Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on December 05, 2005, 07:08:33 PM
-
Bf109s flaps should lower at higher speeds than they do.
Bf109G-14 should be faster at altitude than it is.
Spitfire Mk VIII should roll as fast as Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XIV?
Bf109G-14 should climb better at altitude?
Spitfire Mk XVI should lose 200fpm more of climb rate for every 1000ft of altitude than the Spitfire Mk VIII due to clipped wings vs full span wings? This needs to be confirmed as an issue really, but it doesn't seem the Spit XVI loses climb rate for the clipped wings.
Spitfire Mk I's performance degraded from v2.06 to v2.06.1?
Any other issues or coments on the issues I listed. I am only sure of the firat two, hence the question marks on the others.
-
Some items gleaned from other recent threads ... not sure how definate these are (save for the Ta152) but I've seen enough solid evidence presented to be convinced these are worth a look:
109's sustained turn rate may be too low, should be better than comparable Spits based on some test data.
Ta152 sucks rocks. Hard.
190's have should stall violently only with heavy handling (i.e. abrupt control inputs), currently the thing spins out even with gentle handling.
190's may be modelled as overweight (or other things are wrong - see any of Crumpp's postings).
Acceleration rates for the LW planes seem low in general - esp. the 190D9.
Weird Me110 flat spins since 2.06.
Issues with width of cockpit framing on the 109. And while I'm at it, the gunsights on the Yak and La are too far from the eye point or too small or both. The Russian cockpits are like olympic swimming pools with the distance you can zoom fwd and back.
-
Well, La, Yak, 190 and 110 stuff aren't v2.06 issues.
Also there would need to be some very solid evidence to say that Bf109s should out turn Spits as there is substantial data that says they shouldn't.
-
The G-14 is in bad shape all round, speed is just the most apparent.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Well, La, Yak, 190 and 110 stuff aren't v2.06 issues.
[...]
Sorry ... I misunderstood what you were after in this thread. Thought you meant things that needed addressing as of 2.06, not stuff that was wrong with the 2.06 changes.
As for the 109 ... sustained turn .... not instantaneous ... I posted a write-up in another thread from some flight tests done in neutral Sweden.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Spitfire Mk I's performance degraded from v2.06 to v2.06.1?
Degraded? hmmm that might be the control surfaces. That plane is faster than 109E but controls like a bomber lol. I think 109E beats spit 1 in instataneus turns and spit is still the queen of sustained turns (A6Ms are king!) :)
-
OK ... found the references:
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm
http://www.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf
The charts in the first link show the sustained turn of the 109G to be better than the Spit9, though the Spit 9 still wins instantaneous turn. The Spit5 out-turns the 109 across the board.
The second link explains the snap-spin of the Fw190.
-
Spit8 has smaller ailerons. Even with full deflection (which you don't get all the time) you're still getting less force on the ailerons and less roll.
I believe somebody mentioned that if this is so, the spit14 needs to have its roll rate reduced as well, because they had the same smaller ailerons. I don't know if that's true or not.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Spit8 has smaller ailerons. Even with full deflection (which you don't get all the time) you're still getting less force on the ailerons and less roll.
I believe somebody mentioned that if this is so, the spit14 needs to have its roll rate reduced as well, because they had the same smaller ailerons. I don't know if that's true or not.
That doesn't really make sense on several levels though. Sure, at 180mph or so it would have a lower roll rate, but above that speed where full deflection can no longer be obtained the pilot should be able to get just as much deflection force out of the shorter ailerons as he should be able to deflect them slightly further. In addition no roll rate difference was noted in the RAF trials and while it may have been 5% slower, a more than 15% reduction in aileron effectiveness surely would have been noticed. We can certainly notice it here. Angus also mentions that the hinges had been changed to improve roll rate response. Add on top of that the chief test pilot for the Spitfire program, Jeffrey Quill, considered the Mk VIII to be the most enjoyable to fly and best handling Spitfire of all marks and there is substantial evidence that it should roll similarly to the Mk IX.
Against that there is a one line quip in the flight trials of an extended wing Spitfire Mk VIII.
-
I heard Pyro will fix/tune-up 109 flap settings (see 'What happened to LW' thread last page). He forgot the add that fix in v2.06. Is the new flap settings going to benefit 109s?
PS don't forget the FW-190s :)
also im guessing what's going to be on v2.06 patch 2
* fix roll rate on spit 8
* fix all FW-190 FM
* fix spit 16 climb rate
* fix 109G-14 max speed
* fix all 109 flap settings
:)
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I heard Pyro will fix/tune-up 109 flap settings (see 'What happened to LW' thread last page). He forgot the add that fix in v2.06. Is the new flap settings going to benefit 109s?
PS don't forget the FW-190s :)
also im guessing what's going to be on v2.06 patch 2
* fix roll rate on spit 8
* fix all FW-190 FM
* fix spit 16 climb rate
* fix 109G-14 max speed
* fix all 109 flap settings
:)
Now as much as I'd like to see those fixes I don't think they will happen anytime soon (hope I am wrong).
Not sure about 190 flap speeds, I've heard 350 km/h for the first notch (takeoff flaps I believe) maybe Crumpp can shed some light on that.
As far as 109 goes the flap fix was somehow overlooked for 2.06. Hopefully they will be acording to the chart posted in the LW thread.
As far as Spit VIII Roll rate goes I think Karnak is right when it comes to high speeds.
-
The 152 FM being smoothed out to AH2 standards, as the 190s were, can't happen soon enough.
-
Spit XVI climb -
Unitl someone does a comparative test with equal fuel between the XIII and XVI I don't know if this is a bug/problem.
You can't just take 25% fuel load on each plane as the VIII carries more internal fuel.
With equal fuel I would guess the VIII does outclimb the XVI by the correct amount.
-
Forget making the 152 into AH2 standards how about rewriting the whole FM for the 190s Gee!
-
From Karnak:
"Spitfire Mk VIII should roll as fast as Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XIV?"
Yup. If not better AFAIK.
And the 110 was actually known for lethal flatspins.
-
Originally posted by Angus
And the 110 was actually known for lethal flatspins.
I've read reports of 110s stalling as they tried to bring their guns to bear on the belly of a night bomber, in less than ideal conditions, flat spinning and only gaining control 2000-3000 metres down - scarey at night, I imagine.
-
Well, perhaps, but maybe all that radar gear on the nose threw the normal envelope off? :)
-
OK ... its just that several people mentioned how the 110 went into flat spins since 1.06. Maybe it was supposed to all along. Maybe it's related to the loadout.
-
The 110 has always gone into flatspins in AH. I see no real reasons why they shouldn't, I see no real reasons why they should either.
I've heard very few reports of any WW2 planes going into unrecoverable spins or flat spins (yes I know the 110 spin is recoverable).
-
wilbus, do you mean it was recoverable in real life, or it is in AH? If you mean the latter I must disagree!
-
You might also want to include the cannon ROF tweaking - all the sources I'm finding show the Hispano Mk.II should have a 600rpm ROF (they currently are at 650).
The Luftwaffe cannon lethality & ROF might also be adjusted at the same time - all the LW cannons currently fire at the low end of their listed ROF range.
EagleDNY :aok
-
When I fire the gun, target goes BOOM. They seem to work fine to me :P
-
Think the MG151 ounch is in more need of a fix than then ROF.
Mg151 had a 700rpm ROF normal, this was lowered to about 650 when sycronized on 190's and Ta152's.
Krusty, I mean in AH, it is recoverable in AH with the right amount of altitude. Been some time since I got into one though.
-
Krusty,
chop throttle, gear down, kick opposite rudder (will force nose down) stop spin, pull out.
Or, you can use trim to get it to nose down, but IMO kicking hard rudder was easier and faster.
Once you've got it nose down recovery is easy.
-
I lost 20,000 feet to a flat spin in a 110 once, will have to find the film (BEEN AGES THOUGH)
-
ding ding found another one !
109F-4's WEP (at 1.42 ata) was not used untill 1942. 109F-4s from 1941 only had max power at 1.3 ata.
since the old (1942) spitfire 5 was de-rated to 1941, then the current 109F-4 (1942) should also be derated to 1941 performance.
:)
-
110 and mossi got into flat spins because the torque form thier engines turning in the same direction.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
ding ding found another one !
109F-4's WEP (at 1.42 ata) was not used untill 1942. 109F-4s from 1941 only had max power at 1.3 ata.
since the old (1942) spitfire 5 was de-rated to 1941, then the current 109F-4 (1942) should also be derated to 1941 performance.
:)
How much the F-4 does right now ?
With 1,3ata, it did 635 kph at 6200m, at 1,42 (1942;) ) it did 670 kph.
So if it does 635, don't fix it if you want 1941.
Now regarding the Spitty roll rate, I think it's quite logical why the XIV and VIII should worser than the
- fuel was added in the wings, and that weight doesn't exactly helps brisk roll rate, there's more inertia.
- shorter span ailerons as mentioned, simply there was less aileron area, so roll rate MUST have been lower. Perhaps stickforces went down, but that's it. Documentation is needed.
- pretty much all the references, RAE tests and the like show the MkVIII rolled more slowly than the IX. If anyone can show otherswise, I am all ears, but even Alex Heshaw said that on the flick roll of later variants.
-
Yes we all must bear in mind that the Spitfire roll rate started at 8 secs then gradually got worse through the war and clipping didn't make a difference....... :rofl
-
Kurfurst,
If you have any documentation about the roll rate of the Mk VIII and Mk XIV please link to it as all that has been supplied to suggest a lower roll rate is a test of a extended wing Spitfire Mk VIII, which of course had a lower roll rate. Every other document I have found that mentions the roll rate of the Mk VIII or Mk XIV claims that they rolled as fast as the Mk IX. I could understand that claim if the difference was less than 5%, but in AH the Mk VIII rolls more than 15% slower than the Mk IX and 15+% lower is quite noticable. I doubt Jeffrey Quill would have considered the Mk VIII the best handling Spitfire of all (and he test flew all marks) if he had to struggle to roll it in comparison with the Mk IX. Certainly the max roll rate at full deflection (assuming the changed hinges didn't increase the maximum deflection angle obtainable) would have been slower than the Mk IX, but above that speed why would it be lower? The pilot should be able to get just as much deflection force out of the ailerons at speeds above maximum deflection speeds because he should be able to get greater deflection angle on them as a result of the aileron's smaller surface area. A greater deflection angle should result in a smaller aileron providing as high a deflection force as a larger aileron at a smaller deflection angle (obviously this only applies as long as we are keeping the aircraft type and control linkages the same).
Regarging the wing tanks, what you said is not strictly true. Added weight in the wings, such as the Spit VIII's small tanks or the Fw190A-5's outboard guns, do not reduce maximum roll rate. Added weight will reduce roll acceleration, the more weight and the further out it is the greater the reduction. In the case of the Mk VIII's wing tanks they are small (14 gallon IIRC) and on the inboard leading edge of the wings. They would have a very slight impact on roll acceleration and that is all.
Now, even if I am wrong and you are right there is still a bug to be fixed as the Mk XIV rolls slightly faster than the Mk IX and if you are right it should roll slower as the Mk VIII does now.
In any case I am really hoping for a patch to address the Bf109's flaps and the Bf109G-14's sub-par performance. Boosting the Mk VIII's roll rate to the same level as the Mk IX's would just be icing on the cake.
-
How much the F-4 does right now ?
With 1,3ata, it did 635 kph at 6200m, at 1,42 (1942 ) it did 670 kph.
So if it does 635, don't fix it if you want 1941.
The F-4 in AH only reaches about 635km/h at 'Emergency Power' (1,42 ata). I am not so sure it should reach 670km/h at 1,42 km/h, I would be happy with 650km/h / 660km/h or so @ 1.42 ata / 2700 rpm. Whatever argument is made it should be noted the the AH F-4 doesn't come close to expected top speed at 1,42 ata.
109F-4 (http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=21&L=1)
As Kurfürst said 635km/h - 640km/h would be '41 performance (when was the F-4 cleared for 1,42? winter '41-'42?). It has always been like this in AH, that was one of the problems with the '42 Spit Vc @ 16lbs boost.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Kurfurst,
If you have any documentation about the roll rate of the Mk VIII and Mk XIV please link to it as all that has been supplied to suggest a lower roll rate is a test of a extended wing Spitfire Mk VIII, which of course had a lower roll rate. Every other document I have found that mentions the roll rate of the Mk VIII or Mk XIV claims that they rolled as fast as the Mk IX. I could understand that claim if the difference was less than 5%, but in AH the Mk VIII rolls more than 15% slower than the Mk IX and 15+% lower is quite noticable. I doubt Jeffrey Quill would have considered the Mk VIII the best handling Spitfire of all (and he test flew all marks) if he had to struggle to roll it in comparison with the Mk IX. Certainly the max roll rate at full deflection (assuming the changed hinges didn't increase the maximum deflection angle obtainable) would have been slower than the Mk IX, but above that speed why would it be lower? The pilot should be able to get just as much deflection force out of the ailerons at speeds above maximum deflection speeds because he should be able to get greater deflection angle on them as a result of the aileron's smaller surface area. A greater deflection angle should result in a smaller aileron providing as high a deflection force as a larger aileron at a smaller deflection angle (obviously this only applies as long as we are keeping the aircraft type and control linkages the same).
[/B]
Yes I largely agree, I'd presume the effect of smaller span ailerons was that it rolled slower at lower speeds, but high speed response was probably improved - afaik the s.s. ailerons were to fix the flutter problems of the Spitfire.
Now as for the comparisons, it's difficult to tell, they are rather vague impressions of pilots not strictly measured dataset, and the ones I have seen (ie. AFDU's mk9 vs mk8) were not comparable because of the different wingtips and spans. There's also individual difference between production planes, and as I know, the aileron quality varied with each Spitfire, some had well matched ailerons that rolled well, others had poorly matched ones (dispersed production...) and this also caused the stickforce vary quite a lot, a friend from sweden sent me some nice curves about that.
Regarging the wing tanks, what you said is not strictly true. Added weight in the wings, such as the Spit VIII's small tanks or the Fw190A-5's outboard guns, do not reduce maximum roll rate. Added weight will reduce roll acceleration, the more weight and the further out it is the greater the reduction. In the case of the Mk VIII's wing tanks they are small (14 gallon IIRC) and on the inboard leading edge of the wings. They would have a very slight impact on roll acceleration and that is all. Now, even if I am wrong and you are right there is still a bug to be fixed as the Mk XIV rolls slightly faster than the Mk IX and if you are right it should roll slower as the Mk VIII does now.
In any case I am really hoping for a patch to address the Bf109's flaps and the Bf109G-14's sub-par performance. Boosting the Mk VIII's roll rate to the same level as the Mk IX's would just be icing on the cake.[/B]
True, the weight only effects roll acceleration, but that's also part of the pilot's impression, and is quite important since fighters rarely do more than 90-180 degree roll. I suppose this is the reason why the findings of the AFDU pilots testing the gondie-G6 and the clean-G2 don't match very well when you compare them.
Perhaps AH2 can't model accurately roll acceleration nd this is a kind of solution for it..? I don't know. What we would need is some nice Mk VIII roll data, is such available? I am all for fixing it, wheter it's too low or too high, I was merely posting what could be a reason for how it's modelled in AH.
-
I don't know how much the model roll acceleration in AH. Honestly it is the basic handling characteristic I am least familiar with as practically nothing documents it. I have seen one graph once and I don't even remember which aircraft were on it.
As to the varried quality, you are quite right. I recall one pilot who flew Spitifre MK VIIIs in the Pacific Theater saying there was one Spit VIII in the unit that was just "off" and nothing could be found wrong with it. He ended up having an "accident" while taxing it and getting it written off the unit's list.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I don't know how much the model roll acceleration in AH. Honestly it is the basic handling characteristic I am least familiar with as practically nothing documents it. I have seen one graph once and I don't even remember which aircraft were on it.
As to the varried quality, you are quite right. I recall one pilot who flew Spitifre MK VIIIs in the Pacific Theater saying there was one Spit VIII in the unit that was just "off" and nothing could be found wrong with it. He ended up having an "accident" while taxing it and getting it written off the unit's list.
Better known as "rogue" aircraft in the RAF. There were a couple of Spit XIIs out of the production line that earned that title and were sent off to be tested to find out why. One later returned to 91 squadron was was lost with it's pilot shortly afterwards.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I don't know how much the model roll acceleration in AH. Honestly it is the basic handling characteristic I am least familiar with as practically nothing documents it. I have seen one graph once and I don't even remember which aircraft were on it.
As to the varried quality, you are quite right. I recall one pilot who flew Spitifre MK VIIIs in the Pacific Theater saying there was one Spit VIII in the unit that was just "off" and nothing could be found wrong with it. He ended up having an "accident" while taxing it and getting it written off the unit's list.
In any assembly line there are always some proportion of "lemons" - you get lemon cars, so why not lemon airplanes? Anyone who has ever owned an old british car (MG myself) can attest to some of the quality control issues that appear in different machines coming off the same assembly line.
The Spitfire factories were probably running 3 shifts as it was - the big surprise was that they were able to keep the quality as high as it was and that there weren't more "air lemons" coming off the line.
EagleDNY
:cool:
-
I'd like to add 200 round option for the engine mounted Mauser for both G-6 and G-14 to the list.
Butch2k was kind enough to post documentation conserning G-6 here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164304).
And one source for the G-14 can be found here (http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/airframes/413601/413601_report.htm).
-
Not sure about 190 flap speeds, I've heard 350 km/h for the first notch (takeoff flaps I believe) maybe Crumpp can shed some light on that.
Just received a load of documents from the PRO. In them is a crash examination report of an FW-190A5. It quotes a cockpit data sheet listing the flap deployment speeds as 295Kph. That is 185mph TAS for the 60 degrees landing flap position.
I don't think you can fully lower the FW-190A's flaps in AH until much lower speeds.
A USAAF tactical trial list's the "take off" position as the "maneuver flaps" for the FW-190A.
The Flugzeug-Handbuch instructs the pilot on take off to raise the flaps and trim for level flight at 500kph.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Had a quick chat with Skuzzy -
The XVI and VIII are modelled correctly.
The XVI should outturn the VIII marginally, he couldn't remember exactly why Pyro said it did, but apparently there is a wing difference, apart from it being clipped.
-
That's odd. I wonder what the differences are?
Did you ask about the VIII's roll rate as compared to the IX's and XIV's?
-
Can only imagine internal structural changes.
The spar was improved on 'later' mks, maybe the 'e' wing was more rigid.
He couldn't remember and Pyro is on vacation.
Open to suggestions.
P.S. forgot about the roll rate. :(
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Can only imagine internal structural changes.
The spar was improved on 'later' mks, maybe the 'e' wing was more rigid.
He couldn't remember and Pyro is on vacation.
Open to suggestions.
P.S. forgot about the roll rate. :(
E Wing was strengthened to handle the wing hard points.
The other issue with the VIII would be the added weight of the fuel tanks in the leading edge of the wing. That might have an effect. The XVI did not have that added fuel there.
I have a copy of the VIII pilot's notes around here somewhere. Not sure what order they burned off the fuel
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
OK ... its just that several people mentioned how the 110 went into flat spins since 1.06. Maybe it was supposed to all along. Maybe it's related to the loadout.
I've had the same flat spin problem in them for over a year. 1 engine goes out (usually the left side) while manuvering, and it'd start a flat spin in a hurry. Way faster than anything else with twin engines (although mossie feels similar when it happens) At MA alts, by the time the spin is corrected, it's still in a deep stall with the nose pitching +- 30 degrees or more. I usually make an impromptu, high-speed landing while recovering from the stall.
-
Whoops, wrong button.
-
I think i found a speed issue with the spitfire mk1 the max speed ive been able 2 get to was 300mph (full wep) compared to the article below the spit is under powered (not sure if that is max speed b4 it breaks appart)
and i find the spin rate is horible compared 2 the seafire mk2 im not to sure if this is right
If any of this info is wrong just yell at me (please dont im fragile!! lol j/k)
Production of the MkI began in 1937. It was powered by the Rolls-Royce Merlin II of 1030 hp. This gave the Mk I a speed of 355 mph, a climb rate of 2515 ft/min, and a vey high ceiling of 34,556 ft (with oxygen of course). It came equipped with no fewer than 8 0.3.3 Vickers K machine guns, 4 in each wing. A total of 1583 Mk.Is were made.