Kitttyhawk Mk I in CloD vs P40E in BOM

[Columbar]

Hi pilots,

I wonder what do you think about FM and engine models of these two aircraft? If I uderstand it correctly, they are more of less same machines, but in games they are very different (engine duration, speeds, maneuverability etc.) 

Kittyhawk is for me much more competent aircraft, which I belive is much close to reality - at least what I know ?

 

What do you think?

[Yardstick]

In IL-2:GB I can take on 8 ace level AI P-40Es and kill them all with ease in the 109F-4.  In CLOD I have yet to kill more than 2, 3 is a real handful.  Typically I boom and zoom the GB P-40E's to my hearts content.  However, if I try to spiral climb out of trouble against the CLOD P-40Es, they just follow me uphill.  I even tried dragging them up to 7K where they should struggle but never got more that 500m vertical separation. 

[dazako]

Are you both making comparisons against AI or live pilots ?

AI will fly perfect power / pitch etc and not represent the differences you'll see more obvious with a live person. Single-players have long noted their difficulties in keeping up with Cliffs AI when flying as wingman or part of a squadron. If I do test flying against Cliffs AI in the exact same aircraft, rarely can I keep up, and they will always easily outclimb me. I fly online and it's clear how fast the P40 types can be, though heavy on the controls, and where their power drops off at altitude. The fun is flying against real people and seeing where you can find the advantage.

 

Daz

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by dazako

[Boomerang]

There are many different variable's to consider. 

One example: The fuel octane varies with the theaters different locations. This alone will effect an aircraft's performance.

Suggestion: Probably best to avoid comparing flight models between our developers and put more trust into what they are achieving.

S!

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

P-40 is better in Cliffs of Dover. Responsive and faster. One reason attribute is that P-40 in Tobruk won´t stall unless you use rudder input(even slightly)..without it you can keep a horizontal turn with FULL stick back all day long at around 125-140mph. The speed won´t go any lower, unless pulling nose above horizon. Stall occurs if you get speed below 100mph or use rudder input. Flips into a spin.

[SIA_Target]

GB's P 40 is easily overheated on T/O, you really have to be quick on the controls.

I can't compare but I suspect GB's 40 is a tad too dainty.

[Art-J]

^ You mean overboosted and over-revved I suppose, because actual temps don't seem to be an issue in GB Kitty. It hardly wants to warm up at all, and once in flight just a tad of radiator opening is enough to fly and fight all day without giving it a second thought. Convenient, but hardly realistic - I still remember Jeff Ethell's emphasis in "Roaring Glory" episode about P-40, put on quick warming up and overheating danger during taxiing in the real thing. Tobruk Kitty seems to be more accurate in this aspect - temps need to be monitored with greater caution here.

 

On the other hand Tobruk Kitty is equipped with a MAP regulator, while GB one isn't and that's the biggest advantage in my view. Makes the plane soooo much more pilot-friendly!

[Buzzsaw]

The Tomahawk and Kittyhawk have had their induced drag, post stall behaviour and prop corrected for Patch 0.0005.

 

So the onset of stall in high AoA will be sooner, but the stall will be milder with less wing drop.

 

Prop has been changed to reflect correct blade width.

 

---

 

Regarding the difference between the GREAT BATTLES P-40 and the Kittyhawk and Tomahawk in this game, I don't have access to the BoX source code so can't say for sure, but I suspect their aircraft are modeled with 87 octane fuel... the standard for the Soviets during the time period for this aircraft usage.  Soviets later got large supplies of US 100 octane and also started refining their own higher octane type, but that was more late '43 and '44.

 

In TOBRUK we are modeling the aircraft with British standard 100 octane and basing it on the field reports for boost settings, not the factory settings which were originally set with 87 octane US domestic fuel.

 

 

[Yardstick]

3 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

In TOBRUK we are modelling the aircraft with 100 octane and basing it on the field reports for boost settings, not the factory settings which were originally set with 87 octane US domestic fuel.

 

 

This was raised in GB forums a few days ago and the consensus was that the engine setting that the GB P-40E's support the view that they are modelled to use lend lease 100 octane fuel.  If 87 octane was modelled the engine settings would be more restrictive.  It seems that the CLOD P-40E uses further engine settings that were cleared for use later on. 

 

However, I don't think that these are responsible for the huge disparity in relative performance between the Bf109F-4 and P-40E in both games.  My suspicion is that there is something awry with the F series as I cannot spiral climb away from even the Hurricane II as I should be able to.  It just seems way too slow to accelerate and seems to bleed speed very fast in a zoom climb.  

Edited September 10, 2020 by Yardstick
typo

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

6 hours ago, Yardstick said:

This was raised in GB forums a few days ago and the consensus was that the engine setting that the GB P-40E's support the view that they are modelled to use lend lease 100 octane fuel.  If 87 octane was modelled the engine settings would be more restrictive.

Yup, BoM's P-40 has early settings for the Allison, shown here in this chart in the spoiler, notice the 100 octane fuel grade:
 

Spoiler

Later on the 57" setting for 1470 HP at sea level for 5 min got approved with 100 octane, I wish this option was available as a modification though it should come with a manifold pressure regulator since the unregulated throttle all the way in at sea level is capable of 66" for around 1700 HP and that wouldn't be far off the detonation limit though it has been used like that (at expense of the engine lifespan).
 

Spoiler

With 91 octane fuel, these are the more restrictive limits:
 

Spoiler

The Spitfire Mk V, A-20 and P-39 in BoK also have their engine settings corresponding to 100 octane fuel specifications.

 

8 hours ago, Art-J said:

 It hardly wants to warm up at all, and once in flight just a tad of radiator opening is enough to fly and fight all day without giving it a second thought. Convenient, but hardly realistic - I still remember Jeff Ethell's emphasis in "Roaring Glory" episode about P-40, put on quick warming up and overheating danger during taxiing in the real thing. Tobruk Kitty seems to be more accurate in this aspect - temps need to be monitored with greater caution here.

The P-40 in BoX has a bit too effective radiator for what people have tested in the past in flight. On the ground the cooling is much more effective than it should be, which looks like it's an issue affecting most if not all of the planes it seems (an in game widespread issue), but in flight it isn't as out of place.  The P-40E in Tobruk goes to the opposite scale though, the radiator is not as effective as it should be, in ww2aircraftperformance page there are some technical evaluations of the radiator and if you compare it at the same settings it does have excessive temperatures in level flight (in climb they look more correct).

More or less as a comparison, in the Channel map which has Autumn like temperatures (16-17°C at sea level) the radiator behaves close to what the real document shows for tropical summer conditions, in the Tobruk map it's much hotter. So the temps you get in the Channel is what you should get in the Tobruk map roughly for high speed level flight.

I have noticed this as well for the 109 F-4 and the Spitfire Mk V, high speed doesn't really increase the efficiency of the radiators as it should (high radiator openings are needed for high power setting even at top speed), but given this I guess it's more of a widespread engine issue similar to how in BoX the radiators are too effective on the ground with 0 speed. I do not know if it would be possible to correct this without affecting the slow speed performance of the radiators.

Edited September 11, 2020 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[dazako]

6 hours ago, Yardstick said:

However, I don't think that these are responsible for the huge disparity in relative performance between the Bf109F-4 and P-40E in both games.  My suspicion is that there is something awry with the F series as I cannot spiral climb away from even the Hurricane II as I should be able to.  It just seems way too slow to accelerate and seems to bleed speed very fast in a zoom climb.  

 

I aint arguing, this is a game after all. But just for a laugh come and fly RAF types and marvel along with us how 109's 'climb like a lift' as the common term goes. You already have the advantage we're used to from years in Cliffs. Certainly some reflection on historical facts, though who among us has the practical knowledge to say just how accurate ?

 

Comparative performance is not a constant. Different aircraft have the upper hand within certain altitudes for eg. The advantage can alternate between combatants repeatedly in an engagement. Except me of course. I come off worse in all areas !

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

If you want to check performance there's plenty of test data available. Not all references are exactly the same of course, but plenty to make our own comparisons, as TFS have no doubt. With player experience if TFS feel the need to adjust certain performance aspects they do. For eg 109F's had performance tweaks only days after TDW initial release, and P40's / MC202 both had updates in today's patch. 

 

Fly, exploit where you can, and have your fun as we look skywards struggling to keep up.

 

Daz

Edited September 11, 2020 by dazako

[ATAG_Flare]

7 minutes ago, dazako said:

 

I aint arguing, this is a game after all. But just for a laugh come and fly RAF types and marvel along with us how 109's 'climb like a lift' as the common term goes. You already have the advantage we're all used to from years in Cliffs. Certainly a reflection on historical facts, though who among us has the practical knowledge to say just how accurate ?

 

Comparative performance is not a constant. Different aircraft have the upper hand within certain altitudes for eg. The advantage can alternate between combatants repeatedly in an engagement. Except me of course. I come off worse in all areas !

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

If you want to check performance there's plenty of test data available. Not all references are exactly the same of course, but plenty to make our own comparisons, as TFS have no doubt. With player experience if TFS feel the need to adjust certain performance aspects they do. For eg 109F's had performance tweaks only days after TDW initial release, and P40's / MC202 both had updates in today's patch. 

 

Fly, exploit where you can, and have your fun as we look skywards struggling to keep up.

 

Daz

 

 

Good post.

 

I trust TFS, as I trust 1C with IL2 GB, to create the most accurate and realistic performance they can. These threads are helpful discussion though, and you'll always get them wanting more or less performance one way or another.

 

Quote

Except me of course. I come off worse in all areas ! 

 

Same! Whenever I fly red, the 109s climb like rockets! And whenever I fly blue, Spitfires seem glued to my tail no matter which way I go! Although I fear it is the PEBCAK error

[Buzzsaw]

3 hours ago, dazako said:

 

I aint arguing, this is a game after all. But just for a laugh come and fly RAF types and marvel along with us how 109's 'climb like a lift' as the common term goes. You already have the advantage we're used to from years in Cliffs. Certainly some reflection on historical facts, though who among us has the practical knowledge to say just how accurate ?

 

Comparative performance is not a constant. Different aircraft have the upper hand within certain altitudes for eg. The advantage can alternate between combatants repeatedly in an engagement. Except me of course. I come off worse in all areas !

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

If you want to check performance there's plenty of test data available. Not all references are exactly the same of course, but plenty to make our own comparisons, as TFS have no doubt. With player experience if TFS feel the need to adjust certain performance aspects they do. For eg 109F's had performance tweaks only days after TDW initial release, and P40's / MC202 both had updates in today's patch. 

 

Fly, exploit where you can, and have your fun as we look skywards struggling to keep up.

 

Daz

TF does not adjust aircraft performance for player balance... we believe the aircraft were inherently competitive... the major nations were at similar technology levels in most cases.  We try to model the advantages and disadvantages of certain types.... it provides the element of complexity we believe players enjoy.  And most types had one advantage or another... and if flown correctly can prevail.

 

Any changes made in patches are added after the discovery of errors.

 

The process of creating flight models in the CLIFFS engine is a complex one and many elements interact to change performance... so if you adjust overheat that can affect hp generation for example.

 

We also have to admit the rush to release and a lot of different people working with the same source code elements led to some code lines being included with the release which were actually older versions, not the intended final release.

 

All being corrected as quickly as possible as we can after they come to light.  ?

[FTC_Karaya]

3 hours ago, ATAG_Flare said:

Same! Whenever I fly red, the 109s climb like rockets! And whenever I fly blue, Spitfires seem glued to my tail no matter which way I go! Although I fear it is the PEBCAK error

 

Flying both sides usually clears up all of the one-sided claims of "but the other side has it better". I can only recommend everybody to leave their comfort zone once in a while and change sides for an evening. May open an eye or two...

 

4 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I have noticed this as well for the 109 F-4 and the Spitfire Mk V, high speed doesn't really increase the efficiency of the radiators as it should (high radiator openings are needed for high power setting even at top speed), but given this I guess it's more of a widespread engine issue similar to how in BoX the radiators are too effective on the ground with 0 speed. I do not know if it would be possible to correct this without affecting the slow speed performance of the radiators.

 

High speeds do increase cooling efficiency.

In high speed level flight you can run both 109s and Spits at their respective full power for extended periods with their coolant radiators about 35-40% open.

Try the same radiator openings in a climb and the engine will be toast very soon.

 

What I am concerned about is that the radiator automation on the 109Fs isnt working well at all. It keeps an unnecessarily wide radiator opening in almost all flight regimes which causes excessive drag. It's as if you left the rads manually at 90% open all the time.

Edited September 11, 2020 by JG4_Karaya

[Art-J]

Do AI planes in CloD use the same FM as player-flown ones (like in GB If I'm not mistaken), or do they use simplified, somewhat optimistic FMs (like in DCS)? Answer to that question might help explain some relative-performance-related issues.

[Boomerang]

Apologies in advance if this question I'm about to ask has been raised/answered at some point.

 

Question Regarding variables: Fighters ordnance/weight/performance during entertainment.

When the ordnance is used/exhausted, does the aircraft's performance improve?  

 

It's no big deal, just curious, never noticed.

 

S! 

[dazako]

16 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

TF does not adjust aircraft performance for player balance... we believe the aircraft were inherently competitive... the major nations were at similar technology levels in most cases.  We try to model the advantages and disadvantages of certain types.... it provides the element of complexity we believe players enjoy.  And most types had one advantage or another... and if flown correctly can prevail.

 

Any changes made in patches are added after the discovery of errors.

 

The process of creating flight models in the CLIFFS engine is a complex one and many elements interact to change performance... so if you adjust overheat that can affect hp generation for example.

 

We also have to admit the rush to release and a lot of different people working with the same source code elements led to some code lines being included with the release which were actually older versions, not the intended final release.

 

All being corrected as quickly as possible as we can after they come to light.  ?

 

Oops my intention was regarding TFS player experience regarding adjustments to aircraft performance, and not suggesting players can influence changes. Or else we'd have been facing off in WWII versions of X Wing fighters before now ! I appreciate the ongoing efforts you lot put into this. Great stuff !

 

Daz

[ATAG_Ezzie]

4 hours ago, Boomerang said:

Apologies in advance if this question I'm about to ask has been raised/answered at some point.

 

Question Regarding variables: Fighters ordnance/weight/performance during entertainment.

When the ordnance is used/exhausted, does the aircraft's performance improve?  

 

It's no big deal, just curious, never noticed.

 

S! 

G'day Boomerang,

 

In the 110 if you are flying on a single engine and are struggling to achieve a positive rate of climb then firing off all your remaining 20mm has a noticeable effect if you still have a lot of rounds remaining.  And if still having trouble then firing all your MG will also likewise.  You dont need to do this ordinarily when flying on a single engine but if your airframe has taken damage and is more draggy then normal sometimes this trick can make the difference between going down or staying airborne

 

So yes exhausting your ordnance does affect the flight performance in the 110 and i suspect other aircraft as well.  it may not be really noticeable unless you are very familiar with the aircraft's performance as the difference can be subtle.  The rate of climb increase is a good example of this.

 

Ezzie

[Buzzsaw]

On 9/11/2020 at 3:55 PM, Boomerang said:

Apologies in advance if this question I'm about to ask has been raised/answered at some point.

 

Question Regarding variables: Fighters ordnance/weight/performance during entertainment.

When the ordnance is used/exhausted, does the aircraft's performance improve?  

 

It's no big deal, just curious, never noticed.

 

S! 

All aircraft non-TARE weights are calculated on the basis of remaining stocks.

 

So as you fire your weapons, and ammunition is expended, the weight of those rounds are subtracted.

 

Same applies of course to gasoline, bombs, etc.

 

If you have a human gunner and he bails out, then his weight is subtracted.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Quick mission Derna and Tomahawks at default loadout. Tested all of them after patch with the stick fully back and 30 MAP/2300rpm for some consistency.

 

Up to Mk.II stalled and spun out of control easier. Mk.II Late was nearly as impervious to stall as before, the speed just does not want to drop and you can keep the plane buffeting, turning and level without a stall. The head room is a bit smaller now after patch. 

 

Also if you do not touch the rudder this buffet flight is easy. But the second you touch the rudder, as little as recording an input, the plane flicks into a spin. So basically if you want to be hamsfisted and throw the Tomahawk around the skies without fear of stall, just do not touch the rudder. 

 

Tomahawk is a great plane to fly otherwise. It dives like crazy, good control authority and packs a serious punch. Can never be taken lightly when encountered. And looks cool too ?