Jump to content
ACG_KaiLae

109 elevator effectiveness

Recommended Posts

So you think that this is okay?

So you have a source that tells us exactly what's wrong an dhow it should be?

 

Arguing about what people 'think' won't move things forward, facts will. As for what I 'think' the 109s are mostly fine now. You need to use trim to get most performence out of it which matches with what aces say about turnfighting with the 109.

 

F4 is still superior to most except yak1 at low alt and Spitfire.

I16 > Mc202 >Bf 109 E7 > Spitfire > Yak 1 > Bf 109 F2 > Bf 109 F4

Edited by 6./ZG26_5tuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

109 not good in a dive? You tried to follow the109 in a dive with LaGG or Yak or P40? After a few seconds the 109 is outside engagement range and especially G2 will leave you far behind.

 

A few seconds?

 

Absolute rubbish. Plenty of ingame comparison tests have shown that diving away in a 109 nets you little separation not even enough to get out of guns range. The only exception being exceeding 750kph of which you can maintain for a very limited amount of time before the ground catches you.

 

Even diving with a 190 takes an exceedingly long time to get separation.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe from La5 but otherwise my experience is that in G2 one can easily leave most adversaries behind fairly easily. Unless you want to start a dive from 1km right after stalling out. Then yes you aren't going to get away.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe from La5 but otherwise my experience is that in G2 one can easily leave most adversaries behind fairly easily. Unless you want to start a dive from 1km right after stalling out. Then yes you aren't going to get away.

From my experience you cannot dive from a Yak or a 1b also.....atleast if you cant get to max speed dives

 

Yesterday i tried to help a fellow 190 A5 / strike with my own , he was chased by a YAK 1b on the deck , teammate could not outrun the YAK and i could not catch up to both despite full throttle + boost , doing between 600 an 610 IAS for atleast 5 minutes....how the hell can a plane thats light as a yak 1b keep up this speed on the deck? it should bleed of speed up to its maximum speed (around 560?)

 

what i see all day online is that the russian planes all have better control authority and aerodynamics as any german plane , enabling them to pull up better or roll as good as a 190 (russian planes also should get heavy controls), keep speed for longer then they should .... and on top of that have amazing accurate and deadly guns...

 

either its a typo in the fms/dms or some calulation error or something like that...

Edited by Hutzlipuh
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what Hutz is saying. We need to prove it though. We need a "109 FM proof with the scientific method" thread.

 

Or we are just Luftwhining.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A5 blows everything out of the water in terms of speed, unless you horribly misread energy you really shouldn't be caught by any red plane.

 

Honestly, from experience in the 1b the 190 drivers that think they can outrun it when they just don't have the energy are extremely common. 190 is fast, but it isn't magical.

Edited by Windmills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what Hutz is saying. We need to prove it though. We need a "109 FM proof with the scientific method" thread.

 

Or we are just Luftwhining.

 

I do not agree with what Hutz is saying, but I agree with you. ;)

 

BTW, as I expect you know but some seem not to, the scientific method only works if you can isolate individual variables (or sets of linked variables) and run multiple controlled tests with quantifiable outcomes.  JtD had done several of these on FMs, and DMs and gunnery too.  Have a read of some of his threads: they are models of how testing a game should be done, and anything less will cut no ice with the developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A5 blows everything out of the water in terms of speed, unless you horribly misread energy you really shouldn't be caught by any red plane.

 

Honestly, from experience in the 1b the 190 drivers that think they can outrun it when they just don't have the energy are extremely common. 190 is fast, but it isn't magical.

Did you actually read what i wrote? that i was chasing a 1b ON THE DECK for 5 minutes? how could i dont have the energy while following  2 planes straight , while the A5 with strike mod should be 40-50 kph faster on the deck? fact was that the 1b did not slow down after several minutes of chase , despite it should have lost any potential energy it gained from a dive after this time...

 

Its the same damn argument always brought here....aka "your too dumb", "you need to aim better" ,"you were doing something wrong" a etc....i cant hear that crap anymore..

Edited by Hutzlipuh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A5 blows everything out of the water in terms of speed, unless you horribly misread energy you really shouldn't be caught by any red plane.

 

Honestly, from experience in the 1b the 190 drivers that think they can outrun it when they just don't have the energy are extremely common. 190 is fast, but it isn't magical.

you mean online where yak 1B doing 620-630 on deck sustained.

and A5 with shutter closed can do 610-620 sustained for only 10 mins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you have a source that tells us exactly what's wrong an dhow it should be?

 

Arguing about what people 'think' won't move things forward, facts will. As for what I 'think' the 109s are mostly fine now. You need to use trim to get most performence out of it which matches with what aces say about turnfighting with the 109.

 

I16 > Mc202 >Bf 109 E7 > Spitfire > Yak 1 > Bf 109 F2 > Bf 109 F4

Indeed I didn't say that it's wrong or correct, I only say that doing BnZ with the 109 it almost impossible as you MUST mantain your speed below 530/540 Km/h to be able to aim while in position, but doing this you will never have the energy for going back in alt in safe position, So what's the point of keeping the energy if you must dissipate that before the attack?

This cause the 109 to remain stuck in the middle of the combat without energy--> die.

 

Also many times Russian manage to fly the plane even when hit very badly and even with Gunpods...

 

I use to fly 109 and Yak I, I can say that the Yak can stay in the 109 Tail no matter what the german do.

Online you can see Russian smoking (one of them problably me ehehehe) killing Germans everywhere XD

 

No problem with me, I keep fly Russian for Having fun and Germans for Bombing :)

If you like the game like this, leave it like this, but I fly online since years in every Il2 series ever, never have a 109 like this........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha, so everyrhing that isnt like old Il2 must be wrong. With that logic we prpbably will never come to a conclusion about this 'issue'.

 

As mentioned in the Hogschwindigkeitsversuche mit der Bf 109 report the plane was supposed to be trimmed in a way that the pilot had to push the stick forward to maintain the dive. I wonder how many people complaining about it's handling really considered this or if they just trim full nose heavy wondering why the aircraft doesnt respond well.

Edited by 6./ZG26_5tuka
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G-2:

At 0° Stabilizer you can still lower your nose up to 700kph, and pull at least 4+g, At 1° Stabilizer you can maintain up tp 800kph fully pushed and Pullout at at least 3g. At 2° the Aircraft will dive up to terminal Velocity, Pull up even at 800kph is still possible with maybe 2g. 

At -1° the Aircraft can maintain a 620kph Dive and pull to an almost Blackout at that Speed. 

 

Even the F are still easy to control at 800. Only Emil stiffens up mortally. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to fly 109 and Yak I, I can say that the Yak can stay in the 109 Tail no matter what the german do.

Online you can see Russian smoking (one of them problably me ehehehe) killing Germans everywhere XD

 

 

If you properly energy fight a Yak-1 has no chance, if you are in guns defense with a Yak-1 on your tail then good luck. Still doable though.

 

If there are hard numbers for Gs being pulled as Klaus stated above then thats a great ground to test actual performance, tacview gives you the tools to verify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all this "109 FM proof with the scientific method" was done for all planes? Are there any "scientific" sources that tells us that almost all other planes are very light compared to the 109s? I fully understand that the 109 should be a bit more stiff in eleveator forces at high speeds but i dont understand that the difference must be so huge compared to other high performance planes. The only exception might be the Mig?

 

My view on this is that the 109 gets too stiff too early or that other planes are too light at speeds. Where are the blackouts? Are WW2 planes only able to pull what, 3-5 Gs at higher speeds (not highest speeds), really? What are the highest G-Forces pulled in this game, has anyone tested this?

Edited by Ishtaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all this "109 FM proof with the scientific method" was done for all planes? Are there any "scientific" sources that tells us that almost all other planes are very light compared to the 109s? I fully understand that the 109 should be a bit more stiff in eleveator forces at high speeds but i dont understand that the difference must be so huge compared to other high performance planes. The only exception might be the Mig?

 

My view on this is that the 109 gets too stiff too early or that other planes are too light at speeds. Where are the blackouts? Are WW2 planes only able to pull what, 3-5 Gs at higher speeds (not highest speeds), really? What are the highest G-Forces pulled in this game, has anyone tested this?

I think the 109 gets it quite right. I think it's really only the Yak that doesn't feel realistic at all. 

 

All the other Russian Fighters feel much better and stiffen up like Hell. Only the Yak doesn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you actually read what i wrote? that i was chasing a 1b ON THE DECK for 5 minutes? how could i dont have the energy while following  2 planes straight , while the A5 with strike mod should be 40-50 kph faster on the deck? fact was that the 1b did not slow down after several minutes of chase , despite it should have lost any potential energy it gained from a dive after this time...

 

Its the same damn argument always brought here....aka "your too dumb", "you need to aim better" ,"you were doing something wrong" a etc....i cant hear that crap anymore..

 

I don't know dude.

 

Do tests, submit a bug report, reproduce the issue and enlighten everyone on how the 1b is faster than the A5.

 

I'm really not sure why you're even bothering to go down this road because we both know you are never doing that. Just being upset about being shot down is way easier.

 

 

 

 

you mean online where yak 1B doing 620-630 on deck sustained.

 

Sounds like a prime candidate for a bug report as well my dude, let me know how the testing goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I smell BS. When I come out of a Max Speed Dive (720) in the 1b in Autumn it's right back to below 600 in less than 30 Seconds, despite virtually closed rads and 2550 rpm. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha, so everyrhing that isnt like old Il2 must be wrong. With that logic we prpbably will never come to a conclusion about this 'issue'.

 

 

 

Dude can you read or what?

Just say to me: CAN-YOU-READ?

Read slowly, aloud and clearly my post.

 

I quote my self so you can re-read it :)

 

---READ HERE--->Indeed I didn't say that it's wrong or correct<--READ HERE---,

 

I only say that doing BnZ with the 109 it almost impossible as you MUST mantain your speed below 530/540 Km/h to be able to aim while in position, but doing this you will never have the energy for going back in alt in safe position, So what's the point of keeping the energy if you must dissipate that before the attack?

This cause the 109 to remain stuck in the middle of the combat without energy--> die.

 

Also many times Russian manage to fly the plane even when hit very badly and even with Gunpods...

 

I use to fly 109 and Yak I, I can say that the Yak can stay in the 109 Tail no matter what the german do.

Online you can see Russian smoking (one of them problably me ehehehe) killing Germans everywhere XD

 

No problem with me, I keep fly Russian for Having fun and Germans for Bombing :)

If you like the game like this, leave it like this, but I fly online since years in every Il2 series ever, never have a 109 like this........

 

Anyway I'll redo the test focusing on the Stabilizer effects and report

Edited by VII.Racetrack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I use to fly 109 and Yak I, I can say that the Yak can stay in the 109 Tail no matter what the german do. Online you can see Russian smoking (one of them problably me ehehehe) killing Germans everywhere XD
 

 

Well, we have the opposite experience. As long as the 109 plays it's advantages the Yak is a fish in a Barrel and you can regain the advantage easily and quickly. 

The Yak is powerless until the german goes low and slow. 

It of course requires more patience to dominate in the 109, but you are basically God when you do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think still there is a problem with high dive speeds of VVS planes. What i read Yaks got problem with dive over 700 kph IAS. Even Yak-3 or Yak-9 got wings cathastrophic failures during dives ( wings skin teared off or wings broken). Thats why in manuals there were only 650 IAS max dive speeds.  Many VVS pilots died in dives. VVS enginers worked to got at least 700 kph IAS max safetly dive speed but still it was a problem with these.

 

Other hand problem could be with actually manevroubility of VVS planes at highs speeds. I rarely see any blackout syndroms where hard manouvering above 500-600 kph should case high G symptoms. So maby 109 is quite close to RL in controls effectivess at high speed but maby problem is with overcontrol other planes and also too high maximum allowed dive speed?

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think still there is a problem with high dive speeds of VVS planes. What i read Yaks got problem with dive over 700 kph IAS. Even Yak-3 or Yak-9 got wings cathastrophic failures during dives ( wings skin teared off or wings broken). Thats why in manuals there were only 650 IAS max dive speeds.  Many pilots died in dives. VVS enginers worked to got at least 700 kph IAS max safetly dive speed but still it was a problem with these.

 

Other hand problem could be with actually manevroubility of VVS planes at highs speeds. I rarely see any blackout syndroms where hard manouvering above 500-600 kph should case high G symptoms. So maby 109 is quite close to RL in controls effectivess at high speed but maby problem is with overcontrol other planes and also too high maximum allowed dive speed?

Even with Full Nose Down Trim at 720kph the Yak almost pulls blackout Gs. In general the Yak has probably the best Control Authority of all ingame aircraft except maybe the Spitfire at high speeds. 

It does feel off in that respect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

i think still there is a problem with high dive speeds of VVS planes. What i read Yaks got problem with dive over 700 kph IAS. Even Yak-3 or Yak-9 got wings cathastrophic failures during dives ( wings skin teared off or wings broken). Thats why in manuals there were only 650 IAS max dive speeds. Many VVS pilots died in dives. VVS enginers worked to got at least 700 kph IAS max safetly dive speed but still it was a problem with these.

 

Kwiatek, do you have documents on this?

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, fly the Yak at even slightly above 720 and it will fall apart in a very short amount of time. I tried out that stupid claim of a Yak maintaining 630 at Deck Level and broke the plane three times because it falls apart even at 725. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the problems we have right now is, that the devs have put a pretty big margin on top of the vne listed in the manuals. The situation right now is the following:

 

Plane               vne IAS according to manual         according to rl tests        in game(diff)        my proposal
Lagg-3             600                                                 appr. 700                        750 (150)             650
Bf 109              750                                                 ???                                 850 (100)             800
Yak1 ser 69      650                                                ???                                 720 (70)               700

 

The problem is that when in a dive the maximum speed used in game of 850 can only be achieved for a very brief period of time. This time is hardly ever enough to build sufficient distance. Many reports however say that 109s could easily dive away from yaks and laggs.

A top speed of of 700 is a lot easier to hold for a prolonged period of time than a top speed of 850 (which, if achieved at all can only be achieved for a max of 20 sec. and from very steep dives). If the vnmax were to be lowered to their manual values or if the margins were to be reduced (e.g. 50 kph). It would greatly profit the dive capabilities of the 109 and would probably result in more realistic combat situations.

Edited by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kwiatek, do you have documents on this?

 

Cheers

 

AJ Press Monograph Yak-1-Yak-3 and Yak-7 - Yak9  ( but in Polish), Normande Niemen (book in Polish), Soviet Combat Aircraft of WW2  Kazhanow and Gordon

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From original VVS manuals max dive speeds:

 

Lagg3 ( 1943) - 600 kph IAS

LA5 (1942) -  625 kph IAS

LA5 FN ( 1943) - 650 kph IAS

Yak-3  ( 1945) -  650 kph IAS

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the problems we have right now is, that the devs have put a pretty big margin on top of the vne listed in the manuals. The situation right now is the following:

 

Plane               vne IAS according to manual         according to rl tests        in game(diff)        my proposal

Lagg-3             600                                                 appr. 700                        750 (150)             650

Bf 109              750                                                 ???                                 850 (100)             800

Yak1 ser 69      650                                                ???                                 720 (70)               700

 

The problem is that when in a dive the maximum speed used in game of 850 can only be achieved for a very brief period of time. This time is hardly ever enough to build sufficient distance. Many reports however say that 109s could easily dive away from yaks and laggs.

A top speed of of 700 is a lot easier to hold for a prolonged period of time than a top speed of 850 (which, if achieved at all can only be achieved for a max of 20 sec. and from very steep dives). If the vnmax were to be lowered to their manual values or if the margins were to be reduced (e.g. 50 kph). It would greatly profit the dive capabilities of the 109 and would probably result in more realistic combat situations.

 

The thing with Vne is that unlike most believes it doesn not always have to be tied to structual failure. The Bf 109 F-4 for example had a Vne of 650 km/h while the G series had 750 km/h. This had nothing to do with the F-4 being strutually weaker and falling apart earlier but the fact that due to compressebility issues starting at Vne the plane started oscillating and became very difficult to controll (elevator uneffective, aileroun reversal). This was improved on the G series allowing for higher safe speed limits.

 

As for real tests the 109 F with G wings managed to dive at 900 km/h TAS (745 km/h IAS). For source see my post on the first page.

Edited by 6./ZG26_5tuka
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we have the opposite experience.

May I ask what stick you have? Just asking because it seems that FFB and non-FFB users may have different experiences of how the 109 F and G series behave at high speeds. I can't find the post now, but it has been proven that FFB users have to set the stabilizer one step lower to maintain level flight, which of course affects the handling and the response of the aircraft. As an FFB user myself I too made the strange experience that at speeds above 500 kph Fs and Gs become flying bricks with almost zero elevator authority, something I haven't experienced in any other plane. At 400 kph I can defeat anything but a well-flown Yak, but at higher speeds even a LaGG is a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask what stick you have? Just asking because it seems that FFB and non-FFB users may have different experiences of how the 109 F and G series behave at high speeds. I can't find the post now, but it has been proven that FFB users have to set the stabilizer one step lower to maintain level flight, which of course affects the handling and the response of the aircraft. As an FFB user myself I too made the strange experience that at speeds above 500 kph Fs and Gs become flying bricks with almost zero elevator authority, something I haven't experienced in any other plane. At 400 kph I can defeat anything but a well-flown Yak, but at higher speeds even a LaGG is a challenge.

T16000. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The maximum permissible indicated airspeeds in the different heights are not being observed and are widely exceeded. On the basis of evidence which is now available the speed limitations ordered by teleprint message GL/6 No. 2428/41 of 10.6.41 are cancelled and replaced by the following data:

Up to 3 km (9,842 ft.) 750 km/h. (466 m.p.h.) At 5 km (16,404 ft) 700 km/h. (435 m.p.h.) At 7 km (22,965 ft) 575 km/h. (357 m.p.h.) At 9 km (29,527 ft) 450 km/h. (280 m.p.h.) At 11 km (36,089 ft) 400 km/h. (248 m.p.h.)

 

Note the reduction in speed as altitude increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The maximum permissible indicated airspeeds in the different heights are not being observed and are widely exceeded. On the basis of evidence which is now available the speed limitations ordered by teleprint message GL/6 No. 2428/41 of 10.6.41 are cancelled and replaced by the following data:

Up to 3 km (9,842 ft.) 750 km/h. (466 m.p.h.) At 5 km (16,404 ft) 700 km/h. (435 m.p.h.) At 7 km (22,965 ft) 575 km/h. (357 m.p.h.) At 9 km (29,527 ft) 450 km/h. (280 m.p.h.) At 11 km (36,089 ft) 400 km/h. (248 m.p.h.)

 

Note the reduction in speed as altitude increases.

Indicated Airspeed. Maximum Dive TAS remains largely unchanged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As was mentioned a few posts prior the Vne speed has little to do with how fast the plane actually can fly. It has everything to do with how fast the plane can be safely flown, and that means that the Vne speed is well within the plane's structural margin, the size of the margin depending on if the plane suffers other bad effects at high speeds such as the aforementioned aileron reversal, vertical oscillation, loss of control surface effectiveness, etc.

 

Everything load- or pressure-bearing that is designed by an actual engineer (EVERYTHING!!!) has a "safety factor" designed into it. This is how much extra strength the object has compared to what stresses it is supposed to manage. For example many buildings have safety factors of 1.2 to 1.5, often varying between how load-bearing and important the pieces are, and how much they'll "age" over time due to stresses and other factors.

 

The same thing applies to planes. If a plane is supposed to manage to handle a force of a certain magnitude on let's say a wing, then you also need to account for unexpected factors such as flutter (which in WW2 wasn't entirely understood, but the phenomenon was known to occur at high speeds) as well as material fatigue over time. This means that the wing likely has a safety factor of at least 1.2, i.e. having 20% more strength than is required for its Vne speed, while other parts of the plane that aren't load-bearing in the same way or at least won't be exposed to as intense stresses may have a safety factor as low as 1.05 to 1.1.

 

As such it is no wonder if a plane with the Vne speed of 750 kph at a specific altitude can be flown at 850 kph there. 850 kph is within that 20% margin (750 x 1.2 = 900), so as long as the plane isn't exposed to excessive Gs or control surface deflection (assuming such at all is possible) at that speed it'll hold together.

 

Of course I don't have a clue what exact safety factor the different parts of the WW2 planes were built with, but the concept had been in use with exact calculations since the latter half of the 1800s (that was when steel started having such a high and consistent quality that it was possible to do exact calculations on its strength and thus the dimensions and designs required for a construction to do its job with as little extra material as reasonably possible) and I can guarantee that its use was widespread for this kind of fine, high-performance engineering.

Edited by Inkompetent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not agree with what Hutz is saying, but I agree with you. ;)

 

BTW, as I expect you know but some seem not to, the scientific method only works if you can isolate individual variables (or sets of linked variables) and run multiple controlled tests with quantifiable outcomes.  JtD had done several of these on FMs, and DMs and gunnery too.  Have a read of some of his threads: they are models of how testing a game should be done, and anything less will cut no ice with the developers.

 

 

Oh cool. Where can I find these?

One thing I have seen in this forum if we can prove something the devs WILL fix it if possible. Still waiting on the 190 armoured glass fix but I understand that adding refraction to glass might be fantasy for awhile.

 

If we can show some real evidence I think we might have something. Plus they have a small team. We can help with research and evidence. I'm sure we're all airplane nerds. This could be fun! We just need to be polite to one another so it doesn't come apart or turn the devs off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh cool. Where can I find these?

One thing I have seen in this forum if we can prove something the devs WILL fix it if possible. Still waiting on the 190 armoured glass fix but I understand that adding refraction to glass might be fantasy for awhile.

 

If we can show some real evidence I think we might have something. Plus they have a small team. We can help with research and evidence. I'm sure we're all airplane nerds. This could be fun! We just need to be polite to one another so it doesn't come apart or turn the devs off.

 

An example would be https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25336-another-look-turn-times/

 

Then you can also search in the forum my author, find the author and search author's content and have a look for threads he started or thread titles that look interesting.  Finding the good stuff on any forum is not always easy, unfortunately. Noise/signal ratio is too high!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you actually read what i wrote? that i was chasing a 1b ON THE DECK for 5 minutes? how could i dont have the energy while following  2 planes straight , while the A5 with strike mod should be 40-50 kph faster on the deck? fact was that the 1b did not slow down after several minutes of chase , despite it should have lost any potential energy it gained from a dive after this time...

 

Its the same damn argument always brought here....aka "your too dumb", "you need to aim better" ,"you were doing something wrong" a etc....i cant hear that crap anymore..

 

I did a little slowing down test starting from 600 km/h at the deck in Autumn, both with Yak-1B and A-5 with strike mod, both at full max power and radiators /cowling shutters both closed at 0%. The times between parenthesis is the time it took from the previous step. I put them more or less in line with the total time so they could be compared easier (you should compare with the results at similar times, the total scale is off).

 

Yak-1B:                                           Fw 190 A-5/U17

 

0:00         600                            0:00       600  

0:05.98    590  (0:05.98)               

0:13.15    580  (0:07.16)              

0:23.00    570  (0:09.85)                         

0:37.43    560  (0:14.42)

0:49.91    555  (0:12.47)

1:08.89    550  (0:18.98)           1:10.30    590   (1:10.30)

2:01.98    545  (0:53.08)

                                                  2:45.47   585   (1:35.17)

3:59.84    540  (1:57.85)

4:07.13    535  (0:07.29)

4:20.03    530  (0:12.89)

4:31.71    525  (0:11.68)

                                                  5:42.94    581   (2:57.46)

 

In the case of the 1B at 540 (3'59") the RPMs started to vibrate because of the overheat, so I opened both radiators to 40% in order to save the plane (that's why you see it's slowing down in less time after that). However as it went below 530 (1B's top speed) the engine was damaged and I couldn't save it (not even by opening rads at 100% and throttling/revving down to idle), it stopped some moments after, so around 2 minutes to reach 545 from 600 is the best you can achieve in the plane, at the cost of destroying the engine because of overheat (at least in the Autumn sea level temperature).

 

The A-5 on the other hand took 2 minutes 45 seconds to slow down to 585 km/h, then I opened the cowling shutters to 20% because it was overheating as well, almost 3 minutes later it went down to 581 and stabilized there.

 

Aha, so everyrhing that isnt like old Il2 must be wrong. With that logic we prpbably will never come to a conclusion about this 'issue'.

 

Well, the Bf 109 in IL-2 1946 is close to the current version in BoX in terms of aileron lock up at high speeds, at least in my 4.12.2 HSFX 7.03 version. The elevator does lock up as well, but don't know how to compare it in a quantitative way.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a little slowing down test starting from 600 km/h at the deck in Autumn, both with Yak-1B and A-5 with strike mod, both at full max power and radiators /cowling shutters both closed at 0%. The times between parenthesis is the time it took from the previous step. I put them more or less in line with the total time so they could be compared easier (you should compare with the results at similar times, the total scale is off).

 

Yak-1B:                                           Fw 190 A-5/U17

 

0:00         600                            0:00       600  

0:05.98    590  (0:05.98)               

0:13.15    580  (0:07.16)              

0:23.00    570  (0:09.85)                         

0:37.43    560  (0:14.42)

0:49.91    555  (0:12.47)

1:08.89    550  (0:18.98)           1:10.30    590   (1:10.30)

2:01.98    545  (0:53.08)

                                                  2:45.47   585   (1:35.17)

3:59.84    540  (1:57.85)

4:07.13    535  (0:07.29)

4:20.03    530  (0:12.89)

4:31.71    525  (0:11.68)

                                                  5:42.94    581   (2:57.46)

 

In the case of the 1B at 540 (3'59") the RPMs started to vibrate because of the overheat, so I opened both radiators to 40% in order to save the plane (that's why you see it's slowing down in less time after that). However as it went below 530 (1B's top speed) the engine was damaged and I couldn't save it (not even by opening rads at 100% and throttling/revving down to idle), it stopped some moments after, so around 2 minutes to reach 545 from 600 is the best you can achieve in the plane, at the cost of destroying the engine because of overheat (at least in the Autumn sea level temperature).

 

The A-5 on the other hand took 2 minutes 45 seconds to slow down to 585 km/h, then I opened the cowling shutters to 20% because it was overheating as well, almost 3 minutes later it went down to 581 and stabilized there.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the nice test.... if possible could you do the same on a winter map? I suspect that the 1b cooling is too good in winter... so it can fly with closed rads pretty long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indicated Airspeed. Maximum Dive TAS remains largely unchanged. 

 

The aircraft's air speed instrument measures IAS or TAS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aircraft's air speed instrument measures IAS or TAS?

Cockpit Instrument indicates IAS (= Indicated AirSpeed) , TAS (True AirSpeed) is a calculated value taking air pressure (Atitude) into account , on lower altitudes IAS is almost TAS (errors from how the airspeed is measured still occur)

Edited by Hutzlipuh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the Dive Restrictions take that into account. So the 109s Dive Limits are meant to keep the Aircraft at below 750 True Airspeed. 

Right now diving from High Altitude you can reach 1000+kph TAS. 

At 7000m 750 IAS are 1081 TAS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The maximum dive speeds are generally set for a specific altitude. For example the Bf 109 Fs' Vne of 735 kph is specifically at 4.5 km, and for the G-2 it is 750 kph at the same specific altitude. As such at higher altitudes the IAS limit would be lower, and below 4.5 km it would be higher.

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...