All-Aircraft-Simulations
REALISM RATING of the HSFX 4.1 Spitfire IX 25lb - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: Announcements & General Discussions & Hyper Lobby (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=264)
+--- Forum: General Discussions. (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=298)
+--- Thread: REALISM RATING of the HSFX 4.1 Spitfire IX 25lb (/showthread.php?tid=69727)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

- ACE-OF-ACES - 20.04.2010

David603 Wrote:For online play, I believe the solution discussed was to set each plane at a level of wear that could be considered typical for the type. For example, planes on both sides during the BoB might have quite low levels of wear, but a late model Bf109 would have lower levels of reliability to begin with and would suffer from a higher level of wear, as would be historical.
All in all an interesting concept

I would love to see the algorythms that drive those decisions! Wink

- BillSwagger - 20.04.2010

LuckyOne Wrote:
Fireskull Wrote:LuckyOne,

Well I know that,but I am interested in those "Numerous publications" which equalize some Spitfire and some Bf-109....and I do not want to hear word Osprey and similar based or amateur publications.

I've glanced at Mike williams site and it appears the Spit IX wasn't superior to the G model in climb until the introduction of the Merlin 66 and later. I also find that mike's site admitedly lacks sufficient climb data for the 109.

There are graphs that seem to show quite a wide disparity in the rates of climbs but looking at the data, particularly in "time to climb" the Finnish report on the 109 shows the G-2 climbed to 6000m in 5 minutes, and the Spit IX Merlin66 made it to 20,000ft in 4.75 minutes. (merlin 70 , 4.85 minutes) (merlin 61, 5.6 minutes).

Another interesting thought is the fact that the 109 had an automated prop control linkage that made it so the pilot could operate more easily by just making adjustments in throttle. Perhaps modding the aircraft is less a significant factor than a pilots ability to know how to use the prop pitch for a gained advantage, particularly if it meant disengaging the auto prop pitch and running the engine outside of the manufactures settings. However, the data is no less muddy with this explanation, but maybe simpler to show.

It was mentioned that the climb angle of the 109E was significantly steeper than that of the Spitfire mk1. I'm not sure if this fact remained as both models improved with engine performance.

I think when looking at various data observers also need consider the combat condition of the aircraft and engine settings and most importantly the extent to which the tested performance was actually used in combat.

There is also a tactical evaluation of a 109G-6 and a spit IX using 18lbs and 25lbs boost. In this evaluation the 109 has under wing gondolas, so how do you decipher a conclusion made under these conditions on 109s that didn't have gondolas.

"Conclusion
22. The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet. "


There is probably more information to suggest otherwise, or reinforce these results, this was just looking at one website.

I've seen habits of researchers that will tend to point toward information that reinforces their conclusions rather than searching for information that opposes it. An accurate conclusion can't be made with out searching for opposing information. It actually would save more time to start with opposing views than to continue to add to the lumps of information that reinforce whats already been shown. If opposing views can't be supported, then they can be ignored. I just get tired of seeing conclusions that don't even address the opposing views, when they should be in the habit of addressing those things when it comes to making conclusions.

Of course you can only conclude plane A is faster than plane B if you only search for those conditions that it was. You should search for conditions when it was not.


Bill

- Kwiatek - 20.04.2010

Ultr@PAck 2.01 NEW FM's Planes:


109 G-2 1.3 Ata vs Spitfire MK F IX Merlin 61 +15 lbs ( fitted with the 0.477 reduction gear)


[Image: 1zclh0y.jpg]



"Spitfire Mark IX Merlin 61 when fitted with the 0.477 reduction gear and at +15 lb. per sq. inch boost the Spitfire is equal in rate of climb to the Me 109 G-2; when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost it is superior to all German fighters at present in service. "


Look that Spitfire at climb power (100% power line) had worse climb rate then 109 G-2 at climb power ( Db605 A was blocked in G-2 only for climb and power settings - 1.3 Ata so 1.42 Ata was not allowed)

Smile

- ACE-OF-ACES - 20.04.2010

BillSwagger Wrote:There is also a tactical evaluation of a 109G-6 and a spit IX using 18lbs and 25lbs boost. In this evaluation the 109 has under wing gondolas, so how do you decipher a conclusion made under these conditions on 109s that didn't have gondolas.

"Conclusion
22. The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet. "

There is probably more information to suggest otherwise, or reinforce these results, this was just looking at one website.

I've seen habits of researchers that will tend to point toward information that reinforces their conclusions rather than searching for information that opposes it. An accurate conclusion can't be made with out searching for opposing information. It actually would save more time to start with opposing views than to continue to add to the lumps of information that reinforce whats already been shown. If opposing views can't be supported, then they can be ignored. I just get tired of seeing conclusions that don't even address the opposing views, when they should be in the habit of addressing those things when it comes to making conclusions.
Here is a perfect example of why 'performance test data' should trump any 'combat report' or in this case a 'tactical comparison' report.

Unless the aircraft are instrument with calibrated recording devices for things like speed, rate of climb, altitude, etc all you will have in the end is the un-calibrated pilot jargon

On that note chances are you will never find a combat report from WWII that consisted of the aircraft being instrumented, unless a plane under test got jumped by the enemy during a test flight, but I have seen some tactical comparisons where the planes were instrumented

But as far as I can tell the test bill is referring to above, i.e

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... tical.html

Was not

Tactical comparisons come in two main flavors

1) One pilot flys both planes and than gives you his opinion of the differences based off his memory of the flight
2) Two pilots fly one in each plane side by side and give you their opinions of the relative differences based off their memories of the flight

Now you may be thinking what does he mean by 'based off their memories of the flight'

I am not trying to say their memories were so bad that they could not recall them post flight and write about them

I am simply pointing out there is a lot of variables at a lot of different altitudes to remember

Combine that with the fact that humans make terrible recording devices and you have a lot of room for error

Much more than if the plane was instrumented

Instrumented tests record the variables during flight and free up the pilot to focus on the flying an flying qualities

As you read the 'tactical comparison' sections of the report note the lack of or limited reference to any hard data values

In it's place you will find statements like..

'approximately' or
'about' or
'is superior to' or
'more pronounced' or
'has a particularly marked advantage' or
'almost identical' or
'slowly pulls away' or
'leave the Spitfire without any difficulty' or
'greatly superior to' or
'inferior performance'
'slight advantage' or
'very pronounced advantage' or
'no difficulty in out-turning' or
'will pull away from '

Why is that?

Because the plane was not instrumented and therefore we are left with the pilot jargon

And pilot jargon is very hard to nail down

Ask yourself..

How much better is a climb rate, feet per min wise, when it is said to 'have a particularly marked advantage'

Is that 10fpm? 100fpm? 1000fpm?

We don't know

And chances are we never will know because the only way to know is to talk to that pilot to try and calibrate his pilot jargon

That is to say one mans trash is another mans treasure

Or put another way one mans fast is another mans slow

For example if you ask a house wife who got passed by some nut on the free way how fast he was going when he passed you

She might say "OH MY GOD THAT GUY WENT PASSED ME LIKE I WAS SITTING STILL"

Now to a house wife use to driving at 65mph on the freeway getting passed by someone going 75mph may seem like she was sitting still

But now replace that house wife with say a NASCAR driver who got passed by the same nut on the freeway how fast he was going when he passed him

And he might say "ENH.. NOT THAT FAST REALLY"

See without hard numbers the statement now becomes relative to the person saying it

And if you don't take the time to calibrate the house wife or NASCAR drives definition of fast

The statement becomes pretty much worthless

Cept to know that someone passed someone

How fast we don't know

And never will

Neville Duke - one of the best test pilots... - Fireskull - 20.04.2010

Neville Duke was one of aviation history's most respected voices on World War Two fighter matters. He was the RAF's leading fighter pilot of the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations. As one of the leading test pilots after World War Two and the author of numerous books on aeroplane issues for decades later, his works remain studied to this day on issues such as we are discussing.

Neville Duke authored a booked named "Test Pilot", if I actually got the title right.

Though it has been years since I read a book of his from front to back, I do remember that he stated amazing work done on frontline aircraft in the field, sometimes under horrible weather conditions. As a matter of fact, bad weather ment more fighters on the ground and more time to work on them. Various field kits were made available to both Allied and Axis ground crews to customize their aircraft for the ever changing combat demands.

For the reasons which I stated in several posts, Neville Duke revealed that his tests on aircraft showed wide variances in the performance of frontline fighters among one another. A difference in the performance traits of frontline fighters was also clear compared to factory aircraft which were unaltered.

Some of the field kits were performance enhancing and others added weight for the sort of hybrid roles that frontline fighters often flew.

Added to this are the unauthorized modifications.

A bunch of categories of these kinds of alterations to frontline fighters with examples are given in several of my previous posts.

These frontline - authorized and unauthorized - modifications changed the flight characteristics to depart from factory new aircraft and test pilot data.

Frontline fighter performance with its variation by type, location, time, damage, weather, wear, field modification, and battle circumstances is impossible to simulate with our current skill and technology in IL-2.

Therefore I continue to support the use of factory and/or test pilot data to evaluate IL-2 flight models. This is for the sake of ingame fairness and the realization of our technical limitations.

All these points were very well expressed by me in several previous posts.

- BillSwagger - 20.04.2010

Ace, that was the tactical trial i was referring to and while i can appreciate your analogy and your point is well received, i respectfully disagree.

Tactical trials aren't like cars passing each other on the freeway, rather, a drag race, either from a stand still or a specified speed and they are conducted by professionals not dim witted pilots.
They took two planes and set them at the same altitudes and same speeds, then said "climb" and made observations on the behavior.
These descriptions are not vague as to be interpreted a variety of ways.

There are limitations:

One being exact speeds are not known which is why a baseline aircraft is used to make comparisons. In this case it was the 109.
"How do all our fighters compare to this aircraft?"
In this sense, calibration is not necessary, especially since instrument error is likely to show two different air speeds despite every plane flying at the exact same true air speeds.

"what are you talking about, i was driving at 65mph" says the man who passed the house wife.
"So was I" says the Nascar driver.
"No you weren't." argues the house wife.

I have a bigger problem with such trials because sometimes enemy aircraft are in barely serviceable condition and the results may not reflect a true combat ready aircraft. In this report it even says the trials could not be completed because the plane was unserviceable and it eventually crashed.

I have an easier time getting around pilot jargon especially in a controlled enviornment. why?

"The simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

There is no need to attach ambiguities or definitions outside of what has been presented. With that said, you couldn't rely on the jargon alone, and depending on the aircraft being tested or compared it could act as a 'checks and balances' against hard data. This particular trial has a couple holes to be considered for that purpose, namely the questionable condition of the aircraft, and the fact it had under wing gondolas. You still have nothing to conclude on this report alone, and it has less to do with the jargon and more to do with the aircraft condition.




Bill

- Fireskull - 20.04.2010

Guys, by the way:


Clearly stated by me in previous posting was that my hypothesis is a generalization and I admitted that there were exceptions.

- ACE-OF-ACES - 21.04.2010

BillSwagger Wrote:Ace, that was the tactical trial i was referring to and while i can appreciate your analogy and your point is well received, i respectfully disagree.

Tactical trials aren't like cars passing each other on the freeway, rather, a drag race, either from a stand still or a specified speed and they are conducted by professionals not dim witted pilots.
They took two planes and set them at the same altitudes and same speeds, then said "climb" and made observations on the behavior.
These descriptions are not vague as to be interpreted a variety of ways.

There are limitations:

One being exact speeds are not known which is why a baseline aircraft is used to make comparisons. In this case it was the 109.
"How do all our fighters compare to this aircraft?"
In this sense, calibration is not necessary, especially since instrument error is likely to show two different air speeds despite every plane flying at the exact same true air speeds.

"what are you talking about, i was driving at 65mph" says the man who passed the house wife.
"So was I" says the Nascar driver.
"No you weren't." argues the house wife.

I have a bigger problem with such trials because sometimes enemy aircraft are in barely serviceable condition and the results may not reflect a true combat ready aircraft. In this report it even says the trials could not be completed because the plane was unserviceable and it eventually crashed.

I have an easier time getting around pilot jargon especially in a controlled enviornment. why?

"The simplest explanation is usually the correct one."

There is no need to attach ambiguities or definitions outside of what has been presented. With that said, you couldn't rely on the jargon alone, and depending on the aircraft being tested or compared it could act as a 'checks and balances' against hard data. This particular trial has a couple holes to be considered for that purpose, namely the questionable condition of the aircraft, and the fact it had under wing gondolas. You still have nothing to conclude on this report alone, and it has less to do with the jargon and more to do with the aircraft condition.


Bill
As I respectfully disagree with you

For all the reasons I allready stated in this thread and others

- ACE-OF-ACES - 21.04.2010

Fireskull Wrote:Some of the field kits were performance enhancing and others added weight for the sort of hybrid roles that frontline fighters often flew.

Added to this are the unauthorized modifications.
On that note

The authorized mods sent to field units typically were tested in the rear before being sent to the field units

A good example is the Allied 150 octane engine modification (kits) were tested in the rear before being used in the field

And instrumented performance tests were preformed and the data collected for us to use in a comparison

Now I think we have all heard some of the stories about the un-authorized mods done in the field

I know I have heard some stories about the P-47 mechanics making un-authorized changes

But can anyone point to a real book reference that goes into more detail than what the mechanic said he did in the movie Kelly's Heroes with regards to making his Sherman tank faster? Wink

- Guest - 21.04.2010

Bottle of jack daniels in the fuel tank (and a glass for a pilot)?That will give at least hundred horses more Big Grin

- ACE-OF-ACES - 21.04.2010

ROTFL

- Fireskull - 21.04.2010

ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:ROTFL


Does ROTFL mean:

Right Off The Fuel Line?

Real Ordinary Tank Fuel Liquor?

Roll Out The Free Liquor?

Judging by how some planes behaved, maybe the liquor was more of a problem than a performance enhancer! :wink:


Is ROTFL another WW2 acronym like SNAFU or FUBAR?



Seriously, though, I have read many publications over the years of authorized and unauthorized modifications to frontline fighters. They dynamically changed with time, location ( both local and regional ), equipment, and battle circumstances.

*A classic example are the fighter modifications for cold weather, hot weather, and sandy regions.

The possibilities for authorized and unauthorized modifications to frontline fighters is uncomprehendable. This is why there were wide variances in fighter performance from location to location. Even authorized modifications resulted in the exact same fighter type from the factory to soon have changes made which differed from region to region and season to season. It could be hot in North Africa and cool over the English Channel at the exact same time of day, each circumstance resulting in different performance and unique modifications to the frontline fighter.

We, myself included, need to remain humble and eager to embrass the liberating power of getting better information. This will result in a better IL-2. Fair game play and keeping things clear in many people's minds will allow us to have a fun time while we prevent much of the arguements and personal frustrations that would result from unnecessary chaos and inconsistencies in flight models.

Again, this is why I support the use of official factory data and/or test pilot conclusions so we all begin each mission with factory new aircraft performance, given the limitations of our skill and technology to simulate the variances of frontline fighters of the same exact type, as explained in this and my previous posts.

- ACE-OF-ACES - 22.04.2010

That is G2G Wink