Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Hristo on January 01, 2000, 07:33:00 AM
-
Here are climbrates of some of the AH fighters. The RoC was measured at 10kft and 20kft, both for 100% and 25% fuel loadouts.
The drop tank was used until 3k below the altitude for which RoC was measured. Then it was released and plane stabilized and reached the mentioned altitude with steady climbrate.
Climb speed was set at 165 mph IAS for all planes. Instruments were read in zoom mode, and results may vary ±50 fpm.
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/images/table.jpg)
It is obvious that the hottest climber is the Spitfire. Its climbrate might also translate into some awesome acceleration. To paraphrase fd-ski, which Spit IX type do we have, I am having a heart attack (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Also, 4 .50 cal P 51D has a climbrate of 3550 feet/minute at 100% power and 25% fuel, at 10 kft alt. This is more than light Me 109G-10, also with 25% fuel and at 100% power, with a single MG 151/20 !!!
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 01-01-2000).]
-
Interesting. The La-5FN? No?
------------------
leonid, aka grisha
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
Well, I guess it would use too much fuel from internal tanks, having no DT option.
Besides, it doesn't seem suspicious (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Also, 190 falls into totally different category, the divers, not climbers (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
What the.... spitfire climbs like a rocket?
Even few times faster than 109G10? no way!
What is this.. 109F? 109E?
sure aint 109G10 (maybe just and just G2)
-
oops
[This message has been edited by Kats (edited 01-01-2000).]
-
aye so that's why I can't outclimb a Miss Dweebfire Supermarine fit them with rockets hmm...
-
You should also find out the "best climb speeds" for these planes and use that speed for the test. For example, I have some old AW charts that suggest best climb speed for P-51 up to 10K is 175, while for Bf-109G it's 155. Using "optimum" speeds for each plane will give you a better idea of sustained climb performance.
Also, what sort of climb are you looking for, and what kind are you testing for (and what kind is your historical data for)? If you want a "max performance" climb, like what you might use in a dogfight, then you're looking at testing for the "steepest" climb which will be at some low speed, around 20% above stall or so, but you won't be able to sustain this climb for 10000 feet. OTOH, if you're looking to be able to grab altitude to hunt with, you want the "fastest" climb to a given altitude in the smallest elapsed time.
When you see "P-96F climbed 4800 fpm at sea level," that doesn't mean it could do it from the surface to 50000 feet. The "time to climb to XX feet altitude" charts are probably the most meaningful numbers IMHO.
--jedi
-
Jedi, you imply that these values are correct ? That Spit IX outclimbs 109G-10 ?
I know about different sustained climb speeds, but this is just a comparison test at middle climb speed setting. For one whole year I have been flying 109 exclusively and I know how it should feel and climb. Spit right now can't be outclimbed unless Spit pilot makes a dumb mistake. Even after inducing a flat turn pursuit with a gentle purely vertical move, 109 can't get an advantage, from a co-E start. Also, Spit is far more docile at high alt and can squeeze much out of its zoom, while in 109 I lose control at 70-80 mph IAS and have to cut throttle.
The outclimbing which worked before doesn't work now. What elese is to say ?
-
For one whole year I have been flying 109 exclusively and I know how it should feel and climb.
Did anyone else spilled their drink on their keyboard while reading this ???
ROFLMAO
------------------
(http://www.raf303.org/banner.gif)
Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
www.raf303.org (http://www.raf303.org)
-
Explain it, pls, fd-ski. How did I make you laugh ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Let's take WB planes for example, Spit IX vs 109K-4. Climbrates are nearly what should we have in AH with Spit IX and 109G-10.
After some 9 months of ladder dueling (exclusively in 109 variants, under handle 'nassko'), I believe I know how to fight Spit IX in late war 109. Given the co-E cold merge, 109K-4 can gain the upper hand within 2 minutes of vertical moves on both sides.
That, in case BOTH pilots go for rudder coordinated purely vertical moves with 1.5 g on the pull. The pilot who puts horizontal components in his moves will lose.
Not possible in 0.43. Not a whine, just a statement.
Guns-free merge actually favors the pilot who avoids HO snapshot, he can win even easier (if he manages to avoid HO, of course).
109G-6 did not have a chance in E fight with Spit IX. Its pilot could count only on inducing mistakes of Spit pilot.
109F-4 could do it, but it risks snaphots from Spit IX. Still, its docile high alt low speed handling helps it up there. Not to mention, it actually outclimbs 109K-4 at extremly high alt.
Against Spit XIV 109K-4 can't use climb, nor sustained maneuvers. But it can outmaneuver it at low to medium alt, using a lot of rudder and 30mm snapshots. That's where some RAF pilots whined, actually, for their Mark XIV could not turn as good as Mark IX (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Did I qualify ?
P.S.
Where's the heart attack you promised ?
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 01-02-2000).]
-
Maybe his RL name is Hans Dittes Fd-ski (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Hristo - you are working on the assumption that WB is a perfection of flight models.
If that's the case - why do you bother flying AH ?
Unless you flew the 109k IN REAL LIFE - don't make statements like "I know how it SHOULD feel".
You don't. I don't. I don't think any of the people here does either.
We all look at the numbers and have a preception how those should translate in our simulators. From the numbers i saw ( spit 9 making it to 20k in 5 minutes and few seconds ) i seriously doubt i will ever believe that 109 of any sort should outclimb spitfire 9 or 14 by a large margin - which in the essence is what you advocating.
Said it before and i'll say it again. Late war 109's were just inadequate stop gap measures. The engines outgrew the design and producted substandard fighters by 1944-45 standards. It was a great pilot skill of some LW pilots that allowed them to fight and survive in those crates against superior numbers.
But hey, that's just my opinion and i'm entited to it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
And then again, i flew spitfires in WB for god knows how long and i know how it should feel (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Just kidding
------------------
(http://www.raf303.org/banner.gif)
Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
www.raf303.org (http://www.raf303.org)
-
CC, fd-ski, I agree. The sentence you quoted is purely related to WB flight model, until AH, the closest way for mortals to get the feeling of flying WW2 planes. And it also misses a 'believe' word, since I have a lot more to learn.
Right now 109G-10, along with few other planes, is affected by a power loss. Spit IX seems not to be affected, so it now outperforms the Gustav. Pyro said he is aware of it and that HTC crew gives this bug the highest priority.
-
The 0.43 Bf109G-10 climbs something like an Emil with 100% power. All the power is in WEP - with WEP on it climbs something like it did in 0.42 on WEP. Unfortunately the propwash overmodelling effect (I think?) makes it unable to fly level on trim over ~15k with WEP on (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Unless you flew the 109k IN REAL LIFE - don't make statements like "I know how it SHOULD feel". You don't. I don't. I don't think any of the people here does either.
Utter roadkill fdski, I wish you would stop using that point of view.
The reason civilization is advancing is because we have the written record of previous generations. We know what they know. This is why we have schools, and universities. This is why Guttenburg ranks on top of every list for "Man of the Millenium".
So, just as I don't have to sail or fly the circumference of the Earth to prove to you the earth isn't flat - I sure as hell don't have to have flight time in a Focke Wulf to tell you how it should behave. All I need is an education.
As a matter of fact I would take this one step further. I would value the opinion of an expert who has studied the written record of 100 Focke Wulf pilots moreso than the testimony of a single real Fock Wulf pilot.
-
Kats - FEEL is the main word of this conversation.
Let's have a little execise:
Tell me how your car FEELS when you drive it. You are not allowed to make comparisons to any other cars - because you haven't driven any before ok ?
Tell me how it FEELS. Give me enough data to allow be to build a simulation....
See my point ?
It's ok Kitty... i know you only want to get me going. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Love ya too....
------------------
(http://www.raf303.org/banner.gif)
Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
www.raf303.org (http://www.raf303.org)
-
Fdski,
Something 'feels' the way it does because of the physical properties of the object, be it a car/plane/whatever. Those properties can be modelled in a sim, although I agree with you that a simulation shouldn't be used as a basis for accuracy without knowing the inner workings of the sim.
-
0.44 rate of climb for 109 has improved....sort of (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Seems that optimal climb speed is 165 mph IAS. There was no visible difference in VSI when changing from the best climb speed to climb speed of 165 mph IAS.
10k RoC:
100% fuel, 100% throttle: 3000 fpm -> 3200 fpm
25% fuel, 100% throttle: 3500 fpm -> 3650 fpm
20k RoC
100% fuel, 100% throttle: 2500 fpm -> 2650 fpm
25% fuel, 100% throttle: 3000 fpm -> 3100 fpm
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Very oddly, the 0.44 Bf109G-10(clean) climbs right on the numbers for a G-6/R6(+2x20mm). Climbs with 100% power to 18700ft in 6 minutes. Top speed on 100% power at 22k is ~405mph. With WEP it does 437mph at 22k. Hmmm, just what's going on here... is it too heavy, or doesn't it have enough power?
Does anyone have numbers for how much the MG151/20 gondolas take off the top speed? (real figures, not AH (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 01-04-2000).]
-
Very oddly, the 0.44 Bf109G-10(clean) climbs right on the numbers for a G-6/R6(+2x20mm). Climbs with 100% power to 18700ft in 6 minutes. Top speed on 100% power at 22k is ~405mph. With WEP it does 437mph at 22k. Hmmm, just what's going on here... is it too heavy, or doesn't it have enough power?
Are you saying that G6R6 could do 437 mph at 22k ?
Last i checked top speed for G6 clean with no boosts was in 390 mph range. R6 would be somewhat slower.
Also, R6 would not climb to 20k in 6 minutes without boost.
Where do you get that data ?
Just curious...
------------------
(http://www.raf303.org/banner.gif)
Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
www.raf303.org (http://www.raf303.org)
-
OK.
All the numbers I've ever seen for the Bf109G-6 say climb to 9840ft in 2.9, 18700 in 6 minutes, top speed 386 mph, AND - armament of 2xMG131, 1xMK108 or 1xMG151, and 2xMG151 gondolas.
Eric Brown flight tested a Bf109G-6/U4(Werk-Nr. 41 2951) and recorded a top speed of 384mph. All the photos I've seen of this plane show it fitted with - surprise - 2xMG151 gondolas, plus a bombrack on the centreline. The gondolas only cause a loss of 2mph? - I think not.
AFDU comparitive trials of Spitfire LF IX vs Bf109G-6 show the LF IX(using both 18 and 25lbs boost) as being 7mph faster than the G-6 at heights over 15k. The top speed of the LF IX is 404mph at 21k.
So I figure, all those numbers are actually for the Bf109G-6/R6 The Bf109G-6/R6 would do 386mph, but a clean G-6 would do something closer to 400mph I think.
(Disclaimer: of course, I could be wrong...)
Either way, the Bf109G-10 still climbs too slow without WEP. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
When the light was right it was actually possible to see the 30mm(1.18ins) shells in flight. - Heinrich Beauvais(Test Pilots, W.Späte).
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 01-04-2000).]