Maximum speeds don't seem right

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Autumn map, no wind or turbulence. German fighters 100% negative stabilizer setting. 

 

- E7 can not even reach the official listed speed figure of 477kmh at 1.3ata with 100% rads closed.

- BF109F2 with 1175HP at 1.35ata achieves 437kph level flight on the deck yet F4 with 1200hp can only reach 427kph. They are practically the same airframe I thought. How is the F2 faster with less power?

 

The official developer figures are 428kmh and 422kmh respectively for F2 and F4 - but why are these planes noticeably faster than this in-game?

Edited April 13, 2017 by B0SS

[Finkeren]

Apparently something in the 2.009 update screwed the Bf 109F4's performance.

 

It should be fixed now with the 2.009b hotfix.

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Apparently something in the 2.009 update screwed the Bf 109F4's performance.

 

It should be fixed now with the 2.009b hotfix.

 

 

I understand, however these performance figures and discrepancies actually remain just as before. 

[JtD]

I'm getting 531 at combat power for the Bf109F-4 and 521 for at combat power for the Bf109F-2, @300m on the Lapino autumn map.

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Jtd, I'm on Lapino autumn map too. Bear in mind the developers official spec for the F2 is at 1.35ata emergency power.

 

Did the 109 F2 have a better prop for low altitude I wonder? Developers figure for maximum speed F2 at 1175HP is 528 and the F4 with 522 at 1200hp.

 

That's quite a large difference considering the F2 is 25Hp down and yet faster. Can't help but feel curious about this.

Edited April 13, 2017 by B0SS

[Finkeren]

Did the 109 F2 have a better prop for low altitude I wonder?

 

Actually it did, or rather: The F4 had a prop optimized for high altitude performance.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Apparently something in the 2.009 update screwed the Bf 109F4's performance.

 

It should be fixed now with the 2.009b hotfix.

 

Has that been mentioned somewhere Finkeren ?  Just found it !

 

For me 2.009 will not mean that much since I do not use ( or plan to use ) VR at all, but I do look fwd for the yaw / roll coupling / stability fixes expected for one of the upcoming patches.

Edited April 13, 2017 by jcomm

[Solmyr]

Also, even if probably not in cause in this particular topic, don't forget that engine power is more complex than a simple number ;

Actual Power = Actual Torque x RPM

A lot of engines don't have their maximum power at their maximum RPM, because then torque collapses. Then propeller functions somewhat like a gearbox.

[I./ZG1_Radick]

Is the dive acceleration of all aircraft the same? I've tested the 109(F4, 2890 kg) against the 190(A3, 3.850 kg), but the 190 can not escape the 109 (dive acceleration)

[L3Pl4K]

Is the dive acceleration of all aircraft the same? I've tested the 109(F4, 2890 kg) against the 190(A3, 3.850 kg), but the 190 can not escape the 109 (dive acceleration)

You should compare the ingame performance with this:

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109F4_Rechlin_vergleich_190A2/109F_Rvergleichsflg_190A2_de.html

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20109/Hochgeschwindigkeits_Versuche_Me109.pdf

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_0022-Dive-1.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_0022-Dive-2.jpg

You will recognize, that the game has some space for improvments .

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, the Report mentions two things I find quite interesting. 

 

-Apparently the Fw Controls were only slightly lighter than the 109s. In the German Technical Jargon this would be a 3 out of 5. 

1. Niedrig (Low)           \    These would both count as "In Ordnung" as well. 
2. Mäßig (Acceptable) /
3. Erträglich (Bearable) \   These would fall under "Verbesserungswürdig"
4. Hoch (High)               /
5. Inakzeptabel (inacceptable)

 

 

-A Reason for the High Loss Numbers of 109s being Fuselage Deformation after Belly Landings. This is named as one of the Reasons for the High Number of Unservicable Aircraft. 

 

Additionally they Mention so much more about the Forward View of the 109 being much better on Landing and Less Prone to Oil, Fuel and Dirt due to the Windshield Angle. 

 

 

I have to admit that I cared much more about Performance before I got into Real World flying and Engineering. And I have to admit that Practicality now Fascinates me now even more than just Raw Performance, so let's not get carried away. 

[unreasonable]

 

I have to admit that I cared much more about Performance before I got into Real World flying and Engineering. And I have to admit that Practicality now Fascinates me now even more than just Raw Performance, so let's not get carried away. 

 

I always wondered whether designing aircraft that had, on average, ~50% of losses put down to "no enemy action" was avoidable, and if so, at what performance cost.  

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I always wondered whether designing aircraft that had, on average, ~50% of losses put down to "no enemy action" was avoidable, and if so, at what performance cost.  

Well, in Civil Aviation around 80-90% of incidents are by Human Failure. They make all kinds of silly careless Mistakes before and dring the Flight and Crash accordingly. 

 

But my guess it wouldn't have taken a lot, maybe  50-200kg in thicker Skin, Cross Braces and longditudinal Spars. 

[JtD]

Many of these losses weren't down to design failures, but to operational necessities (flying in bad weather) and human error (pilot or mechanic). A flight of Fw190 flying straight into a hill or a swarm of Stukas diving straight into the ground because of zero visibility can't be avoided or the effects mitigated by better design. It's also not a design failure if the engine catches fire because of an improperly attached oil line.

 

If you look at late models of a type, you can see what design changes were made, many were made to reduce operational risks (different screws, seals, supports, backup systems ...). They were incorporated into the design. It typically didn't cost performance, or was negligible, however, the experience had to be gathered before the adjustments could be made. So the cost wouldn't necessarily have been kg, hp or km/h, it would have been months and years of development.

 

Well, in some cases, as soon as a certain level of operational safety was exceeded, operational limits were increased, reducing operational safety to the previous, still acceptable levels. The point was to reduce risks from enemy action. Merlin XX was uprated from 12lb to 14/16lb boost when it became too safe to operate just 12. It gained ~100/~200hp.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

You could remove the Engine and put the Rest in Bubblewrap and Pilots would still find ways to damage them. There are very few Designs that actually surpass Human Error as a Cause of Accidents. Me-163 and Christmas Bullet for Example. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann