Jump to content

Is there max speed and climb rate charts available for the WWII birds?


SeaW0lf

Recommended Posts

Hello everybody, I have two modules (P51D and FW 190) since 2014. Never really flew it but a few hours. Lately I'm flying more on DCS due to the latest updates. I got online a few times in the past few weeks and it will take some time to adapt (flew ROF for years), but there are several topics regarding aircraft performance that left me wondering about data. There seems to be no specification of the aircrafts on the website.

 

I would like to know if any forum members conducted tests [in game] on max speed [level flight] and climb rate on the P-51D, the FW 190, BF 109 and Spitfire, and if these values are more or less in accordance to the actual specifications of the aforementioned aircrafts. I am not familiar with WWII planes regarding flight model.

 

So I would like to hear if someone has put these birds through their paces in game and how they fare regarding basic / real life data.

 

I appreciate any feedback.

SeaW0lf.


Edited by SeaW0lf

-- Win10 Pro, Philips 298P4QJEB (2560X1080), i5-9600K, Zalman 9900NT, GA-Z390 UD, GTX 1060 GamingX 6GB, 16GB 3200Mhz CL16, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB, Corsair AX-750W, Carbide 300R, G940, TrackIR 5 --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rates of climb and max level speeds differ with altitude.. so there can be hundreds of max rates and max level speeds per aircraft.

 

 

To collect all the data necessary for max-velocities at every 1,000ft of altitude would take hundreds of hours.

 

 

I think you should narrow the data expectation down.

 

 

Say:

Max level speed at sea-level, AND

Time from 1,000 to 15,000ft climb.

 

 

Something like that

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/philstylenz

Storm of War WW2 server website: https://stormofwar.net/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rates of climb and max level speeds differ with altitude.. so there can be hundreds of max rates and max level speeds per aircraft.

 

 

To collect all the data necessary for max-velocities at every 1,000ft of altitude would take hundreds of hours.

 

 

I think you should narrow the data expectation down.

 

 

Say:

Max level speed at sea-level, AND

Time from 1,000 to 15,000ft climb.

 

 

Something like that

 

I just got the Bf 109, so perhaps I'll start testing them. The only difference is that I have to test the planes at full throttle and then at max sustained cruise speed. This is going to double the work, but I find it fun to do. I did similar tests with ROF and it took me a few months, but it was fun.

 

But I need to research on how they work properly at different altitudes.

-- Win10 Pro, Philips 298P4QJEB (2560X1080), i5-9600K, Zalman 9900NT, GA-Z390 UD, GTX 1060 GamingX 6GB, 16GB 3200Mhz CL16, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB, Corsair AX-750W, Carbide 300R, G940, TrackIR 5 --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sounds like you'd love working for Boeing or similar in the engineering department doing flight testing studies.

 

That is an intense endeavor.

 

There had to be original test data developing the various aircraft by the original companies but a lot of those companies went kaput.

 

Wonder what happened to the paperwork files? Who would have them? Maybe the Smithsonian in Washington, DC . Maybe universities?


Edited by DieHard

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you'd love working for Boeing or similar in the engineering department doing flight testing studies.

 

That is an intense endeavor.

 

There had to be original test data developing the various aircraft by the original companies but a lot of those companies went kaput.

 

Wonder what happened to the paperwork files? Who would have them? Maybe the Smithsonian in Washington, DC . Maybe universities?

 

I would be a happy camper testing planes :D

 

But DCS does not have a level flight key. As Solty was mentioning, the Bf 109 does not have trim for all surfaces, then it might be difficult to keep a level flight at altitude. I am not sure if a level flight command could be modded or if such feature would affect speed depending on the plane, but in ROF I used balloons as landmarks in a 75km test course. It gives you a much more precise speed if you calculate time vs. distance over such length. And Solty also mentioned that tracks are not precise either, which makes the test course a good option.

 

But without level flight I don't think it is possible unfortunately.

-- Win10 Pro, Philips 298P4QJEB (2560X1080), i5-9600K, Zalman 9900NT, GA-Z390 UD, GTX 1060 GamingX 6GB, 16GB 3200Mhz CL16, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB, Corsair AX-750W, Carbide 300R, G940, TrackIR 5 --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn't the Germans think their planes needed trimming? Doing it on the ground isn't going to work for all the different conditions when flying.

 

I think someone needs to inform those Germans they are doing it wrong. :doh:

TWC_SLAG

 

Win 10 64 bit, 2T Hard Drive, 1T SSD, 500GB SSD, ASUS Prime Z390 MB, Intel i9 9900 Coffee Lake 3.1mhz CPU, ASUS 2070 Super GPU, 32gb DDR4 Ram, Track IR5, 32” Gigabyte curved monitor, TM Warthog HOTAS, CH Pedals, Voice Attack, hp Reverb G2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it may not be the way things actually worked here's a theory.

It's 1935 or 36, there hasn't been much in the way of engine development over the years but you need a high performance fighter quick.

You take the biggest engine you have available and put it in the smallest airframe you can. You attach the landing gear to the fuselage so the wings can be lighter even though ground handling will suffer.

Then you only add those things that are absolutely necessary because every little thing you put in adds weight and that kills performance.

 

Since the plane you've designed hasn't the range for long flights anyway you don't add the luxury of rudder trim and you save 20 lbs.


Edited by Perfesser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willy Messerschmitt was a glider designer before he designed the 109. He was often criticised for putting too much glider into the 109, and this seems to be one of those quirks.

 

Saving weight in a powered plane is desirable, in a glider it is critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saying, the Fw 190 also has no trim controls with the exception of the elevator.

 

And Tank was not a designer of gliders - in fact, the 190 was purposefully designed to be a warplane.

 

I think trim controls weren't used because generally, German fighter aviation wasn't usually supposed to fly long sorties, unlike the American P-51, P-38 and P-47.

That said, neither was the Spitfire, so here my comparison goes off the rails a bit.

 

I think outside of using necromancy, the particulars of this question will remain unanswered. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You going to follow me around like a little puppy and spit out condescending comments forever?

 

Do you really think not having rudder and aileron trim is a good idea?

109 was a close range interceptor, P-51 was a long range escort plane. Obvious why one of them need to be more comfortable to fly for hours while the other doesn't.

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it may not be the way things actually worked here's a theory.

It's 1935 or 36, there hasn't been much in the way of engine development over the years but you need a high performance fighter quick.

You take the biggest engine you have available and put it in the smallest airframe you can. You attach the landing gear to the fuselage so the wings can be lighter even though ground handling will suffer.

Then you only add those things that are absolutely necessary because every little thing you put in adds weight and that kills performance.

 

Since the plane you've designed hasn't the range for long flights anyway you don't add the luxury of rudder trim and you save 20 lbs.

It's very well known that while your biggest engine in the smallest airframe statement was exactly like that, gear was fitted in a way so the airframe could fit in train wagons. The reason why they needed it to fit is Germany had a poor infrastructure for maintenance and a limited industrial capacity, so they had to reuse every single destroyed airframe to the best they could, but those works were done really far away from the battlefront, so they needed a transport. Some people say that was a stunning feature, I say that was a drawback. Blame that for the quirks in the 109.

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

109 was a close range interceptor, P-51 was a long range escort plane. Obvious why one of them need to be more comfortable to fly for hours while the other doesn't.

 

 

S!

 

I understand what the 109 was built for, but a plane in trim is easier to hold your sights on the target. That should be important to a 109 pilot.

 

The 109 also did ground attacks and a trimmed plane does much better for that too.

 

Just all around flying is easier in a trimmed plane. They had to cross the channel in BOB. Having to hold in rudder the whole way must have been a pain.

Buzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe one should look to the German mentality at the time. German engineers considered functionality far over production and maintenance, with only a few exceptions, one being for example the MG-42. It's predecessor, the MG-34, was far more costly and time consuming to produce, while the MG-42 addresse these issues directly, actually being designed for mass production. The same went for all the tanks they produced. They were engineering wonders, but maintenance nightmares. Much was required of the users and maintainers; it was simply expected. So maybe it was simply expected that the pilots dealt with the issue, without greater afterthought to it.

 

On the other side of the table, the US had the BPY Catalina, which was specifically designed for long range flights, which according to a documentary I saw recently, need constant adjustments to trim throughout it's recce flights of upwards of 14 hours. Simply somebody walking from one end of the aircraft to the other, or from one side to the other, required the pilot to re-trim, and that over many, many hours of flight. This issue was never seriously addressed throughout the life of the BPY's, and the pilots dealt with it throughout the war.

 

So my thought is, if the US could required that kind of discipline from their PBY pilots, where the Americans (I know, I'm one of them :P ) are known for their complaining about every damn little thing until your ears bleed, one might say, somewhat tongue planted firmly in in cheek, the Germans simply left the trims off their aircraft to have something to demand of their pilots :smilewink:, or at least because it was considered a luxury on a short range aircraft.

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what the 109 was built for, but a plane in trim is easier to hold your sights on the target. That should be important to a 109 pilot.
I think you're missing the real point why that happens, that is, you are at home in front of a computer. Provided one has the required controls at home, mainly a long stick available, not to mention rudder pedals, that changes like night and day. You're trying to fight with her probably with a regular short joystick, and yes that can be painful, but in the real aircraft that's not even half a problem, the long stick and aircraft controls can be held easily without great effort out of high speed dives of course where stiffness becomes troubling. But that's not your problem here.

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe one should look to the German mentality at the time. German engineers considered functionality far over production and maintenance, with only a few exceptions, one being for example the MG-42. It's predecessor, the MG-34, was far more costly and time consuming to produce, while the MG-42 addresse these issues directly, actually being designed for mass production. The same went for all the tanks they produced. They were engineering wonders, but maintenance nightmares.

 

A bit of an overgeneralization. The 109 engine eg could be swapped within 1.5 h of working time in the field, to change a complete wing took less than an hour. The P-51 had to be sent to a maintenance unit to have its engine swapped, this took several days.

 

The tanks werent particularly hard to service at all, there was just an absolute lack of spare parts. Albert Speer wrote in his memoirs that Hitler was obsessed with new Tigers and Panthers, which didnt leave room for spare parts production. In the end of the war there were so many finished new Panther turrets, that they had to be used as stationary gun turrets. All that said the combat readiness of the Panzer force peaked in mid 43 at 89% and dropped for Panthers/Tigers to an average 65-72% till early 45. This is comparable (and maybe even above) to modern day rates, but at incombarably heavier fighting and longer operation time.


Edited by rel4y

Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916

 

Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of an overgeneralization. The 109 engine eg could be swapped within 1.5 h of working time in the field, to change a complete wing took less than an hour. The P-51 had to be sent to a maintenance unit to have its engine swapped, this took several days.

 

The tanks werent particularly hard to service at all, there was just an absolute lack of spare parts. Albert Speer wrote in his memoirs that Hitler was obsessed with new Tigers and Panthers, which didnt leave room for spare parts production. In the end of the war there were so many finished new Panther turrets, that they had to be used as stationary gun turrets. All that said the combat readiness of the Panzer force peaked in mid 43 at 89% and dropped for Panthers/Tigers to an average 65-72% till early 45. This is comparable (and maybe even above) to modern day rates, but at incombarably heavier fighting and longer operation time.

 

The Tiger's suspension and road wheel layout was a maintenance nightmare. You had to remove up to 14 road wheels to replace one in the innermost row.

 

However, I agree with your assessment of 109 serviceability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tiger's suspension and road wheel layout was a maintenance nightmare. You had to remove up to 14 road wheels to replace one in the innermost row.

 

Well true, but thats not a general trend of german tank design. Someone wanted to be smart and distribute the weight of the heavy af Tiger more evenly of which it may or may not have benefitted, before getting stuck in the marshes of pripyat anyway.. I think it later got changed to the Panther layout and the Tiger II was simply overlapping if I recall correctly. So there certainly was serviceability in mind and obvious problems got tackled by the engineers for later batches.


Edited by rel4y

Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916

 

Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha youre right, like this the whole paragraph doesnt make sense.. :) Classic brainfart. Corrected it.

 

But at least early Panther suspension was definitely interleaved, just less than the Tiger.


Edited by rel4y

Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916

 

Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...