Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

109G2 performance is low


madrebel
 Share

Recommended Posts

madrebel

Did some offline testing to confirm after someone mentioned the G2 is slower than the F4 even after dropping the bomb.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G1-6_datasheet/109G_perftable_EN.html

Here we see two clean 109G2s flying in the 405mph range. Do note, the first G2 isn't clean as it has 2 x MG151 gondolas and a tested speed of 636KPH. A few lines lower we see a clean armed G2 with a camera installed reaching 652kph/405mph. Gondolas are reported to have a speed penalty in the 12-16kph range. here we see this tested and it is a 16kph difference.

For the F4, 635kph/394mph seems to be the general consensus for performance using the 30m power rating of 1.3aTa at 2500rpm. Clearance for the 1.42@2700rpm came later and brought the F4 right up to the 400mph mark, but we don't have that one and it should be noted the G2 was also eventually cleared for 1.42aTa@2800rpm too - neither is important to this discussion though.

Comparing the two directly leaves very little in terms of differences. As I recall, 125KG weight difference the vast majority of which was engine/oil weight. You might think, well, heavier plane will climb worse etc etc ... but you need to account for the improved VDM prop, the 100rpm difference between motors, and that 125KG added to ~3100kg is less than 10% increase in weight that will be significantly offset by an increase in thrust efficiency via the new prop as well as 100 additional revolutions of the prop. Lastly, the armored windscreen was moved from being an external addition to the wind screen to being an internal/integral redesign of the hood and this absolutely cleaned up the drag a bit. remember too that G2s were part of the later high speed dive tests conducted by the Germans. G2s hit .805 mach in those tests and well over 500mph.

the 109G2 was aerodynamically cleaner, flew faster, had better climb, and superior acceleration than the F4, full stop. it wasn't massive but it was better.

if you want a bomb laden 109 in tier2 that is NOT faster than the F4 you could have easily done this by adding a bomb to the F4 or adding a bomb to the F2. either of those are valid options. having a broken G2 is great and all but it isn't correct.

*edit* there was a radio upgrade as well as a radio antennae change as well from the F4 to the G2.

Edited by madrebel
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*** and that 125KG added to ~3100kg is less than 1% increase in weight

Actually, 125/3100 is more like 4%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

madrebel
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, delems said:

*** and that 125KG added to ~3100kg is less than 1% increase in weight

Actually, 125/3100 is more like 4%.

forgot a 0 sorry meant to say less than 10%.

4% increase in weight with 4% increase in revolutions and an improved prop = more thrust = better performance than the F4. windscreen accounts for the remainder of the performance differences. 4% of additional weight that is internal doesn't affect top speed. it will affect climb, turn, and acceleration but not top speed. fwiw, the spitfire experienced a similar shift from early external armored windscreens to internal armored windscreens and there too an increase of top speed was had.

396mph for the F4 is a 9MPH difference from the G2's 405mph, or, a 2.27% performance advantage for the G2.

Edited by madrebel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

madrebel
Posted (edited)

Let's break it down further.

109F4

2890KG with 1200PS@2500 rpm worth of power delivering a tested performance of 396MPH.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F4_Datenblatts/109F4_dblatt_calculated.html

ignore the tested speed of 660 in that test as it wasn't corrected, this test has the correct tested speed for 1.3aTa and 2500 RPM

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F4_Datenblatts/109F4_dblatt_calculated.html

109G2

3130KG with 1350PS@2600 rpm worth of power delivering a tested 405mph

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G1-6_datasheet/109G_perftable_EN.html

The G2/R2 listed there does have the camera but that weighs like 3-4kg at most so really ... doesn't affect anything.

Differences:

Weight difference of 240KG or 8.3% more weight for the G2

Power difference of 150PS or 12.5% more power for the G2

RPM difference of 100 RPM or 4% higher RPM for the G2

add in the new prop and the improved aerodynamics from the windscreen changes and you get a better 109 in all aspects of flight. what is the rationale then for the in game 109G2 being in fact slower than the F4? what is that decision based on?

Edited by madrebel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Can this please get a 'under review' or 'ticketed' tag? All the evidence required is in this thread, the in game performance doesn't match up. thanks.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • CORNERED RAT

Did some simple controlled testing.

F4 is slower than clean G2 at both sustained Max and sustained WEP at sea level.

Both crates hits the Rechlin numbers for SL far as I can tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...