Why don´t these figures match up?

[NaBkin]

Hi folks,

I´ve been doing some tests for navigation. Basically I wanted to figure out the time I have to fly for a certain distance.

So I did this test in QMB (no wind, 100 meters hight):

Time: 3 minutes (0.05h)
Speed: 250 Km/h IAS (with this low alt and speed TAS/IAS shouldn´t make a big difference I guess)

So after the math is done (250km/h x 0.05h) the flown distance should be exactely 12.5 Km

I did the test several times with several planes and everytime the actual flown distance is 14,5 Km (that indicates a speed of somewhere around 285 Km/h).

Does anyone know where I did the mistake or is just some of the tools in the game broken (Speed gauge or distance meassure on the map)?

Thanks for help!

[FAE_Cazador]

I would repeat the flight for a longer time, mate, so the distance is bigger and a potential position error would be minimized.

[MusseMus]

Which aircraft did you use?
The reason I ask is because in a test made in another thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34115) the results shows that the Spitfire in COD is roughly 14% slower than real life.

Since your figures show a 14% speed gauge error, it's tempting to suspect it's accually the speed gauge in the spit thats porked, not necessarily the FM ;)

But it might just be a coincidence

/m

[ATAG_Snapper]

Which aircraft did you use?
The reason I ask is because in a test made in another thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34115) the results shows that the Spitfire in COD is roughly 14% slower than real life.

Since your figures show a 14% speed gauge error, it's tempting to suspect it's accually the speed gauge in the spit thats porked, not necessarily the FM ;)

But it might just be a coincidence

/m

Fair point.

We ran some tests last January (ancient history, now! LOL) over at the ATAG Server: http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?1054-Map-Scale&p=7326&viewfull=1#post7326

In a nutshell, we established that the Channel map we use is 1:1 and the airspeed gauge on the Hurricane Rotol ran very true at sea level (where IAS was very close to TAS). Here's the text from the link above:

-----------------------------------------------

OK, here's what I got:

I changed the route slightly to give me better landmarks to aim at: the tip of the "English point" (near Dungeness) to the tip of the "French point" (near Wissant). The in-game map tools shows it to be exactly 26 miles point-to-point, which is in agreement, IMHO, with the 25 mile distance you provided for the slightly different start/stop points you selected via google maps.

Holding 200 mph at approx 500 feet altitude, my time was 7:25, my calculator says it should've been 7:48. Pretty darn close considering the slight course corrections, plus trim and boost corrections. For those interested, I took a Rotol with 100% fuel (can't be too stingy on gas here), boost was mainly 0 lbs, rpms set to 2500, radiator half closed.

Other than a little bit of flak near Wissant, no one bothered me in this otherwise "hot" combat zone with 13 109's and a 110 swanning about. LOL

I think I can tell Ribbs the map is 1:1 as far as our travel time based on cockpit instruments is concerned.
------------------------------------------------------

[NaBkin]

I would repeat the flight for a longer time, mate, so the distance is bigger and a potential position error would be minimized.


Yes I probably will. I think though the longer the time, the bigger the error as far as I understand it. :rolleyes:



Which aircraft did you use?
The reason I ask is because in a test made in another thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34115) the results shows that the Spitfire in COD is roughly 14% slower than real life.

Since your figures show a 14% speed gauge error, it's tempting to suspect it's accually the speed gauge in the spit thats porked, not necessarily the FM ;)

But it might just be a coincidence

/m


I used only axis planes ;) The Me110, the 109 and the G.50.

[NaBkin]

Fair point.

We ran some tests last January (ancient history, now! LOL) over at the ATAG Server: http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?1054-Map-Scale&p=7326&viewfull=1#post7326

In a nutshell, we established that the Channel map we use is 1:1 and the airspeed gauge on the Hurricane Rotol ran very true at sea level (where IAS was very close to TAS). Here's the text from the link above:

-----------------------------------------------

OK, here's what I got:

I changed the route slightly to give me better landmarks to aim at: the tip of the "English point" (near Dungeness) to the tip of the "French point" (near Wissant). The in-game map tools shows it to be exactly 26 miles point-to-point, which is in agreement, IMHO, with the 25 mile distance you provided for the slightly different start/stop points you selected via google maps.

Holding 200 mph at approx 500 feet altitude, my time was 7:25, my calculator says it should've been 7:48. Pretty darn close considering the slight course corrections, plus trim and boost corrections. For those interested, I took a Rotol with 100% fuel (can't be too stingy on gas here), boost was mainly 0 lbs, rpms set to 2500, radiator half closed.

Other than a little bit of flak near Wissant, no one bothered me in this otherwise "hot" combat zone with 13 109's and a 110 swanning about. LOL

I think I can tell Ribbs the map is 1:1 as far as our travel time based on cockpit instruments is concerned.
------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the post. The thing is though that it sounds not quite precise the way it´s done there.
Its much easier to do it offline and with autopilot and map markings.
So for example I made a waypoint just over Calais Marck airport and after 3 minutes I hit pause and checked my position on the map (which is very precisely because one sees your own plane as a miniature on the map).

That means the distance is very precisely and so is the time. Only the speed could make some trouble. But since you can mouse over the speed gauge (and I made the same speed on every waypoint in the FMB, 250kmh) I don´t see that as possible mistake either :confused:

But it´s interesting that in your test the plane also tend to be rather "too fast" which can´t be a coincidence I suppose.

[SlipBall]

For a very short visible aided test, you could use 2 balloons very precisely set using the FMB...or ie. 50 balloons for a greater distance

[ATAG_Snapper]

Nifty procedure -- much more precise than mine. Mousing over the airspeed indicator in the RAF fighters may introduce error; the readout rounds off to the closest +/- 10 mph. I don't know if that's the case with LW fighters (although the rounding off to the closest 10 kmh would introduce less error, I expect.)

Trying your procedure over a longer distance would be interesting to see if any error decreases, or, as you suspect, may stay the same % anyway.

If weather and cloud cover is ever introduced, your findings will be instrumental in calculating how to meet the waypoints towards the target......or missing them outright.

Good post. My head hurts. LOL

[MusseMus]

I did a little test in FMB, where I let 2 AI planes fly next to each other for some miles. One was a 109E-4 and the other a Spit 1.
I measured the time it took for them to travel 20 km and I checked their speed gaugets (AI on).

Observation 1: The 109E-4 outran the Spit on every try :-P No idea why they did not match speed since I used exactly the same settings on them.

Observation 2:
The airspeed gauge on the 109 red 310 kph, but the calculation gave me 325 kph=a difference ofabout 5%

The spits gauge showd 170 mph=273 kph, but the calculations gave me 316 kph=a difference of about 15%

I'm aware that I'm comparing IAS and ground speed here, but the difference at 500 meters should not be this big, right?

Comparing theese results with the table in post: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34115

Coincidence? :grin::confused:

/m

[ZaltysZ]

IAS will be equal to TAS at sea level only at certain air pressure and temperature. If present conditions are different (like you are flying on hotter/colder day), TAS and IAS will be different even if you are almost "surfing" the waves in your plane.

[MusseMus]

IAS will be equal to TAS at sea level only at certain air pressure and temperature. If present conditions are different (like you are flying on hotter/colder day), TAS and IAS will be different even if you are almost "surfing" the waves in your plane.

Yes thats right but I don't have the time and skill to calculate them :) My point was that it seems like there is quite a big difference between the speed gauge in the spit and 109. Countless posts on this forum complain about the spit is going too slow in level flight and most of them draw this conclution from the speed gauge alone. I'm not saying they are wrong, but reading the speed gauges gives the impression that a 109 is travelling much faster than a spit, even if they are flying side by side.

[NaBkin]

Yes thats right but I don't have the time and skill to calculate them :) My point was that it seems like there is quite a big difference between the speed gauge in the spit and 109. Countless posts on this forum complain about the spit is going too slow in level flight and most of them draw this conclution from the speed gauge alone. I'm not saying they are wrong, but reading the speed gauges gives the impression that a 109 is travelling much faster than a spit, even if they are flying side by side.

You're right. This isn't a IAS/TAS issue (if TAS or IAS — neither give the expected values in the calculation and it's only a few % difference in this low altitude on a regular day anyway).

Also it's not an FM issue because even with a completely wrong FM (say if you do the calculation with the "FM" of a juggernaut, you should get the expected values).

So I'm getting the feeling that the speed gauges in CloD are a mess. It seems that they show an incorrect (too slow) speed.
15% too slow for the Spit and 5% too slow for the 109.

If you think further and considering the numbers MusseMus brought up a few posts earlier, the FM of the Spitfire actualy could be 15% faster than the gauge indicates and the Me109 would be arround 5% faster.
Maybe it's "just" an issue of incorrect display of gauges rather than incorrect FM :confused: Should be very easy to fix I suppose...

[MusseMus]

Maybe it's "just" an issue of incorrect display of gauges rather than incorrect FM :confused: Should be very easy to fix I suppose...

If this is the case it would be quite hilarious :grin:
Or maybe the FM's are in fact wrong, but not as much as one would think reading the speed gaugets.
Or maybe my test is flaud :) I would very much like to see if others get the same results.

[jf1981]

So I'm getting the feeling that the speed gauges in CloD are a mess. It seems that they show an incorrect (too slow) speed.
15% too slow for the Spit and 5% too slow for the 109

Hi

Possible, I noticed some variant of the Spit had completely false vertical speed indicator, I had to rely on altimeter for vertical speed tests of the current model. The gage was away from 25 to 50% depending upon altitude.

I do not think I have made any mistake, so the gage must be false. More people testing on those kind of issue should make for more consistency of those facts.

[SlipBall]

You're right. This isn't a IAS/TAS issue (if TAS or IAS — neither give the expected values in the calculation and it's only a few % difference in this low altitude on a regular day anyway).

Also it's not an FM issue because even with a completely wrong FM (say if you do the calculation with the "FM" of a juggernaut, you should get the expected values).

So I'm getting the feeling that the speed gauges in CloD are a mess. It seems that they show an incorrect (too slow) speed.
15% too slow for the Spit and 5% too slow for the 109.

If you think further and considering the numbers MusseMus brought up a few posts earlier, the FM of the Spitfire actualy could be 15% faster than the gauge indicates and the Me109 would be arround 5% faster.
Maybe it's "just" an issue of incorrect display of gauges rather than incorrect FM :confused: Should be very easy to fix I suppose...


If true that would be funny, and explain a lot.

[klem]

You're right. This isn't a IAS/TAS issue (if TAS or IAS — neither give the expected values in the calculation and it's only a few % difference in this low altitude on a regular day anyway).

Also it's not an FM issue because even with a completely wrong FM (say if you do the calculation with the "FM" of a juggernaut, you should get the expected values).

So I'm getting the feeling that the speed gauges in CloD are a mess. It seems that they show an incorrect (too slow) speed.
15% too slow for the Spit and 5% too slow for the 109.

If you think further and considering the numbers MusseMus brought up a few posts earlier, the FM of the Spitfire actualy could be 15% faster than the gauge indicates and the Me109 would be arround 5% faster.
Maybe it's "just" an issue of incorrect display of gauges rather than incorrect FM :confused: Should be very easy to fix I suppose...

Something to think about:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=462005&postcount=178

I can't draw a definite conclusion but between testing that may not be accurate, considerations of the 'standard day' and possible differences in the way gauges are fed with data there's a lot open to debate. After the patch I'll test a Spitfire and a 109 to see how they pan out. I'll also update this:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=451712&postcount=1
to look at Z_TAS as well as TAS calculated from IAS gauge to see how they compare. You may like to use it for testing then. We could be in for some surprises.

[NaBkin]

If true that would be funny, and explain a lot.

Yeah, and now how can we let know Luthier and his team about this... :rolleyes:

[Toni74]

Observation 2:
The airspeed gauge on the 109 red 320 kph, but the calculation gave me 325 kph=a difference ofabout 5%

less than 2%.

[Ribbs67]

why couldn't 2 people get on comms then jump into a server and fly side by side. Once speed is matched, both look at there gauges and report the speed that is indicated...

[IvanK]

Hi

Possible, I noticed some variant of the Spit had completely false vertical speed indicator, I had to rely on altimeter for vertical speed tests of the current model. The gage was away from 25 to 50% depending upon altitude.

I do not think I have made any mistake, so the gage must be false. More people testing on those kind of issue should make for more consistency of those facts.


In the many climb tests I have done I have also found the RAF VSI overeading in the climb when compared with Altitude change versus time.

[MusseMus]

less than 2%.

Thats right Toni -thank you for pointing that out :grin:
It's accually a typo on my behalf -indicated airspeed from the gauge was 310 kph. I have edited my original post now.

[Crumpp]

Also it's not an FM issue because even with a completely wrong FM (say if you do the calculation with the "FM" of a juggernaut, you should get the expected values).

So I'm getting the feeling that the speed gauges in CloD are a mess. It seems that they show an incorrect (too slow) speed.
15% too slow for the Spit and 5% too slow for the 109.


Would anybody be surprised?

I have been saying relative performance is correct, LOL.

[SlipBall]

Would anybody be surprised?

I have been saying relative performance is correct, LOL.


Yes you have been saying that all along.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I have been saying relative performance is correct, LOL.
Problem is..

For each person 'saying' the relative performance is correct..

There is another person 'saying' the relative performance is in-correct..

Which is why the old saying of 'talk is cheap' rings so true with regards to what you are 'saying'

As I pointed out..

The only thing we know for sure..

Is that no one has provided any proof one way or another..

That is to say

Based on the few tests done by a few people of a few things..

It is just not enough testing to say with any certainty how accurate the flight simulation is with regards to the performance of each plane, let alone the relative performance of any two planes.

Hope that helps! S!

[pstyle]

why couldn't 2 people get on comms then jump into a server and fly side by side. Once speed is matched, both look at there gauges and report the speed that is indicated...

Agreed. Seems to me this is an absolute no brainer, before the conversation can go any further.

[ATAG_Snapper]

why couldn't 2 people get on comms then jump into a server and fly side by side. Once speed is matched, both look at there gauges and report the speed that is indicated...

Yep!

And to run together at full rated combat output (ie Spitfire 1a 100 octane @ 3000 rpms/11 lbs boost; 109 E4 at Full WEP) for 15 minutes at, say, 5000 feet for 15 minutes -- one vs one. This would prove Crumpp's assertion that the two fighters have the same relative performance.

[JtD]

Neither the Spitfires nor the 109's WEP setting were cleared for 15 minutes, wouldn't it be wiser to do a longer time test on combat/climb settings? Then go on to check if the engines can be run at WEP settings with a duration representative for the limits listed in the handbooks and only then check out what the aircraft will gain from WEP? It's fairly pointless to find that WEP performance is accurate, if one plane can fly it forever, and the other one will lose power after a few seconds.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Neither the Spitfires nor the 109's WEP setting were cleared for 15 minutes, wouldn't it be wiser to do a longer time test on combat/climb settings? Then go on to check if the engines can be run at WEP settings with a duration representative for the limits listed in the handbooks and only then check out what the aircraft will gain from WEP? It's fairly pointless to find that WEP performance is accurate, if one plane can fly it forever, and the other one will lose power after a few seconds.

Sure. Whatever is acceptable.

But I believe each and every Red pilot, to the last man, would vehemently disagree with your "pointless" statement about demonstrating how one plane can run for an extended time at full WEP, long past its "clearance" while its opposing aircraft overheats and loses its engine after less than a half minute. All the while it's being stated that "the two are equal in relative performance" or the FM's are equal -- the problem is simply an erroneous air speed gauge.

Those of us who actually fly the sim online know this is simply wrong, but don't have the clever scripting, the mathematical formulae, nor the aeronautical engineering certifications to demonstrate otherwise. But we have eyes. And what we see and what the armchair experts are telling us is wrong. There are some Blue pilots that see this as well who HAVE flown online with their Red counterparts and QUICKLY saw --- and said, "Wow, you guys have a problem!". And it was NOT an erroneous air speed gauge. And these same Blue pilots didn't need complex mathematical equations or nifty scripting to show them that the two opposing aircraft, in this beta version 1.08, are NOT equal in relative performance.

[NaBkin]

Problem is..

For each person 'saying' the relative performance is correct..

There is another person 'saying' the relative performance is in-correct..

Which is why the old saying of 'talk is cheap' rings so true with regards to what you are 'saying'

As I pointed out..

The only thing we know for sure..

Is that no one has provided any proof one way or another..

That is to say

Based on the few tests done by a few people of a few things..

It is just not enough testing to say with any certainty how accurate the flight simulation is with regards to the performance of each plane, let alone the relative performance of any two planes.

Hope that helps! S!

You are right, talk is cheap. So don't talk, act! I did the test I'm not just "saying".

-> Go ahead and and start the FMB, let any given plane fly for 3minutes on autopilot at your prefered speed and check the distance they've traveled afterwards on the map with icons on.

If any of the planes Give you the expected and correct value of distance +\-500m come back and share the results.

Otherwise stfu and let people talk who did some efford to the topic. Looking forward...

[JtD]

But I believe each and every Red pilot, to the last man, would vehemently disagree with your "pointless" statement about demonstrating how one plane can run for an extended time at full WEP, long past its "clearance" while its opposing aircraft overheats and loses its engine after less than a half minute.You're disagreeing with something I didn't say. I said accurate performance on WEP setting is pointless if some planes have it available forever, while others have a hard time sustaining combat power - pretty much the same statement you are making.

(I don't fly CloD online because I think Il-2 1946 is much better at this point. Doesn't make me an armchair expert. I also don't think you need clever scripting, math or engineering degrees. Only losers focus on that. I think eyes and brains are much more important and I appreciate the information shared by those who take the time and make the effort to actually test in game performance. Very much.)

[NaBkin]

I did some further testing yesterday evening. It turned out, that so far the Hurricane Rotol is the worst considering the gauge issue.

(If you set it up in FMB with a speed of 250kmh, it actualy flyes only 206kmh (128mph) by the way...)

Flying 206kmh the Hurry should travel a distance of 10,3 km in 3 minutes. the actual distance flown is 13.3 km instead. That's a 33% too slow speed gauge!

I'm wondering if the stall speeds and such crucial values follow the actual speed or only the speed gauge. So landing speed for example could always be too high because the wrong speed indicator:|

[SlipBall]

You are right, talk is cheap. So don't talk, act! I did the test I'm not just "saying".

-> Go ahead and and start the FMB, let any given plane fly for 3minutes on autopilot at your prefered speed and check the distance they've traveled afterwards on the map with icons on.

If any of the planes Give you the expected and correct value of distance +\-500m come back and share the results.

Otherwise stfu and let people talk who did some efford to the topic. Looking forward...

I did some further testing yesterday evening. It turned out, that so far the Hurricane Rotol is the worst considering the gauge issue.

(If you set it up in FMB with a speed of 250kmh, it actualy flyes only 206kmh (128mph) by the way...)

Flying 206kmh the Hurry should travel a distance of 10,3 km in 3 minutes. the actual distance flown is 13.3 km instead. That's a 33% too slow speed gauge!

I'm wondering if the stall speeds and such crucial values follow the actual speed or only the speed gauge. So landing speed for example could always be too high because the wrong speed indicator:|



I will take the NaBlin challenge:-P... I will fly a distance using the balloons mentioned earlier, so that I know I'm flying straight. I'm not sure that my trial and the AI would be any different. But I would like to try the Hur just to see what happens with a highly skilled human pilot at the controls:cool: ha ha.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Sorry, JtD, I misunderstood your statement to say it's pointless to demonstrate that one plane can go full WEP for a prolonged period, while the other can only go full out for seconds.

Never took you to be an armchair expert! ;)

[SlipBall]

Hi folks,

I´ve been doing some tests for navigation. Basically I wanted to figure out the time I have to fly for a certain distance.

So I did this test in QMB (no wind, 100 meters hight):

Time: 3 minutes (0.05h)
Speed: 250 Km/h IAS (with this low alt and speed TAS/IAS shouldn´t make a big difference I guess)

So after the math is done (250km/h x 0.05h) the flown distance should be exactely 12.5 Km

I did the test several times with several planes and everytime the actual flown distance is 14,5 Km (that indicates a speed of somewhere around 285 Km/h).

Does anyone know where I did the mistake or is just some of the tools in the game broken (Speed gauge or distance meassure on the map)?

Thanks for help!

Which aircraft did you use?
The reason I ask is because in a test made in another thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34115) the results shows that the Spitfire in COD is roughly 14% slower than real life.

Since your figures show a 14% speed gauge error, it's tempting to suspect it's accually the speed gauge in the spit thats porked, not necessarily the FM ;)

But it might just be a coincidence

/m

You're right. This isn't a IAS/TAS issue (if TAS or IAS — neither give the expected values in the calculation and it's only a few % difference in this low altitude on a regular day anyway).

Also it's not an FM issue because even with a completely wrong FM (say if you do the calculation with the "FM" of a juggernaut, you should get the expected values).

So I'm getting the feeling that the speed gauges in CloD are a mess. It seems that they show an incorrect (too slow) speed.
15% too slow for the Spit and 5% too slow for the 109.

If you think further and considering the numbers MusseMus brought up a few posts earlier, the FM of the Spitfire actualy could be 15% faster than the gauge indicates and the Me109 would be arround 5% faster.
Maybe it's "just" an issue of incorrect display of gauges rather than incorrect FM :confused: Should be very easy to fix I suppose...


Yes I found gauge is in error too, just wondering if one of you started a bug tracker that I could cast my vote.

[NaBkin]

Whats a bugtracker?
Sorry for my bad knowledge...

[KG26_Alpha]

Yes I found gauge is in error too, just wondering if one of you started a bug tracker that I could cast my vote.

Whats a bugtracker?
Sorry for my bad knowledge...

Ermmm just a heads up on bug tracker and 1C Teams approach to it.

Q.Do the development team look at the bugtracker at all?

A.Some of our programmers look at the bugtracker,
some of our programmers can't read English,
some of our programmers visit bug-threads only on the Sukhoi.ru.






.

[SlipBall]

Whats a bugtracker?
Sorry for my bad knowledge...

Oh I am sorry, I should have realized that and provided a link. Here is a link to the bugtracker information, you can register and submit a bug there. Then if you like, post a link for your bugtracker so that people can vote on it.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=30906

Ermmm just a heads up on bug tracker and 1C Teams approach to it.

Q.Do the development team look at the bugtracker at all?

A.Some of our programmers look at the bugtracker,
some of our programmers can't read English,
some of our programmers visit bug-threads only on the Sukhoi.ru.






.


Thank you Alpha, I forgot about that but hopefully somebody will see it in the development team.:)

[ATAG_Doc]

Ermmm just a heads up on bug tracker and 1C Teams approach to it.

Q.Do the development team look at the bugtracker at all?

A.Some of our programmers look at the bugtracker,
some of our programmers can't read English,
some of our programmers visit bug-threads only on the Sukhoi.ru.






.



Hehe

[KG26_Alpha]

Ermmm just a heads up on bug tracker and 1C Teams approach to it.

Q.Do the development team look at the bugtracker at all?

A.Some of our programmers look at the bugtracker,
some of our programmers can't read English,
some of our programmers visit bug-threads only on the Sukhoi.ru.






.

Whats a bugtracker?
Sorry for my bad knowledge...

Yes I found gauge is in error too, just wondering if one of you started a bug tracker that I could cast my vote.

Oh I am sorry, I should have realized that and provided a link. Here is a link to the bugtracker information, you can register and submit a bug there. Then if you like, post a link for your bugtracker so that people can vote on it.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=30906




Thank you Alpha, I forgot about that but hopefully somebody will see it in the development team.:)

Hehe

The thing is ...............

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/projects/bzb/issues?set_filter=1&tracker_id=1

The Russian version.

??????????????????????????

Anyway I thought the was already mention from the 1C Team regarding gauges being inaccurate, this was some months ago.




.

[klem]

Ermmm just a heads up on bug tracker and 1C Teams approach to it.

Q.Do the development team look at the bugtracker at all?

A.Some of our programmers look at the bugtracker,
some of our programmers can't read English,
some of our programmers visit bug-threads only on the Sukhoi.ru.


.

What a waste of time THAT was. After (and apparently still) all the threads that bounced questions to and fro polluted with all the usual ping-pong insults the tracker was the one clean sincere and even handed approach to reporting the problems.

OK its late and I'm tired but.......

[IvanK]

Edit from first post found an Ooops in the calcs ... corrected made error even less. I deleted the original post and re post here.

Here is my contribution in trying to sort this perceived issue out. Happy for anyone to pull apart and destroy my method,calculations and or assumptions.

SPEED TEST METHOD
Picked 2 easily seen landmarks far enough apart to provide reasonable distance.
2 landmarks chosen Dungeness point lighthouse and Capr Griz Nez.
Then measured actual real world distance in Google maps 42.59Km

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/navtestdistjpg_zps4dab47e9.jpg

Next in CLOD FMB established map Grid size via X coordinates between two adjoining vertical grid lines. This was 10,000 metres.

In FMB set up BF109 at 10m over Dungenes point at 0700 hrs at 420Kmh.
Set Destination Waypoint Griz Nez at 420Kmh.
FMB Computed Time interval 6min.
at 6min 420Kmh gives 42Km ... Close enough to real world distance.
Conclusion CLOD map is 1:1, OK to use for time Distance Speed checks.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Navdtest_zps5f935f7f.jpg

Set up Ships along the planned track to allow for easy navigation.

Next Flew the course 4 times 2 East bound and 2 Westbound to ensure
the cancellation of any hidden/latent winds on the map. (just as well)

Each run commenced inland of the initial waypoint at Sea level Stabilised on speed 420Kmh IAS Wings level in Trim.
Stop watch started over First waypoint and stopped over end waypoint
IAS maintained +-5Kmh throughout using Wonder woman mode Large ASI.

RESULTS:
SE Bound Run1 Elapsed time 5:25
SE Bound Run 2 Elapsed time 5:23
NW Bound Run 1 Elapsed time 6:25
NW Bound Run 2 Elapsed time 6:18
(Average West bound runs take 57secs longer)
Total Time 23min 51 secs

Given the consistent significant diff between SE and NW runs I can only conclude
that there is some hidden wind (or retroverted Coriolis) on the base map. Runs in both directions will negate Wind affect if results are averaged.

Using Real World distances. 42.59Km X 4 = 170.36Km
170.36Km at 420Kmh would take 24min 20secs
I achieved in CLOD test 23min 51 secs.

So over say 23mins 51secs the diff was 29 seconds
Over 1 hr the difference would be 73 seconds
73 seconds at 420Kmh equates to 8.51Km
Experimental speed error 8.51Kmh i.e. about 2.0%

Considering all the various potential errors in the methodology:
Google map distance measurement
CLOD FMB map accuracy
Exact Stopwatch activation location
Slight IAS piloting errors
Assuming IAS=TAS at Sea level (which we know is close but not exact)
a 2.0% or in real numbers 8.5 kmh variance is insignificant .
Conclusion Displayed BF109E4 IAS is accurate.

NOTES
Be careful using timed runs over geographic features as some hidden wind is IMO resident on the base map. Flying the track both ways and averaging the results should cancel out the wind effect.

If you want to test the RAF types then the target IAS based on Statue mile would be 261MPH.

Test Mission file attached

[JtD]

Nice idea, IvanK. One remark for better accuracy - you need to calculate the average speeds for each direction separately and then take the average, not take total time and calculate then.

Total time for 170.36 km in 23:51 equals 429 km/h.
Two times leg 1 for 85.18 km in 10:48 equals 473 km/h.
Two times leg 2 for 85.18 km in 12:43 equals 402 km/h.
Individual Leg 1 and 2 averaged - 438 km/h, 9 km/h more than from entire distance average.

Looks like a 10 m/s wind. Also food for thought, if wind direction is in some way sideways, it will also effect figures as the plane cannot fly directly at the target, but needs to be pointed upwind. For high speed fighters, the effects will be small at best and can be neglected, but for slow planes it might become a bit more important.

[pstyle]

If you want to test the RAF types then the target IAS based on Statue mile would be 261MPH.


I'm very interested to see how RAF test results compare...

[NaBkin]

Edit from first post found an Ooops in the calcs ... corrected made error even less. I deleted the original post and re post here.

Here is my contribution in trying to sort this perceived issue out. Happy for anyone to pull apart and destroy my method,calculations and or assumptions.

SPEED TEST METHOD
Picked 2 easily seen landmarks far enough apart to provide reasonable distance.
2 landmarks chosen Dungeness point lighthouse and Capr Griz Nez.
Then measured actual real world distance in Google maps 42.59Km

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/navtestdistjpg_zps4dab47e9.jpg

Next in CLOD FMB established map Grid size via X coordinates between two adjoining vertical grid lines. This was 10,000 metres.

In FMB set up BF109 at 10m over Dungenes point at 0700 hrs at 420Kmh.
Set Destination Waypoint Griz Nez at 420Kmh.
FMB Computed Time interval 6min.
at 6min 420Kmh gives 42Km ... Close enough to real world distance.
Conclusion CLOD map is 1:1, OK to use for time Distance Speed checks.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Navdtest_zps5f935f7f.jpg

Set up Ships along the planned track to allow for easy navigation.

Next Flew the course 4 times 2 East bound and 2 Westbound to ensure
the cancellation of any hidden/latent winds on the map. (just as well)

Each run commenced inland of the initial waypoint at Sea level Stabilised on speed 420Kmh IAS Wings level in Trim.
Stop watch started over First waypoint and stopped over end waypoint
IAS maintained +-5Kmh throughout using Wonder woman mode Large ASI.

RESULTS:
SE Bound Run1 Elapsed time 5:25
SE Bound Run 2 Elapsed time 5:23
NW Bound Run 1 Elapsed time 6:25
NW Bound Run 2 Elapsed time 6:18
(Average West bound runs take 57secs longer)
Total Time 23min 51 secs

Given the consistent significant diff between SE and NW runs I can only conclude
that there is some hidden wind (or retroverted Coriolis) on the base map. Runs in both directions will negate Wind affect if results are averaged.

Using Real World distances. 42.59Km X 4 = 170.36Km
170.36Km at 420Kmh would take 24min 20secs
I achieved in CLOD test 23min 51 secs.

So over say 23mins 51secs the diff was 29 seconds
Over 1 hr the difference would be 73 seconds
73 seconds at 420Kmh equates to 8.51Km
Experimental speed error 8.51Kmh i.e. about 2.0%

Considering all the various potential errors in the methodology:
Google map distance measurement
CLOD FMB map accuracy
Exact Stopwatch activation location
Slight IAS piloting errors
Assuming IAS=TAS at Sea level (which we know is close but not exact)
a 2.0% or in real numbers 8.5 kmh variance is insignificant .
Conclusion Displayed BF109E4 IAS is accurate.

NOTES
Be careful using timed runs over geographic features as some hidden wind is IMO resident on the base map. Flying the track both ways and averaging the results should cancel out the wind effect.

If you want to test the RAF types then the target IAS based on Statue mile would be 261MPH.

Test Mission file attached

Good one!
But as you said, there's much room for errors (especially since you flew the plane yourself and didnt let the autopilot fly).

Why make it so sophisticated? Take a Hurry Rotol and set it up in FMB. Fly 3 minutes and measure thr distance (with marks on and using the ruler) and compare it to the computed figure. I got roughly 3km difference in only 3minutes! Which is a lot!
So I assume the gauge doesnt work correctly especially now that you've prooven that the map is ok and 1:1 to the real world.

Pleas do it, I don't want to be the only one pretending the speed gauge is incorrect. Im also happy to be refulated but it's strange that you came to the conclusion that everything is ok...
Looking forward to your results!

[JtD]

If there's wind on the map as IvanK suggests you'll always need to go back and forth for an accurate result.

[SlipBall]

Good one!
But as you said, there's much room for errors (especially since you flew the plane yourself and didnt let the autopilot fly).

Why make it so sophisticated? Take a Hurry Rotol and set it up in FMB. Fly 3 minutes and measure thr distance (with marks on and using the ruler) and compare it to the computed figure. I got roughly 3km difference in only 3minutes! Which is a lot!
So I assume the gauge doesnt work correctly especially now that you've prooven that the map is ok and 1:1 to the real world.

Pleas do it, I don't want to be the only one pretending the speed gauge is incorrect. Im also happy to be refulated but it's strange that you came to the conclusion that everything is ok...
Looking forward to your results!


I think KG_26 Alpha pointed out that the developers are aware of the gauge problem. So I think any further testing is not needed, the ball is in the devs court now. If I could read Russian I would look at the bug tracker, just to see its status.

[NaBkin]

If there's wind on the map as IvanK suggests you'll always need to go back and forth for an accurate result.

You're right I'll make the same test in the other direction later.

[IvanK]

Here are the test results using Spit IIA. Again feel free to pick this apart both Maths wise,method wise and the conclusion.

Firstly I checked the file properties and ensured that all "Flow" and "wind" values are deleted. However they always return when you next enter the mission.

METHOD
Same as before however 261MPH (420Kmh) was a bit too fast to achieve with the current CEM/FM so elected to use 240MPH on the ASI this also gave a simple reference to fly using Wonder woman display mode. Again East bound times were shorter than West bound times. Implying that some latent wind is still present on the map. 2 runs each way were flown. IAS maintained to within +-1mph each run. I then averaged as per JTD's suggestion by average Eastbound values then average westbound values then a combined average.


RESULTS:
East Bound Run 1: 6min 14secs
East Bound Run 2 : 6min 12secs
Avg of both East bound run times : 6min 13secs

West Bound Run 1: 6min 36secs
West Bound Run 2: 6min 33secs
Avg of both West Bound time: 6min 34secs

Overall Avg time for 42.59Km: 6min 23 Secs.

Converting MPH to KMH 240MPH = 386.3KMH

Time to fly 42.59Km at 386.3KMH IRL 6min 36secs
I flew 42.59Km in an average time of 6min 23secs
42.59Km in 6min 23secs works out at speed of 400.53Kmh
So speed error is 13.23Kmh (8.2MPH)or about 3.6%

CONCLUSION:
Again considering the potential errors in the test method same as BF109 case I think its close enough. Spitfire ASI is accurate. Its worth noting that even IRL you will get some Instrument errors. All Flight test reports will have some correction table.

Notes:
No matter if you delete all "Flow" or "Wind" some latent wind is always present on the map.

Maybe significant for the level bombers and explain some of the strange IAS/TAS sight setting issues and workarounds that are being employed to get bombs on target.

[klem]

Hi Ivank

is it possible to determine the direction of the inherent wind in CoD or are you finding it varies depending on location?

If only 1C would tell us what they've given us!

Incidentally, rather than delete Flows I set all 'Flow' values to 0 in FMB and saved it. When I re-opened it and looked at them again everything was still 0 except gust angle and effect. I did not change anything and closed the mission at which point it asked if I wanted to save changes and I said no. So, I wonder if all the zero values were all still held in the mission and the gusts/effects are defaults in the Flow panel which, when you go into Flows, edits them into the mission but they don't really get applied unless you do save them.

Fortunately I don't think this will affect IAS/TAS tests, only navigation/bombing.

[IvanK]

Yes you should be able to calculate the wind Direction from the Trk and groundspeed. Though shudder at the possibility that wind input will use the Russian penchant to use were the wind is blowing to rather than the aviation standard of where it is coming from :) .... just leads to more forum discussion ambiguities. This directional thing has been discussed directly with Ilya a long time ago so hopefully its not an issue, though wind directional input is still some weird Angle expression rather than a straight Bearing !

In general terms we know its a "Northerly"

I will get my "prayer wheel' out and start doing some vectors.

Good idea on setting it to zero rather than just deleting it.

[NaBkin]

Yes you should be able to calculate the wind Direction from the Trk and groundspeed. Though shudder at the possibility that wind input will use the Russian penchant to use were the wind is blowing to rather than the aviation standard of where it is coming from :) .... just leads to more forum discussion ambiguities. This directional thing has been discussed directly with Ilya a long time ago so hopefully its not an issue, though wind directional input is still some weird Angle expression rather than a straight Bearing !

In general terms we know its a "Northerly"

I will get my "prayer wheel' out and start doing some vectors.

Good idea on setting it to zero rather than just deleting it.

Could you still do my 3min / 250kmh test? I just dont see what I did different and get rather 'incorrect' data.:confused:
Thanks

[NaBkin]

Edit from first post found an Ooops in the calcs ... corrected made error even less. I deleted the original post and re post here.

Here is my contribution in trying to sort this perceived issue out. Happy for anyone to pull apart and destroy my method,calculations and or assumptions.

SPEED TEST METHOD
Picked 2 easily seen landmarks far enough apart to provide reasonable distance.
2 landmarks chosen Dungeness point lighthouse and Capr Griz Nez.
Then measured actual real world distance in Google maps 42.59Km

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/navtestdistjpg_zps4dab47e9.jpg

Next in CLOD FMB established map Grid size via X coordinates between two adjoining vertical grid lines. This was 10,000 metres.

In FMB set up BF109 at 10m over Dungenes point at 0700 hrs at 420Kmh.
Set Destination Waypoint Griz Nez at 420Kmh.
FMB Computed Time interval 6min.
at 6min 420Kmh gives 42Km ... Close enough to real world distance.
Conclusion CLOD map is 1:1, OK to use for time Distance Speed checks.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Navdtest_zps5f935f7f.jpg

Set up Ships along the planned track to allow for easy navigation.

Next Flew the course 4 times 2 East bound and 2 Westbound to ensure
the cancellation of any hidden/latent winds on the map. (just as well)

Each run commenced inland of the initial waypoint at Sea level Stabilised on speed 420Kmh IAS Wings level in Trim.
Stop watch started over First waypoint and stopped over end waypoint
IAS maintained +-5Kmh throughout using Wonder woman mode Large ASI.

RESULTS:
SE Bound Run1 Elapsed time 5:25
SE Bound Run 2 Elapsed time 5:23
NW Bound Run 1 Elapsed time 6:25
NW Bound Run 2 Elapsed time 6:18
(Average West bound runs take 57secs longer)
Total Time 23min 51 secs

Given the consistent significant diff between SE and NW runs I can only conclude
that there is some hidden wind (or retroverted Coriolis) on the base map. Runs in both directions will negate Wind affect if results are averaged.

Using Real World distances. 42.59Km X 4 = 170.36Km
170.36Km at 420Kmh would take 24min 20secs
I achieved in CLOD test 23min 51 secs.

So over say 23mins 51secs the diff was 29 seconds
Over 1 hr the difference would be 73 seconds
73 seconds at 420Kmh equates to 8.51Km
Experimental speed error 8.51Kmh i.e. about 2.0%

Considering all the various potential errors in the methodology:
Google map distance measurement
CLOD FMB map accuracy
Exact Stopwatch activation location
Slight IAS piloting errors
Assuming IAS=TAS at Sea level (which we know is close but not exact)
a 2.0% or in real numbers 8.5 kmh variance is insignificant .
Conclusion Displayed BF109E4 IAS is accurate.

NOTES
Be careful using timed runs over geographic features as some hidden wind is IMO resident on the base map. Flying the track both ways and averaging the results should cancel out the wind effect.

If you want to test the RAF types then the target IAS based on Statue mile would be 261MPH.

Test Mission file attached



OK today I did the almost exact test as you did (my way to travel was 41.8Km from point to point).


Here are my results (no wind, 500m):

From France to GB, 300km/h, 41.8km:

-> estimated time: 8min 21sec

G.50 = 7min 37sec = 44sec difference
He 111H = 7min 18sec = 1min 3sec difference


From GB to France, 300km/h, 41.8km:

G.50 = 7min 00sec = 1min 21sec difference
He 111H = 6min 48sec = 1min 33sec difference

So both planes fly faster from GB to F (37sec the G.50 and 30sec the He111)

Again, its not very bad but its a difference considering its done in an "laboratory environment" . However its not as bad as my first testing which was done almost exactely from E - W (260 degrees).

To me it seems that
- theres some kind of "secret wind" (considering the difference between GB-F, F-GB)
or
- the gauges dont work proper (considering the difference between He111 - G.50)



And here my one way testing results from earlier:
(no wind, HDG 260deg, 100m alt, 3min fliying time)

Me110 C7: 248km/h (gauge) for 3min = 14km
actual distance: 12,4. Difference = 1,6km

Me1109E3: 250km/h (gauge) for 3min = 14,2km
actual distance: 12,5. Difference = 1,7km

SpitIa: 222km/h (138mph gauge) for 3min = 13,8km
actual distance: 11,1. Difference = 2,7km

Hurri (Rotol): 206km/h (128mph gauge) for 3min = 13,3km
actual distance: 10,3. Difference = 3,0km

He111H: 248km/h (gauge) for 3min = 14,4km
actual distance: 12,4. Difference = 2,0km

[IvanK]

I suggest you do everything at sea level. 500m is to high it introduces a real difference between Indicated Airspeed (IAS) and True Air Speed (TAS). Doing the test at sea level pretty much eliminates this as IAS is very close to TAS.

I don't see any correction in your results for TAS. 500m Altitude on a Standard day would result in around 6Kmh diff between IAS and TAS.

I will have a look at 3min test like yours but at sea level only. Personally I think 3 mins is too short a time period and magnifies any errors. You also need to always fly the test both ways to ensure cancellation of any wind effects. In addition I think you would be better off doing ALL your tests between to fixed markers a known distance apart rather than flying a time and seeing where you end up. There are issues transferring your perceived position to the map then measuring.

Nothing to stop you precisely placing Ships at 10000m intervals using the Grid on the FMB map and using this as a test track. Timing between features a known distance apart is the way to go imo.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

You are right, talk is cheap. So don't talk, act!
Way ahead of ya.. www.flightsimtesting.com

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I think KG_26 Alpha pointed out that the developers are aware of the gauge problem.
True..

Which is just another good reason to not rely solely on the gauges!

Best to use some of the C# scripts aval (FST has one and klem has one based on FST's with some added features) that collect data in real time.

And not only the gauge values (I_*), but the internal game 3D world values (Z_*).

In the testing I have done so far, I have found the gauge values (I_*) to not only be off, but laggy and with offsets.

Where as most (not all) of the internal game 3D world values (Z_*), thus far, seem to match the real world data better.

On that note

All the game calculations are done using the internal game 3D world values (Z_*), the gauge values are derived from these. When I say derived, I mean they may add code to them to make them mimic real world gauges (laggy, offsets, etc)

Hope that helps!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I appreciate the information shared by those who take the time and make the effort to actually test in game performance. Very much.)
Your welcome!

But to be honest.. Doing the test is not a big deal.. Anyone can test an in game plane..

But I will say this, very few take the time to do the research on how the tests were actually performed during WWII to ensure the test method and plane configuration used in game is as close as it can be to the actual WWII test data.. That and I am the only one I know of, thus far, that has not only gone as far as to make the effort to actually test the plane performance, but also gone as far as to provided the tools to compare/graph the game results along side the real world results..

Which can be seen at my website, i.e.

www.flightsimtesting.com

[klem]

True..

Which is just another good reason to not rely solely on the gauges!

Best to use some of the C# scripts aval (FST has one and klem has one based on FST's with some added features) that collect data in real time.

And not only the gauge values (I_*), but the internal game 3D world values (Z_*).

In the testing I have done so far, I have found the gauge values (I_*) to not only be off, but laggy and with offsets.

Where as most (not all) of the internal game 3D world values (Z_*), thus far, seem to match the real world data better.

On that note

All the game calculations are done using the internal game 3D world values (Z_*), the gauge values are derived from these. When I say derived, I mean they may add code to them to make them mimic real world gauges (laggy, offsets, etc)

Hope that helps!

AoA would you look at some of your Z_IAS, Z_TASs and corresponding Altitude figures and give me your view. It seems to me that the Z_IAS and Z_TAS are too close together at altitude. I'd like to get another opinion.

Just playing with the numbers, I found that if I took the Z_TAS and the TAS roughly calculated from IAS (cockpit gauge) for altitude (~2% per 000ft) they weren't very far apart whereas the Z_IAS and IAS (cockpit) were a long way apart.

It left me wondering if perhaps IAS (cockpit) is derived from Z_TAS (with maybe a few more accurate atmosphere adjustments)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

AoA would you look at some of your Z_IAS, Z_TASs and corresponding Altitude figures and give me your view. It seems to me that the Z_IAS and Z_TAS are too close together at altitude. I'd like to get another opinion.
Agreed 100%

Bare with me here, in that it was well over a year ago that I started looking at the CoD data.. And from what I recall, the Z IAS value made no since.. If I recall correctly, it had the same shape and values of the Z TAS, only with a little bit of an offset. There were also some issues with the I vs Z ROC value (Z TAS 3).. I recall taking the derivative of the Altitude, both I and Z and recall one of them making since, and the other not. There were a few more that were not what I was expecting, I would have to check my notes. So, all in all there are some issues with the Z values. Hopefully one of these days 1C will provide a read me that explains what they are such that we don't have to guess what they are! ;)

On that note, due to these unknowns, my plan to leave the choice as to which value to use up to the users when using my CoD analysis tools at my web site

[Crumpp]

WWII flight testing for the most part was not sophisticated.

Tagert says:
very few take the time to do the research on how the tests were actually performed during WWII

The first thing done in WWII flight testing is airspeed calibration by flying know points on the ground.

If you did that, you would know this issue.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

WWII flight testing for the most part was not sophisticated.
That is your opinion and your welcome to it..

And yes we have established the fact that you belive you know more than the test engineers and pilots who preformed these tests and flew these planes in WWII..

We get it!

And just to be crystal clear..

Nobody here is saying that it is NOT ok for you to belive that!

All I and others are asking of you is that you don't take it personal when I and others don't agree with your self assessment

Thanks in advance! S!

[Crumpp]

Here you go....

So much for "my opinion".

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Here you go....

So much for "my opinion".
Ah the good old AIAA-88-4512 document.. Love that one!

First thing I should point out..

No where in the document does it say or imply WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

That was your opinion, and thus far your opinion alone!

Granted, I am sure there are some out there that agree with you.. But this document is not one of them!

As for the document itself

To be honest Crumpp, when reading it I don't walk away with the impression that the testing of WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

As a mater of fact I am impressed with the methods the test engineers and pilots came up with!

For example, the AIAA-88-4512 points out the following..

AIAA-88-4512:
Before covering some typical flight test programs the basic flight test instruments used in that era are listed. Cockpit instrumentation consisted of attitude and directional gyros that had to be caged in aerobatic maneuvers. The pressure instruments for airspeed, etc.. were quite well developed
When I read that, as in the instruments were well developed, I form the opinion that WWII flight testing for the most part was sophisticated, where as you form the opinion that WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

And here is another example..

AIAA-88-4512:
For airspeed indicator calibration a reciprocal low level course was flown between two accurately located landmarks (still used today).
When I read that, as in they came up with a method in WWII that is still used today, I form the opinion that WWII flight testing for the most part was sophisticated, where as you form the opinion that WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

No big deal really!

Just highlights the differences between you and I and others..

You think you know better than all the test engineers and pilots of WWII

Where as I and many others here admire and am impressed with what the test engineers and pilots of WWII did

But just to be clear, you are still welcome to your opinion! All I and others ask is that you don't take it personal when we don't agree with your assessment that WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

Thanks in advance! S!

[fruitbat]

Just highlights the differences between you and I and others..

You think you know better than all the test engineers and pilots of WWII

Where as I and many others here admire and am impressed with what the test engineers and pilots of WWII did

But just to be clear, you are still welcome to your opinion! All I and others ask is that you don't take it personal when we don't agree with your assessment that WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

Thanks in advance! S!

quoted for truth......

[Crumpp]

No where in the document does it say or imply WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

Read it Tagert. They used analog instruments and the same things homebuilders use in their garages today.

Not quite the sophisiticated testing regiments in use today. They did lay the foundations of what we use today but only in general terms without the detail. The testing of enemy designs was especially rudimentary as they lacked the logistics for long term support of a design to maintain optimal performance.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Read it Tagert. They used analog instruments and the same things homebuilders use in their garages today.
Ah, I see where you are confused!

Note all I am saying is the document does NOT agree with or support your opinion

Not quite the sophisiticated testing regiments in use today.
Actully you may want to read the document yourself.. Or my quote above, allow me to re-post it here

AIAA-88-4512:
For airspeed indicator calibration a reciprocal low level course was flown between two accurately located landmarks (still used today).
Pay close att to the text in RED at which point you may want to re-consider or re-word your statment of "Not quite the sophisiticated testing regiments in use today"

Hope that helps! S!

[Crumpp]

Fruitbat,

Nobody is saying I know better. One can read what they did and if you the procedures in use today.....

It is easy to compare.

If you don't know then you have no basis for comparison. It is not my fault people do not have a basis to compare the development of flight testing regiments.

I can post some papers on the subject from an aeronautical engineering library if you would like to learn more about this subject.

[Crumpp]

Some of the methods they used in WWII have a high margin of error due to the equipment and the techniques required to operate it.

It is all pretty simple stuff.

[Al Schlageter]

They didn't have computers 'back in the day' either.:rolleyes:
Considering what they had to work with, I would say they did a pretty darn good job.

[Crumpp]

Considering what they had to work with, I would say they did a pretty darn good job.


Yes they did but that has nothing to do with the fact things were not sophisticated.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

quoted for truth......
S! ;)

[Al Schlageter]

Yes they did but that has nothing to do with the fact things were not sophisticated.

It was sophisticated for the day, just like 70 years from now there will be those saying how arcadish todays methods are.

[Crumpp]

It was sophisticated for the day

Even a stick to pluck termites was considered high tech at some point in history.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

It was sophisticated for the day
The most telling part of all this is that they still use some of the methods that were used in WWII today..

So, using Crumpps logic, that would mean todays methods are un-sophisticated! ;)