Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Boozeman on November 08, 2008, 11:26:40 AM
-
As you may know, the C.205 currently has 5 minutes of continuous WEP before the shutoff due to overheating. Then it needs 15 minutes to cool down completely to have another 5 minutes of WEP. So far, so good.
However, as for all other planes running a DB605 (109Gs, 110G) get 10 Minutes of WEP and 10 minutes of cool down, which is much more useable.
Now, since the C.205 is also DB605 powered, why doesn't it have the same WEP configuration as the German planes?
Any ideas?
-
Hasn't been remodeled yet? :salute
-
Hasn't been remodeled yet? :salute
No, the later German fighters always had 10 minutes of WEP in AH.
Maybe the C.205 didn't have the boost additives the Germans used?
-
No, the later German fighters always had 10 minutes of WEP in AH.
Maybe the C.205 didn't have the boost additives the Germans used?
That and coupled with the fact that the DB605's were License-Built.
-
I fly 205's alot...my main fighter. But I think AH hates the 205. :lol kidding. Anyway other question is why is there not bombs and DT's for 205's? Though rare 205's did carry bombs and used DT in the war. Probably was as common as the LA having the 3 gun package but we have that!
-
The DB605-A1 engined 109G's did not use boost-additives, so that's not an explanation.
Moreover, the 109G-2 and G-6 receive a greater airspeed % increase with WEP than the C205. Nothing is better evidence of a flawed flight model than that.
-
Before you claim that the flight model is flawed, consider the factor of aerodynamics. If the 109 has a smaller drag coefficient, then it can reach higer speeds with the same power. There is also the law of diminishing returns. You can give an aircraft 100 times the power and it can only go so fast. Once you reach an aerodynamically limited speed, you need an exponentially higher power increase to go faster still.
Or maybe the flight model is flawed.
-
Like I said, when the C-205 gets remodeled, it will probably have slots for things like DT's Bombs, and whatever was historically used on them. :salute
-
Like all the other planes' performance it's in the documentation.
It's already known that they do the best they can to come up with as much good info as they can from test flight data charts. The engine performance on the C205 is different from the Bf109 because the paperwork they have probably says so.
-
The 205 was superior to the 109G4 according to the tests in Feb 1943. One thing of interest is that the germans ran the 109's at a higher ATA then the 205. The 205 was at something like 1.2 and the 109 and at 1.4...
-
OK, first on the WEP duration/recharge issue. As it has been correctly pointed out, the early DB605 did not use boost additives. So that truly cannot be the reason. Secondly, being licence build, is not convincing also, since the C202, 109E and Ki61 have the same WEP parameters, but 2 of them have licence build 601s.
Now on the speed issue. Well at least in AH, the amount of drag on the 109G2 and the 205 are about the same, with a slight advantage for the 205.
Thus, the 205 on MIL settings is indeed a bit faster than the G2. On WEP this is completely reversed. Why is that?
Well, you could say that altough the 205 makes same power on MIL as the G2, it makes less on WEP. However, the E6B shows both engines run on pretty much the same settings, and therefore the same power. So the "less HP" theory is rather unlikely.
On the other hand, when both planes are loaded to the same weight ans thus equalizing the the P/W ratios and also the wingloading, the 205 easily outclimbs the G2, indicating it is actually making more power, which on the other hand is completely lost in the speed performance.
It is really strange and I am with Anaxogoras on this, the C2 do really need an FM review, not just a 3D facelift.
-
The DB605-A1 engined 109G's did not use boost-additives, so that's not an explanation.
Moreover, the 109G-2 and G-6 receive a greater airspeed % increase with WEP than the C205. Nothing is better evidence of a flawed flight model than that.
Flight model? So when Rommel was going insane over Italian Armor breakdowns, it must have been the "driving model"? Italian equipment was extremely noted for "Quality Issues".
Let's look at some data:
C.205V (around 7,000m) - 398mph
C.205N (6,500m) - 390mph
Bf-109G-2 (at 7,000m) - 410 mph
Bf-109G-6 (at 6,600m) - 397 mph @ full 1.42atm Boost.
Bf-109G-6 (at 6,600m) - 391 mph @ restricted 1.32atm boost
The G6 around 44, received MW-50 (it made a difference in the WEP), something the 205 didn't have. Also something the Italians didn't have was the DB605AS. The two would also then transpire in the G-14. All the G14 was, was the G6 with a DB605AS engine and MW-50 (engine related that is). It would appear that we have the N1 or N2 and the flight model is not as bad as some are making it out to be.
As for the 205 carrying bombs. Ask yourself this question, they rarely carried them ,but when they did, it was two 80kg bombs. A single 100L drop tank was all that it could carry.
I see more things wrong with the Ki-61 than the 205. For starters, turn radius and a few other things. The Tony is in more need of help, than the 205.
-
Flight model? So when Rommel was going insane over Italian Armor breakdowns, it must have been the "driving model"? Italian equipment was extremely noted for "Quality Issues".
Let's look at some data:
C.205V (around 7,000m) - 398mph
C.205N (6,500m) - 390mph
Bf-109G-2 (at 7,000m) - 410 mph
Bf-109G-6 (at 6,600m) - 397 mph @ full 1.42atm Boost.
Bf-109G-6 (at 6,600m) - 391 mph @ restricted 1.32atm boost
The G6 around 44, received MW-50 (it made a difference in the WEP), something the 205 didn't have. Also something the Italians didn't have was the DB605AS. The two would also then transpire in the G-14. All the G14 was, was the G6 with a DB605AS engine and MW-50 (engine related that is). It would appear that we have the N1 or N2 and the flight model is not as bad as some are making it out to be.
The speeds you quote for the 109G-6 are with a DB605A-1, not with MW50 boost nor with the more powerful supercharger resulting in the 109G-6/AS. The 109G-14 did not have the DB605AS standard, but it did have MW50 standard. 109G-14s with the DB605AS were designated G-14/AS. Some 109G-10s also had the DB605AS, and were designated G-10/AS.
The 109G-6 we have in AH is the earliest possible version with a DB605A-1 (save for the bullet-proof-glass head armor); it has none of the other successive improvements made to the 109G-6.
Before you claim that the flight model is flawed, consider the factor of aerodynamics. If the 109 has a smaller drag coefficient, then it can reach higer speeds with the same power. There is also the law of diminishing returns. You can give an aircraft 100 times the power and it can only go so fast. Once you reach an aerodynamically limited speed, you need an exponentially higher power increase to go faster still.
Boozeman is correct about the speed disparities. At Military power, the C205 is faster than the 109G-6, but with the same engine, the 109G-6 is faster with WEP than the C205. Because we know they had an equivalent engine, this would seem to indicate that in AH they do not.
-
The speeds you quote for the 109G-6 are with a DB605A-1, not with MW50 boost nor with the more powerful supercharger resulting in the 109G-6/AS. The 109G-14 did not have the DB605AS standard, but it did have MW50 standard. 109G-14s with the DB605AS were designated G-14/AS. Some 109G-10s also had the DB605AS, and were designated G-10/AS.
The 109G-6 we have in AH is the earliest possible version with a DB605A-1 (save for the bullet-proof-glass head armor); it has none of the other successive improvements made to the 109G-6.
Boozeman is correct about the speed disparities. At Military power, the C205 is faster than the 109G-6, but with the same engine, the 109G-6 is faster with WEP than the C205. Because we know they had an equivalent engine, this would seem to indicate that in AH they do not.
We don't have the G6/AS so why bring it up (I'm still laughing at you parroting what I just said, but if you say so)? Take your beef with HTC. Obviously you are on the verge of suicide. G6 had gun blisters that reduced the speed around 9 kph.
-
:confused: You brought it up first. And I did not parrot what you said; some of what you said was in error. But you paint everything with such a broad brush you wouldn't notice the differences. :devil
-
Just another intresting point, when both planes (and i'm using the sleeker G2 for comparison) are loaded to the same weight, the 205 easily outacclerates the G2 in both in MIL or WEP settings. Hell, even the fully loaded 205 with 650 lb more weight outaccelerates the G2 on MIL settings, and is not too far behind with its "crippled" WEP.
-
As for the 205 carrying bombs. Ask yourself this question, they rarely carried them ,but when they did, it was two 80kg bombs. A single 100L drop tank was all that it could carry.
I see more things wrong with the Ki-61 than the 205. For starters, turn radius and a few other things. The Tony is in more need of help, than the 205.
I still want them and to fly under attack mode too. 205 is a good little deacker and 170lb bomb could kill a light gv or maybe a heavier tank. This is a 205 thread go start your own Ki-61 thread. thank you
-
I still want them and to fly under attack mode too. 205 is a good little deacker and 170lb bomb could kill a light gv or maybe a heavier tank. This is a 205 thread go start your own Ki-61 thread. thank you
Shelve the ego.
-
:confused: You brought it up first. And I did not parrot what you said; some of what you said was in error. But you paint everything with such a broad brush you wouldn't notice the differences. :devil
You not only parroted me, you need to get personal to make it more to the point. It's a shame you are in a squad with some damn fine individuals.
You don't know me and never will.
-
The 205 was superior to the 109G4 according to the tests in Feb 1943. One thing of interest is that the germans ran the 109's at a higher ATA then the 205. The 205 was at something like 1.2 and the 109 and at 1.4...
You must have read the test wrong. The 109G vs. 205 test wasn't flown due to hydraulic problems with the 205. You must think of the Fiat G.55 test, and even that didn't prove the Italian fighter better than the 109G.
-
I am NO expert, or even a novice in any of this, so please do not take what i say as a challenge to the knowledge of any posting in this thread.
doesn't prop size, number of blades and pitch also determine alot of what power any given motor/plane combination will be?
the duration of WEP/MIL is based on the overheating of the engine, correct? well if the 205 had a less efficient cooling system, (ie less air flow through the cowling, poor coolant characteristics ect) then the 205 will heat faster reducing overall power and length of time the WEP/MIL would last. could these differences in the plane design/model account for the difference in performance you are describing?
remember, i am not an expert nor am i claiming any special knowledge here.
FLOTSOM
-
I am NO expert, or even a novice in any of this, so please do not take what i say as a challenge to the knowledge of any posting in this thread.
doesn't prop size, number of blades and pitch also determine alot of what power any given motor/plane combination will be?
the duration of WEP/MIL is based on the overheating of the engine, correct? well if the 205 had a less efficient cooling system, (ie less air flow through the cowling, poor coolant characteristics ect) then the 205 will heat faster reducing overall power and length of time the WEP/MIL would last. could these differences in the plane design/model account for the difference in performance you are describing?
remember, i am not an expert nor am i claiming any special knowledge here.
FLOTSOM
That's a good hypothesis. Does that explain why WEP in the 109G yields a greater % speed increase?
-
That's a good hypothesis. Does that explain why WEP in the 109G yields a greater % speed increase?
my guess would be that that answer would lay in the prop differences between the two planes. but that would be a very UNeducated guess.
i will leave it to those who have a much greater knowledge in the field and research materials at their disposal to answer this with any certainty.
FLOTSOM
-
Some toughts:
If the 205s prop would be less efficient in transmitting the engine power than the 109 prop, then this would be noticable across the whole perfomance range.
Matter of fact, it would then be slower on MIL than the 109, but it isn't. Also climb and acclereation would suffer, but they doesn't.
Regarding the efficancy of the cooling system, while this may have an influence in real life, AH engine model keeps things a bit more simple. Lets take the example again with the 202/ki-61/109E: Three different aircraft, thus different cooling systems, but the same engine. All three have the same WEP parameters. Or the RR Merlins, no matter in which AC its installed, all get the same WEP. Same with the V-1710 or the R-2800.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,117090.0.html
Pyro's reply is down the page
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,117090.0.html
Pyro's reply is down the page
All that thread does is show that Pyro didn't know what was up.
-
Shelve the ego.
Don't think I am the one with the ego. Just want to keep the thread on target...sorry. Had a g6 catch me in my 205 the other day and wondered how he did because I was thinking they had the same engine. It was a no e advantage on the deck run. Just got my 3rd kill and had 3 new uppers and desided to make a run for it.
Point of thread is to determine the flight model for the 205.
-
I have no info to support this theory but here goes. If 2 airplanes have the same powerplant and WEP last longer in one than the other it would seem to me that maybe the 109 has a better cooling system. Since WEP in this game is limited only by engine temp that would make the most sense to me. And there are alot of factors that go into speed besides engine power.
As far as the speed increase from WEP. I am not sure about that statistics on the aircraft in question but here is a good analogy.
If I were to take 1500lb car with 200hp and a 2000lb car with 200hp and supercharge them both wouldn't the lighter one experience a greater acceleration boost from the same power. I am not saying the 205 is heavier than the 109 but maybe there are factors that would support this. It would seem to me that as power increases the differences in aerodynamics become that much more apparent.
-
I understand you thinking there Transam1 and the 205 is a bit heavier. But it also out acclerates the 109 and has higher top speed on Military power. It's the WEP power increase and time on WEP that is in question. And the better cooling system would be a good place to start. But as stated before in the thread all of the other planes with same engine have the same increase in WEP and duration of WEP. So why is the 205 and 109g-6 different...they have the same engine.
-
Some 109G-10s also had the DB605AS, and were designated G-10/AS.
That's a common myth: No production G-10 received a DB605AS as this would then be a G-14. All production G-10 received a DB 605D. It may be different for repaired aircraft or very very late production G-10 (those late G-10 may have received a DB 605 ASB or ASC). ASB/ASC had almost the same performance characteristic as the DB 605DB/DC.
-
That's a common myth: No production G-10 received a DB605AS as this would then be a G-14.
Not according to my source, 109 F, G & K Series by Prien and Rodeike. What's your source?
-
Not according to my source, 109 F, G & K Series by Prien and Rodeike. What's your source?
Same as mine and I agree with what you posted. Denniss, some G-10's had em.
-
Which one do you think has more aerodynamic or cooling drag?
-C+
-
Not according to my source, 109 F, G & K Series by Prien and Rodeike. What's your source?
Old sources are often wrong or rel on these myths. As I said before: A G-10 with a DB 605AS would be a G-14/AS and not a G-10/AS as it's the engine that makes a G-10. The only possible G-10/AS designation may have been suitable for G-10 with very late war DB 605ASB or ASC engines as these engines are comparable to the DB 605DB used in the G-10 (with the ASC more comparable to the 605DC used in the K-4). I also told you this only applies to new-built aircraft. It's not impossible repaired G-10 airframes got a different engine type but I really don't now what their model designation was with a DB 605A or AS engine, probably G-10 designation overstamped to G-14.
A highly similar myth is that G-10 were all repaired/upgraded older airframes with a new engine.
-
Old sources are often wrong or rel on these myths. As I said before: A G-10 with a DB 605AS would be a G-14/AS and not a G-10/AS as it's the engine that makes a G-10. The only possible G-10/AS designation may have been suitable for G-10 with very late war DB 605ASB or ASC engines as these engines are comparable to the DB 605DB used in the G-10 (with the ASC more comparable to the 605DC used in the K-4). I also told you this only applies to new-built aircraft. It's not impossible repaired G-10 airframes got a different engine type but I really don't now what their model designation was with a DB 605A or AS engine, probably G-10 designation overstamped to G-14.
A highly similar myth is that G-10 were all repaired/upgraded older airframes with a new engine.
Source?
-
...as these engines are comparable to the DB 605DB used in the G-10 (with the ASC more comparable to the 605DC used in the K-4).
The 605DB and 605DC are the exact same engine, just tuned for two different fuel qualities. The 605DB used the B4 fuel, the 605DC used the C3 fuel. Changing which fuel the engine used took 30 minutes in the field.
-
While this discussion about the 109G and DB605 subvariants is all very intresting, it does not really add to the topic.
So, after reading the old thread, it seems that the 10/10 minute WEP was intended for MW50 boosted 605s, which to my knowledge our 109G2/6 does not have. So maybe that's wrong? Well, I dunno. However, since the 109F with the DB601E also has the same WEP characteristics, I suppose that this treatment of the DB605A is intentionally so. But in that case, the 205 should be no exception.
While there may be other issues with the 205 FM, the change to a 10/10 min WEP would be a quick fix compared to a complete FM overhaul and, I think, well worth it.
-
While this discussion about the 109G and DB605 subvariants is all very intresting, it does not really add to the topic.
So, after reading the old thread, it seems that the 10/10 minute WEP was intended for MW50 boosted 605s, which to my knowledge our 109G2/6 does not have. So maybe that's wrong? Well, I dunno. However, since the 109F with the DB601E also has the same WEP characteristics, I suppose that this treatment of the DB605A is intentionally so. But in that case, the 205 should be no exception.
While there may be other issues with the 205 FM, the change to a 10/10 min WEP would be a quick fix compared to a complete FM overhaul and, I think, well worth it.
agreed! Compared to other craft like it I think the overall FM is pretty good. I never noticed the differance in WEP because I don't fly the 109's very much. Good catch btw.
-
I never noticed the differance in WEP because I don't fly the 109's very much. Good catch btw.
There probably is a good reason for it. In the February 1943 test of Italian and German fighters the report noted that the 205's climb performance was severely restricted due to the small radiator.
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G-4_Guidonia/109G-4_vergl_Estelle-Guidonia_de.html
-
There probably is a good reason for it. In the February 1943 test of Italian and German fighters the report noted that the 205's climb performance was severely restricted due to the small radiator.
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G-4_Guidonia/109G-4_vergl_Estelle-Guidonia_de.html
This was the 205N though, a non production prototype, not the 205V that we have.
-
This was the 205N though, a non production prototype, not the 205V that we have.
The N had a redesigned wing and forward fuselage. The engine and cooling system was the same.
-
Wow, so we finally have a working hypothesis: Less efficient cooling reduces WEP and its duration.
-
The N had a redesigned wing and forward fuselage. The engine and cooling system was the same.
And even more stuff than that. For instance, the N also had an engine mounted cannon, the V did not. This can also affect the engine cooling, but has in fact zero relevance to the 205 modeled in AH. Also, what makes you so sure that the cooling system was exactly the same? Maybe this only came into effect due to the low speed high power condition during the climb? Maybe its perfectly fine at higher speeds?
I am not doubting that there were differences in cooling performance between different planes in real life for lots of reasons and also different flying conditions. However, and I think for a good reason (most likely the lack of hard data), this "layer" is not really modeled in AH, so it it should not be applied to certain planes, and then not to the others as well.
Lets take the RR Merlin for example: No matter which Spitfire, which Hurricane, or the Mossie - all have exactly the same WEP characteristics, but the chances that all these had equally efficient cooling systems under all flight conditions in real life are almost zero. Heck, even the Spit 14 with the Griffon does have the same WEP...which is a completely different engine...
-
And even more stuff than that. For instance, the N also had an engine mounted cannon, the V did not. This can also affect the engine cooling, but has in fact zero relevance to the 205 modeled in AH. Also, what makes you so sure that the cooling system was exactly the same?
Because it was. Same engine, same radiator. Both the 205 V and the N were up-engined 202's, but the N was a more radical redesign incorporating a new wing and forward fuselage (which allowed an engine cannon). For production reasons the simpler V was chosen (required less modification of the 202 production line).
Maybe this only came into effect due to the low speed high power condition during the climb? Maybe its perfectly fine at higher speeds?
All cooling deficiencies are most pronounced during climb, since the engine is at full power and the airspeed is slow. However, that is a good measure of the available cooling reserve at high speed. You must understand that if these planes has sufficient cooling they could in theory operate at full power indefinitely, but they didn't. If one plane has better cooling during climb it also has more cooling reserve at high speed. However, this is all academic since Aces High is far too inaccurate in engine modelling. It is too generic to accurately model realistic engine management and cooling, so all planes have a generic amount of WEP. The 109 series is no exception, and has in my opinion been given a generous amount of generic WEP. So has some of the allied planes like the water-injected Jugs and F4U's which carried a very limited (5 minutes if I remember correctly) supply of water. When the water runs out their WEP also runs out permanently, but this is beyond the level of detail modelled in Aces High.
If we take a 1943 109G with a DB 605A as an example: In real life it had two WEP settings. One 3 minute emergency power, and one 30 minute climb and combat power. In AH this is generalized into a generic 10 minute WEP (at the full Emergency setting). I think this is very generous. The 109F had three "WEP" settings, but maximum power was only available for one minute. The only 109's that had full power available for 10 minutes were the late-war MW-50 equipped versions.
So you see, we can debate the various cooling systems of different aircraft to our hearts' content, but given the lack of detail in AH's engine modelling it is all academic.
-
The cooling problem of the Guidonia C.205 was a problem of *that* aircraft. We never found any document about cooling problems of the license built DB605A engines.
Here are the power curves from the official Fiat DB605A manual:
(http://premium1.uploadit.org/Federico//DB605A.jpg) (http://www.uploadit.org)
However, all the official test documents we found report 1.3ata and 2.600rpm as max rate allowed. We dont know if, after 1943 summer, C.205 pilots were allowed to run their engines at 1.42ata and 2.800rpm.
Only the G.55 flight manual (1944) shows the max rate:
(http://premium1.uploadit.org/Federico//DB605A_1.jpg) (http://www.uploadit.org)
Actually, there is no reason why the DB605A of the C.205 should run differently from the ones mounted on the 109G-2 and G-6 (early). And yes the C.205 FM and graphics are maybe 6-8 years old. Thats why 5 years ago there were 2 big squadrons with some 30 italian players in AH and now there are maybe two or three of them ...
-
If we ever get a G.55 or Re.2005 we'll have a clear answer.
-
If they dont get the right documents and use them in the right way well, I dont think so.
-
However, all the official test documents we found report 1.3ata and 2.600rpm as max rate allowed. We dont know if, after 1943 summer, C.205 pilots were allowed to run their engines at 1.42ata and 2.800rpm.
All DB 605A's were limited to 1.3 ata in early 1943 due to maintenance difficulties. Exactly when they were cleared for 1.42 ata is still a topic for debate.
Actually, there is no reason why the DB605A of the C.205 should run differently from the ones mounted on the 109G-2 and G-6 (early).
Sure, but the operational limitations put on WEP endurance was more a question of maintenance and preserving engine life. You could run these engines on max power for far longer than was allowed, but that would seriously shorten the engine's life and was thus unacceptable from a maintenance perspective. The Germans and Italians may have had different maintenance routines and restrictions even if the engine was the same.
-
Perhaps in the real life but not in a game.
-
Perhaps in the real life but not in a game.
So you don't think the game should reflect real life conditions? The pilots were ordered to stay within these limits. In real life the Merlin engine could be run for hours on WEP without failing, but due to preserving engine life the pilots were limited to 5 minutes as per the pilot's handbook. I think it is reasonable that the in-game planes have similar limitations.
-
What I mean is that AH cannot and should not have different settings for the same engine, the DB605A that is. Mainly becouse we dont have any evidence of different settings due to different manteinance or whatever.
Should AH2's 109K run their engines at lower settings than those specified in his engine manuals due to the fact that probably (I repeat probably) in the RL manteinance was made more difficult by, lets say, shortage of spare parts? I dont think so.
-
What I mean is that AH cannot and should not have different settings for the same engine, the DB605A that is. Mainly becouse we dont have any evidence of different settings due to different manteinance or whatever.
What does the 205's pilot's handbook say? To my knowledge Aces High models WEP after what the pilots were restricted to, not what the engines could do under optimum conditions.
Should AH2's 109K run their engines at lower settings than those specified in his engine manuals due to the fact that probably (I repeat probably) in the RL manteinance was made more difficult by, lets say, shortage of spare parts? I dont think so.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about maintenance difficulties in the field like shortage of spare parts. I'm talking about restrictions made on engine usage to prolong engine life. With these limitations the DB 605A was a 160 hour engine. That's a very short lifespan compared to allied engines, but this is due to the German lack of strategic resources, the engines were built to be "cheap". If the pilots were allowed to run amok with engine power the engines would have to be swapped out for every other flight, which would have been completely unacceptable from a logistics point of view. The early 1943 1.3 ata limitation was due to spark plug fouling/failure if I remember correctly.
The in-game 109K is already limited to the historic power settings and also limited by having only B4 fuel available. In real life the Fw 190's got priority for C3 fuel, and most 109K's had to settle for B4 fuel. So instead of an "optimum" C3 fuelled 2000 hp 109K we have a more historically correct B4 fuelled 1800 hp 109K. The Japanese planes are also modelled using the poor fuel that was historically available to them. The 109K and other MW-50 equipped 109 versions did have a 10 minute WEP, however I do think that the 109G-6 and G-2 should be limited to 1.3 ata and 5 minutes of WEP. The 109F-4 should be limited to 3 minutes of WEP. That would more correctly represent those planes relative to their allied contemporaries.
If the 109K had been modelled as good as it could have been it would be a 2000 hp 470 mph monster with Flettner servo tabs that makes it turn and dive like a Mustang at high speed. Historically this aircraft did not exist except on paper.
-
The Fiat R.A.1050 (DB605A) manual is the exact translation of the german one [D.(Luft)T. 3605 A-B, 0 u.1, Ausgabe Nov 1942] so, IMHO, both engines should run under the same settings. I guess italian pilots used them in the same way german pilots did or, better, we dont have (so far) any hard evidence of different behaviour. Pyro/Hitech never explained why settings are different for the 205 ...
-
Thanks Gatt for posting the italian DB605s power vs. altitude graphs.
Note that max power for each engine setting is generated at about 2 km, with about 100 PS more than at SL.
Funny though, you can read out this power increase with very well from the speed vs. alt chart of the 109G2/6, where it has a rather steep increase in speed climb and accerleration up to that altitude, while the 205 completly lacks this feature. I have made a overlay where this is quite clearly visible:
(http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-vreckova/overlay.bmp)
-
Booze, sorry but your chart is blurry.
However, take note that the C.205V Third series (2x12,7mm and 2x20mm) had a take off weight of about 3.400Kg, some 150Kg more than the 109G-2. Only the C.205V armed with the 2x7mm and the 2x12,7mm can be compared with the 109G-2 as far as weight is concerned.
Actually, the less armed 205V had quite impressive performances. From an official report: May 1942, take off weight 3.224Kg, average time to 6Km 5'03". Best time of the day to 6Km: 4'52". All these times were obtained pushing the engine no more than 1.3ata and 2.600rpm.
Try the light 205V in AH2 and check the time to 6Km .... ah, yes dont forget you have only that 5 minutes wep :huh
-
Try the light 205V in AH2 and check the time to 6Km .... ah, yes dont forget you have only that 5 minutes wep :huh
What's the 205's ata at MIL and WEP in Aces High?
-
What's the 205's ata at MIL and WEP in Aces High?
1,41 @ WEP
1,29 @ MIL
-
1,41 @ WEP
1,29 @ MIL
So basically in AH the 205 is getting the same WEP as the 109G, just not for as long.
-
Yes, but its not showing in the speed performance.
The 109G2/6 gain 20 mph at WEP over MIL, the 205 just 10 mph.
-
That sounds strange. Are you sure its exactly 20 mph and 10 mph? That sounds very derived.
The speed gain of both aircraft should be very similar in percentage of top speed, but there is another variable to consider: The two aircraft did not use the same propeller. There might be differences in propeller efficiency at high speed.
-
Different propellers could explain a lot of things indeed.
An answer from the modellers would be appreciated.