[REPORTED] K-4 level speed

[Solty]

No hostility intended. I know you were involved in these cases. But thie again you quotet Yo-Yo before data of different aerodynamics were presented and later confirmed by Yo-Yo himself. So what is the point in that? If you would bring up new and unknown data I would be thrilled. I wouldnt mind making the 109 slower if historical data strongly indicates, since historical accuracy for me is the goal. But I cant see what your reasoning is to dispute already discussed and concluded points.

 

Im sorry if I misunderstood you.

 

I was just replying to the Humming claims that 109 is still too slow(because he got result of 575kph), even though YoYo said it is going to be 575kph. I didn't see anything that really proved 610kph that Hummingbird wants.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Solty

[javelina1]

Well there's been no improvement so not really :P

 

Should be doing around 610 km/h at SL, so she's still ~35 km/h too slow.

 

Groom Lake is at around 4,400 ft above SL. I'll be looking for that SL valley to check her out.

[Solty]

Don't be silly, read the rest of the thread. We have the 1,8 ATA 605DB version of the K-4 which should do ~595 km/h on the deck.

 

Well humming claims 610kph at SL. And 595kph also was said that this report is just a rough estimate, just like the ROC value between 22m/s of the original and DCS's 26m/s.

[rel4y]

I was just replying to the Humming claims that 109 is still too slow(because he got result of 575kph), even though YoYo said it is going to be 575kph. I didn't see anything that really proved 610kph that Hummingbird wants.

 

I dont think 610 kph is justified, speed gains due to drag reduction dont indicate that. But after the update of the drag model the K4 should and hopefully will do 595 kph on the deck. The increase from 570 to 595 kph MSL speed should be the consequence solely of drag reduction if everything else is correct already. So I would conclude the update has not been implemented yet.

 

Well humming claims 610kph at SL. And 595kph also was said that this report is just a rough estimate, just like the ROC value between 22m/s of the original and DCS's 26m/s.

 

It is not a rough estimate. It can be calculated from data of the measured G14 MSL level speed + measured speed gains due to drag reduction. This was stated in this thread and approved by Yo-Yo after which he updated the drag model.

You can read all this info right here in this thread.

Edited February 13, 2016 by rel4y

[gavagai]

Now we're arguing over a 1% discrepancy. You guys don't know how good you have it in DCS.

[Kurfürst]

And 595kph also was said that this report is just a rough estimate

 

Since when?

 

The whole problem revolves around that the cleaner K-airframe is just as fast in DCS as real life 109G test at the same power. Which we all know to be incorrect and does not match any of the historical documentation on its performace.

 

In other words, until this gets fixed we have G-10 with 3d cocpit model with serious errors which resembles strongly a 109K cocpit.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Kurfürst

[Solty]

]http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2613565&postcount=18

"The charts you are praying at ARE NOT FROM REAL TESTS. These are simplified engineering estimations based on idealised power curves, efficiency, etc... "

Edited February 13, 2016 by Solty

[NineLine]

Well there's been no improvement so not really :P

 

Should be doing around 610 km/h at SL, so she's still ~35 km/h too slow.

 

Yes, I confirmed, asking where the fix is.

[Hummingbird]

AKA Death Valley, the lowest point in North America.:thumbup:

 

P.S. The % difference between 610km/h and 575km/h is 2%, and the 109K-4 still leaves the P-51D in the dust in both acceleration and level airspeed. This seems more like an argument over source data, and not an argument about whether the 109 matches the intended source data.

 

Well 2% is a lot at the top :)

[Hummingbird]

]http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2613565&postcount=18

"The charts you are praying at ARE NOT FROM REAL TESTS. These are simplified engineering estimations based on idealised power curves, efficiency, etc... "

 

*sigh*

 

These are from a real test:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G14_GLCE-may44_trials.html

 

Note "Erflogene Werte".

[Hummingbird]

Well humming claims 610kph at SL. And 595kph also was said that this report is just a rough estimate, just like the ROC value between 22m/s of the original and DCS's 26m/s.

 

Not a rough estimate, an accurate estimate without exhaust thrust added, try to keep up.

 

610 km/h is the most likely real life top speed based on all previous real life 109 testing where top speeds were on average 15 km/h higher than estimated.

 

The 22 m/s climb rate was also confirmed as being without exhaust thrust added.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

Yes, I confirmed, asking where the fix is.

 

Alright, sounds good :)

[Solty]

Just show me where YoYo says he will model it to fly 610kph.

[NineLine]

Just show me where YoYo says he will model it to fly 610kph.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2674643&postcount=79

 

Doesnt give specifics but...

[Kurfürst]

]http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2613565&postcount=18

"The charts you are praying at ARE NOT FROM REAL TESTS. These are simplified engineering estimations based on idealised power curves, efficiency, etc... "

 

Nobody said its a "real test".

 

Its a calculation that is based on real tests and the whole point of this calculation is BTW to show how much the improved new props would increase the speed of the 109K at various settings, for which they also draw as reference the performance of the current serial production 109K.

 

Which is what we need and which is what we have, as it is the only detailed source availabe for 109K

 

I hope you are not seriously suggesting that they needed to estimate performance of the serial production K-4 in January 1945, when this paper was drawn up, after the 1000th K-4 rolled off the assembly lines and was with the troops already for months? Because that is so silly it could be on wwiiaircraftperformance with a Benny Hill background music.

 

We also know that the 109K is not the same thing as the 109G, it has considerably less drag than the 109G and we know the extact amount of this drag and compared to the 109G it yields exactly the same results as these 109K curves from Messerschmitts Projektbüro. Probably not a coincidence, right?

 

This was discussed with YoYo already and as far as I can tell, he agreed on that so honestly I have no idea why you are getting back to the starting line, ignoring all that was said in this thread.

[Hummingbird]

Just show me where YoYo says he will model it to fly 610kph.

 

No'one knows what the new top speed will be, but it's being increased, that much I would've thought you could deduce from what's been said so far.

 

If the new top speed falls within 600-610 km/h it will match the real life values.

[Solty]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2674643&postcount=79

 

Doesnt give specifics but...

 

He just said that there is a corrected version because it was 568kph instead of 575kph. At least I took it as such. Not change into 610kph. Maybe I am just reading it wrong. But all YoYo said was basically that the old model was indeed slower but not that much as Humming now claims.

[Hummingbird]

He just said that there is a corrected version because it was 568kph instead of 575kph. At least I took it as such. Not change into 610kph. Maybe I am just reading it wrong. But all YoYo said was basically that the old model was indeed slower but not that much as Humming now claims.

 

Why would it be 575? There's absolutely no evidence of that anywhere.

 

There would be no need to make any corrections if the speed was off by just 7 km/h. The only reason it's being corrected is because it was off by more than 30 km/h.

[Solty]

YoYo stated as such. To me it would be OK since there are two other test that claim 380kph at SL and that seems similar. There are many tests with many numbers but none has shown 610kph at SL and that is where I get suspicious.

[rel4y]

Yes, I confirmed, asking where the fix is.

 

Thanks for the info Sith!

 

And guys.. please, this is just littering the thread. Why dont you just wait until the fix is incorporated into a release version and the results can be tested. Everything sensible has already been said, now its just trolling.

[Solty]

Thanks for the info Sith!

 

And guys.. please, this is just littering the thread. Why dont you just wait until the fix is incorporated into a release version and the results can be tested. Everything sensible has already been said, now its just trolling.

 

Yes. Trolling. Lol. What you want is censorship.

 

I just think that hummingbird wants 610kph but is not going to get it because I don't see how aerodynamic improvements from K4 could lead to such increase. But thats just me.

[Hummingbird]

YoYo stated as such. To me it would be OK since there are two other test that claim 380kph at SL and that seems similar. There are many tests with many numbers but none has shown 610kph at SL and that is where I get suspicious.

 

You're looking at C3 Start u. Notleistung figures, at SonderNotleistung there are only two figures available, 595 km/h (1.8ata) and 610 km/h (1.98 ata) at SL. But these are the typical conservative estimations which in general are 15 km/h lower than actual performance.

 

This is confirmed via the actual flight testing of the far more draggy G-14, which weighed the same as the K-4, at a slightly lower power setting.

[rel4y]

Yes. Trolling. Lol. What you want is censorship.

 

I just think that hummingbird wants 610kph but is not going to get it because I don't see how aerodynamic improvements from K4 could lead to such increase. But thats just me.

 

Yes, thats why all people other than Hummingbird have repeatedly told you the documentation validates a speed increase to about 595 kph. If you would have read and comprehended what has been said in this thread, there would be no need for further discussion. I think it might be a language barrier. The adjustment has already been made, so lets just wait for the outcome.

 

Anyway, I give in..

Edited February 13, 2016 by rel4y

[Hummingbird]

Yes. Trolling. Lol. What you want is censorship.

 

I just think that hummingbird wants 610kph but is not going to get it because I don't see how aerodynamic improvements from K4 could lead to such increase. But thats just me.

 

:disgust:

[Solty]

Yes, thats why all people other than Hummingbird have repeatedly told you the documentation validates a speed increase to about 595 kph. If you would have read and comprehended what has been said in this thread, there would be no need for further discussion. I think it might be a language barrier. The adjustment has already been made, so lets just wait for the outcome.

 

Anyway, I give in..

 

And you are not listening. 595 is not 610.