess it would be the K-4). This is coherent with the 580-585 km/h top speed and 22 m/s at sea level in boosted mode of the Soviet reports.

There is another Yak (7B, 1B, 9) pilot interview and he talks how the 109s could get away in a straight line by about 20 km/h difference according to him, that it was nothing but at the same time just enough to deny a victory. And their planes weren't in the best shape, sometimes their 1943 Yaks had cracks, rough wing surface finish, or they flew with bomb pylons. It's more or less coherent with the speeds of non MW 50 mid Bf 109 Gs at low altitudes (he mostly flew close escort for IL-2s)

Also this guy in particular flew until the end of the war with the "regular" Yak-9, he didn't fly Yak-3 in combat during the war and in the regiment they got only one Yak-9U by chance from the resupply of repaired planes. A Yak-9 (T, D, etc) which has more or less the same performance of the Yak-1B would be in trouble when facing late war German fighters like the Dora or K-4. Already the FN is a nice bit better than the 1B in speed and climb at low altitudes, once we start to get the Bodenplatte German planes the 1B which currently is a pretty good fighter will end up being overshadowed by them.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the chart JtD. Looks like the Ash-82FN engine model I have (based on the old chart I posted above earlier on) is OK then but what about the rpm difference on the FN? The power due to increased boost at low altitude is one thing but since WEP is 2500 rpm and mil 2400 that should improve critical altitude somewhat. Nice to have data for the Ash-82F as well!

 

Interesting info and that puts the improvement in the range of 35-45 Km/h but to improve from 580 to 640 Km/h SL speed would either take about (640/580)**3=1.34 or 34% more power, i.e. from 1850 to a whopping 2586 hp on the La-5FN or one would need to reduce drag on the La-5FN by about 25% to circa 1/1.134 in the La-7. Maybe the latter is as JtD said doable for a vaxed pristine supersealed variant but for a production fighter it sounds like a tall order.

 

 

The  Feb 43 test gave an improvement of 35km on general aero and sealing fuselage improvements

 

The March 43 test gave said to give an improvement of 25-30km with different air intake and oil cooler placement alone, other improvements gave another 10-15km

 

these were on separate La-5 models at two facilities , there were many more improvements such as wing fillets etc. which were present on La-7, I would have said these add up to more than 35-45km.?

 

 

Fairly sure that the German FN tests were not carried out using boost, the aircraft was (from many reports) an early 43 version captured during battle at Kursk, it appears the tests were only done much  later in 44?

 

There are a number of photos available of it showing evidence of different propellers/spinners fitted, and in all (pics I have seen), the main wheel undercarriage fairings are missing, otherwise it looked in fair condition, although obviously impossible to really make any qualified  judgement

 

Oleg Maddox was convinced and stated the German test was with an F engine not FN, but the pics clearly show the longer air intake of the FN, photographic evidence would suggest the latter but?

 

*edit* to clarify there are also pics of German marked La-5F 

 

Anyway as you said it is all interesting info and I will leave others with more expertise to interpret it  :)

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Edited by Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys know about I185 M71? Polikarpov's fighter with an engine that is basically two Ishak's engines assembled together. Tested during summer 1942 but had flight characteristics similar to a la5FN or la7. Speeds ~580-600 at SL.

Edited by Max_Damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's an interesting discrepancy, and it makes you wonder how fast the average service condition Russian planes really were

 

VikS posted a long time ago that they use flight test data from serial-production Soviet planes, i.e., no prototype planes specially assembled and polished.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is about  dream land regarding turning capabilities, the data measure level turns at best sustained turn.

However in the servers either the guys cannot turn at all, or the Russian aces they turn in the vertical achieving turn rates of above 20 degrees/second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This thread is about dream land regarding turning capabilities, the data measure level turns at best sustained turn. However in the servers either the guys cannot turn at all, or the Russian aces they turn in the vertical achieving turn rates of above 20 degrees/second.

The thread is about making assertions about aerodynamic efficiency implicit from turn ratedata. It has nothing to do with tactics used on servers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get a higher climb rate at 300 m in my C++ estimate than in the German evaluation report Panthera posted above so I reduced my power estimate gradually in the simulation until I matched the 16.1 m/s climb rate and to achieve this I had to reduce the vanilla WEP and mil ratings to 86% of the factory fresh power (e.g WEP 1850 becomes 1591 hp). So this would indicate that the engine in the German test (if it was an Ash-82FN that is) was in a somewhat used condition.

 

However, that did not make the whole delta in speed between the Russian and German numbers go away but resulted in a reduction of my C++ top speed estimate SL to 546 km/h WEP (576 km/h with 1850hp) and to 515 Km/h for mil. So still an unexplained difference down to the German numbers but it at least it’s a step in the right direction to a logical explanation of some of the delta.

Edited by Holtzauge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the La-5FN manual, the cowling shutters can cause up to 50 km/h penalization when opened. Maybe some speed loss could be because they were a bit too much open? I dont know the parameters of the La Soviet tests (like for example Petrovich told us about the Yak-1B).

 

If there were high temperatures in the German test flight , or the cowling wasn't properly maintained could it result in the need to open them more than usual?

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the La-5FN manual, the cowling shutters can cause up to 50 km/h penalization when opened. Maybe some speed loss could be because they were a bit too much open? I dont know the parameters of the La Soviet tests (like for example Petrovich told us about the Yak-1B).

 

If there were high temperatures in the German test flight , or the cowling wasn't properly maintained could it result in the need to open them more than usual?

 

Could be like you say but the report is dated March 1945 and we don't know when the flight trials were done AFAIK and it could also have been done in cool weather with cowling shutters closed. The same goes for my C++ model: I have to choose a data point to reverse engineer the Cdo and so far I have been using 1850 hp and 580 Km/h SL. Maybe this is to high and it should be lowered bringing my estimate closer to the German one. Difficult to know without more conclusive data I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What book or publication is it from?

From Hans Werner Lerche's own book "Luftwaffe Test Pilot: Flying Captured Allied Aircraft of World War 2"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding when the La-5FN was captured and when the testing took place, it is explained in detail here:

 

uQweSPJ.jpg

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding when the La-5FN was captured and when the testing took place, it is explained in detail here:

 

uQweSPJ.jpg

 

 

Thanks for posting this info. So if the tests were in September they were probably as close to standard 15 deg C conditions as possible (Like the Finnish MT-215 Me-109G2 tests that were done at 11 deg C) and as such there would be little need to correct them and they should be directly comparable to standard atmospheric conditions IRL data and my C++ estimates which are also for standard conditions. In addition, if they flew the La-5FN trials in September then there should be little need to open the cowl flaps for cooling and you could probably fly the high speed tests with these closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea F2 expecially with 1.42 Ata power rating should be in pair with 109 F-4.  Also G-2/G-4 looks really too high in turning times.

 

Interesting, in this soviet report the 109-F2 did turn at 19.6 - 20.5 seconds at 1000m height. The one we have in the game with the same engine does 23.6 s at sea level according to game specifications...

 

In any case, the discrepancy between the stated figures in Il-2 data is strange, unless the Il-2 data is (i) valid for a different speed (ii) refers to turning in the worse direction.

 

 

Turn performance given in the spec sheet is NOT minimal sustained turn time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But some planes got closed results to RL data. Ex. Yaks-1 tested by VVS with M-105 PF engine got about 19 sec the same like Yak-1 and Yak-1B got in BOS specifications. The same specification got strange results for expecially G-2, G-4, F-2 and Spitfire. Also Mig and LAgg3 are close to RL data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this info. So if the tests were in September they were probably as close to standard 15 deg C conditions as possible (Like the Finnish MT-215 Me-109G2 tests that were done at 11 deg C) and as such there would be little need to correct them and they should be directly comparable to standard atmospheric conditions IRL data and my C++ estimates which are also for standard conditions. In addition, if they flew the La-5FN trials in September then there should be little need to open the cowl flaps for cooling and you could probably fly the high speed tests with these closed.

 

Yes exactly, makes you wonder how fast the average VSS fighter really was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes exactly, makes you wonder how fast the average VSS fighter really was.

Well, that's true not just for the VVS. German aircraft for instance also underperformed considerably, in particular (but not only) towards the end of the war. Fw190A pilots on the Eastern front at the end were happy when their plane did 400 with a bomb strapped to it, where mid war test results say it should be doing 500. If you go through pilot comments you'll find that for all sides, everywhere. You have good aircraft and poor ones, you have good mechanics and poor ones, you have good airfields and poor ones, and so on. The frequency of 'poor' goes up when your side focuses a lot more on quantity more than quality (such as SU 1941-1943 or Germany 1944-45).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why it so important to get an idea about how the typical airplane performed: Ideally the modeling should be based on the mean not average performance I think. In that way you avoid any impact from the outliers, be it exceptionally polished and sealed specimens, "lemons" or outright measurement or "correction" errors. I'm assuming here that the target performance should be a factory fresh production plane with representative performance but what the target should be can of course be discussed but whatever is chosen it should be fair to both sides. But OTOH maybe "fair" is not so straightforward as it first seems since as JtD points out, factory fresh typical performance could vary depending on the production and quality control and how should that be included in the modeling? ;)

Edited by Holtzauge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why it so important to get an idea about how the typical airplane performed: Ideally the modeling should be based on the mean not average performance I think. In that way you avoid any impact from the outliers, be it exceptionally polished and sealed specimens, "lemons" or outright measurement or "correction" errors. I'm assuming here that the target performance should be a factory fresh production plane with representative performance but what the target should be can of course be discussed but whatever is chosen it should be fair to both sides. But OTOH maybe "fair" is not so straightforward as it first seems since as JtD points out, factory fresh typical performance could vary depending on the production and quality control and how should that be included in the modeling? ;)

 

the problem with that approach is you can get into subjective aspects. IMHO, the absolute performance of an AC is not as important as the relative performance between AC.

 

Whether you model Axis/Allied planes according to the best available data or the average of all data is not important as long as you apply the same standard to all planes. That way, you maintain the same relative difference.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem with that approach is you can get into subjective aspects. IMHO, the absolute performance of an AC is not as important as the relative performance between AC.

 

Whether you model Axis/Allied planes according to the best available data or the average of all data is not important as long as you apply the same standard to all planes. That way, you maintain the same relative difference.

 

The problem with focusing on relative performance is that you can only reliably determine relative performance by looking at the data of absolute performance. The only other source of information is anecdotal - which tends to mix up many other factors such as the tactical situation, observer bias, the specific condition of the planes observed etc. Relative differences should emerge out of the measurements - otherwise we will get nonsense like the RoF situation where the Camel's FM was wrecked because some people thought - probably wrongly IMHO - that it's relative performance with the Albatross was incorrect.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the mean not average performance"  ???

 

Well an average can get skewed if you have some outlier really far out whereas a mean should give you a middle value. But Ok, since you usually don't have a statistically significant set of data maybe you should not have a mathematical approach but simply use common sense and select a data point close to where the c.g. of the data lies.

 

the problem with that approach is you can get into subjective aspects. IMHO, the absolute performance of an AC is not as important as the relative performance between AC.

 

Whether you model Axis/Allied planes according to the best available data or the average of all data is not important as long as you apply the same standard to all planes. That way, you maintain the same relative difference.

 

Sure, I agree: The important thing is that the in-game relative performance is right so if all data is instead at 0% deviation from the IRL data all are instead 10-20% above or below that is OK. But based on the numbers I posted here , I get the impression it's not a case in-game where all aircraft have a higher turn time than IRL since it looks like the Yak is closer to IRL numbers while the Me-109 and Fw-190 (at low alt) is performing worse so the relative performance is off.

 

In addition, I think unreasonable has a fair point: How can you determine if the relative performance is OK or off if you don't have the correct absolute numbers anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem with that approach is you can get into subjective aspects. IMHO, the absolute performance of an AC is not as important as the relative performance between AC.

 

Whether you model Axis/Allied planes according to the best available data or the average of all data is not important as long as you apply the same standard to all planes. That way, you maintain the same relative difference.

 

Bingo.

 

Luckily lawyers have figured out the solution long ago to the problem with which modern day engineers and pseudo-engineers still struggle with, namely, that you do not actually really need to establish an absolute performance number for a plane, but that an approximate one with some tolerance shall be good enough. One can chase pipe dreams and go in circles for decades to establish the ultimate single truth on performance or just keep cherry picking the base data to make sense of the whole thing, but ultimately the conditions of measurement for this data were always different. Each mass produced airframe, engine, propeller, the conditions of the day heck even the mood and ability of the pilot to keep the plane straight was different. "Standard" conditions were a fiction apart from applying corrections for more or less the same atmospheric conditions.

 

Hence through the genius of contractual and public procurement law, the manufacturer (supplier) needed only to satisfy a set nominal speed or climb figure it though it could achieve in the vast majority of its mass produced planes within a certain degree of error, or contracted performance tolerance, which was usually 3 to 5 % in 1940s aviation industry practice for level speed from what I gather. Meaning that 20 km/h slower or 20 km/h faster than the official figures was quite okay. 

 

The manufacturer however had to make quite conservative claims for what it contracted for, as if the nominal contracted figures could not be met in serial produced, it would not receive any money for the defective product. If the lemon produced did not meet even the lowest tolerance specs he claimed for the aircraft, there was no revenue but only costs . As every aircraft was inspected (test flown) before accepted by an air force, such aircraft would be simply rejected by the buyer, i.e. the state air force. Hence it is probably for the best to simply accept the nominal values in the type specs sheet as in real life these were pretty much the mean average anyway. 

 

For example, the Messerschmitts own specs for the 109G-1 (G-2) was 660 km/h at 7000m. On avarage, the actual production examples were quite close to this actually, some faster, most however a bit slower. But the mean average was pretty close to the claimed 660kph at 7km. The below graph for example compares 13 examples of licence produced 109Gs of the Erla factory (points) to the nominal speed value. The two thin lines are the 3% tolerance of the speed. The mean avarage of the batch of 13 planes is about 652 at 6,7 km which is pretty good match and Mtt can claim their price, one is pretty fast at almost 670 while four planes however appear to be lemons with far inferior performance, lower than the minimum tolerance figures so they have been rejected and the manufacturer needs to fix them until they can meet at least the lower specs.

 

So IMO as the example shows, it is probably for the best to rely on the nominal figures (instead of trying to cherry pick for so-called outliers based on questionable reasoning and/or motives), since these themselves had (quite similar from country to country) tolerance on them and they were meant to be mean figures in the first place, as this was the manufacturers best interest (i.e. not to contract to delivery impossible figures and not get paid in the end as a result)

 

Erla109G_13speedrun_scatter_web.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well an average can get skewed if you have some outlier really far out whereas a mean should give you a middle value. But Ok, since you usually don't have a statistically significant set of data maybe you should not have a mathematical approach but simply use common sense and select a data point close to where the c.g. of the data lies.

 

 

Sure, I agree: The important thing is that the in-game relative performance is right so if all data is instead at 0% deviation from the IRL data all are instead 10-20% above or below that is OK. But based on the numbers I posted here , I get the impression it's not a case in-game where all aircraft have a higher turn time than IRL since it looks like the Yak is closer to IRL numbers while the Me-109 and Fw-190 (at low alt) is performing worse so the relative performance is off.

 

In addition, I think unreasonable has a fair point: How can you determine if the relative performance is OK or off if you don't have the correct absolute numbers anyway?

 

I think you have perhaps mistranslated your terms?  The mean is the one that will be skewed by outliers: mean = sum of the values / number of values. The middle value is the median - ie half the values are above, half below. Mode is the most common value. All these are "averages", but "average" is usually taken to refer to the mean in English usage in this kind of discussion, unless otherwise specified. 

 

http://www.dictionary.com/e/mean-median-mode/

 

Outliers more likely to be an issue once you start to take into account different factory QC, or field conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have perhaps mistranslated your terms?  The mean is the one that will be skewed by outliers: mean = sum of the values / number of values. The middle value is the median - ie half the values are above, half below. Mode is the most common value. All these are "averages", but "average" is usually taken to refer to the mean in English usage in this kind of discussion, unless otherwise specified. 

 

http://www.dictionary.com/e/mean-median-mode/

 

Outliers more likely to be an issue once you start to take into account different factory QC, or field conditions.

 

Yes, my bad: I meant the median just like you said ... :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in beginning of 2017 Han said that some (or all) 109s have wrong turn time, and error is ~1-2 seconds - https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/5412-145-ya-chast-dnevnikov-razrabotchika/page-6?do=findComment&comment=496856

but they want to fix it only together with propeller issue - https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/5412-145-ya-chast-dnevnikov-razrabotchika/page-6?do=findComment&comment=496862

Edited by bivalov
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in beginning of 2017 Han said that some (or all) 109s have wrong turn time, and error is ~1-2 seconds - https://forum.il2stu...e-6#entry496856 but they want to fix it only together with propeller issue - https://forum.il2stu...e-6#entry496862

Are these the correct modells?

VDM 9-11207  Bf109F-2

VDM 9-12010  Bf109F-4

VDM 9-12159A, 9-12087A, 9-12087  Bf109 Gustav

VDM 9-12067 A,VDM 9-12153 A  FW190

Is this the manufacturer?

https://www.vdm-metals.com/en/

Edited by L3Pl4K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in beginning of 2017 Han said that some (or all) 109s have wrong turn time, and error is ~1-2 seconds - https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/5412-145-ya-chast-dnevnikov-razrabotchika/page-6?do=findComment&comment=496856

but they want to fix it only together with propeller issue - https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/5412-145-ya-chast-dnevnikov-razrabotchika/page-6?do=findComment&comment=496862

 

1-2 seconds?

That's nothing to sneeze at and would make some difference in combat, shame it's taking so long to be amended ingame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in beginning of 2017 Han said that some (or all) 109s have wrong turn time, and error is ~1-2 seconds - https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/5412-145-ya-chast-dnevnikov-razrabotchika/page-6?do=findComment&comment=496856

 

but they want to fix it only together with propeller issue - https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/5412-145-ya-chast-dnevnikov-razrabotchika/page-6?do=findComment&comment=496862

 

Thanks for the info bivalov: I did not know that this was on the developers "to do" list. Very good news indeed!

 

1-2 seconds?

That's nothing to sneeze at and would make some difference in combat, shame it's taking so long to be amended ingame.

 

Well 1-2 s is on SL: At higher altitudes, say 3 Km, then it looks like the Me-109 G2 i nearly 5 s too slow. In addition, if this is fixed it will not only result in a shorter turn time at best turn speed but also lead to that the Me-109 will feel (and objectively be) more potent in a turn fight: It will retain energy better when you pull angles and a side effect should also be that it also retains more speed when you BnZ.

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This all sounds good. The question is, exist copies of the needed data sheets in the VDM archive? If yes, will VDM share this data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from DD 138

 

Therefore, as a part of this task we have a counter-favor to ask our community to help us to find the original German (or any other) sources with the aerodynamic characteristics of DVL series propellers, or VDM propeller particularly. In our work we have been forced to use the DVL propeller data taken from Soviet sources as we did not find anything better. We fully admit that the recalculating of propeller characteristics using our current curves could give incorrect results. Therefore, we very much hope for your help in finding the original DVL (VDM) diagrams like this:

 

Prop_1.jpg

Prop_2.jpg

Prop_3.jpg Prop_4.jpg

 

This is, probably, all news for today from 1CGS Aviation Engineer Group. I hope it was interesting for you to have a look into our shop. As for us, we will continue to do everything possible to make you excited about raising digital historical reconstructions of the legendary fighter planes into a virtual sky, and enjoying the flight, just as if it was real.

 

 

 

Maybe I will write them a letter...

Edited by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...