Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SgtPappy on November 16, 2008, 04:53:43 PM
-
Forgive me is this was posted already; I simply couldn't find it anywhere in the records.
Has anyone been doing any hardcore testing on the new Hellcat? Does it reach that 409 mph mark which Grumman managed to somehow mess up? (though everyone makes mistakes, Grumman rocks...)
If anyone's got some random data lying around I'm sure we'd all love to see it!
-
Forgive me is this was posted already; I simply couldn't find it anywhere in the records.
Has anyone been doing any hardcore testing on the new Hellcat? Does it reach that 409 mph mark which Grumman managed to somehow mess up? (though everyone makes mistakes, Grumman rocks...)
If anyone's got some random data lying around I'm sure we'd all love to see it!
i've managed to peg out the airspeed indicator. :aok
ohhhh, you meant in level flight at some sort of configuration at some sort of altitude?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/F6F-5
-
<inserts usual skeptical thought about HTC fixing something here>
-
Usually Widewing does massive tests on new planes... like when the new Corsairs were introduced.
So we have a new comprehensive test of top speed @ altitude, max climb rate, etc, stuff like that?
-
Usually Widewing does massive tests on new planes... like when the new Corsairs were introduced.
So we have a new comprehensive test of top speed @ altitude, max climb rate, etc, stuff like that?
Our F6F-5 conforms to the HTC charts... 386 mph max at best altitude. Should do better than 400 mph. Navy tests of the F6F-3 showed 393 mph without WEP.
Nonetheless, below 10k, performance is in line with all Navy tests I've seen.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Roger. Thanks WW. Most of my books show only a 2-setting flap toggle switch in the Hellcat too. Yet we still have 5 notches.
-
AH2 F6F-5, 2700rpm, 57.5" WEP, 54" without WEP:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v424/timppa/f6f5.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-level.jpg)
May be it is time to bury the 400+ mph myth.
-
cmon tim you must know not to let hard data get in the way of a wishlist item :D
-
AH2 F6F-5, 2700rpm, 57.5" WEP, 54" without WEP:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v424/timppa/f6f5.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-level.jpg)
May be it is time to bury the 400+ mph myth.
Maybe it's time to examine the power settings with more care...
The F6F-5 in the test graph was doing 391 mph in MIL power. In WEP, you would see better than 400 mph, or a speed similar to the TAIC tests.
Read this test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf)
Read this test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-detail-specification.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-detail-specification.pdf)
Read this test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf)
Note the speeds and manifold pressures, also note (in the tests) that the Navy relocated the Static Pitot line to correct for the error induced by Grumman's placement. Brit test results were with the factory location of the Static Pitot line, and thus reflect the air speed error.
Head to head tests of the F6F-5 and F4U-1D showed that they had virtually identical speed at critical altitude.
400+ mph for the F6F-5 isn't myth.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Read this test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf)
Read this test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-detail-specification.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-detail-specification.pdf)
Read this test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf)
Note the speeds and manifold pressures, also note (in the tests) that the Navy relocated the Static Pitot line to correct for the error induced by Grumman's placement. Brit test results were with the factory location of the Static Pitot line, and thus reflect the air speed error.
The TAIC report indeed gives 409mph for F6F-5. It also gives 335mph for A6M5 where as AH2 A6M5 can reach 350mph. :noid
The second link is a Grumman specification for F6F-3. It gives MIL power speed of 391mph. Note the sentence: "The performance is estimated to be as follows". AHT says "at combat power manufacturers figures are 10 to 30 mph increases over Navy numbers". Dean's words, not mine.
In your third link i think I'm seeing the combat rating speed also. About 5-20mph over MIL power speeds. But still below 400mph.
In the British test at Boscombe Down (60" with water injection) the report specifically mentions "Position error trials" and "Position error trials with repositioned static vent". So I think they catched the error.
IMO HTC tries to model the planes objectively, looking at all the data available. Not just picking the best possible number they can find and ignoring the rest.
-
The TAIC report indeed gives 409mph for F6F-5. It also gives 335mph for A6M5 where as AH2 A6M5 can reach 350mph. :noid
IMO HTC tries to model the planes objectively, looking at all the data available. Not just picking the best possible number they can find and ignoring the rest.
It sometimes appears that for certain American planes they pick the worst plausible numbers...perhaps to keep the MAs "balanced", even if that means a little *tweaking* of the rides with the most name-recognition popularity in relation to the less popular. All within the wiggle room of plausibility afforded by variances in test results of course.
-
Roger. Thanks WW. Most of my books show only a 2-setting flap toggle switch in the Hellcat too. Yet we still have 5 notches.
We should have at least 5 notches. F6F flaps could be toggled to any position between full up and full down, depending upon air speed. Like the F4U, flaps would not drop until air speed had bled down.
See below from British test and evaluation....
(http://home.att.net/~historyworld/F6F-Flaps.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
It sometimes appears that for certain American planes they pick the worst plausible numbers...perhaps to keep the MAs "balanced", even if that means a little *tweaking* of the rides with the most name-recognition popularity in relation to the less popular. All within the wiggle room of plausibility afforded by variances in test results of course.
ROFL
-
ROFL
Okay, the F6F thing is one example of what I am talking about. Another is the P-51s.
Looking at max airspeeds at sea level for both the P-51B and P-51D, it would seem that HTC has chosen to use numbers from the low end of tested values.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-level-67.jpg)
And that is not even considering performance at higher boost levels using 150 octane fuel.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-level-150-2.jpg)
Lets look at some climb performance numbers:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-climb.jpg)
Same thing, it appears that a value closer to the lower end of average results has been chosen.
Stay on the floor if you want to Kweassa...though you might not like what'll get all over you if you keep rolling around down there. :devil
-
Okay, the F6F thing is one example of what I am talking about. Another is the P-51s.
Looking at max airspeeds at sea level for both the P-51B and P-51D, it would seem that HTC has chosen to use numbers from the low end of tested values.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-level-67.jpg)
And that is not even considering performance at higher boost levels using 150 octane fuel.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-level-150-2.jpg)
Lets look at some climb performance numbers:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-climb.jpg)
Same thing, it appears that a value closer to the lower end of average results has been chosen.
Stay on the floor if you want to Kweassa...though you might not like what'll get all over you if you keep rolling around down there. :devil
The AH P-51B has the V-1650-3 engine and racks, and no "air force" in AH has the best fuel available. Ponys and Spits don't get 100/150, the 109's don't get C3 and the Japanese planes have to make due with the piss poor fuel they had. Nice Ami-whine though!
-
The AH P-51B has the V-1650-3 engine and racks, and no "air force" in AH has the best fuel available. Ponys and Spits don't get 100/150, the 109's don't get C3 and the Japanese planes have to make due with the piss poor fuel they had. Nice Ami-whine though!
They have apparently been rather more optimistic in regards to the K-4...our K-4 actually exceeds these figures in top speed at altitude and climb rate.
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109k-level.jpg)
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109k-climb.jpg)
It also appears there may be some "optimism" going on in regards to the 109Gs
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109gspeed.jpg)
I should point out here that our 109 G-2 does in fact pull 1.42 ata. However:
"The engine limitations were 1.3 ata/2600 rpm in accordance with VT-Anweisung Nr.2206 through 1942 and most, if not all, of 1943. Evidence points to the DB 605 A not being fully cleared for 1.42 ata/2800 rpm before spring 1944 (Bf109 G-4/R3, G-6/R3 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Februar 1944)."''
BTW, it is exceedingly humorous you would accuse a guy who has flown hundreds if not thousands of LW MA sorties in a Fw-190 A-5 of harboring some irrational anti-Luftwaffe bias.
-
OTOH, it appears there may be some slight pessimism in regards to the 190 A-5, at least as regards top speed at sea-level.
Interesting side effect of our very, um, "strongly" modeled 109s is the rendering of the Luftwaffe's other fighter series more or less superfluous by comparison to its contemporary Messerschmidts. A person making an evaluation based solely on in-game performance would be justified in wondering why Germany wasted production resources on the Fw at all.
Horizontalgeschwindigkeit über der Flughöhe
Normaljäger Fw 190 A-5, 20.10.43 Level Speed: MPH / km/h
352 mph at Sea Level 567 at 0 meters
408 mph at 20,669' 656 at 6.3 km
Steiggeschwindigkeit u. Steigzeit über
der Flughöhe, Normaljäger Fw 190 A-5
20.10.1943 Climb: feet/min. / m/s
2,938 at Sea Level 15.0 at 0 meters
2,997 at 2,953' 15.3 at .9 km
Flugzeug-Entwicklungs-Blatt FW 190 (J)
GL/C-E2, 1.11.44 Level Speed: MPH / km/h
351 mph at Sea Level 565 at 0 meters
407 mph at 20,669' 655 at 6.3 km
Climb: feet/min. / m/s
3,290 at SL 16.8 at 0 meters
Zusammenstellung der wichtigsten
Flugleistungen der Normaljäger Fw 190
mit BMW 801 D Level Speed: MPH / km/h
352 mph at Sea Level 567 at 0 meters
408 mph at 20,669' 656 at 6.3 km
Fw 190 A-5/A-6 Flugzeug-Handbuch
(Stand August 1943) Ausgabe Dezember 1943 Level Speed: MPH / km/h
348 mph at Sea Level 560 at 0 meters
410 mph at 20,669' 660 at 6.3 km
-
Hitech Creations does not to my knowledge use Mike Williams' info. I wouldn't either. He has a reputation for being very biased and selective in his data.
-
Hitech Creations does not to my knowledge use Mike Williams' info. I wouldn't either. He has a reputation for being very biased and selective in his data.
Very biased against 109s. Not so biased against 190s. Odd pattern for a jingoist.
-
Another 190 comparison: Our D-9 matches the slightly low end of average shown here:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d-9-levelspeed-comp.jpg)
One wonders why this biased man has not thrown out any data showing the Dora to exceed 380 mph at sea level.
-
Very biased against 109s. Not so biased against 190s. Odd pattern for a jingoist.
I wouldn't know, or care. I only know him by reputation, that he and "Kurfurst" are opposite sides of the same coin.
-
Die Hard instead of being an bellybutton to BnZ, why don't you post information that you trust in? Just shouting "you're wrong" only gets you so far.
-
So far as I know, the German aircraft that had MW-50 boost do get C3 fuel in AH simply because that was the only fuel they could use (96 octane I think).
-
The AH P-51B has the V-1650-3 engine and racks, and no "air force" in AH has the best fuel available. Ponys and Spits don't get 100/150, the 109's don't get C3 and the Japanese planes have to make due with the piss poor fuel they had. Nice Ami-whine though!
What whine would that be ?
-
I wouldn't know, or care. I only know him by reputation, that he and "Kurfurst" are opposite sides of the same coin.
My claim is that for some aircraft in AHII the model seems to be based on low average performance numbers, and for others it seems to be based on the best possible performance numbers. I presented charts to this effect. You alleged, and continue to allege, that the data from M. Williams is false/misleading because he is "biased". Presumably you mean biased against Luftwaffe aircraft. But it turns out he presents some unexpectedly high numbers for the performance of the Fw 190 A-5 and D-9. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for me to ask you how this fits into a presumed pattern of bias against Luftwaffe aircraft, and merely trying to dodge/dismiss the question does nothing to prove your case.
-
I have no case to prove. You're the one accusing (if ever so subtly) Hitech Creation of being biased against American planes. Posting Mr. Williams' charts proves nothing, especially since they do not say what you think they say. All the charts you've posted gives performance figures comparable to those in AH for the relevant aircraft.
And by "relevant aircraft" I mean the aircraft specific to AH: P-51B with V-1650-3 engine at 67" map and wing racks. P-51D with V-1650-7 engine at 67" map and wing racks. The RAF versions sometimes used different map settings and were kitted out differently and are thus irrelevant. The higher map settings of 72" and 75" need 100/150 octane fuel which is not modelled in AH and are thus irrelevant.
-
So far as I know, the German aircraft that had MW-50 boost do get C3 fuel in AH simply because that was the only fuel they could use (96 octane I think).
This is completely wrong. No MW-50 equipped plane (109G-14, K-4, 190D-9 and Ta-152) in AH uses C3 fuel. They use B4 fuel and MW-50 injection. The BMW powered 190's got priority for C3 fuel since that's the only fuel they could use. Late-war B4 fuel is roughly equivalent to allied 100/130 avgas. Late-war C3 fuel is equivalent to 100/150 avgas.
-
Die Hard instead of being an bellybutton to BnZ, why don't you post information that you trust in? Just shouting "you're wrong" only gets you so far.
Simply because I don't have to. BnZ's information supports Hitech Creations modelling of the relevant aircraft. That you or BnZ are unable to understand that is somewhat annoying. Probably more so to the creators of this game who has to suffer baseless accusations from people who cannot read a chart properly but nevertheless feel qualified to question their plane models.
-
I have no case to prove.
Uh, yeah you do. Your first line of attack was an attempt to dismiss these performance charts because the man who compiled them is allegedly biased. You can't take that back. Now prove it, or at least show that it is vaguely plausible.
You're the one accusing (if ever so subtly) Hitech Creation of being biased against American planes. Posting Mr. Williams' charts proves nothing, especially since they do not say what you think they say.
Subtle? Subtle?!?!?! I take exception to that, I'm never subtle about anything.
I can't know for sure the motivations, but here is my best guess to what is happening. Once again, I'll use the P-51 as my example. The P-51 is consistently one of the most common if not THE most common aircraft in the LW MAs tour after tour. This is in spite of the fact, that the P-51 is rather mediocre in performance under typical MA conditions compared to many aircraft, including the 109 Kurt. One of the best exponents of the P-51 in the game, Steve, has said as much on many occasions. You can't beat people out of the cockpit of P-51s with a stick apparently.
Meanwhile, despite the fact that the 190 D9 and 109 K-4 are arguably both superior in the MA, they haven't eclipsed the Mustang. What is the purpose of giving rare, high-performing, late-war monsters like the Dora and Kurt ENYs of 15 and 20 respectively except to get more people flying them?
Imagine the nauseatingly incessant sea of P-51s you would see if they performed even a little better. The situation might reach the point where perking the P-51 was unavoidable. But that is not a great option. What percentage of fresh noobs would let their accounts slide if the first thing that happened when they logged in was try to take the P-51D for a spin and "You don't have enough perks for that model" popped up?
Posting Mr. Williams' charts proves nothing, especially since they do not say what you think they say. All the charts you've posted gives performance figures comparable to those in AH for the relevant aircraft.
And by "relevant aircraft" I mean the aircraft specific to AH: P-51B with V-1650-3 engine at 67" map and wing racks. P-51D with V-1650-7 engine at 67" map and wing racks. The RAF versions sometimes used different map settings and were kitted out differently and are thus irrelevant. The higher map settings of 72" and 75" need 100/150 octane fuel which is not modelled in AH and are thus irrelevant.
I posted a whole chart showing P-51 performance variants at 67"....
Second, as Anax said "So far as I know, the German aircraft that had MW-50 boost do get C3 fuel in AH simply because that was the only fuel they could use (96 octane I think)."
Given that, how is it fair to NOT have American planes running on 100/150? Which side do you think was more able to produce large amounts of high-quality fuel in 1945? :D
And if mid-war G2s can run around at the iffy 1.42 ata, why are P-47Ds not allowed to pull 70'' MAP on emergency power? If Johnson, Gabreski, et al. are to be believed, adjusting them to do so was near ubiquitous in the ETO.
Finally, the very choice of what model is presented in-game can be VERY telling if one chooses to use the most basic or lowest performing variant on one hand, and a rare model running on high-grade fuel under the best possible conditions on the other.
-
Hitech Creations does not to my knowledge use Mike Williams' info. I wouldn't either. He has a reputation for being very biased and selective in his data.
Oh really? Who within the community of aviation historians and writers has made such a statement? I have never heard any such thing. Williams and Sterling have presented us with a valuable resource at their own expense of money and time. Yet, they get criticized... :rolleyes:
Some folks are simply amazing.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I can't know for sure the motivations, but here is my best guess to what is happening. Once again, I'll use the P-51 as my example. The P-51 is consistently one of the most common if not THE most common aircraft in the LW MAs tour after tour. This is in spite of the fact, that the P-51 is rather mediocre in performance under typical MA conditions compared to many aircraft, including the 109 Kurt. One of the best exponents of the P-51 in the game, Steve, has said as much on many occasions. You can't beat people out of the cockpit of P-51s with a stick apparently.
Meanwhile, despite the fact that the 190 D9 and 109 K-4 are arguably both superior in the MA, they haven't eclipsed the Mustang. What is the purpose of giving rare, high-performing, late-war monsters like the Dora and Kurt ENYs of 15 and 20 respectively except to get more people flying them?
Imagine the nauseatingly incessant sea of P-51s you would see if they performed even a little better. The situation might reach the point where perking the P-51 was unavoidable. But that is not a great option. What percentage of fresh noobs would let their accounts slide if the first thing that happened when they logged in was try to take the P-51D for a spin and "You don't have enough perks for that model" popped up?
Nice conspiracy theory.
I posted a whole chart showing P-51 performance variants at 67"....
This chart I presume?
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-level-67.jpg)
Only one of the tests on that chart is relevant, yet you claimed "it appears that a value closer to the lower end of average results has been chosen". How do you even get an average from one data point?
Second, as Anax said "So far as I know, the German aircraft that had MW-50 boost do get C3 fuel in AH simply because that was the only fuel they could use (96 octane I think)."
And since you seem equally unable to read this thread as you do the charts I will repeat: "This is completely wrong. No MW-50 equipped plane (109G-14, K-4, 190D-9 and Ta-152) in AH uses C3 fuel."
Which side do you think was more able to produce large amounts of high-quality fuel in 1945? :D
A moot point since German C3 fuel stocks lasted well into 1945.
-
Oh really? Who within the community of aviation historians and writers has made such a statement?
That's a nice leading question. When did reputation become the sole domain of aviation historians and writers?
Mike Williams and "Kurfurst" have been going at each other's throats for ages. Their primary sources are good, but their conclusions and selection of data is suspect at best.
-
Nice conspiracy theory.
After the allegations YOU made that you have yet to back up, it is at the very least a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I have at least presented a plausible reason for my "conspiracy" theory. What is your reason for Williams conspiring against an air force that hasn't existed for 60+ years?
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-level-67.jpg)
Only one of the tests on that chart is relevant, yet you claimed "it appears that a value closer to the lower end of average results has been chosen". How do you even get an average from one data point?
The point is that a lower performing and common variant is the one modeled, for both the P-51B and D. As opposed to our Kurt, which exceeds the performance numbers for the Kurt I found. An un-perked, 20 ENY aircraft in game, that is based on a rare late model and apparently modeled to perform better than under typical field conditions. Another point is that the G-2, a mid-war plane, is allowed to run at power settings that are debatable for '42/'43. As I say, if this is the case, why not allow the Jugs to pull the 70" MAP that we have quit a bit of corroboration for?
IMO, all signs point to 3 factors being involved..
1. "Balance" and a valid concern for plane diversity in the LW MAs.
2. Lobbying, subtle or not so subtle over the years, by a small but vocal percentage of Luftwaffe enthusiasts.
3. Finally, the "fog of war" making accurate assessment of the LW German aircraft performance difficult at best, and the popular tendency in American since the end of WWII to over-estimate the reach and achievements of late-war Nazi science.
-
After the allegations YOU made that you have yet to back up, it is at the very least a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I have made no allegations except with regard to your ability to read these charts, which needs no proof since you've made it abundantly clear. Mike Williams reputation on WWII forums is a matter of fact, whether this reputation is deserved I have no opinion of.
The point is that a lower performing and common variant is the one modeled, for both the P-51B and D.
Isn't the common version the most correct? The high-altitude -3 engine was the most common engine for the B model. The medium-altitude -7 engine was the most common engine for the D model. HTC has modelled both aircraft with racks since that's how these planes were equipped in the field. Only the British stripped down their Mustangs to intercept the doodlebugs. What is your problem with their choice?
As opposed to our Kurt, which exceeds the performance numbers for the Kurt I found.
"I found" being the operative words. You have "found" one data point. ONE. And then you claim HTC is biased and has over-modelled the 109K. You don't know what data HTC has based their model on.
Another point is that the G-2, a mid-war plane, is allowed to run at power settings that are debatable for '42/'43.
The G-2 should be limited to 1.3 ata in my opinion. HTC is also very generous with WEP duration in the non-MW-50 109's. However I don't know what data HTC has on the G-2, so I can't say that they are wrong. And I certainly can't claim they're biased.
IMO, all signs point to 3 factors being involved..
1. "Balance" and a valid concern for plane diversity in the LW MAs.
2. Lobbying, subtle or not so subtle over the years, by a small but vocal percentage of Luftwaffe enthusiasts.
3. Finally, the "fog of war" making accurate assessment of the LW German aircraft performance difficult at best, and the popular tendency in American since the end of WWII to over-estimate the reach and achievements of late-war Nazi science.
Nothing but conjecture.
-
Mike Williams reputation on WWII forums is a matter of fact, whether this reputation is deserved I have no opinion of.
Except when trying to dismiss out of hand his data...then you had an opinion.
Isn't the common version the most correct? The high-altitude -3 engine was the most common engine for the B model. The medium-altitude -7 engine was the most common engine for the D model. HTC has modelled both aircraft with racks since that's how these planes were equipped in the field. Only the British stripped down their Mustangs to intercept the doodlebugs. What is your problem with their choice?
I have no problem with their choice except in comparison to certain other, um, choices.
BTW, I CAN read just a bit if you give me time to sound it out...including the performance for the Pee-Fifty-Wun Dee-Fifteen En-Ay at 67" WITH racks, and the fact that it is not specified whether or not the P-51Bs w/ the V-1650-3 had wing racks or not.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-level-67.jpg)
"I found" being the operative words. You have "found" one data point. ONE. And then you claim HTC is biased and has over-modelled the 109K. You don't know what data HTC has based their model on.
"Unfortunately, flight trials of Me 109 Ks appear not to exist. The following Me 109 K curves were produced by Messerschmitt's Project Bureau at Oberammergau. While the curves are rather simplistic estimates (the effect of the hydraulic coupled supercharger being absent for example), they should give some idea of potential, however, they should be treated with reserve."
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109k-climb.jpg)
Aircraft manufacturers are of course well known for always UNDERESTIMATING the potential of their plane in their reports. :rofl :rofl :rofl :devil
And:
"Oberkommando der Luftwaffe, Generalquartiermeister, Chefing.d.Lw on 18 October 1944 summarized the performance of the principle Me 109 variants as follows:"
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/okl-181044-pg5.jpg)
The G-2 should be limited to 1.3 ata in my opinion. HTC is also very generous with WEP duration in the non-MW-50 109's. However I don't know what data HTC has on the G-2, so I can't say that they are wrong. And I certainly can't claim they're biased.
Well, unless Williams pulled his sources out of thin air, it is alot more than your opinion...letting them pull 1.42 ata at the very least represents something no different from letting P-47 D-11s pull 70" MAP because it was a known practice, if not quite "offical"
And bias is the wrong word...trying to balance things, please the customer base, make it more interesting are all close to what I think.
Nothing but conjecture.
Yeah, like the 109 K's performance!
-
That's a nice leading question. When did reputation become the sole domain of aviation historians and writers?
When did it become the sole domain of some knob on a discussion board?
-
No idea.
I'm still trying to pull out actual information valid to the original discussion from these petty arguments.
On another note, thanks for the info everyone.
-
That's a nice leading question. When did reputation become the sole domain of aviation historians and writers?
Mike Williams and "Kurfurst" have been going at each other's throats for ages. Their primary sources are good, but their conclusions and selection of data is suspect at best.
You didn't answer the question, you merely offered your own opinion; which by the way, carries less weight than a gnat's jockstrap.
My regards,
Widewing
-
BTW, I CAN read just a bit if you give me time to sound it out...including the performance for the Pee-Fifty-Wun Dee-Fifteen En-Ay at 67" WITH racks...
That's the ONE data point I was talking about. You have ONE data point and you don't know what data HTC uses, but still you claim they are wrong. Not only do you claim they are wrong, but you claim they have some ulterior motive for short changing the Pony performance wise.
Unfortunately, flight trials of Me 109 Ks appear not to exist...
Yeah, like the 109 K's performance!
Again you don't know what data HTC has. However you still feel qualified to claim they're wrong and biased based on nothing.
Whaaa ... Hitech hates tha Pony!
Yeah I'm sure he does kid. Keep whining.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/dalep51.gif)
Btw. That's him in that Pony.
-
When did it become the sole domain of some knob on a discussion board?
It isn't anyone's sole domain.
-
You didn't answer the question, you merely offered your own opinion; which by the way, carries less weight than a gnat's jockstrap.
My regards,
Widewing
Likewise. The feeling is mutual.
-
That's the ONE data point I was talking about. You have ONE data point and you don't know what data HTC uses, but still you claim they are wrong. Not only do you claim they are wrong, but you claim they have some ulterior motive for short changing the Pony performance wise.
One claim I have made is that they have selected lower performing P-51 variants for use in game, as opposed to selecting the highest performing variant available in the ETO. The chart bears this out, unless Williams literally pulled the numbers out of thin air, it is not a claim, it is a fact.
Again you don't know what data HTC has. However you still feel qualified to claim they're wrong and biased based on nothing.
What part of "does not exist" don't you understand?
On the murky subject of 109 performance, it appears that HTC has consistently chosen the opposite approach from the one they have chosen in P-51 modeling and been extremely optimistic about 109 performance. How can you say this is not so when the numbers for the 109-K in game exceed Messerschmitt's own estimates?
And you ADMITTED that the G-2 should be limited to 1.3 ata, and once again, unless Mr. William's data is pulled from thin air, this seems to be proven. It is possible, perhaps probable that 109s were being run at higher ata's in combat before they were cleared to do so officially, but then again it is CERTAIN that P-47s were being modified to pull higher manifold pressures on WEP, so why must they still make do with factory limitations?
Yeah I'm sure he does kid. Keep whining.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/dalep51.gif)
Btw. That's him in that Pony.
Oh really? That changes everything. :rolleyes:
I have never once said that anyone "hates" the P-51. I have said that there are some understandable reasons of gameplay and "balance" that may explain why the P-51 (and along with it, many American aircraft) and the 109 seem to be modeled according to different philosophies. It appears that the practice is to use the most common variant and conservative numbers for the former and as I have proven, to be extremely optimistic in regards to 109 performance.
-
BnZs, the difference in K-4 performance you see depends on what kind of prop it had. I don't remember their technical names, but with one the K-4 topped out at ~440mph, and with the other it could surpass 450. HTC gives us the latter. I agree to a point that the K-4 is generously modeled, but not so much with the rest of the 109 series because we have no AS variant of the 109G, nor do we have any with GM-1 boost for high altitudes.
Just like the USAAF aircraft, the Luftwaffe is not given all the toys it actually had. ;)
-
BnZs, the difference in K-4 performance you see depends on what kind of prop it had. I don't remember their technical names, but with one the K-4 topped out at ~440mph, and with the other it could surpass 450. HTC gives us the latter.
Well, first off, this only confirms what I have been saying about the higher performing 109 variants being chosen, as compared to the choices made amongst the P-51 variants.
Is there any flight test data for the K-4 at all? I keep hearing "You don't know what data HTC is using for the K-4" but if my source is correct, there is little to be found.
I agree to a point that the K-4 is generously modeled, but not so much with the rest of the 109 series because we have no AS variant of the 109G, nor do we have any with GM-1 boost for high altitudes.
I think clearance to pull higher ata than was officially allowed is VERY generous. I wish I could do the same thing with the P-47Ds.
You are correct about the lack of special high altitude versions of course, however, in pragmatic gameplay terms, there is little incentive to model one and little advantage to flying one, since no one is up there in the MA.
Just like the USAAF aircraft, the Luftwaffe is not given all the toys it actually had. ;)
Uh, hello, how many Ta-152s and "pocket rockets" were actually produced? :D
USN has one "iffy" rare toy, the C-Hog, which I rarely fly and could happily live without, and one LW "monster" contemporary of the K-4/La-7/SpitXVI. A monster justly perked I might add. The USAAF's line up is entirely "plain jane" with no exotic toys or higher performing variants available even for perks.
-
You are correct about the lack of special high altitude versions of course, however, in pragmatic gameplay terms, there is little incentive to model one and little advantage to flying one, since no one is up there in the MA.
Yeah, but it always screws us when we run 8th AF scenarios. What's a pocket rocket?
-
What's a pocket rocket?
Uh...a 163? Yeah, that's it, a 163 :noid
:rofl
-
Likewise. The feeling is mutual.
Snappy comeback.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
One claim I have made is that they have selected lower performing P-51 variants for use in game, as opposed to selecting the highest performing variant available in the ETO. The chart bears this out, unless Williams literally pulled the numbers out of thin air, it is not a claim, it is a fact.
There is no such thing as a “lower performing P-51 variant” They were all the same with the exception of having two different supercharger gearing available (-3 and -7) and HTC modelled BOTH versions. P-51B with the -3 and P-51D with the -7. There are no more “versions”.
What part of "does not exist" don't you understand?
I understand perfectly, I just don’t believe it. Took me 2 minutes to find documentation that support HTC’s model over at Kurfurst’s site, and I didn’t just find one dataset, but two. And these are not some charts compiled by an enthusiast that may or may not be biased. These are original German documents, one from late 1944 and one from early 1945.
(http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-18_DCSonder_MW_geschw.jpg)
(http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-19_DCSonder_MW_steig.jpg)
(http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026-27_DBSonder_MW_geschw.jpg)
(http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026_28_DBSonder_MW_steig.jpg)
In both of these documents maximum speed is about 725 kmh which is a little more than 450 mph.
On the murky subject of 109 performance, it appears that HTC has consistently chosen the opposite approach from the one they have chosen in P-51 modeling and been extremely optimistic about 109 performance. How can you say this is not so when the numbers for the 109-K in game exceed Messerschmitt's own estimates?
Not at all. From what I can tell their Pony models are spot on for a late 1943 P-51B and early-mid 1944 P-51D. What they could have done in my opinion is add a perked late 1944/early 1945 P-51D with 100/150 octane fuel. Make it a P-51K just for recognition purposes. Instead of whining like a little brat about the current Ponies, you should lobby in the wish list forum for the addition of a 100/150 P-51K.
And you ADMITTED that the G-2 should be limited to 1.3 ata, and once again, unless Mr. William's data is pulled from thin air, this seems to be proven. It is possible, perhaps probable that 109s were being run at higher ata's in combat before they were cleared to do so officially, but then again it is CERTAIN that P-47s were being modified to pull higher manifold pressures on WEP, so why must they still make do with factory limitations?
You know what... I retract that statement. Having studied it a bit closer it is clear that 1.42 ata for the DB 605A was available prior to June 1942 and periodically available throughout 1942 and 1943, finally being permanently cleared in October 1943. Compared to that the modifications to the P-47 you’re talking about were never officially cleared. I don’t think HTC is interested in unauthorized field-mods.
Well, first off, this only confirms what I have been saying about the higher performing 109 variants being chosen, as compared to the choices made amongst the P-51 variants.
No they didn’t. If they had then we would have a 2000 hp, 470+ mph 109K with a DB 605DC engine, Flettner servo-tabs, retractable tail wheel and main wheel well covers. Instead we have the more common 1800 hp, 450 mph 109K with the DB 605DB engine, fixed tail wheel and main wheel well covers removed.
Just like the 100/150 avgas Pony I’d like a perked 2000 hp 109K with all the goodies added. Not likely going to happen though.
Is there any flight test data for the K-4 at all? I keep hearing "You don't know what data HTC is using for the K-4" but if my source is correct, there is little to be found.
See above.
I think clearance to pull higher ata than was officially allowed is VERY generous. I wish I could do the same thing with the P-47Ds.
See above.
-
Nice pics, Die Hard. I've never seen those graphs before...
and speaking of the Mustang, Widewing, have you managed to get the data supporting the alleged strangely-modeled flaps out to HTC?
-
There is no such thing as a “lower performing P-51 variant” They were all the same with the exception of having two different supercharger gearing available (-3 and -7) and HTC modelled BOTH versions. P-51B with the -3 and P-51D with the -7. There are no more “versions”.
Now who can't read a chart? Did you miss the curve showing performance for the P-51 D 15NA WITH the V-1650-7, WITH racks, AT 67" MAP, 375mph @S/L and exceeding 440mph at altitude? If we are going to have the fastest possible 109 from the last 5 minutes of the war, why should the same logic not be applied to the Mustang?
It is GOOD you found a little more data for the Kurt. All it does is highlight for me once again that the K has been modeled around the most optimistic conditions.
You know what... I retract that statement. Having studied it a bit closer it is clear that 1.42 ata for the DB 605A was available prior to June 1942 and periodically available throughout 1942 and 1943, finally being permanently cleared in October 1943. Compared to that the modifications to the P-47 you’re talking about were never officially cleared. I don’t think HTC is interested in unauthorized field-mods.
What a convenient flip-flop! I guarantee you that you can find as much evidence for the ubiquitous modifications to the R-2,800 to run at higher MAP pressures as you can for your "optimistic" figures on the 109G.
I don't give a damn whether the performance use is "standard" or "hot-rod", only that there be some standard of consistency, which there is not.
No they didn’t. If they had then we would have a 2000 hp, 470+ mph 109K with a DB 605DC engine, Flettner servo-tabs, retractable tail wheel and main wheel well covers. Instead we have the more common 1800 hp, 450 mph 109K with the DB 605DB engine, fixed tail wheel and main wheel well covers removed
OMG...are you going to make me look up the post on THIS forum where you yourself said that aircraft likely saw little or no combat?
As for the rest of your crap...I didn't start the infantile attempts to antagonize on a personal level instead of discussing the issue, you did. The internet is a convenient and safe place for someone like you to engage in such nonsense, now isn't it?
-
BnZ, there is no point in continuing this since you are clearly beyond reason. In addition the way you have chosen to present your argument has all but guaranteed that Pyro or anyone from HTC won't respond to you. Feel free to continue your whine to your heart's content.
-
BnZ, there is no point in continuing this since you are clearly beyond reason.
This coming from the man whose first attempt at rebuttal was to simply call me a whiner and whose second attempt at rebuttal involved the claim that the data I used was falsified at the source, the latter of course you refused to present any evidence for and finally dropped like a piece of hot iron when called on it.
You have shown no data which conflicts with my original thesis, that within the "wiggle room" allowed by historical performance levels, the P-51 and 109 series seem to have been treated differently.
-
thought i wandered into an F6F thread here. obviously i was mistaken. :noid
-
thought i wandered into an F6F thread here. obviously i was mistaken. :noid
the f6f sucks...let's talk about feelings
-
Ha hah fly a p39 for a few tours,then hit me back about the word "suck".
Still would not have it any other way tho. :rock
37mm lovin'z.
-
the f6f sucks...let's talk about feelings
:rofl
i actually do pretty well in it. i think my biggest problem is that i don't know when to "cut n run"
few weeks ago, i was trying to clear a squaddies six(he had 3 on him), and in so doing, i put myself into a very very bad position, from which i took serious damage. i think the hellkittys toughness, and a whooolllleeee lotta squaddies commin to my aid is what allowed me to land. she took a lot of hits from one of the guys behind me, but i managed to force an overshoot by the 109, and took him down. squaddies took the rest, as i floundered around in an overly slow position, being bait. :aok
she's a tough bird, though, and can surprise the unwary with her turning abilities.
-
Ha hah fly a p39 for a few tours,then hit me back about the word "suck".
Still would not have it any other way tho. :rock
37mm lovin'z.
actually, on the deck, in a 39Q(i think), i fairly well managed to stay inside a p38's turns. kept forcing him to extend. even when i ran outta ammo, i kept turning with him, till someone else came along to finish him off. :D
-
I smell Norwegian in this thread. :noid