[CLOSED] Climb rate appears to be to high, even for 109k

[Pilum]

Ture but we can still convert it. And it took him about 6min to get to 9000m. This way to high.

 

 

Yup, this seems way too optimistic: My C++ simulation yields 8 minutes 10 seconds for a climb from 500 m to 9000 m for the Me109 K4 with B4 & MW50 at 1.8 ata.

 

So it seems that the climb time to this altitude is only about 74% of the time it really should take.

[Pilum]

Earlier when flying the 109 something felt off so I did some climb tests. At SL I was able to obtain a climb rate of 6100 fpm at a climb speed of 200mph TAS. I started at 185mph and accelerated into this climb so it was not a zoom. I maintained 6000-4800 up to 15,000ft at which point I lowered the nose since my arm got tired. The climb rate dropped briefly until the plane gained speed at the new climb angle. At 21,000 ft I was going up at 4700fpm at 277mph TA S. Given that a 109k should climb at 4500ish on the deck, this seems off to me.

 

These Me109K4 climb rates for 1.8 ata with B4 & MW50 are way too optimistic. Both with regards to historical data and also the C++ simulation figures I get (See attached figure).

 

However, the Me109K4 is still in beta AFAIK and none of the other aircraft released by DCS so far have had such large deviations compared to historical data so I'm sure it's just a beta issue and that they will fix it before the final release.

[NineLine]

It's all still being tuned, they are aware of some issues.

[Solty]

These Me109K4 climb rates for 1.8 ata with B4 & MW50 are way too optimistic. Both with regards to historical data and also the C++ simulation figures I get (See attached figure).

 

However, the Me109K4 is still in beta AFAIK and none of the other aircraft released by DCS so far have had such large deviations compared to historical data so I'm sure it's just a beta issue and that they will fix it before the final release.

At SL with B4 and MW50 it should be around 22m/s (24m/s with C3+MW50) and at 7000m it should be around 16m/s

 

[SlipBall]

its fine the way it is now :P Muah ha Ha HA!!!

[Yo-Yo]

These Me109K4 climb rates for 1.8 ata with B4 & MW50 are way too optimistic. Both with regards to historical data and also the C++ simulation figures I get (See attached figure).

 

However, the Me109K4 is still in beta AFAIK and none of the other aircraft released by DCS so far have had such large deviations compared to historical data so I'm sure it's just a beta issue and that they will fix it before the final release.

 

Yes, you are right - there are some mismatches in the project model regarding the calculated in-vitro FM possibly due to code bugs.

[SAM77]

its fine the way it is now :P Muah ha Ha HA!!!

 

LOL:D

[Yo-Yo]

These Me109K4 climb rates for 1.8 ata with B4 & MW50 are way too optimistic. Both with regards to historical data and also the C++ simulation figures I get (See attached figure).

 

However, the Me109K4 is still in beta AFAIK and none of the other aircraft released by DCS so far have had such large deviations compared to historical data so I'm sure it's just a beta issue and that they will fix it before the final release.

 

23 seems a little bit pessimistic. What did you presume as the L/D max, prop efficiency and jet thrust?

[USARStarkey]

Yes, you are right - there are some mismatches in the project model regarding the calculated in-vitro FM possibly due to code bugs.

 

Thanks for the the info. Does this issue possibly affect other aspects of the FM? Such as level speed, turn or acceleration?

Edited January 14, 2015 by USARStarkey

[Yo-Yo]

Thanks for the the info. Does this issue possibly affect other aspects of the FM? Such as level speed, turn or acceleration?

 

Yes, as it is an energy issue. The engine that was fine tuned in the code begin to find extra-power... :) who could expect...

[Madmax]

Thanks for the the info. Does this issue possibly affect other aspects of the FM? Such as level speed, turn or acceleration?

 

 

 

Would anyway not too exaggerate, has heard you it seems to have to do a jet.

 

What will make the difference is not the plane but the pilot.:pilotfly:

 

 

@+Mad

[USARStarkey]

Would anyway not too exaggerate, has heard you it seems to have to do a jet.

 

What will make the difference is not the plane but the pilot.:pilotfly:

 

 

@+Mad

 

say what?

[GrapeJam]

23 seems a little bit pessimistic.

 

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"?

 

Yes, as it is an energy issue. The engine that was fine tuned in the code begin to find extra-power... :) who could expect...

 

Would you mind explaining this?

[Solty]

23 seems a little bit pessimistic. What did you presume as the L/D max, prop efficiency and jet thrust?

Ehm... what is this then? Were Germans pessimistic people? The only better chart(with 24m/s at SL) is for the Bf109K4 that had C3 fuel and 1.98ata which is not modeled in the game right? I can see 22m/s (if you want to be optimistic 23m/s) Those are actual WW2 tests... I am realy confused.:huh: What do we not know?

Edited January 14, 2015 by Solty

[USARStarkey]

Ehm... what is this then? Were Germans pessimistic people? The only better chart(with 24m/s at SL) is for the Bf109K4 that had C3 fuel and 1.98ata which is not modeled in the game right? I can see 22m/s (if you want to be optimistic 23m/s) Those are actual WW2 tests... I am realy confused.:huh: What do we not know?

 

I agree. There isnt a single chart anywhere showing a 1.8ata bf109K doing better than 4700fpm or 22-24m/s. Even the ones for 1.98 ata. Id like to know how the 109 is finding "extra power"

[KenobiOrder]

23 seems a little bit pessimistic. What did you presume as the L/D max, prop efficiency and jet thrust?

 

How much is a little bit? 23.5? 24 27... Right now we're sitting on 31 so....

[NineLine]

How much is a little bit? 23.5? 24 27... Right now we're sitting on 31 so....

 

Give him a break guys, he is very proud of his FMs, they will be as close as possible to the actual performance of the K-4, so dont stress it so much.

[NineLine]

I agree. There isnt a single chart anywhere showing a 1.8ata bf109K doing better than 4700fpm or 22-24m/s. Even the ones for 1.98 ata. Id like to know how the 109 is finding "extra power"

 

ED doesnt limit themselves to just what you can find on the internet.... let him dial it in and we will see what we get.

[javelina1]

ED doesnt limit themselves to just what you can find on the internet.... let him dial it in and we will see what we get.

 

indeed! :thumbup:

[USARStarkey]

ED doesnt limit themselves to just what you can find on the internet.... let him dial it in and we will see what we get.

 

The people who collect and post those documents have been doing it just as long, if not longer than ED. If this documentation does indeed exist, let it be shown. Otherwise your merely speculating on who the "experts" are at data collection.

[NineLine]

The people who collect and post those documents have been doing it just as long, if not longer than ED. If this documentation does indeed exist, let it be shown. Otherwise your merely speculating on who the "experts" are at data collection.

 

Maybe you need to re-read my post, I only stated that ED has various documents, from online sources and others, I also stated that once dialed in, we will see what we get, but I think Yo-Yo has already proven himself as far as going for the most accurate FM he can possible do... so your comments about me speculating on who the "experts" are in data collection is unwarranted, unneeded and off topic.

[Crumpp]

let him dial it in and we will see what we get.

 

 

:thumbup:

 

The people who collect and post those documents have been doing it just as long, if not longer than ED. If this documentation does indeed exist, let it be shown. Otherwise your merely speculating on who the "experts" are at data collection.

 

:doh:

 

Which has nothing to do with how much they understand what they are looking at......

 

Christ guys...

[NineLine]

:thumbup:

 

 

 

:doh:

 

Which has nothing to do with how much they understand what they are looking at......

 

Christ guys...

 

At risk of drifting OT even more, I scanned many rolls of film for Yo-Yo, I would have to say I understood very little of what I was looking at, but it was still one of the funnest things I have done, pouring over different archives around the globe, digging through rolls of microfilm, if only I could do that full time :)

 

Found lots of bonus material too :)

[Crumpp]

At risk of drifting OT even more, I scanned many rolls of film for Yo-Yo, I would have to say I understood very little of what I was looking at, but it was still one of the funnest things I have done, pouring over different archives around the globe, digging through rolls of microfilm, if only I could do that full time

 

I enjoy it too. Figuring out that BMW801 and the systems on that Focke Wulf was lots of fun.

 

And for other data out there.....some food for thought.

 

If you look at the Kennblatt for the Bf-109K4 it agrees with the following chart:

 

 

 

From the chart posted in this thread, it looks like 1.98ata caused an issue with climb rate. I suspect the increased power loading caused an issue with the propeller design.

 

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

I am sure the final version will be the best Bf109 K4 available in any sim, just as the p51d is the best EVER modeled Mustang in a flight simulator that I know of....

 

As much as I strive to get accuracy ( even when I am not aware what it is, specially when it comes to ww2 fighters performance because that was never my cup of tea... ) I am unable to find any of flight dynamics that offer me what DCS models do...

 

So... let's wait for the updates!

 

Ah! Yesterday night I was able to reach 10.2 G recovering from a high speed dive in the 109 K4 without breaking my wings!!! Only problem was the duration of the blackout - never had experienced being blacked out for such a long period os time! Great detail!