Me-109 cem

[II/JG53 Rolf]

Hello gents, first I'd like to thank you for your enthusiasm in continuing this sim. :thumbsup:

Second, I'd like to ask for CEM in Me-109 in your upcoming patch. According to your statements the ability to overheat the engine will be changed for Bf-109 E. I had a look at some available documents and found that it misses the radiator setting, or it says it is 1/4 open (3/4 closed = 51 mm). Are the data in these related to this particular setting, or general? I mean, e.g. Dauerleistung should be 30 minutes; is it 30 minutes with radiator 1/4 open? If so, how long is it possible to use it if the radiators are fully open? I haven't found any relevant data. Do you have any? If not, what methodology did you use. I fly Bf-109 a lot of time, so I am biased, but biased in historical accuracy of "my" plane (if spit was better in some area, then it should be also in the game).

Third, do you prepare any "pilot's notes" for us to deal with upcoming changes?

(Please anyone, I started this thread for information only, please, do not start any kind of flame war over planes.)

[Salmo]

Third, do you prepare any "pilot's notes" for us to deal with upcoming changes?
Yes.

[nacy]

Third, do you prepare any "pilot's notes" for us to deal with upcoming changes?

No.

[ATAG_Septic]

No.

What makes you say this? It makes no sense to me.

Cheers,

Septic.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

What makes you say this? It makes no sense to me.

Cheers,

Septic.

Might have been a translation issue. The question "do you prepare any "pilot's notes"" (present/ conditional tense - without the conditional expression) could have been translated by Nacy as asking "have you prepared any "pilot's notes"" (past tense), as opposed to "are you preparing any pilots notes" (present) and Nacy might have thought the OP question was a reference to the CloD game as produced by 1C/MG, as is. There are currently no pilot's notes.

The original question should have been "will you prepare any "pilot's notes"" (future tense) and thus there would not have been any confusion.

I suspect the original poster was German, given the way Deutsch constructs the future tense cf. to English.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I'm impressed, Pstyle! Do you work for the diplomatic corps by any chance? If not, you absolutely should be! :thumbsup:

[nacy]

Might have been a translation issue. The question "do you prepare any "pilot's notes"" (present/ conditional tense - without the conditional expression) could have been translated by Nacy as asking "have you prepared any "pilot's notes"" (past tense), as opposed to "are you preparing any pilots notes" (present) and Nacy might have thought the OP question was a reference to the CloD game as produced by 1C/MG, as is. There are currently no pilot's notes.

The original question should have been "will you prepare any "pilot's notes"" (future tense) and thus there would not have been any confusion.

I suspect the original poster was German, given the way Deutsch constructs the future tense cf. to English.

(French) Merci = thank you Pstyle...

[ATAG_Septic]

Might have been a translation issue. The question "do you prepare any "pilot's notes"" (present/ conditional tense - without the conditional expression) could have been translated by Nacy as asking "have you prepared any "pilot's notes"" (past tense), as opposed to "are you preparing any pilots notes" (present) and Nacy might have thought the OP question was a reference to the CloD game as produced by 1C/MG, as is. There are currently no pilot's notes.

The original question should have been "will you prepare any "pilot's notes"" (future tense) and thus there would not have been any confusion.

I suspect the original poster was German, given the way Deutsch constructs the future tense cf. to English.

Thanks Pstyle, I think I follow, or is it followed?

It may well explain it though.

Cheers,

Septic.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Thanks Pstyle, I think I follow, or is it followed?


I think I follow. (correct)
I think I followed. (also correct)

I hob koa Bier mehr.

[II/JG53 Rolf]

To avoid confusion - will you prepare a pilot manual which will cover CEM of Bf-109 E?

Btw. I am Czech and I was a bit tired, I hope I don't do this kind of confusing mistakes a lot :D .

Anyway, what about those radiators? I really would like to know how it worked there with relation to the length of the particular ATA setting. As I stated before if Germans used them 1/4 open then the duration under which you could use specific ATA setting could be longer. To specify it - if I use 1.2 ATA at 2400 for E4 than I should use it for about 30 minutes with radiators 1/4 open. However, it should be longer if I have them 3/4 unless the data are about the durability of the engine. It would mean higher risk engine failure or of wearing down of the engine thus lowering its lifespan.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

To avoid confusion - will you prepare a pilot manual which will cover CEM of Bf-109 E?

Btw. I am Czech and I was a bit tired, I hope I don't do this kind of confusing mistakes a lot :D .

Anyway, what about those radiators? I really would like to know how it worked there with relation to the length of the particular ATA setting. As I stated before if Germans used them 1/4 open then the duration under which you could use specific ATA setting could be longer. To specify it - if I use 1.2 ATA at 2400 for E4 than I should use it for about 30 minutes with radiators 1/4 open. However, it should be longer if I have them 3/4 unless the data are about the durability of the engine. It would mean higher risk engine failure or of wearing down of the engine thus lowering its lifespan.

I think this is being modelled, similar to your request.

There will be a pilot's manual/ operating instructions too.

[VO101_Kurfurst]

Hello gents, first I'd like to thank you for your enthusiasm in continuing this sim. :thumbsup:

Second, I'd like to ask for CEM in Me-109 in your upcoming patch. According to your statements the ability to overheat the engine will be changed for Bf-109 E. I had a look at some available documents and found that it misses the radiator setting, or it says it is 1/4 open (3/4 closed = 51 mm). Are the data in these related to this particular setting, or general? I mean, e.g. Dauerleistung should be 30 minutes; is it 30 minutes with radiator 1/4 open?

The Bf 109E trial you refer to is here. The plane is running on the 1,35ata / 5 min rating with the coolant radiator flaps 1/4 open (streamline position) and oil cooler closed. Water temperature was observed to be a steady 90 degrees Celsius, oil temp 62 / 82 degrees Celsius (I guess inlet/outlet) at +5 Celsius degrees outside temperature.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_V15a/Geschw_109V15a.html

Generally speaking the 5min or 30min limits are not "hard" limits and can be exceeded until the proper temperatures are maintained. Obviously higher power regimes will result in greater wear of the engine, and shortened life, but certainly not in the scope of a single sortie. IOWs, then engine will certainly not fail if you run it for 10 or 15 mins at max. power instead of the prescribed 5 minutes, provided you maintain the other (mostly temperature) limits.

[VO101_Kurfurst]

Salute

The subject of accurate CEM for the 109's, in fact accurate CEM's for ALL aircraft is on the first order of concern for the Flight Modelling Team. We are revising not only the 109's, but all fighters and bombers which are currently flyable.

This is a very difficult task, the original FM's were badly mismodelled, in the case of the 109, effectively there was no chance of overheating unless a pilot simply closed his radiators.

Such statements are concerning. It seems to me that you have an issue with that the 109 does not overheats in level flight with half open radiator and would like to make it so that it would overheat, even when the real thing was actually better in this respect than the current FM, ie. it did not overheat even with 1/4 radiator open. That's in level flight, in dives there is considerably more air going through the rads (so your concern is actually not to overcool the engine) and in climbs, less (and therefore, the radiators are needed to be open more than in level flight to maintain temperature).


We are aiming to eventually have as accurate and complete a system of modelling engine heat management as possible, but it is very likely with our initial release there will be some compromises made.

I would like to hear about the nature of these compromises. Will it be in the nature of articificial "balancing" of the planeset, or will it be based on historical documents? If so, which historical papers are to be used for the 109 cooling model?

[vranac]

Such statements are concerning. It seems to me that you have an issue with that the 109 does not overheats in level flight with half open radiator and would like to make it so that it would overheat, even when the real thing was actually better in this respect than the current FM, ie. it did not overheat even with 1/4 radiator open. That's in level flight, in dives there is considerably more air going through the rads (so your concern is actually not to overcool the engine) and in climbs, less (and therefore, the radiators are needed to be open more than in level flight to maintain temperature).

You can fly 109 with WEP constantly on with 10 sec pauses and climb with low speed and it wan't overheat at all with rads at 50%.
Spitfires depending on the model can't be flown by the book on the other way.

Guys who are tweaking and testing FM are very dedicated and competent and I have full confidence that they will do good job.

[ATAG_Colander]

Please wait for the initial release before becoming concerned.

[VO101_Kurfurst]

You can fly 109 with WEP constantly on with 10 sec pauses and climb with low speed and it wan't overheat at all with rads at 50%.

109 should not overheat in climb with rads at 1/2-3/4 open. Its historically correct.

There was no limitation on how often you can fly with WEP on the 109, or any other plane, apart from . The bug with the 109 WEP are different: firstly, it doesn't really give the power boost it should, and secondly it should be only marginally effective above ca. 2000 m.

I guess its a relic of the old Il-2 WEP model, people seem to connect overheating and prescribed WEP times, but they in fact have nothing to do with each other. Given sufficient cooling, a plane even at full power does not neccessary 'overheats' after five, ten or even thirty minutes. It may very well fly at the exact same temperature as it did during the start if it has good cooling capacity or it may well start to overheat after two minutes, if the cooling capacity was insufficient and was designed for minimal drag and short sprints.


Spitfires depending on the model can't be flown by the book on the other way.

I understand it has severe cooling issues atm. However, there is very little cooling report on the Spitfire to compare the FM too. The one we have is IIRC showing a very slow temperatrue increase of the cooling during the climb at lower powers. Now its quite typical .


Guys who are tweaking and testing FM are very dedicated and competent and I have full confidence that they will do good job.

I am sure they will do everything to do a good job and in good faith, too. But you see, one of the concerns, which I hope to see to be completely in error, is that the development team is made up by all Red pilots, who speak of 'fixing' the 109 cooling 'bug' (which is already worser and it overheats far more readily than in real life). They have been also very outspoken on the forums for some time about having issues with the 109 not overheating enough (which I am sure has something to do with the unfortunate state of the Spitfire, which I hear is very easy to overheat on the other hand). Now if you have been in the Il-2 as long as I have been, you'd know that some of these Red pilots have been, for the past decade the most fervent 109 haters you have ever seen and have a very long history of posts and threads along the line what most computer geeks would refer to as a 'nerf the 109' campaign. You see that's a pretty good reason in itself to be concerned. Now I readily admit that the the some of them have recently went through a very unexpected change of character and has undertaken a much more open minded approach. Trouble is that more often than not they do not have the sources, or they do not understand the sources, because they are in some other language than English.

And besides, all these guys (including myself) have been whining endlessly to 1c/Oleg about FMs before they were even released, so I guess its just Karma coming back at them. :D

[SlipBall]

but I think that Bliss has a spot in his heart for blue, I'm sure that all want accuracy for the game

[II/JG53 Rolf]

Well, as I stated, I had wanted to understand how German trials worked. I have confidence in unbiased mod by TF. If in real life "WEP" mode in Me-109 could be used up to 1000m and the tests were done with above setting, then I believe, we will have it in the game. And Spitfire overheating problems will be solved according to RL data, too. :thumbsup:

Thanks for explanation VO101_Kurfurst, btw. could you check some of links at your web as they seem to be leading nowhere :thumbsup:.

[Mattias]

But you see, one of the concerns, which I hope to see to be completely in error, is that the development team is made up by all Red pilots, who speak of 'fixing' the 109 cooling 'bug' (which is already worser and it overheats far more readily than in real life).

:salute: Kurfurst,

You don't have to worry -the team is made up of a well balanced mix of red, blue and "neutral" pilots. As far as I seen, noone has an "hidden agenda" of making their side's planes stronger than RL or tuning down the opposition :thumbsup:

Cheers/m

[VO101_Kurfurst]

That's good to hear, Mattias! I hope the team can find a way to properly fix the FM. :)

[DK_]

I agree with VO101_Kurfurst sentiments regarding the possible misconception that it is not natural for the 109 to be able to fly on 100% throttle continuously without overheating. Just yesterday on the server someone chatted that he "just flew around for an hour at 100% in the 109 and did not overheat. Now that's impunity!"

Nonsense! Perhaps it shouldn't be able to do so with 50% oil radiator and maybe should need more. I really don't have the technical knowledge on that. I have flown around at 88% opening on the radiator and didn't see much difference in speed or temperature. I really do not see the big deal unless there is actually technical evidence that the 109 was so poorly engineered that it could not run on 100% throttle with realistic radiator settings. The WEP is another thing, I assume that it is probably way more complex than the current FM allows for.

Flying at 100% is just that, 100%. Go over the limits or mismanage engine cooling or other settings and you may have problems, in other words the limit is the limit and there is no reason to assume that flying with 100% throttle should result in overheating if the appropriate limits are observed. Unless there is historical evidence and many reports from pilots that the aircraft just couldn't not fly at 100% throttle without overheating I don't think that weakness should be added. Most likely, historically, the pilots would not continuously fly at 100% throttle because they would consume too much fuel in a given time and not because the aircraft would over heat.

One area that does seem way off from reality is being able to sit on the ground idling for as long as you like without overheating. That seems highly unrealistic to me since aircraft are designed with airflow in flight and minimal drag in mind. The pilot account posted yesterday about the Spit pilot being told to be careful to not over heat the engine during taxi is realistic. Most aircraft of the era probably should not be able to sit on the ground with the engine(s) running for extended periods of time if accuracy is desired in the game. Bombers were probably designed to be able to idle longer on the ground than fighters.

Any flying of any of the aircraft would reduce the life span of the aircraft over time and would require maintenance. This is a game and it would be way too complex to assign a life to each aircraft. To artificially limit the 109 engine performance because there is a belief that it should not be able to fly continously at 100% throttle would be misguided. Other things like g forces, landings, gear cycles, etc etc would also reduce the life of components.

It's a game after all. Should we get factory fresh aircraft every sorty or have a random maintenance/health level of each aircraft during each "spawn" of aircraft? I say get them all working as close to historical and technical capabilities of the standard aircraft in good to excellent condition.

S!

[VO101_Tom]

Just yesterday on the server someone chatted that he "just flew around for an hour at 100% in the 109 and did not overheat. Now that's impunity!"
Nonsense! ...

Hi. The chat was partly wrong, because nobody care the throttle settings, but the DB engines have manifold pressure restrictions, which clearly written in the Daimler engine manuals. You can not fly any length of time if the manifold pressure greater than 1.15 ata, because the "engine exposed to heavy duty use, and should only be used in emergency situations". The 1.4 ata (which called in the game "afterburner") only available 1 minute use. There is a mechanical clockwork, which is winded by pushing the throttle in forward will disengage the manifold pressure / boost increase automatically after 1 minute, regardless of the position of the throttle. I believe it's really important to not exceed the limit, if they build a clockwork for it (although, there is not a word about, what will causes if you exceed the limits)...

http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/docs/db601a_tablazat.jpg

[DK_]

Hi. The chat was partly wrong, because nobody care the throttle settings, but the DB engines have manifold pressure restrictions, which clearly written in the Daimler engine manuals. You can not fly any length of time if the manifold pressure greater than 1.15 ata, because the "engine exposed to heavy duty use, and should only be used in emergency situations". The 1.4 ata (which called in the game "afterburner") only available 1 minute use. There is a mechanical clockwork, which is winded by pushing the throttle in forward will disengage the manifold pressure / boost increase automatically after 1 minute, regardless of the position of the throttle. I believe it's really important to not exceed the limit, if they build a clockwork for it (although, there is not a word about, what will causes if you exceed the limits)...

http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/docs/db601a_tablazat.jpg

Well, said. Much better than the gibberish I posted.

[SlipBall]

Some of you might remember that in the release of the early game, the 109 would suffer almost immediate engine damage in a matter of seconds, if the RPM was too high. I really don't mind that, it teaches me to pay attention to what I'm supposed to be doing. The damage was not noticed right away, but it was indicated by puffs of black smoke from the exhaust manifold every few seconds. The throttle could of been set at 75% or !00%, what mattered was the RPM's :D

[ATAG_Bliss]

but I think that Bliss has a spot in his heart for blue, I'm sure that all want accuracy for the game

I'm all about accuracy and don't have anything to do with the FMs. Don't worry :D

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

I agree with VO101_Kurfurst sentiments regarding the possible misconception that it is not natural for the 109 to be able to fly on 100% throttle continuously without overheating. Just yesterday on the server someone chatted that he "just flew around for an hour at 100% in the 109 and did not overheat. Now that's impunity!"


Hi Dk, that was me. The comment regarding 100% throttle on chat was a comparison to the spit only, it wasn't a compaction to historical 109s performance. I was only identifying how nice it was to not have to deal with engine mgmt in the way I would if I were flying the spit. If that's historically correct, then fine, that doesn't bother me. IT merely gives more reason to praise the 109. I found the whole flight thoroughly pleasant and un-stressful.

The subsequent tote about "impunity" was that I had just spent 40 minutes over the English coast, completely unchallenged. The "impunity" comment was not directly related to the 100% throttle. I was, in part, trying to goad the reds into some fighting ;) because it seemed as though they had ignored me for 40 minutes.

[II/JG53 Rolf]

There are a few things unclear for me related to the engine and our game.

1) From the above table there is obvious that "heavy duty" is something unpleasant for the engine, but the point is simple - as there is no wearing out of the engine and we get a brand new test plane whenever we spawn in, there in no concern about the engine lifespan, isn't it? It also works for Allied planes. Is there any evidence of effects the above "heavy duty" has on the actual engine? I doubt an RL LW pilot would throttle back if chased by an allied fighter, I guess he would have to report abuse of his engine to his technicians. The point is - I haven't found any relevant data concerning the abuse had on the engine (I remember one about Spitfire vaguely saying that the pilot had to report it. Pilots on neither side flew by the pilot's manual...). Does anyone have any?

2) The above settings were used in the tests as it is clear from them. The point is - the radiators were only 1/4 open and the engine didn't obviously overheat during the tests. How much heat does the engine actually produce? Wasn't it actually possible to fly it, say, at 1.23 ATA and 2300 RPM indefinitely if you have rads fully open (drag!) and you didn't care about your engine...? (A real life LW pilot would as the engine of his plane was the most precious thing there...) Do we actually really have any hard data from the tests?

3) What about a different setting? What impact would it have? From Bf-109 E4 I can see that the engine is kept at about 2000-2100 RPM if on 1.23 ATA by the automatic prop pitch control. I guess it is the RPM that "kills" the engine regarding its lifespan and temperature...

Gentlemen, thank you for keeping this discussion polite and mature. Something unusual compared "banana forums" . I am looking forward to answers, if you have any.

(PS: I have studied the data about turn rate of the Bf-109 E - found 2 sources:
1) RAE - 24 seconds for 360 turn
2) LW report - 19 seconds for 360 turn

Guys, do you have any more? The first think that occurred to me were the test pilots - British knew Spit and German knew Bf-109 - both flew their planes to the limits but not the opponents, seems like a simple solution.)

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

@Rolf, in general I appreciate your well written comments. Here are my uneducated responses.


1) From the above table there is obvious that "heavy duty" is something unpleasant for the engine, but the point is simple - as there is no wearing out of the engine and we get a brand new test plane whenever we spawn in, there in no concern about the engine lifespan, isn't it? It also works for Allied planes. Is there any evidence of effects the above "heavy duty" has on the actual engine? I doubt an RL LW pilot would throttle back if chased by an allied fighter, I guess he would have to report abuse of his engine to his technicians. The point is - I haven't found any relevant data concerning the abuse had on the engine (I remember one about Spitfire vaguely saying that the pilot had to report it. Pilots on neither side flew by the pilot's manual...). Does anyone have any?
I think you might be on to something here. The situation with respect to long-term aircraft maintenance does not apply in the game (yet... - I'm thinking about campaigns here....).
Were the limits imposed by manuals and pilot notes designed to ensure short-term safety or long-term safety of the aircraft? What margins for error/ confidence were built into the manuals which were above and beyond actual breaking points? These things would be very, very difficult to ascertain I would expect.
We've been here before on the banana forums, with some folks saying that the pilot's manual limits should apply to the modeled hardware. Others have even gone so far as to suggest that modern procedural safety methods should determine how the game is modeled!



2) The above settings were used in the tests as it is clear from them. The point is - the radiators were only 1/4 open and the engine didn't obviously overheat during the tests. How much heat does the engine actually produce? Wasn't it actually possible to fly it, say, at 1.23 ATA and 2300 RPM indefinitely if you have rads fully open (drag!) and you didn't care about your engine...? (A real life LW pilot would as the engine of his plane was the most precious thing there...) Do we actually really have any hard data from the tests?
Once again you might be right. How confidently can we say that a test result is an accurate model of 1) actual settings applied across the board, and 2) the likely empirical experience of aircraft performance on operations? Once again, we have a data vacuum that we have to fill with out best assumptions. But this thinkgin would have to be applied to BOTH sides, with the same bias being used in each case (the bias in favour of higher, or lower than reported stress).


3) What about a different setting? What impact would it have? From Bf-109 E4 I can see that the engine is kept at about 2000-2100 RPM if on 1.23 ATA by the automatic prop pitch control. I guess it is the RPM that "kills" the engine regarding its lifespan and temperature...
RPM is more likely to burst any engine than fuel flow (although they are related). [/QUOTE]


Gentlemen, thank you for keeping this discussion polite and mature. Something unusual compared "banana forums" . I am looking forward to answers, if you have any.
Agreed!


(PS: I have studied the data about turn rate of the Bf-109 E - found 2 sources:
1) RAE - 24 seconds for 360 turn
2) LW report - 19 seconds for 360 turn

Can you link the sources? (I suspect I know which - Kufrust website and /or Spitfire performance website)
As usual we have disparate sources for most of our information.
Also, there always seems to be a reason why each historical source can be questioned. For example: The RAE results were only "extrapolations".. or the Augsburg results do not correct for altitude above sea level, or the Swiss tests are using a specialized aircraft/engine, or the pilot's reports and factory notes contain propaganda.... yadda yadda yadda....


Guys, do you have any more? The first think that occurred to me were the test pilots - British knew Spit and German knew Bf-109 - both flew their planes to the limits but not the opponents, seems like a simple solution.)
I wanted to build a spread sheet to compile many various sources, and take the average result for each to build a "picture" of each aircraft type in the game. I started this a few months ago, but it was taking a long time....

[VO101_Tom]

(PS: I have studied the data about turn rate of the Bf-109 E - found 2 sources:
1) RAE - 24 seconds for 360 turn
2) LW report - 19 seconds for 360 turn

Guys, do you have any more? The first think that occurred to me were the test pilots - British knew Spit and German knew Bf-109 - both flew their planes to the limits but not the opponents, seems like a simple solution.)

Hi

I agree!

I not deny, that the R.A.E. test pilots are experienced, good pilots, but they obviously not know the 109 enough. I have read for example the "Landing" paragraph, He approach with 90 mph, but the 109 factory manual (Betriebs und Rustanleitung Me 109 Mit Motor DB 601) clearly written, the approach speed sould be around 200-220 km/h (125-135 mph), and the landing flare speed is 150 km/h (93 mph). He approaching wiht 90 mph ("The normal approach speed is about 90 m.p.h."), and complained, that "there is a strong tendency for the left wing to drop just before touch-down, and when the ailerons are used quickly to bring the wing up they snatch a little, causing the pilot to over-correct"... Of course, the 109 almost stalled...

And there is an another phrase, right before the dogfight tests: "during these fights the Me.109 was flown by an R.A.E. pilot who had completed the handling tests described earlier in this report, and was thus thoroughly familiar with the aircraft and could be expected to get the best out of it."
No, not expected. I don't know how many hour flew with the plane before they flew these dogfight tests, but obvious, learn the plane handling near the limits, it's a long process (especially the 109), and i doubt they had enough time, if they can't even landing in a proper way... IMHO...

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Hi
I agree!
I not deny, that the R.A.E. test pilots are experienced, good pilots, but they obviously not know the 109 enough. ..

I also agree. I do not think the RAE results should have the veto in any discussion about 109 performance.
I think it is bad historical analysis to do so.

And I'm almost exclusively a red pilot.

[II/JG53 Rolf]

Thanks for your ideas, gents. I'll state it again, I am a 109 pilot, I biased in favour of it, but only historical accuracy is important for me (Spit pilots should have their ride accurate as well as Hurricane ones, 110s etc.). We have twisted to performance of Bf-109 a bit, but it doesn't matter. I have tried to read the data on http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
, but I don't understand most of them. E.g. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109e-kurvenzeiten.jpg

I'd like to compare Spit and Bf-109E3/4 in turning. I have a "feeling" of how it could have really been and I'd like to gather as much material for and against as possible. I don't take pilot's reports as hard data, because we don't have enough information about important factors like speed, altitude, energy, G-forces, loadout (fuel...) for both sides. The other reason is simple - there are numerous reports of Spits out-turning 109 (and are correct of course), but there are no reports from those who didn't (logical - they didn't survive that). On the other hand - turning dogfight wasn't part of German tactics, so there are only limited reports of it and most of them are those successful ones (again, those who failed either were killed or captured), so we have only victorious ones. (And I am aware of possible fact, that there were more of the Spit ones as Spit turned better)

I take RAE report for Spitfire: 18 seconds/360 degree with about 212 m radius, and 109 from German records: 19 seconds/360 degree turn with about 203 m. At very first glance every 109 pilot in game would say:"Hurray, our planes turns better!". Nothing can be far from the truth!

1) German plane seems to unarmed in the test, the armed one should be nearly 100 kg heavier.
2) We have to take the wings of the Spit into the account.

Let me compare them, then:
1) Energy retention - Spitfire is far better due to the elliptical wings and wing loading. Any prolonged combat will inevitably result in Spit having more energy under the same circumstances.
2) Sustained turn is nearly the same, but with Spitfire having the edge. If two really same pilots meet, fly their rides to the limits, Spit will win.
3) Turning radius - here 109 has advantage, but it is useless unless Spit pilot drops his speed enough to equal this which is unlikely.

In my opinion this sort of explains why experienced LW pilots could out turn Spitfire if they met an average RAF pilot. My analysis doesn't contain the use of flaps. RAE says they were useless, but I don't believe it - the German sources show different curves with and without flaps, so they must have had some impact.

Could anyone help me read those graphs and provide other data if possible. I am open to change my opinion if evidence shows otherwise.

(Could I politely ask the moderator to move this thread to Planes section where it belongs).

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Rolf, this project might help you.
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?3306-Comparisons-of-Historical-Sources

[VO101_Tom]

In my opinion this sort of explains why experienced LW pilots could out turn Spitfire if they met an average RAF pilot. My analysis doesn't contain the use of flaps. RAE says they were useless, but I don't believe it - the German sources show different curves with and without flaps, so they must have had some impact.

The flap designed to reduced the aircraft stall speed - good for take off and landing. It increase the lift -of course- but increase the AoA and the air drag much more too. If you use the flap in turning fight, you may turn tighter only a small amount of time, but you will drop your speed rapidly, and you found yourself very very far from the corner speed, and the chance to win the dogfight :joystick:

(In the game, you can win a turning fight against a Spit, who use flap. That's how important not even think about flap using :) It's a landing device. Nothing more)

[Robo.]

There are a few things unclear for me related to the engine and our game.

1) From the above table there is obvious that "heavy duty" is something unpleasant for the engine, but the point is simple - as there is no wearing out of the engine and we get a brand new test plane whenever we spawn in, there in no concern about the engine lifespan, isn't it? It also works for Allied planes. Is there any evidence of effects the above "heavy duty" has on the actual engine? I doubt an RL LW pilot would throttle back if chased by an allied fighter, I guess he would have to report abuse of his engine to his technicians. The point is - I haven't found any relevant data concerning the abuse had on the engine (I remember one about Spitfire vaguely saying that the pilot had to report it. Pilots on neither side flew by the pilot's manual...). Does anyone have any?

You're right there with shortening the lifespan of an engine when the aircraft was flown above the limits. The 1940s engines had not very impressive lifespan to start with - around 100 hours. You would decrease these further by abusing your engine - of course that does not matter to you in your online sortie, but it did matter to the commanders and to people paying for new engines. The pilot would not hold back in combat, especially when he got in trouble or even when chasing the enemy... but all in all they were certainly flying by the respective Pilot's books or Handbuch, using the rated power and respecting the time and temperature limits. The manuals are to be found online on various places (PM me if you need any) in more than one version (due to the fact that the manuals including the engine settings were often amended during the time the aircraft was deployed in combat, often many months with many modifications). These were simple rules followed by the pilots and there was no way of not respecting them or ignoring them. There is some information regarding the engine maintenance and abuse as you call it, you're right about the Merlin engines (not just Spitfires, Hurricanes had the same engine) and use of Boost Cut-Out override reports as the engines was due for a specific maintenance and inspection to make sure it's all good for the next pilot who's gonna fly that plane. Erhoehte Notleistung was, as far I know, not used as emergency power but rather on take-off.

In one way or another, engine manufacturers guaranteed reliability and said life of their engines if the Pilot's manuals were followed. There were typically 4 or 5 settings for respective flight regimes and on top of that you got temperature limits - simple as that.


2) The above settings were used in the tests as it is clear from them. The point is - the radiators were only 1/4 open and the engine didn't obviously overheat during the tests. How much heat does the engine actually produce? Wasn't it actually possible to fly it, say, at 1.23 ATA and 2300 RPM indefinitely if you have rads fully open (drag!) and you didn't care about your engine...? (A real life LW pilot would as the engine of his plane was the most precious thing there...) Do we actually really have any hard data from the tests?

How much heat did the engine produce in flight - hard to say, depending on the design, cooling capabilities and very much on weather conditions - humidity, ambient temperature etc etc. 1,23ata and 2300 RPM was not too much of a strain for the DB, the flight regime is called something 'continuous higher rated power at the ground level' and was limited by 30 minutes.. It is safe to assume that providing good cooling, staying within limits, you could run her like that for much longer, especially say in winter. The pilot's notes were vague in this aspect, the '30 means it is safe to run the engine on these settings for 30 minutes no matter what provided that the temps stay within limits. What we have now is a DB601A running at 1,42ata all the way to full throttle height with no problems and Merlin XII running at +12lbs way above 10.500ft. Mind you these engines were running HOT as such (on the ground), you could easily overheat your typical WWII fighter just by taxiing for too long, e.g. Spitfire with the smaller radiator obstructed by a landing gear on the ground. Bf 109E has had a bit more efficient cooling as stated above - 2 big radiators in each wings, but mind you you needed speed (= airflow through the rad) to keep your engine cool. The higher you went, the colder the air gets so that helps also... The crucial part was usually climbing (lowish speed and high power setting) and combat power (full power typically for limited amount of time.)


3) What about a different setting? What impact would it have? From Bf-109 E4 I can see that the engine is kept at about 2000-2100 RPM if on 1.23 ATA by the automatic prop pitch control. I guess it is the RPM that "kills" the engine regarding its lifespan and temperature...

It's RPM and MFP as well, perhaps even more. MFP is manifold pressure, too much of it will kill your engine within few seconds. The automatic prop pitch control was very simplified on the Emil, basically a linear relation of the RPM towards the position of your throttle lever. There is no connection otherwise and the manual is written for MFP / RPM settings as per manual prop pitch. In the nutshell, your RPM = oil temp, MFP = water temp, a very simplified statement but you get an idea.

[Robo.]

Thanks for your ideas, gents. I'll state it again, I am a 109 pilot, I biased in favour of it, but only historical accuracy is important for me (Spit pilots should have their ride accurate as well as Hurricane ones, 110s etc.). We have twisted to performance of Bf-109 a bit, but it doesn't matter. I have tried to read the data on http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
, but I don't understand most of them. E.g. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109e-kurvenzeiten.jpg

I'd like to compare Spit and Bf-109E3/4 in turning. I have a "feeling" of how it could have really been and I'd like to gather as much material for and against as possible. I don't take pilot's reports as hard data, because we don't have enough information about important factors like speed, altitude, energy, G-forces, loadout (fuel...) for both sides. The other reason is simple - there are numerous reports of Spits out-turning 109 (and are correct of course), but there are no reports from those who didn't (logical - they didn't survive that). On the other hand - turning dogfight wasn't part of German tactics, so there are only limited reports of it and most of them are those successful ones (again, those who failed either were killed or captured), so we have only victorious ones. (And I am aware of possible fact, that there were more of the Spit ones as Spit turned better)

I take RAE report for Spitfire: 18 seconds/360 degree with about 212 m radius, and 109 from German records: 19 seconds/360 degree turn with about 203 m. At very first glance every 109 pilot in game would say:"Hurray, our planes turns better!". Nothing can be far from the truth!

1) German plane seems to unarmed in the test, the armed one should be nearly 100 kg heavier.
2) We have to take the wings of the Spit into the account.

Let me compare them, then:
1) Energy retention - Spitfire is far better due to the elliptical wings and wing loading. Any prolonged combat will inevitably result in Spit having more energy under the same circumstances.
2) Sustained turn is nearly the same, but with Spitfire having the edge. If two really same pilots meet, fly their rides to the limits, Spit will win.
3) Turning radius - here 109 has advantage, but it is useless unless Spit pilot drops his speed enough to equal this which is unlikely.

In my opinion this sort of explains why experienced LW pilots could out turn Spitfire if they met an average RAF pilot. My analysis doesn't contain the use of flaps. RAE says they were useless, but I don't believe it - the German sources show different curves with and without flaps, so they must have had some impact.

Could anyone help me read those graphs and provide other data if possible. I am open to change my opinion if evidence shows otherwise.

(Could I politely ask the moderator to move this thread to Planes section where it belongs).

I see what you're trying to say, you're on the right track in your assumptions, these things have been discussed to death, I recommend looking over at 1c banana forums, someone even posted EM charts for both planes. The 'turn fight' question very much depends on the pilot's skill and overall tactical situation as you assumed, in the nutshell the 109 can come close to Spitfire's turn rate but at much higher speed. In point 1 you say 'prolonged combat' while you perhaps mean 'prolonged turnfight', at your typical TnB speeds, Spitfire can turn circles around the Emil. Different speed, different story. If 109 pilot forces uses the vertical level, he will retain E much better. You can see Experten turning with Spits successfully and you read similar stories from the BoB literature. I would say this is correct and it happens if the Spitfire pilot burns too much speed. If you keep her in the ideal envelope though you can always outturn a 109, depends on the experience (knowing when to start turning etc..).

Flaps do work in the game a bit but just as Tom says, it's not worth it. You'l be much better off keeping your speed rather than tightening your turn for that one shot. Nah. Spitfire flaps work the completely opposite way - they cause the plane to pitch up instead kicking the nose down. You can use that in combat to some extent but historically it's obviously BS...

[ATAG_Lolsav]

The 'turn fight' question very much depends on the pilot's skill and overall tactical situation as you assumed, in the nutshell the 109 can come close to Spitfire's turn rate but at much higher speed. In point 1 you say 'prolonged combat' while you perhaps mean 'prolonged turnfight', at your typical TnB speeds, Spitfire can turn circles around the Emil. Different speed, different story.

Never in the history of "beat the dead horse" everlasting discussion of wich is the better aircraft i agreed so much with a thought as i did with Robo. I think its the first time i write something about these never ending discussions, just because i do agree 100% with that bit there. In my very own words i would come up with a formula. its a bit of plane, a bit of pilot and a bit of luck.


People tend to think in geometric way, the turn beeing made perfectly resulting in a perfect circle. The thing is, and we all have experienced it online, the turn its never perfect - hence the bit of luck - and the guy on the six has a much better chance to resolve the problem. We all have been turning at one point or another, and the plane bounces all over. I guess that would happen too in real life, considering the wind and pilot endure to G forces.


Flaps do work in the game a bit but just as Tom says, it's not worth it. You'l be much better off keeping your speed rather than tightening your turn for that one shot. Nah. Spitfire flaps work the completely opposite way - they cause the plane to pitch up instead kicking the nose down. You can use that in combat to some extent but historically it's obviously BS...

Again, agreed. But its a horrible sight to come behind a spit/hurricane and see him in a poisition like its taking a dump. That image just makes me sick. but i have seen it and let me confess i have add a bit of flaps when i know im in the limit to make "that shot" who will make your 109 flip flop. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt, thats why its a game and i like it :)

[Salmo]

There are a few things unclear for me related to the engine and our game.

1) From the above table there is obvious that "heavy duty" is something unpleasant for the engine, but the point is simple - as there is no wearing out of the engine and we get a brand new test plane whenever we spawn in, there in no concern about the engine lifespan, isn't it? It also works for Allied planes. Is there any evidence of effects the above "heavy duty" has on the actual engine?

Your point is well made. Engine (& other systems) wear IS modeled in game, but players are unlikely to see any great effect of wear in any given mission. Because players (mostly) grab a new aircraft each mission, this game aspect seldom comes into play. Here's the systems that are modeled for wear:

* engine wear
* airframe wear
* control line wear
* undercarriage wear
* landing flaps wear
* pneumatic system wear
* hydrolic system wear
* electrical system wear
* auxilaries system wear

[Salmo]

Spitfire flaps work the completely opposite way - they cause the plane to pitch up instead kicking the nose down.
Not for much longer ... :stunned:

[II/JG53 Rolf]

Thanks Salmo :salute: . I was told you are not to tell anyone about actual content of TF project (I realized it too late, therefore I asked to move this thread where it belongs), but would it be possible (just hypothetically) to simulate worn out planes - at the spawn to randomly have some systems worn out to certain degree. And have it as option? I don't ask it to be done :recon:, there are more important things to do on TF to-do list, but I am curious.

EDIT: Thanks guys for your patience while beating the dead horse with me :thumbsup: , could anyone help me with axis reading of those tables in here?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me110/me110c-109e-turn-time.jpg
What are the axis? It seems that 110 had pretty good sustained turn for a twin engine, even better than 109F (!) unless I read it wrong which is possible as I don't know the axis.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

What are the axis? It seems that 110 had pretty good sustained turn for a twin engine, even better than 109F (!) unless I read it wrong which is possible as I don't know the axis.

I'm having trouble with the axis too!

If the Y-axis is airspeed, then each must surely be multiplied by 10km/h (10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35). But ti seems strange the graph wold only go to 350km/h
I think the Y-axis might be in seconds.

I am unable to read the X-axis.
It the X-axis is in km/h, then it seems odd that the 109F profile is slower than the 109E profile...

[VO101_Kurfurst]

(PS: I have studied the data about turn rate of the Bf-109 E - found 2 sources:
1) RAE - 24 seconds for 360 turn
2) LW report - 19 seconds for 360 turn

Guys, do you have any more? The first think that occurred to me were the test pilots - British knew Spit and German knew Bf-109 - both flew their planes to the limits but not the opponents, seems like a simple solution.)

The RAE report is an estimate based on guessworked figures for 12 000 feet altitude, the Messerschmitt report is for 0 meter altitude for 990 PS.

The Soviets also made some tests with the E and returned some horrible turn times (28 secs or the like), but the engine in that one was quite obviously a lemon at low altitude (climb and speed curves clearly show a major loss of power near SL). Perhaps wrongly set up engine - the Russians bought a couple of Es from the Germans before the GPW.

[Robo.]

Cheers Salmo, that's great to know! :thumbsup:

Rolf & pstyle - I believe that T (horizontal axis) is time in seconds and W could be bank angle. The various 'betas' are flaps angles, the other LW graph usually shows W against R (as horizontal axis) which is turn radius in meters. I remember I was trying to figure out the graphs a while ago and it made sense with the tangent of the said bank angle and the rate of turns were corresponding as per ROT formula. I am not absolutely sure though, the values on the vertical axis are from -90 to +10 and the graphs are only calculated, they are not results of real life tests and they are not the best quality scans...

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Cheers Salmo, that's great to know! :thumbsup:

Rolf & pstyle - I believe that T (horizontal axis) is time in seconds and W could be bank angle.

Hmm, could be. Would be an interesting... and largely for our purposes useless graph though, if that were the case. I would expect airspeed to be one of the necessary variables to show on any graph comparing turn rates.

The photocopying is just so damned poor... what a shame.

[II/JG53 Rolf]

Gents, I had a closer look at this graph as it seems to be more turning related.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109e-kurvenzeiten.jpg

I think I only partially understand it. From my point of view, it seems, that Y-axis shows time of 360 turn. Each curve represents certain flap deployment. I am not sure about the X-axis, but I I think it could be an altitude loss. At 0 it shows about 18.5 s with no flaps, which is in agreement with the other information, and it shows about 10s with minus 50, again it is very close. The plane seems to be unarmed. If the above idea is correct, it also shows very little effect the flaps had on turning which is in agreement with RAE report. Flaps affected the turning radius not the rate that much.

There is again speed missing. There could be 2 possible reasons:
1) It is only 1 part of a report therefore the speed was written elsewhere.
2) It was generally so well known (test pilots, technicians, combat pilots...) that they didn't bother to write it down.

Question is what does "W" stand for? Wendigkeit?

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

At 0 it shows about 18.5 s with no flaps, which is in agreement with the other information, and it shows about 10s with minus 50, again it is very close. The plane seems to be unarmed. If the above idea is correct, it also shows very little effect the flaps had on turning which is in agreement with RAE report. Flaps affected the turning radius not the rate that much.


Hi Rolf, I just want to check I understand you,

You suggest that at -50 flap the turn time is reduced from 18.5, to 10 seconds.
Then you state "very little effect the flaps had on turning".
Does a halving of turn time (from 18.5 to 10 seconds) not represent a very BIG effect from flaps on turning?

Sorry if I have mis-read you.
Cheers.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Question is what does "W" stand for? Wendigkeit?

I think it probably stand for "Winkel" (angle).
If that is true it could be angle of attack, angle of bank or angle of flap?

I would suggest that it is Angle of Flap.
Angle of attack would make no sense.
Angle of bank should not show such a profile, after all, at 0 angle of bank, there should be no turn!

I am inclined to agree that the curve shows a 360 degree turn in the 109 at an unspecified or unreadable height and speed.
The 18.5 seconds is almost identical to that reported for spitfires (18 to 19 seconds) with NO FLAPS deployed, but,once again we don't know speed or altitude.

The curve (18 seconds) is contrary to the 25 seconds reported by the RAE. But I'm more and more inclined to think that the RAE testing on the 109 is not reliable as raw data without understanding the specific conditions that might provide for the variations in results. .

I would suggest that, without flaps deployed, the 109 and spitfire demonstrates VERY similar turning capability in terms of turn-time.

[II/JG53 Rolf]

From what is stated clearly in the sheet, we know the altitude = 0m meaning at the deck. We also know that each curve represents one setting of flaps - 0/10/20/30/40 degrees it is written in bottom right corner. I would exclude flap setting because of the above and AOA as it wouldn't make sense. Therefore the logic (not knowledge :( ) tells me it will be the amount of meters per second lost in the turn. As a result it would be 18.5 for 0 loss of altitude with 0 degrees of flaps. And about 10 seconds for -50 meters/second during the turn. However, the question about X-axis remains so it is only an estimate. And the plane is without ammo.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

From what is stated clearly in the sheet, we know the altitude = 0m meaning at the deck. We also know that each curve represents one setting of flaps - 0/10/20/30/40 degrees it is written in bottom right corner. I would exclude flap setting because of the above and AOA as it wouldn't make sense. Therefore the logic (not knowledge :( ) tells me it will be the amount of meters per second lost in the turn. As a result it would be 18.5 for 0 loss of altitude with 0 degrees of flaps. And about 10 seconds for -50 meters/second during the turn. However, the question about X-axis remains so it is only an estimate. And the plane is without ammo.

Is the X-axis not seconds?
And the Y-axis is some kind of angle... but now I'm not sure what it is an angle of.....

[Robo.]

Rolf we've been discussing just that axis in the post above yours - T is time in seconds and W is bank angle. Look up the RoT formula, the speed is a part of that equation, too. RoT is always calculated at the same altitude.

[Robo.]

I think it probably stand for "Winkel" (angle).
If that is true it could be angle of attack, angle of bank or angle of flap?

I would suggest that it is Angle of Flap.
Angle of attack would make no sense.
Angle of bank should not show such a profile, after all, at 0 angle of bank, there should be no turn!

Angle of flap is the beta, various curves are calculated for various flaps settings, it's a very bad copy but if you look, there are actual settings stated on that sheet.


I am inclined to agree that the curve shows a 360 degree turn in the 109 at an unspecified or unreadable height and speed.
The 18.5 seconds is almost identical to that reported for spitfires (18 to 19 seconds) with NO FLAPS deployed, but,once again we don't know speed or altitude.

The altitude of this calculation is set as 0m, it says so on the sheet if you look hard enough, I know the scan is terrible. Speed is part of the equation, you get either turn diameter or turn time in these calculations (X axis), Y is W for bank angle. You need tangent of that to calculate rate of turn in degrees per second. On this specific graph you have plotted RoT in degrees per second as you have the bank angle. That is at least my uneducated understanding of the said graphs. There are some things that don't make sense though and God knows how they calculated this for I am sure you won't be able to turn with W=0 and the RoT is too good in some points, e.g. coming close to T=5 :)


The curve (18 seconds) is contrary to the 25 seconds reported by the RAE. But I'm more and more inclined to think that the RAE testing on the 109 is not reliable as raw data without understanding the specific conditions that might provide for the variations in results. .

The LW data was just calculated and never achieved in actual tests. You're right though that none of these tests are reliable... :(


I would suggest that, without flaps deployed, the 109 and spitfire demonstrates VERY similar turning capability in terms of turn-time.

Yes, perhaps, but on very different speeds. I will try to look up the Em plot someone did over at 1c forums as part of never ending FM discussions, I think it was actually Crumpp, that data was not too much off. The corner speed of the 109 was higher than the corner speed of the Spitfire, the wing design, wing loading etc. were too different and so were the turn times for that matter.

EDIT: got the post, sorry it was actually IvanK posting that data:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34290

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

I am sure you won't be able to turn with W=0

Exactly. This makes a complete nonsense of the whole chart.
If W=0, then T should be infinite, unless they're turning with rudder only... then T should not be what it is on the graph..

What if "w" is angle of attack, as opposed to angle of bank?
If angle of attack is -80, then it makes sense that a turn through 180 degrees laterally would be only a few seconds.....

[Robo.]

I meant I was also not sure how to interpret the data, the negative values of the 'angles' (e.g. -50) are confusing enough to start with, I only assumed it could be bank angle somehow because that is a part of the Rate of Turn equation. As I said, I was trying to figure out exactly the same thing a good while ago but I only managed to find other people asking the same question - 'what the hell is that supposed to mean'. AoA would be probably letter 'alpha', not W and it also does not explain the values at W=0... I have no idea how they calculated this and I am afraid without the rest of the documentation this was scanned from no-one here will be able to decipher them, maybe some aeronautical engineer :) At W=7,5 the T is identical for all flaps settings. Interesting...

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

I meant I was also not sure how to interpret the data, the negative values of the 'angles' (e.g. -50) are confusing enough to start with, I only assumed it could be bank angle somehow because that is a part of the Rate of Turn equation. As I said, I was trying to figure out exactly the same thing a good while ago but I only managed to find other people asking the same question - 'what the hell is that supposed to mean'. AoA would be probably letter 'alpha', not W and it also does not explain the values at W=0... I have no idea how they calculated this and I am afraid without the rest of the documentation this was scanned from no-one here will be able to decipher them, maybe some aeronautical engineer :) At W=7,5 the T is identical for all flaps settings. Interesting...

First;ly, I could be totally wrong about this, I'm not attached to this idea, just proposing it as a possible reading of the chart.
Here's how I'd make an argument for w being angle of attack. Referring to the attached picture:1887

When w = 0, the aircraft makes a nose-level turn, or perhaps even an altitude-level turn. With this attitude the turn time reported in seconds (T) is around 17 or 18 seconds.

When w = -50, the aircraft is in a nose-down attitude. In this attitude, the aileron roll at the start of the turn accounts for a large proportion of the rotational velocity required to make the turn. So the turn time through 360 degrees is much less than it would be at w = 0.

As you approach w = -90 the time to turn through 360 degrees gets closer and closer to the roll-rate of the aircraft.

As the w increases, the aircraft is also climbing in the turn. this results in longer turn times.

So, why are the profiles so similar with flaps down? and why do the flaps have more effect when w is in the negative range?
I'll have to think about this a bit more, but I think it is explainable.

[Robo.]

I see where you're coming from pstyle, but mind you that the RoT is always measured and displayed at constant altitude.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Hmm, yeah.
There's always a chance they broke convention for this graph.. for whatever reason.
Either way, it's the only way I can get the relationships between the two axis to make sense.

[LG1.Farber]

Cant you just look up the abbreviation of things in flight formulae?

[Robo.]

Hmm, yeah.
There's always a chance they broke convention for this graph.. for whatever reason.
Either way, it's the only way I can get the relationships between the two axis to make sense.

I understand, but I am afraid we won't be able to understand the relation without the rest of the document, or knowledge of the specific way they calculated these particular graphs :dazed: There is no variable I can think of in the range of the Y axis on these graphs (-80 to +10), therefor the scans are quite useless. There is no method of RoT measurment involving loss of altitude, that would have no purpose at all then (just like e.g. measuring the top speed of a car by driving downhill).

[II/JG53 Rolf]

In the same source, there are other tables with the turning radius, but the problem remains the same. The X-Axis is unreadable which makes it pretty useless... There is usual "W" and something that looks like "s". Pitty, could have been a good source. Thanks for your try gents :salute:.

[Robo.]

In the same source, there are other tables with the turning radius, but the problem remains the same. The X-Axis is unreadable which makes it pretty useless... There is usual "W" and something that looks like "s". Pitty, could have been a good source. Thanks for your try gents :salute:.

Of course we checked the other documents, I even contacted the guy in there to see if there are any documents explaining, but no avail.

To be honest though, the source was not very good anyway because the graphs are just calculations, not actual real life tests...

[Gromit]

Hi

I agree!

I not deny, that the R.A.E. test pilots are experienced, good pilots, but they obviously not know the 109 enough. I have read for example the "Landing" paragraph, He approach with 90 mph, but the 109 factory manual (Betriebs und Rustanleitung Me 109 Mit Motor DB 601) clearly written, the approach speed sould be around 200-220 km/h (125-135 mph), and the landing flare speed is 150 km/h (93 mph). He approaching wiht 90 mph ("The normal approach speed is about 90 m.p.h."), and complained, that "there is a strong tendency for the left wing to drop just before touch-down, and when the ailerons are used quickly to bring the wing up they snatch a little, causing the pilot to over-correct"... Of course, the 109 almost stalled...

And there is an another phrase, right before the dogfight tests: "during these fights the Me.109 was flown by an R.A.E. pilot who had completed the handling tests described earlier in this report, and was thus thoroughly familiar with the aircraft and could be expected to get the best out of it."
No, not expected. I don't know how many hour flew with the plane before they flew these dogfight tests, but obvious, learn the plane handling near the limits, it's a long process (especially the 109), and i doubt they had enough time, if they can't even landing in a proper way... IMHO...

Be very carefull when reading these reports (from both sides) as they often are in a context you may not understand, test pilots are doing just that, testing, the comments on slow approach are very probably the pilot assessing the handling in differing regimes, if he has noted something in a slow approach yet not mentioned a normal speed approach it's highly likely that this is the part of the performance envelope they were looking at, in other words how slow can you safely make an approach, I would be very sceptical that a test pilot would not understand he was making a too slow approach and then blamed the aircraft as he would have allready evaluated the stall response and speeds well before landing, these pilots irrespective of which airforce they flew for were extremely skilled in any aircraft!

another matter to note is when test establishments are testing thier own aircraft, these aircraft are generally factory fresh in tip top condition, an aircraft that has been captured and therefore been deployed to a combat unit will have more degredation in it's performance and will generally be of a more representitive state for a front line combat aircraft unless it has been badly damage repaired!
It took very few hours in an aircraft to degrade it from it's as new condition, people tend to read production tests and think they were all like that, in reality it depended on it's use, it's maintenence and also it's build quality, slave labour built german aircraft had a poor quality controll compared to Hungarian built aircraft for instance!

[VO101_Kurfurst]

Hi Rolf, I just want to check I understand you,

You suggest that at -50 flap the turn time is reduced from 18.5, to 10 seconds.
Then you state "very little effect the flaps had on turning".
Does a halving of turn time (from 18.5 to 10 seconds) not represent a very BIG effect from flaps on turning?

Sorry if I have mis-read you.
Cheers.

The -50 mark refers to a -50 m/sec sustained diving turn - the aircraft would not loose speed, but would loose altitude.

[theedge8]

Hello, I would like to congratulate the creators of the patch, even with the 109 step manual, he has no speed, even diving on 109 carries to reach 500 km, when it arrives ..

hug

[Robo.]

Hello theedge8,

you might want to have a look at the flight manuals:

http://www.theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/wiki/doku.php?id=start

All planes are covered and the recommended engine settings should help you getting the most out of your airplane. The 109 are is very fast indeed and depending on the model, you will be certainly able reach 500km/h at sea level. The top speeds of the British aircraft are also listed in the manual. The figures are very accurate and based on RL specifications. Hope that helped.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Hello, I would like to congratulate the creators of the patch because they can end up with the performance of BF-109, did a great job, even with manual pitch, he has no speed, if it is to end the income of Germans airplanes, get him out of the game and leave only the british fight among themselves, because it turned into a farce, even diving in the 109 takes to reach 500 kms, when it arrives, change the name of the game for Spits dover ....

unfortunate

Hi theedge8,

I'm sorry your experience with the Team Fusion patch has not gone well regarding the 109's flight model. Not all 109 pilots seem to share your findings. Perhaps if you contacted a dedicated squadron such as JG27, you could discuss your views with them in detail, and perhaps fly with them as well and see if there are any techniques that would improve the 109's flight characteristics for you.

[theedge8]

I'm using all the resources of 109, and still has ñ yield, compared with the previous patch from ubi lost much revenue the 109..

hugs

[ATAG_Colander]

I'm using all the resources of 109, and still has ñ yield, compared with the previous patch from ubi lost much revenue the 109, unfortunate friend, is shameful.

hugs

As I replied in your other post....
I'm exclusively a 109 pilot and it reaches a lot more speed than you are getting.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Obviously something is amiss. Hopefully, someone can reach out to theedge8 and run through the 109 CEM with him per the TF Patch. This would be best accomplished over TS and in theedge8's natural language because of the detailed nature of this.

@theeedge8: would you be interested in doing this? All we want at ATAG is for you to enjoy yourself on our server. If we can fix the problem -- that would be good! What language do you speak?

EDIT: One thing just came to mind, and it may sound a little goofy. Is your throttle opening to a full 100% in the game? This is NOT your throttle's fault, but some players have found that Cliffs of Dover can change the analog values of their various axis, such as throttle, or rudder. A quick calibration in Windows usually quickly solves the problem. In the game you can build a custom window on the screen to show control inputs. That will show whether your fully-open throttle is really showing 100%, or something much less.

[theedge8]

ATAG_Snapper friend, I'm from Brazil, do not speak English so well, I'll try to talk with some friends from Brazil who play, and see if there's something else I do not know, because ta difficult to fly well, thank your attention.

I'll try to look at the configs of my joy, see if this td right.

Pass me the TS of you who enter.

[ATAG_Snapper]

theedge8, hook up with these guys: http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=933

The =AN= boys are a great bunch, and very good Clod pilots as well. :)

[theedge8]

Snapper, =AN= the are allies, axis I fly, but I know friends in =BLW=, I talk to them I think will be of great help too.

Where do you guys get the TS?

thank you

[ATAG_Snapper]

Hi theedge8, have a look at this thread, it should have the info you need to get and set up Teamspeak.

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=732

[shadylurker]

Hi all I just wanted to add onto the "heavy duty" use topic here, as I was an aircraft mechanic at one point in my life, and have read many tech documents. My educated guess would be that those limits are in those manuals so they can ensure they get an average lifespan out of the motor, The ground crew probably wasn't to keen to get 100 hours less out of a motor because it was "abused". That and the safety margin would be compromised. Constant heavy duty use could possibly lead to premature bearing, gasket, ect. failure causing a loss of life and aircraft in between hourly inspections and overhauls.

Does it mean the engine will explode after 10 min of heavy use? No. That's the only way they can keep that safety margin across the fleet of motors with 2 hours of use and motors with 300 hours.