9./JG27DavidRed Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Well, perhaps I'm not clear on what you think is "wrong" with the flight model of the BF-109? Directional stability, stall behavior, what? Not as maneuverable as you think it should be? And I'm not saying it's completely "right", I'm just trying to be able to distinguish informed fact from whining, because in the latter case, I find that quite a lot of people in online flight sims complain about flight models when they aren't happy about how any given encounter turned out, but it can sometimes be almost impossible to determine if the plane was at fault, or if the pilot simply didn't fly it optimally, or maybe never flies it optimally. You can see this on display all the time. I want all the airplanes to have flight models that are as historically accurate as can be determined, without regard for balance or bias, and the frequent developer diaries give me a fair amount of confidence that this is also their wish. Since this thread is supposed to be about the Yak, and not the Bf, I apologize for continuing the drift towards the Bf, but hey, the internet and all, you know. nah i get what you say...especially in the end of your post...just as you, its my wish that we fly as historical aircraft as possible...and no, im not complaining about 109 behaviour...i was basically just responding to your post about 109 and what seems to be your impression of how a 109 should behave...and as long as these "never turn with a yak" statements are true in the simulation, we know that there is something wrong.
Holtzauge Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Not according to this: Climb rate and time. Initial climb rates measured were 20.6 m/sec at SL, increasing to 24.7 m/sec at 1700m altitude. Climb to 5000m in ca. 4 min 6 secs. The climb results - 4 mins 6 seconds to 5km altitude - are in generally good agreement with the measurements of Bf 109G-1 trials at E-Stelle Rechlin (time to 5km : 4 min 11 seconds), at ERLA Flugzeugwerke in Germany (4 min 30 secs); as well as with the results obtained with the captured Bf 109G-2 WNr. 14 513, by the NII VVS in the USSR (4 min 24 secs). Are these figures wrong? If so, here can I find more appropriate numbers? They seem to be what we have in game according to Finkeren's test. I know about these tests but if you read what I wrote in the second link I provided below you will see why I don't think they are representative. I think your model is overly pessimistic about the G2. The in-game specs are close to the figures from original testing. Well based on the rules that govern flight performance like aspect ratio, wing- and power loading then the Me-109G2 should perform close to the numbers I posted. You can do a sanity check and compare the G2 and the F4 with other aircraft with similar aerodynamic and power loading and you will find that the ingame F4 and G2 perform much better in BoX than would be expected based on their physical characteristics. I posted a compilation here and as you can see the G2 and F4 stick out in climb. I even started a thread about it a while back but the argumentation why they are overmodeled is hard to nail down in just a few sentences so if someone is interested you can read it there. Unfortunately that thread degenerated and whoever reads it needs to draw their own conclusions from the argumentation brought forth there. However, as far as I’m concerned the G2 and F4 are no aerodynamic unicorns and as such are bound by the same laws of physics like all other aircraft which means that they should perform close to the C++ results I posted. I have modeled more than 20 aircraft and it is surprising (well not really!) that the results usually tab so well with what could be expected from their physical characteristics. However, it all depends on what IRL figures you use as a base and herein lies the problem since for the G2 you can find anything from 17 to 24 m/s for the max climb rate. Me, I try to figure out a median value and usually the C++ simulations tab quite well with those. However, the internet being the internet you will find people with an agenda and an axe to grind who will unashamedly peddle the outliers and unfortunately I think that this has influenced the developers choise of base values for the F4 and G2 climb performance. 1
FTC_Riksen Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 Thxs for pointing out the other topics Holtzauge. I see that other people have already pointed out why the current G2 in game climb rate is justified based on real testing documents (3 of them with similar figures) so I wont bring them up here again. I do, however, like to know what you think the issue is with those tests and why they give such high numbers. Im not saying your simulation is wrong but maybe missing some factor that explains these numbers? Afterall, they are three different seperate tests that agree with one another. Or instead there is something wrong with them instead ... just curious in what u think (Please Im not being sarcastic here,typing sometimes can make one sound like an ass or something like that ... I just want ur opinion on what could be wrong to explain the differences in ur simulation and those tests) 2
Holtzauge Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 Thxs for pointing out the other topics Holtzauge. I see that other people have already pointed out why the current G2 in game climb rate is justified based on real testing documents (3 of them with similar figures) so I wont bring them up here again. I do, however, like to know what you think the issue is with those tests and why they give such high numbers. Im not saying your simulation is wrong but maybe missing some factor that explains these numbers? Afterall, they are three different seperate tests that agree with one another. Or instead there is something wrong with them instead ... just curious in what u think (Please Im not being sarcastic here,typing sometimes can make one sound like an ass or something like that ... I just want ur opinion on what could be wrong to explain the differences in ur simulation and those tests) No need to apologize, your question is perfectly valid and my sarcasm circuits did not even flicker. On a more serious note: Did you read through the G2 climb thread I linked to? That pretty much covers the subject and as I said before, there is no easy answer: You need to read up on it and form your own opinion. But a short summary then: When it comes to performance figures like climb and speed, you will always see variations: There are errors due to the actual measuring itself and there are variations in the conditions of the plane, engine and propeller type fitted and most importantly when it comes to climb: what was the weight. If you can get all that together for the chart you are looking at then you can begin to understand if it gives the true picture or not. However, a single page, chart or figure posted from a report where that is lost or maybe even taken out of context may consequently just be a cherry picked value. As I said before, when it comes to the G2 sea level climb rate you will find figures ranging from 16 to 24 m/s so there is no shortage of agenda material to choose from. However, my point all along has been that I have modeled more than 20 planes in C++ and not surprisingly they all conform to what could be expected of them based on their physical characteristics and usually this tabs well with IRL data when anomalies and outliers have been removed. I just did a comparison of my C++ simulation and the developers data and looking closer at this it does not look to bad given that IL-2 is consistently more optimistic and both the s69 and G2 climb better than my estimates. However the ingame G2 SL climb figure still stands out and does not tab with the engine performance chart IMHO.
E69_geramos109 Posted June 13, 2017 Posted June 13, 2017 I look foward to see all the RAF pilots joining soon to complain with the spit FM. 1
Kurfurst Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) Ah, another one of those my little 109 jihad threads, [edited] - a.k.a. fantasy vs Real world, where in a single guy's mind the real world always looses. :D Do NOT attack other members. Edited June 18, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin
Recommended Posts