why does 109G10 climb so bad??

[wells]

I think PS is a nice round number in metric,

1 PS = 75 kg.m/s

Whereas 1 HP converts from 550 lbs.ft/s to something like

76.12 kg.m/s

[Naudet]

Grunherz, don't fear that all data we gave HTC had metric system.

No matter what he does, if the GE planes get slower after his PS-to-HP convert, we know that something is definitivly wrong.

But what really scares me is that a guy who models WW2 planes for years doesn't know that PS is not excatly the same as HP. So much to his exact knowledge of the basics.

[Sup0ng0]

Well, all post is very interesting.
At that conclusion we can arrive?

I continue saying that the 109 in all their variants this badly modeled, Niklas and others estan (I create) in agreement with me.

Is going to have any change in the 109? (or in Sitfire?)


Supongo

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Naudet
Grunherz, don't fear that all data we gave HTC had metric system.

No matter what he does, if the GE planes get slower after his PS-to-HP convert, we know that something is definitivly wrong.

But what really scares me is that a guy who models WW2 planes for years doesn't know that PS is not excatly the same as HP. So much to his exact knowledge of the basics.

Lemme see if I've got this right...

IF[/B] there was a modeling problem based on this  translation error, KP/HP taken at a 1/1 ratio, wouldn't that mean that any plane modeled on this  faulty data would  be overmodeled? Now that's funny.

-Sikboy

[Naudet]

Sikboy, i will explain what i mean.

If HT took 1 HP for 1 PS, all GE planes would have a few extra HPs, thats right.

But their performance numbers roughly (in case of D9 pretty exactly) match the numbers from WW2 with a tendency to fall short.

Therefor they are not overmodeled with the higher available power, they are modeled on the point.

Now if HT takes away those extra HPS, they would all become undermodeled, cause they would suffer in speed and climb and would fall further below WW2 numbers.

And if this is so something different than HPs must be wrong, which can be drag or weight.

You see, that way two faults in the FM would make them perform properly while only one would make them mismodeled.

[Sikboy]

lol, keep plugging away at it.

[Seeker]

"But their performance numbers roughly (in case of D9 pretty exactly) match the numbers from WW2 with a tendency to fall short. "

Yet you squeakes still whine.

Which is it? Are they on the numbers or not?

[Pyro]

Originally posted by Naudet
A little example of what i remember what was found out in Rechlin about 109G+K:

all late 109ers G10-K4 in the chart had climbrates of  20-22 m/s at steig&kampfleistung (climb&combat rating) at sea level, which translates into 3934 - 4327 ft./min.

I would have fun at this point with a little turnaround satire questioning your integrity and competency but I'm sure the irony and humor would be missed by some so I'll refrain.

There is no proof, there is only evidence.  Typically, the more evidence you collect, the more questions that are raised.  It doesn't just all fit together to form a perfect model.  If you only look at one thing or only from one side, it seems pretty clear, but that doesn't make it so.  If our roles were reversed and it was you that modeled the G10 in the game, I could offer this "proof" of how overmodeled it is and how biased you are towards German planes.  Do you see the irony?

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Pyro

If you only look at one thing or only from one side, it seems pretty clear, but that doesn't make it so.  If our roles were reversed and it was you that modeled the G10 in the game, I could offer this "proof" of how overmodeled it is and how biased you are towards German planes.  Do you see the irony?

Wahhoooo I was right! Kiss my bellybutton everyone there is no holy grail!

Oh wait, 10 to 1 someone comes in an explains how that chart actually says the planes are undermodeled.

-Sikboy

[niklas]

Hi Pyro.

First i want to ask you whether you received my mail some weeks ago, if not please sent me one thank you.

I must admit that i wasnīt happy at all with Naudets pretty personal statements (diddlye.. err Funkedupīs posting was not much better but it showed me at least i was on the right path). I know how difficult modelling is, especially if you try to bring a simple climb chart or speed chart together with a flightmodel where you calculate lift and drag at severeal positions. I know it because i tried the same just for fun for myself

Of course i know the picture Nr.1 very well. I only want to say that this chart uses 1250PS for climb power (hp, PS, the difference is small. Naudet, if you read this, model same speed with less hp means better aerdynamic btw)
Itīs interesting to see that the oil injection of the second cicuit in the supercharger coupling was dependant on the installation. 2km without MW-50, 0.5-0.9km for 1.8-2.0ata basis
So chart 1 uses later "simple" D2 engine without MW-50 but with enlarged charger and 1250PS for climb and combat power (~1,3ata)

Chart nr.2 shows some other nice details, the increased boost for Steigleistung is noteworthy and confirms my doc that says 1550hp with 1,50ata the first D engine.

Anyway, the most important - and the reason why you posted it - of the chart is the pretty low climb rate for 1,8ata. Iīd really like to know why 1,8ata has different climbrates depending whether the engine was cleared for 1,8ata or 1,98ata.

BUT i spot a little contradiction in the chart. Just look at the left curve that tells you altitude over climbtime. There the 109 reaches 8km in 5minutes.  This is equal to 26.66 m/s climbrate.
Soooooo, is it *maybe* possible that instead of 21.5m/s it should mean 26.5m/s and the man who is responsible for this chart just did an error shifting the climbrate curve one tick mark (5m/s) to the left ?

niklas

*editied the chart says no use of MW-50 in the header. Just asking myself now where the weight of 3400kg comes from.

[funkedup]

Here you go:

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by funkedup
Here you go:

LOL Thank you, Thank you... It's a gift I have.

-Sikboy

[gripen]

HoHun,
Second oil pump of the supercharger started work when first one could not keep up  wanted manifold pressure. Therefore  it's a bit od that in the second chart peaks are at same altitude with all  manifold pressure. Peaks should be higher at lower MAPs.

gripen

[Naudet]

A few things to clear up:

1st if someone studies my latest responses to Mandoble or any other post regarding FW190D9 speed or climb, i said that the AH D9 is right, that it flies on the numbers. So i don't squeak against it, i defended it against questione to increase its speed or climb.


To the G10, i was just reposting to Niklas post, and i admit that my knowledge of the 109 is far far away from the information i have for the D9.
And the documents i saw, were roughly 100 pages, including every little detail of the G-Series. I would really like to have copied em, but as i said, the archive restrics such things. And on the same day i saw a few dozen other documents (mainly on ammuniton, amored glass etc.) each containing lots of sites. So please if i remember wrong, than sorry i remember wrong. I DID NOT said i know it excatly!

I never ever stated i have any clue of aerodynamics or such things. If it comes down to calculations i ask people like HoHun, Niklas or Wells.
But such basics like 1PS =  0.986 even i know and it didnt not even take 2 minutes to find it out.

And if you now say, you model AHs K4 on the charts you posted, its OK. Cause than i have an idea which data your FM is based on.
That is my main critic to HTs answers, he doesnt give such things. One such chart, and the thing is cleared for me. Point.

To niklas:

hp, PS, the difference is small. Naudet, if you read this, model same speed with less hp means better aerdynamic btw

i know the difference is low
but ain't the second part what i said, just inverted?

I said if you model a few extra HP (lets say cause you took 2130 PS for 2130HP instead of the 2100HP they really are) and hit the numbers, you are working with worse aerodynamics.
That's right, or not?

[hitech]

No naudet, that is not correct.
It can all be absorbed by prop eff curves. So if you are refering to worse dynamics of the prop yes, but the plane can be exactly the same.