Author Topic: why does 109G10 climb so bad?? (Read 3511 times)

niklas · « **on:** April 19, 2002, 03:27:15 PM »

ok now everyone will say is this guy crazy the G10 climbs like a rocket.

But lets compare:
109G10 7400lb 2000hp = 0.27hp / lb climbrate 4600ft/min
spit14 8460lb 2000hp = 0.23hp/ lb climbrate 4900ft/min
tempest 11400lb 2600hp = 0.22hp/lb climbrate 4600ft/min

though -by far - the G10 has the best power to weight ratio it climbs worse than a spit14 that has 800lb more weight. or equal to a tempest that has more power (i assumed A LOT of more power) and MUCH more weight.

sry that can´t be true. Why does the G10 climb so bad??

niklas

funkedup · « **Reply #1 on:** April 19, 2002, 03:29:10 PM »

I'm guessing it's the prop. Apparently Bf 109G did not have a constant speed prop.

Zigrat · « **Reply #2 on:** April 19, 2002, 03:42:41 PM »

you start smoking the chiba again funked? are you saying they had a constant pitch propeller?

funkedup · « **Reply #3 on:** April 19, 2002, 03:47:39 PM »

Somebody posted a pilot report of flying the G-2 yesterday, and the pilot mentioned the plane did not have a constant speed prop.

Edit here it is: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51319

LLv34_Camouflage · « **Reply #4 on:** April 19, 2002, 04:03:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Somebody posted a pilot report of flying the G-2 yesterday, and the pilot mentioned the plane did not have a constant speed prop.

Edit here it is: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51319

End of the third paragraph:

"The engine is a Daimler-Benz DB605, driving a VDM variable pitch propeller which rotates clockwise when viewed from behind."

Variable Pitch = Constant Speed. Right?

Camo

niklas · « **Reply #5 on:** April 19, 2002, 04:10:08 PM »

ehh funked i expected a better reply from someone like you. What you refer to seems to be the typical naiv RAF view of german technics. Yes, reducing manifold pressure also reduced RPM, but this wasn´t due to the lack of a constant speed unit, nono, this was the result of german single lever control unit technology hehe

But this isn´t the topic here.

FACT: Either RAF aircraft are overmodelled (they are, oh my god RAF has most overmodelled aircraft in the set imo, and they complain with spit and tempest over N1k or La-7 LOL) or G10 is undermodelled. Heck, even when i assume 1800hp the G10 should come close to a spit14. The 109 was always optimized for climb performance.

nik

funkedup · « **Reply #6 on:** April 19, 2002, 04:13:28 PM »

Oh Niklas, forgive me. I thought you were talking about real planes, not just making another FM whine.

I was just repeating what a man who flew the plane had to say. I'm sure he'd love to hear you talk about his "naiv" view. Hmm he's flying 109s and you're posting on a UBB, which one of you would be more qualified to discuss the prop system on the 109?

As for the performance of the Tempest and Spitfire XIV in AH, there is ample historical flight test data indicating that those aircraft perform correctly in the game. If you don't think the G-10 performance is right, then bring some flight test data to back it up. I'm sure HTC would love to see it.

And speaking of naive analyses...
You are considering only power and weight. Thrust and drag are important too. Have you ever seen a G-10 up close? It's skin is covered with bumps and protuberances and many unstreamlined features, which must cause a lot of drag compared to the quite smooth features of the Spitfire. Furthermore the G-10 has tiny wings for its weight, undoubtedly causing it to fly at a higher angle of attack than the Spitfire at best climb speed. Which means more induced drag. And we can't forget thrust. Could it be that the "naiv RAF" had a more efficient propellor design for low speed flight?

No, you ignore all of these possibilities and instead claim the programmers are in error. Ridiculous.

niklas · « **Reply #7 on:** April 19, 2002, 04:21:57 PM »

Pfff whining. Of course i complain about the FM modelling, but this isn´t a whining like "tweak the N1k it is way too good and i got killed numerous times and this can´t be", nono, i brought up technical data, physics you know, and physics doesn´t lie.

hmm usually calling someone a whiner begins from posting nr. 20 on or so, you started at nr. 6 that is pretty early. Is this topic so unconvinient for you that you try to stop it this way right from the beginning? oh, i bet you KNOW that you have a nice present with climbrate of the spit14.....

nik

niklas · « **Reply #8 on:** April 19, 2002, 04:24:59 PM »

historical RAF data lol even 1 year ago i showed that AH tempest is maybe 10-20mph too fast, and if you refer to AFDU spit14 test just compare critiacal altiutedes what may give you an imagination how much power was used in the AFDU trials

nik

funkedup · « **Reply #9 on:** April 19, 2002, 04:28:55 PM »

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html

funkedup · « **Reply #10 on:** April 19, 2002, 04:29:32 PM »

PS Sorry I edited that post. Read again, I added some new flames.

Dr Zhivago · « **Reply #11 on:** April 19, 2002, 04:30:46 PM »

Early in1944 the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford flew a Mk XIV Spitfire in a comparative trial against a captured Messerschmitt Bf109G. The 109G was the latest sub-type of this by-then veteran German fighter. The following are extracts from the official report.

SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS BF109G

Maximum Speed: The Spitfire XIV is 40 mph [64 km/hr] faster at all heights except near 16,000 feet
[4878 m] - where it is only 10 mph [16 km/hr] faster.

Maximum Climb: The same result - at 16,000 feet [4878 m] the two aircraft are virtually identical, otherwise the Spitfire XIV outclimbs the 109. The zoom climb is practically identical when the climb is made without the throttle open. Climbing at full throttle, the Spitfire XIV draws away from the 109 quite easily.

Dive: During the initial part of the dive, the 109 draws away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph [611 km/hr] is reached the Spitfire XIV begins to gain on the 109.

Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the 109 in either direction.

Rate of Roll: The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly.

Conclusion: The Spitfire XIV is superior in every respect.

funkedup · « **Reply #12 on:** April 19, 2002, 04:31:01 PM »

OK I won't call it whining exactly. I apologizing for using the word "whine".

Let's call it "suggesting HTC are in error or dishonest without sufficient historical data or engineering analysis." This is more accurate.

funkedup · « **Reply #13 on:** April 19, 2002, 04:53:26 PM »

2 more things Niklas:

1. MW's Tempest site is down so I can't check those numbers. I remember there was some discussion of Tempest climb rate but I don't remember a problem with the speed.

2. Yes the AH Spit 14 critical altitudes do not match those in the A&AEE. The reason is because of a difference in supercharger gear ratio between the prototype and production engines. But the maximum speed and climb rate in AH is very similar to the A&AEE findings.

And even if we find that AH is different from the data on MW's website, does this mean HTC is wrong? Is it not possible that HTC have other sets of flight test data which we haven't seen. You have to remember that these guys have been doing this for a living since 1995. I'm pretty sure they have uncovered many documents that we amateurs don't know about.

funkedup · « **Reply #14 on:** April 19, 2002, 04:56:04 PM »

And I didn't get a nice present. I barely play AH these days. And when I do, it's scenarios. Tempest and Spit14 are never used in scenarios. And Tempest and Spit 14 are pretty much unusable in the MA due to perk pricing and gangbang-magnet-perk-icon. Whereas contemporary LW planes like G-10 and D-9 are unperked and have normal icons. So it's pretty clear who got the present here, and it's not me.