radiators have no influence on speed

[David198502]

i surprisingly just found out that the rads settings of the 109 have no impact on speed at all...
normally i fly with them as much closed as possible,to avoid engine overheating,while maintaining the minimum air resistance...
however i found out that one can leave the rads fully open and still reach and hold the top speed in level flight....

that should be looked into by the devs, cause i would assume that a fully opened radiator should cause enough surface to slow the aircraft down...


i have to say that this fact is extremely disappointing, as CEM and FMs are supposed to be the strengths of this game(sim?)

[Kobold10]

What type of 109 was used? E1, E3, E4 ?
I remember befor 2nd beta patch the setting of the coolers were important when flying a E3/E1 with full realistic Motor settings.

[David198502]

sorry forgot to say....i used the E4

didnt try it with the E1 or E3 yet

[Tacoma74]

I've noticed this as well. Seems like I can fly around all day on full throttle with rads full open and not lose any performance to drag. Probably a bug?? It's like they fix one damn thing and something else goes haywire! But being as the game is as complex as it is I guess it's just the nature of the beast...

[310_cibule]

Neither do they in hurri or spit I would say. No impact of open canopy either. Next patch? :rolleyes:

[David198502]

just tried it with the E1, and its the same....no drag with rads fully open...
i dont know, but looking at the porked flight models, and now this, leads me to believe that this whole CEM argument is nothing but a joke...its only purpose up until now is to make us customers believe that we are playing something superior to IL2 1946, but honestly, the more i look into CLOD and experiment with it, the more i think that it is in fact inferior to its predecessor.


i mean,before the release of CLOD, i have thought, that if il2 1946 has features like the Lorenz landing system, those features would be self-evident for CLOD...plus many more new features making the game a real successor.but not only that so many features are absent or bugged, even such fundamental physics are not working....
this game is not worth to be called a sim yet in my eyes.

sorry for being negative again....i really want to love this game, but sometimes its really hard

[Tacoma74]

We can only hope that it's in the next patch.

[JG52Krupi]

Might be a bug with the 109 someone was saying how they could catch a 109 in a hurri by closing there rads a bit.

[David198502]

Might be a bug with the 109 someone was saying how they could catch a 109 in a hurri by closing there rads a bit.

well i experienced something similar twice online....couldnt outrun a hurri...
it followed me for more over ten minutes and until he was out of ammo...
the distance between us remained the same during the whole time.
and i tried everything to gain distance with dives and shallow climbs, but it always was about 500meters behind me...

[SNAFU]

Well, that is pretty much my standard race-experience against Hurricanes... ;)

But that is also in line with the rest of the so-called CEM. The useless magnetos, fuel prime pumps and simplified start up procedure, no over-revving damage, the constant low fuel oil consumption. What is now better in comparison to 1946 is, that the temperature and oil pressure gauges actually work, which makes it a little easier compared to 1946.

[GOA_Potenz]

well i experienced something similar twice online....couldnt outrun a hurri...
it followed me for more over ten minutes and until he was out of ammo...
the distance between us remained the same during the whole time.
and i tried everything to gain distance with dives and shallow climbs, but it always was about 500meters behind me...

Yup i notice the same you can't outrun a hurri in a 109, if you start a shallow circle climb the hurri will catch you, if try to dive it will be sticked to yer tail.

[Damixu]

Well, that is pretty much my standard race-experience against Hurricanes... ;)

But that is also in line with the rest of the so-called CEM. The useless magnetos, fuel prime pumps and simplified start up procedure, no over-revving damage, the constant low fuel oil consumption. What is now better in comparison to 1946 is, that the temperature and oil pressure gauges actually work, which makes it a little easier compared to 1946.

I think your forum handle nails it pretty well :grin:

[swiss]

... even such fundamental physics are not working....
this game is not worth to be called a sim yet in my eyes.



In case you believe they simulate the airflow around the plane I think it's safe to say:
They are not.
The fluid dynamics stimulation alone would kill your pc.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

i surprisingly just found out that the rads settings of the 109 have no impact on speed at all...
normally i fly with them as much closed as possible,to avoid engine overheating,while maintaining the minimum air resistance...
however i found out that one can leave the rads fully open and still reach and hold the top speed in level flight....

that should be looked into by the devs, cause i would assume that a fully opened radiator should cause enough surface to slow the aircraft down...

i have to say that this fact is extremely disappointing, as CEM and FMs are supposed to be the strengths of this game(sim?)
Well I would not jump to that conclusion just yet

Don't take this personal, but, based on past IL2 experience I found that most of the 'errors' in speed were due to the sim pilot, not the FM.

And it worked both ways

1) Guy says plane is too slow, graphing the data using DeviceLink it turned out the sim pilot was actually climbing (read not level flight)
2) Guy says plane is too fast, graphing the data using DeviceLink it turned out the sim pilot was actually diving (read not level flight)

Little changes in altitude like that can easily cause a +/-40mph error.. At least that was the case in IL-2 for sim pilots. A good example was back during the Ki-61 top speed topics, half said too fast half said too slow. Turns out the plane was fine it was the sim test pilot that was in error.

Now with that said, what real world data are you using as a reference, and what is the speed difference between fully open and fully closed? Ill bet if falls in and around the above mentioned error, thus until your able to log you altitude and speed and graph it, I would not jump to your conclusion.

[David198502]

i dont take it personal...but it should make a difference whether the rads are fully open or almost closed....the only difference it makes is that you can overheat your engine with the latter, but not in speed

[ACE-OF-ACES]

i don't take it personal...
S!

but it should make a difference whether the rads are fully open or almost closed....
And maybe it does..

But it may be due to pilot error, or it maybe so small that it is beyond your ability to make note of it, hence the need to log the data.

With that said

I noticed you didn't list your real world data reference.. Is it safe to assume you have one? If so, how much difference in top speed are we talking about here?

10?
20?
30?
40?
50?

If it is less than 50, now take a look at the resolution of the cockpit gauges.. That alone can be a source of a good +/-20mph error.. Just another good reason to log the data

the only difference it makes is that you can overheat your engine with the latter
As it should


, but not in speed
Maybe.. maybe not.. No real proof has been provided as of yet IMHO

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well, Helmut Lipfert said the radiator flaps on his Bf109G slowed the plane down as much as 40-60km/h and used them sometimes to avoid passing a slower target. Anecdotal sure, but seems that the radiators would cause some extra drag thus less speed.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

S!

Well, Helmut Lipfert said the radiator flaps on his Bf109G slowed the plane down as much as 40-60km/h and used them sometimes to avoid passing a slower target. Anecdotal sure, but seems that the radiators would cause some extra drag thus less speed.
Just to be clear

I am not saying open rads should not cause more drag, and thus less speed

Far from!

All I am saying is that without logging the data, the sim pilot alone can cause a 40-60kph diff in speed. Thus the 'thing' you are looking for is in the noise of the human error.

[TomcatViP]

Hi Dav,

I don't see the same here. Nearly closing fully the rads of my 109 is what give me the 500-kph.

Did you close the oil rad as well and fly the ball centered ? This does impact the speed by raising the drag dramatically IMHO

S!

[6S.Tamat]

so actually the fact that an hurricane is without really a big problem attached to the tail of an emil is because the emil pilots are not good pilots.
Sure.
I always knew that hopping on an hurricane i would have been a better pilot.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

so actually the fact that an hurricane is without really a big problem attached to the tail of an emil is because the emil pilots are not good pilots.
Sure.
I always knew that hopping on an hurricane i would have been a better pilot.
Bingo!

chuck said it best when he said it is the man not the machine

Prob for most is that knife cuts both ways! ;)

[Flanker35M]

S!

Ace, Lipfert stated clearly he used the drag to slow down. Not arguing against you ;) Tamat, just wait for Battle for Moscow and we will see Russian planes doing it all better ;)

[addman]

Wow! This is great news, now I can fly in my G.50 with radiators fully open with full confidence! :grin:

[ACE-OF-ACES]

S!

Ace, Lipfert stated clearly he used the drag to slow down. Not arguing against you ;) Tamat, just wait for Battle for Moscow and we will see Russian planes doing it all better ;)
Ah good Lipfert agrees with me than! ;)

[ATAG_Snapper]

One thing I want to try with the Spit & Hurri rads is to open and close them and check any change in climb rate. This meshes with what you're saying in a way -- it seems to me when I close my rad the speed doesn't change but by climb rate increases. Obviously, when I trim accordingly to keep the climb rate where I want it, the speed will increase.

However.......we've had a couple of beta patches plus the most recent retail patch, so I could be dead wrong on my observation above.

I have noticed the canopy open/closed has no effect on drag/speed. I tend to fly canopy open now for

1) better visibility -- especially in the Hurri
2) you can hear the DB601 supercharger whine directly behind you as a 109 is lining you up! ;)

[Flanker35M]

S!

Addman, Finns had problems with the Fiat G.50 overheating and it took tedious work to solve it, even own parts were made to overcome issues with the Fiat engine.

[TomcatViP]

Ok I don't want to say the dull word but there is Hurri's and Hurri. I hve experienced some fight with some of my opponents hving strange behaviors. I think your expe is more related to that.

Pls next time you see me flying a Hurri on the server let's hve a try and see if it's the same (I won't shoot.... at least I 'll try hard :rolleyes:)

I can guarantee you that if you pull over to catch some speed and then fly level, automatically you'll extend easily from a hurri that is in your back. The distance increasing as soon you push that noes down (loss of power for the Merlin eng)

[addman]

S!

Addman, Finns had problems with the Fiat G.50 overheating and it took tedious work to solve it, even own parts were made to overcome issues with the Fiat engine.

Ok, guess they've nailed the FM on it in CloD then because you need to have at least half rads open on it unless you're doing 300+ kph. BTW, you don't know any good material (books etc.) on the G.50 in Finnish service? Cheers!

[TomcatViP]

Ok, guess they've nailed the FM on it in CloD then because you need to have at least half rads open on it unless you're doing 300+ kph. BTW, you don't know any good material (books etc.) on the G.50 in Finnish service? Cheers!

DId you check your Mixt ?

[addman]

DId you check your Mixt ?

Yup, always checking my RPM when I fiddle with the mixture and of course you know it's wrong when the whole plane starts to shake.

[David198502]

Hi Dav,

I don't see the same here. Nearly closing fully the rads of my 109 is what give me the 500-kph.

Did you close the oil rad as well and fly the ball centered ? This does impact the speed by raising the drag dramatically IMHO

S!

well yes i have the oil rads as much closed as possible too.regarding the ball centered...no
i dont have rudder pedals yet, so therefore i have the rudder set on a hatswitch on my joystick, which is not really precise, because its devided into steps.
but without changing anything during flight, except opening the water rads, the speed will not decrease.and i zoomed into the gauges to look if it makes a minor difference.but i just couldnt find any in speed.

oh and ace i will not argue with you...you dont have to believe me...you can try it by yourself if you want to, and if you want you can call it pilot error,...i dont care.

[KG26_Alpha]

Providing a track is usually the best way to observe bugs claimed by pilots.

Also "usually" some one will try to replicate your observations and confirm it.

looks like this threads all about standing around puffing on pipes drinking tea and generally hmming and ahhhing.

:grin:

Bring forth a chart monkey please...............



.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

First thing to note..

Tom does notice a difference
David does NOT notice a difference

So who should we belive?

Answer, neither! ;)

Why?

For all the reasons I have already stated, and the fact that some are seeing a difference and some are not only reinforces the need to log your data during flight

well yes i have the oil rads as much closed as possible too. regarding the ball centered...no
Having the ball centered is one of those 'pilot errors' I was referring to.. Little things like this can add up

i don't have rudder pedals yet, so therefore i have the rudder set on a hatswitch on my joystick, which is not really precise, because its devided into steps.
Keynote.. not really precise

but without changing anything during flight, except opening the water rads, the speed will not decrease.
Its the things your changing that you don't realize your changing that can make the difference, as noted in the Ki61 case, most sim pilots are not holding their altitude as well as they think they are.

and i zoomed into the gauges to look if it makes a minor difference. but i just couldn't find any in speed.
Which goes back to that resolution thing I mentioned

oh and ace i will not argue with you...you don't have to believe me...
Who is arguing?

And I am not agreeing with you or disagreeing with you. I am simply pointing out the FACT that the error your looking for may be in your nearest mirror ;)

you can try it by yourself if you want to, and if you want you can call it pilot error,...i don't care.
And I don't care that you don't care!

Oh, and I am still waiting on your 'data' as in how much are we talking about here?

10?
20?
30?
40?

If you don't know in advance how big of a difference you are suppose to see, than how will you know it when you see it!

And you should take pause here and consider the fact that Tom 'is' seeing a difference..

So with that said..

Are you calling Tom a liar? ;)

[6S.Tamat]

S!
Tamat, just wait for Battle for Moscow and we will see Russian planes doing it all better ;)
lol
:grin:

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Providing a track is usually the best way to observe bugs claimed by pilots.

Also "usually" some one will try to replicate your observations and confirm it.

looks like this threads all about standing around puffing on pipes drinking tea and generally hmming and ahhhing.
Agreed, a track file is the minimum thing that should be provided when making a claim of an FM error. In that upon observing said track 9 out of 10 can be debunked within the first min of viewing, as in you can see the sim test pilot made a error


Bring forth a chart monkey please................
Agreed! Log the data as you fly, you will be amazed at the errors you can make! ;)

[BP_Tailspin]

This place never ceases to entertain me …

i surprisingly just found out that the rads settings of the 109 have no impact on speed at all...
Should they have an impact on speed?

normally i fly with them as much closed as possible, to avoid engine overheating, while maintaining the minimum air resistance...however i found out that one can leave the rads fully open and still reach and hold the top speed in level flight....
Keeping your 109 cool sounds good to me and without a performance hit is even better.

that should be looked into by the devs,
I think there busy trying to make the “game” playable.

cause i would assume that a fully opened radiator should cause enough surface to slow the aircraft down...
Key word here is “assume”

i have to say that this fact is extremely disappointing,
Fact? Please quote your aeronautical engineering data.

as CEM and FMs are supposed to be the strengths of this game(sim?)
Key word here is “game” but maybe it’s more of a “sim” than we think. The P51 Mustang’s radiator has a low/no drag design.

“The duct for the radiator was designed to slow the incoming air down. The air could then absorb more heat from the radiator, but the radiator needed to be made larger because of the slower air velocity, which meant installation in the rear fuselage. After the air passed through the radiator, it expanded due to the heat and was accelerated out the back, producing some thrust to counter the drag the radiator caused.”

I don't have the time or energy to do the research the 109’s cooling but here’s some cool (pun intended) data about the pesky little 109 I did find. Instead of beating up the devs … research it and present the data to the devs.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g-14026.html

[Flanker35M]

S!

Addman, try to find the book called Lentäjän Näkökulma II (Pilot's Point of View II freely translated). Written by Jukka Raunio. ISBN 951-96866-0-6

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Since David was unable, or unwilling to provide the real 'data' his claim is based on, I figured I would give it a quick look.

To see what all the fuss is about, ie are we talking about

10?
20?
30?
40?

In doing so I found some 109G data but not E data, here is the sorce

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/14026pg9.jpg

Now it is really hard to read the speed axis, but it 'looks' like it goes

520
530
540
550
560

If that is the case, than the 'difference' in speed between open and closed is..

5 kph

Which is well within the pilot error noise

Thus, IMHO, the only way to detect this small change is to log the data and account for the pilot errors

PS correct me if I am wrong, but the rads on the 109 changed alot from the E to the G, so, assuming Jerry did a better job on the new rads, we can only assume that the older E rads caused more drag, and thus impacted speed more. But, even if the change was doulbe this, say 10kph, it is still well within the pilot error noise

[addman]

S!

Addman, try to find the book called Lentäjän Näkökulma II (Pilot's Point of View II freely translated). Written by Jukka Raunio. ISBN 951-96866-0-6

Thanks! Found it at the city library, time to practice on that Finnish of mine. ;)

[David198502]

Hi Dav,

I don't see the same here. Nearly closing fully the rads of my 109 is what give me the 500-kph.

Did you close the oil rad as well and fly the ball centered ? This does impact the speed by raising the drag dramatically IMHO

S!

mh well i dont get the 109s to reach 500kph in level flight.except if i push the nose slightly down for some seconds and level out at 500kph.but i cannot maintain that speed.it will slowly decrease again to 450kph if i dont loose altitude.

[Robo.]

This place never ceases to entertain me …

You just contributed quite a few jokes yourself :)

Should they have an impact on speed?

Of course.

You're right with a P-51, but completely wrong with a 109 (and Spitfire and Hurricane)

No offence dude ;)

[David198502]

Since David was unable, or unwilling to provide the real 'data' his claim is based on, I figured I would give it a quick look.

To see what all the fuss is about, ie are we talking about

10?
20?
30?
40?

In doing so I found some 109G data but not E data, here is the sorce

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/14026pg9.jpg

Now it is really hard to read the speed axis, but it 'looks' like it goes

520
530
540
550
560

If that is the case, than the 'difference' in speed between open and closed is..

5 kph

Which is well within the pilot error noise

Thus, IMHO, the only way to detect this small change is to log the data and account for the pilot errors

PS correct me if I am wrong, but the rads on the 109 changed alot from the E to the G, so, assuming Jerry did a better job on the new rads, we can only assume that the older E rads caused more drag, and thus impacted speed more. But, even if the change was doulbe this, say 10kph, it is still well within the pilot error noise

well that document is really hard to read....however how do you come to the conclusion of 5kph differnce?

maybe i read it wrong....there are two different graphs which show the speed per rads setting.
however both show a straight decreasing line with the same angle...so the difference remains the same.
the lower line shows a speed of 555kph with 50mm opened rads, and only 505kph with 310mm opened rads(which is not fully open).

50kph difference between not fully closed and not fully opened rads...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

well that document is really hard to read....however how do you come to the conclusion of 5kph differnce?

maybe i read it wrong....there are two different graphs which show the speed per rads setting.
however both show a straight decreasing line with the same angle...so the difference remains the same.
the lower line shows a speed of 555kph with 50mm opened rads, and only 505kph with 310mm opened rads(which is not fully open).

50kph difference between not fully closed and not fully opened rads...
As noted, hard to read the graph, but assuming 'speed' is on the bottom (x axis) and that it goes as follows

520 - 530 - 540 - 550 - 560

Now looking at the point where the two curves intersect (y=0) the bottom (x axis) we have

1st @ ~523.5kph
2nd @ ~528.5kph

5 = 528.5 - 523.5

That is what I got, but again, I could be reading it wrong too.. That graph is hard to read

But..

Lets not use that graph.. Lets use the 109E data your claim was based on! That would be the correct thing to do! Now that I got your att on the subject! ;)

[BP_Tailspin]

You just contributed quite a few jokes yourself :)



Of course.

You're right with a P-51, but completely wrong with a 109 (and Spitfire and Hurricane)

No offence dude ;)

Jokes? What jokes?

What did I say that was wrong with a 109?

"No offence dude" none taken :-)

[David198502]

As noted, hard to read the graph, but assuming 'speed' is on the bottom (x axis) and that it goes as follows

520 - 530 - 540 - 550 - 560

Now looking at the point where the two curves intersect (y=0) the bottom (x axis) we have

1st @ ~523.5kph
2nd @ ~528.5kph

5 = 528.5 - 523.5

That is what I got, but again, I could be reading it wrong too.. That graph is hard to read

But..

Lets not use that graph.. Lets use the 109E data your claim was based on! That would be the correct thing to do! Now that I got your att on the subject! ;)

the whole document is twisted 90° left.
so the speed is actually on the y axis.but there is also the temperature on the y axis as well in the lower half...
and the rads settings are on the x axis in mm.

so the doc you provided states a difference of more than 50kph between open and closed rads.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Mh. Have you guys ever managed to slightly close the radiator of the 109 at full throttle without getting immediate overheat? I really don't see how one can close the rads almost full at full throttle without overheating it in split seconds.

In any aircraft when you are at full performance settings (throttle + rpm) I never ever dare to close the rads a little bit because overheating is looming.

[TomcatViP]

Mh. Have you guys ever managed to slightly close the radiator of the 109 at full throttle without getting immediate overheat? I really don't see how one can close the rads almost full at full throttle without overheating it in split seconds.

In any aircraft when you are at full performance settings (throttle + rpm) I never ever dare to close the rads a little bit because overheating is looming.

For sure Max setting means the minimum time to enjoy - Tht's all abt men (quoting my ex-gf) ;)

AoA you are talking abt some curves (a chart :oops:) where are they ?!!

[335th_GRAthos]

i surprisingly just found out that the rads settings of the 109 have no impact on speed at all...
normally i fly with them as much closed as possible,to avoid engine overheating,while maintaining the minimum air resistance...
however i found out that one can leave the rads fully open and still reach and hold the top speed in level flight....

Oh my God!

And despite no drag from the radiators, the Huricanes are faster than us??? :(

~S~

[ACE-OF-ACES]

the whole document is twisted 90° left.
so the speed is actually on the y axis.
Disagree.. Look at the top of the document.. The heading is not rotated, which is the way it is scanned in and how it will appear when you click on the link. Thus all my references are to how it is presented. PS the word is rotated not twisted

but there is also the temperature on the y axis as well in the lower half...
Which pertains to the temperate graph.. which is not what we are talking about, we are talking about how it affected the speed

and the rads settings are on the x axis in mm.
If you want to rotate the graph, go for it, but all my references are to the graph in how it is presented (un rotated) in a typical 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper

so the doc you provided states a difference of more than 50kph between open and closed rads.
Nope..

Not based on the numbers I read, i.e.

(left) 520 - 530 - 540 - 550 - 560 (right)

[David198502]

as cheesehawk says!

ace is suggest you to buy glasses

[ACE-OF-ACES]

AoA you are talking abt some curves (a chart :oops:) where are they ?!!
From my previous post, where I just posted the link, here Ill post the picture

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/14026pg9.jpg

Note, speed is on the bottom (x axis), it is hard to read but it looks like it goes from

(left) 520 - 530 - 540 - 550 - 560(right)

If that is the case, than the diff is only ~5kph

PS this is for a 109G not a 109E, correct me if I am wrong but they totally re-worked the rads on the later 109s models (F onward?)

So, not sure how this applies to the E if at all other than to show the rad does affect the speed a little

[David198502]

left=580 right=500

if you twist the whole doc 90° to the right, you can read it a lot easier!
btw those two straight lines show the db601 and the db 605 engine,...the curve on the right(as you call it), which in my opinion is on the bottom of the diagram, shows the rad settings in mm.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

as cheesehawk says!

ace is suggest you to buy glasses
No need to by glasses.. In that I allready pointed out that the graph is supsect wrt the number, which is why I posted the number

What is more important to point out here is

The total lack of any data you provided to support your claim!!

That is the real joke here, how you condem 1C based on nothing what so ever!

[robtek]

The difference is about 50 km/h as i read it, as the two lines represent the DB601 and the DB605.

[David198502]

No need to by glasses.. In that I allready pointed out that the graph is supsect wrt the number, which is why I posted the number

What is more important to point out here is

The total lack of any data you provided to support your claim!!

That is the real joke here, how you condem 1C based on nothing what so ever!

well now you gave me the document to prove my claim...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

left=580 right=500
Ok, Ill use those numbers, like I said it is hard to read..

1st curve intersects the bottom (x axis) at ~574
2nd curve intersects the bottom (x axis) at ~563

11 = 574 - 563

So where did you 50kph come from?

if you twist the whole doc 90° to the right, you can read it a lot easier!
No need to rotate it, it is hard to see in either case

[TomcatViP]

From my previous post, where I just posted the link, here Ill post the picture

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/14026pg9.jpg

Note, speed is on the bottom (x axis), it is hard to read but it looks like it goes from

(left) 520 - 530 - 540 - 550 - 560(right)

If that is the case, than the diff is only ~5kph

PS this is for a 109G not a 109E, correct me if I am wrong but they totally re-worked the rads on the later 109s models (F onward?)

So, not sure how this applies to the E if at all other than to show the rad does affect the speed a little

Yeah I saw immediatly that it was for a G (the diff being with the laminar flow absorbing device). Thx for re-posting AoAce.

You hve to understand that cooling has always been a prob in aviation. The more the speed the more the drag you get with a cooling device and the less cooling effect you hve

Here is an interesting article related to this :

Quote from user "Brian Abraham"


It would seem from the drawing that the design did not draw upon Merediths work. I'm not sure exactly how you are defining the "first with a belly scoop". To me the Hurricane would seem to fit the bill of having a belly scoop (first or not), though I don't know if it embodied Merediths drag reduction ideas as did the Spitfire and P-51.

Edited to add I came across this article written by J. Leland Atwood of North American at An engineer's perspective on the Mustang | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET

North American Aviation (NAA) Mustang fighter is generally credited with a 20- to 30mph speed advantage over most of its WW II contemporaries . This speed advantage also permitted a considerable increase in range that required more fuel, but not enough to significantly reduce speed. Records show that some 275 U.S. aces were "made" in P-51s. The reasons for the Mustang's significant performance capability have never been clearly explained, and I hope to clarify why its aerodynamic features enabled this capability.

To begin: in 1940, the British Purchasing Commission, which I dealt with, had a member-H.C.B. Thomas from Farnborough whom I found to be familiar with the Meredith Report. This report outlined a feature that could enhance the performance of any internal-combustion engine at high speeds by using a radiator form of heat dissipation. A low-velocity airflow through the radiator was one element of this, and it was apparent to me that the larger the radiator, the lower the speed of the air flowing through it; this approached one of the Meredith Report's objectives.

I therefore offered Mr. Thomas sketches and other descriptions of a Mustang design that had the main radiator in the rear of the fuselage. The alternatives were wing radiators such as those used on the Spitfire and the Bf 109, and under-engine radiators such the P-40's; both positions limited radiator size and the length and size of the ducting that could be used to handle and control the cooling air.

In addition to the radiator's rearward position, after the design contract had been awarded and at the recommendation of NAA's aerodynamics group, it was decided to use a new airfoil of a class generally designated as "laminar flow." This was being developed at NACA (later NASA) at Langley Field, Virginia. A 1939 report by Eastman Jacobs and others at Langley contained the results of the tests of some small laminar-flow airfoils. The drag on these small models was quite low, and there was some hope that laminar flow could be achieved much farther back on an airfoil than had been predicted by previous investigators. The publishers of the report, however, warned that they had not been able to obtain laminar flow on wings of anywhere near the size of those required for actual aircraft and that their tests were to be taken only as the results from laminar-flow models of not more than six inches in width.

In spite of this warning, however, both Ed Horkey (leading aerodynamicist at North American) and Bell Aircraft's chief engineer, Robert Woods, decided to try laminar-flow profiles on the P-51 and the Bell P-63, respectively. These airfoils were incorporated on the Mustang and the Bell airplane with the hope that laminar flow could be extended well back on their wings. Extensive efforts were made to polish and protect the P-63 wing's leading edge profile, but the results were equivocal. Those who advocated the laminar flow wing felt that the Mustang's outstanding performance resulted from laminar flow over most of the wing. Kingcobra designers felt they were getting a similar effect, although that aircraft's performance did not justify this conclusion.

With respect to the Mustang, many tests-including some in recent years-have shown that extensive laminar flow was not developed on the Mustang wing and that the drag of the wing was probably no less than that of conventional wings of the same thickness and taper ratio. On the other hand, the Mustang's cooling drag was much lower. This was the result of using a ducted radiator with a large area and a slow-speed airflow through it (Pr and P2); closing up the exit and creating a back pressure restored the momentum of the cooling of air (momentum lost in radiator transit). This was possible because of the radiator's cooling capability, which, to be adequate in a full-power climb, was much more than that required at high speed and high dynamic pressure. According to calculations given in a supporting paper, the drag created by momentum loss in passing through the radiator can be reduced from some 400 pounds to close to 30 to 40 pounds because of the offsetting momentum of the jet thrust from the radiator exit (V2).

Since these two effects, i.e., the wing drag and the radiator momentum recovery, have never been disentangled in the literature, a technical reason for the Mustang's performance has never been clearly identified.

NACA had taken the lead in airfoil development and had worked out a large series of airfoils that were used generally throughout the industry. For instance, the Spitfire wing was of the NACA 2200 series-13 percent thick at the root and 6 percent thick at the tip. This is the same airfoil series as is used on the DC-2 and the original North American BT-9 and AT-6 trainers. To improve the stall characteristics, I later changed the NACA 2200 series on the AT-6 trainer to the 4412 at the tip. It is quite probable that the Spitfire's wing, being only 6 percent thick at the tip, had a lower drag than the Mustang's wing as actually incorporated.

The point of all this is that nearly all WW II fighters operated at Mach numbers of .65 or less. The primary advantage presented by the so-called laminar-flow wing was therefore not in drag reduction but in high-speed dives, where temporary airspeed shock waves were created on the wing's upper surfaces and a loss of control and lift occurred as the critical Mach number was exceeded. This was a phenomenon we called "compressibility," and it became the subject of a huge amount of research. The Mustang pilot, with his laminarflow wing, had a higher critical Mach number, so he could point the nose down and know he could out-dive virtually any airplane and recover relatively easily. The P47 and P-38, however, with their older, fatter wings would hit compressibility and have to use their dive flaps to recover safely. So, besides being an overall clean design, the legendary Mustang's speed and range rest as much on carefully designed radiator airflow as on anything else. As is often the case in aircraft design, it was the seemingly small details that counted.

It's not completely true in every line but it's in concordance with what we have to know.

(extracted from here : http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/387708-napier-heston-belly-scoop-first-one.html)

Pls note that the 109 had far more cooling power than the Spit wld get in all models. If you look at the 110 rads, you'll understand that the 109 was made for sustaining max power far more longer than any other warplane at the time in Eu. There is no secret, it's only tweaking

[ACE-OF-ACES]

well now you gave me the document to prove my claim...
Clearly you don't understand what 'proof' means

But I am not suprised, in that your not the first to come here with nothing and make a baseless claim.

[David198502]

Ok, Ill use those numbers, like I said it is hard to read..

1st curve intersects the bottom (x axis) at ~574
2nd curve intersects the bottom (x axis) at ~563

11 = 574 - 563

So where did you 50kph come from?


No need to rotate it, it is hard to see in either case

those are the 601 and the 605 engines!you read the doc the wrong way man.

well proven or not, your doc states a difference of 50kph, which is not the case in the game...

[David198502]

Clearly you don't understand what 'proof' means

But I am not suprised, in that your not the first to come here with nothing and make a baseless claim.

well my base of the claim is the game...now you brought up the doc to proof me wrong, but in the end, it supports my "baseless" claim.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Yeah I saw immediatly that it was for a G (the diff being with the laminar flow absorbing device). Thx for re-posting AoAce.
No prob!


You hve to understand that cooling has always been a prob in aviation. The more the speed the more the drag you get with a cooling device and the less cooling effect you have
Oh I understand that, have for years

What I don't understand is how guys like David can come here and make baseless claims.. Such that he had no idea how much the speed should be affected.. but did that stop him from making the claim? Nope! Now that we have some numbers to get a feel for the affect.. I get a good laugh at David's expence that he 'thinks' he can detect an 11kph difference that he didnt even know as 11kph until I provided him the data.

[David198502]

you still dont know that its 50kph difference and not 11...man im getting tired arguing with you...

and even if it was only a difference of 11kph, why shouldnt one be able to detect it???

[ACE-OF-ACES]

well my base of the claim is the game...now you brought up the doc to proof me wrong, but in the end, it supports my "baseless" claim.
You know what is even funnier?

In your last few posts you act as if you know what those numbers on the graph are.. Even though your first post you admited like me that they were hard to belive

Yet you came up with some 50kph number out of thin air

When it is actully only around 11kph, based on the numbers you want to use

Now who needs glasses? LOL!

[David198502]

well at first i only took a short glance at it.then i had a closer look after you came up with your 11kph...
those 11kph you see is actually the difference between the DB601 and the DB605 engine...
now who needs glasses?lol(never thought i would ever use this abbreviation)

[TomcatViP]

C'mon guys there was enough blood wasted at the time those events took place. No need for anymore shredding here ;)

[David198502]

C'mon guys there was enough blood wasted at the time those events took place. No need for anymore shredding here ;)

+1

sorry ace if i upset you...that surely wasnt my intention with this thread

[ACE-OF-ACES]

you still don't know that its 50kph difference and not 11...man im getting tired arguing with you...
I think we are talking about two different things.. I am saying the difference in the two graphs is a constant ~11kph

and even if it was only a difference of 11kph, why shouldn't one be able to detect it???
You can, but not with the naked eye! You would have to log the data, so you can take into account the variations of flight, because the fact of the mater is the speed vary as you fly due to you making small altitude changes.. That is to say YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF MAINTAIN A PERFECT ALTITUDE !!! But don't feel bad most cant! Thus the variations in speed due to altitude changes are on the order of 30-40kph. So, the 11kph falls within that range, thus you can not desern which is which unless you also plot altitude

[ACE-OF-ACES]

well at first i only took a short glance at it.then i had a closer look after you came up with your 11kph...
those 11kph you see is actually the difference between the DB601 and the DB605 engine...
Ah.. ok, your right! I don't read German very well but that does make more sence now!


now who needs glasses?lol(never thought i would ever use this abbreviation)

+1

sorry ace if i upset you...that surely wasnt my intention with this thread
Trust me, been doing this along time.. Would take more that that to upset me!

[David198502]

I think we are talking about two different things.. I am saying the difference in the two graphs is a constant ~11kph


You can, but not with the naked eye! You would have to log the data, so you can take into account the variations of flight, because the fact of the mater is the speed vary as you fly due to you making small altitude changes.. That is to say YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF MAINTAIN A PERFECT ALTITUDE !!! But don't feel bad most cant! Thus the variations in speed due to altitude changes are on the order of 30-40kph. So, the 11kph falls within that range, thus you can not desern which is which unless you also plot altitude

yes but these constant 11kph is the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DB601 and DB605 engine!

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Now I would like to know if someone has made tests:
Full throttle, optimal rpm

what are the durations before ruining the engines depending on rad setting.

100% open, 95%, 90% ...

[David198502]

"Trust me, been doing this along time.. Would take more that that to upset me!"

:grin:
good to know!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

yes but these constant 11kph is the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DB601 and DB605 engine!
Still as I noted the speed can varry by 30-40kph due to altitude changes.. Assuming you can hold it pretty steady, more if you cant! So your 50 would/could still be in the noise. The only way to tell is to log the speed and the altidue, than you can 'see' what is going on

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Now I would like to know if someone has made tests:
Full throttle, optimal rpm

what are the durations before ruining the engines depending on rad setting.

100% open, 95%, 90% ...
Bingo!

And with that said providing a track file is the min requirement to be taken seriously..

And log the data as you fly and record that track file if you really want to do a good job!

In IL-2 you could replay the track file and extract and log the data at a later date..

But I don't think you can do that in CoD! I am pretty sure you have to log the data as you fly the mission!

[David198502]

Still as I noted the speed can varry by 30-40kph due to altitude changes.. Assuming you can hold it pretty steady, more if you cant! So your 50 would/could still be in the noise. The only way to tell is to log the speed and the altidue, than you can 'see' what is going on

well ace,if you have trimmed the plane,the 109 becomes really steady.you can fly for miles having the crosshair focused on the horizon without any further input,so the differences in altitudes and speed are only minor, therefore a difference of 30kph would be clearly noticeable.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

well ace,if you have trimmed the plane,the 109 becomes really steady.you can fly for miles having the crosshair focused on the horizon without any further input,so the differences in altitudes and speed are only minor, therefore a difference of 30kph would be clearly noticeable.
Trust me.. your not the 1st one to 'think' that

Log your data and you will be amazed at how much the alt can varry on you

[Matt255]

What speed did you actually reach in your test and at what altitude exactly?

[*Buzzsaw*]

Mh. Have you guys ever managed to slightly close the radiator of the 109 at full throttle without getting immediate overheat? I really don't see how one can close the rads almost full at full throttle without overheating it in split seconds.

In any aircraft when you are at full performance settings (throttle + rpm) I never ever dare to close the rads a little bit because overheating is looming.

If you are in a dive, and during the dive have reduced throttle with full open rads, you will cool your engine considerably to the point you can close rads for a short while when you level out.

[CaptainDoggles]

i surprisingly just found out that the rads settings of the 109 have no impact on speed at all...
normally i fly with them as much closed as possible,to avoid engine overheating,while maintaining the minimum air resistance...
however i found out that one can leave the rads fully open and still reach and hold the top speed in level flight....

that should be looked into by the devs, cause i would assume that a fully opened radiator should cause enough surface to slow the aircraft down...


i have to say that this fact is extremely disappointing, as CEM and FMs are supposed to be the strengths of this game(sim?)

You've done testing, right? You've got evidence to present right?

Let's see it.

[Vengeanze]

Says nothing about working or not working rads on the box so...! ;-)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Poor Nancy

[David198502]

ace the only poor guy i see is you...you ask for proof,..why dont you just try it by yourself, or better why dont you proof me wrong?...i bet the reason for it is, that you dont even have the game.
so you tried it with your document you brought up,which you werent even capable of understanding,claiming a difference of first 5 then 11kph.
you claimed that one is not able of seeing the difference 5kph.i totally believe you that you are not able to.
then it turned out that its ten times the difference you first claimed.its absurd that you remained on your argument that one is not able to read a difference of 50kph on the gauge!thats ridiculous..
pilots would not be able to land an aircraft safely if that would be true.maybe you are not capable of doing so, but trust me, many others are.your incompetence has nothing to do with others abilities or inabilities.i suggest to you to buy the game and practise a bit, maybe one day you become capable of reading gauges and a difference of 50kph.

[SYN_Repent]

ace, your complicating things more than it needs to be, david never mentioned flying with the aircraft trimmed straight and level on the bubble, of course that would give more speed whether the radiator was open or not, his point was that havng the radiator closed did not effect his speed no matter what the attitide of the aircraft.

you have come here looking for an argument, dont you have nothing better to do with your time??

the graph YOU provided is evidence backing up davids theory, you even argued about that though you was proven wrong, you argued about the numbers being the wrong way round, ive read so many of your posts and this is just another of those where you make yourself look an idiot by being wrong and not being man enough to hold your hands up and say "hey, sorry guys, i was wrong here, maybe i dont know everything".

i was going to put you on the ignore list but you provide me with some comedy in a morning :) no offense meant of course.

[David198502]

+1
i was thinking about the ignore list as well, but somehow this guy is entertaining

[SYN_Repent]

Says nothing about working or not working rads on the box so...! ;-)

haha, good one ;)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

ace the only poor guy i see is you...
Well I can not say I am surprised.. Based on your track record that is, where Tom 'saw' the effects on speed due to the rad being opened.. Where as you did NOT 'see' the effects.. Thus your vision is in question IMHO

you ask for proof,..
Which you never provided by the way..

why don't you just try it by yourself,
Simple, it is not my job to re-do all the baseless claims made by people like you

or better why don't you proof me wrong?...
No need, Tom already proved you are wrong.

i bet the reason for it is, that you don't even have the game.
A bet you would loose

so you tried it with your document you brought up,which you werent even capable of understanding,claiming a difference of first 5 then 11kph.
LOL! So what part of me saying the numbers were hard to read did you not understand the first, second, and third time I said it?

you claimed that one is not able of seeing the difference 5kph.
Yes 'one', as in you, which is not to be confused with 'all'. I also pointed out that based on past experience, like the Ki61 top speed testing. Where I did take the time to prove a baseless claims was wrong. And based on the analysis of that persons track file it was found that the speed difference, be it too fast or too slow, was due to altitude changes.

i totally believe you that you are not able to.
Yup, I am only human, and I work at the biggest test range in the lower 48, where we collect test data on everything from a T-72 tank that we blow up to a UAV tracking a soldier walking in the filed.. And based on that experience I know my limitations, and basic human limitations. You may consider yourself a super human, and maybe you are? But based on all my past testing of IL-2 track files from guys you like making baseless claims, I would say chances are your not super human. On that note, real test pilots in WWII had far more feedback than the typical four eyed over weight shut-ins who make baseless claims and provide no proof let alone any results of their testing other than the accuse the sim maker of a porked FM. For example, a real trained test pilot is not only able to read the altitude gauges, like a sim pilot, but he has the added benefit of being able to feel suttle g changes (seat of the pants) while flying, something a sim pilot can not do. That is just one of many types of feedback the sim pilot does not have, thus all the more reason to log your data while you fly on top of making a track file

then it turned out that its ten times the difference you first claimed.
Even at tens times 11kph, 44kph is still within the noise of pilot error, as noted during the Ki61 top speed testing, I observed swings in speed around +/-50mph (that's +/-80.5kph).. But again, they were not super human like you! ;)

its absurd that you remained on your argument that one is not able to read a difference of 50kph on the gauge! that's ridiculous..
Not at all, based on the resolution of the cockpit gauges and based on what I know about human nature.

Also, your seem to be purposely forgetting that Tom said he noticed the speed change due to rads.. Why do you keep avoiding that fact?

Again, I am not saying your right or wrong, I am simply brining up Tom as proof that there is a chance that your wrong.

But there is a simple way to prove it one way or another!

Do the test, record the track file, and log the data as you fly the test

What is so hard about that?

What are you afraid of?

pilots would not be able to land an aircraft safely if that would be true.
OMG..

I think I found the source of your problem.. You think my statement about being able to detect a change in speed was targeted at 'real' test pilots! That is not the case! I am talking about sim pilots, like yourself! You do understand the difference don't you? You do understand how the body is able to 'feel' changes in motion in real life.. Right? Granted they can fool the real pilot at times like in the case of JFK Jr. But a trained test pilot knows how to make use of both is internal feedback and the gauges feedback during a test. That and they typically don't test on days where there is more gray clouds than blue sky. The sim test pilot has none of that internal feedback, just the gauges. And while the sim pilot is ZOOMED into the speed gauges, he is not able to watch the altitude gauges.. Hence the need to log your data while your flying. Any of that sinking in yet?

maybe you are not capable of doing so, but trust me, many others are.
Trust you?

The guy who made the claim that the 109 is not affected by changes in the rad.. Even though Tom said he did notice a change
The guy who provided no track file of his test for review
The guy who provided no real world data on how much the effect should be

Is that the guy your asking me to trust?

Or should I trust myself

The guy who has extracted the flight data from hundreds of track files and did not find one person that was able to maintain altitude well enough to not cause a +/-50mph swing

Emmmm.. Sorry, Ill have to go with the later

Again, maybe you are better than all those people, maybe you are super human, but we will never know for sure because you didn't provide a track file of your test, let alone log the data while testing.

So forgive me if I put you in the 'suspect until proven super human' category for now.. But based on my experience I have to.. Its nothing personal!

your incompetence has nothing to do with others abilities or inabilities.
Thank god I was not drinking milk when I read that!

I mean really, this coming from..

The guy who made the claim that the 109 is not affected by changes in the rad.. Even though Tom said he did notice a change
The guy who provided no track file of his test for review
The guy who provided no real world data on how much the effect should be

i suggest to you to buy the game and practice a bit, maybe one day you become capable of reading gauges and a difference of 50kph.
And I suggest you learn to take constructive criticism.. Because if you think I am being hard on you.. Imagine what kind of questions someone from 1C would request from you when making such claims as you did. Ill bet you the 1st thing they would ask of you is for you to provide a track file. Just a thought!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

ace, your complicating things more than it needs to be,
Hardly

What I am asking for is the minimum equipment for most if not all FM error claims by the community at large

That being, provide..

1) A track file for review
2) The real world source your using as a reference

david never mentioned flying with the aircraft trimmed straight and level on the bubble, of course that would give more speed whether the radiator was open or not
So, let me see if I understand you correctly..

Even though david said (mentioned) on page 8, i.e.

well ace,if you have trimmed the plane, the 109 becomes really steady. you can fly for miles having the crosshair focused on the horizon without any further input

Are you saying that was not david who said that.. Or are you asking me to ignore the fact that david said that?

, his point was that havng the radiator closed did not effect his speed no matter what the attitide of the aircraft.
My point is two fold

1) Tom noticed a change
2) 50kph (31mph) is too small of a change for most people to notice

So.. Who should we belive? Tom or David?

Or should we make changes to the FM based off a home coming queen type of vote.. Where we count up the number of people that say they saw no different vs. the people who said they saw a difference and go with the majority?

Keeping in mind most people who complain about speed errors don't even know the difference between TAS and IAS

Or is there a better way?

Personally I think it would be best hat if someone is going to say there is an error with the FM than it is that persons responsibility to provide a minimum amount of proof to support his claim.

In the past with IL-2 that min amount of proof consisted of a track file and a link to the real world data they were using as a reference

TWO THINGS DAVID DID NOT PROVIDED!

Is that too much to ask?

I think not, only because I don't want a change on the FM based on some sort of cheer leader home coming queen mentality

But that is just me!

Your mileage may vary!

you have come here looking for an argument, don't you have nothing better to do with your time??
If stating the facts is what you call looking for an argument, so be it. Just know that I and many others don't see it that way. Other like me that want 1C to focus their efforts on fixing real problems, as aposed to chasing down every baseless claim made by the masses

the graph YOU provided is evidence backing up davids theory,
Yes, Theory!

I am glad that you agree with me on that much!

you even argued about that though you was proven wrong,you argued about the numbers being the wrong way round, ive read so many of your posts and this is just another of those where you make yourself look an idiot by being wrong and not being man enough to hold your hands up and say "hey, sorry guys, i was wrong here, maybe i don't know everything".
So, let me see if I understand you correctly..

Even though I said on page 8, i.e.

Ah.. ok, your right! I don't read German very well but that does make more sence now!

Are you saying that was not me who said that.. Or are you asking me to ignore the fact that I said that?

Now..

Lets see if your man enough to admit you were wrong! LOL!

i was going to put you on the ignore list but you provide me with some comedy in a morning :) no offense meant of course.
Now that is funny.. This is the guy who just said that "I" came here looking for an argument and that I have nothing better to do!

Seems you were just projecting when you said that!

Nice try Repent, but you have shown your true colors!

[addman]

Ace, you've got to lay of those energy drinks.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Ace, you've got to lay of those energy drinks.Enh.. not a big deal really, I do this same sort of stuff at work

Hey.. since you decited to chime in.. Tell me.. Who do you belive?

David who says no change is noticed
Tom who says a change is noticed

And on that are you all for making FM changes based on a popularity vote here in this forum where most who complain about speed errors give you a blank stair when you ask them if they are talking about IAS or TAS

Or are you the type that prefers 'real' proof of the error first

[addman]

Enh.. not a big deal really, I do this same sort of stuff at work

Hey.. since you decited to chime in.. Tell me.. Who do you belive?

David who says no change is noticed
Tom who says a change is noticed

And on that are you all for making FM changes based on a popularity vote here in this forum where most who complain about speed errors give you a blank stair when you ask them if they are talking about IAS or TAS

Or are you the type that prefers 'real' proof of the error first

I don't know, I stopped reading most of it like 4 pages ago.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I don't know,
Agreed..

But Ill put you down for a vote for David..

In that not knowing for sure falls into the catagory of no proof is required when making baseless claims

I stopped reading most of it like 4 pages ago.Yet you still felt the need to chime in.. Huh, and they call me a troll!

[addman]

Yet you still felt the need to chime in.. Huh, and they call me a troll!

I know that you are but what am I?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I know that you are but what am I?
Thanks for confirming what I long suspected of your 'level' of input

[addman]

Thanks for confirming what I long suspected of your 'level' of input

I know that you are but what am I?

[SYN_Repent]

did david mention flying on the ball on his original post??? YOU brought that up in your first reply, thats where it immediatly became over complicated.

thats where YOU wanted to argue, flying on the ball has nothing at all to do with a radiator effecting speed.

then you argued that perhaps the radiator being open should only effect speed by around 5 kmh, you showed us all a nice little graph, that you clearly didnt understand, i dont read german, but i can see numbers, and the numbers prove YOU wrong.

you go on about facts, yet your making silly assumptions that "most people cant tell the difference in 50 kmh".........

and this is you, cant read a graph, cant read an instrument gauge, yet you claim to work at the biggest test range south of the 48.........never heard anything so ludicris in all my time reading these forums.

this isnt about believing tom or david, its about you typing utter BS again and again into people's threads.

now.....go ahead and dissect this into little quotes and replies so you can swing this further off topic, maybe even start name calling.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

did david mention flying on the ball on his original post??? YOU brought that up in your first reply, thats where it immediatly became over complicated.

thats where YOU wanted to argue, flying on the ball has nothing at all to do with a radiator effecting speed.

then you argued that perhaps the radiator being open should only effect speed by around 5 kmh, you showed us all a nice little graph, that you clearly didnt understand, i dont read german, but i can see numbers, and the numbers prove YOU wrong.

you go on about facts, yet your making silly assumptions that "most people cant tell the difference in 50 kmh".........

and this is you, cant read a graph, cant read an instrument gauge, yet you claim to work at the biggest test range south of the 48.........never heard anything so ludicris in all my time reading these forums.

this isnt about believing tom or david, its about you typing utter BS again and again into people's threads.

now.....go ahead and dissect this into little quotes and replies so you can swing this further off topic, maybe even start name calling.
How is it that I knew in advance that you would not be able to admit you were wrong?

easy, I know you and your type!

So, Ill put you down as a vote for david too

[SYN_Repent]

wrong where??

point to me where im wrong??

dont put me down for a vote for david, i did some testing myself, and did see speed differences, but by that time you had come along and inserted hand typed Diarrhoea into the thread..........again

[Vengeanze]

AoA is amusing in a raaaid kinda way.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

wrong where??

point to me where im wrong??
Gladly!

Gee.. so many to pick from, but.. Lets go with this one from my last post

you even argued about that though you was proven wrong, you argued about the numbers being the wrong way round, ive read so many of your posts and this is just another of those where you make yourself look an idiot by being wrong and not being man enough to hold your hands up and say "hey, sorry guys, i was wrong here, maybe i don't know everything".
So, let me see if I understand you correctly..

Even though I said on page 8, i.e.

Ah.. ok, your right! I don't read German very well but that does make more sence now![/i]

Are you saying that was not me who said that.. Or are you asking me to ignore the fact that I said that?

Now..

Lets see if your man enough to admit you were wrong! LOL!
Note in RED you said I was not able to admit I was wrong, now take note in GREEN where I did admit I was wrong

Not sure how you missed that the first time? My guess is you purposely missed it. But assuming that you truly missed it may I make a suggestion? Try doing what I do and break up what people say into smaller chucks and reply to those individually, than you wont miss something like that and force yourself to eat crow! Just a thought!

[Flanker35M]

S!

This thread delivers...

[SYN_Repent]

your saying i was wrong, about you saying you cant admit your wrong......show me where else i was wrong......

its a laugh, you spout a hundred lines to show how much more clever you are than people, how stupid they are, and how right you are, then when your caught out, and PROVED wrong.......you write one little line.

you really need to start and get right to the point (if there ever is one) in your posts, because the majority of your words are just worthless spam, you have added nothing to this thread except the graph you produced to prove david right (great move btw).



@ david, now lets get back to the original post, i did some testing in an E3, at 3000m with around 1.3ata and 2200 rpm, i was making about 420 kmh

with rads closed the speed went up to around 440kmh, that was rads fully closed for a short period of time.

[Hatch]

LOL guys, you do realise it says clearly on the graph that it should not be used for anything else than a comparison between the engines due to a non standard radiator ?

Also the speeds increase in the direction of the arrow.
Where it says geschwindigkeit.->


:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[ACE-OF-ACES]

your saying i was wrong, about you saying you cant admit your wrong......show me where else i was wrong......

its a laugh, you spout a hundred lines to show how much more clever you are than people, how stupid they are, and how right you are, then when your caught out, and PROVED wrong.......you write one little line.

you really need to start and get right to the point (if there ever is one) in your posts, because the majority of your words are just worthless spam, you have added nothing to this thread except the graph you produced to prove david right (great move btw).



@ david, now lets get back to the original post, i did some testing in an E3, at 3000m with around 1.3ata and 2200 rpm, i was making about 420 kmh

with rads closed the speed went up to around 440kmh, that was rads fully closed for a short period of time.
I said it before and Ill say it again

How is it that I knew in advance that you would not be able to admit you were wrong?

easy, I know you and your type!

Thanks for proving me right about you not being able to admit you were wrong! Now we know who is man enough.. ie.. Not you! ;)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

LOL guys, you do realise it says clearly on the graph that it should not be used for anything else than a comparison between the engines due to a non standard radiator ?
Man I wish I could read german better!

Thanks for that info Hatch! By the way, does it say anything else? As in was this some sort of test radiator? As in an atempt to improve on the drag of the standard radiators?

[GOA_Potenz]

Hey ACE the othe day i was driving my van on the motorway and i couldn't tell if i was a running at 50km/h or at 100km/h ;)

Come on mate you are pulling in no sense argue, everybody can notice a 10/
km/h difference, you have a bloody withe mark on the speed gauge to read your speed and the resolution on todays computers are mostly 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1080 or even higher, so resolution isn't a problem to read the gauges, also you have a lovely label that tells you the speed, but there's no way that anybody miss a 50km/h gap so please stop this argument, your graphic show that 50km/h gap from closed to open.

regs Potz

[SYN_Repent]

he might have german gauges potenz, he cant read them very well.

[GOA_Potenz]

he might have german gauges potenz, he cant read them very well.


actually german gauges are easy to read than the allies as the imperial mesures system add more lines to the gauge as german in metric system is more visual cleaner to read

[Flanker35M]

S!

OK, studied the graph. Texts are a bit hard to read but anyway. Rotating it clockwise makes it easier BTW ;)

OK, rotate pic 90deg and you see what I mean. Left side (Y-axis) is speed in km/h and coolant temp in Celcius. Top curve is for DB605A(marked with a *), lower curve DB601E(marked with a triangle). Lowest curve is the temperature curve and for both engines pretty much the same. X-axis is the opening of the cooling flaps in millimeters, 0-400mm.

IT seems the flaps were open 50mm and 81mm respectively. The note says something like: Just for comparison for DB601. DB605 is not usable because of the non-standard cooler and the cruising altitude, absolute values, see VB 109 18 L42 (must be a technical report) The harder to read note says something like: Not credited. automatic values ​​in H=2050m

[David198502]

your saying i was wrong, about you saying you cant admit your wrong......show me where else i was wrong......

its a laugh, you spout a hundred lines to show how much more clever you are than people, how stupid they are, and how right you are, then when your caught out, and PROVED wrong.......you write one little line.

you really need to start and get right to the point (if there ever is one) in your posts, because the majority of your words are just worthless spam, you have added nothing to this thread except the graph you produced to prove david right (great move btw).



@ david, now lets get back to the original post, i did some testing in an E3, at 3000m with around 1.3ata and 2200 rpm, i was making about 420 kmh

with rads closed the speed went up to around 440kmh, that was rads fully closed for a short period of time.

thats interesting....i tested at an altitude of 500 meters and had the rads almost closed, level flight 440kph.then i opened them completely and the speed remained, not only for some seconds but for 5minutes, until i stopped my test.

well it seems that some report here changes with different rad settings, will have to try again at different altitudes...will report back my experiences.

[Hatch]

Man I wish I could read german better!

Thanks for that info Hatch! By the way, does it say anything else? As in was this some sort of test radiator? As in an atempt to improve on the drag of the standard radiators?

No not really,

It was probably an informal test as it also states that they were using plain data.
It says "nicht umgerechnete messwerte" .
Which tranlated would be something like the "data was not thoroughly calculated".

They refer to another paper? with reference number VB 10918 L42
They also caution because of the non standard height at which the test was conducted.


Ah I saw Flanker35M's post too late

[Hatch]

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/cooling/f_flaps.htm

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Hey ACE the othe day i was driving my van on the motorway and i couldn't tell if i was a running at 50km/h or at 100km/h ;)

Come on mate you are pulling in no sense argue, everybody can notice a 10/km/h difference, you have a bloody withe mark on the speed gauge to read your speed and the resolution on todays computers are mostly 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1080 or even higher, so resolution isn't a problem to read the gauges, also you have a lovely label that tells you the speed, but there's no way that anybody miss a 50km/h gap so please stop this argument, your graphic show that 50km/h gap from closed to open.

regs Potz
Already covered that mate.. here is a re-post of what I said earlier wrt 'real' life vs. 'sim' life

On that note, real test pilots in WWII had far more feedback than the typical four eyed over weight shut-ins who make baseless claims and provide no proof let alone any results of their testing other than the accuse the sim maker of a porked FM. For example, a real trained test pilot is not only able to read the altitude gauges, like a sim pilot, but he has the added benefit of being able to feel suttle g changes (seat of the pants) while flying, something a sim pilot can not do. That is just one of many types of feedback the sim pilot does not have, thus all the more reason to log your data while you fly on top of making a track file

Which covers the difference between 'real flying and 'sim' flying..

Which also apply to your example of 'real' car driving vs. 'sim' car driving..

With a little difference.. That being blue sky vs. ground clutter.. Which driving a car, be it real or sim, you have more 'reference' points along your path that give you a 'cue' to how fast you are going.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

No not really,

It was probably an informal test as it also states that they were using plain data.
It says "nicht umgerechnete messwerte" .
Which tranlated would be something like the "data was not thoroughly calculated".

They refer to another paper? with reference number VB 10918 L42
They also caution because of the non standard height at which the test was conducted.


Ah I saw Flanker35M's post too late
Thanks for the info! S!

[GOA_Potenz]

ACE you will not give up??? it is starting to be a bit annoying

first you talked about resolution, now about real life, the car thing was just an irony mate
a 50km/h or even a 10km/h gap will be readable in the gauge in now days resolution standars

[ACE-OF-ACES]

ACE you will not give up??? it is starting to be a bit annoying
Facts have that affect on some people!

first you talked about resolution, now about real life, the car thing was just an irony mate a 50km/h or even a 10km/h gap will be readable in the gauge in now days resolution standars
Agreed.. 50 is much easier to 'see' than the 10 I was talking about at the time I thought we were talking about a +/-10

But now ask yourself..

Why is David and a few 'others' not able to 'see' a change in speed due to radiator settings, where as guys like Tom and SYN_Repent are able to 'see' a change in speed due to radiators settings?

Which group are we to belive?

I say belive, but I really should say which group are we going to have 'faith' in?

Because nothing has been provided by either group to support thier claims one way or another

Which brings us full circle

Where from the get go I have ask people to provide some proof, in the form of a track file for review, and better yet, to log the data (altitude, speed, etc) to a log file while flying

Than we would NOT have to base it on 'faith' or some sort of sick cheerleader prom night popularity contest

Is that too much to ask before someone accuses 1C of having a FM with a bug in it?

I think not

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Oh one thing I forgot to mention..

Before this 50kph value becomes some sort of fact I think it is important to point out that the data is from a 109G and we are talking about the in game 109E! And I am pretty sure the radiators changes a lot between the E and G model.

And don't forget what Hatch pointed out! That the data is from a non standard radiator test!

What does that means?

Well maybe it means a standard radiator only causes a 25kph (or less) difference, or maybe it means a standard radiator will cause a 75kph (or more) difference. We don't know.

But I think we can all agree that radiators will have 'some' affect on speed, how much we really don't know.

We can agree to disagree as to if someone can 'see' a speed difference of 50kph or less!

But here is what we know to be true

Some people do 'see' a speed difference and others do NOT 'see' a speed difference

How do we decide who is right?

I know how and it does not require a burger king campaign on picking between a werewolf or vampire! ;)

[CaptainDoggles]

If I was a moderator on these boards I'd make a rule that any thread claiming facts about the flight model without presenting evidence gets locked.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

If I was a moderator on these boards I'd make a rule that any thread claiming facts about the flight model without presenting evidence gets locked.
Problem with that is the folks making the baseless claims would than make baseless claims that 1C is trying to hide something by locking thier posts! ;)

All in all is it too much to ask to provide a track file for review when making a 'claim'? Is that too much to ask? I get it that some here may not know how to log the data to a file.. But come on how hard is it to recored a track file?

[CaptainDoggles]

I get it that some here may not know how to log the data to a file.. But come on how hard is it to recored a track file?

Speaking of which: I'm trying to write a script to log positional data to a file. Do you know how to get something like this to execute, client-side?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Speaking of which: I'm trying to write a script to log positional data to a file. Do you know how to get something like this to execute, client-side?
Do you mean 3D world space? XYZ stuff? I did see an example of that by fearlessfrog at SimHQ awhile back.. I think Ataros reposted it here somewhere.. As for general data logging Atarso has a good example here

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=342338#post342338

Im at work right now, if you dont find that 3D space stuff by frog let me know (PM) in that I have a script at home with some of that code in it

[CaptainDoggles]

Do you mean 3D world space? XYZ stuff? I did see an example of that by fearlessfrog at SimHQ awhile back.. I think Ataros reposted it here somewhere.. As for general data logging Atarso has a good example here

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=342338#post342338

Im at work right now, if you dont find that 3D space stuff by frog let me know (PM) in that I have a script at home with some of that code in it

Yeah ideally I'd like to write World XYZ and heading data for aircraft from an ntrk recording to a text file.

Can't figure out how to execute the script when the ntrk runs though.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Yeah ideally I'd like to write World XYZ and heading data for aircraft from an ntrk recording to a text file.

Can't figure out how to execute the script when the ntrk runs though.
Great minds think alike!

Let me guess.. your thinking of graphing the 3D data to make an ACM display of the track file! When I saw the script gives access to 3D data that was the 1st thing I thought of too!

Problem is, and don't quote me, is I don't think the script works during playback of a track file? I think the script only works in real time, as in when you start the mission the script runs.

If so that is one of the limitations of the scripts.. Where as in IL-2 we had DeviceLink that was active during track playback.. And Devicelink allowed you to send commands (set) where as far as I can tell the C# script method only allows you to recive (get) data

This is one case where I hope I am wrong! But, I have been looking around (google) and I don't see where the C# scripts are active during a track playback :(

[Flanker35M]

S!

Get that working and a lot of useless flame fests could be avoided :) The chart provided some nice info after digging into it :)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

S!

Get that working and a lot of useless flame fests could be avoided :) The chart provided some nice info after digging into it :)
Alot of guys allready got it working.. Getting data during real time flight that is.. Playback of tracks.. Not sure, but it does not look doable

[BP_Tailspin]

This place never ceases to entertain me …

http://www.cubpilot.com/Tspin/Woot.gif You nailed it Tailspin, I give this thread a perfect 10 for it's entertainment value.

On a more serious note: it's fun doing all the research ... a true learning experience.

[ZaltysZ]

If so that is one of the limitations of the scripts.. Where as in IL-2 we had DeviceLink that was active during track playback.. And Devicelink allowed you to send commands (set) where as far as I can tell the C# script method only allows you to recive (get) data


Mission scripts are intended for mission logic, and not for interconnection with various devices as DeviceLink is. DeviceLinkish interface is probably still not implemented or at least hidden.

[CaptainDoggles]

Alot of guys allready got it working.. Getting data during real time flight that is.. Playback of tracks.. Not sure, but it does not look doable

Can you get data on all aircraft in multiplayer? Speed/heading/position?

Can that be done client side or does it need to be done on the server? I'm not sure how to execute arbitrary scripts on the client.

[ZaltysZ]

Can you get data on all aircraft in multiplayer? Speed/heading/position?

Can that be done client side or does it need to be done on the server? I'm not sure how to execute arbitrary scripts on the client.

Server side only, however in single player mode, server=client. You can't execute arbitrary scripts on clients in MP as that would allow security threats.

[CaptainDoggles]

Server side only, however in single player mode, server=client. You can't execute arbitrary scripts on clients in MP as that would allow security threats.

Yeah that's what I would have expected. But that means the only way to get data from multiplayer is to get it either from the server or from a track file.

Do we know anything about the .ntrk format?

[SYN_Repent]

way to drag this thread off topic, maybe start a new one?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Mission scripts are intended for mission logic, But not limited to mission logic

and not for interconnection with various devices as DeviceLink is. But you can use scripts to drive guages

DeviceLinkish interface is probably still not implemented or at least hidden.
Only the shadown knows! ;)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Can you get data on all aircraft in multiplayer? Speed/heading/position?

Can that be done client side or does it need to be done on the server? I'm not sure how to execute arbitrary scripts on the client.As ZaltysZ noted, it looks like the answer is no.

[SEE]

Since the very beginning I have adjusted my Rads but having read this thread decided to leave them fully open on a MP session for the entire session. I didn't notice any difference or penalty - not one that would be considered a disadvantage.

I am now unsure as to wether the Rads have any drag impact but having said that I will continue to control my rad settings as a matter of good habit just in case something changes regards this in a future patch.

[addman]

Since the very beginning I have adjusted my Rads but having read this thread decided to leave them fully open on a MP session for the entire session. I didn't notice any difference or penalty - not one that would be considered a disadvantage.

I am now unsure as to wether the Rads have any drag impact but having said that I will continue to control my rad settings as a matter of good habit just in case something changes regards this in a future patch.

What a joke it would be if it's true, super advanced CloD physics/FM doesn't simulate drag caused by protruding plane parts. I can't tell any difference either when flying the G.50 with fully open or almost closed rads and you notice even 10 kph extra or minus in an aircraft which is as slow as the G.50.

I don't even understand this discussion, it's clear it's aerodynamics basics, more streamlined objects move easier through air then less streamlined objects (as in objects with other objects sticking out of them). What do you think wind tunnels are for? Even paint is known to cause drag on airplanes.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

it's clear it's aerodynamics basics
Ding!

At which point a reasonable man would take pause and ask himself..

Do I think 1C made a basic flight modeling error?

Or

Is it more likely that the 'users' who provided no proof made an error in testing?

Anything is possible I guess!

But if I had to place a bet on 'who' made an error

My money would be on the starbucks barista who only dabbles in flight simulation when not playing Quake over someone like Oleg who makes a living at it.

Where as your mileage may, and clearly does vary

[SYN_Repent]

ace of aces, if we go by that rule, then CLoD should be the perfect game, with no errors, but it is not, there has been a minor bug list as big as your ego since release, so its perfectly plausable that oleg (or luthier) did something wrong with the aerodynamic moddeling of the radiator.

[CaptainDoggles]

way to drag this thread off topic, maybe start a new one?

This topic is a joke. 14 pages of people saying "omg if it's true that's bad" but nobody's actually taken the time to establish if it's true or not.

[Matt255]

I checked.

The OP is correct.

Difference between fully open and closed radiator on the BF 109 E-4 in CloD is 0%/0 km/h.

Doesn't matter what throttle/prop setting, doesn't matter what height. And yes, i flew straight and level.

[CaptainDoggles]

I checked.

The OP is correct.

Difference between fully open and closed radiator on the BF 109 E-4 in CloD is 0%/0 km/h.

Doesn't matter what throttle/prop setting, doesn't matter what height. And yes, i flew straight and level.

Just saying "I checked" is not proof. Sorry. Do you have a track file?

[Matt255]

It was not my intention or job to proof anything.

I don't think the devs would need proof either, because it's obvious enough and they should know that already.

If you need proof, better check it yourself then.

[FFCW_Urizen]

I checked.

The OP is correct.

Difference between fully open and closed radiator on the BF 109 E-4 in CloD is 0%/0 km/h.

Doesn't matter what throttle/prop setting, doesn't matter what height. And yes, i flew straight and level.

Are you sure about that? Were you fully open at the beginning and fully closed at the end? If so, did you trim your plane after closing those rads? I can´t be really sure, but opening my rads fully always resulted in my planes tendency to climb and vice versa.

[Matt255]

Are you sure about that? Were you fully open at the beginning and fully closed at the end? If so, did you trim your plane after closing those rads? I can´t be really sure, but opening my rads fully always resulted in my planes tendency to climb and vice versa.
Fully open first, then fully closed. Trimmed nose-heavy a bit to compensate.

Redid the test 10 times at various altitudes and throttle settings.

This was ONLY with the 109 E-4 though, i'm a bit too lazy to test the other planes, but feel free to do so.

(yes, i doubted that they would forget to implement that in the "most accurate flightsim" etc., that's why i didn't believe the OP at first)

[Matt255]

Checked the Spitfire Ia. Closing radiator definately causes an increase in airspeed there, opening radiator slows the plane down.

So i better check the 109 again.

EDIT:

OK, rechecked the E-4, it's not there. So the radiators have no effect on speed on the E-4, but they do have an effect on speed on the Spitfire Ia.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

ace of aces, if we go by that rule, then CLoD should be the perfect game, with no errors,
Disagree 100%

The 'point' your missing, or ignoring on purpose, is that 'rule' is in regards to, as addman pointed out BASIC AERONAUTICS! Which makes me smile when some here would suggest that Oleg is not capable of even the basics.. But I digress! Back to the point your missing.. Games are complex programs that tax every aspect of the PC hardware and software.. Just because the 1C team is having issues dealing with some nuances of a hardware driver error or OS issue does not mean 1C does not understand the basics of aerodynamics.

but it is not, there has been a minor bug list as big as your ego since release,
How did you know I named it ego? But I digress.. I can see your still missing the point here, so allow me to point this out to you again

BASIC AERODYNAMICS

Now I challenge you to go get that 'list' your referring to and out all the things fixed count up the items that fall into the category of BASIC AERODYNAMICS vs Video driver issues, GUI fixes, CTD, etc etc etc and than maybe.. just maybe even a die hard biased stood up on prom night 'swell fella' like yourself will see how ludicrous it is to even suggest that 1C does not have a grasp on BASIC AERODYNAMICS

so its perfectly plausible that Oleg (or luthier) did something wrong with the aerodynamic moddeling of the radiator.
Well like I said from the start..

To come to the conclusion I came to on this subject.. It requires a 'reasonable' man.. hint hint

[MadBlaster]

I think you will have great difficulty testing this without logging data. I think they have modeled wind. Also, they may have also modeled analog stuttering in the gauges, so your reading is always going to be off within some tolerance if that is the case. Also, different planes will no doubt be impacted by different designs. Some planes you may notice the effect and others, not so much. I think of the 190 in 46', I don't really notice much when rad is open or closed, but 109 I definitely do and actually use open rad to burn speed. Anyway, if there is a way to turn off the wind in the CLoD testing, that would be a good idea.

There is another post by FHT the cowboy guy in fmb section. He made black box script to log data. Maybe you could use that. I would do this test at sea level over the ocean, maybe 50-100 meters. Run the plane up to cruising speed settings with rad full open. Hold it there in level flight and trim. Then toggle the rads closed. Since the rads are modeled separately, then you can do the test for both rad types independently and together to see the different effects. It wouldn't surprise me if this piece got dropped because...Oleg left. He definitely cared about flight models and quality products. But he is working a new job now.:(

[IvanK]

How is wind going to affect any test. IAS is not wind affected ... (unless you are stationary on the ground :)

[MadBlaster]

How is wind going to affect any test. IAS is not wind affected ... (unless you are stationary on the ground :)

if it is variable in speed and direction, it will have an impact on your TAS/IAS at any moment in time. correct???

[IvanK]

if it is variable in speed and direction, it will have an impact on your TAS/IAS at any moment in time. correct???

No. Wind will affect Ground speed but has zero effect on IAS and TAS.

[IvanK]

Also, if your own heading is not constant (say with wind with flaps closed, against wind with flaps opened), it would introduce a new variable.

Why ? again wind has no effect on IAS or TAS.

[MadBlaster]

So I suppose the jet stream means nothing to you. No effect on TAS what so ever.:confused:

[IvanK]

Err I ride jetstreams for a living :) they don't affect TAS just the Groundspeed.

Whether I am in the jetstream or not the Mach number and or IAS and the TAS are the same, the Groundspeed changes though. If i was in the centre of a jetsream and performed a 180degree turn all that changes is groundspeed, IAS/TAS and Mach number remain the same.

Have a look here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_airspeed

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_speed

[Tiger27]

Err I ride jetstreams for a living :) they don't affect TAS just the Groundspeed.

Whether I am in the jetstream or not the Mach number and or IAS and the TAS are the same, the Groundspeed changes though.

Having known and flown (only in games unfortunately)Ivan for a few years, I would just say, take his advise on this, he is a real commercial and ex military pilot, also if you give it some thought, it is pretty obvious that what Ivan is saying is true, it affects ground speed but not airspeed, in other words your not actually travelling as far, but you are still going at the same speed.

[MadBlaster]

Okay, I think I understand now what you are saying. I am not a pilot btw.

But isn't ground speed and IAS and TAS at sea level pretty close to being the same for this purpose?

Edit:except for the wind vector component I guess??

Edit2: okay i think I get it after wiki. moving air mass...whatever blah, blah. no need to worry about wind in test then.

[SYN_Repent]

ace of aces, im not getting into that debate with you again, look at the bug reports, all the errors and bugs are there, from GFX, sound, control, engine, anything you can imagine, the bugs are there, perhaps if you take off your rose tinted glasses for a second you would be able to see them, give em a read before you reply here telling me my prom date didnt show........btw, with your fixation on prom dates, im a starting to presume something horrible happened in the past to you, was she fat and the only girl left without a date so went with the school nerd, did she drink too much spiked punch and throw up all over your handed down tux, did that event put you off girls for life?

just one, cba to look further, its too easy to prove you wrong all the time, no sport anymore http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25857

[zhu7916zhaoso]

I've noticed this as well. Seems like I can fly around all day on full throttle with rads full open and not lose any performance to drag. Probably a bug?? It's like they fix one damn thing and something else goes haywire! But being as the game is as complex as it is I guess it's just the nature of the beast...
__________________
http://forums.nichechoppers.com/image.php?u=4129&dateline=1292495981http://www.bingertoday.info/huang2.jpghttp://www.bingertoday.info/huang3.jpg

[Tacoma74]

I've noticed this as well. Seems like I can fly around all day on full throttle with rads full open and not lose any performance to drag. Probably a bug?? It's like they fix one damn thing and something else goes haywire! But being as the game is as complex as it is I guess it's just the nature of the beast...

What the hell..? Thats exactly what I said in post #4 lol

[Matt255]

I think you will have great difficulty testing this without logging data.
All you need to do is trim the plane to fly straight with radiator fully open. then close the radiator and trim again if necessary (doesn't seem to be necessary on the Spit btw?).

As long as you do that, you can easily check if the setting of the radiator flaps has any influence on airspeed. Takes 5 minutes for each plane. You can use that wonder-woman view to make it easier.

[FFCW_Urizen]

At least for the E-3, radiator do produce drag, easily noticeable on the instant need to trim the plane.

[MadBlaster]

All you need to do is trim the plane to fly straight with radiator fully open. then close the radiator and trim again if necessary (doesn't seem to be necessary on the Spit btw?).

As long as you do that, you can easily check if the setting of the radiator flaps has any influence on airspeed. Takes 5 minutes for each plane. You can use that wonder-woman view to make it easier.

Yes, but if you don't log the data and post it, no one is going to know if you did it right or not. The plane needs to be perfectly level and no acceleration/deceleration going on when you begin the test. The slightest pitch up or down can make the plane accelerate/decelerate and screw up your reading. It would be nice if they had a test map and level stabilizer functionality available for testing the flight models. Anyway, I won't be doing this. I don't play CLoD. Maybe someday or maybe not if it is already selling for 12 bucks and this whole board becomes moot.

[Matt255]

At least for the E-3, radiator do produce drag, easily noticeable on the instant need to trim the plane.
You also need to trim the E-4. It still doesn't slow the plane down.

But i'll probably check it with the E-3 aswell today.

The slightest pitch up or down can make the plane accelerate/decelerate and screw up your reading.
This wonder-woman view has everything necessary for a straight and level flight. Climbrate indicator, etc. is all there.

Yes, but if you don't log the data and post it, no one is going to know if you did it right or not.
I'm pretty sure the devs have access to logs like that, onscreen TAS, perhaps also an auto-level etc, to test that.

I don't even see the need for us non-developers to log something like that. After all, the devs shouldn't believe any results posted in this forum, before checking it themselves imho.

[MadBlaster]

You also need to trim the E-4. It still doesn't slow the plane down.

But i'll probably check it with the E-3 aswell today.


This wonder-woman view has everything necessary for a straight and level flight. Climbrate indicator, etc. is all there.


I'm pretty sure the devs have access to logs like that, onscreen TAS, perhaps also an auto-level etc, to test that.

I don't even see the need for us non-developers to log something like that. After all, the devs shouldn't believe any results posted in this forum, before checking it themselves imho.

oKay. do it your way, i don't really give a rats. the game is 12 bucks and likely dead now.

[justme262]

[QUOTE=Hatch;357093]LOL guys, you do realise it says clearly on the graph that it should not be used for anything else than a comparison between the engines due to a non standard radiator ?


That's so funny ! Really made me laugh.
So how can we make a graph of the game? I'll do it.

[KG26_Alpha]

Thread re-opened

I'm closing this thread for a while till you all cool off.

I have deleted the posts that have no concern being on this forum let alone in this thread.

Any more rubbish from you guys and you can take a holiday from here.

[Madfish]

I'm seriously getting tired of this lousy "moderation" behavior.
First of all your message doesn't reflect your actions. Thanks for deleting my proposal for better standartized testing routines including attached pdf though.

While I posted at the peak of this thread and making a little fun of all what happened here, it's just weird that you decide to be above all and having the right to trollolol around with your post?
- Your post contains NO information.
- Everyone can see if a thread is locked or not.
- Time doesn't help cooling things off - in fact it's your fault for letting it derail up to this point.
- What is your post if not rubbish? As far as I am concernced it's totally off-topic.

A good moderator doesn't point fingers or red posts all the time. If you're truly concerned (which I doubt) send PMs and silently delete / edit messages or lock a thread if absolutely necessary. You need not to re-open it either - reasonable people will do that for you and continue their discussion. But why should I tell this to you, it should be common knowledge for any moderator in the first place.
Since I already sent you a PM with some of my observations only to get the response "Grow Up". Hence you're like a red flag to my eyes every time I see your questionable actions.


Right now the moderation in this forum is useless. You let things derail and then lock threads, put effort into deleting tons of posts (even though many or just some contain usable information), put some useless trollolol rant under everything and re-open them. What is the point? Other than deleting evidence and information.
- If you want to do something good then BE a moderator and DON'T let things derail. That makes you a judge and not a moderator...
- If necessary just lock the thread and let people re-use the information. Don't destroy information and / or evidence needlessly.
- Rather spend time preventing threads from derailing than deleting posts at random after things get out of hand. You're like a cop arresting a guy who was beating his wife for two years but this time her bruises were blue and not just green or whatever.
- Oh and please do moderate yourself as well ;) The more I see from you the more I'm getting the feeling you're just not up to the job.


----------------------------------------------------
Again, because deleted

I propose two things that could help solve the issue:

1) Yaeger style test piloting done in game and following a set of procedures.When I was young I got this game called Chuck Yaegers Advanced Flight Trainer. You actually had to find some numbers for the planes on your own like climb or take off speed etc. using some "test pilot procedures".
There was this awesome manual which told you what to do and you'd follow the same procedure with every plane.
You can download it here: ftp://ftp.worldofspectrum.org/pub/sinclair/games-info/c/ChuckYeagersAdvancedFlightTrainer.pdf

Something like this could be done with all the planes and for every patch that comes out. It'd not be perfect but at least a small step into the right direction. Also these numbers would be comparable. Since you'd always follow the same procedure.

2) More historical research
Find better charts and data but let a native german read over it before you post it and end up posting complete poop. I'm sure many would assist. Myself included.


Almost forgot. One thing I need to mention. There is no way we should believe into the myth of a UFO breaking all laws of psyics and being a perpetuum mobile. Energy conversion is not something that works on belief alone - while results will vary they ARE there and they ARE measurable.
There's no machine out there where the need to cool the engine actually results in better performance over all - aside from superconductivity scenarios which don't relate to our sphere of physics here. In other words there could be awesomely powerful planes that die from heat and others would just not be able to lift off at all because of too massive cooling solutions. But engine cooling is necessary and it did affect aircraft performance. In terms of both weight and drag.

[Vengeanze]

Madfish and Madblaster. Brothers? ;-)

So what's the conclusion here? Does rads cause drag or not or just on some a/c or do we need more and precise data?






Btw, insightful comments on moderation.

[KG26_Alpha]

I'm seriously getting tired of this lousy "moderation" behavior.
First of all your message doesn't reflect your actions. Thanks for deleting my proposal for better standartized testing routines including attached pdf though.

While I posted at the peak of this thread and making a little fun of all what happened here, it's just weird that you decide to be above all and having the right to trollolol around with your post?
- Your post contains NO information.
- Everyone can see if a thread is locked or not.
- Time doesn't help cooling things off - in fact it's your fault for letting it derail up to this point.
- What is your post if not rubbish? As far as I am concernced it's totally off-topic.

A good moderator doesn't point fingers or red posts all the time. If you're truly concerned (which I doubt) send PMs and silently delete / edit messages or lock a thread if absolutely necessary. You need not to re-open it either - reasonable people will do that for you and continue their discussion. But why should I tell this to you, it should be common knowledge for any moderator in the first place.
Since I already sent you a PM with some of my observations only to get the response "Grow Up". Hence you're like a red flag to my eyes every time I see your questionable actions.


Right now the moderation in this forum is useless. You let things derail and then lock threads, put effort into deleting tons of posts (even though many or just some contain usable information), put some useless trollolol rant under everything and re-open them. What is the point? Other than deleting evidence and information.
- If you want to do something good then BE a moderator and DON'T let things derail. That makes you a judge and not a moderator...
- If necessary just lock the thread and let people re-use the information. Don't destroy information and / or evidence needlessly.
- Rather spend time preventing threads from derailing than deleting posts at random after things get out of hand. You're like a cop arresting a guy who was beating his wife for two years but this time her bruises were blue and not just green or whatever.
- Oh and please do moderate yourself as well ;) The more I see from you the more I'm getting the feeling you're just not up to the job.


----------------------------------------------------
Again, because deleted

I propose two things that could help solve the issue:

1) Yaeger style test piloting done in game and following a set of procedures.When I was young I got this game called Chuck Yaegers Advanced Flight Trainer. You actually had to find some numbers for the planes on your own like climb or take off speed etc. using some "test pilot procedures".
There was this awesome manual which told you what to do and you'd follow the same procedure with every plane.
You can download it here: ftp://ftp.worldofspectrum.org/pub/sinclair/games-info/c/ChuckYeagersAdvancedFlightTrainer.pdf

Something like this could be done with all the planes and for every patch that comes out. It'd not be perfect but at least a small step into the right direction. Also these numbers would be comparable. Since you'd always follow the same procedure.

2) More historical research
Find better charts and data but let a native german read over it before you post it and end up posting complete poop. I'm sure many would assist. Myself included.


Almost forgot. One thing I need to mention. There is no way we should believe into the myth of a UFO breaking all laws of psyics and being a perpetuum mobile. Energy conversion is not something that works on belief alone - while results will vary they ARE there and they ARE measurable.
There's no machine out there where the need to cool the engine actually results in better performance over all - aside from superconductivity scenarios which don't relate to our sphere of physics here. In other words there could be awesomely powerful planes that die from heat and others would just not be able to lift off at all because of too massive cooling solutions. But engine cooling is necessary and it did affect aircraft performance. In terms of both weight and drag.

If you stick to the point of this thread instead of sticking your nose in and making rude swearing remarks then all is good.

I can repost your original remarks and make you look foolish but I think I don't need to do that.

Whilst your here have a read of some rules, and then have a think why I didn't ban you when I should have.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=21176

13. Usage of obscene expressions, words and similar phrases as nicknames or other elements of user profile (email address, location etc.) is prohibited. The conotation of a phrase is determined by a moderator. Their decision is final in cases of questionable spelling. Usage of nicknames which might suggest their owner to be other forum users is also prohibited. Usage of pornographic, suggestive or obscene images as user pictures (avatars) is prohibited. Moderators and administrators have the right to delete such avatars, personal information and user signatures without prior warning.

Users who violated this rule will be banned from the section in the following pattern:
1st violation - 1 day ban
2nd violation - 3 day ban
3rd violation - 7 day ban

14. Discussion of topics which were locked by an administrator or a moderator is prohibited. Any kind of discussion concerning moderators' or administrators' actions is prohibited. All questions regarding forum operation should be sent to admin at 1cpublishing.eu.



Now can we please continue with this radiator discussion as intended

[MadBlaster]

Madfish and Madblaster. Brothers? ;-)

So what's the conclusion here? Does rads cause drag or not or just on some a/c or do we need more and precise data?






Btw, insightful comments on moderation.

Lol. No.

Btw, I am okay with my deletions Alpha. Not mad about that at all. But 12 bucks a copy now? A little.:-P

[BP_Tailspin]

This place never ceases to entertain me …

http://www.cubpilot.com/Tspin/popcorn.gif