Need real world Spit and Hurri data

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Hey guys

First things first, I am not Spit or Hurri expert!

But I want to test out some FM testing code I have been working on..

With that said, could you give me the links to the web sites that contain the ROC and Top Speed per Altitude figures/data for the corsponding version of the Spit and Hurris in the game?

For both the 87 and 100+ oct!

Thanks in advance!

[Seadog]

Hey guys

First things first, I am not Spit or Hurri expert!

But I want to test out some FM testing code I have been working on..

With that said, could you give me the links to the web sites that contain the ROC and Top Speed per Altitude figures/data for the corsponding version of the Spit and Hurris in the game?

For both the 87 and 100+ oct!

Thanks in advance!

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

[ACE-OF-ACES]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
Thanks for the link..

But been there done that years ago

As noted, I am not Spit or Hurri expert (wrt versions) so what I am looking for is a specific link to a specific version thta matches or is as close as it can be to the version in the game

Thanks in advance

[Seadog]

Thanks for the link..

But been there done that years ago

As noted, I am not Spit or Hurri expert (wrt versions) so what I am looking for is a specific link to a specific version thta matches or is as close as it can be to the version in the game

Thanks in advance

This test of the Hurricane should be pretty close:


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/l2026.html
RAE data:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-raechart.jpg
and the Hurricane I data card:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-ads.jpg
12lb boost:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-l1717-cal.jpg

I have nearly every Hurricane Book every published and the above numbers are about as good as they get.

Spitfire I:

RAE chart with 12lb boost performance:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg

Test flight data:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html
the above data for the Spit I/CSP is about as good as it gets as well.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Perfect!

Thanks a mil bud!

Now.. if anyone else reading this has any comments on these tests..

Please make them know now before I do the test!

You know, special case stuff, say for example the plane did not have a full tank of gas, stuff like that so I can account for it prior to testing the ingame version

[ACE-OF-ACES]

This test of the Hurricane should be pretty close:


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/l2026.html

Hey Seadog

Started reading the reports this morning.. In the Hurri report they talk about the tests being done for two different cases.. Where the 'Service Load' is 677 in one case and 1,111 in another. Initally I thought this was refering to the fuel load, but from the report I see the fuel load was the same in both cases.

So, what is this 'Service Load'?

Does it have something to do with the ammo load?

Also, I assume this test was for the 87 oct and not the 100 oct?


Any info would be welcome! Thanks in advance!

[Ze-Jamz]

Hey Seadog

Started reading the reports this morning.. In the Hurri report they talk about the tests being done for two different cases.. Where the 'Service Load' is 677 in one case and 1,111 in another. Initally I thought this was refering to the fuel load, but from the report I see the fuel load was the same in both cases.

So, what is this 'Service Load'?

Does it have something to do with the ammo load?

Also, I assume this test was for the 87 oct and not the 100 oct?


Any info would be welcome! Thanks in advance!

I would say its the extra ammo?

If you look at this http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ab197.html you can see a rough breakdown of weight...I know its not the model your looking at but judging by that i would say the 'service weight' of ammo would make up the 'flying' weight in total

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Hey guys

Did a quick Hurrir MkI ROC test

NOTE this was a quicky! Don't draw any conclusions from this! In that I am not 100% sure I had all the settings (boost, mixture, etc) set right.. That and I have not converted the data to standard atmospheric conditions yet.

PS note the Z AGL and ZMSL values are internal game values, that is to say they are not the values that drive the gauges (indicated). Also note that I convert the indicated altitude to pressure and than density altitude. Still need to validate and or prove to myself that the Z temperature can be used in these calculations

In short, don't let these results make you happy or sad!

Just presenting what I have thus far to generate some discussions on the topic and get feedback

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I would say its the extra ammo?
I see what your saying.. seems right to me! Just thought I would put it out there as one of those unknows (to me) in the hopes some hurrie and/or britt lingo experts can fill in the blanks here

[Seadog]

Hey Seadog

Started reading the reports this morning.. In the Hurri report they talk about the tests being done for two different cases.. Where the 'Service Load' is 677 in one case and 1,111 in another. Initally I thought this was refering to the fuel load, but from the report I see the fuel load was the same in both cases.

So, what is this 'Service Load'?

Does it have something to do with the ammo load?

Also, I assume this test was for the 87 oct and not the 100 oct?


Any info would be welcome! Thanks in advance!

I think the increased load in the 6750lb test was done by using ballast to simulate the effects of more armour, greater weight from self sealing tanks, internal airframe changes to minimize fire risk and/or full fuel/oil tanks; rather than a variation in ammo load. Also planned advances in avionics such as IFF transponders.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Just finished a top speed per altitude test..

As before.. this is a quicky prelim test!

Where, for now, I am focusing more the the post processing code (matlab) that the flight itslef

Note in the following graphs I applied some filtering (data reduction) on the raw CoD data

Such that I only show/graph the MAX speed vale per altitude

Note on the same graph I ploted the real world TAS data too so you can visually compare the ingame results to the real world results

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I think the increased load in the 6750lb test was done by using ballast to simulate the effects of more armour, greater weight from self sealing tanks, internal airframe changes to minimize fire risk and/or full fuel/oil tanks; rather than a variation in ammo load. Also planned advances in avionics such as IFF transponders.
Ah ok.. So in essance than I should be using the lighter version data, in that these proposed changes were not in affect at the time of BoB and thus the Hurries in the game, right?

[IvanK]

Good looking chart AOA. Nice job.

A suggestion it might be A bit easier on the eye if the data points for different lines were a different symbol.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Good looking chart AOA. Nice job.
Thanks!

A suggestion it might be A bit easier on the eye if the data points for different lines were a different symbol.
Ok, I can do that!

Thanks for the feedback! S!

[Seadog]

Ah ok.. So in essance than I should be using the lighter version data, in that these proposed changes were not in affect at the time of BoB and thus the Hurries in the game, right?

I think that production Hurricanes from something like June-July 1940 would have had all these changes incorporated into them, so both "light" and "heavy" Hurricanes would have participated in the BofB.

[Seadog]

Just finished a top speed per altitude test..

As before.. this is a quicky prelim test!

Where, for now, I am focusing more the the post processing code (matlab) that the flight itslef

Note in the following graphs I applied some filtering (data reduction) on the raw CoD data

Such that I only show/graph the MAX speed vale per altitude

Note on the same graph I ploted the real world TAS data too so you can visually compare the ingame results to the real world results

You might also want to look at the RAE chart:http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-raechart.jpg
again, and the Hurricane data card.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

You might also want to look at the RAE chart:http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-raechart.jpg
again, and the Hurricane data card.
Thanks Seadog!

Just to be crystal clear.. this data is for the 87oct?

And of all the graphs listed in the graph, which one should I be using to compare to?

On that note, do you (anyone) have any 100oct test data for the Hurri?

Thanks in advance!

[Seadog]

Thanks Seadog!

Just to be crystal clear.. this data is for the 87oct?

And of all the graphs listed in the graph, which one should I be using to compare to?

On that note, do you (anyone) have any 100oct test data for the Hurri?

Thanks in advance!

The RAE chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-raechart.jpg
is for a 100 octane fueled Hurricane, but the boost is limited to 6.25lb, IOW, no tests were done at the 5min combat rating, but the revised PEC figures resulted in more accurate speeds from prior tests. This test gives data points at 5000 and 10000ft for various levels of boost up to 12lb:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-l1717-cal.jpg

The ability of the Merlin III to give more than 6.25lb boost above 10,000ft is shown in the Spitfire I RAE chart:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg
, since it also uses 12lb boost, so using these charts should enable you to reconstruct Hurricane performance using 12lb boost, at least in level flight.
as was done here:http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Speed-HRuch.png

and here for climb rate at 12lb boost:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Climb-HRuch.png

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Thanks seadog!

Just so I know, what does PEC stand for? wrt the revised PEC values? Do you know what was done to 'revise' them? This is not a UK way of saying the data was converted to standard day.. right?

[Seadog]

Thanks seadog!

Just so I know, what does PEC stand for? wrt the revised PEC values? Do you know what was done to 'revise' them? This is not a UK way of saying the data was converted to standard day.. right?


PEC = Position Error Correction, or the errors caused by the pitot not being perfectly accurate.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Hey guys

I just re-ran the Hurricane Mk.I top speed test..

Note I am experimenting with some of the C# data collection values right now, just so you know there are basically two types.. 3D world Internal (Z) and Indicated (I). Where the 3D world internal values are just that, internal calculations used by the game, and the Indicated values are the values used to drive the cockpit gauges.. As in what we can see as we fly in real time.

There are a lot unresolved and/or not fully understood issues with both.. Right now just trying to relate the two to see if I can make sense out of the two types. As for issues.. the Indicated stuff seems.. well.. pretty flaky. Which is something Oleg said way back in the IL-2 days, that being the cockpit gauge values are just generated to give the virtual pilot something to look at, translated I got the impression from Olegs e-mail that he was saying the Indicated cockpit values are not that accurate, as in not what is really going on. And my initial impression of CoD's Indicated values, it seems to be true for CoD too. For example, the indicated ROC has a constant offset of around 60fpm.. Even while sitting on the runway it indicates around 60fpm in the C# log data. Where as the 3D world value reads zero like you would expect! But there are issues with the 3D values too, for example the IAS and TAS values.. The IAS does not appear to be IAS at all, where as TAS, so far, seems to be close to what you would expect. I need to calc TAS from the Indicated and compare it to the 3D world values to see just how far off they are. Anyway, just wanted to share that with you all! In the mean time keep in mind the graphs are suspect at the moment, so, don't get happy or sad just yet! ;)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

PEC = Position Error Correction, or the errors caused by the pitot not being perfectly accurate.
Ah ok thanks!!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Hey Guys

Just finished the Hurri 100 oct test..

Note I used the HRush data that Seadog recommended for comparison

Also note not seeing a big difference between the stock Hurri and the Hurri 100 oct!

So, I must be doing something wrong?

I enable that boots cutout at the start and leave it on for the test..

Anything else I should be doing?

Note I extended the ingame testing up to 28kft, again, still a work in progress! Don't draw any conclusions just yet!

[IvanK]

AOA I tried to send you a PM but just got this:

ACE-OF-ACES has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her.

[CaptainDoggles]

AOA I tried to send you a PM but just got this:

ACE-OF-ACES has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her.

He's been banned, look just under his username, next to his posts.

You'll be able to send him PM's after his ban expies.

[Kwiatek]

Hey guys

I just re-ran the Hurricane Mk.I top speed test..

Note I am experimenting with some of the C# data collection values right now, just so you know there are basically two types.. 3D world Internal (Z) and Indicated (I). Where the 3D world internal values are just that, internal calculations used by the game, and the Indicated values are the values used to drive the cockpit gauges.. As in what we can see as we fly in real time.

There are a lot unresolved and/or not fully understood issues with both.. Right now just trying to relate the two to see if I can make sense out of the two types. As for issues.. the Indicated stuff seems.. well.. pretty flaky. Which is something Oleg said way back in the IL-2 days, that being the cockpit gauge values are just generated to give the virtual pilot something to look at, translated I got the impression from Olegs e-mail that he was saying the Indicated cockpit values are not that accurate, as in not what is really going on. And my initial impression of CoD's Indicated values, it seems to be true for CoD too. For example, the indicated ROC has a constant offset of around 60fpm.. Even while sitting on the runway it indicates around 60fpm in the C# log data. Where as the 3D world value reads zero like you would expect! But there are issues with the 3D values too, for example the IAS and TAS values.. The IAS does not appear to be IAS at all, where as TAS, so far, seems to be close to what you would expect. I need to calc TAS from the Indicated and compare it to the 3D world values to see just how far off they are. Anyway, just wanted to share that with you all! In the mean time keep in mind the graphs are suspect at the moment, so, don't get happy or sad just yet! ;)

I wonder how can you reached 260 mph at the deck with Hurricane Mk1 at +6 1/2 lbs?

From my test in last beta Hurricane MK1 Rotol at 6 1/4 lbs and 3000 RPM (various RPM checked) dont go more then 240 mph at the deck, radiator close ( flight 5 m over Channel), plane trimmed, 100% fuel.

It is 20 mph too slow comparing to RL data. Nothing change with speed comparing to previous beta patch. Only thing in "+" is that now Merlin III could sustained longer 3000RPMs without engine broken.

[IvanK]

Thanks Doogles.