GrapeJam

Normandy 1944, hmn..... Yep the K4 and the D9 did fight over the sky of Normandy irl. Oh wait.... Nope, by the time they were operational the Allies've already liberated France and advancing toward the Netherland. So apparently we've already thrown historical accuracy out of the windows I think some of you here would be happy to see F86 and F8F vs K4 and D9, and I'll copy your post and hold you to it if you don't play that map, on the side of Germans. :)

Yeah, except with 150 octane it was fairly competitive at low altitude, anyway the P47D wasn't the contemporary of the K4 and the D9, it was the P47M.

The D9 in the C3 test has the same speed as the D9 tested at 2.02 at SL.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_C3.pdf In this test is the C3 fuel running at 2.02 ata, in this test the Dora climbs to 9km in 9.5 minutes, the in game Dora(supposedly limited to 1.8 ata) can climb to 9km in 7 minutes 30 seconds, if the FM's accurate how is this possible?

Hell, you know what? This is the chart that clearly showed the D9 tested at 2.02 ata, it matches the D9 + C3 test perfectly:

Yeah, except the bottom chart clearly showed that it was tested at 1.8 ata, and had clearly inferior speed(30-40km/h slower) than the one tested with C3, how do you explain that?

Oh, you're free to show your exceptions, doesn't change the fact that they were exceptions, it's a well known fact that late war German production was shoddy due to allied bombing, insuffiencent number of skilled, workers, lack of materials, lack of time. The performance of this test (specifically, speed): http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_C3.pdf matches the speed that was tested with 2.02 ata: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d-9-levelspeed-comp-metric.jpg By comparison, here's the speed that was tested with 1.8 ata: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_210002_FB2_level-speed.jpg

Did you even watch the track? In your track you.did.not.climb.past.2km

Nope it's not ok, those planes were extremely rare exceptions (and given Germany's late war shoddy production the plane would be more likely to underperform than overperform according to spec), and it makes no logical sense to model a plane overperform by more than 20%. And not to mention that the plane in game is supposed to be limited to 1.8, it's overperformance exceeds far even those of 2.02 ata.

And every test we've seen had them try to get to the highest altitude as fast as possible, they were being bombed, you know?

What kind of messed up argument is this?

You're free to watch the track yourself, in the track you did not climb past 2km. Right, any proof that the German used this method? Because in every performance test I've seen the tester alway tried to get the best climb rate possible. Does it matter? What we're talking about here is what affect performance in a dogfight because everybody use maximum power, and thus Sonder nottleigstung. The plane may perform correctly steig u kamfleigstun(even thought clear it doesn't, because you achieved the time to altitude despite the plane weighting 100kg heavier and you did not hold the plane steadily) but may not perform correctly in Sonder nottleigstung, i.e, having too much power and thus directly affecting the performance in a dogfight.

I've watched the whole track and there's no climbing past 2km in this, anyway, you did not use MW 50, you did not hold the plane steadily and yet you still managed to achieve a "correct" time to climb to 6km, with a plane that is 100kg heavier (because of MW 50 equipment), does it ring any alarm bell? In the rl Sonder Nottleigstung climb test, the test pilot would surely have tested the plane at the best possible climb angle and best possible climb speed to gain the best possible climb rate, the fact that Solty managed to get better result thanks to different speed/climb angle indicate that there's something not right with the FM. And this "Sonder Nottleigstung" in the test I've posted, mind you, is 2.02 ata, the in game Dora should be limited to 1.8 ata.

Sure, because the climb tests in the documents I've posted did not have have line for sonder notleigstung (Special Emergency, maximum power).... Oh wait.

Does running test without pushing the engine to the limit (like the charts I've shown) even have any actual use?

Oh, yes somehow solty with a crappy joystick was able to get 30% more out the D9 than even experienced test German pilots, in a time when the Germans were desperate to get into the air and high as fast as possible. If this is the test you meant: The D9 without MW 50(and thus 100 kg lighter) got 9 km in 12 minutes, so climb to 9km in 9.5 minutes at 2.02 ata actually sound reasonable, but in DCS the D9 climbs to 9km in 7 minutes 30 seconds(if not faster), and the D9 in game should be limited to 1.8 ata, max.

It helps to be more specific.

Oh, does it show that the D9 can climb to 9km in 7 minutes? I don't think so, I think it shows a very similar result to the charts I've posted, if several "calculated"(according to you) tests show similar result it only means one thing. Do you actually think that climbing a lot faster than the optimal climb speed (which is optimal for a reason) will make the plane climbs 30% faster?

Here's another test done on march 1945, so production model.

Yeah, except there's an "optimal climb speed" for a reason, and I've already shown you the best possible climb to altitude test for the D9 at the lowest possible weight and highest power setting, and the in game D9 still climbs far faster to 9km than that. You don't actually think you could get to altitude faster by zoom climbing, do you?

Well, I don't actually have the Dora, but Solty has it and he's done some test and was able to a climb rate of 28m/s at low altitude and get to 9000m in 7 minutes 30 seconds, oh and because of his joystick he wasn't able to control the plane in really stable state and thus if he had a really good joystick I think he would had climbed to 9000m even faster. Thank you Solty very much for the test :) For comparison to rl Dora, here's the Dora running on C3, clean condition, at 2.02 ata, DCS Dora's maximum ata is 1.8: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_C3.pdf So we can say that the D9 climbs to 9000m at least 3 minutes faster than it should.

Also keep in mind that the plane in the test had bomb racks, and the radiator was set to automatic mode.

But we've already shown a chart about the K4 with DB engine, it has an 22m/s at with 9-12159A prop, while the in game K4's climbing at 31m/s at SL.

Can please clarify this further?

I'm not sure I understand what you meant by that quote, we've already got the chart the showed the K4 with B4 + MW 50 running at 1.8 ata, having a climb rate of 22m/s at sea level. So why should 23m/s seems "pessimistic"? Would you mind explaining this?