BF 109, ME 262 turn rates and blackout? (Reposted)

[VR_Dogfighter]

Sorry, I reposted due to deleting by mistake.

 

I've mentioned unexpeced turn rates of axis planes durning PVP matches several times before, but now able to get a better overview with Tacview (if its data is valid).

 

I know there's some amazing and inspiring pilots out there, but I'm perplexed how Bf109s and now ME262s can out continuously out turn a Spitfire pulling 6G+ turns where I'm blacked out but the oponent seems uneffected. 

 

Looking at post match data, I'm seeing sustained, high speed turn rates in mid to low teens for Axis aircraft when I would expect more like 19s+ for 109 and 30ish for the 262.

 

https://juhansotahistoriasivut.weebly.com/results-of-the-soviet-turn-times-tests.html

 

Images and Tacview file shows a turn fight between a Spitfire and an ME262 (Which for some reason shows up as an A-10).

 

Image 1 shows G's > 5 but no trouble following and firing

 

Image 2 shows turn rate of 27°/s, which if I'm calculating properly is a turn time of 13s?

 

Not sure if I am missing something? ?

dogfight.2019-06-20_22-03-15_03.zip

Edited June 22, 2019 by NAKE350
Original post deleted by mistake (Sorry)

[BubiHUN]

Stabilizer makes it possible.

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

You have full control when blacked out even though you cant see

Edited June 22, 2019 by Joeasyrida

[VR_Dogfighter]

6 minutes ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

Stabilizer makes it possible.

So the turn times quoted do not include use of the stabilizer and using it can halve the quoted value?

Edited June 22, 2019 by NAKE350

[Ehret]

3 minutes ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

Stabilizer makes it possible.

 

Which can act as a stabilator in the game. How is it possible?

[busdriver]

EDIT: Deleted OT tangential reference material...After reviewing your TacView screen shots I noticed something. In both examples you're IAS is approximately 300 mph and you're pulling 4 g's while the 262 is much slower and at 5 and a half g's then only 4 g. Basically you're flying too fast in an attempt to out maneuver your opponent in a turning fight.

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by busdriver

[VR_Dogfighter]

21 minutes ago, busdriver said:

@NAKE350 have a look at this chart...as a basic performance reference. It doesn't address your question about g's.

 

Thanks, but I'm not sure how the particular chart is relevant to explaining apparant difference between planes puplished performance and actual performance in game?

From what I can tell, the turn rates published are constant for speed and bank angle combinations..ie. it's the best it can be.

http://www.flightlearnings.com/2009/08/26/rate-of-turn/   

I'm trying to improve my understanding, so I can improve my game. 

[busdriver]

2 minutes ago, NAKE350 said:

 

Thanks, but I'm not sure how the particular chart is relevant to explaining apparent difference between planes published performance and actual performance in game?

From what I can tell, the turn rates published are constant for speed and bank angle combinations..ie. it's the best it can be.

 

 

 Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was simply trying to point you to a text assuming you wanted to verify the accuracy of TacView at any given instance. Verify TacView data by comparing instantaneous airspeed/RoT/Radius output to this chart.

 

Again, what jumps out at me in your screenshots is your sub-optimal (very fast 300 mph and at a relatively benign 4 g) turning fight. Perhaps you might try slowing to around 170 mph in the Spitfire whilst in a turning fight.

[VR_Dogfighter]

 No worries @busdriverand thank you,

 

13 minutes ago, busdriver said:

 

Perhaps you might try slowing to around 170 mph in the Spitfire whilst in a turning fight.

 

So my turnrate will further improve relative to the opponent?

 

I notice the opponent in the scenario above always seemed to be getting on the inside of a turn, hence slower speed, better rate? 

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Yes, Busdriver is correct - looking at the tacview, your speed is around 275-300mph for the majority of that fight.  At one point you are at 370mph and getting out turned due to retaining way too much speed

.

You need to slow down significantly and you will see a huge change in the way that spitfire maneuvers.

[JtD]

The 262 cannot maintain these turn rates forever, or without losing altitude.

 

Your two screenshots are three seconds apart, in which the 262 has lost 270m altitude. Give that the TAS is around 360 km/h, that's a near vertical dive. No aircraft has problems achieving turn rates of 27°/s if it only has to sustain it for three seconds, in a near vertical dive, at roughly two times the stalling speed.

 

Try a climbing turn next time and the guy who fights this slow in a 262 will be easy meat on the table.

 

 

[busdriver]

41 minutes ago, NAKE350 said:

 So my turnrate will further improve relative to the opponent?

 

I notice the opponent in the scenario above always seemed to be getting on the inside of a turn, hence slower speed, better rate? 

 

Yes as a rule of thumb. This is not an academically rigorous definition, but you want find the slowest speed to pull the maximum structural g's to fly your tightest turn, that's your maneuvering speed. And here's how to get an idea of what your maneuvering speed should be in knots (it's the units used in AFNA). The formula is, (square root of the g limit) x (stall speed) = (maneuvering speed). Suppose your airplane has a 9 g limit, and stalls at 50 knots IAS. The maneuvering airspeed would be 150 knots IAS. See page 180 of AFNA.

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by busdriver

[VR_Dogfighter]

1 hour ago, JtD said:

The 262 cannot maintain these turn rates forever, or without losing altitude.

 

Your two screenshots are three seconds apart, in which the 262 has lost 270m altitude. Give that the TAS is around 360 km/h, that's a near vertical dive. No aircraft has problems achieving turn rates of 27°/s if it only has to sustain it for three seconds, in a near vertical dive, at roughly two times the stalling speed.

 

Try a climbing turn next time and the guy who fights this slow in a 262 will be easy meat on the table.

 

 

So what are you defining turn time as.. maximum sustainable or best possible?

The in game specifiecation seems to suggest best possible.

 

[AndyJWest]

One note when using TacView to assess performance: TacView doesn't get wind speed and direction data from Il-2 GB, instead only getting aircraft positional and orientation data, meaning that airspeed has to be estimated and will be erroneous if wind is present.  This won't affect G force data from TacView , but may make turn rate for a given displayed speed difficult to interpret.

 

TacView also estimates  AoA, by interpolation, and as has already been noted (see the discussion here) is affected not only by wind, but by the fact that it had to interpolate its velocity vector, and this seems to add additional errors. This probably accounts for the 29-30 degree AoA shown for the 262 in the screenshots.

 

12 minutes ago, NAKE350 said:

So what are you defining turn time as.. maximum sustainable or best possible?

The in game specifiecation seems to suggest best possible.

 

 

The data given is clearly for a maximum performance sustained turn. Giving a best speed for an instantaneous turn would be rather pointless since you can't (in the aircraft we are dealing with, anyway) remain at that speed while turning at that rate. Not without also losing significant altitude.

Edited June 22, 2019 by AndyJWest

[JtD]

Also, maximum instantaneous turn will happen at the same indicated air speed (IAS) no matter the altitude. That's if you wanted to figure it out for yourself.

 

But then we already know it is sustained performance from discussions with the developers, so no need for figuring anymore.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by JtD

[AndyJWest]

One other point. I'm not sure how TacView calculates turn rate. If it is 'change of compass heading over time', then in a dive (as the Me 262 is) roll rate gets factored in too. In a vertical dive, your 'change of compass heading over time' is simply your roll rate. And a Me 262 has a maximum roll rate of around 90 degrees per second.

[VR_Dogfighter]

So to avoid confusion I thought I'd try taking the 262 into a spin and simply time how long it takes to do 360° (Clear conditions and no wind)?

As stated in game spec it took about 34 seconds at the 450km/h.

 

I then tried emptying fuel down to 30% and just pushing it to see what it could hold as tight as possible for at least one loop. I found it stabalised quite happy doing several loops at 300-350km/h at 20°/s which is just 18 seconds turn time.

 

Testing the MkIX Spitfire in the same way (again with 30% fuel) resulted in approx 16 seconds turn time at around 280km/h. 

 

Not much of a difference really?

 

Tacviews attached.

ME262 TRT.zip

Spitfire TRT.zip

Edited June 22, 2019 by NAKE350

[AndyJWest]

 

You need to measure sustained turn rate at a constant altitude. Not when losing 862 metres per minute. And looking at the track in TacView, your airspeed is also decaying.

Edited June 22, 2019 by AndyJWest

[VR_Dogfighter]

9 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

You need to measure sustained turn rate at a constant altitude. Not when losing 862 metres per minute.

Agreed, but that is just a snap shot..I shared the data and images show I tried to do as many loops whilst trying to maintain a level altidude and probably much more level than a typical turn fight. 

[AndyJWest]

Just now, NAKE350 said:

Agreed, but that is just a snap shot..I shared the data and images show I tried to do as many loops whilst trying to maintain a level altidude and probably much more level than a typical turn fight. 

 

It isn't level. It doesn't maintain constant speed. You aren't measuring sustained turn rate.

[VR_Dogfighter]

4 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

It isn't level. It doesn't maintain constant speed. You aren't measuring sustained turn rate.

Constant speed in the true sense and to the n'th degree, but without splitting hairs, when timing the loops on a relatively constant altidude, it takes approximately the same time to turn 360° in either plane. (The 262 still has approximately 6 x the amount of fuel on board at 30%).

 

[AndyJWest]

11 minutes ago, NAKE350 said:

Constant speed in the true sense and to the n'th degree, but without splitting hairs, when timing the loops on a relatively constant altidude, it takes approximately the same time to turn 360° in either plane. (The 262 still has approximately 6 x the amount of fuel on board at 30%).

 

 

Measuring something properly isn't 'splitting hairs'.  If you want the devs to look into turn rates, you need proper data. And if you want to out-turn a Me 262, you don't do it in a descending spiral.  Make him lose speed, where your performance is better than his.

[VR_Dogfighter]

 

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Measuring something properly isn't 'splitting hairs'.  If you want the devs to look into turn rates, you need proper data. And if you want to out-turn a Me 262, you don't do it in a descending spiral.  Make him lose speed, where your performance is better than his.

Being an Engineer, I agree accuracy of measurements are paramount, but speed is speed whether ascending or decending and turn rate broadly depends on lift, speed and bank angle whichever way up or down it is going?

With in game cockpit controls to hand I am finding the ME 262 can maintain successive turns at a rate equivalent to the Spitfire. 

[AndyJWest]

I'm not the slightest bit surprised that an Me 262 can in some circumstances turn with a Spitfire in a descending spiral. Have you got any evidence to suggest it shouldn't be able to?

[VR_Dogfighter]

As per my original post, I am indeed very suprised as my perception of the maximum performace turn specification is wrong.   I am not sure why it's quoting best performance turn time of 32-35s at 450km/h when it can sustain at least a full turn in more like 20s. (If you look at 1min 28 in the Tacview file it did indeed maintain at least a 360° turn at 18°/ s gaining altitude).

 

In comparison, the Spitfire data shows somethig like a 18s turn time at 270km/h, which is about as good as it gets.

 

I didn't know how much I didn't know about flight before looking into this ?

 

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by NAKE350

[CountZero]

did you try 109f4?

 

262 is ufo airplane in game, its ability to manover is unreal i would not waist mutch time on it

Edited June 23, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[Bremspropeller]

9 hours ago, NAKE350 said:

Being an Engineer, I agree accuracy of measurements are paramount, but speed is speed whether ascending or decending and turn rate broadly depends on lift, speed and bank angle whichever way up or down it is going?

 

The difference lies in the availability of engery. Sustained turn implies that all your available energy is coming from the enthalpy in your gas.

No trading altitude for speed, which would favor a heavy airframe with good L/D performance.

[VR_Dogfighter]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The difference lies in the availability of engery. Sustained turn implies that all your available energy is coming from the enthalpy in your gas.

No trading altitude for speed, which would favor a heavy airframe with good L/D performance.

 

I understand the sustainability of the turn aspect, but my point is the plane is much more agile than I would have expected wherever the speed/ energy is coming from.

 

2 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

did you try 109f4?

 

262 is ufo airplane in game, its ability to manover is unreal i would not waist mutch time on it

UFO!! ???

 

Yes I tried the 109-G4..I have no experience in the plane, but with 30% fuel, I could keep a horizontal loop of 18-20s going at around 270km/h. The spec says 21s, so agin not far off and the Spitfire has the slight edge.? 

 

It's the 262 spec or FM that seems way off each other.

Edited June 23, 2019 by NAKE350

[Bremspropeller]

15 minutes ago, NAKE350 said:

It's the 262 spec or FM that seems way off each other.

 

Based on what evidence?

[VR_Dogfighter]

13 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Based on what evidence?

From my experience, the plane sustains turns in sub 20s at around 300km/s, not the 34s at 450 km/s published. 

[JtD]

Take a 262, start at sea level at 300km/h and do 10 consecutive 360 degree turns. You will not finish it in less than 200s. My guess would be around 400s, because once you're that slow and that low, the 262 is as agile as an elephant.

[VR_Dogfighter]

2 hours ago, JtD said:

Take a 262, start at sea level at 300km/h and do 10 consecutive 360 degree turns. You will not finish it in less than 200s. My guess would be around 400s, because once you're that slow and that low, the 262 is as agile as an elephant.

 

I appologise..my claim for the 262 being able to sustain a 20s circle on an incline was actualy at 360km/h and with 30% fuel. That is still 770 litres compared to the 120l used in the equivialent Spitfire test. I understand jet engines power to weight ratio is a lot less than a prop engine at low speeds so interesting results anyway.

 

I see your point for measuring sustained circling, but the ingame spec says 'Maxiumum perofrmance turn'. To me a turn is 180°, so it would be interesting to know the method behind their measurment though.

[JtD]

It hasn't changed in the last 24 hours and still is a sustained turn.

[VR_Dogfighter]

11 minutes ago, JtD said:

It hasn't changed in the last 24 hours and still is a sustained turn.

Sustained as in for how long?

 

Tbh, I'm not even sure what your point is anymore and I have answered my original post question.

[AndyJWest]

26 minutes ago, NAKE350 said:

To me a turn is 180°.

 

To the people who defined what a sustained turn is it is 360°. At a constant speed. At constant altitude.  

Edited June 23, 2019 by AndyJWest

[VR_Dogfighter]

3 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

To the people who defined what a sustained turn is it is 360°. At a constant speed. At constant altitude.  

 

Then I have witnested sub 20s with 770l of fuel. If I meet one in a turn fight its probably not the elephant I was expecting

Edited June 23, 2019 by NAKE350

[AndyJWest]

Please provide verifiable evidence to back that up. 

[VR_Dogfighter]

1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

Please provide verifiable evidence to back that up. 

As posted earlier.. "If you look at 1min 28 in the Tacview file it did indeed maintain at least a 360° turn at 18°/ s gaining altitude"

It was a 'constant' as I could fly and good enough for me.  

[JtD]

6 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

To the people who defined what a sustained turn is it is 360°. At a constant speed. At constant altitude.

 

I highlighted the important things. Even though the time figure is always given for a 360° turn, it doesn't really matter if you do this over 3600°, 360°, 36° or just 3.6°. Because you exit the turn in exactly the same flight condition you entered it in. Because it is a sustained turn.

 

It is, however, far easier to measure if you do 10 full turns or some such. Many pilots lose speed and altitude and arrive at odd conclusions.

[VR_Dogfighter]

1 minute ago, JtD said:

 

I highlighted the important things. Even though the time figure is always given for a 360° turn, it doesn't really matter if you do this over 3600°, 360°, 36° or just 3.6°. Because you exit the turn in exactly the same flight condition you entered it in. Because it is a sustained turn.

 

It is, however, far easier to measure if you do 10 full turns or some such. Many pilots lose speed and altitude and arrive at odd conclusions.

That was a circling test, with my limited flying skill. The particular circle I mentioned was one of many.

Some slightly incling, some declining, but on average the same 20s ish result.

I am no test pilot, but I recon someone who can hold that plane steady as a rock would get similar results.

Either way, I've answered my original post and got a much better understanding of how the 262 flys.